I read that wrong. But still I would award the draw. The loss is too harsh to award and if white is already a piece up then most likely he’s going to win the game all things being equal. Yes the offending team may win but there is only so far that it can be taken.
Now we could rule the game to be replayed under Armageddon rules of 7-5 draw odds for Black and keep colors for the Armageddon round as were in the regular round!
I tend to agree that penalizing the whole team when individual members knowingly broke the rules may be extreme. On the other hand, if the player giving the advice were ejected, this would handicap the entire team to the point where they would forfeit on bottom board in each of the remaining rounds. I might even prohibit the team from using an alternate. As for the player receiving the advice, I would rule based on whether the advice was solicited or not. Soliciting advice on the second occasion is grounds for ejection. If it was unsolicited, then loss of the game is appropriate, but not ejection.
There is a fine line about what advice is. In a game at the 2009 USAT East, my opponent’s teammate unsolicited handed my opponent a queen when his pawn reached the 7th rank. I said nothing during the game but scolded the teammate after the game as his action clearly implied that he thought his teammate’s best next move would be to promote to a queen. The reason I didn’t make an issue during the game and call a director was that I felt a director would rule that the promotion to a queen would be obvious to my 1900+ rated opponent and therefore he was not helped. Had my opponent been much lower rated (under 500), the argument could be made that he needed the help.
One thing about making false claims of stalemate or checkmate that has me conflicted is that even if the claim is made out of ignorance, the claiming player sometimes benefits. The rules prohibit interference by outside parties including the TDs. This can lead to a win in a non-checkmate position or a draw in a non-stalemate position that is better than had the false claim never been made and the game continue. While I don’t correct the falsely claiming player, there’s something wrong with a player winning by falsely making the claim. On the other hand, if the opponent is so ignorant as to not notice the error, the argument can also be made that the loss was deserved.
First, there are multiple “points” here, but the primary job for the TD is to enforce the rules. In this case, the TD should protect the field against future interference. It is not a TD’s job to change anyone’s behavior. That’s an admirable goal, but it is a secondary one.
Second, educating the team involves making it crystal clear that such behavior is completely unacceptable. This isn’t a “three strikes” situation. It can’t happen again, period. The penalty should be sufficient to communicate this…which is a useful segue to the following observation.
Third, threatening a forfeit for the next individual player who interferes is useless if said player is already done with his game.
To me this is the perfect answer, which achieves the same result as Boyd’s (1) and (2). Give the Black player the 2 minutes and let him decide whether to accept a draw or play on with the additional time.
I would also add Boyd’s (3) stipulation, removing the offending spectator, but not (4) as I’ve learned from experience that stipulating a penalty for a future possible offense sometimes leaves your hands tied later on. If something does happen later I would rule on that and take into consideration the previous offense when making an appropriate ruling.
The three most sensible replies so far are:
First, the false stalemate claim effectively suspended the game, pending a TD ruling. Therefore, restore 15 seconds to black’s clock (or whatever time black had remaining at the time of the stalemate shout, as nearly as it can be determined).
Second, add two more minutes to black’s clock, as a penalty for white’s interference in improperly claiming stalemate.
It makes no difference whether the stalemate shout was deliberate subterfuge or an honest mistake. Either way, it disrupted black’s train of thought, so it needs to be compensated for. I prefer to avoid rulings which depend on determining a player’s intent. Determining intent is pure guesswork, anyway.
Third, rule that the stalemate claim constitutes a draw offer. Before restarting black’s clock, carefully explain to him that, any time during the remaining 2 minutes 15 seconds on his clock and before he touches a piece, he may accept the draw offer. Then resume the game.
I am less disturbed than most of you about the teammate’s action in pointing out that the position was not stalemate. This act occurred only after the game was effectively suspended, and may even have been an attempt at good sportsmanship by not allowing his own team to get away with anything.
Bill Smythe
I must disagree with this statement. I don’t see how the game was “suspended”. To declare it “suspended”, this would be the equivalent of permitting a player to suspend the game while ignoring the clock. There are circumstances that permit the clock to be stopped. As cruel and unfair as it may seem, the clock was not stopped and the time expired.
As someone who directs many scholastic events, I see false mate and/or stalemate claims in most scholastic events. When called to the board, I cannot comment on the accuracy of the claim. Other players, including teammates, are also prohibited from commenting.
As for the game that started this topic, no mention was made as to the opponent agreeing or disagreeing that the game was a stalemate prior to spectator interference. I see only the following scenarios:
Opponent agrees on stalemate. Game over. Draw.
Opponent disagrees. Game continues. Result pending.
Opponent says and does nothing. Clock runs. If no move is made before the player claims time expired the opponent loses.
The position was not a stalemate on the board but the player did not move before his time expired. I’m not aware of any rule that permits the stopping of a clock to verify the validity of a stalemate claim.
Perhaps some context would be helpful for those who think draconian penalties are appropriate in this case. I was playing in this event which - not that it should matter - was an adult team tournament, not scholastic.
The game in question was the last one of the round. Everyone was gathered around the board, watching. The crowd was absolutely silent, as every single person there knew better than to comment aloud on a game in progress. This was the position:
White: Kf1, pg2, Nf3
Black: Kh1, pg3, ph5
You will note that if it was Black’s move here, he would have no king moves, only the pawn move h5-h4. But it was White’s move. He played 1 Nh4 and then, obviously shocked, announced stalemate, forgetting that he had just released the BK from its prison. His announcement had a kind of hallucinatory force on the crowd. For a moment, I think everyone thought it was stalemate. Heck, I’m 2200 and I didn’t realize it at first.
There was a significant pause, more than 5 seconds but surely no more than 10. The players were leaning back in their chairs. Conversations were starting up in the crowd. Everyone thought the last game was over. It was in that context that one of the spectators pointed out that it was not stalemate. It was only then that the players looked to the TD for a ruling, asking, “What do we do now?”
I think that under these circumstances, ruling the game a draw (or ruling that the exclamation was a draw offer) was not unreasonable, though I understand the sentiments of those who think the game had to be restarted, with time restored to Black’s clock. I also do not think that any penalty should have been assessed on the spectator who commented. He - and everyone else in the room - thought the game was over.
– Hal Terrie
If the position on the board was actually stalemate, that would have immediately ended the game in a draw. But since it wasn’t, I would look to the TD tip under rule 14A which points out that “a 14A stalemate draw claim is a draw offer.” (Sitting here calmly at home with no tournament pressures, I have the time and good sense to look that up 
)
Normally, the opponent would need to agree to a draw offer before his flag falls, and had white offered a draw outright, even under time pressure I doubt if black would have taken the rest of his time to make a decision to accept it or not. As it is however, white’s proclamation of a stalemate almost certainly startled, distracted and/or confused black to the point of causing a loss on time when the clock was allowed to run uninterrupted. Black was given the added burden of having to evaluate white’s statement, rather than just his next move. It would seem appropriate and only fair to award black two additional minutes from the time of the incorrect claim as compensation for the distraction. Then start his clock and let him decide whether to accept the draw offer or play on, his choice. Now black can’t be any worse off than if nothing unusual had happened in the first place, and to the extent he’s better off, that’s white’s penalty for speaking out when he didn’t need to, even if he was right. I see no need for me to figure out whether it was intentional or not, since the effect on black was the same regardless.
As for the teammate interjecting himself in the situation, if I give black the additional time and choice to accept a draw (which I feel justified in doing based solely on white’s proclamation), I don’t see how the teammate’s actions had any impact on the game at all. I wouldn’t feel justified in imposing any further penalty on white such as forfeit of the game, or on his team. But at a minimum, I would make it clear to the teammate that his action wasn’t acceptable, and have him leave the playing hall for the remainder of that round. If he didn’t respond appropriately to that, or if under the circumstances I was certain he had some deliberate intent rather than a lapse of judgment, I might consider penalties on his next game, if there is one.
I was Black in this game, and Hal’s context is accurate.
I had no chance of winning in the position, and was playing on in the hope that our mutual time scramble might leave a stalemate. After Nh4, I had a moment where I thought it might be a stalemate; I don’t know whether my opponent read anything on my face or not, but he immediately exclaimed with disappointment that it was a stalemate. I assumed that it was a stalemate, nodding with relief and relaxing, and we were practically picking up the pieces when the bystander (who was only incidentally on my opponent’s team) noted that it wasn’t a stalemate, that the king could go to h2.
Now I looked at the clock and had five seconds left, so I called for a ruling. My concern was that my time had ticked away in the interim, and also that the time scramble had been interrupted, and with it my chance (however slight it was) for drawing.
It would have been interesting, had the same scenario played out, but without the bystander mentioning anything, nor either of us collecting the pieces, had my opponent then noticed on his own that (a) the position was not a draw, and (b) my time had elapsed. No doubt, he would claim a win, and I would not have the grounds of interference, but I suppose it would come down to whether or not the “stalemate!” exclamation could be construed as a draw offer.
I note that you didn’t tell us how you actually ruled, nor have we heard from you since your original post.
Now that so many of us have taken pot shots at the scenario, would you care to share?
Bill Smythe
That’s already settled. Rule 14: “All draw claims are also draw offers.” And just to drive the point home, the TD Tip after rule 14A says, “Also, remember a 14A stalemate draw claim is a draw offer.”
Perfect.
I do hope that my opponent will realize that the ruling would have been justified on the stalemate “offer” itself, which I clearly accepted, apart from the interference of his teammate. I don’t think that he left the hall with that impression.
I did post in the middle of the thread to indicate that it was not actually stalemate. First, let me mention that this was a two team match, not a team tournament. Each team had ten boards. It got loud after White declared “Stalemate”, and if Mr. Goddard made a request for a ruling before time had expired, I didn’t hear it. Obviously a ruling was necessary. Second, a formerly frequent poster to these forums who rarely posts anymore points out via PM that if things had been very slightly different, the correct ruling would have been very different.
It is also interesting to point out that there was a club TD, three local TDs, and a senior TD watching the game along with me at that point, and in fact White was one of the local TDs, and none of us knew that the Stalemate claim should be treated as a draw offer. Nevertheless, I ruled that White would likely not have noticed that the position was not stalemate on his own (Mr. Goddard’s recollection backs me up on this) and therefore a draw was a reasonable penalty for the admittedly unsolicited advice. I also warned the teammate that he wasn’t to give advice while the game was in progress, although to be fair from the actions of the players, it really didn’t look like the game was still in progress. Having been pointed to the TD Tip in 14A, I would now have offered a draw to Black, and if he didn’t accept immediately (which I knew he would have) added two minutes to the clock for an incorrect (and distracting) stalemate claim.
Thanks to everyone for your help.
Alex Relyea
Alex,
I think that you have this backwards. Just because there is a draw offer on the table does not mean that it can be accepted after time runs out. Normally, if a player allows his (or her) clock to run out, the player is out of luck! So, my opinion, again, is that the proper sequence should have been to award a 2-minute penalty (not a “draw penalty”) because of the incorrect claim, then informing the opponent that the draw claim is a draw offer, and allowing the player (Black) to make a decision while he (now) had time.
The actual scenario is why the player with the White pieces probably left unconvinced that it was the right decision. The TD offered a draw to the player after White though be had “won” on time. The way it should have been handled, the TD only administers a time penalty and the player makes the decision based on the draw offer by White (not a draw offer by the TD)!
There are similar decisions made in sports where games cannot end if there is a penalty, even if time runs out…
In the women’s final at the US Open Tennis Championship, Serena Williams lost a crucial point for violating what is called the “hindrance” rule. This involves saying something to your opponent or distracting the opponent while they are making a shot. She yelled, “Come on!” after hitting her shot and as Samantha Stosur was attempting to return it. The referee in the chair ruled point for Stosur citing the “hindrance” rule.
The announcers, veteran tennis stars thought a let should have been called. That it wasn’t fair to Serena to take the point away. Serena was upset, argued and accused the referee of bias. The chair ref sat there stoically. She could have assessed a point for abusing the referee but did not. Serena went on to lose the match. The Head Referee of the tournament said that the chair ruling was correct. A player may not talk to the opponent or yell so as to distract or startle him/her to cause them to fail to return a shot.
In the given scenario, which would have been easier to consider had all of the facts and the situation been laid out at the beginning, the player calling “Stalemate” when it was not so committed an infraction. His team mate interfered and said that it was not so. Given the circumstances, this startled or “hindered” the player of the Black pieces. In the ensuing confusion, the flag fell. At the very least, Black should get time put back on the clock plus extra time because of the interference. The stalemate call was a draw offer and he now has time to accept it. If circumstances were different and this was a big team tournament, having team members interfere in a game is a major infraction that could have repercussions for prizes. In that situation, I think a heavier penalty should apply, even up to the loss of the game for the two infractions. Giving a time award or a penalty is not enough. It would be to White’s benefit for the game to continue.
Moderator Mode: Off
I watched this yesterday and also watched the expanded and detailed treatment of it after the match. Not only did the head referee agree with the chair umpire’s decision, but this same violation happened in an earlier game in the US Open. The hindrance call was made and the person lost that point as well. So, the hindrance rule does exist and was called and interpreted correctly.
The problem with applying this logic to that chess game, or any other for that matter, is that the position on the board is constant and stable. In tennis the point could have very well gone to the player that was interfered with, if she was allowed an unfettered attempt at hitting the ball. In chess the position is static and can be put back a move or more if necessary.
I agree with Tom that the hindrance should be addressed in the chess case. From the description of what happened by onlookers and one of the players himself, it is apparent that both players had agreed to the stalemate/draw before the onlooker said it wasn’t a stalemate. Timing is everything. If that onlooker would have said something after the clock was turned off or the pieces were moved around or off the board, then the game would have been irretrievably drawn and the onlooker would not have interfered with the game, but just pointed out the inaccuracy of both players in agreeing it was a stalemate.
In light of that, I think a draw should have been upheld as agreed upon just a moment before the onlooker opened his mouth. Since the game was over, by agreement, the onlooker really didn’t interfere with the game. Sure if someone else would have said something before he said it wasn’t a stalemate, that would have defined the moment better.
Yes, it does seem as though a ruling of draw by stalemate claim/offer, rather than draw due to interference, might have left a sweeter taste in the mouths of your opponent and his teammate.
Earlier in this thread, I made the following statements:
and
Another poster strongly disagreed.
I believe it is often useful for a TD, upon learning of an irregularity, to declare that the irregularity effectively suspended the game. (And it would be useful if the rulebook explicitly mentioned this option.) That would give the TD the right to restore the situation (including clock times) that existed immediately prior to the irregularity, before making the rest of his ruling (warnings, time adjustments, etc).
Such an approach would clarify, and improve justice in, situations where a player commits an irregularity when his opponent is in time trouble. The irregularity, whether deliberate or inadvertent, would not be allowed to harm the opponent.
Bill Smythe
Bill this premise you base your further ideas on is wrong. The game was not suspended, it was ended. When both players agreed it was a stalemate, that ended the game as a draw.
Not true. The game was not ended when one player (erroneously) claimed stalemate. It was (or would have been) ended when the opponent (erroneously) agreed.
That’s more like it, but in this case, there was the additional question of whether the time forfeit or the draw agreement came first.
I am glad that, in this case, justice prevailed, even if perhaps by the back door.
However, I was really trying to make a more general point – that when a TD declares a game suspended at the moment the irregularity occurred, greater justice and clarity is achieved, especially in time pressure situations.
Bill Smythe