The two scholastic players agreed to a stalemate. They had shook on it and were in the process of putting away the chess set when one player looked again and saw it wasn’t stalemate after all.
A TD was called over and ruled that the position should be set up and play resumed. When that was done, my student lost and this was recorded as a loss by him.
I appealed on behalf of the student to the chief TD. He called in the other player who admitted they had first called it a stalemate. The chief TD then said that would be the final result, overruling the previous ruling.
I thought this was correct, since the game had been agreed to as a stalemate by both players.
I’d say that if both players called the game a stalemate, it’s a draw. Treat it like a draw offer accepted!
As to the scholastic players playing on after checkmates, another TD raised that analogy too. As a practical matter it would be impossible for a TD to catch all those occurrences in a scholastic event anyway. But if they did see that the game had been decided on the board, I would think intervention to record the correct result is appropriate. That’s not the same as intervening when a flag falls or 3-fold repetition happens - those must be claimed. Checkmate and stalemate end the game.
In response to my initial inquiry, Tom also said that if the error was discovered too late (for instance after pairings are made), the recorded result should stand for the tournament but the result should be corrected when sending in the rating report.
The question, should the stalemate stand after they agreed to a false staelmate after the game. When one player says stalemate, and the other player agrees to the terms, then it is a statemate – the game is a draw. Just because they found out before they informed the tournament director does not matter, unless both players wish to waver the claim of a statemate and finnish the game. If the players meet to look over there game in the first round, and they find out it was not a statemate, and the games of the second round have started, then it would make the parings of the second round be in error, if the game was to be played out and someone wins or lose the game.
If on the other hand they found out that the game was not a stalemate without the aid of a third party, and only if both players want to finnish out the game when there are still other players that have not finnished the round, and only if the clock still shows how much time was taken by both players, and they would accept too take half of the time off there clock from the end of the game and the restart of the game – then would not have a problem to re-start the game.
If the clock time was changed, and they can not prove how much time was on there clock, is it far to ask for the correct time on the clock, or taking half the time off the clock from the false end of the game to the re-start of the game, as both players were both at falt of the claim of a stalemate.
Can understand a scholastic tournament has a greater room for bending the rules of chess then tournament for all age groups. As some non-rated scholastic tournaments do not use clocks, do not use notations, and a great degree of players that give advice on games in progress. As it was a scholastic tournament and you said it was not rated see nothing wrong with the judegment, if it was a rated tournament then can see that the director was in error.
USCF Rule 14B Agreement. The game is drawn upon agreement between the two players. This immediately ends the game.
Since a TD cannot watch over every game, he/she should not intervene in any game, in these situations. Intervention would not be appropriate, in my judgement.
I’m still not sure as to the correct ruling on this one, and would like more opinions. I’m having a difficult time justifying TD intervention in a game where a player has not requested such intervention. USCF rule 2A. Explanation. Two opponents moving pieces on a square board called a chessboard play the game. It has been convention ever since I began directing tournaments, locally and assisting in Nationals, that an agreed result takes precedence over everything else, unless, of course, the agreement would be the result of collusion. The game is a game between two players, and whatever happens, between two players, within the context of the rules, is applicable. In the absence of manipulation or collusion, If a player agrees to a result, that result should stand, in my opinion/interpretation of the rules.
I believe that Tom and others may be incorrectly considering USCF rule 15I. Results reported incorrectly. This rule applies only to results that were reported incorrectly, such as a player inadvertently, or intentionally reporting that he won the game. This is not the same as reversing a result after an agreement. This rule does not apply to situations where a player sees that he made a mistake in judgement, agrees to a certain result, and then attempts to retract the agreement.
I think maybe it’s time that the rules committee consider an amendment to the rules to include these situations. Tim Just, where are you?
There seem to be two different questions here. If the players agree to a draw because they (incorrectly) believe it to be a stalemate, I don’t see why there should be any dispute – the game is drawn. After all, if a player resigns because he thinks he’s been checkmated, he can’t resume the game later if someone points out that he was wrong.
If the players continue the game after a stalemate, it falls under 11B or 11D. I’m not entirely happy with these with these, but they do provide guidance for illegal-move situations. There is some ambiguity here, since “illegal move stands after 10 moves” could contradict “checkmate/stalemete ends the game.” The TD just has to use his judgement as to which ruling is both practical and equitable.
As a side note, there is a specific statement under 16S that “resignation or an agreement to draw remains valid even when it is found later that the flag of one side had fallen.” There is no similar clarification concerning checkmate or stalemate, probably because it seemed too improable to consider. In my opinion, any rule change of that sort would have highly undesirable consequences. A more useful rule addition would be to limit the time in which a result could be contested – say, until the start of the next round.
The problem with the idea of the players finding out that the game was not a stalemate, if they accepted the claim, then it is a draw. They can just a minute after they both say it was a stalemate over-turn the clam of a stalemate, they can waver the draw (stalemate) and finnish the game. If they find out after a great deal of time after the game is over, as they can find out on the day of the tournament, or days or weeks after the ending of the tournament, then the draw by stalemate stands.
As most players have played club chess, then made a claim or the other player has made a claim of checkmate. At first you both accepted the claim then find out that the claim is in error, what most players would do is finnish out the game. In a tournament the game is won from one player and a lost game for the other, if both players reject the claim as a error on both parts and they wish to play on, then it should be accepted by the director too let the game go on.
The director can not be at the ending of every chess game in a tournament, even if the director was at this ending of the game, it is the will of the players if they want to accept their first claim of a checkmate or a draw. If after they inform the director of the outcome of a game, then it would take a great deal of effert to go back and finnish out a chess game. The longer the time of the first claim to the wish of both players to finnish the game get harder every minute after the game.
Willing to bend the rules if the players want me to bend the rules, only if it effects each other and not effect others players in the tournament, if the game was so far back or they can not recall the amount of time on each clock, or the start of the next round has started, then in no way able to change the out come of a single game even if both players demand it.