Here are a couple of interesting scenarios to consider.
#2 should be covered under the ‘Kansas City’ rule. Checkmate ends the game and the draw offer is now moot.
The situation at the National HS in KC which prompted this rule was slightly different. Player A offered a draw, Player B hesitated briefly but his flag fell before he could reply, Player A then claimed a win on time, after which player B accepted the draw. The chief floor director (me) was present when all of this occurred. The actual ruling, upheld by the chief TD for the event, Jim Meyer, and agreed to as appropriate by several other NTDs working the event in the pairing room, was that the game was a draw, but the rulebook was later modified to make a claimed and upheld win on time (thus ending the game) prevail over a pending draw offer.
There are a lot of strange scenarios that can be devised but these two are not among them.
The rules are very clear in these two cases. In #1, the game is a draw. As soon as White played the stalemating move, the game immediately ended. Anything that happened after that, including Black attempting to concede defeat, is irrelevant.
In #2, A wins as the mating move also immediately ends the game. After that, it is no longer possible for B to accept a draw offer, because the game is no longer in progress.
– Hal Terrie
A stalemate ends the game: DRAW
A checkmate end the game: A WINS
The interesting thing with Scenario 2 is that a proper draw offer could not have been made, since a proper draw offer is made after determining the move but before completing it (by pressing the clock). But checkmate ends the game, so a (legal) checkmating move is completed as it is determined.
(The more senior TD’s will probably overrule me, but that is how I learn.)
Hal, you are assuming that the position as observed by the TD is, in fact, the final position of the game. It could be that the win was agreed to and then additional moves were made before the TD could reach the game.
However, I have observed scholastic games where one player, being stalemated and having no moves, resigns.
Was the draw offer made on Player B’s time, or made properly by A?
For me, if the offer was properly made, before starting B’s clock, then I would uphold the claim of a win on time. If it was made improperly, during B’s time, then I would uphold the draw because the improper claim distracted the opponent.
Mike, I can only rely on the proper use of the English language. The OP used the phrase “the final position” and did not offer any qualifying language to suggest the possibility that the players made additional moves after Black resigned. Under the circumstances, I would be remiss if I made any other assumption than that he meant what he wrote. At best, you make a good case that the TD should ask the players a couple of questions before making his ruling.
– Hal Terrie
I’m a bit confused about the logic by which the player could accept a draw after the opponent has called flag. (The mate situation is even clearer—that’s definitely game over).
In KC, the draw offer was made properly on A’s time but it was literally:
A makes his move, makes draw offer, punches his clock, 1…2…3… B’s flag falls.
Not that it is relevant, but both players flags were hanging (analog clock), after the game was over we checked and A had no more than about 5 seconds left.
The rules are clear on this point now, but were not at the time.
My point, Hal, was precisely that. When the TD is summed to the board and was not present for the final move, before ruling the TD needs to inquire as to whether the position he sees is the current/final position.
The rules are quite clear that that’s game over. A somewhat more interesting question is—suppose that A offers the draw out of turn, B reflexively tells him to make his move first, then before A executes the checkmate, B realizes that he faces mate in one and quickly accepts the draw offer. Under the rules, A can’t revoke his draw offer (though executing mate in one makes it moot), but is B’s stated deferral until after A’s move also irrevocable?
I would say that B’s deferral on the draw offer becomes moot upon the deliverance of a legal checkmate.
Isn’t if fun how supposedly ‘settled’ rules can still be perplexing?
Leave it to Chris Merli to throw out some monkey wrenches. 
With USCF rules, this is a potential mess. Of course, any mate ends the game. However, I firmly believe that players determine the result of the game. I think I’m not supposed to tamper with their agreed upon result, even if a player made a mistake in agreeing to an adverse result.
The venue for this game might affect how I reply, too. If this is, say, a beginners’ section of a local scholastic tournament, I’ll take a couple of minutes and point out the stalemate, then I’ll tell them that the game is actually drawn. (Of course, here players are usually asking, “Is this checkmate?”)
In USCF events where I collect results at the board (pretty much only national scholastics), I avoid this problem by not even looking at the position unless I’m specifically asked a question about it. In this scenario, the players are presumably just handing over a marked result slip.
(This scenario is, IMHO, an argument for FIDE rules’ superiority over USCF rules in such situations.)
This one’s easier. Player B should’ve accepted the draw offer when he had the chance. Player A wins.
No. B can accept the draw at any time before a legal checkmating or stalemating move is executed on the board, no matter what he may have said about wanting to see a move.
– Hal Terrie
B is allowed to require A to make a move prior to deciding on the draw offer. So B still has an active draw offer upon which he can act at his choosing. My ruling here is that the game is drawn.
No, I’m saying that B accepted before A executed the mate. Can he rescind his deferral? He could have said “yes”, and it would be a draw. He could have said “no”, and the draw offer would be dead. He could have said nothing and waited and accepted after A’s move (if it weren’t checkmate). The explicit language of “make your move first” seems to me to bind him to wait until after the move.
Boyd and Tom:
As a matter of equity, I agree with you, a player who makes a draw offer should be required to be satisfied with the result as a draw, should his opponent accept that offer. Otherwise he should keep his mouth shut.
And that is what happened in Kansas City, the game was posted as a draw.
But see rule 14B4, which is the Kansas City rule.
The draw offer must be accepted before a claim is made that the flag has fallen.
I don’t know about FIDE rules, but it seems that 14A is fairly clear that stalemate, like checkmate, immediately ends the game with no regard to player agreements.
Now that I have things going lets add to it. My feeling is that in situation 2 once the player plays the mate the game is over. The fact that the offer was made improperly is not relevant because player B could accept or refuse an improperly made offer or require the player to make their move before considering the offer. In this case he chose to force the player to make his move and the move was mate.
The first case seems pretty obvious from the rules. The game ends with the stalemate. The trouble is that it is a scholastic match TDs generally do not interfere in games. We have all seen circumstances where illegal moves have been made in such games and we simply allow the players to continue. The real difference here is that the TD arrived on the scene and saw that the correct result should have been a draw. Both players are satisfied with the result being a win and it is unlikely either would come back later and complain about the result. However if the TD steps in and declares the game a draw then someone could easily complain about the fact that generally the TDs do not interfere and yet here suddenly they have. Anyway my feeling is the correct result is the draw but the chief of the event felt the win should stand. I do not really have a problem with that solution.
My answer to this is that generally TDs do not interfere in scholastic games in progress, but stalemate or checkmate end a game immediately and it is no longer in progress.
In my welcoming address at scholastic events, I used to say something like this: