Intervening into checkmate or draws?

Running Chess Tournaments
1

13A. Checkmate.The player who checkmates the opponent’s king, providing the mating move is legal, wins the game. This immediately ends the game.

TD Tip: This means that anything that happens after the checkmate move has been legally determined (see rule 9, Determination and completion of the move) is irrelevant to the outcome of the game, including the players flag falling.

The point of the TD tip, is the question on the terms of “legally determined”. The points of the rules of order on legally determined, if the director is the only witness are made in the statement below.

21D. Intervening in games. The director’s intervention in a chess game shall generally be limited to the following:

These are rule 21D1, Answering rules questions; 21D2, Correcting illegal moves observed; 21D3, warning players; 21D4, settling disputes; 21D5, informing players; 21D6, fees.

The other major point of rule 21D, is the wording of intervening in games. Is the intervening into the games finite or infinite? If it is finite, than we can say the games during the event. If it is infinite, that we can say all the games, not just the games under my control as a director. If it is infinite, that it would be all the games recorded or unrecorded till the end of time. Even if it is finite or infinite, as I am in the camp of infinite. It does not matter, as the games the director is in control would be games that are at a end or in progress or in the future. Even if it is finite, it does not stop the problem of past, present and future, without a finite timeline.

The point with rule 21D, it says the director’s intervention in a chess game. The point of the rule is the term ‘chess game’, not if the chess game is still in progress or the chess game is over. The rule 21D does not say the director has the right for intervention after the game is over or it is still active.

The rule is very clear on rule 21D, it does not say the chess game has to be over. It can be any game you as the director was in charge. It can be for any game in any tournament years ago. It can be for a game in progress, or a game that happen in the past. Under rule 21D, a game from the past is just as equal to a game in progress. Intervening in the chess games in the past is just as important as intervening in chess games in progress.

14G2. Players apparently unaware of situation. If a sudden death game continues with both flags down, the director may rule it a draw. This exception to the standard rule that only players may call flags down is justified by the need to avoid delaying the tournament.

There is only one rule that makes it very clear, the director having the right for intervening in a game. This is rule 14G2, if both flags are down the director has the right for intervening. The intervening is to point of the down flags and settle the game as a draw. If a spectator notice the flags are both down, the spectator does not have the right to point this out to both players. The game is a draw, and the game is over, but only the director has the right to stop the game if the players do not notice the flag falls.

Why did the USCF come up with the rule 14G2? What would happen if there was no rule 14G2? If there was no rule 14G2, would the director have the right to point out both flags – the director would not have that right. If both flags are down, the game is over, the game is a draw. Any moves after the flags are down does not matter, as the game is over and it is a draw.

The USCF came up with rule 14G2, as the director needed a rule to point out the game is over, and it is a draw. The flags are down and the game is over, but the director needs the right of the rules to point out the game is a draw. The evidence shows the director needs the rule of 14G2 to point out the game is over.

If I notice a checkmate, there is no rule I can point out the checkmate. I know the game is over with a checkmate, just as much knowing the game is over with both flags are down. If I need a rule to point out the game is over with both flags down, I would need a rule to point out a checkmate.

Directors can point out I can use the spirit of rule 14G2. Does the directors have the right to use the spirit of a rule? If I use the spirit of the rule 14G2, than I can say the checkmate ends the game. Can I use the spirit of rule 14G2, for any other type of draws? What if I notice stalemate, insufficient losing chances, perpetual check, triple occurrence, insufficient material – as directors do we have the right to intervene and declare the game a draw – no.

21D2. Correcting illegal moves observed. Correcting any illegal moves observed, unless time pressure exits or Variation 11H1 is used (the director does not correct illegal moves unless asked by a player).

Variation 11H1. Director as witness only. In an event in which most games are not watched by directors, a director may refrain from correcting moves he or she may notice but simply serve as a witness should one of the players point out the illegal moves before ten more moves has been made (11A.)

If there is a checkmate, as a director I notice the checkmate. Since there is rule 14G2 to grant me the right to end the game after the game is over, there is no equal rule that grants me the right to end the game with a checkmate. If I notice the checkmate, if the players are in time trouble I cannot point out any illegal moves after checkmate. If the players are not in time trouble, I do use rule 11H1. Than I cannot point out any illegal moves after checkmate.

16D1. Illegal moves. If an illegal move is not corrected before the opponent of the players who made the illegal move completes two more moves, then the illegal move stands, and there is no time adjustments.

The rule 16D1 is for illegal moves in time pressure, only one of the players has to be in time pressure. If during time pressure, your opponent checkmates you, and both you and your opponents keep on moving the pieces. If your opponent lets you out of checkmate, or you move out of checkmate, if two legal moves have been done after the illegal moves are over. If you make a claim there was a checkmate, after the illegal moves are in the past by two moves – I cannot confirm there was a checkmate. Under the spirit of rule 14G2, I cannot make the statement there was a checkmate. If you make two legal moves after the illegal moves after checkmate, under the spirit of rule 16D1, I cannot confirm there was a checkmate.

11B. Illegal move prior to last ten moves. If it is found that an illegal move was made prior to each player’s last ten moves, the illegal move shall stand and the game continue.

If in non-sudden death you or your opponent checkmated the other. Than made illegal moves to get out of checkmate. If you make ten legal moves after the checkmate and the illegal moves to get out of checkmate. If one of the players points out there was a checkmate, and I did notice the checkmate and understand you have made ten legal moves after – I cannot confirm there was a checkmate. If the players point it out before the ten legal moves under 11B, or the two legal moves in 16D1: than I can make the statement there was a checkmate. If it is after, than I cannot confirm there was a checkmate.

The final statement, rule 21D does not grant me the right for intervening into the game. As a director I cannot intervene into the games of the past, or a game that is in progress. Since there is rule 14G, a rule to end the game that is over. With rule 14G, grants the director the right to tell the players the game is over because both flags are down. Since the rule 14G has to be placed as a rule to grant the director to inform the players the game is over. It was clear to the rules committee that a rule has to be placed to end the game when the game has ended. Since there is no other rule that grants the director this same right, than there is no right to point out other areas when a game is over. If the players keep on with there game, and make illegal moves to get out of the checkmate, than make the number of legal moves after. I cannot make a statement of the illegal moves that are now in the past under rule 16D1.

2

Tim:

Why do we have rule 14G2? Is there a reason why we have rule 14G2, as the flags are down on both clocks and we know it is a draw. Is rule 14G2 some what of a stupid rule, as everyone knows both flags are down the game is over. Why does the director need to use 14G2 to point out to the players the game is a draw? Can you give me and everyone a rational reason why we need this rule? Tell me Tim, what would happen if the USCF does not have rule 14G2. Is there a rational reason why it should stay on the book?

My idea on rule 14G2, it is an important rule as it gives the directors the right to point out the end of the game. When both flags are down, the director can tell the players the game is over. You know the rules, when both flags are down the game is over. The point of the rule, the players apparently unaware of situation. There was a reason you wanted to keep this rule in the 5th edition, as the director needs a rational and legal rule to point out this draw.

If there was no 14G2, the director cannot point out this draw, even when everyone looking at the board knows both flags are down. If you see the flag down on both clocks, you know the game is over, so why do you need a rule to inform the players? You know the game is over, you know the flags are down, you know you need a rule to point out this to the players. You and everyone knows the flags on both clocks are down it is a draw, the game is over, the game is over when both flags are down. If the players apparently unaware of the situation, that the game is over, the director has to use rule 14G2 to tell the players.

Tim, do you have any other rules in the rule book that give the director the right to tell the players the game is over? Do you have any rule equal to rule 14G2 in the rule book? Do you have a rule, if the players apparently unaware of the situation of a checkmate? Now someone came up with the rule 14G2 for the director to point out a draw with both flags down. Is there a rule, when the players apparently unaware of situation of a checkmate?

Lets look this over, there is rule 14G2 that gives the director the right to point out a draw, and a draw with both flags down the game is over. Now, there was a reason for rule 14G2. As before rule 14G2, it was unclear if the director had the right to tell the players the game is over. Should not the rule book be just as clear with the players apparently unaware of the situation of a checkmate?

My point is clear, there is no rule in the rule book that grants the director the right to point out a checkmate. It is clear, a checkmate ends the game, supports your statements that a checkmates ends the game and it should be over. There is no rule like 14G2 that is equal to point out to the players, that are apparently unaware of the situation of a checkmate.

Now, if the players do not need a rule equal to 14G2, because they are apparently unaware of the situation of a checkmate. Than we would not need to have the rule 14G2 in the rule book. Now if you are right the director does not need a rule to point out a game is over, over because it is a checkmate. And a checkmate ends the game, just as much as both flags fall ends the game as well. If you are right Tim, than we do not need to have rule 14G2 in the rule book. Because, if the director does not need a rule to point out the game is over with a checkmate, than you do not need a rule to point out the game is over with both flags down.

Now Tim, if you notice both flags are down, the game is over; if you notice a checkmate, the game is over. What do you support, the director having the right to tell the players the game is over for a draw and checkmate. If that is the case, the rules can live without rule 14G2 in the rule book. It can be taken out of the rule book and nothing will happen. If you take that idea the director does not need a special rule to point out the apparently unaware of situation of a checkmate. Than you are telling everyone you have wasted our time, your time, everyone’s time to place 14G2 into the rule book.

This is how I look at it, there is no rule in the rule book that grants me as a director to point out to the players the checkmate. Since I do not have a rule to point out a checkmate, it is unclear that I have the right to point out a checkmate. Since the rules are unclear I can point out a checkmate, than I do not have the right to point out a checkmate. If there was no rule 14G2, than it would be unclear if I have the right to point out the flags of the clock, if both flags are down. If both flags are down, the game is over; if there is a checkmate, the game is over. Only as a director do I have a right to point out a draw if both flags are down, it is unclear as a director I have a right to point out a checkmate.

Tim you are stuck in a trap. You have to take the view that the directors needs a rule like 14G2 in the case of a checkmate. As 14G2 takes care for the director in the case both flags are down, as we know both flags down the game is a draw, and we know the game is over, but we need a rule that grants the director the right to point this out. There is no rule that grants the same rights as 14G2 in the case of a checkmate. The other view you can take, the director does not need a rule like 14G2 in the case of a checkmate. If the director can point out a checkmate, because both players are apparently unaware of the situation of a checkmate, than we do not need rule 14G2 in the first place. If the players are unaware of the situation of a checkmate, or the players are unaware of the situation of a draw; if the director does not need a rule to point out the checkmate, than the director does not need a rule to point out a draw.

This is your trap, support a rule like 14G2 dealing with the situation of a checkmate. Or supporting that rule 14G2 itself is pointless and does not belong in the rule book.

3

I know I’m going to regret this, but . . .

Since the flag is only down when one of the players claims that it is down, and checkmate ends the game, it seems obvious that these two cases have nothing in common. If I mate someone with my flag down, or if my opponent resigns with my flag down (whether his is or not) I win.

Alex Relyea

4

Checkmate ends the game, but under Tims’ idea you do not need any rule to point this out. Having both flags down ends the game, but under Tims’ idea you need rule 14G2 to point this out. If both flags are down, the game is over. If there is a checkmate, the game is over. Why have one rule granting the right to the director to point out the flags, and there is no rule granting the director the right to point out the checkmate? With rule 14G2, it makes it clear the director can point out the flags on the clock. With no rule like 14G2 dealing with checkmate, it makes it very unclear the director can point out the checkmate.

Since rule 14G2 is a very old rule back from the 1970’s, or could be much older than that. Even adults, even top level chess player can forget that both flags have fallen. This is the reason for the rule, it makes it clear, it makes it clear the director can stop the game and tell the players the game is over.

Scholastic tournaments were not that common back at the time rule 14G2 was written and placed into the rules of chess. Since the past number of years, the growth of scholastic chess has taken off. The smaller scholastic tournaments with the weaker players, have proven that some scholastic players do not know what is a checkmate. Have been to scholastic tournaments, have seen checkmate happen and the players keep on with their game. If the director did stop the game, because the director was the witness to seeing a checkmate. It would be more the parent that would be asking why the director stopped the game. At this time, there is no rule in the rule book, that grants the director the right to stop the game because the director was a witness to seeing a checkmate.

The point is this, there is no clear rule I can use to end the game, because I was a witness to seeing a checkmate. If I need a rule to end the game, because both flags are down on the clock. Should the directors need a rule to end the game, because the director was a witness to a checkmate? I do support the directors having the right, if the director is a witness to a checkmate to end the game.

How many times have we as directors have been pulled to a board and asked a simple question. The simple question is this, is this checkmate; that is the question most scholastic players will be asking, as one of the players or both of the players are not sure if the position on the board is checkmate. If the players are not sure about checkmate, they can go on and keep the game going even if the position is in checkmate.

Tim Just likes to point out rule 13A. The rule does not point out the players, it does not point out the director. The rule on checkmate does not point out anyone, it does not point out the players pointing out checkmate. It does not point out the director pointing out checkmate. If there is a checkmate, it does not say what to do if the players keep on with the game.

If there is a checkmate, and the players are scholastic players, there is no rules telling the director what to do if they keep up with the game. The problems with scholastic players, have not been settled what to do if the players do not understand the rules in the first place. There is no clear rule dealing with checkmate, if both the players are not following the rules.

5

Doug,

Legal checkmate instantly ends the game, no matter what. If the TD says someting, fine. If the TD says nothing, fine. If either player says anything, fine. If neither player says anything, fine. It does not matter because the game is over. It is up to the TD to decide how they want to deal with the game being over, not the rulebook. The rulebook can’t cover every possible method a TD could come up with.

No matter how other rules define the many other ways the game can conclude, this rule (13A) says legal checkmate ends the game instantly. If you want to use those other rules to help you decide on how to deal with the aftermath of 13A, good for you.

Well, I guess this means you have more rules to rewrite and submit to the delegates. How long is that list now?

Tim

6

Where does it say that “Having both flags down ends the game” or “If both flags are down, the game is over”? You are leaving out an important requirement in 14G: “and either player points this out”. Just like in 13C1, the physical act of a flag falling is not relevant until a player actually points it out. Until a player points out a fallen flag, the flag is not considered to have fallen.

7

Under rule 14G2, if both flags are down the director can stop the game and rule the game as a draw. If I did say rule 14G, the game is a draw if both flags are down and either player points this out. If I did say, and I did not say rule 14G. If I did say rule 14G than you would be right, but you are quoting me on rule 14G2 not rule 14G.

14G2. Players apparently unaware of situation. If a sudden death game continues with both flags down, the director may rule it a draw. This exception to the standard rule that only players may call flags down is justified by the need to avoid delaying the tournament.

If you are the director, and you walk up to the board and both flags are down. Since you are watching the board, you can watch the board till the players notice the flags, or step in and rule the game a draw. If you want to watch the game, you know the game is a draw now and be a draw when they do check the clock. Even if you tell the players the game is a draw, they can still play on till the start of the next round. They can play on till checkmate, but the game was a draw at the time both flags were down.

8

I do support rule 13A, the checkmate ends the game. If being a witness to a checkmate with scholastic players, the rules are unclear what I can say or cannot say as a witness to a checkmate. If the scholastic players are unaware of the situation of a checkmate, because the players are still moving the pieces. The rules are unclear what I as the director can do or say.

You asked me what type of rule changes, I am not supporting any rule changes only supporting a simple rule to be added to the rules we have. This can be how the wording of the rule can be, but it can be changed in text but not the spirit of the statement.

If the players are apparently unaware of a checkmate, if the director was a witness to the checkmate, the director must inform the players of the checkmate.

9

The game isn’t over because the flags are down, the game is over only if the TD makes that ruling. This is the one special case where the director may step in - and is there specifically to allow the round to finish and the next round to start. Notice the rule says the TD “may”.

Suppose the TD sees both flags are down, but since the next round is not starting for a while walks away without making any ruling. If somebody is mated before either player notices the flags, then the position is not a draw, it is a win. This is different than the case of a legal checkmate, where the game is automatically over. For flag falls the flags haven’t officially fallen until one of the players point it out (or in this special case of both flags falling and the director wanting to pair the next round, when the director steps in and declares it a draw).

10

With the talk of both flags falling, then should I set a digital clock to continue at time limit or stop?

Is it legal to have the clock stop when one player runs out of time?

11
  1. Thisd was discussed in an earlier thread. Opinions differ. Mine is that the clock should be set to continue, but there are those who disagree. 2) Yes. However, a player who sets the clock this way should explain it to his opponent.
12

Doug,

Good start on using the system to make the changes you feel will benefit the chess community.

If you want, I will be glad to help walk you through the process of getting your rules change considered by the delegates/rules committee. I will wait to comment on this rules addition/change until I get to do so as a delegate and/or Rules Committee member.

Some questions for you to consider:

  1. How strongly are you committed to this wording?

  2. How strongly are you committed to this being a rules change? It could also be a TD TIP.

Tim

13

There is two reasons why the director will use 14G2 to inform the players of the flag fall. If the players do not know of the flag fall, than they are wasting time and energy. Wasting time and energy, would be stealing the rest the players should have between rounds. The other reason, one player did lose on time, they decided to play out the game. Since the game is over, they just let the clock run. If the director comes up to the board, seeing both flags down, it could be a draw or they want to play it out. Some directors will see both flags down, let the players play on and mark up the result as a draw. This would be a problem for the next round pairings.

Take an example of a blitz game, as most players have been in blitz games when both flags have been down. If you are the director, and you have watched the players play, and both players’ flags have fallen. Under rule 14G2 you have the right to point out the draw or let the players play. If you watch the players play after the flag fall, and one player checkmate the other, it does not change the official result of the game. The official result of the game is a draw, the unofficial result of the game is a checkmate. As both players did play on with expired time, if you let the players checkmate stand, than you granted the players unlimited time. With unlimited time, the player that did checkmate could have used ten minutes, thirty minutes, two hours, ect… With unlimited time, any results after the flags have fallen are unofficial results.

14

Tim:

Since scholastic players are going to have this problem more than adult players. The problem to play on with a legal checkmate. Anyone that has been the director of scholastic tournaments, knows the problems that happen during the tournament with the most basic rules. The rules of chess, has been designed to address problems with adult players than scholastic players. Adult players should not have a problem not knowing they are in checkmate, or not knowing they have checkmated their opponent. Scholastic players on the other hand, do have a problem not knowing they are in checkmate or knowing they have checkmated their opponent. How many directors have to answer the simple question of a young scholastic player, the question being is this checkmate.

Since the USCF has gone into scholastic chess more in the past ten years. Directors need some concert rules dealing with such novice questions. The problem with scholastic chess with checkmate, it is not a minor problem that happens once or twice in the directors’ career. It is a problem that can happen a number of times during the tournament. Yes, I do support this simple rule to be added into the official rules of chess. I support more of a committee from the directors that deal more with scholastic tournaments. Just to confirm the rights of the directors, when dealing with the problems that do not happen in adult tournaments.

15

Please cite a specific rule that justifies this. It is counter to my interpretation of the rule book.

Alex Relyea

16

No, you are not pointing out a draw which has already occurred, you are actually making a ruling. There is a significant difference.

No, that is incorrect. If the td chooses not to rule it a draw before the checkmate occurs, then the checkmate stands. The official result is a checkmate. The flags haven’t officially fallen until one of the players (or in this special case where both have fallen, the td) has announced that fact.

In practice, as a td, I would try to avoid going over to check on the game until I was planning to pair the next round and would then if both flags have fallen, rule it a draw in order to do that. Then there would be no question that I favored anyone by choosing to not make a ruling (before I needed to pair the next round).

17

In that case, if I have a G/60 event and the players want to play with longer time controls, I could let them but have it dual rated at G/60. When their flags fall, after they used up sixty minutes for each player, I do not have to point out rule 14G2. In your logic, I can just let the players play on till they want to end the game.

Why only have it that way for only one game, why not the whole tournament. I have looking to get the slower players to come to my event. Than again, I want to get the players in my area have established regular and quick ratings. It will be the Relyea - Martinak theory, the tournament will be a G/60 for the official time control, it will be a G/90 for the unofficial time control. This will let the players play on past G/60, with the unofficial time control of G/90 but gives the players the right to get a dual rating at G/90

The Relyea - Martinak theory is the best rating scam, the director does not have to point out the rule 14G2, the players do not have to point out rule 14G. Since the players and the director are in this scam, the Tom Martinak theory is a way to F#@% up the rating system. Now I got to think how to publish this rating scam in the TLA. I know, the official time control is G/60, the unofficial time control is G/90.

First off, I got to run this idea with Mike Nolan first, I think he is going to flip, I think he would say NO. Oh well, the Relyea - Martinak theory is still born, now back to your idea to let the players have more time to finnish the game after the flag falls.

18

Doug, you’re doing more than your share to screw up ratings already.