Generally I do not post here though others have posted instances that I have been involved in and I occasionally jump in. With that disclaimer, I will post the following which in my estimation has little to no practical value, but I think is an amusing exercise. In over 35 years of directing I have never had this situation occur and I don’t think I will live long enough to see it occur again! I have already spent more time on this scenario than it deserves!
White has a king and pawn. Black has a lone king. The position is trivially easy to draw (while I am not sure of the exact position, it really doesn’t matter - for sake of simplicity call it K and RP vs K). The players are both class A players. White offers black a draw. Black declines. White now becomes unhinged and demands that the TD declare the game a draw.
Neither side is in time pressure. The game is being played with a 10 second delay. Black has not abandoned the game and is making every move fairly quickly. Black is not annoying white (aside from the obvious declination of the draw offer). The section is not FIDE rated and is being played under USCF rules. It is also played under CCA rules. For those who may want to refer to CCA rules, here they are: chesstour.com/ContinentalChe … -16-15.pdf.
There is plenty of time before the next round. So the question(s) Can (and/or should) the TD declare the game a draw? Why or why not and what rule is your basis?
After this has percolated a few days, I will come back and give the ruling made and whatever rest of the story there is.
Obviously the answer is “no.” I don’t even see why a justification is necessary for denying White’s “demand.” Please kindly refer the player to rule 21D.
If there have been at least 75 moves by both players without a pawn move or a capture, or if the position has occurred for five consecutive instances (repeating the position after every two moves), the director may declare the game drawn.
If I were white and didn’t want to test black’s ability to draw this I would just abandon the pawn and let him capture it, in which case the game is immediately drawn by rule. If he refused, then I would probably tell the TD I was going to make no more moves and let my flag fall, which again results in a draw. If the TD and opponent are aware of what I’m doing that’s not unsportsmanlike - and perhaps black will abandon his peculiar activity.
As to what a TD should rule, I leave that to the TDs.
One year when I was TD’ing our K-8 state team championship I encountered the following… At one of the lower boards in the K-3 section the players got down to K+Q vs. K. The player with the Q knew that it was supposed to be a win, but didn’t know how to do it, so he spent a bunch of time chasing the opponent’s K around the board. Finally he offered a draw. The player with the lone K declined. They played another 20 moves or so and then finally agreed to a draw. After it was over I asked the boy who had the lone K why he declined the draw offer. He replied, “I was hoping he would get so frustrated that he would resign!”
Perhaps black was sandbagging, and wanted to lose.
As usual in these kinds of discussions, I like to consider what the rule ought to be rather than what it is. In other words, I’d like to see common sense prevail.
If white offers a draw and the position is win-excluded for black – i.e. if there does not exist a sequence of legal moves leading to black checkmating white – then the game should immediately be declared drawn.
The concept of draw-excluded should also be considered. A position should be defined as draw-excluded if there does not exist a sequence of legal moves leading to stalemateandthere does not exist a sequence of legal moves leading to an eventual duplication of a prior position. In other words, a position is draw-excluded if every sequence of legal moves (barring resignations or draw agreements) leads either to white checkmating black or to black checkmating white. In such a case, logically, a draw agreement should not be allowed. The players should be forced to continue playing, if necessary, to the inevitable checkmate.
By the same logic, if a position is win-excluded for white, and is also draw-excluded, then the game should end right there – black wins.
Of course, neither FIDE nor USCF are completely logical all the time, so none of the above fairy tales will ever become reality.
One other note on the original post: If white wanted to get the game over with, as a draw, then white could have been clever by moving his king far away from his pawn, and then pushing his pawn no matter what. (If the pawn is momentarily blocked, white could just move his king, thus zugging black into unblocking the pawn.) Eventually, black will be forced to either take the pawn or let it promote.
I disagree with you on both points. First, I see no reason why the TD should step in and rule the game a draw just because one side cannot win. If a player wishes to play out the game to its conclusion, is not stalling or abandoning the game, and the opponent has no valid claim of a draw under the rules, then who am I to force the game to end?
Secondly, if a player wishes to offer a draw to his opponent in a position where every sequence of moves leads to a win, why should the TD disallow that? The only scenario that I can envision where this might be problematic is where the player with a forced win cannot win money with a win, but the opponent can win money with a draw. In that case you might suspect collusion between the players. However, it is highly probable that if there is in fact collusion to draw the game and split money the players will figure out a less obvious and less suspicious way to accomplish their goal.
Chess is supposed to be a game between two players. The TD should stay out of the way unless forced to intervene.
Why not amend the draw rule #14 with an additional section. This will annoy all the people who already think the rule book is too fat. The rule could read that a player whose opponent has no mating material may declare the game drawn.
In this way TDs like NTD Hater who’s had this occur once in 35+ years and myself who has never had this occur in 41+ years of TDing will have a simple solution.
If ever faced with this, I tell the offeree he’s a goofball, and I tell the offeror that I can’t stop offeree from being a goofball. Then I tell them to play chess and stand by for a real claim.
Even though the players in this instance are both higher rated and should know better, I would also calmly explain to the one complaining and wanting the draw exactly what, under US Chess rules, constitutes the draw. And I would provide the written rules if necessary.
The behavior of the offeree is the kind of antisocial behavior that drives people away from organized play. It merits being addressed in the most firm and direct terms.
And “goofball” is the most firm and direct term you can come up with? I don’t disagree with the sentiment, but absent a rule giving the TD such authority the discussion should happen after the game.
I would like to think I would find a description other than “goofball” if faced with such a situation. But I disagree that antisocial behavior shouldn’t be addressed until after play.
Well, I guess the TD needs to follow the rule, no matter how silly it is.
Again, for me, a discussion of what the rule should be is often more interesting than a discussion of what the rule is.
Some people have said, only half-jokingly, that NTDs are the only ones who are allowed to break the rules. David Hater is an NTD, so I guess he is qualified to let common sense overrule the letter of the law, if he feels it’s appropriate.
If the player complains or otherwise asks the TD, then the TD should explain to that player that the other one is following the rules and there is no rule that can force him to end the game as it has occurred. The TD certainly can and should explain to the one complaining that the TD understands and agrees with him, but they must follow the rules. The TD should also explain to the complainer that this behavior is very odd and he certainly does not see it at any other time or game.
There is no good reason to insult the “offender” even after the game. If the TD disagrees with this person, he certainly can tell him that without insulting the person by calling him names. If the TD is that disturbed by the situation, he should get into a dialogue with the “obstinate” one. As mentioned, this person might have a good reason for continuing the game. It could even be that he isn’t aware that what he is doing is annoying, at best. And explaining this to him might alleviate the problem for the future.
The TD shouldn’t need to declare this position a draw since A-players should be able to force it shortly. Either Black has to take the pawn, making it K vs. K, or the pawn promotes and White wins.
The only anti-social behavior that happened here is that of the player requesting the TD rule the game a draw who became “unhinged” when his request was not granted. Since according to the OP the position was such that a draw could have been forced in a few moves there was no need to make a mountain out of a molehill. There is no need for the TD to do so, either.
i like those options. i would just check to see how much time before my flag falls, go get some coffee, check out some other games. then, come back a minute or so after my flag falls, “oh, gee, a draw”…
Is this even possible? It seems to be there is almost always (if not truly always) some sequence of moves that can lead to a draw. The moves may be stupid - such as K/Q vs K and Q is placed next to the king where it can safely take it. But, there is still a sequence that can lead to a draw.
There are plenty of positions that have no possibility of checkmate, but is the reverse true?