I volunteer as a local TD for a scholastic not for profit organization in Corpus Christi, Texas, which runs several scholastic tournaments per year. We are having some debate currently about the proper role of TDs when they are called over to verify a claim of checkmate and notice that it is not checkmate or one of the players state that they’re not sure if it is. This occurs frequently with kids in the primary (K-3) sections, especially beginning players. I am looking for any thoughts on this based on your experience or interpretation of USCF rules.
In the past, we have at that point told the players about the rule of “TIM” (can you take, interpose, move) and if they then agree after thinking about it that its checkmate then we count it as checkmate. Unless its stalemate in which case we have told them its stalemate.
The question is whether we should actually tell them its not checkmate. Some are of the opinion that under variation 11H1 (since we do not watch most games) we should refrain from telling them that since we do not point out illegal moves. Others believe we should tell them.
I am of the opinion 11H and 11H1 do not apply because these are all g/30 sudden death games. Rule 21D2 states that a TD shall correct any illegal moves observed, unless time pressure exists or variation 11H1 is used (the director does not correct illegal moves unless asked by a player). Now, we do not follow this rule because our scholastic games are under time pressure. However, when a claim of mate is made, there is no time pressure because the clocks (if there are one) have been stopped and in any event the game is on hold pending TD review. Therefore Rule 21D2 could be interpreted to apply to the situation where a TD has been called over to double check checkmate.
A TD noticing that it is not checkmate or is stalemate, if permitting the claim of checkmate to go forward, would be allowing an illegal move to occur because it would not be a legal checkmate under the laws of chess. No checkmate has been “produced” (rule 9E). Rule 13A: The player who checkmates the opponent’s king, providing the mating move is legal, wins the game.
Allowing beginning players to think a non-checkmate is checkmate is a disservice to their learning and the game’s integrity itself.
That’s my thinking: am I wrong or right? And why or why not? Thanks much.
Scholastic players will ask if the position is a checkmate. If the player is a student, after the tournament go over what is and is not a checkmate. If the scholastic player ask in one event, the player will be asking some other time.
If the player is correct, then the game would be over. As the director, you would be free to talk about the position. If you have a number of volunters, it would be a nice idea to copy down the final position on the board. The players can go over to the volunter, set up the last position on the board: so the volunter can point out ideas of the position.
If the claim of checkmate is not a checkmate, there are a number of ideas how the director can take care of the problem. Some will ask the players why it is not a checkmate. Some will say it is not a checkmate, ordering to play on. It would be best to have the directors have a meeting. Find out what is the accepted idea and stick with it.
My idea would be asking the players why it is not a checkmate. Ask the players to show me why they think it is a checkmate. If they cannot prove it, then they are willing to play on. Can understand the reason why directors do not like this idea. It takes a great deal or time. Directors feel the players should understand what is or is not a checkmate in the first place. Directors feel they are the director not the coach.
“Checkmate immediately ends the game”. This rule allows the TD to determine that a checkmate has occurred. This isn’t your question, however.
When it’s not checkmate is a difficult situation. The methods you use and Doug promotes are common. That is, helping the players to determine on their own. However, this method also involves leading questions which some astute K-3s may pick up on. The paramount caution is to not ask anything in a leading way.
My policy is to ask the opponent of the player claiming checkmate if he/she agrees (in a non-leading way). If he/she does, then that’s the result. If he/she doesn’t agree, then your problem is almost solved. Simply tell them to continue, watching for illegal moves. BTW: “Stalemate [also] immediately ends the game”, so this would be your justification for pointing an illegal move.
As to the possible problem of pointing out an illegal move when the TD isn’t able to to be consistent by watching every game, my opinion is that if a TD witnesses an illegal move, that TD should correct it. But, particularly, if a TD has been called to a game for a claim, and the TD instructs a game to continue, the TD should point out illegal moves in that game even if his/her policy is to not point them out in general.
This may not be the correct way, and I’m interested in other’s opinions here as well.
There will be scholastic players that will say checkmate, in the hope the other player does not understand what is a checkmate. There will be scholastic players that will say checkmate, because they feel it is a true checkmate. Most of the players that call me over to the board, are the players that have won with checkmate or not.
There will be a few games that one player makes a claim of checkmate. The position is not a checkmate, the players have the feeling it is a checkmate. The director cannot watch each and every board, seeing the last and final move. Its’ part of the players learning curve.
If the director witness the players agreement to a checkmate, when the position is not a checkmate – this is a problem for the director. This is very much a open question, can the director rule the game plays on or accepts the checkmate. My idea, if both players accept the claim the claim ends the game.
I knew there was a reason I don’t watch these games too closely!
Personally I don’t have a problem telling the players that it is not a checkmate when I’m at the board. That’s just a rules question. It’s like overhearing someone claim a draw because they’ve moved their bishop 5 times a row with their shoes off or something.
I also don’t ask questions when they report a result. If they come up to me and agree that one of the players was checkmated then so be it.
If a child is aware enough to stop clocks and raise their hand and summon a director because they question a checkmate, then I am ecstatic. I will stick around and try to help them understand what (again) a checkmate is; and to prevent the bullying from happening that Doug describes. And how I do that depends on the child and situation (as you can tell - I’ve only been involved in smaller tournaments with a large percentage of kids from our club)
Most scholastic players that question the checkmate, are the players that checkmated the other player.
There are other questions the players will be asking during the event. Checkmate is one of the questions, there are others. During the event, it would be best to talk with the chess coach. If there are so many questions, the moves of the pieces, the touched piece, ect. It would be a shock to the players and the parents, if you are way to hard on the players. Not all chess coaches are the same. Checkmate and other questions, it can be simple and clear to you. It can be hard to understand if the chess coach never spent the time on the answer.
Organizer Bruce Draney of Nebraska once said that the playing room in a grade school tournament is like the sausage factory – you really don’t want to know what’s going on in there.
