If the result(s) weren’t reported yet then the game goes on.
I don’t buy that two 1800+ players can’t reconstruct an endgame after analyzing it. If it’s black’s move he checkmates. White simply forces the repetition draw to avoid losing.
Um, black thwarts this attempt simply by scooting his king two files to his right, then interposing a rook.
Bill Smythe
Bitter.
Do I understand the original scenario?
Handshake with no clear intent? No signed scoresheet with result indicated? Players anaylzing 10+ mins? Players then disagree on result?
I’m not wandering into that swamp of incompetence with two 1800+ players
1/2-1/2; No way 0-1.
And the reason you would choose the understanding of the final result of one player over the other’s is what? Weren’t the players equally wrong in their understanding of their opponent’s intent?
^ ^ ^ ^
Absolutely; 0-0 is the correct decision.
There is no question that both players did a poor job of ending the game, but this would be a good way of alienating and losing both players as future participants in your events and/or having your ruling successfully appealed. Be careful what you wish for.
In my opinion, White’s sin was far worse; he got an actual rule wrong (he thought he could “accept” a draw offer from 10 moves ago). Black just made the understandable error of assuming that White’s actions (stopping the clocks and then extending his hand) made sense.
True. That would make 0-1 a preferable ruling to 1/2-1/2.
OTOH, black allowed himself to be talked into a draw agreement during the post-mortem. So maybe 1/2-1/2 after all.
Best, of course, is to continue the game. In this case, there aren’t even any practical problems with such a ruling, because the position is agreed (it’s at the top of this thread) as are the clock times (ditto).
Bill Smythe
Yes, which is why I had to modify the facts a bit to make for a trickier hypothetical. What if black wasn’t as reasonable and didn’t have as good a memory as I do? In the actual scenario, where I agreed to a draw in the post-mortem and could remember the position, 1/2-1/2 is obviously right.
No way.
Please explain your answer because I suspect I’m not the only one that doesn’t know/understand you reasoning.
Tip over the king to resign. Try misinterpreting that. 
Although 13B says that neither a handshake by itself, nor stopping the clocks by itself, is an indication of resignation, I would say that BOTH taken together is a pretty clear resignation. The rules clearly state that a draw offer should be made after one’s move is determined, but before pressing the clock. The clocks are NOT to be stopped for a draw offer.
In this case, though, white probably intended it as a pretty clear draw acceptance (not the same as a draw offer). His confusion about the rule didn’t affect what he thought he was agreeing to.
Bill Smythe
My interpretation of 13B is that a handshake and/or stopping the clocks should only be considered to be a resignation if they were done with the intention of conceding the game. That does not appear to have been White’s intent in this game.
Don’t you generally stop the clock after agreeing to a draw? I don’t see how stopping the clock turns agreeing to a draw into a resignation.
He declined the original draw offer by making a move. There was no active draw offer to accept.
By rule, what you are saying here is true. However, also by rule, his action of stopping the clock doesn’t commit him to resigning - or, really, anything else. His misunderstanding of when a draw offer is no longer active doesn’t mean he should be penalized by loss of game.
People have lost for misinterpreting Touch Move, too. As your own tagline says, knowing the rules is priceless.