rcc.fide.com/wp-content/uploads … hanges.pdf
This I found interesting:
“5.1.2 The game is lost by the player who declares he resigns (this immediately ends the game), unless the position is such that the opponent cannot checkmate the player’s king by any possible series of legal moves. In this case the result of the game is a draw.”
If this situation came up in a game player under US Chess rules, what should be the result?
Good question. This situation arose in a rated game at a club where I played in 1988. I was at the World Open, so did not get to see it first-hand.
A high-strung adult A player reached K+R vs K against a not quite 10-year-old A player and future IM. The lad was intent on counting how many moves he could last before mate, or something like that.
The adult fumed and played a few moves. Then he glowered at the boy and his father—a future EB member, may he rest in peace—and shouted that if the boy would not resign, then he would resign. Then he stormed out and never came back.
The TD called the USCF office for guidance. The office told him the “adult” player’s resignation should stand.
P.S. The way Dean and Joe handled this—per unanimous witness accounts—made me a fan and supporter for life.
Hmm. Interesting, and logical. I suppose U.S. Chess TDs should do the same. I wonder if it has ever happened, though.
The phrase “unless the position is such that the opponent cannot checkmate the player’s king by any possible series of legal moves” comes up so often in the FIDE laws, that FIDE should have a name for it.
I propose “mate-excluded” or “checkmate-excluded”. A position is mate-excluded for a player if that player’s opponent cannot checkmate the player by any possible series of legal moves.
A position which is mate-excluded for both players is called a dead position, and is an immediate and automatic draw.
Logically, I suppose there should also be a notion of “draw-excluded”. A position could be defined as draw-excluded if there does not exist a series of legal moves leading to stalemate, nor to a repetition of the current position or any possible future position.
For example, if the player on move has only two legal moves, one of which immediately checkmates the opponent, and the other of which leaves the opponent with only one legal move, which checkmates the player, then the position is draw-excluded.
All kinds of interesting new rules suggest themselves:
If a position is draw-excluded, then the players are not allowed to agree to a draw. They must play on to checkmate, resignation, or flag fall.
If a position is draw-excluded, and also mate-excluded for a player, then that player immediately wins.
If either player’s time expires, and the position is both mate-excluded for a player and draw-excluded, then that player wins, regardless of which player’s time expired.
There could be all kinds of Sam Lloyd type puzzle positions. “Is this position draw-excluded? If so, prove it. If not, find a sequence leading to a repetition.” “Is this position mate-excluded, and if so, for which player?” etc.
Whee!
Bill Smythe
I’d use what’s known as common sense, and rule the game a draw. I am fully aware of Rule 13B, but to prevent any shenanigans, I’d rule it a draw based on an analogous situation to Rule 14E.
I’m aware of a game where a player with a lone king turned down a draw offer and it caused a lot of confusion. Again, my common sense ruling in that situation would be to declare the game drawn so we could get on with the remainder of the tournament.
In a game between two kindergarteners the one with the king and queen was frustrated and wanted to stop playing while the one with the lone king wanted to continue. I treated the quitter as having flagged and ruled it a draw.
There is a great deal to be said for applying some common sense.
And I believe there is some portion of the NTD test that looks for that.
I looked in the USCF rulebook, and I think the wording there is questionable, especially rule 14D4. However, the intent seems clear enough. I’m not sure it’s so clear that it ought to be called “common sense”, though. I don’t think it’s extremely obvious what to do.
Thinking about 14D-14D3, I think the intent of the rulebook is to state that if those conditions exist, the game is an automatic draw. So, for example, if the board has King v. King, it’s a draw, period. It doesn’t matter if anyone resigns. It’s a draw.
Where it gets confusing is that the TD tip under 14D refers to a claim.
It seems to me that no claim is necessary. If it’s K v K, it’s a draw, claim or no claim. It seems to me that the TD can step in and call it a draw, without waiting for a player to claim it.
Of course, unless a TD is standing there watching, someone who wants to invoke the rule would have to call one, which I suppose is making a claim.
Then you get to 14D4: “There are no legal moves that could lead to the player being checkmated by the opponent.”
The problem is that it refers to “the player”, which leaves some doubt as to whether this is supposed to apply to one player, or both. So if white has K+R, and black has K, there are no moves black can make that would lead to white’s checkmate, but there are moves white could make that would lead to black’s checkmate. “Common sense” would say that in this case there is no automatic draw that the TD could jump in with. On the other hand, it sounds like it is saying in this case that white could claim a draw. 14E makes it explicit that if white’s flag falls, it’s a draw.
But what if white resigns in that case?
It seems to me that the player has some agency in this case. He resigned. It should count. I don’t see any rule to contradict it. The game was going on. There was no automatic reason to stop the game. One player resigned. I think that rule 13 carries the primary weight. If the game is going on, and one player resigns, that player loses. If, on the other hand, the game is already over (for example, due to rule 14) the player can’t resign.
As a TD, I think I prefer that way, too. I don’t have the awkward situation of telling the person whose opponent resigned that I am overriding the resignation because of the board situation. Perhaps, as in the anecdote described in the first reply, the player was just throwing a tantrum and walked away. In that case, I don’t have any objection to accepting his resignation.
The FIDE rule overrides that agency, though. Therefore, “common sense” or not, there’s a rule, and the rule overrides whatever you think common sense ought to be. In the FIDE case, if you resign in a position where your opponent can’t win on the board, it’s a draw.
ETA: And…if both players were young children, I would handle it like Jeff did. In a non-USCF tournament for our school chess club, when I was directing that’s what I did. Some of the other adults present wanted to jump in and help teach the player with K+Q how to achieve mate, but I insisted that this was a tournament, and if the kid didn’t know how to win the game, it was a draw.
See bolded part above. That is what the TD in the 1988 example I mentioned said he was told by the USCF office.
Well, guess what, guys. FIDE has now specifically said that this type of case should be a draw.
And that’s common sense, too. U.S. Chess would do well to follow suit.
Just about everybody already agrees that the wording of U.S. Chess 14D is in need of improvement. It ought to say the same thing FIDE says, which is that if no checkmate is possible by either player, the game is a draw.
Bill Smythe
That wouldn’t be a bad rule, but it’s not the FIDE rule referred to in the OP.
The rule in the OP is that if a player resigns, but his opponent could not achieve a legal checkmate, then the game is a draw.
I think 14D in USCF already says what you want it to say for specifically enumerated cases in which neither player can checkmate the other. In those cases, the game is automatically drawn. It just gets a bit confusing in 14D4, which could be reworded to make the intent of the rule more clear.
The place where the new FIDE rule from the OP differs from USCF is the case where player A could win, but player B can get no better than a draw, and player A resigns. The FIDE rule calls it a draw. The USCF rule calls it a loss for the resigning player.
At least, that’s how I read the rules.
I’m trying to think of cases where the FIDE rule makes things better. I can’t really think of one. The worst thing that could happen under USCF rules is that a player mistakenly believes the game is lost. He resigns, and loses, instead of getting an automatic draw that he didn’t recognize. The FIDE rule also gives the “tantrum” resignation a draw instead of a loss. I’m not sure that’s a good outcome.
The “if you resign, you lose” rule (i.e current USCF, as best I can tell) seems simpler, and I don’t see how it would result in a significant miscarriage of game or rating point justice.
ETA: Most important of all is just to make the wording obvious so that the unfortunate TDs who have to adjudicate the odd situation can clearly point to a rulebook section instead of getting into a pointless debate with someone who resigned by accident, or whose opponent did the same.
Edited. An earlier version of this post that some may have seen switched USCF and FIDE in one spot.
As much as possible, the outcome of the game should be decided by the play and conduct of the two players. A player who resigns loses. A player who makes a draw offer should not be allowed to make a claim on time until that draw offer has been responded to.
I propose “nwin.”
The most obvious type of potential abuse is when the responding player fails to respond until long, long after the flag and thus delays the pairings for the next round. I’d prefer to leave the rule as it is.
How different is that from the player who, in a losing position, sits until his flag falls? Both are abusive or, at a minimum, rude.
I just find it strange and inequitable that a player who proposes a draw should be allowed to recant the draw offer or pretend it never existed before the opponent responds to it. If you’re not willing to accept a draw as a result, DON"T MAKE A DRAW OFFER!!
We could always add a rule that says if a player’s flag falls after a draw offer is made but before it is accepted or rejected, the draw offer is accepted.
The flag fall is a fixed end and allows the tournament to stay on schedule. An indeterminate time after the flag fall is not a fixed end and the tournament could go off schedule.
Also, 18G1 is already available for a player that just sits waiting for the flag.
I’ll stick with “checkmate-excluded” and “draw-excluded”.
Hyphenated names for new concepts are useful because they probably won’t conflict with entirely different concepts that have used the same name.
Bill Smythe
One could also take the attitude that if you don’t want to lose on time when contemplating a draw offer, don’t run yourself so low that you don’t have time to adequately determine whether continuing to play on is reasonable.
Is “no legal sequence of moves which can lead to checkmate” (or something like it) used so often that concocting a term (which is far from self-defining) to use in its place worth the confusion it would cause?
Something like D10 or +10 would probably allow sufficient time, possibly even D5. However, neither increment nor delay was in use at the time of the National HS in Kansas City where this situation arose. (I was the chief floor TD, ruled the game a draw, a ruling that was upheld by the chief TD, Jim Meyer. The rule was subsequently changed.)
The way I understand it is that according to 5.1.2 if you resign while your opponent does not have the pieces to make, you should get zero Pt. bye while white would get a 1pt. bye. You have to remember a resignation a loss was already called for.