This was the only interesting (at least from my perspective) ruling I was involved in from this weekend’s Grade Nationals and I think it is worth covering for instructional purposes. I was the Assistant Floor Chief for the event and was involved since the Section Chief’s ruling was appealed.
Final round, board 5. The position is as follows: White king on g1, Black king on g3 and pawn on g4. It is Black to move. The time control is G/90 and both players have less than 5 minutes remaining and are no longer keeping notation.
Black plays …Kf3 and presses the clock. According to Black, White did not make a move and just pressed the clock. Black, without thinking about it since he knows the ending is won, plays …g3. White plays Kh1 and now Black suddenly realizes there is a problem. However, with little time remaining, the game continued with …g2+, Kg1 Kg3.
The game is stopped at this point and Black, still very confused how his won ending was suddenly drawn, states that there is a problem. Black says he had calculated, way back when trading rooks, that the king and pawn ending was winning. After talking to White, he eventually agrees that Black made two moves in a row but denies hitting the clock without making a move stating that Black must have just moved twice. White agrees with the position that was reached (stated above) and the final moves. White considered himself very lucky when the final position was reached as he knew the ending was lost but was playing on because of the time situation. An independent witness also verifies that Black made two moves in a row.
If black traded into this K+P endgame–claiming that he had calculated a forced win via the opposition–then why would he even want to move twice in a row? I say white was trying to pull a fast one by pressing the clock without moving. Only white had any motive to cheat! I might add that this is a pretty common tactic in coffeehouse blitz.
To me, the only remaining issue is whether black has standing to make a claim since 1.5 more moves were played before he noticed that something had happened. I believe he is allowed 10 (?) moves to claim an illegal move. [Don’t have my rulebook with me.]
My ruling: Go back to the position where white pressed the clock without moving, add 2 minutes to black’s clock for the illegal non-move and start white’s clock.
11A says “If, during a game(emphasis mine), it is found that one of either player’s last ten moves was illegal, the position shall be reinstated to what it was before the illegal move.” However, 14A says, "Stalemate. (definition of stalemate) … Providing that the opponent’s previous move was legal, this immediately ends the game(emphasis mine). Whether this was the intention or not, I read this as meaning that the game is over and any earlier irregularity may not be challenged.
The story doesn’t mention a witness for White hitting the clock twice. Without a witness for that, I don’t see how Black can get relief. It doesn’t matter if Black moved illegally or not since White isn’t claiming anything and just wants the draw that’s on the board now.
But suppose there were an impartial witness who saw White hit the clock twice. Black claims that and wants to go back to that position, which is less than ten moves ago. What happens?
According to the first post, the players eventually agreed on the facts, e.g. the original position, that black moved twice in a row, and the subsequent moves leading to stalemate. The two moves in a row was confirmed by a witness.
White claims black moved twice in a row, including once on white’s clock. Black claims white pressed his clock without making any move.
It doesn’t matter if Black moved twice in a row, since White won’t claim anything or want to go back to that position. What matters is whether White pressed the clock twice without moving in between, and if so can Black demand to go back to that position.
Only relevant for the skittles room analysis later.
If there is stalemate on the board and the player is not immediately claiming that an illegal move has been made, then the game is over. Period.
The OP said that the player merely reported that “there was a problem”. He didn’t know what the problem was - just that the result of the game did not match his analysis.
Sad to say, there is no claim of “I analyzed this to a win, and now it’s a draw, so please fix it”.
Of course, the other player is angle-shooting scum and both he and his coach should get a stern talking to by the TD.
What if Black calls the TD during his move without making the final stalemating move, after … g2+; Kg1 ? Even though he has no good moves (stalemate, or lose his pawn), it seems to matter.
What if Black calls the TD after … g2+; Kg1, Ke4!!; Kxg2 in other words, K vs. K. Is the game “immediately over” with K vs K the same as it is for stalemate?
This explanation doesn’t justify Black’s actions. If Black realized, after White moved Kh1, that an illegal move had been made, he should have stopped the clocks and made a claim. When the clocks are stopped, the fact that “little time” is remaining becomes irrelevant.
Had Black made this claim when he realized that there was a problem, then after determining that Black, White, and the impartial witness were in agreement that Black had made two moves in a row (even though there was disagreement about whether White had hit his button in between) I would have ordered that the board be reset to the position before the illegal move and that play proceed with no time adjustment (since it could not be determined who was at fault).
But since the position was already a stalemate when the claim was made, then I would declare the game a draw under rule 14A, since the previous move had clearly been legal. I would also explain to Black what he should have done in order for his claim to have been valid.
I wouldn’t automatically assume that White deliberately cheated. While that is possible, it is also possible that White or Black simply made an unintentional error.
16D1 reinforces this, essentially communicating the same thing.
From your description,
White played Kh1 and Kg1 after the nominally illegal g3. Two moves. White accepted the condition and with the second move of White, so did Black. The time to complain would have been before …g2+.
If all you knew was that Black had moved twice in a row, you would not have assumed he was at fault? (If you assume Black is at fault, then you don’t reset the position unless White asks for it, right?)
If the TD feels that the player deliberately cheated at any time in the game, then he must rule a (forfeit) win and not a draw. Else you encourage other kids to try this as well. Merely issuing a warning for an offense that clearly changed the result of a game makes a mockery of fair play.