ETA… I’d use strikeout on all the below except the last line if we were allowed strikeout, but I won’t delete since then tsawmiller’s reply would make no sense.
If I read the move sequence and OP correctly, it is actually one move from stalemate or insufficient material to continue. Yes, I know (and I think I’m more confident than last time ) that a game result is imminent. But because Black has waited to deliver the last move before calling the TD over… the game is not stalemate yet. Am I correct in that assessment?
I’m not saying any ruling is right or wrong in this post, but Black’s query at the moment he made it seems to be still part of a live game. Does that change anything in regards to there being the possibility of an actionable claim, or no? Even if the claim is incorrect / etc.
P.S. - After 61 posts in this thread I am also curious to know what the floor judgment was.
My mistake, again. I didn’t include the Kg3 move in my earlier pgn analysis - and thus thought Black was still on move. (Maybe I should give Black another move??? ) Anyway, you’re correct… the OP clearly shows board is in stalemate.
ETA: And I’ve edited my original analysis post now to include the Kg3 move…
Concur. There is a difference between a claim that’s facially invalid (e.g., made after checkmate/stalemate) and one that’s fact-based (did he touch that piece or not?). This one is of the first kind, so there is no need to reach the factual question of the alleged double move. You can discuss it as a hypothetical, of course, but then there’s the danger of setting your hypothesis to get the answer you want.
So, if player A commits an illegality on move N, and achieves stalemate on move N+1, then the game is over because of stalemate – player B is out of luck.
I’ve always been disturbed by the rule that leads to this conclusion. It opens the door to all kinds of hanky-panky.
In some situations (players are keeping score, for example), illegalities can be corrected up to ten moves later. So, if the game “ends” during these ten moves, the option to revert to the position before the illegality should remain.
Of course, there should be some kind of time limit on a protest by player B – say, 1 minute after the game “ends” and before any conversation between player B and third parties begins.
I’m not sure exactly what you mean. If the opponent’s last move (the one that gave stalemate/checkmate) was illegal, the claim would be valid. If it occurred on any move before that, and the player didn’t make a claim but played another move, the stalemate (or checkmate) stands. I suppose you could propose a rules change on the lines you propose, but I suspect the consequences would be undesirable.
I think Bill is concerned about what White is alleged to have done here.
White: K on g1
Black: K on f3, P on g3, to move.
1… g3-g2 2. Kg1-g1!!, Kf3-g3?? Stalemate
If Black isn’t alert and moves rather than objecting immediately, White’s trick worked. Black gets no further chance to realize that something fishy happened, no chance to look back at all. And the trick is fairly riskless for White. Maybe he picks up his king from g1, looks at the board thoughtfully for a moment, and puts it down again on g1 and pushes his clock. If caught he apologizes profusely and says he was confused.
I suppose it could work sometimes if Black isn’t very strong and is in time pressure.
I was talking about the case where the last move was legal (and gave stalemate), but the one before that was illegal.
The rule does, indeed, seem to say that the stalemate stands. Yes, I am proposing a rule change to avoid the hanky-panky that could result. I admit there could be both positive and negative consequences to such a rule change. TD discretion should determine whether the stalemate or the illegal move claim takes precedence.
I thought that you were generally opposed to TD’s inserting their particular views into the game?
This is NOT something that should be left to “TD discretion”. It’s something that should be (AND HAS BEEN - but could be again, if enough people think it should be) thought out carefully and spelled out. These rules should be discussed and decided FAR, FAR AWAY from any particular game.
If you think that the current rules allow for “hanky-panky”, please be sure to think realHard about what “hanky-panky” might be allowed by your proposed alternative rules.
could one player have acted unethically here? Perhaps.
Has anyone actually demonstrated unethical behavior? Absolutely not.
Now…I find several relevant rules here. You say that you are “proposing a rule change”. Can you please tell us what the proposal is? What words in the current rules would you strike? What words would you insert?
In general, that’s true, but there are situations that cry aloud for TD discretion. This seems to be one of them.
OK. At present, an illegal move which occurs during the game should be corrected (and the game resumed from that point) if it is discovered within ten moves.
Analagously (more or less), if a game-ending event (checkmate, stalemate, dead position, resignation, etc) occurs within ten moves after an illegal move, the TD should have discretion to correct the illegality and resume the game from the point just before the illegality.
I think that’s a terrible idea. In the first place, unless you also add a time limit, you could have someone coming in the next day and asking to resume the game. It’s not the same situation as “last ten moves during the game,” which has an obvious hard limit. In the second place, if you did write a rule with such a time limit, you would be encouraging endless disputes. (“My watch says it was only nine minutes and 48 seconds ago, not ten minutes!” “The TD was in the bathroom, so he couldn’t rule on my claim until the time ran out!”)
And if you’re allowing this after checkmate or stalemate, why not resignation? Would you allow a player to say “I resign,” followed by “Oh, wait, I take it back, you made an illegal move three moves ago?” I certainly hope not.
Yes, I understand that’s what you want. Please provide the changes to the rules that achieves this. It’s impossible to evaluate you suggestion without seeing the wording. The opportunities for “hanky-panky” are all in the details.
But first, please read the current rules that applied in this particular case. You got it wrong, above.
Citation, please. That sounds like a fair statement of 11A, though it leaves out a couple of qualifiers. If you think that’s not the rule, please state what you think the rule is, with support from the text.
This is covered in 11D about illegal moves in sudden death. Rule 11D1d "before either player is stalemated with a legal move (14A) " seems to cover the situation.
As undesirable as having the game end shortly after an uncalled illegal move may be, I must also agree that to have a rule to the contrary may create more problems than it solves.
I will add that if the director believes that the illegality was intentional, this is covered in 11J “Deliberate illegal moves. If a player intentionally makes illegal moves, the director may impose penalties.” It is my impression that no one is claiming it’s deliberate here.
Another type of illegal move that occurs is one where there is a checkmate or stalemate on the board, neither player realizes it and play continues (getting to a position that is no longer checkmate or stalemate) and then the game ends up in a different result. On 12/5/09 the unnoticed checkmate was discovered when the scholastic player’s coach went over the recorded game with the opponent no longer readily available. A rules change would have to take into account that, even if the result was discovered within ten minutes, it may take quite a while to find the other player and resume the game (assuming the opponent has not gone home because it was the final round of the day), resulting in a noticeable delay of the tournament.
If you only have one scoresheet then do you rule using only that scoresheet? If you answer yes then please realize that bogus scoresheets have been attempted (unsuccessfully) to be used in National scholastics to change results, and in local scholastics it is common for players to not keep score (with the opponents not making a complaint that the players are not doing so).
The OP said it went 1) … Kg3-f3, 2) Kg1-g1, g4-g3, 3) Kg1-h1, g3-g2+ 4) Kh1-g1, Kf3-g3 stalemate.
The illegality occurred during either white’s or black’s move in move two (depending on whether or not you think white actually made a move). Black’s move on move four completed two full moves (or two and a half) since the illegality.
) that a game result is imminent. But because Black has waited to deliver the last move before calling the TD over… the game is not stalemate yet. Am I correct in that assessment?
) Anyway, you’re correct… the OP clearly shows board is in stalemate.