In a recent young scholastic tournament, the two players agreed that the position on the board was checkmate, and they stood up, shook hands, and walked away. Then someone noticed it wasn’t checkmate yet. The parent of the “losing” player made a fuss, and to calm him down, it seems, the players were called back to the board to finish the game. The question is, when is it checkmate? When it really is, or when the players agree that it is? I couldn’t find this answered in the rule book.
IMHO, seems to me that if they shake hands, it’s over. Otherwise, what is the time limit to notice that it isn’t really over?
Chess is a game between two players. Any outside intervention in a game, even by the TD staff, causes problems.
If the players agree that the game is over, it is over and the results should stand however the two players agreed upon them, even if their logic is faulty. (I’ve seen adult players resign ‘lost’ positions that weren’t.)
When I’ve directed scholastic events and a player asks me if a position is checkmate, I make him answer the question for himself. If a player doesn’t know what checkmate is, he doesn’t belong in competitive chess yet.
This should be turned into a positive learning experience for the players involved, but gently so. Especially at the younger levels, chess needs to be FUN. I’ve known too many promising young players who were chased out of the game by well-meaning but overbearing parents.
I suspect the losing players was far less upset over the ‘checkmate’ than the parent.
The difficulty with having parents, or other uninformed specators, at chess events is that they don’t understand some simple fundamental rules. Exactly as nolan said, chess is a contest between two individual players. As soon as the players have decided the result, the game is over. No objections should be entertained.
By one point of view, the problem wouldn’t have occured if the parents & spectators weren’t at the playing site to start with. My point of view is different – that the solution is to get the parents MORE involved. That way they’ll understand what nolan said to start with, and won’t be bringing up improper claims.
And yet you want to allow those same uninformed parents mostly unrestricted access to the playing floor. (That used to be the case at the Nationals, but as they grew the problems with granting parents access to the playing halls compounded. I’ve witnessed rather blatant cheating attempts and even a couple of fights between parents in the playing hall.)
If parents want to get involved, most TDs would be happy to have them as door monitors, working at the results table, etc.
nolan, I don’t recal saying the access should be UNRESTRICTED. As a matter of fact, I believe I’ve mentioned restrictions that I agree with: limiting where parents can stand, for example. I don’t believe I ever suggested that unruly parents should be allowed to remain in the playing room, either. In my view, the problem wasn’t that the parent was THERE, but that he was UNINFORMED. The better solution is to INFORM, not BAN.
I still say that banning parents from the room was simply the EASIEST solution. Not necessarily the best. (Not necessarily the worst, either. I do realize how much effort is involved and I know the TDs resources are finite.)
I’d say an “admission” of checkmate constitutes a resignation, especially if the players have gathered up the pieces and/or left the playing area.
A handshake, in general, may not mean anything. For example, player A might have thought player B was resigning, while player B thought player A was accepting a draw offer. In such a case there was no meeting of the minds, so the game should continue.