I am directing a four-round, in-house Swiss system tournament at a residential facility for teenagers with severe substance use disorders. All of the players are inexperienced in tournament play. The large majority of the players learned how to play chess at our facility.
During a game, a player with the Black pieces sought my attention to happily say that she had just checkmated her opponent. The player with the White pieces was sadly agreeing that this was checkmate, as he had not found any way to get out of check. They asked me to confirm that it was checkmate.
It was not checkmate.
As the director of the tournament, how should I have handled this situation? My concern at the time was that if I were to tell them that it was not checkmate, I would be assisting the White player by telling him that there was in fact a way to get out of check, even though he had not found one so far.
Perhaps the purist would tell you not to answer, but at the national scholastics this year we were told to answer the question - yes or no. Now if the players agreed it was mate without asking then that was mate.
But I would consider where you are and what your group is. If they are all still learning then you perhaps should help. And if one is clearly trying to bully the other into accepting a result hen the answer is tell them.
If it was an adult event with experienced players you probably never get asked that question, but I’m not answering it there. In your even the stakes are low and the kids are learning. Help them a little bit.
If you tell them no and then the player cannot figure out how to get out of it - then I think they lose the game - but not because it is mate but rather they end up resigning.
Considering the group involved and the experience level you should not answer yes. I also do not think you should answer no. Rather you have just been presented with a learning opportunity for your new inexperienced players. Ask the players to define checkmate, which should be 1) that the King is under attack, 2) that the King can’t successfully move to a square where it is not being attacked, 3) that the attacking piece can’t be taken to stop the attack [so with double discovered check this would be impossible], & 4) that there is no piece/pawn that can get in the way of (& therefore stop) the attack on the King. I will assume you have previously taught this, but as with any lesson [chess or any other subject] repetition is some times needed for the lesson to sink in and be remembered.
Minor clarification: At the National Scholastics, the TDs are to not answer the question, “Is this checkmate?”. At that point, we ask the players to figure out themselves to impose the idea of non-intervention - as the game is between two players.
However, this is Black claiming checkmate, and White is disagree and thus it is a checkmate claim, which TDs are allowed to answer claims.
The slight procedural difference is subtle but makes a difference in why the TD is intervening in the game.
Brian is correct my comment about the national scholastic was unclear. We progressed the question to a claim. If it never reached the level of a claim then it meant the players resolved it. Confusing enough?
But I still think you consider your group and this case isn’t quite a national scholastic. You’re dealing with new players just learning.
But I think you aren’t wrong to let them agree the game is over and do nothing else, or to let it end and then show them it’s not checkmate - given your group here.
If both agree the game is over due to erroneously thinking there is a checkmate then the losing player has mis-analyzed the position and resigned instead of moving.
If it is not a USCF rated event, then you can act rationally and answer the question. Normally in such circumstances, it is good to ask the players if they know the “TIM” rule for getting out of check. Can the King take, interpose, or move? If none of the options work, then it is mate. It is a lot better to teach than follow the Rulebook. You are there to help, not punish. Kids like that have enough problems with authority figures. Chess should be their haven.
When working with younger players, I prefer to treat this as a teaching moment, so I ask the player what checkmate means and then ask them whether those conditions exist.
However, some coaches have instructed their players to always raise their hand when their opponent says ‘checkmate’, and when you get that question from a player round after round after round, and it is clear that the player is not inexperienced, I simply ask “Do you think it is checkmate?”
It depends. The answer ranges from “guide them to the correct decision” to “just answer the question” to “refuse to answer the question” depending on the level of the tournament. In an “in house” (by that, do you mean “not-USCF-rated”?) event for beginners, it is appropriate to be a combination TD/Coach. In a high-school national championship, it’s not.
This is one of the many items of TD discretion that should be discussed and decided by the Chief TD ahead of time. Any competent TD will handle the situation according to the Chief TD’s instructions - which do (and should) vary, depending on many factors.
When it is not, and the situation arises, apply Rule 1A.
At the most recent National Elementary, I believe there may have been as many as 3 or 4 different procedures specified, depending on the section. The K1 U500 section was (and should have been!) handled differently from the K-6 Championship section.
There are a variety of answers in actual practice, particularly at the scholastic level, in order to meet the pedagogical goals of the competition.
If you are ever taking a rules exam, either under the US Chess or FIDE codes, there is only one answer. A checkmating or stalemating move immediately ends the game, and a director or arbiter determining that such a move was made is obligated to score the game accordingly.
If you accept an appointment at a scholastic event, do what the organizer tells you, which may or may not be the only answer that is acceptable on a rules exam.
When I was in graduate school I took a class in how to design a course, including test writing. The instructor would say that the above statement means the question was not properly worded.
Leif, first of all, you are a true saint for working with this group. Wonderful. Secondly,
no question, whatsoever. The ONLY correct TD ruling is that the one who agreed they were checkmated, in fact resigned the game. They agreed to it, end of story. Else, it is TD interference. Simple as that.
Since the variety of answers in actual practice are based on variations of the main rule, what about an exam that says that variations should only be considered if they are explicitly stated in the question?
The CTD, LTD and SrTD exams are multiple choice and do not readily lend themselves to essay answers. The ANTD and NTD essay exams are well suited for answers considering both the main rules and any variations.
Blatant intimidation to force acceptance of an erroneous result
An illegal mating move
A currently illegal position
Stalemate
Insufficient material to deliver mate
A tournament designed for beginners with an announced rule to avoid such errors of judgement
etc.
#1 may result in an ethics complaint #2-5 are most likely if the common TD-as-witness variation is not in use and instead the main rules that require TD intervention (it is not interference) are in use.
That said, in the absence of anything special the agreed result is the easiest to accept. If you are verifying the results then do not ask “were you checkmated”, but rather “who won” or “did you lose”. Then a confirmation of a loss would be a resignation.
Be aware that if you see a non-checkmate position on the board and the players agree on checkmate then the players may actually be correct and you may be seeing a position after they have started resetting some of the pieces. As a TD be cautious before intervening because doing so when you shouldn’t may end up being interference.
I had a 2nd or 3rd grade player in our area who would make a few moved, drop a queen right in front of the opponents king and declare checkmate, then start taking away the pieces. A few of the opponents were too intimidated to protest. We got that stopped by intervening and pointing out that was not mate and the game needed to continue and getting the board reset.
And that was the right thing to do.
Had another middle school player who was slipping pieces back onto the board when the opponent who was not taking notation was not looking. That took a little bit to figure out what was going on. Then I intervened a game when I observed that and disqualified her - then called her parents whom I knew and we discussed how long they would keep her out of play to grow up. They were appalled at her behavior. She came back 6 months later and player all the away through HS and we never discussed it again.
I can see only two situations in which this problem is likely to arise:
One or both players don’t understand the rules.
There are possible moves for the person in check that one or both players don’t see.
It is certainly okay for a TD to explain the rules. That’s one of the reasons the TD is there. I can remember a couple of boys, for example, who thought that if a person was stalemated, that meant they lost the game. The boys had learned chess from a book that tried to make things fun by relating the ways the pieces move to Medieval warfare, which is fine as long as the author remembers that the first priority is to actually explain all of the rules. But this book didn’t mention stalemate, or that it was even possible for a chess game to end in a draw!
The second situation generally occurs because the player hasn’t considered all of the possibilities (e.g., “I’m in check and no matter where I move my king, it’s still check” - never considering the fact that he can block the check, or perhaps even take the checking piece). In this case, the TD can review the ways a player can escape check, but doing any more than that is, IMO, giving the player assistance.
