I agree with Alex, and I think some of those players have been coached to do that.
Any coach who does that ought to be run out of chess.
Precisely. This is why a handshake is indicative of nothing more than a handshake.
At this time I would like to thank everyone for their help in addressing my concern. I am now running another tournament at my site, and the discussion here helped me a great deal in handling this same question several times during this tournament.
Thank you all so much!
There is a serious flaw in this version of the TIM rule. It’s not just “Can the king take?”, it’s “Can any piece take?”.
Bill Smythe
One wonders why you don’t object that the K would find it difficult to interpose.
Unless, of course, the player has more than 1 K on the board…
It’s a lot strong.
If a player asks the TD “is this checkmate” and the correct answer is “yes”, then the game already ended when the checkmating move was determined. Therefore, if the TD says “yes”, he is not interfering during the game, he is merely confirming after the game. So there is nothing wrong with a TD saying “yes”.
(This is modulo jwiewel’s concern that, due to the pieces being put away or something, the position the TD is seeing may be different from the position that ended the game.)
Now, if the player asks “is this checkmate” and the correct answer is “no”, then the game is still in progress, so the TD may have to respond “Sorry, I can’t answer that question.”
I know, I know. Somebody is going to yelp, “Well, if the answer is ‘yes’, then the TD is allowed to answer, so by answering ‘I can’t answer’, he is giving away the correct ‘no’ answer, thus providing aid to one of the players during the game.”
To that I respond:
- Bullfeathers.
- If a player is smart enough to generate that kind of logic, then he is smart enough to find his way out of a non-existent checkmate, so he was not truly “aided” at all.
- The person who executes a bogus “checkmate” and then asks “is this checkmate” is essentially asking for aid for his opponent, so who cares?
Now, what if the player stalemates his opponent and then asks “is this checkmate”? In this case, as in the first case, the game is already over, so the TD has every right to answer. A correct answer here, of course, is “No. Stalemate. Draw. Game over.”
If one player is obviously attempting to intimidate the other, and if the above course(s) of action do not seem sufficient to produce a just result, then as far as I’m concerned the TD has every right to throw all the rulebooks out the window and come down as hard as he can on the player attempting the intimidation.
Back to the case of young or inexperienced players, I’m all in favor of creating “teaching moments” even if it involves bending some of the rules a little.
Bill Smythe
This is the crux of the issue. The approach to this problem depends strongly on the level of competition.
If it’s an in-school event for K-3, where all the players just learned how the horsey moves, then “teaching moments” are appropriate. In the World Championship…don’t be silly (although history proves that some world-class players need help on castling rules). In between is…in between.
It’s the responsibility of the Chief TD (perhaps with consultation with the Organizer) to determine a consistent policy
to be used on an event-by-event basis BEFORE the event begins. A good floor TD should be capable of implementing (without debate) whatever policy is set by the Chief TD.
I have seen events where the answer is (correctly) different, depending on the SECTION. This does make life interesting for floor TDs wandering from their primary section to help out next door - but it works.
The generic policy that I prefer involves turning this particular question about checkmate into a claim. Often, the player
ASKing the question already knows the answer, but has been coached (for reasons I understand) to always ask. If you reply “Are you claiming this is checkmate?” or “What do you think?” you now have a claim that you can rule on. In some events, it’s appropriate to then ask the opponent if they agree. If they agree, then the game is over and the result is determined.
For this reason, in medium level events (events of consequence, with some players who might be shaky on the rules) where TDs are instructed to use the Variation of NOT correcting illegal moves, etc., I actively avoid looking at the position on the board unless and until absolutely required to make a RULING. As noted, often the position now on the board did not arise during the game! But mostly because IN THESE EVENTS such decisions are explicitly left to the players.
I would not do this in the top section of an open (“adult”) event - but I would certainly do so in the K-1 section at National Scholastics. Before you argue that K-1 players need “teaching”, I remind you that this is a “national championship”. It’s not the school club ladder league. K-1 players who need “teaching” should (in my opinion) simply not be there.
Now that I have offended EVERYONE, I’ll go away.
Probably Black promoted to a White King. No doubt the resulting position wouldn’t be considered illegal. 
Hey, that gives me an idea for a contest.
Contest: What is the largest number, N, of black kings that can all be in check at the same time, in such a way that there exists a single black move that gets all the black kings out of check?
Below is my contest entry, with N=8. Contest winner is the player who submits a position that works for the largest value of N:
Bill Smythe
Bill, one problem with your solution to your contest is that there is no way for the piece giving check to have gotten to its current position without an opposing king already having been in check.
Nine. Eight-way checks with a Knight. Another King hitting the Knight that’s in check from something else. Capturing the Knight eliminates eight checks and moves out of the ninth.
Tom, I think solutions > 9 are possible, because capturing the knight can eliminate 8 checks while moving out of check from more than one piece. A position may exist with check from 8 other knights as well as checks along diagonals, ranks and files. 24 might be the upper bound, though I"m not sure if it is achievable.
How can moving one king move more than one king out of check? You can have at most eight in check from a single piece; moving a king can get it out of check but can’t block another check.
Phooey. You’re right. I guess this is an illegal position, then.
Bill Smythe
Perhaps not for all NTDs.
Perhaps white’s last move was Pe4-e5=Q. If you can have eight kings, maybe you can have promotions in the middle of the board.
Bill Smythe
Hey, you know, when I read the rulebook very carefully, I realize that it says that a pawn that reaches the eighth rank promotes, but doesn’t ever say that a pawn that reaches the fifth rank can’t promote.
Careful. kbachler might jump in here.
Bill Smythe
Um, where did the knight come from?
Oh, that’s right, it could have been promoted mid-board.
Bill Smythe