Time control is G/40 d/5. White has 10 seconds remaining. Black has 30 seconds remaining. White to move.
White plays Qh4-f4+.
White releases the queen on f4.
White presses his clock.
Black, stunned, stares at the position for 35 seconds.
Black’s time runs out.
White says “your time has expired, I win.”
Black objects to white’s claim of a win.
White summons the arbiter.
At what point did the game end?
when white touched the queen at h4
when white picked up the queen from h4
when white deliberately placed the queen on f4
when white let go of the queen on f4
when white pressed his clock
when black’s time ran out
when white pointed out that black’s time had run out
– and what was the result?
Please, all you highly respected rules mavens who contribute frequently to these forums – Ken Ballou, Jeff Wiewel, Alex Relyea, Tom Doan, Ken Sloan, Tim Just, and a few others, you know who you are – please do not respond to this post until 9 pm Eastern time on Wednesday, June 20, 2018. Let’s give others a chance to respond first. Thank you!
Hint: FIDE and U.S.Chess rules will both give the same answer here, but the FIDE version (in this case) is better written, so let’s go with the FIDE version if there is any doubt.
okay, bill, i’ll bite. i would rule the game a draw as black has one legal move- KxQ resulting in stalemate. but, i’m probably wrong… game ended when white played Qf4+ unless black decides to resign!
I would say that the game ended when White claimed the win, and that it is indeed a win for White. Either stalemate or checkmate immediately ends the game, but the position after Qf4+ is neither. It’s not stalemate until Black captures the Queen. The “proper” result is a draw, but the rules say otherwise unless and until one player or the other claims a draw, or Black produces stalemate by capturing the White Queen.
NOTE: This is off the top of my head. I do not have either a FIDE or USCF rulebook handy to look at.
Well, as I recall the FIDE version, the game is drawn upon time forfeit if no sequence of legal moves leads to the time forfeiter being checkmated. This is the case here so the game is drawn. There was a semi-famous example of this on an arbiter’s test relatively recently, I believe.
I’m curious where USCF handles this case though; I don’t remember off the top of my head any rule covering this case.
I don’t presume to be a highly respected rules maven, but I’ll wait to post the FIDE answer until tonight.
I will say that I’m not at all certain that the US Chess rule set gives the same answer. I could be proved wrong, in which case I am certainly not a highly respected rules maven.
I’m not on the list and am only an LTD, so I’ll give my answer:
Irrelevant in this case. The only thing deliberately touching a piece does is compel the player to move that piece, but white was already compelled to move it because it is his move and he has no other piece he can legally move.
Irrelevant. There is no significance under the rules to picking up an already-touched piece.
Also irrelevant. There is no significance under the rules to placing an already-touched piece on a square without releasing it.
At this point, the move is determined as Qf4+, which makes it certain that the game if played to completion will end in a stalemate. But it is still uncertain whether the game will be played to completion. White’s flag, for example, could fall before he completes the move and black could claim that white has lost on time.
This completes the move and insures that white will not lose on this move.
This, in itself, does not complete the game. White must make a claim in order for it to mean anything.
This ends the game. Every legal move that black has will result in an immediate stalemate, but black has not made any move yet, so under Rule 14A2, the called flag fall prevails.
Under Rule 13Cb, white wins the game. Note that under Rule 14E, white has mating material, so the game is not a draw.
I have no idea whether things work this way under FIDE rules, since I am not a certified FIDE arbiter.
This outcome might seem unfair, since any move black made would have resulted in an immediate stalemate. But black should have known he was short on time, and delayed because he had expected to win and was still looking for a way to do it. It is one of the ways that reluctance to accept an unpleasant result can actually make the result even worse.
White should call out, “Checkmate!” The rules say that checkmate ends the game. While Black sits there confused, White scoops up the pieces and marks the result. That type of thing happens at scholastic tournaments.
If Black’s time runs out and he does not or refuses to make a move, does he still get the benefit of a later stalemate claim? Does he not have to point out that his next move will cause a stalemate? Does the lateness of the claim matter?
Add new wrinkles. What if neither has a complete scoresheet and the pieces have been put away. Both players make a claim that they have checkmate or stalemate. No witnesses. TD/arbiter was not at the board. Each player is willing to create a final position of sorts. Both adamant that they are correct.
This is an interesting question. First of all, let’s get the result:
For FIDE this is simple. It is a draw because there are no sequence of legal moves that lead to checkmate for White (Law 6.9). Though this isn’t always easy to see, this rule is very simple and concise.
For USCF it’s a little more complicated. Rule 13Cb indicates that white wins as long as he has mating material. A queen is definitely mating material. It’s still on the board, so it still counts. Rule 14E describes what is valid mating material. However, rule 14D4 is going to override this. 14D4 is similar to FIDE law 6.9: Draw if there are no legal moves that could lead the player to being checkmated. The difference, though, is that 14D4 doesn’t apply to the clock. It applies if both players have this situation. 14D4 is actually FIDE’s equivalent of law 5.2.2 (The game is drawn when a position has arisen in which neither player can checkmate the opponent’s king with any series of legal moves. The game is said to end in a ‘dead position’. This immediately ends the game…)
With the only legal moves available there is no possibility of checkmate by either side, so this is a draw.
So, based on this when does the game “end”. Normally (and probably practically speaking), the game would end on point 7 for both USCF and FIDE. Though philosophically you might argue that FIDE ends it on point 6, there’s no way to actually do this. How does anyone know until the clock is noticed. FIDE law 6.8 backs this up: A flag is considered to have fallen when the arbiter observes the fact or when either player has made a valid claim to that effect…
However, since this position is a forced stalemate in one move, this can easily be seen as a dead position, which immediately ends the game in both sets of rules. Therefore, I’d have to say the game is over on point 4 when white fully determined the move. I suppose technically with any absolutely forced stalemate position the game is already over before stalemate actually occurs. Though, practically speaking, it may be easier to play it out than claim it. The end result is the same either way.
FIDE rules are clear on this. Once the Queen has been released on f4 the game is a draw, as the force sequence of moves that follow can only lead to a draw [i.e. Kxf4 is force by Black & that results in a stalemate position]. I believe the term “Dead Position” was mentioned in another post. I may not be on the list, but it is after the posted (9 EST) time for the “TD Mavins” listed. I would never put myself on that list, but I did just take an online FIDE Arbiter course about 1 month ago.
It seems pretty clear to me that White’s claim of a win on time is valid, since his queen is still on the board. I’m not sure what Black would base his objection on,
unless Whites’ clock had also expired in which case a draw can be claimed. Black was certainly being foolish in this situation; if there is only one legal move then what is there to think about? He left himself vulnerable to a forced stalemate, better to take the 1/2 point and call it a day.
It appears to me that your answer, as worded, is contradictory. If the game really ends at point 7, then I think it should be ruled that white wins on the basis of Rule 13Cb. What I think you are really claiming (and what black would have to be claiming) is that the game really ended at point 4 because of Rule 14D4. This would be more or less equivalent to the situation where player A makes a move creating a stalemate and his flag falls before either player realizes it is a stalemate, or he hits his button and player B’s flag falls before either player realizes it is a stalemate. Rules 14A1 and 14A3 make it pretty clear that the stalemate takes precedence over the fallen flag.
What makes the USCF rules confusing is that Rule 14E seems, by its wording, to indicate that it is listing a special set of insufficient material conditions that apply even when someone’s flag has fallen: “The game is drawn even when a player exceeds the time limit if one of the following conditions exists…” It would clearly make no sense to interpret this rule as meaning that the occurrence of one of the listed conditions would override a fallen flag if the flag fall had occurred before the determination of the move that created the listed condition. Instead, it must be saying that a flag fall when one of the listed conditions already exists will result in a draw rather than a win for the opponent of the player with the fallen flag. But listing it immediately after Rule 14D, which has another list of insufficient material conditions that contains no “even when a player exceeds the time limit” clause might be taken to imply that Rule 14D (and hence 14D4) does not take precedence over a fallen flag.
The USCF rules need to be changed to place Rule 14E as a subcategory of Rule 13C rather than Rule 14, since it is defining a set of circumstances in which a time forfeit results in a draw rather than a win - not an additional type of draw situation that is on a par with stalemate, agreement, triple occurrence of position, insufficient material to continue, the 50-move rule, etc. Or, at the very least, it should be retitled “Flag Down When Opponent Has Insufficient Material to Win” and placed next to Rule 14G.
Practically speaking, given the short time, is it better for White to play either 1 Qe4+ or 1 Qg4+ rather than 1 Qf4+? Maybe so if White has 30 seconds, and Black 10.
Yes, I did mean that the game ended on point 4 in accordance with 14D4. I probably wasn’t clear on this as I could have been. I was more referring to technically ended vs practically ended. Technically it’s over on point 4. In practice in similar situations players may play on anyway until point 7 is reached or it ends in agreement or an actual stalemate.
Realistically 14E can be removed in its entirety (perhaps converted to a TD tip) and replaced with the equivalent FIDE law (6.9). The intent of 14E is just a convoluted way to describe Law 6.9. However, because of 14E I believe there are positions that would be a draw in USCF and a win in FIDE. Does that make 14E better or worse? Most of those positions are ridiculous win possibilities, so perhaps it’s better. Then again, a possibility of a win is still a possibility…
Congratulations to Bill Buklis and Larry Cohen for nailing what I strongly consider to be the only correct answer, which is answer choice number 4. The game ended when white released the queen on f4. That action created what FIDE calls a “dead position”, a position where there is no sequence of legal moves leading to either player checkmating the other. When such a situation arises, the game is over – draw.
What happens after the game is over – any subsequent claims, time expirations, resignations, etc – are irrelevant because, well, the game is over.
Obviously I should have included Bill Buklis on my mavens’ list. My apologies for the omission. Larry Cohen has said he does not want to be on such a list, but he hit the nail on the head with this one.
Congratulations also to 10mostwanted and Alexander Katz, each of whom essentially had the right answer, but allowed a slight red herring – either resignation or time forfeit – to creep into the conversation a bit.
Interesting comments were also contributed by some, even though they did not attempt to answer the question directly.
That’s where it can be really important to know the rule set which applies. Wasn’t there a recent game where a GM flagged playing K+R vs K+N? Under US chess rules, there is no risk in playing on and possibly flagging (and it’s way, way harder to try to win that with the R than defend it with the N) but under FIDE rules, the K+N has a helpmate, so flagging loses.
I would be extremely annoyed if my opponent, playing white in the above position, claimed a 14E draw and the TD granted the claim. Even though the claim is correct under U.S.Chess 14E, I would have wanted the TD to delay his ruling for a move or two, hoping for 1.h6?? Ng5 and mate next.
It’s this kind of situation that makes FIDE dislike 14E-type rules. Every so often there’s a plausible way the opponent might lose. It’s simply easier to consider the existence of a helpmate to be grounds for not granting a draw claim.
There are ways to fix 14E – maybe – such as by allowing the opponent (black in the above example) of the player claiming a draw to demand a 10-move extension. Give the other player (white in the example) an extra minute on his clock, and if he can make 10 moves without getting checkmated and without time-forfeiting, he gets his draw, otherwise he loses.
But that’s a little artificial. Maybe it’s best just to do it FIDE’s way. With most events (including blitz) now being played with increment or delay, 14E may no longer be necessary.
Depending on your viewpoint 14E is either good or bad. For example, lone bishop vs lone knight is a win for FIDE if either side flags, but a draw in USCF 99.9% of the time. Which is better? Most of the time the players will agree on a draw anyway with this material or it’s an easy 50 move or repetition. Perhaps that makes the USCF rule better. But, a win is possible for either side, even if very unlikely. I’ll let others debate the merits of this.