Rules Puzzle -- end of game

Running Chess Tournaments
21

I thank Bill Smythe for the puzzle, and Bill Bulkis for the forceful answer, which is indisputably correct on all points under the FIDE Laws of Chess.

I still remain uncertain that the FLC outcome is correct under the US Chess rule set. My uncertainty has two grounds:

First, unlike the stalemate rule 14A, 14D has no language indicating that the move triggering a “dead position” immediately ends the game.

Second, unlike the stalemate rule, in which the position on the board speaks for itself, the TD Tip associated with rule 14D explicitly suggests that the draw must be claimed. Yes, I know, TD Tips aren’t rules, but their presence must mean something, and if there is no requirement of a claim, then the TD Tip means nothing.

I am a strong supporter of the adoption of the FIDE Laws of Chess for all US Chess play, for a variety of reasons. The undisputable and just result of this game under the FLC is one of them.

But under US Chess, on the facts as described, I do not have a position that ends the game, and I do not have a claim of a draw. I do have a claim of a flag fall.

Under US Chess rules, White wins. I am comfortable defending this position on appeal.

22

Hmm, maybe so. Let’s see – white is a rook down, and low on time (10 seconds left compared to black’s 30 seconds), BUT he has seen this :slight_smile: thread, so he knows black is prone to having long thinks when faced with a surprise move.

IDEA!! :bulb: :bulb: :bulb: Let’s play some surprise moves that don’t fall into the dead-position trap, but which allow me to force a draw anytime I need to. It’s risk-free, because I play fast and there’s a 5-second delay, and I just might get my opponent into some long thinks and his time will expire.

BRILLIANT!!

Bill Smythe

23

I can imagine farcical situations that will require the application of the 50 move rule because players will not acquiesce to a draw in a “dead” position. In the B vs. N scenario with no pawns, each player can play on and on, knowing full well that there is no reasonable way to construct a helpmate and win the game. With increment time, they can add almost 50 minutes of time until the game is called draw by rule. If neither is inclined to make a claim, the TD under USCF rules has to wait another 25 minutes until 75 moves of the farce have occurred before he can finally intervene. With no “reasonable play” standard, it is possible for play to continue well past time. It seems really odd to allow games which can only be resolved by a helpmate to be played out. Yes, you can construct all sorts of fantasy mates, even if there is no logical or reasonable way to actually force them to happen in real time. I have seen players play on in N vs. N positions just because they can, knowing that there is a helpmate position which is easily batted away. IIRC, a woman master lost an important game on time to her opponent in such a situation because there was no delay or increment used and the arbiters denied her appeal on insufficient losing chances grounds because of the fanciful helpmates.

Since TDs under USCF rules are supposed to let the players play, another farce is possible with RP + wrong color bishop v. K. If they are using increment time, do not repeat the position three times, and move the pawn every blue moon, they can play around 300 extra moves and many hours before any of the rules kick in. Players inclined to be stubborn, hate each other, or who want to mess with the tournament, can play on because there is no “reasonable play” standard. Since they are using clocks, insufficient losing chances rules may not apply, especially if no claim is made. Under USCF rules, it would take a long time before a TD could intervene if he follows the TD non-interference proviso. You would hope that players would play with sportsmanship in mind, but this is no longer the norm.

As far as the OP position, Qg4+ is trickier but double edged if you are really low on time. If 1….Ke3 2.Qxg2, Black can play on and on trying to run White out of time. Under increment time, Black with plenty of time on his clock, can go to the loo, come back, and continue to torture White. White has to sit there and keep playing, kicking himself for not ending the game earlier with Qf4+ and stalemate. He will have to wait until he can claim repetition of position or the 50 move rule while his bladder screams for relief.

24

Mr. Magar, perhaps unwittingly, reminds us why adjournments are still a viable and useful tool, especially with increment controls.

Alex Relyea

25

I still have the special adjournment envelopes. Just in case.

As a player, I played in a tournament where the TD allowed one of the farcical positions to play out without intervening or adjourning the game. The following round started 45 minutes late because of that game. The TD stated he could not intervene because of the Rulebook and refused to adjourn the game when other participants complained.

26

Somewhat ironic, as Sudden Death is supposed to have obviated the need for adjourrnments.

27

Recommended semi-legal way for a TD to handle farcical positions that drag on and on:

  • First, keep in mind that, almost certainly, one player (or occasionally both) is being unreasonable by not agreeing to a draw. Try to punish only the unreasonable player(s).
  • Approach the game and pause the clocks.
  • Tell the players you are not adjourning the game, but that it is time to pair the next round.
  • Tell the players that, if a draw is agreed within the next five minutes, the next round will be paired accordingly.
  • Tell the players that, if one player offers a draw within the next five minutes, and the other does not accept, then in the next round the player who offered the draw will be paired as a draw, and the opponent will be paired as a win. If neither offers a draw within five minutes, both will be paired as wins.
  • Also tell the players that whichever player(s) offer or accept a draw within five minutes will be given a 30-minute break after their game finishes, before they must begin their next game. Whichever player(s) fail to offer or accept a draw within five minutes will be required to begin their next game at the scheduled starting time, even if they are also still playing their current game.
  • Restart the players’ clock and walk away.
  • Start the next round on time, except for the 0 or 1 or 2 games that involve the player(s), if any, who are being given a 30-minute break because they offered or accepted a draw within the five-minute time frame.

That oughta fix their wagons.

Bill Smythe

28

I disagree.

14D. Insufficient material to continue. The game is drawn when one of the following endings arises …
(Emphasis mine on arises.)

A position arises when a move triggers the position. There is no need for a claim by either player.

… in which the possibility of a win is excluded for either side. …

The above phrase is the very definition of a dead position.

[b]14D1. King vs king.
14D2. King vs king with bishop or knight.
14D3. King and bishop vs king and bishop, with both bishops on diagonals of the same color.

14D4. There are no legal moves that could lead to the player being checkmated by the opponent.[/b]

This last sentence is yet another way of stating the definition of a dead position.

True, the sentence is flawed. Who is “the player” and who is “the opponent”? But surely, if the definition is satisfied no matter which party is “the player” and which is “the opponent”, then we should all be able to agree that the necessary condition applies.

Another flaw, as you mentioned, is the awkward TD Tip that appears between 14D and 14D1:

TD TIP: Remember a 14D draw claim is first a draw offer.

This Tip is flawed because 14D itself explicitly talks about a position that arises, regardless of whether it is claimed. The Tip still has some value, however, because it covers a case where the draw is claimed but the claim is not valid. It’s the same as any other draw claim. If, for example, a player claims a draw by triple occurrence, but it turns out there was no triple occurrence, then the draw offer inherent in the draw claim still stands, until the opponent turns down the offer by moving a piece.

Just to throw another monkey wrench, there is yet a third flaw in 14D:

14D. Insufficient material to continue. The game is drawn when one of the following endings arises …

Why just “endings”? Why not “positions”? For that matter, what’s the definition of “endings”?

I would be much less comfortable. Given all the flaws, though, an appeals committee might let you off the hook.

+1

Bill Smythe

29

Both the agreement and disagreement are noted and valued. Thanks for the question and discussion.

30

Thank you for the thank you.

I must admit, there is just enough inexactitude, awkwardness, and wiggle room in the U.S. Chess version to make it just barely possible – maybe – to claim that FIDE and U.S. Chess might conceivably end up with different rulings in the case that started this thread.

I’d like to shed a little historical light on the TD Tip that appears between 14D and 14D1:

TD TIP: Remember a 14D draw claim is first a draw offer (Rule 14, The Drawn Game).

Rule 14 states:

14. The Drawn Game … All draw claims are also draw offers (14B).

The concept that “any draw claim is also a draw offer” first appeared in the 5th edition rulebook. (Before that, the concept may have been lurking in the background, but was never explicitly stated.) As a member of the 5th edition rulebook revision committee in 2002-2003, I (and others) pushed for this explicit inclusion, and it ended up being adopted.

5th edition editor Tim Just then added a TD Tip, similar to the above, to virtually every section of rule 14 – 14A stalemate, 14C triple occurrence, 14D insufficient material to continue, 14E insufficient material to win on time, 14F the 50-move rule, 14G both flags down, and even the now much-deprecated 14H insufficient losing chances.

It should be noted that any claim – even an invalid claim – is also a draw offer. For example, if a player claims a draw by triple occurrence, and it turns out there has not been a triple occurrence, then the draw offer is still on the table, and the opponent may accept the offer any time before he touches a piece to begin his next move.

It should also be noted that some draws, especially 14A stalemate and 14D insufficient material to continue, do not require claims; those draws are automatic. So including that TD Tip in those cases may at first seem redundant. It’s not, though, because of the possibility of an invalid claim. If a player claims a stalemate and it’s not, or a dead position and it’s not, the opponent may still accept the offer inherent in the claim.

(By the way, note that a stalemate is a special case of a dead position.)

Bill Smythe

31

I directed one of those games once. With both sides in extreme time pressure and White much better, White suddenly cried out “Stalemate!”. The players shook hands and began to put away the equipment when White’s teammate came over and pointed out a legal move. I upheld the draw.

Alex Relyea

32

I have gone so far as to claim that chess played by US rules is actually a variant of the game since a different result can occur given the exact same circumstances.

Let’s stop the insanity!

-Matt