Here’s a situation that really happened recently; it isn’t uncommon, I suspect.
Player W makes a move, announces “Checkmate”. Player B looks at the board for a little bit, shakes his/her head, reaches across the table. The clocks are stopped (it is unknown who actually stopped the clock), and the players shake hands. Players are about to clear the pieces from the board, when another player (Player S) on a neighboring board points out that it isn’t actually checkmate.
I thought this situation was covered in the rulebook, under a TD tip or something, but I cannot find it.
My questions:
(1) Since the players implicitly agreed that this was a checkmate (i.e., they shook hands and stopped the clock), is the game over, and Player D has won?
(2) If (1) is true, is Player S considered interfering in the game, since the game is technically over?
(3) If (1) is not true (i. e., the game should continue with Player B being on the move), would Player S be considered interfering with a game in progress?
(4) Is something else the correct ruling here?
(5) Is this situation covered in the rulebook?
Note that this happened recently between a teen (Player W) and an adult (Player B), both rated above 1200.
Based on the behavior of the players (stopping the clock, shaking hands, ready to clear the pieces from the board), the two players have agreed to a result. The game is over at that point. The agreed result stands. The opponent of the player who incorrectly announced “checkmate” has resigned the game.
The spectator does need to be educated, even though he has technically not interefered in a game in progress.
Which rule has the player who incorrectly announced “checkmate” violated? What is the justification for assessing a penalty against that player?
Thatt makes no sense to me. By that reasoning a player could renege on their resignation while walking to report the result. Moreover, their previous actions clearly indicated acceptance of having lost the game. Even though that occurred based on an incorrect checkmate announcement, they still acknowledged defeat.
To call his opponent’s actions “unethical” is only valid if it was intentional. Nothing in the situation described implies that.
By player B by shaking hands AFTER player W announced “Checkmate” demonstrates that player B agrees and it is a clear indication of resigning.
Player S should be alerted that ANY interference in a game can result in penalties up to and including removal from the tournament.
Interference is usually done by young players. Most of the local young players I know either their coach or parent. I simply tell them that if it happens again I will tell and that they may have to lose time, lose their game in progress or be removed from the tournament. I ask them, to be sure we are connecting, what the Coach or Parent would feel about that and they understand it would be not good for them. That remedies and future problems with that child.
The players have agreed on nothing, absent a reported result. A handshake ain’t nothin’ but a handshake. Ever.
The game isn’t over.
Yes, and my response would vary depending on the situation.
If this were a tournament such as a national scholastic,–where longstanding policy is that recognition of checkmate is an element of chess literacy, and that player agreement on the result of the game is decisive upon a completed results slip, regardless of the actual position on the board–I would penalize S fairly severely.
In any other setting, S gets no more than a slap on the wrist, barring repeat offender status or exacerbating circumstances not stated.
You may consider awarding the non-announcing player a discretionary time penalty in compensation, but that’s up to your discretion.
The rulebook presumes chess literacy on the part of the players. You won’t find anything there about misannounced checkmates, because it reasonably presumes players will correctly recognize them. At the end of the day, none of the game-ending conditions exist (no mate, no resignation, no agreement to a draw), so the game continues. Again, a handshake ain’t nothin’ but a handshake.
You won’t find the practice at national scholastics codified or supported in the rulebook anywhere. It’s one of the several practices imposed by what Tim Just has called “the tail that wags the dog.” This particular practice has a pretty good pedagogical reason behind it, to be fair.
I don’t have the 6th edition here, but in the 5th:
13B. Resignation. …Likewise, the offer of a handshake in not necessarily a resignation. On occasion, one player believes the handshake agrees to a draw while the other interprets it as a resignation.
In this case it is clear that both players agreed to a result. There is no misinterpretation between a draw and a loss.
A handshake by USCF rules is generally more than a handshake.
Funny. I’ve earned full marks on every TD exam question I’ve ever taken in which a handshake was an “element,” and I did so by asserting (correctly) that it’s a non element.
You guys really think crediting a “resignation” prompted by an incorrect “checkmate” claim is any more defensible than awarding White a win after 1.e4 e5 2.Bc4 Nf6 3. Qxf7"#"? The kindest thing I can say in response is that I’m stunned.
A handshake is just a handshake unless there is some valid comment to state what it is. There have been other cases where two players shook hands with one thinking it was a draw and the other thinking it was a resignation.
I was involved in a case in a scholastic tournament with both players standing where one player erroneously claimed checkmate and the other player reflexively shook hands with one hand while capturing the checking queen with another. The NTD floor chief stated the game should continue. As the ANTD chief I stated that their was no valid comment to say what the handshake meant, so the handshake should be ignored and the game should continue. The appeals committee had a SrTD outvoted by a LocalTD and a ClubTD saying the the game was a win by the player falsely claiming checkmate (because of the handshake). The rules committee used that as one example of a case where an appeals committee needs to have people of at least the level of the TDs being appealed, because in this particular case a LocalTD and ClubTD overruled a SrTD, ANTD and NTD.
At national scholastics the players have a TD sign a results sheet. When one player says that the other player checkmated them, and it isn’t a checkmate, my response is to ask the “losing” player “who won”. When that player says that the other person won then that becomes a resignation rather than a false checkmate.
And yet, in the case in question, no-one resigned. Resignation ends the game, but so does a checkmate. If one is checkmated, one cannot resign. Thus, if one THINKS one is checkmated, he cannot THINK of resigning.
So, once more: What is the harm of letting the game continue?