FIDE rule 8.7 provides that the result indicated on the countersigned scoresheets is dispositive “unless the arbiter decides otherwise.”
FIDE rule 5.1(b) provides that the game is won by the player “whose opponent declares he resigns.” A handshake is not a declaration.
So, if I THINK I am checkmated in one move, I cannot think of resigning?
How about if my opponent makes a move, and I THINK it is checkmate. My opponent doesn’t say checkmate, because it isn’t. But I THINK it is checkmate. Am I allowed to THINK of resigning?
No, because it is impossible to think you ARE checkmated in one move. You can only think you WILL BE checkmated in one move.
You can as much think of resigning as you can think of turning into a purple whale. You can just as easily turn into a purple whale as you can resign a game that is already over.
Here’s my problem with allowing the game to continue. How are we to interpret the actions of the players before the specator has intervened? We are told that A has announced “checkmate.” The players have stopped the clocks and shaken hands, and are about to clear the board of pieces. Clearly, A thinks that he has won the game. My question is, what is B thinking at this point?
Do both players think the game is over? Based on the actions of stopping the clocks and being about to clear the board of pieces, I think the only reasonable interpretation is that both players believe the game is over.
Does B think he has won the game, or that the game is drawn? Assuming that B understands what “checkmate” means, I can’t see any reasonable basis for this.
So, before the spectator interferes, my interpretation of the players’ actions leads me to think that A believes he has won the game and B believes he has lost the game. Again, I have difficulty believing this is not an instance of a result agreed to by both players.
It is quite true that B has not said the words “I resign” or tipped over his king. However, at least to me, player B’s actions before the spectator interfered tell me clearly that player B has conceded the game.
Mr. Price is quite correct in his assertion that when TD certification exam questions involve interpretation of a handshake, the correct answer is that the handshake is meaningless. However, I note that typically such a question concerns acceptance of a draw offer or an ambiguity between a win and a draw. In the current hypothetical, the relevant question is whether there is a meeting of the minds of the two players regarding the outcome of the game. Again, at the risk of being repetitive, the only reasonable interpretation I can make of the players’ actions before the spectator’s interference is that there is a meeting of the minds.
Mr. Scheible asks what the harm is in allowing the players to continue the game. My answer is that the harm is to player A. After (in my interpretation) the players have agreed upon the result of the game, the spectator’s interference would allow player B a second “bite at the apple” if the game were to continue.
Allow me to pose a slightly different hypothetical that eliminates the spectator interference. Suppose A incorrectly announces “checkmate.” Suppose B stops the clock and shakes A’s hand. Now, suppose the players go into the skittles room without reporting a result (the usual manner being to write the result on the pairing sheet) and analyze the game. The players realize that the position on the board was not checkmate. Player A then returns to the pairing sheet to record the result, but player B goes to the TD and asks that the game continue. The clock has not been reset and still shows the times for the two players. How does the TD rule?
Ken has nailed this one.
The rigid assumption that “a handshake is meaningless” is a fallacy. The central question should always be, “Was there a meeting of the minds?”.
In this case, it surely appears that the handshake (along with the other actions of the players) represented a meeting of the minds. So a ruling that the game is over is reasonable.
A rather more common case occurs when A extends his hand, B accepts the handshake believing A is resigning, and then A insists he was offering a draw. In this case, the handshake is indeed meaningless because there was obviously no meeting of the minds, so the TD’s only reasonable ruling is that the game must continue.
Still, having said all of that, I must admit that in the original example with the non-checkmate, there could be wiggle room for the TD. The TD might feel that the player falsely announcing mate (whether deliberately or not) has unfairly pressured the opponent, and that the opponent therefore deserves a break via a game-not-over ruling.
Tough call.
Bill Smythe
I have more sympathy for the meeting-of-the-minds argument advanced by Messrs. Ballou and Smythe than I do for the handshake = resignation argument advanced by others.
But if the meeting of the minds is induced in whole or part by an erroneous declaration, intentional or not, on the part of the player that benefits, a very high level of scrutiny is warranted in determining whether there has really been such a meeting.
What would meet such a high level of scrutiny? Any number of things that are standard practice in either USCF or FIDE play. Countersigned results slip? Absolutely dispositive. Countersigned scoresheets with results indicated? Also absolutely dispositive. A verbal or absolutely unmistakable physical declaration, such as “I resign,” “You win,” tipping the king, or sweeping the pieces off the board in disgust? Dispositive any day of the week. A result posted on a pairing sheet gets more dispositive as time passes.
But a handshake, and only a handshake? Nuh uh. Not when it was induced in part by an incorrect assertion. To rule otherwise only incentivizes aggressive, persuasive, incorrect assertions, and the ugly truth is that there is a small but measurable portion of our competitors who already take this approach even without incentive to do so.
On the facts given, I direct play to continue, and I would comfortably and vigorously defend that decision on appeal.
Who argued that? As far as I know everyone was going by the original post, that included “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”.
In general, any td decision must include all the facts, not just one. And would probably also include talking to Player B to find out his intentions. I’ve found that most players are honest and in all likelihood that would finish the discussion on intent.
I contend that allowing the faux checkmate to stand harms B. Falsely announcing checkmate can certainly be considered a disturbing act, and players should not be rewarded for it.
Could rule that a double-forfeit for not reporting results. 
If the scoresheets are signed with that result, I would have it stand. If not, dock them equally for the time spent before resumption, and let it continue.
“The play’s the thing.”
In the OP, the game is over; the players agreed that there was a checkmate.
All the facts also includes this critical tidbit from the original post, which you omit in your recitation:
Does that have anything at all to do with whether they agreed that the game was over and that Player W won?
Where in Rule 13 is an agreement that the game is over (assuming, arguendo, but incorrectly, that the OP illustrates a valid agreement) a basis for finding a decisive game?
Hint: The lack of an actual checkmate eliminates Rule 13A as a basis. The lack of an actual resignation eliminates Rule 13B.
It’s 13B, his resignation.
I only have 5th edition here at home: “Likewise, the offer of a handshake is not necessarily a resignation. On occasion, one player believes the handshake agrees to a draw while the other interprets it as resignation.”
How do you think that Player B interprets his handshake. (Of course, best would be to ask him.) But all the evidence is that both Player W and Player B are in agreement on how the game ended. When something is “not necessarily”, that generally means that it usually is, but there are exceptions.
Using your argument, suppose one player just picks up the pieces and starts walking toward the pairing sheet to mark the result. Halfway there he realizes there is a defense to immediate mate and turns around and goes back to the board, resets the pieces, makes his saving move, and starts his opponent’s clock. Are you saying he can do that? After all he didn’t say he resigns and he didn’t reach the pairing the sheet to mark it?
This, I think, may be the most astute analysis so far.
Let’s consider a couple of in some ways similar scenarios:
Scenario #1:
Player W moves and then announces, not a checkmate, but a checkmate in one move, saying “Your only alternatives are a and b. If you choose a, I will move x and it’s checkmate. But if you move b, I will move y and it’s 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 move y really wouldn’t be checkmate. Player B tries at that point to take back his concession of defeat.
Should the game continue because W’s claim of a checkmate in one move turned out to be false? Is this scenario inherently different from one in which W announced a checkmate (i.e., a checkmate in zero moves rather than in one move)? If you believe the game should continue, should B receive an extra 2 minutes because of W’s mistaken claim?
Scenario #2:
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 player B suddenly realizes that the position isn’t checkmate and declares that the game should continue.
Should the game continue, even though B had conceded defeat, since B realized on his own that the position wasn’t checkmate?
My observations:
Scenario #1 differs from the original scenario only in the fact that B was conceding that he would inevitably be checkmated in one move, rather than conceding that he had already been checkmated.
Scenario #2 differs from the original scenario only in the fact that B realized on his own that the position was not checkmate instead of having it pointed out to him by S. It seems clear that B believed when he shook hands with W that W had won, but I would be inclined to insist that play continue, since B realized his mistake before they had cleared the board or reported the result. I would be taking into account the fact that the whole thing began because W made an erroneous claim of checkmate, and would also recognize that (even though there appears to be no evidence of this) it is at least possible that W could have made this erroneous claim deliberately in the hope that B would fall for it.
I don’t think that conceding defeat in response to an announcement by the opponent of checkmate in one move is inherently different from conceding defeat in response to an announcement by the opponent of checkmate in zero moves.
Both the original scenario and scenario #1 are clear cases where Rule 20E2 would be relevant. Insisting that play continue would entail an acknowledgement that the game was not really over, in which it would be a clear case of unsolicited advice for S to point out that the position was not really checkmate. Assuming that 20E2i did not apply (i.e., S was not a relative, close friend, or teammate of B), I would consider the situation most similar to 20E2d. Before ruling, though, I would want to ask a number of questions, without explaining to them until afterward why I wanted to know the answers:
Are W, B, and S in agreement that W and B shook hands?
If so, why does B say that he shook W’s hand?
Did S know that it is against the rules to give advice to other players while they are still playing? If so, why did he do so? If he says that he thought their game was over, I’d ask what made him think that.
I suspect (and I’d hope) that the answers to these questions might provide a satisfying basis for making a fair ruling.
Bob
I believe it is essential to bear in mind that chess is a game strictly between the two players. Absent the involvement of the spectator, it seems unlikely in the original hypothesis that player B would have had a flash of insight, seen that the position on the board was not checkmate, and resumed the game. Rather, it seems likely that the result would have been reported as a win for player A. I do not see why player B is entitled to benefit from the intrusive involvement of the spectator.
I am not unsympathetic to the argument that it is poor sportsmanship for a player to try to intimidate an opponent into quitting the game by falsely claiming the position is checkmate. However, USCF rules are “claim driven”; except for very limited cases, a TD does not intervene in the game unless one of the players makes a claim. The onus is therefore on the opponent to ignore anything the player says and to determine for himself whether he is checkmated. The burden is also on the opponent to complain to a TD about the player’s behavior. Inexperienced players may not realize this; sadly, some lessons must be learned through painful experience. (The TD certification exams, at least at the higher level, cover this point as well.)
That is an interesting ruling. I confess I have difficulty imagining it would be upheld on appeal were player A to appeal.
To appeal, there would need to be a different result. (If A does ultimately win the game, he will not appeal the ruling.) But at least in having them continue the game, there is the possibility of a different result to appeal. A remedy exists – allowing A’s win to stand.
But let us say we do NOT allow the game to continue, and B appeals. What remedy is there? What result could be ascribed to the game?
I much prefer making a ruling that will allow a clear remedy on appeal, rather than one that is less likely to win an appeal, but for which there is no remedy even if the appellant is in the right.
I look at it as the fumble analogy in football. Even if the referee thinks the runner is down before he fumbles, he should allow play to continue, because if he is wrong, and the runner was NOT down before he fumbled, there is no way to properly rectify the situation.
A compromise ruling might be to have the game continue, and if B wins or draws, grant the win to A and have B file an appeal. (In essence, allow the play to continue until it is clearly over, and THEN rule that the player was down by contact.) Explain that you had them continue the game so that there could be a different result to ask for in his appeal.
It is not uncommon, when players are going over a game in the skittles room, for spectators, both interested and disinterested, to comment on the game. If both players are weak enough that they don’t know when a position is mate, isn’t it likely that the “mated” player would be assisted, perhaps materially, by these spectators?
Let’s assume that the “mating” player isn’t a member of the TDCC, or perhaps even a TD. Is he going to know what all his options are when the TD tells him to go back to finish his game, or is he more likely to fume, and perhaps refuse to go back and play out the game that he thinks he won?
Alex Relyea
In which case, they have left without reporting results. They BOTH lose! :mrgreen:
I would never make a ruling based on my (potentially erroneous) ruling being corrected on appeal. Never. A TD should make the best possible decision based on the facts he or she has. In my opinion, the football analogy is not correct either. Referees make calls based on what they see, in a split moment. Not because, if they are wrong, corrective action can be taken on appeal. Be that as it may, this is not football.
The actions of the players in the scenario posed indicates that the game was over. The job of the TD is to verify that the game was over (even if for a moment before the interference) and what is the result. So…as Bob (I believe) suggested, instead of guessing and overthinking the situation, you…ask questions! If Black agrees that he shook hands, the game was stopped, they were about to clear the board because he thought he had been checkmated and, therefore, had lost the game, then…the game is over! He lost. Black can argue that he did so only because he was given erroneous information by the opponent. Too bad. Lesson learned. Any time your opponent claims checkmate, you check the board and do not agree to your opponent winning until you have verified he, in fact, has. Otherwise, this constitutes resignation.
On a personal note, once I glanced at a game that my then-young teenage son was playing against an adult. My son had his opponent’s Queen pinned to the King, but the adult grabbed the Queen, moved it to the first rank (on my son’s side) and said “Checkmate!” It would have been a so-called back-rank checkmate as my son’s King would have had no escape. At that moment, I feared that my son was going to shake hands and agree with the result. Talk about a nervous parent. Much to my satisfaction, my son looked at the board for a few seconds, and calmly told his opponent “No, your Queen is pinned.”
That’s a really poor analogy. The referee needs to make a snap judgment based upon perhaps imperfect sight of the play involved. You’re talking about intervening in a game where the players apparently have come to a mutual decision as to the result, quoting Shakespeare rather than an actual rule as the justification. Why would you make a ruling which should be and will be overturned on appeal?