Well, that does it. If the consensus is that USCF’s rules condone the benefitting party’s mistake and/or fraud in the inducement of a resignation, then my future events will utilize the FIDE laws of chess and require countersigned scoresheets. Because that requires a level of contemplative solemnization that can reasonably be held against the “losing” party.
A handshake doesn’t, and the opinions of several people I respect on this thread don’t change that.
For the purposes of this answer, I will assume that I had no visual on any of these events, and I will further assume that B is now disputing W’s claim of a win (which wasn’t actually stated in the OP).
What I’d do to resolve it would be the following:
I’d take W and B out of the room, and talk to them separately.
First, I’d ask B what he intended by his handshake.
[list=A][*]If B says, “I thought the game was over”, “I thought I lost”, etc., then I rule that W wins.
If B says anything else, I leave him where he is, and go talk with W.
[/:m][]I ask W what he intended by his handshake.[/:m]
[]I then bring W and B together (IF I think they will be civil), and have a very brief discussion.[/:m]
[]If the discussion doesn’t produce a consensus, I go talk with the players at neighboring boards, provided I find them to be impartial.[/:m]
[]I’d then rule based on evaluating the evidence gathered in the previous steps.[/:m]
[]I figure out the maximum reasonable penalty I can levy against S, and do so.[/*:m][/list:o]
In general, I hold that a handshake, in the absence of any other physical or verbal declaration, is not dispositive. However, in this situation, the players were even moving to pack up the set (so they probably had bags out, were reaching for captured pieces, etc.). This is a pretty clear physical indication to me that they both think the game is over. Also, in this situation, W declared a checkmate just before all this happened. B’s only reply was to offer to shake hands (so W didn’t even extend his hand first) and reach for the containers for the equipment. I’d have to say that’s a pretty compelling visual argument for accepting W’s claim of a win. I’m unclear how B justifies hearing a checkmate declared by his opponent, shaking his head, offering a handshake, shaking hands, and going to put away the pieces, only to then claim that he didn’t think the game was over.
All that said…the reason I generally do not regard handshakes alone as evidence has to do with the lack of clarity in most non-verbal gestures. Laying one’s king on its side is a universal gesture of resignation. Stopping the clocks and extending/accepting a handshake is not. However, I believe many players simply assume that stopping the clocks and briefly shaking hands is a correct way to resign, because it’s impersonal and quiet. It’s that misunderstanding that leads to situations like this (if B had said, “I resign”, or even, “Good game”, prior to extending his hand, then there’s no discussion to be had). This comes up from time to time, especially in a game where neither player speaks a common language.
EDIT: I apologize to Mr. Bernard for previously, and improperly, using the word “hypothetical”. I’ve changed that to “situation” as appropriate.
You are taking the wrong message from the football analogy. It is not a question of whether the decision must be made instantly – that it not the point of the analogy. The point is that it if he allows play to continue, then there is a remedy if his decision is incorrect. If he does not allow play to continue, there is no such remedy.
For myself, I would rather take a larger risk of being overturned if that will result in the lesser damage to the injured party if my decision is overturned.
If I rule for the game to continue, and am overturned on appeal, then the appellant gets his win.
If I rule that the game is over, and am overturned on appeal, what result would the appeals committee give to the game?
Again, I firmly believe that a TD needs to make decisions based on the facts present, without consideration to the appeal process making things right if he or she makes the wrong decision. Letting games continue because players have the appeal process at their disposal is, in my opinion, the wrong approach to tournament directing. Sure, there will be times when that is the correct decision but that should be, again, based on the facts surrounding the game.
Agreed. But if the facts present allow for two defensible decisions, I contend that the one which allows for correction is the better decision.
In this case, as I said, one could rule for the win to stand, AND for the game to continue so that, if there is a different result, the appeals committee could apply that result if it overturns the ruling “on the field”.
This would be like the football referee allowing play to continue, THEN ruling that the runner did not fumble, but was down by contact. If the replay shows he was wrong, then the later result could be applied.
Many “fumbles” are whistled dead even after being “recovered”. False starts are whistled dead immediately. Referees who let plays continue in case the appeal goes a different way are actually performing a DIS-service by allowing potential injuries and exhaustion to occur.
When the facts are uncertain, you make a decision that allows play to continue. When the facts are certain you make a decision supported by the facts.
I have let erroneous but mutually perceived checkmates and stalemates stand (during verification generally asking the “checkmated” or “stalemating” player what the result was, and thus getting a statement that is equivalent to a resignation, or a draw offer which a follow-up verification with the opponent converts to an accepted offer).
My earlier example (player reflexively shaking an offered hand with the right hand while reaching out with the left hand and playing the capturing move that ends the check) is one where it isn’t clear what the handshake means and no valid comment was made to clarify it.
My other example was the common one of two players shaking hands with one thinking it is a draw and the other thinking it is a resignation.
The “sharp practices” player is one who is obviously lost and says “draw” as the hands touch, one who is losing and almost inaudibly whispers “draw” while extening a hand, or one whose opponent has an obvious draw and says “I accept your resignation” as the hands touch. I don’t accept any of these sharp practices as indicating the players were in agreement.
If it is clear that both players are in agreement then rule that way. Just check to make sure both players were in agreement.
Interestingly, play is NOT stopped for an off-side penalty (unless the defender has an “unabated” path to the quarterback). Why? Because is it quite possible for the offence to have a better outcome than the penalty would give them. (This is not so likely with a false start.) But the false start is the exception. Holding (also an offensive penalty), does not stop play. I believe those two (false start and off-sides “unabated to the quarterback”) are the ONLY penalties that stop play.
I do the same in the children’s tournaments. It does avoid these problems.
However, if the potentially checkmated player asks whether a position is a checkmate, I try to walk them through the process of determining that:
Are you in check?
From what piece or pieces?
What are the three possible ways to get out of check?
Can you do the first?
Can you do the second?
Can you do the third?
If the checkmating player asks, I simply respond with YES or NO.
So under your procedure, if a player B stops the clock, reaches out his hand to the opponent, stands up, starts to pack the set away, and the opponent mentions, “hey, you could have played Ne5 and then if I queen, you play Nc6 and fork my Queen and King”, player B can say “thanks. I didn’t sign my scoresheet”, sets the position up, plays Nc6 and re-starts the clock, the game apparently continues because A wasn’t smart enough to keep his mouth shut until he had a countersigned scoresheet. You think that’s an improvement?
Under the OP given fact situation, the game is over. Once the TD determines that a resignation has occurred, then the result will be a loss. How he determines that will be based on reviewing all of the facts and asking questions of each player. From the facts in evidence, it clear that Player B, whether he was mistaken in his understanding or not, resigned the game.
Many player do not shake hands when they resign. Or sign scoresheets. Or even mark their losing score on the pairing sheet. The totality of the actions of the players indicate a resignation. As for the spectator, his relevance is in regard to how far the TD is going to kick him out of the room for making a comment. Spectators have no standing. Player A made his misstatement of checkmate in good faith. It might have been an excited utterance, a hallucination. Player B accepted it, wrongly of course, but he did accept the result. If Player A did make his call as a trick, or an intimidation, then that would change some of the facts and I might not rule to favor him; that would be inequitable.
On the scholastic level, there are situations all of the time where a player resigns in error, where there is not mating material, or some other infirmity in the position. The results generally stand because of the resignation, unless a TD decides to insert himself into the game and make a chess decision, not just a rules decision.
I originally posted this question and I appreciate all the thoughtful and passionate replies. I do hope that this situation is address in the 7th edition of the rule book, as there are clearly strong arguments on both sides.
Here’s the conclusion to the story, as it happened.
As stated previously, they were about to clear the board of pieces, and player S (the spectator) indicated that the move was not checkmate. Player W and Player B looked at the board and realized Player S was correct. Player B (the higher-rated adult who was ‘faux’ checkmated) said something to the effect of “Oh man! But I agreed that it was checkmate, and so you [Player W] have won”. Player W (the teenage faux checkmater) felt terrible that this happened and that he had won the game in this manner, so Player W insisted that they restart the game – indeed, Player W was now in a completely losing position. Player B (the adult), seeing that now he would clearly win the game, immediately and graciously offered a draw, which Player W accepted.
In my opinion, this was high-class sportsmanship all around…
Indeed it was. I wonder how many of the TDs who would have ruled that a resignation had occurred (which I believe is correct) would have overruled the draw and insisted that Player W won had they actually witnessed the full incident. You could make an argument for that, but I (a non-TD) would hate to see such an illustration of sportsmanship go unrewarded.
I would think a factor in play would be how much time is there
before the next round. However, in most cases, I would have simply forced the result agreed upon. Clear and simple, clearly
following the written rule. Sportsmanship-yes, but perhaps a little
folly as well on the part of the ‘better’ player. Chess ceases quite
often to be a serious game when ‘takebacks’ etc are allowed. And
this seems to me to be one huge ‘takeback’
Note that in the OP and in the final version, among the facts there is no indication that a TD was summoned to the table by either player for a ruling. Under those conditions, if the players agree to a result, then that result stands. I as a TD, using USCF rules, do not have to get involved.
I have to disagree with this statement. There is no rule that addresses this situation or even other similar situations. We can only make a determination based on rules that govern other situations. What that determination is is clearly under debate as there are many differences of opinion in this thread.
There is nothing in the rules about “checkmate (or also stalemate) by agreement”. There is nothing in the rules about if you think it’s checkmate, even though it isn’t, then you’ve resigned.
I think this may be a gaping hole in the rules. There should at least be a TD tip to address this as it comes up quite often (especially in scholastic play).
The one issue I have with “agreeing it’s checkmate” equals resignation is that with most scholastic players, there is no such thing as resignation. These players play to the bitter end, no matter what material is or isn’t on the board. If you asked the player who thought he lost if he resigned, then he’d unequivocally say “No, I was checkmated” or something to that effect. If there was any possibility that the game wasn’t actually over, they would keep playing even if a loss was eventually certain anyway.
So, why should we force a resignation on them when that was not their intent?
OK, obviously there has to be some point that we have to declare the game over. But, if the players are still at the board, the pieces haven’t been put away, the results haven’t been reported, then why not let the game continue? Now, with the spectator pointing out the mistake, that becomes a little thorny. That might be an exception to let the initial result stand.
Quit saying that the player resigned. Resignation doesn’t become a factor. How many times have you said “I resign” after having been checkmated? The question is was there agreement?
I used to go through the 3-ways to get out of check with students who asked me to confirm the checkmate. Now, I simply ask the player being checkmated if they agree; this usually settles the issue. If they don’t agree, then I tell them to find a way out. I don’t consider TDs to be instructors during tournaments. It’s up to the players to determine their results, and report them to me. On the other hand, if I find that it is, in fact, a mate, then I will answer yes, and have them report the result. This takes me, as the TD, as far out of the game as possible.
I don’t see it as “a gaping hole in the rules.” As it notes in Rule 1A, “the rules of chess cannot and should not regulate all possible situations. In situations not explicitly covered, the tournament director can usually reach a fair decision by considering similar cases and applying their principles analogously.”
And that is what I did in the two similar scenarios I considered in my post. The bottom line is: If one player announces a checkmate in one move and the other accepts it, the other player is bound by that decision, even if it is later shown that the announcement was erroneous (Rule 13B). It would therefore be absurd to argue that if one player announces a checkmate in zero moves and the other player accepts it, the other player should not be bound by that decision if it is later shown that the announcement was erroneous. After all, it’s easier for a player to evaluate whether he has already been checkmated than it is for him to evaluate whether he is inevitably going to be checkmated in one move, so it makes no sense that he should be bound by his evaluation of the situation in the second case, but not in the first.
So the only real question is at what point a player should be considered to have clearly agreed that he has lost. As I said, I don’t think that if player W announces a checkmate and player B looks at the situation, says “Oh, well!” and reaches out to shake his opponent’s hand, but then glances at the board again and says “Wait a minute! That’s not checkmate!” should be bound by his momentary acceptance of W’s announcement.
That’s a great thing for a coach to do, not a TD. The fact that there are three ways out of check isn’t “the rule”, it’s a consequence of the basic rules.
For the interventionist TD’s (Jack’s description above being I hope the outer limit of intrusiveness), what do you do if you are called to ask “is this checkmate” and you see a (White) pawn giving check from g4, with a Black pawn sitting on f4? Would you ask if the checking move was g2-g4? If so, and there is no other way out of check other than e.p., would you tell Black who may have no clue that e.p. exists how he can make the capture? If you don’t, what do you plan to do? Black has now been told that there is some move somehow that gets him out of check, but there is no chance that Black is ever going to guess what that move is. So since Jack won’t let him resign, I guess he has to sit there until he flags.
For the non-interventionists among us, this is much simpler. If Black asks “is this checkmate?”, I ask two questions: “Is it check? Can you find a move that gets you out of check?”. I’m not asking the question “Is there a move”, it’s “Can you find a move”.
Spectators have no standing. Player A made his misstatement of checkmate in good faith. It might have been an excited utterance, a hallucination. Player B accepted it, wrongly of course, but he did accept the result. If Player A did make his call as a trick, or an intimidation, then that would change some of the facts and I might not rule to favor him; that would be inequitable.