Rules Question: Checkmate that Isn't

[tmagchesspgh]

I would not even ask the questions, “Is it check? Can you find a move that gets you out of check?” I would throw it back on the player. My response will be, “What do you think? Why?” Anything else might be viewed as helping the player. The player must see it for himself and understand the position as it is. For younger players, this is a learning experience. For the older, veteran player, this should be enough for him to look at the position once again.

In many scholastic tournaments, the kids call you over to confirm the checkmate. You could say yes or no. I prefer to ask the other player, “Do you agree?” If he says yes, game over. If he says no, but it is a checkmate, then you turn to player A and say, “Show why you think it is a checkmate.” They both learn to look more closely. Usually both kids know the game is over, but just want a confirmation. I think some coaches tell them to do that. If this is a major tournament where there are signing slips, they both sign and the result is recorded. Otherwise, I tell them both to go over to mark the result correctly on the pairing sheet.

[kevin_bachler]

@Mulfish

That 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.

I can see it now. Players A & B play. B resigns. They walk to the results sheet, B trailing. A marks the result and leaves. B reneges on the result and restarts A’s clock who then loses on time…

[kevin_bachler]

@wilecoyote

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 - Stellar analysis and ending hypothetical.

I haven’t put my finger on it - but there is another niggling harm rolling around in my head, and its brought up by your hypothetical. Just when does the game end? What if, horrors, neither player marks a result and the TD says: “Does anyone know who won the game between A and B?” And now S says “A won”. Then, after the next round, A is analyzing (with B? with S?) and it is found there was no mate - and B protests?

This can easily get convoluted.

There was no intent at deception, and the players showed a meeting of the minds. A made an error, and so did B. They happen to be meta errors, but they determined a result.

Oddly (and perhaps Tim Just recalls this) many years ago I was playing Jesse Kraai in a tournament in the northern IL area - long before Jesse became a GM. We were in a mutual time scramble, the game was being watched by National Master Ken Wallach. I was chasing Jesse’s King, and announced “CHECK…(pause) …WAIT… MATE”. Jesse looked hurriedly – “What? What? No wait,…” then moving out of check (was it a capture, I can’t recall) he said “Hey, you can’t do THAT!”. I’m not sure why, but in the haste of the moment I replied “Well, I can, but I can be wrong.”

I thought Ken Wallach was gonna bust a gut.

[kevin_bachler]

@eastside

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:

1. I’d take W and B out of the room, and talk to them separately.
2. 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.
3. 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.

Not sure about the max penalty for S - he thought the game was over and that therefore he wasn’t interfering, right?

[eastside]

@kbachler

Not sure about the max penalty for S - he thought the game was over and that therefore he wasn’t interfering, right?

Figuring out the maximum penalty includes the possibility that max = 0.