The rules of chess clearly state that making a mating move ends the game. This would be fine if all chess players understood the laws of chess and were aware of all checkmates, but clearly this is not so. Several threads here have discussed the knotty problems that arise when players are oblivious to check and mate.
Would it be easier to solve these problems - and would it be better (separate question) - if checkmate wins had to be claimed, like time control wins?
p>
It is best to say checkmate, as your opponent would know it is a checkmate. You do not need to say checkmate, as the position on the board ends the game, not the statement of checkmate. It takes both players not knowing about the checkmate, this will happen more with novice players. If both players do not know about the checkmate, the player would not say checkmate.
If you have to say checkmate to end the game, you could checkmate your opponent … before you can say checkmate, the flag falls. I, Douglas Mark Forsythe do not support this rule change.
Well, Doug, the result in the flag fall situation you describe would depend on how the rules were amended. The rules could say, for example, that a checkmate on the board can be claimed at any time before the result is reported, and that a previous checkmate takes precedence over any other determination of result (flag, resignation, agreed draw, subsequent checkmate or stalemate, etc.). Would that alleviate your concerns, or would you still not like it?
The thing is, as the rules stand, there is no prescribed method for the TD to get involved in the determination of whether a checkmate has taken place. Everything else is subject to a claim process: I claim a draw by repetition, and then, if there is a dispute, the TD comes along and verifies whether it happened or not. (Note that probably in 97% of the “claims” the TD never gets involved - player A agrees that his or her flag has fallen, the players agree that there has been a threefold rep, etc.) But there is no “claim of checkmate”, and so the TD is standing there wondering if he/she can say that there is a mate, or that there is no mate, and so forth, and the players are standing there hoping for an answer and maybe not getting it, or ready to say “no fair - you told him the answer!”
So basically I am in favor of recognizing that there may be disputes or confusion about whether there has been a checkmate, and that the TD can resolve them. Whether this is done by creating a “claim of checkmate” or in some other way can of course be discussed.
p>
p>
See how messy things can get? It is simpler when checkmate instantly ends the game!?
Tim
If you want to point out a checkmate ends the game before a flag fall. If the players wants to point out the checkmate in a oral statement before or after a flag fall, that is already the standard rules.
Myself supports a rule change, if it lets the director point out a checkmate. There is a difference, if the director has the right to point out a checkmate. At this time, there is no clear rule, if the director has this right. If we use Tim Just model, the director does have this right. The problem with the Just model, what limits does the director have to point out problems. If you are away from the board, if your opponent checkmates you, than moves some other piece – does the checkmate stand? If you are away from the board, does the director have the right to point out checkmate, touch-move, illegal move, ect.?
There is no problem with the rule that checkmate ends the game. The problem I have, how much liberty does the director has to point this out. If we can say the director has the liberty to point out checkmate with the current rules. Can we than say the director has the liberty to point out your opponent touch a piece, and now your opponents Queen is hanging. Do we want the director to have this liberty, when the director chases you down in the bathroom to tell you this good news. If we grant the director to have this much liberty with the current rules, does it make you wonder if the director has some bias for you to win the game?
When the director uses the liberty to point out a checkmate, can we be sure the director wants to enforce the checkmate, or has a clear bias for you to win the game. If the director points out checkmate, draws, stalemate, without a clear rule that grants the director this right. Than we can say, the director has a bias for the person to win, or get a draw out of the game.
Tim:
That is true, a checkmate ends the game. But the other directors have to follow rule 21K2.
Come to think of it, doesn’t Rule 15I (correcting incorrectly reported results) require TDs to record the result of an on-the-board checkmate as a win for the mating player if they know about it, even if the players don’t?
p>
Do understand the view you are pointing at, if the director knows the final result of the game before the players understand. You can make that same claim, if the director understands the game is or will be a draw, because of insufficient material to win on time. If the players have K+B vs K+N, some director will make it down as a draw before the players tell you it is a draw. If the players report a win on time, you know the players do not understand rule 14E. The director does not have the right to stop a game, even if both players only have a lone King.
The point you make is a checkmate, if the rules are unclear if the director has the right to make a claim of checkmate. Than the rules are unclear, if the director can mark it up as a win and lose, after both players do finnish the game. In fact, the director has a weaker claim of checkmate if the director lets the players play. If the player lost the game with checkmate, and the director let the game go on, than wins the game only to have it over-turned. The player has a strong case for a appeal, as both scoresheets can be in error, than it is the players statement against the directors. Even if the scoresheets are not in error, if the player can prove the checkmate was over ten moves back, the player has a good case in a appeal.
The first appeal goes to a players committee, best to have the players committee have current directors in the committee. If the tournament is small and local, the change to have one current director on the committee is small. If the committee is built up of three USCF members, you can see a fight on who can be on the committee.
This is the reason I asked Tim about the idea to make it clear in the rules, so the director can make the statement of a checkmate. The best change a director would see a checkmate and the players play on, would be in a scholastic tournament. What directors do see during a scholastic tournament, what the director can say and cannot say during the tournament, can make the director some what sick of the final out come of the games
No, I think it’s different. The rules don’t say that a game is over and drawn as soon as “insufficient material” exists on the board (I assume you mean that no checkmate is possible for either side). They say that a draw claim should be sustained. But there is no “result” until a claim really is made and sustained or the players agree to a draw (or one of the players unwisely resigns or lets his flag fall, for that matter).
But if the TD sees a mate on the board, then the game IS over and there IS a result. And so if the players later report an incorrect result, it seems to me that the TD is required to correct it.
p>
[/quote]
While I think this whole thread is pretty much a waste of ink, Doug may have a point about 14D, “Insufficent material to continue.” (This is not the same thing as 14H, “Claim of insufficient losing chances.”) The language of the rulebook is ambiguous – while the actual wording of the rule implies that the game is “immediately drawn” (as with stalemate), the “TD Tip” copied from 14H refers to a “claim.” However, this is a hyper-technicality, since all the cases except the (very rare) 14D4 are positions in which the players have no mating material.
How would you defend this claim, if the player appeals the results. If I was going to appeal the results, I would want to know why you did not point out the checkmate in the first place. If you claim you are the witness to a checkmate, than I would question why you let us play.
The second, if you say you are a witness to the checkmate, than I have a witness also – my opponent. If you say my opponent checkmated me, than my opponent had to be a witness to the checkmate. If my opponent had to be a witness to the checkmate, than my opponent is my witness.
Defending yourself in the appeal, you would have to under mind my opponent. You would have to point out during the appeal my opponent does not understand the most simple and basic rule – a checkmate. During the appeal, you going to have to point out how much a simpleton my opponent is. If it is a scholastic tournament, hope the father does not take the insulting idea to bad. If you point out my opponent did not make the claim of a checkmate, because my opponent wanted to deliberately change the results of the game. During the appeal, you would be pointing out my opponent wanted to deliberately lose the game. If you point out my opponent deliberately wanted to lose the game, how can you support my opponent with such a ethical problem with a win?
Those would be good questions. The conclusion I would draw, though, is that since the TD is required to post the correct result (the checkmate) later on anyway, the TD might as well point it out immediately.
p>
Since the rules are not clear, if the director is a witness to a checkmate, as the rules do not make it clear if the director has the right to point out checkmate. It would be unclear if the director would have the right, to point out checkmate after the game.
The director has to have the rules clear, if you rule one way in one tournament than rule the other way for the same problem – than you do not have rules but gut feelings. If the rules are unclear, than you are going on your personal feelings not on the rules. Rules you make up on gut feelings and personal feelings can be over turned in appeals.
There is also the issue with the TD either incorrectly assesing a position is checkmate, inteferring (however slightly) with the player’s ability to correctly asses the situation, and may determine the outcome of the game. Or more likley, when the TD does not immediatley rule the game over, will implicitly communicate to the players that at least one valid move remains.
I don’t think the rules are unclear on this at all. The game is between the two opponents, and except in cases explicity stated in the rules, can the TD intervene.
A real world example of this is a K-8 state championship a few years back where I happened to be walking by board 2 (two 1700+ players) and saw a player play cxb8 and then realize that queening was a stalemate. A 1900+ rated NTD (with tons of scholastic experience) was watching the game and when the players just shook their heads and chuckled the NTD then also chuckled. The players did not stop the clock (not required for a determined stalemate), left the pawn on b8, and started discussing the game while the capturing player was about to flag.
I asked if the game was over, and the capturing player said that it was. I asked what the result was and the same player said it was a draw. I then asked the opponent if he agreed and he said he did. After all, they both knew that it was a draw (stalemate) and thus hadn’t bothered with a formal draw offer and acceptance.
Only then did I say that they had agreed to a draw, a draw was the result of the game, and that underpromoting to a rook would have been a forced mate in two, which caught everybody else by surprise. I also said that analysis should be done outside the tournament room (there were other nearby games still going on).
Bruce Draney said it best: The playing room in a K-8 tournament is like the sausage factory. You really don’t want to know what’s going on in there.
Bill Smythe