Stalemate or checkmate, but no one notices

Running Chess Tournaments
1

In the rules describing stalemate and checkmate, both rules say “the game ends immediately”.

So, what if stalemate or checkmate happens, and no one notices?

The recent situation was that a game was proceeding in extreme time pressure. In a G/30 d/5 game, white had 1 second on her clock, and had had one second for 10 or 15 moves. Black had about 3 minutes. Black had been reduced to a lone king versus a king and queen. Neither player was aware of the “insufficient material” rule, so both black and white believed that if that one second ticked off the clock, black would win. In other words, both were probably more focused on the clock than the board.

Black also apparently didn’t quite grasp the concept of “delay”. After the game, he suggested that the clock was defective because it never ticked down to zero.

Both players were novices (one adult and one child), so they didn’t instinctively just make the right moves in the k+q vs. k situation. At some point, white made a move that resulted in stalemate. Black made a move anyway, into check. White proceeded to make another move, letting him out of check. The game continued. Eventually, white made a checkmating move. Black noticed it, and extended his hand to shake. White was still focused on the clock so much that she nodded “no”, apparently thinking he was offering a draw.

I, the TD, had been watching this whole sequence. When the stalemate happened, I thought black’s subsequent move fell into the “illegal move in sudden death time pressure” clause, so I didn’t point out that an illegal move happened, and that the game actually should have been over. Also, things were happening so quickly that I was not absolutely certain that it was a stalemate. The position on the board lasted for less than a second. I am certain there was an illegal move involved, but I wouldn’t swear that black had no legal move available. White didn’t make an illegal move claim, partly because she had no clue about how to make such claims, or realize that making such a claim would end her intense time pressure and more or less guarantee a win.

The game was judged (by me) a win for white.

So, assuming a stalemate position is observed by the TD during sudden death time pressure, should the TD immediately declare the game drawn, even though the players didn’t notice, and continued playing?

The wording of the rule says “the game ends immediately”, which would tend to suggest “even if no one notices”. But then, what if the stalemate occurs, an illegal move is made into check, no one notices, five turns later, checkmate is delivered, and then a spectator says, “Actually, five turns ago, there was a stalemate.” He reconstructs the game with players watching and they say, “Oh, yeah. You’re right. That was stalemate.”

I think the overriding principle is that in sudden death time pressure, the TD doesn’t intervene to tell players what just happened. If something illegal happens, you continue unless they notice, even if it happens to be something that should end the game.

On a slightly more extreme note, what if someone turns in a scoresheet that says white wins. Reviewing the scoresheet, someone notices that there had actually been a stalemate earlier. Would it be declared that the game was over at that point, and anything after was irrelevant? Therefore it had to be a draw instead of a win for white, despite the agreed end to the game?

2

Unless there is an explicit pre-tournament statement by the organizer and/or chief TD that the only results taken are the ones the players agree on, I will immediately stop a game at stalemate or checkmate. In case like yours where the TD isn’t sure whether or not it really was a stalemate (or checkmate) no intervention should be made. It sounds like even now that it was only a probable stalemate, but you aren’t absolutely certain that the flying pieces really did have a stalemate.

Using a scoresheet after the game is not enough to retroactively enforce stalemate or checkmate. I’ve seen way too many erroneous scoresheets, and a handful of doctored scoresheets, to use evidence just from a scoresheet.

3

Certainly you are correct in the scoresheets, but at least if they have one, they have some
basis to argue from, which is far better than “you can believe me, for my opponent is not
telling the truth”. I have standing instructions at scholastic events for the players to leave
the boards as is until in the presence of a TD, the results are agreed upon. Failure to comply with this rule I instruct them places the TD in a guessing mode. Now we may guess right to the best of our abilities, but as we are not the amazing Karnac, Perhaps we
will get it wrong as well. I have a parent of one of my students who called me complaining
that the TDs got such decisions wrong for at least one of her two kids in their last six
tournaments, only two of which were ones directed by myself. I asked her–did your kids
notate–no, did your kids always wait for the TD to check the results before setting up the
board–no, did your kids (or you) check the results posted after each round–no. The idea
is correct TD decisions do quite frequently depend on the players cooperation with pre-set
procedures and rules.

Rob Jones

4

But if you saw the stalemate, you would intervene, right? The “stalemate ends the game” rule overrides the “don’t call attention to illegal moves in sudden death time pressure” rule?

5

If checkmate or stalemate occur, the game is over. The TD is no longer intervening. He is commenting after the end of the game.

6

We probably need Mr. Rulebook, Tim Just, for a definitive ruling. As a TD, I think you have the right to step in and call the stalemate or checkmate if the players are incapable of understanding what has happened. You have a tournament to run and new rounds to pair. Letting such a game drift damages the event and teaches the players nothing. If the TD does not have the skill to see stalemate or checkmate, then he needs to work on his game or get a competent player to make the determination for him.

At one time I saw a TD rated under 800 making adjudications at a scholastic tournament. Lets just say his judgment of rules and positions was a little daffy, and caused big arguments over his rulings. Even though I have a 2200+ rating and am certified as a TD, I had a vested interest in the results of the players and thought it inappropriate to interject my opinion or assessment of positions unless called upon. It was a frustrating day for all.

7

I have occasionally worked as a subordinate TD for an organizer and/or chief TD that took 11H1 to mean that even playing on after a stalemate or checkmate was only an illegal move and the director should merely be a witness that does not initiate any interference with the game. When I’m the chief TD I don’t rule that 11H1 goes that far and I haven’t worked for an organizer that tried to override me on that (hey, one reason an organizer hires a chief TD is so that the rules can be enforced correctly so they’d look kind of silly disagreeing with their chief). Fortunately it’s been a while since I’ve had to abide by that extended 11H1 interpretation.

8

There are two schools of thought here, and each has its merits. I use “mate” below to refer to both checkmate and stalemate.

First school: Mates are final, definitive, and trump anything that happens afterwards. Directors may (and in FIDE play, shall) point them out and must score the result accordingly. This is the rulebook rule; if taking a TD exam, you should rule accordingly.

Second school: Recognizing a mate is a fundamental component of chess literacy, and literate players must recognize them without help. The proper director response to the question, “Is this mate?” is, “You tell me.” Players are expected to agree to the result of each game, and such agreement is dispositive. My first experience with this approach was at SuperNationals I. I was not alone in thinking it was pretty radical, but it is now the established rule for national scholastics and several state scholastic events.

So, it depends.

9

Are you serious? Do you mean to say that if I was playing at a National Scholastic, and my opponent stalemated me, and I noticed that I didn’t have any moves, and said something like “OK, You got me.” Then a TD, who had been watching for the last several minutes would actually rule that I had lost the game, and it would be upheld on appeal? Wow!

Alex Relyea

10

I treated it as just another illegal move, in part because I couldn’t, and can’t, see any rationalization for prohibiting intervention in one case, but not in another. It was also happening so fast that I couldn’t stop and think about it, but I remember thinking that was stalemate, and then thinking, “Oh, wait. He just moved, into check. Well, I’m not supposed to call illegal moves.” Mind you that was all within the space of a second.

I brought up the case of the spectator for a reason, though. If stalemate ends the game automatically, no need for discussion and no questions asked, then if a spectator said that there had been a stalemate position several moves before the end of the game, and you could gather sufficient evidence (scoresheets, agreements by players, witnesses, whatever) to convince everyone that it had indeed been a stalemate, then under that line of reasoning, it’s a stalemate.

It puts the game out of player control and into a whim of whether someone happened to observe it, and whether he chose to say anything about it. I figured avoiding that was the intent behind the “don’t call illegal moves in time pressure” rule, so I let it go.

11

The biggest problem I see with this approach is that application of it is almost guaranteed to be inconsistent, since it usually isn’t practical to have a TD watching every game that is still in progress.

Bob

12

Yep, KB is right.

13

This was my reaction when Harry Sabine explained how we were going to rule.

In practice, if a TD sees something amiss, he’s going to carefully take the players through each element of mate and ask them to consider them. In my experience, almost universally, this is going to keep the players fom signing an erroneous result slip.

That said, it is my understanding that if both players insist on signing an erroneous result slip, that slip is dispositive.

14

This is more evidence to treat scholastic chess not as chess, but as a chess-like game.

Alex Relyea

15

It’s gone both ways with scholastic chess. In the scholastic tournaments I’m the chief of (currently somewhat more than a dozen per year) if I see stalemate or checkmate then I’ll end the game even if the players don’t realize it. If I’m not the chief then I’ll follow the ruling of the chief even if I don’t personally like it (and I definitely reserve the right to lobby for a different decision to try to not extend 11H1 that far). Often there would be no TD that happened to witness the checkmate/stalemate and no scoresheet, so even when a TD wants such games to end there will be some that continue to play on after a mate.

On the other hand, if both players think there is a checkmate on the board and there actually isn’t then when they agree on the result as a win for one of the players that is treated as a resignation by the other player (it wasn’t a fake checkmate accepted as the result but rather a standard resignation that was accepted).

16

And remove the whole mess from the standard rating system?

17

Ok. Good enough for me. In the future, I’ll call it, but I have the same concerns as Bob McAdams, and I think it the worst case, things could get terribly weird. I know it isn’t likely to happen, but if somehow the TD was not made aware of the missed stalemate until after the beginning of the next round, it could get very weird.

Of course, since this situation is only going to come up in novice sections, it’s not like they will know the subtleties of the rules, anyway.

18

One hopes. I had two A players playing in a team match, and Black was down to a few seconds on his clock. White moved and said “Oh, stalemate.” After Black’s flag fell, one of White’s teammates pointed out that it wasn’t stalemate. I ruled that the stalemate claim was a draw offer, and that Black accepted.

Alex Relyea

19

How did Black respond? He did not stop the clock because it fell. Since White did not call the flag (and assumed it was a drawn position) the draw is a draw; however, Black was very fortunate in this case. “Oh stalemate.” is equivalent to “Nuts.” Which is how an allied general responded when asked by the Germans if he was surrendering. A fallen flag decides the game unless there is a checkmark or stalemate on the board (at least I think this is the situation).

20

I think the rules say that a “game is won by” or “a game is drawn if” mate or stalemate occur. I don’t think it states anything about player recognition.

There is the old ruling about if a piece is released with a check/stale-mating move, it doesn’t matter if the clock is pushed (and if the flag falls) because once the move is executed the game ends and what the clock does after that is immaterial. The director’s proper response to a move during the game where a player says “Is this legal” is “You tell me”. If the game is over, the director’s comments are after-the-game commentary, and therefore are not (generally) governed by the rules.

Once the check/stale-mating move is played, the GAME ENDS. Everything that happens after that is AFTER the game is over.