Years ago, Jesse Kraai and I were playing a game when he and I were both masters (he had not yet attained GM or IM titles.) IIRC, we were in a time scramble where I had a series of checks and in the scramble I mistakenly announced “Mate!” Jesse was about to shake hands, looked again, realized it wasn’t mate and moved, simultaneously declaring “Hey, you can’t do that!” I’m not sure why I said it, I guess it was the pressure of the moment, and I know I have hear the story told by several club members with a laugh (and I hope Jesse can laugh too) but I instantly replied “I can - but I could just be wrong!” Frankly, I cannot remember who won that particular game - the story was more memorable than the game result!
The only time I ever had this happen, I played a little dumb and asked “Did he resign?” The boy who thought he had won replied “No, it’s a checkmate,” and then glanced at the board and said, “Oh, wait a minute! It’s not checkmate!” And they went on playing.
Bob
I agree that the rules say what we both have said they say.
This does not change my observation that what the rules say is not what is practiced at a large number of scholastic events.
That response kind of borders on providing unrequested analysis. Your wording was such that it didn’t actually come out and say that the game they thought was over was still going on. On the other hand, if you simply let a claim of checkmate stand you risk giving the appearance of seeming to endorse an invalid “checkmate” (especially for younger kids who figure that if somebody in authority agrees that it is checkmate then that must be what it is). It seems like you successfully walked the tightrope that time.
TDs try hard to avoid interfering in the proper progress of games while still making sure that the progress of games actually is proper.
As an example of how difficult it can sometimes be, there was a club tournament where I was only a player and not a TD and I happened to spend a little time looking at a game between a couple of C players (I saw a cute and winning tactical trick and wanted to figure out if it really worked). I remained expressionless, moved on after maybe a minute, and later found out that the tactical trick I saw actually had been played. The person who played it told me after the game that the mere existence of my interest indicated that there may have been something in the position to be found and thus spent the time to analyze and find it. So one of the things I tell TDs is to not spend time watching a specific game unless there is a valid reason (not related to how interesting the position is) for a TD to be watching it. (Five TDs and four active games mean that each game could legitimately have a TD watching it).
Something like that happened to me. I was playing white in a King’s Gambit. Not one of those wimpy “gives up a pawn” lines, either. Something like the 3 pawn variation of the Cunningham, where I’m really screwed if the attack doesn’t work.
My board was near the end of the table closest to the door, so everyone stepping out for a smoke (early '80s, when there were still a lot of smokers) would pass my game. Soon, all the strong players were stopping to spend a minute analyzing my board on the way out, and on the way back in.
As the position reached a critical point, where I had to decide whether I’m going for an early mate, or if I’ve got to go for just winning back enough to regroup and hold a draw, there was something like 6 strong players waiting to see what would happen.
I made my choice, and made my move. I went for regrouping and trying to draw.
Every single spectator shook their head in a disappointed way or sighed, and they all turned their backs on me and went back to their games or to smoke. It was like the Klingon Discommendation Ceremony.
Of course, they were right–they were experts and masters and I just a C player. Black won in another 10 moves or so.
You were supported here by the rule (first made explicit in the 5th edition) that any draw claim is also a draw offer. That would include an invalid draw claim. It is only a short step from there to rule that “Oh, stalemate” constitutes an (invalid) draw claim.
Bill Smythe
I did something similar, except that we got to the handshake part. After shaking hands, he looked down and realized that the move I made prior to declaring checkmate was illegal. I used my queen to deliver mate, but the queen was pinned to the king, so I had moved into check.
I insisted we continue and that I take back the move. He insisted that because he had shaken hands, the game was over, and he lost. I appealed to the TD, but he supported my opponent, and I won the game.
I agree, but this is where it gets a bit dicey for me. In the anecdote, we aren’t sure whether black said anything at all.
I’m picturing that white said, “Oh, stalemate”. Black stared at the board for three seconds and his flag fell, and then the spectator said, “It’s not stalemate.” So, at that point, black hasn’t truly “accepted” anything. On the other hand, there’s a draw offer on the table, but it was made out of turn, not when white was on move. Black can still accept, so we’re fine, and presumably he would take the draw rather than the loss from flag fall.
Except…stalemate isn’t “claimed”. It just happens, and it ends the game. It’s not like a threefold repetition situation, in which one player has to declare that the game has been drawn by threefold repetition.
In my situation from last weekend, when watching the game, the concept of a stalemate claim was in my head, and influenced me. I was thinking that since neither player had made a stalemate claim, I shouldn’t intervene. After the game, I opened up the rulebook, and saw that there was no reference to a “claim” in the case of stalemate. I read that stalemate ended the game. There was no claim involved. That’s when I doubted I had made the right call.
In the case that Alex described, I would have taken any excuse to have called it an agreed upon draw, because that is what appeared to have happened. Both players appear to have believed that the game was over, and that was the result, so we’re done, but I don’t think it’s as clear cut as I would like, especially depending on the exact timing of the moves and words.
True in the case of an actual stalemate. After the stalemate, it doesn’t matter what anybody said or “claimed”, so the “claim” might as well have been on the moon.
But in the case of an erroneous stalemate claim, it would still be reasonable to consider any such claim to be an offer, just as with any other draw claim.
Bill Smythe
Her kids have learned to lie to her; it’s a valuable life skill.
Non-rated sections!
Judging from what I have been reading in several sections concerning scholastic chess, non-rated sections would be unacceptable by the chess parents. I made the observation that the youths should be required to keep score, but if scholastic tournaments, especially at the lower levels, are as undisciplined as some of the posts suggest, then keeping score with paper and pencil is unlikely.
I read about the several forms of electronic safekeeping devices. Aren’t the young more tech savvy than their elders? Perhaps getting the chess parents to shell out for these devices would solve a lot of problems? What parent does not want to save money? If a pre-requisite for tournament play was knowing how to use an electronic scoresheet or keep score the old-fashioned way. I bet parents would teach their charges how to keep score and insist they do it.
Keeping good score really helps in a chess game. Especially when you want to review it later. I’m not that active but quite a few of my wins, draws, and predominantly losses have been the victim of the incomplete scoresheet. Habits taught early help later.
Non-rated sections may or may not work depending on the local culture. In the Chicago suburbs we have all variations for scholastic tournaments (all rated, most sections rated, most sections non-rated, all non-rated). They are all reasonably successful and cater to partially overlapping groups of players.
Taking notation does take some time and is a chore, so many parents are unlikely to want their kids to do something that will lessen the amount of time they can spend on a game and potentially decrease their enjoyment.
Also, the first few tournaments that a player takes notation at are likely to result in the player getting into significant time trouble, with many games being lost on time as the player continues to try to keep notation. One thing that it often not mentioned enough to kids is that when a player is under five minutes the rulebook explicitly says that taking notation is not requred. Telling a kid once or twice leaves a significant risk that the kid will not remember that in the middle of a game. Maybe telling a kid 10 or 20 times would do it.
When my son was in the 4th-5th grade sections the general rule of thumb was that not taking notation would result in a loss of 5 minutes of time in a G/35 time control. He lost his first game (on time) when first taking notation. I told him to continue taking notation until he got down to 15 minutes and then he could play without taking notation. A few tournaments later he was taking notation until he got down to 5 minutes (and sometimes even then if the game was close enough to the end).
I would not say they are “undisciplined” at the lower levels, but “untrained.”
I consider it part of my job as a TD to train them in the ways of chess tournaments. In the K-3 sections, only a few players are capable of keeping score in a 30-minute game, and I do not require it. I strongly recommend it for K-5, and require it above that.
I really enjoy working with the kids, and “bringing them up in the direction they should go.” I want them to grow up loving to play in chess tournaments. These days, you have to get them hooked in elementary school.
Thanks for being there to help train the kids (excellent point)! Best of luck and skill instilling love for the game.
I remember when we started a chess club at my son’s school in 1994. The club drew more students than we expected, and we enlisted parents and more chessplayer-instructors to help. The club was divided into two sections: One section had tournament play and game review along with chess education, the other section was purely chess education. ALL members were required to demonstrate certain skills at a basic level prior to being allowed to move from the purely education section to the section that had chess play. Skills included demonstration of several basic mates, knowledge of the rules including castling and en passant, use of a chess clock, a general understanding of simple tactics (pin, fork, skewer, double-attack), basic opening principles (get the center, get your king safe, get your men out and stop the opponent from doing the same three things) AND the ability to keep chess notation. Students did this gladly and rapidly because we explained that it was a requirement that would allow them to have the MOST fun in their chess play, and once some of their friends were in the tournament section, they were highly motivated.
I remember one of the first interscholastic tournaments our team attended - all our players could take notation, use a clock appropriately, etc., even the very young ones. Parents came and asked how we had managed to do that. I explained that we told them it was required and we didn’t tell them it was hard.