I’ve never given thought to which rule is the most important. I do believe that the players should determine who is the better player on the board without the intervention of anyone unless necessary.
If you noticed in a previous post I mentioned that the TD is permitted under 21D2 to intervene if an illegal move occurs. Any move after a stalemate occurs would be illegal.
Again see 21D2 which covers an attempt to get out of mate with an illegal move.
It is my personal preference to let the players agree that it is checkmate or stalemate on their own. My reasoning is that in those situations where they are wrong it is still part of the game and if players agree that it’s mate when it’s not and stalemate when it’s not mean that the playing ability of the players led to result.
Several years ago I ruled a game in the NYC Scholastics to be a draw when one side claimed a stalemate and the opponent agreed even though there was a legal move. I was called to the board because one player tried to reverse the agreement. A player on the next board unsolicited pointed out the legal move after the agreement but I refused to allow them to continue as there was an agreement which both players acknowledged. Now suppose that I had pointed out the move instead of a spectator and permitted them to continue. This would have likely affected the outcome of the game as one side had a huge material advantage. Would it have been fair that my chess playing ability would have permitted that player to win a game he agreed was a stalemate? I say “NO!”
There is a disagreement even amongst NTDs as to whether the question “is this checkmate?” is a request for a ruling or an opportunity for interference. How it is seen has a huge impact on how it is handled.
In the absence of such a question/request I can’t think of any NTDs at a rated scholastic event that would intervene by saying that a position wasn’t actually a checkmate or stalemate (see an earlier post of mine in this thread for one way of handling a non-checkmate that both players think is a checkmate - which I usually only see when verifying results at the board at national scholastics, but which I’m certain also happens when TDs don’t go to each board to verify results). It is only when a question/request occurs that there are varying opinions on how it should be handled. I may not agree with Harold but I acknowledge that there are multiple ways of handling things and his option is a valid option. For that matter there have been times when the chief TD of a national event I’ve worked at has agreed with Harold’s viewpoint and had the staff handle results that way (with the same event being handled the other way the preceding and/or following year).
Harold’s apparent example of a TD intevening unasked and actually pointing out a move is something that should never happen. I am guessing that he was actually referring to the TD saying something after being called in.
Even when asked to resolve a problem in a game I’ve revealed a saving move very, very, very rarely and only when there really is only one move and the opponent has already told the player on move that it isn’t really a checkmate, and even then I eliminate the alternatives rather than give the move.
P.S. At an annual small non-rated event with true novices (with maybe an 8 to 1 player to TD ratio) I am much more willing to correct illegal moves or erroneous results (making an announcement at the beginning as to what I’ll be doing and how it would be different from a normal, rated event). The players can get in 10 to 14 rounds of play in less than five elapsed hours (set tournament duration but not a set number of rounds) and my son and I each have a TD fee of a couple slices of pizza during the half hour break in play while the players eat lunch.
This is a relatively clear-cut example, though. Any draw claim is also a draw offer. This is true even if the claim is invalid.
The same would be true if a player claims a triple occurrence when there has been no triple occurrence. The opponent has the right to accept the draw offer inherent in such a claim. Furthermore, the player cannot withdraw the offer (he could withdraw the claim, I suppose, but not the offer) until the opponent declines the offer, either verbally or by touching a piece.
Furthermore, even if the TD rules against the claim, the offer is still on the table, until it is declined as above.
But if the players “agree” on a checkmate when in fact the position is a stalemate, or vice versa, things get murky. It gets into the area of mis-reported results, where the TD has a lot of options.
I am not sure how murky this is. When two players agree on a result, there’s nothing for me to rule on, IMHO.
Similar case of “agreement” (names omitted to protect the guilty): Player A, who does not speak English very well at all, comes to Mr. TD to lodge a claim. Player B, who speaks English as a native language, objects. Mr. TD’s initial impression is that he will rule in favor of Player B, but he needs to review the evidence involved. He also needs to try and explain what’s happening to Player A, which will be a struggle given the language barrier.
So, while Mr. TD is trying to talk with Player A, Player B becomes more and more agitated. Mr. TD has to stop his explanation to Player A several times to ask Player B to calm down. Mr. TD finally gets to where he believes Player A understands what’s happening, but before he can actually get to reviewing evidence (scoresheet), Player B explodes and says he (a) resigns the game, and (b) withdraws from the tournament.
Mr. TD tells Player B he hasn’t even ruled on Player A’s claim yet, and asks if he’s sure about resigning and withdrawing. Player B emphatically affirms both the resignation and withdrawal. At that point, Mr. TD has nothing left to rule on - because the game is over.
One could argue that Mr. TD should have asked Player A if he agrees with Player B’s withdrawal, but it’s hard to imagine Player A would disagree with winning the game on the spot.
This is still a case of agreeing to a dubious result, which makes it germane to Mr. Smythe’s previous post. Of course, as it’s a resignation, only the resigning player needs to agree. It’s simply a case where a result will be entered that really doesn’t resemble what was happening on the board.
I note further that the story does not say Mr. TD actually consulted with Player A on the subject - merely that one could argue the necessity of such a consultation, given the bizarre set of circumstances.
I guess my point is this, Boyd: In chess, we desire (strive?) for truth on the Board. This, to some extent, reflects the art and science of the game. “Lies and hypocrisy” (thank you Lasker and Fischer) yada yada… right? This is why we overcomplicate rules, have delay/increment clocks, etc.
BUT, in the end, we have a system, and - like all systems - its not perfect, and TRUTH per se is not 100% achievable. And in this sense no system can do more than pursue truth which is accomplished by having at its base a competitive/adverserial system.
BECAUSE of this, if ONE of the players REFUSES to be an adversary, well then yes, you are correct, it is more likely that the result will not reflect the “truth” on the board. But then, to some extent - that’s not our problem. We provided the adversarial system (the best we could do) and someone opted out. In a situation like this, I’m tempted to sing Doris Day songs. (Que Sera, Sera)
I see it as on a par with asking “Can I move my knight to this square?” or “Can I castle in this situation?” or “Can I promote this pawn to a queen?” or “Can I promote my pawn to a king?” These are rules questions, which it’s perfectly acceptable to ask a TD and which it’s quite proper for a TD to answer. Note that under Rule 18G2, a TD may declare a game over that has ended by checkmate, even if neither player has asked whether it’s a checkmate.
If a player concedes defeat, it is irrelevant under the rules whether he is conceding because he incorrectly believes that he has been checkmated or because he incorrectly believes that there is no way he can avoid being checkmated on the next move.
Except that under Rules 13A and 14A, the end of the game is decided, for checkmate and stalemate, by the board position - not by the players or the TD.