I interpret this rule in a way that allows (requires?) the TD to declare the game over, yet at this past SuperNationals, TDs were instructed to not do so. If called to the board to confirm a checkmate (or stalemate), we were to simply tell the players that we weren’t allowed to confirm.
One of the reasons given was that we could make a mistake in determining mate, and that would cause problems.
Yet, this sounds unlikely given the probability that at least one of the players would disagree with the TD on the spot. In the event that no disagreement occurred, there would be a 3-0 agreement that the position was checkmate. So, I’m not sure I agree with the premise.
So, I guess a simple question would be: who mandates this departure from the rules? Is this a Scholastic Council mandate, or does it change from year to year, and from event to event?
OR, is my interpretation of the above rule incorrect?
There is a case to be made for the TD not deciding the game. One such time is when the two players both think that it is a checkmate even though it is not. In such cases I may be called over to take a result and one player says “I checkmated him”. I then ask who won the game and get a confirmation from the opponent. That way the coach of the non-checkmated player will not have a TD having said that a checkmate occurred when it really didn’t, but rather that the TD confirmed that both players agreed on a result that did not use the term “checkmate”.
Sometimes there are multiple games all needing attention at the same time. In such cases a TD covering an area may miss saving moves, so avoiding having the TD answer such questions avoids a rushed TD changing the result of the game. I know that my near-2000 rating will sometimes initially overlook a saving move - once or twice having to be corrected by the player, so a lower-rated or very rushed TD could easily do so.
My standard response has always been to ask the player whether or not it is checkmate by first making sure he or she knows what checkmate means, starting with whether or not the king is in check and then whether there are any ways to get out of check.
It’s not the situations where you have a checkmate that you need to be concerned about. Those games are over.
It’s the situations where there’s NOT a checkmate that you need to have a concern. In those cases, if the players aren’t strong enough to see whether it is or isn’t a checkmate, giving them the information “no that’s not a checkmate” could actually help them. Just refusing to rule would be giving information away to the player if he’s seen you call other games a checkmate. And, of course, you could also have the situation where the TD could make a mistake.
With the players potentially having ratings in the lower hundreds, you need to be more cautious than usual, I suppose. I guess the player that made the checkmating move COULD be forced to sit there until his opponent ran out of time.
Here’s a related question: if the TD sees that the game is over by checkmate, shouldn’t he make sure that THAT result is the one eventually recorded even if he can’t say anything to the players? (after all, if one player is stubborn enough, he might talk an impatient player into calling it a draw or something – such an agreement, though, shouldn’t be allowed if the game is already over by a checkmate).
Players really shouldn’t be playing in rated tournaments until they’re good enough to see when it’s a checkmate, but I don’t anticipate that the situation will be getting any better any time soon.
13A. “[Checkmate] immediately ends the game”… TD TIP: … "[means] that anything that happens after the checkmate move has been legally determined is irrelevant to the outcome of the game …".
The above should answer your question in the affirmative, though, if you’re going to “eventually” declare this result, then there’s no reason to not simply make the decision at the time it’s determined.
How about a different interpretation? The rulebook defines how the game is ended, and then leaves it largely up to the players to determine whether this has happened. At lower levels, more errors will be made in determining this. Part of rising in ability is being able to see checkmate, or being able to see the way out of it.
I had a couple of instances where kid one called me over and said “this is checkmate” and kid two (still looking at the board) said “no it isn’t,” and made his move. Okay, then. I’ll check back with you guys later.
I find it pretty cool that kids are allowed to determine this themselves without adult intervention, and they didn’t seem to mind doing it.
It did mean I needed to speak and act carefully when I walked up to a board. It’s awfully easy to look at the board and inadvertently give a clue to either player, and that’s not fair.
Akz, you were operating as you had been told, and quite admirably, I might add.
But I don’t agree with your conclusion that it’s unfair to look at the position, and render a decision. You intentionally, and correctly, attempted to not look at the board, based on what our orders were, but I don’t agree that it’s unfair to the players if you had.
Yes, the players, whether they be adult or children, should determine the outcome of their own game, and I don’t suggest that TDs jump in and make these determinations for them. However, 13A is clear that checkmate ends the game, and for players who request that a TD assist them in this fact isn’t inappropriate, I don’t think.
Consider a situation where white claims the position is checkmate and black disagrees. You, as the TD, see that it is in fact checkmate, but black continues trying to escape, to no avail, but continues to sit there thinking of a way out. How long do you allow this to go on? Do you tell the players to continue the game, and walk away, only to be called back once again when white claims his opponent isn’t making progress in getting out of check? What do you do on this second trip to the board? What about on a third trip? Fourth …?
I know that’s an extreme example, but I get that way sometimes
Anyhow, it’s reasonable, and just, I believe to simply declare the game over. But I’m still interested in why this rule was vacated at the SuperNationals.
Tim Just, you were there; what’s your take?
Glen Panner (section chief), your input is desirable too
A TD who hasn’t witnessed any of the moves can’t determine that the position on the board is a legal position, let alone checkmate, without reviewing the series of moves that led to the position.
Letting the players decide the end of the game has few drawbacks, and several advantages. The TD not only will have more time to attend to other games, he will be less likely to wear egg on his face.
The only time I would consider going against an agreed checkmate would be if the position appears to be a stalemate. Then I would question the players to determine what has actually occured and possibly explain the differences between checkmate and stalemate.
Now that you mention it, I think I did see one or two of those.
Let’s see how well I can remember. In one instance, I think I said to the checkmated kid: “That’s fine if you think it’s not checkmate. You’re allowed to take some time and look for a way out of mate, but you need show your opponent that it’s not mate, and you should be able to figure that out in a reasonable amount of time.” I don’t think that one went on much longer.
The worst cases were the two where the soon-to-be loser wasn’t yet mated, but could see forced mate a move or two away. We had a couple of those who were crying uncontrollably at the board, just could not pull it together and get themselves to wrap it up. In these instances, “mate ends the game” wouldn’t have helped.
What happens in a position that is checkmate and player A makes an illegal move that player B doesn’t notice? After a second move, suddenly the position is legal again and the game continues normally. If the TD happens to be watching, it seems to me that he must stop the game. Otherwise the game might end with player A “winning” and marking it up as such, but then the next day player B comes back and claims a win after reviewing the game with Fritz (in a kids tournament, replace “Fritz” with “coach”).
If it is an adult tournament, I would say “you should have known better”. But in a K-3 U500 section, I would venture a guess that this isn’t that unusual. Therefore, it seems a bit odd for the TD not to take the time to call actual checkmates.
If a TD starts calling checkmates then the players start expecting that to happen if the TD is watching a game. However, when looking over the room I may be standing in such a way that a game is in front of me but my focus is on scanning a number of players 10-30 boards away. A player who really does have a checkmate that the opponent illegally moves out of may think that my not saying anything (due to not even focusing on that game) means that it really wasn’t a checkmate. On the other hand, knowing that I wouldn’t say anything regardless of the position, the players would know that the responsibility is theirs to call a checkmate.
By NOT having the TD call a checkmate, the games are handled consistently and expectations can also be consistent regardless of where a TD happens to be standing at the time.
There are points to be made on either side of the argument and I anticipate that things may change multiple times in the future.
But which option is the variant that must be announced?
Rule 21D limits the td’s intervention. It isn’t clear to me whether declaring a checkmate is allowed under 21D4 “Settling disputes”. In general I treat it as under 21D1 “Answering rules questions” and tell the person possibly in checkmate to see if they can:
A. Capture the checking piece(s).
B. Block the check.
C. Move out of check.
(Basically the summary of 12A.)
There is another thing to consider. There are a lot of players per TD in most scholastic tournaments (at the KC national HS the 300+ player Championship section had one national newbie TD as my assistant - fortunately a good one - for a greater than 150:1 ratio for the TDs dedicated to that section, though the chief, floor chief and assistant floor chief were also available and some assistance would come from weaker sections as they finished). If a TD is watching a game (particularly in the weaker sections where this is an issue) then it is due to one of the following:
there are so few games that each can be watched by a TD (one TD might watch 2-3 adjacent boards)
there was a previous problem in a game severe enough to justify a TD watching it
random chance as a TD is walking by
some other valid reason (can’t think of any off-hand)
the TD has gotten absorbed in a game and is ignoring the TD’s primary responsibilities of overseeing the tournament as a whole.
Number five happens at least once for almost every TD and thus I emphasize that TDs should NOT get absorbed in games until number one comes into play.
Yes, it was announced, and therefore legal. That still doesn’t answer the “why” question. We could announce that en-passant will not be used, and could get by with it, but the inevitable “why” will have to be explained
13A says “checkmate ends the game,” but it does not tell us who is allowed to call checkmate.
Illegal moves need to be corrected within ten moves, or else they stand. If the illegal move mentioned by fpawn went unnoticed for more than ten moves, it can’t be corrected. If it happened within ten moves of the end of the game, and checkmate was agreed to by both players, then we’re back to “checkmate ends the game,” aren’t we?
The Tournament Book was clear that the onus was on the player to call a TD over for a ruling if needed, and not to wait several moves. So, we’re back to Martinak’s question: what rule allows us to “declare checkmate” if we’re called over to a board and asked to do so?
The method we followed seemed to work well enough in our elementary section. By that, I mean I didn’t see it creating a lot of coach or parent blowups, or appeals, or unhappy kids.
I don’t know how well it worked in the K-1 or K-3 sections.
Had we done it differently, would it have improved the tournament for the players, or led to more accuracy and consistency?
TD witnesses players playing on in a checkmated position, eventually reaching an illegal position (it’s already an illegal position once a move is made that doesn’t escape check, but go with me here) where the checkmated king is no longer in check. The checkmated postion occured with white delivering mate, but now the position is one in which black is mated, or stalemated, or draw agreed, etc. What do you do?
