TD Confirmation on Checkmate at Nationals

[martinak]

@martinak

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.)

@Terry Winchester

This is a common, yet very bad approach to the “is this checkmate” question because it’s providing clues, and therefore advice, to the player.

Well, if this provides clues, then doesn’t declaring the game not over provide even more direct advice!

Actually this is pretty much taken from 12A (with the options in the exact same order). I’m taking the question of “Is this checkmate?” to be a variant of “How is check parried?” and providing the information in the rulebook. Isn’t that clearly OK under “21D1. Answering rules questions. Answering rules and procedural questions.” Where in 21D do you find the authorization to intervene in the game by “Not confirming a checkmate”.

[jwiewel]

@Terry Winchester

@martinak

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.)

This is a common, yet very bad approach to the “is this checkmate” question because it’s providing clues, and therefore advice, to the player.

On the occasions where I answer the checkmate question by saying that it isn’t, I’ll say “there is at least one move that will get you out of check”, regardless of whether or not there is only one move. By never saying the only move when there is only one move, you don’t give a clue that in multi-move situation there is more than one way out of check. If they still have difficulty finding a way out of check I’ll ask them if they know the ways to get out of check. One problem with listing the ways is that a player will often take the first way mentioned regardless of whether or not it is the best way. By letting them go through the ways themselves I avoid having a TD influence the way chosen.

[martinak]

@Akzidenz

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?

@Terry Winchester

Checkmate immediately ends the game; we declare it over, if it is, indeed

The problem isn’t with declaring a checkmate, it is when you don’t declare a checkmate. Since a checkmate ends a game, you aren’t intervening in the game. However when it isn’t checkmate, the game is continuing and you are intervening. The problem is “How can you declare checkmate when it is, without also letting the players know there is a way out when it isn’t?” That doesn’t seem possible to do to me.

[Terry_Winchester]

@martinak

The problem isn’t with declaring a checkmate, it is when you don’t declare a checkmate. Since a checkmate ends a game, you aren’t intervening in the game. However when it isn’t checkmate, the game is continuing and you are intervening. The problem is “How can you declare checkmate when it is, without also letting the players know there is a way out when it isn’t?” That doesn’t seem possible to do to me.

OK, you got the first part right, but it’s not intervening in a negative manner when a player requests such intervention. The same as with any request, the td may/must make a ruling when requested to do so.

When a player asks “is this checkmate” and you, as the td, see that it isn’t, you simply say “No, it isn’t”, and leave it at that. If the player isn’t able to find the correct move, I suppose you could advise him of his right to make a legal move, offer a draw, or resign.

But, my question remains: what do you do when you see a game continuing after a player has been checkmated, or stalemated?

[jwiewel]

@martinak

@Akzidenz

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?

@Terry Winchester

Checkmate immediately ends the game; we declare it over, if it is, indeed

The problem isn’t with declaring a checkmate, it is when you don’t declare a checkmate. Since a checkmate ends a game, you aren’t intervening in the game. However when it isn’t checkmate, the game is continuing and you are intervening. The problem is “How can you declare checkmate when it is, without also letting the players know there is a way out when it isn’t?” That doesn’t seem possible to do to me.

And as I mentioned before, if you are not looking at the game and the players think you are, then failure to declare a checkmate (if you’ve already been doing so in other games) can lead the players to erroneously think that it isn’t really a checkmate. Thus declaring a game finished (properly) can lead to another game continuing past checkmate (improperly). Since you can have improper results either way, I’d rather have the chance of impropriety to be independent of where the TD happens to be at the time.

[Terry_Winchester]

@jwiewel

And as I mentioned before, if you are not looking at the game and the players think you are, then failure to declare a checkmate (if you’ve already been doing so in other games) can lead the players to erroneously think that it isn’t really a checkmate. Thus declaring a game finished (properly) can lead to another game continuing past checkmate (improperly). Since you can have improper results either way, I’d rather have the chance of impropriety to be independent of where the TD happens to be at the time.

I can’t agree with this reasoning at all. Players must accept responsibility for their own actions. Unless there’s been an announcement to the contrary, no one has justification for inferring somthing that wasn’t implied.

[martinak]

@Terry Winchester

When a player asks “is this checkmate” and you, as the td, see that it isn’t, you simply say “No, it isn’t”, and leave it at that.

But aren’t you also providing advice to the player? And my question remains: Where do you derive the power to intervene in the game?

@Terry Winchester

But, my question remains: what do you do when you see a game continuing after a player has been checkmated, or stalemated?

The same as I would do whenever I see any other illegal move being played.

In general I wouldn’t be watching the position on the board so this is very unlikely to come up for me. By simply answering with the possible ways out of check, I don’t need to look at the board and so wouldn’t see a checkmate - and also wouldn’t ever accidentally confirm a checkmate when it isn’t (Since only looking at the board could leave you responding to a coach or parent “You mean en passant was allowed?”)

[Terry_Winchester]

No, Tom, I’m not providing advice in saying that it isn’t checkmate, any more than I am when I’m called to determine whether or not 50-moves or a triple repetition of position has occurred.

By explaining the methods of getting out of check, however, we are becoming coaches instead of arbiters, and are, therefore, providing advice.

As to your response to my question; thanks for the answer. We’ll leave it there for awhile and see what others think.

@Terry Winchester

But, my question remains: what do you do when you see a game continuing after a player has been checkmated, or stalemated?

@martinak

The same as I would do whenever I see any other illegal move being played.

In general I wouldn’t be watching the position on the board so this is very unlikely to come up for me. By simply answering with the possible ways out of check, I don’t need to look at the board and so wouldn’t see a checkmate - and also wouldn’t ever accidentally confirm a checkmate when it isn’t (Since only looking at the board could leave you responding to a coach or parent “You mean en passant was allowed?”)

[jwiewel]

@Terry Winchester

@jwiewel

And as I mentioned before, if you are not looking at the game and the players think you are, then failure to declare a checkmate (if you’ve already been doing so in other games) can lead the players to erroneously think that it isn’t really a checkmate. Thus declaring a game finished (properly) can lead to another game continuing past checkmate (improperly). Since you can have improper results either way, I’d rather have the chance of impropriety to be independent of where the TD happens to be at the time.

I can’t agree with this reasoning at all. Players must accept responsibility for their own actions. Unless there’s been an announcement to the contrary, no one has justification for inferring somthing that wasn’t implied.

And one way of having players accept responsibility for their own actions is to not interfere in the game without being called over.

[martinak]

@Terry Winchester

No, Tom, I’m not providing advice in saying that it isn’t checkmate, any more than I am when I’m called to determine whether or not 50-moves or a triple repetition of position has occurred.

You are telling them that there is a way out of checkmate - why isn’t that advice? Why exactly do you need to make a ruling in this case? Is it a point of law, procedure or conduct? While 21D4 explicitly mentions rulings on “claims of draws” it doesn’t say anything about rulings on checkmate.

@Terry Winchester

By explaining the methods of getting out of check, however, we are becoming coaches instead of arbiters, and are, therefore, providing advice.

You are saying that the players shouldn’t be provided with one of the rules from the rulebook? If someone comes up to you and asks you how to legally make a claim of 3-fold repetition, wouldn’t you answer him by providing the relevant information from the rulebook? How does that differ from this case? This is explicitly allowed under 21D1. And 12A provides much less information to the player about their specific position than telling them that they are not in checkmate. Especially since it is told to everyone - both those in checkmate and those with a legal escape.

[sloan]

This is a question that has been considered, debated, experimented with, etc. at nearly every National Scholastic event for the past 20 years.

The bottom line is a question of fairness.

In an ideal world, with an arbiter at every board, the arbiter can call flags, call illegal moves, and declare games over because of checkmate or stalemate.

USCF games are not played in an ideal world. As a general rule, there are far too many games for a TD to watch them all. In a SCHOLASTIC event, it is likely that there are far too many situations not noticed by the players. So, there’s one standard for the ideal world, a slightly different standard for USCF open events, and yet another standard for USCF Scholastic events (let’s not even mention the K sections…)

Notice the USCF rules on flags. The flag is down when one of the players calls it down. Not when the TD sees it fall (although there ARE a few obscure situations where the TD can act as his own best witness to resolve disagreements about timing). The principle is: if the players don’t notice, then it didn’t happen.

Most players accept this at the USCF open event level. TDs do not call flags. Players call flags. The game is over when a flag falls and the player has not made enough moves - but the flag does not “fall” until a player points it out. At USCF open events, many TDs will call mate (check-, and stale-), and will call any illegal move - but do not call flags.

However, there is a recognized variation where TDs do not call illegal moves. This is motivated by the ratio of games/TD. Ideally, a TD should announce this, and ideally all TDs on staff should be on the same page. Sometimes this doesn’t happen.

At a USCF Scholastic event (esp. a National), there has been much debate about calling illegal moves, calling mates, and how to respond when a player asks “is this checkmate?”. Suffice it to say that there are strong arguments on both sides. But, in my experience, national-level staff at USCF National events has reached an uneasy concensus (oh, about 5 years ago) after trying several variations.

When I go to such an event, I expect this to be covered in the pre-event TD meeting. Usually, it is. Lately, the policy has been:
a) do NOT call illegal moves
b) do NOT call mates
c) when asked “is this checkmate”, answer either “yes” or “no”.

One guiding principle in this type of event is: DO NOT LOOK AT THE POSITION unless and until a player makes a claim, or asks a question about the position. Once a player asks, then a TD may “notice” anything (say, for example, that both Kings are mated and there is no legal move for either side - that’s always a good dispute to unravel). But (and this is the hard part for many new floor TDs at Nationals) - if no player asks you to look at the position, just keep on walking. Do not hover, do not admire the play, do not notice the clever mating net being constructed…IGNORE the position on the board.

Why? Because you can’t attend to every board, and once you start to be selective about which boards to attend to, bad things start happening.

Been there, done that, have the T-shirt covered with Yoo-hoo spit-up.

[Jedi]

That is what I’ve heard at all the last Nationals I’ve worked Ken so was surprised when I read Terry’s comments. I had no floor TDs under me in my section so didn’t have to ‘explain’ to them since there were no ‘them’. I worked under Glenn Panner in Nashville two years ago and we said yes and no to the checkmate question.

[jwiewel]

@JediJoshua

That is what I’ve heard at all the last Nationals I’ve worked Ken so was surprised when I read Terry’s comments. I had no floor TDs under me in my section so didn’t have to ‘explain’ to them since there were no ‘them’. I worked under Glenn Panner in Nashville two years ago and we said yes and no to the checkmate question.

It varies at National scholastics. I prefer the yes/no answer. It is fast and gives no additional information. At some nationals in the past couple of years the agreement was to go through the ways out of checkmate, and I followed that agreement for those. It may again be different the next time I’m on the floor (I haven’t yet heard the decision for the November NYA).

[sloan]

@JediJoshua

That is what I’ve heard at all the last Nationals I’ve worked Ken so was surprised when I read Terry’s comments. I had no floor TDs under me in my section so didn’t have to ‘explain’ to them since there were no ‘them’. I worked under Glenn Panner in Nashville two years ago and we said yes and no to the checkmate question.

As I said - there are good arguments on all sides. The final decisions are made by (in the case of SuperNationals) the Scholastic Committee and the Chief TD. I wasn’t on the floor this year, and Yo-Yo Ma kept me from attending the Thursday night meeting. So, I have no personal knowledge about the rule actually being used this year.

This is something that should have been made clear to all floor Section Chiefs on Thursday night. I don’t know if it was, or not.

Note that the version Vibbert reports has its advantages. Sadly, many local coaches instruct their students to raise their hand and say “is this checkmate?” at the end of every game. This is OK in a small, local, teaching event, where the coach may be the TD and the event is more of a learning opportunity than a serious competition. But, at a National Championship, it causes havoc when 50 hands all go up at once and there are only 10 TDs in the area to cover them.

One argument is that the rules say that it’s the TD’s job to answer questions about the rules. I think it’s stretching the point to say that asking “is this checkmate” is a question about the rules - but it’s not completely off-base.

Some argue that the TD should lead the player through the logic: “is your K attacked? can you move it? can you interpose?..”. In my opinion, this is also out of place at a serious competition (but might be OK in a small local teaching event).

The “yes/no” solution has been popular lately, as a reasonable compromise - but it does suffer from the fact that TDs have been known to make mistakes under time pressure (see: 50 hands up and 10 TDs to handle them).

One MAJOR principle that has emerged in the last 20 years of Nationals is that TDs are there to resolve disputes, and to confirm that the two players agree about the result. It is often part of the specific instructions to floor staff that, “if the players agree that White won, but the position on the board is a win for Black - then you mark it up as a win for White and get both players to sign the result slip”. In other words, the result of the game is what the PLAYERS say the result is. Only if there is a disagreement between the players should the TD get involved in analyzing the position.

This principle supports the rule that Vibbert reports: do not confirm or deny that a position is checkmate.

Now, if one player says “this is checkmate” and the opponent says “no, it’s not”…NOW the TD has a dispute to handle, and he should resolve it.

But, before that happens, the odds are that the players KNOW the answer, they’ve been (incorrectly) instructed by their coach to ask the question, and simply refusing to answer (risking the chance of being wrong) is a reasonable approach.

My favorite answer is: “what do you think?”. If the player says “I don’t know” - then I (usually, depending on my instructions from the Floor Chief) refuse to answer. If the player says “yes, it is!”, then I treat it as a “claim” and proceed from there. Most often, I next ask the opponent “what do you think?”. If he says “yes, it’s mate” - then my job is done! Mark it up and leave the room! If he says “I don’t know”, then I let him think about it (and now, for the first time, look at the position and decide for myself). Only if he stares stupidly for an unreasonable amount of time would I say “Yes, it’s checkmate, sign here”. It’s always better if the players agree on the result without being coerced (and, of course, if one player says “yes” and the other player says “no”, I rule on the dispute and either tell them to play on, or mark up the result.)

[Terry_Winchester]

Let me make clear that, although I don’t recall the Thursday night meeting covering this change, my Section Chief DID, on Friday, before Rd 1, so as far as I was concerned, advanced notice was given to the staff.

[Akzidenz]

@sloan

At USCF open events, many TDs will call mate (check-, and stale-), and will call any illegal move - but do not call flags.

By “call” do you mean “point out without being asked by one of the players to look at the position and make a ruling”?

If so, then it would seem a rather random way of doing it; if you happened to see the illegal move or unnoticed-by-players checkmate, it would get called. Otherwise, it’s that tree falling in the forest that no one hears.

However, there is a recognized variation where TDs do not call illegal moves. This is motivated by the ratio of games/TD. Ideally, a TD should announce this, and ideally all TDs on staff should be on the same page. Sometimes this doesn’t happen.

That’s been the version we use in our club’s adult tournaments. It’s also what I’ve witnessed in tournaments I’ve played in. The TD isn’t normally roaming the aisles and watching games. So the idea of non-intervention seemed pretty natural and reasonable to me, though I see how it could lead to some really stupid situations.

We were all clearly briefed on what to do before the event started, so we were all consistent.

[bartmebane]

Suppose both players agree that white’s king is mated, when in fact it is not mate. If we accept that the game ends there, with a win for black, then what exactly has happened to end the game? Either we have to expand the definition of checkmate to be whatever the players agree that it is, or we have to say that white has resigned (even though resignation by confusion is not mentioned in the rules).

Then should a TD be asking “Are you resigning?” rather than “Do you agree that it’s checkmate?” I’m not necessarily advocating that. I understand the practicality of accepting a result that both players agree on. But if the position is not mate, and no one has formally resigned, then isn’t ending the game there, in a sense, illegal? If the TD can intervene to prevent an illegal move, then shouldn’t he also intervene here to prevent an illegal ending? Clearly that is not explicitly permitted by the rules, but it’s food for thought.

[Akzidenz]

@bartmebane

Suppose both players agree that white’s king is mated, when in fact it is not mate. If we accept that the game ends there, with a win for black, then what exactly has happened to end the game? Either we have to expand the definition of checkmate to be whatever the players agree that it is, or we have to say that white has resigned (even though resignation by confusion is not mentioned in the rules).

At our state scholastic championship, players agree to a result, set up their board, then go to the scorer’s table to report. No one checks the games to see if the result is correct. No doubt the situation you describe happens several times in the 2100 or so games played over the course of the weekend. Yes, those are illegal game endings.

I struggle with this concept: “if the director happens to see you make an illegal move, s/he should intervene. If s/he doesn’t see the illegal move, so be it.” This argues that the chess world is improved because some errors happen to get seen and caught.

The argument against that is: “When the director intervenes based on a random observation, s/he is not treating all games and players the same.”

So: you’ve got your rulebook, and you’ve got your procedures. Which wins out?

[Terry_Winchester]

@bartmebane

Suppose both players agree that white’s king is mated, when in fact it is not mate. If we accept that the game ends there, with a win for black, then what exactly has happened to end the game? Either we have to expand the definition of checkmate to be whatever the players agree that it is, or we have to say that white has resigned (even though resignation by confusion is not mentioned in the rules).

Then should a TD be asking “Are you resigning?” rather than “Do you agree that it’s checkmate?” I’m not necessarily advocating that. I understand the practicality of accepting a result that both players agree on. But if the position is not mate, and no one has formally resigned, then isn’t ending the game there, in a sense, illegal? If the TD can intervene to prevent an illegal move, then shouldn’t he also intervene here to prevent an illegal ending? Clearly that is not explicitly permitted by the rules, but it’s food for thought.

There is no dispute in your case, and the result, as agreed upon, can stand. I’m sure this situation has occurred many times, where a player agreed that it was mate when it wasn’t. If a result is agreed upon, then the game is over.

Why would it be illegal to end a game by agreement? You’ve got some work to do to convince me of that one. And a player who believes that he has lost due to a checkmate doesn’t formally resign, rather he accepts what his opponent declares as checkmate.

[Grant_Perks]

@Terry Winchester

There is no dispute in your case, and the result, as agreed upon, can stand. I’m sure this situation has occurred many times, where a player agreed that it was mate when it wasn’t. If a result is agreed upon, then the game is over.

Why would it be illegal to end a game by agreement? You’ve got some work to do to convince me of that one. And a player who believes that he has lost due to a checkmate doesn’t formally resign, rather he accepts what his opponent declares as checkmate.

There isn’t an issue if both players agree that the game is a checkmate. The issue is when one player claims checkmate and the other isn’t sure.

I quit ruling in such situations when I caught myself confirming that a position was in fact checkmate when it wasn’t. Now that I don’t rule in such situations I rarely have to deal with such a claim, as the players in my area know what the standard response will be.

Again I point out that just looking at a position on a board isn’t really enough information to make a ruling. To properly handle the claim would require review of the previous series of moves to verify that the position was a legal checkmate.