Please consider the following (ahem!) hypothetical situation. The event is held at a quick, sudden death time control. The TD happens to approach a particular game, and observes that: Black has a clearly winning position; Black has no time showing on his (digital) clock; White has about 45 seconds remaining on his clock. Both players continue playing, with White apparently not noticing that he could make a time forfeit claim. As this game goes on, Black pushes a pawn to the back rank, but does not replace it with any other piece. Both players continue further, in apparent agreement that this pawn has become a queen (though there is an actual queen available right there). Eventually this Black “pawn” delivers “checkmate,” against the White king, at which point White still has about 8 seconds left on his clock.
White protests, saying that he was deceived by Black about the functioning of the clock. White says that Black told him the zero time reading did not imply time forfeit for technical reasons not made clear to the TD. The timing of that exchange is also not made clear to the TD, but Black does not contest that some kind of communication took place, and it did not occur while the TD was observing the game. When questioned, Black expresses the view that he still had time on the clock, despite the zero reading, due for some reason to the 5-second delay – but he could not elaborate. When questioned, White says he inferred from Black’s alleged remarks that the clock would make a noise or flash a light upon expiration of time. White then abruptly withdraws from the event and leaves the playing venue.
The clock is a standard commercial digital game clock. It was borrowed from a third party. In the opinion of this TD, the zero reading was indeed indicative of expiration of the player’s time. No witnesses offered any further information. No prizes (monetary or otherwise) and no titles were at stake. Both are above average players in strength, and both are adults with experience at tournament chess. Both players are non-native English speakers, and this was something of an obstacle to clear communication (with the TD and possibly with each other).
Factors weighing in White’s favor:
In all of this, Black did in fact overstep the time limit.
It could be inferred that White made an attempt to claim a time forfeit, but was persuaded to play on.
Black seemed to be incorrect, and was perhaps deliberately deceptive, about the functioning of the clock.
The “checkmate” was not properly made, since the promoted pawn was not physically replaced by a queen or other piece.
Factors weighing in Black’s favor:
Black did outplay his opponent, and his checkmate ordinarily would have ended the game.
White did not make any kind of claim to the TD as to a time forfeit, until after he was apparently checkmated.
White did not seek clarification as to the functioning of the clock until he was apparently checkmated.
White did not make a claim at any time with respect to the promoted pawn not being replaced by another piece.
The TD (in this - ahem! - hypothetical scenario) threw his arms up and recorded a draw, to the evident disgust of all observers.
Please (1) tell me how much of an idiot I am; (2) tell me the correct ruling.
White and black were playing the game, and when the game ended in checkmate, then white complained about something that previously happened.
Most of the problems in such situations come from the fact that VERY few players know even the basic rules. If white did claim a win on time, and black said no, or maybe, or I don’t know, or the sky is blue, and then white continues to play, I take it he has withdrawn his claim. When you make a claim (to your opponent) and your opponent disagrees, and then you keep playing the game, then the claim seems to be withdrawn. It is VERY difficult for me to imagine watching a game, seeing one player checkmate the other, and THEN decide the person did not win!
I agree, once a checkmate happens, then any game history is forgotten. I would just tell White that if they have a question, they should stop their clock and ask for a TD. (I’m assuming these were kiddies)
It’s clearly stated that the players are adults, and strong players. I’m assuming that the pawn moved illegally. In a recent tournament, when a (strong) player promoted to an upside-down rook, I stopped the clock and asked what piece that was. Then I replaced the upside-down rook with a queen and restarted the clock. At least that way I removed any question of what the piece was supposed to be. You can rule that Black never completed the promotion move. I’m not really sure what you’re supposed to do here. Did White agree that he had lost? If so, I’d interpret that as a resignation. If not, I really don’t see how you can’t give a win to White. Black never made a legal move to give checkmate, and White claimed a win on time with eight seconds left on the clock. Since neither player claimed an illegal move, you can’t add time to either side.
Thanks for your help on this. Please bear with me - I’m still not totally clear.
What if Black, after the final move was executed, complains that the position is in fact not checkmate? Technically, he would have been correct, as that the promoted pawn had not been replaced by another piece. And in the final position, the “pawn” was delivering “check” via a diagonal, three squares distance from the White king. A passer-by, not knowing the history of the game, would think that White is winning (he’d be a rook up).
Is it too late for White to make, for example, an illegal move claim? That is what I was expecting when all the shouting started. In that case, they would have had to reinstate the position just prior to promotion of the pawn, then Black would be required to promote the pawn properly. But wait – Black had already run out of time at that point, anyhow. Or does the act of playing on with the pawn as queen nullify White’s right to make such a claim? If they cannot reconstruct the last legal position, do the players play on with the “pawn” as a bona fide pawn? Seems a bit unsporting to rule that way, but that could be considered Black’s punishment for failing to execute the promotion properly.
It sounds like Black misunderstands the operation of one of the clocks that adds back the 5 second delay after the move.
White loses. He could have checked with a director regarding the clock operation. Once mate is given, it’s given.
Illegal moves need to be claimed during a game.
The problem with the last rule is that a mating illegal move cannot be refuted under the rules UNLESS it was deliberate under 11J. To some extent, I think this logical flaw has been in the rules for some time.
For example, if a player makes an illegal mating move, and releases the piece and (for example says “Mate”) and the opponent says “No, that’s illegal” it seems like under the rules that theoretically doesn’t matter because mate ends the game.
Someone might argue, well, it’s not really mate since the move wasn’t legal. But if so, then suppose that the illegal move was 5 moves earlier, and the player gives mate, and then the oppenent waits a few seconds and says “Hey, that move five moves ago was illegal.” So the mate isn’t really legal, right? What if he waits one second? Or less than one second? What if the illegal move was 15 moves ago? or more?
So I think there is a logical flaw here that directors would just have to rule around. Maybe it’s cleaner than it used to be, but it looks like some remnants are still there.
You should remember too that claims are NOT made to opponents or spectators, or anyone else. They need to be made to the TD. The proper way to do this is stop the clock, irrespective of the time left, and go get the TD. It sounds like in this case both parties agreed that checkmate had occurred, so perhaps the scoresheets would not be needed. White should learn how to make proper claims and, sadly, not to be so trusting and gullible.
In the case of your hypothetical of White (I assume you mean White?) claiming that it is not checkmate and that there is no queen, just a pawn, it would depend on what the TD can tell from the position, the players’ statements, and any spectators’ statements (hopefully). In this case, the burden falls on Black if a conclusive determination cannot be made, i.e. Black must provide a scoresheet showing the promotion. It’s fine if both players assume a queen and use an alternative piece, but in that case the promoting player is the one taking a risk and should be prepared to meet the consequences of the laxity.
I don’t know if the book says something in this regard, but as a TD I would allow players to stop the clock to look for a queen.
13A says that checkmate ends the game if the mating move is legal. It says nothing about the move before the mating move.
11A says that an illegal move becomes legal after ten moves by the opponent.
11D1 says that in sudden death time pressure (at least one player undre five minutes) then an illegal becomes legal after two moves by the opponent or after a stalemate or resignation or checkmate by a legal move.
One possible example is a player arriving 58 minutes late in a Game/60 time control and play going:
d3 Nf6
e4 Ng5
f3 Qh4+
Ke2 Qf2#
Move 3 is obviously illegal, but move 4 is a legal move and ends the game in checkmate.
In an alternative example
f4 g6
g4 Qh4#
This is not a legal move and in this case there is no legal checkmate to end the game.
I think Black wins. I would reject just about all the arguments given in White’s favor. He never claimed a win on time, nor illegal moves by the super-pawn, while it mattered. At the end, he agreed that the super-pawn was delivering checkmate, rather than saying something like “look I’m not even in check!”.
It doesn’t sound like one can infer that White tried to claim a time-forfeit. It would have been so easy for him to check it with the TD once the TD showed up.
He didn’t say he wasn’t checkmated but then started complaining only about the clock. And presumably by then the super-pawn had made a series of moves that could only be done by a queen, plus a queen is the most typical pawn promotion. It seemed that the players had a tacit understanding that it was a queen. I would just say that the game had been decided on the board according to that tacit understanding.
I don’t think White resigned. I think he was checkmated.
The wording of Rule 13A does include the phrase “providing the mating move was legal.” In the present case, it was not a legal move - Black moved a pawn several squares distance. Furthermore, the resulting final position, interpreted “as is,” was not checkmate. There was a captured Black queen an inch or two away from the board, so no need even to stop clocks to search for one. In fact, Black never indicated verbally that the promoted piece was intended to be a queen - he just moved it as one. So, I think it is possible to argue that the “checkmate” did not automatically end the game.
Thanks again, everybody, for your comments. Sorry I did not see some more recent posts, which went up while I was typing, and so I did not answer your questions.
When asked directly by the TD, White expressly did not agree that he was checkmated. He stopped the clock, and insisted he was lied to about the operation of the clock. It is indeed possible that Black tried to deceive him into thinking there was time left despite the 0:00 reading. On the other hand, it is possible that Black sincerely felt that there was still time (however erroneously) since there was no sound or blinking light – he tried to make a similar argument to the TDs. Black did admit that there was an exchange of words, which could have been White attempting to make a time forfeit claim. But White withdrew and left the playing venue before such questions could be answered.
Thanks Jeff. I thought that had been fixed, but didn’t find it and had forgotten about 13A.
Back in an earlier edition (2nd or 3rd) the rules would have been confounded if White played:
1 Bc4 and Qxf7 Mate.
Ridiculous of course, but the way the rules were worded then, White would have won.
Regarding 11A - as written, my impression is that if a game ending sequence (mate, stalemate) occurs within 10 moves that the move still stands, even though illegal, except per 13A.
It's not like White was [i]forced[/i] to continue making moves while his opponent has this thing sitting in the middle of the board. He could have suspended the game and insisted that his opponent immediately replace the promoted pawn as soon as the pawn started behaving funny. [b]But he chose to play on[/b] with the thing on the board, presumably because [i]he was trying to win on time,[/i] apparently unaware that Black's clock was already down.
And BTW, just for the record, my clock has a unique feature, which makes it appear that I've used up my time when it displays "0:00" But that's not accurate; I really have some more time left after that happens.
It’s possible to argue that, but it would be against the spirit of the rules in the book (see 1A). The book emphasizes common sense. Common sense would have the TD attempt to determine intention and the most likely explanation that fits the facts. Again, if Black can prove through a scoresheet that the pawn is indeed a queen, the last move has to be considered a legal move and 13A applies. Otherwise, the TD would have to examine the position, and most likely would come to the right conclusion about whether it is or it isn’t a queen.
Regarding a clock that shows 00:00 while time remains, if an opponent made a claim of time forfeit I would uphold the claim. Time forfeit means no time is left, and the clock shows indeed that no time is left. I might make an exception if the owner of the clock told both the opponent and the TD before the game starts, and demonstrated this irregular behavior, but I would strongly urge the players to use another clock. Bringing this up after it has happened or is about to happen disrupts the event and annoys the opponent, and whether deliberate or not, it should not be dealt with lightly.
I’d like to know about this “unique feature”. What clock is it? Is this the default setting? Can it be altered to behave like a normal clock? Inquiring minds want to know!
It’s one of the newer Chronos models. To get into this mode, you need to long press the red center button 47 times while alternately pressing the left and right buttons. Be careful to count correctly; if you long press the red button 48 times, you’ll erase all your settings and the clock will revert to factory defaults.
