I’m sure this has been discussed here before, probably started by me, but I couldn’t find anything in the search, and I don’t remember the conclusions.
In most scholastic tournaments, there’s usually many requests from players for the TD to verify a checkmate. I believe we came to the conclusion that since “checkmate/stalemate immediately ends the game”, the TD may (with or without a claim by a player) declare the game over. If we didn’t conclude that, then please correct me, and see the third question below.
question:
What if both players are oblivious to the situation and it is NOT check/stalemate. How should the TD rule without unduly influencing the outcome of the game?
Should the TD simply say “no, play on”? This seems to unfairly benefit at least one of the players.
Should the TD ask the players what they think the outcome is, and rule according to a “player’s agreement”?
Currently, I inform the players of the three ways of getting out of checkmate, and let them decide on their own, according to #2. But this doesn’t always get the job done - sometimes the players can’t decide.
Please assume that neither player knows whether or not we have a mate.
And a third question:
What if the TD is mistaken when declaring the game over when the TD believes (erroneously) that there IS a mate?
Are there any clear (I’ll even take implied) rules regarding this?
Its’ a little sad that a scholastic player will play out a game even if the game is lost. Having a lone King against 2 Queens, 4 pawns and two Knights and a Bishop. Glad scholastic coachs do not teach children how to deal with the cold, as the students would be out-side till they freeze to death.
If the player on the board is in checkmate, the player must ask the director (if both players do not accept). It does not matter what the age of the player, or the rating of the player. The majority of checkmates, both players would accept the final move on the board. If its’ a checkmate and the player needs a director to take care of the problem; or its’ a claim of a checkmate and there is no checkmate – the scholastic chess coach needs to go over checkmate with their student. As a director can only confirm a checkmate or its’ not a checkmate.
If its’ a non-rated game, as a scholastic coach would have greater freedom to express what is going on with the board. If its’ a rated game, as a scholastic coach have no liberty to express anything happening on the board. If its’ a rated game, as a director only the liberty to express myself if the player ask for a judgement. And only the liberty to express myself to the question.
If a player can force, or with the minor blunders of the other player force a draw – then its’ not a lost game. With myself, looking at the board and seeing best play from myself and the other player; if no change to win or little tactical change to force a draw – will resign the game. When anyone has a lone King, with a mass of material not even needed for checkmate, and the players are not in time trouble – wounder why play on. Under classical ratings (G/30 or slower) never recall being checkmated.
There are coaches telling the students if they resign they are off the team. Never understanding why its’ so important to play till checkmate. If the board is set up with White: Qg4 Kf2 a2 b2 c2 d2 e2 Black: Kh1, could mate in one or turn all my pawns into Queens. If want to turn all my pawns into Queens … there is some players thinking there is a change for stalemate or going to accept a draw.
When teaching students to play on till checkmate, they never look for the draw, or see a tactical draw in the first place. If a coach can only have a mind set (for the students) to play on till checkmate. It will not make the students stronger players, as they will pass up the draws going for the win.
So, Douglas, are you saying that you would confirm that it is not mate? I don’t think I have a problem with confirming the existence of mate, my query has to do with when it’s not.
I don’t view rated and unrated events separately. I conduct both events with the same regard as to tournament procedures. It’s part of the learning process.
Bringing blunders into these scenarios throws a big monkey wrench into deciding if it’s appropriate(?) to play on or resign. In reality, blunders happen often enough in GM play and about every other move in games of beginners. If your opponent doesn’t see it and take advantage of it, it might not be considered a blunder. If your opponent isn’t capable of demonstrating mate (through further play), it might not be considered a lost game.
That’s your right as one of the players. The fact that an observing GM, E player, or TD might have an entirely different interpretation of the position is irrelevent.
Maybe they don’t understand the position. Maybe they don’t think their opponent understands the position. Maybe they want to play it out to get some experience. Maybe they see something in the position that you don’t. Maybe they just want to get their money’s worth out of the entry fee by playing each game to a conclusion.
If a player ask the director (myself as the director) if the board has a checkmate, can confirm checkmate or its’ not checkmate. Only willing to answer the question that was asked from the player(s). If its’ not checkmate, will confirm its’ not checkmate – as it was the question from the player(s). Confirming the position on the board (checkmate), is not helping White or Black with the next legal move: if the claim of checkmate is false. If the position on the board is in error (noticed only by the director), with two white Bishops on the black squares, or the Queen set up on the wrong color. Will not point out the error till one of the players makes a claim.
If its’ a tournament event, rated or unrated will treat it the same. If its’ a classroom, would point out the errors as it is a learning process. The scholastic coach is to teach the students not to make bad habits. Making sure the students understand what is checkmate, stalemate, notation. Then move on to positions on the board, of understand what is a draw or how to force a draw. Understanding what is a won game, when its’ acceptable to offer a draw and when its’ not. Teaching time managment, for time managment of the game, or the time managment of the tournament.
When its’ a tournament, if having a student at the tournament. Cannot be the scholastic coach and the director at the same time. If the student in the tournament, must treat the student like everyone else. The student has to depend on their skills only.
There are generally two ways of handling the question of whether or not a checkmate exists. Either simply answer with a yes or a no, or recap the checkmate rules for both players and ask them if they think a checkmate exists (if one exists and they say no then you generally correct their misperception while if one does not exist and they both say yes then you accept that as the completion of the game). At Supernationals this past weekend, the simple yes/no was used in general due to the size of the tournament and the lack of TD time to be able to work through the second method at all the games with the question.
If the TD erroneously rules the game over, TDs have either continued the game from the point of the erroneous ruling (possible problems include upsetting the round times and risking having people play after receiving the benefit of outside analysis), created a split result retaining the original win for that player and giving something other than a loss to the player erroneously ruled against (often making the game unrateable and also making for some strange looking wall charts), or letting the result stand as the checkmate erroneously ruled (possibly due to hubris of the TD or due to such an overwhelming advantage that the checkmate was a foregone conclusion such as black having pawns on g7 and h7, a king on h8 and a bishop on a3 while a white rook on e8 is erroneously awarded a checkmate because the TD overlooked the merely delaying Bf8 move).
If you come to a board to take a result and one player simply stated matter-of-factly that a checkmate occurred, but did not actually ask if one occurred, you can avoid even looking at the position and simply ask the both players “who won” (actually quite common early in a round when the TD cannot unnecessarily spend extra time at a board), and you can still ask the question even if you’ve already looked at the position and noticed that it was not a checkmate. Since players can win without a checkmate (when the opponent resigns) that avoids having the TD interfere in the game where the players have agreed on a result and also avoids somebody saying that the TD erroneously said there was a checkmate. A few players consider resigning a subset of checkmate.
I’ve found that among weaker scholastic players a K+Q vs. K results in stalemate about 50% of the time while a K+2Q vs. K results in stalemate about 90% of the time, so a material difference is often not enough to determine whether or not a player will lose. One reason scholastic players play on in lost positions is because their opponent often does not know how to win them.
For that matter, you see adults (including myself) doing the same thing and often drawing or winning lost positions because their opponents are not able to win a won game. You also see adults who don’t realize their position is lost (I had a game against an IM where I was lost, didn’t realize it, and then the IM blundered the tempo necessary for me to secure the draw I had erroneously thought was already locked up). In another tournament I made a successful attempt to draw a lost position by trading to an ending with my K versus my opponent’s K+B+N.
In one US Open I analyzed a position for 20 minutes and then deliberately offered a rook trade near the end of the first time control giving my slightly lower rated opponent in significant time pressure the option of going into an ending with K+B+6P versus K+B+6P with the bishops on opposite colors. My opponent accepted the trade without realizing that the position was actually eventaully lost for him and he needed to keep the rooks on to draw, but I would never have begrudged him his vain attempt to hold the draw after making the trade.
I’ve seen adults resign in games where they had draws, or even wins, because they listened to people say it was impolite to fight games out.
What if, however, the player who is alleged to be in mate questions the TD as to the veracity of the opponent’s claim? Is it reasonable for the TD to recap the checkmate rules? Is it the TD’s RIGHT to help a player in his/her game in these situations? It’s always occurred to me that the TD’s role is non-instructional.
If White plays a move and says checkmate, if Black does not understand what is a checkmate. There are going to be scholastic games ending in checkmate, and games ending in a false claim of checkmate as both parties agree to a false claim.
When I’m paired with some scholastic players, have been thinking why some would say checkmate or stalemate a few times during the game. They should understand the game is not a stalemate or checkmate, if not understanding what is a stalemate or checkmate – could accept the word of stalemate or checkmate. When I say its’ not stalemate or checkmate, they drop the claim without asking why.
If a scholastic player got away with the word checkmate, when the game was not in checkmate. If it worked once it could work a second time. The first time it happened, both parties did not understand but accepted the claim. The winner after some time understood of the error. The second time, it could be used as a way to cheat.
If as a director at the board, and White says checkmate and Black has no understanding to the claim. If Black accepts a false claim of checkmate, without asking the director if the claim is true or false. There is nothing as a director I can do about it. Accepting a false claim of checkmate is not resigning, its’ accepting being cheated. If White makes a claim of checkmate, and Black accepting the claim of checkmate, and the director can see its’ not checkmate. In a sad way the rules are designed, the director is helping White to cheat.
When asked if a position is checkmate I give an answer that includes either yes or no (no often includes the phrase that there is at least one way to get out of the checkmate).
As far as multiple claims of checkmate and stalemate by scholastic players goes, I’ve noticed that generally they honestly but erroneously believe their claim. When I’ve said that a position is not checkmate players will not argue, but it may take them some time for the checked player to finally find a way out of the checkmate. Often the checking player finally finds a way and helpfully moves to point it out (particularly in the younger grade levels where a kid’s desire to be helpful is not yet tempered by the realization that the opponent needs to make their own moves), but I try to always intervene before the player actually does so because they will point out the first escape method they see without realizing that there may be multiple methods and the checked player should be the one to decide which method to use - usually the first one the checked player happens to see. Even if there really is only one method out I still keep the checking player from making any suggestions because I want the players to get used to not suggesting moves to their opponents, I want consistency, and I don’t want the players to think that my intervening automatically means there is more than one way out of mate.
In some casual games between immature players that know each other well in a friendly manner there will be attempts to tease the other player with false claims, but that can be penalized in tournament games under the rules regarding annoying the opponent and/or nearby players (or for unsportsmanlike conduct in severe cases).
As far as correcting an erroneous impression goes, telling players to continue when both agree that the game is over can be considered interference by the TD. In this situation I ask which player won and leave it at that. On the occasions when a parent or coach confronts me later I explain that I was not asked to confirm a checkmate and did not confirm a checkmate, I merely asked both players who won, they both agreed, and even in the event that I had noticed that it was not a checkmate I would have been constrained by the non-interference guidelines to take the result both players agreed to. This is one reason many players will specifically ask whether or not a position is a checkmate before accepting the result (and I’ve even had players that are delivering the checkmate ask, sometimes because they always ask and sometimes as a defensive move in case the opponent tries to claim that it wasn’t really a checkmate, particularly in the primary sections where they are not writing their moves). If either player asks for confirmation that a checkmate occurred then I let them know that it is not actually a checkmate. Having been asked that question thousands of times since first becoming an expert, I have to admit that there have been a handful of times I’ve answered no and then taken a second look at the position to see that a piece on the far side of the board covers an escape square, protects the checking piece or pins a piece that would otherwise capture the checking piece. Percentages indicate that there was probably at least one time when I confirmed a checkmate when there was a distant piece that could have blocked or captured the checking piece, and did not immediately notice my error and correct my call. As long as TDs are human, errors can be made.
I can relate what happened in 2000 in the 6-8 grade section at one of the Illinois elementary state championships. A player played a move declared checkmate and stuck out his hand. The opponent silently shook his hand in a shell-shocked reflex while looking at the board and immediately saw and played PxR with one hand ending the checkmate while his other hand was still in the handshake. The NTD at the board ruled that it was not a checkmate and the game should continue. As an ANTD at that time I was the chief and I upheld that ruling, reasoning that a simple handshake was ambiguous as to whether it is a draw offer or a resignation, and the only word said (checkmate) was irrelevent as there was no checkmate. The appeals committee (3 senior TDs) decided in a 2-1 vote that the handshake in that situation WAS the equivalent of a resignation and that the game was over at that point with the player erroneously claiming the checkmate being awarded the win. I do believe that the player making the claim really thought it was a checkmate and was not trying to cheat, so assessing any unsportsmanlike conduct penalty for an honest error would have been incorrect. An appeal was made in writing to the USCF office, but after more than two years and numerous e-mails and attempts to find out what the USCF decided, I finally gave up on it, long after the coach who made the appeal had already given up. The upshot is that it often depends on the particular TDs involved as to how a situation actually gets handled.
Hmmmm - I’ve handled this one by starting all over and asking what happened. If I hear the phrase ‘I was checkmated’ uttered by the alleged loser, the game is over. If I hear ‘I checkmated him’ by the alleged winner, and it’s true, the game is over. If it’s not true then a review of the checkmate rule is appropriate since it’s a rules misunderstanding. All TDs that are rules experts do have an instructional job … and we do instruct all the time about the clock rules and touch move and so forth. We can;t get away from that.
Now if I hear something ambiguous like ‘I lost’ or something definite like ‘I resign’ the game is over.
But the worst case I think is A is not checkmated and the opponent claims that he is. As TD I can rule that A is not checkmated (if asked - it’s a rules question), but I have to leave it at that. Suppose A then randomly moves a piece - it is either a correct way to get out of checkmate (involvement over … for now … ) or it is an illegal move. Then you handle it like an illegal move.
I really don’t understand the appeals committee overruling that one instance - it seems to me it was handled well. Tournament hardened veterans should know not to shake hands until they validate the claim; but in 7th grade, we’re LUCKY if we can instill basic manners in them LIKE shake hands when offered. And I’d hate to encourage kids to be more slimey and make false claims of checkmate hoping to catch some youngster in a quick handshake. SHould we teach our kids NEVER to shake hands to avoid the appearance of agreeing with a ridiculous claim?
I don’t know … certainly Kasparov and Karpov don’t shake hands until the game is over, but some scholastic environments are different, and it’s the chief TD and the organizer who are responsible for setting the climate, and I would never overrule in a questionable case like this.
But it wont be the last time the youngster lost a game he didn’t deserve to! And he will learn the rule!
As a member of the USCF rules committee to which this case was appealed, I am shocked to learn that USCF never communicated the committee’s decision to you. (Maybe they communicated it to the other TD.)
As I recall, the local appeals committee consisted of a senior TD, a local TD, and a non-TD. The senior TD voted with the two chief TDs, but the other two voted to overrule. This was incredibly bizarre, since of the five people involved with the decision, three (an NTD, an ANTD, and a senior TD) wanted it one way, while two (a local TD and a non-TD) wanted it the other way, yet the two prevailed, because technically the appeals committee voted 2-1 to overturn.
The USCF rules committee voted (unanimously, if I recall correctly) to overturn the local appeals committee and re-instate the original ruling of the chief TDs. Not only did we feel the original ruling made the most sense, but in addition we were aghast that two less experienced TDs could overrule three more experienced TDs.
This was all going on at the time the 5th edition rulebook was being written. The rulebook revision committee (consisting of the entire rules committee along with about 10 other people) realized, partially as a result of this case, that maybe the concept of a local appeals committee was not such a hot idea, and that a “special referee” was preferable in most cases. A list of “special referees” (about 20 NTDs nationwide) used to appear (maybe still does) in the rating supplements. TDs are encouraged to call these special referees whenever an appeal develops. That way, more experienced TDs will pass judgment on the rulings of less experienced TDs, rather than the other way around.
The 5th edition states, in two places (21I1 and 21J), that “To ensure impartiality a special referee is preferred over an appeals committee.” In 21J1 it goes on to say “Use of a special referee is most appropriate when the tournament director is certified at a lower level than the referee, and when a director of comparable certification to the referee is not immediately available to serve on an appeals committee.”
Hello Bill, it’s been a while and I forgot that one of the members was a non-TD until you had reminded me. The only e-mail I have saved from this did not contain the levels of the TDs and five years blurs the memory. The other member voting to overturn the ruling on the floor was a non-Illinois member of the USCF scholastic council and convinced the non-TD master to vote with him (I thought I remembered him being a senior TD). The other Illinois TD (I’m not sure exactly when he became a senior TD) that wanted to uphold the floor ruling was very upset at finding himself in the minority on what he considered an obvious decision. Based on the last e-mail to the USCF that I saved the appeal was being handled by one person, who then left, then the ruling was to be disseminated by a second person, who then left, and a third person who took over wasn’t sure what happened the the appeal. When I asked the other TD he said he hadn’t been informed either.
If this was a partial impetus for making the special referee preferable then there was one bit of good that came out of it, though that may be slim consolation to the player ruled against.