I was TD for an unrated section in a tournament this past weekend. At a board were two young children who played to a white King, Queen, and Rook versus a black King endgame. Neither player was experienced (both around 5 yoa) and it was apparent white did not know how to checkmate black. After 15+ minutes of moving the pieces around with this material balance and possibly more than 50 moves, white became frustrated and resigned even though black lacked material to win.
It was an unrated tournament and I did not feel good about awarding a win to an opponent lacking winning material. I initially ruled it a 1/2-1/2 draw despite rule 13B because black shouldn’t be able to win with only a king and the ignorance of both pre-Kindergarten players. After consultation with other TDs, the result was modified to 1/2 - 1.
I would have never imagined I would see this. Has anyone seen similar? Thoughts on handling this situation?
I once years ago was helping with a scholastic event. 2 second graders were playing K+R versus lone King. It got painful to watch as the player with the Rook could not checkmate the opponent. I walked away from this, and a little bit later the 2 players came up to me and asked “Can we Quit?” My response was that at anytime 2 players can agree to a draw. Sure enough 5 minutes later the players were gone from the game each with a 1/2 point.
The younger brother of one of my students managed to “win” with bare K against Q+K. His opponent kept retreating the queen, and the little brother kept moving his king forward (legally). When the queen was pushed to the first rank, the young opponent (with the queen) started crying. Somehow the assistant director determined that he wanted to “give up” and reported a win in favor of the bare K. A round later, the chief TD heard the full story and corrected the result to a draw.
From what I read in rule 13B, a resignation stands. There is no mention in the rules that I have found that indicate that a resignation where one side lacks winning material should be ruled anything other than a win for the side that did not resign. It doesn’t seem to be in the spirit of the rules to give the win to a lone king considering the age and experience of the players, but I can’t find anything similar to rule 14E where a player has insufficient material to win on time.
As this was an unrated game we gave the 1/2 point to the player who resigned and made explanation. If this were a rated game I think one has to score it 0-1. That’s my dilemma.
You’ve got this absolutely correct. In unrated play, there may be pedagogical or customer service reasons to throw rules out the window.
If the game were rated, on the facts you describe, the score of the game is 0-1, and it’s an easy call.
I should add that on the facts that Michael Aigner described, 1/2-1/2 was a justifiable result, because crying is not a resignation. The intent to resign needs to be unmistakeable–a crying jag or a handshake with nothing more doesn’t cut it.
In a K+Q vs K situation, when the player with the K+Q says that they don’t want to play that game any more I treat it as abandonment resulting in flagging, in which case it would be a draw. At that age giving up the playing of a game is not thought of the same way as letting your opponent win (“quitting” before anybody won is different from “losing”).
I’ve had parents question why their kids didn’t get wins when the other player left, but they’ve only questioned it up until learning that their kids just had lone kings.
Fun memory: In 1988, at a club I frequented then, an adult A player reached K+R vs. K against an A player who was weeks shy of his 10th birthday.
The young near-prodigy did not resign, as he had some sort of log he kept to see how long his games (and losses) lasted. The adult player played a few moves, then got highly offended, morphing toward deranged. He glared at the lad, glared at the lad’s father, nearby, then turned to the TD and demanded he make the boy resign. The TD told him he could not do that, whereupon the “adult” screamed, “OK, if he won’t resign then I will.” Then he knocked over his King and left the building.
The TD called the USCF office to see what to do. They told him to mark the result as a win for the young player who had bare King. Thus he did so.
The young man was not scarred or scared, luckily, possibly due to the calming influence of his father, one of the best chess parents I ever met. The lad went on to become an IM and open a chess academy, while the dad suffered a much grimmer fate, as he served a sentence on the EB.
The deranged adult player got his just desserts later that year, but that’s another story.
What? Was he frustrated because he couldn’t remember how to checkmate with a lone rook? Having your opponent resign is not a right nor is it a requirement. I think it’s in really bad to taste to even ask your opponent to resign let alone even demand it.
Young players (even A level) should not resign. They need the practice in learning to fight for the game.
Besides every once in a while you should be able to prove you still know how to checkmate.
oh please-- if ever there is a case where common sense TD discretion should prevail this is it. Absolutely no way
would I ever, esp, in a lower level scholastic game let this stand as a win. Not a chance.
of course the young player should not resign. I have seen B level players who could not mate with a King and Rook
v king. The best advise for youngsters is to never resign, let you opponents prove it. For the snooty old types
who demand great respect due their lofty age, well scram to the old folks home.
I’d want to make sure, in this case, that white actually intended to resign. Saying “I give up” or “I quit” could just mean that he was giving up on trying to checkmate his opponent.
and before anyone takes my posts the wrong way, i love kids, teach kids chess, have kids of my own. most of the ones i play are very sociable and respectful. i don’t mind promoting all my pawns if they don’t resign…
“Everyone has a right to be checkmated,” is a phrase I heard long ago when a player complained about his opponent playing on in a grossly lost situation. Given how many time I have seen players fool around and create multiple Queens trying to embarrass the opponent, and by doing so allowing stalemate, it is understandable why some players play on. This is especially true in scholastic tournament where the skill in finishing the game is lacking for many players.
When I was first playing in tournaments in the Jurassic Period, I was once asked to resign before a game by a much higher rated player. That provided considerable motivation which I applied to taking everything from him but his soul. His bare King was surrounded by my pieces but I withdrew them and checkmated him with K+Q. I did not say a word to him during or after the game. Today, I tell my students when they face another player who plays on in a totally lost position not to fool around, not to snicker or insult the guy/girl, but to play as efficiently and accurately as possible to win and end the game. That is the quickest way to end a contest and likely will lead to a player resigning earlier rather than later.
Understandable. Your follow-up about how it is better to win the game quickly without dragging things out is also very good advice.
I’ve had coaches come to me to complain about how unsportsmanlike players on opposing teams are cruelly dragging out the agony by making their player suffer through things like 6-knight mating attacks. They want me to declare the game drawn (or won by their player) due to that unsportsmanlike conduct.
My response has always been that their player can end the agony at any time by resigning and if they are playing on then they are volunteering to undergo that agony.