White Resignation with Black Lacking Winning Material

[wintdoan]

“Playing” on is one thing. I recall one of my girls having mate next and her opponent, having consumed roughly five minutes to get into a dead busted position then sat for the remaining 25 to lose on time rather than by checkmate. Jeff probably was working that one, and I’m wondering what he might have done if he were called over about the opponent simply not showing any interest in moving.

[Mulfish]

@DENTONCHESS

@jforbes

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.

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.

Rob Jones

I’m not unsympathetic to Rob’s disdain for the absurdity of the situation, but in the course of applying “common sense TD discretion” should not a TD have some rules-based justification for blatantly changing the result of a game? In a rated event, could one use anti-sandbagging as a rationale, even if there is no evidence that that was the intent of the action? Perhaps a less accusatory phrase than “anti-sandbagging” might be more appropriate. Something along the lines of protecting the integrity of the rating system?

[relyea]

@wintdoan

“Playing” on is one thing. I recall one of my girls having mate next and her opponent, having consumed roughly five minutes to get into a dead busted position then sat for the remaining 25 to lose on time rather than by checkmate. Jeff probably was working that one, and I’m wondering what he might have done if he were called over about the opponent simply not showing any interest in moving.

I consider this falling under 20H1.

Alex Relyea

[wintdoan]

@relyea

@wintdoan

“Playing” on is one thing. I recall one of my girls having mate next and her opponent, having consumed roughly five minutes to get into a dead busted position then sat for the remaining 25 to lose on time rather than by checkmate. Jeff probably was working that one, and I’m wondering what he might have done if he were called over about the opponent simply not showing any interest in moving.

I consider this falling under 20H1.

Alex Relyea

He sat at the board for the 25 minutes.

[jwiewel]

@wintdoan

@relyea

@wintdoan

“Playing” on is one thing. I recall one of my girls having mate next and her opponent, having consumed roughly five minutes to get into a dead busted position then sat for the remaining 25 to lose on time rather than by checkmate. Jeff probably was working that one, and I’m wondering what he might have done if he were called over about the opponent simply not showing any interest in moving.

I consider this falling under 20H1.

Alex Relyea

He sat at the board for the 25 minutes.

18G1, which didn’t exist prior to the fifth edition. I’ve used this many times over the years since it came out.

The first thing to check before invoking 18G1 is whose clock is running. If a person is not yet on-move then it doesn’t matter whether or not they are simply sitting.

[seki]

“Playing” on is one thing. I recall one of my girls having mate next and her opponent, having consumed roughly five minutes to get into a dead busted position then sat for the remaining 25 to lose on time rather than by checkmate.

I saw this at the US Open in Hawaii where I was a TD. 50 year old man with a bare king facing mate on the move by about a 10 year old king. Sat there while his clock ran out (30-45 minutes as I recall.) About 11:30 pm.

Suppose he was hoping for a melt-down by the kid; I thought he was a douche…

I would never want to win a game that way.

[William_H_Stokes]

@ericmark

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.

The USCF office got this one totally wrong. The player with no mating material cannot win. The player with the rook exhibited boorish behavior but the material dictates this result. And if this was a rated game the result was even more egregious. I’m surprised that one of the chess fundamentalists has not clarified this situation so that it has no hope of happening again. The proper result is a draw.

[Hal_Terrie]

@William H Stokes

@ericmark

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.

The USCF office got this one totally wrong. The player with no mating material cannot win. The player with the rook exhibited boorish behavior but the material dictates this result. And if this was a rated game the result was even more egregious. I’m surprised that one of the chess fundamentalists has not clarified this situation so that it has no hope of happening again. The proper result is a draw.

Sorry but you’re the one who is wrong. Per rule 13B resignation immediately ends the game. There is no mention in the rule of what material may happen to be on the board. If you say, “I resign” you lose.

Maybe you were thinking of rule 14D but that rule explicitly requires that the possibility of a win is excluded for either side. Since one player had a rook, 14D doesn’t apply.

– Hal Terrie

[DENTONCHESS]

@tmagchesspgh

“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.

I do wish father time had not diminished my memory as to players in specific events, or exactly what the events were that the memories are from. But I do recall a WFM who was being obliterated by an “A” player. One who certainly was well versed in how to properly checkmate and avoid stalemate. This was the next to last round of a night round, so it was getting late, and many of us were starting to get concerned just how late the next round would go to. Yet, “rudely” the WFM played out this “lost” position.

Miraculously, the A player did stalemate her. After the game the WFM looked at us all and stated “Boys, one does not become a master by resigning”.

A very good lesson indeed.

Rob Jones