Player A releases his rook on g3 just as I arrive at the board. Player B claims player A let go of the rook and I say yes that’s correct. I see no problem as the rook on g3 is protected by player A’s King on f2. Unknown to me the released piece was prior to my arrival. The rook was actually released on h3 not g3 which I observed. Player B’s King is right there on h2 to snatch it up. A horrible blunder.
This is a classic King and Rook ending and should have been a draw.
I tell player A you did release the piece (I did not say h3 or g3 just simply you released the piece as I showed up). He becomes seriously upset and denies the claim. I’m like hmmm what is wrong here for such a serious emotional outburst(both are about 12 years old but very seasoned players).
I have to take player A out of the playing hall as he is disrupting the other players. He cries and says I lost and my dad is going to be so mad at me. I ask why did you lose? He does not answer as he is so upset. I go back to the board and ask player B what happened. He states the released piece was h3 not g3. Player A continues to deny it when questioned further.
I ask if anyone witnessed the rook released on h3, no one responds.
I know this young man was not telling the truth so I go to question him more. I need to hear him state why he lost? To my surprise player B comes out of the playing hall and says I accept your offer of a draw to player A(he was very upset as well). This was an imaginary draw offer as none was offered. Player A says thank you with relief and they mark it 1/2-1/2.
A high rated player at that moment comes to me and says he saw the rook released on h3. I ask him why he didn’t say something when I asked for a witness. He had a bathroom issue and tried to get back as quickly as he could.
I do not usually change a score once it’s been marked. I feel in this case player B unjustly lost his win for all the drama that was released.
I have not changed the score as yet but feel with all the evidence now in that player A should get a 0 and player B should get a 1.
I would like your thoughts. This was one strange episode.
More information about the board might be interesting. If it was K+R vs K+R and if the other player’s rook was on the a, b, c or g files then Rg3 also drops the rook.
It is an unfortunate psychological ploy used by some to “misremember” where pieces are. This
ploy can sometimes be highly effective in lower level scholastic competitions where the re is less
notation or generally grossly inadequate notations. The idea is that even if player B tells A, no
your Knight was NOT on b4, it was on c4, and therefore cannot fork me on c2. Even if player A
relents, and makes a legal move, quite often player B is so upset by the discussion that it is
difficult to continue further. There are a few kids with such reputations, and they are watched
like hawks by our tournament direction staffs.
Rob Jones
Player B offered a draw without capturing the rook, right? Player A accepted, right? Both players had mating material. Draw. Very simple.
I know that this wasn’t a typical draw offer, but it has to be construed as one.
I had an event a few years ago (last year?) where White claimed a rule violation and asked me to rule the game a draw. I think Black had mate in two. I investigated and gave Black a time penalty. White appealed to a special referee. Lost. Insisted I declare the game drawn. I told Black that White offered a draw but he was under no obligation to take it. White pleaded in the name of sportsmanship. Black made a move. White resigned.
Alex Relyea
BTW, I informed White how to file a complaint with TDCC and Rules. If he did, I never heard about it.
That’s a very straightforward way to look at this. The players agreed to a draw before the director could make a ruling.
I’ve certainly seen young players like player B stick to their story in a situation like this, and player B was under no pressure from you to withdraw his claim.
As a parent, I want kids to learn how to take responsibility and own their mistakes. I hope I can remember in a situation like this to take A aside and ask him, “Did you make a mistake? If you did, then the right thing to do is to own it. Everyone makes mistakes, and if you need me to talk to your dad about this I would be happy to. If you didn’t, then we’ll keep working on this, and there’s nothing to cry about.”
Player B took too much responsibility for the situation: He resolved the issue for all concerned.
As Maret said, the players agreed to a draw before you made your ruling. The draw must stand.
You say that it was a classic King and Rook ending which should have been a draw, but I don’t fully understand why the consequences of the Rh3 move matters except, of course, if player B had no mating material, he would be unable to claim a time forfeit win. What I’m saying here is that it doesn’t matter who is winning, or losing, or draw potentials, and the position on the board doesn’t matter at all in a touch-move situation: we’re supposed to ascertain whether or not the claim is valid, and make a ruling, that’s it. So, getting involved, asking the player “why he thought he lost” isn’t meaningful, in my opinion, unless, of course, it’s a tactic in order to get him to admit having release the piece of h3.
Anyway, although a draw wasn’t offered by player A, I’d say that player B offered one, and player A accepted by saying “thank you”. The game is over, and the result should stand.
edited to clarify players A & B, as the original had them transposed.
Where’s that darned “Like” button?..The draw may have been offered in an unconventional manner, but clearly it was offered and accepted. Absent player cheating or TD error, neither of which is in evidence here, I loathe changing a posted result. I would not do so here. The draw stands.
This.
Sometimes you cannot believe your own “lyin’ eyes.” In incident mentioned, the OP said he saw the Rook released on g3. He did not see the piece being released on h3 first, nor did he have any witnesses at the time who could say they saw what happened. You may think you know the truth of the matter, but unless you can back it up with something approaching proof, then you can only rule based on what is there in front of you. It is possible the piece was dropped accidentally on h3 and then “adjusted” to the correct square. That has happened in international tournaments. This situation seems similar to those incidents. As an aside, I would have to see the position to know whether it really was a drawish Rook ending; not enough details were given. Even so, that position is not as relevant as the conduct of the players.
Fortunately, the OP was saved the necessity of making a ruling by the other player who offered/accepted the imaginary draw. The fact that someone comes up later to add what he is supposed to have seen is too late, and may not be credible anyway. The draw should stand. The players considered it a just result, and that is good enough.
BTW, what would the OP poster have done if player A was Garry Kasparov, someone who has a history of playing fast and loosed with the chess pieces? Would that history matter? Would he question/badger Garry the same way he did the 12 year old? How sure would he be that he saw what he saw if a superstar chess player said that he had put the Rook on g3? This goes to the point of how players and incidents should be treated.
It is a draw as per the posts above.
Many years ago I was called to make a ruling on a 3 move repetition draw claim. The second player didn’t think it was a draw & didn’t want a draw. I reviewed the game and ruled it a draw by repetition. The second player then stated I resign (apparently preferring a loss to a draw), and I stated that it was already ruled a draw.
The point is that in the above case a ruling was made which ended the game. In your example a ruling did not and would not have ended the game. I will agree that the Rook at h3 (as should be the ruling with a witness) will eventually result in a loss, but it did not end the game. Therefore, the draw offer by the player who could win the rook is a legitimate offer that was accepted. Hence, a final result of a draw for the game is correct. No matter if the second player was being a good sport, was looking to do the “swiss gambit”, or just didn’t want to deal with any more drama does not matter. An offered and accepted draw ends the game with a half point for each player.
Larry S. Cohen
I wish Mr. Hunt would clarify if there were pawns on the board.
Alex Relyea
Why is that even relevant? We aren’t doing an adjudication here. Draw offered, draw accepted, end of story.
I enjoyed all the opinions I’ve read. I received exactly as I thought I would, thank you all. I was never intending to give Player B a full point. Only he “should”. I did not badger the 12 year old. By the way I did kick out a GM, and really angered another at the Pacific Coast Open last year. You may ask Randall Hough about that one. So yes a super chess star or even Garry would get the boot from me if it warranted it. I judicially enforce all rule infractions by all chess players. Age, gender, GM, IM, doesn’t matter to me. I have a horrible streak of honesty in me. I did say judicially.
There were no pawns on the board. Plenty of clock time.
Position: White Kh2, Rook h7; Black Kf2, Rook f3. Black’s move.
Player A told me later he did not offer a draw as I already knew.
I’m very good with kids since I had 8 of them and know how to work with them. If Player B had waited before he improperly came out and excepted the actual imaginary draw offer he would have gone home with the win. That is why I started the conversation with a sympathetic tactical question of “why did you lose?” to Player A.
It is an impossibility to accept something that was never offered to you in time. Therefore the draw offer never existed in time and cannot be accepted.
The draw stands only because they scored it that way, and they were glad to leave it that way.
Thanks again for all the input.
Excuse I did mean accepted not excepted.
Are you suggesting you would have forfeited Black for playing Rh3? For trying to place it back on g3? I have no idea why Black should have lost at any point in this discussion.
Alex Relyea