Keep in mind that my response requiring the draw to stand was specifically in response to Tom Doan’s alternate hypothetical for Chris Merli’s first scenario.
I did say that mate (checkmate or stalemate) ends the game. But if two players are reporting a result upon which they have agreed, and not asking me about the position on the board, my job is to take the reported result and keep moving.
USCF rules generally require a director to not intervene in a game in progress unless asked. It’s true that the game is no longer in progress once the players are reporting the result. But the game is between those two players. If they’re telling me what happened, and they both agree as to the result, it’s not my job to inquire further.
This is exactly why, if I am collecting a results slip at a USCF national scholastic, I don’t even look at the position on the board. “So Bobby Bishop is white, Kathy Knight is black, and Kathy won, correct?” Once the answer comes back in the affirmative, I’m gone.
You’re correct. Upon checking the rule book, I see that the language is explicit that the offer is still pending even if B says “move first” which does make sense when I think about it, since the out-of-order draw offer is a rather serious breach of procedure.
Given all the possible outcomes of such a scholastic game (includes all the crazy illogical reactions of coaches and parents etc.), I would probably take the same approach. Heck, I’ve taken the same approach in State scholastics for the same reasons.
I have a concern with this. Why would it be a win in the first situation? Once the stalemating move is played, what does it matter what they agree to after the game is over?
Second, if its a teachable moment, why would the results ever vary whether it were a USCF rated section or not? If one has a teachable moment, one teaches reality, not a fiction. And why wouldn’t this be a teachable moment whether or not the event is rated?
Suppose we tweak Chris’ situation a little. A & B report that White wins. Director sees that the final position is stalemate, but that Black’s clock is running and that Black’s flag is down. Upon being asked, both players agree that White moved, pushed his clock, and that then Black’s flag fell, and that is why they agreed that White won. What would you rule?
Now ask, once the stalemating move occurs, does it matter whatever the reason that the two players agreed that White won?
Look, let’s face it … with the insistence that directors do not intervene absent a claim (except for very limited situations), the USCF Official Rules of Chess implicitly assume that the players are competent enough at chess to recognize checkmate, stalemate, and illegal moves. (There are plenty of days when I would also argue they are written for adults, but that is another matter.)
IMHO, the inability to recognize stalemate, checkmate and illegal moves is not strictly a scholastic chess issue, I’ve seen adult USCF members who didn’t recognize them, either, including players who had dozens of tournament games under their belts and a rating over 1000.
There are more problems that arise from not having the rule that checkmate immediately ends the game than arise from such a rule. It is also consistent with the FIDE Laws of Chess.
Strictly speaking, it is not “the TD see[ing] a checkmate” that ends the game. It is the determination of a legal move producing checkmate that ends the game. The director is simply acknowledging the factual situation that exists.
Having written that, I will tell a story that still haunts me today. At a G/60 tournament I was directing, I was watching a game where both players were in serious time pressure. At one point, I thought I saw Black move a knight and checkmate White. However, the players were moving so quickly that I could not be sure whether there was checkmate, though I could clearly see White’s king in check. After a few moves, Black moved the knight away. As there had been no claim of illegal moves, I did not intervene. In addition, I was hesitant to intervene just because the simple act of intervening would have been so disruptive to both players. Bletch …
I’m not sure anything in Rule 21D says that this is the “company line”. If a dispute arises in this situation, then I can use Rule 21D4 to intervene. Otherwise, I’m not saying a word.
My personal view is that it is up to the players to recognize that checkmate has occurred and ended the game, not the TD… just as it’s up to the players to recognize and claim any other rule or violation such as flag fall, illegal move, opponent not keeping notation, etc. Why should this one rule about checkmate be handled any differently than other rules?
Having said that, I agree with Boyd that it can come in handy on occasion.
I think you hit the nail on the head again. If A made the offer only after starting B’s clock, then A was unfairly depriving B of proper think time. This calls for a time penalty, such as adding 1 minute to B’s clock. This would give B a full minute to accept the draw before his time would expire again.
Then let me pose the following example to you, because I think you are being self-inconsistent without realizing it.
Example: Who wins:
Players A and B are in a sudden death time scramble with a TD observing.
Player A makes a mating move, and after releasing the piece, then his flag falls, and neither player shows immediate recognition of mate, but player B calls “Flag”.
Assuming this hypothetical game takes place in a USCF event where FIDE rules are not in use, if neither player raises a question or objection to a TD, why is there a ruling needed?
100% Great Job!! Jack, here is another one for you-- Player A and B call you over to their board. Player A
(White) calls checkmate placing his unprotected queen on c7, in front of the Black King on c8. Player B (black)
a novice player, asks the TD " Is this checkmate??" What is the proper answer??
