How immediately is checkmate immediate?

Running Chess Tournaments
1

OK, that was my best attempt at a catchy subject.

This situation arose during a recent G/60 tournament. It left me with some questions, and I turn to the forum’s collective wisdom.

Both players are in serious time trouble. White’s king is on h1, and there is a pawn on h2. The squares g1, g2, g3, and g4 are vacant.

Black plays … Nf2+. White has no piece that can capture Black’s knight. White must parry check by moving to either g1 or g2 (both of which are legal moves in the position).

White does not realize that his king is in check. White therefore makes an illegal move.

Black does not realize that White has not parried check. Both players make a couple of moves, and White’s king is still in check.

Now, Black moves his queen to g5. The squares g1, g2, g3, and g4 are still vacant, and White still can not capture the Black knight at f2. So, White’s king is checkmated.

However, neither player realizes this is the case, and they continue blitzing off moves. In the meantime, Black has moved his Queen off the g file. Finally, Black realizes that White’s king is still at h1 and the Black knight at f2 is still checking the king. Black says “illegal move,” and White just resigns at this point.

I heave a sigh of relief that the game has ended with the “correct” conclusion, though perhaps for the wrong reason. But then I got into an argument with a player who was not involved in the game (just a spectator). (It’s almost always a bad sign when the TD is arguing with a player not involved in the game!)

While the players were blitzing off their moves, my mind was blitzing through the applicable rules. Rule 11D1 prohibits the director from calling attention to an illegal move in sudden death time pressure. So, I diligently kept my mouth shut while paying as careful attention to the game as I could. However, rule 13A says that checkmate immediately ends the game provided that the move causing checkmate is legal. Black’s queen move to g5 was legal. The wording of Rule 13A does not require the winning player to make a claim of checkmate. Checkmate seems to be absolute – it either exists or does not exist. (The same is true of stalemate.)

Question 1: Is the director allowed to point out that the game has ended as soon as a player has determined a move causing checkmate?

Question 2: In rule 11D1, item c makes clear that once either player has been checkmated, it is too late to point out a preceding illegal move. That makes sense if checkmate immediately ends the game. However, rule 11D1 only addresses time pressure in sudden death. What happens outside of sudden death time pressure?

Question 3: I’ve reread the “TD Tip” following rule 11A more carefully. The precise wording of the second sentence is: “All moves, not just the first move, in which a player’s king remains in check should be regarded as illegal.” Now, if I interpret that sentence literally, I come up with all moves by both players in which one player’s king is left in check are illegal. If so, then Black has not won the game by rule 13A since Black’s queen move to g5 was illegal (in spite of it being White’s king that was left in check).

There’s a certain logic supporting this interpretation. Otherwise, if Black were aware that White had left his king in check after … Nf2+, Black could remain silent, not pointing out White’s illegal move, and simply move … Qg5 to cause checkmate and win the game.

Question 4: Let’s assume that the answer to question 3 is that Black’s checkmating move is legal. Let’s assume also that checkmate immediately ends the game. Suppose a spectator points out the checkmate. What happens? Is this outside assistance? I personally would be upset with the spectator’s behavior, but if the game is over, it’s over, and this isn’t outside assistance with a game in progress.

(By the way, the argument with the player/spectator arose because I said that checkmate immediately ends the game and does not require a claim of checkmate.)

2

Resigning ends the game.

It is up to the players to point out the checkmate. If a player is checkmated and makes an illegal move, it is up to the opponent to point that out. If the other players makes an illegal move, and lets the other player out of checkmate. Than it is up to the other opponent to point out the illegal move. If the players play on for ten more moves, than the checkmate is no longer valid. As the director can only go back ten moves of any illegal move. Unless it is under five minutes in sudden death, than it is two moves.

3

Doug,

I disagree. Check your facts.

"13A. Checkmate.
The player who checkmates the opponent’s king, providing the mating move is legal, wins the game. This immediately ends the game. See also 4A, Checkmate; 9E, Checkmate or stalemate; 12C, Responding to check; and 15H, Reporting of results.

TD TIP: This means that anything that happens after the checkmate move has been legally determined (see rule 9, Determination and completion of the move) is irrelevant to the outcome of the game, including the player’s flag falling (5G)."

So, Mate ends the game with a legal move. After that moment, the game is over and all bets are off. Flag falls, spectator comments, TD comments, … all mean nothing after the end of the game. Mate ends the game with a legal move. It is over with. It has ended. 10, 20, 30 or more moves makes no difference because the game is over. Mate ends the game with a legal move.

What rule says the opponent has to point this out? What rules says: “It is up to the players to point out the checkmate?” Mate ends the game with a legal move.

Tim Just
5th Edition rulebook editor.

4

Yes, but as Ken pointed out, the mating move is not legal if all preceding moves are illegal (by mathematical induction). :slight_smile:

5

Tim:

But I do not have the power under rule 21D. If I notice a checkmate, and the players make an illegal move in time trouble (rule 21D2). As a director I do not have the right to point out the illegal move observed. My personal value, it is up to the players to point out the checkmate.

If a spectator pointed out a checkmate, would not that spectator be in error. If you checkmate your opponent, than a spectator made the statement “CHECKMATE” would not that be rude. So why are you asking me as a director to make the statement “CHECKMATE”?

It is up to the players, if I see a checkmate and I point it out that would be intervening in the game. If you want the directors to have the right to intervene in a game that ends in checkmate, than change the rules.

If it was a scholastic event, and one of the players asks the director if the position is in checkmate. Most directors would ask both players to prove if it is checkmate. The players have to prove it is checkmate to the director, not the director pointing out it out as checkmate. If the players do not know it is checkmate, you are asking the directors to intervene into the game. At this time I do not have the right to intervene into the game.

6

Doug,

“21D. Intervening in games” does not apply. Why? How is it the TD can intervene or not intervene in a game that is already over? Why is the game over? Checkmate ends the game with a legal move!!! You are not intervening if the game is already over. The name of the rule is “intervening in games”; i.e., there has to be a game in progress for that rule to apply. Since checkmate ended the game…

If the mating move was illegal, that is a different story.

By the way where is that rule for your statement about players having to point out the checkmate? I can’t find it in my rulebook.

Tim

7

Tim:

uschess.org/forums/viewtopic.php?t=758

This should give you the information you should check.

21D. Intervening in games. The director’s intervention in a chess game shall be limited to the following:

The question on ‘chess game’ is the key to the question. It does not say in rule 21D that the chess game is still in play or is over. The wording in rule 21D does not state a temporal logic or a timeline.

Under rule 21D it stops the director from going back and change the past, as any change in the results of the game would be intervening into the game.

8

Doug,

The game is over the instant a legal checkmate is delivered. Perhaps in Doug’s world or in Doug’s rulebook that is not true; however, we are talking USCF here. The logic is simple. The game is over by definition (as per the rule) the instant a legal checkmate is delivered; therefore, the TD is not intervening in the game. You might want to call it something else; however, it is not intervening in a game. How is it possible in Doug’s world to intervene in a game that is no longer being played? Changing the results is not intervening, it is changing the results. It is paperwork. It has to do with reporting the game result, not intervening in the game.

By the way why did you create that link? It simply lists rules that I already know (and wrote, and have copies of–hey, how did you get electronic copies?). None of them said a player had to point out the checkmate (point out a flag fall yes, but not a checkmate). Not a one!!! Exactly which rule on that list says (as you have stated) that a player has to point out the checkmate? I still can’t find it. Please quote the exact rule and the wording so I can learn here in the public eye. Just think how publicly humiliated I will be when you quote that rule and it’s wording to me.

Tim

9

Tim, you didn’t really take up the point raised by Ken’s question 3. However, I suggest that the Rule 11A TD Tip really means “All moves, not just the first move, in which THE player’s king remains in check should be regarded as illegal.” That is, the king of the player on move. I think it is meant to warn against an interpretation of the rules in which the player was obliged to move his or her king out of check on the next move after the check was given, but can legally stay in check thereafter.

Unless there is caselaw to the contrary, I don’t think that the article “a” will support the counterintuitive results of the interpretation of the tip as requiring all moves of both players to be treated as illegal. For example, what if White then made a move putting Black in check, and then said that Black had no legal move to get out of check, so Black was checkmated? Or that in general black had no legal moves but was not in check, so that the position on the board must be a stalemate?

But I would view the queen’s move onto the g file as legal, and the resulting checkmate as being effective.

p>

10

It is a TD TIP not a rule. Follow it or not, the choice is the TD’s. Play lawyer with the language or not, the choice is up to the reader. It is only a TIP, not a rule.

I believe the idea for this TIP came from Bill Smythe. The idea is simple; i.e., a TD, if they so choose, can consider all the moves after the initial illegal move illegal. That-a-way the TD has to only deal with the orginal illegal move and not all the stuff that happens afterwords. Why? The moves after the initial illegal move are all considered “fruits of the poison tree.”

With that said, I again point out it is only a TIP, not a rule. It offers an acceptable alternative. There is nothing wrong with choosing to not follow the advise from experienced TDs in the TD TIPS. Is it wise to not follow the advise in the TIPS? That is another topic.

Tim

11

Hmmm… well, OK, Tim, so the TIP really does mean exactly what Ken thought it meant, and not what I thought? All right… but in that case, why did you repeatedly write that “a checkmate with a legal move ends the game” as if that settled the issue, since it now seems likely that Smythe at least (whose experience I properly respect) would argue that in the case raised by Ken checkmate was NOT given with a legal move, because no moves by either side after the original knight check were legal?

And what if the king sits in check for more than ten moves, so that it’s too late to go back and correct the entire sequence?

pk

12

Because Doug was claiming otherwise. He and I were not discussing the TD TIP, but the rule about legal mate ending the game. He came up with some added wording to the rule that seemed to end the debate (see the earlier posts). Neither he or I discussed at length the TD TIP.

According to the Smythe arguement it is not too late to go back and fix the orginal illegal move. His arguement gets around the 10 move issue because 10 legal moves have not been made. You get to choose as a TD which direction you want to go; i.e., strict rules or TD TIP Smythe. It’s the TDs choice until the rulegivers say otherwise.

Tim

13

Soooo… you’re saying that where Rule 11A says “If, during a game, it is found that one of either player’s last ten moves was illegal, the position shall be reinstated to what it was before the illegal move”, the words in italics can be construed as meaning “illegal move or sequence of consecutive illegal moves of whatever length”? Well, maybe…

p>
[/quote]

14

This is very interesting. I originally intended to mention that I thought I hadn’t seen a clear answer to my question about this TD tip. On the other hand, I convinced myself not to belabor the point. I, too, interpreted the previous answers as meaning that only the moves of the player whose own king was left in check were illegal.

I could persuade myself that either interpretation was correct. On the one hand, the “fruit of the poison tree” interpretation is very appealing, especially given that the opponent can choose to say nothing about the king having been left in check and win the game immediately by causing checkmate. On the other hand, it didn’t sound right that a player’s opponent could do something that would cause the player’s own moves to be illegal.

However, I now understand that the “fruit of the poison tree” is the correct interpretation. It makes sense. But may I respectfully offer two observations? First, it doesn’t feel right that the rules of chess should be ambiguous about whether a particular move is illegal. Second, I would suggest that with a very simple change of wording, the TD tip could be much clearer. I would suggest explicitly stating “both players’ moves are illegal” when a king is left in check. This would leave no room for confused TDs such as me to misinterpret the advice.

Thanks again for the clarification, Tim. I do appreciate it.

15

While I have some sympathy for this interpretation, doesn’t it pretty much make a dead letter of 11B? Mind you, I find it hard to swallow a player claiming the rules should protect his “right” to make an illegal move. (This, by the way, is my basic objection to 11D1.)

16

John, you are right that rule 11B has some value. The TD Tip only points out rule 11A if the king is left in check; it does not say the king was left in checkmate; it does not say the game was a stalemate. With rule 11A, it does point out a major question.

If the director can reinstate part of the position of the board, than the whole position of the board cannot be reinstated. If the king was left in check or was checkmated, the director knows the pieces around the king during this time. If it was found during the reinstatement, the players are unclear of one piece, and the director is unclear of one piece, than the position on the board cannot be reinstated. If the position cannot be reinstated, then the illegal move shall stand.

Do understand Tim Just will point out rule 13A, if the position of the board has to be reinstated to prove there was a checkmate. Under rule 11A, if the illegal move after checkmate, or the position of the board during checkmate cannot be reinstated. Than the illegal move shall stand. The point is this, the director has to prove the position of the board was a checkmate. If the director fails to prove the reinstatement of the board, than the illegal move shall stand.

17

Doug, while you do have some argument here, you are not helping matters by your confused presentation.

First, “checkmate” should be understood to mean “checkmate given by a legal move.” We must then distinguish the following cases:

  1. An apparent mate is given by a clearly illegal move (like a Knight moving diagonally). This is not checkmate and the game continues.
  2. Mate is given by a legal move in a clearly illegal position (e.g., with the player’s King in check). This one is a little harder, but my interpretation would be that any move made in an illegal position is, by definition, illegal. It is not checkmate and the game continues.
  3. Mate is given by a legal move in a legal position, but it is known that an illegal move was made during the last ten moves. This one is arguable. I think my ruling would be that the opponent of the scofflaw had the chance to make an illegal-move claim and neglected to do so, thus the checkmate stands and the game is over. I would be interested in hearing other views on this.
  4. Same as 3, except that the illegal move occurred more than ten moves before the end. 11B seems to say that anything more than ten moves in the past is beyond the “legal event horizon,” so I would find it very hard to argue against the game being over.

Anything that happens after checkmate – defined as “checkmate given by a legal move in a legal position” – is mere skittling, of no importance to anyone.

18

John:

The point is this, if you as the director want to point out a checkmate. Make it clear in the rules the director has that right. Can you show anyone in the rules the director has the right to point out a checkmate? Till than, rule 13A is just like the US Constution with Amendment XV (1870). It did take till the Voting Rights Act of 1965 to make it clear. How I look at the ‘Official Rules of Chess’ is just like a federalist, the rules have to be clear with one director as the other. The rules have to be clear in Main as well as Hawaii. Until the rules make it clear the director has the right to point out a checkmate, than I have to be silent over this issue. If I point out a checkmate without clear rules I can, than it would be abuse of power (rule 21K2). If you want to be a liberial director, do not care if you want to legistate from the directors chair.

19

John:

You point out the key to the problem, the moves after checkmate are illegal moves. If the checkmate happens, and the players do make illegal moves. If the illegal moves happen under rule 11D1, it is clear in the rules the director should not call attention of the illegal moves. If I call attention to the checkmate, than I am also calling attention to the illegal moves.

True, you have pointed out checkmate and what is a checkmate. The standard, the players call attention to the checkmate. Rule 13A does not say who can call attention to a checkmate. If you can say the director can point out a checkmate, who else can point out a checkmate? Can the parents point out a checkmate, can the players next to the board point out a checkmate, who else can point out this checkmate. The rules are not clear who can point out a checkmate. It is not a question what is a checkmate, it is a question on who can point out the checkmate.

20

Mr. Forsythe,

If you’ve never had players analyze at the board after the game is over, then you are better at enforcing the skittles room than not only I, but any director than I have ever seen. It’s impossible to make “illegal moves” after a checkmate because there is no game for them to make illegal moves in.

Is this a complicated concept?

Alex Relyea