With checkmate, I do understand what a checkmate is. As the director do understand what is a checkmate. As a chessplayer do understand what is a checkmate. What it looks like every wants to point out, the understanding what is a checkmate. That is not the question, the question is do you have the right to point out the checkmate as a director. The rules are unclear, unclear as the director to point out a checkmate. It does not say in the rules the director has the right to point out a checkmate. Till that time, or the players ask me to settle the issue of checkmate – than my understanding what is a checkmate has no legal value.
It is a question of having the right as the director to make a statement of checkmate without the players asking for such advice. As I see it, the directors do not have this right at this time. Directors do not have the right as directors to sign death certificates or point out checkmates on their own.
Note: This post has been edited by the forum moderator to remove some irrelevant material.
What difference does it make? The game is over. When it’s time to update the wallchart or pair the next round, the TD records the game as a win for the checkmating player. If you need the space, tell the players to stop skittling and leave.
If your point it that some inexperienced players do not know what a checkmate is or cannot recognize one on the board, my response is that such people should not be competing in a tournament and deserve no special treatment. (Except to make sure they don’t disturb the real players.)
What if the director was a witness on your board to a repetition of position. The director can say, the game is over, but let you and your opponent play skittle games. True, rule 14C does point out the player on the move has to point it out. On the other hand rule 13A, does not point to the players or the director. In fact, rule 13A does not point to anyone. The question with rule 13A, who can point out a checkmate is the question.
If we use your idea about rule 13A, it should be just as equal with any other rule. If the director can point out a checkmate, the director should have the right to point out a draw. If the director has the right to point out a checkmate in rule 13A, or let the players play on after the game was a checkmate. Than the director has the same equal right to point out a draw, or let the players play on after the game has ended as a draw. In that case, if I notice a draw and mark it up as a draw, than pair it up as a draw.
If you want to appeal the draw from the director John, my quote would be for you is this:
Of course the director has the right to point out a draw, if it is a stalemate or insufficient material to continue. Just because a player can claim a draw doesn’t mean that the game is a draw.
That would be true, if the players ask the director or if one of the flags are down. If it is K + B vs K or K vs K, or any insufficient material to continue, if being a witness would mark it up as a draw. Would let the players play on, if both players still have time on thier clocks. The best way players will understand it is a draw, is to let them play on till they on thier own understand it. If the flags are still up on the clocks, it does not matter what the position of the board is, I cannot point out anything.
The game is “immediately drawn” in the case of stalemate (same wording as checkmate). The case with “insufficient material to continue” is not quite so clear, but interpreting the rule to mean that the game may continue (and a player may resign, although he can’t lose on time) in a position where no checkmate is possible would be an absurd contruction. As with checkmate, “pointing this out” to the players would not be an interference with the game, since the game is over.
Like I asked Tim Just, what part of the rule can you point out the checkmate. You like to point out the game is over, can you point to a rule were you the director has this right. It is not a question of interference with the game, it is a question were in the rule book it gives you the director the right to point out a checkmate.
If you do read rule 13A, it does not point out the director. It points out what is a checkmate. Since the rule 13A is ambiguous for the director, than it does not point to the director having this right. It is a question how liberial you want to be with this rule John. It is ambiguous about the director pointing out a checkmate. It would be ambiguous about anyone other than the players.
When you can prove you the director has this right in the rule book. Point out the rule you have this right. Till than, you are only making a rule up.
Once the game is over (by stalemate, checkmate, etc.) there are no rules that restrict anyone from making comments about the game – including pointing out that the game ended in a checkmate. The director, either player, other players, or even spectators could make a comment about the game (as long as they are careful not to disturb any game in progress).
I think it would be a very bad idea for a casual spectator to make such a comment because of the danger that he could be mistaken, and care must be taken to not disturb any games in progress, but there can be no rule against commenting on a game after its conclusion.
You don’t need any special rule to allow this, as has been pointed out repeatedly. The rules of chess apply to chess games in progress and to a limited degree to conduct in a tournament in general. They don’t try to dictate what a person can do outside of the chess game or once the chess game is over.
As I recall, when I suggested this wording (as a TD Tip) during the writing of the 5th edition, I had in mind various absurd situations that could easily arise. I felt it was important not to paint the TD into a corner, nor to obligate him to a ruling which could easily be seen as ridiculous.
For example, what if BOTH kings are in check for 15 moves in a row? Should you go back only 10 moves? But then both kings would still be in check. Would you then allow the player on the move to play NxK? If so, would that end the game? Or if not, would the player on the move still be obligated to get his own king out of check? If he could not get out of check, is he checkmated, even though his opponent’s king is also in check?
You can see why the TD needs to have a LOT of discretion to handle wild illegal-move situations. The danger of ambiguity pales beside the dangers of applying rigid rules to extreme and unforeseen situations.
“Both players” was my intention when I made this suggestion. I agree it would be a (slight) improvement.
It might be useful to make a clearer distinction in the rules between “illegal move” and “illegal position.” It seems to me that the case in which, say, a player puts his dark-squared Bishop on a light square is qualitatively different from one in which both Kings are in check. 11B (and perhaps 11D1 and 16D1) should not apply to the latter.
Some reason we keep going back to the idea the game is over. If the spectators know it is a checkmate, and the director knows it is a checkmate, what if the players do not know the game is over.
What part of the rule book does anyone have the right to point out to the players the game is over? The question is this, what rule does the director have that gives the director the right to point out the checkmate. Just because the director knows and understands it is a checkmate, than point out the rule.
Is it not strange, that we have rule 14G2 that grants the director the right to point out both flags are down. Is it not clear the game is over with both flags are down, but we have a rule 14G2 that makes it clear. Than we should have some rule that gives the director the right to point out a checkmate, now you tell me the rule.
The difference in the two cases is that 14G specifies that two conditions are required for a draw: 1) Both flags are down; 2) Either player points this out. So, the fact that the flags have fallen alone does not make the game a draw. To answer your question: “Is it not clear the game is over with both flags down?”, No. We only know that one of the two necessary conditions has been fulfilled. 14G2 simply allows the TD to also point out that fact (in addition to the two players).
In contrast, with regards to checkmate, 13A has only one necesary condition - that the checkmate has occurred legally. There is no need for one of the players to point it out and so no need for a specific rule to also allow the TD to point it out.
So if you play in a G/29, have no scoresheet as it is a G/29. If I mark it up as a lose for you because I say you did not noticed the game ended in a checkmate. Than you would take my word you lost the game!
But if we go back to rule 14G2, if you say the game is not over with both flags down. Than I can run unofficial G/90 official G/60 events. If you and your opponent do not want to point out the flags have fallen after one hour. If the director does not point out the flag has fallen after one hour. You could have a G/90 be dual rated for regular and quick. Why not have the unofficial 40/90 SD/60 be dual rated too.
Tom I get it, the director does not need a rule to do as he wants. As the director with quick events, I have the right to say checkmate happened some time in the past. Gee Tom, it looks like you are going to lose ever single game. I do not need a special rule Tom, oh gee Tom I do not need a rule telling me your going to lose every single game. Gee Tom, I’m starting to like this abuse of power.
Tom, I love how you told me how I can get the G/90 be dual rated. I think I should have my first official G/60 unofficial G/90 events some time next summer. When I am at it, I just point out checkmates that happened in the past. Since I am at it, you got to leave your bill fold at the directors desk. Oh gee Tom, money and credit cards, now for your penalty I am going to use them. Lets see, I do not need no special rule to use your credit cards Tom. I do like to have a life membership to the USCF. Lets see what else I can get.
Oh gee Tom, thanks for telling me I do not need a special rule. Thanks for the use of your credit cards, and do come back for the unofficial G/90 event.
The actions that you describe would be handled by a TD, Ethics and/or criminal complaint. You may not like the current rules, and if so, you should submit the changes that you think are necessary and then work for their passage. However in my opinion, it seems better to simply remove TD certification from proven unethical TDs rather than cluttering up the rulebook with rules that specifically say that every possible unethical action is not allowed. I guess that you would also want a rule saying that the TD may not murder a player, but that would seem to be overkill.
Tom, first you like the idea the director can make up the rules with checkmate. When it is used on you, you do not like it. Now do you understand how the chessplayer would feel if I told him, sorry you were in checkmate to bad you lost.
Could you please show where I said that TD can “make up the rules for checkmate”?
I simply pointed out the current rules which state that checkmate ends the game, and how that differs from the “both flags fallen” rule - which has an additional requirement that one of the players notices the fact. If you don’t like the current rules, then why don’t you try to change them. I personally don’t think that there is a major problem. The examples that you gave were ridiculous and would be overturned - most likely with the TD losing his certification, so they are not convincing. You should try to deal with real world cases and show how they could cause problems if you want to convince people the rules should be changed. Certainly if I was going to tell a player that a checkmate had occurred and he had lost, then I would want to be able to present evidence of that to him - most likely by scoresheet or by going back an illegal move or so from the current position on the board. I don’t think that I would trust my own analysis just from glancing at a game to make such a ruling (and I’m a master!). And my basic policy as TD, is to not look deeply at games while they are in progress so it is unlikely that the situation would ever arise for me.
That is the major point, how can I use my own analysis to go back and point out a checkmate. Scoresheets are nice, even with adults the scoresheets are not all that clear being correct. Chessplayers that would miss a checkmate are going to be more as scholastic players. If the scholastic players do not understand what a checkmate, the scoresheet if they use one is not going to be ideal in the first place.
If the reason I notice the checkmate because I was next to some other board to take care of a rule question. It is not ideal to work with two boards at the same time. If after the rule question is taken care of with one board, the moves on the other board can or have changed.
Than I am only able to use my own personal analysis of the checkmate. The only clear way to point out the checkmate is to stop the game and go back the few moves to point out the checkmate. Can I be sure my analysis of the position of the board is going to be correct with every piece on the board? Can I be sure I can use the analysis to get back to the checkmate?
If I use the idea with some of the other directors just to mark it up as a win and lose. Than they should chalange the idea the director can make the claim of checkmate. Just because I was a witness to a checkmate, it is a question of can I prove a checkmate. The theory I do not need to prove a checkmate, opens the door of abuse from the director.
