Grant Perks wrote
If the reason you’re called over is to rule whether the current position on the board is checkmate, why would you check prior moves? If they called you over to claim the position was reached with an illegal move, that of course is a dfferent matter.
Wouldn’t you want to at least know what the last move was?
Lets assume the following position: Black King on h8, White Queen on h7, King on g6. White calls the TD over and claims checkmate. Black disagrees. Lets say the last move was Black’s King from g8 to h8. This isn’t checkmate is it?
How would the TD know that the position was legal without verifying the series of moves that led up to the current position. It is much simplier to have the players agree on the checkmate, even if one sits there running his clock down.
Ok, since you put it that way. If one player disagrees that the position is checkmate, you would of course ask why and take the appropriate course of action from there to verify. It just sounded odd to say you would (always, presumably) have to check prior moves, at least in the absence of any particular fact pattern.
I dislike asking the question “are you resigning” as that alone may indicate that it isn’t really a mate.
When I take a result at a national scholastic, I simply ask which player won (if it is not a draw) and if the opponent agrees. If it is a false mate but a player says that the opponent won (rather than saying it was a checkmate) then that is equivalent to a resignation. Asking that question all the time (including real checkmates) eliminates the possibility of a TD’s question influencing the agreed upon result of the game. Also, it eliminates the coach saying that a false checkmate was not validly agreed to.
Perhaps I oversimplified. I suppose you could ask both players if they agreed that this was a legal position. Provided that they both agreed then you could make a ruling on the confirmation from the players. I still would rather not go down that path.
I still like “what do you think?”
Usually works for me
This debate first came up at the first Supernationals, where Harry Sabine set the standard being used now. After the event, it was hotly debated between Harry and the late Denis Barry. Harry’s standard is still maintained.
The rulebook allows for the TD to either intervene when an illegal action is witnessed or not. But the TD must be consistent on what he does not just in the event, but in all events he directs.
Harry set that standard where there are multiple directors on the floor.
I support Harry’s standard for many reasons:
The skill level at many scholastic events can be very low. Just the recognition of checkmate is a skill, not just a rule. The player who recognizes checkmate has
an ability that might be higher than his opponent.
When the two players can agree on a result, even if inaccurate according to the definitions in the rules, there is less stress on both players, and they can walk away friends. That has to be preferred to the intervention of an adult.
If a player sits there and doesn’t recognize checkmate, the TD can use the rules to describe how to get out of checkmate. The first method in the rulebook is to capture the checking piece, then blocking, and finally moving the king. Using this order the young player could very well make the best move possible. Often capturing the checking piece is the right move.
All the best, Joe Lux
The first statement is, of course, correct.
The second statement is, in my opinion, incorrect. A TD (in fact, all TDs working an event) must be consistent in a single event. However, it is not necessary to take the same approach in every tournament that one directs. Part of the decision as to which option to use is the type of event, the number of TDs available, and the type of players expected at the event. Many TDs direct events ranging from Kindergarten sections to the National Open. There is no reason why the decision about the approach to illegal actions needs to be tied to the TD’s person - it is much more reasonable to take into account the tournament conditions.
What differences are there in tournament conditions? All tournaments are run by the same set of rules, from Kindergarten to the National Open! Unless there are different announced rules, the execution of a chess game is the same in all! Maybe you don’t require scorekeepping with the very young, (with some time deduction). Besides that, what differences are there? Touch move? Triple repetition? There shouldn’t be any differences in a TD’s handling of the rules.
All the best, Joe Lux
Could be he has an opinion in conflict with the rules.
Many differences.
Scholastic vs open. Big-money vs “club” tournaments. 500 players vs 20.
All of these could have a bearing on how a TD would react to various claims, including, for example, 14H. (With a large, fast, scholastic tournament, it might be impractical to respond to 14H claims with delay clocks, whereas with a modest 20-player tournament, the same TD might legitimately have different ideas.)
Bill Smythe
Who is “he”, here?
Hi All,
Just coming across this thread now, and I agree with most everything that Ken Sloan and Jeff Wiewel have already said.
Josh, 2 years ago when you were in my section, we were instructed by the Chief TD to answer the question, so we did.
This year the instructions covered at the TD meeting told to respond with “what do you think?”. I did cover this again as Terry W mentioned when I went over things with the TDs from our section at Supernationals.
My personal opinion is that I believe in the policy of non-interference, let the players determine the game. I absolutely detest that some coaches actually instruct players to ask if it is checkmate or not. How about instead teaching the players to tell if that is checkmate on their own with that time.
If both sides agree that the game is over with a clear winner, it does not really matter if the position on the board is checkmate or not. If the sides do not agree, the player that may or may not be checkmated has the onus of finding a move to get out of mate. If he or she can’t it is game over, if he or she can they should make that move. There is no real reason for a TD to intervene by instructing players on their move choices.
Glenn
How a TD reacts (handles), and how a TD interprets, are not the same thing. Interpretation must be consistent, (unless you were wrong in the original interpretation; TDing is a learning process).
All the best, Joe Lux
Ahhh, I was in the 2nd installment of the Thursday night meeting. (for those of us who were on the floor of the blitz and didn’t get up there until after 10pm!!!) During the 2nd meeting, “is this checkmate” was not mentioned so I went by the instructions from two years prior. Though with my small section, I didn’t have any issues with it except for a few newbies who didn’t even know what mate was!! (One girl was taught the moves of the pieces on the way to the tournament and was the only one in my section who ended with a 0 score. Even more ironic than this is the person who taught her how to play on the way ended with 1 point which she earned when her last round opponent failed to show up! There team, however, did win the section.)
Yes, it is a learning process.
The question of whether or not to call illegal actions is not based on an individual TD’s “interpretation” of the rules. It is, for me, based on the tournament conditions. If I feel that I (or my staff) is capable of seeing all the illegal actions that might occur during the event, then I choose that variation (not interpretation - variation). If, on the other hand, I feel that TDs will see some of the illegal actions, but will also miss a significant number (because they don’t have time to monitor every board, and it is expected that there will be many illegal actions), then I choose the other variation.
Interpretation has nothing to do with it.
We can, of couse, fine tune things. Glenn can call all the flags in the K1 section of the National Elementary - but there’s no way that his staff of (what - about 5?) floor TDs can call all illegal moves in that section. (for one thing, they are too busy taking results).
I’ll bet that Carol and Chris will have no trouble calling all illegal actions in the US Championship - and that neither one of them would attempt to do that in the National Open.
Again - interpretation has nothing to do with it - it’s a sane response to different conditions. That’s why the rulebook offers variations.
We won’t have a choice at the US Championship as we are using FIDE rules.
How many other Arbiters and TD’s might be there besides you and Carol for the US Championship?
Just wondering what the ration was for FIDE events?
Less than 20 boards at slow time controls, 2 should be able to watch all games comfortably?
Heck with monrois on every board the tourney manager software will flag illegals for you won’t it?