PDA

View Full Version : Checkmate with a move that would otherwise invoke the 50-move-rule.



Kevin Bonham
16-02-2006, 04:20 PM
From Gijssen's ChessCafe column. I don't agree with his answer:


Question I would like to know if you agree with my interpretation of Section 9.3 part b of the Laws of Chess.

9.3 The game is drawn, upon a correct claim by the player having the move, if
a. he writes his move on his scoresheet, and declares to the arbiter his intention to make this move which shall result in the last 50 moves having been made by each player without the movement of any pawn and without any capture, or
b. the last 50 consecutive moves have been made by each player without the movement of any pawn and without any capture.

I believe it is possible for a checkmate position to be declared a draw. The fifty-move rule is worded so that the 100th consecutive move without a capture or pawn move causes a draw. This final action could produce a checkmate, but the Law still defines the result as a draw. Thank you. Sincerely, Joseph Godino (USA)

Answer This is an excellent question. It appears that Articles 9.3 and Article 5.1a are in conflict with each other. Article 5.1a states:

The game is won by the player who has checkmated his opponent’s king. This immediately ends the game, provided that the move producing the checkmate position was a legal move.

I would also like to mention another Article from the Appendix of Adjourned Games:

A6. If prior to the resumption the game is agreed drawn, or if one of the players notifies the arbiter that he resigns, the game is concluded.

Suppose that the sealed move has checkmated the opponent’s king, the result is still a draw. Although adjourned games are no longer a part of tournament chess, this Article is still valid.

We can compare your case with the checkmated king in an adjourned game. Let me refer to the Preface of the Laws of Chess:

The Laws of Chess cannot cover all possible situations that may arise during a game, nor can they regulate all administrative questions. Where cases are not precisely regulated by an Article of the Laws, it should be possible to reach a correct decision by studying analogous situations, which are discussed in the Laws.

Furthermore, I would like to refer to Article 9.1.c:

A claim of a draw under 9.2, 9.3 or 10.2 shall be considered to be an offer of a draw.

It can be argued that if the intended move that fulfills the requirements of Article 9.3 produces a checkmate – then the checkmate stands. But in my opinion the arguments to declare the game drawn are much stronger. Therefore, the game must be declared a draw. I await readers’ reactions.

I would have thought the process would go like this: As soon as the mate appears on the board the game ends immediately. Therefore although a draw claim by the opponent in this position would be valid if it could be made, it can never be made because the game is ended.

The analogous case argument is incorrect because A6 refers to agreed draws and not to positions that could be ruled drawn.

I don't see what Geurt is on about here.

Rincewind
16-02-2006, 04:30 PM
I can't see what he is on about either. The only scenario I can think of is if the player with the move writes his checkmate move and then claims a draw before playing it. If he plays it the game is over via checkmate before he completes his move (no need to clock after checkmate) so the other player cannot make a claim under the 50 move rule.

Kevin Bonham
16-02-2006, 05:11 PM
I can't see what he is on about either. The only scenario I can think of is if the player with the move writes his checkmate move and then claims a draw before playing it.

Yes, that's a draw (and would be exceedingly funny).

Bill Gletsos
16-02-2006, 06:45 PM
From Gijssen's ChessCafe column. I don't agree with his answer:



I would have thought the process would go like this: As soon as the mate appears on the board the game ends immediately. Therefore although a draw claim by the opponent in this position would be valid if it could be made, it can never be made because the game is ended.

The analogous case argument is incorrect because A6 refers to agreed draws and not to positions that could be ruled drawn.

I don't see what Geurt is on about here.Agreed.
In fact when I read it yesterday my thoughts matched yours.

Bill Gletsos
16-02-2006, 06:46 PM
Yes, that's a draw (and would be exceedingly funny).Of course writng the move before making it is now illegal, so hopefully he wouldnt make that mistake.

Kevin Bonham
16-02-2006, 07:09 PM
If no-one makes any compelling points against my argument in the next few days I'll submit a comment to Gijssen. I have a better understanding of what he is trying to say re A6 but I still don't think it's the same thing. The cases where a game can end while the envelope is sealed are uncontentious ones where time-saving is an issue - both players agree a draw or one player resigns. If FIDE wanted arbiters to be able to rule on draw claims while an envelope is sealed they would presumably have said so. Also there is a reason for A6 that does not apply in OTB chess, which is to save time. So it is not analogous at all.

It's hard to believe that in the history of tournament chess a mate on half-move 100 under this rule has never happened. It would be useful to find one and see what the result was. KNB vs K is the most obvious candidate.

pballard
16-02-2006, 08:55 PM
Note that the 100th half move since last pawn move/capture does not itself render the game drawn. Like the triple repetition rule (and unlike stalemate or checkmate), it must be claimed. According to rule 9.3, "the player to having the move" must claim the draw. But if he's just been checkmated, it could be argued that he is no longer "the player to having the move", because the game has been completed.

(Which is basically Kevin's argument re-worded, I think).

So I agree with the rest of you, though perhaps rule 9.3 could be a little clearer.

ElevatorEscapee
16-02-2006, 09:20 PM
What of the possibility where "mate" appears on the board, and neither of the players realizes it, and the arbiter, watching on, doesn't realize it either?

(It's not as far fetched as it sounds, with both players being able to play their moves so swiftly in time pressure that it can be difficult to keep track of the move number, let alone the position!)

Is checkmate really checkmate if neither player, nor the arbiter realizes it? :)

Kevin Bonham
17-02-2006, 12:40 PM
In Pcola-Voloshin 1994, white resigned after 98 half-moves in a KNB vs K ending. Had he not resigned Black would have mated him on the 100th half-move. Fritz 6 upholds the mate in this situation.

Kevin Bonham
17-02-2006, 12:48 PM
What of the possibility where "mate" appears on the board, and neither of the players realizes it, and the arbiter, watching on, doesn't realize it either?

(It's not as far fetched as it sounds, with both players being able to play their moves so swiftly in time pressure that it can be difficult to keep track of the move number, let alone the position!)

Is checkmate really checkmate if neither player, nor the arbiter realizes it? :)

If it is noticed later it is still checkmate. Except that Art 8.7 states that if both players have signed off on an incorrect result, the incorrect result stands unless the arbiter decides otherwise.

In junior events I often require players to raise their hands for a checkmate as often a claimed checkmate is incorrect. On Wednesday I had a case where the player claiming mate was incorrect and the opponent had two legal moves - the one she played was checkmate!

eclectic
19-02-2006, 10:27 PM
maybe a move which checkmates should be given the supreme place in the hierarchy of factors considered ... similar to precedence of operators in doing logic or mathematics ...

Igor_Goldenberg
20-02-2006, 03:40 PM
Checkmate does not happen in a tournament often (at least not in my games!) When it happens I always feel uncomfortable as if I stop the clock after the move and the claim is incorrect I lose!

So I just make a move, push a clock and wait until my opponent realise it's a checkmate. Save me incorrect claim and embarrasent.

antichrist
30-07-2011, 12:12 AM
Just out of courtesy one should not claim checkmate, as well the claim could be incorrect. As well one is not supposed to discuss during games anyway as it upsets the opponents thinking and could prevent Kaitlin from seeing the way out - it could be used as a bluffing tactic. It was tried against me once but he did not see that he was already in check himself so I took his king just to re-enforce his silliness.

Kevin Bonham
30-07-2011, 12:20 AM
A very old post but worth commenting on:


Checkmate does not happen in a tournament often (at least not in my games!) When it happens I always feel uncomfortable as if I stop the clock after the move and the claim is incorrect I lose!

Even in blitz there is no rule that an incorrect checkmate claim loses. There is actually no specified penalty for a wrong claim of checkmate. It would probably be fair in most cases to apply something like the penalty for a wrong draw claim (opponent gains three minutes).

Capablanca-Fan
30-07-2011, 04:45 AM
Just out of courtesy one should not claim checkmate, as well the claim could be incorrect. As well one is not supposed to discuss during games anyway as it upsets the opponents thinking and could prevent Kaitlin from seeing the way out - it could be used as a bluffing tactic. It was tried against me once but he did not see that he was already in check himself so I took his king just to re-enforce his silliness.
Unfortunately, taking the king is now decreed to be an illegal move—an idiosyncracy of influential arbiter “Hurt Hayssen”—so you might even lose a blitz game if you did that. See this thread (http://chesschat.org/showthread.php?t=6929).

Pepechuy
08-09-2011, 08:24 AM
Of course writng the move before making it is now illegal, so hopefully he wouldnt make that mistake.

It is not illegal if you are going to claim a draw under rule 9.2a or under rule 9.3a
Actually, it is necessary.
And in this thread, the discussion is about rule 9.3
Rincewind means rule 9.3a, tough he does not mention it explicitly.

Thunderspirit
08-09-2011, 05:07 PM
Firstly congratulations to Kevin to raising an interesting and thoughful topic to discuss. :clap:

(For what its worth) I also agree with Kevin and Bill that mating on 100th half move immediately ends the game. Another important factor (which has also been raised) to end the game by the 50 move rule, the player would need to announce this to the aribter before the move is played.

Adamski
25-01-2012, 09:56 PM
From Gijssen's ChessCafe column. I don't agree with his answer:



I would have thought the process would go like this: As soon as the mate appears on the board the game ends immediately. Therefore although a draw claim by the opponent in this position would be valid if it could be made, it can never be made because the game is ended.

The analogous case argument is incorrect because A6 refers to agreed draws and not to positions that could be ruled drawn.

I don't see what Geurt is on about here.Completely agree. You may recall the game discussed in KNB v K thread: D. Wan - J. Adams, Ford Memorial, 2010. On the hundredth half move after the disappearance of last pawn (move 89) I mated him (move 139). If that move had not been mate he could have claimed a draw on the 50 move rule straight after my 139th move. But always checkmate should finish the game - even according to the laws!