PDA

View Full Version : Handshakes



jashint
24-11-2006, 10:42 AM
recently i came across a scenario in a game where the position reached
was a stalemate but due to the inexprienced player who did not fully
comprehend the laws of chess, he shook hands with his opponent conceding
defeat.....

also there has been a game in which player A was checkmated
however it was pointed out that an illegal move had been made by player
B two moves prior...in this case also the losing player had shaken hands
to concede defeat....

my question thus is; is an arbiter right to reinstate the position prior to the illegal move being made....or in the 1st case...overrule the handshake and award a draw???

if there are any threads which i can look up pliz forward to me...

Kevin Bonham
24-11-2006, 01:26 PM
recently i came across a scenario in a game where the position reached
was a stalemate but due to the inexprienced player who did not fully
comprehend the laws of chess, he shook hands with his opponent conceding
defeat.....

The stalemate normally takes priority as it immediately ends the game. However if both players have signed both scoresheets accepting the result of the game as a loss then the loss stands unless the arbiter decides otherwise. The handshake or any other form of resignation is irrelevant.


also there has been a game in which player A was checkmated
however it was pointed out that an illegal move had been made by player
B two moves prior...in this case also the losing player had shaken hands
to concede defeat....

Checkmate with a legal move immediately ends the game. The earlier illegal move is irrelevant. Earlier illegal moves can only be corrected during the game.


my question thus is; is an arbiter right to reinstate the position prior to the illegal move being made...

Definitely not.


or in the 1st case...overrule the handshake and award a draw???

If the scoresheets have not been signed indicating the result of the game the arbiter should definitely overrule it as the stalemate ended the game.

If the scoresheets have been signed it is up to the arbiter to decide whether to overrule it. Normally the arbiter would not do so.

road runner
24-11-2006, 02:08 PM
The handshake or any other form of resignation is irrelevant.I don't have the Laws in front of me, but my understanding is that a handshake does not in and of itself constitute a resignation.

Bill Gletsos
24-11-2006, 02:19 PM
I don't have the Laws in front of me, but my understanding is that a handshake does not in and of itself constitute a resignation.Correct.
The FIDE Rules Commission had previously ruled that was the case.

Kevin Bonham
24-11-2006, 02:30 PM
I don't have the Laws in front of me, but my understanding is that a handshake does not in and of itself constitute a resignation.

Correct - firstly because sometimes incidents occur in which both players shake hands but for different reasons (eg one thinks it is a draw, the other thinks the opponent is resigning) and also there can be cases where a hand is opportunistically grabbed and a handshake claimed.

A common trick is to hold out a hand as if to resign then say "Draw?" while hands are being shaken then claim a draw. But since a handshake doesn't constitute either resignation or a draw agreement in itself that doesn't work.

antichrist
27-11-2006, 11:00 AM
There was a guy at a chess comp a few years back who looked as though he may have a communiable(?) disease - I stayed well back from him.

Brian_Jones
27-11-2006, 11:22 AM
There was a guy at a chess comp a few years back who looked as though he may have a communiable(?) disease - I stayed well back from him.

Wasn't his name Bolens or Hanna or something similar?

antichrist
27-11-2006, 12:25 PM
Wasn't his name Bolens or Hanna or something similar?

If it was foot-in-mouth you would be prime suspect. The only time I let a 1400 beat me was when giving queen odds!

Igor_Goldenberg
28-11-2006, 12:09 PM
Checkmate with a legal move immediately ends the game. The earlier illegal move is irrelevant. Earlier illegal moves can only be corrected during the game.

Suppose A made illegal move which, incidently, allows checkmate in one. According to the logic above, player B can checkmate and then claim that it ended the game and A should've corrected the mistake during the game.

It is, however, obvious that player A would not have a chance to correct an illegal move.

Kevin Bonham
28-11-2006, 03:53 PM
Suppose A made illegal move which, incidently, allows checkmate in one. According to the logic above, player B can checkmate and then claim that it ended the game and A should've corrected the mistake during the game.

It is, however, obvious that player A would not have a chance to correct an illegal move.

That's true. This is one of the potential hazards of making an illegal move. Yes, if you make an illegal move and your opponent responds immediately with checkmate then it's all over with no opportunity for you to correct it.

Really not all that harsh given that three illegal moves in a game loses anyway.

Denis_Jessop
28-11-2006, 10:13 PM
That's true. This is one of the potential hazards of making an illegal move. Yes, if you make an illegal move and your opponent responds immediately with checkmate then it's all over with no opportunity for you to correct it.

Really not all that harsh given that three illegal moves in a game loses anyway.

True; and it's also consistent with the general legal proposition that a person cannot benefit from his own transgression. A rather worse and interesting situation would be one in which player A made an illegal move that was a blunder leading either to material loss or a forced mate in, say, two moves. But player A recognises his mistake and then asks to be allowed to take the move back, which he can during the game subject to the mandatory penalty for an illegal move. Actually the case of an illegal move leading to material loss may well be worse as the game could go on for many moves and then player A could point out the illegal move and take the game right back to the position immediately before the illegal move was made. Perhaps the laws should provide that an illegal move may stand if the player's opponent agrees thus preventing player A from benefitting from his misdeed, or, at least, possibly avoiding the consequences of it.

DJ.

Ian Rout
29-11-2006, 09:22 AM
As a related matter, Denis will probably recall the incident at the Canberra Chess Club where both players believed that the other had resigned.

Basil
29-11-2006, 01:11 PM
Denis will probably recall the incident at the Canberra Chess Club where both players believed that the other had resigned.
No! ? Hee - Ha! What was the final ruling?

Denis_Jessop
29-11-2006, 09:07 PM
As a related matter, Denis will probably recall the incident at the Canberra Chess Club where both players believed that the other had resigned.


No! ? Hee - Ha! What was the final ruling?

Yes, I do but, pleading imminent dementia, I can't remember whether I was the Arbiter (I don't think I was) or what the outcome was. If it's the incident I think it was, I remember who the players were and they were both well-respected members of the club. Also, it is relevant to this thread as the misunderstanding came about because they had shaken hands, each thinking the other was thereby resigning.

DJ

road runner
29-11-2006, 09:30 PM
Yes, I do but, pleading imminent dementia, I can't remember whether I was the Arbiter (I don't think I was) or what the outcome was. If it's the incident I think it was, I remember who the players were and they were both well-respected members of the club. Also, it is relevant to this thread as the misunderstanding came about because they had shaken hands, each thinking the other was thereby resigning.Were they awarded a point each - for optimism!?

Kevin Bonham
29-11-2006, 10:08 PM
Also, it is relevant to this thread as the misunderstanding came about because they had shaken hands, each thinking the other was thereby resigning.

I hope someone kept the final position - or was it a time thing?

Ian Rout
30-11-2006, 07:50 AM
I hope someone kept the final position - or was it a time thing?I don't recall the times, but not severely short as it would have been a 30-second increment. The circumstances were that one player had been a piece up for some time and presumably though his last move had put the last remaining plank in the defence but in fact it was a blunder allowing mate in two, so both players had reason to expect a resignation.


Yes, I do but, pleading imminent dementia, I can't remember whether I was the Arbiter (I don't think I was) or what the outcome was. If it's the incident I think it was, I remember who the players were and they were both well-respected members of the club.


I was the arbiter and I think Denis was on the Appeals Committe (unless Denis knows of another incident). Of course the only possible ruling is to play on as there is no evidence that anybody has resigned.

Basil
30-11-2006, 01:08 PM
Yes, I do but, pleading imminent dementia, I can't remember whether I was the Arbiter (I don't think I was) or what the outcome was. If it's the incident I think it was, I remember who the players were and they were both well-respected members of the club. Also, it is relevant to this thread as the misunderstanding came about because they had shaken hands, each thinking the other was thereby resigning.

DJ

For reasons I can't quite put my finger on:

1. The players in this story
2. AO
3. The pic in caption thread http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y10...fingerhead.gif

All seem to converge.