PDA

View Full Version : A player erroneously believes that he is mated and shakes hands; what result?



Capablanca-Fan
07-01-2008, 04:02 PM
At the Logan club on Friday, one player thought he was mated, and shook hands and stopped clocks. After that, they realized that it wasn't mate. I thought that shaking hands at the thought of being mated was basically a resignation, so ruled it as a loss.

Phil Bourke
07-01-2008, 04:14 PM
Based on my recollections of previous threads about this sort of issue, and my limited reading of the rules of chess, you are 100% correct in your decision.

Capablanca-Fan
07-01-2008, 04:20 PM
Based on my recollections of previous threads about this sort of issue, and my limited reading of the rules of chess, you are 100% correct in your decision.
Thanx. Here is a related question: if a player incorrectly announces mate, should there be a penalty under Article 12.6?


It is forbidden to distract or annoy the opponent in any manner whatsoever. This includes unreasonable claims or unreasonable offers of a draw.

If this induces a handshake from the opponent, then the game is over as above, so the result can't be overturned. But if the opponent notices that he is not mated, what then?

Kevin Bonham
07-01-2008, 04:23 PM
Shaking hands is not a resignation; it is not even (alone) sufficient to constitute a draw offer. There is an old FIDE ruling on this which Bill has noted on this board before. The reason for this is that an unscrupulous player might grab the hand of a player and claim they had voluntarily shaken hands, or might initiate a handshake on the pretence of resigning, offer a draw, then try to claim the draw stood (I know someone who has done this.)

Kevin Bonham
07-01-2008, 04:29 PM
Thanx. Here is a related question: if a player incorrectly announces mate, should there be a penalty under Article 12.6?

If it is considered that the opponent has been distracted or annoyed by the false claim then the arbiter can penalise them whether the distraction/annoyance was intentional or not. If it was unintentional I would give the opponent some extra time, say a minute to regather their composure.

Phil Bourke
07-01-2008, 04:46 PM
Shaking hands is not a resignation; it is not even (alone) sufficient to constitute a draw offer. There is an old FIDE ruling on this which Bill has noted on this board before. The reason for this is that an unscrupulous player might grab the hand of a player and claim they had voluntarily shaken hands, or might initiate a handshake on the pretence of resigning, offer a draw, then try to claim the draw stood (I know someone who has done this.)
I stand corrected and wiser. Thanks Kev :)
Now to get this straight, a few examples to see what the correct answers are:
players agree that is mate, shake hands, stop clocks, then realise that it isn't mate, they can resume the game. (I would have thought the result stood)
I would have thought this to be in the same manner of a player resigning (because of imminent mate/material loss), shaking hands, stopping clocks then finding a saving move and wanting to play on. (Again result stands IMHO)
In either case, if the players have notified/recorded the result with the arbiter, the result stands.
I see your point about the handshake not being recognised as the end of the game. Considering the current debate in another thread, I should have thought of such unsporting behaviour :)

Kevin Bonham
07-01-2008, 04:54 PM
Now to get this straight, a few examples to see what the correct answers are:
players agree that is mate, shake hands, stop clocks, then realise that it isn't mate, they can resume the game. (I would have thought the result stood)

The only indication of final acceptance of a result in the Laws is signing a scoresheet to that effect, and even there the arbiter can overturn it (eg a player writes the result the wrong way round accidentally and signs it but the moves recorded clearly indicate the true result.) I have personally caused junior games played without scoresheet to resume in the exact circumstance above many times, since juniors will often assume that their opponent is right in claiming a mate when there is none. What I have required is that once the result is notified to the arbiters by the winner, if the opponent does not challenge it within a reasonable amount of time (say, five minutes for a G15 rapid) then the result stands. Also, if the players pack away the pieces so that the game can't be reconstructed, again, too late.

As for stopping the clocks, often the arbiter does not know who did that; it is very often the person who believes they have delivered mate who does so.


I would have thought this to be in the same manner of a player resigning (because of imminent mate/material loss), shaking hands, stopping clocks then finding a saving move and wanting to play on. (Again result stands IMHO)

Result stands in that case. The two cases are totally different because the Laws clearly state that if a player declares they resign that ends the game (5.1b) but that checkmate ends the game if it is delivered (5.1a).

Phil Bourke
07-01-2008, 05:06 PM
Thanks again. Subtle distinction, but noteworthy.

Bill Gletsos
07-01-2008, 05:11 PM
The point about signing of scoresheets is important.
However in many club games and I suspect also weekend events etc scoresheets are not required to be presented to the arbiter and of course there are no scoresheets used in blitz nor in most rapids.

In such cases although the shaking of hands is still not to be taken as an indication of a loss in and of itself, if the player acknowledges verbally that he accepts he has been mated/lost (even it it subsequently turns out he wasnt) then the game would be lost by that player.

Capablanca-Fan
07-01-2008, 05:45 PM
Shaking hands is not a resignation; it is not even (alone) sufficient to constitute a draw offer. There is an old FIDE ruling on this which Bill has noted on this board before. The reason for this is that an unscrupulous player might grab the hand of a player and claim they had voluntarily shaken hands, or might initiate a handshake on the pretence of resigning, offer a draw, then try to claim the draw stood (I know someone who has done this.)
A justifiable ruling. But in case at the Logan club, the handshake clearly accompanied acknowledgement of defeat, even though the actual position didn't warrant this.

Capablanca-Fan
07-01-2008, 05:51 PM
The only indication of final acceptance of a result in the Laws is signing a scoresheet to that effect,
This was a 10-minute tourney.


I have personally caused junior games played without scoresheet to resume in the exact circumstance above many times, since juniors will often assume that their opponent is right in claiming a mate when there is none.
But should this be done in an adult tourney?


As for stopping the clocks, often the arbiter does not know who did that; it is very often the person who believes they have delivered mate who does so.
Right, so stopped clocks by themselves are inconclusive.

Another bad example happened in a NZ champs around 1990. A player was promoting a pawn, and his opponent put a Q on the square and declared stalemate. The arbiter overturned the result and reprimanded the player, rightly I think.


Result stands in that case. The two cases are totally different because the Laws clearly state that if a player declares they resign that ends the game (5.1b)
Indeed. And a verbal agreement that one has been mated is equivalent, it seems from the above.


but that checkmate ends the game if it is delivered (5.1a).
Except if Gijssen is arbiter :wall: :wall:

Thanx to KB and BG for input, which I was hoping for :clap:

Kevin Bonham
07-01-2008, 07:42 PM
For a rapidplay game involving adults, the case where the player has definitely stopped the clock themselves and has definitely done so in the view that they are mated seems arguable either way to me. It is between merely shaking hands (definitely not sufficient evidence) and telling the arbiter you've been mated (definitely sufficient evidence).

Ian Rout
08-01-2008, 09:55 AM
I think I would agree with Jono's decision provided the other player had not erroneously claimed a mate. There are no scoresheets to sign but the player has made all the normal conceding motions and doesn't dispute that was their intention (and if they do then they need to explain why they stopped the clock and shook hands for no reason, in a rapid game I think that's grounds for being defaulted).

After all, you don't get to withdraw a resignation if you realise a second too late that iin fact you aren't losing your Queen.

Kevin Bonham
08-01-2008, 08:23 PM
I think I would agree with Jono's decision provided the other player had not erroneously claimed a mate.

That seems like not a bad point to draw the line to me.

In the junior cases I mention it is nearly always a false and very confident/jubilant claim of mate which leads to this situation arising. If it's not mate and a player thinks they are mated without a claim by the opponent, usually their opponent will be a good sport and point out where they can go.

Capablanca-Fan
08-01-2008, 11:02 PM
In the junior cases I mention it is nearly always a false and very confident/jubilant claim of mate which leads to this situation arising. If it's not mate and a player thinks they are mated without a claim by the opponent, usually their opponent will be a good sport and point out where they can go.
In the game at my club, the two players are very good friends and play each other a lot outside the club.