Does checkmate end the game?

[Garvinator]

Situation from tournament I am involved in:

Following report is from the arbiter (not me).

Tonight’s game between James and Stuart was certainly one of the more remarkable games played at The Gap Chess Club, even for James whose standard of remarkableness is quite high. During the game both players moved their queens to squares that led to their capture with no compensation (a la the “Willcock gambit”) – Stuart first at move 10, and James at move 40. Prior to James’ move 40 blunder he was leading by Q+R+N against a lone rook. Hence the shock to those in Room D6 when James and Stuart left the tournament room (Room D5) to inform the DOP that the game had ended in an agreed draw.

However the greatest astonishment was left to when the scoresheets were reconstructed for post-match analysis.

It turned out that James had achieved checkmate at move 22.

Both players were unaware of this and Stuart avoided losing the game by unknowingly making an illegal move. Even then, a simple QxR would have been checkmate again. However James captured the rook with his bishop, and then Stuart moved his knight to the f7 square where his rook had been, thus making the game ‘legal’ again. James has never beaten Stuart in a tournament game, and won’t come any closer than tonight, but at least achieved his first ever draw against Stuart and avoided loss in a Flood Cup game for the first time.

In case anyone think James and Stuart’s play was subject to time pressure, both players had more than one hour on the clock for the whole of the game.

Now for my question:
What is the correct result in this game? is it a draw as the players agreed or should it be a win to James under

Article 5: The completion of the game.

5.1

a) The game is won by the player who has checkmated his opponents king. This immediately ends the game, provided that the move producing the checkmating position was a legal move.

Is there any further rules to consider as well?

[eclectic]

checkmate immediately ends the game

however i suspect that if scoresheets were already signed/lodged and the result posted the agreed draw would stand

that's my reading of things

eclectic

[Thunderspirit]

Yes, to answer Gillian's first question- Mate does end the game, but if the players are too stupid to notice and as a result the players continue and a different result is agreed apon, then that also stands.

A PNG player at the Olympiad (and no not Shuan) agreed that a position was stalemate and it wasn't, the draw stood (this is obvious...) The only question is, as the DOP if U see a position is mate, do U stop the game becuase you know the game has ended, or let them play on becuase the arbiter shouldn't get invloved usless requested.

The NSWJCL's arbiters are instructed not to answer questions regarding positions on the board and if they are mate/stalemate etc, and just provide questions where they may work it out, this often leads to people agreeing to results that didn't happen. I suppose this is part of the learning experience...

What I find hard is that two tournament players didn't realise it was mate... How strong were they?? If they were both 800, you could almost forgive them, if they've been playing for a while than the guy who missed the mate deserves to get ribbed by his mates, his grandmother, the milk man and everyone in Australian chess...

[Bill Gletsos]

Yes, to answer Gillian's first question- Mate does end the game, but if the players are too stupid to notice and as a result the players continue and a different result is agreed apon, then that also stands.

That isnt correct.
Article 5.1 makes it clear that a mating move provided it is a legal move immediately ends the game.
No claim is required.
Gijssen said in his recent Chesscafe article:
Therefore we turn to Article 5.1. According to this article the game is over after the opponent is checkmated. It does not have to be claimed, the game is simply over, and all that happened afterwards is apparently irrelevant.

Even if scoresheets are signed the Arbiter is still at liberty under Artile 8.7 to decide that the mate should take precedence.

A PNG player at the Olympiad (and no not Shuan) agreed that a position was stalemate and it wasn't, the draw stood (this is obvious...)

Why is this obvious.
The claim is invalid.
There is no mention in the rules that an invalid draw claim under Article 5.2a should be considered a draw claim. As such the player agreeing it was stalemate is irrelevant.
As such the Arbiter should rule play on.

The only question is, as the DOP if U see a position is mate, do U stop the game becuase you know the game has ended, or let them play on becuase the arbiter shouldn't get invloved usless requested.

Again the game ended once the mating move was made and no claim is required.
The arbiter should stop the game.
In fact the arbiter has a duty under Artilce 13.1 to do so which states The Arbiter shall see that the Laws of Chess are stictly observed.

The NSWJCL's arbiters are instructed not to answer questions regarding positions on the board and if they are mate/stalemate etc, and just provide questions where they may work it out, this often leads to people agreeing to results that didn't happen. I suppose this is part of the learning experience...

Then if there is a mate/stalemate on the board the arbiter should stop the game. They should not allow the game to continue.

What I find hard is that two tournament players didn't realise it was mate... How strong were they?? If they were both 800, you could almost forgive them, if they've been playing for a while than the guy who missed the mate deserves to get ribbed by his mates, his grandmother, the milk man and everyone in Australian chess...

One this I agree.

[Thunderspirit]

That isnt correct.
Article 5.1 makes it clear that a mating move provided it is a legal move immediately ends the game.
No claim is required.
Gijssen said in his recent Chesscafe article:
Therefore we turn to Article 5.1. According to this article the game is over after the opponent is checkmated. It does not have to be claimed, the game is simply over, and all that happened afterwards is apparently irrelevant.

Even if scoresheets are signed the Arbiter is still at liberty under Artile 8.7 to decide that the mate should take precedence.
Why is this obvious.
The claim is invalid.
There is no mention in the rules that an invalid draw claim under Article 5.2a should be considered a draw claim. As such the player agreeing it was stalemate is irrelevant.
As such the Arbiter should rule play on.
Again the game ended once the mating move was made and no claim is required.
The arbiter should stop the game.
In fact the arbiter has a duty under Artilce 13.1 to do so which states The Arbiter shall see that the Laws of Chess are stictly observed.
Then if there is a mate/stalemate on the board the arbiter should stop the game. They should not allow the game to continue.
One this I agree.

Bill in a sense you are correct. There is no claim needed, but if the players agree to a result after a mate has occured, though strictly speaking you are correct I wouldn't over turn the decision. The players and not the DOP should 'ideally' decide the result of a game.

On the NSWJCL- RGH is boss and we do what we are told! It's good for the kids to learn to...

[Bill Gletsos]

Bill in a sense you are correct. There is no claim needed, but if the players agree to a result after a mate has occured, though strictly speaking you are correct I wouldn't over turn the decision. The players and not the DOP should 'ideally' decide the result of a game.

Ideally the rules should be followed. If the players have not signed the scoresheet then the arbiter's failure to overturn the result and award it to the player who mated his opponent would be lost on appeal.

On the NSWJCL- RGH is boss and we do what we are told! It's good for the kids to learn to...

True, but I know Richard and I cant believe he woukldnt allow an arbiter to stop a game if a mate has occurred. I'll ask him when I next see him.

[Thunderspirit]

Ideally the rules should be followed. If the players have not signed the scoresheet then the arbiter's failure to overturn the result and award it to the player who mated his opponent would be lost on appeal.
True, but I know Richard and I cant believe he woukldnt allow an arbiter to stop a game if a mate has occurred. I'll ask him when I next see him.

The first point is very vailid, the DOP would loose under appeal. You're probably right... Good one Bill!

As for the second- Richard is worth is weight in gold, and also incredible stubborn... good luck!

[Bill Gletsos]

The first point is very vailid, the DOP would loose under appeal. You're probably right... Good one Bill!

Thanks Lee.

As for the second- Richard is worth is weight in gold, and also incredible stubborn... good luck!

I wouldnt use the word stubborn, I'd say determined.
Also it should be noted I have the utmost repect for Richard.

[Denis_Jessop]

Bill in a sense you are correct. There is no claim needed, but if the players agree to a result after a mate has occured, though strictly speaking you are correct I wouldn't over turn the decision. The players and not the DOP should 'ideally' decide the result of a game.

On the NSWJCL- RGH is boss and we do what we are told! It's good for the kids to learn to...

Lee, If the Arbiter did not rule that the game ended when the mate occurred then the Arbiter would be in breach of Art. 13.1, as Bill has observed. It would then be open to the player who gave mate to appeal from the Arbiter's decision, assuming there was provision for an appeal.

Re the stalemate example, the Arbiter's decision there could only have been correct if, on the facts before him(her?), it was apparent that the players had agreed that the game was a draw, that is, had drawn according to Art. 5.2(c) rather than 5.2(a). This could well have been the case but we don't have the evidence though the statement that the players agreed that it was stalemate might suggest a draw by agreement.

DJ

[Spiny Norman]

I wouldnt use the word stubborn, I'd say determined.

Tenacious is a word I like to have applied to myself (on a good day). But I tend towards stubbornness on a bad day.

[antichrist]

What I find hard is that two tournament players didn't realise it was mate... How strong were they?? If they were both 800, you could almost forgive them, if they've been playing for a while than the guy who missed the mate deserves to get ribbed by his mates, his grandmother, the milk man and everyone in Australian chess...

You think that is bad! What about at that rapid play about 5 years back where a club president or secretary (and his opponent) left the kings in check for at least 3 half moves, the whole hall looked on dumbfounded (implies arbiter also??) and no one said boo until these galoots had finished.

To jolt PaulS's memory one was named Mario