Results 1 to 13 of 13
  1. #1
    CC Grandmaster Capablanca-Fan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    17,654

    I don't understand Guert Gijssen's reasoning

    From http://www.chesscafe.com/geurt/geurt.htm

    Question Dear Geurt, The following situation occurred in a 5-minute blitz tournament:

    Player A was checkmated, but he made an illegal move by capturing his opponent’s queen. Player B then captured the king and Player A claimed an illegal move. What should be the result of the game? If checkmate ends the game, then no more moves were possible. After several minutes of discussion, Player B was declared winner. Kind regards, Fabien Krzewinski (Belgium)

    Answer It seems quite complicated, but let’s take a closer look:

    Player A’s king was mated, but apparently he did not notice it, and he made an illegal move by capturing Player B’s queen.

    Player B did not claim the queen capture as an illegal move, but instead captured Player A’s king.

    Player A then claimed that Player B made an illegal move by capturing his king. Given that this claim is correct, Player A should be declared the winner, provided he has sufficient mating material, otherwise it is a draw. It is essential in Blitz chess that claims must be made.

    I think the original decision was the right one:

    5.1 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 see nothing about any claim when it comes to mate.
    “The best part of adopting conservatism after years of leftism, by the way, is how much easier life becomes. If you’re a conservative, facts are generally all you need to establish a case or mount an argument. If you’re a leftist, however, you always have to find a way around the facts, which is why combative lefties always sound like lawyers knowingly representing a guilty client.”—Tim Blair

  2. #2
    Reader in Slood Dynamics Rincewind's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    The multiverse
    Posts
    20,970
    Quote Originally Posted by Jono
    I think the original decision was the right one:

    5.1 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 see nothing about any claim when it comes to mate.
    I agree. Provided the checkmate is not under dispute, then I believe that should have ended the game.
    So einfach wie möglich, aber nicht einfacher - Albert Einstein

  3. #3
    Illuminati Bill Gletsos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    16,226
    Geurt's answer flys in the face of Article 5.1 and appears to be completely wrong.

    His comment of "It is essential in Blitz chess that claims must be made." has has no bearing with regards Article 5.1a (nor for that matter 5.1b, 5.2a, 5.2b, 5.2c).
    The Force can have a strong influence on the weak-minded.

  4. #4
    CC Grandmaster Denis_Jessop's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Canberra
    Posts
    3,327
    Quote Originally Posted by Bill Gletsos
    Geurt's answer flys in the face of Article 5.1 and appears to be completely wrong.

    His comment of "It is essential in Blitz chess that claims must be made." has has no bearing with regards Article 5.1a (nor for that matter 5.1b, 5.2a, 5.2b, 5.2c).
    I agree; but unless the arbiter saw the whole thing, there will always be the problem of the player (B in this case) being able to prove that he checkmated his opponent's king. But that is a different issue.

    5.1b is quite a good illustration of the point in the case where A's flag has fallen, no claim has been made by his opponent B and B declares he resigns. Under 5.1b, B's declaration immediately ends the game and B cannot then claim a win on time.

    DJ
    ...I don't want to go among mad people Alice remarked, "Oh, you can't help that," said the Cat: we're all mad here. I am mad. You're mad." "How do you know I'm mad?" said Alice. "You must be," said the Cat ,"or you wouldn't have come here."

    In Arsène we Trust!

  5. #5
    CC International Master
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Wynyard,Tas
    Posts
    1,975
    I thought the same thing when I first read the article but didn't have the energy to check the rules.

    I have always thought the rules to be quite clear that checkmate ends the game in any format and doesn't have to be claimed - for instance you can't claim on time after being checkmated, which you would be able to if checkmate had to be claimed.

    The notion that checkmate isn't final if the players don't notice it (or pretend not to notice) is one I haven't heard before, apart from Denis's point that you may not be able to prove it happened. It could be argued that it is consistent with the ethos of blitz though.

  6. #6
    CC Grandmaster Capablanca-Fan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    17,654
    But it seems that the fact of mate was not disputed.

    Indeed, what likely happened was that the matee didn't realize that he was mated, and made an illegal move. The mater, because the game was already over, took the king to demonstrate the illegality of the move and reinforce the fact of the mate. (I've had this experience many times) Then the matee tried to weasel out by trying to ping him for an illegal move, with Gijssen's apparent support. But the game had already ended by mate (again, the mate was not in dispute), so what is he on about?
    “The best part of adopting conservatism after years of leftism, by the way, is how much easier life becomes. If you’re a conservative, facts are generally all you need to establish a case or mount an argument. If you’re a leftist, however, you always have to find a way around the facts, which is why combative lefties always sound like lawyers knowingly representing a guilty client.”—Tim Blair

  7. #7
    Monster of the deep Kevin Bonham's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    34,853
    I agree with Jono (and everyone else). A mate that isn't in dispute ended the game the instant it occurred and anything that happened afterwards is irrelevant. Gijssen is putting his own beliefs about claims above the letter of the Laws which nowhere require that a mate be claimed. Perhaps they should require it but they currently do not.

  8. #8
    Monster of the deep Kevin Bonham's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    34,853
    Geurt is still wrong about this!

    Question Dear Geurt, I have a different opinion in regards to your answer to Mr. Krzewinski from Belgium in last month’s column. Player B checkmated his opponent’s king, and According to Article 5.1a:

    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.

    There is no difference between normal chess, Rapid and Blitz. The game ended once Player A was checkmated, anything that happened afterwards is insignificant. The arbiter presumably saw what happened and did not object to the course of events as presented in Mr. Krzewinski’s letter. So the arbiter’s decision was correct; Player B was declared the winner. I don’t understand how the player whose king was checkmated must be declared the winner. Blitz is chess too. With best wishes, Lembit Vahesaar (Estonia)

    Answer I also received similar letters from Sigvat Stensholt from Norway and Peter Anderberg from Germany. First I would like to refer to the following Articles of the Laws of Chess:

    B5. The arbiter shall make a ruling according to Article 4 (The act of moving pieces), only if requested to do so by one or both players.

    B6. An illegal move is completed once the opponent’s clock has been started. The opponent is then entitled to claim that the player completed an illegal move before the claimant has made his move. Only after such a claim, shall the arbiter make a ruling. However, if both Kings are in check or the promotion of a pawn is not completed, the arbiter shall intervene, if possible.

    B7. The flag is considered to have fallen when a player has made a valid claim to that effect. The arbiter shall refrain from signalling a flag fall.

    In “normal chess” the arbiter must signal a flag fall, but in Rapid and Blitz chess that is not the case. Only the player is responsible for signaling (i.e. claiming) a flag fall.

    Articles B6 and B7 explicitly explain the role of the arbiter in Rapid and Blitz chess. There are only two situations in which the arbiter may intervene without a claim from either player: an uncompleted pawn promotion or if both kings are in check.

    One problem, especially in Blitz, is the fact that it is very difficult for the arbiter to be present at the each board. It occasionally happens that games continue after a checkmate and that even the checkmated player wins the game.

    I do not see any reference or indication that the arbiter may intervene when a player has overlooked that he has checkmated the opponent’s king or that the game has finished by stalemate.

    I am not against adding an Article to the Laws of Chess stating that the arbiter should intervene in Rapid and Blitz games when he observes a checkmated king or a stalemate, but at the moment no such Article exists.

    By the way, Eddie Price of South Africa once suggested changing Article 5.1 as follows: “The game is won by the player who has checkmated his opponent’s king, if noticed.” In which case even a normal game could continue after checkmate or stalemate, but I am not in favor of such a change for normal games.
    Geurt's argument is wrong because although the Laws only state certain cases where the arbiter shall intervene in Rapid or Blitz, they nowhere state that these are the only cases where it can happen.

    Actually the arbiter is required to see that the Laws are observed so if a law says that mate ends the game then the arbiter is obliged to ensure that is upheld.

    Furthermore all this waffle about intervention is irrelevant because the arbiter in the case in question did not have to intervene - a situation was brought to the arbiter's attention.

    Is it time to use the o-word?

  9. #9
    CC Grandmaster Capablanca-Fan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    17,654
    Quote Originally Posted by Kevin Bonham
    Geurt is still wrong about this!

    Geurt's argument is wrong because although the Laws only state certain cases where the arbiter shall intervene in Rapid or Blitz, they nowhere state that these are the only cases where it can happen.

    Actually the arbiter is required to see that the Laws are observed so if a law says that mate ends the game then the arbiter is obliged to ensure that is upheld.

    Furthermore all this waffle about intervention is irrelevant because the arbiter in the case in question did not have to intervene — a situation was brought to the arbiter's attention.
    It is as you say. Since the mate was not disputed, the arbiter rightly applied Article 5:1a.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kevin Bonham
    Is it time to use the o-word?
    What is this word?
    “The best part of adopting conservatism after years of leftism, by the way, is how much easier life becomes. If you’re a conservative, facts are generally all you need to establish a case or mount an argument. If you’re a leftist, however, you always have to find a way around the facts, which is why combative lefties always sound like lawyers knowingly representing a guilty client.”—Tim Blair

  10. #10
    Monster of the deep Kevin Bonham's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    34,853
    Quote Originally Posted by Jono
    What is this word?
    It has eleven letters and is somewhat (in)famous on this board as a descriptor of longwinded arguments that seem deliberately designed to confuse the issue.

  11. #11
    Illuminati Bill Gletsos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    16,226
    His statement:
    Articles B6 and B7 explicitly explain the role of the arbiter in Rapid and Blitz chess. There are only two situations in which the arbiter may intervene without a claim from either player: an uncompleted pawn promotion or if both kings are in check.
    is also plainly wrong.

    Article C2 which is part of the Blitz rules states:
    Play shall be governed by the Rapidplay Laws as in Appendix B except where they are overridden by the following Laws of Blitz. The Articles 10.2 and B6 do not apply.

    Therefore Article B6 does not apply to Blitz.
    The Force can have a strong influence on the weak-minded.

  12. #12
    CC Grandmaster Capablanca-Fan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    17,654
    Quote Originally Posted by Kevin Bonham
    It has eleven letters and is somewhat (in)famous on this board as a descriptor of longwinded arguments that seem deliberately designed to confuse the issue.
    Obfuscation? I must be too new around here
    “The best part of adopting conservatism after years of leftism, by the way, is how much easier life becomes. If you’re a conservative, facts are generally all you need to establish a case or mount an argument. If you’re a leftist, however, you always have to find a way around the facts, which is why combative lefties always sound like lawyers knowingly representing a guilty client.”—Tim Blair

  13. #13
    Monster of the deep Kevin Bonham's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    34,853
    Quote Originally Posted by Jono
    Obfuscation?
    That's the one.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •