PDA

View Full Version : Incorrectly agreeing you've been mated is not the same as resigning



Kevin Bonham
19-11-2009, 11:02 PM
Gijssen wrong again (in my view) in his latest column:


Question Hi, Geurt. I recently played in a Quickplay tournament where the most bizarre situation occurred. I was a bishop and a pawn up in a won position with ten seconds left, when my opponent declared checkmate by Re1+ as his flag fell. It was indeed check and believing that my opponent had swindled me and delivered checkmate, I shook my opponent’s hand. As I only had ten seconds left, I had calculated that my king had no escape square and that it must indeed be checkmate.

However, I had overlooked that I could retreat my bishop to block the check, which my opponent genuinely missed too. By this time my flag had fallen as well; however, as it was a digital clock, it was clear my opponent's flag had fallen first.

A spectator then indicated to the arbiter that I could have played Bf1 to block the check; however, the arbiter took the view that because I shook my opponent's hand, and he had played Re1+ before his flag fell and declared checkmate, my opponent was awarded the win. I assume that my opponent made contact with e1 before his flag fell in order for the arbiter to make the decision that he did.

What is your view on this situation? I find it most intriguing that my opponent had a lost position, his flag had fallen first, and yet he wins the game. I must add that my opponent thought it was checkmate and in no way was he trying to trick me (we both just missed Bf1 in time trouble). Would I be correct in assuming that my opponent was only awarded the win because he said "Checkmate!" and he would have lost if he hadn’t? Many thanks in advance, Garry Forbes (United Kingdom)

Gijssen's response begins:


Answer One thing is very clear: you resigned before you were aware that your opponent had overstepped the time limit.

... and his whole answer from there on is wrong (IMO) because this is not clear in the least bit. The player, falsely believing he has been checkmated, is congratulating his opponent on what he believes to have been a legitimate win by that method.

If he believes he has been checkmated then he cannot possibly be resigning because checkmate immediately ends the game and thus precludes the possibility of resignation.

I would declare this game (bearing in mind it is a rapidplay) drawn. There was no mate and both flags fell before there was any time claim. The order of the flagfalls is irrelevant. The incorrect agreement of both players that there was a mate is irrelevant.

A case could even be made for declaring it a loss by the player who falsely declared checkmate on the grounds that this distracted the opponent in a situation in which the opponent may have otherwise noticed it wasn't mate.

Garvinator
20-11-2009, 12:29 AM
A case could even be made for declaring it a loss by the player who falsely declared checkmate on the grounds that this distracted the opponent in a situation in which the opponent may have otherwise noticed it wasn't mate.
When I was reading the situation and Gijssen's response, this is the direction I was thinking, but instead of declaring the same lost, the non-offending player would receive some time compensation for the distraction and the game continues.

In my opinion, it is on the balance of probabilities that the player 'resigned' because the opponent claimed 'checkmate' and so was distracted from the other factors involved.

This type of action would certainly not 'reward' the player who falsely claimed checkmate.

Kevin Bonham
20-11-2009, 12:59 AM
When I was reading the situation and Gijssen's response, this is the direction I was thinking, but instead of declaring the same lost, the non-offending player would receive some time compensation for the distraction and the game continues.

That's an option too and perhaps a better one than either of mine. At this point the non-offending player, having been alerted to the fact that he is not mated by the penalty applied to his opponent for distraction via an incorrect mate claim, will presumably notice that his opponent's flag is down and claim a win on time.

This sort of situation (A claims mate, B initially agrees it's mate, both of them are wrong) comes up regularly in interschools that I referee. If you tell the players that if they agree it's mate then that's it, then the more overbearing children will intimidate more timid opponents with spurious checkmate claims which the latter may then accept.

So what I normally apply in interschools is:

* Players are told if in any doubt to have mate claims checked. I explicitly tell them not to assume it is mate just because the opponent says it is.
* If it is found that a game was wrongly agreed to be mate then the game continues unless either the clock or the board has been reset making continuing the game impossible.
* Players are told that if they reset board or clock without checking the mate and the mate turns out to have been false, then the mate may stand or the game may be called a draw, depending on who was to blame for the resetting.

CameronD
20-11-2009, 06:58 AM
Ive never claimed mate. I just make my move and hit the clock and wait for my opponent to offer his hand.



That's an option too and perhaps a better one than either of mine. At this point the non-offending player, having been alerted to the fact that he is not mated by the penalty applied to his opponent for distraction via an incorrect mate claim, will presumably notice that his opponent's flag is down and claim a win on time.

This sort of situation (A claims mate, B initially agrees it's mate, both of them are wrong) comes up regularly in interschools that I referee. If you tell the players that if they agree it's mate then that's it, then the more overbearing children will intimidate more timid opponents with spurious checkmate claims which the latter may then accept.

So what I normally apply in interschools is:

* Players are told if in any doubt to have mate claims checked. I explicitly tell them not to assume it is mate just because the opponent says it is.
* If it is found that a game was wrongly agreed to be mate then the game continues unless either the clock or the board has been reset making continuing the game impossible.
* Players are told that if they reset board or clock without checking the mate and the mate turns out to have been false, then the mate may stand or the game may be called a draw, depending on who was to blame for the resetting.

Rincewind
20-11-2009, 08:03 AM
Out our club the view is usually taken that by shaking the opponent's hand, you are agreeing to concede the game. I don't necessarily agree with this but the view is taken that at that point the result is final and subsequent claims of illegal moves, loss on time and unseen defenses to mating threats are moot.

This can probably be interpreted as a local variation on 8.7


At the conclusion of the game both players shall sign both scoresheets, indicating the result of the game. Even if incorrect, this result shall stand, unless the arbiter decides otherwise.

Since we generally do not sign score sheets the handshake is taken as the crossing of the Rubicon, even at "normal" time controls. However, there are a number of problems.

Firstly, the handshake often takes place before the result has been written on the score sheet so the two players may genuinely disagree about the result of the game.

Secondly gamesmanship is given a greater opportunity since a so-minded player may make a checking move, claim mate and stick out his hand hoping to embarrass his opponent into a ill-considered "agreement."

Finally, there is no physical evidence that a handshake takes place. A signature on a score sheet is at least a permanent record that the player agreed to the game (although it's not perfect since tampering can obviously occur after signing).

Anyway, so getting back to the case from post #1 perhaps there local rule of a handshake somehow fixing the result in the same way as the signing of the score sheet from Law 8.7 is more widespread than just my local.

In rapidplay of course there are no score sheets involved so then perhaps the shaking of hands might taken as the equivalent role of fixing the result in concrete (the first two problems I mention earlier notwithstanding) but you still need some point of no return from which point the result is final. I can't see a justification from the rules that says shaking hands should be that point, it is may be an understanding which is out there.

Ian Rout
20-11-2009, 08:29 AM
Obviously the player has not resigned, assuming his account of the circumstances to be accurate (and why would you resign a game which you thought was already over)?

By a "Quickplay" tournament I presume the questioner means a Rapidplay tournament as described in the Laws. I can see a case that a handshake is a gesture of concession equivalent to signing the scoresheet in a recorded game, so if a player had merely decided he was checkmated and made such a gesture the ruling may be reasonable.

However that outcome was procured illegally, by announcing a checkmate that wasn't. Gijssen appears to consider this to be OK because Black distracted and misled his opponent by using a chess term. If instead Black had pointed to the door, said "Look!" and White's flag had fallen while he was looking would that have also been acceptable? I don't think so, even if Black genuinely thought he had seen Elvis enter the room.

I think the correct procedure would either be for the game to be restarted with extra time given to White, or Black to be defaulted. The complication with the first is that White has had the opportunity during the delay to see Bf1, though it can be argued that that's Black's own fault. Alternatively a false claim of a checkmate could be treated the same as a false claim of a draw.

Certainly Gijssen's ruling seems to give the green light for the disreputable to rescue poor positions with bogus checkmate claims.

Ian Rout
20-11-2009, 08:47 AM
As a footnote it's amusing to consider that one of Gijssen's amusing recent decalarations was that a checkmate doesn't end the game if you don't call it. Perhaps these two cases can all be codified in one hit by changing Law 1.2 to read "The objective of each player is to claim to have checkmated the opponent's King."

Kevin Bonham
20-11-2009, 12:48 PM
Ive never claimed mate. I just make my move and hit the clock and wait for my opponent to offer his hand.

I usually just play the mate and if the opponent doesn't immediately see it is mate I stop the clocks.


Out our club the view is usually taken that by shaking the opponent's hand, you are agreeing to concede the game. I don't necessarily agree with this but the view is taken that at that point the result is final and subsequent claims of illegal moves, loss on time and unseen defenses to mating threats are moot.

There have been a number of handshake incidents I can remember that were messy.

One player had a pet gamesmanship attempt in which, in a lost position, he would hold out his hand without saying anything, then as the opponent shook it, say "Draw?" and try to claim that the draw agreement was binding. I know he tried this at least twice without success in either instance. If it had been tried in an event I refereed I would have referred it for disciplinary action.

Former Tasmanian champion the late Bob Atkinson was twice involved in incidents (over a decade apart) in which an opponent, believing Atkinson had forced mate while himself precariously short of time, held out their hand to resign without saying anything, and a handshake occurred and then it was realised that the mate was not forced after all. I witnessed one of these and it was a very messy incident with lots of spectator interference and extensive argument before the arbiters dealt with it. The Laws booklet available at the time had an explicit FIDE ruling that a handshake alone did not indicate resignation and there was no other indication; both games ended up being ruled or agreed drawn.

Capablanca-Fan
20-11-2009, 07:25 PM
As a footnote it's amusing to consider that one of Gijssen's amusing recent decalarations was that a checkmate doesn't end the game if you don't call it. Perhaps these two cases can all be codified in one hit by changing Law 1.2 to read "The objective of each player is to claim to have checkmated the opponent's King."
Hurt Haysen makes so many bizarre interpretations these days that he should certainly not be the final word on the Laws.

Denis_Jessop
20-11-2009, 10:19 PM
Out our club the view is usually taken that by shaking the opponent's hand, you are agreeing to concede the game. I don't necessarily agree with this but the view is taken that at that point the result is final and subsequent claims of illegal moves, loss on time and unseen defenses to mating threats are moot.

This can probably be interpreted as a local variation on 8.7


At the conclusion of the game both players shall sign both scoresheets, indicating the result of the game. Even if incorrect, this result shall stand, unless the arbiter decides otherwise.

Since we generally do not sign score sheets the handshake is taken as the crossing of the Rubicon, even at "normal" time controls. However, there are a number of problems.

Firstly, the handshake often takes place before the result has been written on the score sheet so the two players may genuinely disagree about the result of the game.

Secondly gamesmanship is given a greater opportunity since a so-minded player may make a checking move, claim mate and stick out his hand hoping to embarrass his opponent into a ill-considered "agreement."

Finally, there is no physical evidence that a handshake takes place. A signature on a score sheet is at least a permanent record that the player agreed to the game (although it's not perfect since tampering can obviously occur after signing).

Anyway, so getting back to the case from post #1 perhaps there local rule of a handshake somehow fixing the result in the same way as the signing of the score sheet from Law 8.7 is more widespread than just my local.

In rapidplay of course there are no score sheets involved so then perhaps the shaking of hands might taken as the equivalent role of fixing the result in concrete (the first two problems I mention earlier notwithstanding) but you still need some point of no return from which point the result is final. I can't see a justification from the rules that says shaking hands should be that point, it is may be an understanding which is out there.

It is well established that merely shaking hands is not a declaration of resignation. This has its origin in a FIDE interpretation of 1971 in the days when official FIDE interpretations were given.

DJ

Saragossa
21-11-2009, 11:36 AM
I had quite an embarressing moment where I played a move that destroyed my opponents position. I pushed the clock and he made a large movement with his hand which I assumed was him offering his hand so I extended my hand a swell...turned out he was just capturing a pawn on my side of the board and not resigning at all. I looked like a right arrogant bastard.

CameronD
21-11-2009, 02:29 PM
Ive had a game once where I was up a queen in an easily7 winning pawn endgame, my opponent offered his hand, i shook, then he went to the arbiter demanding a draw.

Kevin Bonham
21-11-2009, 07:51 PM
Ive had a game once where I was up a queen in an easily7 winning pawn endgame, my opponent offered his hand, i shook, then he went to the arbiter demanding a draw.

This sort of rubbish (I mentioned that I know someone who tried this trick too) should be stamped out with serious penalties IMO. Repeat offenders should be expelled from tournaments.

Denis_Jessop
22-11-2009, 06:56 PM
This sort of rubbish (I mentioned that I know someone who tried this trick too) should be stamped out with serious penalties IMO. Repeat offenders should be expelled from tournaments.

This is the danger with accepting a handshake as evidence of anything. It isn't always a bit of tricky behaviour. We had an incident at Canberra CC a few years ago involving two of the most respected players in the club where they shook hands, one believing the other had resigned and the other believing a draw had been agreed.

DJ

Kevin Bonham
30-01-2010, 06:27 PM
Naturally someone wrote in:


But it is not clear to me that Mr. Forbes resigned. He shook his opponent's hand, but is that the same as resigning? He had no intention to resign – he believed that he had been mated and that the game was already over. And his opponent believed the same thing, and did not believe that he was accepting Mr. Forbes's resignation. The two of them believed that the handshake was taking place after the game, and neither one of them thought that Mr. Forbes was resigning a game in progress. How then does this handshake become a resignation?

If a handshake near the end of a game must be taken as a resignation, why must we say that Mr. Forbes was the one who was resigning? Wouldn't it be equally true to say that his opponent was resigning because his flag had fallen? Of course we know that it wasn't the opponent's intention to resign, but it wasn't Mr. Forbes' intention either.

Why wouldn't it be more correct to say that the handshake had no effect, and that Mr. Forbes' opponent simply lost the game on time? Sincerely, Peter Kimball (USA)

Response:


Answer From Mr. Forbes's letter the following paragraph is essential to understand that he really resigned:

"It was indeed check and believing that my opponent had swindled me and delivered checkmate, I shook my opponent's hand. As I only had ten seconds left, I had calculated that my king had no escape square and that it must indeed be checkmate."

It is even possible that Mr. Forbes said something to congratulate his opponent. To me this case is clear, but I understand your remarks. Shaking hands is not considered a resignation of the game. I mentioned before that the way a player resigns is not clearly written in the Laws of Chess. An arbiter and the players are absolutely sure that a player resigns when there is written evidence.

(etc)

Lame!

Jesper Norgaard
31-01-2010, 04:50 AM
Lame!
Absolutely, and not the first time he suddenly clings to a completely irrational point of view, and repeats defending it in ChessCafé column after column. Instead he would do much better in pointing out to arbiters that they must get a signed scoresheet, the arbiters "forensic evidence". Nowadays shaking hands is obligatory according to FIDE rules, and not as a means of resigning.

He supports it with a story about that he once "had" to pay price money of his own pocket to a player who believed another player who informed him that they would agree a draw, and then turned up to the adjournment pretending he had never agreed to the draw. Hilarious! And sad. It goes to show the lack of common sense that Geurt Gijssen sometimes shows - under no circumstances should the arbiter go about repaying price money for a mistake he made - and especially not if this was rather a mistake from the player who thought the adjournment would not be played, not a mistake of Geurt. Common sense would say that showing up to the adjournment with a smirky grin, and answering if they had not already agreed a draw, if the arbiter could prove it? I would have insisted on the draw as arbiter, and see if the other player would have the nerve to take his cheat to an appeal's committee. In the appeal's committee this player might win, but he would also surely be put on another level of scrutiny and questioning.

Kevin Bonham
31-01-2010, 10:42 AM
He supports it with a story about that he once "had" to pay price money of his own pocket to a player who believed another player who informed him that they would agree a draw, and then turned up to the adjournment pretending he had never agreed to the draw. Hilarious! And sad. It goes to show the lack of common sense that Geurt Gijssen sometimes shows - under no circumstances should the arbiter go about repaying price money for a mistake he made - and especially not if this was rather a mistake from the player who thought the adjournment would not be played, not a mistake of Geurt. Common sense would say that showing up to the adjournment with a smirky grin, and answering if they had not already agreed a draw, if the arbiter could prove it? I would have insisted on the draw as arbiter, and see if the other player would have the nerve to take his cheat to an appeal's committee. In the appeal's committee this player might win, but he would also surely be put on another level of scrutiny and questioning.

I find that whole anecdote quite odd. Of course the player did not turn up to the adjournment, since he had notified the arbiter that a draw had been agreed and the arbiter had apparently not responded to indicate that confirmation from the opponent was required.

The opponent's query about whether Gijssen could prove a draw had been agreed is beside the point. Arbiters are not required to operate by standards of beyond-reasonable-doubt proof as in criminal law. If the arbiter believes the draw has been agreed then the arbiter is entitled to declare the game a draw and invite an appeal as you suggest.

It seems from his account of it that Gijssen allowed himself to be sucked in by a rather slippery piece of rules-lawyering.

FM_Bill
08-02-2010, 06:49 PM
There was a gam at the mcc in which Sarah Anton had 31 seconds left against John Beckman. Beckman moved the queen next to her king and said "checkmate!" in an authorative tone of voice.

Sarah Anton sat there for about 10 seconds, her body language suggesting that she belived it was mate. It looked like her flag would fall.

Then a spectator called out "its not mate", whereupon Sarah took the undefended king.

The opponent claimed that she had agreed it was mate, but she had not stopped the clock and the arbiter(myself) ruled that she had been distracted by the false claim of checkmate and the game should continue. It was very likely if John hadn't said mate, then Sarah would not have believed it was mate.

Jesper Norgaard
09-02-2010, 04:35 AM
There was a game at the mcc in which Sarah Anton had 31 seconds left against John Beckman. Beckman moved the queen next to her king and said "checkmate!" in an authorative tone of voice.

Sarah Anton sat there for about 10 seconds, her body language suggesting that she belived it was mate. It looked like her flag would fall.

Then a spectator called out "its not mate", whereupon Sarah took the undefended king.

The opponent claimed that she had agreed it was mate, but she had not stopped the clock and the arbiter(myself) ruled that she had been distracted by the false claim of checkmate and the game should continue. It was very likely if John hadn't said mate, then Sarah would not have believed it was mate.
I think the opponent would be wrong about that she agreed it was mate except if she had informed the arbiter that she lost by checkmate. As she didn't do that the game should continue.

A twist to this story is that I don't know if FIDE rules were followed directly or not, I know in a few Australian clubs it is accepted or even the norm, that the king can be captured. But FIDE's rules declares that taking a king is an illegal move, so the way you tell the story, and assuming that FIDE rules were used, he could claim an illegal move after she captured his king. That way he would still win the game :evil: - I must say that I dislike this rule about losing if you take his king, but that is the FIDE rule.

Bill Gletsos
09-02-2010, 07:27 AM
There was a gam at the mcc in which Sarah Anton had 31 seconds left against John Beckman. Beckman moved the queen next to her king and said "checkmate!" in an authorative tone of voice.

Sarah Anton sat there for about 10 seconds, her body language suggesting that she belived it was mate. It looked like her flag would fall.

Then a spectator called out "its not mate", whereupon Sarah took the undefended king.Do you mean undefended queen?

CameronD
09-02-2010, 10:59 AM
There was a gam at the mcc in which Sarah Anton had 31 seconds left against John Beckman. Beckman moved the queen next to her king and said "checkmate!" in an authorative tone of voice.

Sarah Anton sat there for about 10 seconds, her body language suggesting that she belived it was mate. It looked like her flag would fall.

Then a spectator called out "its not mate", whereupon Sarah took the undefended king.

The opponent claimed that she had agreed it was mate, but she had not stopped the clock and the arbiter(myself) ruled that she had been distracted by the false claim of checkmate and the game should continue. It was very likely if John hadn't said mate, then Sarah would not have believed it was mate.

Can a playr claim an extra 2 minutes for a false checkmate claim due to distraction.

I also wish spectators would shut up in all game situations, i would throw the spectator out.

Bill Gletsos
09-02-2010, 11:05 AM
Can a playr claim an extra 2 minutes for a false checkmate claim due to distraction.The player could make a claim to the arbiter they were distracted but the player does not get to specify the penalty.

Capablanca-Fan
09-02-2010, 12:15 PM
BTW, there was another thread (http://chesschat.org/showthread.php?t=7407) on this same issue.


A twist to this story is that I don't know if FIDE rules were followed directly or not, I know in a few Australian clubs it is accepted or even the norm, that the king can be captured. But FIDE's rules declares that taking a king is an illegal move, so the way you tell the story, and assuming that FIDE rules were used, he could claim an illegal move after she captured his king. That way he would still win the game :evil: - I must say that I dislike this rule about losing if you take his king, but that is the FIDE rule.
Yes, I remember when Geurt Gijssen was canvassing about this rule change, and I responded that it was most unwise that what had been a game-winning move for decades should suddenly become a game-losing move. But the FIDE rules commission is run for and by arbiters not for players, so what Geurt wants, Geurt gets. He is so obsessed by this that he even thinks that a sequence: White gives mate, Black attempts a move, White takes K should be a win to Black--see this thread (http://chesschat.org/showthread.php?t=6929).

Jesper Norgaard
09-02-2010, 03:39 PM
But the FIDE rules commission is run for and by arbiters not for players, so what Geurt wants, Geurt gets. He is so obsessed by this that he even thinks that a sequence: White gives mate, Black attempts a move, White takes K should be a win to Black--see this thread (http://chesschat.org/showthread.php?t=6929).
I don't really understand what the arbiters get out of this. Maybe that the DGT boards don't go berserk when the king is taken? Isn't this just a personal obsession by Geurt just as Kirshan's obsession of 0 minutes tolerance?

Kevin Bonham
09-02-2010, 08:30 PM
I also wish spectators would shut up in all game situations, i would throw the spectator out.

Indeed, the conduct of the spectator is a major problem in this situation because it stops us from knowing how the game would have concluded naturally. The spectator believed (correctly) that it wasn't mate but that means the game is still going and the spectator must not interfere. Instead the spectator should inform the arbiter. The spectator's action was inappropriate.

It leaves us with the question: suppose Sarah's flag had fallen before she realised that it was not mate; what is the result then? It is not clearcut in the Laws because it might still be argued that the false mate was the ultimate cause of her loss on time and therefore that neither should stand. But my view is that in blitz, while there is some room for a player to claim redress if an illegal move provokes an immediate flagfall, 30 secs is more than enough time for a player to figure out that they are not in fact checkmated.

Santa
01-03-2010, 11:27 AM
Gijssen wrong again (in my view) in his latest column:



Gijssen's response begins:



... and his whole answer from there on is wrong (IMO) because this is not clear in the least bit. The player, falsely believing he has been checkmated, is congratulating his opponent on what he believes to have been a legitimate win by that method.

If he believes he has been checkmated then he cannot possibly be resigning because checkmate immediately ends the game and thus precludes the possibility of resignation.

I would declare this game (bearing in mind it is a rapidplay) drawn. There was no mate and both flags fell before there was any time claim. The order of the flagfalls is irrelevant. The incorrect agreement of both players that there was a mate is irrelevant.

A case could even be made for declaring it a loss by the player who falsely declared checkmate on the grounds that this distracted the opponent in a situation in which the opponent may have otherwise noticed it wasn't mate.


As I understand it, a move is not completed until the player has stopped his clock.

That being so, the game ended on flag-fall. Once the player released the rook, he could play no other move, but the move still wasn't completed.

Kevin Bonham
01-03-2010, 11:45 AM
That being so, the game ended on flag-fall.

The game ends by flag-fall only once a valid claim to that effect is made, or at normal time controls (or blitz or rapid with "adequate supervision") once the arbiter observes a flag has fallen.

A flag falling without either of these things happening does not end the game, not even if it is established retrospectively to have occurred at a certain time.

Certainly once the opponent had played Re1+ the opponent could have claimed a win by flagfall but this did not occur.

Bill Gletsos
01-03-2010, 11:55 AM
As I understand it, a move is not completed until the player has stopped his clock.This is true unless the move is a mating move (Article 5.1a), a stalemating move (Article 5.2a) or the move produces a dead position (Article 5.2b). In these cases the game ends immediately as soon as the piece is released on the square.

FM_Bill
06-07-2010, 04:18 PM
Do you mean undefended queen? by Bill Gletsos.

Yes, that was a typo.

Santa
07-07-2010, 02:02 PM
This is true unless the move is a mating move (Article 5.1a), a stalemating move (Article 5.2a) or the move produces a dead position (Article 5.2b). In these cases the game ends immediately as soon as the piece is released on the square.


Actually, my statement, "move is not completed until the player has stopped his clock." is correct, see 6.6.a.

However, a move has been made when the (final) piece has been released, and that's the point at which a game might be ended by stalemate, checkmate, dead position, agreement,, repetition and 50 moves. See article 5 completion of the game.

Bill Gletsos
07-07-2010, 04:25 PM
Actually, my statement, "move is not completed until the player has stopped his clock." is correct, see 6.6.a.Unfortunately it appears you just do not know what you are talking about.
Article 6.6.a has nothing to do with the completed moves, it is about being late to the board and foprfeiting.
You really mean 6.7.a but even then you appear to totally ignore the word unless in that article.

However, a move has been made when the (final) piece has been released, and that's the point at which a game might be ended by stalemate, checkmate, dead position, agreement,, repetition and 50 moves. See article 5 completion of the game.Actually my post #28 is correct since when it comes to completing the move by stopping the clock, the relevant article is 6.7.a.


Article 6.7 a.
During the game each player, having made his move on the chessboard, shall stop his own clock and start his opponent’s clock. A player must always be allowed to stop his clock. His move is not considered to have been completed until he has done so, unless the move that was made ends the game. (See the Articles 5.1.a, 5.2.a, 5.2.b, 5.2.c and 9.6)
The time between making the move on the chessboard and stopping his own clock and starting his opponent‘s clock is regarded as part of the time allotted to the player.

Jesper Norgaard
08-07-2010, 01:39 AM
Actually, my statement, "move is not completed until the player has stopped his clock." is correct, see 6.6.a.

However, a move has been made when the (final) piece has been released, and that's the point at which a game might be ended by stalemate, checkmate, dead position, agreement,, repetition and 50 moves. See article 5 completion of the game.

As Bill Gletsos points out, this was covered correctly in his post #28. When the piece has been released for a stalemate, chekcmate or dead position, the game is essentially over.

Draw by agreement, repetition or by 50 moves rule is *not* completed by making a move (or even completing it pressing the clock) because a claim must be made and accepted by the arbiter - indeed no such claim can be made by a player who has just made or completed his move.

Kevin Bonham
25-10-2010, 08:14 PM
Geurt wrong on this again in his October column:


Question 1 Dear, Geurt. I thought I had lost a game, so I shook the hand of my opponent. However, I realized that I was not checkmated. Does the handshake mean that I lost the game? Where in the rule book can I find this?


Answer 1 I refer to my answer to Graham Taylor. I understand that you didn't want to cheat your opponent. However, your intention was to resign. Then you discovered that your game was not lost, so you tried to nullify the resignation by using the fact that you didn't resign formally.

Wrong. The player's intention was not to resign but to indicate acceptance of a checkmate and congratulate the opponent on their win. If the player's intention was to resign then the fact that they had not actually been checkmated would not have been material, and indeed, a player who has been checkmated cannot resign as the game is already over.

Igor_Goldenberg
26-10-2010, 08:42 AM
Geurt wrong on this again in his October column:





Wrong. The player's intention was not to resign but to indicate acceptance of a checkmate and congratulate the opponent on their win. If the player's intention was to resign then the fact that they had not actually been checkmated would not have been material, and indeed, a player who has been checkmated cannot resign as the game is already over.
Was checkmate claimed in the game? If his opponent made a move and press the clock without claiming a checkmate and the poor guy shook his hand and/or stop the clock, it looks like a resignation to me.
If checkmate was claimed, it's a completely different story.

Kevin Bonham
26-10-2010, 07:53 PM
Was checkmate claimed in the game?

No mention whether it was. I would assume not.


If his opponent made a move and press the clock without claiming a checkmate and the poor guy shook his hand and/or stop the clock, it looks like a resignation to me.

Not necessarily. Suppose A plays a move that is almost checkmate but it isn't quite checkmate (and A knows this). Since A knows it isn't checkmate he presses the clock as normal. B thinks it is checkmate and holds out his hand. A thinks B is resigning, but B would have chosen to play on in that position had he realised it was not checkmate. Might sound unusual but at weak interschool level it happens quite often.

Some discretion is needed though - if a player claims they were just holding out their hand because they thought they had been mated, and the position is such that no player could possibly think it was checkmate, then the player's claim that they didn't resign should be dismissed.

Igor_Goldenberg
26-10-2010, 09:05 PM
Not necessarily. Suppose A plays a move that is almost checkmate but it isn't quite checkmate (and A knows this). Since A knows it isn't checkmate he presses the clock as normal. B thinks it is checkmate and holds out his hand. A thinks B is resigning, but B would have chosen to play on in that position had he realised it was not checkmate. Might sound unusual but at weak interschool level it happens quite often.
Some slack can cut for absolute beginners, but otherwise it should result in loss for B.

Kevin Bonham
26-10-2010, 10:27 PM
Some slack can cut for absolute beginners, but otherwise it should result in loss for B.

The Laws say only:


The game is won by the player whose opponent declares he resigns. This immediately ends the game.

But just shaking hands with an opponent alone is not sufficient evidence of resignation. Indeed FIDE made a specific ruling on this.

I think if there is any doubt at all about whether B was resigning then the game should continue. If necessary A can be given extra time to compensate for the disturbance. If B's position was resignable then B is going to lose anyway.

Garvinator
27-10-2010, 02:06 AM
No mention whether it was. I would assume not.



Not necessarily. Suppose A plays a move that is almost checkmate but it isn't quite checkmate (and A knows this). Since A knows it isn't checkmate he presses the clock as normal. B thinks it is checkmate and holds out his hand. A thinks B is resigning, but B would have chosen to play on in that position had he realised it was not checkmate. Might sound unusual but at weak interschool level it happens quite often.

Some discretion is needed though - if a player claims they were just holding out their hand because they thought they had been mated, and the position is such that no player could possibly think it was checkmate, then the player's claim that they didn't resign should be dismissed.
A slightly more likely occurrance in situations you describe above about almost checkmate is where one player believes they have checkmated and the other player believes it is stalemate. So they shake hands cause they think the game is over, but both are claiming different results.

Kevin Bonham
27-10-2010, 10:17 AM
A slightly more likely occurrance in situations you describe above about almost checkmate is where one player believes they have checkmated and the other player believes it is stalemate. So they shake hands cause they think the game is over, but both are claiming different results.

I don't know if I've seen this. At weak junior level I have often seen both players wrongly believing a stalemate is a checkmate and therefore shaking hands both wrongly believing the result is a win for one side when it is actually a draw.

Of course, since stalemate on the board ends the game, even if someone thinks the handshake after the stalemate was a resignation by one player, it is still a draw.

Denis_Jessop
27-10-2010, 04:36 PM
I had a situation as arbiter in a club tournament some years ago when the players shook hands, one believing that the other was agreeing to a draw and the other thinking his opponent was resigning.

Isn't the crux of this matter as Kevin says, namely, that a player must declare that he resigns and that a mere handshake is not such a declaration. FIDE made such a ruling in 1971 and Geurt has, from memory, said that too in at least one earlier column.

It seems that Geurt may have taken the questioner as saying not "I thought I had lost a game" but "I thought I had a lost game". But whatever view, it doesn't seems that the qiestioner formally declared that he resigned.

DJ

Kevin Bonham
28-10-2010, 12:27 AM
And in another reply in the same column Geurt writes:


There is only one way to be sure that a player truly resigned: a piece of paper showing the names of the players and the result, signed by both players.