English Chess Forum

I'm sure I should know this, but what happens in these circumstances? Say somebody thinks they've been checkmated, resigned, turns out it was in fact stalemate. At what point, if any, can the player claim that the game is in fact a draw? At what point, if any, can they no longer do so (I'm sure this has been in GvG any number of times, but the answer hasn't stuck!)

JustinHorton wrote:Say somebody thinks they've been checkmated, resigned, turns out it was in fact stalemate. At what point, if any, can the player claim that the game is in fact a draw? At what point, if any, can they no longer do so (I'm sure this has been in GvG any number of times, but the answer hasn't stuck!)

5.2a. The game is drawn when the player to move has no legal move and his king is not in check. The game is said to end in ‘stalemate’. This immediately ends the game, provided that the move producing the stalemate position was legal.

Stalemate takes precedence over the resignation, because the move producing stalemate immediately ended the game. If the move bringing it about was illegal, then the resignation is void, because the illegal move rules come into force instead.

5.1b. The game is won by the player whose opponent declares he resigns. This immediately ends the game.

This rule doesn't come to force, because he was stalemated before he declared that he resigned!

But does this still apply if the player only realises the mistake when looking at their scoresheet a week later?

JustinHorton wrote:But does this still apply if the player only realises the mistake when looking at their scoresheet a week later?

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.

So it's up the arbiter. In a congress, I reckon you'd have no chance. If it were a league match, you might stand a chance.

Ta. Presumably there must be a certain amount of practical experience here?

JustinHorton wrote:Ta. Presumably there must be a certain amount of practical experience here?

Presumably - and experience that I don't pretend to have.

In 1995, John Hewit, who we drafted into a Bells team to plug a gap in board 6
played two games then retired.

He won his first game as Black with Fools mate.

In his second game he was stalemated but did not know the rule
about stalemate and thought because he could not move he was lost
so resigned.

We decanted to Bells and played out the games.
The stalemate was discovered.
I knew we could have made an appeal, (I was captain) but decided not
to as it was such a good laugh. (also we had won the match 4-2).

Quite a chess playing career.

(seen an over 2000+ player agree a draw thinking he had just
stalemated his opponent. it was not stalemate, he still had a simple win
but shook hands on the draw.)

Not quite the`same thing,but interresting none the less.In the Bath Zonal tournament 1990 Murray Chandler made an illegal move against Paul Motwani.The move was so strong that Paul resigned immediately,and the resignation stood of course

Keith Arkell wrote:Not quite the`same thing,but interresting none the less.In the Bath Zonal tournament 1990 Murray Chandler made an illegal move against Paul Motwani.The move was so strong that Paul resigned immediately,and the resignation stood of course

I don't know what the 1990-edition rules were, but under the current rules, that shouldn't have happened! The arbiter should have pointed out the first infringement (i.e. the illegal move) when it happened.

The difference between the two being that the illegal move wouldn't have ended the game, but stalemate overturning resignation is one game-ending scenario overriding another. So the resignation immediately ended the game in the Zonal, meaning you couldn't go back to the game.

I used to teach juniors the 3 ways out of check (take, block, move) until I discovered the fourth when a player thought he was mated as the first 3 did not work.

[The fourth being check your opponent has not made an illegal move.]

I remember a good one when I was at school - one of my team mates was quite a good player (by school standards anyway) and had got himself a pawn up in an endgame but his opponent managed to figure out the way to get the draw with king +pawn vs king. Undeterred, he played the game right up into the stalemate and then told his opponent that he still had to make a move which, of course, was an illegal one and he was able to claim a win.

Alex Holowczak wrote:I don't know what the 1990-edition rules were, but under the current rules, that shouldn't have happened! The arbiter should have pointed out the first infringement (i.e. the illegal move) when it happened.

1990 rules or 1988 edition:-

FIDE (1988) 8.1. If during a game, it is found that an illegal move was made, the position shall be reinstated to what it was before the illegal move was made. The game shall then continue by applying the rules of Article 7 to the move replacing the illegal move. If the position cannot be reinstated, the game shall be annulled and a new game played. This applies to all sessions of play and to a game awaiting a decision by adjudication.

FIDE (1988) 10.2. The game is won by the player whose opponent declares he resigns, This immediately ends the game.

FIDE (1988) 12.5. If the game needs to be interrupted for some reason for which neither player is responsible, the clocks shall be stopped by the arbiter. This should be done, for example, in the case of an illegal position being corrected,..........

So take your pick ! Should the arbiter have interrupted the game rendering the resignation invalid as the game was not at that point in progress ?

Note the last part of rule 8.1 how many times have league players made a mistake in a position sent for adjudication and, on discovery, been told by the league secretary that the position stands.

Well, I interpret 12.5 as nothing to do with players. If you make an illegal move, that's the player's fault.

Is there a rule in the 1988 ruleset that says, or implies, that the responsibility to point out illegal moves is the arbiter's? If there isn't, then you'd go to 10.2 I guess. (At least this 10.2 is easier to understand than the current one!)

Alex Holowczak wrote:Well, I interpret 12.5 as nothing to do with players. If you make an illegal move, that's the player's fault.

Well the rules gave that as an example of when the arbiter should stop the clock. 16.1 was the equivalent of 13.1.

Neill Cooper wrote:I used to teach juniors the 3 ways out of check (take, block, move) until I discovered the fourth when a player thought he was mated as the first 3 did not work.

[The fourth being check your opponent has not made an illegal move.]

Please bear in mind that some people on here may be short-sighted - I needed a magnifying glass to read that!