Rules question

[E Michael White]

Some assistance is given in the glossary to the new rules applying after 30 June 2014; if this thread is still going then the questions may be the same but the answers different. Mike Gunn might need to reconsider his stance on the rules and Jack Rudd his appraisal of analogies.

resigns: 5.1b. Where a player gives up, rather than play on until mated.

This brings "I think that's mate" into conjunction with resignation as the player feels he is unable to continue ! Asking for help from the opponent to find a way to continue is not really acceptable and shows the player is giving up playing the game by himself.

[Sean Hewitt]

resigns: 5.1b. Where a player gives up, rather than play on until mated.

This brings "I think that's mate" into conjunction with resignation as the player feels he is unable to continue ! Asking for help from the opponent to find a way to continue is not really acceptable and shows the player is giving up playing the game by himself.

A player who says "I think that's mate" cannot be considered to have resigned as it is not legal to resign a checkmated position. This glossary absolutely clarifies that particular point.

[E Michael White]

A player who says "I think that's mate" cannot be considered to have resigned as it is not legal to resign a checkmated position. This glossary absolutely clarifies that particular point.

That's one of the points. The scenario being discussed is that's its not checkmate. The player admits he thinks it's mate and gives up looking for a move.

[Sean Hewitt]

A player who says "I think that's mate" cannot be considered to have resigned as it is not legal to resign a checkmated position. This glossary absolutely clarifies that particular point.

That's one of the points. The scenario being discussed is that's its not checkmate. The player admits he thinks it's mate and gives up looking for a move.

You've entered into a circular argument. The glossary says

resigns: 5.1b. Where a player gives up, rather than play on until mated.

The second part (emboldened) is the clarification. It confirms that a player who thinks he has been mated cannot resign either because, by definition, that would be to avoid playing on until he is mated. He can't do that because he [wrongly] thinks that checkmate has already happened.

[Mike Gunn]

The Laws of Chess deal mainly with what happens on the board and only a limited number of statements which can be made by either player (i.e. offer of a draw, claim of a draw, resignation).

False statements made by one player can have no effect except that they may be regarded as distracting the opponent. Obviously one can construct a large number of statements (either true or false) about a chess position but only the ones that have any significance under the rules are those I mention above.

[David Blower]

Although not to do with the laws, it is annoying when you haven't even spotted that you are in checkmate!

[Dragoljub Sudar]

The glossary says

resigns: 5.1b. Where a player gives up, rather than play on until mated.

The second part (emboldened) is the clarification. It confirms that a player who thinks he has been mated cannot resign either because, by definition, that would be to avoid playing on until he is mated. He can't do that because he [wrongly] thinks that checkmate has already happened.

Eh? I'm confused.

Sean, can you clarify what the opponent of the player who says 'I think it's mate' when it isn't should do:
a) say 'not it's not'
b) ask if he/she is resigning
c) say nothing and wait for him/her to move a piece or lose on time or resign
d) submit the result as a win (then what happens if the person realises it isn't mate?)
e) something else

What should an arbiter do if advice is sort by the opponent as to whether the game is over or not?

[Sean Hewitt]

Sean, can you clarify what the opponent of the player who says 'I think it's mate' when it isn't should do:
a) say 'not it's not'
b) ask if he/she is resigning
c) say nothing and wait for him/her to move a piece or lose on time or resign
d) submit the result as a win (then what happens if the person realises it isn't mate?)
e) something else

What should an arbiter do if advice is sort by the opponent as to whether the game is over or not?

That rather depends on whether the player saying that wrongly thinks he has delivered checkmate, or whether he thinks he has been checkmated! Assuming you mean the latter scenario, I think I would personally go for option (b), though I suspect it depends on your own moral compass. What would you do?

[Dragoljub Sudar]

Thanks Sean, I did indeed mean the latter scenario as in the former I would simply move out of check.

My instinct would be to point out it's not checkmate but I guess a lot would depend on who I was playing and the importance of the game. Against 99% of league opponents I'd choose option a) but not against the other two

In the final round of a congress with 1st place at stake? Or yesterday's Midlands final if my game result was critical?
I'd like to think I'd still point it out but...

[Reg Clucas]

FIDE decided shaking hands isn't enough to be considered as resignation.

FIDE Interpretation Art. 11.2 (1971)
If a player shakes hands with his opponent, this is not to be considered as equal to resigning the game as meant in Article 11.2.

This brings to mind an incident that occurred in one of my games last year. I had just a queen left on the board, against my opponent's bishop and three pawns. The position was winning for the queen, but as I had very little time left in the quickplay finish, I offered a draw. My opponent refused, so I assumed (wrongly as it turned out) that he was trying to win on time. I was therefore reduced to banging out a series of queen checks in the hope that I would get the chance to pick off some of the pawns. Finally the following position was reached -
7k/5P1P/6K1/4PB2/8/8/8/3q4 b - - 10 79
With my flag hanging I played ...Qd6+. As soon as I took my hand off the queen I realised that it was en prise, so offered my hand to my opponent. As we shook however, I realised that exd6 would be stalemate, so I said "actually, I think I'll play on". After a quick look at the position my opponent sportingly said "In that case, I'll ignore your handshake." After the further moves Kg5 Qf6+ we agreed a draw (so obviously he had not been trying to win on time, but had genuinely thought he had winning chances).

His team captain was not too pleased, pointing out that the rules state that resignation ends the game. However my opponent was happy with the draw, given that we had both blown winning positions earlier in the game. So the question as to whether a handshake constitutes resignation didn't actually arise. I did not 'declare' that I was resigning as specified by the rules, although if my opponent had pressed the issue I would have had to admit that resignation had been my intention. At the time I didn't think of it as trying to circumvent the rules - it was more a case of a similar situation to the the original poster's declaration of "I think I'm in checkmate - oh, no I'm not", with the exception that no 3rd party was involved.

The FIDE stipulation (that a handshake does not imply resignation) makes sense though. After ...Qd6, the offer of a handshake could just as easily mean "Look, I know you've refused a draw, but my last move proves you can't win, so how about a draw now?"

[Ian Thompson]

The FIDE stipulation (that a handshake does not imply resignation) makes sense though. After ...Qd6, the offer of a handshake could just as easily mean "Look, I know you've refused a draw, but my last move proves you can't win, so how about a draw now?"

A similar situation is where's there's a 3-fold repetition of moves on consecutive moves and then one player just offers their hand to the other without either claiming or offering a draw. Both players understand that it's a draw offer.

[Christopher Kreuzer]

With my flag hanging I played ...Qd6+. As soon as I took my hand off the queen I realised that it was en prise, so offered my hand to my opponent.

Interesting. You admit you intended to resign, and it is more normal for the player about to deliver stalemate to offer the hand and suggest a draw, rather than the other way around. If it had been a forced stalemate, then you offering your hand would be more understandable. This is an argument that tipping the king is a 'better' (or clearer) way to resign. Stopping the clocks is another unclear way, as that is done for other reasons as well. If you had mumbled "well played" that is sometimes said when resigning, sometimes when agreeing a draw.

There are other situations where things are not entirely clear, but can plausibly happen. You can get situations where players are very short of time and player A plays a move that forces mate next move, but his or her flag falls. The player about to be mated (player B) might offer his or her hand in resignation, then see that player A's flag has fallen and try and claim a win on time. I'm almost certain that has actually happened a few times over the board (personally, if that ever happened to me, I hope I would follow through with the resignation). What tends to happen is either a huge argument or an embarrassed agreement that the best result is to agree a draw...

[Sean Hewitt]

I had a game this season where my opponent, having turned down a draw half a dozen moves earlier, offered me his hand. I shook it, unclear if he was resigning or belatedly agreeing a draw but happy to acquiesce either way.

It was only when he wrote 1-0 on his scoresheet that I knew what he was doing.

[Christopher Kreuzer]

Hmm. Next time I play you Sean, I'll try that, and record a win on my scoresheet...

(What do arbiters do when players submit different results? Does it happen often?)

The subtext is that I did play Sean at the last 4NCL weekend - ending with me having the worse of a draw.

[David Sedgwick]

(What do arbiters do when players submit different results? Does it happen often?)

It's not uncommon. What you should do do about it is a standard question for arbiter courses and examinations.

Ideally you catch the players before they leave the playing area and ask them what the result was.

That failing, you play through the game score to try and find out.

Forty-nine times out of fifty, these steps establish that one of the players has simply made a mistake.

The fiftieth time, one player claims that (s)he won and the other claims that it was a draw, or something similar.

Then .... well it's good for Appeal Committees to have something to do occasionally.