Rules question
-
- Posts: 211
- Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2007 8:22 pm
- Location: Wakefield
Rules question
This happened in a match tonight:
Black, in a totally lost position, plays a check. After a couple of seconds White says 'I think that's mate'. Both players sit there for a few seconds without shaking hands. White's clock is still running. At this point a spectator (a team mate of black!) can contain himself no longer and points out that White has a legal move, after which White is winning easily.
What should happen next? It was rapidplay if that makes any difference.
The situation was resolved amicably and the game made no difference to the match but I'm curious to know what the 'correct' outcome should be.
Black, in a totally lost position, plays a check. After a couple of seconds White says 'I think that's mate'. Both players sit there for a few seconds without shaking hands. White's clock is still running. At this point a spectator (a team mate of black!) can contain himself no longer and points out that White has a legal move, after which White is winning easily.
What should happen next? It was rapidplay if that makes any difference.
The situation was resolved amicably and the game made no difference to the match but I'm curious to know what the 'correct' outcome should be.
-
- Posts: 9085
- Joined: Sat May 30, 2009 5:18 pm
- Location: Oldbury, Worcestershire
- Contact:
Re: Rules question
Did the spectator point out white's only legal move?
What were the clock times like when it happened?
What were the clock times like when it happened?
-
- Posts: 211
- Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2007 8:22 pm
- Location: Wakefield
Re: Rules question
1. Yes, he said something along the lines of 'it's not mate, you can interpose the queen'.
2. Black had a few seconds left, White had over 15 minutes.
2. Black had a few seconds left, White had over 15 minutes.
-
- Posts: 3600
- Joined: Fri May 16, 2008 11:54 am
Re: Rules question
The game carries on because no result had been agreed. The player who interjected that it wasn't mate has to buy his teammates a round.
-
- Posts: 5821
- Joined: Wed Apr 30, 2008 12:28 pm
Re: Rules question
As it was amicable, then the game continues and you have a polite word with the spectator and tell him not to interfere. If it's not amicable, then kick the spectator out of the venue and consider a ban. The shock of that threat should be enough!
-
- Posts: 211
- Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2007 8:22 pm
- Location: Wakefield
Re: Rules question
The league secretary was present at the match and decided it should be a win for Black - a decision I agreed with as I think did most other spectators.
By saying 'I think its mate' White had effectively resigned. From his body language it was clear the game was over as far as he was concerned. He accepted the result as he said he would never have spotted the queen could interpose without the spectator interference. I could well imagine some awkward players kicking up a fuss in this situation though.
I think this is something the rules can't really cover, what exactly constitutes a resignation?
By saying 'I think its mate' White had effectively resigned. From his body language it was clear the game was over as far as he was concerned. He accepted the result as he said he would never have spotted the queen could interpose without the spectator interference. I could well imagine some awkward players kicking up a fuss in this situation though.
I think this is something the rules can't really cover, what exactly constitutes a resignation?
-
- Posts: 3600
- Joined: Fri May 16, 2008 11:54 am
Re: Rules question
I think a resignation is either shaking hands or signing the scoresheet. I would imagine that most people would also consider knocking over the king (with intent) to be a resignation.
Re: Rules question
I saw a case a couple of years ago at a county match where 2 players were discussing the result of a game in the analysis room, one thinking the other had resigned, the other thinking a draw had been agreed. Black had offered his hand, white thought he was resigning, shook the hand, they reset the pieces and left the room. White was in a winning position, a pawn ending I think, but black did not appreciate this and thought his opponent had offered a draw. There was no convention of signing the scoresheets and no arbiter present. I never did find out what the captains agreed, but the moral is clear, be careful when a handshake is offered!Matthew Turner wrote:I think a resignation is either shaking hands or signing the scoresheet. I would imagine that most people would also consider knocking over the king (with intent) to be a resignation.
- Peter D Williams
- Posts: 839
- Joined: Wed Dec 28, 2011 2:15 pm
- Location: Hampshire
Re: Rules question
No spectators or other chess players are allowed to interfere in a chess match game between 2 players.The only ones who can take action is the players them self or a chess arbiter.One can not have spectators or other players interfering in a real chess game this would lead to all sorts of problems including the chances of cheating by both teams or supporters.Peter Shaw wrote:This happened in a match tonight:
Black, in a totally lost position, plays a check. After a couple of seconds White says 'I think that's mate'. Both players sit there for a few seconds without shaking hands. White's clock is still running. At this point a spectator (a team mate of black!) can contain himself no longer and points out that White has a legal move, after which White is winning easily.
What should happen next? It was rapidplay if that makes any difference.
The situation was resolved amicably and the game made no difference to the match but I'm curious to know what the 'correct' outcome should be.
Do be careful today and tomorrow the met office have issued weather warning .http://www.bbc.co.uk/weather/2635167#extra-uk-content
Time for hot chocolate
when you are successful many losers bark at you.
- IM Jack Rudd
- Posts: 4818
- Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2007 1:13 am
- Location: Bideford
- Contact:
Re: Rules question
That isn't the point in question, though. Everyone knows the spectator broke the rules; the question is what the consequences are for the players.Peter D Williams wrote:No spectators or other chess players are allowed to interfere in a chess match game between 2 players.The only ones who can take action is the players them self or a chess arbiter.One can not have spectators or other players interfering in a real chess game this would lead to all sorts of problems including the chances of cheating by both teams or supporters.
-
- Posts: 9085
- Joined: Sat May 30, 2009 5:18 pm
- Location: Oldbury, Worcestershire
- Contact:
Re: Rules question
As Jack says, neither player has done anything wrong. As Matthew says, neither player has agreed a result at all.
Clearly, the spectator should not have interfered, and as Kevin suggests, the spectator should be told to leave the room.
If white is happy to lose the game, then as you say, white loses the game.
Had I been playing white, I would not have accepted that at all. I don't think you can consider "I think that's mate" to be resignation.
If I were the arbiter, then I would probably decide that the game should continue in this specific case. The only case of anyone doing anything wrong is the Black spectator, and so it stands to reason that Black's team should be disadvantaged by the resulting decision. From what you're suggesting, the game continuing sounds like just penalty.
Clearly, the spectator should not have interfered, and as Kevin suggests, the spectator should be told to leave the room.
If white is happy to lose the game, then as you say, white loses the game.
Had I been playing white, I would not have accepted that at all. I don't think you can consider "I think that's mate" to be resignation.
If I were the arbiter, then I would probably decide that the game should continue in this specific case. The only case of anyone doing anything wrong is the Black spectator, and so it stands to reason that Black's team should be disadvantaged by the resulting decision. From what you're suggesting, the game continuing sounds like just penalty.
-
- Posts: 1420
- Joined: Fri Jun 01, 2007 6:31 pm
Re: Rules question
yes W hasAlex Holowczak wrote:As Jack says, neither player has done anything wrong
not soAlex Holowczak wrote: The only case of anyone doing anything wrong is the Black spectator.....
According to what is stated here there were two violations:-
a) The W player spoke to his opponent without a good reason.
b) The spectator interfered by advising W there was a legal move.
The whole incident was set in motion by W’s remark.
Matthew Turner wrote:I think a resignation is either shaking hands or signing the scoresheet
FIDE decided shaking hands isn't enough to be considered as resignation.Peter Shaw wrote:I think this is something the rules can't really cover, what exactly constitutes a resignation
Back to the incident. If this had been an arbiter controlled Rapidplay which it wasn’t, a good arbiter should award a substantial amount of extra time to B, to compensate for the distraction of W’s comment, as B doesn’t have much time left. The local league committee have to decide whether W was eliciting advice from others and what action to take.FIDE Rules Commission wrote: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.
The correct action for B is probably to ignore W’s comment, which he may well have done.
The B team should accept responsibility for the spectator not being aware of the rules. A reasonable way to concentrate the minds of team captains and club officials would be to have league rules allowing fines in this respect to impose on the B team.
-
- Posts: 9085
- Joined: Sat May 30, 2009 5:18 pm
- Location: Oldbury, Worcestershire
- Contact:
Re: Rules question
I agree that W should not have said anything, but the penalty for that is as you say it is: Give B more time.
Irrespective of what W says to B, or anything else that may happen in the game, the spectator should not interfere. The game has to continue, perhaps with extra time for B.
If it were a Rapidplay congress, I doubt it would have happened - Congress players wouldn't have had the same ties to a team, and so they probably wouldn't jump in.
Irrespective of what W says to B, or anything else that may happen in the game, the spectator should not interfere. The game has to continue, perhaps with extra time for B.
If it were a Rapidplay congress, I doubt it would have happened - Congress players wouldn't have had the same ties to a team, and so they probably wouldn't jump in.
-
- Posts: 5821
- Joined: Wed Apr 30, 2008 12:28 pm
Re: Rules question
"If it were a Rapidplay congress, I doubt it would have happened - Congress players wouldn't have had the same ties to a team, and so they probably wouldn't jump in."
Oddly enough, a spectator did interfere in a game in a congress where I was arbiter last summer, I told him to keep quiet, when he continued, I told him to leave the room. He then protested that he was still playing, for some reason I merely told him to get on with the game, instead of defaulting him. Alex is right with the "probably", but this particular player is a pain in the neck.
In the new case, suppose the spectator had been one of the captains...
Oddly enough, a spectator did interfere in a game in a congress where I was arbiter last summer, I told him to keep quiet, when he continued, I told him to leave the room. He then protested that he was still playing, for some reason I merely told him to get on with the game, instead of defaulting him. Alex is right with the "probably", but this particular player is a pain in the neck.
In the new case, suppose the spectator had been one of the captains...
- Christopher Kreuzer
- Posts: 8806
- Joined: Fri Aug 06, 2010 2:34 am
- Location: London
Re: Rules question
Shouldn't we be lauding the players for amicably agreeing a result. Would that all players would do that in such cases... (probably most do, it is only the disputes we hear about, and the result isn't disputed here, though I realise this is all hypothetical 'what ifs', even if similar things have happened before).