FIDE Laws - An Interesting Case

Discuss anything you like about chess related matters in this forum.
Jacques Parry
Posts: 83
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2014 9:37 pm

Re: FIDE Laws - An Interesting Case

Post by Jacques Parry » Wed Jan 01, 2020 1:58 pm

Roger Lancaster wrote:
Wed Jan 01, 2020 1:41 pm
I've always felt rather uncomfortable about knocked-over kings being taken as equivalent to resignation as the FIDE Laws don't mention this as a means of ending the game.
The note to Article 5.1.2 (admittedly not the article itself) says:

"A player may resign in a number of different ways:
- stopping the clock
- announcing his resignation
- knocking over his king
- reaching out his hand to the opponent
- signing the score sheets, and so on.
All of these possibilities are capable of being misinterpreted. Therefore the
situation has to be clarified."

But I don't understand this. How can announcing your resignation be misinterpreted? Or signing both scoresheets, if both of them show the result as a win for your opponent?

Kevin Thurlow
Posts: 3792
Joined: Wed Apr 30, 2008 12:28 pm

Re: FIDE Laws - An Interesting Case

Post by Kevin Thurlow » Wed Jan 01, 2020 3:26 pm

"How can announcing your resignation be misinterpreted?

Or signing both scoresheets, if both of them show the result as a win for your opponent?"

1) if the player says something in a foreign language. (slight digression, a team-mate once reported that his opponent adjusted a piece, whilst saying "en passant" - my team-mate decided that anything said to him in French during the game would suffice as "j'adoube.)

2) if the scoresheets show different results (which seems to happen at least once in every tournament I attend.)

Roger Lancaster
Posts: 1025
Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2015 2:44 pm

Re: FIDE Laws - An Interesting Case

Post by Roger Lancaster » Wed Jan 01, 2020 6:03 pm

As to "reaching out his hand to the opponent", I'm reminded of a game I played several years ago where we reached a knight-v-bishop ending with each side having a passed pawn which was unstoppable - the question was, which queened first? This wasn't a simple counting exercise due to the intervention of the minor pieces but, as it later turned out, each player believed he was lost. [Post mortem analysis showed the position was actually drawn]. My opponent stretched out his hand and I was about to accept - with no little relief - his presumed offer of a draw when, in the nick of time, the truth dawned on me. I never worked out what would have happened if no such dawn had occurred and I reported the result as a draw while my opponent reported it as a loss.

Roger de Coverly
Posts: 18993
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 2:51 pm

Re: FIDE Laws - An Interesting Case

Post by Roger de Coverly » Wed Jan 01, 2020 6:26 pm

Roger Lancaster wrote:
Wed Jan 01, 2020 6:03 pm
I never worked out what would have happened if no such dawn had occurred and I reported the result as a draw while my opponent reported it as a loss.
Hartston wrote about a similar event in one of his humour books, although I think there one player thought he had won and the other drawn. That supposedly was based on a real incident in a Student Olympiad.

David Sedgwick
Posts: 4002
Joined: Mon Apr 09, 2007 5:56 pm
Location: Croydon

Re: FIDE Laws - An Interesting Case

Post by David Sedgwick » Wed Jan 01, 2020 10:27 pm

Roger de Coverly wrote:
Wed Jan 01, 2020 6:26 pm
Hartston wrote about a similar event in one of his humour books, although I think there one player thought he had won and the other drawn. That supposedly was based on a real incident in a Student Olympiad.
You - and Hartston - were probably thinking of the incident in the game Schneider - Pedersen, Berlin 1980, about which Hartston wrote a long piece in BCM. I think that it was in the Clare Benedict rather than in a Student Olympiad.

https://www.365chess.com/game.php?gid=2310277,

In the final position the players were seen to shake hands. A minute or two later, someone came up and asked what the result was. "I won" said Schneider. "Draw" said Pedersen simultaneously.

The arbiter awarded the game to Schneider, a decision upheld by the Appeal Committee about two days afterwards.

MSoszynski
Posts: 168
Joined: Thu Apr 05, 2007 4:43 pm

Re: FIDE Laws - An Interesting Case

Post by MSoszynski » Thu Jan 02, 2020 9:00 am

Roger Lancaster wrote:
Wed Jan 01, 2020 6:03 pm
As to "reaching out his hand to the opponent" [...]
I was present when a player reached out his hand, intending to resign. But his mis-hearing opponent asked whether he was offering a draw. And when told that he was (in a split-second change of heart or simple opportunism), the opponent actually agreed to a draw. In other words, the player's resignation attempt was thwarted!

AndrewBanks
Posts: 14
Joined: Tue May 14, 2019 7:01 pm

Re: FIDE Laws - An Interesting Case

Post by AndrewBanks » Thu Jan 02, 2020 2:39 pm

Kevin Thurlow wrote:
Tue Dec 31, 2019 11:06 pm
"Kazic said that the resignation of the player who had the move (ie didn't see the e.p) should have taken precedence."

That is logical, as you don't usually resign when it's the opponent's move (except when his/her eyes light up when you move and you realise you've mislaid a queen...)
In perhaps the same Paul tournament my daughter had overlooked an incoming attack, and realising that her opponent had a mate-in-one, had written "0 - 1" on her score-sheet... when her opponent, equally oblivious, offered a draw!

Daughter said she felt quite guilty accepting... before showing the available move!

Paul McKeown
Posts: 3450
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2007 3:01 pm
Location: Hayes (Middx)
Contact:

Re: FIDE Laws - An Interesting Case

Post by Paul McKeown » Thu Jan 02, 2020 6:08 pm

AndrewBanks wrote:
Thu Jan 02, 2020 2:39 pm
In perhaps the same Paul tournament my daughter had overlooked an incoming attack, and realising that her opponent had a mate-in-one, had written "0 - 1" on her score-sheet... when her opponent, equally oblivious, offered a draw!

Daughter said she felt quite guilty accepting... before showing the available move!

Shhh! Better I don't know. Writing 0 - 1 on a scoresheet is a resignation, which from the sounds of it preceded the draw offer.

Paul McKeown
Posts: 3450
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2007 3:01 pm
Location: Hayes (Middx)
Contact:

Re: FIDE Laws - An Interesting Case

Post by Paul McKeown » Thu Jan 02, 2020 6:11 pm

Matt Mackenzie wrote:
Tue Dec 31, 2019 5:09 pm
I have a copy ;)

Kazic said that the resignation of the player who had the move (ie didn't see the e.p) should have taken precedence.
I don't understand that. What was Kazic's reasoning?

The Laws are rather clear that resignation ends the game, so I'm not really sure how having the move would make a difference.

Does it depend on a Law or an interpretation that no longer holds? (The Laws and their interpretation are quite different in many aspects today than forty of fifty years ago.)

Paul McKeown
Posts: 3450
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2007 3:01 pm
Location: Hayes (Middx)
Contact:

Re: FIDE Laws - An Interesting Case

Post by Paul McKeown » Thu Jan 02, 2020 6:18 pm

It might be useful if there was an "operator precedence" list for chess. We know, example that checkmate/stalemate > flag fall, but what about all the other ways that a game can end?

AndrewBanks
Posts: 14
Joined: Tue May 14, 2019 7:01 pm

Re: FIDE Laws - An Interesting Case

Post by AndrewBanks » Sun Jan 05, 2020 6:56 pm

Paul McKeown wrote:
Thu Jan 02, 2020 6:08 pm
Shhh! Better I don't know. Writing 0 - 1 on a scoresheet is a resignation
Maybe I've misread the writing... after all it was crossed out quickly... ;)

User avatar
Michael Farthing
Posts: 1955
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2014 1:28 pm
Location: Morecambe, Europe

Re: FIDE Laws - An Interesting Case

Post by Michael Farthing » Sun Jan 05, 2020 10:37 pm

I disagree! Writing on ones own score sheet is not indicating anything to the opponent and therefore cannot constitute a resignaton. It is necessary to publicly declare a resignation before recoding it on the scoresheet - otherwise you would be using the scoresheet to make notes during the course of the game, which, of course, is against the laws.

Richard Bates
Posts: 3112
Joined: Fri Nov 14, 2008 8:27 pm

Re: FIDE Laws - An Interesting Case

Post by Richard Bates » Sun Jan 05, 2020 10:39 pm

Writing an (=) sign on your scoresheet is confirmation of offering a draw...

User avatar
Michael Farthing
Posts: 1955
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2014 1:28 pm
Location: Morecambe, Europe

Re: FIDE Laws - An Interesting Case

Post by Michael Farthing » Sun Jan 05, 2020 10:43 pm

Richard Bates wrote:
Sun Jan 05, 2020 10:39 pm
Writing an (=) sign on your scoresheet is confirmation of offering a draw...
Indeed, a confirmation - you should actually offer it before writing it!

Paul McKeown
Posts: 3450
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2007 3:01 pm
Location: Hayes (Middx)
Contact:

Re: FIDE Laws - An Interesting Case

Post by Paul McKeown » Sun Jan 05, 2020 11:32 pm

Michael Farthing wrote:
Sun Jan 05, 2020 10:37 pm
I disagree! Writing on ones own score sheet is not indicating anything to the opponent and therefore cannot constitute a resignaton. It is necessary to publicly declare a resignation before recoding it on the scoresheet - otherwise you would be using the scoresheet to make notes during the course of the game, which, of course, is against the laws.
If writing resigns on a scoresheet isn't resignation, it's note-taking, which is forbidden.

And a scoresheet must always be visible to the arbiter. Writing resigns on the scoresheet is a public declaration.

Post Reply