Announcing mate

[David Williams]

There's another thread with a game from 1922, where white announced mate in six, and giving the line. Does this ever happen nowadays? Is it even permitted? If not, what would be the penalty?

And, if someone does announce a mate in six, can he be forced to play that line? Suppose your opponent does this, and you see that one of his moves is a blunder. If he'd actually played this line, and he didn't spot it, he'd lose. But if you ask him to play on he's going to wonder why, and is much more likely to see his mistake. It's many years since I played bridge, but I'm pretty sure that at that time if a player claimed the rest of the tricks you could ask him to declare how we would play, and then continue the hand.

[Richard Thursby]

In a quarter of a century of playing competitive chess, I have never come across this. I suspect it would be classed as a distraction in terms of penalty. As there is nothing in the rules about it, the question about being forced to play that line is null and void, or becomes a question of social etiquette. I cannot comment on bridge as my experience is limited to Agatha Christie's "Cards on the Table" and being taught mechanics at university by a bridge-playing former British Chess champion.

Personally, I consider such behaviour extremely disrespectful and would never do it in competition. If you're in an informal environment or as part of coaching/teaching, then that is a different matter. The biggest danger is that you have miscalculated something. One example of the perils is the following: In a fairly prestigious junior tournament I was playing in, my father mentioned something he saw during the last round. A player played a move, announced mate and stopped the clock, but it wasn't mate. His opponent called the arbiter over and was awarded the game, possibly because stopping the clock was effectively resigning.

[NickFaulks]

His opponent called the arbiter over and was awarded the game, possibly because stopping the clock was effectively resigning.

That seems very harsh.

[John Swain]

There is some interesting material on this subject in Edward Winter's Chess Notes:

https://www.chesshistory.com/winter/ext ... mates.html

[Michael Farthing]

In a quarter of a century of playing competitive chess, I have never come across this. I suspect it would be classed as a distraction in terms of penalty. As there is nothing in the rules about it, the question about being forced to play that line is null and void, or becomes a question of social etiquette. I cannot comment on bridge as my experience is limited to Agatha Christie's "Cards on the Table" and being taught mechanics at university by a bridge-playing former British Chess champion.

Was it a reputable or disreputable British Chess Champion?

[Tim Spanton]

I did once announce mate - it may have been in eight moves (I cannot recall) - but only because my opponent, in a league match, insisted on talking to me, making jokey comments and such like, throughout the game despite my asking him to stop

https://beauchess.blogspot.com/

[Matt Mackenzie]

I have announced a mate just once. My opponent asked me to play it out "to make completely sure" - I did, and it was

[Richard Thursby]

Was it a reputable or disreputable British Chess Champion?

That depends on your view of Andrew Jonathan Mestel.

[Michael Farthing]

Was it a reputable or disreputable British Chess Champion?

That depends on your view of Andrew Jonathan Mestel.

Reputable.
You would have had no hesitation in reaching a judgement on the former British Chess Champion I thought you were referring to. My stupidity, as, on reflection, a lot of British Chess Champions will have been bridge players.

[Paul Habershon]

I believe Peter Lee is the only British Chess Champion (1965) to have also won the bridge equivalent (The Gold Cup). Also Jonathan Mestel uniquely has the Grandmaster title in both games (all very likely to have come up in another thread).

Claiming the rest of the tricks in bridge is fraught with danger. You have to expose your cards and clearly state your line of play. Until the latest rule change play could not continue, but now it can if all players agree. If your claim is disputed or, for example, you fail to mention an outstanding trump, the director is called to give a ruling. It can get very complicated and a recent case at my club.went to appeal. Why not always play out the hand? Well, as a distinctly intermediate strength player, I am acutely aware of strong players getting irritated if you don't claim in what, to them, are obvious scenarios.

[Martyn Harris]

Paul, whilst no doubt there are both stronger and weaker bridge players than you around, your self description as "a distinctly intermediate strength player" is rather self-deprecating for one who is clearly above average even amongst those who play the game competitively.

There is no more need to take notice at the huffers and puffers at bridge who don't like you playing a hand out than to the "I claim you resign" merchants at chess who are convinced that they are far too good to let you back into the game once they're ahead. In both cases in my opinion you've paid your entrance fee and are entitled to your game.

Having said that I confess to being one of those players who claims (and concedes) a lot at bridge as a means of gaining time on one deal that is then available if necessary for a subsequent and possibly more complex one. This does depend however on being able to give a clear description of the line to be taken, and on the opposition being able to understand it, otherwise more time is lost sorting out the claim than was to be gained by truncating the play.

There is a downside to my approach in that if I don't claim on a hand the defence may infer that I'm missing an important card and can plan accordingly. Not that that inference is guaranteed to be correct.

At chess on the other hand I'm a late resigner, and equally have no objections if my opponent wants to play to mate on those only too rare occasions that I'm on top.

[Paul McKeown]

I did once announce mate - it may have been in eight moves (I cannot recall) - but only because my opponent, in a league match, insisted on talking to me, making jokey comments and such like, throughout the game despite my asking him to stop

Was that at Staines?

[Paul McKeown]

I have been looking through the collection of historical laws at the CAA website, without much luck at finding a regulation for the declaration of mate.

I was amused by the following passage from George Walker's The Chess Player:

LAW VIII.
So long as you retain your hold of a piece, you may move it, where or how you will, according to the laws of Chess. But if you once quit your hold, and let your man go, the move is made, and shall not be recalled.

REMARKS.
This Regulation gives rise to the very unpleasant circumstance, of players occasionally touching three or four different squares, with a man, before they have decided to which the piece shall be played.But such is strictly the law, and to it we therefore bow, though it might easily be altered for the better. I take this opportunity of pointing out another practice, which, though legal, is extremely annoying and improper:—I mean the touching several squares with the finger,while calculating n move. This is one of the worst habits a Chessplayer can fall into ;—useless to the party adopting it, and irritating to the nerves of his antagonist.

Walker for me is one of the most amusing writers; he obviously spent too much of his life in the worst of chess café's, with the worst of players!

[Paul McKeown]

Edward Winter has the following: Announced Mates

[David Sedgwick]

Edward Winter has the following: Announced Mates

As already mentioned by John Swain upthread.

Minor plagiarism is currently being discussed in another thread. Perhaps we should also consider inadvertent cases.