Does anyone know the answer to this?

[PaulTalbot]

I wonder if members could give their opinions of what would be the correct ruling in this instance. I didn't view this incident but, as captain, was asked to help give a ruling and sort out the commotion. The incident as relayed to me was as follows:-

During a recent match a member of my team pinned his opponents queen to his king with a rook. His opponent then moved his queen (illegally) along a diagonal and announced checkmate. My team member says that he was so surprised and thrown by this that he actually did think that he'd lost, although he says that he did not accept the defeat or shake hands. Instead he picked up the queen to analyse how he'd suddenly lost, moved it back to it's original position, and then realised that it was an illegal move. "You can't do that," he said, "that's an illegal move."
"You're right," his opponent said, "but you accepted it so I still win."

My team member insisted that he did not accept the win, but his opponent stated that he had because he started to analyse the position and move the pieces.

Eventually they agreed a draw, which both I think felt aggrieved about, my player because he would have probably gone on to win, and his opponent because he said that he did win. Who is right, and what should the correct decision have been?

[Matthew Turner]

I believe it was said on here that a result was not officially agreed until the players had signed the scoresheet. However, I would have thought that pragmatically there a number of ways of indicting that you had lost

1. Shaking hands
2. Deliberately knocking/turning your king over
3. Placing the kings in the middle of the board (as per the live boards)
4. Signing the scoresheet

My view is that if you have done one of these things then you've lost. If not then the game can go on.

[JustinHorton]

If it's any help, and I don't suppose it's more than a starting point in this particular discussion:

5.1.a.

The game is won by the player who has checkmated his opponent’s king. This immediately ends the game, provided that the move producing the checkmate position was a legal move.

[Simon Brown]

I don't know the answer, but my daughter was playing in a junior tournament, winning fairly easily against a boy with some history, so an "arbiter" was watching as it was one of the last games to finish. Boy announces checkmate (it wasn't), thrusts hand into 9-year-old girl's face, who shakes it being somewhat bemused, then points out that it wasn't mate. Boy says "Well, you've shaken my hand now so I've won" and "arbiter" agrees.

That was her last tournament, she's now 13.

[Michael Flatt]

Presumably, in the scenario outlined by Paul Talbot both team captains made a record of the results of each game and agreed them before submitting their match reports independentally to the organiser of the competition.

If both captains agreed and submitted identical match results there can be no dispute. A player should make his captain aware of any dispute and it is incumbent on both captains (and only the captains) in the absence of an abiter to attempt to resolve any dispute at the time of the match. Any unresolved dispute should be referred to the organiser.

[David Robertson]

The result is immaterial.

Both players should be counselled that playing chess is, on the evidence, probably not the best use of their remaining time on the planet

[Christopher Kreuzer]

The result is immaterial.

Both players should be counselled that playing chess is, on the evidence, probably not the best use of their remaining time on the planet

[Andy Stoker]

The result is immaterial.

Both players should be counselled that playing chess is, on the evidence, probably not the best use of their remaining time on the planet

#like

[David Shepherd]

Instead he picked up the queen to analyse how he'd suddenly lost, moved it back to it's original position, and then realised that it was an illegal move. "You can't do that," he said, "that's an illegal move."

If I had made the illegal move in question and my opponent picked up the queen and moved it back and then said "you can't do that, that's an illegal move" then I wouldn't assume he was doing so to analyse the game (although that may have been his intention) - so the question is what made one player believe the other had agreed to the result.

[David Pardoe]

The result is immaterial.

Both players should be counselled that playing chess is, on the evidence, probably not the best use of their remaining time on the planet

Quite right David...we need more common sense and sportsmanship, particularly at the standard club and league levels..
And we need common sense rules for our `ordinary mortals`...
ie, for our top Tournaments and International events, there is need for stricter rules, but for the lower levels, we really need players to be focused on playing chess, not getting snarled up in finding `non chess` means of winning.
One obvious example is the rules on electronic devices. In ordinary league play, we really shouldn't be listening out for any bleep from a mobile phone and screaming `win` if one goes off, inadvertently.

In this case, I`d have thought that you should simply take the position back to the point where an illegal action was first noted, and resume from that point, with a correct move played.. Maybe there`s an argument for a time penalty for the offender in such cases.
Many players are not best pleased with the current situation, and it certainly does lead to disgruntlement, and inevitably, in players sitting at home watching blinking Sky footy instead of enjoying our noble game....

[Francis Fields]

I have always thought that the 'non chess means' was something I did not fully get. Winning by cheating is surely non chess means; aren't the rules there to cover all possibility?

[Brian Towers]

I`d have thought that you should simply take the position back to the point where an illegal action was first noted, and resume from that point, with a correct move played.. Maybe there`s an argument for a time penalty for the offender in such cases.

Here's the really weird thing, Dave. FIDE rules say "that you should simply take the position back to the point where an illegal action was first noted, and resume from that point, with a correct move played". They also go on to say that for a first offence there should be " a time penalty for the offender in such cases" whereby the opponent gets an additional 2 minutes on the clock. A second such offence loses you the game. Spooky, or what?

[David Pardoe]

Thanks for that confirmation Brian... What a pity this wasn't applied at the time...and a player was `cheated` out of a fair ruling..
Clearly, from the earlier comments, these rules are not well understood..

Some of the other shenanegans mentioned in this thread illustrate the point about fair play...or lack of it.

For an arbiter to be conned by someone waving there arms into assuming a handshake and result agreement is clearly stupid...disappointing.
And a handshake must be accompanied by an agreed verbal claim, otherwise how can you interpret a handshake.. ie, it could be draw, win or loss that is agreed.
Point being..we need to uphold the principle of good sportsmanship, if the game is to progress.. otherwise the armchair Sky TV football pundits, sat down the `local` will become the norm, and getting out to enjoy the noble chess events that are on offer will suffer...

If I could add one point...
We need sportsmanship, not gamesmanship...
In the case in question, I`d like to see some retrospective penalties for cases of abuse..
I`d say here, that the game should be awarded to the player who was `tricked` by that dodgy `check` move.
Clearly, his follow-up actions were an attempt to use `rules` inappropriately to confuse the situation and get away with his oversight.
That can`t be right, and should be frowned open by our chess community, in my view.