What is the result of the game?

Discuss anything you like about chess related matters in this forum.
Jonathan Bryant
Posts: 3279
Joined: Sun May 11, 2008 3:54 pm

Re: What is the result of the game?

Post by Jonathan Bryant » Tue Aug 30, 2016 11:15 pm

Nick Grey wrote: Have you not resigned a drawn game or a won game?
At Crawley I had an opponent resign for no reason that I could fathom. I think he thought he was losing a pawn but he wasn’t (not that losing a pawn is sufficient to resign against me in any case).

User avatar
MJMcCready
Posts: 1991
Joined: Mon Jun 24, 2013 2:30 pm

Re: What is the result of the game?

Post by MJMcCready » Wed Aug 31, 2016 3:23 am

I've had that before. My opponent thought he was about to be mated but there was no such mate and he wasn't even worse in the main line. He didn't enjoy being shown there was no mate I remember.

Tim Harding
Posts: 2001
Joined: Sat Oct 23, 2010 8:46 pm
Location: Dublin, Ireland
Contact:

Re: What is the result of the game?

Post by Tim Harding » Wed Aug 31, 2016 3:06 pm

E Michael White wrote:This is more complicated than Jack suggests.
What do you mean by that comment? In what way is it more complicated?

Jack's analysis is absolutely correct I think.

Your opponent offers you a draw when it's his move and you ask to see his move. You are quite entitled to do this though an opponent in a senior tournament recently was quite surprised when I said it.

If his move is checkmate you have lost. Otherwise you can accept the draw.

It doesn't matter if his move is accompanied by an announcement that it's checkmate in N so long as N>1.

Announcing mate in more than 1 has no standing in the laws of chess - except that it may be an offence against the law against not distracting the opponent. If your opponent announces mate and it's not (or not obvious that it's correct) complain to the arbiter or team captain.
Tim Harding
Historian and FIDE Arbiter

Author of 'Steinitz in London,' British Chess Literature to 1914', 'Joseph Henry Blackburne: A Chess Biography', and 'Eminent Victorian Chess Players'
http://www.chessmail.com

Roger Lancaster
Posts: 1146
Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2015 2:44 pm

Re: What is the result of the game?

Post by Roger Lancaster » Wed Aug 31, 2016 3:30 pm

I had an interesting experience some years ago in an inter-club match. In a minor piece ending, opponent and I each had passed pawns which were 'runners' and could not, although it required a little analysis to determine this, be stopped from promoting. It was a question of who promoted first and whether whoever it was could turn this to their advantage.

Unbeknown to the other, each player believed he was losing. Eventually my opponent stretched out a hand. I was about to thankfully accept his offer of a draw when I realised, just in time, that this was not his intention at all. That narrowly averted the situation where we would have shaken hands on the 'result' but then reported different outcomes!

When I later came to rationalise the situation this would have created, I decided that the handshake could not have resulted in a draw since there was no offer of a draw. Once it was established he had resigned, that concluded the game. My opponent behaved entirely ethically throughout but it later occurred to me that, with a less ethical opponent who changed his mind about the meaning of an outstretched hand, it could have got messy.

Post-mortem analysis proved we were a pair of pessimists as the final position was drawn. But this incident did bring home to me the wisdom of observing the Law about signing scoresheets after a game so that the result could not be in doubt.

E Michael White
Posts: 1397
Joined: Fri Jun 01, 2007 6:31 pm

Re: What is the result of the game?

Post by E Michael White » Thu Sep 01, 2016 9:57 pm

Tim Harding wrote:
E Michael White wrote:This is more complicated than Jack suggests.
What do you mean by that comment? In what way is it more complicated?
Jack's analysis is absolutely correct I think.
Hello Tim
My comment referred to Jack's post immediately preceding my previous post:-
IM Jack Rudd wrote:
Mike W. Richardt wrote:But, Just out of curiosity: Does the draw offer stand?
Just wondering?
Yes. A draw offer stands until either:
(a) it is accepted
(b) it is declined
(c) the player offered the draw makes a move
or (d) the game is concluded by some other means.
Jack has incorrectly quoted the current laws in (c) above. The relevant Law is:
Fide Laws 9.1.(b)1 wrote:A player wishing to offer a draw shall do so after having made a move on the chessboard and before pressing his clock. An offer at any other time during play is still valid but Article 11.5 must be considered. No conditions can be attached to the offer. In both cases the offer cannot be withdrawn and remains valid until the opponent accepts it, rejects it orally, rejects it by touching a piece with the intention of moving or capturing it, or the game is concluded in some other way.
Jack's statement is at variance with the underlined bit. However the law used to be as Jack stated and I guess I preferred it that way. Unfortunately the arbiters who write the laws often see spurious parallels with other laws and have copied the touch-move definitions into this one. Of course the considerations are different and it just doesn't work in the draw offer law. Instead of a clean definition of when the draw offer expires ie after a move is made, we are left with an arbiter deciding what a player intended when he touched a piece, which is where it gets complicated.

As it happens within the last few weeks I played in a rapidplay and was a piece + pawns up but with only 6 seconds left. I considered offering a draw but didn't as my opponent had several minutes left and I needed at least 12 moves to complete the game. I felt it would be insulting to offer a draw and played a move instead. My opponent picked up my bishop (yes my bishop !), took my rook with my bishop and pressed the clock. When I pointed out one illegal move loses, he accepted the result.

What would an arbiter decide if I had offered a draw before moving and my opponent verbally accepted the draw after he had picked up my bishop before pressing the clock ? Did my opponent intend to move my bishop ? He couldn't have captured it.

I think the law should be changed back to what it was and the ridiculous trend of writing so many laws to rely on arbiter interpretation/discretion should cease.
Tim Harding wrote:Announcing mate in more than 1 has no standing in the laws of chess
This suggestion of yours is not always correct but perhaps in a way you didn't envisage. eg


White has just played Bxd2 and Black's flag falls. Black should now announce that its a strong forced mate in two whatever legal moves White and Black play, so there is no legal mate for White and the game is drawn even though Black ran out of time.

Nice book on the Leningrad Dutch by the way, even if I'm 40 years late saying that.

User avatar
Jesper Norgaard
Posts: 149
Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2012 7:09 pm
Location: Store Fuglede, Denmark

Re: What is the result of the game?

Post by Jesper Norgaard » Fri Sep 02, 2016 11:19 pm

E Michael White wrote: As it happens within the last few weeks I played in a rapidplay and was a piece + pawns up but with only 6 seconds left. I considered offering a draw but didn't as my opponent had several minutes left and I needed at least 12 moves to complete the game. I felt it would be insulting to offer a draw and played a move instead. My opponent picked up my bishop (yes my bishop !), took my rook with my bishop and pressed the clock. When I pointed out one illegal move loses, he accepted the result.

What would an arbiter decide if I had offered a draw before moving and my opponent verbally accepted the draw after he had picked up my bishop before pressing the clock ? Did my opponent intend to move my bishop ? He couldn't have captured it.
When do you intend to make a move? If you grab a piece, and do not say "I adjust", or knock it over, I would say you have the intention of moving/capturing it. Consider touching the king of the opponent - some would say it could not be the intention to capture it, because that would be illegal, but they may be wrong. Some decades ago it was a perfectly legal move to capture the king, that is if there were an otherwise legal move after the opponent putting his king en prise. I am against overanalyzing move intention based on legal move possibility.

So I believe the interpretation should be a move was intended in any other case than adjustment or knock-over.

In this case it means your opponent intended to capture your bishop, even though no legal move existed to do so. So he could no longer accept your draw offer. I believe this interpretation follows the KISS principle. Overanalyzing would not follow the KISS principle.
E Michael White wrote: I think the law should be changed back to what it was and the ridiculous trend of writing so many laws to rely on arbiter interpretation/discretion should cease.
I think interpretations are unavoidable, but can be avoided if more explicit articles can be made. I doubt the articles stating move intention can be made clearer than what they are. You are welcome to try.
E Michael White wrote:
Tim Harding wrote:Announcing mate in more than 1 has no standing in the laws of chess
This suggestion of yours is not always correct but perhaps in a way you didn't envisage. eg


White has just played Bxd2 and Black's flag falls. Black should now announce that its a strong forced mate in two whatever legal moves White and Black play, so there is no legal mate for White and the game is drawn even though Black ran out of time.
Agreed it is a draw. It is not a draw by announcing checkmate however, only by pointing out that all series of legal moves lead to checkmate by the opponent which is different. Even announcing mate in 1 has no standing in the Laws of Chess, only a checkmate executed on the board has legal standing.

Ken McNulty
Posts: 14
Joined: Mon May 23, 2011 9:17 pm
Contact:

Re: What is the result of the game?

Post by Ken McNulty » Sat Sep 03, 2016 11:46 pm

Although forced, surely this can only be classed as a 'theoretical' draw given the scenario;

Where white has just played Bxd2 (presumably then stopping his clock) and Black's flag (then) falls, then...

1. White may claim the win due to Black's flag fall, regardless of the position on the board (unless that position is checkmate).

2. Even if white doesn't claim the win, then Black has no claim to a draw, unless it falls within the category of the g5 rule "the player having the move has less than two minutes left on his clock .... his opponent cannot win by normal means"

User avatar
Jesper Norgaard
Posts: 149
Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2012 7:09 pm
Location: Store Fuglede, Denmark

Re: What is the result of the game?

Post by Jesper Norgaard » Sun Sep 04, 2016 12:32 am

Ken McNulty wrote:Although forced, surely this can only be classed as a 'theoretical' draw given the scenario;

Where white has just played Bxd2 (presumably then stopping his clock) and Black's flag (then) falls, then...

1. White may claim the win due to Black's flag fall, regardless of the position on the board (unless that position is checkmate).
No, not regardless of the position on the board. 6.9 says

6.9 Except where one of Articles 5.1.a, 5.1.b, 5.2.a, 5.2.b, 5.2.c applies, if a player does not complete the prescribed number of moves in the allotted time, the game is lost by that player. However, the game is drawn if the position is such that the opponent cannot checkmate the player’s king by any possible series of legal moves.

So in this case there is only one solution to the possible series of legal moves, namely 1...b3+ 2.Nxb3 axb3+ checkmate. But Black does not win because his flag has fallen. Since White cannot checkmate in the only possible conclusion of the game, then it is a draw. We can say that the last sentence in 6.9 is fulfilled.
Ken McNulty wrote: 2. Even if white doesn't claim the win, then Black has no claim to a draw, unless it falls within the category of the g5 rule "the player having the move has less than two minutes left on his clock .... his opponent cannot win by normal means"
You are right that G.5 rule does not have any relevance in the current situation. Claiming G.5 after own flag fall would never be successful, period.

Post Reply