English Chess Forum

David Sedgwick wrote: ↑

Sun Aug 08, 2021 11:00 am

soheil_hooshdaran wrote: ↑

Sun Aug 08, 2021 7:10 am

Matthew Turner wrote: ↑

Sat Aug 07, 2021 10:13 am

Checkmate ends the game, so Black didn't play Kxf7 because there wasn't a game in progress at that point.

How are you going to figure out that this was mate?

You seem to have been able to recreate the sequence of events, so surely the arbiter could also have done that.

How? We just see that the Black King was captured, when we are summoned to the board.

You ask the players.

Joseph Conlon wrote: ↑

Sat Aug 07, 2021 12:35 pm

One player makes a desperado queen sacrifice to force stalemate. The other player was carefully considering the position, but capturing the queen was forced leading to stalemate. Strictly, before the capture the position was dead and so (as I understand it) the game is already over. However it seemed churlish to step in rather than allowing the game to be played out to the natural conclusion. Do arbiters ever step in to declare the game over in such a position?

I seem to have a slightly different take to Adam on this one. If the other player takes the queen it's immediately stalemate - drawn. If however he sits there thinking until his flag falls, it's surely still drawn - there are no legal means by which the first player could have won the game. So I'd be tempted to intervene and declare the game drawn. Thoughts?

IM Jack Rudd wrote: ↑

Sun Aug 08, 2021 2:41 pm

You ask the players.

What if the players disagree?

Roger Lancaster wrote: ↑

Sun Aug 08, 2021 4:44 pm

Joseph Conlon wrote: ↑

Sat Aug 07, 2021 12:35 pm

One player makes a desperado queen sacrifice to force stalemate. The other player was carefully considering the position, but capturing the queen was forced leading to stalemate. Strictly, before the capture the position was dead and so (as I understand it) the game is already over. However it seemed churlish to step in rather than allowing the game to be played out to the natural conclusion. Do arbiters ever step in to declare the game over in such a position?

I seem to have a slightly different take to Adam on this one. If the other player takes the queen it's immediately stalemate - drawn. If however he sits there thinking until his flag falls, it's surely still drawn - there are no legal means by which the first player could have won the game. So I'd be tempted to intervene and declare the game drawn. Thoughts?

Apologies, I missed this when it was first posted. I agree about the game being over - I think at this point, even if a mobile goes off or a player declares they actually resign, the game is still a draw as it is already finished. However, all my senses of chess aesthetics are against stepping in to hurry the players here, as if such a desperado sacrifices 'deserves' to be played until stalemate.

Joseph Conlon wrote: ↑

Fri Aug 13, 2021 8:26 pm

Roger Lancaster wrote: ↑

Sun Aug 08, 2021 4:44 pm

If the other player takes the queen it's immediately stalemate - drawn. If however he sits there thinking until his flag falls, it's surely still drawn - there are no legal means by which the first player could have won the game. So I'd be tempted to intervene and declare the game drawn. Thoughts?

I agree about the game being over - I think at this point, even if a mobile goes off or a player declares they actually resign, the game is still a draw as it is already finished.

I'm not convinced. Is it really too late to penalise a player whose phone rings a few seconds after the game finishes, or should the arbiter say that was evidence the player was breaking the rules during the game, so he loses because he broke the rules during the game, even though it wasn't discovered until after the game was over? (Also, for mobile phone infringements, the rules say the opponent wins. Intentionally or not, there's no requirement in the rules for the opponent to have mating material.)

Ian Thompson wrote: ↑

Fri Aug 13, 2021 8:53 pm

I'm not convinced. Is it really too late to penalise a player whose phone rings a few seconds after the game finishes, or should the arbiter say that was evidence the player was breaking the rules during the game, so he loses because he broke the rules during the game, even though it wasn't discovered until after the game was over? (Also, for mobile phone infringements, the rules say the opponent wins. Intentionally or not, there's no requirement in the rules for the opponent to have mating material.)

Is someone gives checkmate, and then their phone immediately rings, what happens? I think this is the nub of the matter. My sense was that, once checkmate is given, the game is over and they are now a spectator, so whatever punishment is assigned should not affect the result of the game.

But this probably has happened, and it would be interesting to hear how it is dealt with.

The game has ended, and you can treat the players as spectators at that point.

Adam Raoof wrote: ↑

Fri Aug 13, 2021 9:34 pm

The game has ended, and you can treat the players as spectators at that point.

So if the player's phone rang just after the game ended, you wouldn't be concerned that it must also have been on during the game, contrary to the rules? You wouldn't want to examine it to check whether it might have been used to cheat during the game?

Ian Thompson wrote: ↑

Fri Aug 13, 2021 10:07 pm

Adam Raoof wrote: ↑

Fri Aug 13, 2021 9:34 pm

The game has ended, and you can treat the players as spectators at that point.

So if the player's phone rang just after the game ended, you wouldn't be concerned that it must also have been on during the game, contrary to the rules? You wouldn't want to examine it to check whether it might have been used to cheat during the game?

I think it would be hard to prove that it was on during the game, and probably beyond the scope of the FIDE laws. It might give an arbiter a reason for extra caution going forward.

Have no doubt. If it becomes evident, beyond all doubt, that a player's phone was on during the game, he loses, even if the game on the board was completed without his losing.

Ian Thompson wrote: ↑

Fri Aug 13, 2021 10:07 pm

So if the player's phone rang just after the game ended, you wouldn't be concerned that it must also have been on during the game, contrary to the rules? You wouldn't want to examine it to check whether it might have been used to cheat during the game?

It has always been my view that if a player's phone goes off, that is pretty strong evidence that they are not using it to cheat.

NickFaulks wrote: ↑

Fri Aug 13, 2021 11:49 pm

It has always been my view that if a player's phone goes off, that is pretty strong evidence that they are not using it to cheat.

It's evidence that it's switched on which is enough under FIDE and similarly strict interpretations to cause loss of the game as a minimum sanction.

A few comments.

Joseph Conlon wrote: ↑

Fri Aug 13, 2021 9:11 pm

Is someone gives checkmate, and then their phone immediately rings, what happens?

The appropriate word here is 'immediately'. There is therefore no doubt that the phone was on during play and therefore the player should lose. I agree totally with Stewart. If an arbiter were to suggest that it was not appropriate as the game had finished as Adam suggests, I would be less than happy. If I were the Chief Arbiter in such a situation I would overrule the arbiter who said that it was too late.
However, if the player had time AND opportunity to switch on his phone after the game then my decision would need to be different and therefore only a warning and expulsion from the hall would follow.

I note that Nick says that if a player's phone rang that is 'pretty strong evidence' that he was not cheating. Firstly, the phone rule was originally introduced to combat the frequent disturbance that these devices were causing by ringing and had nothing to do with cheating. That reason is still valid. Unfortunately, you would think that a player would not be so stupid as to have his phone able to ring when they also had a chess engine running. However, I know of one case where an engine was discovered for that very reason!! Remember, you cannot over-estimate the stupidity of people.

With regard to the original question about the dead game. I would probably allow the players to play it out and only step in if there was another reason to do so - either a flag fall or a claim. I have had such a position and the smile on both players faces indicated strongly that they wanted to play it out. They did so so quickly that I would have struggled to reach their board to interrupt in any case.
8/8/7p/5K1k/7p/8/6P1/8
Here is one to consider. It is a position between two inexperienced players.
White plays g4 and announces mate. The arbiter is standing there. What does the arbiter do if:
a) Black accepts that it is checkmate
b) White's flag falls before any agreement
c) White's flag falls at the same time as Black acknowledges 'checkmate'?

Alex McFarlane wrote: ↑

Sat Aug 14, 2021 9:43 am

A
8/8/7p/5K1k/7p/8/6P1/8
Here is one to consider. It is a position between two inexperienced players.
White plays g4 and announces mate. The arbiter is standing there. What does the arbiter do if:
a) Black accepts that it is checkmate
b) White's flag falls before any agreement
c) White's flag falls at the same time as Black acknowledges 'checkmate'?

I'll will give it a go and offer myself for public shaming

a) White wins: even if there is not a checkmate, an opponent agreeing that there is a checkmate is equivalent to resigning. In effect, both players agree the game has ended with White's victory
b) Black wins: there is a legal way for black to win
c) No idea: without any video recording, I would give priority to Black's resignation and give the win to white


I have a nasty feeling that I am going to get a 0/3 grade