Shades of Carlsen-Inarkiev

[Roger Lancaster]

I should welcome informed comment on the following incident which is Carlsen-Inarkiev but with a twist.

Two of the club juniors, competent but not particularly experienced ones, were playing a graded rapidplay game yesterday evening. Exceptionally, it had been announced that the first completed illegal move would attract no penalty although the second would normally involve loss of the game. In the scenario described, neither player had previously completed an illegal move.

A queen-and-pawn ending was reached with Black having several extra pawns, one of which he promoted, resulting in his having two queens against one. With the black king on g8 and a white pawn on h6, White’s only chance was somehow to get in Qg7 mate.

I had my back turned (I was running 4 games) when I heard noises which suggested something had happened. Turning, I found the two players shaking hands and an immediate glance at the board showed that the white queen was indeed on g7. However, a second glance revealed that the white king was also in check.

“I’ve just won,” said White.

“No, hang on a minute, your last move was illegal,” said Black. “You haven’t won at all”.

“Too late,” said White. “You’ve just agreed you’ve lost and we’ve shaken hands on it”.

Now, if I’ve got this right, the current Article in the FIDE Laws says, “If the arbiter does not intervene, the opponent is entitled to claim, provided the opponent has not made his next move”. In the circumstances described above, the opponent had not made his next move but arguably had conceded the game – although I’m not entirely clear that believing one has been checkmated is tantamount to resignation – before making his claim. I say “arguably” because there’s then the question of what the handshake actually meant.

I’m not at all sure I made the ‘correct’ decision. If they don’t mind my asking, what would our arbiting elite have ruled here?

[Roger de Coverly]

Exceptionally, it had been announced that the first completed illegal move would attract no penalty although the second would normally involve loss of the game.

The rules have been changed to make the exception the standard.

[Jonathan Rogers]

Myself, not an arbiter at all, but it seems to me that Black has accepted defeat, and wouldn't be the first person to then have realised that he shouldn't have done so. I see the argument that it is not a regular resignation, but surely it can be said to be as least as significant as having made his next move?

Incidentally, even if White realised that it wasn't mate and claimed checkmate anyway, I would acquit him of being Inarkiev!

[Alex Holowczak]

Now, if I’ve got this right, the current Article in the FIDE Laws says, “If the arbiter does not intervene, the opponent is entitled to claim, provided the opponent has not made his next move”. In the circumstances described above, the opponent had not made his next move but arguably had conceded the game – although I’m not entirely clear that believing one has been checkmated is tantamount to resignation – before making his claim. I say “arguably” because there’s then the question of what the handshake actually meant.

I think you might have quoted that Law out of context.

The relevant Law to my mind is: "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 in accordance with Article 3 and Articles 4.2 – 4.7." This used to end with words saying something like "the move producing the checkmate was legal." It still says that, but in a much less clear way - progress!

The move producing the checkmate here wasn't legal, clearly, so it can't be checkmate. So the opponent can't have agreed it was checkmate, because it wasn't.

The child has agreed nothing by shaking hands, in my opinion. He was shaking hands under the misapprehension that he was checkmated, and this misapprehension was caused by his opponent. Particularly when young, inexperienced children are involved, they're going to shake a hand if their opponent thrusts it their way. You also want to deter children from saying "draw" or "checkmate" and shoving their hand out in the hope of getting what they want.

So in my view:
- It isn't checkmate by rule
- The opponent has shaken hands but agreed nothing (or if you like, it wasn't checkmate so he can't agree that it is)
- The position before the checkmating move should be re-instated
- It's play on from that position with touch move on the Queen

[Jonathan Rogers]

Would your answer differ if the players had been adults?

[Alex Holowczak]

Would your answer differ if the players had been adults?

No.

[Alex Holowczak]

By the way, the ECF has worked with the CAA to create a "Junior Board Steward" course, which I am intending to pilot in an area local to me in March. If the pilot is successful, the idea is to make it available to counties and junior clubs around England. It is designed to last 2-3 hours at the most, and covers only the sort of stuff that happens in junior tournaments. In fact, this scenario is very close to being exactly covered in the PowerPoint.

It's aimed at parents who get thrust into being Board Stewards at tournaments for young children. Given the standard of Board Stewards at EPSCA events is best categorised as "good-intentioned but unqualified", the idea is to give counties the tools, if they want to use them, to give their Board Stewards a fighting chance of doing a good job. It might also be helpful for junior volunteers in general to attend.

There'd be no charge (unless local organisers wanted to charge, that's up to them), and the ECF can send out certificates that the course deliverer can print out. You just need any qualified arbiter (Level 2+) to deliver it, and we'll send the material over.

That's the plan, but let's see how the pilot goes first...

[Angus French]

... parents who get thrust into being Board Stewards at tournaments for young children...

What could possibly go wrong?

[E Michael White]

This situation is similar to the scenario I posted about 10 days ago. We can expect more of these especially in Rapid and Blitz if it is thought ok to accept illegal moves.

The relevant Law to my mind is: "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 in accordance with Article 3 and Articles 4.2 – 4.7." This used to end with words saying something like "the move producing the checkmate was legal." It still says that, but in a much less clear way - progress!

The relevant law is :-

1.4
The objective of each player is to place the opponent’s king ‘under attack’ in such a way that the opponent has no legal move.

1.4.1 The player who achieves this goal is said to have ‘checkmated’ the opponent’s king and to have won the game. Leaving one’s own king under attack, exposing one’s own king to attack and also ’capturing’ the opponent’s king is not allowed

.

[Roger Lancaster]

I've just returned to this thread to thank those who were good enough to post some useful comment - certainly useful to me. Whilst I agree, I think the present situation is a little confusing. For example, when Alex H very reasonably says "So the opponent can't have agreed it was checkmate, because it wasn't", I'm not sure that the logic there entirely stands up. For example, the CAA notes to Article 5.1.1 deal with the situation where an opponent wrongly believes he has been legally checkmated. In that situation, the opponent apparently can agree that it was checkmate although it wasn't! But I say this merely to demonstrate how someone such as myself, with a reasonable working knowledge of the Laws albeit short of arbiter standard, can get confused - how volunteer parents are expected to cope is beyond me! Thank you again to all concerned. And no, I don't think I called this one correctly.