Timeshift: How To Win At Chess

[Jonathan Bryant]

Just in case you were wondering about the game between Keene and King which is played out over the course of the programme, I've just figured out that it was the following...

Levitt,J (2432) - King,D (2512) [D53]
Staunton Memorial 2nd London (1), 23.08.2004

Good for Ray for being sporting enough to take a beating on somebody else's behalf.

[Justin Hadi]

Couple of positive reviews, here and here.

[benedgell]

An excellent show, I thought. I'd like to echo Justin and Stewart's comments: Please email the BBC and ask to see more chess on tv. The more people that do so, the better chance of something happening: [email protected]

[John Hickman]

Great show! I watched it on iPlayer.

I was left wondering though after seeing her in that bare room if there needs to be a whip round to get Harriet Hunt some furniture

[Peter Rhodes]

Never miss a check, it might be mate, which I would charitably suggest is what he was trying to get across. (I'm sorry - I think I just defended Raymondo. I'll hand in my membership on the way out.)

A player at Coulsdon recently placed his opponent in check and then offered a draw.

In fact it was mate, his opponent didn't take the draw which seemed very generous to me !


There is an arbiting question here .... checkmate finishes the game, so does that also cancel the offer of the draw ?

[Matthew Turner]

checkmate (or stalemate) is the end of the game, so you can offer a draw, have your flag fall or have your phone go off, it doesn't matter because the game has already finished.

[Angus French]

A player at Coulsdon recently placed his opponent in check and then offered a draw.

In fact it was mate, his opponent didn't take the draw which seemed very generous to me !

So, was it a Coulsdon player who simultaneously mated and offered a draw or was it a visitor? I think we should be told.

[Scott Freeman]

Hi Angus

It was a CCF member in an internal rapid play game (or was it blitz?) match just over a week ago on one of our speed chess nights. The player made the offer of a draw not realising the move was checkmate, but as everyone has said thus far, that would not have been an issue and the game would have been over (as checkmate ends the game) but what Peter did not tell you and why this has become a more interesting discussion is that the draw offer was made by the player when he picked the piece up and before he actually moved it (not after moving and before pressing the clock as should have been the protocol), thus there is an argument that the draw offer could have been accepted from that moment until the piece was placed on the checkmating square - IF the opponent had had enough time to react!

Another of those curious arbiting questions - which is why Peter raised it.

[Matthew Turner]

If the player offered a draw before moving then the opponent could accept the draw until the checkmating move had been completed (when the hand comes off the piece).

[Scott Freeman]

Excatly right - but it appears that she didn't! Although it prompted an interesting discussion.

[E Michael White]

I realise the previous 2 posters are a GM and an Arbiter and I havent thought about it too much but I think the rules are unclear if the player offered the draw before mating.

The rules say that draws should be offered after moving before pressing the clock (irrelevant in this case) but also state that draws offered at other times are also valid. The rules only allow 2 ways of declining a draw, verbally or by the opponent moving. The first of these did not happen and the second could not.

So the situation here is that a draw offer is open and the player then mated. For mate to end the game it has to be a legal move. The big question is does making a move which deprives the opponent of a right conferred elsewhere in the rules render that move illegal so that the mate is not allowed until the player verbally declines.

If the mating move is not legal as a result the opponent should say nothing and not decline the draw offer forcing the player to make a non mating move. Alternatively FIDE could clarify the rules.

[IM Jack Rudd]

So the situation here is that a draw offer is open and the player then mated. For mate to end the game it has to be a legal move. The big question is does making a move which deprives the opponent of a right conferred elsewhere in the rules render that move illegal so that the mate is not allowed until the player verbally declines.

No, it doesn't.

9.1.b.1. A player wishing to offer a draw shall do so after having made a move on the chessboard and before stopping his clock and starting the opponent’s clock. An offer at any other time during play is still valid but Article 12.6 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.

The or the game is concluded in some other way clause is the crucial one here. Once the game has concluded in some other way, the draw offer is no longer valid and cannot be accepted.

[E Michael White]

For once Jack I think your argument is circular.

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.

The part you regard as crucial does not appear to me to carry superior weight to render the mating move legal. The temination of the game is clearly secondary to the question of whether the move was legal and depends on it.

I think the result should be a mate but the rules need to make it clearer.

[IM Jack Rudd]

What defines a legal move is set out in articles 3 and 4, and article 5.1 is clearly intended to refer back to those articles when it references "legal move". If it referred forwards to article 9, it would contain an explicit forward reference to article 9 - that's the way the FIDE Laws of Chess are set out.

[E Michael White]

The rules were juggled around in 1997 I think it was, to put all clock related bits together in the section entitled competition rules. The earlier sections are the basic rules. As a result there are places where forward references should exist but dont.

There are other circumstances where a player cannot make a move, which may be described as legal by earlier sections, which are prohibited by later sections without a forward reference, eg if in LP a player has not written down his previous move before playing the mating move or if the opponent immediately, before the mating attempt were made, stopped the clock to summon the arbiter to check if the draw offer were valid.

Another example is where the opponent has not pressed the clock after playing their own move; maybe they could be adjusting pieces in their own time after displacing them as required by the rules. A majority of players and arbiters including Alex MacFarlane only a few weeks ago on this forum expressed the view that a player cannot move until his opponent has pressed the clock. So in an example where player B moves but doesnt press the clock, player A offers a draw and then immediately moves mating on the board, the mating move should probably be considered illegal. B might then be able to accept the draw before pressing his own clock. What would your view be here if A had already been warned 3 times earlier in the game for moving before his opponent had pressed the clock ?

I consider the arbiter must first determine whether the mating move made is legal as determined by all the FIDE laws, only then declaring mate ends the game and should not be suggesting other rules dont apply because the game was later terminated by the mating move.

Unfortunately for arbiters and FIDE, final interpretation of the rules is down to Lausanne who are more likely to look at what is written in the rules and established customs. I doubt whether a draw offer and mating move like this has happened before to establish a custom.

As I said before I think it should be mate but the rules made clearer.