Vince Hart wrote:

Vince,

[SNIP]

In any case, if you have had to make special rules for your scholastic
tournaments, it does not sound like the sometimes is all that rare.

To my knowledge I have never known this to happen. The reason for the
rule is to make certain it never happens, and to minimize appeals made
after the results have been turned in. We strongly stress the need for
players to deal with issues when they occur rather than after the fact.

BTW, this isn't my idea. I don't know where it originated, but I
became aware of it from one of the most experienced and highly
respected organizers/TD's in the US. It helps keep a lid on Pandora's
Box.

[SNIP]

I would argue that the injustice is produced by the definition of legal
move rather than the finality of checkmate.

I agree.

I think you might change
the rule such that an illegal move taints the following move (or two
moves) without altering the finality of checkmate.

I think that's a very good suggestion.

I think the 5th edition says the mate stands.

I just checked and you are correct (11D1c, which is not in the 4th
Edition).

Again, I like your suggestion very much. The rules should never create
an incentive for making illegal moves. They should whenever reasonably
possible discourage them, or at a minimum remain neutral.

Best regards,

George John

I wasn't at the event, but I heard that at the 1995 Texas State
Scholastic a result was reversed when a student produced a score sheet
that showed he won. The other student had no score sheet. Later it
was found out that the score sheet was created after the game was over.
I think this led to much tighter controls on reporting at these
events, and the rule that once a result has been reported it stands
(except for obvious reasons like cheating, gross TD error, clerical
errors, and the like).

Best regards,

George John

"Vince Hart" wrote in message
ups.com...


David Kane wrote:
A scholastic player could simply write down
the moves to Fool's mate, play the game, and
then later claim a win in the event he loses.


If his opponent didn't record, he'd apparently
be given the win.

I have encountered TD's who would be stupid enough to fall for that,
but not very many.


Why would he have to be stupid? That seems to follow
logically from your interpretation of the rules.

David Kane wrote:
"Vince Hart" wrote in message
ups.com...


David Kane wrote:
A scholastic player could simply write down
the moves to Fool's mate, play the game, and
then later claim a win in the event he loses.


If his opponent didn't record, he'd apparently
be given the win.

I have encountered TD's who would be stupid enough to fall for that,
but not very many.


Why would he have to be stupid? That seems to follow
logically from your interpretation of the rules.

I don't think so. If scorekeeping is not required, then a player
should be able to challenge the other player's account of the game even
without a scoresheet of his own. The TD would have to decide which
story he believed, and I for one, would not believe a player who
claimed that he had failed to notice that he had inflicted a fool's
mate on his opponent.

In any case, as I understood George's hypothetical, there was no
dispute that the recorded moves had actually occurred.

Vince Hart

George John wrote:
Vince Hart wrote:

Vince,

[SNIP]

In any case, if you have had to make special rules for your scholastic
tournaments, it does not sound like the sometimes is all that rare.

To my knowledge I have never known this to happen. The reason for the
rule is to make certain it never happens, and to minimize appeals made
after the results have been turned in. We strongly stress the need for
players to deal with issues when they occur rather than after the fact.

BTW, this isn't my idea. I don't know where it originated, but I
became aware of it from one of the most experienced and highly
respected organizers/TD's in the US. It helps keep a lid on Pandora's
Box.


I have never played in or directed a tournament in which such a rule
was applied, and no Pandora's Box has ever been opened. Of course, I
have never played in or directed a tournament in which all of the
players (as far as I could tell) could not consistently recognize the
occurrence of checkmate.

I understand the utility of such a rule when dealing with a significant
number of players who are unable to monitor the application of the
rules within their own game. However, I believe that any injustice
results from the players' limited command of the rules rather than any
deficiency in the rules themselves.

Vince Hart

"Vince Hart" wrote in message
oups.com...


David Kane wrote:
"Vince Hart" wrote in message
ups.com...


David Kane wrote:
A scholastic player could simply write down
the moves to Fool's mate, play the game, and
then later claim a win in the event he loses.


If his opponent didn't record, he'd apparently
be given the win.

I have encountered TD's who would be stupid enough to fall for
that,
but not very many.


Why would he have to be stupid? That seems to follow
logically from your interpretation of the rules.

I don't think so. If scorekeeping is not required, then a player
should be able to challenge the other player's account of the game
even
without a scoresheet of his own. The TD would have to decide which
story he believed, and I for one, would not believe a player who
claimed that he had failed to notice that he had inflicted a fool's
mate on his opponent.

What if the opponent had left for the day and
was unavailable to contradict the claim?


In any case, as I understood George's hypothetical, there was no
dispute that the recorded moves had actually occurred.

The scenario presented was that a biased
3rd party makes a belated claim that
a checkmate may have occurred
based on imperfect evidence contradicting
the players' own more immediate
assessment of the game.

When 5 year olds plays chess, it is
not at all rare for there to be gross
misunderstandings of the game's rules
and all sorts of strange chess situations
occur. Applying the principle that "The game
of chess is played between two opponents .."
means that a result agreed upon by the
players should stand. The only issue would
be whether the players did in fact agree
to the result, not the possibly quite confused
thought process and non-standard
chessplaying that led up to that agreement.

This is, in fact, how our scholastic tournaments
are run (and how they should be) - whether
this is FIDE/USCF approved I have no idea.

Please state if this was some kind of a poll, even if it is an informal
poll. If it is a guess by someone, then please state that. The way
the comment is stated indicates that votes have actually already been
counted. If that is the case, then it is a blatant violation of USCF
voting policies and procedures. Please try to be more precise and less
misleading in posts regards possible election results. Thank you.

Suppose the coach notices that his own player had been checkmated and
the player says "Yeah, I was lucky he did not see it."

If a player cannot recognize checkmate, he/she has no business playing
in a USCF-rated tournament. These kiddie herder arguments are
ridiculous.

David Kane wrote:
"Vince Hart" wrote in message
oups.com...


David Kane wrote:
"Vince Hart" wrote in message
ups.com...


David Kane wrote:
A scholastic player could simply write down
the moves to Fool's mate, play the game, and
then later claim a win in the event he loses.


If his opponent didn't record, he'd apparently
be given the win.

I have encountered TD's who would be stupid enough to fall for
that,
but not very many.


Why would he have to be stupid? That seems to follow
logically from your interpretation of the rules.

I don't think so. If scorekeeping is not required, then a player
should be able to challenge the other player's account of the game
even
without a scoresheet of his own. The TD would have to decide which
story he believed, and I for one, would not believe a player who
claimed that he had failed to notice that he had inflicted a fool's
mate on his opponent.

What if the opponent had left for the day and
was unavailable to contradict the claim?

I certain would not change an incorrectly recorded result solely on the
word of one of the players.



In any case, as I understood George's hypothetical, there was no
dispute that the recorded moves had actually occurred.

The scenario presented was that a biased
3rd party makes a belated claim that
a checkmate may have occurred
based on imperfect evidence contradicting
the players' own more immediate
assessment of the game.

I don't think that was the scenario. George said to assume that the
scoresheet was accurate. If the evidence were imperfect and disputed,
my conclusion would be different.


When 5 year olds plays chess, it is
not at all rare for there to be gross
misunderstandings of the game's rules
and all sorts of strange chess situations
occur. Applying the principle that "The game
of chess is played between two opponents .."
means that a result agreed upon by the
players should stand. The only issue would
be whether the players did in fact agree
to the result, not the possibly quite confused
thought process and non-standard
chessplaying that led up to that agreement.

This is, in fact, how our scholastic tournaments
are run (and how they should be) - whether
this is FIDE/USCF approved I have no idea.

I think the USCF rules assume that the players are capable of
understanding the rules and applying them with reasonable consistency
within their own game. I understand the need to modify the rules of
chess when this is not true. I am not sure that this is still chess
though. Maybe it should be called "pre-chess."

Vince Hart

Exactly, Mr. Rynd.