Anyone ever see this situation occur:

One player, with rook and king has just a few seconds left on his clock (no
time delay), the other player has a king but plenty of time left on his
clock. The player with the rook resigns as he does not know how to mate
with rook and king and his flag is about to fall. The player with the rook
does not realize that his opponent could not have won because of
insufficient mating material. This situation nearly occurred the other
night.

Jon Haskel

"Jon Haskel" wrote in message
news
Anyone ever see this situation occur:

One player, with rook and king has just a few seconds left on his clock
(no
time delay), the other player has a king but plenty of time left on his
clock. The player with the rook resigns as he does not know how to mate
with rook and king and his flag is about to fall. The player with the
rook
does not realize that his opponent could not have won because of
insufficient mating material. This situation nearly occurred the other
night.

Jon Haskel

Never seen that before, but it is unfortunate and it raises an interesting
question:

Can the player who just resigned in the situation later claim the draw based
on insufficient mating material on the part of his opponent AFTER he learns
of the rule? I mean, a resignation is a resignation is a resignation, but
the other player could not have won the game in the absence of one.

Personally, I'd rule that the player resigned and thus, doesn't get any
benefit after the fact as ignorance is not a defense. Any more experienced
TDs out there got a different take?

Regards,

Matt

"Matt Nemmers" writes:

"Jon Haskel" wrote in message
news
Anyone ever see this situation occur:

One player, with rook and king has just a few seconds left on his clock
(no
time delay), the other player has a king but plenty of time left on his
clock. The player with the rook resigns as he does not know how to mate
with rook and king and his flag is about to fall. The player with the
rook
does not realize that his opponent could not have won because of
insufficient mating material. This situation nearly occurred the other
night.

Jon Haskel

Never seen that before, but it is unfortunate and it raises an interesting
question:

Can the player who just resigned in the situation later claim the draw based
on insufficient mating material on the part of his opponent AFTER he learns
of the rule?



No.



I mean, a resignation is a resignation is a resignation, but
the other player could not have won the game in the absence of one.

Personally, I'd rule that the player resigned and thus, doesn't get any
benefit after the fact as ignorance is not a defense. Any more experienced
TDs out there got a different take?

Regards,

Matt



--
Kenneth Sloan
Computer and Information Sciences (205) 934-2213
University of Alabama at Birmingham FAX (205) 934-5473
Birmingham, AL 35294-1170 http://www.cis.uab.edu/info/faculty/sloan/

"Jon Haskel" wrote in message ...
Anyone ever see this situation occur:

One player, with rook and king has just a few seconds left on his clock (no
time delay), the other player has a king but plenty of time left on his
clock. The player with the rook resigns as he does not know how to mate
with rook and king and his flag is about to fall. The player with the rook
does not realize that his opponent could not have won because of
insufficient mating material. This situation nearly occurred the other
night.

Jon Haskel
___________________________
I have seen it before, in the K-5 "Under" division of last year's
scholastic states, on one of the lower boards, and have also seen it
in a club game involving two 6 yr. old beginners. The resignation
stands, and cannot be revoked.

Don

I have seen it before, in the K-5 "Under" division of last year's
scholastic states, on one of the lower boards, and have also seen it
in a club game involving two 6 yr. old beginners. The resignation
stands, and cannot be revoked.

Don

Is it legal to resign in a position where it is impossible to lose, even
intentionally?

John Fernandez

"John Fernandez wrote
Is it legal to resign in a position where it is impossible to lose, even
intentionally?

And, would it not be tantamount to throwing a game? Whether or not correct by the book, it seems to me the correct result, should
someone resign (or flag fall, for that matter) with NO losing chances, is a draw.

Subject: Game Situation
From: "sandirhodes"
Date: 3/11/2004 1:47 AM Eastern Standard Time
Message-id: NXT3c.948$wg.601@okepread01


"John Fernandez wrote
Is it legal to resign in a position where it is impossible to lose, even
intentionally?

And, would it not be tantamount to throwing a game? Whether or not correct
by the book, it seems to me the correct result, should
someone resign (or flag fall, for that matter) with NO losing chances, is a
draw.

That seems to be the case.

Is there a specific rule that indicates that the TD can't decide the result is
1/2-1/2? It looks like I can always change it based on unsportsmanlike conduct.

John Fernandez

eepmeep (John Fernandez) writes:

Subject: Game Situation
From: "sandirhodes"
Date: 3/11/2004 1:47 AM Eastern Standard Time
Message-id: NXT3c.948$wg.601@okepread01


"John Fernandez wrote
Is it legal to resign in a position where it is impossible to lose, even
intentionally?

And, would it not be tantamount to throwing a game? Whether or not correct
by the book, it seems to me the correct result, should
someone resign (or flag fall, for that matter) with NO losing chances, is a
draw.

That seems to be the case.

It's not "tantamount to throwing a game" if the player is ignorant of
the "insufficient to win..." rules.



Is there a specific rule that indicates that the TD can't decide the result is
1/2-1/2? It looks like I can always change it based on unsportsmanlike conduct.


Again, it's not "unsportsmanlike" unless the player *knows* that there
is no other way for his opponent to win other than resignation.

If either ignorance or stupidity are sufficient to explain the behavior,
it's not necessary to look further.


John Fernandez

--
Kenneth Sloan
Computer and Information Sciences (205) 934-2213
University of Alabama at Birmingham FAX (205) 934-5473
Birmingham, AL 35294-1170 http://www.cis.uab.edu/info/faculty/sloan/

Subject: Game Situation
From: Kenneth Sloan
Date: 3/11/2004 1:38 PM Eastern Standard Time
Message-id:

(John Fernandez) writes:

Subject: Game Situation
From: "sandirhodes"
Date: 3/11/2004 1:47 AM Eastern Standard Time
Message-id: NXT3c.948$wg.601@okepread01


"John Fernandez wrote
Is it legal to resign in a position where it is impossible to lose, even
intentionally?

And, would it not be tantamount to throwing a game? Whether or not
correct
by the book, it seems to me the correct result, should
someone resign (or flag fall, for that matter) with NO losing chances, is
a
draw.

That seems to be the case.

It's not "tantamount to throwing a game" if the player is ignorant of
the "insufficient to win..." rules.



Is there a specific rule that indicates that the TD can't decide the result
is
1/2-1/2? It looks like I can always change it based on unsportsmanlike
conduct.


Again, it's not "unsportsmanlike" unless the player *knows* that there
is no other way for his opponent to win other than resignation.

If either ignorance or stupidity are sufficient to explain the behavior,
it's not necessary to look further.


John Fernandez

--
Kenneth Sloan

So what? That doesn't mean a tournament director should allow it.

John Fernandez

eepmeep (John Fernandez) writes:


So what? That doesn't mean a tournament director should allow it.

John Fernandez


Yes, it does.


--
Kenneth Sloan
Computer and Information Sciences (205) 934-2213
University of Alabama at Birmingham FAX (205) 934-5473
Birmingham, AL 35294-1170 http://www.cis.uab.edu/info/faculty/sloan/