quote:

---

> George John: I cannot vote for someone who thinks that checkmate
> doesn't end the game.

quote:

---

> An unnamed source who is usually reliable alleges that so far Schutt and
> Bauer are leading by a wide margin. Shaughnessy comes next, then somewhat
> further down Channing, Shahade, and Tanner are neck and neck. In the final
> tier are Goichberg, Sloan, and John.

quote:

---

> An unnamed source who is usually reliable
> alleges that so far Schutt and Bauer are
> leading by a wide margin. Shaughnessy
> comes next, then somewhat further down
> Channing, Shahade, and Tanner are neck
> and neck. In the final tier are Goichberg,
> Sloan, and John.

quote:

---

> Vince Hart wrote:
>
> [SNIP]
>
>
> IMHO, to characterize my position in this manner may be similar to
> saying "I will not vote for someone who thinks that abortion is okay",
> when that candidate's position is they steadfastly oppose all abortions
> except when medically necessary to save the life of the mother.
>
> I truly don't want to rehash this topic again, but I do have to say
> that this is not an accurate summarization of what I think, and IMO is
> potentially quite misleading. Mate nearly always should decisively end
> a game. It's one of the fundamental rules of chess. But, there are
> clear and not so clear situations to consider, for example:
>
> 1) In an extreme time crunch mate is produced by white, but
> *immediately* after it is produced, black realizes and clearly states
> that white's PRIOR move was illegal. Assume the TD witnessed the
> illegal move.

quote:

---

>
> 2) On move 25 white produces checkmate, but neither black nor white say
> or doing anything about this and the game continues. On move 50,
> white, who is now in a clearly losing position, claims that checkmate
> was made on move 25 (assume a valid scoresheet), all subsequent moves
> are moot, and he should win. Optionally add to this scenario that
> this is a team event and a player of a competing team has accepted a
> draw, because it was clear to him this player was very likely going to
> lose, and the draw would be enough for the team to win. The player who
> accepted the draw had a likely but not certain win.
>

quote:

---

> 3) An hour after a game is over, the coach of Primary section student,
> who resigned on move 30, produces a score sheet (assume it is accurate)
> which shows his student checkmated his opponent on move 20. He insists
> the game was over on move 20, the later resignation is moot, and the
> result should be reversed.

quote:

---

>
> 4) On move 30 black produces checkmate, but a few minutes later it is
> conclusively proven that black's teammate gave him the winning move
> prior to it being made. Optionally, assume black is rated 600, the
> teammate 2000, and the winning move would be very difficult to find for
> anyone rated below 1000, but easy for a 2000 player to find.
>
> [SNIP]

quote:

---

>
> Best regards,
>
> George John

quote:

---

>I am far from decided about how I will fill in my ballot but here are
> my current thoughts on the candidates (in order of statements in Chess
> Life):
>
> Robert Tanner: Unimpressive statement.
>
> Sam Sloan: Laughable.
>
> Bill Goichberg: Tough Decision. My dealings with him have left a good
> impression. Stan's comments have me very concerned. Dubeck's
> ranting on the 2006 US Open seem silly.
>
> Greg Shahade: I like his chess accomplishments. I will probably vote
> for him if I don't vote for Goichberg.
>
> George John: I cannot vote for someone who thinks that checkmate
> doesn't end the game.
>
> Elizabeth Shaughnessy: Anyone that Richard Peterson hates can't be
> all bad.
>
> Steve Shutt: Seems like a keeper to me.
>
> Randy Bauer: Very impressed. Definitely has my vote.
>
> Joel Channing: Connection to Shultz bothers me due to Schultz
> connection with Parr and Sloan. Also the fact that he wants to
> negotiate with Schiller whose willingness to put his name on absolute
> crap books offends me.
>
> Vince Hart
>

quote:

---

> How about this: I cannot vote for someone who sometimes thinks that
> checkmate doesn't end the game.

quote:

---

> Vince Hart wrote:
>
> [SNIP]
>
>
>
> This response makes it even more critical why we often state in our
> tournament rules that once the results are turned in they stand (except
> for major ethical violations like cheating). The result of games
> should never be overturned as a result of post game analysis. Once the
> players have agreed to a result and turned in a score, the result
> should stand (assuming no cheating, etc.).

quote:

---

>
>
> This one is the clear "exception", IMO. A sufficiently major ethical
> violation trumps all other rules including the "mate ends the game"
> rule, and this is most definitely one of them.

quote:

---

>
> Here's a related question, is a player obliged to point out his or her
> opponent's overlooked mate? I think they are.

quote:

---

>
> Best regards,
>
> George John

quote:

---

> Bill Goichberg: Tough Decision. My dealings with him have left a good
> impression. Stan's comments have me very concerned.

quote:

---

> An unnamed source who is usually reliable alleges that so far Schutt and
> Bauer are leading by a wide margin. Shaughnessy comes next, then somewhat
> further down Channing, Shahade, and Tanner are neck and neck. In the final
> tier are Goichberg, Sloan, and John.

quote:

---

> George John wrote:

quote:

---

>
> The mate has to be produced by a legal move. The game continues.

quote:

---

>
> Mate ends the game. When you are dealing with players who are so weak
> as to overlook a checkmate, any other player should realize that he
> cannot rely on the likelihood of a particular result.

quote:

---

>
> If the next round has not been paired, I would say the result should be
> reversed.

quote:

---

>
> Reverse the result as a penalty for getting the move from someone else.

quote:

---

> Vince Hart wrote:
>
> [SNIP]
>
>
> The move which produced checkmate is legal if one ignores the fact a
> prior illegal move had been made. If you think the position should be
> reset to the one immediately before the illegal move was made, and the
> game continues, I very much agree, but not all people do.
>
>
> I don't disagree with this on its face, but I am somewhat uncomfortable
> with some of the possible implications.
>
> What if the player continues playing with the knowledge he has produced
> mate? Is a player obliged to point out mate when it occurs (I think
> they are)? Or, can they continue to play for "fun" (or other, possibly
> more sinister reasons) safe in the knowledge they can claim mate
> whenever they like should the game go "bad"?
>
> What if strong players are involved in a wildly mad time scramble (but
> are keeping score) in the 40/2 part of the game, and somehow overlook
> the mate (unlikely but not impossible), and much later (say 25 moves
> later) one of them mentally plays back the game to verify the score is
> correct, spots the mate, and doesn't say anything at that time (I think
> they should regardless if it's to their advantage or not).
>
>
> This response makes it even more critical why we often state in our
> tournament rules that once the results are turned in they stand (except
> for major ethical violations like cheating). The result of games
> should never be overturned as a result of post game analysis. Once the
> players have agreed to a result and turned in a score, the result
> should stand (assuming no cheating, etc.).
>
>
> This one is the clear "exception", IMO. A sufficiently major ethical
> violation trumps all other rules including the "mate ends the game"
> rule, and this is most definitely one of them.
>
> Here's a related question, is a player obliged to point out his or her
> opponent's overlooked mate? I think they are.
>
> Best regards,
>
> George John

quote:

---

> Vince Hart wrote:
>
> [SNIP]
>
>
> IMHO, to characterize my position in this manner may be similar to
> saying "I will not vote for someone who thinks that abortion is okay",
> when that candidate's position is they steadfastly oppose all abortions
> except when medically necessary to save the life of the mother.
>

quote:

---

> I truly don't want to rehash this topic again, but I do have to say
> that this is not an accurate summarization of what I think, and IMO is
> potentially quite misleading. Mate nearly always should decisively end
> a game. It's one of the fundamental rules of chess. But, there are
> clear and not so clear situations to consider, for example:
>

quote:

---

> 1) In an extreme time crunch mate is produced by white, but
> *immediately* after it is produced, black realizes and clearly states
> that white's PRIOR move was illegal. Assume the TD witnessed the
> illegal move.

quote:

---

>
> 2) On move 25 white produces checkmate, but neither black nor white say
> or doing anything about this and the game continues. On move 50,
> white, who is now in a clearly losing position, claims that checkmate
> was made on move 25 (assume a valid scoresheet), all subsequent moves
> are moot, and he should win. Optionally add to this scenario that
> this is a team event and a player of a competing team has accepted a
> draw, because it was clear to him this player was very likely going to
> lose, and the draw would be enough for the team to win. The player who
> accepted the draw had a likely but not certain win.

quote:

---

>
> 3) An hour after a game is over, the coach of Primary section student,
> who resigned on move 30, produces a score sheet (assume it is accurate)
> which shows his student checkmated his opponent on move 20. He insists
> the game was over on move 20, the later resignation is moot, and the
> result should be reversed.

quote:

---

>
> 4) On move 30 black produces checkmate, but a few minutes later it is
> conclusively proven that black's teammate gave him the winning move
> prior to it being made. Optionally, assume black is rated 600, the
> teammate 2000, and the winning move would be very difficult to find for
> anyone rated below 1000, but easy for a 2000 player to find.

quote:

---

>
> [SNIP]
>
> Best regards,
>
> George John

quote:

---

> Vince Hart wrote:
>
> Vince,
>
> I'm not certain if I'm replying to the deleted message or the current
> one, but I'll assume it's the current one.
>
>
> This is better, but IMO it's still misleading because the "sometimes"
> is very rare and only when the rule results in a major injustice.

quote:

---

> the coach in post game analysis finding the checkmate, and an agreed to
> result overturned, is one.

quote:

---

> so by making an illegal move on the prior move (possibly intentionally)
> is another.

quote:

---

>
> BTW, older rules required catching illegal moves prior to making a
> move. That was changed primarily deter the highly unethical trick (a
> player must never intentionally make an illegal move!) of moving a king
> next to a queen, and then taking the queen on the next move.
>
> Allowing a checkmate when the prior move was an illegal move and it is
> immediately caught, makes me very uncomfortable, and some (many?)
> experienced TD's will grant the illegal move claim to avoid the
> injustice of allowing a player to win who has so recently made an
> illegal move.
>
> Note: I don't know if the 5th Edition has definitively clarified this
> situation. I will have to check. If it has, whatever the 5th Edition
> says is what should be observed of course.

quote:

---

>
> [SNIP]
>
> Best regards,
>
> George John

quote:

---

>
>
> George John wrote:
student,[vbcol=seagreen]
accurate)[vbcol=seagreen]
He insists[vbcol=seagreen]
and the[vbcol=seagreen]
should be[vbcol=seagreen]
our[vbcol=seagreen]
(except[vbcol=seagreen]
Once the[vbcol=seagreen]
>
> My point is that the result of the game is not being overturned. An
> incorrectly reported result is being changed.

quote:

---

>
> I sure hope Mr. John is right on this one.
>
> "The game of chess is played between two opponents .."
> There should be no reason to even look at the
> scoresheet in this case, since the players have
> agreed on the result.
>
> If not, it creates an interesting cheating
> strategy in scholastic tournaments where
> move recording is not required.
>
> 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.

quote:

---

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

quote:

---

> Vince Hart wrote:
>
> Vince,
>
> [SNIP]
>
>
> 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.
>

quote:

---

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

quote:

---

> "Vince Hart" <VinnyJH@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1118274823.645388.80600@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> Why would he have to be stupid? That seems to follow
> logically from your interpretation of the rules.

quote:

---

>
>
> David Kane wrote:
that,[vbcol=seagreen]
>
> 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

quote:

---

> 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.

quote:

---

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

quote:

---

> "Vince Hart" <VinnyJH@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1118284972.124740.306100@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> that,
> even
>
> What if the opponent had left for the day and
> was unavailable to contradict the claim?

quote:

---

>
>
>
> 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.

quote:

---

>
> 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.

quote:

---

> 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.

quote:

---

>I am sympathetic with this sentiment but I don't believe that you will ever get that genie back in the bottle.

quote:

---

> "Vince Hart" <VinnyJH@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1118324154.622004.267370@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> for
> player
> game
> which
> fool's
> the
>
> But that's not the only evidence, *if* you are willing to look at
> the scoresheet.
>
> disputed,
>
> You need to realize that the scoresheet is
> disputed by the players' own assessment of
> what happened in the game. *Assuming*
> its accuracy makes no sense. The question
> is whether there would be any reason to
> even look at the scoresheet - I don't think
> there is.

quote:

---

>
> consistency
>
> The FIDE rules are grossly inadequate
> to handle all kinds of scholastic situations.
> I haven't seen a USCF rulebook in
> decades, but based upon the USCF's
> general hostility to scholastic chess and
> overall ineptitude, I'd be amazed if it
> had any relevant, intelligent additions.

quote:

---

>
> These sorts of things are
> not confined to chess. In youth
> baseball, it is also not uncommon to
> have situations where the players and
> "umpires" (untrained parents) don't
> know or understand all the rules. But that
> doesn't prevent people from having fun.

quote:

---

> It is also not uncommon to modify the rules to accommodate the

quote:

---

> players. When I coached my son's second grade basketball team, we

quote:

---

> not try to use NBA rules. On the other hand, we did not try to get

quote:

---

> rules changed in order to accommodate the needs of the second

quote:

---

>

quote:

---

>
>
> David Kane wrote:
for[vbcol=seagreen]
player[vbcol=seagreen]
game[vbcol=seagreen]
which[vbcol=seagreen]
fool's[vbcol=seagreen]
>
> I certain would not change an incorrectly recorded result solely on

quote:

---

> word of one of the players.

quote:

---

>
> I don't think that was the scenario. George said to assume that the
> scoresheet was accurate. If the evidence were imperfect and

quote:

---

> my conclusion would be different.

quote:

---

>
> I think the USCF rules assume that the players are capable of
> understanding the rules and applying them with reasonable

quote:

---

> 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."
>

quote:

---

> The real problem seems to be, that George cannot reply to a 1-sentence
> put-down without writing at least 5 ponderous paragraphs. [SNIP]

quote:

---

> "Vince Hart" <VinnyJH@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1118332124.792148.97580@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> younger
> did
> NBA
> graders.
>
> That's not really what is going on. There is a set of rules
> that simply doesn't cover practical cases in scholastic chess,
> so additional rules are applied. I have also read that
> there are analogous differences between USCF and FIDE rules
> stemming from the need to handle situations in larger,
> less-supervised tournaments.

quote:

---

> FYI, this FIDE rule may be of interest:
>
> 8.7 At the conclusion of the game both players shall sign both
> scoresheets, indicating the result of the game. Even if incorrect, this
> result shall stand, unless the arbiter decides otherwise. (source:
> http://www.fide.com/official/handbook.asp?level=EE101)
>
> Best regards,
>
> George John

quote:

---

> Vince,
>
> My guess is the authors of the USCF "Rules of Chess" have wanted to
> avoid creating distinct rules that apply to scholastic chess only.
> Given the huge growth of scholastic chess, especially in the K-1, and
> K-3 sections, perhaps the time has come to construct some rules and/or
> more special guidance specific to scholastic only chess, which better
> comes to grips with the fact that young children, who are often
> novices, are playing, and are prone, often enough, to many rule
> violations including overlooking mate and stalemate (which most
> definitely should end a game!).

quote:

---

>
> As an aside, one area of greater clarification I would like to see is
> how best to handle end position TD verification (for those events that
> do that) and/or questions like "is the mate" or "is this stalemate"? I
> think the current approaches are inconsistent, even in the same
> section, and some greater consistency how to handle this might be
> helpful.

quote:

---

>
> The bottom line is if either player sees checkmate, the game must end,
> period. The issue is what to do when they don't. The rule
> clarifications, variations, and exceptions (which are frequently used
> in Texas) help pin down in clear, written terms how some of these
> issues will be handled, and head off the potential for some of the more
> controversial and serious problems. This makes for a much happier and
> anxiety free experience for all concerned. For those of you who have
> directed in K-3 sections, my guess is you will agree. -smile-

quote:

---

> I would suspect there are variations in different geographic areas as
> well. In some places, they might just wink at two young players who
> consistenty make illegal moves while there may be others (at least I
> hope there are) where coaches are discouraged from bringing such
> players to tournaments.

quote:

---

>
>
> I don't know how those decisions are made, but I hope they are made
> with the goal of educating the players and bringing them to the point
> where they do not need to ask such questions.

quote:

---

> IMHO, the bottom line under both USCF and FIDE rules is that checkmate
> ends the game whether the players see it or not. However, sometimes
> the players keep moving the pieces and they end up posting an incorrect
> result. I am willing to assume for the sake of argument that there may
> be pragmatic reasons for accepting that result.

quote:

---

>
> George John wrote:

quote:

---

is[vbcol=seagreen]
that[vbcol=seagreen]
stalemate"? I[vbcol=seagreen]
>
> I don't know how those decisions are made, but I hope they are made
> with the goal of educating the players and bringing them to the

quote:

---

> where they do not need to ask such questions.

quote:

---

>
> IMHO, the bottom line under both USCF and FIDE rules is that

quote:

---

> ends the game whether the players see it or not.

quote:

---

> However, sometimes
> the players keep moving the pieces and they end up posting an

quote:

---

> result. I am willing to assume for the sake of argument that there

quote:

---

> be pragmatic reasons for accepting that result.
>

quote:

---

> That is probably a bad rule. Since players are unable to
> perfectly determine when checkmate occurs, it is inconsistent with
> the concept that chess is played between two players.

quote:

---

> One of the problems of using a tournament game as a "teaching
> moment" is that it influences the result.

quote:

---

> It is far better to preserve
> the integrity of the event and let the players work things out to
> the maximal extent possible, even if they aren't doing everything
> properly.

quote:

---

> A 6-year old playing baseball may play very
> badly, but that doesn't mean he won't feel cheated when
> you call him out on Strike 2.

quote:

---

> David Kane wrote:
>
> David,
>
> [SNIP]
>
>
> As strange as it might sound, as long as there is no outside
> interference, and the result of the game, as agreed upon and

quote:

---

> stands, this rule works fine. I think Vince has this exactly right.
> The game did end, and the players continued playing moves that are
> meaningless WRT to the "truth" of that game. If a result turned in

quote:

---

> different from that "truth", the result has been incorrectly

quote:

---

> but it still stands for rating, tournament, and all other practical
> purposes.
>

quote:

---

>This is why, in many of these
> novice events with small children, claims of mate or stalemate are
> confirmed by the TD, and children are allowed to ask "Is this mate"

quote:

---

> "Is this stalemate", to avoid this problem and the one where they

quote:

---

> on after having achieved mate or stalemate.
>

quote:

---

>
> checkmate
>
> That is probably a bad rule. Since players are unable to
> perfectly determine when checkmate occurs, it is inconsistent with
> the concept that chess is played between two players.
>

quote:

---

>
> Chess is a game of rules. If a player is not capable of

quote:

---

> and applying those rules, then he is not really playing chess.
>
> I don't understand why the enforcement of a rule would be

quote:

---

> with the concept that chess is played between two players."
> Competitive activities between two players or two teams commonly
> involve a referee or umpire or some other arbiter to enforce the

quote:

---

> and the rules are often enforced even if neither competitor

quote:

---

> that they have been violated.

quote:

---

>I believe my campaign is not based on "trivialities". I think most of
>my recent postings on rgcp and elsewhere, and my campaign statements in
>"Chess Life" do concern subjects that are important to chess and the
>USCF. My comments on the FIDE President is one example.
>
>This was mostly an off-topic discussion, started in response to a
>statement I thought to be potentially misleading. The discussion that
>followed was a continuation of one started years ago which was dropped
>before being resolved. I'm glad it has been finally been resolved
>because I always suspected there was a synthesis lingering in the
>thesis and anti-thesis.
>
>In any event, although discussions of the rules do occur on rgcp from
>time to time, I should have marked my posts as off-topic for this
>subject, and apologize for not doing so.
>
>Best regards,
>
>George John

quote:

---

> 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.

quote:

---

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

quote:

---

> 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.

quote:

---

> I think the 5th edition says the mate stands.

quote:

---

>
>
> "StanB" <stanbooz@comXXXcast.net> wrote in message
> news:a5ydnbe2Yo-WpTrfRVn-vw@comcast.com...
>
> Wow. And we don't even have ballots yet. <grin>
>
> David
> .....waiting for the June Chess life......
>
> --
> CaissaWas__SPAMHater__INTP@adelphia__ANTIV__.net without the block
>

quote:

---

>
> "Angelo DePalma" <adpspammersgotohell@tellurian.net> wrote in message
> news:u-edneS8xfJpwTrfRVn-qQ@garden.net...
>
> Billy G. won't be voting for me. Of course I'm not running but you
> wouldn't know it to read his misleading statements about me. You'd think
> Bill would lean to debating what the other candidates were saying.
>
>

quote:

---

>
> Stan, I can hardly blame Bill for fighting back. You've been all over him
> like an attack poodle for months now. Reminds me of Paul Krugman's
> obsession with Bush. It's like there's nothing else to you.
>
>
> "StanB" <stanbooz@comXXXcast.net> wrote in message
> news:LoWdnaYtuceXkC_fRVn-uA@comcast.com...
>
>