Team Captains in Local Leagues

[Ken McNulty]

I wish to invite discussion on the role of the team captain in local leagues where there is no arbiter present, in particular relating to a couple of scenarios that have arisen recently;

Scenario 1: Player A delivered checkmate with a Queen move and the game was concluded, with player B accepting the loss and both players shaking hands. Shortly afterwards while the final position was still in place on the board, an observer pointed out to player B’s team captain that the checkmate was actually an illegal move, as player A was himself in check.

Scenario 2: Both players are similarly very short on time. Player A makes a legal move and stops his clock with around 2 seconds remaining. Player B, presumably realising he is about to lose on time, presses his clock without making a move at all, and player A’s flag falls.
Player B feels he has won the game, as player A never made a claim for the illegal move (pressing the clock without making a move). This conclusion of the game was witnessed by player A’s team captain.

For each scenario, if the games were played under the control of an arbiter, I’m sure they would intervene and quickly resolve the issue, but my real question is about the role of the team captains, in particular the team captain of the ‘losing’ player in each of these games. Where is the line drawn? While a captain should never interfere in any way during a game, unless their player has specifically asked for clarification on a rule, what about after the game has ‘concluded’ (the players have stopped playing), as in these scenarios.

Common sense is unfortunately one of life’s greatest variables, so I invite opinions please.

[Roger Lancaster]

I wish to invite discussion on the role of the team captain in local leagues where there is no arbiter present, in particular relating to a couple of scenarios that have arisen recently;

Scenario 1: Player A delivered checkmate with a Queen move and the game was concluded, with player B accepting the loss and both players shaking hands. Shortly afterwards while the final position was still in place on the board, an observer pointed out to player B’s team captain that the checkmate was actually an illegal move, as player A was himself in check.

Scenario 2: Both players are similarly very short on time. Player A makes a legal move and stops his clock with around 2 seconds remaining. Player B, presumably realising he is about to lose on time, presses his clock without making a move at all, and player A’s flag falls.
Player B feels he has won the game, as player A never made a claim for the illegal move (pressing the clock without making a move). This conclusion of the game was witnessed by player A’s team captain.

For each scenario, if the games were played under the control of an arbiter, I’m sure they would intervene and quickly resolve the issue, but my real question is about the role of the team captains, in particular the team captain of the ‘losing’ player in each of these games. Where is the line drawn? While a captain should never interfere in any way during a game, unless their player has specifically asked for clarification on a rule, what about after the game has ‘concluded’ (the players have stopped playing), as in these scenarios.

Common sense is unfortunately one of life’s greatest variables, so I invite opinions please.

In my experience, the convention is that the two team captains confer and their combined opinion carries the day. That usually, but not invariably, works when both team captains are conversant with the FIDE Laws. Having said that, the situation often arises - particularly if it's something like an under-1600 league - where neither captain is familiar with the Laws when all manner of strange things can happen. I suppose the most sensible solution in those circumstances may be for the captains to agree on the facts and present these asap to a qualified arbiter - but, of course, that's unsatisfactory if the arbiter's answer is "Play on".

[Kevin Thurlow]

"Having said that, the situation often arises - particularly if it's something like an under-1600 league - where neither captain is familiar with the Laws when all manner of strange things can happen."

You can delete the reference to under 1600 - there are plenty of stronger players that don't know the Laws!

[John Clarke]

My twopennorth.

Scenario 1: if player B has in effect signed off on the result - by accepting the "loss" and shaking hands - then some would say it has to stand. I can remember reading about an incident in (I think) an Olympiad, where one player made a move, declared "stalemate!" and succeeded in extracting a signature on the scoresheet from his bewildered opponent. Subsequent realisation that it wasn't actually stalemate at all was of no effect - there was the signature, and there was the result. In the less formal world of local leagues, though, such rigid application of the rules might cause lingering resentments, especially if it happened in a match between two clubs already having some sort of needle with each other. The fairest outcome here would seem to be to agree a draw, but there's also a case for continuing play from the position prior to the illegal checkmating move.

Scenario 2: no result has been agreed yet, and the game is still - just - in progress when the illegality occurs. So if I understand the laws correctly, there has to be a return to the status quo ante and continuation of the game, perhaps with player A being given a bit of extra time by way of penalising his opponent.

In these sorts of situations, so much can depend on the degree of goodwill between the opposing captains.

[Joey Stewart]

Would say that scenario A is a win for the cheat as the result was agreed but scenario B would likely be contested, as neither player is agreeing to the result and the league management committee should find him guilty and give a full point defeat as punishment.

[NickFaulks]

Would say that scenario A is a win for the cheat

Was there an implication of cheating?

[Ian Thompson]

scenario B would likely be contested, as neither player is agreeing to the result and the league management committee should find him guilty and give a full point defeat as punishment.

Scenario B is a typical example of the difficulties faced by league committees when team captains acting as arbiters don't follow the rules. If the rules were followed, player A should have his clock reset to 2 seconds remaining and then be given an extra 2 minutes for player B's illegal move. The game then continues, most likely with player B losing on time if there was no increment and no possibility of a successful draw claim under the "cannot win by normal means" or "making no effort to win" rules.

What is a league committee supposed to do when they're now ruling on a situation that should never have arisen?

[NickFaulks]

While a captain should never interfere in any way during a game

I have never felt that this is entirely clear cut.

I had a recent case where a player made two illegal moves, in each case moving / leaving the king in check. There were numerous observers, including titled players. I had been asked to adjust the clock after the first one.

I said that the game was over. The other captain claimed that, as you say, we had no right to interfere and the game must continue. My player was winning in any case and agreed, to save trouble, to play on. The game ended a few moves later, but I was clear that the result had already been decided.

[Roger Lancaster]

While a captain should never interfere in any way during a game

I have never felt that this is entirely clear cut.

I had a recent case where a player made two illegal moves, in each case moving / leaving the king in check. There were numerous observers, including titled players. I had been asked to adjust the clock after the first one.

I said that the game was over. The other captain claimed that, as you say, we had no right to interfere and the game must continue. My player was winning in any case and agreed, to save trouble, to play on. The game ended a few moves later, but I was clear that the result had already been decided.

Entirely agree with Nick in that, and I'm assuming these were "completed" illegal moves, the game was over after the second illegal move - and, once a game is over, the question of "interfering" in the game does not arise. Yet another case of a team captain not knowing the Laws of Chess.

[Ian Jamieson]

While a captain should never interfere in any way during a game

I have never felt that this is entirely clear cut.

I had a recent case where a player made two illegal moves, in each case moving / leaving the king in check. There were numerous observers, including titled players. I had been asked to adjust the clock after the first one.

I said that the game was over. The other captain claimed that, as you say, we had no right to interfere and the game must continue. My player was winning in any case and agreed, to save trouble, to play on. The game ended a few moves later, but I was clear that the result had already been decided.

Entirely agree with Nick in that, and I'm assuming these were "completed" illegal moves, the game was over after the second illegal move - and, once a game is over, the question of "interfering" in the game does not arise. Yet another case of a team captain not knowing the Laws of Chess.

Article 7.5.5 says “ … for the first completed illegal move by the player, the arbiter shall give two minutes extra time to his/her opponent; for the second completed illegal move by the same player the arbiter shall declare the game lost by this player …” (my bold)

Unless the league rules specify otherwise I agree with the other captain who claimed that the captains had no right to interfere and the game must continue.

[NickFaulks]

Article 7.5.5 says “ … for the first completed illegal move by the player, the arbiter shall give two minutes extra time to his/her opponent; for the second completed illegal move by the same player the arbiter shall declare the game lost by this player …” (my bold)

Unless the league rules specify otherwise I agree with the other captain who claimed that the captains had no right to interfere and the game must continue.

I have been waiting for someone to say that. This attitude is the cause of many of the problems seen when there is no clearly defined arbiter.

The absence of such an individual does not mean that the Laws of Chess do not apply. It does not, for instance, mean that the players can start moving bishops like knights if they feel so inclined.

[Roger Lancaster]

I have never felt that this is entirely clear cut.

I had a recent case where a player made two illegal moves, in each case moving / leaving the king in check. There were numerous observers, including titled players. I had been asked to adjust the clock after the first one.

I said that the game was over. The other captain claimed that, as you say, we had no right to interfere and the game must continue. My player was winning in any case and agreed, to save trouble, to play on. The game ended a few moves later, but I was clear that the result had already been decided.

Entirely agree with Nick in that, and I'm assuming these were "completed" illegal moves, the game was over after the second illegal move - and, once a game is over, the question of "interfering" in the game does not arise. Yet another case of a team captain not knowing the Laws of Chess.

Article 7.5.5 says “ … for the first completed illegal move by the player, the arbiter shall give two minutes extra time to his/her opponent; for the second completed illegal move by the same player the arbiter shall declare the game lost by this player …” (my bold)

Unless the league rules specify otherwise I agree with the other captain who claimed that the captains had no right to interfere and the game must continue.

The problem, if the two captains aren't acting as joint arbiters, is that there is a range of problems. For example, Article 11 deals with the conduct of players. Improper conduct can be penalised as per 11.6 but penalties as per 12.9 can only be imposed by an arbiter. So, in the absence of an arbiter of some description, players can pretty much do as they please. It's analogous to a Sunday league football match where the referee doesn't turn up. Some ad hoc arrangement has then to be agreed to control the match so that players aren't free to break their opponents' legs.

[Roger Lancaster]

Ian quite rightly points out that, in the case of a second completed illegal move, the game is not lost until the arbiter declares it as such. I stand corrected there. Whether this is equitable outside top-level chess, where an arbiter should be able to decide immediately, seems to me a moot point. Take a typical situation where both players are in acute time trouble and player A completes a second illegal move. Before the arbiter can arrive, but while the game is still "live" as per 7.5.5, player B's flag falls. Common sense suggests that B should get the win as the flag-fall arose only through the arbiter's delay but is that a correct interpretation of the Laws? (I confess to being too idle to check whether the question is answered in the arbiters' manual).

[Dragoljub Sudar]

It is always far simpler if no spectator, especially a captain, interferes.

Let the two players play out their game. Once it is over then point out to your player what should have happened according to the laws. If it means your player loses a game that he or she should have won, he or she will have learnt a valuable lesson.

If someone from team A does interfere, that's when it can get messy. Player B has every right to complain and any agreed solution at the time must not benefit player A.

If the matter cannot be resolved at the time the league management committee should always rule in favour of player B, or at least not in favour of player A.

In the above scenario, if player B points out the illegal move before his or her flag falls then he or she wins. If he or she doesn't claim in the 10 or however number of seconds increment he or she gets then he or she loses.

[Ian Thompson]

In the above scenario, if player B points out the illegal move before his or her flag falls then he or she wins. If he or she doesn't claim in the 10 or however number of seconds increment he or she gets then he or she loses.

The OP makes no mention of an increment. He does say that both players were down to about 2 seconds remaining so we know that if there was an increment it couldn't have been more than 2 seconds a move.

Rules that benefit players who break them are never going to be good rules.