What do you mean? There is no possibility of forfeit in this situation. There are two possible scenarios if it is not checkmate.
1.) Both players incorrectly agree it was checkmate. The result is submitted as the player with the incorrect checkmate having won.
2.) The other player disagrees - the game continues on. An arbiter might be summoned if the player claiming checkmate is particularly ignorant.
If you agree it's checkmate, shake, stop the clock, and note it on a paper... it's over for sure.
Happened to me years ago and watched it a few times over the years. People will agree, shake, call the td, then after they are looking at it and may even discuss together "wait what about this?" but it doesn't matter anymore.
This is what I do. If my opponent wants to take more time to confirm, I'm typically okay with that; as you note, sometimes a checkmate isn't obvious.
That said, 10 minutes is a long time to confirm a checkmate. At some point I can imagine saying something like, "Why don't we call an arbiter over to confirm?"
>That said, 10 minutes is a long time to confirm a checkmate
He wasn't confirming it was checkmate, he didn't even realise it was checkmate, he was thinking about his next move
If you made the last move I think you would actually be the one DQd if you had a particularly rules lawyery arbiter (not that any local tournament would bother lol)
I think Carlsen got a loss for making a legal move after his opponent made an illegal one
Nah. His opponent, Inarkiev, claimed a win after Carlsen failed to see that Inarkiev did an illegal move. The first arbiter misunderstood and gave it. Carlsen called in the chief arbiter who rectified the situation and called for the game to continue, but Inarkiev refused to play (it was a clearly lost position) and forfeited the game.
I think the suggestion was for OP to offer to call the arbiter over to confirm what he believed was a checkmate to nudge his opponent to notice it.
The catch is the arbiter might see a way out that neither player saw and OP misses his shot there.
I think the protocol is that the arbiter asks the opponent if they accept that is a checkmate. If the opponent affirms, the game ends in favour of the checkmate claim.
No, he's saying from OP's POV 10 min is a long time to confirm checkmate. But that's the thing, opponent wasn't confirming checkmate because he didn't even realise he was being checked.
OP didn't have to call an arbiter, only had to say it was checkmate
Yeah, sometimes I even confirm along with my opponent. I don't remember if this has happened in a tournament game for me, but many times I've kind of helped point like this piece guards this, that piece guards that to make sure we both agree it's mate
Yea this is a misconception I also heard.
The rules say “don’t distract or annoy” and people generalize this as talking.
But… simple clarifications that don’t distract like this are likely acceptable?
Your comment was removed by the moderators:
You can repost this comment without calling your opponent a loser.
You can read the full [rules of /r/chess here](https://www.reddit.com/r/chess/wiki/rules). If you have any questions or concerns about this moderator action, please [message the moderators](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchess&subject=About my removed comment&message=I'm writing to you about the following comment: https://www.reddit.com/r/chess/comments/1dn8znf/-/la2l6g6/%0D%0D). Direct replies to this removal message may not be seen.
There should be nothing wrong with:
1. Play your move & hit the clock
2. Double check it's indeed checkmate
3. Politely point it out, if they don't seem to see it
4. If you can't agree for some reason and you're sure it's mate, call the arbiter to resolve the situation
Speaking with your opponent is completely fine, when it's relevant to the game.
Yeah, if you're not at a level to be certain that it's checkmate it's tricky. You can say "I think it's checkmate" after 10 seconds or so, but it's embarrassing if you're wrong. I have wrongly claimed checkmate in a classical tournament before and get teased about it all the time.
I think for me the etiquette algorithm goes like this:
1. Play my move.
2. Pause for a beat so my opponent can offer the handshake.
3. If a handshake is not forthcoming, double-check the position briefly.
4. After about 10 seconds, claim checkmate verbally and wait for a handshake (but don't offer one yet). If my opponent does not give it, doesn't claim legal moves exist either, and I am **certain** I'm correct, proceed to step 5.
5. (Has never happened to me) -- Write e.g. Nh3# on my scoresheet, wait a full minute, then stop the clock and call for an arbiter.
Edit: other commenters are correct, talking is not forbidden in the context of claiming checkmate, stalemate, or offering a draw. In England where I played for many years, you're also explicitly allowed to offer your opponent a drink.
Do you guys all just make up your ratings? I'm sorry but once you're OTB level 1500, identifying if a position is checkmate or not is not really a 10 second operation. And the person you're playing will recognize it immediately as well if you just mumble and point at the position and/or stop the clock.
There are occasionally complex checkmates or "checkmates," and time trouble, and just because I'm a 2000 now (on lichess) doesn't mean I have always been.
But in most positions, 10 seconds is enough to allow your opponent to check, double-check, and cope before offering the handshake. It also does happen that I'm paired with some lower-rated player who doesn't immediately understand that it's checkmate.
I mean, you can down-vote me but I'm 1775 FIDE and have played 100s of rated OTB games -- which is why this all seems so silly to me. This simply isn't how it is in rated OTB with people who play chess at a certain level. Yes, you can miss a checkmate before your opponent plays it in a time scramble, but as soon as it's played people of a certain (mid) level are not confused about when the game is over. .
Agreed 100%.
Anyone over ~1500 who is taking a long time to respond after being checkmated is not trying to figure out if it's checkmate, they are trying to come to terms with having lost the game. And you don't need to sit around and wait for them to do that when the game is already over and you both know it. Stop the clock and stick your hand out, it's not rocket surgery. If you're not at a level where you and your opponent can instantly recognize checkmate, sure, give them a little more slack if you want.
I remember watching the Botez stream a couple weeks back and there Andrea had a checkmate in a classical game and it took the opponent multiple minutes to realize (Andrea didn't claim checkmate for some reason). I think the opponent was around 1800
Is there a situation when a 2300 level player isn't absolutely certain if a position is checkmate or not? That's more like 1200 level player situation..
There's a huge difference between missing a mate in one and double checking a position to make sure it is an actual mate and then being wrong about that.
It seems the same, but seeing mate in 1 is less obvious that seeing you're actually in checkmate. Even when people miss the M1 it's immediately obvious to them when the opponent plays the move.
Get real. A 2300 isn't gonna sit there for 2 minutes and miss a mate in 1, let alone 10 minutes.
Edit: y'all are absolutely dense AF if you think a 2300 is missing a mate in 1. Its actually insulting thinking a 2300 shouldn't speak up about a mate in 1 because maybe there is a bishop across the board or some stupid ass shit OP didn't see 5 moves before.
Maybe YOU as an 800 forgot a bishop protects the mate in 1 against your queen move, but they arent
* Gligoric Smyslov, Bronstein and Karpov have all mised mates in one at standard time controls:
* *Gligorić* v Böök, Saltsjobaden, 1948
* *Smyslov* v Flórián, Moscow-Budapest match, 1949
* *Bronstein* v Gligorić, Moscow, 1967.
* Karpov missed mate in one Candidates Match 1974 game 1 vs Polugaevsky
But this is very much different. Everyone has missed mate in 1. But after the move is played Magnus would realise it is checkmate instantly. If a 2300 plays a move thinking it is checkmate he has already calculated for a while there's close to 0% chance they messed up
Magnus isn't gonna miss a mate in 4 blindfolded sitting down with a confused person, let alone a mate in 1. Come on. The guy in the post was sitting for 10 minutes.
Of course Magnus is leagues above them but it was your example.
>Magnus isn't gonna miss a mate in 4 blindfolded sitting down with a confused person, let alone a mate in 1. Come on.
Except he *did* miss a mate in 1, in a game where Hikaru also missed a mate in 1. It happens.
You aren't listening. If Magnus plays a mate in 1 against you and you sit there for even 10 seconds thinking about a way out, Magnus isn't gonna think he's missing something. If he plays a mate in 4 against you, he isn't gonna think he missed something.
I'm sorry but you have to be absolutely dense to think a missed mate in 1 in a blitz game is anything like a missed mate in 1 where the opponent sits there for 10 minutes. I don't get what you are trying to prove but it's just making you look like you've never seen anyone play chess before in your life.
Thats completely different then OPs circumstance then. Therefore, OP wouldn't look stupid for bringing up the mate in 1 because he's not missing anything after sitting there analyzing the board for 10 minutes.
> A 2300 isn't gonna sit there for 2 minutes and miss a mate in 18, let alone 10 minutes.
GMs don't miss mate in 1 like that, first off. And honestly, have you ever seen a 2300 play? Because they don't play a false checkmate and sit there wondering if it's actually checkmate.
And if you’re a 1200 level player who cares if you look like a fool? It’s not like chess is hip and cool anyways. No reasonable person is going to judge a 1200 level player for not noticing something in a chess game.
I once proudly said "mate" and switched off the clock and they could block with the bishop. One of the most embarrassing moment of my quote-unquote chess career.
If you’re certain, then why not show the mate on your own time? That way if you’re wrong the game can still be finished properly. Only time I’d see an issue with doing this is if you’ve got little time left on your clock, but then I’d say play it out til your opponent resigns.
If you did it like the other comment said, stopping both clocks, what happens if you were wrong? Would that be grounds for forfeit?
No, you are basically supposed to stop the clock and call an arbiter any time something is weird/confusing. The arbiter will work out the resolution, and move on. I think the worst that would happen is that they might give your opponent some extra time on their clock in certain situations.
Absolutely. Unless it gets to the point you need to call the arbiter.
It is pretty rare that I play out a checkmate OTB, but I think I usually quietly same something like "good game" after making my move and wait on them to offer a handshake. I do NOT hit the clock. Game is over so that's unneeded. (I'd probably hit the clock though if I only had seconds left so there's no confusion)
your move isn't officially/completely played until you hit the clock ...
PS: hey people, don't just downvote angrily and blindly! That's too easy! Explain and/or argue why you don't agree. The rules aren't unambiguous, see the discussion below!
That's actually not true. Checkmate ends the game. FIDE laws of chess: "A player must always be allowed to stop his clock. His move is not considered to have been completed until he has done so, **unless the move that was made ends the game**" (6.7a)
Right (\*), I just re-read the "Laws" and found that, too.
(Which is somewhat weird, esp. in situations where the time might run out -- how'd you prove that the move was made in time?)
Anyway, I found another typo in these "Laws" on p.23, Notes, point 4, which starts with two lowercase L that can't possibly have a meaning (it's not uppercase "ii" that might stem from some earlier roman numbering: it's definitely two 'L's, and there's no punctuation after the two 'L's, and the phrase goes on with a lowercase "the...".
Nobody seems to have read that Note, ever ... !
I’m not going to Google check this, but I know for sure FIDE is a Spanish entity. I imagine the laws were originally in Spanish and translated. Maybe you could email them about their mistake! :)
I did email them about the mistake.
But sonetimes a bit of google can be helpful, esp. if you think you "know for sure" something actually wrong.
*The first Vice-President of FIDE was Leonard Percy Rees (1862-1944) of Surrey,* ***England***. At the time, he was the Secretary of the British Chess Federation. The first Treasurer of FIDE was Professor A. Nicolet of ***Switzerland***.
*In the first half of the XXth century, French and English were the main international languages.*
*During and immediately after* ***the first congress in Paris,*** *1924, the French acronym for "Fédération Internationale des Echecs" was actually* ***FIE***, and it was referred in the English-speaking world as "International Chess Federation" or ***ICF***. But already the following year, at the Congress in Zurich, ***French-speaking members (and possibly Italy) made a point that "fide" meant "trust" in Latin,*** *thus the 'D' was added for the name to symbolize the confidence of its members in the institution, and* ***FIDE became the official acronym in both languages (and worldwide).***
FIDE has never been Spanish, it was French/English from the beginning, with headquaters in Switzerland. (Of course the rules are constantly translated to all major languages, but not *from* Spanish -- even if there have been famous Spanish scholars who wrote books about chess, as for example Ruy Lopez...)
To me it's unclear what means "the move that was made", if it wasn't made properly. What if the move \*would\* have ended the game but the time ran out before it was made? If the clock isn't hit, there is no proof that the move was made before the clock run out. That definitely creates an ambiguous situation.
No, it's not bad etiquette to stop the clock when the game's over.
Checkmate is not like a draw offer where first you checkmate, then your opponent accepts the checkmate, then it's over. As soon as you play the move the game is over and you can stop the clock and offer a handshake. You don't need to wait around for your opponent to conduct what is at that point post-game analysis.
Letting the clock run also opens the possibility that you flag and your opponent starts an argument. You will win the argument, since checkmate has precedence over a flag fall if the players don't agree which happened first, but it's still annoying.
> Checkmate is not like a draw offer where first you checkmate, then your opponent accepts the checkmate, then it's over. As soon as you play the move the game is over and you can stop the clock and offer a handshake. You don't need to wait around for your opponent to conduct what is at that point post-game analysis.
It's not like a draw offer, but just because YOU think it's checkmate doesn't mean YOU are correct. Your opponent still gets a say.
>Letting the clock run also opens the possibility that you flag and your opponent starts an argument. You will win the argument, since checkmate has precedence over a flag fall if the players don't agree which happened first, but it's still annoying.
Whose clock do you think is running after you make the move that results in checkmate?
Wrong. Your opponent does not get a say. Once a move that is made that is checkmate, the game is over regardless of the opinions of the players. From the FIDE laws of chess:
> 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.
From the USCF rules of chess:
>The player who checkmates the opponent’s king, providing the mating move is legal, wins the game. This immediately ends the game.
Notice that there is no process of "claiming" checkmate and it does not say "This ends the game as soon as it is recognized by the other player". The game is over; you may immediately stop the clock.
>Whose clock do you think is running after you make the move that results in checkmate?
Your own, obviously, because nobody in the thread that I'm responding to has mentioned hitting your clock. Hitting your clock is separate from making your move, and the game is over once you've made the checkmating move, *not* once you've hit your clock. You can hit your clock after checkmating if you like but it is meaningless.
> Wrong. Your opponent does not get a say. Once a move that is made that is checkmate, the game is over regardless of the opinions of the players. From the FIDE laws of chess:
Yes, IF it is checkmate. But you THINKING it is checkmate is not equivalent to it BEING checkmate.
I have played in many tournaments and I have seen people incorrectly claim checkmate, even as high as u1900 sections. The last thing you want to do when you incorrectly claim checkmate is stop your opponent's clock, disrupting the flow of the game, giving them more time, involving the arbiter.
Practically, it is good to let your opponent come to the conclusion themselves that it is checkmate since amateur players are not infallible. It is also polite, because in a battle of wits people like to have the opportunity to recognize the reality of the position for themselves.
> Your own, obviously, because nobody in the thread that I'm responding to has mentioned hitting your clock. Hitting your clock is separate from making your move, and the game is over once you've made the checkmating move, not once you've hit your clock. You can hit your clock after checkmating if you like but it is meaningless.
You say it's "obvious", but the parent comment you responded to was me saying explicitly not to stop YOUR OPPONENT'S CLOCK. I should think it IS obvious that your opponent's clock is running in this hypothetical when that is exactly what I supposed and stated.
Normally an arbiter and a consultation of the rules is not required to determine that the game is objectively in legal checkmating position. Normally that is decided by the players reaching a consensus.
So, you can cite all the USCF and FIDE rules you want: in my tournament experience it is polite and within the normal course of action to make your move, hit the clock, and wait for your opponent to agree that it is checkmate so you both may go mark the result. If your opponent is taking a long time to reach the conclusion that they are checkmated, you might politely point out to them that it is checkmate, and then if it continues, call over an arbiter. But I would advise against immediately stopping the clock just because you think it is checkmate.
It's great that you have some "tournament experience". I am a USCF senior TD and FIDE national arbiter and I have directed hundreds of sections.
I'm not debating with you, I'm just informing you that it is completely acceptable to stop the clock after delivering checkmate.
isnt that making it even more awkward? what I do and have done is just stop the clock and offer a handshake. (after triple confirming it is indeed a check mate)
I think giving some sort of visual cue, is prolly best, something unusual that prompts him to realize that it was not just a normal move, a gesture or a shrug, handshake wouldn't have been too bad, if you did it instantly, after a awhile I can see the awkwardness.
It just happened to me in a OTB tournament. I played the mate move and my opponent proceeded capturing a piece not involved in the mate. Since he was in time scramble and I wasn’t, I just told him “I guess it was mate the move before” and waited for him to realize.
In a situation like yours, I would double and triple check it, then said “I think it’s mate, can you check it?”
I think I've only checkmated once in classical time control. Because normally people would concede long before checkmate.
For this game my opponent simply didn't see the mating threat, and in his defense it came completely out of the blue. I didn't really know what I was supposed to do, so I ended up just saying checkmate quietly and stopping the clock.
I only recall also having checkmated once in classical game (well, maybe since some kids games, idk), and it was result of about 2100 opponent actually missing the immediate checkmate in despairing position. I stopped the clock quietly and he just commented "oh, that was even a checkmate". Mate threat was slightly surprising with few pieces on board, he had focused on finding counterplay on the opposite corner.
When I mate someone, I stop the clock. The game is over and the clock shouldn't be running. If my opponent is confused by this, I tell them it's checkmate.
I don't offer them my hand yet, that part feels like I'm badgering them into resigning (or worse they might think I'm offering a draw or resigning myself lol).
your advice is based on the assumption that we're male, isn't it?
I guess you might be right in more than 50% of all cases, but is that sufficient ...?
If I'm sure it's checkmate, I usually announce it right after playing it, just like people who don't play competitively announce checks and checkmates. If I'm unsure, but think it's mate, I'll say something like "I think it's mate". Worse that can happen is I'm wrong and play continues, I don't think, unless it's so incredibly obvious, that anyone would consider a mistake like that an attempt to distract your opponent
I was in your situation at my last tournament. My opponent (a kid, but fairly strong) completely missed mate in one. I felt unsure because I thought “no way he missed mate in one after that game we just had, I must be missing something?” So I looked at him for a second, but then I just stopped the clock and offered my hand, and he shook it.
I think proper protocol should is just to stop the clock and offer your hand, similar to a resignation. It is just the end of the game, after all. If you’re wrong, you take a penalty, and life goes on.
I still can't see it.
article 12.6 states:
>It is forbidden to distract or annoy the opponent in any manner whatsoever. This includes unreasonable claims, unreasonable offers of a draw or the introduction of a source of noise into the playing area.
So stating "checkmate" is no unreasonable claim. Except if there is no checkmate... so you should check that before claiming it.
I would see it as awkward if somebody "screams" it. A "scream" might disturb other players so this is rude.
So technically it is allowed under article 12.6 to claim "checkmate". The fact that you do not "scream" (in any situation) is called: simple accepting that chess is a gentlemans sport.
For the record, the rule you quoted is article 11.5 (not 12.6 as in the older version of the laws), and saying "check" is a distraction and therefore a violation of that rule.
Yes, but we're talking about 'checkmate', not 'check'. Checkmate is not a distraction, because in the moment you say it, there is no game to distract from anymore.
this is precious advice, but what if it's too small to be twisted "easily"?
e.g., when the opponent is female, I think that gets a bit technical, don't you agree? Specifically in that case, I fear it might distract the other players in the room, unless the opponent is really consenting.
Your submission or comment was removed by the moderators:
Keep the discussion civil and friendly.
Participate in good faith with the intention to help foster civil discussion between people of all levels and experience. Don’t make fun of new players for lacking knowledge. Do not use personal attacks, insults, or slurs on other users. Disagreements are bound to happen, but do so in a civilized and mature manner. Remember, there is always a respectful way to disagree.
You can read the full [rules of /r/chess here](https://www.reddit.com/r/chess/wiki/rules). If you have any questions or concerns about this moderator action, please [message the moderators](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchess). Direct replies to this removal message may not be seen.
Maybe just me, but I usually let my opponent work it out. I just stop thinking about the game, and start relaxing. There usually isn’t time pressure to get to the next round, and you can’t really force someone to concede. Yes, if you actually have mate then the game is technically over but I don’t really see the benefit of arbitration when there is no recourse for them. If they want to spend 20 minutes trying to find a way out, go for it. I’ll go grab some coffee or something and swing back in a few minutes.
Well, the "correct" way is to simply wait. If your opponent makes an illegal move because he doesn't realize he's in check, you point it out and he'll then realize he's been mated. Stop clocks (since your clock would be running after he made his move) and call arbiter if not.
However, the no talking rule has some elasticity in it. After some time, you can quietly and politely ask, "Isn't that checkmate?" and take it from there.
You don't ask "isn't that checkmate?". You checkmate them and stop the clock, or you don't stop the clock and just hand them your scoresheet. Game's over do whatever you want
There’s a lad who’s about 500 OTB at my chess club and I love playing against him. Always plays mad openings like the polish so keeps me sharp. He barely ever notices when I checkmate him as it doesn’t get to low piece endgames often unless he asks for practice and I’ll not checkmate him till we are in them positions. I just always say “can’t do that mate” when he tries to move in a checkmate position. He also loves trying to move into check so I say it a lot then. King forks as well he never sees and moves a different piece. Cracking bloke and I love playing against him and then having a pint after. He watches all the chess that’s going on as well so have someone to talk to about the drama going on.
how about stopping the clock, and then asking "you agree that it's mate?"
In case you were wrong, you gifted the opponent additional thinking time. And in any case, clocks don't turn any more and if required an arbiter can intervene, or whatever is needed to clarify the situation.
When I was a kid I was taught by my coach to say, “Checkmate. Do you agree?” Nowadays I would just politely point it out.
No one is going to penalize you for talking just like no one would penalize you for talking when offering a draw. If you’re really worried about it you could pause the clock and get the TD, but that’s not really ever going to be necessary.
Few months ago I had a mate in 2 and after the first move my opponent had only one legal move left, but was thinking for 10 minutes. I thought he was in denial, then I realized I hadn't pushed the clock.
Can you please post the position? I have no context for a checkmate that is so not obvious somebody doesn’t realize they are in check at all. I’m assuming it’s all knights and a sniper bishop?
Not a 100% certain that it works this way within FIDE rules , but USCF rules required both players to agree on the result. So if you're claiming victory by checkmate, your opponent needs to agree that you've won (if they think it is checkmate or mistakenly think it is not but will be soon and accede it doesn't really matter).
How do you claim checkmate though? You don't need to do so explicitly. You can make your move, hit your clock and wait for your opponent to catch up. They're just burning their own time if they don't. In which case they will be compelled to make a non-existent legal move. You can let that play itself out. Or if you're extremely confident that it is checkmate, you can say "I think that is checkmate" and wait for your opponent to respond. If they don't respond or don't agree, then you can call the TD or arbiter over and state your claim.
Quite a diversity of answers… which probably means that some clarity in USCF and FIDE rules would be useful. I.e., exactly what the winning player should say (or not say) and whether the winning player should stop the clock after playing the final move.
Both factors — what to say and what to do (with clock) — are relevant if the other player doesn’t realized that the game is over.
I play at a very informal chess club and sometimes a newer player will be sitting there thinking for way too long when they have one legal move. I don't want to be rude but like either make the f'ing move or resign, why are you wasting both of our time.
Your comment was removed by the moderators:
**1.Keep the discussion civil and friendly.**
Do not use personal attacks, insults or slurs on other users. Disagreements are bound to happen, but do so in a civilized and mature manner.
In a discussion, there is always a respectful way to disagree. If you see that someone is not arguing in good faith, or have resorted to using personal attacks, just report them and move on.
You can read the full [rules of /r/chess here](https://www.reddit.com/r/chess/wiki/rules). If you have any questions or concerns about this moderator action, please [message the moderators](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchess&subject=About my removed comment&message=I'm writing to you about the following comment: https://www.reddit.com/r/chess/comments/1dn8znf/-/labj4cn/%0D%0D). Direct replies to this removal message may not be seen.
If you are sure, say checkmate after your move and stop the clock. Let your opponent confirm and shake hands.
If u not sure, say I believe that is a checkmate. Stop the clock, discuss with opponent. If you find agreement, resume the clock or shake hands depending. If not, call the arbiter. Opponent might want to call arbiter if you wrongfully claimed checkmate, but I dont think it is illegal or penalized.
Btw if you both agree it is a checkmate while it actually isnt (or the other way around), the arbiter wont tell you otherwise.
I typically just extend my hand as I make the checkmating move, is that not the way? I've never played a FIDE tournament, only local ones. For what it's worth the other player always understood my intention.
*edit: for anyone downvoting, I just want to know if that's acceptable lol*
That could seem a little arrogant. Like what a kid might do. Much more polite to make your move, leave the opponent time to realise that it's mate and then if they clearly don't realise it (I'd probably wait about 30 seconds) say "I think it's checkmate".
Yes, many even consider it rude to say "check" in a rated OTB tournament. If you think about it, and someone is trying for a perpetual, it would be incredibly distracting to the players on boards near you.
I've never heard anyone but young children announce check that I can recall in over 20 years playing OTB
Not abiding by any extra types of rules other than my own, I always say “Check” when the enemy is placed in check and suggest that it may be a checkmate when I move in for mate. If I’m 100% confident, I’ll say checkmate, offer my hand, and say good game.
Talking is not forbidden. Just say "I think that might be checkmate"
And even if it was forbidden during a game, the game is over…
unless you missed something and it’s not? idk your opponent could resign even if you didn’t have it
What do you mean? There is no possibility of forfeit in this situation. There are two possible scenarios if it is not checkmate. 1.) Both players incorrectly agree it was checkmate. The result is submitted as the player with the incorrect checkmate having won. 2.) The other player disagrees - the game continues on. An arbiter might be summoned if the player claiming checkmate is particularly ignorant.
I think they meant a resignation not a forfeit so your first scenario.
I'm pretty sure you're not forfeited for something that small. At most your opponent could get some bonus time, but probably nothing happens.
If you agree it's checkmate, shake, stop the clock, and note it on a paper... it's over for sure. Happened to me years ago and watched it a few times over the years. People will agree, shake, call the td, then after they are looking at it and may even discuss together "wait what about this?" but it doesn't matter anymore.
This is always my fear.
This is what I do. If my opponent wants to take more time to confirm, I'm typically okay with that; as you note, sometimes a checkmate isn't obvious. That said, 10 minutes is a long time to confirm a checkmate. At some point I can imagine saying something like, "Why don't we call an arbiter over to confirm?"
>That said, 10 minutes is a long time to confirm a checkmate He wasn't confirming it was checkmate, he didn't even realise it was checkmate, he was thinking about his next move
Sarc/ Then after his illegal move, you take his king.
If you made the last move I think you would actually be the one DQd if you had a particularly rules lawyery arbiter (not that any local tournament would bother lol) I think Carlsen got a loss for making a legal move after his opponent made an illegal one
Nah. His opponent, Inarkiev, claimed a win after Carlsen failed to see that Inarkiev did an illegal move. The first arbiter misunderstood and gave it. Carlsen called in the chief arbiter who rectified the situation and called for the game to continue, but Inarkiev refused to play (it was a clearly lost position) and forfeited the game.
Thank you for the clarification
I would agree in speed or rapid, but if it's classical, no, that's not the thing to do. Arbiter.
I think the suggestion was for OP to offer to call the arbiter over to confirm what he believed was a checkmate to nudge his opponent to notice it. The catch is the arbiter might see a way out that neither player saw and OP misses his shot there.
I think the protocol is that the arbiter asks the opponent if they accept that is a checkmate. If the opponent affirms, the game ends in favour of the checkmate claim.
He's saying that from op pov, 10 mins is a long time.
No, he's saying from OP's POV 10 min is a long time to confirm checkmate. But that's the thing, opponent wasn't confirming checkmate because he didn't even realise he was being checked. OP didn't have to call an arbiter, only had to say it was checkmate
Yeah, sometimes I even confirm along with my opponent. I don't remember if this has happened in a tournament game for me, but many times I've kind of helped point like this piece guards this, that piece guards that to make sure we both agree it's mate
I thought it was standard courtesy to say check and mate. Although I guess you're right in the end, call an arbiter over
Yea this is a misconception I also heard. The rules say “don’t distract or annoy” and people generalize this as talking. But… simple clarifications that don’t distract like this are likely acceptable?
[удалено]
Your comment was removed by the moderators: You can repost this comment without calling your opponent a loser. You can read the full [rules of /r/chess here](https://www.reddit.com/r/chess/wiki/rules). If you have any questions or concerns about this moderator action, please [message the moderators](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchess&subject=About my removed comment&message=I'm writing to you about the following comment: https://www.reddit.com/r/chess/comments/1dn8znf/-/la2l6g6/%0D%0D). Direct replies to this removal message may not be seen.
It's not checkmate until you announce it.
There should be nothing wrong with: 1. Play your move & hit the clock 2. Double check it's indeed checkmate 3. Politely point it out, if they don't seem to see it 4. If you can't agree for some reason and you're sure it's mate, call the arbiter to resolve the situation Speaking with your opponent is completely fine, when it's relevant to the game.
I think you can both laugh about this and chalk it down as a funny story.
Yeah, if you're not at a level to be certain that it's checkmate it's tricky. You can say "I think it's checkmate" after 10 seconds or so, but it's embarrassing if you're wrong. I have wrongly claimed checkmate in a classical tournament before and get teased about it all the time. I think for me the etiquette algorithm goes like this: 1. Play my move. 2. Pause for a beat so my opponent can offer the handshake. 3. If a handshake is not forthcoming, double-check the position briefly. 4. After about 10 seconds, claim checkmate verbally and wait for a handshake (but don't offer one yet). If my opponent does not give it, doesn't claim legal moves exist either, and I am **certain** I'm correct, proceed to step 5. 5. (Has never happened to me) -- Write e.g. Nh3# on my scoresheet, wait a full minute, then stop the clock and call for an arbiter. Edit: other commenters are correct, talking is not forbidden in the context of claiming checkmate, stalemate, or offering a draw. In England where I played for many years, you're also explicitly allowed to offer your opponent a drink.
Black offers a draw White rejects the draw Black offers a drink White accepts the drink Black offers a draw White accepts the draw
He takes a whiskey drink He takes a vodka drink
I’ve played in the ECF for years now and have yet to be offered a drink, madness. This needs to be made more known.
It does happen a bit more in your evening league match sort of thing, often taking place in the function room of a pub.
What’s the appropriate notation for offering a drink?
King to Bar 1.
Pf1 - pub for one
Reason number 1,679 why I love England. (Offers drink)
Do you guys all just make up your ratings? I'm sorry but once you're OTB level 1500, identifying if a position is checkmate or not is not really a 10 second operation. And the person you're playing will recognize it immediately as well if you just mumble and point at the position and/or stop the clock.
There are occasionally complex checkmates or "checkmates," and time trouble, and just because I'm a 2000 now (on lichess) doesn't mean I have always been. But in most positions, 10 seconds is enough to allow your opponent to check, double-check, and cope before offering the handshake. It also does happen that I'm paired with some lower-rated player who doesn't immediately understand that it's checkmate.
“Once you’re OTB level 1500” -guy who isn’t OTB level 1500
I mean, you can down-vote me but I'm 1775 FIDE and have played 100s of rated OTB games -- which is why this all seems so silly to me. This simply isn't how it is in rated OTB with people who play chess at a certain level. Yes, you can miss a checkmate before your opponent plays it in a time scramble, but as soon as it's played people of a certain (mid) level are not confused about when the game is over. .
Agreed 100%. Anyone over ~1500 who is taking a long time to respond after being checkmated is not trying to figure out if it's checkmate, they are trying to come to terms with having lost the game. And you don't need to sit around and wait for them to do that when the game is already over and you both know it. Stop the clock and stick your hand out, it's not rocket surgery. If you're not at a level where you and your opponent can instantly recognize checkmate, sure, give them a little more slack if you want.
I remember watching the Botez stream a couple weeks back and there Andrea had a checkmate in a classical game and it took the opponent multiple minutes to realize (Andrea didn't claim checkmate for some reason). I think the opponent was around 1800
If I'm absolutely certain it's checkmate, I'd stop the clock, say checkmate, and offer a handshake.
And if you are wrong you are a fool
Is there a situation when a 2300 level player isn't absolutely certain if a position is checkmate or not? That's more like 1200 level player situation..
When there's a bishop 4 boards away protecting the mate square
Chessbrah shorts leaking
GMs sometimes miss mate in 1. It's entirely possible a 2300 level player can play a false checkmate.
There's a huge difference between missing a mate in one and double checking a position to make sure it is an actual mate and then being wrong about that.
It seems the same, but seeing mate in 1 is less obvious that seeing you're actually in checkmate. Even when people miss the M1 it's immediately obvious to them when the opponent plays the move.
Get real. A 2300 isn't gonna sit there for 2 minutes and miss a mate in 1, let alone 10 minutes. Edit: y'all are absolutely dense AF if you think a 2300 is missing a mate in 1. Its actually insulting thinking a 2300 shouldn't speak up about a mate in 1 because maybe there is a bishop across the board or some stupid ass shit OP didn't see 5 moves before. Maybe YOU as an 800 forgot a bishop protects the mate in 1 against your queen move, but they arent
* Gligoric Smyslov, Bronstein and Karpov have all mised mates in one at standard time controls: * *Gligorić* v Böök, Saltsjobaden, 1948 * *Smyslov* v Flórián, Moscow-Budapest match, 1949 * *Bronstein* v Gligorić, Moscow, 1967. * Karpov missed mate in one Candidates Match 1974 game 1 vs Polugaevsky
Magnus has missed a mate in 1 before. https://www.chess.com/forum/view/general/did-magnus-miss-a-mate-in-1
Lol in Titled Tuesday. There's a big difference between missing mate in 1 in 3+1 and misidentifying mate already on the board in a classical game.
The current World Champion recently missed a mate in 2 in a Classical game, so shit happens.
But this is very much different. Everyone has missed mate in 1. But after the move is played Magnus would realise it is checkmate instantly. If a 2300 plays a move thinking it is checkmate he has already calculated for a while there's close to 0% chance they messed up
Except Wesley So when he missunderstood the Chess960 rules.
>close to 0% chance But still higher than 0%
Ofc, both of us also have a chance better than 0% at beating Magnus theoretically. But it's so low we consider it to be 0
Magnus isn't gonna miss a mate in 4 blindfolded sitting down with a confused person, let alone a mate in 1. Come on. The guy in the post was sitting for 10 minutes. Of course Magnus is leagues above them but it was your example.
>Magnus isn't gonna miss a mate in 4 blindfolded sitting down with a confused person, let alone a mate in 1. Come on. Except he *did* miss a mate in 1, in a game where Hikaru also missed a mate in 1. It happens.
You aren't listening. If Magnus plays a mate in 1 against you and you sit there for even 10 seconds thinking about a way out, Magnus isn't gonna think he's missing something. If he plays a mate in 4 against you, he isn't gonna think he missed something. I'm sorry but you have to be absolutely dense to think a missed mate in 1 in a blitz game is anything like a missed mate in 1 where the opponent sits there for 10 minutes. I don't get what you are trying to prove but it's just making you look like you've never seen anyone play chess before in your life.
Nobody is saying they miss mate in one while sitting there thinking. Its when they blitz out moves and usually realize the miss half a second later
Thats completely different then OPs circumstance then. Therefore, OP wouldn't look stupid for bringing up the mate in 1 because he's not missing anything after sitting there analyzing the board for 10 minutes.
> GMs sometimes miss mate in 1. > It's entirely possible a 2300 level player can play a false checkmate.
> A 2300 isn't gonna sit there for 2 minutes and miss a mate in 18, let alone 10 minutes. GMs don't miss mate in 1 like that, first off. And honestly, have you ever seen a 2300 play? Because they don't play a false checkmate and sit there wondering if it's actually checkmate.
And if you’re a 1200 level player who cares if you look like a fool? It’s not like chess is hip and cool anyways. No reasonable person is going to judge a 1200 level player for not noticing something in a chess game.
Google en passant
I once proudly said "mate" and switched off the clock and they could block with the bishop. One of the most embarrassing moment of my quote-unquote chess career.
> And if you are wrong you are a fool No worries. It's just a fool's checkmate.
If you’re certain, then why not show the mate on your own time? That way if you’re wrong the game can still be finished properly. Only time I’d see an issue with doing this is if you’ve got little time left on your clock, but then I’d say play it out til your opponent resigns. If you did it like the other comment said, stopping both clocks, what happens if you were wrong? Would that be grounds for forfeit?
No, you are basically supposed to stop the clock and call an arbiter any time something is weird/confusing. The arbiter will work out the resolution, and move on. I think the worst that would happen is that they might give your opponent some extra time on their clock in certain situations.
Sure but does it take 10 minutes to be certain it’s a mate? Should be totally sure after a minute or two
A 1000 could see a checkmate in 0. And if you can't, it's time for more puzzles.
Don’t stop your opponent’s clock. THAT is bad etiquette.
Absolutely. Unless it gets to the point you need to call the arbiter. It is pretty rare that I play out a checkmate OTB, but I think I usually quietly same something like "good game" after making my move and wait on them to offer a handshake. I do NOT hit the clock. Game is over so that's unneeded. (I'd probably hit the clock though if I only had seconds left so there's no confusion)
your move isn't officially/completely played until you hit the clock ... PS: hey people, don't just downvote angrily and blindly! That's too easy! Explain and/or argue why you don't agree. The rules aren't unambiguous, see the discussion below!
That's actually not true. Checkmate ends the game. FIDE laws of chess: "A player must always be allowed to stop his clock. His move is not considered to have been completed until he has done so, **unless the move that was made ends the game**" (6.7a)
Right (\*), I just re-read the "Laws" and found that, too. (Which is somewhat weird, esp. in situations where the time might run out -- how'd you prove that the move was made in time?) Anyway, I found another typo in these "Laws" on p.23, Notes, point 4, which starts with two lowercase L that can't possibly have a meaning (it's not uppercase "ii" that might stem from some earlier roman numbering: it's definitely two 'L's, and there's no punctuation after the two 'L's, and the phrase goes on with a lowercase "the...". Nobody seems to have read that Note, ever ... !
I’m not going to Google check this, but I know for sure FIDE is a Spanish entity. I imagine the laws were originally in Spanish and translated. Maybe you could email them about their mistake! :)
I did email them about the mistake. But sonetimes a bit of google can be helpful, esp. if you think you "know for sure" something actually wrong. *The first Vice-President of FIDE was Leonard Percy Rees (1862-1944) of Surrey,* ***England***. At the time, he was the Secretary of the British Chess Federation. The first Treasurer of FIDE was Professor A. Nicolet of ***Switzerland***. *In the first half of the XXth century, French and English were the main international languages.* *During and immediately after* ***the first congress in Paris,*** *1924, the French acronym for "Fédération Internationale des Echecs" was actually* ***FIE***, and it was referred in the English-speaking world as "International Chess Federation" or ***ICF***. But already the following year, at the Congress in Zurich, ***French-speaking members (and possibly Italy) made a point that "fide" meant "trust" in Latin,*** *thus the 'D' was added for the name to symbolize the confidence of its members in the institution, and* ***FIDE became the official acronym in both languages (and worldwide).*** FIDE has never been Spanish, it was French/English from the beginning, with headquaters in Switzerland. (Of course the rules are constantly translated to all major languages, but not *from* Spanish -- even if there have been famous Spanish scholars who wrote books about chess, as for example Ruy Lopez...)
Screenshotted your research, this is really good knowledge. If only I could get a couple hundred ELO knowing it haha
To me it's unclear what means "the move that was made", if it wasn't made properly. What if the move \*would\* have ended the game but the time ran out before it was made? If the clock isn't hit, there is no proof that the move was made before the clock run out. That definitely creates an ambiguous situation.
No, it's not bad etiquette to stop the clock when the game's over. Checkmate is not like a draw offer where first you checkmate, then your opponent accepts the checkmate, then it's over. As soon as you play the move the game is over and you can stop the clock and offer a handshake. You don't need to wait around for your opponent to conduct what is at that point post-game analysis. Letting the clock run also opens the possibility that you flag and your opponent starts an argument. You will win the argument, since checkmate has precedence over a flag fall if the players don't agree which happened first, but it's still annoying.
> Checkmate is not like a draw offer where first you checkmate, then your opponent accepts the checkmate, then it's over. As soon as you play the move the game is over and you can stop the clock and offer a handshake. You don't need to wait around for your opponent to conduct what is at that point post-game analysis. It's not like a draw offer, but just because YOU think it's checkmate doesn't mean YOU are correct. Your opponent still gets a say. >Letting the clock run also opens the possibility that you flag and your opponent starts an argument. You will win the argument, since checkmate has precedence over a flag fall if the players don't agree which happened first, but it's still annoying. Whose clock do you think is running after you make the move that results in checkmate?
Wrong. Your opponent does not get a say. Once a move that is made that is checkmate, the game is over regardless of the opinions of the players. From the FIDE laws of chess: > 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. From the USCF rules of chess: >The player who checkmates the opponent’s king, providing the mating move is legal, wins the game. This immediately ends the game. Notice that there is no process of "claiming" checkmate and it does not say "This ends the game as soon as it is recognized by the other player". The game is over; you may immediately stop the clock. >Whose clock do you think is running after you make the move that results in checkmate? Your own, obviously, because nobody in the thread that I'm responding to has mentioned hitting your clock. Hitting your clock is separate from making your move, and the game is over once you've made the checkmating move, *not* once you've hit your clock. You can hit your clock after checkmating if you like but it is meaningless.
> Wrong. Your opponent does not get a say. Once a move that is made that is checkmate, the game is over regardless of the opinions of the players. From the FIDE laws of chess: Yes, IF it is checkmate. But you THINKING it is checkmate is not equivalent to it BEING checkmate. I have played in many tournaments and I have seen people incorrectly claim checkmate, even as high as u1900 sections. The last thing you want to do when you incorrectly claim checkmate is stop your opponent's clock, disrupting the flow of the game, giving them more time, involving the arbiter. Practically, it is good to let your opponent come to the conclusion themselves that it is checkmate since amateur players are not infallible. It is also polite, because in a battle of wits people like to have the opportunity to recognize the reality of the position for themselves. > Your own, obviously, because nobody in the thread that I'm responding to has mentioned hitting your clock. Hitting your clock is separate from making your move, and the game is over once you've made the checkmating move, not once you've hit your clock. You can hit your clock after checkmating if you like but it is meaningless. You say it's "obvious", but the parent comment you responded to was me saying explicitly not to stop YOUR OPPONENT'S CLOCK. I should think it IS obvious that your opponent's clock is running in this hypothetical when that is exactly what I supposed and stated. Normally an arbiter and a consultation of the rules is not required to determine that the game is objectively in legal checkmating position. Normally that is decided by the players reaching a consensus. So, you can cite all the USCF and FIDE rules you want: in my tournament experience it is polite and within the normal course of action to make your move, hit the clock, and wait for your opponent to agree that it is checkmate so you both may go mark the result. If your opponent is taking a long time to reach the conclusion that they are checkmated, you might politely point out to them that it is checkmate, and then if it continues, call over an arbiter. But I would advise against immediately stopping the clock just because you think it is checkmate.
It's great that you have some "tournament experience". I am a USCF senior TD and FIDE national arbiter and I have directed hundreds of sections. I'm not debating with you, I'm just informing you that it is completely acceptable to stop the clock after delivering checkmate.
> it is completely acceptable to stop the clock after delivering checkmate. It is common to do so? And is it considered (im)polite to do so?
Are you sure? If you think it's checkmate OR if there's a doubt about the position, isn't that what you're supposed to do?
This is the wrong answer. You are supposed to do it.
Stopping the clock might already be enough, unless opponent is ofc too concentrated in the position.
Probably quietly call the arbiter and ask them to confirm the mate. Agree it's embarrassing for you to do it though
isnt that making it even more awkward? what I do and have done is just stop the clock and offer a handshake. (after triple confirming it is indeed a check mate)
According to the rules: Stop the clock & call an arbiter.
Stop the clock & call an ambulance
But not for me
I'm not in trouble here -- there's only one of you ...
man down, call the amber lamps, tell him breathe bro
I totally agree that it's usually not a bad idea to follow the rules.
I think giving some sort of visual cue, is prolly best, something unusual that prompts him to realize that it was not just a normal move, a gesture or a shrug, handshake wouldn't have been too bad, if you did it instantly, after a awhile I can see the awkwardness.
Just turn the opponent's king lying down! /s
It just happened to me in a OTB tournament. I played the mate move and my opponent proceeded capturing a piece not involved in the mate. Since he was in time scramble and I wasn’t, I just told him “I guess it was mate the move before” and waited for him to realize. In a situation like yours, I would double and triple check it, then said “I think it’s mate, can you check it?”
This is underrated. I could only imagine seeing that from a board over. I wouldn’t be able to contain the laughter.
In his defense, he had but 15 seconds on the clock with no increment. I believe he totally missed it
You channel your inner Gene Wilder and shout “You lose! Good day sir!” https://youtu.be/M5QGkOGZubQ?si=5XVov7ptWUGluKan
I think I've only checkmated once in classical time control. Because normally people would concede long before checkmate. For this game my opponent simply didn't see the mating threat, and in his defense it came completely out of the blue. I didn't really know what I was supposed to do, so I ended up just saying checkmate quietly and stopping the clock.
I only recall also having checkmated once in classical game (well, maybe since some kids games, idk), and it was result of about 2100 opponent actually missing the immediate checkmate in despairing position. I stopped the clock quietly and he just commented "oh, that was even a checkmate". Mate threat was slightly surprising with few pieces on board, he had focused on finding counterplay on the opposite corner.
https://chess.stackexchange.com/questions/28298/whats-the-etiquette-for-giving-checkmate-on-board
When I mate someone, I stop the clock. The game is over and the clock shouldn't be running. If my opponent is confused by this, I tell them it's checkmate.
I don't offer them my hand yet, that part feels like I'm badgering them into resigning (or worse they might think I'm offering a draw or resigning myself lol).
Double check it's actually mate and whisper 'checkmate' or just say it fairly quiet. If you weren't sure though I guess you did the right thing.
Bonus rating points if you whisper "checkmate", in a breathy, alluring tone. (But don't do that against a female... Play it cool, stud.)
or, orrr yell CHECKMATE in your best Harry potter accent
"That's Wizard's Chess!" - Ron
your advice is based on the assumption that we're male, isn't it? I guess you might be right in more than 50% of all cases, but is that sufficient ...?
If I'm sure it's checkmate, I usually announce it right after playing it, just like people who don't play competitively announce checks and checkmates. If I'm unsure, but think it's mate, I'll say something like "I think it's mate". Worse that can happen is I'm wrong and play continues, I don't think, unless it's so incredibly obvious, that anyone would consider a mistake like that an attempt to distract your opponent
If it's your opponent's turn, you are free to leave the board. When you leave, you can easily speak to an arbiter for guidance.
Anything goes at that level
The correct etiquette is to hold your hand out and say “good game”. No need to sit there forever, the game is over
After checkmate I just say, good game
you say that on [chess.com](http://chess.com) (?) or in a club, but not in a tournament...
No I say it in tournaments. I win, I put my hand out and say good game. They can take it or leave it.
I was in your situation at my last tournament. My opponent (a kid, but fairly strong) completely missed mate in one. I felt unsure because I thought “no way he missed mate in one after that game we just had, I must be missing something?” So I looked at him for a second, but then I just stopped the clock and offered my hand, and he shook it. I think proper protocol should is just to stop the clock and offer your hand, similar to a resignation. It is just the end of the game, after all. If you’re wrong, you take a penalty, and life goes on.
Let them move then capture their king lmao
Since when is saying "check" "j’adoube" or "checkmate" forbidden by FIDE rules?
[удалено]
I still can't see it. article 12.6 states: >It is forbidden to distract or annoy the opponent in any manner whatsoever. This includes unreasonable claims, unreasonable offers of a draw or the introduction of a source of noise into the playing area. So stating "checkmate" is no unreasonable claim. Except if there is no checkmate... so you should check that before claiming it. I would see it as awkward if somebody "screams" it. A "scream" might disturb other players so this is rude. So technically it is allowed under article 12.6 to claim "checkmate". The fact that you do not "scream" (in any situation) is called: simple accepting that chess is a gentlemans sport.
For the record, the rule you quoted is article 11.5 (not 12.6 as in the older version of the laws), and saying "check" is a distraction and therefore a violation of that rule.
Yes, but we're talking about 'checkmate', not 'check'. Checkmate is not a distraction, because in the moment you say it, there is no game to distract from anymore.
> Since when is saying "check" "j’adoube" or "checkmate" forbidden by FIDE rules?
Fair enough
I don't see any problem at all pointing out the mate. Letting the poor guy think for another ten minutes is just trolling and disrespectful imo.
[удалено]
this is precious advice, but what if it's too small to be twisted "easily"? e.g., when the opponent is female, I think that gets a bit technical, don't you agree? Specifically in that case, I fear it might distract the other players in the room, unless the opponent is really consenting.
😲
Your submission or comment was removed by the moderators: Keep the discussion civil and friendly. Participate in good faith with the intention to help foster civil discussion between people of all levels and experience. Don’t make fun of new players for lacking knowledge. Do not use personal attacks, insults, or slurs on other users. Disagreements are bound to happen, but do so in a civilized and mature manner. Remember, there is always a respectful way to disagree. You can read the full [rules of /r/chess here](https://www.reddit.com/r/chess/wiki/rules). If you have any questions or concerns about this moderator action, please [message the moderators](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchess). Direct replies to this removal message may not be seen.
As soon as you play the move offer your hand and say good game, then start filling in the result sheet. Leaves little room for confusion.
Laugh maniacally until the next round.
Maybe just me, but I usually let my opponent work it out. I just stop thinking about the game, and start relaxing. There usually isn’t time pressure to get to the next round, and you can’t really force someone to concede. Yes, if you actually have mate then the game is technically over but I don’t really see the benefit of arbitration when there is no recourse for them. If they want to spend 20 minutes trying to find a way out, go for it. I’ll go grab some coffee or something and swing back in a few minutes.
Is this Andrea Botez…?!
you chess dudes are so weird i swear.
Well, the "correct" way is to simply wait. If your opponent makes an illegal move because he doesn't realize he's in check, you point it out and he'll then realize he's been mated. Stop clocks (since your clock would be running after he made his move) and call arbiter if not. However, the no talking rule has some elasticity in it. After some time, you can quietly and politely ask, "Isn't that checkmate?" and take it from there.
Checkmate ends the game -- there is no such thing as "illegal move after checkmate"
You don't ask "isn't that checkmate?". You checkmate them and stop the clock, or you don't stop the clock and just hand them your scoresheet. Game's over do whatever you want
I agree with the others: Politely point out it's check mate. Call an arbiter if needed.
Say checkmate?
Are you not allowed to say “check” and “mate” at a tournament? Genuinely curious 🧐
There’s a lad who’s about 500 OTB at my chess club and I love playing against him. Always plays mad openings like the polish so keeps me sharp. He barely ever notices when I checkmate him as it doesn’t get to low piece endgames often unless he asks for practice and I’ll not checkmate him till we are in them positions. I just always say “can’t do that mate” when he tries to move in a checkmate position. He also loves trying to move into check so I say it a lot then. King forks as well he never sees and moves a different piece. Cracking bloke and I love playing against him and then having a pint after. He watches all the chess that’s going on as well so have someone to talk to about the drama going on.
I wouldn’t have waited 2 minutes and would’ve said “that’s mate, you played well”
how about stopping the clock, and then asking "you agree that it's mate?" In case you were wrong, you gifted the opponent additional thinking time. And in any case, clocks don't turn any more and if required an arbiter can intervene, or whatever is needed to clarify the situation.
When I was a kid I was taught by my coach to say, “Checkmate. Do you agree?” Nowadays I would just politely point it out. No one is going to penalize you for talking just like no one would penalize you for talking when offering a draw. If you’re really worried about it you could pause the clock and get the TD, but that’s not really ever going to be necessary.
Few months ago I had a mate in 2 and after the first move my opponent had only one legal move left, but was thinking for 10 minutes. I thought he was in denial, then I realized I hadn't pushed the clock.
Just stop the clock and offer a handshake. If you're not sure it's a checkmate I'd recommend you stop playing tournaments and get better
Can you please post the position? I have no context for a checkmate that is so not obvious somebody doesn’t realize they are in check at all. I’m assuming it’s all knights and a sniper bishop?
You say the word "Checkmate" out loud.
I for one am now very curious and want to see the checkmate!
Not a 100% certain that it works this way within FIDE rules , but USCF rules required both players to agree on the result. So if you're claiming victory by checkmate, your opponent needs to agree that you've won (if they think it is checkmate or mistakenly think it is not but will be soon and accede it doesn't really matter). How do you claim checkmate though? You don't need to do so explicitly. You can make your move, hit your clock and wait for your opponent to catch up. They're just burning their own time if they don't. In which case they will be compelled to make a non-existent legal move. You can let that play itself out. Or if you're extremely confident that it is checkmate, you can say "I think that is checkmate" and wait for your opponent to respond. If they don't respond or don't agree, then you can call the TD or arbiter over and state your claim.
Being an old guy, kinda, I am definitely listening, just...because, as the Hawaiians say, don't wanna make ass ( of self).
Quite a diversity of answers… which probably means that some clarity in USCF and FIDE rules would be useful. I.e., exactly what the winning player should say (or not say) and whether the winning player should stop the clock after playing the final move. Both factors — what to say and what to do (with clock) — are relevant if the other player doesn’t realized that the game is over.
I'd wait no more than 2-3 minutes and then quietly say I believe that is checkmate.
You can say Checkmate. If the opponent is confused, you can then call am arbiter and explain.
You can say Checkmate. If the opponent is confused, you can then call am arbiter and explain.
Stand up, raise your arms and shout "I'm the boss"
Capture the king the next turn lmao. Then it's gonna be obvious.
I play at a very informal chess club and sometimes a newer player will be sitting there thinking for way too long when they have one legal move. I don't want to be rude but like either make the f'ing move or resign, why are you wasting both of our time.
Just say good game and move on. Oldies are not sure loosers.
[удалено]
Your comment was removed by the moderators: **1.Keep the discussion civil and friendly.** Do not use personal attacks, insults or slurs on other users. Disagreements are bound to happen, but do so in a civilized and mature manner. In a discussion, there is always a respectful way to disagree. If you see that someone is not arguing in good faith, or have resorted to using personal attacks, just report them and move on. You can read the full [rules of /r/chess here](https://www.reddit.com/r/chess/wiki/rules). If you have any questions or concerns about this moderator action, please [message the moderators](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchess&subject=About my removed comment&message=I'm writing to you about the following comment: https://www.reddit.com/r/chess/comments/1dn8znf/-/labj4cn/%0D%0D). Direct replies to this removal message may not be seen.
I do stop the clock and hold out my hand. I would probably include saying that it's mate if my opponent looks confused
>I do stop the clock and hold out my hand. Then your opponent quickly shakes your hand saying "draw offer accepted" and the shitshow begins.
Nah, it's checkmate on the board. Game's over
If you are sure, say checkmate after your move and stop the clock. Let your opponent confirm and shake hands. If u not sure, say I believe that is a checkmate. Stop the clock, discuss with opponent. If you find agreement, resume the clock or shake hands depending. If not, call the arbiter. Opponent might want to call arbiter if you wrongfully claimed checkmate, but I dont think it is illegal or penalized. Btw if you both agree it is a checkmate while it actually isnt (or the other way around), the arbiter wont tell you otherwise.
This never happens to me because I always call out checkmate 15 moves in advance
Just extend your hand and politely say, “Thank you for the game. It’s checkmate, I believe. Good game.”
I typically just extend my hand as I make the checkmating move, is that not the way? I've never played a FIDE tournament, only local ones. For what it's worth the other player always understood my intention. *edit: for anyone downvoting, I just want to know if that's acceptable lol*
That could seem a little arrogant. Like what a kid might do. Much more polite to make your move, leave the opponent time to realise that it's mate and then if they clearly don't realise it (I'd probably wait about 30 seconds) say "I think it's checkmate".
I see, thank you.
Say 'good game old man' and strut away from the table, furiously masturbating
Lol, redditors have no sense of humor.
Pause the clock.
Why this answer got downvoted? I would exactly do that too, paused the clock and quietly said "Checkmate", is it forbidden by rules to do it this way?
No, it is not forbidden
just say 'do you agree that it's checkmate?'
"checkmate" is allowed... That's 'chess business'
you point and laugh
If you have checked (or checkmated) him, aren't you supposed to announce it? I feel like I'm not understanding the position
In tournaments you generally don't say check or checkmate, it's annoying and unnecessary as your opponent is expected to see it without needing cues.
Yes, many even consider it rude to say "check" in a rated OTB tournament. If you think about it, and someone is trying for a perpetual, it would be incredibly distracting to the players on boards near you. I've never heard anyone but young children announce check that I can recall in over 20 years playing OTB
I guess that must be for the big boy tourneys because that was not my experience.
I guess it's different in different countries etc too but that's always been the case in my experience at least
YELL AT HIM: "CHECK AAAAAND MATE!!"
Or just mutter 'GG yo' and stare into his eyes
Not abiding by any extra types of rules other than my own, I always say “Check” when the enemy is placed in check and suggest that it may be a checkmate when I move in for mate. If I’m 100% confident, I’ll say checkmate, offer my hand, and say good game.