Resigning that position would be just insane. Black has only a very small material lead and white has a 4:1 pawn majority on the kingside. If black doesn't play the ending actively and well he will easily lose the position. I think its the sort of position where the more skilled player will win it vs the weaker player from either side, and when two players are of comparable strength the result is going to be up in the air.

I mean already after 1. Qxe7 Nxe7 2. f3 the cohesion of black's position is just falling apart.

Heading down to the Saturday open tournament in St. Louis here in a few minutes. As always, my only thought is "I really don't want to go 0/4. I really don't want to go 0/4!"

Long story short:

Free tournament full of scholastics and newbs. I scored 3/4 with three mostly unsatisfying wins and a tough but ultimately doomed defense as black against the highest rated player there (1885).

A tourney etiquette question: One of the last games in round 3 was between two adult players rated around 1000ish. Black walks his king into an endgame mating net and white calmly ignores the forced mate in two for several moves. White finally plays step 1 of the forced mate, but botches step 2. Instead of mating with his rook, he plays a pawn check. Black's only reply is forced: PxP, winning a rather important pawn and swinging the tide of the game. Except neither player sees that. White confidently proclaims checkmate, black considers for a moment and then agrees, and they shake hands and comment on what a hard-fought game it had been.

Obviously, as a spectator, you can't say anything during the game. But once the result is agreed and finalized, out in the lobby, would you:

Say nothing to anyone
Tell the winning player that it wasn't really a mate.
Tell the losing player.
Tell both players.

Interesting question & a few things you need to consider ... although once they have agreed that its checkmate & shake hands/sign scoresheets or however else you agree to a result, then that's the result, whether it is correct or not.

The things to consider:
Do you know any of the players?
If yes, I'd be more inclined to say something (as long as you are on reasonable terms with the person you know); if you don't, I'd be more inclined to say nothing.
Do you know anything about the temperaments of the players?
If you do & they are at all hot-headed, then I'd again be inclined to leave things alone; If you don't know anything, then its closer, but I tend to fall into the 'don't rock the boat' category
How do the players perceive you?
If you are seen as one of the better players there, then they might appreciate the input
As for who to tell, if anyone, obviously the winner of the game is less likely to have a negative reaction (they got the full point when they may not have deserved it), so I'd say something to the winner before I said something to the loser, unless I knew the players involved. Often in a situation like that, the winner might then go & tell the loser that it wasn't actually checkmate in the final position ... of course make sure you are right before you say anything!!

Their inability to properly play the game could be impacting other players. If you did not want to inform the players after they shook hands then at a minimum I would have informed the tournament director. The player who improperly declared mate should receive a penalty, but so should the person who can't even read the board. A draw seems a reasonable recorded result.

Disagree with the entire post.

1. From FIDE Handbook: "The game is won by the player whose opponent declares he resigns. This immediately ends the game."

In this case, "resigns" is completely interchangeable with "agrees that it is actually mate" and there is nothing you can do about it. Now, if the losing side did not agree with the fact that it is mate and would show a legal move, THEN he could call the arbiter and get the opponent penalized for the claim, and the game would continue. When the opponent agrees to it and shakes hands, it is OVER, and the arbiter shouldn't change the result.***

2. Where does the "draw seems a reasonable recorded result" come from? You can't just put a random result down because it is "reasonable". Why is it reasonable? Cause one is as "bad" of a player as the other one? That's not how things work.

3. "Their inability to properly play the game could be impacting other players." Right to some extent (tie-breaks), but your point is..? Putting a random result (draw, like you suggested) will make as big of an impact, so why not leave the result to which they both agreed to? And as to "inability to properly play the game", shall we just ban all the weak players from tournaments then, we won't have these disputes? Yes, they are much weaker in chess than you are, but that does not mean they don't have a right to play to the best of their abilities, compete and have fun.


***
This does not apply to those times where people agree to the result with clear malicious intent. Here, it is clear that players are quite weak, therefore the result should stay. Had it been two GM's playing, the arbiter should immediately put down 0-0 as a result.

Once during the European Rapid Championship in Warsaw there was a very interesting situation. It was a massive Swiss open tournament in day 1, but after day 1 I think 16 top players made it to the separate round-robin Final on day 2, while the rest of the field battled out in the Swiss on d2. Each player was guaranteed a solid amount of money had they made it to final 16.

So in the last round of d1 it was Gashimov vs some other Azeri GM, they were playing this rook endgame with Gashimov being the pawn up with no chances to lose whatsoever if played properly. I don't remember exactly what the situation was, but it became clear to them as their game was the last one still going, that if Gashimov wins, neither of them makes it to the final, same for the draw obviously. So the only way for one of them to make it in to the final was for Gashimov to lose (remember, rook endgame pawn up). Their game is the last one still going on and there are hundreds of spectators, including arbiters. Suddenly they start talking to each other in their language while still playing, and about 20 seconds later Gashimov drops a pawn, then drops another pawn, and basically loses the game in the next minute or so. The arbiters that were around analyzed the situation, and after 10 or so minutes their verdict was that both players lost the game, basically 0-0.

Speaking of GMs and shady dealings, this tournament was free, and anyone with a positive score got free entry into the next day's $25 quickplay tourney.

I was right in the middle of all the 2.0/3 games for the last round, and all around me people were agreeing to play quick draws before the game started. Most of them were kids, but a few adults too. My teenage opponent didn't seem thrilled that I didn't want to do the same thing.

My position is very simple. Chess should be played as chess. The formalities and other rules should supplement that goal. If somebody engages in an angle shoot, even unintentionally, that should be penalized. Declaring check mate when it is not check mate qualifies for this and he should be penalized, not gifted a game. I can't disagree with declaring the game 0-0. That would make more sense than 1/2.

I don't think anything in chess makes me feel better than watching my opponent blunder and lose from a drawn position, after turning down a draw offer a earlier in the game.

I do that a lot. If I'm just playing online, I don't mind turning down a draw if there's still play in the position, even if I think I'm worse.

Brag: All four of my games are recreateable from the scoresheet with few problems. A couple of wrong ranks (4/5 is tricky), but otherwise all good. My first tournament in November, I could only recreate about half the games, and even that took some doing.

I was on the other side of this today, got offered a draw on move 34 in the position below and decided "lets play till the time control at least, I should be better and have few losing chances". But I managed to find some bad moves and was clearly worse by move 40, then went to pieces under the pressure when I certainly could have found a better defence.

According to another player it may have been the win my opponent needed to get the FM title (at age 60-something, which is pretty impressive imo). So at least some good may have come of it.

this - especially in Gameknot where he's not in any time trouble (3 days a move)

i don't really have much to add to the B vs K-debate, but wanted to stress that you should get rid of this mindset ASAP. People offer draws out of various reasons, but having seen the correct defense is normally not one of these (good players tend to play the defence and then wait for a draw offer). I have been offered draws in completely hopeless positions from my opponents just because i have repeated a position one time to correct a slight misstep or took my time on chosing the winning method...

Draw offer etiquette is a whole interesting subject of its own and i'm quite a nazi when it comes to that. Several times i wanted to kick my opponent in the nuts for offering draws.

I get easily annoyed by draw offers, too. It's not "funny" to offer a draw when you've hung all your pieces. And it's silly to offer one in the middlegame. Did you want to play chess or not?

In another note, it feels as if I have time to study exactly two of the three aspects of the game at any one time, and the other falls behind. Tactics are of course always on the agenda. But at first I ignored openings entirely, and my openings lagged way, way behind my middlegame and endgame.

Lately, I've been studying openings to catch those up. I'm working my way through Reassess Your Chess, which is essentially a middlegame book. So now I've noticed my endgames are starting to lag behind something awful, to the point they are becoming a huge problem for me.

Hooray! The crosstables for last Saturday's tournament are finally up!

TPR- 1467
Rating - 1167p9>1208p13

1200 was my rating goal for 2011, so we can check that one off.

Kyle, don't check it off just yet ... there's still quite a few months to go in 2011 & you were planning to play a tourney in November (I think) ... so make sure you stay above 1200 (hopefully moving to well above 1200) at that & other events you might play for the rest of the year. Check it off on Jan 1 2012 (or Jan 2 if busy on New Years)!

If I can't maintain 1200, then I've got much bigger problems than the shame of having to uncheck a goal.

I've got another tourney on the 23rd of this month and hopefully a few more by the end of the year.

Play mostly opponents over 1400 and it's a safe bet you earn at least another 100 by the years end.

<goalwhore

1200 was my pre-2011 goal. I set that one kind of low to be on the safe side. My slightly more optimistic goal is to play myself out of the U1400 section by the St. Louis Thanksgiving Open in November. That one's doable but possibly a stretch and I'll need some improvement/positive variance between now and then to reach it.

I'm not annoyed, but I also don't understand the middlegame draw offers either, for exactly the reason you give. I'm here to play chess -- let's do that and see what happens.

Even in the endgames, for that matter. If we both have to think about our moves, then the position must not be that clearly drawn.

[QUOTE]In another note, it feels as if I have time to study exactly two of the three aspects of the game at any one time, and the other falls behind. Tactics are of course always on the agenda. But at first I ignored openings entirely, and my openings lagged way, way behind my middlegame and endgame.

Lately, I've been studying openings to catch those up. I'm working my way through Reassess Your Chess, which is essentially a middlegame book. So now I've noticed my endgames

My opponent lost on time here. White to move. What do you guys think, is white better because of the Q-side majority? Or does black have the better minor piece and thus has an advantage? Or is it just a draw?

I thought it was an interesting endgame and got a bit annoyed that he let his time run of (after all he had 3 days/move...).

Off the top of my head, I definitely like black here. That bishop is amazing right now, dominating both the knight and the queenside pawn majority with ease.