Double Forfeit?

That is curious. I'd contact support and hope they respond.

It's literally the topic, double forfeit. So what happens in the case of a double forfeit? Is there a tie breaker?

Sometimes two things can happen at once, or simultaneously. Especially in timed events. So in the case of a simultaneous resignation, what happens?

How could it happen? If two players LITERALLY say "I resign" at the identical moment. And the arbitrator has no way of determining which said it first, because nobody said it first. And the arbitrator agrees it was said at the same time. Then what?

You mean other than when it has happened, right?

You keep talking about this "resign simultaneously" as it was a thing. How could that happen? Online it's impossible, over-the-board it's doubly impossible.

By two players saying "I resign" at the identical moment. And the arbitrator agrees. then what?

There is a double forfeit here now, when both players get disconnected.

https://support.chess.com/en/articles/8593801-how-does-game-abandonment-work

If both players disconnect at the same time, a 15-second timer starts. If neither reconnects, the game is aborted with no rating changes and won’t appear in either archive. This is rare but can happen during a server reset or if both players lose connection simultaneously.

Then the arbiter gets kicked out of the tournament for gross incompetence. Do you realize how absurd this is? Of course you do, you are just trolling.

Even if Magipi says that's impossible, I was actually thinking more of an otb situation. Where it would be more likely for two people to do something at exactly the same time.

While simultaneous resignations HAVE occurred, has an arbitrator ever been kicked out of a tournament for "gross incompetence" regarding his decision for it? Has THAT ever happened? I would guess probably not.

"Simultaneous resignation" has never occurred and won't ever be.

And even if it happened, then what? Do you think that they both will be taken at their word?

And even if they'd both insist on losing (and why would they?), the arbiter still won't write in 0-0 because that's against the rules.

That's why I asked if there is a tie breaker. I was wondering if anyone knows what the tie breaker is. I never suggested the result should be 0-0, I asked what happens in the case of a double forfeit, or simultaneous resignation.

Let's say taking them at their word doesn't matter. Let's say there were 50 witnesses, including video. All verifying that the resignation was LITERALLY simultaneous. It doesn't matter what their word is.

If 0-0 is against the rules, what specific rule prevents it? What was the score in the double forfeit case already mentioned? Was that score also against the rules? Lots of things are against the rules, but they still happen.

There is no "tiebreaker". There is no need for one. The whole situation is completely absurd and surreal. Obviously there is no rule about it. Obviously it will never happen.

The double forfeit cases that happened have nothing to do with resignation.

Hi

I told one of my friends about this and he wondered if anyone under 500 rating was asking.

Actually there is a tiebreaker. And it's been used in competition before. I was just wondering if anyone was aware of any other methods of dealing with this very rare circumstance.

As for the differences between forfeit and resignation, the outcomes could be different. Depending on the arbitrator. The examples of a double forfeit don't have to have anything to do with simultaneous resignation. They could be treated differently.

Also, first you said it was "against the rules". When I asked which rule specifically does it violate you now, apparently, say there is no rule about it. If there is no rule about it, it would fall on the shoulders of the arbitrator would it not?

Assuming of course that he doesn't get kicked out for "gross incompetence".

Stop twisting my words.

There is no rule that specifically deals with "simultaneous resignation", as that thing doesn't exist. Fun fact three is no rule about a yeti wondering in a playing hall either. That one is equally likely.

Writing in 0-0 just because the players can't agree on the final result is obviously absurd and against the rules. (And never happened and never will). If players can't agree on the final result, they should continue the game, and that's it.

I'm done here.

If 0-0 is against the rules, which rule SPECIFICALLY prevents it? If someone were to say a queen can't jump over a rook, we could point to the specific rule that prevents it. I understand that the total score of a match can never exceed 1, but what rule prevents a score of 0-0?

My understanding is that when a dispute occurs that is not addressed by the rulebook the arbitrator has a lot of authority to decide. Are you claiming that double forfeits and/or simultaneous resignations have never happened in competition?

PS: There would not be a chess rule about a yeti in a hall because that has nothing to do with the game of chess.

Article 5 of the FIDE Rules of Chess. There it is written that a normal game (which means: both players being present at the board, and the game being started normally) can end as a win for either player, or a draw. There is no such thing as a loss, or win for both.

A loss for both players or double forfeit can only occur as a penalty for rules violation from both players, or if both players do not appear to play.

Notice here that a 0-0 could also happen if both players did not appear at the resume of a game (after a game adjournment), but today there are no game adjournments, so there is no need for a rule about this.

Some 16 years ago, there was a game in the first round of an open tournament in Greece. The player with the white pieces (a Greek FM) was winning, but he had a stroke. His opponent (an Israeli IM) tried to save him (he is a doctor) but eventually the poor man passed away. The arbiter was about to declare the IM as the winner of the game, but this kind soul claimed that he intended to resign when the opponent had the stroke, and that the point should posthumously be given to the late FM. And this is precisely what happened: The unlucky player was awarded the win after he had passed away. The IM did not play a game of chess for quite some time, and today he is a Grandmaster.

No 0-0 here either, and this is one of the most extreme cases one can think of.

Wow. That's such a sad but incredible story at the same time. One question though (even less likely to happen): what if the other one (the IM) lost on time? I am pretty sure you have to claim the victory if someone has no time left right ? Here would it be a draw ?