Well there's Stalemates and Draws that End a GAME...
ADK
Checkmate???
Sort:
ADK wrote:
Well there's Stalemates and Draws that End a GAME...
ADK
I second that
oginschile wrote:
Can you think of a situation when you are checkmated, but do not lose?
Um, no. From the FIDE laws of chess:
| Article 5: The completion of the game | |
| 5.1 |
|
So, if someone made an illegal move to put you in checkmate then the game doesn't end - but in that case it isn't "really" checkmate.
Of course, your statement that "the game ends in checkmate" is only partially true. Draws end games too, so do resignations and flag-falls.
How is this a brain teaser? It seems to be just a straightforward case of "look up the rules."
draws 
what if he offers a draw, checkmates, then the other player accepts?
please, PLEASE tell me this is not just a horribly elaborate pun on the word "checkmate."
Jun 28, 2008
0
#8
- It was such a good game that the person that was checkmated felt that there were no real losers.
- It was an instructional game. The person that was checkmated walked away learning much more than not playing that game.
- There was a wager won by the loser betting on being checkmated.
- It was a best of five match, and the loser already won three, but continued to play the remaining games.
tonydal wrote: Good one, jimmersw! (that would indeed work).
Really? Are you sure?! I think this would be a good question for an arbiter to answer (Geurt Gijssen at chesscafe.com comes to mind). The FIDE handbook states:
| Article 9: The drawn game | |
| 9.1 |
|
It seems to me the key phrase is "or the game is concluded in some other way." In view of article 5.1, checkmate "immediately ends the game" - so wouldn't this nullify the draw offer?
tonydal wrote: The situation would be if Black offers the draw before making his move, lance (maybe not a FIDE-sanctioned method of doing things, but it happens often enough).
I'm confused.
So: Black says, "draw?" White says nothing. Black makes a move and says, "checkmate". Then White says, "I accept the draw" - and so the game ends in a draw?
My point was that according to the rule book, it sounds like the game was over the moment "checkmate" was played - "I accept the draw" was said after the game was over. You can't accept a draw once the game has ended (or so my understanding goes).
Jun 28, 2008
0
#11
—-▒▒▒▒▒
-▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒
-—▓▓▓░░▓░
-▓░▓░░░▓░░░
-▓░▓▓░░░▓░░░
-▓▓░░░░▓▓▓▓
-—-░░░░░░░░
-▓▓▒▓▓▓▒▓▓
-▓▓▓▒▓▓▓▒▓▓▓
▓▓▓▓▒▒▒▒▒▓▓▓▓
░░▓▒░▒▒▒░▒▓░░
░░░▒▒▒▒▒▒▒░░░
░░▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒░░
—-▒▒▒-—-▒▒▒
-▓▓▓-—-—▓▓▓
▓▓▓▓-———▓▓▓
This guy says that the scenario in the OP is virtually impossible.
Jun 28, 2008
0
#12
Zigalday wrote
50 moves taken without a piece being captured (most instances it's the pawn). {Most people don't know about this rule, but it's there.}
Or a pawn being moved.
If you move a pawn, the 50 moves starts all over again...
What about if the last move of the 50-move ruleis a checkmate, which action takes precedence?
"Is there any situation you can think of when checkmate does not end the game."
When I played with the Lady, it can be some exceptions of FIDE Rules...
In a non-tournament arena, if someone doesn't notice that they have checkmated you and continues playing, then the checkmate is technically nulled.
There are types of chess variations in which checkmate is not the winning move, but capturing the king is. In others, you must capture all the other pieces, no such thing as a checkmate.
Let's play, without the chess mates, KillGoose!
Killgoose - excellent point.
Very interesting replies, and unfortunately I have to apologize.. .I'm not a tournament player so I'm not completely sure about what I had in mind.
I was also extremely tired when i made the post so i probably didn't word it as well as I should have.
Anyway... someone please correct me if my understanding is wrong, it very well could be.
I tell people who ask about the rules that the King is never taken in chess.. that to win a game of chess you have to literally trap the king, and declare checkmate before the king is taken.
But to my understanding, in blitz chess (and this is where i could be wrong) if a player doesn't realize he is in check and moves without removing the check, the opponent can indeed capture the king with his next move ending the game. This is a win without a checkmate.
Here is what I had in mind then...
So if this were a blitz game, as I understand it this would be a legitimate ending... though I'm not at all sure about it.
I posted this thread right before going to bed, and now i'm sure i'm in for it... so go ahead and let me have it!
I know... when i reread my original post i thought.. i could have made that much more clear.
I apologize...
The funny thing about this is I was in a deep sleep when i was awoken by my kids. I have no idea if i was dreaming about chess, but it was the first thought that occurred to me.. besides of course the blessing of birth control.
I thought, what if... and it went from there. I quickly went down to make the post, still blurry from my REM stage, and ran back to bed.
More of a brain teaser than a puzzle...
Is there any situation you can think of when checkmate does not end the game.
I often tell people who ask me how chess is played that the game ends in checkmate. Can you think of a situation when you are checkmated, but do not lose?