Answers.Body: <p>Based on the comments to the question above, there is no offical ruling body governing the rules, therefore, the guy running the tournament is the final authority. It is really up to his judgment. </p>
  
  <p>If I were he, and there were time, I would try to see if we could reestablish the position, and finish from there. If not, I would declare a draw. I would not order a rematch unless there was some other great reason that was not listed above.</p>
  
  <p>Lastly, I would make sure that I taught them the rules.</p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2020-03-03T03:22:43.897Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2020-03-03T03:38:59.397Z
Answers.LastEditDate: 2020-03-03T03:38:59.397Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: PhishMaster
Answers.Body: <p>USCF and FIDE rules state that a draw should be made after the move but before hitting the clock. If those conditions have not been met, then the handshake could considered a resignation offer.</p>
  
  <p><a href="https://new.uschess.org/news/just-rules-draw-offer-blues/" rel="noreferrer">https://new.uschess.org/news/just-rules-draw-offer-blues/</a></p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2020-03-04T13:03:35.287Z
Answers.Text: I asked whether it was a FIDE or USCF tournament, and the OP said "an informal tournament. They did not even specify whether to apply FIDE or USCF rules", so none of that really matters.
Answers.UserDisplayName: PhishMaster
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2020-03-03T22:17:18.200Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2020-03-03T22:17:18.200Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: ZL1Corvette
Answers.Body: <p>Based on what @Annatar said, it may be interesting to know what was the situation on the board :</p>
  
  <p>1 - Was white obviously winning ?
  2 - Was there an obvious draw, such as a pat a few moves down the line ?</p>
  
  <p>If 1, Black is either inexperienced or tried something fishy by asking for a draw while losing. So White wins.
  If 2, then maybe it was reasonable of Black to ask for what was, to him, obvious. So ruling a draw is reasonable.</p>
  
  <p>It would be weird if it's neither of those situations (obvious draw or obvious loss). You wouldn't offer a draw in a situation where nothing is resolved.</p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2020-03-03T17:29:11.037Z
Answers.Text: I do not remember for sure but it may be a position that is obviously a draw but it appears one side is losing to an inexperienced player. For example, King at the corner vs rook pawn + bishop of "wrong colour".
Answers.UserDisplayName: Zuriel
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2020-03-03T18:02:25.070Z
Answers.Text: @Zuriel, can you add this to your questions, it seems like an important bit.
Answers.UserDisplayName: Akavall
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2020-03-03T12:55:08.463Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2020-03-03T12:55:08.463Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: Jemox
Answers.Body: <p>There is an argument to be made that the players simply abandoned the game. As far as the rules go, handshakes don't mean anything. Nothing was said. The players just stopped playing and put away the pieces.</p>
  
  <p>Handing out a <code>0 - 0</code> result where both sides lose might be appropriate, at least it won't happen again then.</p>
  
  <p>Often, players resign without saying anything, by just offering to shake hands. This shouldn't happen as it might lead to problems like this question, but it does happen. It <em>also</em> happens that players offer a draw in the exact same way, especially in endgames where only they could win. It can equally lead to problems if a malicious opponent decides to interpret the offer as resignation.</p>
  
  <p><em>We don't know which of the situations is applicable,</em> so we have to look at the rules. Seen from that viewpoint, the players just stopped playing their game and got rid of the evidence. If there is more knowledge of which scenario is more likely, then we can use that. But with only the question, we can't.</p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2020-03-03T11:44:03.987Z
Answers.Text: This would be totally unfair to white. Offering a handshake as a form of resignation is very very common. If I was an arbiter and a player would try to pull a trick like black did in the question, I would consider something harsher than just merely making him lose the game, as what he did was against the tenets of fair play. Basically he's tricking his opponent into forfeiting the game.
Answers.UserDisplayName: vsz
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2020-03-03T12:59:35.583Z
Answers.Text: @vzs: It is equally possible it was in fact a draw and white is the one trying to trick the opponent.
Answers.UserDisplayName: RemcoGerlich
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2020-03-03T16:19:22.670Z
Answers.Text: In that case black would have claimed that he verbally offered a draw.
Answers.UserDisplayName: vsz
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2020-03-03T19:47:59.753Z
Answers.Text: @vsz: in a dead drawn position where one side is a pawn up or so but there is no way to know, a player might offer a draw by extending their hand and saying nothing. And white could be the one to claim a win "because he resigned". There is no way to know from the information we have.
Answers.UserDisplayName: RemcoGerlich
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2020-03-04T05:14:59.850Z
Answers.Text: *"a player might offer a draw by extending their hand and saying nothing"* - that's **not** how draws are offered. According to the logic you just presented, we could explain away anything. What if I literally say "I give up", but then later I regret it and try to explain that I didn't mean resigning, I just said that I've given up trying to win and my words meant I was offering a draw instead?
Answers.UserDisplayName: vsz
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2020-03-04T09:05:46.173Z
Answers.Text: It shouldn't, but it _does happen_ in such situations. I've seen grandmasters do it in person several times. Resigning by just offering a handshake also happens. We don't know which happened here, except that they both messed up by saying nothing, signing nothing, not keeping score, removing the position, just abandoning the game.
Answers.UserDisplayName: RemcoGerlich
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2020-03-04T09:11:12.997Z
Answers.Text: In the end, you have to resort to the rules. The players shook hands. This does *nothing* according to the rules. Then they stopped playing and put away the pieces. How can you reward any points based on that?
Answers.UserDisplayName: RemcoGerlich
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2020-03-04T15:30:36.483Z
Answers.Text: @vsz: I expanded my answer a bit to make my argument clearer.
Answers.UserDisplayName: RemcoGerlich
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2020-03-05T05:36:37.630Z
Answers.Text: Even in that case, black admitted that he initiated the handshake, after which they started packing away the pieces. So if you don't want to see it officially as resignation, then you can apply FIDE rule 12.6 about not distracting the opponent. Offering a handshake and starting putting away the pieces, even if you refuse accepting it as resignation, then it would fall into distracting the opponent. Black even admitted that he started it.
Answers.UserDisplayName: vsz
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2020-03-05T22:58:21.003Z
Answers.Text: @vsz Or to carry it to its logical ridiculous conclusion, I could flip the table over, and then explain that I was actually winning and had just saw a mate in ten, and was symbolically emphasizing my dominance over the other player and that they had lost.
Answers.UserDisplayName: Michael
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2020-03-06T05:06:31.273Z
Answers.Text: @Michael : wow, that argument is so ridiculously exaggerated, that it's not even clear on whose side you are arguing :)
Answers.UserDisplayName: vsz
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2020-03-03T09:54:24.570Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2020-03-04T15:29:53.173Z
Answers.LastEditDate: 2020-03-04T15:29:53.173Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: RemcoGerlich
Answers.Body: <p>From my experience (small to medium central European Opens), offering a handshake without words is a commonly accepted form of resignation.</p>
  
  <p>The handshake is not part of any official rules. However, there is some reasoning behind it:</p>
  
  <p>You shake hands <em>after</em> the game ended (just as you do before it starts). So you only start extending your hand once that end is "set in stone".</p>
  
  <p>If you extend your hand without a concrete reason on the board for an end of the game (checkmate, stalemate, 3-fold repetition etc.), you silently imply the other possible reason: That you just resigned, which is possible unilaterally. The "silently" part is the reason why this is done this way: It's less disturbing for neighbouring boards than saying "I resign" or laying down your king (in many piece sets, you can't make sure that it doesn't start rolling around). </p>
  
  <p>If you instead wanted to only offer a draw, the game would not have ended (yet), as your opponent still has to accept. Thus, extending your hand makes no sense yet. But conversely, if you (properly by words) offer a draw, now your opponent may offer a silent handshake! Because once they (silently) agree to your draw offer, the game is over, and they can indicate this by stretching out their hand. </p>
  
  <p>Of course, this "implied" way of ending games, even if it is more polite to other ongoing games, has the drawback that lead to the question here: It requires that both players are on the same page of what is actually implied. Even more problematic than the question are for example cases where one side saw a 3-fold repetition and implied "draw", but the other didn't see the repetition and assumed "resignation". Probably not the case here, it sounded like neither mentioned anything else but resignation or free draw offer. </p>
  
  <hr>
  
  <p>Edit: Because the question came up why the players would act this way, there are some thinkable scenarios:</p>
  
  <ul>
  <li>Black was dishonest. He deliberately acted ambiguously to trick White (in the hope that the arbiter would be convinced of his story that he only wanted to offer a draw). (correct result: 1-0)</li>
  <li>Black was very inexperienced. Sometimes, weaker and especially younger players have the habit of always offering a draw before they resign (sometimes no matter how lost their position is), in the vague hope that the opponent is nice or doesn't see how winning they are. The handshake genuinely was intended to be a draw offer that White misinterpreted. (correct result: 1-0 with a degree of uncertainty. In my opinion, White should not be punished for acting in good faith, while Black with certainty did not offer a draw the correct way and thus has the weaker case).</li>
  <li>It was actually White who was dishonest. We don't know the position. Maybe it wasn't actually all that winning and White exploited Black's naivete of not explicitly offering a draw by words. (correct result: 1/2-1/2)</li>
  </ul>
  
  <p>All these cases are mostly applicable to amateur tournaments. Top (and even advanced) players know that they just look like fools if they offer draws in lost positions or try to cheat that way. </p>
  
  <p>To know which of these cases applies, we need more information (for example, what was each player's rough evaluation of the final position, how reasonable can we expect both players treat handshakes as resignations/draw offers? etc.). </p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2020-03-03T09:36:03.363Z
Answers.Text: I think real life isn't that clear cut. It might be obvious to one player that the game was about to be drawn and he might assume that this was equally obvious to his opponent. Also he probably didn't extend his hand completely unprompted, there might have been eye contact that was interpreted differently.
Answers.UserDisplayName: BlindKungFuMaster
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2020-03-03T10:43:00.973Z
Answers.Text: @BlindKungFuMaster True. The only way to be sure is by spoken words (and even those can often be open to interpretation).
Answers.UserDisplayName: Annatar
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2020-03-03T11:21:32.710Z
Answers.Text: My experience is that it can be either resignation or a draw. During relays of top events, you see video of the top players all the time, just looking at each other, nod, knowing it is a draw, and shake hands. That has happened in my games too. The only reason resignation is more common in my games, and your example, is that there are more decisive games since we are not as good at drawing as the elite players. Your concept is only true if the first guy did, in fact, resign, and that was clearly not his intention, or there would not have been a dispute.
Answers.UserDisplayName: PhishMaster
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2020-03-03T11:26:32.297Z
Answers.Text: @PhishMaster Top players are a lot better at assessing the position than the common folk, too, though. If one *knows* that the game is a clear cut draw, he can much more safely assume that his opponent knows the same, compared to a 800 player playing another 800 one.
Answers.UserDisplayName: Annatar
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2020-03-03T11:29:10.050Z
Answers.Text: Rating does not matter, nor does how each evaluated the position. Even at the lower levels, since a handshake means nothing official, let alone in a tournament that is not really governed by FIDE or any other body, and it is clear that they did not agree on what they thought it meant, to use legal principles, there was not contract since there was no "meeting of the minds", so to award the victory to one side or the other would be a great injustice. All you could do is try to restart the game, or award the draw to be fair.
Answers.UserDisplayName: PhishMaster
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2020-03-03T11:32:25.447Z
Answers.Text: I have not downvoted since January 16, but sorry, I think your answer is just incorrect since it is based on an incorrect initial premise, and bad judgment. I hope no one would follow this advice.
Answers.UserDisplayName: PhishMaster
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2020-03-03T11:41:17.270Z
Answers.Text: @PhishMaster I've edited my post. You are probably right that "White wins" is not always the correct judgment.
Answers.UserDisplayName: Annatar
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2020-03-03T11:47:07.013Z
Answers.Text: I would love to retract my vote, but I still cannot. Your experience still does not equate to everyone's experience, so it is too broad of a brush stroke since a handshake is not governed by any rules, especially here. It only depends on the position, and the interpretation of the position by BOTH players, and if one interprets it wrong, there is still a problem.
Answers.UserDisplayName: PhishMaster
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2020-03-03T11:51:26.343Z
Answers.Text: I'm not sure - but is laying down your king as a sign of resignation actually governed by the rules? If not, would that make any difference?
Answers.UserDisplayName: Annatar
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2020-03-03T11:53:29.033Z
Answers.Text: Scenario: Black lays down his king, stretches out his hand and later claims that he intended to move the king, then decided otherwise after touching it, and then intended to offer a draw by the offered handshake?
Answers.UserDisplayName: Annatar
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2020-03-03T11:53:46.393Z
Answers.Text: That is also not a rule, but let's face it, there is no ambiguity there, so it really is not the same.
Answers.UserDisplayName: PhishMaster
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2020-03-03T11:55:51.807Z
Answers.Text: What you describe in your scenario is also closer to cheating than a simple disagreement in what was the intention. Since I doubt that anyone has ever laid down the king and not meant it to be a signal of resignation, the guy changing his mind after the fact is just trying to cheat. Different animal.
Answers.UserDisplayName: PhishMaster
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2020-03-03T12:44:48.073Z
Answers.Text: Threefold repetition or the 50-move rule are not an immediate draw either, as they have to be claimed and either agreed by the opponent or confirmed by the arbiter. However, I would say that offering a handshake after an obvious 3-fold repetition should not be interpreted as resigning.
Answers.UserDisplayName: JiK
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2020-03-03T12:50:44.773Z
Answers.Text: I don't remember which author it was (perhaps Silman?), but in a book I read, the author told a story that he once resigned by offering a handshake, the GM opponent looked surprised and asked "What are you doing?" The protagonist answered that he's resigning because the game is lost. The opponent immediately shook hands and proceeded to point out an immediate perpetual check that should've been obvious to both players. The opponent perhaps thought that the protagonist is offering a draw but suddenly forgot everything about the rules. So a silent handshake *can* be confusing even in GM level.
Answers.UserDisplayName: JiK
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2020-03-05T23:14:04.430Z
Answers.Text: While this answer was given from a chess-specific perspective, I think it fairly well applies to many other competitive tabletop games.  If you watch Magic: The Gathering tournaments, you'll often see somebody draw a card, decide they can't win, then silently offer their hand in concession.  Offers to draw aren't horribly common during a game, but when they do happen, there's more information to be exchanged than can be conveyed with a handshake.
Answers.UserDisplayName: Indigenuity
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2020-03-03T07:49:01.613Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2020-03-04T07:02:23.743Z
Answers.LastEditDate: 2020-03-04T07:02:23.743Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: Annatar
Body: <p>In a amateur game, black offered a handshake and white shook hands with him and neither spoke any word and the game ended. Later they had a dispute whether the game is a draw or a win for white. Black claimed that his offering of a handshake was a draw offer and when white shook hands, white accepted his draw offer. White claimed that black's offering of a handshake was a resignation.</p>
  
  <p>It is an amateur game and there is no game record. So what should the arbiter do in this situation? Here are a few possibilities:</p>
  
  <ol>
  <li>Claim this game as a draw.</li>
  <li>Claim this game as win for white.</li>
  <li>Try recovering the position when the game ended and ask them to keep playing from there. (This option may not be feasible as without a game record, they may not agree with the position)</li>
  <li>Order a rematch.</li>
  </ol>
  
  <p><strong>Edit</strong>: I do not remember for sure but it may be a position that is obviously a draw but it appears one side is losing to an inexperienced player. For example, King at the corner vs rook pawn + bishop of "wrong colour". </p>
  
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2020-03-03T02:54:41.967Z
Comments.Text: A tournament game? FIDE or USCF?
Comments.UserDisplayName: PhishMaster
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2020-03-03T03:04:29.850Z
Comments.Text: Why would you extend your hand for a handshake if you're offering a draw? Your opponent has the right to refuse a draw offer, or to take his time to consider it. Did the player who claims to have offered a draw make his move? If he extended his hand without making a move, I'd take that as a resignation for sure; that's not how you offer a draw.
Comments.UserDisplayName: bof
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2020-03-03T03:12:23.147Z
Comments.Text: @PhishMaster, an informal tournament. They did not even specify whether to apply FIDE or USCF rules.
Comments.UserDisplayName: Zuriel
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2020-03-03T03:16:25.397Z
Comments.Text: @bof, I think black extended his hand without making a move. Apparently they were not playing very professionally and they did not even know the basic etiquette very well.
Comments.UserDisplayName: Zuriel
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2020-03-03T18:04:32.637Z
Comments.Text: When was the last move made, and by whom?  A handshake offer in response to an opponent's move could be seen as a resignation (though the person wishing to claim victory might make a toppling gesture toward the opponent's king and and hold off on accepting handshake until the opponent lowers the king).  I would not interpret a handshake offer by someone who has just made a legal move likewise, however, since someone intending to resign wouldn't generally make a legal move before doing so.
Comments.UserDisplayName: supercat
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2020-03-04T11:19:06.467Z
Comments.Text: If it's an informal tournament, it's up to the arbiter. After all, there are no rules to follow if no rules were agreed upon. A proper arbiter should've asked and clarified at that moment IMO, in attendance of both players.
Comments.UserDisplayName: Mast
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2020-03-04T18:08:47.793Z
Comments.Text: Want to watch out for the virus there! Make sure to bump elbows instead!
Comments.UserDisplayName: Tim
Tags: <rules><draw><etiquette><resigning><winning>
Title: Game ended with a handshake
ThreadText: # Game ended with a handshake
  
  (Asked by: username_0 on 2020-03-03)
  
  In a amateur game, black offered a handshake and white shook hands with him and neither spoke any word and the game ended. Later they had a dispute whether the game is a draw or a win for white. Black claimed that his offering of a handshake was a draw offer and when white shook hands, white accepted his draw offer. White claimed that black's offering of a handshake was a resignation.
  
  It is an amateur game and there is no game record. So what should the arbiter do in this situation? Here are a few possibilities:
  
  1. Claim this game as a draw.
  2. Claim this game as win for white.
  3. Try recovering the position when the game ended and ask them to keep playing from there. (This option may not be feasible as without a game record, they may not agree with the position)
  4. Order a rematch.
  
  **Edit**: I do not remember for sure but it may be a position that is obviously a draw but it appears one side is losing to an inexperienced player. For example, King at the corner vs rook pawn + bishop of "wrong colour".
  
  **Tags:** rules, draw, etiquette, resigning, winning
  
  > **Comments:**
  > **username_1**: A tournament game? FIDE or USCF?  
  > **username_2**: Why would you extend your hand for a handshake if you're offering a draw? Your opponent has the right to refuse a draw offer, or to take his time to consider it. Did the player who claims to have offered a draw make his move? If he extended his hand without making a move, I'd take that as a resignation for sure; that's not how you offer a draw.  
  > **username_0**: @username_1, an informal tournament. They did not even specify whether to apply FIDE or USCF rules.  
  > **username_0**: @username_2, I think black extended his hand without making a move. Apparently they were not playing very professionally and they did not even know the basic etiquette very well.  
  > **username_3**: When was the last move made, and by whom?  A handshake offer in response to an opponent's move could be seen as a resignation (though the person wishing to claim victory might make a toppling gesture toward the opponent's king and and hold off on accepting handshake until the opponent lowers the king).  I would not interpret a handshake offer by someone who has just made a legal move likewise, however, since someone intending to resign wouldn't generally make a legal move before doing so.  
  > **username_4**: If it's an informal tournament, it's up to the arbiter. After all, there are no rules to follow if no rules were agreed upon. A proper arbiter should've asked and clarified at that moment IMO, in attendance of both players.  
  > **username_5**: Want to watch out for the virus there! Make sure to bump elbows instead!  
  
  ---
  
  ## 5 answers
  
  ### Answer by username_12 on 2020-03-03. Score: 49 | Accepted answer
  
  From my experience (small to medium central European Opens), offering a handshake without words is a commonly accepted form of resignation.
  
  The handshake is not part of any official rules. However, there is some reasoning behind it:
  
  You shake hands *after* the game ended (just as you do before it starts). So you only start extending your hand once that end is "set in stone".
  
  If you extend your hand without a concrete reason on the board for an end of the game (checkmate, stalemate, 3-fold repetition etc.), you silently imply the other possible reason: That you just resigned, which is possible unilaterally. The "silently" part is the reason why this is done this way: It's less disturbing for neighbouring boards than saying "I resign" or laying down your king (in many piece sets, you can't make sure that it doesn't start rolling around).
  
  If you instead wanted to only offer a draw, the game would not have ended (yet), as your opponent still has to accept. Thus, extending your hand makes no sense yet. But conversely, if you (properly by words) offer a draw, now your opponent may offer a silent handshake! Because once they (silently) agree to your draw offer, the game is over, and they can indicate this by stretching out their hand.
  
  Of course, this "implied" way of ending games, even if it is more polite to other ongoing games, has the drawback that lead to the question here: It requires that both players are on the same page of what is actually implied. Even more problematic than the question are for example cases where one side saw a 3-fold repetition and implied "draw", but the other didn't see the repetition and assumed "resignation". Probably not the case here, it sounded like neither mentioned anything else but resignation or free draw offer.
  
  ---
  
  Edit: Because the question came up why the players would act this way, there are some thinkable scenarios:
  
  * Black was dishonest. He deliberately acted ambiguously to trick White (in the hope that the arbiter would be convinced of his story that he only wanted to offer a draw). (correct result: 1-0)
  * Black was very inexperienced. Sometimes, weaker and especially younger players have the habit of always offering a draw before they resign (sometimes no matter how lost their position is), in the vague hope that the opponent is nice or doesn't see how winning they are. The handshake genuinely was intended to be a draw offer that White misinterpreted. (correct result: 1-0 with a degree of uncertainty. In my opinion, White should not be punished for acting in good faith, while Black with certainty did not offer a draw the correct way and thus has the weaker case).
  * It was actually White who was dishonest. We don't know the position. Maybe it wasn't actually all that winning and White exploited Black's naivete of not explicitly offering a draw by words. (correct result: 1/2-1/2)
  
  All these cases are mostly applicable to amateur tournaments. Top (and even advanced) players know that they just look like fools if they offer draws in lost positions or try to cheat that way.
  
  To know which of these cases applies, we need more information (for example, what was each player's rough evaluation of the final position, how reasonable can we expect both players treat handshakes as resignations/draw offers? etc.).
  
  > **Comments:**
  > **username_13**: I think real life isn't that clear cut. It might be obvious to one player that the game was about to be drawn and he might assume that this was equally obvious to his opponent. Also he probably didn't extend his hand completely unprompted, there might have been eye contact that was interpreted differently.  
  > **username_12**: @BlindKungFuusername_4er True. The only way to be sure is by spoken words (and even those can often be open to interpretation).  
  > **username_1**: My experience is that it can be either resignation or a draw. During relays of top events, you see video of the top players all the time, just looking at each other, nod, knowing it is a draw, and shake hands. That has happened in my games too. The only reason resignation is more common in my games, and your example, is that there are more decisive games since we are not as good at drawing as the elite players. Your concept is only true if the first guy did, in fact, resign, and that was clearly not his intention, or there would not have been a dispute.  
  > **username_12**: @username_1 Top players are a lot better at assessing the position than the common folk, too, though. If one *knows* that the game is a clear cut draw, he can much more safely assume that his opponent knows the same, compared to a 800 player playing another 800 one.  
  > **username_1**: Rating does not matter, nor does how each evaluated the position. Even at the lower levels, since a handshake means nothing official, let alone in a tournament that is not really governed by FIDE or any other body, and it is clear that they did not agree on what they thought it meant, to use legal principles, there was not contract since there was no "meeting of the minds", so to award the victory to one side or the other would be a great injustice. All you could do is try to restart the game, or award the draw to be fair.  
  > **username_1**: I have not downvoted since January 16, but sorry, I think your answer is just incorrect since it is based on an incorrect initial premise, and bad judgment. I hope no one would follow this advice.  
  > **username_12**: @username_1 I've edited my post. You are probably right that "White wins" is not always the correct judgment.  
  > **username_1**: I would love to retract my vote, but I still cannot. Your experience still does not equate to everyone's experience, so it is too broad of a brush stroke since a handshake is not governed by any rules, especially here. It only depends on the position, and the interpretation of the position by BOTH players, and if one interprets it wrong, there is still a problem.  
  > **username_12**: I'm not sure - but is laying down your king as a sign of resignation actually governed by the rules? If not, would that make any difference?  
  > **username_12**: Scenario: Black lays down his king, stretches out his hand and later claims that he intended to move the king, then decided otherwise after touching it, and then intended to offer a draw by the offered handshake?  
  > **username_1**: That is also not a rule, but let's face it, there is no ambiguity there, so it really is not the same.  
  > **username_1**: What you describe in your scenario is also closer to cheating than a simple disagreement in what was the intention. Since I doubt that anyone has ever laid down the king and not meant it to be a signal of resignation, the guy changing his mind after the fact is just trying to cheat. Different animal.  
  > **username_14**: Threefold repetition or the 50-move rule are not an immediate draw either, as they have to be claimed and either agreed by the opponent or confirmed by the arbiter. However, I would say that offering a handshake after an obvious 3-fold repetition should not be interpreted as resigning.  
  > **username_14**: I don't remember which author it was (perhaps Silman?), but in a book I read, the author told a story that he once resigned by offering a handshake, the GM opponent looked surprised and asked "What are you doing?" The protagonist answered that he's resigning because the game is lost. The opponent immediately shook hands and proceeded to point out an immediate perpetual check that should've been obvious to both players. The opponent perhaps thought that the protagonist is offering a draw but suddenly forgot everything about the rules. So a silent handshake *can* be confusing even in GM level.  
  > **username_15**: While this answer was given from a chess-specific perspective, I think it fairly well applies to many other competitive tabletop games.  If you watch Magic: The Gathering tournaments, you'll often see somebody draw a card, decide they can't win, then silently offer their hand in concession.  Offers to draw aren't horribly common during a game, but when they do happen, there's more information to be exchanged than can be conveyed with a handshake.  
  
  ---
  
  ### Answer by username_1 on 2020-03-03. Score: 7
  
  Based on the comments to the question above, there is no offical ruling body governing the rules, therefore, the guy running the tournament is the final authority. It is really up to his judgment.
  
  If I were he, and there were time, I would try to see if we could reestablish the position, and finish from there. If not, I would declare a draw. I would not order a rematch unless there was some other great reason that was not listed above.
  
  Lastly, I would make sure that I taught them the rules.
  
  
  ---
  
  ### Answer by username_6 on 2020-03-03. Score: 6
  
  USCF and FIDE rules state that a draw should be made after the move but before hitting the clock. If those conditions have not been met, then the handshake could considered a resignation offer.
  
  <https://new.uschess.org/news/just-rules-draw-offer-blues/>
  
  > **Comments:**
  > **username_1**: I asked whether it was a FIDE or USCF tournament, and the OP said "an informal tournament. They did not even specify whether to apply FIDE or USCF rules", so none of that really matters.  
  
  ---
  
  ### Answer by username_7 on 2020-03-03. Score: 3
  
  Based on what @username_12 said, it may be interesting to know what was the situation on the board :
  
  1 - Was white obviously winning ?
  2 - Was there an obvious draw, such as a pat a few moves down the line ?
  
  If 1, Black is either inexperienced or tried something fishy by asking for a draw while losing. So White wins.
  If 2, then maybe it was reasonable of Black to ask for what was, to him, obvious. So ruling a draw is reasonable.
  
  It would be weird if it's neither of those situations (obvious draw or obvious loss). You wouldn't offer a draw in a situation where nothing is resolved.
  
  > **Comments:**
  > **username_0**: I do not remember for sure but it may be a position that is obviously a draw but it appears one side is losing to an inexperienced player. For example, King at the corner vs rook pawn + bishop of "wrong colour".  
  > **username_8**: @username_0, can you add this to your questions, it seems like an important bit.  
  
  ---
  
  ### Answer by username_9 on 2020-03-03. Score: -3
  
  There is an argument to be made that the players simply abandoned the game. As far as the rules go, handshakes don't mean anything. Nothing was said. The players just stopped playing and put away the pieces.
  
  Handing out a `0 - 0` result where both sides lose might be appropriate, at least it won't happen again then.
  
  Often, players resign without saying anything, by just offering to shake hands. This shouldn't happen as it might lead to problems like this question, but it does happen. It *also* happens that players offer a draw in the exact same way, especially in endgames where only they could win. It can equally lead to problems if a malicious opponent decides to interpret the offer as resignation.
  
  *We don't know which of the situations is applicable,* so we have to look at the rules. Seen from that viewpoint, the players just stopped playing their game and got rid of the evidence. If there is more knowledge of which scenario is more likely, then we can use that. But with only the question, we can't.
  
  > **Comments:**
  > **username_10**: This would be totally unfair to white. Offering a handshake as a form of resignation is very very common. If I was an arbiter and a player would try to pull a trick like black did in the question, I would consider something harsher than just merely making him lose the game, as what he did was against the tenets of fair play. Basically he's tricking his opponent into forfeiting the game.  
  > **username_9**: @vzs: It is equally possible it was in fact a draw and white is the one trying to trick the opponent.  
  > **username_10**: In that case black would have claimed that he verbally offered a draw.  
  > **username_9**: @username_10: in a dead drawn position where one side is a pawn up or so but there is no way to know, a player might offer a draw by extending their hand and saying nothing. And white could be the one to claim a win "because he resigned". There is no way to know from the information we have.  
  > **username_10**: *"a player might offer a draw by extending their hand and saying nothing"* - that's **not** how draws are offered. According to the logic you just presented, we could explain away anything. What if I literally say "I give up", but then later I regret it and try to explain that I didn't mean resigning, I just said that I've given up trying to win and my words meant I was offering a draw instead?  
  > **username_9**: It shouldn't, but it _does happen_ in such situations. I've seen grandmasters do it in person several times. Resigning by just offering a handshake also happens. We don't know which happened here, except that they both messed up by saying nothing, signing nothing, not keeping score, removing the position, just abandoning the game.  
  > **username_9**: In the end, you have to resort to the rules. The players shook hands. This does *nothing* according to the rules. Then they stopped playing and put away the pieces. How can you reward any points based on that?  
  > **username_9**: @username_10: I expanded my answer a bit to make my argument clearer.  
  > **username_10**: Even in that case, black admitted that he initiated the handshake, after which they started packing away the pieces. So if you don't want to see it officially as resignation, then you can apply FIDE rule 12.6 about not distracting the opponent. Offering a handshake and starting putting away the pieces, even if you refuse accepting it as resignation, then it would fall into distracting the opponent. Black even admitted that he started it.  
  > **username_11**: @username_10 Or to carry it to its logical ridiculous conclusion, I could flip the table over, and then explain that I was actually winning and had just saw a mate in ten, and was symbolically emphasizing my dominance over the other player and that they had lost.  
  > **username_10**: @username_11 : wow, that argument is so ridiculously exaggerated, that it's not even clear on whose side you are arguing :)  
  
  ---
  
  