A Second Scoresheet

Running Chess Tournaments
61

Eric, in response to your question in post #324420, for me the time difference is important, as is the ability to be quickly organized.

But in addition to this personal motivation, I see in this topic two important US Chess Issues: A) Rules Clarity (communication) and B) Governance Clarity. I haven’t gone into the two issues in this thread because this thread dealt with what the rules actually say. (My personal experience in the past year is that what many TDs (even at the NTD level) think what the rules say, and what those rules actually say is often two different things.) To expand into those topics, I am starting a new thread in the Issues Forum with this post.

To all posters, if posting in response to these topics, please see the thread "Clarifying Rules and Governance"in the US Chess Issues Forum.

Rules Clarity
This can happen for several reasons.

One possibility is that the rule could be poorly worded. We have all experienced at various levels that US Chess is not the best organization in terms of communication. We tend to have a male centric, “nerd centric” (and I mean that nicely – in a techno centric sort of way), mildly social inept, secret handshake oriented approach to communication. It is often difficult in this organization to get others to see that better communication is important. (And in saying that, I am not saying that I’m “immune” to those same issues.)

Or, there could be a lack of clarity of intent. For example, the rule about using a prescribed scoresheet does not say that it is the ONLY scoresheet that must be used. For some people, they believed it implied that intent. For other people, they may have felt that it was flexible in allowing someone to simultaneously record in their personal scoresheet/scorebook. The split never got discussed, and we certainly see that both practices have occurred.

The problem is that, reading the plain language, the intent is no longer clear.

When we discover such situations, as an organization, we don’t need to get angry at each other because the rule was imprecise. All we need to do is to decide what we want, and then make the rule more precise to reflect that; in this case by clarifying that the prescribed scoresheet is the ONLY scoresheet, or clarifying that a second, unofficial scoresheet may be allowed.

Governance Clarity
This may not be the most precise title for the second issue, but its a start. Namely, both historically and currently, US Chess sometimes has issues with what governance entity is (ultimately) responsible for which task. Is it Rules, or Scholastic Committee, or something else? It’s not clear to me - and from my knowledge others - that the policy is set clearly in this regard for other governance entities to follow.

For example, we’ve heard from several TDs in this thread that they would ban the use of a US Chess approved e-scoresheet in their events. On some level, that’s nonsense, and is a case of an organization fighting with itself. Why are we approving devices on one hand, and letting others ban them on another? That makes no organizational policy sense! These devices, while less expensive than custom-crafted devices, are still likely to cost $150-$200, representing a fairly significant investment by a player. For what purpose did they make that investment, if they can’t use it? What does it mean for US Chess to approve the use of a device, if the device cannot be used?

It is things like this that ticks-off members and communicates that US Chess is a schizophrenic and dysfunctional organization. And these things happen fairly consistently in U.S. Chess, because “fiefdoms” make decisions with insufficient central coordination. In the end, it is again about bad communication.

I can recall events like this back to the days of the Kaisha chess clock, for example. Members are buying it, IIRC US Chess was selling it, and some directors were banning it because they either didn’t like digital clocks or just didn’t like the Kaisha design with it’s flat, horizontal, glare-susceptible face.

This is a long-standing issue with US Chess.

So Eric, in addition to the personal motivation, this issue has touched me with respect to two other issues that I believe are important to US Chess. So the noise isn’t just about using an e-scoresheet at tournaments. But I figured, one part of the problem at a time.

62

How long does it take you to copy a game from a written scoresheet to an electronic one after the game is played? 5 minutes? 10? You could almost certainly do it while sitting at the board after the clocks have been stopped. I don’t see why you feel potentially disturbing your opponent by keeping score on two scoresheets, or a scoresheet and a device, is such a big deal.

I would rule only allowing a single scoresheet to be used during a game, because more than one is disturbing, and the rules only use the singular form “scoresheet.”

-Matt

63

The singular form may refer to the official scoresheet which is singular. There appears to be no rule against multiple scoresheets. On what basis is having more than one disturbing? The action is less than the action of getting in or out of a chair. Will you be consistent and rule that all players in the tournament must remain seated for the entire game?

64

It’s disturbing because it is unusual. It has the appearance of note taking, and if I was playing, it would bother me. The rules don’t say you can’t put a live chicken on your head either, but I wouldn’t allow it.

Do we need to submit an ADM to explicitly say you can only use one scoresheet, or will you let this go?

65

I have seen, and various NTDs in multiple forums have said that they have seen or allowed, players to use a second scoresheet, particularly when a prescribed scoresheet was the official scoresheet and the player also wanted to write in their own scorebook.

So, there is existing precedent and practice.

Additionally, the current rules simply don’t have a limitation of one scoresheet. They do have a limitation of one OFFICIAL scoresheet.

So, if you want the rule to be that there is one and only one scoresheet, then yes, you’ll need to submit an ADM. And given the information that has come in, it has nothing to do with me “letting it go.” It has to do with what the actual practice has been.

As a matter of principle, rules should actually say what they mean - not something else so that there is implied confusion.

66

Given the general backlash - I’m wondering if Matt or anyone else disagrees with the above?

67

I think the rule is clear. In wording, and intent.

You seem to be the only one fighting for some other interpretation to meet your needs.

-Matt

68

Given that other TDs have allowed second scoresheets, it’s obviously not just me. Given that the plain language of the rule IS NOT clear, and can be logically diagrammed as such, it’s obviously not clear. Given that multiple TDs in this thread have said that they don’t see anything in the rules precluding the use of a second score sheet, it’s not just me.

We still have many poorly worded rules. It’s much better than it was a while back (I recall when the 2nd or 3rd edition allowed one to get out of check by mating the opponent, for example) but it still needs work and always will. Why people consider rules improvement some sort of a personal insult is what I don’t get. It’s a rule. It’s meaning needs to be clear.

This becomes even more important with our new mission. If we are taking chess to the general public and trying to educate and grow it, then our messages need to be clear.

NO ONE in this thread has provided a logical argument demonstrating that a player cannot use a second scoresheet. OTOH, there has been a logical argument presented that the rules allow the player to record on a second, unofficial, scoresheet.

If the rule is so clear, then look at the initial post, and demonstrate the flaw. It’s not hard.

In stating the following, I’m trying to make a point about how we need to approach things, I’m not comparing myself (or the specific situation) to Einstein.

When 100 German scientists signed a letter saying that relativity was wrong, Einstein replied that if it were wrong, it would take only ONE scientist for the argument to be convincing.

If the interpretation provided is wrong, make a logical argument and SHOW THAT. The argument based on THE has been dealt with several times in several forums: 1) Its simply referencing descriptions of rules and events scoresheet by scoresheet. (One can have multiples of anything, but describe a set of procedures for handling them one by one, referring to each as “the”. This is common language.) 2) Additionally, in some cases it could refer to the “official” scoresheet.

In neither case is the reference clear, nor is it clearly referencing only one scoresheet.

I’d also like to know why striving for clear rules someone makes me a bad guy? It certainly seems like you and some others feel that way. Yet I’ve said several times - some in this thread - that if what we want is clarity that only one scoresheet be used, that’s fine. Pass a rule change and do that. Why is being clear about the rules a big deal? Don’t good fences make good neighbors?

69

The rule is clear. There is no need to add more pages to the Rulebook to make it more clear because one person wants to parse it more than it has to be. I would expect that at a Delegates meeting a motion to make such a change to “clarify” would be either tabled, because it would take too much time to consider, or be voted down as an unnecessary change which could lead to a host of unintended consequences.

Organizer prerogatives are clear. He or she may establish competition rules, rules of etiquette, and equipment limitations that everyone but the OP seems to understand. All of this fits in with the rules and guidelines of the USCF Rulebook. If an organizer is running a FIDE rated tournament, the rules of the competition may be more strict than you prefer, but personal preference is not going to change them.

You do know that your form of logic was a game that the Greeks liked to play with their children, don’t you? They played it to show the tricks and traps that one could form when using syllogisms before moving on to more complicated forms of inquiry. A form of the “Yes and No” logic game was used by Socrates in Plato’s “Phaedo” and “The Republic.” It is not clear that Socrates himself actually would have stooped to using the game with his students. It is more likely Plato put words into Socrates mouth as a way of adding weight to his own criticism of the Sophists’ way of argumentation. That technique of using a known figure to say what you wanted to say was a common practice. Plato’s use of analogies in the treatises in order to prove a point as “true” is faulty (for example, the “shadows in the caves.”) but is another mark against the Sophist style. Aristotle codified the rules of the “Yes and No” game into what we call formal logic. Later philosophers have demonstrated its limitations and the need for empirical reasoning based on real facts and evidence. Aristotle was not an empiricist in the way we think of them and often made almost embarrassing scientific assertions based on logical extrapolations. See Rudolph Flesch, “The Art of Clear Thinking,” among others. The fragments we have of ancient Greek philosophical texts show that their view of decision making was richer and more complex than formal logic. It is a shame that the ancient Greeks , who are known to have played race games similar to Parcheesi because of their contacts with the Egyptians, but there is little evidence to show they played hard strategic games similar to chess. Chess would have appealed to them because they were among the first to develop spatial reasoning. With further discovery we may find that they did play an early form of our game

Carry on with your obsession to sate your personal appetites. Socrates would have understood that. See F. M. Cornford, “Before and After Socrates.” You are not a bad guy, just one who is obsessed with “proving” you are right when anyone disagrees with you. It is entertaining.

70

I agree that it is clear. It clearly, as worded, allows a second scoresheet.

If you disagree, then please demonstrate, logically, where the initial argument is incorrect.

I’ve already shown that it doesn’t require pages. It requires the addition of one word: “only”

This isn’t about parsing. It’s about logically following plain language. If the rules are not clear in their meaning for you, fix them.

Wow - adding the word “only” would be that complex?

None of this discussion is about FIDE rules because there is no confusion about what those rules say.

An organizer also has an obligation to follow the rules, including the Code of Ethics. Including advance announcements.

If this is something you want to change so badly, then what’s wrong with adding “only”, or “multiple scoresheets are not allowed?” Where is this “pages” you say it would take?

Lasker said “Long analysis is wrong analysis.” Long rules are bad rules.

What I know is that your characterization of the above is highly inaccurate. Part of my college time was spent reading the Great Books and learning through the Socratic approach.

I will also point out that I designed and taught a college level 5 semester hour logic class, using not only the modern textbooks of Copi (clearly considered the best, although I also like Kahane), but the classic works of Aristotle, the Organon, focusing on the Categories and Prior Analytics and Posterior Analytics. I added to this readings from Boole, Pierce, Frege and Russell.

Again, what you offer above is essentially hogwash. Save for one flaw in his reasoning (based on an assumption of existence, which was a flaw as demonstrated by Russell) Aristotle’s logic would hold today. One can convert it to symbolism and it works quite well so long as we know that all the antecedents actually exist.

And you’re a guy who thinks that a statement of disagreement without any proof carries weight. It doesn’t.

It’s simple, Tom. Very, very simple. If my initial analysis is wrong, just show us where. I’d be happy to see it.

71

From another thread and unanswered.

Are we really going to have to discuss what “the” definition of “the” is?
Note that the first two definitions at Merriam Webster are singular.

When you say “put the cat out” a reasonable person is referring to only one cat and doesn’t expect somebody to bring a second cat into the house so that one can be put out and then say the request was supposed to be “take the cat currently in this house and put it outside” (seeing as saying take the “put the only cat out” or “put the cat in the house out” doesn’t stop somebody from saying they figured the request was for the only cat that was next door). I can just see somebody saying the “only scoresheet” means using your own scoresheet means you can’t have to use the organizers scoresheet because you are already using the one you prescribed for yourself for the competition, or the two players have to share the same scoresheet, or even all players in the round have to share the same scoresheet. I’m sure there are ever more bizarre ways it can be deliberately misinterpreted that will be found as the rule is made longer and longer to stop the latest ingenious misinterpretation.

When a newspaper is running an article on national politics and asks the copy editor to supply a picture of the president a reasonable person doesn’t expect the picture to be that of the president of the local PTA with the provider saying that the request should have included “of the United States”. If you feel that the person you are talking to is unreasonable then you start hedging everything you can, but treating everybody that way will cause them to feel that the requesting authority is a pain in the neck (maybe lower) and not particularly worth respecting.

Can you say that we should always deny the very first two definitions of “the” and only use your definition? Will every rule have to be made even longer just to counter every possible way something can be parsed (and then made longer still when the additional length can be parsed in unanticipated ways)? A majority of the non-TD players that have discussed the rules with me already say that the rules are so convoluted that the average player can’t keep track of them, so why would we want to further deter the average player from reading the rulebook? People trying to slice and dice and parse rules in the past have already caused the rulebook to get longer by leaps and bounds and now we need to make it longer still? FIDE rules were brought up because they are much shorter than US Chess rules, but you already noted that they do not have the clarification that you are requesting (maybe you can get FIDE to correct that).
72

No, there’s no reason to discuss it because the way I used it was within the definition. Your analogy above fails because if you live in a house with one cat, one expects that “the” refers to the “one cat”.

If you work for a pet hotel, and someone says “put the cat out” its unclear.

We live in a tournament environment with a long history of people using their own booklet or paper scoresheets. That history doesn’t change because some are now electronic.

So yes, it might be a definitive referring to “the official scoresheet”, or it might be a definitive referring to one in series (as a definitive example.)

The reason you picked a bad analogy is because your bias is toward only one. So you subconsciously picked an analogy to try to show that. The other analogy works just as well logically, so there’s no logical reason to assume that, as worded, it means one and only one.

I find it amazing that the NTDs in this organization are so incapable of expressing themselves clearly that they cannot come up with language that says what it means, and so continue to resist doing so.

Oddly, I work with many legal documents every day, typically describing mathematical situations. I’ve done it for 30 years. Somehow we manage to work and craft and make the language exact. Why is it that NTDs are so incapable of doing this?

I made one suggestion. I thought it likely sufficient. If its discussed and determined that there are still reasonable gray areas, then add just a few more words: one and only one (like if and only if in math) scoresheet as prescribed by the organizer or tournament director. OK, we are now adding one short clause one time. It’s doable. Trust me. I deal with harder stuff every day.

Again, an entirely different situation.

BTW, do you read the news lately, or watch TV? It is incredibly poorly worded and often says things it does not mean. OFTEN.

Not at all. One describes for clarity and to avoid confusion. Again, Jeff, I SEE THIS EVERY DAY. And on stuff much harder than this. It isn’t that difficult.

No, since we didn’t deny any definitions of “the”.

I agree the rules need work. Making them exact doesn’t mean making them more complex or longer.

I didn’t not that FIDE rules "do not have the clarification that you are requesting ". I said that that I hadn’t checked this area, and wasn’t discussing the FIDE rules because they are generally more clear than US Chess Rules. Something that is shorter and clear doesn’t need a clarification.
73

I find it interesting that you seem to think that once you change the wording then nobody else will disagree with your interpretation.

I provided multiple ways in which somebody who wants to disagree can choose interpretations that support that disagreement and yet you are saying that once you make your change people will stop doing that. After years of seeing people try to twist and parse some of the simplest of rules I have to say that there will always be people willing to parse something in a very unexpected way.

74

I didn’t change the wording, so the above makes no sense.

I don’t expect anyone to agree with “my interpretation.” I expect people to agree with logic and rationality. There’s an objectiveness here, Jeff. It has nothing to do with my.

NO, that’s not what I said. That’s what YOU said. One can make the rule clear. There are various ways to do so. One could say for example, “that a player may only have one and exactly one scoresheet at any time.” That statement is clear. You didn’t provide any ways to disagree with interpretations. One simply needs to craft clear, concise language.

What I’m hearing for you are excuses to not try to make it better. If our NTDs are that inept with the rules, if they are that incapable of expressing themselves, then they should stop directing. In fact, we should be demoting their credentials if they are that incapable.

We’ve already seen in the past year how poorly TDCC test instructions are written, we’ve seen how poorly questions are worded. Are you now saying that NTDs are also incapable of contributing to clear rules? It sounds like you have no faith in NTDs to accomplish anything. Is the situation really that dire?

75

I was referring to your comment that the word “only” should be added to make everything clear, and responded stating that even with that change there will still be people that contest it for whatever reasons they have.

The rulebook says right up front in rule 1A that “the rules of chess cannot and should not regulate all possible situations”.

I am opposed to a mindset that thinks the rulebook should cover every possible situation. For that matter, I am opposed to a mindset that forces all tournaments to be the same since there is a significant difference between them. As far as the second scoresheet goes, I’d be fine with allowing it in a tournament I direct but I would not want to prohibit other tournaments from limiting the tournament to just their scoresheets.

The rule is worded fine as currently written for almost any reasonable person and an unreasonable person would likely be able to contest almost any wording by claiming the wording is not really clear and concise.

Although many people feel that the rulebook should be exact in every situation, I strongly disagree and prefer rules to have a limited amount of “wiggle room”. A simple example is the rule that a Local TD should not be the chief of a Swiss tournament expected to have more than 100 players (well, 120 with assistance and using a pairing program). “Should not” has been regularly interpreted by the Rules committee as “must not unless there is a very good reason” and there has been a very strong feeling that “should not” is much, much better than “must not”. In the '90s I was LTD who was the chief of a 381-player state all-grade. It went relatively well with some issues that had to be worked through, but I knew I was a bit over my head as the chief TD that early in my career. That looks like a direct violation of that 120-player limit except that the anticipated chief TD had a car accident and was hospitalized just before the event, so the choice was between a last-minute promotion of the floor chief to chief and cancelling the event. That seemed to fall under “unless there is a very good reason”.

76

Are you seriously arguing that rule 1A means it ok if we have poorly a sloppily worded rules? I also don’t feel the rulebook should cover every situation. I believe in principles-based rather than case-based rules for that reason.

But the idea that the rules cannot be better worded when there are such obvious (and obviously easily adjusted) circumstances is completely unconvincing. I’ve worked with Tim Just, and I know that he does a great job, I can only conclude that as a committee, the Rules Committee and the TDCC have done poor jobs.

Your definition of “reasonable person” seems to be “someone who agrees with you.” When I can take plain language, diagram it from both an English perspective and logic perspective, and show that your interpretation is absolutely incorrect then I have also shown that your definition of “reasonable person” is also incorrect.

Jeff, this is what - the 3rd or 4th rule within the past year that I’ve shown you clearly misinterpret. What’s the review procedure for an NTD that keeps making errors?
77

Pretty sure it involves the TDCC. Even more sure it doesn’t involve comments on the Forum.

78

You are correct. To Jeff Wiewel, I apologize. I sometimes become frustrated when I deal with issues of fact and I feel that people try to put those off to “opinion” or “interpretation” under the assumption that the only reason I care is because of personal impact.

I care because I want things to be done well.

I should have handled these comments better. Again, my apologies to you, Jeff.

79

First post in thread:

Allen’s comment confirms this interpretation.

80

No my comment doesn’t confirm any point you are trying to make at all. You asserted a DGT board is a scoresheet do the player is keeping a second scoresheet. That is simply incorrect.

The organizer can clearly restrict players to using scoresheets that are provided.