I am curious how other TDs would handle a situation where a player is recording the game using a notation other than the three explicitly allowed in the book. More specifically, a player has invented his own notation system using a set of symbols.
There seem to be at least three options:
Allow the player to use the notation. If a claim is made or another situation arises necessitating the score sheet, the TD determines the meaning of the moves from the score sheet in order to make a ruling.
Allow the player to use the notation. If a claim is made or another situation arises necessitating the score sheet, the player’s score sheet is not usable for such purposes.
Forbid the notation, require one of the three explicitly allowed notations to be used, and if the player insists on using the invented notation, penalize as if not keeping score.
Eric was playing Jerry Hanken in a tournament and at one point, while Eric’s clock was running, Eric reached over for Jerry’s scoresheet to update his own. Jerry complained to the TD, who ruled that Eric was permitted to use Jerry’s scoresheet to update his own, since Eric’s clock was running and neither player was in the process of making a claim that required a complete scoresheet.
Fast forward to another event, Eric is playing Jerry again. This time it is Jerry who reaches for Eric’s scoresheet, takes one look at it and bellows (as Jerry was wont to do), “What on earth is THIS??”
Eric, who was fluent in several languages, was maintaining his scoresheet in Thai.
I know what Cyrillic notation looks like. What does notation look like in Japanese or Chinese? Has FIDE ever mandated which algebraic notation is acceptable for its events? The letters differ for various pieces in other countries which can be confusing.
I see no justification for option 3, since USCF rules do not require that notation be legible unless a claim is made. I’d be inclined to go with option 1, with the stipulation that if the TD can’t figure out the notation, this effectively becomes option 2. IMO, it’s up to the TD how much (if any) input he will accept from the player on how to interpret his notation and how much time the TD is willing to use deciphering the notation.
FIDE doesn’t require a specific language in its notation. It does require the use of algebraic notation at least. Here is the FIDE law on the subject in Appendix C.
Rule 15A states “Algebraic notation is standard, but descriptive or computer notation is permitted.” Those are, by implication, the only systems allowed (albeit in different languages if appropriate).
Rule 15D makes allowances for borrowing an opponent’s scoresheet under certain conditions for “assistance.” Such assistance is impossible in this scenario. (This is the weakest of these three to me.)
Rule 20C forbids the use of notes made during the game. If a player is using a system indecipherable to opponents or TDs, how would it be known whether such notes are being made?
I would consider it more reasonable to regard it as indecipherable notation rather than as not keeping score. Note that Rule 13C7 specifically mentions moves that are “recorded only with check marks” - which would certainly not be one of the types of notation mentioned in Rule 15A.
The times I have played in Switzerland, I learned and used the piece symbols for the locally prevailing language (Italian and German so far; French if I decide to play next week).
The initials for the names of the pieces may conform to the player’s native language. The notation for columns must use the roman letters ‘a’ through ‘h’, and the notation for ranks must use the Arabic numerals 1 through 8.
(Aside: It is interesting that 1, 2, 3 … are called “Arabic” numerals when in fact written Arabic uses Eastern Arabic numerals.)
I actually know a player who had a convoluted system of dots to annotate his scoresheet while recording moves (placement and number of dots indicated whether the opponent’s move was a surprise, or whether the player or opponent had taken a long time on the move, or other such information). I did warn him that if any opponent complained, I would have to rule that he was taking notes. (It’s no longer an issue since he now uses a ChessNoteR, sigh.)
I would in fact disallow an alternate notation system unless it was completely obvious there was no notetaking happening.
Why is using check marks to note the score not considered an “aid to memory”? Other markings are not permissible, even though they are designed for looking at the score after the game. Writing times and draw offers is permitted, which are also just as useful for post game study. As “aids to memory” they are perfect in allowing you to remember what was going on during the game.
I have suggested the use of various color pens or pencils to note the importance of moves to look at later, bad moves, good moves, novelties, and moves that take an extraordinary amount of time to make. With gel ink pens, you can write your move in pink, silver, yellow, or any other color. Whether they symbolize anything is up to you. Notating in invisible ink is also possible. One sees kids using multicolor pens and gel pens all of the time at tournaments.
Some time in the past I had a whole topic about just using the position of where you wrote the notation (far left, middle, far right etc) to mean various things. Bur realistically wouldn’t aid to memory actually only apply to aiding the game as one is playing it?