I don’t know any TD or arbiter who has ever, or would ever, find a player in violation of either USCF or FIDE rules because the spacing of their notation changed from move to move.
Writing things that are expressly permitted by the rules…is not against the rules. Writing anything else (commentary, alternate moves, markings that are not part of recording the move, etc.) is where USCF Rule 20C or FLC 8.1.b issues may come into play. The USCF rules are, as I read them, more stringent on this matter. However, the situation Mr. Zimmerle relates in his first post would never be considered a violation under either ruleset.
In FIDE competitions, I more often see violations of FLC 8.1.a (because players sometimes slip into DN for their notation, usually captures, when AN is mandated). Those are clear violations - but they are often not caught until after the game, if games are being entered into a database.
Thank you Kevin. I think this may illustrate what I am trying to get out better. Since it is clearly
forbidden to place ! or ?? on your score sheet, utilizing a method of right justifying ! moves or left
justifying ?? moves is a workaround to achieve the same forbidden effect. Thus it violates the spirit of the rule.
So if the above is true then the method of writing down the predicted moves of your opponent by whatever method is also violating the spirit of the rule.
Just because one can’t see the note doesn’t make it any less there than if one had used invisible ink.
I always felt that the ! and ?? prohibition was more a combination of keeping the scoresheet unambiguous and stopping the “sharp practice” of deceiving an opponent who can see the scoresheet. 20C made a convenient place to stop it.
If you are not comfortable deliberately changing the position in the scoresheet box then don’t do so. I am “guilty” of varying the move positions in the scoresheet box, but it is not deliberate. I am comfortable with that and have no intention of changing to being overly meticulous.
A TD seeing the varying position in the box doesn’t know if it is to indicate whether or not a move was good, was predicted, was at a game transitional point, or was just placed there because that’s where the paper happened to be positioned when it was quickly written. An opponent doesn’t know either. If an opponent is certain the the variance has meaning then only the person making the notes can really say what it is for and, barring some information other than just the position of the moves, the TD has no justification for ruling that it is anything other than what the note-taker says.
Or because the move on the previous line included a lowercase g (such as Bg4) whose lowercase descender extended down into the spot where I otherwise would have written the current move.
Writing things that are expressly permitted by the rules…is not against the rules. isn’t my issue. It is the creation of hidden information written using those above methods. Let’s take it one step farther and forget the prediction before moving etc, what if the code is for illustrating main line and variations played? Right justify indicates an exit from the variation. Left justification indicates a winning line, etc. Here is a clear cut case of helping to analyze while you are playing the game, yet one has only used expressly permitted writing. How can that not be wrong?
I think there are several separate questions which are being answered as if they are the same. I’ll try to separate them clearly.
Suppose your opponent complains about how you are keeping score. The td then questions you about it. If you don’t say anything, then the td is going to ignore the complaint.
However suppose that you tell the td that you are using the location, case, color, etc to help remember your analysis for future moves. Given that admission, how would the td rule?
Suppose one “pretends” to write down their move before making it, pretends to cover it up, reviews the board and then makes the move and writes it down - but no graphite ever leaves the pencil to paper, nor any ink from pen to paper. Is this allowed, or not?
[/quote]
sketchy there, kevin. after all, “the threat IS stronger than the execution…”
Thank you Boyd. " The use of notes made during the game as an aid to memory is forbidden, aside from the actual recording of the moves" I think you should have bolded that whole sentence, because it seems to implicitly give permission to use actual recording of the moves as an aid to memory.
Clearly, the rules (particularly FIDE’s) are designed to keep as much extraneous information off the scoresheet as possible. For instance, under FIDE rules, full algebraic (Ng1-f3) seems to be precluded even though as a TD (and a coach), I would much rather try to read through full algebraic than the abbreviated version—how many times has the move Rd1 not been disambiguated on a scoresheet?
If things like ? and ! could only mean “look at this more carefully when you go over the game” there certainly wouldn’t be any harm to the game in progress, but where would you stop if you allow that? Informant-speak has dozens of special symbols which could really be helpful reminders in future moves. While it’s possible to come up with systems for changing the mechanics of recording moves/times (different pens, different placement in the box) that might be used as an alternative form of reminder, those are inherently self-limiting (how many different colored pens would one bring?) and would be hard to legislate against (what happens if the first pen fails?). By contrast, apparently random scratchings on the scoresheet could have almost limitless meanings.
So I took the above rule quote to be in support of that.
And realize I have been for the most part arguing that there was a violation of the spirit of the rule in the encoding of info while still using legal scorekeeping writing.
So what was happening here was something you don’t see too much on these forums was me being convinced to change my viewpoint.
Take another example using the threefold repetition. On the second repetition simply offset that move so that one can then see when the third happens. On circling or marking of the move, just normal scorekeeping.
Does the application of 20.c require a complaint by the opponent or can it be initiated by a TD? I see little likelihood that an opponent will make a complaint that notes are being made if a dot or two or a tiny box (Informant style to show a forced move) is written on the scoresheet. First, he is probably not going to see it. Second, he will not consider it worth bothering about unless he wants to irritate his opponent with a frivolous claim. If the TD is making the claim, then that means the TD is intruding into the game, which can be a major irritation for the player being questioned.
If you make a dot or two on your scoresheet and an opponent or the TD calls it a note, the player should do the following:
a) deny that a mark was made
b) say that the mark could be a smudge or flaw in the scoresheet
c) the mark was a pen slip
d) ask what proof is there that the mark, even if made, is a note or aid to memory.
e) complain vociferously that the TD is interfering in the game and preventing you from focusing on the position. Say he is misapplying the rules and his discretion.
I have placed “D”'s for draws (legal and within the rules) and small dots on my scoresheet for years without a single person ever questioning the practice. I have noted people using multicolor pens to write moves. Kids drawing flowers in the score boxes to note “pretty” moves. Little robots and other drawings in scoresheet margins. Punctuation marks, ?, ??, ?! written by opponent’s moves, which I ignored because their evaluation was wrong. One opponent wrote “Be Happy!” on the top of his scoresheet before the game. I suppose that would be deemed a note, but who cares? It ain’t gonna help. Nor is it worth bothering about. Expanding the use of 20.c beyond the writing of actual analysis on the scoresheet or on a separate piece of paper causes trivial problems and unnecessary intrusions by the TD into the game. Allowing this to happen might be a clever bit of gamesmanship by an opponent to get another player off his game. This is another rule to put in the psychological bag of tricks of the cunning player.
I think my opponent repeated the position in a won position and I want to make sure before calling the TD. If I put a 1, 2, and 3 (my next move will set up 3) where I think the position repeated and underline the moves that set up this position, would my draw claim be disallowed because I wrote some extra stuff on my scoresheet?
That sounds like a wise and common sense thing to do in order to establish and demonstrate the repetition. It would help to provide the evidence you need for the TD. Therefore, it is likely against the rules. Your procedure would help TDs in tournament management and speed up a ruling.
I’ve had two non-obvious 3-fold claims in the past year, involving four titled players. Having move numbers written on the scoresheet wouldn’t have helped me one bit.
