I think I see what you mean, and yes, both examples meant winning a rook for bishop or knight.
I was actually referring that in the first example there isn’t a specific game being referred to - just talking in general about, “the exchange.” In the second example it is a specific game being talked about, and therefore actual moves played at some point in time. Thus, it is actually played concrete moves and “the Exchange” becomes shorthand for those specific moves played in that game. Same concept in each, just whether talking about the idea of the concept, or the concept actually executed being described. (And if in the second example it is therefore a proper noun.)
But, as I mentioned, that example doesn’t hold up in analogous situations.
Apparently there is a rule requiring the move to be written after it is made. I can imagine being forced to make a King move (either from being checked or from having no other movable pieces), writing “K” on my score sheet, and then being hassled by an opponent for supposedly writing my move first. To which my response would be “Mind your own business.”
I was under the impression that that rule had been basically rescinded except for electronic scorekeeping devices.
Mike or Tim can you gives the official status of this?
How many TDs actually enforce that? The “move before writing” requirement was adopted in 2006, but was quickly changed by popular demand in 2007 by adding “15.A. (Variation 1) Paper scoresheet variation. The player using a paper scoresheet may first make the move, and then write it on the scoresheet, or vice versa. This variation does not need to be advertised in advance.” In my opinion, no sensible TD would even consider upholding such a claim. YMMV. But we’re getting pretty far off topic.
I doubt it. When I was there we had a style manual written by Frank Elley in the 80s. I seem to recall that they came up with another one in the late 90s, but I could be mistaken. At present, since CL doesn’t actually have an office and most of the staff has been “outsourced,” I have no idea what (if anything) is being used. The sort of thing you’re talking about (capitalization and similar usage questions) is really a matter of editorial discretion, so it’s possible the editor just formats things the way he wants with search and replace. That’s what I do, since I don’t really trust contributors to follow stylebook recommendations consistently
15A. Manner of keeping score.
In the course of play each player is required to record the game (both the player’s and the opponent’s moves), move after move, as clearly and legibly as possible, on the scoresheet prescribed for the competition. Algebraic notation is standard, but descriptive or computer notation is permitted. The player must first make the move, and then record it on the scoresheet. See also Chapter 3, Chess Notation; 13C3, Filling in moves with flag down; 13I, Refusal to obey rules and 35F6, Scorekeeping options; 43, Scoresheets.
TD TIP: While this rule brings the USCF in alignment with FIDE procedures and sooths many of the fears surrounding electronic scoresheets (see new rule 43) it is a huge change for many players. TDs are advised to first (and possibly second and third) issue warnings to players that do not comply with this revised rule before enforcing any time penalties (1C2a. prescribes adding two minutes to the opponent’s unused time).
15A. (Variation I) Paper scoresheet variation.
The player using a paper scoresheet may first make the move, and then write it on the scoresheet, or vice versa. This variation does not need to be advertised in advance
TD TIP: TDs may penalize a player that is in violation of 20C. “Use of notes prohibited” if the player is first writing the move and repeatedly altering that move on their scoresheet before completing a move on the board.
No one should have to trust contributors to know the stylebook. That’s what copy editors are for. Anyone who does trust contributors to know the stylebook is setting himself up for disappointment.
I certainly wouldn’t deny either statement. And I don’t imagine there’s any shortage of potential contributors to CL (quite the opposite, I’m sure, even with the passing of Jerry Hanken.) It would still be a useful thing to have as a general guide.
Does anyone have examples of other magazines’ style guides that may be available online?
CL is a bit unusual because of the game-score technicalities and special terms. I believe most general-interest publications use something like the AP Stylebook or the Chicago Manual of Style. We had an article about this in The Chess Journalist a few years ago (chessjournalism.org/pdf/cjmar04.pdf, see page 6).
That’s right – though usually with modifications to suit the subject matter, the readership and/or the editors’ pet peeves. And style guides tend to be in-house documents; unlike writers’ guidelines, they’re rarely shared publicly.
Thank you for the link, it was an interesting article. I’ve used both MLA and Turabian before in writing papers at college. That was some years ago, though.
Actually, they are quite good (if expensive!)
)