Definition of "notetaking"

Running Chess Tournaments
1

I guess I may as well take this opportunity to ask the TD hive-mind about the acceptability of a couple of my own practices.

From time totime, after I make a move, I see what I think might have been a better one. Occasionally, I’ll write this alternate move, small and in parentheses, in the upper right-hand corner of the move box for post-game review purposes. Would this be construed as illegal “notetaking”?

Sometimes, before a game begins, I also write “Chatty Cathy” in large letters across the top of my scoresheet, as a mnemonic reminder to myself to look for checks, captures and threats on each move. Is this kosher or treyf? Obviously, it would be illegal to write, say, the moves of an opening line on one’s scoresheet, but what about general exhortations such as “Play slow”?

2

Using mnemonics on a chess notation sheet doesn’t smell legal or ethical to me.
How do I know that “Chatty Cathy” isn’t a hidden code for the moves of a particular opening variation, for instance?

3

20C. Use of notes prohibited. The use of notes made during the game as an aid to memory is forbidden, aside from the actual recording of the moves, draw offers and clock times, and the header information normally found on a scoresheet.

Based on this I’d have to say that you can’t record possible moves that might have been made. Even if you argue that you don’t record the moves as aid to memory during the current game but to help you remember them after the game, it’s quite possible that a move that didn’t work on move 15 might work on move 18, and the note you made could remind you about it. Aside from legality, why would you want to tell your opponent what move you were thinking about playing?

“Chatty Cathy” and “Play slow” are more debatable. If you wrote them on your scoresheet before the game started then strictly speaking rule 20C doesn’t apply, since it’s talking about notes made “during the game”. On the other hand, there’s Rule 20B:

20B. Use of recorded matter prohibited. During play, players are forbidden to make use of handwritten, printed, or otherwise recorded matter.

If your opponent objected, I’d rule that nothing other what’s listed in Rule 20C should be written on your scoresheet. I don’t think most opponents (other than crazyjon) would object to “Chatty Cathy” or “Play slow”, but they might object to your writing possible moves, unless they thought this helped them more than it helped you.

Having said that, some years ago I used the time management system recommended by Rolf Wetzell in his book “Chess Master … at any age”. Essentially this involves setting goals for how much time should be spent on each set of five moves (a “quintet”). The goals change depending on how much time has been spent and whether the player is moving too slowly or too quickly. Instead of just writing clock times as the moves are played the player writes projected times for when the next group of five moves should be played, and writes things like “-8” for being 8 minutes behind schedule. None of my opponents objected to this, but if they had I think the TD would have ruled that it was illegal note taking.

Underlining move 40 or circling the number 40 to indicate the last move of the time control is so common, though, that I’d allow it even if the opponent objected.

4

Interesting. Do you think this would also apply to (before the start of the game) writing down time points, i.e., “30” next to the move where, if you’re apportioning your time correctly, you should have 30 minutes remaining? (As opposed to writing the actual clock time, which is specifically allowed.)

5

It’s a slippery slope, but I think I’d make the same ruling as for the Wetzell system: I’d disallow it if the opponent objected to it. I doubt that many opponents would object.

6

As a TD, I would rule that what you’re doing is note taking. However, as a player, I wouldn’t object.

7

While we’re on the subject, I once saw an IM putting an asterisk next to certain moves on his score sheet during a game, and I decided to start doing the same thing. Really, it’s just a note to myself to remember and go look at that particular move in more detail during the post mortem. In fact, I frequently put asterisks next to the time, rather than the move itself, to make a note of spending too much or too little time on a particular move, to help with studying my time management afterward.

I’d guess that’s technically illegal, too, but it’s not like it helps me while playing the game, and none of my opponents have ever noticed or cared.

8

Moderator Mode: Off

About a year ago, we had this very discussion in Peoria, Illinois. Note that this applies to memory during the game. It does not apply to after the game.

The score itself is an aid to memory for after the game. It literally aids memory of the game itself after the game is over.

It certainly can be the case where making a note of a move you thought you should have played could help your memory during the game so would constitute note taking as mentioned in the rules.

Putting an asterisk next to a move also usually is not something to be used during the game, naturally or normally that I can envision.

It is a curiosity about listing times before the game begins. I too read Wentzel’s book and at one time did make those time markings on the score sheet before the game. It is similar to underlining move 40 before the game in a time control that includes 40 moves within a certain amount of time. I recall doing that when I first started playing tournament chess, but the vast majority of players did that as a normal thing.

Technically those things would be a note to aid memory in the game that those moves must be made before the time limit of that period. However it is not an aid to memory for any of the moves made on the board, and that is what I believe is the intent of that rule.

In practice, I have never seen any player object to any of the time notes made before the game by their opponent. I kind of agree with Smith that as a TD I would find it technically illegal but as a player I certainly wouldn’t object or complain.

Of course now I use the eNotate system which is a USCF approved electronic score keeping system using a PDA. So any type of notes made before during or after the game on the “score sheet” can’t physically happen anyway.

9

I think the common consensus is that you have to be very cautious when writing anything on the scoresheet. You shouldn’t put down anything that your opponent might object to, even though you won’t usually get a complaint.

The “notetaking” rule and the “written or printed material” rule can bring very harsh penalties, if the TD thinks you’ve gone too far.

In a recent game of mine, after a period of time pressure, both scoresheets were of questionable completeness (I thought I had only missed one move pair, but wasn’t completely certain) and I actually filled in the diagram on the scoresheet with the current position and added a note that it corresponded to move ## – so that I could play through the remainder of the game and also hopefully find the missing moves and reconstruct the earlier part of score when I did my post-game analysis. I remember worrying at the time how the TD would rule if my opponent had objected – though I would have insisted that the diagram was of no use to me DURING the game.

Writing anything on the scoresheet to use as a memory aid DURING the game is just flat against the rules, even if it’s “Chatty Cathy” or putting a time goal on every 5th move. If there’s not a pre-printed space for it on a normal scoresheet and it can be useful during the game, then it shouldn’t be written down.

The common practice of circling the move number at the time control seems OK because the time control is something you’re allowed to indicate on your scoresheet (it’s normally part of the “header information” that’s explicitly allowed in the rules).

10

One thing I’ve found mildly irritating (but never complained about) is putting “!” or “?” by moves as the game progresses. I imagine it could be useful as a psych ploy either to intimidate one’s opponent or put them off guard.

11

Rule 15F3 says “If it is impossible or unnecessary to reconstruct the moves as described above [reconstructing moves after the time control has been reached], the game shall continue. The players shall make a clear diagram of the position reached, and the next move played will be considered the first one of the following time control unless the players agree that a later move number has been reached.” I think you acted correctly by making a diagram of the position, not only so you could recontruct moves later but also as a starting point for any future claims, such as three time repetition.

12

It probably isn’t even necessary to write it down. But I just realized I’ve done the same thing. The only difference is I turned my name into mnemonic. Wait, Analyse, Yet Analyse some more, No don’t move yet, Enough move already. And I’ve often written Wayne on my scoresheet under the name field. Except sometimes I write me.

I’m also probably guilty of having written a ? mark after a move, which is probably considered a note. But from now on if I want to remember a certain move I will simply write it a little darker. Or maybe instead of lower case e4 I will write E4. That should work for most moves, BE4 instead of Be4 for example.

13

Wouldn’t this violate the spirit of the rules to the same extent as, say, putting a dot or an asterisk next to the move, or circling it, or (as I’ve done a couple of times) thickening the border next to the box?

Funny how many of us are TDs ourselves yet are copping to having bent this rule in our own games. Perhaps we share an inclination to try to follow the spirit of the law more closely than the letter, knowing that its chief purpose is to keep players from listing candidate moves or writing out possible lines. Of course, the moment anyone objects, the letter of the law must reign supreme.

14

Yes. It’s called “TD discretion.” It’s where we realize that the game is supposed to be fun and that the rigidity of applying every last jot and tittle of every rule is not necessarily appropriate for every situation. (Consider the difference between a friendly, informal club running a low stakes tournament and the World Open, for instance. Also see rule 1C2 on page 2 of the fifth edition of the Official Rules of Chess.) And it is why it is highly appropriate that TDs do not inject themselves into games unless there is a claim or a dispute to settle. After all, the first thing a TD should remember is that “chess is a game between two players.” (Those who require a citation from the rule book should see rule 2A on page 3 of the fifth edition of the Official Rules of Chess. Those who would prefer a citation with a more international flavor should refer to article 1.1 of the FIDE Laws of Chess.)

(I’m sorry. Perhaps I am overreacting one or more other threads in this forum.)

15

Gotta Love Chess Coaches!

I had a local 1900 player who was the coach of two talented young brothers. Suddenly I noticed the older brother (6th-8th grade at that time; highly experienced tournament player who traveled to major events) had started doing a lot more writing and erasing every move before finally making his move. I went up to look at his scoresheet and Lo! he was writing 3-4 canidiate moves down most moves, anaylzing each in turn and then erasing all the the chosen move.

“You can’t do that!”, I said. Somewhat sheepish, the older brother replied, “My coach told me that it was OK to do this.”
I went to the coach and told him that his players can’t do that. He limply replied that it wasn’t note-taking if you erased the notes. Didn’t put up much of a fight cause he knew he was way over the line.

Like I say, ‘Gotta Love Chess Coaches!’

16

.
DA1002

False, per the new/updated rule 15A.

Your words are contrary to the attitude of the Delegates who, a couple years ago, voted to change the rules so that now players are allowed to take notes, including erasures and rewriting different moves.

For reasons never explained, the new pro-note-taking rule allows only one erasure per turn. The new rule vaguely say that many more than that at some point violates even the new rule. (Relying on my memory of the new rule text.)

Premature writing of your candidate move is no problem; but subsequently being allowed to erase it or to play a different move crassly violates a fundamental principle of chess. The pro-note-taking debators conspicuously kept diverting attention away from the crucial erasure flaw.

FIDE? Hey, America is a sovereign country the last time I looked. In America we are going to take notes about possible moves that we are considering but which have not yet happened, darn it! And we will darn sure erase our premature move notations and make a different move if we feel like it!
Now if you will excuse me, the Sean Hannity show is about to start on Fox News.
.

17
So now we have a revisited history from one of the "true believers". From your tone, I'm still expecting the charge of "blasphemy" to be leveled at me or the other delegates! The "changed rule" you're complaining about was the ORIGINAL rule that was printed in the rulebook. The delegates TRIED to change it (actually voted to change to the FIDE-type rule), but back-tracked in the face of overwhelming opposition and caved in to pressure. They went back to allowing the move to be recorded before it's actually been played on the board. And yes, a player can correct a move that's been recorded. And yes, there's no real way to distinguish between a legitimate correction and somebody trying out one candidate move after another.

I’d still prefer that moves not be recorded until after they’re made. After all, you don’t see baseball scorekeepers ANTICIPATING the strikes and balls, and correcting the score if they turn out to be wrong! Why should chess players get to write down a candidate move and then change it? Isn’t that “note taking”?

Yeah, it is. Note taking of one candidate move is tolerated in the USCF. Get over it – I have. We also let players move the rook first when castling, another hold-over whose time has passed. The fact is that most players don’t care enough about the “move then record” rule to force it down the throats of the vocal minority that object to it. I don’t, that’s for sure.

It’s NOT a “slippery slope” that we have to worry about – there’s no chance at all that entire variations will ever be considered acceptable, after all – and there are more important battles. The furor over the attempted “move then record” rule was even more extreme on the other side than your comments – you’d think we’d started a civil war!

18

This should be OK, unless your opponent’s name is Cathy, in which case she might misinterpret and be insulted. :slight_smile:

Cool beans! He probably thought you didn’t have the slightest idea what his asterisks were for, but now when he sees you doing the same thing, he worries you may be on to him. Depending on what deep dark secrets the IM was trying to hide, he could become extremely flustered and drop a piece.

Bill Smythe

19

“Caved in” to pressure from whom, the ASPCA?

The Delegates made a rule change which many players did not like (that’s hard to believe, I know). Those players made their feelings known, in no uncertain terms, to the TDs, who then made this known to the Delegates. Many of the Delegates are also TDs, so they didn’t need to hear it second hand, either. The Delegates responded by rescinding their rule change (i.e., going back to the way it was before).

Responding to the members’ objections toward a change in policy is not supposed to be a bad thing for a representative body to do.

20

It is when it puts the USCF in conflict with the FIDE Laws of Chess, and is done only to placate a minority who cannot abide being told that they have to give up eccentricities which they should never have adopted to begin with.