Refresh my memory please. Was it ever decided on the forum whether final TC with 30 second increment is or is not sudden death? If so, what was decided and maybe point me to where. I know there’s been discussion and I thought I had it resolved in my head. Now I’m confused again.
There is a TD Tip that says it is not.
But is that right by the definition of sudden death.
I need to get this straight so I rule correctly. On more than one occasion, I’ve had a player make a claim that his opponent stopped keeping score and must keep writing his moves because it’s 30 second increment. They wait to make the claim until their opponent is in enough time trouble and missing enough moves that they can’t likely update their scoresheet and move quickly enough to continue and hold the position. Whether or not it is sudden death determines whether or not their opponent can borrow their scoresheet to update, right? So we must know, is it or isn’t it sudden death?
If the player can’t update his scoresheet, can he move without updating it or is he still in violation of the scorekeeping requirement and therefore cannot move until he updates it?
Please help resolve this. Sorry if it’s already resolved and I’m just not recalling it properly.
I’ll leave the rules answer to the rule mavens, but in every tournament I have been in where 30 second increments have been used the TD announced that scorekeeping would be required even when under five minutes. That solved the problem very cleanly.
It also implies, but does not prove that such an announcement was necessary. If it was, it was certainly deemed to be a minor enough variant that it did not have to be included in advanced publicity.
With an increment of 30 seconds or more, scorekeeping is always required, period. At one point, apparently, somebody on the rules committee (neither Tim Just nor Ken Ballou) managed to sneak a TD Tip into the rulebook along the lines of “scorekeeping is required because an increment of 30 seconds or more is not considered sudden death”. In other words, they tried to rationalize the scorekeeping requirement in a stupid way, rather than by simply stating that scorekeeping is required with a 30-second increment.
That dumb rationalization has had serious unintended consequences elsewhere in the rules, as this thread has clearly demonstrated. It’s been discussed in other threads, as well.
Now I suppose, in the case of a player who has stopped keeping score for several moves, and who is unable to update his own scoresheet without the aid of his opponent’s, the TD is on the horns of a dilemma. Should the TD deny the player’s request to see his opponent’s score, on the grounds that less than 5 minutes remains? Or should the TD grant the request, on the grounds that there is a 30-second increment? (If the TD chooses the former, in effect he is allowing the player to continue to get away with not keeping score.)
The logical solution would be to bring the rule allowing a player to see his opponent’s scoresheet into alignment with the rule requiring scorekeeping. Both rules should have the same conditions – they should apply whenever at least 5 minutes remains OR there is an increment of at least 30 seconds.
There is no statement in the text of the US Chess Official Rules of Chess that a time control segment in which all the moves must be completed is not sudden death if there is an increment of thirty seconds or more. There is a TD tip following rule 14G that states this. However, TD tips are not rules. There is no basis for that TD tip in the actual text of the rules.
My own personal opinion (which is just that – an opinion) is that it makes no sense to say a time control such as G/60 inc/30 is not sudden death. Any explanation I’ve heard of why it is not just leaves me scratching my head and puzzled.
There are exceptions called out in specific rules that apply when there is an increment of at least thirty seconds. For instance, rule 15C explicitly states that players are not exempt from recording the moves if there is such an increment. So, the announcement to which Mr. Mulford refers is not strictly necessary (but is a useful reminder, as players cannot be relied on to be “rule mavens” ).
It’s not necessary to make this announcement. USCF rules now require that players must keep score for the duration of the game if time increment capable clocks are in use, and the increment is set at a minimum of 30 seconds. Players are expected to know the rules. However, it is a good idea to make such an announcement anyway. The rule on this is relatively new, as is the use of time increment in general; it’s wise to announce this beforehand and hopefully ward off problems late in the round.
I would consider any time control that is G/x or SD/x (last segment of multiple) regardless of the increment to be sudden death as it is the last or only segment of the time control.
That being said, I don’t recall anything in the rules that require the scoresheet to be complete except for one case. At the end of a non sudden death segment and during the start of another non-sudden death segment, you must bring your scoresheet up to date if you had stopped notating due to time pressure (under 5 minutes) of the last segment. Since the 30 second increment is in play, this rule doesn’t apply here as you must keep notating even under 5 minutes. Other references mention things you can’t do if you’re scoresheet is incomplete (and not that you must always have it up to date). Is there something?
Also, I believe you are allowed to ask for your opponents score sheet to update your own regardless of the time control and time remaining. The only stipulation is that you must do it on your own time. Is there a restriction for under 5 minutes? I didn’t think there was.
So no, it was never decided on this forum if +30 in a final TC is sudden death or not? It’s not addressed in the official rules?
I think what is needed to answer the question is a definition of sudden death. I don’t recall finding one in the official rules. (Point me to it if it’s there please.) Is there a definition that long-time experienced TDs just know that you could share?
Do we reject the repeating TC logic put forth by some as nonsense? A TC is a TC and a bonus is a bonus (whether delay or increment) and not confuse the two?
It’s not just about scorekeeping that TDs need to know for sure whether it’s SD. What about witnessing illegal move if it’s not SD? TD intervenes?
If it is SD, then we’ve kind of got this loophole out there. I’ve seen it used more than once by masters on unsuspecting masters or A players. Increment is all the rave here. They wait until their opponent is missing 10-12 whole moves with a minute on their clock and make a claim for 2 minutes on the scorekeeping violation and require them to update their scoresheet before their next move. If it is SD, they can’t even ask to borrow the claimant’s score. They must fill in a dozen legible moves (not scratch any old thing down) made in time pressure by memory and do it fast and still be cool to make an accurate move. Pretty impossible. It is really sad to watch no matter who was winning on the board. It’s usually difficult to rule and continue quietly while other games nearby are also in time pressure. Sometimes the claimant will offer his scoresheet even know he doesn’t have to (hoping it won’t really help). Other times he’ll say he doesn’t care about his opponent filling in moves. He just wants the 2 mins and for him to keep score from then on.
And yes, I totally get that it’s a must keep score situation and the TD is not required to announce it. Players are responsible to know the rules. In Colorado, TDs mostly strive to announce it before play or post it. Players who don’t know the rules, read the postings, listen to pre-play talk, show up late, or have limited English are the ones who stop keeping score. Sometimes it’s just someone who knows they are losing.
I think I hear Mr. Ballou saying the official rules don’t say it isn’t sudden death, so it is … regardless of what the TD Tip(s) may say. I’ve been treating it like SD in my rulings. But it’s hard to watch masters use this loophole, especially when they’re losing.
It is true that the current Official Rules of Chess do not actually define a sudden death time control. (My proposed rewrite of rule 5 would have addressed this. The current state of that rewrite is that the rules committee has agreed to consider it for the Mythical Seventh Edition.)
Sadly, one is left to infer what a sudden death time control is from the current rules 5A and 5B. One might have hoped that a rule titled “5B. Sudden death time controls” would actually have conclusively defined what a sudden death time control is. However, rule 5B only gives one example:
As it currently exists, I find rule 5B almost completely unhelpful and uninformative, but that’s just one person’s opinion. Rule 5A seems to allow us to infer what a sudden death time control is from the second sentence in the first paragraph.
This is interesting and related to my questions. Maybe the requirement after penalty shouldn’t be complete the scoresheet but just record the last whole move before moving and then continue keeping score?
I’m connecting these two situations in my mind maybe wrongly. I don’t know. In non-sudden death, isn’t it something like 5-6 half moves you’re allowed to be missing and still have a complete scoresheet? So in +30 wouldn’t the scoresheet have to be complete to that point to meet the requirement of keeping score before you make another move?
I don’t see anything in the rules which requires a player to fill in missing moves on his scoresheet, other than after the end of a time control (15F). Rule 15D says that a player with an incomplete scoresheet “may” ask to borrow the opponent’s scoresheet to fill in missing moves, which suggests that it’s optional. I normally give a warning rather than imposing a penalty the first time I find that a player has not been keeping score, and I wouldn’t tell a player with only a minute left on his clock to fill in missing moves. Why should I reward gamesmanship?
Yes, in my opinion G/90 +30 is sudden death, despite the erroneous TD Tip which has been cited. G/90 is the preferred notation rather than SD/90 - see the examples in rule 5C.
“15. THE RECORDING OF GAMES
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. The scoresheet shall be visible to the arbiter (tournament directors) and the opponent throughout the game.”
With the requirement to keep score move after move in this manner in a +30 control, has a player met that requirement if there’s a gaping hole in his scoresheet? I think not. I’m not saying anyone’s scoresheet needs to be perfect, but I do think it needs to be complete to move in a +30 control. I think using the guideline of completeness for other claims that require it might be in order.
I disagree with your policy to give only a warning for not keeping score, unless the player in violation is a young or inexperienced player. I’m talking about high level players who should know better. To not give the penalty encourages players to not keep score if they want because they can get away with only warning. They can win the game doing that while their opponent struggles to keep up his score according to the rules. The player keeping score deserves 2 mins added if his opponent has abandoned scorekeeping and is trying to blitz him out with +30 Inc. I’d appeal your decision not to penalize if I made this claim on a master.
I agree with you and I think Mr. Ballou is of that opinion also. Sounds like possibly Mr. Just also. But does any of that mean an appeal to the USCF would be upheld if a TD acted under SD rules for +30 control? I just want some confirmation that I’m ruling according to what the powers that be expect.
And if any of this is on the Senior test, I’d like to be sure I understand it before I get there.
Yes, the player violated the rule of keeping score move by move. I penalize that by giving the player a warning and telling him to start recording his moves. The rule doesn’t say that missing moves have to be filled in.
If I’ve warned a player in previous games about not keeping score I’ll most likely impose a penalty.
If you complain right away that your opponent isn’t keeping score you haven’t been damaged. If you wait 10-12 moves any damage is your own fault for not complaining sooner. You do have the right to appeal, though. Maybe the appeals committee or special referee will see it differently.
That’s the thing. It can feel like rewarding gamesmanship to give the penalty and on top of that require the scorekeeping from when it dropped off. But who’s the real gamemanshipper here? The one making the claim or the one not following the rules to try and blitz out his opponent? It’s impossible to determine If the claimant just noticed the violation or if he intended to let it get too bad too fix and win that way. It’s not impossible to see the violation and penalize it. Not keeping score can be as wrong as waiting to Point out the score isn’t being kept.
A violation deserves a penalty unless the offender is young or inexperienced.
I think the rules allow for not penalizing a new or young player. I
think if you don’t penalize when you should, the claimant may appeal and you should tell him so.
The person making the claim invariably says they just noticed after many moves are missing. I think usually they did notice, but it’s not impossible they did not. They were keeping score and with little time left to win or lose.
).