I have seen a recent uptick in the bad behaviors regarding notation.
~Stopping notation after 15 or so moves with plenty of time on the clock
~Skipping a few moves of notation here or there
~after messing up and not notating for a few moves just looking at the move number on the opponents and starting notating from there
~Skipping a few moves of notation then writing “K” for a king move and then not notating for few moves again
~Asking for the opponents score sheet while the opponent thinks
Obviously some of the is nit picky, I am just surprised how much of it I have seen recently.
The question, at what point is it appropriate to contact the TD and what should you expect the TD to do about it?
(Mostly Sudden Death, but some with a second time control)
The first situation is straightforward. If the player is not recording the moves in compliance with rule 15A, complain to the TD. You should probably expect that the TD will start by just warning the player that he must continue to record the moves.
The final situation is also straightforward. A player is entitled to ask his opponent for the scoresheet provided the player is on the move and that both players have at least five minutes left in the time control. If the player is not on the move, he is not entitled to ask. Politely refuse, and if the player continues to make inappropriate requests, complain to the TD. This could be considered “annoying behavior.”
Rule 15A imposes no requirement on the quality of the notation. Missing moves and an incomplete scoresheet will affect the player’s ability to make claims (such as draw claims by triple occurrence or by the fifty-move rule) that require a reasonably complete and accurate scoresheet. Note that a reasonably complete scoreshett is not required to claim a win in a sudden death time control, as it is not necessary to prove that the opponent failed to make a specific number of moves.
Basically, you would be better off investing your energy in your own moves than in worrying about your opponent’s scoresheet.
Whenever an opponent asks to see my scoresheet while my clock is running, I simply tell him that can see my scoresheet after my next move, while his clock is running.
Many of the players who do not notate or do so intermittently are scholastic players who are used to not having to notate their games. In local scholastic tournaments, it is common not to require notation until the players are considered “intermediate” or USCF 600+ rated. Having not been trained at the very beginning to learn and practice notation, they then do so only when they feel like it or if pressed to do so. It is common for these players to write down only their own moves, write their moves and their opponents’ moves in the wrong column, or skip several moves. When both players are doing this the score sheets are a mess and unusable if there is a rules question. It is also difficult to reconstruct the moves later to go over the games. Because of this, less learning occurs. Sometimes even adults mess up their score sheets or stop annotating after 15 moves or so in fast time controls. However, players are there to play chess and have fun. It is a game. As one person told me a while back, “I don’t write down moves in Stratego or Risk. Why do I have to do it in chess?”
The purpose of notation was to determine if a certain number of moves were made in a given time control session, like 40/120. With the onset of faster time controls, one time session games, delay and increment, it might be good to distinguish when we should apply the rules requiring the writing down of moves. The players should be informed that by not writing moves they do not have protection of the rules and will have difficulty making claims like repetition or the 50 move rule. The following is a list of tournament types where the writing of moves should be optional:
Quick Chess - Quick Chess rules do not require notation, though some players still write down moves until they have 5 minutes or less left.
Scholastic tournaments with a time control of Game 30 or less with a delay. Organizers already make the writing of moves optional for younger and/or lower rated players. Making it optional for the whole tournament given the short time span to think is reasonable.
Dual rated events with a time control of Game 60 or less with a delay setting. Relaxing the rule for writing moves can lead to higher quality play as the distraction of writing moves is gone. The motor skills of younger players and older players are such that they have to spend too much time on writing moves down. Anyone with arthritis knows how painful and slow it can be to write anything down.
Any tournament that is run without using a delay setting. There are so many reasons why this type of tournament should not occur, but requiring writing moves, too, seems like a punishment for the players.
Players should be required to write their moves in more professional time control settings and where the use of increment is present. The types of events where moves must be written would include:
Two and three time session events where players have to make a certain number of moves in a given time period.
One time session events which have 60 minutes or more with delay. (My preference would be Game 75 or higher, but Game 60 or above is adequate)
Any event where increment timing of 30 seconds is implemented from move one. This would provide adequate time to write down the moves and press the clock.
For the consideration US Chess would pay them? Note, I’m just answering Mr. Bachler’s question. Not expressing an opinion on whether US Chess resources should be invested in this suggestion. Note also that the consideration needn’t be cash. E.g. advertising.
A deal with Plycounter might take several forms. The core value to Plycounter would be to increase visibility of Plycounter amongst US Chess members and increased sales volume. Getting the price down for US Chess members to $99.99 might be too deep a discount from Plycounter’s point of view, but a number of people I’ve spoken with have said that they’d be willing to pay up to $125 for one. This is fairly common in the not-for-profit world. I would not want to see US Chess subsidize the price cut directly. Rather, we could promote the opportunity with advertising on the web site and in Chess LIfe for perhaps a six month purchasing window. The incentive for Plycounter would be increased sales and resulting publicity as more of the devices are used at tournaments. And we get happy members who get a deal and easier recording of their games.
I have never liked the idea of U.S. Chess getting into bed with any specific vendor. This has been tried before – first with dedicated chess computers (that was a lo-o-o-ong time ago), then with chess clocks, then with online chess-playing services, and now possibly with move-recording devices? – and the results have generally not been optimal. For one thing, there is always the possibility that the product or service gotten in bed with may turn out to be inferior to a competing product or service. Second, U.S. Chess should not side with a specific vendor at the expense of its competitors.
Much better would be for U.S. Chess to provide specifications, so that (for example) chess clocks can be designed to best fit the needs of players and organizers.
The US Chess committee handling electronic score recorders has done just that. The only ones presently on the market here DGT and Plycounter. Muradian’s PDA based recorder is effectively off the market. It’s also, in my view, not a matter of US Chess getting “in bed” with a vendor. That’s a pejorative way of viewing a deal that could make a reputedly good and useful product available to US Chess members at a good price.
It is admittedly a purpose. It is hardly the purpose. And it is probably no higher than third on the list of all the purposes.
EDIT: I actually agree with Mr. Magar that we should consider adopting the FIDE rapidplay rules, which don’t require scorekeeping at G/60 d0 and quicker events.
In this case, since we can’t keep our official provider (sort of) from selling clearly non-standard equipment, I’d have to think Mr. Smythe’s (and Mr. Immitt’s) idea is completely useless.
On the contrary. If our quasi-official equipment vendor refuses to screen out non-standard clocks, that’s all the more reason to write specific standards. It might help some potential purchasers, given the lack of guidance from the vendor, to make a better choice. Plus, who knows, it might even help the vendor see the light. At least, it might be possible to arm-twist them into labeling each of their clocks standard or non-standard, as the case may be.
Additionally, clock manufacturers would have some guidance as to how to design their future clocks.
I checked just now. On the page for “Regulation Plastic Mechanical Chess Clock”, there is this:
Important Note:
This Clock does not have Time Delay and is not recommended for US Chess Federation Rated Play .
The other models of analog clocks have the same warning.
There are, in fact, pages for “Digital Clocks”, “Analog Clocks”, and “Tournament Suitable Clocks”, with not all of the Digital Clocks being on the Tournament Suitable page, because they don’t have delay.
It struck me, by the way, that the cheapest analogs and digitals are $27.95 or $29.95, while the cheapest Tournament Suitables are $39.95. To put it another way, the delay feature adds an extra one-third to the price of the product. It’s not surprising that some people would make that mental calculation and fall on the wrong side of it. For this reason alone, I would not expect analogs to just go away any time soon.
