Change to Rule 15A (subject to delegate ratification):
Rule 15A. Third sentence:
(current) The player may first make the move, and then write it on the scoresheet, or visa-versa.
(proposed) The player must first make the move, and then record it on the scoresheet.
I don’t really like that someone writing on a normal scoresheet has to also comply with this rule. I under 100% why on an electronic device the move needs to be made first. As coach who encourages the practice writing first in oder to slow the student down and get them to think about the move it seem unnecessary for a written scoresheet. I know this has been debated on other threads as to whether writing first is considered written notes. I don’t feel it is. It’s not like the player is writing out the tree of analysis, he is simply putting down the move first.
Even for myself I’ve been trying to break the habit of writing move first, but I’m not very consistant. Am I going to have to penalize myself when I’m playing in my own tournaments?
I presume this change regarding even a paper scoresheet is to keep the rule consistant regardless of how someone is recording their moves.
Could it possible to modify to move first applies to electronic scorekeeping only.
This was discussed in depth by the rules committee. The decision was unanimous among the committee members.
The reason is consistancy, not only witihin the rule itself, but also to be consistant with FIDE rules which require the move be made first.
To impose one rule on those with one type of scoresheet, and a different one on another type of scoresheet is unfair and will be difficult to understand and enforce. Let us use the same rule for all players.
Again, note the TD tip on implementation. Be lenient on penalties for a while (even on yourself). Issue a warning only.
As stated in an earlier thread, the rule will be implemented after the delegates meeting (an could even be changed to your version, but I doubt it) in August, and the TD tip will be in effect “until further notice”, at least until January 2007. Please get used to it.
I heartily agree with this aspect of the rule change. Countless times I’ve seen players (many times my opponents) write down a move, stop and think for a long time, cross out their move and write another one, etc. etc. This is nothing more than taking notes during the game, and should be forbidden. The best way to forbid it is to make the proposed rule change.
Last night I played a Game 60 with 5 increment as part of the STC Bunch May tournament using my DGT board on the internet. Wanting to make this as much like an OTB tournament experience as I could, I also used a standard USCF scoresheet to keep written score.
I decided to play by the new rule of making the move before notating it. Now, I really made sure that I had decided on the move before making it. I still found it hard to not write the move down before making it, as I have grown accustomed to doing over the last 17 years of playing. I actually caught myself on at least 4 of the 46 moves having written the move down before the move and not realizing what I had done.
I never wrote down the move, considered it some more, then changed the move. That wasn’t the problem.
What was the problem was my playing pattern. I realized that I would find a move, analyze it, write it down, make it then hit the clock. When I forced myself to make the move first I found that I often would forget to write it down. When my opponent made his move I was surprised to look at my scoresheet with nothing written for my move.
I am sure that I can retrain myself over time, but I can attest that it will take awhile.
I realized a few months ago that writing the move down first could be used as an analysis tool. But, that doesn’t mean that it always will be used as such.
Please note, that I am all in favor of the new rule of writing the move down first.
I think that a kind and gentle transition is necessary though.
I totally agree. As a TD, I know I won’t penalize people for this rules violation until well after it officially becomes law; and even then I think a warning for the first couple of offenses (during the same game) is all that is warranted.
If a player is clearly just forgetting for a few moves per game, that’s OK; it’s the people who write down a move and change it constantly that I’ll target first. That’s note taking.
I wouldn’t enforce the “rule” either (until it becomes official).
You might want to announce that this rule is expected to go into force later this year. Give your players a little advance notice and let them get used to the idea.
This is going to be very hard on kids who have already been taught to “write the move, check the move, make the move, hit the clock.”
And it will need to be very, very widely publicized, otherwise kids will be inclined to hurl this rule at an opponent to throw them off balance, as kids like to do with rules.
Very good point about the kids and their tendencies.
Say why did the title of the thread change?
I don’t see the DGT having hijacked the thread. Heck, the last good number of posts have talked of only the issue and difficulty of changing the order of making the chess move and notation of such moves.
I guess I felt the thread was taking on so many directions, and much of it about the DGT board, and the software upgrades that I wanted to get into a little discussion of whether it was a good change, and how it will impact people particularly kids who write the move first.
I can relate to what you said about forgetting to write move down after you’ve played it. I too have been trying to get used to that method, and have found my scoresheet a little messier then normal.
I do have visions of kids throwing that rule in opponents face. It may become the new “touch move” of scholastic chess. “He wrote move down first!” “I did not!”, “Did to!” Etc. Though if player gets TD over before move is made and there’s a move on scoresheet it will be easy to rule.
Came across a wonderful anecdote a few days ago in a wonderful book, Russians versus Fischer (Everyman Chess), that might illuminate–or leaven–this wonderful discussion. Mikhail Tal is commenting on the ‘Match of the Century’, Belgrade 1970, page 172:
Tal: ‘Another curious detail: all the conditions set by Fischer before the match were more or less logical–except one, which was somewhat bewildering. Every player has his habits. Some first make a move on the board and then record it on their score sheet; others do this in the opposite order (for example, Petrosian, Geller, Tal…). What prompted Fischer to insist that Petrosian change his habit of many years? Probably, when a move is first written down, Fischer cannot make himself keep his eyes on the board: his eyes against his will will turn to his opponent’s score sheet. And when that move is, moveover, covered with a pencil, Fischer’s patience simply runs out. Typically, here too Petrosian proved extremely obliging and agreed without any objections to satisfy his adversary’s whim. Only on a couple of occasions did the ex-world champion make a ‘mistake’, but then he fully mastered this new manner of playing…’
Has the time management issue come up in these discussions?
I foresee a player making a move, and before being able to pick up a pen to record the move, the opponent has already replied to the move. This is bound to get annoying to a player whose opponent may be, or seems to be, trying to get a psychological advantage by “blitzing” his/her opponent. Further, it seems like this new rule will add to the incidences of incorrect scoresheets as a result of players not wanting to get “blitzed”.
I just don’t agree that players using a paper scoresheet need to be bothered with this change.
BTW: just how many players in a given tournament will have to use these electronic boards? I doubt any of the players other than the top 6-8 players will be using these “top boards”. What about the tournaments that have no electronic boards at all? This is non-sense!
I guess I can only hope that the delegates will reconsider this, as it seems to be an unnecessary inconvenience to those using paper scoresheets.
Does anyone else think this whole topic is a bit ridiculous. We are talking about over the board chess. It was even written in our rule book, at least version 5. rule 15A… the player may first make the move, and then write it on the scoresheet, or vice versa. I have a lot of trouble understanding why the development of new technology has any effect on this and why this changes “or vice versa”. Is it just now being realized that all the greats of chess since notation was invented have used basic notation to perform over the board simple analysis.
My gosh, today when you play online, you can grab the piece, move it to where you want to put it, and as long as you don’t release the peice you can put the piece back. I imagine a lot of people must be out there holding the piece over the square they want to play it to and sit there doing analysis before they let go. We really need a rule change for online chess too, don’t you think. The touch move needs to be rethought don’t you think. We all know that over the board chess is a thing of the past anyway.
The idea that simple analysis based on basic chess notation is now considered to be illegal because new technology has now been developed is absurd. I am much more inclined to believe that it is much more fair to require the same technology to be “made available to both players” in order for either player to use the electronic devices than it is to think that changing the order of taking notation for all should be the rule simply because electronic devices are now available.
Over the board chess - not psuedo electronic video games. Yeah the new devices are fine, but until the cost begins to approach the cost of paper and pencil, I do not believe the rule should change, no matter who sponsors what chess body…
But who am I… just an amateur chess player and small time tournament organizer… Woe is me… nobody likes me, everybody hates me, guess I’ll go quit chess… does anybody get the idea that this isn’t a game for just the elite, top board player or national tournament director. Lets just make all the rules for those folks
This rule change IS about OTB chess. I believe the whole rule change problem stems from the fact that if you use the GRAPHICAL interface of the electronic scoresheet device you are, in effect, utilizing a second chessboard for analysis. This is clearly against the rules, rule 20D. To avoid this problem the real chessboard has the pieces moved first, then recorded on the graphical display of the electronic device.
This approach seems logical and gets the USCF rules more in line with FIDE rules.
Of course, none of this applies if both players are playing on a DGT board as the moves are recorded as they are played. After the game the moves can be printed by the TD, examined and signed by both players and accepted as official scoresheets. Or they can manually record their scores as historically done.
Actually, I’ve never liked the practice of recording the move before making it on the board, but that’s beside the point. The issue ISN’T that somebody could NOW perform analysis using a written score sheet. It’s a matter of consistency:
Consistency with the FIDE rules. Unless there’s a REASON for the difference, we should all play by the same rules – GMs and amateurs alike. I understand that there may be reasons for SOME differences between USCF and FIDE rules (maybe swiss system pairing rules, for example) but I can’t see any justification for THIS difference.
Consistency with how moves are recorded using electronic score keeping (and not wanting to allow analysis).
If somebody doesn’t want to play this way in casual games, then fine. But if you’re going to play in a tournament, then you’re going to have to follow a lot of rules that MOST people don’t follow in casual games.
To qualify my past statements, I DO believe that the rule change HAS to be made for those players using the electronic equipment, to satisfy rule 20D. I DON’T believe it needs to cover those using paper notation.
I don’t believe that the prohibition against using notes as an aid to memory is violated by first writing down a move, as that move is a product of the player’s own analysis while examining the position on the board.
As to the standardizing alongside FIDE rules, I have always thought of USCF’s rules fairer and of more common sense than those of FIDE’s. Let FIDE rules regulate International play. Here at home, USCF RULES!
If you don’t feel consistency is important, then what OTHER FIDE rules should we ignore? For that matter, what USCF rules do you think states or local organizers should ignore?
Just keep things simple and follow the same rules GMs follow.
“What prompted Fischer to insist that Petrosian change his habit of many years? Probably, when a move is first written down, Fischer cannot make himself keep his eyes on the board: his eyes against his will will turn to his opponent’s score sheet. And when that move is, moveover, covered with a pencil, Fischer’s patience simply runs out.” I freely admit that electronic scorekeeping is just a convenient excuse for me on this issue – the bottom line here is that I feel the same way Fischer is reported to have felt. Having the opponent write the move down and then continue to study the board before making the move is very distracting.
I’d agree with you here IF players immediately executed the move that they’ve just written down. When they keep studying the position (and sometimes change the move they’ve written down) it sure seems like an aid to memory and analysis to me. Sure there’s a specific exception in the rules to allow this behavior, but I don’t see a justification for a special exception.
I have searched in vain for even the slightest hint that I am anti-consistency. I did state that I didn’t think USA tournaments should necessarily follow the lead of FIDE. Furthermore, I challenge you to find the part of my post where I advocate dismissal of USCF rules by state affiliates and local organizers.
Some GMs don’t like FIDE rules.
PLEASE, let no American use Fischer as an example of anything relevant. But, to answer your question, Fischer complains about the height of toilet seats in hotel rooms.
This distraction can be overcome with the patience of a chess player. Having a player attempt to “blitz” the opponent, on the other hand, is very distracting. Not to mention the fact that losing to an opponent is incredibly annoying, and that is forbidden by the rules. I am determined, Terry V., to have this rule enforced when I play this October
Yes, but the product of that memory is from the analysis done by the individual at the board, without any outside help, which is how I interpret the philosophy behind the rule.
I am determined, Terry V., to have this rule enforced when I play this October 