I would expect chief TDs to waive the notation requirement in such situations.
15B. Scorekeeping in time pressure, non-sudden death time control.
If either player has less than five minutes remaining in a non-sudden death time control and does not have additional time (increment) of 30 seconds or more added with each move, both players are excused from the obligation to keep score until the end of the time control period. Doing so, however, may make it impossible to claim a draw by triple occurrence of position (14C) or the 50-move rule (14F) or a win on time forfeit (13C). Scorekeeping by both players must resume with the start of the next time control period, and missing moves should be filled in (15F).
There is at least one exception. The Tournament Director Certification Committee can submit TD Certification change requests to the EB and have them adopted with EB approval without going through the delegates (per DACI 43). Granted, even though chapter seven is in the rulebook it is titled “Tournament Director Certification” so changes to it are often not seen as actual chess rules changes and the DACI is merely recognizing that difference.
Quite correct, BUT-- " or a win on time forfeit " is the issue, correct?? Because when the chief TD absolves the players of notation in this situation, then the chief td by doing so is AlSO under the obligation to instruct that not notating will
make also eliminate the right to claim a win based on time. Not doing so can
and has reigned in confusion.
I’ve noted in other threads that I’ve been in mutual time pressure and continued keeping score (while my opponent stopped) because of that rule. If I flag I can still continue because my opponent does not have a complete scoresheet, and if my opponent flags I can successfully claim it. The result is that only my opponent is really in time pressure even though my clock would imply that I am too.
TD certification requirements, to my knowledge, have never been part of the ruleset. They’re in the rulebook, but I see that as a matter of convenience and propriety.
Another example would be the chapter about the rating system. The workings of the rating system are determined by the Executive Board, not the Delegates.
Of all he products USCF has to merchandise, there is none more precious than
the USCF ratings system. This is without doubt the major marketing tool that
USCF possesses. As such, even more important that “accuracy”, or “fairness”
both perceived values, is the role in ratings in keeping and encouraging new
members to join. If we as a federation fail to understand the marketing implications of each and every ratings change, we could very well suffer membership loss for such oversights.
I agree with this. Suppose you have 5 reasonable candidate moves. You analyze each one in turn and conclude that it is bad, good, or indifferent. It is entirely plausible to me – especially if you are older (like me) or fatigued (3 or 4 hours into the 3rd long game of the day) – that you might have difficulty at the end of all that analysis remembering which move(s) you rejected, and which of the remaining ones are better or worse than the others. However, if you’ve written down and crossed out the bad ones, it’s not so difficult to remember. This is clearly an advantage, although maybe not a huge one.
The real intent of that rule, though, has to do with electronic scorekeeping devices such as the Monroi. Once you have entered a move on one of those, you not only have the move “written down”, but you can also see the new position. I don’t know how anyone could argue with a straight face that it is not an advantage to actually see a diagram of a future position (as opposed to having to visualize it in your head). That’s the main reason for the “move first” rule.
For what it’s worth, I am a class C player (although I have been class B for a few brief periods).
Thank you, Dennis, for bringing this to the front.
However…
Hogwash! I have never seen, in all my years of playing, someone making analysis notes during the game. And even if they did, the amount of time consumed on the clock would be a disadvantage, and even if they did, their opponent could do the same, if he was silly enough. In my opinion, it’s a non issue for paper scoresheets.
Furthermore, I would not feel disadvantaged in any way if my opponent was doing this. It would be his own analysis, and not anyone elses, which is what the rule forbidding using notes was originally for, i.e, don’t use a chess book to refer to while playing the game.
Note, that I did not talk about making analysis notes. I will give you that that may be a problem, but any TD worth his salt would know how to rule without this absurd rule.
I also didn’t argue the monroi, or electronic scoresheet issue. Those rules have validity. I take exception only toward the paper scoresheet rule, which provides for the TD to warn the player that he may be penalized by writing first and then moving.
Just to add to the discussion on writing the move down first before playing it. Why do so many players do it? If you want to ignore Russian sources about training methods, or the Blumenfeld rule on avoiding blunders discussed by Nikolai Krogius in his book, “Chess Psychology,” that is okay. However, recently, I was perusing an American book, “The Amateur Mind, 2nd. ed.,” by IM Jeremy Silman. On page 45, he recommends that amateur players write down their move first and then if they find that their choice is poor to scratch it out and write down a better move. This is a source that has influenced thousands of amateur players to improve their game. USCF Sales sells his books. He has written articles for Chess Life on a variety of topics for developing players.
Unfortunately I have. Local kids coach (pretty strong player) was training his players to write analysis down on the scoresheet. From talking with him, I know the kids were following his directions and not misinterpreting his directions.
I put a stop to it, he complied graciously, but I found it strange that I had to say anything.
If a coach is teaching his students to cheat, that coach should be exposed for what he is. Certainly one can give him the benefit of the doubt and show him in the rules that it is illegal first and ask him to stop. If he is a strong player it is unlikely he is truly unaware of the rule (waiting for derisive laughter from experienced TDs with numerous examples of masters who didn’t know the rules).
I agree that the examples above are a violation, but they were a violation before the new rule. Just because the book is silent, or not prohibitive of an action doesn’t mean the action is permissible. Shouldn’t a TD be able to discern between what is right and wrong, and rule accordingly without a rule that negatively affects the whole lot?
OK, I suppose the rules are fine as they are except I wish they would remove the clause that states the TD can warn the paper-using scorekeeper about note taking. That should be clear to all players and TDs without requiring a rule.
Still, though, I am of the notion that that type of writing down analysis that’s based on one’s own thinking shouldn’t be regarded as note taking. Let them write down candidate moves, both players can do it if they want to use unnecessary time on the clock. well, if they’re not using a clock, as most scholastic players don’t, well the … just thinking to myself … I could be persuaded, I guess
Depends on what you consider “analysis notes”. I have never seen anybody writing out multi-move lines of analysis, but I have seen players write down a move, think about it for a few minutes, cross it out and write down another move, etc. – and repeat this process until they find a move they like. This practice amounts to using written notes to help you do something that you’re supposed to do in your head. It is “note-taking”, like it or not, and it is against both the letter and the spirit of the rules. As a TD, I probably wouldn’t enforce this unless a player complains about his opponent doing it, but as a player, I guarantee I will complain if my opponent does it. That I could also do it means nothing. Cheating is still cheating even if both players do it. The proper solution is for neither of them to do it.
I’ve done that myself many times. I was brought up under the ideas of write your move down, and check the position before making the move on the board. Sometimes, a second check will reveal a problem. But I’ll be darned if this is cheating. I made my analysis in my own head, wrote the move, and usually played it, but sometimes I’ve changed my mind and scratched it out, and you want to tell me I’m cheating? For using my own mind? You think that because perhaps some people’s memory is bad that mine must be also? I can’t believe it!! I don’t need to write out candidate moves to remember my analysis.
Terry,
I’m sorry to tell you this but it is cheating. You’re using your mind assisted by notes on paper. This is against the rules. I know you believe that you didn’t violate the rules but you did.
Mike
The story I heard about writing down the move first being used for cheating:
Player writes down move. Spectator signals that the move is not the best. Player crosses out move and writes another move. This goes on until the spectator confirms the move, which is then made on the board.
“When I asked Fischer why he had not played a certain move in our game, he replied: 'Well, you laughed when I wrote it down!” Mikhail Tal academicchess.org/Focus/Tal/tal_quotes.shtml
I gave the above quote as a model of what lots of players used as a model for chess playing. Was Fischer, who claimed the Russians were cheaters, a cheater (and a hypocrite)? The reason I gave this quote is because it was the first thing I could think of. I don’t recall which book but I know it was suggested in this book that you record your move before playing it as a blunder check. Perhaps a reader knows what titled player would not only first write down his move but would write over it after playing it? Was all of this cheating at the time or is it retroactive cheating because of a rule change?
Why do I care? Because I read the book suggesting the practice of writing down the move first. I witnessed it in tournaments and modeled the behavior. I used it as a blunder check and I taught my students to write down the move first before playing it for the same reasons I did. Now that the rules clearly forbid this, I will act accordingly and my teaching will align with my actions. There is a difference in writing down one move before playing it versus writing down a move for a spectator to comment on, (cheating) writing lines of analysis on the scoresheet, (cheating) or bypassing all of that and simply looking at a line in an informant with the tournament director witnessing the behavior and being too impressed by the player’s rating to say anything (cheating). So, did Fischer cheat?
What is considered wrong, or cheating, evolves over time. Chess is not the only field that happens in.
I thought the first version of touch move was only that once you release a piece the move is determined (if legal). The other two thirds of the rule were added later. Nowadays if you touch a piece, move it while still hanging onto it, put it back, and then move a different piece, you may be called a cheat even though that practice used to be accepted.
Was Fischer cheating? Under the rules at that time he was not, but the same behavior today would be considered cheating by FIDE and quite possibly by the USCF depending on how often he was doing it (and the failure to play the written move would lean further towards that if it was habitual).
