S/he will also be at a disadvantage because s/he will be penalized for failing to keep the scoresheet visible.
A problem with the word “shall” is that while it is generally imperative or mandatory; it may be construed as merely permissive or directory, or as expressing a strong assertion or intention.
So for example, when I see the above rule, I don’t read it as “must at all times (each and every moment) be visible” - I read it as “must be capable of being visible at any time” – i.e. – the intent is to always be “above board” not to be always visible at all moments.
From that perspective, I don’t have a problem with a book that inadvertently closes, or an electronic scorekeeping device that may dim momentarily so long as it can be awakened at any instant.
The key here, to me, is the “any”. A TD should be able to, at any random moment, observe the scoresheet.
Personally, because of this lack of clarity in how the word “shall” may be read, I often attach a “USB Battery” to my electronic scorekeeping device so that powering the face throughout the day is not an issue. But I do sometimes wonder if the battery frightens my opponent even more.
Note that “shall”, “will”, and “must” carry different meanings, although in common language there is some overlap. If the rule meant that the scoresheet is to be visible and each and every moment, then “…will at all times…” or “…must at all times…” are both better. Shall indicates an expectation to do something, but not necessarily an obligation. It’s often better to stay away from “shall” and
use “will”, “may”, or “must”. For example, if you say the EB President “shall call a meeting” - that indicates “may” not necessarily “must.”
‘Shall’ generally means “has a duty to” but not necessarily a requirement to, ‘must’ means “is required to”, ‘will’ indicates a “future contingency” and may is “allowed to”. So, if I have a duty to have the scoresheet visible at all times, it means I may not hide it, and I must make it available, and try to have it visible. But I should not be penalized if it is not visible inadvertently and momentarily if I am trying to fulfill that duty - as I do not have an obligation to do so, per the wording of the above rule.
Not sure who said it above but they implied what needed to be visible was the score, not the scoresheet.
Basically they were saying the rule means that the written score can’t be hidden by turning the sheet over, laying a pen across it etc.
Being as this rule was an outgrowth of digital scorekeeping devices I have to wonder if the rule actually does mean that the scoresheet must remain visible. I say this because the way I have seen digital devices used is that the player flips the screen on, makes his move and then flips the screen off. The reasoning I have had from players that do this is they avoid the accusation of studying the second board. It may even be an energy saving factor.
The other issue is the opponent always has the right to ask to see the scoresheet if necessary to update his or her own.
Also with the move first write later rule, hiding an individual move after the fact becomes moot.
So I question the spin that has been taken on this rule.
Maybe the individuals who helped frame the rule as is could weigh in.
This appears to be too harsh of a reading of the rule. The word is “shall” not “must”. This indicates a duty to have it visible, not an obligation to have it visible. Thus, if it is inadvertently and momentarily not visible but available to be visible, a penalty would be inappropriate.
The person has a duty to have it visible - so turning over a scoresheet or purposefully covering it up would appear to potentially be acts in violation of a duty if it was intended to make the scoresheet invisible. But having it be inadvertently temporarily not visible (through a book naturally closing) is not such an overt act. Turning a book over in order to keep the place when leaving the table is probably not an overt act to make the score sheet invisible - although marking the page with a paper or bookmark may be better.
Your final paragraph says “…must be visible, as stated in the rule.” Where in the rules does it say “must”?
Some people actually use the “100 Game Score Books” for cheating purposes. in a recent tournament, my opponent flipped thru his score book and ran his finger down the moves of a prior game. Then he turned a page and did it again.
I called a director over who asked the player if he reviewed prior games in his book. The opponent admitted it: He said, “Yes, but our game was not in his score book.” The director told me he knows the person and that he wouldn’t cheat.
I said he was cheating!
For a long time I believed the score books should be disallowed at the tournament tables. People not only break the visibility of score sheet rule, they can browse prior games. Many also keep their score books in their laps further disguising what they are doing. Finally How do we know that they only have their prior games in the books? Perhaps they have GM games written in. Perhaps they have opening variations written in their books. How do you know?
Thanks for listening to this but let’s ask for the books to be outlawed at the game table. Students may transcribe their game to a book after the game is over.
Sincerely,
Dr. Craig Fisher, Poughkeepsie, NY
I have never seen this and doubt I ever will—at least in an event in which players are permitted/required to provide their own scoresheets.
Are you serious about this? The next tournament you play, you sit down at the board, the game is about to start, your opponent has one of the “snap-shut” scorebooks—you would tell him his scorebook is illegal, and then appeal to the TD if your opponent protests, or more likely stares at you bewildered?
I would (and have) consider this to be a violation of the visibility rule.
Wayne, you beat me to the punch. I’d like that information too.
15E would seem to imply that the score may not be visible even though the scoresheet may be visible. The electronic devices not only often go dark (to save power and avoid cheating accusations) but even if they are lit up they generally only show the current position and additional work needs to be done to flip into scoresheet mode to show the score. Mandating that the score always be visible (as opposed to the scoresheet) would be a pretty good argument for either disallowing all electronic scoresheets or requiring only the scoresheet mode (rather than the board display mode) to be used.
One thing to note is that borrowing your opponent’s scoresheet is not an undeniable right. Such borrowing needs to be done while your clock is running. The scoresheet needs to be returned before pressing your clock. Both players have to have at least five minutes. Inappropriate requests may be denied (the TD will decide if there is disagreement about the appropriateness).
I use the hard bound score books. I just lay my pen across the open pages to hold it open between moves.
I have played against young players who close the book every move and carry the book around with them when they leave the table, but I have never suspected them of cheating.
I would object, politely, if my opponent left the table carrying a scorebook; if I were the TD I would tell him to cease and desist, if his opponent objected.
This sounds like a learning moment situation, especially with young players involved. Is this sort of behavior a ‘thing’ in scholastic circles these days?
I do not think I would wait for his opponent to object. The scoresheet also needs to be visible to the TD.
Although I’ve never owned a hard-bound scorebook, I have owned and used spiral-bound scorebooks in the past. I don’t use them anymore…preferring to use scoresheets provided by the TD or organizer. I’ve played many players that use scorebooks of both varieties and have never objected to the player or TD but I do wish that they would not be allowed in USCF-rated games. There are too many score-keeping options available and some of them give rise to abuse.
There is some practicality to the scorebooks (spiral bound or otherwise). After each tournament I always enter all of the games into the computer. There is rarely time to do this during the tournament. Yes, you can argue that this can be done with the provided scoresheets, but these are too easily lost. It’s much easier to keep track of one scorebook than a handful of sheets. Where do you keep these sheets anyway? The scorebook I have with me during the next game. Do I keep the previous game’s sheets in my pocket? I could, but it’s a little annoying with the extra paper.
I’ve already lost one game where I didn’t have my scorebook at the time and used the tournament sheet. The cleaning crew figured it was extra garbage and took care of it for me.
Sure, there are ways around this, but the scorebook is the easiest. I do prefer the spiral bound over the hard-bound books, though.
Um, score sheets will generally fit in one’s chess bag, of course one needs to remember to put them in there; I haven’t yet found a fool-proof method of tackling that idea. 
Kevin Bachler, after consideration, I respectfully disagree with your conclusion that:
“‘Shall’ generally means “has a duty to” but not necessarily a requirement to, '”
I will agree that the word “shall” is sometimes used loosely, but in the context of a rule, I think it should be understood to express a mandatory requirement. Before I retired from the practice of law the two dictionaries upon which I relied were Webster’s Third and Black’s. Both are consistent.
Webster’s Third New International Dictionary unabridged.
"2 b-- used in laws, regulations, or directives to express what is mandatory.
Black’s Law Dictionary seventh edition.
“1. Has a duty to; more broadly, is required to”
[Followed by less emphatic alternative definitions, but then a final note at the end of the definition – “Only sense 1 is acceptable under strict standards of drafting.”]
Never-the-less, for the reasons expressed by others, I remain remain troubled by the situation. Is it appropriate to ask formally ask the USCF Rules Committee about something like this, or would that be like shooting at a mosquito with an elephant gun?
Thanks again to all who have given their time and thoughtful answers.
Its not my conclusion. Its from several lawyers and law firms. You even quote it above from Black’s, (btw - you’re cherry-picking the definitions in your argument) and its easy to Google the issue. It MAY mean in a broader sence “is required to”, but that’s not necessarily the case and that’s the problem with the word. As written, is the broader sense implied or not? Given practice, and some other rules, I would say not.
If you look at laws, by comparison, or contracts, it specifically is not necessarily defined in a strict narrow sense. I even provided a specific example that is common – that in some cases it actually means “may” which is looser still.
The information I provided was provided after research from several sources. Consider for example, this article: faa.gov/about/initiatives/pl … mandatory/ which states:
In my personal history with things like plan documents, for years I have encouraged lawyers to use “must”, “will” or “may.” There is a tendency to use “shall” because it is more formal - but its meaning is less clear.
The rules committee should address it at some point if they meant it to mean “must”. Otherwise its fine.
Kevin Bachler wrote:
“(btw - you’re cherry-picking the definitions in your argument)”
I picked the definitions I think are most applicable, and I expressly indicated that were not the only definition. But I don’t bother to discuss issues with people who feel free to argue using personal insults. So I am out of here.
Michael Lilly
I would consider “cherry-picking” to be challenging the argument, not a personal insult. So I would not have taken offense from anything in Kevin’s post. Kevin can be really frustrating to argue a point with, but he does not really engage in ad hominem very often.
Perfect. That’s compliant, presuming the organizer isn’t requiring the use of a particular scoresheet.
That depends entirely on how the scorebook is used. Can the opponent maintain the visibility of the active scoresheet at all times? Fine.
Does the opponent close the scorebook when not in use? Then the opponent has a nonconforming scoresheet, and there are very good reasons why that’s not allowed. Yes, I’d speak up; yes, I’d appeal to the director if necessary; yes, I’d appeal to a special referee if the director inexplicably ruled against me. The rule is clear, well-reasoned, and non-onerous.