What makes a scorebook that snaps shut any more likely to be used for cheating, or any less-preferred, than a scorebook that lies flat? If the scorebook is shut, how can a player access any information to use for nefarious purposes? Or non-nefarious purposes, for that matter.
I always figured the “visible scoresheet” rule was driven by electronic scorekeeping devices and also prevents players from sticking a paper scoresheet in their pocket when they leave the playing hall.
The idea that ‘any’ scorebook can be used for cheating, by looking over old games or prepared notes, never occurred to me before this thread. Perhaps I am naive.
But what is the rationale for saying a snap-shut scorebook is verboten but a regular spiral scorebook is OK? All I can see is “That’s the way the rule reads—or at least how this TD reads the rule.”
It’s simple. In a scorebook that is open at all times, the player can’t open it to a different page that has something other than the current game’s score on it.
There was no personal insult, nor one intended. You quoted the first definition. But then you ignored a portion of it. That’s cherry picking. Black’s says “has a duty to” – that’s the definition. A more broad definition would be “an obligation.” But the more broad definition would need something to indicate that we should take it in the broad sense. Additionally, both definitions (might) apply - but you seem to just jump to the latter. Indicating that something is “cherry-picking”, especially as an aside like the above, is certainly not a personal insult, anymore than pointing out in analysis - “BTW, you left a pawn hanging” would be considered a personal insult.
I’m sorry you took it as a personal criticism. It wasn’t, and I hope we can continue to have a good discussion.
The “shalls” above can and probably mean “will”, they could also mean “may”, they may mean “have a duty to”. They likely don’t mean “must”, because if they mean “must” then “…the Federation shall select the official USA representatives in all international chess affairs.” might be in conflict with some recent FIDE decisions.
Here the first shall likely means “will”, the second means “must”.
So we can see, even in our own by-laws, “shall” is used often, but its meaning is not consistent nor clearly consistent.
To argue that, based on Rule 15A, a scoresheet must be visible at all times, appears to be an “over-reading” of the rule.
I often agree with Mr. Price on many rules matters. However, I’m going to agree with Mr. Smith on this one, for practical reasons.
First, I readily acknowledge that, by rule, the hard-cover scorebooks under discussion don’t conform to current standards. That said, those scorebooks are an extremely popular staple with chess vendors, and have been for several years. (In fact, I own one myself; anyone who played me 3-4 years ago probably saw me using it.) The scorebooks are even sold by USCF Sales.
There’s a good reason why they’re so popular. They look good, are well made, are inexpensive, and are quite durable. (The last point is especially attractive to me as a chess parent; my son’s scoresheets take a terrible pounding in his chess bag. By the time they get to me, they’re sometimes reduced to pulp. I often had similar durability issues, even with a spiral-bound scorebook.)
The crux of my disagreement with the idea of penalizing all players who use this type of scorebook is simple. I don’t believe the rule was designed with the idea of banning these scorebooks (an impossible task, given that there are thousands of them currently in circulation and more being bought all the time). So, as a practical matter, the question is, how could such a scorebook be used without risk of violating the rules?
As it turns out, players themselves provide the answer. The vast majority of players who use the hard-cover scorebooks keep their writing utensil in the book, on the page where they’re recording their current game. The book is closed and laid off to the side when they’re not writing in it. When they need to write a move down, they pick up the book, open it to the page where the pen is, write, replace the pen, and close the book.
As long as the scorebook is always on the table, the current page is clearly held (by pen, bookmark, alligator clip, or by other method), and the player only picks up the book to write moves on the current page, I don’t see any reason to ban the books or penalize the players using them. If a player doesn’t use the book in this way, just educate him as to the what and the why. I’ve done this a few times, and the players have complied with no problems.
For these hard-cover scorebooks, I consider them similar to an electronic scoresheet that has an automatic screen dimmer. No, the hard-cover scorebook may not always be “visible”, but it’s pretty easy to determine if a player is using it improperly (changing pages is a pretty big hint).
I see here the start to a TD Tip that would fit very well after rule 15A.
As a special referee, I’ve been thinking about Mr. Price’s comment that he would appeal to a special referee and trying to decide how I would rule if that question came to me. My reluctant answer is that, according to a strict literal reading of the words of rule 15A, Mr. Price would be correct that the hardbound scorebook with its cover closed would not be in compliance with rule 15A. But I would then encourage the TD and the players involved to consider exactly the point Mr. Reed makes; provided the current page is held by a pen (most common usage) or an alligator clip or rubber band (both of which I’ve seen done), it would be obvious to both the opponent and the TD if the player were referring back to previous games or to notes in the scorebook.
It is perhaps ironic that a strict literal reading of the requirement that “the scoresheet shall be visible … throughout the game” would preclude use of a MonRoi device, owing to the screen dimming intended to conserve battery life. When the screen dims, strictly speaking, the notation of the game is not visible to the opponent or the TD.
I remember having misgivings about the wording of this rule during the rules workshop where the ADM was discussed (and during the Delegates’ meeting) precisely because of the issue of hardbound scorebooks.
If it is the intention of the rule that the notation should be visible throughout the game, the rule should be reworded (and then the repercussions of not being able to use expensive MonRoi devices dealt with). If, as I suspect, the intention was that the object used to record the game remain visible, I think the rule could be clarified: “The electronic scoresheet, scorebook, or paper scoresheet shall be visible to the tournament director and the opponent throughout the game.” Perhaps that should be one of my ADMs for this year?
While I agree with the endpoints by Ken and Boyd, I disagree with their interpretations of the current rule under a “strict” reading. There is ample evidence in this thread that there is no compulsion to read “shall” as “must” – and given the equipment and rules 15D and 15E, its clear that 15A does not say (under a strict reading) that the moves on the scoresheet must be visible to the opponent at all times. Any implications that it does say that are only bound to cause problems in the future.
The evidence is that the rule indicates that a player has a duty to have their moves be easily made visible at any random time, and that the player should avoid actions that could be construed as hiding their moves – and the interpretations offered by Ken and Boyd fit in that interpretation.
The wording only mentions the scoresheet NOT the notation. Given that even with the book closed, the edge of the scoresheet is still visible (although not the notation), I am of the opinion that a closed scorebook it is not a violation.
Some players write a move down before playing it (which is allowed), and then cover it with their pen. If you believe that the rule is supposed to mean that all notation shall be visible, then that would be a violation. In fact, anytime I am writing down my move, I am covering a portion of the scoresheet! Certainly that can not be a violation of the rules.
I would be honored to co-sponsor this ADM with you!
Which is allowed if the variation has been announced. I think it is a violation to cover a theoretical move with your pen if the effect is that the TD can’t see what is written.
If your son has a cell phone, that might provide a workaround to the durability problem. Modern cell phone cameras are good enough that even on fairly modest phones they should be able to take a photo of the scoresheet with enough resolution to let you easily read the scoresheet from the photo once you transfer it to your computer so you can view it on a larger screen.
15A. (Variation I) Paper scoresheet variation. The player using a paper scoresheet may first make the move, and then write it on the scoresheet, or vice versa. This variation does not need to be advertised in advance.
U.S. Chess Federation (2014-06-10). United States Chess Federation’s Official Rules of Chess, Sixth Edition (Kindle Locations 1537-1539). Diversified Publishing. Kindle Edition.
There is a difference between “advertised in advance” and “announced”. 15A can be announced on site without being part of the tournament’s advertising (flyers, TLAs, etc.).
One additional point is that even if the Monroi screen (or other such device) is not dim, the position is visible but the notation is still not visible (unless it is in scoresheet mode). An interpretation what the notation must be visible would essentially force such devices to not be used as they were intended.
Jeff, wasn’t it decided that having the position shown in a diagram undesired/illegal? I wasn’t at those meetings when all these changes were made, but I thought that part of the commotion was players being able to analyze from a mon roi screen. ??
I’ve never seen anyone ever announce this variation (which as stated in another post is not required). What I have started to do, though, is announce that if using an electronic scoresheet, that the move must be made first. So far, I’ve never seen any other TDs do that. The reason? I can’t even count the number of times that I’ve personally witnessed players marking their move first on the device. Most players are not aware of this rule. And I’m pretty sure most coaches too as they are the ones who tell players to do it this way.
In this case I believe the intent of the rule is very significant.
From what I have read and experienced as both a player and TD the reason to have the score keeping device visible is to stop cheating.
With the electronic devices it is important to insure that a chess playing engine is not being used on the device, among other reasons.
The use of scorebooks, whether hardbound or spiral, to look at previous games or other notes is certainly cheating and also needs to be stopped.
However, having the exact moves always visible to someone looking at the page or device is certainly not necessary to deter or stop cheating.
The page, device or book is what needs to be visible to show that it is not being looked at for any kind of cheating purpose. Anything else is not necessary for the rule.
Having the hard cover book rubber banded, clipped or otherwise bookmarked to the page of the game certainly would do the job.
Allowing the device, Monroi, PlyCount or eNotate (Dell or other palm device), to dim for energy conservation (I just realized how easy it is to interpose or otherwise mix up conversation and conservation by only switching the “s” and “v”:lol: ) is also not a problem of cheating.
I remember going to a Chicago Open one year to observe the games. There I saw Leonid Stein, an elderly GM playing and carefully writing his move and covering that move with his pen so no one could see it. He would then perform the perfunctory final check and make the move. Heck, even Russian GMs do that!
So to penalize someone for covering their written move, especially before making that move, seems wrong, really wrong.
I agree wholeheartedly with Ken that the rule needs to be reworded.
