USCF Rule 15F4 states “Upon making the time control, if the next time control is sudden death, it is less important to fill in the missing moves. The director has the option of waiving the requirement of reconstruction.”
In addition, in the USCF-FIDE rule differences, uschess.org/content/view/12723/, it states “The director may waive the requirement to bring scoresheets up to date at the end of a non-sudden death time control. In practice, this requirement is almost never enforced.”
Since this requirement is almost never enforced (for good reasons), what do you think about changing the rule so that scoresheets simply do not have to be brought up to date if the next time control is sudden death (rather than requiring it unless the TD waives the requirement)?
@ Micah, Why do you think it is less important to fill in missing moves if the next time control is Sudden Death?
Also - what/where is your purposed new wording of 15F4?
This is a USCF rulebook - not FIDE. That document that you linked doesn’t serve as an official rules of the USCF but a nice document to point out the differences for those people that run FIDE/USCF rated events.
Because you don’t need to have a scoresheet to make sure you’ve made the prescribed number of moves for the next time control.
My proposal is to simply delete rule 15F4 since then the wording of 15F, which states “After the end of a time control, if the next control is not sudden-death, each player must make all efforts to fill in any missing moves on that player’s scoresheet.” makes it clear that filling in missing moves if the next control is sudden death is not required.
I understand all of this and never claimed that it did serve as official USCF rules
Actually, it does not make that clear. It says what is required if the next time control isn’t sudden death, but is silent on what is required if it is. (That’s the point of 15F4).
You’re making the mistake for inferring the inverse from the original statement. See
Whether or not missing moves are filled in, the players need to start recording their moves again after the time scramble is over.
At a tournament I helped direct last weekend (Eastern Class Championships) I technically exceeded my authority under rule 21D by telling the players to start recording their moves again after they had reached move 50+ of a 40 move time control. Reconstructing the moves played during the time scramble would have been difficult and neither player was interested in doing this so I told them to start recording their moves at move 41.
I disagree with Micah’s proposed change to rule 15F4 because either one of the players or the tournament organizer may want a complete record of the game. The current version of 15F4 gives the TD flexibility.
If it were up to me I’d make these changes to the rules:
Add rule 21D7: [21D. Intervening in games. The director’s intervention in a chess game shall generally be limited to the following: …] 21D7. Requiring players to record their moves. Telling players to record their moves and to fill in missing moves on the scoresheet when this is required. See also 15. The Recording of Games.
Require players who have five minutes or more remaining in a time control segment to keep score. (This is the FIDE rule.)
Allow a player who doesn’t want to keep score to voluntarily reduce his remaining time to just under five minutes.
Because for a variety of reasons, the game may need to be reconstructed (draw claims, illegal position arises, pieces get displaced by external disturbance, pieces get displaced because of mutual player stupidity while arguing about a draw claim).
There are sanctioned forms of chess for those who don’t like keeping score. They are called quick chess and blitz chess. For standard chess, keep score unless in time pressure (reconstructing after time pressure), writing only after moving unless claiming a draw, with the scoresheet and its contents in plain view at all times, and without making extraneous marks aside from an = for a draw offer and clock times.
My only additions to his post: (1) keep score until one player has less than five minutes left in the time control; (2) if it is not a SD time control, catch up on the notation ASAP after making control; (3) use “(=)” (including the parentheses) to mark draw offers.
IF a player (usually in a scholastic event) insists to me that they do not desire to, or cannot, keep score I always tell them that is fine as long as we reduce their time to 5 minutes to start the game. They usually decide they will keep score after all.
One of our TDs often told the kids that the rules require them to keep score. They don’t require them to keep score well. They could write Nf3 every move if they wanted to and be legal. Not that their scoresheet would help them support any rules claims.
Barring physical (i.e. broken arm), religious (i.e. sabbath) or learning (i.e. kindergartener) issues, I’ve never had a player refuse to keep score after being given that option (and such issues can be handled without a time reduction to five minutes). I am perfectly willing to enforce the rule that way and my obvious willingness to do so may affect the player’s willingness to comply.
Is this a legal penalty? I ask because I’ve always thought that the standard was subtracting only 5 minutes from the clock (which isn’t a particularly useful penalty).
There is no explicit penalty (or consequence) of an incorrect scoresheet in the rules except for loss on time in a non-sudden death time control. (The scoresheet would be considered incomplete.) Naturally, such a scoresheet could not be used to support a draw claim.
Rule 15A is the rule that requires players to record moves:
One can certainly argue that writing “Nf3” for every move violates the spirit of rule 15A, but I don’t see anything in the text of the rule that proscribes doing so.
My personal opinion is that usually the players who refuse to record the moves are low rated children, and in the grand scheme of things it really doesn’t matter whether they record the moves or not. By not recording the moves, it is unlikely they are going to improve, as it is not possible to go over their games afterward to learn from their mistakes. Also, such players are unlikely to be motivated to improve. Nonetheless, the rules require recording moves, and rules must be enforced uniformly and fairly.
To be fair, the TD in question never offered the “Nf3” suggestion. All he did was reassure the kid that quality was not a requirement so they didn’t need to freak out about it.
I have often had children stop recording moves because they “messed up” their scoresheet. I don’t make a big deal of trying to get them to reconstruct the missing moves. I just tell them that they still have to record the moves. If the opponent has a scoresheet that is anywhere near useful, I just circle the current move number and tell the player to start there and just do the best they can.