Since we’re talking about the 50-move rule, we’re talking FIDE, since in the USCF you must make the move first.
As pointed out above, there may not be a clock, so FIDE defines “on the move” without reference to a clock. If one is using and “x” to indicate a capture, it is quite easy to verify that 50 moves have been made without an “x” and without a move starting with a lower-case letter.
With that in mind, however, the rules are clear: “It is forbidden to write the moves in advance, unless the player is claiming a draw according to Article 9.2, or 9.3 or adjourning a game according to Appendix E.1 a.” (Article 8.1 a) In such a situation, an arbiter should apply a penalty according to 12.9 as he sees fit:
I think option a or b, generally two minutes (it used to be three), would be quite sufficient.
Suppose he is floor TD for a tournament in which I am playing Mr. Smythe. I move and believe that it is the 50th move, but check my scoresheet to make sure. While I’m doing this, Mr. Smythe pushes a pawn, presses my clock, and then presses his own. If my move was the 50th without a capture or pawn move and I so claim, how do you rule?
Mr. Smythe may be an extreme situation, but it is not uncommon for players to respond instantly or just quickly unaware, or just not caring, that the opponent has not pressed his clock.
I respectfully suggest that an ADM may be in order, though not the one Mr. Maness suggested.
It does seem odd that 14C2 says “If a move is required to complete the third occurrence of the position, the player claiming the draw under 14C should write this move on the scoresheet but not play the move on the board, stop both clocks (5I), and state the claim,” but both 14C4 and 9G1 say a claim is still allowed so long as the player has not pressed the clock (5H).
Why suggest this procedure for the 14C (triple occurrence of position) but not for 14F (50-move rule), and then allow the claim even if you don’t follow 14C2?
It seems to me that a better procedure than either the FIDE or USCF rules would be something along the following lines:
The player says to the TD, “I am claiming a draw by the 50-move rule. If I play Nc4, fifty moves will have been played.”
TD says, “OK, please play Nc4 and write it on your scoresheet. Then I’ll check out your claim.”
The player plays Nc4, stops the clock (if he has not already done so), and writes the move on scoresheet.
TD stops the clock (if the player did not already do so) and begins checking out the claim.
After analysis, the TD says either “Your claim is correct, game is drawn” or “Your claim is incorrect, but you are already committed to Nc4, please resume the game”.
I do not like the idea of actually playing the move before making the claim, with or without writing it down, and with or without pressing the clock, because arguments could then develop as to whether or not the move is determined, whether the clock was pressed, etc.
I also do not like the idea of writing the move, with or without playing it on the board, before making the claim, as writing the move before (or without) playing it is contrary to standard procedure in all other circumstances.
All of the above could apply to a triple-occurrence claim the same way as it would to a 50-move claim.
And this is why the FIDE rule is superior. It completely removes the ambiguity. You’ve made your move, so it’s no longer your turn and you can no longer make the claim. End of story.
Since from my experience the variation on paper scoresheets seems to be universally applied, then yes, the player can scratch out the move. Unless, of course, he actually does make the claim.
Perhaps it is narrower. I hope it is. Actually I agree with you, but as yet I’ve never seen that rule enforced at a tournament for paper scoresheets. And the number of times I’ve seen players write their move first (and change their mind) is staggering. I let it go, since so far I haven’t seen any other TDs not use the variation. There also has never been a claim from an opponent about the subject either. I’ve also witnessed many times players recording their move first on an electronic device. That I will call them out on.
This I will agree with. I almost never intervene in a game without player complaint. Exceptions should be obvious (player discussion always gets me to ask what the issue is). Still, the one time I had a player complain, I had to warn his opponent because I did not announce a variation before the tournament.
It is rare to see a “50 move rule” claim since the era of Sudden Death time controls began. Players do not have complete score sheets, often because of the USCF rule that one does not have to keep score when 5 minutes or less remain in the session. It is difficult to apply unless a TD is there watching the game, counting the moves, or writing them down. In the real world of tournament chess, the TD is not there to observe. There is no way to verify with a score sheet fragment.
When there were multiple and repeating time control sessions, that is, during the time that analog clocks were de rigeur, the procedure in applying the 50 move rule were that the player was to stop the clocks and get the TD. He would inform the TD, without writing the move or making it on the board, what that move would be. The TD, if the clocks were running, would stop the clocks. (I know, I know, the rule back then was unclear whether to keep the clock running). The TD would make a ruling and the game would end if the conditions of the 50 move rule were made, or the game would continue with the committed move the player told the TD. The move would then be written down and made. In one version of the rules, the TD could add time to the clock if the claim was denied such that if the extra time made the flag fall, the player would lose on time. I do not recall any good TD doing that as it took quite a while to determine if the game was in compliance with the 50 move rule. TDs allowed the players to continue with the time left on their clocks in order to make the next time control. They considered that the fairest way for the players. That may not have been the FIDE rule or the USCF rule, but that is what the TDs did in the real world of tournament play way back when. Older players knew and expected these rules to be applied that way. The 3rd edition of the Rulebook and the adoption of sudden death time controls made the situation murky.
My recollection is somewhat different. The procedure you describe was for a triple occurrence, not for the 50-move rule.
In those days nobody bothered to worry about what to do when 49-and-a-half moves had been made. That discussion occurred only in recent years, leading FIDE to adopt language for the 50-move rule similar to that already in effect for triple occurrence.
The procedure for the 50 move rule and the triple repetition of position were similar. The clocks were stopped and the player told the TD which move was to be made. The move was not made, nor the move written down, but told to the TD. The move, or committed move, hung in the balance until a decision by the TD was made. Then the move was made if the game was to go on. In either case, the clocks were stopped.
BTW, I am not sure when “Noah was a boy”, but he did not play chess in the area where we played. If I intended snark, I might have appended it, but that phrase was not in my post but added gratuitously. The TDs who followed the indicated procedure above were vice-presidents of the USCF and/or officers in the state federation. Their procedure was the model and followed by others TDs at the time and afterward. The first two thin Rulebooks outlined the FIDE rule. The third Rulebook (“the red book”) muddied the FIDE rule and procedures and widened the divergence between the application of USCF and FIDE rules in tournament play.
Regardless of what was done in the past, the present FIDE and US Chess procedures and criteria are identical and, despite the assertion of the OP, unambiguous.
Write the move, but do not make the move.
Stop the clocks.
State the claim.
The only difference between the rules is what happens when a player fails to comply with step one. US Chess is forgiving. FIDE is unforgiving. And correct.
I’m not so sure I’d label “unforgiving” as “correct”. I would hate to see a 50-move claim turned down because the claimant failed to write (or make) the 50th move. Seems to me the arbiter could simply ask the player to write his move, and then rule on the claim on its merits.
BTW, what happens if there have already been 50 (or more) move pairs? Is the claimant still required to write a move?
FIDE is unforgiving because FIDE does not make a distinction between when a move is determined and when it is completed. The USCF rule doesn’t consider the move completed until the clock is punched; the FIDE rule doesn’t assume that there is a clock on the game at all, and so makes no provision for one in its rule. To me, each rule is correct within its own frame of reference.
No, the player is not required to write a move on the scoresheet if the conditions for either a fifty move rule claim or a triple occurrence of position claim have been met. In fact, under the FIDE Laws of Chess, a player loses the right to claim a draw as soon as he touches a piece with the intention of moving it. In this case, if the player tries to make a claim and it is denied because the player has moved before making the claim, the opponent could stop the clock and make the claim as soon as the player presses the clock.
In part b, there is no requirement for the player to write his move on the scoresheet. Also, in part b, there is no requirement that exactly 50 moves have been made by each player. If there have been more than 50 moves with neither a capture nor a pawn move, then it is (trivially) true that the last 50 moves include neither a capture nor a pawn move.
Again, in part b, there is no requirement for the player to write a move on the scoresheet to claim the draw.
Don’t get hung up on the NOT logic. You have two statements, “without any capture”, “without any pawn move”.
Expanding the sentence, the rule says “without any capture or without any pawn move”, so if either condition is true, that would allow the draw claim. English sentences don’t always translate easily to math logic NOR to computer logic. (I almost wrote “or”!).