notation before move

Main

Date: 24 May 2005 20:24:25
From: anthony mee
Subject: notation before move

Hello Group,

I know that now notation before the move has become illegal, but what I
can't find anywhere is what the sanction is when someone breaks this rule?
Is it a warning with time penalty or a loss??
Could someone help, please.

Anthony

Date: 25 May 2005 14:34:46
From: Mark Houlsby
Subject: Re: notation before move

Aha! Thanks for clearing that up :-)

k

Date: 24 May 2005 23:50:20
From: anthony mee
Subject: Re: notation before move

thanks for the link but even here:
8.1 Players may not write down their moves in advance. This is a most
important change and needs to be communicated to players and coaches NOW.
there is no mention of what the penalty is!

Anthony
"anthony mee" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Hello Group,
>
> I know that now notation before the move has become illegal, but what I
> can't find anywhere is what the sanction is when someone breaks this rule?
> Is it a warning with time penalty or a loss??
> Could someone help, please.
>
> Anthony
>

Date: 24 May 2005 22:33:33
From: Arfur Million
Subject: Re: notation before move

"anthony mee" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> thanks for the link but even here:
> 8.1 Players may not write down their moves in advance. This is a most
> important change and needs to be communicated to players and coaches NOW.
> there is no mention of what the penalty is!
>
> Anthony
> "anthony mee" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > Hello Group,
> >
> > I know that now notation before the move has become illegal, but what I
> > can't find anywhere is what the sanction is when someone breaks this
rule?
> > Is it a warning with time penalty or a loss??
> > Could someone help, please.
> >

Rule 8.1 says that a player "may reply to his opponent's move before
recording it, if he so wishes. He must record his previous move before
making another".

Presumably then players cannot make more than one move without keeping
score and would lose on time if they persisted. However, this isn't
explicitly mentioned in the rules and may be open to interpretation.

Regards,
Arfur

Date: 25 May 2005 10:15:11
From: Peter Billam
Subject: Re: notation before move

"anthony mee" <[email protected] > wrote in news:[email protected]...
> thanks for the link but even here:
> 8.1 Players may not write down their moves in advance. This is a most
> important change and needs to be communicated to players and coaches NOW.
> there is no mention of what the penalty is!

In <[email protected] >, Arfur Million wrote:
>
> Rule 8.1 says that a player "may reply to his opponent's move before
> recording it, if he so wishes. He must record his previous move before
> making another".

Wow... so if my opponent fails to write their move down before making
their next move, I should just stop the clock and claim the game ?

Are there no exceptions for zeitnot ?
How legible does their writing have to be ?
Does an incorrectly written move count, like Nc6 or Mo/ instead of Nc3 ?
Handwriting is analog, not digital.

And if my opponent writes down a move before making it,
do I just stop the clock and claim the game ?

Hmm, accurate knowledge of this rule could really improve my rating...

Regards, Peter

--

Peter Billam, DPIWE/CIT/Servers, hbt/lnd/l8, 6233 3061

Date: 25 May 2005 22:22:07
From: David Richerby
Subject: Re: notation before move

Peter Billam <[email protected] > wrote:
> Arfur Million wrote:
>> Rule 8.1 says that a player "may reply to his opponent's move before
>> recording it, if he so wishes. He must record his previous move before
>> making another".
>
> Wow... so if my opponent fails to write their move down before making
> their next move, I should just stop the clock and claim the game ?

No. There is no `claiming the game'. If you wish to enforce an aspect of
the rules such as this, you should stop the clocks and talk to the
arbiter, who will decide what to do.

Article 13.1: `The arbiter shall see that the Laws of Chess are strictly
observed.'

Article 13.4: `The arbiter can apply one or more of the following
penalties:

a. warning,
b. increasing the remaining time of the opponent,
c. reducing the remaining time of the offending player,
d. declaring the game to be lost,
e. reducing the points scored in a game by the offending party,
f. increasing the points scored in a game by the opponent to the
maximum available for that game,
g. expulsion from the event.'

It seems very unlikely that a player will get anything more than a warning
for scoresheet infractions. Repeated warnings might lead to clock
adjustments but I really can't see games being forfeit because of this at
an amateur tournament.

> Are there no exceptions for zeitnot ?

Article 8.4: `If a player has less than five minutes left on his clock at
some stage in a period and does not have additional time of 30 seconds or
more added with each move, then he is not obliged to meet the requirements
of Article 8.1 [i.e., does not have to write down the moves]. Immediately
after one flag has fallen the player must update his scoresheet completely
before moving a piece on the chessboard.'

> How legible does their writing have to be ?

Article 8.1: `as clearly and legibly as possible, in the algebraic
notation'.

> Does an incorrectly written move count, like Nc6 or Mo/ instead of Nc3 ?

Technically, it would be a breach of the rules.

Dave.

--
David Richerby Psychotic Sadistic Robot (TM): it's
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ like a high-tech robot but it wants
to hurt you and it wants to kill you!

Date: 26 May 2005 12:04:13
From: Peter Billam
Subject: Re: notation before move

anthony mee wrote:
> What I've seen in tournament play since the new ruling is that players
> are very generous to each other and just apologize and laugh when
> falling into old habits - which seems healthy!

It makes the players seem healthy, but it makes the rule seem sick.

> 8.1 Players may not write down their moves in advance. This is a most
> important change and needs to be communicated to players and coaches NOW.
> there is no mention of what the penalty is!

and Peter Billam wrote:
> Wow... so if my opponent fails to write their move down before making
> their next move, I should just stop the clock and claim the game ?

In article <xJr*[email protected] >, David Richerby wrote:
> No. There is no `claiming the game'. If you wish to enforce an aspect
> of the rules such as this, you should stop the clocks and talk to the
> arbiter, who will decide what to do.
>
> Article 13.1: `The arbiter shall see that the Laws of Chess are strictly
> observed.'
>
> Article 13.4: `The arbiter can apply one or more of the following
> penalties:
> a. warning,
> b. increasing the remaining time of the opponent,
> c. reducing the remaining time of the offending player,
> d. declaring the game to be lost,
> e. reducing the points scored in a game by the offending party,
> f. increasing the points scored in a game by the opponent to the
> maximum available for that game,
> g. expulsion from the event.'
>
> It seems very unlikely that a player will get anything more than a
> warning for scoresheet infractions. Repeated warnings might lead
> to clock adjustments but I really can't see games being forfeit
> because of this at an amateur tournament.
>
>> Are there no exceptions for zeitnot ?
>
> Article 8.4: `If a player has less than five minutes left on his clock at
> some stage in a period and does not have additional time of 30 seconds or
> more added with each move, then he is not obliged to meet the requirements
> of Article 8.1 [i.e., does not have to write down the moves]. Immediately
> after one flag has fallen the player must update his scoresheet completely
> before moving a piece on the chessboard.'
>
>> How legible does their writing have to be ?
>
> Article 8.1: `as clearly and legibly as possible, in the algebraic
> notation'.
>
>> Does an incorrectly written move count, like Nc6 or Mo/ instead of Nc3 ?
>
> Technically, it would be a breach of the rules.

Thank you David Richerby for a clear exposition covering all the
points raised.

I am still amazed at the content of the rules; they seem so pointless,
workable only because humans are equipped with common sense and will
disregard them in practice.

(But if I was a lawyer, I'd love to get hired to argue about words
like "shall see that" and "must" and "completely" and "possible".)

For example, in several games I have ommitted recording one
move, and then written the next few moves in the wrong columns
(like 1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. d4 Nxd4 4. Nf6 Nc3 5. d6 Be2 etc)
Is this one breach of the rules, or dozens ?

Or, in a game recently I won a difficult ending but have not been
able, even after days of work, to reconstruct a valid scoresheet.
If the opponent had stopped the clock before resigning
and summoned the arbiter, what would have happened ?
If this had been a time-control game, would I have
lost on time at the next control an hour later ?

I often, after making a move and writing it down (I never belonged
to the write-it-down-first school :-)) I will also write some other
move I think I should look at later ( like 23. Ng3 (Nh6+!?) )
Is this a breach of the rules ?

Presumably it is a breach of the rules if, during the game, I write on
some other sheet of paper that the official scoresheet (otherwise members
of the write-it-down-first school could use that to escape punishment) ?

This probably belongs more in chess.politics ...

Regards, Peter

--

Peter Billam, DPIWE/CIT/Servers, hbt/lnd/l8, 6233 3061

Date: 26 May 2005 15:58:25
From: David Richerby
Subject: Re: notation before move

Peter Billam <[email protected] > wrote:
> For example, in several games I have ommitted recording one
> move, and then written the next few moves in the wrong columns
> (like 1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. d4 Nxd4 4. Nf6 Nc3 5. d6 Be2 etc)
> Is this one breach of the rules, or dozens ?
>
> Or, in a game recently I won a difficult ending but have not been
> able, even after days of work, to reconstruct a valid scoresheet.
> If the opponent had stopped the clock before resigning
> and summoned the arbiter, what would have happened ?
> If this had been a time-control game, would I have
> lost on time at the next control an hour later ?

In both of these cases, I can't imagine that the arbiter would do anything
other than ask you to please be more careful in recording your moves in
future. Repeatedly getting your scoresheet wrong and asking to borrow
your opponent's is distracting to them but doing it once isn't too much of
a problem. (It would be better to look at your opponent's scoresheet to
see what move the game is at, start correctly scoring from there and fix
your scoresheet after the game.)

> I often, after making a move and writing it down (I never belonged
> to the write-it-down-first school :-)) I will also write some other
> move I think I should look at later ( like 23. Ng3 (Nh6+!?) )
> Is this a breach of the rules ?

Yes. And a more serious one because, if you use the Nh6+ idea on some
later move, you could be accused of making notes to help you during the
game. Better to only add that kind of thing after the game.

> Presumably it is a breach of the rules if, during the game, I write on
> some other sheet of paper that the official scoresheet (otherwise
> members of the write-it-down-first school could use that to escape
> punishment) ?

Officially, you're supposed to use the scoresheet provided but most
tournament directors don't mind amateurs at least writing in their own
scorebooks. However, you're certainly not allowed to make notes on
something that isn't the scoresheet you're using so the write-it-down-
firsters can't legally write their move on a separate sheet and then copy
it onto their scoresheet (official or otherwise) after making the move.

> This probably belongs more in chess.politics ...

.misc, maybe, but there's no politics in this thread. Frankly, I suspect
the thread won't run too long so, while it is in an inappropriate group,
it's probably least invonvenient to everyone to leave it here.

Dave.

--
David Richerby Addictive Painting (TM): it's like a
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ Renaissance masterpiece but you can
never put it down!

Date: 27 May 2005 13:21:35
From: anthony mee
Subject: Re: notation before move

David,

Thanks for your contributions to the discussion. I must apologize for
sending my original question to this the inappropriate group, I made a
mistake at the time. We can continue at the 'chess.misc group' if anyone
wishes to say anything more.
I must admit for me this is at the moment a big issue, and I want to make
loud noises about it! With the small hope that the rule will get changed
back at the next olympiad.

Tony
"David Richerby" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:vKC*[email protected]...
> Peter Billam <[email protected]> wrote:
>> For example, in several games I have ommitted recording one
>> move, and then written the next few moves in the wrong columns
>> (like 1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. d4 Nxd4 4. Nf6 Nc3 5. d6 Be2 etc)
>> Is this one breach of the rules, or dozens ?
>>
>> Or, in a game recently I won a difficult ending but have not been
>> able, even after days of work, to reconstruct a valid scoresheet.
>> If the opponent had stopped the clock before resigning
>> and summoned the arbiter, what would have happened ?
>> If this had been a time-control game, would I have
>> lost on time at the next control an hour later ?
>
> In both of these cases, I can't imagine that the arbiter would do anything
> other than ask you to please be more careful in recording your moves in
> future. Repeatedly getting your scoresheet wrong and asking to borrow
> your opponent's is distracting to them but doing it once isn't too much of
> a problem. (It would be better to look at your opponent's scoresheet to
> see what move the game is at, start correctly scoring from there and fix
> your scoresheet after the game.)
>
>
>> I often, after making a move and writing it down (I never belonged
>> to the write-it-down-first school :-)) I will also write some other
>> move I think I should look at later ( like 23. Ng3 (Nh6+!?) )
>> Is this a breach of the rules ?
>
> Yes. And a more serious one because, if you use the Nh6+ idea on some
> later move, you could be accused of making notes to help you during the
> game. Better to only add that kind of thing after the game.
>
>
>> Presumably it is a breach of the rules if, during the game, I write on
>> some other sheet of paper that the official scoresheet (otherwise
>> members of the write-it-down-first school could use that to escape
>> punishment) ?
>
> Officially, you're supposed to use the scoresheet provided but most
> tournament directors don't mind amateurs at least writing in their own
> scorebooks. However, you're certainly not allowed to make notes on
> something that isn't the scoresheet you're using so the write-it-down-
> firsters can't legally write their move on a separate sheet and then copy
> it onto their scoresheet (official or otherwise) after making the move.
>
>
>> This probably belongs more in chess.politics ...
>
> .misc, maybe, but there's no politics in this thread. Frankly, I suspect
> the thread won't run too long so, while it is in an inappropriate group,
> it's probably least invonvenient to everyone to leave it here.
>
>
> Dave.
>
> --
> David Richerby Addictive Painting (TM): it's
> like a
> www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ Renaissance masterpiece but you
> can
> never put it down!

Date: 27 May 2005 14:31:44
From: Peter Billam
Subject: Re: notation before move

Peter Billam <[email protected] > wrote:
> Or, in a game recently I won a difficult ending but have not been
> able, even after days of work, to reconstruct a valid scoresheet.
> ... If this had been a time-control game, would I have
> lost on time at the next control an hour later ?

In article <vKC*[email protected] >, David Richerby wrote:
> ... I can't imagine that the arbiter would do anything other than
> ask you to please be more careful in recording your moves in future.

But how can that be made to fit the rules, if Article 8.4 says
"Immediately after one flag has fallen the player must update his
scoresheet completely before moving a piece on the chessboard." ?
Note "must" and "completely", and Article 13.1.

> Repeatedly getting your scoresheet wrong and asking to borrow your
> opponent's is distracting to them but doing it once isn't too much of
> a problem. (It would be better to look at your opponent's scoresheet to
> see what move the game is at, start correctly scoring from there and fix
> your scoresheet after the game.)

In this situation, where according to the rules my opponent stands
to win, I can't see how they would want to help me reconstruct my
scoresheet, any more than they would want to help me analyse the
position on the board in order to find me a better move ...

Or are we obliged to make sure the scoresheet remains visible ?

>> I often, after making a move and writing it down (I never belonged
>> to the write-it-down-first school :-)) I will also write some other
>> move I think I should look at later ( like 23. Ng3 (Nh6+!?) )
>> Is this a breach of the rules ?
> Yes. And a more serious one because, if you use the Nh6+ idea on some
> later move, you could be accused of making notes to help you during
> the game. Better to only add that kind of thing after the game.

OK, I'll give that up. Would I be allowed to put some small k
next to a move, to indicate that home analyis might be useful here ?

I usually write the elapsed time in minutes every few moves, like
1. e4 c5
2. Nf3 (1) d5?! (17)
Does this form part of "the algebraic notation" (8.1) ?

Am I allowed to put comments like ?!
(or any other of those Informant-type symbols) ?

>> This probably belongs more in chess.politics ...

I'll take that back; the word "analyis" covers handwriting analysis
too. I'm sorry for being so picky, but there's an on-board side to
chess, and an on-scoresheet side; I know the on-board moves, but it's
not clear to me what the legal on-scoresheet moves are.

Regards, Peter

--

Peter Billam, DPIWE/CIT/Servers, hbt/lnd/l8, 6233 3061

Date: 27 May 2005 15:09:59
From: David Richerby
Subject: Re: notation before move

Peter Billam <[email protected] > wrote:
> David Richerby wrote:
>> Peter Billam <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> Or, in a game recently I won a difficult ending but have not been
>>> able, even after days of work, to reconstruct a valid scoresheet.
>>> ... If this had been a time-control game, would I have
>>> lost on time at the next control an hour later ?
>>
>> ... I can't imagine that the arbiter would do anything other than
>> ask you to please be more careful in recording your moves in future.
>
> But how can that be made to fit the rules, if Article 8.4 says
> "Immediately after one flag has fallen the player must update his
> scoresheet completely before moving a piece on the chessboard." ?
> Note "must" and "completely", and Article 13.1.

Article 8.4 refers to the situation where one or both players does not
have to write down the moves because they have less than five minutes on
the clock before the next time control (or the end of the game). As I
understand it, that's not the case in the scenario you're describing. (By
the way, if you do have less than five minutes on the clock, it's still a
good idea to make a k on your scoresheet for each move made if there's
a time control coming up so that you know when you get there.)

Also, note article 8.6: ``If the scoresheets cannot be brought up to date
showing that a player has overstepped the allotted time, the next move
made shall be considered as the first of the following time period, unless
there is evidence that more moves have been made.''

I think you're worrying far too much about this. You're not going to lose
a game just because your scoresheet is wrong. Note that scoresheets are
mentioned nowhere in Article 1 of the laws of chess (``The nature and
objectives of the game of chess''). The purpose of scoresheets is to make
sure that there is a record of the game in case of disputes. Both players
are required to keep score so that there is as much evidence as possible
and because scoring takes time so it would be unfair for one player to
shirk his responsibility. Even if both players were not required to keep
score, it would still be a good idea to do so, to protect oneself from
inaccurate (whether malicious or just incompetent) claims from the
opponent.

>> Repeatedly getting your scoresheet wrong and asking to borrow your
>> opponent's is distracting to them but doing it once isn't too much of
>> a problem. (It would be better to look at your opponent's scoresheet to
>> see what move the game is at, start correctly scoring from there and fix
>> your scoresheet after the game.)
>
> In this situation, where according to the rules my opponent stands
> to win, I can't see how they would want to help me reconstruct my
> scoresheet

If your opponent's scoresheet indicates that he has no grounds for
claiming a win, then the arbiter will not award the win and will probably
give you a few extra minutes on the clock to compensate you for the
spurious claim.

> Or are we obliged to make sure the scoresheet remains visible ?

Article 8.2: ``The scoresheet shall be visible to the arbiter throughout
the game.''

>>> I often, after making a move and writing it down (I never belonged
>>> to the write-it-down-first school :-)) I will also write some other
>>> move I think I should look at later ( like 23. Ng3 (Nh6+!?) )
>>> Is this a breach of the rules ?
>>
>> Yes. And a more serious one because, if you use the Nh6+ idea on some
>> later move, you could be accused of making notes to help you during
>> the game. Better to only add that kind of thing after the game.
>
> OK, I'll give that up. Would I be allowed to put some small k
> next to a move, to indicate that home analyis might be useful here ?

Technically, no, but I can't imagine anyone objecting to that.

> I usually write the elapsed time in minutes every few moves, like
> 1. e4 c5
> 2. Nf3 (1) d5?! (17)
> Does this form part of "the algebraic notation" (8.1) ?

It doesn't form part of the algebraic notation but Article 12.3 says:
``The scoresheet shall be used only for recording the moves, the times of
the clocks, the offers of a draw, matters relating to a claim and other
relevant data.''

> Am I allowed to put comments like ?!
> (or any other of those Informant-type symbols) ?

Again, this is technically forbidden but I can't imagine anyone
complaining.

Dave.

--
David Richerby Crystal Natural Sword (TM): it's
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ like a razor-sharp blade but it's
completely natural and completely
transparent!

Date: 30 May 2005 16:06:29
From: Peter Billam
Subject: Re: notation before move

Peter Billam wrote:
> in a game recently I won a difficult ending but have not been
> able, even after days of work, to reconstruct a valid scoresheet.
> ... If this had been a time-control game, would I have
> lost on time at the next control an hour later ?

David Richerby wrote:
> Article 8.4 refers to the situation where one or both players does not
> have to write down the moves because they have less than five minutes
> on the clock before the next time control (or the end of the game).

Yes, that's a good example of how my scenario could occur.

> Also, note article 8.6: ``If the scoresheets cannot be brought up to
> date showing that a player has overstepped the allotted time, the next
> move made shall be considered as the first of the following time period,
> unless there is evidence that more moves have been made.''

8.6 contradicts 8.4, which clearly says White may not make any "next
move" until his scoresheet is completely updated. White is therefore
doomed to lose on time at the next time-control, according to 8.4.

>> are we obliged to make sure the scoresheet remains visible ?
> Article 8.2: ``The scoresheet shall be visible to the arbiter
> throughout the game.''

Fine, so not visible to the opponent. So scoresheets have the same
status as poker hands, with an arbiter able to walk round and see both.

>> In this situation, where according to the rules my opponent stands
>> to win, I can't see how they would want to help me reconstruct my
>> scoresheet
>
> If your opponent's scoresheet indicates that he has no grounds for
> claiming a win, then the arbiter will not award the win and will
> probably give you a few extra minutes on the clock to compensate
> you for the spurious claim.

A powerful, perhaps unintended, incentive for Black to mess up his
scoresheet too, in this situation.

> I think you're worrying far too much about this.

Hopefully. But it worries me that
1) the rules are inconsistent,
2) commonplace and harmless actions are forbidden,
3) the arbiter must therefore make arbitrary decisions about which rules
to ignore, in the light of common sense.

> You're not going to lose a game just because your scoresheet is wrong.

Ah, the voice of common sense... But it's not what rule 8.4 says.
Under 8.4, the opponent (Black) doesn't have to claim anything, and
the arbiter is not involved. White is simply unable to make any
further moves, and must therefore lose on time.

Are you saying that White should just break rule 8.4, and rely on
the arbiter ignoring the breach ?

>> Would I be allowed to put some small k next to a
>> move, to indicate that home analyis might be useful here ?
> Technically, no, but I can't imagine anyone objecting to that.
... and ...
>> Am I allowed to put comments like ?!
>> (or any other of those Informant-type symbols) ?
> Again, this is technically forbidden but I can't imagine anyone
> complaining.

About 150 years ago, it was considered rude to decline a sacrifice,
which gave rise to lots of wild games. However, eventually people
started playing to win under the rules, so that now when you offer
a sacrifice, you also have to calculate the various ways that the
sacrifice might be declined.

So we might be able to get away with these technical breaches for
a while, but sooner or later people will start playing according
to the rules. This is why it's important to make good rules.
Even apparently small rule-changes can radically change the
nature of a game.

Regards, Peter

--

Peter Billam, DPIWE/CIT/Servers, hbt/lnd/l8, 6233 3061

Date: 31 May 2005 16:17:56
From: Dr A. N. Walker
Subject: Re: notation before move

In article <[email protected] >,
Peter Billam <[email protected] > wrote:
>8.6 contradicts 8.4, which clearly says White may not make any "next
>move" until his scoresheet is completely updated. White is therefore
>doomed to lose on time at the next time-control, according to 8.4.

Perhaps you have missed 8.5? You bring your scoresheet
up-to-date with the help, if needed, of the opponent's scoresheet,
or, if necessary, with the help of an arbiter.

>>> In this situation, where according to the rules my opponent stands
>>> to win, I can't see how they would want to help me reconstruct my
>>> scoresheet

Might not want to, but see 8.5b. Note also 8.3.

>A powerful, perhaps unintended, incentive for Black to mess up his
>scoresheet too, in this situation.

See 8.5c. [Happened on the board next to me at the 4NCL
just this last weekend -- time scramble, arbiter took notes, and
when a flag fell he stopped the game, put a note on the board, and
took the players off to reconstruct what had happened and get both
scoresheets sorted. All very smooth.]

>> I think you're worrying far too much about this.

I think he is too.

>Hopefully. But it worries me that
> 1) the rules are inconsistent,

If you find an actual, as opposed to an imagined, example,
then I'm sure FIDE would like to know.

> 2) commonplace and harmless actions are forbidden,

The rules are there to ensure the smooth running of the
event. You may regard it as harmless if unplayed moves are
written down and played moves not, but it makes it much harder
for an arbiter just to glance at the scoresheets and confirm
that both players think it is [eg] Black's 38th move [perhaps
even though White's clock is running ...]. This is especially
necessary in events [such as the above-mentioned 4NCL] where
players from a wide variety of countries are playing, and may
have limited communication skills with each other and with the
arbiter.

> 3) the arbiter must therefore make arbitrary decisions about which rules
> to ignore, in the light of common sense.

See the Preface. My experience is that events with
competent arbiters simply do not have major problems, and
those without do. That is part of the reason why tournaments
usually advertise who the arbiters/controllers will be.

--
Andy Walker, School of MathSci., Univ. of Nott'm, UK.
[email protected]

Date: 01 Jun 2005 11:51:11
From: David Richerby
Subject: Re: notation before move

Dr A. N. Walker <[email protected] > wrote:
> The rules are there to ensure the smooth running of the
> event. You may regard it as harmless if unplayed moves are
> written down and played moves not, but it makes it much harder
> for an arbiter just to glance at the scoresheets and confirm
> that both players think it is [eg] Black's 38th move [perhaps
> even though White's clock is running ...].

Yes. And I've seen plenty enough stories of arbiters looking at
scoresheets to check whether castling is legal during time scrambles
and so on.

Dave.

--
David Richerby Expensive Radioactive Tongs (TM):
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ it's like a pair of tongs but it'll
make you glow in the dark and break
the bank!

Date: 30 May 2005 14:06:21
From: David Richerby
Subject: Re: notation before move

Peter Billam <[email protected] > wrote:
> 8.6 contradicts 8.4, which clearly says White may not make any "next
> move" until his scoresheet is completely updated. White is therefore
> doomed to lose on time at the next time-control, according to 8.4.

No, 8.6 provides an exception to 8.4. If the scoresheets can't be brought
up to date, just get on with the game and do the best you can about the
time control is what it says.

> David Richerby wrote:
>> Peter Billam wrote:
>>> In this situation, where according to the rules my opponent stands
>>> to win, I can't see how they would want to help me reconstruct my
>>> scoresheet
>>
>> If your opponent's scoresheet indicates that he has no grounds for
>> claiming a win, then the arbiter will not award the win and will
>> probably give you a few extra minutes on the clock to compensate
>> you for the spurious claim.
>
> A powerful, perhaps unintended, incentive for Black to mess up his
> scoresheet too, in this situation.

If your opponent's scoresheet is wrong, the arbiter is unlikely to award
the game based solely on that scoresheet. Further evidence would be
required, such as the two of you reconstructing the game on a separate
board, in a way that can be reconciled with the scoresheets.

> About 150 years ago, it was considered rude to decline a sacrifice,
> which gave rise to lots of wild games. However, eventually people
> started playing to win under the rules, so that now when you offer
> a sacrifice, you also have to calculate the various ways that the
> sacrifice might be declined.
>
> So we might be able to get away with these technical breaches for
> a while, but sooner or later people will start playing according
> to the rules.

As I've posted elsewhere in this thread, it is very clear from the rules
that the aim of the game is to checkmate the opponent; scoresheets are
secondary.

You're really making a mountain out of a molehill and I can only assume
you're playing devil's advocate on this.

Dave.

--
David Richerby Unholy Salted Tool (TM): it's like
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ a handy household tool but it's
covered in salt and also a crime
against nature!

Date: 25 May 2005 16:29:24
From: anthony mee
Subject: Re: notation before move

The new ruling is only a part of a ruling that the notation must be
legible - that was the main point. I read an article from one of those who
voted and he was rather surprised afterwards that he had voted out 'writing
before playing' - he hadn't meant to!
You could try claiming a win, but I hope you don't succeed. What I've seen
in tournament play since the new ruling is that players are very generous to
each other and just apologize and laugh when falling into old habits - which
seems health!

Tony
"Peter Billam" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "anthony mee" <[email protected]> wrote in
> news:[email protected]...
>> thanks for the link but even here:
>> 8.1 Players may not write down their moves in advance. This is a most
>> important change and needs to be communicated to players and coaches NOW.
>> there is no mention of what the penalty is!
>
> In <[email protected]>, Arfur Million wrote:
>>
>> Rule 8.1 says that a player "may reply to his opponent's move before
>> recording it, if he so wishes. He must record his previous move before
>> making another".
>
> Wow... so if my opponent fails to write their move down before making
> their next move, I should just stop the clock and claim the game ?
>
> Are there no exceptions for zeitnot ?
> How legible does their writing have to be ?
> Does an incorrectly written move count, like Nc6 or Mo/ instead of Nc3 ?
> Handwriting is analog, not digital.
>
> And if my opponent writes down a move before making it,
> do I just stop the clock and claim the game ?
>
> Hmm, accurate knowledge of this rule could really improve my rating...
>
> Regards, Peter
>
> --
>
> Peter Billam, DPIWE/CIT/Servers, hbt/lnd/l8, 6233 3061

Date: 25 May 2005 21:49:46
From: David Richerby
Subject: Re: notation before move

anthony mee <[email protected] > wrote:
> The new ruling is only a part of a ruling that the notation must be
> legible - that was the main point. I read an article from one of those
> who voted and he was rather surprised afterwards that he had voted out
> 'writing before playing' - he hadn't meant to!

Whoever said that was, indeed, a confused person. Article 8.1 of the 1997
rules already stated that the players must record their moves `as clearly
and legibly as possible, in the algebraic notation.' The only differences
between the 1997 version and the 2005 version are the insertion of the
words `in the correct manner' in the phrase `each player is required to
record his own moves and those of his opponent in the correct manner', the
insertion of the prohibition on writing down the move before playing it
and a minor rewording that doesn't change meaning.

Dave.

--
David Richerby Pickled Beer (TM): it's like a
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ refreshing lager but it's preserved
in vinegar!

Date: 24 May 2005 13:54:10
From: Mark Houlsby
Subject: Re: notation before move

http://www.bcf.org.uk/organisation/fide/changes-fide-laws_apr05.htm

k