Arbiter question: scoresheet and time control

[Paolo Casaschi]

Following the incident of Wesley So in Saint Louis, as many others, I looked up the chess laws and their 8.1.b article:

"The scoresheet shall be used only for recording the moves, the times of the clocks, offers of a draw, matters relating to a claim and other relevant data."

This prompted the question about a very common behaviour especially within amateur chess: is it within the rules to mark on the scoresheet the number of the time control move?

For example, when playing in evening leagues, every league has their own time control (some league even have more than one option), so before starting the game I find it useful to draw a tick line on the scoresheet after the space for time control move. The vast majority of my opponents do the same or similar.

Reading the chess laws, marking the time control move is not explicitly listed by article 8.1.b as a legal use of the scoresheet and (much more than Wesley So motivational note) marking the time control move could in fact be seen as a note to help myself during the game (as a reminder not to overstep the time control).

Kind of a very pedantic remark, I know, but curiosity made me post the question.

[Reg Clucas]

Could marking the time control move perhaps be regarded as "other relevant data"?

So had previously been warned about writing on his score sheet, so switched to writing notes on a separate piece of paper. The relevant rule is presumably 11.3a "During play the players are forbidden to use any notes....". The word "use" implies (to me at least) previously made notes, and I'm sure that is the intention. It seems to be a very harsh penalty.

[IM Jack Rudd]

The time control move is relevant data, yes.

[Richard Bates]

Surely it falls under "matters relating to a claim"?

[IM Jack Rudd]

Surely it falls under "matters relating to a claim"?

That too; I hadn't thought of that.

[Michael Farthing]

Umm.. Surely, at the time the mark is made no claim exists for it to relate to?

[Mike Truran]

How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?

Dorothy L. Sayers argued that the question was "simply a debating exercise" and that the answer "usually adjudged correct" was stated as, "Angels are pure intelligences, not material, but limited, so that they have location in space, but not extension."[12] Sayers compares the question to that of how many people's thoughts can be concentrated upon a particular pin at the same time. She concludes that an infinity of angels can be located on the head of a pin, since they do not occupy any space there:

The practical lesson to be drawn from the argument is not to use words like "there" in a loose, unscientific way, without specifying whether you mean "located there" or "occupying space there."[12]

In the humoristic magazine Annals of Improbable Research, Anders Sandberg has presented a calculation based on theories of information physics and quantum gravity, establishing an upper bound of 8.6766×1049 angels.[13]

The comic Saturday Morning Breakfast Cereal poses an answer derived from physics to this question, i.e. between one and 30 vigintillion angels.[14]

In the fifth season of the science-fiction series Babylon 5, the recurring character Byron Gordon, in a conversation about a rebellion among Human Telepaths against a despotic government both asked and answered the question with a confident but cryptic "As many as are needed." Thus suggesting the specific number of angels is irrelevant, it is the existence of angels, (and by way of analogy the Telepaths and allies that follow of the message of freedom and peace against tyranny) that is important.

With apologies to Wikipedia.

[Jonathan Bryant]

Reading the chess laws, marking the time control move is not explicitly listed by article 8.1.b as a legal use of the scoresheet and (much more than Wesley So motivational note) marking the time control move could in fact be seen as a note to help myself during the game (as a reminder not to overstep the time control).

The question of marking the time control crops up fairly regularly. I’ve always been convinced that it’s OK for the reasons stated above. These are the same reasons that are given every time.

I’m not sure I’d agree with your "much more than Wesley So motivational note" btw. That said, despite being absolute convinced that it’s OK if an arbiter told me to stop doing it otherwise I would be defaulted I’d stop doing it until I’d absolutely clarified what I am/am not allowed to do.

[Richard Bates]

Umm.. Surely, at the time the mark is made no claim exists for it to relate to?

Why would you ever make a note on the scoresheet after a claim? I think the primary thinking behind the wording is for making a mark to let you know when the 50 move rule will expire, but marking the time control would be equivalent.

*In the 4NCL the time control is marked for us!

[Mike Truran]

To be fair, after a few false starts with the getting the scoresheets printed ......

[David Sedgwick]

Regarding Paolo's specific question, please see the earlier discussion on the point at http://www.ecforum.org.uk/viewtopic.php ... 4&start=45

[Michael Farthing]

Splendid post Mike. Dorothy was correct (obviously, given her field of scholarship).

Sadly, however, a few people do make a fuss about issues like this (scoresheets, not angels).

[soheil_hooshdaran]

Could marking the time control move perhaps be regarded as "other relevant data"?

So had previously been warned about writing on his score sheet, so switched to writing notes on a separate piece of paper. The relevant rule is presumably 11.3a "During play the players are forbidden to use any notes....". The word "use" implies (to me at least) previously made notes, and I'm sure that is the intention. It seems to be a very harsh penalty.

The tick that you place during the game is not note. It is simple something written down, like the moves.

[Clive Blackburn]

Could marking the time control move perhaps be regarded as "other relevant data"?

So had previously been warned about writing on his score sheet, so switched to writing notes on a separate piece of paper. The relevant rule is presumably 11.3a "During play the players are forbidden to use any notes....". The word "use" implies (to me at least) previously made notes, and I'm sure that is the intention. It seems to be a very harsh penalty.

I have to agree with Reg on this.

The notes that Wesley was making were purely motivational (or at least he claims they were) and did not contain analysis or other chess-related information which could be useful during the game.

Also, he had taken notice of the arbiter's previous warnings and made sure that he did not make any notes on the score sheet.

I don't see that he was doing anything wrong at all.

[Roger de Coverly]

I don't see that he was doing anything wrong at all.

As the preface to Laws of Chess rightly suggest, not all circumstances are covered. Hence any distinctions between the official organiser supplied scoresheet and random doodles on a separate sheet aren't mentioned.You have to appeal to the conventions and history. Since when in a serious event such as the US Championship has it been permitted as a matter of custom to write random motivational slogans on a separate sheet of paper?