Descriptive notation + local rules

[Alex Holowczak]

This is tied in to a few discussions that have been here lately.

Rule 8.9 of the Birmingham & District Chess League rules says:

When recording moves in accordance with Article 8.1 of the Laws of Chess (which bans descriptive notation), a player may use descriptive notation.

Does the BDCL have the right to make this rule, since the FIDE Laws technically offer no scope on such an issue?

[Anthony Taglione]

I'd like to see such a move be legal. I've never been fond of the so-called algebraic notation.

As an aside, is it legal to record one's game in both notations?

[Ian Thompson]

I'd like to see such a move be legal. I've never been fond of the so-called algebraic notation.

As an aside, is it legal to record one's game in both notations?

I think not. As descriptive notation is not a recognised notation under FIDE rules, then it is not a record of the moves of the game. The only thing it can be is notes relating to the game, which you are not allowed to make.

[Anthony Taglione]

Well, it is a record of the moves and nothing else, merely not a record of the moves in a FIDE-recognised form, despite its still being a commonly-known form, as evidenced by this thread.

As a further aside, I've never ceased to be appalled at using "N" for Knight.

[Anthony Taglione]

Looking through the laws (2009 version), a player is obliged to keep a record in algebraic and no exceptions to this are permitted unless he is unable to keep score or under well-defined time-pressure. However, there is no mention of being unable also to use any other form of notation, provided that one is making a record in algebraic.

The laws don't expressly ban other forms, they merely require the use of algebraic.

The section on notes is 12.3.a which simply states that players may not make use of notes, sources of information, advice nor analyse on another chessboard. I think it's a stretch to suggest that a live record of the game constitutes notes, whatever the notation, provided it is simply a record of the game.

I also note that if the player is unable to make his own record of the game then a third person may keep score instead. Interestingly, there is no requirement placed on the third person to use algebraic.

[Alex Holowczak]

This is all interesting, but it doesn't answer my question! Can a local rule overrule 8.1?

[Anthony Taglione]

Not by the FIDE laws, no, it can't.

However, as I was conjecturing, provided a score is kept in algebraic, the laws don't seem to preclude also using an alternative notation. 8.1 is very clear, though, that algebraic must be used on the prescribed scoresheet.

[Roger de Coverly]

However, as I was conjecturing, provided a score is kept in algebraic, the laws don't seem to preclude also using an alternative notation. 8.1 is very clear, though, that algebraic must be used on the prescribed scoresheet.

It seems to be generally accepted in England that even in internationally rated tournaments, descriptive notation may be used. Hastings has for years allowed veteran English FMs to use descriptive. The same probably applies to the 4NCL. There's an obscure interpretation of the FIDE rules which appears to allow it.

One of the leagues local to me has a clause:-

(c) Notation The use of recognised notation systems other than algebraic will not result in a loss.

The ECF have yet to return our game fee telling us our league cannot be graded.

[Sean Hewitt]

I think one has to understand why the law is there to answer the question. It's not someone thinking "I know, let's make the buggers use algebraic!"

In most FIDE rated events there are home players and foreign players - that goes without saying (I would even bet that in most evening leagues there is a least one foreign player). Sometimes, the scoresheet needs to be consulted by the arbiter in order to make a ruling - such as threefold repetition claims, reconstructing a game, questions of loss on time etc. Imagine arbiting an event here in England and someone presents a scoresheet to claim three fold repetitionin Russian descriptive notation! Unless the arbiter was Steve Giddens or Jon Speelman you might be in trouble. Yet Russian algebraic would present no problem.

I think the rule should say algebraic notation OR any notation system approved by the arbiter in advance. This would allow English Descriptive in England etc etc.

In practice though we already have this. The penalty for not using algebraic is at the discretion of the arbiter and no arbiters that I know of apply a penalty.

[Alex Holowczak]

The penalty for not using algebraic is at the discretion of the arbiter and no arbiters that I know of apply a penalty.

In a League match, there are no arbiters though, so nothing would ever happen.

If the ECF are going to grade it whatever - even though the league is breaking the rules - then I don't think anyone would care.

[Graham Borrowdale]

I know of at least one player in my local league who records in what I think is German, so S for Knight (worse than N in my book), T for rook, etc. If I were an arbiter I might not be able to understand. There are countless others who record their moves in bound books... but I guess thats one for the 'taking notes' thread.

[Alex Holowczak]

The difference there is that other letters for pieces to cater for languages are allowed by the FIDE laws. If he's German, he's allowed to use the German letters. He isn't, however, allowed to use Descriptive English or Descriptive German.

[Matt Mackenzie]

Descriptive German

Does such a thing actually exist??

[Ian Thompson]

The penalty for not using algebraic is at the discretion of the arbiter and no arbiters that I know of apply a penalty.

That's fine, so long as arbiters also apply the mandatory rules relating to failure to use algebraic notation, which means a player using descriptive notation cannot use his scoresheet as evidence in a claim. The player cannot, for example, claim a draw by threefold repetition or under the 50 move rule.

[Anthony Taglione]

The rules don't cover that situation, since they require that algebraic be used, so that, too, would be at the discretion of the arbiter.

It would be a perverse arbiter who would accept the use of descriptive notation to keep score and then claim that the player has no valid scoresheet to uphold a claim. Said arbiter would also be obliged to impose a penalty for each time said player had made a move without having kept a score of the game.

I really think that it's an either/or situation. Either it is accepted as acceptable, and all that goes with that, or it isn't and the player is in breach of the rules.