Enforcing rules in League chess

[Ian Thompson]

The one I think is more difficult is the last game to finish, in a mutual time scramble, with both teams gathered round the board. And someone points out that a flag has fallen, winning the game for their team. Probably ignorance of the laws, neither player has done anything wrong, you can't undo it. Excluding the 'spectator' from the venue doesn't achieve anything. The 'winner' would probably have seen it and claimed the game anyway. So you just let it go.

Alternatively, you might let the result of the game stand, as neither player is at fault, but penalise the team the 'spectator' came from (e.g. by deducting a point from their team's match score).

[Matt Mackenzie]

Of course, some of us who tend to record our games messily and at times incoherently are at an advantage here - as we got into the habit of using scoresheets, and then writing the game up legibly and correctly into a scorebook later, many years ago

I have a backlog of four years' worth of games on this

Usually update mine every summer.

[Kevin Thurlow]

I update my scorebook game by game, but copy the version I've just put on the database.

I forgot to mention in my example above that one player promoted to an upturned rook - in fairness to him, it was the last game and efficient people had cleared all the sets away, and also it got captured immediately.

[Andrew Zigmond]

I don't think the `no scorebooks` rule is that new; I remember an announcement being made about it at York 1998 (my first congress). Fast forwarding 21 years at the 4NCL Harrogate congress a few weeks ago I noticed one of my opponents scoring in descriptive (and a few club colleagues still do). I may be wrong but I don't think the laws of chess prohibit descriptive notation but state that in the event of a dispute only moves recorded in algebraic notation are admissable.

League chess is a bit more `loose` than congress chess in terms of application of the laws. Generally I can live with a few things not quite being as they should be although my pet hate is players who don't know the correct etiquette for offering a draw. I think it is for captains to try to encourage good practice and for exceptionally bad breaches to be reported to the controller.

[Roger de Coverly]

my pet hate is players who don't know the correct etiquette for offering a draw.

Presumably those who don't follow the sequence, play move, offer draw, press clock? Against that it can be a relief when you are analysing a position, consider that you may be worse and the opponent makes an illegal draw offer. Acceptance would depend on the match or tournament situation and the opponent's grade or rating.

[Roger Lancaster]

I may be wrong but I don't think the laws of chess prohibit descriptive notation but state that in the event of a dispute only moves recorded in algebraic notation are admissable.

8.1.1 In the course of play each player is required to record his own moves and those of his opponent in the correct manner, move after move, as clearly and legibly as possible, in the algebraic notation (Appendix C), on the ‘scoresheet’ prescribed for the competition.

[Paul Habershon]

Many players contravene the scoring 'move by move' principle by replying, typically with an obvious recapture, before writing their opponent's move. It seems petty to object, but I suppose it is a breach of the law? I never do it myself - it feels like bad manners if nothing else.

[Thomas Rendle]

You're allowed to do this so long as you immediately catch up. You can't be more than two 'half-moves' behind.

[Roger Lancaster]

Against that it can be a relief when you are analysing a position, consider that you may be worse and the opponent makes an illegal draw offer.

A small point here. A draw offer which doesn't comply with the FIDE Laws isn't actually illegal in as much as there's no penalty unless it's made in such a way as, in the arbiter's opinion, to annoy or distract an opponent.

[Kevin Thurlow]

"A draw offer which doesn't comply with the FIDE Laws isn't actually illegal in as much as there's no penalty unless it's made in such a way as, in the arbiter's opinion, to annoy or distract an opponent."

We had a good example in the Surrey League, where a player graded 190+ made his move, then 30 seconds into his opponent's think, suddenly offered a draw (twice). I politely mentioned it to the offending player afterwards, and he claimed he said it as he made the move. So I then realized he was a liar as well as a cheat!

[Ian Thompson]

I may be wrong but I don't think the laws of chess prohibit descriptive notation but state that in the event of a dispute only moves recorded in algebraic notation are admissable.

8.1.1 In the course of play each player is required to record his own moves and those of his opponent in the correct manner, move after move, as clearly and legibly as possible, in the algebraic notation (Appendix C), on the ‘scoresheet’ prescribed for the competition.

... which is muddied somewhat by the introduction to Appendix C which says:

"Scoresheets using a notation system other than algebraic may not be used as evidence in cases where normally the scoresheet of a player is used for that purpose. An arbiter who observes that a player is using a notation system other than the algebraic should warn the player of this requirement."

So Andrew is right.

[Brian Towers]

Another guy was using a scorebook and nobody turned a hair.

There is nothing in the FIDE Laws of Chess to prohibit writing the moves in your own scorebook unless the competition prescribes a scoresheet. You should of course at all times keep the scorebook either open at the correct page or closed. Looking at pages with other games on them would constitute using notes.

For congresses the scoresheet is the property of the organiser and they prescribe the use of their provided scoresheet but in a local league your own scorebook used legally should be fine unless the league has prescribed a scoresheet (article 8.1.1).

While we're on the subject of recording the moves it should be noted what the Laws say -

Appendix C. Algebraic notation
FIDE recognises for its own tournaments and matches only one system of notation, the Algebraic System, and
recommends the use of this uniform chess notation also for chess literature and periodicals. Scoresheets using a notation
system other than algebraic may not be used as evidence in cases where normally the scoresheet of a player is used for
that purpose. An arbiter who observes that a player is using a notation system other than the algebraic should warn the
player of this requirement.

This is a case where the laws explicitly mandate a warning, not defaulting the game, not having to write all the moves out again properly on your own time, so not very serious then.

Bear in mind this -

C.4 Pawns are not indicated by their first letter, but are recognised by the absence of such a letter. Examples: the
moves are written e5, d4, a5, not pe5, Pd4, pa5.
C.5 The eight files (from left to right for White and from right to left for Black) are indicated by the small letters, a,
b, c, d, e, f, g and h, respectively.

If your native tongue is Russian, Greek, Arabic, Hebrew, Thai, Hindi, Sanskrit, Mandarin, etc. then you may use the normal abbreviations in your (non-Latin) alphabet for the pieces (article C.3) but you must not use the first 8 characters of your native alphabet for the files. You must use 'a' - 'h'.
What is the penalty for making the game inputters work much harder? There isn't one and no arbiter that I have asked about this would impose a penalty. I don't think any of them (me included) would even waste time on a warning. I think most arbiters take the view that ensuring fair play is their primary goal, not punishing players just for the sake of it.

You alos get people wandering off when it's their move.

And what's wrong with that? As long as the player doesn't leave the "playing area" (article 11.2.3.2). Your local league does have a rule defining the "playing area" for each venue, doesn't it? No? Well, you're in good company. Many senior international arbiters don't bother either.

[Brian Towers]

my pet hate is players who don't know the correct etiquette for offering a draw.

Presumably those who don't follow the sequence, play move, offer draw, press clock? Against that it can be a relief when you are analysing a position, consider that you may be worse and the opponent makes an illegal draw offer. Acceptance would depend on the match or tournament situation and the opponent's grade or rating.

I usually precede a 3-fold repetition claim with an illegal draw offer out of politeness. Usually it is accepted. I can only remember one occasion, when I had about 30 seconds left on my clock, when my opponent completely ignored me whereupon I paused the clocks and made the official claim.

[Kevin Thurlow]

"Kevin Thurlow wrote: ↑

You alos get people wandering off when it's their move.
And what's wrong with that? As long as the player doesn't leave the "playing area" (article 11.2.3.2). Your local league does have a rule defining the "playing area" for each venue, doesn't it? No? Well, you're in good company. Many senior international arbiters don't bother either."

I meant leaving the playing area, but didn't make that clear.

One guy (in Surrey!) was agitated by his club colleagues talking near our board, so he looked cross and walked out into the street, I watched discreetly. He was just pacing up and down, not consulting a computer, so I didn't worry. He returned just as his flag fell.

[Nick Grey]

On my move.

When I need to go to the gents. I will usually let my opponent know where I'm going. Will also ask if they will like a drink as I will buy one myself.
If I have an obvious move I will interrupt first. Ask the same question.

Breaks a lot of rules but that is the joy of league chess. It is also nice when an announcement that the tea is ready.

Similarly if I have to go outside for a breath of fresh air I will ask first & then do so.

There is no need to ask joint match captains.