English Chess Forum

It's not uncommon for players lacking experience to break a couple of the Laws of Chess. Specifically the ones likely to be broken are

6.2.3 A player must press his clock with the same hand with which he made his move. It is forbidden for a player to keep his finger on the clock or to ‘hover’ over it.

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.

(League rules will sometimes/often permit the use of Descriptive)

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 for the remainder of the period he is not obliged to meet the requirements of Article 8.1.1.

In a tournament, you would, I suppose, be entitled to "summon the arbiter", but what of a league match with no arbiter present or at best the two match captains? What should the penalty be for persistent infringement? I don't think the Laws of Chess proscribe anything explicit, even where an arbiter is present.

I guess a friendly reminder the first time, restarting the clock (unless increments are used) the second time, with a firm suggestion they comply with the laws of chess. I would tend to demand 2 minutes the second time. I think it also depends if you think they're doing it deliberately or are just confused. You might still be distracted of course.

You would hope the players or captains would be sensible. We did have an incident in Surrey where an opponent cheated by not recording the game repeatedly, so we complained. But as the opposing captain had been League Secretary, Surrey ruled that we weren't allowed to complain.

I was watching a league game the other day, and one rather senior, but low-graded player was recording fairly sporadically with 10 minutes to go. I expected the opposition to complain, but they didn't! Another guy was using a scorebook and nobody turned a hair. (I intend that as a non-threatening comment, I'm not being folliclist.)

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

Kevin Thurlow wrote: ↑

Thu Feb 14, 2019 12:59 pm

You also get people wandering off when it's their move

This can happen. Just gently steer them away from busy roads, and back to the board

I would imagine the use of scorebooks is still fairly common in club/league chess.

(and was only outlawed fairly recently in congresses I think?)

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 suspect that many match captains are not sufficiently up to date with the rules themselves. Knowledge of rule changes tends to be quite erratic. Nor are rule breaches confined to the new player - conveniently failing to keep score is a regular tactic of at least one local player. And then of course 'distraction' is somewhat difficult to define let alone penalise. Borrowing a score sheet to comply with the requirement to keep score would be a distraction but subject to penalty?

I accept that not all club captains are familiar with all the rules, and some breaches are more serious than others, but I do get a sense that at some clubs players are just thrown in to a match environment without being given any advice. It was quite a shock to somebody the other year to discover that he should have maintained a game score - our player had said nothing, and I suspect had something been said partway through the game, it would have caused much confusion and spoiled what was otherwise a good and fairly matched tussle. I think this need for induction is another reason why I support internal club events as part of player familiarisation with the requirements of match chess, but many clubs see it as the role of the local organisation to provide chess opportunities rather than provide such assistance and events themselves.

I have a specific question about claims whilst a league game is in progress :

A player is observed to be not recording the game at all in a standard play game.

Despite reminders from different people he laughs and continues not to record.

Also, he operates the timer with one hand and moves the piece with another despite reminders about this.

What is the correct (not politically correct) procedure to claim the game ?

Matt Mackenzie wrote: ↑

Thu Feb 14, 2019 1:12 pm

I would imagine the use of scorebooks is still fairly common in club/league chess.

(and was only outlawed fairly recently in congresses I think?)

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

In Round 5 of 4NCL, Division Four South an opposing team player scored his game into his scorebook. The Chief Arbiter was approximately 5 metres distant and did not notice. I pointed this out to his team captain and he was asked to use the supplied score sheet.

I was involved in a league match recently where one of the opposition players, drafted in for AFAIK their first ever serious game, said they weren't going to write the moves down because "they didn't know how to". Of course we could have claimed the point by default according to the rules, but our player preferred to play (and duly won)

I told said player afterwards that they should learn chess notation, and that it really wasn't that hard to do

Matt Mackenzie wrote: ↑

Thu Feb 14, 2019 2:06 pm

said they weren't going to write the moves down because "they didn't know how to".

There's a precedent of sorts in the laws of chess, that where players have refused or declined to record moves, time is taken off their clock.

8.1.6 If a player is unable to keep score, an assistant, who must be acceptable to the arbiter, may be provided by the player to write the moves. His clock shall be adjusted by the arbiter in an equitable way. This adjustment of the clock shall not apply to a player with a disability.

Except that as per the concern in the original post this adjustment of the clocks is left a bit vague and discretionary - what does equitable mean? You might make an adjustment based on moves in a playing session, but less easily if a guillotine finish were involved.

Why would a player without a disability be unable to keep score? Do the Laws of Chess envisage players who simply don't know how to do it?

Could there be a religious issue?

Matt Mackenzie wrote: ↑

Thu Feb 14, 2019 1:12 pm

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

NickFaulks wrote: ↑

Thu Feb 14, 2019 2:26 pm

Why would a player without a disability be unable to keep score? Do the Laws of Chess envisage players who simply don't know how to do it?

Could there be a religious issue?

See Smart Chip From St Petersburg, p.156. (I would like to tell you more but Google Books on a smartphone is no fun.)

NickFaulks wrote: ↑

Thu Feb 14, 2019 2:26 pm

Do the Laws of Chess envisage players who simply don't know how to do it?

I believe the Laws were framed to have a rule which covered those who considered that pressing the clock and writing the moves down was "working" during the leisure time of the week and thus against their religion, even though playing chess as a professional player wasn't.

There had been a row of sorts at Elista, involving the England team and this rule dates back to at least about then.

I would be inclined to support the idea in League chess, that if a player refuses to keep score, you debit 5 minutes off their time. Perhaps that's too lenient, but for disabled players it doesn't apply as required by the Laws of Chess.

There are at least some rules which cover these situations, even if their application is not straightforward in league chess.

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.