English Chess Forum

Our club has a player returning from an illness who wants to take up the game again.
However, he will be unable to record the moves - which is stated as necessary in the rules.
His wife has offered to record for him, but has no knowledge of the games and may struggle.

He will want to play in our club championship, local league, county matches, and some tournaments.
His wife has mentioned taking a sensory board to all matches and her transcribing what it produces (which I'm guessing is technically possible).
I have also wondered about a tape device (as the visually impared players use), though English isn't his first language.

Can anyone suggest any methods that are suitable, and that also would be acceptable within the rules.
Would use a tape recorder with semi-English be acceptable.
(It should be noted that he would be moving slowly, so there isn't much question of him gaining time on the clock).
His wife wants to do all that is possible to enable him to get back into playing.

Hope someone has some ideas.
Cheers.

I played Robin Williams in the 4NCL, and he used a little dictaphone. It's not a problem.

Perhaps the RNIB can even advise on suitable models for chess players ? I can have a dig around if you want.

Tim Lunn wrote:Our club has a player returning from an illness who wants to take up the game again.
However, he will be unable to record the moves - which is stated as necessary in the rules.
His wife has offered to record for him, but has no knowledge of the games and may struggle.

He will want to play in our club championship, local league, county matches, and some tournaments.
His wife has mentioned taking a sensory board to all matches and her transcribing what it produces (which I'm guessing is technically possible).
I have also wondered about a tape device (as the visually impared players use), though English isn't his first language.

Can anyone suggest any methods that are suitable, and that also would be acceptable within the rules.
Would use a tape recorder with semi-English be acceptable.
(It should be noted that he would be moving slowly, so there isn't much question of him gaining time on the clock).
His wife wants to do all that is possible to enable him to get back into playing.

Hope someone has some ideas.
Cheers.

Using a Monroi device (http://monroi.com/products/personal-chess-manager.html) to record the moves is within the rules if your player is able to use a stylus to tap on a small screen with the required precision to hit the right square. However, these devices are exorbitantly expensive, so that may rule it out.

Writing your moves on a scoresheet in your native language is within the rules. It doesn't have to be in English just because you are playing in England. On the same principle, I would have thought that speaking your moves into a tape recorder in your native language would be acceptable.

Article eight of the Laws states:

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.

As the Monroi device uses a figurine diagram there is no need for the wife of the unfortunate man to learn chess notation. I am assuming that the Monroi would be legal for the wife, too, given that an ordinary scoresheet is.

This prompts a thought about new players.... It is hard enough for them to cope with other niceties of match chess without necessarily being able to cope with keeping a proper score (and how many games do we see recordng errors in at any level). Could the same rule about players unable to keep a score be interpreted more liberally, to allow a club member to sdo so in other instances.

J T Melsom wrote: Could the same rule about players unable to keep a score be interpreted more liberally, to allow a club member to sdo so in other instances.

Given the disputes that failing to keep score can generate, I think the answer is no.

The final part of Para 8.1 states
"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 manner."

So what you can do is provide a recorder, and lose a small amount of time.

Wilf

Peter Rhodes wrote:...he used a little dictaphone....

cue old joke...

he should use his finger like everyone else.

J T Melsom wrote:This prompts a thought about new players.... It is hard enough for them to cope with other niceties of match chess without necessarily being able to cope with keeping a proper score (and how many games do we see recordng errors in at any level). Could the same rule about players unable to keep a score be interpreted more liberally, to allow a club member to sdo so in other instances.

I think there needs to be a distinction between players who are actually unable to keep score, and players who can't be bothered (or can't be bothered to learn) to keep score.

The Monroi devices were used to relay live games at the UKCC Terafinal on the top boards. After a while, they offered them to the other players, so they could score their game on the device. From what I saw, the children who used them seemed far more concerned with their electronic devices than they were the game. That may not be a problem at adult ages, but I wouldn't recommend it for a younger player.

Thanks for your replies!

I've found that the player has a speech condition that would prevent use of a dictaphone (eg; thinks c4 but says z8), so it's looking like some sort of technology would need to be used.
For club chess (at least), I was thinking maybe a sensory board that gave a display that the 'non-chess' assistant could write down.
I'm thinking that the monroi would be too fiddly, but will check with the player.

I was wondering about the rules. If it's ok for an assistant to record the game but the player takes a time penalty, what would the objection be to not recording at all but taking a time penalty? The player has a disabilty which prevents them moving very quickly so there would be no advantage on the clock. I know the rules state that recording is necessary, but what if the player gives up the right to claim 3-fold repetitions and 50 move rules (ie; anything requiring the score sheet). In a club chess, and local league chess environment (where score sheets are mostly for personal use) I don't really see not recording (in this case) being much of a problem. If the player could manage to record the number of moves, then the game would function ok. Obviously someone who gains an advantage from not recording should be prevented, but I don't see that in this case.

Any further thoughts on sensory boards? Or whether the rules can be 'stretched' in this case?

From memory, Smyslov has been granted an exemption from the recording obligation. However, he is a rather special case.

I have the impression that it may be possible for the player concerned to tick a score sheet. If so, approaches to the secretaries of the concerned leagues and clubs, asking if this is sufficient, may be a good course to pursue. If would probably be useful to alert opposing clubs in advance of any game.

When I was a club secretary, I had to liaise closely with another club. We had a player who belonged to both bodies. He had his problems. It was important to ensure we knew which teams to register him for and not break any rules. That worked quite well.

I wouldn't be too concerned about the letter of the law. Ticking is a record of sorts. The whole point is to enable people to play, not to prevent them. A tolerant league secretary may even allow the wife to tick the score sheet. After the game, a lot of opponents would be more than happy to allow the wife to copy their own score. I certainly would.

At the end of the day it is just a game that people play for enjoyment, if my opponent could not physically record the game I would not have a problem with that. I would even offer that my recording could be counted as being on behalf of both of us. No way would I refuse to play someone if they could not record and didn't want to impose upon someone to the extent that they had to sit their for hours to record. Having said that there are normally easy solutions that can be found such as voice reording.

What would be the point on insisting his wife records would that be much fun for her.

On the subject of Monroi devices I think they are quicker to use and provide and advantage to the player using them as they provide a 2d image and how much practice is done using 2d images.

Sensory boards are good though expensive. As David states: its just a game and I personally don't care too much if they score or not. I remember when I was a junior losing lots of games so stop scoring because of it so i could focus on the chess, also being superstitious thought that it was the root cause of my bad luck/form. It lasted about 3 games before I was picked up on it. I have seen some top players score in such a way that is impossible to read the moves! Under the rules extra time can be allotted for players who cannot score though it is not specific as to how much.

In Scotland we have a blind/deaf player who is a regular at tournaments. The person accompanying him is not a chess player so cannot record. He is however able to transfer the moves between boards.

THe opponent is issued with a duplicate scoresheet and hands over the bottom copy after the game. I suppose, technically, the opponent has become the person acceptable to the arbiter who shall record for the player.

This has worked very well. No time penalty has been applied in this case.

I see no problem if opposition teams are advised in advance. Certain minor alterations of board order may be a good idea if it avoids the player being paired with an inexperienced player who has difficulties recording or if the correct opponent has a history of being 'temperamental'. I'm sure you can come up with other reasons!

In 1998 Carey Wilman (Scotland) had broken her arm. She was unable to keep score at the Olympiad and asked me what she should do. I told her that she should explain the problem every round and volunteer to have 10 minutes deducted from her time. The arbiter could vary every round which is why the explanation had to be repeated. She later told me that every one of her opponents refused a time penalty. The Law only states the assistant may be provided. It does not say shall.

Never pair a blind player with a deaf one, unless you are prepared to provide a move transmitter for the whole game.
Stewart Reuben