Not Notating

[John Clarke]

Please forgive what may turn out to be a silly question (despite being reasonably experienced, I haven't played competitive chess since the mid-80s, and things appear to have changed a lot with all these new clocks, time controls, etc).

If your opponent doesn't notate, or stops notating too early, then surely he's only handicapping himself? Where is the advantage to him that needs to be nullified by applying the rules and procedures detailed by earlier posters?

[Ian Kingston]

Please forgive what may turn out to be a silly question (despite being reasonably experienced, I haven't played competitive chess since the mid-80s, and things appear to have changed a lot with all these new clocks, time controls, etc).

If your opponent doesn't notate, or stops notating too early, then surely he's only handicapping himself? Where is the advantage to him that needs to be nullified by applying the rules and procedures detailed by earlier posters?

A hypothetical example, based on a situation that arose in a league game on Wednesday night: after playing dreadfully, I found myself on the wrong side of the endgame K + Q vs. K + R with less than five minutes remaining on my clock against 25 minutes for my opponent. An unscrupulous opponent might have stopped recording and tried to win by playing very quickly, knowing that one blunder from me would be enough for him to win; that with neither player having a record of the moves I would be unable to claim a draw under the 50 move rule; and that I would therefore most likely lose on time. Article 10.2 (not trying to win by normal means) wouldn't be much help without an arbiter or an up-to-date scoresheet.

My opponent did nothing of the sort, behaving impeccably throughout - as most players would.

[Alex Holowczak]

If your opponent doesn't notate, or stops notating too early, then surely he's only handicapping himself? Where is the advantage to him that needs to be nullified by applying the rules and procedures detailed by earlier posters?

A time advantage, that is "blitzing" your opponent. You have 1 minute but are completely winning, he has 20. He then starts moving just as quickly as you do, not writing his moves down. So you're losing time to think because of your opponent not recording.

There was an example of this going on at the Warwickshire Championship at the weekend. I was about to intervene and award the opponent two extra minutes (in accordance with 13.4), but he'd checkmated his opponent as I arrived on the scene.

[PaulTalbot]

Please forgive what may turn out to be a silly question (despite being reasonably experienced, I haven't played competitive chess since the mid-80s, and things appear to have changed a lot with all these new clocks, time controls, etc).

If your opponent doesn't notate, or stops notating too early, then surely he's only handicapping himself? Where is the advantage to him that needs to be nullified by applying the rules and procedures detailed by earlier posters?

No he isn't handicapping himself, he is actually giving himself more time, because it takes time to write the move down.

He is also causing you to take more time because if he moves while you are writing your move down you may have to spend a few extra seconds making sure you know where he's gone before you then write it down.

In addition this can also be distracting and cause you to not concentrate on your game as much as you would otherwise have done. His quicker pace can also make you feel rushed so you also have to make a deliberate effort to slow yourself down and don't rush, which again requires concentration and takes up more of your time.

Because you are aware of all these things, which may all be small things in themselves, added together they can be very distracting and can have an affect on your game.

[Alex Holowczak]

No he isn't handicapping himself, he is actually giving himself more time, because it takes time to write the move down.

Worth adding to my 1 min v 20 mins example earlier. There's nothing to stop the guy with 20 mins sitting there for 16 mins, so that he now has less than 5 mins himself. Then he can blitz to his heart's content!

[PaulTalbot]

No he isn't handicapping himself, he is actually giving himself more time, because it takes time to write the move down.

Worth adding to my 1 min v 20 mins example earlier. There's nothing to stop the guy with 20 mins sitting there for 16 mins, so that he now has less than 5 mins himself. Then he can blitz to his heart's content!

Absolutely! I've no problem with that at all because that's within the rules. It's someone gaining an advantage through going outside the rules that I have a problem with.

[Graham Borrowdale]

Worth adding to my 1 min v 20 mins example earlier. There's nothing to stop the guy with 20 mins sitting there for 16 mins, so that he now has less than 5 mins himself. Then he can blitz to his heart's content!

The worst experience for us time trouble addicts is probably the opponent who just sits there. If they have a clearly won position then resigning early may well be the expedient solution. If you are clearly winning then it does allow you to recalculate the winning lines to be sure. In any other position then you are gaining thinking time if the opponent just sits there, but 'blitzing' works better when both players are doing it.

Don't despair, many players actually play worse if their opponent is in time trouble, irrespective of whether they are recording the moves or not.

[Alex Holowczak]

I guess this is an interesting penalty idea. If a guy with 20 mins is blitzing v a guy with 1 min, maybe instead of awarding 2 mins to the guy with 1 min, I could adjust the clock time of his opponent to 4 mins 59 seconds. I can reduce the time of the offending player according to 13.4. Then he can blitz!

[Roger de Coverly]

According to http://monroi.com/chess-blog/chess-expe ... -rome.html, the USCF have their own rules at variance with the rest of the world.

In a tournament under their rules

The USCF rules allow both players to stop keeping score when either player has less than 5 minutes remaining on their clock.

and

The USCF rules do not have the additional proviso of enforcing scorekeeping when an increment time setting is used.

The context of the question was a GM stopping scoring in a 90 30 event with less than five minutes remaining.

In UK tournaments with 30 second increments, the reminder to keep score is a frequent part of the arbiter's "start the clocks" script.

[Ian Thompson]

According to http://monroi.com/chess-blog/chess-expe ... -rome.html, the USCF have their own rules at variance with the rest of the world.

In a tournament under their rules

The USCF rules allow both players to stop keeping score when either player has less than 5 minutes remaining on their clock.

That is definitely the case. I've personal experience of this where, in an American tournament played in 2004, I asked my opponent to keep scoring the game when I had less than 5 minutes left and he had more than 5 minutes left. He told me, in a most unpleasant way, that the tournament was being played under USCF rules, not FIDE rules. This incident would probably have been long forgotten were it not for my opponent being a very well known and strong American GM, and the arbiter considering it appropriate to apologise to me for his behaviour after the game.

The USCF rules do not have the additional proviso of enforcing scorekeeping when an increment time setting is used.

That's useful to know as I'm planning to play in America again this summer.