I'm starting with "The recording of the moves" which has a whole article to itself but confusingly has important stuff mentioned elsewhere in the Laws as well. I have several problems here but I'll limit myself to one problem per post rather than lump all related ones together, in the hope that less important items won't get overlooked. I will also limit myself to quoting just the bits that contribute to my confusion.Stewart Reuben wrote:Brian I suggest you start a new thread and draw my attention to it.
Put the current law.
Then what you find confusing.
Then your suggested amendment, if any.
Of course the death of Sevan Muradian, who was secretary of the commission, has set us back. But the FIDE Congress now starts in early September. We will want to circulate our proposed amendments with the Agenda. We may not be able to afford to meet live in advance.
So, it's clear. Each player (barring disability and impediment not relevant to my question / confusion) must write the moves down and must use algebraic notation which is defined, described and expanded upon in Appendix C ...FIDE Laws of Chess wrote:Article 8: The recording of the moves
8.1 a. 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 score sheet prescribed for the competition.
8.1 c. A player may reply to his opponent’s move before recording it, if he so wishes.
He must record his previous move before making another
But hang on! What does "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." mean? It's possible to use "a notation system other than algebraic"? It's legal to do so?FIDE Laws of Chess wrote: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.
I suppose it must be ?! Then there is "An arbiter who observes that a player is using a notation system other than the algebraic should warn the player of this requirement."
What is clear (to me)
It is clear to me as an arbiter that when players have the time and ability they must write the moves down "shortly" after making them.
Penalties and remedies are not mentioned and while these are not mentioned and there is still room for confusion I think I'm clear in most situations.
1) From my own experience when I have seen a player in a standard rate game with a 30 second increment stop recording I have asked him to catch up on his own time, using his opponent's scoresheet if necessary, with no additional penalty.
2) When I have had a player decline to write the moves down (from the start) for either no reason or a non-disability related reason in a 90+30 game I have deducted 10 minutes from his starting time.
Perhaps guidelines along these lines should be included in the laws?
What is not clear to me
1) What to do when a player is not using algebraic notation as described in C.1 through C.13 other than to warn him that "his scoresheet may not be used in evidence". Does this mean that algebraic notation is not an absolute requirement? And that there is no non-trivial sanction? That descriptive is de facto allowable even if not strictly (de jure) "legal"?
2) What to do if late in the game (90+30) it is noticed that both players have stopped recording and played enough moves to make reconstruction difficult / impossible?
I have had experience of both situations.
2) has occurred once in my experience in a non-FIDE rated tournament where both players were low rated. After explaining the rules and imploring them to obey them next time I told them to carry on. As FIDE extends the scope of its competitions to lower rated players this will become more common.
1) has occurred in a technical sense relating to deficiencies in C.1 through C.13 (which are serious and which I will cover in a later post) in all the FIDE rated tournaments I have arbited.
Just for the moment, at a trivial level, consider:
Note the use of "must" rather than "may" or "should".FIDE Laws of Chess wrote:8.1 d. Both players must record the offer of a draw on the scoresheet with a symbol (=).