Questions on conduct during a game

[Stewart Reuben]

DGT 2010 is renowned for its quality. Non-DGT clocks usually are not as reliable, or do not follow the FIDE Laws.
People often buy the cheapest and are then dissatisfied.
FIDE did endorse DGT, but then ceased to do so.
Joey. They are expensive because the numbers are low.
Monroi is an excellent product. But it had no chance in the European market because of the cost.

[Brian Towers]

primarily played by pensioners, children and the unemployed

I wonder whether this will form the basis of an ECF publicity slogan.

Where can I get the t-shirt?

[Robert Stokes]

When the rule about not writing down moves before making them was changed a few years ago, I immediately worked out what I thought the reasoning behind it was. A low graded player in a congress minor league could have a much higher graded friend watching the game now and then (it would be suspicious if he was watching permanently). They could have agreed a simple code such as "if I put my hands in my pockets it's a bad move so look for a different one".

From some comments above it seems that I may have been right.

Robert

[Alex Holowczak]

When the rule about not writing down moves before making them was changed a few years ago, I immediately worked out what I thought the reasoning behind it was. A low graded player in a congress minor league could have a much higher graded friend watching the game now and then (it would be suspicious if he was watching permanently). They could have agreed a simple code such as "if I put my hands in my pockets it's a bad move so look for a different one".

From some comments above it seems that I may have been right.

Robert

At the Classic a few years ago, an Irish arbiter explained to me why the rule came in. The rulechange came about because of an Ireland match at an Olympiad. An Irish player wrote the move down in an advance, as he always had, and his opponent took exception for some reason. Such was the fallout, the rule as we have now came in.

I can't recall the motivation for the initial complaint about writing down in advance - I can't recall even if I was told it - but your thoughts on the reasoning would seem to align with the motives for such a complaint to be made.

[Roger de Coverly]

The rulechange came about because of an Ireland match at an Olympiad. An Irish player wrote the move down in an advance, as he always had, and his opponent took exception for some reason. Such was the fallout, the rule as we have now came in

The other story is that it was a Scottish player and a Dutch arbiter.

Personally I believe it was a necessary step to allow the Monroi device (and similar) to be used.

[NickFaulks]

Personally I believe it was a necessary step to allow the Monroi device (and similar) to be used.

I'm pretty sure that you are wrong about that. We know that the impetus for the rule change came from Geurt Gijssen, and I don't believe he has ever been very bothered about Monroi.

[Gavin Strachan]

OK so what happens if the person continues to make notes? Can you claim the game?

[IM Jack Rudd]

OK so what happens if the person continues to make notes? Can you claim the game?

That lies in the hands of the arbiter.

(I probably would award a loss to a player who persistently made notes after being told not to.)

[Gavin Strachan]

thanks. Could be a problem in a league game with no arbiter, so do you stop the clock claim the win and complain to the league about what happened after or carry on then complain?

[Stewart Reuben]

Asuming you had first rerminded the opponent of the law. Let us say he ignored you at the third time of asking. By then you would have shown him the Law.The opposing match cptain refuses to get involved.
Then write down your complaint wih the date, time and move number. Show it to your opponent who will probably refuse to conter-sign it. Get a couple of people to act as witnesses, probably fellow team members. If there is another independent match in the venue, speak to them. Continue playing and preferably win!

[Michael Farthing]

My reaction would depend on the Law. For example, were a player to maintain that just because he was in checkmate this did not matter: I could take the king and he would continue to play with his other pieces, I might be really stroppy [as indeed was my (then) six year old son when he discovered this was the interpretation of the laws by his local cub pack].

In the instance above, if the 'note taking' was merely the writing of moves before playing and there was no evidence of people looking over my opponent's shoulder and signalling then quite frankly I wouldn't give a fig.

If it was evident that team mates were observing the score and that poor moves were being changed in consequence then I would certainly be stronger in my reactions than Stewart suggests. This would be undermining the whole cooperative and responsible behaviour of the league. As a match captain I would be very inclined to terminate the match with the threat of leaving the league unless the matter was rectified. Otherwise it might well be patched up and would happen next year... Fortunately (a) my club has a choice of leagues and (b) I can't see it happening anyway.

Perhaps a harder thing to decide on is something like repeated draw offers. I have suffered from that and simply got ruder and ruder in my responses. Eventually my opponent gave up asking and spent his time muttering, 'it's clearly a draw'. Sadly, he was correct.

[Stewart Reuben]

If my opponent thinks and then writes down a move, considers the matter and then eventually plays another move, he is clearly taking notes.
If my opponent invariably writes down his mve and then plays it immediately, that is against the letter of the law, but within the spirit.

[Gavin Strachan]

Thanks Stewart, sensible advise on what to do with no arbiter available.

[Nick Grey]

& put the reports into the tournament controller/league secretary who may form a committee to hear or rule themselves as per their local rules.

[Alistair Campbell]

I've never been one for writing down my move before I've played it, but the Nakamura incident brought to mind one possible exception (which happens occasionally, and I imagine is not that unknown).

No sooner have you decided on your move and picked up the appropriate piece, you instantly notice a large flaw with your intention (this never seems to happen just before you pick up the piece, only just after), so you put the piece back where it came from, intending to make an alternative move with the same piece. Only you realise that this isn't as straightforward a task as you'd hoped and is going to require some thought. Rather than sit with one hand hopelessly and awkwardly glued to the piece, you take your hand off it (possibly muttering an apology for your ineptitude).

Clearly you must move said piece. Your opponent is beginning to anticipate some attempt at malpractice. At this point I would write the start of the move on my scoresheet, conveying my intention to move said piece (e.g. 74...K in Nakamura's case). I guess this is not writing down the move (as I haven't written a move) but may fail the note-taking test?