Questions on conduct during a game

[Paolo Casaschi]

These are all very sensible ideas. My complaint is that on one day it was universally understood that "making notes" did not include writing down your next move in advance, but on the following day it did. No explanation was ever given for this abrupt change in interpretation.

If you allow me the very pedantic comment, if you write Nf3 on your score-sheet before making the move on the chessboard then, strictly speaking, you are not writing your move because Nf3 becomes your move only after you execute the move on the chessboard (i.e. when you can not take it back anymore if not when you actually complete the move). If you do not write your move, then, assuming that only writing your actual move is allowed and anything else is a forbidden note, here you have your explanation.

I think the current rule makes a lot of sense, you only write your move after you made the move on the board and you can not take it back anymore. If you want to hang on the old habit of writing the move first, then checking again and occasionally erase what you wrote and change your intended move, then by extension you should also allow to move a piece on the board, take it back and play something else provided that the move is not yet completed (i.e. until you pressed the clock); that would give you a much better opportunity to double-check your intended move.

[Paolo Casaschi]

These are all very sensible ideas. My complaint is that on one day it was universally understood that "making notes" did not include writing down your next move in advance, but on the following day it did. No explanation was ever given for this abrupt change in interpretation.

If you allow me the very pedantic comment...

More seriously, this is my wild guess of what might have happened: start with some practical issues at the board related to the practice of writing your move in advance. For example, I write my move then I cover the scoresheet so my opponent can't see and he complains to the arbiter; or I write my move Nf3, then erase it, write Bb2, then I erase it and after a while my scoresheet has a large black spot for move 23, my opponent gets annoyed trying to guess my intentions and complains to the arbiter. Long story short, arbiters writing the laws felt compelled to regulate all those issues and situations, for example: who may/should see the written move; how many times you can change your mind; which ink color should you use for the corrections; are you allowed to correct your move on the scoresheet using a different hand than the one used to write the initial move; and many more such silly issues. Then someone pointed out that you could get rid of all these annoyances at once by just forbidding writing moves in advance and that became the new law.

[Roger de Coverly]

No explanation was ever given for this abrupt change in interpretation.

Did it ever strike you that there was a coincidence of timing with FIDE's approval of the use of the Monroi electronic device for recording of moves?

[John Hickman]

I had an opponent write my move down before I had completed it, seeing me pick up the d pawn. I enjoyed the visible double take when the pawn ended up on d5, not d6 when he actually looked at what my move was

[Stewart Reuben]

What actually happened was that, in the Olympiads, a Scottish player five times first wrote down his move, crossed it out and then played another. That led Geurt Gijssen to suggest the change. Once the concern was expressed, many people agreed. It was easy to draft. Naturally some people had to be reminded of the change.
Ample warning was given of the proposed change. It had nothing to do with Monroi. With their equipment, you cannot enter a move and then un-enter it. Of course it reinforces the need. Once you enter the new move on the Monroi device, you see the new position.

Bobby Fischer objected before the start of the 1970 USSR v Rest of the World Match. FIDE decided it was too common a practice in the USSR to make a sudden change. There it remained, until that Olympiad incident. Nigel Short also expressed indignation in Gibraltar. We asked his opponent not to do so, Jon Speelman translated the request into Russian aand there was no incident.

[Joey Stewart]

I am pretty sure my story is true too, I forget when or where it took place but it is a much more concrete example of why the rule needed to be brought in.

[Ian Thompson]

It had nothing to do with Monroi. With their equipment, you cannot enter a move and then un-enter it.

So what do you do if a player makes a mistake entering a move on the Monroi that has already been played on the board?

[Roger de Coverly]

So what do you do if a player makes a mistake entering a move on the Monroi that has already been played on the board?

I would be fairly sure the design included a backspace or delete key, so the objection that the device allowed you to see the hypothetical position after the move "written" in advance would have been valid had the old rules continued.

[Michael Farthing]

Nigel Short also expressed indignation in Gibraltar.

No!! not really? You could knock me down with a feather.

[Clive Blackburn]

The usual reason given for not writing down your move in advance is that it is considered to be "taking notes".

For instance, you could calculate a line of play, write down your first move on the score sheet and then analyse a different move, after which you still have the reminder of your first choice written down to save you forgetting.

Personally I don't see anything wrong with this and the system worked well for many years, with players only occasionally having to alter their score sheet.

[NickFaulks]

What actually happened was that, in the Olympiads, a Scottish player five times first wrote down his move, crossed it out and then played another. That led Geurt Gijssen to suggest the change.

It always disappoints me that when senior arbiters see behaviour which they think is improper, their first response is to propose a radical change to the rules.

There has for as long as I can remember been a rule against taking notes. Is it really beyond the authority of an arbiter to say "that looks like taking notes to me, you've got to stop doing it"?

I am in two minds on this question, for the various reasons mentioned in this thread. I just didn't like the way in which is was pushed through by the arbiters, to the horror of much of the chess world.

[Stewart Reuben]

Nick
Only now you realise that we arbiters are much worse than ogres. Those worse still are ones who are also organisers.
Personally, I had been uneasy about allowing people to write their move down in advance of playing it, ever since Bobby objected in 1970.
Ample consultation went on before the General Assembly voted on the changes in the Laws. The only mistake made was in failing to wake you up.

[NickFaulks]

Ample consultation went on before the General Assembly voted on the changes in the Laws. The only mistake made was in failing to wake you up.

I'll throw this open to the forum. Stewart may well be right, since I was not closely involved with FIDE at the time ( although I was General Secretary of a federation ). Who remembers this consultation?

[JustinHorton]

I was always against the change: I don't think writing the move down first was making notes in the sense that anybody understood it. It might arguably put off an opponent and there was a case for preventing it on gamesmanship grounds, but in all honesty I don't think the rule change achieved a lot except to rule out what was quite a good habit, designed to avoid unnecessary errors.

[Reg Clucas]

the reason they changed the rule on writing moves down after they have been played was because of an incident where a coach was going round blunder checking his players moves by looking at their scoresheets and nodding his agreement if it was a good move for them to play.

I think this is an excellent reason for the rule change. It isn't just coaches who might do this, it can be any accomplice, who might also have access to an engine. So I don't see why this continues to generate discussion.