Persistent Infringements

[Ken McNulty]

In evening league chess matches (no arbiters present), I have recently had two occasions to request that my opponent keep their score sheet up to date (each time with more than 5 minutes remaining). I never mentioned it straight away, but during the game after 2-3 moves without a move being recorded, then I made my next move and before stopping my own clock, politely requested that my opponent keep their score sheet up to date and offered my own score sheet for reference if required.

On the first occasion my opponent acknowledged my request and updated his score sheet but then went on to repeat the 'infringement' several times. Each time, I had to repeat my request.

On the second, more recent occasion, my opponent declined to record moves beyond around move 20, despite several requests and even a reminder that the rules required him to keep his score sheet up to date.

So my question(s);
(a) Other than repeatedly requesting my opponent keep their score sheet up to date, what recourse, if any, do I have in such situations?
(b) What would you do in the same position?

Regards

Ken

[Ray Sayers]

I wouldn't care. If my opponent wants to rob themselves of the chance of claiming a draw by repetition (for example) by not having an up to date scoresheet, or miss making the time control by not knowing how many moves they made, that's their problem. Whatever the laws of chess say.

[NickFaulks]

Were these team games? If so, where were the captains?

[Roger de Coverly]

So my question(s);
(a) Other than repeatedly requesting my opponent keep their score sheet up to date, what recourse, if any, do I have in such situations?
(b) What would you do in the same position?

League rules will vary as to the responsibility of match captains for the conduct of the match, but an initial complaint to your own captain or the opposition's captain may be in order. You can also take the view that if your opponent is so disorganised as to be unable to record his or her moves, you ought to be able to beat them easily. That might vary if they were exploiting your time shortage to blitz moves.

I know it can be regarded as unfriendly and unsporting to insist but minimum standards should be maintained and one of them is continuing to score until there's less than five minutes remaining to the time control or the end of the game.

You could reasonably insist that your opponent's clock should run, even if it's your move, whilst he or she updates their scoresheet.

[Neil Graham]

If this is a North Staffs League match the rules state

All games played under the League's auspices shall be played according to the
rules of the E.C.F. (amended from B.C.F. at the fifty-eighth Annual General
Meeting, 6th July 2005) and to the Laws of the F.I.D.E.

Rule 8 Scores of each game should be recorded in a recognised system of
notation by both players in case of dispute.

If an opponent fails to keep a score of the game I would ask him to do so, on a third lapse stop the clocks and claim the game. If your opponent refuses to keep a score, stop the clock and claim the game. That will give your officials something to do!

[Roger de Coverly]

If an opponent fails to keep a score of the game I would ask him to do so, on a third lapse stop the clocks and claim the game.

Whilst there's a long set of rules for how the laws of chess apply to visually handicapped players and the conventions when you play them, there's next to nothing parallel for physically handicapped players who are incapable of recording moves using pen and paper.

In practice local organisations usually turn a blind eye to an absence of scoring.

[Neil Graham]

If an opponent fails to keep a score of the game I would ask him to do so, on a third lapse stop the clocks and claim the game.

Whilst there's a long set of rules for how the laws of chess apply to visually handicapped players and the conventions when you play them, there's next to nothing parallel for physically handicapped players who are incapable of recording moves using pen and paper.

In practice local organisations usually turn a blind eye to an absence of scoring.

I don't think that the original correspondent suggested that either of his opponents were physically handicapped or incapable.

[Stewart Reuben]

Roger >Whilst there's a long set of rules for how the laws of chess apply to visually handicapped players and the conventions when you play them, there's next to nothing parallel for physically handicapped players who are incapable of recording moves using pen and paper.<

8.1e 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. This adjustment of the clock shall not apply to a player with a disability.
4.9 is the same law about moving the pieces. 6.2e is the same law about pressing the clock.

Also, please note the term 'handicapped' is never used in chess. It is always disabled.
A player would not have to be physically disabled in order not to keep score. e.g. somebody dyslexic might find it too difficult.
A Jewish person on the Sabbath, if orthodox, would not keep score. He might also possibly refuse to press an electronic clock. The arbiter might then adjust his clock time.
Yudasin wanted to play with a mechanical clock in the Olympiad rather than an electronic one. I was consulted and pointed out that he was a professional player, thus working on the Sabbath.

I saw a dinsoaur in the London League very recently. I only noticed after the game that a middle-aged player was scoring in descriptive notation. That's against the laws. I thought all the people I had given special dispensation to were either retired from chess or had died.

I expect most readers do not follow the Laws of Chess properly.
1. They fail to record the offer of a draw.
2. They don't ensure that both players sign both scoresheets at the end of the game.

[Richard Bates]

Roger >Whilst there's a long set of rules for how the laws of chess apply to visually handicapped players and the conventions when you play them, there's next to nothing parallel for physically handicapped players who are incapable of recording moves using pen and paper.<

8.1e 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. This adjustment of the clock shall not apply to a player with a disability.
4.9 is the same law about moving the pieces. 6.2e is the same law about pressing the clock.

Also, please note the term 'handicapped' is never used in chess. It is always disabled.

http://www.fide.com/fide/handbook.html? ... w=category

"E.02. Handicapped Players..."

[Brian Towers]

If this is a North Staffs League match the rules state

All games played under the League's auspices shall be played according to the
rules of the E.C.F. (amended from B.C.F. at the fifty-eighth Annual General
Meeting, 6th July 2005) and to the Laws of the F.I.D.E.

Rule 8 Scores of each game should be recorded in a recognised system of
notation by both players in case of dispute.

That's what I love about English local league rules. They're written by people who don't actually know the rules!

If the North Staffs League want their games to be graded by the ECF then they just need to play according to ECF rules. If you check the ECF website their Rules link just points straight to the FIDE rules page so ECF rules and FIDE rules are one and the same.

The North Staffs League can add more restrictive rules but not less restrictive ones so Rule 8 is just wrong. According to FIDE/ECF rules the game should be recorded in algebraic notation, full stop. Descriptive notation is a recognized system of notation which is not permitted.

If an opponent fails to keep a score of the game I would ask him to do so, on a third lapse stop the clocks and claim the game. If your opponent refuses to keep a score, stop the clock and claim the game. That will give your officials something to do!

It won't give the officials very much to do. They will just award your opponent the game. There are no FIDE rules which justify your actions. The normal sanction for a first offence of not keeping an uptodate scoresheet is a warning. No arbiter has given your opponent a warning hence there can be no higher sanction. In any case an arbiter would in real life use his judgment and might give (sterner) warnings for second and third offences depending on the situation (e.g. if you both still have lots of time left and they judge your opponent is just absent minded).

[Roger de Coverly]

The North Staffs League can add more restrictive rules but not less restrictive ones so Rule 8 is just wrong. According to FIDE/ECF rules the game should be recorded in algebraic notation, full stop.

It's quite frequent for local leagues to permit the continued use of descriptive notation and the ECF have raised no objection. A proposal referring to FIDE rules last year to remove from grading adjudicated games or games potentially subject to adjudication was rejected, so a proposal to outlaw descriptive would likely suffer a similar fate.

I'm not sure whether I could find it again, but when this issue has come up in the past, it was an opinion that descriptive could be permitted even in the Hastings Masters.

[Clive Blackburn]

If you both still have lots of time left and they judge your opponent is just absent minded).

I think that absent mindedness is the most likely explanation for Ken's opponent failing to keep score even after several reminders. When it happens to me, I mention it to my opponent once (in a helpful way, not as a warning) and if they carry on doing it thereafter, that's up to them.

In a similar way, my opponents sometimes forget to press their clock after moving. Again, I will mention it the once in case they have just overlooked it but if they continue in the same way then I won't say anymore, I will just continue to make my moves at my usual pace.

[Roger de Coverly]

In a similar way, my opponents sometimes forget to press their clock after moving. Again, I will mention it the once in case they have just overlooked it but if they continue in the same way then I won't say anymore, I will just continue to make my moves at my usual pace.

I've seen players not make their move until the opponent realises and presses the clock. That's arguably marginally unsporting, but perhaps what is taught to some younger players. It's necessary in increment chess to get the add on. Against non-movers there's always the danger that they will notice their clock is running, panic and make a second move. You then have to prove to them that it was your turn to move even though their clock was running.

[Clive Blackburn]

You then have to prove to them that it was your turn to move even though their clock was running.

Yes, another good reason for keeping score provided that you have the time to do so, even in a Rapidplay event.

[Clive Blackburn]

Last year I was involved in a time scramble in a Rapidplay event. I had been keeping score earlier in the game but had stopped once I started to run short of time, my opponent had not kept score at all.

Then as my opponent made a quick move, he accidentally knocked over his king and it rolled off the board and onto the table. He asked me whether the king had been on f1 or g1 but I wasn't sure either. We stopped the clock and tried to work it out but couldn't (I had been checking him for the last few moves and his king had moved several times, so my score sheet was of no use).

In the end we decided on g1. I think that we might have got it wrong but fortunately I had a easy win with the king on either square, so the outcome of the game was not affected.

We didn't call for the arbiter but even if we had, I don't really see what he could have done as we could not recall all of the moves leading to that position.

Off topic I know as it was not a persistent infringement just a one-off slip of the hand but I would be interested to hear hoe an arbiter would have handled the situation.