Local Law Variants

[Alex Holowczak]

Given the other conversation(s) about which rules allow flexibility or not, should the ECF come up with a list of law variations that affiliated Leagues and Congresses can adopt, and still count for grading?

Rules I would be in favour of would include:
1. Allowing Descriptive English notation (overriding 8.1)
2. Allowing greater flexibility on the mobile phone rule (overriding whichever rule it is that says a mobile phone ring is a default) - not sure about the precise parameters of which deterrent would be allowed though (perhaps that the team captain can leave it on, or a warning first etc.)
3. Disallowing adjournments and adjudications (overriding whichever appendix tells you the process of conducting an adjournment)

Any others people would like, that I can't think of?

[Roger de Coverly]

Any others people would like, that I can't think of?

(1) allow players to write the move down before playing it as recommended in various training manuals.
(2) allow the use of personal scorebooks instead of club scoresheets.

[Alan Walton]

I would think the best thing would be to stick as close to the FIDE rules as possible, as these are the official laws of chess which we should all be playing under

Regarding Alex's points

1) Descriptive can be used as a notation, but you lose the rights for claiming draws by repatition and flag falling, the majority of players now use algebraic so this shouldn't be a major issue

2) Mobile phone noise should be defaulted outright

but you could have warning, but only if that warning is stored by the results secretary of a league, and that warning carries over for the rest of the seaon, thereafter in any match he would be defaulted. In a tournament if the offending player phone goes off twice during the duration of the tournament, the second ring would be removal from the tournament. But then you also have the problem of cheating rearing its ugly head

3) adjudications and adjournments rules are locally driven anyway, as FIDE tournaments are now all quickplay finish

[Matt Mackenzie]

Any others people would like, that I can't think of?

(1) allow players to write the move down before playing it as recommended in various training manuals.
(2) allow the use of personal scorebooks instead of club scoresheets.

I can exclusively (not really) reveal that both happened a great deal at Blackpool last weekend

[John Upham]

In a Berkshire League match in which I played last night at least two of our opponents used personal scorebooks to record the game.

One of these featured heavily annotated previous games with many notes and suggestions. Some of these previous games were relevant to the one being recorded.

As I walked round I could easily read the notes.

One does not wish to create issues with friendly opponents but players still flout laws that they ought to know better of.

What is to be done?

[Anthony Taglione]

Wasn't writing the move down before playing it banned as being a form of note-taking? I can see good reason as to why it should be banned, however, as a form of distraction, since it's a fine way to get the opponent to waste time looking at something you have no intention of playing. I recall that I would sometimes spend my time glaring intently at the Queenside whilst considering a move on the Kingside and vice versa.

The idea of a prescribed scoresheet for an event seems a little bizarre. A prescribed template would be adequate: basically anything that any one of us would not bat an eye at as being a scoresheet.

The situation of having it be acceptable to use descriptive notation, as an override of 8.1, and then having such a record viewed as being unacceptable, as per Appendix C, is ludicrous. If one overrides 8.1 then the relevant clause of Appendix C also needs to be waived or modified. Has anyone yet encountered a situation where a player has recorded the game in English Descriptive Notation and then had to transcribe his score to another scoresheet in algebraic in order that he might claim a draw by repetition?

As for the majority of players using algebraic, this is likely true but doesn't imply that that it's not a major issue that other forms of score-taking incur inconveniences. It's a significant issue for the large minority who would prefer not to use algebraic.

We've had and are having lengthy discussions on the mobile phone rule. My view is that we should stop haranguing all chess players that they are potential cheats and allow players to carry a phone in silent mode. A phone is not a device to facilitate cheating, it is a device to facilitate communication. Until such time that any communication is banned, a phone should be permitted. Punish any actual cheats firmly and fairly, rather than inconveniencing every chessplayer who sits down for a match. Allowing the phone to make a noise should be discouraged. See the relevant threads for more.


Hi John,
In such a situation, the simplest action is to ask them not to use their scorebooks, which are clearly replete with notes, informing them that notes and annotations are not permitted during a game and clearly not fair to the opponent. If they refuse then take it to the captain. They are clearly crossing the line there. If someone wishes to use their own scorebook then they should make sure that earlier games are hidden away and not visible.

[Alasdair Kirk]

why not move to playing on DST chess boards and get a computer to record the moves

Alasdair

[Ian Thompson]

The idea of a prescribed scoresheet for an event seems a little bizarre. A prescribed template would be adequate: basically anything that any one of us would not bat an eye at as being a scoresheet.

It's much easier for the arbiter to ascertain how many moves have been played in a game, and see at a glance whether or not the time control has been reached, if everyone is using the same scoresheets. He'll know how many moves are in each column of the scoresheet.

[Alex Holowczak]

My point here isn't that the ECF forces these variations on to Leagues. Leagues would be free to adopt the variations or not, the point is, they are there just in case. The FIDE Laws should take the priority, but these variations can be adopted should the League choose so.

[Anthony Taglione]

The idea of a prescribed scoresheet for an event seems a little bizarre. A prescribed template would be adequate: basically anything that any one of us would not bat an eye at as being a scoresheet.

It's much easier for the arbiter to ascertain how many moves have been played in a game, and see at a glance whether or not the time control has been reached, if everyone is using the same scoresheets. He'll know how many moves are in each column of the scoresheet.

It's a trivial amount of effort for him to catch sight of the number printed next to the last move. He'd look at the number, anyway, to be sure that his initial glance wasn't out by one.

Recognised scoresheets are all basically the same, with two moves, one for White and one for Black, next to each other and next to a number indicating the move number. We're each well-accustomed to the very few minor variations within scoresheets and, so long as the basic template is adhered to, there's no significant difference between any of them.

[Roger de Coverly]

.
The idea of a prescribed scoresheet for an event seems a little bizarre.

At "serious" level, the scoresheets are provided by and are the property of the organisers of the event. At an amateur level, you would expect scoresheets to be provided by the home chess club or the congress organiser. Allowing players to use personal scorebooks instead of the provided scoresheet is a concession and one which might be abused.

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 legibily as possible, in the algebraic notation (See Appendix C), on the scoresheet prescribed for the competition.

The scoresheets are the property of the organisers of the event.

why not move to playing on DST chess boards and get a computer to record the moves

DGT Boards are relatively expensive and the Laws of Chess require players to keep a "manual" score even when using them.

[Anthony Taglione]

Yes, I had 8.3 in mind. That the scoresheets are the property of the organisers might give rise to needing to transcribe the game that one be sure of retaining a copy of the game's score. It seems yet another rule which is not aimed at the general convenience of the players. Presumably, the intent is that an event is able to claim the right to copies of every game played there. Why such a thing should be part of the laws of chess is bizarre beyond the explanation that FIDE couldn't be bothered to have a Laws of Chess and a Guidelines for FIDE Events. Maybe I'm being cynical but we have several threads on here which really have little bearing on chess but which are originating from mandates in The Laws of Chess.

Does anyone know wherein lies the copyright to a game of chess?

[Roger de Coverly]

Does anyone know wherein lies the copyright to a game of chess?

The usual interpretation is that the physical scoresheet belongs to the organisers, annotations, if any, are the intellectual property of the player or author making the comments, but the moves themselves are just a reported historic fact and don't fall inside copyright.

[John Saunders]

Returning to the point made by the original poster: there may be political reasons why the ECF might not want to advertise (or be too specific about) the areas of the FIDE laws where local practice is (or can be) varied. FIDE may take a dim view of rule variations if they see them written down, even though they do exactly the same thing, of course. As Ian Thompson pointed out elsewhere, the US Chess Federation applies laws which do not coincide with the letter of FIDE law and yet games played under these rules are FIDE rated and norms cam be generated. I imagine that FIDE is well aware of this but, for political reasons, chooses to do nothing about it.

The way the ECF controls local practice is via its grading rules, which can be found at http://grading.bcfservices.org.uk/help.php#eligible - they are admirably simple. So long as a player has at least an hour for the moves (in a standardplay game), the game is played under "acceptable conditions" and in accordance with FIDE rules, the games may be graded. In exactly the same way as FIDE with USCF and its rule variations, the ECF turns a blind eye to the various local rules which its affiliates have always used (e.g. absence of arbiter, use of adjudication, etc) which are technically in breach of FIDE laws.

All of the above seems perfectly reasonable to me. We should not get too hung up over failures to adhere to the letter of the law. Chess lacks the funds to hire hot-shot lawyers capable of drafting watertight rules which cover all eventualities (the FIDE laws hint at this in the rubric). The only FIDE laws which are truly sacrosanct are articles 1-5 (covering how the pieces move, touch-piece-move, etc) plus perhaps a handful of others. Within reason, I don't see why other rules should not be varied locally, so long as they have been democratically debated, agreed and accepted by players and officials in the area. I wouldn't see any good reason to involve the ECF in this process. They have other more pressing priorities.

Of course, there is a downside to all this. It is a bit of a nuisance having to remember all the various by-laws of the competitions that you play in. Leagues start at different times, have different default times, eligibility rules, game-finish arrangements... but that's democracy for you. I much prefer it to the brand of authoritarianism that has been foisted on us by FIDE. If you don't like your local rules, at least you have a chance of changing them by turning up a local AGM and arguing your case. This seems a more democratic approach than trying to get ECF to impose rules from above.

[Anthony Taglione]

Excellent post, John.

Does anyone know wherein lies the copyright to a game of chess?

The usual interpretation is that the physical scoresheet belongs to the organisers, annotations, if any, are the intellectual property of the player or author making the comments, but the moves themselves are just a reported historic fact and don't fall inside copyright.

Thanks. One notes that some sporting organisations claim copyright to any event held under their auspices. Formula 1, American Football and Soccer come to mind, typically any time when TV rights are involved.