Local modifications to FIDE rules

General discussions about grading.
Alex Holowczak
Posts: 8981
Joined: Sat May 30, 2009 5:18 pm
Location: Oldbury, Worcestershire
Contact:

Re: Local modifications to FIDE rules

Post by Alex Holowczak » Mon Oct 25, 2010 1:32 pm

Chris Wardle wrote: I do see the dilemma - but it seems in most parts of the country we already do draw a line, one that includes the algebraic notation rule as well as the mobile phone rule, it's just that the position of that line isn't made explicit, and thus people are free to propose to scrap the en passant rule if they want (in a junior league run mostly by well-meaning non-chessplayers, for example?) because of the precedent set by the notation/phone rules.
The mobile phone and algebraic notation rules have sensible positives. Specifically:
Mobile phone: No need for it in amateur chess, because a phone going off in a league game is likely to be less distracting than the raucous football supporters shouting in the bar
Algebraic notation: At least if descriptive is used, you have a copy of the game! This is preferencial to not recording your game at all.

I still can't think of any positives at all to not writing it down.

Frederick Rhine
Posts: 17
Joined: Mon Sep 27, 2010 9:06 pm
Location: Park Ridge, Illinois, USA
Contact:

Re: Local modifications to FIDE rules

Post by Frederick Rhine » Mon Oct 25, 2010 3:44 pm

E Michael White wrote:If I remember correctly this is the rule in the USA and has been for a number of years.
Roger de Coverly wrote:Rules in the USA are often particularly daft and this is one of them. I believe it's the case that you cannot claim a win on time on the first time control if you don't have a mostly complete score-sheet. So much so, that you can draw attention to your own flag-fall even where not enough moves have been made and not lose on time. The point being that if your opponent's score is incomplete then he's not allowed to claim a win.

I suppose there's a certain amount of bizarre symmetry. You allow players with more than 5 minutes to not record their moves but penalise them that they cannot win on time in the first session if they do so.
I haven't played OTB tournament chess for a number of years, but I believe that these commenters have accurately summarized the rules here in the U.S. The rules don't seem "particularly daft" to me, but perhaps that's because I'm used to them. It makes sense to me that a player in time pressure (which "under five minutes" roughly equates to) shouldn't have to record moves, if he/she so chooses, since it is reasonable for the player in such circumstances to focus attention solely on the board rather than keeping score. And if a player is in terrible time pressure (say, 10 moves or more to make in a minute), requiring the player to keep score would practically guarantee a time forfeit, which seems unfair to me. Of course, you can say, "Well, the idiot shouldn't have gotten in ridiculous time pressure!," but that's another story.
Last edited by Frederick Rhine on Tue Oct 26, 2010 3:27 am, edited 1 time in total.

Frederick Rhine
Posts: 17
Joined: Mon Sep 27, 2010 9:06 pm
Location: Park Ridge, Illinois, USA
Contact:

Re: Local modifications to FIDE rules

Post by Frederick Rhine » Mon Oct 25, 2010 3:49 pm

I will add that "under five minutes" is a pretty inexact measure of time pressure. Maybe the rule allowing cessation of keeping score should be based on the relationship between the number of moves to be played and the remaining time. Something like, "A player who has to play at the rate of more than one move per minute in order to make the time control is permitted to cease keeping score." seems reasonable (and preferable to "under five minutes") to me.

James Coleman
Posts: 377
Joined: Fri Nov 21, 2008 7:11 pm

Re: Local modifications to FIDE rules

Post by James Coleman » Mon Oct 25, 2010 3:57 pm

The issue under debate though is whether the opponent should be allowed to stop recording as well...

Alan Walton
Posts: 1248
Joined: Mon Nov 02, 2009 8:33 pm
Location: Oldham

Re: Local modifications to FIDE rules

Post by Alan Walton » Mon Oct 25, 2010 4:05 pm

I have to admit this thread is comical and pretty pointless, the current rules are fine, so why mess.

If you think that you are at a disadvantage that you have to keep scoring when you opponent is in time pressure (and not scoring), then you really need to get out more

User avatar
Chris Goodall
Posts: 386
Joined: Sun Oct 10, 2010 6:40 pm
Contact:

Re: Local modifications to FIDE rules

Post by Chris Goodall » Mon Oct 25, 2010 4:13 pm

Alan Walton wrote:I have to admit this thread is comical and pretty pointless
Thank you for that input. As I have repeatedly stated, my question was about the effect of a hypothetical rule change on the eligibility of games for grading, not about whether it's a good idea, or whether myself or anyone else on this forum is personally in favour of it.
Chris Goodall, formerly known as Chris Wardle. Northumbria League hand-cranker; ECF Grader for Bernicia and the NCCU.
Newcastle is not in Scotland!

Alan Walton
Posts: 1248
Joined: Mon Nov 02, 2009 8:33 pm
Location: Oldham

Re: Local modifications to FIDE rules

Post by Alan Walton » Mon Oct 25, 2010 4:22 pm

Chris,

I was having a go at how convaluted this thread has got, you original point has got lost in some of the drivel that has been written (as James pointed out)

I would assume that if the rule was brought in, the games shouldn't be graded, unless as Alex M mentioned that you move the opponent's clock down to 5 mins (which may not be desirable to the player with more time)

User avatar
Chris Goodall
Posts: 386
Joined: Sun Oct 10, 2010 6:40 pm
Contact:

Re: Local modifications to FIDE rules

Post by Chris Goodall » Mon Oct 25, 2010 4:39 pm

Alan Walton wrote:I would assume that if the rule was brought in, the games shouldn't be graded, unless as Alex M mentioned that you move the opponent's clock down to 5 mins...
A helpful comment! I'm glad I'm not the only one who finds that a reasonable assumption, given the ECF's requirement that games should be played under the FIDE laws.
Chris Goodall, formerly known as Chris Wardle. Northumbria League hand-cranker; ECF Grader for Bernicia and the NCCU.
Newcastle is not in Scotland!

Frederick Rhine
Posts: 17
Joined: Mon Sep 27, 2010 9:06 pm
Location: Park Ridge, Illinois, USA
Contact:

Re: Local modifications to FIDE rules

Post by Frederick Rhine » Mon Oct 25, 2010 7:47 pm

James Coleman wrote:The issue under debate though is whether the opponent should be allowed to stop recording as well...
My apologies - I really must learn to read . . . . OK, now that I understand the issue I don't really see why the opponent should be allowed to stop recording.

User avatar
Christopher Kreuzer
Posts: 7348
Joined: Fri Aug 06, 2010 2:34 am
Location: London

Re: Local modifications to FIDE rules

Post by Christopher Kreuzer » Mon Oct 25, 2010 7:58 pm

Frederick Rhine wrote:
James Coleman wrote:The issue under debate though is whether the opponent should be allowed to stop recording as well...
My apologies - I really must learn to read . . . . OK, now that I understand the issue I don't really see why the opponent should be allowed to stop recording.
I suppose the main argument (and I know this is not what the OP was asking, but I think it is an interesting point) is that players should be allowed to maintain equality with their opponent at all times if they wish. Some players (not many, admittedly) probably play better when banging out their moves in a mutual time scramble, rather than carefully thinking through their moves while their opponent is fidgeting agitatedly on the other side of the board. On the other hand, when I get into a time scramble and my opponent still has time to record his moves, I mentally tell myself to concentrate and use the extra few seconds I get while he is recording his moves (or extra minutes if he is thinking about his moves).

By the way, as it is more appropriate to this thread, does anyone have time to answer the questions I raised here:

http://www.ecforum.org.uk/viewtopic.php ... &start=114

Frederick Rhine
Posts: 17
Joined: Mon Sep 27, 2010 9:06 pm
Location: Park Ridge, Illinois, USA
Contact:

Re: Local modifications to FIDE rules

Post by Frederick Rhine » Mon Oct 25, 2010 9:32 pm

Yes, as you suggest, I think the rationale for the rule is "sauce for the goose, sauce for the gander." I reject that rationale because the players are not, in fact, similarly situated - only one is in time pressure (as the rule defines it). There is thus no good reason for allowing the non-time pressured player to depart from the rule. Moreover, allowing that would actually be contrary to the non-time pressured player's interests, since not recording the moves would hinder his ability to claim a time forfeit by his opponent, and likely would lead to worse play by him.

User avatar
Christopher Kreuzer
Posts: 7348
Joined: Fri Aug 06, 2010 2:34 am
Location: London

Re: Local modifications to FIDE rules

Post by Christopher Kreuzer » Mon Oct 25, 2010 9:50 pm

Frederick Rhine wrote:Yes, as you suggest, I think the rationale for the rule is "sauce for the goose, sauce for the gander." I reject that rationale because the players are not, in fact, similarly situated - only one is in time pressure (as the rule defines it). There is thus no good reason for allowing the non-time pressured player to depart from the rule. Moreover, allowing that would actually be contrary to the non-time pressured player's interests, since not recording the moves would hinder his ability to claim a time forfeit by his opponent, and likely would lead to worse play by him.
But chess players can be a funny lot. I fully expect, one day, a player will object to his opponent continuing to record his moves with both players having less than five minutes left, because it presumably distracts him or something. There is more of a case for recording moves in the final phase of the game (even with less than 5 minutes left) if you want to make a claim that requires a complete scoresheet.

Mike Gunn
Posts: 692
Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2007 4:45 pm

Re: Local modifications to FIDE rules

Post by Mike Gunn » Tue Oct 26, 2010 1:10 pm

I hope everybody is strictly conforming with Article 8.7 of the FIDE Laws which starts "At the conclusion of the game both players shall sign both scoresheets, indicating the result of the game ...". In 15 years of playing evening league chess I haven't seen this done once, so presumably none of these games should have been graded ...

Alex Holowczak
Posts: 8981
Joined: Sat May 30, 2009 5:18 pm
Location: Oldbury, Worcestershire
Contact:

Re: Local modifications to FIDE rules

Post by Alex Holowczak » Tue Oct 26, 2010 1:34 pm

Mike Gunn wrote:I hope everybody is strictly conforming with Article 8.7 of the FIDE Laws which starts "At the conclusion of the game both players shall sign both scoresheets, indicating the result of the game ...". In 15 years of playing evening league chess I haven't seen this done once, so presumably none of these games should have been graded ...
Or any games which have the potential to be adjudicated, which the Laws don't permit!

User avatar
Chris Goodall
Posts: 386
Joined: Sun Oct 10, 2010 6:40 pm
Contact:

Re: Local modifications to FIDE rules

Post by Chris Goodall » Tue Oct 26, 2010 2:14 pm

Mike Gunn wrote:I hope everybody is strictly conforming with Article 8.7 of the FIDE Laws which starts "At the conclusion of the game both players shall sign both scoresheets, indicating the result of the game ...". In 15 years of playing evening league chess I haven't seen this done once, so presumably none of these games should have been graded ...
But imagine you're controlling a tournament and a player tries to claim a victory by default on the grounds that their opponent didn't sign both scoresheets. If you're willing to send that player away disappointed, but you're willing to uphold the claim of a win by default from someone whose opponent wasn't recording when they had more than 5 minutes left, then you're applying a double standard, however sensible a double standard it may seem. As soon as you selectively apply one law (signing scoresheets), players can start asking you to selectively apply other laws (scoring when over 5 minutes) - and you can no longer defend yourself by holding up the laws as the supreme authority (or saying that "the game must be the same everywhere", or it would be a "slippery slope", which amount to the same argument).
Chris Goodall, formerly known as Chris Wardle. Northumbria League hand-cranker; ECF Grader for Bernicia and the NCCU.
Newcastle is not in Scotland!

Post Reply