What would you do here

[E Michael White]

opponent moves
player moves
record opponent's move
record player move

which I believe is completely legal.

Roger

There is possibly one trivial exception to what you say, which is after a flag fall and a player has taken advantage of 8.4.

Lets say, as white, you take advantage of 8.4 and are not recording your moves; you just make the time control at move 40 and whilst thinking about your 41st your flag falls. Rule 8.4 requires you to update your scoresheet completely before making your 41st move. The word completely probably means you have to record blacks 40th before making your 41st.

Also rule 8.5.a seems to me to have an unintended meaning to it.

8.5.a. If neither player is required to keep score under Article 8.4, the arbiter or an assistant should try to be present and keep score. In this case, immediately after one flag has fallen, the arbiter shall stop the clocks. Then both players shall update their scoresheets, using the arbiter's or the opponent's scoresheet.

Lets say both players have less than 5 minutes but one player elects to continue recording the moves whilst the other does not.

Rule 8.5 says that as both players neednt record their moves despite one player continuing to, then after a flag falls the arbiter has to stop the clock while the other player updates his scoresheet. I dont think this is what is intended. I think the meaning of the rule is intended to be ... If neither player is required to keep score and neither does keep the score ..... etc

[Roger de Coverly]

Lets say, as white, you take advantage of 8.4 and are not recording your moves; you just make the time control at move 40 and whilst thinking about your 41st your flag falls. Rule 8.4 requires you to update your scoresheet completely before making your 41st move. The word completely probably means you have to record blacks 40th before making your 41st.

I have always understood the possibly unwritten convention that if a flag fell and there is doubt as to whether the time control had been reached that

(a) you stop the clocks
and
(b) retire to another board to establish how many moves had actually been played. In some tournaments the lurking arbiter will have recorded the final few moves.

I can recall at least one example of this from more than 30 years ago where my scoresheet showed 40 moves and my opponents' 38. We had to adjourn to another board after my flag "fell" whilst thinking about move 41. I don't recall any adjournment sessions or clock reset so maybe the tournament was 40/120 + 60.

[Stewart Reuben]

I am astonished there are people who do not realise keeping score is unnecessary at the lower and higher levels of chess. Doing away with those rules would have reduced the size of my book by 4 pages. Of course games would have to play all in one session.

Before the Karpov Timman World championship started, Gijssen, the chief arbiter, offered the players the opportune it not to keep score. After all, the games were played on DGTs. They declined because they were so used to the whole routine.

I was Chief Arbiter in the Rumania National League in 2007. Several people wrote a move down before playing it. I waited until they were away from the board and gently reminded them it was against the Laws. There seemed to be no language and they obeyed the law after that. They had been warned I was a very strict arbiter.

Being a team event the players were allowed to consult their captain whether to offer or accept a draw. I did not understand what they were saying and often did not recognise the captain. By looking at the scoresheets, I could often know what was going on because the (=) sign is universal.

It is a requirement of the Laws that the game be recorded in Algebraic Notation. That was before my time as a member of the Rules Committee. I never understood the reason for that law. Several people over 30 years later still have special dispensation because I granted them the right to score in descriptive notation. They include well-known players Michael Franklin and Peter Hempson.

In 1997 John Henderson was at the British Championships as a journalist. Jonathan Rowson had lost in the first round to, I think, Andrew Greet. John showed me the score of the game. Jonathan had resigned just two moves after Andrew’s scoresheet showed that he had offered a draw. John tackled Jonathan about the matter. ‘Nonsense,’ said Rowson, ‘I was never offered a draw.’ They went to see Greet who confirmed he had made the offer. Jonathan said, ‘Next time you offer me a draw, speak up.’

Stewart Reuben

[E Michael White]

I have always understood the possibly unwritten convention that if a flag fell and there is doubt as to whether the time control had been reached that

(a) you stop the clocks
and
(b) retire to another board to establish how many moves had actually been played. In some tournaments the lurking arbiter will have recorded the final few moves.

Roger.

Lets say you have written down all the moves legibly and have a complete scoresheet, your flag falls, your opponent's scoresheet shows 38 moves and yours shows you have completed 40. If in addition to avoid the ambiguity, lets say you completed your 40th move with more than 5 minutes to spare then neither your opponent nor the arbiter have the right to stop the clocks and you cannot be required to go to a side board to play through the game.

Your opponent has to update his scoresheet while the clocks are running. The arbiter can temporarily commandeer your scoresheet if it is your opponents move but must return it before the opponent stops his clock. If as a result of leaving the clocks running your opponent's flag falls he may have lost on time. That is what is written into the rules. Of course different arbiters may consider they can ignore the rules or grant special dispensations which bring the game into disrepute.

If your opponent claims that you have not made the time control and disputes your record the arbiter can view your score sheet even commandeer it and play through the game on a side board but only if you have an incomplete score sheet can the clocks be stopped.

[E Michael White]

I am astonished there are people who do not realise keeping score is unnecessary at the lower and higher levels of chess. Doing away with those rules would have reduced the size of my book by 4 pages. Of course games would have to play all in one session.

I expect you mean in a single session game the players make at most one move and wait until they have less than 5 minutes left on the clocks and play the rest of the game without recording any moves relying on rule 8.4. Many players know that but elect not to.

[Roger de Coverly]

Lets say you have written down all the moves legibly and have a complete scoresheet, your flag falls, your opponent's scoresheet shows 38 moves and yours shows you have completed 40. If in addition to avoid the ambiguity, lets say you completed your 40th move with more than 5 minutes to spare then neither your opponent nor the arbiter have the right to stop the clocks and you cannot be required to go to a side board to play through the game.

In the game in question, I had white and I had played and recorded 40 moves. My opponent had played 40 moves and recorded 38. I am thinking about my 41st move and my flag drops. My opponent is either unaware of what my scoresheet says (30 years ago so quite legal to hide it) or is nervous of the Yugoslav trick ( see a book by Hartston for the detail). From his point of view, it looks as if I have lost on time. He is obviously unaware of his failure to record all the moves.

How else do we resolve this potential dispute other than by playing through the game on another board?

[Stewart Reuben]

Clearly in this situation the clocks would be stopped.
I think Roger you are good enough a player to look at both scoresheets and determine whether you have made a mistake.
Assuming you thought not, then you could point out to your opponent the moves he has missed.
If he is unconvinced, then you both need to write down the position and play through the game on another board.

A good arbiter would have known whether you had lost on time. But probably in your scenario it is a club match with no arbiter present.
If it became clear that you were correct, personally, if I were the arbiter, I would be inclined to give you extra time, probably the usual two minutes. Although it was not your move, your opponent has disturbed your concentration. But the scenario is very fanciful in that case. If i felt the opponent wsas simply being wilfully obstructive I might dedcut some of his time. After all, his clock should run while he brings his scoresheet up to date.

In response to Michael White's little sarcastic effort. I did not say I like all the moves in a certain time. But this would be necessary of you did not require the players to keep score and they were not playing on DGT boards. In Gibraltar in the morning tournaments they play all the moves in 110 minutes add on 10 seconds from the first cumulatively. Arguments are very rare. Of course, if somebody's time slips below 5 minutes, they no longer have to keep score.

Stewart Reuben

[Tim Spanton]

Surely one reason for writing down a draw offer is to guard against opponents who change their minds and deny having made such an offer? I realise writing (=) doesn't prove an offer was made but it might discourage the unscrupulous.

[John Hickman]

Surely one reason for writing down a draw offer is to guard against opponents who change their minds and deny having made such an offer? I realise writing (=) doesn't prove an offer was made but it might discourage the unscrupulous.

Both players are meant to record the =, although I've never checked my opponent is doing this myself, in case I run into a scoundrel.

[Sean Hewitt]

Surely one reason for writing down a draw offer is to guard against opponents who change their minds and deny having made such an offer? I realise writing (=) doesn't prove an offer was made but it might discourage the unscrupulous.

I would think that's the reason. I remember a case a few years ago where a well known GM allegedly attempted to "accept" a draw offer that had never been made!

I have also witnessed a confused incident in a league match between two 140 players where such notation would be useful. Two players, both hard of hearing and wearing hearing aids, are playing each other. They reached the time control and Player A said "That's 40." Player B other, not hearing what had been said, said "Draw?" meaning "Are you offering me a draw?". Player A, thinking that he was being offered a draw "accepted" the draw and put his hand out to shake. Player B then asks what he is doing and Player A explains he is accepting the draw. Player B - thinking he is offering a draw declines!!

[Alex McFarlane]

Similar incident
Opponent "Would you like a draw?"
Hard of hearing player "Yes please, 2 sugars".

Or
Player makes loud draw offer to hearing impaired player.
It is accepted by player on an adjacent board much to the puzzlement of his opponent.

[John Upham]

Similar incident
Opponent "Would you like a draw?"
Hard of hearing player "Yes please, 2 sugars".

Or
Player makes loud draw offer to hearing impaired player.
It is accepted by player on an adjacent board much to the puzzlement of his opponent.

I often try the "Would you like a..............cup of tea?" (having just completed my move) ploy to determine my opponents view of their position.

I'm not aware of a rule transgression here since I am fully prepared to obtain a cup of tea at short notice.

[Tim Spanton]

Surely one reason for writing down a draw offer is to guard against opponents who change their minds and deny having made such an offer? I realise writing (=) doesn't prove an offer was made but it might discourage the unscrupulous.

I would think that's the reason. I remember a case a few years ago where a well known GM allegedly attempted to "accept" a draw offer that had never been made!

I have also witnessed a confused incident in a league match between two 140 players where such notation would be useful. Two players, both hard of hearing and wearing hearing aids, are playing each other. They reached the time control and Player A said "That's 40." Player B other, not hearing what had been said, said "Draw?" meaning "Are you offering me a draw?". Player A, thinking that he was being offered a draw "accepted" the draw and put his hand out to shake. Player B then asks what he is doing and Player A explains he is accepting the draw. Player B - thinking he is offering a draw declines!!

Something similar happened in the Isle of Man a few years ago.
I made a move, upon which my opponent offered a draw. I said words to the effect of: "I'll see your move first." He thought for some time and then moved. I thought for some time and announced I was accepting his offer. He said the offer no longer applied because I had rejected it (he thought I'd said words to the effect of: "Not on your nellie.") I called the arbiter, who ruled that because he could not establish excatly what had been said, the game should continue.
I was rather upset at this and, on making my next move, offered a draw (something I was ashamed of later). My opponent played on. Later he offered a draw. I played on ... and won.
Ever since, when an opponent offers a draw, and especially when the offer is made before moving, I try to say nothing but make a suitably elaborate show of noting the draw offer on my scoresheet.

[Simon Spivack]

Clearly in this situation the clocks would be stopped.
I think Roger you are good enough a player to look at both scoresheets and determine whether you have made a mistake.
Assuming you thought not, then you could point out to your opponent the moves he has missed.
If he is unconvinced, then you both need to write down the position and play through the game on another board.
Stewart Reuben

On the subject of mistakes on score sheets.

In a London League match a few weeks ago, because of my eyesight, the first two half moves were recorded by me above move one, yet below the space for recording names. I then faithfully entered all the moves below. After move thirty my opponent mentioned, perfectly properly, that we had reached the first time control. I said I wasn't sure as I had recorded only up to move twenty-nine! As neither of us was in time trouble, we thought it simplest just to play another move each. After which I discovered my mistake, I told my opponent, who generously let the thing go.

In the above incident it made no difference to the moves played and so had no bearing on the final result. However, had time trouble been a consideration things could have been different.

What actually should I have done? It is tempting to argue that I should have written out the moves again on a fresh scoresheet with my clock running, but the difficulty with that is that I might have made a similar mistake. Simply putting a line through two half moves to get the score in tandem seems simplest, I just hope that that would not be considered "note taking".

Potentially what I did could be considered distracting, so I suppose there is a case for two minutes to be added to my opponent's clock.

Comments anyone?

[IM Jack Rudd]

Putting a line through two half-moves on a scoresheet to get it back in line isn't note-taking, no. And genuine disagreements over whether the time-control has been reached don't constitute distraction.