Ron’s questions were interesting, but your reply summarizes it very nicely. Even though the opponent gives up certain rights by not keeping score, over the course of a game the gain in time could be significant. Let’s take a game that lasts 40 moves. With no mistakes in notation lets say it takes you 2 seconds to write down a single move. (Not a move pair) That’s 2:40 that you’re giving your non-scorekeeping opponent. That time could increase if you make a couple of mistakes that you fix.
I recently had a situation where my opponent stopped keeping score after he made a notation error around move 27. I didn’t notice it until move 44. I told him he needed to keep writing his moves down. He kept repeating “I messed up.” I would like to say that I resolved this problem as smoothly as the incident at the Parents & Friends, but the opponent was being either very stubborn or was totally clueless and the TD knocked his time down to 5 minutes to resolve the not having to notate issue. The blow by blow description can be found here: castlingqueenside.blogspot.com/2 … -nest.html
This has been an interesting discussion. I’d like to make a few points at this place:
Starting at the very beginning, we should decide why we would want to make it a rule to keep score. I certainly do not find it a good reason to do it for the TD or anyone else but the player(s) of that particular game.
Yes, I can see a motivation for the TD to have the game record from the statement about the ownership of the scoresheet. The logic would be that you are participating in the tournament and have certain responsibilities to the tournament like good behavior in the playing space, paying the entry fee, providing the game score, etc. Alright, I’ll buy that one.
There does seem to be a slight conflict in the person needing to enforce the rule area. I say a slight one, not a big one. The TD can insist the player keep score, per the above argument. At the same time the opponent can choose to insist on the game being notated, or choose not insist. I see Ken’s point about the TD only doing something if the opponent complains. However, if the scoresheet is the property of the tournament, i.e. the TD, then doesn’t the player literally owe the completed scoresheet to the tournament/TD separate from his opponent’s complaints or non-complaints, as much as he owes the tournament/TD good behavior and all?
While the scoresheet is the property of the tournament/TD, is not the information gathered while the game is in progress part of the individual player’s game? What I mean by this is that, forcing the opponent that did follow the rules by keeping notation to share his work and gathered information with the opponent that has not done this work and gathered this information does not seem correct to the rule abiding player. This is actually a penalty to the player that has followed the rules.
The current penalties still do not seem sensitive enough to the various ways and situations this rule can be violated. The current rules of adding 2 minutes to the non-offender’s time is good if either or both players are low on time. It certainly seems that the majority of violations occur in this type of scenario.
When you get to the person not keeping score in the beginning or middle of the game, the 2 minute penalty becomes ineffective as a penalty for the violation.
Yes, if the person keeps refusing to keep score, the penalty stiffens. However, getting away with violating this rule once per game will give a person some advantage in a lot of games. The way would be to not keep score until caught and penalized, then keep score from there on out, for that game.
I know that a TD can work on a known, chronic violator as I describe by stiffening the penalty from the onset of the tournament for him, but that certainly doesn’t seem to be a big stopper for the violator.
I still like a penalty that is sensitive and reflective of the number of moves not notated. I know that my first example was a bit harsh, but something could be devised to reflect the number of moves not notated. The more moves not written down, would bring on a larger penalty than the violation of only a few moves.
5.What if both players decide not to keep score? And what if they both refuse to keep score at least the minimum of 3 times? Do you double forfeit the players?
I guess the wording of the rule bothers me when compared to the enforcement of the rule. The rule states the the player is required to record the moves of the game. The word “required” is not and does not mean “should”, “ought to” or any other, softer term. Require in this context means to demand by law. It is demanded that players record the moves.
What if a player doesn’t care if his opponent keeps score or not? After all the rules say it is required.
I’d bet my left shoe the above example was from a FIDE rated section of a tournament, thus the TD intervention. I’m sure the correct view remains that only when a player objects does a TD take any action.