Where a player sits has no bearing on the amount of time used on a player’s clock, of course. However, how the move is completed makes a substantial difference, as I’ve demonstrated. I’m sorry if you don’t agree, but it might not be necessary to put me down over this legitimate concern that apparently many people have as witnessed by the many posts and views of this thread.
Thank you.
Uhm…have you actually read the posts in this thread? There are several posts, but you are the only poster who seems bothered by this.
If anyone wants to address a rules change (like this one) they can contact the Rules Committee chair and/or any Delegate with the specific rules change or at least their idea for a change. Then at the annual Delegates meeting the Delegates take action on the proposed change.
The bottom line is that posting on this Forum may not be the most effective way to get rules changes to take place; however, it does provide a lively place to generate discussion of any rules changes. I have observed that Forum discussions are often a mirror of the Rules Committee/Delegates Convention discussions.
The original post wasn’t addressing any proposed rules change. It was asking what the rule was, if any.
In this case, a pivotal part of the game concerning time usage and the actual definition of a move, has no rule. Surprising.
Some “rules” get established through years of practice. Once that happens, the rulemakers may overlook that there is no rule, and/or consider it unnecessary to write one.
There is also no rule specifying which side of the board each player sits on. (Does white sit near the white pieces, and black near the black, or vice versa?) That’s another one that will probably never make the rulebook.
And now a confession. When I played in my first tournament in 1968, I asked my first opponent whether I should move-press-write or move-write-press. He set me straight, adding “you wouldn’t want to waste time writing your move while your clock is running”.
Bill Smythe
The answer.
Rule 15A, which is official in the Rulebook Changes document, states that if you’re using a paper scoresheet then it doesn’t matter if you write the move before or after move completion (hitting the clock). If using electronic scoresheet, then you should record the move after you’ve hit the clock (move completion). So…if using paper…there’s not reason to write on your time (as Mr. Smythe has pointed out).
The actual definition of move determination/completion (9G) does not include recording your move.
Rule 15A seems to talk about move-press-write vs write-move-press, rather than move-press-write vs move-write-press.
To look at it another way, everybody agrees that move must precede press, but there are three places to insert write into the sequence – (1) before move, or (2) between move and press, or (3) after press. The original poster asked about (2) vs (3). Rule 15A, however, discusses (1) vs (3), making (1) illegal in certain situations. The rule seems to ignore (2) altogether, or lumps it in with (3).
In other words, 15A does not answer the original poster’s question.
Bill Smythe
I see what you mean (#2 vs #3). Hardly pivotal.
Kind of like 8F2…which would indicate that a pawn may not capture on its first move…which we all “know” to be untrue.
The method is still the same for creating rules (or rules language) you want to see in the book–like the one talked about here.
Hmm, that is a bit unfortunate, isn’t it? In fact, combined with 8F3, it seems to say that a pawn may never capture at all.
Bill Smythe
Rule 8F seems to be using the word “move” in a special sense: as meaning a move that does not involve a capture. Perhaps this section should be rewritten so that “move” consistently means a move that may or may not involve a capture, as it does in the rest of the rulebook:
8F2. The first move of each pawn. On its first move, a pawn advances one or two vacant squares along its file or else captures as described in section 8F4.
8F3. Subsequent moves of each pawn. On its subsequent moves, a pawn either advances one vacant square along its file or captures as described in section 8F4.
8F4. Pawns move vertically when not capturing but capture diagonally. The pawn is unique among chess pieces in that it captures (7C) and attacks differently from the way it moves when not capturing. When capturing, it advances one square along either of the diagonals on which it stands; it attacks these same squares.
Sometimes I wonder why the USCF Official Rules of Chess seem to differ gratuitously from the FIDE Laws of Chess. This is one such instance. Section 3.7 of the Laws of Chess appears to describe the pawn’s move quite correctly. I’m not sure I see the value of having our own (incorrect) wording of this. 
Good point, Coyote. If the rule is rewritten it would be better to use the same wording as in FIDE’s Laws of Chess rather than invent new wording.
Regarding one thing I said in my earlier reply:
Actually even that interpretation doesn’t really work.
8F2. The first move of each pawn. On its first move, a pawn advances one or two vacant squares along its file.
Does “move” in this rule mean (1) either a capture or a move not involving a capture, or (2) a move not involving a capture?
Consider these opening moves: 1.e4 Nf6 2.e5 Nd5 3.e6 dxe6 4.Nf3 e4.
Under interpretation (1) 3…dxe6 is arguably illegal because it’s the first move of Black’s d-pawn and the pawn did not advance one or two vacant squares along its file, although this is contradicted by rule 8F4 which says that the capture is legal.
Under interpretation (2) 4…e4 (moving the pawn from e6 to e4) is legal because it’s the first non-capturing move made by that pawn.
It looks like this rule needs to be rewritten. The rule in the 5th edition was copied, with minor changes, from the 4th edition. The 3rd (Redman) edition says “Except when making a capture, [the pawn] advances from its original square either one or two vacant squares along the file on which it is placed; on subsequent moves it advances one vacant square along the file. When capturing, it advances one square along either of the diagonals on which it stands.”
One could also take it to an extreme of consent and suggest that while one might write-move-press or move-press-write are specified and therefore permissible (in most cases,) the act of move-write-press is not specified and therefore forbidden. 
Or one could recognize that any of the three options are basically OK, unless something else is announced.
But I note that, if the act of notating is inextricably tied to the moving process, my earlier question about how one would account for the situations where notation is not required has not been addressed at all as far as I can see.
That would go against the accepted default interpretation of, “If not expressly forbidden, then allowed yet not endorsed.”
Quibble to Crume: The quote you attributed to me above should instead be attributed to LaughingVulcan.
Or that move-write-press is so stupid that it doesn’t need to be forbidden. 
Bill Smythe
Or it’s not gentlemanly to imply that the original poster, as well as all those who contributed to this thread, showing an interest in the correct answer to this previously unanswered question, are “stupid”. 
It’s a valid question deserving of a valid answer, not an ungentlemanly put-down. 
Thank you.
Mike - When the 2011 Rule Changes gets posted please be sure to use the most updated version. The first one from several months ago was updated a couple weeks ago when it was noted that a blitz rule change from Summer 2008 had not been changed from the January 2008 version. The correct version should have:
15.) A legal move is completed when the hand leaves the piece.
Thanks,
Mike