I believe that none of these questions have definitive answers in the current rules for time controls with increments between 1 and 29 seconds. Fortunately, I suspect we don’t have a lot of events with such time controls.
Trying to enforce move-by-move notation in any good-sized event under these circumstances is virtually impossible with typical TD staffing levels. For practical purposes, in any of these scenarios, I would probably require score keeping, but not require updating. I would also not force an opponent to honor a request for his scoresheet.
Mr. Smythe is quite correct. Adding increment time controls to the US Chess rules does expose issues that perhaps weren’t thought through carefully enough.
My personal opinion (and it is just that, an opinion) is that once one player has less than five minutes’ time remaining in the time control segment, the obligation for both players to record the moves has ended, even if the increment causes the player to have more than five minutes’ time remaining after a particular move. My reason for this opinion is that it is least disruptive to the game. Otherwise, players have to start looking at the clock after each move to determine whether the obligation to record moves has returned, and the corresponding claims would multiply like rabbits.
I believe my interpretation is consistent with a careful reading of rule 15B:
Based on the portion of rule 15B that I highlighted, I believe the question of whether players must resume recording moves if the player regains enough time from the increment to have more than five minutes remaning is clearly answered in the negative. Now, it is true that rule 15C (“Scorekeeping in time pressure, sudden death time control”) does not include the language “until the end of the time control period.” (Of course, the end of the time control period would also be the end of the game.) However, I do not think it is an unreasonable extension to extend the language of rule 15B to infer that the players are excused from recording the moves for the rest of the game.
I agree. The above seems the most reasonable, the least disruptive, and most in line with what appears to be the intent of rule 15B as you quoted it.
In the event of a two-control event, if the scorekeeping stops near the end of the first control, then at time expiration the second control could be regarded as having begun. This would be no different than in the past.
If one or both players have failed to keep score adequately in the first session of a two time control game, it is difficult for them to resume keeping an accurate score. Most score sheets do not have a diagram allowing you to note the piece positions before resuming play and subsequent notation. The players would have to establish that by writing notes down which state where the pieces are before they begin the second session. That takes time to do. Hmm…would writing these notes be in violation of the rules? After all they are “aids to memory.”
I have seen players write their moves again after a time scramble in a first session being unable to reconstruct what the missing moves were. The subsequent moves written down are of little use in some claims because they don’t write down the position that they are starting from to begin the second session. Sometimes they give up keeping score. Neither complain about score keeping to the TD. Should a TD intervene? What if they say they can’t keep score anymore? Would you forfeit both players or allow them to continue playing, noting that draw claims are off the table?
As far as I know there is nothing in the rules that require a scoresheet to be up to date except for only one case - at the start of a non-sudden death time control, the scoresheet must be updated to reflect any missing moves at the end of a previous non-sudden death time control. On the other hand there is a reference towards saying claims are not allowed with an incomplete scoresheet.
That does suggest that if you have a gap, you’re not necessarily obligated to fill it, but you do lose privileges.
If it’s only a 2 session time control, then they are not required to fill in the missing moves at the start of the second control (15F and 15F4). For the start of a non-sudden death if both players need to fill in moves, they can pause the clock and even use another set and board to replay the game as necessary (15F2). If it’s a sudden death time control segment (more common), I suppose by extension it’s reasonable to allow them to stop the clock and replay the game if they both desire to fill in the gap.
15F3 specifically allows them to make a diagram of the position if they are unable to fill in the gap normally.
