My First 14F Claim

[Steve_Immitt]

@Brian Mottershead

@Crume

Every player has the right to be absolutely sure the claim is verified.

Of course, they do. But sometimes insisting on your rights is merely dilatory – with no possibility of changing the final outcome.

Like requiring players who have agreed to a draw on move 28 to go back and play another 2 moves?

[mlanger]

Edit: My reply is to Brian, not Steve

Sounds similar to what Rob Jones told me in the second case I cited in my first post in this thread. I wonder if you guys went to the same TD school (along with Robert Tanner).

For a defending side in K+R vs. K+R+minor piece, in a given position (after the first ~15 moves when the defending King is pushed to the last or next to the last rank) there is often only one move that is not an “outrageous” blunder.

I had to defend K+R vs. K+R+N against GM Zhao Xue at Canadian Open a few weeks before Indianapolis. I am pretty sure I had a lost position at times during that endgame, though the game did end in a draw after my 50-move claim. So, in my experience, defending side has to be extremely vigilant on every move.

[tsawmiller]

@Brian Mottershead

The one thing that I would have done differently from Alex (with the benefit of Monday-morning perspective) would have been not to reconstruct the game at all. White’s scoresheet showed a pawn move at move 73 and no pawn moves or captures up to move 123. Prime facie case for 50 move claim. “Demonstrated:”, barring evidence to the contrary from the other side. The burden was then on Black to argue that there had been a pawn move or capture after move 73, and that White’s scoresheet was incorrect, using his own scoresheet or logical argument to support the point. There was no need for reconstruction unless Black was claiming that there had not been 50 moves. There was only a need for reconstruction if one player was asserting that there had been 50 moves, the other was asserting the contrary, with the scoresheets not being clear.

In the actual case, Black never argued that there hadn’t been 50 moves, only that White did not have the right to claim it without a better scoresheet.

I wondered about that myself. It’s much easier to scan 50 move pairs on a score sheet for a pawn move than to replay the game.

[Crume]

@jwiewel

Please remember that 13C7 (complete scoresheet) is needed by the claimant for a three-fold repetition (rule 14C9) but the 13C7 requirement for the 50-move claim does not exist and is only mentioned as a requirement on the opponent to show that the claimant’s scoresheet, starting move number of a director count, or the director count (after it was started) is incorrect (rule 14F4d). That is a very different 13C7 requirement.

A bunch of check marks by a claimant would not seem to be enough to indicate that the moves had actually been played but a scoresheet with even a couple dozen errors would be enough if the starting position after the last capture/pawn move could be reconstructed and the later moves kept track of.

P.S. 14F4c is a rule that many overlook when the director has been requested to count (the director does not tell players what the count is and the director simply declares the game drawn once 50 is reached).

Jeff, you’re right and I think everyone agrees that 13C7 doesn’t explicitly apply to 14F1. However…this is right where I think a clarification would be helpful. I think we all agree that Alex ruled “correctly,” but I’d hope we also agree that he took a shot in the dark and that this thread is grounded in the question, “Is this the best interpretation?”

Summary:

1. Sudden death control
2. Both players below five minutes (don’t have to keep score)
3. Claim by white is a 14F1 draw – worth noting that someone else isn’t counting to 50
4. Claimant’s scoresheet is not “complete” according to the only standard in the rulebook, 13C7 (and we don’t know whether this is relevant or not)

So I guess the question here is, “What evidence is sufficient for a player to support a 14F1 claim?”

The answer MIGHT include a complete scoresheet…it MIGHT include checkmarks…but I think a panel decision would be helpful. This doesn’t change Alex’s decision after the fact–it’s a guide for the future.

[relyea]

@Crume

In my opinion, a player should be within 13C7 (scoresheet completeness) to be granted the draw. That the TD had to reconstruct the game score means the claimant couldn’t “demonstrate” the validity of the claim on his own. This is the same idea that a three-repetition claim is invalid if the claimant makes a procedural error (e.g. makes the move, hits the clock, then claims the draw). Yeah, the fact on the board is that the position happened three times, but the claim is invalid due to procedure. Well…I think the 50 move claim is invalid without a reasonably correct scoresheet, and the only definition of reasonably correct is 13C7.

Does this make Alex’s ruling invalid? No…b/c the rules police correctly point out that 13C7 is not explicitly applied to 14F1. From my point of view I question this, but until there’s a critical mass of Senior and National TDs who weigh in on the matter, it’s a matter of interpretation.

Other Points

• Age is irrelevant.
• Why was this game played on a digital clock without delay??? Time control was 40/100, G/60 and the tournament flyer says nothing about delay not being used. White shouldn’t be bailed out for poor time management, and neither player should be bailed out for not checking if delay is on at the beginning of the game.

As others have pointed out, it may be desirable to invoke 13C7 here, but that’s simply not what the rule is. The reason the game was played on a digital clock without delay is that when Black had nine minutes left and White had four minutes left, Black noticed that the hand of the (analog) clock was appearing to move past the flag without picking it up and stated that there was no flag fall in the first time control, either. I then replaced the clock with a digital clock, not set for delay because the original clock was not set for delay.

Not a particular response to this post, but to other posts in this thread: 100 checkmarks wouldn’t have satisfied me that 50 moves had been made, and I’m sure they wouldn’t have satisfied Black either. Second, there were so many errors on White’s scoresheet (when at one point Black tried to check what move was actually played on his scoresheet he had a great deal of trouble because the move numbers weren’t even close to matching) that I am sure Black would not have accepted that 50 moves had been made without a careful check. I wouldn’t have been terribly satisfied, either.

Alex Relyea

[Brian_Mottershead]

One interesting part of this scenario was Black’s argument that the claim had to be resolved entirely using White’s scoresheet and his refusal to let his scoresheet be used. (Apparently, his scoresheet also showed that 50 moves had elapsed, but he was hoping to avoid the draw due to defects in White’s scoresheet. ) My inclination is that in this situation, the claimant (White) does not have to do much to “demonstrate” the claim. A scoresheet could be pretty messed up, and have tick marks and gaps, and still be sufficient as long as the opponent is not contesting that there have been 50 moves. If the opponent is contesting that there have been 50 moves, then his scoresheet needs to be looked at too, or the TD can listen to his logical arguments. (“There had to be a capture after this, because he had his Queen at this point, and he doesn’t now; so obviously there was a capture after this point, even though neither scoresheet shows it.”)

If one scoresheet supports the claim and the other scoresheet conflicts with the claim, or both scoresheets are so messed up that it is impossible to say, then perhaps it becomes necessary to resort to reconstruction of the moves. If reconstruction is not possible, only then would the claim be denied.

[timjust]

@Brian Mottershead

One interesting part of this scenario was Black’s argument that the claim had to be resolved entirely using White’s scoresheet and his refusal to let his scoresheet be used. (Apparently, his scoresheet also showed that 50 moves had elapsed, but he was hoping to avoid the draw due to defects in White’s scoresheet. ) My inclination is that in this situation, the claimant (White) does not have to do much to “demonstrate” the claim. A scoresheet could be pretty messed up, and have tick marks and gaps, and still be sufficient as long as the opponent is not contesting that there have been 50 moves. If the opponent is contesting that there have been 50 moves, then his scoresheet needs to be looked at too, or the TD can listen to his logical arguments. (“There had to be a capture after this, because he had his Queen at this point, and he doesn’t now; so obviously there was a capture after this point, even though neither scoresheet shows it.”)

If one scoresheet supports the claim and the other scoresheet conflicts with the claim, or both scoresheets are so messed up that it is impossible to say, then perhaps it becomes necessary to resort to reconstruction of the moves. If reconstruction is not possible, only then would the claim be denied.

Perhaps a review of 13C8 regarding the use of an opponent’s score sheet might add to this discussion?

[Crume]

@Tim Just

@Brian Mottershead

One interesting part of this scenario was Black’s argument that the claim had to be resolved entirely using White’s scoresheet and his refusal to let his scoresheet be used. (Apparently, his scoresheet also showed that 50 moves had elapsed, but he was hoping to avoid the draw due to defects in White’s scoresheet. ) My inclination is that in this situation, the claimant (White) does not have to do much to “demonstrate” the claim. A scoresheet could be pretty messed up, and have tick marks and gaps, and still be sufficient as long as the opponent is not contesting that there have been 50 moves. If the opponent is contesting that there have been 50 moves, then his scoresheet needs to be looked at too, or the TD can listen to his logical arguments. (“There had to be a capture after this, because he had his Queen at this point, and he doesn’t now; so obviously there was a capture after this point, even though neither scoresheet shows it.”)

If one scoresheet supports the claim and the other scoresheet conflicts with the claim, or both scoresheets are so messed up that it is impossible to say, then perhaps it becomes necessary to resort to reconstruction of the moves. If reconstruction is not possible, only then would the claim be denied.

Perhaps a review of 13C8 regarding the use of an opponent’s score sheet might add to this discussion?

Adding 13C8 genuinely confuses me. So far the opinion is that 13C7 doesn’t apply to a 50-move draw claim…if that is true, how would 13C8 apply? So far the best I understand it is that “13C applies only in time forfeit situations, not in draw claims.” I can accept that, if indeed that is the interpretation. At the moment it seems complete scoresheets and use of opponent’s scoresheets are not general rules but rather focused in 13C time forfeits. Just trying to find where the limits are in this situation.

[Smythe_Dakota]

An even better question might be, why are the rules regarding time-forfeit (13C) so un-parallel to the rules regarding 50-move claims (14F)? If the purpose of the scoresheet in the 50-move situation is simply to establish whether 50 moves have been played, why shouldn’t the purpose of the scoresheet in the time-forfeit situation be to establish whether 40 moves (or whatever number) have not been played? In other words, why be fussier about the condition of the scoresheet in one case than in the other?

Also, the poster who originally registered this complaint ought to simply observe that 13C7 is part of 13C, not part of 14F (that’s why it’s called 13C7, right?).

Bill Smythe

[tanstaafl]

@Smythe Dakota

An even better question might be, why are the rules regarding time-forfeit (13C) so un-parallel to the rules regarding 50-move claims (14F)? If the purpose of the scoresheet in the 50-move situation is simply to establish whether 50 moves have been played, why shouldn’t the purpose of the scoresheet in the time-forfeit situation be to establish whether 40 moves (or whatever number) have not been played? In other words, why be fussier about the condition of the scoresheet in one case than in the other?..
Bill Smythe

There’s a good reason for this. When a player is claiming a time forfeit, he is essentially claiming that his opponent violated the rules by not making the required number of moves within the allotted time. It’s a “rules violation” with a very severe penalty – loss of the game – so it requires some strong evidence. Not only that, the opponent can’t be made to “testify against himself” by taking and using his score sheet against his will to show that the required number of moves hadn’t been made. The rules, and the way they are enforced, in a time-forfeit claim seem appropriate to me. “Guilt” has to be established “beyond a reasonable doubt” – reasonable being defined in relation to a number of missing or ambiguous move-pairs.

A claim of a draw by the 50-move rule isn’t a claim that the opponent did anything wrong – nobody is accused of breaking a rule. It’s more like the claim of a draw by stalemate and the “rules of evidence” are a little looser. If the “preponderance of the evidence” from the player making the claim is that 50 moves were made, then he should get the draw unless the opponent can provide sufficient countering evidence.

[ESchlich]

Hi Hal:
I have to disagree with you in the following statement. It’s my opinion that 14F4d applies to either the point where the director starts observing or if the entire claim is based on the score sheet. I strongly believe that in cases where a player is claiming the draw under 14F1, the demonstration is ruled by 13C7. It would be a draw if the score sheet was inaccurate only if the errors are minor and can be accurately determined by the TD, not by the player remembering the moves.

Regards, Ernie

@Hal Terrie

@relyea

It sounds like you did everything right. The rule does state that the claiming player must support the claim, which implies the use only of his scoresheet. However, unlike the time forfeit rule no specific standard (like three incomplete move pairs) is given. So it was up to you to use your best judgement - and that’s what you did.

Over in the USCF Issues forum, there’s an ongoing discussion which is peripherally about the relative merits of FIDE vs. USCF rules. I’m one of those who believes that in many cases, USCF rules are superior. But the situation you encountered (and even more so in time forfeit situations) is not one of them. FIDE rules put a much greater emphasis on discovering the truth, without placing limits on the evidence that can be used or on the discretion of the TD. I think that’s a better way to go.

In the 4th edition of the rulebook, there was a variation given for time forfeit procedure that I always used to employ. Under this variation, the “three incomplete move pair” standard would not be in effect. Instead, it would be up to the discretion of the the TD, using BOTH scoresheets, to determine whether the claimant’s scoresheet was sufficiently accurate and whether the claim was valid. Of course this variation had to be announced before Rd. 1 but I found there were many instances when this procedure was a big time saver. You could just glance at the two scoresheets and be pretty sure what the truth was, without laboriously playing through the game on another board.

– Hal Terrie

[Brian_Mottershead]

@tanstaafl

@Smythe Dakota

An even better question might be, why are the rules regarding time-forfeit (13C) so un-parallel to the rules regarding 50-move claims (14F)? If the purpose of the scoresheet in the 50-move situation is simply to establish whether 50 moves have been played, why shouldn’t the purpose of the scoresheet in the time-forfeit situation be to establish whether 40 moves (or whatever number) have not been played? In other words, why be fussier about the condition of the scoresheet in one case than in the other?..
Bill Smythe

There’s a good reason for this. When a player is claiming a time forfeit, he is essentially claiming that his opponent violated the rules by not making the required number of moves within the allotted time. It’s a “rules violation” with a very severe penalty – loss of the game – so it requires some strong evidence. Not only that, the opponent can’t be made to “testify against himself” by taking and using his score sheet against his will to show that the required number of moves hadn’t been made. The rules, and the way they are enforced, in a time-forfeit claim seem appropriate to me. “Guilt” has to be established “beyond a reasonable doubt” – reasonable being defined in relation to a number of missing or ambiguous move-pairs.

A claim of a draw by the 50-move rule isn’t a claim that the opponent did anything wrong – nobody is accused of breaking a rule. It’s more like the claim of a draw by stalemate and the “rules of evidence” are a little looser. If the “preponderance of the evidence” from the player making the claim is that 50 moves were made, then he should get the draw unless the opponent can provide sufficient countering evidence.

This is just word-play. There is no rules violation or guilt in a time forfeit situation, and the analogy to the rules of evidence in a criminal trial simply begs the question (that is, assumes what you are trying to prove). I could spin out a description of 50-move claims like that too.

The reason that the standards for scoresheets are different is that if a time forfeit claim is accepted on the basis of the number of moves indicated by a player’s scoresheet, the game is over: the claimant wins, the opponent loses. The risk is that the claimant’s scoresheet omits moves, and that the opponent has actually played more moves and made the time control. If the claim is disputed, the theory behind 13C is that the only way properly to determine the number of moves is to reconstruct the game and for that a reasonably complete scoresheet is needed – one where the TD can be reasonably confident that the move count is correct and moves have not been omitted. The rules have an description of what “reasonably complete” means: no more than three errors. (All this is quite debatable, in that a scoresheet with more than 3 errors might still be adequate to indicate the number of moves, and a scoresheet with fewer than 3 errors might under-indicate the number of moves. In my opinion, it should be left to the TD to weigh the evidence regarding the number of moves.)

In contrast, the 50-move rule is to deal with positions that are drawn, where neither player can win, absent blunder or time forfeit. There has to be a way to end the game in such positions so as to prevent a player from trying to win by refusing to agree to a draw and attempting to “bore his opponent out”. (To use the phrase of a ten-year old in a MACA tournament.) This is indicated by the fact the FIDE rules at one time allowed more moves than 50 for certain combinations of material. There was a 100-move rule for some situations, for example. FIDE returned to a uniform 50-moves in 1992, because more and more exceptions to 50 moves were being discovered by endgame theory, and it was getting unwieldy. In a drawn position, the accuracy of the scoresheet is much less critical than a time forfeit. All that matters is how many moves there have been. Moves omitted from the scoresheet don’t help the claim. If the claim is denied, the game goes on until a valid 50-move claim is made, a player asks the director to count moves, or there is a blunder or time forfeit that ends the game.

It would be better if we didn’t have rules that relied on the accuracy of player scoresheets and reconstruction of the moves. Sudden-death time controls only, for example. It is not so clear with what the 50-move rule should be replaced so as to keep drawn games from turning into bladder-control contests

[eastside]

@Brian Mottershead

The reason that the standards for scoresheets are different is that if a time forfeit claim is accepted on the basis of the number of moves indicated by a player’s scoresheet, the game is over: the claimant wins, the opponent loses. The risk is that the claimant’s scoresheet omits moves, and that the opponent has actually played more moves and made the time control.

If a 50-move claim is accepted on that same basis, the game is over as well. And, as will be discussed below, there is a risk involved with 50-move claims as well.

@Brian Mottershead

The only way to determine if there is a dispute is to reconstruct the game, and for that a reasonably complete scoresheet is needed – one where the TD can be reasonably confident that the move count is correct and moves have not been omitted. Therefore, the claimant is obliged to provide a reasonably complete scoresheet in order to be declared the winner.

So, how can “the TD…be reasonably confident” that a 50-move claim is accurate?

@USCF Rule 14F1

The game is drawn when the player on move claims a draw and demonstrates that the last 50 consecutive moves have been made by each side without any capture or pawn move. If the director wishes to allow more than 50 moves for certain positions, details must be posted at the tournament before the first round.

Typically, the way a player demonstrates the claim…is via scoresheet. Therefore, the TD needs to be certain that the scoresheet - at least, from the position where the 50-move claim is first started by the claimant - is correct too. The only way to do this is by playing through the scoresheet. It’s true that the moves that matter start from where the claim begins in the game, but even then, it may be necessary to play through the game to reach that position, if the players can’t agree on the starting position for the claim.

@Brian Mottershead

In contrast, the 50-move rule is to deal with positions that are drawn, where neither player can force a win.

The 50-move rule doesn’t address “drawn” positions. The only definitions of a “drawn position” come in Rules 14D, 14E and 14H2c (which is almost never invoked now that most players have delay-capable clocks).

@Brian Mottershead

There has to be a way to end the game in such positions so as to prevent a player from trying to win by refusing to agree to a draw and attempting to “bore his opponent out”. (To use the phrase of a ten-year old in a MACA tournament.) This is indicated by the fact the FIDE rules at one time allowed more moves than 50 for certain combinations of material. There was a 100-move rule for some situations, for example. FIDE returned to a uniform 50-moves in 1992, because more and more exceptions to 50 moves were being discovered by endgame theory, and it was getting unwieldy.

Actually, Rule 14F1 (as quoted above) does allow the TD discretion to extend more moves for certain endgames, provided said extensions are advertised before the first round starts. And, to be accurate, computers - whose endgame tablebases have rewritten some previously accepted endgame theory - are the reason why more endings with forced wins of greater than 50 moves exist.

Further, as games like Filipowicz-Smederevac, Polanica Zdroj 1966 show, the 50-move rule can - and has - been applied before the endgame. (I have posted the score of this game in “All Things Chess”. If anyone reading this is in need of a cure for insomnia, grab a set and play through it.)

@Brian Mottershead

In a drawn position, the accuracy of the scoresheet is much less critical than a time forfeit. All that matters is how many moves there have been. Moves omitted from the scoresheet don’t help the claim.

Not true - especially if the omitted move is a pawn move or capture. (Yes, I have encountered this more than once.) Since Rule 14F1 requires the claimant to demonstrate the 50-move rule can be invoked, the number of moves - and their accuracy - is important. Just because Rule 14F doesn’t specify a “reasonably complete scoresheet” doesn’t mean a director shouldn’t ensure that the claimant has one.

Also, a “drawn position” as defined by rule doesn’t even require a scoresheet to claim the draw. The position on the board is enough.

@Brian Mottershead

If the claim is denied, the game goes on until a valid 50-move claim is made, a player asks the director to count moves, or there is a blunder or time forfeit that ends the game.

If any claim is denied, the game goes on until it ends. How the game ends, is up to the players. But a “blunder”, per se, doesn’t end the game. And a director can only count moves in USCF when the conditions in Rule 14F4 apply.

[Brian_Mottershead]

The critical difference is that in the case of a time forfeit claim being erroneously accepted, the game is a win for the player making the erroneous claim, whereas in the case of a 50-move claim being erroneously accepted, the game is drawn. Neither case is without potential for harm to the opponent of the claimant: a loss for a time forfeit claim; a draw in a situation which the opponent thought winnable for a 50-move claim. But the stakes are lower for the 50-move situation: an unwanted draw versus an unwanted loss.

To drag in a requirement for almost-perfect score-keeping in either situation seems illogical. What does perfect scorekeeping have to do with these situations? The relevant thing in both cases for the TD is “how many moves have there been?”. The standard for scoresheets in 13C doesn’t necessarily give the TD a scoresheet that can be relied upon. One omitted move-pair would be an acceptable under the 13C scoresheet standard, but still support the wrong conclusion on the move-count question. Conversely, scoresheets which technically violate the 13C standard may be absolutely fine for determining the number of moves. The real question is: can the TD determine the number of moves from the scoresheet with reasonable effort and within an acceptable margin of error? So the 13C standard for scoresheets is somewhat of a non-sequitur even for the 13C time-forfeit situation.

Extending the 13C standard to 50-move claims means that the penalty for inaccurate score-keeping becomes giving draw odds to the opponent, assuming that the opponent has an accurate scoresheet. Keep in mind that we now allow score-keeping devices, but they are expensive and not all players own one. Players who can afford one will have a perfect scoresheet. If 13C standards apply to 14F scoresheets, that means there will be situations where one player – the one with the good scoresheet – can make a 50-move draw claim and the other cannot. That is not fair. I want chess to be a game where the outcome is determined by playing, not scorekeeping.

[eastside]

@Brian Mottershead

The critical difference is that in the case of a time forfeit claim being erroneously accepted, the game is a win for the player making the erroneous claim, whereas in the case of a 50-move claim being erroneously accepted, the game is drawn. Neither case is without potential for harm to the opponent of the claimant: a loss for a time forfeit claim; a draw in a situation which the opponent thought winnable for a 50-move claim. But the stakes are lower for the 50-move situation: an unwanted draw versus an unwanted loss.

But the TD views the stakes in either of those cases you reference as the same. Erroneous awarding of either claim is unacceptable for any director. The real job for the TD is to get the disposition of the claim right, within the confines of USCF rules.

The situation related in the original post would have been near-hopeless if the TD couldn’t have used both scoresheets, along with his best judgment, to adjudicate the 14F claim. Unfortunately, TDs are sometimes put in precisely that quagmire when dealing with a 13C claim. More on that below.

@Brian Mottershead

To drag in a requirement for almost-perfect score-keeping in either situation seems illogical. What does perfect scorekeeping have to do with these situations?

I will assume you’ve never been handed a partially fabricated scoresheet to support a 50-move claim. I have. It’s not that hard to do, actually, especially if you’re thinking about ways to do it.

@Brian Mottershead

The relevant thing in both cases for the TD is “how many moves have there been?”. The standard for scoresheets in 13C doesn’t necessarily give the TD a scoresheet that can be relied upon. One omitted move-pair would be an acceptable under the 13C scoresheet standard, but still support the wrong conclusion on the move-count question. Conversely, scoresheets which technically violate the 13C standard may be absolutely fine for determining the number of moves.

Which is why a TD can - and should - use his or her best judgment when evaluating a 50-move claim. However, per Rule 14F1, the onus is still on the claimant to demonstrate that the 50-move rule applies…which takes us back to the question of how that demonstration generally happens.

@Brian Mottershead

The real question is: can the TD determine the number of moves from the scoresheet with reasonable effort and within an acceptable margin of error? So the 13C standard for scoresheets is somewhat of a non-sequitur even for the 13C time-forfeit situation.

Actually, in 14F claims, you can use both scoresheets, if needed, to help with reconstruction. (See the original post in this thread for an example.) This is one reason why 13C is different, and does actually relate to the difference between claiming a win on time in a non-SD time control and claiming a draw via 14F.

@Brian Mottershead

Extending the 13C standard to 50-move claims means that the penalty for inaccurate score-keeping becomes giving draw odds to the opponent, assuming that the opponent has an accurate scoresheet.

Something that players are usually taught at a young age is that, without a valid scoresheet, you can’t claim threefold repetition draws or 50-move rule draws. The only “penalty” for inaccurate scorekeeping is that you can’t use your scoresheet to make claims. The real question is what makes your scoresheet “inaccurate”. For 14F claims, it doesn’t require quite as high a standard as 13C claims…but there is still some minimum expectation that the director can actually (a) read the moves, and (b) demonstrate, either through scoresheet comparison or replaying, that the scoresheet shows a correct count.

@Brian Mottershead

Keep in mind that we now allow score-keeping devices, but they are expensive and not all players own one. Players who can afford one will have a perfect scoresheet.

This is incorrect. Electronic scoresheets must be set to allow illegal moves. There is a “chess rules” feature on either MonRoi or eNotate that is set to “off” when in tournament mode.

As far as cost is concerned, it is only a matter of time before someone develops a lower-cost, widely-available alternative to MonRoi, even with dedicated hardware. eNotate is already an example of an approved alternativefor electronic notation software, but the player still has to go find the hardware.

Incidentally, I bought the eNotate software from NACA for $25, and found a Dell Axim X51 PDA on eBay for $40. So, I have a USCF approved electronic scoresheet for less than a sixth of what MonRoi charges for its PCM. That’s actually going to save me money, time and frustration (no more busted pens, scorebooks with missing/stained pages, or having to manually enter my games into ChessBase!), in the long run. It’s also less than the cost of either a Chronos or DGT clock.

@Brian Mottershead

If 13C standards apply to 14F scoresheets, that means there will be situations where one player – the one with the good scoresheet – can make a 50-move draw claim and the other cannot. That is not fair. I want chess to be a game where the outcome is determined by playing, not scorekeeping.

Taking notation is just as much a part of the tournament game as calculating variations, handling a chess clock or knowing the rules. It’s already been pointed out that the standards for rules 13C and 14F aren’t the same. But standards for 14F aren’t nonexistent, either. The director just gets more latitude in determining whether the standards are met in 14F claims.

This is why Alex Relyea’s example is good - he used his best judgment, with all available evidence, to determine if the 14F claim was valid. This is also why Hal Terrie was talking about the superiority of FIDE rules in this case. That’s a position I agree with.

[tanstaafl]

You don’t need a complete score sheet in the draw claim because missing moves from the score sheet won’t help the claimant (as they would in a time-forfeit claim).

It should be trivially easy to see if a pawn has moved or piece been captured from the 50-move ago point in time, whether you have all the intervening moves on the score sheet or not. Having missed recording a move will just make your move count lower and nothing else. (having a lower move count would hurt the opponent in a time-forfeit claim, but help him in a 50-move draw claim)

[eastside]

@tanstaafl

It should be trivially easy to see if a pawn has moved or piece been captured from the 50-move ago point in time, whether you have all the intervening moves on the score sheet or not.

This isn’t always true either. To be fair, your supposition is normally quite correct. However…

Some players use the form “e2-e4” to record their moves. In the case of a 14F claim, you have to be sure that a move forward on a file is a king, queen or rook being shifted, instead of a pawn.

Also, some players just write down the move in standard algebraic and don’t denote a capture (for example, a main line Petroff on such a scoresheet might start 1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nf6 3 Ne5 d6 4 Nf3 Ne4).

I’ve had one 14F experience with each of these. Not the most fun I’ve ever had.

[Crume]

These explanations are very helpful.

Follow up question. There is a difference between a player invoking the claim ahead of time (starting the count) and invoking the claim as fact (50 moves have occurred). If the “as fact” claim is not demonstrated (the scoresheet shows it’s been 47 moves or whatever)…does the standard penalty of 2min to the opponent still apply?

[eastside]

@Crume

If the “as fact” claim is not demonstrated (the scoresheet shows it’s been 47 moves or whatever)…does the standard penalty of 2min to the opponent still apply?

Per Rule 14F2, if the claim is found to be invalid, the claimant’s opponent has 2 minutes added to his unused time.

[Ron_Suarez]

Moderator Mode: Off

Brian, the problem in interpreting and applying rules is that the rule must be consistent and applicable in all instances. For you to say that a draw is better than a loss, therefore the scorekeeping and assessment should be different for the different possible outcomes, is flawed. If a person correctly felt he had a draw in a game and lost at the time control, that loss would be a half point loss for him. If a person correctly feels he has a won game and his opponent invokes the 50 move rule, then that person would have a half point loss, just as in the previous scenario. As Boyd correctly pointed out, it is important to have a correct call in all cases whether there is a win, draw or loss at stake.

Also the position on the board doesn’t really matter either. In fact Rule 14F3 makes that very clear. Even if the next move is a checkmate in one, but the 50 moves have happened, it is a draw. I have also seen drawn positions lost and won.

Yes, a few moves either way also matters. As I just pointed out a mate in one could be stopped at the 50 move mark. Also, as Boyd once again pointed out, if the claim is short of the 50 move mark, the opponent of the claimant would receive an extra 2 minutes added to his clock.

I own an eNotate system but the cost is irrelevant, as Boyd again pointed out. Yes, there can and are mistakes made in the electronic scorekeeping system(s). So there is the possibility of there not being a perfect score with the electronic systems as well. I recall helping run a tournament about a year and a half ago, where Sevan brought a number of Monroi devices for the organizer and TD to use on the top boards. There were numerous games where one or both of the players made errors in their score taking.

I agree that Alex made a good judgment call in how he handled the game noted at the start of this thread. In reviewing the applicable rules from the rule book, I would suggest it could be handled a bit differently in the future and still be right, perhaps even a better decision.

Rule 14F1 about the 50 Move Rule states, “The game is drawn when the player on move claims a draw and demonstrates that the last 50 consecutive moves have been made by each side without any capture or pawn move.” (Bolding for emphasis, mine)

Therefore, the player making the claim must demonstrate the 50 moves.

However in the case made by relyea, the claimant had a little over 1 minute left on his clock. This was a sudden death situation. In a sudden death situation, per rule 14F4, the player should have stopped the clock and told the director that he was going to invoke the 50 move rule. If the scoresheet was in enough error where the claimant could not have demonstrated it, then the director could have counted the moves himself from where it was apparent the 50 move rule would have started. Of course the director could have also had a deputy do this counting or put a clock with a move counter on it with the times set accurately and the move counter set to zero, once again per the rule.

I suggest that if it was not apparent from the scoresheet itself and the claimant could not demonstrate the 50 moves himself, then the director should have found a point on the scoresheet where he could accurately begin a count and then proceed the appropriate count as the opponents continued their play.

I also would have put a clock with a delay on this game. Since the analog clock that was initially used appeared to be malfunctioning regarding the flag and so, putting a digital clock on the game and using the delay feature, from there, would be appropriate, in my opinion. I don’t believe this point would have mattered regarding the draw claim.

While the rules regarding the claim of a loss in the time control does include the use of the scoresheet(s) to validate the claim, I don’t see where this would or should apply to this 50 Move Rule. In the time control loss, both players’ timesheets can and should be used by the TD. As I noted above, it is the responsibility of the claimant in the 50 Move Rule to demonstrate that claim.

If the claimant wanted to use his opponent’s scoresheet to correct his own, then that should be allowed for the player to use, on his own time, once again per the rules. In the case of this thread, the claimant only had 1:10 on his clock and they weren’t using a delay! If they would have made the claimant use his opponent’s scoresheet to correct his own, the claimant would have run out of time and lost that way.

So, I say the best in that situation would have been to find the earliest point where no errors of the scoresheet would have followed, and started the 50 move count from there. I would have then, as the TD, continued the count as the players played on and would have then called it a draw when both players had made the requisite 50 moves without a pawn move or capture.