My First 14F Claim

[fantasychess]

@Ron Suarez

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 suggest that if the claimant could not demonstrate that 50 moves had been made you deny the claim, give the opponent two minutes and let the game continue. If the claimant then asks you to count the moves you can try to determine if he has any “move credit” from his scoresheet and start the count towards the 50. If the claimant doesn’t ask for this then I would not do it automatically.

@Ron Suarez

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.

I personally would have gone Alex’s way of not putting a delay on the clock that replaced the analog.

@Ron Suarez

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.

Per the rules, both players have to have at least 5 minutes on their clock to borrow the other players scoresheet. Request denied.

[Brian_Mottershead]

5Fb states that “if the game starts with an analog clock, it should remain” except in the case of an insufficient losing chances claim.

[billbrock]

@mlanger

K+R vs. K+R+N is tricky to defend, though GM’s should be able to hold the draw with relative ease.

Dr. Eugene Martinovsky (IM strength at his peak) once lost this ending to a GM. Didn’t J. Polgar once lose it, too?

And circa 1992, I recall Bob Holliman (who I just played this weekend) beating me rather quickly in this ending when I had to find an “only” move and missed it.

[billbrock]

Generalizations are dangerous. Some QP v RPP positions are trivial draws (even for a 10-year-old, who lacks experience to accompany raw skill). Some drawn QP v RPP fortress positions offer lots of chances to the superior side.

Even master-level TDs can make errors in evaluating such positions: breaking the blockade sometimes depends on multiple zugzwangs - such positions are notoriously tricky (similar to the RB v R example above).

[relyea]

It should be noted that seeing that the position on the “recreation” board exactly matched the position on the game board certainly helped to convince Black that White’s claim had merit. At that point Black’s only complaint was that I had helped (and allowed White to help) too much with the correction of the scoresheet.

Alex Relyea

[Ron_Suarez]

@fantasychess

I suggest that if the claimant could not demonstrate that 50 moves had been made you deny the claim, give the opponent two minutes and let the game continue. If the claimant then asks you to count the moves you can try to determine if he has any “move credit” from his scoresheet and start the count towards the 50. If the claimant doesn’t ask for this then I would not do it automatically.

I agree.

@fantasychess

I personally would have gone Alex’s way of not putting a delay on the clock that replaced the analog.

I would do as much as possible to have the players use the delay from the beginning. I have had tournaments where players have used an analog clock, but today that is less than desirable versus the delay option.

@Brian Mottershead

5Fb states that “if the game starts with an analog clock, it should remain” except in the case of an insufficient losing chances claim.

Yeah I know, but once again to have an analog clock in a rated game these days is outmoded and I always have a few extra digital/delay clocks handy for these instances.

Also, when the analog clock failed and needed to be replaced with a digital, I think this would be a good time to bring the delay back into the game.

As I said, I don’t believe the delay versus not having delay was significant in the 50 Move Draw situation we are discussing.

@fantasychess

Per the rules, both players have to have at least 5 minutes on their clock to borrow the other players scoresheet. Request denied.

Yes, I forgot this one in my analysis of the situation. It’s a very good point as well.

Taking the above into account and if I ever came across this same situation, as a TD, I would do the following:

1. I would clarify if the player wanting the 50 Move Draw invoked was claiming it a draw or just saying that he intended to invoke it and wanted me to count. Of course I would do this without “educating” the player as to what he can and/or should do. If he was making a claim then I would proceed with the following. If he was intending to have me count the moves or such, then I would proceed with that.

2. If this was a claim, then I would have the player, now claimant, demonstrate for me that it was a 50 Move Draw. I would do this without coaching the claimant or anything in his demonstration. If the claimant did prove the 50 Moves as specified, then it would be a Draw.

3. If the claimant failed to demonstrate the 50 Moves, then I would add 2 minutes to his opponent’s time/clock. I would then tell him to proceed.

4. Note, it is the player’s responsibility to ask the TD to count the moves, so I would not volunteer to either player that they have the option of asking me, the TD, to do this.

[DENTONCHESS]

@Jason Havener

I was the black player of this game. I do respect the TD’s decision but I do disagree with it. Without significant assistance from the TD this game could not have been reconstructed due to my opponents lackluster scoresheet, he claimed the draw, its on him to “demonstrate” this claim in an accurate manner. He certainly could not do this…Lastly I do believe due to my opponents young age he was given major assistance, I totally believe had this been a 25year old, the game would have then continued once it was clear his scoresheet was unreliable. This was the last game of the evening (finished around 930pm), everyone had left the hall. I disputed throughout but could see the evidence of the TDs preferential treatment, I asked how long I had to appeal? I was told " til you both shake hands"…I did not shake hands to show my protest of the decision, his scoresheet clearly had more than the three errors therefore should not have counted. I believe the game should have continued.
Jason Havener

Sir, my thought is this-you are certainly not a sportsman. Preferential treatment hardly. You should be embarrassed. What
a poor example.

Rob Jones

[Allen]

@Jason Havener

I would just like to state on the record that I do accept the ruling. I give credit to my opponent for the position he was able to achieve, many would have resigned( I actually thought he was gonna hence the sloppy play in the beginning).
I was offered a draw one time and refused…Q,p vs. R,2 p… I dont believe there was anything wrong with playing it out…It was the second round and I needed the win and I thought I played well enough to win. Looking back I have no regrets challenging the young mans validity of his scoreheet claim, they were major errors throughout and atleast 1 during the 50 move claim…perhaps it would have been a draw, but I was seriously contemplating trading my queen for his pawn and rook while still having the tempo if I could get his king in the right spot away from the other pawn. All of this is a lesson learned for many…
And I thank the people for reading and being understanding…
Jason Havener

Lookling at MSA on these two players in interesting

The scholastic player has 69 events in a little more than 2 years.

You have player has 24 games over 18 months + another 16 that are quick rated only - total. So 40 tournament games in 18 months. You show admirable achievement in a short time. However ----

My advice to you if you want to debate rule points is to get a copy of the rule book and truely get to understand it. You are missing the point being made by the experienced TDs and your interpretation of your rights and responsibilities in this case are simply incorrect. That is not an uncommon problem, even amoungst more experienced tournament players.

Good luck and keep playing!

[Ron_Suarez]

Moderator Mode: Off

Allen, I have a question in all sincerity regarding this situation.

The rules do state that the player must demonstrate the 50 Move Draw.

Why is it wrong of this player to insist the player demonstrate the Draw without help from the TD, or anyone else, in recreating the game score?

Age should not matter. This player was 10 years old, but the rules and their interpretation should be blind to that.

The way I read the account of the game, by the TD, it seems apparent to me that the player should have stopped the clock and got the TD announcing to him that he wanted the TD, or a deputy, to count the moves for a 50 move draw.

Failing to do that, is not a rule violation at all. However, when the player then claimed the 50 Move Draw AND did not have an accurate recording to demonstrate those 50 moves, the player then fails to demonstrate the draw by the 50 Moves.

If nothing would have been done except tell the player to continue playing from the point he got the TD, with the TD counting from the latest point of a recognizable accurate score move, the 50 Move draw would have also been possible, by the rules.

[Brian_Mottershead]

@Ron Suarez

Moderator Mode: Off

Allen, I have a question in all sincerity regarding this situation.

The rules do state that the player must demonstrate the 50 Move Draw.

Why is it wrong of this player to insist the player demonstrate the Draw without help from the TD, or anyone else, in recreating the game score?

Age should not matter. This player was 10 years old, but the rules and their interpretation should be blind to that.

The way I read the account of the game, by the TD, it seems apparent to me that the player should have stopped the clock and got the TD announcing to him that he wanted the TD, or a deputy, to count the moves for a 50 move draw.

Failing to do that, is not a rule violation at all. However, when the player then claimed the 50 Move Draw AND did not have an accurate recording to demonstrate those 50 moves, the player then fails to demonstrate the draw by the 50 Moves.

If nothing would have been done except tell the player to continue playing from the point he got the TD, with the TD counting from the latest point of a recognizable accurate score move, the 50 Move draw would have also been possible, by the rules.

This begs the question as to what constitutes a “demonstration”. The TD does not have to stand, arms folded, like a statue, waiting to see if the player makes a sufficient case, rejecting the claim if the player is not articulate and organized enough in his presentation. The TD can ask questions. The game is chess, nor law school moot court. It is a contest between chess players, not chess lawyers.

If Alex had asked the player why he believed there had been 50 moves since the last capture or pawn move, the player would have shown him his scoresheet, which presumably would have shown a capture or pawn move at move N with no more captures or pawn moves up to the present position with 50 moves between move N and the present position. Inspection of the scoresheet by the TD would establish this. That is a prime facie “demonstration” and the claim would be valid, unless the opponent were to raise some objection, based on the player’s scoresheet being wrong, possibly producing his own contradictory score sheet, or in the absence of an accurate scoresheet of his own, some logical argument. Only then would it be required to reconstruct the position, and only then would the accuracy of the two scoresheets become an issue.

[tsawmiller]

@Brian Mottershead

This begs the question as to what constitutes a “demonstration”. The TD does not have to stand, arms folded, like a statue, waiting to see if the player makes a sufficient case, rejecting the claim if the player is not articulate and organized enough in his presentation. The TD can ask questions. The game is chess, nor law school moot court. It is a contest between chess players, not chess lawyers.

If Alex had asked the player why he believed there had been 50 moves since the last capture or pawn move, the player would have shown him his scoresheet, which presumably would have shown a capture or pawn move at move N with no more captures or pawn moves up to the present position with 50 moves between move N and the present position. Inspection of the scoresheet by the TD would establish this. That is a prime facie “demonstration” and the claim would be valid, unless the opponent were to raise some objection, based on the player’s scoresheet being wrong, possibly producing his own contradictory score sheet, or in the absence of an accurate scoresheet of his own, some logical argument. Only then would it be required to reconstruct the position, and only then would the accuracy of the two scoresheets become an issue.

This makes perfect sense to me. And it would seem to resolve the issue more quickly.

[eastside]

@Brian Mottershead

If Alex had asked the player why he believed there had been 50 moves since the last capture or pawn move, the player would have shown him his scoresheet, which presumably would have shown a capture or pawn move at move N with no more captures or pawn moves up to the present position with 50 moves between move N and the present position. Inspection of the scoresheet by the TD would establish this. That is a prime facie “demonstration” and the claim would be valid, unless the opponent were to raise some objection, based on the player’s scoresheet being wrong, possibly producing his own contradictory score sheet, or in the absence of an accurate scoresheet of his own, some logical argument. Only then would it be required to reconstruct the position, and only then would the accuracy of the two scoresheets become an issue.

It’s been previously explained why just looking at a scoresheet, without playing through the moves, may not be sufficient to uphold a 50-move rule claim.

As you stated earlier, Mr. Mottershead, the director can do his or her own research/investigation into the validity of a 50-move rule claim. This would include the ability to look at an opponent’s scoresheet, reconstruct moves, or anything else that would help the TD to arrive at the correct decision.

Here, it seems important to again state that the TD is looking to arrive at the correct adjudication of the claim. Whatever it takes to do that, is always what should be done. A director should use all resources provided to him by the rules of the governing body for the competition to arrive at the correct answer. This is, as previously stated, an area in which FIDE rules do appear to have a significant advantage over USCF rules, because a FIDE arbiter has much greater latitude to “find the truth” in almost any claim or dispute than a USCF director.

[Brian_Mottershead]

@eastside

It’s been previously explained why just looking at a scoresheet, without playing through the moves, may not be sufficient to uphold a 50-move rule claim.

It seems that you are arguing that reconstruction is always required. If the opponent is not contradicting the 50-move claim, reconstruction should not be necessary. It the claimant produces a scoresheet with 50 moves without a pawn move or capture, and the opponent is not asserting that there was a pawn move or capture (perhaps producing a scoresheet or logical argument) then a scoresheet with 50 move-pairs, none apparently a pawn move or capture, suffices for the claim to be upheld, in my opinion. No reconstruction required.

In the situation being discussed, Black never asserted that there had not been 50 moves. (I expect his scoresheet plainly also showed that there had been 50 moves.) Instead, he was hoping to make White’s scoresheet the issue and have the claim turned aside because White’s scoresheet was not sufficient for reconstruction.

[eastside]

@Brian Mottershead

It seems that you are arguing that reconstruction is always required. If the opponent is not contradicting the 50-move claim, reconstruction should not be necessary. It the claimant produces a scoresheet with 50 moves without a pawn move or capture, and the opponent is not asserting that there was a pawn move or capture (perhaps producing a scoresheet or logical argument) then a scoresheet with 50 move-pairs, none apparently a pawn move or capture, suffices for the claim to be upheld, in my opinion. No reconstruction required.

I am arguing that reconstruction is required if the opponent disagrees with the claim.

The normal procedure is go to the board, tell the opponent that a draw is being claimed via 14F, and ask if the opponent agrees or disagrees. If the opponent agrees, then there is nothing for the TD to do, as the game is over.

If the opponent disagrees, then he does NOT have to produce an argument. The burden of proof is still on the claimant, and some sort of examination or reconstruction is required. The opponent’s scoresheet is still in play as part of the examination or reconstruction process, but the claimant’s scoresheet would still be the primary evidence. I would not uphold a 50-move claim where I wasn’t personally counting moves unless I could see notation from the claimant that 50 moves had been made.

@Brian Mottershead

In the situation being discussed, Black never asserted that there had not been 50 moves. (I expect his scoresheet plainly also showed that there had been 50 moves.) Instead, he was hoping to make White’s scoresheet the issue and have the claim turned aside because White’s scoresheet was not sufficient for reconstruction.

Black probably thought - not without reason - that the rules for 13C and 14F would be the same with regard to the burden of proof. (IMO, they should be, but in USCF, they’re not. Hence, the FIDE comparison previously mentioned.)

[Bob_McAdams]

@eastside

@Brian Mottershead

It seems that you are arguing that reconstruction is always required. If the opponent is not contradicting the 50-move claim, reconstruction should not be necessary. It the claimant produces a scoresheet with 50 moves without a pawn move or capture, and the opponent is not asserting that there was a pawn move or capture (perhaps producing a scoresheet or logical argument) then a scoresheet with 50 move-pairs, none apparently a pawn move or capture, suffices for the claim to be upheld, in my opinion. No reconstruction required.

I am arguing that reconstruction is required if the opponent disagrees with the claim.

The normal procedure is go to the board, tell the opponent that a draw is being claimed via 14F, and ask if the opponent agrees or disagrees. If the opponent agrees, then there is nothing for the TD to do, as the game is over.

If the opponent disagrees, then he does NOT have to produce an argument. The burden of proof is still on the claimant, and some sort of examination or reconstruction is required. The opponent’s scoresheet is still in play as part of the examination or reconstruction process, but the claimant’s scoresheet would still be the primary evidence. I would not uphold a 50-move claim where I wasn’t personally counting moves unless I could see notation from the claimant that 50 moves had been made.

Well, keep in mind that rule 14F4d states that:
“The opponent may challenge either the moves on the claimant’s scoresheet before the director/deputy count, the count itself, or both, but must have a scoresheet adequate (13C7) to support the challenge.”

Now, it might be argued that because it is a part of rule 14F, rule 14F4d applies only when the claimant has summoned the TD and asked for assistance in counting moves for a 50-move draw claim. But if we interpret the rule this way, it would lead to the rather absurd conclusion that the claimant’s opponent does not normally have to produce a scoresheet to dispute the moves on the claimant’s scoresheet in a 50-move draw claim, but does have to produce one if a director/deputy has been summoned and has counted even one move!

If the rule were really going to be interpreted that way, the TD could, in the case in question, simply deny the 50-move draw claim, give the claimant’s opponent 2 extra minutes, but also inform the claimant that he has the right under rule 14F4 to ask for a director/deputy to count moves. Assuming the claimant asks to have moves counted, the TD could then count one move and call it a draw based on that one move plus the moves the claimant recorded on his scoresheet, and if the opponent wants to dispute that call, the TD could ask him to produce a scoresheet to dispute the claim.

Personally, I think it is more likely that the principle outlined in the first part of rule 14F4d was intended to apply regardless of whether the TD was summoned to count moves, and that it was included under 14F4 in order to produce a single composite rule that would cover disputes by the opponent over moves recorded by the claimant and moves counted by a director/deputy.

Bob

[eastside]

@Bob McAdams

Well, keep in mind that rule 14F4d states that:
“The opponent may challenge either the moves on the claimant’s scoresheet before the director/deputy count, the count itself, or both, but must have a scoresheet adequate (13C7) to support the challenge.”

Again, here is what typically happens on a contested 14F claim.

1. Player comes to claim draw.
2. TD goes to board and informs opponent of claim.
3. Opponent disagrees.
4. TD inspects claimant scoresheet, including replaying moves if needed.
   5A. TD finds scoresheet does not support claim, and adds two minutes to opponent’s unused time.
   5B. TD finds scoresheet does support claim, and informs opponent.
   -----5B-1. Opponent offers evidence that claim is invalid, which TD then evaluates.
   -----5B-2. Opponent offers no evidence that claim is invalid, so TD declares game drawn.

The opponent doesn’t have to produce an argument when the claim is made. The opponent doesn’t really have to do anything until the TD reaches 5B. The primary burden of proof is still on the claimant.

Also, if the TD is reconstructing the game, he can use the opponent’s scoresheet if he wishes. Further, the opponent in this case is often helping to reconstruct the game. However, the claimant should have concrete evidence that the 50-move rule applies.

Some TDs prefer not to play through the game if they don’t have to. I find it much more conclusive to simply take an analysis set and play through the moves, with both players watching. After all, the point is to reach the right decision, not merely the visually expedient one. The extra few minutes it takes to reconstruct is, IMHO, time well spent. I get the distinct impression that Alex Relyea found the same thing to be true in his case.

In the cases where I can reach the position on the game board, while showing that the conditions of 14F have been met, I have yet to have a player offer an argument as to why the claim shouldn’t be upheld, except for the occasional conflation of the scorekeeping standards in 13C and 14F (which I’ve previously said I don’t like…but that is another story altogether).

[Allen]

@Ron Suarez

Moderator Mode: Off

Allen, I have a question in all sincerity regarding this situation.

The rules do state that the player must demonstrate the 50 Move Draw.

Why is it wrong of this player to insist the player demonstrate the Draw without help from the TD, or anyone else, in recreating the game score?

Age should not matter. This player was 10 years old, but the rules and their interpretation should be blind to that.

The way I read the account of the game, by the TD, it seems apparent to me that the player should have stopped the clock and got the TD announcing to him that he wanted the TD, or a deputy, to count the moves for a 50 move draw.

Failing to do that, is not a rule violation at all. However, when the player then claimed the 50 Move Draw AND did not have an accurate recording to demonstrate those 50 moves, the player then fails to demonstrate the draw by the 50 Moves.

If nothing would have been done except tell the player to continue playing from the point he got the TD, with the TD counting from the latest point of a recognizable accurate score move, the 50 Move draw would have also been possible, by the rules.

Boyd has answered this in detail.

[Ron_Suarez]

@Allen

Boyd has answered this in detail.

I agree, and he has explained it quite well.

[W.T_Hales]

Greetings,

First, let me say that I was quite impressed with Boyd Reed’s comments and final explanation, which makes me hesitate to offer my take on this. However, I haven’t seen any reference to some key rules, nor discussion of what I believe to be some important ideas.

I don’t have the time to rehash what has already been said, some of which I agree with, and some of which I do not. So for the purposes of this posting, I am assuming the reader has read the previous posts in this thread.

Before I get to my main points, let me begin by saying that I find it distasteful to call into quesion Jason Havener’s sportsmanship. He was well within his rights to reject the 50 move claim, and to assert his point of view on the implementation of the rule. I have not read anything here to indicate any of his actions were inappropriate.

Now to my main points. Nobody has mentioned Rule 15, and how it might apply in this situation. I want to make several points; these are not all intended to carry the same weight.

1. A basic idea: “Players excused from scorekeeping are not entitled to make claims which require scoresheets.” This doesn’t apply directly to this situation, but it is part of a broad idea. The question now becomes what is the standard for keeping score? On the one hand, complete lack of recording is unacceptable. So what is the standard to be considered acceptable?

2. An important rule: 15B. "Doing so, however, may make it impossible to claim a draw by triple occurence of position (14C) or the 50 move rule (14F) or a win on time forfeit (13C). Rule 15C goes on to explain that a scoresheet is not necessary to win on time in a sudden death time control.

Should some readers want to over-emphasize the word “may” in the above quotation, let me make some points. First, if not keeping score can make it impossible to claim a 3-fold repetition (which could be easily reconstructed!), then how much more so a 50 move claim? If lack of proper scorekeeping can make it impossible to claim a time forfeit win (with only a requirement that the right number of moves have been made), how much more so a 50 move claim? A 50 move claim needs to prove both the number of moves, and also that no pawn moves nor captures have occurred. So if the standard for an adequate scoresheet to prove a forfeit win is described in 13C7, shouldn’t the standard for a 50 move rule claim (requiring more information) be as high? I say yes on principle, but it is still necessary to consult the rule book.

3. The 13C7 definition is universal. It doesn’t say, “for the purposes of making 13C claims only.” The only reason the definition is contained within Rule 13 is that there was no need to define it previously. Note that 15D cites 13C7 to define an incomplete scoresheet. Rule 14C9 also cites 13C7 as being the standard for a scoresheet being adequate to demonstrate a 14C claim. This is evidence that the definition of an incomplete scoresheet is absolute, and should be applied universally for all claims requiring an adequate scoresheet.

For those who argue that 13C7 does not apply to 14F claims, I ask why not? If it is the standard of proof for 13C and 14C claims, which require less information, why would that same standard not apply to 14F? Also, we must consider 15B. “Doing so, however, may make it impossible to claim a draw by triple occurence of position (14C) or the 50 move rule (14F) or a win on time forfeit (13C).” So the importance of an adequate scoresheet in reaffirmed for these three claims. Why is 13C7 not specifically cited under 14F? Perhaps because it is obvious that a lower standard of proof would not apply to a situation requiring more proof. Or wait, maybe it is…How about 14Fd, which states that a player must have an adequate scoresheet to challenge his opponent’s version of the moves? It defines adequate by 13C7 (so it does apply in Rule 14F!). Certainly, if the 13C7 standard of “adequate” applies to someone challenging the claim, it applies to someone making the claim first and foremost!

So why is the phrase “may make it impossible” used? Because exceptions apply when specifically noted in the rules. For example, if 14C8 applies in a 3x position draw, an adequate scoresheet would be unnecessary. I do not see an exception to needing an adequate scoresheet noted under 14F.

I do not see anything in the rules that would allow a tournament director to help reconstruct a scoresheet to validate a draw claim. The tournament director should have ruled based on whether the player claiming the draw could prove his claim with an adequate scoresheet. Since the definition 13C7 is cited within the 14F rule, it is logical that the definition still applies within that rule. 15B also indicates as much.

So no offense to the director involved, nor to those of you with different opinions, but I believe this draw claim was mishandled. I applaud Alex for recounting the situation in this Forum, thereby inviting scrutiny. I believe the resulting discussion has been beneficial to my understanding of the rules, and hopefully for others as well.

Humbly submitted,

Tom Hales

[eastside]

First, a note. I don’t agree with your position, but I think it’s well stated, and hits at an inconsistency in the rules that causes players and directors headaches.

@W.T. Hales

1. A basic idea: “Players excused from scorekeeping are not entitled to make claims which require scoresheets.” This doesn’t apply directly to this situation, but it is part of a broad idea. The question now becomes what is the standard for keeping score? On the one hand, complete lack of recording is unacceptable. So what is the standard to be considered acceptable?

Generally speaking, rule 15A covers this, I think. Director discretion should be applied when evaluating possible 15A violations, and the circumstances should be taken into account. As an extreme example, you probably wouldn’t zealously enforce this in the K-1 section of the National Elementary, where almost all games are done within 30-45 minutes every round and the competitors are usually between the ages of 4 and 7.

@W.T. Hales

3. The 13C7 definition is universal. It doesn’t say, “for the purposes of making 13C claims only.” The only reason the definition is contained within Rule 13 is that there was no need to define it previously. Note that 15D cites 13C7 to define an incomplete scoresheet. Rule 14C9 also cites 13C7 as being the standard for a scoresheet being adequate to demonstrate a 14C claim. This is evidence that the definition of an incomplete scoresheet is absolute, and should be applied universally for all claims requiring an adequate scoresheet.

The core of your observations seems to revolve around the idea that the 13C7 definition is universal. I do not believe that is true. I believe it applies to cases where the rules specifically require a “reasonably complete” scoresheet needed. Only one part of 14F has such a requirement.

@W.T. Hales

For those who argue that 13C7 does not apply to 14F claims, I ask why not? If it is the standard of proof for 13C and 14C claims, which require less information, why would that same standard not apply to 14F? Also, we must consider 15B. “Doing so, however, may make it impossible to claim a draw by triple occurence of position (14C) or the 50 move rule (14F) or a win on time forfeit (13C).” So the importance of an adequate scoresheet in reaffirmed for these three claims. Why is 13C7 not specifically cited under 14F? Perhaps because it is obvious that a lower standard of proof would not apply to a situation requiring more proof. Or wait, maybe it is…How about 14Fd, which states that a player must have an adequate scoresheet to challenge his opponent’s version of the moves? It defines adequate by 13C7 (so it does apply in Rule 14F!). Certainly, if the 13C7 standard of “adequate” applies to someone challenging the claim, it applies to someone making the claim first and foremost!

This is not 14Fd. This is 14F4d. The distinction is important.

@W.T. Hales

I do not see anything in the rules that would allow a tournament director to help reconstruct a scoresheet to validate a draw claim. The tournament director should have ruled based on whether the player claiming the draw could prove his claim with an adequate scoresheet. Since the definition 13C7 is cited within the 14F rule, it is logical that the definition still applies within that rule. 15B also indicates as much.

13C7 is intended to clarify the phrase “reasonably complete scoresheet” in 13C. No such verbiage exists in 14F, except in the specific case of 14F4d, which only applies to the specific circumstances specified in 14F4.

The only reason 13C7 is cited in 14F has to do with the topic of 14F4. In 14F4 cases, there is a lack of notation by the claimant, and the director has been asked to count moves toward a 14F claim. So, if the opponent in a 14F4 situation wants to challenge the director count, that player must have an adequate scoresheet - hence, the specific reference to 13C7. If a player is not under 5 minutes in a sudden-death time control, 14F4 doesn’t apply…which means, in my reading, that the director has freedom in 14F to use other means to establish the validity of the claim.

Having said that, I would dismiss, on a prima facie basis, a 14F claim made by a claimant who didn’t have a scoresheet that showed 50 moves had been made.