I have had the experince in multiple scholastic events where positions were clearly locked and drawn, but one player refused to recognize that ( or couldn’t understand due to inexperience and inadequate knowledge of the game). The other player was under 5 minutes in time, called me to the board to indicate that he was counting for 50 moves, and started by making tally marks on a sheet. I find that fine as the pawns are clearly locked - or there are no pawns in the board at all. This occurs often when it is a K v K-R ending which the K-R player has no idea how to finish or something similar.
Rule 14F is convoluted mess in regards to how it is written. Although it doesn’t specifically mention 13C7, I don’t believe this was some intentional omission to give directors wide latitude solving the claim. The latitude directors are are allowed is described by 14F4. According to 14F4d, the opponent may challenge either the moves on the claimant’s scoresheet before the director/deputy count…etc. Since this is only mentioned under 14F4, does this mean a player has no right to challenge what is on the claimant’s scoresheet unless the TD intends to institute move counting? I think not.
Rule 14F is the “50 move rule,” must it cite Rule 7 “Definition of the move” in order for us to know exactly what is meant by move? 
By the same token, I don’t think 14F1 must explain what is meant by demonstrate, a term previously used to describe proving your claim with a scoresheet. I cannot think of any reasonable way for a player to demonstrate his 14F claim other than with a scoresheet, and the methods described in 14F4. I do not think it is reasonable to expect a tournament director to attempt to reconstruct an incomplete scoresheet to help justify a draw claim. Nor do I think a claimant should be allowed to reconstruct it themselves “off the clock” (even though this is not mentioned in 14F as it is in 13C).
A simple triple occurence of position claim requires a scoresheet conforming to 13C7 (see 14C9), unless a special circumstance described by 14C8 is met. By the same logic, a 14F claim should require no less proof, unless the conditions described by 14F4 are met. A triple occurence should be very easy to recreate, and to figure out whether it occurred. But that is not the director’s job. It is up to the claimant to demonstrate their claim with an adequate scoresheet.
I think it is straining at a gnat and swallowing a camel to not see the obvious application of 13C7 in regards to 14F claims. It is obvious that 13C, 14C, and 14F claims require scoresheet proof, except as specifically noted within the particular rules (See 15B).
I guess there is good news here. If I am correct, I may apply 13C7 to 14F draw claims. If I am incorrect, then I can use my discretion to do the same thing. 
I do not intend to get into the scoresheet reconstruction business.
I do respect Boyd Reed’s opinion on this matter, and appreciate his input. Maybe sometimes there is more than one reasonable way to interpret a rule.
Humbly submitted,
Tom Hales
The verbiage of 14F4 is not some generically applied description of latitude. It is there to allow latitude in the specific case where one player is excused from taking notation.
I don’t understand where you get the idea that scoresheet reconstruction is considered outside a TD’s purview. Actually, tournament directors should help reconstruct scoresheets when necessary. If scoresheet reconstruction is required, there is obviously a dispute. A TD had better get involved when that dispute happens.
This statement is an argument for changing the rules. Such an argument, properly codified, would likely find some support with the Rules Committee. But I think it is absolutely not the way 14F should be exercised under the current rules.
You are making the same claim that was made a while ago on this thread. It’s no more true now than it was then.
The director’s primary job in resolving any claim is to come to an accurate disposition of said claim. This sometimes means doing things like reviewing and - where necessary - reconstructing game scores. There was an excellent example of this at the Manhattan Open recently, where three directors - two FIDE international arbiters, and probably the most active USCF NTD over the past 10 years - spent several minutes on a notation-related claim that had to be reconstructed using a MonRoi, a paper scoresheet and player input.
Also, in his autobiography, Mikhail Tal describes a game against Adamski where, with the help of an arbiter, the game score leading up to a time-control scramble was reconstructed. The reconstruction proved that his opponent lost on time. There are many other practical examples, including Alex Relyea’s, but the point is clear. Reconstructing game scores is not uncommon - and, depending on the situation, is a necessity for the TD.
What you want is not the same as what is provided in the rules. I apologize if that is inconvenient, but it is what it is. The chief advisor on the 5th edition of the USCF rulebook has posted on this thread concerning whether 13C7 applies to 14F.
Whether I agree with your desire to apply 13C7 to 14F situations is another issue. However, if you want 13C7 to apply as the standard for 14F claims, I suggest you work to change 14F. As it is currently written, 14F claims don’t have the same standard of proof as 13C claims.
I would suggest, then, that you also not get into the 13C/14F resolution business. Otherwise, you will sometimes have to play through a scoresheet. And when you do that, you are essentially reconstructing a game in progress, especially when players skip half-moves, or whole moves, or have other scoresheet issues. You must reconstruct the proper moves to have any chance of accurately resolving the claim. A complete reading of 13C7 and 13C8 should be sufficient to demonstrate this.
Greetings,
I am beginning to think that a good deal of the difference between NTD Reed and myself boils down to semantics.
I agree. My contention is that 14F4 is explained thoroughly to give directors latitude they don’t otherwise have with other 14F claims.
To me, there is a difference between playing through a game score to reconstruct the game and the idea of reconstructing a scoresheet. The first step of resolving a 14F claim is to see if the scoresheet is adequate to support the claim. (After, of course, seeing whether the opponent will agree to draw). If a scoresheet is inadequate, there is no dispute. I simply rule that the claimant has provided insufficient proof of his claim. If you want to say that 13C7 is not the required burden of proof, I can defer to your judgment on that. However, if the scoresheet cannot demonstrate the claim , I don’t think it is fair for a TD to help the person bring the scoresheet into compliance.
I agree, but the accurate disposition of a claim doesn’t always mean figuring out exactly what happened in the game. The TD should only review the game if the scoresheet passes muster. If the scoresheet passes muster, then the TD must review the game.
In the particular case first described in this thread, I would have ruled the claim invalid based on the scoresheet being inadequate to prove it. So two minutes to the opponent’s clock. However, since the claimant clearly wanted to invoke the 50 move rule, and 14F4 applied, I would have announced my intention to count the moves. If the position was as I understand it, the claimant could have most likely made the 50 moves. The count would begin by taking into account moves already made and listed on the scoresheet (14F4a). Filling in missing moves would have nothing to do with it. I would begin from the earliest spot where there were no gaps. Of course, I would need to verify no pawn moves or captures by playing through the moves. If the opponent disagreed with claimant’s notation, he would have the right to provide his own 13C7 scoresheet to prove otherwise. If there is a discrepancy between the two, then and only then would a TD need to go so far as to figure out how the game was actually played.
Note that if 14F4 did not apply, I would have denied the claim, and then informed the claimant of his right to use his opponent’s scoresheet on his time in order to make corrections. If he wanted to submit a 50 move claim after making corrections, that would be his decision.
A 14C claimant could also use his opponent’s scoresheet to bring his scoresheet into 13C7 compliance for non sudden death time pressure claims. According to 14C9, a 13C7 compliant scoresheet is necessary proof for 3x occurence claims in all cases except sudden death 14C8.
The claimant in this case made multiple bad choices. First, playing without a delay clock. Second, not keeping an adequate score. Third, he waited too long to announce his 50 move intent once sudden death time pressure kicked in. In my opinion, the TD involved went too far in reconstructing the scoresheet. If you don’t want to apply 13C7, then I’m not sure what standard should be applied to consider it adequate. It is evident from 15B that an inadequate scoresheet can be the basis for denying a 14F claim.
If 14F claims don’t have the same standard of proof, is the standard of proof higher or lower? There is more for a claimant to prove in a 14F claim than in a 13C or 14C claim, and each of these cite 13C7 as their standard for adequacy. It seems to me that (correct me if I’m wrong), you are implying that the standard for a 14F claim is lower. I see no reason for the standard to be lower. I agree that under 14F4 the standard is lower.
I do not see this enforcement of 14F as being overly strict: players have many ways around the 13C7 standard. In non sudden death, how hard is it for the player to bring his scoresheet into compliance using his opponent’s scoresheet? Even if this is not possible, once sudden death kicks in, his scoresheet can be used under 14F4a.
I have already resolved such claims. 13C8 only comes into effect if the standard of 13C7 has been met. If the 13C7 standard is not met, the claim should be rejected without further ado 13C11. Even 13C8 does not require a major investigation in all cases 13C10.
So I guess the bottom line here is what standard should TDs use in the case of 14F (not 14F4)? I have not heard a definitive answer on this from NTD Reed. Deciding it on a case by case basis would be unfair: the same standard should apply to all.
The 13C7 standard is not inappropriate. Players are free to correct their own scoresheets on their own time. What if they can’t, due to their opponent not having a correct score? If both players scoresheets are woefully inaccurate, then on what basis could I possibly rule on 14F? This method just saves the TD a lot of time, and avoids meddling where I’m not needed.
I disagree with the basic idea of using someone’s scoresheet to prove their opponent’s claim. This is highly intrusive and seems unfair. It can be used to disprove a claim, but only if it is offered as such.
So my disagreement with how the presented 14F claim case was handled is this: First, the claim should have been denied. Second, the opponent’s scoresheet should have only been used to disprove the claim, not to help verify it. Third, if 14F4 was to be used, only the actual moves on the scoresheet should have counted toward a move count…not something later filled in, either with or without TD assistance.
Now, have I made everyone mad? 
I have a lot of respect for my fellow TDs; it is a difficult and often thankless job. The rules are not always crystal clear. It is good to have this forum to discuss how to best interpret and enforce them.
Humbly submitted,
Tom Hales
You might want to chek out the bottom of page 38 in the rulebook under 14. THE DRAWN GAME; i.e., “All draw claims are also draw offers.” So the first step in all draw claims (including this one) should be to inform the opponent that he/she has been offered a draw.
BTW, this has been an interesting discussion. I am going to side with Boyd on this one.
Greetings,
I believe the exact quote of me should be, “The first step of resolving a 14F claim is to see if the scoresheet is adequate to support the claim. (After, of course, seeing whether the opponent will agree to draw).” Maybe I should have just called it the second step, but to me there is nothing to resolve if the draw is agreed. Of course I realize all draw claims are first draw offers.
I would be interested to see what standard you would use to consider a 14F claim valid. I’m not arguing that 14F forces a director to use 13C7, only that such use would be logical. I do not recall any standard being offered by NTD Reed for a scoresheet other than at least 50 moves having been made.
I’m also not sure exactly what it means when you say that you side with Boyd on this one. NTD Reed has not replied to my latest posting, nor has he exactly stated that using 13C7 as a standard is somehow wrong. He has stated that the standard is not the same, without giving an explanation as to why, or what standard should be used.
I am not here to play word games, nor hide and seek: I have a very important tournament coming up, and there will be many GMs and IMs. I am very serious about doing my utmost to know the rules, and interpret them correctly. So serious that I am re-reading them, and also scanning the forums for rules issues.
I need to know if my method of handling the issue is wrong, as described in my previous post, and if so, why. I also need to know what would be considered a proper method, and what standard should I apply to a scoresheet in a 14F claim.
Perhaps what NTD Reed is trying to point out is that there wasn’t something techically wrong with the way Alex handled it. What I need to understand is if my way of handling it would be overturned on appeal.
Humbly Submitted,
Tom Hales
If semantics is another way of saying that you’re right when you’re wrong, then you might be right.
I guess I’m confused as to what Mr. Hales thinks I did wrong. I didn’t add any moves to White’s scoresheet. What I did was make sure that we could figure out what was played from what was written on his scoresheet. He told me what was written on his scoresheet, which was often impossible (just like my scoresheet would be in a 118 move game) and we changed it a little to come up with what was played, for example Qf3 instead of Qf6. This is permissible even by the TD tip under 13C7.
Alex Relyea
If you review the thread, you’ll see that I’ve discussed this in several places.
I will note that I rushed my last reply, because I was trying to get to bed prior to being dragged around a local amusement park this morning. To clarify, I would want to see a scoresheet where, at minimum, the last 50 recorded moves show no obvious pawn move or capture.
Again, if you review the thread, you’ll see that I’ve said that 13C7 just does not apply to 14F claims in numerous places - including in the last post I made here.
It is highly commendable that you’re taking your preparation so seriously. If you are going to be working a FIDE-rated event, you probably need to get familiar with the FLC - and be prepared to be much more proactive than the USCF rules call for.
What has been said throughout this thread is that directors have more latitude to resolve 14F claims than they do to resolve 13C claims. The method I prefer to use in 14F is as follows.
(1) Inform opponent of claim.
(2) Opponent (for sake of this argument) disagrees.
(3) Review claimant scoresheet.
(4) If claimant scoresheet can’t at least survive initial inspection (i.e.: there’s a capture or pawn move in the last 50 moves), claim is rejected.
(4b) If claimant scoresheet can survive initial inspection, scoresheet is reviewed on a separate board (or on the game board, after noting the current game position on a separate piece of paper and getting both players to agree that the position you noted is correct).
What I like about Alex Relyea’s handling of his 14F claim is that he really worked to find out whether the draw claim was valid. Such director effort in a dispute serves ALL players in a tournament well.
IIRC, I addressed this before in this thread. But I’ll restate it here. IMO, Alex Relyea handled his 14F claim correctly, with a full understanding of what he could and could not do to resolve the issue under USCF rules.
If you use your preferred method, and get appealed, I think you have an excellent chance of being overturned.
BTW, I didn’t respond to your previous post, because I really don’t have anything new to add. I’ve already stated what I think, and other directors have as well. Rehashing the same points of view doesn’t seem beneficial.
I believe that a good rule of thumb for a TD is to keep things very, very simple…until a dispute arises, at which point a TD should get very, very fancy. When a dispute is brought to me for resolution, my process and solution, whatever they are, must abide fully by the rules, and must ensure that the game is either continued fairly or ended fairly.
Greetings,
When I first read this thread, my impression was that there were a lot of missing moves, and that the 10 year old was allowed to fill these in from memory. I’m not sure how I got that idea, perhaps I picked it up from other people’s comments.
My original take on this was that 13C7, being the only written standard of a complete scoresheet, would be the most appropriate standard to apply. I am beginning to see that not only is this not
required, it is not the appropriate way to handle it. What is hard for me to understand is why a 13C7 scoresheet is required for a 3x occurrence of position draw, but not for a 50 mover. It seems inconsistent, and it’s a big part of the reason I thought applying 13C7 to 14F was the logical way to go.
Please accept my apologies if I offended you. The good news is, your post created a valuable discussion, and I am sure that I and others have benefited from it.
Sincerely,
Tom Hales
Greetings,
I want to say to NTD Reed that I sincerely appreciate the time and effort he put into this discussion.
I have gotten several ideas from this thread, and have changed my mind in one key area.
First, a key idea: that I should be extremely careful about reading anything into a rule that is not there. That is the error I made in applying 13C7 to 14F. I still do not see why 13C7 applies to 3x occurrence of position draws, but not to 50 movers. Regardless, I should not have assumed that it would.
I am glad that 13C7 does not apply, because I personally don’t feel that such a high standard needs to be met. (But then again, I don’t understand the 3x requirement).
So I am now convinced that I should not apply 13C7, but should use common sense as to whether the scoresheet proves the claim. The method described by NTD Reed makes sense.
The one time I specifically remember a 14F claim, the player was not recording moves at all. I instructed him that he would need to record his moves to make such a claim, and he began to do so. The game ended in a draw agreement.
I no longer think Alex mishandled the claim, based upon my change of mind, and also a better understanding of what he did. I have covered this in a separate post.
Sincerely,
Tom Hales
You don’t use it because it is incorrect. It is incorrect because it is rule 13 and you are dealing with 14 and the 2 rules simply have different standards. It has a different standard because the circumstances are completely different. 50 move situations often occur with locked pawns - or no pawns on the board. 3 fold repitition of position may occur stretched out over a period of multiple moves and is frequently less obvious.
Thanks for clarifying the distinctions that make 3x repetition deserve its higher standard of proof.
As noted in previous posts, I have been persuaded that 13C7 should not apply to 14F claims.
Sincerely,
Tom Hales