This is an interesting case because you’ve already set a precedence (a bad one) by not enforcing the rule in previous tournaments. It’s probably a little harsh to punish the “regular” with a 2 minute deduction. After all, he is playing according to established house rules, but it’s also not fair to the new guy to just blow it off. I would probably give a warning.
I’ve done that on occasion, and those games sometimes get picked up by Col. Sicherman in New York State. In fact, if you google Smythescript, the name Sicherman will probably come up.
Bill Smythe
Thanks for the replies guys. Lots of good information. I did apologize that it appeared that his opponent had a slight advantage since he was not aware of the “house rules” as it were.
I will say that I still do not agree with most people’s viewpoints. I think that if you don’t want to take notation, then don’t, but when you get screwed out of a win or a repetition or whatever, you will learn your lesson. I always take notation…for my own sake…and never concern myself with what my opponent does. In fact I usually try to visualize my opponent as not even present at the board.
I will say that I liked the idea of making the opponent catch up the notation UNTIL he reached the 5 minute mark. I did offer this as a possible option, but when I realized this would not satisfy the player’s request, I felt I had no choice but to stick by the understood, though not clearly communicated, rules.
To the person who said that I am just asking to have two players both claim wins and neither takes notation, that situation would be very easy to handle. If neither can provide proof, and they both want to claim a victory, then I would be forced to double forfeit and they would quickly learn their lesson about not taking notation. Understand that I express it is required and I express the pitfalls of not taking it. It is however understood that, at least as of now, we will not actively punish those who refuse or stop taking notation.
While I believe discretion is often a good thing, I have found in the months I have been TDing that the rules seem to be lacking. If the rulebook is going to say that notation is required, then the repercussions of not following that rule should be clear and concise. While there are certain rules and situations where TD discretion is a good thing, there are also many other situations where it is a hindrance.
It is good to hear many others opinions though, and I will certainly take them to heart as I grow in my role as a TD. I would happily debate this topic with any TD, as I have given it much thought, but I am also fair enough to admit that I will consider all sides and continue to monitor this thread and keep an open mind to a better way to resolve this situation. Thanks everyone and I would love to see this conversation keep going and get as many opinions as possible.
(Edit: The time situation when the clocks were paused and I was consulted was 5:17 for the offender and 6:54 for the one bringing it to my attention).
Tim,
Thanks for the reply. If a player does not like the way I enforce rules, and wants to file a compaint, then he can have at it. I do not NEED to direct chess tournaments. I do it mostly because no one else is doing it in the St. Louis area on a regular basis. If someone felt the need to run me off, they would just be ruining it for everyone else. Believe me, I wouldn’t lose a wink of sleep if I was not alowed to run chess tournaments anymore. I understand your points and respect your opinion, but understand that the threat of someone complaining over my interpretation of the rules, especially in this scenario, does not scare me.
Ray
It seems to me a simple announcement or handout regarding local rules variations would make everyone happy as well as being fair to all the players. Heck there are still TDs out there that announce that they will not enforce rule 14H–the so called “no losing chances” rule. The point is that by making the announcement they are making sure all the players are aware of the same set of rules variations.
One thing to consider is that you are actually doing a disservice to your club members. When they go play in rated events elsewhere they will be at a disadvantage because they aren’t use to keeping score with their rated games.
At some point you have to draw a line. Why not forget about Touch Move while you are at it?
In this case the player apparently kept score for quite awhile before stopping. So they know how. Were they losing? Did they decide that keeping score no longer mattered because they were lost anyway?
I think it’s good that Ray is making chess “happen” in STL (go Cards). I also think that all his problems are solved when he announces notation-not-required as a variation. No disservice if the club members know it’s a variation. Heck…ask any middle schooler…half of the scholastic tournaments require notation, and the other half don’t. Much more confusing than a “standard” house variation.
I feel for the guy that was visiting, but I doubt he’ll forget to ask about variations in the future. If I play a pickup basketball game outside of my home court, you can be sure I’m asking what fouls are cool to call and what fouls will get you punk’d.
Gee, this seems pretty flexible to me. There can’t be many other nationally sanctioned games or sports that allow you to change several of the rules just as long you announce it to everyone in advance. 
Fair enough. You also do not NEED to USCF rate your tournaments. Run an unrated tournament and you can change any and all rules you want.
Well, in coach-pitch little league (or is it pre-little league) the coaches can only throw three pitches and if the ball isn’t hit fair it is a strike-out. People know that in advance so they aren’t surprised.
Of course, if a team joined such a league without being informed of it there would be a major protest when it was “sprung” on them.
Italics are mine.
If no variation is announced, it isn’t an opinion thing. 15A states players are required to keep score, and cites 13I (Refusal to Obey Rules) as the clear and concise punishment (i.e. loss of the game). As for discretion, the TD tip for 13I suggests a warning, then 2min added to oppononent’s clock, then loss of the game.
There’s a continuum in variations, with no bright-line rule – minor variations that do not need to be announced, things that might affect a player’s decision to enter which have to be in the advance publicity, and major variations that need approval from the TDCC. Not requiring players to keep score is well up in group 2, and might even belong in group 3. It’s really a bad idea, and the originator of this thread ought to consider the fact that not a single TD has agreed with him on it.
emphatically not agreed with him on it in fact
Well, doesn’t rule 15A1c put a pretty serious dent in this requirement? It says that “Beginners who have not learned to keep score may be excused from scorekeeping, at the director’s discretion.” Obviously, in this case, it is clear that the player knew how to keep score. But what if a player claims that they are a beginner and don’t know how to keep score? A TD will normally have no way to objectively evaluate this claim.
The tip included with this rule recommends that 5% of the total game time, up to 10 minutes, be deducted for a player who is being excused from keeping score under rule 15A1. But if it takes 2-3 seconds to record each half move, as someone in this thread suggested, it seems to me that a 5% deduction isn’t adequate. For a G/30 contest, for example, a 5% deduction would amount to 1.5 minutes (rounding to 2 minutes on an analog clock). Even the 2 minute deduction for an analog clock would only provide adequate compensation for not recording 20-30 moves. It seems to me that the best way to insure that rule 15A1 isn’t abused would be to increase the time deduction for players who are being excused from recording. If the “standard” deduction overestimated rather than underestimated the actual recording time, then players would effectively be discouraged from claiming they didn’t know how to record games if they really did know how, and would also be encouraged to learn how to record games if they really didn’t know how.
In the first place, most of the time the TD will have a pretty good idea whether such a claim is legitimate or not. (If the guy has played in more than one tournament before, he doesn’t qualify as a beginner in my book.) In the second place, I doubt I would ever excuse an adult of normal intelligence from keeping score on the basis of this rule. It was intended for kids who barely know how to write yet, since the law cannot compel an impossibility. A TD who “exercises his discretion” to allow this without a legitimate reason is demonstrating that he doesn’t have any.
It’s worth noting that a scoresheet doesn’t have to be correct and it doesn’t have to be legible. If it isn’t, the player is forfeiting the right to use it for or against various claims, but that’s his problem. I find it hard to believe that anyone out of the first grade could claim with a straight face that he couldn’t write something on each line of his scoresheet. If he doesn’t want to – tell him to play Quick Chess instead.
Since you don’t want to enforce the rule and you are playing at G/30 (set at G/25 with the 5 sec delay), the obvious solution is to make it G/29 (either with a 3 sec delay or set at G/26 with a 3 sec delay) and then the players won’t be required to keep score.
In practice would it be that difficult to enforce legibility rules? I’m speaking of an ordinary adult here who doesn’t have a disability that would make it impossible.
John, you seem to be advocating that it’s okay for a player to scribble x’s and o’s on the scoresheet as long as they are writing something. In theory, per the rules, your first sentence above is incorrect.
If the scoresheet isn’t legible, the player may not be able to press any complaints about it, but at least the effort to try to keep track of moves is there.
I’ve seen a few cases in which the scoresheet was in a notation system I did not understand.
Eric Schiller claims to have kept a scoresheet in a game against Jerry Hanken in Thai, knowing that Jerry would GRAB his scoresheet after meeting the first time control to fill in his own scoresheet, something Eric did to Jerry in a previous game.
My experience has been that a number of adults who keep scoresheets in other languages tend often not to speak English very well, either, so communicating with them about their scoresheet is problematical.
hmm… wonder if there’s any interest among the delegates to amend 15A to include English-only, and to define further what “a complete and reasonably accurate scoresheet” (found elsewhere in the rules) means. Maybe that would be a problem for those who don’t speak English, though, I don’t know.
If John is correct, despite 15A, then it’s no better than simply placing check marks in the columns, and that would still hold an attention advantage over the opponent who’s keeping score the proper way.
Any interest in bringing this into the Issues Forum?
I once saw a player keeping score in Figurine Notation…in ink no less!
Kinda messy…