I would like to get opinion on the legality of implementing a specific “house rule.” That rule would allow a player to choose not to annotate a game. However the player would be penalized for not notating in the following manner.
Any claim requiring use of notation would not be eligible to the player. For example, a draw claim regarding repitition of position.
If the game is being played with a clock, the player would be penalized XX amount of time for not notating. If a specific example is needed to give an opinion on this, the example would be G/30 (5 second delay) with a 5 minute penalty for not notating.
Please note, this rule is intended to apply to players who are capable of notating, not those unable to notate.
I realize some people may not approve of this “house rule,” but what I really want to know is, is this legal to implement under current USCF rules?
If the rule is legal, I would further like an opinion on a specific example.
Given a penalty of 5 minutes, and a time limit of G/30 with 5 second delay, would this game be eligible for rating as a “normal” game or would it only qualify for “quick rating.” The players (assuming one player notated and one didn’t) would have 30 minutes and 25 minutes respectively to make their moves (plus up to 5 seconds per move). I have seen examples given where players who refused to notate were threatened with having their clock set to 5 minutes. I did not see any mention that this might change how the game was rated, so my tendency would be to extrapolate the example I gave would also be able to result in no change of rating category.
The question concerns failure to record (notate) a game in progress. Fifty-some years ago another player told me of an Orthodox Jewish player who was unable to notate his game on the Sabbath because that was work, whereas the game itself was not work. In that instance, another person wasdelegated to record the game for him. HTH.
I do not grasp your distinction. A game being played was not notated by the player. The occurrence was circa 1955. I do not know what rule, if any, may have applied at that time, but if it was an exception to the rule, it was permitted by the TD before the game began.
In the case of the orthodox Jewish person the opponent, one of two things can happen;
The orthodox player AND his opponent must be given the same consideration. If one gets help in notation that can be used for claims then so does the opponent.
The orthodox person does not take notation–they suffer a time loss (Why? Their opponents must take time to record the game while they gain time for not doing so–that is an unfair advantage)–they can not make claims that require notation as proof.
If there is no reason for not taking notation, just stubbornness, then that has been discussed in other threads.
The key question here seems to be (at least to me) at what point do changes to the game via preadvertising result in it being unrateable? Say you advertise no scorekeeping necessary at all. Rateable? Scholastics get away with it.
I think as long as the rules changes don’t affect the fundamental strategies of the game, ignoring any time considerations (but see below), the game should be ratable, providing it falls within acceptable time controls. (Smash/5 games, where each player has five seconds per move, are not USCF ratable time controls, for example.)
Taking notation (or not) does not affect the strategies of the game, though it does create situations where certain rules may not be applicable in the absence of a valid scoresheet.
This means that thematic events should be ratable, but piece odds games would not, nor would games where castling or en passant capture is prohibited, nor ones where stalemate is considered a loss for the stalemated player, as those change would all affect the strategies of the game.
Of course if the thematic opening is one that is a known win for one side, then presumably nobody who knows that would want to enter that thematic event.
Note that under my first sentence, time odds games would be ratable. I believe this was covered elsewhere…
There used to be a flyer from the USCF listing ratable time controls which also said that time odds games were not ratable. I think that it also said that both players must have the same amount of time, but that flyer was published years ago, long before we had delay/increment time controls and assorted rules concerning them, including small adjustments to the starting time on the clock. (I think that flyer was written back when 30/30 was the fastest ratable time control. It probably hasn’t been available from the USCF for a good 25 years, though I believe there are still copies of it in files at the USCF office.)
This is a portion of the rules that probably needs to be reviewed and updated by the Rules Committee, the EB or the Delegates. I don’t know the last time that the Rules Committee, the EB or the Delegates specifically addressed time odds.
Thematic opening events have been permitted, but in extreme cases the office should be able to decline to do this. A starting position in which one side has a strong advantage can’t be accurately rated as there will be far more “upsets” in such an event than usual. Also, if anyone wants to start in the middle game at move 20 or endgame at move 50 and specify “thematic” moves to reach such a position, I don’t think this should be allowed.
Time odds games have been USCF rated with time controls such as white G/70, black G/80, which is fine, reducing the usual white advantage but causing no inaccuracy. If someone wanted to do white G/30, black G/90 though, I don’t think that should be ratable. Also time odds based on rating, an interesting format that I have used for quick games, should not be ratable as the expected result would be for the lower rated players to gain points and higher rated to lose them.
GM Leonid Yudasin does not keep score on the Sabbath, and various TDs have allowed him to play without doing so. I believe they usually subtract 5 minutes from him at G/60 or faster and 10 minutes at slower controls. His opponents have the option of doing the same, but I am not aware that anyone ever has.
Many years ago there was a player in NYC tournaments who did not keep score or punch the clock on the Sabbath. He asked his opponents to punch the clock for him, and they always agreed, though if they got into time pressure they were not always in a hurry to start their own clocks. Once I was walking around the tournament room and came to this player’s game, and he had just moved, had a crushing position with various threats, and his clock was still running. His opponent noticed me and said angrily, “I ain’t pushing his clock any more!” So I pushed the clock once for the player, and his opponent resigned.
As you noted, there have been threads about the opposite side of this coin - players who can take notation, yet refuse to. There are several creative solutions a TD can employ, ranging from a five minute deduction to compensate for not writing, to reducing a player’s time to five minutes remaining so they don’t have to take notation, to flatly forfeiting someone for deliberate refusal to obey the rules. (Religious exemptions notwithstanding.)
I haven’t yet seen a thread asking this side of a question. I’d suggest that this would qualify as a major variation, and would have to be advertised in advance. I believe the ‘average player’ showing up to a tournament expects that notation will be taken by both sides, and my limited experience predicts there would indeed be players so ingrained into taking notation that they wouldn’t participate if nobody else was.
That said, I think it’s asking for trouble. For example, you would almost throw out all illegal position claims. Or, at least, you’ll be relying on both players to agree on move sequences to establish illegal moves and whether they occurred within the last ten moves. And again, you will need consensus of both players on a 3-fold repetition unless the position is so frozen that there is only one move pair available to repeat. While probably not a problem in a G/30, the TD must also then be called over and witness a 50-move draw.
And I won’t go to what happens when a player appeals a decision…
Many of those problems might be faced with the last five minutes of a sudden death control, anyway. But me, I’ve got better ways to give myself headaches if I need them. That said, other heads would have to say “you can” - I don’t see why you couldn’t, though.
To your second question, I believe a section can only be rated under type of time control. So you’d rate it as normal to whatever controls are in effect, as advertised. (At least, I’m pretty sure you wouldn’t set it as an extra-rated game.)
It seems to me the original poster’s initial suggestion falls on the fence between (B) advance notice required in all pre-tournament publicity and (C) variation not permitted.
I think the last clause by itself should be enough. I mean, it’s a logical consequence: If your opponent keeps score and you can’t be bothered to, and there’s a dispute that requires reference to score sheets to resolve, then your opponent is automatically taken at his word, and your side of the dispute is dismissed.
You might be able to gain greater compliance by telling people, “If you choose not to keep score, you’re giving your opponent license to cheat – a cooked book is more credible than no book at all.”
Could work. A rules lawyer would point out Chapter 5, player right 10, on page 261. “All players have the right to expect: … 10. That upon request, a tournament director will initiate the appeals process.” The player still has a right to appeal, even if the appeal is immediately denied. I believe that’s bedrock to prevent capricious decisions on the part of a single TD.
Maybe sentence two to read, “Further, I understand all claims I make requiring a scoresheet will be denied. I understand my consent to this may negate any appeal I might make in which a scoresheet would be necessary.”
Still, given my druthers, I’d require scorekeeping. Witness:
I had a lesson in this, this afternoon. I was volunteering as a TD at an unrated, closed tournament. Not rated, and scoresheets were not required at organizer’s direction. I get called over to a board. Black was on move but White initiated the claim, because White had managed to get two dark bishops. The clock’s move counter read 15 moves.
Did the mistake occur 10 moves ago? More? Less? At board setup?
I almost ruled, “Play on…” But looking more closely at the board, the players were in the very early opening - there was no way the game was past move 10. It became clear that the two players had punched the clock back and forth a few times trying to get it to stop. It also became very clear which Bishop was off color (the dark square bishop was still on c1 and was stll locked by the pawns.) So, with Black’s consent, we corrected the bishop from c3 to d3, then played on.
It would have been ever so much easier if they’d been keeping score. And, yeah, being a TD ain’t always easy - I’m not asking for sympathy. But it was still a complication that score-keeping would have quickly remedied.
But after we recognize and temporarily discard our unconscious assumptions, perhaps a better question is…
“Why are not all rated chess games bid for time, to eliminate the unfair advantage that the traditional rules keep giving to White?”.
In elite grandmaster chess, there might be three arguments why time-bidding is not routine (in long games)…
[1] Without one color having an inherent advantage given by the rules, the already enormous 60% draw rate would climb even higher.
[2] Any reduction in thinking time would reduce the quality of chess played.
It would increase the rate of game-ruining blunders, or at least decrease the rate of clever play that requires long think times. These effects would make the replay of grandmaster games by chess enthusiasts less interesting.
[3] The whole idea of time-bidding is a non-starter because it is non-traditional.
.
I think it’d be fun to play in a time-bidding tournament just to try it out and see if it’s something worth continuing, could be improved, or is just a bad idea.
On a similar note, I’m very intrigued by the Maryland tournament last summer that awarded prizes by total score rather than place in the tournament. It definitely encourages players to fight in the later rounds as a perfect score would net more money than 4.5/5 even if both are clear first place.
I suppose the problem with either is that human nature causes people to get comfortable with a certain format and unhappy with changes. I admit that I was annoyed to hear about the changes to time controls for FIDE norm tournaments.
Bill Smythe (IL) ran and advocated plus score tournaments for years. One of the advantages is that the organizer doesn’t risk as much on the prize fund (once the minimum is met) since it automatically grows along with the number of entries.
I do admit to being surprised to answer this before Bill did.
That said, other heads would have to say “you can” - I don’t see why you couldn’t, though.
And, yeah, being a TD ain’t always easy - I’m not asking for sympathy. But it was still a complication that score-keeping would have quickly remedied.
“Why are not all rated chess games bid for time, to eliminate the unfair advantage that the traditional rules keep giving to White?”.