If a player thinks he can claim a three-rep draw, is he allowed to add a circled 1, 2, or 3 on his scoresheet where he believes the position repeated? Or underline the last move of each piece before such a position?
A player with a valid three-rep isn’t planning on moving again unless the TD asks him to play the move that sets up the 3rd position.
in this hypothetical, that is still writing notes as an aid to memory. In this case, the notes are hoping the player remember if there was a repetition.
I’m finding it difficult finding where the rulebook bans keeping score in multiple colors, or any specific color for that matter. What if one was using a black ink pen and it died and you switch to a blue pen? Then it dies and you change over to pencil? But seriously if say one move is written in red so that it stands out for some reason we are defining that as a note? What if the player instead of using color writes a move a little heavier than the other notations? Is that a note also?
Personally I would think that anything that could be easily remembered without writing it down, when written down does not qualify as an aid to memory. Otherwise any stray . could be used as a reminder/aid to memory and the TD shouldn’t have to be making those kind of judgement calls.
Again, I have provided a real life example of a player who uses what looks like stray dots to comment on moves (such as “I played that move too quickly”, “the opponent made an unexpected move”, and so on). I refuse to name the player, but he has explained his “system” to me, and I have told him I would without hesitation consider that a violation of rule 20C.
I must be missing something. The language of rule 20C appears quite clear to me. A player who records anything other than what is specified in rule 20C risks having a claim of violating rule 20C upheld.
Note also article 12.4 of the FIDE Laws of Chess:
Interestingly, the words “matters relating to a claim” can be read as allowing the player to make notes applicable to a claim of threefold occurrence of position, possibly by marking the relevant moves somehow. Here, the USCF rule appears to be more strict.
Realize that the above case is only valid because the player admitted to you, or told you that was what they were doing. In that case you as the TD don’t have to guess intent. Keeping score in various colors might simply be an intent to be creative and artistic.
If a player admits to you that he lays his or her ink pen down in various directions to remind him of the piece that they intend to move, aren’t they violating the rule about using external scources? What do you do if some player tells you that they are doing that?
In this particular hypothetical, if the player claimed it was simply a matter of artistry, then said player probably has other scoresheets that would support this. Said player would also probably be alternating every move, or every other move, or even every other character within a move - and yes, I’ve seen young players with multi-barreled ballpoint pens do this. In either of those cases, a TD should be able to see that this player is not in violation of 20C.
If someone comes to me with a complaint about such a player, I stop the clock and investigate. If I am satisfied that there is no violation, I inform the complainant, start the clock, and go away.
If no such evidence, for or against, exists, then you have to take the player at his/her word. In a smaller event, that would probably be the end of it. In a larger event, the floor TDs would usually alert each other about any such situation, and would keep it in mind should a later complaint involving the same player occurs.
I’m unfamiliar with a rule citing “external sources”. USCF Rule 20C expressly forbids the use of “notes made during the game”. Laying a pen, turning a drink label, placing a captured piece parallel with the third rank, etc., don’t fall into the category of “notes made during the game”. None of these have anything to do with marking a scoresheet.
Let’s make it a full grown hypo: A player comes to you with his scoresheet (or asks you to his board) and says, “I am claiming a three-repetition draw since the position after my move occurred on the 66th, 68th, and (after I play Kf3) the 77th move. The circled 1, 2, and 3 show these positions and I have underlined the last moves of the kings and bishops that set up that position. Note that there were no captures or pawn moves since the 60th move.” The position is a bishop and pawn ending and a quick glance at the opponent’s scoresheet shows the same number of moves with no apparent discrepancies. Do you
If you pick 3., what do you say?
FWIW, this happened to me over thirty years ago. I felt the position was a three rep and it was not true that “the notes are hoping the player remember if there was a repetition.” I added the numbers and underlines to show the TD why I felt I had a valid claim and was awarded the draw w/o the TD playing over the game–it was not an “aid to memory” as described in 20C.
If the opponent asked about 20C what would happen to a TD who said, “That doesn’t apply here. The only purpose of those marks was to back up his three-rep claim–game over: drawn.” ?
I agree with wilecyote that the FIDE rule makes more sense.
Sorry, I was thinking of 20 2B and associated books with external sources and made the jump to all external sources that could be helpful. My Bad.
This is actually where the Forum should shine in that someone from the Rules Committee or someone who had a hand in writing the rules should jump in and clarify with no uncertainty the questions being asked and discussed.
For example on the threefold repetition, what if you merely wrote the clock time down each time? Legal? Same result as underlining the move?
I wouldn’t pick any of these. Your second option in particular is probably an abuse of director power, which violates Rule 21K2.
What I would do is…
As do I…but that’s another thread, for another day. 
Actually, not according to my reading of Rule 20C. Clock times are specifically permitted in there. I certainly would not uphold a 20C claim against a player whose only markings on the scoresheet were header information, moves and clock times.
That is my point. Even though in this instance the clock times are being used as an aid to memory, especially if those are the only times notated.
The rule expressly allows clock times to be written. There isn’t anything to be done about that. I can say, though, that in 22 years of directing, I have never seen this hypothetical in practice.
I do this every tournament game.
You record clock times, only on moves where the position could be repeated? Because that is the hypothetical being referenced.
Re: Boyd (the system tells me that only 5 quotes can be nested)
I see the point of this rules matryoshka now. Answer is no, since I write clock times for all moves.
A valid claim could be made on underlining…then again…the claimant would probably only notice once his opponent claims a three-fold repetition. Assuming the three-fold claim is correct, the “He’s using notes!” claim is moot.
Ah, the joys of rules minutiae. 
FWIW, I agree with your observation about the hypothetical claimant - and would even go so far as to say that most players, in that situation, wouldn’t even complain about a possible 20C violation.
I’m guessing from this that you’ve never seen a player record times on only some moves, since if you had there would be no way to tell what his reasons were for only recording times on the particular moves he chose.
There’s nothing in the rulebook that requires players to record their times, and I can easily imagine that players who do so might not want to record times on every move due to the writing time this would require.
When someone claims his opponent has violated Rule 20C, the burden of proof is really on him. So I, as TD, would have to deny the claim unless there has been clearcut, unambiguous note-taking.
Bob
I’m guessing from this that you don’t quite understand the hypothetical posed by Wayne Zimmerle.
(1): This really isn’t relevant to discussing the hypothetical, but…I actually used to write clock times on my scoresheet at move 10, and every 5th move thereafter, as well as for moves that took what seemed like a long time to make, for me or my opponent.
(2): The specific hypothetical I responded to was for a player who only marked clock times for the express purpose of marking a threefold repetition. The hypothetical assumes knowledge of the reason for marking clock times. And, as my response stated, that marking is EXPRESSLY ALLOWED in Rule 20C. So, obviously, such a player would not be in violation of Rule 20C…as my response also stated.
Of course there’s nothing requiring players to record clock times. 20C merely includes marking clock times as part of legal scorekeeping, as opposed to “notes in aid of memory”. Again, this is simply irrelevant to the hypothetical that was posed.
In this situation, your assumption of a burden of proof is incorrect. When a player claims a rules violation, the TD’s job is to find out whether there has been one. In fact, about the only time the primary burden of proof is on a claimant is when a rules violation or a claim leads directly to a final result of the game (i.e.: invocation of Rules 13C or 14F).
This is what would typically happen on such a claim.
(1) Player A claims violation of Rule 20C by Player B.
(2) TD stops clock, informs Player B of complaint, and looks at Player B scoresheet.
(3a) TD finds markings not covered by Rule 20C.
-----(3a-i) TD asks Player B what markings are.
-----(3a-ii) TD’s subsequent action is determined by Player B’s response, along with whatever other information TD can ascertain.
(3b) TD finds no markings not covered by Rule 20C, informs Player A that claim is denied, and starts clock.
Sorry! I really didn’t say what I intended to say. You are quite correct that the claimant rarely has any burden of proof.
What I really meant to say is that a TD’s prejudice should always be in favor of simply allowing play to proceed. In a game like baseball, there are situations in which there is literally no outcome to a play without a call by an umpire. Chess isn’t like that. If the TD simply allows play to proceed, someone will win and someone will lose, or it will be a draw. So a TD should not interfere unless there is clear evidence of a violation.
In general, that’s a good procedure, and it should certainly be adequate for cases of blatant and obvious making of notes. But there’s nothing in Rule 20C (or, to my knowledge, in any other rule) that says whether a player has to always use the same color of ink when recording moves, or whether they have to always use the same kind of notation (algebraic/descriptive/computer) to record all moves, or whether they have to always write letters and numbers in exactly the same way when recording moves. If a player is doing nothing but recording moves, draw offers, and clock times, does a TD even have a basis under Rule 20C for placing restrictions on the details of how they do this?
Bob
It is a TD’s job to efficiently and thoroughly investigate a claimed rules violation. To do otherwise is in violation of USCF rules. I respectfully suggest you read Rule 21F in its entirety.
BTW, read Article 13 of the FIDE Laws of Chess if you want to understand just how restricted USCF TDs are in comparison when it comes to addressing rules violations.
This is precisely why you have to ask questions. If, in the previously quoted procedure, Player A suspects Player B is making notes in aid of memory by writing certain moves in different color ink, my approach would be to stop the clock, look at the scoresheet, and ask a few questions.
The point of the investigation is to determine where there is making of notes in aid of memory. This particular hypothetical, while farfetched, is not outside the realm of possibility. If a player is using different inks to remind himself of certain moves, for whatever reason, the TD has the obligation to restrict that.
In practice, this situation would almost never come up, and in the few cases where it does, Player B would probably say he’s just using different inks for fun, or to make a pattern on his scoresheet, or whatever. It would be hard to tell Player B to not use different inks unless he admits he uses them whenever he thinks there’s going to be a repetition, or for counting moves for a 50-move claim, etc. However, no matter how unlikely it is that you will find an actual rules violation, you are not absolved from the responsibility of investigating the original claim.