Rule 20C

[Bob_McAdams]

@eastside

@Bob McAdams

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?

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.

Well, this is precisely the statement for which I don’t see any basis in the rulebook! Consider the following situations in which player A claims that player B is making notes in aid of memory:

1. You find written in the margin of B’s scoresheet:

-Qd7 Qxa8+
-Nd7 Qxd6
-Kf8 Bh6+
Kg8 Qf2+
-Ke7 Nd5+

This is a pretty clearcut case! Apparently, while A has been considering his move options, B has been making notes to himself on how to respond to each move option, thereby reducing the time he will need to move once A makes his move. The proper response is to add 2 minutes to B’s time (under rule 1C2a) and to warn B that there could be more serious penalties imposed if he does it again.

2. Player B has underlined a move, circled a move number, or placed an asterisk beside a move. When asked, B says that he wasn’t sure he had made the best move and was making a note to himself to analyze the move more after the game was over.

The best response, in this case, would probably be to warn B that making notes for any reason is forbidden under rule 20C and that he should refrain from doing so in the future. It might be appropriate to warn any other TDs about the incident in case they are called over to rule on a similar claim regarding B later in the tournament.

3. There is a short horizontal line to the right of one of B’s moves. B says that he accidentally made the mark because his hand slipped while he was recording the move.

The proper response in this case is probably to do nothing, but to keep an eye on B to see whether such “accidents” happen repeatedly during the tournament.

Note that in each of these three cases, B has made markings on his scoresheet which clearly do not fall into any of the categories of markings allowed by rule 20C: “the actual recording of the moves, draw offers and clock times, and the header information normally found on a scoresheet.” The TD must therefore consider, in each case, whether the markings were made “as an aid to memory” and therefore violated rule 20C (and if so what penalty, if any, is appropriate).

But now consider this case:

4. Player B has done nothing but record his moves, but has used different colors of ink to record different moves.

In this case, I see no reason to ask B any questions, since he has made no markings on his scoresheet “aside from the actual recording of the moves” and such markings are explicitly allowed by rule 20C even though they are, by definition, “an aid to memory”. I see nothing either in this rule or in rule 15A that in any way restricts the color of the markings a player makes or his right to alter this choice as the game proceeds.

Bob

[eastside]

@Bob McAdams

4. Player B has done nothing but record his moves, but has used different colors of ink to record different moves.

In this case, I see no reason to ask B any questions, since he has made no markings on his scoresheet “aside from the actual recording of the moves” and such markings are explicitly allowed by rule 20C even though they are, by definition, “an aid to memory”. I see nothing either in this rule or in rule 15A that in any way restricts the color of the markings a player makes or his right to alter this choice as the game proceeds.

The rules aren’t designed to specifically address every single possible situation. That’s one reason why TDs are afforded some latitude in their use of discretionary power.

One other thing. Rule 15A no longer applies - as does any of chapter 15, for that matter. The FIDE Laws of Chess have replaced Chapter 15 in the USCF rulebook. See the link “Changes to USCF Rulebook since publication of the 5th edition” in the TD/affiliate secure area of the USCF website for a PDF of all such changes.

Incidentally, FLC Rule 12.4 actually allows other markings “relating to a claim and other relevant data” - a rule that makes more sense from a practical standpoint, and makes this entire hypothetical moot. Not sure why I hadn’t remembered that until now.

[W.T_Hales]

Greetings,

I have noticed the fairly common practice of players circling their move that makes time control.

While I would consider this technically a violation of 20C, it doesn’t seem worth more than a warning. There is normally a space on a scoresheet where the time control is written–so that information is readily available on the scoresheet already.

Also, some score sheets have time control moves bolded, shaded, or some other way noted. Is use of such a scoresheet a violation?

Humbly submitted,

Tom Hales

[Steve_Immitt]

@W.T. Hales

Greetings,

I have noticed the fairly common practice of players circling their move that makes time control.

While I would consider this technically a violation of 20C, it doesn’t seem worth more than a warning. There is normally a space on a scoresheet where the time control is written–so that information is readily available on the scoresheet already.

Also, some score sheets have time control moves bolded, shaded, or some other way noted. Is use of such a scoresheet a violation?

I wonder if Al Jaffee reads the forums.

[W.T_Hales]

@Steve_Immitt

I wonder if Al Jaffee reads the forums.

I wonder if Don Rickles reads the forums.

Less humbly submitted,

Tom Hales

[eastside]

@W.T. Hales

I have noticed the fairly common practice of players circling their move that makes time control.

While I would consider this technically a violation of 20C, it doesn’t seem worth more than a warning. There is normally a space on a scoresheet where the time control is written–so that information is readily available on the scoresheet already.

Also, some score sheets have time control moves bolded, shaded, or some other way noted. Is use of such a scoresheet a violation?

I tend to ignore such markings. Technically, they may be a violation of 20C, but there is an argument that they aren’t, because they’re just another way of noting the primary time control, which is usually part of the header information on the scoresheet.

Back when I played quasi-decent chess (which, as most of my opponents would attest, had to be in a previous life), I would actually either circle move number 40, or mark the 40th move with a yellow highlighter. I did stop doing that, but that’s probably because most of the events I play these days have a single time control.