I had an issue come up during one of my last tournaments that I wanted to ask about. In one of the games one of the players fell into time pressure (no increments) and asked if a voluntary bystander would keep score for the rest of the game. The opponent strenuously objected to this idea and stated that if it was allowed then the game should be forfeited.
My stance is that it would be OK, based on my understanding of the rules, even though it isn’t explicitly stated, for a voluntary observer to continue the notion with no problems. However, after briefly discussing the issue with the opponent I had the impression that it would end up becoming a very big problem if I ruled that way. Since the player with the problem with this idea had plenty of time, I suggested that the score sheet of the player in time trouble could be built from that copy so that both players would have a complete record of the game. This was found acceptable by both players and diffused the situation.
I understand that neither player is required to keep notation in this particular case and thus I ask whether it is acceptable for a voluntary bystander to take notation for a player in time trouble (where notation isn’t required by the rules)?
I haven’t seen anything in the rules that explicitly disallows this and nothing that appears to implicitly deny it. If I have this come up in a future event I hope to have some additional outside input on whether or not this could be allowed.
. .
Always seems illogical to me that a player is at one moment required by the rules to record the moves of BOTH/TWO players, and in the next moment is Not required to record ANY moves for either player: what happened to the natural graduated reduction from 2-1-0 players’ moves?
When in “time pressure”, the player should be required to record all of his own moves; but not those of his opponent. The player can record during his opponent’s time.
Any sane increment of 10+ seconds makes this half-duty plenty reasonable.
If both players record their own moves, the TD can reconstruct the game.
(Edited to rephrase from ZERO to ANY; to make it harder for anyone to again choose the silliest possible interpretation of my old technically ambiguous language; while they claim to be confused.)
. .
I would allow a third party to keep score only if that scoresheet is not visible or available to the player during the game. I would require the scorekeeper to stay a few feet away from the game, and hold the scoresheet in his hand (or on a clipboard) well above the playing surface, keeping it out of the view of the players.
Quote from a new book: top page 88 Alexis Shirov - Fire on Board – part 2: "After I made this move I had almost no time left, but with the extra 30 seconds per move I was still able to stand and fight! "
One of the points of a 30-second increment is that there are really no circumstances under which a player has insufficient time to keep score. - John Hillery, NTD, IA
Use a 30-sec increment and you won’t have this discussion.
If a player asks someone, that person has no standing as far as the use of the score sheet to decide 50 move rule, 3-fold, etc. Also, the player recording should have no communication (including visual) with either player during the game. I suspect that one player just wanted a complete score sheet. If the score keeping has no effect on the outcome of the game, on what grounds can the opponent claim a forfeit? Did he give a reason?
It has been my experience that some players can be creative when it comes to the rules, and that is not a good thing. Check the thread “New Rules” under “Chess Tournaments” last updated 1/26/2010 for several examples.
Now if the TD asks, that’s a different situation as the TD may deputize someone. Was this a sudden death control, or would each player get more time if they reached a certain move number? I ask because the answer may be different. Check rules 15B and 15C. Also look at 14C8 and 14F4.
Excuse me? I can’t think of any circumstance in which the players are not allowed to record the moves. There are circumstances in which they re not required to do so, which is hardly the same thing.
Another frame to view this in: What if it was you (the TD) recording the moves? I’m not saying you should have done that. Just wondering what grounds either player would have for objecting to that.
Is it too much stew from the oyster that 15B states that it “may” be impossible to claim triple occurrence or a 50 move, instead of that it “is” impossible? And further that a neutral witness may attest to a triple occurrence claim, someone else can count moves towards a 50 move rule, and that a complete scoresheet is not required to claim a sudden death forfeit? What situations am I missing here that require a scoresheet for a claim where it matters at all that someone else has been recording game moves in sudden death?
(Though I would readily acknowledge the player receiving that assistance should not be allowed to see that scoresheet until game end, given the 50-move process.)
I do not understand the grounds for demanding that the game would be declared a forfeit. What rule or principle of equity would have been broken by telling both players, “play on,” and allow the recording?
(Wups… double posting and I think some of these have been answered, but must run.)
Only have a moment to post but the time control was G/60, no increment, and the the time trouble was that there were only 5 minutes left on the clock.
I didn’t want to get into a huge discussion on the why the opponent would request a forfeit in such a case. It was discussed briefly, though I don’t remember the whole discussion. I pulled the rules out to verify my recollection that the rules didn’t have any clause relating to this issue (it was claimed it did), and based on my feel for the situation decided to give my suggestion as above.
Initially it was asked if I would do it, though in a future occurrence I would request a volunteer bystander unless no one was available. So the objection was to anyone else completing the notation.
I also noted some of the rules that allow witnesses to give supporting evidence and would think that if there was no conflict of interest (i.e. neutral), then the volunteer could be that source.
If it was G/60 and at least one player was under five minutes, then both were excused from keeping score, though obviously without a scoresheet no claims based on a scoresheet would be proper. (But a complete score isn’t needed to claim a win on time in a sudden death time control.)
Spectators, unless deputized by the TD, have no standing whatsoever, and any notes taken by a spectator could not be used in making a claim.
However, let us suppose that the TD does deputize a spectator to record moves. My understanding is that information could still not be used to make a claim based on a scoresheet (such as 3 move draw.) Is that correct?
Hey - thank you for sharing the situation, which I regretfully didn’t post earlier. Questions like these help all of us.
14C8. “In sudden death, a player with less than five minutes remaining may be awarded a draw by triple occurence of position based on the observation of a director, deputy, or impartial witness(es).” The player would still have to make the claim - any of the above couldn’t make the claim for the player. But why would an accurate scoresheet not be allowed as observational evidence by the director, deputy, or impartial witness that the claim is valid?
14F4b on directors counting 50 move rules when asked to do so. “The director or deputy may either keep score, make check marks, or combine the two.” However 14F4 does start by stating a player has already informed the director to their intent towards a 50-move rule claim.
If there is any rule or TDCC or rules committee ruling stating that an impartially kept scoresheet cannot be used as evidence of what occurred on the board, I certainly would appreciate knowing about it.
If the TD believed that the third-party scoresheet was both impartial and accurate, I suppose he could use it as evidence, but unless the “third party” was someone I’d deputized as an assistant TD I doubt that I would do so. It’s also an unlikely scenario, since the claimant would have to stop the clock and make the claim as soon as the third repetition occurred, without any assurance that an accurate scoresheet existed.
You are leaving out the last sentence of 14F4b, which makes it clear that the TD is not required to count toward the 50-move rule. Also, the next two paragraphs specifically refer to the director or assistant director counting moves. I take this as meaning that a third-party count should not be credited — though of course the TD can always “deputize” the counter if he trusts him.
The bottom line is that, if a player wants to make a claim of threefold repetition or 50 move rule and have it stick, he has to keep score. If he stops keeping score he may luck it if the TD is feeling generous, but it’s not something you an count on or demand.
As to what makes for an impartial bystander (as opposed to a deputized one), my suspicion is that if player X specifically asks spectator Y to record the moves, then spectator Y is no longer indisputably impartial.
