Originally posted by VarenkaZero.
If allowed to write and then move, how often should a player be allowed to change their mind? Supposing I find 3 candidate moves in the initial position and I'm afraid I forget them while analysing each in depth, can I write, e.g. Nf3... immediately score it out with a single faint line... write Bb5... immediately score it out likewise... write Qe2. And then when I've decided which is best, write that one?
I play around the Class C level and this happens all the time. Coaches teach their kids to do it. It's ridiculous that they get away with it.
- Joined
- 21 Apr 06
- Moves
- 4211
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesThe simple difference is its not your move. I cant think in anyway the score card could be used as a system while its your opponents move......
I don't think you followed what I was trying to say.
The scoresheet is a record of the game, correct?
You write down your move before making it. If the scoresheet is truly a record, then that move is as good as played.
Now, your opponent's move is the pending ply, since your move has already been recorded. But you have said that examining ...[text shortened]... is not in fact a record of the game, or
2) Examing one ply can in fact constitute analysis.
And I dont think listing every one of your opponents possible moves would aid you in anyway while its their move.
- Joined
- 21 Apr 06
- Moves
- 4211
1 edit
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesHm, that is in bad taste.......
Zero.
I play around the Class C level and this happens [b]all the time. Coaches teach their kids to do it. It's ridiculous that they get away with it.[/b]
The difference between what they do and say what Simon Webb did is they consult the scorecard therefore using it as an analysis tool where as Webb, myself and other people who use it as a system dont consult the scorecard.
2 edits
Originally posted by BedlamAssuming we can have only one set of rules for all classes of play, should the rule be such that it accommodates the system of higher level players or prevents abuse by lower level players, given that it can't do both? I am in favor of it preventing abuse before catering to playing systems, so I think the new rule is good.
Hm, that is in bad taste.......
The difference between what they do and say what Simon Webb did is they consult the scorecard therefore using it as an analysis tool where as Webb, myself and other people who use it as a system dont consult the scorecard.
- Joined
- 21 Apr 06
- Moves
- 4211
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesI was just pondering the same thing. Writing the move down before playing it has been advised by many GM's Kotov, Webb, Tisdall etc should that be thrown away because of a few abusing the system......sighs, hard choice. I know id be pretty annoyed if I came across whats happened to you ie people writing down multiple candidate moves and using the scorecard as a reference system, I would say that the rule needs to be changed to make sure that the scorecard isnt abused in this way but that just gets into all sorts of grey areas.....maybe the rule should read that players may agree before the match to disregard this rule providing both parties are happy with this. Lacking that I guess we do have to stamp out abuse before catering to the fancies of players systems.
Assuming we can have only one set of rules for all classes of play, should the rule be such that it accommodates the system of higher level players or prevents abuse by lower level players, given that it can't do both? I am in favor of it preventing abuse before catering to playing systems.
2 edits
Originally posted by BedlamWould you be in favor of allowing writing the move before playing it but having the written move be binding (or maybe assessing a 2 minute penalty for changing it)? Then you could have your system (99% of the time anyway) and the abuse would be prevented. It think giving up your system 1% of the time is worth preventing systematic abuse.
maybe the rule should read that players may agree before the match to disregard this rule providing both parties are happy with this. Lacking that I guess we do have to stamp out abuse before catering to the fancies of players systems.
- Joined
- 21 Apr 06
- Moves
- 4211
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesId be in favor of having a rule that allows players to decide before the game if they want to allow the opponent to write down the moves before playing providing that the scorecard isnt being used for consultation.
Would you be in favor of allowing writing the move before playing it but having the written move be binding? Then you could have your system (99% of the time anyway) and the abuse would be prevented. It think giving up your system 1% of the time is worth preventing systematic abuse.
About 30-40% of the people I play do write the moves down before touching the piece should this rule make its way into the ECF I can see a lot of people being quite disgruntled. Its a shame really the honest people having to change because of a few bad eggs.
I've seen it ruled in tournaments that writing before moving is fine but writing is binding. That is, I have a system where I write my move and then play it and then hit my clock (all with the right hand) but after I write down my move I can't then play a move different to the one I wrote down.
That seems like the right interpretation to me.
1 edit
Originally posted by XanthosNZThat sounds perfect to me!
I've seen it ruled in tournaments that writing before moving is fine but writing is binding. That is, I have a system where I write my move and then play it and then hit my clock (all with the right hand) but after I write down my move I can't then play a move different to the one I wrote down.
That seems like the right interpretation to me.
Originally posted by XanthosNZI prefer the new USCF rule. Logically, the scoresheet is a record of moves made and the move is not complete before the clock is hit. One doesn't put a run up on the scoreboard before the ball goes over the fence for a home run in baseball or goes into the goal in soccer.
I've seen it ruled in tournaments that writing before moving is fine but writing is binding. That is, I have a system where I write my move and then play it and then hit my clock (all with the right hand) but after I write down my move I can't then play a move different to the one I wrote down.
That seems like the right interpretation to me.
2 edits
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesI beg your pardon.
This is the white elephant that Bedlam and Wulebgr won't address. They insist that they are not using the scoresheet as an analysis aid, yet want the ability to change their written moves after further analysing those moves.
Dr. S. you owe me an apology. You might have read my silence another way. Perhaps I had nothing left to say in the face of your point that using the scoresheet to reduce impetuousness is analysis. You had won the day!
In fact, however, I was not online.
Now, having been accused of claiming that looking one ply deep is not analysis, perhaps I should make my case. Certainly listing candidate moves and then crossing out those that fail would appear to be exploiting a loophole in the rules. By the same token, continuing to use my old analog clock when I could easily scrape together the $100 for a Chronos is exploiting the loophole that permits a claim of "insufficient losing chances."
In fact, knowing the rules, including their boundaries is an important part of tournament competition. Those who know the rules well often have an advantage over those that consider them of secondary importance, and sometimes this advantage will seem unfair. I'm reminded of the player that told me that because he was unfamiliar with the en passant rule, I could not employ it. Poppycock!
It is true that I have sometimes reconsidered my move after writing it, erased it, and written another. But, this is not analysis. It was not a loophole where the wording was at odds of the intent. The old rules clearly permit writing and moving or moving and writing in any sequence. Touching a piece was declaration of the intent to move that piece, and was obligatory, but the square could change until the piece is actually released. Touching the scoresheet, or writing on it, did not obligate the player to make the recorded move.
Many players, myself included play far more non-tournament games than we do tournament. Thus, the recording of moves can be a distraction, and moves are sometimes left off the scoresheet. I've seen many game records in which half-way through the game, the moves in the white column are clearly those of black, and visa-versa. Deliberately writing one's move before playing it has helped reduce this particular problem. With kids that want to move as fast as possible, it helps them slow down.
The stated purpose of the rule change is to bring USCF rules into line with FIDE laws. The FIDE rule in question states:
8.1
In the course of play each player is required to record his own moves and those of his opponent in the correct manner, move after move, as clearly and legibly as possible, in the algebraic notation (Appendix E), on the `scoresheet` prescribed for the competition. It is forbidden to write the moves in advance, unless the player is claiming a draw according to Article 9.2 or 9.3.
A player may reply to his opponent`s move before recording it, if he so wishes. He must record his previous move before making another. Both players must record the offer of a draw on the scoresheet. (Appendix E.12)
If a player is unable to keep score, an assistant, who is acceptable to the arbiter, may be provided by the player to write the moves. His clock shall be adjusted by the arbiter in an equitable way.
If the USCF seeks adherence to this rule, then they also need to modify the second sentence of Rule 15A, as well as the third. The FIDE laws insist upon algebraic, while the USCF permits descriptive. However, the Delegates Meeting Summary is quite explicit that Dave Kuhns intends modification of only the third sentence. (see http://www.uschess.org/org/govern/2006DelegateMeetingSummary.pdf)
We are implementing FIDE rules willy-nilly, and not necessarily picking the best ones to implement first. It is a bad change, but I will conform immediately. Dave Kuhn can expect, however, that he will never receive my vote for any future positions in the USCF.