Praise Jesus - USCF Rule Change

Originally posted by Wulebgr
I beg your pardon.

Dr. S. you owe me an apology.

You still ignore the elephant in the room, as predicted.

Premise 1) The scoresheet is intended to be solely a record of the game.
Premise 2) Each player makes one move per turn.

How then do you reconcile the logical inconsistency of writing multiple moves per turn on the scoresheet, other than to correct accidental transcription errors? You can't, not without denying one of those two premises, or admitting that you are using a loophole that makes an exception to the rule against using the scoresheet as an aid.

Originally posted by Wulebgr
With kids that want to move as fast as possible, it helps them slow down.

Claim: The scoresheet is not intended to be used as an aid.

Do you deny that claim? It seems like you must, since you are admitting that the kids would play worse without making use of it, and that such use is consistent with the spirit of the old rule.

Suppose that traditionally a third party kept score for both sides. Would you still rally for allowing your kids to keep score on their own because it helped them slow down and catch more blunders? Do you really think that would be consistent with the spirit of the other rules regarding written aids?

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
You still ignore the elephant in the room, as predicted.

Premise 1) The scoresheet is intended to be solely a record of the game.
Premise 2) Each player makes one move per turn.

How then do you reconcile the logical inconsistency of writing multiple moves per turn on the scoresheet, other than to correct accidental transcription errors? You c re using a loophole that makes an exception to the rule against using the scoresheet as an aid.

I'm neither practicing nor advocating writing multiple moves per turn on the scoresheet. I am admitting that my practice takes advantage of the rules as written (a loophole if you will, but not one clearly at odds with the intent of the rest of the rules).

Read the article that you referenced in your original post. FIDE changed its rules because of complaints of the sort that you are making, but the USCF proceeded to change this rule for other reasons--commercial ones (how quintessentially American)--and to bring it into conformity with the FIDE laws. But, and here's the real contradiction, the new USCF Rule 15A still fails to conform to FIDE Law 8.1 because descriptive notation is still permissible.

You referenced an interesting, informative, and important article. However, you are not addressing any of the discussion in the article regarding the controversy concerning this change.

from the article:

Sunil Weeramentry, executive director of the National Scholastic Chess Foundation says of the practice, “it makes quite a lot of sense – it’s one way to control the impulsive player…We’re concerned that [the new rule will] be taking away one of the best ways known for getting the kids to slow down.”

I agree with Weeramentry, the old rule was helpful in teaching kids (and adults) to slow down. For this reason, the USCF rule was superior to the FIDE one.

Kuhns's statement that bringing USCF rules into conformity with FIDE was part of the intent sounds reasonable, but it is a lie. The MonRoi/USCF comnmercial arrangement (revenue sharing in exchange for endorsement) is the real reason for this change. That is the wrong reason to change rules. If conformity to FIDE law is the intent, then the old guys in my club will be forced to learn algebraic or abandon tournaments. We (the USCF) want MonRoi's money, and the old guys's too, so we changed part of Rule 15A.

Originally posted by Wulebgr
I'm neither practices nor advocating writing multiple moves per turn on the scoresheet.

You already admitted that you sometimes write a move and then change it and write another move. Presumably you advise your students to do the same if they find that their first is a blunder.

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
Suppose that traditionally a third party kept score for both sides. Would you still rally for allowing your kids to keep score on their own because it helped them slow down and catch more blunders?

yes

Do you really think that would be consistent with the spirit of the other rules regarding written aids?

yes

If we follow your logic, then consulting the scoresheet to determine whether 50 moves had transpired since the last pawn move, or to determine how many times the present postion had been reached would constitute employing the scoresheet as an aid.

Originally posted by Wulebgr


You references an interesting, informative, and important article. However, you are not addressing any of the discussion in the article regarding the controversy concerning this change.

I don't care about any that political nonsense.

I have always thought that the move should be made first. The FIDE rule has no bearing on my opinion. MonRoi has no bearing on my opinion.

We can debate whether those are good reasons for changing the rules. But what I want to discuss is whether the rule itself is good.

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
You already admitted that you sometimes write a move and then change it and write another move. Presumably you advise your students to do the same if they find that their first is a blunder.

Yes, and your initial point gives me pause, as you have asserted that it may be subject to abuse.

However, we do not merely reject a rule because it is subject to abuse.

A pattern of such abuse, and consequent complaints, motivated the change in the FIDE law. No such pattern of abuses and complaints were behind the present USCF change.

You are arguing hypotheticals in defense of a rule change that will dramatically alter how many of us teach kids to slow down. Of course, we will find other ways (and already practice some); but, we've just lost one that works well. It will be missed.

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
But what I want to discuss is whether the rule itself is good.

The old rule is better, but the point is moot.

Originally posted by Wulebgr
The old rule is better

The only reasons you've given are

1) Tradition.
2) It helps players play better

I don't think those are good reasons. (1) would have prevented the introduction of digital clocks. Further, asserting (1) means that in general, every current rule is optimal. (2) would allow engine use.

In fact, Dr S. is advocating a new rule: the scoresheet is not to be used as an aid.

Inasmuch as this rule proposal is clearly at odds with existing rules (especially Rule 14) requiring consultation of the scoresheet to determine whether a draw claim is possible, it is a bad rule.

Originally posted by Wulebgr
In fact, Dr S. is advocating a new rule: the scoresheet is not to be used as an aid.

Inasmuch as this rule proposal is clearly at odds with existing rules (especially Rule 14) requiring consultation of the scoresheet to determine whether a draw claim is possible, it is a bad rule.

The very purpose of the scoresheet is to have an objective record of the game! The existence of the scoresheet is clearly an exception to the rule against written materials. I don't deny that. But it's a necessary one, for otherwise, those questions could not be objectively resolved.

The existence of the rule allowing using the scoresheet as a one-ply scratchpad is not a necessary exception to the rule against using written materials.

Originally posted by Wulebgr
In fact, Dr S. is advocating a new rule: the scoresheet is not to be used as an aid.

Inasmuch as this rule proposal is clearly at odds with existing rules (especially Rule 14) requiring consultation of the scoresheet to determine whether a draw claim is possible, it is a bad rule.

Would you care to comment on the fundamentally illogical practice of putting something on a scoresheet that hasn't been officially completed (or actually even started)?

Originally posted by no1marauder
Would you care to comment on the fundamentally illogical practice of putting something on a scoresheet that hasn't been officially completed (or actually even started)?

There's that elephant still in the room.

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
The only reasons you've given are

1) Tradition.
2) It helps players play better

I don't think those are good reasons. (1) would have prevented the introduction of digital clocks. Further, asserting (1) means that in general, every current rule is optimal. (2) would allow engine use.

Wrong.

Please see above:

Originally posted by Wulebgr
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 rules require the players to make an accurate record of the game. The old rule's flexibility permitted certain systematic strategies for ensuring the accuracy of this scoresheet. It was thus consistent with and helpful to the paramount rules regarding notation.

Your innovation that the scoresheet, then, not be used as an aid is inconsistent with other rules, as already noted, without adding anything of benefit to the current rule change before us.

Originally posted by Wulebgr
Wrong.

Please see above:

Originally posted by Wulebgr
[b]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 cle ...[text shortened]... as already noted, without adding anything of benefit to the current rule change before us.[/b]

Do an experiment next time you're at a tournament.

Stroll through the Class C or D section.

Observe several messy scoresheets and attempt to predict whether the player writes or moves first.

Observe several clean scoresheets and attempt to predict whether the player writes or moves first.

I predict based on my own observations that there is no correlation. The move-first are likely to be messy for the reasons you cite. The write-first are likely to be messy for the reasons I cite. In the end, if you had a stack of scoresheets, I doubt you could separate them into move-first/write-first piles with greater than 50% accuracy.