PDA

View Full Version : Ending recording when 5 minutes is left



FM_Bill
08-02-2010, 07:06 PM
My understanding is when playing with an increment of 30 seconds or more, both players need to record all the moves.

If the increment is smaller or zero, the rule is usually that a player can stop recording if they have 5 or less minutes left. If the opponent has more than 5 minutes then they keep recording.

The USCF apparently has a rule that when one player has 5 minutes left both sides stop recording. superficially this looks strange, but it is actually a fair rule.

Example:
In a tournament with no increment:
player A has 7 minutes left
player B has 5 minutes left.
player B stops recording. They play another 10 moves. Player A reaches 5 minutes left, while B has 4:30 minutes left. (A took longer because he had to record the moves, it takes me 5 seconds to record a move)

Neither side has to record, but white moves a little slower and gets behind on time.

Black outplays white and wins a drawn position (something similar happened in a game I was watching).

The end result was that player A had to record 10 more moves than Black, even though he used more time in the game. Arguably, this helped decide the game.

I suggest the ACF should recommend this rule, I think its much better that both players stop recording one player reaches 5 minutes left.

CameronD
08-02-2010, 09:58 PM
I think the ACF should keep to the FIDE rules of chess and not enter the dubious USCF situation of changing FIDE rules in FIDE events.

Personally, if my clock is down to 5.06 with a small increment. Ill llet the clock go below 5 minutes as Ill gain more thinking time in future moves at the cost as a few seconds.






My understanding is when playing with an increment of 30 seconds or more, both players need to record all the moves.

If the increment is smaller or zero, the rule is usually that a player can stop recording if they have 5 or less minutes left. If the opponent has more than 5 minutes then they keep recording.

The USCF apparently has a rule that when one player has 5 minutes left both sides stop recording. superficially this looks strange, but it is actually a fair rule.

Example:
In a tournament with no increment:
player A has 7 minutes left
player B has 5 minutes left.
player B stops recording. They play another 10 moves. Player A reaches 5 minutes left, while B has 4:30 minutes left. (A took longer because he had to record the moves, it takes me 5 seconds to record a move)

Neither side has to record, but white moves a little slower and gets behind on time.

Black outplays white and wins a drawn position (something similar happened in a game I was watching).

The end result was that player A had to record 10 more moves than Black, even though he used more time in the game. Arguably, this helped decide the game.

I suggest the ACF should recommend this rule, I think its much better that both players stop recording one player reaches 5 minutes left.

FM_Bill
06-07-2010, 04:08 PM
I think the ACF should keep to the FIDE rules of chess and not enter the dubious USCF situation of changing FIDE rules in FIDE events.

This answer avoids engaging the possibility that this is actually a better rule.

In which case:

(A) It could be used in non-FIDE events.
(B) FIDE could be lobbied to change the rule.

FIDE has made some poor decisions over the years and I don't think new FIDE rules should automatically be added to non-FIDE events.

Some of these include:
(A) A player can touch the rook first in castling.
(B) A player floated down plays the middle of the field, not the top in the field.
(C) Tampering with the 50 move rule by extending it in certain endings.

FM_Bill
01-10-2010, 11:42 AM
In the USA, BOTH players stop recording when one player reaches 5 minutes. I consider this to be a better rule, though its not immediately obvious why.
Recording a move takes 5-10 seconds (including picking up and putting down the pen). If ONE player stops recording at 5 minutes, its quite likely the opponent will later overtake them.

This introduces a random element into the game. Its similar to having a rule that whoever gets to 5 minutes left first, gets a 10 minute bonus. Its true either player can get to 5 minutes first, so its not unfair in that respect, nonetheless its a poorly thought out rule. It penalizes the player who gets to 5 minutes second. It gives incentive for a player to artificially run down his time to 5 minutes.

There are other difficulties with one player recording while the other is not.
The non-recording player can blitz out replies forcing the opponent to record on his own time. (In normal cases, players mostly record on their opponents time) The non-recording player gets more time to think on his opponents time while he is recording (thats like a 20-40 second bonus, every 2 ply). The recording player can claim repetition etc. while the non-recording cannot.

For those who wish to support the status quo, I ask you what is wrong with the USCF rule, that both players stop recording when one player reaches 5 minutes? Its symmetrical, simpler and cleaner. Superficially, it looks unfair, but is not.

I also see a problem with someone reaching 5 minutes, stopping recording, then the increment pushing them back over 5 minutes.

Kevin Bonham
01-10-2010, 12:18 PM
For those who wish to support the status quo, I ask you what is wrong with the USCF rule, that both players stop recording when one player reaches 5 minutes? Its symmetrical, simpler and cleaner. Superficially, it looks unfair, but is not.

The principal arguments against it are that it makes it less likely that should an incident occur, the arbiter will be able to reconstruct and assess the position. It also means it is less likely a complete score will be available to those following the tournament.


It gives incentive for a player to artificially run down his time to 5 minutes.

In some situations, yes (for instance if a player is losing and wants to bash out a bunch of moves quickly without having to write any down). However, an opponent who wishes they were in the same situation has the option of running down their own clock, so I don't think it's all that unfair.

I do get the point about how the player who manages their time badly is "rewarded" by spending less of the game scoring. It would be good if clocks could be set so that the other player gets extra time for scoring in this situation.


I also see a problem with someone reaching 5 minutes, stopping recording, then the increment pushing them back over 5 minutes.

If this happens the player is not required to resume scoring under the current Laws. This can create problems if a player with, say, seven minutes left has stopped scoring and claims that they've dipped below five at some stage many moves ago.

Jesper Norgaard
25-10-2010, 01:20 PM
In the USA, BOTH players stop recording when one player reaches 5 minutes. I consider this to be a better rule, though its not immediately obvious why.
Recording a move takes 5-10 seconds (including picking up and putting down the pen).

This introduces a random element into the game. Its similar to having a rule that whoever gets to 5 minutes left first, gets a 10 minute bonus. Its true either player can get to 5 minutes first, so its not unfair in that respect, nonetheless its a poorly thought out rule. It penalizes the player who gets to 5 minutes second. It gives incentive for a player to artificially run down his time to 5 minutes.

In general I agree with you this is unfair. It is perhaps not immediately obvious (we can always tax the rich more, cause' they are rich, right?) but perhaps this little constructed example will show why. I assume that recording 2 halfmoves (1 move) takes 10 seconds, which I can do quicker, but it is a reasonable estimate. I don't agree with 10 seconds per halfmove, by the way.
Player A and B are in a 60 min. + 10 sec. pr. move game. Player A continues until the very end at move 60 to record the moves, having always between 10 and 6 minutes on the clock. Player B goes below 5 minutes at move 30 and stops recording. At the end they have exactly 5:00 min. on the clock. They used exactly 60 + (60*10/60) - 5 = 65 minutes on the game. However player A used 10 minutes on scoring the game, while player B used only 5 minutes. In effect player A had 55 minutes thinking time and 10 minutes scoring time, while player B had 60 minutes thinking time and 5 minutes scoring time. This is perhaps not a very likely example but shows clearly what is wrong.
It's like two tax payers that earn 65,000 $ a year, but one is taxed 5,000$ (because he earned most of them in January) while the other is taxed 10,000$ because he didn't reach his tax reduction until December. Luckily tax rules don't work like that.


The non-recording player gets more time to think on his opponents time while he is recording (thats like a 20-40 second bonus, every 2 ply). That's not a convincing argument to me. He (player B) is always able to think in the opponents time, whether it is used by the opponent on scoring or thinking, and the opponent has the same privilege, although in the last 30 moves of the game example, player A can only think in the player B's thinking time, not his scoring time.


The recording player can claim repetition etc. while the non-recording cannot.That would give an argument for the scoring player to at least have one advantage over the non-scoring player, but is in fact not true. You can claim three times repetition even in a blitz game. The trouble is to convince the arbiter, but that should be no problem here since the arbiter can consult the scoring players scoresheet. In USCF they have a rule that says you need to have a fully updated scoresheet to allow for a 3-times repetition draw claim, but that is not used in FIDE rules.


The principal arguments against it are that it makes it less likely that should an incident occur, the arbiter will be able to reconstruct and assess the position. It also means it is less likely a complete score will be available to those following the tournament.
I completely agree, and in fact why the FIDE rules, however unfair they are, in my opinion are better for the TD/arbiter perspective, and even for spectators wanting a PGN file, because the scoring is more likely to be completed. Unfair for the player A? Yes, but in our example where player A had 6 minutes, he could think 1 more minute and then earn 4 minutes of thinking time vs. scoring time by not having to score since he went below 5 minutes.

FM_Bill
24-03-2011, 04:22 PM
I still think the USCF rule is better. The small advantage of a few extra moves being recorded being outweighed by the inherent imbalance. I hope critics of
my suggestion aren't just supporting the status quo.

A time limit where its of benefit to run yourself down on time (to avoid recording) is flawed.

Note that with the time taken to record a move, I am including picking up and putting down the pen.

Having said all this, an increment of at least 30 seconds is much better as it enables an entire game to be scored.