PDA

View Full Version : Unfair rule re recording when under 5 minutes.



FM_Bill
03-10-2005, 09:28 AM
Some Aussie tournamnents use a sudden death time limit,
or use an increment less than 30 secs a move, say 10 secs a move.
Typically in these tournaments a player is not required to record the moves
once they have less than 5 minutes, though the opponent is still required to
record
if they have more than 5 minutes.

The USCF (and perhaps other places as well) rule for many years has been
that when one player has less than 5 minutes left,
BOTH players stop recording. Superficially this looks unusual, but the USCF
rule is fair.

Lets say player A has 15 minutes left and player B has 5 minutes left.
Player B stops
recording while A keeps recording. Recording a move takes at least 5 seconds
a move
(and perhaps 10, excluding the break in orientation), and the opponent gains
5 seconds as well of the
opponents time to think on. 20 moves have played and A gets down to 5
minutes, while
B goes to 4 minutes. A then goes to 2 minutes, while B goes to 3 minutes and
the game ends.

Why should A have had to record 20 MORE moves than B, just because B was
moving slower
than B? A has been penalized. In this case A has been handicapped between
1.5 minutes
to 5 minutes, quite a critical amount.

This rule caused a lot of problems in the recent Geelong Open. One game went
for about
40 moves before the quicker player got to 5 moves left. Some players got
confused and stopped recording
when their opponent did, leading to DOP intervention. In the important last
round, one player forgot to
record some moves and was made to update his scoresheet, when his time was
less than 5 minutes left.

I think this rule needs changing.

Bereaved
03-10-2005, 12:44 PM
Thanks, Bill,

Couldn't bring it up myself, but was annoying. Also the inability to press the clock at times owing to my opponent replying before I could touch the clock.

It does seem to show that the use of a 30 second increment is a good thing.

Take care and God Bless, Macavity

Ian Rout
03-10-2005, 01:19 PM
Also the inability to press the clock at times owing to my opponent replying before I could touch the clock.

In such cases you should press your clock anyway. Law 6.8.a:

A player must always be allowed to stop his clock.

If the opponent tries to keep their finger on the button to prevent this then call the arbiter and point out Law 6.8.b

It is forbidden for a player to keep his finger on the button or to `hover` over it.

Bereaved
03-10-2005, 01:22 PM
The Arbiter was standing right next to me and heard me express my dissatisfaction to my opponent at least once, but did nothing; my opponent also seemed to suggest that I was making a big fuss over nothing...

Take care and God Bless, Macavity

Ian Rout
03-10-2005, 01:56 PM
The Arbiter was standing right next to me and heard me express my dissatisfaction to my opponent at least once, but did nothing; my opponent also seemed to suggest that I was making a big fuss over nothing...

Yes. I suppose it is a bit of a difficulty if the arbiter doesn't know the rules.

Though I think it likely that your opponent was merely bluffing and was well aware that he was cheating.

Kevin Bonham
03-10-2005, 04:05 PM
I don't find the 5 minute rule unfair. I think that being in acute time trouble much earlier than your opponent is is punishment enough, and a severe disadvantage of the USCF rule is that when both players stop recording because one is below 5 mins, then you miss out on getting as many of the moves recorded, unless you have a lot of assistants on hand to score on the players' behalf. I should add here that I am usually not the one who gets to 5 mins first. Usually my opponent is there before me.

I do think the 5 mins rule is a dog's breakfast when dealing with games with increments that are less than 30 secs (as opposed to games with no increments at all). Under the current rule 8.4 in a game that is GX/+Y time format, once a player gets below 5 minutes at any point in the game, they do not need to record again. This is a difficult rule to supervise.

I don't agree with making a player fill in missed moves while they are below 5 minutes. The opponent should have complained earlier.

Denis_Jessop
03-10-2005, 04:54 PM
In such cases you should press your clock anyway. Law 6.8.a:

A player must always be allowed to stop his clock.

If the opponent tries to keep their finger on the button to prevent this then call the arbiter and point out Law 6.8.b

It is forbidden for a player to keep his finger on the button or to `hover` over it.

This is supported by comments by Geurt Gijssen in his most recent Arbiter's Notebook. I think there could be great fun and games (depending on who the players were) if the first player pressed his clock to complete his move after the second player had pressed his clock to complete his next move :hmm: :rolleyes:

DJ

antichrist
03-10-2005, 05:18 PM
This is supported by comments by Geurt Gijssen in his most recent Arbiter's Notebook. I think there could be great fun and games (depending on who the players were) if the first player pressed his clock to complete his move after the second player had pressed his clock to complete his next move :hmm: :rolleyes:

DJ

That is exactly what I do, then I argue he can't press again as already has, argueing all on his time of course with my finger firmly on my button (as if I have to pretend that I am stupid and know no better). I had a guy walk out of a game over this.

Throw their tactics back at them, that is my policy.

Kevin Bonham
03-10-2005, 05:35 PM
That is exactly what I do, then I argue he can't press again as already has, argueing all on his time of course with my finger firmly on my button (as if I have to pretend that I am stupid and know no better). I had a guy walk out of a game over this.

Not surprising as you yourself risk being penalised both for arguing with the opponent and for holding the button down. It's not a good idea to escalate these things.

Ian Rout
03-10-2005, 07:26 PM
I don't find the 5 minute rule unfair. I think that being in acute time trouble much earlier than your opponent is is punishment enough,
I don't think this is a really convincing argument. If you have used more time than your opponent then you are meant to be at a disadvantage to the extent of that extra time, there's no reason why you should have it partly alleviated by the other player having to engage in additional admin duties. Moreover if the second player then uses more time and catches up on the clock they have been penalised for using their time in a different order, which doesn't make sense.

I think FM BIll is right in principle, but the argument for the rule is just one of practicality. How do you define when a player has stopped recording - often players reaching five minutes will play a couple of quick moves then catch up, or record just their own moves. You can also get arguments about whether partially-legible squiggles constitute recording.

Accordingly my view is that it is unfair but until DGT boards become as cheap as normal sets are today it's just something to live with and not a big thing; sometimes it works for you, sometimes against.

I think if the rule were to be changed in a workable way it would have to be that a player with less than five minutes has to declare that they are not recording at which point both players are exempt, and until then both players have to record.

pax
03-10-2005, 09:04 PM
I'm with Ian on this one.

If you add up the time each player has spent (of his allocated time) recording moves, one player ends up having spent more time, simply because he *didn't* get into time trouble. It's not right.

Garvinator
03-10-2005, 09:23 PM
I think the 5 minute is just another example of where the laws of chess have not changed/taken into account, that increment play is the norm in most tournaments.

Kevin Bonham
03-10-2005, 10:41 PM
I don't think this is a really convincing argument. If you have used more time than your opponent then you are meant to be at a disadvantage to the extent of that extra time, there's no reason why you should have it partly alleviated by the other player having to engage in additional admin duties. Moreover if the second player then uses more time and catches up on the clock they have been penalised for using their time in a different order, which doesn't make sense.

Many common time controls have also penalised players who use time in an unorthodox order, although they tend to penalise those who are slow early on.

It may be that in my case my feelings as an organiser (that we want full game scores to be available for reporting, analysis and settling disputes) have prevented me from being bothered about the theoretical "unfairness" as a player.

Whether DGTs would change things I'm not sure. If DGT boards work perfectly, why not abolish scoring in games played with them entirely? If they're going to malfunction now and then then does that still leave some case for making the player with more than 5 mins keep scoring? Maybe not a strong enough one, I'm not sure.

If it could be made practical, an ideal solution would be as follows: the amount of add-on available to the player reduces once their time falls below 5 mins to cater for them no longer being required to score. This would eliminate the time-advantage argument. However I doubt that any clock in existence would cater for this mode.

antichrist
05-10-2005, 12:14 AM
........
If it could be made practical, an ideal solution would be as follows: the amount of add-on available to the player reduces once their time falls below 5 mins to cater for them no longer being required to score. This would eliminate the time-advantage argument. However I doubt that any clock in existence would cater for this mode.

If you eliminate the time-advantage why bother letting them skip recording moves at all, as they they would not gain any advantage out of it.

It comes back to the basics -
you are given time, no need for increments for each move;
no concession (unfair advantage) for playing slow by providing extra time via non-recording of moves;
all moves must be recorded for important purposes ( because the end moves are just as important as the early moves;

So what part of time guillotine finish and recording of moves does the player not understand!

Why do players who can't handle time always want to cheat in some way or another?

Why do they want to take away another player's natural advantage?

We don't give odds start or handicap to even things out so why even out with time?

bergil
05-10-2005, 01:09 AM
If you eliminate the time-advantage why bother letting them skip recording moves at all, as they they would not gain any advantage out of it.

It comes back to the basics -
you are given time, no need for increments for each move;
no concession (unfair advantage) for playing slow by providing extra time via non-recording of moves;
all moves must be recorded for important purposes ( because the end moves are just as important as the early moves;

So what part of time guillotine finish and recording of moves does the player not understand!

Why do players who can't handle time always want to cheat in some way or another?

Why do they want to take away another player's natural advantage?

We don't give odds start or handicap to even things out so why even out with time?
Good points well said

Rincewind
05-10-2005, 07:16 AM
Good points well said

Hang on. Do you know to whom you're talking? Did I fall asleep and this is all a part of a horrible nightmare? Questions, so many questions. If Judit wins I'll know I just have to wait until I wake.

antichrist
05-10-2005, 09:26 AM
Good points well said
Thanks and a further point against increment for each move - the idea when making a move is to use up time so that the game will eventually end on time so that another round can begin or so we can go home, not to be held up watching amateurs who can't end a game.

bergil
05-10-2005, 10:35 AM
Hang on. Do you know to whom you're talking? Did I fall asleep and this is all a part of a horrible nightmare? Questions, so many questions. If Judit wins I'll know I just have to wait until I wake.
Yes but being the voice of common sense and reason, and pure of heart I must concur with our atheist friend. :silly: :angel:

Rincewind
05-10-2005, 10:43 AM
Yes but being the voice of common sense and reason, and pure of heart I must concur with our atheist friend. :silly: :angel:

Well regarding what was said: enforcing recording of moves during time trouble would be worthless because people will just make illegible scrawling at best and it will encourage the opponent to blitz so that recording doesn't occur on his time. In short it is just a bad idea.

Regarding its expression: one sentence paragraphs have their place but tend to be overused online therefore losing any of their intended impact. Also there was one question which was punctuated with an exclamation mark. Perhaps some combination of '!' and '?' should have been used, although I'll leave to the reader the question of whether '!?' or '?!' is most appropriate. ;)

bergil
05-10-2005, 11:08 AM
Well regarding what was said: enforcing recording of moves during time trouble would be worthless because people will just make illegible scrawling at best and it will encourage the opponent to blitz so that recording doesn't occur on his time. In short it is just a bad idea.

Regarding its expression: one sentence paragraphs have their place but tend to be overused online therefore losing any of their intended impact. Also there was one question which was punctuated with an exclamation mark. Perhaps some combination of '!' and '?' should have been used, although I'll leave to the reader the question of whether '!?' or '?!' is most appropriate. ;)
I say it again, good points well said. Not written! :hand:

WhiteElephant
05-10-2005, 09:52 PM
What happens when neither player is recording and one player claims a draw by triple repetition? How is this resolved?

FM_Bill
05-10-2005, 10:39 PM
Back to keeping the finger on the button, there is a story in an Olympiad Hamilton was playing Reshevsky, who was doing this very thing.

Apparently Doug said, If you don't get your finger off the button, I will smack you in the teeth.

bergil
06-10-2005, 03:21 AM
Back to keeping the finger on the button, there is a story in an Olympiad Hamilton was playing Reshevsky, who was doing this very thing.

Apparently Doug said, If you don't get your finger off the button, I will smack you in the teeth.
Sounds fair :uhoh:

Davidflude
07-10-2005, 03:23 PM
Doug asked me some years ago not to repeat what he actually said. It was much more Australian than the bowdlerised version you quote. It was not suitable for a web site that has family readers.

Apparently Grandmasters who were watching were very impressed.

Lucena
07-10-2005, 07:49 PM
Doug asked me some years ago not to repeat what he actually said. It was much more Australian than the bowdlerised version you quote. It was not suitable for a web site that has family readers.

Apparently Grandmasters who were watching were very impressed.

:D Incidentally, I looked it up on the internet and it looks like Doug lost after Reshevsky(Black)'s 40th move, possibly he resigned once Reshevsky made the time control. Does anyone know what exactly happened?

pballard
18-10-2005, 02:09 PM
:D Incidentally, I looked it up on the internet and it looks like Doug lost after Reshevsky(Black)'s 40th move, possibly he resigned once Reshevsky made the time control. Does anyone know what exactly happened?

Also, remember it used to be common practice to adjourn after move 40, go home and analyse, and resign before resuming if you could convince yourself the situation was hopeless (even though you'd play on a few moves in the same position if there was no adjournment). Perhaps that's what happened there. (Doug was 2 pawns down but with opposite coloured bishops).

Lucena
23-10-2005, 02:59 PM
Also, remember it used to be common practice to adjourn after move 40, go home and analyse, and resign before resuming if you could convince yourself the situation was hopeless (even though you'd play on a few moves in the same position if there was no adjournment). Perhaps that's what happened there. (Doug was 2 pawns down but with opposite coloured bishops). Yeah you're probably right. Or he just looked at the position and figured it was pretty useless, Reshevsky probably just ends up getting passers on both sides of the board.

Bill Gletsos
23-10-2005, 03:54 PM
For those who may be interested, here is the game.

[Event "Lugano ol (Men) qual-B"]
[Site "Lugano"]
[Date "1968.10.21"]
[Round "4"]
[White "Hamilton, Douglas"]
[Black "Reshevsky, Samuel"]
[Result "0-1"]
[ECO "B45"]
1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Qb6 5. Nb3 Nf6 6. Nc3 e6 7. g3 Be7 8.
Bg2 O-O 9. O-O a6 10. a4 Ne5 11. Be3 Qc7 12. Bd4 Nc4 13. f4 d6 14. Qe2 e5 15. fxe5 Nxe5 16. h3 Be6 17. Nd5 Nxd5 18. exd5 Bd7 19. Kh2 Rae8 20. Qd2 h6 21. Qc3 Qxc3 22. Bxc3 Nc4 23. Rf2 Bd8 24. Bd4 Bg5 25. a5 Ne3 26. Bf3 Bf5 27. h4 Bd8 28. Bxe3 Rxe3 29. Ra4 Bxc2 30. Rxc2 Rxb3 31. Kg2 Re8 32. Ra3 Rb4 33. Kh3 Kf8 34. Bg4 Re5 35. Rf2 h5 36. Bf3 Rb5 37. Rc3 Ke7 38. Rc8 Rxa5 39. Rcc2 g6 40. Kg2 Rb5 0-1