PDA

View Full Version : Player not writing down moves



Trent Parker
25-03-2009, 01:47 PM
Hi Arbiters

I just want to confirm something.

In my opinion if a player refuses to write down the moves a players time in a 1hr + 10 sec/move tournament should be 5minutes as the laws of chess specifically state that a player may cease to write the moves down if the time goes under 5minutes.

Is this correct?

eclectic
25-03-2009, 02:27 PM
see article 8.4 of the Laws of Chess

Denis_Jessop
25-03-2009, 04:02 PM
Hi Arbiters

I just want to confirm something.

In my opinion if a player refuses to write down the moves a players time in a 1hr + 10 sec/move tournament should be 5minutes as the laws of chess specifically state that a player may cease to write the moves down if the time goes under 5minutes.

Is this correct?

The basic provision is Art. 8.1 requiring a player to keep score (see also Art 8.4 as mentioned by Eclectic). If the player has more than 5 minutes left on his/her clock and refuses to keep score, the proper course is for the opponent to stop the clocks and call the arbiter to resolve the matter although, as is often the case, the FIDE Laws could be better drafted on this point.

DJ

Trent Parker
25-03-2009, 04:24 PM
I re clarify.

A player will not write down the moves from the start of the game rather than at a point in the game.

eclectic
25-03-2009, 04:30 PM
I re clarify.

A player will not write down the moves from the start of the game rather than at a point in the game.

i think if a person cannot write the moves down due to a disability then they must arrange for a proxy to do it for them

i'm not sure but i no longer think there is any provision for an exemption on religious grounds but i might get corrected on that matter

Kevin Bonham
25-03-2009, 04:36 PM
Hi Arbiters

I just want to confirm something.

In my opinion if a player refuses to write down the moves a players time in a 1hr + 10 sec/move tournament should be 5minutes as the laws of chess specifically state that a player may cease to write the moves down if the time goes under 5minutes.

Is this correct?

A player who refuses to write down the moves from the start of the game, after a few warnings should simply be ruled to have lost the game.

I would usually act as follows:

* tell the player they must write the moves down
* if they continue not writing the moves down, penalise them 5 minutes, tell them they must write the moves down, and tell them they will lose the game if they do not write moves down
* if they still continue not writing moves down, they lose the game

If the player wants to play from 5 minutes without writing their moves down they have the option of sitting there without making a move until their clock goes below 5 minutes (this would be very boring for all concerned.)

As eclectic says, if a player has a disability then ideally an assistant should score for them. Sometimes in club situations this is not possible, and in these cases what I have usually done is waive the requirement to score, but deduct 10 minutes from the non-scoring player's clock at the start of the game.

Some disabilities may be non-obvious, eg a player might be dyslexic.

Kevin Bonham
25-03-2009, 04:47 PM
i'm not sure but i no longer think there is any provision for an exemption on religious grounds but i might get corrected on that matter

The current laws just refer to a player being "unable" to write moves down.

I'll give concessions to players even if they are able to write the moves down but can only do so slowly because of some condition or other (eg some arthritic conditions or hand injuries).

eclectic
25-03-2009, 04:52 PM
If the player wants to play from 5 minutes without writing their moves down they have the option of sitting there without making a move until their clock goes below 5 minutes (this would be very boring for all concerned.)


i suspect such a player would be required to record their first move as available time would be based on how much time was on their clock when they were initially "on the move"

Kevin Bonham
25-03-2009, 05:16 PM
i suspect such a player would be required to record their first move as available time would be based on how much time was on their clock when they were initially "on the move"

Depends when the first move was made. Once a player has less than five minutes left "he is not obliged to meet the requirements of Article 8.1". So if the player makes their first move with less than five minutes on their clock, they do not have to write that move down.

Something that is not clear to me (and I'd be interested to know if any other arbiter knows of a ruling on it) is what happens if:

* A player makes a move with more than 5 minutes remaining
* The player makes their next move with less than 5 minutes remaining
* The player does not record either of these moves.

Such a player might argue that 8.1 only requires them to write their move down before making another, but that once their time fell below 5 mins they became exempt from this requirement.

There is no mention of time available when "on the move" in any of the relevant Laws. The time constraint applies to the scoring of previous moves.

ER
25-03-2009, 05:46 PM
I had a most unpleasant experience once with my opponent not only failing to record his moves (having plenty of time on his clock) but trying to blitz me as well.
I called the arbiter who just stopped the clocks and asked him to copy the moves from my scoresheet and continue according to the rules. He did it for a couple of moves then he went back to his old tactics. The arbiter used the same system of fixing the problem and I went on getting blitzed and providing secretarial services to my opponent.
Unfortunately, as in other cases, it comes down to Club policies which in turn are dictated by financial pressure. An extra entry is an extra entry regardless of the ability/willingness of the player to respect the rules.

eclectic
25-03-2009, 05:51 PM
the key word JaK ... it's a TACTIC and often a deliberate one at that.

the sooner arbiters apply the same rules to not writing moves as to being late (from july 1) or having mobiles go off the better!!

Basil
25-03-2009, 05:52 PM
I had a most unpleasant experience once with my opponent not only failing to record his moves (having plenty of time on his clock) but trying to blitz me as well.
I called the arbiter who just stopped the clocks and asked him to copy the moves from my scoresheet and continue according to the rules. He did it for a couple of moves then he went back to his old tactics. The arbiter used the same system of fixing the problem and I went on getting blitzed and providing secretarial services to my opponent.
Unfortunately, as in other cases, it comes down to Club policies which in turn are dictated by financial pressure. An extra entry is an extra entry regardless of the ability/willingness of the player to respect the rules.
Shame. What you needed there is a Garvinator or Duggan Trashinerator - both would have fixled* the problem. Chasing a lousy buck is the wrong way to promote the long-term goals of the game and the club - and indeed the reputation of the weak bastard in charge of letting you down and rewarding poor show.

*Copyright TSN

Garvinator
25-03-2009, 06:22 PM
I had a most unpleasant experience once with my opponent not only failing to record his moves (having plenty of time on his clock) but trying to blitz me as well.Had a chuckle at Gunner's reply because it is directly in line with how I was going to reply to this situation :lol:

I called the arbiter who just stopped the clocks and asked him to copy the moves from my scoresheet and continue according to the rules.Point 1. You should have stopped the clocks ;) hehe. Now on to the serious stuff.

So I take it the arbiter just gave the player a 'casual' warning.

In my opinion the arbiter should have made one of two penalty decisions, a) made the player catch up his score sheet on his own time (with the clock running) or (b) allowed the player to catch up the score sheet and then apply a fixed time penalty.

All this being done with the arbiter watching the player catch up the score sheet and the arbiter keeping a close eye on the rest of the game.


He did it for a couple of moves then he went back to his old tactics. The arbiter used the same system of fixing the problem and I went on getting blitzed and providing secretarial services to my opponent.I think this is where your mistake was/is. During the game, you needed to be more forceful in your protests.

The player had been given a casual warning and it had no effect, so you needed to point this out and make an issue out of this with the arbiter and make a scene if necessary. Sometimes this is the only way to get action. Path of least resistance and all that stuff.

Of course it is easy for us to post on a bulletin board and say all this, but really nothing is achieved by staying quiet and feeling like you got robbed. Nothing can be done about it after the game is over. The first thing any decent arbiter will tell you is, you should have said something about it during the game.


Unfortunately, as in other cases, it comes down to Club policies which in turn are dictated by financial pressure. An extra entry is an extra entry regardless of the ability/willingness of the player to respect the rules.Players who break the laws of chess to gain an advantage do get noticed and arbiters who allow it to happen also get noticed. I am sure that by this very thread occurring that it is already getting noticed.

Kevin Bonham
25-03-2009, 07:32 PM
In my opinion the arbiter should have made one of two penalty decisions, a) made the player catch up his score sheet on his own time (with the clock running)

That is what I do with these cases. They can borrow their opponent's scoresheet for the purpose but they can't make another move until they are up to date unless their time goes below 5 mins in the process of updating.


Unfortunately, as in other cases, it comes down to Club policies which in turn are dictated by financial pressure. An extra entry is an extra entry regardless of the ability/willingness of the player to respect the rules.

Know the problem - to a degree. Some years ago there was a rather strong player at our club who disliked scoring and claimed he was unable to score without his play being affected badly on account of some kind of dyslexia. He had scored in tournaments several years previously, and his performance on those was below rating, but not miles below. I could have demanded he produce a medical certificate to prove it but I think that would have scared him away; I took the path of lesser resistance and allowed him to desist from scoring but with 10 minutes off his clock.

But outright unacceptable stuff just shouldn't be tolerated even if it is an extra entry fee.

William AS
25-03-2009, 07:37 PM
A player who refuses to write down the moves from the start of the game, after a few warnings should simply be ruled to have lost the game.

I would usually act as follows:

* tell the player they must write the moves down
* if they continue not writing the moves down, penalise them 5 minutes, tell them they must write the moves down, and tell them they will lose the game if they do not write moves down
* if they still continue not writing moves down, they lose the game.
Exactly the procedure I would use. Never had to forfeit anyone yet, but some people push it right to the limit though.


If the player wants to play from 5 minutes without writing their moves down they have the option of sitting there without making a move until their clock goes below 5 minutes (this would be very boring for all concerned.). I am sure the Arbiter could find some way to penalise them under the FIDE rules.


As eclectic says, if a player has a disability then ideally an assistant should score for them. Sometimes in club situations this is not possible, and in these cases what I have usually done is waive the requirement to score, but deduct 10 minutes from the non-scoring player's clock at the start of the game.

Some disabilities may be non-obvious, eg a player might be dyslexic.
We have a player here with this problem and this is what is done [he has trouble writing down his name]. Mind you. He plays so quickly he always ends up with far more time on his clock than he starts with so this does not help his opponent much. On the plus side, his moves are not always the best because of this and his opponents can often take advantage.

William AS
25-03-2009, 07:50 PM
Point 1. You should have stopped the clocks ;) hehe. Now on to the serious stuff.

So I take it the arbiter just gave the player a 'casual' warning.

In my opinion the arbiter should have made one of two penalty decisions, a) made the player catch up his score sheet on his own time (with the clock running) or (b) allowed the player to catch up the score sheet and then apply a fixed time penalty.

All this being done with the arbiter watching the player catch up the score sheet and the arbiter keeping a close eye on the rest of the game.

I think this is where your mistake was/is. During the game, you needed to be more forceful in your protests.

The player had been given a casual warning and it had no effect, so you needed to point this out and make an issue out of this with the arbiter and make a scene if necessary. Sometimes this is the only way to get action. Path of least resistance and all that stuff.

Of course it is easy for us to post on a bulletin board and say all this, but really nothing is achieved by staying quiet and feeling like you got robbed. Nothing can be done about it after the game is over. The first thing any decent arbiter will tell you is, you should have said something about it during the game.

Players who break the laws of chess to gain an advantage do get noticed and arbiters who allow it to happen also get noticed. I am sure that by this very thread occurring that it is already getting noticed.
I agree totally with all this. Being an nice guy is a very good thing, unfortunately sometimes you have to be a little more assertive [in a quiet polite way, loud protests are usually counter productive].

Basil
25-03-2009, 07:54 PM
We have a player here with this problem and this is what is done [he has trouble writing down his name]. Mind you. He plays so quickly he always ends up with far more time on his clock than he starts with so this does not help his opponent much.
Fred, thanks for coming in. As you know, we have allowed to not write down the moves because you can't. What we are doing here is
a) relaxing rules - which we don't have to
b) making your opponent do something you don't

We are are
a) giving you a break
b) giving you an advantage

You might be aware of what it's like to have a psychological distraction (der) and so you might appreciate that it's annoying for a person who does have to write their moves down to hear you slapping down the clock while they are so doing, knowing that their own time is ticking while they record YOUR move which you don't have to (der).

Given this huge advantage you have and the good nature in which we are all applying it to accomodate you, would you please, for the love of all things good ...













stop being such an ingnorant selfish fark and conducting yourself like a child else you can have 10 minutes with Howard and then you won't come out in public again for a decade.

William AS
25-03-2009, 10:11 PM
Fred, thanks for coming in. As you know, we have allowed to not write down the moves because you can't. What we are doing here is
a) relaxing rules - which we don't have to
b) making your opponent do something you don't

We are are
a) giving you a break
b) giving you an advantage

You might be aware of what it's like to have a psychological distraction (der) and so you might appreciate that it's annoying for a person who does have to write their moves down to hear you slapping down the clock while they are so doing, knowing that their own time is ticking while they record YOUR move which you don't have to (der).

Given this huge advantage you have and the good nature in which we are all applying it to accomodate you, would you please, for the love of all things good ..
Howard, unfortunately not all people in this world have had the same advantages in life that you have had. Several of my relatives are dyslexic and I understand how it affects peoples lives if they do not have the chance to be educated in the correct manner. This enlightened education has been only available in recent years and only in the more advanced countries. Unlike some, most people in this country do not subscribe to the Adolf Hitler solution to the presence of these people in our society. By the way, most of my dyslexic relatives are extremely well educated, doing very well in life and all are capable of writing down the score of a chess game, but many dyslexics, for various reasons, have not been so lucky.

Ninja
25-03-2009, 10:31 PM
I had a most unpleasant experience once with my opponent not only failing to record his moves (having plenty of time on his clock) but trying to blitz me as well.
Unfortunately, as in other cases, it comes down to Club policies which in turn are dictated by financial pressure. An extra entry is an extra entry regardless of the ability/willingness of the player to respect the rules.
Perhaps needs to be pointed out to the club that one player allowed to floute the rules will result in far more than one finding somewhere else to play.
Make your point and then vote with your feet. There are plenty of clubs available who would welcome your patronage.

Basil
25-03-2009, 10:37 PM
Bill, you're not a raging lefty with a massive, hard-wired chip on your shoulder by any chance? You demonstrate an extreme likelihood by your ill-considered words.


Howard, unfortunately not all people in this world have had the same advantages in life that you have had.
You're not the first poster on this board to play the 'life advantages' card on me (and realise after-the-fact that they of course have no idea what advantages I have or not). If I can briefly mention (with apologies to those that already know) that I will be wiping my son's bottom until one of us dies (he doesn't walk, talk, roll over - with a completely sound mind - and for him I grieve daily) and that going out in public is a daily grind for both him and my wife, and that my wife's productive life stopped upon his diagnosis, I shall move on to the rest of your post.


Several of my relatives are dyslexic and I understand how it affects peoples lives if they do not have the chance to be educated in the correct manner.
You might be surprised that some years prior to Andrew's birth I was fund-raising manager for Horizon (http://www.horizoninc.org/) where clients were almost exclusively people with physical disabilities. You speak about correct education - for his part, Andrew's school room is bench where people move his limbs.

Also prior to my son's birth, while president of the CAQ I sanctioned a respected Qld chess identity for his/ her lack of provision for disability services where they should have been provided - unpopular at the time IIRC - but the correct decision. I'd classify my disability advocacy as second to none.


This enlightened education has been only available in recent years and only in the more advanced countries.
How embarrassment. Thank you for my education.


Unlike some, most people in this country do not subscribe to the Adolf Hitler solution to the presence of these people in our society. By the way, most of my dyslexic relatives are extremely well educated, doing very well in life and all are capable of writing down the score of a chess game, but many dyslexics, for various reasons, have not been so lucky.
Ah now to the crux of the debate. People with a disability are entitled to flexibility. However, the point I was making (quite clearly), which like your predecessors you fail to discern on account of your own preconceptions, is that people with a disability do not want to/ should not want to have special treatment beyond that due, or receive undue advantage from it. In this case, a person with a visual impairment who cannot record, should wait, out of respect for the person who has to, to catch up - as opposed to try and slam out a game. The majority of people with this disability, I'm sure, would willingly acknowledge this.

Previous prejudicees include
David Beaumont re: my five cars. Referred to that as 'parasitic'. Completely failing to learn that some cars are for business and two were presents and maintained for my parents.
Paul B re: his drunk brother. Referred to my 'white-bread' sensibilities inferring that someone from my 'privileged' background couldn't comprehend. I covered my personal experiences in the appropriate thread. As it turned out, while he was getting me wrong, I had a relative in identical circumstances.

How about we square it all away when we meet in Adelaide?

William AS
25-03-2009, 11:54 PM
Bill, you're not a raging lefty with a massive, hard-wired chip on your shoulder by any chance? You demonstrate an extreme likelihood by your ill-considered words.


You're not the first poster on this board to play the 'life advantages' card on me (and realise after-the-fact that they of course have no idea what advantages I have or not). If I can briefly mention (with apologies to those that already know) that I will be wiping my son's bottom until one of us dies (he doesn't walk, talk, roll over - with a completely sound mind - and for him I grieve daily) and that going out in public is a daily grind for both him and my wife, and that my wife's productive life stopped upon his diagnosis, I shall move on to the rest of your post.


You might be surprised that some years prior to Andrew's birth I was fund-raising manager for Horizon (http://www.horizoninc.org/) where clients were almost exclusively people with physical disabilities. You speak about correct education - for his part, Andrew's school room is bench where people move his limbs.

Also prior to my son's birth, while president of the CAQ I sanctioned a respected Qld chess identity for his/ her lack of provision for disability services where they should have been provided - unpopular at the time IIRC - but the correct decision. I'd classify my disability advocacy as second to none.?
Perhaps I was being a little unfair in this case, my apologies.

Ah now to the crux of the debate. People with a disability are entitled to flexibility. However, the point I was making (quite clearly), which like your predecessors you fail to discern on account of your own preconceptions, is that people with a disability do not want to/ should not want to have special treatment beyond that due, or receive undue advantage from it. In this case, a person with a visual impairment who cannot record, should wait, out of respect for the person who has to, to catch up - as opposed to try and slam out a game. The majority of people with this disability, I'm sure, would willingly acknowledge this?
I tend to agree. Some people with disabilities do take unfair advantage of any concessions [as do some 'normal' people], often this is not deliberate, just thoughtless. In this case it is probably cultural, his fellow team members also play extremely quickly [he only plays interclub not tournaments] but they do score.


How about we square it all away when we meet in Adelaide?
My definition of raging lefty is almost certainly very different from yours but there are many much further left than me and it will definately not prevent me from talking to you on friendly terms.:)

Basil
25-03-2009, 11:58 PM
My definition of raging lefty is almost certainly very different from yours but there are many much further left than me ...
I know! And I'd call many of them my friends. ;)


...and it will definately not prevent me from talking to you on friendly terms.:)
I look forward to it.

ER
26-03-2009, 12:55 PM
you are both softies but...
"look what you've done to this thread ma"

Basil
26-03-2009, 01:38 PM
you are both softies but...
"look what you've done to this thread ma"
I din do nuttin'.

Ian Rout
27-03-2009, 10:11 AM
A player who refuses to write down the moves from the start of the game, after a few warnings should simply be ruled to have lost the game.

I would usually act as follows:

* tell the player they must write the moves down
* if they continue not writing the moves down, penalise them 5 minutes, tell them they must write the moves down, and tell them they will lose the game if they do not write moves down
* if they still continue not writing moves down, they lose the game.
I recall hearing of an incident some years ago in an American tournament where a reasonably senior player refused to score. It was dealt with much as KB describes. I don't know if it ever came out why he was behaving this way, or if he did it again.

A passing thought that I had when reading this thread was that rather than just a ten minute time adjustment to prevent the scoring player being disadvantaged, another approach could be a smaller adjustment but the scoring being permitted to stop scoring when down to, say, ten minutes rather than five. This would ensure the players were on equal terms during and approaching the blitz phase of the game.

I'm not sure how many times, if ever, I've had an opponent who couldn't score. I think I may have once played someone whose writing arm was in a sling.

Narelle
05-04-2009, 08:43 PM
Surely the obvious solution to the issue of someone being unable to score for whatever reason and others complaining that the person unable to score is getting an unfair advantage because of this is to allow the player unable to score not to score and also giving their opponent the option of not scoring also.

CameronD
05-04-2009, 08:47 PM
In a tournament, i twice had to stop the clock and get the arbiter due to my opponent cease to record the moves. I was down to under 2 minutes and he had 35 minutes and he was trying to blitz me to win.

William AS
06-04-2009, 04:09 PM
In a tournament, i twice had to stop the clock and get the arbiter due to my opponent cease to record the moves. I was down to under 2 minutes and he had 35 minutes and he was trying to blitz me to win.
If I was the arbiter in this situation your opponent would be very close to losing on forfeit and I would be watching, ready and waiting [as I expect most arbiters would be]. This behaviour is definitely not acceptable.

Kevin Bonham
06-04-2009, 05:00 PM
Surely the obvious solution to the issue of someone being unable to score for whatever reason and others complaining that the person unable to score is getting an unfair advantage because of this is to allow the player unable to score not to score and also giving their opponent the option of not scoring also.

One risk of this solution is that if an incident occurs and neither player is scoring, it may not be possible to reconstruct the position at all. I think that's why FIDE doesn't allow the opponent to opt out of scoring.



In a tournament, i twice had to stop the clock and get the arbiter due to my opponent cease to record the moves. I was down to under 2 minutes and he had 35 minutes and he was trying to blitz me to win.If I was the arbiter in this situation your opponent would be very close to losing on forfeit and I would be watching, ready and waiting [as I expect most arbiters would be]. This behaviour is definitely not acceptable.

Some players are still unaware that a player can only stop scoring when they are short of time, not when their opponent is short of time and stops. However in this case the opponent has already had one warning. For the second intervention I would have given CameronD some extra time (perhaps two minutes or perhaps even five depending on the severity) with a warning that a third offence would be game over.

William AS
06-04-2009, 08:47 PM
One risk of this solution is that if an incident occurs and neither player is scoring, it may not be possible to reconstruct the position at all. I think that's why FIDE doesn't allow the opponent to opt out of scoring.



Some players are still unaware that a player can only stop scoring when they are short of time, not when their opponent is short of time and stops. However in this case the opponent has already had one warning. For the second intervention I would have given CameronD some extra time (perhaps two minutes or perhaps even five depending on the severity) with a warning that a third offence would be game over.
Exactly. Although I find it very difficult to understand why players do not know this rule as most arbiters of tournaments where this applies explain it fully in their announcements before the first round starts. :wall: :wall:

Kevin Bonham
06-04-2009, 10:46 PM
Exactly. Although I find it very difficult to understand why players do not know this rule as most arbiters of tournaments where this applies explain it fully in their announcements before the first round starts. :wall: :wall:

I don't bother announcing it as I expect players to know it these days, and those who don't know it can always be told should the issue arise.

Garvinator
06-04-2009, 11:36 PM
I don't bother announcing it as I expect players to know it these days, and those who don't know it can always be told should the issue arise.I am having a guess here but I think this might be in part because most of the Tassie tournaments are played under a 10 second increment, so the tournaments are played under the same recording rules.

In other states, the situation can be quite different where players are going from 30 second increment to 10 second increment to a 40 move time control. So I think it can be quite beneficial to spend the minute or so to explain the recording procedure in operation for that tournament (be it 30 or 10 second increment).

Kevin Bonham
07-04-2009, 12:16 AM
I am having a guess here but I think this might be in part because most of the Tassie tournaments are played under a 10 second increment, so the tournaments are played under the same recording rules.

Correct; the Tas Champs and Open are /+15 and most others are /+10, so we don't have an issue with a range of different requirements about recording.