Chess Scotland Noticeboard

SteveHilton · King Joined: 24 Jul 2007 Posts: 443 Location: Greenock

However, the player not taking a score of his/her game cannot claim draws under repeated position for example

Trevor Davies · Queen Joined: 15 Feb 2007 Posts: 131

As an Elder of the Church of "Gwyddbwyll heb 'sgrifennu", I now demand my rights to be spared writing down my moves - without penalty.

Andy McCulloch · King Joined: 28 Mar 2007 Posts: 280

For once I am totally in agreement with Mike. His example of two visually impaired players, one recording, one not explains what I was thinking very well, and much better than I did

For myself, I do my recording while my opponents clock is running so it is indeed a loss of 'thinking time' rather than real time on the clock.

During the one game I have played against a visually impaired player, who had an assistant to make his moves, I actually found myself spending a lot of time just watching him and waiting for his move without thinking about the position. I was outplayed, and having found an absolutely winning move for my opponent, I resigned immediately his next move was made without looking at the board. In fact he had played a different good move, but one that gave me chances although I was probably still losing.

What I suppose I am trying to say is that I found the experience quite different to any other game I have played, and my thought processes were found wanting.

The Church of 'Chess Without Writing' seems to be the result of a recent schism.

SteveHilton · King Joined: 24 Jul 2007 Posts: 443 Location: Greenock

Andy,
I have already made it clear what happens if no score of a game is taken by a player.
There are as you know varying degrees of blindness and visual impairment you would have to legislate for each scenario.
What I have talked about here and what some others have supported in their postings is the common sense approach to this situation.

I will ask this question to all who advocate time penalties against those who because of their disability cannot take down a score of a game. Do you wish to exclude disabled players from playing in team matches? Or do you wish to demonstrate the inclusiveness of Chess in the country

I would urge you to consider this question very carefully

Geoff Chandler · Posted: Wed Nov 11, 2009 8:00 pm Post subject:

I understand the Edinburgh player not wishing to inconvieniance
anyone or claim an unfair advatage but who advised him that a
10 minute penalty would even things up.

I know most players and I'm sure if he explained he was partially
sighted and could not score a game then they would happily just
play on enforcing no time penalty at all.

I think the matter should be re-considered, the player approached
and advise that no time penalty need be introduced.

It really is going against the spirit and the idea of the game.

Trevor Davies · Queen Joined: 15 Feb 2007 Posts: 131

Andy, Actually, "Gwyddbwyll heb 'sgrifennu" goes back to at least the 14th century in recorded history – see, for example, the Red Book of Hergest, where its main tenets are lauded in an epic verse poem, attributed to Aneirin ap Goronwy ap Peredur– although that attribution is now disputed. One of many interesting parallels between “Gwyddbwyll heb ‘sgrifennu” with more well-known creeds (in the context of this topic) is the symbolism of the “pedwar marchogion”: two of whom are mounted on white steeds while two are on black – compare the “Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse” - which suggests some commonality even further back in history. No doubt, that has much to do with the migration of peoples in antiquity.

JR · King Joined: 23 Jan 2007 Posts: 447 Location: Edinburgh

Simple solution, when playing a visually imparied player who is not recording the moves, the sighted player should not be required to record moves either if he/she chooses not to.

No time penalites required.

Personally I do not see the problem, writing down your moves takes very little time, it has little or no impact on the game at all.

As has also been stated you do not need to record in the final 5 minutes anyway.

Mike Scott · King Joined: 01 Feb 2007 Posts: 676 Location: Edinburgh

SteveHilton · King Joined: 24 Jul 2007 Posts: 443 Location: Greenock

Mike
if a blind/visually impaired player makes use of an assistant to take a score of the game then that score is valid in the event of a dispute

MDuke · Rook Joined: 08 May 2007 Posts: 79

He could still claim a draw by using his opponents' scoresheet as "evidence".

admin · Site Admin Joined: 09 Jan 2007 Posts: 1386

Chris Hampton has been having problems logging on and has asked me to post the following.

"Stephen has asked me to throw my dice on the table with on the topic of this "thread"

I hope I'll get "double sixes" on it! ( Smile

IMHO, rules are made for the direction of fools and the guidance of wise men. Alex McF is right to suggest that the exercise of good sense would not go amiss on matters of this sort. First up, no one is accusing anyone anywhere of anything right now!

Stephen has issued a general ruling which I happen to completely support. Essentially, the argument is that both players, visually-impaired (VI) or sighted (S) do or may suffer some time or other disadvantages and thus we thus have, to all intents, a 'self-cancelling' situation.

Before anyone challenges me on this, the VI player has the ability to touch all his or her pieces on the Braille board. The S player can, if she or he is of that turn of mind, observe the pieces the VI player touches and, thus, possibly deduce what move or moves the VI player may be thinking about. That aside, I am sure that most people would accept that the VI player has to interpret what his touch moves are telling him or her and that involves a fractional time-lapse that does not, we suggest, apply to the S player.

If someone does not keep score (whether VI or S)there is tha added disadvantage that the non-scorer has to rely on the accuracy of the record being kept by his or her opponent.

Additionally, however, the inaccuracy of the physical moves being made on the normal board is not checkable by the VI player. It would, I suggest, normally take a third party to note any discrepancy and point this out to both players.

Donald W seems to me to have made a positive suggestion regarding 'equal additions' to both player's clocks. I feel that his to be the 'judgement of Solomon' on this whole topic! My central point would be that IF both players and IF both team captains are ready to accept a given arrangement at a given time, then, frankly, I can't see a serious issue arising.

Bear in mind, please, that when Mike S first drew our attention to the Edinburgh Chess League ruling, we discovered, on further investigation, that, ironically, it was the home team that felt it should, quite rightly, abide by its own ruling on such matters

It appears, however, that the VI player chose to use a 'normal' board. In my opinion, that would render any complaint (if it ever arose) invalid since the ruling about "equal time" assumes that the VI player is using a Braille board. However, Stephen, has done us all the great service of making the general rule clear

We hope that, all other things being equal, no time addition or time penalty will be felt to be necessary. If needs must, then I would agree with Trevor (there's a thought!) that three minutes is not an excessive amount of added time.

I am not a lawyer, but I think I can distinguish between the word 'must' and the word 'may' The ever-blessed rule book does not , I understand, stipulate any given time period.

I believe it uses the word 'may' to imply that the exercise of discretion and tact are not out of place in this context.

I would prefer to talk of 'time addtions' rather than 'time penalties' since
the inability of a visually-impaired player to keep a 'proper' score sheet is not a matter of perversity but of adversity and I believe that ought to be understood and recognized

I will be pleased when and if all the Leagues reach a consensus on this matter. I'm putting a proposal to the December meeting which I hope will receive a good measure of support Essentially, I propose that 'all other things being equal', no penalty should be imposed or time added to either clock in the case of league matches being played with 'standard' time controls.

Rapid play, in my experience, does not normally require the keeping of a score sheet though any player may opt to do so.

Alan Tate · King Joined: 01 Feb 2007 Posts: 377 Location: Edinburgh

The fact that this thread is a 'hot topic' sums up the noticeboard as a whole. Scottish chess players are more interested in debating the rules than discussing actual chess, or the development of chess in Scotland. *sigh*

Trevor Davies · Queen Joined: 15 Feb 2007 Posts: 131

QUOTE:

"Scottish chess players are more interested in debating the rules than discussing actual chess, or the development of chess in Scotland. "

Harmless enough of itself. However, the mass opt-out from contributing to the development of chess in Scotland (or maintaining what already exists) is lamentable.

SteveHilton · King Joined: 24 Jul 2007 Posts: 443 Location: Greenock

Andy McCulloch · King Joined: 28 Mar 2007 Posts: 280

Stephen I have no problem with 'inclusiveness in Chess'. However the rules of Chess apply to every player, handicapped or not.

Let us look at the rule.

Article 8: The recording of the moves

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, 9.3 or F1.1. 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 C13)
If a player is unable to keep score, an assistant, who must be 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.

Let us consider article 8 of the Laws of Chess, shown above.

Read that carefully Steve, consider it, and what you claim. The last two sentences are of vital importance to the ongoing discussion.

If a player is unable to keep score, an assistant, who must be 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. This statement is made irrespective of whether a player is sighted or visually-impaired.

If I were playing a sighted player and he/she was unable to record the moves, I would expect either for them to have some sort of time penalty as a result of article 8, or for me to have some time added on.

As a result of this thought experiment, if I was playing a visually impaired player and either they were not deducted time or I was not given extra time, then I would have to say that the visually impaired player definitely receives a benefit compared to the sighted player.

Think about this carefully Steve, you either claim equality, which requires that you accept the same penalty/adjustment that a sighted player would receive, or you want preferential treatment for visually impaired players.