- Joined
- 06 Aug 07
- Moves
- 8299
Originally posted by RJHindsWritting one's moves down - first - then taking another look at the position before moving can often help one from making a mistake.
Maybe not all. I like those chess boards that automatically record your moves The Columbia Chess Club has two. If there was one for every game, that would eliminate the need for each person to write down the moves and they would not need those other devices. I nearly always make mistakes on my score card anyway.
- Joined
- 06 Aug 07
- Moves
- 8299
Originally posted by VarenkaI'm not sure what their reasoning was but I remember playing in PanAM Collegiate Chess many years ago - was in time pressure (as was my opponent) saw a forced variation made my move and started to write down the variation and my opponent had a hissy fit. The game ended a draw and the TD didn't say a thing. I believe in USCF chess that same FIDE rule now applies - not sure why it matters.
Maybe, but it's not allowed by the latest FIDE rules - you have to move first.
Originally posted by kbear1kI think it's to do with ruling out all forms of note taking. The score sheet is meant to be a record of the game and it should record the moves actually made, and not moves that may or may not be played.
not sure why it matters.
Personally, I'm not too hung up on this rule. I'm just trying to give FIDE's possible reasons.
Hi V
Alwasy thought that rule was iffy nit-picking.
Was it not deemed once a move had been written down and not
played the player was technically consulting notes during a game.
Never use to do it myself but know a few who did.
I think it was Kotov who universally advised it in 'Think Like A GM'.
and it had a fair number of followers.
Used to smile at the players who tried to hide their move after they
written it down. Turning over their score sheet etc.
Non-players seem baffled by this writing down of the moves.
I recall reading that a newspaper published a picture a chess lad
deep in concentration with a caption that read something like this:
"The pencil and paper are used to work out the players moves."
(do you have to write down your move in advance if claiming a three
fold rep. Or can you just show the TD what you are going to play.)
I've never been involved in a three fold rep OTB.
Had dozens of perpetual checks but a three fold rep with x amount of
moves in between the critical position and calling across a TD. No. (has anyone on here?)
Never had a draw under the 50 move rule either.
(had one tough game where I had a K+Q v K+R and my opponent was
counting the moves by writing numbers after his moves.
I managed to win that but it was like watching sand pouring out of an hour glass.)
I've missed out on these things. 🙁
Originally posted by greenpawn34In the 20th century it was discovered that some positions of certain endgames can only be won in more than fifty moves (without a capture or a pawn move). The rule was changed to include certain exceptions in which one hundred moves were allowed with particular material combinations. However, more and more exceptions were discovered and in 1992 FIDE abolished all such exceptions and reinstated the strict fifty-move rule.
Hi V
Alwasy thought that rule was iffy nit-picking.
Was it not deemed once a move had been written down and not
played the player was technically consulting notes during a game.
Never use to do it myself but know a few who did.
I think it was Kotov who universally advised it in 'Think Like A GM'.
and it had a fair number of followers.
Used t ...[text shortened]... was like watching sand pouring out of an hour glass.)
I've missed out on these things. 🙁
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fifty-move_rule
- Joined
- 18 Jan 07
- Moves
- 12469
Originally posted by RJHindsWhy, yes, I do, but I don't get to ban children from USA chess tournaments so that isn't relevant. What's relevant is whether the USCF thinks he should be, and whether they're allowed to think that by law.
I understand he admitted he cheated. It does not matter how many times. Once a cheater, always a cheater. He should be banned for life, don't you think so?
Richard
- Joined
- 18 Jan 07
- Moves
- 12469
The post that was quoted here has been removedYeah, I realised that, I was being sarcastic. Surely nobody believes that?
Only his mother seems to believe his claim, and fortunately I am not that woman, who eventually should have to face the uncomfortable fact that her son seems to have grown up without enough of a moral compass. I think that Clark Smiley was old enough to understand quite well that what he was doing was wrong.
I wonder to what extent Catherine Smiley also would reflexively defend her son if he were accused of cheating on his school examinations.
I think it would be inevitable that she would act similarly. To do otherwise would be to admit that she raised her son to be a cheat - and her mitigating stance towards him is, undoubtedly, a very large part of what made him so - which does not seem to be possible in this woman's psychology.
I say, bring back caning - for the parents!
Richard