Interesting discussion on the USCF web site:

http://beta.uschess.org/frontend/news_7_127.php

Seems the Federation recently brought the US rules into conformance
with FIDE rules, forcing the player to move before recording.

Now there was no groundswell among players and organizers for this
change.

It turns out that the our good old Federation has a new revenue
sharing agreement with the MonRoi folks, makers of the electronic
recorder. Of course, making the move on the MonRoi board is like
making a move on an analysis board -- you get to see the position
first, so it's reasonable to require the move to made on the board
before recording it on a MonRoi device.

Of course, the obvious solution would be to forbid pre-recording a
move on any image-based recording device, but allow someone using
paper to continue as before.

But this solution would confer a disadvantage on the MonRoi board,
wouldn't it? An incentive for many players to opt for paper
recording.

Turns out that many scholastic players have been advised by their
coaches to record first, as an impulse control. But just as tobacco
companies want to hook their customers as young as possible, it's good
for the MonRoi folks to get kids used to using their expensive
recorder.

Bottom line: our Federation made a rule change primarily to confer
financial advantage on a Canadian company, with whom they have a
revenue sharing agreement.

We've had a number of discussion about this rule change on
rec.games.chess.* forums. Good points made, pro and con. To my
knowledge, no USCF rep revealed this revenue sharing reason for the
change.

I would ask, does MonRoi have a similar agreement with FIDE, and, if
so, did this play a part in FIDE's rule change too?

Pretty sleazy. Pretty sleazy.

Mike Murray wrote:
...Turns out that many scholastic players have been advised by their
coaches to record first, as an impulse control...

If I remember correctly, this was Kotov's advice in Think Like a
Grandmaster. As a result, many aspiring players in the 70s got into the
habit of recording before moving. I can certainly recall many comical
moments in which I have had to deal with the temptation to peek at my
opponent's scoresheet to get a sneak preview of what he was up to.

Larry T.

On 2 Oct 2006 12:16:40 -0700, "Larry Tapper"
wrote:


Mike Murray wrote:
...Turns out that many scholastic players have been advised by their
coaches to record first, as an impulse control...

If I remember correctly, this was Kotov's advice in Think Like a
Grandmaster. As a result, many aspiring players in the 70s got into the
habit of recording before moving. I can certainly recall many comical
moments in which I have had to deal with the temptation to peek at my
opponent's scoresheet to get a sneak preview of what he was up to.

Yup. I started doing it then, after reading Kotov's book.


Larry T.

So why am I not surprised about the MonRoi - USCF connection! (And
what a drastically overpriced object the MonRoi is.)

FIDE is pretty skanky but USCF must be striving for that standard.

"Larry Tapper" wrote in message
ups.com...

Mike Murray wrote:
...Turns out that many scholastic players have been advised by their
coaches to record first, as an impulse control...

It does way with the'Kasparov' situation against J. Polgar, of what the
intended move was, since it provides proof positive of intent. The
instigator of the new rule currently presides over Kalmykia.

PI

If I remember correctly, this was Kotov's advice in Think Like a
Grandmaster. As a result, many aspiring players in the 70s got into the
habit of recording before moving. I can certainly recall many comical
moments in which I have had to deal with the temptation to peek at my
opponent's scoresheet to get a sneak preview of what he was up to.

Larry T.

Phil Innes wrote (Mon, 02 Oct 2006 21:42:02 GMT):

7 It does way with the'Kasparov' situation against J. Polgar,
7 of what the intended move was, since it provides proof
7 positive of intent. ...

_
I do not have a copy of the USCF rule book handy at the
moment, but, as I remember it, there was no provision
for intent to be a consideration in such a situation - if
the player released the piece after moving it, then the
piece had to stay where it was released - if the player
did not release the piece, then the player had the option
of placing the piece on a different square as long as
the alternative was also a legal move. Can someone
check this?

On 2 Oct 2006 12:16:40 -0700, "Larry Tapper"
wrote:

habit of recording before moving. I can certainly recall many comical
moments in which I have had to deal with the temptation to peek at my
opponent's scoresheet to get a sneak preview of what he was up to.

I like to see what they are thinking.

In my last tournament, my opponent was writing the moves first. He
had a bishop on h6 and wrote Bg7. But he actually moved Bf8, took his
hand off, and punched his clock. Then he said "that's not what I
meant." and wanted to change it. I told him that Bf8 had to stand,
and he changed the scoresheet.
---
Replace you know what by j to email

Mike Murray wrote:
On 2 Oct 2006 12:16:40 -0700, "Larry Tapper"
wrote:


Mike Murray wrote:
...Turns out that many scholastic players have been advised by their
coaches to record first, as an impulse control...

If I remember correctly, this was Kotov's advice in Think Like a
Grandmaster. As a result, many aspiring players in the 70s got into the
habit of recording before moving. I can certainly recall many comical
moments in which I have had to deal with the temptation to peek at my
opponent's scoresheet to get a sneak preview of what he was up to.

Yup. I started doing it then, after reading Kotov's book.


Larry T.

I recently watched a BBC documentary on the 1972 Fisher/Spassky match
and it clearly shoed them making the moves and then recording them. To
me it seems logical to document what counts(the move made) rather than
intent(what move I am thinking of making). But I understand that in
absense of a rule one way or the other, there will be those who fight
over it.

On 2 Oct 2006 16:15:41 -0700, "Rob" wrote:

I recently watched a BBC documentary on the 1972 Fisher/Spassky match
and it clearly shoed them making the moves and then recording them.

There is a story about Fischer and Tal, I think it is in Kasparov's
book and I assume it is true. After their game, Tal asked "why didn't
you move ..." and Fischer said "when I wrote it down, you laughed".
---
Replace you know what by j to email

7 It does way with the'Kasparov' situation against J. Polgar,
7 of what the intended move was, since it provides proof
7 positive of intent. ...

I do not have a copy of the USCF rule book handy at the
moment, but, as I remember it, there was no provision
for intent to be a consideration in such a situation - if
the player released the piece after moving it, then the
piece had to stay where it was released - if the player
did not release the piece, then the player had the option
of placing the piece on a different square as long as
the alternative was also a legal move. Can someone
check this?

Intent wouldn't be relevant to the determination of a move by the
release of the piece. However, it could be relevant to a touch move
ruling. If someone claimed they just bumped their queen accidentally
and shouldn't have to move it, but had already written Q-??, then I
would be unlikely to believe them.

- Tom Martinak