"Rob Mitchell" wrote in message
ups.com...
On Apr 11, 4:00 am, Guy Macon http://www.guymacon.com/ wrote:
Rob wrote:
It's a stupid claim. It would be like saying that a Royal Typewriters
held the copyrights to every box score in baseball they were used to
record. It's a marketing ploy by MonRoi ,if it is true, and nothing
more. Even a cheap, bad attorney coould win this case. I don't know
whay a newspaper wouldn't print the games. Has anyone published the
games anywhere that has been recorded by MonRoi? I suspect they have
and nothing came of it.

If not, I would be happy to post any tournament games that MonRoi
claims copyright to on my webpage http://www.guymacon.com/ and
to then challenge them to sue me for copyright violation. I don't
think they will and I have the resources to win if they do.

Guy Macon
http://www.guymacon.com/

Wonderful idea! I understand the Jerry Hanken is the spokesperson/
salesman for MonRoi? Is that true? Did he receive any payment to
infulence this decision?

---
PT Wrote:

Gone are the days when I traded a six pack of ale for all the usopen
scoresheets.


Molson's? Or was Genesee good nuff?

What's interesting about this issue is that (a) a rules change was made to
accommodate a commercial venture, and now (b) apparently with advice from
the head of CJA we see a bald power-grab, which is (c) somehow at the whim
of the USCF President who has (d) by precedent declared game-scores are not
a privilege not a right.

I don't know what those folks are drinking, but suspect the number is
greater than 6.

Phil Innes

In a message dated 4/11/2007 7:10:59 PM Eastern Standard Time,
writes:




Sam, I have been in communication with Chris Bird who handles Monroi in
this area. He has provided me with games from the Eastern Class and
given
me
permission to publish games. I give Continental credit for the game
score. I am
sure Bill Goichberg will accord this privilege to others. HBD

I thought that Sam Sloan already said the board does not agree with this
'policy' and it would not appear at the Open?

No permissions are necessary for game scores. Period. Eric Johnson in his
note below is quite right. This situation has occured once before - at
Elista, and though my friend bought the scores then gave them away (he
gave
them to me and I gave them to USCF and the 'West' via Tom Dorsch) even
Fide
didn't try it twice.

Can someone write something in clear, here?

Phil Innes

MY **note. Others by Larry Evans, in converstion with a player raising
questions about the new write-later rule.

----------

**I keep thinking I understand what this says, until I encounter another
clause which contradicts it, or removes the whole issue to some 8-ball
arbiter decision.

The other clause with a bearing on the question is 12.2: "During play the
players are forbidden to make use of any notes, sources of information,
advice,
or to analyse on another chessboard. The scoresheet shall be used only for
recording the moves, the times of the clocks, the offer of a draw, and
matters
relating to a claim."


**Okay, that's all clear - if I understand it there is nothing in the above
which inhibits writing the move first, unless writing 1.e4 is a 'note'.

There is no penalty for recording a move before it is made provided it is
then made on the board.

**Okay - there is a definitive answer that 1.e4 is not 'notes'.

But before those players who use the scoresheet as a
scratch-pad to write down candidate moves they don't want to forget while
searching for better ones console themselves with the thought that nothing
prevents
them from continuing this practice, they should take heed of Article 12.2
which
makes it clear that "the scoresheet shall be used only for recording the
moves..." In other words, if two or more moves appear on the same line it
doesn't
matter which one was made in the game.

**I presume the sense of this paragraph is that neither the score sheet nor
anything else can be used to record 'candidate' moves. I understand
everything except the last sentence, since 2 or more moves on a line /does/
indicate notes, and one of the moves is not a record of the game.

The fact that ANY move NOT made appears
on the scoresheet is clear evidence of a breach of Clause 12.2.

**Which appears to settle my question above... but

Nothing could
be plainer. This settles the argument about whether crossed-out moves are
merely notes, because there is no place on the scoresheet for moves that
were not
made.


**But there is room, if you write small, you can write one move, then cross
it out and write another, or even record e4 and cross out the 4 and write 3,
to leave e3. So I am confused again. What happens if I write at 1. "e4" and
then change it to "e3" by crossing out the 4 and writing in a 3?

James Schroeder is right when he asserts there is no rule that forces a
player to make the crossed-out move. But it seems to me that when one of the
penalties for an infraction of Clause 12.2 is to forfeit the offender, we
should not
be too indignant when an arbiter insists that a player make the crossed-out
move.

**Again, this seems to answer the issue, by making 1 e3 and infraction, and
presumably by arbiter intercession 1 e4 is required to be played. But what
happens if I win in 10 moves after opening with 1.e3 but crossed out the 4
and wrote in a 3, then hand in the score-sheet, when the arbiter notices the
crossed out move? Did I still win, or is the game nullified since neither my
opponent nor arbiter took note at the time, or ... ?

Besides, the preface to the Laws recognizes that "too detailed a rule
might deprive the arbiter of his freedom of judgement and thus prevent him
from
finding the solution to a problem dictated by fairness, logic and special
factors."


**O boy! OTOH - if as in Petersburg recently, even the top Fide arbiter
declares a draw by repetition after one player claimed it, but in fact the
repeated sequence was false - isn't the other side of allowing 'special
factors' to deprive one player of winning the game! This matter of chess
judgement is not any small issue - since the top US arbiter doesn't even
have a chess rating! [which itself is illegal, BTW]. How much freedom of
judgement shall we rest in this person if she did the same as GG?! This
provision seems to provide no check to arbiter's intercession. In the crazy
example above, when GG had his error pointed out with him he then conferred
with the organisers and sponsors [!] but the player who had not requested a
draw couldn't be found to continue play, so the result was a draw after all.
What a circus!

A. Well put. But suppose a player writes down an intended move but changes
his mind by erasing it or whiting it out, thus leaving no trace. I don't
like
intervention by third parties and still stand by my original answer: "My own
feeling is that it's not our concern what players scribble during a game --
provided their scoresheet is correct and they don't consult notes they
brought
before the game began."

The 2005 U.S. Championship in San Diego used the FIDE rule which does not
allow a move to be written down before it is played even though it conflicts
with
USCF rule 15A which states, in part: "The player may first make the move,
and
then write it on the scoresheet, or vice versa..."


**And there is the 8-ball, or is it a coin toss? What does it really matter
if a player writes a move then overwrites it? And how many times have you
written d or e, and noticed it a few moves later, and corrected your own
record? I understand if a player conspicuously writes a sequence of half a
dozen moves as staging points to his thought, [poor dupe], that this is sort
of cheating the rule - but that is exceptional.

The reason for these ridiculous rules is that FIDE is run by bureaucrats
instead of real players. FIDE has about as much to do with promoting chess
as the
United Nations has to do with stopping war.

**The REAL issue here is why change the rule at all? What was the problem
with writing down one move aforehand? Changing the rule has created this NEW
problem. At my move, I pick up my e pawn and drop it on e3.5. In other
words, and edge of square move. I then hit the clock and immediately my
opponent plays f5xe4 - and I call the arbiter! Hey! I say, I moved it to e3!
Of course, I haven't written anything yet - so NO proof of my intent exists.

**The second and more frequent example is either release of a piece or
touching another piece in transit. The rules say that release is a move
under touch-and-rule, and if the opposing piece I touch is a legal capture I
have to take it even if I touched it accideentally. Where is any proof of my
INTENDED move?

**The highest level incident of piece-release is of course Garry Kasparov
and Judit Polgar. He had seemed to release the piece while hovering it, but
then moved it elsewhere! Personally I think GK was innocent and /thought/ he
had not released it, though the camera clearly showed that he had, and
besides JP saw that too. In this instance GK had not written down his move
beforehand, so without an action-replay with cameras in the middle of a very
high level game, it was not a resolvable issue. The remaining detail of the
anecdote is that JP was so shook by this that she lost concentration and the
game too. Here she is playing the W Ch and before her eyes he seems to
cheat!

**Not only have I read NO reason for changing the rule at all, I have also
read no credable discussion about it, and instead we read about some sort of
commercial deal to change the rules, with paid consultants showing up here
to say vaguely, and not evidently with any merit of truth, that it doesn't
matter!

**Neither can USCF be engaged on the issue, because they are 'not in'. The
funny thing is that the reason Bill Hall and I thought that regular press
conferences with himself, and some board members were useful, was to obviate
all the nonsense caused by USCF's APPALLING communcations, and obvious
insincerity of board-promises, promises [see corres chess non-rating scandal
elsewhere].

**And the final idiocy is like some Zero Mostell routine On The Way To The
Forum - where the very subject is taboo!

Phil Innes
Vermont