| Kenneth Sloan 2006-10-12, 7:42 pm |
| 4057 wrote:
quote:
> Phil Innes wrote (Wed, 11 Oct 2006 12:13:36 GMT):
>
> 7 ... it seems to me that the new rule seeks to avert forms
> 7 of cheating [real or imagined], but in doing so creates more
> 7 problems than it solves - the biggest of all is the requirement
> 7 of an arbiter or TD to determine intention - which is a new
> 7 problem /created/ by the rule that didn't previously exist if
> 7 you took a second to write your move in advance.
>
> _
> Even before the recent rule change, intention was an
> issue in the USCF rules. While it may be true that
> writing a move in advance would have been a help in
> some intention disputes, it does not seem clear to
> me that it was much of a help. Consider this example
> (assumed to take place before the most recent rule
> change):
> _
> Suppose that (1) I tentatively came to the conclusion
> that I wanted to take a pawn on e7 with my rook and
> wrote the move down with the intention to play it; (2)
> I realized that Rxe7 would be a disaster and that
> I could only save my game by playing Re6 instead;
> (3) having spent a lot of time thinking about my move,
> I rushed to play Re6, intending to correct my score
> sheet after punching the clock; (4) while moving my
> rook to e6, I accidentally brush the pawn on e7; and
> (5) my opponent claims that I am obliged to take the
> pawn on e7 because I touched it. I would hope that
> the TD would not rule that the touch move claim had
> to be justified because of Rxe7 being written on my
> score sheet.
> _
I certainly would *not* uphold a touch-move claim in
these circumstances.
quote:
> In short, it seems to me that the written record, even
> when it existed, did not definitively resolve intention
> issues.
I'll go even further - I don't think I've *ever* considered
what was written on a scoresheet as a guide to this
sort of "intention".
quote:
> Indeed, if it had been customary to take a
> written record as a commitment to a specific move,
> I suspect that it would have been quite rare to see
> the recommendation of the practice of writing down
> a move before making it.
>
As far as I know, no one has ever considered writing
the move on the scoresheet to be committing. ESPECIALLY
the vocal proponents of the old rule. Their most
common reason for preferring the old rule is that
they want to write the move, think about it, and
retain the option to make a different move if they
discover something wrong with the written move.
The idea of changing the rules so that writing the
move *did* commit you to making the move was
floated a few times - but never seriously considered.
I used this option in a few conversations primarily
to flush out the people who seemed reluctant to
admit that they wanted to retain the right to
change their minds (write a move, scratch it out and
write another,...repeat as necessary).
NO ONE who I spoke to preferred making the written
move equivalent to "determining" the move. NO ONE.
_
quote:
> Consequently, it does not seem to me to be a great
> loss if there is no longer a possibility of using the
> written record as evidence in an intention dispute.
>
It's not a loss at all. I don't know of a single TD
who ever used a scoresheet in this way.
It's a red herring. But...you knew that, didn't you?
--
Kenneth Sloan KennethRSloan@gmail.com
Computer and Information Sciences +1-205-932-2213
University of Alabama at Birmingham FAX +1-205-934-5473
Birmingham, AL 35294-1170 http://www.cis.uab.edu/sloan/
|