Mon, 05/11/2009 – 20:19 — chrisbird
Arbiter Rulings: Rnd 2, Sevillano-Lawton
A situation arose towards the end of the Sevillano-Lawton game in that Lawton was no longer keeping his scoresheet up to date and had more than 5 minutes remaining on his clock.
Article 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 or 9.3.”
“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 E.13) If a player is unable to keep score, an assistant, who is 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.”
Article 8.4: “If a player has less than five minutes left on his clock at some stage in a period and does not have additional time of 30 seconds or more added with each move, then he is not obliged to meet the requirements of Article 8.1. Immediately after one flag has fallen the player must update his scoresheet completely before moving a piece on the chessboard.”
Lawton’s scoresheet was inaccurate due to some earlier missing moves and the fact that he stopped recording moves entirely when he still had over 8 minutes on his clock. At that time he was warned by the Arbiter that he had to record the missing moves and continue to record move by move. He wrote a few moves then stopped again. The Arbiter ruled that Lawton should correct his scoresheet, bring it up to date first, then continue to keep score until he had less than 5 minutes remaining. He protested, saying it would take too long.
At that point he had 6:53 minutes on his clock and his opponent had 4:34. He was provided with his opponent’s MonRoi scoresheet and instructed, again, to correct and complete his scoresheet. While doing so, interrupted by much objection, making moves and pressing his clock, Lawton’s time went under 5 minutes and he claimed that he now could stop writing since he had met the requirement of Article 8.4. However, the Arbiter ruled he should first accurately record all moves missed during the time he had ample time to write and while he was infringing that rule. The opponent’s scoresheet had been provided to help with the process. The arbiter even offered to read off the moves to him (other games in the room had finished).
Lawton chose to refuse to bring his scoresheet up to date, while not being allowed to continue the game until he had done so. This ultimately led to him losing the game on time.
Carol Jarecki, IA
Chief Arbiter
Source: http://saintlouischessclub.org/US-Championship-2009-News
Jarecki is a great arbiter.
I can see making him correct the moves until he gets under 5:00 minutes. However, once he is under 5:00, the rule indicates he does not have to keep accurate score.
That is why scorekeeping is a part of the game. I do not know why some players still does not get it!
Great!! Too much time I’ve seen player not respecting these simple rules!
It is unfortunate that the recording of the moves should potentially affect the outcome of the game. I would prefer to have some external recording device as the official move notation device and the recording of moves by the players as optional. Given the rules as they are, the Monroi move recorder is easier to use than notating moves conventionally on paper so maybe the Monroi technology would have helped Charles Lawton in this case.
I beg to differ. Scorekeeping is not part of the game. It is for the player to analyse the game after it has finished but it should not be mandatory. In this day an age we should do away with such archaic rules. In my opinion the arbiter made the wrong decision. The game should’ve been allowed to carry into its conclusion.
I’m surprised no technoology company has come out with an external recording device. With face recognition technology built into most cameras I’m sure its not that difficult.
In the next few years I’m sure this rule will be amended.
The 5 minute rule should not provide protection against completing a scoresheet when the issue of an inaccurate scoresheet arises with more than 5 minutes left on a player’s clock. Otherwise, any player could simply filibuster an arbiter until that player reaches the 5 minute point, and then claim exemption from the rules that govern everyone.
Has this ever come up before? Is there a precedent that arbiters may follow?
If 8.4 clearly releases the player from the requirements of 8.1 then I would think that any penalty should be placed on the player before the 5 min mark. Such as subtracting time. Making a player go back and correct previous mistakes while in time trouble seem petty at best.
Susan how would you rule on this
This is a BS! Why wasn’t it brought up sooner that moves were not documented. Bringing this up at such a late stage smacks of racism. There always seems to be the never ending cycle of the black man being held back. Always sent to the back of the bus. Which is where Mr Lawson is on the standings.
What a horrible representation of the chessplayers from St. Louis. The player in question isn’t one of the 24 best players in the U.S. He was a wildcard from St. Louis to represent the local area. To have his best representation be in the form of not writing his game down is dishonoring the St. Louis area. Follow the rules, you’re lucky to be there anyway.
It is a plot by the “man” to keep a brother down!
Represent!
how is that racist? sevillano is a minority as well…Lawton did not follow the rules, it was brought up to the TD, who did her job. that is not racist at all! and yes, considering he is a guest among champions he should do anything he can to avoid controversy.
Very simple. Why would Mr. Lawton not do the right thing if other players even the topseeds are writing notation. It is already an honor to be a participant why would he not follow the rule.
There should be no controversy of Mr. Lawton did what Kamsky, Nakamura, Shulman and the rest do.
It is a shame that an invited player would do such thing.
I thk that Lawton is the shame of the St Louis state. A very dishonoring act by the guest of the tournament. He should count himself fortunate to be able to play in this great tournament. Not many people i.e. amateurs like me, would get to have such a chance.I think his reputation would be stained by such an act. Highly disgraceful.He was trying to win at all cost, even if he had to resort to unscrupulous act.
Maybe it would have been better to give a smaller penalty instead of having to lose on time for a mistake. How often does a player lose because of a mistake in scorekeeping? Scorekeeping is there for a reason, to make it easy to correct moves, not to be the essence of the game.
In other sports on the other hand, a failure to keep score is equal to a loss. Take golf for example- even if the play is documented on film the player must keep the score correctly.