With regard to "writing your move down first or after you play", I would question why anyone would want to write down their moves first, and thus take time off their clock? Simply makes no sense.
When I started playing chess I used to first write my move down and the reason was to do a " blunder check " before actually playing the move . After writing the move down , before playing it , I would look at the position and check to insure that I wasnt hanging a piece , overlooking mate , or overlooking that I might be in check .... this simple precaution saved me many games over the decades . Now does it make sense to you why some prefer to do it this way ? I know many who still prefer to do this .
And it makes no sense at all to have "local rules" or variances on a game as standard as chess. A local golf course might declare a cart path a hazard or not, or a ball field might declare any ball hitting a wire or pole to be out of bounds, these are practical matters which change with the venue. But the chessboard is the same everywhere, and so should the rules be.
On the other hand, can you really blame national federations for modifying (improving!) FIDE rules when they have the chance to do so (i.e. in tournaments which are not FIDE-rated)? Some FIDE rules are so daft that it makes good sense from the federations' point of view to discard them if possible.
Hi NM Reb, thanks for addressing my question. If I get you correctly, you are saying that the preferred move is written down, then evaluated for blunders, then played or changed? I understand selecting a move, evaluating it etc, but why the need to waste time writing it down? I have never played OTB so maybe I am missing something.
How often have you played using increments ? The two main things I prefer about increments is that A) neither player can ever stop keeping score and B) far fewer games are decided by the clock or terrible time scrambles at the end .
A isn't totally correct. The only time you have to always keep score is in games with increment time controls of 30 seconds or more.
If you or your opponent have less than 5 minutes on the clock, neither of you have to keep score until you meet the next time control for games with multiple time controls (USCF).
This is true for both non-sudden death time controls (rule 15B) and sudden death time controls (rule 15C). That is from the USCF 5th edition rules and associated rulebook changes that were effective as of January 1st, 2012.
FIDE rules are actually the same, with the exception that only players in time trouble are excused from keeping score until the time control is met; after that they have to completely update their score sheet before making another move on the board. See sections 8.4, 8.5 and 8.6 of the FIDE rules.
In my experience A is totally correct . I played in FIDE rated events , in Europe for more than 10 years and the most popular classical time control used was G/2 hours and G/90 with a 30 s increment from move 1 . In the games with 30 sec increments both players had to keep score the entire game. I never saw any increment other than 30 seconds used , are they ? In G/2 h a player below 5 minutes may stop keeping score but as long as a player has more than 5 minutes remaining he must keep score which makes more sense than the USCF way of allowing both players to stop keeping score if one of them is under 5 minutes.
I can't speak to what is normal in increment time controls in Europe, just what the regulations say about increments less than 30 seconds; the statement made was that with increments neither player can stop keeping score and that is only true of 30 second increments or more.
We don't have many FIDE rated tourneys in my area, though they are increasing (OKC, Tulsa, KC and St. Louis areas at least) and the ones that are usually are in sections that I'm not strong enough to play in yet; at least with any hope of scoring.
I am speaking of classical chess FIDE rated . I have never seen increments , other than 30 s , used in such events. I am aware that some rapid, and blitz, events use much smaller increments but I dont think these require scorekeeping anyway ?
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 legibily as possible, in the algebraic notation (See Appendix C), 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 or adjourning a game according to the Guidelines of Adjourned Games point 1.a.
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. (See Appendix C.13)
If a player is unable to keep score, an assistant, who must be 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.
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 for the remainder of the period 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.
I believe that the statement as made is absolutely correct according to FIDE. At issue is that the majority of FIDE tournaments will be played with 30 second increment as that is part of FIDE's standard set of time controls.