Maybe not as an explicit refusal to follow the rules--more like playing games with the rules, whereas in light of a warning of a forfeit the only thing to do is keep scrupulously clear of the whole matter.

Either it should be legal to write during the game, including variations, as it was for a time in the Soviet Union, or it should not be legal to use any notes at all. Otherwise various coded systems could easily be devised to record concrete chess content. Underlining, before the game begins, the move before the time control, recording divided time targets, etc. fall into a grey area. It's hard to see the harm. I think they should be permitted, but it matters little if they aren't. 

The rule and its intent seem clear by mere common sense--to keep the game mental and to avoid distracting the players. Distinctions between writing and using notes would only lead to a siege of ambiguities.

I believe the arbiter just didn't think of a more graduated series of sanctions such as a warning of deducting time, and thought a warning of a forfeit would surely put an end to the whole thing. That was perhaps clumsy, but less harsh than deducting 10 minutes immediately--because So had the chance to get away with no sanction at all. One could hardly expect So to continue after such a warning! By continuing, it seems he was pushing, needling, trying to find the boundary, playing cat-and-mouse with the rules partly to taunt or at least defy his opponents and virtually daring the arbiter to keep his word. That itself is distracting, perhaps more so than the writing without that context. If he was angry about his personal life (and it seems he had plenty to be legitimately angry about), that only makes the interpretation more likely, though much sympathy is in order.

I don't blame the arbiter for his actions. They seemed reasonable, if slightly clumsy at one point. Once the arbiter had issued the ultimatum, he had to carry out the forfeit or he would become a negligible presence. And yes, carrying out the threat was in the best interest of the game of chess.

The wording in the rule is "use" from what I've seen which leads to a small issue of interpretation whether the rule was broken or not. But yes, I agree Lee Roth. 

Anyway, back to the hypothetical case, lol:
Because I am not speaking English natively, my interpretation of the rules might differ slightly. However, as it is written I read "use" not "using" which also to me would actually involve "making" a note due to reasons already mebtioned. You cold 'use' the "making" of a note to improve your play (Which I think was the case here no matter if So actually looked at the note after making it). How much it actually help is kinda irrelevant imo.

Think about the problem in sports with allowing substances and procedures that could conceal doping. Even if an athlete hasn't used an illegal performance enhancing substance but just one of those substances to conceal doping, how can it be proven that the athlete hasn't been doping? The same goes for a note on a paper. How can the arbiter know it was only 'made' and not 'used'?

Straggler wrote on 04/12/15 at 08:56:19:


Irrelevant? If the rules aren't clear then the arbiter must interpret them as he sees fit. If he believes the player did not understand them he must warn the player that what he's doing is against his interpretation of the rules. That's the main point of warnings. 
  
Your extremely hypothetical case of notetaking without using the note was also proven false by the fact that a person could be said to have been using the note by reading the first part of the note. You then say that reading the first part of the note could "Perhaps, but that hardly constitutes using the note.", which is a ridiculous statement, and actually there isn't any room for other opinions. You created this extreme case, and then you want to handwave away a part of it that doesn't appeal to your practical sense. I suppose I'll be accused of trying to start an argument now or something because I don't think there's room for other opinions on this and everyone can be "right", actually I'm only trying to make the statements made here be reasonable and make sense.

Precisely as Stigma says is how I view it. You are using the process of making the note to e.g. remember something. That would mean you can use it when you make it. Imagine writing something like "after the bishop moves, remember to sacrifice the rook". That would help you while making the note even if you flip the paper over immediately after finishing it.

fling wrote on 04/12/15 at 09:13:27:

Sorry, I don't understand how it could be argued that a person making a note is thereby using it. He is using the paper he makes it on, and the pen that he makes it with; but he cannot use the note until it exists, and it does not exist until he has made it.

Quote:

How is an arbiter supposed to know whether a player has looked at notes that he made before the game? There is no rule against having such notes in one's possession. Perhaps there should be, but there isn't.

But it isn't clear that what he did was against the rules. The fact that he had been warned for doing it is irrelevant if, properly construed, the rules do not prohibit it.