Yes, you are wrong. USCF Sales has member discounts.
Where are the member discounts? (member discounts on chess products should probably be added to the membership benefits at The United States Chess Federation - US Chess Membership Benefits) Also, what about affiliate discounts?
This is probably a website issue, and I believe they are working on it. It does take time.
Here are some more mistakes in the 6th edition of the rulebook:
-
On page 9 it says Dual rating is “30 < mm+ss < 65” (greater than 30 but less than 65) and on page 11 it says Dual rating is “30 ≤ mm+ss < 65” (greater than or equal to 30 but less than 65. Both of these are wrong. Correct would be “30 ≤ mm+ss ≤ 65” (greater than or equal to 30 and less than or equal to 65) as it states in the update to the 5th edition online.
-
On page 9 it says Blitz is “5 < mm+ss < 10” (greater than five but less than 10) and on page 11 it says Blitz is “5 ≤ mm+ss < 10” (greater than or equal to five but less than 10). Again, both of these are wrong. Correct would be “5 ≤ mm+ss ≤ 10” (greater than or equal to 5 and less than or equal to 10). The update to the 5th edition online has this correct in one spot but incorrect in another spot.
-
The sentence on page 11 “Blitz: Any event that the total playing time 5 minutes or greater and is 10 minutes or less (5 ≤ mm+ss < 10) will be blitz rated.” is worded badly.
For some substantive changes:
-
In “4D. Scoring.”, it would be good to add that there are occasionally some variations used such as 3 points for a win, 1 point for a draw, and 0 points for a loss.
-
On page 10, it would be good to add what the standard increment is for quick since it mentions what the standard increment is for regular and blitz and also what the standard delay is for regular, quick, and blitz.
-
Get rid of 14K since it’s redundant (and seems out of place). Rule 14H1 already states that insufficient losing chances do not apply if there is increment on the clock.
This rules change was passed at the 2014 Delegates Meeting (too late to make it into the 6th edition).
Already noted much earlier by others in private e-mails to moi. The master manuscript handed to the publisher has the correct symbols. The printed copy does not. The publisher will be notified. This errata (and others) is already noted in the 6th edition update draft document. The Rules Committee has been given the draft copy for review. But thanks for the notice anyhow.
I think you might have cut too much out by just keeping chapters 1, 2, 4, 6, and 11. I would not hesitate to excise chapter 8 (The USCF Rating System), chapter 13 (About the United States Chess Federation), Chapter 14 (FIDE Laws of Chess), and Chapter 15 (Fischer960 Chess) from the rule book. For that matter, the content of chapters 14 and 15 is essentially “see this web page.” Chapters 8, 13, 14, and 15 are clearly holdovers from a pre-web time and really aren’t core parts of the rules.
I would certainly retain chapter 5 (Players’ Rights and Responsibilities). For instance, that is where one finds the only statement I can find in the entire text of the rules that the TD is obligated to have a copy of the rule book available for consultation during the tournament.
Chapter 7 (Tournament Director Certification) would be a fine candidate for removal and placement on the web site.
I think I would keep chapter 9 (Official USCF Correspondence Chess Rules) because, well, correspondence chess is chess, and it seems reasonable to me that the official rules of correspondence chess should have a place in the USCF Official Rules of Chess, even if they are not relevant to a majority of USCF members.
I would keep chapter 10 (Internet Chess) because of the “up and coming” nature of chess over the internet. The irony of a “dead tree” version of internet chess rules is not lost on me, however.
From a sentimental point of view, I guess I’d hate to see chapter 12 (Round Robin Pairing Tables) removed from the book, but I will readily admit that most of this information applies to a bygone era (24 player round robin tables, except, I suppose, for blitz?). From a practical perspective, the modern TD would have pairing software that would contain the pairing tables. And, for that matter, beyond six players, the Crenshaw tables are very easy to generate by hand (although the color reversal information in case a player withdraws before completing half the games is not obvious).
I think what should control is whether something would be useful for a TD to have on site if an internet connection were not readily available and which isn’t subject to frequent change. I think RR tables through octos should be retained. Anything higher than that is almost certainly being done by computer anyway but through 8, it’s quite possible to run them on paper and a tournament that might have been intended to be a Swiss might turn into a RR if the attendance is weak, so the TD needs to have the information available.
Agree with Ken’s last post, and Tom’s reply.
Information that isn’t likely to be relative on the day of a tournament, probably isn’t needed due to the web.
Information that is subject to change between rule books should be omitted, I think.
The RR Pairing tables are, in my opinion, still very useful. Especially for new TDs, having them teaches how to do the pairings without computer assistance.
I also think (though off-topic to this thread) that new TDs should be required to hand pair an x amount of tournaments by hand before being able to take the Local TD test. I know, a TDCC thing. 
Once upon a time, it was necessary to have a “standard” delay for each event type (regular, quick, blitz) so that, if the organizer omitted the delay information, there would be an official default.
In theory, this is no longer necessary, since specific mention of the delay (or lack thereof) is now required.
So perhaps “recommended” would be a better word. But why be fussy about it? For example, it is just plain silly to have both a recommended delay (5 seconds) and a recommended increment (30 seconds) for regular.
Why not simply:
- For blitz, a recommended delay or increment of 2 seconds. (Sigh, I guess some of you still prefer a recommend delay of 0 seconds.)
- For quick, a recommended delay or increment of 3 seconds.
- For regular, a recommended delay or increment of at least 5 seconds.
The latter would at least recognize that “regular” encompasses a wide range of frequently used time controls.
Bill Smythe
Recommended itself is probably too strong. A listing of commonly used values is a better approach.
There’s no need for standard increment, because it is impossible to specify an increment time control without specifying an increment.
The problem arises when an organizer specifies a sudden death time control without specifying delay or a lack thereof. Yeah, I know it’s not supposed to happen, but we’re fighting years of engrained practice and a whole universe of advertising we can’t control.
We should maintain the standard delays (5 seconds for dual or regular, 3 for quick, 2 for blitz) with an instruction that they are to be used from move one if an organizer specifies a sudden death time control and fails to specify delay or an explicit lack thereof.
Perhaps. But there should at least be a recommendation to have a delay or increment to begin with. 5 seconds seems minimal enough for a regular-rated event.
True, and unfortunate. And it prevents us from completely achieving our goal of ensuring that all pre-event advertising (which mentions a time control at all) will include explicit mention of the delay or the increment or the lack of either.
So an emergency clause seems necessary. Something like:
“It is improper for any USCF-rated event to announce a time control without explicit mention of the delay or increment or the lack thereof. If these details are omitted, the players have a right to assume a delay of 5 seconds regular, 3 seconds quick, or 2 seconds blitz.”
Bill Smythe
No it ain’t: G/:60 with inc. 
The update to the 6th edition has been sent to the USCF for posting. Typically the post date is 1/1 of each year, but that is up to the USCF. The document was given to the Rules Committee for review before being sent to USCF.
Please forgive me for not knowing… do the electronic (e.g. kindle) versions get updates?
- Enrique
Good question. Allegedly, yes. But that answer is based on third hand knowledge, not direct knowledge.
Is the publisher (or Amazon) in the loop when it comes to these updates? Or are updates typically just an in-house (USCF-only) thing?
- Enrique
It is my understanding that the publisher is willing to provide an updated e-book version. I don’t know what the process is for doing the e-book update.
Sounds great! Thank you again for taking this monster on. 
- Enrique