caissa.com/chess-tools/pgn-editor.php
This site allows you create PGN files. You can also create animated GIFs of games. Not particularly useful idea but pretty neat looking for Web Sites.
Question:
Is this USCF Rulebook on-line (or really the the Rules themselves)?
I have found the FIDE site for the Laws of Chess.
USCF Rulebook is not on-line. The reason is, I think, that we don’t own the copyright to the rules of chess. The publisher of that book owns the copyright and has not agreed to let us post them online.
It’s very awkward.
Boy I would say so.
Here is a new solution. New Rulebook but this time USCF has the copyright.
As a quick repeat of multiple other threads on this, the contract that the USCF has also gives the publisher the right to publish those future versions of the rulebook (retaining the copyright). At the time the contract was signed it seemed like a decent option, and attempting to break the contract without getting successfully sued is not something the USCF has had the funds for.
Actually, the USCF owns the copyright to the 5th edition (current) of the USCF Rules of Chess – the problem is that we are on the wrong side of a long-term exclusive publishing contract, and the publisher sees free availability of the text of the book as something that would cut into their share of profits from the book.
– randy shane
I can only replicate the round robin tables in the rulebook–I can’t present the dropout color correction tables or the instructions in Chapter 12 of the Official Rules on a webpage.
As noted, it is a contractual issue, not a copyright issue. Most books that have been in print through multiple editions for 25 years or longer like the USCF Rulebook will have similar issues, because that was a standard form contract back then, years before the Internet existed.
.
The USCF should rewrite its rule book from scratch. Plenty do-able.
Under no circumstances should the USCF publish another edition of its current rule book with the David McKay company.
The USCF does not need a publishing company for its rule book. Quite the opposite.
Even without the awful web restriction that the USCF currently suffers, partnering with a publishing company only hurts the USCF: all give no get, all loss no gain.
The publishing company sucks out some profits that would otherwise go to the USCF.
The company greatly constrains the flexibility of the USCF update its own rule book with quick agility whenever the USCF sees fit.
Partnering with a publishing company still makes sense for novelist and authors of many types of books, due to marketing benefits. And it used to make sense for the USCF back when the cool new technology was a remote control for your TV.
But nowadays it would be stupid for the USCF to partner with a publishing company. People looking for chess books know the niche and can find our books on Amazon.com.
Yet it seems all current members of the USCF ExBoard plan to continue our self-harmful relationship with McKay far into the indefinite future.
As Randy said, it is a LONG-TERM and EXCLUSIVE contract. Going to a different publishing company requires successfully breaking that contract, and such success is not guaranteed.
At the time the contract was written, it was a normal contract. Blaming a board for not being psychic enough to foresee the internet (probably before PCs existed) seems a bit unreasonable.
So here’s a question. Why does USCF publish chess rules anyhow? I thought I heard that most national federations just use FIDE rules for everything.
So the only way it might work is if we complete went to FIDE’s rules but published an “Exceptions to FIDE Rules for Non-FIDE Rated USCF Tournaments” :mrgreen: :mrgreen:
Why are there exceptions? What’s wrong with just using FIDE rules? I’m not being facetious - I’ve never read either rulebook (USCF or FIDE) so if there are significant differences, I’d be curious to know why, and which is really “better”.
We’d still maintain our own ratings on the side, but that’s a USCF administration issue, not part of the rules of the game, as are things like determining qualifications for national tournaments, etc. Are those things in the rulebook today, or are they just USCF policies?
I think FIDE uses a round robin table that starts with player 1 having white in the first two rounds while another player (e.g. player 6 in a 10 player event) starts with two blacks according to the original Berger tables. Crenshaw (USCF standard) and I both came up with ways to prevent that from happening, see an earlier thread for details.
Just two examples:
If you have R+K and your opponent has N+K in sudden death time control and you run out of time, then under USCF you draw and under FIDE you lose. GM Josh Friedel wrote about this predicament on Chess Life Online.
Drug testing. Enough said.
There are cases when USCF rules are better and some cases when FIDE rules are simpler. Of course, FIDE is dominated by European nations, most who have a totally different perspective on chess tournaments than Americans do.
Michael Aigner
Most of the differences is in that we run large swisses in the US where FIDE doesn’t often, so we have specialized rules for those.
Perhaps adopting the FIDE Rules with modifications?
One example from another field is the National Electrical Code.
Every 4-5 years a new NEC manual is put out.
Each state then either adopts the NEC in full as its state mandate or can adopt it with modifications. An example is the NEC Code requiring an arc fault protection breaker for all bedroom circuits. It has been shown in studies that it prevents bedroom fires from electrical blankets and other appliances used in the bedroom. However, they cost about $20 more per breaker than the standard ones. So contracters in Indiana lobbyed the state and the Indiana adopted the NEC but said they will not require the arc fault in bedrooms. Very stupid if you ask me-- Raise the cost of each home 40-100 dollars and save a few lives? Worth it. Price difference might even be less now, I haven’t done electrical work in a while. But other industries use the adopt with changes, why can’t we?
If we adopt FIDE Rules with modifications, we could post the modifications online. Then perhaps self publish a separate TD/Tournament Organizer Handbook that would list rules/regulations for TD/Organizers.
Rule 14E explicitly states that a K+N or K+B are not enough to win on time unless there is a forced win on the board.
An additional change that I can think of off-hand is promoting to a second queen. If I remember correctly, in FIDE an upside-down rook is treated as a rook, not a queen.
If I am incorrect on any of the following then somebody else is invited to correct me. I’m going off the FIDE rules section in the USCF rulebook.
Arbiters (TDs) can call flags, a reasonably complete scoresheet is not required to win on time, with both flags down the winner is the player who’s flag was determined to have fallen last.
A game started from an incorrect position is replayed if that is discovered at any time during the game, even an ending (as opposed to the USCF rule that only allows a restart to black’s tenth move), and that disparity is also true for illegal moves.
The equivalent of an ILC (14H) claim depends on whether or not the arbiter feels that the opponent is trying to win on the clock rather than on the board (not whether or not the position is holdable). Thus the chess-skill of the arbiter becomes more significant along with how the arbiter perceives a player to be playing (if an arbiter feels that a K+Q vs a K is not being played reasonably then the arbiter can declare the game drawn).
It used to be that white would lose all of the elapsed time if both players were late (USCF splits that elapsed time) but I think it is changing so that a late arrival (even by seconds) is a forfeit loss.
Delay is frowned on (and may end up prohibited) while increment is favored.
Rateable time controls are getting more regulated, potentially eliminating a reasonable schedule for a single-day event.
Pairing rules, scheduled (half-point) byes and tie-breaks are not mentioned in the FIDE extract in the rulebook.
The other practical aspect is, if USCF rules were to be replaced by FIDE (or FIDE with …), who would actually bell that cat? I mean, I would expect outrage to occur. Though I might be wrong about that.
Yep. That would work. Right up to the moment where we got sued for breaking the contract… cleverly. 
Or, should I say, deviously? :mrgreen:
I was thinking about filling out the application which certify u to be a chess coach but surely there gotta be a requirement or something…If not then anybody can present that to show u know the game,am i missing something here…
There is no rule for not using delay in non-title event. There are minimum time requirements based on rating. In title events currently delay is not allowed, however I believe USCF is taking that up with FIDE.
–For a game to be rated each player must have the following minimum periods in which to complete all the moves, assuming the game lasts 60 moves.
–Where at least one of the players in the tournament has a rating 2200 or higher, each player must have a minimum of 120 minutes.
–Where at least one of the players in the tournament has a rating 1600 or higher, each player must have a minimum of 90 minutes.
–Where all the players in the tournament are rated below 1600, each player must have a minimum of 60 minutes.
Title event time controls have become more regulated and there are only 2 rounds per day allowed in a title tournament. Non-title events have a limit of 3 ratable games in a day with no more than 12 hours of play. This hasn’t changed much really in terms of non-title events.