Does anyone know when Rule 15A will be voted on, and when it will become effective if passed? I had the impression this was going to happen last weekend.
It will have far reaching effect as most players in our scholastic tournaments are taught to record their moves before the move is made.
Thank you,
Ken Muir
Local TD
Corpus Christi
Ken,
The rule change will be voted on by the delegates when they have their annual meeting in August. I would imagine that the effective date will be sometime in the future, possibly January 1, 2007.
Thanks, that’s good to know.
Ken Muir
Our (Rules committee) recommendation for impelementation is September 1, 2006.
My recommendation to you is to start teaching the change now, so your students will be used to it by then. Old habits are hard to break.
In addition, the TD tip to be lenient on penalties will be in effect for a while (issue a warning, not a time penalty), at least until January 2007.
While September 1st makes a lot of sense for various reasons, e.g., Labor Day tournaments, start of school etc, I don’t see how the membership and tournament directors will be adequately informed of the rule change by then.
The earliest that this could appear in Chess Life would be the October issue, and I believe the October rating supplement doesn’t hit the presses until sometime in September.
I don’t think anyone is going to go overboard in enforcing the rule change when a WRITTEN scoresheet is being used.
I remember a few years ago, the USCF had a rule requiring ALEBRAIC notation and disallowing descriptive notation on scoresheets. I know of more than one player that never switched and simply continued using descriptive notation. I don’t think they ever had any serious penalty assessed.
I’m not saying that the rule wouldn’t or shouldn’t be enforced – I just think the transition will (and should) be gradual. Even if the new rule goes into effect on Sept. 1, I’d bet that enforcement will be properly lax for several months.
For electronic scoresheets, I’d expect the enforcement to be much more “strict” – though even here, I’d hope for some restraint. Threats to forfeit a player for forgetting (and occasionally recording his move first) are clearly going too far, IMHO (at least during the “transition” period).
I don’t remember that - and I’m someone still using English descriptive notation. The current rulebook specifically does allow it.
Maybe you are thinking of FIDE events?
Re: descriptive vs. algebraic
No, as I remember this was in the early 80s (though it was long enough ago that I’m just not sure). I’m thinking this was in the 2nd or 3rd edition of the rule book. I’m sure this was done to keep agreement with FIDE, but the rule didn’t survive for long – just long enough to convert me from descriptive to algebraic.
I vaguely remember this as well.
I can find all of my rulebooks, except for the 2nd edition, and they all state that discriptive is acceptable. The 2nd edition is dated 1978 with what is now called the 3rd edition dated 1987.
It is possible that this rule was passed then changed back during the 9 year time frame between editions, so therefore it never did make it into one of the editions. I just remember learning discriptive then having to learn algebraic as well.
I have the 2nd edition and USCF Tournament Rule Art 13.1 (1) allows descriptive.
I’ve never used algebraic in a tournament game and being a TD since the 70s, I think that I would have if it had been required.
It’s too bad old copies of the rating supplements and Chess Life’s aren’t on-line for researching questions like this. Instead I have to dig through 25 year old moldy copies that are in a box somewhere. It’s probably just not worth it. I remember this happening in the early 80s so it’s possible that it happened between editions of the rule book. The only reason that I remember this at all is that I switched from descriptive to algebraic at that time. I didn’t WANT to switch – I liked descriptive better.
I have all the annual supplements back to 1973. I just looked through the 80s. The only one that had anything relevant was the 1980 Annual Rating List:
“Notation…
In 1981, FIDE will require that participants in its tournaments keep their game scores in standard algebraic notation. USCF continues to support the notion of uniform notation but will NOT require it for domestic events in the immediate future.”
Maybe the TD at your events was just stricter and followed FIDE requirements.
I’m pretty sure there has never been such a USCF rule, even temporarily.
There may have been a mention, somewhere, that USCF-rated events which are also FIDE-rated may have to follow some FIDE rules, including the algebraic requirement.
Some past editions of the rulebook (not the 5th) have had a chapter on FIDE rules. Much of this chapter seemed to duplicate material elsewhere in the book, since there really aren’t that many differences between FIDE and USCF. Some people may have read the FIDE chapter not realizing it was the FIDE chapter.
Bill Smythe
I didn’t mean to waste everyone’s time this way. It’s really not important if the USCF had such a rule, or if this was just a mis-interpretation. It was 20+ years ago, so I can’t be that sure. As I recall, this “rule” was the reason I switched from descriptive notation – but for all I know, several local TDs may have just been mistaken.
The real point is that there is no need to get harsh in enforcing the new rule. Give players plenty of time to adjust. After all, we’ve been playing for quite some time now with the current rule in place (so things couldn’t be so bad that they need immediate and drastic changes).
Do the Delagates pretty much rubber stamp what the Rules Committee comes up with? Is it possible they may not pass this rule? Or maybe amend it? I don’t want to start telling everyone they should start changing now and then later have to say never mind go back to the way you were doing it.
Although there have been a few times where the Delegates have gotten into the specifics of rules changes (the three black rule comes to mind), for the most part if the rule changes aren’t clear the usual practice is to send the proposed rules back to the committee for revision. Sometimes the committee works out problems raised at the Rules workshop and has a clarification by the time the Delegates meeting starts.
I doubt the USCF was what the sage had in mind when he talked about something changing as slowly as the rules of chess, but it’s appropriate.
Does anyone know the reason the rule is in it’s current form now? Since it has been that way for so long I’m curious of the reasoning behind having it that way.
Since I’m generally a conformist, I have been trying to alter my habits and make moves before I record them on the scoresheet. Still, my passive aggressive side has thought of some ridiculous situations regarding the MonRoi device that are probably not worth writing rules about. But here goes:
My opponent sits down with a MonRoi device. I am suspicious of the device, so I challenge its legality based upon rule 20D Use of additional chessboard or computer prohibited. I haven’t actually seen one of these, but I assume it has a drag-and-drop interface with a chessboard on it. And the device could be classified as a computer under some definitions. Can my argument stand legally?
It’s 2010. MonRoi devices are all the rage at chess tournaments. I’m using mine to record the moves. I’m annoyed at having to look at red pieces since I forgot to bring my set and my opponent brought a legal Staunton set with red and black pieces. About move 20, I begin to spend all my time looking at my MonRoi device. I’m not making moves and taking them back in the sense of analysis, just looking at the static board and thinking. My opponent becomes suspicious and demands that the TD require that I stop looking at my legal MonRoi device. I point out that players on top boards sometimes do their analysis on the demo boards, so why should I be penalized?
My reading of this rule (and the way it’s not enforced on GMs looking at demo boards) is that LOOKING at another board is OK. You can’t set pieces up and move them around to perform an analysis. You can’t even introduce another board that’s not already provided in the rules just to display the current position. BUT if there’s another board already allowed by tradition and in the rules, it IS ok just to look at it. So looking at the organizer’s demo board would be ok, but walking up to it and moving a couple of pieces around wouldn’t be ok.
In a similar way, since the MonRoi is explicitly allowed in the new rule, you can LOOK at the MonRoi. But you can’t move the pieces around to try out moves and see the result. Not even your very next move.
20D Says “A player who analyzes a game in progress on another chess board or consults a computer about the position is guilty…”.
I think the key words are “analyzes” and “consults” and I think they involve more than just looking at the current position.
Are you allowed to use the Monroi to back up through the game to check for how many times a position had repeated? I was thinking using the Monroi to check for repetitions during the last round of National Open. Unfortunately, I couldn’t find a TD on the floor to ask about the legality (it was about 5 hours into the round) and, as the game progressed, I never suspected a possible third repetition (queen plus opposite bishops endgame).
Michael Aigner