The 4th edition states, under Equipment Standards, in 41C Proportions, that
I’ve just recently found out that both the 5th, and the 6th editions of the rules eliminated language that was in the 4th edition as to the proportions of chess squares to set sizes. I have been unable to find the reasoning for this, as the website doesn’t seem to contain the old changes, in lieu of the most recent ones. Was it an accident that the language was stripped, or did the delegates determine this change?
There’s been a challenge and some debate at my tournaments for the proper guideline. In one, there was a challenge by White to the use of Black’s set and board that White (and I) thought was too small. I, of course, referred to this test, and it was pointed out to me that such language doesn’t exist in the 6th edition. Needless to say, I was quite embarrassed, and unable to grant a request from White to use a different set, as the 78% rule indicated that the set and board were standard, though it looked awfully crowded on that board. I’m actually second-guessing myself as to whether the measurements were correct. There is nothing in the preface to the 5th edition that mentions any changes in that chapter.
Well, can anyone enlighten me as to why this part has been eliminated, or where I might find the old changes to the 4th edition?
Most of us are used to vinyl chess boards with 2.25 inch squares. With algebraic on the sides and a little extra spacing, the boards are 20x20 inches. The club sets used on these boards usually have a King that is 3.75 inches tall. In Canadian tournaments I played in, the provided sets and boards seemed crowded because the squares on the boards were only 2 inches on each side. The boards were 18x18 inches. The sets were similar to ones used in the US with 3.75 inch tall Kings. From talking to one of the arbiters, I was given to understand that tournaments in the UK also tend to use boards with 2 inch squares. Most of the players were used to it, but I did notice a tendency for pieces to be knocked over during the games.
If the chess set in question had a King which was 4 inches or taller, the bases of the pieces are usually larger as well. The player should have a board which has proportionate squares. A regular board with 2.25 inch squares should be OK, but if the bases of the pieces are larger, they tend to fill up the squares. Since our club provides sets and boards, we don’t have the problem of needing to measure squares and determining if a set is appropriate. However, if we did not do this, I might reject a set that filled up the squares. As it is your tournament, you set and enforce the standards you think are most appropriate.
Per 6th edition, rules state that:
the King’s height should be between 3-3/8" - 4.5", and that
the base diameter of the King should occupy around 78% of the square (divide base diameter by 0.78 to find the square size).
So, 2 questions:
What if the King is shorter than 3-3/8, but the diameter of the base is within the specified 78%? Which would apply??
I don’t recall what size the diameter of the King was, but the size of the squares were 2". What size pieces would be required? Please help a non-math guy out
It seems to me there’s a math error here somewhere, or poor wording. (Wow, poor wording in a US Chess rule. Alert the media!)
The area of a circle is pi * the square of the radius, which is half the diameter.
78% of a 2x2 square (4 square inches) is 3.12 square inches. Divide that by pi and you get 0.993. The square root of 0.993 is 0.996. Twice that would be a diameter of 1.99 inches, which would almost have the base of the piece touching all four sides of the square.
I don’t think 78% of the surface area is correct. I think it needs to be much smaller than that.
Perhaps what the rule should say is that the diameter of the piece should be 78% of the length of any side of the square. That would cover about 47.8% of the surface area of the square, not 78%.
In the USCF Sales catalog, several sizes of vinyl boards are offered. The regular tournament style boards have squares that are 2.25 inches on each side. There are also analysis boards that have squares that are either 1.5 inches or 1.825 inches on each side. It is difficult to find boards with 2 inch squares, unless you want to use a fold up board with pieces that are smaller than tournament standard. Chess sets vary considerably in base size and King height. I have a wooden set from the former Yugoslavia that has a King that is 3" tall and a small base. The set fairly swims on a board with 2.25x2.25 squares. It is okay to analyze with, but the pieces are easy to tip over. OTOH, I have a wooden set with a 3.75" tall King, but the stubby bases of all but the pawns are over 2" in diameter, leaving little extra space on the squares. It probably requires a board with squares that are 2.5x2.5". IMHO, there should be at least .25 inches space on each side of the King if it is centered on a square. The standard inexpensive plastic club set has a King base which is 1.5" wide.
I think the assumptions in your math is off. Your equating a circle with a square. Yes, there is 4" area in the 2x2 square, but there is only 3.14" area in the circle that fits the square. You need to use 78% of 3.14" to get the correct measurement which is ~1.77" diameter.
2" diameter = an area equal to pi (1^2 * pi) - ~3.14".
78% of pi = ~2.45"
r^2 = ~2.45 / pi = 0.78
r = sqrt(0.78) = ~0.883"
d = r * 2 = ~1.77"
Though, that still seems large in the square. 78% of 2" might be better anyway as that equals = 1.56".
78% of the square does sound like area, but divide base diameter by 0.78 sounds like a simple diameter adjustment. This would match the 1.56" calculation. 2" diameter * 0.78 = diameter of 1.56". Note that it’s actually multiply not divide. Yes, this sentence could be worded better.
Perhaps it was intended that the area occupied by the square whose sides are equal to the diameter of the base of the king – i.e. the smallest square that can circumscribe the base of the king – should be 78% of the total area of the square on the board.
That chapter was edited by Frank Camaratta (credit at the end of the chapter) when he revised/edited the material from the 4th edition. That revision was then included in the 5th-6th-and now 7th edition via copy-paste. As the editor of those editions my mathematical eye saw no big deal between the 4th and 5th edition equipment standards chapter. So far the Delegates have not changed that material. If anyone likes the standards in the 4th edition they simply need to post its use for their events. Or, (IMHO) the TD can use some common sense and rule that the coffeehouse rule benders don’t have a case when it is obvious that a set/board they are trying to use is just a ploy. If a player complains about the ruling, then they are free to appeal to US Chess ($50, etc.).
Would you clarify the above statement, please? Who do you consider as the “coffeehouse rule bender”? Who do you see as applying a ploy here, the one with the smaller board, or the person complaining about that board, and wanting to use a different one?
Just clarify the principle intent of the rules - they are to be overarching, blind to the particular players, and fair to the players without necessarily being empathetic to them. (Fair and empathetic are not the same thing.) Precedence, history and evolution of the rules is also important - and an understanding of that would have eliminated some of the absurd public rules discussions we’ve seen in the past year.
Unfortunately, we can have two people who have a true difference of opinion about the rules - often because portions of rules are still poorly written or interpreted, and anyone with a true difference of opinion is immediately tagged a “rules lawyer” to dismiss their argument and win the argument not by rational thought, but through name calling.
Terms like the above are dismissive and demeaning and have no place in U.S. Chess.
Well, I would think that someone who is attempting to use equipment that isn’t standard might be the coffeehouse player using a ploy, but in the case I’ve outlined, it isn’t clear to me whether the board in question is below standards, as I mentioned in my original post. There is quite the local controversy in determining the standards, since the owner claims the language I used (the four pawns on a square standard) isn’t written in current text. Others claim that the height of the King, as well as its diameter also has to be standard, while the actual set is standard as to the base of the King, but is lacking in the 3-3/8" height.
It is to be noted that the OP has yet to give the size of the King, the diameter of the King or other pieces, or the size of the squares of the set and board that is in question. Is there a significant difference with other sets and boards to make it fall outside the usual standards and make their use unacceptable? Was the square size too small, like that of analysis boards?
I have seen players use yellow and white boards with pink and green pieces. It offends my eyes, but if neither person objects to it, then their usage is okay. However, if there was an objection by one of the players, I would substitute another board and pieces. I have also seen players use sets that have Kings that are three inches or smaller in size. The sets seem small in relation to the square size, but are adequate to play a game. However, if someone objected, I can see their point and would seek to substitute another set. When there is nothing else available you play on what is there. I am less inclined to accept a complaint if the player has not brought equipment to the tournament. You might end up playing on the South Park set your opponent has set up if we have no other available sets. Every time you take a pawn you have killed Kenny!
If one has ever advocated for the right to use a second scoresheet or claimed to be able to deliver a checkmating move while one’s king is in check, one is a rules lawyer and a system gamer.
Only if they are attempting to win a game by such nefarious means. Such people do exist and thus we should not ban the use of such terms. But we really ought to use them more sparingly than we do.
