Equipment Standards

Running Chess Tournaments
1

Executive summary: Do the House of Staunton Zagreb '59 Series chess pieces meet the rules for standard equipment? (This set is also available from USCF sales.) The issue is that the bishops and queens have knobs at the top of opposite colors (a black knob on the white pieces, and a white knob on the black pieces). The same is true of the king’s cross.

I had to deal with a claim recently that the set is not standard equipment. Although I did not have access to a copy of the fourth edition of the rule book at the tournament, I remembered there was text in the rule that was removed for the fifth edition. However, based on the text of the current edition, I ruled that the set is standard equipment.

History: In the third edition of the rule book, on page 128, under “Form,” the last sentence reads: “The bishop’s top may have an angled groove or a knob of a different color to distinguish it from a pawn.” That changed in the fourth edition; rule 40C on pages 165-166 clearly states: “If the bishop’s top has a knob of a different color, the set is nonstandard.” This sentence was removed in the fifth edition.

2

Yep.

3

I once had an opponenet object to my Zagreb '59 set, and rather than argue the point (I was Black), we used his set. (He also objected to my Dualtimer clock, so we used his Chronos. I asked him if the board was OK, but he was not amused.)
Subsequently, I asked several people about this set being standard. The TD said he would have agreed with my opponent, because he had years of experience playing in such tournaments – a point that, when you think about it, seems to lend credence to the point that my opponent’s conception of what was and what was not standarad might be years out-of-date. A member of the USCF Rules Committee said that it was standard.
I just got a plastic Marshall set and began using that.
But it would be nice to have this point settled. In my opinion, the USCF should not be selling ANY equipment that does not meet standard specifications, unless it clearly states that this is the case.
That being said, I would rather forfeit a game than play with:
–ocean blue and buff boards
–black and white squared boards (the black pieces just melt into the squares)
–red and black squared boards
–turquoise and yellow pieces
–red and black pieces

4

Agreed in the case of clocks, because “standard specifications” are easy to write. Unless a clock is both increment-capable and delay-capable, USCF should not sell it.

But with sets, it gets tricky. Some sets are just plain weird, but one person’s “weird” is another person’s meat or poison.

Bill Smythe

5

What’s your point? If “standard” is defined in the rulebook and players and TDs are expected to be able to determine if a set qualifies, surely the USCF can too. Brenan’s suggestion could, in effect, be translated as “if the USCF sells it, it’s standard” as a practical matter, should the USCF choose to make that declaration. Then there would be no argument.

6

I don’t think the USCF decides what equipment is being sold on ‘USCF Sales’.

7

That’s not quite the point, though, is it?

If a vender sells things under USCF auspices, with a link from the USCf site, and advertises itself as USCF Sales, shouldn’t we expect that the equipment sold by that vender is standard, unless otherwise and clearly specified? And if it’s not, then it’s pretty clear what the next step should be.

I’ve seen sets with turquiose and red pieces being sold by people who should know better. They look atrocious and anyone who respects any semblance of art or aesthetics in chess wouldn’t be caught dead playing with one. Yet garbage like this is offered for sale as it if it is standard equipment.

Ditto for chessboards that do not allow for a sharp distinction between pieces and squares. Most tournament chess sets are plastic and have black colored Black pieces. But you’ll find roll-up boards being sold with black squares, and given the quality of lighting in some of the places I’ve played, the only conclusion is that one must be pretty accomplished at blindfold play, because those black pieces are going to visually melt right into the squares of boards like this.

There’s no excuse for this state of affairs. Just a little forethought and consideration will go a long way. But these seem to be matters on which some venders and chessplayers seem to be somewhat challenged, to say the least.

Finally, we still have to get a definitive statement as to whether the Zagreb '59 set (which is my favorite set, hands down – I own three!) is standard or not. There are opinions posted above, but unless the person posting has some credentials, they are just opinions, nothing more.

8

I never understood why people hate black and white boards. My tournament rollup board is black and white, and I’ve used it for years without difficulty. I’ve had complaints about it, but only because it’s smaller than the normal rollup boards (2 inch squares instead of 2.25 inch), not because of the color. Last I checked, it is legal for tournament use under USCF rules, though.

–Fromper

9

Often the 2 inch squares are too crowded for standard size sets. The 4th edition of the rule book had a nice test for determining if the board was appropriate for the pieces. If four pawns placed on a single square fit within the square, the board was considered acceptable.

In the 5th edition of the rule book a TD needs a ruler and calculated to determine if the pieces fit the board.

10

Well, I hope I have enlightened you as to the problems with it.
I prefer to play on a HoS linen board with buff and forest green squares. But this board has no algebraic notation along the sides, and if I am playing someone who I think might have a problem without the AN along the sides, I carry two roll-up boards, one in green and buff, the other in brown and buff, to accomodate him or her. The different board colors I use depending upon the lighting in the room.

11

Well, Tim Just who edited the last rulebook posted in this very thread.

He agreed that the sentence saying the different colored finials (knobs for those desiring) are wrong, has been deleted. Now, he implicitly agrees, the sets with the opposite colored finials are okie-dokie for tournament play.

There really is no good reason why they are not, as these sets are internationally accepted in tournament play, especially in Eastern Europe and such.

I own a Zagreb’59 set and certainly plan on using it in USCF tournaments. If someone wants to claim it is illegal, they will be wrong and we will play with it regardless.

12

Glad to hear this, Ron. I think that this is as close as one can get nowadays to the set that we see in the old pictures of Bobby, circa 1971 (the LIFE magazine cover, for one).
Bobby got that particular set in Yugoslavia and he loved it. I remember reading somewhere about him going on and on about how perfect it was.
The knights are a bit thin for my taste, but this is the set I have set upon a board at home, and I liked it so much I have a couple of other sets just like it.

It would be strange to claim that it’s not standard, since players the likes of Tal and Fischer and Keres played with it.

SZo I am happy to hear definitively that it’s just fine.

13

Well, they can have my Zagreb 59’ set when they pry it from my cold, dead fingers…

Oh wait that was Charlton Heston and guns…

14

Great actor, poor cause. (And yes, I have fired a gun before: .22s, M16s, M60, M-1.)
But if you took a Zagreb '59 king and held it up in fron tof a big USCF logo, it would make for an iconic picture.

15

Does anyone know the ruling on acceptable board and piece color combo’s for tournament play? I have an orange & cream board with blood red and natural wood pieces and was wondering if this fits the guidelines if any. Thanks

16

See page 226 in your rulebook.

17

Bah, House of Staunton website is having problems at the moment, but if I remember, it has a short history on the various historical sets it sells.
EDIT: http://www.houseofstaunton.com/Windsor.html

If I recall correctly, the Zagreb series was very popular in the 50’s, and presumable early 60’s, having GM’s use that set in serious tournament play. Most likely its popularity was more widespread in Europe than in the United States.

As an intersting note: In the 50’s a particular style plastic set was used widely. House of Staunton was selling a wooden version of it, but I personally thought it was a terribly ugly set. Funny thing is that (according to HOS), it was a cheaply made set where the pieces chipped at a rather rapid pace, making it mostly useless for anything outside a cardboard box in the local toy store. There is a photo of a young Fischer playing with the pieces at some tournment or chess club though.
Can’t remember the name of the style though. If HOS gets back online, I’ll try and look that up, if they still have it on the website.

18

I have to agree that the USCF should probably drop analog/mechanical clocks from its inventory. Don’t get me wrong, I’m old school and still love the idea of playing 5 or 10min chess (not rated games) at a chess club and using time as a weapon.

Hey, if you can’t manage your time, then thats your problem! :stuck_out_tongue:

(just for skittles games btw).

Anyway, fowarding to 2008, I use a digital clock now, and have for years. I normaly do 5 or 10 minute games with 5 second delay. I love slower games, but frankly, all but impossible with OTB play. When I do get a chance for some OTB play, I’m lucky if I can squeeze in more than 2 or 3 games at 10min time controls.

Ahh… memories… when I was stationed at Ft. Hood in the late 80’s, the post chess club was pretty active. It was almost nirvanna: We met at 10am on Saturday and didn’t leave till we felt like it. Usually we met for about 4 or 5 hours, but once a month we’d play a long game. The time controls was pretty sweet: 90min for the first 30 moves, 60min for the next 20 moves, then SD/30min. Needless to say, there was a few times where me and my opponent got to the last time control. :smiley:

I haven’t met anybody that would even consider those time controls since then. I’d feel lucky if I could even find an opponent that would do a 30min time control. I’m talking about OTB play only. Internet not withstanding, but there is just something about facing your opponent OTB and writing down your moves, pushing actual wood, and pressing a clock.
I play on FICS alot, but once in a while, I really itch to break out my chess pieces and my clock and play against an opponent who really appreciates playing against a person in the flesh. -Since I work 2nd shift, my options are limited, but not entirely absent. :smiley:

Lets just say when I do get the chance, I savor the moment. Generally its more about socializing than playing chess: Play chess, eat snacks, partake in some sort of convivial conversation to pass the time between games, and in general, just having fun.

19

Just say no. This color combination doesn’t even seem to come close to the standard.

I’ve considered myself somewhat of a “stickler” for the equipment standards and I think the Zagreb set is fine. (for that matter, I think it’s a beautiful set). I bought one from HOS myself, but I prefer the classic set for tournament play.

Analog clocks are still useful, BTW, even for the most “modern” players – when one of the players has a vision problem, they are much easier to read than most (all?) digital clocks.

20

Anybody have or use a Boxwood/Ebonized chess set? I know that when they’re new, its practically impossible to tell the difference between them and an ebony set. Well, not impossible, but at least very very good.

But if its the set you use frequently, how well does the ebonized stand up to time? Real ebony of course is rather brittle and not at all something most would use for tournament play.

Of course, the reason to use ebonized boxwood is two fold: Boxwood stands up fairly well to frequent play and is rather inexpensive compared to Ebony.

BTW, I usually go for Boxwood/Rosewood chess sets, but want to get a new tourny kit, so was curious about ebonized boxwood.