FIDE - USCF Rules merge

Running Chess Tournaments
1

The recent ADM proposals put up here for discussion by my collegue from Massachusetts Bob Messenger are all worthy and merit seperate consideration here on this forum, and elsewhere. I wish to rasie a more general subject for our collective discourse, and perhaps for future action.

I propose we investigate formally starting a process to merge the USCF and FIDE rules.

My model for this grand scheme is the cooperation between the Royal and ancient Golf Club of St. Andrews with the US Pro Golfers Association to codify the game of golf. The R&A rules, which covered international play, and the US PGA rules were sufficiently different at one point that a process to merge them was necessary, and eventually completed in the early '50s. They have been jointly published since (though full merging of all rules and standards didn’t actually complete until the year 2000!).

In the past, the argument against a merge was that the US had far differnent tournaments than FIDE. However, with the likes of Gibralter, the Aeroflot Open, the Moscow Open, and even a large open at Wijk Aan Zee (concurrent with the round robins there) the international community could benefit from our vast experience in this area. Likewise, FIDE’s rules are widely used around the world already, and issues regarding the actual playing of the game are well thought out and could benefit us by reducing effort on our end. In the long run, I hope that the huge effort and expense we spend on the USCF rules will be reduced to near zero as FIDE will end up maintaing the rules for all the world (with equal footing and credit to the USCF, just as the PGA gets with the R&A).

Other benefits I see are, of course, consistant rules for players and TDs everywhere. Online publication and free availibility of the rules for all to see and know (I know from experience almost all USCF players don’t buy the rule book and read it, so they don’t know the rules under which they play). And, as I said, reduced effort and expense for the USCF.

I know this process would take years, and be a huge effort to come to fruition, but I feel the outcome would be better for the game worldwide.

I also know there is a large inertial resistance to this idea here in the US, which I understand. All I ask is that you think anew about this issue, and look at it as an opportunity to impart our wisdom from decades of experience putting on large swisses to the international community.

As to what form this proposal would take in the near term, I don’t know. Perhaps an ADM to form an “exploritory committee” to look into it? I’m not a delegate (nor will I serve as one :slight_smile: ), so I leave that to others to handle. Has there been any formal effort along these lines in the past?

Discuss.

-Matt Phelps

2

As one of your Massachusetts Delegates (along with Ken Ballou and Bob Messenger) I support this. It wouldn’t surprise me to hear that Ken is sympathetic to this also. As you know, Ken is more than capable of speaking for himself, however. I get the impression that Bob might be a bit more skeptical, but he is another person more than capable of speaking for himself.

3

As an Illinois Delegate I would support this concept as well. It may also provide us with a mechanism to get around any of the challenges from the publisher of the USCF rules if we adopted the FIDE rules, but then used the FIDE rules which lets a national federation alter the rules for events held within that national federations boundaries. We could then have the rules made available online and for download.

4

The only real game-changer between FIDE rules and USCF rules is calling flag-fall. Apart from that I think we could run most USCF events under the FIDE Laws of Chess—but with a long list of exceptions, tweaks and variations…which would be debated and complained about the same way we debate and complain about USCF rules today. (Since the controversial variations would cover the same territory as do the controversial rules today.)

My question is the same as the last time: If we are going to alter the Laws of Chess to such an extent to make them work for a USCF weekend Swiss in Hooterville, why adopt them in the first place?

5

The best way to move USCF and FIDE rules toward each other is to have people from both USCF and FIDE on the next rulebook revision committee. Often, a version of a rule resulting from such a joint effort is likely to turn out better than the version presented by either group alone.

Of course, differences may remain here and there, where the two groups disagree strongly. But if agreement can be reached on the vast majority of rules, it would be a HUGE step in the right direction.

Bill Smythe

6

Yes. Initiating contact with FIDE would be part of the job for such an exploritory committee.

I imagine a year for a feasibility study, including probing FIDE’s interest. Then, if all is well, forming a joint committee, and letting the fun begin :slight_smile:. At some point in the process, we should check and see if the delegates(?) would agree to adopt a new/joint set of rules. Preferably earlier rather than later so as to not waste effort (god forbid! :slight_smile: ).

-Matt

7

While this sounds like a good idea in theory, I’m having a hard time picturing FIDE playing along. I’m no expert on chess politics, but FIDE has never struck me as an organization that cares what we do here in the US, so why would they want to change their rules to be more like ours?

8

I think you’re right that FIDE is unlikely to change its rules to make them more like USCF rules. The real question is whether the USCF should change its rules to make them more like FIDE rules. This isn’t a big priority for me at the moment but I agree that it’s worth looking at.

Maybe I’ll care more about this issue after I attend the FIDE Arbiters Seminar in Orlando this summer. It’s hard enough for me to remember all the differences between USCF rules and CCA rules, and adding FIDE rules to the mix will make it even more fun. :confused:

9

We have 2 USCF members on FIDE commission that deal with various rules aspects - Walter Brown is on the Qualification Commission, and I’m on the Rules & Tournament Regulations (RTR) Commission along with being on one of the sub-committees for the Arbiters Commission focusing on the Arbiters manual. So we have avenues of being able to communicate appropriately with FIDE on the matter if that’s the direction the delegates wish to take things.

FIDE commissions operate in some similar fashion to USCF committees. The major decision points happen at the FIDE Congress such as the upcoming one in October in Poland (or the last one in Siberia) and the commission members do work in preparation for the Congress between the Congress meetings and sometimes when commission meetings may be held during Presidential Board meetings.

10

The people who write the rules in FIDE seem less political than others in FIDE. Furthermore, in most cases, the rules (both FIDE and USCF) wouldn’t have to change much, if any. It would usually be just a matter of writing them a little more clearly.

Bill Smythe

11

Out of curiosity, how many other federations have their own rulebook like USCF does, vs. just going by FIDE rules?

12

If you look at all of the editions of the USCF rulebook plus the “Official Chess Handbook” by Kenneth Harkness, there is considerable agreement between the USCF and FIDE on rules. A major FIDE rules revision was completed around 1974 and a new compilation was created. Martin Morrison published a USCF version and supplement to the FIDE rules focusing on the Swiss System of tournaments and problems endemic to that type of event. Our editions of the rules kept expanding as tournament rules were tweaked to reflect US experience. Recently, some FIDE rules have become a lot more stringent than before and now diverge considerably from our version. It is a good question, though, how many federations merely follow FIDE and how many have their own set of rules. I would expect that many English speaking nations, as usual will have their own versions of the rules, just as we follow different measuement systems, drive on different sides of the road, etc.

13

The FIDE Laws of Chess relate mainly to rules of play, the counterpart of Part 1 of the USCF Official Rules of Chess.

According to the FIDE Laws of Chess, a FIDE member federation is free to introduce more detailed rules, provided (1) they do not conflict with the FIDE Laws of Chess; (2) they apply only within the territory of the member federation; and (3) do not apply to FIDE matches, championships, or FIDE title or rating tournaments.

FIDE has separate documents with rules for tournament organization, time controls, pairing systems, rating system rules, title norms, and the like. These apply only to FIDE-rated tournaments, and there is no problem if member federations have conflicting procedures and rules for their non-FIDE tournaments.

Accordingly, one approach I have suggested in other forum discussions is for the USCF to retire Part 1 of the USCF Official Rules of Chess, and adopt the FIDE Laws of Chess. These would be published by the USCF with an appendix setting out non-conflicting USCF revisions, refinements , and interpretations to the FIDE Laws of Chess. This is the book with which players and floor TD’s would need to be familiar. This would be quite short. The FIDE Laws of Chess are probably only about 15 to 20 pages long. Hopefully the revisions, refinements, and interpretations would not add too many pages. Thus the USCF Edition of the FIDE Laws of Chess could be printed as a booklet. It would also be convenient for it to be online or available as a e-book.

This would be a big improvement because Part 1 of the USCF Official Rules of Chess is over 100 pages long, and is bound into a 370 page book, making the rules really only accessible to Tournament Directors.

Separately, the USCF would publish a USCF Tournament and Rating Rules book covering the material in the other sections of USCF Official Rules of Chess. Some of the material in Part 1 Rules of Play is actually more on the subject of tournament organization and could also be moved here. Additionally, the book might include some of the TD tips and tutorial/guidance information currently in Part 1. This book would be mainly for Tournament Directors and Organizers.

The problem with this proposal, of course, is that there are some points where the FIDE Laws of Chess and the USCF Official Rules of Chess are in conflict and where there is no resolution to the conflict other than either one or the other yielding.

And, of course, there are people within the USCF who will insist that in some of those cases of conflict, the USCF rule is the only right and proper approach, or the only approach that will work for a “large open Swiss”, a “scholastic tournament”, or some other supposedly-unique American situation, and that the FIDE approach is totally misguided, completely unsuitable for some uniquely American situation, an abomination, etc, etc.

So bringing about a merger is apt to be really hard. But perhaps we can still adopt the FIDE Laws of Chess with USCF-allowed (but possibly conflicting) “Variations” on points where the FIDE version cannot be accepted. At least then the important differences would be highlighted, rather than so buried in a 100 pages of different text that it is a project even to find what are the actual differences (and of those which are significant) and what are merely differences in wording.

14

Regarding other chess federation rules: I found the home page for the Chess Federation of Canada. From their Products & Services link, I found the CFC Handbook. Pertinent to this discussion is SECTION 4 - The Laws of Chess, which simply states “The FIDE Laws of Chess cover over-the-board play.” and then gives a link to FIDE. The other sections of the Handbook cover material similar to what’s in the USCF rule book.

15

Well, keep in mind that the USCF rulebook used to be a lot shorter. It was expanded to clarify, for TDs, how to handle difficult situations. And I’m going to suggest that the reason these clarifications were provided was because they were needed. If we go to a shorter rulebook, we are likely to find that the clarifications will still be needed, but won’t be there anymore. And then the rulebook will be revised again to put the clarifications back in.

Bob

16

The clarifications, interpretations, tutorial information, tips, guidance, etc, could be in a separate document, perhaps online. There are a number of books written by well-respected FIDE arbiters essentially discussing how to approach the “difficult cases” under the Laws of Chess. These discussion do not necessarily need to be in the text of the rules.

Besides, as you see from discussions in this forum, there is no end to the need for “clarifications”. No matter how much you have “clarified” already, there will always be intricate new scenarios requiring “clarification”. Moreover, sometimes the “clarifications” are cause of the problem in that “clarifications” in the rules make the situation more confusing.

In the end, we are talking about rulings in chess games, not capital crimes, and fewer rules and more TD common sense may be better than an ultra-legalistic approach. 100 pages of detailed rules may not be better than 15 or 20.

17

Well, first off, I doubt that many TDs would want to have to consult “a number of books” when making a ruling during a tournament. If there could be a single companion book to the rulebook sequenced by the rulebook rule numbers, that might be workable. Having it available online would only be an advantage for those TDs who have online access available during a tournament.

And chess players think there’s a difference? :wink:

Well, as I said, the “fewer rules and more TD common sense” approach was tried in older versions of the rulebook and wasn’t perceived to be adequate.

I guess what I’m not clear on is what the motivation is for all of this. I’ve never had any problem using the current rulebook as it is. It will take effort to make a change (and not just on the part of USCF committees, but also on the part of TDs and players who must familiarize themselves with the changes). We can debate whether things should originally have been done the way they were, but the question now is what compelling reasons exist for people to go to the effort needed to change things.

Bob

18

The present USCF Rulebook/Handbook is over 340 pages in length. Add in the changes online and it goes up to about 370 pages. With all of the tweaks, revisions, and changes being suggested the Rulebook will expand by 20 to 50 pages more. If tips on handling different pairing software and databases are added to modernize the book, even more pages will be needed. The going rate for a 400 page book is around $29.95. This growing monster will likely cost much more as it is a more specialized tome. Who, besides TD’s, will buy a book that costs so much and doesn’t even tell you how to play against the Najdorf Sicilian? :slight_smile:

Perhaps the next rulebook should have DVDs added to deal with issues related to tournament management, sending in reports for rating, tips on WinTD, Swiss-Sys, et al., databases and other software, clocks, and other matters of interest to tournament players. A book with software added might look like a better value.

19

First, those revisions are so long because they are often the full “new” versions of rules like 14H. In the supplements just the new wording was included in such a document.

Second, the current rulebook is too long. I thought so back then and still think so. Because a lot of the material in the book can be posted on-line it can probably be eliminated from any hard copy version; thus, cutting down the size. The book also needs to be made available via e-book (well, on-;line is better but I won’t hold my breath on that one).

Your idea of a disk is great. I tried to get that when it was first published–it got shot down. But “the times they are a changin’”

To extend your idea Bill Hall has earlier thought about publishing the book in sections; i.e., rules, USCF tournament section, equipment standards, …

And I was alerted that Random House (McKay) just bought an e-book publishing company…looking good!? Yes, I altered Bill Hall (via e-mail) about this hoping he contacts McKay (etc.).

20

It looks like downloading books in electronic form will be the norm for a while until some unknown as yet technology appears. Friends download books and fairly sophisticated chess apps to their smart phones and Apple ipads. Who knows, even the Nook and Kiindle might get outdated fast unless they keep up with consumer cravings. Ideal for a TD would be chess pairing software on a thin computer/ipad like device; rulebook and numbers to call for special help or a TD ombudsman on a smartphone; and a device to project pairings on the wall.