Yes, in the few seconds it took to decide what to do after he pushed a pawn to the 8th rank and said “Queen,” I was not sure whether to stop the clock or restart his clock. (Time pressure was not an issue.) I thought it was my place to restart his clock, and let him stop it to find a Queen. I was kicking myself for not supplying a set with extra Queens. The set we were using I got in the '90s, before extra Queens became SOP.
I would not have objected had he stopped the clock, but I did not think I should do so myself. Was that wrong?
Post Ken Ballou’s detailed list of the differences at the site, and post a link to it in the TLA and on the CCA website. Make an announcement at the start of round one of each schedule that the rules differences are posted on the wall in several locations, and make sure players know arbiters will call flags in FIDE-rated sections. (though a moot point with a 30-second delay)
His behavior was technically incorrect. But yours, though technically correct, was puzzling.
If you “had to capture it”, why didn’t you just capture it (the pawn) on the eighth rank, and be done with it? Once it’s captured, it makes no difference whether it was a queen, rook, knight, pawn, or Cyclops.
And then, later, after you resigned, you could explain to him (still gently) that, according to FIDE rules, he was supposed to make it an actual queen, and that at some future tournament he might get into trouble with an excessively fussy FIDE arbiter if he does not follow the letter of the law.
True, and I have no problem with an arbiter making announcements in advance. But the TD in my previous post went way further than needed, with deliberate long pauses for dramatic effect. He must have thought he was on the stage at a Broadway play or something.
Looking over this thread I realize I did not make clear one important point: Not everyone knows that FIDE-rated mandates the use of FIDE rules.
That happened nine years ago. So, younger players know it, as do rules geeks and TDs and organizers of FIDE-rated events. Perhaps we can expect Masters and those who play the top section of the World Open to know it.
But back in the day—not that far back, up till 2014—FIDE-rated games were played in U.S. tournaments that used U.S. Chess rules rather than the FIDE LOC.
More events were FIDE-rated then, such as USATE. I know a guy who got a FIDE rating ‘by accident’ from playing USATE every year. Once FIDE required that its rules be used in all games it rated, the number of FIDE-rated events in the U.S. declined.
But I bet there are players roughly my age and rating who never got the memo. They will see the U-2000 section of the World Open is FIDE-rated but will not realize that means it will use FIDE rules. They will recall USATE and U.S. Opens that were FIDE-rated but used U.S. Chess rules. Some of them might be coming back to rated chess after years away.
They will not realize that FIDE-rated mandates the use of FIDE rules…unless someone provides the memo. Posting at the site and in the TLA, plus an announcement before round one, should make it clear.
Never assume smart people have up-to-date information on important topics.
And this is a huge problem: when players decide to make up, and worse, attempt to enforce, rules on their own. Whenever there is any irregularity, the player should stop the clock and summon the arbiter, or TD.
A small number of USA organizers submit all eligible sections for FIDE rating, including for players under 1600 USCF. There are quite a few USA organizers who submit the top two or three sections for FIDE rating. I imagine a supermajority of active classical (90+30 or slower) tournament players in California rated over 1800 USCF already have a FIDE rating. Recently even CCA has joined the trend.
I personally hardly notice the difference between USCF and FIDE playing rules, even while playing in Europe where nobody even heard of USCF rules. The biggest difference to me seems to be swiss pairings. Just don’t be like a certain midwest GM who, many years ago, lost on time with R+K against B+K (with the rook).
I’m pretty sure that it was K+R vs K+N where he flagged trying to figure out whether it was possible to trap the N, secure in the “knowledge” that he couldn’t lose on time.
Let’s say we are playing under U.S. Chess rules, and black claims a draw here, based on white not having “mating material” and not having a forced win. I am really going to be piddled off if the TD grants my opponent’s draw claim, without first allowing my opponent to fall into my trap with the plausible-looking … h4-h3?? whereupon I play Nf6-g4 with immediate checkmate to follow.
It seems like the issue here is whether a mate is possible under best play or under worst play. That’s a philosophical question that should be consistent across all rules, but I suspect it is not consistent in either US Chess or FIDE rules.
US Chess rules doesn’t require best play; just not brain-dead play. Are there are few problem positions where a tempting move loses? Yes. But I’m not sure what the solution is. Let the opponent waive the flag fall? I guess one could figure out some way to put that into the rules without making a mess of things.
OTOH, the FIDE rules will sometimes require not just brain-dead play, but beyond brain-dead play, such as first underpromoting, then trapping your King in a corner. And I suspect there are positions where it might be difficult to determine if there is a helpmate.
