I have written previously concerning the practice here in Louisville of allowing one, or both, players in a G/30 of opting to NOT keep score if they deduct 5 minutes from their time.
One of my students recently played in one of these tournaments and all three of his opponents did not keep score. Since he did, because I have impressed upon him the importance of so doing, he felt they were at an advantage, so he questioned the TD, Steve Dillard, and was told it was a ‘rule’.
I have not been able to find it in the rulebook. I realize there have been many changes to the rulebook, but I’ve not been able to find it in the changes, either.
If anyone knows where I may find this rule, please let me know, as I am a TD and should be aware of new rules such as this.
Michael Bacon
wmichaelbacon@yahoo.com
It may be a local rule variation. It is most definitely NOT a USCF rule.
Back when I was reading Newsweek, they had a recurring ‘conventional wisdom’ feature, things people THINK are true but are not.
It might be interesting to discuss the ‘conventional wisdom’ rules people think are in the USCF rulebook.
Here are a few that don’t exist.
A pawn on the eighth rank is automatically a queen.
Only the winner is required to post the result.
Spectators can call illegal moves.
Spectators can call flags.
Parents can make claims for their children, including when their child didn’t ask them to.
Everyone is guaranteed a game, even when there is an odd number of players.
If you haven’t played a rated game in a long time, you can start all over as unrated.
Moving a piece between 2 squares qualifies as 3-fold repetition no matter where the opponent moved.
The insufficient losing chances claim (14H) can be used with a delay clock.
Anyone can remind a player that forgot to push the clock.
It’s valid to make a 3-fold claim after moving and starting the opponent’s clock.
How about this one:
If you don’t have a published rating, you’re entitled to use a rating someone found on MSA.
When both players are due the same color, the higher rated player gets it.
Black has the choice of clock, regardless of the type of clock.
Black has the choice of clock if arriving late to a board with the clock already started.
In scholastic events, erroneous “rules” include: the 50-move rule (once the game reaches move 50 without a result it is a draw);
the 50-move rule (if there have been no captures or pawn moves after fifty moves it is a draw - with those 50 being 25 by white and 25 by black);
stalemate when the unchecked king does not have a legal move (so far I’ve found that referring to the initial position resolves this one);
irrevocable draw offers (a draw offer refused on move 20 can be accepted on move 60 even if the initial offerer does not want to renew it);
in an individual/team tournament (where only the top “x” scores from a team are counted as a team score), the top scores each round are used (i.e. if x=3 then Al, Betty and Charlie’s wins are scored for round one, Dolly, Edward and Freda’s wins are scored for round two and Gerald, Helen and Irving’s wins are scored for round three for a team score of 9 with 9 players having each gone 1-2);
in an individual/team tournament two teammates will never be paired (I remember a 7-round pre-pairing-program tournament with 25 of the 50 players in the section being from one school where I was able to manually pair it having no player from that school play more than two teammates over the seven rounds with the pairings being reasonable every round, and in different tournaments also explaining to coaches that when the only perfect scores are from a single team then they will play).
I work for an organizer that sometimes uses that one, but they do announce it in advance and do their own research.
Are ‘local rule variations’ allowed, Mr Sloan? Is that not a way of saying it is a ‘House Rule’? Does USCF allow the use of made up ‘House Rules’?
I believe rule variations are allowed so long as they are announced in pre-tournament publicity. Someone correct me if I’m wrong on this. I don’t have a rule book around me to look up where it’s at but I’m near certain this is accurate.
Read rule 1B1 and 1B2.
I have twice directed scholastic events (different organizers) in which I had to overrule an assistant (not a certified TD) hired by the organizer, that did not know that pawn moves and captures require that counting moves must start from 1 again. It’s understandable that players don’t know the correct rule when some of the ones watching them don’t.
It’s not 1B1 or 1B2.
Read the TD TIP to Rule 15A1c, Page 56, in the 5th Edition. I’ll check the rules revisions since 5th edition later. But it in a nutshell, this TD Tip establishes a rule-of-thumb for those excused from scorekeeping of 5% of total game time allotted up to 10 minutes.
Before anyone nitpicks, no this is not a “Rule,” as TD Tips are not rules. But the issue has been discussed here on the forums also, and I don’t know of anyone who’s offered an alternate compensation theory if a player is actually legally excused from scorekeeping. Though local directors might use their discretion to establish a different standard from the TD Tip.
15A1a, A1b, and A1c list the exceptions for keeping score (physical handicaps, religious reasons, beginners who have not learned to keep score.) And yes, I also know that this is not a blanket, “It’s OK not to keep score,” and I agree with that principle. But it probably is the origin of the TD believing it is a rule.
Though, as others have noted, it could be a local rules variation under 26A and 26B. Would that be expected to be pre-published? I would think so, but that’s my opinion.
Of course. Most of the rules now in the rulebook started out as someone’s wild idea.
Variations come in many flavors:
a) some are IN the rulebook - there are situations where the rules give a “standard” rule and one or more variants
b) some are pulled form thin air.
Both are allowed - as long as proper notice is given.
Proper notice comes in two flavors:
a) announcements made orally, or (better) in writing at the event
b) announcements made in pre-event publicity.
The acid test is: would a player decide to NOT play in the event if he knew of the rule variation being used. If so, then the rule must be announced in ALL pre-event publicity (fliers, web pages, etc.) If not, an on-site announcement is required.
Note that it is NOT sufficient to wait until the situation arises and then say “that’s the way we do it here”. You either do it in the standard way outlined in the rulebook, or you make an announcement. Even if 23 out of the 24 players in the event have heard the same litany of announcements at every event for the past 10 years (note that this is one good reason to post WRITTEN variations).
You are referring to a specific rule. 1B1 and 1B2 answer the general question (“Are ‘local rule variations’ allowed”) and are not linked to any specific rule.
Ah… for some reason I was thinking of 1A Scope. And I used 26A/26B, which directly repeat 1B1/1B2. Though I now realize 26 is in the scope of tournament organization as opposed to the rules of a specific game.
I would not consider rule 15A1ff. to be a “variation,” though added exceptions allowing other reasons for being excused from scorekeeping certainly would be.
Thank you for the correction. 
. .
The 50-move rule is technically flawed or unprincipled.
The principle is that the counter is reset to 1 when any nonReversible move occurs. Obviously captures and pawn moves are irreversible.
But castling is also irreversible; yet castlinig is not mentioned the rule.
This is asymptotically close to 0 practical relevance, but it feels icky to see the rule be theoretically impure or unprincipled for no particular reason that I can see.
. .
Castling is not exactly irreversible, but it does take multiple moves to get the king and rook back to their pre-castling positions.
That principle is certainly relevant to determining whether or not the same, exact position has occurred for the third time, of course, but I don’t think it’s relevant in the 50-move rule. The presence of a pawn move or a capture implies that that player has theoretically come closer to winning the game (by making a Queen and/or removing the opponent’s material). When the player uses up all his chances to still win the game, it’s a draw.
You have to check with the TD before every round, to find out what time the next round really is, in case it’s different from the signs, website and Chess Life.
It’s valid to make a 3-fold claim after moving and starting the opponent’s clock.
Why is this one not valid? Say that your move causes the repetition.