Player's Chess Rulebook

Running Chess Tournaments
1

In another thread it was mentioned that I had authored a “Player’s Chess Rules” book. The working title is:

Winning Rated
Chess Tournament Rulebook Tactics
Discover How You Can Get The Winning Edge In Your Next Chess Game By Harnessing The Power Of My Plain Language Chess Rulebook System.

Here is a sample:

If an outstretched hand is what you saw, make sure it’s a resignation and not a draw.

Your opponent reaches out and shakes your hand after stopping the clock. Are they resigning? Are they accepting a much earlier draw offer? Make sure you know the answer to those questions before you report the game results. A simple “Thanks for the game. I’m sorry you lost,” will usually do the trick in solving this dilemma. Of course, a tipped-over king is a better clue that your opponent has quit the game.

Application: You offer your opponent a draw on move 34. They don’t accept the offer at that time, and they continue to play. On move 37 you make what is, in your opinion, a strong move. Your opponent reaches out, shakes your hand, and thanks you for the game. When you go to report your win, you notice your opponent has reported the game as a draw. So what did that handshake mean? Sorting this out is not going to be pleasant for you, your opponent, or the tournament director. Many players don’t realize that draw offers are off the table after they have made a move or declined the draw. They frequently believe, as your opponent here incorrectly does, that the draw offer may still be accepted many moves later. In this case you might consider saying, “Thanks for the game. You played well, and I am sorry you lost.”

How about when your opponent mumbles something and stretches out their hand? Is that a resignation or a draw offer? If you are not sure and want to avoid a messy situation, find out what your opponent mumbled before you shake their hand.

For the most part the work was done a long time ago and has been only tweaked a bit. Since it has not yet been published it may get a few more very small adjustments. The legalities (as I understand them) are that this work is considered a derivative work of the rulebook. The USCF is the copyright holder for the fifth edition. That copyright and the fifth edition are part of that contractual package with the publisher. It is not clear if the derivative work can be independently published or not without violating the USCF-publisher contract.

2

.
Tim this could be an interesting book.
It also somewhat reminds me of Jonathan Maxwell’s book “Blitz Theory”:

Perhaps your working title suffers from excessive adjective-noun “stacking”. It may also suffer the common technical ambiguity that is associated with gerunds.
Just for fun, I have next written a couple alternative phrasings for a similar title:

A. Win Rated Chess Tournaments with Rulebook Tactics

B. Rulebook Tactics for Victory in Rated Chess Tournaments

If my opponent stops the chess clock without immediately summoning the T.D. / Arbiter for a legitimate rule-base reason, I feel the rules must mean that he has thereby formally resigned. This is not a penalty situation because the game has been ended.

Shaking hands, dancing, or anything else he does after he has stopped the clock like this is irrelevant.
Am I mistaken?
Rules 5I, 9H, and section 16.* (in 5th edition) seem too silent on what should happen when a player inappropriate stops “the clocks” or stops “both clocks”.

(Careful language is needed to distinguish between stopping “his clock” or “his opponent’s clock” versus stopping “the clocks” or “both clocks”.)

It would be good if the USCF rulebook encouraged the actual gentle tipping down of the king to indicate resignation: far less ambiguous than the alternatives, and nicely ceremonial too.

Is it still accurate to say that — Neither any recent USCF ExecBoard President, nor any recent ExecDirector, has yet answered the following question so often put forth in these forums?:

“Can the USCF obtain a copy of the old rulebook contract from the publishing company?”

I dearly hope the USCF writes a brand new rulebook, self-publishes it in paperback and electronic formats, and permanently ends its restrictive association with the old contract. The sooner the better.

That said, I doubt your proposed new book would suffer the legal designation of “derivative”. I doubt the word “derivative” can be used to transform a copyright into a patent; any more than alchemy can transform lead into gold.
.

3

Are all of the rules going to rhyme?

4

Thanks for the tips. Since I planned on making this book available on Kindle, my title was based on the suggestions of those that had gone before me. Their idea is to get as many words in the title that get “hits” on an Amazon search as possible.

Well…the book I am promoting (not the official rulebook) would encourage a player to make sure that the clock stopping was a resignation; i.e., assume nothing.

Those are nice rulebook suggestions, but that is not what we are talking about here. The Delegates (or Rules Committee) have to initiate those kinds of wording changes.

Yes.

Franc has talked to me about that.

I have two lawyers that disagree with that comment.

5

Naturally I wouldn’t disagree with the opinions of two lawyers,right? :wink:

While I’m sure you’ve got much better advice than mine, I understand that rules and mechanics of games cannot be copyrighted. Only the expression of those rules and artwork (and even that might be subject to fair use in terms of commentary.)

That said, I sure wouldn’t want to be the one who puts those theories to a test. Not against an imprint of a Big Four.

6

.

Or another suggestion, with a more compact subtitle…

“Rulebook Tactics for Winning Rated Chess Tournaments:
Get the Winning Edge by Harnessing the Power of My Plain Language Chess Rulebook System”

If your new book could be used by T.D.'s as an adequate substitute for the actual rulebook, and you are frequently quoting crucial verbatim from the rulebook, that might indeed make the “derivative” claim plausible.
.

7

Your title suggestion deserves some serious consideration!

The work is short and aimed at players. It would be a stretch for a TD to use it; however, Bill Hall wanted the work to be approved as a substitute for the 5th edition requirement cited on that initial Club TD form. I have my doubts about that substitution, but???

While there is no direct quote from the 5th edition in the new work, there are references to the ideas in the 5th edition; i.e., players are told, in one section, that the rules allow only them to make a claim. Stuff like that makes the whole idea of a derivative work claim a gray area. I would hate to spend a lot of time and $$$ on legal stuff if it can be avoided; thus, I am working to get my house in order before publication, rather than after publication.

8

Not to mention that the revised title is more “plain language” !!

9

Is the potential problem that you’re Tim Just who was one of the editor/authors on the 5th ed? If this were done under the nom de plume of Tigran Jusupov would that fly?

10

I know I have posted links like these before, but “Bump”
copyright.gov/

copyright.gov/circs/circ01.pdf
from the section showing what is not copyrightable

11

.

Copyright law is a relatively simple area of the law.
To me your description is a better explanation of why your new book does Not violate any copyright, than of why your book Might supposedly violate a copyright.

Not to beat a dead horse, but I see no gray area here; much less any black area.
Maybe you can beat the copyright by calling yours a “Roolbook”! :laughing:

If your book would be suppressible, then David McKay publishing owns the USCF rules of chess; which they obviously cannot.

Or, how would any new freshly written USCF rulebook be Free from the old copyright if your book would Not be free of the old copyright?

Tangent: I always wonder why other national chess affiliates, such as in Great Britain and France, do fine without any large rulebook (beyond FIDE’s), when the USCF believes its large rulebook is essential?
I have no doubt there are benefits to the USCF for it having its large rulebook, but I do not well understand what those benefits are exactly.
.

12

Speaking of the USCF Rulebook: Franc has talked to me about getting a new edition off and running (thanks Franc). If all that the USCF universe wants is an updated version of the 5th edition, that should be easy. Just some phone calls to McKay and a few negotiating points and we are off and running. If what the USCF universe wants is an e-book, free rules on-line, a complete review and revision of the rules, etc., well…that is a longer tale! Those darn pesky contracts?!

As for my plain language rulebook…well, we will see. The Board is being very cooperative with me so far. They are not the enemy. They might even lend a logo and an endorsement to the book. I would offer a fee for that. The real problem is the gray area of the McKay contract and it’s umbrella effect on my new work. I believe there is no problem. But then again??? I don’t have the resources to fight McKay in court (even if I am right and they are wrong). Any lawyers out there want to chime in? Even a PM would do!?

13

And there in is the gray area that generates legal fees!?

14

Yeah I don’t think your issue is copyright per se but the mysterious unseen contract.

You need a clean easy way to separate out just the rules and procedures that are currently in force in the rule book.

On the other hand one would think that if it was a big issue that the rule updates already published electronically would be violating the contract.

15

Even more to the point:

copyright.gov/fls/fl108.html

The precise form of the rules is copyrightable, so quoting verbatim is verboten (except as fair use permits.) But commentary upon the rules… AFAICT it is murky. And there is plenty of precedent for other forms of commentary (think episode guides of shows, “the physics of Star Trek,” Cliff’s Notes, etc.) Maybe some of those have paid licenses, but not all do. Hmm… Cliff’s Notes for the rulebook… hmmm…

16

Yes, all of the platitudes rhyme.

17

As per another thread, it appears the contract has been found! Now all we need is for the “powers that be” to contact the publisher and start the ball rolling on edition 5.5 or 6!