In a related thread on 20C, I asked if (or how) a scoresheet could be used to back up a draw claim and provided an example:
A reply:
He further quoted me as saying:
Here is the relevant quote:
and eastside concluded:
This is another day.
A player who marks the scoresheet to back up a three-rep claim or 50 move draw loses both the time it took to mark the scoresheet and the five minutes that will be taken off the clock if the claim is incorrect–that may be a high price/penalty for some type of “memory aid” on a bogus draw claim. It seems to me the FIDE phrase “matters relating to a claim” or similar phrase should be added to our 20C rule as it would make claiming and proving a draw easier for all involved.
Five minutes “taken off the clock if the claim is incorrect”? I can not find that in the fifth edition of the Official Rules of Chess (or in the FIDE Laws of Chess, for that matter). Could you please clarify?
That was the rule in the 3rd edition (“add five minutes to the claimant’s used time”). In the 4th edition the penalty was changed to “two minutes shall be added to the opponent’s remaining time”, which is the current rule.
There is no need for such a rule. I had the equivalent of a two-week brain fart on this topic, until it hit me while responding to a post on the original thread that spawned this idea yesterday.
The FIDE Laws of Chess have replaced Chapter 15 of the USCF rulebook, as of earlier this year. (Check the TD/affiliate secure area of the website, and look for the link to rule changes made since publication.) Therefore, FLC 12.4 is already in effect for USCF events.
But, but, er, um … cough … the FIDE Laws of Chess don’t apply to USCF rated events unless that is announced as a variation. Chapter 1 of the Official Rules of Chess basically replaces the Laws of Chess.
That’s not how I read the rule change. When the 5th edition went into effect, the entirety of Chapter 15 didn’t comprise variations on the USCF rules. They were the USCF rules.
The full and exact verbiage of the rules change I’m citing is as follows.
If you take the ruleboook, tear out Chapter 15, and replace it with the FLC, the FLC in effect becomes the USCF rules. These aren’t variations anymore, as of the May 2011 rules update. Therefore, FLC 12.4 is now the USCF rule with regard to recording of moves.
I can not agree with this interpretation simply because chapter 15 of the Official Rules of Chess, 5th edition, was the version of the FIDE Laws of Chess that were current at the time of publication. (That would be the Laws of Chess as amended at the 2001 FIDE Congress. The laws have been amended twice since, at the 2005 and 2009 congresses.)
Let’s suppose for a moment that the FIDE Laws of Chess are in effect for all USCF rated tournaments without announcing that as a variation.
Are you now declaring a game lost by a player who makes a third illegal move?
If a player makes a move and then claims a draw under the 50-move rule before pressing the clock, are you disallowing the claim?
Are you intervening to correct all illegal moves observed, regardless of time pressure?
Are you correcting all illegal moves, regardless of how many moves have been made since?
Are you disallowing descriptive notation?
Are you declaring the game lost by a player whose cell phone rings on the first instance?
Are you allowing a player who has less than two minutes left on the clock to claim a draw because the opponent is not trying to win the game by normal means?
Are you calling fallen flags? Are you no longer requiring a reasonably complete scoresheet to claim a win on time in a non-sudden death time control?
If a game comes down to king and knight vs. king and knight and one player runs out of time, are you declaring the game lost by that player because a helpmate is possible?
Each of these represents a contradiction between the FIDE Laws of Chess and the USCF Official Rules of Chess. If the FIDE Laws of Chess apply by default, then we have contradictory rules.
I agree that you have quoted the rule changes document correctly. However, I was a delegate and attended the 2010 Delegates Meeting; I believe the document does not accurately reflect what the delegates approved. According to the unofficial minutes of the 2010 Delegates Meeting, the motion that David Kuhns introduced on the floor was: “DM 5. Replace the chapter on FIDE laws with a link to the FIDE site.” (It wasn’t an ADM, so you won’t find it in the 2010 Delegates Call.) The intent was to recognize that the version in the book was two revisions out of date and that nowadays it makes more sense to provide a URL where one may find the most current version. My interpretation is that the intent was to replace the text of chapter 15 with something like “The current version of the FIDE laws of chess may be found at fide.com/fide/handbook.html? … ew=article”.
(Obligatory whine/rant: I stupidly recycled my printed copy of the minutes of the 2010 Delegates Meeting that were distributed at this year’s meeting for the delegates’ approval. I foolishly thought I would not need the printed copy because there must be a copy on the USCF web site (in the About USCF / Governance / Reports section, along with all the other delegates calls, minutes, and so on. Nope, can’t find it there. Why does it have to be so hard to find these things on the web site? Yes, it is a rhetorical question. Don’t bother wasting the keystrokes to answer it.)
Hmmm. If the USCF’s rule change document isn’t correct, that is a problem. TDs are supposed to be able to rely on that.
Full disclosure: I am partial to the FLC, with a few exceptions. So I was actually pleased when I read that document. However, knowing that there are many who believe USCF rules to be superior, it seems quite reasonable that the Delegates wouldn’t approve such a wholesale change in one shot.
