Your post assumes there are a lot of other countries with local rating systems. There are some, to be sure, but many have no such thing.
Until very recently FIDE’s rating system focused on high level players pretty much exclusively. They’ve tried to push it down but it is still not widely used at lower and beginner levels. Some would say that is a good thing I suppose.
I am not talking about trying to get USCF-rated events to also be FIDE-rated.
My question—not new, but it seems to be gaining traction—is whether it would be plausible/preferable to simply adopt the FIDE LOC for all USCF-rated events, even ones that are not FIDE-rated. That includes scholastic events, club quads, local one-day Swisses, games played at G/25d5 and games played by beginners in tournaments run by newbie TDs. Maybe even games played on analog clocks.
Realistically there would be some use of variations or “that’s how we do things here and no one ever complains” for such events, no matter the official printed rules. (true now; would be true under LOC)
But would it work to simply adopt LOC as a default? And if that would ‘not’ work, why is that the case in the USA, when most nations in the developed chess world do use LOC for amateur events? (As I understand things, that is true. Would be interested to hear from folks who have played rated amateur chess overseas.)
This question came up in Issues a few years ago, when Brian M—who had played for years in Germany—raised it. At the time the majority view seemed to be that as long as most USCF-rated events do not have enough TDs to cover all games played, we need to limit TD intervention and make players take ownership of their games…while the FIDE model of arbiter intervention works well if you have enough arbiters.
Now it seems more people just want to limit the confusion and never-ending tweaks. I find the discussion interesting. I have an opinion on this issue, but prefer to listen to those with more experience using both rules-sets.
Before answering this question, it may be worthwhile to check out the FIDE rules web site and especially note “Guidelines for Inexperienced Players” by IA Stewart Reuben.
Despite the wording differences between the US Chess Rules and the FIDE Laws of Chess, I believe the biggest hurdle is the major philosophical difference of US Chess rules wanting a TD to merely be an observer and only get involved when asked and the FIDE LoC allowing an arbiter to intervene on any infraction of the Laws.
That’s the biggest problem I would have with using the FIDE Laws of Chess for all sections of US Chess tournaments: the assumption that the arbiter will intervene in the games, call the flag, and ensure that the rules are observed. It’s not as bad if only the top section uses FIDE rules. For example, it would be difficult to observe rule 8.5a in the Laws of Chess when there is one floor TD for a 200 player tournament:
Admittedly, it does say “try”. In a large tournament with a limited number of directors/arbiters it might not be possible to do this for every game where the players are in time trouble.
I do like the FIDE rules for keeping score better than US Chess rules in one respect. Under the Laws of Chess, if one player has less than five minutes left in a time period and the other player has more than five minutes left, the player with more than five minutes left has to continue to keep score. Under US Chess rules both players can stop keeping score, making it harder to reconstruct the position and resolve disputes.
Personally, I think that the organizer is doing the players a grave disservice if he hires only one floor TD for a 200 player tournament. YMMV.
Alex Relyea
Chris you are right on - and you have as much experience as anyone in directing events using both sets of rules. I suspect you have to go through a mind shift to prepare as the fundamental approach is different.
I think the difference is that there doesn’t need to be an assumption that the arbiter will intervene. Rather that the TD is allowed to intervene if he sees an infraction. Players can always make claims. Right now the TD is prevented from fixing a problem if he sees one. Unless the opponent makes a claim, the player gets away with an infraction. In actuality this is more useful in lower sections where players are less familiar with the rules and are less likely to make a claim. Infractions are much more likely here than in a top section.
The TD should be able to call what he sees. What he can’t see a player can claim as usual.
The USCF philosophy of no TD intervention since the TD can’t see everything is somewhat unique to chess. For example, a soccer referee does not see all the fouls on the field but they still call what they see (and try to see as many as possible).
The secondary reason for limiting TD intervention I’ve heard is TD bias. But if you don’t trust the TD to be fair, why do you have a TD? A biased TD can help/hurt players in many different ways without directly intervening in games.
The current system of requiring claims also leads to a system that is very biased against inexperienced players. They may not know how to make a claim or could be intimidated by their opponent.
I don’t expect USCF to change since the delegates grew up with this philosophy but it has many weaknesses.
Mike Regan
Exactly!
That’s why I’ve been waiting for those delegates to die out.
Michael Langer
Delegate - TX
P.S. I was trying to be more proactive by leaving one delegate in the desert for hours and mostly denying him water, but he survived 
But don’t the players have the same issue?
In the one FIDE-rated overseas event in which I have played, the staffing was no more extensive than what is common for the United States.
It was a non-issue. For starters, this isn’t football; it’s chess. Most of the time, even in a room full of games, there is nothing to be watching for, and anything that merits watching is going to stick out like a sore thumb.
Second, most arbiter intervention is related to time scrambles. A single arbiter is fully capable of supervising multiple time scrambles simultaneously. Keep your eyes in constant motion and look for displays full of zeros.
I concur with Mike Regan in full.
It often seems that a number of parents are more concerned about equal results of rules application, and rules that are applied simply based on where the TD happens to be and whether or not the TD happens to see an issue are seen as unequal unless every board has equal coverage/scrutiny.
For that matter, in a scholastic tournament a violation might happen on a board right next to me, or even in front of me, while I am scanning the room looking for raised hands and general problems and I will not see such a violation if I am not focused on that board (my peripheral vision might catch it, but no guarantee). A concern raised by parents is that if kids know that TDs will call violations then if they (erroneously but understandably) think a TD saw something, and the TD didn’t call it, then it must not be a violation.
That said, I’d be fine with returning to the default being intervention if a TD notices anything. There would, of course, need to be a period of “retraining” of players.
As far as trust of TDs goes, that has been an issue for decades. Back before there were pairing programs there were a number of times parents complained about TD bias in pairings even when the pairings were absolutely correct. I would anticipate that the number of pairing errors back then due to TD mistakes aren’t that far from the number of pairing errors today due to pairing program setting mistakes, but people have more trust for an unbiased program’s pairings than a TD’s pairing (hey, if the setting are wrong then at least the wrong setting affected everybody equally). As long as there is the potential for TD bias there will be people complaining about it even when such a complaint is totally unjustified.
The only areas of TD bias I can recall seeing over the years are in the following areas: adjudications; pairings; and prize distribution. There are enough anecdotes and history in books which illustrate these.
Adjudications used to be more prevalent and still exist in some pockets, but for the most part are rare. No player should have his game determined by another’s judgment. A few scholastic TD/organizers still do adjudications, so if they are called biased, it is their own fault. Parents who are aware should complain and make those TDs follow the rules. The excuse of not having enough clocks does not fly; there is always at least one clock available to help finish a game that is running long.
Pairings were a notorious area where a TD could affect outcomes. The published pairing rules with the imprimatur of the USCF severely restricted the practice of shuffling the cards to favor particular players or locals. With the advent of pairing programs, complaints about TD pairing bias diminished rapidly. Occasionally, someone still complains, but it is usually about getting Black twice in a row or in three out of four rounds. Everyone blames the color consciousness of the programs rather than the TD. Over time, I have seen everyone get more savvy about how pairings work, even little kids.
Prize distribution complaints sometimes have occurred. But when the tiebreaks are presented or extra prizes added to cover ties, the complaints usually disappear. It helps to have a few extra medals, trophies, and ribbons handy at a scholastic tournament.
I don’t recall a TD ever calling someone’s flag in a US rated event, even one that was FIDE rated. A few spectators, but never a TD. Players are too quick for the TD to have a chance to call a flag.
At one non-rated Junior High tournament I accidentally left the clock box at home. I downloaded a cellphone app and used that for the two games that day that needed a clock put on them (the Junior High boys were solicitous and did not bang on my phone).
If the main complaint about using FIDE rules concerns TD intervention, then that is hardly a problem at all. In scholastic tournaments, TDs are generally more proactive in dealing with problems like illegal moves, pieces and board being set up wrong, clocks being improperly set, getting players to write down their moves, etc. If the only bone of contention is a TD calling a flag, I could live with that.
Having played in Canadian tournaments, which follow FIDE rules, the possibility of TD intervention was a non-issue. For example, in one multi-section tournament with 140+ players, there were only two TDs present. At the start of the round, the TDs went down each row to check to see if the boards were set up properly and that the clocks were set. Since the organizer/arbiter provided the sets, boards, and clocks, he was highly interested in seeing that uniformity and quality of conditions were maintained equally for all players. They checked the DGT setups and displays on the very top boards. (The top board of each class section was placed alongside the GMs and used a DGT board as well). During the round, at least one of the TDs was available to patrol the games in progress. When time scrambles occurred, each TD stayed close to the action, but neither was especially intrusive. Canadian players tend to call their own flags when they run out of time. They also seem to resign earlier than US players when they get into dreadful positions. The TDs did not have to call any flags. The general expectation seems to be that the players will call the flag in their games. There was none of the gamesmanship or poor behavior usually seen in large US events. Even the kids were better behaved. I noted that to the arbiter. His response was that it was a cultural thing. Canadians value sportsmanship highly, and expect it at all times. That explained why two TDs could run a tournament so efficiently and with no complaints.
Well it used to be easier until some decided that FIDE should control the world and USCF rules should be morphed by them. One clear example is that FIDE does not consider G/30 regular rateable-- yet in its own hypocrisy this
very time control has determined two of the last four FIDE world regular over-the-board world championships. And on this point, I rest my case. Go USCF!!! And Go G/30;d0
Rob Jones