Time to simplify: Lessons learned at World Team 2

Running Chess Tournaments
1

Part Two

What if we had two rules sets and some really good TDs were confused over which one to use?

Before round one of the World Team, NTD 1 made some announcements about rules and clock settings. Some good stuff, especially start WHITE’s clock first and touch the King first when castling.

However, we also heard “we are using FIDE rules,” and were told a player had to keep score until he/she went under five minutes, not just when the first player goes under five minutes; that anyone caught talking on the phone in the hall could be forfeited and that players had to move first, then record. (Granted that last one is technically the USCF rule, but the “variation” to allow record-first with a paper scoresheet is so common most players think it’s the rule.)

When I approached NTD 1 in the hall to ask if we were really using FIDE rules, I was asked if I had a question about a specific rule. I asked if algebraic notation was required. “Of course,” came the reply.

OK. I then asked NTD 2 and NTD 3 if we were really using FIDE rules. They both mentioned the castling rule right away, then asked if I had a specific question…but when pressed politely they both said no, we are using USCF rules.

Seems the top TDs wanted to make sure players knew about the new castling rule that brought USCF into line with FIDE, and emphasized starting White’s clock first after the debacle four years ago. (Which they do not shrug off as “having no sympathy for players who do not operate the clock properly.” Go figure.)

NTD 1 perhaps misheard the “castling/in line with FIDE” thing to mean that all FIDE rules were in effect, or maybe assumed the tournament would be FIDE-rated, as it used to be, and thus FIDE rules would be in effect perforce. Whatever.

So, if TDs at this level can’t always get on the same page…etc. Time to simplify.

To be clear, this is not criticism of anyone on the staff or at the site. Things ran quite smoothly, as far as I saw. NTD 1, who just turned 80, was seen bundled in a blanket at the TD table outside the ballroom near midnight on the coldest night of the year, still on duty. There is good reason this is the top event of the year for many players.

But it’s time to simplify the rules. The current trend of moving closer to FIDE LOC while retaining and adding a zillion variations and tweaks suited to USCF Swisses just won’t work. I understand why it happens, same as I understand why CCA TLAs and the TD certification regs grew to comical length and complexity.

But really, it’s not gonna work.

I doubt there were a dozen players of the 600+ in the ballroom who scatched their heads the way I did. We who post here are the weird ones. We need to remember that sometimes.

As for specifics of how to simplify things: Good question. There’s a small chance I will make the USCF Open this year. If so I plan to mention a few ideas there. Number one: Bring the printed rules in line with real-life, aka “variations” that are used in the vast majority of events. The paper scoresheet and illegal move variations spring to mind here. (I always assumed that TDs not calling illegal moves was the main rule, until I read on the Forums that it’s a variation, for example.)

Or maybe just decide if we want to follow the LOC or not. No middle ground with lots of exceptions and tweaks. Simplify one direction or the other.

Easy to say from here. What do you think?

2

That the delegates who make the USCF rules are the weird ones?

3

I wonder if we could find out somehow who exactly are our delegates, and whether or not they’re actually certified TDs? I realize there’s no current policy along those lines, but still, it’s an interesting idea, to me.

I have this suspicion that at least a good percentage of delegates are parents and coaches of scholastic kids, without any TD experience.

It seems to me that delegates should be TDs, or at least be officers of the State Associations, in an effort to at least know something about how tournaments are ran before they chime in about rule changes; you know, sorta like being informed?

4

The list of delegates can be found here: http://www.uschess.org/datapage/USCF-Delegates.php. Note that many states have not named their 2015 delegates yet.

I think you’ll find just the opposite. I have often looked around the room at a workshop or delegates meeting, compared to the playing hall at the U.S. Open, and thought that it was a bunch of old white men running things for a bunch of young Asian kids.

Alex Relyea

5

The delegates are listed in the website. Not all are TDs. I’m not. That’s one reason why we require 2/3 to pass rules changes. I have been a state office for about 15 years collectively, though not for the last several.

One reason for the workshops is so non-TD delegates can get better informed prior to the delegates meeting. I know my initial thoughts on some rules changes last year were influenced by the discussion in the Rules Workshop. Few delegates are knowledgeable in all areas upon which we vote. The most conscientious delegates do what they need to to compensate for gaps in their background.

6

:exclamation: :astonished: :open_mouth: :laughing:

7

But, of course, you have! :smiley: :smiling_imp: :stuck_out_tongue: :neutral_face: :smiley:

8

I am an overweight 50-year-old left-handed near-sighted half-Jewish middle-child white male lifetime-Class A patzer who slips into descriptive notation now and then. If I had more money I would be the poster child for a USCF delegate.

If I somehow get to the U.S. Open this year I plan to seriously propose rules motions with the aim of simplifying things for normal USCF-rated play. Since I am not a delegate I will need to talk a delegate into sponsoring them. Of course there is also the general membership meeting.

Beware too much tweaking. I say that as a fellow tweaker at heart. It’s the same thing with computers. My OP was scribbled on a PC running a trial copy of Windows 8. Why? No good reason. Win 7 worked for me, as it does for most. I just had to see what the fuss was about, good and bad. Then I had to mess with visual effects and settings and start-up programs, etc…for no good reason.

Some of you can relate. Tweakers are probably over-represented at the Rules Workshop and perhaps under- or less-represented on the Delegates Floor. Generalization, for sure, but it’s what I sensed the one DM I saw in person and from what I’ve seen and read online.

Make the goal to bake the code so well it works out of the box to the point only the most extreme and fanatical tweakers feel the need to tweak.

Or maybe they would show up with ADMs in hand anyway…

9

I learned chess using descriptive notation, so that is what I prefer to use. I have used descriptive notation at a number of FIDE events, even in Canada, in the past. Currently I have taken to using Algebraic in foreign FIDE events. When using descriptive notation at a FIDE event I have only once been taken to task over it. In that instance I was the person who brought the question of using descriptive to the attention of the TD [about Rd 3], and as a result an announcement was made that Algebraic was required. So, if there is no announcement about using Algebraic, then why not use Descriptive? The only thing that will happen is that you may be asked to use Algebraic, or that your score sheet will not be considered valid for claims. Is there any time penalty for using Descriptive at a FIDE event?

Please note that I am note advocating violating known rules. However, there is always the question of what is going to be enforced. Even in professional sports there are differing enforcement of the rules by different referees. That is specifically why there are announcements before the start of a round. The TD(s) should remember that even if they know the rules, there are experienced players that do not. I still remember in the middle of a game at a tournament 20 years ago going to the chief TD to ask if I could castle even though my Rook was under attack. Since the King was not going through check, and neither the King or Rook had moved that I could castle. I then got back to the board and did not castle, lost the Rook, and the game.

Larry S. Cohen

10

Article 8.1.a of the FIDE Laws of Chess require the player to record the moves of the game using algebraic notation. A specific penalty for violating this rule is not specified; the arbiter may thus impose penalties described in article 12.9 (including increasing the remaining time of the opponent and decreasing the remaining time of the player).

An arbiter should impose penalties commensurate with the offense. I would think a reasonable arbiter would start with at least one warning to the player.

11

I will admit reminding players that White’s clock should be started first is a best practice. My start-of-round instruction is “Start White’s clock!” for this reason.

But once I give that instruction, I reasonably expect players to follow it, and have no sympathy for those who don’t, or for those late arriving players who fail to correct.

12

I concur that at least one warning is appropriate for a DN offense.

That being said, in a FIDE event, continued use of DN after repeated warnings or a time penalty is not an option. A player who declined to use AN after a series of warnings, a time penalty, and a time penalty with an ultimatim would and should find himself forfeited. I’m not putting my arbiter’s license and the ratability of the event at risk because one player refuses to comply with the Laws of Chess after reasonable opportunity.

13

I too, was confused at the World Amateur Team/US Amateur Team East, as I realized before the event it was no longer FIDE rated, so FIDE rules weren’t necessary, but heard NTD 1 go over the FIDE rules. I believe she assumed it was still FIDE rated and since July 1, 2014 FIDE requires their rules for all rated events. NTD 2 (or 3, whatever) corrected her in a later round saying it was not FIDE rated anymore, and the rules were; “don’t cheat.” Then he gave away a book to someone with purple shoes.

The solution to all this seems pretty simple to me; adopt FIDE rules for all competitions and be done with it. No variations, no problems. This has the side effect of saving the USCF money and countless hours of Delegate Meeting time, letting the delegates deal with more pressing items.

If we must feel like we’re important still, we should follow through with an earlier initiative to more formally merge USCF and FIDE rules.

I’ve had this position for several years now, and this confusion at the largest adult team tournament in the world (other than the Olympiad) made the solution even more clear to me than ever.

-Matt Phelps