Below are Rules changes enacted at the 2011 Delegates Meeting, to take effect on 1/1/12.
I copied this from Issues so all can enjoy. Note that ADM 11-35, in re military/team scoring, has been cut, since it does not format well. Also I clarified ADM 11-32 as best I could, based on info from Mike Atkins, the motion’s sponsor.
Action taken on motions is bolded.
ADM 11-30 (Mike Atkins, VA) Proposed change to Chapter 11 blitz rules. To make it simpler and less confusing, since blitz is played with a separate set of rules, Blitz should only be 5-0, 5 minutes with no delay. G/6-29 is quick chess and played under quick rules. Right now, G/10 could be both blitz or quick chess and this confusion doesn’t have to happen. FAILED (needed 2/3)
ADM 11-31 (Ken Ballou, MA) Modify blitz rule 7d by inserting the phrase “provided the player has sufficient mating material as defined in rule 7c” at the end of the last sentence.
Rationale: Blitz rules 7d and 8d are inconsistent with each other. Rule 7d makes no mention of mating material being required to claim a win if the opponent makes an illegal move. However, rule 8d says that the game is drawn if a player does not have sufficient mating material. PASSED WITH 2/3 MAJORITY.
ADM 11-32 (Michael Atkins, VA) There is currently in the USCF blitz rules a rule that seems oddly out of place relating to blitz.
Current USCF -
4.) Each player must press the clock with the same hand that moves the pieces.
4a) When castling a player may use both hands.
4b) When capturing or completing a promotion both hands may be used if it is clear that the clock is pressed after the move is determined.
The original WBCA #4 rule, and part of the rules submitted by motion in 2007
- Each player must push the clock with the same hand he uses to move his pieces. Also, when capturing, only one hand may be used. Exception: during castling a player may use both hands. The first infraction will get a warning, the second a one-minute penalty, and the third will result in loss of the game. NOTE: Mr. Atkins says this motion was amended to also prohibit two-handed castling.
Somehow, the rule was changed to allow capturing and promoting with 2 hands. This tends to create chaos on the board with hands flying, increasing the potential for knocking over pieces. The rule was designed by experienced blitz players to minimize chaos on the board. It is moved that the original WBCA rule be modified and now state:
- ) Each player must press the clock with the same hand the moves the pieces, using one hand to move the pieces and press the clock. One Exception: When castling, a player may use both hands. The first infraction will get a warning, the second a one-minute penalty, and the third will result in loss of the game. PASSED WITH 2/3 MAJORITY.
ADM 11-33 (John Farrell, VA) Several years ago, the practice of tournament directors playing in a National event was prohibited. The problem of tournament directors playing in their own events continues to be an issue with both the appearance and fact of impropriety in pairings, rulings, and judgments in other games affecting a playing TD’s status, and with the reality that the more prize money that is involved the more potential problems there could be.
It is moved that the Tournament Directors of Grand Prix events cannot play in their own event with the possible exception of Club Championships.
ADM 11-33-1 (REVISED)
Submitted by John Farrell
Revise rule to read:
21E. The Playing Director
A Tournament Director must be absolute objective, but must also be able to devote full attention to directing duties; for this reason, a director, on principle, should not direct and play in the same tournament. In USCF National Events, and Grand Prix Events, the director cannot be a playing director. However, in club events and others that do not involve substantial prizes, it is common practice for the director to play……
Discussion: What constitutes a substantial prize?
A) Should this include all Grand Prix Tournaments, whereas the above inclusion holds true, or
B) And Grand Prix events that exceeds 6 Grand Prix points (or 10 Grand Points enhanced), or
C) And Grand Prix events that exceeds 10 Grand Prix points (or 15 Grand Prix points enhanced), or
D) And Grand Prix events that exceeds 15 Grand Prix points (or 20 Grand Prix points enhanced.
WITHDRAWN
ADM 11-34 (Brian Mottershead, MA) SOFIA RULES ALLOWED
Be it resolved by the Board of Delegates that the USCF Official Rules of Chess shall be amended by adding a new paragraph to the end of Rule 14B, as follows:
Variant 14B7. Draw Agreements Prohibited or Limited (“Sofia Rules”).
The rules for a tournament may prohibit draw agreements, or set limits on when draw agreements may be made. For example, the rules of a tournament may allow draws only after a certain number of moves have been made, or require the consent of a tournament director for draw agreements. This variation is considered a major variation.
Rationale: Clarifies that Sofia Rules are an allowed variant in tournaments conducted according to the USCF Official Rules of Chess. FAILED (needed 2/3)
ADM 11-36 (USCF Rules Committee) PROPOSED RULE to replace the ratable time controls of Rule 5C:
For the purposes of rating G/minutes and inc/seconds (or d/seconds), add minutes and seconds for total playing time for each player. (i.e. total time equals minutes plus (seconds times 60))
e.g.: G/60 d/5 = 60+5 = 65 minutes total playing time for each player.
Multiple time controls add all mm for each control: mm = mm(1) + mm(2) + …
Regular only: total playing time for each player is greater than 65 minutes.
Dual (both regular and quick): total playing time for each player is from 30 to 65 minutes.
Quick only: total playing time for each player is less than 30 minutes and Blitz (see chapter 11)
in all cases the primary time control (mm in minutes) must be at least 5 minutes.
TD TIP
Examples of standard time controls:
40/90, SD/30, inc/30 Regular
40/120, SD/60 d/5 Regular
40/115, SD/60 d/5 Regular
G/120, inc/30 Regular
G/120, d/5 Regular
G/115, d/5 Regular
G/90, inc/30 Regular
G/90, d/5 Regular
G/60, inc/30 Regular
G/60, d/5 Dual
G/30, d/5 Dual
G/25, d/5 Dual
G/25, d/3 Quick
G/15, d/3 Quick
G/10, d/3 Quick
Blitz G/5 (d/0) Quick
When used, standard increment is 30 seconds (Regular).
Standard delay is 5 seconds (regular or dual); and 3 seconds (quick).
Standard blitz uses no delay or increment (see chapter 11).
Although these are not all of the possible time controls, organizers are encouraged to select one of the above (or very similar) so that all participants are clear as what to expect and under which system the event will be rated.
PASSED with 2/3 majority
ADM 11-37 (Steve Immitt, NY) Standard Timer For Sudden Death
The Delegates resolve that Rule 5F, Standard Timer For Sudden Death, be modified to read as follows:
"Variation 5Fa. The Tournament Director has the right to shorten the basic time control, up to the number of minutes equal to the time delay used in seconds. Examples: Time-delay clocks for G/60 with a 5-second time delay (t/d5) may be set starting at 55 minutes through 59 minutes instead of 60; G/30 with a 5-second delay (t/d5) may be set starting at 25 minutes through 29 minutes and still be dual-rated as G/30; G/10 with a 3-second time delay (t/d3) may be set starting at 7 minutes through 9 minutes.
A notation shall be used in any Chess Life TLAs and other advance publicity to denote this deduction (e.g., “G/30 (G/25 + td/5)” to indicate that the time control for that tournament is G/30 with an analog clock and Game/25 plus a 5 second delay each move for time-delay clocks), and any TLAs and advance publicity for tournaments using this variation must indicate the time control and the time-delay for clocks using time-delay.
In order to have tournaments rated in the regular rating system, the minimum basic time control must be at least 30 minutes for clocks not using time-delay and at least 25 minutes for clocks using time-delay, and the minimum amount of the time-delay each move must be at least five seconds.
EXPLANATION
The practice of deducting time from the base time control for time-delay clocks would, under this proposal, now be considered to be a significant variation, and would be required to be announced in the TLA and any advance publicity. The parameters and limits for such deductions would also be reaffirmed (i.e., non-time-delay clocks would be required to have at least 30 minutes, time-delay clocks would be required to have at least 25 minutes, as is currently the rule in order to be rated regularly, and the time-delay is at least five seconds).
Players should have a right to know in advance whether or not their time-delay clocks (standard equipment for Sudden Death tournaments) will be allowed to use the full base time control, as some players might feel that they were misled about the time control, and may have chosen not to enter the tournament if they had known that a deduction were going to be made for time-delay clocks. Others might decide to bring their analog clocks to use instead, in the event that their opponent does not have a time-delay clock, in order to avoid the time deduction for delay clocks.
On the other hand, time delay clocks have been a staple of Sudden Death tournaments for at over a decade now, and their popularity parallels the popularity of regularly-ratable Sudden Death. In order for a tournament to be rated in the regular rating system, and not the Quick Rating System, it must have a base time control of Game/30 or slower.
Since its inception in 1987, Game/30 (“Action Chess”) has proven to be an enormously popular time control— the USCF rates more Game/30 tournaments than any other time control, demonstrating a clear demand for action chess tournaments. Game/30 lends itself especially well to tournament venues with a fixed or limited amount of time for a tournament, or even as side events between rounds of slower tournaments.
The chief reason for the appeal of Game/30 was that these tournaments would affect the players’ regular ratings. When compared to Game/29 (Quick-rated only) tournaments with similar or identical conditions, the Game/30 tournament invariably outdraws its Game/29 cousin, and the margin of victory is usually not close. With other details virtually the same, the only difference responsible for the marked contrast in attendance is the inclusion of the Game/30 results in the players’ regular ratings. This should hardly be a surprise, as most players evidently view something that’s important enough to merit their time, effort, attention and money, such as serious tournament play, should also be important enough to merit being included in their regular ratings as well.
The other main reason for Game/30’s popularity was the development of time-delay clocks. Time-delay clocks have virtually eliminated the inevitable conclusion of an action game into a clock smash-fest, which would have destroyed the popularity of the fast time control. But time-delay is a double-edged sword, and the extra time it would add to the length of the tournament would also be a real drawback. This especially becomes a concern when the amount of time available is fixed or limited, such as in cafeterias, churches, classrooms, school gymnasiums, etc., or when the tournament must be over at a specific time. It was to address these very concerns that Rule 5Fa, which allowed the TD to compensate for the delay by making a corresponding deduction to the time control, was developed in the first place.
The solution to this dilemma was time-delay for Game/30, to avoid the smash-clock games, and also to shorten the time control by five minutes, to compensate for the time-delay. This has resulted in the creation of a new tournament niche: entire four, five or six-round tournaments could now be held in a day, an afternoon or even in one evening. The entire-tournament-in-a-few-hours-on-a-tight-schedule format has proven to be so popular that some of these events have been running on a monthly and weekly basis for several years, some even for decades. This would not be possible were it not for Game/30 and time delay, coupled with a five-minute deduction for time-delay. Adding an extra 40 to 50 minutes or more to an afternoon or evening tournament is a luxury which many sites, as well as many busy players, do not have.
In a recent Delegates Meeting, one of the proposals being debated was an addition to the tiebreak rules to include a recommendation for a speed playoff in the event that two or more players finish with perfect scores. One of the arguments repeatedly made against including such a recommendation in the actual rules (it was instead made a “TD Tip”) was that it would be unfair to tie the hands of the TD or organizer who may have a limited amount of time available at the site for the tournament, not to mention the players who likely have their own commitments later on as well. Yet how much more unfair than a recommendation to have a speed playoff is it to instead tie the hands of the TD or organizer to a tournament schedule which would be likely to exceed the time limit available, let alone interfere with the players’ later plans for the day?
Some have expressed concern about the “slippery slope” argument: If today the line between Regular-rated and Quick-Rated is 30 minutes for analog clocks (or the corresponding 25 minutes plus 5-second delay), then what’s to stop the line from moving to 20 minutes for analogs (or 15 minutes plus 5-second delay) tomorrow, and then to 10 minutes (presumably with 5 minutes plus delay) the next day, or even faster?? But 30 minutes for analog clocks (with the corresponding 25 minutes plus 5-second delay) has been regularly-ratable for many years. It has served consistently as the accepted demarcation between Regular and Quick for all that time, and not as just the next step down the path to tournament rating debauchery. Why would the line in the sand between Regular and Quick need to be made any faster than it has been for many years? But why should the same line suddenly need to regress any further back in the opposite direction, only to ignore the existing demand of those USCF members who want tournaments which are compatible with their own limited schedules?
WITHDRAWN
ADM 11-38 (Steve Immitt, NY) Variation 11H1. Director As Witness Only
The Delegates resolve that the following language be added to the end of Rule 11H1, Director As Witness Only: "This variation does not need to be announced in advance.”
EXPLANATION: Many Tournament Directors refrain from correcting illegal moves played in non-Sudden Death time controls which the TD has observed, unless the opponent of the player who made the illegal move has first pointed this out to the TD, This proposal serves to codify this practice, by explicitly stating that this practice does not need to be announced in advance. Without such a specific advance disclaimer to the contrary, players may believe that the TD will initiate claims of illegal moves which may occur in their games. PASSED with 2/3 majority.
ADM 11-39 (Steve Immitt, NY) Changes Or Amendments To USCF Section—Rules Of Play
The Delegates resolve that Rule 25 be added to the “USCF Section-- Rules of Play” of the USCF Rulebook:
"25. Changes Or Amendments To USCF Section—Rules Of Play. Any changes to the USCF Rules listed in Chapter One of the USCF Rulebook: “USCF Section—Rules of Play” (and any subsequent renumbering thereof) shall require approval of a majority of the Delegates of two consecutive Delegate Meetings, or the approval of at least two-thirds of the Delegates at any single Delegate Meeting. Once enacted, any changes, amendments or rescissions to this rule are subject to the same restrictions.”
EXPLANATION: While it is true that the process to amend the USCF’s own Bylaws is a less restrictive one than this proposal to change the USCF Tournament Rules (approval of a majority of the Delegates in one meeting if the Bylaws change is included on the Advance Agenda of the Delegates Meeting), so what? The Delegates have previously enacted widescale and sweeping changes to the Tournament Rules in the past, sometimes without having taken the time to consider all the ramifications or to consider the likely unintended consequences of the proposed rule changes. Rule changes which require players and/or Tournament Directors to follow new procedures which are significantly different than those currently followed are likely to cause more than a little confusion and consternation to those affected, and perhaps engender ill will on the part of the players and TDs who may misunderstand them. Such changes should require a super-majority of those Delegates to enact, or give the Delegates time until the next meeting to solicit feedback from other members who are likely to be affected by the proposed changes. FAILED.
ADM 11-40 (Richard Kopecke, CA-N) Modify Article IX for the bylaws to add the following section:
Section 19: Modification of the Official Rules of Chess
The US Chess Federation’s Official Rules of Chess may be modified by a
majority vote of the Delegates or a Special Delegates’ meeting except that
any proposal not specifically included in the Delegates advanced agenda shall
require a 2/3 majority vote to pass." WITHDRAWN
ADM 11-41 (Steve Immitt, NY) Right Of All Players To Furnish And Use Time-Delay Clocks
The Delegates approve adding to Rule 42-D the following minor variation:
“A properly set clock with time delay or increment capability is preferable to any other clock in a game with any sudden death time control. Therefore, if White has such a clock available and Black does not, White’s clock should be used. If either player arrives late for the start of the game, and a clock without time delay or increment has already been started, the player has the right to furnish and substitute a properly set time-delay or increment clock, prior to the determination of Black’s first move. The player substituting the time-delay or increment clock must also transfer the elapsed times shown on the non-delay clock to the delay or increment clock, without any additional adjustments (except to correct any errors in the display of the elapsed time). The player substituting the delay or increment clock must have arrived at the board before the grace period for forfeit loss of the game by non-appearance (13-D) has expired. Notwithstanding the above, the only occasions where Black retains the right to use his/her non-time-delay clock are in games with no sudden death time control, in cases where both players have the same type of non-time-delay clock, or if the delay mode were not being used in a sudden death time control game, and if, in all these cases, Black has arrived in time for the start of the game (or if White is late, before White has arrived). In any particular game, if the delay clock cannot be properly set, then the opponent of the player providing the delay or increment clock may choose which legal clock is to be used (5F).
EXPLANATION: There are many situations where players may be unavoidably delayed from arriving before the start of the round, through no fault of their own. Not everyone who arrives late for the game does so out of negligence. New USCF Rule 14H6 (“No Claim of Insufficient Losing Chances In Sudden Death”) allows the individual TD to opt to disallow any draw claims by Insufficient Losing Chances, and such a variation is not required to be announced in the advance publicity.
It would be very unfair and against the basic principles of USCF-rated Sudden Death if a late-arriving player were not only denied the current relief of Rule 14H against an opponent playing out a drawn or lost position solely to win on time, but also denied the opportunity to use a time-delay or increment clock at all. The player, the rest of the players in the room, and the TD would then all be forced to endure the spectacle of the game, which might otherwise be decided over the board using time-delay, instead degenerating into a duel of “clock-punching monkeys.” To ensure that the position in the game does not influence whether or not the delay clock is used, the substitution must occur before the player furnishing the time-delay clock has completed his first move. PASSED WITH 2/3 MAJORITY.
ADM 11-42 (Bob Messenger, MA) Amend the USCF tournament rules to state that it is not necessary for a player to physically move the pawn to the last rank when promoting a pawn.
In Rule 8F6, after “The promotion piece is placed on the eighth-rank square to which the pawn was moved.” add:
It is not necessary for the player to physically move the pawn to the last rank as long as the pawn is removed from the board and the new piece is placed on the promotion square, in either order.
In Rule 9D, after “If the player has released the pawn on the last rank, the move is not yet determined, but the player no longer has the right to play the pawn to another square.” add:
If the pawn is still on the board when the player’s hand has released the new piece on the promotion square, the move is not yet determined but the player cannot promote to a different piece or on a different square.
RATIONALE: This rules change recognizes the fact that many players remove the pawn from the board and place the new piece on the promotion square without actually moving the pawn to the last rank. Players should not be penalized for doing this. The proposed amendment to Rule 9D clarifies the situation when the new piece has been released on the promotion square but the pawn has not yet been removed by saying that although the move has not yet been determined (since, for example, there might be two pawns which can promote on the same square), the player can’t change his or or her mind and promote to different piece or on a different square.
WITHDRAWN
ADM 11-43 (Bob Messenger, MA) In Chapter 11 (Blitz Chess) of the USCF’s Official Rules of Chess, as amended, replace the current rule 17 with the following:
17.) If a player is promoting a pawn and the desired piece is not available, the player may stop both clocks in order to locate the piece and place it on the board. It is improper for the player to press the clock to start the opponent’s time with the pawn still on the last rank. If this is done, the opponent may immediately restart the player’s clock without moving.
RATIONALE: The existing rule 17 reads: “If the player promotes a pawn and leaves the pawn on the board, the opponent has the option of stopping the clocks while a replacement piece is found.” The intent of this rule appears to be to legitimize the practice of a player moving a pawn to the last rank, announcing “Queen”, and subsequently moving the pawn as if it were a queen, without replacing the pawn with a physical queen as required by rules 8F6 and 8F7. This is clearer when looking at the WBCA rule 17 on which is it based, which continues, “up until the end of the game”.
Rules should be stated clearly and unambiguously, so that their meaning can be understood by all players and TDs. It’s not fair if some players know about a rule and others don’t. The current version of USCF blitz rule 17 is ambiguous and open to misinterpretation because it doesn’t explicitly say that a promoted pawn can move and capture as if it were the new piece, although this becomes more obvious when looking at the WBCA history of the rule. The rule also doesn’t say whether the player promoting the pawn can simply announce the new piece, such as by saying “Queen” or “Knight”, or if an unexchanged pawn can only be a queen. A verbal announcement of the new piece might be misunderstood, which could lead to a dispute.
The proposed amendment makes it illegal for a player to promote a pawn and then press the clock without replacing the pawn with the new piece, as it is in regular and quick chess. The text of the proposed new rule is a shortened version of rule 8F7 in the regular USCF rules. Promoting a pawn and leaving the pawn on the board instead of replacing it with the new piece isn’t an illegal move, as it is under FIDE blitz rules, but the opponent can restart the player’s clock without moving.
PASSED WITH 2/3 MAJORITY
), while the Swiss pairing rules are in C.04 (under “General Rules and Recommendations for Tournaments”).
)