[size=150]Hello.
I am looking to find out what the specific colors that are allowed to be constituted as either “white” or “black” during rated USCF games?
Also, what are the color range of squares on the board that are considered “white” and “black” by regulation ?
Thank you.
[/size]
The exact regulations are a bit nebulous with regard to color. For pieces it is:
40D.Color. Pieces should be the colors of naturally light and dark wood (for example, maple or boxwood, and walnut or ebony) or approximations of these colors, such as simply white and black.
For the chessboard it is:
41B.Color. Like the pieces, chessboard colors should offer high contrast between the light and dark sections, yet remain pleasing to the eye. Good combinations include green or brown with ivory or buff, and walnut or teak with maple or birch. The colors and the finish should allow extended examination without eyestrain.
In essence it is up to the TD to decide if a set of pieces or a chessboard is in conformance with the rules or not. Different TD’s will see this differently, and you may get a ruling one way from one TD, and at another tournament get a different ruling from another TD. I have a friend who likes to play with a chessboard whose colors are ivory and electric blue. Some TD’s have ruled this legal. Some, including me, have ruled this illegal.
[size=150]
Thank you for taking time to respond.
What if neither player has a set that fits into that ‘grey’ area but instead have some of the colors as pictured above? So, for instance, if the two players were to agree to play on a board that is maroon and white squares and to use purple and white pieces?
Or what if one person sets up as “Black” and uses dark blue pieces and starts the clock and the opponent shows up late?
[/size]
Under US Chess rules, if the players agree to use particular equipment for the game (and the organizer has not provided equipment), then the game proceeeds with the equipment agreed to by the players. The director has no cause to intervene unless there is a disagreement.
In the second hypothetical, if White has more standard equipment and complains to me (as director), I would allow White to substitute his equipment but require his clock continue to run while he makes the replacement.
I seem to remember that red was an acceptable color for the dark pieces. When did this change?
Some piece color combinations I have seen players agree to use in a recent scholastic tournament include:
My favorite odd color combo was a set I saw last year with orange and pink pieces on a yellow and cream vinyl board. Orange was the “White” side. The set had just been bought by the player at the book and equipment seller at the tournament. The young players were happy to play on it and saw no problem using it. Seeing it gave me a headache. As a TD, you just have to shake your head at what players will allow even after being informed that they can request that a more standard set be used. As a player, I will not play on red and white or blue and white boards. Silicone boards are creepy.
A big problem could occur with red and white pieces on a red and black board. There, the red pieces would be “black” but the red squares would be “white”, and the red queen would not stand initially on the red square.
Bill Smythe
[size=150]Since the preferred board squares are green and white would it not make sense to also have “Black” be allowed to be some form of dark green, and for the same reasons? What if one person claims that the pieces are too shiny?
Also, are wood pieces ‘preferred’ over plastic or is there any standard for which is to be used? I was told one time the ‘Zagreb’ set is not actually ‘legit’ and if an opponent complained they would be allow to use other pieces.
My ultimate aim//agenda here is to make sure I (and the kids – who really like playing with those colored pieces and sets, and I have zero objection to any of it 
) don’t have these issues at an actual tournament and have things set up properly on those occasion in which a person is late and then makes some type of issue on these matters and to avoid any conflicts. These things seem to come up quite often and are highly disruptive when they happen at the board at an actual event.
Sincere thank you to any and all that offer info and knowledge and are generous with their thoughts on the matter.[/size]
But the green squares are not preferred in writing in the rules.
We do see the green squares prevalent in the vinyl boards, but the rules do not say it is preferred over other colors.
As an optometrist, I personally like the more subdued contrast of the green and buff boards for longer play.
However, wood grain is also very acceptable to me.
Remember, the rules say that the contrast should be good between the pieces and the board. That means the pieces should not blend with each other or the squares. It also means the colors and contrast should be too bright or too high.
I also run a scholastic club and have had the opportunity to deal with the various colored pieces and boards. As long as the color combinations are not too “loud” or visually caustic, I see no problem with them. And I am a TD show agrees with a number of other TDs on this, from discussions.
[size=150]@ RonSuarez:
The first color mentioned in rule 41.b (as posted above)
“Like the pieces, chessboard colors should offer high contrast between the light and dark sections, yet remain pleasing to the eye. Good combinations include green or brown with ivory or buff, and walnut or teak with maple or birch. The colors and the finish should allow extended examination without eyestrain.”
… is green.
I do not think this should be up to a TD because that creates a lot of disconnect. If it is up to anyone at all it should be up to the players, and I read that sometimes it is and sometime it isn’t (!?) 
but better still would be for it to be codified and consistent from event to event. 
It is sometimes rather difficult and taxing (vexing may be the even better word choice here) to have a system in which players have to navigate the individual vagaries and peccadilloes of particular TDs over issues such as these.
[/size]
Over the years, I have had to make a number of rulings on complaints about the color of pieces and/or boards, size of the pieces, condition of the pieces for use (missing crosses on kings, cracked rook turrets, cracked bishops missing half of the mitre, etc.), who has the right to use his set and board, and which clock is more standard than others. While the TD and the players have biases on which sets, boards, and clocks they prefer to use, the TD is supposed to set his biases aside and go by the Rulebook. When the players agree on the set and its odd colors, then that is the way the game will be played. When one player complains, then we should see to it that a standard set is used.
I have had a few players complain about the sets and boards our club has provided for tournaments. (All are practically brand new). The player preferred to use his own set. In one complaint the player preferred his nice wooden set. His opponent did not object, so I allowed it. In another complaint, the player wanted to use his triple weighted set which had several pieces with missing weights. Even though his opponent did not care, I denied the use of the set as I considered it of inconsistent quality and did not want our boards scratched. In the future, I may decide to disallow any but our club sets in order to have all sets be of same quality.
One of the arguments I see at some tournaments is over which clock to use. While digital clocks are preferable to analog clocks, there is confusion of whether there is a hierarchy over which digital clock is more standard than others. This causes a row when a late player wants to substitute a Chronos for a ZSmart, GameTimer, or DGT NA because he claims his clock is the “superior” and “most preferred” clock. They don’t take it well when they are denied.
It is up to the players except in two circumstances:
As organizers can’t be expected to supply adequate amounts of equipment for every event, and as the rulebook is too long as it is, it makes no sense to codify, for example, whether the Civil War chess set is more or less standard than the Simpsons chess set.
Alex Relyea
I remember one time when a kid brought his black and red checkerboard and set up Simpsons chess pieces on it. I thought his opponent (another kid) would object, and I was ready to rule this equipment non-standard. The other kid thought it was cool, and they both enjoyed their game with this equipment.
As long as the players agree to use a particular set and board, the TD has no cause to intervene. It’s only when one player provides equipment that the other player doesn’t want to play with that the TD must decide if what is there meets the criteria for being standard.
That was often the case when ivory pieces were being used. I have several House of Staunton sets with laquered red pieces. They are very enjoyable visually to play with. I think it was GM Fine who said he usually analized/studied chess with red pieces.
I vote for Simpsons
Correct.
That said, if one player comes with Civil War or Simpsons and another comes with hot pink and lime green, this organizer/TD is going to go to his box and supply a standard set for that game.
Under these circumstances I would certainly offer to supply standard equipment for them, but both players decide they want to play on a Civil War, Simpsons, or hot pink and lime green set, that’s fine with me. It’s their game.
In one of the first chess books I owned, “How to Get More Out of Chess”,
Taking his advice, in 1959 I bought a quality plastic red and ivory Windsor Castle set, which I still use at home (although most of the red pieces broke or crumbled over time, and I’ve replaced all but the knights with pieces from a later, wooden HOS set acquired on eBay). I used this set in tournaments for many years and I can’t remember anyone objecting to it.