USCF rules vs FIDE rules

Running Chess Tournaments
1

OK. We’re chess players, after all.

There are at least two good reasons why USCF should not always follow FIDE rules:

  1. In many cases FIDE rules do not anticipate situations occurring in the USA, for example large events with few TDs, class sections and class prizes, multiple schedules, re-entries, less-experienced TDs, etc.

  2. Sometimes USCF rules are simply better!

In fact, USCF has often led the way. Such concepts as sudden death, and indeed even swiss pairings (back in the 1940’s), were introduced in the USA and later found their way into FIDE. If USCF merely followed FIDE, much of this progress would likely have been difficult or impossible.

This is a prime example of the USCF version simply being better. Why should a player whose intention is obvious be denied the right to move his king on a technicality like this?

I agree, though, that it would be nice if USCF and FIDE could move closer to each other. Pointless differences should be eliminated – but not at the expense of either USCF or FIDE slavishly following a bad rule just because the other does.

Bill Smythe

2

This forum is fun

3

Hi Bill. If - EVERY - time a player touched a rook, it was clear that they either intended to or did not intent to castle, I would agree. However, it is not always clear although infrequent. If our players can be trained how to move a knight, why can’t they be trained to move the king first when castling. FIDE has a simple clear rule here - castling is a king move and you touch the king first. We have the stupid “it’s against the rules, but you aren’t forced to move the rook” situation where we just warn them. What in heck are we warning them about???

I don’t disagree with most of our variations, but lettting one player stop keeping score when the other has less than 5 is another rule I don’t care for along with the elimination of the no progress rule for winning on time which I highly dislike.

Regards, Ernie.

4

Where in the rulebook does it say anything about warning a player who moves the rook first? I don’t think the “it’s against the rules, but” philosophy is explicit or implicit anywhere, either.

Maybe somebody who knows the history better than I do should step in here, but if I’m not mistaken, FIDE adopted this rule first, then USCF followed suit. So, whether or not you like the rule, it’s not an example of the two being different.

I’m not quite sure of your meaning here (the sentence structure is a little ambiguous). Is it the no-progress rule which you dislike, or the elimination thereof? In either case, the presence of either a delay or an increment should make this question moot.

Bill Smythe

5

Another FIDE rule I very much like is:

8.7 At the conclusion of the game both players shall sign both scoresheets, indicating the result of the game. Even if incorrect, this result shall stand, unless the arbiter decides otherwise.

The problems that arise when unclear procedures are used are now being discussed in the correcting a result area of touranment direction. Currently, it is unclear when a result is officially recorded. Many TDs use the paring sheet, but it is quite common for only one player to post and the other player does not check. Signing the scoresheet with the result indicated would help reduce the handshake problems that occasionally occur.

I also like the idea of indicating a draw offer on the score sheet and the requirement that the score sheet must be visible to the TD at all times.

Regards, Ernie

6

I was unhappy that the elimination of the reference to not trying to win over the board (no progress) from one of the older rulebooks. At least in g/30 or slower, I don’t feel a player should be allowed to just shuttle a rook or bishop back and forth just to try for a win on time regardless if a delay clock is on the game or not.

7

We have the rule saying that you can move the king or the rook first. If you’re reading something saying it’s against the rules to move the rook first, you are reading an outdated set of USCF rules. There’s no warning, either. What the heck are you talking about???

8

This could solve one problem while creating others.

For one thing, signing scoresheets is just a bit formal for most frenetic USA tournaments, don’t you think? And what if one player refuses to sign? Also, would the TD staff have to go through all the scoresheets to find the results, or would you still have the players post the result on the pairing sheet too? The latter way is WAY more efficient, but if you do both, there’s a danger of inconsistencies.

That possibility doesn’t bother me so much, and hasn’t been the cause of any of the problems posted here. If a player doesn’t post and doesn’t check, he’s rightly pretty much at the mercy of whatever happens.

Indicating a draw offer on the score sheet is probably good, but it might be a tough sell to get USA players to adopt this procedure.

Bill Smythe

9

I can only recall one game in which my opponent refused to sign the scoresheet. In a game between two experienced chessplayers, I don’t think it’s too ‘formal’.

What is the FIDE-approved notation for a draw offer?

I seem to recall that there was once a rule FORBIDDING making such a notation on a scoresheet, it’s curious that FIDE is now requiring it.

10

I don’t think they ever had such a prohibition, unless you interpret wording such as “only objective information, such as the actual move and the clock times, should be written on the scoresheet” as forbidding such a note.

A common notation for draw offer is, I believe, “1/2 ?”.

Bill Smythe

11

Under FIDE rules, you are required to note any draw offer with an (=) sign.

12

I, too, would have preferred the retention of the “no progress” language. My thoughts in this whole area, however, transcend this relatively small point.

Both the 4th and 5th edition are an absolute mess in the 14H area. This is the result of warring philosophies all being given their day in court, so that some portions of the rule seem to contradict others.

Much better would have been to explicitly allow what the majority of TDs already do anyway, which is to slap a delay clock on the game in response to all but the most obvious 14H claims.

In fact, the name of the rule, “Claim of insufficient losing chances in sudden death”, should be changed to, “Request for relief from insufficient delay time in sudden death”. Insufficient delay time could be defined as under 5 seconds (3 seconds quick) of delay time (i.e. the clock is not set for a delay, or is set for a delay less than 5 seconds) combined with under 2 minutes of remaining main time.

This change would allow the TD, if he desires, to ignore the nature of the position entirely, in deciding whether to put a delay clock on the game.

The TD, in fact, should be allowed either of the following extremes, or just about anything in between:

A. Virtually always put a delay clock on the game in response to such a request (the game is “chess”, not “clock”, and should be between the players).

Z. Virtually never put a delay clock on the game (the players, after all, are supposed to furnish delay clocks to begin with, and use them from move 1).

Allowing either of these extremes, or just about anything in between, would bring the written rule into compliance with today’s reality.

Bill Smythe