USCF vs. FIDE "50 Move Rule" ... ... ...

Running Chess Tournaments
1

I am sure it is just a misprint in the USCF 6th Edition Rule Book (I don’t have my 5th edition handy … and no longer have any older editions at all), but I do want to point out what I am hoping is just a mis-print concerning the “50 Move Rule” … … …

First, as stated in The FIDE Arbiters Manual … … …

[i]9.3 The game is drawn, upon a correct claim by a player having the move, if

 a. he writes his move, which cannot be changed, on his score sheet and
 declares to the arbiter his intention to make this move which will result in
 the last 50 moves by each player having been made without the
 movement of any pawn and without any capture, or

 b. the last 50 consecutive moves by each player have been completed
 without the movement of any pawn and without any capture.[/i]

… with key words being “… movement of any pawn (!)AND(!) without any capture … …”

From USCF Rule Book … … …

14F1. The game is drawn when player on move claims a draw and demonstrates that the last 50 consecutive moves have been made by each side without any capture or pawn move.

… with key words being “… without any capture (!) OR (!) pawn move … …”

I do believe the uses of the words “and” and “or” in explaining the same rule here are highly significant … as the FIDE rule is clearly indicating the definition we have all known and loved … … yet, the USCF rule (as printed – I am still guessing “mis-print”) changes it altogether, meaning there are essentially TWO USCF “50 Move Rules:”
[i]

  1. The game is drawn when player on move claims a draw and demonstrates that the last 50 consecutive moves have been made by each side without any capture.[/i]

2) The game is drawn when player on move claims a draw and demonstrates that the last 50 consecutive moves have been made by each side without a pawn move.

Again, I believe we all know what the rule is SUPPOSED to be … … but, if a player makes a claim with, e.g., #2 above where no pawn has moved in 50 moves, even though a capture(s) has been made, I believe I would have to uphold his claim! Because, A) “It is what the Rule Book SAYS!!;” B) "It was how we were taught the difference between ‘and’ and ‘or’ in Grammar class!

Opinions? Plus, I brought this up about a year or so ago and I thought I heard rumour it was supposed to be addressed at the 2015 meeting, but saw no mention in the 2016 Rules Changes bulletin … … … … …

2

??? — :open_mouth: :open_mouth: Uphold the claim…

3

Rule 14F1 has been word exactly the same since the publication of the 4th edition (1993).

4

The OP needs a course in logic 101.

If A and B are two statements, then “(NOT A) AND (NOT B)” is equivalent to “NOT (A OR B)”.

Therefore, the FIDE and USCF versions are equivalent.

I prefer the FIDE version, because it is clearer to those who have not taken logic 101.

Bill Smythe

5

History is being made … … as this just may be the first time I have ever had to “beg to differ” with Bill … … but, “thank you” for making me hark back to 10th grade Geometry and Logic! I am serious – that is not sarcasm.

As far as “and” / “or” Truth Logic … I recall them as follows:

[i]The proposition P AND Q is true if and only if BOTH P AND Q are true. It is false otherwise.

The proposition P OR Q is true if and only if EITHER P OR Q are true. It is false only if both P and Q are false. [/i]

This is confirmed by a whole heepin’ helpin’ of Logic sites readily available on the Internet … and, of course, if it is on the Internet, it must be true … LOL!!

So … I have to still say … per the USCF Rule Book … a player has TWO ways to claim a “50 Move Draw” … 50 moves since a(-ny) piece has been captured … OR … 50 moves since a pawn has been moved.

I agree 100% the USCF rule is SUPPOSED to be the same as the FIDE rule … but … it ain’t what the book says! If there was a mis-print in the Major League Baseball rulebook … the umpires would be obligated to enforce the rule as written … not what they KNOW it is supposed to be!

6

Granted (P or Q) is true if either P or Q is true. The rulebook’s term without, however, refers to a case where (P or Q) is false (without such moves having been made), which only occurs if P and Q are both false.
FIDE’s rule is explicitly P is false (NO “capture in the last 50 moves”) and Q is false (NO “pawn moved in the last fifty moves”), while USCF’s is (P or Q) is false (NO “capture or pawn move in the last fifty moves”). Those are equivalent. If the USCF rule was erroneously changed to no (P and Q) then the fifty move rule could never be claimed if there were no pawns left.

7

I suggest to this TD to use the US Chess federation 6th edition rulebook and not the MLB rulebook. In the rulebook, the TD should use 1A scope and use their better judgements and rule accordingly of the 50-move rule.

8

Correct so far, but you omitted one:

To evaluate compound propositions like (NOT A) AND (NOT B), or like NOT (A OR B), one must evaluate the propositions inside the parentheses first, and then work one’s way outward. Let’s look first at (NOT A) AND (NOT B):

A…B…NOT A…NOT B…(NOT A) AND (NOT B)
T…T…F…F…F…
T…F…F…T…F…
F…T…T…F…F…
F…F…T…T…T…

Here NOT A is playing the role of P (in your above definition of AND), and NOT B is playing the role of Q (ditto). So (NOT A) AND (NOT B) is playing the role of P AND Q.

Now look at NOT (A OR B):

A…B…A OR B…NOT (A OR B)
T…T…T…F…
T…F…T…F…
F…T…T…F…
F…F…F…T…

Here A OR B is playing the role of P (in the above definition of NOT).

As you can see, the two compound propositions are equivalent. Each compound proposition is true if and only if both A and B are false.

In the case of the USCF and FIDE rules, “without” is used meaning NOT. Therefore, “without any capture or pawn move” has the same meaning as “without any capture and without any pawn move”.

About the only way you could successfully argue otherwise would be to assert that an implicit second “without any” should be assumed after “or”. To be sure, implicit seconds are common in the English language. For example, in the sentence “one dress is pink, the other purple”, an implicit second “dress is” should be assumed after “the other”. However, to apply this implicit-second argument to “without any” is, IMO, far-fetched.

But because of the possibility of this far-fetched argument rising to the surface, I agree that the FIDE version, “without any … and without any …”, has greater clarity, and USCF should follow suit.

Bill Smythe

9

“with neither capture nor pawn move”

10

That would do it, too.

Bill Smythe

11

Will that be not “Not paper AND not plastic”?

12

Paper…Plastic…Not Paper…Not Plastic…Not Paper and Not Plastic…Not (Not Paper and Not Plastic)
…T…T…F…F…F…T
…T…F…F…T…F…T
…F…T…T…F…F…T
…F…F…T…T…T…F

I’m so glad some of you are asking to be more acquainted with this type of reasoning.

Bill Smythe

13

And if you create a new column for “Paper or Plastic”, it matches the last one every time. :laughing:

14

And another new column: Not (Paper or Plastic) and it matches the Not Paper and Not plastic column, which is exactly what the original USCF wording for the rule is.

15

What other official languages are the FIDE rules written in? A comparison of translations might show slight differences in wording, though likely not so much as to change the interpretation of the rule.

16

As pointed out in another forum article, the difference between FIDE and USCF 50-move rule is that, in FIDE, one does not make the move on the board (just write it on your scoresheet and claim the draw), but under USCF rules one does make the move on the board, but does not press the clock.

17

I see nothing in 14F to support this position. I do agree that this has been stated elsewhere.

Alex Relyea

18

Under both US Chess rules and the FIDE Laws of Chess, if the fifty moves have already been made, the player on the move may stop the clock and claim the draw. The difference between the rules arises if the player needs to make a move in order to complete the fifty moves on both sides. (In other words, the opponent has made fifty moves with neither capture nor pawn move, and the player who will make the claim has made forty-nine such moves.) In this case, FIDE requires the player to write the move on the scoresheet but not make the move on the board; US Chess rules have the player make (determine) the move and then make the claim before pressing the clock (completing the move). This is actually logical once one realizes that the Laws of Chess do not have the notion of “determination” vs. “completion” of the move. Without this separation, there is no concept of still being on the move for purposes of draw claims. Under the Laws of Chess, the player loses the right to claim any draw as soon as he touches a piece with the intention of moving it.

(I have written before that this is an instance in which I believe US Chess rules are superior. However, this comes at a cost. Specifically, once we need the criterion of pressing the clock to distinguish determination of the move from its completion, the clock becomes an integral part of the rules. The Laws of Chess have been carefully written so that the first five articles (“Basic Rules of Play”) can apply to every single game of chess in the world, whether played under tournament conditions or not. Rules specific to tournament competition come in articles 6 through 12 (“Competition Rules”).

19

Which position? Certainly 14F requires that “50 consecutive move have been made”, so one cannot make the claim without having made the move, rather than just having written it on one’s scoresheet. Furthermore, 14F requires that the player be “on the move”, meaning he cannot press his clock and then claim a draw.

Am I missing something?

20

Does it not seem odd that we have this one instance in the rules that the move must be written first before playing it, while in all other cases it is a requirement that one must make the move before writing it down?

What happens if the player decides after writing the move not to make a claim or sees that he has not accomplished the 50 moves yet before seeking the arbiter for a ruling? Can’t he just erase or scratch out the move? Can the other player now claim his opponent was writing down a move as an “aid to memory”, and has since scratched it out? What is the penalty in that situation?