Why do FIDE rules and USCF rules vary? Blitz rules. But the most interesting variance is some positions where mate cannot be forced: USCF = draw Fide we continue; mate is possible. There are a few others as well
The philosophy is different. FIDE wishes to get to the truth of the position. US Chess relies only on what can be proven. I think a large part of our reluctance to adopt the FIDE philosophy is perceived unfairness. It is likely in a tournament that the TD/arbiter will witness some infractions and will miss others. No way to avoid that and maintain any reasonable budget for staffing. I’m absolutely fine with saying that if nobody saw it, it didn’t happen, but I can minimally understand the argument that it’s not fair to call touch move in the game I happen to be watching but not call it in a game half way across the room.
Alex Relyea
I just picture myself in a FIDE rated section: say 2Ns v P or even a B and wrong RP lasting forever. I had the 2N thing happen.
Ah, but you could ask the arbiter to watch the game and declare a draw because your opponent is not making progress.
Alex Relyea
It’s a philosophical difference. In general, FIDE rules put more emphasis on the clock and the role of the director (or arbiter, to use the FIDE term). US Chess rules put more emphasis on the position on the board and the role of the players. If one player runs out of time FIDE rules will award a win in any position where a helpmate is possible. US Chess rules will only do so if a position is possible where mate in one can be forced.
So, I have run into this both as a player and a TD.
Philador position, I was defending; I had demonstrated that I understood the technique; a 10 increment it went on forever.
My opponents argument, it not listed as a drawn position. So we played it out.
However, If you are the TD what do you do. The insufficient winning chances rule does not apply…you are stuck; I have this happen. I had to let it go on; I must be totally fair.
Without going into the specific examples mentioned upthread, let me address the above question directly (and narrowly) by pointing out that there is a lot of history involved.
Once upon a time, the FIDE rules were atrociously written. An example can be seen in edition 1 (1974) of USCF’s Official Rules of Chess, which included FIDE verbiage as well as a USCF section. In the FIDE section, it is asked whether a player can lose by time forfeit if his opponent has only a king left. The answer (in those days) was yes (believe it or not), but take a look at FIDE’s response:
Answer: The Commission declares that the Laws must be interpreted in such a way that in this case, as in the case of perpetual check, a draw cannot be decreed against the will of one of the players before the situation foreseen in Article 12.4 [ fifty-move rule ] is attained.
With prose like the above, it is no wonder that people in U.S. Chess decided they needed to do better. Editions 3 (Redman) and 4 (Goichberg) were big steps forward, and the tradition continued with editions 5 and 6.
But in recent years, FIDE has made great strides in its rule-writing ability, and has managed to surpass U.S. Chess in its clarity. It’s getting to the point where there is no longer much point in having a separate rule list.
In fact, the existing differences create significant problems for international players in the USA, and for USA players abroad, and for organizers of FIDE-rated events (or sections) within the USA. The community of nations is becoming more and more global with each passing year. It’s time for U.S. Chess to move toward eliminating FIDE-USCF rule differences, with a view toward eventually adopting the FIDE LOC as its own rule set.
Bill Smythe
OK Bill, let’s suppose that we decided to basically adopt FIDE rules. If you were the sole decision-maker, are there any USCF rules that you would feel strongly should be retained? I’m not looking for mild preferences; for those, the overall benefits of uniformity might outweigh that.
In fact, US Chess and FIDE rules are moving closer together, but not because US Chess is jettisoning its rules for the FIDE LOC. There is some give and take on both sides. And I think this is a good thing. There are some instances where the FIDE rule is better than it’s US Chess counterpart, but plenty of instances where it is inferior.
My main problem with the FIDE LOC is the philosophy behind them. To give an example, if in a position of K+B vs. K+B where the bishops are of opposite colors one side runs out of time FIDE will declare this a win for the other side because a win is theoretically possible. To actually get to this position requires a series of such ridiculous moves that I would be willing to bet it has never happened in actual play unless one side was trying for a helpmate. Nevertheless, FIDE says it’s a win because they put greater weight on the clock than on the position on the board in contrast to US Chess rules. I prefer the US Chess philosophy. YMMV.
I strongly disagree with Mr. Parker’s description of the LoC. I also think US Chess places far too much emphasis on the ability of the players. I firmly believe that if a master was playing someone rated below 200 then he’d win at least three times in ten when he had two knights vs. a lone king, but if the 175 player’s flag falls it is a draw. In any event, WK f7, BK h8, WP h6 is a win on time for White under either set of rules, so this completely dismantles the “position on the board” thesis. In fact, the result does not change if Black has a queen and two rooks. If you think about it, US Chess draws the “Mating Material” line at an exceedingly odd place.
Alex Relyea
I have seen even A-players in only moderate time trouble lose playing defense in positions like black-Ke7, white-Pe6, white-Ke5.
The worst FIDE rule is the blitz rule that declares a loss for a player who captures his opponent’s king, after his opponent has left his king in check and pressed his clock. This has been discussed at length in another recent thread.
Perhaps another would be the FIDE rule requiring a player to move his rook only, if he touches the rook first in the process of castling, even if neither player wishes to have this rule enforced. The arbiter should be allowed some discretion.
There could be a few more. In general, though, in cases where the FIDE rule is really bad (if there any such cases other than the aforementioned capture-the-king rule), I would prefer that natural processes eventually cause FIDE to change its rule, rather than USCF going it alone. I am happy to hear that there has been some give and take in both directions regarding FIDE vs USCF rules. I hope this process continues.
Bill Smythe
With FIDE rules the TD/Arbiter can declare a draw if the same position occurs five times (no longer necessarily in consecutive moves), or 75 moves have been played without capture or pawn moves. In your example a FIDE arbiter can declare a draw the fifth time you check the stronger side’s king on a particular square with your rook.
I wish USCF would adopt the FIDE change (eliminating the need for it to be consecutive moves) for just this scenario.
Of course, as I’ve said before on this forum, I feel we should adopt FIDE rules in toto. I would save a lot of time and expense for the Federation.
-Matt
The US Chess rule is consecutive? Are you sure?
And how often does a Master play a player rated below 200? The answer is never, so what might happen there is irrelevant.
The fact that any one position, such as the one given by Mr. Relyea, is a win on time under either FIDE or US Chess rules doesn’t dismantle anything. No one has ever claimed the two sets of rules differ in all possible cases. The fact remains that FIDE is more generous in awarding wins when one side runs out of time than is US Chess. Their philosophy is that a player who ran out of time should lose. Only when it is literally impossible to win will they award a draw. US Chess puts less emphasis on the clock, and more on the position on the board. You’re free to prefer the FIDE philosophy. If you do, we’ll just have to agree to disagree.
Apparently, the FIDE rule was consecutive also, but they changed. USCF hasn’t followed suit yet, but probably will.
If USCF would simply adopt FIDE rules, there would be no need to follow suit every time FIDE made a change.
Bill Smythe
Actually, in this case I wouldn’t be too sure. I looked at K+N+N vs K a bit, and quickly discovered that there are only two ways the defender can lose. Either he would have to move into the corner when he doesn’t have to, or he’d have to fail to capture a hanging knight.
Bill Smythe
Ive never heard about the us chess rule being consecutive. Can someone quote the rule, please? I don’t own the rulebook.
The three-fold rule that the player can invoke does not require the moves to be consecutive. The five-fold rule that the TD can invoke does require it.
The addition to the rulebook is found at uschess.org/docs/gov/reports … hanges.pdf
14K. Director declares draw for lack of progress.
If one or both of the following occur(s) then the TD may declare the game drawn:
- The same position has appeared, as in 14C, for at least five consecutive alternate moves by
each player. - Any consecutive series of 75 moves have been completed by each player without the
movement of any pawn and without any capture. If the last move resulted in checkmate, that
shall take precedence
And US Chess wouldn’t incur the significant cost, in time and resources (and actual dollars) of maintaining, publishing, and arguing about a separate set of rules.
I would also point out that it’s not just confusing for foreign players anymore. FIDE rules must be used for all FIDE rated events here too. Players all over are playing with different rules in different sections of the same tournament even. It’s ridiculous.
I would go so far as to say that US Chess is playing a chess variant since, in a few circumstances, the result of a game can be different under the exact same conditions depending on which rule set your are using.
It’s time to end the madness.
-Matt