So clearly my wording was poor:
I ask that everyone think about this with a fresh perspective; namely mine! 
Not really a fair comparison, Matt. The behaviors of players in the top sections don’t extrapolate well to the expected behavior of low rated players. I don’t think very many organizers FIDE rate the bottom sections. That said, the differences in FIDE rules are primarily for situations which rarely occur at the lower levels, other than making you move your rook if you touch it first when castling.
FYI, I found the following on the AICF (India’s national chess federation) web site (Rules for recognition of tournaments in addition to existing rules : – All India Chess Federation):
Rules for recognition of tournaments in addition to existing rules :
AICF Office 5 years ago
a) AICF as the National Federation for the game of Chess in India, and being declared as the Public Authority, maintains basic standards, norms and procedures with regard to its functioning which should confirm with the high principles and objective as laid down by FIDE and Olympic Chapter and which is also in consonance with the Indian Olympic Association norms, as per Sports Code in F.36-2/2010-SP-II, Government of India, Ministry of Youth and Sports Affairs (Department of Sports).
b) The AICF has detailed rules and regulations for recognizing tournaments, can be find here : event code allotment – All India Chess Federation
The FIDE has also laid detailed rules/guidelines for recognizing tournaments which are followed scrupulously by the AIC, the rules can be find here : International Chess Federation - FIDE
Good point. A lot of people seem to think FIDE rules have no flexibility which is simply not true.
The standard US Chess rule is also that you have to touch the king first when castling.
Yes, but we allow a variation. FIDE doesn’t.
Well, here us where I part company with Mr. Phelps. The chief TD is responsible for calculating prizes. The organizer is only responsible for paying what the Chief TD, or, of course, an assistant who is responsible to the chief TD.
If the prizes are calculated incorrectly, that’s the TD’s fault; if the checks bounce, that’s on the organizer.
I have played in quite a few FIDE events in both America and Europe. Since I am a rather compliant person, I don’t go out seeking trouble like some rules lawyers. I do, however, have a few complaints about FIDE rules and tournaments in Europe.
-
Pairings. The fact that FIDE pairings line up players due white and those due black, this creates some strange pairings, especially in a small score group or when one color is overpopulated. It is strange when two players with the same score and rated close together face opponents hundreds of points apart (not counting when one is paired up and other is paired down). USCF pairings minimize this with transpositions and interchanges, particularly for players with balanced colors.
-
Pairings posted the night before and cast in stone. American directors have solved this by posting pairings one hour before the round time. Europeans are often quite rigid. I remember seeing one obviously underrated kid (1600) collect three straight forfeit wins against opponents more than 300 points higher in rounds 6-8, each time with the arbiter excusing him a few minutes after the start of the round (despite 60 minutes forfeit time). The little kid cried during round 8. Guess whom he played in round 9? The 2400 lad seeking an IM norm and needing an opponent 2100+.
-
Byes. While half point byes are theoretically allowed, most tournaments either do not allow them at all (zero point only) or they are tightly regulated. You are usually expected to play every round or withdraw. Given that all of my tournaments in Europe have been 9 days long, the expectation is that all players dedicate a full week of vacation time to participate. Note that most Europeans have twice as much vacation as a typical American.
-
Losing on time when opponent has only trick mates (e.g. K+R vs K+N). I consider this mostly a blitz issue and have only experienced it personally on Lichess. The 30 second increment makes this unlikely in a classical game.
-
General lack of flexibility in thinking. Some of my above examples already qualify for this category. Here is one more. A tournament denied my request to use an 1980s style analog hearing aid in the playing hall, available to them for inspection. No problem - I was not interested in making a fuss. But I required them to 1. provide access to a written set of all pre-round announcements in English and 2. handle any dispute at my board only in writing. They grudgingly agreed!? Fortunately, the second condition never materialized as I am a compliant player.
I have been content to play under FIDE rules, but I strongly prefer USCF rules for several reasons.
Yet I am a National Master and FIDE Trainer. I could not fathom watching 500 strength kids play under some of the more strict FIDE rules. Of course, I have to be careful and write 500 strength, as the lowest possible FIDE rating is now 1400. FIDE envisions that all players have the chess experience and maturity of what I consider an intermediate amateur.
2 Likes
2, 3, and 5 are the organizers/TD’s choices and aren’t issues with the FIDE rules themselves. 1 and 4 are debatable as to whether the FIDE or US Chess rule is better.
1 Like
True. But the prize fund/distribution are “Rules of the Competition” in FIDE parlance, and not really part of the “Laws of Chess.” The organizer can distribute prizes however they see fit, if it is known in advance. Yes, the TD/Arbiter has to properly calculate places, tiebreaks, etc. but the prize distribution doesn’t necessarily need to be part of the “rules of the game.”
I think this is one of many areas that US Chess can publish “best practices,” or “default prize distribution rules” or somesuch.
I think there’s lots from the US Chess “rulebook” that we can publish as “US Chess Sanctioned Tournament Practices” and leave them at that.
1 Like
Where do you see this rule that these pairing restrictions are only forbidden in norm events. My child has played in several CCA events in the FIDE section and has had to play against others from our state. So frustrating since we try to go out of state to avoid the people we already play against all the time.
It might depend on exactly what the Delegates pass. If they require that all TDs be FIDE-certified, that’d be a real buzzkill. (My experience with the Delegates, and politicians in general, is that they often pass things without thinking through all the consequences.)
If this thread (and many others) have proven anything, it is that a great many organizers, TDs and players don’t really understand FIDE rules. So, will all those who have passed US Chess TD tests now have to pass tests on FIDE rules before they’re allowed to direct events held under strict FIDE rules?
In mid-March there were 2790 TDs (including 711 LTD and 1791 CTD with 288 SrTD and higher) with 1840 active in the past year (including 557 LTD and 1005 CTD with 278 SrTD and higher). Currently there are 227 arbiters in FIDE with 10 not licensed and I’m uncertain how many of the remaining 217 are active (I am guessing all 217). Losing the LTDs and CTDs would lose TDs that were chief of 10,701 of the 21,947 tournaments in that year.
Going to FIDE rules would be a major change. Also requiring tournaments to be FIDE-rated (and thus use only arbiters that were licensed by FIDE) would be an ADM that was blown out of the water if anybody brings those numbers up.
They are only forbidden in norm sections. Whether a particular organizer chooses to use pairing preferences in non-norm sections is their decision. A state preference can sometimes create problems when a high percentage of players are from a particular state.
1 Like
Do you really want to allow all the pairing variations that FIDE allows? I know I will never again play in Sardinia, as they use a system called Degenerated Accelerated Pairings. In the third round of the event a playing in the 1600s with 2 wins was paired against a Master [2200+] with 0 wins. This was 2017 Capo d’Orso tournament that was fully FIDE rated. Please lets keep this sort of thing out of the US.
1 Like
Our state had 3 players in a FIDE rated Class A section that had over 70 players. My kid played against someone from our state in the first game.
I do understand though that they may have simply kept the rule the same across the board to alleviate any confusion or appearance of partiality.
It’s just a little confusing when I see a chart like the one I link below that FIDE does not allow pairing restrictions and then someone on a forum says, that the rule is only for norm events.
Here’s the older “side by side” comparison of FIDE and USCF 2019 FIDE Laws of chess vs USCF 7th Ed
I know that things have changed over the past few years, and that #1 is not on the current chart. But this was so clearly stated that I’ve never even thought to ask if the CCA would make an exception, because I had this chart in the back of my mind all this time.
I don’t know. One time I went (way) out of state to the North Dakota State Championship. Way back then it was USCF rated (only), as opposed to USChess like it would be now.
I had to play my wife in the first round.
1 Like
The FIDE-endorsed pairing rules (which as pointed up above can be pretty loopy) are designed to squeeze arbiter judgment out. Thus, you can’t request that you not play someone, because that would be a judgment call. There is nothing theoretically wrong with not pairing people from the same state for the first xxx rounds as long as it’s done uniformly, and not on request. (Again, with the proviso that it is not a norm tournament).
1 Like
When I went to the Turin Olympiad and Congress, I got an earful from quite a few FIDE people, they think US Chess rules (including pairing) are pretty loopy, and they totally do not understand events with different time controls by round, much less merged events where some players play their early rounds at faster time controls that others and on different days.
Both FIDE and US Chess are products of their environment.
One of FIDE’s primary assets is the international title system, and they go to great lengths to protect its integrity. Many of the current restrictions especially on things like pairings are the result of abuses of the system in the past to earn norms by arranging pairings or (if rumors are to be believed) countries trading arranged results to help favored players earn titles.
US Chess considers its rating system one of its primary assets, and so many of its rules have developed over the years to help protect the integrity of the regular OTB ratings system with things like bonus points, peak rating floors, money floors and match rule limitations.
2 Likes
I don’t really understand that myself.
Do you really want to allow all the pairing variations that FIDE allows? I know I will never again play in Sardinia, as they use a system called Degenerated Accelerated Pairings. In the third round of the event a playing in the 1600s with 2 wins was paired against a Master [2200+] with 0 wins. This was 2017 Capo d’Orso tournament that was fully FIDE rated. Please lets keep this sort of thing out of the US.
This can be done in US Chess rules if announced beforehand. Though, I don’t think anyone in their right mind will do so.