February's "Just the Rules."

[timjust]

That one rule you wanted to change is the topic of February’s “Just the Rules” now available on-line: https://new.uschess.org/news/just-rules-rule-change/

[Bob_McAdams]

My comments:

JJ Lang: I understand why the rule is that neither side has to take notation when either side is under five minutes. I wish the rule was that you can only stop taking notation when “you” are under five minutes. That way if you’re low on time but your opponent isn’t, you can still get the moves from them after the game.

First, we should note why there is even a requirement about taking notation: Good players want a record of their moves so they can analyze their games afterward. But recording moves takes time and creates a slight distraction for players doing it, so if it were optional, good players who want a record of their moves would be at a slight disadvantage, both because of the time and because of the distraction. It makes sense that the USCF should cater to good players, and the only fair way to do this is to require both to record.

The time pressure rule is an exception to this, and it can be argued that it should be available only to players who are under time pressure. But I could imagine this creating a slight unfairness, since if an opponent who is not under time pressure is still required to record moves, he will still have the slight distraction this creates. Players are not required to take advantage of the time pressure exception, and if I weren’t under time pressure but my opponent were, I would still keep recording because I would want to have a record of the moves. But should the player who is not under time pressure be required to keep recording even though his opponent is being excused from doing so? I can imagine that you might get differing opinions on that.

Sam Copeland: Stalemate should be a win.

And while we’re at it, why don’t we allow players to castle through check, or eliminate en passant capture? Changing the rules of tournament play is one thing, but don’t expect to get very far advocating changes to the historic rules of chess.

Keep in mind that checkmate is really a shorthand for capturing the king: The king is under attack and no matter what your opponent does, he can’t avoid having it captured. The situation in stalemate is that you can’t capture your opponent’s king unless he moves, and he can prevent this just by not moving - ever! So it makes logical sense that it should be a draw.

Jarrod Tavares: Touch Move should always have to be called by the opponent. You should be allowed to touch your opponent’s pieces all you like if he isn’t seated at the board.

Aakaash Meduri: Give a time penalty if an illegal move is made but don’t force someone to move a piece just because it was touched.

You can touch both your own and your opponent’s pieces as long as you don’t do it “in a manner that may reasonably be interpreted as the beginning of a move” (Rule 10B), or if you express “the intention to adjust (e.g., by saying j’adoube or I adjust)” (Rule 10A). I don’t see anything in the rulebook that says your opponent has to be seated at the board when you do these things.

The reason for the touch-move rule is that if you allow players to keep picking up pieces without moving them, it can be very difficult to be sure that they haven’t really moved one (or more) of the pieces.

Greg Maness: I have a question, not a rules change. Has the mis-print in Rule 14F (The 50-Move Rule) been corrected? For those who do not know what I am talking about, Rule 14F1 states “The game is drawn when the player on (the) move claims a draw and demonstrates that the last 50 consecutive moves have been made by each side without any capture OR(!!) pawn move.” Meanwhile, the FIDE law states: “9.3 The game is drawn, upon a correct claim by a player having the move, if: 9.3.2 the last 50 moves by each player have been completed without the movement of any pawn AND(!!) without any capture.

There is no misprint! The USCF and FIDE rules are worded differently, but say exactly the same thing, as worded. The USCF version is of the form: A and not (B or C), while the FIDE version is of the form: A and not B and not C. If you don’t understand why these are the same, you definitely shouldn’t become a computer programmer!

Mark A Reyes: Parents and coaches should be out of the tournament room(s) at all times, even if it is a non-rated section of a rated event.

This would place severe restrictions on the venues in which tournaments could held and on the number of people who would be required to conduct a tournament. First, there would have to be a separate room that could accommodate all of the parents and coaches during play. Second, at many sites, this would require having staff who would do nothing but supervise this room (since the owner of the building is likely to consider the people running the tournament to be responsible for anything that happens there). Third, it could require having staff who do nothing but supervise minors who are going from the playing room to the room where the parents and coaches are.

Adam Saul Rubinberg: I’d allow a TD to call a game a draw if the same position happens five times on the board, regardless of how it reached that position each time.

TJ Comments: Currently the TD can call a draw if the same position repeats five times in a row. Maybe the Delegates will consider your idea at their next meeting.

I’m not sure how much difference this rule change would make. It seems unlikely that a TD would be able to watch a single game closely enough to notice a board position being repeated 5 times, unless those occurrences happen in a row.

Lawrence Cohen: Add a rule to penalize a player $30 for withdrawing from a tournament without notification. $20 of that fine goes to the organizer and $10 to US Chess. There should be a 6 month ban from rated play until the fine is paid. The player should be able to appeal such a fine. There will be cases where being called away for an emergency and not being able to come back or call back to the TD can occur This act (withdrawal without notification) usually effects another player, and is a constant problem that TDs have to deal with. Currently US Chess allows an organizer to fine an individual up to the cost of the tournament entry fee for doing this, but that only affects that organizer’s events. And until the player pays the fine issued by the organizer; the individual can only be banned from that organizer’s events.

I’m not clear here on whether you’re saying exactly what you mean. Rule 13G allows a player who does not notify the TD before withdrawing from a tournament to be fined and allows the player to be barred from any of the organizer’s tournaments until the fine is paid. Are you proposing a rule change that would require these things to be done? And would you stipulate the same fine regardless of what the entry fee for the tournament is? I’m also not sure exactly what you mean by “There should be a 6 month ban from rated play until the fine is paid.” Does this mean that even if the person never pays the fine, he will only be banned from rated play for 6 months?

If this were done, I think it would be necessary to define what is meant by “notify the tournament director well in advance”. How far ahead is “well in advance”?

Bob

[wintdoan]

@Bob McAdams

Adam Saul Rubinberg: I’d allow a TD to call a game a draw if the same position happens five times on the board, regardless of how it reached that position each time.

TJ Comments: Currently the TD can call a draw if the same position repeats five times in a row. Maybe the Delegates will consider your idea at their next meeting.

I’m not sure how much difference this rule change would make. It seems unlikely that a TD would be able to watch a single game closely enough to notice a board position being repeated 5 times, unless those occurrences happen in a row.

Almost any such situation has one position which keeps recurring even if not by consecutive moves. For instance, with K+P with pawn on d6 with defending King properly in front, White can try to dance around in hopes that Black will go to the wrong square, but if Black defends properly, you will keep seeing Kd5,Pd6 vs Kd7 with Black to move. This (and the 75 move rule) are failsafes to prevent a game from going on interminably if the players don’t understand procedures for 50 move or triple occurrence claims (or are unwilling to invoke them). Even in the repeated move situation, the TD is effectively never going to see the fifth time a position repeats—it will probably repeat at least five times before a TD notices what is going on. So he’s declaring a draw the fifth time that he sees the repetition. I don’t see any reason the same couldn’t be done for repeating positions without repeating moves. The TD might not (and probably wouldn’t) recognize the first time that any position repeated five times, but could recognize that some particular position had repeated five times.

[Bob_McAdams]

@wintdoan

@Bob McAdams

Adam Saul Rubinberg: I’d allow a TD to call a game a draw if the same position happens five times on the board, regardless of how it reached that position each time.

TJ Comments: Currently the TD can call a draw if the same position repeats five times in a row. Maybe the Delegates will consider your idea at their next meeting.

I’m not sure how much difference this rule change would make. It seems unlikely that a TD would be able to watch a single game closely enough to notice a board position being repeated 5 times, unless those occurrences happen in a row.

Almost any such situation has one position which keeps recurring even if not by consecutive moves. For instance, with K+P with pawn on d6 with defending King properly in front, White can try to dance around in hopes that Black will go to the wrong square, but if Black defends properly, you will keep seeing Kd5,Pd6 vs Kd7 with Black to move. This (and the 75 move rule) are failsafes to prevent a game from going on interminably if the players don’t understand procedures for 50 move or triple occurrence claims (or are unwilling to invoke them). Even in the repeated move situation, the TD is effectively never going to see the fifth time a position repeats—it will probably repeat at least five times before a TD notices what is going on. So he’s declaring a draw the fifth time that he sees the repetition. I don’t see any reason the same couldn’t be done for repeating positions without repeating moves. The TD might not (and probably wouldn’t) recognize the first time that any position repeated five times, but could recognize that some particular position had repeated five times.

I agree. Even though a TD might not always see the repetition, there is no reason he shouldn’t be able to call a draw in cases where he does see it.

Bob

[wintdoan]

@Bob McAdams

Sam Copeland: Stalemate should be a win.

And while we’re at it, why don’t we allow players to castle through check, or eliminate en passant capture? Changing the rules of tournament play is one thing, but don’t expect to get very far advocating changes to the historic rules of chess.

Keep in mind that checkmate is really a shorthand for capturing the king: The king is under attack and no matter what your opponent does, he can’t avoid having it captured. The situation in stalemate is that you can’t capture your opponent’s king unless he moves, and he can prevent this just by not moving - ever! So it makes logical sense that it should be a draw.

If stalemate is a win, then K+P vs K is a win unless the pawn can be captured. That’s true even if it’s K+RP vs K and the defending K is in front of the pawn (not just on the bishop file). While among weak players, stalemate is usually the result of incompetence, in the game of chess as it developed, it’s usually the inevitable result of a game where one player has a slight advantage and only one usable threat.

[jwiewel]

@Bob McAdams

My comments:
…

Lawrence Cohen: Add a rule to penalize a player $30 for withdrawing from a tournament without notification. $20 of that fine goes to the organizer and $10 to US Chess. There should be a 6 month ban from rated play until the fine is paid. The player should be able to appeal such a fine. There will be cases where being called away for an emergency and not being able to come back or call back to the TD can occur This act (withdrawal without notification) usually effects another player, and is a constant problem that TDs have to deal with. Currently US Chess allows an organizer to fine an individual up to the cost of the tournament entry fee for doing this, but that only affects that organizer’s events. And until the player pays the fine issued by the organizer; the individual can only be banned from that organizer’s events.

I’m not clear here on whether you’re saying exactly what you mean. Rule 13G allows a player who does not notify the TD before withdrawing from a tournament to be fined and allows the player to be barred from any of the organizer’s tournaments until the fine is paid. Are you proposing a rule change that would require these things to be done? And would you stipulate the same fine regardless of what the entry fee for the tournament is? I’m also not sure exactly what you mean by “There should be a 6 month ban from rated play until the fine is paid.” Does this mean that even if the person never pays the fine, he will only be banned from rated play for 6 months?

If this were done, I think it would be necessary to define what is meant by “notify the tournament director well in advance”. How far ahead is “well in advance”?

Bob

How far ahead would depend on how much in advance the pairings need to be up, how many other things need to be taken care of by the back room and

Besides “how far ahead” you also have “what method of notification can be used”.
If somebody texts my home phone number I’m never going to see it. If somebody calls my home phone number and leaves a message then I’m not going to get it until I am home. If somebody sends me an e-mail and there is not an internet connection (or I do not have my computer because I’m not the pairing TD) then I’m not going to see it in time. IIf somebody texts the cell phone of a TD on the floor (with the cell phone silenced) and that TD didn’t notice the text until after the pairing TD posted everything then that didn’t help (and wouldn’t help even if the floor TD is also the TD that quickly does pairings and then returns to the floor without ever stopping to look at a phone).
Going to the TD room and notifying the staff there, and doing so far enough in advance, would be fine. Withdrawal sign-up sheets can also work as long as they are updated far enough in advance (people have tried putting their names on the withdrawal sheet after the pairings for their section were posted and then claimed they gave advance notice - without realizing that there may well be a time-stamp on the sheet that was earlier taken to the TD room).

[kevin_bachler]

@wintdoan

@Bob McAdams

Sam Copeland: Stalemate should be a win.

And while we’re at it, why don’t we allow players to castle through check, or eliminate en passant capture? Changing the rules of tournament play is one thing, but don’t expect to get very far advocating changes to the historic rules of chess.

Keep in mind that checkmate is really a shorthand for capturing the king: The king is under attack and no matter what your opponent does, he can’t avoid having it captured. The situation in stalemate is that you can’t capture your opponent’s king unless he moves, and he can prevent this just by not moving - ever! So it makes logical sense that it should be a draw.

If stalemate is a win, then K+P vs K is a win unless the pawn can be captured. That’s true even if it’s K+RP vs K and the defending K is in front of the pawn (not just on the bishop file). While among weak players, stalemate is usually the result of incompetence, in the game of chess as it developed, it’s usually the inevitable result of a game where one player has a slight advantage and only one usable threat.

Also K+2N.

[Smythe_Dakota]

@Sam Copeland

Stalemate should be a win.

How about, if you stalemate your opponent, or repeat an earlier position, you lose? See this thread and its follow-up for details.

Bill Smythe

[Bob_McAdams]

@Smythe Dakota

@Sam Copeland

Stalemate should be a win.

How about, if you stalemate your opponent, or repeat an earlier position, you lose? See this thread and its follow-up for details.

Bill Smythe

Or perhaps, as a compromise, we could simply consider stalemate to be a draw?

[jwiewel]

@wintdoan

@Bob McAdams

Sam Copeland: Stalemate should be a win.

And while we’re at it, why don’t we allow players to castle through check, or eliminate en passant capture? Changing the rules of tournament play is one thing, but don’t expect to get very far advocating changes to the historic rules of chess.

Keep in mind that checkmate is really a shorthand for capturing the king: The king is under attack and no matter what your opponent does, he can’t avoid having it captured. The situation in stalemate is that you can’t capture your opponent’s king unless he moves, and he can prevent this just by not moving - ever! So it makes logical sense that it should be a draw.

If stalemate is a win, then K+P vs K is a win unless the pawn can be captured. That’s true even if it’s K+RP vs K and the defending K is in front of the pawn (not just on the bishop file). While among weak players, stalemate is usually the result of incompetence, in the game of chess as it developed, it’s usually the inevitable result of a game where one player has a slight advantage and only one usable threat.

If it is K vs K+RP then the lone king also has a chance to get a “winning” stalemate (white Kf2, black Kh1/Ph2) and thus a lone king is mating material and able to win on time if the opponent has at least one rook pawn.

[ILfish]

Bob

What I am suggesting in terms of a rules change is that the ban for failure to pay the fine be applied to all USCF events, rather than just the 1 organizers. As for the rest, I am not really sure on the specifics. As for notification, the biggest problem is often with Sunday morning rounds. Sufficient notification would be in plenty of time to redo the pairings, as I am sure many TDs would want less problems with forfeits due to no-shows.

Larry S. Cohen

[tmagchesspgh]

I recall an instance where a player told the TD that he did not want to play the last round and was withdrawing. The TD told him, “You can’t withdraw, I have already made the pairings. Your opponent needs the game for a USCF Title norm.” The withdrawing player shrugged and said, “I have a 4 hour drive home.” The TD posted the pairings and the withdrawing player found his name still on the pairing sheet. He walked over to the board, tipped his King over and said, “I resign, congratulations” and left the venue. I am pretty sure that the game was rated and the titling norm was granted. In this case, maybe the TD/organizer should be fined.

Be careful with all of this fining business. It is not easy to implement. Many players play only once per year. Giving them one more reason to drop their USCF membership is not very good business. While yes it is a courtesy to the TD and potential opponents to give notice, in practice all sorts of things happen. There have been times where the TD did not get the message; forgot what he was told; mislaid the withdrawal slip; or mistakenly left the name in the file and did not check in the rush to finish the pairings. Players are tired. They are disappointed. Sometimes it is inconvenient to go back and tell the TD they do not want to play a last round. New players are not au fait with the rules. Emergencies happen, and not only with the player but people he comes with. Maybe he even has animus for the TD because of the way he ran the event. Even with all of that, the vast majority of players tell the TD when they want to withdraw. Fining for a few outlier incidents is a waste of time and money.

In the many years I have played and directed, I have rarely seen a fine applied at another event. Players are stubborn and on principle, that is, it is all about money, they will not accept the fine and not play in that organizer’s events. Not ever again. Definitely not good for business. You may say that the other player is hurt when he receives a forfeit win because he did not get a rated game. That is mainly bullfeathers, as he is generally relieved that he does not have to play and lose another game, has a better chance at a prize because of the forfeit win, and can go home earlier.

[jwiewel]

@tmagchesspgh

I recall an instance where a player told the TD that he did not want to play the last round and was withdrawing. The TD told him, “You can’t withdraw, I have already made the pairings. Your opponent needs the game for a USCF Title norm.” The withdrawing player shrugged and said, “I have a 4 hour drive home.” The TD posted the pairings and the withdrawing player found his name still on the pairing sheet. He walked over to the board, tipped his King over and said, “I resign, congratulations” and left the venue. I am pretty sure that the game was rated and the titling norm was granted. In this case, maybe the TD/organizer should be fined.

FIDE gets very, very picky about pairings and once a pairing is posted it cannot be changed. Was it a USCF title norm or a FIDE title norm that was mentioned? A forfeit win can destroy a FIDE title norm (a loss might still allow the norm if the player has done well enough otherwise).

Also, withdrawing after the pairings are posted would require either letting a forfeit go through or redoing the pairings for the section (for the tournament if it is only one section). A withdrawal on one of the top boards could result in changing the pairings for every player.

@tmagchesspgh

Be careful with all of this fining business. It is not easy to implement. Many players play only once per year. Giving them one more reason to drop their USCF membership is not very good business. While yes it is a courtesy to the TD and potential opponents to give notice, in practice all sorts of things happen. There have been times where the TD did not get the message; forgot what he was told; mislaid the withdrawal slip; or mistakenly left the name in the file and did not check in the rush to finish the pairings. Players are tired. They are disappointed. Sometimes it is inconvenient to go back and tell the TD they do not want to play a last round. New players are not au fait with the rules. Emergencies happen, and not only with the player but people he comes with. Maybe he even has animus for the TD because of the way he ran the event. Even with all of that, the vast majority of players tell the TD when they want to withdraw. Fining for a few outlier incidents is a waste of time and money.

Some chronic offenders have been asked to pay the fine up front, with the money being returned if the player either completes the tournament or gives reasonable notice when withdrawing.

@tmagchesspgh

In the many years I have played and directed, I have rarely seen a fine applied at another event. Players are stubborn and on principle, that is, it is all about money, they will not accept the fine and not play in that organizer’s events. Not ever again. Definitely not good for business. You may say that the other player is hurt when he receives a forfeit win because he did not get a rated game. That is mainly bullfeathers, as he is generally relieved that he does not have to play and lose another game, has a better chance at a prize because of the forfeit win, and can go home earlier.

I have had many players (or parents/coaches) be quite happy when I am able to eliminate their upcoming forfeit win and replace it with a pairing against an opponent they may well beat them. And if I can’t do that then such players are often willing to play an extra rated game while receiving a forfeit win (in a number of such cases, even beating the original opponent would not have been enough for a prize, let alone getting a forfeit win).

I originally figured a forfeit win was not a big hardship for players but have since learned that many really do want a game and would prefer risking a loss versus getting the sure point.

[relyea]

@jwiewel

@tmagchesspgh

I recall an instance where a player told the TD that he did not want to play the last round and was withdrawing. The TD told him, “You can’t withdraw, I have already made the pairings. Your opponent needs the game for a USCF Title norm.” The withdrawing player shrugged and said, “I have a 4 hour drive home.” The TD posted the pairings and the withdrawing player found his name still on the pairing sheet. He walked over to the board, tipped his King over and said, “I resign, congratulations” and left the venue. I am pretty sure that the game was rated and the titling norm was granted. In this case, maybe the TD/organizer should be fined.

FIDE gets very, very picky about pairings and once a pairing is posted it cannot be changed. Was it a USCF title norm or a FIDE title norm that was mentioned? A forfeit win can destroy a FIDE title norm (a loss might still allow the norm if the player has done well enough otherwise).

Also, withdrawing after the pairings are posted would require either letting a forfeit go through or redoing the pairings for the section (for the tournament if it is only one section). A withdrawal on one of the top boards could result in changing the pairings for every player.

Please note, the TD in Mr. Magar’s example had not posted the pairings, only made them. It is only the TD’s convenience that would have been upset by honoring the withdrawal.

Alex Relyea

[Mulfish]

We implemented a fine for withdrawing without notice back in the late 70s in WA. Only one person was ever fined. The State Chapter TD! The rule was never repealed formally, it just sort of died a natural death.