I am glad to hear that MA has reasonably priced convention centers. Here in CA-N you can count the number of suitable playing sites for ~1000 kids plus families on one hand. Basic supply and demand explains why rates have gone up sharply in the past decade. The tournament is not much of a money maker, and finishes in the red when attendance drops.
Michael Aigner
For one thing, we don’t have anywhere near that size tournaments, so there is a much greater selection of venues for us than I imagine you have in Northern California, Michael. In previous years, we held many scholastic events in high school cafeterias and gyms, In the last year we have been using hotels exclusively, finding them to be quite reasonably priced in an economy which is difficult for hotels, and more convenient in the end because table rentals, etc, are not required.
There are a few hotels in Northern California that can handle our State Scholastic Championship tournament size. The problem is that it would require taking ALL the available space in the hotel. The local hotels do not want to do this, because they can make a lot more money off of a couple of wedding receptions (with food, drinks, room nights, etc) then they can off of a kids chess tournament. Plus they don’t have to deal with all the kids running around the lobby.
We are sometimes the victims of our own success!
Some hotels can’t stand chess nuts boasting in an open foyer.
Why not start with FIDE rules and let the USCF rules specify only differences or deltas to the FIDE ones. That way, if FIDE comes up with some rule we believe clearly inappropriate or foolish (hypothetical: “all male players must wear neckties with Windsor knots”), we can just cite that section with a “DNA” indicator, or replace it with our own version ("all male players must wear neckties with four-in-hand knots"). It would keep our rule set relatively succinct, and would get away from the current publishing company that purportedly owns our rules.
Here’s the regulation:
Section 6.6 - FIDE Laws of Chess - fide.com/fide/handbook.html? … ew=article
a. Any player who arrives at the chessboard after the start of the session shall lose the game. Thus the default time is 0 minutes. The rules of a competition may specify otherwise.
b. If the rules of a competition specify a different default time, the following shall apply. If neither player is present initially, the player who has the white pieces shall lose all the time that elapses until he arrives, unless the rules of the competition specify or the arbiter decides otherwise.
OK—now how would this be a good thing for the vast majority of USCF-rated events?
The rules of 99% of USCF-rated competitions would specify otherwise, I would guess…so what would be the point of having the rule on the books in the first place? I could debate the merits of zero tolerance for serious professional-level events; it won’t work for amateur chess in the USA.
I play rated chess at a club that meets Monday evenings. The games are scheduled to start at 7:30 p.m. The site is convenient, but can be reached only via busy highways where traffic-snarling accidents are fairly common. Some guys need to work late, take their kids to dance class or Scouts before chess, and numerous other (good) reasons that cause them to show up late for their games. The price they pay is the elapsed time on their clock when they arrive.
Should these players be forfeited if they are not sitting at the board at 7:30 p.m.? Who keeps track of the official time? (I have seen Verizon cell time and AT+T cell time differ.) If you get an important call from your wife or boss a few minutes before scheduled start time, should you hang up on them for the sake of your chess game?
Also, the part where White absorbs all the lost time if both players are late runs counter to USCF rules, at least in theory. If both players are late, the first player to arrive is supposed to split the elapsed time equally when he sets the clock. In theory.
Note that I take a neutral stance on the debate that flares up now and then over the relative merits of FIDE vs. USCF rules. I bristle a bit when the “internationalists” make clear that USCF is regarded as the Wild West of international chess—then again there might be good reason for that…in some cases.
Not here, though.
Mr. Mark, all your questions are answered here:
The FIDE laws of chess also have the following right at the top:
So the USCF could adopt the FIDE laws and then spell out revisions and extensions that are compatible. Since the FIDE laws allow competitions to have different rules regarding the grace period for late arrival, the USCF could adopt the FIDE laws and specify that that there is a one hour grace period for late arrival for a round in all American competitions, just as the USCF rules currently provide, except for FIDE-rated events. That is a compatible and allowed revision/extension.
By the way, it would seem that the USCF, as a FIDE member federation, is totally in violation of the provision I quoted above in other respects. I wonder how we get away with it?
Right. That’s why adopting FIDE rules for USCF-rated amateur events—then calling all tweaks that make it plausible to run such events fairly “specified exceptions”—would lead to an “exceptions list” almost as long as the current Rulebook…which would be debated and changed as often as the current Rulebook, too.
So what’s the point?
P.S. Mr. Mark is my father or my brother when he is off the bench but in “judge-mode.” I am a simple country boy, called by many names in my humble shire. I hope Angelo DePalma does not read this.
But would it really? Is all the detail really necessary? Even with nearly 100 pages of rules of play in the USCF rulebook, there are still details which they do not cover. So maybe it is best to head in the other direction: a few short and sweet pages, and leave the details to organizers and directors.
Have you looked at the FIDE laws? They seem pretty reasonable to me, and as I said above, though there may be places where the details are different and the USCF rules are preferable, there don’t seem to be any differences that couldn’t be lived with or which would seem to to justify the United States having different rules than the rest of the chess world.
For example, the USCF allows the rook to be touched first in castling as long as you don’t waste too much time getting to the king part of the move. The FIDE Laws say no: Castling is a move of the king and it has to be touched first. No exceptions. Touch the rook first and you have to make a rook move. This is a difference, sure enough, and I’ve learned that chess players are conservative and hate the smallest change, but is this really a big enough issue to justify a whole separate rule book? Some US players are going to play in FIDE events. Doesn’t it make sense for them to learn one set of rules? Why not just use FIDE rules?
Moreover, if there are differences that the USCF must keep, some of those differences can be accommodated within the latitude provided by the FIDE Laws. I don’t think there would really be so many of those.
Great in theory. Practice is something else.
The problem with adopting FIDE rules, (or Laws, if you prefer) for USCF-rated events, then specifying “FIDE rules if it’s ALSO FIDE-rated, USCF rules/exceptions otherwise,” is what to do with events like the World Open and the Amateur Teams.
The USATE is FIDE-rated. Does that mean that everyone not at the board the second Steve Doyle bellows “start those clocks” is forfeited? Who resolves disputes when a player claims a zero-tolerance forfeit win but his opponent says he was on time? Do not think that would not happen. (Remember the “illegal move” forfeit claims at the scholastic blitz we heard about recently.)
What about the World Open? FIDE rules in the Open section only, for all sections, or not at all?
To be precise, the grace period in USCF is either one hour or the full length of the time control, whichever comes first. If your opponent does not show after 30 minutes in a G/30, you can claim a forfeit win.
Good point about how using USCF rules in a FIDE-rated (dual USCF-rated and FIDE-rated) event seems to violate FIDE regulations…to come full circle to the thread topic. Here I have no personal experience, but as I understand it a federation or organizer can request exceptions to FIDE regs for a given event but still have it FIDE-rated. (If the request is approved.)
In practice I doubt that the organizers of the Amateur Team, the World Open, etc. request an exception or exemption each time. Anyone have info on this?
Here is an example: FIDE time control regs state that if a specified number of moves is used in a primary control that number shall be 40. There are FIDE-rated tournaments in the US that use 30/90 as primary control. Does each such event require an exemption? Would it make sense to reject 30/90 on technical grounds but allow G/120 or G/90, Inc-30…or even G/60, Inc-30, depending on players’ ratings?
We have enough debate over USCF rules, without adding FIDE to the scrum.
When you played in Europe, did not the respective national federations have their own rules or at least standard variations? I would be amazed to find that USCF is the only FIDE-member national chess organization with its own rulebook/set of rules. I honestly don’t know, though.
To repeat info mentioned earlier in the thread, in addition to castling:
FIDE says players must first move, then record. USCF allows a “variation” that is SOP nearly everywhere: You must move first if using an electronic device to keep score, otherwise you may either move, then record, or vice versa.
FIDE stipulates algebraic notation. USCF allows descriptive.
FIDE says if your flag falls with K+R vs. K+N you lose, since a helpmate is possible. USCF says it’s a draw.
Not 100% sure, but I believe FIDE requires TDs/arbiters who witness an illegal move to point it out. USCF allows that as a variation, but in most cases TDs follow the rule that players must claim illegal moves on their own.
Like many USCF rules, that is designed for the sake of fairness in large Swisses without enough TDs to go around. Like many USCF rules, that is a point of debate.
As noted upthread, FIDE does not include time control regs as part of its Laws, but those regs differ from USCF-approved time controls. In this case I tend to think FIDE gets it closer to right than does USCF—but try doing away with Regular rating of G/30-G/59 sometime…
Apart from ratable time controls, I feel that USCF rules are better suited to most USCF-rated amateur events than are FIDE rules, in the cases where they differ. You can argue otherwise, and even stipulate that FIDE rules be used in FIDE-rated events.
Scrapping USCF rules in favor of FIDE Laws, then backtracking to allow numerous “exceptions” that restore most USCF rules as they now stand anyway, strikes me as major wasted effort…unless you feel the need to assimilate to the international mothership.
Maybe that’s what Kirsan meant.
I don’t think I ever knew this. I just went and played chess. I guess I always castled king first.
Big deal. So, they have to record the move first. I do this anyway. I like the FIDE rule.
Does anybody still use descriptive in formal competitions? Can you even buy books or magazines, or anything, which use descriptive. Big deal.
So what? This is a corner case. The FIDE rules seems pretty reasonable. You don’t lose on time if there is no way you could lose. If there is any way you could lose and your flag falls, you lose. So don’t let your flag fall. I hate draws anyway. There are too many draws. We don’t need more ways for games to be draws.
You have it the wrong way round. The USCF and FIDE are in accord on whether TD’s should point out illegal moves. They agree that TD’s should point out illegal moves. The USCF allows, as a variation, for TD’s to ignore illegal moves. As you say, the variation is debatable, as is the rationale that it is required by the conditions in scholastic tournaments.
Time controls aren’t part of the FIDE Laws of Chess and anyway the FIDE time controls apply only to FIDE events.
Well of course the USCF thinks they are “better-suited” to something-or-other, but are they really? Mostly I think they are better suited to a bunch of old codgers who control the rules and want to keep doing things the way they have been doing them for a long time.
No, they have to move then record. That is the way FIDE has it regardless of if the score is kept electronically or written. The USCF has it that the electronic version also must move then record. The difference is the USCF allows the move to be written first (one time with no changing the writing a la erasing or crossing out before the move) then can move.
So Brian, the way you prefer is the USCF way and you do not prefer the FIDE way in this.
Ummm, he isn’t talking about time controls but calling the flag fall…
Well, he said that HE prefers the USCF time controls for USCF-rated amateur events over the FIDE rules. He never said the USCF thought anything let alone that it was “better-suited” for anything.
By the way Brian, you are older than I am so would you fall into the category of those that control the rules and want to keep doing things the way…? Of course the major difference would be that you have not been doing anything in the field of playing rated chess for any consideration of a long time.
That is what I meant. I do it the FIDE way already. I think this is the only right and proper way. The scoresheet isn’t your notepad for the move you are going to make. Go, FIDE!
No Ron. I transcend age. Haven’t you figured this out? I laugh at age. Ha. Ha. I do not care if age laughs back. Hee Hee.
That and post count, apparently. 
Btw, I do know some older guys who still keep score in descriptive. There’s a pretty good overlap between those and the guys who show up with analog clocks. In both cases, I keep telling them they need to join the 21st century.
I am all but certain the USCF rule states that players must claim illegal moves, while the allowed variation states that TDs may call illegal moves when they see them. (and, if so, every time they see them) In any case, requiring players to claim illegal moves is SOP in most or all tournaments I have played in, and all tournaments I direct.
My Rulebook is not at hand right now. I will get back to you on this tonight, unless someone beats me to it.
The logic is obvious: If there are not enough TDs to monitor every game, then it is not fair for a TD watching game A to call an illegal move, while an illegal move stands on board B, since no TD is watching that game. The counter-argument goes: That’s like saying it’s not fair that you got a speeding ticket, since other drivers were also speeding, but no cop saw them.
Check the Forum archives…
Bad news: Rule 11H requires that, except in the last five minutes of any time control, the TD corrects all observed illegal moves. Rule 11H1 is the variation that says the TD does not correct illegal moves but may serve as a witness in case there is a claim.
However, based on standard practice, players expect/think that the procedure of 11H1 is “default” and that the TD correcting illegal moves is “weird”/variation.
Also note the description of the TD’s role and under what conditions the TD may intervene in the game (rule 21, if memory serves me correctly).
(Dang, I need more copies of the rule book so I can be sure I always have one handy wherever I find myself. 
)
(Edit: Correct references to 11H and 11H1 [were 11I and 11I1].)
11H is the rule. It says that the TD should point out illegal moves. Variation 11H1 is the variation, which applies if announced. It says that the TD should not point out illegal moves, but may act as a witness if a player points out an illegal move.
I am not surprised that you have it the wrong way round. A lot of TD’s do. In fact, many TD’s seem to be under the impression that pointing out illegal moves is an abomination, never mind that this is the norm and that their view of what is obviously the only right and proper way of proceeding is only a variant. So convinced are they, that probably 11H1 is not even announced as a variant, when it is used.