Your comment which I have bolded above is not correct. At my events I do not merely announce, “All alternates to the defaults will be used.” I announce each and every alternate to the defaults I will be using. So, since I specifically say that there will be no penalty for rook-first castling, you will know what to expect if you encounter it at one of my events.
Alluding to a point made earlier, that goes up against a desire by many to be even more explicit so that different TDs make exactly the same rulings in the same situations.
It would be nice to have a plain-language guideline that would suffice for most players while retaining the longer rulebook for those who care (I’d suggest that all TDs care because otherwise there will be a time when it is a player that cares and the TD needs to be ready for that).
It seems like almost every week during football season there is some ruling made that requires even people you’d expect to be knowledgeable having to go to the rulebook to figure out what to do in a specific situation (I’ve lost track of the number of times TV announcers are certain of what the call should be, at least right up until the specific rule is cited and they look it up). If professional coaches and players (whose living depends on knowing the rules) don’t know all of the rules (and may not know how something will be ruled on the field) then I wouldn’t expect amateur chess players (or professional chess players for that matter - at least based on the number of times I’ve had to explain something) or amateur TDs (about the only type in the US) to know all the rules.
I wrote such a book for US Chess several years ago. I still await its publication (I have failed to inspire the “powers that be” to make it available). US Chess owns the rights to that book, I do not.
How am I aware at this moment which rules you will use in your next event? Surely the correct solution isn’t to publish in this forum. I may know what the rules will be after I have driven a long way and paid an entry fee, but I’m not likely to when I’m trying to decide on entering. I’m sure there are many TDs less conscientious than Mr. Terrie who don’t bother or are just incomplete. I stand by my statement.
Mr. Relyea brings up an excellent point about the current tournament and rule system. This is especially true in a more populated area, like the Northeast, California, and so on. It is a much better business model for tournaments to have predictability in the rules being used to officiate the games and the tournament itself.
With FIDE tournaments, the rules are simple and direct and one knows what to expect of the rules in effect for pretty much all of these events. Now, an individual may not agree or like some of the rules, but they are straightforward nonetheless.
It should be noted that when determining which rules variants are acceptable the delegates also determine whether the variant is material enough to require an advance announcement. If the variant is deemed to be significant enough it might influence a player’s decision as to whether to play, then the delegates should require it to be published in advance. If they choose not to require an advance announcement, they have determined that a reasonable player wouldn’t be deterred from entering even if they had known in advance.
Of course, this requires the delegates to be clairvoyant. Moreover, they base their judgment on a “reasonable person” a term that may not apply to all potential players.
Most TDs working on the local level apply the Rulebook as written. To the degree there is a relaxation of certain rules, it is usually because of the inexperience of the players involved. Some of those inexperienced players may be adults new to the game. In small events with mostly amateur players, it is financially stupid to apply all of the rules as if they were all professional players, GMs competing with alleged devious intent to cheat in order to win a trophy or chess book.
For example, if a newbie castles by moving his Rook first and his opponent challenges it, the normal thing to do is to warn the player but allow the castling. Most amateur players do not care how their opponents castle and never bring the issue up. Those that do make an issue of it do not endear themselves to others in their small chess community. Many players consider this “illegal” castling to be a de minimis offense.
Another example is the ringing of a cell phone. Almost every TD tells the assembled players before the first round to turn off their phone. Sometimes there is a sign up sheet for first responders who need to have their phone on, like firefighters or doctors. If a phone goes off in a small event, what sense does it make to go into paroxysms of rage and with high dudgeon punish the offender whose daughter has called to tell him she has gotten home safe and sound? A mild warning rather than a posse and lynching is in order. What might seem necessary to manage the vicious h-e-l-l-hounds at a major tournament slavering for a prize is over the top in a local event with less than 20 players, all of whom know each other. More than few wives have told their husbands that the cell phone rules are “stupid” and interfere with her contacting him with family matters.
In an event with amateurs, it is common for a player not to press his clock button. He may be new. Maybe he plays only once or twice a year in a tournament. He just forgets. As a TD, you are not to remind him to press the clock button. However, in order to uphold the standards of good sportsmanship, it is not uncommon for a TD to call the other player aside and tell him to remind his opponent to press the clock button and not wait for him to lose time. Most players are good sports and comply with your request; they want to win a game played fair and square, and not by an opponent’s forgetfulness.
If said newbie were penalized severely just once, I would bet said newbie would never make that mistake again. This seems a very small price to play at a small club tournament if it prevents a more severe (and logical) response in the final round of a big money tournament.
I have never done this (as a TD) or seen it done (as a player). I’d be quite upset if a TD broke my concentration to point out that my opponent hadn’t pressed the clock. If I’m not engaged in gamesmanship, I’m not likely to return to his events.
I know that when I add a clock to a long-running clockless game (it usually happens in scholastic events) I first make sure both players know how the clock works and that they need to press the clock after they move.
At some big tournaments I’ve seen comparative novices that don’t usually play with clocks making their moves and never hitting the clock. The opponent plays normally (at a somewhat slow pace but not so slow as to make the opponent wonder about stalling) while waiting for the flag to fall so that it can be claimed. At such a big money tournament the type of intervention mentioned above would make the knowledgeable player highly irate.
If memory serves me correctly the publisher has perpetual publishing rights to the rules and derivative works.
Lessening the number of pages is possible if you are willing to grant TDs greater leeway under rule 1A: The USCF presumes that its tournament directors have the competence, sound judgment, and absolute objectivity needed to arrive at fair and logical solutions to problems not specifically treated by these rules.
It seems like the tendency in recent decades has been for delegates (not necessarily TDs) to agree to strive for more consistency by reducing the areas that may fall under rule 1A.
FIDE breaks things down into the “Laws” and separate information for arbiters and organizers. Now granted, some things are perhaps misplaced by that (the recent thread about the flipped over rook being an example). But we slam everything together into one “Rule” book, when quite a bit isn’t really “rules”. (A description of how best to construct a prize fund isn’t a rule. What a TD should bring to a tournament isn’t a rule, etc., etc. etc.).
The late former ED Bill Hall had the idea to publish the current thick rulebook as several separate books. Only one of those books would be be actual rules.
This sounds to be true, but with most everything in the cloud these days, this is locking US Chess back in time with no possibility of progress.
Sure, we have had the Kindle version for a bit of time now. But this version has not been updated with the rule changes making it as outdated as the print version.
I have a number of books on Kindle that the author has updated. The least that should happen is our rule book be updated with rule changes and enhancements.
I just had a discussion with a person new to US Chess. He is a teacher in a rural high school and he just started an actual Chess class in the school. I have shared some of the curriculum that I have used over the years with him. Another player and I have also separately mentioned Chess.com to him for learning and training. He has gone there to great results. This past Monday evening at our club, he mentioned how the kids in his class are taking to the game and his teachings and material presented.
When it comes to the US Chess rules it is quite another story. Now I need to either have him buy the print version of the book or the Kindle version, and then I need to direct him to the update page on the web site. I’m sorry but this is much too complicated. There really is no good reason why we cannot have the current rules located in one, electronic place whether in the cloud or in an e-book.
It has been asked a good number of times what US Chess can do to improve Chess for members and non-members alike. Well, having a concise, electronic form of the rules of play is really a big thing.