Sometime in the past, someone mentioned that actual rules to a game are not copyrightable.
That being said, an online version of JUST the rules and nothing else that’s in the McKay editions of the book should suffice.
I’d mentioned in another thread that even the 6th edition of the rule book contains extra stuff not needed in a “dry read” of the USCF Rules of Chess. Obviously extra stuff (like suggestions on how to interpret a rule, or a cited example of chess etiquette might be copyrightable, or even a bland example of a ruling gone wrong… and example wouldn’t technically be a rule, even if it just tries to give the reader a better understanding of whatever rule it was highlighting.
So yes, the extra stuff is often (but not always), helpful or insightful to the reader. The USCF would have to rewrite all that extra stuff so it’s different from the McKay edition.
Of course a dry read of the rules might come across as something a lawyer would write, but it would not contain anything that could be construed as something that could be copyrighted.
This is a gross undersimplification, almost to the point of being utter poppyc0ck.
Assuming for the sake of argument that “just the rules” is a work not subject to copyright, one’s ability to publish such a work may be expanded or contracted by contractual obligations. Ours undoubtedly is, and we’re not alone.
And let us remember that the rules of how to play the game are vastly different from tournament procedural rules. How to make pairings is not part of the game rules. How to make a claim is not a chess game rule.
There seem to be two mostly unrelated discussions going on in this thread, but I’ll address both of them:
First, while you’re allowed to use DN in USCF tournaments, I would recommend learning AN. When I learned to read recorded chess games, AN hadn’t even been invented yet. But AN is trivial to learn, if you already know DN, and it’s faster to write and less error prone. So why not spend 15 minutes and learn it?
Second, each edition of the USCF rulebook is considered, under copyright law, to be a derivative work of the previous edition, so whoever controls the copyright on the previous edition has the right to control the release of the new edition. Technically speaking, ideas (e.g., the rules of chess, or of tournament chess) are not copyrightable, but the expression of those ideas in words is copyrightable.
I have all of the previous editions of the Rulebook, plus the Official Chess Handbook, and the old blue book by Harkness. Unless I can find a discounted copy of the 6th edition, I just might stick with the 5th edition and the updates and wait for the 7th edition. By then it will be published in holographic form or be in RoboTD, which does pairings, flashes round times on a front display, and answers questions without snapping at players.
Although I’m fairly sure we’ll be putting out a cumulative rules update from the 5th edition for the 2015 rules, I cannot promise that we will do so for 2016, that update might use the 6th edition as the baseline.
Also, the plans are to have some kind of update file to the 6th edition in digital form to bring it up to date, and that’s likely to include sections of the rulebook other than the rules. (I’ve been asked to review the ratings system pages, for example.)
No problem using algebraic, but I do enjoy DN, my native language, as it were, and usually record with it unless it’s a FIDE event.
I’m not sure algebraic notation is less error prone if one grew up on descriptive, but you get different kinds of errors. When recording algebraic, I often find I’m “descriptivizing” it, e.g., a6 becomes a3 when Black moves.
It’s interesting that you should mention that, because I can remember making exactly the opposite kind of error in my DN days: I’d be reading through a game I’d recorded and realize that I’d written a few moves counting from the wrong side of the board (for that color). At least with AN, there is a grid on the sides of most tournament boards that helps to insure accuracy.
A more serious problem I used to have with DN was flawlessly recognizing, while keeping score during a game, when it was or wasn’t possible to abbreviate (e.g., B-B4 vs. B-QB4, or RxN vs. RxN/4). I’d be reading through a game afterward and realize, e.g., that both of my rooks had been able to take a knight on that move and that I hadn’t specified which rook took which knight.
True, but there is more opportunity for ambiguous moves using descriptive notation, e.g. B-B4 when both Bc4 and Bf4 are possible, or PXN when there are two pawns which can capture a knight.
I’ve preferred algebraic ever since I first learned it in the early seventies.
My observations agree with Alex’s. At a couple of large tournaments I assisted a guy who entered every written score sheet into Fritz. I would almost say that every SAN score sheet has at least one notation error in it. In some games we could figure out the error, but in some we could not. In some it was moot because they were illegible.
My own score sheets had errors even though I tried to be careful. Then I switched to a relatively compact form of algebraic (really “coordinate”) notation that is fully informational. The notation encoded the origin square, the type of piece captured (nice info that DN gives but SAN lacks), and even the color of the piece moved.
I use either lowercase letters for black pieces, or I got very fast at writing simplified piece icons that would work on a 2D position diagram; and I drew the black pieces upside down. Sounds silly but I got very fast at it. The move-pair number as context was not necessary to know the color of the piece that moved. If I accidentally skipped a move and started writing Black’s moves in White’s column, the error became immediately obvious.
Given the end position, I could replay the game backward with certainty given the notation: the notation was “full and reversible”.
For the last few years that I played in rated tournaments, I had only one notation error that was not obvious how to correct by using other fully notated moves during the game. That one failed instance still sticks in my craw, as it wipes out the otherwise perfect record of using a full reversible notation.
LAN notation has its inadequacies, but it has one major flaw that will always limit its popularity. A good full reversible notation cannot be an extension of LAN.
For openings, when I read notation and try to follow the game in my head, the full reversible notation helps me a lot.
.
The AN vs DN debate appeared in the Letters section of Chess Life in 1968 and later. Of course anyone can make a mistake in either notation, but less can go wrong with AN (when to specify which side of the board, e.g.: N-B3 instead of N-KB3).
OTOH, it’s not necessary to learn endgame theory or tactics twice like rook(s) on the 7th or pawn on R7 or B7 can draw against a queen if supported by the king and the superior side’s king is too far away.
I often find that I use both AN and DN during games. When time gets lower, I slip back into DN. Also it is easier to write BxN or RxQ than to write out coordinates. One of the times where AN comes in handy is when both knights or both rooks can capture a piece on the same square or just move to the same square. Even when I used DN all of the time, I would sometimes write …Nb-Q2.
What happens in a FIDE event if a player uses AN and DN to write out his moves? Is there a penalty, and if so, what is it, and why levy it if the player is attempting to keep score?
Article 8.1 of the FIDE Laws of Chess require the player to record moves in algebraic notation:
An arbiter should correct a player using descriptive notation and require the player to use algebraic notation as specified in the Laws of Chess. The arbiter may penalize a player who refuses to comply with the Laws of Chess.
Do arbiters hover that closely to observe whether or not a player is writing his moves in AN on his score sheet? If the player, falling back into old habits, writes a couple of moves in descriptive or writes BxR rather than writing down coordinates, would the arbiter intrude into the game and demand that he fix his score sheet? That would be really annoying to have that distraction happen in time pressure.
Arbiters in events held under FIDE rules are often asked to do things like periodically check that both players have a matching number of moves on their score sheets. I often check for other issues (clock problems, algebraic notation) while doing that. It doesn’t take long, and making a player catch up on his notation or fixing a clock problem early in a time control can save a lot of headaches later. And, yes, it should be done as unobtrusively as possible.
