I decided to buy a copy of our latest rule book to learn more about what is right and wrong concerning chess. It appears that “grandmaster draws” are now codified as unethical. I can even point to 5- C to support this, “Deliberately failing to play at one’s best in a game, in any manner inconsistent with the principles of good sportsmanship, honesty, or fair play.”
From a perfunctory perusal, this edition appears to be a labor of love. I hope it remains current for a long time because I plan to digest this book slowly. Congratulations to Tim Just on a job well done!
Section 6 (Code of Ethics) 5.C had no changes. Was in the 5th edition.
I also learned that I must play my move on the board first and then record it. This clarification will end an old habit of mine where I would first write the move down and think about whether it was a blunder or not before actually executing this move. The word must ensures that I will also teach students to follow this rule. This is the first copy of any rulebook that I have actually purchased. I usually rely on the tournament or club copy to settle arguments. I am glad to learn that the rule I mentioned was in a previous version of the rulebook. So why is it that directors accept “synchronized drawing” at major tournaments in light of this rule?
What I mean by synchronized drawing is the spectacle where the players on the top boards will enter the hall, sit at their boards, make a few perfunctory moves, shake hands and head for the director to get paid. I realize the players earned their way to those positions but in light of the already existing rule shouldn’t the director at least warn the players that this “custom” is an ethics violation?
Tournament directors are obliged to read the rules update document that is available on the USCF web site, and players are very well advised to do the same. This document is updated yearly to reflect changes made to the rules at the Delegates’ Meeting.
The requirement to make the move on the chess board before writing it on the score sheet was approved at the 2006 Delegates’ Meeting and took effect January 1, 2007. At the 2007 Delegates’ Meeting, rule 15A (Variation 1) was approved. But that did not change the main rule of “move before writing,” which has now been in effect more than seven and one half years.
The sixth edition of the rule book is exactly the fifth edition with the changes in the rules update document. (Well, not quite. Chapter 8 (The USCF Rating System) is different.) There should be absolutely no surprises in the sixth edition for anyone who has read the fifth edition and the update document.
The latest version of the update document Ken is referring to is at uschess.org/docs/gov/reports … hanges.pdf
This document covers rule changes made through the 2013 Delegates Meeting, including rules that took effect on January 1st, 2014.
There will be a new version of this file posted some time before January 1, 2015, that will include the changes made in Orlando earlier this month. (Well, actually there might be two such files for 2015, one to cover changes made since the publication of the 5th edition and a shorter one to cover changes made since the publication of the 6th edition.)
It’s not as cut-and-dry as you indicate.
There are practical obstacles in proving whether the “GM draw” was pre-planned between the players, which is the ethics violation (collusion, etc.). Offering or taking a draw is within the rules and may actually be in the best interest of the player from a tournament standings perspective.
There are a number of discussions throughout the forums on how directors deal with the GM draw. A blanket warning or threat to tournament leaders could lead to fewer players coming to your tournaments.
If you had witnessed the synchronized draw spectacle I mentioned it would be clear that it trampled ethics. I doubt if any strong player earned their high ratings or titles by playing games under ten moves. If games end this soon there is no question that this was not a contest played to the best of one’s ability. I agree that directors should be concerned about attendance because this is what drives tournaments but if there is going to be nit-picking going on about whether one should record the move first or the other way around why not address this issue in some way.
I think if the conditions are great and the directing is consistent, rather than perceived as capricious, the players will support the event. On another subject, I spectated at a tournament today and one of the players noticed that the black pieces were placed on the white side of the board. A few moves had been played and this player wanted to reset the position. His opponent wanted to simply restart the game rather than agree to this request. After an argument, the board was reset as the player wished. But he was rattled and later lost this game. I wish that I had my new rule book with me because it would have helped in this instance. I wonder what the correct action was?
Some directors might have been more receptive towards rearranging the board (ie, turning it around 180 degrees and moving all the pieces) than others (I’d have probably permitted it, but on the requesting player’s time), but NO director should have agreed with the suggestion that the game be restarted!
Tournament directors should never direct without having both a copy of the USCF Official Rules of Chess and a copy of the most recent rules update document at the site. Please refer to Chapter 5, Players’ Rights and Responsibilities (especially item 3), on page 245 of that shiny new rule book in your possession. 
This is true. But I am not sure I understand the issue: Was it simply that the pieces did not ‘align’ with the algebraic notation printed on the sides of the board? Or was the board set up with a white square for a1/QR1?
If the former, then I have seen that same dispute and agree with what the TD said at the time: Play on. Disregard the notation printed on the sides of the board. That is just there to assist newbies, anyway. (It was a big deal in the 1980s and '90s, when many players switched from descriptive to algebraic. Today it should be trivial.)
If the latter, then I think the 10-move rule applies. I don’t have my rulebook at hand; I am sure more experienced TDs will correct me if that is wrong.
I hate to see essentially pre-arranged draws, but it’s a fact of chess life in the last round, when a draw works well for both players and a loss would put them out of the money—especially if we are talking actual money, enough to notice, though the same principle applies to non-monetary prizes.
What to do about it? Unless it is literally an unplayed game—which has happened—I tend to support the view that “players own their results.” Much depends on circumstance. Sometimes the prize fund and structure of the event set the stage for very quick draws.
I have played precisely one such draw in 34 years of rated chess: Last round of the 1998 NY Open, where there was a consolation prize for all players who finished plus-two or better. The real prize money started at plus-four. My last-round opponent and I were both plus-two, both realized that either a draw or a win was worth the same prize—about $230, more than half my monthly rent back then—while a loss was worth zero.
We played six moves of a quiet d3 Italian Game, when I looked up, took a deep breath and offered a draw. My opponent, who knew the circumstances as well as I did, thought for a few minutes, chuckled and shook hands. We went to the pairing sheets about 20 minutes after the game started. Our result was nowhere near the first draw marked there.
I am not proud of that, but not ashamed either. Circumstances…as noted, this has been debated on the forums before.
P.S. The move-first, then record issue was also a hot topic at the time the rule was changed. Note that the standard policy in most OTB events, at least ones I play in, is that move-first, then record is only required of players who use electronic score-keeping devices.
IOW, what is printed in the Rulebook as a variation is the de factor standard in practice. Even so, I advise anyone who asks to always move first, then record the move in algebraic notation. That way you are covered…
I was assuming that it meant that the board was reversed (rank 8 was on White’s side of the board) but otherwise the pieces were set up properly.
I’ve seen one TD who ‘resolved’ a similar dispute over the board being reversed by covering up the letters and numbers with masking tape.
Absolutely. And this was a fantastic solution!
There is no ten move limit on claiming the chessboard was placed incorrectly (with a dark square in the right hand corner). That’s because you don’t have to go back to an earlier point in the game to correct the problem. See rule 11G.
Yes – whether or not the “correct” letters and numbers were then written on the masking tape.
Bill Smythe
Rating? Perhaps not. Titles? Certainly. A short last round draw is normal if that’s all the leader needs to lock in first place and titles etc.
There is no USCF rule that penalizes a short draw mutually agreed over the board. Collusion and pre-arranged results are expressly forbidden. In the case of recording a move, there is a clear written rule to support a nitpick. Calling a short draw “an ethics violation” is inaccurate despite your strong feelings. I would wager you’d lose an ethics complaint without hard evidence of collusion or pre-arrangement.
If you wish to badger high rated players about a short last round draw that locks in a tournament win, be my guest. Good luck with that.
Better than a debate is…as organizer/director…stipulate in the tournament rules that all draws must be at least X moves long (20? 30?). That is somewhat of a deterrent, but I assure you even that can be overcome by two players who are both OK with a draw.
Isn’t that why the (very) old rule that required 30 moves for draw by agreement was replaced?
Alex Relyea