If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
Policy / Politique
The fee for tournament organizers advertising on ChessTalk is $20/event or $100/yearly unlimited for the year.
Les frais d'inscription des organisateurs de tournoi sur ChessTalk sont de 20 $/événement ou de 100 $/année illimitée.
You can etransfer to Henry Lam at chesstalkforum at gmail dot com
Transfér à Henry Lam à chesstalkforum@gmail.com
Dark Knight / Le Chevalier Noir
General Guidelines
---- Nous avons besoin d'un traduction français!
Some Basics
1. Under Board "Frequently Asked Questions" (FAQs) there are 3 sections dealing with General Forum Usage, User Profile Features, and Reading and Posting Messages. These deal with everything from Avatars to Your Notifications. Most general technical questions are covered there. Here is a link to the FAQs. https://forum.chesstalk.com/help
2. Consider using the SEARCH button if you are looking for information. You may find your question has already been answered in a previous thread.
3. If you've looked for an answer to a question, and not found one, then you should consider asking your question in a new thread. For example, there have already been questions and discussion regarding: how to do chess diagrams (FENs); crosstables that line up properly; and the numerous little “glitches” that every new site will have.
4. Read pinned or sticky threads, like this one, if they look important. This applies especially to newcomers.
5. Read the thread you're posting in before you post. There are a variety of ways to look at a thread. These are covered under “Display Modes”.
6. Thread titles: please provide some details in your thread title. This is useful for a number of reasons. It helps ChessTalk members to quickly skim the threads. It prevents duplication of threads. And so on.
7. Unnecessary thread proliferation (e.g., deliberately creating a new thread that duplicates existing discussion) is discouraged. Look to see if a thread on your topic may have already been started and, if so, consider adding your contribution to the pre-existing thread. However, starting new threads to explore side-issues that are not relevant to the original subject is strongly encouraged. A single thread on the Canadian Open, with hundreds of posts on multiple sub-topics, is no better than a dozen threads on the Open covering only a few topics. Use your good judgment when starting a new thread.
8. If and/or when sub-forums are created, please make sure to create threads in the proper place.
Debate
9. Give an opinion and back it up with a reason. Throwaway comments such as "Game X pwnz because my friend and I think so!" could be considered pointless at best, and inflammatory at worst.
10. Try to give your own opinions, not simply those copied and pasted from reviews or opinions of your friends.
Unacceptable behavior and warnings
11. In registering here at ChessTalk please note that the same or similar rules apply here as applied at the previous Boardhost message board. In particular, the following content is not permitted to appear in any messages:
* Racism
* Hatred
* Harassment
* Adult content
* Obscene material
* Nudity or pornography
* Material that infringes intellectual property or other proprietary rights of any party
* Material the posting of which is tortious or violates a contractual or fiduciary obligation you or we owe to another party
* Piracy, hacking, viruses, worms, or warez
* Spam
* Any illegal content
* unapproved Commercial banner advertisements or revenue-generating links
* Any link to or any images from a site containing any material outlined in these restrictions
* Any material deemed offensive or inappropriate by the Board staff
12. Users are welcome to challenge other points of view and opinions, but should do so respectfully. Personal attacks on others will not be tolerated. Posts and threads with unacceptable content can be closed or deleted altogether. Furthermore, a range of sanctions are possible - from a simple warning to a temporary or even a permanent banning from ChessTalk.
Helping to Moderate
13. 'Report' links (an exclamation mark inside a triangle) can be found in many places throughout the board. These links allow users to alert the board staff to anything which is offensive, objectionable or illegal. Please consider using this feature if the need arises.
Advice for free
14. You should exercise the same caution with Private Messages as you would with any public posting.
15. Have fun!
(Thanks to Nigel Hanrahan for writing these up!)
USCF three fold repetition rule different than CFC, FIDE
Fide allows some exceptions to national federations.
What is a rule for recording moves in US? Is it still allowed to write before the move?
No, that was changed quite some time ago according to a conversation with an experienced player who once lived in the Windsor area for a while when he married a Canadian woman.
I ran into three old chess friends this weekend so it was a nice weekend even if I didn't like the ruling in the individual case. FIDE tournaments are very new to Michigan so it is not surprising that there might be some growing pains along the way.
And, as Vlad says, FIDE realizes their rule is stupid and is proposing to change it. Hurrah!
I don't think that's what I said. FIDE is bowing to the dominance of the USCF on the one hand in adopting USCF rules while proposing to kick them out for suing them on the other hand...
All USCF tournaments lately seem to have a five second delay instead of the familiar thirty second increment that we have in most of the larger tournaments played in Canada. There are also some strange rules with regard insufficient winning chances (in games with no delay) which really should not be applied in situations where a TD who is a C player is rendering judgements on positions in master games. I really hope that doesn't come to Canada.
Exactly, it is a FIDE-rated event and one of the FIDE rules is that in a FIDE-rated event, FIDE rules must be used/take precedence (I forget the exact wording and no time to look it up right now).
Thanks for confirming what I believed was the case.
Re: USCF three fold repetition rule different than CFC, FIDE
Too late Vlad, we already have a de facto ICTL system in Canada thanks to widespread instances of TD misapplication of Section 10.2 sudden death draw claims (unless of course you use non sudden death time controls or increments).
Of course, you are 100% correct in your question about the draw claim; it was incorrect according to the Laws of Chess and should have been rejected. Bob Gillanders is certainly a nice guy IMO but I sure hope I never play in a tournament he directs. The Laws of Chess are there to be followed.
You like getting in arguments, apparently. If you fail to claim it in the correct manner then your claim should be successful according to you. Interesting idea...
I am more interested in what the FIDE arbiters have to say about the situation and they have weighed in to support my understanding of the rules.
Although the FIDE rule does seem arcane at first view, I can see what it is intending to avoid. If Player A makes the move that produces the 3 time repetition, and claims a draw while his / her clock is still running, there is the possibility that his / her time will in just seconds reach a time control. Player B can then claim to the TD that Player A in fact flagged and should lose on time. Without witnesses, the TD will have no way to rule.
Or if Player A does hit his / her clock after the draw claim, Player B can then make his / her move and hit his / her clock and then when Player A calls the TD over to dispute, Player B can claim that Player A never claimed the draw at all.
There is still a possible problem with the FIDE rule. Can Player A, having written down the 3-time repetition move and claiming the draw, stop the clock while summoning the TD? If not, then again it is possible that Player A will hit a time control while trying to make the draw official, and there will be a dispute that can't be ruled either way without witnesses.
Therefore it seems the FIDE rule, although technical, has a purpose and should include the right of the player making the claim to stop the clock AFTER writing down the intended move. Or is there something I am missing on this?
Sometimes technicalities are necessary to avoid even worse technicalities.
Only the rushing is heard...
Onward flies the bird.
Too late Vlad, we already have a de facto ICTL system in Canada thanks to widespread instances of TD misapplication of Section 10.2 sudden death draw claims (unless of course you use non sudden death time controls or increments).
Of course, you are 100% correct in your question about the draw claim; it was incorrect according to the Laws of Chess and should have been rejected. Bob Gillanders is certainly a nice guy IMO but I sure hope I never play in a tournament he directs. The Laws of Chess are there to be followed.
The TD in this case is a pretty decent tournament director but one who mainly directs USCF tournaments and has only recently started FIDE rating the top sections of tournaments which she directs.
The problem with situations like this is that it throws you off and breaks up the momentum that you might have developed. My opponent may have been the only FIDE rated player that I played. I will have to check when the crosstables come out in a few days.
I probably won't bother appealing since I can't see FIDE doing anything but nullifying the game since it wasn't completed. I would have gained more FIDE points with a win but did gain a few with a draw.
I did email the TD to tell her that she had made a mistaken ruling based on the FIDE rules which should have taken precedence over the USCF rules but it doesn't seem clear that she understands that this is the case but promised to consult higher USCF officials to verify this for future FIDE events.
I am not mad at the TD as honest mistakes do occur. Based on USCF rules her ruling would be correct. I will be mad if she makes the same mistake again in another FIDE rated event.
The question then is whether if I had made a move this would have invalidated his claim. I was surprised at the mechanics of the claim and the TD showed me the relevant section in the USCF rulebook and it seemed to support his method of claiming it as being valid. I also thought that a tournament had to follow FIDE rules in order to be FIDE rated. I guess not.
You should write your question on the USCF board for more details.
Or if Player A does hit his / her clock after the draw claim, Player B can then make his / her move and hit his / her clock and then when Player A calls the TD over to dispute, Player B can claim that Player A never claimed the draw at all.
My opponent didn't ask to pause the clock but I told him he could pause the clock while he sought the TD. Because of scrambled thinking due to blood sugar issues I had seriously messed up my Monroi scoresheet which probably led to allowing the three fold repetition since I didn't realize it had occurred until he claimed it. The game started at 11 am so I hadn't had lunch yet by 4 pm or so when this situation occurred. I find that Canadian tournaments have slightly better schedules than most of the USCF events that I play in.
Re: USCF three fold repetition rule different than CFC, FIDE
I remember reading of an incident at a USCF (FIDE rated) tournament circa 15-20 years ago which had a very similar issue with differing sets of rules. The resolution in that case was that the game was ruled USCF drawn in accordance with USCF rules but was also resumed to comply with FIDE rules (and was eventually won).
Thus, you actually had a situation where the same game had two different results for two different rating organizations! I think it was actually a very creative resolution to the problem of the American hard-on for USCF rules. I have no idea how issues such as future pairings or prizes were resolved.
imho, this year would have been a good opportunity to make a big match between two nations (200 years of the war)
Wow! Thanks for that. There are more differences between CFC/FIDE and USCF rules than I imagined. Being able to touch the rook first when you castle is a significant difference.
I remember reading of an incident at a USCF (FIDE rated) tournament circa 15-20 years ago which had a very similar issue with differing sets of rules. The resolution in that case was that the game was ruled USCF drawn in accordance with USCF rules but was also resumed to comply with FIDE rules (and was eventually won).
Thus, you actually had a situation where the same game had two different results for two different rating organizations! I think it was actually a very creative resolution to the problem of the American hard-on for USCF rules. I have no idea how issues such as future pairings or prizes were resolved.
If we had to play it out, it would be my first adjourned game in about 30 years. Its actually a trivial forced win now that I look at it.
Re: USCF three fold repetition rule different than CFC, FIDE
Hi,
I am under the impression that federations may have some freedoms as to how treat a lot of the rules, clashing with FIDE standards.
Apart from (I guess, I didn't verify it, simply read parts of this thread) the 3-fold-draw-claim being different in USA in FIDE-rated tournaments, there are other discrepancies.
For example... as I understand it, the default latency allowed by FIDE is now zero. In Canada (and really, most of the world still), the norm is to allow players to arrive up to 1 hour late before forfeiting. FIDE seems to be implementing this "zero tolerance" at most top level tournaments, including World Championship, Olympiads, etc... and some players have been forfeited by being just outside the playing hall casually yapping at the start of round.
In France, the federation changed the default to 30 minutes allowed before forfeiting.
In the FIDE handbook, it clearly states that an unplayed game is not rated (say, because of one of the opponents doesn't show up and forfeits). In CFC, it has been.
A requested bye, according to FIDE, means that a player is not paired for that round, and receives zero points for it. North Americans have been tossing 1/2 point byes to everyone left right and centre since I can remember. Does this not jeopardize the integrity of Swiss Pairings?
According to FIDE Swiss Rules, there is only ONE correct way of making pairings, for each specific occasion. An arbiter in Canada should arrive to the same pairing as an arbiter in India or an arbiter in Argentina. Yet we know this is violated regularly. In part because the SwissSys we use is not recognized as an official pairings program by FIDE (and many of its defaults features are set to USCF-friendly type rules), because there's human intervention, etc...
To add to the above, it is 100% prohibited to force an unnatural pairing to facilitate norm chances, benefiting a player's interests. There have been a few arguments between players and arbiters in the USA over this.
There surely must be a ton more minor differences as to how different federations approach FIDE rules, tweak them, and so on.
At the end of the day, there is also a ton of freedom by the arbiter and organizer to change and adapt many of the recommendations by FIDE.
"acting in the best interest of the competition", yadda yadda.
It's important to verify which areas the arbiter has freedom and which areas he/she does not.
Re: USCF three fold repetition rule different than CFC, FIDE
I would never object on the basis of such a technicality. A 3-fold repetition was demonstrated. That it was demonstrated by moving a piece instead of by telling the TD what you plan to move, why does it matter? Only because some procedure was dictated, but the essence of chess is
1) the position repeated
2) it was and remains the opponent's turn.
In the contrasting case, if Vlad had made a move to create the 3-fold repetition and pressed the clock, his opponent would make the claim based on the move having been played.
Hi,
According to FIDE Swiss Rules, there is only ONE correct way of making pairings, for each specific occasion. An arbiter in Canada should arrive to the same pairing as an arbiter in India or an arbiter in Argentina. Yet we know this is violated regularly. In part because the SwissSys we use is not recognized as an official pairings program by FIDE (and many of its defaults features are set to USCF-friendly type rules), because there's human intervention, etc...
Has this changed? Last I read Swiss pairings were governed by some rules but they also allowed substantial freedom within those rules to tailor the system to a particular tournament style.
Tweet
Comment