On 18 Jun 2003 19:31:40 -0700, (Nick) wrote:

On the other hand, from what I have heard, sometimes one person here at RGCM,
evidently playing outside the United States, has brought up a question about
one's local tournament regulations, and then someone else here has responded
by citing the USCF rulebook. :-)

Well if they're asking about LOCAL tournament regulations citing the
USCF handbook is not out of line. However if you're asking about the
laws of Chess it should be noted that most major countries have their
own handbooks which are based more closely or more distantly from the
FIDE Handbook. Canada's is rather close to FIDE, the USCF's is one of
the furthest - to the extent that non-Americans often wonder why FIDE
will rate US tournaments where the USCF rather than FIDE rules are in
effect.

A good example is the down flag situation - in the USCF it is strictly
verboten for anyone other than the player to call a down flag; under
FIDE regulations not only may the arbiter call the flag he/she is
REQUIRED to do so.

Similarly the USCF has all kinds of rules concerning an incomplete
scoresheet while FIDE simply says the arbiter can use whatever
evidence he/she deems credible in judging whether 40 (or whatever the
number is) moves have been made.

I recently was TD at a game between two IMs where one blundered on
move 39 but carried on till the time control was made. I had been
keeping score since around move 25 - which was only about 10 minutes
from the control (40/2, G/1 in this case) and MY scoresheet was
complete even though neither players' was. Had the flag fallen I would
have used my scoresheet to determine if the control had been made.
(One of the IMs asked for my scoresheet after the control and thanked
me when he was done - this guy has always been a class act; the other
was too upset by his blunder to say much of anything and given the guy
has 2 GM norms I can't honestly blame him)

One thing I *really* dislike are the new generation of digital clocks
which automatically shift to the second time control when move 40 is
made - I feel that if a player is no longer recording moves the number
of moves made is not information he should have. In the game in
question, both players agreed that they were on move 42 when the flag
fell - as shown by the scoresheets but NOT by the clock which figured
they were on 38. Obviously someone had failed to hit the clock at
several points. The problem was that the clock having "known" it had a
down flag failed to count off time for the players beyond when the
"flag fell". (This was between two near-Expert juniors one of whom
owned the clock)

So far as I know, ONLY the FIDE DGT does it right - never stops
counting and never switches to the second time control until one clock
gets to zero. I'd be interested in knowing of others - I know that
none of the Saitek models do it this way.

The Horny Goat wrote in message . ..
On 18 Jun 2003 19:31:40 -0700, (Nick) wrote:
...
On the other hand, from what I have heard, sometimes one person here at RGCM,
evidently playing outside the United States, has brought up a question about
one's local tournament regulations, and then someone else here has responded
by citing the USCF rulebook. :-)

Well if they're asking about LOCAL tournament regulations citing the USCF
handbook is not out of line. However if you're asking about the laws of
Chess it should be noted that most major countries have their own handbooks
which are based more closely or more distantly from the FIDE Handbook....

As far as I can recall hearing, someone (presumably an American) wrote a
response, citing the USCF handbook as the authority on the matter, to a
question about "the laws of chess" as played somewhere outside the United
States. That response was well-meaning but not particularly helpful.

--Nick

Dear Nick,

Heil Dubya!

When does United Statesian arrogance stop being U. S. arrogance and start being
"well-meaning"? I have not followed this thread. (It was pure chance that I
read your instant posting.) However, I'd be inclined to believe that the
United Statesian who posted the "response, citing the USCF handbook as the
authority on the matter, to a question about ' ... the laws of chess' as played
somewhere outside the United
States ... " was aware of the difference, because the Laws of Chess are
published in that "handbook".

I believe that (s)he merely was "laying down the law" in accordance with the
"rules" of the organizers of the United Statesian monster Swiss systems, which
have relatively little to do with the Laws of Chess. As with all other facets
of human culture (which, in the good ol' U. S. of A., is routinely converted to
anti-culture), what we say GOES. THAT is the law. Never mind the position(s)
of the other 6.5 billion human beings.

You are too kind when you write off such arrogance as " ... well-meaning but
not particularly helpful." In fact, accepting "The Horny Goat's" statement
that " ... most major countries have their own handbooks ... " concerning the
Laws of Chess may be in serious error. I wonder if her/his assertion is true.
It is my belief that the USCF is unique in that almost all MAJOR countries
stick to the Laws of Chess. (I believe you live in England. How are
tournaments run there?)


The Horny Goat wrote in message
...
On 18 Jun 2003 19:31:40 -0700, (Nick) wrote:
...
On the other hand, from what I have heard, sometimes one person here at
RGCM,
evidently playing outside the United States, has brought up a question
about
one's local tournament regulations, and then someone else here has
responded
by citing the USCF rulebook. :-)

Well if they're asking about LOCAL tournament regulations citing the USCF
handbook is not out of line. However if you're asking about the laws of
Chess it should be noted that most major countries have their own handbooks

which are based more closely or more distantly from the FIDE Handbook....

As far as I can recall hearing, someone (presumably an American) wrote a
response, citing the USCF handbook as the authority on the matter, to a
question about "the laws of chess" as played somewhere outside the United
States. That response was well-meaning but not particularly helpful.

--Nick

Heute Uhmuhrikkka, Afghanistan und Irak. Morgen die ganze Welt!

Uhmuhrikkka, Uhmuhrikkka uber Alles!

Fraternally,

Jerry Bibuld
gens una sumus

In article ,
(Nick) wrote:

The Horny Goat wrote in message
. ..
On 18 Jun 2003 19:31:40 -0700, (Nick) wrote:
...
On the other hand, from what I have heard, sometimes one person here at
RGCM,
evidently playing outside the United States, has brought up a question
about
one's local tournament regulations, and then someone else here has
responded
by citing the USCF rulebook. :-)

Well if they're asking about LOCAL tournament regulations citing the USCF
handbook is not out of line. However if you're asking about the laws of
Chess it should be noted that most major countries have their own handbooks
which are based more closely or more distantly from the FIDE Handbook....

As far as I can recall hearing, someone (presumably an American) wrote a
response, citing the USCF handbook as the authority on the matter, to a
question about "the laws of chess" as played somewhere outside the United
States. That response was well-meaning but not particularly helpful.



IIRC, this thread started with a discussion of an incident in
Pennsylvania, someone followed up by talking about the West Coast, and
someone else called the second person an idiot because lots of countries
have west coasts (when in context it obviously referred to the West
Coast of the U.S.) and that Americans were idiots because out that
(obviously, I'm paraphrasing).

Anyway, too much has been snipped here for me to know if that's relevant
to the USCF vs. Laws of Chess argument here, but it's possible citing
the USCF rules was relevant in context.

--Harold Buck


"I used to rock and roll all night,
and party every day.
Then it was every other day. . . ."
-Homer J. Simpson

Harold Buck wrote in message .. .
In article ,
(Nick) wrote:
...
As far as I can recall hearing, someone (presumably an American) wrote a
response, citing the USCF handbook as the authority on the matter, to a
question about "the laws of chess" as played somewhere outside the United
States. That response was well-meaning but not particularly helpful.

Anyway, too much has been snipped here for me to know if that's relevant
to the USCF vs. Laws of Chess argument here, but it's possible citing
the USCF rules was relevant in context.

Mr. Buck,

Sorry, I don't recall all the details of that discussion.

I don't practise as an official tournament director, and I did not attempt
to remember everything exactly as it was discussed. And I don't have a USCF
handbook, so I cannot comment on it. As far as I can recall, however, I
doubt that "citing the USCF rules was relevant" to the original question.
My impression was that someone else then dismissed that response as naive
and not particularly helpful.

--Nick

ospam (Jerome Bibuld) wrote in message ...

Dear Mr. Bibuld,

I am not an expert on the Laws of Chess, but I shall do my best to answer
your questions here.

When does United Statesian arrogance stop being U. S. arrogance and start
being "well-meaning"? I have not followed this thread.

Sorry, my post (which I never expected would be taken so seriously) was
referring to another thread's discussion, whose details I don't recall exactly.

...However, I'd be inclined to believe that the United Statesian who posted
the "response, citing the USCF handbook as the authority on the matter, to a
question about ' ... the laws of chess' as played somewhere outside the
United States ... " was aware of the difference, because the Laws of Chess
are published in that "handbook".

I don't have a USCF handbook. I surmise that the writer had not read the
USCF handbook carefully or completely enough. I do recall a post here wherein
an American, who evidently had not read or remembered the 14th Amendment, wrote
incorrectly that *only* U.S. citizens are entitled by the U.S. Constitution to
"due process of law" within the United States. At least in theory for now,
that assertion is incorrect.

I believe that (s)he merely was "laying down the law" in accordance with the
"rules" of the organizers of the United Statesian monster Swiss systems,
which have relatively little to do with the Laws of Chess.

Perhaps, I don't recall enough details to be able to say.

You are too kind when you write off such arrogance as " ... well-meaning but
not particularly helpful."

I regarded it as "well-meaning" in the sense that someone took the time to
write a response that presumably (I cannot be certain of any other motives)
was intended to help. That response seems not to have succeeded, yet, in my
view, the presumably sincere effort should be acknowledged. On the other hand,
it's quite fair to criticise the response for overlooking the likelihood that
chess-players, like other people, might well be governed by different laws
outside the United States.

In fact, accepting "The Horny Goat's" statement that " ... most major
countries have their own handbooks ... " concerning the Laws of Chess may
be in serious error. I wonder if her/his assertion is true.

"The Horny Goat" is Lyle Craver, the Secretary of the Chess Federation of
Canada and an experienced tournament director.

--Nick