FIDE Laws of Chess on the CFC web site

[Pierre Dénommée]

We are still listing the obsolete July 2005 version.

[Aris Marghetis]

We are still listing the obsolete July 2005 version.
Hi there, as an Organizer/TD, I would like to bump this up the list of things to do by the CFC office. For example, last weekend, while I was TDing, I had to resolve a minor disagreement about claiming draws, and I realized afterwards that part of the reason it took some reconciliation efforts on my part, was simply because one of the players was very used to the CFC Handbook, but his opponent, a recent immigrant, was only used to the FIDE Handbook! ;)

Therefore, would it be possible to commit to updating the CFC Handbook on the CFC website by, say, January 2010? That would be great, thank you! :)

[Egidijus Zeromskis]

Hi there, as an Organizer/TD, I would like to bump this up the list of things to do by the CFC office. For example, last weekend, while I was TDing, I had to resolve a minor disagreement about claiming draws, and I realized afterwards that part of the reason it took some reconciliation efforts on my part, was simply because one of the players was very used to the CFC Handbook, but his opponent, a recent immigrant, was only used to the FIDE Handbook! ;)

Therefore, would it be possible to commit to updating the CFC Handbook on the CFC website by, say, January 2010? That would be great, thank you! :)


Aris, the next time you could include a line in the tournament announcement - "FIDE rules rulz" :D and please have a copy on your table for everybody's reference. Because: "A member federation is free to introduce more detailed rules provided they:
3. are not valid for any FIDE match, championship or qualifying event, or for a FIDE title or rating tournament. "

http://www.fide.com/fide/handbook?id=32&view=category

[Aris Marghetis]

Aris, the next time you could include a line in the tournament announcement - "FIDE rules rulz" :D and please have a copy on your table for everybody's reference. Because: "A member federation is free to introduce more detailed rules provided they:
3. are not valid for any FIDE match, championship or qualifying event, or for a FIDE title or rating tournament. "

http://www.fide.com/fide/handbook?id=32&view=category
Hi Egidijus, your idea is fine, but in my humble opinion, we should not detract from the necessity to update the CFC Handbook pages. We want people to absorb all the subtleties of the rules at their own convenience, which makes it more likely that they be retained. I doubt that in the middle of an intense time pressure game, that a player would go to the front of the room to check any print-out on how they should claim a particular kind of draw, etc., LOL!

To reiterate, your idea is not bad, but I do not want that to be interpreted as any softening of my request to always have the CFC Handbook up to date.

Also, I applaud Pierre for bringing it up in the first place, over a month ago.

Thanks and regards, Aris.

[John Coleman]

It is not clear to me who is tasked with bringing the CFC rules into line with FIDE, assuming that is desireable. I am sure that is not the job of the business office.

[Aris Marghetis]

It is not clear to me who is tasked with bringing the CFC rules into line with FIDE, assuming that is desireable. I am sure that is not the job of the business office.
Maybe I have misunderstood. I did not think that the CFC laws had to be brought into line with FIDE, I thought they automatically were. I thought though that the CFC Handbook had to be brought into line with what the chess rules actually were. So, is this a rules issue, or a documentation issue?

[John Coleman]

Either way, exactly WHO has the task? Bob Armstrong is chairman of the Procedures Committee. Eric the Prez says that this committee "will deal with handbook changes."

[Egidijus Zeromskis]

So, is this a rules issue, or a documentation issue?

Seems Motion should be started to accept new FIDE chess rules. History:


Motion 2005-26: Moved by Pierre Dénommée / Michael Barron:
That the CFC Handbook be amended to replace, on July 1st 2005, the actual Laws of Chess by the new Laws of Chess that have been adopted at the FIDE AGM and that will come in force on July 1st 2005.

Votes Yes (10)
Votes No (2)
Abstentions (3)
http://www.chess.ca/Gls/04-05GL8.pdf

(maybe there were another motion but I have not dug too much. Next time.)

[Bob Armstrong]

Hi John:

I'm not sure on who is responsible. Initially it was thought that Maurice, who is a one-man task force on updating the Handbook, would be brought under the Procedure's Committee. This was at the time of Eric's statement you quote.

But subsequently it was worked out that Maurice would continue to report directly to the President, and not become a Procedure's Committee Subcommittee. So the Handbook updating is no longer under my committee.

Also, I don't know whether Maurice would agree he'd be responsible for updating the Rules of Chess. He's updating the Handbook based on motions passed by the Governors, that never got entered into the Handbook.

Might it not be better to have an arbiter or two form a committee to do this? I suppose it could be done as a subcommittee of the Procedures' Committee. I'll ask Stijn, since he seems to be in charge of vetting office matters.

Bob

[Stephen Wright]

In terms of man-hours the quickest solution would be to remove the obsolete laws from the CFC Handbook and provide a link to the current ones at the FIDE site (http://www.fide.com/fide/handbook?id=124&view=article); with just a little more work the FIDE laws could be cut and pasted into the CFC Handbook. It also wouldn't be a bad idea to have the major changes pointed out on the CFC site or in the Newsletter, e.g.

http://www.chesscafe.com/text/geurt129.pdf or
http://chess.bc.ca/Bulletins/BCCFBulletin166.pdf

[Aris Marghetis]

In terms of man-hours the quickest solution would be to remove the obsolete laws from the CFC Handbook and provide a link to the current ones at the FIDE site (http://www.fide.com/fide/handbook?id=124&view=article); with just a little more work the FIDE laws could be cut and pasted into the CFC Handbook. It also wouldn't be a bad idea to have the major changes pointed out on the CFC site or in the Newsletter, e.g.

http://www.chesscafe.com/text/geurt129.pdf or
http://chess.bc.ca/Bulletins/BCCFBulletin166.pdf
I believe Stephen has incisively cut to what seems to be the best solution :

Simply exclude laws from the CFC Handbook, and link to laws at FIDE.com!

The only problem with cut-and-pasting into the CFC Handbook is we could just find ourselves in the same situation the next time the rules change! ;)

[Bob Armstrong]

Hi Aris:

Today I have written V-P Stijn de Kerpel on this issue as follows:

Hi Stijn:

I’m not sure who to write on this, since I don’t know who on the executive is responsible for the updating of the Handbook – I do know Maurice has told me he will report directly to Eric on his Handbook updating. But you are dealing with office matters, and so I’ll try you first.

An issue has arisen on the CFC Chess Forum – apparently the Laws of Chess on the CFC website are out of date ( you can go to the Board to see the posts ). There was a motion a few years ago as follows:

Motion 2005-26: Moved by Pierre Dénommée / Michael Barron:
That the CFC Handbook be amended to replace, on July 1st 2005, the actual Laws of Chess by the new Laws of Chess that have been adopted at the FIDE AGM and that will come in force on July 1st 2005.

Votes Yes (10)
Votes No (2)
Abstentions (3)

I don’t know if the rules have been out of date since that motion. I don’t know if it was ever amended as set out by the motion.

Now I do know that national federations can adapt the FIDE Laws of Chess, so long as they aren’t used in FIDE rated tournaments. And I believe in the past, CFC has changed some of the rules for here in Canada. But the suggestion has been made, that CFC, instead of updating the rules, simply deletes the rules and puts a link to the FIDE Laws of Chess site (http://www.fide.com/fide/handbook?id=124&view=article) . I do not know if this is a good idea or not – I am not an arbiter and don’t know if Canada wants some rules to be different for here in Canada.

But the issue is who will take charge of this file, and get someone to look into it and come up with an answer as to what should be done on the CFC website, and then determine who will do it.

Do you have any thoughts on this, and how it should be handled?

Bob

[Stephen Wright]

FYI: the FIDE Laws currently in the CFC Handbook are the 2005 ones, so yes, motion 2005-26 was fulfilled. It used to be that Canadian interpretations and options were included in the Handbook, but they are not currently - what is there now is just the 2005 FIDE laws. So the main thing that needs to happen is an update/link to the 2009 FIDE laws (they are allowed to change only every four years) which came into effect last July 1st. If we wish to add Canadian options, that can always be done at a later date.

[Bob Armstrong]

Hi Stephen:

Thanks for answering a couple of my outstanding questions. We'll see how Stijn wants to handle the updating of the Handbook. I like your suggestion of a simple link to FIDE. As you say, Canadian options can always be added subsequently.

I'd be interested in knowing what " Canadian options " might be wanted, if anyone has any in mind.

Bob

Bob

[Kerry Liles]

Hi Stephen:

Thanks for answering a couple of my outstanding questions. We'll see how Stijn wants to handle the updating of the Handbook. I like your suggestion of a simple link to FIDE. As you say, Canadian options can always be added subsequently.

I'd be interested in knowing what " Canadian options " might be wanted, if anyone has any in mind.

Bob

Bob

One useful "Canadian" option would be to ignore the rule that defaults a player if they arrive 1 nanosecond* late. Starting the clock at the appointed game start time has always been good: a variable time penalty for being
tardy.

*I'm astounded no one who was forfeited has challenged the accuracy of the determination of the actual 'start of play' time... according to what time reference? Who has access to that time reference - ie: how can a player who is running late, check the chief arbiter's watch for example?

[Egidijus Zeromskis]

One useful "Canadian" option would be to ignore the rule that defaults a player if they arrive 1 nanosecond* late.

This "late" rule is not absolute. The TD can announce in advance what will be the "norm" (1 hour, 15 min, etc.)

[Aris Marghetis]

This "late" rule is not absolute. The TD can announce in advance what will be the "norm" (1 hour, 15 min, etc.)
I agree with Kerry's intent, but I would prefer absolutely no special Canadian conditions, as then we sign ourselves for documentation maintenance in the future. Aside from the start time thing, is there anything else we could need?

And for the start time thing, I believe Egidijus is on the right track, just let the TD control that. He/she could choose zero time, 60 minutes, or other.

My personal preference is to have no late time whatsoever, start the clock, and when the person runs out of time, it's over like any other loss on time! ;)

[Steve Douglas]

I agree with Kerry's intent, but I would prefer absolutely no special Canadian conditions, as then we sign ourselves for documentation maintenance in the future. Aside from the start time thing, is there anything else we could need?

And for the start time thing, I believe Egidijus is on the right track, just let the TD control that. He/she could choose zero time, 60 minutes, or other.

My personal preference is to have no late time whatsoever, start the clock, and when the person runs out of time, it's over like any other loss on time! ;)

I strongly disagree in several areas. You previously made reference to players "learning the rules" via consulting the CFC rules or the FIDE rules. That's nonsense. TD's may learn the specifics of the rules that way, but not players. Players usually learn about this sort of thing from TD's making rulings they don't like at the time.

The issue of the 1-nanosecond forfeit rule is a very good case in point as to why there should be a separate set of "Canadian" rules or interpretations. Why should it be necessary for every Tournament Director to announce that what was standard, is still standard, even though it's now non-standard?

Simply providing a link allows the CFC to abdicate its role with respect to governing chess in Canada. It allows the ostrich to dig its head even further into the sand and then when some whacko rule arrives at the FIDE level it is automatically in place in Canadian chess.

Steve

[Pierre Dénommée]

FYI: the FIDE Laws currently in the CFC Handbook are the 2005 ones, so yes, motion 2005-26 was fulfilled. It used to be that Canadian interpretations and options were included in the Handbook, but they are not currently - what is there now is just the 2005 FIDE laws. So the main thing that needs to happen is an update/link to the 2009 FIDE laws (they are allowed to change only every four years) which came into effect last July 1st. If we wish to add Canadian options, that can always be done at a later date.

Canadian interpretations have been brought inline with the FIDE 2005 Laws. If they are not in the CFC web site, the Montreal Chess League still has the French translation inherited from the FQSÉ : http://echecsmontreal.org/spip/spip.php?article56 .

[Pierre Dénommée]

One useful "Canadian" option would be to ignore the rule that defaults a player if they arrive 1 nanosecond* late.

It is still at 1h in the CFC Tournament rules, with a reference to the FIDE Laws that is no longer valid. France has chosen 30 minutes as the default forfeit loss time and the CFC is free to use whatever it wants.

[Pierre Dénommée]

This "late" rule is not absolute. The TD can announce in advance what will be the "norm" (1 hour, 15 min, etc.)

This is totally wrong. The current FIDE Laws is that

a. Any player who arrives at the chessboard after the start of the session shall lose the game. Thus the default time is 0 minutes. The rules of a competition may specify otherwise.

b. If the rules of a competition specify a different default time, the following shall apply. If neither player is present initially, the player who has the white pieces shall lose all the time that elapses until he arrives, unless the rules of the competition specify or the arbiter decides otherwise.

The arbiter has the right to decide otherwise only if the default time is not zero. Furthermore, his discretion is limited to subtracting or not subtracting the time at the beginning of the game. He has lost his discretion not to forfeit a late player unless the rules of the competition grant him this power :mad: .

The arbiter has no right to announce anything in advance : the default time must be written in the rules of the competition.

[Egidijus Zeromskis]

This is totally wrong. ...

The arbiter has no right to announce anything in advance : the default time must be written in the rules of the competition.

I wrote: "This "late" rule is not absolute. The TD can announce in advance what will be the "norm" (1 hour, 15 min, etc.)"

Do you see a difference in your and my statements? TD is not an arbiter, though in most cases they are the same person. The legitimate way to announce is of course to write down in the tournament announcement. There is still possible way that all players and the TD agree to change this just before a tournament. Thus your "This is totally wrong" is totally wrong.

[Bob Armstrong]

Maurice Smith has looked into this question at Eric's request, and is working with ED Gerry Litchfield to update the Laws on the website - they are looking at the suggestion of a link to the FIDE site.

Bob

[Pierre Dénommée]

I wrote: "This "late" rule is not absolute. The TD can announce in advance what will be the "norm" (1 hour, 15 min, etc.)"

Do you see a difference in your and my statements? TD is not an arbiter, though in most cases they are the same person. The legitimate way to announce is of course to write down in the tournament announcement. There is still possible way that all players and the TD agree to change this just before a tournament. Thus your "This is totally wrong" is totally wrong.

TD may means arbiter ord organiser. In Europe, it almost always means organiser and in the USA, it almost always means arbiter. If you take TD as meaning the organiser, your are totally right.