1. Does your national chess federation utilize separate or modified rules governing chess games not rated by FIDE?

[E Michael White]

On the FIDE website http://rules.fide.com/ there is a rules commission project; I wonder what brought that about. How will the make it up as you go along approach be viewed ?

[Roger de Coverly]

I wonder what brought that about.

The USCF have always been the major users of their own set of rules.

The ECF doesn't really have a well coded list of exceptions and it could only do so if its writ in England was absolute. Local leagues have their own modifications to deal with things like phones, default times, move rate choices and adjudications, whilst some practices such as re-pairing and awarding more than one point for a single game are arbiter practices rather than being formally documented.

Something the ECF should do, but probably won't, would be to ask to formalise and legalise the practice of the re-pairing of no shows. Its absence blighted the first round of the "Millionaire" tournament in the USA, when despite the level of prize fund, the basic competency of keeping the entry list up to date with withdrawals proved difficult.

[Michael Farthing]

Something the ECF should do, but probably won't, would be to ask to formalise and legalise the practice of the re-pairing of no shows. Its absence blighted the first round of the "Millionaire" tournament in the USA, when despite the level of prize fund, the basic competency of keeping the entry list up to date with withdrawals proved difficult.

If so, the tournament will probably learn from its experiences. There is no reason to formalise anything.

[NickFaulks]

The ECF doesn't really have a well coded list of exceptions and it could only do so if its writ in England was absolute.

I've never been sure about this. If some league decided to experiment by starting with the knights and bishops switched round, I assume those games would not be accepted for grading. There must be a line drawn somewhere, so where?

[Roger de Coverly]

There must be a line drawn somewhere, so where?

EPSCA (Primary Schools) have/had a 25 move rule and a bizarre interpretation of Appendix G/10.2. I don't know that their games are graded. Adjudication is the obvious non-FIDE rule that doesn't prevent games being graded. Ancient rights though, as the concept of adjudication predates the establishment of FIDE and the practice of grading adjudicated games predates FIDE rating.

http://www.epsca.org.uk/rules/epscaquickplayrules06.pdf

http://www.ecforum.org.uk/viewtopic.php?t=3486

I think you would draw a line at Fischer Random and if someone declared Stalemate a win.

[NickFaulks]

What about "all games must be played with clocks"?

[Roger de Coverly]

What about "all games must be played with clocks"?

As a condition of grading English domestic chess, I would have thought that in place for fifty years if not longer.

[David Sedgwick]

What about "all games must be played with clocks"?

As a condition of grading English domestic chess, I would have thought that in place for fifty years if not longer.

Not as long as that. The use of clocks was not mandatory in the schools chess leagues in which I, and Nick, played in the late 1960s. The games were graded.

Thirty-five to forty years is probably correct, though.

[Brian Towers]

I would have thought 8.1a is the obvious example for English/British chess.

8.1 a. In the course of play each player is required to record his own moves and those of his opponent in the correct manner, move after move, as clearly and legibly as possible, in the algebraic notation (Appendix C), on the ‘scoresheet’ prescribed for the competition.

I believe some arbiters still allow descriptive.

One senior British arbiter I raised this question with quoted this section of the laws:

Appendix C. Algebraic notation
FIDE recognises for its own tournaments and matches only one system of notation, the Algebraic System, and recommends the use of this uniform chess notation also for chess literature and periodicals. Scoresheets using a notation system other than algebraic may not be used as evidence in cases where normally the scoresheet of a player is used for that purpose. An arbiter who observes that a player is using a notation system other than the algebraic should warn the player of this requirement.

The implication (perhaps of the last sentence in particular) being in his interpretation that algebraic is the recognized notation rather than mandatory notation and the most an arbiter can do is warn the player using non-algebraic that his scoresheet can't be used for draw claims, opponent disturbing with repeated draw offers, etc.

[soheil_hooshdaran]

From 2004, mu chess federation does not give out National ratings

[John McKenna]

Sorry, don't quite understand what exactly you are saying, above -

Should "mu" be my?

And, I know that Iran has a national Elo-rating system - are you saying something about its availability?