FIDE contra USCF

It might be surprising to learn how many differences exist between the official FIDE rules and those of the US Chess Federation. Many of these are fairly minor and most of them cover details of the behavior of players and arbiters during competitions, but in some cases they involve more substantial issues, such as when a move begins and ends or what constitutes insufficient material. Ken Ballou compiled a summary of these differences.

The role of the arbiter

Many of the differences involve the arbiter's role in enforcing the rules. The general difference seems to be that FIDE expects the arbiter to intervene in game play, while in many cases the USCF puts the onus on players to call for intervention. We can see this difference clearly in situations that involve flagging and illegal moves.

Flagging

According to the FIDE rules, the game ends if the arbiter witnesses a fallen flag, while the USCF rules prevent directors and other spectators from intervening, and require the players to make a claim themselves. Here is the wording of the relevant rules:

FIDE: 6.8 A flag is considered to have fallen when the arbiter observes the fact or when either player has made a valid claim to that effect.

USCF: 13C1. Only players may call flag. Only the players in a game may call attention to the fall of a flag (See also 5G); it is considered to have fallen only when either player points this out. A director must never initiate a time-forfeit claim. Spectators, including players of other games, who point out the fall of a flag in any manner, may be disciplined by the tournament director to the point of expulsion from the playing room, loss of their own games, or expulsion from the tournament. The recipient of such assistance may also be penalized.

Correcting illegal moves

There is a similar philosophy about the arbiter's role in identifying illegal moves. Although this isn't spelled out directly in the FIDE rules, 13.3 makes it clear that the arbiter should observe games and enforce rules whenever possible.

FIDE: 13.3 The arbiter shall observe the games, especially when the players are short of time, enforce decisions he has made and impose penalties on players where appropriate.

Under USCF rules, however, the director has the option of Variation 11H1 to refrain from correcting any illegal moves, as long as they are consistent, and is instructed specifically not to intervene during time pressure.

USCF: 11D1. Illegal move in time pressure. Time pressure is defined as a situation where either player has less than five minutes left in a time control and the time control does not include an increment or delay of 30 seconds or more. A director should not call attention to illegal moves in time pressure, only the players may make that claim. If, during the game, in time pressure, a player’s claim that one of either player’s last two moves was illegal is upheld by the TD, the position shall be reinstated to what it was before the illegal move and the procedure in rule 11A shall be followed.

USCF: 11H. Director corrects illegal move outside of time pressure. Except in a time pressure situation (11D1), a director who witnesses an illegal move being made shall require the player to replace that move with a legal one in accordance with 10B, Touch-move rule. The time on the clocks shall not be adjusted; however, move counters on clocks that have them may be readjusted. See also 11J, Deliberate illegal moves and 21D, Intervening in games. Variation 11H1. Director as witness only. In an event in which most games are not watched by directors, a director may refrain from correcting all illegal moves he or she may notice but simply serve as a witness should one of the players point out the illegal move before ten more moves have been made (11A).

Illegal moves

In addition to the arbiter's role in correcting illegal moves, there is also a difference in the penalties for such moves, as well as a statute of limitations. Under FIDE rules, if an illegal move is recognized at any point during the game, it will be corrected, but under USCF rules, there is a ten move limit, after which an illegal move will stand, even if it is detected by one of the players or the director.

FIDE: 7.5.1 An illegal move is completed once the player has pressed his clock. If during a game it is found that an illegal move has been completed, the position immediately before the irregularity shall be reinstated. If the position immediately before the irregularity cannot be determined, the game shall continue from the last identifiable position prior to the irregularity. Articles 4.3 and 4.7 apply to the move replacing the illegal move. The game shall then continue from this reinstated position.

USCF: 11A. Illegal move during last ten moves. If, during a game, it is found that one of either player’s last ten moves was illegal and neither player is in time pressure (11D1), the position shall be reinstated to what it was before the illegal move. The players do not recover the time used after the illegal move. The game shall then continue by applying Rule 10, The Touched Piece, to the move replacing the illegal move. If the position cannot be reinstated, then the illegal move shall stand. Move counters on clocks that have them may be readjusted. 11B. Illegal move prior to last ten moves. If it is found that an illegal move was made prior to each player’s last ten moves, the illegal move shall stand and the game shall continue.

It's worth pointing out that under FIDE rules, using both hands to make a move constitutes an illegal move, as well as pressing the clock without making a move, something Magnus recently did:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n5ZbpXH7AYA

The USCF rules only explicitly prohibit using two hands to make a move during a blitz game, although it might be implied by rule 16C1, which states that "each player must operate the clock with the same hand that moves the pieces."

Whereas the USCF rules specify added time as a penalty for illegal moves, and even suggests directors give initial warnings, under FIDE rules players can only make one illegal move, and will forfeit the game on the second. Previously players were allowed to make two illegal moves and only forfeited on the third.

FIDE: 7.5.5 After the action taken under Article 7.5.1, 7.5.2, 7.5.3 or 7.5.4 for the first completed illegal move by a player, the arbiter shall give two minutes extra time to his opponent; for the second completed illegal move by the same player the arbiter shall declare the game lost by this player. However, the game is drawn if the position is such that the opponent cannot checkmate the player’s king by any possible series of legal moves.

Claiming a draw

In situations where a player decides to claim a draw by repetition or under the 50-move rule, there is a slight difference in procedure. Under the FIDE rules the right to claim is forfeited as soon as the player deliberately touches a piece, whereas under USCF rules the player has the right to claim until finishing their move by pressing the clock.

FIDE: 9.4 If the player touches a piece as in Article 4.3 without having claimed the draw he loses the right to claim, as in Article 9.2 or 9.3, on that move.

USCF: 14C4. Claim after moving without pressing clock. A player who moves and then does not press the clock (5H), but allows it to run, retains the right to claim a draw under 14C. However, this procedure is not recommended. The player who moves and allows the clock to run will lose the time that elapses before a ruling if the claim is not upheld.

Promotion

There are some significant differences in details surrounding promotion. The most recent FIDE handbook spells out clearly that if a player pushes a pawn to the most distant rank and presses the clock without replacing the pawn with a piece, it is considered an illegal move. Furthermore, the player loses the ability to choose the promotion piece, and it is automatically replaced by a queen, which in some cases could end the game in stalemate.

FIDE: 7.5.2 If the player has moved a pawn to the furthest distant rank, pressed the clock, but not replaced the pawn with a new piece, the move is illegal. The pawn shall be replaced by a queen of the same colour as the pawn.

The USCF rules, however, suggest that the opponent should simply press the clock without moving, and so insist that the player who promoted finish the move. USCF rules also allow players to use an upside-down rook to stand for a promotion piece, and, unless otherwise specified, it stands for a queen. The FIDE rules make no mention of this, so presumably it is illegal.

USCF: 8F7. Promoted piece not available. If the desired piece is not available to replace a promoted pawn, the player may stop both clocks in order to locate that piece and place it on the board. A player who cannot quickly find such a piece may request the assistance of the director. It is common practice, however, to play using an upside-down rook for a second queen. In the absence of the player’s announcement to the contrary, an upside-down rook shall be considered a queen. It is improper to press the clock to start the opponent’s time with the pawn still on the last rank. If this is done, the opponent may immediately restart the player’s clock without moving.

Such a thing actually happened in a game between Karpov and Kasparov in 1993. On his 24th move, Kasparov promoted with a capture on the d1 square, and declared it a queen, but didn't have a queen on hand. Kasparov relates the story in his book Kasparov on Modern Chess, v.4, Kasparov vs Karpov 1988-2009, page 332:

"Here, because of my carelessness and a mistake by the arbiter, an unpleasant incident occurred. After placing my pawn on d1, I automatically said: 'Queen!'. But there was no second queen to hand. If I had been more attentive, I would have said 'Rook!', and placed on d1 with check my rook which had just been captured on a2. But as it was, I had to wait for a queen to be produced. But the arbiter, who apparently had something else on his mind, brought a white queen! Here my patience snapped (all this was occurring at the expense of my own time on the clock) and, leaving my pawn on d1, I started my opponent's clock. At which point Karpov, in desperate time trouble (one minute for 16 moves), instantly replied 25 Qxe4!!? 'You're in check!', I exclaimed in surprise. 'From what? It might be a bishop on d1', retorted Karpov. The clocks were stopped and the ex-champion demanded that, in accordance with the rules, he should be given additional time: I had supposedly made an illegal move. Although in fact the illegal move had been made by Karpov himself! But, being one step away from victory, I did not bother to argue. The arbiter finally found a black queen, Karpov was given two additional minutes, and the game continued."

Insufficient material

One of the most significant differences, in my opinion, concerns insufficient material when a player flags. According to the FIDE rules, the game is drawn if the player who flags cannot be checkmated by any possible series of legal moves, otherwise it is lost:

FIDE: 6.9 Except where one of Articles 5.1.1, 5.1.2, 5.2.1, 5.2.2, 5.2.3 applies, if a player does not complete the prescribed number of moves in the allotted time, the game is lost by that player. However, the game is drawn if the position is such that the opponent cannot checkmate the player’s king by any possible series of legal moves.

The USCF rules differ here, however, and the player loses only if their opponent has a forced win with material that would otherwise be insufficient; if not, then the game is drawn:

USCF: 14E. Insufficient material to win on time. The game is drawn even when a player exceeds the time limit if one of the following conditions exists as of the most recently determined legal move. 14E2. King and bishop or king and knight. Opponent has only king and bishop or king and knight, and does not have a forced win. 14E3. King and two knights. Opponent has only king and two knights, the player has no pawns, and opponent does not have a forced win.

There are some situations in which a player can win with a king and knight or bishop if their opponent makes a mistake known as a helpmate. In these situations, the player who flagged would lose the game because of that possibility under FIDE rules, whereas it would be a draw under USCF rules. In fact this happened to Josh Friedel, who wrote an article about losing just such a game.

The bigger picture

It has probably already struck the reader that the USCF rules quoted here tend to be longer and more complex. In working through both sets of rules for this essay, I was extremely surprised to learn that the FIDE manual runs about 25 pages, while that of the USCF swells to nearly 130 pages. The difference in philosophy is evident right from the opening lines of each manual. The FIDE manual opens with "the Laws of Chess cannot cover all possible situations that may arise during a game, nor can they regulate all administrative questions", and the USCF "most problems concerning rules that may arise during a chess game are covered in this book." While the USCF manual contains a wealth of practical situations that can help us design better rules, I think the more elegant goal of the FIDE manual is to be preferred.