THEMATIC EVENTS:

Ray Bolen notes: "I favor having thematic events with some of the more popular openings, such as Ruy Lopez or Sicilian Defense, since these openings would be more easily available to correspondence players, particularly those who don't have access to a lot of opening books. Other organizations such as the APCT have thematic events."

Phillip Todd Yorks comments: "Experimenting with a schedule of 4-8 tournaments a year sounds exciting to me! Here are my suggestions for the tournaments:

1. Blackmar Diemar Gambit 1. d4 d5 2. e4 dxe4 2. French Tarrasch 3. ... Nf6 1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. Nd2 Nf6 3. English 1. c4 Nf6 2. Nc3 e6 3. e4 4. Budapest Defense 1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 e5 5. Petrov's Defense 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nf6 3. d4 6. Leningrad Nimzo-Indian 1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 e6 3. Nc3 Bb4 4. Bg5 7. Ruy Lopez 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 a6 4. Ba4 b5 5. Bb3 Na5 8. Sicilian Defense 1. e4 c5 2. d4 cxd4

In general, I am very happy with USCF correspondence chess rules (and with the administration of correspondence chess by the USCF."

Tom May noted, "Regarding Thematics, please, as many as possible."

TIME FORFEITS:

Should all events carry a rule whereby on a first offense a forfeit should occur or continue with the current procedure in that this would occur only in certain events and in all other events, issue a warning on a first offense and if the rules are violated again, forfeit? If you agree that a "no warning" procedure for a rule violation should occur, perhaps rule violations should each carry a specific time penalty? If a player has too many rule violations, the player would eventually run out of time and thus be forfeited? For each repeated violation of the rules, time penalty would increase (5 days for 1st offense; 7 days for a 2nd offense, etc)?

Tom May comments, "I don't like the idea of time forfeits without a warning in ANY event. In my experience the Post Office can't be trusted to DELIVER the mail, let along put a proper DATE on it. I once dropped a card in the Post Office mail slot and was horrified to find that they postmarked it two WEEKS after I mailed it. Players who harp about time constantly are usually the ones whose received dates are most likely to be fiction. There's really no good remedy for these scoundrels. Certified mail is unfair to shut-ins and to the disabled and elderly people forced to use public transportation which is often inadequate. Players who are still responding to moves, but lose on time overstep should lose all sanctions. This sort of loss is analogous to loss on time in OTB play, and should not incur the same sanctions as "no shows" and those who drop out without resigning."

Vivian S. Schmucker responded with, "I am against forfeiting postal players for their 1st overstep of the time control, especially since Sundays and Holidays are included in the reflection time. Because if mail pick up schedules, the postmark date is often a day later than when the postcard is put in the mail, particularly on holiday weekends. Also, I have heard of an occasional situation in which the post office was at fault for postmarking mail days later than when it was placed in the mail. So, sometimes it is beyond the players' control for overstepping the time limit by, several days. A first-time forfeit would not be fair to players who overstep the time control by several days."

Mark Wetzlich offers, "Should a time-forfeit rule be applied to first-time offenses? Should a time-penalty be incurred for illegal/ambiguous moves? No and No. I believe penalties should be imposed only when infractions are either repetitive or blatant. I would have to see a good game nullified over a minor infraction or oversight, and I would receive no satisfaction from winning that way. I would prefer a warning policy for first-time offenses, followed by gradually increasing penalties for repeated infractions."

Wayne Ballantyne offers on this topic, "I think the present rules on this are totally backwards. The rules now impose a time forfeit only in the most critical events like the Golden Knights Finals. These are where top-caliber players are most likely to need extra time to work out some theoretical opening innovations or extensively analyze an endgame. In ICCF events a first-time overstep is allowed in any event...I recommend that this be the rule in all USCF events, with no 5-move penalty for overstep."

Gerald Johnson offers, "One of the most aggravating things about correspondence chess is the opponent who will not answer a move. However, when formulating a rule about this, one must remember that the post office is sometimes at fault. I once received a postcard which had a post office stamp saying, "Left in the bottom of a mail bag. We apologize". Perhaps the rule should be "Forfeit after ignoring two repeat cards sent 20 days apart. Whatever the rule is established, it should be the same for ALL games."

Phillip Todd Yorks states about Time Forfeits and Time Penalties, "I am satisfied with the way USCF currently handles these and do not want to see any changes."

Ray Bolen agrees with Phillip Yorks on Time Forfeits and Time Penalties.

TIME PENALTIES:

Should all events carry a five day reflection time penalty for illegal/ambiguous moves? Currently the player is subject to a five day penalty only if the event is the Absolute or the final round in the Golden Knights. Should the penalty be issued by the Correspondence Chess Director (CCD) or by the opponent and only if they disagree, should the CCD intervene? Should a time penalty occur is a player accepts an "if" offer but does not reply to the "then" move? Should a time penalty occur if a player forgets to note his reply move? (Note: the penalty time is over and above the accumulated reflection time, which would not change. A player is "on move" until a legal reply move is sent.)

Ray Bolen and Phillip Yorks replies were combined with the previous topic.

Steven Wayne Chilson suggests, "All events should carry a five day reflection time penalty for illegal/ambiguous moves. I have been on both sides of this situation. I feel guilty of slowing play when I do it and frustrated when my opponent does it. In most cases it is entirely accidental, but there are those times when time is critical and it happens. Generally, my experience, higher rated players and players carrying a heavy load of correspondence games seem to be the most likely offenders, but it is certainly not limited to these types of players, nor is it characteristic of these players, merely my experience. I believe most players I have played would not be opposed to a time penalty for ALL events. I happen to feel that the time limits for postal or email games are more than adequate and that for most players this would not be critical unless several instances occurred. The player should be subject to a five day penalty and should usually be issued between the opponents and only if they disagree, should the CCD be called on to intervene. In addition, a time penalty should occur is a player accepts an "if" offer but does not reply to the "then" move or if a player forgets to note his reply move. There is one other time when a penalty seems to be in order, but that should be determined based on time complaints to the CCD, by the CCD. The situation I'm talking about is that when mail is frequently "lost". That also seems to happen frequently when time limits are being approached in a match and is very frustrating. Thanks for providing this opportunity to express my opinion. It is much appreciated."

Wayne Ballantyne says, "Yes, ABSOLUTELY all events should carry the five-day penalty for sending an illegal/ambiguous move. I am playing in 90N# and already illegal/ambiguous moves have been sent by my opponents 5 times! If a player is running low on time then he can just send a illegal move and there is no penalty. Also, it makes the 2.5 year time limit for the game even more artificial since he can stall the game with this tactic so that after 2.5 years there may not be enough time to resolve the game. The tourney director should not have to be involved either...I don't see why there would be any dispute about what constitutes an illegal/ambiguous move..just require the player making the claim to send a copy of the offending move back to the opponent. Of course, the penalty should be on top of the time the player used to send the bogus move."

Mark Wetzlich suggests, "No way should a penalty be imposted when a player accepts an "if" move without responding to the "then" move. A conditional move is an option exercised at the sender's discretion; the receiver's response to any subsequent moves should be a moral obligation, but not a legal one. If the receiver fails to respond to a "then" move, the sender should then have to respond again and on another move card, but his neglected "then" move should not be binding. Conversely, if the receive IS penalized for neglecting a subsequent move, the move SHOULD be binding, but I think the other way would be better."

Tom May offers, "I don't think these need to be expanded. I find that most impossible moves result from confusion between AN and DN. The intended move is quite obvious in most cases. It's my practice to offer the move probably intended as part of an "if" move. So far all of the players so offered have accepted, with the happy result that 90% of the impossible moves and 100% of the ambiguous moves I've received have been corrected with no wasted time. I'd would rather see the current 5 day penalty in the Golden Knights Finals and the Absolute replaced by a 10 day penalty for the third occurrence. In regard to the player who forgets to "note" his reply move - I assume you mean someone unlucky enough to send a card with everything but his intended reply. If I understand correctly, such a player is forced to include in his reflection time the period of time between mailing the defective card and the mailing of the corrected card. This seems excessive in itself. I have never heard of those making illegal, impossible, or ambiguous moves being held to this standard, nor do I think they should. I any case, I think a penalty on top of the extra time is way overboard. More appropriate would be a penalty instead - say 5 days or the extra time whichever is less for a first occurrence. As for "if" moves, I don't think any penalties should be assessed for anything connected to them. The "mailhouse lawyers" have enough regulations to abuse without getting into "if" moves. If a player were to send the move: 18. a4 a5 19. Nf6+ "if" 19. ... Kh7 "then" 20. Rh1, I think Black should be able to reply: 18. a4 a5 19. Nf6+ Kh8 without replying to 20. Rh1. If white oversteps the time limit in such a case, however, but would not have if black had replied to 20. Rh1, I don't think white should be penalized for the overstep."

CLAIMING AN OVERSTEP OF THE TIME CONTROL:

The current rules require that both players mark reflection time with each card. Does this mean that if a player neglects to note this one any one of his cards, his claim will not be upheld? It seems a little too strict to disallow a claim on move 20 because a player forgot on move 2, and this could lead to abuses. We propose that in order to make a time complaint, the submitting player must have recorded reflection time on the current, previous, and over 50% of the other cards he has sent. This would mean that at least 7 of the first 10 cards would need that information. If 50% seems low, please make another suggestion.

Ray Bolen noted, "I favor your proposal."

Phillip Todd Yorks offered, "I would like to see stricter penalties against players who do not mark reflection time. I would think that first a warning and then a five day penalty would be appropriate against players who do not regularly calculate time. I would suggest that an appropriate standard would be that a player must mark current move, previous move, and 70% of all other cards. This is by far the most abused rule in the USCF."

Tom May offered, "This proposal is an invitation to abuse. This would mean that someone who had recorded his time on only 26 of the first 50 card would be able to claim overstep against a player who had followed the reporting rules when the claimant had so flagrantly flouted the reporting rules that his own compliance with the time regulations could not be verified. If some is too lazy or dishonest to report his own reflection time, his claim should be denied. Perhaps one omission for every ten moves could be tolerated. Of course, this would not apply in cases where the opponent has dropped out and stopped playing or responding."

Wayne Ballantyne comments, "ICCF rules should be referenced as they have always provided for the 5-day penalty. (They used to apply a 10-day penalty for a second offense but this was dropped.) There should also be a 5-day penalty if a player accepts an "if" move but does not reply to the opponent's conditional response...this is another stalling tactic which can be eliminated with the penalty."

UNNOTICED ILLEGAL MOVES:

How many moves should the game be allowed to go beyond noticing that an illegal move was played? OTB rules note that if more than 10 additional moves have been played, the illegal move stands.

Ray Bolen believes, "I favor adopting the OTB rule. Hopefully, this rarely occurs."

CLOSEOUT DRAWS:

When players reach the 30 month deadline for their game they have an option to apply for adjudication. If neither player applies for adjudication the game is closed out by the CCD as a ratable draw. Should this draw be ratable or should the game just be scored on the crosstable as a draw and not rated. Currently, if the draw is rated and one or both of the players membership has expired the computer does not rate the draw. The expired member is notified, given a chance to renew. If the player does not renew his USCF membership, the game is scored and rated as forfeit win for the opponent, provided the opponent is a current USCF member.

Ray Bolen says, "I feel that such games should be scored on the crosstable as draws but not rated. I believe that a player should submit evidence backing up a claim of a win or draw if he/she wants rating credit."

Wayne Ballantyne says, "As I mentioned above, I disagree with this rule and feel it is too dogmatic. In some cases 30 months is NOT enough time to finish a game, especially if both players have taken vacations or had some moves lost in the mail. Instead, one of the players should be able to request an extension up to one year, but only if there is proof that both players did not stall the game."

Mark Wetzlich: "Yes, closeout draws should be ratable. If neither player applies for adjudication, I think a ratable draw would best serve the integrity of the rating system. In casees where one player's membership has expired (given the chance to renew), it should be scored as a forfeit and rated as a draw!"

Tom May: "The draws should be ratable. Not only is it the only fair thing to do, but it avoids otherwise unnecessary adjudication. If someone fails to renew even after fair notice, he forfeits his rights and should forfeit the game. The CCD could use discretion if some sort of extreme financial hardship is involved."

REPORTING RESULTS:

Should both players be required to report the result? Currently the winner, or if the game was a draw, the player who had white is required to report the result. Requiring both would increase the workload considerably and in events where players are playing more than one game with each other could result in many duplicate reports being processed as original reports. Perhaps, the current procedure should remain in place but add that the reporter of the result include either a summary of all results and/or clearly state, "one of two games", "two of two", etc. to avoid duplicate results being scored and rated.

Phillip Todd Yorks suggests, "In the event of draws, why not require both players to report?"

Ray Bolen stated, "I favor the rule as it is now, and add only that the reporter of the result should include either a summary of all results and/or clearly state "one of two games", "two of two", etc. where necessary, such as in a quad, where players play more than one game with each other."

Vivian S. Schmucker suggests, "I think requiring both player to reports results is unnecessary. Many times, the loser wouldn't report the result. Would the game not be rated unless both players report? This would not be fair to the winner if his opponent refuses to report."

E-MAIL Rules:

The USCF has offered rated e-mail events since January 1997. Although the CC rules are pretty much suited for playing correspondence chess games (post office; telephone; fax;etc.) some modifications would be called for to cover situations unique to exchanging moves via e-mail. Any ideas on this would be most helpful.

Ray Bolen submitted a copy of the e-mail rules which are used by American Postal Chess Tournament (APCT). I will review them and check with Helen Warren on them. Mr. Bolen did express concern though regarding what provisions should be made if one or both player's computer breaks down or if an e-mail comes through but is not readable. Mr. Bolen adds that players should retain a copy of the move list which would include date information after the game is finished should there be a dispute.

Andy Buttles suggests, "I would like to suggest an additional day for e-mail tournaments (i.e. 10 moves in 40 days). The only internet access I can get is through work (I work in Thailand), thus any message that comes late Friday, or when I'm out of town, will be a problem. I would reckon others face a similar situation."

Wayne Ballantyne wrote, "I have never played in an e-mail tourney but I think e-mail could also be used to benefit standard correspondence tournaments. Of course, the moves would normally be sent via US Mail but e-mail would be the method for sending repeat moves, vacation announcements, proof of illegal/ambiguous moves (if the player had a scanner). Toward this end, the new correspondence tourney entry forms would request the players' e-mail address if he had one."

Gerald Johnson wrote, "It is quite easy to determine when an e-mail was sent. It is difficult to determine when it was placed in the recipients "mail box" or subsequent delivery to the addressee. The addressee can receive his e-mail anytime he wants to do so. To prevent abuse, the rule should be "Assume receipt of the e-mail 1 day (24 hours) after sending unless that time falls on Sunday, then assume receipt on the following Monday. If the addressee's on-ramp provider fails, then the addressee is responsible to notify all opponents (by postcard or e-mail) the length of time the provider was down. Such a rule will cause our correspondence players to select their on-ramp provider with care. An alternate solution to the "on-ramp provider down time" problem is to require all correspondence chess players to use the same "free" nationwide email provider such as Juno.com. That way everyone would know when the provider was inoperative. E-mail rules should be constructed to ONLY eliminate the mail transit time, not give the player more or less reflection time."

*****************************

Other topics which were suggested:

Tom May: "Offer tournament sections for those who prefer Descriptive Notation. Correspondence chess rules for the USCF should be printed in the next edition of the "Official Rules of Chess" rulebook."

Gerald Johnson: "Send all members in each section the game standing of all players in the section. (OTB players know the standing of all games in the tournament after each round.) Do this in one of many ways. 1. Put the scoresheet to date on the back of the win/lose/draw card that is mailed to each player when a win or loss or draw is reported. 2. Send a completed scoresheet to each player either periodically. If cost is a problem with this then (1) raise the cost to enter the games a bit and/or (2) quit reducing the cost to enter the games."

Prior Topics in the Correspondence Chess Forum

• June 1998 - What Are Your Thoughts? (Part 1)
• May 1998 - Penalty for No Move/Illegal Move
• March 1998 - Should there be a Free Day for e-mail events? (Pt. 2)
• December 1997 - Should there be a Free Day for e-mail events?
• November 1997 - Overstepping the Time Control
• October 1997 - Reflection Time
• September 1997 - Time Forfeits
• July 1997 - Downtime Claims
• May 1997 - Reflection Time: Should Time Controls be Changed?

The US Chess Federation is the official sanctioning body for tournament chess in the United States, and for US participation in international chess events. It has over 80,000 members. In addition to rating tournaments, the USCF supports and promotes chess activities in scholastics and correspondence chess. The USCF publishes two national magazines, CHESS LIFE and SCHOOLMATES (for children).

This page was last updated August 3, 1998

� 1996, 1997, 1998 the United States Chess Federation - All Rights Reserved
Website design by Jade River Designs
*Hosted by Internet Chess Club*