Answers.Body: <p>I have observed in FIDE rated tournaments (low profile ones), there are local rules setup with respect to the time at which the players need to be present at the board. And that typically happens to be around 20 minutes after the round has started. What can be prepared in such short times, well of course for a GM its more than sufficient time.</p>
  
  <p>But coming back to your question, its not just the GM who "prepared" to defeat you, you have mentioned yourself about the advance pairing calculation and heavy preparation that you had done. Its just that his preparation was better. Does it matter "when" this preparation happened?</p>
  
  <p>Probably the best thing to combat such situations is to choose random openings from your repertoire if possible and throw in the surprise element!</p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2014-08-20T03:31:27.663Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2014-08-20T03:31:27.663Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: Keshav
Answers.Body: <p>The basis of the USCF rules are the <a href="http://www.fide.com/component/handbook/?id=124&amp;view=article" rel="nofollow">FIDE rules of chess</a>, and they clearly state the following:</p>
  
  <blockquote>
    <p>6.6 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.</p>
  </blockquote>
  
  <p>If the US Open bends the FIDE rule in this case to allow for a player to arrive at the board after the clock has started, it is their rules that should also cover the possibility of preparation within this time. If no such rule is in place, the rule can naturally also not be broken, and it would be allowed for a player to use a computer or any other means as long as it is outside the playing venue, since:</p>
  
  <blockquote>
    <p>13.7 b. Unless authorised by the arbiter, it is forbidden for anybody to use a mobile phone or any kind of communication device in the
    playing venue and any contiguous area designated by the arbiter.</p>
  </blockquote>
  
  <p>If I were to be cheeky, I would postulate that a player visiting a website for live transmission would be in breach of rule 13.7 b., as it would be 'using' a communication device that is located in the playing venue (i.e. the live transmission board + transmitter/server).</p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2020-12-31T01:45:07.953Z
Answers.Text: The USCF rules clearly differ from the FIDE rules on this point, though. Default time is one hour under USCF rules, not zero.
Answers.UserDisplayName: D M
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2014-08-20T14:08:58.847Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2014-08-21T14:41:07.743Z
Answers.LastEditDate: 2014-08-21T14:41:07.743Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: Spork
Answers.Body: <p>The USCF rules do not require a forfeit for a player who is late. In fact, they provide for the case where Black is late, and therefore loses the right to choose the board and pieces, and the side of the clock. If White completes setting up before Black arrives, White's set is used.</p>
  
  <p>Also, if both players are late, the rules provide that the time elapsed until the first of them arrived should be split and deducted equally from both clocks.</p>
  
  <p>So, clearly, USCF doesn't expect a forfeit at T=0.</p>
  
  <p>Also, the rules only provide for not leaving the tournament hall and consulting materials relevant to the game once the game has started.  </p>
  
  <p>I would love to hear an International Arbiter's opinion on whether the prohibition on consulting materials should pertain no matter where the player is, but the fact of the matter is that if one of the players leaves the hall, goes out to the parking lot and leaves the premises, his actions can't be supervised.  The best the TD can do is prohibit leaving the playing hall and contiguous, monitored areas, once the player has arrived.</p>
  
  <p>So, FIDE or the USCF would be asking for trouble if they prohibited an act they cannot detect or prevent.  If he's late, he's late, and he can do anything he wants except observe the game in progress remotely.</p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2016-09-17T08:32:19.317Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2016-09-17T08:32:19.317Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: jaxter
Answers.Body: <p>I would think not since there is no realistic way for the organizers to find out if you are preparing if you are in your hotel room for example, and even if they do you will probably not forfeit your game as long as you are not in the playing hall.</p>
  
  <p>Maybe this was why the zero tolerance rule was put into effect.</p>
  
  <p>In a logical sense though, whilst your opponent could hope to get an advantage out of the opening against you, you are getting a definite time advantage, so you could see it that way.</p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2014-08-20T02:32:39.707Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2014-08-20T02:32:39.707Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: sco-ish
Body: <p>At the recent US Open I started the tournament well and was paired against a GM in the roped-off area. I had worked out the pairing well in advance and was able to do some fairly heavy openings preparation before the game. The official pairings, though, went up a relatively short time before the round.</p>
  
  <p>My opponent did not show up until about 20 minutes after the round had started. I heard one of the tournament directors remark to another that my opponent was probably preparing for the game. After the game (he had 350 rating points on me and ripped me to shreds even in one of the lines I had prepared) he volunteered the information that this was indeed what he had been doing.</p>
  
  <p>While I do not think that this was unethical, I am left wondering: is this legal under USCF rules? Obviously it does not affect the outcome of the game at this point, several weeks after the fact. The reason that it seems like a potential gray area to me is that a player doing this is looking at a chess database after his clock has started.</p>
  
  <p>I would ask about FIDE rules but it seems like the zero-tolerance forfeit rule would render it a moot discussion.</p>
  
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2014-08-19T21:57:01.950Z
Comments.Text: I only know about FIDE so I can't answer your question; but as most tournaments choose not to use the default time of 0 minutes, it is also relevant there, and it is actually allowed. As long as he's not in the playing area and behind the board, he's not yet playing the game so not yet bound by its rules.
Comments.UserDisplayName: RemcoGerlich
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2014-08-20T10:16:39.237Z
Comments.Text: A real ethical problem would arise if there was live transmission of the game and you had white. Your opponent could see your opening move and restrict his preparations for that move.
Comments.UserDisplayName: JiK
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2014-08-20T10:42:35.903Z
Comments.Text: Yes, live transmission can cause a real problem in this case!
Comments.UserDisplayName: Keshav
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2014-08-22T04:32:44.330Z
Comments.Text: He said that it was to get a feel for my style of play. I am an extremely tactical player who has basically gotten to where I am based on pure calculation, so this definitely paid off for him. He knew to steer the game to quiet lines where he was much, much better than me.
Comments.UserDisplayName: Cleveland
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2014-08-22T08:16:29.880Z
Comments.Text: @bof According to the FIDE rules, that's not possible. Don't know about the USCF rules.
Comments.UserDisplayName: JiK
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2020-11-16T14:47:09.637Z
Comments.Text: (would be an answer if you had asked about FIDE) FIDE rules glossary: “playing venue: [term first appears in Article] 11.2. The only place to which the players have access during play.” Your opponent was outside the playing venue, so, by definition, this period was not “during play”. Article 11.3.1: “During play the players are forbidden to use any notes, sources of information or advice, or analyse any game on another chessboard.” This rule does not apply. Nor does any other rule that I can see.
Comments.UserDisplayName: Brian Drake
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2020-11-16T14:48:53.807Z
Comments.Text: Is it ethical for a director to comment on a player within earshot of their opponent during a game?
Comments.UserDisplayName: Brian Drake
Tags: <rules><tournament>
Title: Is it allowed to prepare for a game after the round has started?
ThreadText: # Is it allowed to prepare for a game after the round has started?
  
  (Asked by: username_0 on 2014-08-19)
  
  At the recent US Open I started the tournament well and was paired against a GM in the roped-off area. I had worked out the pairing well in advance and was able to do some fairly heavy openings preparation before the game. The official pairings, though, went up a relatively short time before the round.
  
  My opponent did not show up until about 20 minutes after the round had started. I heard one of the tournament directors remark to another that my opponent was probably preparing for the game. After the game (he had 350 rating points on me and ripped me to shreds even in one of the lines I had prepared) he volunteered the information that this was indeed what he had been doing.
  
  While I do not think that this was unethical, I am left wondering: is this legal under USCF rules? Obviously it does not affect the outcome of the game at this point, several weeks after the fact. The reason that it seems like a potential gray area to me is that a player doing this is looking at a chess database after his clock has started.
  
  I would ask about FIDE rules but it seems like the zero-tolerance forfeit rule would render it a moot discussion.
  
  **Tags:** rules, tournament
  
  > **Comments:**
  > **username_1**: I only know about FIDE so I can't answer your question; but as most tournaments choose not to use the default time of 0 minutes, it is also relevant there, and it is actually allowed. As long as he's not in the playing area and behind the board, he's not yet playing the game so not yet bound by its rules.  
  > **username_2**: A real ethical problem would arise if there was live transmission of the game and you had white. Your opponent could see your opening move and restrict his preparations for that move.  
  > **username_3**: Yes, live transmission can cause a real problem in this case!  
  > **username_0**: He said that it was to get a feel for my style of play. I am an extremely tactical player who has basically gotten to where I am based on pure calculation, so this definitely paid off for him. He knew to steer the game to quiet lines where he was much, much better than me.  
  > **username_2**: @bof According to the FIDE rules, that's not possible. Don't know about the USCF rules.  
  > **username_4**: (would be an answer if you had asked about FIDE) FIDE rules glossary: “playing venue: [term first appears in Article] 11.2. The only place to which the players have access during play.” Your opponent was outside the playing venue, so, by definition, this period was not “during play”. Article 11.3.1: “During play the players are forbidden to use any notes, sources of information or advice, or analyse any game on another chessboard.” This rule does not apply. Nor does any other rule that I can see.  
  > **username_4**: Is it ethical for a director to comment on a player within earshot of their opponent during a game?  
  
  ---
  
  ## 4 answers
  
  ### Answer by username_8 on 2014-08-20. Score: 7 | Accepted answer
  
  I would think not since there is no realistic way for the organizers to find out if you are preparing if you are in your hotel room for example, and even if they do you will probably not forfeit your game as long as you are not in the playing hall.
  
  Maybe this was why the zero tolerance rule was put into effect.
  
  In a logical sense though, whilst your opponent could hope to get an advantage out of the opening against you, you are getting a definite time advantage, so you could see it that way.
  
  
  ---
  
  ### Answer by username_3 on 2014-08-20. Score: 4
  
  I have observed in FIDE rated tournaments (low profile ones), there are local rules setup with respect to the time at which the players need to be present at the board. And that typically happens to be around 20 minutes after the round has started. What can be prepared in such short times, well of course for a GM its more than sufficient time.
  
  But coming back to your question, its not just the GM who "prepared" to defeat you, you have mentioned yourself about the advance pairing calculation and heavy preparation that you had done. Its just that his preparation was better. Does it matter "when" this preparation happened?
  
  Probably the best thing to combat such situations is to choose random openings from your repertoire if possible and throw in the surprise element!
  
  
  ---
  
  ### Answer by username_5 on 2014-08-20. Score: 2
  
  The basis of the USCF rules are the [FIDE rules of chess](http://www.fide.com/component/handbook/?id=124&view=article), and they clearly state the following:
  
  > 6.6 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.
  
  If the US Open bends the FIDE rule in this case to allow for a player to arrive at the board after the clock has started, it is their rules that should also cover the possibility of preparation within this time. If no such rule is in place, the rule can naturally also not be broken, and it would be allowed for a player to use a computer or any other means as long as it is outside the playing venue, since:
  
  > 13.7 b. Unless authorised by the arbiter, it is forbidden for anybody to use a mobile phone or any kind of communication device in the
  > playing venue and any contiguous area designated by the arbiter.
  
  If I were to be cheeky, I would postulate that a player visiting a website for live transmission would be in breach of rule 13.7 b., as it would be 'using' a communication device that is located in the playing venue (i.e. the live transmission board + transmitter/server).
  
  > **Comments:**
  > **username_6**: The USCF rules clearly differ from the FIDE rules on this point, though. Default time is one hour under USCF rules, not zero.  
  
  ---
  
  ### Answer by username_7 on 2016-09-17. Score: 1
  
  The USCF rules do not require a forfeit for a player who is late. In fact, they provide for the case where Black is late, and therefore loses the right to choose the board and pieces, and the side of the clock. If White completes setting up before Black arrives, White's set is used.
  
  Also, if both players are late, the rules provide that the time elapsed until the first of them arrived should be split and deducted equally from both clocks.
  
  So, clearly, USCF doesn't expect a forfeit at T=0.
  
  Also, the rules only provide for not leaving the tournament hall and consulting materials relevant to the game once the game has started.
  
  I would love to hear an International Arbiter's opinion on whether the prohibition on consulting materials should pertain no matter where the player is, but the fact of the matter is that if one of the players leaves the hall, goes out to the parking lot and leaves the premises, his actions can't be supervised. The best the TD can do is prohibit leaving the playing hall and contiguous, monitored areas, once the player has arrived.
  
  So, FIDE or the USCF would be asking for trouble if they prohibited an act they cannot detect or prevent. If he's late, he's late, and he can do anything he wants except observe the game in progress remotely.
  
  
  ---
  
  