At the end of the day we are all just "rule takers", the "rule makers will decide, and we will have to accept it, or take a hike.

i think its all good, its about time that the chess world takes the rules to make it a little more interesting.

These sound fine to me.  

I am normally annoyed by lack of punctuality, but I don't think it matters in chess. The clock starts as normal at the designated start time. There is no rule saying that people need to be present for all 7 hours of the game, so why should they be there at the start? The player can allocate his time how he pleases.

The rules of a competition may specify that players cannot agree to a draw in less than a specified number of moves or at all, without the consent of the arbiter.

Should that not be "fewer than"? Moves being countable?

Otherwise, these rules are perfectly fine by me.

There's too much technical details involved to say that you lose even if you are late by a millisecond. Would I be considered "late" if:

1) I don't enter the room in time,

2) or if I don't sit down in time,

3) or if I don't respond in time when my opponent asks "ready?"

What if I am seated well before the game starts, but then stands up briefly to adjust my chair, just when the arbiter announces the start of the game. As a result, I sit down a few seconds after the game starts. Would I be considered "late"?

Are we ever going to get chess variants here?

I agree with both people should be on time and there is no reason to have a cell phone while playing chess.

I'd rather see a rule that prohibits a player from making a move while their opponent has not yet executed their move.  Executing a move should require removing the hand from the piece moved and hitting the clock.  What I am saying is that serious chess games should not be decided by who is physically faster with bad moves in an absurd time scramble. A bit of order would tend to solve the problem all the way around and perhaps help enforce better clock management.

"What? Does it mean that after the mobile phone is discovered, the game must be examined to see if the players are stuck in perpetual check?!? If so, what logic is there in that? Isn't it fairer to just declare the owner of the phone as the loser regardless of his game?"

No, a draw is only awarded in this case if the player with the phone can't win the game by any sequence of moves. That means that they cover cases where the player without the phone couldn't possibly have won, for example because they have insufficient material.

> If any such device produces a sound, the player shall lose the game.

And what about farting?

I think it's fair. And the cells as well.

guess the russian players that love the DRAW OUT, WINK WINK vrs each other to hold a higher chance to win the event would really take a giant blow to the machine...  Spoke with a 2400 level play a few months ago who said it's so rampid the ( DRAW between russian players ) that it's almost impossible to compete with.... this occurs in vegas with poker tourneyments where players

who are local if it's down to let's say 3... and 2 of the players are local, regualars and ( place 4 times a week in the top 3 )  If the outside player wants to win all the chips and go for first.. they will check down winning hands, and go after the last player in everyhand...then when the outsider is taken out... they chop... it's funny but saw it almost every tourneyment I played in... lived in vegas for 2 years... anways GREAT RULE JUST wanted to she light on why

this is...

I think it is just human nature to disagree with change. When we see that something we have always known and have adapted to is about to change, we always tend to choose familiarity over the unknown. We tend to fight to maintain the status quo.

But we must learn from history. Remember that the current form of chess is just a variant - an evolution of the original game played originally in India and Persia. If people at that time rejected the variants and chose to play the "original" game, then we might not have the luxury of playing chess as it is played today.

Changes are usually made with the future in mind. Perhaps we might not agree with the proposed changes. Or the proposed changes may seem very unreasonable at first. But who are we to deny those changes to future generations of players just because we want to maintain the status quo.

Personally, even though current players are affected by the changed rules, I think that the change is for the next breed of chess professionals. Ultimately, they will be the ones to decide whether the change is effective or not.

Changes made to one of the most popular games in the world will never be smooth. There will always be people who will be left out, and there will always be people who want the game to change drastically.

At best, these changes and the accompanying debates will add new dimensions to the game and will foster more communication among players and the organizers. This should be enough diversion as our generation journeys through the transition to an evolved form of chess. Otherwise, if chess will not adapt to the changing of times, then it may gradually fade into obscurity.

Dahan.  Lighten up. shakje's comments were much more reasoned, considered and in touch.

Letting the clock run has been the standard for as long as I have played, which is a long time.  As shakje noted, if the standard is actually changed, and is actually enforced, then players will comply with the new rules.  No rule or expectation counts for anything unless there is a reliable adherence.  If so, then it will take care of itself; not that TDs will start on time:))

I am a stickler for timeliness and am early for nearly everything that I do, because it is to my benefit to be prepared and comfortable.  I do not like lateness in others, but that comes down, in part, to 'who you are'.  That's the way the world works.  I know for sure that I would never want to work for you or take a class from you.  Seems unlikely that it could possibly be worth the benefit, it any.

(Police?  One of the most corrupt groups of people that pretty much can and does do whatever they want to whoever they want to do it to.  Not the best example of standards.)

Elbeasto,

I'm totally confused by your comment. Was it directed at my comment? Mine was about the late penalty, not the varient of Chess advocated by Fischer.

bobby fischer was definitely a marine.  Get real.

You people who complain about the rule on arriving late, what would you do if you were in the military? As a Marine, if I showed up less than 15 minutes early for a formation, etc. I could have been reduced in rank (loss of privelege, money, rights, etc) or worse. There were no exceptions. 

If you come to my class late, you're late. There will be a penalty. You're at college to learn how to become a professional. You want to work for my company? Show up on time, because I'm paying you for that. How is it that people don't get this? You want to be a professional Chess player? Act like one. Be on time. No excuses. Ever seen a professional Football player, Baseball player, etc. walk out onto the field late, handing everyone an excuse for their tardiness? Remember, this is just sports and games we're talking about too. What about Firefighters, Police, etc? 

It's about time the got serious about this.

Show up on time or lose. It's the way of life... and Chess.

"Regarding the late rule, which seems to have provoked much of the discussion here, people seem to forget that once you know the rule, and that it will be enforced as stated, you change your behavior. That is, if one knows he will lose the game if he doesn't arrive on time, then he will change his behavior to ensure that he arrives with plenty of time to spare.This, of course, has its own problems, but if it's the rule, then you change your behavior accordingly.

The problem with just "letting the clock run" is that it is disrespectul and unsporting to make your opponent wait, whether or not you eventually show up and play. If your intention is to be forfeited, why impose on the other player, and make him sit there waiting? Unacceptable.

A sensible rule might be that you forfeit the game if you are not seated at the board at the time the game was scheduled, but with a short "grace period," say, 5 minutes, just to allow for minor mishaps."

I think you're wrong here. Yes it's sensible for people who flaunt the late rule as it currently stands and turn up an hour late, however, if that happens, they've lost an hour of time, it happens. In "soccer" a big team will never be late to a match. If the roads are too busy they'll fly, if they need to they can arrive a couple of days in advance and afford to pay for a hotel. In Sunday league it's different, if something happens on the roads that makes a team late I've seen games delayed for them, it all depends on sportsmanship.

GMs who are expected at an important tourney will make sure they're there a day in advance so they can get a good night's sleep, or at least several hours in advance, but for us normal club players we don't have that luxury. We have jobs, and other commitments.

The problem with this rule is, that if something unexpected happens (e.g. traffic, road crash, saving someone from a mugger) it would all now depend on the opposing team, as to how sporting they are and if they are willing to delay it, because it could now in the rules for them to say, no, sorry, can't be bothered, we'll take the default win thanks.

I just don't see the point of it, you go into a chess game expecting that you may have to play 3 hours of chess (or whatever time controls you're playing), and it's one of the few games where there actually is a system built into it to take these things into account. On balance, if it's really necessary to do something about people having to wait, just change it to 30 minutes.

We Soccer fans occasionally have to wait 30 minutes or more, when unforeseen circumstances arise e.g the visiting team's bus gets caught in a 20 mile tailback on the M6. At least nowadays the people on the bus have mobile phones to let the referree know the situation and act accordingly. Of course this happens a lot less at top level these days, as the visitors generally travel the day before, but poorer clubs can't afford that.

In the case of an individual competitor, he may be a witness to a road accident or a crime and has no legal choice but to stay at the scene until the police allow him to go. The one hour rule is reasonably fair, causing some inconvenience to the opponent but covering most unforeseen circumstances.

Players should be present 30 minutes before start of the tournament, if you're not present you can't participate.