USCF gouging members who just want to learn the rules

The oldest excuse in the book. "We have legal/contractual obligations". And it's nonsense. The USCF is responsible for its own rules. If they made some bad deal then they should do what is necessary to fix that so they can provide the rules as they should.

Glad to see the OP is still hot on the trail, fully four years later.

Run With It.

Did you just ignore my last two sentences?

USCF is (voluntarily) a party to the contract (assuming for the sake of discussion that it actually exists and is still under terms). And contracts can be fixed/modified in any number of ways. So the situation is the fault of the USCF and that makes it their responsibility to fix it.

This is axiomatic (and obvious) and it's ample 'evidence' to support the original claim.

I agree that the rulebook should be readily available online. If someone wants to check on a rule from home, they cannot do so. One should not have to wait for a tournament to come to town so that he can ask the TD about a rule.
In my case, I wanted to know what the rules are (If any) regarding early withdrawal from a tournament. If the player notifies the director in advance can he be awarded a bye (or multiple byes)? Is there a rule regarding this, or is it strictly up to the TD? If a player plays all but the last round, having notified the director in advanced, can he be forfeited from the entire tournament because he didn't play the final round? etc. 

I'm not going to say there shouldn't be a free, online version of the rules or not, but the USCF runs a forum and there are a ton of TDs that go there. To get an answer to a question about rules you don't have to wait until a tournament.

To answer your specific questions, the availability of draws is completely dependent upon the tournament and should be listed in pre-tournament advertisements. It also should be mentioned at the beginning of a tournament.

Due to the fact that every tournament may have a different setup when it comes to requested byes, I can't fully answer that question. In general, many tournaments will allow a certain number of requested 1/2 point byes, usually only one, though I have seen some tourneys where more were allowed. Normally, any requested byes have to be given to the TD before a certain time. Sometimes it is before the tourney starts, sometimes it is before the beginning or end of a certain round.

The only reason a player might be forfeited from a tournament is if they were cheating during the event. Normally, all games played get rated, regardless if you play all the rounds or withdraw at some point.  If your final score would end up qualifying you for a prize, you would normally still get that unless the pre-tournament rules required the playing of all rounds or playing the final round (that is probably a pretty rare stipulation and may only be for special, non-score prizes to boost final round attendance).

I might add...

Even if a bye is not available in the final round a player has the right to withdraw without penalty if he notifies the TD in advance of his intention not to play.  Those games he has played still count towards prizes and ratings.

Many events specify that a bye may NOT be taken in the final round . 

This is, put simply, wrong.  The facts of the situation are as follows.

McKay Publishing used to own the rights to the US Chess rulebook.  Random House bought McKay, and now owns those rights. 

The US Chess Board of Delegates has supported the online dissemination of the rulebook.  However, the contract gives Random House control over all forms of distribution.  

That contract can't be modified unless Random House agrees to it.  The current and immediate past Executive Directors have attempted to modify the contract.  Those negotiations are, in fact, how the rulebook came to be available in electronic form through Amazon.

Random House will still not permit the free distribution of the rulebook.  US Chess could simply do so without said permission, but the resulting breach-of-contract legal action would be rather severe.  

Instead, US Chess publishes rulebook updates on its website, free to all.  The updates stay until they are incorporated into the next edition.  US Chess also maintains a Running Chess Tournaments forum where registered members can ask questions about the rules, and anyone (member or not) can read messages.  The forum is frequented by many active and prominent TDs and FIDE Arbiters.

What if you wish to doodle on your score sheet?   Can you do it with your hand you move the chess pieces with or do you use the opposite hand?   Ink or Pencil?   What if you erase your doodles with the opposite hand you used to draw them.  What if you want to use a chess clock that ticks very loudly, how loud is too loud?  What if your chess clock has pictures of skimpily clothed peope on them?  How skimpy is too skimpy?

So much to know, so little time to learn...

Please don't claim a post is "wrong" without citing a single fact within it that is wrong.

I said this contract, like any contract, can be modified. Nothing in your post contradicts that.

In fact, your claim that an attempt was made to modify the contract simply supports my assertion. And none of it negates the responsibility of the USCF for creating this situation in the first place.

And LOL again at everyone implying that just asking a random TD at a random event (and expecting uniform interpretations) is the same as being able to consult the source. 

But I did.  The fact that you ignored the citation doesn't make it disappear.

I said this contract, like any contract, can be modified. Nothing in your post contradicts that.

If you can't even quote yourself correctly, I fear my efforts here are wasted.

What you actually said was, in relevant part, "And contracts can be fixed/modified in any number of ways."  This is simply not true for every contract.  The contract under discussion here happens to be an excellent contra example for your incorrect assertion.

This particular contract can only be modified if both parties agree.  So, it can't be modified "in a number of ways".  What part of "That contract can't be modified unless Random House agrees to it" did you not understand?

(I'm surprised this had to be stated so bluntly. I figured you'd get it by inspection.  My apologies; I'll be sure not to assume such going forward.)

In fact, your claim that an attempt was made to modify the contract simply supports my assertion. 

I didn't make a "claim".  I'm making a statement of fact - which has been supported, online and in print, through the statements of a former Executive Director, as well as the author of the sixth edition rulebook.

And none of it negates the responsibility of the USCF for creating this situation in the first place. 

This contract predates the entire concept of online publication.  At the time it was made, no publishing contracts anticipated that possibility, for reasons that (I hope) are brutally obvious.  Many such contracts have since been reworked to include digital publishing provisions.  This one has not - but it's not because US Chess hasn't tried.

Sure, US Chess could try to force the matter.  However, there's an excellent chance that Random House (well, now Penguin Random House, which in turn is a subsidiary of Bertelsmann AG) pays more in annual retainers for attorneys than US Chess earns in revenue...which makes a legal fight idiotically quixotic.  

So, the "responsibility" angle you floated is just as wrong as the "easily modified contract" angle.

Now that you have actual knowledge about the situation, go ye forth, and use it well.

And LOL again at everyone implying that just asking a random TD at a random event (and expecting uniform interpretations) is the same as being able to consult the source. 

I don't know if anyone has made such an implication.  I certainly did not, so this particular claim seems to be misplaced at best, as it doesn't apply to anything I wrote or quoted.  Of course, though, that source is often available at tournaments - and anyone who wants it for themselves can get it, either in print or electronically delivered.

The necessity of Random House's agreement exists under some of the "any number of ways"  and not others.  The contract being adjudged unenforceable or USCF's repudiation being examples of the latter. I didn't see the need to explain the obvious on this point.

The effective tone of "you don't need the rule book, just ask the TD" has been repeated several times in this thread. If you don't know that you haven't read it. However I specifically directed that commet at those implying it (I'm sure they know who they are) and not at you.

Finally, since you seem unable to see the logical equivalence between "this contract, like any contract, can be modified" and "contracts can be fixed/modified in any number of ways" such that you are willing to spend a long paragraph harping on this distinction without a difference, I am wasting my time with you and this is my last post directed your way.

"As a tournament director myself, I can tell you that very little in the USCF rulebook would be useful for average tournament players."

As a middle age priest, I can tell you that very little in the Holy Bible would be useful for the average catholic soul. ;-)

Failure to properly use the English language on your part does not constitute an error on my part.  And replying to my post with comments that don't relate to either my post, or anything I've written, is illogical in the extreme (though, I suppose, unsurprising, given the quality of your discourse in this matter).

You're free to remain proudly ignorant of the facts surrounding publication of the US Chess rulebook, which have now been laid out in painstaking detail.  I'll leave it to others, however, to determine whose understanding is in error.

ChrisWainscott's most recent post in this thread summarizes the situation quite nicely.  I would especially call attention to his last paragraph.  Most of the US Chess rulebook has no practical application for players. (His excellent example about the three-blacks rule, Rule 29E5f, came up in response to a high-profile pairing incident at the 1987 US Open...but in 27 years as a director, I've never come close to applying it.  Most players will never, ever need it, or most of the other hyper-technical pairing or award distribution rules.)

In fact, there has been discussion of splitting the rulebook into two or more volumes.  There has also been discussion of reducing the overall size of the rulebook, which I believe most active directors would welcome.

You can find the rules of chess here: http://mccorkles.org/ChessLab.html

LOL

Like others I am interested in knowing the do's and don'ts of tournament play and like others I found this thread while looking for an online version of the USCF rules. I understand the issues with regard to the rule book being a purchase/hardcopy only, and that most of it doesn't apply to actual players. However, is there a resource somewhere on the web that does explain what players need to know?

For example, I believe once a player touches a piece they must move it, regardless if they meant to or not. If that is true it would be really nice to know that beforehand. The reality is I'll probably get involved with my local chess club before entering a tournament and people there will be able to educate me. And if I do enter a tournament it will probably be at the club. But still, it would be useful to have some web resource that was reasonably authoritative on the subject.

If you read the FIDE rules, you will get the vast majority of things you need to know for tournament play. There are some additional rules and some differences in how things are handled for the USCF but basic things are the same.

You can also look up USCF vs FIDE rules and find some articles that point out the major differences.