2017 rulebook update posting

[relyea]

@fantasychess

How does it work if the player would have won that prize but it is limited due to one of the restrictions CCA has…

Prize limits: 1) If any post-event rating posted 6/26/16-6/26/17 was more than 30 points over section maximum, prize limit $2000. 2) Players with under 26 lifetime games rated as of 7/17 official list cannot win over $1000 in U1200, $2000 U1400, $3000 U1600 through U2000. Games rated too late for 7/17 official list not counted toward 26 game total. 3) Balance of any limited prize goes to next player(s) in line.

I assume they are not prize floored since they didn’t win at least $4000 but that is only due to a technicality.

As I understand it, the money floors are to prevent a player from winning the same large (class) prize over and over again. Since, in Mr. Bird’s hypothetical, the player didn’t win the large prize in the first place, it is not an issue.

Alex Relyea

[wintdoan]

@relyea

@fantasychess

How does it work if the player would have won that prize but it is limited due to one of the restrictions CCA has…

Prize limits: 1) If any post-event rating posted 6/26/16-6/26/17 was more than 30 points over section maximum, prize limit $2000. 2) Players with under 26 lifetime games rated as of 7/17 official list cannot win over $1000 in U1200, $2000 U1400, $3000 U1600 through U2000. Games rated too late for 7/17 official list not counted toward 26 game total. 3) Balance of any limited prize goes to next player(s) in line.

I assume they are not prize floored since they didn’t win at least $4000 but that is only due to a technicality.

As I understand it, the money floors are to prevent a player from winning the same large (class) prize over and over again. Since, in Mr. Bird’s hypothetical, the player didn’t win the large prize in the first place, it is not an issue.

Alex Relyea

Emphasis mine. Isn’t that really CCA’s problem, not US Chess’?

[jwiewel]

@relyea

@fantasychess

How does it work if the player would have won that prize but it is limited due to one of the restrictions CCA has…

Prize limits: 1) If any post-event rating posted 6/26/16-6/26/17 was more than 30 points over section maximum, prize limit $2000. 2) Players with under 26 lifetime games rated as of 7/17 official list cannot win over $1000 in U1200, $2000 U1400, $3000 U1600 through U2000. Games rated too late for 7/17 official list not counted toward 26 game total. 3) Balance of any limited prize goes to next player(s) in line.

I assume they are not prize floored since they didn’t win at least $4000 but that is only due to a technicality.

As I understand it, the money floors are to prevent a player from winning the same large (class) prize over and over again. Since, in Mr. Bird’s hypothetical, the player didn’t win the large prize in the first place, it is not an issue.

Alex Relyea

Many organizers of big money tournaments refer to the CCA minimum rating list. Even if a player doesn’t have a money floor they can still be put on that list.

[Micah_Smith]

@Micah Smith

@wintdoan

@Micah Smith

Also, due to that new statement, rules 8a, 8b, 8c, and the first half of 8d are redundant and should have been eliminated.

Editor’s Note:
Most of the US Chess rules for regular and quick chess also apply to blitz chess. This chapter covers the rules that are different for blitz and also restates some of the fundamental rules that apply to all three forms of chess and that are important to blitz. (emphasis mine)

I know, I wrote that note! However, I don’t think it’s necessary to state that the game can end in a draw in blitz by stalemate, agreement, etc. right after the statement “Except as listed here, draw claims allowed under the regular rules are also allowed under the blitz rules.”

@Allen

Well, others have disagreed with you.

Let it go grasshopper, let it go…

No, it clearly shows the rules committee did a poor job in re-writing the rule. There is a discussion currently going on in the “US Chess Federation TD Forum” on Facebook about if draws such as “triple occurrence of position” and “the 50-move rule” exist in blitz and there were some different opinions due to how poorly rule 8 is written.

[jwiewel]

@Micah Smith

@Micah Smith

@wintdoan

@Micah Smith

Also, due to that new statement, rules 8a, 8b, 8c, and the first half of 8d are redundant and should have been eliminated.

Editor’s Note:
Most of the US Chess rules for regular and quick chess also apply to blitz chess. This chapter covers the rules that are different for blitz and also restates some of the fundamental rules that apply to all three forms of chess and that are important to blitz. (emphasis mine)

I know, I wrote that note! However, I don’t think it’s necessary to state that the game can end in a draw in blitz by stalemate, agreement, etc. right after the statement “Except as listed here, draw claims allowed under the regular rules are also allowed under the blitz rules.”

@Allen

Well, others have disagreed with you.

Let it go grasshopper, let it go…

No, it clearly shows the rules committee did a poor job in re-writing the rule. There is a discussion currently going on in the “US Chess Federation TD Forum” on Facebook about if draws such as “triple occurrence of position” and “the 50-move rule” exist in blitz and there were some different opinions due to how poorly rule 8 is written.

It starts with “Except as listed here, draw claims allowed under the regular rules are also allowed under the blitz rules.” It means what is says. Because of the lack of a scoresheet many such claims would have to depend on rules like 14C8 and 14F4. I know there are many TDs that do not know about 14C8 and 14F4 for regular-rated games so I can understand the confusion (not condone, just understand). I am not on Facebook and don’t plan to be but that discussion might get ended by simply quoting regular rules 14C8/14F4 and blitz rule 8 and showing there are ways of granting 3-fold and 50-move even if nobody is keeping score (along with leaving the TD to option to declare the 5-fold and 75-move draws).