6th edition suggested improvements

Running Chess Tournaments
1

I’ve enjoyed reading the 6th edition rules on the Kindle so far. Many kudos to those who got that project completed.

Here are some things, I’ve noted that should be improved, up to Rule 14 where I am currently at.

• Indentation of rules and subsections is inconsistent throughout.
• Rule 5B2 – the default delay/increment time is not listed when the director fails to specify such, even though it is his duty to do so. Is it 0? 5? something else? Another thread suggests that the “standard” time is the “default” time, but the rules fail to state this. They also fail to state that a non-TLA advertisement for, say, “G/40” should be treated as either delay or increment, which would result in different “standard/default” additions.
• Rule 5E – maybe I’m wrong, but I thought a increment-capable clock that was not delay-capable was considered standard, and preferable to an analog clock; if right, that would be contrary to this rule
• Rule 5F – announces that the standard increment for blitz is 2 seconds, yet the TD Tip in 5C says that standard blitz uses no delay or increment. This Rule 5F also states that “however, some blitz games can be played with a delay if that feature is advertised” – an odd sentence to write if you just wrote what the standard delay is. The next sentence is just plain confusing.
• Rule 10 fails to define a “neutral witness”; same for 13C6 and “independent witness” and 14C8 and “impartial witness.” This theoretically could affect player rights. Perhaps it would be better defined elsewhere, cross-referenced in these places. For example, is a family member an impartial witness? is a player whose tiebreaks are improved based on a certain result? is a friend? I could make a case for bias for just about anyone in the room, though some arguments are very weak.
• Rule 13C6 appears to be in direct conflict with Rule 14G. They both cover the exact same situation where a player claims a win on time but fails to stop his own clock, leading to both flags as fallen. Rule 13C6 allows a director or witness to note that the claimant’s flag was still up in this situation, allowing for a valid claim. Rule 14G makes no mention of this exception in the same situation, denying all such claims

I’ll try to keep notes of any more situations I see later in the book.

2

Nice list of substantive changes. Now, if only the delegates would make those changes they could appear in the next edition.

The formatting concerns might get fixed if we can convince the publishers to do so. There have been reports that some internal links don’t work and that “find” does not work; yet, those features work great on the devices that were checked after the alert was sounded. Sigh?!

3

IMHO the revisions to 5B2 (which were changed in Orlando to make it clear that if any time control information is given, full time control including increment/delay must be given) make the defaults unnecessary, they should be purged from the rulebook, or at least make them a TD tip for the inexperienced organizers who don’t know what increment/delay they should use, but they should have no force of rule whatsoever.

4

I don’t understand this fully. If pre-event advertising for an event says the time control is “G/40” but completely circumvents the USCF office, and one player complains that it should be d0, another d5, and another inc 30 - which player wins? or none of them - the TD/organizer chooses? At any rate, the rules fail to address this question.

5

Yep, this is the potential problem. Events that do not have TLAs are most likely to be run by folks who do not scour the Forums and the Rules Updates minutiae for the latest tweaks—especially right after getting a shiny new rulebook.

In the real world—for now—a Regular-rated event that ends in SD will use a five-second delay from move 1 unless clearly noted otherwise in advance. If you see a small tournament (that has no TLA) advertised on a club Web site as “G/40,” everyone who shows up knows that means G/40 d5.

That could change over time, but for now that’s how it is. I have played in several such events since the “full time control info” policy took effect, and no one ever questioned the five-second delay. I have been pleasantly surprised to have seen no chess-lawyer nonsense in action either over this issue, or the related rules update that eliminated the option to deduct time from a digital clock to compensate for delay.

The vast majority of players assume the default five-second delay is still in effect for Regular-rated games, I think. Maybe just as well.

6

I think that Mr. Nolan is saying that “G/40” is not a valid time control to be advertised. If someone sees an improper time control advertised, should they report it to the office? I’m mystified by some tournaments in my area that have said (before this came into force) either G/45 or G/60. I guess my question is should we report this kind of thing even if we are not directly involved and if it is advertised in private?

Alex Relyea

7

Having defaults in the rules for increment/delay was and is a bad idea, if only because it encourages leaving out important information. (We don’t have defaults for other time control information, do we?)

Organizers should provide COMPLETE TIME CONTROL information whenever they give ANY time control information. As of January, 2015, that’s what the rules will require.

I have suggested to the USCF office that they start enforcing this new rule immediately with regards to print TLAs, online TLA, email blast, etc. The USCF office cannot force organizers to follow the new 5B2 on non-USCF publicity formats, because we will probably not even be aware of them all, but the office should probably check that if a URL is given in an email blast that the information on that page complies with 5B2 and reject the email blast until the URL is in compliance with 5B2. So, rather than report them to the USCF, players should complain to the organizers that their time control information is incomplete. The free market system will get them corrected.

If an event listing doesn’t include any time control information, like a calendar of upcoming events, then having a default for increment/delay is still meaningless, because absent the first part of the time control information you don’t know what default increment/delay to use.

8

Another suggestion is to have a page 1 list of abbreviations used in the book.

TD = Tournament Director
USCF = United States Chess Federation
FIDE = (etc.)
N = Knight (et al)

While some abbreviations are introduced from rule 1, an “Abbreviations” section could be listed in the Table of Contents and would be a cleaner go-to reference.

9

Can’t we just correct such obvious mistakes without the delegates?

Rule 5F1 says “(50/120 SD/30), is to use a time-delay clock with 5 second delay from the beginning of the game” This makes it seem that the default delay is 5 seconds when the delay is not indicated. (I know what is meant is that the time control 50/120 SD/30,d5 is to use a time-delay clock with 5 second delay from the beginning of the game.)

Another thing about this Rule is that it states “For Quick Chess (G/10 to G/29) the standard delay is 3 seconds and for Blitz Chess (G/5) two seconds.” However, quick chess is now G/11 to G/29 and Blitz chess is G/5 to G/10.

10

This is likely a formatting issue on the publisher’s end. I have a marked copy of the final edits of the fifth edition that was sent to the publisher. The indentation is consistent throughout that copy.

There is no default delay/increment time now. The organizer must list that information as part of his advertising. As I understand it, TLAs won’t be accepted after January 1 that do not have complete base and delay/increment time listed.

Rule 5E, as written, specifically applies to non-sudden-death time controls (for example, 40/120 followed by 20/60 repeating). Such time controls are not used much nowadays, though there are still tournaments that have them.

One can argue that a delay- or increment-capable clock should be considered preferred equipment at these time controls as well. However, this idea would completely change the rule for such time controls, which makes it a substantive change requiring an ADM to the Delegates.

This rule could stand to be rewritten, IMHO. However, any such rewrite would involve changing the meaning of the rule, which makes it a substantive change requiring an ADM to the Delegates.

A director should rely on the faculties outlined in Rule 1A when determining who is an impartial witness.

In my experience, I generally give priority to eyewitnesses who, as far as I can determine, have no personal knowledge of or rooting interest in either player in a dispute. The usefulness of an eyewitness drops precipitously, IMHO, when these conditions are not met.

Adding specific definitions and parameters to who can be considered an impartial witness would be a substantive change requiring an ADM to the Delegates.

These rules are separate on purpose, because they don’t actually cover the exact same situation. The entirety of Rule 13 addresses claims for decisive games. The entirety of Rule 14 addresses claims for drawn games. The rules arise in different situations, and so different procedures are used for each. Whether they should is a different matter - but, since they do, changing this wording would be a substantive change requiring an ADM to the Delegates.

11

No. “Obvious” is not an antonym for “substantive”.

Mr. Just gave some examples of what he viewed as the difference between substantive and non-substantive changes during the Delegates Meeting.

12

Not only is “obvious” not an antonym for “substantive”, what some consider “obvious” isn’t always true. And even if it isn’t, the solution itself isn’t always obvious. For instance, if two rules appear to contradict each other, that realization doesn’t necessarily tell us which one is correct. Someone still has to make that call. That’s the delegates.

13

Just noticed the bolded part. Is there a clock that supports increment but not delay? (Or Bronstein) I do not know of one.

It has been discussed that a digital clock without delay capability should be equally preferred in games with no SD—but since there are so few digital clocks that do not support delay, and so few rated events that do not end in SD, the rule has never changed.

Why would an increment-capable digital be preferred to an analog in a game that had no SD control? Rule 5E applies only to non-SD games.

14

Actually, delay-capable digital clocks and analog clocks are equally preferred for games with no SD component, as I understand it. That’s how 5E reads in the 5th Edition; there seems to be no change in the Rules Update doc. UPS will allegedly deliver my copy of the 6th Edition later today.

It’s close to a moot point, based on how rare non-SD rated chess is these days, and it’s been discussed on the Forums before—but: Why the heck would a digital clock that supports delay be preferred over a digital clock that does ‘not’ support delay, in a non-SD game? (There are bare-bones digitals with no delay capability.)

We need to change this right away, for the one time the issue arises in practice this century…

15

The USCF office has been enforcing the current (2014) wording of 5B2 for some time, all TLAs should have full time control information in them. (In fact, a major reason why 5B2 was revised in Orlando for 2015 was to clarify the Delegates’ intent on certain types of pre-event publicity to make sure the USCF office isn’t being unnecessarily strict.)

There may be some TLAs that were accepted into the system before the office started being strict about 5B2 compliance, and mistakes can occur, so if there are current TLAs, ie ones in the August 2014 issue, that don’t include the increment/delay information don’t assume that means the USCF isn’t enforcing 5B2.

16

I wasn’t at the delegates’ meeting, so maybe I’m missing something.

After the specification of delay or lack thereof became mandatory a few years ago, then-ED Hall sent tournament directors an announcement to this effect, indicated that TLAs would not be accepted without such a specification, and explicitly instructed that the standard delays were to be used if there was a failure to specify any delay (there were plenty of such failures in then-existing TLA advertising, and there was, and still is, no mechanism to enforce the rule on non-TLA advertising).

What changed in August to make this state of affairs invalid? What is changing about the TLA acceptance process? (My guess is it’s the same process, but we really mean it this time.) And what is our answer when non-TLA advertising fails to specify a delay? (It WILL happen.)

On another topic: Frankly, the fact that we have two default delays listed for blitz reflects an unfortunate combination of activism and carelessness by the body charged with considering changes to the rules. Yeah, I know I’m not a delegate, and the process is run by those who show up, but man, that’s just bad–not one or two individuals bad, but collectively, organizationally bad.

17

I confess I do not possess sufficient intellect to understand Mr. Mark’s point in replying to my post, especially since (to my limited comprehension, anyway) I said the same thing he did with regard to his first paragraph. Perhaps he’ll do the less enlightened among us, such as myself, a favor and make his point somewhat more pointedly.

18

(a) Nothing changed. I automatically, and unnecessarily, threw in the 1/1/2015 date because that’s when rule changes from this year’s meeting take effect.

(b) Nothing will likely change, except there will be increased focus on requiring organizers to submit TLAs with complete time control information.

(c) I suspect the TLA will be rejected. At least, that is my understanding of how the process will work.

19

Nothing changed with respect to TLAs. TLAs need to include full time control information, including the delay or increment or lack thereof. What changed was that rule 5B2 was clarified to say that the time control information doesn’t need to be specified in all advance publicity, just in TLAs and in advance publicity which specifies the time control. Here is the new rule:

Without this amendment the current rule 5B2 could be interpreted as saying that Chess Life advertisements and lists of upcoming tournaments, for example, have to include full time control information. While technically the new rule doesn’t take effect until January 1st 2015, it provides guidance to the USCF office in interpreting the current rules.

20

Boyd, Bob, that’s helpful, thanks.

I’m still concerned about the situation in which the only advance publicity is a web site or a flyer, media over which the office does not and cannot have any prospective control. Say the organizer advertises simply “G/45”, because that’s what he’s been doing forever, and intends, without stating, a five second delay, because the rulebook says that’s the standard. His players expect what the organizer intends.

I guess what I’m balking at is the assertion that the standard delays either are no more or ought to go away just because a specific disclosure is required. We cannot control advance publicity outside of TLAs. What happens when the univese of advance publicity is both out of our control and fails to comply with 5B2?

This will happen, because old habits die hard. Heck, it happened to me shortly after the change; Mike Adkins correctly and respectfully called me on it, but not before it was too late.