6th edition suggested improvements

[jwiewel]

@ericmark

…
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…

But if the rule is changed then players with black can pull out those first digital clocks (without delay) that were very poorly received by the tournament populace.
It will be tough to change this unless there is absolute proof that all of those old clocks are defunct and unresurrectable.

[BobMessenger]

@brennanprice

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.

According to the 6th edition rulebook, the default delay in a situation like that is 5 seconds. I’m not sure I agree with Mike Nolan that there shouldn’t be a default delay. There will probably be at least one ADM on the subject in 2015.

[ericmark]

@BobMessenger

@brennanprice

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?

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:

5B2. In all advance publicity which specifies the time control, the organizer is to indicate the full time control, including the delay or increment, as minutes (mm) and seconds (ss), e.g. G/90 inc/30; G/30 d/5; G/10 d/3; G/5 d/0. The time control must be specified in Tournament Life Announcements and should be specified in other publicity such as flyer mailings, email and on web sites. It is acceptable for abbreviated publicity to refer the reader to more complete tournament details posted elsewhere.

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.

Good idea in principle. The more info provided on time controls, the better. However, it’s the old story on good intentions.

I’ve linked before to a club site where a friend of mine advertises monthly quads—which so far have not had TLAs—as “G/40.” He ran one such event three days ago. He did not announce anything about delay or increment. All players set clocks for five-second delay from move 1.

The vast majority of players take the de facto default five-second delay for granted, unless clearly announced otherwise. Meantime, there are the rare players we treasure…

…so what happens next year when a small organizer sends out an email blast on his “G/40” quads that weekend, a dozen class players and experts show up to compete for fun and rating points, everyone sets their clocks with a five-second delay—and as the first round is about to start, our rare player friend raises a stink and insists that no delay—d0—be used, since the email he received did not mention delay?

Won’t happen often, but I fear at some point it will happen. What then?

Since the office started to reject TLAs without delay/increment info, the standard has been:

1. All TLAs must list full time control info, including delay/increment;

2. Organizers are strongly advised to include all such info in all publicity—especially if it differs from what players have come to expect: five-second delay from move one for Regular, three-second delay for Quick.

3. But…since USCF cannot monitor and control all private sites and forms of publicity, if an email blast or club site lists only “G/40” that’s OK—since virtually all players who show up will interpret that as G/40 d5 and set their clocks for five-second delay, even with no announcement to that effect. (And TDs of such events would only think to make such an announcement if they used something other than five-second delay for Regular, or three-second delay for Quick.)

Now, as I understand it, USCF insists that its TLA standards must be used by organizers or TDs, even in ‘private’ publicity. Dunno…that will take awhile to sink in…

[brennanprice]

Bob shares my view of the correct resolution, and Eric shares my overall concern.

My view is that the standard delays were and are sufficiently universal that the requirement to state them “solved” a problem that didn’t actually exist. But I guess that’s water under the bridge.

[nolan]

Because I see a lot of email from members about events, I would state that members DO NOT UNIVERSALLY understand that there are defaults, much less know what the defaults are for increment/delay. That’s why USCF now requires including that as part of the complete time control (even before changes approved by the Delegates in 2014.)

Organizers who list a time control as ‘G/40’ are, sooner or later, going to run into problems with mistaken assumptions about what the full and complete time control is. Organizers who list a time control as ‘G/40;d5’ have left it completely unambiguous as to what time controls the event uses.

The clarification in 5B2 that was passed by the Delegates was one that the office needed to make it clear which non-TLA forms of pre-event publicity always need to include full time control (including increment/delay) and which do not need to include any time control information.

To reiterate, if ANY time control information is given, then COMPLETE time control information must always be given to be in compliance with 5B2. That applies to non-USCF forms of pre-event promotion, though the USCF will not be able to monitor events for compliance. However, a TD who works at an event that had non-compliant pre-event publicity and becomes involved in any appeals over it will not have any bargaining power when it comes to dealing with that appeal. So why risk it?

[Mulfish]

@brennanprice

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.

I don’t think the import of the motion passed in Orlando has been clearly expressed. As I understand it, what we passed specifies that in ANY advance publicity, if the time control is mentioned the delay must also be mentioned. If no time control is mentioned that’s fine, but you can’t just advertise G/45. Now obviously TLAs can be rejected by the office but the office can’t monitor flyers. So the only other enforcement would occur if complaints are filed.

[bbentrup]

Why would anyone in the USCF office imperil a successful series of events by warning (or worse) a TD over such a dumb complaint. Shame on the USCF office if some TD/Organizer quits over that potential chastisement. So, unless Nolan or someone else says here they’re willing to jeopardize future events over this, I take it there is NO PENALTY WHATSOEVER for private announcements of “G/40” (etc.).

[wzim]

I’m going to have to go revamp the club’s Monday night schedule of events
“Winter Qualifier Round 1 USCF Rated Game 80”

We have never had any complaints. We have always defaulted to the 5 second delay. Except for times like
“Game 5 Blitz (No Delay) Traveling Trophy Tournament”

Oddly enough the second example wouldn’t matter because we don’t USCF rate these.

[tmagchesspgh]

While I have always included the full time control information in flyers, I can understand that some organizers might forget to type the amount of the delay. Partly because many assume that the players already know that 5 second delay is the standard, but also partly because if they make flyers like I do in the dead of night when the world is finally quiet, all sorts of things get accidentally added and deleted. When you spend a lot of time crafting artwork, borders, and other stuff to jazz up your flyers, little things go unnoticed, like the site for the tournament. Or the date. Or you forgot to change the file with the old flyer to reflect the proper year. After running off some flyers on the laser printer, you realize you did this and have to throw the flyers away and re-edit the file. Maybe you don’t realize your mistake and put several hundred bad flyers out at a couple of chess clubs and tournaments. Failure to proofread things you have written is common, especially for something simple like a flyer.

What do you think would happen to a player who demanded that d0 be used because delay was not mentioned in the advanced publicity? Some players might roll their eyes. More likely, a bunch of players would yell at him to shut up; the tournament has a delay and he best deal with it. Or else. The more likely scenario is an organizer that really wants to have no delay and is challenged by the players over the lack of delay. I have recounted before of seeing this situation happen. Player mutinies can be ugly.

Given the problems so far, when is work on the 7th edition going to start?

[ericmark]

@bbentrup

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.

Just got my hard copy Edition VI today. I checked the wording in 5F on page 13 that you quote. Not sure how picky we want to get about rated Blitz, but the paragraph that starts with “The delay clock may be set” gets funky toward the end. My old copy desk instincts tell me this was a proofreading issue. It reads like some of the back and forth among folks who worked on the book somehow got printed verbatim in the explanation of 5F—in this case the question of delay in Blitz.

If that’s the case, please understand how easily this sort of thing can happen. People love to laugh at the goofs that appear in print newspapers and magazines. I can tell you first-hand that the number of such things that get caught in deadline zeitnot, just in time, can be scary.

I think it was meant to read that standard Blitz uses no delay (d0) as mentioned in the TD Tip to 5C—but that when delay is used, the formerly Blitz-standard two-second delay is now the standard for an accepted variant…lots of stuff happened with Blitz since the 5th Edition.

Also note that the section on rating floors makes me scratch my head. Things there seem not quite right.

The great thing about digital and ebooks is the chance to update and correct things quickly. Perhaps parts of this thread could help Tim and Co. make that happen.

[ericmark]

@ericmark

@bbentrup

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.

Just got my hard copy Edition VI today. I checked the wording in 5F on page 13 that you quote. Not sure how picky we want to get about rated Blitz, but the paragraph that starts with “The delay clock may be set” gets funky toward the end. My old copy desk instincts tell me this was a proofreading issue. It reads like some of the back and forth among folks who worked on the book somehow got printed verbatim in the explanation of 5F—in this case the question of delay in Blitz.

If that’s the case, please understand how easily this sort of thing can happen. People love to laugh at the goofs that appear in print newspapers and magazines. I can tell you first-hand that the number of such things that get caught in deadline zeitnot, just in time, can be scary.

I think it was meant to read that standard Blitz uses no delay (d0) as mentioned in the TD Tip to 5C—but that when delay is used, the formerly Blitz-standard two-second delay is now the standard for an accepted variant…lots of stuff happened with Blitz since the 5th Edition.

Also note that the section on rating floors makes me scratch my head. Things there seem not quite right.

The great thing about digital and ebooks is the chance to update and correct things quickly. Perhaps parts of this thread could help Tim and Co. make that happen.

P.S. Another example where 5F shows how hard it is to edit a new rulebook edition after 11 years of tweaks and updates: The language Micah noted that incorrectly lists Quick as G/10-G/29 and Blitz as G/5 seems to have been lifted from the 5th Edition. At the time that edition was published, that info was correct.

This is another thing that can be corrected in the digital edition, post-haste. It should not require Delegate approval, since the ‘correction’ restores accurate information, while the rule as printed in the hard copy 6th Edition gives incorrect information about standard delay for Blitz and the parameters of the Quick and Blitz systems.

[nolan]

The only person or bodies who could make such a pronouncement are Executive Director Jean Hoffman, the Executive Board and the Delegates. The office staff don’t make policy, they just have to interpret and then consistently enforce the policies that they’re given.

Assuming my notes are accurate, as of January 1, 2015, rule 5B2 will change from:

5B2. The organizer is to indicate the time control, including the delay or increment in all advance publicity as minutes (mm) and seconds (ss). e.g. G/90 inc/30 (or +30); G/30 d/5; G/10 d/3; G/5 d/0.

to

5B2. In all advance publicity which specifies the time control, the organizer is to indicate the full time control, including the delay or increment, as minutes (mm) and seconds (ss), e.g. G/90 inc/30 (or +30); G/30 d/5; G/10 d3; G/5 d/0. The time control must be specified in Tournament Life Announcements and should be specified in other publicity such as flyer mailings, email and on web sites. It is acceptable for abbreviated publicity to refer the reader to more complete tournament details posted elsewhere.

Neither the 2014 nor the 2015 version of this rule make any mention whatsoever of defaults, nor does either version give the organizer the option to leave the increment/delay unstated and use a default. So, there’s not a lot of wiggle room for the staff.

In my unofficial opinion, the new wording of 5B2 gives the office needed flexibility when it comes to certain types of pre-tournament publicity, such as a calendar of upcoming events or other abbreviated formats. And that’s why I have suggested to Jean that the office start using the slightly more liberal version of 5B2 immediately.

A TLA is by definition not one of the places where the time control can be left unstated. The rule does not differentiate between ‘online’ TLAs and ‘print’ TLAs. Some email blasts, or some portions of email blasts, could also be considered non-abbreviated formats and thus require full time control information.

My recommendation to organizers remains this: If you give ANY time control information, you must give FULL time control information.

And that’s why I have suggested that the defaults have outlived their usefulness as rules. They could be relegated to TD Tips. as suggestions for organizers who don’t know what increment/delay to use. But that’s probably a task for a future Delegates Meeting.

[relyea]

@tmagchesspgh

Given the problems so far, when is work on the 7th edition going to start?

It’s already started. See, um, this thread.

Alex Relyea

[bbentrup]

I volunteer to be an editor for the next rulebook. I’ve done editing work and consider technical legal writing to be a strength. For the past couple of rulebooks, I’ve wanted to write cleaner sentences in most every paragraph (though I’m unsure of the extent the delegate motions constrain the actual wording in the rulebook). I think I could give several organizational improvements as well (one example being the abbreviations suggestion above). Let me know if this offer would be appreciated.

[nolan]

In Orlando the Delegates passed the following motion:

The Rules Committee and Rulebook Editor are allowed to make technical changes to the rulebook and rulebook updates, such as typographical errors and renumbering.

That means the editor is now allowed to make technical changes, like renumbering paragraphs after a deletion or insertion, but not substantive changes.

The question of what is a substantive change is not defined, but rewording a sentence could change its meaning (implied or actual) and thus would probably be considered substantive.

[ericmark]

@nolan

In Orlando the Delegates passed the following motion:

The Rules Committee and Rulebook Editor are allowed to make technical changes to the rulebook and rulebook updates, such as typographical errors and renumbering.

That means the editor is now allowed to make technical changes, like renumbering paragraphs after a deletion or insertion, but not substantive changes.

The question of what is a substantive change is not defined, but rewording a sentence could change its meaning (implied or actual) and thus would probably be considered substantive.

How about changing the e-version to reflect accurate information, thus replacing inaccurate information contained in the print 6th Edition, such as in 5F on page 13? If that is considered too “substantive” a change then I don’t know what would qualify.

[nolan]

I don’t know who will decide what’s a technical change and what isn’t. I don’t have a copy of the 6th edition yet to see what you’re referring to, but maybe Tim or Dave will comment on it.

[ericmark]

@nolan

I don’t know who will decide what’s a technical change and what isn’t. I don’t have a copy of the 6th edition yet to see what you’re referring to, but maybe Tim or Dave will comment on it.

See a few posts above in this thread. For what it’s worth, if there is a revised 6th version I would also volunteer to help proofread it. I used to do that for a living, and I’ve played and occasionally directed rated chess for 34 years.

The biggest advantage to digital e-versions is the ability to correct them in near real-time. I hope that happens with the rulebook, which will inevitably have a few such issues, given its scope and the zeal with which the Delegates update the rules.

Going into lawyer-mode over the term “substantive” vs. “technical” and thus not changing wording that is clearly inaccurate for a year would not be good.

[timjust]

@ericmark

@nolan

I don’t know who will decide what’s a technical change and what isn’t. I don’t have a copy of the 6th edition yet to see what you’re referring to, but maybe Tim or Dave will comment on it.

See a few posts above in this thread. For what it’s worth, if there is a revised 6th version I would also volunteer to help proofread it. I used to do that for a living, and I’ve played and occasionally directed rated chess for 34 years.

The biggest advantage to digital e-versions is the ability to correct them in near real-time. I hope that happens with the rulebook, which will inevitably have a few such issues, given its scope and the zeal with which the Delegates update the rules.

Going into lawyer-mode over the term “substantive” vs. “technical” and thus not changing wording that is clearly inaccurate for a year would not be good.

1. I have noted the 5F concern and I (or Rules) will look at it when it comes time to update the e-edition. We will need to decide how substantive any change might be.

2. The office has to contact the publisher about the e-book update. To my knowledge it has not been done. And what hoops and what the time frame is for doing the updates is not yet known.

3. You all have an advantage over me. I have neither an e-book copy or a softcover copy of the rulebook. I was promised some copies. I still await.

Be aware the 6th edition is really version 5.5. In the time frame we had, a simple update of the changes mandated by the delegates was all that took place. For the kinds of changes suggested here a much longer time frame is needed–indeed a 7th edition would probably be in order. The changes could be made for edition 7 and then run by the delegates for approval. Note that the delegates would still need to approve, ala the 5th edition (wholesale changes were made by the editors and the rulebook committee to V5–we were done in January–we had to wait for delegate approval of those changes at the August delegates meeting).

[Bob_McAdams]

In the 5th edition rulebook, Rule 5B read:
“If the final or only time control requires all moves to be made in a specified time, this is considered a sudden death time control. The abbreviation SD is generally used for a final such time control, the abbreviation G for an only such control. For example, 40/2, SD/1 indicates 40 moves in 2 hours followed by the rest of the game in an hour, while G/30 means each player has 30 minutes for the entire game.”

In the 6th edition rulebook, this entire text has been replaced by:
“For example, 40/120 SD/60 indicates 40 moves in two hours (120 minutes) followed by the rest of the game in one hour (60 minutes).”

I haven’t seen any place in the new rulebook where it actually explains what the G abbreviation means, let alone when to use SD and when to use G. Was this change intentional?

Bob