Does every detail of a TLA have to be spelled out in the rules?
I can tell you from years of experience in validating events that TDs seem to use ‘G/’ and ‘SD/’ somewhat interchangeably, despite what the rules have said over the years.
Yet it would seem pretty self-evident that ‘Game’ should mean the ENTIRE GAME, so it only applies to a single time control, eg, Game in 60 or G/60. (Increment or delay not yet specified.)
And that means that SD applies when it is the final time control of a multi-time control specification, such as 30/30, SD/30 (increment or delay not yet specified.)
Well, it could be argued that all of the other details about how time controls are to be specified in a TLA are spelled out in the rules.
My question, however, was whether it had even been intended that the first two sentences in Rule 5B be deleted. My suspicion was that, when the example was modified to indicate that time specifications should always be in minutes rather than hours, the first two sentences might have been inadvertently omitted.
From the on-line document that listed the changes the Delegates made to the 5th edition:
First from the section on explanations: Rule 5B: The wording has been replaced to reflect the regulations regarding current Delay and
Increment time control limits as well as the organizer’s responsibility for publicizing those limits.
and
Next, the change: 5B. Sudden Death time controls. 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).
"If a player’s highest rating achieved is greater than 1200 but less than 1600, the individual’s floor is 1200." This is just plain incorrect.
“If the highest rating achieved by a player is 1200 or below, then the individual’s floor is 100.” It should say 1399 or below and that the player’s floor will be somewhere from 100-150 due to the “soft” floor.
“No floors above 2400 or below 100 are permitted.” Currently, there are no floors above 2200. Did players who got a 2300 or 2400 money floor, when money floors went that high, get to keep those floors?
" An unrated player and a provisionally rated player do not have floors." It should be clarified that provisionally rated players do have the 100 minimum floor and the “soft” floor from 100-150.
This section explains how rating floors work but makes no mention of the OLM floor or the “soft” floor
Also, rule 10D1 in the USCF rating system section of the 6th edition states that “Official ratings for individuals appear on each player’s Chess Life or TLA mailing label” but this is no longer the case.
That’s the thing: None of the bolded corrections—or other obvious corrections mentioned in this thread—requires Delegate approval, since the info printed in the 6th Edition is incorrect. If anything it should be the opposite: Getting correct info into the USCF Rulebook should be important to the Delegates, even between meetings.
Is the position some take here that no “substantive” changes can be made to the Rulebook without Delegate approval—even when the wording in the current Rulebook is clearly incorrect or mis-states rules as passed by the Delegates over the years? IOW: “OK, this is wrong, but since it’s in print in the rulebook we’re just gonna wink at it till the next Delegates Meeting”?
Scratching my head over that one. (I started scratching it when the revised rule about delay-clock substitution at the start of a game, sponsored by Steve Immitt, was listed as the main rule in the Rules Update doc, even though Steve intended it to be a variation and the Delegates approved it as such.)
It would have been a near-miracle had none of these issues come up with the 6th Edition. It was 11 years since the last edition; much changed in USCF rules and policies since then—which would have been true even without the many tweaks and fine-tunings we saw most years; and from this POV it seems that after too many years of wait we had too few months of hurry-up to get the 6th Edition launched.
Maybe I don’t have enough information, but it seems clear that more time to connect with the office and committees to clarify policy issues, and to allow informed proofreaders to pore over the text word by word, would have been good.
So here we are. OK, no need to throw stones; the Really Big Stuff in the 6th Edition is solid as far as I can see. If the 14H disconnect changes one game result this year I will be surprised—but we should still take all steps we can to fix it.
The great thing about digital is the chance to fix mistakes right quick. What is the procedure to make that happen?
I don’t know what the procedure will be yet. I suspect that if there are two different digital formats (Kindle and Nook) that there may need to be separate update procedures for them. (I don’t own either of these devices, so I have no direct experience with either of them.)
Franc Guadalupe was the ED who dealt with the publisher on the 6th edition, he’s probably the best source of information on it. I believe he is in transit to the World Youth Championships in South Africa today, so he’s likely to be difficult to reach for the next week or so.
DM13-49, passed at the 2013 Delegates Meeting in Madison, said “A new rulebook will be published before the 2014 Delegate’s Meeting. And, the Delegates approve the publication of this rulebook, incorporating rules changes already approved and necessary editorial (not substantive) changes, without further Delegate review upon its completion before the 2014 Delegates convention.”
As I see it, any substantive changes to the rules which were made in the 6th edition are unauthorized and not approved by the delegates. Of course we can disagree about which changes are editorial and which are substantive. In my opinion the change to revert to the 2009 wording of rule 14H was substantive and should be replaced by the 2010 wording in a 6th edition Rulebook Changes document. The burden of amending the rule at a future Delegates Meeting should be on those who prefer the 2009 version.
Is there any reason for that (certainly in that level of detail) to even be in the Rulebook? That sounds like something that is best handled by a link to a page on the web site.
I tend to agree with Tom. Ratings formula changes and floor policy changes can be made by the Executive Board, unlike rules changes which have to be approved by the Delegates, so it is probably better to maintain an independent document on them. (That document is the white paper that defines the ratings system, which is maintained by the Ratings Committee chair.)
It can be done that way in the 7th edition, but since inaccurate information was published in the 6th edition it should be corrected. Maybe the 6th edition Rulebook Changes document could include a link to a web page which gives up-to-date information about rating floors, much as the 5th edition changes document replaces the FIDE rules chapter with a reference to fide.com.
Rule 28D1 states that in a regular rated event, if a player has no USCF regular rating but has a USCF quick rating, then the quick rating should be used and vice-versa. Now with the USCF blitz rating system, should you use a players USCF blitz rating if they have one but have no regular or quick rating?
Also, it says for a Canadian rating no adjustment is needed. Shouldn’t there be some adjustment since we have the CFC to USCF conversion formulas of 1.1 x CFC - 240 for players with a CFC rating over 1500 and CFC -90 for players with a CFC rating 1500 and under.
Also, for money floors it says “The minimum post-tournament rating for players winning such a prize shall be the lowest rating which would not be eligible for the section or class prize the player won”. This would mean that a player winning $2000 for a U1950 prize would get a 1950 floor. Is this correct or are floors only at values ending in “00” (1900, 2000, etc.)
You like the new format of 14H in the 6th edition even though this is an old version of the rule that was rescinded at the 2010 delegates meeting?
For your first two issues, I would say that the rules are what they are and if you think they should be done, get a delegate to promote an ADM on the issue. As to the last one. The language in the rules seems pretty clear. I see nothing specifying the floor must end in 00.
The issue of what rating information to use for pairing or prize purposes when someone does not have a rating (in the ratings system being used for that event) is separate from the issue of what rating information to use when initializing that person’s USCF rating.
As a general rule of thumb, organizers probably want to use a higher rating than what is needed for initializing someone’s rating, because of the uncertainty factor in using an external rating (or even a different USCF rating system) and the desire to make sure those unrated players don’t walk away with prizes that they might not be eligible for based on their true strength. Ratings systems are self-correcting, but organizers generally don’t award prizes based on post-event ratings.