You are wasting your time Tim. I suggest using the foes feature to block selected posters.
Not meaning to be a wiseA$$, Tim (you know I respect your opinions), but why is this document online, if it isn’t correct? At minimum, a disclaimer should be made for it??
Not surprised one bit that Allen would make a comment like this without looking and understanding Tim and I’s conversation first.
Based on my review of the delegates meeting minutes, the document correctly reflects the current Blitz rules. I’m not sure what Tim is referring to. I’ve asked for clarification from Tim but he won’t answer.
Micah,
Tim has very clearly indicated that he had nothing to do with the document to which you refer, and I, just a few seconds ago, reiterated to him (sorry, Tim, I missed your disclaimer at first).
Anyway, Micah, I think the answers to our questions reside in the minutes, but I don’t think they’re online yet; the only ones I found didn’t mention Blitz rules at all.
Do we have the minutes available that pertain to the Blitz Rules?
My apologies for dragging this on, but I, too, would like to renew my knowledge after a long absence.
Where is this document, Micah?
Yes, Tim had nothing to do with the document but that is not my point here. He made a comment that the document did not appear to reflect any changes made by the Delegates to the Blitz rules and I am wondering that changes those are since I have reviewed all the meeting minutes and do not see any changes made by the Delegates to the Blitz rules that are not reflected in the document.
I believe that Tim is saying that he didn’t use that particular document for the 6th edition.
Yes, but that is not my point here either.
Where, o, where are these elusive minutes of which you speak?
Tim’s statement can be correct whether or not there were any changes made.
If there were no changes made then it doesn’t reflect any changes made. If there were changes made that were not included then it doesn’t reflect any changes made.
I was talking about the mistakes that are not “substantive”. For example, “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.” The standard increment for Blitz cannot be both 2 and 0 seconds. If this had been noticed during the proofreading, I’m sure either the rule or TD Tip would have been revised. Thus, we should go ahead and correct this without the delegates.
(1) Carefully re-read your last two sentences.
(2) Look up the definition of “substantive”.
(3) Profit.
Those are not necessarily in conflict. 5+0 probably is (still, though it’s changing) the standard for blitz. And if increment is used it’s usually +2.
In addition to the things already mentioned in this thread, there are several other things in the USCF Rating System Chapter that could be improved:
-
Part 6, “Rating entire events”, is missing step 2 given in the rating system document, glicko.net/ratings/rating.system.pdf, “Calculate the “effective” number of games played by each player”.
-
Pat 10 says that the special rating formula is for players who have played less than 9 games. It should be added that the special formula is also for players who have had all wins or all losses in their previous games.
-
In part 3, Order of ratings, I think it would be good to be more complete here and add what is in the FAQ on this subject: secure2.uschess.org/TD_Affil/faq-partb.php
-
Part 2 on time controls seems out of place and sould be eliminated.
The TD Tip after rule 28C also incorrectly still mentions ratings being on Chess Life mailing labels
At the end of rule 28C1 b, it says “See the chapter on The USCF”. It should say “rating system” at the end like it does in the 5th edition.
One more addition here. In the section about matches it says “They can be rated under the regular USCF rating system, quick rated, or rated under both systems, depending upon the time control.” The Blitz rating system should have been added in here.
In the section titled “Chess rating service” on page 335, it also incorrectly mentions ratings being on Chess Life mailing labels.
On page 334-335 it says “Adult and Youth members get Chess Life magazine each month.” It should have been clarified that only Premium Adult and Premium Youth (and Premium Young Adult, Senior, etc.) members get the printed magazine (and it’s every other month for Premium Youth members) while all members get online access to the magazine.
There’s a lot of material in the “rulebook” that isn’t rules, is subject to change through completely different processes than the rules are, by different people/entities, and is probably there mainly as inertia from the pre-Internet days. That’s already been conceded. I would hope that for the 7th ed, there would be some high-level editorial decisions about what actually needs to be in the rule book, instead of having to worry about ticky-tacky stuff in inconsequential parts of it.
Ditto!
Ditto +1
I agree with this. What parts of the rulebook do you think should be eliminated?
Also, in the sections of the rulebook on benefits of USCF membership and affiliation, it still mentions member only discounts on chess products. Am I wrong or were the member and affiliate discounts on chess products eliminated several years ago?
IMHO, keep chapters 1-2-4-6-11 and put the rest on-line and available as a download. The former ED, Bill Hall, pitched the interesting idea of making the rulebook a set of smaller volumes. That might work also. Any thoughts? What about an e-book only edition?