We are looking for some clarification for a local disagreement concerning the use of blitz rules. The rule updates state quick rated events as time controls from g/5 to g/29 and also give updated USCF “blitz” rules with blitz being defined as g/5 to g/10.
It is my contention that a g/5 (or g/10) quick rated event would follow quick/sudden death rules (no delay was being used). I would think that the USCF “blitz” rules could be followed for an event and rated under the quick system so long as the tourney announcement made it clear that the “blitz” rules were going to be used as a major/minor rule variance. However, unless is it specifically stated in the tourney annoucement that USCF “blitz” rules were being used a player could assume the usuall quick/sudden death rules would apply.
Other players have contended that a person can assume in a g/5 event that the USCF “blitz” rules would be used. They note the “The USCF does not presently rate blitz games.” line is missing from the updated rules and as such the USCF does rate blitz games (using the USCF blitz rules).
The disagreement started over the use of rule 14h (ILC) claim during a g/5 event. The USCF “blitz” rules specifically disallow use of rule 14h while sudden dealth rules apply for a quick (non blitz rules) event.
The clarification is that games that last from 5 minutes to 29 minutes are rated as Quick.
Blitz specific rules covers the sub catagory of quick rated games that last from 5 min to 10 min.
Duel Rated events are games that last from 30 minutes to 59 minutes: it will affect both your quick rating, and regular rating.
From what I undertand, not many players want to put thier quick rating on the line with 5 minute games. Although blitz rules are effective from 5min to 10min, traditionally its been the game/5min time control.
Not sure how many tournaments use game 10min, but I don’t think even game/15 is very popular anymore. Although earlier, in early 90’s when more players had analog than digital clocks, it was a fairly popular time control.
Nowadays, I think delay is the standard, and most time controls have some sort of delay or increment as the primary time control. (With analog rules being only used if a digital clock is not available for a particular game).
I don’t really know what the more popular fast time controls are nowadays.
The USCF doesn’t rate games under 5 minutes. Not sure if there are exeptions to the rule when playing with incremental time controls.
I will leave the issue of whether games played under the Blitz rules can or should be USCF quick rated up to others. (But stay tuned, the Delegates may change the rules in this regard.)
The time control rules that the Rules Committee developed last year and that the Delegates approved last August make it clear that there must be at least five minutes on the clock for a quick game:
Was there a delay used for digital clocks? If not, then the standard delay used was zero seconds, and thus all clocks were set with it (even analog clocks) and thus 14H claims were imporper.
Um, no, 14H doesn’t provide for a five second delay, it provides for an analog clock to be replaced with a digital clock set with whatever the standard delay for the tournament is. If the tournament doesn’t have delay, then the standard delay is zero seconds.
Now wait just a cotton-pickin’ minute here! Sure, no delay = NO DELAY (there’s no extra charge for CAPS), but NO DELAY also = 0 seconds. If you have no delay, the delay is 0 seconds. If I have no bananas, I have 0 bananas.
Or is it your contention that a player in a tournament with no delay could not request a delay clock, but that a player in an event with a 0-second delay would be entitled to do so?
Which is not how I read the rules. Specifically paragraph two of the revised Chapter 11.
To me, that is pretty clear that not all games of g/5 to g/10 are to follow Blitz rules. And thus not answering the initial question: In the absence of any prior clarification, should a player assume that a G/5-G/10 event will by default follow sudden death rules (including ILC) or Blitz rules (which specifically disallow ILC unless previously announced.)
IMVVHO, unless the TLA specifically says it is a Blitz event then standard rules apply (i.e. it’s Quick Chess at g/5.) And if the TLA or other publicity uses the word “Blitz” then Chapter 11 rules apply. But I’m certainly no expert here…
(a) the difference between quick and blitz ratings, and
(b) the difference between quick and blitz rules.
At present in the USA, distinction (a) is non-existent, because USCF does not have separate rating systems for the two. No matter whether you intended to run a quick event (whatever that is) or a blitz event (whatever that is), it’ll end up being rated the same.
So you need to be careful how you name your event. Apparently, quick can be anything from G/5 to G/29, whereas blitz is just G/5 (or maybe G/5 to G9, or something), so there’s some overlap.
The blitz rules are different from quick rules, and are the result of some draconian thinking within FIDE, and a decision by USCF to follow FIDE (in this matter) as closely as possible. One main difference, apparently, is that in blitz the move is completed at the same time it is determined, even if the clock has not been pressed. One consequence of this is that a player is not required to wait until the opponent presses the clock before the player makes a move. Another difference is that quick, by default, uses a 3-second delay, while blitz, by default, is played without a delay.
Still another consequence is that the term “blitz”, which used to simply mean “5-minute” to most people, has been hijacked to mean a game played under the silly FIDE blitz rules. So if you are planning a 5-minute tournament under more “normal” rules, don’t call it blitz, call it 5-minute quick or something.
My own preference for a 5-minute event would be:
(1) Use quick rules, not blitz rules.
(2) Use a 2-second delay (rather than the default 3 seconds).
(3) Add 1 minute (not 2) to the main time, in games played with non-delay equipment.
(4) Make the TLA clear: “Checkmate Junction Quick, G/5 d/2 (G/6 if d/0)”.
The USCF blitz rules were NOT the result of anything related to FIDE!! When I proposed the change in Blitz rules at the 2007 Delegates meeting, the changes were 100% based on older WBCA rules. These rules had been around for at least a decade by then and WBCA had folded in late 2004. USCF decided to rate Blitz under the Quick rating system, something I was always opposed to. David Kuhns (rule committee chair) and I wrote an ADM this year calling for Blitz to have its own rating system. It has its own rules now, and to blend two systems which have different rule sets does not seem to be statistically wise or valid.
There were a number of changes made to the WBCA rules that I submitted as potential USCF blitz rules, many of which were compromises in committee just to get it passed. After the bruhaha at the Women’s Championship last year, it was modified again to state the old WBCA blitz intentions of legal move being complete when it leaves the hand and illegal move being complete when the clock is punched.
Bill - The 4 preferences you give above are not blitz, it is modified quick rules. I ran the World Open Blitz using USCF Quick rules one year and it was horrible, must smoother using blitz rules. Quick time delay, at least in the east coast seems to be 3 seconds, so G/10 becomes 8/3. Your 5/2 is quick not blitz.
Perhaps when we finally get the divisions set up correctly for various rated forms, there won’t be any confusion anymore. Quick should start at G/10 and Blitz should be G/5-9, although WBCA used to rate G/3 - G/7
Ken makes a good point. Even though the legal move is completed when the piece is released, you are still required to allow your opponent to punch his clock before you punch yours. It is a very foolish blitz player who will sit there after making his move and not punch his own clock because managing time is as important in blitz as making good moves. Doing them both is ideal
The opponent can make his move once a legal move is completed AND before the clock is punched, he just can’t punch his clock before the opponent is allowed to punch his/her clock. Hovering over the clock is not allowed and punishable. If the opponent who has made a legal move to which another legal move has been made, if he chooses to not punch his clock when making his next move, he can do that but it isn’t very smart. I hope this makes sense linsguistically.
So, just to clarify (please correct me if I’m wrong):
Scenario A:
White makes his move.
Black then makes his move, without waiting for white to press the clock. This is legal.
White then (finally) presses his clock. This is legal.
Black then presses the clock. This is legal. Game now continues, it is white’s move.
Scenario B:
White makes his move.
Black then makes his move and presses his clock, without waiting for white to press the clock.THIS IS ILLEGAL.
What now? Which of the following is/are legal option(s) for white?
3a. White may still (finally) press his clock. Black may then press the clock (again). Game now continues, it is white’s move.
Or:
3b. White may simply let it go, and start considering his next move. It is white’s move.
Or:
3c. White may summon the TD for relief.
The answers to the above may be more complicated than they first appear, and I often wonder whether anybody has ever bothered to think them through in detail.
Yes, scenario A is correct.
2. is legal as long as the move was legal.
3-4 correct. This become potentially problematic if one player is supremely faster than the other. Imagine Hikaru playing an 80 year old. He moves so fast that it would seem to the 80 year old that HIkaru has made his move even before the 80 year old has made a move.
Scenario B #2 is an illegal procedure by Black, not allowing his opponent to punch his clock first.
Response 3a would be legal, white should be able to punch his clock, having been denied that opportunity. This is always the case in Blitz when white moves, knocks over a piece, and punches the clock. Black is entitled to repunch and ask white to set up the fallen pieces. Seems the same logic would apply to 3a
Response 3b would be legal, but not wise. In a tournament I directed last weekend, a player allowed his opponent to take back a bad move and eventually lost, not a wise decision but always within one’s rights.
Response 3c would be legal. The director should then warn Black to discontinue his “pre-opponent” clock punching and allow the opponent to punch first. The TD should watch the game for a few moves to reinforce the “presence” of the ruling. If it continues, adding time to White’s clock would discontinue the behavior pretty quickly.
There is also Scenario C.
1a. White makes his ILLEGAL move and doesn’t punch the clock
1b. White makes his ILLEGAL move and punches the clock
2a. Black should sit there and let the clock run. White’s illegal move isn’t complete until the clock is punched. If White claims a win by illegal move or takes the King (assuming the illegal move was leaving or putting his own King in check) then
2a1 - White stupidly allows Black to claim a win and admits defeat
2a2 - White smartly claims that he never punched his own clock, the illegal move was not completed, and since he cannot be forced to make an illegal move, the move is retracted with touch move in force if possible.
This usually doesn’t happen quite this sequentially in real life as Black is also playing Blitz and the temptation/training is to respond to your opponent’s move
2b. Black can either
2b1 - Immediately claim a win by illegal move, stopping the clock or taking White’s King if it is now in check. ANy type of illegal move would be grounds for a loss, castling a pre-moved King, moving a knight not in an L shaped normal sequence, moving a white bishop to a black square, etc.
2b2 - Ignore the illegal move and respond with his own move. Once the response has been made and the clock punched, he has lost the chance to claim a win by illegal move. Game continues and hopefully White gets his King out of check
I have thought them through in detail so I don’t have to think about them when directing a blitz event, but have been running blitz events since 1991 so like anything done for a long time, the response becomes pretty automatic as well.
Do you think scenarios like this ought to be stated in the rules or assumed a TD/Player can think them through? Both sides of this question could be argued by a good chess lawyer, but the latter would certainly make for a longer set of rules
