I think there are a number of things that could be added/changed to the current Blitz rules that would help clarify the Blitz rules.
The current Blitz rules do not mention “Triple occurrence of position” as a way a game can end in a draw (This rule was mentioned in the 5th edition of the rulebook and the current USCF scholastic Blitz rules, uschess.org/images/stories/s … egulations, mentions how to claim a draw by perpetual check). I think it would be good to add this (assuming it still is a rule in Blitz) to the current Blitz rules in the “Defining a draw” section so people aren’t confused into thinking there isn’t “triple occurrence of position” in Blitz (and is the “triple occurrence of position” for Blitz the same as the “triple occurrence of position” rule for sudden death time pressure in regular chess? If it is, what if it is a longer Blitz game and a player has at least 5 minutes remaining? The sudden death time pressure in regular chess only applies when a player has less than 5 minutes).
The current Blitz rules do not mention “the 50-move rule” as a way a game can end in a draw. I think it would be good to add this (assuming it is a rule in Blitz) to the current Blitz rules in the “Defining a draw” section so people aren’t confused into thinking there isn’t “the 50-move rule” in Blitz (and is the 50-move rule for Blitz the same as the 50-move rule for sudden death time pressure in regular chess? If it is, what if it is a longer Blitz game and a player has at least 5 minutes remaining? The sudden death time pressure in regular chess only applies when a player has less than 5 minutes).
In the current Blitz rules rule 7c states, in regards to having mating material to win on time, that “Mating material consists of (at a minimum) two minor pieces, a pawn, a rook or a queen provided it isn’t a position where one could claim it to be a draw under section 8.” I think It should be clarified whether K vs K+N+N without a forced win is considered sufficient mating material as this is not considered sufficient mating material for regular chess and the USCF scholastic Blitz rules mentions K vs K+N+N is not considered sufficient mating material (but doesn’t state whether it matters if the player has a forced win). Also, it isn’t clear what the statement “provided it isn’t a position where one could claim it to be a draw under section 8” is referring to.
The current USCF scholastic Blitz rules has an addition to rule 3 in the 6th edition of the rulebook (it’s rule 5 in the scholastic Blitz rules) that “The only exception is if one or both players have more than five minutes on their clock, then the tournament director (TD) may reduce the time accordingly.” I think it should be added to the main Blitz rules that a TD can reduce the time if a player has more base time than the players were suppose to start with (some clarification would be needed for games with increment).
The current Blitz rules says “Blitz has its own rating system. To be rated, the time controls require from 5 to 10 minutes total playing time, and have a minimum primary time control of 3 minutes. All rounds must use the same time control. Hence, G/3 inc/2 is rated under the Blitz system.” The last two sentences should be switched around.
It’s not entirely clear from the rules that Blitz is played with touch move. Also, I think it would be good to add a “clock move” variation.
The 5th edition states that a player must have less than one minute to make an “insufficient losing chances” claim. The current Blitz rules disallow insufficient losing chances claims. However, it includes the variation that you can allow insufficient losing chances claims if it is advertized and announced in advance. I think it would be good to add to the TD Tip what the standard rules are for “insufficient losing chances” (for tournaments that allow them) in regards to when a player can claim "insufficient losing chances and the penalty if the claim is denied (is it still that player must have less than 1 minute and that if a claim is denied, one minute is subtracted, thus causing an automatic loss?)
8.) There are a couple of statements and formatting changes (stated below) that were added to the 6th edition of the rulebook that are not in the current Blitz rules online (uschess.org/docs/gov/reports … hanges.pdf). I think it would be good to add these to the online version of the Blitz rules.
8a) The following two statements were added: “Information regarding FIDE Blitz chess can be found in the FIDE Handbook: fide.com/fide/handbook.html” and “Take note that Blitz is not Quick chess with a 5-minute time control (which follows standard sudden death rules).”
8b) The 6th edition moved the statement in the second paragraph “See also 5C. Ratable time controls” to the end of the paragraph
8c) the 6th edition corrected the typo that is in rule 1a online (it says “or” but it should say “for”)
This page links to the Blitz rules: uschess.org/content/view/7982/28/. First, the link to the “5th edition of the U. S. Chess Federation’s Official Rules of Chess.” doesn’t work and it should be updated to link to the 6th edition.
Triple Occurrence of Position cannot be claimed in Blitz. (A reasonably complete scoresheet is required to make such a claim in standard chess, and such a scoresheet is not available in Blitz.)
Also need a reasonably complete scoresheet for 50-move rule, so it is also not applicable to Blitz.
It is POSSIBLE (though cannot be forced) to mate with K+N+N vs K. Therefore, NOT insufficient material.
Perhaps that “base-time” option was discussed by the rules committee. I’m fine with the 5-min. rule.
Yes, but not really important.
What is “clock move” variation – you can retract your move if you have not pressed your clock?
There are no “standard blitz rules are for ‘insufficient losing chances’ for tournaments that allow them” because that variation is non-standard.
Wrong in both cases. There are backstops in the rulebook for players short of time in sudden death—in the first case, if you can demonstrate forced repetition of position, in the second you can get help counting moves.
It is theoretically possible to win with K+N vs. K+B or vice versa. But those positions, just like in K+N+N, usually require compliance to make bad moves to achieve a checkmate. From a random position, the mates are not forced. To guarantee that you cannot lose on time and at least draw, you have to take all of the pieces and pawns, especially when there is d0. IIRC, there is a video on youtube of a FIDE tournament where the players played on in a minimal material game until one player’s flag fell, in spite of a protest of insufficient material to mate.
I can provide links to videos of someone driving the wrong way on the freeway, but that doesn’t make it an appropriate interpretation of the law to do so.
Wasn’t there a famous (or infamous) FIDE ruling where the arbiter was asked to rule on a loss on time claim, picked up the clock (which was facing away from him at the time), looked at the side with the flag down, which was now reversed from the position it had been during the game, and awarded the win to the other player? Legend has it that Reshevsky was the loser of that game.
Wintdoan already showed you were incorrect on 1 and 2. (and since a local TD didn’t know the rules here, I am sure there are others who don’t either and thus it would be great to add these things to the Blitz rules to clarify things)
Jwiewel already showed you were at least confused as to what rule was being discussed in 3 (rule 7c in the Blitz rules refers to insufficient material to win on time, not insufficient material to continue). K+N+N vs. K IS considered insufficient material to win on time (unless there is a forced win) under USCF rules.
In regards to 4, you are confused what rule is being discussed. There is no “5-min. rule” here. The scholastic Blitz rules says 5 minutes because that is the base time used for Blitz at the scholastic nationals. I am saying that we should add to the main Blitz rules that a TD can reduce the time if a player has more base time than the players were suppose to start with (some clarification would be needed for games with increment). For example, if the clock was set wrong and a player has 11 minutes remaining in a G/10,d0 Blitz game.
In regards to 6, yes, in clock move you can retract a move until you press the clock. The Blitz at the scholastic nationals used to be played with clock move.
In regards to 7, I was saying it would probably be good to add to the TD tip what the standards are in regards to when a player can claim "insufficient losing chances and the penalty if the claim is denied. The TD tip already states the standard in regards to when a insufficient losing chances claims are upheld, even though this variation is non-standard.
As Micah already said, that would not be true under USCF rules. FIDE allows any helpmate to be considered in deciding on whether a flag fall is a loss or a draw. USCF is more limited specifically in regards to the non-flagging side having K+B or K+N or K+2N.
Correct (as Micah already stated)
The scholastic council has gone back and forth on whether or not to use it.
Just a couple (out of many) pros and cons for clock move are:
Con: clock move is an abomination and is significantly different from the rules used in the main event.
Pro: having players starting to move before the opponent hits a clock is an abomination and it confuses people to have a legal move considered completed once the piece is released but have an illegal move not considered completed until the clock is hit.
I’ve directed the side event both ways at the nationals. My club uses clock move for blitz (not USCF rated). With both touch move and clock move I have seen fast players make a move an hit the clock more quickly than their opponent hits the clock, with the result that the faster player’s time ends up running during the slower player’s move. It seems to happen less often in clock move.
In at least one clock move side event there were players that would make their first move, not hit the clock, and then claim an illegal move win when their opponents responded (the more subtle with the white pieces would go 1. e2e3-no-clock-push e7e5-clock-push, 2/1a. e3e4-clock-push Ng8f6-clock-push and then claim an illegal move win by saying it went 1. e2e4-clock-push e7e5+Ng8f6-clock-push with the clock’s move/push counter supporting that), and less experienced TDs were upholding such claims. That claim is obviously invalid in touch move.
The key distinction here ought to be, simply, whether or not scorekeeping is required at the time the claim is made.
When scorekeeping is required, then you use one rule, namely, that a triple-occurrence claim must be supported by a scoresheet. When scorekeeping is not required, you use the other rule, where the TD is allowed to use personal observation.
That should be the only distinction, not directly dependent upon a tangled combination of various conditions.
As I understand it, scorekeeping is required if BOTH
the event is regular-rated, AND either[list][*]at least 5 minutes remain on the clocks, OR
an increment or delay of at least 30 seconds is in force.
[/*:m][/list:u]
And thus, scorekeeping is not required if EITHER
the event is quick-rated or blitz-rated, OR[list][*]less than 5 minutes remain on the clocks, AND
the increment or delay, if any, is less than 30 seconds.
[/*:m][/list:u]
My response to this one is the same as the above.
I agree, but whatever clarification is made should apply to both regular and blitz.
Get rid of the “clock move” abomination altogether, in all forms of chess.
Prior to that those games were getting counted as part of the Quick rating system. Moving them to the blitz rating system means that only games using more standard rules would be counted in the Quick system.