To add to what Mr. Priest has said, correct me if I’m wrong, but all TD Tips are is one TD’s (albeit one very well regarded and experienced TD) interpretation of the rules. It doesn’t mean that different interpretations, even contradictory interpretations, are wrong.
And yes, an “arbiter’s handbook” type of thing would be extremely useful.
I think if things are so unclear as to warrant wholesale rewriting of TD Tips than it would behoove us to improve the rule. At the moment I have no strong opinion regarding the “sudden deathness” of this type of time control, but I think that we should have a Rule, not a series of Tips, that is we should have the delegates debate and decide rather than Tim Just or even a few Forum Denizens.
I agree with these deletions. These TD Tips originated as a sneaky way to require scorekeeping, even in time pressure, provided there was an increment or delay of 30 seconds or more. Adding the TD Tips was easier than changing the rule, because changing the rule would require Delegate approval.
This addition might be a good idea, if only to remove past confusion caused by the above three Tips suggested for deletion.
Your third proposed deletion should be “TD Tip after rule 14G2”. Also, as others have noted, the simplest solution (although not the easiest to implement, due to the need for delegate approval) would be an actual rule defining “sudden death” as “any time control period in which all moves, or all remaining moves, must be completed.” No need to say anything about delay or increment. Those are implictly included by using the word “any”.
Some TD Tips were included in proposed rule changes that were passed by the delegates.
Sure but I would say it’s very unlikely a delegate will propose an amendment to the rules here.
There is now a rule that states that scorekeeping is required in time pressure with an increment of 30+.
Yes, one of my ideas behind this new TD Tip is to remove confusion caused by the other TD Tips stating that an increment of 30+ is not sudden death.
I corrected the reference to the TD Tip, thanks.
Not mentioning anything about delay or increment could still cause some confusion since increment time controls could be considered repeating time controls.
Indeed. If you present a complex situation to a group of 4 NTDs you are likely to get 5 possible answers. And probably none will be “wrong”. 1 or 2 will be best though.
So should they then be considered Rules? If not, why not? I mean they were passed by the Delegates as a part of a Rules motion. Are they clearly identified in the Official Rules of Chess? Does Mr. Just, or the next editor, have the authority to alter or delete those tips?
Do you begin to see the problem of having things in the “rule book” that don’t carry the force of Rules? (This last is far from being directed only at Mr. Smith.)
The delegates over the years have passed many motions, some of which did not go through a rigorous drafting process and review. The good news is over the last several years that tendency has been settled down significantly.
Just because it was in a motion the delegates passed doesn’t make it a rule.
Then a solution would be to make a proposal to the Rules Committee or at least its Chair. We can’t change Rules by workarounds just because proper procedure is too difficult. Also, this attempt at a workaround is likely to be spectacularly ineffective. Writing Mr. Just with well thought out reasons for making changes would be at least as effective as saying “See, Tim, 83 people on the Forums think that you should have done it like this instead!”
If nothing happened because the Rules Committee thought they were poor proposals, that’s one thing. If nothing happened because their process doesn’t include considering things which didn’t originate from within their group, that’s another (no judgment here; I have no idea how many suggestions they get). And if nothing happened because they were backlogged after Ken Ballou’s untimely passing, that’s a third possibility.
Did you ever receive communication from the rules committee on your proposals?
I noticed the fifth edition of the US Chess rulebook defined sudden death.
In the fifth edition, rule 5B, Sudden death time controls, was as follows:
“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 control, the abbreviation G for an only such control. For example, 40/2, SD/1 indicates 40 moves in two hours followed by the rest of the game in one hour, while G/30 means each player has 30 minutes for the entire game.”
In the current seventh edition, rule 5B, Sudden death time controls is as follows:
“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).”
Not sure why a lot of rule 5B from the fifth edition was removed.
This problem has been discussed previously. Apparently, the change was made to introduce U.S. Chess to the FIDE concept that, if there is an increment or delay of 30 seconds or more, scorekeeping is always required, even if the player’s main time falls below five minutes.
To implement this change, former Rules Committee chair Ken Ballou (RIP) got the Delegates to approve a rule saying that any event with an increment or delay of at least 30 seconds was NOT considered sudden death. Thus, it would follow that scorekeeping would be required all the way to the end of the game in such events. But it also required stripping out some of the old language in rule 5B.
This is one of the very, very few areas where I (and others) strongly disagreed with our former chair. It has caused all kinds of confusion. A far better solution would be to restore the original 5th edition language, and add a specific rule stating directly that scorekeeping is required even under five minutes if there is an increment or delay of at least 30 seconds.
I hope the Delegates will correct this problem at the next opportunity.
What rule states than an increment or delay of 30+ is not considered sudden death?
Rules 15B and 15C already state that scorekeeping is required even under five minutes if there is an increment (but not a delay) of at least 30 seconds.
I am pretty sure David Kuhns was the former Rules chair who held the view that a time control with 30 seconds or more of increment should not be considered Sudden Death, thus the TD Tip we discussed recently. As I recall, Ken Ballou held the opposite view. He wrote in these forums that such time controls should be considered SD.
The idea that a certain amount of increment per move makes a time control “not SD” makes me scratch my head, but if a former Rules chair felt strongly about it, it’s worth thinking about.
Rules changes to take into account increased use of increment in US Chess-rated events happened in 2009 to take effect in 2010, I think. That impacted ratable time controls, capping increment at a maximum of 15 seconds for Quick Chess, among other things. (Ratable time control rules changed a few years later.)
The TD Tip about increment of 30 seconds not being SD was part of those changes, I think. It ties in with the threshold for mandatory scorekeeping. But it still makes me scratch my head.