To your first point, I would say that even if true, TD tips were never intended to circumvent the rules committee or the appropriately rigorous rules change process. This delegate will always vote against an ADM done for this purpose. Your goals would be better accomplished by drafting a succinct, precise rule change and working with the rules committee.
TD Tips were intended for things that aren’t rules, it isn’t clear that Micah’s prolix draft meets that standard.
I recently tried working with the rules committee on several rule changes. Bill Smythe liked my work but besides that all I got was a rude response from another member of the rules committee. Also, the TD Tips I recently helped change and get added to the rulebook didn’t circumvent the rules committee. Tim Just had the rules committee approve the changes and additions.
I agree and this is one of the problems with the second TD Tip after rule 5C.
TD Tips done with Rules Committee review are very different from ones submitted to circumvent them. I would vote on those based on their merits (and Rules Committee support would likely be enough to earn my vote).
I don’t think anyone suggested trying to get TD Tips changed/added without rules committee review. Also, there is nothing for delegates to vote on in regards to TD Tips as they don’t control TD Tips as they are not rules.
The current draft is a disorganized melange of rules, suggestions, practical advice, history and philosophy, several of which do not belong in a TD Tip.
You could say something really similar about the current state of affairs of the second TD Tip after rule 5C.
Please suggest an alternate draft for how you would define Bronstein, simple delay, and increment.
You probably say that about many pages of the rulebook. But whataboutism isn’t going to get your proposal any endorsements.
I say that about many pages of the rulebook because it’s true.
So far no one else has been willing to write up a draft on what they think a TD Tip (or the actual rules) on this topic should say.
Don’t be surprised if the rules committee comes up with some of its own improvements for rule 5 in general (not just 5C).
Bill Smythe
I used to work for a guy whose motto was: If a job is not worth doing, it is not worth doing well.
Indeed.
OK but that’s not relevant here.
How about you actually try to cut the padding out of your attempt (seriously, what does Bobby Fischer’s patent have to do with a TD tip?) instead of asking everyone else to fix it?
I’m not sure I get what you are trying to accomplish, Micah? Do you want a rule, but you don’t want to work with the rules committee to get the delegates to approve it? Or do you want a TD tip, which the delegates have no authority over anyway? It seems like you’d want to find a way to either work with the rules committee or, failing that, work with the person who actually can get a TD tip added. In either event it seems you would want to work with someone who shares your desire for more accuracy in the rules but is able to write more succinctly and clearly than the posters on this thread perceive you are able to do.
It’s called collaboration. But anyway, how about this:
TD Tip: There are two different forms of delay, “simple” (or “US”) delay and Bronstein delay. Both are mathematically equivalent, equally acceptable for use under the rules, and just differ in how the delay is displayed on the clock screen. “Simple” delay separates the delay time from the main time, often by showing the delay countdown in digits or having something like the colons or the word “delay” flash each second during the delay countdown. Bronstein delay adds the delay time to the main time. If a player uses the entire delay time or more for a move, the clock will add the delay time to the main time. If a player uses less than the delay time for a move, the clock will go back to the time it had at the beginning of the move. The fact that the main time will never go above what it was at the beginning of a move with Bronstein delay is what makes it different from increment. With increment, (also commonly known as Fischer and bonus), the increment time is added to the main time each turn, regardless of the amount of time it took the player to move."
I would love to be able to work with the rules committee on this and other rules matters but when I recently tried to work with the rules committee on some rules issues, all I got was a rude response.
Perhaps if you established better bona fides by taking and passing the senior exam, surely you have enough TD credits for it, you might gain more acceptance.
Starting a project that may or may not be something the community feels it needs and then asking (or demanding) assistance is not collaboration.
Micah has done a lot of category D events but the requirements for SrTD are 5 as chief TD of 50+ players with no substitutions (Micah has one or two), one as chief or chief assistant of 50+ players with no substitutions (Micah has that) and four more as chief or chief assistant with substitutions allowed (Micah may or may not have that).
A few more JTP scholastics might do it.
In any case, I am not on the Rules committee but I always pay attention to Micah’s posts, find his certification level irrelevant to most of his suggested rules changes, and agree with him a decent percentage of the time (wasn’t the case his first few months but has been true for a number of years now). It would be nice to see the rule have both more clarity and more brevity.
Micah’s last TD tip draft looks a whole lot better.
I do not have the required TD credits to become a Senior TD. There aren’t many US Chess rated tournaments of 50+ players in the Portland area.
Thanks Jeff, I appreciate this a lot.