The latter never happened, my mistake. Instead, the issue was whether one could checkmate the opponent while leaving one’s own king in check. 
Bill Smythe
Over the years I have had to deal with plenty of rules lawyers who try to game the system with their lawyering. If they can’t directly cheat, they find it useful to argue trivial matters incessantly to upset their opponent and annoy the TD. It is how they think they get an edge. Any lack of clarity in the rules is an opportunity to start an argument before or during the game as a matter of gamesmanship.
Here are some of the issues that rules lawyers have brought up merely to disturb everything and everyone around them:
- Who has the right to select pieces? Arguments usually start over who has the better chess set to use.
- If the player of Black comes late, does he still retain the right to choose the set and board? If so, this usually results with him dumping his pieces noisily on the board several minutes into the round.
- Complaints over color of the dark squares. This can occur during the game with a request to change the board.
- Clock selection. Some claim that their particular digital clock is superior and want to switch clocks even when they come late to the board. They argue that there is a clock hierarchy for usage. Some tricky players always forget to put delay on the clock.
- There are still arguments by players with the Black pieces or even the White pieces wanting to use their analog clock rather than the digital clock that the opponent has brought to the tournament. They claim their Jerger clock is more accurate and nicer looking than the stained digital clock of their opponent.
- Claims of touch move when there is little or no evidence that it occurred. This happened in one of the first tournaments I directed over 45 years ago, and has happened since.
- Complaints about lighting, air conditioning, ambient noise in the room, road noise, and other environmental things the TD or organizer have no control over.
- Wanting to use a personal, ornate looking, expensive set rather than the club/organizer provided pieces, board, and clock. This argument can start while the TD is doing pairings or dealing with another issue.
- Talking to the opponent during the game. Even trash talking or asking the opponent to resign during the game have happened.
- Claiming a repetition of position when none exists just to gain time to think while the TD checks the scoresheet.
- Spectator claims that their son/daughter/team member is being cheated because the opponent walked away from the board or waved to some one. Angry arguments and accusations of bias by the TD ensue, partly to unnerve the opponent.
Retracted insofar as Qd1-f7# and corrected above.
But still no.
But let’s also note that advocating for well-written rules and pointing out that poorly written rules allow for such things does not make one a “rules lawyer.” There seems to be this feeling among TDs that “everyone knows what the rules mean” and therefore they don’t need to be well-written. Then when newbies show confusion, or NTDs misinterpret rules (even in a historical context!) we dismissively refer to those who point it out as “rules lawyers.” They’re just troublemakers.
There needs to be a recognition and an understanding that as any written system of rules ages, the original meaning and context and the evolution of the system is difficult to maintain, so that someone coming into the system later tends to see only what is there without the prior context.
Pushing for higher standards is not a bad thing. Being a lazy TD is.
The most successful TDs that I have seen are known to make 1-syllable rulings on equipment standards or playing conditions, and then stick to their guns. At the cost of angering one player, they earn the respect (and future support) of all the others.
Michael Aigner
I’m all for advocating for well-written rules and pointing out poorly written rules. I have done similar advocating and pointing out many times on these forums.
But I’m not in favor of making changes just because one person, even if in his own eyes he is the world’s greatest logician, finds a difficulty with a rule that nobody else has had a problem with. Such changes often make matters worse by allowing other ambiguities to creep in.
I agree, but one must make sure that any suggested changes truly raise the standard rather than lowering it.
Bill Smythe
Can anyone recall a rules change passed by the delegates that made things worse?
Is there anyone who can’t?
If the rule previously had a logical flaw, and the correction removed it, then the standard has definitely been raised. If other people don’t have issues with logical flaws, then their understanding of how rules work is flawed, not the understanding of the one person pointing out a flaw.
I find it sad that people are still arguing in favor of logically flawed rules on the basis that “no one has a problem with it.” The issue is that since it is logically flawed, the correct phrase will always be "No one has a problem with it YET. The simple goal is to eliminate the “yets.”
Think of what one is presenting otherwise - one is arguing in favor of rules that are logically flawed and that therefore, are nonsense. What is the point to nonsense rules?
The “solution” to “rules lawyers” isn’t to be dismissive. The solution is to correct the rules. Why is there (their? - both readings work making different points) pride of authorship in poorly written or poor interpreted rules?
If there is a reason for having a rule, then there is sufficient reason for the rule to be well-written.
One danger that has occurred in the past is in making changes is taking a rule that is erroneously perceived as having a problem and introducing an actual problem that is as bad as the erroneously perceived one. Going from imagined problems to real problems is not a step forward.
Fortunately, logic is actual.
Kevin, surely you understand that it is possible to fix one flaw in a rule and introduce a new flaw, and that new flaw may indeed be worse than the initial one. The delegates have, on more than one occasion, blundered a piece to correct the weakness of an isolated pawn.
No one is arguing that fixing an error is a justification for introducing a new error.
However, fear of introducing a new error is also not a rationale to NOT fix an error.
This isn’t like a surgery where there are numerous conditions that can’t be controlled and thus an error creeping in could kill a patient - its more like a proof - if we introduce an error we erase the line and write the correction.
I’ll agree with that. I’m all for fixing flaws in rules; I know of no one who disagrees with that, as long as it is done thoughtfully. I think the only thing you have a hard time dealing with is when others don’t agree with your conclusion that a logical flaw exists. That, my friend, I think you’ll have to live with. Not everyone sees things the same way you do.
Please cite the specific rule in the Rulebook that is written so illogically that we may bask in the beauty of the logic designed to destroy that rule. No hypotheticals, no fudging with general propositions or starting with flawed assumptions. Cite a rule and provide evidence how it causes real damage to a chess player to comply with it.
Oh, I live with that. The typical difference is that I check to see if the flaw can be diagrammed. If it can, it exists, and I have certainty. I doubt most the others are going to that trouble.
The simplest example I can provide would have to be provided to you in a way other than these forums, because the moderators will pull the post.
If the example involves a question on the TD certification exams, then I can easily understand why it would be off limits in the forums, because the TDCC will want to continue to include this question on future versions of the exams.
Part of me, however, has a hunch that the exam question may indeed be flawed, and that discussion of it should proceed here, with the TDCC yanking it from future exam versions. This would be especially true if the question is about The Stupidest Rule in the Rulebook, i.e. the distribution of place prizes and class prizes. In that case, all answers submitted by applicants should be regarded as correct, because the distribution methods described in the rulebook are obviously flawed.
On the other hand, if the rule in question concerns recent hot-button topics such as parrying a check, discovered check, double check, illegal checkmates, etc, then perhaps Jeff W. could fill us in on which one he thinks it is, and let the discussion continue full blast.
Bill Smythe
Maybe someone from TDCC knows this: When was the last time the club/local and senior TD exams were reviewed to make sure they are consistent with the current rulebook?
There is an annual review.