Improving some TD Tips in the US Chess rulebook

[Micah_Smith]

1. The TD Tips after rule 15B and 15C say: "Only players in games with increment time controls of 30 seconds or more and using properly set increment capable clocks are required to keep score at all times, even in the last five minutes of any time control period. Players using improperly set increment clocks or non-increment capable clocks, even those clocks adjusted for an increment time control, are regulated by Rule 15B(C). I think it would be good to eliminate the parts that say “properly set” and “improperly set increment clocks” since if the increment is improperly set, you simply correct it for the remainder of the game, as per rule 16P. I think it would also be good to replace the phrase “at all times” with “for every move”. The TD Tip, with a few other minor adjustments, would then read:

Only players in games with an increment time control of 30 seconds or more and using an increment capable clock are required to keep score for every move, even in the last five minutes of any time control period. Players using non-increment capable clocks, even those adjusted for an increment time control, are regulated by Rule 15B(C).

2. The TD Tip after Blitz rule 8 starts out by saying: “Blitz tournaments allowing “Insufficient Losing Chances” (ILC) claims should be advertised and announced in advance. The TD should be aware that common practice has shown that in addition to the official Blitz rules that “Insufficient Losing Chances” claims are upheld only:”. I think a much improved wording would be:

Blitz tournaments using a variation that allows “Insufficient Losing Chances” claims should be advertised and announced in advance. Due to common practice, it is recommended that “Insufficient Losing Chances” claims only be upheld in the following cases:

3. The first TD Tip after rule 16P could use a number of improvements:

3a) One of the most common mistakes people make in setting digital clocks is that they set the base time in minutes when the time is set in hours and minutes (such as for G/120, incorrectly setting the base time for 1:20 instead of 2:00), or vise versa, so I think it would be good to add this example to the TD Tip.

3b) The first example says “(1) using the “Fischer” instead of the proper “Bronstein” setting”. I think it would be good to add “for delay time controls” at the end of this since using a “Fischer” setting wouldn’t be wrong if the time control you are playing with is an increment time control. However, I think even better would be to reword it so it says “(1) using a “Fischer” (increment) setting instead of a proper “Bronstein” (delay) setting, or vise versa”.

3c) It uses the terms “digital and delay clocks” twice and “digital or delay clock” twice when I think just using the term “digital clock” would be better.

3d) I think the third sentence which currently reads “Adding two minutes to the injured player’s unused time should penalize deliberate incorrect settings” would be better written as “Adding two minutes to the opponent of a player who deliberately set the clock wrong is generally an appropriate penalty.”

If all of the above things are done, the TD Tip would now read like this:

Often digital clocks are a challenge to set properly. The director should use judgment in deciding if a digital clock was set improperly deliberately, or inadvertently. Adding two minutes to the opponent of a player who deliberately set the clock wrong is generally an appropriate penalty. In either case the error(s) should be corrected. If the players cannot adjust the digital clock properly then an analog clock with the proper settings may be used instead. A few common errors in setting digital clocks: (1) Setting the base time in minutes when the time is set in hours and minutes, or vise versa, (2) using a “Fischer” (increment) setting instead of a proper “Bronstein” (delay) setting, or vise versa, (3) secondary sudden death time controls that are set improperly or not at all, and (4) inaccurate move counters.

4. In the first sentence of the TD Tip after rule 11C, I think the word “an” should be added in-between the words “using” and “increment”. The first sentence of the TD Tip would then read:

If using an increment time control it may not be to a player’s advantage to start the opponent’s clock if the opponent created an illegal position or accidentally displaced pieces.

[nolan]

If using an increment time control it may not be to a player’s advantage to start the opponent’s clock if the opponent created an illegal position or accidentally displaced pieces.

This seems more like advice to players than to TDs.

[Micah_Smith]

@Micah Smith

1. The TD Tips after rule 15B and 15C say: "Only players in games with increment time controls of 30 seconds or more and using properly set increment capable clocks are required to keep score at all times, even in the last five minutes of any time control period. Players using improperly set increment clocks or non-increment capable clocks, even those clocks adjusted for an increment time control, are regulated by Rule 15B(C). I think it would be good to eliminate the parts that say “properly set” and “improperly set increment clocks” since if the increment is improperly set, you simply correct it for the remainder of the game, as per rule 16P. I think it would also be good to replace the phrase “at all times” with “for every move”. The TD Tip, with a few other minor adjustments, would then read:

Only players in games with an increment time control of 30 seconds or more and using an increment capable clock are required to keep score for every move, even in the last five minutes of any time control period. Players using non-increment capable clocks, even those adjusted for an increment time control, are regulated by Rule 15B(C).

2. The TD Tip after Blitz rule 8 starts out by saying: “Blitz tournaments allowing “Insufficient Losing Chances” (ILC) claims should be advertised and announced in advance. The TD should be aware that common practice has shown that in addition to the official Blitz rules that “Insufficient Losing Chances” claims are upheld only:”. I think a much improved wording would be:

Blitz tournaments using a variation that allows “Insufficient Losing Chances” claims should be advertised and announced in advance. Due to common practice, it is recommended that “Insufficient Losing Chances” claims only be upheld in the following cases:

3. The first TD Tip after rule 16P could use a number of improvements:

3a) One of the most common mistakes people make in setting digital clocks is that they set the base time in minutes when the time is set in hours and minutes (such as for G/120, incorrectly setting the base time for 1:20 instead of 2:00), or vise versa, so I think it would be good to add this example to the TD Tip.

3b) The first example says “(1) using the “Fischer” instead of the proper “Bronstein” setting”. I think it would be good to add “for delay time controls” at the end of this since using a “Fischer” setting wouldn’t be wrong if the time control you are playing with is an increment time control. However, I think even better would be to reword it so it says “(1) using a “Fischer” (increment) setting instead of a proper “Bronstein” (delay) setting, or vise versa”.

3c) It uses the terms “digital and delay clocks” twice and “digital or delay clock” twice when I think just using the term “digital clock” would be better.

3d) I think the third sentence which currently reads “Adding two minutes to the injured player’s unused time should penalize deliberate incorrect settings” would be better written as “Adding two minutes to the opponent of a player who deliberately set the clock wrong is generally an appropriate penalty.”

If all of the above things are done, the TD Tip would now read like this:

Often digital clocks are a challenge to set properly. The director should use judgment in deciding if a digital clock was set improperly deliberately, or inadvertently. Adding two minutes to the opponent of a player who deliberately set the clock wrong is generally an appropriate penalty. In either case the error(s) should be corrected. If the players cannot adjust the digital clock properly then an analog clock with the proper settings may be used instead. A few common errors in setting digital clocks: (1) Setting the base time in minutes when the time is set in hours and minutes, or vise versa, (2) using a “Fischer” (increment) setting instead of a proper “Bronstein” (delay) setting, or vise versa, (3) secondary sudden death time controls that are set improperly or not at all, and (4) inaccurate move counters.

4. In the first sentence of the TD Tip after rule 11C, I think the word “an” should be added in-between the words “using” and “increment”. The first sentence of the TD Tip would then read:

If using an increment time control it may not be to a player’s advantage to start the opponent’s clock if the opponent created an illegal position or accidentally displaced pieces.

Thoughts?

[Micah_Smith]

bump

[Allen]

TD tips should be removed from the rulebook. The rulebook should contain the rules. TD tips are not rules.

[scottrparker]

@Allen

TD tips should be removed from the rulebook. The rulebook should contain the rules. TD tips are not rules.

Agreed. Having both rules and tips confuses some people, who see a tip and think it’s a rule. In golf they have the Rules, and also separately the Decisions on the Rules showing how the rules have been interpreted. Something analogous to that for chess would be a good idea.

[Micah_Smith]

I’ve found a number of the TD Tips in the rulebook very helpful in interpreting various rules. Having a separate document or something is possible but it’s nice to have it all in one place.

[Allen]

@scottrparker

@Allen

TD tips should be removed from the rulebook. The rulebook should contain the rules. TD tips are not rules.

Agreed. Having both rules and tips confuses some people, who see a tip and think it’s a rule. In golf they have the Rules, and also separately the Decisions on the Rules showing how the rules have been interpreted. Something analogous to that for chess would be a good idea.

We’ve made some progress that way by posting rules chapters online excluding all the non rules chapters

[Smythe_Dakota]

TD Tips (or extra explanatory paragraphs, or Editor’s Notes, or whatever you want to call them) belong with the rules, to keep the context clear.

There are a lot of really excellent TD Tips in the current rulebook. As long as they are distinguished from the rules in some way (by calling them TD Tips, or by having them in a lighter typeface than the rules, or in some other way) they are more useful if listed with the rules than if kept separate.

Sometimes a rule can leave a reader with questions. “Under what conditions would I enforce this rule?” If the Tip is right there, it could answer those questions. If they are in another chapter or in a different book, the reader might be left with doubts.

Bill Smythe

[Micah_Smith]

@Smythe Dakota

TD Tips (or extra explanatory paragraphs, or Editor’s Notes, or whatever you want to call them) belong with the rules, to keep the context clear.

There are a lot of really excellent TD Tips in the current rulebook. As long as they are distinguished from the rules in some way (by calling them TD Tips, or by having them in a lighter typeface than the rules, or in some other way) they are more useful if listed with the rules than if kept separate.

Sometimes a rule can leave a reader with questions. “Under what conditions would I enforce this rule?” If the Tip is right there, it could answer those questions. If they are in another chapter or in a different book, the reader might be left with doubts.

Bill Smythe

• 1

[Micah_Smith]

@Allen

@scottrparker

@Allen

TD tips should be removed from the rulebook. The rulebook should contain the rules. TD tips are not rules.

Agreed. Having both rules and tips confuses some people, who see a tip and think it’s a rule. In golf they have the Rules, and also separately the Decisions on the Rules showing how the rules have been interpreted. Something analogous to that for chess would be a good idea.

We’ve made some progress that way by posting rules chapters online excluding all the non rules chapters

Why isn’t chapter 4 of the rulebook online?

[dennisk]

@Allen

TD tips should be removed from the rulebook. The rulebook should contain the rules. TD tips are not rules.

I have found TD tips useful from time to time, but one huge benefit of completely getting rid of them (not just from the rulebook, but completely removing them from existence) would be that we would no longer have these multiple interminable threads about “improving” them. I am only half-joking.

[wintdoan]

Bump(??!!)

[Allen]

@dennisk

@Allen

TD tips should be removed from the rulebook. The rulebook should contain the rules. TD tips are not rules.

I have found TD tips useful from time to time, but one huge benefit of completely getting rid of them (not just from the rulebook, but completely removing them from existence) would be that we would no longer have these multiple interminable threads about “improving” them. I am only half-joking.

Indeed that would be a benefit. And I’m not joking at all.

[Micah_Smith]

@Allen

@dennisk

@Allen

TD tips should be removed from the rulebook. The rulebook should contain the rules. TD tips are not rules.

I have found TD tips useful from time to time, but one huge benefit of completely getting rid of them (not just from the rulebook, but completely removing them from existence) would be that we would no longer have these multiple interminable threads about “improving” them. I am only half-joking.

Indeed that would be a benefit. And I’m not joking at all.

First, I find these comments disrespectful to the work I’ve put in on this (if you don’t care about this topic, please just stay out of it instead of making these disrespectful comments). Second, these comments show you don’t realize the number of excellent improvements (including correcting some things in various TD Tips that were simply wrong) that have been made to a number of the TD Tips recently.

[dennisk]

@Micah Smith

@Allen

@dennisk

@Allen

TD tips should be removed from the rulebook. The rulebook should contain the rules. TD tips are not rules.

I have found TD tips useful from time to time, but one huge benefit of completely getting rid of them (not just from the rulebook, but completely removing them from existence) would be that we would no longer have these multiple interminable threads about “improving” them. I am only half-joking.

Indeed that would be a benefit. And I’m not joking at all.

First, I find these comments disrespectful to the work I’ve put in on this (if you don’t care about this topic, please just stay out of it instead of making these disrespectful comments). Second, these comments show you don’t realize the number of excellent improvements (including correcting some things in various TD Tips that were simply wrong) that have been made to a number of the TD Tips recently.

Sorry, no personal offense or disrespect was intended (and keep in mind that I was half-joking – we all need to be teased about our foibles from time to time, and we should have thick enough skin to deal with that). But it would be easier to “just stay out of it” if there were a separate sub-forum titled “Improving TD Tips” (and the volume almost justifies that). Then I could easily just ignore that sub-forum. But it’s disheartening to find, every time I enter “Running Chess Tournaments”, half a dozen threads about TD Tips – and nothing else new.

I also fear that this will never end, because you’ll never be satisfied. Every TD Tip could be improved, per your recommendation, and a week later you would be suggesting further improvements, because you’re an inveterate tinkerer. I’m the opposite of that. What I crave is a rulebook (including TD Tips) that’s the same as it was a week ago, instead of always having to wonder “What has changed this week?” Believe it or not, it is possible to recognize that something is good enough and leave it alone for a while, rather than constantly tinkering with it. A set of rules, in particular, is not very useful if it’s made of shifting sand. It’s not quite “Calvinball” (an imaginary game where Calvin and Hobbes made up the rules as they went), but there’s beginning to be a resemblance.

Maybe we need a gadfly (as Socrates called himself) to keep reminding us that the rulebook isn’t perfect. But you’ll have to excuse us cranks for occasionally being irritated by the constant reminders. Some of us don’t require everything to be perfect.

[Micah_Smith]

@dennisk

Sorry, no personal offense or disrespect was intended (and keep in mind that I was half-joking – we all need to be teased about our foibles from time to time, and we should have thick enough skin to deal with that). But it would be easier to “just stay out of it” if there were a separate sub-forum titled “Improving TD Tips” (and the volume almost justifies that). Then I could easily just ignore that sub-forum. But it’s disheartening to find, every time I enter “Running Chess Tournaments”, half a dozen threads about TD Tips – and nothing else new.

I also fear that this will never end, because you’ll never be satisfied. Every TD Tip could be improved, per your recommendation, and a week later you would be suggesting further improvements, because you’re an inveterate tinkerer. I’m the opposite of that. What I crave is a rulebook (including TD Tips) that’s the same as it was a week ago, instead of always having to wonder “What has changed this week?” Believe it or not, it is possible to recognize that something is good enough and leave it alone for a while, rather than constantly tinkering with it. A set of rules, in particular, is not very useful if it’s made of shifting sand. It’s not quite “Calvinball” (an imaginary game where Calvin and Hobbes made up the rules as they went), but there’s beginning to be a resemblance.

Maybe we need a gadfly (as Socrates called himself) to keep reminding us that the rulebook isn’t perfect. But you’ll have to excuse us cranks for occasionally being irritated by the constant reminders. Some of us don’t require everything to be perfect.

Thank you for saying no personal offense or disrespect was intended.

I never said every TD Tip could be improved and I won’t be constantly proposing new changes to my TD Tips that I’ve helped improve and that Tim Just has recently incorporated into the rulebook.

One reason I have suggested changing some of the TD Tips is because some of them have become out-of-date. For example, there was a TD Tip that said directors are “encouraged to review the digital clock link at uschess.org” even though this link doesn’t exist anymore. I’m sure you agree that the rulebook should remain up-to-date whenever possible.

[Allen]

@dennisk

@Micah Smith

@Allen

@dennisk

@Allen

TD tips should be removed from the rulebook. The rulebook should contain the rules. TD tips are not rules.

I have found TD tips useful from time to time, but one huge benefit of completely getting rid of them (not just from the rulebook, but completely removing them from existence) would be that we would no longer have these multiple interminable threads about “improving” them. I am only half-joking.

Indeed that would be a benefit. And I’m not joking at all.

First, I find these comments disrespectful to the work I’ve put in on this (if you don’t care about this topic, please just stay out of it instead of making these disrespectful comments). Second, these comments show you don’t realize the number of excellent improvements (including correcting some things in various TD Tips that were simply wrong) that have been made to a number of the TD Tips recently.

Sorry, no personal offense or disrespect was intended (and keep in mind that I was half-joking – we all need to be teased about our foibles from time to time, and we should have thick enough skin to deal with that). But it would be easier to “just stay out of it” if there were a separate sub-forum titled “Improving TD Tips” (and the volume almost justifies that). Then I could easily just ignore that sub-forum. But it’s disheartening to find, every time I enter “Running Chess Tournaments”, half a dozen threads about TD Tips – and nothing else new.

I also fear that this will never end, because you’ll never be satisfied. Every TD Tip could be improved, per your recommendation, and a week later you would be suggesting further improvements, because you’re an inveterate tinkerer. I’m the opposite of that. What I crave is a rulebook (including TD Tips) that’s the same as it was a week ago, instead of always having to wonder “What has changed this week?” Believe it or not, it is possible to recognize that something is good enough and leave it alone for a while, rather than constantly tinkering with it. A set of rules, in particular, is not very useful if it’s made of shifting sand. It’s not quite “Calvinball” (an imaginary game where Calvin and Hobbes made up the rules as they went), but there’s beginning to be a resemblance.

Maybe we need a gadfly (as Socrates called himself) to keep reminding us that the rulebook isn’t perfect. But you’ll have to excuse us cranks for occasionally being irritated by the constant reminders. Some of us don’t require everything to be perfect.

+1

Something not worth doing is not worth doing well.

Constant tinkering for little gain (except of course in the eyes of the OP) is a waste of time and $

[Micah_Smith]

@Allen

Something not worth doing is not worth doing well.

Constant tinkering for little gain (except of course in the eyes of the OP) is a waste of time and $

Then let’s so back to using the first edition of the US Chess rulebook and never make any changes to it.

[relyea]

@Micah Smith

@Allen

@dennisk

@Allen

TD tips should be removed from the rulebook. The rulebook should contain the rules. TD tips are not rules.

I have found TD tips useful from time to time, but one huge benefit of completely getting rid of them (not just from the rulebook, but completely removing them from existence) would be that we would no longer have these multiple interminable threads about “improving” them. I am only half-joking.

Indeed that would be a benefit. And I’m not joking at all.

First, I find these comments disrespectful to the work I’ve put in on this (if you don’t care about this topic, please just stay out of it instead of making these disrespectful comments). Second, these comments show you don’t realize the number of excellent improvements (including correcting some things in various TD Tips that were simply wrong) that have been made to a number of the TD Tips recently.

If you really believe that, then you likely don’t understand what Mr. Priest has said.

Tim Just is a very good TD. Mr. Just is an even better trainer of TDs. This does not mean that his interpretation of each of the rules is correct. It certainly doesn’t mean that his interpretation of each of the rules is correct in every circumstance. You’ve seen here that there are many, many issues on which even extremely experienced NTDs disagree, and there are therefore necessary dangers when there is an “official” interpretation of any rule which is, of necessity, not created by the writer of the rule, that is the board of delegates. The danger is that less experienced TDs, especially those who have not worked with a mentor or only one mentor will think that the “Tip” is the rule, or part of the rule.

First, there is no reason to believe that Mr. Priest doesn’t care about what you’re doing. He’s stated quite clearly that he believes that you are, at best, perpetuating harm. I’m sure he’d have no problem with a companion volume called something like “Micah Smith Interprets the Official Rules of Chess” or even “Micah Smith And Tim Just Interpret the Official Rules of Chess”, but including those in the rulebook suggests a legitimacy that, not being incorporated into the rules by the delegates, the tips simply can’t have. Second, his comments show no such thing. Because he doesn’t agree that the tips should exist, he will necessarily find less value in correcting or eliminating a broken, outdated, or hard to find link.

A good analogy would be to the rule(s) on insufficient losing chances. Many people put in an awful lot of work making those rules as equitable as possible. When people came along and said “This is ridiculous. Analog clocks have been deprecated for 15, 20, 25, whatever years. If you haven’t bought a compliant clock in that time, you don’t deserve accommodation,” it was not disrespectful to those who had been working on that rule.

As always, I make no claim to speak for Mr. Priest or anyone else. I also have had no strong opinion about the “tips”. Writing this post, however, has driven the point home to me that the argument for removing them is very strong.

Alex Relyea