Last 10 moves - rules 11A and 11B

[kevin_bachler]

@DrCheck

i have had question #1:

[i]He argues that he had not yet pressed the clock so his move was not yet legal or illegal, just incomplete.

(a) You get your two extra minutes of penalty thinking time.
(b) You get no extra thinking time because the move was not yet legal or illegal.[/i]

actually occur in a tournament. I had to overrule two Senior TDs who were attempting answer (a).

Tom is of course correct, but this got me thinking about 11A and 11B. As I looked at them, the following two thoughts occurred, which I dedicate to Micah. I apologize if I shouldn’t have posted this in this thread - but rather in Running Chess Tournaments.

Both of these rules use the phrase “last ten” moves. While we all know what is meant due to past precedent and the evolution of these rules, we should keep in mind that rules may sometimes confuse new players, and this is even more so if the rule is imprecisely worded - such as this rule is.

What is meant here is the “prior ten moves” or “previous ten moves” - or even more precisely “immediately prior ten moves.” Because the rule references either player’s last ten moves, there is no need to clarify that we don’t wish to consider only 5 full move pairs - the rule is speaking of the moves of only one player or the other.

But by using the word “last,” a newbie could consider this to be a player’s last ten moves of the game - which is, of course, silly - but not for someone inexperienced.

If there is a list of minor clean-ups, this may be one. The first reference should be “immediately prior (“prior”) ten moves” and can just be “prior” thereafter.

Secondly, out of curiosity, is there a reason not to simplify this by moving to the FIDE version of this rule? I understand that the 10 move look back was initially a compromise since the lookback was originally all the way to the beginning of the game. Why do the lookback at all anymore?

[Smythe_Dakota]

@kbachler

… this got me thinking about 11A and 11B. … Both of these rules use the phrase “last ten” moves. … What is meant here is the “prior ten moves” or “previous ten moves” - or even more precisely “immediately prior ten moves.” … But by using the word “last,” a newbie could consider this to be a player’s last ten moves of the game - which is, of course, silly - but not for someone inexperienced. …

I don’t really see a problem with “last ten”. If the game is still in progress – e.g. if an illegal move is found to have occurred several moves ago – then “last ten” could not possibly mean anything other than “prior ten” or “previous ten”. Or, if the game is over – i.e. a result has been agreed – then, again, “last ten” could have only one possible meaning.

In short, “prior ten” or “previous ten” would be, at best, an extremely minor improvement over “last ten”. And “immediately prior” would simply add verbiage to an already unambiguous concept.

… Secondly, out of curiosity, is there a reason not to simplify this by moving to the FIDE version of this rule? I understand that the 10 move look back was initially a compromise since the lookback was originally all the way to the beginning of the game. …

Once upon a time I was a big fan of synchronizing U.S. Chess rules with FIDE rules. And to some extent, I still am. In recent years, however, there has been some deterioration in the quality of the FIDE rules. I think the deterioration began with the unfortunate death of Sevan Muradian, who was able, within FIDE, to keep things from getting out of hand.

Allowing lookback all the way to the start of the game can cause tremendous complications.

OTOH, some situations may inherently require a lookback of more than ten moves. What if, for example, a player has been in check for the last twelve moves? You’d hardly want to revert to a position where the opponent of the player on the move is in check.

… Why do the lookback at all anymore?

This question seems at odds with the rest of what you are saying. Not doing a lookback at all would seem to mean, for example, that if one player has been check for a couple of moves, and it is the other player’s move, you just ignore the whole thing and keep on playing. Would the other player then be allowed to capture the king?

One thing I do like about recent FIDE rules is the frequent insertion of the phrase “unless the arbiter decides otherwise”. This allows the arbiter a way out of ridiculous situations. Perhaps there should be greater use of such phrases in the U.S. Chess rules as well.

Bill Smythe

[scottrparker]

@kbachler

@DrCheck

i have had question #1:

[i]He argues that he had not yet pressed the clock so his move was not yet legal or illegal, just incomplete.

(a) You get your two extra minutes of penalty thinking time.
(b) You get no extra thinking time because the move was not yet legal or illegal.[/i]

actually occur in a tournament. I had to overrule two Senior TDs who were attempting answer (a).

Tom is of course correct, but this got me thinking about 11A and 11B. As I looked at them, the following two thoughts occurred, which I dedicate to Micah. I apologize if I shouldn’t have posted this in this thread - but rather in Running Chess Tournaments.

Both of these rules use the phrase “last ten” moves. While we all know what is meant due to past precedent and the evolution of these rules, we should keep in mind that rules may sometimes confuse new players, and this is even more so if the rule is imprecisely worded - such as this rule is.

What is meant here is the “prior ten moves” or “previous ten moves” - or even more precisely “immediately prior ten moves.” Because the rule references either player’s last ten moves, there is no need to clarify that we don’t wish to consider only 5 full move pairs - the rule is speaking of the moves of only one player or the other.

But by using the word “last,” a newbie could consider this to be a player’s last ten moves of the game - which is, of course, silly - but not for someone inexperienced.

If there is a list of minor clean-ups, this may be one. The first reference should be “immediately prior (“prior”) ten moves” and can just be “prior” thereafter.

Secondly, out of curiosity, is there a reason not to simplify this by moving to the FIDE version of this rule? I understand that the 10 move look back was initially a compromise since the lookback was originally all the way to the beginning of the game. Why do the lookback at all anymore?

This seems to be really stretching to come up with a way to misunderstand the phrase “last ten moves.” You’re trying to make this absolutely foolproof, and that’s just not possible. Fools are far too clever.

[kevin_bachler]

@scottrparker

@kbachler

@DrCheck

i have had question #1:

[i]He argues that he had not yet pressed the clock so his move was not yet legal or illegal, just incomplete.

(a) You get your two extra minutes of penalty thinking time.
(b) You get no extra thinking time because the move was not yet legal or illegal.[/i]

actually occur in a tournament. I had to overrule two Senior TDs who were attempting answer (a).

Tom is of course correct, but this got me thinking about 11A and 11B. As I looked at them, the following two thoughts occurred, which I dedicate to Micah. I apologize if I shouldn’t have posted this in this thread - but rather in Running Chess Tournaments.

Both of these rules use the phrase “last ten” moves. While we all know what is meant due to past precedent and the evolution of these rules, we should keep in mind that rules may sometimes confuse new players, and this is even more so if the rule is imprecisely worded - such as this rule is.

What is meant here is the “prior ten moves” or “previous ten moves” - or even more precisely “immediately prior ten moves.” Because the rule references either player’s last ten moves, there is no need to clarify that we don’t wish to consider only 5 full move pairs - the rule is speaking of the moves of only one player or the other.

But by using the word “last,” a newbie could consider this to be a player’s last ten moves of the game - which is, of course, silly - but not for someone inexperienced.

If there is a list of minor clean-ups, this may be one. The first reference should be “immediately prior (“prior”) ten moves” and can just be “prior” thereafter.

Secondly, out of curiosity, is there a reason not to simplify this by moving to the FIDE version of this rule? I understand that the 10 move look back was initially a compromise since the lookback was originally all the way to the beginning of the game. Why do the lookback at all anymore?

This seems to be really stretching to come up with a way to misunderstand the phrase “last ten moves.” You’re trying to make this absolutely foolproof, and that’s just not possible. Fools are far too clever.

No, I’m not trying to make it foolproof. I believe that our organization has an attitude of “it’s good enough” rather than kaizen. Things don’t have to be perfect, but when we see small flaws we should clean them up so that secret handshakes go away.

[Micah_Smith]

@kbachler

No, I’m not trying to make it foolproof. I believe that our organization has an attitude of “it’s good enough” rather than kaizen. Things don’t have to be perfect, but when we see small flaws we should clean them up so that secret handshakes go away.

+1

[relyea]

@kbachler

Both of these rules use the phrase “last ten” moves. While we all know what is meant due to past precedent and the evolution of these rules, we should keep in mind that rules may sometimes confuse new players, and this is even more so if the rule is imprecisely worded - such as this rule is.

I’m curious. Given that we are talking about a time within a game (because the point is moot if the game has ended) how else is it possible to interpret “last ten moves”? I mean we all know “rules lawyers” who will latch onto any possible interpretation of a rule in order to get an advantage, so questions of this type can never be academic, but how is it possible here?

Alex Relyea

[kevin_bachler]

@relyea

@kbachler

Both of these rules use the phrase “last ten” moves. While we all know what is meant due to past precedent and the evolution of these rules, we should keep in mind that rules may sometimes confuse new players, and this is even more so if the rule is imprecisely worded - such as this rule is.

I’m curious. Given that we are talking about a time within a game (because the point is moot if the game has ended) how else is it possible to interpret “last ten moves”? I mean we all know “rules lawyers” who will latch onto any possible interpretation of a rule in order to get an advantage, so questions of this type can never be academic, but how is it possible here?

Alex Relyea

1. I hate the phrase “rules lawyers.” I’ve stated previously that we should ban that phrase within US Chess. I’m 100% convinced that the phrase “Rules Lawyers” indicates a lazy or burned-out TD who shouldn’t be TD’ing for a while. There’s no reason to assume that rules questions, particularly as worded, are not legitimate. “Rules lawyers” is just another way of saying that we didn’t write a clear rule because “everyone knew what it meant” and putting the blame on someone else instead of accepting the responsibility ourselves.

2. Do you deal with people? Have you never noted that people new to something don’t think things through no matter how clear it should be, because they are often overwhelmed by the experience? Especially in the last 10 months, I’ve gotten questions like this routinely. I could roll my eyes, treat the people like they’re stupid, and call them rules lawyers or other made-up derogatory terms, or I can accept that they are new to the experience, and make mistakes. The clearer we make things, the better we communicate, the more we accept our responsibility in this, the better things will be.

[relyea]

@kbachler

@relyea

@kbachler

Both of these rules use the phrase “last ten” moves. While we all know what is meant due to past precedent and the evolution of these rules, we should keep in mind that rules may sometimes confuse new players, and this is even more so if the rule is imprecisely worded - such as this rule is.

I’m curious. Given that we are talking about a time within a game (because the point is moot if the game has ended) how else is it possible to interpret “last ten moves”? I mean we all know “rules lawyers” who will latch onto any possible interpretation of a rule in order to get an advantage, so questions of this type can never be academic, but how is it possible here?

Alex Relyea

1. I hate the phrase “rules lawyers.” I’ve stated previously that we should ban that phrase within US Chess. I’m 100% convinced that the phrase “Rules Lawyers” indicates a lazy or burned-out TD who shouldn’t be TD’ing for a while. There’s no reason to assume that rules questions, particularly as worded, are not legitimate. “Rules lawyers” is just another way of saying that we didn’t write a clear rule because “everyone knew what it meant” and putting the blame on someone else instead of accepting the responsibility ourselves.

2. Do you deal with people? Have you never noted that people new to something don’t think things through no matter how clear it should be, because they are often overwhelmed by the experience? Especially in the last 10 months, I’ve gotten questions like this routinely. I could roll my eyes, treat the people like they’re stupid, and call them rules lawyers or other made-up derogatory terms, or I can accept that they are new to the experience, and make mistakes. The clearer we make things, the better we communicate, the more we accept our responsibility in this, the better things will be.

But these are not the people I’m describing. These are people who study the rules thoroughly and come up with implausible interpretations that make no sense in concert but could give them an advantage taken in isolation. I’m not referring to people who don’t know the “secret handshakes” but rather people who know them very well and come up with even more “secret” ways to use them.

In any event, you haven’t suggested another possible interpretation of “last ten moves”.

Alex Relyea

[kevin_bachler]

@relyea

@kbachler

@relyea

@kbachler

Both of these rules use the phrase “last ten” moves. While we all know what is meant due to past precedent and the evolution of these rules, we should keep in mind that rules may sometimes confuse new players, and this is even more so if the rule is imprecisely worded - such as this rule is.

I’m curious. Given that we are talking about a time within a game (because the point is moot if the game has ended) how else is it possible to interpret “last ten moves”? I mean we all know “rules lawyers” who will latch onto any possible interpretation of a rule in order to get an advantage, so questions of this type can never be academic, but how is it possible here?

Alex Relyea

1. I hate the phrase “rules lawyers.” I’ve stated previously that we should ban that phrase within US Chess. I’m 100% convinced that the phrase “Rules Lawyers” indicates a lazy or burned-out TD who shouldn’t be TD’ing for a while. There’s no reason to assume that rules questions, particularly as worded, are not legitimate. “Rules lawyers” is just another way of saying that we didn’t write a clear rule because “everyone knew what it meant” and putting the blame on someone else instead of accepting the responsibility ourselves.

2. Do you deal with people? Have you never noted that people new to something don’t think things through no matter how clear it should be, because they are often overwhelmed by the experience? Especially in the last 10 months, I’ve gotten questions like this routinely. I could roll my eyes, treat the people like they’re stupid, and call them rules lawyers or other made-up derogatory terms, or I can accept that they are new to the experience, and make mistakes. The clearer we make things, the better we communicate, the more we accept our responsibility in this, the better things will be.

But these are not the people I’m describing. These are people who study the rules thoroughly and come up with implausible interpretations that make no sense in concert but could give them an advantage taken in isolation. I’m not referring to people who don’t know the “secret handshakes” but rather people who know them very well and come up with even more “secret” ways to use them.

In any event, you haven’t suggested another possible interpretation of “last ten moves”.

Alex Relyea

As pointed out - I don’t need to. Confusion is sufficient. Clear wording decreases confusion.

What I find interesting is that once again instead of making a simple correction, we argue over it. I completely agree that someone can figure it out if “last” is kept. Why do they need to? Why not just remove the confusion to begin with? And why argue over it?

[jwiewel]

@kbachler

…

As pointed out - I don’t need to. Confusion is sufficient. Clear wording decreases confusion.

What I find interesting is that once again instead of making a simple correction, we argue over it. I completely agree that someone can figure it out if “last” is kept. Why do they need to? Why not just remove the confusion to begin with? And why argue over it?

Clear wording is difficult to do if somebody wants to simulate confusion, particularly considering the multiple definitions many English words have.

For instance, in the phrase “immediately prior” somebody who wants to simulate confusion can use the adverb definition of immediately as “near or close by” to say that it vaguely enough worded that it is not necessarily limited to the most recent 10 moves of each player that have been played so far in the game. And somebody could say that one of the definitions of most is “generally” and is vague enough that the most (generally) recent 10 moves is not necessarily limited to the latest 10 moves. And one of the (archaic) definitions of latest is “last”.

There have been rules changes in the past that were done for total clarification (perhaps even explicitly stating all of the possibilities to apparently ensure than no other interpretation can be made) and yet can be argued to have opened different holes in the rules.

[relyea]

Mr. Bachler: The wording in a certain rule is confusing and should be changed.

Me: How could anyone possibly interpret the rule in a way other than intended?

Mr. Bachler: I don’t need to explain how someone could be confused. I’ve already claimed it’s confusing.

LOL.

Alex Relyea

[relyea]

None of this is to say that there are no problems of clarity with the rules. In fact I can see two with non-zero potential for confusion in this rule, one of the “secret handshake” variety and the other of the “rules lawyer” variety.

First, what does “move” mean in last ten moves? Those of us who are more experienced know exactly what this means, but does a new player know the difference between “move” and “ply”? That is could a person interpret “ten moves” as “five moves”? Not only does 7A seem to indicate that a “move” is something done by just one player, 13C7 introduces the concept of “move pairs” and refers to a sequence of “white-black-white” as “three consecutive individual moves”. I’m not sure where else “move” is defined, but it seems to sometimes mean 1.e4 e5 and other times 1.e4, so it may require a “secret handshake” to know which is meant here.

Second, consider the fragment 1.e4 f5 2.Qh5 Nc6 3.Bc4. Now in the Tip we learn that for the purposes of reconstruction, any move made with a king in check is an illegal move. A “rules lawyer” could argue that 3.Bc4 is an illegal move and that White is obliged to move his queen off the h5-e8 diagonal if he wants to make a legal move. Now the benefits of this are obscure on move 2, but consider later in the game when Black has 2 seconds remaining and White has 5 minutes with a 5 second delay. Black might deliberately leave his King in check in hopes that White responds with an illegal move as defined above. At which point Black can attempt to make a claim for an additional 2 minutes, knowing that if his ploy is unsuccessful there is no practical difference for him if White has 7 minutes instead of 5. He may even attempt to require White to interpose with the illegally moved piece. Absurd?, of course, but maybe worth a try if Black is desperate.

Regardless, I hope it is clear to Mr. Bachler and everyone following along at home the distinction I make between the two types of confusion and the only time I am willing to use “rules lawyer”.

Alex Relyea

[jwiewel]

@relyea

…

Regardless, I hope it is clear to Mr. Bachler and everyone following along at home the distinction I make between the two types of confusion and the only time I am willing to use “rules lawyer”.

Alex Relyea

Some of the other examples I’ve run across:

Holding out your hand in a dead lost position, whispering “draw” so quietly that your opponent does not hear it, and then claiming a draw when your opponent shakes the hand that seemed to be held out in resignation.

Offer a draw to your opponent. Your opponent says “no draw”. Then claiming a draw because your opponent included the word “draw” in the response.

Mis-report your first round result as a loss instead of the actual win. Play the rest of the tournament with easier pairings. During the final round find your first round opponent and going together to the TD to get the first round result corrected. Get the prize money or trophy based on the first round now being listed as a win. (only the later editions of the rulebook allowed the correction to be for rating purposes only).

Your opponent offers a draw. You play on and make a mistake a few moves later. Accept the draw offer and when the TD comes over say that your opponent offered a draw, you accepted it, and now your opponent doesn’t want to draw (exclude mentioning that your move had automatically declined the offer). Hope that the opponent does not mention the moves between the offer and the acceptance and that the TD does not ask if any such moves had occurred.

Play a check and (erroneously) say checkmate while offering your hand. Your opponent reflexive grasps your hand with one of his while capturing your checking queen with his other hand. In desperation, claim that the handshake to the false checkmate comment was a resignation (the on-site appeals committee overturned the floor chief and chief TD to uphold that claim for the tournament, though the rules committee later reversed the game and reinstated the TDs’ decision).

Occasionally move a piece by pushing it with the back of your hand. If your opponent reaches for one piece and inadvertently touches another with the back of the hand you then claim touch move saying that touching a piece with the back of the hand has already been shown to be a manner of touch that is the beginning of a move.

[kevin_bachler]

@relyea

Mr. Bachler: The wording in a certain rule is confusing and should be changed.

Me: How could anyone possibly interpret the rule in a way other than intended?

Mr. Bachler: I don’t need to explain how someone could be confused. I’ve already claimed it’s confusing.

LOL.

Alex Relyea

Strawman.

We have many newbie players and parents at this time. As COVID recedes we will have more. To put it in chess terms, they can’t think that many ply ahead yet, because they aren’t familiar with the chess world.

The phrase “immediately prior” is clear. There’s no question what is meant. It is at most one-ply deep.

The phrase “last” is not clear. It could mean prior 10 moves. It could mean last 10 moves of a game. Just like a beginner who struggles to see the mate in two, the parents and the new players don’t see that second ply easily.

Anyone who can see 2 or 3 ply and who knows and understands the rules will conclude that it won’t be the last 10 moves of a game, since that would no longer be during the game - unless the last move was illegal, in which case it could be the last ten moves of a game. So it must mean prior, at least in most cases.

This is 2-3-4 plys deep since there is also an assumption about knowing some of the more arcane rules, which a newbie isn’t necessarily likely to know.

As I said in the beginning. It’s not hard for any experienced player. It’s hard for a newbie.

Anyone who deals with people, and who cares about people would understand that at most 1 ply, compared to 4 ply, is better. It’s intuitively obvious to even the most casual observer.

But as we’ve noted before, chess players must argue about everything. They will reject change even when its better, and make a big deal out of a two word change. I deal with lawyers regularly. Most of them feel compelled to leave their mark on a legal document. None of them compare to chess players.

[kevin_bachler]

@relyea

None of this is to say that there are no problems of clarity with the rules. In fact I can see two with non-zero potential for confusion in this rule, one of the “secret handshake” variety and the other of the “rules lawyer” variety.

First, what does “move” mean in last ten moves? Those of us who are more experienced know exactly what this means, but does a new player know the difference between “move” and “ply”? That is could a person interpret “ten moves” as “five moves”? Not only does 7A seem to indicate that a “move” is something done by just one player, 13C7 introduces the concept of “move pairs” and refers to a sequence of “white-black-white” as “three consecutive individual moves”. I’m not sure where else “move” is defined, but it seems to sometimes mean 1.e4 e5 and other times 1.e4, so it may require a “secret handshake” to know which is meant here.

Read my first post about this. This is already explained. I agree it could be simpler, but at least its clear without requiring extraneous information.

@kbachler

Because the rule references either player’s last ten moves, there is no need to clarify that we don’t wish to consider only 5 full move pairs - the rule is speaking of the moves of only one player or the other.

@relyea

Second, consider the fragment 1.e4 f5 2.Qh5 Nc6 3.Bc4. Now in the Tip we learn that for the purposes of reconstruction, any move made with a king in check is an illegal move. A “rules lawyer” could argue that 3.Bc4 is an illegal move and that White is obliged to move his queen off the h5-e8 diagonal if he wants to make a legal move. Now the benefits of this are obscure on move 2, but consider later in the game when Black has 2 seconds remaining and White has 5 minutes with a 5 second delay. Black might deliberately leave his King in check in hopes that White responds with an illegal move as defined above. At which point Black can attempt to make a claim for an additional 2 minutes, knowing that if his ploy is unsuccessful there is no practical difference for him if White has 7 minutes instead of 5. He may even attempt to require White to interpose with the illegally moved piece. Absurd?, of course, but maybe worth a try if Black is desperate.

Regardless, I hope it is clear to Mr. Bachler and everyone following along at home the distinction I make between the two types of confusion and the only time I am willing to use “rules lawyer”.

Alex Relyea

No, it isn’t. It’s what I said it was. Poorly written rules if they can legitimately argue that.

[relyea]

@kbachler

The phrase “last” is not clear. It could mean prior 10 moves. It could mean last 10 moves of a game. Just like a beginner who struggles to see the mate in two, the parents and the new players don’t see that second ply easily.

You know, I might agree with you on this point except that at any time this rule is in effect, the last ten moves of the game will also be the prior ten moves. Let’s assume a game goes 50 moves and further assume there is an illegal move on move 25. If Black attempts to claim an illegal move on move 40, the illegality didn’t take place in either the immediately prior ten moves (31-40) or the last ten moves of the game (31-40, so far). Similarly it is valid at move 30 for the same reason(s). If Black claims an illegal move after having agreed to a draw at move 50, the claim is rejected on other grounds. No interpretation needed. So at best we have a distinction without a difference. We shouldn’t change rules even for the sake of clarity when the change has no practical effect on even the most confused of players.

If I’m wrong, please create a scenario where a player makes a claim valid on some definition of “last” that would be rejected using “immediately prior”. If you can’t do that, I’m not going to lose any sleep over this more succinct wording.

Alex Relyea

[kevin_bachler]

@relyea

@kbachler

The phrase “last” is not clear. It could mean prior 10 moves. It could mean last 10 moves of a game. Just like a beginner who struggles to see the mate in two, the parents and the new players don’t see that second ply easily.

You know, I might agree with you on this point except that at any time this rule is in effect, the last ten moves of the game will also be the prior ten moves. Let’s assume a game goes 50 moves and further assume there is an illegal move on move 25. If Black attempts to claim an illegal move on move 40, the illegality didn’t take place in either the immediately prior ten moves (31-40) or the last ten moves of the game (31-40, so far). Similarly it is valid at move 30 for the same reason(s). If Black claims an illegal move after having agreed to a draw at move 50, the claim is rejected on other grounds. No interpretation needed. So at best we have a distinction without a difference. We shouldn’t change rules even for the sake of clarity when the change has no practical effect on even the most confused of players.

If I’m wrong, please create a scenario where a player makes a claim valid on some definition of “last” that would be rejected using “immediately prior”. If you can’t do that, I’m not going to lose any sleep over this more succinct wording.

Alex Relyea

You’re wrong. Not about the analysis. About the complexity. You continue to assume a level of competence not yet available by the player or parent due to lack of experience. Communication is important. There’s no reason for this secret handshake. Just be clear.

These are folks that have a hard time reading pairing sheets. You’re assuming a level of knowledge they just don’t have.

Google: “Gentlemen, this is a football.” and “Men, this is how you put your shoes and socks on.” Fundamentals and that level of simplicity is required.

[relyea]

@kbachler

You’re wrong. Not about the analysis. About the complexity. You continue to assume a level of competence not yet available by the player or parent due to lack of experience. Communication is important. There’s no reason for this secret handshake. Just be clear.

These are folks that have a hard time reading pairing sheets. You’re assuming a level of knowledge they just don’t have.

Google: “Gentlemen, this is a football.” and “Men, this is how you put your shoes and socks on.” Fundamentals and that level of simplicity is required.

So again, I think for the fourth time, I ask for a situation where “immediately prior” means something different from “last” in this specific context, that is in moves during a chess game. If you can’t even posit an incredibly unlikely hypothetical by someone who is not very bright and is new to chess, I doubt you’ll get much support from Rules.

Alex Relyea

[Allen]

@relyea

@kbachler

You’re wrong. Not about the analysis. About the complexity. You continue to assume a level of competence not yet available by the player or parent due to lack of experience. Communication is important. There’s no reason for this secret handshake. Just be clear.

These are folks that have a hard time reading pairing sheets. You’re assuming a level of knowledge they just don’t have.

Google: “Gentlemen, this is a football.” and “Men, this is how you put your shoes and socks on.” Fundamentals and that level of simplicity is required.

So again, I think for the fourth time, I ask for a situation where “immediately prior” means something different from “last” in this specific context, that is in moves during a chess game. If you can’t even posit an incredibly unlikely hypothetical by someone who is not very bright and is new to chess, I doubt you’ll get much support from Rules.

Alex Relyea

This is how you put on socks and shoes is not in the rule book for any sport as far as I am aware.

Yes there are “rules lawyers”. I run into them professionally as well. And the more detailed you make rules the more you get folks who parse and selectively edit to interpret things the way they want to.
But Alex you’re jousting at windmills if you expect Kevin to ever accept to any position contrary to his initial view…

[kevin_bachler]

@relyea

@kbachler

You’re wrong. Not about the analysis. About the complexity. You continue to assume a level of competence not yet available by the player or parent due to lack of experience. Communication is important. There’s no reason for this secret handshake. Just be clear.

These are folks that have a hard time reading pairing sheets. You’re assuming a level of knowledge they just don’t have.

Google: “Gentlemen, this is a football.” and “Men, this is how you put your shoes and socks on.” Fundamentals and that level of simplicity is required.

So again, I think for the fourth time, I ask for a situation where “immediately prior” means something different from “last” in this specific context, that is in moves during a chess game. If you can’t even posit an incredibly unlikely hypothetical by someone who is not very bright and is new to chess, I doubt you’ll get much support from Rules.

Alex Relyea

And again, I point to simple standards of clear communication.

You seem to prefer

over

1 + 1 = 2.

Just because the first case reduces to the second, doesn’t make it as clear. There’s no reason to make newbies figure things out when we can just make them clear.

Let’s hold ourselves to a higher standard, not a lower one.