Are you arguing that you were incapable of understanding the point about simplicity and fundamentals?
“Rules lawyers” is a phrase used by lazy TDs to defend lazy-written rules.
I get the log, the limit, the sine, and the cosine, but something seems to have been cut off at the right edge.
Bill Smythe
It’s a bad analogy anyway. “Last” is at least as simple and easily understood as “immediately prior” – if anything, it’s simpler. And none of it has anything to do with “newbies” vs. experienced chess players. It’s just simple basic English.
I’m satisfied that Mr. Bachler’s continued unwillingness to provide even the most implausible example to support his point represents an inability to d so. As such, I’m not going to lose sleep over his ability to convince the delegates that this change is worthwhile.
Alex Relyea
Are you saying you don’t understand my example about “rules lawyers”? To be clear, in case there really is anyone who doesn’t understand, “rules lawyer”" is someone who makes a great effort to memorize the exact wording of rules and twist it into something that no reasonable reading of the rules could ever mean. See above for a very clear example.
Alex Relyea
It looks like the 'January’s ‘Just the Rules’ current discussion is about something not even in the column. Should the “last ten moves” discussion be split off into it’s own thread? Moderators?
I understand your example perfectly. Treating it in a derogatory way is inappropriate for someone representing US Chess. Name-calling the person is inappropriate for someone in US Chess. Assuming that the meaning in your head is the only allowable meaning for an imprecisely-worded rule is inappropriate for US Chess.
This is especially the case since we’ve seen both:
- NTDs disagree with each other over a rule or situation, including fundamental disagreements.
- NTDs be wrong over the handling of a situation, including situations on exams.
Both of the latter indicate that “what was clearly meant” wasn’t clear at all, assuming the NTDs were actually trying to follow the rules. (That’s not a slam, just a stated assumption.) Yet we have such instances, including in the Forums.
Such haughtiness is never appropriate, Alex. Ever.
Proving my point, Alex. You have an example in hand, and you either don’t understand it or refuse to acknowledge it.
I am glad that people on the EB, the ED, etc. have seen this need in various areas. To date, there has been some inability to acknowledge the issues in TDs and rules and to adopt kaizen and directives on attitudes there. As other changes continue, one can only hope that it will cause changes here as well.
If Mr. Bachler would care to make an argument that White should be penalized for an illegal move after 1.e4 f5 2.Qh5 Nc6 3.Bc4 or point to an NTD who would make such an argument then I’m all ears. If not, I stand by my “haughty” attitude.
That other people use a term that I have defined above in a way that offends Mr. Bachler has no bearing on me.
Alex Relyea
Yes. I freely admit that I not only don’t understand the example that Mr. Bachler has offered in this thread where “last” can be interpreted as anything other than “immediately prior” in this specific event, but I can’t even find when one has been offered. As a logical conclusion, I am forced to doubt the existence of this claimed “inability”.
I invite Mr. Bachler to make me look foolish be repeating the example he has offered in this thread. Then all the forum denizens can titter behind their hands at how dull-witted Mr. Relyea is for asking repeatedly for an example which has been clearly demonstrated.
Alex Relyea
I second Tim’s call for a topic split.
Kevin, if you feel that strongly then find somebody to submit an ADM (or even a DM or membership meeting motion) for a rule change (it would be necessary anyway). Getting even one NTD or ANTD to agree with you would improve the chances of getting a change approved.
The following is an example of what happens when there is a real discussion (Micah began it with a question about closed book tests and it went on for a while before any rule changes were mentioned).
uschess.org/forums/viewtopi … a&start=50
leading to
new.uschess.org/news/td-certifi … ruary-2022
PS I make no apologies for using the term “rules lawyer” in the following real-life cases when:
somebody makes a blunder that turned a losing game into a blatantly lost game, sticks out a hand as an obvious resignation, inaudibly whispers “draw” and then claims a draw when the hand is shaken (or says the word audibly only after the handshake has already begun);
somebody moves after the opponent offers a draw, blunders a few moves later into a lost position, and then claims the draw because they never said “no” to it;
somebody who claims that offering a draw before you move means that you cannot make a move until the opponent responds and if the opponent does not respond then you will flag.
This topic is a spin-off from January’s “Just the Rules.” in All Things Chess.
11B already says that if the illegal move was prior to the last ten moves then the game shall continue, which most people would see as clearly stating that the last 10 moves does not refer to the final moves of the game as otherwise there would be no continuation of the game.
If the word “last” in ambiguous then I’ve already given one-ply examples where the words “immediately prior”, “most recent” and “latest” can also be deemed just as ambiguous if somebody wants to do so.
That is a feature of the English language with multiple definitions for words.
If somebody wants to bypass the natural ambiguity of the English language and if you don’t think the 11B explanation is enough then you need an example added after the first sentence of 11A:
“To clarify, after Black has made Black’s 29th move and before White has made White’s 30th move, an illegal move may be pointed out for any of the moves from move 20 through move 29. Later in the game after Black has made Black’s 34th move and before White has made White’s 35th move, an illegal move may be pointed out for any of them moves from move 25 through move 34.”
Those are the types of clarifications that help make the rulebook so fat. Personally I think 11B is already enough of a clarification of what “last” means, but if you want to submit a rule change due to the ambiguity of the English language then at least do it without allowing an equivalent ambiguity of the new words chosen.
Indeed, one might even look to Mr. Bachler for an example showing that “last” is generally the more natural way for people to discuss the concept of “immediately prior”:
(emphasis mine)
Is anyone likely to interpret this incorrectly? Should we be worried that we have reached the end of time? (Or maybe we shouldn’t read news out of Ukraine too closely?)
The analogy doesn’t hold, since one has an anticipated near time end, and the other does not.
Again, why is it necessary for people to argue over what is admittedly a minor cleanup of language? If it’s such a minor deal then why are you spending so much time on it?
The explanation has been stated several times. It is borne out of confusion of a non-experienced player. That’s been stated several times. Such players (and their parents) often have such simple confusion of things that couldn’t be any other way - just like this one. But they do, and I think it saves us effort and makes things better for newbies if we make a point of cleaning up such things.
Why do so many want to make this hard?
viewtopic.php?p=226257#p226257
viewtopic.php?p=226095#p226095
- 1
The original suggestion looks a lot like wanting to make a change simply for the sake of making a change, with the excuse for the change being that the English language has words with multiple definitions and somebody might ignore the obvious definition (I feel it is blatantly obvious in 11B) and instead replace it another word or phrase with multiple definitions (that has a similar chance that somebody might ignore the obvious definition).
As I stated before, I feel the current language works but if you want to deal with the natural ambiguity words have in the English language then instead if replacing with other words (having that same natural ambiguity), add an example to clearly explain the rule. 11B already says that if an illegal move occurred prior to the last 10 moves then the game continues, which is why I think the definition of last is blatantly obvious (how can you know when the game ends when you are mid-game), but if somebody can misinterpret that then there is a chance for any mere words to be misinterpreted.
In any case, if you want a change made then either become a delegate and submit the change as an ADM/DM or find a delegate to do such a submission or have the suggestion made in the membership meeting to be added to the agenda to be dealt with immediately after the ADMs have been dealt with. Since it is a rule change it really should be an ADM so that the Rules committee can review it and give their opinion at the delegates meeting (the only way such a change can be approved) or otherwise it will almost certainly be referred to the Rules committee if it isn’t simply voted down.
The original rulebook was much thinner and as time went on people would add more and more rules and explanations for things that could (rarely) be interpreted differently, sometimes plugging a “hole” in the rules with a patch that made another (maybe more severe) hole and requiring yet another change. That has made the rulebook fatter and more intimidating with the result that all those changes have made it more likely that people don’t even attempt to read the rule book. The irony is that in the attempt to explain things to make it easy, we have instead thrown up a barrier that (for many people) makes it more difficult.
The underlying premise of this change is that a new player might read the rule and understand it differently. Personally I don’t know of any new player that has fully read the rulebook, instead learning the tournament rules as others explain it to them. So any change to make it easier for a new person to read is a change likely to be ignored during an explanation by others who probably haven’t read the specific language anyway and both before and after any change are very likely to explain it using the same wording they are using now (“last”, “previous”, “most recent” or any other similar word or phrase).
At scholastic tournaments during the initial announcements to the parents and kids I will lift the rulebook (opened and parallel to the floor) with pages 5 through 28 standing up vertically while saying that I anticipate that all of the players know the rules on how to play the game, and then I will shift my hand so that pages 29 through 275 are now vertical while saying that if there is any confusion over the rules of how to play tournaments then the kids should raise their hands so that a TD can come over and resolve that confusion. That generally gets a chuckle from the vast majority (first-timers don’t expect a rulebook to be that thick), lets an uncertain newbie know that it is reasonable to raise a hand for an explanation, and says that an opponent trying to invoke a rule may be confused rather than trying to intentionally twist (or make up) a rule to take advantage of a newbie (thinking your opponent was confused is a lot less upsetting than thinking your opponent is trying to cheat you).
As Mr. Bachler has repeatedly refused to offer an example where even the most novice player or non-playing parent of such player could be confused by “last” in this rule, much less such a case where this player or parent’s confusion’s would be alleviated by changing “last” to “immediately prior”, I’m not concerned about this happening in real life. Note that Mr. Bachler claims to have offered such a hypothetical above, but refuses to repeat it.
I would argue that Mr. Bachler’s proposed Rules change might have the opposite effect. I offer that we have a great number of members who are very young, and a number, not as precisely known, but likely large, who aren’t as comfortable with English as they are in another, their first, language. It is also incontrovertible that the construction “immediately prior” is more complicated than the construction “last”. I am not arguing that there is anything necessarily wrong with complicated constructions, and, in fact, I often say don’t hunt for the right one word where fifty would make your meaning completely clear. Nevertheless, I hypothesize that people in the two categories I’ve identified above are likely to look at “immediately prior” and be very confused because of course this is not an editorial in a national newspaper, but a Rule where every word is presumably essential to the meaning. Most of us would think that “immediately prior” means “last” and move on, but I think that people in these categories are more likely to see “immediately prior” and try very hard to figure out what this could possibly mean other than “last” thereby creating the confusion, or worse, an incorrect interpretation that Mr. Bachler is trying to avoid.
Alex Relyea
+1
Let’s face it. “prior” is, at best, a microscopic improvement over “last”, and at worst, an opportunity for confusion.
And “immediately prior” is actually a worsening, because it introduces a redundant word that a few people might be tempted to grab ahold of for their own nefarious purposes.
If there is an improvement over “last ten moves”, it is “last ten move pairs”. Even a novice would quickly figure this one out.
Bill Smythe
I’m not so sure about that, Bill. I’ve had an adult high B player tell me that the only valid definition of a move pair is a move by White followed by a move by Black.