Last 10 moves - rules 11A and 11B

[Smythe_Dakota]

@I

If there is an improvement over “last ten moves”, it is “last ten move pairs”. Even a novice would quickly figure this one out.

@In response

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.

That’s not all that bad, is it? It’s only one ply away from an absolutely correct definition. And it’s good enough to answer the obvious question, “are you talking about 10 moves per player, or 5 moves per player?”.

Bill Smythe

[kevin_bachler]

@jwiewel

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).

It is obvious for anyone with experience. It isn’t obvious for those without.

What I fail to understand is why TDs in particular feel like any attempt to simplify language is a change for the sake of making change. It’s like they are insulted that the rulebook could be improved.

We should ALWAYS embrace anything to make things simpler. We are a complicated lot.

[kevin_bachler]

@Smythe Dakota

@relyea

… 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.

+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 agree that it is only a small improvement and said that upfront. Alex is too focused on this being a specific circumstance. It isn’t. It’s a general concept that we should look for better wording to simplify. You’ve probably seen it Bill. There are a lot of new players at tournaments, and there have been some funny questions that have come up, simply by reading words in a “normal” way, rather than in a pre-informed way.

Immediately is not actually redundant. If one is on move 30, moves 1-29 are all prior. Immediately prior indicates only moves 20-29.

Given the wording of the rule “move pairs” is unnecessary, and the rule working would have to be changed if this were changed. “Last 10 move pairs” has exactly the same issue point out before.

[dennisk]

In what alternate universe is “immediately prior” simpler than “last”???

[Allen]

@dennisk

In what alternate universe is “immediately prior” simpler than “last”???

Only in Kevin’s. But he’ll probably tell you it’s just because you aren’t smart like him or you would understand.

[jwiewel]

@kbachler

…

It is obvious for anyone with experience. It isn’t obvious for those without.

What I fail to understand is why TDs in particular feel like any attempt to simplify language is a change for the sake of making change. It’s like they are insulted that the rulebook could be improved.

We should ALWAYS embrace anything to make things simpler. We are a complicated lot.

Personally I think an attempt to make something simpler should actually make something simpler.

Replacing reportedly ambiguous English language wording with other ambiguous English language wording is not making things simpler, and when the other ambiguous English language wording is longer and uses less familiar words then it seems to be making things more complex.

I agree that it is obvious for anyone with experience. Considering the growing length of the rulebook I don’t know of anybody without experience that reads it, and as the length of the rulebook continues to grow it is less and less likely that I’ll ever meet anybody without experience that has read it. Pretty much everybody hears the rule from somebody explaining it, and there is no guarantee of such people happening to use the exact wording (and the exact wording is the issue here). Using “making it easier for the newbie” as a justification seems to be grasping at straws.

That said, if you really want to move forward with this then I went through possible courses of action. An example can be given, but make sure it is a good example because there have been cases in the past where “all” the allowable actions are listed for a type of situation and the list overlooked actions that are necessary for a small subset of the type of situation.

[relyea]

@kbachler

I agree that it is only a small improvement and said that upfront. Alex is too focused on this being a specific circumstance. It isn’t. It’s a general concept that we should look for better wording to simplify. You’ve probably seen it Bill. There are a lot of new players at tournaments, and there have been some funny questions that have come up, simply by reading words in a “normal” way, rather than in a pre-informed way.

Two things: one, no one other than Mr. Bachler has claimed that it is even a small improvement, so he is only agreeing with himself.

Second, I plead guilty. Rules are very specific circumstances. I am in no way arguing that the Official Rules of Chess are perfectly worded and that improvements in wording are impossible. I’m only saying that it doesn’t apply here. Since Mr. Bachler is apparently unable to come up with a single example, no matter how absurd, where it is possible to be confused by “last” but not by “immediately prior”, I can’t see how he doesn’t agree with me. It is entirely possible that I will support his next ten “clarifications”. I’ve explained above again and again how this is in no way a clarification and, for some members of our population, may in fact be an obfuscation.

TL;dr: I agree we should look for “better wording to simplify”. 'Tain’t it.

Alex Relyea

[jwiewel]

@relyea

@kbachler

I agree that it is only a small improvement and said that upfront. Alex is too focused on this being a specific circumstance. It isn’t. It’s a general concept that we should look for better wording to simplify. You’ve probably seen it Bill. There are a lot of new players at tournaments, and there have been some funny questions that have come up, simply by reading words in a “normal” way, rather than in a pre-informed way.

Two things: one, no one other than Mr. Bachler has claimed that it is even a small improvement, so he is only agreeing with himself.

Second, I plead guilty. Rules are very specific circumstances. I am in no way arguing that the Official Rules of Chess are perfectly worded and that improvements in wording are impossible. I’m only saying that it doesn’t apply here. Since Mr. Bachler is apparently unable to come up with a single example, no matter how absurd, where it is possible to be confused by “last” but not by “immediately prior”, I can’t see how he doesn’t agree with me. It is entirely possible that I will support his next ten “clarifications”. I’ve explained above again and again how this is in no way a clarification and, for some members of our population, may in fact be an obfuscation.

TL;dr: I agree we should look for “better wording to simplify”. 'Tain’t it.

Alex Relyea

Kevin did say that Bill agreed with him based on the following:

@Smythe Dakota

…

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.

…

Bill Smythe

Personally don’t think it is really agreement with the words I bolded in the quote but if Kevin sees that as agreement then Kevin sees that as agreement.

[10mostwanted]

@jwiewel

@kbachler

…

It is obvious for anyone with experience. It isn’t obvious for those without.

What I fail to understand is why TDs in particular feel like any attempt to simplify language is a change for the sake of making change. It’s like they are insulted that the rulebook could be improved.

We should ALWAYS embrace anything to make things simpler. We are a complicated lot.

Personally I think an attempt to make something simpler should actually make something simpler.

Replacing reportedly ambiguous English language wording with other ambiguous English language wording is not making things simpler, and when the other ambiguous English language wording is longer and uses less familiar words then it seems to be making things more complex.

I agree that it is obvious for anyone with experience. Considering the growing length of the rulebook I don’t know of anybody without experience that reads it, and as the length of the rulebook continues to grow it is less and less likely that I’ll ever meet anybody without experience that has read it. Pretty much everybody hears the rule from somebody explaining it, and there is no guarantee of such people happening to use the exact wording (and the exact wording is the issue here). Using “making it easier for the newbie” as a justification seems to be grasping at straws.

That said, if you really want to move forward with this then I went through possible courses of action. An example can be given, but make sure it is a good example because there have been cases in the past where “all” the allowable actions are listed for a type of situation and the list overlooked actions that are necessary for a small subset of the type of situation.

“You should not use a big word when a diminutive one would suffice.”

…scot…

[brennanprice]

@10mostwanted

@jwiewel

@kbachler

…

It is obvious for anyone with experience. It isn’t obvious for those without.

What I fail to understand is why TDs in particular feel like any attempt to simplify language is a change for the sake of making change. It’s like they are insulted that the rulebook could be improved.

We should ALWAYS embrace anything to make things simpler. We are a complicated lot.

Personally I think an attempt to make something simpler should actually make something simpler.

Replacing reportedly ambiguous English language wording with other ambiguous English language wording is not making things simpler, and when the other ambiguous English language wording is longer and uses less familiar words then it seems to be making things more complex.

I agree that it is obvious for anyone with experience. Considering the growing length of the rulebook I don’t know of anybody without experience that reads it, and as the length of the rulebook continues to grow it is less and less likely that I’ll ever meet anybody without experience that has read it. Pretty much everybody hears the rule from somebody explaining it, and there is no guarantee of such people happening to use the exact wording (and the exact wording is the issue here). Using “making it easier for the newbie” as a justification seems to be grasping at straws.

That said, if you really want to move forward with this then I went through possible courses of action. An example can be given, but make sure it is a good example because there have been cases in the past where “all” the allowable actions are listed for a type of situation and the list overlooked actions that are necessary for a small subset of the type of situation.

“You should not use a big word when a diminutive one would suffice.”

…scot…

No.

[kevin_bachler]

@dennisk

In what alternate universe is “immediately prior” simpler than “last”???

In any world where it’s simpler to have exactness.

[kevin_bachler]

@jwiewel

@kbachler

…

It is obvious for anyone with experience. It isn’t obvious for those without.

What I fail to understand is why TDs in particular feel like any attempt to simplify language is a change for the sake of making change. It’s like they are insulted that the rulebook could be improved.

We should ALWAYS embrace anything to make things simpler. We are a complicated lot.

Personally I think an attempt to make something simpler should actually make something simpler.

Replacing reportedly ambiguous English language wording with other ambiguous English language wording is not making things simpler, and when the other ambiguous English language wording is longer and uses less familiar words then it seems to be making things more complex.

I agree that it is obvious for anyone with experience. Considering the growing length of the rulebook I don’t know of anybody without experience that reads it, and as the length of the rulebook continues to grow it is less and less likely that I’ll ever meet anybody without experience that has read it. Pretty much everybody hears the rule from somebody explaining it, and there is no guarantee of such people happening to use the exact wording (and the exact wording is the issue here). Using “making it easier for the newbie” as a justification seems to be grasping at straws.

That said, if you really want to move forward with this then I went through possible courses of action. An example can be given, but make sure it is a good example because there have been cases in the past where “all” the allowable actions are listed for a type of situation and the list overlooked actions that are necessary for a small subset of the type of situation.

Except that immediately prior isn’t ambiguous.

My original suggestion stands; we should simply collect such minor things and make them when opportunities arise. They aren’t the sort of changes that are worth the length of discussion that has occurred here.

[kevin_bachler]

@jwiewel

@relyea

@kbachler

I agree that it is only a small improvement and said that upfront. Alex is too focused on this being a specific circumstance. It isn’t. It’s a general concept that we should look for better wording to simplify. You’ve probably seen it Bill. There are a lot of new players at tournaments, and there have been some funny questions that have come up, simply by reading words in a “normal” way, rather than in a pre-informed way.

Two things: one, no one other than Mr. Bachler has claimed that it is even a small improvement, so he is only agreeing with himself.

Second, I plead guilty. Rules are very specific circumstances. I am in no way arguing that the Official Rules of Chess are perfectly worded and that improvements in wording are impossible. I’m only saying that it doesn’t apply here. Since Mr. Bachler is apparently unable to come up with a single example, no matter how absurd, where it is possible to be confused by “last” but not by “immediately prior”, I can’t see how he doesn’t agree with me. It is entirely possible that I will support his next ten “clarifications”. I’ve explained above again and again how this is in no way a clarification and, for some members of our population, may in fact be an obfuscation.

TL;dr: I agree we should look for “better wording to simplify”. 'Tain’t it.

Alex Relyea

Kevin did say that Bill agreed with him based on the following:

@Smythe Dakota

…

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.

…

Bill Smythe

Personally don’t think it is really agreement with the words I bolded in the quote but if Kevin sees that as agreement then Kevin sees that as agreement.

The agreement was that the improvement was minor.

[dennisk]

@kbachler

@dennisk

In what alternate universe is “immediately prior” simpler than “last”???

In any world where it’s simpler to have exactness.

In the context of the rule in question, they mean exactly the same thing – and “last” is undeniably simpler.

[relyea]

To summarize: Mr. Bachler wishes to amend a rule to correct an ambiguity. He creates “improved wording” which has no support except the following “‘immediately prior’ is actually a worsening”. He is unwilling or unable to come up with an example, no matter how unlikely, of how anyone would find the current wording ambiguous, but both Mr. Smythe (however vaguely) and I have offered examples of how the “improved” wording could cause problems.

Unless Mr. Bachler has answers to any of the above, I think it’s time to end the discussion.

Alex Relyea

[Mulfish]

I think we can all agree that only a person who is going far out of the way to come up with a twisted interpretation where “last” means something different from “immediately prior”, I think Kevin’s point is that we do have such people among us. Just as we have people who will play the illegal 3. Qxf7mate to prove a point. Oh wait, that was Kevin.

I’ll side with Alex on ending the discussion, but since I made an argument, I can’t call the question.

[timjust]

@Mulfish

I think we can all agree that only a person who is going far out of the way to come up with a twisted interpretation where “last” means something different from “immediately prior”, I think Kevin’s point is that we do have such people among us. Just as we have people who will play the illegal 3. Qxf7mate to prove a point. Oh wait, that was Kevin.

I’ll side with Alex on ending the discussion, but since I made an argument, I can’t call the question.

As I do so often at Delegate’s meetings: I call the question.

[Allen]

I object. I’m not done with my popcorn!

[jwiewel]

@jwiewel

@kbachler

I agree that it is only a small improvement and said that upfront. Alex is too focused on this being a specific circumstance. It isn’t. It’s a general concept that we should look for better wording to simplify. You’ve probably seen it Bill. There are a lot of new players at tournaments, and there have been some funny questions that have come up, simply by reading words in a “normal” way, rather than in a pre-informed way.

@relyea

Two things: one, no one other than Mr. Bachler has claimed that it is even a small improvement, so he is only agreeing with himself.

Second, I plead guilty. Rules are very specific circumstances. I am in no way arguing that the Official Rules of Chess are perfectly worded and that improvements in wording are impossible. I’m only saying that it doesn’t apply here. Since Mr. Bachler is apparently unable to come up with a single example, no matter how absurd, where it is possible to be confused by “last” but not by “immediately prior”, I can’t see how he doesn’t agree with me. It is entirely possible that I will support his next ten “clarifications”. I’ve explained above again and again how this is in no way a clarification and, for some members of our population, may in fact be an obfuscation.

TL;dr: I agree we should look for “better wording to simplify”. 'Tain’t it.

Alex Relyea

Kevin did say that Bill agreed with him based on the following:

@Smythe Dakota

…

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.

…

Bill Smythe

Personally don’t think it is really agreement with the words I bolded in the quote but if Kevin sees that as agreement then Kevin sees that as agreement.

@kbachler

The agreement was that the improvement was minor.

You seem to be equating microscopic with minor, though most would see them as different.
Also, you’ve ignored the second clause of Bill’s statement.

That seems kind of like:
Person A: Instead of leaving your money in a checking account you should make a 1-day investment of $250 for a minor profit.
Person B: The best case would be a profit of only one dollar and the worst case is that the investment would be lost.
Person A: Person B agrees that the profit would be minor.

[nolan]

There is no wording that couldn’t be misinterpreted, naively or intentionally.