I understand what you’re saying Kevin. But surely it is reasonable to expect that someone who plays in a chess tournament has some basic knowledge. You might draw the line in a different place than Alex. But surely there are some things you would expect too.
Clear expectation
How do the pieces move
What is checkmate
A little grayer - you can’t deliver checkmate by making an illegal move. That should be intuitively obvious, but it still warranted clarity in the rules.
A bit grayer - “the last ten moves”, in the context of a game which is not yet finished, must by definition refer to the most recent ten moves. That’s especially evident in the event of a rules claim. Since the game isn’t over yet, it cannot possibly refer to the last ten moves of the game. That’s not chess, that’s English.
Regardless of the logic behind the rules, the argument was that every ruling went against Mr. Bachler. He may be correct that the rulings should not have gone against him, but that doesn’t change the fact that they did.
Mr. Bachler’s assertion is akin to a prisoner asserting that the jury interpreted the law incorrectly. The prisoner may be right, but he’s still in jail, and looks very silly if he argues that he is not.
No. Sorry. Your example may or may not have anything to do with chess. Your example fails to assume that there is a chess game involved. If someone randomly mutters “the last ten moves” no one has any idea what he means, and it is no clearer if someone randomly mutters “the immediately prior ten moves”. If you want your example to make any sense at all you need to explain the circumstances when someone says “the last ten moves”.
It’s probably not worth arguing about this because near as I can figure Mr. Bachler hasn’t convinced anyone that his language change would be an improvement, and everyone who has expressed an opinion thinks it would likely make things more confusing, so I’m confident that he won’t be able to convince 2/3 of the delegates that his idea has merit.
I agree. But the situations I’m seeing are parents - not players - raising questions. Personally, I always made a point of coaching young scholastic players on the rules and on the fact that they are the “1st referee.” Many parents or coaches don’t have that experience, so you have parents and players learning after-the-fact.
I also agree we’ll never get it perfect, but that isn’t a reason not to try.
And I’ll also note that this discussion has been far longer than the improvement itself. The length of this discussion is utterly unnecessary. The phrase “last” is only a minor imprecision. The suggestion was to adjust only when a time arises to adjust several such minor imprecisions simultaneously. I find the degree to which people in US Chess wish to defend secret handshakes over better communication absurd - and my pushing for small things like this are more to stop the Alex’s and the Jeff’s and the Allen’s from continuing a bad tradition than it is to make such a minor improvement. It’s literally much more about the culture change about caring about new players that has to occur - about fighting the laziness of TDs who would rather name-call players “rules lawyers” than just do a better job - than it is about the wording improvement itself.
Mr. Bachler somehow repeatedly refuses to believe that “You don’t understand!” is not a persuasive argument. If he wishes to convince anyone of anything he must reframe his argument in terms that the people understand.
This goes for both of his arguments in this thread.
I find it amusing that you continue to refer to your suggested change as an “improvement” – even though you have been utterly unable to persuade anyone but yourself that it actually is an improvement. When everyone disagrees with you, you might consider the possibility that maybe you’re wrong.
And I don’t appreciate being accused of supporting “secret handshakes”. What I do support is the use of clear simple English (“last”) in preference to unnecessarily complicated English (“immediately prior”) when the meaning is identical. Do you refer to your car as a “motorized four-wheeled transportation device”? Or do you just call it a car?
This is not a conspiracy against you. It’s just people calling a bad idea a bad idea. You could end the long discussion immediately by agreeing with them.
There’s nothing to convince. It’s definitionally clearer, period. I’ve made my career, frankly, on finding improved solutions on things others have said weren’t possible or that they ignored. As a result, I listen to the input of others, but I learned long ago to question carefully whether they were correct, or as in Stouffer’s commercials, just being held back by tradition. As a result, I’m quite comfortable at judging, and then if necessary ignoring, arguments based on argumentum ad populum, argumentum ad vercundium. My inability to persuade may or may not be due to the solution itself, my personal limitations in persuading, or simply the obstinance of those with certain power who refuse to consider alternatives that are not secret handshakes. In this instance the solution is better, the reasons are logical and have been expressed, and consequently, the most likely shortfall is the obstinance of chessplayers.
“Last” is unclear because it is relatively imprecise. Last relative to what? Lack of clarity destroys its supposed simplicity. Peer pressure doesn’t make me bow to inferior solutions. If this weren’t a rulebook, but a simple description, I could agree with “last” since the imperative of exactness would be less important. We’ve already seen in too many times over the years how this lack of principles has led to NTDs denigrating players as “rules lawyers.”
Alex, the argument is clear and logical. I’ve provided logical and explicit reasons for it. When you reframe those as “you don’t understand” to denigrate the argument, it becomes immediately apparent that the issue is not the argument, but rather your obstinance at either anything that is different or simply anything I suggest. It doesn’t really matter which.
Once again, Mr. Bachler is either unwilling or unable to provide an example of a situation where someone would be confused by the wording “last ten moves” in this Rule, but would not be confused by the wording “immediately prior ten moves” in this Rule. He claims to have provided an example, but refuses to repeat it.
As far as the Appeals question goes, it was claimed that Mr. Bachler’s appeal was rejected at every level. Mr. Bachler’s response was that the appeal should have been upheld. My response is that everyone who has ever made an appeal in any setting has felt that it should be upheld. Regardless of the merits of Mr. Bachler’s appeal, he has offered no evidence, however spurious, that he was not ruled against at every level, which is all that the claim is stating.
It is sad that Mr. Bachler feels insulted by these clear statements of fact and requests for clarification. I have an open mind and am willing to be convinced. Saying “You don’t understand!” is neither necessary nor helpful, since it is obvious that I don’t understand and have been repeatedly asking for clarity. Instead Mr. Bachler insists on using his logician’s “secret handshake” rather than dumbing down his point so that I can understand it. There is no shame in thinking at such a high level that most people can’t immediately follow your thought processes. The problem is that if you want to convince others of your logic, you’ll need to slow down and connect the dots at a level they can understand. You have manifestly been unable to do that here. I am sorry if you feel insulted by my inability to follow your plain logic and my repeated requests for you to offer your points at a level that I can understand, i.e. bypass the “secret handshake.”
A word about “secret handshakes” and “Rules lawyers”.
I’m opposed to “secret handshakes” There is necessary jargon in any specialized endeavor, but we should work to keep it at a minimum, at least in our communications with “outsiders”. As an example, our jargon includes words such as check, castle, adjust, draw, all of which, and many more, have specialized meanings inside the chess world that would be opaque to an outsider. “Last” is not a part of this jargon, and, in the case of the Rules cited in the topic, means exactly what it means in ordinary English.
Now that we have unlimited space for TLAs, it makes sense to remove as much of the jargon as possible, or even provide a link to a document that has been written by a volunteer (which sounds like something Micah Smith would enjoy or at least do well) that explains what 5SS or the not much better “five rounds swiss system” means. This is “secret handshake” stuff that we can eliminate or at least offer a decoder for.
As far as “Rules lawyer” in concerned, I make no bones about my contempt for players who know the Rules so well that they are able to find a plausible meaning in a Rule that both will give them an unfair advantage and is obviously contrary to the intent of the Delegates. I am sorry that the term offends Mr. Bachler.
Sorry, but you have no “logic” or facts at all to support your desired change. The arguments you have presented have been false and utterly unconvincing. In the context of the rule in question, “last” means exactly the same as “immediately prior” – and cannot mean anything else. There is no imprecision, no ambiguity, and no lack of clarity. It is perfectly clear to everyone except you. The only obstinance here is on your side. You just can’t ever admit that you’re wrong about anything, so you will beat the dead horse forever.
Kevin’s arguments have been convincingly refuted, convincing at least to all but him. Since he will continue to argue as long as we do, I suggest WE stop. He can have the last word. It will be no more convincing then the previous multiple pages. Let’s all let this thread die a natural death.
Suggestion to moderators: Lock this thread before Kevin has the last word. If, when you come in to lock up, the last post was Kevin’s, remove that post and then lock the thread.
For the annual Oregon Open tournament I run, I’ve recently been revising the flyer for the tournament to make it more newbie-friendly. A newbie is not likely to know, for example, what “40/100,SD/30;+30” means.
You could start with “40 moves in 100 minutes, followed by sudden death in 30 minutes, with a 30-second increment throughout” – that’s 18 words, if you also count each number as a word – but then for the absolute newbie you’d also have to explain “sudden death”, “increment”, and “throughout”, perhaps at 18 words each, for a total of 72 words.
It should be worth doing, though. To avoid boring the non-newbies, it could be in an extra paragraph below, with “(see explanation below)” added right after “40/100,SD/30;+30”.
I was about to add a snide remark like that to my own post, but I chickened out. Thank you for supplying it for me.