For example, “Each player has one hundred minutes for their first forty moves and must make all the rest of their moves in an additional thirty minutes but for every move that the player makes we will add thirty seconds. If you can’t complete your game by then, you’ll lose.”
It’s about twice Mr. Nolan’s requested limit, but it completely eliminates any “secret handshakes”. It explains what the time control is, that unused time carries over, and what the consequence is for failing to complete the game under those constraints. It seems to resolve any possible confusion left under Mr. Smythe’s attempt. I welcome any notice of “secret handshake” that I am too embedded to notice. I think the only jargon I have used is “move” and “player” and those seem to be among the barest minimum of jargon one must master before attending a chess event, no matter how informal, as a spectator or, um, player. I welcome corrections from Mr. Bachler especially but anyone really.
To beat you know whom to the punch (not Bachler BTW), the thirty seconds should be added before the move, not after. (In case we have not just a newbie but an anal-retentive newbie).
I’ve always preferred (for increment only) to think of the increment as the primary time measured and the rest as a “reserve of time” available. Something like this:
Still not quite down to 25 words (my exhausted brain thinks it counts 40, and give me 50 and I might could make it clearer), but that’s how I think of it.
Is that a ridiculous way to think about increment time controls? (It does have the virtue of making it clear that you get the 30 seconds for the first move.)
They haven’t been refuted at all. The claims are obvious.
Rules are not descriptions. Rules require a level of precision that descriptions do not. When rules lack precision, it allows logical errors to occur. Then we use the phrase “everyone knows what is meant” to the detriment of novices interested in chess. There’s zero doubt that “immediately prior” is more precise than last, and that’s been demonstrated. Some people refuse to accept that, I’m guessing for personal reasons of some sort since the logical reasons are clear.
I admit I’m wrong when I’m wrong. Standing by a right interpretation is not obstinence. There is nothing false about the arguments, and they are obviously convincing.
Last has at least two potential meanings, the last in the game or the last prior to this point. “Immediately prior” has precisely one, the last prior to this point. That’s factual, truthful, and logical. I understand that you and others don’t like that, but it is what it is, irrespective of whether you like it or not.
In one step, show how this interpretation is false. Then I’ll believe you, and admit I am wrong.
No, in this case he means the last in the thread - once again pointing out that the word “last” has two meanings. You intended sarcasm, but instead prove my point.
Micah, this is a great discussion and proves the point in many ways; its funny how engaged they became isn’t it? And how they started to improve things. Now watch, if I point out some of the obvious errors in Alex Relyea’s post, for instance, it will once again devolve into something where Alex claims I’m wrong, no matter what.
It’s actually a very interesting way to think of it and you’re right, it does simplify the bonus on move one. The standard method of thinking of it is the standard method only because we started with analog clocks. If we had started with the 10-second bell approach used in old speed games, your idea would be more apparent.
New players, who have never used an analog clock, may find your method more clear for that reason as well.
Please, feel free. Is it the cited post that has the obvious errors or my attempt at a jargon-free explanation of the above time control. After all, I invited Mr. Bachler to point out any errors there. Does it count as “claim[ing Mr. Bachler is] wrong” if I point out that he has failed to do so?
If (after a long and involved debate with a group of people) a person is unable to show them why a change in wording makes things clearer, that is a pretty good indication that a change in wording does not make things clearer.
No no no, you just don’t understand. Everyone except the infallible Mr. Bachler is just being obstinate. We should write the rulebook entirely in “legalese” (who needs English?), and every copy sold should come with a free lawyer who can translate the rules back into plain English for those of us who don’t understand legalese (and also a wheelbarrow to carry this huge rulebook around). This is obviously the best course of action.
“Hey, Mr. Lawyer, what the heck does ‘immediately prior’ mean?”
“Why, that’s easy. Anyone except an anal retentive lawyer like me would just say ‘last’.”
I’m guessing that English must be a poorly learned second language for Mr. Bachler, since he doesn’t seem to understand how context works. There are hundreds (if not thousands) of English words with more than one meaning, and yet somehow we get by without explaining which meaning we intend every time we use one of these words. The context does that for us (as it does in this case). But he (and only he) needs to spell everything out in excruciating detail.
Plain English statement: “The moon is out tonight.”
Kevin Bachler version: “If you go outside tonight, and if you’re not blind, and if you have your eyes open, and if you look in the direction [exact azimuth and elevation of the moon’s current position], you will be able to see the moon (provided that there are no trees or buildings blocking your line of sight).”
“Gee, Mr. Bachler, why didn’t you just say that the moon is out tonight, like anyone else would have?”
“Well, see, then you might have thought that I meant that the moon had failed to reach base safely, or that it had revealed its sexual orientation, or that it was no longer in fashion, or Lord knows what else!”
“But I wouldn’t have thought any of those things.”
“No, but you might have. One can never be too careful. And stop being so obstinate.”
Yes, “last” has two meanings - in that context. In the context of a game which is still ongoing, however, it does not, because the last ten moves cannot yet be determined. In this context, the two phrases are equivalent so the shorter phrase is preferable. That one argument has been made repeatedly, and you have not yet answered it.
That’s not ridiculous at all. And it does have the advantage you mention.
However, what do most of us think the main point is? Is it the 40/100, or is it the SD/30, or is it the +30?
I would wager that most of us (non-newbies) would say that 40/100 is the main point. And we should probably steer newbies into thinking the same way.
Therefore, I don’t quite agree with your proposal, for 40/100 SD/30; +30.
But what about G/5 +25? This would be regular-rated (not quick or blitz) because mm+ss >= 30. There have been tournaments run this way, and the absurdity (or permissibility) of this time control has been debated in other threads. But as long as it’s legal, your bulleted points, above, make a lot of sense.
But for “normal” time controls, let’s leave it the way it is, not only because we non-newbies are accustomed to it, but also because we should not steer newbies into thinking that the +30 part is more significant than the 40/100 part.
Mike, what you and everyone else seem to miss, is that you’ve admitted my argument is correct the instance you have to say “because.” My argument has always been that this must be clear to someone capable of seeing only one-ply deep. Intuitively obvious to even the most casual observer. Only able to see what is immediately in front of their face, and even then it might require pointing out.
It’s the difference between inspecting a position and seeing an open file, or calculating that a file can be opened.
The definition of simplicity being used by most in this forum is the poorest of all definitions - fewest words. The definition I’m using is instantaneous clarity.
Except this is not an argument I’ve made. Nice strawman.
Relying on sarcasm to make your argument is an admission that your argument is wrong. You cannot logically make the argument, so you attempt to “beat me into submission” by bullying me. That doesn’t work.
Instead let’s use logic:
Does the word “last” have more than one meaning? Yes. Does the “short phrase” immediately prior have more than one meaning? No.
Therefore, which is simpler? “Immediately prior”
If this is false, just show it. Stop being a bully - think instead.
Attempt to bully.
Attempt to bully.
Both false, and an attempt to bully.
We’ve already seen, many, many, times, how “context” or “everyone knows what is meant” fails.
This was precisely the problem in Bachler-Dowd. Look at how many people in the argument summarized the argument as a “logical trick.” Because of a quirk, Dowd was unable to find the illegal move during the game, and therefore could not appeal – that’s all they saw.
What they failed to see is that the gap in the rules - written that way because we all know what was meant, resulted in making the move everyone considered illegal, LEGAL. Mating someone to get out of check was, under the rules at that time, NOT an illegal act, under the rules. It was assumed to be illegal, because we all know what was meant.
But then, the next newbie coming along, paying attention to simple language, would rightly conclude from that simple language that mating the opponent to get out of check was legal - because that newbie would not know “what was meant.”
Allow precision in rules.
The moon is out tonight is not a rule. It’s not a law, its not regulatory, its not mathematical or a logically focused statement. Rules are.
Again, strawman. Why do you think presenting an absurd, irrelevant argument helps your case? Because you hope it bullies me into submission? Because sarcasm is somehow convincing?
Why not be an adult and have a rational discussion instead. If the phrase isn’t simpler, SHOW IT.
[/quote]
Is there some sort of pleasure you get out of such childish arguments? I really don’t understand why you would rely upon an attempt to bully to make your point.
