Last 10 moves - rules 11A and 11B

Running Chess Tournaments
121

New suggestion to moderators:

Beginning with the first post listed below, categorize each post as follows:

  • DH – Dead Horse – a post which attempts to continue a worn-out topic
  • RR – Reasonable Response to a DH, no longer necessary once the corresponding DH is removed
  • NT – New Topic – An interesting post about another interesting topic

My suggestion:

  1. Remove all DH and RR posts.
  2. Move NT posts to a new thread, entitled “A novel way to envision Increment” or something similar.
  3. Lock this thread.

Posts are listed by type, date, time, and post number:

NT - Wed Mar 09, 2022 8:49 pm #353311
DH - Wed Mar 09, 2022 11:24 pm #353312
DH - Wed Mar 09, 2022 11:30 pm #353313
DH - Wed Mar 09, 2022 11:33 pm #353314
DH - Wed Mar 09, 2022 11:37 pm #353315
NT - Wed Mar 09, 2022 11:42 pm #353316
RR - Thu Mar 10, 2022 12:47 am #353317
RR - Thu Mar 10, 2022 12:53 am #353318
RR - Thu Mar 10, 2022 2:32 am #353319
RR - Thu Mar 10, 2022 4:39 am #353320
RR - Thu Mar 10, 2022 4:41 am #353321
RR - Thu Mar 10, 2022 7:57 am #353322
NT - Thu Mar 10, 2022 11:29 am #353329
DH - Thu Mar 10, 2022 1:36 pm #353330
DH - Thu Mar 10, 2022 1:37 pm #353331
DH - Thu Mar 10, 2022 1:39 pm #353332
DH - Thu Mar 10, 2022 1:43 pm #353333
DH - Thu Mar 10, 2022 1:59 pm #353334
RR - Thu Mar 10, 2022 2:29 pm #353335 (this post I am now writing)

(Any later posts will need to be categorized by the moderators when they arrive to do the clean-up.)

Bill Smythe

122

In the context of the rule in question (the only context that matters), “last” has exactly one meaning, and it is the same meaning that “immediately prior” has. This has been pointed out to you numerous times, by me and others. Yet you continue to act as if you’ve never heard it.

I have already made my point numerous times (as have others), and you continue to ignore it. We are way past making points, or trying to change your mind. I’m not trying to “bully” or beat you into submission. I am well aware that you will continue to beat your dead horse no matter what I say, because that’s what you do. What I’m doing is mocking you, because your silly “argument” is eminently mockable. My “moon” analogy was exactly as absurd (no more, no less) as the arguments you’ve been making. That’s my point.

123

Kevin doesn’t think a one ply person can understand that last ten moves can’t apply to moves that haven’t been played yet. Everyone else disagrees.

124

I had to go back to the beginning of this topic because I was wondering why not just say previous and I’m quoting Kevin here.

So Kevin why do you believe that immediately prior ten moves is more precise or better than your original “previous ten moves”?

125

Neither “prior” nor “previous” clearly state “most recent consecutive preceding moves.” In many - perhaps even most people might take it to mean that. But again, if we are looking for clarity without thought, they don’t quite get there. If we are on move 20, either prior or previous could mean 11-20 (or 10-19) but any moves 1-19 are prior or previous. Adding “immediate” requires consecutiveness and most recent. So there’s no confusion possible and no thought required.

Look, I get the common language thing. I’ve argued for that. But in rules preciseness is weighted heavier than than common language. In descriptions common language is more important than preciseness.

And again, I’ve made the point since the beginning that this is a MINOR improvement. “prior” is better than last. “Immediately prior is better than prior.” But the lack of clarity here is, I agree, not horrible. It takes very little analysis to understand what is meant. But it does take analysis, immediately prior does not.

The idea that people would waste so much time arguing against the concept of clarity is both troubling and astounding. My reason for carrying on the discussion is the principle and associated educational discussion - the discussion was not worth the minuscule incremental superiority over “last.”

126

That’s not true. Kevin says that its unnecessary to require a one-ply person to make that analysis, not that they are incapable of doing so. We can, as an organization, learn to be simple.

127

So you admit that you’re mocking another member. Mocking, being sarcastic is not respectful. It is bullying. Your behavior is unacceptable.Your moon analogy was very much more absurd, sarcastic and insulting.

As soon as you say “In the context of the rule in question” you’ve lost the argument. That’s the point. “Immediately prior” requires no context. It’s clear.

128

Or just let people figure it out, Bill.

129

I wish Mr. Bachler would step back from his embrace of the secret handshake for just one moment and explain what he means by a “one ply person”. I understand “one” and “ply” and “person”. I can’t understand what is meant by the phrase.

If I’m not misunderstanding, Mr. Bachler is now suggesting that Rules should be context free. Is that correct?

As long as he refuses to explain at which point a person will mutter “last ten moves” and be confusing where “immediately prior ten moves” is clear, or even microscopically more clear, I’m satisfied that Mr. Bachler doesn’t even believe his own argument, but is just arguing for its own sake.

As I’ve offered examples where our members may be more confused by his wording and he has refused to respond, I wonder if he thinks that my counterexample is sufficient.

Finally, I am flattered to hear this, but I don’t believe that I am as intelligent as Mr. Bachler thinks I am. I freely admit that it may be possible that I am too steeped in our jargon to understand where the jargon is unexpurgated from the time control example above and would like to see how it could further be reduced. Similarly, I am not smart enough to understand how every appellate body disagreeing with Mr. Bachler’s interpretation of a Rule in a case I dimly understand does not mean that they are wrong, but that they actually ruled in his favor.

There is much in this thread that I am not smart enough to understand, and that includes Mr. Bachler’s apparent repeated attempts to demystify me.

Alex Relyea

130

My dictionary (Webster’s Third New International, Unabridged) shows three definitions of “immediately” and four definitions of “prior” – so even with those words (as with most words), you need context to establish the meaning. There is always a context in any communication, and you need to account for it. So it seems as though you’ve lost the argument.

“‘Immediately prior’ requires no context” (aside from being incorrect) is backward. More to the point, the context (of the rule in question) does not require “immediately prior”. “Last” is every bit as precise (in that context), and likely to be more familiar to more people than “prior” – and therefore is to be preferred. “Don’t use more precision than you need (or fancier words than you need)” is a good general rule. When you know the diameter of a circle to two decimal places, and you want to know the circumference, you don’t need to use a 20-digit expansion of pi in your calculation, and it would be foolish to do so (and even more foolish to think that the 20-plus digits of your answer are “more accurate” than the two decimal places of a sensible answer). People might even mock you for it. If you don’t want to be ridiculed, stop being ridiculous.

131

:laughing: :smiling_imp: :laughing: :smiling_imp: :laughing: :smiling_imp: :laughing: :smiling_imp: :laughing: :smiling_imp: :laughing: :smiling_imp: :laughing:

Bill Smythe

132

It seems like they already have.

133

So to be clear, your actual suggestion is the wording of immediate? Immediate last, works just as well as immediate prior or immediately previous etc.
What about just prior? edited to explain I didn’t mean just the word “prior” but the words “just prior”

134

You’re required to mock and be a bully? Those are your actions, not mine. Nothing I do forces you to mock or be sarcastic about the situation. You cannot justify your poor behavior.

Lest anyone be confused because this is written, not spoken, I am not angry, fuming, etc. I know some could misinterpret what I am saying because it is inexact. I am not expressing feelings. I am commenting solely on actions.

“Immediately prior” is flat and requires no context. You look up in a dictionary and note that there are multiple definitions and claim that this implicitly makes “immediately prior” confusing in this context. But you provide no argument for it. You state the dictionary provides 4 meanings for one word, 3 for another. That means there are 12 possible definitions. Of those, some entail the most common usages of each word. If its unclear, and especially so for common usage, it’s a simple task to provide it. But you don’t provide it.

People over the past couple of years have often uttered “follow the science.” Often times what’s actually meant is not only “follow the science” but “follow the logic.” The most fundamental aspect is often that something BE REAL. So make it real: provide the confusing definitional combination.

And there’s no reason to be angry about such a request. This is what logic is; this is what CHESS is. It’s the question you should expect and welcome.

Further, you should understand that your answer also has context, it is also relative. It’s not only a matter of whether there is a way for the phrase “immediately prior” to be confusing; it must be more confusing than “last.” This will likely be the most difficult part of your analysis since we’ve already shown that “immediately prior” is flatter and more precise than “last.”

You make a valid argument regarding excessive precision, it’s a good principle to follow. But when is the principle active? When is it important?

It’s important when:

  • The efforts to find and fix such precision exceed the value of the precision (i.e. “it’s inefficient”)
  • The addition of the precision causes additional work (again impacting efficiency.)

No effort was made to find this issue, no effort was suggested to correct it. The suggestion was it be added to a list and when other updates are made, make it at that time. As we find small areas of improvement, we can put them in a parking lot, accumulate them, and make them all at once.

I will mention again - I’ve had questions on this issue and other similar issues, three-time rep, rules like en passant, and so on. I’m all for improved descriptions and improved rules to help make things simpler for new players. The questions that arise are non-zero.

Let’s welcome the public, not make it harder.

135

Theoretically, immediate last may work as well. I’ll have to think about it a bit. Last doesn’t mean exactly the same as prior or previous - it connotes “later” or “after” while prior/previous both connote “earlier.” Soundwise, it sounds odd, and I haven’t yet thought about why. Both “immediate prior” and “immediate previous” sound better than “immediate last.” It may just go back to the earlier/later connotation.

136

Please don’t. Virtually this entire thread is a result of absurd overthinking.

137

Yes. But not by me.

I made the point all along that this is a minor improvement, put it on a list, save it for when we are making changes.

Let’s get a real perspective.

One person agrees with the point.

One person hasn’t made his feelings clear one way or the other, but has asked some questions casting doubt on some of the negative comments.

One person has said he’s against the point, but has had the respect and courtesy to attempt a real discussion of it.

A dozen people have rejected discussion, called it a bad idea, and offered arguments that: 1. Don’t address the issue or 2. Incorrectly address the issue or 3. Strawman the issue. or 4. Simply mock, insult or bully me about the issue.

In REAL PERSPECTIVE - who is over thinking this? The person who said “hey, this is clearer, here’s why. It’s minor, throw it on a list for sometime in the future.” or the dozen people who are making post after irrational post and trying to bully me, Tom?

I think the answer is very clear. If this is a minor issue, which it is, they could leave it. It could be brought up as a wording change at an appropriate time and dealt with. None of this discussion was necessary, and it was not caused by me. It was caused by a dozen people who, for the most part, when I say anything that challenges their view, no matter how small, have to make a bigger deal and a bigger discussion out of it than it is.

One NTD, who I greatly respect, once said that I sometimes make them feel quite badly when these types of discussions happen. They get concerned that it seems like I insist on being right.

I’d like to point out this is a great, albeit a very small example of something. I am right.A logical analysis very clearly shows that I am right. What they are sometimes perceiving as my “need to be right” is in actuality my desire that as a group “we do things better.” We all make mistakes. I make mistakes. I’ve had to apologize to this same TD in the past because I’ve made errors. And I’ll do it again in the future.

But what is happening here, is not me needing to be right. It IS me wanting us to do better, and it IS me standing up to people who have to bully others, especially Alex and Allen along with a few others. Enough is enough, and that attitude has got to get out of US Chess once and for all. And I’m certain that there is at least one other person in this thread that shares similar feelings.

138

“The beat goes on/the beat goes on
drums keep pounding Forum posts to the brain.”

139

There really should be a thumbs up in our smileys.

140

Has there been a substantive post in the last, oh, 10 pages of this thread?

It seems it has devolved into arguing about whether or not people are arguing about what they’re arguing about. :sigh: