What is the minimum time required (at the start of the game) for scorekeeping to be required? Obviously players can stop notating when either player has fewer than 5 minutes, so the minimum at the very least is greater than 5 minutes. This part is clearly stated in the rules (15C). I’ve heard it said that scorekeeping is not required in quick only chess, so that would suggest a minimum of 30 minutes (or G/25,d5 or equivalent). However, I have not been able to find a rule that actually states this. If there is, please point me to it.
The closest I have found so far is a TD tip under 5C which states “Sudden death rules are used in Quick chess events, except scorekeeping is not required”. It’s been stated many times in these forums that “TD tips are not rules”, so what is the basis for this statement?
From a practical standpoint this statement is reasonable anyway as it’s almost useless to start notating if the game is really short (especially under 20 minutes) only to stop just a few minutes later (under 5). Between 20 and 30 minutes it’s a little easier, but it’s still a pretty fast time control.
From a tournament standpoint let’s say it was a 25 minute time control (G/20,d5 for example). A) Would it be wrong to require participants to keep score? B) If not announced either way that scorekeeping is or is not required, would a player have a valid complaint if his opponent is not keeping score (both players with more than 5 minutes remaining)?
It doesn’t go (directly) by how much time there is in the control. It goes by whether the event is regular-rated (in which case scorekeeping is required) or quick- or blitz-rated (in which case it is not). Dual-rated counts as regular-rated in that scorekeeping is required.
To be regular-rated (or dual-rated), the main time, in minutes, plus the increment or delay time, in seconds, must add up to at least 30. If this sum is less than 30, the event is quick-rated or blitz-rated (or, if less then 5, not ratable at all).
I should rephrase the question. I do understand the differences between blitz, quick, dual, and regular. Is it really true that scorekeeping is not required in a quick only event? So far I can’t find any direct mention of that in the rules. The rules do state:
a. that scorekeeping is required (15A).
b. that you don’t have to keep score if either player is under 5 minutes (15C).
It does not seem to say it is NOT required if it is a quick rated event. Or does it?
By convention it seems scorekeeping is not enforced when using a quick only time control. But is this really correct according to the rules? Understandably with very short time controls (i.e. under 20 minutes) it doesn’t make much sense to require it. At the very least you will be within the 5 minute range rather quickly. In the 20-30 minute range it is a little grayer.
That leads to the secondary part of my initial post:
With a longer, but still quick only, time control of say 25 minutes (G/20,d5 for example):
[]Would it be wrong to require participants to keep score?[/]
[]If not announced either way that scorekeeping is or is not required, would a player have a valid complaint if his opponent is not keeping score (both players with more than 5 minutes remaining)?[/]
It’s been stated several times in this forum that “TD Tips are not rules”. Everything in that TD tip is backed up by the actual rules except for the last part “except scorekeeping is not required.” It’s like a throwaway aside that suddenly has great weight. Note I’m not opposed to it and in general agree with it. It’s really the secondary related questions that I’m interested in.
Yes, it would be wrong, unless the scorekeeping requirement is announced in all pre-event publicity.
No, the player would not have a valid complaint. In fact, if the player lodged such a complaint, his opponent might have a valid complaint that the player is engaging in harassing and annoying behavior.
Please don’t try to make players keep score in a quick-rated event. That would be wa-a-a-ay non-standard.
P.S. In a dual-rated event, scorekeeping is required, same as in a regular-rated event. In fact, a dual-rated event is a regular-rated event for rules purposes.
It was clearer in the 5th edition, where 5C makes it explicit without using a TD Tip.
The 5th edition was worked on by a committee of about 25 knowledgeable TDs. The 6th edition, in some cases, seems to have been produced by a subset of the rules committee, the subset including neither Tim Just nor Ken Ballou. The difference shows.
That is interesting. I don’t have the 5th edition as my first and only (so far) contact with the rules is the 6th edition. I thought it was funny when I took the local TD exam that whenever it said “According to the 5th edition” (or some such) I only had the 6th to look at. I figured it was pretty much the same anyway. Seemed like it was.
I believe the 6th Edition was worked on by a quickly formed committee to meet a relatively short deadline, once the contract or agreement was reached somewhat suddenly after many years of frustration and stagnation.
That’s what it looked like from the cheap seats, and once the 6th Edition came out it became clear the final prep and proofreading could have been better and probably should have lasted longer.
Not sure who was on the quickly formed committee, unofficial or otherwise, but I believe I have read posts from Ken Ballou and Boyd Reed that indicate they were involved. Tim Just had to be aware of what was happening.
I don’t blame the folks who rushed to cobble together 10+ years of rules updates and variations, including increment, Blitz, scholastic and FIDE stuff, for the fact that the 6th Edition in a perfect world should likely be re-released in a corrected “6.1” edition.
As far as I can see, all or most are veteran TDs and rules geeks, and smart well-meaning people. What we could have used was more time and a professional proofreader who also knows a bit about USCF rules, even if not at the Rules Committee-worthy level. (I know one such they coulda got real cheap at the time.)
And even in a perfect world, with more time, better coordination and more and better proofreading…it still would have been a challenge to update the rulebook properly, to the letter of every update, variation and perhaps TD Tip adopted by the Delegates over the past 12 or so years.
Next time we will know better. For now it would be nice to at least update the online edition. Why that has not opened (as of last time I fired up my Kindle,) I can but scratch my head.
I also have to scratch my head about the update on my Kindle. I sent two documents to US Chess for that purpose (I had no direct contact with Random House). The staffer that I have contact with indicates that another phone call to Random House about those changes is in order.
V6 is really V5.5, an update that was a copy-paste-formatting from the rules changes passed by the Delegates (yes, V5 involved a large committee that reviewed and commented on the proposed V5 rules changes–V6 did not have that luxury). For the most part, but not always, over the years those rules were reviewed and sometimes reworded by the Rules Committee. The Rules Committee also presented to the Delegates some rules changes for their approval. Sometimes rules passed without a Rules Committee review. I had an extremely short period of time to get the copy-paste-formatting done (and it shows!? But then V5 also had a nice long list of errata, despite many eyes reviewing the final product). Then there was an even shorter period of time for the proof reading/revision. The Delegates even pre-approved for V6 (V5 was post approved by the Delegates before it was sent to the publisher). The current wording and TD Tip in V6 regarding 5c is a result of the Delegate - Rules Committee review approval process.
The Rules Committee is already talking about V7 and a huge reformatting/rewriting job. Now if we can only get the “powers that be” to put that project on their “to do list.”
Glad to hear it and thanks for the info, Tim. Maybe until then the online version can be updated, coordinated with a new printing of the hard copy version that includes updates and corrections. We can dream.
Also please note I meant to write “happened” rather than “opened” at the end of my last post. It is so easy to make mistakes like that, even with a good proofreader in the house.
I hope once we get to version 7, we have enough sense to leave it alone for a few years (like a decade or so). The shoot first, think later activism to which we have subjected the rulebook since the fifth edition has led to a lot of ridiculous results, including a plausible argument that scorekeeping is required in quick chess.
By the way: when it comes to keeping score in quick chess, the rulebook is wrong. It’s not required, and if you make players do it, you’re a dweeb.
I dont think the 6th edition of the rulebook states anywhere that scorekeeping is not required in blitz. The 5th edition stated “As in Quick Chess, scorekeeping is not required, and all rules pertaining to scorekeeping are irrelevant.”
It doesn’t. A “strict literal” interpretation of the rules would imply that scorekeeping is required for any time control greater than 5 minutes. Of course, as mentioned, some common sense should also be applied.
Funny. That’s a good point if we isolate the “blitz rules of chess” from the regular rules. I don’t think we can entirely. That might be another good argument for treating the “blitz rules” as an exception list rather than a rules list. Of course, no where in the blitz rules does it say that you must notate either. So, if the blitz rules are isolated, then you don’t need to notate even in a 10 minute game. Otherwise we better start announcing before the event:
OK, all you blitzers, you better be notating or I’ll give your opponent an additional minute for each infraction! 1 second left? I don’t care. Notate! :mrgreen:
IMHO, this whole thread is a testament to the chess lawyer. I suggest that TDs invite the chess lawyer to file any appeal they deem necessary with US Chess. And the TD should respond to the US Chess request for a response to the appeal with: “I stand on my decision that adheres to the rules.”