Modernizing example time controls in the rulebook

[jwiewel]

@Micah Smith

@jwiewel

In a G/30;d30 format with an analog clock is is difficult to tell if the player arrived after 30:00 or 30:20 or 30:40 or 30:55 or even if the player arrive 32:00 late but the clock was not started for a couple of minutes.

Those still using analog clocks (which have been sub-standard equipment for 25+ years) deserve to deal with all the difficulties associated with them.

The latter clause about the clock being started late was not limited to analog clocks. For that matter with a digital clock with delay active there would be questions about whether or not having 0:00 showing is due to the clock being started on time or a few seconds early.

I can see not wanting to accommodate analog clocks. I can more strongly see not wanting to accommodate incredibly late players. The late player had the option of arriving in time to swap the analog clock out for a digital one and turning on the delay. Until that swap is done the analog clock is operating exactly as it should and the game is being played without delay. Arrive on time and don’t depend on the TD trying to micromanage the seconds that you can’t be exactly verified anyway. There have already been appealed rulings finally settling on saying that a clock setting can be corrected by having the delay turned on but that the base time showing on the clock does not change. So a person arriving at 30:15 can have the clock changed to have the delay turned on and the clocks showing 30:00 for the person there at the start of the game and 0:00 for the late arrival (a no-show forfeit loss).

[Micah_Smith]

@jwiewel

@Micah Smith

@jwiewel

In a G/30;d30 format with an analog clock is is difficult to tell if the player arrived after 30:00 or 30:20 or 30:40 or 30:55 or even if the player arrive 32:00 late but the clock was not started for a couple of minutes.

Those still using analog clocks (which have been sub-standard equipment for 25+ years) deserve to deal with all the difficulties associated with them.

The latter clause about the clock being started late was not limited to analog clocks. For that matter with a digital clock with delay active there would be questions about whether or not having 0:00 showing is due to the clock being started on time or a few seconds early.

I can see not wanting to accommodate analog clocks. I can more strongly see not wanting to accommodate incredibly late players. The late player had the option of arriving in time to swap the analog clock out for a digital one and turning on the delay. Until that swap is done the analog clock is operating exactly as it should and the game is being played without delay. Arrive on time and don’t depend on the TD trying to micromanage the seconds that you can’t be exactly verified anyway. There have already been appealed rulings finally settling on saying that a clock setting can be corrected by having the delay turned on but that the base time showing on the clock does not change. So a person arriving at 30:15 can have the clock changed to have the delay turned on and the clocks showing 30:00 for the person there at the start of the game and 0:00 for the late arrival (a no-show forfeit loss).

Okay. I’m not sure this is really relevant to the point of my original post though.

[wintdoan]

@Micah Smith

Having the rulebook not state the increment or delay in time control examples makes is more confusing.

These are not examples of “time controls”—the actual examples of time controls include the proper information. These are examples of how other rules interact with time controls and there is no point (none, nada, zip) in including extraneous information in those that has nothing to do with the rule in question.

If someone is determined to be confused, they will find a way to do it regardless of what is written.

[jwiewel]

@wintdoan

@Micah Smith

Having the rulebook not state the increment or delay in time control examples makes is more confusing.

These are not examples of “time controls”—the actual examples of time controls include the proper information. These are examples of how other rules interact with time controls and there is no point (none, nada, zip) in including extraneous information in those that has nothing to do with the rule in question.

If someone is determined to be confused, they will find a way to do it regardless of what is written.

You can make a system fool-proof but you cannot make it dang-fool-proof.

If you somehow do make a system dang-fool-proof then only a dang fool would want to use it.

[Micah_Smith]

@wintdoan

@Micah Smith

Having the rulebook not state the increment or delay in time control examples makes is more confusing.

These are not examples of “time controls”—the actual examples of time controls include the proper information. These are examples of how other rules interact with time controls and there is no point (none, nada, zip) in including extraneous information in those that has nothing to do with the rule in question.

I disagree. I think it makes the rulebook look unprofessional.

Example in the second TD TIp after rule 5C: 3-day schedule is 40/120 SD/60. The 2 day schedule plays rounds 1 and 2 at game/45 and then merges with the 3-day schedule for round 3. All that needs to be reported is the 40/120 SD/60 (120 + 60) as US Chess cannot separate the schedules at this point.

In this example, not including the increment or delay in the time control makes it seem like you don’t have to report the increment or delay in the time control.

[Smythe_Dakota]

@jwiewel

In a G/60;+30 format, the no-show forfeit is after 1:00:00, not 1:00:30 even when the clock has the increment enabled. …

At first I couldn’t figure out why you were saying this, but now I realize it’s just the specific U.S. Chess rule that says a player forfeits after one hour – no matter whether the time control is 60, 90, or 120 (etc) minutes.

So, I guess, a player must arrive at the chessboard within 1:00:00, but in the case of G/60 inc/30, still has an additional 30 seconds to play his first move. Or, in the case of G/120 inc/30, a player must still arrive within 1:00:00, but now has an additional 1:00:30 to play his first move.

With G/60 inc/30, I wonder how many TDs would actually enforce this literal interpretation, or would they still allow the player an additional 30 seconds to play his first move?

For that matter, what is the exact meaning of the phrase “arrive at the chessboard”? Here is rule 13D:

13D. Late arrival for the game. The player who arrives at the chessboard more than one hour late for the beginning of the game or arrives after the expiration of the first or only time control period, whichever occurs first, loses the game.

If a player enters the tournament room, locates his table, and is running for it but has not yet touched the back of his chair, has he “arrived at the chessboard”? What if he is seated in his chair, but has not yet made his first move? Or, conversely, what if he plays his first move, and presses his clock, from a standing / running position, but has not yet sat down, and not yet touched his chair?

There is an oft-told tale in Illinois about two brothers (experts or masters) who found themselves in this exact situation. The first time control was two hours, and it was the olden days so the clocks were analog. On Sunday morning, one of them ran to his board, and while still running, played his first move and pressed his clock just in time to avoid the one-hour flag fall. His brother was not so lucky, and his one-hour flag fell as he was attempting the exact same maneuver. One brother got to play, the other did not.

Now I’m wondering if the TD even ruled correctly. Apparently the rulings in both games were based on the one-hour flag fall and the completion (or lack thereof) of the first move. But had the unfortunate brother “arrived at the chessboard” and so should not have been forfeited?

By the way, I never saw this incident, nor do I know exactly where the players were when the flags fell.

Jeff, sometimes you give us more to ponder than we really want to ponder.

Bill Smythe

[Smythe_Dakota]

@Micah Smith

Having the rulebook not state the increment or delay in time control examples makes it more confusing.

@wintdoan

These are not examples of “time controls”—the actual examples of time controls include the proper information. These are examples of how other rules interact with time controls and there is no point (none, nada, zip) in including extraneous information in those that has nothing to do with the rule in question.

I agree that the examples in question were not intended to be complete “time controls” to begin with.

Nevertheless, I’m with Micah on this one. Let’s keep in mind that one purpose of the rulebook is to educate TDs. We should lead by example. Anything that looks like a time control should include the increment or delay, even if zero. That way we’re driving home the point, with every example, that a time control is not really complete if it omits mention of the increment or delay.

If any specific example becomes more confusing with the delay added, the confusion can be mitigated just by adding “d/0” to the specific example.

Bill Smythe

[Micah_Smith]

@Smythe Dakota

@Micah Smith

Having the rulebook not state the increment or delay in time control examples makes it more confusing.

@wintdoan

These are not examples of “time controls”—the actual examples of time controls include the proper information. These are examples of how other rules interact with time controls and there is no point (none, nada, zip) in including extraneous information in those that has nothing to do with the rule in question.

I agree that the examples in question were not intended to be complete “time controls” to begin with.

Nevertheless, I’m with Micah on this one. Let’s keep in mind that one purpose of the rulebook is to educate TDs. We should lead by example. Anything that looks like a time control should include the increment or delay, even if zero. That way we’re driving home the point, with every example, that a time control is not really complete if it omits mention of the increment or delay.

If any specific example becomes more confusing with the delay added, the confusion can be mitigated just by adding “d/0” to the specific example.

Bill Smythe

+1

[wintdoan]

@Smythe Dakota

@Micah Smith

Having the rulebook not state the increment or delay in time control examples makes it more confusing.

@wintdoan

These are not examples of “time controls”—the actual examples of time controls include the proper information. These are examples of how other rules interact with time controls and there is no point (none, nada, zip) in including extraneous information in those that has nothing to do with the rule in question.

I agree that the examples in question were not intended to be complete “time controls” to begin with.

Nevertheless, I’m with Micah on this one. Let’s keep in mind that one purpose of the rulebook is to educate TDs. We should lead by example. Anything that looks like a time control should include the increment or delay, even if zero. That way we’re driving home the point, with every example, that a time control is not really complete if it omits mention of the increment or delay.

If any specific example becomes more confusing with the delay added, the confusion can be mitigated just by adding “d/0” to the specific example.

Bill Smythe

Right. Add d/0 and then someone is “confused” about what you do if it were d/5 or +30. (Since obviously if it’s d/0 there’s nothing to account for). If the increment/delay is completely irrelevant to the rule, it shouldn’t be mentioned. Period. The rulebook is already too fat from having to deal with clarifications of clarifications of clarifications, all because somebody was either “confused” or wasn’t themselves confused but said that maybe somebody else might be “confused”.

[Micah_Smith]

@wintdoan

Right. Add d/0 and then someone is “confused” about what you do if it were d/5 or +30. (Since obviously if it’s d/0 there’s nothing to account for). If the increment/delay is completely irrelevant to the rule, it shouldn’t be mentioned. Period. The rulebook is already too fat from having to deal with clarifications of clarifications of clarifications, all because somebody was either “confused” or wasn’t themselves confused but said that maybe somebody else might be “confused”.

Regardless of if “d0” is put at the end of the time control or not, someone could still be “confused” about what you do if it were “d5” or “inc30”. By not putting the “d0” at the end, you’re basically implying the time control includes no increment or delay anyway but are choosing not to conform to the US Chess standard on how time controls should be written to try and avoid people from thinking about what should be done if the time control includes a “d5” or “inc30”. Maybe the time control examples should be with “d5” or “inc30” to make it clear what you do in these cases. This would be better than using the less common and not recommended “d0” as examples or not listing any increment or delay to try and avoid having to explain what you do when the time control includes a “d5” or “inc30”.

@wintdoan

The rulebook is already too fat from having to deal with clarifications of clarifications of clarifications, all because somebody was either “confused” or wasn’t themselves confused but said that maybe somebody else might be “confused”.

I agree. I’ve suggested on multiple occasions that we should eliminate a lot of the redundant stuff in the second TD Tip after rule 5C that is already mentioned in the main rule and adds no value by simply restating it in the TD Tip.

[brennanprice]

Nevertheless, I’m with Micah on this one. Let’s keep in mind that one purpose of the rulebook is to educate TDs. We should lead by example. Anything that looks like a time control should include the increment or delay, even if zero. That way we’re driving home the point, with every example, that a time control is not really complete if it omits mention of the increment or delay.

+1

[nolan]

So, should the rule read: if the player arrives more than 60 minutes plus the increment or delay interval after the start of the game…?

[wilecoyote]

@Rule 13D

13D. Late arrival for game.

The player who arrives at the chessboard more than one hour late for the beginning of the game or arrives after the expiration of the first or only time control period, whichever comes first, loses the game. The absence countdown begins at the actual starting time of the round, which is not always the scheduled starting time. A director who learns that a player is unavoidably delayed may waive the one-hour forfeit rule.

The time is measured from the actual time the round starts. Unless you are playing in a CCA tournament, if the first time control period encompasses at least sixty minutes, the time shown on the chess clock makes no difference whatsoever unless you are using variant 13D1.

[Allen]

@Smythe Dakota

Let’s keep in mind that one purpose of the rulebook is to educate TDs. We should lead by example. Anything that looks like a time control should include the increment or delay, even if zero. That way we’re driving home the point, with every example, that a time control is not really complete if it omits mention of the increment or delay.

I disagree that the purpose if the rulebook is to educate TD’s. That is, and should be, done in other ways. FIDE requires a training seminar. US Chess does not but perhaps should. We do have a series of training sessions that have been done online and recorded. Much of our training is OJT through the experience requirements.

[jwiewel]

@Allen

@Smythe Dakota

Let’s keep in mind that one purpose of the rulebook is to educate TDs. We should lead by example. Anything that looks like a time control should include the increment or delay, even if zero. That way we’re driving home the point, with every example, that a time control is not really complete if it omits mention of the increment or delay.

I disagree that the purpose if the rulebook is to educate TD’s. That is, and should be, done in other ways. FIDE requires a training seminar. US Chess does not but perhaps should. We do have a series of training sessions that have been done online and recorded. Much of our training is OJT through the experience requirements.

I am going to slightly disagree.

One of the purposes of the rulebook is to give TDs some tools to start to learn how to become good directors.
Another of the purposes of the rulebook is to give players some tools to start to learn how to become good players.

Actually becoming good requires experience, training and resources outside of the rulebook.
The TD training sessions are a step towards becoming a good TD, working events is another step and working events under experienced TDs is yet another step.
The chess books and analysis programs are a step towards becoming a good player, playing in events against decent players is another step and analyzing/training with stronger players is yet another step.

Trying to fill the rulebook with all of the steps for either is unrealistic. Regardless of which point you choose to to stop at there will be people that argue that you included too much and others that argue you didn’t include enough.

[Micah_Smith]

Current example in the second TD TIp after rule 5C: 3-day schedule is 40/120 SD/60. The 2 day schedule plays rounds 1 and 2 at game/45 and then merges with the 3-day schedule for round 3. All that needs to be reported is the 40/120 SD/60 (120 + 60) as US Chess cannot separate the schedules at this point.

Since there are likely going to be two rounds per day in the 3-day schedule and playing two six-hour games in a day is becoming a thing of the past in favor of playing two five or four hour games, let’s modernize this example by using a five hour time control. Let’s use the popular CCA time controls of 40/120 SD/30 d10 and G/60 d/10 as the examples. Also, the statement “US Chess cannot separate the schedules at this point” isn’t entirely accurate since when submitting a rating report online, you can specify who is in which schedule so we should eliminate that. We can also improve the overall language of the TD Tip.

Proposed re-write of the example in the second TD TIp after rule 5C: The 3-day schedule has all six rounds played at 40/120 SD/30 d/10. The 2-day schedule has rounds 1-3 played at G/60 d/10 and then merges with the 3-day. Both time controls can be reported but all of that must be reported is 40/120 SD/30 d/10.

Current TD TIP after rule 13C11: Example: In a 40/120 20/60 game, if a time forfeit claim for the first time control is denied on move 35, then another time forfeit claim is not available for either player (13C13) until the end of the second time control (at flag fall after three hours by one player).

Let’s use a six-hour time control with a five second delay to make it different than the previous example which used a five-hour time control with a ten second delay. Let’s use the most popular six-hour time control, 40/120 SD/60 d/5, as the example. We can also improve the overall language of the TD Tip.

Proposed re-write of the TD TIP after rule 13C11: Example: In a 40/120 SD/60 d/5 game, if a time forfeit claim in the first time control is denied on move 35, then another time forfeit claim is not available for either player (13C13) until the end of the second time control.

Current TD TIP after rule 13D: Example in a single sudden death time control: if the time control is G/30 then a player who arrives 31 minutes after the start of that game will lose. A player who arrives at any time before the flag falls may play the game with whatever amount of time is left on the player’s clock.

Let’s correct the statement “after the start of that game” to “from the actual time the round starts” (see Ken Ballou’s post above). Let’s also add an example with a longer time control with two time periods to show that under these scenarios, the player forfeits after one hour. Let’s use the most popular increment time control with two periods, 40/90 SD/30 inc/30, as the example to make it different than the previous examples which used delay. This is a good TD Tip to have an example with increment and an example with delay so we can just add “d/5” to the G/30 reference and correct the time of when they forfeit under this scenario. We can also improve the overall language of the TD Tip.

Proposed re-write of the TD Tip after rule 13D: Examples: 1) In a 40/90 SD/30 inc/30 game, a player who arrives more than one hour late from the actual time the rounds starts loses by forfeit. 2) In a G/30;d5 game, a player who arrives at least 30 minutes and five seconds late from the actual time the rounds starts late loses by forfeit. A player who arrives late for a game but before the time when they would lose by forfeit may play the game with the amount of time remaining on their clock.

Current TD TIP after variation 13D1: For example, if the first player is 30 minutes late in a non-sudden death time control period of 40/120,each player would start with 15 minutes elapsed, and the second player would not lose on time, due to nonappearance, until 45 minutes later. Another example: in a G/30 single sudden death time control, or one that is less than one hour, the first player arrives 10 minutes late. Each player would start with 5 minutes elapsed. The second player would not lose on time, due to non-appearance, until 25 minutes later.

Let’s change the 40/120 to 40/110 SD/30 d/10 (another popular CCA time control) to make the first time segment different from previous examples which used 40/120 and 40/90 for the first time segment. Let’s also change the G/30 example to G/45 inc/10 to have an example of a single time control with an increment and to make the base time different than the previous examples with a single time control, which were 60 and 30. We can also improve the overall language of the TD Tip.

Proposed re-write of the TD TIP after variation 13D1: Examples: 1) If the first player is 30 minutes late in a 40/110 SD/30 d/10 game, each player would start with 15 minutes elapsed, and the second player would not lose by forfeit due to non-appearance until 45 more minutes have elapsed on their clock. 2) In a G/45 inc/10 game, the first player arrives 10 minutes late. Each player would start with 5 minutes elapsed. The second player would not lose by forfeit due to non-appearance until their clock expires.

Current TD TIP after rule 15A1: Directors often deduct time from the clocks of players at the start of the game whom they excuse from keeping score (the most common example would be that of a player excused from keeping score for genuine religious reasons). Their opponents will need to give up thinking time in order to keep score, which the excused player need not do. A good rule of thumb is to deduct 5% of the total game time allotted for each individual player, up to 10 minutes, from the player’s clock that is excused from keeping score. Unless a clock is being used that can be set with seconds as well as minutes and hours (usually a digital clock), partial minutes should be rounded to the nearest minute. For example, in a 20/60 SD/30 contest the player excused from keeping score would lose 5 minutes (5%×90 minutes = 4.5 minutes, rounded to 5 minutes) on an analog clock and 4.5 minutes on a digital clock with that capability. In a 30/60 SD/60 game that same player would lose 6 minutes (5%×120 minutes = 6 minutes) on both an analog and digital clock. In a G/45 contest that same player would lose 2 minutes (5%×45 minutes = 2.25 minutes, rounded to 2 minutes) on an analog clock and 2.25 minutes on a digital clock with that capability. A 40/120 20/60 game can exceed 200 minutes of playing time, as long as 20 moves are made every hour after the first time control; therefore, that same player would lose no more than 10 minutes (5%×200 minutes = 10 minutes or 5%×300 minutes = 15 minutes, which is rounded to 10 minutes because it exceeds the 10 minute maximum limit).

Let’s say the good rule of thumb is to deduct 5% of the total base time so we don’t have to include the increment or delay time in the calculation. For the first example, lets keep the two time control periods to make it clear you add both time control periods in determining how much time to deduct. Let’s use 40/100 SD/30 inc/30 and G/120 d/5 as the first two examples since we haven’t used them yet, so we have an example of a longer time control with one time segment, and so this TD Tip includes a time control with increment and a time control with delay. The third example can be eliminated. We will keep the last repeating time control example in this case because it’s explaining what to do in the specific case of a repeating time control. Since digital clocks are used a lot more often than analog clocks these days. We can also improve the overall language of the TD Tip.

Proposed re-write of the TD TIP after rule 15A1: Directors often deduct time from the clocks of players at the start of the game whom they excuse from keeping score (the most common example would be that of a player excused from keeping score for genuine religious reasons). Their opponents will need to give up thinking time in order to keep score, which the excused player need not do. A good rule of thumb is to deduct approximately 5% of the total base time allotted for each individual player, up to 10 minutes, from the player’s clock that is excused from keeping score. If a clock is being used that can’t be set for seconds (usually an analog clock), partial minutes should be rounded to the nearest minute. Examples: 1) In a 40/100 SD/30 inc/30 game the player excused from keeping score would lose 6.5 minutes (5%×130 minutes = 6.5 minutes) on most digital clocks and 7 minutes on an analog clock. In a G/120 d/5 game the player would lose 6 minutes (5%×120 minutes = 6 minutes) on both a digital and analog clock. A 40/120 20/60 game can exceed 200 minutes of playing time, as long as 20 moves are made every hour after the first time control; therefore, that same player would lose no more than 10 minutes (5%×200 minutes = 10 minutes or 5%×300 minutes = 15 minutes, which is rounded to 10 minutes because it exceeds the 10 minute maximum limit).

Current TD TIP after rule 15F3: For example: in a 40/90 20/30 game both players were in time trouble in the first time control and blitzed off many moves. Both players agree that they made time control but cannot reconstruct the game to reach the current board position. The position is diagrammed and the players continue from that position with the next move by White being move number 41 (or another move number greater than 40 if both players agree). The scoresheet from that point forward is considered complete (13C7) in order to make any claim including a draw by triple occurrence of position (14C) or the 50-move rule (14F) or a win on time forfeit (13C).

Let’s change the time control to 40/100 SD/30 d/10 (another popular CCA time control) to make the first time segment different from previous examples which used 40/120, 40/90, or 40/110 for the first time segment.

Proposed re-write of the TD TIP after 15F3: For example: in a 40/100 SD/30 d/10 game both players were in time trouble in the first time control and blitzed off many moves. Both players agree that they made time control but cannot reconstruct the game to reach the current board position. The position is diagrammed and the players continue from that position with the next move by White being move number 41 (or another move number greater than 40 if both players agree). The scoresheet from that point forward is considered complete (13C7) in order to make any claim including a draw by triple occurrence of position (14C) or the 50-move rule (14F) or a win on time forfeit (13C).

The popular G/90 inc/30 wasn’t not used in any of these examples and there were no examples of rapid and blitz time controls but fortunately these time controls are already mentioned in other TD Tips or rules in the rulebook!

[tmagchesspgh]

Before there were “official” rulebooks, we used the Harkness Blue Book and Harkness’ Official Chess Handbook. The USCF section in the original Blue Book was only 143 pages including all of the explanations. The FIDE section was around 13 pages in length. The rest of the book was about running a chess club, chess history, and sundry other items that were interesting if you liked arcana. The standard time control was listed as 50 moves in 2.5 hours, followed by a repeating 20 moves per hour thereafter, “unless otherwise stated in the tournament program.” This was interpreted to mean that there were variations in the time control used in different areas at the will of the organizer to reflect local conditions and site requirements.

Over time, as each new rulebook was published, the standard time control changed, but we TDs followed the “unless otherwise stated…” clause. This was not hard to understand and not confusing, even when multiple new time controls were becoming fashionable. The first Rulebook was a little over 100 pages in length including the title page. The second Rulebook was similar in length. Both of these books had revised interpretations of the FIDE Laws of Chess and comparisons with USCF tournament rules. The standard time control listed as an example was 40 moves in 2 hours, with a repeating 20 moves in an hour.

By Rulebook 4, the size of the book ballooned in size. But the actual rules that we used was still about a hundred pages. I have seen NTDs with their own personal Rulebooks with extraneous pages removed so that they have a thin book to use as a reference. The delay and increment features to guide use of the chess clock were noted in recent Rulebooks. They seem to be pretty clear. I am not sure all of the projected revisions are going to aid in elimination of alleged confusion. We need a simple Rulebook that both players and TDs can understand. A monster book which is over 500 pages is more likely to cause problems than solve things. Editing the examples of time controls to reflect increment or delay in every instance in each Rules section is going to add more pages without lessening confusion, IMO. I have read through and marked up all seven of the rulebooks we have used over the years since 1972 when I started out as a TD. I think that TDs understand the present tournament environment of time controls just fine. Having proofread all too many chess books as a job, I can tell you that all of the fussbudgetry of minor changes of examples and tips presents difficulties in maintaining the consistency and order of the manuscripts, as well as costing more money to do properly. Correcting grammar, usage, spelling, and bad writing is tough enough. Hopefully, we can have a settled set of Rules for five or more years. I am not sure anyone wants the Rulebook to be like the US Code.

As far as players being late to a round, read Harkness. He was clear and concise. It is an explanation that players can understand and follow. Remember that the TD has the authority to waive the penalty for extenuating circumstances. She can also determine which time to use as the start of the round, too, for penalty assessment purposes if she has to start a round later than the time posted in publicity. Since some players do not want to win a game that way, the players in practice have often been given the option to play the game with over one hour taken from the late player’s clock.

[tmagchesspgh]

While the Rulebook has educational value, more is learned by TDs through practice, mentoring, and discussions with other TDs about problems and interpretations. Lots of weird things happen that do not quite fit within the rules, but require knowing precedents and breaking down problems into what is most important. I always recommend to new TDs to do a number of simulations of pairing and managing tournament information, whether using computer pairing programs or pairing cards. Problems and issues can be addressed in the simulations. This provides vital information concerning how long it takes to run an event properly and in a timely fashion. The TD usually finds how much he underestimates the work and time management problems he faces. I still like to do simulations before an event to brush up on rules, pairings issues, and other tournament related matters. When you get used to figuring out impossible situations, it is easier to process the stupid ones, especially if they are your own fault.

Carelessness and thinking you know everything are big obstacles to good tournament management. I still remember a tournament a long time ago where I was a floor TD and a small child came up to me and asked why he had to play a certain opponent for the third time. That was a fun one for the Chief TD and the pairing staff to figure out.

[Micah_Smith]

@tmagchesspgh

Editing the examples of time controls to reflect increment or delay in every instance in each Rules section is going to add more pages without lessening confusion, IMO.

My proposed re-write of the TD Tips in this thread would make most of them shorter.

[dennisk]

For what it’s worth, I think all these TD Tips are just fine the way they are, and I find this endless nitpicking and tweaking both annoying and counterproductive. If there’s something actually wrong with an actual rule, let’s do whatever we need to do to get it changed. Otherwise, can’t we leave it alone for 5 minutes? A rulebook that’s constantly changing is basically worthless.

Don’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good.