I am considering submitting the following ADM for the 2011 Annual Delegates Meeting. Comments are welcome.
Bob Messenger
Massachusetts Delegate
In Chapter 11, as amended, of the 5th edition rulebook, replace the first sentence with the following:
Blitz Chess (also known as Speed Chess or 5-minute Chess) is a variant defined as a single, sudden death time control of 5 minutes.
For comparison, the first sentence in the current version of Chapter 11 is:
Blitz Chess (also known as Speed Chess, 5-minute Chess, Lightning Chess (2-minute), and Bullet Chess (1-minute)) is a variant defined as a single, sudden death time control from 1 to 10 minutes.
If Blitz Chess is confined to G/5 only then the second sentence in Chapter 11 becomes a little awkward. Accordingly:
In Chapter 11, as amended, of the 5th edition rulebook, replace the first two sentences with the following:
Blitz Chess (also known as Speed Chess or 5-minute Chess) is a variant defined as a single, sudden death time control of 5 minutes. Blitz games typically do not use time delay.
Perhaps you need to consider that this impacts the rating system. Only quick events are supposed to be quick rated.
(We’ll leave out the quick rating of the blitz events at the national scholastic tournaments as a different matter.)
Blitz and quick chess rules are not the same. Your proposed change seems not to consider all of the areas that it will touch.
As far as I know this isn’t true. Any game played at a time control of between G/5 and G/60 is quick rated (G/30 to G/60 is dual rated), regardless of whether it is played under quick or blitz rules.
Actually, I’ve just noticed that Chapter 8, section 1 still says that “Events with time controls of G/9 or faster are not rated.” Time for another ADM.
This is exactly the problem. G/5-G/10 games (mostly G/5) played under either Blitz rules or a mish-mash of Blitz and Quick rules are rated as Quick—and not just from the national scholastics. Such tournaments are held at a club 40 miles from my house almost every Saturday.
I confess to being embarrassed that it took years after the Quick threshold was lowered to G/5 for me to catch on to this. I directed a G/10 Quick event last year in which we had a one-game playoff for first place. It was late, so we agreed on G/5 for the playoff—but I reminded both players that it was still Quick Chess: three-second delay, touch move and so on. i.e. actual tournament chess, just speeded up tremendously. I set the clock myself.
Had I known that full-on Blitz Chess was Quick-ratable I still would not have agreed to use Blitz rules for the playoff. I have no plans to play in or direct any rated game—rated under any system—in which Blitz rules are used.
The first time I posted this to the Forum, Mike Nolan reminded me that the Delegates decree that Blitz Chess is Quick-ratable. Do we see here an EB candidate who disagrees?
You are not correct, sorry.
As a matter of practice many will submit blitz events for rating, but that is not what the rules permit. You ahve to take it up with the scholastic council about the practice of rating the blitz events at the national tournaments.
Also I suggest you look at the rule changes that are not in the book before you jump to a conclusion based on the printed text.
I did not want to believe it either, Allen. Bill Goichberg and Mike Nolan, among others, insisted that Blitz games have been rated as Quick Chess for years, when I first posted about this months ago. Check the archives.
Not just Blitz—but clock-move and capture-the-King Blitz has been rated for years, ever since then-ED Bill G. lowered the threshold for Quick Chess to G/5, by fiat, after WBCA folded. So said Bill, Mike and others who should know, presumably.
That was news to me. I thought when G/5 became ratable as Quick Chess that was meant to woo the WBCA crowd into the fold…but I also thought that meant G/5 Quick Chess would be treated exactly the way G/10 Quick Chess had been until then: tournament chess, except no score-keeping and at near-warp speed, with a standard three- (or at least two-) second delay.
Here’s a question: Before QC ‘dropped’ from G/10 to G/5, back when WBCA was still extant, was the scholastic national blitz rated by WBCA? If so, I pretty much guarantee it was not a clock-move event.
Rating ‘extreme’ Blitz as QC is made even worse by the Dual rating system. Now we see
A. Games at G/5, with clock-move, claimed illegal moves loses, capture-the-King and no time delay
rated under the same system as
B. Standard tournament chess played at G/60, Inc-15.
Not good.
Take a look at BINFO 200900253, for example.
I’m not saying that Blitz has not been rated as quick in practice. It has. I do not believe it is permissable to rate Blitz as quick, but I am convinced that many do not understand the difference.
Again, you will have to talk to the scholastic council about the practice of rating the blitz events at the scholastic national tournaments as quick events.
To the rules…
Quick chess with a time of Game 5 can be rated per the rules revision document.
5C. Quick Chess.
Change G/10 to G/5 in the second sentence:
Quick Chess includes time limits from G/5 to less than G/30;…
And add:
Quick chess vs. regular (for rating purposes):
Regular only: Primary time control greater than G/60 OR increment or delay greater than 15 seconds per move.
Dual: Primary time control G/30 to G/60 AND increment or delay less than or equal to 15 seconds per move.’
Quick only: Primary time control G/5 to G/29 AND increment or delay less than or equal to 15 seconds per move.
In the rule book rule 5C states that “All Quick Chess rules are identical to the regular USCF sudden death rules herein except that scorekeepiing is not required…”
5 minute quick games are ratable. 5 mintue quick games are not played under blitz rules. There is no provision to rate blitz games in the rules as they stand now. It is done, but it is not supposed to be done.
Note that chapter 11 of those rule additions states(emphasis added):
Blitz Chess (also known as Speed Chess, 5-minute Chess, Lightning Chess (2-minute), and Bullet Chess (1-minute)) is a variant defined as a single, sudden death time control from 1 to 10 minutes. Blitz games typically are set at five minutes and do not use time delay. Since each game takes only about 10 minutes, it has long been popular for fun games where time is limited, such as lunch breaks or between rounds of other tournaments. Some clubs will host Blitz events that may have as many as 20 rounds in a single evening.
Take note that Blitz is not Quick Chess with a 5 minute time control (which follow standard sudden death rules.)
Allen, I understand that G/5 blitz and G/5 quick chess are two different things.
It was Bill Goichberg, when he was Executive Director, who changed the ratings rules in 2005 to allow G/5 to be quick rated. He did this in response to the dissolution of Walter Browne’s World Blitz Chess Association (WBCA). Bill’s intention was that G/5 blitz games could now be USCF quick rated since there was no longer a WBCA rating system. In the BINFO that I cited, written in 2009, Bill was responding to Dave Kuhns’s statement that blitz games could not be quick rated. Bill disagreed and gave reasons why he believed that G/5 blitz games were ratable.
As I read the revision to 5C, it says that G/5 to G/29 is Quick-only “for rating purposes”. To me this means that G/5 is quick rated. Nothing is said about having to use Quick Chess rules in order for the game to be rated. Admittedly it’s also true that it doesn’t explicitly say that G/5 blitz can be quick rated. The rule can be interpreted in more than one way.
In my opinion, if the current USCF rules don’t allow G/5 blitz games to be quick rated then the rules should be changed. There should either be a separate rating system for blitz, which Mike Atkins favors, or G/5 blitz should be quick rated, which is what Bill Goichberg believes. In my proposed revision to Chapter 8 I’ve taken the latter approach by saying that games from G/5 to G/29 are quick rated and games from G/30 to G/60 are dual rated. I didn’t specify what rules would be in effect for those games, i.e. blitz, quick, or regular, because that question is addressed in other parts of the rulebook. Maybe Chapter 8 should include an explicit statement that games played under blitz rules can be quick rated.
G/5 can be played under quick rules.
Quick games are allowed to be quick rated.
Quick games are NOT blitz games - there are 2 separate sets of rules.
Ergo, blitz games are NOT quick chess, therefore are not ratable under the quick chess rating. I believe that this is the position of Mr. Kuhns as he has stated such in either rules workshops or on the floor of the delegates meetings in the past. And there is no way in the system to distinguish between blitz and quick - only the time control is noted when a tournament is submitted for rating.
And I still contend that many do not understand there is a difference in blitz and quick chess - which there certainly is.
Yes, currently, although I’m proposing an ADM which would change that.
True.
True.
Agreed.
This is where I disagree with you. I don’t think this conclusion follows from the premises which you’ve stated.
Yes, apparently that’s true based on the BINFO which I cited. Bill Goichberg disagrees, or at least he did in 2009. I’m not sure what the majority of the Rules Committee, the Executive Board or the Delegates think about it.
You’re probably right about that.
Allen, did you attend the 2009 Delegates Meeting and the Rules Workshop that year? This was hashed out there—actually more in the months leading up to that meeting, as often happens. The Binfo Bob Messenger mentioned gives a pretty good picture of the disconnect.
The chair of the Rules Committee agrees with you. (At least he did in 2008 and '09; I would be shocked if that has changed.) For what little it is worth, I agree with you. Blitz Chess, especially “extreme” Blitz—no delay, no ILC, capture-the-King, illegal move loses, and above all clock-move—should not be rated as Quick. If I ran the world it would not be rated at all.
Here’s the thing: Bill Goichberg and some Delegates and so-called insiders do not agree with us. These folks organize, direct and (perhaps) play in rated Blitz events—unlike the vast majority of USCF members I know.
As outlined in the Binfo and in some of Bill G.'s posts here awhile ago: Bill was ED when WBCA folded, in either late 2003 or '04. USCF was in dire financial straits—even by USCF standards—at the time. Bill worried that someone else might pick up the Blitz ball left behind by WBCA and also wanted every dime of rating fee revenue we could get.
Thus, he essentially decreed that G/5-G/9 would be Quick-ratable. He intended for at least G/5 to also allow Blitz rules, rather than Quick rules, but still be Quick-ratable. (He has said this several times, well after-the-fact.)
He did not consult the Rules or Ratings committees or wait for Delegate approval. I don’t know if he got approval, tacit or otherwise, from the EB, which had much else to worry about at the time. The next Delegates Meeting—I believe 2004, though maybe ‘05—Bill’s sweeping action was considered to gain “delegate approval” via the delegates’ pro-forma motion to approve the EB’s actions over the previous year, since the last meeting. (The ED is a non-voting member of the EB.) “Hey; no one objected.”
That’s a pretty neat trick. I truly believe that Bill truly believed in what he did…that for some reason he felt it was necessary, even if that required unorthodox process, to say the least…but it set a very bad precedent.
Think of what might happen if some shady character or true wacko, or someone with a clear interest in putting pork and beans on the table via chess…or someone who got into a personal grudge match so intense he was blind to how it could affect innocent USCF members…somehow attained a position of power in the Fed, then pondered the process by which ‘extreme’ Blitz got to be Quick-rated—even though many TDs and organizers never knew it and over the objections of pertinent committees and their chairs.
Not that such a thing could happen.
At the least, EB members and delegates and those running for seats on those boards should be clear on what the rules actually are, no matter how they feel about them.
That would be a good start.
I’m in that category, not as an insider but as someone who has organized and directed rated blitz events such as the Massachusetts and New England Blitz Championships and the World Open Blitz.
I agree with that. I think the Delegates, who are the ultimate authority, should clarify what the rules are, one way or the other, at this year’s Annual Delegates Meeting.
Yes indeed I did. I was watching that discussion.
I know - actually I agree with him.
Just because Bill G said something does not make it gospel - or even correct.
I understand your comments. I also know how to read the rules. The rules do not state anywhere that Blitz is ratable.
I agree. However, I think the risk may not be as great as what some worry about. But I do understand the concern.
Well, I think I have been clear on this matter anyway.
Interesting. Let’s look at three major components of blitz. First there is the lack of delay. This is definitely a major variation, but I think it’s clearly acceptable for rating. Second is “illegal move loses”. If we consider “capture the king” as an extreme way to claim an illegal move, then that’s all we’re talking about. I think that’s a more major variation, but still ratable. After all, we rate thematics. The most problematic variation is “clock-move”. While I think clock-move is a step too far, apparently the powers that be don’t, and consider it just another major variation. I’m fine with that (although I’d refuse to direct a clock-move tournament). As long as any (or all) of these three major variations are announced in advance and in all event publicity, I think we have to conclude that tournaments played under these conditions are ratable.
Alex Relyea
I’m not saying I disagree, necessarily, but I’m a little surprised at the discussion. There are all sorts of rules variations that we allow – we even have categories: “minor variations”, “major variations”, and “unratable variations”.
Minor variations are things that wouldn’t keep any reasonable player from playing in an event and therefore don’t have to be announced in advance.
Major variations WOULD keep some players from playing if they knew about them, so they have to be announced in advance. Examples would be opening specific tournaments (the most extreme variation that I can think of that’s actually been done), unusual pairing systems, or non-standard delay settings.
Things that keep the tourament games from being rated: it’s a different game altogether (bughouse, losers chess, or arguably chess-960), it’s grossly unfair to one of the players (piece-odds games), or it’s too fast (or slow) a time control for that rating system (1 minute games in the quick system, 25 minute regular games, or G/120 correspondence games).
Sure, I’ll admit that just because a lot of chess players play by that set of rules doesn’t mean that a variation is only “major” instead of “not ratable”. After all, lots of people play bughouse and 1-minute chess. I’m just not sure that most people would put the blitz rules into that category. They don’t seem more extreme a variation than a “Damiano’s Defense” tournament…
So WHY are they considered more than a “major variation”? I agree that they are at least a major variation – you would need to announce that blitz rules were going to be used in a tournament flyer. But “unratable”?
I understand the points both of you make. My only comment is that the rules ar significantly different. If the organization wants to rate blitz, I am fine with that. However, as I read the rules now, I think it is a stretch to include blitz games in the current definitions. Ir the consensus is to rate blitz, then lets changes the defintion and rate blitz.
In some ways it is a tempest in a teapot - does anyone really care about quick ratings? Is it not more common to use regular ratings to pair even quick events?