I thought you were going to be a delegate this year?
I will be a delegate this year but I don’t want to go crazy with too many ADM’s.
What matters is the quality of your ADMs, not the quantity.
That sounds good in theory; however the wording of 1.) can’t change without approval from the Delegates. The ADM could state the removal of 1a.), 1b.) and an added new reworded 1.). It is easy to simply delete 1a.) by eliminating its wording - changing impacted wording in other spots (not counting references in See also) takes Delegate action. Editorially 1b.) could also turn into the new 1a.) due to renumbering.
While quality matters, so does the sales job to get Delegate approval.
1 Like
One technique used by the Delegates as of late is to send a motion like one to eliminate 1a.) to the Rules Committee with the power to implement - including any adjusted necessary editing or rewording of 1.) and 1.b) by 1-1-25.
In one of the innumerable Micah Smith threads regarding the blitz rules, someone said that the omission of 0 delay from 5E was intentional. Now said person was one of our resident FIDE-philes, so that might have been wishful thinking. I find it hard to believe that in a world where a substantial number of people believe blitz means G/5;d0, in a rule book which (as it exists) twice mentions G/5;d0 as somehow the standard for a blitz T/C, that making d2 the default for blitz was intentional (through the combination of 5E and 5E2). Does anyone know the history of the wording of 5E?
Ken Ballou proposed a re-write of 5E in 2015. The re-write was altered somewhat through feedback on this forum. See this thread: "Rules ADM: Modify rule 5 (The Chess Clock)". Therefore, I think the “default” delay of 2 seconds for blitz (when an organizer fails to specify the delay or increment in the time control) was intentional.
Thanks. That’s an interesting little example of “laws (rules) and sausages” line. At one point Ken proposed
5B2a. Organizer fails to comply with rule 5B2. If the organizer fails to comply with rule 5B2 and does not specify any delay or increment (including d/0), then the following applies. If the event uses a mixed time control or if the base time for the single time control is 30 minutes or more, a delay of five seconds (d/5) shall be assumed. If the base time is greater than 10 minutes and less than 30 minutes, a delay of three seconds (d/3) shall be assumed. If the base time is between five and ten minutes (inclusive), no delay (d/0) is assumed. If the base time is three or four minutes, a delay of two seconds (d/2) is assumed. TD TIP: This rule does not excuse organizers from complying with rule 5B2.
There was a 5F which reads like the current 5E, basically as a “rule/TD tip”, which I’ve always read as “IF you use a delay, these are the typical values”. The explicit description of the default delays was axed when Ken was requested to simplify down from a complete rewrite. Leaving a not entirely coherent set of rules.
Try this idea: Make your motion to get rid of 1a. Then make a second motion that says "If 1a is deleted then move 1b to be included in1.): Insert your wording here.
It looks like there is going to be a motion to completely re-write the blitz rules chapter (which has been needed for a long time) which makes my motion here moot.
Unless, of course, the more comprehensive ADM goes down.
And how likely is that to occur?
Based upon the past, probably 100% that it either gets nuked completely or referred to Rules. A more modest change would have a better chance.
1 Like
Hopefully we can avoid both possibilities. I am open to any suggestions to improve the motion, either from Delegates individually or committees.
1 Like
Did it ever occur to you (and Micah) that the blitz rules haven’t been rewritten because no matter what is in the rulebook, CCA will have its own version; the Scholastic Council will have its own version, and just about everyone else will have their own version anyway?
If it gets rules committee support beforehand, I think it would likely pass. I’ve heard there are members of the rules committee who are in favor of the blitz rules chapter being rewritten like this.
The correspondence and online rules were completely rewritten recently and the proposed rewrite of the blitz rules chapter doesn’t even change any of the actual blitz rules.
No, this has never occurred to me. I don’t think this is why no one has submitted an ADM on rewriting the blitz rules chapter. Also, CCA and the Scholastic Council currently use most of the standard blitz rules.
How about we get organizers and TDs to use USCF blitz ratings if they are available?? Way too often someone is too lazy to do this and simply uses the regular USCF rating for pairing and prizes. A continuation of this practice could be bad for the Blitz rating system. If we are not going to use blitz ratings, then why even bother to have them?
Also, I would like to know why regular rating floors apply to blitz ratings as well. Know this to be true as it has been applied to me personally. I am nowhere as good a blitz player as a slow chess player.
Larry Cohen
It appears, Larry, that you have a provisional blitz OTB rating and a provisional blitz online rating. Provisional ratings do not have floors.
I believe each type of rating system has its own set of floors, though seeding a blitz rating from other ratings could result in an initial established rating (only established ratings have floors, except for the rare provisional money prize floor), based in large part on those other ratings.
We may not show floors other than regular floors on MSA, though.
From what I can see, your first OTB blitz game was in 2017, at which point we would have used your (floored) OTB regular rating of 2000 as a b/10 initializer. Since then, it doesn’t look like you’ve lost a rated blitz game. (It looks like you’ve mainly been a filler, and haven’t really played against a competitive opponent). So your floor has never been tested. If you go out and lose some rated blitz games, believe me, your rating will drop below 2000. (As Mike said, you don’t even have a blitz floor since you don’t have an established rating yet).