Rule 11H Contradiction?

[Micah_Smith]

@wintdoan

However, I would note that we had a question earlier from a certain someone who decided to ignore the opening sentence of Section 33 and interpret a single sentence out of one of the paragraphs contained therein. You can only avoid repeating yourself if you are willing to assume that the readers will read a rule in its entirety. It seems that that may be a bit optimistic at least for our universe of TD’s.

You can only avoid repeating yourself if the readers will read and understand a post in its entirety.

As I already tried explaining to you, I read section 33 in its entirety and I was not the only one confused about one of the sentences in section 33.

[wintdoan]

@Micah Smith

@wintdoan

However, I would note that we had a question earlier from a certain someone who decided to ignore the opening sentence of Section 33 and interpret a single sentence out of one of the paragraphs contained therein. You can only avoid repeating yourself if you are willing to assume that the readers will read a rule in its entirety. It seems that that may be a bit optimistic at least for our universe of TD’s.

You can only avoid repeating yourself if the readers will read and understand a post in its entirety.

As I already tried explaining to you, I read section 33 in its entirety and I was not the only one confused about one of the sentences in section 33.

Horsehockey!

[BrianYangUSChess]

@Micah Smith

You can only avoid repeating yourself if the readers will read and understand a post in its entirety.

As I already tried explaining to you, I read section 33 in its entirety and I was not the only one confused about one of the sentences in section 33.

It’s okay Micah to not understand everything in the rulebook; that’s what is expected of a senior TD as quoted from below:

@jwiewel

I think it was Ken Sloan who said something on the order of:
To be a club TD you have to promise to read the rulebook. (sign the form)
To pass the local TD test you have to prove that you can read the rulebook. (every question on the LTD test has an answer in the rulebook)
To pass the senior TD test you have to prove that you understand the rulebook. (every question has an answer in the rulebook, but you have to figure out which rules best apply)
To pass the ANTD test you have to prove that you can extrapolate the rules to handle situations not covered in the rulebook.
To pass the NTD test you have to prove that you know when to make your own rules.

[wilecoyote]

@AsianAcerook

@Micah Smith

You can only avoid repeating yourself if the readers will read and understand a post in its entirety.

As I already tried explaining to you, I read section 33 in its entirety and I was not the only one confused about one of the sentences in section 33.

It’s okay Micah to not understand everything in the rulebook; that’s what is expected of a senior TD as quoted from below:

@jwiewel

I think it was Ken Sloan who said something on the order of:
To be a club TD you have to promise to read the rulebook. (sign the form)
To pass the local TD test you have to prove that you can read the rulebook. (every question on the LTD test has an answer in the rulebook)
To pass the senior TD test you have to prove that you understand the rulebook. (every question has an answer in the rulebook, but you have to figure out which rules best apply)
To pass the ANTD test you have to prove that you can extrapolate the rules to handle situations not covered in the rulebook.
To pass the NTD test you have to prove that you know when to make your own rules.

I would describe the ANTD exam as being like an evil entity snickering at the would-be ANTD and saying “well, Mr. high and mighty TD, let’s see you take your precious little rule book and figure THIS out.” (Cue maniacal spine-tingling laughter in the background.) The NTD exam reminded me of a two-year-old: “Why? Why? Why?” (as in “Why are the rules this way?”). The NTD exam was actually a lot of fun for me (I know, “sick”), since I tend to be a “rules weenie” anyway. The ANTD exam was a scarring and humbling experience. That was by far the hardest certification exam I’ve taken (as my result on the exam shows). On the other hand, I learned a lot from taking that exam, and I thought it was a very valuable experience. (Looking back on it, I also think that, while I had met the experience requirements to take the exam, in practice I may not have been experienced enough to be really prepared for it.)

I’m always just a little disappointed when someone promotes from Senior TD to NTD without taking the ANTD exam, simply because I think the ANTD exam is such a good learning experience. But, again, that is just my experience. And I want to emphasize that those NTDs are certainly perfectly capable, competent, and qualified. They’ve just dodged an opportunity to be mentally scarred for life.

In any case, it was indeed Kenneth Sloan who offered that description of the various level exams (I’ve heard him say this in person), and his description of the nature of the exams is pretty accurate, I think.

[wintdoan]

@wilecoyote

Strangely, the FIDE Laws of Chess appear to adhere to “don’t repeat yourself,” and the rest of the world seems to get along just fine with them.

The FLC (writ small) is very narrow. It doesn’t include (for instance) pairing rules and prize distribution rules. Our “rule” book includes recommendations (rather than rules) for how to run tournaments and structure prize funds. Things like which rating to use for pairings and/or prize purposes is irrelevant to the FLC. The more stuff you cram into the “rulebook”, the harder it is to keep it clean.

FLC is also better constructed since the main part of the rules (about the conduct of the game) barely mentions “arbiter” at all, while ours tends to interleave rules with TD duties. Then FLC has a separate section about the duties of the arbiter. And (unlike ours), the “variants” like quick play and 9600 are “same as above but …”

I hope we do a gut job on this with the 7th edition and come out with a leaner cleaner actual “Rule” book and put the “how to run efficient tournaments” stuff on the web site.

[Smythe_Dakota]

@wintdoan

… I hope we do a gut job on this with the 7th edition …

+1

… and put the “how to run efficient tournaments” stuff on the web site.

OK, although I wouldn’t mind having a separate chapter on “how to run efficient tournaments”.

Bill Smythe

[tmagchesspgh]

Given how technology changes, we might still require having a paper Rulebook along with whatever comes down the line for media storage and application. For example, Virtual Reality (VR) and devices that utilize this technology may become a preferred way to disseminate information and replace the use of tablets, laptops. Having the comfort of old tech, like a book, would be cheaper than having to move into more intense, and more expensive, technologies for us old dinosaurs. I prefer to have it all in one book than have to lug a device or three around. I don’t want to have to wear a visor to do pairings.

There has been a tendency to write rules and cross references as if one were using the US Code (USC). At least some common sense should be used to determine if it is necessary to repeat language to make a given rule clearer. Cross referencing alone can be very confusing, especially in rules that have a high tendency to have changes made to them. Separate sections for Quick Chess Rules, Blitz Rules, etc. with all language stated seems appropriate rather than have the reader bouncing all over the place looking for the right order of compliance. Whenever I see rules that contradict each other, I go for the least damaging interpretation of the rule.

[Terry_Winchester]

@tmagchesspgh

Whenever I see rules that contradict each other, I go for the least damaging interpretation of the rule.

I look for the rule that hurts the most, allowing me to forfeit both players on the spot for getting me caught up in their game.