Is there a list of rulebook corrections available on the web anywhere? Many thanks in advance!
Is there a specific rule you question?
None. The copyrights of the published will not accept any reproduced material on the web. Tim Just made that clear in a different section of the forum.
There is some Errata at
uschess.org/tds/tdcornerfeb04.php
but nothing in the way of official rule changes.
Terry
If I understand Tim’s comments, the publisher’s objection is to putting whole sections of the rulebook online, not to posting corrections or rule changes.
I don’t see how a copyright applies to what should have been written… or what will be written next time.
In the past rules changes were listed in the supplements. I seem to recall (but I am not sure) that rules changes for the 4th edition were posted on-line; however, as far as I can remember the delegates have not approved any rules changes for the 5th edition yet.
Tim Just
I seem to remember, though, that in one of your TD Corners you listed a handful of typos and other minor errors.
For example, under “Changes in this Edition” in the “Evolution” chapter, there is a paragraph entitled “Standard procedures for the last five minutes of all time controls”. The main thrust here is that some rules which used to be in effect only in sudden-death time pressure (under 5 minutes in sudden death) are now in effect in all time pressure (under 5 minutes, whether sudden death or not). An example cited is 16C1, requiring players to move the pieces and press the clock with the same hand. But since this rule was subsequently modified to apply to the entire game anyway (not just time pressure), it is no longer a good example of a time-pressure rule.
As I remember, someone contacted you about this particular one, and you thanked him for noticing it.
Bill Smythe
Without reviewing the EBN’s, the only changes I can recall are the ones made last August to the guaranteed prize rules.
I’ve already stated my intention to file an ADM to change the club TD rules, and unfortunately it appears that TDCC is not going to support any changes.
I’m tempted to file an ADM to change rule 14B4, because I still feel a draw offer made during a time scramble should remain valid and open to acceptance even if the opponent’s flag falls before the opponent has a chance to accept the offer.
The equity of the current rule bothers me. This is a case of competing absolutes:
- A draw offer CANNOT BE WITHDRAWN.
- A flag fall ends the game.
If the player making the draw offer wasn’t satisfied with a draw at the moment in the game, he/she SHOULD NOT MAKE THE OFFER!
But don’t forget, a flag is considered to have fallen only when claimed by the opponent. So, if player Y says “accepted” before player X says “flag”, it’s still a draw even if the flag is physically down.
He might have been satisfied with a draw based on the position and clock times when he offered, but that shouldn’t obligate him to be satisfied after his opponent’s time has expired!
I predict that, if an ADM like this is offered, the delegates will refer it to the rules committee, which will leave the rule exactly as it is.
Bill Smythe
I do not agree with your reasoning. A player who continues to calculate (rather than say “I accept”) is trying to win, and must accept the risk of loss. A similar situation arises whan a player who is, say, a Queen ahead continues to play with seconds left (rather than make a claim of insufficient losing chances). I assume your argument is that the opponent might literally not have enough time to speak before his flag falls – but he’s the one who used up all his time, and he should live with the consequences.
That being said, a player who offers a draw when his opponent is that short of time may be engaging in “behavior to distract or annoy the opponent.”
I observed the original situation which precipitated the current wording in the rulebook (the National HS in Kansas City, where I was the chief floor TD.)
Both players (analog clock) flags were hanging in a sudden death time control.
Player A offered a draw, hit his clock, and perhaps 2 seconds later player B’s flag fell. I think the first player had no more than about 10 seconds left on his clock.
The two players agreed to call the game a draw, though the coach of one of the players subsequently had his player appeal the result. The draw result was upheld by the chief TD of the event, Jim Meyer, but the subsequent debate among NTDs led to a revision in the wording of the rulebook.
Frankly, I don’t see the problem. (Especially since he players agreed on a result.) I might add that I have been in the same situation myself. Last round of, let me see, the 1977 New England Open. My opponent offered a draw with about 20 seconds on my clock. Since I was still in contention for second or third, I thought until I had five seconds left before accepting. If my flag had fallen, it would not even have occurred to me to protest.
Now, in the case you describe, if player B had complained that his opponent had distracted him in severe time pressure by offering a draw, he might have had a case. However, I would probably have “penalized” player A by giving B an extra two seconds to say “I accept.”
This is quite a creative idea, John. Assuming that player A offers a draw appropriately, that is, after making a move and with his/her own clock running, he/she has not done anything against the rules. The rules provide for players to offer draws!
Terry
I agree whole-heartedly with this philosophy, and think you should indeed attempt a debate on the issue. I realize, currently, the rules state otherwise, but this is one I think should be reversed.
Terry Winchester
This seems a bit inconsistent with your next post, which endorses the fairly radical idea that a draw offer should remain in efect after the flag has fallen. The only possible argument for that change would be that a player should have enough time physically to accept (even if he decides instantly).
It is forbidden to distract or annoy the opponent in any way, and speaking to someone with two seconds left, even to offer a draw, might fall into this category. Whether I would actually rule this way would depend on the circumstances.
None of this really affects my main point, which was that a player who has voluntarily used up all his time, and chooses not to accept a draw offer before his flag falls, ought to lose the game.
On a more general note, the hyperactivity of the Rules Committee was (in my opinion) a serious problem until a couple of years ago. Things seem to have settled down since the publication of the 5th edition, but that may be just because the USCF has had bigger things to worry about. For half a decade, every crank with political influence had a good chance of getting his pet rules change adopted. The rules should not be tinkered with for light or transient causes.
Case 1 A is on move and B has 5 seconds left - A makes a surprise move, punches his clock and B loses on time while trying to figure out how to reply.
Case 2 A is on move and B has 5 seconds left - A offers a draw, punches his clock and B loses on time while trying to figure out how to reply.
Why should B be given extra time in situation 2? When A punches the clock and then offers a draw is a different situation where the TD should consider redressing potential damage to B.
Regards, Ernie
Bill,
Is this the column?
TD CORNER
By Tim Just
Rulebook Errata
5th Edition Rulebook co-editor Dan Burg has compiled the following errata list that he found with some input from Guy Hoffman. You might want to make the appropriate changes.
Substantive Errata in the Rulebook
p. 98, TD TIP after 22C6, line 3, change “26C6” to “22C6”
p. 179, first full paragraph, line 10, change the second occurrence of “game points” to “match points.”
p. 196, line 8, change “Trophy prizes for Example 4” to “Trophy prizes for Example 5.”
Non-Substantive Errata:
p. 34, TD TIP after 13C11, line 2, delete the space between “time-” and “forfeit.”
p. 359, first two lines of the right-hand column, reverse the entries for “based-on options” and “based-on examples” (for correct alphabetical order).
p. 371, second section heading, put an underscore under “About the Editors” (to match the underscore under “About the U.S. Chess Federation” on the same page).
More Practical Applications Of Rules Changes:
Here is another item to add to your list of things that have an immediate impact on players and TDs in the new 5th Edition:
The player of the Black pieces gets to decide which side of the board to place the clock unless the TD has indicated otherwise (16L) by posting or announcing where to place the clocks.
If Black is late for the game, White gets to decide where to place the clock, where to sit, and what standard equipment to use (39A1), unless the TD has indicated otherwise. In other words if the player of the Black pieces is late and comes to you with a equipment/seating complaint, deny the complaint.
Tim
Well, hypothetically, suppose player B is hunched over the board in a deep think. If A makes a move, B can, and probably will, reply instantly. If A shouts “I offer a draw!”, this snaps B out of his fugue and his flag falls before he can recover.
My point in the above posts was that even if, arguendo, B suffered some harm from A’s actions, the sledgehammer approach of changing the rules is not appropriate. Any such theoretical harm can be amended by the TD exercising his discretion to give B, say, one second back on his clock. Whether the TD should actually do this would depend on the specific circumstances.
That’s one of them, but it didn’t contain the reference to 16C1 that I remembered. Maybe that was another TD Corner, or one of your Quizzes, or something.
Bill Smythe