I’m planning to submit the following ADM. This is far more modest than the extensive changes to the blitz rules proposed by Micah Smith and Bill Smythe, but I think these are the most important changes.
In Chapter 11, Blitz Chess, rule 8, Defining a draw, add subrules 8e and 8f:
8e. If the same position occurs three times with the same player to move each time, provided that one of the players makes a claim and it is verified by a tournament director or impartial witness.
8f. If 50 moves are played by each player without a pawn move or capture, provided that one of the players makes a claim and it is verified by a tournament director or impartial witness.
RATIONALE:
In the current blitz rules it’s not clear whether the three time repetition and 50 move draw claims which can be made under the regular sudden death rules can be made in blitz games. This rules change clarifies that the claims can be made as long they can be verified.
I could support adding this, but I wonder if it was deliberately left out due to the absence of a score sheet during SD Time-Pressure, which is what Blitz could be considered? I could also see a challenge to this from those who want the game to be determined by the players only, and from those TDs who don’t want the added responsibility of watching every game in a Blitz tournament.
Thanks for planning to submit this ADM Bob. How about including draws by “insufficient material to continue”, and the new “director declares draw for lack of progress” in this proposal? They are not mentioned in the Blitz rules either.
Insufficient material to continue isn’t a big deal at blitz. Usually the players will agree to a draw, and if not the game will soon end in a draw when a player’s flag falls or he makes an illegal move (rule 8d).
“Director declares draw for lack of progress” (the 75 move rule) - I’d rather not go there because I prefer to limit TD intervention in blitz games. The game will soon end anyway, one way or another.
If this rule (the 75 move rule and the 5 time repetition) is not going to apply to Blitz, it should be stated in the Blitz rules that it does not apply to avoid confusion.
I have to admit that I have no experience with blitz games played with increment time controls. Do other TDs think that this is a problem? Are there players who insist on playing out dead drawn positions like K+N vs. K or K vs. K?
Honestly, I think adding it causes more confusion than the absence of it. ---- and my stance is it’s a blitz game; it’s not a serious game to begin with.
No player plays dead drawn, like KN vs. K or K vs. K, because… dead drawn. Three/Five-fold repetition and 50/75 move draws are less likely.
As a player, good luck proving three-fold repetition/50-move - and don’t count “1,2,3…” because that’s a distracting.
As a TD, good luck ruling on it - expect an automatic appeal.
Um, is there any reason to believe that rule 14D does not apply to blitz? If a position is reached where no checkmate is possible, through any series of legal moves, then the game is an automatic and immediate draw, regardless of time control. There is no need to wait until somebody’s time expires and then seek a ruling.
Since the blitz rules list several ways that the game can be drawn it could be inferred that those are the only ways to draw the game at blitz. I’ll modify my ADM to add “insufficient material to continue” as a way that a game can end in a draw. Accordingly:
In Chapter 11, Blitz Chess, rule 8, Defining a draw, add subrules 8e, 8f and 8g:
8e. If the same position occurs three times with the same player to move each time, provided that one of the players makes a claim and it is verified by a tournament director or impartial witness.
8f. If 50 moves are played by each player without a pawn move or capture, provided that one of the players makes a claim and it is verified by a tournament director or impartial witness.
8g. If a position is reached in which there are no legal moves which could lead to one player being checkmated by the other, such as king vs. king, king vs. king with bishop or knight, or king and bishop vs. king and bishop, with both bishops on diagonals of the same color.
RATIONALE:
In the current blitz rules it’s not clear whether the three time repetition, 50 move, and insufficient material to continue draw claims which can be made under the regular sudden death rules can be made in blitz games. This rules change clarifies that the claims can be made as long they can be verified.
I think it would be far better if the blitz rules were more of an exception list rather than repeating the rules with a few variations. It would be a much shorter list and much clearer. In actual practice this is how players tend to treat it anyway. If you asked players if insufficient material was currently a legal draw in blitz, they would say yes.
In addition, the exception list should be made as short as possible. Make the blitz rules identical to the regular and quick rules whenever there is not good reason to do otherwise.
Those who agree with this (as I do) should refer to the FIDE Laws of Chess as an example. The blitz rules are in appendix B:
As these rules refer to article A.4:
(For the sake of completeness, the “otherwise” at the beginning of A.4 refers to A.3, which is worded exactly the same as B.3.)
The “Competition Rules” are articles 6 through 12 of the Laws of Chess. Articles 1 through 5 are the “Basic Rules of Play.”
(Entertainment for the “rules nerds”: An easily corrected oversight in the rewrite of the Laws of Chess for 2014 causes a strict reading of the laws to lead to the conclusion that recording moves in blitz is required! The article that waives recording moves in rapidplay (“quick”) is A.2: “Players do not need to record the moves.” Article B.4 should have referred to “Articles A.2 and A.4” rather than “Article A.4”.)
Also, the deadline for ADMs was May 31. Of course, one could always attend the Annual Membership Meeting at the US Open and get a motion on the Delegates Meeting agenda that way.
