"Rules ADM: Modify Chapter 11 (Blitz Chess)"

I am hoping a delegate will be willing to sponsor the following ADM to replace the Blitz rules chapter with the following:

Rationale: This re-write of the Blitz rules has the following advantages:

  1. It eliminates all the redundant rules that have already been stated for regular and quick chess and don’t need to be re-started in the Blitz rules (such as the game can end in a draw by stalemate, a game is won by the player who has legally mated his opponent’s king or whose opponent resigns, each player must make all his moves in the time specified for the game, etc.). This simplifies the Blitz rules chapter and allows players to quickly review the rules that are different for Blitz before a Blitz tournament.

  2. It clarifies a number of issues with the current Blitz rules I brought up in the following threads: uschess.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=21310

  3. It changes the rule on being able to castle when the king is on the wrong starting square to be the same as the FIDE rule, which disallows castling in this instance. Alex Relyea stated he prefers the FIDE rule since players should not be rewarded for setting up the pieces incorrectly.

  4. It adds a variation that an illegal move does not lose for those who don’t like the rule that an illegal move loses, such as Bill Smythe.

I’m assuming the ADM to eliminate insufficient losing chances will pass, thus I left out insufficient losing chances from the Blitz rules.

The rationale behind allowing a player to claim a draw by “triple occurrence of position” or “the 50 move rule” in the same manner as in sudden death time pressure in regular chess without being under 5 minutes is because notating is not required and players are very unlikely to be notating. The same is true for quick chess and thus this should be added into the rules for quick chess as well.

Assume nothing. It is the safe bet.

Even if the ILC repeal passes for other forms of chess, I’m not sure the simplified version for blitz should go with it. Do we really want K+R vs K+R played out because one player has 15 seconds and the other 10?

If we are really going to adopt a whole new set of Blitz rules, I suggest changing the threshold to G/5 through G/9, inclusive.

G/10 was Quick-rated from the day QC started till the day the Blitz system came along; more than 20 years, I think. I am not sure why G/10 was subsumed by Blitz: maybe to align with FIDE?

In any case, it’s confusing to USCF oldtimers who are not on the cutting edge of rules-geekdom. I know of a G/10 tournament that broke out spontaneously at a club one night, which the players thought would be Quick-rated…since the TD said so. (A pretty good bread-and-butter TD for small events, but not on the cutting edge.)

The players in this case mostly laughed or shrugged over the Blitz-Quick confusion. That might not hold true in all cases.

The simplified version of ILC for Blitz is only a variation so it’s not usually available anyway. Do you suggest we make the simplified version of ILC the standard rule for Blitz?

My ADM does not adopt a whole new set of Blitz rules. It mainly eliminates the redundant rules and clarifies things.

I think this idea has some merit

"4b. A player can claim a draw by “triple occurrence of position” or “the 50 move rule” in the same manner as in sudden death time pressure in regular chess with the exception that, as in quick chess, the player need not be under 5 minutes.
See Also 14, The Drawn Game. "

Huh? … I thought this was to make it more clear, not more confusing. First off, good luck proving triple occurrence of position (sans an TD watching every game / last game). Second, good luck counting to 50 in a blitz game, especially G/5 d0; Also, if you start counting to 50 aloud, I will consider that annoying behavior / distracting me from flagging you :smiling_imp:

“6. If a spectator interferes in any way that may affect the result of the game (e.g. calling attention to a flag fall or an illegal move), the tournament director may cancel the game and rule that a new game be played in its place. See also 13C1, Only players may call flag.”

Why? If you were trying to eliminate the redundant rules, isn’t there a rule / rules for this one as well… hence the 13C1 and others I will leave the readers to know/find. Also back to the National blitz tournament - you just delayed the round for 10 minutes for 2 players… out of 200+ waiting for a game.

Therefore, it is not clear to me what is the purpose of this amendment.

Best,
~Acerook

P.S. You say you aren’t adopting a new set of blitz rules but I believe that blitz “castling rule” is definitely new for USCF unless proven otherwise.

We can use the honor system for triple occurrence of position, just like we do for touch move.

No, this rule is different for Blitz and thus why it remains in the blitz rules.

This is one rule. I said I wasn’t adopting a “whole new set” of Blitz rules.

As there is zero need to eliminate insufficient losing chances, then really, for those informed, such an
assumption is simply ridiculous. And, rest assured of this- there will be dozens of tournament directors across our federation that will be announcing prior to their tournaments that for their events, as time goes by, that many of the quite necessary and useful rules that the power mad have been insistent upon eliminating, will still be in effect.

Rob Jones

Touch-move:
Please elaborate then how you would rule with one person (White) said he touched the piece on c3 while his opponent (Black) said they touched the piece on c4 via the “honor system”.

Three-fold:
White claims a draw based on 3-fold, Black denies the claim.

In both scenarios, there is no notation and no TD watching the blitz game.

Best,
Acerook

In the past six months, in a 40/90, SD/30, increment 30 time control, I have had an FM and a GM both deny that their opponents had reached a three-fold repetition. In each case, it took playing over the game, plus some time to convince them. I don’t think it would be posible with the “honor system.”

Alex Relyea

Clearly, you’re not (in blitz or even in quick) likely to be able to claim a draw by triple occurrence if it’s due to one player stumbling through the position several times. However, there are plenty of situations where the repetition is forced—if someone can play Qf7+ followed by Qf8+ to infinity, should he lose on time because he has 10 seconds to the opponent’s 20? If the rule exists allowing for claims of triple occurrence if observed by the TD, then, in most cases like this, you won’t actually need a TD to observe since the opponent faced with infinite repetition will concede the draw.

Such a player could also lose on time even having 30 seconds to the opponents 10 if the opponent has the initiative in arm movement.
Example - player A having white with 30 seconds and having to move Qc8+, Qc7+ etc. player B having black with 10 seconds and having to move Ka7, Ka8, etc. The clock at black’s right.
Right-handed player A reaches across the board and makes a move starting to reach for the clock
Right-handed player B responds and starts reaching for the clock
Player A hits the clock and starts reaching for the queen
Player B hits the clock 0.1 seconds after player A and starts reaching for the king
Player A moves
Player B moves
Player A finally hits the clock 1 second after player B had
Player B hits the clock 0.1 seconds after player A had
continue until player A flags with player B still having 7 seconds.
Review a USCF championship play-off for a similar and historical example.

This shows you have no understanding of the “honor system”.

Ouch, shots fired but clearly…
A) you didn’t answer the question
B) it was either White or Black that didn’t have honor, not you or I - the TDs
C) I don’t see in the rulebook about this “honor system” so I wondered what your ruling was via “honor system”
D) All the above.

Best,
Acerook

P.S. Answer is D
P.S.S. Seriously, I’m looking how you would rule, not as a test, but how you would rule because I’ve seen this scenario multiple times from little kids whose hands can’t reach across the board that well to greedy adults in the last round of a big money tournament.

Edit: to include quote/reference to my post

While Rob’s assertion that because HE thinks there is zero need to eliminate ILC that the assumption the ADM will fail is arrogant and absurd. There are plenty of intelligent and “informed” delegates who don’t agree with Rob. His logic is even absurd if he is correct on the merits of the ADM; the delegates have made bad decisions before. However, he and Tim are quite correct that assuming it will pass and thus excluding it from a proposed rules change in blitz is not a good idea.

In my view, even if ILC is retained I wonder whether it is practical or appropriate for blitz. Practical in that a lot of games go critical at the same time and the TD can’t be everywhere; appropriate because half the fun of blitz is the time pressure. Since I hardly ever play in blitz tournaments I do not claim mine is an informed opinion on this.