I thought “(which may be zero)” had been added to the end.
Bill Smythe
While rereading the current rule 5 to see if I overlooked anything, I found an omission. So, I have added the following to my rewrite:
5D7. Players responsible for knowing how to set the clock. Players, not tournament directors, are responsible for knowing how to properly set their digital clocks. In any particular game, if the player providing the clock can not properly set the clock, the opponent may choose which legal clock is to be used. See also 16B, How to set clocks.
This is essentially the wording from the last paragraph of the current rule 5F.
-
What about adding that both players must start the game with the same time (i.e. no time odds games)? Time odds games continue to get submitted for rating.
-
Since d/10 is becoming popular, what about adding some d/10 time controls to the list of examples standard time controls?
-
Why is Quick chess called “fast” instead of Blitz?
-
In 5B, why do the time controls that constitute quick, dual, and blitz need to be stated multiple times in such a short span?
- Why is this part of a TD tip and not a sub-rule of 5B? Also, it should be added that this rule also applies if there are different time controls for different rounds (not just different schedules). Also, in the example it would probably be good to state a delay or increment for the “game 45”.
-
Does this means that when a player that arrives late to the game, he can claim that the clock must start with equal times? Rhetorical. Also, with these time odd games, if you know the TD, then you should do something since it seems to be only somewhere around your region that does this.
-
Sure.
-
Regular (Tortoise), Quick (Hare), Blitz (Fox)… good enough?
-
Example is good since it deals with multiple mixed schedules. The follow-up reinforces the idea that you can’t have a G/5 merge with a G/120 or something wacky. If you mean deleting the parenthesis phrases, then I don’t find them redundant and the text flows nicely.
-
I think it is implied because I don’t find many tournaments changing their time controls between rounds other than multiple schedules. I’ve done it once with all players agreeing/no objections due to building restrictions. I leave it up the author of the ADM if it’s suppose to be a TD Tip or a rule.
Best,
~Acerook
It’s not just my region
I have (somewhat grudgingly) added the following to my proposed rewrite of rule 5:
(Bear in mind that, in my proposed rewrite, the current 5C (Ratable time controls) is renumbered as 5B.)
I doubt this will do anything to prevent TDs from submitting “time odds” games for rating. However, an argument can be made that the Official Rules of Chess do not currently have an explicit statement of this requirement and it is worth adding a rule for this. (In general, I am of the opinion we need fewer rules, not more.)
You might want to add a TD tip explaining that the players might start the game with different times on the clock even though they have the same time control, such as when one player is late, or is not keeping score, or has been given a time penalty which takes effect at the start of the next game. These games are ratable even though the players start the game with different times on the clock.
I suspect that’s why Ken is reluctant to add this. It’s a fix for a non-problem, where anything you write is likely to create confusion. The only person harping on the time-odds is Micah, and he has cited one instance where an armageddon playoff game was included in a rating report—a situation clearly crying out for an extra 1/3 page in the rule book.
“TD TIPS” ARE NOT PART OF THE RULES. ADMs SHOULD NOT BE TRYING TO ADD “TD TIPS”.
TD Tips are editorial comments in a published book. That is all. They have no force of the “real rules”. If we can get to a stripped down rule book in some form, I doubt TD tips would even be in there.
If the comment needs to be a part of the rule, then make it a part of the rule. If it doesn’t then don’t tell the rulebook editor what editorial comments to make.
I agree with Mr. Priest that TD tips are not rules. However, I disagree with the stridency of Mr. Priest’s tone.
I agree that some of the existing TD Tips are needed because of the size of the rule book. However, I would note that the FIDE Arbiter’s Manual includes an annotated copy of the Laws of Chess (which are not excessively long), and the annotations remind me rather strongly of TD Tips.
While I agree that the TD Tips are the purview of the rulebook editor, I see no reason the Delegates ought not be able to suggest (“recommend,” in my ADMs) TD Tips for inclusion in the Official Rules of Chess.
We get ADMs to add TD Tips. I don’t think most people understand the difference. I still say if it needs to be part of the rule to make the rule understandable, then make it part of the rule. Otherwise it is part of the rationale for voting for the rule.
I could argue that delegates don’t actually have the authority for “TD Tips”. Delegates authority is clearly articulated - one of those areas over which the delegates have authority is “rules”. TD Tips are not rules.
I agree the delegates can “suggest” TD Tips all they want. But if the purpose is to define the rules, then lets define the rules.
PS - Sorry - I didn’t mean to sound “strident”
How about a simple sentence: “Time-odds games are not permitted in rated events and will not be rated by USCF.”
Number and classify it as needed.
I could cite many more examples. I also mentioned this from the 2009 ratings committee report, glicko.net/ratings/report09.txt,
“The committee was asked to comment in September 2008 on whether time odds games should be rateable. The question was motivated by the USCF office noticing the existence of events that had time controls of G/80 for white and G/85 for black. The office left these events as rated, but the RC chair noted that time odds games should ordinarily be associated with a rating advantage for the player with the slower time control. The relationship between the rating advantage and the time odds would require further study.”
Time odds games are disallowed by the plain language of the current Rule 5A:
“[A]n allotted period of time” is singular, not plural, necessitating the same period for each player.
That was seven years ago. I believe that the organizer was told not to do that and so he stopped. You seem to be the only person who thinks this is a widespread problem. (And as Brennan Price points out, there is already existing language which rules out time odds games, albeit somewhat subtly).
While I suppose it’s possible to interpret 5A that way, I would respectfully suggest this is not an example of “plain language.” I think that, at best, treating rule 5A as disallowing “time odds” is an inference. I like my rules direct and straightforward, not leaving me to divine the author’s intent…
If “an allotted period of time” is singular, how would you reconcile that with a multi-segment time control such as 40/90 SD/30 d/5? After all, there are two allotted periods in that time control, one in which a certain number of moves must be made, another in which all the remaining moves must be made.
This may reflect a lack of reading comprehension on my part, but all I get out of rule 5A is that there’s a time control and it has to be announced before the start of the game. That’s why I dropped that rule in my propose rewrite of rule 5.
“An allotted period of time” is singular. “Each player” is also singular. So it could be interpreted to allow different time controls for “each player”. G/80 for player A is “an allotted period of time” & G/85 for player B is “an allotted period of time” as well.
I do agree that the USCF does not want to be rating time odds games. What is wrong with just stating that fact specifically as part of the ADM??
Larry S. Cohen
Please cite the tournaments / “many examples” of this. I expect many to be 100+, and throughout the nation because then it would truly be a viral infection of time odds games; I hope it isn’t “that one TD” kind of deal.
The purposed 5B1 rule should just not be there. Already, there’s a TD tip suggestions about there are times that the clock times are not equal because of a player tardiness, previous penalties imposed, etc.
The author of the ADM also states this does not prevent a TD from submitting time odds games… So ?? 
Look at the confusion it has already between us forums members. Now think of the people who don’t read the forums and then sees this rule and have to interpret it as TDs.
Best,
~Acerook
I have tried to address “rules lawyering” interpretations of my proposed 5B1 by changing it to the following:
The point is that a “time odds” game is one in which the players start the game willingly understanding that the event’s time control requires clocks to be set to different base times for the two players. If a player arrives late, the game has already started; the player has less than the full base time for the segment because of his own action (or perhaps because the delay was unavoidable), not because the time control specified that player would have less time. The time control is not responsible for a player who has less base time than the opponent because the player is not recording moves. Neither is the time control responsible for a player having a penalty carried over from a previous round (such as the player’s cell phone ringing in the playing area after the player’s game has finished).
Strictly speaking, the first sentence of the proposed 5B1 is sufficient. The second sentence follows logically from the first. However, I think the second sentence reinforces the first one and is not terribly out of place. On the other hand, I don’t think it’s worth adding more than this short rule to cover what is virtually a non-situation. If it is necessary to add a lengthy TD Tip to close off attempts at “rules lawyering,” then it is best just to dump the whole thing completely.