This got me thinking about trimming down some other TD Tips besides the two TD Tips after rule 5C which I’ve already done. This could be a good compromise for those who want all TD Tips removed from the rulebook and those who want the TD Tips to remain in the rulebook. I went through the TD Tips in Chapter 1 and came up with this:
Most of your suggestions seem to be somewhere between OK and good. Let me comment specifically on just three of them:
True, perhaps, but part of me will miss the cuteness (and cleverness) of this particular passage.
Here is my still shorter version:
TIP: The first step in resolving a properly made draw claim is to notify the opponent of the claimant that any draw claim is also a draw offer. However, the draw offer may be in order even if a move has not been determined or completed. See rule 14, The Drawn Game.
My version:
TIP: When the illegal move is a king left in check, all positions, not just the first position, in which a player’s king remains in check are illegal. In this case, it may be necessary to revert further than ten moves to find the most recent legal position. In such complicated cases, the director should use discretion. No player should gain an unfair advantage for deliberate illegal moves, nor for inadvertent illegal moves which were deliberately not pointed out.
(Bolding is mine, and is not intended to appear in the rule itself.)
What do you think of those ideas, Baba Looey?
Bill Smythe
I like your revisions Bill.
In the TD Tip after rule 9G3, we could even get rid of the “See rule 14, The Drawn Game” since at the end of rule 9G3, it already says “See also 14, The Drawn Game.”
The 8F6 tip seems strangely worded in both instances. Grammatically, ‘etc’ is not useful when there’s only one additional alternative; since the only promotable piece not already mentioned is the rook, it makes more sense just to mention it. You could say “After promotion a player may have more than one queen, more than two bishops, knights or rooks, or more than one bishop on the same color.”
The 13D tip is made worse.
If the time control is G/40;d0, does it mean a player who arrives more than 30 minutes late forfeits? It would be better to divide it into two parts, one for when the (initial) time control is longer than an hour, in which case the one hour rule applies, one for when the (initial) time control is an hour or less.
If the time control is G/60+30, does the player have an hour and thirty seconds to arrive?
If the player with the Black pieces is not present at the start time, and the player with the White pieces starts White’s clock then presses the button to start Black’s clock, does White gain an additional 30 seconds due to Black’s absence?
If the time control is G/60;d15, does a player who arrives with less than 15 seconds showing on the clock lose by forfeit?
Nice revision. Are you recommending we keep the first sentence “Promotion is not related to other pieces remaining on the board.” or not?
Rule 13D itself mentions both possibilities. I guess it would be possible to add another example to the TD Tip with a time control of longer than one hour but we are trying to shorten the TD Tips here!
No, they would have one hour. Rule 13D states "The player who arrives at the chessboard more than one hour late for the beginning of the game or arrives after the expiration of the first or only time control period, whichever comes first, loses the game.
Clarity is more important than brevity.
I’m not sure if it is necessary, but I think it might be clearer to say something like “Regardless of what pieces a player still has, after promotion a player may have more than one queen, more than two bishops, knights or rooks, or more than one bishop on the same color”.
I agree and this is one argument for keeping the TD Tips in the rulebook.
The idea of splitting the rulebook up into multiple documents has been kicked around for years, it might be easier now that US Chess has regained control over the publication rights, though whether it is a good idea is still up for debate.
I’d like to bring up a couple of additional minor points regarding 9G3. My latest suggested revision of Micah’s suggested revision is:
In the case of a claim of a draw by triple occurrence of the position, or by the 50-move rule, the claim should usually be made without making a move.
By contrast, an “ordinary” draw offer should normally be accompanied by a move (i.e. the draw should be offered after making a move and before pressing the clock). If a player offers a draw without moving, the opponent has a right to (and probably should) say something like “Let me see your move first, and then I’ll consider your offer.”
So, in the case of a triple occurrence claim, the opponent should NOT say “let me see your move first”, and the arbiter should strongly caution an opponent who says this. The opponent may be attempting a sneak play, by goading the player into making a move and thus invaliding his claim.
Note that it is possible for a triple occurrence claim to be valid without a move by the player, and yet not to be valid after any move by the player. (If anybody doubts me on this – “why couldn’t the player just repeat the next move, thus restoring the validity of the claim?” – I’ll gladly furnish an example where no move by the player would result in the claim still being valid.)
Thus, I MIGHT want to revise my suggestion as follows:
TIP: The first step in resolving a properly made draw claim is to notify the opponent of the claimant that any draw claim is also a draw offer. However, a draw claim may be in order even if a move has not been determined or completed, especially in the case of 14C, Triple occurrence of position, or 14F, The 50-move rule.
(New changes are in bold above, but would not be in bold in the rules themselves.)
I’m not sure if these latest change ideas are good, or if they merely serve as food for thought.
Bill Smythe
Shorter would be “After a promotion the player may have more than the original number of that piece”. Or if you don’t think number is clear enough, use “complement”.
Those who think TD Tips are not beneficial would say it is not worthwhile to do something more efficiently that ought not be done at all.
Not sure which can safely be deleted above, but players should know that draw claims should only be made to the TD (possible exception in the case of stalemate), not the opponent. The TD should offer the draw to the opponent, not the player.
Alex Relyea
Fair enough. However, the claimant could first inform the opponent of his intention to claim, and give the opponent a few seconds to react. The opponent might well accept the draw, saving everybody some time.
In fact, I was in that situation in a tournament a few weeks ago. My opponent claimed a draw by triple occurrence. I told him I wasn’t sure whether the repetition claim was valid, but that I accepted his draw offer. No need to summon the TD.
Bill Smythe
That’s…not…true. Certainly not under US Chess rules which rather clearly brings the TD in only if the claim needs verification. Even the FLC only requires the arbiter if it requires a prospective move, not if the repeated position is on the board after the opponent’s move.
I’m not sure anyone posting here views the TD Tips as not beneficial. I certainly don’t. I do think they are better removed to a separate document leaving only rules in the rulebook.
No. You offer a draw to the opponent. You claim a draw to a TD.
I think the main point is that the claimant should summon the TD if the opponent does not quickly agree to the draw. Otherwise, the players will likely end up arguing with each other, thus disturbing other games still in progress.
I’m pretty sure relyea was referring to the situation where the TD has already been summoned. In that case the TD should offer the draw to the opponent, i.e. the TD should explain to the opponent that the player, by claiming a draw, has also offered a draw.
Bill Smythe
I don’t see any ambiguity in what Alex said. And I believe (in fact, I’m pretty sure) that he and Scott are simply wrong—there is nothing in the rules to support that position.
I’m curious as to what Mr. Doan thinks should happen. Suppose my opponent makes a move which happens to be the 50th without a capture or a pawn move.
What am I supposed to do, assuming I’m satisfied with a draw?
My contention is that I record the move and then summon the TD. As I understand it, Mr. Doan feels that is not the case, even under the Laws of Chess.
Alex Relyea
You make that claim to the opponent first. If the opponent agrees, draw. If the opponent disputes that, you summon the TD/arbiter and follow the described procedure for adjudicating that.
Let’s face it, a 50 move claim is completely different from a triple occurrence. The chances that both players have accurate scoresheets which will easily convince the opponent that we are indeed at 50 is pretty slim. OTOH, most triple occurrence claims involve a relatively tight window of moves and both players are generally aware that positions have been repeated, so it isn’t at all uncommon for there to be little doubt that the claim is correct. If there is, the TD/arbiter is summoned and …
Quoting the FLC:
The arbiter is (explicitly) involved in a 9.2.1.1 claim, which makes sense since you are required basically to violate the rules of scorekeeping in order to make the claim. That is not true in 9.2.1.2.