I thought I understood these, but then a couple of things happened and now I’m not sure. First, in the September Chess Life there was a TLA for a tournament with a time control of GAME/55 + 15 seconds. The TLA said that the tournament would be dual-rated, which follows the rules for rating as I understand them. Then, at the bottom of the TLA it said that the tournament was a JGP event.
Also, at my tournament a week ago, one player came with the express purpose of accumulating JGP points. His father said that he was high on the list. He said that he had gotten most of his points playing “3+2” games online. I understand that these games were JGP eligible when the sponsor was WCL, based on the Golden Rule, but now that the sponsor is Chess Magnet School, are they still/should they be? In any event, they aren’t ratable, right?
I don’t know about the G/55+15 event (which it appears has not been held or rated yet), though as I understand the rules that sounds ineligible for JGP points unless the time control was actually G/70+15 and delay capable clocks were set to G/55, similar to the G/30+5 dual rated events held in NYC where delay-capable clocks are set to G/25.
However, if that’s the case, the event should have been regular-rated only. I’ll bring this thread to Chuck Lovingood’s attention. (And Joan for TLA purposes.)
This is yet another reason why rule 5Fa needed to be deleted from the rulebook and situations like this eliminated, with any time deductions for delay-capable clocks required to be announced in all pre-event publicity and with clear rules as to whether (or if) that subtraction affected the rating system appropriate for that event.
My understanding is that those G/3+2 events will no longer be JGP eligible as of 1/1/2011. The delay in finding/announcing a new JGP sponsor is responsible for the delay in when those events are no long JGP eligible, because we were several months into 2010 before the new sponsor was announced, and a number of G/3+2 JGP events had already been held. It seemed unreasonable to change the JGP rules mid-way through the year.
Furthermore, I agree that G/3+2 events should not be USCF ratable at all per the rule passed/affirmed by the Delegates in August, and ICC/WCL should be notified of that ASAP, though I could understand why the office might choose to delay implementation of that until 1/1/2011, too.
While we’re on the subject of GAME/3 + 2, I picked up a flyer at the U.S. Open for a club that was offering this time control. No indication whether it was to be rated or not, but the only time the flyer mentions that a tournament will not be rated is for their GAME/29 tournaments, which, it says “does not appear on Regular USCF rating–Appears ONLY on Quick Rating”.
Well, the part about G/29 being quick-only is correct.
It has been pointed out to me that the allowable time controls document in the Forms area (last revised in January of 2008) does state that G/3+2 is quick ratable.
The 2008 rules revisions made it clear that there must always be at least five minutes of time on the clock, even after subtracting time under rule 5Fa.
The five minute minimum was affirmed by the Delegates this past August.
I’ve asked the editorial department to revise that document.
Did you not get the memo from Mr. Goichberg on the Issues Forum? “The Quick rating system is basically a fun system and we shouldn’t worry too much about rules variations.”—BG
The Quick-rated 3.2 games on WCL used to rankle me, too, partly due to the Golden Rule, as you note. Now that I know we allow clock-move and capture-the-King games to be Quick-rated, I can’t take Quick ratings seriously, period. Not to mention that 3.2 is spelled out as a permitted control in the Allowable Time Controls doc at uschess.org: main.uschess.org/docs/forms/Time%20Control.pdf
From now on I plan to regard Quick as a sort of “ratings variant” which we should not worry too much about, to paraphrase Mr. G. The Regular rating system is the gold standard and should be kept as “pure” as possible, even without quotes attached.
The obscure machinations in re Quick, Blitz, Blitz/Quick and Dual are of a greatly lesser degree of “solemnity.” Maybe more like the rusted copper standard. That’s the vibe I get from the few players and TDs who notice said machinations enough to comment in the real world, as opposed to this Forum, or a Delegates Meeting.
Before Mike Nolan upbraids me again for such heresy, let me point out that I agree the rules should be followed to the letter, barring extreme circumstances; that’s why I pay close attention to the Forum, the Rules update doc, and so on—but the Blitz/Quick/Dual nuances are so contrived and arbitrary there is no way to make players understand them except to say…all together now: “The Delegates say so.”
That is never a good way to get folks to follow the rules.
You’re cordially invited to get off your soapbox and start working with your Delegates to attempt to change the rules next year to something more suitable to your tastes. Below are your five(!) Delegates.
[code]PA Delegates
1 Tom M. Martinak
2 Daniel E. Heisman
3 Rodion V. Rubenchik
4 Thomas P. Magar
5 Steve Shutt
PA Alternates
1 Bruce W Leverett
2 Stanley N Booz
3 Robert E Brubaker
4 Eric C Johnson
5 Adam Weissbarth[/code]
Those were the Delegates for 2009 and 2010, a new set of Delegates will be appointed by the state chapter later this year and will take office on 1/1/2011 or once they have confirmed that they accept the position, whichever comes last.
How many changes there will be from the current list of Delegates (if any) is not yet known.
True, never can be too sure on next year. However, 7 of the 10 on that list have been a Delegate or Alternate for three straight years (07-08, 08-09, 09-10). 2 of the 10 have been on the list for two years. Seems to be a pretty stable group.