The 2018 update document simply records the changes that the delegates passed at their 2017 meeting (+ some policy and rules stuff from the Board). The material you are suggesting was not passed by the delegates. The Rules Committee has had the 2018 document for some time now and they have not suggested any changes or explanations. IMHO, A better avenue for the changes you seek is to have a delegate submit an ADM with a CC to the Rules Committee.
The motion passed by the Delegates may not have been what they intended:
That’s what I was afraid of all along. This motion (now the rule) allows the main time to be as little as 5 minutes in regular-rated games, as long as MM+SS is at least 30. In other words, G/5 d/25 is now a legal regular-rated time control.
And this after several Delegates were aghast even at the G/25 d/5 possibility, but grudgingly accepted it as long as MM didn’t drop still further, e.g. to G/20 d/10, let alone G/5 d/25.
In other words, in effect they unknowingly adopted what I have been calling Table A when they likely really wanted Table B.
Bill Smythe
It was NOT ‘unknowing’, Bill, that possibility was discussed in the Rules workshop.
Apparently the people who went to that year’s workshops and Delegates meeting were less concerned about that type of time control than you are.
I’m glad you remember this detail.
And, apparently, less concerned than many Delegates from the previous year, as well.
Bill Smythe
I don’t recall much delegate turnover between 2010 and 2011. Seemed like about 75% the same folks, with the other 25% representing mostly people close to site A vs site B.
I don’t recall any discussions in 2010 about the MM+SS issue at the 2010 meetings, as the MM+SS rule did not yet exist and there is no mention of it in the Minutes. There was considerable discussion that year about making G/25;d5 a dual rated time control and what might happen if a clock that did not offer either increment or delay was being used for the game.
The issue of a G/5;d25 time control was not brought up in 2010. Under the rules in force at the time, that would have been a dual rated game because the delay period was greater than 15 seconds, but so would G/5;d16.
Actually G5 d25 would have been Regular-rated only in 2010, same as any time control with 16 or more seconds of delay or increment and 5 minutes or greater base time. More than 15 seconds of delay/increment meant it could not be rated as Quick or Dual.
That was a strange-seeming byproduct of the modifications to time control rules adopted at the 2008 (I think) delegates meeting to accommodate the use of increment time controls, which were just starting to be used at amateur level in U.S. chess.
I get the point Bill makes but the same issue was raised in 2009-11, with concerns over G/5 d16 games being Regular-rated. Not sure that ever happened.
Now for the twist: Buncha club players want to play lots of Regular-rated games, announce a control of G/5 d25 for a club event, all show up with analog clocks and thus play G/5 with no delay on the analogs.
Then again, what would be the point?
You’re right, and for some reason last night I changed what I had written from ‘regular-only’ to ‘dual’.
I remember having several private discussions with Rules chair David Kuhns in Dallas in 2008 over the 16 second increment/delay rule, but those conversations were more on how to effectively implement/monitor that TDs were selecting the right ratings system based on the announced/advertised time controls that were used. I did express my concern that some events would be regular-only that were, in effect, played at faster time controls than for other events that were dual-rated.
My other concern was that the office had made an administrative assumption in 2001 when dual ratings were implemented that allowed some TDs to think they could select whether an event was to be dual rated or not, and that needed to be changed. (The rules were unambiguous, TDs have NEVER had the option to decide what ratings system an event is rated under, the time control has always been the sole controlling factor.)
We started collecting time control information on events as part of the rewrite of the rating report submission system, but it was not used to set the selection of the rating system(s) used until 2012, at which time we began requiring that TDs provide FULL time control information, including the increment/delay setting used.
Hopefully, if changes are made in the future, the time control will continue to unambiguously determine what ratings system(s) an event is to be rated under.
As there have been several instances of US Chess publications containing advertisements for US Chess events without specifying a delay, I will differ.
None of this would have been necessary had the standard delays remained standard, but the collective wisdom was that we had to do something to let a lone organizer run player-choice G/30 d0 or G/25 d5 events as regular rated. So we did, and here we are.
It is less of a problem, in my view, to have games rated in an unintended rating system than it is to stick a player with d0 and no increment because an organizer goofed in the ad.
Based on Mike Nolan’s research, that proposed change now looks duck-soup simple.
Just change 5C from:
“in all cases the primary time control (mm in minutes) must be at least 5 minutes.”
Or is it:
“the primary time control (mm in minutes) must be at least 5 minutes regular and quick, 3 minutes blitz.”
To:
“the primary time control (mm in minutes) must be at least 25 minutes regular, 8 minutes quick, 3 minutes blitz.”
That simple change in 5C would effectively enact Table B as an immediate replacement for Table A.
So, all of you (perhaps dwindling number of) Delegates who remain aghast at reducing regular-rated to anything below (or upside down from) G/25 d/5, just create an ADM for August 2018 that will change 5C as above. That would do it!
Bill Smythe
Bill, I don’t see a lot of the usual crowd of Delegates agreeing with you on the need to change this rule. If you want it changed, you’ll need to do more than hope some Delegate files your ADM for you.
If there aren’t a lot of Delegates who feel strongly about this issue anymore, then I’m not going to push it further. I’m just pointing out that the change would be easy to draft, in case any Delegate still wants to do so.
Bill Smythe
Two questions:
a) who are the Delegates representing you at the meeting?
b) why haven’t you convinced one of them to submit this ADM?
I’m just catching up on the forums, so I apologize for the late reply.
I’ll have to go back and look, but this could very well be a cut and paste error I made when writing the new 5F2. If so, we need the Delegates to approve the correction. Of course, you’re quite right about the correct wording. (On the other hand, the Delegates have given the rule book editor permission to make obvious technical and grammatical corrections. It seems this is a case that falls under the editor’s purview. As you say, the intent is clear.)
I already made Bill’s suggested change (the error was from last year?!) and sent the changes document to the office.
2.) That any player, retroactive to October 1, 2015, who earned between
$2,000 and $3,999.99 and was given a money based floor be reset back
to their actual achieved rating after that tournament and all subsequent
tournaments be re-rated
So, a player say rated 2100 who won a U2200 section in this time period winning a cash prize of $ 2K - $ 3,999, thus setting for himself a
new floor, of 2200, and thus the earned title of National Master, but without this rule would have only have achieved a rating of 2159, for
example, reverts back to that rating of 2159, causing changes in not only his rating, but EVERYONE in the time period he played against,
thus causing utter chaos in not only the improper voiding of his NM title, but untold improper damages to an untold number of other players as well?? Seems once again that perhaps USCF has made yet another decision without proper consideration of the word marketing, or consideration of membership retention.
Rob Jones
Money floors only go up to 2000.
Perhaps Rob does not understand that:
- Rerating hapoens all the time
- Rarely does anyone’s rating change by more than a couple points.
- If someone is rated very far below 2159 there would be no impact at all.
- Anyone over 1700 has been around the block a few times and won’t be troubled by a point or two, so there is no marketing impact whatsoever.
- The result of an individual game is irrelevant after about 25 games; the impact of a couple points would be neutralized much faster.
Oops, ok then, but same issue with an 1890 player who earned a 2000 floor, only to have it taken away. The point is simple - either
ratings are meaningful, and honorable or they are not. Rewriting history to suit the conveniences of today should not be an action
of USCF. Also, consider decisions made in tournaments - for example, a player might not accept a draw with a 1700 player, but would
with this same player having an 1800 floor. So, is it “fair” that the “revised” records show him drawing a 1700 opponent rather than the
1800 rated player he thought he was playing (and with good reason, for this was the rating at the time published by USCF)?
the question is this are USCF ratings to be held as valid, or are they NOT?? with such retroactive decisions, the answer from the ratings
board is quite clear - NOT.
Rob Jones,
Money floors are hardly “honorable”.