In the 6th edition of the rulebook it says under “Major Changes” that “Rule 14H2d The first TD TIP is eliminated (new rules have made this TIP moot).” but I don’t see rule 14H2d in the 6th edition of the rulebook. Also, what is in the 6th edition of the rulebook for rules 14H1, 14H2, and 14H5 is not the same as what is in the update to the 5th edition online.
The publisher made some suggestions before publication during their proof reading sessions. I seem to recall (but without some research I need to rely on my memory, which may or may not be 100% accurate) that 14H was one of those suggestions. When those publisher suggested changes were made, the reference to 14H2d should have been reworded or eliminated. I missed that. So did the USCF and publisher proof readers. Perhaps for the 7th edition you could be a proof reader?
Is the substance of 14H1, 14H2, or 14H5 changed by wording/formatting suggested by the publisher (and accepted by moi) in the published version?
Sure
What is in the 6th edition of the rulebook regarding these rules and and in the update to the 5th edition online is different.
14H1-the 6th edition states that a player “may make a claim of insufficient losing chances” but the update to the 5th edition online states “ask the director to declare the game a draw on the grounds that the player has insufficient losing chances”
14H2-the 6th edition explains that you put a delay clock on the game if the draw offer is not immediately accepted and a properly set delay clock is immediately available but the update to the 5th edition online explains that you only put a delay clock on the game is the claim is unclear and a delay clock is available. Also, the 6th edition states that the TD will inform the opponent that a draw offer has been made but the update to the 5th edition online does not state this.
14H5-the 6th edition mentions increment but the update to the 5th edition online does not.
Also, 14H2a and 14H2b in the 6th edition should probably mention increment in addition to delay.
Thanks, but I already knew what you just pointed out. My question is still the same; i.e., did that wording/formatting edit change the substance of 14H? If you want to roll things back to the wording of the 5th edition, please get the Delegates to do so. My editorial discretion assessed that 6th edition suggested change (from the publisher) as acceptable wording for the concepts and ideas behind rule 14H. It appears clearer to me.
If you want increment mentioned in the rules you listed, again I point you in the direction of the Delegates.
Obviously it does for 14H2 as the 6th edition explains that you put a delay clock on the game if the draw offer is not immediately accepted and a properly set delay clock is immediately available (regardless of if the claim is correct, unclear, or incorrect) but the update to the 5th edition online explains that you only put a delay clock on the game is the claim is unclear and a delay clock is available. Also, the 6th edition states that the TD will inform the opponent that a draw offer has been made but the update to the 5th edition online does not state this.
Also, perhaps the publisher suggested changes that were made to the 6th edition can be made to the update to the 5th edition online.
OK, get a Delegate to word it the way you want it and make a motion to change it. Then it will appear on-line, in the e-book (as per what USCF understands the publisher is going to do) and in the 7th edition. In the mean time post whatever version you intend to follow at your tournament site for those players still using analogue clocks. It is not that big of a deal. We obliviously disagree regarding the wording of 14H as published in the 6th edition. Good luck to you with your quest. I am not with you on that journey.
I’m just trying to understand what the current standard rule is. Do you only put a delay clock on the game if the claim is unclear and a delay clock is available (as stated in the update to the 5th edition online) or do you put a delay clock on the game if the opponent simply doesn’t accept the draw offer and a delay clock is available (as stated in the 6th edition)?
Yes.
That doesn’t answer the question. Can you stop beating around the bush here?
Micah, Wouldn’t it stand to reason that if the claim is clearly correct, the TD would adjudicate (if that’s the correct term) the draw?
BTW: One problem with bad grammar is that two different meanings can come from a sentence
The word only needs to be placed next to the word it modifies, for example:
“Do you only put a delay clock on the game if the claim is unclear and a delay clock is available” is incorrect,
Do you put a delay clock on the game only if the claim is unclear and a delay clock is available" is correct.
In the 1st, you’re telling me that I can put only a delay clock (not analog, not hour-glass, etc), while in the second, it is clear that the intent is dependent upon the circumstance.
NOTE: Not trying to be petty, or nit-picky here, I see this mistake a lot, and it simply delays understanding.
The observations on 14H raise a big question. The Kindle version of the 6th Edition was published June 10, well before the Delegates gave approval for minor changes.
14H2c (“Claim clearly correct”) no longer exists in the 6th Edition although it’s clearly in the Rules Update. The sequence of draw offer:::TD resolution:::delay clock (or win…or watch/wait) has been changed to draw offer:::delay clock.
That is a major change to 14H with no apparent approval. More people signed off on the publication than just Tim so it would probably fall on the EB to determine what, if anything, should be done other than immediately updating the Rules Updates and issuing an updated Kindle edition.
Without any additional context, this looks like a serious breach of protocol.
How many versions are out there? And what is “Kindle” edition; is this different from other e-books?
But that is not what is stated in the 6th edition of the rulebook. It simply states that if the opponent doesn’t accept the draw offer and a delay clock is available, then you put a delay clock on the game. As Crume stated, the sequence of “draw offer:::TD resolution:::delay clock”, as in the update to the 5th edition online, has been changed to “draw offer:::delay clock” in the 6th edition.
I agree.
Two e-versions, Kindle and Nook. Both published on the same date (June 10, 2014). Presumably these have the same text. The difference is in the encoding and reader platform. One print version; the big difference being the e-books can be updated for buyers.
I only mention the Kindle edition b/c that’s what is in front of me right now. The platform (e-book or print) is irrelevant to the situation. The major rule difference between the Rules Update and the 6th Edition is a big concern.
I don’t have the 6th edition; what does it say if a delay clock is not available? <---- maybe this doesn’t matter, since you’re trying to determine what to do when a clock IS available?
One concern I have is publisher editing; what are they allowed to edit?? Hopefully they wouldn’t be allowed to decide that a certain rule shouldn’t exist??
At the 2009 Delegates’ Meeting, the delegates voted to alter the text of rule 14H from the 5th edition so that, if a delay clock were immediately available, the director would just resolve the claim by placing a delay clock with the claimant receiving half his remaining time and the opponent receiving his full time, without considering the position at all.
At the 2010 Delegates’ Meeting, this change was rescinded, and the text of the original rule 14H was restored. At that time, variation 14H6 was added. (Variation 14H6 disallows all claims of insufficient losing chances.)
It appears that there was an unfortunate editing mistake in preparing the sixth edition. The text of 14H2 matches that in the minutes of the 2009 Delegates’ Meeting (see page 15), which is the “2010 version” rather than the original 5th edition version. It also appears that several proofreaders (including me) did not catch this error.
I’m not sure how this should be handled, but it does appear to be a serious problem. The sixth edition was supposed to be the result of applying the accumulated rules changes to the text of the fifth edition. However, this version of rule 14H was indeed rescinded at the Delegates’ Meeting in 2010. Refer to DM 10-051 on pages 20 and 21 of the minutes of the 2010 Delegates’ Meeting.
If the USCF would stop giving its content to McKay to totally control and restrict the publication of, we could fix this mistake this week, and near term printed paperbacks would not perpetuate the error.
But instead the paperback fix will have to wait a decade or so.
Chill folks. The chess universe has not stopped. 14H can be re-worded, just not instantly. In the meantime a simple posting/announcement at tournaments about which version of 14H is being used will do the trick.
The ratings chapter wording has already been addressed. It is being worked on. I have two fixes in mind. One is in the works and then I have a plan B. And let us not get all worked up about that chapter. The print version of that chapter in the 5th edition has been off target for years, and not one problem resulted.
That does not mean miscues should not be fixed. It means there is a very low probability that there exists a practical downside to the less than perfect wording in examples like this.
Tim, could you and/or the Rules Committee post the 2010 (i.e. the delegate-approved) version of 14H on uschess.org in a 6th edition Rulebook Changes document? That way I can print the document and bring it with me to tournaments. 14H claims are very rare these days at the tournaments that I direct but if one does come up I want to be able to show a player in print that I’m following USCF rules if I deny a ridiculous 14H claim rather than putting a delay clock on the game. I’m planning to bring the 6th edition rather than 5th edition with me to tournaments.