Just noticed that the World Open G/7 (d2) will be Blitz-rated but use Quick rules, per the TLA.
Is this legit? I thought the Blitz system would be firewalled off from Quick/Dual/Regular, as supporters of rated Blitz say it is “a different game.” Thus no dual-rated Blitz/Quick.
As a player, I would prefer that any rated game be played using real tournament chess rules. That’s why I do not have a Blitz rating and perhaps never will. But if we are going to have a separate rating system and rule-set for G/5-G/10 Blitz, then maybe it should be kept separate, period.
When CCA first started running G/7 d2 events they were quick-rated and used quick rules. Then when the USCF created blitz ratings G/7 d2 became blitz-rated. I don’t see a problem with an organizer using quick rules for an event which is blitz-rated as long as this is announced in advance publicity.
That’s my point. The rules changed for events held at that time control. The fact that CCA or anyone used the then-current rules for previous G/5-G/10 events should not mean they can simply declare “we use old rules” for events today.
Fer instance, I once played a friendly match at G/60, Inc-15, since my opponent wanted the slowest time control that could be Dual-rated. That control is now Regular-only; my friend dealt with the change and moved on with chess life. So should anyone who organizes/directs/plays G/10 or faster. That is now a whole 'nother thing, with its own set of rules, per the Delegates.
I personally do not think that games where capture-the-King and no-delay, no-ILC are standard, and where clock-move is an accepted variant, should be rated, period. So I see why “Quick rules” (really standard SD rules without scorekeeping) appeal to players and organizers of G/7 d2 events.
But the powers that be decided we need a separate Blitz rating system with its own separate rule set. They set the threshold at G/5-G/10, including delay/increment. If so, then it should be just that: separate.
It makes little sense to hold “Blitz” events under Quick rules, with mostly Regular ratings used for pairings/prizes. If that’s gonna be SOP, then we may as well ditch the Blitz rating system. That would be OK with me, but lots of chess-smart folks disagree.
All I am sayin’ is: Give Blitz a chance…if we really must have a Blitz system.
If you’re talking about the way things “should” be then my response is that my opinion differs from yours. If you’re talking about conformance to USCF rules then I’ll cite the rules allowing organizers to use variations from the standard rules in their tournaments:
That’s different because all that changed was the rating system, not the rules. CCA isn’t asking the USCF to rate its G/7 d2 games under the quick system.
Yep. It’s a pretty broad standard, and I think that’s a good thing, as long as major variations are announced in a major way, so to speak. The question here: Is it ‘merely’ a major variation to announce that you are literally changing the rules under which games at a given time control will be played…or is it simply going too far?
I agree that some variations go too far and shouldn’t be allowed, e.g. “USCF blitz rated but Monopoly rules used.” The rulebook doesn’t say which variations are allowed and which ones aren’t. It seems to me that if a majority of the Rules Committee thinks that a variation is too radical to be allowed in a USCF-rated tournament the organizer would have to change the rules of the tournament, make the tournament an unrated event, or appeal to the delegates in the form of an ADM to change the rules to allow the variation.
If you ask me, the blitz rules are so bad (capture the king?? illegal move loses?? neither delay nor increment by default?? clock-move as an allowed variation??) that it bothers me not one whit if an organizer decides to use quick rules instead, as long as the pre-tournament announcement is clear.
OK, I stand corrected. Whew – at least they got rid of that one.
The FIDE rule says you lose if you capture the king?? You may be confusing this with another rule that says that moving your king next to your opponent’s king, in the hope of capturing it on the next move, is a “cheap shot that will not be tolerated”, whatever that means.
In general, I agree that capture-the-king is consistent with illegal-move-loses-immediately. It is the latter I object to.
Yes, under FIDE blitz rules you lose if you capture the opponent’s king, because it’s considered to be an illegal move. From the Laws of Chess:
GM Josh Friedel told me that lost a blitz game in Montreal because of this rule. He didn’t know how to claim an illegal move win in French, so he captured the opponent’s king. Big mistake!
Also, from 1.1 in the Laws of Chess: “Leaving one’s own king under attack, exposing one’s own king to attack and also ’capturing’ the opponent’s king are not allowed.”
G/60 was dual ratable from the inception of dual rating. Prior to 2009, the increment or delay was not considered. From 2009 through tne end of 2011 if the increment or delay was MORE THAN 15 seconds, then the event was regular-rated only. For 2012 the rules were updated so that the sum of the minutes of time plus the seconds of increment or delay (mm+ss) was what determined which rating system(s) applied.
So, G/60 was dual ratable until 2009, regardless of increment or delay. From 2009 until the end of 2011, G/60 was dual ratable as long as the increment or delay was less than 16 seconds. Starting in 2012, G/60 is dual-ratable as long as the increment or delay is no more than 5 seconds. (30 >= mm+ ss <= 65)
That part of the FIDE rule applies (apparently) to “normal” time controls, not just blitz. Just how much of it is intended to be inherited by blitz is not clear.
In fact, even in non-blitz, the sentence construction is awkward. It could mean either
A. If during a game it is found that an illegal move, including
failing to meet the requirements of the promotion of a pawn, or
capturing the opponent’s king
has been completed …
or
B. If during a game it is found that an illegal move, including failing to meet the requirements of
the promotion of a pawn, or
capturing the opponent’s king
has been completed …
Interpretation A implies that capturing the king is illegal, a view apparently supported by other FIDE rules. However, this rule goes on to say “the position immediately beforetheirregularity shall be reinstated” (emphasis mine). However, exactly what istheirregularity here? There are two consecutive irregularities here: first, one player leaving his king in check, and second, the opponent capturing it. Would the position before the first irregularity be reinstated, or only the position after the first irregularity but before the second? The former makes sense, but is not stated in the rule. The latter is ludicrous, as it would mean that the opponent would have to retract the king capture and play some other “legal” move.
Interpretation B would seem to say that, if a player leaves his king in check, then the opponent must capture the king, otherwise he would be “failing to meet the requirements of … capturing the opponent’s king”.
Okay, okay, so we can assume that interpretation A is the intended one. But that still leaves an unclear, incomplete, unsatisfying rule in place.
And then we bring this mushiness down to the additional complication of blitz (one assumes that all regular rules also apply to blitz except where explicitly stated otherwise):
So, what happens when one player moves his king next to his opponent’s king, and presses the clock, and the opponent doesn’t notice, and moves a different piece instead, and presses the clock? At this point, according to the above blitz rule, the opponent has no standing to claim an illegal move, but the first player does. Can the first player claim a win because the opponent failed to get out of check?
It seems to me that both FIDE and USCF need to tighten up their blitz rules.