The new rule book. Page 10, under 5C.
Regular only (mm+ss > 65). Understood
Dual (30 “less-than-equal-to-symbol” mm+ss “less-than-equal-to-symbol” 65)
If the time control is 30 to 65 min. inclusive, shouldn’t the symbol after the “30” be a “greater-than-equal-to-symbol”.
I am either reading the symbology wrong, understanding the time control range wrong, or its the wrong symbol.
If it is the wrong symbol, it is that way throughout the book when used to bracket the time controls.
No, that’s correct. It means that 30 is less than or equal to the allowable time control which is less than or equal to 65. Am I clear? I sometimes struggle with clarity, but, for example, 30 < 45 < 65 is a clearly expressed mathematical statement. I just fear that my explanation cmes across as arrogant or snarky and I assure that is not my intent.
Alex Relyea
30 <= mm+ss <= 65 is just old-style math-ese for 30 <= mm+ss . AND . mm+ss <= 65 , or to put it another way, “mm+ss is between 30 and 65, inclusive”. If you’re writing computer code you have to use the computer-ese version (in red). A computer wouldn’t understand the math-ese version at all.
Personally, I think the rule would be easier to read if the concept of dual-rated were separated from the question of which type of time control is involved. For example:
Regular-rated: mm+ss >=30
Quick-rated: 11 <= mm+ss <= 29
Blitz-rated: 5 <= mm+ss <=10
– with an extra note as follows:
Note: Regular-rated events where mm+ss <= 65 are also rated in the Quick rating system. Such events are called dual-rated.
This would clarify that dual-rated events should be considered regular-rated rather than Quick-rated. For example, score-keeping is still required (as in regular, but not in Quick).
Bill Smythe
While that wording change would add clarity, I wonder if it might not be better just to abandon dual rating as no longer necessary? While its purpose was to increase the number of rated games, it is not clear that doing so improved the reliability of either ratings system.
I am 100% in favor of that idea –
– for precisely these reasons.
Bill Smythe
thank you, so it was “A”, too old to go back to math class.
I second the motion.
Or, if that is too distasteful, make 30 to 65 a new category.
If you want to eliminate dual rating, become a delegate and submit a motion at the annual meeting or get a delegate to submit a motion at the annual meeting for you.
Bill Smythe
If you check the archives, you’ll see I’ve made this suggestion more than a few times over the last decade or so.
Also, I’ll be at the Delegates meeting in August, will you?
However, the Delegates don’t have the authority to change the time control rules, that’s now the EB’s area.
I agree with Mr. Nolan. I trust Mr. Smith knows that Mr. Nolan is a DAL, so all he has to do is show up at the annual meeting. I suspect that such a radical change in the rating system is beyond the power of the delegates, and that Mr. Nolan, like I, would prefer to defer to the Ratings Committee and the EB.
Alex Relyea
Why are time control rules not part of the rules under the delegates authority?
Time control specifics, ie, what time controls apply to what ratings system(s), are not in the rulebook. That’s why the EB was able to approve a new ratings system for online regular chess last year.
In recent years, the Delegates have more than once approved motions that recommended the EB take certain actions that are no longer among the powers entrusted to the Delegates, though more often than not those motions are referred to the EB.
I don’t know if the EB has always gone along with the Delegates’ recommendations.
The number of people who think dual rating is archaic is small, there are probably more people who don’t care one way or the other.
deleted
The reason I laughed was that person A who wrote the first quote above was obviously throwing those exact words back into the face of persons B, C, D, etc, who had used such phrasing many times when responding to person A and others.
Bill Smythe
Aren’t they listed in rule 5C in the rulebook?
They are indeed, largely because the rulebook editor, the rules committee, and the EB have all felt (for a long time) that specific changes in the rating system are properly the purview of the ratings committee, who actually made the decisions embodied in rule 5C (and other stated rules).
I would hate to see rating system policies determined by anybody other than the ratings committee (even though I, among others, have made suggestions from time to time). We saw what happened a couple of decades ago when an Executive Board less wise than the current one introduced “fiddle points” over the opposition of the ratings committee. Wild rating inflation. It took the ratings committee a few years to gradually reverse the effects of this disastrous decision.
Bill Smythe
You don’t have to go back as far as ‘fiddle points’ to find the last time that the EB changed the ratings formulas despite a negative recommendation from the Ratings Committee, that happened in 2013, when the EB approved formula changes that were not even among the options tested by the Ratings Committee. (The RC’s conclusion was that the type of changes being studied would be inflationary, which they were.)
The decision to offer a blitz time control ratings system, and all of the decisions to offer online ratings systems, were all made by the EB, so it has been clear for over a decade that the EB has control of the ratings systems, including what time controls qualify for what ratings systems.
As I recall, the MM+SS method of deciding which time controls, including increment or delay, qualified for which ratings systems, which I think took effect in 2012, came from the Rules Committee, not the RC.
The rulebook may retroactively include such information, that doesn’t put those decisions under the purview of the Delegates.
The decision to add a blitz rating system was passed by the delegates in 2012. The MM+SS method of deciding what time controls qualified for each rating system was passed by the delegates in 2011.