Very interesting to see the proposed rule change for correspondence chess to eliminate the condition “maximum of 10 days for any one move.”
I think this rule change is going to make the process of making a claim that a player has abandoned a game harder.
Courtesy (remember what that was??) says a player who is going to take a longer time to respond to a move should let the opponent(s) know. But that’s not in the rulebook.
Life sometimes gets in the way of one’s activities, and someone may go on an extended vacation mid-game, but I think that rule is still in the books.
Yes the 30 days of vacation time per year is still available for correspondence games, but one must notify the tournament director and all opponents ahead of time (not during or after the fact). I believe there is also special additional emergency time potentially available if the tournament director approves it, but that is reserved for serious things like a hospital stay.
Removing the 10 days for one mover still retains the 30 days for ten moves. I guess it avoids somebody flagging because of a two week vacation, thought that might leave about half as much time for the 10 moves.
Tim,
Michael and I agreed to revise the ADM to NOT remove the " with a maximum of 10 days for any one move".
It was my understanding that the motion from the 2025 Delegates Meeting that was sent to the Rules Committee for review was not allowed to be changed by the Committee but only allowed to get a thumbs up or down; i.e., no amendments. What was agreed to by Michael and Tom would be a friendly amendment to a new ADM when it came up at the 2026 meeting?
I thought the plan was to move forward with just the revised ADM.
If memory serves the ADM from 2025 will come before the Delegates before any 2026 ADMs are considered.
The bylaws state : “…No amendments may be made at the second meeting.” So, how can the ADM from 2025 be amended? The intent, if I recall, of those by laws words was to prevent the endless changes (before the no amendment clause) that were made to any motion the second time around so that it no longer resembled the original–which often happened in the old days.
So what is your plan to move forward with this motion? I agree that the change is needed. Should a new ADM for 2026 be presented while the old ADM is withdrawn? Or…
When the 2025 ADM comes before the Delegates allow a friendly amendment that will be acceptable to the sponsor?
Will either of those work?
Tim
Here is what I think Michael and I would like to see:
-
The old ADM withdrawn
-
The revised ADM presented (Noting that: “The motion is supported by the Rules Committee.”)
-
we get 85% or greater vote in favor
-
the new rules get implemented January 1st
Just because amendments cannot be made at the meeting, that does not preclude the rules committee from proposing revisions to a motion to change the rules, as it was referred to them for their expert consideration, so their recommendation, if any, would become the revised motion in the advance agenda.
It does mean the motion cannot be amended during the 2026 Delegates meeting. But the process suggested in the previous post is a permissible Plan B if the motion in the advance agenda is not passed.
I understand why the Bylaws were changed to disallow amendments to rules motions in their second year, because that has been a source of numerous poorly written motions as passed. But it sort of violates the spirit of Roberts Rules, though Plan B is one way around that.
Please clarify something. Was the amendment passed (at less than 85%) with Rules then reviewing it? Or was it simply referred to Rules. If it was simply referred to Rules then we would not be looking at the second approval vote for it, bur rather looking at the first actual approval vote.
DM 25-23 MM 25-03 (scorekeeping) was referred to rules.
DM 25-33 ADM 25-15 (correspondence chess rules) was passed with less than 85% so it will be on the advance agenda again in 2026.
FEWER THAN 85% (48 in favor) OF THE VOTE, MOTION RETURNS TO DELEGATES IN 2026
The above quote from the Minutes does not make it clear that this motion passed with a 2/3 majority in 2025.
From Article IX of the Bylaws:
Section 18. Modification of the Official Rules of Chess. A change of U.S. Chess Federation’s Rules of Chess shall require a 2/3 majority vote of the Delegates present to pass. All rule changes must be approved at two consecutive delegates meetings. No amendments may be made at the second meeting. The one year waiting period can be overridden by an 85% vote.
Does this mean it has to pass by 2/3 at both meetings?
IMHO, that works as long as a new ADM for 2026 has been submitted by you, me or the Rules Committee and the old ADM from 2025 has been withdrawn (by me). Or do I misunderstand? BTW I did not submit a new ADM for 2026.
Tim
i think Michael wants @timjust to submit the revised ADM for 2026. You can add my name as a sponsor and (Noting that: “The motion is supported by the Rules Committee.”).
Then hopefully we get 85% and it gets implemented in January
I’d be happy to co-sponsor it as well, but the deadline for ADMs was May 8th.