Don’t keep us dangling. 
Why did he play the same opponent three times? Or, more likely, what made him think he was playing the same opponent three times?
Bill Smythe
If you’re trying to codify the rule to replace the imprecise notion of “arriving at the chessboard” with something more exact, like “did I complete my first move in time?”, then that would seem to be one way to do it, yes.
Bill Smythe
It’s not endless nitpicking and tweaking when, for most of the TD Tips mentioned in this thread, it’s the first time I’ve brought up the obvious improvements they could use.
Third tournament? (most likely based on my experience)
Went to the wrong board?
TD error?
Coach’s ad hoc and unauthorized substitution?
If it was the second time then I’d have added identical twin (happened at the Peoria National Elementary in the '90s)
The player has until 60 (or tournament rule) minutes since the start of the round or until he flags, whichever comes first. The latter will (of necessity) include the initial delay or increment since it’s being measured on the game clock. The former will not—it’s a wall clock measurement. If the T/C is G/60;d5, and the opponent arrives 10 minutes late, someone arriving 61 minutes late will still have (roughly) 4 minutes showing on the clock, but should be forfeited.
Well, maybe, it might depend on whether the increment is added at the beginning of the move or at the end.
Do we need to define what ‘arriving at the board’ means? Is it being close enough to the board to make a move?
The way I’ve always handled this is to tell the player present that if the opponent hasn’t arrived by (something like) 10:04, to come and see me. It’s possible that I (or another TD) will be able to check back at the witching hour, but if there is more than one board with a missing opponent, a TD might not be present to deal with a bang-bang situation (which, fortunately, is pretty rare—people who got the round start time wrong usually arrive with 5-10 minutes to spare).
The 60 minutes is regardless of any delay or increment, so you are probably in agreement with that. The flagging (if it is a first time control of less than sixty minutes) would include whatever delay, increment or nothing that is on the clock. If it is an analog clock then it is still the official clock of the game until it is replaced, and if it flags as somebody is walking into the building then it is a flag even if the player arrives at the board in less than what the increment time would have been. The same holds if the increment is added after the move.
You’re talking about the case where the 10-minute-late player splits the elapsed time equally between the two clock faces before starting the clock, right? But that may not be the procedure in all tournaments, especially those that are FIDE-rated.
Bill Smythe
FIDE rules:
6.6a. Any player who arrives at the chessboard after the start of the session shall lose the game. Thus the default time is 0 minutes. The rules of a competition may specify otherwise.
b. If the rules of a competition specify a different default time, the following shall apply. If neither player is present initially, the player who has the white pieces shall lose all the time that elapses until he arrives, unless the rules of the competition specify or the arbiter decides otherwise.
(emphasis mine). There’s not a chance in heck that I’m dinging White for all the time if both players are late. If the organizer provides the sets and clocks and everything is set up, then the FIDE rule would allow the arbiter to simply start all the White clocks if no player was available—whether fair or not, it is efficient. If the players bring the equipment, something has to be done to adjust the total time if no players are there at the start of the round—splitting the elapsed time is fairer and makes much more sense. Could you imagine explaining to a late-arriving White who is providing the clock since Black isn’t there that he has to take all the missed time from HIS side?
So what? If you want to tweak a different thing every day for the rest of your life, that’s still endless nitpicking and tweaking. I think that even if you wrote the entire rulebook yourself, one of two things would happen: (1) It would never be finished, because you would never finish tweaking it; or (2) As soon as it was published, you would be suggesting revisions to it. You seem constitutionally incapable of ever being satisfied with anything. I’m basically satisfied with the rulebook as it is. I would like it to stay that way for a reasonable period of time. We don’t need to put every word under an analytical microscope from now until doomsday. He who insists on perfection never finishes the job at all. Give it a rest already.
Okay, let’s just leave everything in life as it currently is and never try to improve anything.
The TD Tips in this thread have already stayed the same in the rulebook for a reasonable period of time.
I didn’t say that or imply it. If something is broken, by all means let’s fix it. If something is working well as it is, let’s leave it alone. That’s just common sense. “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.”
Do you think Tim Just has nothing better to do with his time than make cosmetic changes to an already functional rulebook every day for the rest of his life? Don’t you have anything better to do with your time. talent, and energy? If not, carry on, I guess.
Between COVID-19, the epidemic of cheating, and some people’s “need” to keep tinkering with the rulebook ad infinitum, I’m about ready to say goodbye to chess (as a player and as a director) for good. It just isn’t fun anymore.
But it is broke.
The majority don’t think it’s broke. But the minority is fairly sizable.
Phrases like “unless the rules of the competition specify otherwise” or “unless the arbiter decides otherwise” appear in a lot of FIDE rules. This is a good thing, as it allows the tournament staff to make common-sense exceptions.
I’ve always wished that chess clocks had a “run both clocks simultaneously at half-speed” option. Organizers who furnish clocks could use this option in games where neither player has arrived. If, subsequently, the player with the black pieces arrives first, he simply presses his clock to start white’s clock at full speed and add the increment times to both players’ first moves. Or, if the player with white arrives first, he first presses his opponent’s clock (having the same effect as above), then makes his own move and presses his own clock.
What do you think of that idea, Baba Looey? (Every time I ask that question, the response always seems to be Baba Looey’s stock answer, “I thin’ we should forget thee whole thin’, Queeksdraw.”
Bill Smythe
Only in your black-and-white world, where anything that isn’t absolutely perfect is “awful” or “very poorly written” or “broke” (all words or phrases that you have used to describe things that don’t meet your impossible standards, even though they seem to be acceptable to just about everyone else). In real life, quality is a broad spectrum, but you seem to think that everything has to be at one or the other extreme end of that spectrum. The rulebook isn’t perfect (and it never will be), but it isn’t “broke” either. It’s quite usable just as it is. In fact, I consider it much closer to the “perfect” end of the spectrum than to the “broke” end.
Rhetorical question: Is Magnus Carlsen an “awful” chess player because he doesn’t win every game?
This is incorrect.
Well there is your answer.
It’s all black and white.