I agree that we are not going to agree on this. You are making the naive assumption that there is a “solution,” in the sense of some positive action that will resolve all the problems. There isn’t.
As to your point about democracy – if a vote had been taken of all the players, you might have an argument. But the Rules Committee is at least three layers of abstraction from the average member. Its function should be to resolve ambiguites in the rules, not enforce change on the unwilling.
My experience has been that a significant number of players still believe that “Black has the choice.” Few tournaments go by in which I do not have a dispute about which clock should be used (and this is a direct consequence of the “digital preference” rule, turning choice of equipment from a formality into a tactic.) A larger number (perhaps 40%) always say that Black should have the choice whenever I do a poll.
How many members have the 5th edition? Reading the book with an open mind with the new rules, can take some players years before they will change over. Some players still quote rules from the 3rd or 4th edition. Any rule change, can take years before all the membership understand. The Rules Committee can change the rules, the change in the mind set of the players can take a lot longer. Delay clocks has preference over the choice of Blacks analog clock or standard digital clock since 1999. After 6 years I find having 40% is a little high in the choice of clock being Black only. Do not know the correct percentage, and I do not care.
There certainly is a solution. It’s called the delay clock.
OK, maybe it doesn’t solve ALL the problems ALL the time, but it goes a long way – about as much as you can ever expect of any “solution”.
If a vote had been taken among residents of the American colonies in the late 1770s, there never would have been an American revolution.
Often in history, a visionary minority leads the way, and quickly enough becomes a majority.
Other times, a vocal minority is just a bunch of screwballs. In such cases, the nutty ideas soon fall by the wayside.
The wide acceptance of delay clocks (60 to 90 percent of games in most large tournaments these days) clearly demonstrates which category the delay clock belongs in.
That’s probably because you almost believe it yourself, and have done nothing to educate the players in your area. In most parts of the country, TDs post (or announce verbally) that “delay clock is preferred” comes ahead of “black has the choice”.
This is a clear case of the pollster’s opinions skewing the results of the poll. If you expend anywhere near as much energy arm-twisting players during your tournaments as you do on this forum, I’m not at all surprised you could get results like that.
I have never said that, nor will I ever say such a thing.
I said that it is the best we have come up with so far. It seems to work.
All rules in government, life, civil, moral, and chess never solve all problems. Rules (laws) create problems, but hopefully resolves more problems than it creates. The rule or law needs to be as fair, as just and as equitable as possible. Hopefully any law aids society more than it harms. That is the duty of all law.
By the way…
Check your math.
Even if I accept your poll (which I don’t) the last time I checked, 40% is NOT a majority. In fact 50% MORE persons voted FOR the delay than voted “black choice”.
That IS an overwhelming majority, in favor of standardization.
I agree with this. You decide which set of problems you prefer to deal with, and you live with it. But the Rules Committee has no inherent power, only what the players have tacitly delegated to it – which brings us back to the point about “moral right.”
If an overwhelming majority (say, 90%) were in favor of a change, I would have no problem with it. I would definitely have a problem with 51% of the members imposing a significant change in the established and customary usages of the game – and so should you.
I’m afraid your belief, however sincere, does not make it so. This is precisely why the power of institutions like the Rules Committee should be limited, and used with restraint.
The Rules Committee has done a wounderful performance over the years. The rules have become much more deeper in thought and ideas. Not all the rules in the ‘Official Rules of Chess’ will any director have to make a ruling on. The silent majority of the players never make any claim on any part of the rules. It is very rare that I had anyone rejecting the pieces or board, it is even more rare anyone rejecting the clock.
I do support the delay clock for the larger events. If the director is faced with a event with more then one day. With the event being a category C or larger, would love to have all the players have a delay clock. Even in large events with adults, it is not common for the director forced into making a ruling. The director has to stand for something. The enforcement of the rules by the director have to be final and just.
With the Rules Committee, I feel they do not have as much power as they should. The members of the Rules Committee should have a life time appointment. Let the Rules Committee work behind closed doors and when they are done, let only the Executive Board vote the new rules up or down. If the Executive Board fail to vote withing 60 days the rule becomes part of the ‘Official Rules of Chess’.
Hi John:
Although our delegate motions are too frequently ignored, the Delegates passed a resolution ('99?) that no committee may do anything that effects our membership. I interpret this as meaning that rules changes have to be approved by either the EB or Board of Delegates. This opinion caused Tim Just to become highly irrate with me when I argued that the new rule book should be voted on by the Delegates, but did result in the BoD approving the 5th edition - and by an overwhelming majorityif memory serves. I also think that the Delegates approved the 4th edition. In my opinion, this is a fairly democratic support as the Delegates are direct representatives of their state’s USCF membership. I am guessing, as I suspect that most are who quote figures, but I suspect that 60-70% of our membership doesn’t have a major problem with delay and this includes those who prefer using their analog clock but are willing to comply when the opponent has a clock and wants to use delay.
Regards, Ernie
Technically true, but that’s like arguing that the IRS and the SEC are under the supervision of Congress. The Delegates meet once a year. Almost all rules changes are approved routinely, on the assumption that the Rules Committee has acted responsibly. Most rules changes are uncontroversial (does anyone really care whether White makes his first move on the board if Black is absent?). My objection to the “digital preference” rules change has nothing to do with the merits of time delay. My objection is that the purpose of the change (altering the behavior of players in order to solve a problem created by a prior action of the Rules Committee) is not a legitimate use of the committee’s delegated power.
Any change in the rules, will take a number of years before the players understand. Even with the mild change in the 5th edition, most players still do not understand. It is not so much a problem they are not active in chess or care about the rule change. They have not been forced into the rule or forced to read the 5th edition.
Players will ask me questions about the rules, when it is not during the tournament. It has been my personal judgement to always question the rules. Even if I support the rule, I work much harder to find its weak points. Any good director should always keep an open mind to any rule. The director needing to make the rule as fair and honest with each and every single event. Since players always question me from time to time, have made it my personal goal to question the rules and myself.
The director being active or non-active can change the views of any single person. Since the non-active director can be in a state of never willing or going to be an active director. This non-active director, would not be in the mood to read the 5th edition or change the mind set of the new ideas. As the director has a state of authority, new member or novice player will ask questions. Any director can give out-dated views of the rules. It is not the question the director is a bad director, its’ more of a director being out of the loop.
Most players do not care about the Rules Committee or the political fighting of the rules. It is not their fight and they do not care. The views of the rules are at a local level. The rules are universal, how they are acted on from area to area are a little different in each community. It will take years before any rule change will be universal. Till then, there will be pockets of how the rules should be and should not be.
The Rules Committee can pass rules that will be the norm in some pockets. In others it will face strong conflict with the social norms of the community. Delay clocks are going to be around, some areas will like it others will not. But in years to come, it will be the universal norm. When that happens, only time will tell.
I’m not really interested in pursuing this argument (David was the one who wanted to debate it), but the above pretty much sums up what I find offensive about the “orthodox RC” postion. It is not the business of the Rules Committee – or the USCF – to “educate” or “arm-twist” the players. It is intolerable arrogance.
