Organizers who don’t like that rule may use their own clock preference rules, but those will need to be part of advance publicity.
If you are talking about a TLA in Chess Life or on the USCF website, I would think specifying the time control would be mandatory, if only to identify the event as regular, dual, quick, or blitz.
Bill Smythe
If that’s what the Delegates want, then the rule should be worded to say that. Otherwise, the office interpretation of a revised 5B2 rule may or may not reflect the Delegates’ true intent.
B2 or not B2 - is that the question?
Such comments should be Bard.
That might result in a Tempest.
I remember one tournament where the TD announced that there would be no delay. The flyers did not indicate one way or the other as far as delay. He said we had to be finished by a certain time because the use of the building was limited. The players revolted and demanded to have delay for their games as the time control was only Game 60. It was pointed out that he had not indicated no delay in his advertising or the TLA. He was also asked if he really wanted to make insufficient losing chances calls, given his rating. He relented after a couple of players with TD experience indicated he was not following best practice, as well as creating ill will for his future tournaments. We still finished the last round 45 minutes ahead of the building use limitation.
Here is my modified ADM:
It would be clearer if it read:
In all advance publicity which specifies the time control, the organizer is to indicate the full time control…
O.K., I’ll make that change.
I agree, but in addition, it should be made even more clear than it already is, that the lack of a delay or increment must also be explicit. And there could be an example: ‘For example, if the control is G/30 with no delay or increment, the specification should read “G/30 d/0”.’
Bill Smythe
In addition to Mike’s comment, I’m in favor of trying to standardize symbols. So if Game is G, and delay is d, then increment should be i, not + or inc.
With respect to Mike’s comment - is it the “indicate the full time control” or is it “fully indicate the time control”?
Also, didn’t go back and look at the rules above this subsection, but consider a lead-in paragraph, something along the line of the below. Adopt upper/lower case in the symbols as you see fit - I’m just trying to standardize more.
Then go into your definition; we have now defined that all time controls have either increment or delay (which may be 0), so fully disclosing the time control should be clear.
P.S. Didn’t see your other thread on notation when I posted the above, so I will keep this brief. Agree with standardization, think I prefer letters rather than + or - which already have other chess symbol meanings.
Rule 5B1c (with my proposed notation) says:
Rule 5B2 (again with my proposed notation) gives as one of its examples “G/5 d0”.
I think that’s enough.
Here is the ADM as I’ve submitted it. I added another example: 40/120, SD/60 d5, to show how delay is indicated in a time control with two periods.
You have a strong separator (comma) between the first two controls, and a weak separator (space) between the second control and the delay. This makes it look as though the delay applies only to the second control.
Much better would be 40/120 SD/60, d5, making it more obvious that the delay applies to both controls.
Or maybe you did intend that the delay apply only to the second control. But then you should write 40/120 d0, SD/60 d5.
Bill Smythe
I see your logic, but as I said I’m just trying to make the rulebook conform to the de facto standard, or what appears to be the standard, in TLAs. I’m not trying to invent a new way of specifying time controls.
Perish the thought!
But if there are issues with the de facto standard, why not fix it? Perhaps another ADM as the first one to fix everything. If it passes remaining ADMs are withdrawn. If it fails, then go on to the remaining ADMs.
I don’t think there are serious issues with the de facto standard, just minor quibbles.
If “40/120, SD/60 d5” meets the de facto standard, then as far as I’m concerned there is a serious issue with the de facto standard.
I feel strongly that, assuming “d5” is intended to apply to the entire game, there should be a stronger separator between the 2nd control and the delay than there is between the 1st and 2nd controls. This makes the intent clearer. A comma is a stronger separator than a space, and a semicolon is stronger still. Thus any of the following would be acceptable:
40/120 SD/60, d5
40/120 SD/60; d5
40/120, SD/60; d5
The third of these is my least favorite, as it includes extra punctuation, but all three are preferable to “40/120, SD/60 d5”.
I also feel strongly that there should be no space between “inc” and the number, or between “d” and the number. Two parts of the same element should not have a space between. A slash, though, would be good.
My other strong feeling is that some readers might not know whether a plus + sign stands for delay or increment. So ditch the “+” and stick with “d” and “inc”.
We should not try to fashion the rule around an existing mediocre de facto standard. Make the notation as clear and easy to understand as possible, and adopt that as both the new rule and the new de facto standard.
Bill Smythe
I see that I opened a can of worms by trying to amend rule 5B2. Maybe I should have just ignored the notation issue and gone with the d/5 flow.