# "Rules ADM: Modify Chapter 11 (Blitz Chess)" **URL:** \ **Category:** Running Chess Tournaments\ **Created:** [May 5, 2015, 7:16pm UTC](https://forum.uschess.org/t/rules-adm-modify-chapter-11-blitz-chess/20594 "2015-05-05T19:16:01Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 16\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Micah\_Smith](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f475e1/32.png) [@Micah\_Smith](https://forum.uschess.org/u/Micah_Smith)\ **Post date:** [May 5, 2015, 7:16pm UTC](https://forum.uschess.org/t/rules-adm-modify-chapter-11-blitz-chess/20594/1 "2015-05-05T19:16:01Z")
I am hoping a delegate will be willing to sponsor the following ADM to replace the Blitz rules chapter with the following: > [@](#): > > Blitz Chess, also known as Speed Chess, is a variant defined for USCF purposes as a single, sudden death time control from 5 to 10 minutes of total playing time (see 5C, Ratable Time Controls.). Blitz games are often played at G/5,d0. G/3+2 is popular in on-line play, and is now standard in international (FIDE) blitz events. Since most Blitz games take around 10 minutes, it has long been popular for fun games where time is limited, such as lunch breaks or between rounds of other tournaments. Some clubs will host Blitz events that may have 20+ rounds in a single evening. Blitz events are often played in double Swiss or double round robin format. This has the advantages of making the event go faster and avoiding potential color problems. Blitz is also sometimes used to break ties in tournaments. > > Blitz follows most of the same rules as regular and quick chess (including touch move, one hand for each move, and the pawn promotion rules of 8F6 and 8F7). Rules that are different for Blitz are given below. > > 1. As in Quick chess, scorekeeping is not required. > > 2. An illegal move that is completed loses, provided the opponent has sufficient mating material and either takes the king (if the king is in check) or claims a win and stops the clock before completing their next move. If the opponent completes their next move without making a claim, the position stands and the illegal move cannot be corrected. An illegal move is completed when the player presses the clock. A player may retract an illegal move prior to pressing the clock. A legal move is completed when the hand leaves the piece. > > 2a. An illegal move that is completed doesn’t negate a player’s right to claim on time, provided it is done prior to the opponent’s claim of an illegal move. If the claims are simultaneous, the player who made the illegal move loses. > > 2b. A player who moves his king adjacent to the opponent’s king and then attempts to claim a win under this rule based on the opponent’s failure to notice the check shall lose the game. > > Variation: Illegal move does not lose. Instead, one minute is added to the opponents remaining time. This variation does not need to be announced in advance but must be announced or posted on site. > > 3. Once each side has completed one move the position on the board and the time on the clock remain as set except if one or both players have extra time, then the TD may reduce the time accordingly (i.e. the clock was set incorrectly and a player has six minutes remaining in a G/5,d0 game). If the king or rook are set up incorrectly, castling is not allowed. > > 4. The game can end in a draw in all the same ways as regular and quick chess except for the following differences: > > 4a. A game is a draw if a player has insufficient mating material when the opponent makes an illegal move > > 4b. A player can claim a draw by “triple occurrence of position” or “the 50 move rule” in the same manner as in sudden death time pressure in regular chess with the exception that, as in quick chess, the player need not be under 5 minutes. > See Also 14, The Drawn Game. > > 5. The standard penalty for the first violation of a rule (except a completed illegal move) is to add one minute to the opponent’s clock. Examples of an offense where a penalty may be assessed include, but are not limited to, when a player 1) presses the clock after displacing pieces, 2) knocks over the clock, and 3) touches a piece, moves another, and presses the clock. There may be circumstances where a penalty assessed may not be standard (e.g. repeat offenses, unsporting behavior, etc…) and is left to the discretion of the tournament director. > > 6. If a spectator interferes in any way that may affect the result of the game (e.g. calling attention to a flag fall or an illegal move), the tournament director may cancel the game and rule that a new game be played in its place. See also 13C1, Only players may call flag. Rationale: This re-write of the Blitz rules has the following advantages: 1. It eliminates all the redundant rules that have already been stated for regular and quick chess and don’t need to be re-started in the Blitz rules (such as the game can end in a draw by stalemate, a game is won by the player who has legally mated his opponent’s king or whose opponent resigns, each player must make all his moves in the time specified for the game, etc.). This simplifies the Blitz rules chapter and allows players to quickly review the rules that are different for Blitz before a Blitz tournament. 2. It clarifies a number of issues with the current Blitz rules I brought up in the following threads: [uschess.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=21310](http://uschess.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=21310) 3. It changes the rule on being able to castle when the king is on the wrong starting square to be the same as the FIDE rule, which disallows castling in this instance. Alex Relyea stated he prefers the FIDE rule since players should not be rewarded for setting up the pieces incorrectly. 4. It adds a variation that an illegal move does not lose for those who don’t like the rule that an illegal move loses, such as Bill Smythe. I’m assuming the ADM to eliminate insufficient losing chances will pass, thus I left out insufficient losing chances from the Blitz rules. The rationale behind allowing a player to claim a draw by “triple occurrence of position” or “the 50 move rule” in the same manner as in sudden death time pressure in regular chess without being under 5 minutes is because notating is not required and players are very unlikely to be notating. The same is true for quick chess and thus this should be added into the rules for quick chess as well. ---
**Author:** ![timjust](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/flex019/user_avatar/forum.uschess.org/timjust/32/44_2.png) [@timjust](https://forum.uschess.org/u/timjust)\ **Post date:** [May 5, 2015, 7:36pm UTC](https://forum.uschess.org/t/rules-adm-modify-chapter-11-blitz-chess/20594/2 "2015-05-05T19:36:18Z")
> [@Micah Smith](#): > > I’m assuming the ADM to eliminate insufficient losing chances will pass, thus I left out insufficient losing chances from the Blitz rules. Assume nothing. It is the safe bet. ---
**Author:** ![wintdoan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/eada6e/32.png) [@wintdoan](https://forum.uschess.org/u/wintdoan)\ **Post date:** [May 5, 2015, 7:47pm UTC](https://forum.uschess.org/t/rules-adm-modify-chapter-11-blitz-chess/20594/3 "2015-05-05T19:47:06Z")
> [@Tim Just](#): > > > [@Micah Smith](#): > > > > I’m assuming the ADM to eliminate insufficient losing chances will pass, thus I left out insufficient losing chances from the Blitz rules. > > Assume nothing. It is the safe bet. Even if the ILC repeal passes for other forms of chess, I’m not sure the simplified version for blitz should go with it. Do we really want K+R vs K+R played out because one player has 15 seconds and the other 10? ---
**Author:** ![ericmark](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/e68b1a/32.png) [@ericmark](https://forum.uschess.org/u/ericmark)\ **Post date:** [May 5, 2015, 10:29pm UTC](https://forum.uschess.org/t/rules-adm-modify-chapter-11-blitz-chess/20594/4 "2015-05-05T22:29:43Z")
If we are really going to adopt a whole new set of Blitz rules, I suggest changing the threshold to G/5 through G/9, inclusive. G/10 was Quick-rated from the day QC started till the day the Blitz system came along; more than 20 years, I think. I am not sure why G/10 was subsumed by Blitz: maybe to align with FIDE? In any case, it’s confusing to USCF oldtimers who are not on the cutting edge of rules-geekdom. I know of a G/10 tournament that broke out spontaneously at a club one night, which the players thought would be Quick-rated…since the TD said so. (A pretty good bread-and-butter TD for small events, but not on the cutting edge.) The players in this case mostly laughed or shrugged over the Blitz-Quick confusion. That might not hold true in all cases. ---
**Author:** ![Micah\_Smith](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f475e1/32.png) [@Micah\_Smith](https://forum.uschess.org/u/Micah_Smith)\ **Post date:** [May 6, 2015, 1:25am UTC](https://forum.uschess.org/t/rules-adm-modify-chapter-11-blitz-chess/20594/5 "2015-05-06T01:25:19Z")
> [@wintdoan](#): > > Even if the ILC repeal passes for other forms of chess, I’m not sure the simplified version for blitz should go with it. Do we really want K+R vs K+R played out because one player has 15 seconds and the other 10? The simplified version of ILC for Blitz is only a variation so it’s not usually available anyway. Do you suggest we make the simplified version of ILC the standard rule for Blitz? > [@ericmark](#): > > If we are really going to adopt a whole new set of Blitz rules My ADM does not adopt a whole new set of Blitz rules. It mainly eliminates the redundant rules and clarifies things. > [@ericmark](#): > > I suggest changing the threshold to G/5 through G/9, inclusive. G/10 was Quick-rated from the day QC started till the day the Blitz system came along; more than 20 years, I think. I think this idea has some merit ---
**Author:** ![BrianYangUSChess](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/b9e5f3/32.png) [@BrianYangUSChess](https://forum.uschess.org/u/BrianYangUSChess)\ **Post date:** [May 6, 2015, 6:29pm UTC](https://forum.uschess.org/t/rules-adm-modify-chapter-11-blitz-chess/20594/6 "2015-05-06T18:29:29Z")
"4b. A player can claim a draw by “triple occurrence of position” or “the 50 move rule” in the same manner as in sudden death time pressure in regular chess with the exception that, as in quick chess, the player need not be under 5 minutes. See Also 14, The Drawn Game. " Huh? … I thought this was to make it more clear, not more confusing. First off, good luck proving triple occurrence of position (sans an TD watching every game / last game). Second, good luck counting to 50 in a blitz game, especially G/5 d0; Also, if you start counting to 50 aloud, I will consider that annoying behavior / distracting me from flagging you 😈 “6. If a spectator interferes in any way that may affect the result of the game (e.g. calling attention to a flag fall or an illegal move), the tournament director may cancel the game and rule that a new game be played in its place. See also 13C1, Only players may call flag.” Why? If you were trying to eliminate the redundant rules, isn’t there a rule / rules for this one as well… hence the 13C1 and others I will leave the readers to know/find. Also back to the National blitz tournament - you just delayed the round for 10 minutes for 2 players… out of 200+ waiting for a game. Therefore, it is not clear to me what is the purpose of this amendment. Best, ~Acerook P.S. You say you aren’t adopting a new set of blitz rules but I believe that blitz “castling rule” is definitely new for USCF unless proven otherwise. ---
**Author:** ![Micah\_Smith](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f475e1/32.png) [@Micah\_Smith](https://forum.uschess.org/u/Micah_Smith)\ **Post date:** [May 7, 2015, 4:19am UTC](https://forum.uschess.org/t/rules-adm-modify-chapter-11-blitz-chess/20594/7 "2015-05-07T04:19:04Z")
> [@AsianAcerook](#): > > "4b. A player can claim a draw by “triple occurrence of position” or “the 50 move rule” in the same manner as in sudden death time pressure in regular chess with the exception that, as in quick chess, the player need not be under 5 minutes. > See Also 14, The Drawn Game. " > > Huh? … I thought this was to make it more clear, not more confusing. First off, good luck proving triple occurrence of position (sans an TD watching every game / last game). Second, good luck counting to 50 in a blitz game, especially G/5 d0; Also, if you start counting to 50 aloud, I will consider that annoying behavior / distracting me from flagging you 😈 We can use the honor system for triple occurrence of position, just like we do for touch move. > [@AsianAcerook](#): > > “6. If a spectator interferes in any way that may affect the result of the game (e.g. calling attention to a flag fall or an illegal move), the tournament director may cancel the game and rule that a new game be played in its place. See also 13C1, Only players may call flag.” > > Why? If you were trying to eliminate the redundant rules, isn’t there a rule / rules for this one as well… hence the 13C1 and others I will leave the readers to know/find. No, this rule is different for Blitz and thus why it remains in the blitz rules. > [@AsianAcerook](#): > > P.S. You say you aren’t adopting a new set of blitz rules but I believe that blitz “castling rule” is definitely new for USCF unless proven otherwise. This is one rule. I said I wasn’t adopting a “whole new set” of Blitz rules. ---
**Author:** ![DENTONCHESS](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e19b73/32.png) [@DENTONCHESS](https://forum.uschess.org/u/DENTONCHESS)\ **Post date:** [May 7, 2015, 12:40pm UTC](https://forum.uschess.org/t/rules-adm-modify-chapter-11-blitz-chess/20594/8 "2015-05-07T12:40:44Z")
> [@Tim Just](#): > > > [@Micah Smith](#): > > > > I’m assuming the ADM to eliminate insufficient losing chances will pass, thus I left out insufficient losing chances from the Blitz rules. > > Assume nothing. It is the safe bet. As there is zero need to eliminate insufficient losing chances, then really, for those informed, such an assumption is simply ridiculous. And, rest assured of this- there will be dozens of tournament directors across our federation that will be announcing prior to their tournaments that for their events, as time goes by, that many of the quite necessary and useful rules that the power mad have been insistent upon eliminating, will still be in effect. Rob Jones ---
**Author:** ![BrianYangUSChess](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/b9e5f3/32.png) [@BrianYangUSChess](https://forum.uschess.org/u/BrianYangUSChess)\ **Post date:** [May 7, 2015, 1:21pm UTC](https://forum.uschess.org/t/rules-adm-modify-chapter-11-blitz-chess/20594/9 "2015-05-07T13:21:26Z")
> [@Micah Smith](#): > > …We can use the honor system for triple occurrence of position, just like we do for touch move… Touch-move: Please elaborate then how you would rule with one person (White) said he touched the piece on c3 while his opponent (Black) said they touched the piece on c4 via the “honor system”. Three-fold: White claims a draw based on 3-fold, Black denies the claim. In both scenarios, there is no notation and no TD watching the blitz game. Best, Acerook ---
**Author:** ![relyea](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/flex019/user_avatar/forum.uschess.org/relyea/32/190_2.png) [@relyea](https://forum.uschess.org/u/relyea)\ **Post date:** [May 7, 2015, 1:43pm UTC](https://forum.uschess.org/t/rules-adm-modify-chapter-11-blitz-chess/20594/10 "2015-05-07T13:43:43Z")
> [@Micah Smith](#): > > We can use the honor system for triple occurrence of position, just like we do for touch move. In the past six months, in a 40/90, SD/30, increment 30 time control, I have had an FM and a GM both deny that their opponents had reached a three-fold repetition. In each case, it took playing over the game, plus some time to convince them. I don’t think it would be posible with the “honor system.” Alex Relyea ---
**Author:** ![wintdoan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/eada6e/32.png) [@wintdoan](https://forum.uschess.org/u/wintdoan)\ **Post date:** [May 7, 2015, 4:56pm UTC](https://forum.uschess.org/t/rules-adm-modify-chapter-11-blitz-chess/20594/11 "2015-05-07T16:56:51Z")
> [@AsianAcerook](#): > > Three-fold: > White claims a draw based on 3-fold, Black denies the claim. > > In both scenarios, there is no notation and no TD watching the blitz game. > > Best, > Acerook Clearly, you’re not (in blitz or even in quick) likely to be able to claim a draw by triple occurrence if it’s due to one player stumbling through the position several times. However, there are plenty of situations where the repetition is forced—if someone can play Qf7+ followed by Qf8+ to infinity, should he lose on time because he has 10 seconds to the opponent’s 20? If the rule exists allowing for claims of triple occurrence if observed by the TD, then, in most cases like this, you won’t actually need a TD to observe since the opponent faced with infinite repetition will concede the draw. ---
**Author:** ![jwiewel](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/flex019/user_avatar/forum.uschess.org/jwiewel/32/104_2.png) [@jwiewel](https://forum.uschess.org/u/jwiewel)\ **Post date:** [May 7, 2015, 5:43pm UTC](https://forum.uschess.org/t/rules-adm-modify-chapter-11-blitz-chess/20594/12 "2015-05-07T17:43:25Z")
> [@wintdoan](#): > > > [@AsianAcerook](#): > > > > Three-fold: > > White claims a draw based on 3-fold, Black denies the claim. > > > > In both scenarios, there is no notation and no TD watching the blitz game. > > > > Best, > > Acerook > > Clearly, you’re not (in blitz or even in quick) likely to be able to claim a draw by triple occurrence if it’s due to one player stumbling through the position several times. However, there are plenty of situations where the repetition is forced—if someone can play Qf7+ followed by Qf8+ to infinity, should he lose on time because he has 10 seconds to the opponent’s 20? If the rule exists allowing for claims of triple occurrence if observed by the TD, then, in most cases like this, you won’t actually need a TD to observe since the opponent faced with infinite repetition will concede the draw. Such a player could also lose on time even having 30 seconds to the opponents 10 if the opponent has the initiative in arm movement. Example - player A having white with 30 seconds and having to move Qc8+, Qc7+ etc. player B having black with 10 seconds and having to move Ka7, Ka8, etc. The clock at black’s right. Right-handed player A reaches across the board and makes a move starting to reach for the clock Right-handed player B responds and starts reaching for the clock Player A hits the clock and starts reaching for the queen Player B hits the clock 0.1 seconds after player A and starts reaching for the king Player A moves Player B moves Player A finally hits the clock 1 second after player B had Player B hits the clock 0.1 seconds after player A had continue until player A flags with player B still having 7 seconds. Review a USCF championship play-off for a similar and historical example. ---
**Author:** ![Micah\_Smith](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f475e1/32.png) [@Micah\_Smith](https://forum.uschess.org/u/Micah_Smith)\ **Post date:** [May 8, 2015, 5:18am UTC](https://forum.uschess.org/t/rules-adm-modify-chapter-11-blitz-chess/20594/13 "2015-05-08T05:18:57Z")
> [@AsianAcerook](#): > > > [@Micah Smith](#): > > > > …We can use the honor system for triple occurrence of position, just like we do for touch move… > > Touch-move: > Please elaborate then how you would rule with one person (White) said he touched the piece on c3 while his opponent (Black) said they touched the piece on c4 via the “honor system”. This shows you have no understanding of the “honor system”. ---
**Author:** ![BrianYangUSChess](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/b9e5f3/32.png) [@BrianYangUSChess](https://forum.uschess.org/u/BrianYangUSChess)\ **Post date:** [May 8, 2015, 11:03am UTC](https://forum.uschess.org/t/rules-adm-modify-chapter-11-blitz-chess/20594/14 "2015-05-08T11:03:09Z")
> [@Micah Smith](#): > > > [@AsianAcerook](#): > > > > > [@Micah Smith](#): > > > > > > …We can use the honor system for triple occurrence of position, just like we do for touch move… > > > > Touch-move: > > Please elaborate then how you would rule with one person (White) said he touched the piece on c3 while his opponent (Black) said they touched the piece on c4 via the “honor system”. > > This shows you have no understanding of the “honor system”. Ouch, shots fired but clearly… A) you didn’t answer the question B) it was either White or Black that didn’t have honor, not you or I - the TDs C) I don’t see in the rulebook about this “honor system” so I wondered what your ruling was via “honor system” D) All the above. Best, Acerook P.S. Answer is D P.S.S. Seriously, I’m looking how you would rule, not as a test, but how you would rule because I’ve seen this scenario multiple times from little kids whose hands can’t reach across the board that well to greedy adults in the last round of a big money tournament. Edit: to include quote/reference to my post ---
**Author:** ![Mulfish](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ea666f/32.png) [@Mulfish](https://forum.uschess.org/u/Mulfish)\ **Post date:** [May 8, 2015, 12:26pm UTC](https://forum.uschess.org/t/rules-adm-modify-chapter-11-blitz-chess/20594/15 "2015-05-08T12:26:52Z")
> [@DENTONCHESS](#): > > > [@Tim Just](#): > > > > > [@Micah Smith](#): > > > > > > I’m assuming the ADM to eliminate insufficient losing chances will pass, thus I left out insufficient losing chances from the Blitz rules. > > > > Assume nothing. It is the safe bet. > > As there is zero need to eliminate insufficient losing chances, then really, for those informed, such an > assumption is simply ridiculous. And, rest assured of this- there will be dozens of tournament directors across our federation that will be announcing prior to their tournaments that for their events, as time goes by, that many of the quite necessary and useful rules that the power mad have been insistent upon eliminating, will still be in effect. > > Rob Jones While Rob’s assertion that because HE thinks there is zero need to eliminate ILC that the assumption the ADM will fail is arrogant and absurd. There are plenty of intelligent and “informed” delegates who don’t agree with Rob. His logic is even absurd if he is correct on the merits of the ADM; the delegates have made bad decisions before. However, he and Tim are quite correct that assuming it will pass and thus excluding it from a proposed rules change in blitz is not a good idea. In my view, even if ILC is retained I wonder whether it is practical or appropriate for blitz. Practical in that a lot of games go critical at the same time and the TD can’t be everywhere; appropriate because half the fun of blitz is the time pressure. Since I hardly ever play in blitz tournaments I do not claim mine is an informed opinion on this. ---
**Author:** ![system](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/flex019/user_avatar/forum.uschess.org/system/32/2_2.png) [@system](https://forum.uschess.org/u/system)\ **Post date:** [April 22, 2024, 8:41am UTC](https://forum.uschess.org/t/rules-adm-modify-chapter-11-blitz-chess/20594/16 "2024-04-22T08:41:10Z")
Closed on April 22, 2024, 8:41am UTC