Rules ADM: Modify rule 16 (Use of the chess clock)

[wilecoyote]

This is the second part of the rework of rules 5, 16, and 42.

I don’t have the wording of an ADM yet, but here are my initial thoughts of what to do with rule 16.

• Delete 16A (“The USCF office maintains a list … of currently allowable time controls …”). That’s not a rule, it’s just a statement of a fact that is no longer true. In other words, 16A has no “rules value” at all.
• 16D is supposed to be “special rules for time pressure.” In fact, all it is is a requirement that illegal moves in time pressure must be corrected within two move pairs or stand uncorrected. Why isn’t this in rule 11 (Illegal move)? The “see also” is a good hint here.
• 16R: Why isn’t this in rule 11? Again, all the “see also” references are to rule 11, which suggests this is misplaced. (At least 16R has some tenuous connection with “use of the clock”.) In my opinion, 16D and 16R are examples of usability issues with the Official Rules of Chess. If I’m looking at the table of contents to figure out where to look for what to do if there’s an illegal move, I’m likely to pick “11. Illegal Positions”, not “16. The Use of the Chess Clock”. (And another mini-rant: Why is it “11. Illegal Positions” and not “11. Illegal Moves”? That’s another usability issue.)
• 16U and 16V: Again, these are recommendations, not rules. At this point, with the proposed rewrite of rule 5, analog clocks are the least preferred clock in all situations, even if there is no increment or sudden death. I don’t see why we should be advising organizers to choose their time controls based on considerations limited solely to analog clocks.
• 16X: This rule stating that an “old” rule (add a minute to analog clocks to compensate for inaccuracies) is no longer in effect was introduced in the fourth edition, which came into effect January 1, 1994. In other words, rule 16X, telling us that an old rule is history, is now itself old enough to be able to drink legally. It’s time to wave bye-bye …
• I’m also looking to eliminate top-level subrules from 16 because I’m proposing to move the current 5G (the flag), 5H (pressing the clock), and 5I (stopping the clock) to rule 16. I’d really like to avoid rule numbering such as “16AA” and “16AB” after “16Z”.

Thoughts?

[wilecoyote]

OK, here it is in ADM-speak.

1. Delete rule 16A. Renumber rule 16B as 16A and renumber subrules accordingly.

2. Insert the following as new rules 16B, 16C, and 16D:

16B. Pressing the clock.

After moving, a player presses the button on his or her side of the clock, which stops that side from running and starts the opponent’s side. This book refers to such action as pressing the clock. See also 6A, The first move; 16B1, Removing a player’s hand from the clock; 16B2, Using the clock; 16I, Starting the clock; and 16N, Beginning the round.

16B1. Removing a player’s hand from the clock. Players must remove their hands from the clock button after depressing the button and must keep their hands off and away from the clock until it is time to press it again. See also 16B, Pressing the clock.

16B2. Using the clock. Each player must operate the clock with the same hand that moves the pieces.

16C. Picking up the clock.

Once the clock has been started, each player is forbidden to pick up the clock except as provided in rule 5C5. See also 5C5, Replacement of non-standard timer in increment and delay time controls.

16D. Stopping the clock.

A player who wishes to make a claim of any sort or see a director for any legitimate reason may stop both sides of the clock before claiming and/or finding a director. This book refers to such action as stopping the clock or stopping both clocks. If the opponent’s clock is accidentally started when a player tries to stop both clocks, the director will determine whether the claim is still in order. See also 13C6, Claimant’s clock; 16Q, Interruption of game; 21F, Player requests for rulings; and 21F1, Timing of requests.

3. Delete the current rule 16D. Rule 16D1 will move to rule 11 (Illegal Positions).

4. Delete rule 16R (will be moved to rule 11). Delete rules 16U, 16V, and 16X. Renumber rules 16S and 16T as 16R and 16S, respectively. Renumber rule 16W and 16Y as 16T and 16U, respectively.

5. Fix the reference in 16G to non-existent rules “16Ga” and “16Gb”. Instead of “If either 16Ga or 16Gb occurs”, write “If either situation occurs”. (I’m guessing that there used to be a “16Ga” which was the paragraph starting “With an analog clock” and a “16Gb” which was the paragraph starting “With a delay clock”. Similarly, fix the references in 16H to refer just to 16G.

6. Fix cross-references throughout.

(end of changes to rule 16)

I chose the insertion point for moving the current rules 5H and 5I and promoted the current 16C2 up one level (now just 16C) to minimize how much renumbering is necessary. Unfortunately, 16Q now seems to be out of place. It feels as though it should be near my proposed 16D (Stopping the clock). But that would mean renumbering almost all the rules following 16D. That’s not necessarily a good reason to avoid moving the rule, but I am also mindful of those who are using the printed rule book rather than an e-reader version. I can live with leaving 16Q where it is and revisiting the matter in the seventh edition. (I’m also trying to be mindful of Tim Just’s sanity. )

[BobMessenger]

@wilecoyote

I chose the insertion point for moving the current rules 5H and 5I and promoted the current 16C2 up one level (now just 16C) to minimize how much renumbering is necessary. Unfortunately, 16Q now seems to be out of place. It feels as though it should be near my proposed 16D (Stopping the clock). But that would mean renumbering almost all the rules following 16D. That’s not necessarily a good reason to avoid moving the rule, but I am also mindful of those who are using the printed rule book rather than an e-reader version. I can live with leaving 16Q where it is and revisiting the matter in the seventh edition. (I’m also trying to be mindful of Tim Just’s sanity. )

Ken, my feeling is that rules should not be renumbered in a rules ADM if this is at all possible, for the reason you gave: because it would be confusing to people reading the current rules in the 6th edition. It would be better to create new sub-rules within an existing rule, and if a rule is eliminated replace it with an explanatory note as a placeholder. As you say, the numbering can be rationalized in the 7th edition.

Really, the best time for rewriting/reorganizing rules would have been during the creation of the 6th edition, but it’s hard to anticipate what changes we’ll want to make.

[wilecoyote]

@BobMessenger

@wilecoyote

I chose the insertion point for moving the current rules 5H and 5I and promoted the current 16C2 up one level (now just 16C) to minimize how much renumbering is necessary. Unfortunately, 16Q now seems to be out of place. It feels as though it should be near my proposed 16D (Stopping the clock). But that would mean renumbering almost all the rules following 16D. That’s not necessarily a good reason to avoid moving the rule, but I am also mindful of those who are using the printed rule book rather than an e-reader version. I can live with leaving 16Q where it is and revisiting the matter in the seventh edition. (I’m also trying to be mindful of Tim Just’s sanity. )

Ken, my feeling is that rules should not be renumbered in a rules ADM if this is at all possible, for the reason you gave: because it would be confusing to people reading the current rules in the 6th edition. It would be better to create new sub-rules within an existing rule, and if a rule is eliminated replace it with an explanatory note as a placeholder. As you say, the numbering can be rationalized in the 7th edition.

Really, the best time for rewriting/reorganizing rules would have been during the creation of the 6th edition, but it’s hard to anticipate what changes we’ll want to make.

Unfortunately, the scope of the sixth edition was very limited: simply apply the rules update document to the fifth edition, and make no other changes.

[BobMessenger]

@wilecoyote

@BobMessenger

Ken, my feeling is that rules should not be renumbered in a rules ADM if this is at all possible, for the reason you gave: because it would be confusing to people reading the current rules in the 6th edition. It would be better to create new sub-rules within an existing rule, and if a rule is eliminated replace it with an explanatory note as a placeholder. As you say, the numbering can be rationalized in the 7th edition.

Really, the best time for rewriting/reorganizing rules would have been during the creation of the 6th edition, but it’s hard to anticipate what changes we’ll want to make.

Unfortunately, the scope of the sixth edition was very limited: simply apply the rules update document to the fifth edition, and make no other changes.

Hopefully we (USCF) can take our time creating the 7th edition, with plenty of time for making and reviewing changes. As I see it, work should start now on creating a proto-7th edition off to the side somewhere, even if it will be several years before the 7th edition can be published. Extensive rule rewrites should go into the proto-7th edition, not be passed as amendments to the 6th edition. The Delegates wouldn’t vote on the 7th edition changes until late in the process, when the final version has been reviewed and people are generally happy with it. If Tim Just will be the editor of the 7th edition I would give him the authority to approve or reject changes to the proto-7th edition, possibly in conjunction with the Rules Committee, up to the point when it’s submitted to the Delegates for approval. Changes to the 6th edition should be more limited in scope, fixing problems but not rearranging the rules any more than is necessary.

With that in mind, I’ll give you my feedback on your ADM proposals.

[Dayman]

Strongly agree with the idea of having a proto-7th edition running on the side and putting any major re-writes into that edition!!

[Terry_Winchester]

@wilecoyote

@BobMessenger

@wilecoyote

I chose the insertion point for moving the current rules 5H and 5I and promoted the current 16C2 up one level (now just 16C) to minimize how much renumbering is necessary. Unfortunately, 16Q now seems to be out of place. It feels as though it should be near my proposed 16D (Stopping the clock). But that would mean renumbering almost all the rules following 16D. That’s not necessarily a good reason to avoid moving the rule, but I am also mindful of those who are using the printed rule book rather than an e-reader version. I can live with leaving 16Q where it is and revisiting the matter in the seventh edition. (I’m also trying to be mindful of Tim Just’s sanity. )

Ken, my feeling is that rules should not be renumbered in a rules ADM if this is at all possible, for the reason you gave: because it would be confusing to people reading the current rules in the 6th edition. It would be better to create new sub-rules within an existing rule, and if a rule is eliminated replace it with an explanatory note as a placeholder. As you say, the numbering can be rationalized in the 7th edition.

Really, the best time for rewriting/reorganizing rules would have been during the creation of the 6th edition, but it’s hard to anticipate what changes we’ll want to make.

Unfortunately, the scope of the sixth edition was very limited: simply apply the rules update document to the fifth edition, and make no other changes.

Ken, Do the following rule amendments (5th edition changes) represent what is currently in practice? http://www.uschess.org/docs/gov/reports/RulebookChanges-5thEdition-through2014.pdf

[brennanprice]

@Dayman

Strongly agree with the idea of having a proto-7th edition running on the side and putting any major re-writes into that edition!!

Ideally, we would completely rewrite a new edition and leave it alone for a good period of years. That USCF revised the sixth edition before the print version thereof was widely available illustrates the extent of an organizational bad habit to revise rules at the drop of a hat.

That said, rules 5 and 16 have been hacked to death by this activism to the point they are sometimes contradictory and nonsensical. (Trivia question: What are the standard delays [sic] for a blitz time control?)

The fix is a three step process:

1. Fix the rules that badly need fixing now. 5 and 16 fall into this category.

2. Do a complete, vetted, and cross checked rewrite and publish a seventh edition at the earliest opportunity.

3. Leave the seventh edition the #3|| alone for five years or so.

[BobMessenger]

@BobMessenger

With that in mind, I’ll give you my feedback on your ADM proposals.

On second thought, I’ll have to back off from that. I started to post a reply to the latest version of your Rule 5 ADM in which I would say what changes I thought should go into the 6th edition, as opposed to the proto-7th edition, but then I realized that I don’t really have time for that. I’ll just say that I like your rules re-write but I think all of it should go into 7th edition.

[Dayman]

@brennanprice

@Dayman

Strongly agree with the idea of having a proto-7th edition running on the side and putting any major re-writes into that edition!!

Ideally, we would completely rewrite a new edition and leave it alone for a good period of years. That USCF revised the sixth edition before the print version thereof was widely available illustrates the extent of an organizational bad habit to revise rules at the drop of a hat.

That said, rules 5 and 16 have been hacked to death by this activism to the point they are sometimes contradictory and nonsensical. (Trivia question: What are the standard delays [sic] for a blitz time control?)

The fix is a three step process:

1. Fix the rules that badly need fixing now. 5 and 16 fall into this category.

2. Do a complete, vetted, and cross checked rewrite and publish a seventh edition at the earliest opportunity.

3. Leave the seventh edition the #3|| alone for five years or so.

100% Agree. This also needs a timeline. Is Tim Just the person to do the 7th edition? It would be great to have a specific Delegate’s meeting (maybe 2016) where we all understand that we are voting on the 7th edition and that we are not tinkering with it for several years.