Another box checker; only your only box seems to be the opposite of whatever I say.
Except when you do your single-word “No” stuff, I typically respect your replies. I understand that the fact that I often think outside the box can be frustrating, and I’m fine when people disagree for good reason. All I expect is respect in the difference.
I appreciate your agreement; I know some would have not made the effort to think it through, and wouldn’t have publicly agree even if they did.
As should be well known, I strongly agree with Mr. Price. One wonders how TDs all over the world under every type of restriction are able to use the Laws of Chess but somehow we aren’t.
Alex Relyea
On the one hand:
In non-FIDE events in the final round I find it advantageous to avoid intra-family pairings where one of he family members is in the running for a big class prize while the other isn’t. Pairing family members together puts them in a lose-lose situation (if one does not win and thus fails to get a big class prize then that is one half of the lose-lose situation while if the player does win and gets the big class prize then the loud cries of collusion is the other half of the lose-lose situation).
In scholastic events the “color is king” attitude would woefully overlook the lower impact of color versus rating.
Also in scholastic events it can be very useful to do first round floor re-pairings of players with absent opponents or players present but withdrawn (there is a significant minority of parents and coaches that will check in absent players or forget to check in present players).
In club events with little or no monetary prizes a US Chess TD is allowed to play as otherwise the willingness of a TD to run a multi-week event is drastically reduced (each year I do four such trophy-only club events with two being single-night and one non-prize single-night club event).
Past examples of TD partiality have resulted in a number of rules that limit how much TDs can intervene while FIDE does not worry about TD partiality (at least Campomanes in Karpov-Kasparov was never seen as being partial towards one of the players and the imposed ending of that match was not controversial - hmm, that summation might not be correct).
On the other hand:
The rulebook has gotten larger and larger over the years and that is partially because people have pushed for a specific rule to prevent edge cases, and in the process have opened up more edge cases that needed additional specific rules.
The limitations on TD intervention have made TDs hesitant to intervene even in cases such as a player completing a move with the opponent absent and then changing it before the opponent returns.
On the gripping hand:
The US is litigious enough that a thinner rulebook may be more likely to result in lawsuits on judgement call rulings made by weaker TDs.
+1
Nope. Only when you are wrong.
I have to agree with Kevin on this one. Also, Allen does this to multiple people.
Checking the box again. No logic given, just claims. I can’t imagine you like IFRS.
As noted previously, while I dislike 1A in principle (it’s an admission that rules are poorly written) it provides the ability for the TD to function here.
There have been other times when rules have been clearly wrong - and blind adherence to them provides illogical and undesirable results. I’ve also demonstrated it IRL, in which EVERYONE accepted the answer - because we had demonstrated that what was wrong with the rule resulted in nonsense. That is the key lesson of the game against Dowd. So many people got upset with that, because following the rules explicitly as written yielded a nonsense result, and yelled at me for even making such an argument (perhaps not understanding I was trying to demonstrate the problem to rectify it.)
In this situation we have exactly the same instance. There’s no reasonable way, as we’ve shown from several examples and from general theory based on history, that the result is what 6B intends. This issue was overlooked and is well revealed by this actual case. We’ve even explained how this problem was likely created by a well-intentioned attempt at improving the rulebook by Just and Burg. (I can remember cell-phone discussions with Tim talking about the idea of a new layout, and thinking he had a very strong, practical idea.)
Generally speaking, when following a rule results in nonsense, the TD has to step in and provide fairness and coherence. That’s the purpose of 1A. That is WHY 1A is 1A, not 32H (for example.)
I really don’t care what 6B says, because it obviously leads to bad results. I’d be very concerned about any TD above Local who would blindly follow a rule without thinking it through. I have a lot of respect for Chris Bird. This time he is wrong.
What is really sad here, is people are more concerned about defending status quo, or about being angry at me, than they are about well-performing rules and TDs. The fundamental goal is wrong.
I even recall that the hope (yours or Dan’s I can’t recall which) was that the rulebook reorganization into what players needed to know and what TDs needed to know might be able to result in two smaller books - a guide for players and rules for TDs.
The blitz rules chapter in the US Chess rulebook states many rules for blitz that are not different than the rules for regular chess and are not necessary to state in the blitz rules.
One problem is that some of the rules that are clear and explicit are just nonsense. For example, in blitz rule 3 states “Before play begins, both players should inspect the position of the pieces and the setting of the clock, since once each side has completed a move the position on the board and the time on the clock remain as set.” Therefore, if you follow this clear and explicit rule, you wouldn’t make any adjustment to the clock if the players incorrectly set the clock for 5 hours instead of 5 minutes.
FIDE tournament rules are different from the FIDE LOC. The “no repairings” is part of the (general) tournament rules. The “color is king” is part of the FIDE Dutch System, which isn’t required for FIDE rateability.
My memory is that after the 5th edition was printed the idea of splitting up the 5th edition into smaller volumes - instead of a 6th edition - came originally from the late ED Bill Hall.
And we went down that path a little by getting a pared down portion of the chapters that are just rules posted online.
I thought players ought to be able to get that without paying for a book.
Now that you mention it, I believe you are correct.
+1
+1
Also please note that the FIDE “made” is (at least roughly) equivalent to the U.S. Chess “determined”.
+75,297
Bill Smythe
Also, in a few cases, the U.S. Chess blitz rules are different from regular U.S. Chess rules, but shouldn’t be.
Bill Smythe
This topic was automatically closed 730 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.