The following rules have essentially been deleted but are still listed as a numbered rule in the rulebook (let me know if I missed any). Are there any plans to delete these rules and renumber the other rules?
16D. Special rules for time pressure.
See 11D1, Illegal move in time pressure;15B, Scorekeeping in time pressure, non-sudden death time control and 15C, Scorekeeping in time pressure, sudden death.
16R. Illegal Moves
See 11A, Illegal move during last 10 moves;11D, Illegal move; and 16Q, Interruption of game.
42C. Standard clocks in games without sudden death.
See rule 5F3, Standard timer for time controls with neither delay nor increment.
42D. Delay clock preferable in sudden death.
See rule 5F2, Standard timer for delay time controls.
42E. Increment clock preferable in increment time controls.
See rule 5F1, Standard timer for increment time controls.
Also, the title of 42D isn’t completely accurate since a “delay clock” isn’t always preferred in sudden death. An increment capable clock would be preferred in sudden death time controls with increment and any digital clock would be just as standard for sudden death time controls without delay or increment.
Also, the reference 42C gives makes it seem like games without a sudden death phase have no delay or increment but they can have delay or increment.
Over the years there has always been a reluctance (perhaps too much reluctance at times) to renumber the rules. As a result there is some extra clutter lying around.
OTOH, I can sort of understand this. Renumbering would also require renumbering any cross-references to the renumbered rules. I doubt whether automated renumbering of cross-references is a built-in feature of whatever software Tim is using.
They aren’t deleted. They are redirecting cross-references that appear in logical places where people would look for such rules.
Eliminating the listed rules would require people who start looking for clock rules in the equipment rules to stop and figure out where else to look. Such redirects are a convenience that keep rules consistent while allowing multiple logical ways to reach the same destination.
Making the names of the 42x rules match the names of the 5Fx rules would improve consistency.
“See also” still needs a starting point.
One option would be to merge 42C, 42D and 42E into a new 42C titled “Standard Clocks” that contains just “see also” references and the current 42E1 (if 42E1 isn’t simply moved to be part of 5F1).
Since there is no 42F (to be renamed to 42D) there is no risk of confusion with other printed materials referring to a specific rule.
Shuffling rule numbers or letters would render obsolete any documents referring to them. As just one example there have been a number of documents, tournament flyers, etc. that refer to rule 14H (a rule Tom Doan noted) and those documents would need to all be changed.
It would also make it harder for people used to searching by rule number. As just one example, I regularly get asked questions from TDs (including phone calls while I am out of the house not directing a tournament and not carrying a rulebook) which I answer by simply telling them to look at specific rules, such as rule 18G.
“I plead the 5th”.
“What’s that?”
“You know, that amendment about self-incrimination”.
“Sorry. Last year, we decided that the 1st amendment had too many clauses, so we split it into 3 separate amendments. So you now have to plead the 7th.”
That is particularly a problem when it says the 7th on the updated e-constitution while saying the 5th in the last official print run of the constitution.
I like this idea. Perhaps the information in 42E1 could be expanded to include information about delay and digital clocks in general and the new 42C could be titled “Recommended function of digital clocks”.
They’ve already fixed the primary reason you called 32B3 stupid, and even before it was fixed it still corrected a previously egregious interpretation.
We made a suboptimal decision some years ago to delete rule 14K from the sixth edition and then added a new rule to the end of rule 14, which was assigned the number 14K.
The original rule 14K:
It was fine to delete that rule, as it was redundant. However, I regret that the text was not replaced with “(This rule has been deleted.)”. The new 14K is “Director declares draw for lack of progress.” In retrospect, that should have been 14L.
Of course he can answer whether or not. I hope not. No, new rules should never replace a prior rule that was deleted in terms of numbering, and the rules you mention should always keep their number/letter and “Deleted” status.
“I’m protesting under rule 14K!”
“Why? It’s up to the director to determine if there’s lack of progress!”
“No, I mean that this is an increment game and you can’t claim insufficient losing chances!”
“Oh… you mean the Edition 6 version of 14K. But this is version 8’s 14K.”
Seriously, some people tie ideas to the number designations more strongly than others. There is no reason why the numbering must be compressed. For historic discussion it makes sense to leave them in place, and for those who are sharp enough to memorize the markers and content it makes sense. And if a rule is ever brought back again one could reinstate the rule under the old number if that makes sense.
