"SBD" wrote in message
ups.com...
"There must have been a time when men were gods, else they could not
have invented chess." - Dr. Tarrasch

To that I would add that men certainly have fallen far since then,
else they would not try so hard to change chess into their own faulty
image of what it should be. Futzing with classical chess has done
nothing but cheapen the game, and made it *less* popular than it once
was. "But television! But sponsorship!," they exclaim. Blah, blah,
blah. These folks know as much of chess as I do of rope dancing. (to
the obligatory Fischer random comment: an interesting chess *variant*
with its own flaws, worth playing, but it ain't chess, it is a
variant).

To those who think their proposed changes are so great, I say, then go
hold tournaments with your crappy revisions to the rules, and see how
far you get. If you aren't willing to put your money where your mouth
is..... Of course, that is part of the problem, isn't it? You have all
the answers, ala your local barber or taxi driver, but no resources to
implement them.

Whether changes would help is unknown. The impoverished state
of classical chess is completely known.

What you "know of chess" on the 64 squares may be impressive. However,
what you don't understand of the culture you live in means that you
will not comment sensibly on chess' place within that culture.


Chess is great whether or not a millionaire decides to put his/her
money into it.


Other activities in our culture do not rely on the kindness of a single
benefactor. They get their millions and billions of dollars by reaching
millions and millions of people.

David Richerby wrote:

Guy Macon http://www.guymacon.com/ wrote:

Any thoughts on adopting the FIDE rules for actaully playing chess
(as opposed to the rules for running a tournament)?

I'm all for it. Different rules for handling time-scrambles (which
is, essentially, the only difference between FIDE and USCF rules, as
far as I'm aware) is the sort of thing that is liable to lead to
confusion just where it is needed least.

I note that the preface to the FIDE Laws states, ``A member federation
is free to introduce more detailed rules provided they [...] do not
conflict in any way with the official FIDE Laws of Chess.'' So I'm
not sure what the USCF is playing at, here, to be frank.

By the way, the FIDE rules (Article 11.1) on scoring only state that
``Unless announced otherwise in advance, a player who wins his game,
or wins by forfeit, scores one point (1), a player who loses his game,
or forfeits scores no points (0) and a player who draws his game
scores a half point (1/2).'' So there's no reason you can't run a
FIDE-rules tournament with any scoring rules you want, as long as you
tell the players in advance.

I hadn't noticed that. Thanks! I retract the second suggested rule
change, on the grounds that it is already permitted in the rules.


--
Guy Macon
http://www.guymacon.com/

SBD wrote:

To those who think their proposed changes are so great, I say, then go
hold tournaments with your crappy revisions to the rules, and see how
far you get.

As David Richerby pointed out, my second suggestion is already allowed
under the current rules, so it is a moot point. The first suggestion
(following FIDE rules for catual play) is the standard rule set used
for every world championship.

Perhaps you may wish to actually *READ* my proposal befor calling
it a "crappy revisions to the rules"...


--
Guy Macon
http://www.guymacon.com/

Guy Macon wrote:
David Richerby wrote:
Guy Macon http://www.guymacon.com/ wrote:

Any thoughts on adopting the FIDE rules for actaully playing chess
(as opposed to the rules for running a tournament)?
I'm all for it. Different rules for handling time-scrambles (which
is, essentially, the only difference between FIDE and USCF rules, as
far as I'm aware) is the sort of thing that is liable to lead to
confusion just where it is needed least.

I note that the preface to the FIDE Laws states, ``A member federation
is free to introduce more detailed rules provided they [...] do not
conflict in any way with the official FIDE Laws of Chess.'' So I'm
not sure what the USCF is playing at, here, to be frank.

By the way, the FIDE rules (Article 11.1) on scoring only state that
``Unless announced otherwise in advance, a player who wins his game,
or wins by forfeit, scores one point (1), a player who loses his game,
or forfeits scores no points (0) and a player who draws his game
scores a half point (1/2).'' So there's no reason you can't run a
FIDE-rules tournament with any scoring rules you want, as long as you
tell the players in advance.

I hadn't noticed that. Thanks! I retract the second suggested rule
change, on the grounds that it is already permitted in the rules.



Wouldn't you have saved everyone a lot of time if you had *READ* the
FIDE rules before proposing the change them?

--
Kenneth Sloan
Computer and Information Sciences +1-205-932-2213
University of Alabama at Birmingham FAX +1-205-934-5473
Birmingham, AL 35294-1170 http://KennethRSloan.com/

As David Richerby pointed out, my second suggestion is
already allowed under the current FIDE rules

Article 11.1
"Unless announced otherwise in advance, a player who wins
his game, or wins by forfeit, scores one point (1), a player
who loses his game, or forfeits scores no points (0) and a
player who draws his game scores a half point (1/2)."

This makes my suggested rules change moot, so I withdraw the suggestiom
So there's no reason you can't run a
FIDE-rules tournament with any scoring rules you want, as long as you
tell the players in advance.

This leaves me with:

Guy Macon's suggested changes to USCF rules

Have the USCF adopt sections 1 through 5 of the FIDE
laws of chess and abandon the present USCF rules that cover
the same areas.

Optional: adopt the FIDE rules for chess clocks, with the
bits about the arbiter cahnged to reflect USCF practice.)

Reference:

[ http://www.fide.com/official/handbook.asp?level=EE101 ]

Having two sets of rules with different wording that are
almost identical is silly, and the FIDE rules are better
written. There are good reasons for differing rules to
run the very different kinds of tournaments found in the US,
but the basic rules for playing the game of chess should be
the same everywhere.

Just out of curiosity, how does one propose such a change
for consideration by the USCF?


--
Guy Macon
http://www.guymacon.com/

Guy Macon wrote:
As David Richerby pointed out, my second suggestion is
already allowed under the current FIDE rules

Article 11.1
"Unless announced otherwise in advance, a player who wins
his game, or wins by forfeit, scores one point (1), a player
who loses his game, or forfeits scores no points (0) and a
player who draws his game scores a half point (1/2)."

This makes my suggested rules change moot, so I withdraw the suggestiom
So there's no reason you can't run a
FIDE-rules tournament with any scoring rules you want, as long as you
tell the players in advance.

This leaves me with:

Guy Macon's suggested changes to USCF rules

Have the USCF adopt sections 1 through 5 of the FIDE
laws of chess and abandon the present USCF rules that cover
the same areas.

Optional: adopt the FIDE rules for chess clocks, with the
bits about the arbiter cahnged to reflect USCF practice.)

Reference:

[ http://www.fide.com/official/handbook.asp?level=EE101 ]

Having two sets of rules with different wording that are
almost identical is silly, and the FIDE rules are better
written. There are good reasons for differing rules to
run the very different kinds of tournaments found in the US,
but the basic rules for playing the game of chess should be
the same everywhere.

Just out of curiosity, how does one propose such a change
for consideration by the USCF?



One makes a motion on the floor of the annual Delegate's Meeting.
If you aren't a Delegate - find one (start with the one who represents
you - if you are a USCF member).

If you (or your Delegate) make the motion early enough to qualify as an
Advance Delegate Motion, then your motion will be considered at the
Rules Workshop.

Best bet is your motion would be referred by the Delegates to the Rules
Committee for study.

Good luck.

--
Kenneth Sloan
Computer and Information Sciences +1-205-932-2213
University of Alabama at Birmingham FAX +1-205-934-5473
Birmingham, AL 35294-1170 http://KennethRSloan.com/

SBD wrote:
To those who think their proposed changes are so great, I say, then go
hold tournaments with your crappy revisions to the rules, and see how
far you get. If you aren't willing to put your money where your mouth
is.....

Oh, puhlease, you can do better than that. `Put your money where your
mouth is' is equivalent to `I don't care what you think unless you're
rich.'


Dave.

--
David Richerby Old-Fashioned Lead Widget (TM): it's
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ like a thingy that weighs a ton but
it's perfect for your grandparents!

On Oct 25, 10:37 am, Guy Macon http://www.guymacon.com wrote:
help bot wrote:

Guy Macon http://www.guymacon.com wrote:

Guy Macon's suggested changes to USCF/FIDE rules

There have been many suggested changes to he rules for chess,
none of which has gathered any real support. Here are my
suggestions,which I expect to receive an equally warm reception.
grin

Have the USCF adopt sections 1 through 5 of the FIDE
laws of chess and abandon the present USCF rules that cover
the same areas. Having two sets of rules with different
wording that are almost identical is silly, and the FIDE
rules are better written. There are good reason for
differing rules to run very different kinds of tournaments,
but the basic rules should be the same everywhere.
Optional: adopt the FIDE rules for chess clocks, with the
bits about the arbiter cahnged to reflect USCF practice.)
[http://www.fide.com/official/handbook.asp?level=EE101]

These proposed changes are ridiculous.

Care to explain exactly *what* you find "ridiculous" about
the above proposal?

Idiot. Instead of snipping my explanation and then
"demanding" to know what it was, try *reading* the
entire post next time. Sheesh.


----------

Here is an addendum: the idea of awarding ties to
the player who wins and loses over his rivals who
drew more games sounds good, except that it is
purely arbitrary; the only positive aspect is it contains
a hint of poison for those who agree to draw without a
real struggle, which of course is against the rules of
chess. Punishing cheaters, however, falls not within
the realm of the true purpose of tiebreaks, but comes
under the scope of the duties of tournament directors.


-- help bot

David Richerby wrote:
SBD wrote:
To those who think their proposed changes are so great, I say, then go
hold tournaments with your crappy revisions to the rules, and see how
far you get. If you aren't willing to put your money where your mouth
is.....

Oh, puhlease, you can do better than that. `Put your money where your
mouth is' is equivalent to `I don't care what you think unless you're
rich.'


Dave.


And...your point is?


--
Kenneth Sloan
Computer and Information Sciences +1-205-932-2213
University of Alabama at Birmingham FAX +1-205-934-5473
Birmingham, AL 35294-1170 http://KennethRSloan.com/

On Oct 25, 2:58 pm, "David Kane" wrote:

The argument that the guy has lost a game suggests he's done worse
than the player who scored two draws by some amount x; the symmetrical
argument that he's won a game suggests that he's done better by some
amount y. If xy then losses are held to be more significant than
wins; if xy then wins are more significant than losses. But how can
that be when every game that is one by one player is also lost by some
other player? This suggests that x=y but then the only way to score
the games is to have two draws be worth the same as a win and a loss.

This is based on an unstated and false assumption that a drawn
result has as much information as a decisive result. Empirically
we know that is false at the GM level.

Well good for "us".



The one-time practice was to simply replay draws and treat
them as non-events. Philosophically, that's the other extreme
(a draw contains zero information). It's not mathematically exact
either, but much closer to reality than the stupid 0.5 idea.


You seem to be floating in another world; one where
what you *think* you know is presumed to be common
"knowledge" for all. How convenient for you. LOL


IMO, the idea that a draw /between GMs/ contains
"no information" is ludicrous; it tells me, for one, that
say, Bobby Fischer was withing striking range of the
enemy -- even if the hit was not decisive. If a GM can
be drawn then he is obviously not several classes
stronger than his opponent, regardless of their
respective titles.

The real issue seems to be that GMs, more than
most, will agree to draws /without a real fight/, and
here one could argue that such draws contain no
information regarding relative strength. They do tell
us about the willingness of the two players to agree
to uncontested draws, which is of course cheating
under the USCF's current rules, so there is some
"information", if not the kind we were seeking. But
this is hardly unique; there also exists the possibility
of thrown games, so fixing on this when talking of
draws is wrongheaded.

I would like to toss out another idea, to go with the
arbitrary ones already mentioned in this thread: what
about a small penalty of sorts for draw-mongers in the
pairings? Assuming a Swiss System tournament, it
could be possible to /make them pay/ by giving draw
freaks a bit tougher pairings than a half-point nets
them today. Inherent flaw: no effect in the final round!


-- help bot