George John wrote:

So, the opponent benefits from the opponent not turning the delay on.
That's real fair -- NOT!!

I hardly agree with this point. Whenever I had my Chronos, those who wanted
delay demanded it. Those that didn't let it be.

Is it likely to happen 10% or more of the time if a 1500 is facing a 2200
and both have AMPLE time to move?

To be honest, I don't know. The 1500's gonna find some amazing ways to screw it
up, but I don't know if I can quantify it in a percentage. My heart says it's
ridiculous to do anything except give the draw, my brain says you're going to
see a screwup every now and again. It would be hard for me to do anything but
grant the draw, although given the push to delay clocks, maybe that's
acceptable.

I disagree. Five seconds per move is VERY different from having ample time
to move.

True, but we should avoid the point of constructing hypotheticals which can
never be relevant.

So, you are saying that you find K-R-B vs. K-R-N 14H claims to be UNCERTAIN.
Is that right? In many instances they seem to me to be clearly correct.
What am I missing?

Not much, other than that if we're really going to use the C play vs. Master
standard, first we have to understand that the C player's going to have one
hell of a time drawing R vs. R+B and N vs. R, both drawn endings that could
happen. This gives the C player no leeway. C players tend to handle N's
clumsily, and there's real chances it'll get forked off the board somehow. How
real? I don't know. 5%? 15%? Slim, but real.

John Fernandez

Subject: Sam Sloan Almost No-Show at World Open
From: "George John"
Date: 7/12/2003 10:44 PM Eastern Daylight Time
Message-id:


"John Fernandez" wrote in message
...

John,

-snip-

Or is it that all of us are imagining some rule which doesn't really
exist??

The rule doesn't exist in the USCF rules including any of the updates.
These rules are major variations, that IMO *must* be announced prior to
round one and should be announced in writing as well by posting something
next to the pairing sheets.

In some of my events I require the delay to be turned on. When I do so, I
announce this before round one and post a sheet next to the pairing sheets.

In these events I have never faced a situation where a 14H claim was made
where the delay should have been turned on, but was not. Treating the game
as if the delay were on and denying the 14H claim out of hand is a major
departure from the rules. I think this should be explicitly covered in the
announcements and posted rules, too.

George

While I agree, the fact that it's happening at National Events by NTD's without
such notice is important, if we're going to follow your general way of going
how the NTD's do it.

John Fernandez

Subject: Sam Sloan Almost No-Show at World Open
From: "George John"
Date: 7/12/2003 11:26 PM Eastern Daylight Time
Message-id:


"John Fernandez" wrote in message
...
George John wrote:

FYI, http://www.uschess.org/tds/rulechg.html

When it starts with:

"Includes all changes made through the 1999 Annual Meeting"

IIRC, no rules were changed at the 2000 and 2001 meetings.

I have printed below what is covered from the minutes of the 2002 meeting:

"Rulebook Editor Tim Just presented a status report on the new rulebook and
provided a printed summary of those major changes that are likely to
directly affect players and TDs. His objectives were to make the rulebook
user-friendly and to reflect practice. He wanted it to be useful as a guide
and cover general situations. He thanked Peter Sherwood for language
changes. The new rulebook will include "TD Tips", which provide practical
interpretations of rules, and cross-referencing of rules by rule number and
name. A special effort was made to "over-index" the book. Among the rule
changes he specifically mentioned we (1) Draw claims are now also draw
offers, (2) Color history now takes precedence over higher rank in
allocation of due colors, (3) Players must now wait until they have only two
minutes left on their clock before making an Insufficient Losing Chances
claim. It is strongly urged that the TD put a time delay clock on a game
rather than apply the insufficient losing chances rule when a claim is made,
(4) A new rule documents a player's right to request not to be paired with a
specific opponent and points out that the TD may not be able to honor such a
request, (5) New procedures are documented for the TD to deal with players
who cannot keep score. (6) There are new rules for notifying players about
the use of variations, whether or not they are in the rulebook. He
encouraged everyone to use the rulebook as a guide, but to feel free to use
other variations as long as they are posted, (7) The use of a Special
Referee is preferred over the use of an on-site Appeals Committee, (8) There
is now a standard penalty for any infraction of two minutes added to the
opponent's clock, (9) Procedures for the last five minutes of all time
controls, both conventional and sudden-death, are now standardized as a
single procedure (10) A table of contents has been added to the beginning of
each chapter to make referencing easier, (11) Quick chess can be used for
some TD experience requirements, (12) The player is responsible for setting
his or her own clock, not the TD, and (13) If Black is late, White now can
choose equipment and clock placement.
He pointed out that that he expects to get the material to the office within
a week, but that the publication date is likely to be several months away.
The publication schedule is between the office and the publisher. President
John McCrary then asked for discussion. David Kuhns (IL) then offered
DM02-10, which was sponsored by the Ratings Committee and Workshop. After a
round of applause, the motion passed unanimously.

DM02-10 - NDM 02-49 (Ratings Committee and Workshop) - Moved, that the
Delegates commend Tim Just, Dan Burg, and the Advisory Committee for an
outstanding job in preparing "The Official Rules of Chess, Revision V", and
recommend the publication and implementation by 1 January, 2003."

Note: the rule book has still not been published, even though the BOD
called for January 1, 2003.

Which do you think will get done first, changing the bonus threshold
constant from 10 to 16 or the new rule book being published? -grin-

George

George,

Whatever disdain I have for the USCF rules is multiplied by ten because the
organization is so ridiculous that we can't even publish the damn rulebook.

John Fernandez

"John Fernandez" wrote in message
...

John,

-snip-

True, but we should avoid the point of constructing hypotheticals which
can
never be relevant.

It's completely relevant because that's exactly what the language of the
rule which says "ample time".


So, you are saying that you find K-R-B vs. K-R-N 14H claims to be
UNCERTAIN.
Is that right? In many instances they seem to me to be clearly correct.
What am I missing?

Not much, other than that if we're really going to use the C play vs.
Master
standard, first we have to understand that the C player's going to have
one
hell of a time drawing R vs. R+B and N vs. R, both drawn endings that
could
happen.

The rule book is clear on R vs. R+B. Unless the position is unusual, that
claim is clearly incorrect and should receive a one minute penalty. A
50-move count is appropriate.

N vs R is also discussed as being unclear. The current recommendation is to
place a delay clock on the game.

This gives the C player no leeway. C players tend to handle N's
clumsily, and there's real chances it'll get forked off the board somehow.
How
real? I don't know. 5%? 15%? Slim, but real.

The authors of the rule book agree. The claim is unclear and therefore
deserves a delay clock. If no delay clock is available, you observe if you
can, and invite a reclaim if you can't. A 50-move count may also be
appropriate.

George

On Sat, 12 Jul 2003 23:07:48 -0700, "Jane Adams"
wrote:


Why this is just so typical for the USCF. What makes you think that they
even need a new rulebook. Most of the time they just make things up as they
go along when it is politically correct to do so. Just a big waste of time
and money.

Jane
http://www.lvcm.com/jadams

How would you know this, when you have never played in a USCF Rated
tournament?

Sam Sloan

On 08 Jul 2003 04:28:58 GMT, eepmeep (John
Fernandez) wrote:

It's completely irrelevant. As an arbiter, I've had to make rulings on games
played by my friends, study partners, and people I hang out with. I've also had
to make rulings on people I dislike and have had bad run ins with. I think most
arbiters have. Everyone knows I make the right ruling regardless. She did in
this case.

Absolutely - any arbiter who would do differently shouldn't be one. If
we don't have our integrity as our major stock in trade what DO we
have?

Irrelevant. You make the same ruling when both players have 0/7 and when they
have 7/7.

Couldn't say it better - I recently had to do a down flag situation in
a game involving two IMs. (This was under FIDE rules with Section 10
in effect) I kept out of it tightly hanging onto my clipboard. The
hardest part was when one of them blundered - he wasn't the one whose
"flag" was dangling either.Anyone else should made the calls.

So I'm unfit to direct practically every game of the New York Masters because I
am close with many of the players?

If someone is seriously claiming that we'll soon have no tournaments
at all!

Lyle Craver
hopely soon to be International Arbiter

How would you know this, when you have never played in a USCF Rated
tournament?

Sam Sloan


Ahha!
Jane is really Carol Jarecki!

"Sam Sloan" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 12 Jul 2003 23:07:48 -0700, "Jane Adams"
wrote:


Why this is just so typical for the USCF. What makes you think that they
even need a new rulebook. Most of the time they just make things up as
they
go along when it is politically correct to do so. Just a big waste of
time
and money.

Jane
http://www.lvcm.com/jadams

How would you know this, when you have never played in a USCF Rated
tournament?

Sam Sloan

Sam,

You are absolutely correct. I do not play tournament chess, and I barely
understand the moves.

The politics, however, is a completely different matter. Everything which I
have stated here recently can be researched on google.com at any time by any
person. My version of events, is obviously closer to reality than yours.

Jane
http://www.lvcm.com/jadams

"ASCACHESS" wrote in message
...
How would you know this, when you have never played in a USCF Rated
tournament?

Sam Sloan


Ahha!
Jane is really Carol Jarecki!

Mr Peterson,

Puuh-lease! That old thing?

Years of dirty linen, dirty deals, and USCF subterfuge show on her motley
face. The fact that she has not played a game of chess publically, I don't
doubt---but, does she know the game? How could she not and be an arbiter? It
seems to fly in the face of reason that she doesn't know how the game is
played or its rules no matter what her rating card shows.

Jane
http://www.lvcm.com/jadams

"Bill Smythe" wrote in message ...
"Eric Mark" wrote:
.... I wonder what would happen if a player in time pressure in this
scenario just said to his opponent, "OK, let's turn the delay on now."
....
.... Or even just stopped the clock and wordlessly turned the delay on
himself. Or, best of all, if it was the opponent's clock, just stopped
the clock and demanded that the opponent set the delay. ....

First of all, there would be technical problems. I know of no clock that
allows the initial settings to be changed without erasing the current times.

For example, if the clock is set for 2 hours with 0 delay, and now the
clocks are down to 39 seconds on one side and 14 seconds on the other, the
only way to set the delay would be to start from the beginning, setting the
INITIAL time control to 39 seconds vs 14 seconds.

But you're right, it would make for a VERY interesting rules appeal.

Bill Smythe



Also don't underestimate how many players own digital clocks but don't
know how to set the delay. A few don't even realize the clock has
delay-capability. Really. I had a 1900 player at the W.O. tell me that
his DGT "doesn't have a delay, of course."

Didn't seem to bother the guy. He probably doesn't realize that
Bronstein and delay are essentially the same. Would be nice to see the
terminology streamlined somehow....

ERM