On Mon, 7 Jul 2003 08:03:50 -0400, "StanB"
wrote:

You didn't miss much. I saw him walking into the tourney room with Carol
Jarecki. They were giggling and laughing.

As to Sam, I worry about his health. He seems to have lost weight. Skin and
bones. And sores. On his face. The mind? A mind is a terrible thing to
waste.

StanB

I am fat as a pig. This is my problem. I keep gaining weight. I am not
fat as a cow like Neil Brennen or John Fernandez, but being fat as a
pig is bad enough.

What you saw on my face were not sores. Last Sunday, I took three of
my children swimming in the Astoria Swimming Pool in Astoria Queens
New York. The Astoria Swimming Pool is the largest swimming pool in
New York City. The 1932 Olympic Games were held there.

I was in the pool for several hours with my children. I had not done
this in 40 years in such hot weather. I forgot that I have very fair
skin.

The next day, my entire body turned completely red. I itched so bad I
could hardly sleep at night.

Yesterday, all my skin was peeling off. As of this morning, most of
the old skin is gone, the sweepers at the Adams Mark Hotel having
swept it up. The itching has subsided.

That is what Stan Booz saw.

Sam Sloan

I don't know how "standard" this ruling is, perhaps mostly in your area or
perhaps elsewhere also. However, I am of the strong opinion that it's not a
proper procedure. If you are going to force players to use delay, be forthright
and do it at the start of a round.

In article ,
eepmeep (John Fernandez) wrote:

It's been pretty standard procedure for at least a year that if you have a
delay-capable clock and choose to not activate delay, that you won't get delay
as an option in a 14.H claim. It was in effect at the WO last year. We've had
it in the Masters for a few months now.

It wouldn't shock me if this isn't a rule in the rulebook, but I guess that's
what happens when the rulebook is 10 years old.


Regards, Ernie
Ernest W. Schlich

Subject: Sam Sloan Almost No-Show at World Open
From: ojunk (Ernest W. Schlich)
Date: 7/10/2003 6:25 AM Eastern Daylight Time
Message-id:

I don't know how "standard" this ruling is, perhaps mostly in your area or
perhaps elsewhere also. However, I am of the strong opinion that it's not a
proper procedure. If you are going to force players to use delay, be
forthright
and do it at the start of a round.

Ernie,

Considering you've been in the Open section of the World Open, you'd know
better than I..

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

John Fernandez

It was standard at the National HS here in Columbus.

Grant Perks





I don't know how "standard" this ruling is, perhaps mostly in your area or
perhaps elsewhere also. However, I am of the strong opinion that it's not a
proper procedure. If you are going to force players to use delay, be
forthright
and do it at the start of a round.

In article ,
(John Fernandez) wrote:

It's been pretty standard procedure for at least a year that if you have a
delay-capable clock and choose to not activate delay, that you won't get
delay
as an option in a 14.H claim. It was in effect at the WO last year. We've had
it in the Masters for a few months now.

It wouldn't shock me if this isn't a rule in the rulebook, but I guess that's
what happens when the rulebook is 10 years old.


Regards, Ernie
Ernest W. Schlich

"John Fernandez" wrote in message
...

John,

-snip-

It was the opponent's clock.

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


I agree, but it seems to be to be pretty hard to lose the Knight. It
would
take a major blunder. IMHO. I don't see a 1500 doing this provided there
were ample time to move.

Well, at 5 seconds a move, an FM hung it. It's highly improbable, but it
could
happen.

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?


In a sense, the delay clock ruling was correct, since the player couldn't
hold
it.

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

I'd probably say I'm going to put a delay clock on, [snip]

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?

George

George John wrote:

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

When it starts with:

"Includes all changes made through the 1999 Annual Meeting"

?????????????

John Fernandez

"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.

-snip-

George

"Bill Smythe" wrote in message
...

Bill,

I know of no clock that
allows the initial settings to be changed without erasing the current
times.

It is very easy to turn the delay on, during a game without disturbing the
time, with a GameTime clock.

-snip-

George

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?

George


This is another problem with allowing Carol Jarecki (a non player) to be the
numero uno NTD. Even a relatively low rated player would realize this is a
book draw, except in exceptional circumstances.

Without the experience of having played the game herself and having a basic
core of chess knowledge, she hymmed and hawed until there were only two seconds
left. Not good.

Rp

"George John" wrote in message
.. .

"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



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