Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1   Report Post  
Old January 24th 05, 12:39 AM
Tom Klem
 
Posts: n/a
Default When people who don't play Chess Make the Rules

I just received a very disturbing and astonishing report, though when I
thought about it, was not surprised.

A long standing rule of the USCF regarding due colors in a tournament
has been "clarified" (as the publication puts it).

And I quote: "Due Colors: The rules for assigning color have been
clarified, and color history now takes precedence over higher rank in
deciding which player receives due color (29E3a, 29Er)"

This, in my opinion, has the stench of Carol Jarecki all over it and I
wonder how the GMs and IMs are taking it.

Carol!! Retire!! You're an embarassment??!! -/+

Horrible.

Tom Klem


  #2   Report Post  
Old January 24th 05, 01:39 AM
George John
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Tom Klem" wrote in message
...

I just received a very disturbing and astonishing report, though when I
thought about it, was not surprised.

A long standing rule of the USCF regarding due colors in a tournament has
been "clarified" (as the publication puts it).

And I quote: "Due Colors: The rules for assigning color have been
clarified, and color history now takes precedence over higher rank in
deciding which player receives due color (29E3a, 29Er)"


-snip-

Tom,

"29E3a. Due colors defined. A player who has had an unqual number of
whites and black is due the color that tends to equalize the number of
whites and blacks. A player who has had an equal number of whites and
blacks is due the opposite color to that he received in the most recent
round. Colors assinged in games won or lost by forfeit do not count in
deciding the color. A player who has played no games is due neither white
nor black."

29E3a makes sense to me. Why do you think this is horrible?

I'm not finding a 29Er rule. Is this a typo for something else?

A change I like in the 5th Edition is fully considering color history. For
example

2300 WWBBW
2299 WBWBW

Both players are due for B for balance,and alternation. Under the old
rules the 2300 would get B (assuming they have the same score) due to the
higher rating, but under the new rules the 2299 would get B. The reason is
that they had the same colors in round 4 and 5, so we look at round 3. The
2300 had B, the 2299 had W, so the 2299 gets B in round 6. That's a good
change IMO. Do you think the 2300 would complain that she should get B
because she is higher rated? I think not.

Best regards,

George



Best regards,

George


  #3   Report Post  
Old January 24th 05, 02:29 AM
Tom Klem
 
Posts: n/a
Default

(change 29Er to 29E4)

Tom Klem

"George John" wrote in message
...

"Tom Klem" wrote in message
...

I just received a very disturbing and astonishing report, though when I
thought about it, was not surprised.

A long standing rule of the USCF regarding due colors in a tournament

has
been "clarified" (as the publication puts it).

And I quote: "Due Colors: The rules for assigning color have been
clarified, and color history now takes precedence over higher rank in
deciding which player receives due color (29E3a, 29Er)"


-snip-

Tom,

"29E3a. Due colors defined. A player who has had an unqual number of
whites and black is due the color that tends to equalize the number of
whites and blacks. A player who has had an equal number of whites and
blacks is due the opposite color to that he received in the most recent
round. Colors assinged in games won or lost by forfeit do not count in
deciding the color. A player who has played no games is due neither white
nor black."

29E3a makes sense to me. Why do you think this is horrible?

I'm not finding a 29Er rule. Is this a typo for something else?

A change I like in the 5th Edition is fully considering color history.

For
example

2300 WWBBW
2299 WBWBW

Both players are due for B for balance,and alternation. Under the old
rules the 2300 would get B (assuming they have the same score) due to the
higher rating, but under the new rules the 2299 would get B. The reason

is
that they had the same colors in round 4 and 5, so we look at round 3.

The
2300 had B, the 2299 had W, so the 2299 gets B in round 6. That's a good
change IMO. Do you think the 2300 would complain that she should get B
because she is higher rated? I think not.

Best regards,

George



Best regards,

George




  #4   Report Post  
Old January 24th 05, 03:20 AM
George John
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Tom Klem" wrote in message
news:[email protected]

-snip-

(change 29Er to 29E4)


Tom,

What specific problems do you have with 29E4. The example I previously
cited is based on 29E4.

Best regards,

George John

-snip-



  #5   Report Post  
Old January 24th 05, 01:51 PM
George John
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Tom Klem" wrote in message
news:[email protected]

Tom,

Don't take my word for this. Ask a GrandMaster or IM what they think about
the change.


I believe there is an IM running for the USCF Executive Board who has
recently posted on rgcp. Perhaps he or some other IM or GM will see this
and post here about this issue. I will ask a GM or IM the next time I get a
chance.

People who don't play Chess, shouldn't make the rules. It's really as
simple
as that; and think about it: you've worked on your game for years,
achieved
a high rating, and all things being equal, a lower rated opponent comes
along and gets preference over you?? Why not use the flip of a coin?


Because there are better methods than a coin flip in nearly all cases. The
rule that the higher rated (or player in higher score group in the odd-man
case) still exists, but has the lowest priority, which is as it should be.
Are you telling me that GM's and IM's are telling you that a 2500 that is
less due for white than a 2499 player should get white because she is higher
rated?!

The new rule, in my opinion ... that is the logic, of the non playing, low
rated player trying to make everything politically correct and fair. No
experience. No make the rules.


Although I haven't looked at the current list recently, I believe most if
not all members of the rules commitee are chess players, and the Board of
Delegates (a significant majority, if not all, are chess players) have the
final say over the rules. I think you are mistaken when you say that the
rules are written by non-chess players; although, if your definition of a
chess player is only those players with a FIDE rating over 2500, you would
be right. ;-)

Best regards,

George John




  #6   Report Post  
Old January 24th 05, 02:16 PM
curtains
 
Posts: n/a
Default


I don't see what the fuss is all about? Sometimes this rule will help
the higher rated player, sometimes it won't. Many chessplayers remember
the times they got an extra black much more than the times they got the
extra white.

  #7   Report Post  
Old January 24th 05, 02:43 PM
Tom Martinak
 
Posts: n/a
Default

I don't see what the fuss is all about? Sometimes this rule will help
the higher rated player, sometimes it won't. Many chessplayers remember
the times they got an extra black much more than the times they got the
extra white.

As you point out, the "due color" can be white or black so over time
there was no positive or negative preference previously and now the new
rules simply makes use of additional information. My guess is that the
old rule was created to make things easier for pairing, but now with
computers doing the grunt work we might as well use all available
information rather than take a pairing shortcut.

- Tom Martinak

  #8   Report Post  
Old January 24th 05, 02:48 PM
Vince Hart
 
Posts: n/a
Default

There is no "preference" for the lower rated player here Tom. Neither
the lower rated player nor the higher rated player is any more likely
to get the black pieces or the white pieces in any given game. All the
rule does is make it slightly less likely that the lower rated player
will get an extended streak of one color or the other.

Vince Hart

  #9   Report Post  
Old January 24th 05, 04:11 PM
Bill Smythe
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Tom Klem" wrote:
.... A long standing rule of the USCF regarding due colors in a

tournament
has been "clarified" (as the publication puts it). ....
.... "Due Colors: The rules for assigning color have been
clarified, and color history now takes precedence over higher rank in
deciding which player receives due color .... "


Of the 30 or so members of the 5th edition rulebook revision committee, the
one who had the biggest influence on the wording of the color assignment
rules was NOT Carol Jarecki. It was yours truly -- a player who has played
at least 2000 rated games (I've long since lost track).

Here is an example of the sort of situation that prompted the clarification,
or the change, or whatever you want to call it. Suppose it is necessary to
pair two players against each other, who have the following ratings and
color histories. (Assume both players have the same score.)

1900 bye-WB
1700 BWB

You could argue that the 1900 should get due color, because he is
higher-rated. Or you could argue that the 1700 should get due color,
because he needs white in order to equalize, whereas the 1900 needs white
only in order to alternate.

The previous (4th) edition addressed this question as follows:

"29H. .... Equalization of colors takes priority over alternation of
colors. .... "

"29I. .... First, as many players as possible are given the color that
equalizes the number of times they have played as white and as black. After
that is accomplished, as many players as possible should be given alternate
colors to those they had the previous round. .... "

" .... When it is necessary to pair two players who are each due the same
color, the higher-ranked player has priority in receiving the due color.
..... "

The first two passages seem to support giving the 1700 due color (in our
example), whereas the third seems to give the nod to the 1900.

What do you do when the rules contradict each other? You could assume, I
suppose, that the first-stated rule has priority, even when the rules are
not presented as an ordered list. Or you could just use common sense -- but
what constitutes "common sense" in any given case is often debatable.

The new 5th edition rule in this area is worded as follows:

"29E4. .... Pairing players due the same color. Whenever it is necessary
to pair two players who are due the same color the following rules apply:"

"1. If one player has had an unequal number of whites and blacks, while the
other has had equal colors, the player who has had unequal colors gets due
color. .... "

Is this a change, or just a clarification? It all depends on what you think
the old rule said.

Under the new 29E4 there are four more sub-rules (2 through 5) which cover
other cases. We can continue this discussion if anybody is interested.

Bill Smythe



  #10   Report Post  
Old January 24th 05, 07:50 PM
Tom Klem
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Actually, Bill, I think you've cleared it up for me, and I accept your word.

The old rules _were_ confusing, to be sure.

Thank you for your time,
Tom Klem

"Bill Smythe" wrote in message
...
"Tom Klem" wrote:
.... A long standing rule of the USCF regarding due colors in a

tournament
has been "clarified" (as the publication puts it). ....
.... "Due Colors: The rules for assigning color have been
clarified, and color history now takes precedence over higher rank in
deciding which player receives due color .... "


Of the 30 or so members of the 5th edition rulebook revision committee,

the
one who had the biggest influence on the wording of the color assignment
rules was NOT Carol Jarecki. It was yours truly -- a player who has

played
at least 2000 rated games (I've long since lost track).

Here is an example of the sort of situation that prompted the

clarification,
or the change, or whatever you want to call it. Suppose it is necessary

to
pair two players against each other, who have the following ratings and
color histories. (Assume both players have the same score.)

1900 bye-WB
1700 BWB

You could argue that the 1900 should get due color, because he is
higher-rated. Or you could argue that the 1700 should get due color,
because he needs white in order to equalize, whereas the 1900 needs white
only in order to alternate.

The previous (4th) edition addressed this question as follows:

"29H. .... Equalization of colors takes priority over alternation of
colors. .... "

"29I. .... First, as many players as possible are given the color that
equalizes the number of times they have played as white and as black.

After
that is accomplished, as many players as possible should be given

alternate
colors to those they had the previous round. .... "

" .... When it is necessary to pair two players who are each due the

same
color, the higher-ranked player has priority in receiving the due color.
.... "

The first two passages seem to support giving the 1700 due color (in our
example), whereas the third seems to give the nod to the 1900.

What do you do when the rules contradict each other? You could assume, I
suppose, that the first-stated rule has priority, even when the rules are
not presented as an ordered list. Or you could just use common sense --

but
what constitutes "common sense" in any given case is often debatable.

The new 5th edition rule in this area is worded as follows:

"29E4. .... Pairing players due the same color. Whenever it is

necessary
to pair two players who are due the same color the following rules apply:"

"1. If one player has had an unequal number of whites and blacks, while

the
other has had equal colors, the player who has had unequal colors gets due
color. .... "

Is this a change, or just a clarification? It all depends on what you

think
the old rule said.

Under the new 29E4 there are four more sub-rules (2 through 5) which cover
other cases. We can continue this discussion if anybody is interested.

Bill Smythe





Reply
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
IS IT WRONG TO PLAY VIOLENT VIDEO GAMES? Gunny Bunny rec.games.chess.computer (Computer Chess) 5 June 2nd 04 08:44 PM
Staunton's rich and varied past John Townsend rec.games.chess.misc (Chess General) 15 May 24th 04 03:51 AM
USCF Catalogue Remainers ASCACHESS rec.games.chess.politics (Chess Politics) 2 May 13th 04 07:46 AM
Lev Khariton: With Love and Bitterness Aryeh Davidoff rec.games.chess.misc (Chess General) 2 May 6th 04 05:56 PM
banned from icc 2100USCF rec.games.chess.computer (Computer Chess) 68 March 24th 04 05:05 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:07 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2019 ChessBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Chess"

 

Copyright © 2017