Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 28
  1. #1
    CC Candidate Master
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    401

    Thumbs up Unfair rule re recording when under 5 minutes.

    Some Aussie tournamnents use a sudden death time limit,
    or use an increment less than 30 secs a move, say 10 secs a move.
    Typically in these tournaments a player is not required to record the moves
    once they have less than 5 minutes, though the opponent is still required to
    record
    if they have more than 5 minutes.

    The USCF (and perhaps other places as well) rule for many years has been
    that when one player has less than 5 minutes left,
    BOTH players stop recording. Superficially this looks unusual, but the USCF
    rule is fair.

    Lets say player A has 15 minutes left and player B has 5 minutes left.
    Player B stops
    recording while A keeps recording. Recording a move takes at least 5 seconds
    a move
    (and perhaps 10, excluding the break in orientation), and the opponent gains
    5 seconds as well of the
    opponents time to think on. 20 moves have played and A gets down to 5
    minutes, while
    B goes to 4 minutes. A then goes to 2 minutes, while B goes to 3 minutes and
    the game ends.

    Why should A have had to record 20 MORE moves than B, just because B was
    moving slower
    than B? A has been penalized. In this case A has been handicapped between
    1.5 minutes
    to 5 minutes, quite a critical amount.

    This rule caused a lot of problems in the recent Geelong Open. One game went
    for about
    40 moves before the quicker player got to 5 moves left. Some players got
    confused and stopped recording
    when their opponent did, leading to DOP intervention. In the important last
    round, one player forgot to
    record some moves and was made to update his scoresheet, when his time was
    less than 5 minutes left.

    I think this rule needs changing.

  2. #2
    CC International Master Bereaved's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    2,222
    Thanks, Bill,

    Couldn't bring it up myself, but was annoying. Also the inability to press the clock at times owing to my opponent replying before I could touch the clock.

    It does seem to show that the use of a 30 second increment is a good thing.

    Take care and God Bless, Macavity

  3. #3
    CC International Master
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Wynyard,Tas
    Posts
    2,424
    Quote Originally Posted by macavity
    Also the inability to press the clock at times owing to my opponent replying before I could touch the clock.
    In such cases you should press your clock anyway. Law 6.8.a:

    A player must always be allowed to stop his clock.

    If the opponent tries to keep their finger on the button to prevent this then call the arbiter and point out Law 6.8.b

    It is forbidden for a player to keep his finger on the button or to `hover` over it.

  4. #4
    CC International Master Bereaved's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    2,222
    The Arbiter was standing right next to me and heard me express my dissatisfaction to my opponent at least once, but did nothing; my opponent also seemed to suggest that I was making a big fuss over nothing...

    Take care and God Bless, Macavity

  5. #5
    CC International Master
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Wynyard,Tas
    Posts
    2,424
    Quote Originally Posted by macavity
    The Arbiter was standing right next to me and heard me express my dissatisfaction to my opponent at least once, but did nothing; my opponent also seemed to suggest that I was making a big fuss over nothing...
    Yes. I suppose it is a bit of a difficulty if the arbiter doesn't know the rules.

    Though I think it likely that your opponent was merely bluffing and was well aware that he was cheating.

  6. #6
    Monster of the deep Kevin Bonham's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    40,358
    I don't find the 5 minute rule unfair. I think that being in acute time trouble much earlier than your opponent is is punishment enough, and a severe disadvantage of the USCF rule is that when both players stop recording because one is below 5 mins, then you miss out on getting as many of the moves recorded, unless you have a lot of assistants on hand to score on the players' behalf. I should add here that I am usually not the one who gets to 5 mins first. Usually my opponent is there before me.

    I do think the 5 mins rule is a dog's breakfast when dealing with games with increments that are less than 30 secs (as opposed to games with no increments at all). Under the current rule 8.4 in a game that is GX/+Y time format, once a player gets below 5 minutes at any point in the game, they do not need to record again. This is a difficult rule to supervise.

    I don't agree with making a player fill in missed moves while they are below 5 minutes. The opponent should have complained earlier.
    Moderation Requests: All requests for, comments about, or questions about moderation of any kind including thread changes must be posted in the Help and Feedback section and not on the thread in question. (Or by private message for routine changes or sensitive matters.)

    ACF Newsletter Information - All Australian players and administrators should subscribe and check each issue for relevant notices

    My psephology/politics site (token chess references only) : http://kevinbonham.blogspot.com.au/ Politics twitter feed https://twitter.com/kevinbonham

  7. #7
    CC Grandmaster Denis_Jessop's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Canberra
    Posts
    3,333
    Quote Originally Posted by Ian Rout
    In such cases you should press your clock anyway. Law 6.8.a:

    A player must always be allowed to stop his clock.

    If the opponent tries to keep their finger on the button to prevent this then call the arbiter and point out Law 6.8.b

    It is forbidden for a player to keep his finger on the button or to `hover` over it.
    This is supported by comments by Geurt Gijssen in his most recent Arbiter's Notebook. I think there could be great fun and games (depending on who the players were) if the first player pressed his clock to complete his move after the second player had pressed his clock to complete his next move

    DJ
    ...I don't want to go among mad people Alice remarked, "Oh, you can't help that," said the Cat: we're all mad here. I am mad. You're mad." "How do you know I'm mad?" said Alice. "You must be," said the Cat ,"or you wouldn't have come here."

  8. #8
    Account Shoutbox Banned antichrist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    20,896
    Quote Originally Posted by Denis_Jessop
    This is supported by comments by Geurt Gijssen in his most recent Arbiter's Notebook. I think there could be great fun and games (depending on who the players were) if the first player pressed his clock to complete his move after the second player had pressed his clock to complete his next move

    DJ
    That is exactly what I do, then I argue he can't press again as already has, argueing all on his time of course with my finger firmly on my button (as if I have to pretend that I am stupid and know no better). I had a guy walk out of a game over this.

    Throw their tactics back at them, that is my policy.

  9. #9
    Monster of the deep Kevin Bonham's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    40,358
    Quote Originally Posted by antichrist
    That is exactly what I do, then I argue he can't press again as already has, argueing all on his time of course with my finger firmly on my button (as if I have to pretend that I am stupid and know no better). I had a guy walk out of a game over this.
    Not surprising as you yourself risk being penalised both for arguing with the opponent and for holding the button down. It's not a good idea to escalate these things.
    Moderation Requests: All requests for, comments about, or questions about moderation of any kind including thread changes must be posted in the Help and Feedback section and not on the thread in question. (Or by private message for routine changes or sensitive matters.)

    ACF Newsletter Information - All Australian players and administrators should subscribe and check each issue for relevant notices

    My psephology/politics site (token chess references only) : http://kevinbonham.blogspot.com.au/ Politics twitter feed https://twitter.com/kevinbonham

  10. #10
    CC International Master
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Wynyard,Tas
    Posts
    2,424
    Quote Originally Posted by Kevin Bonham
    I don't find the 5 minute rule unfair. I think that being in acute time trouble much earlier than your opponent is is punishment enough,
    I don't think this is a really convincing argument. If you have used more time than your opponent then you are meant to be at a disadvantage to the extent of that extra time, there's no reason why you should have it partly alleviated by the other player having to engage in additional admin duties. Moreover if the second player then uses more time and catches up on the clock they have been penalised for using their time in a different order, which doesn't make sense.

    I think FM BIll is right in principle, but the argument for the rule is just one of practicality. How do you define when a player has stopped recording - often players reaching five minutes will play a couple of quick moves then catch up, or record just their own moves. You can also get arguments about whether partially-legible squiggles constitute recording.

    Accordingly my view is that it is unfair but until DGT boards become as cheap as normal sets are today it's just something to live with and not a big thing; sometimes it works for you, sometimes against.

    I think if the rule were to be changed in a workable way it would have to be that a player with less than five minutes has to declare that they are not recording at which point both players are exempt, and until then both players have to record.

  11. #11
    CC Grandmaster
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    5,672
    I'm with Ian on this one.

    If you add up the time each player has spent (of his allocated time) recording moves, one player ends up having spent more time, simply because he *didn't* get into time trouble. It's not right.

  12. #12
    CC Grandmaster Garvinator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Brisbane
    Posts
    13,310
    I think the 5 minute is just another example of where the laws of chess have not changed/taken into account, that increment play is the norm in most tournaments.

  13. #13
    Monster of the deep Kevin Bonham's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    40,358
    Quote Originally Posted by Ian Rout
    I don't think this is a really convincing argument. If you have used more time than your opponent then you are meant to be at a disadvantage to the extent of that extra time, there's no reason why you should have it partly alleviated by the other player having to engage in additional admin duties. Moreover if the second player then uses more time and catches up on the clock they have been penalised for using their time in a different order, which doesn't make sense.
    Many common time controls have also penalised players who use time in an unorthodox order, although they tend to penalise those who are slow early on.

    It may be that in my case my feelings as an organiser (that we want full game scores to be available for reporting, analysis and settling disputes) have prevented me from being bothered about the theoretical "unfairness" as a player.

    Whether DGTs would change things I'm not sure. If DGT boards work perfectly, why not abolish scoring in games played with them entirely? If they're going to malfunction now and then then does that still leave some case for making the player with more than 5 mins keep scoring? Maybe not a strong enough one, I'm not sure.

    If it could be made practical, an ideal solution would be as follows: the amount of add-on available to the player reduces once their time falls below 5 mins to cater for them no longer being required to score. This would eliminate the time-advantage argument. However I doubt that any clock in existence would cater for this mode.
    Moderation Requests: All requests for, comments about, or questions about moderation of any kind including thread changes must be posted in the Help and Feedback section and not on the thread in question. (Or by private message for routine changes or sensitive matters.)

    ACF Newsletter Information - All Australian players and administrators should subscribe and check each issue for relevant notices

    My psephology/politics site (token chess references only) : http://kevinbonham.blogspot.com.au/ Politics twitter feed https://twitter.com/kevinbonham

  14. #14
    Account Shoutbox Banned antichrist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    20,896
    Quote Originally Posted by Kevin Bonham
    ........
    If it could be made practical, an ideal solution would be as follows: the amount of add-on available to the player reduces once their time falls below 5 mins to cater for them no longer being required to score. This would eliminate the time-advantage argument. However I doubt that any clock in existence would cater for this mode.
    If you eliminate the time-advantage why bother letting them skip recording moves at all, as they they would not gain any advantage out of it.

    It comes back to the basics -
    you are given time, no need for increments for each move;
    no concession (unfair advantage) for playing slow by providing extra time via non-recording of moves;
    all moves must be recorded for important purposes ( because the end moves are just as important as the early moves;

    So what part of time guillotine finish and recording of moves does the player not understand!

    Why do players who can't handle time always want to cheat in some way or another?

    Why do they want to take away another player's natural advantage?

    We don't give odds start or handicap to even things out so why even out with time?

  15. #15
    CC International Master
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    2,399
    Quote Originally Posted by antichrist
    If you eliminate the time-advantage why bother letting them skip recording moves at all, as they they would not gain any advantage out of it.

    It comes back to the basics -
    you are given time, no need for increments for each move;
    no concession (unfair advantage) for playing slow by providing extra time via non-recording of moves;
    all moves must be recorded for important purposes ( because the end moves are just as important as the early moves;

    So what part of time guillotine finish and recording of moves does the player not understand!

    Why do players who can't handle time always want to cheat in some way or another?

    Why do they want to take away another player's natural advantage?

    We don't give odds start or handicap to even things out so why even out with time?
    Good points well said
    No this is silly, the whole premise is silly and very badly written. I'm the senior officer here and I've not had a funny line yet so I'm stopping it.

    Sydney International Open

    Parramatta Chess Club

    Manchester United - In decline since 92!

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Articles G4-G6 (was Rule 10.2)
    By Kevin Bonham in forum Arbiters' Corner
    Replies: 169
    Last Post: 24-08-2014, 09:20 PM
  2. Is the mobile phone rule draconian?
    By firegoat7 in forum Arbiters' Corner
    Replies: 208
    Last Post: 29-04-2009, 07:23 PM
  3. Replies: 109
    Last Post: 08-11-2005, 08:19 PM
  4. Weekend Time Controls
    By shaun in forum Australian Chess
    Replies: 44
    Last Post: 14-02-2004, 05:05 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •