Guy Macon's suggested changes to USCF/FIDE rules

Main

Date: 23 Oct 2007 22:56:32
From: Guy Macon
Subject: Guy Macon's suggested changes to USCF/FIDE rules

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 >

ONE: 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 ]

TWO: Assign a draw a score of 4.99 points instead of 5.0
points (or you could make a win 1.01 points or a loss
-0.01 points). This would somewhat discourage playing
for a draw without changing the basic nature of the game.

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

Date: 27 Oct 2007 22:37:36
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Guy Macon's suggested changes to USCF/FIDE rules

On Oct 27, 10:57 am, Guy Macon <http://www.guymacon.com/ > wrote:
> help bot wrote:

> >Read what I wrote, moron. The idea of giving
> >five points for a draw is ridiculous.
>
> As is focusing on an obvious typo (4.90 instead of 0.49)
> and going on and with it after the typo was corrected.

Perhaps that would not have been necessary if someone
had not dishonestly SNIPPED my comment, and then
posed a question which ignored what they had deviously
SNIPPED.

> I also note that the post you replied to contained the
> corrected version.

You claim that I replied to but one post here? That is
still more dishonesty; I have replied to many of these
dishonest postings in this thread, not only one.

> >Grow up and just admit it when you make such blunders as this one.
>
> I already said that I made a typo, and corrected same.

This is the first time I have seen you admit the error
rather than SNIP something I wrote, and just pretend.
You are making /some/ progress. In your discussions
with others, you seemed to have much less trouble
admitting the error, for some reason.

> Let me say it again. I made a typing error. You disagree
> with the obvious typo that makes a draw five times better
> than a win. We get that. Nobody disagrees with you o that.

Good. There are people here who might go for that,
simply because they are desperate to change the rules
-- or anything for that matter -- in order to break the
boring draw problems of certain grandmasters.

> You found a typo. Good for you!

De nada. I got an advertisement in the mail yesterday
from a Dr. Leeberman, selling investment advice; in it I
ran across some half-dozen errors, in spite of the fact
that the whole enchilada had been carefully written by
a "doctor" of whatever, to be mailed out to many tens of
thousands of potential customers. But those were
inconsequential errors, like Sam Sloan's recent
substitution of "bare" for "bear"; yours, OTOH, had the
effect of completely changing the meaning of your
proposal to something ludicrous.
Hey -- maybe I'm mistaken; maybe all that text was
written by a professional copywriter, not a "doctor".
But that is just as bad, for that would mean that they
paid good money to a copywriter, skipped the proof-
reading step, and went to press with all those errors
left in. This is utter incompetence, IMO.

> You have also refused,
> despite multiple requests, to either plainly state what
> your objections are to having the USCF adopt the FIDE
> rules for playing chess (organizing tournaments is
> another matter) or to plainly state that you have no
> objection to having the USCF adopt the FIDE rules for
> playing chess.

I believe you are delusional; nowhere have I "refused"
to do that.

> It's a simple question. Why won't you
> answer?

Perhaps I am not prepared to answer such a question,
having not given the matter much (if any) serious thought.
Lately I have been kept rather busy, just keeping up with
all the snipping and trickery, the dishonest distortions of
my single stated opinion on the matter of game scoring.

> Why imply (as you have done above) that there
> is something wrong with the idea without saying what?

There is no need to infer implications here, as my
comment was plain enough; I am against the idea of
giving draw-mongers five points -- or 4.9, or 5.1 -- to
a game winner's 1.0 -- or 0.9, or 1.1. I really have no
time or enthusiasm left with which to consider what
ever it was you may have /meant/ to suggest. Maybe
some other time.

-- help bot

Date: 27 Oct 2007 16:04:39
From: Guy Macon
Subject: Re: Guy Macon's suggested changes to USCF/FIDE rules

Administrative note:

All posts to this thread which contain personal attacks (calling
people idiots, for example) while lacking rational arguments are
hereby declared to be admissions that the poster knows he is
wrong and doesn't want to admit it. -The Management

If you have the facts on your side, argue the facts.

If you have logic on your side, argue with logic.

If you don't have facts or logic on your side, call people names.

Date: 27 Oct 2007 05:18:25
From:
Subject: Re: Guy Macon's suggested changes to USCF/FIDE rules

On Oct 27, 7:13 am, "[email protected]" <[email protected] > wrote:
> THE TIES THAT BIND
>
> <But if you set up a system where the champion holds onto the title
> with a draw, then you will end up having the
> champion get the equivalent for draw odds throughout the entire
> tournament.> -- Rich
>
> In boxing, a champion keeps the title on a tie, but draw odds in chess
> is a huge advantage for the simple reason that a draw is the logical
> outcome of a good game.
> The history of the world chess championship is a case study in how
> champions sought to extend their reign by hook or crook.
>
> At Steinitz-Zukertort in 1886, often cited as the first official title
> match, the rules were simple and fair: the first side to win 10 games
> without counting draws. Steinitz achieved the goal in 20 games and
> decreed that in future matches he would retain the crown in case of a
> 9-9 tie. Now challengers had to win by at least two points (10-8) to
> overcome this hurdle, a controversy that reared its ugly head 100
> years later.
>
> -- GM Larry Evans in THIS CRAZY WORLD OF CHESS (page 175) now
> available for $10 less a 20% discount if ordered online fromwww.cardozapub.com
>
>
>
> Rich Hutnik wrote:
> > On Oct 27, 1:34 am, help bot <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > On Oct 26, 11:53 pm, Rich Hutnik <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > To state chess today is some sort of "perfect game" complete with
> > > > about 80% draws
>
> > > Chess has no such problem as this; only among the
> > > very top players -- who obviously do not contest a lot of
> > > their games -- is the draw rate a serious problem in
> > > chess.
>
> > Do not the very top players represent the best of the best when it
> > comes to chess? If 80% is the norm for the best of the best at chess,
> > then should not something be done about it?
>
> > > If you have a beef with top players not contesting
> > > their games "on the level", then why not address that
> > > HEAD ON? Why sneak around poking and prodding
> > > at the rules, tie-breaks or scoring systems?
>
> > How do you address it head on unless something is done to change the
> > way multiple games are scored? Also, my beef is mostly with the
> > delusional belief that some people have that chess is some perfect
> > game that came from the Divine and is now and forever meant to be
> > unchanged, when in fact that is not the history of chess.
>
> > > Please, don't embarrass yourself by trying to pretend
> > > that *everyone* draws 80% of their games, as the
> > > supposed result of an alleged flaw in the scoring
> > > system. We have no problem with draws among those
> > > players who follow the rules by conducting a real
> > > contest before agreeing to draw.
>
> > The point is people play to optimize the best results of what they are
> > playing. If players aren't supposedly "playing right" then you have
> > an issue with the way you are structuring tournaments.
>
> > I am reminded of someone I know who was trying a new games out. He
> > sat back and waited and waited at it, not doing much. The game
> > designer was questioning this person, asking him if he was a coward or
> > whatnot. It was the case of how the game was structured, where it
> > rewarded waiting and waiting. If you set up a system that rewards
> > draws, you will get more draws.
>
> > >Here's an example
> > > of exactly how this problem works: in the 1970
> > > Olympiad, Boris Spassky allegedly offered a draw in
> > > a level position to his opponent, who turned the then
> > > world champion down. That opponent's name was
> > > Bobby Fischer, and the game did not end in an
> > > uncontested draw, but proceeded from just move 23
> > > to a decisive result, based on a contest of skill. It
> > > made little difference that these were two of the
> > > strongest players alive, or that the position was
> > > level, or that half the pieces had already been
> > > exchanged. That's real chess for you.
>
> > Ok, that is real chess. But if you set up a system where the champion
> > holds onto the title with a draw, then you will end up having the
> > champion get the equivalent for draw odds throughout the entire
> > tournament. Sure, you may feel that "That's real chess for you", but
> > if you don't set up a system to reward real chess being played, you
> > will get something drawish that has NOTHING to do with a specific game
> > of chess being played, but actually the meta-elements you added to
> > chess tournaments for practical reasons. And people will game
> > whatever system you set up. How can you expect it to be any
> > different, "good sportsmanship"? Good sportsmanship involves playing
> > by the rules.
>
> > - Rich- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

When do I get my copy of the book?

Date: 27 Oct 2007 05:13:56
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Guy Macon's suggested changes to USCF/FIDE rules

THE TIES THAT BIND

<But if you set up a system where the champion holds onto the title
with a draw, then you will end up having the
champion get the equivalent for draw odds throughout the entire
tournament. > -- Rich

In boxing, a champion keeps the title on a tie, but draw odds in chess
is a huge advantage for the simple reason that a draw is the logical
outcome of a good game.
The history of the world chess championship is a case study in how
champions sought to extend their reign by hook or crook.

At Steinitz-Zukertort in 1886, often cited as the first official title
match, the rules were simple and fair: the first side to win 10 games
without counting draws. Steinitz achieved the goal in 20 games and
decreed that in future matches he would retain the crown in case of a
9-9 tie. Now challengers had to win by at least two points (10-8) to
overcome this hurdle, a controversy that reared its ugly head 100
years later.

-- GM Larry Evans in THIS CRAZY WORLD OF CHESS (page 175) now
available for $10 less a 20% discount if ordered online from www.cardozapub.com

Rich Hutnik wrote:
> On Oct 27, 1:34 am, help bot <[email protected]> wrote:
> > On Oct 26, 11:53 pm, Rich Hutnik <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > > To state chess today is some sort of "perfect game" complete with
> > > about 80% draws
> >
> > Chess has no such problem as this; only among the
> > very top players -- who obviously do not contest a lot of
> > their games -- is the draw rate a serious problem in
> > chess.
>
> Do not the very top players represent the best of the best when it
> comes to chess? If 80% is the norm for the best of the best at chess,
> then should not something be done about it?
>
> > If you have a beef with top players not contesting
> > their games "on the level", then why not address that
> > HEAD ON? Why sneak around poking and prodding
> > at the rules, tie-breaks or scoring systems?
>
> How do you address it head on unless something is done to change the
> way multiple games are scored? Also, my beef is mostly with the
> delusional belief that some people have that chess is some perfect
> game that came from the Divine and is now and forever meant to be
> unchanged, when in fact that is not the history of chess.
>
> > Please, don't embarrass yourself by trying to pretend
> > that *everyone* draws 80% of their games, as the
> > supposed result of an alleged flaw in the scoring
> > system. We have no problem with draws among those
> > players who follow the rules by conducting a real
> > contest before agreeing to draw.
>
> The point is people play to optimize the best results of what they are
> playing. If players aren't supposedly "playing right" then you have
> an issue with the way you are structuring tournaments.
>
> I am reminded of someone I know who was trying a new games out. He
> sat back and waited and waited at it, not doing much. The game
> designer was questioning this person, asking him if he was a coward or
> whatnot. It was the case of how the game was structured, where it
> rewarded waiting and waiting. If you set up a system that rewards
> draws, you will get more draws.
>
> >Here's an example
> > of exactly how this problem works: in the 1970
> > Olympiad, Boris Spassky allegedly offered a draw in
> > a level position to his opponent, who turned the then
> > world champion down. That opponent's name was
> > Bobby Fischer, and the game did not end in an
> > uncontested draw, but proceeded from just move 23
> > to a decisive result, based on a contest of skill. It
> > made little difference that these were two of the
> > strongest players alive, or that the position was
> > level, or that half the pieces had already been
> > exchanged. That's real chess for you.
>
> Ok, that is real chess. But if you set up a system where the champion
> holds onto the title with a draw, then you will end up having the
> champion get the equivalent for draw odds throughout the entire
> tournament. Sure, you may feel that "That's real chess for you", but
> if you don't set up a system to reward real chess being played, you
> will get something drawish that has NOTHING to do with a specific game
> of chess being played, but actually the meta-elements you added to
> chess tournaments for practical reasons. And people will game
> whatever system you set up. How can you expect it to be any
> different, "good sportsmanship"? Good sportsmanship involves playing
> by the rules.
>
> - Rich

Date: 27 Oct 2007 00:55:07
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Guy Macon's suggested changes to USCF/FIDE rules

On Oct 27, 1:33 am, Rich Hutnik <[email protected] > wrote:

> > > To state chess today is some sort of "perfect game" complete with
> > > about 80% draws
>
> > Chess has no such problem as this; only among the
> > very top players -- who obviously do not contest a lot of
> > their games -- is the draw rate a serious problem in
> > chess.
>
> Do not the very top players represent the best of the best when it
> comes to chess?

Changing the subject. Why do you feel a need to
change to a different subject? : >D

> If 80% is the norm for the best of the best at chess,
> then should not something be done about it?

Not all top players take uncontested draws; in the
example I gave, for instance, the world champ offered
a draw in a level position and was turned down flat
(ouch!).

> > If you have a beef with top players not contesting
> > their games "on the level", then why not address that
> > HEAD ON? Why sneak around poking and prodding
> > at the rules, tie-breaks or scoring systems?

> How do you address it head on unless something is done to change the
> way multiple games are scored?

You could hang the offending players, or cane them.

Or the rules could be changed so that it is okay to
do whatever you want -- even throw games for money.

Or the rules could be enforced for everybody, not just
when somebody complains and the offender is not, say,
a famous GM (I've seen these guys cheat more or less
at will, and they got away with it every time).

> Also, my beef is mostly with the
> delusional belief that some people have that chess is some perfect
> game that came from the Divine and is now and forever meant to be
> unchanged, when in fact that is not the history of chess.

True. I agree with you that those who regard the
game as immutable perfection are delusional. One
of the biggest problems I know of is that many of
"us" play the openings by rote. At the higher levels,
this fixation on openings theory and by rote play has
led to a habit of preparing freaky moves (TNs) with
which to surprise the enemy, and when things don't
pan out it has become common among *them* to
prematurely agree to a draw, without a real OTB
struggle. Since this is already forbidden in the
rules of chess, it seems a bit odd to ignore that
and pretend that the problem lies within the game
itself, or any other aspect of it besides that one,
cheating.

> > Please, don't embarrass yourself by trying to pretend
> > that *everyone* draws 80% of their games, as the
> > supposed result of an alleged flaw in the scoring
> > system. We have no problem with draws among those
> > players who follow the rules by conducting a real
> > contest before agreeing to draw.

> The point is people play to optimize the best results of what they are
> playing. If players aren't supposedly "playing right" then you have
> an issue with the way you are structuring tournaments.

You are, once again, laying the blame where it does
not belong. The current rules prohibit premature draws,
which IMO are the problem you seem to be worried
about; hence, if there is a problem with premature
draws (and there is), it is the result of a lack of any
enforcement of the rules of chess. Only if there were
no rule against premature draws, then one might need
to "look around" for the root cause of the problem. As
it is the root of the problem is staring us right in the
face.

> I am reminded of someone I know who was trying a new games out. He
> sat back and waited and waited at it, not doing much. The game
> designer was questioning this person, asking him if he was a coward or
> whatnot. It was the case of how the game was structured, where it
> rewarded waiting and waiting. If you set up a system that rewards
> draws, you will get more draws.

True enough. But the game that seems to fit is
called checkers.

-- help bot

Date: 26 Oct 2007 23:33:21
From: Rich Hutnik
Subject: Re: Guy Macon's suggested changes to USCF/FIDE rules

On Oct 27, 1:34 am, help bot <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Oct 26, 11:53 pm, Rich Hutnik <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > To state chess today is some sort of "perfect game" complete with
> > about 80% draws
>
> Chess has no such problem as this; only among the
> very top players -- who obviously do not contest a lot of
> their games -- is the draw rate a serious problem in
> chess.

Do not the very top players represent the best of the best when it
comes to chess? If 80% is the norm for the best of the best at chess,
then should not something be done about it?

> If you have a beef with top players not contesting
> their games "on the level", then why not address that
> HEAD ON? Why sneak around poking and prodding
> at the rules, tie-breaks or scoring systems?

How do you address it head on unless something is done to change the
way multiple games are scored? Also, my beef is mostly with the
delusional belief that some people have that chess is some perfect
game that came from the Divine and is now and forever meant to be
unchanged, when in fact that is not the history of chess.

> Please, don't embarrass yourself by trying to pretend
> that *everyone* draws 80% of their games, as the
> supposed result of an alleged flaw in the scoring
> system. We have no problem with draws among those
> players who follow the rules by conducting a real
> contest before agreeing to draw.

The point is people play to optimize the best results of what they are
playing. If players aren't supposedly "playing right" then you have
an issue with the way you are structuring tournaments.

I am reminded of someone I know who was trying a new games out. He
sat back and waited and waited at it, not doing much. The game
designer was questioning this person, asking him if he was a coward or
whatnot. It was the case of how the game was structured, where it
rewarded waiting and waiting. If you set up a system that rewards
draws, you will get more draws.

>Here's an example
> of exactly how this problem works: in the 1970
> Olympiad, Boris Spassky allegedly offered a draw in
> a level position to his opponent, who turned the then
> world champion down. That opponent's name was
> Bobby Fischer, and the game did not end in an
> uncontested draw, but proceeded from just move 23
> to a decisive result, based on a contest of skill. It
> made little difference that these were two of the
> strongest players alive, or that the position was
> level, or that half the pieces had already been
> exchanged. That's real chess for you.

Ok, that is real chess. But if you set up a system where the champion
holds onto the title with a draw, then you will end up having the
champion get the equivalent for draw odds throughout the entire
tournament. Sure, you may feel that "That's real chess for you", but
if you don't set up a system to reward real chess being played, you
will get something drawish that has NOTHING to do with a specific game
of chess being played, but actually the meta-elements you added to
chess tournaments for practical reasons. And people will game
whatever system you set up. How can you expect it to be any
different, "good sportsmanship"? Good sportsmanship involves playing
by the rules.

- Rich

Date: 26 Oct 2007 22:34:47
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Guy Macon's suggested changes to USCF/FIDE rules

On Oct 26, 11:53 pm, Rich Hutnik <[email protected] > wrote:

> To state chess today is some sort of "perfect game" complete with
> about 80% draws

Chess has no such problem as this; only among the
very top players -- who obviously do not contest a lot of
their games -- is the draw rate a serious problem in
chess.

If you have a beef with top players not contesting
their games "on the level", then why not address that
HEAD ON? Why sneak around poking and prodding
at the rules, tie-breaks or scoring systems?

Please, don't embarrass yourself by trying to pretend
that *everyone* draws 80% of their games, as the
supposed result of an alleged flaw in the scoring
system. We have no problem with draws among those
players who follow the rules by conducting a real
contest before agreeing to draw. Here's an example
of exactly how this problem works: in the 1970
Olympiad, Boris Spassky allegedly offered a draw in
a level position to his opponent, who turned the then
world champion down. That opponent's name was
Bobby Fischer, and the game did not end in an
uncontested draw, but proceeded from just move 23
to a decisive result, based on a contest of skill. It
made little difference that these were two of the
strongest players alive, or that the position was
level, or that half the pieces had already been
exchanged. That's real chess for you.

-- help bot

Date: 26 Oct 2007 22:08:47
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Guy Macon's suggested changes to USCF/FIDE rules

On Oct 26, 10:59 am, Kenneth Sloan <[email protected] > wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
>
> > OK, since you don't seem to get the point, I'll try again.
>
> Insanity: repeating the same action, expecting different results.

As the lions charged, all those sane men around me
froze in terror! I alone, on account of my insanity, was
able to act: first I fixed the jam in my rifle which had
been the root cause of the lions getting so close to us
in the first place. Then I slammed three .375 magnums
into the chamber. Noting that everyone else was still
frozen in their terror, I raised my gun only to see
that I was too late -- Tarzan had shown up and with a
single, deafening howl, had called them all off! He was
dressed in nothing more than a leather loincloth, and
carried naught but a hunting knife, lashed to it. The
man was clearly loony, swinging around in trees in the
middle of the African jungle, wrestling crocks, riding on
the backs of elephants which could easily crush him
on a whim. Yet there was something strangely
fascinating about him, about the way he had with the
animals, the way he had mastered what, to the rest
of us, were life-threatening dangers. His brand of
insanity drew one in, attracted, even mesmerized... .

-- jungle bot

Date: 26 Oct 2007 21:58:19
From: Rich Hutnik
Subject: Re: Guy Macon's suggested changes to USCF/FIDE rules

On Oct 25, 3:58 pm, "David Kane" <[email protected] > wrote:
> "David Richerby" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:+Iu*[email protected]...
>
> > Guy Macon <http://www.guymacon.com/> wrote:
> >> The real question is whether one loss and one win should be assigned
> >> *exactly * the same score as two draws. It is not clear to me why
> >> they should be exactly the same
>
> > 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 x>y then losses are held to be more significant than
> > wins; if x<y 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.
>
> 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.

And you play a set number of games, and you can also cause the
challenger to become the new champ if the score ends in a tie.

- Rich

Date: 26 Oct 2007 21:53:33
From: Rich Hutnik
Subject: Re: Guy Macon's suggested changes to USCF/FIDE rules

On Oct 25, 12:49 pm, SBD <[email protected] > wrote:
> "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 state chess today is some sort of "perfect game" complete with
about 80% draws, and the use of chess clocks, is absurd. Chess had
been a perpetually evolving game. It is the byproduct of a community
of players who came up with a lot of tweaks over the game to make it
better. But it isn't some pure and untouchable game that can't have
tweaks, particularly in areas that have NOTHING to do with playing the
game itself, that being scoring for draws and wins, and also the use
of a chess clock. On that note, the Tarrasch is also close to
absurd. There is NOTHING about chess that was created by anyone as if
it was by a god. It was a game out of India, that went through Muslim
territory and picked up by crusaders and brought to Europe. If you
had the mentality you are advocating (oh, let's not make any changes
to areas that have nothing to do with the game, because it might
increase popularity), why not go back to the time before the queen got
its mobility and say, "Wait, a Queen can't move like that. It will
ruin the pure sacredness of this perfect game handed down to the world
for Allah".

> 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.

Hmm... let's see. Speed chess has gained interest. There is also
bughouse to. And there are variants out there. But hey, stick with
your 80% draws on the highest level and think it is perfect. Shoot, I
guess real perfection in chess will be when EVERY game ends in a
draw. This way, chess can continue to have a reigning champion until
s/he passes away. At that point, the game will be so perfect that
they won't be able to have any new champion, because no one will be
able to win a game.

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

And get a time machine and demand that chess be played the way it was
intended before the advent of the chess clock. No time element to
mess with the sacred perfection.

- Rich

Date: 26 Oct 2007 21:50:22
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Guy Macon's suggested change to USCF rules

On Oct 26, 10:33 am, David Richerby <[email protected] >
wrote:

> In an English Swiss[1] the boards and clocks are laid out in advance.

This would never work in America; were boards, pieces
and especially clocks to be laid out in advance, many
would be found "MIA" after certain individuals had come
and (inexplicably) left with their booty.

> So, apart from what I understand to be the American tradition of the
> players providing the board, pieces and clock (with all the scope for
> disagreement that brings), I don't see any real difference between
> American and British tournaments. I suppose the point is that we use
> the FIDE rules but ignore the bits that are impractical for a weekend
> Swiss. While that may be somewhat informal, I've not seen it cause
> any problems anywhere.

One area where the FIDE and USCF rules may differ is
in determining exactly what constitutes mating material.
Another area of some concern at the moment seems to
be the writing down of moves beforehand. I've yet to
become involved in such disputes, but I certainly hear
a lot about them from others.

-- help bot

Date: 26 Oct 2007 21:37:59
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Guy Macon's suggested change to USCF rules

On Oct 26, 9:36 am, Guy Macon <http://www.guymacon.com/ > wrote:
> David Richerby wrote:
>
> >Guy Macon <http://www.guymacon.com/> wrote:
> >> 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
>
> >In what way are American tournaments different from tournaments in
> >other countries?
>
> The biggest difference is that many US tournaments are far larger,
> organized as "weekend swiss", and have fewer people running them.
> The FIDE tournament rules have many places where they assume that
> a trained arbiter will be available. Examples: "If the game needs
> to be interrupted, the arbiter shall stop the clocks" and "Before
> the start of the game the arbiter decides where the chess clock is
> placed." In a large USCF tournament the players need to be able
> to agree where to put the clock and when to stop it, asking for
> help only if there is a question or conflict.

And in some US tournaments -- such as those organized
by Bill Goichberg, for instance -- there are no TDs whatever,
unless you count the people who hang out in a barricaded
Director's Only room. In cases like that, it is better if the
players themselves were clear on what the rules and
procedures are.

-- help bot

Date: 26 Oct 2007 21:30:20
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Guy Macon's suggested changes to USCF/FIDE rules

On Oct 26, 8:33 am, Guy Macon <http://www.guymacon.com/ > wrote:

> > Idiot. Instead of snipping my explanation and then
> >"demanding" to know what it was, try *reading* the
> >entire post next time. Sheesh.
>
> As you requested, I read the entire post once again.
> It does not contain the material that you claim it contains.

Then please explain what motivation there was to
dishonestly SNIP what I wrote.

> You clearly wrote "These proposed changes are ridiculous."
>
> The words "These," Changes" and "are" are plural

Nothing gets past you; you're a regular genius.

> thus implying
> that you found both proposed changes to be "ridiculous."

Read what I wrote, moron. The idea of giving
five points for a draw is ridiculous. Snipping this
observation and then asking your question was
dishonest. Grow up and just admit it when you
make such blunders as this one.

> The post I just re-read only addresses the second proposal.

That's why I wrote (which you would know if you
read my post) "for instance", followed by giving one
instance of a ridiculous idea from your post. I made
no effort to uncover every conceivable error you
might have made, feeling it sufficient to point out the
first BIG one I found.

-- help bot

Date: 27 Oct 2007 15:57:36
From: Guy Macon
Subject: Re: Guy Macon's suggested changes to USCF/FIDE rules

help bot wrote:

>Read what I wrote, moron. The idea of giving
>five points for a draw is ridiculous.

As is focusing on an obvious typo (4.90 instead of 0.49)
and going on and with it after the typo was corrected.
I also note that the post you replied to contained the
corrected version.

>Grow up and just admit it when you make such blunders as this one.

I already said that I made a typo, and corrected same.
Let me say it again. I made a typing error. You disagree
with the obvious typo that makes a draw five times better
than a win. We get that. Nobody disagrees with you o that.

>> The post I just re-read only addresses the second proposal.
>
> That's why I wrote (which you would know if you
>read my post) "for instance", followed by giving one
>instance of a ridiculous idea from your post. I made
>no effort to uncover every conceivable error you
>might have made, feeling it sufficient to point out the
>first BIG one I found.

You found a typo. Good for you! You have also refused,
despite multiple requests, to either plainly state what
your objections are to having the USCF adopt the FIDE
rules for playing chess (organizing tournaments is
another matter) or to plainly state that you have no
objection to having the USCF adopt the FIDE rules for
playing chess. It's a simple question. Why won't you
answer? Why imply (as you have done above) that there
is something wrong with the idea without saying what?

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

Date: 26 Oct 2007 13:49:29
From:
Subject: Re: Guy Macon's suggested changes to USCF/FIDE rules

David Kane wrote:
> <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> >
> > David Kane wrote:
> >> <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >> news:[email protected]...
> >> >
> >> > David Kane wrote:
> >> >> <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >> >> news:[email protected]...
> >> >>
> >> >> >
> >> >> > 3) It's not clear to me how giving a tiebreak advantage would
> >> >> > discourage draws. In the U.S., at least, hardly any serious prizes are
> >> >> > decided by tiebreak. Cash is split equally, and trophies are mostly
> >> >> > confined to kiddy tournaments. (Yes, there's the Amateur Team, but
> >> >> > that's a once-a-year exception.)
> >> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> So you're saying that the practice of ignoring tiebreaks is evidence
> >> >> that treating tiebreaks differently could never discourage draws??
> >> >> You might want to think about that little gem a bit.
> >> >
> >> > I beg your pardon? You haven't offered any reason to believe that
> >> > tinkering with tiebreaks would have the slightest effect on draws. The
> >> > problem with draws is that players seek to maximize their financial
> >> > reward, and the gain from taking a risk to try to win is perceived to
> >> > be less than what they will get by playing it safe. Tiebreaks are
> >> > rarely (if ever) used for cash prizes. I agree that _if_ you changed
> >> > that, the details of tiebreaks would have some influence on a player's
> >> > decisions. But using tiebreaks for cash prizes was discarded long ago
> >> > for good and sufficient reason. If you want to revisit that issue,
> >> > you'll have a long uphill climb.
> >> >
> >>
> >> So am I correct in stating that you agree that your
> >> reasoning was flawed, but now claim that the
> >> current (non)use of tiebreaks is based on some
> >> (unstated) "good and sufficient reason"? In that case, the
> >> next logical question is whether those reasons outweigh
> >> the possible benefits from influencing a player's decisions,
> >> isn't it?
> >
> > OK, since you don't seem to get the point, I'll try again. No one uses
> > tiebreaks for prize money. Tiebreaks are used only for things like
> > trophies. Players making short draws in serious tournaments don't care
> > about trophies, they care about the money. Please explain why you
> > think fooling with the tiebreaks would have any effect on the number
> > of short draws. If you have an argument, I'm willing to consider it,
> > but so far all you've offered is an unsupported claim.
>
> If you bothered to read before responding, you'd find
> that there aren't claims, only refutations of faulty logic.
> The original thread proposed a *different* sort of
> tie-break (involving total wins, initially presented as
> an alternate scoring). Obviously, if there were disincentives
> to draw, backed up by prize money, there would be
> fewer draws. The existing tie-breaks having to do with
> scores of your opponents aren't designed to be a
> disincentive to draw.
>
>
> > If you want to argue that things would be better if tiebreaks _were_
> > used for prize money, fine. I think it's fairly pointless, since there
> > is virtually no chance of such a policy being adopted, but it's a free
> > country.
> >
>
> Sorry, I don't view critical thinking and experiment
> as a waste of time. At one time there were no
> airplanes, computers, antibiotics etc. Fortunately,
> as a species we did not follow your "that's not
> the way we do things around here" line, although
> there are always have been large numbers making
> that anti-logical argument.

1) There was nothing wrong with my logic, only with your reading
comprehension. 2) Your first paragraph suggests that you now want to
change the subject under discussion to alternate scoring systems. This
is an entirely different matter from tiebreaks, and you ought to learn
the meaning of technical terms before you use them. 3) If you want to
debate a proposed rules change that has no chance whatsoever of being
adopted, be my guest. Perhaps you would care to weigh in on the number
of angels who can dance on the head of a pin as well. Let us know if
you ever decide to discuss something useful.

Date: 26 Oct 2007 16:07:10
From: David Kane
Subject: Re: Guy Macon's suggested changes to USCF/FIDE rules

<[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> David Kane wrote:
>> <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>> >
>> > David Kane wrote:
>> >> <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> >> news:[email protected]...
>> >> >
>> >> > David Kane wrote:
>> >> >> <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> >> >> news:[email protected]...
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > 3) It's not clear to me how giving a tiebreak advantage would
>> >> >> > discourage draws. In the U.S., at least, hardly any serious prizes
>> >> >> > are
>> >> >> > decided by tiebreak. Cash is split equally, and trophies are mostly
>> >> >> > confined to kiddy tournaments. (Yes, there's the Amateur Team, but
>> >> >> > that's a once-a-year exception.)
>> >> >> >
>> >> >>
>> >> >> So you're saying that the practice of ignoring tiebreaks is evidence
>> >> >> that treating tiebreaks differently could never discourage draws??
>> >> >> You might want to think about that little gem a bit.
>> >> >
>> >> > I beg your pardon? You haven't offered any reason to believe that
>> >> > tinkering with tiebreaks would have the slightest effect on draws. The
>> >> > problem with draws is that players seek to maximize their financial
>> >> > reward, and the gain from taking a risk to try to win is perceived to
>> >> > be less than what they will get by playing it safe. Tiebreaks are
>> >> > rarely (if ever) used for cash prizes. I agree that _if_ you changed
>> >> > that, the details of tiebreaks would have some influence on a player's
>> >> > decisions. But using tiebreaks for cash prizes was discarded long ago
>> >> > for good and sufficient reason. If you want to revisit that issue,
>> >> > you'll have a long uphill climb.
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> So am I correct in stating that you agree that your
>> >> reasoning was flawed, but now claim that the
>> >> current (non)use of tiebreaks is based on some
>> >> (unstated) "good and sufficient reason"? In that case, the
>> >> next logical question is whether those reasons outweigh
>> >> the possible benefits from influencing a player's decisions,
>> >> isn't it?
>> >
>> > OK, since you don't seem to get the point, I'll try again. No one uses
>> > tiebreaks for prize money. Tiebreaks are used only for things like
>> > trophies. Players making short draws in serious tournaments don't care
>> > about trophies, they care about the money. Please explain why you
>> > think fooling with the tiebreaks would have any effect on the number
>> > of short draws. If you have an argument, I'm willing to consider it,
>> > but so far all you've offered is an unsupported claim.
>>
>> If you bothered to read before responding, you'd find
>> that there aren't claims, only refutations of faulty logic.
>> The original thread proposed a *different* sort of
>> tie-break (involving total wins, initially presented as
>> an alternate scoring). Obviously, if there were disincentives
>> to draw, backed up by prize money, there would be
>> fewer draws. The existing tie-breaks having to do with
>> scores of your opponents aren't designed to be a
>> disincentive to draw.
>>
>>
>> > If you want to argue that things would be better if tiebreaks _were_
>> > used for prize money, fine. I think it's fairly pointless, since there
>> > is virtually no chance of such a policy being adopted, but it's a free
>> > country.
>> >
>>
>> Sorry, I don't view critical thinking and experiment
>> as a waste of time. At one time there were no
>> airplanes, computers, antibiotics etc. Fortunately,
>> as a species we did not follow your "that's not
>> the way we do things around here" line, although
>> there are always have been large numbers making
>> that anti-logical argument.
>
> 1) There was nothing wrong with my logic, only with your reading
> comprehension. 2) Your first paragraph suggests that you now want to
> change the subject under discussion to alternate scoring systems. This
> is an entirely different matter from tiebreaks, and you ought to learn
> the meaning of technical terms before you use them.

I am not changing or misusing terms. The original poster suggested
an alternate scoring system. A different poster pointed out that his proposal
was essentially just a different tie-break, which the original poster agreed
with. (as do I). The original poster then returned to his initial alternate
scoring idea, to which the second poster gave a "mathematical" refutation,
which I pointed out was based on an invalid assumption.

You then entered with the

"3) It's not clear to me how giving a tiebreak advantage would
discourage draws. In the U.S., at least, hardly any serious prizes are
decided by tiebreak. Cash is split equally, and trophies are mostly
confined to kiddy tournaments. (Yes, there's the Amateur Team, but
that's a once-a-year exception.)"

Now I gather that you simply were not following the discussion. However
the implication of your statement is that use of tiebreaks could never
discourage draws, and you seem to be offering the fact that tiebreaks
aren't used for anything important as "evidence".

Later you seemed to realize your error, but couldn't bring yourself
to admit it, instead referring to some mysteriously unstateable
"good and sufficient reason" that tiebreaks aren't used for prize awards.
(First, not strictly true. Second, not relevant to the issue of
whether tiebreaks could discourage draws.)

Date: 26 Oct 2007 01:55:35
From:
Subject: Re: Guy Macon's suggested changes to USCF/FIDE rules

David Kane wrote:
> <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> >
> > David Kane wrote:
> >> <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >> news:[email protected]...
> >>
> >> >
> >> > 3) It's not clear to me how giving a tiebreak advantage would
> >> > discourage draws. In the U.S., at least, hardly any serious prizes are
> >> > decided by tiebreak. Cash is split equally, and trophies are mostly
> >> > confined to kiddy tournaments. (Yes, there's the Amateur Team, but
> >> > that's a once-a-year exception.)
> >> >
> >>
> >> So you're saying that the practice of ignoring tiebreaks is evidence
> >> that treating tiebreaks differently could never discourage draws??
> >> You might want to think about that little gem a bit.
> >
> > I beg your pardon? You haven't offered any reason to believe that
> > tinkering with tiebreaks would have the slightest effect on draws. The
> > problem with draws is that players seek to maximize their financial
> > reward, and the gain from taking a risk to try to win is perceived to
> > be less than what they will get by playing it safe. Tiebreaks are
> > rarely (if ever) used for cash prizes. I agree that _if_ you changed
> > that, the details of tiebreaks would have some influence on a player's
> > decisions. But using tiebreaks for cash prizes was discarded long ago
> > for good and sufficient reason. If you want to revisit that issue,
> > you'll have a long uphill climb.
> >
>
> So am I correct in stating that you agree that your
> reasoning was flawed, but now claim that the
> current (non)use of tiebreaks is based on some
> (unstated) "good and sufficient reason"? In that case, the
> next logical question is whether those reasons outweigh
> the possible benefits from influencing a player's decisions,
> isn't it?

OK, since you don't seem to get the point, I'll try again. No one uses
tiebreaks for prize money. Tiebreaks are used only for things like
trophies. Players making short draws in serious tournaments don't care
about trophies, they care about the money. Please explain why you
think fooling with the tiebreaks would have any effect on the number
of short draws. If you have an argument, I'm willing to consider it,
but so far all you've offered is an unsupported claim.

If you want to argue that things would be better if tiebreaks _were_
used for prize money, fine. I think it's fairly pointless, since there
is virtually no chance of such a policy being adopted, but it's a free
country.

Date: 26 Oct 2007 09:12:09
From: David Kane
Subject: Re: Guy Macon's suggested changes to USCF/FIDE rules

Date: 26 Oct 2007 10:59:09
From: Kenneth Sloan
Subject: Re: Guy Macon's suggested changes to USCF/FIDE rules

[email protected] wrote:
>
> OK, since you don't seem to get the point, I'll try again.

Insanity: repeating the same action, expecting different results.

--
Kenneth Sloan [email protected]
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/

Date: 26 Oct 2007 16:15:00
From: Guy Macon
Subject: Re: Guy Macon's suggested changes to USCF/FIDE rules

Kenneth Sloan wrote:

>Insanity: repeating the same action, expecting different results.

I have found that one action in particular (having an online
discussion with Kenneth Sloan) has about a 70% chance of resulting
in a reasoned and civil response. The other 30% or so of the time
I get a response more typical of a hormone-soaked geek butting
heads with a rival geek during geek mating season, but I have been
on Usenet long enough that such behavior really doesn't bother me.
It is merely a minor waste of my time, easily ignored, and a small
price for the more typical responses that don't contain tedious
personal attacks. So I roll the die and hope for the best.

I hope this helps.

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

Date: 25 Oct 2007 23:46:58
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Guy Macon's suggested changes to USCF/FIDE rules

On Oct 25, 10:34 pm, [email protected] wrote:

> 3) It's not clear to me how giving a tiebreak advantage would
> discourage draws. In the U.S., at least, hardly any serious prizes are
> decided by tiebreak. Cash is split equally, and trophies are mostly
> confined to kiddy tournaments. (Yes, there's the Amateur Team, but
> that's a once-a-year exception.)

That is not quite true. I have played in tourneys where
the method of tiebreak itself determined the winners, and
this includes many famous examples, such as when
determining the challenger for a world champion, for
instance. Decades after the fact players will whine that
they were somehow cheated by the tiebreak, or better
yet just pretend in their writings that there wasn't one.

One more recent example had a state championship
trophy (contrary to your hooey above regarding kiddie
tourneys) decided 100% by a clearly flawed tiebreak;
in the case I am thinking of, both players had faced
exactly the same opponents, just in a different order,
but the chosen tiebreak did not take that possibility
into account. Obviously (as when you wrote that TDs
and arbiters have no business adjudicating games),
they can often be mindless imbeciles in such matters.

You are right that cash is split equally, but sometimes
the real prize is not the money -- like when it is a
championship of some kind. Let's take a look at the
annual state championship in Indiana, which I happen
to know a little about: if two Indiana players are tied
for first, they are named co-champions and the trophy
is awarded by tiebreak. But if there are three or more,
which can easily happen and has happened in the past,
then the title itself is awarded by tiebreak! There are no
triple or quadruple co-champs in Indiana; even if Bobby
Fischer came and took out our top players, one after
the other so they all ended up tied at 4-1, there would
emerge but a single winner -- on tiebreak. Besides,
Emory Tate probably thinks he can beat BF... . ; >D

-- help bot

Date: 25 Oct 2007 23:29:35
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Guy Macon's suggested changes to USCF/FIDE rules

On Oct 25, 10:15 pm, "David Kane" <[email protected] > wrote:

> But I will accept your point. The state of ignorance in the
> world is such that what should be common knowledge
> often isn't.
>
> remaining drivel snipped.

Do us all a favor and start by snipping your own drivel,
moron. (The proof is "out there".)

-- help bot

Date: 25 Oct 2007 23:27:00
From:
Subject: Re: Guy Macon's suggested changes to USCF/FIDE rules

David Kane wrote:
> <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
> >
> > 3) It's not clear to me how giving a tiebreak advantage would
> > discourage draws. In the U.S., at least, hardly any serious prizes are
> > decided by tiebreak. Cash is split equally, and trophies are mostly
> > confined to kiddy tournaments. (Yes, there's the Amateur Team, but
> > that's a once-a-year exception.)
> >
>
> So you're saying that the practice of ignoring tiebreaks is evidence
> that treating tiebreaks differently could never discourage draws??
> You might want to think about that little gem a bit.

I beg your pardon? You haven't offered any reason to believe that
tinkering with tiebreaks would have the slightest effect on draws. The
problem with draws is that players seek to maximize their financial
reward, and the gain from taking a risk to try to win is perceived to
be less than what they will get by playing it safe. Tiebreaks are
rarely (if ever) used for cash prizes. I agree that _if_ you changed
that, the details of tiebreaks would have some influence on a player's
decisions. But using tiebreaks for cash prizes was discarded long ago
for good and sufficient reason. If you want to revisit that issue,
you'll have a long uphill climb.

Date: 26 Oct 2007 00:13:50
From: David Kane
Subject: Re: Guy Macon's suggested changes to USCF/FIDE rules

<[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> David Kane wrote:
>> <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>
>> >
>> > 3) It's not clear to me how giving a tiebreak advantage would
>> > discourage draws. In the U.S., at least, hardly any serious prizes are
>> > decided by tiebreak. Cash is split equally, and trophies are mostly
>> > confined to kiddy tournaments. (Yes, there's the Amateur Team, but
>> > that's a once-a-year exception.)
>> >
>>
>> So you're saying that the practice of ignoring tiebreaks is evidence
>> that treating tiebreaks differently could never discourage draws??
>> You might want to think about that little gem a bit.
>
> I beg your pardon? You haven't offered any reason to believe that
> tinkering with tiebreaks would have the slightest effect on draws. The
> problem with draws is that players seek to maximize their financial
> reward, and the gain from taking a risk to try to win is perceived to
> be less than what they will get by playing it safe. Tiebreaks are
> rarely (if ever) used for cash prizes. I agree that _if_ you changed
> that, the details of tiebreaks would have some influence on a player's
> decisions. But using tiebreaks for cash prizes was discarded long ago
> for good and sufficient reason. If you want to revisit that issue,
> you'll have a long uphill climb.
>

So am I correct in stating that you agree that your
reasoning was flawed, but now claim that the
current (non)use of tiebreaks is based on some
(unstated) "good and sufficient reason"? In that case, the
next logical question is whether those reasons outweigh
the possible benefits from influencing a player's decisions,
isn't it?

Date: 25 Oct 2007 20:34:45
From:
Subject: Re: Guy Macon's suggested changes to USCF/FIDE rules

I had some hopes that this would turn out to be a productive thread,
but perhaps that was too much to hope for. In an attempt to get back
to the subject:

1) Adopting the FIDE wording from Articles 1-5 (Rules of Play) would
make no significant difference. Variations between the USCF rules
don't crop up until you reach Article 6 (Rules for Competition).

2) Someone mentioned the FIDE vs USCF rules for time scrambles. In my
opinion, this is one area in which the USCF rules are clearly better.
The FIDE rule gives far too much discretion to the arbiter. TDs and
arbiters have no business adjudicating games.

3) It's not clear to me how giving a tiebreak advantage would
discourage draws. In the U.S., at least, hardly any serious prizes are
decided by tiebreak. Cash is split equally, and trophies are mostly
confined to kiddy tournaments. (Yes, there's the Amateur Team, but
that's a once-a-year exception.)

Date: 26 Oct 2007 16:00:10
From: Guy Macon
Subject: Re: Guy Macon's suggested change to USCF rules

[email protected] wrote:

>1) Adopting the FIDE wording from Articles 1-5 (Rules of Play) would
>make no significant difference. Variations between the USCF rules
>don't crop up until you reach Article 6 (Rules for Competition).

The FIDE rules are a lot clearer and better written, too.

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

Date: 26 Oct 2007 12:01:07
From: David Richerby
Subject: Re: Guy Macon's suggested changes to USCF/FIDE rules

<[email protected] > wrote:
> 1) Adopting the FIDE wording from Articles 1-5 (Rules of Play) [into
> the USCF rules] would make no significant difference.

I'm not sure if it makes any significant difference or not. The last
time I looked, it was not possible to freely obtain a copy of the USCF
rules so I have no idea how they differ.

There is some subtlety in Article 5, though. For example, checkmate
immediately ends the game so, if you checkmate me, you don't need to
press the clock after releasing the checkmating piece on its square
because the game is already over. I also have a vague feeling that
the FIDE and USCF rules differ about when the game ends due to
insufficient material -- FIDE states that the game is a draw if
checkmate cannot occur by any sequence of legal moves; as I recall,
the USCF rules say something about insufficient mating material.
(And, again, this happens with immediate effect so there's no need to
press the clock.)

> 2) Someone mentioned the FIDE vs USCF rules for time scrambles. In
> my opinion, this is one area in which the USCF rules are clearly
> better.

I've no idea what the USCF rules say so I can't comment.

Let's add a point.

4) The USCF should make its version of the rules of chess freely
available on its website.

Dave.

--
David Richerby Cyber-Monk (TM): it's like a man of
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ God that exists only in your computer!

Date: 26 Oct 2007 06:15:04
From: Mike Murray
Subject: Re: Guy Macon's suggested changes to USCF/FIDE rules

On 26 Oct 2007 12:01:07 +0100 (BST), David Richerby
<[email protected] > wrote:

>4) The USCF should make its version of the rules of chess freely
> available on its website.

This may not be so easy. As I remember from a flurry of discussion a
few years ago, the USCF does not *own* its version of the rules, which
happen to be the intellectual property of the person who wrote the
book. (BTW, I hope somebody jumps on me and tells me I'm wrong)

Date: 26 Oct 2007 14:37:08
From: Guy Macon
Subject: Re: Guy Macon's suggested change to USCF rules

Mike Murray wrote:

>David Richerby wrote:
>
>
>>The USCF should make its version of the rules of chess freely
>>available on its website.
>
>This may not be so easy. As I remember from a flurry of discussion a
>few years ago, the USCF does not *own* its version of the rules, which
>happen to be the intellectual property of the person who wrote the
>book. (BTW, I hope somebody jumps on me and tells me I'm wrong)

It appears from the references below that the USCF may cease publication
of the current edition, publish a new edition (and have full ownership of
the copyright of the new edition.

Here are some references:

Please note that some of these are from biased or anonymous
sources before accepting any claims at face value, and please
watch this thread for corrections/clarifications in case I got
something wrong.

http://www.chessnews.org/contracts.htm

http://www.chessnews.org/rulebook.htm

http://www.shamema.com/rulecont.htm

http://www.shamema.com/timjustice.htm

http://www.ishipress.com/smokinggun.htm

http://www.samsloan.com/justdefeis.htm

http://www.chesscircle.net/forums/computer-chess/38003-the-smoking-gun-proof-that-redman-conspired-to-give-political-ally-a-copyright-on-the-laws-of-chess.html

Assuming that the pages referenced contain an accurate transcript
(I have no reason to think they don't, and I figure someone would
have posted something if they weren't accurate, but I would be
even more confident if I could see the actual scans instead of
just transcripts) the following statements seem to apply:

"The Publisher may, after a Period of five (5) years after
the date of publication of the Work choose to prepare another
edition of the Work. The Publisher is not restricted in the
choice of an editor for such edition of the Work."
Note: the original contract appears to have been signed by all
parties in February of 2001, so the above clause kicked in
on or around February of 2006. (It is October of 2007 as I
write this

"Either Party may terminate this Agreement upon giving the other
Party ninety (90) days' written notice. ... If the Publisher
terminates this Agreement after publication of the Work while
the Work is still being sold, the Publisher shall pay the Editor
liquidated damages of ten thousand dollars. The permanent cessation
of publication of the Work shall automatically terminate this
Agreement, although any payments already owed by the Publisher
to the Editor at the time of termination must still be paid."

So, it being past th 5-year k, the publisher (U.S. Chess
Federation) is free to cease publication of the current
edition (U.S. Chess Federation's Official Rules of Chess,
5th Edition), publish a new edition ((U.S. Chess Federation's
Official Rules of Chess, 6th Edition) with a new editor and a
new contract, and will without question have full ownership
of the copyright of the new edition.

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

Date: 26 Oct 2007 15:29:15
From: David Richerby
Subject: Re: Guy Macon's suggested changes to USCF/FIDE rules

Mike Murray <[email protected] > wrote:
> David Richerby <[email protected]> wrote:
>> 4) The USCF should make its version of the rules of chess freely
>> available on its website.
>
> This may not be so easy. As I remember from a flurry of discussion
> a few years ago, the USCF does not *own* its version of the rules,
> which happen to be the intellectual property of the person who wrote
> the book. (BTW, I hope somebody jumps on me and tells me I'm wrong)

Oh, dear lord, I sincerely hope you're wrong. The body responsible
for organizing and promoting chess in the USA can't allow people to
freely find out what chess is? That's absurd and, if true, is already
a compelling reason for the USCF to adopt the full FIDE rules.

Dave.

--
David Richerby Swiss Accelerated Cat (TM): it's like
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ a cuddly pet but it's twice as fast
and made in Switzerland!

Date: 25 Oct 2007 23:19:05
From: David Kane
Subject: Re: Guy Macon's suggested changes to USCF/FIDE rules

<[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

>
> 3) It's not clear to me how giving a tiebreak advantage would
> discourage draws. In the U.S., at least, hardly any serious prizes are
> decided by tiebreak. Cash is split equally, and trophies are mostly
> confined to kiddy tournaments. (Yes, there's the Amateur Team, but
> that's a once-a-year exception.)
>

So you're saying that the practice of ignoring tiebreaks is evidence
that treating tiebreaks differently could never discourage draws??
You might want to think about that little gem a bit.

Date: 25 Oct 2007 16:41:54
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Guy Macon's suggested changes to USCF/FIDE rules

On Oct 25, 5:11 pm, Kenneth Sloan <[email protected] > wrote:

> > 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?

I highly recommend reading the FIDE rules of chess at
some point during one's career. But note that reading the
USCF's "current rules" is almost futile; they change them
like many people change their socks. It seems like the
good folks at the USCF have no principles whatever,
except one: cut down the whining by pacifying the loudest
whiners, even if that means changing rules arbitrarily, back
and forth. I am thinking about starting a whining campaign
to bring back ratings inflation... .

-- help bot

Date: 25 Oct 2007 16:36:10
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Guy Macon's suggested changes to USCF/FIDE rules

On Oct 25, 5:03 pm, Guy Macon <http://www.guymacon.com/ > wrote:

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

Practice what you preach, idiot.

-- help bot

Date: 25 Oct 2007 16:28:48
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Guy Macon's suggested changes to USCF/FIDE rules

On Oct 25, 2:58 pm, "David Kane" <[email protected] > 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 x>y then losses are held to be more significant than
> > wins; if x<y 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

Date: 25 Oct 2007 20:15:24
From: David Kane
Subject: Re: Guy Macon's suggested changes to USCF/FIDE rules

"help bot" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Oct 25, 2:58 pm, "David Kane" <[email protected]> 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 x>y then losses are held to be more significant than
>> > wins; if x<y 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

The evidence is out there for everyone to see (win/loss/draw
statistics). That you don't understand it is not surprising. Mr.
Richerby, however, appears to have some mathematical
ability and, therefore, should be able to see the flaw in his
reasoning.

But I will accept your point. The state of ignorance in the
world is such that what should be common knowledge
often isn't.

remaining drivel snipped.

Date: 25 Oct 2007 16:06:53
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Guy Macon's suggested changes to USCF/FIDE rules

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

Date: 26 Oct 2007 13:33:28
From: Guy Macon
Subject: Re: Guy Macon's suggested changes to USCF/FIDE rules

help bot wrote:
>
>Guy Macon <http://www.guymacon.com> wrote:
>
>> help bot wrote:
>>
>> >Guy Macon wrote:
>>
>> >> 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.

As you requested, I read the entire post once again.
It does not contain the material that you claim it contains.

You clearly wrote "These proposed changes are ridiculous."

The words "These," Changes" and "are" are plural, thus implying
that you found both proposed changes to be "ridiculous."

The post I just re-read only addresses the second proposal.

Yet when asked exactly what you find "ridiculous" about
the first of the two proposals (which I quoted in full
just so you would know which one I was referring to), you
resorted to childish namecalling and refered me to a post
that does not contain any comment at all about the first
of the two proposals.

So again I ask, please explain exactly what you find
"ridiculous" about the above proposal. Either that or
you can simply confirm that you have trouble with plurals
and cannot tell the difference beween "These proposed
changes are ridiculous" and "the second proposed change
is ridiculous."

> Here is an addendum: the idea of awarding ties to

I don't care what your opinion is about the second proposal.
You made what appeared to be a reasonable argument in your
first response, and it turns out that the proposed rule is
not needed -- doing things that way is already allowed under
the current FIDE rules.

I am, however, still at a loss as to why you don't like the
above proposal (not some other proposal; the one above.)
I won't hold my breath waiting for you to explain your
reasoning, though. You have already refused to answer once,
so I can only assume that you don't have a reason. That's the
usyual case; when someone starts engaging in personal attacks
it is almost always because he is wrong and knows it.

Date: 25 Oct 2007 22:14:06
From: Guy Macon
Subject: Re: Guy Macon's suggested change to USCF rules

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/ >

Date: 26 Oct 2007 12:04:02
From: David Richerby
Subject: Re: Guy Macon's suggested change to USCF rules

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

In what way are American tournaments different from tournaments in
other countries?

Dave.

--
David Richerby Gigantic Umbrella (TM): it's like an
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ umbrella but it's huge!

Date: 26 Oct 2007 14:36:14
From: Guy Macon
Subject: Re: Guy Macon's suggested change to USCF rules

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

>> 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
>
>In what way are American tournaments different from tournaments in
>other countries?

The biggest difference is that many US tournaments are far larger,
organized as "weekend swiss", and have fewer people running them.
The FIDE tournament rules have many places where they assume that
a trained arbiter will be available. Examples: "If the game needs
to be interrupted, the arbiter shall stop the clocks" and "Before
the start of the game the arbiter decides where the chess clock is
placed." In a large USCF tournament the players need to be able
to agree where to put the clock and when to stop it, asking for
help only if there is a question or conflict.

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

Date: 26 Oct 2007 18:08:39
From: Guy Macon
Subject: Re: Guy Macon's suggested change to USCF rules

Looks like the Canadian Chess federation liked the idea of adopting
the FIDE rules: [ http://www.chess.ca/section_4.htm ] :)

Date: 26 Oct 2007 16:33:20
From: David Richerby
Subject: Re: Guy Macon's suggested change to USCF rules

Guy Macon <http://www.guymacon.com/ > wrote:
> David Richerby wrote:
>> In what way are American tournaments different from tournaments in
>> other countries?
>
> The biggest difference is that many US tournaments are far larger,
> organized as "weekend swiss", and have fewer people running them.

The `weekend Swiss' is hardly unique to the US. It's the default
format in the UK and, I imagine, elsewhere. How large is large, for
an `average' tournament? I'm used to Swiss tournaments with between
50 and 200 players, with, I'd say, between two and four organizers
present.

> The FIDE tournament rules have many places where they assume that a
> trained arbiter will be available. Examples: "If the game needs to
> be interrupted, the arbiter shall stop the clocks" and "Before the
> start of the game the arbiter decides where the chess clock is
> placed." In a large USCF tournament the players need to be able to
> agree where to put the clock and when to stop it, asking for help
> only if there is a question or conflict.

In an English Swiss[1] the boards and clocks are laid out in advance.
If both players agree to move the clock, they can do. If they
disagree on where the clock should be, they summon an organizer. The
only reason for stopping the clocks (other than at time controls) is
to summon an organizer. If the organizer doesn't think the clocks
needed to be stopped, s/he can act appropriately.

So, apart from what I understand to be the American tradition of the
players providing the board, pieces and clock (with all the scope for
disagreement that brings), I don't see any real difference between
American and British tournaments. I suppose the point is that we use
the FIDE rules but ignore the bits that are impractical for a weekend
Swiss. While that may be somewhat informal, I've not seen it cause
any problems anywhere.

Dave.

[1] German Spanish Argentine Namibian... where was this going?

--
David Richerby Indelible Hi-Fi (TM): it's like a
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ music system but it can't be erased!

Date: 26 Oct 2007 11:06:23
From: Kenneth Sloan
Subject: Re: Guy Macon's suggested change to USCF rules

David Richerby wrote:
>
> So, apart from what I understand to be the American tradition of the
> players providing the board, pieces and clock (with all the scope for
> disagreement that brings), I don't see any real difference between
> American and British tournaments.

You are absolutely correct. Except for the differences, they are the same.

--
Kenneth Sloan [email protected]
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/

Date: 28 Oct 2007 18:30:30
From: David Richerby
Subject: Re: Guy Macon's suggested change to USCF rules

Kenneth Sloan <[email protected] > wrote:
> David Richerby wrote:
>> So, apart from what I understand to be the American tradition of
>> the players providing the board, pieces and clock (with all the
>> scope for disagreement that brings), I don't see any real
>> difference between American and British tournaments.
>
> You are absolutely correct. Except for the differences, they are
> the same.

Except for the one difference I have pointed out, they appear to be
the same.

Dave.

--
David Richerby Voodoo Widget (TM): it's like a thingy
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ that has mystical powers!

Date: 26 Oct 2007 11:04:38
From: Kenneth Sloan
Subject: Re: Guy Macon's suggested change to USCF rules

David Richerby wrote:
>
> In an English Swiss[1] the boards and clocks are laid out in advance.

In a typical US Swiss, the players supply board/set/clock.

--
Kenneth Sloan [email protected]
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/

Date: 28 Oct 2007 18:28:36
From: David Richerby
Subject: Re: Guy Macon's suggested change to USCF rules

Kenneth Sloan <[email protected] > wrote:
> David Richerby wrote:
>> In an English Swiss[1] the boards and clocks are laid out in advance.
>
> In a typical US Swiss, the players supply board/set/clock.

As I wrote in my next paragraph.

Dave.

--
David Richerby Perforated Swiss Postman (TM): it's
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ like a man who delivers the mail but
it's made in Switzerland and full
of holes!

Date: 25 Oct 2007 17:38:41
From: Kenneth Sloan
Subject: Re: Guy Macon's suggested change to USCF rules

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 [email protected]
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/

Date: 25 Oct 2007 22:03:55
From: Guy Macon
Subject: Re: Guy Macon's suggested changes to USCF/FIDE rules

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/ >

Date: 25 Oct 2007 16:49:03
From: SBD
Subject: Re: Guy Macon's suggested changes to USCF/FIDE rules

"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.

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

Date: 25 Oct 2007 23:47:21
From: David Richerby
Subject: Re: Guy Macon's suggested changes to USCF/FIDE rules

SBD <[email protected] > 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!

Date: 25 Oct 2007 18:09:54
From: Kenneth Sloan
Subject: Re: Guy Macon's suggested changes to USCF/FIDE rules

David Richerby wrote:
> SBD <[email protected]> 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 [email protected]
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/

Date: 26 Oct 2007 11:48:39
From: David Richerby
Subject: Re: Guy Macon's suggested changes to USCF/FIDE rules

Kenneth Sloan <[email protected] > wrote:
> David Richerby wrote:
>> SBD <[email protected]> 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.'
>
> And...your point is?

That `Would you be prepared to pay for that?' isn't a test of how good
an idea is.

Dave.

--
David Richerby Homicidal Adult Sushi (TM): it's
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ like a raw fish that you won't want
the children to see but it wants to
kill you!

Date: 26 Oct 2007 06:12:17
From: Mike Murray
Subject: Re: Guy Macon's suggested changes to USCF/FIDE rules

On 26 Oct 2007 11:48:39 +0100 (BST), David Richerby
<[email protected] > wrote:

>Kenneth Sloan <[email protected]> wrote:
>> David Richerby wrote:
>>> SBD <[email protected]> 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.'

>> And...your point is?

>That `Would you be prepared to pay for that?' isn't a test of how good
>an idea is.

You folks across the pond never did get into Pragmatism.

Date: 25 Oct 2007 13:12:12
From: David Kane
Subject: Re: Guy Macon's suggested changes to USCF/FIDE rules

"SBD" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "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.

Date: 25 Oct 2007 16:12:51
From: SBD
Subject: Re: Guy Macon's suggested changes to USCF/FIDE rules

I would not call the changes ridiculous, but I am against any changes
that are designed really to "make people who will never appreciate or
understand chess watch it/play it/give money to it."

There are perfectly good chess variants, if you want to play those.
But why change chess just to meet the adoration of the feeble-minded?

Date: 25 Oct 2007 11:45:26
From: David Richerby
Subject: Re: Guy Macon's suggested changes to USCF/FIDE rules

Guy Macon <http://www.guymacon.com/ > wrote:
> TWO: Assign a draw a score of 4.99 points instead of 5.0 points (or
> you could make a win 1.01 points or a loss -0.01 points). This
> would somewhat discourage playing for a draw without changing the
> basic nature of the game.

Assuming you mean 0.49 for a draw...

It would be easier just to introduce a default tie-break rule that the
player with the fewest draws wins the tie. The only problem with this
idea is that if a group of players have the same score, the one who
has drawn the fewest games is the one who has lost the most games (as
well as won the most).

Dave.

--
David Richerby Hungry Chair (TM): it's like a chair
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ but it'll eat you!

Date: 25 Oct 2007 15:35:12
From: Guy Macon
Subject: Re: Guy Macon's suggested changes to USCF/FIDE rules

David Richerby wrote:
>
>Guy Macon <http://www.guymacon.com/> wrote:
>
>> TWO: Assign a draw a score of [0.49] points instead of [0.5] points (or
>> you could make a win 1.01 points or a loss -0.01 points). This
>> would somewhat discourage playing for a draw without changing the
>> basic nature of the game.
>
>Assuming you mean 0.49 for a draw...
>
>It would be easier just to introduce a default tie-break rule that the
>player with the fewest draws wins the tie.

Good point.

>The only problem with this idea is that if a group of players
>have the same score, the one who has drawn the fewest games
>is the one who has lost the most games (as well as won the most).

Agreed. The real question is whether one loss and one win should
be assigned *exactly * the same score as two draws. It is not
clear to me why they should be exactly the same

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

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

Date: 25 Oct 2007 17:34:58
From: David Richerby
Subject: Re: Guy Macon's suggested changes to USCF/FIDE rules

Guy Macon <http://www.guymacon.com/ > wrote:
> The real question is whether one loss and one win should be assigned
> *exactly * the same score as two draws. It is not clear to me why
> they should be exactly the same

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 x >y then losses are held to be more significant than
wins; if x<y 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.

> 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.

Dave.

--
David Richerby Artificial Cat (TM): it's like a cat
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ that's made of plastic!

Date: 25 Oct 2007 21:56:37
From: Guy Macon
Subject: Re: Guy Macon's suggested changes to USCF/FIDE rules

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/ >

Date: 25 Oct 2007 17:11:09
From: Kenneth Sloan
Subject: Re: Guy Macon's suggested changes to USCF/FIDE rules

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 [email protected]
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/

Date: 26 Oct 2007 13:18:28
From: Guy Macon
Subject: Re: Guy Macon's suggested changes to USCF/FIDE rules

Kenneth Sloan wrote:

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

It must be nice to be perfect, never ever reading something and
not noticing a detail. Perhaps you can cut those of us who are
human a bit of slack for our lack of perfection?

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

Date: 26 Oct 2007 15:35:52
From: David Richerby
Subject: Re: suggested changes to USCF/FIDE rules

Guy Macon <http://www.guymacon.com/ > wrote:
> Kenneth Sloan wrote:
>> Wouldn't you have saved everyone a lot of time if you had *READ* the
>> FIDE rules before proposing the change them?
>
> It must be nice to be perfect, never ever reading something and not
> noticing a detail. Perhaps you can cut those of us who are human a
> bit of slack for our lack of perfection?

Yes but it was one of the very details you wanted to change!

It's perfectly reasonable that somebody who has only read what is a
fairly complicated technical document a few times will have missed a
few things and misunderstood a few things. However, it is also
reasonable to expect anyone who wants to revise that document should
have a thorough understanding of what it says and how it works.

Dave.

--
David Richerby Fluorescent Sadistic Goldfish (TM):
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ it's like a fish but it wants to hurt
you and it'll hurt your eyes!

Date: 25 Oct 2007 12:58:38
From: David Kane
Subject: Re: Guy Macon's suggested changes to USCF/FIDE rules

"David Richerby" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:+Iu*[email protected]...
> Guy Macon <http://www.guymacon.com/> wrote:
>> The real question is whether one loss and one win should be assigned
>> *exactly * the same score as two draws. It is not clear to me why
>> they should be exactly the same
>
> 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 x>y then losses are held to be more significant than
> wins; if x<y 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.

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.

Date: 23 Oct 2007 16:14:31
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Guy Macon's suggested changes to USCF/FIDE rules

Guy Macon 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>
>
> ONE: 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 ]
>
> TWO: Assign a draw a score of 4.99 points instead of 5.0
> points (or you could make a win 1.01 points or a loss
> -0.01 points). This would somewhat discourage playing
> for a draw without changing the basic nature of the game.

These proposed changes are ridiculous.

For instance, handing draw-mongers nearly five points
while winners get about one point is the dumbest idea
I have seen in a long time. Everybody would just agree
to draw on move one, and Swiss tourneys would end up
as ties between every entrant who did not get a bye or a
forfeit win or loss. Duh!

-- help bot

Date: 25 Oct 2007 15:37:35
From: Guy Macon
Subject: Re: Guy Macon's suggested changes to USCF/FIDE rules

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?

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

Date: 25 Oct 2007 15:29:15
From: Guy Macon
Subject: Re: Guy Macon's suggested changes to USCF/FIDE rules

> TWO: Assign a draw a score of 4.99 points instead of 5.0
> points (or you could make a win 1.01 points or a loss
> -0.01 points). This would somewhat discourage playing
> for a draw without changing the basic nature of the game.

D'oh!

Typo. Should read:

Assign a draw a score of 0.49 points instead of 0.5
points (or you could make a win 1.01 points or a loss
-0.01 points). This would somewhat discourage playing
for a draw without changing the basic nature of the game.

My apologies.

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