Logos, Banner by KaitlinB and Tom45.
Team 45 45 League
Serious Chess and Team Spirit on the ICC
T35-36 STEERING COMMITTEE AGENDA
Permanent Members: DaveTheRook (chair), BosqueVerde, chesskix, rgadoury
General Members: Budzo, bmw2002, f5, Gomer, Kingofknights, RedAttack
Standing Subcommittee (Rules):
Standing Subcommittee (Technology):
The role and purpose of the Steering Committee is to manage the affairs of the league, to set its direction and expansion, see to its advertisement and management, writing the Constitution, Statutes and Handbooks, and reviewing the rulings of the previous Oversight Committee. This is the ultimate governing body of Team 45 45 League with all rights and responsibilities. (Article III of the League Constitution)
League Members may stay informed of potential rules changes by watching this page. Prior to voting results being displayed here, members may make their comments known by notifying any Steering Committee member, who may choose to forward your comments to the Steering Committee. The Committee members will not disclose any details of the Committee discussions.
Item 1 - T36 Tournament Parameters - Approved
Time Control: 45 45
Team entries accepted: January 1, 2008 – January 15, 2008.
Round 1 Posted: 22:00 January 22, 2008.
Count of team RR reductions (if any) precedes board removal
Approved - 8 yes, 0 no; 28 Nov, 2007
Problem: Occasionally we get complaints that a player has the same color, usually the black pieces, three games in succession. Although the TEAM has an equal number of black and white pieces at each board over the course of six rounds, the 4-team schedule is set up in such a way that three “Home” or “Away” matches, and thus three games in succession with the same color at each board, are unavoidable.
Solution: Change the order of the rounds played to assure that each board plays no more than two games in succession with the same color. This change would be consistent with the Swiss system, whereby no one is forced to play three games in succession with the same color.
Proposal: That in the 4-team schedule, round 3 be played first. What is now rounds 1 2 3 4 5 6 would be played in the order 3 1 2 4 5 6. This requires that subparagraphs i, ii, iii, in Section 7.A. be reordered, as follows:
The programmers indicate that this is a simple change to make.
6-team schedule: One out of the six teams gets three Home or Away matches in succession. There is no way to avoid it, but it is limited to one of the six teams. The 7-team schedule is unaffected. Only team 4 gets three in succession, but one of them is the bye.
Approved - 10 yes, 0 no; 03 Dec, 2007
Proposal: Require, rather than recommend, one tournament experience for captains? We have a number of failing teams due to captain inexperience. Requiring captain to have played one tourney might keep down the number of new teams coming in, but that might be a good thing. Various options under discussion:
Approved - Option D 6, Option C 4; 06 Dec, 2007
NOT Approved - 1 yes, 9 no; 10 Dec, 2007
Problem. One of the most common reasons a game does not get played and must be adjudicated is when one or both players have eliminated the possibility of playing on the weekend due to various personal commitments, notably OTB tourneys, family events, or in some cases employment.
Facts. There is currently no specific statute that covers weekend play, other than it being one of the factors a TD may take into account in an adjudicated game. Every week, close to 60 percent of all league games are played on Saturday or Sunday. It is almost the only time that games can get played when players’ time zones differ greatly. Players do not know in advance who their opponents will be or their time zones, and thus cannot know that weekday times will fit both players.
Approved - Option C, 10 - 0; 13 Dec, 2007
Problems. Two areas of confusion or differences of opinion have arisen in Section 10.G.
Section 10.G.i and ii now read:
Question 1 - What agreement is required to reschedule a game prior to the end of the grace period—Agreement to reschedule, or actual agreement on the new date?
Rules Subcommittee is in agreement that the answer to the first problem is that only an “agreement TO reschedule” is required in 10.G.i, and that negotiations to find a new time can go beyond the end of the grace period. Rules Sub is also in agreement that should a new time not be agreed to, that the player who originally asked to reschedule should be charged with the forfeit loss. 10.G.i is proposed to be amended to read as follows:
Result of Item 5, Part 1: The SC has voted unanimously that only an “agreement TO reschedule” is required in 10.G.i, that negotiations to find a new time can go beyond the end of the grace period, and that if a new time not be agreed to, that the player who originally asked to reschedule should be charged with the forfeit loss. 10.G.i is to be amended to read as follows:
Question 2 - When can a game considered to be conceded and when is an opponent released from showing up at the agreed time?
Rules Subcommittee has differing viewpoints. When it was written the person who wrote it (rgadoury) intended the first few words be merely introduction to the what to do with a game actually conceded beforehand, that it was a forfeit and the opponent did not have to show up at the agreed time. Disputes arose during T35 as to whether “Advance Notice” under other circumstances freed the opponent from showing up and also constituting a conceded game. Rules Subcommittee presents two options.
Option 2.a. If only a conceded game is to free the opponent from showing up, 10.G.ii can be amended to remove any mention of “advance notice.”
Option 2.b Is to add to the statute Advance Notice of No-Show as releasing the opponent from showing up at the agreed time. Under this option 10.G.ii is separated into two parts, Advance Notice of No-Show and Conceding the Game.
Result of Item 5, Part 2 - Statute 10.G.ii. already explains what happens if a player says "I concede". We are working to determine the grey area decisions. The Steering Committee voted on these options:
Choice 2 was approved by majority vote.
A. 10.G.i. (current) Reschedule: A game time that has been agreed upon by both players is binding on both players and can only be changed (rescheduled) to another time if both players agree. The agreement to reschedule, if any, must be made (as evidenced in the Game Forum) prior to the end of the 30-minute grace period and is subject to all applicable scheduling and deadline rules. Should there be no reschedule and the game not be played, a Reliability Rating Point must be deducted from the player who was unable to honor the scheduled game time.
B. 10.G. ii. (current) Advance Notice and Conceding a game: Should a player post before game time that he/she is unable to be present at the agreed time, and concede the game to the opponent; the opponent will receive the game point and need not be present at the agreed time. Conceding a game before it starts constitutes a forfeit (automatic Reliability Rating point reduction).
Approved - 9 Yes, 0 no, 1 abstain; 6 Jan 2008
During discussion of Item 5, the idea of a "concede" button came up as proactive measure against unclear statements of concession.
NOT Approved - 3 yes, 7 no; 1 Jan 2008
A league member has objected to our current policy that permits changes to a team roster throughout the playoffs, and has proposed that the team rosters used in the playoffs be the same as in regulation play. A specific rule change was included.
Rules Subcommittee has edited the specific proposal and submits it as an amendment to the statutes.
Advantages. Opposing teams will know who they may be playing and have league records of their opponents to review in preparation. The change is consistent with roster limitation rules of many other leagues, in many other sports. Teams may not take advantage of our Fixed Rating practices by adding underrated players at the last minute.
Disadvantages. Teams may find themselves short of players through unavoidable circumstances
The final version voted upon allows changes below board 4:
Approved - 6 yes, 4 no; 13 Jan 2008
If 36 or more Erg teams enter, given all current schedules, we would need to extend the playoffs a week longer than usual, delaying T37. Solutions discussed: 1 - switching to six-team divisions (this would reduce the number of playoff teams, therefore also reduce playoff weeks); 2 - dividing Erg into two sections (per statute 6.D); 3 - Denying entry to excess teams (either beginning with the 36th team to enter, or beginning with teams that have not supplied TD volunteers); 4 - Eliminating the final playoff round, declaring the last two teams to be co-champions.
Options 1 and 2 appeared to be prohibited due to programming issues. Option 3 was given serious consideration, until Option 4 was brought forward. The discussion became moot when the team entry deadline passed without Erg enrollment reaching 36 teams.
The concern remains a probable issue for upcoming tournaments, and long term solutions will be sought. Discussion surrounds possible adjustment of section limits to reduce the size of Erg, as well as enhance the league experience in other aspects.
Item 8.a. Move to sections of U2200, U2000, U1800, U1600, U1400 and U1200 instead of our current format.
Approved - 10 yes, 0 no; 29 Jan 2008
Item 8.b. A "grid system", whereby the greatest
number of divisions will remain 8. When teams exceed the
capacity of 8 divisions of 4 teams each, rather than adding
divisions, the 8 divisions will increasing accommodate 5 and 6
Item 8.c. Split a large section into two sections,
to reduce the number of weeks needed for playoffs: In the event of
an over crowded section, with more than 32 teams entered, we split
that section into two sections, such as U1600 Blue and U1600 Red.
After the traditional playoff format is completed we may, or may not
have a championship round between the two section winners (Blue and
Clarification: The break is 35/36 teams. 35 8 divisions, 36 nine divisions.
Player makes three offers, but one in the adjournment week. He has now violated 10.C.i, 10.C.ii and 15.A.ii.b plus 10.C.viii. in a single breath. He has partial blame for failing to make three offers in the first week plus he has partial blame for offering an adjournment without making those three offers. Is that intended to be TWO partial blames (i.e. full blame) or one? Should one technicality (a fairly common one in fact) result in double partial blame? I believe someone who makes two valid offers and one in the second week should not be punished the same as someone who makes no contact at all.
Suggestion: Add statute 15.A.ii.f: Each single action or forum post may constitute at most one incident of partial blame, even if more than one statute has been violated.
Approved - 10 Yes, 0 No; 24 Feb 2008
Player makes the following offers: Wednesday 1300-1700, Thursday 10:00. His opponent fails to post by Thursday 22:00 but shows up on Friday. Since the statutes require him to accept one of his opponents offers and he can't, he must forfeit. Statute 10.D.i seems to assume that there are offers to accept, but makes no mention of what happens if there are not. Certainly this would be a clever way to exploit the league contact rules--in apparent violation of the "peaceful enjoyment" that we always talk about. In fact, even if the second player follows the rules properly and posts on Thursday at 12:00, he has no offers from his opponent to consider.
Suggestion: Modify statute 10.C.i. to require at least one (two?) offer beyond Friday at 22:00.
Not Approved - 0 yes, 9 no, 1 abstain; 5 Mar 2008
16.C.vi. Limitations to Roster Additions for Playoffs - At the Pairing Posting Deadline for Round 6, the fixed rating of a team's fourth highest rated player establishes that team's playoff "ceiling." Once Round 6 begins, roster additions (including the replacement of any removed players) shall be limited to players whose fixed ratings are lower than the team's ceiling.
Under our editorial revision policy, unless a SC member wishes to bring it up for further debate, this change will be incorporated into the Statutes in one week
Previous SC Agendas: