Logos, Banner by KaitlinB and Tom45.

Standing Subcommittee (Rules):
      rgadoury (chair), BosqueVerde, chesskix, f5/fpawn

Standing Subcommittee (Technology):
     bmw2002 (chair), AlPearson, BosqueVerde, chesskix, DaveTheRook, fledermaus, Gomer, rgadoury

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 - T39 Tournament Parameters - Approved
Item 2 - Discussion of cheating
Item 3 - Proposal: No adjudicated double forfeits - Not Approved
Item 4 - Delay in game: Proposed 5-minute rule - Not Approved
Item 5 - Review of Tie-breaks, including RRR - No Change
Item 6 - What to do when ICC adjusts a player's rating: Red Card - Approved
Item 7 - Proposed change in Playoff advancement for 11-team sections - Not approved
Item 8 - Proposed changes to Statute Section 10 - Not Approved.
Item 9 -  Discussion of Chess.fm coverage of the League
Item 10 - Revisions per results of Item 8

Item 1. T39 tournament parameters

Submitted by the Chief TD: 09/17/2008
Time Control: 45 45
Sections: 6 (U2200, U2000, U1800, U1600, U1400, U1200)
Rounds: 6 - (possibly 7) followed by Playoffs
Team entries accepted: September 30, 2008 – October 14, 2008.
Team Entry Deadline: October 14, 2008.

Ratings "fixed" starting September 9, 2008.
(Some ratings may be adjusted by the Entry Clerk)

Round 1 Posted: 22:00 October 21, 2008.
Three rounds of playoffs will end January 6, 2009

Count of team RR reductions (if any) precedes board removal tie-breaks.
Tiebreak board removal rules start with board 1 this tournament.

Approved 11 yes, 0 no; Sept. 19, 2008

Item 2.  Discussion of (C)heating

SC T38-T39 voted in favor of directing a Subcommittee to commence an exploratory investigation as to how we might take a more proactive stance against (C)heating.

Item 3: Partial blame only in games not scheduled.
Submitted by rgadoury, SC member.   Sept 27, 2008

Problem. The purpose of Section 10, Scheduling, should be to facilitate the process of scheduling a game. The statute should be considered more like “help files” or guidelines to effective scheduling, than a set of rules to be adhered to rigidly. Every rule in there could be considered violated if the players got their game scheduled through some other means. If following the rules was the sole purpose of Section 10, half the games would be forfeited.

We have many forfeits “for good order and discipline” that are needed to keep the league running fairly. But double forfeits for judgment calls is too drastic. Section 10 is a great document, but the consequences of not following it (Section 15) need to be softened.

Solution. Amend the portions of Section 15.A that relate to full blame. Remove the strikeout reds, add the underlined blue.

Not Approved: 5  yes, 6 no; Sept. 29, 2008

Item 4.  Delay of game - Proposed new 5-minute rule
Submitted by kingofknights

Problem. Delays in starting a game once both players have arrived, both during the Grace Period and sometimes beyond the Grace Period, is an ongoing controversy. “How long is too long to wait?”

Solution.  A specific time limit to start the game, or be forfeited. Rules Subcommittee chose 5 minutes as a reasonable compromise on the amount of time for an opponent to be kept waiting. With the word “immediately” in the current statute, an argument in support of this 5-minute rule is that if a player has to attend to other business, he can do it while his clock is running.

Implementation. If our bot can be programmed to only activate a match command once both players are on line within the grace period, and can measure the suggested 5 minutes from the time the first player accepts the match, we believe the following change to the rules is reasonable. If the bot is not working, the TDs have a measurable guideline to handle any disputes.

Amend Section 10.F.i

10.F.i. (Amended) At the Agreed Game Time both players are expected to be logged in to the chess server present and ready to play. Players must immediately withdraw from any activity that might delay starting the game, and begin their scheduled league game on time. Once the first player has accepted the automated match command, the second player has five (5) minutes to accept, or shall be forfeited.

Not Approved:  2 yes, 9 no; Oct 2, 2008

Item 5. Review of Tiebreaks
(1) Shall the RR reductions (forfeits) be continued as a tiebreaker before board removal.
(2) Shall other tiebreak methods be considered?
Submitted by rgadoury; Oct 4, 2008

Situation. We have been using the RR reduction as a tiebreaker for five tourneys, starting with T34.  During debate on Item 4, the Chief TD asked that the tiebreaker issue be brought up to the full committee for review. There have also been a number of suggestions made by league members for different ways to handle tiebreaks other than the current pre-determined method of board removal.

It seems advisable to at least put these other ideas on the table for consideration. A presentation close to this was given to Rules subcommittee in the last two days. There has been discussion, but no formal votes were taken.

This Item is in two parts.

Part 1. Discussion on continuing or abolishing RR reductions as a tiebreaker. Some data and history of the tiebreaks is presented in table form at the bottom of this Item.

Approved: 7 Yes, 4 No  Oct 5, 2008. We will continue to use RR reduction (forfeits) as a tiebreaker before board removal.

Part 2. Shall consideration be given to other options for tiebreaks before or in the place of board removal. There are three basic new Options that have been argued in channel or presented to Rules recently.

Part 2. Option 1. Upset point total. Examine each win in a tied match. If the player with the lower fixed rating wins, he earns upset bonus points equal to the difference in the fixed (not current) ratings. In T38 Playoff 1, there were six 2-2 matches. Four would have been settled by upset points earned at one board. In one match both teams had an upset, greater number of upset points to away team. One match had no upsets and would go to another tiebreak. Entry Clerk suggestion—count numbers of upsets, not relative rating values; use no upset points in draws.

Part 2. Option 2. A variation on board removal. A point value is assigned to wins at each board. 4 points for board 1, 3 points for board 2, 2 points for board 3, and 1 point for board 4. In each case half point value is assigned for draws. This method will break ties except when boards 1 and 4 win for one team, and boards 2 and 3 win for the other team (5 points to each team). In that case another tiebreak must be used.

Part 2. Option 3. A variation on coin tosses, to pre-establish how boards will be removed. Instead of keeping the same board order removal method throughout a tourney, do a Coin Toss for each tied match to determine whether boards are to be removed from bottom up or top down (or some other tiebreaker used, such as option 1). Advantage--all four games would be played seriously, because the teams would not know in advance which team might be favored by the tiebreak. Disadvantage--teams cannot figure out what they need by looking at other teams in the standings, or how other ties were broken. Entry Clerk--It is possible to “flip the coin” for every possible tiebreak scenario before the tourney starts and use the results (posted, but not published) whenever a tiebreak is needed.

Other options have been advocated from time to time—total wins, greater value for black wins, team with lowest average advances on ties, etc, but have many disadvantages, principally uneven fairness to other players or teams.

Not Approved: 2 Yes, 9 No; Oct 18, 2008  (Result: No change in Tiebreaks)

History of Tiebreaks.

Board removal starting with board 4 goes back to at least T13 when most of the Bylaws were adopted.

Board removal starting with board 1 in odd numbered tourneys began in T27.

Reliability Rating as a tiebreak began with T34. One of the goals was the hope that it would shame teams into reducing forfeits. The table below suggests that goal was not achieved. RR reductions were first tabulated with the +2 +1 0 –1 –2 in T30.

Here is a table with numbers of forfeits, cheater forfeits, net forfeits chargeable to teams, number of games in the tournament, percentage of chargeable forfeits, average percentage for the years RR’s were and were not used as tiebreaks.

The last column shows number of judgment calls by the TDs, greater or equal (double forfeit) blame decisions. No set games of any kind are included, just forfeits.

 (Result: No change in Tiebreaks)

Item 6. What to do when ICC adjusts a player’s rating.
Submitted by rgadoury, Entry Clerk.   Oct 19, 2008

Problem: Occasionally ICC adjusts a player’s rating by several hundred points. There are many reasons for ICC admins(*) making such a change, but the reason is not known and cannot be revealed. Regardless of the reason, large changes of rating that cannot be accounted for by a player’s normal playing habits calls into question the accuracy of the player’s current fixed rating. It also takes time to establish a new rating, whether similar to the old rating or something considerably different.

Solution: Rules recommends that the Entry Clerk be authorized to recommend a red card when the rating adjustment is too great to verify the fixed rating for the current tournament. A red card serves two functions; it punishes the player for having done something within his control that put his fixed rating into question, and suspends him for three months. Three months is a reasonable amount of time to establish a new rating.

A proposed addition to Statute 4.E.iv. limits how far back in time the Entry Clerk might look for rating adjustments and how far forward in time to penalize the player. The entry clerk would make the recommendation to the ChiefTD, who would actually issue the card after discussing the facts with the Entry Clerk. As this is a judgment call, the decision itself could be appealed.

Statute 4.E.iv (Addition) A player may be rejected for membership, or participation delayed, if there is evidence or reasons to believe the rating is not representative of the player’s ability. Many factors, including those described in ICC’s “help abuse”, will be considered in evaluating each rating. The entry clerk may refuse entry to any player whose standard rating has been adjusted by an ICC admin(*) by more than 200 points within the past 3 months, and may recommend a red card if the adjustment occurs during a tournament. Any outstanding games of a suspended player shall be forfeited.

Reference Statute 17.C.i A Red Card has the effect of suspending a player from all League activities from time of issuance through the next complete tourney. SC 20-21.

It should be noted that this is a conduct issue, not a cheating issue. The ICC rating change calls into question the player’s qualifications for teams within the section limits. The suspension gives the player time to reestablish himself.

Approved:  10 yes, 1 no; Oct 25, 2008

Item 7.  Proposed Change in Playoff Eligibility for 11-team sections.
Submitted by Sleete, T45L Member.   Oct 19, 2008

Statute 6.A.ii currently: When two divisions are formed in a section, then the winners of each division shall play a match for the Championship.

Suggested change is: When two divisions are formed in a section, then the winners of each division shall play a match for the Championship. The only exception to this is where 11 teams make up two divisions of 6 and 5 teams, then the 1st and 2nd place teams of each division shall enter the playoff with the winner of one section playing the 2nd place of the other in the first playoff week and the championship decider between the winners of those matches in the 2nd playoff week.

Statute 13.C. currently: The team in first place in the Final Divisional Standings shall advance to the Championship Division.

Suggested change is: Make that line an i, and add an ii.

i. The team in first place in the Final Divisional Standings shall advance to the Championship Division.

ii. When there are only two divisions of 6 and 5 teams respectively in a section the 2nd place teams shall also advance with the winner of one division playing the 2nd place of the other division. It should be noted that Section B c (Seeding) is not applicable in this case and shall be ignored.

I do not believe there is a need to change Section 5 C. and cannot see any other sections that may be affected by this proposal (though there may be).

Not Approved:  2 yes, 9 no; Oct 29, 2008

Item 8.  Proposed Changes to Statute 10.
Submitted by Entry Clerk, Nov 1, 2008

Different parts of Sections 10 and 15 are being taken different ways. Recently two TDs have disagreed with the interpretation given in our FAQs that failure to contact with any offers in the first 48 hours REQUIRES the offending player accept an offered time by the Friday deadline, and they have allowed negotiations to continue right up to the Tuesday deadline. There is also confusion, as expressed in the memo below, as to whether or not 3 TIMES have to be offered for the statute to be met. In this latter case, the answer is NO, as Section 15 sets partial blame to less than three offers.

As I understand the intent of the rules, an offer of one or two times prior to Thursday deadline clears those two deadlines, but the player who offered fewer than three times prior to Thursday carries partial blame forward if a game is not scheduled.

Item #8.a:  A yes vote is for change, and a no vote is for status quo.
Not Approved:  4 yes, 7 no; Nov 7, 2008

Item #8.b:  Do players who do not make any offers by Thursday, have until Friday or Tuesday to choose a time offered by the opponent?

A. Friday
B. Tuesday

Choice A. (Friday) has passed by a vote of 9-2.

Item 10. Revised section 10.D to conform to the votes, wishes and intent of Item 8.
Submitted by Rules subcommittee chair.  Nov 23, 2008

Problem. After the voting on Items 8 and 8.b concluded, Rules was charged with fixing the statute to make the intentions clearer. In the process of doing that, Rules retiled the Thursday and Friday deadlines, removing “Contact” and using “offers”, since that is what we are dealing with.  We feel this removes the ambiguity.

Solution. The changes can be summed up this way. (1) If A makes 3 offers before 22:00 Thursday and B does not reply until Friday, he has to accept one of the offers, or be forfeited by Friday at 22:00. (2) However, if A has made fewer than 3 offers before 22:00 Thursday, he acquires partial blame; with partial blame on A, some rights are lost; if B responds on Friday, B can make offers, and they have until Tuesday to agree on a time.

(1) is the way we’ve always handled this statute. (2) is how we addressed fewer than 3 offers by the first player.   Rules Subcommittee revised the wording, but not the overall intent, of Section 10.D, and moved one sentence from the original wording as a separate element in 10.C, where it logically belongs.

Current Statutes

10.D Deadlines for scheduling.   The following two deadlines, First Contact Deadline and Contact-or-Forfeit Deadline, carry consequences for players who fail to meet them. However, players are strongly encouraged to act well in advance of the impending consequences.

1. Contact Deadline  = Thursday, 22:00 ICC server time ¶ SC 26-27. By this deadline a player should have posted an offer to play. ¶ SC 29-30
   1. Once this posts is made, a player is not obligated to make any other offers until the opponent replies. ;
   2. A player who has not made contact prior to the Contact Deadline has just another 24 hours to reply, and must accept one of his opponent's offered times rather than suggest any times of his own.
2. Contact-or-Forfeit Deadline = Friday, 22:00 ICC server time   If a player has neither posted offers of play times, nor accepted an offered time by this deadline, he forfeits the game.  ¶ SC 29-30

Proposed Statutes

10.D. Deadlines for scheduling. The following two deadlines, Minimum Offer Deadline and Offer-or-Forfeit Deadline, carry consequences for players who fail to meet them.

1. Minimum Offers Deadline = Thursday, 22:00 ICC server time. By this deadline both players are expected to have offered at least three times to play, or have made counter offers, or have accepted a playing time.
   1. If Player A posts three offers and Player B makes no offers, B has just 24 more hours to select one of the remaining offers. B cannot make offers of his own.
   2. If Player A made fewer than three offers, Player B has 24 more hours to respond, but may make offers of his own. If he makes offers, the second deadline is no longer in effect and negotiations may continue until 22:00 Tuesday.
2. ii. Offer-or-Forfeit (No Contact) Deadline = Friday, 22:00 ICC server time If a player has neither posted offers of play times, nor accepted an offered time by this deadline, he forfeits the game. The forfeited game becomes official at the deadline.

10.C.ii (relocated original text from 10.D), and "replies" is changed to "posts offers":

Once posts with three times have been made, a player is not obligated to make any other offers until the opponent posts offers.

Approved:  7 yes, 3 abstain; Dec 1, 2008

Previous SC Agendas: