Steering Committee members:
Team 45 45 League
Serious Chess and Team Spirit on the ICC
T38-39 STEERING COMMITTEE AGENDA
DaveTheRook (chair), BosqueVerde, chesskix, rgadoury
General Members: Budzo, bmw2002, f5, Gomer, Invicta-knight, Kingofknights,
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
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
Solution. Amend the portions of Section 15.A that relate to full
blame. Remove the strikeout reds, add the underlined blue.
15.A A game can be designated
as a forfeit when the game is not played, and blame for
this can be clearly established on the one of the
players. The "offending" player is that player who bears
a higher level of blame, the "offended" player is the
player who is either blameless in the matter or has a
lower level of blame.
- Blame can be clearly established when:
- The offending player was not present to play
during the 30-minute grace period following the
Agreed Game Time. ¶ SC 27-28
- The offended
player sends contact messages to the offending
player conforming to the requirements of Section
10 and receives no reply after 72 hours of the
Pairing Posting Deadline. ¶SC 27-28.
- The offending
player fails to agree to a playing time offered
by the offended player when the offending player
is required to do so. ¶SC 11-12.
- The offending
player refuses to play their designated
opponent, regardless of the reason.
Two occurrences of partially established blame by one
player in regards to one game shall constitute
clearly established blame.
Blame can be partially established when:
A player fails to
meet the 48 hour contact deadline established in
Section 10(D), but makes contact within the next
24 hours agreeing to one of the three times the
offended player has set in their original
message. ¶SC 27-28
- A player only
partially fulfills the contact requirements of
10(C.i) prior to the 48-hour deadline. ¶ SC33-34
- During the
continuing communications, the offending player
to reply in a timely manner as determined by the
Tournament Director. ¶SC 37-38
- A player makes
offers during the first week, but fails to make
three distinct offers as specified in 10(C).
- The offending
player logs off before the end of the Grace
Period. ¶ SC27-28
- Each single action
or forum post may constitute at most one
incident of partial blame, even if more than one
statute has been violated.¶ SC 35-36
Evaluations of partially established blame shall
be included in the overall determinations of
equal or greater blame in a game not played. The
two possible decisions are (1) draw, or (2)
forfeit of the player with more blame.
- In cases of partially
established blame, both players are required to
schedule their game in accordance with Section 10.
In cases of clearly established blame,
the game shall be ruled a forfeit (SC26-27)
A double forfeit may be issued
if blame can be clearly established for both players
for violations of the “no contact”
and “no show” provisions of Section 10.
- Players and Team
Captain can only request that a forfeit be granted.
The Tournament Director is the sole person who can
The Tournament Director may grant a forfeit even if
it is not requested, if the requirements of this section
Notwithstanding subsection (A)(iii)of this section,
All forfeits are official and final at either the
Game Completion Deadline of the round following the
round the game was to be played or the Game
Completion Deadline of the final round of the
tournament, whichever is sooner.
Not Approved: 5 yes, 6 no; Sept. 29, 2008
Item 4. Delay of game - Proposed new
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
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.
||12 greater blames
||5 greater blames
||Pct After RRR
||Pct Before RRR
(Result: No change in Tiebreaks)
Item 6. What to do when ICC adjusts a player’s
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
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
Choice A. (Friday) has passed by a vote of 9-2.
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.
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
- 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
- Once this posts is made, a player is not
obligated to make any other offers until the opponent replies.
- 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.
- 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
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.
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.
- 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.
- 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.
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
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: