| |
BGonline.org Forums
It's about time to change these rules
Posted By: Taper_Mike In Response To: It's about time to change these rules (Phil simborg)
Date: Wednesday, 25 November 2015, at 1:38 a.m.
Phil, you argue with the passion of a sincere believer. I cannot fault you for that. To my ear, however, there are several flaws in your logic.
You explain, for instance, that rule changes are made in all sports and games, and that most of them of are resisted when they are initially proposed. While that may be true, it is completely irrelevant to the issues at question. Good rule changes should be supported; bad ones should not be.
There are other irrelevant issues that are raised in your post. One is a person’s unwillingness to have his matches recorded, Such an argument neither strengthens nor weakens the valid arguments you make. It simply clouds the argument with non-issues. There is an implication that a person who agrees with your position vis-à-vis video recording should agree with your position on time controls. That’s bad logic.
Another statement I find to be almost irrelevant is your point that under current clocking rules a 15-point match can take over 5 hours. The relevant issue is not the fact that, in theory, such a match is possible. The important issue is the frequency of such matches. I have never seen one. I do not recall seeing a 15-pointer that took even 4 hours. While I can imagine a 15-point match that takes 4-hours, they must be rare. I do not find the possibility of a 5-hour match to be a convincing argument that we need to reduce time controls.
You realize, of course, that 5 hours is a gross understatement. Given a 12-second (or 10-second) delay, there is no theoretical limit on how long a match might take. Nack Ballard has constructed a well-played sequence that restores the opening position. Given the existence of this sequence, there is no upper bound on the length of a single game, let alone a match. As above, however, this is not an argument for changing time controls. The theoretical length of a match is irrelevant. What matters is how long one takes in practice. Until you can show that tournaments are frequently disrupted because clocked, 15-point matches regularly take over 5 hours to play, there is no problem. The theoretical possibility is irrelevant to the argument that time controls must be reduced.
As Mary Hickey points out, you have conflated the issue of making clocks mandatory with the issue of reducing time controls. Those are two different rule changes. Based on the responses here, most think the former is a good change. At least for now, those same respondents think the latter is a bad one. It is possible to support one without supporting the other. A fair hearing will separate the two.
When the issues are conflated, it is possible to make hazy arguments that allow readers to misinterpret a person’s statements. I do not know, for instance, whether David Levy supports reduced time controls. What I do know is that David reports making a clear statement to Las Vegas director Howard Markowitz saying that he would not return unless clocks were mandatory. In your last post, you cite David as a supporter of your position. Because your argument conflates mandatory clocks and reduced time controls, it is not clear what you think David supports. A careless reading may leave some with the idea that you are saying David supports reduced time controls. In your post, however, you never say this. You are vague in describing what David supports. Unless it is your desire you create confusion (which I do not believe it is), you need to separate the two issues. David supports mandatory clocking. He has not publicly stated an opinion on the issue of reducing time controls. Conflating the two issues makes for a confusing and weak argument.
The tournament in Las Vegas last week showed the weakness of a clocks-optional rule. Let’s get that changed to clocks-preferred or clocks-mandatory. If you insist that we must reduce time controls and make clocks mandatory, then we will likely get neither. These are two separate issues. Let’s keep them that way.
Mike
| |
BGonline.org Forums is maintained by Stick with WebBBS 5.12.