The International Correspondence Chess Federation 2014 Congress Sydney, Australia Table of Contents

Playing Rules Commission

List of the members of the PRC:

Leo Lahdenmäki (FIN) Vice Chairman

Duncan Chambers (ENG)

Kristo Miettinen (USA)

Nikolay Poleshchuk (RUS)

Kenneth Reinhart (USA)

Uwe Staroske (GER)

Wim van Vugt (NLD)

Ragnar Wikman (FIN)

Eric Ruch (FRA) ICCF President, member in all Commissions

Michael Millstone (USA) General Secretary, member in all Commissions
Since last, Ralph Marconi has asked to step down from the Commission. Ralph is heartily thanked for all his dedicated work for the Commission during a long time of service. As there is a proposal to join the two Rules Commission into one, no replacement has been sought.

General Secretary Note to All: the first two proposals listed in this report were (a) not submitted properly (i.e., by a national federation delegate and to the General Secretary) and (b) will not be voted on in the 2015 Congress. They are included in this report to encourage further discussion on topics.

This year we had 5 proposals to be considered:

1. 
   Reflection Time Modification Proposal: “Wealth Tax”
   

To support the spirit of AMICI SUMUS a discussion proposal is made.

In order to reduce the stockpiling of reflection time to delay the result a change proposal for the reflection time rules for correspondence chess is made. The goal is to keep the opportunity to carry forward reflection time for the critical phases of a game to some extent while reducing the extensive accumulation of reflection time especially in the late phase of a game. This should be reached with a small change of the existing rules keeping the reflection time similar for most of the games.

Extend the statement to the carried forward time in Rule 6b.as follows:

„Time remaining on a player's clock, when reaching a time control, is carried forward. “ To be replaced by
Half of the time remaining on a player's clock, when reaching a time control, is carried forward.
Rationale:

The approach is similar to a wealth tax. As it is not intended the players to stockpile too much reflection time (*accumulate instead of invest“) several approaches are possible (to „tax“):

6. 
   The capitalistic approach („no taxes“) - full carriage forward as in the present rules.
   
7. 
   The communistic approach („equal wealth for all“) - limit maximal accumulated carriage forward.
   
8. 
   The socialistic approach („higher taxes for rich people“) - the present proposal.
   
9. 
   
   

Playing Rules Commission Comments:

There were 6 votes against and 2 in favour of this proposal. The mayor issues are that this can change the behavior of the player in that to avoid taxation the games may be prolonged in calendar time and the fact that the so-called DMD is taken care of by the Code of Conduct amendment of last year. I have had a few reports where players has complained to the TD and their opponents has got the picture and rather than risking penalties resigned their games in the next move. The PRC do not recommend this proposal.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

2. 
   To introduce a deferred move transmission.
   

There was only one in favour of this proposal, 7 against. Even though the PRC do recognize that the quick answer, in an hour or so is perceived by many just as annoying as the so-called DMD.

However, one idea is to have less reflection time like 40 days/10 moves and then have a 48 hours not showing of the move to the opponent. However, in the period no discussion on the subject was made. The reason for saying no is that a player can wait the days himself, without ICCF put money and efforts to add this feature to the server and thus the PRC does not recommend this proposal.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Modify the server rules 1e, 1f, 1fTEAM, 3b, 3bTEAM, 5c, 5f, 10a to reduce the role of a human TD.

Human TDs have limitations. They are slow to respond, could be on vacation etc. The work is clerical in nature and requires no human decision making. Actions are better automated in the server and would completely avoid controversy. Shift responsibilities to players and leave the persons appointed as TDs to do other useful work for ICCF.

If a player should lose internet access and is unable, for whatever reason, to re-establish access within 30 days, he/she will be considered to have withdrawn from the tournament. The period of 30 days is allowed once a year.

In today’s day and age, internet access is available to the average person through multiple devices including mobile phones. While travelling, public Wi-Fi (hotels, airports), Data enabled mobile phones and tablets, USB dongles etc. are in widespread use.

Results of games which progress to their normal conclusion, will be automatically recorded and the Tournament Director will be informed, through the system. In all other circumstances, players are responsible for making claims or communicating with the Tournament Director, for the resolution of problems or disputes.

f. TEAM: Results of games, which progress to their normal conclusion, will be automatically recorded and the Tournament Director will be informed, through the system. In all other circumstances, Team Captains are responsible for making claims or communicating with the Tournament Director, for the resolution of problems or disputes.

Replace by: Results of games will be recorded by the server. There are no claims. If a player exceeds the time limit or the silence period, the server would score the result without any human intervention. If the position reached is a 6-men table-base, the TD would automatically be informed and he would adjudicate the game. In such cases, the game would be frozen pending table-base adjudication with no move possible by either player.
Rationale:

Asking a player to lodge a claim of the opponent having exceed the time limit or silence period and then having TDs and TCs check, is needless clerical work. It is better checked by a computer than a human is. With properly formulated rules, there is no question of dispute or problem. Only if the server acted incorrectly (software failure or technical failure) one could appeal. TDs and TCs presently sending emails back and forth should become free to do work more beneficial to the growth of ICCF. (As TC, I receive an email stating that one of my players is about to exceed the silence period. What do you want me to do? I can at most send the same email again to the player. However, what is the use of that, he would already have got the email from ICCF).

When a player is sent a final reminder after 35 days of response time, he/she must either move or report to the Tournament Director and to his/her opponent, the intention to continue the game, within 5 days of that reminder. If a player does not move or otherwise report his/her intention to continue, during the 40 days of response time for the same move, the game may be scored as lost by the Tournament Director.

b. TEAM: When a player is sent a final reminder after 35 days of response time, he/ she must either move or report to the Tournament Director, via the Team Captain, and to his/her opponent, the intention to continue the game, within 5 days of that reminder. If a player does not move or otherwise report his/her intention to continue, during the 40 days of response time for the same move, the game may be scored as lost by the Tournament Director.

Replace by: Reminders are sent by the server. It is the player’s responsibility to stay within the time limit and the silence period. If a player does not do so, the game will scored as lost by server action.

Rule 5c: If a player does not answer enquiries from the Tournament Director, that player may be deemed to have withdrawn from the tournament.

Delete this rule

Rationale: Monitoring of games is done by the server. That is what computers are for. Humans are not required here. We do not need any enquiry from a TD.
Rule 5f: The Tournament Director and opponents must be notified immediately if any substantial failure of hardware or software occurs.

Delete this rule
Rule 10a: The Tournament Director may penalise or disqualify players who break these rules.

Delete this rule
Rationale: Any action taken by a human TD will be subjective. Anyway, what is the rule that a player can break? He can exceed the time limit or he can be silent. Then the server acts. No TD needed. (Only place a TD might act is if the opponent is sending offensive messages, but I do not see any rule for that).

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

There were no votes in favour of this proposal in complete. The mayor issue is that if there is a not well working TD he should be removed rather than every TD is released from his duties. A tournament has a TD who is responsible for that the event goes well and fair. In addition, to keep the human touch is the wish of the PRC. However, a few things reached a couple of votes in favour, the removal of 1e about losing connection. This must be the player’s own responsibility. 3b and 11a (Used to be 10 before the TB came into the rules) are advised to not be changed. 5c and 5f got one or two votes in favour, but as a principle, the PRC does not recommend this proposal to Congress.

4)

Role of Team Captain in Server Claims

Wales

Replace the following section of 1f f. TEAM: Results of games, which progress to their normal conclusion, will be automatically recorded and the Tournament Director will be informed, through the system. In all other circumstances, Team Captains are responsible for making claims or communicating with the Tournament Director, for the resolution of problems or disputes. With f. TEAM: Results of games, which progress to their normal conclusion, will be automatically recorded and the Tournament Director will be informed, through the system, claims will be made directly by players to the Tournament Director. In all other circumstances, Team Captains are responsible for communicating with the Tournament Director, for the resolution of problems or disputes. Remove the following from 1b b. TEAM: When a player is sent a final reminder after 35 days of response time, he/ she must either move or report to the Tournament Director, via the Team Captain, and to his/her opponent, the intention to continue the game, within 5 days of that reminder. If a player does not move or otherwise report his/her intention to continue, during the 40 days of response time for the same move, the game may be scored as lost by the Tournament Director.

Scope of Proposal: ICCF Playing Rules, Server

Proposed by: Welsh Correspondence Chess Federation

Proposal:

Replace the following section of 1f

With

Remove the following from 1b

A structured system for processing claims was introduced on the server in 2014, this system requires the player to complete an online form, stating the details of the claim; this form is then either evaluated automatically by the system, or forwarded to the Tournament Director for processing.

In the case of games in team events, the claim cannot be processed by the Tournament Director until it has been validated by the Team Captain; this is consistent with the current rules, however it introduces a high level of complexity into the claim process for team events; this has resulted in confusion amongst players, Team Captains, and Tournament Directors. There have been several help desk incidents from Tournament Directors who could not understand why it was not possible to evaluate a claim sent directly from a player. It is proposed that the claim system would be simplified and usability enhanced if players were able to make claims directly to the TD in team events.
Other Considerations:

It could be argued that Team Captains should retain control over claims, because there may be significant situations in team games where a decision must be made whether to claim a draw or play on for a win in a particular game.

1. 
   If a Team Captain wishes his players to consult on claims, this is an internal matter of team discipline and not the concern of the Tournament Director. This proposal does not remove the possibility for players to confer with their captains; it only removes the requirement for them to do so.
   
2. 
   Following the same argument, the Team Captain should be responsible for offering and accepting draw offers. This is not currently the case, and the rule is therefore inconsistent. We are proposing to remove this inconsistency.
   

There were 4 votes against and 3 in favour of this proposal. The question here to be identified is whether we shall have Team Captains. It seems that the issue arises because of the new procedure for claims that was introduced last year. It was not communicated very well to the players and team captains who had to ask a lot on how it works and this caused more work for the HelpDesk. It could also be argued that the player shall always go to the team captain with whatever he has on his mind, claims, conflicts, questions, etc. Now, if the proposal is accepted, he will need to write his claims directly to the TD. In addition, what if he can’t make the claim in any of the 5 supported languages? This is also an important matter for the TC! With the present system, he can write his claim to the TC in his own language, and the TC can translate it into a language known by the TD! And the TC can withdraw a claim that he finds to be in error. If the TD receives it, it is bound to be a warning or other penalties.

However, with 4-3 I would not say that the recommendation is clear.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
5)

The ICCF Laws of Correspondence Chess

Wales

It is proposed that the ICCF Rules Commission establishes a document entitled The ICCF Laws of Correspondence Chess. Initially the ICCF Laws of Correspondence Chess should be taken from the current FIDE Laws of Chess, with the following simple amendments: The first line of the introduction should be amended to “ICCF Laws of Correspondence Chess cover correspondence play”, All references to FIDE should be replaced with ICCF, Any reference to OTB play, for example the touch move rule, is either removed or amended for relevance. From 1.1.2015, all references to the “FIDE Laws of Chess” in the ICCF rules will be replaced with a reference to the “ICCF Laws of Correspondence Chess”. ICCF Congress is empowered to make changes to the ICCF Laws of Correspondence Chess by simple majority vote. Changes in the FIDE Laws of Chess will only be cascaded to the ICCF Laws of Correspondence Chess with the approval of ICCF Congress by simple majority vote.

Title of Proposal: The ICCF Laws of Correspondence Chess

“FIDE Laws of Chess cover over-the-board play.”

1. 
   It is proposed that the ICCF Rules Commission establishes a document entitled The ICCF Laws of Correspondence Chess.
   
2. 
   Initially the ICCF Laws of Correspondence Chess should be taken from the current FIDE Laws of Chess, with the following simple amendments:
   
   1. 
      The first line of the introduction should be amended to “ICCF Laws of Correspondence Chess cover correspondence play”,
      
   2. 
      All references to FIDE should be replaced with ICCF,
      
   3. 
      Any reference to OTB play, for example the touch move rule, is either removed or amended for relevance.
      
3. 
   From 1.1.2015, all references to the “FIDE Laws of Chess” in the ICCF rules will be replaced with a reference to the “ICCF Laws of Correspondence Chess”.
   
4. 
   ICCF Congress is empowered to make changes to the ICCF Laws of Correspondence Chess by simple majority vote.
   
5. 
   Changes in the FIDE Laws of Chess will only be cascaded to the ICCF Laws of Correspondence Chess with the approval of ICCF Congress by simple majority vote.
   

The FIDE laws of Chess are maintained by the FIDE Rules Commission to govern over the board chess; these rules are specifically designed by FIDE to cover situations that occur in OTB tournaments. FIDE have no responsibility for organising correspondence chess events and no interest in the rules of correspondence chess. It is fully acknowledged by FIDE that the FIDE Laws of Chess do not apply to any form of chess other than OTB chess. It is therefore inappropriate for ICCF to use a rulebook, which specifically excludes correspondence chess from its scope.

The PRC did not really get a discussion saying yes or no to this issue, it is a bit complex. It could also affect the status of our affiliation to FIDE. We do recognize the last paragraph in the proposal. It would not be acceptable. What happened was that FIDE changed the definition of draw to have 2 more definitions of draw:

1) If a game is played 75 moves, without capture or pawn move, and neither player claiming draw, then the arbiter will score the game as draw.
2) If a position is the same for 5 times and neither player claiming draw, then the arbiter will score the game as draw.
It is also argued that we still have the “where applicable” paragraph, which for instance interprets that “touched piece” is not valid in ICCF. Usually FIDE does not change their basic laws of chess, even though they do sometimes change the definition of draw. The situation was discussed with the Service Director and we decided that the changes above would not make any change in the server application. It will be an issue for the TD to recognize if these positions have arisen. It will be treated similar to the case of dead position. The positions cannot be identified automatically. To my knowledge, it has not caused any problem in the past.
The PRC do recommend that the EB take a wider perspective on this issue. A working group could be considered. One question in particular is how far can ICCF go from FIDE Laws of Chess and still call our play chess? We already have the table base that makes an identical game that is draw in FIDE to be a win in ICCF.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

_________________________________________________________

I would like to thank all members of the PRC for their dedicated and cooperative work and input!

Kind Regards and Amici Sumus

Per Söderberg, Chairman of the PRC

Bromma, Sept 1^st 2014

A request from the Services Director to implement the now approved changes to rule 1(f) to be effective immediately for all running ICCF tournaments instead of tournaments starting after 01.01.2015. This proposal would greatly streamline the implementation.

Following was a proposal of the Playing Rules (3b) (Team) that removed the portion of wording that directs players to advise a TC and his or her opponent of the intention to continue a game after a 35-days final reminder.

The proposal from Wales:

1. 
   It is proposed that the ICCF Rules Commission establishes a document entitled The ICCF Laws of Correspondence Chess.
   
2. 
   Initially the ICCF Laws of Correspondence Chess should be taken from the current FIDE Laws of Chess, with the following simple amendments:
   
   1. 
      The first line of the introduction should be amended to “ICCF Laws of Correspondence Chess cover correspondence play”,
      
   2. 
      All references to FIDE should be replaced with ICCF,
      
   3. 
      Any reference to OTB play, for example the touch move rule, is either removed or amended for relevance.
      
3. 
   From 1.1.2015, all references to the “FIDE Laws of Chess” in the ICCF rules will be replaced with a reference to the “ICCF Laws of Correspondence Chess”.
   
4. 
   ICCF Congress is empowered to make changes to the ICCF Laws of Correspondence Chess by simple majority vote.
   

Changes in the FIDE Laws of Chess will only be cascaded to the ICCF Laws of Correspondence Chess with the approval of ICCF Congress by simple majority vote.

The last Rules proposal was submitted by the Welsh Federation.