So the real trick is to come up with some way to address the cheating issue with Palms and Laptops. In small local tournaments that might not be that difficult. A simple matter of the TD walking about.
But sometimes perception is just as big of a problem. Years ago when I experimented using the Palm I used a dedicated scoring program and was very careful to make my move, turn on the palm, score the move, and then turn off the palm. This worked well because of the way the palm comes back to where it was turned off at. It also perserved the batteries.
At the same time it felt very geeky. The main problem in my mind was actually the reason I was using the palm in the first place. It automatically saved the game. So consequently after the game was over I never looked at the game again.
I found it was much better to use the palm as an entry device after the game was over. Inputting the game forced me to go over it and I was still left with a pgn record to transfer to the computer which I could then ignore
If we use your argument Mike, you would be defending that rule 16O with defective clocks would be irrelevant. If the flag gets stuck, if the batteries go dead, if the clock stop ticking? At some point common sense has to take over. Just to make an argument to use common sense, you have to understand the two problems with common sense. What is common to you is not common to everyone else. What makes sense to you does not make sense to everyone else.
There is a difference between electronic scorekeepers and paper scoresheets. It did take the USCF number of years to define the difference between digital clocks and analog clocks. It is going to take just as long to define the difference between electronic scorekeepers and paper scoresheets.
I’m just pointing out there are not clear rules how a director should address a defective electronic scorekeeper. It is a given that electronic scorekeepers are going to be part of tournaments, it is just that the USCF has not define the rule differences between the two modes. If the USCF is unwilling to define the difference, than the USCF has given the state associations the liberty to define the difference.
You should understand how franchise companies work. Someone purchase a franchise from some company to sell some product with the name of the parent company. If you go to a McDonalds, the Big Mac should be the same in every single McDonalds. This is how the franchise and the parent company produce growth, as the customers accept the same standards from one McDonalds to the next.
Mike you are making the case that the USCF is irrelevant. If the USCF is not going to define the difference between electronic scorekeepers and paper scoresheets, then directors or the state associations are going to have to define the differences. That is not leadership from the USCF that is just following the pack. If the USCF is unwilling to define the rules, define the difference between electronic scorekeepers and paper scoresheets, than the USCF should be sold to a private company.
I don’t fear the MonRoi, apparently you still do, Douglas.
I don’t expect one to show up in my annual July tournament next year, but I suppose eventually one will. I’ve played with one (though not in a rated game), I’ve seen them in use, in fact I’ve seen well over 100 players using them simultaneously in Italy, and I’ve seen them in use at a USCF rated national event in Illinois.
I have heard of NO problems that were experienced with them at either site, except that there weren’t enough of them in Oak Brook to accomodate all the players who wanted to use (and purchase) them.
In fact, I was reminded of the early days of digital clocks, except that in this case the USCF rulebook embraced their use before they became widespread rather than try to forestall their use like the anti-digital clock rules did. Even King Canute knew he couldn’t stop the tide.
The extent to which you or others choose to deviate from USCF rules is your choice, as long as your players have sufficient knowledge to be able to make informed decisions about which events they choose to play in. The MonRoi is no different than the other issues where organizers or TDs may choose to deviate from the rules.
Most of the directors I know and respect have more than enough common sense to rationalize their way through any specific problems with the MonRoi, such as the types of situations that initiated this thread. But sometimes it helps to think a few of them through in advance.
And as specific situations are encountered, the rules for the MonRoi and equivalent devices will evolve, just as clock rules evolved when digital clocks came along.
I have the patience to deal with that, and I think I have the common sense to make my own decisions ahead of then.
There are always going to be cheating problems with the electronic scorekeepers. If I was going to cheat, I would use the MonRoi as a way to cheat. All that I need is the MonRoi and a cell phone, with someone in the hotel room with Fritz. The USCF does not have a rule dealing with scoresheets being taken away from the board. FIDE has this as the rule, the USCF nope. So if I leave the board, I can take the MonRoi with me. There is not a single rule in the rule book that say I have to keep my scoresheet at the board.
All that I have to do is walk out the tournament room with my MonRoi, then walk away from all the tournament players. Make a phone call, with the MonRoi showing the position on the board; tell my friend in the hotel room the position. With a few minutes, Fritz has given me the next best move. Then walk back to the board and make the move. The USCF does not have a rule with cell phones or to take the MonRoi out of the tournament room. If the USCF ran the Department of Homeland Security, you would be allowed to take a shotgun on an airplane as a carry on.
Fine, you can say the director can give me a warning not to remove the MonRoi from the tournament room. Then point out there is other people with the same electronic scorekeeper. Is the director telling the rest of the players they cannot remove the MonRoi from the tournament room? Since the USCF does not have these rules, the director is on thin ice. If the director says you cannot take the MonRoi out of the room, appeal the decision right then.
True, I could be going out of the tournament room with the MonRoi and use the cell phone to cheat. Now, since there are not any rules, the best that the director can really do is giving me a warning not to remove the MonRoi from the room. If the director goes past a warning and forfeits you, appeal the ruling right there and then. Even if you have to appeal it to the USCF, I do not see the USCF wants to make a ruling against a player with a MonRoi. To rule against a player with a MonRoi, would hurt the MonRoi Company. As it would be admitting from the USCF that the MonRoi could be used for cheating. A cheating scandal would hurt the image of the MonRoi Company, is it in the best interests of the USCF to let a cheater walk then make a scandal with the MonRoi Company?
Even if I did use the MonRoi to cheat, by the time the director gave me a warning not to take the MonRoi out of the tournament room, I could have gotten a number of moves from Fritz. You do not want to walk out of the tournament room for every single move. Just to walk out of the room during the most critical positions on the board. You could get help from your friend with Fritz for a number of games.
Now do you understand why I have a problem with electronic scorekeepers?
Doug you could do that without the Monroi. It would be like card counting in Vegas. You simply assign numbers to the squares with pcs and memorize those before leaving the room. And you wouldn’t really even need a cell phone with your method. You just have someone hidden away out in the parking lot.
True, but if you as good at counting cards in Vegas you would not need to use the electronic scorekeeper to cheat.
That is true, you could walk out of the tournament room from time to time to talk with someone in the hallway, or, in your case in the parking lot. But, if you are going to cheat why use the advice from someone a few hundred points higher than yourself when Fritz is much stronger than you and your friend. If you run out of the tournament room to talk with someone with a laptop computer with Fritz on, it is not going to take long before someone is going to make a claim you are cheating.
If you run out of the room and make a cell phone call, can anyone really say you were making a cell phone call to cheat? True, you can call your friend on the cell phone and tell the person the position on the board. Recalling the position in your mind and then telling your friend the same position from memory on a cell phone is not as simple as you would think.
Lets just replace the pieces with numbers, how many numbers can you recall if I give you five or seven numbers to repeat back to me. The chess board has thirty-two pieces, if I say to you on the phone twenty numbers can you repeat the twenty numbers back to me? The diagram of the electronic scorekeeper is the proof checker; all you have to do if confirm the pieces on the phone. Now if you and your friend have the skills to recall twenty numbers, than you would have the skills not to need to cheat.
Now if the USCF wants me to support the electronic scorekeepers, they have to approve a rule change that says the players cannot remove there scoresheets or there electronic scorekeepers from the board during the game. FIDE has this as part of there rules, why does not the USCF want to be in compliance with the same rule as FIDE. Was it not the same argument with rule 15A, the USCF was not in compliance with FIDE so lets change the rule?
The only way I would be willing to support electronic scorekeepers, if there was a rule that says the players are forbidden to remove there electronic scorekeepers or there paper scoresheets when the game is in progress. If there was a rule that made it forbidden to remove the electronic scorekeepers or the paper scoresheets, than the problem of the electronic scoresheets or the paper scoresheets would become moot.
It doesn’t take a Mon Roi for people to cheat in the manner that you described. Somebody can simply walk oout of the room with the opponents last move in their head, or even written on a scrap of paper and make their phone call. Even before the big cheating scandels broke out, I have actually seen players object to their opponents taking their scoresheet or scorebook out of the room thinking that their opponent was going to get help while “going to the bathroom.” I’ve mostly seen that complaint at the scholastic nationals. This is also the reason that big money tournaments such as the World Open are banning players from even using a phone during their game.
Even though I still strongly disagree with “move first, write second” being applied to paper scoresheets, I don’t feel like the rules went through a major rewrite to accomodate elelectronic scorekeepers.
There were several workshops at the US Open where the Mon Roi was discussed extensively. Even the representatives of MonRoi discussed the cheating issues. At the Scholastic workshop there was a good discussion on how to handle the the piece of equipment. Some of the suggestions offered were:
Show the opponent the device at the beginning of the game. (I don’t consider that being different then explaining one’s clock. There are enough new clocks coming out that still make this neccessary at times.)
Leave the device on top of the table at all times, so that opponent can see what is being done with it.
Leave the device at the table or ask the TD to hold it when leaving the room.
In terms of other means of electronic scorekeeping, I think until a device is certified for tournament use it probably should not allowed. There is no way I would allow someone to sit there with a laptop computer and keep score using Fritz in 2 player mode. Even if I though the person was being completely honest, I think it would be a big distraction.
Several years ago I allowed my opponent to use Chess Pad on his Palm Pilot to notate our game during a quad at our club. It wasn’t a big deal except that he got a big edge on the clock because keeping score took less time. For all I know he could have been using Pocket Fritz, but if I can’t trust the President of my chess club who can I trust?
I don’t think I would allow that in a big money tournament since it’s not as easy to distiguish between Chess Pad and Pocket Fritz on a Palm. One of the points made at the US Open during the workshops was that it’s very easy to distinguish a Mon Roi from other hand held devices. The interface is quite distinct from other chess interfaces I’ve seen on Palm, or the little electronic chess computers.
Even though the Mon Roi people have assured everyone that their device is tamper proof I can’t help but to think someone, somewhere is trying to reprogam it. But given all the less obvious and more sophisticated methods of electronic cheating that have come up lately I’m not sure cheating with such a highly controversial and publicized device is going to be #1 on the cheaters’ list of ways to beat the system.
As an honest chess player using one of these devices it does not bother me in the least that I may come under extra scrutiny or be subjected to slightly different rules because I choose to use one.
I’m not sure their use will become quite as widespread as digital clocks. Some people will always prefer writing their moves on paper. Regardless of what method one’s opponent chooses to use to notate one can always notate the way they want. If I use Algebraic it doesn’t mean my opponent does. I still come across a few opponents who still use English Descriptive. So if I show up with Mon Roi it doesn’t mean my opponent is going to have to rent one to play me.
Digital clocks are a different story. You can own an analog clock, bring it to the tournament ,but chances are you end out playing many of your games with your opponent’s digital clock. The rules were changed to make time delay the preferred time control. Digital clock prices have dropped tremendously in that one can buy a cheap digital at price comparible to an analog clock.
No matter how cheap the electronic score keepers become I don’t see them ever becoming the preferred method of score keeping.
Correct me if I’m wrong but it seems to me that you are saying your problem is that the Monroi device and or electronic score keeping devices in general make it easier and thus more likely for players to cheat.
And I’m responding with the fact that there are just as many other ways to cheat already existant. I agree that it would take a little bit of training to memorize board positions but I don’t think it couldn’t be done, especially when you use the relationship of the pieces to each other.
At all the scholastic tournaments I have seen the kids have to raise their hands and get permission to go to the restroom. Should we start treating the adults the same? No more wandering around the tournament room? You have to stay at your board while playing? That would probably help drive some more players away from chess.
Now realize I’ve never directed or played in an adult tournament of over 60 players (approx. didn’t go check the MSA ) so my experience isn’t reflecting the large big money tournaments. So my experience has shown the vast majority of chess players to be honest, sportsmanlike and playing to improve their game. To some of those the Monroi is a tool to be used in that improvement. I believe that is useage is a good thing.
By disallowing it you simply punish the innocent majority to catch the one or two bad apples.
I really don’t know why we keep discussing this over and over. The “cheating with a MonRoi” subject has come up several times and been discussed here and in Chicago. MCA isn’t saying anything new or worth further discussion – it’s the same old ground.
I wasn’t talking about you, though. I just really don’t understand why Douglas keeps semi-coherently bringing up these same issues on MonRoi over and over when he was involved in the original discussions.
Your questions were new and brought up some interesting points (switching to a written scoresheet and writing down information that the MonRoi doesn’t keep). I didn’t see anything wrong with discussing them.
I don’t see the point in the “cheating with at MonRoi” discussion when Douglas keeps raising the same points and getting the same answers every time. People have no more opportunity to cheat with a MonRoi than they have always had.
My point is this with electronic scorekeepers and paper scoresheets, the players at this time can take the electronic scorekeepers and paper scoresheets with them away from the board during and active game. There should not be any difference with the chess clock (digital or analog), there should not be any difference with the mode of scorekeeping (electronic scorekeeper or paper scoresheets), and they should not be able to be removed from the board when there is an active game. It is very clear in the rules; you cannot pick up the clock during the game. True, you have to pick up the electronic scorekeepers or the paper scoresheets. Just to make sure the mode of recording the game cannot be used for cheating, the players have to be forbidden from taken the mode of recording the game away from the board.
The only way this mode of scorekeeping is going to be trusted, the scorekeeping with the electronic scorekeepers. Is with a rule the electronic scorekeepers and the paper scoresheets cannot be removed from the board during the game. FIDE has a rule that the scoresheets and the electronic scorekeepers cannot be removed from the board during the game. The USCF in my judgment should be in compliance with FIDE with this rule.
If this was a rule, it would make it moot and void if the player did use or did not use the electronic scorekeepers away from the board to perform some type of cheating. It will also make it a moot and void if the player did use or did not use the paper scoresheet to perform some type of cheating as well. Because if the director does notice someone with the electronic scorekeeper or the paper scoresheet away from the board during the game, the director would have the right to forfeit the player.
Have been thinking to propose a standing rule change with this type of rule for the Michigan Chess Association. The problem with this idea, it is not that it would not pass; will it stand up in an appeal to the USCF? Since the USCF and the MonRoi Company have become so interactive, with the MonRoi Company influencing the rules and the policies of the USCF. Would view that any rules to limit the scope or the liberty of the user to use the electronic scorekeeper would be over turned without a fair review.
I don’t believe there is any evidence to support these charges. The USCF has not let its policies be influenced by MonRoi – its policies are being influenced by MEMBERS that want the MonRoi to be allowed (quite properly influenced, IMO). Nobody “paid off” ME when I was speaking at the last delegates meeting and I’m pretty sure I can say the same of every delegate that voted on the matter. It’s just simply insulting to claim you wouldn’t get a FAIR REVIEW.
Before I became a Life Member, my membership ended February 28. Even asked Larry Pond to change the ending date of my tournament director certification to end on February 28. At this time, my certification will end February 28, 2009. At the time paid up my USCF membership to end on February 28, 2009. At the time was just going to be a director and be a USCF till that time. After that date, just walk away from any type of chess.
Then on day, some woman called me on the phone. I’m not sure what her name was, but she was working for the MonRoi Company. She was informing me how the MonRoi Company was concern about my posting on the USCF Forums. She wanted me to change my view with the MonRoi. Then she offered a bribe of a free USCF Life Membership if I would stop attacking the MonRoi Company.
Someone offering me a bribe of a USCF Life Membership made me more upset than you can ever dream. Then I was thinking they could make a second bribe of a USCF Life Membership. If you think about it, walking away from a USCF Life Membership that is free can be very hard. Just to make sure someone is never going to make a bribe like that a second time. I saved up and made a number of sustaining payments every single month for just a few months to pay off the USCF Life Membership.
Think of it this way, I have walked away from a free USCF Life Membership, then worked to get my USCF Life Membership, so yes I have good reasons to be upset. If I was offered a bribe of a USCF Life Membership, who else was offered a bribe?
I don’t understand why anyone would have made such an offer to you. Maybe she thought it was cheaper than filing a lawsuit against you for the way you had lied about her company’s product, but it still seems like a bad decision to me.
But I think you’re confusing your terms. A BRIBE is something you offer a person in authority, like an elected official. You weren’t an elected official. What she offered was to pay you to endorse her product – paid endorsements are not unheard of and are not improper!
Quite a few of us vocally supported the MonRoi without any financial incentive, because we believe it’s a great product. Has anyone else been offered any incentives?
Just because you were making such a pest of yourself that somebody was willing to PAY to shut you up, doesn’t mean anybody else did anything improper.
[quote="Douglas_Forsythe
Then on day, some woman called me on the phone. I’m not sure what her name was, but she was working for the MonRoi Company. She was informing me how the MonRoi Company was concern about my posting on the USCF Forums. She wanted me to change my view with the MonRoi. Then she offered a bribe of a free USCF Life Membership if I would stop attacking the MonRoi Company.
Someone offering me a bribe of a USCF Life Membership made me more upset than you can ever dream. Then I was thinking they could make a second bribe of a USCF Life Membership. If you think about it, walking away from a USCF Life Membership that is free can be very hard. Just to make sure someone is never going to make a bribe like that a second time. I saved up and made a number of sustaining payments every single month for just a few months to pay off the USCF Life Membership.
[/quote]
I find that hard to believe. Care to provide some proof? Though my dealings with the Mon Roi people was just at workshops and meetings in Oakbrook, they did not strike me as being afraid of USCF Forum ramblings about their product.
For the record I was a vocal critic of the change in Rule 15A. At the delegates meeting I was one of a number of people who spoke against the rule change. I voted against the rule change, and I think the vote was actually closer then tanstaafl thought it was. It did pass and even though I still think it isn’t neccessary for written scores I’ll live with it. I probably will not enforce it for players using a paper score sheet, and as a player I’m not going to complain to the TD if my opponent writes his move down first.
As others have stated the cheating issues have nothing to do the method of scorekeeping. Sad to say in this day and age cheating is prevelant in all types of competitions. Whether it’s drugs in speed and strength sports, paying off judges in style sports, or outside assistance in brain sports rules have been changed to try to deal with the cheaters. Unfortunately as new ways of cheating arise then new rules will be devised.
Hopefully chess doesn’t get to the point that no player will be allowed to bring anything into the playing hall except two pencils or the organizer provided electronic scoresheet, will have to wear the official organizer provided playing uniform that has no place to hide unauthorized items such as an MP3 player, and has to be accompanied to the bathroom by a TD.
Hmmmm, maybe I quickly email these suggestions to johnnybear to bring up at tonight’s Cheating Town Hall Meeting in NYC.
The MonRoi device is no different to a regular scoresheet. If my opponent walks away from the table with his scoresheet then I’m going to complain about it, the same as I would with a MonRoi.
As for how to reconstruct a position, with the USCF enforcing the “rules off” mode on the device it actually is very simple to shuffle the pieces around to reconstruct the current position and continue recording from there. Yes, the device will record moves for notation for those but at least you’ll be able to continue recording from that point. Of course with the “rules on” mode it becomes a little more difficult as all the position adjustments have to be legal moves. However, despite the numerous tournaments and games that I have broadcast using the system I have yet to encounter this specific problem.
I’m sure there are hundreds of other unanswered questions regarding the MonRoi that will come about by user experience. I guess we won’t know most of them until we cross those bridges. However, maybe some people should use the premise “don’t knock it until you’ve tried it” then come back and post with a little more knowledge and credibility.
If someone walks off with my spiral scoresheet book, I’m frustrated and a bit ticked, if someone walks off with my $395 MonRoi, I’m p*ssed!
As I recall, one feature the MonRoi is missing is a security slot, so I can secure it to the table. (I’ve mentioned that to the people at MonRoi more than once, I don’t know if they got the message, though.)
If you had a $250 Mont Blanc pen, would you leave it on the table when you went to get a drink?
I agree and I’m surprised nobody has taken one yet at the many events I’ve been to with the MonRoi in use.
The only thing I can say is that the device is programmed with a person’s name as a security feature. That way if someone uses it at another event, and the TD has the monitoring device (very important to note that!) then the TD can see the original player’s name on the device, which should raise a red flag if it is being used by someone else.
The problem with electronic scorekeepers, there are not any written rules to deal with complex problems that will or could happen during a tournament. There are not any rules to deal with a defective electronic scorekeeper. There are not any rules to deal with someone that takes the electronic scorekeeper outside of the tournament room. There are not any rules how to deal with the borrowing of the electronic scorekeeper. There is at this time, major voids with the rules or lack of rules how to deal with these complex problems.
There are a number of posters that point out the MonRoi was use at such and such tournament without a problem with the device. That does not prove anything other then the tournament ran without a problem. Just to point out games after games were the director was not needed to settle a dispute, does not prove a flaw with the system.
Number of posters will say just use the same rules with paper scoresheets as you would with the electronic scorekeeper. That in my view is a very simpleton answer to the problems that need an answer to the questions. If the USCF is unwilling to answer these questions, than it gives the director unlimited control and liberty without accepted boundaries
The rules of chess is a social contract, it states what is acceptable conduct between the players, as it also sets the limits what the director can impose if there is a trespass of the social contract. Players and other directors will point out rule 1A when an issue comes before the director without any backing of the rules of chess. But, rule 1A as simple as it is, does give the director the right to become a despot. Without rules to guide the director, the director has free liberty to make any judgment.
If the USCF does not come up with rules when there are problems with electronic scorekeepers, than the director has the right to become a despot. With the start of this tread, it was a question how to deal with a defective electronic scorekeeper. At the current time, are there any rules how to deal with a defective electronic scorekeeper: that answer is no. If the director forfeits someone because the player has a defective electronic scorekeeper, does the director have that right? Well, without rules the director can be a despot.
If the USCF is not going to come up with rules to deal with the problems of electronic scorekeepers. It could be best to just use the rule on scoresheets were it says the organizer has the right to demand the players use the paper scoresheets provided by the organizer.
