Prohibiting a second scoresheet is not a major variation that would need to be announced in advance. The standard per rule 26B is whether or not the variation in question might reasonably deter some players from entering. Here the answer is no. The key word is “reasonably.”
I actually agree with Ms. Thorpe on this, and would probably allow the second scoresheet subject to a complaint from the opponent, when the circumstances of the claim would dictate my ruling. However, I wouldn’t refuse to enter a tournament simply because I could not keep score on two different sheets. That just seems silly.
Rule 20C specifically allows the recording of clock times. If you want to be able to stop people from doing this you’ll need to get an ADM drafted and passed.
I’ve actually spoken to many people in the last few weeks who feel that they wish to use their electronic scoresheet because of the post-event time savings, and given their limited time to dedicate to chess, would avoid events that wouldn’t allow such devices either as a primary or secondary scoresheet.
I play chess primarily for enjoyment. With exceptions, I will avoid events where I cannot use headphones, and I would likely avoid events that would limit my use of an electronic scoresheet as well.
Thank you for defining my desire to be time effective as “unreasonable.”
It may seem silly to a TD who neither uses nor likes the devices. To the player who used and likes them, the vantage point is different. We ought to assess what a reasonable person might do from the perspective of the person who wouldn’t like the variation.
A “reasonable person” would not raise the question in the first place. He would play under the rules of the competition. If he does not like those rules, then he always has the option to make the emotional decision not to play. He can sit at home and cuddle with his emotional support peacock.
At one time a player complained to me that an opponent was receiving help during the game. He complained that his opponent had something in his hand. After checking the other player, I found that he was holding what was called a “worry stone,” the holding or rubbing of the stone supposedly relieved stress. It was a Zen thing. At times he would hold it openly. At others he would place it in his lap or put it in his pocket until needed. Was it an “aid to memory”? That would be hard to determine. It was a small matter, but since it was a distraction to the person who made the original complaint, I ruled that the stone be put away. The other guy complained that there was nothing in the rules that said that he could not have a “worry stone.” I agreed that there was nothing specific in the rules, but since there was a formal complaint about its presence and use, it was my task to rule on whether it distracted the opponent. Afterwards he swore he would not play in another tournament where I was a director. I told him that was his decision; I could not force him to play. He showed up at the next tournament. If the organizer has to list in pre-tournament publicity all of the distractors which are unacceptable, then it would fill up the flyer. There would then be someone complaining that because his distractor was not listed, therefore he could have it.
Again we see the unfortunate habit that has become more commonplace among some TDs to denigrate players who want something different than what they are offering.
Mr. Bachler’s response reminds me of a story recently related to me by a relatively strong player. Not identifying the TD or organizer, but apparently there was a young boy reaching into the water station, pulling out a fistful of ice cubes, sticking them down his pants, pulling them out, and then making sure some of the ice got into each pitcher.
Is it more “customer friendly” to evict this boy (and replace the water station), or to do nothing because the boy is a customer (as the TD allegedly did)?
In all honesty, the devices are certified and allowed under US Chess Rules. It is patently wrong to compromise the integrity of the rules simply because any particular person, TD or player or otherwise, does not like a specific rule.
Under the logic you use, if a TD does not like enforcing the touch move rule, he should be allowed to suspend that for his tournament.
And unfortunately for Mr. Relyea, following the US Chess rules is not tantamount to the gross behavior ascribed to that young player in the story he relates.
Why the heck are you addressing that comment to me? And particularly ilatly quoting that comment where I disagreed with those TDs who said they didn’t have to announce their variation in advance?
What relevance does that have to the topic at hand? In the case you’re describing, the boy is doing something disgusting and harmful on several levels. In the case of using an approved escoresheet, the behavior is neither disgusting nor harmful,and in fact has been approved.
A better analogy would be to say that instead of writing on his scoresheet with a pen, a boy was writing on it with a pencil. Because some people were concerned that the boy might possible erase his moves and write them over, and possibly actually extend that to a form of notetaking, is it more customer-friendly to let him record moves with a pencil, or more customer-friendly to give in to a mob mentality and kick him out?
Again, Alex. You have a math background. Your ability to build an analogy can’t possibly be so bad that you would compare an approved action with an action that is completely socially unacceptable. Do you think the people you’re discussing this with aren’t paying attention, or do you really just not think this through?
I don’t need or want customers who persistently display an anti-social insistence that the rules contemplate plural scoresheets. Their absence makes for a better experience for my non-anti-social customers.
Mr. Bachler’s quote above references nothing that has been approved by anyone. My point was simply that an organizer may under some circumstances have to determine whether customer friendliness requires respecting the wishes of the one vocal opponent or the wishes of the many silent.
Alex Relyea
P.S. My lack of attempt to refute anything Mr. Bachler says here or otherwise should in no way be construed as believing his position to be correct.
Again, a determination made out of bias. There are those who are buying these devices who are quite glad that someone is standing up for their rights against organizers who display a prejudice against them. For them, the insistence is quite social, and my guess is that most players don’t care, or soon won’t. They use the device to help them enjoy the game.
I’ve seen that users of older devices are now happy that an upgraded device is available. It’s pretty exciting to see advances in chess technology.
Apparently the US Chess office feels that 26B does apply to limiting the use of an approved e-scoresheet.
The THREAD is about an using a second scoresheet, something allowed by the rules. Your post of an analogy would be assumed to be an analogy only to the thread topic. If its something else, please move it to another thread as it is off-topic in that case.
While I agree with your point in general, your example is poor, because this thread is about a use is approved/allowed by the rules and the use of which follows the rules.
If applying customer friendliness in favor of the many is an important issue for you, perhaps you should reference national championships in which a non-school was allowed to win a scholastic championship, under the theory that the few kids on that “team” should be allowed to play as a team, even at the expense of the 1,500+ other players in the event. It would be nice if US Chess rules were applied consistently and logically, wouldn’t it? NTDs in that instance were unwilling to take action.
P.S. Your lack of attempt at attempting to refute what I have said here has only been construed as a an inability to provide a refutation. I assume that an (unnecessary) ADM will come up this year to provide an ability to limit these devices. (Of course organizers can limit their use now through 26B and 26A).
Apparently the US Chess office stated in a conversation that 26B does apply in the case of limiting an approved e-scoresheet.
I actually strongly agree with this, especially as there was no reason the players couldn’t have played as individuals or for the teams where they actually attended school. I have no knowledge as to who actually made that decision so I can’t comment on your last sentence.