We had an issue at the tournament that I was Chief TD for last weekend where a kid was running Pocket Fritz on a Dell PDA instead of E-Notate.
All of the directors at the site (myself included) had not been aware that anything other than the E-Notate software could run on the Dell handheld. (His opponent actually thought he was using a Monroi with a fancy case, and had not been aware that there was a 2nd approved electronic scoresheet.)
My recommendation is that if you have players using the Dell handheld, go around at the start of each round to verify that there is a blue bar on the top left corner with “E-Notate” indicated to confirm that the approved software that can only function as a scoresheet is loaded and in use. (Which is what I did for the final round of the event.)
One might also want to check the Monroi in case the player started the analysis mode rather than the record mode. I think that the scholastic rules have been changed regarding the use of electronic score sheets. I remember some discussion, but have not checked the scholastic rules yet. We used to have the players register the device before the start of play. I believe this was discontinued due the the time it would take, particularly at National Scholastics. Now I wonder if we need to check each device at the start of play to insure the correct software is running. If this idea becomes consensus, perhaps there needs to be a table where each player brings there device after starting the software for a TD to check.
Regards, Ernie
As I recall, at a national scholastic, all MonRoi devices are to be registered with the person running the MonRoi server. (I know Jon Haskel does it for CCA events, and I tell all MonRoi players to register them with him.) Once this happens, the device can be monitored remotely.
This is one area where the MonRoi is superior to eNotate. (I say this as a user of eNotate.) eNotate can’t be monitored remotely, so TDs actually have to check them at the start of a game to be sure they’re in tournament mode.
Another potential issue: eNotate runs on Dell Axim PDAs, which have wireless connectivity. A particularly creative player could find ways to cheat using that capacity. (eNotate does block Internet access when in scorekeeping mode, so it’s not a fault of the program. Again, I’m thinking of a creative malevolent.)
Anyone who’s had experience with a computer virus or worm will know that just because one program turns some function off, that doesn’t mean another program running on the same device can’t turn it back on again.
Quite true. For large organizers (say, USCF or CCA), I think it’s a very worthwhile investment. Not so much for smaller organizers (though, if MonRoi’s PCM ever comes down in price, that might change).
Why would Dell make a PDA that only ran eNotate? Not very profitable for them if that had done that. It sounds like a misunderstanding was that while eNotate was in use, it is the only thing that will run while on the PDA not the other way around.
There are other PDAs which will run eNotate as well, so best to check them all, every round!
While it would be very hard and obviously noticeable for a player to shift from eNotate to Fritz:
1.) Save game in eNotate
2.) Power down eNotate
3.) Power down PDA
4.) Power back up PDA
5.) Load Fritz
6.) Input game into Fritz - How many opponents are going to see all this and not ask questions??
It is a good strategem to use eNotate for 4 rounds and then quiety start a game using Fritz, once it has been established that eNotate is being used.
That is why they should be checked every round. Can you imagine at a Supernationals with 2500 games, and potentially several hundred eNotate’s running, how hard it would be to manage and supervise all these for correct use?
And what’s going to happen when somebody writes a chess program interface that looks like e-notate? The playing part of many chess programs, the chess engines, are widely available and can be used with virtually any interface. So all a cheater has to do is create an interface that looks similar enough to e-notate. Can’t be that hard, can it?
Single purpose hardware may be secure if it can be monitored remotely by the organizer. But a general purpose PDA??? I’ve never believed they were adequately secure. It was a really, really bad idea for the rules committee to have ever approved software running on a general purpose PDA.
What will happen when someone cracks open a Monroi and finds a way to install a receiving chip or a tiny playing program which creates an even tinier dot on the screen for the next move? If this were an even more popular sport, it probably would have happened a long time ago. What will happen when someone develops a rybka implant which interfaces with the brain? All sorts of technology is ripe for potential fraud…
I’m going to answer my question with my own interpretation of this rule: “If a scoresheet is provided by the event, then that scoresheet is the standard used for that event.” (Rule 43 in the January 2012 changes)
I would say that we as TDs can simply provide scoresheets and require that they be used.
If you plan to ban players from using their own paper scorebooks, MonRois and eNotate systems, such a restriction could easily be argued to fall under Rule 26A. Therefore, said ban would likely require advance notice in the advertising for your event. You couldn’t just announce it the day of the tournament.
To flesh that out a bit more:
USCF rules require that each player keep score as they are playing, except as noted in Rule 15A1. But because Monroi and eNotate are officially recognized by the USCF as acceptable scorekeeping devices, it is quite possible that a player may choose to comply with the USCF rules by purchasing one of these devices as a substitute for learning how to keep score by hand. So such a player may literally be unable to keep score if you refuse to allow them to use their own scorekeeping device. Consequently, such a player has a right to know, before travelling to one of your tournaments, that the only method of scorekeeping they are familiar with will not be allowed.
He didn’t say that he was banning the use of the player’s own method, just that he would require them to use his paper scoresheet. Presumably they could do both if they wanted to take the time.
In the rulebook:
“15A. …on the scoresheet prescribed for the competition.” (p.55)
and in the new revised rules at: main.uschess.org/docs/forms/RulebookChanges.pdf
“43. … If a scoresheet is provided by the event, then that scoresheet is the standard used for that event.”
“A TD may require the use of the provided scoresheet, or may allow non-standard scoresheets to be used even if one is provided.” (p.16)
So requiring the use of his scoresheet doesn’t seem to be a variant, but the standard rule.
I assume that the main idea for this was to either require use of carboned scoresheets so that game scores could be obtained or possibly to allow advertising that sponsors might like, but it would seem to also allow such restrictions for other purposes.
There’s a big difference between my “what’s going to happen” and yours. Mine is actually pretty easy, I believe. Yours vary from pretty hard to science fiction.
We can’t eliminate all potential means of cheating, but we ought to at least make it rather difficult. Why would anybody try a hardware hack on MonRoi when it would be MUCH easier to write a small bit of software for a PDA? A closed hardware system at least makes it pretty tough. The PDA software hack seems easier than arranging signalling with an accomplice, and we know that’s been done. It seems just STUPID to let people use general purpose PDAs in a tournament. We ban people from even looking at their cell phones to see who may be calling but then let them use a PDA to keep score???
Paper scoresheets provided by the organizer, with a (non) carbon copy 2nd sheet, are often provided for events where the game scores are being collected as a record of the event.
In supervising such events which are FIDE title tournaments, I have advised those who use electronic scorekeeping mechanisms of the need to provide the signed scoresheets for result purposes at the conclusion of each game, and to provide a paper record of the game score soon afterward, too.
The more experience I gain with such situations, the more I am developing the following opinions:
To be able to monitor the progress of a game under FIDE rules, and to be able to intervene where needed to prevent or resolve disputes, it appears necessary to have the game score kept up to date and visible. If a device does not do this, it may be difficult to perform the required functions as arbiter.
Electronic devices have various issues - some obvious, some unobvious, and some not yet well understood or even known - that can arise. Simply untangling a mystery at the board if the scoresheets are needed can be problematic if the device has to be “mined” for the move list, and what would happen if a failure (such as battery power running out) occurs? The discussions here show multiple issues that cannot arise with paper scoresheets.
At some level beyond the absolute beginner stage, being able to read, write and speak chess notation is important for the function and development of a chess player. I believe this is part of what Jim Eade calls “chess literacy”.
Frankly, the pluses in requiring paper scorekeeping by anyone capable of doing so seem compelling. And the effort entailed in putting the record of the game into an electronic device manually can be performed quickly after a game ends, so the only real issue I think that remains is the convenience of broadcasting the game live, which seems to be in demand or desirable so either family or the general chess audience can watch remotely in real time. And these real-time remote viewing uses have pros and cons associated with them too.
Remote viewing and official records can also be produced electronically via either smart boards or via web cameras - both of which are in use in venues such as the Chess Club and Scholastic Center of St. Louis, and both of which operate passively with respect to actions of the players during the game. And the technology in both of these areas continues to improve, just as it does with the electronic handheld devices.
We did this for the 2004 Western PA Junior Invitational, as I recall. Players could have kept parallel score, if they wished, but they had to submit the completed tournament scoresheet with the agreed result marked on each.
Also, the larger point in this thread seemed to be trying to remove other (mainly electronic) scorekeeping options. It’s worth noting the potential rules issues with doing this. It’s possible, but requires compliance with Rule 26A.