My most recent post in the Open Letter to the Rules Committee which has been removed for reasons that we won’t go into here had mostly nothing to do with the subject that caused that thread to disappear.
It had to do with scorekeeping on a palm pilot using the memo pad function and responses that a program could be written to use it to flash analysis in code to players. In the past I had stated that I believed the simple act of making it the rule that you must make your move on the board first and then record your move would be enough to keep cheating from happening.
That would prevent recording a move, secretly seeing if it was bad, taking back and making another etc.
But in reality the potential for cheating is much better simply by recording the move after it is made on the board. I experimented with my Palm and HiArcs in player vs player mode with analysis on.
After you record your move then HiArcs presents you with a list of book moves from good to less good. After it runs out of book it will show the move that it is considering as best.
So a cheater would simply record his opponents move and look at the secret code and make the move the the computer suggested.
I’m still not convinced that this is enough to ban such a score keeping method in 80 percent of the tournaments held in the US. But if Palm programs are allowed then Laptop programs should be just as legal, at least as long as there is room to place the laptop at the game.
I don’t think chess-pad on a Palm would ever be secure enough to be allowed in every tournament, but I think 80% is realistic. It will never be as secure as a dedicated device, but we could take some steps that would make it acceptable (to me) in the majority of tournaments.
Those features the software would need are:
The software would have to take over the entire organizer and not allow any other software to be loaded. Ideally it should replace the operating system itself.
The software should have some feature that allows it to be “audited” or checked for authenticity.
The software should have the overall functionality of a similar dedicated device. Keeping track of move “take-backs” is an example that comes to mind.
Even with all that, I wouldn’t trust it as much as a dedicated device, but I don’t think we need to be too paranoid about the subject. #1 sounds like a big burden for the user, but keep in mind that older palm organizers can be had pretty cheap. Lots of palm users (like me!) have one or two old units just lying around.
I don’t think the existing software would be all that hard to modify to give you most (if not all) of these features.
I got the thumbs down around in 2001 when I sent an email to USCF about writing a notation program for tournaments, specifically for the Palm OS.
I agree, specific measures could be taken, but the “tin-foil hat” parade of folks would kick and scream about any kind of technology that would better chess.
One good plus that should be mentioned is how it would help physically challenged players.
IMO, the rules ALREADY allow devices like this for disabled players. I think the rule says something like “tape recorder or other device” (I don’t have the rule book with me) is allowed for score keeping.
The problem with software for the Palm OS is that it’s hard to guarantee that there are no chess programs loaded on the Palm. It’d be better if the software actually replaced the OS. Then it wouldn’t be hard to make the software “hacker resistant” and make tampering easy to detect. I don’t want to get into specific details here, but security problems like this have been well thought-out by now and it’s actually pretty easy to make software “tamper evident” if it’s built in from the beginning. With the IR capability, you could even make the devices capable of checking each other. So a really paranoid TD could invest $10 - $15 for a used Palm, and be able to confirm that any palm in the tournament was running unalterd SW.
This still wouldn’t be quite as secure as a dedicated device could be, but pretty darn close. If this is written correctly, the hacking effort would cost much more than any possible gain. After all, were not talking about SW for a bank or the DoD.
Can the device be used for candidate moves? If the device has take back, the device could be used for candidate moves. What would happen if I use the device for candidate moves?
Using the ChessPad (and any other similar devices that shall not be named) and its takeback option to evaluate candidate moves is EXACTLY the same as taking written notes and is illegal.
The reality is that if someone is using a palm or other similar device to analyze with takeback options it will be just as obvious as the person that is using written notes or even a pocket set to analyze. The electronic format does not enable someone to analyze invisibly. The person will obviously be staring at the screen and using the stylus to make moves and take them back and make more moves and take them back. The whole cheating issue does indeed seem a bit paranoid. Cheating like this is obvious to even the casual onlooker let alone the opponent.
Sure there will be the person that wants to cheat at some big money tournament, but that has existed in the past no less than it exists now.
I personally think that having a unit whose operating system is totally dedicated to notation without any analysis option would be the best bet here.
The DGT board and other electronic things like the Shahcom also work great for keeping the game score when the player cannot through normal, written means.
How can the TD become aware of it? If my opponent runs to the director, I can just take back the candidate moves. You cannot prove it is written notes when the notes are gone.
If electronic note-taking is prohibited, why is manual note-taking (eg, writing your move down before making it) still permitted under USCF rules?
FIDE has now banned that practice (though I’m not sure how rigidly it is enforced in FIDE-rated events in the US or elsewhere), perhaps the USCF should do so too?
Yes, I agree that “takebacks” should be recorded. The simple solution, though, is to require that the move be made first and then recorded (at least for electronic score-keeping, but I’d support it for written scoresheets also).
Another way to prevent this “analysis” is to make the unit automatically power-down after each move is recorded. It’d be hard to analyze a blank screen. That would also save battery life.
We could use the IR beaming that’s built-in (all Palm PDAs as far as I know) for:
Checking the SW for unaltered status
Checking the game record for excessive or multiple “takebacks”
Uploading game scores
The TD would have to have a Palm (used ones cheap as $10-$15) or an IR-equiped notebook to get these features.
If both players have one of these, then the devices could sync with each other as the game is being recorded – it could automatically detect improper use and make sure that the players recorded the same move.
At $10 to $15 each, an organizer could realistically afford to supply these for every game. If they paid a little more to get the bluetooth equiped units, then you could have real-time game reporting like that other device.
What if the device can deal with 2 or more scoresheets at the same time. One scoresheet I can show the tournament director, the other I can use for the candidate moves.
What would be better, if the device can be used for a position. When I want to run candidate moves, start from the position, play out the candidate moves, after the candidate move is accepted, place the position in the recycle bin and delete. After that, go back to my scoresheet and make the move. The device will not show the take backs on the scoresheet. The tournament director cannot prove I used the device for cheating.
He could become aware of it by standing there and watching after a complaint. Of course, this would be an enormous waste of time. This whole thread illustrates why I would simply not allow electronic scorekeeping devices in my tournaments.
Why would I do it at your tournament? If I am going to spend top dollar for an electronic scorekeeper, going to the Chicago Open or a top dollar CCA tournament.
If the director was watching me, I will just go into the bathroom and deal with it in the toilet stall. Since I own the electronic scorekeeper, you cannot tell me to keep the device at the table when I am in the bathroom. You own the scoresheet, the organizer and the director does not own the electronic device.
While I am not familiar with the device in question, from the comments above I suspect it would come closer to falling under 20D, Use of additional chessboard or computer prohibited (“… a serious violation of the rules … the usual penalty is loss of the game”) than 20C, Use of notes prohibited (“… a warning or minor time penalty is common”).
A chessboard? Well I could take the electronic device to the bathroom, make a phone call on a cell phone. Than I can be sure when I am away from the chessboard about the position on the chessboard, as I have chessboard with the same equal position. Make a phone call, and have my friend use Fritz 9.0 to give me the best move.
Sceptic you obviously do not know what you are talking about.
First, with ChessPad you can only have one game at a time going. So your idea of having separate scoresheets on the same unit is ridiculously impossible.
Secondly, if you are going to sit there and analyze on the device, everyone in the local vicinity will watch you doing this obvious cheating. You will be caught.
Thirdly, if you are going to go to the bathroom everytime you want to analyze and/or call your friend on a cell phone it will be obvious you are not playing fairly and you will be detected. This way of cheating is already in existence and the tournament directors, especially of the big tournaments like the Chicago Open, are on the lookout for such cheaters. The use of a palm pilot device for score notation will not make any difference in this technique of cheating and you will get caught.
I think the argument of “It can be used for cheating.” is leading us away from the real issue. Anything can be used to cheat with, some easier than others perhaps, but if you just ban the easy and then think you are protected against cheating well …
What if someone adapted the DGT board to transmit coded moves to a player? How paranoid do we want to be?
Isn’t the real issue how the USCF rules committee is going to deal with future technological advances? What about true electronic paper that looks like paper but maybe uses a special pen that records the moves as they are written? Legal? What about the new laptops that support Windows Vista with touch screens on the outside of them? Can you keep score like 1e4 e5 on them? Same with Palm Pilots.
Are we resisting change simply because it is change? Shouldn’t these devices be innocent until proven guilty? And then maybe we should punish the guilty players and not the majority of honest chess players who simply want to use the technology of the day???
Ron my boy, ChessPad or some other device can have more than one scorekeeping. Right oh my boy, you can have only one game open at a time. Just save the game, open the other game, cheat with that one. Save that game, open up the othe game, make the move.
Now with that device people cannot talk about, you can have up to 50 games. Not sure how many games you can have in storage with Chesspad. Ron my boy, just save the games. When you need it, just open it up and make the moves.
sceptic my son, how much time and attention will a person need to give the device in order to manipulate the various lines and scoresheets?
The answer my boy is, quite a bit. While doing this analysis the person will be giving his attention to the device not the chessboard. This will indeed be obvious to most anyone near by.
The reality of cheating is near nil. Come on, can you honestly tell me the last time you saw someone cheat at chess?
What are the statistics of cheaters in chess? When playing in a tournament I know it would be very difficult for my opponent to cheat. His behavior during the game will necessarily be different during the game and that will be obvious.
Cheating is also not necessarily connected to electronic devices either. Take the IM giving signs to a friend on a lower board. What about the fellow going back to his room and having his computer analyze the position?
Could you please give me the name of the top 5 chess cheaters? Can’t huh?