Ron my old man. If you are going to give me a device I can use for cheating, why not use it for cheating. You say the tournament directors will be around to watch me, and watch other players with the device to stop cheating.
Is that the irony of the device, you give me a device I can use for cheating and you need more floor directors to stop cheating. More floor directors cuts down on the prize money.
Second, the tournament director is not going to get upset with the idea the device is being used for cheating. If the tournament director supports the device, how can the tournament director go out of his/her way to find the cheaters. The device is new, if the tournament director lets the device into the tournament, finding and punnish the cheaters under-cuts the reason for having the device into the tournament in the first place.
Say there is a company that sponsors a tournament with a electronic scorekeeper. If I use that device at that tournament for cheating. How can the tournament director expell me for cheating? How can the tournament director report back to the sponsor the device was used for cheating? One confirmed cheating will under-cut the sponsors claim the device cannot be used for cheating.
It’s nice to see such a friendly family discussion: all the “my son”, “my boy”, “old man” stuff really warms the heart!
The bottom line is that anyone that’s actually used “the device that shall not be named” knows that it would be impractical to use it for cheating. If you’ve never actually used one, you’re speaking in total ignorance. For one thing, its a fairly complicated procedure to close out a game and once it’s closed you can’t go back and start keeping score again. There are places for both players to sign and the TD. Now, it’s true that you could just sign in all three places yourself, but what are you going to do when the game is over and your opponent sees that you signed the game closed for him and the TD 20 moves earlier?
The current chess pad software isn’t secure. IMHO it’s nowhere near secure enough to use in a tournament with significant prizes. I don’t see a problem using it in most local, friendly tournaments and see no reason to ban it from such events.
There is no reason, however, that a program like Chess Pad can’t be made VERY secure. It’s possible for the programmer to build in testing functions so that the director can check that the SW hasn’t been altered. He (the programmer) can also make the SW record everything done on the device and provide a log of it to a director upon request. He can also lock out all other functionality of the Palm PDA. A good programmer can make it so secure that it’d be easier to cheat WITHOUT using the device. I think that’s as far as you have to go. Why would anyone pick the most difficult cheating method when there are easier ones?
I don’t see any point in responding further to simple-minded paranoia. If there is a concrete way that a person could use one of the devices to cheat – that isn’t ALREADY available without one of these devices – then I’d like somebody to bring it up. When you come up with such a method, we’ll address it and fix the device so that it doesn’t allow it.
BTW I don’t see how leaving the tournament room with the device to make a phone call is anything new. If you can’t remember the position on the board in your current game well enough without using a PDA, then you’re going to have trouble FAKING the kind of chess playing ability Fritz would give you. Why couldn’t you have taken a copy of your scoresheet with you just as easily? It’d probably be quicker to list the moves than describe the position piece by piece. Where are you going to find a bathroom at a major tournament where you could describe your position over the phone without somebody noticing and calling a director? You’ve taken your arguments to such a ridiculous extreme that I don’t see any point to them – maybe we should make everyone wear tin-foil hats because telepathic aliens could read your mind, learn your position, and transmit instructions to you! That’d be no more ridiculous than some of the silly comments I’ve seen on this forum.
As I have stated before,
ChessPad on Palm Pilot will not be certified as a standard electronic scoresheet.
The opportunity for getting information either from the program, another program on the device, or from an outside source is too great.
End of story. No argument will change our mind on this subject.
Can it be used?
Yes, If a TD allows it (discretionary powers) once he has been sufficiently assured it will not be used for cheating or analysis (and hopefully with permission from the opponent.)
That seems extremely reasonable to me. Years ago when I experimented with ChessPad that was exactly what I did. I got the TD and opponent permission. In small tournaments that shouldn’t be an issue.
Was that the royal “our” or are you speaking for others?
[b]I’m not saying the current version of Chess Pad should be allowed in tournaments where there would be a motive for cheating.
I AM stating that a program like Chess Pad COULD be written that would adequately address the security issues.[/b]
e4e5, I’d appreciate it if you made your position crystal clear to me so that I can understand it and can point out WHY I disagree (IF I disagree).
Are you stating that NO MATTER WHAT IS DONE TO IMPROVE SECURITY THAT YOUR MIND IS ALREADY MADE UP? In other words, have you pre-judged the merits of the case and decided against allowing ANY such device to become standard equipment?
Are you stating that you do not believe we can adequately satify security requirements? In other words are you prejudiced against such devices? If I convinced you that security against improper use could be achieved, then would you reconsider?
Or are you stating that the CURRENT software doesn’t and can’t adequately address security? (No argument from me on this one!)
Are there any specific security concerns that you know of that I haven’t addressed in my suggestions above? To recap, I am suggesting that a Palm PDA HW platform can be turned into a dedicated device. That the SW (Chess-Pad-like functions) can incorporate security features that will insure the SW is unaltered, that there is no other SW on the PDA (enforced by the SW which has taken over some or all OS functions), and that the device can be “audited” for security.
I can provide further details on any of these features, but there’s no point doing that if you’ve already made up your mind that this is impossible. I can see no RATIONAL reason for such a stance on your part, so I hope you can clarify your earlier statement.
I don’t see the point in arguing arbitrary flights of fancy in paranoid scenarios that have no basis in reality. I’d like to limit the discussion to concrete flaws that can be addressed one at a time. I think that a workable method can be developed to address any flaw. In what specific way is there a “cheating” risk that I haven’t already addressed?
With a Palm or other multipurpose PDA, even if the program in itself is secure, there is no way to make the device totally secure. With the other new device it does have a 50 game memory, but every take back is recorded and i believe one cannot delete a completed game w/o deleting them all after downloading? would be simple for the TD to verify multiple takebacks and/or multiple games if the opponent complained.
Personally, I think we should all sit back for a week until some of the smoke clears and we hear the decision from Bill Hall and the Rules commitee about the new device and then we can reopen discussion because it is all speculative. I would love to get my hands on one for a week to test it myself.
This simply isn’t true. I’m talking about SW that takes over (and can VERIFY that it has taken over) the entire device. It would take over some (or all) of the OS for the devices and exclude all other SW. It would probably even exclude the built-in schedule and calculator functions (or might POSSIBLY lock them at a known version – verifying that the programs were unaltered). With used Palm PDAs going for so little cost, this is quite feasible.
You CAN’T get to any stored games until you “close out” the one you’re recording. Once you do that you can’t go back and continue. I would suggest doing the same in the Palm PDA SW.
The Palm SW would be as secure as a dedicated device because it would BECOME a dedicated device. I would suggest that the “non-dedicated” SW should only be allowed in a tournament if there are no significant prizes or other motivation (national title, for exampe) to “cheat”.
Is it not strange the tournament director does not have to understand every digital chess clock. If the tournament director does not understand the digital chess clock, the clock could be set wrong, so the tournament director would not know it was set wrong.
Are we not asking every tournament director to understand every way a person can use a electronic scorekeeping device. What if the tournament director does not understand every electronic scorekeeping device. If the tournament director does not understand the device, how can the tournament director prove any type of cheating?
If the tournament director does not understand the device, you can cheat or have it set wrong and get away with it.
Well, Sceptic, you do raise a valid concern. I don’t agree that it’s a good reason to ban the devices, however. No more than it would be a good reason to ban digital clocks.
I think it’s a concern that can be addressed. For the “device that shall not be named” or for my hypothetical PDA SW, I think I could provide a very short set of instructions to verify proper use. I think a simple pre-tournament announcement of what you are and are not allowed to do with the device would solve most of the problems (The sort of announcement a lot of directors make about cell phones). Then, if anyone claims his opponent did something wrong, we could give a simple set of instructions – 2 or 3 simple steps – that a director can take to check the claim.
Certainly you could. You could also take a chess book into the bathroom to look up the opening. And, if you were caught, you would be forfeited and probably thrown out of the tournament. What’s your point? The fact that someone could pick the lock on my door and rob me does not mean that I should leave the door unlocked.
Bill is a lot tougher than I am on hunting for cheaters (I suppose he sees more of them). Given sufficent provocation, the TD would send an assistant to follow you around (including into the bathroom). And the TD can certainly tell you not to use the device during the game, and either confiscate it or forfeit you if you refuse. (In a FIDE tournament, any use of a cell phone leads to an immediate forfeit.)
I’m puzzled as to what you are trying to argue. Are you saying that electronic scorekeeping devices inherently allow cheating and should be banned? I have some sympathy for this position, but so what? At present they are banned, and there is little chance of the rule being changed in the near future. (Please do not raise any irrelevant quibbles about whether thay can be allowed by the TD or by mutual consent.) The only ones who should be arguing about it are those who want to change the rule, and that’s going to be done in the Rules Committee, not here.
The players can set the clock wrong, and do not know the clock was set wrong. It happens with digital clocks and analog clocks, it happens but were not going to ban clocks because of an error.
I can also give you instructions how to use snake oil too.
The simple instructions on cell phones is to turn them off. How do you give instructions with cell phones to have them on?
Show me the rule were they are banned? If I have a company and want the device, if I want to spend the money I can get the rules to say what I want the rules to say. Everyone has a price, just find out how much you are willing to spend. If the price of a person is to great, find someone that can replace the problem.
Well Doug, I could use some snake oil directions. All this snake oil, and I don’t have a clue what to do with it.
Most TDs don’t give a blanket statement like “Cell phones are banned” or even “Cell phones must be off”.
What I normally hear is a brief set of instructions for how they are to be used. That they have to be silent or can’t ring in the tournament room and that you can’t use one to make or accept a call in the tournament room, for example. A Doctor could, in most tournaments, have his cell phone set to vibrate. If he sees that it’s his service with an emergency phone call, then he could leave the tournament room and take the call. Otherwise, if somebody really needs to be available for emergencies, how could they ever play in a tournament?
A set of instructions for score keeping devices might include:
You may not enter any move into the device until that move has been made on the board, and
The device must be left in score-keeping mode until the TD and opponent sign to accept the result.
If you are running a big money tournament, it MIGHT also be reasonable to require:
The device must be left by the board or with a TD if you leave the room.
or
The device must be available for inspection by the TD or your opponent at any time.
