I found the reader email by Randall K. Julian and the response from TD Tim Just in the Feb-2014 issue of Chess Life to be quite an interesting subject. Firstly, I must say that I 100% agree with Randall’s point of view on this. These devices with a 2D board are being abused by players using the display to figure out tactics rather than staring at the real board in front of them. I personally know I play about 200 points stronger on a Fritz 2D board than I do on a real board. I’d like nothing better than to show up at a tournament and find we are all playing each other on laptops. Indeed, Randall goes on to cite one example where the opponent exclusively studied the 2D device board display and only looked up to make his move on the real board. This should be considered a form of note-taking, and I found Tim’s reply to be full of rather dubious excuses instead of acknowledging there is a serious problem in this trend. Furthermore, I should point out that on international forums, the USCF is looked at rather poorly for allowing the use of these devices. Comments like “how did we ever manage to play chess with just pen & pad?” come to mind.
At any rate, I want to address some of Tim’s counterpoints in summary:
Entering moves into a database from tournament games is a real chore. These devices make it easy, and even have broadcast options.
My retort: Seeing as how each person is responsible for buying their own device, the entire point is moot. The USCF should have zero concern/interest over a person later wanting to enter their moves in a database and “having an easier time of it”, ESPECIALLY when it then also gives them a demo-board advantage during the game. When it comes to broadcasting games, it’s quite obvious the DGT board is the more appropriate method.
To help nullify the “2nd board” effect, the USCF requires the move be made on the real board first.
My retort: This isn’t even the complaint. The complaint is they are using the 2D board to STUDY. Whether they make the move first or 2nd on the real board does not address this issue correctly.
Remember demo boards? More than one GM has used them to study instead of looking at their own board.
My retort: This is a very weak argument. The average score-sheet-using player will likely NEVER find themselves participating in a tournament with the option of staring at a demo board of their live game.
Organizers can always decide not to allow these devices.
My retort: First, the average chess player isn’t likely to be an “organizer” of the event, nor are they going to have the authority to proclaim that none of their opponents can use these devices. Second, yeah, I’m sure organizers would want to risk chasing away paying Monroi users now that the cat is out of the bag courtesy of the USCF allowing their use.
Players can attend an annual meeting at the U.S. Open and make a motion to prevent their use.
My retort: Not a viable option for everyone in the country, setting aside the fact that the motion could easily (and likely) be struck down. If it has to come down to a vote, it should be allowed to be done by all USCF members online. Even if someone doesn’t have a computer, they can visit the local library in their area to access one. That would be a more fair way to give everyone a voice.
Online voting is not easily verifiable for USCF at the current time.
What’s the pragmatic issue? The scoresheet must be available at the board - so its not like the player can walk around and examine it. And, after having tried these devices under a few conditions, I seriously doubt that ANYONE is going to want to spend a significant amount of time analyzing on a device versus their board. I just don’t see the impact. Analyzing on an approved device IS NOT like analyzing on a computer screen.
Kevin, the point is this-you cannot, say, make pretend moves to see how the board would look. But,
some using the electronic scoresheet will do exactly this–be several moves ahead to ‘see’ if in fact
certain combinations work. And of course, this is cheating, and not allowed under the rules. So it
is not “versus the board” it is doing that which one is equally prohibited from doing on the board.
Mike, I agree. However, “stupid” is sometimes not a deterrent. I would think the higher the level
of play, the more unlikely this would be used. However, at a Pan Am Collegiate Championships several
years ago, a player was warned to immediately return his MonRoi to his board or risk forfeiture. His
activity did look suspicious. Look, many players are either ignorant of the rules regarding electronic
scoresheets, unaware of the right of the opponent to complain to tournament directors. And then some
are so involved in their own games that they may not notice if their opponent pulled up a laptop
loaded with Fritz Hey, I remember a game I won when afterward the youngster answering
his mom about how he lost said “Well, I lost on time, and on the board”. ie, I did not realize the
youngsters flag had fallen.
If we didn’t get too concerned about the voter authentication issues, we could do online opinion surveys.
There are self-selection issues with using online surveys as an aid to policymaking, and not every USCF member has easy access to the Internet, which compounds the self-selection problem somewhat, and that means that the respondents might not represent a cross-section of USCF members.
First as part of full disclosure I am the creator of eNotate.
Now in general in terms of electronic scoresheets there is both ignorance of the rules to use them and also the fear of technology to aid in cheating.
It’s in the rules now that the scoresheet must remain at the board and that goes the same for the e-scoresheet. If they user doesn’t like that (afraid it will get swiped, etc) tough luck, don’t use it.
I personally don’t agree with the interpretation of the rule where the player is allowed to stare at their e-scoresheet. I do not find that as the purpose of it. The purpose is to provide another modality of scorekeeping.
The process should be, make move on the board, record on e-scoresheet, put e-scoresheet aside. Aside from when you’re recording, the only other interaction a user of an e-scoresheet should be to correct an error, or if they are checking to validate a three-fold repetition. Again, persistent staring shouldn’t be allowed.
Now there is the perception of testing variations out on the device. I won’t speak to the other two e-scoresheets on the market but with eNotate v3.0 you will be tapping away so much to do variations you’re opponent would have to willfully ignoring you not to notice (not to mention your neighbors). And eNotate has a log that is generated that is accessible while in record mode or out of it that a TD can check to see what move changes were made.
There needs to be education done on the use of e-scoresheets both on the user side and on the TD side. Without this there are misconceptions, suspicion and all of the other nasty thoughts.
The OP’s 2nd point regarded studying the current position, not using it as an analysis board.
Moving away from the OP’s post and covering just the analysis board possibility, eNotate and MonRoi both note all of the entries/deletions/re-entries of moves, and thus such analysis can be identified to determine that a player violated the (as you mentioned) already existing rules.
I own both MonRoi and eNotate electronic scoresheets. A big part of the reason I bought both, was so I could become more familiar with their screens and operation. I’ve used both in tournaments, as has my son. Of course, I’ve also seen them in use in many tournaments in the US. Also, FIDE specifically allows MonRoi score keeping, so I’ve seen it used in England, Gibraltar and Ireland just in the last three months. Based on that limited sample, I’d say it’s not as widespread in Europe as it is in North America, but its use is growing as people try it out and report favorably on their experience. (For example, I saw no MonRois at the 2012 London Chess Classic; there were several at the 2013 version.)
What I can say about both is that any legitimate use of these tools requires very little interaction. A tap to wake up the screen, perhaps (both have battery-saving dimmer functions), two taps to record the move, occasionally an additional few taps to fix an error, and that’s it. I’ve also lent out my units on occasion, and a few folks who have borrowed them promptly went and bought their own.
The only thing I find mildly controversial about them is players being able to look at the diagram on the screen while the game is in progress. Since just looking at the diagram does not help in terms of receiving assistance from the device (you’d still have to tap the screen), I’m okay with the current rule on this, but I don’t think the world would end if looking at the screen in between interactions were disallowed. It would, however, be a bit challenging to enforce, especially at a national scholastic or other large event where a lot of MonRois are likely to be in use.
The impossibility of enforcement would practically call for banning the devices. I mean, could you
imagine dozens of such complaints at once?? A headache.
That players with these devices are able to use a 2D board to study the game position in similar form they are used to via the computer. The person using traditional score sheets does not have this advantage. As I stated in my OP, I know for a fact I can see tactics better on a 2D diagram than I can on a real 3D board. This is because I’ve played over 25,000 games online as opposed to less than 500 on a real chess board. So factly, I will have a significant advantage if I were to buy a Monroi as opposed to using a score sheet for in-person tournament games.
See above.
Yes it is. I’ve played with my friend’s Monroi, and I immediately realized the unfair advantage they bring for those of us that learned chess on a 2D screen. As it stands with it technically not being against the rules, I would most definitely do like the example given by Randall and stare exclusively at my device screen after inputting my opponent’s move.
Please provide the statistics that establish that as fact. Then please provide the statistics that show that the statement is generally true, and not true only for one person.
Many assumptions there, no actual facts other than number of games played. Frankly, there may be a good argument that 3D spatial recognition might be important.
You still haven’t established any fact, you’ve made a claim. I also know that a Monroi, Enotate, or Plycount device is nothing like a computer screen.
I see a claim by someone who doesn’t own or use a device that they would play better if they did. There are no facts there. There are no generalized facts there.
It’s not at all like analyzing on a computer screen. It’s not as well lit. In some tournament environments the screen can be hard to see. The piece is more difficult to move than with a mouse. The pieces are not as attractive nor customizable. And in any case, the representation is no different than the 3-D representation.
So again, can you establish any pragmatic difference?
At first I was skeptical that someone might find looking at a diagram of their position advantageous over looking at the board, but then I remembered some of the godawful sets that still manage to conform to tournament rules that I’ve seen the black player bring to tournaments.
If this is actually a problem, it can be fixed in a couple ways without seriously impacting the use of electronic scoresheets.
Solution #1: tighten the rules, which I believe currently say that the scoresheet is to remain on the table except when the player is actually entering a move (this may just be a scholastic rule). Enhance this to say that it must be face down when on the table.
Solution #2: loosen the rule that says players may not use an analysis board. The new rule would define the board that the two players are using as the “primary” board, and would allow each player to, if they wish, provide a “secondary” board. The player is allowed to mirror the primary board onto their secondary board and to look at the position on their secondary board. They are not allowed to make any other moves on the secondary board. All that is allowed is copying the moves from the primary board. If a player is using an electronic scoresheet that displays the position, this counts as their secondary board.
What I like about solution #2 is that in addition to dealing with the alleged unfairness of electronic scoresheets, it also provides relief to those who simply do not like the sets that they have to play on in tournaments. They can bring a secondary set that they like and use that.
I would be slow to assert that firebrandx hasn’t come forward with facts. I don’t think he needs to. How much anecdotal evidence do you need before you realize there’s a problem to be considered.
If you gave me a tactical problem on a computer screen and on an adjacent chess board, there’s no question that I would try to solve the problem on the monitor. I’ve done tens of thousands of tactics problems on a monitor, probably less than 200 on a board.
It’s true that a Monroi (which I own) is smaller than a computer monitor, but it’s not clear that the Monroi’s size offsets any 2D advantage (presuming for a moment that the advantage is real). My eyesight is mediocre, but I have no problem viewing a game on a Monroi. If it is easier for many players to solve problems on a 2D board, then how small is too small.
Consider that while I have no objective evidence that I solve tactics better on a 2D board, I know beyond all doubt that I would be more comfortable solving problems on a 2D board.
Here is a thought worth considering- nearly every sport has more expensive items that without question enhances the chances of the user. Take little league baseball for example. There are
bats out there costing $ 600++ that supposedly offer more “pop” than the average bat. Is it "fair’
that your kid tries to compete for a pitching spot with the son of Daddy warbucks who hares an
MLB pitching coach to tutor his son?? Or a “passing coach” for a middle school hotshot??
Technology has surely come a long way, baby. And, perhaps MonRoi, enotate, and Plycount are
the wave of the future.
