Visualization is allowed. Some teachers even encourage it. 
The good old days cannot return. Even in the idyllic setting you describe, someone might have a receiver in his cap, or in his shoe. We used to watch Maxwell Smart on TV, now heās your opponent and the Cone of Silence actually works!
The illegal move shows up as text within Chessbase. I one time ācheckmatedā somebody when I was in check. Neither of us had noticed it. I didnāt notice it until many days late when I opened the Mon Roi generated pgn file and found my opponentās last move with a + next to it and my final move as text.
When Iāve made notation errors such as Ng3 instead of Nf3 that move shows as text. If the game makes some sense out of it Chessbase will continue with the line, but at some point the rest of the game appears as text. Fortunately I usually catch the notation errors before the end.
You know, I kinda like artichokeās viewpoint. Any electronic device anymore can be programmed/rigged to give illicit advice during a game. Probably best to go back to all manual (clocks, sheets, boards, etc). I havenāt played any serious tournaments, but all the talk about the electronic scoresheets has me really wondering why they approved it as a usable device during a game; just seems too easy to get away with it, no matter how consciensous you are observing its use.
I mentioned this before upthread, but at the risk of repeating itā¦ Any electronic device might indeed be programmed or rigged, somehow. The NSA could do it very easily, Iām sure. But there are far easier ways to cheat, both mechanically and also without any technology whatsoever. And the rules as we have them make it far harder to try and get away with something involving approved devices OTB than other methods. Itās a combination of the OTB rules plus the certification criteria.
And a āconscientiousā user doesnāt āget awayā with anything - thatās a self-contradiction unless I missed your point.
I was referring to the opponent of the player using the scoresheet in āquestionā watching to make sure his opponent tries no funny stuff.
Whatās wrong with writing the moves on a piece of paper and then entering it in your computer database afterwards? Thatās what I do when I enter my games in for analysis. Besides, I canāt afford hundreds/thousands of dollars on the latest greatest appliances that will be obsolete in 6 months :mrgreen:
I see, I think. But, MVHO, a person wouldnāt invest any more time in watching oneās opponent using an e-Scoresheet than one using paper. If your opponent is constantly erasing/writing before they make their move, for instance. Or if your opponent whips out a novel and starts reading it during your game (what if theyāve put post-its of notes in there?) Or flipping through their scorebook during the game. With e-Scoresheets, there are just different things one should be looking for - if one cares at all.
All of my opponents so far (a very limited sample) have either found the concept cool, or havenāt really cared at all. Then again, the level of my play pretty well reveals Iām not getting any aid. :mrgreen:
And thereās nothing wrong with paper recording, except if one makes written notation errors that one later has to reconcile on data entry, and using the e-Scoresheet is quicker overall. (If one is, for example, a scholastic chess coach, I imagine it would be pretty golden. And, if Iām at the tournament and want to share my games with someone else for analysis, the PGN is right there waiting for me.)
The costā¦ well, thatās there. But, things like the computer itself aside, it doesnāt necessarily take hundreds/thousands of dollars. The cheapest method would have just involved the cost of eNotate/PDA combo (use SCID for dB and Rybka 2.2 or Crafty for analysis.) And Iām going to try to take very good care of it - Iām hoping for two to three years use, minimum. (With battery changes.)
It wouldnāt take the NSA, not by a long shot. People can āunlockā cellphones, for example the Apple Iphone. Granted this is a smaller market, but suppose some enterprising kid in eastern Europe hacks some chess software and sells the result of his work on Craigslist or Ebay for $500. Itās a fun project for him and profitable too. And since itās just software, it requires no tools and he has zero cost of production.
I donāt understand this comment. What ways? Getting a stronger friend to help you is not so easy. Youāre seen talking to a strong player regularly during the game, who is probably seen looking at your game a few times, and he can get in trouble too, and you need to tell someone youāre cheating and get them to agree to help. If they donāt agree, they still know you are trying to cheat. They might even talk about you to others including the TD. No, I think technology is the threat.
Yes, people jailbreak iPhones. Because a LOT of people dedicate time to cracking the iPhone. It would take, IMNSHO, a lot more than one lone teenager out there to build a āhelperā app that would be āundetectable.ā Said person may also have to be willing to brick more than one PDA to make that happen. (As more than one iPhone cracker has bricked a perfectly good iPhone.)
Your hypothetical hacker would require tools: Compilers, SDK development toolkits, possibly debugging resources. For MonRoi, the tools to flash the ROM. He would require a fast and smart modern system to build the application on. He would require the knowledge to use them in building mobile/PDA apps, and the ability to interface āfakeā recorder with dedicated pocket chess engine. If thereās a freeware chess engine source code built for mobile platforms I donāt know it - though that might exist without my knowing about it. (Presumably something hotter than GNUChess. Maybe someone could port Crafty to PDAā¦ But I donāt think thatās been done yet.) And think thereās money in building a cheating app?
Easier to go phishing.
The romantic āDavid Lightmanā hacker out there is largely a myth today. Such people get caught. And prosecuted. (Consider that in this example, a person would have to make it identical to eNotate or MonRoi - which would also involve civil actions, and if they reverse engineered any existing product you get DMCA troubles if itās in the US.)
And this loner can make a lot more money using their āleet skilzā in the legitimate IT world, if thatās the motivator. Consider: Your hacker with the skills to be able to do that could write a perfectly legitimate eScoresheet, probably get it certified, and make the money by legitimate competition. yNotate isnāt there yet - according to the descriptions it is actually still buggy. But it could happen.
Iāll say this: Any such app would have to stand up to TDs and spectators coming over and observing the game (and be hidden during those times,) yet activate on command without the other player noticing unusual activity. And then would have to be updated, as if it were sold or distributed Iām sure the legitimate creator would notice and employ appropriate countermeasures. I donāt think thatās as easy as you think it may be.
I wonāt go into details. Why stuff beans up our noses? The method you suggest is one way that might be possible. All I will say is Iāve thought of others, technological and non-technological. Fortunately my provisional rating is such that I hope nobody will think Iām anything but legitimate, personally. (Not to mention just because I am.)
Well I gues the best solution then is to simply not participate in tournaments. If thereās any chance that cheating can go on by anyone in the field, it makes the tournament illegitamite and no reason to waste my time or money to participate in something that Iām already at a disadvantage even before I play 1. e4 and lose.
Speaking of money, is it me, or has chess over the last few years exploded into something more of a commerical industry that is only interested in bleeding out millions of dollars from the playing populace? Everything is getting jacked up so much in price. Then again, Iām part of the working masses getting screwed by the corporate juggernaut that has become the USA.
shrug You canāt win if you donāt play. This threadās drift has started to focus on cheating methods. It doesnāt mean cheating is prevalent, or that tournaments are solely morasses of greedy pawnpushers. Or that people have used / figured out how to use e-Scoresheets to cheat. Nor that competent TDs donāt talk amongst themselves / fight what cheating is out there. MVHO is that youāre far more likely to encounter cheating in online playing environments than OTB in general.
[/quote]
Thatās really a topic for a different thread. (You might start one!) But Iād guess that many try to make money at Chess, and many more think theyād like to make money at Chess. Relatively few are successful. And thatās the beauty of it, for me anyway.
And I think Iāve responded enough to this topicā¦ 
Sorry for monopolizing the responses!
Itās you.
Chess is still a very inexpensive activity and hobby. Chess sets are not expensive, especially when you consider you will buy one and it will last you years and years.
I am directing a tournament this Sunday (tomorrow) that has a zero entry fee. Yes there are also zero prizes. Iām going to cover the costs myself. Those costs include the rating fee, copying costs for fliers I had printed and my valuable time (Iām a doctor that makes a nice hourly rate).
In February, I am directing a tournament that is a relatively short drive from Wisconsin that would cost you only $17 entry fee and I am returning a whopping 85% of the entry fees collected in prizes. The 15% I ākeepā will help defray the costs similar to the ones I have in tomorrowās tournament and will pay for our clubās affiliate fees to our state association and perhaps the USCF.
While there are expensive tournaments out there, like the Chicago Open, they also return high prizes to the player. I also note that very few of the people I play with in tournaments, including me, have ever played in those expensive tournaments.
This topic came up at a major California scholastic event.
Player using eNotate on a Dell PDA. During game, player spends significant time looking at his PDA instead of the board. Player denies that he is doing anything, e.g. cheating. Opponent and opponentās coach file grievance; they never heard of eNotate before and thought only Monroi was allowed. NTD was unfamiliar with eNotate as well, although he vaguely remembered reading some emails. Eventually researched issue online. TD thinks device is operating properly.
Issues raised by the coach: If the TD was unfamiliar with eNotate, how can he be sure it is operating correctly? How do you guarantee that your opponent doesnāt use the PDA to analyze variations on his own, or worse, use a computer engine? This PDA does support pocket Fritz. What prevents someone from writing a faux-eNotate program that assists cheating while looking innocent to the casual observer? There are enough local programmers who write such applications for a living. And how should a young and inexperienced scholastic player know that his opponent is using a legal scoresheet and isnāt cheating?
I expect the coachāes meeting today to ban all PDAs and other electronic scoresheets, perhaps with an exemption for Monroi. There is way too much potential for cheating in a 900 player tournament.
Michael Aigner
What stops someone from gutting a MonRoi? Enough people in the chess community are programmers and electronics people that can do this. What stops someone from creating a phony chess clock that takes away time faster from your opponent than from you?
The question is valid and whenever new technology comes out there will be those that are scared to death of cheating, though I can cite examples of non-electronic cheating that will be much easier than counterfeiting.
Tell me, how is an electronic scoresheet supposed to be used? Are they supposed to be constantly analyzing it? Or are they to notate their move and put it away? In your example you stated specifically that they were staring at it for long periods of time. Not supposed to do that. Record, put away.
Weāve gotten everyone into such an uproar over cheating, they focus on that instead of improving their game or knowing what the rules are.
The first generation of the software has some anti-cheating controls built into it such as not allowing you to exit the recorded game until the game is signed off as completed (youād be clicking a lot to try to go back and forth and would be noticeable), the physical buttons are disabled except for the on/off, and wireless communications are automatically disabled as well when you enter the program and not turned back on when you exit (you have to manually turn it back on).
The next generation which is currently under development will have more.
The problem is that is not the current requirement. Take a look at the topic āMonRois and how they are usedā¦tournament question for TDs!ā, which includes the quote:
āThe rules committee finding: In favor of Mr Cao on the technical merit of the use of the scoresheet.
Regarding the use of the scoresheet
There is no rule prohibiting a player from consulting their scoresheet. There are many legitimate reasons to do so during a game. Using a scoresheet in this fashion is not in violation of the rules. This applies to paper as well as electronic.
This is not considered recording or reading notes, or of analyzing on another chessboard. Only the moves already played are recorded, and only the current position is displayed.
Thus, this ruling is agreeing with Mr Caoās technical argument, and overturning the appeals committee decision, as far as it goes.ā
So, the player can stare at it for long periods of time.
Therein lies the flaw and it raises another question.
The rules committee is incorrect or incomplete of their statement where they say āonly the current position is displayedā. Both MonRoi and eNotate allows you to move back and forth between moves in the order they were recorded.
If there statement was - āonly the current position is displayed as they are not allowed to move back and forth in the display modeā then it would be more accurate and cover.
I would ask that those on the rules committee explain what they meant as itās incomplete and that lack of completeness can open the door for any electronic scoresheet to be counterfeited and used to cheat.
What rule prevents a player using any electronic scoresheet from playing several moves on his device, analyzing the resulting position, and then returning to the game? Iām not sure 15A applies. And how is an inexperienced (scholastic) opponent supposed to distinguish between proper and improper use? Or does the TD have to personally monitor all games with electronic scoresheets? We already see enough abuse with digital clocks set incorrectly, especially in sub-1000 sections.
Michael Aigner
Staying on the thread topic:
I just got an eNotate system. I purchased a Dell Axim PDA for $77 including shipping on eBay. The program was $25 downloaded from the North American Chess web site (after paying of course). I spent $25 on a stand that holds the PDA at a perfect angle and about $8 for a multi-function pen with a stylus because I wanted something more substantial than the toothpick thin stylus that is standard with these things. I also bought a 2G SD card that will store more than every possible game in PGN format that I could ever play, for $10. That brings the total cost for this unit to $145. Without the stand (which I would buy no matter what unit I had) I paid $120. At this rate I could buy 3 of these units for the same it would cost for a Monroi device.
The stand is crucial to ease of chess notation while playing the game. Holding the unit at a perfect, ergonomic angle all I need do is pick up the pen/stylus, either tap the screen or press the button which is top and center on the unit to turn it on, tap the piece that is to be moved and then tap the square where the piece was moved to. It entails nothing more than, tap or press, tap and tap. That is all there is to making the move. Without the stand a player would need to either pick up the unit or hover over it to see the screen well enough to make the move notations. This would be more involved than simply writing the moves on a paper scoresheet, even a score book that is opened on every move.
The game score is also accurate and easy to read. Plus the PGN file is easily copied on the SD card for and transferred to a computer or printer for printing and so forth after the game.
Being paranoid that someone could rig up a PDA so that the eNotate program was faked and an analysis engine is indeed the same as expecting someone to rig on a Monroi. In this the 2 units are equal. I can say this because a young boy in our area has a Monroi and I have seen it used in rated games this boy has played. His father just purchased an eNotate system for himself!
Anyway, it is very apparent if someone is using a device looking like these to cheat. Michael puts up a supposed question of why a player could not input a number of moves to see how they would work on the device and then simply backing it up and changing the score later. This is EXACTLY the same as someone writing down analysis of chess moves on a separate piece of paper and then secretly switching the papers to make the real game score. Yes, both could be done but both would be very visible and obvious to the opponent and those around the player. This would be cheating with the electronics not playing a factor at all.
I know that I will play all my rated games with my electronic scoring device and no silly TD will be allowed to stop me from doing so.
The reality is that an electronic notation system is now a standard in USCF rated chess games. If the scholastic kids cannot handle this in their games they need to learn and accept. The TDās also need to get up to speed on the technology as these units are included in the rules of the USCF. This is like saying a TD wonāt allow a particular chess clock in his tournament because he doesnāt understand how to set it.
Thatās called analyzing. Itās the same as if you write moves down, scribble them out, and then play other moves.
(1) You are playing a guy listening to music via headphones
(2) He records his moves with something which looks identical to an eNotate device.
(3) The device is running a different (or hacked) program, using an identical User Interface, but it passes the moves to a chess engine running in the background.
(4) After some period of time (which your opponent can configure before the game), the device broadcasts the engineās move via FM, temporarily overriding the music on his headphones.
How would you know?