MonRois and how they are used...tournament question for TDs!

Running Chess Tournaments
1

At a tournament this past weekend, we had a situation arise regarding MonRoi usage and wanted to get some third party opinions.

In the course of a game, a player went from moving his MonRoi to the side of the board after notating his move, to leaving it directly in front of him. On a particularly important move, it became obvious the player was study (or analyzing) his game on the 2D MonRoi board. The player protested, and we ultimately deemed that the player had to return to using the MonRoi in the manner he was originally using it. I won’t bore you with the ultimate outcome, but I wanted to hear opinions on this, especially in relation to our rationale for the decision we made.

When exploring the rules, we cited rule 20D, which states that no other board can be used to analyze a game in progress. It was clear that the player was using his device to analyze his game, instead of the board it was taking place on. We asked that he only move the MonRoi in front of him after he had made his move, and returned it to the side after the move was recorded. So what does everyone else think? Should looking at the 2D board on a MonRoi be allowed? This could be a serious advantage (IN MY OPINION) if the player is more comfortable with the 2D board of a computer (where many youngsters play many of their games nowadays) as opposed to the 3D board the game is taking place on. What if the player whipped out a magnetic set and set up the position simply so he could look at a 2D visual representation of the game? Would you deem this acceptable?

Ultimately, I believe the player was attempting to use the MonRoi in a manner that is not its intended purpose. The MonRoi should offer no advantage to the player using it other than the ability to take notation more legibly and correctly. By using the device to study a 2D board, the player was using the device in an unintended fashion. This was a big factor in my thought process on the situation, coupled with rule 20D.

If you need more information to form your opinion, let me know. Otherwise, I would love to hear other people’s opinions given the stated facts of this situation.

EDIT: I have changed my mind and decided to copy and paste the post I made on our local fourms regarding this issue. If you want to stop here and respond you are fine. If you want more information and the thorough post about it, you can continue reading below…

Alright, I will provide everyone with the basics of the situation and why the ruling was made. Kevin’s opponent lodged a formal complaint that his opponent was using his MonRoi to analyze his game on, with it sitting in front of him. Kevin did nothing to hide this fact, setting the MonRoi directly in front of him and staring at the screen rather than the board. This complaint was brought to the TDs after they had flip-flopped on telling Kevin how to use the MinRoi because they incorrectly cited a SCHOLASTIC rule. I was part of the person TD committee that heard the protest and after reading the rules, we felt the issue was fairly clear…Here was our basic thought process…

1)The complaint brought forward was legit. Analyzing on a 2D board as opposed to a 3D board is a different process, and it is possible, especially if someone is a big internet chess player, that a player could benefit from analyzing on a 2D board.

2)With it in mind that Kevin was clearly analyzing on a different board from the one the game was officially being played on, we consulted the rule book, and rule 20D CLEARLY stated that “A player who analyzes a game in progress on another chess board …is guilty of a serious violation of the rules”.

3)Piecing #1 and #2 together, it was apprent that Kevin should NOT be allowed to abalyze his game on the MonRoi. Whether is intentions were good or bad are insignificant. The rules clearly state ONE board per game. There is no gray area with regards to that.

4)Although I was not aware of this at the time, but limaod’s post about the slight word change in the rule would seem to indicate that the proper use of the MonRoi is to only look at or use it after your move has been made on the board. Whether you agree or disagree with the notion that someone can study a position better on a TD board is pointless. The fact is, by studying the position on the screen, instead of the board the game was taking place on, Kevin was not using the MonRoi in the spirit in which its creation was intended.

5)Given the scope of everything, I believe we made a fair ruling to all. We believe that forfeiture was certainly far too harsh, and we agreed Kevin should be allowed to use his MonRoi, provided he keep it to the side and only move it in front of him after he has made his move and is ready to record it. It was at this information that Kevin’s dad became irate and pulled him out of the tournament. The fact that Kevin refused to use the MonRoi in this fashion, IN MY OPINION, lends credence to the notion that perhaps Kevin felt more comfortable analyzing his position on the 2D board as opposed to the 3D board.

6)While I thought his withdrawl was an over-reaction and a bit dramatic, Mr Baur went beyond my expectations and refunded their money when it was requested. Kevin had gotten a fair ruling in my opinion, one based SOLELY on the rule book, and the interpretation of 3 TDs, and yet Mr. Baur was still willing to refund his money becaue he disagreed with the decision. That was a class act if you ask me.

7)When Mr. Cao continued to argue it, we tried numerous times to explain to him how our ruling was based on the facts of the complaint and the wording of the rulebook. He felt compelled to argue the point of whether looking at a 2D board versus a 3D board mattered. After trying to explain that that was a moot point, because the MonRoi was new, non-standard equipment that has outpaced the rules, he simply chose to ignore and talk over our points. I felt everyone was treated fairly and that the ruling was just and did not ask too much of either opponent. It is purely MY OPINION that Mr. Cao chose to remove his son at this point because he believed his opponent would now have a psychological advantage over him. Further, CJ’s point was an accurate one that Mr. Cao probably should not have been allowed to even speak. If a player wants to play in an adult tournament, he has to be ready to take on those responsibilities that come with entering.

In conclusion, this is nothing against Mr. Cao or his son. I like both of you and enjoy you attending our tournaments when you can. However, I feel our decision was fair and just, based totally on the rulebook, and I stand by the ruling that we made. I hope this clears up the situation for everyone and that we can put this issue to rest. The decision was made, the tournament was over, and it is time to move on.

A more constructive discussion at this point may be that the USCF needs to come out with a set of guidlines for the use of electronic scoresheets, so that it is laid out in plain English rather than being left up to TD descretion intrepreting rules that were written before this issue existed. In my opinion, the MonRoi SHOULD have to sit off to the side until the move is made, and can then only be consulted to record the move before being immediately returned to its position at the side, out of direct sight.

Finally…I apologize for any eggregious typos. I simply dont feel like spellchecking this post. If anyone needs more information (not that I can fathom what else you would need), please post and let me know.

2

My understanding of the rule is that you CANNOT use any electronic scoresheet to do anything except for recording the moves.

3

So, just to clarify, you agree the player should not be able to use the device to stare at an additional 2D representation of the game going on, and should have to keep the device to the side except when physically recording a move?

4

Yes I agree that the player should not be able to stare at the device.

Record the move, put the device on the size, play the game.

5

What’s to keep the player from staring at the MonRoi regardless of where it is? After all, we allow players to review their scoresheets.

I know more than a few GMs who will look at their game on the demo board if one is being used for that game. That’s one area where the MonRoi has changed some major tournaments (arguably for the better), instead of demo boards the games are available to spectators through the MonRoi.

6

First of all, this is a public display available to all. With a MonRoi, you have a personal device that is only accessable to the affluent. The great thing about chess is that the equipment necessary to hold a serious fair game is very simple. A board, a set, a timing device, a sheet of paper, and a pen. Allowing one player to take advantage of using a 2D board in addition to the one the game is being played on, simply because that player has more money and can afford the piece of technology is not fair. Especially when we would NEVER allow anyone to use a magnetic set at the board, even under watchful eye, just because they wanted to be able to analyze on a 2D board. This is not the purpose of the MonRoi and should not be used as such. Rule 20D clearly states there is one board per game, and ONLY one board per game. Using the MonRoi as a second board to study the position on is, IN MY OPINION, a clear violation of the rules as they are stated in the V5 eidtion of the rulebook.

7

Reviewing a scoresheet is different because you are reading written moves - e4 c5, etc. No graphical demo board.

Some people are able to ‘see’ better on a 2D depiction than 3D, or the change in perception helps them.

That’s right you can’t prevent players from looking at the demo board. You can warn them and penalize them though if the TD so chooses to.

Of course this is an area I would say to also not have demo boards in the playing room but in a spectating room and then have someone analyzing the game in there for the spectators.

8

I think you need to clarify if the player was “analyzing” on the MonRoi or just “looking at” it. The intent of the “no second board” rule is to prevent someone from physically analyzing on it, e.g. moving pieces around and looking at future positions. If the player was merely looking at the same position on the MonRoi that is on the board then in my opinion there is no clear advantage. If, however, the player was “analyzing” on the MonRoi, well, that’s a different story.

9

We’ll have to agree to disagree. After a decade of teaching adult learners in higher ed, I see significant differences in method of visual presentation for material comprehension.

10

Can the Monroi be turned off and back on to the same state like a Palm device?
If so one could follow the simple process of on, record move, off etc

11

The device screen has the option of going dim after a specific number of seconds in between recording moves as a way of saving the battery. However, it also has the option of never going dim, which is what I set all the MonRoi’s I give out at CCA events to, mainly so the players don’t freak out wondering what happened when the screen dims.

12

The intention of the rule is inconsequential here. The fact is, whether you think its an advantage or whether or not the player was able to move the pieces bears no signifigance on the fact that the rule book states only one board per game. The intention means nothing. The fact is, the player was using a second board to study the game, and this is not allowable by rule 20D…regardless of the “intentions” of rule 20D. His opponent had a problem with it, and according to the rules, we had to not allow it.

Also I would argue your point whether some people may analyze better studying a position on a 2D board, but that is not the scope of this thread, so that would be veering the topic off track.

13

Ray,
I think the intention of the rule is important. We cannot just implement rules from the book without knowing their context. This is because, we come upon many situations that are not in the rule book. Some situations are similar to what is in the book but sometimes we are faced with something that is not covered (your case).
Your ruling may be correct but I would not use a literal reading of the rule book as a reason.
Mike Regan

14

Then as Mike Nolan has already pointed out, we should be forfeiting every player who looks at a display of their game on a demo board at a big tournament. In fact I’ve seen some very prominent GMs stare at the demo boards and ignore the 3D board in front of them, or even go sit in the seating areas for the audience and look at their games.

This same situation has come up in at least two of the major weekend swisses run by the CCA and each time the TD went over to check that they were not “analyzing” and when they were found to be just looking at the screen the player was allowed to continue using the MonRoi. Admittedly both times were because the opponent thought they were cheating and were new to the MonRoi but once explained what it was and the TDs were able to fully explain the device then the opponents that made the claim were fine with it.

Can I ask if the player using the MonRoi was continuously staring at the 2D screen without using his stylus, or was he maybe trying to correct an illegal position because he input something incorrectly, or maybe he had it on scoresheet view and was just checking his scoresheet? There are quite a few reasons for a player to be staring at a MonRoi for a while.

15

This situation IS in the rule book, and that is why the intention does not matter. There is a big difference between what you are saying and what I said.

As for the other question, the player was staring at the screen to study/analyze his position on his MonRoi device rather than the chess board the official game was taking place on. As for players staring at demo boards displaying games for the public, if a player was doing this and his opponent complained, I would see no reason that the player should not be warned about not doing that, given rule 20D. The difference between what you said and that scenario is that is requires his opponent to issue a complain/protest about these actions.

16

The rule against analysis on a second board does not (IMHO) mean just looking at another board. As has been pointed out, prominent GMs LOOK at analysis boards. Have any of them ever been penalized???

Also, you can’t prevent a player from looking at his scoresheet.

17

In terms of demo boards, espcially since they are usually placed right next to the board they are showing, it would be unrealistic to expect a player not to look at it. As for 20D/second board violations, I would sincerely hope that you wouldn’t wait for an opponent to make a complaint before dealing with a player violating this particular rule.

18

I agree with Ray’s decision to issue a warning. As a TD, I’d issue that warning, just like Ray did.

The scene: a key position in the game…Black makes a move…White records it on his MonRoi…sets his head in his hands…and stares straight down, eyes open, onto the MonRoi rather than the green-and-buff board, letting his clock run.

If I’m Black, I would make a claim and expect, at the minimum, a warning. As a player, I know that most people do tactical training on a 2D screen (e.g. CT-ART). As a player, I know that finding tactics on the board is different than finding them on the computer trainer. As a TD, just because I was born at night doesn’t mean I was born last night: you can tell if the player is studying the MonRoi or the board.

19

With a demo board, both players have equal access to the display. I don’t believe you can compare that with the use of a Monroi.

I’ve seen players with the display on their Monroi reversed so that they could see the board from the other player’s perspective without getting up. In my opinion, that should not be allowed and confers an advantage (however slight) to the player with the technology. If I brought a small set to the board and set it up so that I could see the board from a different perspective would that be acceptable? I think most people would rightfully complain. In my opinion, analyzing on the Monroi is no different than bringing an additional set to the game.

Both players should play on the same board unless there is a good reason for an exception (ex. a blind player).

20

It seems to me that what’s forbidden (in the rules) is ANALYSIS. When we talk about analysis of a position on a board, we don’t mean just LOOKING at a position. What’s meant is moving the pieces around, trying variations, etc.

This interpretation, unlike the other interpretation, is consistent with what is usually meant by analysis and is consistent with how GMs are treated when they look at a demo board during their game.

When the rule against using another board for analysis was written, what were they trying to prevent? IMO, this wasn’t written to keep a player from setting up a demo board and looking at it. It never addresses this 2d vs. 3d issue. What it was trying to prevent was the player moving the pieces around and trying different variations on that other board. Just looking at the same position wouldn’t have given an advantage. (keep in mind that players didn’t normally practice on a demo board, back then).

Now that players have gotten used to 2d boards (from computer practice) looking at a 2d board during a game could make it easier on the player, but that WASN’T what the rule was written for. If you want a new rule that says the players can’t look at a 2d board during their game, good luck, but that’s not the current rule.

And, as a player, I would appeal any decision from a TD that says I can’t look at my scoresheet. Other players can study their scoresheets at will – and frequently do to check on time controls, 3-fold repetitions, 50 move rules, etc.

A ruling from a TD that you can only look at your scoresheet when recording your move seems to be going WAY too far.