The Monroi wasn’t in exsistence “when the rule was written”. Its new technology and so brings new problems with it.
The essence of the issue to me is that the Monroi is a “scoresheet”. It should be used as a scoresheet, not as an alternative chessboard.
So what is wrong with asking a player not to study the position on the Monroi? If the player, as someone mentioned, is sitting, head down, staring straight into the Monroi and ignoring the actual chessboard, isn’t that violating the essence of what the Monroi is meant to do? Does this in any way hurt the player with the Monroi by asking them to keep the device aside except when using it as a scoresheet?
Any player that is opposed to this decision is likely opposed because he feels he does get an advantage from the 2D view.
I oppose such a decision because I don’t feel the rules justify it and I don’t believe it’s a good idea to restrict a player’s looking at his scoresheet.
I don’t use or own a MonRoi. I like my printed scoresheets.
I oppose such a decision because I don’t feel the rules justify it and I don’t believe it’s a good idea to restrict a player’s looking at his scoresheet.
I don’t use or own a MonRoi. I like my printed scoresheets.
The question of demo boards came up long ago. Korchnoi and Spassky argued about it during their 1977 match. (Of course, they argued about almost everything during that match.) FIDE made it clear that that looking at a demo board during the game is perfectly acceptable, even if the player is “thinking” about the position while doing so. (How do you stop him from thinking? Hit him over the head with a club?)
At a level of pure abstraction, looking at a Monroi to analyze does not differ from looking at a hand-written score sheet to analyze. It would be absurd to prohibit that, even though a strong player can easily visualize and analyze from a written scoresheet. Of course, there may be practical differences in how easy it is to so, but –
That was an issue which should have been brought up when the Monroi was certified by the Rules Committee. Personally, I wish they hadn’t, but it’s done. Trying to get around that ruling with specious arguments like this (“You can use it, but you can’t look at it”) is pointless. If you feel that strongly about it, put an announcement in your TLAs that all players must use tournament-supplied scoresheets.
And, complaints have been made about this, and rulings made - with the result that it is clearly OK to look at a static copy of the game on the demo board.
In my opinion, the rule against analyzing on a separate board was meant to disallow setting up another board and moving the pieces around. The actual language used does not make this perfectly clear - but this interpretation is consistent with the way similar language is used elsewhere in the rules.
If I were asked to rule on this particular situation, I would allow the player to look at the Mon Roi. He may not “fiddle with it” in a way that distracts his opponent - but I don’t think that simply looking at the static display qualifies.
That said - if I were asked to rule on an appeal, I suspect that I would not overturn the ruling made here. As long as the language of the rule is as it is, it’s a matter that falls within the discretion of the TD at the board.
Now that the issue has come up, I think that this would be on my list of things to discuss with assistant TD’s, so that everyone in the room made the same ruling. My preference would be to allow the player to look at the screen, and if I were the chief TD that would be my instructions. If I was an assistant floor TD, I’d have no trouble ruling the other way, if that’s what the chief wanted.
This is the essence of TD discretion: there is often more than one acceptable way to interpret the rules.
Would I have ruled the same? No.
Was the decision supported by the rules? Yes.
Would I overturn the decision on appeal? No.
Did the TD go off the deep end in this thread by claiming that his decision was the only possible interpretation of the rules? Oh, boy.
Just and FYI from the USCF NATIONAL SCHOLASTIC CHESS TOURNAMENT REGULATIONS, APPENDIX F supernationalsiv.com/Scholas … 09__2_.pdf, and as used at the past SuperNationals.
So, guildelines as to where the device should be placed are somewhat detailed. Of course, not all situations involving the use of the device is probably listed.
Is it really fair to rule that a young player using a MonRoi can’t do something that is essentially the same as he can see GMs doing at major events? Is it a good idea to send him the message that some chess players are “more equal than others” under the rules?
Is it really good to have such different interpretations of a basic rule? I don’t think THIS much TD discretion is a good thing.
Finally, what if the player refused? Are we honestly going to forfeit a player for looking at his own scoresheet???
I’m utterly tired of the attitude I get from some TDs. They act like little “tournament gods” (or “tournament dictators” as I’ve seen proclaimed on a few TD’s clothing). This seems so basic, LOOKING AT YOUR OWN SCORESHEET for crying out loud, that I can’t believe this is subject to such interpretation.
The whole point of having a rulebook is to NOT have this much variation from one tournament/organizer/TD to the next, but to have uniformity at tournaments all across the country.
If what the player is looking at (on the monroi) is notation, I see absolutely no problem with looking at it. If, on the otherhand, the player is looking at a diagram, there is absolute validity in an opponent being uneasy about it and making a claim.
At the past SuperNationals, I had a young man who had a magnetic travel set sitting next to his board, with the exact same position as was on the tournament board. I didn’t give it a second thought in removing that travel set from the table, and placing it under his chair, and by advice from my section chief (an NTD), removed 2 minutes from his clock. In my opinion, it was use of a second board to analyze the position, and I’m not sure that analysis is confined to moving pieces on the board.
Assumes both players are of sound mind and body with no special accomodations: if one player has access to a 2D board and the other does not, then it’s an imbalance that potentially affords one player an advantage. A player should not use a MonRoi for anything other than its intended use (i.e. keeping a move score). Overall the point is probably academic, but if and when I have to rule on that claim, I will invite that person to appeal if they feel a warning (with escalations up to forfeiture) is too harsh.
I feel the defenders of this ruling are creating more issues like this down the road. The ruling should be overturned on appeal because if the ruling stands it sets a bad precedent which will be used by players to make ridiculous protests and disturb tournaments in the future. With devices like the Monroi becoming more popular, and hopefully cheaper, I would like to use such a device. But the ridiculous notion that staring at a Monroi is an unfair advantage threatens to slow down the progress of Chess tournaments. I say progress because having the pgn already typed in and ready for my analysis engine will speed up my understanding of better moves during a tournament. This is just the normal progress of technology and in a similar fashion, people used to be afraid of airplanes but we learned that their benefits outweigh their negatives.
It amazes me that people are fighting so hard to say that staring into a Monroi constitutes “analysis”, but that staring at any other 2d board does not? More strange defenses came up but they do not carry much weight and are easily knocked down.
Here is an email from Monroi which addresses this specific situation:
Yes, but the details are slightly different as the Chief TD removed himself and appointed a committee. The first ruling by the TDs went in favor of the player using his Monroi. Then
See stlchess.com/forum/viewtopic … t=30#p9743
Their main argument was: The biggest point is, THE MONROI IS A SCORE KEEPING DEVICE!
The implication being that it is not an analysis tool. GMs out there, take warning! Do not move those pieces in your head when staring into a Monroi or the Thought Police will catch you!
As you all ponder this, here’s something else to consider.
When the US Chess League plays its matches on ICC, players are allowed to have a physical board set up to view the position of their current game. They are not allowed to move/analyze on that board. Thus, allowance is made for OTB players who are more comfortable viewing a 3D board than a 2D board. From the USCL rules:
Granted, this is not FIDE- or USCF-rated chess. Still, an allowance is being made for players to view (only view) their game on the board of their choice.
It’s not such a stretch to flip that and say it’s reasonable to allow a player to view his/her game on the 2D board of his/her electronic scorekeeping device, especially since the devices don’t allow move/analysis.
To me, this is different than having an alternate physical board (unless, of course, you’re visually impaired and using a adaptive board).
Players will figure out a way to work within the rules and gain whatever advantages they truly need to compete well. So if a Monroi-type device is going to help you with your game, you will find a way to obtain one. That being the case, why begrudge the opponent his/her choice of using a legal device? If you “need” one, get one yourself.
Besides, how could directors possibly enforce a “don’t look at the gadget” rule?
Amen. The person who was ruled against was clearly upset because he could not use the MonRoi for this purpose, something he jumped on IMMEDIATELY when he thought it was legal to do so! For the person that wanted to argue intentions with me, let’s argue the intention of the MonRoi! It is a scoring keeping device…not a secondary 2D board to view a position in progress. If a player wanted to bring a device that was merely to view a board in 2D (and didnt take notation) would you allow it? Of course not! The purpose of a MonRoi is not to allow a player to get a 2D visual representation of a board, and should not be used as thus. I think we need to define the uses of a MonRoi, and the exact manners in which it can be used in a game.
Another thing to consider is this. Say eventually someone figures out a way to crack these MonRois, and hack them to use them for analysis, while they appear to only be functioning as a scoresheet device. If we have rules in place whereby the player can only view the screen when entering moves, using a hacked device to cheat is going to be much tougher! I know this is a pessimistic view of chess and players, but there are people out there always trying to game the system. If we make it legal for them to stare at an electronic device during a game, we open the potential for them to more easily cheat by manipulating accepted equipment in such a fashion that only they can recognize the subtle differences that give them computer assistance during a game. If staring at 2D computer devices is allowed, I believe you leave open the gate for bigger problems down the line. I think the MonRoi should be used only for it’s intended purpose, and that there is no justifiable reason why a player should be allowed to look at the device, except for when recording played moves into it.
Under what circumstances is it proper for a TD to tell a player he can’t look at his scoresheet?
Keep in mind, whether you’re using a MonRoi or a paper scoresheet, there are plenty of cases where you might NEED to study your scoresheet – when considering making a claim, for example.
A MonRoi isn’t a chess set, it’s a scoresheet. So the rule against using “another board” for analysis doesn’t apply – there’s no rule against looking at your scoresheet.
The MonRoi has two modes. The board (for iputting moves) and the regular notation look (to review notation, or allow your opponent to bring his sheet up to date). Therefore, any viewing of the MonRoi, when NOT entering a move, should require the MonRoi to be in notation mode and not the mode that shows a 2D representation of the position.
I think the only way this is going to be agreed on is if we determine what constitutes analysis. Some say that one would need to be moving pieces, others say that simply looking at the position constitutes analysis. I’m not sure which one I agree with.
