I know of none.
Picky, picky, picky, whats a player to do when the position on the MonRoi does not agree with the position on the board?
If there’s a claim of some sort, I suppose we go to notation mode and determine what went wrong?
Are you thinking that a player could quickly and covertly enter a few additional moves on the MonRoi in an attempt at analysis?
About move 35 you notice a pawn on a dark square on the board but light on the MonRoi. Your opponent has adjusted the pieces several times. Are you sugesting stopping the game and replaying it back from the score sheets ?
I’ll rephrase, as I haven’t adequately handled the two different display modes. It’s not the notation mode that is bothersome. It’s when one player has the ability to view the graphical board display on the MonRoi and the other play cannot. This goes back to USCF Code of Ethics #5, specifically the phrase, “principles of fair play.”
Both players (if playing without modifications) are using the same board, piece style, and clock. With a tournament hall display board, both players have equal opportunity to view that board. In a USCL game, both players have equal right and opportunity to use a standard set in addition to the 2D desktop application.
When one player has a MonRoi and the other does not, that is an imbalance in equal opportunity for a level playing field. If we break it down, the MonRoi’s graphic board mode is an input device, and the notation mode is the scoresheet. Whether someone is really using the graphic board as a study tool or just “spacing out” in that direction, that is all situational. If the non-MonRoi player is concerned about a level playing field, it should be addressed. Obviously this is all moot if both players have a scoring device with a graphic board mode.
TDs often give warnings on the appearance of impropriety–this situation shouldn’t be different.
It’s been known to happen.
Well, yes??? Wouldn’t we do the same thing if a MonRoi wasn’t being used? We’d notice a difference between what’s on the board, and what’s recorded on the notation sheet, and I’d hope we’d investigate to see what happened.
I see your point. I’m not convinced that it’s an advantage as much as it’s a habit developed by scorekeeping-widget-users. But let’s go with the point a minute.
Fr’instance, if the widget was to automatically revert into “notation sheet mode” 10 seconds after the stylus last tapped the screen, then Mr. or Ms. Widget User could stare at the widget to his/her heart’s content, and not have the advantage of staring at a 2D board. A tap of the stylus would be required to shift the widget back to “board” mode when it came time to record a move.
That would solve the issue for you, wouldn’t it?
Ah, but the widget is already approved in its current state. Hard to get around that. All the early-widget-adopters would then feel at a disadvantage, or would their widgets be grandfathered?
Of course. A piece displacement counts as an illegal move, and the game must be restored to the last legal position unless more than ten moves have elapsed. In practice I can usually do this from looking at the scoresheets, but sometimes you have to play through the game.
All this talk about the Monroi “board” strikes me as missing the point. It’s a symbolic representation of the “real” board, just as a written game score is. Perhaps it is easier for a player to analyze in his head by looking at such a 2-D board than by reading a scoresheet, but that’s a question which needs to be raised at the Rules Committee level. Frankly, I think a TD ruling that a player cannot look at his Monroi represents an abuse of authority by a TD with an axe to grind. At a minimum, it’s a “major variation” which needs to be announced in advance.
John,
How would it be only a symbolic representation of the real board? I’m speaking of the “diagrahmed board” on the MonRoi - it’s an actual chessboard, right?
No axes to grind here, just interested/
No, it isn’t. It’s a 2-D representation of the actual chessboard and pieces. It’s a pictograph rather than a syllabary, but it’s still an abstract representation. A strong player can look at a written game score, visualize the position, and analyze the game. A weak player can look at the display on a Monroi and (maybe) analyze the game. There is a practical difference but not a conceptual one.
The TDs who are making the “no looking at Monroi” argument are relying on 20D (“A player who analyzes a game in progress on another chessboard … is guilty of a serious violation of the rules.”) There are two problems here: the definition of “another chessboard” and the meaning of “analyzes.” I’ve already indicated why I don’t think the Monroi screen qualifies a “another chessboard.” But even if you reject that argument, note that elsewhere in the Rulebook (20F), “analysis” is used in a context which clearly means moving the pieces on a board. Using it at 20D in the other sense of “thinking about the position” strikes me as highly implausible.
Yep, I see it. :mrgreen:
I am quite familiar with MonRoi and I have to agree with tanstaafl, sloan, rfeditor and others. There is no way this USCF Rules Committee-tested and approved device violates 20D and it is not analysis. There is no reason to not allow a player to look at their USCF-approved scoresheet, even as described.
So just out of curiosity if a player were to draw a chess diagram of the current position and then study it before making his or her move, would that be considered legal? It isn’t a chess board remember, it is just a representation of a chess board. Or what if you had your digital camera set to mute and snapped an image after each move and studied that image instead of the board?
Different rule. That falls under 20C, Use of notes prohibited. A better analogy would be a player I recall who liked to keep score in figurine notation. I thought he was wasting his own time, but it was permissible.
As I’ve said before, if you really believe the “Monroi is an extra board” argument, apply to the Rules Committee to decertify the Monroi. Trying to weasel out of a rule you don’t like through “creative interpretation” is an abuse of TD power.
What on earth is all the fuss about?
Among tournament players, only a nitpicker with a small mind would object to an opponent staring at the Monroi instead of at the “official” board (as long as he wasn’t moving pieces around).
If the opponent can function better looking at a 2D image than a 3D one, more power to him. This comes pretty close to a disability on the opponent’s part. I’m not about to discriminate against the disabled.
And yes, TDs do have to consider intent when making rulings from the rulebook. If TDs didn’t do that, there could be all kinds of silly rulings in all kinds of situations.
Putting the shoe on the other foot, if a tournament is ever held using exclusively 2D devices, such as computer screens, I would not object to a player having his own 3D board and staring at it, either. Any opponent who functions better in 3D than 2D, or vice versa, should be allowed his whim. Let the game be decided by the strength of the players, not by a visual disability (in either direction).
Bill Smythe
Perhaps it has something to do with parents not liking having their kids “punished” for TDs incorrectly applying Rule 20D?
A 12-year old at that.
Staring at the position on the MonRoi isn’t analyzing. Clearly, illegal analysis means moving pieces on another board, or reading pre-published material. At least that’s how I interpret the intent of 20D. I think it’s clearly erroneous to argue that looking at ones position on a demo board on on his MonRoi is analyzing.
I have had a number of occasions when the position on my Mon Roi differs from what is on the board. Sometimes it’s because I’ve moved the wrong knight to a specific square. (Nf3 to d2 as opposed to Nb1 to d2). On a normal score sheet one may have written Nd2 and later is not sure which knight moved. On the Mon Roi which knight moved makes a big difference. I played out an entire game with the wrong knight on d2. It wasn’t until I went to play the moves back afterward that I realized that I had moved the f3 knight instead of the b1 knight. The Mon Roi allowed me to “jump over” the knight on b1 to input Rad1.
In other cases I’ve caught the mistake early, and have borrowed the opponent’s score sheet on my time to find and fix the mistake. It’s no different then my noticing I’ve left out a move on a written score sheet and using my opponent’s score sheet to fix it. I always try to make it clear that I’m not analyzing, but simply correcting my mistake.
Looking at the 2D representation on the Mon Roi isn’t all it’s cracked up to be especially if you have inputted a move incorrectly. I one time had looked at the position on the device, thought that my opponent’s e pawn was en prise, and picked up my knight to make the capture. Fortunately before I grabbed the pawn I noticed that the board position was different then what was showing on my device. I did have to make a move with that knight which was on a good square. I had to waste a move putting it somewhere (h5) and then several moves later put it back on f6. Wasting those two moves gave my opponent a big edge out of the opening that I never recovered from.
I think as long as the unit is sitting on the table and the player is not using the stylus to point at different squares, I don’t see that looking at the board is analysis. I have had to tell kids to put their Mon Roi down and not to be pointing at different squares trying to work out the moves.
I suppose if the TD was so desperate to rule against the Mon Roi user he could classified the user’s staring at the unit as distracting and annoying the opponent, since the player was disturbed by the opponent using the Mon Roi is this manner. However if it’s deemed legal to look at the unit without picking it up, then I don’t think the TD could even apply 20G.