Actually I agree that there is no harm in looking at the Monroi. ( well except maybe to the Monroi user if they have inputed something wrong.) But I would argue that a digital camera photo of the setup wouldn’t be a note, how does it differ from the Monroi image? Same with actually diagraming the position(one could make a preprinted pad of blank diagrams- the poor mans Monroi It might even benefit the player more because it would slow them down and maybe the actual filling out the diagram would reinforce where things were.)
But bottom line here is that the Monroi is an USCF approved device and the camera and drawing methods aren’t.
So if I analyze better on 2D boards, which is very probable if much of my chess study comes via CT-ART, the ICC, Rybka, and other computer programs, is it OK for me to bring a magnetic set to my game and put it in front of me, provided I don’t move the pieces, except after moves have been made (since then I am technically not analyzing on it by your definition…and am in fact manipulating it in the same exact fashion as the player using a MonRoi)? Also, if you are not going to allow me to use a magnetic set so that I can take advantage of looking at a 2D board, how is it equal that my opponent gets that advantage if he can afford $300-$400 for a notation device that allows that extra capability while I can only use the tournament provided notation sheet and nothing else to allow me to study the position on a 2D board?
I would gladly argue that people see the game differently between 2D and 3D sets. I know I am much more prone to falling for attacks from long range pieces on a 3D board than a 2D. The fact that I see the whole board when it is smaller, rather than focusing in on a particular area of the game on a normal size chess set is a big factor in one of the weakest parts of my game…that being the attack from long range pieces. For some reason, I see those pieces much better on a 2D board and those attacks jump out at me much quicker. Even if it is just noticing that moving a piece means my undefended queen will be attacked by my opponents queen that is across the board on the same rank. I may notice such a thing in both scenarios, but it will jump out at ME much faster on a 2D board, meaning I waste less of my time analyzing what may be an inherently bad continuation…which would be an advantage to me (saving time)! So explain how allowing a MonRoi player to use his 2D board and not allowing me to use a magnetic set to garner the same advantage is fair. I see some serious equality issues.
IMO, that is a strawman argument. The issue is not whether or not any particular player can “see” the board better on the actual chess set or on another “chessboard.” (And equality should not be a topic either as all players can purchase the MonRoi if they want.)
The issue is - the MonRoi is a USCF-approved scorekeeping device. Period. If someone doesn’t think it is fair, petition the Rules Committee to change the existing rules.
Yes, some people do seem suspicious of, and uncomfortable with, scorekeeping widgets.
Bear in mind that there are two different USCF-approved scorekeeping devices–the Monroi is not the only one. Soon there may be even more. They will become more sophisticated and more cheat-proof. Prices will come down, perhaps to the price of a Chronos clock, which seems within financial reach of many, many players. Such is technology.
It also would probably be an acceptable “minor rules variation” for the TD to announce and post at the tournament that all scorekeeping devices must be kept in plain view on the table when the player is not entering a move.
The “position” of the Monroi cannot be the issue as its functioning does not change whether it is on the table or stuck to the player’s pants. The issue is the “staring” at the Monroi.
Take it easy on Ray, he has announced on STL Chess
It is another arguement to support my position. Someone brought up another point that I had not directly addressed and I did so. I fail to see how that is a strawman logical fallacy. I still stand by my other statements and my interpretation of 20D, especially since there are coorelations from interpretting it the way I did and how that coincides with the equity rule.
That’s interesting. Myself, I have problems playing a game by just looking at a computer screen or diagram. I do better looking at a 3-D board and set. In fact, when I play a computer, I set up the board and pieces and play that way. Depends on how your brain works I guess, or maybe on how an individual learns.
There’s a specific rule that says the MonRoi is a scoresheet. You can CALL it “another board”, if you like, but the RULES say it’s a scoresheet.
You can also say that it’s “analysis” to LOOK at a position on a MonRoi or a demo board, if you want, but that’s not consistent with standard practice at major tournaments, it’s not consistent with years of previous rulings, and I don’t believe it’s consistent with the way the word “analysis” is used in the rules.
IMO, limiting the amount of time a player can look at his scoresheet is a “minor variation” in the rules (IF you’re willing to make an exception when he’s preparing to make a claim that involves his scoresheet – otherwise it would be a major variation). That means it just needs to be announced at the start of the tournament.
I’d have no problem at all with such a variation. What I have a problem with is a rule “interpretation” and TD decision that seems to go against the actual written rule.
I notice that the typical users of MonRois tend to be younger players – such players might tend to become upset if a TD tells them what they’re doing is cheating and they have to stop. It’s likely to be a little disruptive of their game. That’s a problem you could avoid by announcing at the start of the tournament that you’re going to be using a rules variation.
Both these articles are official and on the USCF website. It is clear that the MonRoi is approved for use in its current form by the statement:
This is quoted from the Guidelines and is one of three approved devices along with the DGT board and eNotate. There is a statement in the guidelines that reads “The player may record moves either by accepted chess notation, or by a displayed diagram on the scoresheet.” (Emphasis mine.)
Unfortunately it appears that not all TDs are aware of these regulations, hence the ruling in St. Louis. In fact, in the whole time I have been using MonRoi’s, which is since June 2006, this is the first time anyone has mentioned rule 20D in the same sentence as MonRoi.
IMO, until the above rules are clarified further, e.g. how the electronic scoresheet is to be used during a game, or are changed then as far as I am concered the above rules should be used for determining what is allowable in terms of electronic scoresheets in USCF rated events. This is irrespective of whatever advantages are supposedly conferred in the use of such devices.
Of course organizers/TDs are free to advertise modifications to the above rules at their own events, such as those created by the Scholastic Council for use at USCF National Scholastic Events.
For that matter, any organizer has the right to supply scoresheets and require that those scoresheets (and no others) be used. There are a couple of organizers that do just that (though I wouldn’t particularly like it).
If the organizer is going to let people use their own scoresheets, however, he shouldn’t restrict how long they LOOK at them. That’s a rules modification, IMHO.
Equality should always be a topic. If one player could buy extra time on his clock, I think everyone would object even though “all players can purchase” it. I mean not everyone is a rich dentist. Note: I’m not saying the Monroi falls into that category.
After reading the posts here, I’ve changed my view slightly. I’d not adamantly against a player looking at his/her Monroi instead of the board. However, let me play the devil’s advocate for a minute.
It’s a USCF-approved scorekeeping device." Exactly, it’s approved for use as a scorekeeping device, not as a visual aide. No one is objecting to the device being used for the purpose that it was designed/approved so everyone jumping on Ray for being anti-Monroi needs to back off a bit. If the player was only entering moves and using it as a scorekeeping device, his opponent probably wouldn’t have complained. “But it doesn’t provide a tangible benefit to the player looking at it.” Then what’s the problem with it only being used as a scorekeeping device (look at it to make claims, etc.). In other words, how is the Monroi user being adversely impacted by only using it for scorekeeping?
It’s not. But it WOULD be a variant to say that the scorekeeping device has to be kept at a certain PLACE on the table, instead of directly in front of the player. We don’t tell people using a paper scoresheet to keep it over to the side where they can’t see it as well, after all.
And the issue of which devices are USCF-approved is, IMHO, a red herring.
It would be reasonable, however, for the TD to require that all such devices, extra boards, etc (USCF-approved or not), be kept in plain view at all times, so that the opponent can see that the player is not cheating. It would also be reasonable, as a practical matter, to limit the size of any such devices to, say, 4 inches square.
Well, that’s a point, but I don’t think $300-$400 quite cuts it. If it were $1000, maybe. After all, people have been buying $140 chess clocks for many years now.
Of course. Some people do better with 2D, others with 3D. If a 2D player looks at his device to see the position, no way is he gaining an unfair advantage over his 3D opponent. Quite the contrary, he is simply leveling the playing field. If the 3D player objects, then it is he, not the 2D player, who is trying to gain an unfair advantage.
Try it another way. If it’s OK for a player to “analyze” by looking at a demo board, why is it not OK for him to look at the display on his Monroi? Unless you can distinguish these cases, or are prepared to argue that players should not be allowed in the same room with demo boards, I don’t think your argument holds water.
Not in my opinion. Demo boards are not usually in a player’s line of sight. He has to get up and walk around to see one. The same applies to a Monroi. If you really want to waste your time peering at your opponent’s Monroi, go for it.
Frankly, this whole line of argument strikes me as specious. A TD doesn’t like the Monroi. Fine. Neither do I. But his (or my) likes and dislikes do not determine the rules.
Unless one announces that the unit must be turned faced down when not recording, it doesn’t really matter where on the table it’s sitting. The the bolded rules listed below give the opponent protection against the owner using it improperly. Nowhere does it say the player can not look at it.
Player’s Responsibilities:
Register the Device with the TD prior to the first round in which the player uses it.
Set it at the Record Mode and verify setting with the TD. 3. Show it to one’s opponent and explain its usage to that player and, if requested, to his or her
parent and/or coach each round Device is used.
Make the move on the board before recording the move on the Device.
[b]5. When recording moves, the player should have the Device on the table in view of the
opponent.
When not recording moves the player should keep hands off the Device and leave the
Device on the table in plain sight until the end of the game. [/b]
When opponent requests the player’s device to enter missing moves on his own scoresheet,
player will set the mode to algebraic and turn the device around so opponent can view the
display screen. Device will remain on table.
The player may request the TD to provide security for the Device when the player uses the
restroom.
It might even benefit the player more because it would slow them down and maybe the actual filling out the diagram would reinforce where things were.)
Note: I’m not saying the Monroi falls into that category.