The problem with putting a list such as that in the rulebook is that a new edition of the rulebook is still several years down the road.
Here’s a partial list of the problem with having an ‘approved’ list in general: Who gets to do the approving, what standards are used, and when a device fails to receive approval is there any recourse for the maker to appeal that ruling?
(Edit: I hereby apologize to Nolan. He listed some points, I took them as “objections”, and therefore my answer was objectionable.)
So the rulebook revision process is broken. If that’s an argument against writing good rules, then it’s just more broken.
You’ve got to be kidding. (Edit: That was the wrong answer. The correct answer is: the rules committee.)
Standard standards. (Edit: Wrong again. The standard is that the electronic device cannot be used to transmit moves to a player, nor to suggest or correct moves in any way AND it must have some legitimate function for the tournament.)
Go before the rules committee.
(Edit: Remember the von Neumann affair? Supposing that MP3 players were allowed by the TD. It would be up to “von Neumann” to demonstrate that his electronic device was either on the approved list, or was an actual MP3 player. Failing that, he is sanctioned. The burden falls on the player instead of the TD, so there is no need to be searching the internet for device ids or such.)
I’m going to try to be silent now.
Yes, this would be an example of a Stupid Discontinuity, an evil monster I’ve tried to fight before in other contexts (such as the awarding of place and class prizes).
Bill Smythe
Technology does move faster than the rule book, and as we have seen, so has prostate problem of Grandmasters at certain events.
In an Advanced Physics class in college, I had an eccentric professor who graded on a bell curve, and I resented some of my fellow computer science friends who would do wonders with the little TI calculators with programmable features. It was not hard to stay in the top three on grades for tests, since my job at the time actually paid me to monitor a wall of telemeters all equipped with bells, so I used the time to study 5 days a week, midnight to eight. My friend who had a real job where he had to work, always did A+ work, but was often number four or five, so when final grades would come out, he was rolling the dice. He complained to our Professor, who simply stated that we could not use the programmable features, but no one enforced the rule, as his secretary handed out the test, and proctored the class.
He had a 4.0 grade point, and was going to drop the class, and wait and take it during the fall with a different Professor. I had him write a letter, and explain what was happening. In the mean time, as a protest a number of us took the nest test with a slide rule, and did not even bring in a calculator. The President of the University and the Dean of the Graduate Program were both old Physics Professors, and felt pity on my friend, and bought plain Jane calculators for future tests. To those that learned the right way, and put in the hard work, there was no problem. In the end cheaters never win, because down the road their day will come, and the taking the easy way will cost them. It is just sad that for those of us that play by the rules, we often have to wait decades before we see any justice.
Would that it were so.
Little justice in this lifetime.
Amen, but then I do feel better, and I try to do right by my parents!
How are mp3 players being dragged into this? As someone who has been using an MP3 player (CD player in my earlier years) for most of his chess life, I’m pretty sure most people don’t mind them. In fact, when people have confronted me about them, I’ve readily complied with their requests. (four occasions only, one of which my opponent just asked to listen in to make sure I wasn’t cheating (although that was a CD player), one where my opponent continually asked me to turn the volume down (I’m still of the opinion he was hearing things as I couldn’t even hear the music with my headphones in the ears), and two others where my opponents thought I was cheating. I don’t feel like elaborating on the first occasion, but for this last one he tried to pull over the TD who basically told him I had every right to listen to music as I played (I decided to be courteous and put my iPod away anyway)).
It’s not to say I’m against standardizing what devices can be used – I believe I’ve made some very old posts suggesting quite the opposite – it’s just that blanket statements like “ban all mp3 players” in an attempt to quell cheating is like “sandblasting a saltine” (Dilbert quote). If you’re really concerned about cheating, you might be better off banning players from ever getting up from the table and putting dividers between all the boards so that no one’s copying positions off of others.
(relevant: viewtopic.php?f=5&t=2248)
I think rules that make their way into our rule book should be the ones that are appropriate for typical tournaments. Typical tournaments do not need to be concerned with cheating – the prizes are relatively small and the potential punishment (if caught) very severe (for a chess player).
Typical tournaments don’t post a lot of rules variations – it’s not worth their trouble – so don’t make the rules fit the few exceptional tournaments with giant prizes.
Let the big events like the CCA tournaments post their rules variations (they do anyway – at every event), and let them have stricter rules against cell phones, mp3 players, etc. The rest of us, playing in normal tournaments, don’t need rules that are more strict than those used in the CCA tournaments, and that’s what was wrong with the initial proposal.
Having been someone who has had to deal with electronic cheating firsthand, I completely agree that the stricter rules are not needed by smaller events. The TD does need the abiity to deal with “ego” cheaters who do it for rating points and not money, but that is where TD discretion comes into play. CCA basic rule is now:
Players must submit to a search for electronic devices if requested by Director. In round 4 or after, players with scores of over 80% and their opponents may not use unauthorized headphones, earphones or cellphones or go to a different floor of the building without Director permission
Mike
My bad. I extended the subject to all electronic devices. Lumping cellphones with other “non-approved” (my language) electronic devices was my attempt to simplify the rules.
I picked the mp3 player as a device that is obviously benign, yet by default would be banned under my proposed rule change. I don’t see a problem with that, because the proposed rule allows for posted variations, just like many rules in the current rulebook allow for posted variations.
I would like the default rule to be simple and clear, and the messy exceptions to be included in a catch-all posted variations clause. If others like the default to be messy with lots of different published sub-rules and interpretations and guidelines, that’s okay I guess. Kind of explains how the rulebook got to be where it is today.
An MP3 player isn’t so benign if it’s playing a recording on opening theory.
(I was going to put a smiley there, but years ago I had a player at a tournament who was using a Walkman, and his opponent claimed that he was listing to a tape of opening lines.)
How would that work?
How would opening lines as an audible recording work in real tournament play? It apparently couldn’t work well at all.
I see this as very funny and humorous.
It’s not nearly as funny when you’re the TD and someone’s making a fuss about his opponent’s Walkman.
Oh, I understand Mike.
I just mean that I don’t understand how having a MP3 player could allow a recorded opening line cheating.
Even if the opponent played the exact line that was recorded, just think of the time between moves in a slow time control game.
The only way this could happen would be if the person kept starting and stopping the player. With variations, he would need to find the “album” with the correct variation,…literally at every move.
That would be a sure give-away at cheating.
Now, I just start the player and don’t look at it again until the music either stops or the game stops. That really doesn’t look at all like cheating with the device.
I have played many games where I crammed one or two long variations between the time the pairings went up and the start of the round. It can’t be that hard to put a few lines of the Ruy Lopez from MCO onto your iPod if you know your opponent plays, for example, the open variation. This is not much different from someone who discretely consults handwritten opening notes–something that I have witnessed before.
Michael Aigner
MP3 playlist. You could put the entire book in there and navigate to the correct line with little trouble. But so far I haven’t noticed any of my opponents messing around with menus, nor do the ones with headsets play the openings particularly well. If anything they play worse when they have them on.
Anyway, the gist of my rule suggestion is that tech changes fast, faster than the rulebook. Choice A is to fight a continuous rear-guard action against new electronic modes of cheating, Choice B is to make a simple all-encompassing rule that gives the TD the authority to prevent cheating and the latitude to allow non-cheating. I suppose there are other choices.
Wait til the new version comes out with auto-sensory link, blink twice to change to new opening page and three times to scroll through variations 
Aren’t there already rules to cover cheating?
I agree, most local tournaments don’t need the extensive rules that major cash tournaments do, but from experience MP# players and IPODs can be distracting because of how loud some people play their music.
I would also not think they are benign, as with many friends in the electronics industry, they can do about anything, especially the toys they make. They can MacGyver just about anything, and with a pair of eyeglasses and headphones, they can partner up with “Fritz”, or just about anybody.
a) just ask the person to turn it down
b) wow…conspiracy around every corner? not likely.