Organizer authority with electronic notation device?

Running Chess Tournaments
1

I am interested in the USCF rules committee opinion on whether the organizer of a scholastic event has authority to publish and enforce the following variation to proposed rule 15A

"Electronic Notation will not be allowed at the primary sections of this tournament. If notation is to be taken, it will be done with pencil and paper unless extraordinary physical limitations exist in the opinion of the Tournament Director. In addition, with regard to rule 15A, this rule will be enforced in keeping with the way that it was written and published in the 5th edition of US Chess Federation’s Official Rules of Chess
“The Player may first make the move, and then write it on the scoresheet, or vice versa”

My intention of proposing and listing my tournaments in this way is attempt to eliminate the confusion which is inevitable in the primary school section where notation is not required, but where rules regarding making claims based on notation are still enforced. It is a distinct advantage at this age to be able to record moves with a drag and drop. At this time, with the expense of such tools and the availability at less than 5% of players of this age utilizing such tools, this is an attempt to keep the playing field level, and not give the advantage in over the board play to whoever has the best notation equipment, but instead to who is playing the best chess and who is attempting to learn step one of compliance with the required notation rules - the taking of notation.

2

You don’t need to ask the rules committee – I’ve seen organizers announce bigger rule variations than this. The key here is to announce it in advance, which is just what you plan to do.

I’d urge you NOT to take this step, however. You know, you’ve got a national champion that’d probably come to quite a few of your events (his dad recommended them to me, and I agree you have some very nice tournaments). However, this player’s father feels pretty strongly about this subject and I agree with him. Having a score of his son’s games is THE BEST training tool he can get from a tournament. If he’s willing to invest the money to get a score of the games, why shouldn’t he? In his particular case, players of his age aren’t normally expected to be able to WRITE, much less keep a written score of a chess game. This is his only REAL chance at getting a score of the games.

The students in your PRIMARY section are the very ones most likely to benefit from one of these devices. I understand the expense involved, but you’ve got some players that have spent over $100 on a clock, over $100 on a set, over $100 on a board, SEVERAL $100s on books and SW and lessons… You’re not going to “level the playing field” by singling out this one item.

If your only concern is leveling the playing field, why don’t you ask if he’d be willing to supply a MonRoi to the opponent? Or disallow the use of electronic scoresheets for the purpose of making a claim (seems like a bad idea not to use the best information available, but it’s your call). The biggest advantage I see from the MonRoi is AS A TRAINING DEVICE, not something to give you an advantage DURING the game – I’m pretty sure some people would use them EVEN IF IT WASN’T CONSIDERED AN OFFICIAL SCORE.

3

.
I tip my hat to MNibb for his work in making chess happen in his scholastic area. That said, this being a discussion forum, I offer my not-always-favorable discussions as response to MNibb’s posed questions.

Almost any rule book variation published in advance should be given the benefit of the doubt. TD’s need authority and flexibility.
Plus, for kids so young that the simple act of taking notation is a problem, it is hard to argue against varying the rules to accomodate.

However, if kid player MM (or his parents) have paid for a USCF & FIDE approved MonRoi device, MM would naturally feel upset at being told he cannot use the device. Not good. Let the kid enjoy his device.

If player MM uses a MonRoi, but his opponent decides to not take notation at all, I do not see any advantage MM has in this situation. Yet the purported purpose of your rule variation is to prevent MM from having an advantage.

MonRoi devices are rare, so why make an issue about them in the first place? The chess world should encourage these devices. They have great potential to improve the chess scene among TD’s and among chess players of all ages. The more devices they sell, the sooner economies of scale can bring down their price.

There may be good reason for your rule book variation, but eliminating confusion is not one of them. Your variation increases confusion. Why? Because…

First, it is a variation, and thus it is inherently more confusing than sticking to the regular rules.

Second, having the game notation could potentially reduce confusion in any number of scenarios.

This citation leaves your rules ambiguous; because some people say this wording allows the player to ERASE any move he has written in advance, while other people say such an erasure is forbidden as a form a note-taking (my personal stance).
So it might be good to add another sentence at the end to clarify.

I AM CURIOUS: Does the MonRoi device enable a player to “erase” a move he has entered before he has yet physically made the move on the chess board?

4

I think you’re also going to have a problem with a perception of unfairness if you have an announced rules variation that’s going to pretty much single out ONE SINGLE PLAYER. As far as I know, there aren’t that many people that have and use a MonRoi. But you have one that’s fairly close to your tournaments, is an excellent player, and who has a father that’s an outspoken proponent of the MonRoi.

Isn’t it going to seem that you’re just telling this one player that he isn’t welcome to your events?

5

Am I the only one who sees history repeating itself here?

In the early days of digital clocks, some organizers banned their use, sometimes just the use of specific models of digital clocks, because they thought the clocks might give some advantage to their owners. In retrospect, those concerns seem rather silly these days.

6

Hopefully, parts of history WILL repeat. It’d be nice if these devices became popular, inexpensive (relatively), more fully featured, easier to use, …

Just like digital clocks did.

Maybe we can skip some of the less desirable history and not ban the devices from tournaments before they get a chance to improve.

7

All it usually takes for prices to fall is a viable competitor or two, and an increasing market size. That’s what happened with both chess computers and digital clocks.

8

Mike, you may be seeing history repeating itself, I don’t know. I mean as a former Physics teacher and now computer programmer, I will stop technologies march at all cost!!!

Seriously, this is about trying to present an atmosphere to all of our youngest that they are all special and will be treated with respect. We have enough battles trying to get a kid who can’t afford a good pair of tennis shoes to come to a chess tournament because he “doesn’t belong”

Yeah, some kids parentes have gone out and spent too much on clocks and we let them use them. We won’t set the clocks and when a K-1 kid sits down and his opponent brings a clock we sit down with the kid who has never played with a clock and try to give him a quick lesson in how to play.

I think at this point we are pretty safe in thinking that for the 70 or so kids in our K-1 section in local tournaments and the 150 or so K-1 kids in our state tournament, the vast majority of the parents of these kids do not want their children coming back between rounds saying they want a MONROI. At this age, we don’t see very many digital clocks. In fact 3/4 of the kids don’t even have clocks. We put a clock down on games that have not finished 20 minutes till the expected finish time and give the kids 10 minutes each at that point.

We don’t want this to be about who has the best equipment at this age or any age. We don’t want any kid to feel like he doesn’t belong because of what he can’t afford and we don’t want any parent not to let their kid play because they can’t afford it. We keep the cost of our tournaments down to $12 and in most cases, a kid with financial need pays nothing.

This all started because someone wanted to video tape games in a k-1 section and parents complained. I believe the dad of this boy thinks he is doing the right thing going over his sons games that he captures on a MonRoi… You know, in another topic the other day, people were telling me that kids shouldn’t even be playing rated games at this age, and now people are telling me that kids should be using MonRoi devices.

I’m going to do what I think is right, and where we don’t require notation to be used, we will not accept the use of electronic notation… for now!!!

9

Unless you supply sets and clocks for everyone, as well as chess lessons and chess coaches, meals, transportation to events, etc., you are never going to level the playing field.

10

You’re not doing much to dispel the idea that your rule variation is meant to target one particular player.

You also sound more like you’re more interested in being “inclusive” than “fair”. While you’re at it, why don’t you ban designer clothes? Some kids come to your tournaments WEARING nearly as many $$ as they’d have invested in a MonRoi (and a MonRoi will at least accomplish something).

There’s more than one way to handle problems like this, and I think you’ve chosen a less than optimal approach. If you had a couple of MonRoi’s on the top boards at your tournaments (or DGT boards, projecting the games for parents to view) then that would ALSO handle the problem. Then if a kid complains that he doesn’t have a MonRoi to use, his parents can tell him to study so that HE’LL get to play on one of the top boards.

11

You are right, we can’t solve all the worlds problems and we can’t eliminate the differences between the rich and the poor.

We can try to live by our concious and do what we can do. We are trying to help the very youngest believe they can be just as good as anybody else and that this is one game where money doesn’t put people at an advantage or disadvantage.

In a couple of years, they will prove to themselves whether they are good chess players and perhaps regardless of social class, have the confidence to just believe they can be successful, even if they only have one parent and 5 brothers and sisters.

Giving up doesn’t have to start when a child is 5 years old. Priviledge doesn’t need to discourage those we seem to want believe should lift themselves up by their own bootstaps. We don’t have to reinforce the message kids too often hear “you can’t do it, you don’t belong”

Why don’t you do a poll and determine if the parents of kindergarten and 1st graders want their children given the impression that to be a good chess player, you need to get a MonRoi? I don’t think I will give up on the idea that you become a good chess player not because of technology but because you work hard and play a lot.

12

We are trying!!!

13

I agree with tanstaafl.

If we now ban the use of a MonRoi device or any other it is the same as telling the little chess tyke that he can’t use his digital clock because his opponent doesn’t own one.

If a parent and their child choose to have an electronic record of the game score, by the new rule, it is allowed. It should also be allowed to use a nice wooden chess set if the player wants also, as long as it us within the rules of the USCF.

14

So you’re trying to give your players a “free lunch”? :slight_smile:

I’m sure you’re trying to do the right thing for your players here, but I think you’re as misguided on this one issue as you could be. A lot of parents struggle to provide as many opportunities for their kids as they can. You’re trying to “level the playing field” by holding people down instead of lifting them up. I’m not sure EITHER approach will work. People get the most benefit from (and have the most appreciation FOR) the things they’ve had to work, sacrifice, and struggle for. If some kid can get a training advantage from a MonRoi, and he (or his parents) are willing to put forth that kind of investment, then you should encourage them. Instead of disallowing these devices, you should look at ways to make them available to anyone willing to work hard enough.

15

Funny you should mention this. The player can’t use a DGT board at some scholastic tournaments – somehow it’s not FAIR to the other players to use such an expensive board. Playing on such an expensive board would be too INTIMIDATING! (no, I’m not kidding)

16

Ron, you can’t play :laughing: and you can’t bring your wooden board and set it up in a different location every time you play. Your Kindergarten opponent just might put a piece in his mouth and I’m sure you wouldn’t like that. :stuck_out_tongue:

We do not require children to notate. If they choose to, it is on paper. Less equipment gets broken, or lost, or stolen by the kindergartners that way.

17

Well Mnibb, you asked for opinions and you’ve gotten them. It doesn’t seem like there is a whole lot of support for your views, but that doesn’t seem to have shaken your resolve to do things as you see fit. Nothing wrong with maintaining the courage of your convictions. I don’t agree with you either, but you’re certainly within your rights as the organizer to announce variation from the rules in advance. In my mind, it’s not going to come into play often enough to be an issue. If you know of one and only one person likely to be impacted, that does look disconcertingly like you’re trying to single them out, though from the passion you show on the issue I highly doubt that’s the case.

18

You know, I think we’ll be just fine… I think the kids who play in our tournaments will be just fine too… You know, every now and then we will get one or two comlaints and we work it out. Most people are very understanding about why we do what we do and can see the results. More kids play more chess… Every now and then someone will chose not to play. I’m guessing that we replace that one with 4 or 5 others.

19

I have to say in complete fairness that events in your area that I’ve been to are among the most organized and best run local scholastic events I’ve seen. I’m sure they will continue to have great success.

I think the success is in spite of some of your policies rather than because of them. You’ve obviously made plenty of good decisions and have volunteers that put in a great deal of effort. Maybe you do a good job getting a lot of kids playing. How many of your players become top players? It ought to be possible to do both.

Doing things that encourages top players should be something you could use to attract more average players. Essentially telling one player that he isn’t welcome doesn’t sound like a good idea.

20

Some of our kids show up in the Top 100 list (4 currently I believe). We have one National Champion living in town and playing in our events. For a town our size, I think we are doing OK. We can alway use help. I’ll discuss with our board of directors to see if encouraging use of MonRoi at K-1 will help our kids play better chess :laughing: