Our Future?

It is Saturday morning, May 20, 2023. The COVID-19 virus is a thing of the past, an unpleasant memory for most of us. Over-the-board (OTB) chess tournaments are thriving, and online (ONL) tournaments are doing well also. Quite a few chess players have become fans of both, playing OTB one weekend, online the next.

Mollie and Ted, a married couple from a small city in the Midwest, have pre-registered for a two-day OTB tournament in a mid-scale hotel in their city’s downtown area. The first round is due to start at 10 o’clock today. The couple is now arriving at the tournament site an hour early, giving them time for a leisurely walkthrough to check out the playing facilities ahead of time.

The tournament publicity had listed the event as a 5-round Swiss with three rounds Saturday and two Sunday. It had also stated that players “need not bring sets, boards, or clocks to the tournament. All equipment will be provided by the organizer. Only the latest high-tech equipment will be used.”

Now Ted and Mollie walk into one of the tournament rooms, expecting to see rows upon rows of tables, with vinyl chess boards at every table, pieces meticulously set up at each board, and clocks all facing towards the center aisle.

Instead, they see a setup that resembles a university computer lab. There are computer monitors around all the edges of the room, facing into the room, with a chair at each monitor. Apparently the players will sit facing the wall, watching their monitors. Attached to each monitor is a rubber-tipped stylus, presumably for move entry on the touch screens. Above each monitor is a large sign saying “Station 1”, “Station 2”, “Station 3”, etc. In this room, the stations are numbered 1 through 20.

On each screen a chessboard is displayed, along with a message, “This software is running on a closed intranet. It cannot be accessed by persons or software outside the tournament area at any time during the tournament.” The message goes on to say “Pairings will appear at each station at approximately 9:40 am. You may look up your pairing at any station, then proceed to your assigned station by 10 am. Open section games will be played at stations 1-20, Under-2000 section at stations 21-40, Under-1600 section at stations 41-60. Thank you for your cooperation.”

Upon further exploration of the tournament area, Mollie and Ted find two more rooms set up the same way, one with stations numbered 21-40 and another numbered 41-60. There is also a skittles room, with the same setup but no station numbers, and a smaller room labeled “TD Office” with some additional equipment and a master computer.

Both Ted and Mollie are playing in the Under-2000 section, so they sit down in the room where the stations are numbered 21-40, and await their pairings, along with other players in the various sections.

Around 9:40, the chessboards disappear from all the screens, and the pairings appear. The players take note, and instantly leap out of their seats and run to the various stations. There is no crowding around the pairing sheets, because the pairing sheets are on all the stations, and the players-to-stations ratio is approximately 1:1.

The screens closely resemble OTB pairing sheets, except that instead of table numbers, each player is assigned a station number. In one corner of the screen are three touch buttons labeled “Open”, “Under-2000”, and “Under-1600”. Thus, players may look up pairings in any section, not just their assigned sections.

Mollie quickly finds her pairing, and sees that she is playing the black pieces at station 33 against Joseph Kingfish at station 24. She also notices that Ted is playing the white pieces at station 36 against Linda Queensmash at station 27. It appears that stations 21-29 are assigned to the higher-rated players in each pairing, and 30-38 to the lower. Stations 39-40 are left over (for now).

Mollie gravitates to station 33, and looks across the room to see her apparent opponent starting to sit down at station 24. Mollie waves at her opponent, and he waves back. Some players, however, are actually getting out of their seats to greet their opponents in person in the middle of the room, and then returning to their assigned stations.

At 9:59, the pairings disappear from the screens, replaced with a chessboard display and countdown notice. “Games will start in 60 seconds”, then 59,58,57 etc. Clock times (e.g. 1:30:30) are also displayed, but are not yet counting down. At each station, the player’s time is shown at the bottom of the screen, and the opponent’s time at the top. The pairings remain displayed at unused stations 39-40 for the benefit of late arrivers.

At 10:00, a “Please begin” notice appears and white’s clock starts counting down. All the players begin their games. A few minutes later, the TD walks into the room to check for missing players. Seeing that everybody is present and playing, the TD leaves the room and returns to the TD Office.

The games continue. Throughout play, a “Draw” button (claim, offer, or accept), a “Resign” button, and a “Summon TD” button are available on each player’s screen. As each game finishes, its result is automatically and immediately transmitted to, and recorded on, the Tournament Central station in the TD Office. Partially and fully completed pairing sheets and wall charts are available for viewing at any time at the skittles room stations.

After the tournament is over, Ted and Mollie approach the organizers to thank them for a wonderful tournament. Mollie says, “I’m really glad this tournament is OTB-rated.” Ted responds, “Wait a minute, I thought it would be online-rated, with all the techno bells and whistles.” The organizer ponders, “Hmm, let me think about that. I had assumed it was going to be OTB-rated, but now I’m not so sure.”

Opinions, please. Should this event, as described, be OTB-rated or online-rated?

Bill Smythe

Your question is irrelevant, since no such event will ever be held. The notion that in-person tournaments might be played on computer screens instead of real chess boards is an absurd fantasy. Care to make a side bet on this? Name your stakes.

– Hal Terrie

I wonder how many now-commonplace features of daily life were once regarded as absurd fantasies that could never happen?

Bill Smythe

I suggested a similar possibility, though not in such a literary fashion, a few weeks back. The setup cost would be significant, probably several hundred dollars per station, but an organizer with that kind of deep pockets might be able to make it work.

Probably about the same number as many confident predictions about the future made decades ago which, in retrospect, seem rather silly.

– Hal Terrie

Sometimes the wild-eyed predictors get things right. Arthur C. Clarke predicted communications satellites over a decade before rockets capable of placing satellites in a geo-stable orbit existed.

In Brave New World, no new games were permitted unless they used up more technology than their predecessors. The World Controller tsk-tsked the notion that children were once allowed to play games with just a ball and a stick.

As opposed to dogs, who play games with a ball OR a stick.

Clarke also predicted (in Profiles of the Future) that we would have “efficient electrical storage” by 1970. That didn’t happen. I’m not sure what we have now qualifies either.

– Hal Terrie

I was an electrical engineering major, I’ve had a passing interest in energy storage for nearly 50 years. About 25 years ago a leading expert on energy storage solutions said we were probably 3 breakthroughs away from efficient small scale entry storage systems, which I think he defined as greater than 15%. I think we’ve only had one major breakthrough since then, though there’s a second one that may be getting close.

But the internal combustion engine is only about 20% efficient.

So, Arthur C. Clarke is 1 for 2. Thus, the answer to my original question –

– appears to be, about half.

Bill Smythe

The bold prediction by Mr. Smythe seems quite plausible in the post-Covid era. I predict such tournaments will happen next year! However, Mr. Smythe got one key detail wrong. Computer terminals are so 20th Century. Instead, the organizer will provide tablets or iPads for all the players.

Indeed, ChessKid already sponsored such an event in Australia earlier this year. In this example, only the puzzle competition was held on the tablets while the main tournament proceeded normally.
https://www.chesskid.com/article/view/funmastermike-in-australia

Michael Aigner

Scifi fans sometimes talk about a rather obscure (at the time) 1975 book called ‘The Shockwave Rider’, which many say correctly anticipated the Internet and how it would come to be the place where much data mining was done.

So if I may offer an alternate scenario. It requires US Chess to adjust the rules on pieces sizes etc, (wonder how those apply to on screen versions) but there already exists chess sets that are 8 inch size pieces (not trying to advertise here, I just googled things and came up with a 59 dollar set and board. The point I am getting to is that for social distancing the larger set works much better. Now add a three foot long chess piece picker upper device (kind of like kitchen tongs but three feet long) Now you play chess with a fencing attitude. You move your piece hit the clock step back. Your opponent lunges forward and makes his or her move.
Social Distancing with Attitude. :slight_smile:

My wife has an inherited (familial) tremor, she has trouble picking up things with a fork. Using long tongs to move chess pieces is something she, and I suspect a large percentage of our members, would be unable to do.

The high tech solutions, while they may not be viable financially at this time (and may never be for most affiliates), are probably ones that most members should be able to use.

This is an interesting discussion but it needs to focus on ideas that will actually work, not Rube Goldberg-like contraptions.

I realize I suggested this with a bit of tongue in cheek, but one probably wouldn’t really need 3 foot long tongs. I mean we do have arms. I would think regular kitchen tongs would be able to grab onto the larger size chess pieces I am suggesting with little or no problems.

The trouble with tablets or iPads is the possibility (or at least the fear) of cheating, via external software. That would be a problem with computer terminals, too.

What I actually had in mind was a dedicated device that could be connected only to a specially designed master server. It would consist basically of a screen whose chess diagram would be about 8 inches square (so we oldsters could still see the pieces), touch-screen capability, and no internal software except what is necessary to display the position and respond to touches.

Bill Smythe

Wayne, it appears you’ve never dealt with someone with a serious tremor. I suspect little kids might not have the reach or motor skills needed.

Yes, I’m being humor-challenged here, because this is a serious matter.

Dedicated devices would be great, but is there enough of a market for them to make them affordable. Notepad computers are already available at reasonable prices.

I think computers that have been set up to only connect to a local network, one with no net access, would be harder to mess around with. This isn’t rocket science level technology here, school computer centers, especially testing centers, have dealt with this issue successfully for years.

I’m missing something in Mr. Smythe’s fantasy scenario. Wouldn’t it be easier to have each player assigned a terminal at registration. There is no reason for players to move around the room, and the TD could tell at a glance who is missing. The only reason we choose to separate by section and score now is because no player has a dedicated board. When a player has a dedicated board like for a disability, it doesn’t matter where he is. To put it another way, where do you put the game between player 2 and player 49? If they play together, board six is a possibility. If they play separately, then there is no need for them not to play on boards 2 and 49.

Alex Relyea

Yeah, no reason for players to move to a new station for each round.

Organizers could decide what station to assign to someone based on a variety of factors, top players could be in a roped-off area as is often the case at major events, team members could be grouped together, etc.

You lose the face-to-face contact that some people relish. Might make it harder to pull off some psych-out moves, too. (A strong well-known Nebraska player once put a piece en prise, he spent the next several minutes staring at the ceiling as if it was fascinating. I guess it worked, his opponent missed seeing the en prise piece.)

I was expecting the organizer to supply the tablets in the same way that you proposed converting a computer lab into a tournament hall. The organizer would upload his own software and little else. Indeed, this would look similar to an electronic scoresheet, except with a larger screen. I am not talking about fancy gadgets; I sometimes play online with my $39 Amazon Fire tablet.

Aside from cheating, the organizer must worry that these devices can grow legs.

Michael Aigner