Youāre absolutely right, of course. Thatās how fantasies become reality ā somebody practical comes along and smooths out the fantasy.
No need for pairing sheets at all! Just go to your assigned station. Your opponentās name and rating will already be on your screen.
There still should be pairing sheets available, though, probably on one or more dedicated stations in the skittles room. Iād like to know what some of the other pairings are, not just my own! Wall charts and standings should be available that way, too.
Of course, players wouldnāt need to write down the moves. The software could take care of triple-occurrence and 50-move situations. After your game is over, just go to the TD office and request a printout of your scoresheet ā or even a PGN file on a flash drive furnished by you.
For that matter, the scoresheets (moves) of all games could be made available on the organizerās website, within a few minutes after each round ends, or even game by game as each game finishes.
Hmm. Wondering what stakes might be appropriate. If I could get such a thing OTB rated I would organize a much smaller one within the next six months. Only I would require people to bring own devices, work it through Lichess, and preregistration only (no venues) so I can plan the power grid. Players may bring a manual board to parallel the screen if they wish. Iām pretty sure I can proctor things well enough to make sure nobody will be outside the online Lichess environment long enough to make any difference.
If all the players are in the same physical location, even if theyāre connected to an external site for playing, is this an OTB event or an online event?
I can see your concern, but I donāt think itās enough of one. Iāve proctored enough tournaments and other exam sessions to have an idea how. Either all screens face same direction, where I can position myself to observe the vast majority of the playing floor with one glance, or everyone gets put on the walls and I stay in the center where I can turn 360* and see everyoneās screens. Rig where they must connect to my WiFi which is hooked to the venueās, and I know itās mine because it will have a customized splash screen on connection I will see and authenticate, and the only web location they can get to through that WiFi is the chess server I want them on. Thatās a close enough imitation of what Iāve done for testing at school where we bring our own devices - the school environment is tighter only one other way, which Iām sure could be bought for enough money.
By the wayā¦ TDās still might pair but in an online environment there are far, far less rulings and much more like proctoring than directing. At least, thatās what Iām finding directing my clubās online tournaments. Plus, if one is using an outside play server one doesnāt have any method to assess time penaltiesā¦ (Well, you could say, "2 minute penalty so when opponent reaches 1:59 you can call me over and Iāll flag it, maybe).
OK, no bet. I was hoping to be able to do what I described anyway ānaturally,ā bet or not, albeit on a smallish scale (Under 24 players total, and to start it may be 10 players or under - trying to work on the economics of space rentals now.) The questions on potential viral aerosolization gives me pause, though.
But I double Iām the only player thinking about ways to get in person play without the possibility of very close range / board contamination. So really your bet is on whether or not itās an acceptable interpretation of OTB to do that. Maybe what might change is an understanding that it is not āOTBā play, but verifiable āin personā play that should count towards a āseriousā rating.
This is essentially the question I asked at the end of my original post, and you are the first to address it.
In my fantasy, though, the players would not be connected to an āexternalā site. They would be connected only to the master computer in the TD office, which itself would be a dedicated device, accessible only to the TD staff.
Of course, the TDs could (and should) monitor the playing rooms from time to time, just as in a ānormalā OTB tournament, to make sure nobody is pulling a cell phone (or other external device) out of their backpack during the game.
Thus, with the players and TDs all at the same site, and with the same level of on-site TD supervision as would be expected in a ānormalā OTB tournament, my vote is that an event like this should qualify for OTB rating.
Nothing of the kind. It should be obvious that events of this type organized by those who are already obsessed with the idea (like you) or who are only doing it to win the bet (for themselves or as a proxy for another) ā are ruled out.
Remember, your hypothetical assumes a tournament world without the virus as a factor. Iām asserting that under those circumstances, no average organizer will ever put together an in-person event with computer screens instead of physical boards and pieces. Why would anyone bother?
I actually wasnāt considering scholastic play and was thinking of adults etc. But the tong idea could be made optional. Personally I would be more concerned at touching contaminated pieces. I feel that I could maintain social distance etc, especially with a board as big as I have described. One could see the board and remain three feet away sitting or standing. It makes the game a bit more physical with the getting up and moving back and forth. I donāt think this solution is workable at all for large events. But small events get back to a bit of what we use to have.
Or it could be considered like part of the sport. Having a certain dexterity isnāt required but helpful in playing.
Of about 12,600 events held in calendar 2019, over 8100 had fewer than 25 players, and another 2600 had fewer than 50 players. 628 had 100 or more players.
So building a high-tech solution for 50 or fewer players, probably at an average cost of under $100 per player, depending on how adaptable some of the smaller handheld devices are, is probably feasible for some organizers.
One potentially cool possibility is that the games could be put on the Internet, possibly with a 5-10 minute delay to limit cheating possibilities.
If this was a high stakes event (think US Championships), people might even pay a few dollars to watch the games online.
This was my original thought as well. I strongly prefer chess āas we know itā to any digital version, and in the absence of a strong incentive (like a pandemic), why bother with the digital version?
But Bill has a point. Young people ā you know, the same people who would rather communicate by texting than talking, who would rather play video games than real games (like baseball, basketball, tennis, golf, or even chess), who would rather read a book (if they still read at all) on a screen than read a physical book, who would rather listen to MP3 than live music ā might think Billās version of chess is a really neat idea. As for organizers ā if it becomes evident that this sort of digitized tournament is wildly more popular than the old-fashioned version (e.g., if you can draw 100 people to Billās āfuture chessā as opposed to 20 to a traditional tournament) ā they will follow the demand. They will do whatever gets people to come to their tournaments.
I donāt care for the idea of digital chess, nor do I care for single-day G/60 events. But the chess world doesnāt revolve around me. Chessplayers in general seem to prefer the G/60 events, and it wouldnāt surprise me if they also end up preferring Billās āfuture chessā. The times, they are a-changinā.
38 posts later, and still no one seems to have given an answer to the OPās question as the thread immediately got sidetracked into a discussion of the scenarioās feasibility and the predictive record of science fiction:
To me, the key lies in the following part of the premise:
(emphasis added)
I surmise from this that the tournament was advertised as OTB. Therefore, Ted was wrong to let himself get distracted by the techno bells and whistles. Didnāt he read the TLA for the event when deciding whether to play?
Itās also bewildering that the TD would not be sure, going in, which rating system was going to be used.
Aw, cāmon, give my fictional fantasy characters a break. I was just using them to get people thinking, and to ask an important question.
The characters, by the way, were not entirely fictional, but they are not actually chess players as far as I know. Perhaps you can find them on YouTube.
Yeah, I was trying to be the first one to actually give a viewpoint on the specific question that you posed. :mrgreen:
One benefit I could see from playing an OTB tournament the way you describe, is that it would put an end once and for all to arguments over making the time control or whether a player made an illegal move. Presumably the software would make that crystal clear.
The software would also be able to handle draw claims and draw offers. In fact, it might as well blur the distinction between a claim and an offer! If a player wants a draw, he presses his draw button before moving. If the position on the board has occurred for the third time, the master computer declares the game drawn. Otherwise, it asks the player to now make his move. If that move creates the third occurrence, the master computer now declares a draw. Otherwise, it informs the opponent that the player has offered a draw. (Any draw claim is also a draw offer.) The opponent accepts the offer by pressing his own draw button, or declines by playing a move. No need to play over the moves to ascertain whether there has been a triple occurrence. TD-free rulings!
I was hoping to be able to do what I described anyway ānaturally,ā bet or not, albeit on a smallish scale (Under 24 players total, and to start it may be 10 players or under - trying to work on the economics of space rentals now.) The questions on potential viral aerosolization gives me pause, though.