The rule changes for electronic scoresheets are posted on the home page of the Web site. The changes are to rule 15A and added rule 43. and the criteria for certifying electronic scoresheets (along wiht the two devices that qualify).
My recommendation is to start spreading the word on the rule changes, in particular 15A (move first, then record). This is going to be a tough one for some people. I believe the changes need to be ratified by the delegates in August in order to become “official” but start now.
The electronic scoresheet criteria is being implemented immediately.
In addition is the MonRoi certification and my review of the MonRoi PCM.
I am very impressed with the MonRoi, in its security and ease of use. There are a few suggestions for improvement as well. Those improvements are mostly in software, so if any of my suggestions are reasonable (MonRoi may not think so) you may see them incorporated in future (hopefully downloadable) updates.
I’m curious. Why is it that the DGT board has to be a 2006 model or later?
I just got a DGT board from an auction and like it very much. I don’t know if I want to use it to keep my official game scores. The only time I think it would be an advantage is when the time is under 5 minutes and the manual way of keeping score is not wanted or needed.
Anyway, I am curious what is about the new boards that would make it better for accurate scorekeeping than the older versions.
I am very much in favor of the rule 15A change. I think this is an improvement with or without scorekeeping devices.
I don’t have any specific complaint about rule 43 either. It seemed rather cumbersome, though. Perhaps with some work it could be worded more smoothly & concisely. I realize it’s hardly fair to criticize this way without suggesting a way to improve it, but I don’t have any specific improvements (yet).
I liked and agreed with the TD tips.
I think more needed to be said about security of the device itself, that steps are needed to make the device resistant to “hacks”, etc. I’m pretty sure I disagree with your statement “Player modified electronic devices to keep score cannot be verified, therefore are not considered standard.” as written. As I have stated elsewhere, I strongly feel that a “chess-pad-like” program could be written that CAN be verified – in fact this “verification” can even be automated and can be made VERY secure if the programmer takes the right precautions. The user loading the SW on a PDA would technically make the PDA “Player modified”, but the more important issue is that the SW isn’t modified.
I think I agree with most of your comments about the MonRoi device. The one comment that I would make concerns entering information at the start of the game – the opponent’s name and so forth. This is one area that is REALLY improved if the tournament organizer is using the MonRoi Tournament Manager – all this information is transmitted to the handheld device wirelessly. I’m relying on memory here, but I think it even has the board number – the player might not have to fight the crowd to get his pairing info at the start of the round. Entering the info manually at the handheld device is somewhat clumsy, but I didn’t think it was any worse than any PDA.
Obviously, I worded the certification wrong, I will correct it when I come up with better wording.
What I meant was that the unit being marketed now (April 2006), is satisfactory. I have no information as to when that model was introduced. Obviously any unit of the same model run is acceptable.
I wrote DGT and they did not respond. There is no model number or version number on their web site.
Can anyone give me a model number of the “latest” version, or some other identifying characteristic? Perhaps a copyright or patent date? A first manufacturing date? I understand that those with the USB connector for power supply and interface is the model I am referring to. When was the last important change?
I don’t know, any additional information would be helpful.
Remember, we are only certifying devices for keeping score. The DGT board is of standard size and the peices are of standard design. Even the older models. there is no objection to their use as a chess set, and their use as display devices as long as the TD approves.
They still sell the Serial version along with the USB version. I believe most of the advances to the DGT have been in the software. It maybe for all practical purposes a board produced a few years ago is = to what is now being produced. I even believe the new wireless capabilites coming out can be utilized with previous boards. In some senses the serial version has advantages over the USB version. The USB draws power from the USB port, whereas the serial version has it’s own power source. If you can’t reach the DGT people directly try the House of Staunton houseofstaunton.com/ where they sell the boards. I’m sure they could get you more accurate info.
Your guidelines say that the player may only record chess moves and the time on the clock. What about draw offers?
When you say the device may not contact outside sources, does that really mean that it may not receive contact from outside sources? A wireless device will transmit a signal that any receiving device that is in range can receive.
I’d like to see part of the certification deal with how hard it would be to modify the device to provide assistance in a game. E.g. For the MonRoi device, all the user has to do is change an option in the setup. This requires the TD to become familiar with how to check the options on every device which becomes certified, and additionally requires the TD to spend time making the verification.
Of course just noting whether a move is legal or not isn’t going to help nearly anyone who would win a tournament in any division. But some effort needs to be spent making sure that these devices can’t be easily modified to run a chess engine.
"… The scoresheet will not provide information, whether solicited or not,
regarding the move made on the chess board. That includes all claims such as the legality of the move made, the occurence of check,
checkmate, stalemate, repeated position, 50 move rule, or any other claim that is to be initiated by the player. … "
I find this part of the electronic scoresheet guidelines a touch confusing. I think I understand what is being said, but would the word automatically in front of provide make it clearer? I mean surely you can use the
electronic scoresheet to prove things? You just don’t want it beeping and flashing automatically hey you just moved 50 moves or hey you just repeated the position 3 times?
I suspect the whole point of ‘solicited or not’ is to cover both automatic and manual situations.
In other words, the device should provide the moves, not any interpretation of them, such as the 50 move rule, EVEN IF ASKED.
Illegal moves are the only exception of any kind. However, if the rules state that the move can only be recorded after it is made, then that’s covered, because an illegal move cannot be made, at least not legally.
Maybe I’m just dense. Pretend a player comes to me and says I have repetition and he is using an electronic score sheet. I would assume he would be able to use the device like a score sheet and show me the three repeating positions just like he would with a paper scoresheet. But in my mind that is soliciting information from the device. Same thing with 50 moves or anything else. Say an illegal move was made with a paper score sheet. You would consult the score sheet and see that for example Nh6 was illegal as it put the king in check. Same thing with the electronic score sheet. The difference being that you don’t want the electronic score sheet beeping or warning at the actual time about the illegality. You want the player to be responsible for that.
Maybe I’m just saying the guidelines could be worded a little more accurately and leave a little less room for interpretation.
I am a bit confused as to why we are considering the DGT board as an acceptable alternative to a scoresheet. While I assume most players using a DGT board will also keep score on either paper or a Monroi, the new rule appears to allow them to only use the DGT.
Specifically, rule 15D Use of opponent’s scoresheet for assistance is impacted the most. A player who’s opponent is relying on the DGT board for his score but maintains a separate paper score will not have the normal means of borrowing the opponent’s scoresheet.
Also, if the DGT board is not hooked up to a computer then how will it be utilitized for flag fall verification, 50 move rule, and triple occurence of position?
Grant,
I took it as a given that the DGT board would have to be hooked up to a computer. Otherwise the player using the DGT board as a score sheet would have a hard time making 50 move rule or 3-fold repition claims (or any other claim that required a scoresheet). Maybe this needed to be stated explicitly?
Question: Shouldn’t a DGT board relieve BOTH players from keeping score manually? That would seem to only be fair (since the both players can’t use their own DGT boards at the same time!). Should the player using his own DGT board be required to provide a printed or digital version of the score to his opponent?
wzim,
Maybe the rule should say the score sheet should provide no information (about legality, repetition, 50 move rule, etc.) OTHER THAN THE SCORE ITSELF. FWIW
I would say you could satisfy this rule by hooking the DGT board up to a laptop, setting the laptop where the “scoresheet” would normally go, and only opening the laptop at the request of the TD or your opponent. The laptop being in plain view of your opponent and the TD (and having the screen closed) should satisfy everyone.
Otherwise, I don’t see how a player could use the DGT board as a scoresheet for making claims. Of course, some players would be satisfied with getting a record of the game for post-game-analysis, but I didn’t think that was the intent of the rules changes.
I will be making changes to the conditional certification of the DGT board, once I get the wording right and a little more information.
Yes, the board keeps score for both players. Therefore, neither player needs to keep score unless they want to.
the version of software, (rather than a date) (Is version 1.5 or later a good start?)
The use of the computer. Yes, by previous posts, I think that the computer needs to be present to be effective for claims. If the computer is set so that it is viewable by the TD, and turned away from the players it may suffice. The players (both of them) can get up and view the screen for the score if they want or need to in order to make a claim. What I mean by “direct control or supervision of the TD” is just that, that keyboard entry by the players is not allowed, and that the device is visible to the TD at any time he wants.
Well, anyway, I’m working on nuber 2 to simplify and post.
The computer screen may provide other information as well, such as move legality, indication of check, etc., so it may need to be not visible to the players at all times. Perhaps, if a laptop is used, closing the cover may suffice. It can be opened with permission from the TD (or the opponent).
The DGT board has been used successfully at some important events. Therefore, I think it can be certified, its just that the conditions have to be set.
The (both) players have no need to access the computer therefore, that access, other than looking at the score, is not allowed.
I think you are doing great with the DGT board eligibility David.
I would like to add that the company that “makes” ChessPad for the Palm Pilot now has a version of ChessPad that is designed to work with the DGT board. They have instructions to make a null modem for its use. With this, a Palm Pilot could be used in place of a computer. I don’t see any reason why this substitution would not work just as well.
By the way, one of the DGT programs does indeed allow illegal moves.
My son (7 years old) finally was allowed to use a MonRoi to notate his games. He successfully uses it in 2 rounds.
But before the start of round 3 the TD told me that my son is making a notation first before making a move. He said that he will be forfeited if he caught doing this again, so I stop my son from using the MonRoi further.
I have told my son about this new rule, but being just 7 years old, he forgot!
I’m sure a lot of players have the same habit of notating before making the move (Adults & Scholastic), and it will happen that some player out there will forget about this new rule.
The new addendum does not clearly state what kind of penalty to impose for failure to follow the new rule. I guess it will be on the TD’s discretion. But is Forfeiture really is necessary?
