The rule proposal clearly states that this should be gently introduced as a rule because many are indeed used to writing the move down before making the move.
In my opinion the TD actions of threatening a game forfeiture do seem a bit extreme without a previous gradient of rule enforcement.
However, the complete circumstances are not known so I would say let us all try to enlighten everyone, even 7 year olds, to the new way.
By the way, just because he is 7 years old doesn’t mean it is natural to forget something like this. In fact, being that young, he should remember more due to reverse Alzheimer’s…
If a player uses a second chess board for analysis, the usual penalty is to forfeit the game (though the TD has discretion) – see rule 20D.
The key word is Analysis – this does not mean just looking at the position on the board, it means moving the pieces around and looking at the position after the pieces have been moved. More than one very highly rated player has been observed “looking at” a demo board with his game (in progress) displayed. That’s not “analysis”.
Recording the move first on the MonRoi and then making the move on the chess board is a sort of “gray area”. If the player ALWAYS made the same move on the chess board that he FIRST recorded on the MonRoi, there wouldn’t be any problem. But how can the TD and opponent KNOW that the player never saw that a move was a mistake (after recording it on the MonRoi) and changed his mind thanks to having “analyzed” the position displayed on the MonRoi. The MonRoi will keep track of any changed moves, but some of these will be an error while recording (not a player changing his mind about the move).
For a rule violatation that could have such a profound effect (the player might catch a blunder that would have cost him the game), forfeiting the game is probably the appropriate penalty. I’m not saying that he INTENTIONALLY cheated, but he was doing something that the TD and opponent couldn’t distinguish from intentional cheating. I thing giving him a warning first was appropriate, but after that he’d have to get a severe penalty.
If he wants to use a MonRoi (which I think is a great idea), he’ll have to get used to making the move first and only then recording it.
I have no problem with that. I think a warning first is appropriate - my problem is if a TD rule for automatic forfeit if the player made a mistake of recording first. The TD’s exact word to me… “Okay, I will let him use his MonRoi, but I will sit down there and watch him, if he made a move to MonRoi before the Board he will be forfeited.”
Yes, I agree as well. Because of what happened yesterday, I told him (my son) that he will not be allowed to use his MonRoi until he get used to making the move first on the board. I know how much he like his new gadget so I’m pretty sure that he will eventually get use to this new rule.
It was hard for him to understand at first (or just being argumentative), but I point out to him that during tournament the MonRoi should be use as a “copying device”. He have to copy what is already on the board.
We actually practice this morning with this new rule. I “forfeited” him several times, he eventually got into a point where he’s almost flawless… until we made a queen exchange (41. Qxc8+ Kxc8). After recoding my move Qxc8, he went on and tap his K but caught himself before tapping c8.
That’s an interesting statement from a TD at a scholastic tournament. Most TDs at these tournaments announce that they are following the “TD as witness only” variation. He can’t direct both ways, singling your child out for special enforcement. I’m afraid I don’t think this was proper behavior on his part and I think you should tell him so. I’m tempted to say such a statement crosses the line into something that should be questioned at the USCF – it’s close. No 7-year-old can play normally with a TD constantly watching him to catch him in a violation.
It sure doesn’t seem fair to me.
The best thing to do is to keep practicing – just get him in the habit of always moving first.
I’m not really sure why he feel such extreme enforcement is appropriate. This electronic scoresheet is new to him. He did not even know the changes for rule 15A until I showed him. And obviously he do not know what MonRoi is. He was conviced the device is giving my son a move advice. I tried to explain but when he said such statement above… I went ahead and told my son not to use his MonRoi further. I would like to have a complete score of his game for his coach to study with him during their lessons but not under that pressure.
I’m not sure if he even frequent this forum to explain himself so I will just leave it at that. Case closed.
I’d still be concerned that a TD would single him out for special attention. I don’t think it is appropriate for a TD to just sit and watch a single player waiting for a violation. At scholastic tournaments TDs USUALLY wait for a player to make a claim or ask for assistance before watching a game that closely. Maybe I’m missing some related information – perhaps the opponent asked for assistance or made a claim, for example – that would justify more attention.
Telling the player that he was just waiting for him to make a mistake so the TD could forfeit him (yes, I’m exaggerating, but this is how it could seem based on what the TD said) would be distracting to an adult chess player – much less a 7-year-old.
ChessMama,
At the least I think you should try to work out a more equitable arrangement with the TD (pointing out that this isn’t fair to a player just wanting a score of the game, not TRYING to cheat) if the situation should arise again.
Good luck with the MonRoi – I think it’s a great training tool.
Chessmama,
Your Justin’s mom right? I’m Ian’s dad. Ian has been using monroi for months. I’m curious as to who the TD was. Email me at dsgilchrist@yahoo.com to discuss this further. We’ll see you in Denver.
Dave
I have slightly revised the guidelines for electronic scoresheets. In the first statement of recording “during a game” I added the words “offer of a draw” to the statement.
For the DGT board certification:
DGT Projects Electronic Chessboard (Serial number 1200 or higher) connected to a computer running TOMA Software version 1.32 or later.
The computer and computer display must be under the supervision of the TD or organizer.
(not included, but implied by the statement is the amount of required “supervision” is of course, up to the TD, and that if the TD cannot supply adequate supervision, the it is the discretion of the TD whether or not to allow the use of the baord as a scoresheet).
The software version is available (for free) on the DGT web site, and the above serial number and version number was supplied by DGT.
I have had GREAT response from MonRoi, they will be providing a software revision shortly (if not available already) that addressed most of the concerns represented in my review. Look for a revision of that review in the next couple of days.
You might be right about the “take back move” feature. But, if it doesn’t check on the validity of certain moves then it doesn’t need an “allow illegal moves” option. Illegal moves will just be recorded as played.
In both Toma and Queen an illegal move will be displayed, but neither program will display, nor record, the illegal notation. The EEPROM on the DGT eBoard will not record the illegal move for later download to .pgn file. So illegal moves are not recorded as played like you said.
Which brings me back to my original point, my first guess must be wrong. I can see no significant difference in the two programs, save the bells and whistles of TOMA. So I will second your concern.
I’ve got nothing AGAINST Queen, I’ve just got nothing FOR Queen either, or any other third party software for the DGT board.
I haven’t tried it.
Certification is a positive statement of compliance. Lack of certification does not mean that it cannot be certified.
And until I do, I cannot certify it, and quite frankly, I do not even know what is available.
TOMA is supported by DGT, the makers of the board (and is free).
If you would go to the DGT website you will find both TOMA and Queen combined in a single download.
It is under (from memory) under Electronic Boards - Support - Downloads, or something like that.
I just got my DGT a few weeks ago and have found the Queen program easier to use than TOMA for a single board. From what I gathered, Toma is for multiple board use.
I meant recorded on the display not scoresheet. I only use the DGT board for displaying of games, so I don’t have a reference point on the scorekeeping aspect.
This entire thread is about the new proposed electronic scorekeeping rule. It is not about whether or not you can use the DGT eBoard for display purposes, that certainly is a plus, but it doesn’t address the more germane discussion of proper software utilization for scorekeeping.
Does anyone know if software exists for the DGT eBoard that DOES record illegal moves? If not, then perhaps the DGT should be removed from the new rule and be simply added as acceptable standard equipment subject to the terms previously listed.
If anybody were to write such software, I think there might be a problem defining “illegal move”.
Most people think of an illegal move as being the transfer of a piece to a wrong square, such as moving a knight like a bishop, or leaving the king in check. But there could be more bizarre illegalities, such as moving a knight from e3 to f5 (normally legal), but in the process capturing a bishop “en passant” at h2. Or, there could be several pieces moved, several others captured, and, while we’re at it, some pieces just disappearing off the board, and/or some pieces appearing from nowhere onto the board. Just how do you “record” such situations? The notation alone could be impossible, let alone the technicalities of how to continue the game. All kinds of silly questions would have to be answered, such as, if white leaves his king in check, can black legally capture it, etc.
Let’s not go hog-wild with these proposals to have software allow illegal moves!
I have written DGT and asked about Queen. I have not tested it. I will do so when I get the chance.
The wording for the allowable versions came from DGT, and did not include Queen. Based on what I’ve seen here, I will add it for now, subject to my testing.
