or just turn the laptop screen away from the players…or get a longer USB cord…problem solved.
Crume, the board is a little better than just an input device because when powered it has an EEPROM which holds the past 500 moves in circular memory. This is why Chris may have a point. Software can be used to dump those moves after the game.
The problem I have with powering the board with anything other than a recordable laptop is that if a player wants to confirm notation for a claim while the game is in progess, the TD can’t provide it unless a computer is recording the moves in real time. This causes problems with a number of rules in section 13C and most specifically for 14C9. Surely no one would expect a TD to bring a laptop over, connect it to the eboard, dump the moves, confirm position and then rule. That would cause a serious delay of play, not to mention distraction.
Chris, although it is academic in my mind, I already thought about the MonRoi charger adaptor. This may work. The problem is that the DGT eboard only needs 5 volts and 35mA. I would want to make sure that the adaptor matches and doesn’t overload the circuitry. BTW, I would never trust a battery rig. And neither approach addresses the scoresheet availability problem which I think you will agree is paramount.
I think the logical thing to do is for the TD to make sure that no player accesses the laptop after move 1. The laptop does not need to be touched after scoresheet functionality is established. If the other player wants to confirm scoresheet notation he should be able to get the TD who can retrieve the moves by looking at the laptop.
I think this is the crux of whether a DGT is an approved scoresheet or not. Of course there are also logistical problems with having to have a laptop, such as does the TD have to provide a power outlet for the laptop (I’m sure technology is improving but I know my laptops wouldn’t survive a 7 hour game on battery) and space issues when boards are crammed together. I personally wouldn’t allow the DGT board if it caused such an inconvenience, whether it was announced in my pre-tournament publicity or not, even though the rules allow for such devices.
(I thought DGT had a wireless version, which of course would solve a lot of the issues above. Also, and this makes me laugh a little, wasn’t one of the big concerns about the MonRoi the fact that it saves people time since they just click a screen rather than pick up a pen and write the moves? Using a DGT board and not having to do anything at all is much more convenient!)
DGT will be releasing their bluetooth wireless version in the spring. Knowing how much power that the boards currently require it will be interesting to see the new model as I suspect the wireless DGT will still have to be wired to AC power. If I am wrong, I will be grateful even though my existing boards will not be upgradeable to the new bluetooth version. 
As an organizer, I still don’t mind providing the AC to my 5 DGT boards, but I admit that if I were not prepared with numerous extension cords and duct tape, it would be a different matter.
Here’s a couple of pictures that demonstrate board layouts for one extension cord:
http://evansvillescholasticchess.org/graphics/DCP_1339.jpg
http://evansvillescholasticchess.org/graphics/DCP_1336.jpg
Vibbert, I was supporting the use of a laptop and pooh-poohing the idea that having a computer on during the game is a problem. So…appreciate the agreement, as your statement supports mine in a much more technical and inclusive fashion (and the pictures are excellent). Cheers,
It will be a good idea to record the moves in the computer and the moves are displayed on the monitor for each player so that they don’t need to record their moves on the score sheet. This will save time and can concentrate on the moves especially during blitz games and 10-15 mins near the end of game where you don’t need to record the games. Recording moves on the computer is advantageous for both players because computer can detect illegal moves and one can also claim draw for 50 moves rule and even 3 repetitions. Without the recorded moves it is difficult to claim the rights legally.
Nowadays, you can display and record easily using DGT electronic sensory chessboard and monitor. In most major chess tournaments this is happening when one player makes the move, it is displayed instantly on a big screen for the audience to see. I believe if the tournament director can control the electronic board, monitors and the computer to record the moves, it is legal.
In fact, a computer monitor opens up new possibilities for the future (perhaps even requiring a few minor rule changes).
For example, after 50 moves, the computer could display a message to the player: “There have been 50 moves without a capture or pawn move. Do you wish to claim a draw?” and if the player answers “Yes”, the computer declares the game drawn. A similar dialog could occur after a triple occurrence of position.
Going even further, after each move, there could be two “Submit” buttons to choose from. One could be “Submit and offer a draw”, the other “Submit without offering a draw”. If both players offered a draw on consecutive half-moves, the computer would declare the game drawn by agreement. The draw offer would be “secret”, i.e. the opponent would not be told that a draw had been offered. How often, in a tournament game, have you wanted a draw but did not want to tip your hand by offering one? The secret draw offer would be the answer to this problem – if both players had a draw in mind, both would offer secretly and the game would be over, yet neither player would have to give away his desire for a draw by offering one openly.
Computers monitoring the game – or computer equipment replacing a standard chessboard (two screens and two mice, one for each player) could pave the way for a lot of (beneficial, I hope) changes in the way tournament chess is played.
Bill Smythe
Both of these would require a change of philosophy by USCF about the games, preceding the rules change.
I’ve noticed a commonality among the International players that have played in “normal” USCF events: they’ve all had problems adjusting to the idea that the TD is not supposed to intervene in a game unless requested. The traditional USCF approach that the game is between the players and that it’s up to them to enforce the rules, with the TD only involved in resolving disputes about the rules and otherwise letting the players themselves set the rules so long as they agree. (No, that’s not too strong a statement. I’ve seen games where one player said “Checkmate,” the other agreed, stopped the clock, and the game was over, the results reported as 1-0 despite the fact the king wasn’t even in check!)
The FIDE approach to the game, which is the one most international players are accustomed to, is that the arbiter is there not as a mediator of disputes but as an active enforcer of the rules, calling things like expired time even though the players themselves haven’t noticed it.
I’m not taking a position as to which approach is better, just pointing out that the day scoresheets are allowed to suggest draw claims, a whole lot of other rule changes will have to be made in order to be consistent. Just like when the MonRoi was certified, the rule allowing the move to be written down before playing it had to be changed. We also have effectively changed the rule that scoresheets cannot help players, as neither electronic system will let you enter a move for Black when it’s White’s turn, without making it clear you have done so (as opposed to simply writing Black’s move in White’s column on your paper) thus tipping you that you have failed to record a move, something that will help you in making one of those draw claims we’re talking about. So that means we’re already on the way toward changing our approach toward the game.
It may be time we do start moving toward insisting TDs take a more active role in events; The drawback is we’ll need a higher TD/Player ratio for our events as that happens. It may become inevitable we enlist silicon-based aids for that cause.
If you make changes in the way tournament chess is played would it be a different game and not chess?
.
The rule variation allows far more than that.
.
The original quote from October 26th also included a sentence preceeding the above.
This is all true, but allowing the scoresheet (i.e. computer) to play a larger role would bridge only a small part of the gap between the USCF and FIDE philosophies.
The USCF “the TD should not intervene” philosophy is born largely of necessity. It would be prohibitively expensive (and clumsy) for a large open tournament to hire enough TDs to implement the FIDE approach. By contrast, letting the scoresheet play a larger role would not increase the necessary size of the TD staff. It might even reduce it a bit, as TDs would no longer have to spend large amounts of time attempting to verify a 50-move or triple-occurrence claim from a handwritten scoresheet.
Nope. Not unless you abolish castling, or allow bishops to move like knights, or score a stalemate as a loss for the stalemated player, etc.
Bill Smythe