Last evening, at the Albuquerque Coronado Chess Club, using a smart phone, one of the players showed me the electronic score keeping program Ynotate.
Today I looked it up on the Internet and the developer claims it meets all USCF requirements for electronic score keeping. Has it been approved by the USCF for use in chess tournaments?
Art Byers, Local TD
According to the website at ynotate.blogspot.com/, the claim is that the software does meet all the requirements but it doesn’t appear that the USCF has officially approved it yet.
. .
It is not the role for the USCF to stick its clumsy nose into every aspect of rated tournament play.
The USCF could legislate general common sense on these devices, maybe such as:
[1] Electronic scoresheets cannot be used where suspicions of cheating become practical and significant. (Yes vague.)
[2] If the device enables the user to view earlier or any other position aside from the current board position, then it is technically invalid for use.
[3] A player cannot restrict visual and light-touch access to his electronic scoresheet device. If the player considers his device too fragile or too expensive for the TD or opponent to ever touch it, then he should use pen and paper instead. The player cannot demand financial reimbursment from a TD or opponent who accidentally drops and breaks the device.
[4] The TD can still require the player to submit a complete written or printed scoresheet after the game.
MonRoi will be in trouble revenue-wise.
As distinct from mere hardwired “feature phones”, these so-called “smart phones” are really computers with phones built in. They can support an endless variety of downloadable application software. A general chess notation application is a natural, and at $2.99 would cost faaaarr less than a MonRoi.
When players return home after a tournament, they want to download their game scores (meaning moves) into their home computer, and analyze them with Fritz. Entering hundreds of moves my hand is a drag. The problems inherent with electronic scoresheet devices are to be solved or mitigated, not used as an excuse to inhibit beneficial progress.
. .
I bought eNotate from Sevan Muradian and it is officially approved by the USCF.
The only exception I make with Gene’s post is that both eNotate and MonRoi allow the backward motion through the game on the board thereby allowing someone to see the position from an earlier part of the game.
There is no problem with this though because it is extremely odd and even difficult to sit and stare at your notating device for analysis at any time of the game. All a person need do with any of these devices is to turn it on by either a button push or a tap with the stylus, tap the piece/square that will be moved, tap the square the piece will be moved to, confirm the image of the piece is now on the destination square, and forget about it.
If I had an opponent scrolling back and forth and staring at the display with the obvious intent to analyze, I would stop the clock and get the TD and complain. I might ask my opponent first what he was doing and such, but not necessarily.
Perhaps he is checking to see if he has a valid 3-rep claim?!?
I believe that it is against the rules to use the electronic scoring device as a memory aid for the 3 time repetition of the position.
Once again, if someone were doing this it would be obvious to any onlooker including the opponent.
The eNotate system definitely has and I believe the MonRoi device has an option to see a score sheet with the moves only listed, and there being no diagram. This option would be the same as using a regular paper sheet in the above decision.
eNotate is one of two electronic scorekeeping programs allowed for player use by USCF (the other, of course, being MonRoi). However, it doesn’t have proprietary hardware that can be monitored by tournament officials, unlike MonRoi. The USCF provides no guidance on what devices are approved to run the program.
There was a question about a player who was using this program during the World Open. The player in question had it loaded on a Dell PDA, which was Internet-capable. This seemed problematic to me, so I asked the player to keep score manually while we tried to figure out how to approach this. I tried calling the USCF office, but couldn’t reach anyone. Since the program was running on a “wired” device, we decided not to allow the program’s use.
For the record, I don’t think the player in question was cheating at all, but I really didn’t want to open that particular Pandora’s box, especially at a tournament where complaints of foul play come up so frequently. Unless we get into jamming communications in a playing venue (which is problematic for other reasons), I have a hard time seeing how to get around the potential for cheating with the use of this program, as most newer devices have the ability to connect wirelessly to the Internet.
It is a nice program. I am thinking seriously about buying an old PalmPilot without wireless capability so I can use it in tournaments. (I’d like to have a MonRoi, but not for $360.)
First off Boyd you’re incorrect that yNotate is certified by the USCF for use. It’s not.
eNotate, which my affiliate created, is. That’s what you saw at the World Open and that’s what’s approved because there are internal controls built-in, like turning off the wireless when the program is executed, not allowing to switch between other applications, not allowing to exit recording mode without saving the game, and disabling the physical buttons, etc.
Now there was a listing on the USCF website for this - archive.uschess.org/ratings/elec … esheet.pdf
Unfortunately where this was originally posted the link is broken (uschess.org/tla where it says report by David Kuhns) and it hasn’t been fixed in a real long time but that’s a different story.
Sevan, that was a typo which resulted from the title of the thread being stuck in my brain when I typed my response. I fixed it before you posted your reply.
Also, if the program is being used on an Internet-capable device, all those settings have to be checked. Plus, any time an opponent complains about them, they have to be checked (which is how the World Open situation arose). I’m not saying the program is a BAD idea (in fact, I said essentially the opposite). But it will be difficult to deal with as long as the host devices can’t be monitored a la MonRois.
I’ve started a more general topic at http://main.uschess.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=14051
A big problem with general purpose computers or computerized devices such as Ipads or phones is the ability to link the recording and a chess playing program to give move help to the user. Cheating can happen anywhere when it is not expensive to cheat. Winning a national scholastic is a tremendous accomplishment, perhaps just as important to the player as winning money.
Regards, Ernie
But Boyd, as I understand it the device running it cannot use the wireless communication protocols while the program is running, by it’s design. It cannot exit the program while in game recording mode to break loose that standard. That’s the point. (And I believe also why, by the approval criteria, it can’t be used for tournament play running on a smartphone.) And why it’s approved for use.
I can tell you if I had been the player involved, after explaining the above and referring you to the approval document, I would have been extremely upset with your ruling.
I’d much rather have you be upset about not using it than have a player be upset about someone using an Internet-capable device. Protecting the field takes on greater importance in the World Open, because of the prizes involved.
The tournament did have specific prohibitions against players or spectators using any Internet-capable device in the playing hall, and these prohibitions were announced before each round. So, a Dell PDA wouldn’t be allowed anyway.
Rulebook Changes as of 8/14/2010, emphasis mine:
[/quote]
Approved Scorekeeping Devices
And was your variation, which contradicts the rules, published prior to the tournament? Or is there a rule other than the above that I’m not aware of?
I would consider not allowing an approved e-scoresheet to operate in a manner consistent with it’s approval document to be a major rule variation. Were I the player involved, you could expect a withdrawl and a TDCC and/or Ethics complaint.
But more to your point, eNotate and the hardware it runs on is not Internet capable when being used to record a game. Which is why the program can be approved.
I don’t wish to spend a lot of time on this. So, this will be my last post on the subject.
In two weeks of working the floor at Valley Forge, I saw exactly one player using a non-MonRoi electronic scoresheet. Therefore, I don’t think that banning any Internet-capable devices would qualify as “a variation sufficiently major so that it might reasonably be expected to deter some players from entering”. As a result, per 26A, it would only have to be announced in advance of the first round, which it was.
As the World Open is a CCA tournament, I didn’t unilaterally implement any rule variations. Any device ban was announced and implemented with the organizer’s prior approval.
The final decision to not allow the device’s use was made by the organizer. We knew at the time that eNotate was allowed. My concern was having such a device in use on the floor, period.
We did attempt to contact the USCF office to get guidance. No one was available to take our call. Based on the information available, I recommended not allowing the device so as to be consistent with the tournament’s policy of not allowing such devices in the playing hall. The tournament chief agreed that was the correct route to take. The player agreed to use a CCA scoresheet for his remaining games.
Withdrawing from the event is your right, as is filing whatever complaints you like. I’m not so sure where you’d get with respect to a TDCC or an ethics complaint. I think the decision is easily defensible, especially given the World Open’s history with respect to cheating incidents.
eastside wrote:
As I recall, the player in question had no problem using a paper score sheet if he couldn’t use his electronic score sheet.
I apologize for having given offense if you have taken it that way, and I appreciate the time you have given to explaining the matter. Also, my post incorrectly characterized this as “your decision,” when it was clear you were not acting alone.
Perhaps it is not correct for me to beat the dead horse, but I feel compelled to grab a stick.
I can tell you that, at this point and for myself only, if I know in advance that I cannot use my eNotate that I will not enter a particular tournament. Now, am I the only eNotate owner who feels that way? Maybe yes, maybe no. Perhaps we are, by definition, currently such a minority of players that we would not be considered worthy of advance notice.
I will certainly be careful before planning any tournament attendance in the future to check with the organizer that my device will be allowed per the USCF rules as they are published. But if I understand correctly then I know that I will never be entering a CCA tournament - which is fine.
That the player involved consented to use a CCA scoresheet may have been fine for that player, as is the concern with cheating and wanting to take action to ensure that players cannot take unethical advantage. I can see your point that big money tournaments need greater protection against such threats than our little events.
That doesn’t make the decision right. Either under the rules, or by what is technically possible by using the device under the criteria by which the device was approved. It may have been the best decision you could have made with the information you had, but I must thoroughly disagree that it was the correct decision.
And I have a further concern that this sets a precedent that any TD, uninformed about how the various e-scoresheet systems work (or unwilling to trust that they have in fact been certified,) can unilaterally decide at the venue to not allow their usage.
As to an appeal: You might well be right that making one would not get me very far. As an NTD I’d expect you know far more about that than I. But, were it me as the player, I would invest the time and money to request a ruling on the matter so that all of us who are TDs can benefit from knowing what the correct course of action is. I wouldn’t ask for penalties or sanctions, but simply recognition that my ability to use my e-scoresheet is protected under the rules unless sufficient notice is given that a particular tournament has changed them.
But thanks again for taking the time to show the hows-and-whys of your decision.
(P.S. My particular Dell Axim as far as I know - and I should - does not have WiFi, only Bluetooth. I’m not sure my particular device would be considered “internet capable,” and I haven’t tried pairing it up on a Bluetooth link to find out. But I also don’t know in this case how far it was determined that the device in question here was “internet capable.” I only know that when eNotate is running it’s irrelevant, anyway.)
Maybe we could simply have Bill Goichberg come in and give us his take?