I started playing chess 3 years ago (online) and I am accustomed to playing chess on a 2D board. I played in the North American Open U1600 this last year and brought my own 2D board to accustom my situation. I asked the tournament director if it was acceptable to use and he did not know. Therefore decided to decline my offer.
Are 2 dimentional chess board allowed to be used at the player’s discretion or the TD’s? Is there a rule for this? Furthermore, they use 2D boards to broadcast the top games in any major tournament. Why cant a player in a lower class use one at his discretion?
I assume you mean flat pieces (like a flat magnetic travel set). This is not a standard set (rule 40B “… the king height should be 3 3/8 to 4 1/2 inches…”). Also see 39A: “The director is the final arbiter of whether the equipment in question is standard.”
You should only be allowed to use such a set if your opponent had a LESS standard set (39A2 “If neither player provides standard equipment, the director should rule in favor of the equipment that is the nearest to being standard.”)
I foresee the day when two players paired against each other OTB will be looking at two computer monitors rather than a physical chessboard. The two monitors (one for each player) would be connected to a single black box, which could monitor for illegal moves, settle draw claims by triple occurrence or the 50-move rule, record the moves, etc. Piece movement would be via mouse, just like online.
There could even be a third, horizontal, monitor in the middle, for TDs and spectators.
Bill, how long do you think it would take for some player to claim that the computer made the wrong move or was assisting his opponent?
I wonder if the ‘2D’ boards that the original poster was referring to is some kind of brand name for autosensing boards that can be used to transmit moves to a computer?
At the Youth Action Championships in Atlanta, the book vendor had a board that would adjust the pieces so that they were centered on the square.
This phenomenon would begin quickly, but it would also end quickly as players became accustomed to the equipment.
That’s why dedicated equipment would have to be used, rather than a PC adapted for the job.
Of course, the two monitors and black box could also be used to transmit moves in this way. It should be far more reliable than the auto-sensing board, which is subject to j’adoube problems, dropped pieces, etc.
Would it also adjust the knights so they were facing in a specific direction (such as toward the center, or forward, etc)?
The 2D board (such as this one wholesalechess.com/chess/dem … ear+Pieces) I requested to use was an additional request to the (acceptable) standard board we were already using.
I also played in the 13th Annual Southern Open, and these TD’s allowed me to use my demo board in addition to the standard board we were playing on.
I have a serious reason for asking this question. I learned to play chess on a 2D board and never grew accustomed to playing chess on a standard board. Now, when I play on a standard board I get serious migranes and I loose parts of my vision. As an outcome, I need to be able to use a 2D board “in addition” to the standard board we use.
I have also spoken to my doctor in this reguard. If needed, he can write a report requiring me to play on such a 2 dimentional chess board. Would this be a better approach? Or are there any specific rules against me using it?
I personally think if you doctor were to say that this vision ailment is a ‘disability’ that you could use the 2nd board ‘in addition’ due to reasonable accomadation to players with disabilities rules. You would be required to make all the moves for your opponent on your 2nd board. This would be similar to blind players each having their own board. If you cannot use a standard set because of a disability or health problem that you have, and it is documented (you can show proof to the TD), you should be allowed to use the 2nd board. This would say as well that the other player COULD use a 2nd board if he wished since the rules say that the opponent of the disabled player is allowed all the same accomodations as the disabled player.
I was one of the two TDs there and the co-TD had made the decision on it, which I would have agreed with. At a tournament I wouldn’t start questioning ones medical problems over something such as this. Aside from that, you would be at somewhat of a time disadvantage having to get up and move the pieces on the demo board after every more.
If it is not difficult to so, I would get the note from your doctor, as you mention, just to try and prevent any problems in other, future tournaments where you want to use the demo board.
I hope you weren’t serious and that nothing like what you’ve described ever happens to chess. The last thing we need is to turn face-to-face real chess tournaments into pale imitations of internet chess. What makes a chess tournament worth going to is sitting across a real board from a real opponent. From my perspective, the purpose of playing chess is not to solve some abstract problem on a computer screen – it’s to defeat the human being across the chess board from me. Reducing the human interaction is NOT an improvement.
The logical next step from what you’ve described would be to say “why set across from your opponent?”. After all, it’s just as easy to hook everyone up through a network. Why have a “horizonatal” display for spectators? If it’s all networked anyway, it’d be better to keep the spectators out of the room the players are in – after all they don’t need to see the human chess player right? Let them look at a big computer monitor to view the game. Each player could be placed at their own station like a giant computer lab. You wouldn’t have to move from place to place as you changed opponents. For that matter, why be in the same location at all?
A computer screen can be a clear and understandable representation of a chess position. I study chess on a computer all the time. But there’s more important considerations than how clear the pieces are. There’s something much more satifying about a well made chess set – nicely weighted wood pieces, by preference. Not to mention all the little things like shaking hands before play begins, saying “nice game” after you lose, leaving the tournament room and doing some post-game analysis with your opponent after a complicated game …
Also, I’ll point out that we have enough vision problems from people using computers for hours at a time. We don’t need to create more of them. At some tournaments I’ve ended up looking at a board (with few breaks) for 12 hours or more each day. That’s too long to be focused at a flat surface 18 inches from your face. A real chess board causes much fewer problems.
There is a specific rule against using another board during your game. A disability would be the ONLY reason such should ever be allowed. I don’t question your sincere need for such accomodation, but the best justification would be a report from your doctor. That way, there would be no question.
I would also suggest you give advance notice of your documented medical condition to organizers when entering an event.
Not all playing halls have a convenient place to hang a demo board, and it may require some work on the organizers part to find a way to accomodate your request, plus require that you be given a designated board number for each round.
nolan,
My first impulse was to say that the situation was no different than a blind player. But that’s not really true. chad621 never said he couldn’t see the position on a regular board – just that he had trouble playing on one. He specifically said he wanted the demo board “in addition” to the regular board. So, unless I’ve misunderstood, I think the regular board should be the “official” board and that chad621 should be responsible for duplicating the moves on the demo board. A player with a disability should be accomodated, but the accomodation should only go as far as that player needs and requests.
A blind player usually has an assistant who is responsible for making sure that the same moves are played on both boards. I don’t believe Chad is asking for or intending to provide an assistant for that purpose.
#1. I would find a full sized demo board distracting to other players regardless of where it’s placed. I’d recommend using a small set no larger than a typical chessboard. Or more specifically, a normal chess board, but with flat pieces. (You could print out your own pieces and glue them to construction paper for durability.)
#2. I mean no disrespect, but I’d be pretty skeptical if someone told me they can walk around all day in a 3D world with no problems, but automatically go blind and get headaches when they look at a chessboard. So you should get a really good note from your doctor, and notify the TD as far in advance as you possibly can, then verify the TD will accomodate your needs.
#3. I’m not saying I’d deny you any accomodations, but I’d be a lot less sympathetic if you drove yourself to the tournament. I’m not a doctor, but I couldn’t imagine any doctor giving you a note about your disability, but not also revoke your driver’s license. Rule 35F12 states that the USCF acknowledges a “state’s certification of a persion’s legal blindness as sufficient evidence … except if that person holds a valid drivers license.”
re #1: there would have been absolutely no problem accomodating him at the NAO. There was plenty of room for players with special needs (overall, it was one of the best laid-out tournament rooms I’ve played in). The reason he wasn’t accomodated is that what he asked for is specifically against the rules and he had no proof (like a letter from his doctor) to show he needed it.
re #3: He’s not claiming to be blind, so 35F12 doesn’t apply. He’s claiming another disability. Unfortunately I don’t think he’d have any real problem getting a letter from a doctor whether he had a legitimate problem or not. Look at all the abuse thats been reported about doctors helping their patients get handicaped parking permits. Whether we THINK the problem is legit or not, we have to treat a letter from his doctor as authoritative (unless you want to risk an ADA lawsuit – not a good idea).
Personally, I’d rather risk giving a player an unneeded minor accomodation than risk denying a legitimately needed one.
