I recently returned to tournament play and found that my opponent was using a digital device to satisfy the requirement of a scoresheet.
I was very shocked to hear this was permitted, here is the source of my confusion.
In order to make certain claims you must present a valid/correct scoresheet. This correct scoresheet has historically meant “less than 3 errors”.
So if I use paper and pencil, and my opponent uses a digital device. I can play the move Ng5 and accidentally write Ng4. Two more of these and I lose my rights to certain claims. Part of this process is that I must correctly identify the rank and file and piece being moved. My opponent has assistance in that process and is therefore guaranteed protection from such issues- therefore placing him/her at a significant advantage over me. I suppose it is true that the digital device could allow you to place the knight on the wrong square, but viewing the square the knight is on, versus translating that visual into notation is a different process.
Some people in this digital age benefit from (because of familiarity) viewing a game through a 2 dimensional representation. i.e. we play on the internet quite a bit and viewing a real 3d board in person is quite a different experience. This is another advantage given my opponent.
A graphical representation of a board can be forwarded and rewound? This sure would make it easier to identify 3-fold repetition in certain cases, is this another advantage? If the answer here is that this process is illegal, am I now required to play this game and monitor my opponents use of his technology? That’s one MORE distraction for me and another guarantee for my opponent.
So how is this fair?
one caveat: I have played visually impaired opponents who needed pegboards to represent the Chessboard. This is completely acceptable of course. I can see that in certain cases a digital aid could assist a very young player who had not developed writing skills. This however is not the case I am presenting here, I’m speaking of normal capable players who COULD notate.
I’m going by memory here, and I’m sure someone will correct me if I mis-speak. The only approved devices that I know of are required to have move checking and replay disabled, so mistakes can be made in entry, and replay is not available. However, your point about a graphic representation is somewhat valid. However, since the device display must be visible to the TD at all times, it should be visible to the opponent as well, although this may not be as helpful as it will be upside down.
If you read my notes under point 1, I make the distinction between ‘move checking’ and what mentally converting to notation actually is. Disabling move checking, does not remove my opponents’ advantage with this device.
One minor correction regarding your first point. The rule actually calls for a reasonably complete scoresheet, not a correct scoresheet. Writing Ng4 instead of Ng5 is a minor error that would not count against you in making a claim. Skipping a move or just writing tick marks would.
Scientific testing indicates that generally the brain performs better and faster with 3D information - even with familiarity. (Hence the push to VR, even for training police officers, drivers, etc.)
I was originally bothered by such devices - then I used 3 in tests and found that what was believed about them was generally not true. Now I just see them as a tool. I’d prefer my students learn notation well before using them.
The answer is that the digital scoresheet devices do, indeed make for more accurate move recording. There is nothing in the rules saying that move recording should be difficult.
They also make reviewing the game, also known as the post mortem, much easier. At first you might say that this feature is not important, but all you need do is to use one of these devices during a post mortem with another person/your opponent or others and you will agree that it is a high value thing.
And the device also makes handling the pgn or even pdf record of the game a lot easier. In fact it normally takes me much less than 5 minutes in total to upload a game score to my computer, save it in my database and email it to interested people.
This is a tool, as Kevin Bachler has said. And it is a completely useful tool.
I’m sorry if anyone perceives this type of device as giving a player an unfair advantage or edge during a game. The actual advantage and edge occurs after the game is over.
Well, it is also hard to picture how it could be an unfair advantage since each player could have one. But I recall some people thinking the same when digital clocks came out.
It is not difficult. If you want difficult, try notation in long descriptive notation lol. If you want no part in it, have some small machine do it for you. Yet you clearly identify that these devices provide the user with significant aid in the process of notation. I know its a bit of a stretch but if i get significant aid in the process of attacking your king from a small device (i.e. correct move order for checkmate) is that cheating? I mean I can tell you I want to attack your king, but the process of completing that task IS Chess; just like performing the act of notation. If you are comfortable with handing off one of those processes to a machine, why not the other?
That is hardly an accurate analogy, as with a digital clock both participants are using the same device. In the case of these monroi things, the playing field is not equal. Yes we can both buy one, but I still see absolutely no need to spend hard earned money on this. If the tournament provides every player with one, then I could not identify any advantage for either side and I would have no argument. (although I do imagine some older players will still refuse to use them and should have that right).
I have used written notation, and yes I have used both descriptive as well as algebraic notation. In fact there are times when I decide to use the written form instead of the electronic device.
Actually I identify that these devices provide the user with a significant aid AFTER the game is over. There is aid in accurate notation during the game, but that is not a factor during the game but after when attempting to decipher the writing.
This is not a bit of a stretch but a completely wrong analogy. There is no way that using a device that aids in more accurate notation would ever help in the thought process of playing the game.
I’m clearly not saying that a notation device helps in the process of playing. However, part of playing the game, is notation. Its a small part but a significant one in some cases.
Is there a ‘thought process’ to a human writing notation? Yes there is. Therefore, if you are willing to use aids in one fashion to remove human error from a process, why not extend that philosophy elsewhere to other human processes?
I understand your point and can empathize with you. However I really do not use any real thinking process when writing down a move. Nd5, Bxg4, etc. all come naturally during a game. In fact I think this way even when using an electronic scoring device.
I also understand if you do not like or prefer these devices as well. I personally have no problem using the written scoring method during any game. And if I were to play in a large tournament with big money prizes, I would actually expect not to use one of these electronic devices, the same as not bringing my cell phone into the playing area. By the way, I currently do carry my phone into the playing area and I turn off the phone completely before playing any rated or serious game.
However, due to the convenience of having the game score to handle so much easier after the game, I really have a problem with someone saying I cannot use such a device after it has been approved by US Chess.
Agreed. Further, I don’t buy that a two-dimensional board confers an unfair advantage.
That said, the advantages of an electronic scoresheet do not outweigh the advantages of the international standard best practice of providing a standard scoresheet (paper or electronic) and requiring its use (barring accommodation of a disability).
FWIW, last month I did a G/25;d3 tournament and made it very clear that the players were not required to keep score. At least two thirds attempted to, which surprised the heck out of me.
I was responding specifically to your comment that anyvadvantagecwoukd not be unfair. With a clock in any game both players use the same device. If there were an advantage for an electronic device it would be inherently unfair because the person who can afford one gets the advantage. I don’t think there is one and agree familiarity isn’t an issue.