I wasn’t lost – just responding to what you said in the post to which I was responding.
You may have originally specified that ENDs can facilitate social distancing when required to turn in scoresheets, but in the post quoted above, that distinction has conveniently been removed, and now it appears that you’re saying that they do so in general, which is confusing at best and simply untrue at worst. I don’t claim that you did this intentionally, but you have to be careful about repeating very specific claims in a way that makes them sound like general claims.
In any event, I do not intend to ever purchase or use an END – I don’t like them. Any tournament which requires their use for any reason will be a tournament that I won’t play in. So that “advantage” of an END is irrelevant and useless for me (as well as for many others like me).
There is nothing false in the statement that the use of ENDs can facilitate social distant better and more easily than not using ENDs. Yes, there are specific situations where not using ENDs is equal. And then there are other cases where ENDs provide it better. I can’t think of any instance where ENDs are worse. If in individual circumstances they are always equal or better - then overall they are better.
Not really sure how this got to be a discussion of ENDs - it wasn’t intended to be. Your personal feelings seem to be overwhelming the discussion. Can we please stay on the topic of the Logistics of Social Distancing at Tournaments?
It’s not about my personal feelings – it’s about the fact that 99% of the tournaments I play in do not require scoresheets to be turned in, and therefore, ENDs are, most of the time, no better at social distancing than paper scoresheets. If method A has an advantage over method B in 1% of cases, don’t you think it’s disingenuous to claim that method A has that advantage in general, without mentioning the very important distinction that it only has it in a tiny minority of cases? I’m tempted to accuse you of using this topic to advance your “personal” END agenda, but I’d rather not go there. I wasn’t trying to derail the topic or start a war about ENDs – just responding to a statement that seems irrelevant to me in the majority of cases. What do ENDs have to do with social distancing? Most of the time, the answer is “absolutely nothing”.
I’m sorry. This thread isn’t about you. We aren’t talking about YOUR limited personal situation. I haven’t been trying to talk about ENDs at all, and have asked multiple times that we stick to the topic.
And no, if between method A and method B, B is equal or better in all cases, then B generally has an advantage. It may not be a sufficient advantage. It may not be a cost-effective advantage. But it has an advantage.
When you keep describing things in terms of your personal situation, then yes, its YOUR feelings. Now please. Stop.
One disadvantage that would affect TDs is the review of a game to verify claims requiring a scoresheet. Paper scoresheets can be placed on a table by the two players (one at a time) and then the players can step back while the TD brings out a pocket set to review the game and resolve the claim. An END would require actually touching the device to scroll through the moves or to scroll through the scoresheet mode display (it would be a short game that could display all of the moves at once on the screen and have them in print large enough to read).
Taking pictures of a scoresheet and e-mailing (or texting) them to a special scoresheet destination would also suffice for the few tournaments that require scoresheets to be turned in.
As far as sanitizing pieces go, I’d like to hear whether or not a microwave could work on that. I saw one article regarding food then discounted the value of microwaving food because it was uneven and may well only do the surface while leaving the middle alone, but that wouldn’t be an issue with pieces. [size=150]IF[/size] microwaving works then a club may end up having their setup for the night start with microwaving every set.
Each of the TDs would need their own pointer and it would need to be cleaned between use. Going on a major web site showed prices as low as $9 for a 5-pack but I don’t know if that would work for all devices. Before going back in a TD’s pocket it would need to be cleaned (not a requirement for a paper scoresheet that is placed on the table by a player and not touched at all - in the rare cases where it needs to be turned over the player can do that as well).
Aggregating the tournaments I’ve done, each year there are a lot more scoresheets that need to be reviewed for a claim than scoresheets that need to be turned in. The National Open is one of the few that requires all scoresheets to be turned in, but they are also one of the few that has published a tournament book (well electronic copy) of all of the games. Being able to check the scoresheet box has occasionally been necessary to find an unmarked result. A number of scholastic tournaments have gone to result slips signed by the players and verified/initialed at the board by the TD, which takes care of some people’s concern about having verifiable signatures or having different players putting in scoresheets with different results (a risk with either END or paper scoresheets that many people don’t sign anyway).
So an END with upload capability might be more useful for an event where the score needs to be turned in for eventual publication (lobby organizers of major events doing such publication), but for the vast majority of events it would not be more useful and would need the TD to own additional equipment to make it as useful as a paper scoresheet. I am guessing that one concern people have about scoresheets is pulling them from a pile of scoresheets that other people have been riffling through, so we may end up seeing cellophane wrapped scoresheet packs being opened by masked and gloved TDs that sterilize their gloves, open the pack and go through the room sliding the top scoresheet off for each player.
I am really concerned that people keep trying to turn this into a thread about ENDs and that the moderators refuse to do anything about it. I’m further concerned that NTDs continue to make comments about ENDs that show they really don’t know anything about them.
An END can provide a scoresheet on-demand to lie on a tabletop just like paper can. It is always at least equal in performance.
I took a snag-it snapshot of the diagram showing the screen (filled with the first 32 moves of a game) and expanded it to 130% size to make it slightly larger on my screen than my company-provided smartphone (no personal programs allowed on it). Then I had to up it from 130% to 210% before I could read the notation.
So the scoresheet move can show half as many moves as most paper scoresheets. The reading difficulty would require TDs to carry magnifying devices (or stronger reading glasses) in addition to something to allow moving the screen past move 32. Saying something is at least equal in performance depends on what attributes you are measuring.
If somebody does have a smartphone the they could take a picture and manipulate the picture to skip needing a magnifying device, but they they would still have to worry about paging through the device when a game goes past 32 moves. Not every TD has a smartphone.
PS just tried a smartphone picture and getting the moves large enough to read requires scrolling from side to side to see the white move and then the black move. At least the camera app already existed on the company phone and I didn’t need to load anything.
And as to whether any kind of in-person chess is going to happen with or without ENDs at this time:
No.
And as to whether this organizer is going to depart from the universally acknowledged best practice of providing a standard scoresheet and requiring its use once this blows over:
First, we are already in a transition period where all electronic devices are going to be banned from the tournament area. No phones. Therefore, no picture taking of scoresheets. No computers, tablets, or other computing/calculating device that has programmable capacity. That is a beginning step in beating back electronic cheating. Likely, no electric powered watches as some are able to act like communicating devices. Since those won’t be allowed, other watches will probably be banned as well. No ENDs. Paper score sheets only. This will make everyone compliant with “no electronic device allowed” rules.
Second, when there is a ruling necessary on repetitions or other rules violations, no TD wants to have to touch any device given what is possible in the spread of COVID-19 or future viruses. Needing to manipulate a potentially contaminated device is going to be a major safety issue. Requiring people to touch a device to place a signature is a problem, too. We are going to go back to using paper score sheets as the safest measure for players and staff.
As we go back toward an old school environment that is less tech influenced, the major issue is not ENDs but the actual distance between the players. I don’t see that changing much unless we all mutate and grow much longer arms. Masks to wear are possible, though how many you need and their expense will be a personal issue. It would look odd to see everyone in ski masks, goggles, special chess gloves, but would that be any worse than what we see in cold tournament rooms? Spacing between boards and rows is possible. That might be inconvenient and expensive for organizers, but a godsend for floor TDs and players wanting to do a walkabout to view other games. The herding of players into tight spaces with three boards per table might be a thing of the past, and good riddance. There is going to be a push pull of resistance from organizers and resistance to new safety standards and increased costs. One can expect that tournament players will tentatively come back once they see that conditions are better, more spread out, giving the illusion of safety.
I have no idea what you are talking about. An END shows a scoresheet on a tabletop just like a paper scoresheet. If there are too many moves for the screen, the player may have to scroll up or down for you, just as they may have to turn over a paper scoresheet or replace it with a second scoresheet if there are too many moves.
If you’re talking about the picture in this post, there’s no reason for you to take ANY pictures of the actual END. It’s a tablet, lying on a table. The picture I took to illustrate that it provides a scoresheet was shrunk significantly to fit within the forum post. In a tournament you can see it directly, unaided eye, easily.
Please, please, stop making uninformed comments about ENDs in the attempt to denigrate ENDs. Try some common sense and actually learn about them.
Every END that I have ever seen is about the size of that picture. I don’t doubt that larger ones exist, but not everyone has the larger ones. In fact, my experience tells me that hardly anyone has them. So Jeff’s point is perfectly valid.
My primary point was not the size of the print. Some people have better vision and would not see a problem.
My primary point was that the scoresheet mode shows only 32 moves per page (based on the picture provided) while the most common paper scoresheets provide 60 moves before needing to touch the paper to turn it over (and if the player used a second scoresheet starting at move 61 you wouldn’t even need to touch the paper then since they could be placed side by side - something kind of hard to do with an END).
With members of higher-risk groups in my house I am quite sensitive to the idea avoiding any unnecessary risk (I am starting with the assumption that the risks can be minimized enough to work a tournament as otherwise the conversation is moot). From the standpoint of TD review an END in scoresheet mode is no better than a paper scoresheet, often requires additional equipment to use, and on average requires more physical contact, while an END in display mode requires a lot more physical contact. From the standpoint of an organizer an END may help when the organizer is publishing (probably electronically) some of the game scores (though it would need either downloading from the game from the END or creating a spam-vulnerable destination for e-mailing or texting the games to). From the standpoint of a player an END can make it easier to enter games into a personal database and make it easier for other participants to suspect the player of cheating.
The only end currently available on the market has two sizes. The small size is around twice as large as that shrunk picture (and shrinking reduces resolution.) I have elderly eyesight and generally require readers for books - it’s print is clear and easy to read to my eyes.
The larger version is easily readable by one’s opponent.
But if this is your primary point, it’s even more absurd. You simply do 32 moves and ask the player to scroll to the next 32 moves.
Again, you have an agenda and you are looking for a narrative to support it rather than dealing with reality.
Of course it is. It’s always readable.
False, you can have the player handle it just like you would a paper scoresheet in the current circumstance. Additional equipment simply ALLOWS the TD to have a choice.
Again, false.
Your bias is laughable, Jeff. Basically you make numerous claims, NONE OF WHICH are true. Please stop.
The additional contact is done either by the TD or the player. If it is done by the player then there is an ongoing social distancing player/TD dance that is more cumbersome than the one-time placement of a paper scoresheet (maybe with one time turning it over).
If the END game score is not downloaded to the organizer’s device, nor e-mailed to an account, nor texted to a phone, then how would the game be electronically transmitted? (non-electronic transmission undercuts the aid that an END would give). I will admit that if an organizer creates a new e-mail account for each tournament, or the organizer whitelists a sender, then the spam risk goes down, but I’ve seen a number of ongoing accounts end up with significant amounts of spam and a number of spoofs spam that appears to come from a whitelisted account (and often actually does come from a whitelisted account that was virus infected).
This is answering a question that hasn’t been posed.
What you are claiming is something different.
First, you need a disputed claim. Since most time controls no longer involve secondary controls, we have a few secondary time control claims, a few move count claims, and a few position count claims which need to be disputed.
Second, not all scoresheets are the same. I’ve seen scoresheets with 40, 50, or 60 moves to a side. (We only need to be concerned about one side.)
So the “game claim” needs to occur after move 32, and before one of those other numbers before your claim is valid.
Third, the scoresheet needs to be clearly readable. While I haven’t had any of these types of claims in a very long time (and can’t think of one since contemporary time controls became common) I do know that sometimes a difficult to read scoresheet needed to be moved due to lighting or to otherwise discern the notation. The END never has that issue.
So at this point, we already don’t have clarity about which method requires more handling. But what we do know is this: with ONE SWIPE, during which time the TD can easily social distance, the player can bring up a clear and readable additional 32 moves. That claim cannot be made about paper scoresheets.
So no, you don’t have a claim that is clearly valid.
Again, your argument above is not in line with your claim. You claimed that an account would NEED TO BE CREATED - this is false. An existing account can be used, which is no more vulnerable to spam than it would have otherwise been. (However, I do think a special account is better, because “RULES” can be used to accept only valid tournament email and reject anything else.)
Again, when you scrounge for ideas to fill a pre-existing biased narrative, you tend to come up with very poor answers.
