Thankfully someone sees the logic behind the complaint! As for the whole “screen size” argument brought up by defenders, I can say this:
Since they have to make the screen large enough to be able to reasonably move pieces on and interact with, that is PLENTY large enough to study. As I said before, I’ve actually handled a Monroi device in person, and the diagram size didn’t bother me at all. And really, is that the best argument we can throw on the table? The screen size? Seriously?
As for my difference in ability on a 2D board versus 3D, here’s what I can tell you:
My last OTB rating from a few years ago was 1780. My online blitz ratings are 1936 on Playchess, 1924 on chess.com, and 2203 on chesscube. I’ve beaten both FMs and even an IM once (goes by the name of Coma on playchess) on the 2D screen. The best I ever did OTB was beat a NM. Now I know there’s the argument of online ratings being apples to OTB oranges, but I make it a habit to look up the OTB ratings of each person I play from the US on those sites (when they list their real name in their profile). The vast majority I’m finding out that my online “peers” are rated between 100 and 300 points higher than I am OTB. This is not something I have to prove to make my point. I personally KNOW I will have an advantage over my OTB game if I can stare at a 2D diagram. That’s why they have the potential to be abused unfairly. Anyone arguing against that is intentionally being obtuse.
Now here’s a question: What’s to stop a clever hardware modder from faking the device to look identical to the real thing, yet has a hidden engine inside signalling moves very subtly to the operator? It reminds me of another thread on the subject where one of the device manufacturers actually had the audacity to claim their device was “hack-proof”. There is NOTHING in the microprocessor world that is “hack-proof”. It’s an incredibly slippery slope, and I cannot fathom why federations would even risk opening that door… (well I can, but it’s against the rules to elaborate on that)
I still await an answer to my original question; i.e., what can be done? And nope, I don’t own one of those devices–no good reason, I just don’t happen to own one.
Tim Just has a good point-- what can be done about it?? I really have never seen someone use an
electronic scoresheet in the manner you detail. Or, any complaints from opponents about such use.
So, from that, it seems to me probably a lot of hoo-ha about little. The fact is these devices are here
to stay. Enforcing where someone looks is an impossibility. So, we are where we are.
As to cheats using software— there have been a few, and there have been a few caught. To outlaw
a device used by masses because of the illegal activity of an extreme minority is not a proper course
of action.
The fact is the electronic scorsheet, first the MonRoi, then others has been a tremendous asset to
USCF, and to chess i general. For one, many major events are having games instantly broadcast via
hub transmitting to a website viewed around the world–quite often, live.
Many are better able to save their games for further study–a key to player improvement. And there
are other benefits as well.
The fact is, the good of these scoresheets far outweighs any negatives.
It is not clear what can be done about it or even that anything needs to be done. No one, to my knowledge, is seriously considering banning the devices.
Some of things you declare as “facts,” simply aren’t. It’s not a fact that MonRoi or eNotate have been “tremendous asset[s].” That’s an opinion. It is a fact that Monroi has been used to broadcast games.
It is not a fact that the advantages of these score sheets far outweigh the negatives, although I would agree with the opinion that their advantages outweigh the disadvantages.
Curious if you can find this thread as I haven’t been able to. Of the three e-scoresheet vendors, I’m the most active poster. I don’t recall making this claim.
Gary, it is a fact, as well as my opinion that the electronic scoresheets have been tremendous
assets for USCF as they have provided a means to broadcast games, and to without a question
enable many of our youths to notate more completely and accurately. As their skills improve, so
does our federation as a whole. And, lets not forget about the remuneration USCF has received
from one brand of the electronic scoresheet’s sales. That at least would appear to be an asset.
Personally, I have no problem at all with an opponent who wishes to stare at his e-scoresheet, instead of the “real” board, during the game. I would only insist that his device remain visible, face up, on the table at all times so that I can be sure he is not using his device to make “trial” moves.
I learned chess at a young age on a 3D board, and started reading (2D) beginners’ chess books not too many years after that. I am equally comfortable with either. To be honest, I have difficulty figuring out why anybody would strongly prefer 2D over 3D, or vice versa. Both are mere physical representations of what’s actually happening conceptually.
Yet, it is obvious that quite a few players do have such a preference, one way or the other. This preference, in my view, amounts to a disability. The proper way to treat a person with a disability is to make a reasonable accommodation. If, for example, my opponent has an upper-body mobility impairment, I will let him place the clock on whichever side he prefers, even if he has the white pieces.
The OP seems to have a 3D perception impairment, and wants to make sure that, whenever his opponent has a similar impairment, the opponent is denied the same reasonable accommodation that he (the OP) has chosen to deny for himself.
Wouldn’t it be more reasonable for the OP to allow his opponent the reasonable accommodation, and to allow himself the same reasonable accommodation, of using (and staring at) an e-scoresheet, if he wants to?
Some very strong players (Ivanchuck, for example) prefer not to look at the board while analyzing. They find the visual image of the board distracting.
Since allowing them to not look at the board would be an unfair advantage, they should be forced to stare at the board while analyzing.
I certainly would “second” this thought of Smythe Dakota’s.
Should you really tell your youthful opponent that building towers does not help his performance??
Requires an expensive purchase. The USCF would be wise not have this be the case, since it discriminates on the poor. You want to encourage as many members as possible, not discourage them.
Chess tournaments are no less accessible to people who use paper score sheets because of the existence of electronic score sheets.
The combined cost of an eNotate download and a Dell Axim x50/x50v/x51/x51v PDA is no greater than $60-$70. Most big weekend events have entry fees that are in that neighborhood, if not higher.
MonRoi’s cost is high, to be sure. However, I predicted a while ago that, just like with digital clocks, if electronic score sheets were popular enough, lower-cost dedicated-hardware alternatives to MonRoi would be developed. Plycounter is now on the market, approved by USCF, and costs less than half of a MonRoi PCM. I have no doubt that other, even lower-cost alternatives will come out as more people make the switch. However, even if no other such alternatives are developed, players still play the same game either way.
In every sport imaginable, the poor are “discriminated”. It is a fact of life. In baseball the more affluent can afford
the $ 600 special metal bats, personal pitching coaches, etc, in football, passing coaches, in soccer-select coaches and
teams, personal trainers, and in chess, plycounters, monrois, chess tutors, etc. Life is not fair–so what else is new??
Are we to marginalize those who can afford the above and lead their sports to greater heights to compensate for those who can not afford the cost?? I think not-it is simply not the American way, and does not fit the American
spirit of competition.
Boyd, there is a difference between the chess electronic scoresheets and digital clocks. Digital clocks can be and are
used for other games such as “Go”, whereas the electronic scoresheets are limited to chess. In terms of lower cost
as you mentioned, the plycounter is already here. I guess I could see a lower cost product coming out, but a key
issue is just how large is te market?? I truly question whether there is enough of a total market in chess to support
both the Monroi and Plycount device. This is indeed unfortunate, for while the plycounter is without question less
expensive, it does not provide a service so many of the institutional clients prefer–the ability to instantly broadcast
games to an international audience.
My point was to demonstrate that, if there is money to be made with a lower cost alternative, someone will develop it. This holds true for almost any commercially available product in the US.
As I also mentioned, eNotate is far cheaper than both - it costs $50 for the software, and has no restriction on the hardware. And in USCF play, which is the main thrust of this thread, players/organizers generally don’t care about having games broadcast. Please further note that PlyCounter says their product is in the FIDE approval process. However, eNotate has become quite visible in American tournaments.
MonRoi’s PTM unit (which is required for broadcasting) is currently only used by larger organizers, due to its cost. I don’t think MonRoi will be seriously challenged in that capacity for a while, because the market isn’t (yet?) very big.
Only North American electronic scoresheets have been developed to date, but as their use grows elsewhere, other international competition will emerge, with a cost drop being the likely result, as manufacturing costs less outside the US/Canada. As I reported earlier, MonRoi seems to be slowly catching on in Europe, based on my recent travels. If PlyCounter gets approved for FIDE use, they’ll move some units in foreign sales.
[edit to correct eNotate pricing and include PlyCounter cite]
The question is whether the institutional market demanding games broadcasting ability is large enough, by itself, to support MonRoi. It seems to me that this is a very
hard argument to make.
I’m not sure why that would be the most important question, especially at this point in time. I’ve long believed MonRoi’s greatest obstruction to becoming more widespread is the relatively high price of its PCM notation units, not in its PTM broadcasting units (which aren’t really designed for individual purchase anyway).
I once tried convincing MonRoi they should give away the PTM units. Not only does it provide live broadcasting capabilities but it also provides a central monitoring system for keeping an eye on all the devices within reach. I felt this aspect of the system could have been developed much more to assist TDs and to provide an additional security feature for those people skeptical (or uneducated) about their use.
