Based on the TD’s statement and Kevin’s opponent’s letter to the USCF that I quoted above, I would like to bring the TD’s misconduct to the USCF if I feel it to be necessary; I wish to ask: How may I bring this case to the USCF?
I think a sharp line needs to be drawn between “mistake” and “misconduct”. You had me on your side until you made this comment.
you right, maybe I used wrong word
Meaning no offense, but scchess’ native language is not English, so the word “misconduct” was used, I believe, without knowledge of its various negative connotations.
This is your original statement
Now you changed
You still try to argue, I am not try to put you in a bad position at all, if you said sorry to Kevin after you know you made mistake, and not try to hide your mistake, I will easily let this go, but look at your response, and Bob’s word in his response, I have to do what I should do. But anyway, I am not going to do anything now, I still try to seek a way to solve this smoothly between us.
Ken’s answer here makes the most sense to me. The current language of the rule being what it is, I believ, allows for TD discretion here.
According to what I’ve read (and I haven’t read everything: fairly long thread here), the TDs decision to disallow the player to look at the diagram, was a fair and impartial decision, given 20D and the fact that the guidelines for the MonRoi state that a player should set it aside in plain view.
On the other hand, given the strong arguements made here about the definition of ‘analysis’, and the use of demo boards, I don’t think it’s improper for the TD to allow a player to look at the diagramed postiton on the MonRoi.
John, I think I’ve missed something, as you speak of the TD having allowed himself to be browbeaten, and he changed his decision?? I didn’t see where he changed anything.
Anyway, I don’t see where this TD needs to have his certification reviewed. He made the fairest decision he felt he could make given the circumstances of the current rule language.
I don’t see a change in his opinion between the two quotes.
Don’t worry. I understood – I just wanted to make the point that I don’t feel the TD was guilty of misconduct. It was, IMHO, a mistake.
I believe I’ve actually met the gentleman and I’ve played a rated game against Kevin (I won, but Kevin’s a lot better now).
I find it impossible to equate the ability to look at a recorded score sheet with looking at the position on a board, be it 3D or 2D. The first case is subject to “analysis” only if one can keep the position blindfolded - a situation which cannot be prevented by any rule.
Those who claim you cannot “analyze” on another board without moving pieces around must be rather weak players, IMO.
If the Monroi is a “scorekeeping device,” how does looking at the diagram fit into that definition? If the player were only staring at the algebraic score, no one would care. The player had entered an OTB tournament, and the only board he should be using is the one in front of him.
It is ridiculous to equate demo boards with the Monroi 2D board. The demo boards are available equally to all - would the player allow his opponent to hold the Monroi so close as he was?
As far as we know, Monroi is not subject to any chessplaying program add-ons which could enable cheating, but we also know that eventually hacks will enable this on Monroi and other devices. We just don’t know when.
The ruling seems fair to me and in keeping with the approved usage of the device.
Your argument is specious. You can’t make a rule controlling where a player looks. E.g., a player is free to look at other games, even if the positon should be identical to his own. You can perhaps make a rule forbidding a player to look at a specific thing, like a chess book, but if it’s something he has to look at, or if it’s something in plain view, such a rule would be idiotic. Both of those apply to a Monroi (= scoresheet). Most importantly, such a ruling is not supported by the rules, at least not without stretching them until they squeal. As an NTD, I would immediately overturn any such ruling by an assistant TD. And I would be extremely hesitant to hire him again.
I frankly would have preferred that the Rules Committee not approve the Monroi as a scorekeeping device. But they did, and you’re stuck with it unless you announce a rules variation for your tournament.
I don’t really see a competitive advantage by looking at the Monroi, at least not from his seat in front of the board, which he could see readily. If he were taking it with him and walking around, that’s a different matter.
I do think the TD could also base his judgment on the rule forbidding a player to annoy his opponent. Not being a TD or having a rulebook I can’t cite the rule, but I’m sure someone else can. Merely using a Monroi wouldn’t qualify as a punishable annoyance, but using it as an analysis board could, and clearly did, annoy his opponent unnecessarily. This is a very gray area.
Please see rule 21L. After you follow that procedure, including the $25 good faith deposit (usually refunded if the complaint is not groundless), the USCF will pass your complaint along to the individual involved. The individuals named in the complaint are sent a copy via “registered” USPS and must sign for it. They then has 30 days to respond. Your complaint, and everyone’s response, is passed along to the proper committee. The committee then makes a ruling (the time this takes depends on the committee and it’s chair). Also be aware that committees do not have the ability to investigate anything, they are not set up to be detectives.
The most common ruling from the TDCC is to issue a warning in clear cut cases . The second most common ruling from the TDCC is to suspend a TD (usually for not turning in rating reports, not passing along fees to USCF, handing in and not correcting incorrect rating reports, and refusing to enforce the rules of chess). The TDCC needs facts, not opinions, in order to make a ruling. In cases regarding TD discretion the TDCC does not need to agree or disagree with the TD’s decision but only rule on the TD’s authority to make a discretionary decision.
When a complaint involves rules, or their interpertation, often the Rules Committee gets it first. If they feel a TD did something way out of line (not just misinterpret a rule) they pass the case along to the TDCC after they make a ruling.
Or the TDCC may get the case first and find it belongs in another committee (Rules or Ethics).
Tim Just
Chair TDCC
IMHO: For some time now I have wondered if the process above could be streamlined. My idea was to create a system based on the daytime TV “Judge Judy” type of shows; i.e., everyone agrees to suspend all the above steps and simply submits to arbitration. I am still working on the details.
Warning, I just received a message from the future. Apparently Chess players are in grave danger. It all started when our overconfidence about Monrois was at its peak. (which is yet to happen) Some of the message:
Your gizmos are planning to take over the world! Stop them now while you can!
Think about it, when staring at your gizmo too long, do the pieces seem to move themselves? If they do, don’t worry, you’re not insane, it’s the gizmo chip. The gizmo chip is a mod chip en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mod_Chip which was placed in some monrois by evil super computers. They manipulated the electronics industry and “paid” human slaves to implant these chips. If using one, the end result is that as you become a Grand Master and make millions of dollars, you will become a major political figure. We see this happening already in Russia where the gizmos have taken over already. Why do you think millions of people play Chess in Russia?? It’s all a scheme to control men’s lives. Think about it, who really cares about Chess moves more than computers?
Here’s what you can do to save yourself. Put your gizmo aside and just say ‘no’. Then grab a pencil for gawds sake and learn the mysterious ancient art of
WRITE ING . You do have the skill, write and be a human! Be a FREE human!
There is no maybe about it. An apology is in order here, IMO.
Just a quick note to say these are not the official regulations now to be used in all scholastic events, these are the amended rules that the Scholastic Council have put in place for use at USCF’s National Scholastic events. If other events wish to adopt these rules then they should really announce them in advance at their own events.
Keep the personal insults out of the discussion please.
This isn’t about the dictionary definition of the word “analyze” – it’s about the intent of the rule and the way the word “analyze” is used in the rulebook.
On that basis, there’s no support for a ruling that a player can’t look at his scorekeeping device all he wants to. There’s a clear-cut rule that says the MonRoi can be used to keep score. The clear-cut rule trumps the (incorrect, IMHO) argument about a rule interpretation.
Once again, you can’t. You have no standing. Now if Kevin wanted to file a claim, he could just follow Mr. Just’s instructions above.
Alex Relyea
At some point, claiming that parents don’t have the legal right to speak for their (minor) children starts to sound faintly ridiculous. I suppose if the player in question (not this case, of course) were too young to write, you’d say he wouldn’t have any right to a written appeal???
I can’t speak for the TDCC or the Rules Committee but two years ago, the Ethics Committee had to decide whether to accept a complaint from a non-USCF member parent of a 10 year old (who was a member). The Committee eventually decided that, on a case by case basis, it COULD consider complaints from non-USCF members acting on behalf of USCF members too young to write the complaint themselves.
– Hal Terrie
Is there also a link to a complete list of USCF Rules regarding Monroi use at non-scholastics? The rule about leaving the Mon-Roi on the table is in the appendix to the Scholastic Regulations. The rule about making your move first is from Rule 15 on keeping score of the game.