I agree with Boyd. The game is Chess with tournament standard pieces, board and clock.
I do own all the latest technology, except the MonRoi device as I use the eNotate. I obtained a DGT board from my brother-in-law when he bought one as part of a lot at an auction. I then bought the pieces, hook-up wiring, XL clock and bag from the House of Staunton when they were the US distributor for DGT. I ended up getting the DGT setup for a little under $300.
The DGT board can be used with only the power hooked up and it will retain the game scores of a number of games. It can be hooked up to a computer later for the games to be downloaded.
It just isn’t convenient to use it in rated games. And all the venues that use these boards for things like the Olympiads and the US Championship have the players keep the game score separately. Yes, just like golf, it is important for the individual to keep his game score. I use my setup when playing slow time control chess on the internet, in league play and tournaments. When hooked up with the proper interface, I make the move on the board and it transmits simultaneously over the internet, making the internet experience more like real, tournament chess.
Using 2 computers instead of the pieces and board, also just doesn’t do it right. It is impossible for the opponent interaction when using the computer system Bill described. In the real game, the opponents can see each other handle and move the pieces. With the computer setup, the opponents would need to look over or around the computer screens to watch each other use the mouse to make the move. Also, going to a tournament and sitting across from another player to only look at your respective computer screens does lose a lot of the interpersonal competition. Yeah, I just don’t see the computer model catching on.
I don’t see any problem whatsoever in players being assisted in detecting illegal moves.
An illegal move is a violation of the rules. Players should comply with the rules. Since players are not permitted to make illegal moves, I do not see it as “unfair” for one player to have a better illegal move detector than the other. If you don’t make illegal moves, then your opponent having a better illegal move detector than you gives him no advantage. The only reason why you would not want your opponent to have an illegal move detector is that you want a chance to get away with illegal moves. If you are honest and sporting, you should be delighted that your opponent has a reliable way of detecting your unintended illegal moves. Do you want to win because your opponent did not notice an illegal move?
A chess game should not be about who gets away with violating the most rules without the opponent noticing. Chess is a contest between two players based on playing legal moves, not a contest about who is better at noticing (or getting away with) illegal moves. Anything that draws attention to illegal moves and corrects them seems like a good thing to me, even if it only works for the benefit of one of the players.
TD’s are already enabled by the standard rules to correct illegal moves which they observe, except in the last five minutes of sudden death (11H). Spectators may also point out illegal moves to the director (11I). (Curiously, 11I does not state what the director is supposed to do with this information.)
This does not apply only to technology. Under the current rules, in tournaments where spectators are permitted, it would be entirely legal for a player to have “seconds” (spectators) stationed at the board to spot illegal moves made by the opponent and bring them immediately to the attention of the director. This is legal provided there is no communication directly between the player and the “seconds”. Though direct communication between spectators and players is currently prohibited explicitly, I don’t really see any reason why spectators should not be able to point out illegal moves to the players. Anything which prevents the effects of illegal moves from propagating beyond the moment of occurrence seems a good thing to me.
I don’t either. What I wouldn’t want to see is (1) players being required to buy a Monroi/eNotate-type device just to participate in a tournament, or (2) tournament players being at a disadvantage if they didn’t choose to buy a Monroi/eNotate-type device.
I hope you don’t think it is a “disadvantage” that a player’s opponent is aided by technology to detect his illegal moves, when he is not so equipped. Everybody should
want their illegal moves detected quickly and corrected, and it is to everyone’s advantage that this happens. Would you not agree?
Yes. What would concern me would be if the Monroi notified its owner about his illegal moves before he hit his button but notified him about my illegal moves only after I had hit my button (thereby subjecting me to a time penalty that my opponent was spared, even though we learned about our illegal moves from the same source).
I certainly wouldn’t want to see (1), either. As for (2), that doesn’t really bother me, as the disadvantage of not having an e-scoresheet would be self-imposed.
And I speak as a confirmed old stuck-in-the-mud user of paper scoresheets, with no plans to upgrade to electronic scorekeeping.
Even this is a minor point. Most e-scoresheet users, like most paper scoresheet users, press their clock button after they move but before they record the move. So the notification would occur only after the button press, in any case.
Now, I suppose it’s possible a few e-scoresheet users might want to use their devices to make sure their move is legal, before they press their clock button. Such users would have to postpone the clock press until after they record their move. This, it seems to me, would more often be a disadvantage (extra clock time being given away to the opponent) than an advantage (avoiding a time penalty due to a completed illegal move).