Our Future?

Running Chess Tournaments
41

Is it on-line or OTB?

How would the software be handling touch move?
If a piece can be dragged around the board until it is dropped then the position is available for analysis (similar to hanging onto a piece on a new square but not releasing) and if that piece can be returned to its square and subsequently another piece chosen to make that move then that would allow one-half-move visual analysis for all pieces. If the tournament is using on-line ratings then that is not an issue. If the tournament is using OTB ratings then the lack of being able to make a touch move claim is a difference. I always felt that two significant reason for the OTB touch move rule were (1) moving various pieces on the board is a distraction to the opponent (not applicable when the opponent doesn’t even see such moves) and (2) moving various pieces risks not every piece being returned to its home square before moving another and thus multiple moves being made at once (not applicable when the computer limits it to one move at a time). With the touch move change affecting all players equally, and the automatic avoidance of those two significant reasons, I don’t see it as an insurmountable barrier to OTB rating it.

The prevention of illegal moves (and the lack of being able to claim them) is also kind of a difference, but only kind of because the main rule is for the TD to have all illegal moves corrected before play continues. Very few people realize that is the main rule because of how often the small-TD-to-player-ratio variation is used (where the player must first make the claim). The computer would be providing the unbiased monitoring to enforce illegal move correction and do it equally for everybody. This is not a barrier to OTB rating it.

The flag would be called by a non-player but the non-player is neutral. This is a semi-plausible argument against OTB rating it.

Two-dimensional and three-dimensional viewing can affect players differently. Being blindsided by a radically different format could adversely impact the playing ability of somebody who wouldn’t have come if the format had been known. This is a plausible argument against OTB rating it.

Conclusion: If the conditions are announced in all advance publicity then it is an acceptable major variation and OTB-ratable.
If the conditions are not announced in advance then it is begging for an appeal to the Rules committee and having some physical boards&clocks for players that don’t want to use the unexpected screens would help avoid such an appeal (this would be a return to a no-computer sign up sheet so that players would be able to avoid being browbeaten or shamed into giving in to playing in an unwanted on-line-like manner).

PS Touch move claims would go down. Claims of distracting the opponent would go down. Claims of interference/assistance might very well soar. TDs wouldn’t have to monitor time pressure blitzes and would be able to focus even more on watching for assistance.

42

The preliminary assumptions are flawed. In 2023, there may be a whole new landscape where OTB will be for small, local events while Grand Prix style tournaments have shifted online. There are a number of new sources for playing online and for money prizes. This is only going to get bigger and more competitive.

Sooner or later, the online, the online chess companies are going to realize that they can set up, manage, and maintain a rating system every bit as legitimate as the USCF OTB rating. Combined with anti-cheating measures, they can dominate the Grand Prix circuit. CCA has already entered the zone. There will be companies from Asia and Europe who are jumping in. It would not be surprising if the other online gaming and casinos enter the battlefield, as they have wider experience and resources. In this new landscape, there will be a digital/OTB divide. To play in big money tournaments you will have to be willing to play online. There are advantages for these companies and the players who follow them that OTB organizers will be hard pressed to compete with. The online companies will not have to worry about hotel contracts, the logistics of running an OTB event, fewer TDs to pay, paying USCF rating fees, dealing with memberships, and other costs. The players will save money on hotels and travel. Their food costs will be less. They will be able to play from the comfort of their homes and sleep in their own beds, a significant advantage that locals have in OTB.

If this happens, rating revenue for the USCF could drop significantly. The online chess companies who decide not to USCF rate will also not need to deal with membership issues. This could cause a drop off in membership revenue, unless the players are playing in the few USCF events available that are online. If there are enough companies competing, the market share for the USCF will decline making it a small player. These companies might decide to create a universal rating system that work for all platforms or decide to have FIDE rate the events. That would be a real incentive for many players that the companies could jump to serve. The USCF could be left with rating only its small localized events, old men and newbies before they jump to online play. With so many going online, OTB events and many local chess clubs could dry up and disappear, a victim of the changes to the digital world. As the tech companies grow in size and wealth, the new products that they create would be adapted to playing chess and other online games. Instead of using a computer or tablet, phones might become the dominant way to play chess in tournaments. Players would no longer have to buy chess sets, boards, and digital clocks. The development of AI might create holographic systems. Players could use virtual reality, a revamped Google glasses, or some not even thought of technology in order to play online. With such a large audience to advertise to, the tech companies would see the value of sponsoring events, making the online tournaments huge, big money events, with millions of dollars in prizes, several circuits to play in like golf, and the spread of gaming to a populace that has gotten used to working from home. That money will not trickle down to the local OTB events which will look anachronistic compared to the more exciting digital tournament scene.

In this new environment, many TDs would abandon the USCF and move to improve their digital skills and incomes with the online gaming companies. They will be asked for guidance on rules, participate in monitoring games, and running the technology. No more running around on the floor to check games or pick up slips. TDs would be in swivel chairs looking at a bank of screens either at home or at a centralized location in regional centers. Being a TD might become a technical profession. The long process of dealing with the USCF system of levels of tournament director and testing would be only used by the USCF. The companies would promote their people based on skills, performance, and the size of the market. An entry level tech TD could move up very fast in the new online world. She would be flexible, capable of dealing with all of the other online gaming competitions that are sure to spring up. She would be well paid with benefits, vacation time, and have opportunities to become an executive in the tech companies of the future.

As happened in the aftermath of the pandemic of 1918-21, there will be many changes in the use of technology, entertainment, and the society. Education is going to change, needing to address technical and social problems like the digital divide and income inequality. Government and business will be pressed to expand broadband and provide opportunities to an expanding population which is more diverse. In the 1920’s baseball exploded in popularity. So did the movie scene, which created its own society of celebrity. The cities became more vibrant, larger, and more tech obsessed. The economy adapted to new credit regimes, buying from catalogs, and an expanded use of advertising on the new medium radio. Radio became a centerpiece in many homes, providing news and entertainment for a society craving information. Social mores changed. Clothing styles changed. Dancing became all the rage. Everything became more energetic. People became more future oriented rather than nostalgic. What the new era, post pandemic will look like, we can only dream about and enjoy.

43

In addressing this question, it is important to think outside the box, or perhaps better yet, to think underneath the box, i.e. to figure out the underlying reason for each rule, and only then, recast the rule (if necessary) to better match the new situation. I am happy to see that Jeff has done exactly as I just described, in all of his analysis.

I think Jeff is correct that we may no longer need a touch-move rule at all when the pieces are being moved electronically.

However, I think it’s true that different online providers may have developed different answers to this question. Isn’t it true (somebody please correct me if I’m wrong) that ICC doesn’t enforce touch-move at all, but that some others (perhaps chess.com) enforce it, by requiring that once a player has “picked up” (via mouse or touch) a piece that has a legal move, the software will no longer allow the player to move a different piece?

Eventually there should be standardization among online providers, in this case probably in favor of the ICC approach (if I’m correct about the difference). Either way, standardization is bound to happen eventually, I hope.

Perhaps it would be best if all software allowed each individual user to choose either a 2-dimensional or a 3-dimensional view. Doesn’t some software already allow this?

I’ll go a little further, and opine that the only real reason to have two separate rating systems (OTB and online) is the possibility of cheating via external software or external invisible human help. Accordingly, OTB-rating an event should be allowed only if the games are all played in the same venue and there is a human TD present. Otherwise, the event should be online-rated, to keep the CHEATVID-19 corona virus from infecting the OTB rating system.

Bill Smythe

44

Doesn’t need a whole lot of specialization, either. Lichess is open-source and it seems feasible to deploy it on a single server from what I’ve been reading as I’ve been looking into it as an option for our club on an Amazon instance. Rebrand it with a special logo, and it would be trivial to add a changing code that displays to ensure at-a-glance that the page is genuine. One could buy a server and host the instance in-house but it would be just as secure to control access to an Amazon instance and let Amazon worry about the hardware expense on server-side. Then all one needs is off the shelf Raspberry Pi’s for the end devices - the monitor and input hardware will cost less that the network terminal. Why go to the lengths to develop specialized hardware when off-the-shelf solutions will work? Why go with specialized systems if one can reasonably certify user BYOD is just as secure?

And I think a lot of people here overestimate how wedded those younger than us are to the mystique of touching real pieces and board. Do I like it? Absolutely. It’s what I was raised with. The time is coming, though, when that $50-$60 equipment investment (including clock) will be superfluous because most every student will have a laptop or tablet. And ‘serious’ chess players will spend more time online than face-to-face. Why do you need $2500 concrete tables in your “chess park” when you can just sit across a table with a couple of ipads, other than for nostalgia? But time marches on.

Anyway, I’ll stick with what I said earlier. Yes, such an event should be rated as “OTB” and “OTB” will become as much an anachronym as saying you are “dialing” someone on the phone or putting a “backup tape” in or you are putting “lead” in your pencil. Maybe not by 2023 but speculating about technology is often very much off on the timeframe.

45

  1. One depressing thing re: online is shorter time controls. The World Open will be 60/10 at least make 90/10. I’d prefer 90/10, at best 90/30. I understand (c)heating but dam

  2. touch move is an issue; currently, most interfaces allow premove. You can withdraw a move before your opponent makes a move. So, we need to turn off premove during a tournament

46

Please note, though, that these are 10-second increments (cumulative addback), not delays (non-cumulative addback) as in the past. This should help some.

Also, the online platform may be faster to use than OTB. It is probably faster to slide a piece with a mouse (or touch on two squares with a stylus) than to physically move a piece (especially a capture) on a vinyl board. And you don’t have to press a clock; that’s automatic.

I sort of agree. However, touch-move is not an issue. Pre-move might be an issue. At the very least, pre-move should probably be off by default when each game begins. If a player wants to be dumb enough to turn it on (for himself only) during the game, thus risking disaster if the opponent makes an unexpected move, that might not be so bad. It’s the player’s own funeral.

Bill Smythe

47

I’ve moved several replies discussing the use of electronic notation devices to the existing topic Electronic Notation Devices and Social Distancing.

48

That is how it works now online. The major problem is players will just play endlessly in dead drawn position for a few rating points.

49

Why is that a problem? More specifically, what is the purpose of touch move from the perspective of principles of fairness of the game, and would those principles be served by other means in a digital environment?

(Hint… In correspondence play one can make conditional premoves, and that is far from verboten but rather an accepted part of the game. Why?)

50

The point of doing pre-move is that it saves time on the clock for the player that uses it. The question of pre-move not being touch move is a serios question. The new proposal for online play allows for pre-move. I find this interesting as I now from experience that pre-move has been not allowed in the past when the US Amateur Team playoffs occur. I wonder if the proposal means that this is changing?

Larry Cohen
ANTD

PS: Many years ago I was an onsite TD for a playoff match for the US Amateur Team. I specifically asked about pre-move and was told it was not allowed.

51

I know this is not the politically correct thing to say, but I believe the whole pandemic fears are overblown. Normal, average flu in the US causes several 100,000 deaths in the US each year. Examples are the 1968 Hong Kong Flu, et al.

I do not want the flu either. Both my wife and I are immuno-compromised, but that’s life.

52

First, “normal, average flu” deaths in the U.S. are not several hundred thousand. That would make it the third (or higher) leading cause of death in the United States. It’s generally more like 55,000 from flu and pneumonia combined. (Flu is estimated to have caused between 12,000 and 61,000 deaths each year for the past decade.) The 1968 flu pandemic was estimated at around 100,000 US deaths by the CDC. This coronavirus is, even with drastic measures, already ahead of that.

Second, can you accurately describe the long-term effects of this virus? What effects will it have on those who have it in another 20-30 years? (Think shingles as a comparable example.) What non-death side effects will be the most troublesome? What kinds of permanent damage to respiratory, cardiac, and neurological functioning will result for those who survive it? You can’t answer these questions because nobody can yet.

So I think you are right that you are not being politically correct but wrong that the fears are overblown.

53

It seems to me that many of the people in charge have one of two responses to covid19:

  1. It isn’t a problem, go about life as normal.
  2. OMG, the sky is falling, shut everything down!

In Star Wars terminology these are:

  1. Obi-wan: These aren’t the droids you’re looking for, move along.
  2. C3P0: Shut them all down!

Neither of these approaches are good ones. Covid19 IS a problem, it isn’t going away any time soon, but we can’t just shut everything down forever, either, so we need reasonably safe procedures to follow. And what is ‘reasonably safe’ gets redefined frequently, sometimes following medical advice, sometimes perhaps not.

IMHO, middle ground solutions are no longer politically correct.

54

I’m not sure where you see response 2, exactly. What I see is a reasonable consensus among medical professionals that we need strong testing and contract tracing capabilities combined with practical safety measures (wear a mask) and cautious reopening (i.e. in places with lower cases reopen things gradually, starting with lower risk and higher reward activities, and if cases start to spike back off). In addition, as we learn more we need to be willing to adjust our approach based on evidence.

The problem I see is that people who underestimate the risks and severity of this virus frequently portray this approach (which is so far working reasonably well in the countries that have had the political will to implement it) as “the sky is falling.”

55

Unfortunately, because of HIPAA, contact tracing in the U.S. will never be as helpful as it is in much of Europe. Being given a vague warning that you may have be in close contact with someone who tested positive really isn’t all that helpful. We even have the rather preposterous situation where a pro baseball player who tests positive can keep his identity “secret”, as if the fact that he misses two weeks of practice doesn’t scream that to everyone (of course at least a week too late for anyone who might have been in close contact).

56

Politicians, mainly. Note that I said ‘people in charge’, which pretty much excludes doctors.

57

What we have is an executive branch that is sending out mixed messages, while taking actions that are designed to prevent dealing with the virus. Medical professionals say wear a mask; the WH contradicts those professionals and actively works against mask mandates by the states. Medical professional promote more testing and contact tracing. The WH staff is drawing up proposals to cut funding for testing and tracing and PPE. The political class is split on what do to buttress the economy. The WH presses for opening everything up and that all of the kids be forced to go to school… In the meantime, the WH rejects providing funding that will support workers, support the state unemployment funds, or allow the kids to go to school safely. Saying that “it will all go away,” is not a policy that is credible.

No one has gone around saying, “the sky is falling.” That is a false narrative spread by people who should know better, but are hanging on desperately to their power. They look to blame others or minimize the problems that are self-evident by calling those who have to grapple with the problems as “alarmists.” Those who have lost family members or been sick enough to be hospitalized are unimpressed by a disengaged government. I talked to a doctor recently who related the analogy that we are in the second inning of the first game of a double header. People he works with are tired and scared of what is to come. There is a long way to go, just as there was in 1918 when government and the society was slow off the mark and actively attempted to dissuade people from taking reasonable health and economic measures. If we continue to go along as we are and do not make changes, we will see 600,000+ dead and millions more suffering through long term effects.

A safe, fully tested vaccine or set of vaccines is likely a year or more away, in spite of the statement by pharma companies who have jumped the gun to improve their stock values. We may end up with a nationalistic race by countries to get there first with a vaccine and holding it back from others. Russia is reported to be trying to steal vaccine research from the US and the UK. The US is cutting itself off from WHO and undermining its own health agencies by seeking to cut funding and cutting off their access to data from around the country. The pernicious effect of poor policy actions will ripple across a deeply wounded economy, causing more unnecessary pain and grief. We can also expect to see anti-vaxxers try to stop the use of vaccines, lie about the vaccines with wild conspiracy theories, and exert pressure on legislators.

There will be a new round of funding by the end of July or early August. There may be another opportunity for US Chess and other non-profits to get a chance at some of the funding. It is not clear yet if and how the Congress will extend aid to states, workers, companies, and the schools. The WH may veto the new funding legislation unless it gets its way on cutting payroll taxes and making cuts to SSA.

58

I guess I haven’t seen that from my state and local leadership, neither in Michigan nor Maryland.

59

There has been a lot of friction between politicians in the state legislature and the governor in PA over mandated closures and the process of re-opening the economy of the state. In MI, the state legislature has sued the governor over her policies. The governor of MD has a contentious relationship with the WH, which has tried to cut funding to the state. The big question is who is really demonstrating leadership in these times? Who is to be trusted?

60

well the US has done 40 millions tests and 113,000 deaths. and approx 15 million positive tests. I am not ignoring the problem; there’s not a thing we can do about it. It’s here it is going to be here.

The experts have changed tune all along. We need to live with it. We may even have a vaccine, but it mutates. So, what do you do ? IDK and neither does anyone else. Fischer said: “e4 best by test.” Lockdowns have not proven their worth by the same measure.