Since analog clocks have been “shown the door”, how about moving on to having OTB players compete with each other digitally? This would solve equipment issues and the tournament would be run with all the participants competiting under the exact same conditions. If the event runs live online, it would be a show for the spectators without the unpleasant crowding around the board. The players could kibbitz after the game as usual and do the social stuff without worries about stolen equipment as well. Just a thought.
What do you mean by “competing digitally”? Using computers instead of physical boards and sets? Competing over the internet instead of live in person? And either way, how do you guarantee that participants are all competing under the exact same conditions? What does that even mean?
Maybe I’m just thick, but I can’t visualize exactly what you are proposing.
Perhaps you still play at a venue, and sit across the “board” person-to-person from your opponent, but you play on two computer screens (plus a third, for the audience).
The computers would keep score, display and record time, check for illegal moves, and rule on draw claims. I’ve suggested this sort of thing in older threads.
Bill Smythe
This is the idea. And I’m glad that I did not think of it first. Thanks for making it clear.
You would rather spend a couple of thousand dollars on hardware, software, and security arrangements than the simplicity and modest cost of competing on a standard board and set plus clock? If so, why stop there. Add robots to type in the moves or use voice technology to announce the moves. Better yet, get DARPA to fund using the latest version of the technology where the mind and eye movements cause the pieces to move, similar to the way jet pilots are operating experimental aircraft.
Wouldn’t have to. The computer would record the moves, and give you a printout after the game. Human (or robotic) scorekeeping would not be necessary.
Bill Smythe
Another idea would be the “secret draw offer”.
How often have you wanted a draw, but did not want to tip your hand by offering it? How often have both you and your opponent wanted a draw, but neither wanted to tip their hands, so the game went on for 10 more moves with both players wanting a draw?
If, after making your move on the computer, you press the “secret draw offer” button instead of the “submit” button, the effect would be as follows:
- The opponent would not know (at least not immediately) that you pressed the “secret draw offer” button.
- If you have a legitimate draw claim (triple occurrence or 50 move rule), the computer would immediately declare the game drawn.
- Otherwise, the game would continue. But if both players press their “secret draw offer” buttons on consecutive half-moves, the computer would declare the draw.
Bill Smythe
If I made a “secret draw offer” in a slightly inferior position and then my opponent responded with a horrendous blunder that led to an immediate loss, I would be furious if my opponent avoided the consequences of the blunder by making his own “secret draw offer”. There is a reason making a move rejects any draw offer by the opponent. Now if the “secret draw offer” had to be clicked before making a move then it sounds plausible.
Although I might not have expressed it this acerbically, this was my thought as well. Yes, this kind of set-up would provide a level playing field, where nobody has to put up with inferior equipment, but who has the money to provide such a set-up? I know a few players who might be able to afford such equipment for themselves, but not for everyone. And I don’t know a single TD with that kind of money. We’re happy if our tournaments break even. Is someone going to talk Rex Sinquefield into funding every tournament in the country?
You will definitely need the expensive robots. People will come to watch the robots. It would make for better TV than watching two players sitting before a computer screen. The robots could rock back and forth or do little dances or whirls while the players are thinking. The humanized Japanese robot with silicone rubber skin could slap the player behind the head if he makes a bad move according to its internal sensors and software. Costs will likely drop to manageable levels by 2020 to be able to use the robots as part of the game. After the games, the robot can go outside and summon your driverless car from the valetless parking lot. You will then be able to go over the game on your iphone 16 while the car orders a pizza, drives you home safely, and parks itself in the garage.
Great “Wal-E” world! Just take me to my cruise ship in the sky now please…
I had in mind a scenario where, after you make your move with the mouse, you then finalize it by clicking the “submit” button. Until the move is thus finalized, you can still retract it. That helps to avoid finger-fehler mouse slips, where (for example) a piece moves one square farther, or less far, than intended, due to a premature or post-mature mouse release.
I suppose it could be argued that this is like playing clock-move instead of touch-move. The counter-argument, of course, is that the retraction is happening only on that player’s computer screen, not on the opponent’s (nor the spectators’), so the opponent isn’t being annoyed by watching a player take back his move. (The move appears on the opponent’s screen only after the player clicks the “submit” button.)
In your scenario, you would never see your opponent’s horrendous blunder, so you would have no complaint.
Now, if that “clock-move”-like entry method is deemed undesirable, the software could be designed so that releasing the mouse finalizes the move (if it is legal). In that case, there would be no “submit” button, so an “offer draw and submit” button (which the “secret draw offer” button would amount to) could not exist either. Instead, the “secret draw offer” button would be an extra button which, as you suggested, would have to be clicked before the move is made.
But in that case (just to throw in another monkey wrench) it should be permissible for a player to click and unclick the “secret draw offer” button as often as one wishes, before finalizing the move. The opponent never needs to know.
Bill Smythe
I’ve played players and reached positions where I figured that I’d need to use every trick or trap I could to avoid losing, and would have been fine for a draw. Then I’ve seen those players essentially consign themselves to making a move and offering a clear draw without them realizing that they had just fallen for a trap that gave me the win.
Sometimes those traps are subtle, such as a time where I offered a rook trade to go into a K+B+6P vs K+B+6P ending with the bishops traveling opposite colored squares. My opponent was (erroneously) certain it was an easily drawn ending.