Chess politics - More MonRoi

Author

More MonRoi

Mike Murray

2006-11-19, 8:33 pm

I just finished reading Jerry Hanken's article in the November Chess
Life discussing the MonRoi electronic device. The article is pretty
much a puff, glossing over some of the real and potential problems to
which the widespread use of this device may give rise.

Hanken waxes that "...another convenient feature of MonRoi is its
ability to project positions not only on the Internet, but also to a
screen... behind the technician operating a projector." OK, this is
nice for the audience. Would it be equally nice for someone
collaborating in cheating? For example, someone outside the playing
room hijacks the signal. Now all the cheating team has to do is find
a way to suggest a move to the cheater at the board. Morse code to a
silent vibrating device in a pocket, perhaps. No funny hats, no
outside hearing aids needed.

And then later, Hanken mentions the device accommodates "...databases
.... and even could be used to analyze games. Of course, these other
functions are disabled when the score keeping function is in use" Of
course. Of course. Kinda like a voting machine. You can trust it,
can't you? And how does the hapless TD detect a hacked MonRoi ? Oh,
they can't be hacked. OK. Not to worry then.

To preclude employing the MonRoi as an analysis board, one must move
on the board before recording. Hanken acknowledges this. But neither
Hanken's piece, nor Tim Just's little side bar "TD Corner" mention
the sloppy way the USCF's rules of chess were changed to facilitate
the use of this device, namely, that our executive director signed a
contract making MonRoi an official recording device, not realizing
that the rules of the game had to be changed to preclude this use of
the MonRoi. Whether or not the "move before recording" is a good
thing, it's ludicrous that it had to be shimmed in to make viable a
Federation commercial contract.

Here's another one: suppose I'm playing in a class section, no public
demo board. How do I know *what* my opponent is doing with his
MonRoi? He's fiddling with it. How do I know he didn't inspect a
position a couple moves out, and then "correct" it, by, as Hanken
says, "exercise the 'go back' function, ... and reenter the moves".
Wouldn't worrying about this be distracting? More distracting than
somebody covering his scoresheet with his watch?

John Evans

2006-11-19, 8:33 pm

i absolutely agree with you. As much as I love technology I can't see this
being anything but trouble. When I found out it had a database feature i was
shocked. Besides, it's like $350!

--
Thanks,
John
http://growwithchess.com/

"Mike Murray" <mikemurray@despammed.com> wrote in message
news:c7ohl29f9c32lfk5mdvj8uv1ofet17ghd0@4ax.com...

quote:

>I just finished reading Jerry Hanken's article in the November Chess
> Life discussing the MonRoi electronic device. The article is pretty
> much a puff, glossing over some of the real and potential problems to
> which the widespread use of this device may give rise.
>
> Hanken waxes that "...another convenient feature of MonRoi is its
> ability to project positions not only on the Internet, but also to a
> screen... behind the technician operating a projector." OK, this is
> nice for the audience. Would it be equally nice for someone
> collaborating in cheating? For example, someone outside the playing
> room hijacks the signal. Now all the cheating team has to do is find
> a way to suggest a move to the cheater at the board. Morse code to a
> silent vibrating device in a pocket, perhaps. No funny hats, no
> outside hearing aids needed.
>
> And then later, Hanken mentions the device accommodates "...databases
> ... and even could be used to analyze games. Of course, these other
> functions are disabled when the score keeping function is in use" Of
> course. Of course. Kinda like a voting machine. You can trust it,
> can't you? And how does the hapless TD detect a hacked MonRoi ? Oh,
> they can't be hacked. OK. Not to worry then.
>
> To preclude employing the MonRoi as an analysis board, one must move
> on the board before recording. Hanken acknowledges this. But neither
> Hanken's piece, nor Tim Just's little side bar "TD Corner" mention
> the sloppy way the USCF's rules of chess were changed to facilitate
> the use of this device, namely, that our executive director signed a
> contract making MonRoi an official recording device, not realizing
> that the rules of the game had to be changed to preclude this use of
> the MonRoi. Whether or not the "move before recording" is a good
> thing, it's ludicrous that it had to be shimmed in to make viable a
> Federation commercial contract.
>
> Here's another one: suppose I'm playing in a class section, no public
> demo board. How do I know *what* my opponent is doing with his
> MonRoi? He's fiddling with it. How do I know he didn't inspect a
> position a couple moves out, and then "correct" it, by, as Hanken
> says, "exercise the 'go back' function, ... and reenter the moves".
> Wouldn't worrying about this be distracting? More distracting than
> somebody covering his scoresheet with his watch?

David Richerby

2006-11-19, 8:33 pm

Mike Murray <mikemurray@despammed.com> wrote:

quote:

> Hanken waxes that "...another convenient feature of MonRoi is its
> ability to project positions not only on the Internet, but also to a
> screen... behind the technician operating a projector." OK, this is
> nice for the audience. Would it be equally nice for someone
> collaborating in cheating? For example, someone outside the playing
> room hijacks the signal.

Oh, puhlease. Why bother decoding the signal when you could just look
at the demo board, whether it's updated automatically by the Monroi or
manually the TD moving the pieces?

quote:

> And then later, Hanken mentions the device accommodates
> "...databases ... and even could be used to analyze games.

This is, as you say, a huge problem. Also, if everyone is using these
things, it becomes accepted that people will be using electronic
devices during games so one is less likely to notice the guy using his
copy of Pocket Fritz.

But the main problem I see is completely independent of cheating. A
Monroi is relatively likely to break down. If your pen stops working,
you can just continue writing your scoresheet with a second pen; if
your electronic scoring device stops working, you're Monroially
screwed.

Dave.

--
David Richerby Disposable Priest (TM): it's like a
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ man of the cloth but you never have
to clean it!

Chess One

2006-11-19, 8:33 pm

Interesting point Mike.

"Mike Murray" <mikemurray@despammed.com> wrote in message
news:c7ohl29f9c32lfk5mdvj8uv1ofet17ghd0@4ax.com...

quote:

>I just finished reading Jerry Hanken's article in the November Chess
> Life discussing the MonRoi electronic device. The article is pretty
> much a puff, glossing over some of the real and potential problems to
> which the widespread use of this device may give rise.

Two e-boards have been around for 10 years, both the Shacom device and
GDT's. They both have all the functions of this one.

quote:

> Hanken waxes that "...another convenient feature of MonRoi is its
> ability to project positions not only on the Internet, but also to a
> screen... behind the technician operating a projector." OK, this is
> nice for the audience. Would it be equally nice for someone
> collaborating in cheating? For example, someone outside the playing
> room hijacks the signal. Now all the cheating team has to do is find
> a way to suggest a move to the cheater at the board. Morse code to a
> silent vibrating device in a pocket, perhaps. No funny hats, no
> outside hearing aids needed.
>
> And then later, Hanken mentions the device accommodates "...databases
> ... and even could be used to analyze games.

Sure, both the e-boards above have software which allows a commentator to
analyse with whatever chess playing program they wish to use. They also have
'what if' functions.

quote:

> Of course, these other
> functions are disabled when the score keeping function is in use" Of
> course. Of course. Kinda like a voting machine. You can trust it,
> can't you? And how does the hapless TD detect a hacked MonRoi ? Oh,
> they can't be hacked. OK. Not to worry then.

A fair point. Hard wiring takes care of much of the security aspect but then
there are cables all over the place, and wireless devices less physically
obtrusive but are much more vulnerable to hacks.

quote:

> To preclude employing the MonRoi as an analysis board, one must move
> on the board before recording. Hanken acknowledges this.

But software recording the move can be multiple, so that one piece of
software records the moves as they are made, and incidentally, also the time
increment, while other software can, automatically or by 'hand-entry'
perform analysis.

There are two other technical points which might bear notice: the number of
moves is recorded so that there is no doubt in a time scramble and a
scrawled over score sheet, if enough moves have been played. Secondly, these
e-boards can also register illegal moves in two respects - (a) in chessic
terms, the move is not possible, and (b) that a move is made after opponent
has pressed his clock, which is especially useful at Blitz speeds.

quote:

> But neither
> Hanken's piece, nor Tim Just's little side bar "TD Corner" mention
> the sloppy way the USCF's rules of chess were changed to facilitate
> the use of this device, namely, that our executive director signed a
> contract making MonRoi an official recording device, not realizing
> that the rules of the game had to be changed to preclude this use of
> the MonRoi. Whether or not the "move before recording" is a good
> thing, it's ludicrous that it had to be shimmed in to make viable a
> Federation commercial contract.

Yes. We rehearsed that decision on the effect on play a few weeks ago. I
still do not understand how a TD is to use his judgment in making a
decision, and he might as well carry an 8-ball in his pocket!

quote:

> Here's another one: suppose I'm playing in a class section, no public
> demo board. How do I know *what* my opponent is doing with his
> MonRoi? He's fiddling with it. How do I know he didn't inspect a
> position a couple moves out, and then "correct" it, by, as Hanken
> says, "exercise the 'go back' function, ... and reenter the moves".
> Wouldn't worrying about this be distracting? More distracting than
> somebody covering his scoresheet with his watch?

At least with real e-boards there is no necessity to write a move at all -
since the software does that for the player.

I think we have another situation where too little airing has gone into the
decision making process, and while MonRoi is undoubtable useful as a
recording device, as a gizmo it is ineptly deployed here to cause more
problems that it resolves.

Phil Innes

Mike Murray

2006-11-19, 8:33 pm

On 14 Nov 2006 12:12:44 +0000 (GMT), David Richerby
<davidr@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:

quote:

>Mike Murray <mikemurray@despammed.com> wrote:

quote:

[vbcol=seagreen]
>Oh, puhlease. Why bother decoding the signal when you could just look
>at the demo board, whether it's updated automatically by the Monroi or
>manually the TD moving the pieces?

Less human movement.

There is the problem of relaying what is seen to the accomplice at the
computer. Unless one can see the demo board through a window,
somebody shuttling in and out of the room every move is likely to
raise suspicion.

Second, players in class sections normally don't get demo boards. Is
the MonRoi always in transmit mode? If so, solves the problem
nicely. If transmission requires activation by the technician, this
possibly can be hacked.

quote:

[vbcol=seagreen]
>This is, as you say, a huge problem. Also, if everyone is using these
>things, it becomes accepted that people will be using electronic
>devices during games so one is less likely to notice the guy using his
>copy of Pocket Fritz.

quote:

>But the main problem I see is completely independent of cheating. A
>Monroi is relatively likely to break down. If your pen stops working,
>you can just continue writing your scoresheet with a second pen; if
>your electronic scoring device stops working, you're Monroially
>screwed.

Good point.

David Richerby

2006-11-19, 8:33 pm

Mike Murray <mikemurray@despammed.com> wrote:

quote:

> Second, players in class sections normally don't get demo boards.
> Is the MonRoi always in transmit mode? If so, solves the problem
> nicely. If transmission requires activation by the technician,
> this possibly can be hacked.

If the transmission requires activation, that can be done just as
easily by the player himself as by anyone else.

Dave.

--
David Richerby Gigantic Nuclear Atom Bomb (TM): it's
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ like a weapon of mass destruction
that's made of atoms but it's huge!

Kenneth Sloan

2006-11-19, 8:33 pm

David Richerby wrote:

quote:

> Mike Murray <mikemurray@despammed.com> wrote:
>
> Oh, puhlease. Why bother decoding the signal when you could just look
> at the demo board, whether it's updated automatically by the Monroi or
> manually the TD moving the pieces?

Because the demo board is in a public place, and the computer running
Fritz is in a private place.

Look - it's a SMALL risk - but it's a risk nevertheless. You may decide
that the risk is worth taking, but it's better to RECOGNIZE the risk and
evaluate it than it is to stick your head in the sand.

--
Kenneth Sloan KennethRSloan@gmail.com
Computer and Information Sciences +1-205-932-2213
University of Alabama at Birmingham FAX +1-205-934-5473
Birmingham, AL 35294-1170 http://www.cis.uab.edu/sloan/

Louis Blair

2006-11-19, 8:33 pm

Phil Innes wrote (Tue, 14 Nov 2006 12:59:38 GMT):

7 ... I still do not understand how a TD is to use his judgment
7 in making a decision, and he might as well carry an 8-ball in
7 his pocket!

_
As I understand it, the policy essentially was
to deny touch move rule claims unless there
was sufficient evidence to indicate that the
touch move rule should be applied. I imagine
that that policy will continue." - Louis Blair
(12 Oct 2006 16:02:14 -0700)

Kenneth Sloan

2006-11-19, 8:33 pm

Louis Blair wrote:

quote:

> Phil Innes wrote (Tue, 14 Nov 2006 12:59:38 GMT):
>
> 7 ... I still do not understand how a TD is to use his judgment
> 7 in making a decision, and he might as well carry an 8-ball in
> 7 his pocket!
>
> _
> As I understand it, the policy essentially was
> to deny touch move rule claims unless there
> was sufficient evidence to indicate that the
> touch move rule should be applied. I imagine
> that that policy will continue." - Louis Blair
> (12 Oct 2006 16:02:14 -0700)
>

Louis' understanding is superior to Phil's. The "carry an 8-ball"
method was briefly considered by the Rules Committee but rejected on the
grounds that some TDs have no balls.

--
Kenneth Sloan KennethRSloan@gmail.com
Computer and Information Sciences +1-205-932-2213
University of Alabama at Birmingham FAX +1-205-934-5473
Birmingham, AL 35294-1170 http://www.cis.uab.edu/sloan/

Duncan Oxley

2006-11-19, 8:33 pm

"Kenneth Sloan" <KennethRSloan@gmail.com> wrote

quote:

> Louis' understanding is superior to Phil's. The "carry an 8-ball" method
> was briefly considered by the Rules Committee but rejected on the grounds
> that some TDs have no balls.
>
> --
> Kenneth Sloan

*ZING*

--Duncan

Chess One

2006-11-19, 8:33 pm

"Louis Blair" <lblai@blackburn.edu> wrote in message
news:1163529505.427563.282390@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...

quote:

> Phil Innes wrote (Tue, 14 Nov 2006 12:59:38 GMT):
>
> 7 ... I still do not understand how a TD is to use his judgment
> 7 in making a decision, and he might as well carry an 8-ball in
> 7 his pocket!
>
> _
> As I understand it, the policy essentially was
> to deny touch move rule claims unless there
> was sufficient evidence to indicate that the
> touch move rule should be applied. I imagine
> that that policy will continue." - Louis Blair
> (12 Oct 2006 16:02:14 -0700)

But what that evidence will be will continue to be imagined for another 100
messages, hence the 8-ball reference.

The person who suggested not writing the move, the most senior Fide arbiter,
Guert Gijssen recently falsely identified a 3-move repetition, and declared
a draw, he then reversed himself, and ordered the match continued, but one
of the players had departed so the ORGANISERS and SPONSORS declared a draw.
What a farce of arbitration!

This was at the very strong Tal Memorial still taking place in Moscow - and
if the most senior TD can make a very bad mistake in this case, can there be
at least a preference for players to determine the fate of their own play?

Phil Innes

Chess One

2006-11-19, 8:33 pm

"Kenneth Sloan" <KennethRSloan@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:ejd6b1$9ri$1@SonOfMaze.dpo.uab.edu...

quote:

> Louis Blair wrote:
> Louis' understanding is superior to Phil's. The "carry an 8-ball" method
> was briefly considered by the Rules Committee but rejected on the grounds
> that some TDs have no balls.

Or care for chess. Instead they joke about how they XXXX with the game, and
there is nothing anyone can do - ha ha!

PI

quote:

> --
> Kenneth Sloan KennethRSloan@gmail.com
> Computer and Information Sciences +1-205-932-2213
> university of Alabama at Birmingham FAX +1-205-934-5473
> Birmingham, AL 35294-1170 http://www.cis.uab.edu/sloan/

Ange1o DePa1ma

2006-11-19, 8:33 pm

"Mike Murray" <mikemurray@despammed.com> wrote in message
news:c7ohl29f9c32lfk5mdvj8uv1ofet17ghd0@4ax.com...

quote:

>I just finished reading Jerry Hanken's article in the November Chess
> Life discussing the MonRoi electronic device. The article is pretty
> much a puff, glossing over some of the real and potential problems to
> which the widespread use of this device may give rise.
>
> Hanken waxes that "...another convenient feature of MonRoi is its
> ability to project positions not only on the Internet, but also to a
> screen... behind the technician operating a projector." OK, this is
> nice for the audience. Would it be equally nice for someone
> collaborating in cheating? For example, someone outside the playing
> room hijacks the signal. Now all the cheating team has to do is find
> a way to suggest a move to the cheater at the board. Morse code to a
> silent vibrating device in a pocket, perhaps. No funny hats, no
> outside hearing aids needed.

This is one of the stupidest ideas in USCF history. I see a chess game
differently -- better -- on a screen than OTB. That alone would give me an
advantage over my opponent if I used the blessed thing.

Besides, if someone uses MonRoi, why can't someone else use a Palm device
running CE Board or even Fritz with the engine disabled?

Horrible idea.

Mike Murray

2006-11-19, 8:33 pm

On Thu, 16 Nov 2006 23:42:49 -0500, "Ange1o DePa1ma"
<angelodpnospam@nospam.gmail.com> wrote:

quote:

>Besides, if someone uses MonRoi, why can't someone else use a Palm device
>running CE Board or even Fritz with the engine disabled?

Well, for one thing, AFAIK, our Executive Director has not yet signed
a revenue sharing agreement with Palm or Pocket-Fritz making them
"official" sanctioned devices. :-)

Of course, what if you have a MonRoi that's been gutted, a
Pocket-Fritz with a MonRoi face? The TD has to be able to verify that
what looks like a MonRoi truly is one. In a tournament with possibly
hundreds of these things in play, this task may not be trivial.

quote:

>Horrible idea.

Yup.

Ralf Callenberg

2006-11-19, 8:33 pm

16.11.2006 23:22, Chess One:

quote:

> The person who suggested not writing the move, the most senior Fide arbiter,
> Guert Gijssen recently falsely identified a 3-move repetition, and declared
> a draw, he then reversed himself, and ordered the match continued, but one
> of the players had departed so the ORGANISERS and SPONSORS declared a draw.
> What a farce of arbitration!
>
> This was at the very strong Tal Memorial still taking place in Moscow - and
> if the most senior TD can make a very bad mistake in this case, can there be
> at least a preference for players to determine the fate of their own play?

Technically speaking the game was over as both players accepted the
decision. The arbiter himself found out his mistake a few minutes later.
Carlsen showed sportsmanship and agreed to continue, so they tried to
reach Morozevich but couldn't find him. It was Morozevich's coach who
said, the draw should stay. Later on Morozevich himself accepted this
decision as well (on some pages one can read that Morozevich could be
reached over the phone - and declared this way he didn't intend to
continue, but it is not clear, whether this is just a rumor or not).
That's the version one can find on the official site and on different
other sources. On what do you base the claim, that organizers and
especially sponsors declared the game drawn?

Greetings,
Ralf

Chess One

2006-11-19, 8:33 pm

"Ralf Callenberg" <ralf.callenberg@web.de> wrote in message
news:ejkqjc$64k$1@online.de...

quote:

> 16.11.2006 23:22, Chess One:
>
>
>
> Technically speaking the game was over as both players accepted the
> decision. The arbiter himself found out his mistake a few minutes later.

Is that so Ralf? - I thought it was only Carlsen's claim until the arbiter
ratified it - until the arbiter said it was true?

quote:

> Carlsen showed sportsmanship and agreed to continue, so they tried to
> reach Morozevich but couldn't find him. It was Morozevich's coach who
> said, the draw should stay. Later on Morozevich himself accepted this
> decision as well (on some pages one can read that Morozevich could be
> reached over the phone - and declared this way he didn't intend to
> continue, but it is not clear, whether this is just a rumor or not).
> That's the version one can find on the official site and on different
> other sources. On what do you base the claim, that organizers and
> especially sponsors declared the game drawn?

Guert Gijssen didn't know what to do - so the organisers/sponsors ended his
indecision. I donit know what the 'official' stance is.

PI

quote:

> Greetings,
> Ralf
>