Stigma wrote on 08/05/17 at 01:55:35:


I'm not saying their achievements are cheapened. I just think rules should be normalized. If a kid can compete in supposedly the same event as me and doesn't have to write down moves, I shouldn't have to either (although I still would). If the blind person can use a secondary braille board, I should be allowed to use one too (even if I don't use it). 

I'm not dogmatic in what's allowed or not but I do value uniform application of consistent rules. I strongly favor the approach of regular sports here in regards to not having exceptions but I agree that chess is different since it's more about your thoughts rather than physical execution. In fact, this was one of my arguments for allowing players to use another tiny board purely for inputting the moves on the main board (NOT for testing variations ).

With that said, I've emailed the USCF and hope to get a positive response. If not, I'll be forced to buy the overpriced PlyCounter to do the exact same thing with a few extra frills.

Stigma wrote on 08/05/17 at 00:09:47:


LOL! This is one of the few times where I can say the acronym was done justice. Good reply!

Some also have undeserved natural advantages that "normal" people lack and yet what are we doing to even the playing field there? If I'm playing vs a person with an amazing memory, perhaps I should be allowed to reference my notes on openings! People aren't just disadvantaged through no fault of their own, the reverse is also true.

As long as we aren't twins with identical upbringing, the idea of complete equality in all respects (not just under the law) is a myth and the lines drawn for special accommodations are a bit arbitrary. I'm not against being accommodating to the needs of all people within reason but everyone should have potential access to whatever is available to those players. I support accommodations, not exceptions. 

If you think about how sports normally work, there are no exceptions. Exceptions are always a potential perversion of fair play. If Federer is competing at age 35 vs a 20-year-old, he doesn't get the benefit of an extra visit from his trainer because his muscles may tire a little faster. Likewise, if someone is injured and can't move well, they don't give him a longer racket handle than for anyone else. 

If that player isn't in form to compete, he just bows out and forfeits the game. That's the way it should be: universal rules applied uniformly. The "exceptions" are built in without preferential treatment. For example, you can call an injury timeout and so can your opponent. There is no potential for unfair advantages in the rules. If an accommodation can't be made, there is a special format and ranking with different rules, such as wheel chair tennis.

Allowing exceptions devalues the work of other players and chips away at the integrity of the system. If one player was given an exception and achieved X while other players had to work harder to do it without the exception, it cheapens their achievement. It's a bit like how cheaters in chess subtly devalue the success of honest players in the eyes of others. If let's say hypothetically there's a chess site on which half the games have cheaters and there isn't much enforcement, anyone with success there will be highly suspected of being a cheater himself. I hate exceptions in competitive endeavours.

Stigma wrote on 08/04/17 at 23:30:18:


I'm not trying to be a grammar Natzi and I'm actually happy to be informed of my own mistakes but "fewer" is used instead of "less" when talking about countable entities. It's a very common mistake and I hope you won't react defensively or lash out (as most people would) just because I point it out in a helpful way. I wouldn't even tell you if I thought you were that unable to handle constructive criticism. 

I think "outside assistance" is really stretched in this case. You could argue the same for pen and paper. After all, they aren't a direct part of your body and not a part of the chess set. These are just alternative representations of the same position. No one's telling you what to move or how to think. 
 
I disagree with any exceptions whatsoever in a competitive game. Otherwise, perhaps we should also give handicaps to players naturally more talented at the game with better memories, faster processing speed, more creativity, better deep processing etc. Anything a "special needs" player can do, I should be able to too. Of course, just because I can doesn't mean I will. Why would I bother if it doesn't help me?  

It's fairer that way and requires fewer exceptions. If it isn't practical than those players with special needs can't compete without compromising the integrity of the rules. For example, you say it would be OK if I had a neurological disorder but somehow not if I didn't. Why? I wouldn't be getting outside help in either situation. It would be an accommodation so I can reason more easily about the position. Perhaps it makes as big of a difference as for someone with a neurological disorder. It's not as if they know the brain well enough to understand anyway. Someone could even have a neurological disorder without it impacting any aspect of his chess yet he gets to use a 2D board because he feels like it but I don't? Who is to say that others' needs are valid but mine are not? The best way is to have no exceptions. 

The players who don't want a pocket 2D chess set will not use one and the few who do will. If this were confirmed today and every chess player was told, I doubt most players would even care. They wouldn't need to since they don't prefer a 2D representation.

BTW: I completely agree with your point that IF devices like the Monroi aren't allowed, my 2D chess set in this use case shouldn't be either. I don't think it's in the spirit of chess to artificially restrict abstractions when both players' preferences can be easily met but if they choose to do this, there would be zero inconsistencies. I wouldn't have a precedent to support my argument. 

The fact those devices do more than my 2D chess set idea is a point AGAINST them, not for them. More abuse possibilities and help (the player even saves a few seconds per game in inputting the move so he can think longer). 

The usefulness of my 2D chess set is up to me, not others. The ONLY valid question is whether it gives people using one an unfair advantage. I don't think there's a credible point to suggest that it gives any more advantage than the devices mentioned. In fact, it may even be considered a handicap in a way since it takes me another few seconds on my clock to make the move on the secondary board. Also, if I am unable to continue making moves on the secondary board, it would have to be put back/scrambled so as to not be considered an analysis board (again wasting time on my clock).

Stigma wrote on 08/04/17 at 23:21:48:


I'm aware of that and I think the critical word is "analyze." We're not talking about testing variations on a separate board. The use would be exactly the same as a Monroi or PlyCounter. Either way, if FIDE made the mistake of allowing the Monroi and PlyCounter without allowing my suggestion, it doesn't mean the USCF will make the same error. And yes, I don't think this is debatable. They can't have it both ways and have a coherent set of rules. It would be a glaring inconsistency.

exigentsky wrote on 08/04/17 at 22:46:00:


Quote:

Since this is the main rule, surely any recording method that displays a chessboard is an exception? I haven't seen the equivalent USCF rule, but national rules can't vary too much from the FIDE laws since they often want their tournaments FIDE rated.

The FIDE and the USCF have set procedures to approve each recording device, as we see here: http://www.uschess.org/docs/gov/reports/eScoresheets/CertificationGuidelines.pdf

There is no doubt what is the general rule and which are the exceptions (namely each FIDE approved device, braille boards, and demo boards).

exigentsky wrote on 08/04/17 at 22:46:00:

I didn't overstate any claim. I just noted that the cases of braille boards, demo boards and Monroi/PlyCounter are logically equivalent - they are all exceptions and not the general rule. And in each case there are good arguments (though less so in the Monroi/PlyCounter case in my personal opinion) why they should be exceptions. Frankly I haven't seen any good arguments from you why a small 2D board should be yet another exception. Maybe if you had some documented neurological condition that made all 3D scenes confusing or dizzying to you, that would be an argument.

exigentsky wrote on 08/04/17 at 22:46:00:

There was no insult. I was only looking for a reason that might be good enough for me to accept these devices as exceptions. Because I don't think the ease of transferring the game outweighs the negatives: Players getting outside help from an extra board. I would also be worried about the cheating potential of such devices; How can I know the one my opponent is bringing hasn't been tinkered with in some way to allow inputing variations to the game score or even receiving moves from an engine?

I accept that FIDE disagrees with me here. But that still doesn't justify the exception you want, because the purpose of the recording devices, and the reason they are exceptions, isn't the 2D board but the recording capability.

exigentsky wrote on 08/04/17 at 22:46:00:

OTB chess is 3D chess. Unless you have some special handicap, my advice is to simply come to terms with that.

Stigma wrote on 08/04/17 at 22:35:37:


You're overstating my claim as it regards to blind players and it was never more than a tangential point. Although, I see chess sets as little more than beautiful tools to render an abstraction in a visually appealing way. They don't actually matter and that's why we can enjoy a Kasparov game on everything from a plastic pocket chess set, a luxurious wooden board, a computer screen, an iPhone, a demo board etc. No one will say "You can't appreciate this game because you went over it on a demo board instead of the original wooden board that was used!" The preferred abstractions shouldn't matter and both players should feel completely at home with what they're using so that they can maximize their creativity and performance.

It's insulting and silly to suggest that the Monroi and PlyCounter are only for illiterate children. It may be more popular with kids but I've seen plenty of adults using them since it's more convenient (especially for transferring games to the computer). The certification from every major chess organization was certainly NOT contingent on the user being illiterate or otherwise incapable of writing the moves on paper. This interpretation of it being an exception is false. 

There's also no evidence whatsoever that there was some big lobbying push unduly influencing their certification policy. That's in the realm of irresponsible speculation. In fact, the Monroi site looks pretty barren right now and I don't even see a place to buy it. I doubt any of these companies had money for serious lobbying (which btw isn't a bad word and doesn't automatically assume manipulation) pre-certification. If a device like this wasn't allowed by the USCF, I certainly wouldn't care for it so I doubt their sales would be significant. The fact that you haven't found them popular supports this too even to this day. I see one for at best 1 in 100 players at a tournament. Furthermore, even if there were hypothetical lobbying influence resulting in a distortion of the rules, the fact is that those are the rules now and the precedents exist. Just because a rule shouldn't' exist doesn't mean you can wish it away and pretend it has no consequence or implication. I think overturning net neutrality is incredibly stupid and damaging for a free society but if it happens, I will still be affected as will most start-ups.

You don't have to understand why I prefer 2D just like I don't have to understand why most prefer 3D. In the end, it's all an abstraction and it's what you're used to. I see chess as an intellectual battle of strategy and tactics. What people prefer to use for their abstraction is secondary and that's why good blindfold players can enjoy a game even with no board at all.