And here people were worried that the forums were dying.

drsigmund wrote on 08/05/17 at 16:01:04:

But have you carefully considered all of exigentsy's 30 pages of arguments?  He is a vegan, after all, which makes him highly sensitive to ethical issues.  Unlike you, most likely.   

This is just a monumental troll job, as confirmed by exigentsy himself when he says that he does not, in fact, want to email the USCF to get an actual answer to his question.

Right.  You can use a Monroi as an electronic scoresheet because there are built in protections against possible cheating.  You cannot use your laptop, your tablet or your cell phone because there is a possibility for cheating.   

A pocket set falls into the second category.  There is a possibility of cheating -- moving the pieces around to analyze.  (This, by the way, doesn't exist with the demo board.)   

It's no answer to tell the TD that you're honest and won't do it.  (If that was an acceptable answer, people would be allowed to use laptops and cellphones.)  Use of pocket sets is banned/disfavored so as not to burden TDs with having to keep an eye on it or your opponent with having to worry about it.  That is considered unsporting and a distraction.

I had it come up once.  My opponent was elderly and claimed that he couldn't see the board well.  So he pulled out his pocket set to use instead.  The TD asked me if I minded, and I said it was fine.  So the TD let it go. 

It is, after all, a game.

Bibs wrote on 08/05/17 at 07:28:07:


I'm a troll because I'm rationally discussing something in depth? OK, got it. If you disapprove, I'm automatically a troll and contrary ideas need to be shut down by force. Good arguments are wasted on a person unreceptive to them.

Stigma wrote on 08/05/17 at 04:59:56:


I've already explained the purpose many times throughout this thread and if I took the time to do so in this level of detail, it clearly matters to me and possibly others. I've tried getting used to 3D representations by using them online and ~100 official rated OTB games. I still feel a little handicapped by it and it's one of the reasons I haven't played OTB much lately.

To call a 2D board an outside source of information is not reasonable unless you think the official board is too because that's all it is (just a slightly different representation of the same position to accommodate both players). In that case, we should only play blindfold chess. I'm not conceding that it's against any rules till official clarification is given. It's clearly not allowed to test variations on a secondary board but that's not what we're talking about. In fact, the consistent position would be that this is a case of "de facto acceptance" since what I'm requesting is a subset of something already allowed in a much more complex form and with greater abuse potential. It would just be tiring to repeat every point even if I still hold it.

That's an incredibly general and indirect use of the word "disturb." It's basically saying that their own para thoughts disturb them and it's somehow your fault. Maybe they suspect me of being an engine user because they saw me make a lot of good moves. Is my good form disturbing them?

Anyway, others (and tournament directors) would see you. Any time you make more than one move on either board, it would be really obvious you're cheating. Someone would only have to see your fingers touch two pieces without capturing and they'd instantly know without looking at the position.

You could also say the same thing for the main board. What if you analyze on it when your opponent leaves and after testing 2-3 moves, you put it back? Remember, you'd always have to put it back for either board or the cheating is obvious. Even if you do it on the smaller board and your opponent doesn't notice at first, he will when you press the clock and try to make a move on the secondary board (especially for captures). If you refuse to make one it will be suspicious that you all the sudden no longer want to use it. If you do, the position will not make sense. 

I think these concerns are far-fetched and someone with the mindset to cheat would be pretty stupid to do it this way. Stuff like this has the risk and immorality of cheating with chess engines and only a tiny reward. At best, you get slightly better analysis (compared to vastly better from engines as well as a near guaranteed win vs a human opponent) and yet you take an enormous risk in an open setting. 

Remember too that all these criticisms apply to the Monroi or PlyCounter too but are waaaay stronger against them (yet they STILL got approved by the major international chess organizations). Unlike this chess set, the opponent often won't be able to see the PlyCounter or Monroi screen. Computer screens are much harder to see at an angle and unlike for the chess set I'm asking for, you can pick those devices up and go to the bathroom with them (at $360 no one leaves it hanging around). A pocket chess set costs ~$10. 

You could input the correct moves for half the game and then, in the critical position, you could go and elaborate on the main line in the bathroom. Alternatively, you could go and show a higher rated friend since it's an actual board representation, not just algebraic notation. Even if they have no undo function (it's extremely likely they have this feature), you could just fake moves on your small screen for the rest of the game. Unless someone asks to see it, they're unlikely to be able to decipher it from the standard angles. In fact, you might even use it only in front of your face and then put it in a weird way on the table. An opponent could always walk around to your side and inspect your physical chess set with a glance. It would be super strange if you rotated it in a strange way to obfuscate the position. If they do support undo, you could probably undo the whole line without your opponent noticing. For touch screens, it's trivial to press a button many times without being obvious about it. It's not like you have to physically pick up pieces like for a normal chess set and it makes no noise at all. You could just rest your stylus on the undo feature and lightly tap it half a dozen times, maybe while breathing heavier or yawning to distract. We haven't even covered the theoretical hacking potential of Monrois or PlyCounters. It doesn't make sense to allow them and not my rather modest request of a tiny plain chess set I enjoy using.

BTW: I don't think physically analyzing lines rather than mentally calculating them adds all that much ELO even if someone were to cheat. In a slow time control, I'd be shocked if it counted for more than 150 points. What makes players strong is mostly about evaluation and what options they see when they calculate, not just depth. This is often the issue with weaker players. They calculate many moves ahead but most of the responses from the opponents (or their own perspective) are wrong and thus so are their conclusions regardless of depth. They go 8 moves deep but miss many resources and misevaluate the final position. I'm not even a little concerned about this and I don't think there are many players willing to do this given the awful risk/reward ratio. Chess tournaments don't even pay usually even pay well and for the ones that do, like the World Open, doing this kind of stuff isn't going to be enough to get into the money unless you were already close to the strength needed to do it. It would of course still be highly unethical in all cases

Stigma wrote on 08/05/17 at 04:24:11:


You know that something doesn't have to be medically documented to be a problem right? This is why other sports don't have these special exceptions. Who gets to decide that it's OK for one player but not another since he wasn't diagnosed with X? Maybe the other player has something else that creates the same need but isn't a recognized medical disorder. It becomes a silly discussion and that's why I prefer systems which guarantee 100% fairness and don't encourage this kind of squabbling. The whole concept of leveling the playing field also lies on a shaky foundation and I deconstructed it earlier. It's a very subjective and unilateral application.

And who are you or anyone else to say that the right way to play chess has to be with the 3D representation because that's the way it was done in the past? Maybe you should be the ones to adapt to the 2D abstraction. It is after all the most popular format in the world today. It doesn't make any more sense than what I asked for and there isn't even a cost to anyone besides me. I refuted almost all these points already. The objections to my idea don't make sense based on precedent, the philosophy of the game advocated (being inclusive and responsive to people's needs) or the concept of 100% fairness (players using a separate braille board for example).

Where is the objection exactly? There is no space issue. These sets are only slightly bigger than a wallet. There is no fairness issue. Anyone could bring a secondary set like that if they care to. There is no abuse potential. It's in plain sight on the table the entire time and not electronic. There's even precedent to something which does what I want and more as far as the devices mentioned. What could possibly be a realistic problem with this? It just seems like blind stubborn resistance with no basis beyond "it isn't usually done." They don't even make noise. Hell, a person bringing a water bottle and drinking it would make way more noise than a magnetic chess set with the pieces just sliding quietly.

I'll just quote my other post because the objections seem ridiculous to me. This shouldn't perturb anyone and wouldn't be something exclusive to me either. It wouldn't even apply if people can agree on a single chess set.

Quote:

Stigma wrote on 08/05/17 at 04:13:47:


I think it's both a feature and a con but in chess, the benefits may outweigh the cons despite being theoretically less than ideal from the concept of 100% fairness. 

But if that's the mindset, you guys should be very happy to support my idea in the interest of being more welcoming and playing chess together. I'm only asking for a chess set I'm comfortable with. It seems like an odd double standard.

Stigma wrote on 08/05/17 at 02:36:17:


My notion of fairness is the only one not open to interpretation and valid by definition. If anything, the other notions are the ones that are questionable. This is chess group think primarily due to tradition. Many of these ideas would be laughable in other competitive games, physical or otherwise. If in StarCraft II or League of Legends people wanted a setting that only they could access and use or a mouse that only a certain player is allowed to have, they would never get it regardless of disabilities (the games have accessibility options but they're open to all and even non-color blind players frequently use color blind modes). 

The way you deal with special needs is by creating separate ranking systems for players who feel the primary system is insufficient. For example, console gamers for the same title will not compete with PC gamers who have the advantage of extra accuracy using a mouse. Likewise, boxers of one weight class won't compete with those in another. Wheelchair tennis players won't compete with people who don't require wheelchairs. The same is true for most competitive activities. The definition of fair rests on uniformity in rules and enforcement. Any unique accommodations diverge from the fundamentals of this idea. They create a reliance on subjective third party arbitration instead of having automatic validity.

If chess takes this route and makes accommodations so players are comfortable and free to think about positions without distractions, why shouldn't I (or anyone else) be allowed to have a tiny secondary set purely as another representation of the main board? Who is to say my needs don't matter here because I don't have some official medical condition? I'm not bothering my opponent. He's free to use whatever board he chooses and we still use the main board for any moves made. It hurts no one while giving me a better experience. There isn't even any abuse potential because it would always be on the table and the moves would be made on the primary board first. I'm not using it to test variations and it's not like the other chess set has notes or whispers moves to me.

EDITED for more context.