I have considered both positions outside of my preferences. I don't consider legal and ethical considerations universally synonymous but in most cases, it is more of a flaw in the rules than the participants if something unethical happens which isn't covered. In sporting events, it is expected you will try to perform to the best of your ability within the constraints of the rules.

I see absolutely no validity to any idea of an ethical violation when following the rules both players agreed upon. I'm sensitive to ethical issues and have even become a vegan (except for the occasional kefir) partly for that. Nearly half the environmental problems we face would be eliminated if our animal farming practices didn't exist and the idea of slaughtering sentient, as well as intelligent beings (pigs are smarter than dogs) purely for taste reasons (there's no health basis), seems unethical as well. I wasn't a vegan for all but this year because I wasn't informed enough about these issues. 

I don't even agree with most positions on moral relativism. Just because I disagree with you doesn't mean I don't care about ethics. Someone's particular feelings and emotional issues are not my responsibility and I feel absolutely no guilt if someone is bothered by something that they shouldn't be (as defined by me following agreed upon rules). I just consider that person immature (unless there is a health reason). If you don't like the rules, there is no obligation to participate - this is a voluntary recreational and competitive activity after all. Maybe castling makes me uncomfortable. Should we now bar people from castling? Perhaps someone doesn't like en passant and considers it unfair since he would never do it himself (or perhaps he isn't even aware it exists!). Maybe some don't like my bright green shirt or my nose. 

I don't care about any of it and nor should anyone else unless there is some kind of violation of the other person. For example, I'd definitely object to someone not bathing for weeks and spraying skunk solution on himself to make his opponent uncomfortable. Even if this isn't against the rules (it soon would be if it happened), it's clearly intended to make the opponent physically very uncomfortable and is against the spirit of competition. The intention is to distract and bother, preventing the other player from playing to his ability. What I suggested has no similarity to this.

As for your argument that those are FIDE certified devices and this is not.... OK (but you do realize not every board and chess set used in a tournament is individually certified right?) That's not even an argument. That's just a fact and sometimes rules change.  How do you think they got approved anyway? They didn't exist as part of the rules 50 years ago but it's important to look to the spirit of the rules, not just the letter (that's why rules adapt). Also, rules do not create ethical theory, ethical theory informs rules. Logically speaking, you cannot be OK with the "ethics" of using a Monroi or PlyCounter but somehow object to this.

There are certain standards which must be met and it's basically a "class approval" if something meets those standards (non-tampering for example). In this case, as I mentioned clearly, there are no tampering risks or any other kinds of risks. It's plain to see for both and not electronic (while also being similar in size). That's why logically, it's a case of "de facto approval" but I will attempt to get official confirmation that this is OK before using it in a tournament. 

Was using the PlyCounter somehow "unethical" before approval even though it actually has fewer features than the Monroi (which was approved many years before it)? No, it's like you said, legality and ethics are not always synonymous (this applies in both directions). What it means is merely that you can be asked not to use it in a tournament and must comply. I obey the rules I've promised to follow even if I think they're stupid. I think it would be silly if I'm not allowed to use a pocket set of a similar size to a Monroi to display the position on the board after I make a move. It would be a very weird double standard but I certainly won't if it turns out to be the way things are. Sometimes the rules need a bit of time to catch up. I may try to go through the proper channels to change them though. 

I think I explained my position in as much depth as I can.

You're just arguing in support of a position that you want to take, and not even trying to understand the point of view of your opponent. Which makes sense, since your equating legal to ethical shows the same lack of regard to the other side.

Anyway, your arguments are so full of factual, analogical, and syllogistic errors that I don't really want to begin refuting them. Yet in fairness I will anyway. So:

The rules stipulate that devices for recording moves must be approved. MonRoi and PlyCounter are approved, therefore legal. Your "device" is not approved, therefore you cannot use an analogy to an approved device to claim that it is "equally" legal.

Also the function of the Monroi is to create a score of the game.  It is a substitute for a scoresheet.  For instance I suspect strongly that a player would not be allowed to use both a normal scoresheet and a Monroi--this would somehow be looked upon as note taking, or using an additional external aid.  

The only reason that the Monroi is legal is because it is an electronic substitute for a scoresheet.  If you had some 2D analysis board that could also duplicate as a scoresheet, that might be approved as well, but I really don't think that you can just have another smaller set right there next to you that you are inputting moves on.

Let's take a similar example; what if you walked across the tournament hall to get water or something, and were too lazy to go all the way back to your board.  You see a chess set that is not in use, and start to move the pieces to set up the position that is on your board.  That is clearly against the rules.  Of course if there is a demo board that someone else is operating that is in full view of the players that is legal to look at; is the director going to forbid players to look in that direction?  Ridiculous.  It's also legal to walk around the tournament hall and look at other players' boards, so if another game happened to have the same or similar position, it's legal to look at that board.  It's even legal to copy the move that someone else at the tournament makes, but that's merely because it would be impossible to enforce otherwise. 

Quote:


Even if this practice does exist in some grey area of the rules, if an opponent were doing in a game against me I would immediately complain to the arbiter.  How am I supposed to know that my opponent is not using this method to cheat or gain an advantage of some kind (trying out candidate moves or simply trying to distract me)?  Do you really think that you would be allowed to continue this practice?  I can't think of a single arbiter that would allow it, frankly, unless you had some sort of documented visual handicap or something similar, and then I presume that you'd need to have this approved beforehand.

This reminds me that years ago, before the USCF forbid the writing down moves before making them, I noticed a strong, promising young junior player (with a really sleazy coach) who would write two or three different moves on his scoresheet!  Then when he actually made his move, he circled that particular one.  Somehow none of his opponents complained.  I brought it up to the arbiter, but was told at the time that he would only interfere if the kid's opponent complained.   

By the way, the kid's coach would always stand near the board, and I thought that there was a strong chance that the coach was signalling some kind of "make the move that you wrote on the right" or "make the move to that you wrote on the left" to him.   

So I was paired against he kid a few rounds later.  He was already rated about 2000 or so, and maybe 10 or 11 years old.  After a few moves I complained to the arbiter, who saw the scoresheet and told him that he could no longer do this.  He proceeded to completely collapse in a dozen more moves against me, like any 1200-rated player (I was rated about the same as this kid at the time, maybe even below him).

I dont understand where the difficulty in using the 3D set comes into this. Is it really something that would be difficult for you to get to grips with relatively quickly?

I don't get the purpose of posting opinions with zero support or argumentation in matters of interpretation. Unless you work at the USCF and have inside knowledge, how is it clear that it's a "No"? You might not be wrong for all I know but that sort of answer doesn't give me any insight.

Based on all precedents mentioned (btw PlyCounter is also USCF approved and similar to Monroi), it seems like this should be perfectly fine unless there are space issues. Maybe I need to contact the USCF instead. I think they're forced to allow this for consistency if they allow similarly sized electronic score sheets with board representations. It  seems totally logically inconsistent to allow that but not this. In fact, those electronic score sheet devices have much more potential for abuse since I think you can take them with you in the bathroom (not sure if you can move back and forth for moves or undo the last move and test etc.) and perhaps they can be hacked in some way too to do things they shouldn't. I'm not claiming this was done but it's certainly more of a possibility than with a non-electronic set.

I don't know how anyone can consider the Monroi OK and not this. It's not a note taking aid and in any way independent of the same criticism being levied against the Monroi. Like I said, I'd only make the board move and it would be in full view the entire time. It's another representation.The Monroi has a 2D board representation too so why would this be an issue? We bring clocks and boards to tourneys so what's the problem if I prefer to have the same board position on my pocket chess set?

I understand where you're coming from with it functioning as note taking when positions are different (again, same thing could be said of the Monroi) but I think the solution in both cases is to ONLY be able to note the move or change the position on the secondary board if you've completed your move on the chess set. Thus, you can't decide to "test" your move on the pocket chess set and then decide if you want to make it on the main one.

The other point makes no sense to me. It's obvious the main board is primary unless otherwise agreed upon and seems like a really strange concern. If my opponent wanted to use the pocket set as the main board, we wouldn't even have a discussion. I wouldn't need a secondary set. It's really not confusing at all. You could say the same thing about the Monroi... what if the opponent grabs your Monroi and makes a move? Ok first of all, it's really strange and a clear invasion of personal space to do that but secondly... is anyone really confused as to where the game is being played all the sudden?

As far as buying the Monroi, I don't even see where to buy it and I think it's like $350 for questionable benefit. If they had a $100 version, I'd buy it.

an ordinary chessplayer wrote on 08/01/17 at 13:13:18:


1. What Spassky was doing is no different in concept than what I'm suggesting so that precedent should mean I'm allowed to do this. The fact that the Monroi (which has a 2D board representation and is accepted by the USCF, ECU and FIDE) does this also points to it being okay.

2.There are ZERO ethical issues IF this is within the rules and I'm 100% sure of this. It's basically the same situation as if two players both have a chess board they want to use and can't agree. Thus, they use both (if space allows). If it was up to me, maybe I'd play on only the pocket chess set but I know that my opponents wouldn't be comfortable with that, hence this compromise.

Whether my opponent is disturbed or not is not my fault if this is within the rules. I am not being obnoxious or doing anything crazy. It's not like I showed up bathed in garlic and curry, nor am I mocking him in any way. 

Moreover, if they say nothing then, YES it does mean it's OKAY. You have to speak up if something's bothering you instead of leaving others to make assumptions. In fact, if my opponent was annoyed by something like this and then complained after the game, I'd consider that passive-aggressive behavior. If you don't speak up, you have no right to different expectations.

What I'm asking for isn't an unfair advantage. It's a representation of the same position on a medium I'm more comfortable with. Most people prefer the 3D representation in tournament chess and that's great for them but I don't so why should I be forced to use the same representation if there are no space issues (it's a pocket set after all)? This is a bit like if you had a tennis tournament and forced everyone to use the same racket. It's pretty arbitrary what chess set/representation is used anyway.

I'm not asking for an unfair advantage and would only move pieces as on the main board. It would also be visible at all times near the board (in the area people often put water). If this is within the rules, my opponent would be just as free to have his own pocket chess set if desired.

3. It's smart to be psychologically comfortable when in a tournament situation. With time, I'll gradually be more comfortable with 3D boards anyway. It only takes another 5  seconds to make the move on the other board and it's not  like I'm obligated to. If we get down to a few seconds, of course I won't be making the moves on both boards.