an ordinary chessplayer wrote on 08/06/17 at 12:36:54:


If anything, I'm the one being trolled. Your "revelations" are nothing more than attempts at manipulation by taking comments out of context or ignoring subtleties. It's intellectually dishonest. For instance, the response where I said that some of my posts were in the interest of debate, not productivity was not a suggestion that this issue has no impact on me. It was a response to the following comment:

Quote:


I acknowledged that nothing will be known or changed without going through the proper channels (not a chess forum). Still, I saw some value in a deeper understanding of the issue and more philosophical inspection. Despite your incredulity, I've since e-mailed the USCF and was told that it was forwarded to the proper people.

Some of you guys probably played chess longer than I've been alive and are set in your beliefs about how it should be (justified or not - much like religious zealots or dogmatic followers of tradition). I've provided ample support for my arguments throughout this thread but I don't like repeating answers to points I've covered.

Contrary to claims otherwise, I've made a considerable effort to adapt to physical 3D sets (~100 OTB rated games using traditional chess sets, many casual games using 3D sets, 3D sets online, etc.). The fact that I need to repeat this demonstrates how shallowly my posts were read.

I don't see the purpose of forcing people to play via a representation they don't like. Inevitably, most of my chess will be online because it's the quickest way to get casual games with a diverse set of players matched to my rating. The vast majority of training resources such as books, videos, tactical trainers, ChessPub, etc. utilize 2D representations as well. 

I don't see fully adapting to a physical 3D set over who knows how many more games as very practical or a worthwhile accomplishment. I'd much rather improve at chess itself rather than merely at utilizing one of its representations. There's no inherent superiority/merit in one or the other and allowing a pocket chess set is a neat solution to provide the most inclusive experience. Disallowing it is a double standard given the precedent set by similarly sized officially sanctioned devices with far more capabilities (and dangers) than just a 2D board representation. 

I covered nearly every point made while many of mine were ignored and dismissed offhand with ad hominems (as you're fond of doing). Several responses were little more than restatements of the author's original points (barely addressing my counterpoints). Examples include: the notion that my suggestion would compromise chess's image or that it's somehow necessarily cooler the way it is or even that the analogy to a similarly sized electronic score sheet is invalid (as if people usually keep them in their pockets). Debating this is a symptom of grasping at straws.

Movies don't model OTB tournament chess. They model casual chess in the way that best suits the message they want. They have no concern with accurately representing chess. Occasionally, the board isn't even set-up correctly and the positions are frequently not credible. Chess is just used as a symbol.

I have literally never seen scenes from an OTB tournament in a movie that wasn't specifically about chess. Movies usually just show two people competing intensely over a board at a private location. I don't think I've even seen clocks used, let alone scoresheets or any other chess accessory like a Monroi. 

If the movie makers believe adding clocks or something else helps the message, they'll add them and if not, they won't. A lot of creative freedom is taken and the tournament standards don't even enter into the equation. It's also not as if simply allowing something, such as electronic score sheets or a tiny secondary chess set, means that said thing will be universally embraced. Electronic score sheets have been available for more than a decade and are still uncommon.

The answer to the question is cut and dried. The OP initially referred to a "representation". Once he clarified that his representation was a pocket set the answer was obvious. RdC quoted the rule in #21, and Stigma gave the reasoning in #52. 

In #34 exigentsky showed his cards: Quote:
 

The reason I called troll is because in a usual debate, we try to bring the other side to our point of view by making reasoned arguments. In this debate, however, the OP seems intent on making the readers disagree with him. He never addresses any valid point made, unless it is to summarily dismiss it by stating that he already considered it in a previous post. Instead he uses every response as an opportunity to introduce a new outlandish point in the hopes of provoking further responses. 

There is no way exigentsky emailed the USCF, but if he did then I will admit that his trolling knows no bounds.

exigentsky wrote on 08/06/17 at 05:35:21:

I'm sure you understood that this isn't about my personal impressions (for the record I do prefer facing an opponent head to head over a physical board, instead of online for instance, but that's because of the immediacy and intensity it creates).

You don't have to worry about the commercial value of chess, but the USCF and FIDE do. Just think of all those dramatic scenes in movies, commercials and actual chess broadcasts featuring two players head to head in battle over one board. That image of the chess fight, purely mental but still sometimes so intense, is a big part of what sells chess to the general public and to sponsors. We don't want to risk losing that.

exigentsky wrote on 08/06/17 at 05:35:21:

The Monroi/PlyCounter comparison doesn't quite work here either, since as mere recording devices they don't have to be that conspicuous. Players are meant to just record the moves on them, not look at that little 2D board all the time while thinking. In fact, an opponent who did that would make me a bit suspicious that he was using it for something illegal.

Stigma wrote on 08/06/17 at 04:55:36:

 
At this point, we're moving the discussion towards how you think this could influence perception and not questions of fairness, inclusiveness or anything else I'd consider substantial. People will form whatever perceptions they wish regardless and I don't much care what some people who don't understand chess think about it. It wouldn't change the game and it probably wouldn't even be something widely used. There would also still be a large main board.

I also don't think it would make it any "geekier" if someone were using another tiny chess set near the board. Do you find people using coasters for their drinks to be asocial rejects too (they're similar in size and I've seen them used at chess tournaments)? Are any types of accessories automatically weird to you? I don't see a connection.

If seeing someone use a tiny secondary representation confirms that impression to you, it's because you want it to and not because it would necessarily sway opinions that way. If I didn't know chess at all and saw that, I'd probably consider the game even more fascinating and mysterious (perhaps a little intimidating). An impartial observer may not share your view and it sounds a lot like confirmation bias to me.  

I'd argue that it would appear less geeky than something like the PlyCounter, which looks like it was ripped out of a 90s Star Trek set.



BTW: Being geeky isn't a bad thing these days. It's often considered an attractive quality (even in school) as long as you're not super socially awkward and withdrawn on top of it. Many people go to great lengths to just appear geeky even when they're not. Many kids want to be the next Jobs, Zuckerberg, Musk etc.

Either way, I don't think being "cool" is something to aspire to. Some of the stupidest behaviors were at some point considered cool. In fact, trying to impress others and appear cool is itself an "uncool" and inauthentic act.

It's not relevant what tradition was when computers weren't ubiquitous. They weren't learning/playing chess in a 2D environment on a screen. Tradition is only a relevant guide when you have the same options.   

Either way, if you deconstruct the meaning and look deeper, you'll see that it actually is the same point even if we had no computers today. Remove the dressing and look at the essence and logic of what we're analyzing. I'm asking you to see that 2x + 9 = 5 is the same as x = -2 or 2x + 7 = 3. The chess set is merely an instrument for manipulating abstract rules. The very existence of blindfold chess shows it isn't mandatory for experiencing the game. Likewise, math equations don't become any less true if written on napkins or chalkboards. A mathematician working on a whiteboard isn't somehow less virtuous because he didn't use a quill pen as was traditional before him. 

Chess is amorphous and most organizations accept that. It's why unlike in regular sports where only the event is filmed, we have a myriad of representations of the positions played by the professionals. If its form was considered central to its nature, you'd only see the players and boards filmed and any other means of transmission would be shunned. We certainly don't see this type of broadcasting for other sports. It's not like you'd ever get a tennis broadcast with stick figures and if you did, it would never be considered sufficient for the experience to be comparable.

Barring space issues or other practical limitations, chess's form shouldn't matter and only limits inclusiveness. That's why you're free to choose from dozens of different options for pieces, boards, perspectives, sounds etc. while still having no trouble playing with your opponent, who may have an entirely different setup on his computer. No one would claim that changing the board to your preferences is outside help or some other gross violation. It doesn't make any more sense OTB. As long as you have space for a Monroi, you have space for a pocket chess set and incomparably less risk. I've also given real life examples for OTB chess.

I'm not trying to prevent people with special needs from participating in the same tournaments as others. I just think to be 100% fair, any accommodation made for them should be an option for everyone (like in other sports if people with disabilities wish to compete on the same ladder). 

I realize that won't happen but if they get accommodations to have an abstraction they're more effective with, I see no reason why I shouldn't be allowed to have an abstraction I'm more comfortable with when it wouldn't even take any more space than devices already approved. Even if the performance impact isn't comparable (and it's always arbitrary where you draw the line), the underlying philosophy needs generalization to be fully valid for a competition. This was never a major point though so I don't know why we're dwelling on it. There's an opportunity to allow something which can help some people, won't be used by most and adds almost no overhead in its implementation compared to other systems in place (certainly less than monitoring Monrois or PlyCounters for abuse).

Stigma wrote on 08/06/17 at 02:19:35:


t's very unusual to have someone argue that blind people have been getting a free ride for too long. Likewise, as a tennis player, I certainly don't feel that giving a player in a wheelchair two bounces to play the ball is an unfair advantage. I, and they as well, prefer to play with one bounce and two functioning legs.
I eagerly await the next jaw-dropping comments from exigentsky.

IsaVulpes wrote on 08/06/17 at 00:57:56:


It was never about analyzing all FIDE rules and I'm a US player.

So to call the game board itself an outside source is to misunderstand the very core of the game.

Exactly my point! That's why it's absurd to call another representation of the same position outside help. I doubt even the people making such claims actually live by them. If they did, they'd consider themselves cheaters any time they change the look and feel of a chess set online (which after all doesn't affect their opponents)! Likewise, if someone spilled coffee all over the board and pieces, it would be silly for someone to claim that the game is no longer valid because they're moving to another chess set or that this constitutes outside assistance for both players.

Further props have been added gradually as the need/benefits became obvious: Score sheets and pens, a clock, extra queens in the set, demo boards, DGT boards. But the aesthetic of simplicity and no more stuff than really necessary at the table is still operating.

We're long past what's "purely necessary" and needs change but I understand the point. That's why I stated that a secondary chess set should meet the standards already in place without expanding them. It would have to be of a similar size to a device like the Monroi or PlyCoutner and choosing to use one would be to the exclusion of those devices. 

I mean, the people who write the FIDE rules even have these somewhat absurd ideas that if you use two hands for castling...

Debating FIDE rules is outside the scope of this thread. Moreover, stipulations like those have little bearing on someone's ability to play comfortably relative to a chess set; it's more a matter of protocol. Note also that this point is in direct contradiction to the idea of chess being more inclusive/accommodating and thus barred from the axiomatic definition of fairness we discussed earlier. 

However, I'll briefly say that there's more logic to some of those ideas than may first seem. Let's take castling with two hands. You could touch the rook and while you're about to make a different move, you realize there's something wrong and grab the king with the other hand to castle instead. There's probably a higher risk of knocking pieces over too.

So when you can't even convince anyone on this thread that allowing an extra 2D board (outside of an obvious special need) is a good idea, I'd say your chances of convincing the FIDE rules committee are slim indeed.


Again with the "special needs" idea? This sort of reasoning never works out. Who gets to decide whose needs are special or not? Can you hook up a machine and get a direct experience of how I see the world so you can be 100% certain my needs don't matter because there isn't some official designation for them? 

Anyway, not everyone who reads this will leave a comment. In fact, there haven't been that many different people participating. Even if others agreed with me, most don't have a preference for 2D pieces so why would they care to comment? There's going to be a strong sampling bias and this site also isn't necessarily representative of chess players at large. 

Moreover, the majority have no monopoly on truth. People widely believed that the sun went around the earth and some cultures STILL believe women don't deserve equal rights, such as the ability to participate in politics. How widely held a belief is has little relevance when analyzing its merit. I'd probably alienate too many people now if I started talking about common religious superstitions... 

A rules committee has a responsibility to be consistent and that's why I think they may be receptive to my request (only contacted the USCF though). Otherwise, they should ban 2D abstractions on electronic score sheet devices. To allow that (with more abuse potential), but not a similarly sized chess set with 2D piece symbols would be arbitrarily playing favorites. It would be suspicious and give the impression that commercial interests are unduly influencing the rules.