Personal Chess Manager

[Robert Jurjevic]

May I ask if Personal Chess Manager is certified by ECF and if it not if there is any chance to consider a certification of such a device? Thanks. P.S. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MonRoi

[Roger de Coverly]

May I ask if Personal Chess Manager is certified by ECF and if it not if there is any chance to consider a certification of such a device?

What would you expect certification to achieve?

The Monroi device has been used some years ago at events such as Gibraltar and Hastings, in both cases supplied by the organisers. As the ECF didn't object, you could assume implied consent. You might well face objections if you attempted to use it in a league game or at a Congress where it hadn't been supplied by the organiser. The key objection to the use of such a device is that opponents and arbiters have no way of knowing that it hasn't been hacked to not only record moves, but suggest them as well.

[Ian Kingston]

There's also the issue of Article 8.1a of the FIDE Laws:

In the course of play each player is required to record his own moves and those of his opponent in the correct manner, move after move, as clearly and legibly as possible, in the algebraic notation (Appendix C), on the ‘scoresheet’ prescribed for the competition.

(My emphasis)

I think that rules out a Monroi-type device under almost all competitive circumstances.

[Roger de Coverly]

I think that rules out a Monroi-type device under almost all competitive circumstances.

Monroi type devices have been used in FIDE rated events. I think if you ask nicely or make a suitable contribution, the device can be considered as a "scoresheet". USCF has its own rules which permit such gadgets. These things were first proposed and developed ten years ago but there's been no take up in the UK, not least because the major chess suppliers have not attempted to stock and market them.

[Ian Kingston]

I think that rules out a Monroi-type device under almost all competitive circumstances.

Monroi type devices have been used in FIDE rated events. I think if you ask nicely or make a suitable contribution, the device can be considered as a "scoresheet". USCF has its own rules which permit such gadgets. These things were first proposed and developed ten years ago but there's been no take up in the UK, not least because the major chess suppliers have not attempted to stock and market them.

I'm well aware that they have been used - I'm sure that's why the inverted commas are present in Article 8.1a (so that 'scoresheet' doesn't have to mean a piece of paper).

In general, I think someone would be pushing their luck if they just turned up at an event and expected to be able to use one without gaining permission in advance. I also suspect that many organisers would want to avoid the hassle of allowing them - explaining what they are to other players, making different arrangements for reporting results, learning how to examine the move record in the event of a repetition claim etc.

[Robert Jurjevic]

Thank you for your replies.

I thought that it could be convenient to some to use the device as a scoresheet (the main benefit being electronic transfer of the games to a computer for analysis, etc., though a DGT board would be a better choice for me personally) if there would be a simple and reliable way of identifying it as genuine (i.e. like a paper scoresheet is identified that say is not a notebook full of opening lines, etc.) but it seems that using such a device is likely to be impractical.

[MartinCarpenter]

Probably just flat illegal vs the recent anti mobile phone stuff FIDE brought in too actually - that bans 'any device capable of suggesting chess moves'. Hard to see how an electronic score sheet would avoid that.

[Stewart Reuben]

The Monroi device was recognised by FIDE and perfectly acceptable as a means of recording moves in a FIDE Rated game. It was accepted that the security was more than adequate to allay fears about hacking, or looking back at previous information. I used it in a London League game. Understandably my opponent asked about it.
The contract with FIDE has expired for financial reasons.

Robert Jurvejic, the problem comes if you were sole user of the device at a tournament. You have recorded the game on the machine. It would now need to be transferred to a computer, printed out and both players sign the print-out.
The reason they were/are relatively successful in the US is that they do not have the tradition of recording all games. Also commercially they failed in Europe because of the high cost, about £200.
I don't see how you can go to a tournament with a digital board, set, clock and computer and set it all up.
The Monroi device communicates with its master computer wirelessly. The DGT board still normally needs wires.

There was no problem whatsoever with the Monroi device in Hastings or Gibraltar. It saved the cost and time of a substantial number of move inputters.

At the World Senior Championship, the World Championship and in the Olympiad all the games are played on DGT boards and transmitted worldwide. I can't understand why, at such events, it is still required that people keep score on a piece of paper. Some of the players in the World Senior were not competent to do so anyway. Of course it might require some minor amendments in the Laws. But deleting 5 pages from the Laws would be fun.

In the third edition of 'Chess Organiser's Handbook there is a chapter on 'Specification for a Complete Information system for a chess tournament.'

[Jonathan Bryant]

It was accepted that the security was more than adequate to allay fears about hacking, or looking back at previous information.

A decision so patently absurd I find it hard to believe it wasn’t financially motivated.

[Ian Thompson]

It was accepted that the security was more than adequate to allay fears about hacking, or looking back at previous information.

A decision so patently absurd I find it hard to believe it wasn’t financially motivated.

Not when read in conjunction with FIDE Laws 8.1 - 8.3, which mean that the organisers need only allow its use if they've provided it.

[Jonathan Bryant]

It was accepted that the security was more than adequate to allay fears about hacking, or looking back at previous information.

A decision so patently absurd I find it hard to believe it wasn’t financially motivated.

Not when read in conjunction with FIDE Laws 8.1 - 8.3, which mean that the organisers need only allow its use if they've provided it.

Even then. A working magician - or a child enthusiast for that matter - will tell you how easy it is to switch things out (and in) right under peoples’ noses. Piece of pudding to do it when there’s 100s of people to be watched and nobody particularly watching.

[Ian Thompson]

A decision so patently absurd I find it hard to believe it wasn’t financially motivated.

Not when read in conjunction with FIDE Laws 8.1 - 8.3, which mean that the organisers need only allow its use if they've provided it.

Even then. A working magician - or a child enthusiast for that matter - will tell you how easy it is to switch things out (and in) right under peoples’ noses. Piece of pudding to do it when there’s 100s of people to be watched and nobody particularly watching.

Agreed, but that's the easy part of it. The difficult part would be ensuring that both the substitute device (for cheating) and the genuine device always have up-to-date game scores. If not, you'll definitely have a problem at the end of the game when you need to return the genuine device, with a complete game score and signed by both players, and may have a problem during the game if a device that appears to be the genuine one is not transmitting moves to the organiser's computer.

[Stewart Reuben]

When Monroi was used in Hastings and Gibraltar, there was not the slightest breath of suspicion that any cheating was going on using the devices. Since the moves were being transmitted immediately to the organiser's computer and thus to the world, it would have been difficult to hack into and it not be obvious.
A much more likely way of cheating is for somebody to take the link, feed the position into a computer, get the best move and convey the information to the player. That can be done just as easily with electro-sensitive boards as the Monroi equipment. That is why I instituted the idea of time delay of transmission of the moves by 5 or 10 minutes. Unfortunately, in my opinion, Makro set his face against this. That is how the French cheated David Howell in the Olympiad.

Easiest of all is to use your mobile phone as a chess-playing machine. Then consult it surreptitiously. You don't need a partner.

By the way, the players sign the electronic scoresheet (Monroi) at the end of the game, not a paper printout.

[Jonathan Bryant]

...
Agreed, but that's the easy part of it. The difficult part would be ....

Although you wouldn’t need to use the machine *every* move. Just once or at most twice a game would be a massive advantage.

As Stewart points out, these days, you’d just use a phone. Rather different attitude from FIDE to mobiles compared to their encouragement of Monrois.

[Stewart Reuben]

Jonathan > Rather different attitude from FIDE to mobiles compared to their encouragement of Monrois.<

That could possibly be because mobile phones are guaranteed NOT to be secure, whereas Monroi was guaranteed to be secure (of course we know that secure systems can be broken into, consider online bank accounts). In Hastings and Gibraltar the machines were ALL handed out by the organisers, there were no private ones. All of them sent a wireless signal to a computer and thence to the Monroi website.
It is true that, people in the US could use their own Monroi device simply to record their games and then feed the data to their own computer later. They could then manufacture a clone that looked exactly like a Monroi one that would provide suggested future moves, rather than just recording the moves played. Then, in full view of the opponent and the arbiter (usually nowhere to be seen in the US), they could receive information whereby they could cheat.

I think there are cheaper and more efficient ways to cheat.
e.g. people have secreted a computer in their shoe.
e.g. people use their own scorebooks in less important events (against the FIDE Laws of course). Then they could have notes in the scorebook about previous games.
e.g. People talk to others during games. One person can speak to a player and recommend a continuation.

The Laws of Chess are basically written on the assumption that people are NOT cheating. They would have to be much more complex and longer if it was, like bridge.
The 1 July 2015 FIDE Tournament Rules in team events outlaw players or captains standing BEHIND their opponent's chair.