Dear Mr. Douglas M Forsythe,

Please, note that MonRoi is loosing clients and money every day due to
your statements on the USCF forum. It actually harms the reputation of
MonRoi Inc. The company and its shareholders invested in chess for the
benefit of tournament organizers and chess players. MonRoi system does
not change the Laws of Chess and it encourages chess development in
many ways. Maybe if you would see the MonRoi system in action- you
would like it.

The USCF did not share your identity with MonRoi- it was clearly
written on the USCF Forum, and Google gives us your on-line email
address.

Below are your public statements, written and broadcasted to many. You
are aware that corporations in North America are entitled to material
damages caused by libel. We suggest that you retract false facts and
derogatory statements.

March 20: "Use of additional chessboard or computer prohibited. The
MonRoi Chess Manager is a computer."

"If the owner can recall the position from a past game, there is
nothing to stop the owner to check the data base of past games to find
the next move."

"If this device is accepted within tournaments, someone is going to
build a device that grants full access of previous games."

"If you let one device in, you have little choice but to let all the
devices in."

"Even with a USCF endorsement, very sure the director is going to
find some rule to trow you and your air horn right out of the
tournament."

March 21

"With Bill Hall dealing with the endorsement of $2,500 plus 1% of US
revenues, it looks like the EB did not have to vote for the
endorsement. But it looks like the EB gave Bill Hall the right to enter
into a contract. With Bill Halls statement, the endorsement is only
good for one year.

It looks like it would be best if the membership send emails to the
members of the ED about the contract. Lets hope when the endorsement
comes to an end in 2007, the members of the ED do not give a second
endorsement of the product."

"Thinking I should talk with Bill Hall to get a USCF endorsement of
the aerosol air horns you see at baseball games. With the endorsement,
very sure someone will take it to a tournament. If I was only a vendor
at a scholastic event ... the USCF endorsement will sure sell well.

If the director runs up to you and say stop it, just point the aerosol
air horn at the director and turn it on. Even with a USCF endorsement,
very sure the director is going to find some rule to trow you and your
air horn right out of the tournament."

"If someone is going to pay me to give an endorsement, why walk away
from the money. The USCF gave the endorsement for $2,500 plus 1% of US
revenues. How good is an endorsement when it was sold.

Sure its endorsed by the USCF for only one year. It gives time for the
rules committee to make objections. If the rules committee votes for
the device, makes you question the members of the rules committee bank
account has gotten fat with a flush of money.

Since there was money given for an endorsement, feel it is time for new
leadership."

March 26

"In time we are going to lose our humanity. Why do we have chess
computer and chess engines -- ratings. Why do we want the MonRoi --
ratings.

If the rules committee does not give the directors the right to reject
the use of the MonRoi. If the rules committee force directors to accept
the MonRoi. Than I have to resign as a tournament director. Will
cancell every single tournament, and never play again.

True, I am just one director. If a number of directors are will to make
it clear they will resign. Than the USCF will have a decline in
over-the-board tournaments. When you lose your active directors, you
lose your active USCF members, and than you lose your USCF members.

It is clear in my mind, MonRoi is spending money to change the rules.
If the directors walk away from the federation, than you will see a
clear void of tournaments. With a void of tournaments, you will see a
drop of USCF membership, USCF rated tournaments, that will bring in
less money into the federation."[/quote]

Why I find the use of non-paper scoresheets to be illegal. There are a
number of reasons, as there are a number of players wanting and willing
to use some type of scoresheets other than paper. It is nice to have a
unit that can keep score, but the owner can use the device for
cheating. If the owner can use the device for cheating, than it should
be banned.

20D. Use of additional chessboard or computer prohibited. A player who
analyses a game in progress on another chessboard consults a computer
about the position is guilty of a serious violation of the rules.
Though the director still has discretion, the usual penalty is loss of
the game.

The product like MonRoi or any device like it, does have a chessboard
within the unit. The owner can use the device to place candidate moves,
than reject or accept the candidate moves. The MonRoi device or any
device like it gives the player time to analyzes the position with the
second chessboard. A chessboard is a chessboard, it does not matter if
the chessboard fits the standards of tournament equipment or is a
chessboard on a computer screen. With rule 20D, it says an additional
chessboard, it does not say standard equipment or non-standard
equipment.

Since the unit can be used for candidate moves with take back, the unit
can be used for analyzes of the position.

20C. Use of notes prohibited. The use of notes made during the game as
an aid to memory is forbidden, aside from the actual recording of the
moves, draw offers and clock times, and the header information normally
found on a scoresheet. This is a much less serious offense than 20B; a
warning or minor time penalty is common, with more severe punishment if
the offense is repeated.

If the owner use the scoresheet chessboard to place candidate moves and
than take back, the candidate moves have beenused as a aid to memory

But to the subject, feel that Bill Hall made a bad choice with the
MonRoi. When more is understood with MonRoi, now with the bad blood
with the USCF and MonRoi -- feel the MonRoi deal is dead. Will say that
Bill Hall has made it very bad for the rules committee to deal with the
MonRoi products.

With the USCF that gets 1% of all US sales of any products from MonRoi
-- it place the USCF rules committee in the bad shape to vote on a rule
change that gets the USCF more in sales. If the USCF rules committee
rejects the change in the rules, the sales will go flat. If the USCF
rules committee accepts the change in the rules, the sales will climb.

This scandal will in the end come to a major crash with Bill Hall and
the MonRoi company. With MonRoi demanding to pull all talk with MonRoi
within the USCF forums -- it is just one more example of the end of the
road.

The problem with any electronic scorekeeper is the problem with notes.
If your opponent has a paper scoresheet, you would question the reason
why your opponent when leaving the chessboard and takes the paper
scoresheet. With the cost of the MonRoi unit, I can understand the
reason why someone would take the electronic scoresheet. If you take
the scoresheet, paper or electronic away from the board: what is your
opponent doing with the scoresheet away from the board. There are a
number of ways your opponent can use the scoresheet away from the board
-- as in cheating.

Since the electronic scorekeeper has a second chessboard, if your
opponent is away from the board with a cell phone -- your opponent can
call a friend to use Fritz 9.0. If it is used one time, it is still
cheating. The cheating can happen without you knowing about it or the
tournament directors. Cheating like this can happen at a small
tournament or any tournament.

The only way the electronic scorekeeper can be used, if the electronic
scorekeeper will show ever time the unit has a take back. As one way
for cheating is to place candidate moves, than remove the candidate
moves. When the move is accepted, if the electronic scorekeeper does
not show the number of take backs: than the electronic scorekeeper can
be used for cheating. If the electronic scorekeeper will show every
take back after the game, after the game when you sign the electronic
scorekeeper it will show how many takes backs. If it shows zero, than
the electronic scorekeeper was not used for cheating with candidate
moves used on the unit only.

If it shows take back, if you make an error with the electronic
scorekeeper -- than you have to report this information on the move
with the tournament director. If you correct the error on your own,
after the game it will show one take back. If it was in error, how can
you prove it was in error or used one time as a note. You cannot prove
it was an error or a written note with a candidate move.

The only way you can prove it was an error, is calling the tournament
director. If you are calling the tournament director, than you have to
stop the clock to report an error on the electronic scorekeeper. When
you stop a clock and call the tournament director, than have the clock
re-started -- the time the clock is stopped is around five to ten
minutes. The bigger the tournament, the longer the clock is going to be
to be stopped. The more electronic scorekeepers you have at the
tournament, the greater chance the tournament director is going to run
around to take care of electronic scorekeeping errors. This could make
the start of the next round be late, the more errors the slower the
start of the next round.

With the number of errors with electronic scorekeepers, it would slow
down the start of the next round so tournament directors are not in the
mood or want to deal with scorekeeping errors. Second, the MonRoi unit
will have to be changed to show take back. Both parties are not in the
mood or want to deal with this problem. So we are back to the user use
the unit for cheating with candidate moves.








Regards,
The MonRoi team