I know I should stay out of this for my own sanity, but let us take it blow by blow. Where should we start?
Buecker did send ME the issues of Kaissiber some years back, as I remember it, it had a lot to do with books sent to Kaissiber for review; but honestly, I do not remember the details. Stefan was very kind and helpful at that point, but I see now that it was a poisoned chalice and I wish I had not accepted them.
John did not go through everything from that magazine, because he does not speak German. Any idea of violation of copyright is pure nonsense. He did check a great number of sources and have credited them where they he used the material to write the book.
The idea that we should have a big advantage over other publishers because we do not respect copyright is ridiculous on so many grounds that I get lost in them. But let us take a few of them.
* Anyone who checks the chess literature to the extent we do, will know that a lot of books are refuted years in advance. Why? Because they ignore main sources. Do we at times miss sources? Sure, we do. Most recently of the important ones: Attack with Black by Aveskulov for the Trompowsky book.
* Plagiarism is a strong word. Actually it is libelous unless proven, which in this case it cannot, as it is entirely ficticious. It is a key part of copyright law and infers a deliberate copying of other people's material without accreditation. There have been numerous cases of novels where the content is close, but where there is no clear indication that the novelist had written the proposed source. Most famous probably the JK Rowling case.
If you use someone else's work without their permission (even when you believe you have the permission) it is a violation of copyright. (Although there are some exceptions, mainly to do with facts, but let us ignore this for now.)
However, if you reach the same conclusions based on independent work, it is not plagiarism. In our case, analysis of the same positions with the help of engines, will often reach similar outcomes.
Let us compare chess with academia, which I think makes a lot of sense. There is just no way that you will find that top academics will not publish their own work without reading every possible source. It just cannot be done.
Buecker's accusation includes the ludicris assertion that John somehow wrote the King's Gambit quickly to make money. Anyone who wants to think that through and know anything about anything, will laugh until they pass out.
In the same way, when writing about the King's Gambit, you just cannot carefully check 15,000 pages of analysis (and have a life). You have to make tough choices of what is useful and what is not.
And here we come to the crux of the matter. John looked at Kaissiber, but it was just not a main source of information. Buecker clearly understands this and has taken it personally and his constant attacks on John (and now me also) are nothing less than a case of personal slight run amok.
The fact that the moderator has not removed some of the most obscene comments or asked Buecker to rephrase it in a way that would not leave ChessPublishing open for libel suits are beyond me. Sure, we would never sue, but I don't refrain from breaking the law just because I might get caught. I also consider it common decency. You can argue that libel is a civil matter, but this does not really avoid my request for civility.
About the vote on our blog (which I am happy to see is no longer referred to as manipulated). 44% agrees with Buecker's definition. I am sure that he has called on all his friends to vote, which probably means that 44% independently voted for a different definition than we use...
|