Teyko wrote on 07/15/07 at 04:48:06:


"Victor has always denied this, and we could find no copy of the email Tommy sent to him, so I don't think it is fair to keep repeating this. "

"Secondly, I did not write NIC because Tony said Viktor claims he did not do it, and I am not willing to fight a battle that would drain more energy than it is worth. The chesspublishing community can clearly see that my analysis on this specific variation was posted online before his NIC article and the updates in which he omitted my name and did not give me credit. "

Teyko,
It is completely understandable that you wish to get credit for your ideas and your hard work. 

On the other hand, I, like Tony,  believe that nothing is gain by repeating your claims over and over again over many months here at CP. You are beating a dead horse by constantly revisiting your grievances at CP. 
   Also, since I have seen letters in NIC with similar claims to yours, I'm sure NIC would publish one from you. When I see that you have not done the obvious thing (a letter to NIC), I question your whole project of revisiting your grievances here. Let's let Tony handle the situation as he suggested.

   But I basically do agree with you in your wish to get credit for your work. Note that chess players who have played strong titled players, OTB or correspondence, will have done that kind of high level analysis for years without any reward other than the pleasure of doing the chess analysis.

"TopNotch makes a valid point. To say that Viktor's analysis is objective, when a careful study of the variation on the board and with the computer, seems silly. No one is contesting Viktor's rating, or his title, but to say in 'an appeal to authority' that his analysis rings with "truth" is simply ignoring the facts.  "
However, here I disagree with you. The only one appealing to a higher authority has been Topnotch--by setting up a straw man to knock it down. I have simply acknowledged the obvious: that a 2600 player will have much better positional judgment than a 2400 player, let alone a 2200 player. But in chess matters, I will rely on my own analysis: trust but verify, as Reagan used to say.
  The main reason I will spend more time studying the work of a GM rather than that of an amateur is not so much analysis of particular lines: a patient amateur with Rybka can probably do as good a job as a GM. It is because in the opening the GM has a much deeper and wider knowledge.

fluffy wrote on 07/15/07 at 02:16:36:

Victor has always denied this, and we could find no copy of the email Tommy sent to him, so I don't think it is fair to keep repeating this.
I propose Tommy send me all the 10 c5 analysis (that he put in this post) in a PGN file and I will forward it to Victor when he returns from his tournaments to get his opinion.

i like Mikhalevski's work, and I think he is fairly objective from my observation of his coverage of my preferred lines (Gligoric 7. Be3 and the Samisch among others). 

Gallagher is as biased to Black as Mikhalevski is biased to White. If Mikhalevski plays the KID as often as Karpov, Gallagher plays 1. d4 as often as Fischer 

"Here is to hoping that Mikhalevski's successor will be a bit more pro KID, and let White gripe for a change."

This is exactly what we don't need, "more pro KID". Once we get to that, the analysis will be worthless, merely KID cheerleading. The KID patzers may enjoy it though.

I think Viktor does a fine job on the site, but it was very poor form to blatantly take analysis that was given to him in good faith and then publish it as his own. teyko has never sounded lik,e he was looking for a buck or anything, but expecting a little acknowledgement is pretty reasonable, especially as Viktor deemed the analysis publishable on more than one occasion.

cma6 wrote on 07/14/07 at 14:33:50:


I really don't know the specifics of this situation, so I am not ready to make a solid judgment about who is in the right or wrong.  However, I certainly don't agree that plagiarism should be condoned, no matter the status of the parties involved.  Many non-titled players are certainly capable of original ideas.  Also I think it should be pointed out that the grandmaster title is based on tournament performance, not on the validity of one's theoretical ideas.  However, it is true that the grandmaster title carries a level of authority in the chess community that can certainly be abused to the detriment of non-grandmaster players.  To you, I may be "no one," but I do take notice when the big guy steps on the little guy.  To steal someone's ideas is disrespectful and indicates a lack of integrity.  When you deem this to be acceptable behavior, you are doing a disservice to yourself and your fellow chess players.

Teyko wrote on 07/14/07 at 15:50:17:


This is an unfortunate practice that many professors can get away with due to their status in the academic community.  It puts the student in a terrible situation.  If the student openly contests the plagiarism, then he is often labelled a troublemaker, seriously hurting his future in academia.  In some research groups, it sometimes becomes an accepted practice for the more prominent figures to take credit for the ideas of less well-known contributors in the group.  In such situations, it is common that no one in the group says a word about it, in fear that they will disrupt the harmony of collaboration.  The difference here is that the people being plagiarized often depend on the recognition of their contributions for the livelihood of their career.

[/quote] All this  carping about "original analysis" and credit for the analysis is pathetic. There is nothing lasting or original or copywritable about chess analysis, which is constantly moving forward, seeking the truth on the board or at least the latest version of "the truth." If you are a GM with a name, yes, then it can be "original" analysis. If you are a nobody with a screen name only, then you don't own the idea. Life isn't always fair, as Jimmy Carter once said.

Those who did the original analysis are lucky that a 2600 player even bothered to look at their computer output, let alone used part of it. No one cares who originally did the analysis. When those who first published the analysis get a GM title, then maybe we will care.quote]

Are you serious? This has to be the most ignorant statement made thus far on this board. Your argument is akin to saying that a student who writes a paper should not be given credit for their work if the professor decides to publish their work, because the professor has a Ph.D and the student being a student has no grasp of the "ultimate reality" of their work. 

"Those who did the original analysis are lucky that a 2600 play even bothered to look at their computer output," yeah right, so when a 2600's analysis is reversed by us lowly idiots who have doctorates rather than GM titles, we are simply idle pawns that must submit to the incorrect analysis of annotators who are paid to comment on games. 

As I have said before, a GM title does not protect one from fallibility, I simply have stated that Mikhalevski is wrong about 10.c5, if anyone including the cma6 can prove the positions I have advocated as unplayable, then perhaps we can have a conversation.