tp2205 wrote on 02/27/14 at 13:50:51:


Normally, one would assume that with today's engine people can find the same lines quite independently. But since Stefan wrote earlier in the thread that QC asked him for all issues of Kaissiber and he sent it to them for free.. If that's true then it's hard for them to claim independent discovery.

Stefan Buecker wrote on 02/27/14 at 10:32:58:

so anyone who discovers that 37 times 3 is 111 should credit the first person who published this analysis

Aziridine wrote on 02/27/14 at 10:19:00:

I still believe that I am right, at least regarding the German copyright law: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zitat#Deutschland ;
Can it be different in the UK, really? Are there no international treaties which make sure that my copyright is protected? I am pretty tired of this hair-splitting. Let's hope that Scotland secedes from the UK and renovates its justice system.

Stefan Buecker wrote on 02/27/14 at 09:13:26:

people coming to the same conclusions (which is very likely in this position) has nothing to do with violating copyrights

Smyslov_Fan wrote on 02/26/14 at 19:36:53:
 
Both ways are fine with me. It would be sufficient to add a remark that the winning book has faced criticism, plus a link. 

Smyslov_Fan wrote on 02/26/14 at 19:36:53:

I knew from the start what would happen, when the issues of N or copyright violations were raised. The reaction was more or less what I knew from this forum ("watch out, there is Edward Winter hiding behind the bush"). What I didn't expect was the opposition from authors. They should really care more about copyright. - You can be sure, Smylov_Fan, that any author who tries to advertise his own work in such a poll would face the same resistance from members, if not more. So I don't see a problem. 

There is this thing called copyright law. When an author is quoting another author, he must credit the source properly. Plagiarism in chess is a violation of the law, period. If a moderator doesn't feel responsible for setting a minimum standard in such a competition, Tony Kosten might step in and look at the matter. - You can call it "negative campaigning", Smyslov_Fan, but the problem is real and doesn't go away by closing your eyes.

Stefan Buecker wrote on 02/26/14 at 18:40:08:

I did the test with Rybka 2.2 32-bit (which I never used but happens to be on my pc) and it's not difficult at all to find this line

I don't think I've written that I'm okay with Shaw not crediting the analysis, but that's not the point.  And I don't mean to bring your name into things, Taljechin, if I shouldn't, but you seemed to confirm one or two things in the other thread--sorry if I misread you.  Another reason to have all the comments in one place.

Stefan, you had some support for your cause a few days and a couple of pages ago, but if I know human nature you're losing it fast.  Best turn it into a productive discussion quickly instead of just creating a bigger list of mistakes and omissions, which looks like antagonism. 

Stefan Buecker wrote on 02/26/14 at 16:43:17:

how do you know? if it's perfectly possible to find this with any decent engine (and by the way, it is, it's something like a forced sequence), why should someone else be credited?