Latest Updates:
Page Index Toggle Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5
Topic Tools
Very Hot Topic (More than 25 Replies) Novelties, copyright, inflamed feelings (Read 33555 times)
Smyslov_Fan
God Member
Correspondence fan
*****
Offline


Progress depends on the
unreasonable man. ~GBS

Posts: 6902
Joined: 06/15/05
Re: Novelties, copyright, inflamed feelings
Reply #50 - 03/11/14 at 01:30:08
Post Tools
I'll leave this open for a few more days and see what sort of comments are made. If it's clear that people are ready to move on, I'll close it.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
GMTonyKosten
YaBB Administrator
*****
Offline


Mr Dynamic?

Posts: 3116
Location: Clermont-Ferrand
Joined: 12/19/02
Gender: Male
Re: Novelties, copyright, inflamed feelings
Reply #49 - 03/10/14 at 20:59:34
Post Tools
LeeRoth wrote on 03/09/14 at 15:27:37:
This thread and its predecessor have become hopelessly confused.  There are too many different aspects to this debate. 


I have to agree, maybe time to move on?

TonyRo wrote on 03/10/14 at 18:00:54:
Even if you manage to track down all of the sources, parsing through all of that information is still challenging!


True, but the Bernstein-Sergeev game is in MegaBase and a repertoire search in ChessBase takes one second to find it.

Maybe the only thing we can definitely take from this debate is that putting 'N' behind moves is a risky business! Smiley
  
Back to top
IP Logged
 
TonyRo
God Member
*****
Offline


I'm gonna crack your skull!

Posts: 1776
Location: Cleveland, OH
Joined: 11/26/07
Gender: Male
Re: Novelties, copyright, inflamed feelings
Reply #48 - 03/10/14 at 18:00:54
Post Tools
I agree. For my book, I've consulted every source I can think of, but between books, DVDs, databases, and random things on the internet of all kinds, there's no doubt I missed some on something as broad and deep as the Sicilian Defense. The same would go for nearly any established opening at this point. Stuff is going to slip through the cracks. How much really depends on the author's familiarity with the materials in question and diligence.

Even if you manage to track down all of the sources, parsing through all of that information is still challenging!
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Pale Horse, Pale Rider
Senior Member
****
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 287
Joined: 12/26/12
Re: Novelties, copyright, inflamed feelings
Reply #47 - 03/10/14 at 16:44:32
Post Tools
Ametanoitos wrote on 03/10/14 at 16:06:21:
It is not silly, it happens all the time. As a PhD student myself i know what i am talking about. Do you claim that you have access AND the time to read all the publications even from some obscure congresses (not to mention some really old papers that seem irrelevant today but they might have mentioned an idea that you have spent months yourself to discover)? Is this optimal? No, obviously it is not, but at least while researching you make sure not to miss the most relevant and known sources.


Have to agree here. As a PhD student myself I try to keep up with all material which is publicated but it's virtually impossible. Of course there is literature which you shouldn't miss but trying to collect all material that has ever been published about your topic is absolutely impossible ...
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Ametanoitos
God Member
*****
Offline


The road to success is
under construction

Posts: 1427
Location: Patras
Joined: 01/04/05
Re: Novelties, copyright, inflamed feelings
Reply #46 - 03/10/14 at 16:06:21
Post Tools
Tullius wrote on 03/09/14 at 19:20:18:
Quote:
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.


I have seen this words by Agaard. It seems he has no university grade that he would know that his comments are nonsense. Mistakes using quotes can be deadly - even for students.

University have high specialised libraries and have access to all relevant material - at least a good university should have.

BTW: The Kassiber was and is (at least) on of the standart publications for opening theory outside of the main stream theory.


It is not silly, it happens all the time. As a PhD student myself i know what i am talking about. Do you claim that you have access AND the time to read all the publications even from some obscure congresses (not to mention some really old papers that seem irrelevant today but they might have mentioned an idea that you have spent months yourself to discover)? Is this optimal? No, obviously it is not, but at least while researching you make sure not to miss the most relevant and known sources.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
RdC
God Member
*****
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 866
Joined: 05/17/08
Re: Novelties, copyright, inflamed feelings
Reply #45 - 03/09/14 at 20:16:07
Post Tools
Just as an extra thought on this, I suspect the standard of player comes into this. For example as a player of 2000 standard, I might come up with something new and it might even make it into published databases. That doesn't mean to say my move is any good. Now suppose a 2600 player either plays the same move or recommends it in an article or book. That makes it not just a new move but a "good" new moves. But then I've become cynical about authors and their recommendations, particular those where the rating statistics say I would score some points against them in a 10 game match.

So what is theory? Is it lines played in practice by an individual, multiple individuals or just lines in books and articles. I tend to look at it as "normal moves", "has been tried", "untested suggestion of X" where X could well be a computer engine rather than an author. But if you employ themes rather than detailed move sequences, you can be following theory and making new moves simultaneously.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Keano
God Member
*****
Offline


Money doesn't talk, it
swears.

Posts: 2891
Location: Toulouse
Joined: 05/25/05
Gender: Male
Re: Novelties, copyright, inflamed feelings
Reply #44 - 03/09/14 at 19:27:50
Post Tools
I've not been following any of this but there seems to be something in the air of late promoting conflict on this forum.

Can this whole situation not be rectified by a Quality Chess Update correcting Stefans grievances while acknowledging that it was in no way intentional?

Live and let live etc., life goes on...
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Tullius
Junior Member
**
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 71
Joined: 05/03/11
Re: Novelties, copyright, inflamed feelings
Reply #43 - 03/09/14 at 19:20:18
Post Tools
Quote:
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.


I have seen this words by Agaard. It seems he has no university grade that he would know that his comments are nonsense. Mistakes using quotes can be deadly - even for students.

University have high specialised libraries and have access to all relevant material - at least a good university should have.

BTW: The Kassiber was and is (at least) on of the standart publications for opening theory outside of the main stream theory.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Tullius
Junior Member
**
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 71
Joined: 05/03/11
Re: Novelties, copyright, inflamed feelings
Reply #42 - 03/09/14 at 18:16:47
Post Tools
Quote:
Again, I think it has to be reasonable.  Obviously, an author can't use a 10-game database and then claim his moves are novelties.  But at the same time, there has to be an upper limit.  In the old informant days, a novelty meant that the move had not appeared in the informant before.  Everyone knew this because the informant folks told readers that was what the N meant.  Katar suggested QC do something similar, and they should.  Would at least put an end to any question of how QC is using the N, although I suppose people will still criticize them for not having consulted a large enough database.  If you use mega base and correspondence bases is that ok, or do you have to scour the internet and old printed materials for even more games?  Frankly, at some point, it just gets silly.  How much do you reasonably have to check before you are OK to proceed?


Aljechin noted already this problem and in one of his tournament books he wrote that it is difficult "today" to claim a new move because an obscure amateur might have played in an unknown tournament. I consider "novelty" not as a "hard" legal term, it is more a marketing tool to gain more purchases and ignoring available databases (and there are not too many) could lead to false advertising.

The best analogy for chess and copyright are perhaps the legal treatment of scientific articles in professional journals. Nobody can prevent that published ideas were used in other context as long as you name the source.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
brabo
God Member
*****
Online


Welcome chessfriend

Posts: 982
Joined: 02/02/07
Re: Novelties, copyright, inflamed feelings
Reply #41 - 03/09/14 at 17:54:40
Post Tools
LeeRoth wrote on 03/09/14 at 16:24:42:
How much do you reasonably have to check before you are OK to proceed?
How much databases, engines, time do you reasonably have to spend in correspondence before you are ok to play a move?

Same type of question and same type of answer. The answer is that it depends on the quality you want to achieve.

On QC blog the last article (http://www.qualitychess.co.uk/blog/?p=2609) describes how proud the team is of achieving finally the grand slam for their performances. A grand slam means receiving the 4 biggest awards for chess-books which exist. This is definitely a very big accomplishment.
So if we know that QC is top of the class then would you expect that their books only check the commercial available databases or would you rather expect that they do a substantial extra effort?
  
Back to top
WWW  
IP Logged
 
LeeRoth
God Member
*****
Offline


I love ChessPublishing.com!

Posts: 1516
Joined: 10/22/05
Re: Novelties, copyright, inflamed feelings
Reply #40 - 03/09/14 at 16:24:42
Post Tools
fling wrote on 03/04/14 at 23:08:07:
I am not sure I have much to add to the debate. But I need to say something.


I thought yours was a thoughtful and excellent post.  I may not agree with everything you said, but I certainly respect your views.

Quote:
That critical question is copyright issues.


Actually, I don't think this is the critical question at all.  It frankly doesn't matter whether lifting someone else's analysis is a copyright violation or not.  We can all agree that it is wrong to do that, can't we?  To me, the critical question here is whether that is what happened.

Quote:
Just because you don't have time to read everything doesn't mean you can say it is ok to claim an old idea as yours with the excuse that you haven't seen it.


I see what you are saying, but at the same time, I don't think an author of an opening book has to research everything out there. In fact, it seems ridiculous to me to insist that an author has to check sources from the 1800s to make sure that a move he is suggesting has never been suggested before.

To put another way, I don't see anything wrong with an author who is working with a good commercial database and analyzing lines with the help of his computer, spotting what to him appears to be a new idea and saying that in his book. Yes, ok, maybe he missed the fact that the move had been played before in an obscure game or a postal game.  Certainly, that happens.  But it doesn't mean that the move wasn't a move or idea the author came up with on his own.

I also think it would be silly to insist that authors caveat everything to ensure that they aren't accidentally claiming something is a new idea when it isn't.  Do we really want authors proposing a move and then having to explain, "in analyzing the Carlsen game, it struck me that he could have played this move, which might have been a novelty, but I confess that I haven't checked 19th century periodicals, the under12 championships, or the transcript of the press conference to see if Magnus might have mentioned this move after the game.  So it may not actually be a novelty, even though I think it is and am proud of having found it after 32 hours of painstaking analysis on my own."
Ok, I am exaggerating to make a point.  But to require authors to do anything like this would make the books unreadable.

Authors should check reasonable sources.  What's reasonable will depend on the nature of the book.  But if you're going to insist that every author of an opening book research every conceivable source, then opening books are never going to get written.

Quote:
*I have pointed out that there have been several "novelties" in QC books for moves played long time before publication date. Sometimes in corr. games, but even OTB. To say that these are novelties just because they don't exist in a certain database is to me a bit dubious ...


Again, I think it has to be reasonable.  Obviously, an author can't use a 10-game database and then claim his moves are novelties.  But at the same time, there has to be an upper limit.  In the old informant days, a novelty meant that the move had not appeared in the informant before.  Everyone knew this because the informant folks told readers that was what the N meant.  Katar suggested QC do something similar, and they should.  Would at least put an end to any question of how QC is using the N, although I suppose people will still criticize them for not having consulted a large enough database.  If you use mega base and correspondence bases is that ok, or do you have to scour the internet and old printed materials for even more games?  Frankly, at some point, it just gets silly.  How much do you reasonably have to check before you are OK to proceed?

Quote:
*The chess world is too little to have these kinds of fights. Seriously.


Totally agree.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
LeeRoth
God Member
*****
Offline


I love ChessPublishing.com!

Posts: 1516
Joined: 10/22/05
Re: Novelties, copyright, inflamed feelings
Reply #39 - 03/09/14 at 15:27:37
Post Tools
This thread and its predecessor have become hopelessly confused.  There are too many different aspects to this debate.  All of the side issues detract from the primary question:  did John Shaw try to pass off Stefan Buecker's analysis as his own?

So far, there isn't any evidence that he did.  Stefan pointed to one example on pages 88/89 of the book where Shaw gives a line of analysis that Stefan says he had previously published.  But Shaw says he didn't copy Stefan's work and it seems plausible that Shaw or a computer could have come up with this analysis on his or own.

Perhaps I have missed something or overlooked other examples, but, IMHO, there doesn't seem to be enough here to accuse Shaw of plagiarism or whatever it is people want to call it.  Sorry, but for me, this one example in a 600 page book doesn't do it.  If there are other examples, that might make things different, but I, at least, don't recall seeing any. 


  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
brabo
God Member
*****
Online


Welcome chessfriend

Posts: 982
Joined: 02/02/07
Re: Novelties, copyright, inflamed feelings
Reply #38 - 03/08/14 at 21:11:48
Post Tools
katar wrote on 03/08/14 at 17:46:46:
chess is constrained by a function of "correctness" or achieving an advantage (or for Black, equality). 

That is not fully correct. A big part if not the majority of the novelties has not as function to show correctness but rather to steer the game to less explored territories. In fact it is what now Carlsen is mainly doing. He doesn't search at any cost for correctness but mainly wants to get something playable in which he forces the opponent to think for himself (and not his engines). If we consider that angle then chess is much more a creative effort than a scientific one. This was also mentioned here in another thread see: http://www.chesspub.com/cgi-bin/yabb2/YaBB.pl?num=1378596212/10#10
  
Back to top
WWW  
IP Logged
 
brabo
God Member
*****
Online


Welcome chessfriend

Posts: 982
Joined: 02/02/07
Re: Novelties, copyright, inflamed feelings
Reply #37 - 03/08/14 at 20:41:40
Post Tools
katar wrote on 03/08/14 at 18:12:07:
You are saying QC called something a "N" (novelty) that you do not believe is a novelty. 
No I never stated that i don't believe it is not a novelty. I use a different definition but permit others to use their definition. However I would like that one clearly states in advance which definition is used.
katar wrote on 03/08/14 at 18:12:07:
For this to involve copyright issues, the individual move in question would have to be protected by copyright.  It simply is not.
I am not talking about an individual move. I am talking about a collection of discoveries. I have to clarify. A discovery is a new idea in a known position. An idea can be 1 move (sacrifice) but very often consists of several moves and variations.  I can understand that somebody makes the same discovery in chess as somebody else independently. This can be done for 3, 4 maybe even 10 discoveries. However if we are talking about a real huge number of the same discoveries then i start to get very suspicious. Now we normally identify our discoveries in chess via the novelty sign. So the number of novelty signs which overlap with other document(s) gives a very good indication about the originality of the document or differently said if the discoveries were copied or not.
Yes 1 move can't be protected but a whole complex of moves in specific positions is another story.
  
Back to top
WWW  
IP Logged
 
katar
Senior Member
****
Offline


look another year went
by

Posts: 438
Location: LA
Joined: 09/21/05
Gender: Male
Re: Novelties, copyright, inflamed feelings
Reply #36 - 03/08/14 at 18:12:07
Post Tools
brabo wrote on 03/08/14 at 07:04:48:
QC used novelties in their KG book while they have in possession older documents which contain many of their novelties already mentioned. It is clear that some people are believing that the novelties from the documents are wrongly copied if you don't correctly attribute.

The defense consists of that although QC has the documents, they didn't look at them. Also they have a different definition of novelties which makes the attribution unnecessary. A novelty can not be owned by somebody but is just a simple check in the database to know if it has been played or not earlier.

It is impossible to know how they found the novelties which are also popping up in the older documents. I would tend to believe if this is a very high amount then at least it becomes very doubtful that they never looked at the documents. The definition of a novelty is not officially defined but to avoid problems it would be good to tell in the beginning of the book which definition is used and certainly to list all sources consulted.

A completely other discussion would be if one can/shall expect that for a book of that size and content, a proper research of the older documents is automatically done.

You are saying QC called something a "N" (novelty) that you do not believe is a novelty.  One of you could be mistaken, or you could differ in your respective understandings of that term.  For this to involve copyright issues, the individual move in question would have to be protected by copyright.  It simply is not.

QC uses "novelty" to mean unplayed in OTB competition at an international level--at least, that is my understanding after perusing the book.  This definition accounts for statements like, "Technically a novelty, although it has been suggested by analysts."  Clearly that means no titled player has bothered to play the move in international OTB competition, although the move is known.  QC's working definition is clear to me, and I don't see anything abusive or fraudulent about defining the term that way.  Attribution is an editorial decision.  Speaking personally I don't care for a chess opening book with hundreds of footnotes.  An unattributed author surely has the right to point out the lack of attribution in a public chess forum discussing the work in question.  But these are not copyright issues, guys.
  

2078 uscf
Back to top
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Page Index Toggle Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5
Topic Tools
Bookmarks: del.icio.us Digg Facebook Google Google+ Linked in reddit StumbleUpon Twitter Yahoo