@ an ordinary chessplayer - You're absolutely right. I'm not defending or justifying it, simply explaining why, to my mind, so much chess journalism is toothless and anodyne.

an ordinary chessplayer wrote on 02/28/21 at 21:49:58:

The chess world is a small one, and I think this has a considerable impact on what passes for journalism within it. As a child in the UK, I used to read the two British chess periodicals and marvel at what a friendly, harmonious and controversy-free environment the chess scene was. Of course, as I grew up I realised this wasn't entirely how things were. I think the explanation for this gulf between true reality and the reality represented in British chess journalism was that, on the chess scene, where everyone knew everyone else, no writer wanted to upset anybody for fear of the consequences it might have for that writer personally or professionally down the line, or perhaps they didn't want to malign someone they already had a personal or professional connection with. Although the global chess scene is obviously much larger than the British one, it is still small enough for the same principles to apply. There may be reasons why some people don't want to upset certain other people, and this will affect what they write about each other.

an ordinary chessplayer wrote on 02/28/21 at 19:15:15:


I'm not convinced it's really possible to tell that from the article. I suspect that chess.com want to avoid provoking legal action just as much as you do, and if Chessbase were minded to go down that route, they'd be more likely to take aim at a widely read and influential voice in the chess world than at an anonymous individual on a small forum. The content of a piece like that will surely have needed approval from people higher up the tree at chess.com than the journalist himself - perhaps even from a lawyer - and what was originally written in the article might well have been carefully edited to sidestep any risk of committing a libel.

Basically I was trying to say the chess.com article is somewhat less than hard-hitting, without shouting to make the point.

Whether someone might sue me and whether they will sue me are of course two different questions. But it would be ironic for me to say something potentially libelous because I expect to get away with it, in a thread with "ethically" in the title. There's also the issue that calling the lawyers is a bit of a hurdle, but once they are activated it's not much work at all for them to rope in additional defendants on the paperwork.

A different point is: If it's a corporation or organization I have fewer qualms about stating some facts; whereas if it's a named individual I am much more cautious. This is probably inconsistent on my part because the corporation is more likely to sue me than the individual. But ethically it makes some sense, to the extent that lawful and ethical actions intersect.

Hi.

I am somewhat intrigued what would lead to such reasoning; especially if it's related strictly to whatever information you don't want to put out there. Fair enough though.

It should be said that a lawsuit out of the blue against someone commenting without obvious ill intent on a relatively smallish internet site seems incredibly improbable and even after that some more very improbable things would have to happen before any legal process would even be possible; not to mention have a chance of success.

Have a nice day.

Hi.

an ordinary chessplayer wrote on 02/27/21 at 23:56:29:

Would you mind being a little more specific? I don't find it easy to follow.

What would that missing information be? Where is chess.com's narrative wrong? At what point should Silver have been more thoroughly questioned?

Have a nice day.

Hi.

trw wrote on 02/27/21 at 17:01:45:

This article seems well written to me. It includes quite detailed account of where the differences in viewpoints lie. Well worth a read.

Have a nice day.

P.S. there is also a chessbase article from a week ago that I am quite surprised has not been linked here yet:
https://en.chessbase.com/post/how-a-neural-network-is-made

trw wrote on 02/21/21 at 20:38:04:


This will lead off-topic. Maybe you open a new one if you're interested in telling what your view of bare minimum is.

For me it is giving a database of master games, editing own dbs, making analysis possible.