Computerchess Misc (2a)
Rolf Tueschen
===========================
(This is especially for Chris who well pointed out my theory and for Bob
Hyatt who was unable to understand the easiest facts.)
To make it quite clear, a line e4 e5 Nf3 Nc6 Bb5 a6 Bxc6 up into the 12 or
18 moves is not copyrightable --- today. Perhaps it would have been a new
theory in 1860.
Actually a complete raw game in pgn isn't copyrightable either.
Logically the first 25 moves of such a game cant be copyrightable either.
Now let's go a little bit deeper.
If a master or GM takes the first 25 moves of a 60 move game and publishes
these moves, then that stuff is still NOT copyrightable. Period. :)
Now the GM adds an evaluation at the end of the 25 moves. Let's assume he
took my "+=". Is then the line up to move 25 copyrightable?
Bob says bluenotes on whiskey with soda. And he said that half of the time
the GM's evals were rather faulty. Duh. But, Bob, that was not the
question. Because if the GM added 1200 moves of personal analysis, *then*
the judgement would be right in 99% of the cases? Not at all.
So scientists speak of a non-relevant variable. Ok?
*But* the 1200 moves were copyrightable? Of course, Bob is sayin'.
And the simple evaluation of a position by a GM is NOT copyrightable?
Because it's just 1 byte and a half big? Nonsense. It is copyrightable.
And that is exactly what happens in the commented INFORMATOR games. The
commenting master includes the interesting opening part of a game that was
later spoiled through zeitnot or whatever. But he included the opening
moves up to a relevant point with a final judgement. That's BTW, Bob, the
most important contribution of an expert master. Because he knows from
memory that this game would be a worthiful add-on for the students of the
opening. It's as useful as a totally new line. There the line is
copyrighted but in the other case the evaluation of the chosen part of the
longer game is copyrighted.
But this is still not the whole truth.
If we talk about INFORMATOR, then we must admit that this tm has become
state of the art over the years. Not that there were no faults at all.
Nonsense. But the special compilation (BTW that were my very first words in
my first post about the problem of the stolen INFORMATOR data) already
meant a certain tm of highest quality. Whether right or wrong, the line
mentioned there were the actual data of actual GM tournament chess. Many if
not almost all games are challenges about different meanings about the
INFORMATOR verdicts. I will never forget the famous "war" between Yasser
Seirawan and Anatoly Karpov. The first game Yasser won and created a
masterpiece. Because at that time almost nobody was able to beat the Wch.
But then in the same opening deep in the 16 moves or so Karpov won the next
game with a novelty. I digress a little bit because the novelty surely
wasn't in the INFORMATOR. :)))
So, if you take _ALL_ these implemented short lines with an eval at the end
into your Millionbase, not enough, and if you then leave in the tournament
entry all the sources like 42/113 ------ then everybody from 1900 upwards
in chess knows by heart, Bob, that this material is really HOT stuff. Know
what I mean? Excuse me that I had to mark the frontier at 1900. :)
But this is exactly what Ed Schroder did in his Millionbase.
Stiill not the end.
Let's make a little thought experiment. We have ChessBase and the
Millionbase. NOW!
We have the complete game score also of that little 25 mover with the eval
+=. What we do? We melt the two games. And what do we receive????
The complete game with a fat += at move 25.
But folks this is the proof that Ed Schroders Millionbase contained swet
from the fronts of our GMs! This is not allowed in our civilized countries.
This is called stealing. Because this swet is copyrighted.
(Again, I did never mention that Ed Schroder could have stolen a single
game score with his own hands. Because he has other things to do in his
company. Also don't forget the many trials Ed has to procede in Zwolle High
Courts.)
QED
Robert Hyatt
: Copyright and naked game scores
: ===========================
: (This is especially for Chris who well pointed out my theory and for Bob
: Hyatt who was unable to understand the easiest facts.)
: To make it quite clear, a line e4 e5 Nf3 Nc6 Bb5 a6 Bxc6 up into the 12 or
: 18 moves is not copyrightable --- today. Perhaps it would have been a new
: theory in 1860.
: Actually a complete raw game in pgn isn't copyrightable either.
: Logically the first 25 moves of such a game cant be copyrightable either.
: Now let's go a little bit deeper.
: If a master or GM takes the first 25 moves of a 60 move game and publishes
: these moves, then that stuff is still NOT copyrightable. Period. :)
: Now the GM adds an evaluation at the end of the 25 moves. Let's assume he
: took my "+=". Is then the line up to move 25 copyrightable?
I say *no*. *if* the GM adds some analysis (ie variations) then the analysis
is copyrightable, but not the pgn game score, still. And no one will honor
any sort of copyright claim on the symbol +=. If the += comes after some
*added* analysis, then the analysis is copyrightable. But only if there
is analysis because copyrighting a += pair of characters is patently
absurd...
: Bob says bluenotes on whiskey with soda. And he said that half of the time
: the GM's evals were rather faulty. Duh. But, Bob, that was not the
: question. Because if the GM added 1200 moves of personal analysis, *then*
: the judgement would be right in 99% of the cases? Not at all.
But he would have *added* something. a simply suggested outcome (+- or
whatever) by itself, it not enough, period.
: So scientists speak of a non-relevant variable. Ok?
: *But* the 1200 moves were copyrightable? Of course, Bob is sayin'.
That's the way the law was written, in fact...
: And the simple evaluation of a position by a GM is NOT copyrightable?
: Because it's just 1 byte and a half big? Nonsense. It is copyrightable.
Try and make it stand up in court. Because the *only* part of the entire
game that you could lay claim to is a +- on the end. And neither the + nor
- symbols are copyrightable because they have already been used in millions
of prior games (prior art).
: And that is exactly what happens in the commented INFORMATOR games. The
: commenting master includes the interesting opening part of a game that was
: later spoiled through zeitnot or whatever. But he included the opening
: moves up to a relevant point with a final judgement. That's BTW, Bob, the
: most important contribution of an expert master. Because he knows from
: memory that this game would be a worthiful add-on for the students of the
: opening. It's as useful as a totally new line. There the line is
: copyrighted but in the other case the evaluation of the chosen part of the
: longer game is copyrighted.
Still doesn't matter. You can't copyright the entire game, nor the first
half of the game. I don't see where this is going...
: But this is still not the whole truth.
: If we talk about INFORMATOR, then we must admit that this tm has become
: state of the art over the years. Not that there were no faults at all.
: Nonsense. But the special compilation (BTW that were my very first words in
: my first post about the problem of the stolen INFORMATOR data) already
: meant a certain tm of highest quality. Whether right or wrong, the line
: mentioned there were the actual data of actual GM tournament chess. Many if
: not almost all games are challenges about different meanings about the
: INFORMATOR verdicts. I will never forget the famous "war" between Yasser
: Seirawan and Anatoly Karpov. The first game Yasser won and created a
: masterpiece. Because at that time almost nobody was able to beat the Wch.
: But then in the same opening deep in the 16 moves or so Karpov won the next
: game with a novelty. I digress a little bit because the novelty surely
: wasn't in the INFORMATOR. :)))
And who cares?
: So, if you take _ALL_ these implemented short lines with an eval at the end
: into your Millionbase, not enough, and if you then leave in the tournament
: entry all the sources like 42/113 ------ then everybody from 1900 upwards
: in chess knows by heart, Bob, that this material is really HOT stuff. Know
: what I mean? Excuse me that I had to mark the frontier at 1900. :)
Nope. I have no idea what you are talking about, in fact. No part of an
actual game that was played can be copyrighted, by itself. If someone
analyzes the game, and inserts variations and comments in the game score
(as PGN allows with the {} and () delimiters, then the comments themselves
are certainly copyrightable... But what does that have to do with what you
are talking about? The "collection"? It might be copyrightable as a
collection of games if it took some creativity and work to make the collection.
But there's no way to copyright individual games. And if the games are
available publicly on the internet, forget it, period...
: But this is exactly what Ed Schroder did in his Millionbase.
: Stiill not the end.
: Let's make a little thought experiment. We have ChessBase and the
: Millionbase. NOW!
: We have the complete game score also of that little 25 mover with the eval
: +=. What we do? We melt the two games. And what do we receive????
: The complete game with a fat += at move 25.
That I can't confirm. But if you are asking "what if I take a complete PGN
game and in that PGN game there is one comment that is a different move
plus a variation, provided by a GM, and if this game is then turned into
two games, one with the original moves (not copyrightable) and one made
of the original game up to the point where the GM suggested a different
move, and this second game follows the GM analysis to make a second "psuedo-
game"; is this wrong?" I'd say yes. Because clearly the second game took
something written solely by a GM player, and that "commentary" was definitely
copyrightable.
If you are saying "if A GM takes a complete PGN file and adds a -= at the
end, and this entire thing ends up somewhere else, is that wrong?" I would
say "no" because -= is not copyrightable by itself...
: But folks this is the proof that Ed Schroders Millionbase contained swet
: from the fronts of our GMs! This is not allowed in our civilized countries.
: This is called stealing. Because this swet is copyrighted.
First, it is spelled "sweat". And you'd have to show me a game that
proves that this happened, with the original PGN headers and the commentary
added, then the duplicate with the same PGN header but following the
commentary in the first game...
Then I'd agree it is wrong.
: (Again, I did never mention that Ed Schroder could have stolen a single
: game score with his own hands. Because he has other things to do in his
: company. Also don't forget the many trials Ed has to procede in Zwolle High
: Courts.)
: QED
--
Robert Hyatt Computer and Information Sciences
hy...@cis.uab.edu University of Alabama at Birmingham
(205) 934-2213 115A Campbell Hall, UAB Station
(205) 934-5473 FAX Birmingham, AL 35294-1170
Rolf Tueschen
>First, it is spelled "sweat". And you'd have to show me a game that
>proves that this happened, with the original PGN headers and the commentary
>added, then the duplicate with the same PGN header but following the
>commentary in the first game...
Ok, before I give my answer, could you please define what you mean with
original? You mean in the Millionbase or in INFORMATOR?
Then could you tell me what you mean with "same"? If it's the *same* then
it couldn't be the *original* INFORMATOR. Because that I can tell you
already for sure. INFORMATOR only gave in very few/rare cases (but it
happened in two succeeding volumes e.g.; or in certain Wch qualifiers of
course) that they gave somewhere a short opening line of a special game
implemented in another game (that's what we're talking about in my threads)
and somewhere else also the *complete* game, perhaps then also fully
commented. This is not* the tradition/style of INFORMATOR. You still didn't
understand that. The short line of a game meant the following in INFORMATOR
code: this line is so interesting that we wanted to show it to you but
unfortunately the whole game is either spoiled by a primitive blunder (note
that by definition the game must have been played by average players, not
the champions, because then the complete game still would be a sensation to
notice) or as such completely "uninteresting" from a tournament player's
viewpoint. That's the point!
INFORMATOR is this or was in the times without stuff like ChessBase:
a compilation of the most interesting/important games of 6 months for the
tournament player and expert.
For the bigger matches or qualifiers for the Wch it was also a complete
record of course.
INFORMATOR gives a no-name game. Then you knew that this game had this
certain "something". With rare exceptions people also tried to enter their
masterpiece into INF out of impostor-like strives. Motto "with one game in
INF and then a happy death". :)
So you'll have to understand first of all the "signal" character of INF
games. It's the choice of a game already that leads you to higher
attention.
And one of the aspects of my theory was that this was stolen from INF into
Millionbase. Over how many intermediary stations is completely irrelevant.
If you answer please keep in mind that we're both no law-experts. It's only
a minimum of concentration required to omit the ridicule of we two fighting
about what should be relevant in a coutroom. It's a typical Hyatt
distortion to insinuate that I could have meant something the like. I won't
follow you in that sort of deadend streat. You're really a funny scientist.
Before others are allowed to open their mouths they have to win a court
trial at first ... (That's what you're always implying. And now denying I
know it. Because asked directly you won't give us a document for your
"stupidity". But first you tried it because perhaps nobody gave you a
challenge. BTW that's very low-minded for a scientist. Because he should
keep his level no matter how uninformed his audience might be. I know that
you do that mainly for flame-war reasons. But Chirs is right in his
statement that you lost much of your reputation due to the "can" you had to
carry alone for your buddies of the different clubs. I saw the rebound
already in all the DB threads where you lost control so oftenly. And it's
very bad if you treat other experts without a minimum of respect. I wished
you could correct your stupid agendas. You're too important for our topics.
And as you certainly know scientists fight against theories but not ad
hominem. *Even*, yes, *even* if they are badly attacked themselves. How
about a late, but perhaps not a too late, reconsideration of your role here
in this group? I.e., only if you're *really* interested in computerchess
outside your institution ...)
Robert Hyatt
: Robert Hyatt <hy...@crafty.cis.uab.edu> wrote:
:>First, it is spelled "sweat". And you'd have to show me a game that
:>proves that this happened, with the original PGN headers and the commentary
:>added, then the duplicate with the same PGN header but following the
:>commentary in the first game...
: Ok, before I give my answer, could you please define what you mean with
: original? You mean in the Millionbase or in INFORMATOR?
Fair enough. By "original" I mean a set of PGN headers that *really* goes
with that specific game. IE if I took the original game, but deleted the
part the GM thought was bad, and added in the new variation he suggested,
this game would be "bogus" in that the headers would suggest it was really
played somewhere but it was not.
Won't be easy to confirm, I know. But what is needed is a real game,
with real headers that can be confirmed as actually being played at the
site given, by the players given, with the result given, etc...
: Then could you tell me what you mean with "same"? If it's the *same* then
: it couldn't be the *original* INFORMATOR. Because that I can tell you
: already for sure. INFORMATOR only gave in very few/rare cases (but it
: happened in two succeeding volumes e.g.; or in certain Wch qualifiers of
: course) that they gave somewhere a short opening line of a special game
: implemented in another game (that's what we're talking about in my threads)
: and somewhere else also the *complete* game, perhaps then also fully
: commented. This is not* the tradition/style of INFORMATOR. You still didn't
: understand that. The short line of a game meant the following in INFORMATOR
: code: this line is so interesting that we wanted to show it to you but
: unfortunately the whole game is either spoiled by a primitive blunder (note
: that by definition the game must have been played by average players, not
: the champions, because then the complete game still would be a sensation to
: notice) or as such completely "uninteresting" from a tournament player's
: viewpoint. That's the point!
What I meant here was that it *should* be possible to take a PGN game that
has a "real header" from a real game, and prove that the game was not played.
*IF* the game was made as I explained above, by taking part of a real game,
and them replacing the other part with some analysis provided by a GM/IM.
In that case, it would be a fake game based on someone else's work, and that
would obviously be wrong...
: INFORMATOR is this or was in the times without stuff like ChessBase:
:>Then I'd agree it is wrong.
Rolf Tueschen
>Won't be easy to confirm, I know. But what is needed is a real game,
>with real headers that can be confirmed as actually being played at the
>site given, by the players given, with the result given, etc...
Bob, I don't understand what you're looking for. Of course I only did talk
about real games or moves being played by the (mentioned) players. I did
NOT talk about a line a GM found, that was later presented unter the header
of the original players but now we had (by definition a different movwe
order or simply a new game). You bet I was referring to games I even had
the bokk printed version of those games with players etc pp. I see what you
had in mind but I did never mention such a thing. Because that then would
be obviously cheating and stealing no matter under what header the line
then was presented. Of course it was even worse if the header players
didn't play the line at all ...
>What I meant here was that it *should* be possible to take a PGN game that
>has a "real header" from a real game, and prove that the game was not played.
Well, I'm not saying that that couldnm't happen somewhere. But as I said
above that was not my point. Let me repeat therefore. The short line as
such is not invented/found by a GM. It's the original game up to that move
(I took 25 as example.) The clue for me is that already the choice of the
25 moves by a GM as noteworthy is a certain copyrighted data. Not as such.
I quickly stated. But IF the like data comes along
a) with the original source like 42/(113) and
b) the evaluaation of the GM or master at the end.
The typical INFORMATOR source points to a chosen specially important data
at first and then the user of Millionbase also has an expert judgement,
that could be false as we both agree. But you might not want to pretend
that 90% are false, no? The point of me, Rolf, was, is and will be this.
This data contains the sweat of real experts. Understood in the compilation
of INFORMATOR. An isolated =+ can't be protected. I agree with you.
But here you have the special value transportated through the 42/113. All
users immediately know, ah, that's from INFORMATOR. And everybody knows
that beyond many typos and errors normally the INFORMATOR data is high
classed data. Period.
Bob, "my" little discovery is undoubtably a serious attack against the
professionality of Ed and his team of REBEL. The point is that Ed surely is
NOT interested to present stolen data. If he would be, he could have used
many commented games. But he looked that the databases had be cleaned of
all sorts of verbal or chessic comments. But the technique didn't answer
him the question (he also didn't ask himself) what to do with the extracts
of games with an eval in the end. In the INFORMATOR this data was
implemented in other games. Then certain busy hands for ChessBase typed all
the lines well seperated into the database. But always with the endresult
noticed. Means that the game where the lines were implemented was given
with its normal endresult. But the lines implemented formerly by GMs and
masters and often ended with an evaluation were typed with the known
INFORMATOR symbols. So you will also find the = with the infinite symbol
above or below, meaning compensation.
Bob, you cant deny that such an eval, how superficial it might be in
details, is an original contribution by the commenting expert, no?
Well. QED. Because Ed Schroder has that in his Millionbase. Period.
I hope you see the serious problem I presented. And believe me or not, it's
not primarily a problem of Ed Schroder. As I wrote in another post, it
would be like a real blow of fresh air if we could come back to
scientifical standards. I mean we both, we're not involved in any (?) kind
of business. If we (of course I mean you) start to censor our thoughts
because the commercial interests of someone like Ed could be bothered, then
we loose our scientifical standards.That's BTW in my eyes the point with
Chris' (justified) opposition against the campaign-like attacks against the
opening book stuff of Marty. Tell what you want about Chris. Here he
clearly showed his head NOT for his own interests but for the ones of a
collegue who couldn't defend himself because he wasn't a member of ccc.
It's a typical case where I would have expected that you too should have
shown your spine and reasoning. Not at all to censor or mute the critic
against something bad but as far as campaign-like actions become excessive.
Exactly that was Chris' point. I'm a newbie. But I observe with open eyes
the style you experts communicate with among each other. As expert in a
different field I saw enough dirty tricks in the old ICCCA threads two
years ago. You as scientist should know that the truth can't be "elected"
by a majority of voters. It's a great amusement to observe the schoolyard
billie boys who then suddenly have a whole army united to defend their
side. Everbody who didn't show up with an individual opinion got a
"prejudice index" from my side! Also it's so obvious that Chris is your
scapegoat for all the evil on rgcc or computerchess. But most of the time
he's poenalized for his reports as if he had also been guilty for the
reported stuff. That's a primitive malpractice of a scientist at least. I'm
not talking about the normal" group members ...
I repeat myself. Let's make wars about competitions for better/higher/more
exact theories of the reality. But scientists should try to mediate instead
of going into massacres themselves. I read too few posts from Hyatt where
he shows a responsibility for the "whole". What I see almost daily (!) that
is another killer variation against the known scapegoats. Pope/Apostle and
Holy (?) Spirit. ---- And last but not least I see too little self-irony.
Ulcers or good humour. That's the question. Your choice would be?
(If you asked me why so many persons left the open group I would answer
that it's also because you didn't stay close enough to the classic
standards of science. Hey I only wrote all that in case you'd asked me ...)
Komputer Korner
analysis in the average Informant. If you took a survey of GMs and
asked their opinion, most of them would say Informant is krap and
always was. The amount of outright lies and deception in Informant is
legendary. So copying of Informant analysis to me is no big deal.
Copying of krap gives you krap. Krap in Krap out. If a fraudulent
document is copied, is there copyright protection on a fraudulent
document? Besides, Informant have never protected their documents
anyway, so in that respect they have become public domain. Krappy
public domain, but public domain nevertheless. There are some highly
respected GMs that give truthful analysis, Mednis, Nunn,
Huebner....etc but alas there are too many that hide the truth when
writing for Informant.
--
--
Komputer Korner
The inkompetent komputer
To send email take the 1 out of my address. My email address is
kor...@netcom.ca but take the 1 out before sending the email.
Rolf Tueschen wrote in message <6tea64$6q9$1...@news02.btx.dtag.de>...
Serge Desmarais
> >proves that this happened, with the original PGN headers and the commentary
> >added, then the duplicate with the same PGN header but following the
> >commentary in the first game...
>
> original? You mean in the Millionbase or in INFORMATOR?
>
> it couldn't be the *original* INFORMATOR. Because that I can tell you
> already for sure. INFORMATOR only gave in very few/rare cases (but it
> happened in two succeeding volumes e.g.; or in certain Wch qualifiers of
> course) that they gave somewhere a short opening line of a special game
> implemented in another game (that's what we're talking about in my threads)
> and somewhere else also the *complete* game, perhaps then also fully
> commented. This is not* the tradition/style of INFORMATOR. You still didn't
> understand that. The short line of a game meant the following in INFORMATOR
> code: this line is so interesting that we wanted to show it to you but
> unfortunately the whole game is either spoiled by a primitive blunder (note
> that by definition the game must have been played by average players, not
> the champions, because then the complete game still would be a sensation to
> notice) or as such completely "uninteresting" from a tournament player's
> viewpoint. That's the point!
>
> in this group? I.e., only if you're *really* interested in computerchess
> outside your institution ...)
>
>
> >: (Again, I did never mention that Ed Schroder could have stolen a single
> >: game score with his own hands. Because he has other things to do in his
> >: company. Also don't forget the many trials Ed has to procede in Zwolle High
> >: Courts.)
>
> >: QED
>
> >--
> >Robert Hyatt Computer and Information Sciences
> >hy...@cis.uab.edu University of Alabama at Birmingham
> >(205) 934-2213 115A Campbell Hall, UAB Station
> >(205) 934-5473 FAX Birmingham, AL 35294-1170
I think the Informator's evaluations should be taken with a grain of salt. In the middle of the 80's,
Ljubomir Ljubojevic came in Montreal to play in the Quebec's Open Championship, and he gave an interview to
the Echec +'s editors. About the Informator's and ECO's evaluations. He said that they were not to be
trusted "as is" and that for EVERY evaluation, you had to study the position YOURSELF and get your
own idea. He said that they were full of mistakes, misevaluations and all. But he also said that it
wasn't the fault of the Informator's team : they just could not do better. He also said that he was
taking a few minutes to annotate his games for the Informators, but that he had no time to write
serious books because he was playing in a great deal of tournaments. But later, when he would be less
active as a player, he would have time to write serious books. The problem is that there are
so many games to annotate and the players do so while moving from one tournament to another.
Serge Desmarais
Rolf Tueschen
> I think the Informator's evaluations should be taken with a grain of salt.
You bet! Excuse me if I gave an opposite impression.
> In the middle of the 80's,
>Ljubomir Ljubojevic came in Montreal to play in the Quebec's Open Championship, and he gave an interview to
>the Echec +'s editors. About the Informator's and ECO's evaluations. He said that they were not to be
>trusted "as is" and that for EVERY evaluation, you had to study the position YOURSELF and get your
>own idea.
Thanks for the nice quote. I agree with that 100%. If you try to understand
what the GM's saying then you see that he doesn't diferentiate between his
own collegues and "normal" enthusiasts. Then you see very quickly that it's
a classical trap/zwick. Because study yourself means that you're able to
analyse such positions. So for him as a GM surely this is true. He has to
study it all by himself. If you want, we could say that even the best
player in the world still has more errors in his analysis than he could
afford to. But that's a rather theoretical view. Let me express my view
this way. If I had to fight for the Wch I surely would take a deeper look
myself. But if it's just to become a FRITZ-master then I'd take the
recommandation as bought as seen. Never forgetting that I didn't buy the
whole truth. Isn't it a dilemma we're living in? It's always a thin line
between pessimistic and optimistic attitudes. :)
>He said that they were full of mistakes, misevaluations and all. But he also said that it
>wasn't the fault of the Informator's team : they just could not do better.
Especially if the annotations mostly come from the masters itself and not
the team ... :)
>He also said that he was
>taking a few minutes to annotate his games for the Informators, but that he had no time to write
>serious books because he was playing in a great deal of tournaments. But later, when he would be less
>active as a player, he would have time to write serious books.
Yes, and that was a good lie after all ...
>The problem is that there are
>so many games to annotate and the players do so while moving from one tournament to another.
Through the bathroom-window you elegantly entered again the main question.
Yes, you said it, it's a real burden to collect and comment "all" the
important games of a certain time period. Who would doubt then that the
comments _should_ be properly copyrighted.
A little aside. With you and Korner we have two Canadians who talk about
the grain of salt and multitudes of errors in INFORMATOR.
Ahm, excuse me but if I look into the direction of Canadian GMs there#s all
what I can see, the hight amount of errors in their games.
That was a joke of course. But we should keep in mind that such an
evaluation can't be - by definition - a true entity. Know why?
Look at this. I already talked with you and Dennis Baker about the topic.
How do *we* know what the analysing GM had in mind for the near and distant
future of the particular game? so of course such an eval is false if you
*see* another future. Should I remind us of the tyoical Lasker style who is
always playing the particular opponent? And that would be false against a
different, even a weaker other player?
Moral: Chess is not (yet) deterministic. Perhaps never I would hope.
P.S. My point with the thread was the copyright. And Korner is surely wrong
in saying that krap cant be copyrighted. It's a foolish thinking that only
class could be protected. If so then I would be without defense foer the
rest of my life ...
>Serge Desmarais
Serge Desmarais
>
> Serge Desmarais <psy...@total.net> wrote:
>
> > I think the Informator's evaluations should be taken with a grain of salt.
>
>
> >Ljubomir Ljubojevic came in Montreal to play in the Quebec's Open Championship, and he gave an interview to
> >the Echec +'s editors. About the Informator's and ECO's evaluations. He said that they were not to be
> >trusted "as is" and that for EVERY evaluation, you had to study the position YOURSELF and get your
> >own idea.
>
> what the GM's saying then you see that he doesn't diferentiate between his
> own collegues and "normal" enthusiasts. Then you see very quickly that it's
> a classical trap/zwick. Because study yourself means that you're able to
> analyse such positions. So for him as a GM surely this is true. He has to
> study it all by himself. If you want, we could say that even the best
> player in the world still has more errors in his analysis than he could
> afford to. But that's a rather theoretical view. Let me express my view
> this way. If I had to fight for the Wch I surely would take a deeper look
> myself. But if it's just to become a FRITZ-master then I'd take the
> recommandation as bought as seen. Never forgetting that I didn't buy the
> whole truth. Isn't it a dilemma we're living in? It's always a thin line
> between pessimistic and optimistic attitudes. :)
>
> >wasn't the fault of the Informator's team : they just could not do better.
>
> the team ... :)
>
> >taking a few minutes to annotate his games for the Informators, but that he had no time to write
> >serious books because he was playing in a great deal of tournaments. But later, when he would be less
> >active as a player, he would have time to write serious books.
>
>
> >so many games to annotate and the players do so while moving from one tournament to another.
>
> Yes, you said it, it's a real burden to collect and comment "all" the
> important games of a certain time period. Who would doubt then that the
> comments _should_ be properly copyrighted.
>
> A little aside. With you and Korner we have two Canadians who talk about
> the grain of salt and multitudes of errors in INFORMATOR.
>
> Ahm, excuse me but if I look into the direction of Canadian GMs there#s all
> what I can see, the hight amount of errors in their games.
>
> That was a joke of course. But we should keep in mind that such an
> evaluation can't be - by definition - a true entity. Know why?
>
> Look at this. I already talked with you and Dennis Baker about the topic.
>
> How do *we* know what the analysing GM had in mind for the near and distant
> future of the particular game? so of course such an eval is false if you
> *see* another future. Should I remind us of the tyoical Lasker style who is
> always playing the particular opponent? And that would be false against a
> different, even a weaker other player?
>
> Moral: Chess is not (yet) deterministic. Perhaps never I would hope.
>
> P.S. My point with the thread was the copyright. And Korner is surely wrong
> in saying that krap cant be copyrighted. It's a foolish thinking that only
> class could be protected. If so then I would be without defense foer the
> rest of my life ...
>
> >Serge Desmarais
Of course, a copyright has nothing to do with the quality of the work. If I do write a bad story book and have
it published, even if it is very bad, it will still be MY work! :)
Serge Desmarais
mclane
>Let's make a little thought experiment. We have ChessBase and the
>Millionbase. NOW!
>We have the complete game score also of that little 25 mover with the eval
>+=. What we do? We melt the two games. And what do we receive????
>The complete game with a fat += at move 25.
>But folks this is the proof that Ed Schroders Millionbase contained swet
>from the fronts of our GMs! This is not allowed in our civilized countries.
>This is called stealing. Because this swet is copyrighted.
>(Again, I did never mention that Ed Schroder could have stolen a single
>game score with his own hands. Because he has other things to do in his
>company. Also don't forget the many trials Ed has to procede in Zwolle High
>Courts.)
>QED
Nothing is shown.
You still show only words.
Show us games, evidence, facts.
Come one, show us the line xyz that was copied.
Not your words-blablabla.
best wishes
mclane
Komputer Korner
fraud. Whether or not fraudulent documents can be copyrighted or not
isn't the point but I do agree that it would be very very difficult
to prove this fraud in court. However Informator don't protect their
copyright anyway. That is the real point.
--
--
Komputer Korner
The inkompetent komputer
To send email take the 1 out of my address. My email address is
kor...@netcom.ca but take the 1 out before sending the email.
Serge Desmarais wrote in message <35FB6A...@total.net>...