Chess, Being Played

Martin - Just curious as to why you choose these particular parameters for running the tournament, particularly the Opening Book, Ponder, and Time Control? Any other parameters?

Hardware: Intel Core i7 920 @ 4101 MHz
Operating System: Windows 7 x64
Graphical User Interface: Deep Fritz 12
Opening Book: Modern SGM v3.ctg (Limited To 8 Moves)
Ponder: Off
Time Control: 40 Moves In 17 Minutes Repeating (Adapted To CCRL 40/40)

Kind Regards - Mark

Martin just curious why did you not include one of those "programs that dare not speak their name" but GM's Cc players and most everyone is using??? Firebird Ivanhoe etc are there not many who would have been extremely curious as to how they fared against Rybka 4 ?

Hi Martin - Thank you for the info.

I'm specifically curious about the use of "40 Moves In 17 Minutes Repeating (Adapted To CCRL 40/40)" compared to "CCRL 40/40 - 40/40 is the main "medium" time control we use. It allows us to obtain high quality games while still collecting enough games for meaningful statistics. First CCRL 40/40 game was played on December 19, 2005."

Maybe that's the same thing and I'm just not understanding?

Thanks - Mark

Well, this (nerves, searching for chances even when you are worse, maybe objectively losing) is what rapid chess is [also] all about.

Actually, Karjakin was already "lucky" to play the event: The top 13 of the 2008/2009 ACP tour standings were invited (plus three wildcards). Aronian (#1), Svidler, Radjabov and Nakamura (#s 5-7) declined the invitation and were replaced by Naiditsch, Moiseenko, Inarkiev and Karjakin (#s 14, 15, 17 and 18 - #16 Motylev also didn't participate).

@I seriously doubt it.

You never know until you try.
As a rule, people value only what they have to pay for. For instance Mig should start an exculsive club here : you are allowed to read but only those who pay (a small, say $5, monthly fee) are allowed to post and debate.

It's obvious why, to make your point known by everybody you have to go after a high profile target not after some random blogger.

Martin forgive my ignorance but why does the CCRL approval or lack of it impact on your choice of programs to run your private competition? I cant find too many references to tournaments pitting Rybka 4 against the unspeakables apart from random claims that firebird 1.31 is stronger. All of them plus other accepted Fruit toga programs seem available at chesslogik.com

CC players are interested in the results or rather in the rating results - that is they are interested in which program is "strongest" It may matter for analysis of positions using different programs. From comments I have read some GM's are interested in the relative strengths of these programs also particularly for opening analysis. As the "banned" programs are kept out of official tables then match or other test results are interesting to some.

Ovidiu wrote:

"You never know until you try. As a rule, people value only what they have to pay for."

People will pay more only if there is a strong demand and a perceived value (sometimes including exclusivity). Neither applies to chess, unfortunately.

"For instance Mig should start an exculsive club here : you are allowed to read but only those who pay (a small, say $5, monthly fee) are allowed to post and debate."

I don't think Mig will even try - he knows everyone would leave overnight.

But the stickiest point may be actual ownership of moves: do they belong to chess players or do they belong to tournasment organizers?

I don't think there is enough money around for organizers to waste on buying game scores from players in addition to supplying prize funds. Not to mention that potential sponsors would be on the floor laughing when asked to invest on an event nobody will follow...

Danailov is a fool for pursuing this, really.

Hi Martin,

Actually I think you did a great job of making that clear, thank you. Makes sense to me now.

Best Wishes - Mark

Personally, I hope Danailov is successful in his pursuit of this in European courts. Then all chess events would be moved to either Russia or the U.S. where we can more easily enjoy them anyway.

The whole notion of copyrighting chess moves is utterly ridiculous. Video broadcast of the event, commentators comments, of course, but the moves of chess games? Duh, no. That's like trying to copyright the scores of sporting events during rounds of the event (football, basketball, tennis, boxing, etc.). Anybody can report the current situation in the match, at the end of rounds, etc. You can even demand that reporters present be credentialed, but you can't copyright "the event" itself.

"The whole notion of copyrighting chess moves is utterly ridiculous."
Maybe not utterly ridiculous, but it has been tried before - without success. And copyright on chess moves is not European law just because Danailov says so, and managed to find an attorney putting up his case in court. There are laws, and there are Danailov's laws - not surprisingly, AfkaM believes in Danailov's laws.

BTW, Russia is part of Europe - at least most of it in terms of population. And which top chess events are currently held in the US?

I'm not talking about copyrighting the moves Thomas (like Danailov does) , i have a decade of experience on broadcasting rights and im pretty sure that the rights of the organizers of chess events will be protected more sooner than later.

Yes I have to agree here I think the organisers have a protectable enforceable commercial interest in restricting the broadcast of the live games that they have invested time and money in helping to "create". They can reasonably argue that unauthorised live broadcast of those games is a sort of piracy or other infringement. This might prevail notwithstanding that there maybe no intellectual property rights in the score of the game once it has ended. Its a question of the prevailing law in different jurisdictions. However the courts have traditionally taken a dim view of people taking a free ride. :) Deep pockets and endless patience needed with 3-5 year litigation span as each side appeals and /or delays. One can expect it to peter out as time passes and they grow weary of feeding the parasites (sorry lawyers)!

ROTFLMAO! Knock yourself out Manu, it will never happen. You are as nutty as Danailov! You just don't get it.

Let's stick to the issue of live transmission: I do not question your "decade of experience on broadcasting rights" (how could I? why should I?) but I can wonder about its relevance - given that it is probably from other fields than chess, and possibly limited to Argentina.

It is at least interesting that Chessbase stopped live transmissions of the Topalov-Kamsky match when the organizers threatened with legal action - using the same chess-playing lawyer IM Rainer Polzin. But now they "did it again", presumably their legal advisors think that Danailov's case in court would be weak - they had more than a year to make up their mind.

There is no way to know beforehand what a court will decide, but for Danailov (on planet Danailov) it may well be a win-win situation: If he wins the court case, it's a huge propaganda victory - probably more important than whatever financial compensation he gets. If he loses, he and his fans can claim "I told you, it's us against the rest of the world".

Also @Erik: I wonder how many other organizers are even interested in having their supposed rights protected (for Danailov it's a private war against Chessbase). After all, Chessbase as well as ICC provide publicity for chess events: some chess fans might instead watch at the tournament site, but some may not watch at all - either because they wouldn't even know of the event, or because for them watching is only worthwhile with expert commentary. So no Chessbase/ICC coverage = less visibility!?
Ironically, Chessbase is often criticized for (supposedly) ignoring some events, or not giving them enough attention (reports only after every second or third round) ... .

Hmm...
An interesting question that I don't know the answer but I hope some of you do is:
Do radio stations have to pay for the live audio commentary of say, a football match? Off course they have to pay to have a booth at the press centre of the stadium or to be inside the stadium itself; but are there copyrights infringed if a station provides live audio commentary based on a TV broadcast, for example.

My guess is that if yes, than there is precedent for Danailov's case.

Anyone care to comment on this line of thinking?

I wont bother you with my CV Thomas ,although at this time im working as Director of Post-production for Disney and more than half of my previous jobs were directed to other countries than Argentina , so lets just say that im very familiar with the subject.
I believe you are right about Chessbase ,they will provably get away with this, but Danailov's actions are setting a great precedent for the future ,and like i said the organizer's rights for live broadcasting will be enforced one way or the other, it is only a matter of time.
It is very interesting to see how despite all the controversies the game of chess will owe Danailov many of its most important features, some of them key for its survival as a professional game (or sport , whatever).

If a case sets presedent, then it does so the way the verdict goes. If you believe Chessbase gets away with it, then it makes absolutely no sense to believe "Danailov's actions are setting a great precedent".

I was talking about historical precedent , not a legal one , i dont know the details of Danailov aproach to this problem , but for what i read it dont seem to be accurate .
IMO this is a case about broadcasting rights and their incumbency, not the copyright of the moves.
But one thing is for sure :Danailov is making history by defending the rights of the organizers against those who parasite their events without permission .
At the same time if this ends the way im sure it will end, chess will have better conditions for future sponsors and partners.
What i fail to understand is why some people critizise Danailov for making a stand and at the same time applaude chessbase for stealing , specially since it seems to be the same people who often comment about ethical and unethical behaviour.

Chessbase stole web traffic from the real sponsors of the event, tons of it.
Your point of view is pretty funny though , Why would chessbase broadcast the games with commentators in three different languages if the live broadcast worth nothing?

Well, because it doesn't seem like he want's to defend his broadcasting rights, but rather it seems as if the whole idea sprung to his mind in order to poke at Chessbase...
He doesn't seem to have a problem with all the other media who are "stealing" his moves and broadcasting it or whatever.
His grudge is strictly against Chessbase.

I think organizers (of course) should have the right to copyright any analysis, video/photo material, etc. But owning the moves themselves, even if just until the game ends, is silly.

Well in that sense Danailov is no different than you or me , lending stuff to people we like and protecting it from people we don´t , although most people i dont like would never steal something i refuse to give to them.

Who should we credit for this ? chessbase?
Danailov will go in history as the first one to make a stand about this , just a fact.

I like your love of Danailov and Topalov (being a love I share btw)
Let's credit Danailov then for the changing of the world, and let's us credit Topalov for Anand staying World Champion

I am not an expert in this law matter. Obviously, neither are you. ;-)

The game, the moves and the result doesn’t belong to anybody. That is free for all to study and replay. No doubt about that. The question is if the organizer can claim owner rights for a short period, while the game is taking place inside a closed arena on the organizers complete expense. Maybe the judge will grant the organizer exclusivity for 30 minutes, 1 hour or maybe even for the duration of the full game? After that it’s free for all.

The trial case will be interesting to watch.

If I'm one of te guys surprising you I would like to add this. I dont deny the organisation the right to make money out of the event they organise. But the nature of the game makes it a little difficult to force them in current broadcast or copyright regulations. Not being overly interested in the face of Ivanchuk when he plays, or the look and feel of the playing hall, most fans just want the moves and some expert -or otherwise liked- opinion.

So theres a lot to do, but starting with sueing a portal that discusses the moves you yourself made public and were used by a dozen of others sites sounds rather stupid to me, and not at all aimed at being the first in history to solve this problem, but more like being the last to make some money on the excisting problem.

"Chessbase made me pay in order to watch the topalov-anand match"

Chessbase didn't make you pay to watch the moves - or at least you would be quite stupid to pay for something that you can get for free elsewhere (e.g. at the official website). They made you pay for live commentary, as well as for everything else they have to offer now and in the nearby future, did I read "one year serial"?

So it's also hard to say, certainly impossible to quantify how much web traffic they "stole" from the official website which didn't have comparable live commentary - the one it had was partly in Bulgarian, not a very common language on a global scale.

"Chessbase is far from a poor company"
Maybe, but just how rich are they, just how many employees do they have? Sometimes it seems that people put them on the same scale as Microsoft, Apple or IBM. Certainly for the most recent match (supported by the Bulgarian government), it is not at all clear who's David and who's Goliath in the upcoming court case.

Whether you call it historical precedent or legal, the outcome is still the point, when Danailov looses there is no positive effect from that...

I understand the point about separating copyright and broadcasting rights, and you can always argue the ethics about it. But when the area is so complex the simplest solution is to use the rule of law as the guideline.

I lend stuff even to those who I dislike, but that's my problem :D
I agree that Chessbase shouldn't be able to make profit from broadcasting if not paying for it. And also they should provide links to sources, like in any other news item.
Still, the way I see it is that Danailov simply hates the Chessbase guys and that's the main factor of motivation for him.
Economically it probably would make more sense to have a very high view count. The solution that I see is to make a broadcast worth paying for, attracting big crowds thus sponsors directly, not suing potential competition. Like the Corus website or Saint Louis, etc. But correct me if I'm wrong.

@ The solution that I see..but correct me if I'm wrong.

The solution would be for the Court to order ChessBase to pay a pricey fine to the Sofia organizers (to those who sponsored the event and who worked to make it happen) for their online broadcasting without permision (contract) and thus set a precedent which will be heeded from now on by all the rest (big or small as they may be).

As simple as that, as what would be even better economically, who loves or hates who, etc. it is mere "beside the point" talking.

"But one thing is for sure: Danailov is making history by defending the rights of the organizers against those who parasite their events without permission."

Not sure if you're aware that your friend admits to depriving chess authors of their rightful due by using pirated chess material.

@He says Germany isn't America, so they won't win millions, but should get at least 500,000 euros if they win.

the amount is secondary, to win the case and set a precedent is what really matters for how the future sponsorship will look like

@The broadcast was open, so Chessbase didn't steal
any protected piece of information.

It was open to view it at the official and 'partner' websites not to re-broadcast (eniterely or any parts of it) it from yours. The warning not to do so was written on the webpage

Chessbase did steal, that's clear, whether a German court will rule against a German company sued by a foreigner is another question.

@Who says Chessbase got anything, protected or otherwise, from the official site?

ha, ha..one hopes that not this childish line :
"I did not know that they were stealing when I joined them" will be their defense in court, cause it will make the judge burst out laughing

@We need Morphy & Tal, we don't need Rybka and its surgically-precise 3400 rating...The only hope is to shorten chess games

Short games makes impossible deep thinking over the board and this takes away part of the charm of the game.
But we need to get back to real OTB game not to playing out whole games which have been prepared with comps at home (to the ending nowdays).

We only need to add (for symmetry) one more Queen and play it on a 9X9 board. Then there will be no more opening theory (suddenly too many playable variations possible) and thus no use to try to try to prepare the whole game with the supercomputer. analyzed Slav endings.

I'd rather play more superficial games than play a different game resembling chess.

We introduce something as drastic as a new piece plus a bigger board, all chess history's continuity is gone.

@all chess history's continuity is gone.

The new piece is still a Queen and no new chess rules are needed to play the game. The principles of the game, and the skill developed, on 8X8 remain vaild and useful (try to control the center, pawn play, bishops in open postion, ending theory etc).
Only that there now just too many playable continuations in the opening to ever hope to memorize them, you have to play OTB from the start.

@too much "deep thinking" - done mostly by computers and memorized by players

Deep thinking OTB is good, bad is only home-cooked computer-cooked deep lines and/or book memorized deep lines (i.e. not actually playing the game, a game, but merely 'acting out' robotically the "learnt at home", "thought at home", exact moves)

But, imo, the only way to get out of this predicament is reforming the game (9X9 or 8X9) so as to make impossible, hopless and useless to hope to prepare the game. Yon only need (and you anyway can't more than that) to rely on the general principles for playing the opening phase.

"BTW, what happened to Danailov's plans or threats to sue FIDE because they enforced a one-day postponement of the Sofia match?"

In one of Aruna's post-match interviews she said they'd been guaranteed at least a one-day postponement before setting off on their trip - and the organisers initially announced that a one-day postponement was possible (given Borisov's approval). So I'm guessing the suing FIDE comments etc. were just stupid play-acting for the local audience.

Yeah, but that's stating the obvious, isn't it? And the final sentence sounds like Danailov translated into German (my translation into English): "Danailov holds one-sided reporting and supporting Kramnik by Chessbase during the scandalous 2006 WCh responsible for ongoing damage to Topalov's reputation."
Hmm, others think that Topalov's and Danailov's own interviews caused more reputation damage than anything Chessbase could do ... . And there is renewed damage due to things that happened before and after - though not during - the Sofia match.

@Ovidiu: Your translation of the first sentence is incomplete, it should read about like this: "One might think that Chessbase is interested in a peaceful settlement to continue as before" ("Vergleich" means agreement between parties before a judge intervenes, or a judge proposing a solution rather than deciding the issue). But I don't see how that game could end in a draw, even a judge would have to be rather creative to come up with a verdict that both sides can sell as a victory!?

Maybe, but then everything was stupid play-acting for a local and global audience?
Externally - "We made the impossible possible to please Anand and FIDE"
Internally - "We only gave in to pressure from FIDE, and had no choice"

It could also be that even Danailov realized that sueing FIDE won't be promising, and would cause damage to his ambitions as ECU president ... .

"Pictures, descriptions, and accounts" does not include the record of plays. Those plays are considered freely reportable material. Third parties may build their own visualizations around that record"

ChessBase did not broadcast "records" as, for instance : " "min 23, Anand is moving his knights toward the K-side, an attack has started..min 59, Topalov is pushing his k-side pawns to defend"..and so on. Chessbase was broadcasting the moves of the game themselves " Ng4,f6".
In the case of chess this is broadcasting the game itself. This is what the court has to realize and penalize. It is the same a TV-pirate station which would broadcast a football match form an official channel.

@ It is a pipe dream to think that subatantial numbers of people will pay money to watch live transmission of chess moves.

It is not about you paying to see, but about sponsorship logos, advertisment etc. on the official site which you will have to see if that (and few others allowed by contract) where the only sites where you can watch the moves live

Ovidiu writes:

"It is not about you paying to see, but about sponsorship logos, advertisment etc. on the official site which you will have to see if that (and few others allowed by contract) where the only sites where you can watch the moves live"

It would be cost-prohibitive for most tournaments to enforce this idea. Besides, there are at least 3 parties who can lay claim to ownership of the moves: the tournament organizer and the two players. Hard to imagine this being good for chess players with all the legal wrangling over...a few dollars (remember there is no money in chess?).

The more this issue is analyzed, the more we can see how I'll-advised the quest is. In the highly unlikely event that Danailov succeeded, it can only lead to virtually everyone ignoring live tournament action. I don't think chess can afford that. Things are bad enough as it is.

And this comment is self-referential.

"there are at least 3 parties who can lay claim to ownership of the moves: the tournament organizer and the two players."
In the given case, there may be a fourth party: it was an official world championship under the auspices of FIDE, so FIDE and all it stands for (read: every single member of every single federation) can also claim ownership? In other words: Would we recognize a world champion when we cannot see the games of the match?
It's different for e.g. Amber: of course Joop van Oosterom could organize _his private_ tournament on a remote island without Internet connection, and keep game scores or even results secret for as long as he wishes.

But, once again, the issue is copyright on the live transmission. One may argue that it's sufficient to watch the games at the official site, fair enough at first sight, but:
- Aren't the moves in the public domain once they are transmitted by the official site? All live broadcasts elsewhere are delayed, if only for some milliseconds.
- Should chess fans have the right to follow live commentaries of their choice, regarding language and person (among those available)?

Actually - after a good night's sleep - I see a way to draw the Danailov-Chessbase match: Chessbase retains (or formally gets) the right for live re-transmission, but they (and everyone else) are obliged to put logos of sponsors next to the board, and maybe to make statistics on number of people watching available to the organizers or the general public.

Would Danailov be happy with this? He could then start arguing about size of the logos, following precedents set by FIDE. And his main objective seems to annoy and punish Chessbase.

It seems that Chessbase chooses to simply ignore Danailov. If they wished to react, they could have prepared something well in advance - Danailov going to court doesn't come out of the blue, and actually had a precedent. Danailov talks (more than) enough already ... .

@Rybka suffers a painful loss

painful for who ?

@legally, its sounds like a very easy case

Morally (in the sense of business ethic) the case is indeed easy, obvious, but since it is chess (an abstract-symbolic game) legally it becomes a tricky case ( see KWRegan post with 'records reporting').

Chessbase (Fridel) know that properly speaking what they did was 'stealing' but they intend to play on the ambiguity of defining what is 'broadcasting' in this case.

On a 9x9 board, all your bishops will have the same color. Gone will be the 2 bishop advantage !

@On a 9x9 board, all your bishops will have the same color

Depends on how you set/define the initial position.
How you do it isn't an unchageable law of nature, it is an arbitrary social-cultural convention which always ends up feeling as the 'natural' and the 'obvious' way to do it after getting used to it

for instance it could be : RNBQKBNRQ, as in the 'active chess' of Kuzmichow, played on 9X8, and the 'bishop pair' strategy from 8X8-chess remains valid
( and all the rest by that matter, though it will became more difficult to achieve a queenless kramnik-game)

@it will be very hard to argue in court why they have denied ChessBase this same permission.

you don't have to give explanations about you do with what you own, you may sell, or refuse to sell, or even give it for free to whomever you want and for whatever reason..the law is about to protect your right to do as you see fit with what is yours

"But the actual reason why ICC is "spared" may be that the case may not stand a chance in American courts?"

Yes this case would be refused by the American courts.

It is not even clear whether "others" asked for permission, or whether they got it without asking. Danailov's argument is that Polgar and Shipov aren't commercial and "don't resell the games". Methinks Chessbase doesn't sell the games either (once again, how could they sell something that's freely available elsewhere?), they sell their live commentary.

Given that it was an official FIDE event, did the organizers actually have the right to require permission, and to make permission subject to certain conditions - either "objective" reporting (Danailov decides what's objective) or paying a substantial fee? To my knowledge, Chessvibes (conceived as anti-Topalov) were the only ones mentioning 15,000 Euros. Chessbase apparently didn't ask, maybe for them it would have been even more expensive? Their line of reasoning may be that the organizers have no right to impose conditions, hence statements in big bold red letters are legally irrelevant. "The Bulgarians" might have a stronger case for MTel, their private event - but at the world championship they acted on behalf of FIDE.

And it's the organizers' problem that they offered an enormous prize fund, then apparently had trouble honoring their financial commitments, and then tried to earn some of the money back.

BTW, "stealing" is certainly the wrong word - that means taking something away from someone else. Chessbase certainly didn't steal the moves, they were and remained available at the official homepage. So they didn't force anyone away from the tournament homepage onto their site - they merely attracted web traffic by offering added value beyond the bare moves.

Calvin wrote:

"Funny how so many of those who are willing to grab their ankles for Danailov and who previously insisted that Topolov and TeamToilet would win their battle with Anand..."

Not true.

Everyone knows Topalov was an impressive second place while Anand placed next-to-last in their match.

:-)

Martin it is reasonable to point out that your tournament does not include those regularly used by GM's and ALL (in my view) top cc players. So "almost all the top engines" means of those that you approve of or consider to be ethical as opposed to the programs that the chess community are actually using. I fully understand your reasoning but it creates a slightly alice in wonderland context to make statements like this. :)

Hmm, you omitted, and didn't answer my (rhetoric) question: "how could they [Chessbase] sell something that's freely available elsewhere?"

Maybe another salomonic court decision could be: people can go to Chessbase for (paid) live commentary, but have to use the official website for (free) live moves.

Something similar actually happened here - people discussing games in progress which they watched elsewhere. We even discussed the copyrighted video stream: how draws were not offered, how an arbiter appeared, if hands were shaken and for how many seconds ... . Was this also illegal? Danailov could sue many of us, myself included - but first Mig to reveal their IP addresses.

"The game was part of the package..."

Chessbase gave free public access to the moves and only charged for the commentary.

@ "how could they [Chessbase] sell something that's freely available elsewhere?"

It was "for free" only when seen at the official site, and the 'partner sites' ( those which had the approval/contract with the organizers to broadcast).

In other words : it just doesn't matter, they could have as well not charging anything for their commentary at it would been still wrong to broadcast the moves from their website and compete with the official sites. The fact that they also made money out of show organized and paid by someone else it only makes it worse but even if it were not so it would have been still be wrong

( very similar with the case of a TV channel distributing "for free" a football match after first picking up the signal from other TV station and then simply rebroadcasting it, and saying that they sell their own commentary to it)

@Chessbase gave free public access to the moves

yes, that was their mistake, it would be like me freely distributing someone else software and charging only for the delivery

"Funny how so many of those who are willing to grab their ankles for Danailov ..."

Ovidiu, assume the position!

Ovidiu - You can bray, bluster and protest all you want, but just because you type it, doesn't make it true. Your argument lacks only the merit of being true...

Ovidiu, your reply to my comment is just flat wrong. Please re-read what I wrote.

To be a bit more helpful, you get the correspondence of terms exactly backwards. The moves are the "record of plays", no more and no less. "20.Ng5 h6" is exactly analogous to "McDonald grounds out, first-baseman to pitcher covering"---which I would have gotten on my free Yahoo baseball game-feed of CLE at DET last night (except...:-). In what you describe, if "an attack has started" were a quoted opinion from the official match/Chessdom commentator, then by US precedent, it would be illegal for another party to re-broadcast that as a verbatim quote. (Of course, ChessBase had their own commentators.) There is, however, no restriction on doing a dramatization from the publicly-reported information.

"20.Ng5 h6" is exactly analogous to "McDonald grounds out, first-baseman to pitcher covering"-

exactly in the same sense that those knight moves are an equestrian sport

The question here is the rights of an organizer. I'd say, if we want organizers of big chess matches in the future to be attractive to SPONSORS; Chessbase should loose this case. If I was a sponsor, why would I invest heavily in an event that is NOT going to end up being exlusively(or conditionally) broadcasted by those who show my commercial or advertisement?

Hi Thomas, interesting thesis, but it breaks down thus: the discussion of the events, whether they be related to a copyrighted broadcast or not, is clearly not a copyright violation. You are happy to grant that the video stream can be copyrighted, but completely dismiss prima facie that the moves can be. If you think a little deeper about it, they cover the same event, and give different coverage. Now for physical sports, while the game score is fundamental to understand the state of the game, it is a very small part of spectator appeal. For chess, it's a much larger part, exceeding I would say, the appeal of the video feed. All I'm saying is, you cannot dismiss this out of hand.

All those arguments of the business models (or lack thereof) for generating revenue from copyrighting moves are red herrings. The point here is the right of an organiser to put on an event, and copyright the live transmission of a description of that event that is a valuable part of that event. For other sports, the game score by itself is not. For Chess, it is.

All I meant to say was: noone would pay Chessbase for the bare moves, and - as Uff Da clarified - they didn't even try. There goes Danailov's argument that they were singled out because they are a commercial company supposedly making money from "re-selling" the moves, but all of a sudden this doesn't matter (for Ovidiu).

Some general points:
- Danailov acts as if the match was private property of the organizers. But it was an official FIDE World Championship, not a MTel WCh, Bulgarian Federation WCh, Bulgarian Ministry of Sports WCh, whatever and certainly not a Silvio Danailov WCh.

- Danailov acts like he is part of the organizers. At least formally he is not, he was not on the organizing or executive committee. Maybe that was requested from FIDE - they gave the match to Bulgaria, knowing that this might cause problems, but didn't want the manager of one of the players directly involved. It would be laughable if the court case is rejected on this ground (Danailov has no right to file a claim), but it might happen.

- All sponsors are Bulgarian companies, could they even claim loss of income because Germans, Americans, French or Chinese were watching not at the official site but elsewhere - benefitting from live commentary in a language they can understand?

The ethics of computer chess is fairly jumbled. You can disqualify Ippolit because they decompiled Rybka, and then rewrote it from scratch, firstly fixing the bugs and also gaining 50 elo via improvements. Or you could disqualify Rybka because it used Fruit code in the beginning. Some now think Stockfish is using the ideas of Ivanhoe "too much", so you can ban them too. Donninger with Nimzo was decompiling Shredder a decade ago.
Historically, Hitech wanted Deep Thought banned because they used 0.3% of Berliner's code at one stage. REBEL wanted MChess banned because Hirsch was using "killer book moves" too much. Junior was banned from the WCCC in Malaysia, due to Jewishness. The list of intrigues can be extended. HIARCS wanted Sjeng banned from the last WCCC over a dispute on amateur status.
Komodo undoubtedly has some common knowledge with Rybka, as Kaufman has worked on both, so is it suspect? Almost everyone copies in their use of Nalimov's tables, or at least did until the RobboBases and Ballicora's work came around. The multiple use of Nalimov was an issue awhile back. In real play (like Leiden), you have to have an opening book, which costs a ton to get a good one, unless you can pay someone "in kind" with free versions. The reuse of opening books also has entered into ethics, as many amateurs don't want to spend eons just to survive the opening against a professional WCCC book, so they just use one that is freely available. Ethical?

I don't take CCRL seriously any more for rating the top crowd. For instance, they claim "independence", yet a Rybka beta tester is among their number, which led to kerfuffle when the early results mistakenly appeared (about 40 elo above the release version). They and CEGT craft up rules to exclude various disfavored engines, but allow others in similar cases.
The scent of "true hobbyists", as opposed to others who are "merely interested in strength", pervades some of their work, and I perceive this is the more valuable work they do in the end, that they cover 250+ engines, amateur and pro alike. If you just want to know who is best among Houdini, Fire, Rybka, Stockfish, Ivanhoe, anyone can run a few thousand blitz/bullet games in few days, and get a sufficient answer to within 10-20 elo.

In the end, it's all for naught. You cannot prove what "hobbyists" do. Anyone can post a claim that cannot be backed up or proven/disproved. I could claim that I've run a test on Rybka vs. "X" on any-old set-up and claim one outcome or another and no one could prove or disprove it. So what's the point of "hobbyists"?

The only way to know for certain is an open-to-public-scrutiny event, where anyone and everyone, including acknowledged experts in the field of computers and chess programs, would be welcome to examine the devices and code involved. Good luck with that one...

Until then, I prefer to deal with professional businesses. At least they are answerable to the consumers. If they put out a good product, they profit. If they don't, they go out of business. That gives us, you and me as consumers, ultimate authority. "Free-ware"? Yeeeaahhhhh.... I'm sure there are well-intentioned folks out there, but good luck identifying them or proving that their actions are scrupulous or that their code is good. If it sounds too good to be true...

Hmmm, if you think so - and I won't even fullly disagree with your central point* - then why DIDN'T you watch at the official site? You probably also were aware of the controversy, if only by following Dailydirt where Mig made fun of Bulgarian anti-Chessbase statements ... . Was it really just more convenient to watch at Chessbase (read: less mouse clicks and keyboard strikes), or did they offer better content than the official website (which wasn't too difficult)?

However: Did Chessbase actually get "increasing awareness of their operation" from live transmissions? Only those who already knew them would tune in!? They got extra publicity from Giri's post-game analyses which were generally praised elsewhere and - ironically - from "Chessbase is violating ..." statements on the official homepage. How many people may have thought: "Hmmm, now I am curious, let's check what Chessbase has to offer"? ,:)

On the other hand, coverage by Chessbase provides extra publicity for a given event (not just a world championships, also tournaments such as MTel). Chessbase customers might also check the official homepage - if they don't spend much time there for lack of interesting content, this ain't Chessbase's fault. Didn't Chesspro (or another Russian site) once comment: "If anything, MTel has to pay us, rather than the other way around"?

* But even if the organizers have the right to restrict live coverage elsewhere, the way they tried to enforce it remains questionable: everyone welcome but sites which are or were critical of Topailov (Chessbase and Chessvibes).

Hmmm, what should I say: an average GM happens to play a tournament in India and is seeking some media attention ... the article mentions "his highest world ranking of 80 ten years ago".

Regarding "Luther also warned Anand to be wary of the Russians", it may be worthwhile mentioning that he is from former East Germany.

Interesting, what's your (recent) source? It was already in the FIDE Grand Prix regulations ( http://grandprix.fide.com/regulations.html ):

"8. Financial details
...
8.2 The television and Internet Web transmission rights, including [but not limited to] video and film rights, shall belong to FIDE or its appointed commercial agency and the income divided on the basis of an agreement between FIDE or its appointed Commercial Agency and the Organizers.

8.3 FIDE or its appointed commercial agency shall have the exclusive rights for live games on Internet."

But apparently this was never enforced.

@On a 9x9 board, KBNvK becomes a challenge. I don't think you can win with the wrong colour B, but can you always win with the right colour?..

Yes, on 9X9 you can't force mate KBNvK with the 'wrong colour' bishop...In fact many GMs don't know how how to mate on 8X8 either, it's not trivial.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bishop_and_knight_checkmate

So.. OK, then just play on 8X9. Keep the standard 8X8 initial setup and all the 8X8 chess rules but add a line.
Such change will 'delay' the moment of 'confrontation' with 1 square-tempo and that's enough for many more (playable) initial patterns to emerge before the actual clash in the center of the board.
And 1 -tempo is not much, it is not 2-tempos (1.e3 e4 2.e4 e5) like it was the case in the 16th century chess before the rule "2-squares move for pawn allowed if they are in the initial position". That change of rules was introduced for speeding up the game and get quicker to the spicy moment of fight (1.e4 e5 2.f4..). It also made knowing opening tricks and issue.

At any rate such reform of chess is needed in my opinion. Otherwise we are going to see more and more would be "OTB games" which have been in fact home prepared with computers until late middle game, not uncommon until endgame proper. The excitement of the OTB ideas and clash is replaced by home study of actual particualr positions (not of the general principles of the game).

David Kaplan is pretty clear on the topic of stopping the free distribution of "chess information":

On information

We also plan to pass all the rights on chess information to Chess News Corporation (CNC) – a company created with FIDE’s support. The reason is simple; free data broadcasting, which is not always precise and correct, will never help the development of interest towards chess and its commercial success.

http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=6305

@I believe this "speed up the game" motivation is a chess history MYTH...

it is the accepted wisdom, see for instance :

Valencia Spain: The Cradle of European Chess
by Dr. Ricardo Calvo
Presentation to the CCI May, 1998 - Vienna, Austria

http://www.goddesschess.com/chessays/ricardovalencia.html

..........

(and I was wrong with "16th century", it was "15th" when this speeding up happened)

@My theory is testable.If the date of the bishop move rule change can be narrowed

... Some variations in rules began to change the shape of the game in by 1300 AD. A notable, but initially unpopular, change was the ability of the pawn to move two places in the first move instead of one.Chess (History): Standardization of rules (Encyclopedia Britannica 2002)]

New alterations, made after 1475 AD, led to further evolution of the game: the queen — a powerful new piece — was introduced, leading to additional value being attached to the previously minor tactic of pawn promotion. The war elephant of the chaturanga also evolved into the bishop, giving the piece more range.
[Vale 2001: 174] [ Murray, H. J. R.: 1913]

http://en.academic.ru/dic.nsf/enwiki/53871

You win Ovidiu :)

Personally I still suspect that the "two-square first move for pawns" rule change would have happened shortly after the modern bishop was born -- IF the pawn change had not happened earlier.

Thanks.

The current state of computer chess is, in my opinion, very shaky.

To answer your points about "crafting up rules to exclude engine X or Y", well that's simply not true (on behalf of CCRL, with CEGT I don't know their rules). If the engine has no author with a real name and background and/or can show the source code for someone like Jim Ablett or Dann Corbit, well then they most likely will get a no from CCRL. It's always "suspicious", to use a loose term, when a neverheardof author releases a 3200 ELO engine out of the blue. What is a clone and what is a derivative? Now people even clone the clones. It's not easy for the normal guy to know where to stand when it comes to all of these engines.

As for the beta-testing of Rybka, you are referring to the CCRL 40/4 list. In the 40/40 list no betas can be found except 2 or 3 of Toga. There are, however, some private versions of different engines sent to us by the engine authors themselves. I can see no problems with either of these two points.

I can understand that people don't take CCRL or CEGT etc. too seriously because we aren't including every engine out there. But then I ask, why can't those people wanting to see Ivanhoe, Ippolit, Robbolito etc. make a list of their own? I have yet to see such a list and now it's been a long time since the first release of those engines. It's like you say, if they run a few thousand blitz/bullet games for a few days they will get a decent (enough) answer, most likely.

My broadcast is just a way of showing people around the world how games that are submitted to the CCRL 40/40 list are played. If someone does't like it because it lacks engine X or Y, then they should just not watch or make a broadcast of their own with all their favorite engines. It's as simple as that.

Me on my part find joy in the games that are produced, like the one mentioned in this article (Stockfish - Rybka). It's especially fun when the lower rated engines beat the big names with some spectacular play.
I think the majority wants to find that special gem of a game, or to see how engines they might not own themselves play.

Best Regards,
Martin