Comments on: Topalov-Kamsky starts with a draw and an odd legal note

By: Tom

Tom — Thu, 19 Feb 2009 14:03:52 +0000

Could those who believe chessbase are acting illegally please point to the Bulgarian, EU, or international law that says so? (I mean law itself. The website of any chess organizer does not constitute law as far as I know. Although running a chess website myself sometimes makes me wish that were not the case.)

By: me

me — Thu, 19 Feb 2009 13:15:02 +0000

Those were PROPOSALS. Once the regulation for the cycle were accepted they weren’t changed again! It was know since May or June 2007 that World Cup winner (played in November/December 2007) will have to play a challenger match against Topalov.

Talk about how Kamsky suposingly earned a title match started later.

By: acirce

acirce — Thu, 19 Feb 2009 00:26:39 +0000

“Thats not true! Unlike in the 2008-2011 cycle, the rules for 2007-2009 cycle remained unchanged from day one. It was known from the beginning that the 2007 World Cup winner will have to play a challenger match against Topalov.

There was never any indication that the World Cup winner will get a title match.”

Of course there was. Don’t speak with such confidence about things you don’t know. There was a huge discussion about it when the change was announced. See for example http://www.chessninja.com/dailydirt/2007/06/fide-follies-forever-ii.htm and http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=3948

Here’s Karpov’s comment on the matter: http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=4018

The original rules: http://www.fide.com/component/content/article/3-news/1848-339-decision-of-the-fide-president-in-respect-of-the-world-chess-championship-cycle

“Following the decision of the Presidential Board at its meeting in Antalya, I was tasked to take a decision on the World Chess Championship cycle and the World Chess Cup.

After a thorough examination of the responses from the top Grandmasters and ACP and based on my consultations with national federations and various representatives of the chess public, I have resolved as follows:

1. In respect of the World Championship Cycle, to approve Proposal A.

[...]

The proposal is to terminate the World Championship Tournament and keep the World Cup as a Candidates tournament to find a challenger for a World Championship match. So in every odd year there will be only the World Cup (2007, 2009, 2011, etc.) and the respective winner will play every next year (2008, 2010, 2012, etc.) a match against the World Champion.

The chronological breakdown:

a1. 2008: The winner from WCCT 2007 in Mexico plays a World Championship match against the previous World Champion. If Kramnik does not win the WCCT 2007, then Kramnik can challenge the winner of Mexico in the first part of 2008. If Kramnik wins in Mexico, then the right to challenge goes to the previous World Champion, ie Topalov.

a2. 2009: The winner of the “a1″ match plays a World Championship match against the winner of the 2007 World Cup which will be held in Khanty-Mansiysk.

[...]“

By: Tarjei

Tarjei — Wed, 18 Feb 2009 22:17:41 +0000

I don’t see how they can copyright the moves. It’s a piece of news, just like the current score in a Champions League game, or any other football game for that matter. And if they gave permission to let’s say ICC to broadcast the event on their site, you can hardly prevent any other sites from broadcasting that on their own site. It’s like preventing someone from saying that the current score half time in the World Cup final is 1-1.

By: Peter Doggers

Peter Doggers — Wed, 18 Feb 2009 20:28:56 +0000

You CAN put links in your comments – it only has the side-effect that it’s going into moderation status first, because of spam protection.

By: me

me — Wed, 18 Feb 2009 19:10:49 +0000

Why is my comment still not shown and is pending approval by the moderator?

Thomas’s and Jussu’s comments are there, but not mine which I posted before them.

By: jussu

jussu — Wed, 18 Feb 2009 19:02:59 +0000

@Thomas,
Absolutely. I am only whining about “on popular demand” articles on some trivial subject, written with the sole purpose of mentioning their software yet again. I also understand that the website is their playground, so the content is theirs to choose. Just makes me groan every time when I see that phrase.

By: Thomas

Thomas — Wed, 18 Feb 2009 18:47:46 +0000

@jussu: You can argue about the “weird ‘on popular demand’ “, but generally Chessbase is a commercial company website, so their primary objective (’reason to exist’) is to promote and sell their products. And if you are not interested (neither am I most of the time), it is quite easy to skip those articles and still read the other content provided for free!

@Manu: I am reasonably fluent in German, English, French and Dutch (I have lived in various countries), but my Spanish isn’t good enough – mostly tourist language such as “una cerveza por favor” – Cheers! ,:) But other people could translate your quote in the meantime … .

By: me

me — Wed, 18 Feb 2009 18:24:15 +0000

http://www.wccc2009.com/uploads/File/agreement.pdf

“5.
The Organizer is given all the commercial rights connected to the Tournament, and is entitled to exploit all the rights, including but not limited to; sponsorship rights, ticketing rights, Internet rights, televisions rights, graphic, media, SMS rights, all kind of transmission through cellular phones, all sort of electronics broadcast rights aheady existing or to exist , souvenir rights, merchandising rights, advertising and promotion rights, as well as all the source of income through this agreements.”

By: Ricardo

Ricardo — Wed, 18 Feb 2009 17:56:08 +0000

“Which part exactly you don‚Äôt understand? Chessbase is pirating the transmision and is stealing other people‚Äôs property.”

And exactly what is it they are stealing? Because as far as I know the neither the players nor the organization own the rights to the moves played in these games.

If they were “stealing” the live webcam feed then that might be different, but are we talking about the moves?