Page 4 of 6 FirstFirst ... 23456 LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 56

Thread: Something To Think About

  1. #31

    Default

    Where to place the line between collective rights and individual rights is a divisive one and open to differences of opinion and philosophy. Personally, I am not inclined to be overly encouraging of the concept of collective rights. Now, not only is Bob asserting a collective right, he is stating that it is of "paramount" importatance. Meaning literally that it is "chief in importance or impact; supreme; preeminent". More important say, than wether the club members playing the game are happy or play under good conditions. In fact, if it is of "paramount importance" to the chess community, one could imagine a motion that a game can only be rated if game scores are provided, not that that is likely to happen. The whole idea of the collective right here is annoying to some, to claim that it is paramount is off the wall.

    Do you imagine that the primary purpose of people joing chess clubs is to watch other people's games or to play?

    More generally, I think the player(s) in the club should be treated as customers and given what they want, not what Bob wants. If they don't want to hand in a scoresheet, then I think the appropriate response is "Yes Sir!" not withstanding the FIDE rules on ownership of the scoresheet.

    And Ken: "Games played in a rated tournament in public are in the public domain. There is nothing to prohibit a spectator from recording the game" This is irrelevent. It has no bearing on whether the player should be obliged to give the spectator a copy. For that matter, if Bob wants the game so badly for his database, he can stand there and write it down.

  2. #32

    Default Something to think about

    Hi Bob,

    First off, I drew the conclusion of minority from your number of 7:3 in your current open section. Clearly, I was wrong, since you tell us that 80% of your total members and players keep their games secret.

    So, bear with me for a little and follow my totally confused train of thought:

    1, About 80% of the games of players in your club are not publicly available, but are sent
    to the Black Hole of Gagra, administered by Emperor Roger Patterson.

    2, About 20% of the games of players in your club submit their score sheets and you make them available weekly to the public in two ways:
    a regular d-base made available to the 20% and the 80% of your membership directly via e-mail.
    a regular listing to can base by Hugh Brodie which can be accessed by anybody.

    The consequence of the above actions allows the 80% to cheat the 20%. Not exactly a level playing field, yes, no?

    Please indulge me for a few moments more:

    Imagine a chess world in which 80% of the top players since say Tassilo von Heydebrand und der Lasa and the Pleiades to Steinitz, Lasker, Rubinstein, Nimzowitch, Capablanca, Alekhine, Botvinnik, Keres all the way to say Carlsen would have kept their games and thoughts secret. What an impoverished chess world that we would be living and playing in today.

    Let me consider what possible solutions might be available to your dilemma, because it is a dilemma, since you can hardly afford losing 80% of your paying membership.

    Cheers
    Peter

  3. #33

    Default Game Score Copyright

    Hi Wilf:

    Thanks for the references - I'll read them.

    As usual, Scarborough CC is on the cutting edge of chess issues !

    Bob

  4. #34

    Default Handing in Score Sheet - Voluntary or Mandatory?

    Hi Peter:

    It is a rather knotty ( naughty?? ) little problem - that goes to some very fundamental individual vs collective rights issues, as Roger correctly points out. Generally speaking the right wing will opt for the individual right being paramount, and the left wing, the collective right.

    Which way chess??

    For our club purposes, I am quite satisfied with our " voluntary " rule as to handing in of games. It is a club, as Roger notes, where players come first to play chess. And if a club member, for whatever reason, wants his game kept private, it is likely no loss to the club or the chess world generally.

    I am concerned with the 20-25% who see value in " sharing " their games. They are leading edge in my view, and need to be supported. They see the collective right to see games as paramount. Now they are not demanding all hand in games. But what they do want is that their games get into the club database, and get distributed to all members ( even the 75-80% who refuse to hand in their games ). And my hope is that these leading edge players will slowly convince more and more of the " game-hiders " to come around, and share their games with other club members , who are interested in playing them over, warts and all.

    This is also why I am against our current SCC policy, that the " hider " can block the " sharer " from getting the game into the database. What are we doing supporting the " hider "?? We should be supporting the " sharer ".

    Will the club members as a whole, vote to change the policy? Hard to say when 75-80% are " hiders ". Looks like an uphill battle to me, to get our games public, even given 20-25% of our membership trying to, and sometimes getting blocked by the fatal " objection ".

    Time will tell.

    Bob

  5. #35
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Kitchener, ON
    Posts
    2,235
    Blog Entries
    37

    Default

    Personally, if someone told me I wasn't allowed to have my game put into the club's database because my opponent refused, I'd go put it up on my own personal website. Maybe even post it on Chesstalk. Just to spite them.

  6. #36

    Default Objection Rule - Limited to Within the Club

    Hi Chris:

    You are right. We have advised the players involved that these are internal club rules.

    The player owns his game score ( though maybe he can't copyright it ). And though the club upholds an objection to a game going into the club database, this does not say anything about what that player can do with his game outside of the club ( eg. go post it on Chess5, where the whole world can see it ). In the general public realm, the opponent cannot stop him from doing anything he wants with the game score.

    But even here the issue is not simple. There is a problem because the handing in of games is " voluntary ". Some players are managing to keep their games secret, where the opponent also does not hand in the score. So if an opponent, where there is an objection, goes and publicly publishes the game, the objecting opponent can rightly complain that there is not a level playing field, and that his opponent is making his game available, where others are not. The player publishing may not care if others can use the game against him, but should he make that decision for his objecting opponent? The club would certainly, given its policy, and to be consistent, not encourage the publishing player to go and make the game public ( though they couldn't stop him ). What I fear would happen is that the objecting player will withdraw from the tournament, on the ground that it is not a level playing field, and either all games get published, or no games get published.

    Bob
    Last edited by Bob Armstrong; 03-09-2009 at 01:24 AM.

  7. #37
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Kitchener, ON
    Posts
    2,235
    Blog Entries
    37

    Default

    I'm sorry, I know there aren't enough people playing chess these days, but if someone was going to be THAT petty, I wouldn't shed any tears if they withdrew and never played again. I'm all for reasonable accommodations but I'm not going to bend over backwards for someone.

    So if an opponent, where there is an objection, goes and publicly publishes the game, the objecting opponent can rightly complain that there is not a level playing field, and that his opponent is making his game available, where others are not.
    It is most definitely NOT rightly. This person has ABSOLUTELY NO RIGHT to force someone else to keep his game private. And he'd be a bit of a hypocrite to talk about a level playing field.

  8. #38

    Default The Level Playing Field Problem

    Hi Chris:

    I did not mean " rightly " in that he could prevent the opponent from publicizing the game. He cannot do that.

    The problem is our policy that championship games being handed in is " voluntary ". So some games are in and some are not. The objecting player can " rightly " complain that it is not a level playing field IN THE CLUB, and that it is being made more " unlevel " by the opponent making the game public outside the club.

    I hope my use of " rightly " here is OK from this perspective. It is a rather complex issue in some ways, and hard not to get issues mixed up. Well I've tried to defend my position - maybe others can comment besides Chris if they think I'm looking at this wrongly.

    Bob

  9. #39

    Default

    This is being made far more complex than it needs to be. It is actually quite clear. The organizers of a tournament own the scoresheet. period.full stop. The problem is the organizers are not exercising the right other than in the sense of saying they don't want the scoresheet to which they have a right.

  10. #40

    Default SCC Policy - Games Submission/Games Entry into Database

    Here is the latest update on Scarborough CC policy on handing in scoresheets and entry of games submitted into the club database, including the special policy for the club championship this year:

    " Hi to All SCC Members:

    As club database administrator, I want to bring to your attention the current SCC policy ( recently changed [ by the executive ] due to discussions with some of the players in the championship section ) on the database:

    1. Handing in of games – “ voluntary “ – you are free to hand in your games or not, though obviously the club is trying to collect as many games as it can, on this voluntary basis ( this is as it has always been );

    2.Entry of games into the club database ( new ) –

    a) If you do not want your game in the database, and your opponent has voluntarily handed it in, you can advise me you don’t want it entered, and I will not do so.
    b) for all games in the club championship, voluntarily handed in without objection, I will not be entering them into the database immediately for this club championship. I am holding them back until the tournament is over. This is so that those cooperating with the club in handing in their games, are not at any disadvantage because of doing so – that is, their games, though handed in, will not be available to opponents during the tournament, to use to prepare against them ( the executive felt that even though advance pairings are not published for the Reserves, being swisses, in later rounds, the leaders can sometimes figure out who their opponent is likely to be, and could use the database championship games to prepare against them. So this delayed entry applies to both the Championship and Reserves Sections )

    3. Publishing of games in the club newsletter ( new ) – There will be no publishing of any championship game in the newsletter until AFTER the tournament is over, again so no games are available for preparation against those voluntarily handing them in.

    The executive hopes these new policies will make those handing in their championship games voluntarily, more comfortable doing so. They will not be available to your opponents to use to prepare against you. We hope this will now encourage more of you to voluntarily hand in your championship games.

    Bob "

    As mentioned in earlier posts, the executive has said that these policies will be brought to the membership for review at the SCC AGM in September.

    Bob

Page 4 of 6 FirstFirst ... 23456 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •