ARCHIVED POSTS
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 958 OF 1118 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Oct-27-16
 | | moronovich: At horseraces it is also due policy to pay out 2/3 when the 3/3 combination is not solved. But the rules must be followed. |
|
| Oct-28-16 | | scout118: <chessgames.com:>
<I'll talk to Annie to find out exactly what happened, but it's true, the 2-out-of-3 rule is the ChessBookie! policy when nobody hits the pick-3. This is how actual parimutuel gambling establishments settle bets where there would otherwise be no winners.> Been playing this bookie game for a while but never saw this unwritten "policy" of paying "close but no champagne" bettors such big jackpots. Could you provide a link to an instance such policy was ever applied? Parimutuel establishments may have a system of applying one time bets when payouts are mandatory, but these rules probably do not apply to tournament legs where standings are affected particularly at the end of a leg. The cleanest & fairest way to handle lines without winning bets I believe would be to simply refund all bets. This way standings are not affected. If the man at the top is dislodged because of a non-winning bet undeservedly awarded, it just doesn't seem to make sense or seem to be entirely fair. |
|
Oct-28-16
 | | chessgames.com: <scout118> I'll continue this discussion at the Chessgames Bookie chessforum. |
|
| Oct-29-16 | | scout118: <chessgames.com: <scout118> I'll continue this discussion at the Chessgames Bookie chessforum.> This won't be possible, I'm afraid. A forum should have pros & cons, and the person in charge should exercise maturity & restraint having so much prerogative. You may or may not have the wherewithal to instruct this person to restore all non-spam posts, even exercise restraint & maturity when opinions are brought forth which may or may not be favorable to her /their point of view. I'm certainly not going to spend time & reconstruct my point of view & re-post. This isn't this first time & won't be the last time but all this may or may not be bad for business. As for this chessbookie game, you had a valid point of view regarding unwritten "policies". I'd suggest you may want to clean this up by stating clear guidelines. The simplest rule should be "If you don't hit a bet, you won't get a reward. All bets are refunded when no one hits. There are no arbitrary second places in the chessbookie game." <Chessgames Bookie: I had to clean up a few posts here by people who mistakenly think they can get their way by making a scene.
Please note, any more of that, and you will not be posting in this forum until the start of the next leg. Thank you.> |
|
Oct-30-16
 | | kutztown46: Sorry if this was already covered, but will viewing of the live games of the World Championship be limited to premium members? |
|
Oct-30-16
 | | MissScarlett: Did I ever get around to submitting the game, Alekhine-Menchik, Plymouth 1938? If not, leave it with me. Strange how some games, even of world champions, fall through the net. |
|
Oct-31-16
| | chessgames.com: <MissScarlett: Did I ever get around to submitting the game, Alekhine-Menchik, Plymouth 1938?> No, I don't see any Menchik games from you.
<kutztown46: Sorry if this was already covered, but will viewing of the live games of the World Championship be limited to premium members?> We are going to make it free to the public. Expect a newsletter containing our official stance on the matter later this week. Note that due to Agon's legal posturing, we will be forced to receive moves from second-hand sources, such as television or social media, so there may be a small but noticeable delay during the games. |
|
Oct-31-16
 | | jessicafischerqueen:
<social media>
What if some Facebook wag starts posting "the wrong moves" as a practical joke? Do we have a failsafe brah. |
|
| Oct-31-16 | | Alien Math: a late congrats <MissScarlett> on editor, now if <zanzibar> appears as editor, both bring interesting results in their own way |
|
| Oct-31-16 | | Tiggler: Dear Chessgames,
I received your email message concerning coverage of the upcoming Word Championship match. I believe that your statement "that chess moves cannot be copyrighted under any circumstance" is unfounded and self-serving. I believe that the creators of artistic or other intellectual property are unconditionally the owners of the same. Furthermore, I believe that the denial of these right is contrary to the best interests of chess development. Therefore, I shall not be following your pirated dissemination of the intellectual property of others. |
|
| Nov-01-16 | | Abdel Irada: ∞
You tell 'em, <Tiggler>! (And from now on, anyone who wants to play 1. e4, e5 2. Nf3, Nc6 3. Bc4, Nf6 4. Ng5, Bc5 5. Nxf7, Bxf2+ 6. Kf1, Qe7 7. Nxh8, d5 8. exd5, Bg4 9. Be2, Bxe2+ 10. Qxe2, Nd4 11. Qxf2, o-o-o 12. c3, Rf8 13. Kg1, Ng4 14. Qe1, <Qh4> owes me royalties.) ∞ |
|
Nov-01-16
 | | Tabanus: <CG> ) and ). now works after a link, but apparently not : and ): |
|
Nov-01-16
| | chessgames.com: <Tabanus> Some time ago the semicolon was stripped away from the link, but we rescinded that rule intentionally, because it prevents people from using URL-escape tricks. The colon never was separated from URLs to my knowledge. <Tiggler> Perhaps it's self-serving but it's most definitely not unfounded. I do hope that after some arbitrary period of self-imposed exile after each game, you feel in the right to return to this site to discuss them. |
|
Nov-01-16
| | jessicafischerqueen:
<I believe that the creators of artistic or other intellectual property are unconditionally the owners of the same.> Ironically, upwards of 100 per cent of the creators of any art that ever sees the light of day sell their copyright to a gigantic management company. They are subsequently no longer the "owners" of their creation, not in any legal or financial sense. These are the kinds of company that sends lawyers over to your house to kill your cats and such. |
|
Nov-01-16
 | | Stonehenge: <coverage of the upcoming Word Championship match.> What has that to do with chess? |
|
| Nov-01-16 | | crawfb5: Copyright of chess games has a long and tortured history: http://www.chesshistory.com/winter/... Historically, efforts to establish copyright of game scores has been unsuccessful. In practice, the moves have been treated as news, much as third-party descriptions of sporting events. Any financial gain from the current stance will undoubtedly accrue to the organizers and not the players. While it may or may not be within their rights to impose such restrictions, it can hardly be seen as stimulating chess development. |
|
Nov-01-16
 | | OhioChessFan: <Tiggler: I believe that the creators of artistic or other intellectual property are unconditionally the owners of the same. Furthermore, I believe that the denial of these right is contrary to the best interests of chess development.> This is nonsense. What, Usain Bolt can claim his next race is a work of performance art and it can't be broadcast? An arsonist says his last fire was art, and the news stations had no right to cover it? |
|
| Nov-01-16 | | Robed.Bishop: <OCF: This is nonsense.> Don't sugar-coat it, <OCF>, tell us how you really feel. |
|
| Nov-01-16 | | Doktorn: <Tiggler: I believe that the creators of artistic or other intellectual property are unconditionally the owners of the same.>
Doesn't this in the end imply chessgames is wrong to publish any chess game ever (unconditionally implies there is no time limit for the intellectual property) where they don't have the direct consent of both players? I support chessgames.com in their decision either way. Granted, I'm very critical of copyright, so I have a bias there. But it is also my opinion, as stated elsewhere, that chess moves is more like football scores which is freely distributed, than video footage from a football game (which falls under copyright legislation). |
|
Nov-01-16
 | | Annie K.: I have a dream...
Please put Agon in charge of running the US elections instead of a mere WCC. And then, if you don't pay their fee, you don't get to find out who is the next US President! That would be so great... ;p <chessgames.com> all the way! :) |
|
| Nov-01-16 | | Tiggler: <Chessgames.com: ...Perhaps it's self-serving but it's most definitely not unfounded.> It is notable that you are willing to pay your lawyers for this opinion, but unwilling to pay chess players for their work. What one lawyer is paid to assert, another may be paid to refute. If Agon sues, we shall see, after enormous expense, who prevails. |
|
Nov-01-16
| | OhioChessFan: <Tiggler: What one lawyer is paid to assert, another may be paid to refute. If Agon sues, we shall see, after enormous expense, who prevails.> There's no doubt that you are a Grandmaster of the Obvious. |
|
| Nov-01-16 | | YouRang: Just wondering: Are there any plans to ever host another team-vs-team game (either with or without engines)? Seems like it's been a long time... |
|
| Nov-01-16 | | Tiggler: <OhioChesFan: There's no doubt that you are a Grandmaster of the Obvious.> I am planning to challenge <user: Ulhumbrus> to a WC match. |
|
Nov-01-16
| | Stonehenge: <coverage of the upcoming Word Championship match.> Great, I like Scrabble. |
|
 |
|
ARCHIVED POSTS
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 958 OF 1118 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Kibitzing
