| Chess One 2006-08-03, 2:52 am |
|
"Taylor Kingston" <tkingston@chittenden.com> wrote in message
news:1153161409.178950.222890@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
quote:
>
> Chess One wrote:
>
> Oh, no, the statement is quite specific.
>
>
> The book in question, The Encyclopaedia of Chess Middlegames (Chess
> Informant, Belgrade, 1980), was, I believe, a collaboration between
> Matanovic, Krogius, Livsic, Parma, Taimanov and perhaps other Informant
> contributors. While chess positions per se cannot be copyrighted,
Ah!
And so this plaint by Kingston is sort of admitted to be nonsense, but
because a guy is in hospital, is occasion to raise VAGUE aspersions - in
this case Kington quotes positions which may not be copyrighted.
quote:
> it is
> obvious that Schiller simply lifted large portions of the ECM and put
> his own name on it. A buyer of Schiller's book in effect paid Schiller
> for work done by others.
I refer the gentlemen to a reply made moments before, by Bruce Leverett in
this instance
quote:
> This is an example of what I meant in reply to Parr's comment about
> "months of work" -- that in Schiller's case "days of copying" would be
> more accurate.
This is an example of a certain ChessCafe attitude, which has otherwise
expressed itself as "out to make as much money from the chess scene as is
possible" which a statement of Hanon Russel, no matter what, and an
indifference to time and tide which a certain English King, a bloke named
Kanute, himself thought absurd, and himself made demonstration to the
superiority of nature.
As with Mr. Leverret I have gained from studying Schiller material in actual
play. Others may take thier opinions to mythical realms as they like, but
insensible Kingston has not quite realised that his timing seems to be the
grossest opportunism to exercise a certain spite about abn author, by
himself as an non-author.
Phil Innes
|