Why No Chessbase News On Mark Watkins Article??

[Sean Evans]

http://harveywilliamson.com/ICGA/Riis3.pdf

Could it be the whole CB article was just cover, so they can sell Rybka 5?

Totally biased company with no business ethics!

Cordially,

Sean

[Thomas Mayer]

http://harveywilliamson.com/ICGA/Riis3.pdf

Could it be the whole CB article was just cover, so they can sell Rybka 5?

Totally biased company with no business ethics!

Cordially,

Sean

Stay real, Sean... of course I would welcome it when chessbase would publish the ICGA & Mark Watkins response, but how likely is that as long no lawyer force them to do so (which is very unlikely) - I mean, would you critizise your own product, as a company ? All this nonsense has anyway taken enough space everywhere.

Greets, Thomas

[dj]

http://harveywilliamson.com/ICGA/Riis3.pdf

Could it be the whole CB article was just cover, so they can sell Rybka 5?

Totally biased company with no business ethics!

Cordially,

Sean

Stay real, Sean... of course I would welcome it when chessbase would publish the ICGA & Mark Watkins response, but how likely is that as long no lawyer force them to do so (which is very unlikely)...

Unlikely?? Surely you mean impossible? On what possible grounds could a lawyer seek to force ChessBase to publish the opinions of Mark Watkins - or indeed any other person on the planet?

Thomas Mayer wrote:

All this nonsense has anyway taken enough space everywhere.

Greets, Thomas

Amen to that. Could not the six moderators get together and forbid further discussion (if that word is indeed merited, which I doubt) on any TalkChess forum? The Grand Inquisitor (the main culprit in the torrent of verbiage) is, of course, a mod and he would object, but perhaps a majority vote might defeat him.

At least ChessBase restricted itself to a single series of brief articles and (presumably) will now let the topic die the death it so richly deserves.

[IWB]

On what possible grounds could a lawyer seek to force ChessBase to publish the opinions of Mark Watkins - or indeed any other person on the planet?

It is a german company which has to obey german law. According to that there is a measurment in the "law for media" which roughly translates into something called "counterstatement" (Gegendarstellung). This counterstatement can be asked by any person or organisation which feels wrongly attacked. Either they publish it directly or a court would decide if they have to publish it or if the original article was covered by the "free press" thing. If it would happen the law says that the artical is allowed to have the same length at the same position as the original article ...
Of course it is more complicated, eg does the english part has to follow the german law? That depends where the editors are sitting and how independent they are from the company...

If a german court will follow this is something I dont know (I would say so, especially because at least one person with his individual right was attacked (Bob)), but there IS a legal ground to force media to do something like this in germany. (You can see that quite often in the german tabloids)

Bye
Ingo

PS: this doesnt mean that the media was wrong. Usually the editors write a sentence like "The editors stick to their opinion" under the counterstatement ...

[Mike S.]

Does anyone have information if the ICGA is a legal entitiy (corporate body), anywhere, anyhow?

Only natural persons or legal entities can go to court.

[Thomas Mayer]

Does anyone have information if the ICGA is a legal entitiy (corporate body), anywhere, anyhow?

Only natural persons or legal entities can go to court.

Hi Michael,

well, at least I think so:

http://icga.uvt.nl/?page_id=159

Greets, Thomas

[Norm Pollock]

Amen to that. Could not the six moderators get together and forbid further discussion (if that word is indeed merited, which I doubt) on any TalkChess forum? The Grand Inquisitor (the main culprit in the torrent of verbiage) is, of course, a mod and he would object, but perhaps a majority vote might defeat him.

At least ChessBase restricted itself to a single series of brief articles and (presumably) will now let the topic die the death it so richly deserves.

Shouldn't a judge (in this case a moderator) RECUSE himself if he is part of the case?

From the "Free Dictionary":

Noun 1. recusal - (law) the disqualification of a judge or jury by reason of prejudice or conflict of interest; a judge can be recused by objections of either party or judges can disqualify themselves

[gerold]

http://harveywilliamson.com/ICGA/Riis3.pdf

Could it be the whole CB article was just cover, so they can sell Rybka 5?

Totally biased company with no business ethics!

Cordially,

Sean

Now you are catching on.

[Mike S.]

A list of representatives will not be sufficient to form a legal entity. I'm not sure what the minimum requirements are (which are probably different depending on the countries, each). But I would guess it should be something like a regular, registered club, at least. Something the "authorities" have recognized, in some way, similar to a company or other type of organization.

Just gathering and saying, "we are the ICGA" is not sufficient IMO.


NOT the ICGA

[dj]

On what possible grounds could a lawyer seek to force ChessBase to publish the opinions of Mark Watkins - or indeed any other person on the planet?

It is a german company which has to obey german law. According to that there is a measurment in the "law for media" which roughly translates into something called "counterstatement" (Gegendarstellung). This counterstatement can be asked by any person or organisation which feels wrongly attacked. Either they publish it directly or a court would decide if they have to publish it or if the original article was covered by the "free press" thing. If it would happen the law says that the artical is allowed to have the same length at the same position as the original article ...
Of course it is more complicated, eg does the english part has to follow the german law? That depends where the editors are sitting and how independent they are from the company...

If a german court will follow this is something I dont know (I would say so, especially because at least one person with his individual right was attacked (Bob)), but there IS a legal ground to force media to do something like this in germany. (You can see that quite often in the german tabloids)

Bye
Ingo

PS: this doesnt mean that the media was wrong. Usually the editors write a sentence like "The editors stick to their opinion" under the counterstatement ...

I doubt whether a court would suppose the Riis article attacked anybody. It made some factually correct comments about the amazing number of posts by Hyatt, but in general it was a scolarly defence against attacks on Rybka and Rajlich. Perhaps Hyatt will give us a laugh and follow your advice. Which words do you suppose he would tell the court that he objects to?

This is silly. Germany may have some daft laws but not as daft as you portray it.