x
Chess - Play & Learn

Chess.com

FREE - In Google Play

FREE - in Win Phone Store

VIEW

How to Reassess you chess 4th edition PGN

  • #61
    I asked chess.com about the copyright's issues and they forwarded my message to JS ( who is also working for chess.com, by the way). He will contact the OP. I am also interested to what he says, as we have a club discussing his work, but there I decided not to post diagrams.
  • #62

    Utorrubirubi wrote:
    I asked chess.com about the copyright's issues and they forwarded my message to JS ( who is also working for chess.com, by the way). He will contact the OP. I am also interested to what he says, as we have a club discussing his work, but there I decided not to post diagrams.

    I contacted  him over a year ago with no response. Stop being a tool and talking about copyright and your stupid group.  You're hi jacking the thread.  Start your own if you want to promote your group. It's fair use enough said.

  • #63

    And if that JS wants to file a suit I say bring it. I'm tired of even talking about this crap anymore.  Waste of time. This thread was started over a year ago. JS was given ample notification.  If chess.com wants to remove the thread I have no problem not paying for my diamond membership.  Man this is getting annoying already. 

  • #64
    MrStryker wrote:

    Utorrubirubi wrote:
    I asked chess.com about the copyright's issues and they forwarded my message to JS ( who is also working for chess.com, by the way). He will contact the OP. I am also interested to what he says, as we have a club discussing his work, but there I decided not to post diagrams.

    I contacted  him over a year ago with no response. Stop being a tool and talking about copyright and your stupid group.  You're hi jacking the thread.  Start your own if you want to promote your group. It's fair use enough said.

    Rather aggressive words my friend. I guess this is typical for internet, where people can  hide in the anonymity and behave as they like but not as they should. I learned already as a child to be respectful, but yeah, the world would be boring if all people would behave similar: with respect, arguing objectively, listen to each other. I don't remember that I was rude when discussing with you. Anyway, I will not follow this group anymore.  Just one question: why are you interested in JS's books at all? I saw one of your games, and your level is still so unbelievable weak that I am asking myself if you would perhaps profit more visiting a chess course for beginners instead of stealing the work of a IM to feel important. 

    In the game above you should see the simple fork and not castle. This kind of mistake I usually see in people under 900. Anyway...

  • #65
    MrStryker wrote:

    And if that JS wants to file a suit I say bring it. I'm tired of even talking about this crap anymore.  Waste of time. This thread was started over a year ago. JS was given ample notification.  If chess.com wants to remove the thread I have no problem not paying for my diamond membership.  Man this is getting annoying already. 

    And I don't think that chess.com is really afraid losing your diamond membership. They will probably not sign up for bankruptcy immediately after you leave the website :-). Okay, good luck with your project of co-authorship in a bestseller!

  • #66
    torrubirubi wrote:
    MrStryker wrote:

    Utorrubirubi wrote:
    I asked chess.com about the copyright's issues and they forwarded my message to JS ( who is also working for chess.com, by the way). He will contact the OP. I am also interested to what he says, as we have a club discussing his work, but there I decided not to post diagrams.

    I contacted  him over a year ago with no response. Stop being a tool and talking about copyright and your stupid group.  You're hi jacking the thread.  Start your own if you want to promote your group. It's fair use enough said.

    In the game above you should see the simple fork and not castle. This kind of mistake I usually see in people under 900. Anyway...

    I guess I don't see the fork either.

    Am I missing something?

  • #67
    EscherehcsE wrote:
    torrubirubi wrote:
    MrStryker wrote:

    Utorrubirubi wrote:
    I asked chess.com about the copyright's issues and they forwarded my message to JS ( who is also working for chess.com, by the way). He will contact the OP. I am also interested to what he says, as we have a club discussing his work, but there I decided not to post diagrams.

    I contacted  him over a year ago with no response. Stop being a tool and talking about copyright and your stupid group.  You're hi jacking the thread.  Start your own if you want to promote your group. It's fair use enough said.

    In the game above you should see the simple fork and not castle. This kind of mistake I usually see in people under 900. Anyway...

    I guess I don't see the fork either.

    Am I missing something?

    He castled queenside, allowing Nxf7. blundering a rook. Kind of stuff that can happen to everybody in a bullet or even a 5' blitz when you are shorten in time. 

  • #68
    torrubirubi wrote:
    EscherehcsE wrote:
    torrubirubi wrote:
    MrStryker wrote:

    Utorrubirubi wrote:
    I asked chess.com about the copyright's issues and they forwarded my message to JS ( who is also working for chess.com, by the way). He will contact the OP. I am also interested to what he says, as we have a club discussing his work, but there I decided not to post diagrams.

    I contacted  him over a year ago with no response. Stop being a tool and talking about copyright and your stupid group.  You're hi jacking the thread.  Start your own if you want to promote your group. It's fair use enough said.

    In the game above you should see the simple fork and not castle. This kind of mistake I usually see in people under 900. Anyway...

    I guess I don't see the fork either.

    Am I missing something?

    He castled queenside, allowing Nxf7. blundering a rook. Kind of stuff that can happen to everybody in a bullet or even a 5' blitz when you are shorten in time. 

    Oh, OK, I see now.

    Anyway, I really don't think Silman cares about any of this stuff. As long as no annotations or text are added, I think it's a non-problem.

  • #69
    EscherehcsE wrote:
    torrubirubi wrote:
    EscherehcsE wrote:
    torrubirubi wrote:
    MrStryker wrote:

    Utorrubirubi wrote:
    I asked chess.com about the copyright's issues and they forwarded my message to JS ( who is also working for chess.com, by the way). He will contact the OP. I am also interested to what he says, as we have a club discussing his work, but there I decided not to post diagrams.

    I contacted  him over a year ago with no response. Stop being a tool and talking about copyright and your stupid group.  You're hi jacking the thread.  Start your own if you want to promote your group. It's fair use enough said.

    In the game above you should see the simple fork and not castle. This kind of mistake I usually see in people under 900. Anyway...

    I guess I don't see the fork either.

    Am I missing something?

    He castled queenside, allowing Nxf7. blundering a rook. Kind of stuff that can happen to everybody in a bullet or even a 5' blitz when you are shorten in time. 

    Oh, OK, I see now.

    Anyway, I really don't think Silman cares about any of this stuff. As long as no annotations or text are added, I think it's a non-problem.

    Perhaps you are right. What the OP is not aware is that somebody could take the material that he is giving for free and use for commercial purposes, and this could be a serious problem. I am student in Chessable, and users of this website take copyright issues very seriously. You can use text and positions from every book you want, as long you use them privately, but you are not allowed to make this public. But I am done here and will not follow this thread anymore.

  • #70

    I can swear that you threatened to unfollow this thread over three hours ago, yet you've posted at least 3 times since then.  If you feel so adamantly about this being some moral, legal, or ethical violation please do not download the file or delete it if you already have (although I know that's not going to happen).  As for MrStryker and myself, we are not worried so I don't know why you claim to be so concerned other than the fact that you need attention because you lack it in real life.  Good day!

  • #71
    miguel_marron wrote:

    I can swear that you threatened to unfollow this thread over three hours ago, yet you've posted at least 3 times since then.  If you feel so adamantly about this being some moral, legal, or ethical violation please do not download the file or delete it if you already have (although I know that's not going to happen).  As for MrStryker and myself, we are not worried so I don't know why you claim to be so concerned other than the fact that you need attention because you lack it in real life.  Good day!

    As I wrote already, I am done here, this is an automatic reply. I am done here, this is an automatic reply.

  • #72
    miguel_marron wrote:

    I can swear that you threatened to unfollow this thread over three hours ago, yet you've posted at least 3 times since then.  If you feel so adamantly about this being some moral, legal, or ethical violation please do not download the file or delete it if you already have (although I know that's not going to happen).  As for MrStryker and myself, we are not worried so I don't know why you claim to be so concerned other than the fact that you need attention because you lack it in real life.  Good day!

     

    Cause he's an Idiot.  Bashing without facts then posting games. What a weirdo. Miguel you were right we shouldn't have shared anything.  It's idiotic thinking that caused the dark ages. Fair use enough said. 

  • #73
    torrubirubi wrote:
    MrStryker wrote:

    Utorrubirubi wrote:
    I asked chess.com about the copyright's issues and they forwarded my message to JS ( who is also working for chess.com, by the way). He will contact the OP. I am also interested to what he says, as we have a club discussing his work, but there I decided not to post diagrams.

    I contacted  him over a year ago with no response. Stop being a tool and talking about copyright and your stupid group.  You're hi jacking the thread.  Start your own if you want to promote your group. It's fair use enough said.

    Rather aggressive words my friend. I guess this is typical for internet, where people can  hide in the anonymity and behave as they like but not as they should. I learned already as a child to be respectful, but yeah, the world would be boring if all people would behave similar: with respect, arguing objectively, listen to each other. I don't remember that I was rude when discussing with you. Anyway, I will not follow this group anymore.  Just one question: why are you interested in JS's books at all? I saw one of your games, and your level is still so unbelievable weak that I am asking myself if you would perhaps profit more visiting a chess course for beginners instead of stealing the work of a IM to feel important. 

    In the game above you should see the simple fork and not castle. This kind of mistake I usually see in people under 900. Anyway...

    Stealing the work?  Lol you sir are a true idiot.  

  • #74
    MrStryker wrote:
    torrubirubi wrote:
    MrStryker wrote:

    Utorrubirubi wrote:
    I asked chess.com about the copyright's issues and they forwarded my message to JS ( who is also working for chess.com, by the way). He will contact the OP. I am also interested to what he says, as we have a club discussing his work, but there I decided not to post diagrams.

    I contacted  him over a year ago with no response. Stop being a tool and talking about copyright and your stupid group.  You're hi jacking the thread.  Start your own if you want to promote your group. It's fair use enough said.

    Rather aggressive words my friend. I guess this is typical for internet, where people can  hide in the anonymity and behave as they like but not as they should. I learned already as a child to be respectful, but yeah, the world would be boring if all people would behave similar: with respect, arguing objectively, listen to each other. I don't remember that I was rude when discussing with you. Anyway, I will not follow this group anymore.  Just one question: why are you interested in JS's books at all? I saw one of your games, and your level is still so unbelievable weak that I am asking myself if you would perhaps profit more visiting a chess course for beginners instead of stealing the work of a IM to feel important. 

    In the game above you should see the simple fork and not castle. This kind of mistake I usually see in people under 900. Anyway...

    Stealing the work?  Lol you sir are a true idiot.  

    I reported your abusive behaviour to chess.com, so don't be surprised if you receive a warning in the next time. I guess you are very bold telling the people that they are idiots in a forum, taking advantage of the distance and anonymity of the internet . I just wonder if you would have the same courage to talk to me like this face-to-face. I guess not. You are simply not able to discuss in an educated and civilised way. 

  • #75

    null

  • #76
    torrubirubi wrote:
    MrStryker wrote:
    torrubirubi wrote:
    MrStryker wrote:

    Utorrubirubi wrote:
    I asked chess.com about the copyright's issues and they forwarded my message to JS ( who is also working for chess.com, by the way). He will contact the OP. I am also interested to what he says, as we have a club discussing his work, but there I decided not to post diagrams.

    I contacted  him over a year ago with no response. Stop being a tool and talking about copyright and your stupid group.  You're hi jacking the thread.  Start your own if you want to promote your group. It's fair use enough said.

    Rather aggressive words my friend. I guess this is typical for internet, where people can  hide in the anonymity and behave as they like but not as they should. I learned already as a child to be respectful, but yeah, the world would be boring if all people would behave similar: with respect, arguing objectively, listen to each other. I don't remember that I was rude when discussing with you. Anyway, I will not follow this group anymore.  Just one question: why are you interested in JS's books at all? I saw one of your games, and your level is still so unbelievable weak that I am asking myself if you would perhaps profit more visiting a chess course for beginners instead of stealing the work of a IM to feel important. 

    In the game above you should see the simple fork and not castle. This kind of mistake I usually see in people under 900. Anyway...

    Stealing the work?  Lol you sir are a true idiot.  

    I reported your abusive behaviour to chess.com, so don't be surprised if you receive a warning in the next time. I guess you are very bold telling the people that they are idiots in a forum, taking advantage of the distance and anonymity of the internet . I just wonder if you would have the same courage to talk to me like this face-to-face. I guess not. You are simply not able to discuss in an educated and civilised way. 

    Calling someone a thief is really civilized? You said you removed yourself so remove yourself.  And yes I would talk to you like this because you're crying foul on copy right when I specifically said it was fair use.  Then you took it one step further to notify chess.com about possible copy right infringement, based on "your understanding."  Then you post my games like anyone cares about my games, I just play for fun.  So get off of your soap box and appreciate the work that was done by Miguel and I to further the community.  You said you contacted chess.com and they would contact J. Silman.  I told you I contacted him over a year ago and didn't hear anything.  Enough said.

  • #77

    I also contacted JS after the file was given to me.  If he wants it removed it will come right down without an argument.

  • #78
    MyStriker, you probably misunderstood my motivation when I contacted chess.com. I did it not because I thought you and Miguel are doing something bad. My interest was to be sure that making HTHYC' diagrams accessible to everybody in Internet is not infringing any copyright BECAUSE I was thinking to do the same (but I decided not to do so because I was concerned). When I saw your post I thought "great"! But before asking you to send the diagrams to me I thought I should ask chess.com about the issue to be on the safe side.

    In the other hand, I admit that I reacted negatively to your rather aggressive reaction, and posted your game, and this was not fair, of course (check my games and you will see hundred of similar mistakes).
    I will from now on you leave you alone (this time I am serious about this) and I hope everything will go well with your project. We are definitely not enemies, we share the same enthusiasm for chess, and we even like the same book! :-) Let's forget the whole thing, okay? If chess.com contact you about what I once perceived as an abusive behaviour, just show this post.
  • #79
    torrubirubi wrote:
    MyStriker, you probably misunderstood my motivation when I contacted chess.com. I did it not because I thought you and Miguel are doing something bad. My interest was to be sure that making HTHYC' diagrams accessible to everybody in Internet is not infringing any copyright BECAUSE I was thinking to do the same (but I decided not to do so because I was concerned). When I saw your post I thought "great"! But before asking you to send the diagrams to me I thought I should ask chess.com about the issue to be on the safe side.

    In the other hand, I admit that I reacted negatively to your rather aggressive reaction, and posted your game, and this was not fair, of course (check my games and you will see hundred of similar mistakes).
    I will from now on you leave you alone (this time I am serious about this) and I hope everything will go well with your project. We are definitely not enemies, we share the same enthusiasm for chess, and we even like the same book! :-) Let's forget the whole thing, okay? If chess.com contact you about what I once perceived as an abusive behaviour, just show this post.

     

    It's all good man. Thanks for looking out.  No need to take yourself out, it's constructive criticism and that's why forums exist right?  I'm hoping chess.com or JS will respond and you can use the work instead of having to recreate it as it can be time consuming.  And my apologies for being rude.  I would actually like to join your group if you don't mind.  I didn't get too far in the book because of some health issues that I was going through.

Top

Online Now