World Championship 2010

[TomChivers]

The moves are being relayed in the 'Broadcast' part of the PlayChess software.

[Alex Holowczak]

Which they can. The notice on the Anand-Topalov website has no legal standing whatsoever regarding the broadcast of the moves. (Presumably Playchess.com realise this, and are broadcasting regardless.) Chess.com TV is broadcasting live analysis of the moves too.

[Sean Hewitt]

Which they can. The notice on the Anand-Topalov website has no legal standing whatsoever regarding the broadcast of the moves.

I take it Albert Vasse can call you as an expert witness if he gets sued?

[Mick Norris]

Back to the chess, Anand is going for it with a kingside attack

http://live.chessdom.com/anand-topalov-2010-g4.html

[Alex Holowczak]

Which they can. The notice on the Anand-Topalov website has no legal standing whatsoever regarding the broadcast of the moves.

I take it Albert Vasse can call you as an expert witness if he gets sued?

We did a module last semester at University on "Investigative Skills", part of which involved IPR. I asked the lecturer (an expert in this field), whether the moves could be broadcast elsewhere, given they claim the rights to it. He said that since you can't copyright a game of chess, anyone was free to broadcast the moves, regardless. I'll let Mr. Vasse speak to my lecturer.

[Ben Purton]

You actually go to lectures???

Anands won here.

Ben

[Alex Holowczak]

You actually go to lectures???

Anands won here.

Ben

Of course, I go to all of them. If I'm paying £3,000+ for the privilege of attending University, I'm going to attend the lectures...

I agree that Anand looks like he has won.

[Eoin Devane]

Anand has now officially won.

[Ben Purton]

Im very jealous, I pay £8000 for them to mark journal submissions and that is about all the direct benefit i get

[IanDavis]

From the live game on the official website:

"Warning! It is absolutely prohibited the live broadcast of the moves or video during the game on other websites, media or software without the explicit permission of the organizers of the match.

This prohibition is being violated by ChessBase"

The video, yes. The moves, no.

Interesting claim. Has this actually been established in the various laws available across the world? It doesn't seem very unreasonable to expect that a commercial rival would not be able to broadcast the moves until the game has finished. Once the result is known, then obviously there is nothing to stop propagation around the world. I have heard it said that in Japan, publishing a game can require the permission of the players - that is they (or their organisation) hold the rights to it.

[John Saunders]

I've just been having a look at a few world championship stats. One that I thought I knew was that quite a lot of players have won (or retained) the title after losing the first game. In fact, this has happened far fewer times than I had thought. I may have been influenced by it having happened three times when I first became interested in the game. Those who have won a title match after losing the first game are Steinitz (twice, in 1889 and 1892), Euwe (1935), Alekhine (1937), Petrosian (1963), Spassky (1969), Fischer (1972). That is 7 times in 41 title matches so Anand would be in select company if he managed it.

If Topalov needs historical consolation, he need look no further than the first ever official world championship match in 1886. Like Topalov, Steinitz won the first game against Zukertort but then went behind. In fact, he lost four games on the bounce to go 1-4 down. But by game 12 he had turned things round to lead by 7-5 and he went on to win the match.

One slightly weird stat I researched some time ago was to discover which world title matches would have had a different result had the players only played 12 games. They are as follows:

1892 Steinitz would have lost 5-7 to Chigorin
1935 Alekhine would have beaten Euwe 6½-5½
1951 Botvinnik would have beaten Bronstein 6½-5½
1969 Petrosian would have drawn with Spassky 6-6
1978 Karpov would have drawn with Korchnoi 6-6
1984 Karpov would have beaten Kasparov 8-4 (but of course he sort-of won anyway)
1985 Karpov would have drawn with Kasparov
1987 Kasparov would have beaten Karpov 6½-5½
1990 Kasparov would have drawn 6-6 with Karpov
2004 Kramnik would have lost 5½-6½ to Leko

[Alex Holowczak]

From the live game on the official website:

"Warning! It is absolutely prohibited the live broadcast of the moves or video during the game on other websites, media or software without the explicit permission of the organizers of the match.

This prohibition is being violated by ChessBase"

The video, yes. The moves, no.

Interesting claim. Has this actually been established in the various laws available across the world? It doesn't seem very unreasonable to expect that a commercial rival would not be able to broadcast the moves until the game has finished. Once the result is known, then obviously there is nothing to stop propagation around the world. I have heard it said that in Japan, publishing a game can require the permission of the players - that is they (or their organisation) hold the rights to it.

The point is, no one can hold rights for moves on a chessboard, because there's nothing there for a rights-holder to hold rights over. You can only copyright work that is original. A game of chess is not original; at least, it cannot be proven to be so. While it might seem reasonable, the law doesn't agree.

You make a good point about international laws. Copyright is a national restriction, not an international restriction; unless there has been an international agreement between the two competing entities. I would imagine the EU has that sort of agreement.

[Jonathan Bryant]

I have absolutely no legal expertise whatsoever but it seems to me likely that Alex is right.

After all, it's common practice for The Guardian, The Telegraph and no doubt many other places to comment on cricket, football and many other sports events while they are in progress. They don't show the pictures of the event but they just tell you what's happening. It's not obvious to me why what Chessbase are doing is different to this.


PS:
Apologies to David Sedgwick from my earlier post ... I stand corrected on both points.

[Richard Bates]

It seems fairly obvious that one can't copyright the moves when a fundamental part of the game is building and improving on what has been demonstrated in the past.

It would certainly be potentially lucrative though if FIDE could officially recognise the instigator of every new move, with the individual receiving royalties every time that move was subsequently repeated!

[Richard Bates]

I've just been having a look at a few world championship stats. One that I thought I knew was that quite a lot of players have won (or retained) the title after losing the first game. In fact, this has happened far fewer times than I had thought. I may have been influenced by it having happened three times when I first became interested in the game. Those who have won a title match after losing the first game are Steinitz (twice, in 1889 and 1892), Euwe (1935), Alekhine (1937), Petrosian (1963), Spassky (1969), Fischer (1972). That is 7 times in 41 title matches so Anand would be in select company if he managed it.

Did Anand not go one up against Kasparov? If you mean the first game, as opposed to first decisive game, then surely the valid statistic is 7 times out of the number of matches with a decisive first game (not ALL matches - I'm guessing that there haven't been more than 41 matches in total apologies if wrong)?