IanDavis wrote:... there is scant evidence that plagarism delivers the same result in the chess marketplace.
Indeed not, Ian - although thatâ€™s interesting in and of itself in its own way. To those of us who are interested in such things, anyway.
Another curiosity is that while many in the chess world hold the views of the â€˜(chess) plagiarism doesnâ€™t matterâ€™ kind that weâ€™ve seen expressed in this thread, the plagiarism series on the blog has also found itâ€™s way to people who are either outside the chess world entirely or only the fringes of it. Some of these folk, assuming that it does matter, have brought wider attention to the issue than could every have been achieved by one little chess blog.
Paul McKeown wrote:I doubt that anyone is making little of the dishonesty of plagiarism.
Paul, Iâ€™m afraid I find it difficult to reconcile this post with some of the others that have appeared on this thread.
Roger de Coverly wrote:
A rebuke for annoying sponsors was the ECF's response to those who considered the Chess Sets for Schools project likely to fail. I seem to recall the odd mocking video posted to this forum.
The â€˜Donâ€™t scare the sponsorsâ€™ argument was also directed my way when I raised various matters relating to Sheffield 2011.