English Chess Forum

Yes. FIDE would quite like it if we treated the facts represented by chess moves in the same manner as the fact of who wins Bake Off. They can't punish people in the courts for passing facts to the media, so this is how they're going to withdraw certain chess privileges from them instead.

I'm not seeing anything in that document about ticket purchases and the terms and conditions thereof. Nor am I seeing anything analogous to it. It's simply an attempt by a sporting federation to insist on its affiliates supporting a view which has no basis in law. It's improper, it's bullying and it's stupid.

"contributing to organization of unauthorized live move-by-move broadcast" - messaging the moves to your friend at chess24 as they're played would be contributing to their live move-by-move broadcast, no?

Your point does not elude me but its relevance does

FIDE's live move policy ought to be that it encourages organisations to make available on line the games played in events in the interests of the promotion of chess in general, exposure of participants in tournaments and sponsors getting a worldwide name check. Technical support of "how to do it" could also be covered.

JustinHorton wrote: ↑

Fri Mar 16, 2018 5:08 pm

Your point does not elude me but its relevance does

Chess game takes place in hall. Broadcaster sits in studio hundreds of miles away. How does broadcaster get hold of moves as they're being played? The American court judgement talks about "secondary sources". How do the secondary sources get hold of the moves as they're being played? Unless they're using extra-sensory perception, there's got to be a chain of communication that leads back to someone in the playing hall, who is therefore contributing to the organisation of the live broadcast. Why should FIDE allow them to contribute to the organisation of the live broadcast, when it's directly undermining the value of their own product?

Chris Wardle wrote: ↑

Fri Mar 16, 2018 11:24 pm

Unless they're using extra-sensory perception, there's got to be a chain of communication that leads back to someone in the playing hall, who is therefore contributing to the organisation of the live broadcast.

Simple enough, the moves as played are recorded on a website. If you want to discuss the moves you look them up on the website.

It's a model that's likely to be applied this weekend for the 4NCL games.

Roger de Coverly wrote: ↑

Fri Mar 16, 2018 11:33 pm

Chris Wardle wrote: ↑

Fri Mar 16, 2018 11:24 pm

Unless they're using extra-sensory perception, there's got to be a chain of communication that leads back to someone in the playing hall, who is therefore contributing to the organisation of the live broadcast.

Simple enough, the moves as played are recorded on a website. If you want to discuss the moves you look them up on the website.

It's a model that's likely to be applied this weekend for the 4NCL games.

As in the official website of the match? Waiting for the moves to show up on someone else's broadcast hardly counts as broadcasting live, does it...?

Chris Wardle wrote: ↑

Sat Mar 17, 2018 11:25 am

Roger de Coverly wrote: ↑

Fri Mar 16, 2018 11:33 pm

Chris Wardle wrote: ↑

Fri Mar 16, 2018 11:24 pm

Unless they're using extra-sensory perception, there's got to be a chain of communication that leads back to someone in the playing hall, who is therefore contributing to the organisation of the live broadcast.

Simple enough, the moves as played are recorded on a website. If you want to discuss the moves you look them up on the website.

It's a model that's likely to be applied this weekend for the 4NCL games.

As in the official website of the match? Waiting for the moves to show up on someone else's broadcast hardly counts as broadcasting live, does it...?

How easy is it to protect the moves data source of the official website?

Chris Wardle wrote: ↑

Sat Mar 17, 2018 11:25 am

Roger de Coverly wrote: ↑

Fri Mar 16, 2018 11:33 pm

Chris Wardle wrote: ↑

Fri Mar 16, 2018 11:24 pm

Unless they're using extra-sensory perception, there's got to be a chain of communication that leads back to someone in the playing hall, who is therefore contributing to the organisation of the live broadcast.

Simple enough, the moves as played are recorded on a website. If you want to discuss the moves you look them up on the website.

It's a model that's likely to be applied this weekend for the 4NCL games.

As in the official website of the match? Waiting for the moves to show up on someone else's broadcast hardly counts as broadcasting live, does it...?

Agon has claimed that doing this is a breach of their exclusive rights to broadcast the moves, although, unsurprisingly, their attempts to enforce this through legal action failed.

Retransmitting moves on your own website that were received from the official broadcast may not be live, but, for chess broadcasting, it's as good as. If I wanted to watch a broadcast on a particular website because I liked their commentators, for example, it wouldn't bother me that there was a slight delay on the transmission. I wouldn't switch to the official broadcast because of it.

Chris Wardle wrote: ↑

Sat Mar 17, 2018 11:25 am

As in the official website of the match? Waiting for the moves to show up on someone else's broadcast hardly counts as broadcasting live, does it...?

I would expect the moves to show up as soon as they are played on the DGT Live boards. I expect the website will have the coverage as presented by the DGT software and chess24 will have the moves as transmitted simultaneously to them. I believe the way it works is that the DGT Boards periodically transmit a pgn file of the game as played so far. How frequently it does this will build a small delay into the retransmission.

Are there still delays on live broadcast of moves as an anti-cheating measure?

Mick Norris wrote: ↑

Sat Mar 17, 2018 12:29 pm

Are there still delays on live broadcast of moves as an anti-cheating measure?

For reasons I have never been able to understand, Anti Cheating Commission considers that this measure would serve no purpose.

Ian Thompson wrote: ↑

Sat Mar 17, 2018 11:38 am

Retransmitting moves on your own website that were received from the official broadcast may not be live, but, for chess broadcasting, it's as good as. If I wanted to watch a broadcast on a particular website because I liked their commentators, for example, it wouldn't bother me that there was a slight delay on the transmission. I wouldn't switch to the official broadcast because of it.

I mean, if I was the official broadcaster I would still be frustrated to discover that my broadcasting rights - and all the attendant marketing and merchandising opportunities - were rendered basically worthless by the very act of exercising them. For Yasser Seirawan to say that:

Yasser Seirawan wrote:Chess event organizers have a monopoly on absolutely clear uncontestable copyrightable materials: They have all photography rights; all webcam rights (of the players in action over the board); all audio rights to their own online show; they have all post-game interview rights; including still photography, video and audio; press conference rights; they have all promotional rights that feature the players; they have merchandizing rights to the players' images and likenesses; as well as other numerous rights ... allowing them to make the very best (online) show of their own event. ... How could any other party “compete” against such a show?

is rather ignoring the fact that chess24 did compete, successfully, against such a show, while owning no rights other than the right to watch an official broadcast of the moves. The moves are more valuable and the uncontestable copyrightable materials less valuable than we'd like them to be.

The World Chess Championship brings in the punters because we acknowledge FIDE's monopoly on proclaiming the chess champion of the world. You can't just set up your own World Champion title and expect to generate the same interest. I think if chess24, or any other broadcaster, are prepared to profit from FIDE's monopoly, they have to also accept the monopoly holder's right to blacklist them. There's either a free market in elite chess or there isn't.

Chris Wardle wrote: ↑

Sat Mar 17, 2018 1:39 pm

I mean, if I was the official broadcaster I would still be frustrated to discover that my broadcasting rights - and all the attendant marketing and merchandising opportunities - were rendered basically worthless by the very act of exercising them.

That's tough, because the free use of game scores long pre-dates the existence of Agon; FIDE as well given the principle dates back to Victorian times.

The other way of looking at this is to ask who built the audience for on line play in the first place? It wasn't Agon or FIDE.