An interview with david levy part 1

[Harvey Williamson]

http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=7899

[Harvey Williamson]

http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=7899

Here is part 2 http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=7908

[Peter Grayson]

http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=7899

Here is part 2 http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=7908

A very disappointing interview! Personally I have not been swayed either way up until now and the questions that seemed to be more emotional than substance oriented did nothing to enhance the VII cause. If anything, as difficult as it is to admit it, I thought David Levy's answers were well prepared. Perhaps a missed opportunity here for the VII population and a brownie point for the VIG population.

PeterG

[Terry McCracken]

http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=7899

Here is part 2 http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=7908

A very disappointing interview! Personally I have not been swayed either way up until now and the questions that seemed to be more emotional than substance oriented did nothing to enhance the VII cause. If anything, as difficult as it is to admit it, I thought David Levy's answers were well prepared. Perhaps a missed opportunity here for the VII population and a brownie point for the VIG population.

PeterG

I'm sorry but I don't know what you're trying to say?

[Peter Grayson]

I'm sorry but I don't know what you're trying to say?

From the standpoint that Chessbase seem to be supporting the Rybka case then the nature of the questions asked, in my opinion, did not enhance the position of the Vas is innocent (VII) third party group and Chessbase. If anything they seemed to give the impression of Chessbase taking a swipe at the ICGA that made the interviews something of a non-event. I expected something more professional and constructive.

If Chessbase are determined to support Rybka over HIARCS, Shredder and Junior, for example, they need to express more substantial reasons for doing so. There is little doubt of commonality of certain ideas in the Crafty>Fruit> Rybka chain that are sufficient to fall foul of the ICGA rule 2, however the more serious accusation of plagiarism is not so clear cut from a copyright legal position but that has little relevance for the arguments over the ICGA rule 2 conditions.

ICGA rule 2 and plagiarism are two sepearte arguments as far as I am concerned because the boundaries of what is permissable are completely different. Unfortunately there seems to be overlap and confusion between the two for the VII group.

PeterG