Public Clarification Regarding Allegations of Misappropriation

Purpose of this statement

This statement addresses public allegations concerning similarities identified in a limited portion of my published work, as well as claims related to financial motivation and third-party involvement.
Specifically, the accusations refer to 4 studies out of a total of 13 that I have published.
The purpose of this clarification is to explain the scope and context of those similarities, to address claims regarding sponsorship, and to prevent inaccurate conclusions affecting my work and third parties.

On the scope of the alleged similarities

It is correct that similarities have been identified in 4 specific studies.
The remaining 9 studies have not been identified as similar, nor questioned in this regard.
Any implication that my entire body of work is based on copying is therefore inaccurate and misleading.
Generalizing a limited similarity to all published material is disproportionate.

On similarity versus misappropriation

The existence of similarity in a limited number of studies does not, by itself, constitute theft or plagiarism.
In analytical and educational domains, similarity may arise when:

• Working on well-known positions or problems
• Referencing publicly available and established studies
• Applying efficient or commonly accepted instructional structures

The relevant criterion is whether the material was directly copied without transformation or original contribution.

Nature of the referenced material

The studies identified as similar are:

• Old and publicly accessible
• Non-exclusive
• Widely known within the field
• Used as conceptual references, not as replicated outputs

They serve as foundations for further development rather than as content reproduced verbatim.

Description of my development process

The studies in question were developed through an independent process involving:

• Analysis of existing studies
• Reorganization and restructuring of content
• Introduction of explanatory layers and didactic intent
• Adaptation to a specific audience and context on the Lichess platform

While similarities may exist at a conceptual or structural level, the resulting studies incorporate transformation and added value.

On sponsorship and financial allegations

Some of my studies are supported by a sponsor, Noctie.
This sponsorship does not apply to all of my published studies.
The sponsor is aware of what is being supported and under which conditions.
However, there is no evidence, documentation, or contractual basis indicating that sponsorship was contingent upon copying, misappropriation, or unethical conduct.
Claims suggesting that my work constitutes “theft for financial gain,” or that Noctie incentivized or encouraged such behavior, are unsupported.
There is:

• No proof of payment tied to misappropriation
• No contractual clause encouraging unethical conduct
• No factual basis linking sponsorship to the alleged similarities

Sponsorship does not imply control over creative content, nor does it constitute evidence of wrongdoing.

On third-party accusations

Accusations directed at third parties based solely on assumption or inference are unfounded and risk causing unjustified reputational harm.
Noctie’s involvement is limited to sponsorship and does not extend to authorship, content direction, or methodological decisions.

Conclusion

I acknowledge the existence of similarities in a defined and limited subset of my work.
I reject the conclusion that these similarities constitute theft, bad faith, or financial misconduct.
I also reject allegations implying that sponsorship influenced or incentivized unethical behavior.
This statement is issued to ensure factual precision, proportionality, and clarity, and to prevent unsupported accusations from affecting both my work and unrelated third parties.