1:40 CET

Remember me

 Rating ListJanuary 1st2013

MatPlus.Net Forum Helpmates My best problem

Page: [Previous] [Next] 1 2

@Kevin & @Joost

Here we are in a free forum, not in a publication place!

QUOTE

I don't think so Joost

I think so. See articles 20.2.c, 22.2.a and 24.1 of the Codex.

Hi Jacques

QUOTE
The problems you show does not seem to me to show dual avoidance.

Consider the solution

1. T7d5 Sh4+ 2. Ke4 Te6#

in P0538725. For this solution to work, any block/interference/selfpin on d5 will do. So it seems that we have a dual: 1.T7d5 and 1.T3d5.

But in the second move, the black king moves to a square from which he gains access to d3. This effect avoids the dual.

@ Joost

This question is not new here :
http://www.matplus.net/pub/start.php?app=forum&act=posts&fid=xshowh&tid=177&pid=1148#n1148
from 36 to 41 and
http://www.matplus.net/pub/start.php?app=forum&act=posts&fid=gen&tid=190

As I understand it, the simple meaning of the codex is to organize, at the total benefit of the author, a defence in case of anticipation.

It is not to define a publication rule that would be independant of the will of the author.

@ Thomas

Usually, when you use the term of dual-avoidance it is reciprocal and involves 2 variations a least.
It seems not to be so in your example.

(26) Posted by Juraj Lörinc [Tuesday, May 26, 2009 22:28]

Jacques: No, dual avoidance is stand alone phenomenon, just like e.g. threat paradox. It can be present in the single instance, but it is usually not enough to be treated like valuable theme. It becomes valuable usually only in combination with other phenomena or when multiplied. That is why it is usually recognized and noted, but in fact it is present much more often than expected.

Yes Juraj, I agree with you.

The point was : the dual avoidance to be noticed, in the example shown, is only one sided, and the effect used is not of high strategical value. So I think, that it is not worth to quote it.

All right then, point understood. Remark of Thomas was right in a sense that Sonnefeld problems have one solution each with dual avoidance, there is nothing wrong with that. As a judge, however, I would not like this lack of balance - or more precisely lack of dual avoidance in one of solutions.

@ Jacques,

In this instance (and any similar) I certainly hope your interpretation triumphs, but I see no reason to believe it has.

Where is it stated that Mat Plus Forum is considered free-chat (akin to email)?
Mat Plus reserves the right to publish (print and online) any content submitted to their forum.

Suppose some rookie achieves the \$100 theme, and asks this forum where he should publish.
What prevents Mat Plus from publishing (and judging) this "free-chat"?
As far as I can tell, only good charity.
Charity is a fine thing, right up until you depend upon it to do anything but ensnare.

The discussion you sited lends no weight to your conclusion (nor can support be found in the codex).

If all agree that the moon is made of cheese, perhaps it becomes True; but a few subscribers of lunar cheese theory cannot be put forth as evidence.

Absent hard evidence (and good codex-lawyer?!) I wouldn't recommend depending on a cavalier "free chat" assumption.
You will inevitably encounter a judge who will prove to you that the world is not how it should be.

@ Kevin

Well, you seem to know a lot about, cheese, moon, laws , and charity...

However, there is common sense, and also there is codex.

As a matter of fact, they go here, in the same direction.

a) common sense let understand that the will of an author is the main thing to take in account for publication matter,

b) the codex says that if a problem has been shown in a public place, it can still be sent, within 2 years to any publication place, and participate there as original.
If somebody wants to add to this problem another reward ...why not ?

@ Jacques,

> You seem to know something about ...

I know a little about lunar orbits, I avoid dairy products, I do my best to evade the law, but, I have seen good charity from both sides...

> However, there is common sense, and also there is codex.

And never the two shall meet?

> As a matter of fact, they go here, in the same direction.

If indeed they go parralel here, let us hope in a non-Euclidian geometry.

> a) common sense let understand that the will of an author is the main thing to take in account for publication matter,

Yet an author cannot publish in 7 journals, and "will" the most favorable award to stand.
But, I do take your point, and share your belief that this is how it should be (generally).

> b) the codex says that if a problem has been shown in a public place, it can still be sent, within 2 years to any publication place, and participate there as original. If somebody wants to add to this problem another reward ...why not ?

Yes, true, 20.3 says "eligible to compete in any composing tournament within the next two years."
However, "original" is a term reserved for "first publication."
The relevant question: does Mat Plus forum constitute first publication (thereby preventing the term "original" for Springaren).
The same article says "enabling an unrestricted ... access" constitutes publication.

Reading article 24.1 -- if first publication (with priority date) is Mat Plus Forum, then publication in Springaren would be anticipated, and thus, the problem is "not eligible for any award" (in Springaren).

So, while I agree 100% with you that this is how the codex should read, the codex is currently, at a minimum, unsatisfactory in providing clear guidelines...

If I were a judge, of course, I would prefer to ignore the previous publication in Mat Plus.
But, now suppose somebody makes a claim of anticipation -- suddenly, it's not so easy.
No decent judge could be happy to see such a claim, but a good judge is also obligated to rule based on the codex.
It is not clear to me that the present codex would guide a judge to decide with our shared view of what should be the rule.
And, whatever the verdict, we should critique the codex (not the judge).

Thankfully, I don't have to wrestle with such decisions, which tends to interfere with my lunar observations.

QUOTE

b) the codex says that if a problem has been shown in a public place, it can still be sent, within 2 years to any publication place, and participate there as original.

The codex is slightly more exact: republication is only allowed in case 20.2.b (showing or using it in a lecture or solving tournament which falls within the categories listed in Annex I). An internet forum, especially if you don't have to subscribe to see its content, falls under 20.2.c. (it's equivalent to a 'mailing list', see note 22).

Nothing forbids a magazine from accepting a problem presented on a forum as an original, or a judge from including it in an award. And the 'first publication' rights for things posted on a forum can be useful too: if I send a problem I saw on a forum to my local paper (who probably won't read that forum), the original author can claim first publication rights.

But I guess this is a 'we agree that we disagree' case.

"Nothing forbids a magazine from accepting a problem presented on a forum as an original..."

Till now we did not speak of that case.

The problems shown here were not shown as originals.