MatPlus.Net

 Website founded by
Milan Velimirović
in 2006

23:58 UTC
 
  Forum*
 
 
 
 

Username:

Password:

Remember me

 
Forgot your
password?
Click here!
SIGN IN
to create your account if you don't already have one.
CHESS
SOLVING

Tournaments
Rating lists
1-Oct-2019

B P C F





 
 
MatPlus.Net Forum X-Files: Anticipations Anticipation by incorrect studies (or problems)?
 
You can only view this page!
(1) Posted by Siegfried Hornecker [Friday, Sep 12, 2008 12:37]

Anticipation by incorrect studies (or problems)?


Dear judges and codexers,

I need for a judgement following information. If a composition is sent in "after X" by composer Y and the composition by X is more than 2 (or 3?) years old - in my case 30 years - and found to be incorrect, what is to do?

Study X: 30 years old, incorrect, but incorrectness not published
Study Y: "After X", composer of Y shows incorrectness of X and builds a few moves before it

1. Publish the incorrectness and wait two (three?) years if X can correct it, which delays the judgement - alternatively ask the composer of X
2. Judge as if X anticipates Y (partially)
3. Judge as if X doesn't exist.

If necessary, the study is sent via note. I don't want to cause inconvenience. Please, no questions about the tourney!

Many thanks in advance!
Siegfried
 
(Read Only)pid=2720
(2) Posted by Harry Fougiaxis [Friday, Sep 12, 2008 14:04]

Did you check the Codex, Chapter VI, Article 23?

http://www.sci.fi/~stniekat/pccc/codex.htm
 
 
(Read Only)pid=2721
(3) Posted by Siegfried Hornecker [Friday, Sep 12, 2008 14:50]

I know that (so it was three years) but it doesn't answer my question.
 
   
(Read Only)pid=2722
(4) Posted by Paz Einat [Saturday, Sep 13, 2008 15:11]

To a large extent it depends on the nature of the added moves. If these moves merely makes study X correct then the study can be maximally published as: Composer X - version by Y. The idea was concieved by the original composer and cannot be claimed by Y. Only a correction can be claimed.

The best is to send the original composer the incorrectness (if this is possible) and let him correct it. The possible correction can also be sent to him, preferably by Y.
 
 
(Read Only)pid=2724
(5) Posted by [Sunday, Sep 14, 2008 09:29]; edited by [08-09-14]

I'm not a judge, nor do I have any exaggerated trust in the Codex -- so perhaps
I'm missing some finer points.

>1. Publish the incorrectness and wait two (three?) years if X can correct it, which delays the judgement - alternatively ask the >composer of X

A tourney judge has no business meddling with matters outside the tourney. He cannot
or should not publish anything off his own bat -- his job is to make a judgement and report
on it to the tourney director, and do so in a timely manner. This alternative is therefore
not an option to the judge.

Actually, unless the question is hypothetical, I think you may be making a mistake in
asking anyone except the tourney directory for advice. But I assume you have already done
so.


>3. Judge as if X doesn't exist.

This is clearly not an option either. X does exist, and if I have understood your
description, Y is declared to be 'after X'.

(I suspect I understand why this option is here: X, by virtue of being unsound, has
lost its priority date. For that reason, X may be thought to 'not exist'. However,
priority dates are used for a very special situation, and this is not clearly one of them.
See more below.)


>2. Judge as if X anticipates Y (partially)

That seems to be the best alternative of those you have presented. The author has
stated (right?) Y to be 'after X', so the relation between the two compositions is already
declared, and it is equally clear that Y is not an original composition but based on an
earlier one. (I assume Y is still eligible to participate in the tourney, though.)

I don't see that the muddle the Codex makes over priority dates should be allowed to
muddy the waters. It seems pretty clear to me that they should be used only to decide which of two
problems 'of identical form' was actually first. If X and Y are not 'identical' (a
concept that is not defined) to begin with, priority dates simply don't enter the question.
And even if you (as judge) decide they are identical, I can't see that a problem declared
to be 'after X', X having been published 30 years ago, can raise the question of whether X or
Y was first, regardless of what the Codex says.

That is, as this is not a question of deciding if X is younger or older than Y, ignore articles 22 and 23.
 
 
(Read Only)pid=2726
(6) Posted by Siegfried Hornecker [Tuesday, Sep 16, 2008 02:08]

The issue is settled. Many thanks to Paz Einat for the solution!

Topic can be closed, I think.
 
 
(Read Only)pid=2730

No more posts


MatPlus.Net Forum X-Files: Anticipations Anticipation by incorrect studies (or problems)?