MatPlus.Net

 Website founded by
Milan Velimirović
in 2006

23:40 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
01-Oct-2019

B P C F





 
 
MatPlus.Net Forum General FIDE Album entries - some unanswered(?) questions regarding the correction of unsound problems...
 
You can only view this page!
(1) Posted by Ian Shanahan [Wednesday, Jan 30, 2008 02:35]

FIDE Album entries - some unanswered(?) questions regarding the correction of unsound problems...


PREAMBLE

With the recent release of Popeye 4.41, I was able to computer-test some of my hitherto untestable problems. To my dismay, one which I had submitted to the FIDE Album 2004-2006 was found to be cooked; so I contacted the section controller, Juraj Lorinc, to withdraw it. Fortunately, I do believe I have now fixed it (though its length quite possibly precludes it from thorough machine-testing, at least for the moment). I then asked my friend John Rice - because of John's vast experience with PCCC matters - whether this apparent 'correction' would be able to be re-sent to Juraj. He confirmed what I suspected - that no, it could not (regardless of deadlines). John told me that my correction may be submitted instead to the FIDE Album appropriate to its - the correction's - year of publication. This seems perfectly reasonable, but it does imply some awkward ramifications:

QUESTION 1

In 1984 (i.e. 24 years ago!), another series-mover of mine received a lowly Commendation in "The Problemist". Subsequent computer testing in 2006 proved it to be unsound, but I managed to construct a correction and even to improve the problem (C+)! I envisage that this now-error-free composition will be published sometime during 2008. So, according to the above information, I could in the future proffer it for the 2007-2009 FIDE Album - nearly a quarter of a century after its first publication! So the question is: Is there some kind of 'statute of limitation' - i.e. a time-limit - for this sort of thing? If not, should there be one? And how precisely is the composer to specify such a problem's publication details? (Something like 'Comm. "The Problemist" 1984; correction 2008'?) Further questions also arise:

QUESTION 2

A couple of years ago, John informed me that if a composer's problem from a FIDE Album is later found to be cooked (or otherwise fatally flawed: e.g. anticipated, dualled, being an illegal position...), then there is no consequent loss of Album points. So, given the preceding remarks, it now seems possible for a composer to gain 2 (or more!) Album points for 'the same' problem. If so, this strikes me as totally unfair. So: Should a (still-living) composer lose his Album points for cooked problems? Or - and this is a superior alternative, I think - instead be forbidden to resubmit any of their corrections on the grounds of 'double-dipping'. (And, by the way, how is one to deal with dead problemists' unsound Album problems?)

CONCLUSION

A cursory examination of the Codex apparently indicates that these matters have not been dealt with therein. (Such problems are *not* self-anticipated, according to the Codex, since the earlier problem is demonstrably unsound.) Perhaps the PCCC should decide on some protocols in this regard - and not just concerning FIDE Albums, but for problem tourneys in general.

Please understand that I am not trying to stir up controversy for its own sake: these matters have been on my mind for quite some time. But if my questions have already been addressed elsewhere, then please point me to their answers, and forgive my ignorance and wasting of your time...
 
(Read Only)pid=1922
(2) Posted by Thomas Maeder [Wednesday, Jan 30, 2008 11:23]

 QUOTE 
Please understand that I am not trying to stir up controversy for its own sake

I find your questions interesting and relevant; here are my opinions for part 1.

 QUOTE 
Is there some kind of 'statute of limitation' - i.e. a time-limit - for this sort of thing?

Not that I know of.

 QUOTE 
If not, should there be one?

No.

 QUOTE 
And how precisely is the composer to specify such a problem's publication details? (Something like 'Comm. "The Problemist" 1984; correction 2008'?)

Ian Shanahan
The Problemist 1984
BCPS Tourney 1984, Commendation
Correction: The Problemist 2008

The first three lines consist of the publication of the initial, incorrect setting. The line "The Problemist 1984" indicates the place of publication. The line "BCPS Tourney 1984, Commendation" indicates the tourney the problem competed in and the distinction it got; The Problemist is special in this regard because the magazine is called "The Problemist" but the tourney is called "BCPS Tourney"; most other magazines have the same name as their informal tourneys.

FWIW, A201 from the new Album 98-00 is a similar case; the original setting had mutiple refutations for one try IIRC.
 
 
(Read Only)pid=1927
(3) Posted by Ian Shanahan [Thursday, Jan 31, 2008 00:13]

Thanks for that, Thomas. Regarding my 'statute of limitations' in Q.1, I completely agree with you that there should be no time-limit: I believe nothing would be gained by imposing one!

In relation to "The Problemist" and BCPS both needing to be specified with publication details in my own case, I think only the former is necessary - because this journal dropped the rubric "Proceedings of the British Chess Problem Society" some years ago.
 
   
(Read Only)pid=1934
(4) Posted by Ian Shanahan [Friday, Feb 1, 2008 23:48]

Is any problemist out there in Mat Plus cyberland willing to address my Q.2??? Please, this issue needs debating...
 
   
(Read Only)pid=1940
(5) Posted by Thomas Maeder [Saturday, Feb 2, 2008 09:17]

 QUOTE 
In relation to "The Problemist" and BCPS both needing to be specified with publication details in my own case, I think only the former is necessary - because this journal dropped the rubric "Proceedings of the British Chess Problem Society" some years ago.

Well, The Problemist uses the term "BCPS tourney" very consistently - I'm in no position to assume that they want their tourney to be called anything different.
 
 
(Read Only)pid=1943
(6) Posted by [Saturday, Feb 2, 2008 11:09]; edited by [08-02-02]

Ian Shanahan wrote:

>In relation to "The Problemist" and BCPS both needing to be specified with publication
>details in my own case, I think only the former is necessary - because this journal dropped
>the rubric "Proceedings of the British Chess Problem Society" some years ago.

Award and Source should be kept separate as a matter of principle: they are not the same thing. It is only in cases where there can be no confusion between the two that they might be merged. I don't think they should be, though: keeping them separate is a useful help to the reader, particularly for old problems. (Of course, publishing economy may require them to be merged into one)

Possibilities of confusion are plentiful here. For a source references, there is no (or should not be any) difficulty in deciding in what year the problem was published (but there are special cases like that of Stella Polaris 1974:1 which was published in November 1975). For awards, however, there seem to be no consistent practice: some writers use the year the tourney report was published, others use the year the tourney was announced, and still others use both. And there is seldom any attempt of disambiguating between several possible tourneys.

For instance, there are problems published as '1st pr., Brentano's Chess Monthly, 1882'. Although that indicates that an award was given, it does not help in distinguishing between the monthly, informal 'Frontispiece Tourney', the Promotion tourney, the minor Eastside Two-move tourney or the formal 1st Problem Tourney. It is too easy to assume it must refer to the latter.

In this particular case, it would probably require extra research to verify that there was indeed no other tourney arranged (or concluded) by the Problemist (or better BCPS) in 1984. Even so, I think it would be useful to add information about issue and possibly even page where the problem was published.

Of course, I am the kind of person who suspect all source or award statements to be more or less 'cooked', so I may be excessively concerned about this particular problem.
 
   
(Read Only)pid=1944
(7) Posted by Ian Shanahan [Monday, Feb 4, 2008 04:32]

@Thomas & Anders. Having been a member of the BCPS since 1978, I can say from carefully studying "The Problemist" that awards in its *informal* tourneys (including the Supplement) *always* mention just the magazine. However, for BCPS Theme- or Memorial Tourneys, it's another matter entirely - and that's where the BCPS sobriquet is used. In many cases, particularly now that there are two magazines (i.e. the 'main' one and its Supplement), it would indeed be advantageous to specify TT/MT + publication source. So of course I agree with the general thrust of your argument!
 
 
(Read Only)pid=1956

No more posts


MatPlus.Net Forum General FIDE Album entries - some unanswered(?) questions regarding the correction of unsound problems...