Website founded by
Milan Velimirović
in 2006
23:10 UTC
| |
MatPlus.Net  Forum X-Files: Anticipations Cooked problems.. Do they anticipate sound problems? |
| |
|
|
|
|
You can only view this page!
| | | (1) Posted by seetharaman kalyan [Wednesday, Sep 28, 2011 00:09]; edited by seetharaman kalyan [11-09-28] | Cooked problems.. Do they anticipate sound problems?
Can cooked problems be claimed to anticipate sound problems?
Tim Krabbe in this wonderful article seems to think so. http://timkr.home.xs4all.nl/chess2/mitrofanov.htm
| | | (2) Posted by Kevin Begley [Wednesday, Sep 28, 2011 08:35]; edited by Kevin Begley [11-09-28] |
Cooked problems may not "formally" anticipate a sound problem; but, neither do corrections (even w/ improvements) *always* merit publication as a complete original.
The authors/editors/judges are expected to provide opinions as to whether the sound problem merits a claim of originality.
Ultimately, the larger community may have something to say about such claims...
Not a perfect system, but generally, authors do exercise good judgement in deciding whether to publish as a version, a co-composition, a partial-original (read: "after" the original author), or (in extreme cases) as a complete original.
The author of an unsound problem (e.g., the first failed attempt at the $100 theme) can not expect credit for any future correction; still, they may expect credit for being the first to show a highly original idea (even if the mechanism requires an unrelated/minor correction).
In any case, the author should provide any plausible anticipation claim -- including cooked problems! -- to the editor/judge (for their review).
Failure to disclose a related problem (even if cooked, or unknown to the author) might open the door to claims of anticipation.
Obviously, if the predecessor was unsound, the anticipation can not be considered more than "partial" -- but still, this may be enough to mitigate formal credit.
I think this is what Tim Krabbé is eluding to, when he turns to the "question of Mitrofanov's originality," and implies that "Mitrofanov (after Farago)" might have been (might still be!?) the proper way to credit this problem.
Had Farago's problem proved to be correct (even in the narrow context of the main idea: Qg5!!), one wonders how credit might be properly divided!?
Whether or not Mitrofanov actually saw Farago's problem is not exactly relevant -- unless there are other substantial reasons to question Mitrofanov's ethics (I know of none), he is entitled to a reasonable presumption of innocence.
I expect he would have at least shared Farago's problem, if he had known of it -- more likely, he would have adopted Krabbé's suggestion ("after Farago").
ps: The best way to settle such matters is by obtaining consent of the original author (if possible). Strangely enough, even in these cases, some judges have reserved themselves the absolute authority to nullify the agreements of all relevant parties, and then substantially alter the assignment of credit (in whatever manner they deem fit). This leaves a wildly absurd situation: a judge has no authority to overrule the consensual and amicable settlement of all relevant parties, nor do they have the inherent divinity to systematically deny any and all appeal; but, until justice is rendered upon them (e.g., their license to judge should absolutely be scrutinized), the rest of us are left wondering how to properly credit the impacted problems (read: we await some official discreditation of a tyrannical verdict, despite having no formal mechanisms to facilitate our expectations, nor any leverage necessary to assure a proper recognition of our sovereign will). If ever Joseph Heller had thirsted for concrete examples of tragic comedy, a solid oasis was never farther than one chess novel out of reach...
| | | (3) Posted by seetharaman kalyan [Wednesday, Sep 28, 2011 18:04] |
Codes is clear on the matter. Unsound problems lose their priority unless corrected within three years.
| | | (4) Posted by Kevin Begley [Thursday, Sep 29, 2011 06:58]; edited by Kevin Begley [11-09-29] |
No... the codex doesn't support your claim.
Far from it!
First, read the introduction (in the codex):
"...Chapters (V and VI), which tackle the topics of publication and priority, are different in character from Part One.
They cannot be called a distillation of experience, because these are areas where there are no generally accepted views, and no shared experience to distil.
They represent to some extent a compromise between the interests of editors and composers, arrived at after a painstaking discussion of alternatives."
How exactly are these chapters different?
Lookout -- their explanation (which follows) may hit you like a Qg5!! move:
"Although expressed as rules, these Chapters should be understood as guidance, which, it is hoped, can for the first time form the basis for coherent common practice in the future."
So, how does it matter that these are guidelines, and not rules?
Guidelines are intended to be considered carefully, but do not provide any legalistic alibi to excuse unethical conduct; whereas rules (the strict letter of the law) is another matter entirely.
Good ethical standards are expected, precisely because it is difficult (if not impossible) to define the proper ethical resolution for all circumstances (foreseeable and otherwise).
You quote sub-section 1, or article 23, in chapter 6 (Priority).
"If a published chess composition is found to be unsound [28], it loses its priority date unless a correction is published within three years after the publication of the unsoundness."
Keep reading... sub-section 2, part b), of the same article states:
(2) The author of a chess composition which has been published in unsound form retains the following rights:
(a) The right to correct the composition himself, and
(b) The right of being cited as author if a correction is made by someone else [29]
Note that section 2 provides no expiration date!
I think this is fairly clear: the codex has established priority dates as a mechanism to resolve cases of full anticipation.
But, in matters of partial anticipation, the codex provides no expiration period.
Keep in mind, that a problem's "soundness" remains a matter of considerable debate (particularly in selfmate problems, problems with promotion duals, etc).
Was the first problem to show the "Indian-Theme" widely considered unsound (in the era it was published)?
How do you expect to apply a hard rule, when we can not all agree on its fundamental terminology?
If I manage to eliminate a promotion dual in a thematically pioneering fairy #2 from 2008, would you really accept that I deserve all of the credit?
Suppose I achieved this simply by adding a fairy condition ("no Bishop promotions") -- should I take my victory lap (perhaps in cyclone's list of pioneers)?
This may be an exaggerated hypothetical, but it does suggest your claim may lead to an unreasonable offense against decency.
The aim is to encourage good judgement (high standards of ethics).
The intent was never to provide a timetable of opportunities in which other composers may conduct a legalized form of plagiarism.
Nor was it intended as a mechanism to lock out other composers (for the period of 3 years) from attempting to realize a well known idea.
Varying degrees of originality demand that authors be credited, in a variety of ways, on a case-by-case basis.
This is a delicate balance, which you can not expect to properly govern by any stone tablet!
Take to heart, instead, the message from this section of the codex: follow no rule which violates the golden rule.
| | | (5) Posted by seetharaman kalyan [Thursday, Sep 29, 2011 15:52]; edited by seetharaman kalyan [11-10-06] |
Thanks Kevin for your detailed reply. I had missed the introduction part of the Codex!
Actually I am already of the view that even the author of a cooked problem (even if it proves to be permanently unsound) should be given some credit for showing a pioneering theme or idea. I just assumed (wrongly, as you point out) that Codex fixed a reasonable time limit!
| | | (6) Posted by Zalmen Kornin [Wednesday, Oct 5, 2011 16:42] |
This one is good: "Are cooks from cooked problems someone's intellectual property" ?!
| | | (7) Posted by seetharaman kalyan [Wednesday, Oct 5, 2011 21:01]; edited by seetharaman kalyan [11-10-05] |
I have seen some cases - in those "NO computer" days :) - where the author of a cooked problem shared credit with the solver who found the cook since the "cook" also had interesting thematic content (it can happen in helpmates).
| |
No more posts |
MatPlus.Net Forum X-Files: Anticipations Cooked problems.. Do they anticipate sound problems? |
|
|
|
ISC 2024
