Website founded by
Milan Velimirović
in 2006
18:04 UTC
| |
MatPlus.Net  Forum General Birth by accident |
| |
|
|
|
|
You can only view this page!
| | | (1) Posted by Sarah Hornecker [Sunday, May 2, 2010 23:08] | Birth by accident
What happens if a problem/study is misprinted and it creates an entirely new problem/study? Who is to be considered the author of it?
We had the case of a misprint in Die Schwalbe recently, one that didn't create such a case, but seeing as it was a study only with a few pieces, I asked Michael Roxlau about this and he also doesn't know an answer. So I ask for your opinion what to do if this would ever happen.
Thanks,
Siegfried
| | | (2) Posted by Geoff Foster [Sunday, May 2, 2010 23:57] |
It would be surprising if a misprinted diagram resulted in a completely different problem/study. Surely some of the play would be the same (at least in a problem, if not in a study)? The original composer should be given the credit for the new problem, if they agree to accept it.
| | | (3) Posted by Geoff Foster [Monday, May 3, 2010 00:18] |
Who should be given the credit if the following study was accidentally printed as "White to play and Win"?
 (= 2+2 )
White to play and Draw
| | | (4) Posted by Sarah Hornecker [Monday, May 3, 2010 00:20] |
Not exactly the same case since this wasn't a misprint, only a refutation that was better than the author's intention.
So:
Barbier for creating the position
Saavedra for showing the most famous move of all studies
| | | (5) Posted by Geoff Foster [Monday, May 3, 2010 02:45] |
What if the following problem was printed with the wrong stipulation?
 (= 2+2 )
| | | (6) Posted by Kevin Begley [Monday, May 3, 2010 04:21]; edited by Kevin Begley [10-05-03] |
@Geoff: I don't fully agree.
If there is thematic content which relates to the original, I do agree, the author deserves credit.
However, the author would be wise to extend joint credit (or dedication) to the editor(s).
For example, suppose the misprint gives a third thematic twin to a helpmate -- in this case, the editor(s) should realize that this "accidental" content is, to large degree, the natural bi-product of the original.
In fact, I speak from some related experience here.
I have a joint problem with a friend, which seems to my co-author to have been a "happy accident".
It really was no accident turning a considered (though slightly less interesting) thematic try into a second phase (in fact, another friend, who curiously refused joint credit, first suggested how to twin the problem, and my co-author merely discovered the solution already present in the resulting twin).
My point being...
Imagine I had published this problem, and the editor misprinted this precise pawn shift (yielding a thematic second phase).
In this case, it's best to credit me for what might appear a "happy accident" (read: assume there are no accidents).
Nevertheless, I should probably offer the editor(s) -- edit: possibly solver(s) too! -- joint credit (or dedication).
Up to this point, I expect we are probably in full agreement...
However, things are quite different if the accidental misprint results in a completely new problem, with no similarities (thematic, or otherwise).
For example, suppose a complete change results when the fairy conditions, or the aim, have been misprinted.
In this instance, legitimate claim rests with the editor(s) -- who misprinted the diagram -- rather than the original author.
And here, the editor(s) would be wise to consider extending a reciprocal courtesy.
However, I would submit to you, that in this instance, a truly wise editor would credit "A.Misprint"
Publication of the truth, after all, would make the best source for such a pleasant fiction.
This goes too for the 4-man problem, with never enough stipulations (but always too many fairy conditions) attached.
| | | (7) Posted by Dan Meinking [Monday, May 3, 2010 06:41] |
@Kev,
"In fact, I speak from some related experience here.
I have a joint problem with a friend, which seems to my co-author to have been a "happy accident".
It really was no accident turning a considered (though slightly less interesting) thematic try into a second phase (in fact, another friend, who curiously refused joint credit, first suggested how to twin the problem, and my co-author merely discovered the solution already present in the resulting twin)."
So the 3rd party "suggested how to twin the problem" -- without having composed a solution for said twin. Then the 2nd party "merely discovered" the "thematic try" (which you presumably knew about) that then became the twin? Sounds like an "accident", or complete thievery by the 2nd party.
| | | (8) Posted by Kevin Begley [Monday, May 3, 2010 11:26]; edited by Kevin Begley [10-05-03] |
@Dan
"__So the 3rd party "suggested how to twin the problem" -- without having composed a solution for said twin. Then the 2nd party "merely discovered" the "thematic try" (which you presumably knew about) that then became the twin? Sounds like an "accident", or complete thievery by the 2nd party. __"
That's the point: to the 2nd party, this appeared a lucky "accident."
This is meant only to illustrate how a diagram error, which reveals an additional thematic solution, should be credited to the author.
Because, what appears an accident to a 2nd party, might actually be the bi-product of something the author had intended.
Nevertheless, the author should consider extending joint-credit to the contributors (whether editors or solvers).
Finally, I don't mean to go off the thread here in discussing the specifics of an example sited for other purposes...
But, for complete clarity -- whereas it's true that the 3rd party didn't reveal the solution for said twin, I cannot say whether it was known to him (but not revealed), or perhaps known instinctively to be there (but deliberately not investigated further).
| | | (9) Posted by Dan Meinking [Monday, May 3, 2010 21:38] |
So you're saying the author "should be credited" with this discovery, but the 2nd party should be offered joint credit. Sounds like the 2nd party demanded or assumed credit for contributing nothing. What a scoundrel!
Perhaps "unhappy accident" is more appropriate...
| | | (10) Posted by Kevin Begley [Monday, May 3, 2010 22:48]; edited by Kevin Begley [10-05-04] |
@Dan,
"So you're saying the author "should be credited" with this discovery, but the 2nd party should be offered joint credit."
That's correct -- in my view, the 2nd party deserved to be offered joint credit for the contribution.
So, to relate this back to the point of the thread, I'm saying that solvers, too, may be entitled to credit, merely for solving a misprinted diagram (and contributing).
"Sounds like the 2nd party demanded or assumed credit for contributing nothing. What a scoundrel!"
Woot?
Scoundrel? No, the 2nd party is a good friend.
Contributing nothing? No, the 2nd party provided the exact solution.
In fact, he provided this instantly -- prior to my realization that the thematic try was now reduced to one exact solution (in the original form, the "thematic try" actually consisted of several tries!), after the application of 3rd party's twin.
Had I already known this, I still think joint-credit should probably be offered... but then, I wonder, for how many solvers?
That is -- to relate back to the thread, which is becoming increasingly difficult -- were the diagram a misprint, should the author extend credit only to the first solver, or for all solvers?
Probably best answered on a case by case basis.
"Perhaps "unhappy accident" is more appropriate..."
A more appropriate description wouldn't contain the word "accident."
Nor would "unhappy" characterize this -- the problem was much improved, and we were given some award for it.
| | | (11) Posted by Joost de Heer [Monday, May 3, 2010 23:55] |
I once 'composed' a version of a composition by placing a piece on the wrong square in Popeye, and suddenly there were 2 solutions instead of 1, and there was sortof an ortho-diagonal correspondence between the solutions.
| | | (12) Posted by Kevin Begley [Tuesday, May 4, 2010 00:26]; edited by Kevin Begley [10-05-04] |
@Joost,
Good example.
Now, suppose you published the original version, and I am the editor who misprints it (achieving a pair of thematic solutions)...
Obviously, there are two ways this could have happened.
1) a lucky accident, or
2) it results directly from something you had woven into the matrix.
It cannot be known to me what part you played in this...
In fact, it may not be entirely known to you (as the latter case may result from something sub-conscious).
So, I'm arguing only that I must assume the latter case, and give credit to you.
Then, I can confidently rely upon the author's integrity to credit accordingly.
However, if the 2nd solution were completely different, and highly worthy of publication, things are different.
In this case, I would probably credit "A.Misprint" for the problem, and dedicate it to the author(s) & solver(s).
[edit: I would include a dedication to myself, only if I had seen the solution.]
| | | (13) Posted by Geoff Foster [Tuesday, May 4, 2010 00:57] |
Here is an example of how a diagram error could completely change a problem.
Denis Saunders & Geoff Foster, The Problemist, 2003
 (= 10+6 )
#3
(b) Kf5 > e8
(a)
1.dxe6 e.p.! zugzwang
1...fxe6+ 2.Kg6 e5 3.Rg8
1...dxe6+ 2.Kxe4 e5 3.Qc8
(b)
1.Rg6! zugzwang
1...fxg6 2.Qxd7 g5 3.Qg7
1...Kxh7 2.Kxf7 Kh8 3.Rxh6
Part (a) was published in The Problemist in 2003, then a solver (me) found the twin!
| | | (14) Posted by Kevin Begley [Tuesday, May 4, 2010 04:12]; edited by Kevin Begley [10-05-04] |
@Geoff,
Agreed.
While this is independently non-thematic (unless the e.p. capture constitutes a try in the second phase -- I assumed this would have been stated), it is really not independently publishable (though, it certainly enhances the original problem).
Thus, it should be the author's discretion whether to adopt it (and credit you).
Seems to me he made a good choice.
Others might contend that you should publish your version (even with the twin!?) after the author, but I strongly disagree.
For example:
KB (commended, StrateGems, 2001)
 (= 5+2 )
ser.=5
Equipollents Circe (captured units reborn same distance & direction from the cap square as the move preceding it).
If a solver claimed to have found an improvement -- namely, b) wRg8 -- I would say "no thanks."
I rejected this twin (as placement of the white King demonstrates), feeling (I think rightly) it was better relegated to something of a try (even with its circuit).
Credit for misprints is further complicated if the diagram error yields a non-ANI radical change, which appears "somewhat" thematic.
For example:
KB (original)
 (= 3+1 )
h=2
Circe Exchange + Anticirce Equipollents
b) left shift 1
Assume the second phase is the misprint, though even the combined version is too flawed for general publication.
Circe Exchange: captured unit is reborn onto the square which the capturing unit vacated.
Anticirce Equipollents: capturing unit is reborn same distance & direction from the capture square as the move with which it captures (note: rebirth square must be on board & unoccupied for capture to be legal -- thus, black not in check in diagram).
aside: I recently began exploring this combination of conditions -- in my view, an improvement upon super-circe -- to investigate rebirth promotions, with AUW possibilities, from strictly enemy King captures. Also, it is quite interesting how shifts affect the result!
Solution:
a) 1.Kxf7(+Kg6, +e8=Q!) g8=Q!+ 2.Kf6 Qh5 =
b) 1.Kxd7(+Kd6, +d8=S!) e8=S!+ 2.Ke7 f8=S! =
If the second phase were something special (independently), it becomes more difficult to decide upon the best course...
| | | (15) Posted by Hauke Reddmann [Tuesday, May 4, 2010 13:43] |
The solution is trivial in my eyes:
for accidental compositions there will be
given accidental credit :-)
Hauke
| |
No more posts |
MatPlus.Net Forum General Birth by accident |
|
|
|
ISC 2024
