[Retros] Issue of co-authorship

[Nicolas.Dupont at math.univ-lille1.fr]

Dear Andrey and all,

It's not a problem for me to associate a co-author when it is clear that I
used his ideas. On the contrary, it would be a great honor for me to
publish a common work with you.

For example the rook case without extra capture should probably be named
"ND after AF" or "AF and ND", as you prefer.

Sincerely,

Nicolas.


> As I understand, problems appearing on the Retro Mailing List are

> considered to have been published thereby. In some cases, however, the

> question of co-authorship arises. I will use an analogy from the realm of

> orthodox composition to highlight the controversy of this point.

> Let▓s suppose composer X has published a moremover in N moves. Then

> composer Y publishes a moremover in N-1 moves showing a very similar (or

> identical) idea. In that case, the authorship of the latter problem will

> be indicated as ⌠Y after X,■ ⌠X, version by Y,■ or even ⌠Y &

> X.■ In case of record-hunt in the domain of SPGs, however, this approach

> tends to be neglected. I don▓t mind if the retro society doesn▓t mind

> either, but this point has got to be made clear.

> The reason why I am raising this question is as follows. Yesterday I

> accidentally met Mr. Reytsen in the street and told him about the Retro

> Mailing List success of his (again, not mine) idea. He expressed

> enthusiasm about it and said he would like to quote the ultimate records

> in the magazine The Problemist of Ukraine. That▓s where the issue of

> co-authorship comes into play.

> Any ideas in this connection, friends?