|
ChessStar site rules 10.09.2024I. Chess Composition – the art of creating chess problems and studies, based on the rules of practical play and representing an independent form of chess creativity. II. ChessStar.com (hereinafter referred to as ChessStar) is an independent internet resource for chess composition, whose activities are based on the provisions outlined in these Website Rules. The main focus of the website is to conduct composition contests. III. All content presented on the ChessStar.com website (including but not limited to texts, images, videos, audio, applications, programs, scripts, and other materials) is the property of ChessStar Ltd. All rights to the content are protected by copyright, trademark, and other intellectual property laws. Providing content on this site does not imply the transfer of any intellectual property rights. Any unauthorized use of the content, including copying, distribution, transmission, public performance, reproduction, and modification, may constitute a copyright infringement and lead to legal consequences. To obtain permission to use the content, as well as for suggestions and questions related to copyright, please contact this address. There are two types of registration on ChessStar: 1. Standard… 2. Anonymous… To participate in the Annual and Various Contests conducted by ChessStar and to access all sections and materials of the site, a Standard registration is required. This type of registration allows the use of a pseudonym (any name, surname, and country can be provided), but actual data (name, surname, country of residence, personal photograph, and email address) must be provided to the site administrator after registration, using the feedback form Help. Failure to comply with these conditions may result in the deactivation of the user’s account by the site administration without notice. The second type of registration is Anonymous. In this case, the system automatically assigns a login to the anonymous user. The password is created by the user once and cannot be changed. Anonymous registration allows users to participate in only one of the anonymous contests, with limited access to some sections of the site. If an anonymous user wishes to participate in another current anonymous contest, they will need to create a new account. Personal data of anonymous users is not known to judges or contest organizers. Anonymous users have the option to enter their data (name, surname, country of residence, and email address) in the Personal Cabinet only after the final results are published, with their personal data automatically being transferred to their compositions where previously system-assigned logins were used. After the contest closes, anonymous user accounts are deleted from the site due to their obsolescence. The Anonymous link on the registration page is active if at least one Anonymous contest is current. On the ChessStar site, only one registration is allowed for a Standard registered user. An anonymous user is permitted to use multiple accounts during anonymous contests. A composition begins its existence from the moment of its first publication on the ChessStar website. The author's priority for the published composition is determined by the date of its publication on the site, which is indicated above the chess diagram. All subsequent reprints in print and electronic publications must include the author's name, surname, the time and place of the composition’s first publication, or the name of the contest, the time (year) of the publication of the results, and the received distinction. A composition published on the ChessStar website, whether it participated in a contest or not, cannot subsequently be submitted to other contests. The process for publishing compositions by authors on the ChessStar website, registered Standard: 1. Log in to the editing page by clicking on the submenu Personal Cabinet on the main site panel: Participation in Contests. Then create your composition on the submission page using the EditorStar program, by dragging or inserting the required pieces onto the chess diagram. The author's name, surname, and country of residence are automatically entered into a special window on the right panel of the program. 2. Then select the appropriate section (#2, #3, #N, #H, #S, Studies). 3. Specify the full solution to your composition in English notation: King – K (King) Queen – Q (Queen) Rook – R (Rook) Bishop – B (Bishop) Knight – N (Knight) Pawn – not specified in the solution. Check – + Checkmate – # Capture – x Good move – ! Great move – !! Bad move – ? Very bad move – ?? Doubtful move – ?! Interesting move – !? 4. Select one of the current contests from the Contests window in the EditorStar program’s dropdown menu and then click on the ►Contest button. The composition will be considered submitted to the contest if, after clicking the ►Contest button, a message appears: This composition has been successfully submitted to the contest. Upon successful submission of your composition to the contest, it will appear in the Composition Status section of the user’s profile menu, where the author can check its status. This section has three entries: 1. Under Review – the composition is in the review status. 2. Published – the composition is published. 3. Not Published – the composition is not published. In case of rejection of the composition submitted to the contest, the contest organizer is obliged to inform the author via the Chat (the button is located below the diagram), while justifying their decision. This message will be available to the user in the Composition Status section, under Not Published (№ 3). A new message will be visible under the diagram in the Chat. If your composition needs to be corrected, you should click the Edit button, which is located below the diagram on the left, and then edit it on the EditorStar page. After editing your composition, click the Save button. In this case, the moderator will receive a notification that an edited composition has been submitted. Your composition will then return to the Under Review status. There are two types of contests on the site: 1. Standard. 2. Anonymous. 1. Standard composition contests are of two types: Annual and Various. 1. Annual composition contest. Contests on the ChessStar site are held regularly every year, where registered Standard users can participate. The number of problems and studies submitted to the annual composition contest by a single author, or in collaboration, is limited by the conditions of the respective contest. The publication of the annual contest results is done via a news mailing, within the deadlines specified by the respective contest. The date of publication of the annual contest results across all sections generally should be the same. 2. Various composition contests. These contests are dedicated to any chess events (anniversary, memorial, thematic, and others). The period for publishing compositions is determined by the contest conditions. The number of contests held during the year is unlimited. The publication of results (preliminary or final) for these contests is specified in the contest conditions. Anonymous composition contests are of two types: Various and Other. 3. Various composition contests. These contests are dedicated to any chess events (anniversary, memorial, thematic, and others). Various and Other anonymous contests can be held several times throughout the calendar year, and they are independent and do not differ from each other. An author has the right to: 1. Edit their composition published on the site during the entire contest period, without changing its genre. The publication date in this case will remain unchanged. Note: An author has the right to publish a new version of their previously published composition in the same contest. 2. Contact the contest organizer via the Chat, which is located on the Personal Cabinet page (bottom right), to request moving it to another contest if such a contest is being held on the ChessStar site. 3. Address the chief judge of the contest with comments or complaints in the following cases: 4. An published composition cannot be deleted by the site administration even at the author's request, if its position is legal and the solution is correct. a) If there are: a predecessor to the composition, unsolvability, impossibility of the position, side solution, or dual. b) If the author disagrees with the judge's evaluation of their composition in the preliminary results of the contest and justifies their disagreement. c) If the judge’s report is not published on the ChessStar site within the deadlines specified in the contest conditions. d) If the author is treated unfairly on the forum or any other public part of the site. If the author's comments or complaints are valid, a public warning should be made to the user who caused the offense. In case of repeated violation of the Site Rules by this user, the site administration may ban them without warning. All compositions of this user (problems and studies), comments, articles, essays, and so on, will remain in the site’s database and active, except for those comments that contained offensive content. These comments will be deactivated on the site and eventually removed. e) No registered user has the right to accuse the author of plagiarism unless they are caught deliberately publishing someone else’s composition (exact or with insignificant changes) under their own name. If any registered user unjustly accuses the author of plagiarism, administrative measures will be taken against them (warnings, publication on the site, and in case of repetition – blocking their account, with notification in a news mailing). f) An author cannot demand that the site administration delete their compositions outside the current period. Articles, essays, and comments by this author also cannot be deleted, regardless of the time of publication. g) A Standard registered user cannot be removed from the site; they can only be deactivated or blocked by the site administration, while their compositions, comments, articles, and essays remain active. The author’s name, surname, and country of residence remain unchanged. They have the right to request the site administration to change their personal data, specifying the reason. The site administration must consider the request as soon as possible and inform the Standard registered user of its decision via email. Judging can be commercial or non-commercial. Commercial judging – involves the contest organizer paying the judges for their judging services. The amount and method of payment for judging are preliminarily agreed upon by the contest organizer and the chief judge. Non-commercial judging – is conducted on a voluntary basis. 1. Any contest on the ChessStar site is conducted with mandatory judging in each section by two judges: a chief judge and a main judge. 2. Only the contest organizer has the right to choose the judges. 3. The contest organizers must familiarize the judges with the Rights and Duties of Judges. 4. The chief and main judges may jointly or separately judge several sections (if any) of the same contest. 5. For the upcoming work on their report, the main judge selects the contest compositions published in the corresponding judging section of the site. 6. If the preliminary results were changed by the chief judge, according to the Rights and Duties of the Chief Judge, all changes should be noted in the final results and comments. 7. Regardless of whether the results were changed by the chief judge or not, the judging report is considered to be compiled by the main judge. Rights and Duties of the Judge. The main judge is required to: 1. Compile the judging report within the deadlines specified in the contest conditions. 2. Accurately translate authors' comments on their compositions (if any, or leave comments in the original language) into the language in which the report is compiled. 3. For each highlighted composition, write detailed and comprehensive comments, specifying its merits and drawbacks, as well as the motivation for including the composition in the list of highlighted compositions. 4. Check all highlighted compositions for predecessors. 5. Be completely objective in their report: personal preferences, titles, interpersonal relationships with the authors of the contest problems and studies, nationality, citizenship, political views, racial and religious affiliations should not influence the judging. 6. The judge has the right to delete authors' comments on their compositions without the authors' consent. 7. The judge has the right to correct grammatical errors in authors' comments on their compositions without the authors' consent. 8. The judge does not have the right to change the content and meaning of authors' comments on their compositions. 9. The main judge cannot be simultaneously the chief judge in other sections (if any) of the same contest. 10. The main judge can be simultaneously the main judge in other sections (if any) of the same contest. 11. The judge does not have the right to disclose the results of their report to a third party before they are published on the site. 12. The judge is subordinate only to the chief judge of the contest. 13. In the process of working on their report and evaluating compositions, the judge must adhere to the provisions outlined in section VI. Quality Characteristics of Problems and Studies (chess compositions) and VII Miniatures, Criteria, and Provisions of the Site Rules and strictly follow them. 14. The judge cannot be the organizer of the same contest. 15. In a closed review with the chief judge, the main judge must adhere to the provisions outlined in the sections Rights and Duties of Judges, VI. Quality Characteristics of Chess Compositions, and VII Miniatures, Criteria, and Provisions of the Site Rules and strictly follow them. Rights and Duties of the Chief Judge: 1. After the publication of preliminary results, the chief judge is required to accept possible comments from the participants of the contest within the time specified in the contest conditions. 2. The chief judge, upon receiving comments from contest participants, must immediately forward them to the contest organizer, who then sends them to the main judge. 3. If the comments from contest participants are reviewed by the judge and are not agreed upon, the judge must inform the contest organizer, who will then inform the chief judge for detailed review. 4. If the chief judge, after reviewing the comments from the contest participants, confirms their validity, they must proceed to a closed review with the main judge. The contest organizer may only act as an observer. 5. If the main judge and the chief judge, during the closed review, do not reach a consensus (partially or fully), the chief judge has the right to alter the awards in favor of the contest participants based on the results of the review. 6. If the main judge, during the closed review, convinces the chief judge of their correctness, the preliminary results remain unchanged. 7. The chief judge cannot be a judge in any section of the contest. 8. The chief judge is only subordinate to the Site Rules. 9. In a closed review with the main judge, the chief judge must adhere to the provisions outlined in the sections Rights and Duties of Judges, as well as VI. Quality Characteristics of Compositions, of the Site Rules and strictly follow them. In annual contests on the ChessStar site, the role of the chief judge is performed solely by the organizer of these contests. Judging reports are divided into two statuses: 1. Preliminary results. 2. Final results. In the case of preliminary awards, participants in the annual contest have the opportunity to submit their comments and complaints to the contest organizer within one month after the publication of the preliminary results. The organizer is obligated to review these comments and inform each author of their decision via email. In other contests organized by the site, comments and complaints are accepted within the timeframes specified in the contest conditions. Comments and complaints from contest participants should be sent to the chief judge’s email address. After the contest organizer approves the judging report, the preliminary awards become final and are published in the site’s news. For final awards, no comments from contest participants are accepted except in cases where predecessors or errors in the contest compositions are found. Such comments are accepted within 15 calendar days after the final results. 3. All materials (reports) of contest results conducted by the ChessStar site are considered valid if they are published on this site. Any materials of contest results conducted on the ChessStar site, published on third-party sites or publications, are not considered valid and have no legal force. The organizer of all contests conducted by the ChessStar site is the administrator of this resource, who handles organizational, administrative, and legal issues. The contest organizer may be the main judge in any of the contests conducted by the site, except for annual contests. The contest organizer is not allowed to participate in any of the contests conducted by the site. The contest organizer has the right to: 1. Change the deadlines for submitting compositions to the contest due to special reasons, and must inform the contest participants about this through a news mailing. 2. Remove any text fragments in the judge's report containing direct or indirect remarks about a participant of the contest without consulting the judge. The contest organizer is obligated to: 1. Fulfill a judge’s request for their replacement due to valid reasons (illness, etc.), and notify the contest participants of this through a news mailing. The contest organizer must adhere to the deadlines specified in the contest conditions. The replacement of a judge does not affect the deadlines for preliminary or final awards. Judges must take into account and adhere to the following evaluation criteria when assessing compositions. Preferred Characteristics: 1. Originality of the chess idea. 2. Solutions concluding with correct checkmates. 3. The first move: a) Removing a white piece from the black king, b) Providing additional squares to the black king, c) Quietly sacrificing a piece, d) Unblocking a black piece, e) Provoking a check to the white king, f) Promoting a pawn to a weak piece, g) Blocking one’s own piece, h) A sweeping move of a piece, i) A piece move to any corner of the board, j) Creating a hidden battery, k) Uniqueness of the threat, l) Moving a piece from an active to a passive position. 4. Quiet play. 5. Uniqueness in the motivation of moves. 6. Economical use of material to realize the idea refers to the number of pieces, regardless of color, on the chess diagram. 7. Economical solution without artificially prolonging the solution. 8. Multiple variations of the solution. a) Non-overlapping moves of pieces in each solution variant. b) All solution variants are unified by a single thematic idea. c) All solution variants end with different checkmates. d) Cyclic nature of the solution. e) Alternation of white moves in each variant. 9. Coherence of the conception. 10. Presence of false trails thematically closely related to the main solution. 11. Systematic movements of pieces. 12. Play without capturing black material. 13. Refusal to capture when sacrificing black pieces. 14. Initial position includes responses to checks of the white king. 15. Geometric maneuvers of pieces (snakes, circles, crosses, stars, etc.). 16. Maximum activity of the white pieces in the solution. 17. Absence of technical white pawns. 18. Easy construction of the position (excluding statistical compositions). Moves of black pieces: 19. Active play of black pieces. 20. Subtle moves. 21. Piece sacrifices. 22. Refusal to capture when sacrificing white pieces. Unwanted Characteristics: 1. Weak duals. a) Possibility of simultaneous promotion of a white pawn to a queen, rook, or bishop in an additional variant. b) Possibility of a queen moving to two adjacent squares in an additional variant. c) Possibility of two different checkmate finales in additional variants ending on the same move. d) Completion of the task in additional variants on the same move with thematic variants in a way different from the author's. 2. Static white pieces not involved in any thematic variants of the solution (excluding statistical compositions). 3. Forced play, regardless of the number of moves. 4. Poor first move: a) Approaching the black king with a piece. b) Checking the black king, c) Pinning a black piece. d) Blocking a black pawn. e) Protecting the white king from possible checks. f) Promoting a pawn to a queen. g) Removing free squares from the black king. h) Capturing a black pawn. i) Unblocking a white piece. 5. Inefficient use of material to realize the idea. 6. Inefficient solution. 7. Lack of coherence in the conception. 8. Capturing black pieces with white pieces (not sacrificing the latter). 9. Technical pawns. 10. Absence of responses to checks of the white king in the initial position. 11. Presence of technical white pieces or pawns. 12. Static nature of one or more white pieces (excluding statistical compositions). 13. ... Criteria and Regulations. Preliminary Version Miniature – a chess composition where the number of pieces does not exceed seven. Composition – refers to a chess problem or endgame study. Additional Variant – a non-thematic solution variant. Position – the arrangement of pieces on the chessboard. A miniature is a genre that includes sub-genres. Depending on the number of pieces, each sub-genre has its own name: 1. Terzetto – a position with three pieces (trio – 3) 2. Quartet – a position with four pieces (quartet – 4). 3. Quintet – 5 pieces (quintet – 5) 4. Sextet – 6 pieces (hexad – 6). 5. Septet – 7 pieces (septet – 7). Each sub-genre has its own distinct characteristics (and value for chess composition) due to the extremely limited material, which results in differences in rules and standards. 1. In trios and quartets, the presence of at least one non-dual variant in the solution is a sufficient condition for correctness of the composition. 2. Condition 1 applies to other sub-genres of the composition with more than four pieces, but only if the number of pieces changes during the solution and becomes equal to four or three. In this case, a dual is considered weak and may affect the evaluation of the composition, but the problem is still considered correct! 3. If a trio or quartet expresses the same idea as previously published compositions with the same set, number of pieces, and configuration, but in a more successful form (significantly improved first move, added solution variant, or a variant that ends with a correct checkmate compared to previously published work), they are considered original compositions. 4. If one of the thematic variants of the main solution contains a dual (except in trios and quartets), then the composition is incorrect and does not have the right to exist. Explanation: If a composition's main solution ends with a correct checkmate and there is a second variant that also ends with a correct checkmate but contains a dual, the composition is considered incorrect because the additional variant is considered thematic (the number of moves in the variants is the same). In other words, if a thematic variant of the problem has a dual, it is considered strong, and the composition is considered incorrect and does not have the right to exist. 5. Changing a previously published composition by reducing the number of pieces without worsening the content of the work is a sufficient condition for originality in a miniature. Explanation: If a new problem expresses the same idea as a previously published one, with the same number of moves, solution variants, configuration, and set of pieces, but with fewer pieces, it is considered sufficient for originality in the newly created composition. 6. If a twin to a previously published composition is found, corresponding in content to the latter, the newly published miniature with the twin is considered original. 7. If a new composition expresses a theme not present in a previously published composition, with the same set of pieces, configuration, and number of moves, it is considered original. 8. Increasing the number of thematic moves in a miniature by 2 or more compared to a previously published problem, with the same set of pieces and configuration, is considered original. 9. Increasing the number of thematic moves in a miniature by one move, with the same set of pieces and configuration, provided the genre is changed, is considered original. Explanation: If there are two-move or three-move problems, and the author expresses the same ideas in three-move, four-move, or longer forms, the difference in the number of pieces in the miniature is not significant. 10. Changing the sub-genre of a miniature by reducing the number of pieces from a previously published composition, even if the same idea is expressed with the same set of pieces, configuration, and number of moves, is considered original. Explanation: If there is a hexad and the author expresses the same idea contained in it in a quintet, and so on, it is considered original. Strong and Weak Duals Strong Dual refers to duality in the solution that is thematically related to the idea of the composition. In the presence of a strong dual, the composition is deemed invalid. a) If a thematic variant of the composition contains a dual. b) If one of the thematic (main) variants ends with two or more checkmates. c) If there is the possibility of moves by white pieces to adjacent squares in one of the thematic solution variants. d) If a thematic variant contains the possibility of promoting a pawn to a queen/rook or to a queen/bishop, regardless of the sub-genre. Weak Dual refers to duality in the solution that is not thematically related to the idea of the composition. a) If a miniature contains a dual in one of the additional solution variants. b) If one of the additional variants ends with two or more checkmates. c) If there is the possibility of moves by white pieces to adjacent squares in one of the additional solution variants. d) If an additional variant contains the possibility of promoting a pawn to a queen/rook or to a queen/bishop, regardless of the sub-genre. e) … Note: In cases where compositions are equivalent in form and content, with one containing no duals even in additional variants, preference is given to the composition without duals. Incorporating twins into the author's design is a way to expand the content of the composition. Regulations on Twins A twin is a position in a miniature that differs from the main position by a minor detail and has a different solution. There are two types of positions: main and additional. Main Position in a composition is the position of the miniature publicly presented by the author. Additional Position is the position of the twin. Twins are divided into two types: 1. Ideal 2. Relative These two types of twins are further divided into two categories: a) By form b) By content Ideal Twins by Form a) Replacement of a piece on the same square. b) Rotation or shifting of the position on the diagram. c) Moving a piece to a different square. d) Presence of a twin after the first move. e) … Note: The number of moves in the main position and the additional position must match. Exceptions are positions with twins that the author creates with a systematic increase in the number of moves in the solutions. The number of such positions with twins should be at least three. Relative Twins by Form: a) Replacement of a piece on a different square. b) Addition of a piece. c) Removal of a piece. d) Mutual exchange of two white pieces. e) … There are three types of twins (listed in order of priority): 1. Absolute Twins Ideal twins that are equivalent in both form and content. 2. Ideal Twins by Content: Twins that are equivalent in content. 3. Relative Twins by Content: Twins that are not equivalent in content. 1. The content of the article must be directly or indirectly related to the website's theme. 2. Articles previously published in other publications may also be accepted for publication. 3. Authors of published articles bear no responsibility for the accuracy of the facts, statistical data, or other information presented. 4. By submitting a manuscript of their article to the editorial board, the author undertakes not to publish it, either in whole or in part, in another publication without the website administration’s consent. 5. All articles posted on the website are publicly accessible and may be used for citation, copying, printing, and other non-commercial uses, provided that copyright laws are observed. 6. The website administration reserves the right to shorten and edit any article. 7. The article must be written in Microsoft Office Word in a single file. 8. The website administration is not responsible for the accuracy of information provided by the authors. 9. The website administration may consider and publish articles from anonymous authors if they contain relevant content. 10. The author guarantees that they hold exclusive rights to the material submitted to the website’s editorial board. In the event of any claims arising from a breach of this guarantee, the author is solely responsible for addressing all claims. The website administration is not liable to third parties for violations of these guarantees by the author. 11. Submission of materials to the editorial board for publication implies the author's agreement with the above requirements. 12. All articles on the website must be written in the language corresponding to the website's language version. Note. In this context, "article" may refer to various genres of journalism: analytical article, note, interview, report, feature, correspondence, version, comment, letter, review, press review, critique, essay, and so on. These rules may be clarified and supplemented over time. It is the responsibility of registered users to familiarize themselves with the latest version of the Website Rules. By continuing to use the website, users accept the latest version of the Website Rules and must adhere to them strictly. |