IMJohnCox wrote on 02/22/14 at 21:35:33:
It depends what you mean by 'matter'. If you think the expression N means that the author is claiming an original invention, then obviously it doesn't matter. If, on the other hand, all the author means is that the move hasn't been subjected to over-the-board testing, then obviously it does. It's clear to me that different people use the term differently and that QC mean the latter.
So let us assume a typical situation. An author working on a QC book sees a novelty recommended by Bücker in an article. Would he feel justified, by the QC interpretation of the term "N", to copy/paste my idea into his book, without quoting my name or the source of my article? His logic would simply be: my suggestion had not been played in a game, it was "only" analysis in an article.
I am aware, John, that you are merely playing the advocatus diaboli. What I want is to have Quality Chess spell out, exactly, how seriously they are taking the copyright in opening literature.
Anyway, I feel that we are making some progress, at last.
(Post edited, to avoid being misunderstood.)
------------
On second thought, IM Cox hit the core of the issue with his remark "It's clear to me that different people use the term differently". If it were true that the term N is only used for a new move
played in a game, using the N term for mere analysis by a QC author would be wrong.
Let's see: Someone (A) is doing analytical work and, as a result, recommends a new move (say, 20.f5!) in a magazine. It has never before been played in a game.
Someone else (B) is working on a book for Quality Chess. Knowing about A's analysis doesn't stop him from writing 20.f5!N in his work. It is just analysis, alas, not a played game.
Another person (C) may write another book ten years later and check the database. Still, nobody has ever played 20.f5! in a game. So he feels justified by this idiotic Wikipedia definition to write 20.f5!N in his own book??
And neither B nor C are doing anything wrong when they believe that no crediting to older written source(s) is necessary? Alas, it is only analysis, not GM practice?