When I play a game of chess I am in fact creating something (not sure what) along with my opponent. The result of that creation is a game notation stating the moves of the game played. If I also then create a chess puzzle then that will also have a game notation which is its solution. Both these would be in the first instance my creation along with my opponent (provided it isn't a chess programme, e.g. Fritz, Rybka) and in the second instance, the creation of a chess puzzle, which would be my sole intellectual creation (property).

So I what I want to know is are these creations my sole intellectual property? My copyright? To do with as I see fit and for no other person to use without my permission?

Now from my point of view I can see from the PGN's that I can download from other people's games that this isn't the case, but I don't know why it isn't.

Also I need to clarify that as someone who needs to keep inproving in chess I think it's essential that our games and puzzles are freely shared because in this way we are helped by the experience of others.

Hope there are some legal eagles out there who could clarify this for me.

Quick answer: no. Your games are not considered by the courts to be your property. Games are not copyrightable. Annotations are, since they fall under the creative realm of writing. But the game pre-exists the players (they didn't create the game of chess--unlike Monopoly or Scrabble) and the playing of it can produce the same outcome again & again if people just happen to make the same moves.

A chess puzzle, as a composition, is (I believe) copyrightable.

I'm no 'legal eagle' but I do know there is no copyright in chess. The game notation is just a record of facts, just like the football results. If you were to publish a analysis of a game, you could have a copyright on the analysis, but not on the game/positions. 

I wouldn't mind owning 1.e4 and 1.d4 though.. 

You own it yourself as a worthwhile memory

Although most of it you'll forget soon enough :p

I think that you are right when you say that the notation is a record of facts but it is more than that. The result of a football game is a fact but If I record the game in some way I breach copyright. The game notation is a record of my creation just as a work of art is an artists creation. It sits there as a fact but like my game notation it is more than that, isn't it?

What game?  

 So if I were to publish a book and put my games in there then wouldn't they then come under copyright law?

The book that you publish, with its commentary etc, is copyrightable. The games in it are not. The courts have always taken the attitude that the game of chess is "just a game" and that nothing special pertains to the games played as a legal property.

So if someone writes a book on say, 1000 ways to checkmate then I could reproduce these games and publish them. That can't be right can it? Please ignore the fact that If I did no one would buy it.

If you took a screenshot of the result of a videogame, for example Civilization, or if you recorded a song in Guitar Hero, then that would be the intellectual property of the creating videogame company.  Following that pattern, any PGN would be the legal property of whoever invented chess, but I believe the copyright may have expired by now.  

Has chess been around for more than 120 years? 

Actually, the very act of compiling those games is in itself a form of intellectual property.

I would expect a unique collection of games to be copyrightable, in the same way dictionary makers can copyright their particular collections of words.

In the USA (I am not going to presume this is true everywhere)

The moves of a chess game are not considered copyrighted and may be reproduced by anyone without attribution for any reason. 

A unique, ordered collection of games, positions, or partial games is copywritable and may not be reproduced unless one has the proper licenses and permissions. Most pgn files that are the games of chess books still under copyright protections are distributed in violation of copyright law.  

Analysis may or may not be copyrighted depending on the exact form and content of the analysis. For example, analyzing a K+p v K endgame in informant symbols using Nunn's rules for endgame position analysis is almost certainly not copyrighted as the same analysis could be produced by any engine asked to give it. But doing so in natural language would be copyrighted as it would be a unique expression. 

When you think about it, who really owns anything?

The Dalai Lama walks into a pizza parlor and says, "Make me one with everything."

I'm pretty sure the question was a legal one, not a metaphysical one.

 I think you've made an excellent point here regarding your annotated notes.

Thank you for bringing in the case of Robert Huebner. I'll read the article.