[Retros] StrateGems 49 (Jan-Mar 2010)
Kevin Begley
kevinjbegley at gmail.com
Tue Jan 5 20:05:34 EST 2010
Bah,
Allow me to propse a counter mea culpa:
I must take the blame for this, because I didn't make clear why I
believe this miniscule technical difference is noteworthy... and, I
had a responsibility to clarify this point...
I cannot accept the apology...
My New Year's Resolution requires that, in cases where the lion's
share of the blame is mine, I do the apologizing. I wish I'd resolved
to just lose a little weight.
Sorry,
Kevin.
Furthermore, I do not recognize FIDE...
On 1/5/10, Kostas Prentos <prentos at the.forthnet.gr> wrote:
> Mea culpa!
>
> The author's intention was "3 variants" but I somehow changed it to "3
> solutions" when I was preparing the diagrams.
> It doesn't make much difference as far as I understand it, but I think it is
> only fair that the original wording of the author is restored.
>
> My apologies,
> Kostas
>
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Kevin Begley" <kevinjbegley at gmail.com>
> To: "The Retrograde Analysis Mailing List" <retros at janko.at>
> Sent: Wednesday, January 06, 2010 12:26 AM
> Subject: Re: [Retros] StrateGems 49 (Jan-Mar 2010)
>
>
>
> > I see your point, Joost...
> > ...and it is a good one.
> >
> > However, the analysis is rather nuanced... mine is a technical point...
> >
> > I don't want to debate it too much, given that it would be improper to
> > delve into an unpublished solution here (given that SG actually has
> > active solvers), but I nevertheless claim there are 3 variants (and 3
> > solutions is probably the wrong wording).
> >
> > Kevin.
> >
> >
> > On 1/5/10, Joost de Heer <joost at sanguis.xs4all.nl> wrote:
> >
> > > Op 5-1-2010 23:00, Kevin Begley schreef:
> > > > R0154 seems to have been slightly misprinted...
> > > >
> > > > It should read "3 variants" or "3 unique variants" but not
> > > > "3.1.1..." (which, I believe, implies 3 solutions).
> > > >
> > >
> > > The printed text says '3 sols.'.
> > >
> > > 3.1.1... is a numerical representation of the solution tree (solution
> tree
> > > starts with 3 branches, each of these has 1 level-2 sub-branch, each
> level-2
> > > sub-branch has one level-3 sub-branch, etc). So IMO, this notation is
> > > correct even with AP problems (the solution tree has 3 starting
> branches,
> > > each of which is validated in a later sub-branch). The notation doesn't
> > > imply that all solutions are possible at the same time in the
> > > begin-position.
> > >
> > > Joost
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Retros mailing list
> > > Retros at janko.at
> > > http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/retros
> > >
> > >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Retros mailing list
> > Retros at janko.at
> > http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/retros
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Retros mailing list
> Retros at janko.at
> http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/retros
>
More information about the Retros
mailing list