AW: [Retros] Messigny 2006

Gerd Wilts g.wilts at
Mon Jul 24 11:58:39 EDT 2006

Yes, I suppose that I gave the wrong solution to the 1st commendation when I
entered the problem, but that doesn't matter for the soundness of the

BTW, I don't agree that both 2nd HM ex aequo show a Pronkin-AUW because it
cannot be proven that Ra1 and Nb1 are really Pronkin pieces, i.e. it cannot
be proven that they occupy the squares of original pieces which have been
captured. But this is of course a question of the definition of "Pronkin" in
classical retros. For a "strict" Pronkin AUW at least 5 promotions are
necessary (2 Night promotions because Nights may exchange places in the
initial phase of the game).

Here is my setting with 4 "strict" Pronkin promotions:

Pronkin pieces Dd1, Bc1, Nb1, Ng1


> -----Ursprungliche Nachricht-----

> Von: retros-bounces at [mailto:retros-bounces at]Im Auftrag

> von afretro

> Gesendet: Montag, 24. Juli 2006 07:29

> An: retros at

> Betreff: [Retros] Messigny 2006



> Many thanks to Michel for the judgment.

> The solution of 1st Commendation seems to be misrepresented,

> because white pawns b3, d2 and g2 rule out the return of Rg5 to

> a1. b4xa5 seems to be a sufficient remedy.

> Andrey

> _______________________________________________

> Retros mailing list

> Retros at



More information about the Retros mailing list