[Retros] Economy rules (opinions)

Juha Saukkola juha_saukkola at hotmail.com
Sat Dec 8 06:09:33 EST 2007

One idea came:

If most economical position consist two bishops, instead of bishop+queen,
then problem is in the category of "problem with promoted pieces".
It means that theme is not possible without extra content in category
"without promoted pieces".
Generally most economic problem have least number of different
pieces, more than less pieces totally. And 1+16 pieces is more
beautiful than 2+13!

I hate most those fairy problems with extra fairy-pieces only for making
problem dual-free.

Date: Sat, 8 Dec 2007 10:01:49 +0100From: retromode at web.deTo: retros at janko.atSubject: Re: [Retros] Economy rules
Hi Joost,
the position of Wilfried's problem is:
White: King f8, pawns b7, c7, e7, f7, g7. (6)
Black: King a5, Queen h3, Rooks d8, h8, Knight c8, pawn a2, Nightrider c1. (7)Your question about economy reminds me of a discussion about a helpmate in the Problemist. If I remember correctly, the composer had used a black bishop and a black queen; but two black bishop on the same square colour would have been sufficient. A solver wrote that the composers should have freed himself about his inihibitation about promoted force. If this is right, it should even more hold for fairy problems. But still, I personally would prefer the fairy problem without promoted force. In the retro area, I might come to a different judgment...
Best wishes,

Von: The Retrograde Analysis Mailing List Gesendet: 08.12.07 09:37:59An: The Retrograde Analysis Mailing List Betreff: Re: [Retros] Economy rulesHello,Another question on economy: What's the 'rule of thumb' for promoted pieces? I composed a new fairy problem yesterday (again a task...), and have two versions: One with 10 black pieces, but with three black bishops, one with 11 black pieces, where one of the bishops was replaced by a rook and a pawn (both the bishop and the rook/pawn are cookstoppers, and not relevant for the theme).Personally I don't mind the promoted piece, but I have a way to avoid it. Should I use that, or doesn't it matter?And a question: does anyone have the position for the following composition?W. SeehoferThe Problemist september 2005, #2417ser-#5, Madrasi+CirceJoost_______________________________________________Retros mailing listRetros at janko.athttp://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/retros

Der WEB.DE SmartSurfer hilft bis zu 70% Ihrer Onlinekosten zu sparen! http://smartsurfer.web.de/?mc=100071&distributionid=000000000066
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.pairlist.net/pipermail/retros/attachments/20071208/8d262f57/attachment.htm>

More information about the Retros mailing list