[Retros] StrateGems 49 (Jan-Mar 2010)
kevinjbegley at gmail.com
Tue Jan 5 17:44:29 EST 2010
I should also point out that this very slight technical misprint is
entirely my own fault -- and in no way a reflection upon StrateGems,
or the editors.
On 1/5/10, Kevin Begley <kevinjbegley at gmail.com> wrote:
> 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 delve into an unpublished solution here (given that SG actually has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).
> 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
More information about the Retros