[Retros] StrateGems 49 (Jan-Mar 2010)

[Kevin Begley]

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 delve into an unpublished solution here (given that SG actually has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).

>

> 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

> >

>