[Retros] StrateGems 49 (Jan-Mar 2010)

[Kevin Begley]

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 delve into an unpublished solution here (given that SG actually has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

>