[Retros] linguistic hole
otto at janko.at
Sun Jan 17 11:24:27 EST 2010
> (d) invent a new term
What about "anselan-promotion"? "inheritor" is too technical :-)
> -----Original Message-----
> From: retros-bounces at janko.at
> [mailto:retros-bounces at janko.at] On Behalf Of andrew buchanan
> Sent: Sunday, January 17, 2010 3:09 PM
> To: Retros Mailing List
> Subject: [Retros] linguistic hole
> Dear Retrofriends,
> It seems to me there is a hole in our language for describing
> We like promotions, and we like to have diagrams which are
> free of non-thematic extraneous promoted units. So if there
> is a promotion, something may have to be captured at some
> point, to keep things looking nice.
> - If it's the promoted unit which is captured, we call it
> Ceriani-Frolkin and pat ourselves on the back.
> - If it's an original unit which is captured, we call the
> promoted unit Phoenix *but* *only* *if* *the *original*
> *unit* *died* *before* *the *promotion*.
> We haven't any term for the more general case of a non C-F
> promotee, where the diagram is free of extraneous promoted
> units of that type.
> Some problems are sometimes described as "double Phoenix", e.g.:
> Henrik Juel
> Thema Danicum no. 86, 1997/04
> (no. 22 in Alain Brobecker's Introduction to Proof Games)
> PG in 6.0 moves.
> But actually it isn't - only the second promotion is Phoenix.
> What we have here I suspect is another adoption of a non-PG
> term to the PG world, where it doesn't quite work the same way. See:
> which are referring in the world of directmates to a Nissl
> theme (as a subtype of Phoenix I think) where the capture
> must come *immediately* before the promotion. Clearly in
> direct mates it is more elegant for the original unit to be
> saced before the promotee reappears. [Hmmm... Nissl could be
> an interesting theme for a PG exploration...] (Maybe others
> on the mailing list have more experience than I of use of the
> Phoenix theme in forwards composition.)
> But what should we do in PG world?
> (a) continue to abuse the term "Phoenix" some of the time
> (b) use the term "non-C-F"
> (c) decide that we don't need a word for this
> (d) invent a new term
> I think options a-c are unacceptable. I suggest the term
> "inheritor". So a Phoenixes is a kind of inheritor (a
> posthumous one! :). We have still no term for non-Phoenix
> inheritors, but let's not worry about that now.
> Comments welcome,
> Retros mailing list
> Retros at janko.at
More information about the Retros