[Retros] Shaving yet another Queen off "N1AK"?

Kevin Begley kevinjbegley at gmail.com
Sun Mar 13 00:20:10 EST 2011


Having considered the matter more carefully, I wonder if there's not a
better way to categorize...

For example, consider Henrik Juel's N1AB (which, I must say, is a real
Here, it is not necessary to add the Bf8 for legality -- it might easily
have been captured.
However, a unit is required to be added, by stipulation, Bf8 is the only
This holds for virtually all of the NnA-type problems (N1AK being the only
But, the important point is: this requirement (derived from the stipulation)
is not universal.

In ALL of the NnC-type problems, the unit must be added for legality (not
required by stipulation).
Similarly, in ALL of the "nA" and "nC" type problems, obviously, the units
must be added for legality (not required by stipulation).
The exception is Andrey's "0A" -- a special case, which seems miscategorized
(more on this shortly).

As noted, excepting a few special cases, this trend is completely reversed
from all of the NnA-type problems, where the units are not required to be
added for legality -- instead, these units are required by stipulation.

In Thierry's N14A (a hybrid), we need only add 1 unit to achieve a legal
position (the royal).
The 13 additional units are required by stipulation.

So, any alternative methodology must resolve the special case of royal-units
Perhaps when Royals are missing from A-type problems, it constitutes a
And, these special cases should be preserved (such as Noam's excellent 7Q

All I am saying is, these identical stipulations are actually quite
different, and it would seem logical to classify based upon their essential
uniqueness, rather than by checks in the diagram.
After all, the alternative methodology does result in a virtually identical
separation (except for a few special cases, already noted).

If all units must be added for legality, call it type C.
If only Royals are added, call it a special case type (D?)
If units (except Royals) need only be added by stipulation, call it type A.
If Type A with Royals added, call it another special case type (B?).

The problem with the current categorization is best illustrated by comparing
two A-types (N1AB with 0A):
If adding zero units results in legality (as in N1AB), but is not a valid
option (the stipulation demands the addition of a unit), then this
stipulation is not identical to Andrey's "0A" (in which we are permitted to
add nothing)!

That's my 2-cents.

ps: one more suggestion: stipulations should read: "add ... units"
rather than "add ... pieces."
kqrbsp are units, whereas only kqrbs are pieces (technically, pawns are not
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.pairlist.net/pipermail/retros/attachments/20110312/c696dfb2/attachment.htm>

More information about the Retros mailing list