[Retros] linguistic hole

[Otto Janko]

> (d) invent a new term


What about "anselan-promotion"? "inheritor" is too technical  :-)

~ÔttÔ~



> -----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 

> promotions.

> 

> 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

> rnbqkb1r/ppppp1p1/8/3B4/8/4n3/PPPP1P1P/RNBQK1NR

> 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:

> 

> http://dt.dewia.com/yacpdb/?id=271408

> www.selivanov.ru/download/Magazins/Kudesnik/Cud-104.pdf

> 

> 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,

> Andy.

> 

> _______________________________________________

> Retros mailing list

> Retros at janko.at

> http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/retros

>