[Retros] Solidarity chess (=SC)

[Francois Labelle]

Thanks. I managed to screw up my example (the WK should be put elsewhere 
to prevent 1.Rxh1 gxh1=Q+), but you get the idea: a mate in n can become 
a draw (just remove the WR from my diagram), or it can become a win in > 
n+1 if we feel like composing a bit.

     Francois

On 12/20/2012 01:33 AM, Eric Angelini wrote:

>> The position below

> ... is just beautiful -- bravo François!

> (I have to admit that things are more subtle than I thought --

> even in orthodox chess...)

> Best,

> É.

>

> -----Message d'origine-----

> De : retros-bounces at janko.at [mailto:retros-bounces at janko.at] De la part de Francois Labelle

> Envoyé : jeudi 20 décembre 2012 9:51

> À : The Retrograde Analysis Mailing List

> Objet : Re: [Retros] Solidarity chess (=SC)

>

> On 12/19/2012 05:40 PM, Noam Elkies wrote:

>> Eric Angelini <Eric.Angelini at kntv.be> writes:

>>

>>> I know that I am not allowed to put delibarately my King in check --

>>> but how does this affect the chess game where the only rule is: -

>>> you win the game by capturing the opponent's King, period?

>> No real difference as long as you're concerned only with orthodox play

>> (wins stay wins, "mate in n" becomes "win in n+1", etc.).

> I don't think so! The position below is a "mate in 1" which becomes a

> "win in 3" if we need to capture the opponent's King:

>

> http://www.janko.at/Retros/d.php?ff=K6R/8/8/2N5/8/8/1pppppp1/brrqkrrb

>

>       Francois

> _______________________________________________

> 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