[Retros] Eric's off-topic idea

[A J Mestel]

Yes, I wasn't attempting to produce a shortest proof-game. I was trying to 
decide whether a position with only a few pawns on could be "legal" i.e. 
in Mathematician's language it was an "existence proof game" not a 
"uniqueness proof game"...

If kings are not royal, then the Mate in 3 in the original poaition, 
discussed earlier  may be sound:

1Nf3? (Ne5, Ng5) f6!
1Nc3? c6!
1c4? (2Qa4, Qb3) Na6! 3Qa4 d6! or 3Qb3 Nb4!
1e3? Nf6! 2Bc4 Nd5! or 2 Qf3 b6!
1c3!

If Kings are Royal then I think 1 c4 is a cook. Is that right?

   J

On Fri, 14 Sep 2012, Noam Elkies wrote:


> ...and come to think of that, the last move of AJM's sample game is

> a bit of a surprise too:

>

>> 12 bxc8=Q+ (to the pawns!) Kxc8

>

> So a pawn is a royal piece that loses its royalhood upon promotion?

> I'd have expected that royal pawns normally promote to royal pieces

> (indeed losing royalty seems to contradict "promotion"...).

>

> NDE

>