💡📝George Duke wrote on Wed, Apr 4, 2018 03:35 PM UTC:
It is better in principle to protect all Pawns in array. Each of the 96 starting line-ups have a name, some offhandedly sprinkled around comments in several articles. A dozen or two -- they have to be counted up again -- do have all guarded Pawns initially. Of those some are nevertheless ugly with King and Queen in abc/hij files. The two most favored arrays Old-Standard RNBF and Sibahi RFNB do not do so. The first is played 47 times in Game Courier now and second 12 times, and other arrays of the same game 3 more times, a total of 62. However, I have played in all but few of those.
Pawn_Protect. Somewhere we surveyed the large Chesses and found about 20% of 300 do not protect all Pawns, and am looking for that comment; if not found will cite several examples of respected games with incomplete array-coverage that way.
In "91.5 Trillion..." the goal was to avoid prolicificism and to generate millions/trillions of CVs formulaically. It is inelegant to deal in specific write-ups one by one.
Many_CVs. There only one of the
Mutators hinges on starting set-ups varying.
It is better in principle to protect all Pawns in array. Each of the 96 starting line-ups have a name, some offhandedly sprinkled around comments in several articles. A dozen or two -- they have to be counted up again -- do have all guarded Pawns initially. Of those some are nevertheless ugly with King and Queen in abc/hij files. The two most favored arrays Old-Standard RNBF and Sibahi RFNB do not do so. The first is played 47 times in Game Courier now and second 12 times, and other arrays of the same game 3 more times, a total of 62. However, I have played in all but few of those.
http://www.chessvariants.com/index/listcomments.php?id=17706. Following is reference to arrays that do protect all Pawns:
Pawn_Protect. Somewhere we surveyed the large Chesses and found about 20% of 300 do not protect all Pawns, and am looking for that comment; if not found will cite several examples of respected games with incomplete array-coverage that way.In "91.5 Trillion..." the goal was to avoid prolicificism and to generate millions/trillions of CVs formulaically. It is inelegant to deal in specific write-ups one by one. Many_CVs. There only one of the Mutators hinges on starting set-ups varying.