Enter Your Reply

Now Sovereign OrthoPawn(1.0, 12) may be correctly evaluated there by
numbers but it is not in a Table yet.  
For OrthoPawn(1.0, 12), allowance must be made for array, whereas Spearman
can be treated as full-fledge piece.  The array consideration being unnecessary for Spearman, that means only the routine selected bindings to advantage and no unfair-to-White proximity of Black King to piece-unit of White. No other stipulation to begin to grind out a Mate#, as for all legitimate p-ts, then what is the Mate# each piece-type on the level playing field described? In all, treat Rotating Spearman the same way as regular p-t it is. 
As Jorg Knappen points out King wants to get behind the 
Spearmen. If staying in front beyond the second rank, there are shorter Mates with smaller forces. Arrive at position: White King-d1; Spearmen h1, h4, a1, a8. Black King-f1, where Black is supposedly safely behind the lines. 
1. Spearman h4-e1; King f1-g1.
2. King d1-e2; King g1-h1 (takes Spearman).
3. King e2-f1; King h1-h2. A reason this is stopped here for now, is 'e2-f2' the better move? The object is to tie Black up in 3-fold problem.
For follow-up, above in first three moves
one Spearman is captured and three remain, and 2 more in problemists' reserve if necessary.  Are more than four necessary to achieve Mate within set number of moves?  Does the original position need some 1 or 2 additional Spearmen to get there, despite the Black tropism to Rank One? The above moves up to three only are incomplete and need to continue to 8 or 10 in follow-up, re-checking the pattern and whether the Black King can indeed be flushed from Rank One.  
Thanks for calling to attention, the argument for Spearman values would be among few the 50 p-ts so far having less certainty. Hey sovereign Spearman(2.0, 6) is no sovereign Rook(5.0, 1).