–
|
| ||||||||||||||||
| In the preceding post, I said the position on the left was one of the rare times when P could be used to nactate a play that made two points. I thought that all 2s were forced, so that P = 6/4(2) 5/3(2).
That is wrong. Either 6/2 or 5/1 can be coupled with a point-switching maneuver to produce a valid member of the P (Point) family. Here are the plays: P = 6/4(2), 5/1 That means that 6/4(2) 5/3(2) cannot slip into the P family under the guise of being forced. It is correctly nactated atop the I (Inside) family.
Here is a position where the moves are forced. You could argue that P = 21/23(2) 22/24(2). It makes a point (by switching), and then, incidentally, makes a second point as part of a forced move. But only a lawyer (or a lowly computer scientist) would try to make the case. In practice, nobody should nactate this in the P (Point) family. Should the rules of Nactation be modified so that this play cannot be nactated P? I think not. Common sense is rule enough for me. My preference is the one Nack uses: omit any Nactation for a forced move, and give only the roll. Mike | ||||||||
