| |
BGonline.org Forums
S versus Z in nactation
Posted By: Timothy Chow
Date: Thursday, 8 October 2009, at 9:43 p.m.
Nack Ballard and I have been having an interesting email discussion about nactation and opening theory, triggered by his noticing my one-page summary of opening replies. Mostly he has talked me into his way of thinking, but there is one point on which I remain unconvinced, namely the use of S versus Z for plays like 21S. I'd like to solicit other opinions on the subject.
In my chart, I write 21Z for 24/23 13/11. My argument is that "S" is supposed to denote using the value of the larger die to split the back checkers, while "Z" is supposed to denote using the value of the smaller die to split the back checkers. Logically, therefore, 24/23 13/11 is 21Z.
Nack's argument is that the letter "S" is nicer than the letter "Z" and that writing 21S will not cause confusion, because 24/22 13/12 is obviously illegal. Therefore he recommends using 21S instead of 21Z even though 21Z would be more "logical."
My counterargument is that while 21S won't cause confusion in the sense of being misinterpreted, it does indirectly cause confusion because the usage "21S" makes it harder to remember what S and Z mean. Of course, human beings can get used to anything; speakers of English have no problem with the conjugation "I am, you are, he is" even though it bears no resemblance to the conjugation of any other verb. Memorizing exceptions to rules is a part of life. And indeed, even though I am no expert in nactation myself, I am now at the point where S and Z don't confuse me any more. However, when I was learning nactation, here's how I had to remember what they meant:
"Let's see now...32Z and 32S...which is which? I can't remember, but I know I can figure it out. Nack writes 21S for a split, and there's only one way to play that roll as a split—by using the smaller die to split. I remember that this is exactly the opposite of what S normally means, so S must mean using the larger die to split, and Z must mean using the smaller die."
When I put it this way, I hope I illustrate how confusing it is to build a gratuitous exception into an otherwise logical system of notation. Therefore I advocate using 21Z, 41Z, etc., instead of 21S, 41S, etc. Writing 21Z will not cause confusion directly, for the same reason that writing 21S does not cause confusion directly—there is only one way to play 21 as a split. And it has the added benefit of adhering to the actual definitions of S and Z.
Perhaps we would all be happier if S and Z had been defined the other way around from the start. Then would could eat our cake and have it too; we could use S for 21S, 41S, etc., and everything would be logically consistent. (In this hypothetical world, 65 might still be a problem because logically it would be 65Z but some people might prefer 65S; however, splitting with a 65 doesn't come up very frequently.) But it's too late for that now.
Probably most people don't care whether I (or anyone else) writes 21S or 21Z. But for those who do care, I'm curious whether everyone concurs with Nack or whether some people agree with me.
| |
BGonline.org Forums is maintained by Stick with WebBBS 5.12.