| |
BGonline.org Forums
Nactation: S/Z rehash, etc.
Posted By: Nack Ballard In Response To: Nactation questions (Timothy Chow)
Date: Monday, 28 November 2011, at 5:00 p.m.
You proposed your S/Z definition change here, where the first two paragraphs were:
Timothy Chow: 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...
Below is a summary of the responses (alphabetical) you received in the thread that addressed your S/Z proposal:
Andreas: Nactation is a new living language and changes according to convenience and the "best logic" in human language is the most convenient... 21S, 41S, 51S I feel no problem, because for a long time in the opening an ambiguity is impossible.
David Rockwell: I went through this thought process as well and eventually concluded that the currect system is best - only use Z when S is potentially ambiguous... Nactation wasn't developed overnight. A lot of thought has been given to what is best and there have been times when changes have been made. People more experienced with Nactation than I am seem to feel that the current system regarding S & Z is best. And, based on what I have seen, I agree.
Gregg Cattanach: You are missing the basic definition. S is split the back checkers. Z is split with the smaller number *only when there is a choice*.
Ian Shaw: I'm happy with the existing system. I find it very logical.
Jason Lee: I'm with Timothy on this one. My feeble brain can't keep up with S vs. Z in the quasi-ambiguity he mentions.
jm: ...i see your point. and nice job on your chart.
Matt Cohn-Geier [regarding 42P-32 as S or Z]: Either is fine. What difference does it really make?... [as for] Probably most people don't care whether I (or anyone else) writes 21S or 21Z, Lump me in here.
Neilkaz: S means split, either the bigger split or the only one possible. Simple enough.. neilkaz who really doesn't see a need to reinvent the wheel.
Rich Munitz: The rule is clear and unambiguous. If there is only one way to split, call it "S". If there are two ways, call it "Z" for the reverse split (smaller number moved in the back)... "S" makes me immediately think "split". For all of the cases where there is only one reasonable (or legal) split, it is the most intuitive notation. When the split is ambiguous, I will have to think "which one" regardless of the notation... So, stop trying to lead us down the path of Timtation.
Stick: I agree with Nack and I'd guess I'm in the top 3 on Nactation authority.
Granted, not everyone fully grasped the tradeoff. Otherwise, they would probably have all mildly agreed with me and disagreed less with you. :)
At the time (October, 2009), I had not yet joined the forum, but when Stick (and/or you) alerted me to your S/Z thread, I wrote him back an e-mail and asked him to please post it. He called it a Nactation overview.
In that post, I presented an example (21S-65R-54) that I thought best supported your case (one of thousands I had considered in formulating my S/Z paradigm) and then recapped my reasons for nevertheless having chosen to make S (rather than Z) mean Split for as many commonly played opening split moves as possible (i.e., ten out of eleven -- all but 43 played 24/21 13/9).
Subsequently, you may have relaxed your stance, as evinced by this post. OTOH, your continued use of 21Z, etc. in the 2nd roll chart suggests you still hold out hope I will alter S's meaning so that it refers solely to large number splits. I can assure you (however open-minded I might be) that won't happen, so unless you aim to promote a separate Nactation faction, you may wish to consider updating your chart (albeit acceptable as is) so that it is less of an oddity. (BTW, I acknowledge that two paragraphs above the chart you provide links to alternate charts that use S in the more popular way, and that you are diligent in and generous with researching and supplying links in general.) To expand upon Rich's pun, "Lead us not into Timtation, but deliver us from Z-ville."
Over time, you've dropped a few hints that my choice with S/Z is a symptom that Nactation lies on a shaky foundation and its construction must be fundamentally flawed. Most recently:
Tim: Just as an experienced software engineer can smell a mile away when a particular design decision is going to result in incomprehensible spaghetti code years down the line as people struggle to be backwards compatible with a variety of random, ad hoc conventions, I could see at once that if an opening 41 played 13/9 24/23 were allowed to be nactated 41S rather than 41Z, then Nactation was inevitably going to turn into spaghetti code eventually. I tried to argue with Nack at the time, but without success. Perhaps by now, people can see more clearly what I was warning about back then.
While I mean no disrespect I find it hard to believe that at the time you could (or can) see more clearly than myself and the combined pool of bgonliners whose S/Z opinions you solicited. Besides, even if (as you suggested) I were to remove the S/Z convenience clause (so that opening 41S no longer exists, only 41Z, etc.) today, it would have zero effect on the rest of Nactation.
In the updated (not yet published) tutorial, Part 1 is Basic Nactation, and Part 2 is Advanced Nactation (an excellent suggestion e-mailed to me by David Rockwell).
Part 1 is pretty much the same as the current tutorial, with a few definition corrections/updates (e.g., A, B, I, J, R) and minor modifications. Nactation is already a complete system that includes the art of assumption (current section 6) -- Stick has a black belt in it.
Part 2 (Advanced Nactation) is what has come about as a result of people's desire to have a system that is so totally unambiguous as to be able to interface with a computer. Especially given the complexity of doublets, it is no easy task to unambiguously describe every possible backgammon play with a single letter while using capital letters most of the time -- that is what the Hit/Most/6 rule accomplishes. It is not a collection of random, adhoc conventions; it has been carefully built over years of testing to achieve maximum "bang for the buck." Moreover, without further refinement Nactation is ready to interface -- today.
Again, anyone who does not wish to learn Advanced Nactation (Part 2) can adhere to the Basic Nactation (with coming corrections) in the current tutorial. Even just one's favorite elements of Parts 1 and or 2 can be gradually replace or integrate with traditional notation as tools to save time or communicate efficiently. Nactation is not an all-or-nothing proposition.
Nack
| |
BGonline.org Forums is maintained by Stick with WebBBS 5.12.