| |
BGonline.org Forums
Nactation program: prototype
Posted By: Nack Ballard In Response To: Nactation program: prototype (Matt Ryder)
Date: Friday, 2 December 2011, at 1:17 p.m.
As you astutely noticed, a 25 position array defines 24 board points and the bar, but not the off-tray. If a player has less than 15 checkers in the array, the other checkers are assumed to be off the board.
Yup, I inferred that was probably the case... as you deduced I was just making sure that you didn't need a 26th "point" for your plan. :)
Your comment does beg the question: how does one nactate the action of bearing a checker off the board? Does Nactation cater for this?
Excellent question. Evidently, I once made a vague reference to it that Mike picked up on.
Nactating the bearoff comprehensibly is no problem for me. Assumption goes a long way; I just nactate the non-forced or least obvious non-bearing off part of the play with a numeral (e.g., 2 for playing to the 2pt). If I need more, there's always the "I" (Inside) family, as well as FHKLPT and symbols $%&. If both/all checkers bear off, I use numeral 0 for 0pt or letter O (or o) for off, or even omit the character.
Programming a computer to nactate the bearoff with neither assumption nor numerals is a trickier matter, due to strain on the "I" family (the Inside area includes the 0pt, btw, at least by current definition). But I have some ideas.
For simplicity, let's first discuss a straight race. Once there are no more checkers behind the midpoint for either side, contact is essentially nonexistent. From then on, BCEGMQRSUVWXYZ@#^<> (characters with a far-side component) are no longer used. (When there are no more checkers behind the 6pt, you can add ADJNO to that list.) What a waste, eh?
For computer interface, the "I" family might be overworked (as I mentioned earlier). If so, I can create secondary definitions for a couple/few of the dormant far-side characters. For example, because G cannot refer to its primary definition of Gremlin split whenever no checker exists on the far side, G can instead mean (say) Gap.
If selective secondary definitions are indeed an efficient solution, it will probably make sense to utilize them even when only one player is bearing in or off (while the other player is anchored or on the bar). That would be up to the individual choice of the nactator, though I'd have recommendations. When you get around to testing games that go all the way to the bear-off (i.e., a player doesn't get cubed out earlier), your output will help me decide what added twist, if any, might be sensible.
Nack
P.S. Perhaps you are familiar with the concept of cross-cleffing in musical scores. (If not, I can expound.) While it wouldn't strictly be necessary, a "clef" -- e.g., ( or [ or { -- could be inserted as a human reminder that secondary meanings are activated. There could even be an anti-clef -- e.g., ) or ] or } -- if a player gets hit in the bearoff (though probably even less necessary if the primary meanings of the toggled letters are multi-quadrant (i.e., they are G, Y, M and/or Q). Just a thought, not important.
| |
BGonline.org Forums is maintained by Stick with WebBBS 5.12.