For computer interface, there will typically be more than one choice of character for a play; nevertheless, it is necessary to use letters precisely to avoid ambiguity. There is a greater emphasis on areal letters, including the underlined families for some complex doublets plays.
Total nonambiguity (which Mike's posts articulate and illustrate so beautifully) is encouraged in any case, but I'd like to point out that such a level of precision is not vital in nactating matches or in communicating plays (or play sequences) with other people.
Let's examine the feature position of this thread as an example:
| |
|---|---|
| 32S-54H-52P-44 | |
(1) "P" is unlikely to confuse anybody. P (Point) is not only proper usage for 13/5(2), but this play makes one of the two strongest points available (5pt or 20pt), hitting in the process; as a bonus, it is closest point to the 6pt for all who may have heard of the convention.
(2) "K" for Kill (hit twice) automatically conveys three of the 4s (13/5*/1*). For the fourth, covering the 4pt with 8/4 is so overwhelmingly obvious that I feel fine nactating the entire play as K even if is not technically correct (which it probably will be -- an issue still under review). If a computer spits out J at me, I'll know what it means but in human Nactation I would be quite surprised to see anything other than K (or perhaps numeral "1") used.
(3) 24/20(2) 13/9 8/4 is a greater challenge, but even if I (or my readers) have never heard of Y, let alone Y, I'm not handcuffed -- I can still nactate it. It's mostly a matter of putting myself in the readers' shoes and imagining how I'd react to seeing a given letter. For example...
What about if I use "C" (Cross), a basic letter that means 24/20(2) 8/4(2)? Reaction: "Huh? Surely he can't mean to break the 8pt and leave a blot there while putting a dilly builder on the 4pt. Oh, I see... it's hard to nactate the last 4 if it's not 8/4, so... it must be 13/9 or 6/2, and as they both leave a shot clearly 13/9 is much better, threatening the 5pt blot and duplicating 4s." Okay, C is a good bet.
What if I try "@" (anchor)? Reaction: "Hmm, I think 24/16(2) is the technical interpretation, but does he really mean that? Nah, that's incredibly weak and he would use R for that anyway. So, it must be the 20pt anchor. For the other two 4s, 13/9(2) also seems strange and he would use the basic B letter for it anyway, so the 9pt is out. That leaves covering the 4 point blot and... 13/9 attacking and duping 4s is obviously better than 6/2 for the fourth 4." Okay, @ is a Nactation that could work.
Let's consider "4" (4pt). Reaction: Numerals are assumptive animals. "4" tends to mean, "I'm putting a checker on its final destination of the 4pt and you figure out the rest." Well, he would use K for 13/5*/1*, so it's not that. If he were hitting only on the 5pt, he would cover the 5pt, not the 4pt, so of course it's not that. Ah, the 20pt is logical for two more 4s. Then for the fourth, 13/9 is obviously better than 6/2. So, that's it." Yes, I can buy that reaction -- it's plausible.
What about "9" (9pt)? Reaction: "Okay he is putting a checker on the 9pt and I'm supposed to figure out the rest. Well, if so, 8/4 seems clear, and for the last two fours 24/20(2) seems a lot better than 6/2(2), so 24/20(2) it is." Yes, that likely reaction sounds promising.
What about "D" (Down)? Reaction: Not even a beginner would play four checkers down. Nor three down, which leaves a blot on the midpoint. Let's try two checkers down. Hmm, if it is 5pt with the other two he'd use P or O, and it were anchor he'd use B. Splitting up the the 4s means 8/4 for one and either 24/20 or 6/2 for the other, though in truth both are pretty weak. Finally, I'll try just one checker down; yes, that goes better with 8/4 and now two 4s remain. Making the 20pt must be better than making the 2pt, so I'll assume that's it." Well, there are stumbling blocks, but I suppose D has a shot of working.
Of these, I think 9 or C has the best chance of success among readers who are unfamiliar with Y. However, I'm not suggesting you try all the choices and compare. If you mentally test D first, you'll no doubt stop partway through the (hypothetical) reaction and test somthing else, but if you mentally test C, @, 4 or 9 first, you'll likely just go with that.
In truth, because there are only three strong plays (the rest are whoppers or worse), if you nactate 24/20(2) 13/9 8/4 with any character other than P or K that is not directly misleading, there is good chance your intended move will get across. How quickly this happens largely depends on the skill with which you choose your character in order to narrow the reader's arena of thought.
With practice, for even the trickiest doublets you'll gravitate to a likely character right away, and your testing will be done at an intuitive level (having thought about the issues before) and often instantaneously.
Finally, I'll offer my usual reminder: Most of the plays made OTB are trivial to nactate; dozens and dozens of them can go by before you run into a multi-quadrant doublets move (the one featured in this post is about as slippery as it gets). You can always fall back on (two-character hybrids or) traditional notation for these (occasional) tricky plays; however, if you practice the Nactation for these as well, whether strictly or assumptively, I think you'll be surprised at how well you manage.
Nack