[ View Thread ] [ Post Response ] [ Return to Index ] [ Read Prev Msg ] [ Read Next Msg ]

BGonline.org Forums

Proposal to redefine suffix -n in a move sequence

Posted By: Timothy Chow
Date: Friday, 3 May 2013, at 2:36 p.m.

In Response To: Proposal to redefine suffix -n in a move sequence (mtuhtan)

While it's conceivable that a bot might beaver its own double during a rollout even if Jacoby is turned off, I'd agree that it's hyper-pedantic to track -Jacoby+beaver and -Jacoby-beaver separately and I wouldn't consider it an "error" to conflate the two.

However, +Jacoby+beavers and +Jacoby-beavers are technically not the same because of Kauder paradoxes. It's still somewhat pedantic to track them separately but there's at least some theoretical motivation for doing so.

If I were redesigning the notation from scratch, I'd be inclined towards (1) no suffix for NMS/no Jacoby; (2) -b for Jacoby with beavers; and (3) -j for Jacoby but no beavers.

However, given that the existing notation is (1) -n for no Jacoby and (2) no suffix for Jacoby with beavers, I'd recommend grandfathering in the old notation, but I'd still recommend using -j for Jacoby with no beavers. I don't really know what you mean by NMS but if you really want it then I'd recommend overloading -n to mean NMS as well.

Messages In This Thread

 

Post Response
Your Name:
Your E-Mail Address:
Subject:
Message:

If necessary, enter your password below:

Password:
 

 

[ View Thread ] [ Post Response ] [ Return to Index ] [ Read Prev Msg ] [ Read Next Msg ]

BGonline.org Forums is maintained by Stick with WebBBS 5.12.