                         | |||
| 51S-62R-51S-51S-61P-31P-64-n | |||
| XGID=--a---EBD---eBa--b-db-A-A-:0:0:1:64:0:0:0:0:10 | |||
Hit or Anchor?
Suppose you had decided the same. What file name would you use?
Nactation is not for everybody.
That’s a quote from my original post.
Bob Koca and others have stated that, for them, beyond the 2nd-move, Nactation is more hindrance than help. Bill Phipps indicates that he does not care for Nactation at all. For players like them, flashcards usually carry anonymous, numerical names. I have no problem with that. I have a few myself. Had I chosen to use a number, this would have been saved as Flashcard PositionID 000866.xgp.
In the same amount of time that it takes for me to look up that number, however, I can look at the Move Panel in XG, and rattle off the Nactation sequence for the position. The resulting file name is 51S-62R-51S-51S-61P-31P-64-n-tm.xgp. In many ways that name is just as meaningless as the numerical name 000866. I cannot visualize the position by looking at its Nactation any more than most players.
So that brings up the question. If both names are meaningless, and if both are equally easy to construct, which name should I use? Is one name better than the other? For me, the obvious answer is yes. The name I chose is the one that records the move sequence.
If you could recite the Nactation as fast as I can, would you have done any different?
I have developed flashcard sets from the data in my RolloutSummary spreadsheet for categories such as “Anchor or Hit?”
In case you are tempted to argue that it is a toss-up, and that I should not prefer one method over the other, consider the sets of flashcards I describe near the end of my original post. One of them is a collection of “Anchor or Hit?” decisions.
Because I use the filters described in my original post, the simple act of adding the nacbracs to my RolloutSummary simulataneously adds the position to my flashcard set for anchor-or-hit. It’s very convenient.
So once again, the rhetorical question arises: Was I right to use Nactation and nacbracs, and let this position automatically drop into place in my flashcard set? If it were as easy for you, would you have done any different?
Do What You Like
For me, it is easy and natural to use Nactation well into the middle game. The arguments above explain some of the benefits that accrue to me by doing so. That does not mean that I think you should do the same.There are, after all, other ways to get the same benefits. One easy way to organize flashcards, for instance, is to create a separate folder for each category. Such as system presents its own difficulties, but can be made to work. Problems include keeping track of the number for the next flashcard, and the limitation that each position can only be assigned to one flashcard set.
In my own database of numbered positions, I keep a separate table called Category that is linked in a many-to-many relationship with the Position table. That way, each position can be assigned to many categories, and, conversely, each category can contain many positions.
In conclusion, I would argue that everyone should be categorizing their flashcards. Beyond that, my anarchistic advice is do what you like.
For me, that means using Nactation.
Mike