| |
BGonline.org Forums
Follow the bots' advice # 1 RO # 2
Posted By: Timothy Chow In Response To: Follow the bots' advice # 1 RO # 2 (Stick)
Date: Wednesday, 21 May 2014, at 3:05 p.m.
Stick wrote:
If someone new in backgammon came to you via email and told you "I played 6/3 22/20 6/3 8/5 here" I don't believe for a second you wouldn't point out to them the commonly accepted way of annotating plays.
Apart from the fact that no backgammon move can be legally played that way (I think you meant to write 23/20), I would (like Daniel) point out that separating 6/3(2) into 6/3 6/3 is weird, but I wouldn't say that it was wrong. Some ways of annotating plays are extremely strange, but I still wouldn't call them wrong (unless they're actually indicating some move different from the one intended).
You're also inventing a straw man, because nobody would ever write that. Now, I could imagine someone writing 6/3* 23/20 6/3 8/5, and if they wrote it that way because that reflected their thought process by which they chose how to play each 3 in turn, then I wouldn't even complain that it was weird.
Also, if there isn't a right way to do it then why have all the bots over the years done it the same way?
They haven't. This just shows that you haven't been paying close enough attention. They agree on the majority of plays but not all of them. In fact, just recently, I pointed out to Xavier that under certain rare circumstances, XG would come up with (for example) 18/16 16/14 for a play that normally would be notated simply 18/14. I was careful to point out that it wasn't a bug, but merely an oddity. (This one is odd enough that Xavier does plan to fix it.)
Furthermore, there are times when I believe that what you would call a nonstandard annotation is clarifying. I gave an example above, where the order of the moves reflects the logic of the thought process. Here's another example. Suppose I have three checkers remaining, one on the 6pt and two on the 1pt. My opponent is on the bar. I roll 61, and bear off just one checker. I would certainly notate this 6/5/off rather than 6/off, because 6/off is potentially confusing to some readers. Now modify the position by eliminating my checkers on the 1pt, but keep the roll of 61. Technically, according to the rules of backgammon, I have to play both dice if possible, so I must first play 6/5, and then bear the checker off from the 5pt with the 6. Nevertheless, I would notate this move simply 6/off. I don't know what you think is the "standard" in these two cases, but presumably I've made a nonstandard choice in one or the other case, yet I would stand by both notations.
My philosophy is, use whatever notation is clearest. Given that there is no universal standard for backgammon notation, there is no reason to pretend that there is one and insist that people adhere to it arbitrarily.
| |
BGonline.org Forums is maintained by Stick with WebBBS 5.12.