BGonline.org Forums

Standard notation for plays

Posted By: Taper_Mike
Date: Saturday, 27 September 2014, at 2:10 a.m.

In Response To: Standard notation for plays (Taper_Mike)

This is a reply to Tim’s post. I am putting it here—instead of in direct reply to Tim—because this thread is already nested way too deeply! A little vertical alignment (in tree view) may help.

Thanks for catching my error. Indeed, I did mean 24/21 7/4*(2) 4/1.

In case there are any developers reading this, I want to link the post by Tom Keith that you cited. Tom presents a comprehensive set of guidelines that would standardize the way moves are formatted.

When I pointed out to Tom that both GnuBg and XG list “to” points in descending order, he suggested that, “Maybe rule 5 should be changed to read: ... then in descending order by the to points ...” By the way, I just noticed a small error in Tom’s rule number 5. Tom gives this example:

If there is tie, put the multipart move first.

13/7, 13/10*/7  →  13/10*/7, 13/7

This move is a parallel move, and is more elegantly written as 13/10*/7(2). Some may argue that only the first checker off the 13pt makes a hit, and therefore suggest that 13/10*/7 13/7 is preferable, but they will never sell me on the idea! Indeed, what if the hit were on the 7pt as in 63S-33P = 13/7*(2). Is there anyone who will argue that that should be written 13/7* 13/7?

The following rollout of opening 43 shows that XG presents moves in descending order of “to” points. Two down from the midpoint is written as 13/10 13/9. There is no right and wrong here, but since both XG and GnuBg do it this way, I have adpoted the same style for the Nactation Key in my RolloutSummary spreadsheet. Given the precedent, I think you and Tom would concur with my choice.

Without declaring anything to be right or wrong, let me agree with you that any hits need to appear in a move sequence at the earliest opportunity (reading left to right). I don’t like 24/21 7/1 7/4* because the move 7/1 must hit en passant. My preference for this move is 24/21 7/4* 7/1. If I were listing “to” points in ascending order, I would write 24/21 7/4*/1 7/4, even though it sacrifices elegance.

There is a corresponding inelegance that occurs when “to” points are listed in descending order. Consider a roll of 44 which is played 13/1, 9/5, and which hits on the 5pt. In order to get the hit in the right place, this must be written as 13/5*/1 9/5 rather than 13/1 9/5*.

Mike

 White is Player 2 score: 0 pip: 167 Unlimited Game pip: 167 score: 0 Blue is Player 1
XGID=-b----E-C---eE---c-e----B-:0:0:1:43:0:0:0:0:10
Blue to play 43

1.Book113/10 13/9eq: +0.0071
 Player:Opponent: 49.79% (G:15.74% B:0.79%)50.21% (G:14.18% B:0.81%) Conf.: ±0.0021 (+0.0050...+0.0091) - [67.1%]
2.Book124/21 13/9eq: +0.0064 (-0.0007)
 Player:Opponent: 49.91% (G:14.52% B:0.73%)50.09% (G:13.76% B:0.65%) Conf.: ±0.0021 (+0.0043...+0.0085) - [32.9%]
3.Book124/20 13/10eq: +0.0000 (-0.0071)
 Player:Opponent: 49.94% (G:14.00% B:0.68%)50.06% (G:13.78% B:0.63%) Conf.: ±0.0021 (-0.0021...+0.0022) - [0.0%]
4.Book124/21 24/20eq: -0.0154 (-0.0225)
 Player:Opponent: 49.84% (G:12.56% B:0.62%)50.16% (G:13.61% B:0.51%) Conf.: ±0.0020 (-0.0174...-0.0134) - [0.0%]

1 Generated by Arthur van Houdt on 3/19/2012 using eXtreme Gammon 2.00
46656 Games rolled with Variance Reduction.
Dice Seed: 1
Moves and cube decisions: 4-ply

eXtreme Gammon Version: 2.10

Post Response

Subject:
Message: