| |
BGonline.org Forums
S versus Z in nactation
Posted By: Timothy Chow In Response To: S versus Z in nactation (Gregg Cattanach)
Date: Saturday, 10 October 2009, at 1:42 a.m.
Greg Cattanach wrote:
Z is split with the smaller number *only when there is a choice*.
You're right that I was missing this definition.
I can see that I'm not going to win this battle. However, for what it's worth, let me give an illustration of what I think is troublesome about defining S and Z this way, which shows up even when studying opening replies.
Suppose I'm trying to investigate the hypothesis that, in general, an opposing checker on the opponent's 10-point (or my 15-point) makes me prefer 24/22 13/10 to 24/21 13/11. A natural thing to do is to compile a bunch of positions with an opposing checker on that point and see if there is a pattern of preferring 24/22 to 24/21 in those positions. If 32Z were defined to mean 24/22 13/10 then the pattern would be easy to spot: many Z's and few S's. However, under the current definition, that's not what 32Z means. If I look down my hypothetical list and see an S, that might or might not mean playing 24/22. To convert back from 32S to an actual move like 24/22 13/10, I have to reconstruct the board position and check to see whether (for example) my opponent has made his or her 4-point. This is cumbersome. Looking into the future when people might start writing programming scripts to collect this kind of information automatically, I can foresee this convention leading easily to programming bugs. Being unable to convert between nactation and standard notation without referring to the board position is going to be a minor programming nuisance.
Incidentally, I'm prepared to be won over by being shown the advantages of the current definition. I'm afraid, however, that I am not very convinced by the argument that the people who have the most experience like it this way and therefore we should take their word for it that it is better, even if they are unable to articulate any reasons for their preference. My profession is mathematics and I deal with definitions all the time. Good notation and good definitions usually are immediately intuitive, and if they are not, it is always possible to articulate clearly and precisely why they are the way they are. When I hear someone defend an awkward mathematical notation by saying "that's the way it is" or appealing to an expert rather than giving reasons, I know that it's almost always because the notation really is not good and that it has stuck around purely from inertia.
Anyway, despite the amount of effort I've put into arguing my case, I realize that it's not really a big deal. Nactation is still a great invention, and although I am disappointed that there is an aesthetic flaw in the S/Z definition, I can cope with the flaw readily enough in practice.
| |
BGonline.org Forums is maintained by Stick with WebBBS 5.12.