| |
BGonline.org Forums
Nacbracs
Posted By: Matt Ryder In Response To: Nacbracs (Nack Ballard)
Date: Monday, 28 December 2009, at 8:22 p.m.
Hi Nack,
If someone currently writes [$0 U0 S2 D3], I interpret that as $ and U being exactly tied to the nearest thousandth (-.000), S being 2 thousandths back (-.002) back, and D being -.003. It is shorter to write [$0 U0 S2 D3] as either [$ U0 S2 D3] or [$=U S2 D3], but all three mean the same thing to me.
You've convinced me that the B/W variant as I conceived it would cause significant confusion. I made the assumption that in standard nacbracs the initial nactation symbol in the list would always be listed without a numeric value (as it's zero by definition). So I thought [$0 U0 S2 D3] and [$ U0 S2 D3] would therefore be distinguishable as Ordinal and Thousandths respectively. I must confess I just overlooked the possibility that the first and second plays might be tied to the nearest thousandth.
I tend to think the 'tvcmbwd' concept is likely to confuse matters also, especially AtS when the secondary characters 'd', 's' or 'g' are introduced. I can make sense of [sS D3 Z16 U42] but give me [sSt Dt Zv Um] and I start to choke on the alphabet soup.
Anyway, I hope the discussion generated some food for thought.
Thanks for taking the time to reply to my abstruse musings in such meticulous detail. I've counted myself as a fan of yours for years, so I consider it a real honour.
On the topic of backgammon inventions, I found an obscure reference on the web somewhere to a 'Kangaroo Pip Count' technique apparently devised by you sometime after you gave us Naccel. If there's any truth to that, I'd love to know more. I was impressed with Naccel, but alas never gave it the necessary attention to really entrench it in my mind.
Cheerio,
Matt.
| |
BGonline.org Forums is maintained by Stick with WebBBS 5.12.