| |
BGonline.org Forums
senary spinoffs
Posted By: Nack Ballard In Response To: senary spinoffs (Don Thompson)
Date: Tuesday, 19 January 2010, at 10:39 a.m.
Welcome to the forum, Don.
I enjoyed your senary explanations; the methodology makes a lot of sense. I tripped up in a couple places (for example in the bearoff calculation I cross-multiplied and got 4 + 2:2 + 1:4 = 8:0, where the third number should be 0:1:4), but no doubt that's just a matter of practice. I liked the point about the 21-twice miss being more resurrectable in cases where it could matter.
Perhaps another good teaching example is shots in 1296 (excuse me, I mean in 1:0:0:0:0) in a straggler-defense situation, though you probably considered that.
[This is probably unimportant, but in case you pasted your tables from some master list you've created, there appears to be a typo in the pattern (100/ (6/x)) table, sixth entry.]
For reference, I used to write Naccel counts as 2:5, etc., but I switched to 2(5), because the parentheses help establish the dominance of the supes (super-pips) to the pips. Also, something like -2(+5) is easier to read than -2:+5. That said, I'll certainly know what you mean if you use a colon.
When you say "add 3" for senary calculations, you mean add 0:3, whereas in Naccel add 3 means add 3(0) -- i.e., 3:0. We're both doing what is right for our purposes, but it's interesting to note the distinction.
I think you hit the nail on the head when you said that there isn't much incentive to make Naccel senary beyond the first level. If the counts typically involved bigger numbers, say in the range of 2:3:0 to 4:0:0 (i.e., 15 to 24 Naccel-decimal, equals 180 to 234 pips in trad-decimal-speak) then I think second-level senary would be a consideration. However, there would still be the issue that what is currently a count of simply "3" would have to be tediously written as 3:0 to distinguish it from 3:0:0. Well, I suppose 3 could mean 3(0) as it does now and 3:0(0) would mean the larger one.
When teaching Naccel, I tend to shield the user from the concept of "base 6" as much as possible. First, it sounds scarier than it actually is. Secondly, it's not really needed in the conscious sense except sometimes in a minor way when comparing totals (or in integrating with decimal conversion at the end, as if that's ever needed, hah).
Clearly, the Naccel patterns are entirely senary, but it's all visual -- the geometry of the board takes care of that in spades. And there should never be a need to add mixed fractions if one is counting the right way. Just integer count and shift a time or two, with a baby-pip adjustment at the end (and not even that 1/6 of the time).
For your senary purposes outside Naccel, the colon is much better, of course, as (for one thing) you are going to a third-level count and beyond.
Feel free to join the Naccel discussions anytime -- offer your counts to the submitted positions, make observations, whatever. Either Matt or I (though he would be the best at it -- note how cleverly I offer other people's services) can get you up to speed on creating your own Naccel-point-numbered diagrams if you have Gnu and are so inclined.
In case you respond to Matt or me, you might want to go to "Post a New Message" in the upper left, make up any old message title (related to the old one or not) and start a new thread. The reason is that we're hanging out at the bottom of page 1 here, and I was lucky to even spot you. If you had been pushed down to page 2, it is unlikely I'd have stumbled onto you, considering my settings. Then again, I'm relatively new here myself, so maybe someone with more experience here will chime in and suggest a better way.
Cheers,
Nack
| |
BGonline.org Forums is maintained by Stick with WebBBS 5.12.