| |
|---|---|
| Andreas' 63R-42P-43 position | |
The crossing over of a rule supplement (and my not stating it explicitly), combined with a couple of overly brief explanations I made in my previous post (which I'll rehash in a minute), have left you understandably confused.
A long time ago, I noticed that if the hit/most/6 rule is followed literally, an early game 32T (such as 65R-52S-32T, see #22x in the tutorial) actually means that the deuce is played 8/6. Ouch. I started noticing similar examples arising in play, and a change had to be made. I settled on adding a fewest blots convention (so that hit/most/6 is expanded to "hit/fewest/most/6" just for T), having found no solution that is (even) better.
On a related issue, I noticed that I had not specifically stated whether or not moves like 13/9*/8 or 13/10*/8 or 24/18*/13, thereby creating an unoriginal blot and then lifting it, strictly qualified for the L family. I had provided the example of 31P-62S-62L (13/7*/5, see #23a), but with the caveat: "You have now had a glimpse of the "hit assumption," a handy tool. Assumptive Nactation is discussed in the next section." I definitely wanted those moves to qualify for proper L usage, but if so then I would have to include the same moves where no hit occurs. Adding the fewest blot convention (that I'd given to T) also for L, as I've decided on recently, does not expel those roguish moves from the L family, but it does eliminate the devilish scenarios in which a legitimate, natural Lifting play elsewhere (such as 15/8 in Andreas' position) is otherwise overshadowed by an unnatural L play (such as 13/6).
In other words, I would have preferred to completely disassociate L from moves like non-hitting 13/8 or 13/6, but it's no big deal if someone wants to keep using L even when there is no blot to clean up. For example, 62S-32L is a poor choice of Nactation that might leave the interpreter momentarily bewildered, but at least it is a technically allowable alternative that won't cause a computer program or strict-usage junkie to put the unintended move on the board.
Is the (limited-application) fewest blot convention here to stay? For T, almost certainly. For L, probably. Anyway, I've made it clearly known now and even supported it in answers to specific examples, so effectively the change is made. If I recant and remove the fewest blots convention from either letter (because I've found an even better resolution), it will happen before the tutorial update is published.
With that in mind, let's examine a couple of my explanations:
For 15/8 (in the position diagrammed above), I stated: "L (Lift) is the stylish Nactation. It means to lift a blot. There is only one blot and only one haven to which to lift it." (Then I went on to analyze the other Nactation choices of 8, T and D.)
I did not mean to imply there is only one L family member, though I can see how it might sound that way. At the time, I probably hadn't yet noticed that 13/6 is also in the L family (however contrived an implementation of the letter) and moreover hadn't looked ahead to notice that 13/6 was one of the plays I'd be anactalyzing. My comment was meant to emphasize that L is a splendid choice of Nactation because it lifts the only blot on the board. For clarity, I should have better integrated my answers.
Later, in the section on 13/6 I mentioned, "If there were an enemy blot on the 9pt, you could reasonably support capital L for 13/9*/6...," to which (in a good-natured tease) you replied: "What the hell does that mean? Reasonably support? (LOL!!!) Sounds like an argument in court!"
Allow me to expound:
Lower-case letter l is among the technically acceptable ways one might nactate 13/9/6 in Andreas' 63R-42P-43 position. Capital L is among the technically acceptable ways that one might nactate 13/9*/6 in a variant position (say, 63R-62R-43) where it is possible to hit on the 9pt. That having been spelled out, choosing "l" in the first position (over vastly superior Nactation options) would be insidious -- it would make me shudder, whereas choosing "L" in the variant position (over the other Nactation options) would be much more reasonable, more supportable in that sense -- it certainly wouldn't make me shudder if someone did that.
My objection to selecting "l" for 13/6 is not so much about the inferiority of a lower-case letter, or even that "l" is further tainted due to its resemblance to the numeral 1. It is that breaking down the move portions by 13/9 and 9/6 seems to create a blot for the express purpose of then lifting it; a legally permissible procedure but nevertheless insidious. By contrast, 13/9* is a hit; to apply the L family based on the 9/6 portion in that case feels natural (and perhaps even the best choice of Nactation, at least arguably). My notes in the original "l" paragraph were aimed at spotlighting that comparison.
Hope that clarifies. :)
Nack