| |
BGonline.org Forums
64P 22 XG 4 ply RO TCTC
Posted By: Chase In Response To: 64P 22 XG 4 ply RO TCTC (Timothy Chow)
Date: Thursday, 11 March 2010, at 8:35 p.m.
Yikes! I stand corrected. I looked it up and still got it wrong. That makes three nactation errors by players at least somewhat familiar with the system in this thread alone -- and we're only discussing the response to an opening move. I've no doubt that the three of us will get better at it and avoid most errors in the future, but it underscores the fact that nactation is prone to errors and ambiguities.
Don't get me wrong. I think nactation is useful and I thank Nack for devising it. I use it myself in my own study. I'm currently putting together a spread sheet with all the opening moves and responses at all scores, and nactation is great for that, because I can get a lot of information on a single page. I can also see mixing in some nactation when hand recording matches, for example. These are instances when time or space are limited, making nactation very valuable.
But in a public discussion of positions, where everyone from pro to beginner might be trying to follow along, I think we do better to use standard notation. It's more accessible, more accurate, and less error prone. If someone types in 9/6 when they meant 9/5, it's usually pretty easy to understand what they intended. If someone types in N instead of E or B, on the other hand, things typically aren't so clear. That's why so many of us have taken to including both nactation and standard notation in our posts -- because it's confusing -- to the point where it's not really saving any time or space.
What would you consider to be the "very basics" of nactation? R and P and D, surely. Also S, Z, U, and V? Some confusion arises even with these.
Yes, it does, and those have been in common usage for some time. So we've got someone on one end having to "translate" a move into nactation, and maybe getting it right, then a bunch of someones on the other end having to "translate" it back into standard notation (assuming the original poster wasn't kind enough to use both forms).
This will get better in time, but I don't ever expect it to get good, especially with (hopefully) new people joining the discussions and forums. (All the jargon can be very intimidating, by the way.) Since we're not limited by space and time here, and we're seeking clarity and understanding, I'd rather we put away the decoder rings and stick with something easier and more precise. I know all the cool kids are into nactation, but it seems to be more of a hindrance than an asset.
Disclaimer: Once again, no offense to Nack, whom I respect, or anyone else. Just one guy's opinion.
| |
BGonline.org Forums is maintained by Stick with WebBBS 5.12.