| |
BGonline.org Forums
Testing the limits of nactation
Posted By: Matt Ryder In Response To: Testing the limits of nactation (Timothy Chow)
Date: Tuesday, 4 January 2011, at 7:39 p.m.
So 416 letters aren't going to be enough.
Ah, but if you used a range of polychromatic fonts, the permutations rise beyond human reckoning!
Imagine a matrix that describes the rules for crimson E underlined, emboldened and italicised versus lapis lazuli lower case e underlined!
(I am of course joking.)
While a system could theoretically be devised to accommodate a truly vast number of positions with a single character, such a monstrosity would be way too unwieldy for any practical use. The beauty of nactation lies in its power to simply (and compactly) encapsulate early positional principles in a way that human beings can grasp.
So nactation is perfect for the early game, but I question it's efficacy (or relevance) in the later stages. It isn't ideal for highly disordered or entropic positions. (Nack might yet prove me wrong on that count.)
I have yet to see anybody use nactation to transcribe an entire game played through to the bearoff. Perhaps it isn't possible? For me, such a "deficit" does not diminish nactation's value as a shorthand for transcription and discussion of move sequences in the early to mid game one iota.
Matt
| |
BGonline.org Forums is maintained by Stick with WebBBS 5.12.