| |
BGonline.org Forums
Testing the limits of Nactation
Posted By: Nack Ballard In Response To: Testing the limits of nactation (Timothy Chow)
Date: Tuesday, 4 January 2011, at 9:42 p.m.
(I have reproduced Tim's diagram above (with the GnuBG tool) in the hopes that some people will be able to view it now or later. Currently, I cannot. (Perhaps Stick, when he returns on Jan 6th, will be kind enough to replace it with an XG diagram and delete this paragraph.)
15
Blue to play 11 146
Well done, Tim, in the construction of a Nactation-challenging position!
There were six visible plays in the candidate window. They are nactated as listed below (explanations on request):
C = 20/18 7/6(2)
c = 19/18 15/14 7/6(2)
c = 20/19 15/14 7/6(2)
i = 5/3 2/1(2)
¢ = 19/17 7/6(2)
q = 19/18 7/6(2) 2/1The fifth play in the window (19/17 7/6(2)) cannot be nactated with use of only italics and emboldenment. (The non-underlined C subfamily is composed of only eight members.) I chose to use ¢ here to represent the tenth member, but another option would be to use the second member with a second color, e.g., red c would work.
As Casper and Matt have astutely pointed out (and as is stated in the Introduction to the tutorial), Nactation is primarily intended to describe plays in the early game. Tim didn't assert otherwise; I believe he just wanted to explore the limits of Nactation.
There are no theoretical limits, as computers can handle plenty of toggles for most purposes (as Matt mentioned). Beyond lower-case, italics, underlined and emboldenment, adding color would easily cover any conceivable play in any position.
With practice, you can nactate entire games, but let's face it; while a computer can both understand and designate any play with a single character, there are some positions for which a human (without a lot of training) would not want to use Nactation when doublets are rolled. Nactation is its least friendly self in post-contact positions with several checkers on the far side of the board, where one wants to maximize blots for flexibility instead of making points: exactly the sort of position Tim produced. Most people finding themselves notating such a position with doublets rolled (non-doublets, no problem) would want to add a second character or fall back on traditional notation.
OTOH, we are talking about a very small percentage of positions (out of those that typically arise in a game) that are unfriendly for human Nactation, and in such cases if one switches to traditional notation when doublets are rolled, one hasn't lost the benefit of using Nactation for the rest of the game (assuming one chooses to use it that way rather than as a means of communicating and cataloguing early game positions).
Nack
| |
BGonline.org Forums is maintained by Stick with WebBBS 5.12.