| |
BGonline.org Forums
Teaching young dogs new nactation tricks
Posted By: Matt Ryder In Response To: Teaching young dogs new nactation tricks (Daniel Murphy)
Date: Friday, 4 February 2011, at 9:26 p.m.
I opined:
To the contrary, I believe newcomers should be taught nactation before traditional notation.
Daniel Murphy replied:
Nah, I can't agree with that. 4 quadrants, 6 points in each quadrant, 24 points numbered from 24 to 1 from the perspective of the player on roll (25 to 0 with 25 = bar and 0 = off) -- this is basic, simple, timesaving, very-early-lesson board talk.
Yes, that's basic stuff for you and I. But I contend that even more basic are certain principles exemplified by the first handful of nactation symbols.
That's why it's presented right up front in books like Magriel's Backgammon and Robertie's Backgammon for Winners.
Both of which predate nactation, right? I'm suggesting that before explaining standard notation, a modern beginner's book might reasonably present the simple nactation symbols first as a useful introduction to key backgammon principles.
I'm a bit confused by your citing Stick and Matt -- who surely aren't novices, beginners, or casual players -- as examples of why "newbies" should learn Nactation before numeric notation.
Now that is a "straw man argument". I did no such thing.
And a bit put off by strawman arguments, like there being opposition to "even brief exposure,"
I don't mean to pick on him, but in my post I quoted garyo saying:
"however, the codification is overwhelming to the newer players and at some point this becomes an anti-growth movement. the neos are going to pick up a book, or read a website that they struggle to understand. and if the neos give up on the game --- it has no future."
I take that to imply there's a risk that a newcomer might be put off backgammon for good merely by "pick[ing] up a book" or "read[ing] a website" containing these "overwhelming" codes. Sounds like pretty brief exposure to me.
or that you have to spend years blundering if you don't know that slotting is a Nactated "$".
Yes, the way you're presenting that it is pretty ridiculous. Neat bit of sophistry: accuse a guy of a straw man argument by misrepresenting his argument in a way that itself creates a straw man to knock down. I doff my cap to you sir.
What I was actually saying is that had I seen Nack's tutorial when I was starting out in gammon, I would've learned some valuable lessons about the early game that eluded me for years. Back then, I would never have dreamed that the ostensibly "risky" 21$ was anything other than backgammon suicide. I wouldn't even have considered the play. (Many beginners will not willingly leave an early blot in their home board, a lingering phobia that in some cases haunts their game for years.) Back then, I would've been astonished to learn that an expert such as Nack Ballard might suggest the crazy-looking slot as a 'basic' alternative. So merely being exposed to a symbol would've helped me shake off a conservative mindset.
Matt R.
| |
BGonline.org Forums is maintained by Stick with WebBBS 5.12.