[ View Thread ] [ Post Response ] [ Return to Index ] [ Read Prev Msg ] [ Read Next Msg ]

BGonline.org Forums

Teaching young dogs new nactation tricks

Posted By: Daniel Murphy
Date: Saturday, 5 February 2011, at 10:24 a.m.

In Response To: Teaching young dogs new nactation tricks (Matt Ryder)

Thanks for your reply, Matt.

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.

Well, I'm not denying that Point, Slot, Split and Race and their Nactation symbols P, $, S and R convey basic backgammon strategies. In other words (yours), fairly (I hope) rearranged: the first handful of Nactation symbols exemplify certain basic principles. I agree.

But I don't agree that numeric notation is "basic stuff" only for experienced players, which I gather is what you mean by "you and I" or that it should be learned after learning basic Nactation. I'm saying it's "basic stuff" for the absolute beginner. Numeric notation is a simple language we can use to talk about the board and its points, become familiar with the quadrants, points, setup, and moves, and quickly take the tedium out of mentally counting pips or points and physically moving checkers around the board. For example, I think it's a real eye-opener to realize that 66 plays 24/18/12/6/off, 23/17/11/5/off, 22/16/10/4 off, and so on; that your 20 is my 5 and 55 from the roof plays bar/20/15/5 and from the acepoint anchor 24/19/14/9/4, and so on. With numeric notation we have a way to simply specify all 24 points on the board, and (very soon) how to count and evaluate races. We have to learn how to talk about the board before we can talk about strategies. I really do mean basic discussion, like: on what point do you enter when you're on the bar and roll and ace? The 24 point. Which points do you need to make in order to form a blockade? You start with the 8 and 5 points, and need to fill in the 5, 4 and 7 points. Which point can you bear off from if you roll a 5? What's a race, is this a race, who's ahead in the race? And so on.

Nactation, as you might point out, is also useful for talking about backgammon, and the five basic symbols are not difficult. But I can't even imagine talking about backgammon using Nactation without understanding numeric notation (there are older systems which numeric notation thankfully replaced). Which point does 31P make? The 5 point. And so on.

If the argument's made that learning simple Nactation fairly early on can help reinforce understanding of basic concepts, I suppose that might be true, moreso for some than for others. For me, learning multiple ways of approaching a topic is often helpful in absorbing the material. So if knowing that pointing, slotting, splitting and running are worthy of "basic" Nactation symbols helps (or would have helped) you, good enough. But that's not the argument you made originally with which I disagreed.

Regarding even brief exposure to Nactation dissuading new players, you quote Gary 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 guess I'm not taking his comment the same way you have. I take it as a caution against overwhelming any new player with jargon, of any sort, not as a claim that any exposure to Nactation will (or "can," or "might") scare away beginners. Before the paragraph you quoted, he wrote:

any notation becomes more and more cumbersome the more information that is involved. the nactation method is meant to condense lots of info in a small space. it does this well, however at some point the amount of info that it is condensing becomes too great for even the best of us....

There, I see an appreciation for Nactation, but also an opinion that beyond the simplest symbols it gets a little hairy, and not only for beginners. I think Gary's right about that, and although I think you meant "intricacies of the system" somewhat ironically, perhaps we can agree that if some experienced players find Nactation a bit of a struggle, it's quite possible that some novices might also.

Now that is a "straw man argument". I did no such thing.

I'm sorry you think I've been unfair. But you wrote "The pervasive assumption that newcomers will shrink from nactation as from some dread pox seems fundamentally irrational to me." Your following sentence was "The new breed like Stick and MCG are taking to it like donkeys to water." To me that suggests that "Stick and MCG" are mentioned as exemplary "newcomers" who are "taking to [Nactation] like donkeys to water," not "shrink[ing] from nactation as from some dread pox." Of course you're right, they're not beginners. But your basic claim was that Nactation shouldn't (and doesn't) scare away new players and that basic Nactation should be taught to them straightaway, before numeric notation. And then you cite Stick and Matt as two players much taken with Nactation. But they're experienced and dedicated students of the game, even if they are younger than Magriel's book. Their names are out of place in that paragraph and your argument.

Yes, the way you're presenting that it is pretty ridiculous. Neat bit of sophistry.

No, I don't think so. I was responding to this:

If only I had been exposed to these concepts [Run, Point, Split, Slot]. early on! It took me years of blundering around before I started to understand the benefits of slotting. Had I only known that experts considered the $ a 'basic' symbol I might've saved myself years of hopelessly deluded conservatism.

I think that grossly exaggerates, with regard to understanding backgammon fundamentals, the novelty and utility of Nactation.

I'm afraid I still don't understand why learning basic Nactation early on should have led to a greater appreciation (or less fear) of slotting for years to come. Surely it wasn't Nactation that first presented these concepts to you? $ and S (and R, H and D) are only the first-lesson Nactation symbols because Slot, Split, Run, Hit and Duild, er, Down to build are, well, "basic" plays and fundamental choices. 24/23 13/11 or 13/11 6/5? 24/23 13/8 or 13/8 6/5? In Nactation, 21S or 21$? 51S or 51$? Split or Slot? Why should learning that an expert player has conceived of an "$" (and S, R, H and D) to notate frequent, basic, plays make one think splitting more worthy of consideration, or more right?

It occurs to me, also -- in a follow-up, you call "traditional notation" "merely descriptive" while Nactation "illustrate[s] backgammon principles" -- that once you get beyond the most basic Nactation, most designations are strictly descriptive -- "outer, inner, both, each, near, cross, etc." -- and provide little if any strategic insight. Too bad, maybe, that "B" is "both" and not available for "build"? Does Nactation "highlight" "actions and underlying concepts"? Well, sometimes yes, sometimes no.

But I don't know which books or other materials you did or did not read that led you to believe for some time that 21: 13/11 6/5 was "backgammon suicide."

For instance, in Chapter 5 of Backgammon, published in 1976, Magriel recommends slotting with 21, 41 and 51. But the same chapter advises that "For the more experienced player, alternate opening moves are possible ...." and goes on to present the slotting alternatives for these plays in Chapter 15. This presentation might provoke the novice reader to wonder whether to make the plays recommended in Chapter 5 or the "experienced player" plays in Chapter 15. Magriel assures the reader that "the plays indicated here" (that is, splitting, with 21, 41, and 51, along with the other recommended plays) "are in no way inferior to the alternates discussed later." Well, notice how he put that: if splitting is "in no way inferior," neither is it superior -- in Magriel's opinion at the time, or so much of it that he thought appropriate for an introductory book.

So we have Magriel in 1976 presenting splits and slots as reasonable alternatives. As it turns out, he was right. As I wrote in 2006: "If we substitute 'about as good as' for 'in no way inferior to,' then thirty years of analysis and data from backgammon computer programs tells us that Magriel's presentation of the opening moves in Chapter 5 and 15 was essentially correct, with the exception of his recommendation for opening 53 and his complete omission of the third alternate play of 8/2 6/2 for opening 64."

But maybe you learned backgammon later, or didn't start with Magriel's book?

For instance, in 1992, Bill Robertie touted the 21 split in Inside Backgammon. Thereafter, the consensus of expert opinion grew in favor of splitting instead of the once popular slot. This was based on bot rollouts, initially with TD-Gammon, and later with JellyFish and Snowie (and Expert Backgammon, I think, deserves a mention). In a 2006 article that originally appeared at pokernews.com (now at bkgm.com!), Robertie described the era:

These results swept the backgammon world, and soon almost everyone was splitting, rather than slotting with these rolls. While there was nothing wrong with copying the bot's plays with the opening rolls, players began making a much more serious mistake. Since these opening rolls were the most obvious examples of slotting, they "learned" that slotting was simply an error except in a few bizarre circumstances. As a result, they started missing strong slotting plays in all sorts of opening and middle-game situations. They'd discarded a key tactical idea on the basis of a tiny set of opening positions.

There's some support there, I think, for slot phobia. Depending on one's sources, one may very well have (wrongly) deduced that splitting was always or nearly always much better than slotting. But only some. In 1994, one might have noticed that bot preferences for the 21 and 51 (and 52) splits were quite small (less than 0.010 difference); only the 41 slot was well behind. Or, also in 1994, Woolsey's advice:

There really isn't much difference between the various ways to play the opening rolls, so go with what you like and are comfortable with. Also, try out different things for learning purposes. Don't get stuck in one style -- experiment.... [T]here often is no "correct" play. You have to decide for yourself what works for you.

Woolsey again, in 1995: "the slotting play 13/11, 6/5 and the splitting play 24/23, 13/11 ... seem to be about equal." For 51, "[t]he splitting play ... has come out a bit better."

In the same era, you'd see warnings that it was quite likely that bots undervalued backgames and thus overvalued splitting. For instance, Ballard in 1997 (although not specifically about slotting versus splitting):

JF's rollouts evaluate backgames and (to a lesser degree) deep holding games to be weaker than they are in actual play. ... This defect has a retrograde effect on checker moves in earlier, undeveloped positions ... JF's evaluation of a candidate move should be adjusted favorably towards the side who is more likely to end up with multiple checkers back as a result of vulnerability to hits or a hit exchange.

Nick's comment here concerned making and slotting of advanced board points, but similar and, I think, correct observations have been frequently made about slot vs. split decisions, since a slotted checker, obviously, if hit, is more likely to become an additional checker back.

By 2001, you might have heard that the consensus of expert players favored slotting with 21, despite the bots which were still splitting. Robertie is probably right that there was a time when bot-inspired enthusiasm for opening splits led many players to make reflexive errors in "all sorts of opening and middle-game situations." But seriously:


    Backgammon is fundamentally a race!
    Impeding the opponent's escape from your home with strategic blockades helps you to win!
    A balance of offense and defense is crucial! Remember to work both sides of the board!
    Fight for key points in the early game while the risk is still low!

that is, Run, Point, Split and Slot -- are fundamental albeit often confusingly conflicting concepts. That the corresponding Nactation symbols are "basic" is a reflection of that. I can't gainsay your experience that exposure to Nactation has given you an illuminating perspective, and no doubt fashionable play changes over time, but any number of good books written by experts since 1976 (and perhaps since 1929?) have stressed and explained these concepts -- all of them, including slotting -- long before Nactation was invented.

Messages In This Thread

 

Post Response
Your Name:
Your E-Mail Address:
Subject:
Message:

If necessary, enter your password below:

Password:
 

 

[ View Thread ] [ Post Response ] [ Return to Index ] [ Read Prev Msg ] [ Read Next Msg ]

BGonline.org Forums is maintained by Stick with WebBBS 5.12.