| |
BGonline.org Forums
Trad to Nactation conversion algorithm
Posted By: Matt Ryder In Response To: Trad to Nactation conversion algorithm (Nack Ballard)
Date: Wednesday, 9 February 2011, at 5:38 a.m.
As I see it, a "phase 2" algorithm can be built gradually and experimentally. If an illegitimate letter is conveyed, an error has to be fixed in any case, and in that sense there is no real downside to letting the computer first make its best educated guess. If e is written but doesn't exist and E was intended, the sequence will right itself. If not, the operator can look to see that the "e" was earmarked as questionable and see if that was what stopped the music.
It's the logic of making an "educated guess" that will be tricky.
If a given move is impossible (such as S when the remaining back checker is pinned behind a prime), it seems to me a plethora of other plays might be possible instead. I could run through all the legal characters in that case and suggest the user pick one (perhaps suggesting legal members of the same family as probable substitutions?)
But it would be very dangerous to automatically substitute a letter and hope that the "sequence will right itself". What if (say) the next couple of characters in the sequence can be played legally after either an e or E? The sequence might only "stop" or deviate after quite a few missteps downstream from the actual error (especially if the computer is allowed to make several such "educated guesses" before stopping).
You listed: B, C, E, G, Y, M, S, Z, U, V, W, R (all correct). Add the letters Q and X (and B, C, E, G, Y, M, Q), and the symbols @, #, ^, <, >.
I just plain forgot @, ^ and X. I vaguely remember that < and > have something to do with fanning with half a number?
Is # a variant of @?
I was labouring under the delusion that Q could occur in any of the quadrants. Upon rechecking your original tutorial, I see you've specifically defined it as "a play made entirely within the opponent’s inner board area (including her bar point)" But isn't this restriction somewhat artificially limiting? A character like this available across four quadrants, plus an extended family of variants, might assist in answering Timothy Chow's complaint that nactation cannot describe this move.
Btw, in discussing Nactation, I use "letter" for A, B, C..., "symbol" for $, &, @..., and "numeral" for 1, 2, 3...; and I use "character" to describe a member from any of those three groups. Please let me know if that terminology materially differs in some way from that of programming terminology.
These descriptions are in synch with "programming terminology". Another useful category used in IT contexts is "alphanumeric", which refers to the group of 62 letters and numerals, excluding "symbols".
Matt R
| |
BGonline.org Forums is maintained by Stick with WebBBS 5.12.