| |
BGonline.org Forums
Nactation for White's entering play
Posted By: Nack Ballard In Response To: Nactation for White's entering play (Stick)
Date: Friday, 8 July 2011, at 10:30 p.m.
... it uses the Nactation symbol 'x' which is already in use for hit and split plays.
Yes, on the surface, that is an argument against your suggested usage of x. However, X (or x, for alt hit-and-split), would only be used after a roll of two numbers of a sequence, or by itself in text; not after one number (at least not in any orthodox context).
We often use x as a generic place-marker (e.g., 6xS-51, or 43U-xx, or 65R-xxx-31. Reasonably consistent with that (i.e., not coming from left field), the roll of 2x (meaning that x is the fanning part of a roll), while I consider the x part extraneous (omitting it serves the same purpose as place-marking and with one fewer character), it does at least seem unambiguous and recognizable.
Let's take 62S-55A-2-C as an example, where the enter-one-checker roll just before C (Cube) was 21. Recapping, while I like 2 or 21< best, I'd rather see 2x than 21 (because the latter is what I would write if both checkers entered). Isolating any of 2, 2x or 21<, it is not necessary to play through the sequence or see the position to determine what happened on that particular roll. More importantly, if the interpreter confuses the sequence elsewhere and is trying to reconcile, "21" offers less help than the other three, because it doesn't identify itself as a one-checker entrance. It could be a two-checker entrance or it could even mean that 21 was transcribed as the roll and the nactator didn't have time (or forgot) to also transcribe the play.
Nack
| |
BGonline.org Forums is maintained by Stick with WebBBS 5.12.