|
||
Title: Board nomenclature Post by megajester on Jul 14th, 2012, 8:24pm It occurred to me that following commentary and game descriptions using square notation can be a bit taxing on the uninitiated (I still have to squint while I work out where e6 is sometimes) when it seems something more intuitive might be possible. So here's a suggestion: http://bit.ly/PrNmNQ That way we could talk about
and so on. I also wondered if we could also have simple and clear names for the quadrants. But it turns out English is not one of those languages graced with names for ordinal points of the compass (Greco, Scirocco, Libeccio, Mistral, anyone?). So maintaining the African theme I came up with Sahara, Nile, Rift Zone, and Congo for northwest, northeast, southeast, and southwest respectively. So we could charge into the Sahara with our elephants, take control of Nile traps, and frame pieces in the Rift Zone. Just a thought... 8) |
||
Title: Re: Board nomenclature Post by clyring on Jul 14th, 2012, 10:03pm Calling more than four squares "corner squares" feels unnatural to me. (I suggest "diagonal.") I have similar problems with the "edge." (I've been using "liberty" to describe them to myself.) The word "border" also bothers me, as I've become accustomed to calling them flanks. |
||
Title: Re: Board nomenclature Post by Nombril on Jul 15th, 2012, 2:29pm I think I will have a hard time getting used to something new.... but the point here is for someone new to the game, what would be easiest for them to understand? My first impression, though, is that this adds a whole new set of words to remember, for both new and experience players. 6: 'Behind the ... trap' seems natural enough. (For me, home is the entire home half of the board.) I agree with clyring that edge and corner already have normal connotations (edges: anything in the a and h file or 1st or 8th row, the board has four corners...), redefining those words might get confusing. For the pace of the commentary games, I wonder if we will ever have good verbal names for the squares, or if we need to be satisfied that the connotation will come through if the board is in view. When I've provided commentary, I certainly have to pause to figure out exactly what square something is (and when I remember I have a cheat sheet sitting next to me so I can just look!). Should we be stepping back and asking if we need to speak about specific squares when the board is in plain view? Maybe verbal commentators should be advised to skip the more exact references, that are liable to be misspoken anyway (and difficult for some/many to follow). |
||
Arimaa Forum » Powered by YaBB 1 Gold - SP 1.3.1! YaBB © 2000-2003. All Rights Reserved. |