Using chess style symbolic notation in go diagrams

[Tami]

Hi all,
Just a quick thought...

As most users of KGS know, you can change the A,B,C labels in diagrams to any character you like. Recently, I`ve got into the habit of using chess-style marks such as ! and ?! and (often in my case) ?? to highlight plays when reviewing a game.

Does anybody else do this? I like it because it`s compact and efficient.

[Mef]

I haven't seen too much use of the chess notation for annotating games (probably because it lends itself more readily to a game record written out algebraically, which go virtually never is), but I think it would be nice for something like this to become a more common practice. In fact, the SGF standard actually supports putting in properties for common annotations (though I'm not sure of any SGF editors that take advantage of this):

Code: Select all

Annotation       Property       Type      may be emphasized?	Meaning
Good for Black   GB	        General         yes             Something good for black
Good for White   GW	        General         yes             Something good for white
Even position    DM	        General         yes             The position is even
Unclear position UC	        General         yes             The position is unclear
Hot spot         HO	        General         yes             An important node (e.g. game deciding move)
Tesuji           TE	        Move            yes             The move played is (locally) a good move
Bad move         BM	        Move            yes             The move played is bad
Doubtful move    DO	        Move            no              The move played is doubtful
Interesting move IT	        Move            no              The move played is interesting
Black to play	 PL	        Position        no              It's black turn to play
White to play	 PL	        Position        no              It's white turn to play 

[Tami]

That looks interesting, Mef. Thanks.

If not already, then very soon people will be reading most game records from computer screens, which means that highlighting them with symbols such as the !,?,!? vocabulary of chess or marks like GB, GW etc. should be a very effective way of providing commentary without the use of a separate commentary window.

Personally I prefer the chess system, with simple kanji for go-specific concepts. I use 大, 小, 過 for "big", "small" and "overplay". If you didn`t want to do that, you could even ordinary ASCII characters symbolically, e.g., $ for territory (cash!), % for aji (a chance of something happening).

Just lazy Sunday afternoon thinkments...

[SoDesuNe]

I think the idea might be of some use in your personal games, where you just want to quickly highlight the key aspects and don't focus on explaining/discussing the game as a thorough review does.
As a reviewing technique I find this abbreviations and short notations pretty bad. There are already - in my opinion - too much commercial "commentaries" on the internet, which love to say only "Good move!", "Aggressive!", "Losing move!", "Strong!" and call this "commentated".
These short remarks might have historical roots (see Commentaries of Shuei) but even then they were intended for stronger players (professionals), who actually could understand why the move in question was good and (maybe) needed no further explanation.

Another thing is - as in chess - one has to learn the symbols before one can understand the "review". More burden on newer players and the benefit is in my eyes questionable (it does not really get clearer or more instructive). Besides I know of no sgf-viewer which doesn't have a commentary window.

For me one of the (many) great things about Go is that you can easily comment and print out a game. You don't have the awkwardness of chess notations (and comments), quite contrary Go Kifus are very readable even when you don't know how to play yet.

[John Fairbairn]

Just as a point of order, chess did not have priority in using symbolic notation to denote evaluations. The Meijin Inseki did this around 1700 using phrases (e.g. Mount Yoshino) connected with the Tale of Genji to show his evaluation of fuseki positions. See my forthcoming "Today we have a splendid feast", his superb collection of problems in the Yoshin Teiki - better than his Igo Hatsuyoron, I'd say (because we amateurs can do some of them but also because they are given in a graduated and ordered list - eat your heart out, Robert!)

[jts]

I'm a bit confused by what we're talking about. Could you post an example, Tami? The chess symbols are marginally useful in kibitz when people normally discuss potential variations algebraically, but in an SGF you can just write out, "Excellent move" in the comments for the excellent move.

[PeterPeter]

An advantage of such symbols, in any game, is that they are language-independent.

[Tami]

An advantage of such symbols, in any game, is that they are language-independent.

Exactly.

Also, once highlighted the reasons why a move is good or bad are usually self-apparent. If they are not, then probably the effort of trying to see why would do you more good than reading a lengthy verbal explication.

[SoDesuNe]

One could argue symbols are a language in itself and also need to be learnt beforehand...

Also, once highlighted the reasons why a move is good or bad are usually self-apparent. If they are not, then probably the effort of trying to see why would do you more good than reading a lengthy verbal explication.

This sounds pretty arrogant ; ) I have yet to see a move which is good in every situation. I know some shapes are better than others but in certain circumstances the "wrong" shape is the better move - and here might a good explanation kick in. Right now, it seems to me the symbols are really just an even shorter version of the good old "Strong!". Without context, without explanation. Everybody below your strength might not understand you, everybody above it could easily disagree.
Common review practice at least includes the weaker players ; )

I looked at your game by the way and although you could obviously say I'm biased, I needed to look at it twice because I overlooked the tiny symbols.

[Tami]

One could argue symbols are a language in itself and also need to be learnt beforehand...

Also, once highlighted the reasons why a move is good or bad are usually self-apparent. If they are not, then probably the effort of trying to see why would do you more good than reading a lengthy verbal explication.

This sounds pretty arrogant ; ) I have yet to see a move which is good in every situation. I know some shapes are better than others but in certain circumstances the "wrong" shape is the better move - and here might a good explanation kick in. Right now, it seems to me the symbols are really just an even shorter version of the good old "Strong!". Without context, without explanation. Everybody below your strength might not understand you, everybody above it could easily disagree.
Common review practice at least includes the weaker players ; )

I looked at your game by the way and although you could obviously say I'm biased, I needed to look at it twice because I overlooked the tiny symbols.

I`m sorry that I ground your gears the wrong way. Maybe it won`t come across so badly if I attempt to clarify.

I often find there are times when I either get something or I don`t get it. If I get it, then words are redundant, even distracting, and if I do get it, then words can be as confusing as often as they are helpful. You could for instance explain the moves of Capablanca or Karpov or Carlsen very lucidly, but would all those words really help you to play like them? The point of marks would be to make the reader pay close attention when running through a game on a computer. Where that would lead would depend on the individual. Speaking personally, I`d either see the idea, ponder it until I did see, or give up and maybe look again another time.

Really, I simply wanted to share an idea that I find useful for my personal use. It didn`t occur to me that there was any kind of teaching angle because I don`t teach go. I`d like to contribute something to the game one day, and since I have neither playing strength nor organisational talent I can only try to do it in a tiny way through little things like this.

By the way, I did not say anything about right or wrong shapes...

[SoDesuNe]

Okay, maybe it ultimatively ends in the personal choice of how one likes to study things; and there is no right or wrong, I guess - at least chess does fine ^^

[quantumf]

Hi all,
Just a quick thought...

As most users of KGS know, you can change the A,B,C labels in diagrams to any character you like. Recently, I`ve got into the habit of using chess-style marks such as ! and ?! and (often in my case) ?? to highlight plays when reviewing a game.

Does anybody else do this? I like it because it`s compact and efficient.

It's a great idea. Thanks for sharing it.