[Suggestion #2] Rotation Notation

So in my free time I've been coming with ideas that I believe could improve the 4pc experience. Please let me know what you think, if enough of you like an idea I will write it up in a blog (because blogs are neat and pretty). By all means, please do make suggestions and thank you for reading.

The second post in my forum series of suggestions is on Notation.

There is already a system out there for describing moves of the board, it's okay, I have no particular quams with it. I have tried to improve upon this by coming up with my own system. For the sake of distinction, you can call this "EldarScript".

Rotation Notation

- - A hyphen used as a placeholder to indicate who's move it is in a particular turn. No hypens would mean it is Red's move, one hyphen would mean it is Yellows to move, two hyphens would be Blue and three would indicate Greens move. Similar to the elipsis (...) of conventional chess notation.

~  - "Any move" or "It doesn't matter what move this player makes because the outcome is the same (usually checkmate or falling for some given trap)."

(/XX, XX) - Any move except the ones in these brackets (can be one or many).

(XX, XX) - Brackets used to indicate many moves that could be made by the player in this position, usually because the outcome (in analysis for example) is essentially the same.

[XX, XX] - Conditional brackets, the move that is played within these brackets is dependent on what was played within the previously mentioned regular brackets (in allignment order, so the first move in the conditional brackets would be the move played if the first move in the regular brackets were played and so on). Conditional brackets can play a role in the formulation of plans as well as in the description of trivial responses that don't particularly change an inevitable outcome.

Px(XX, XX) - Piece captures whatever previous player played. Similar to Conditional brackets in some respects, this can only be done if a previous player has already had those brackets to describe a move they would have made. "Capturing" these brackets, simply means that the respective player captures whatever piece the capturee placed - usually in the context of blocking checks, where due to continuation doesn't make a whole lot of difference.

Lets take a look at some examples...

Consider (not too deeply) the following moves:
1. h3 c7 g12 l8
2. Qj4

Using the above notation, here's how we might describe a continuation starting from Blue's move during the second turn...
2. - Qb7 Qe11 Qm8
3. Nf3 Nc9 ...

We could then describe the game by saying that Yellow then moves:
3. -- Ni12

We might then after this describe Greens next move as:
3. --- Nl6

Using the above notation, here's how "Fools mate" might look when written down...

1. (h3, h4) (/c7, d7, c8, d8) (g12, g11) (l7, k7)
2. QxQn8+ ~ Bm7 #

In words this is to says that if Red moves to h3 or h4 and Blue does not play c7, d7, c8 or d8, then if Yellow plays g12 or g11 and Green plays l7 or k7... then Red can take Greens queen on n8, it won't matter what Blue then plays ~ because Yellow will come in with Bm7 and that will be checkmate.

Note that Foolsmate can still be achieved even if Blue plays those respective first moves so long as he does not check Yellow on his second. As such, it may be more appropriate to write Fools mate as:

1. (h3, h4) ~ (g12, g11) (l7, k7)
2. QxQn8+ (/Qg13, Qh14, Bh13) Bm7 #

For arguments sake (and to keep things simple), lets say Turqoise (Blue-Green) are planning on how to reply to various opening moves in their upcoming tournament game. So away from the analysis board, and having only written text to depend upon, they might do so like this:

1. (h3, f4, Nf3) [c7, c8, c8]

This is saying that if h3 is played, then c7 will be played, if f4 is played then c8 will be played and if Nf3 is played then c8 would be played. The conditional brackets only refer to the most previous and recent regular brackets. Conditional brackets have many uses including describing sequences of more than 1 turn that lead to checkmate. At present, I am trying to think of a simple way to expand upon this to allow for more variables and perhaps even for linear sequences to be described with conditional brackets that are allocated ID numbers for referencing.

Checks

If needing to desribe a situation where more than one opponent King is checked, but it so happens that at least one of them is in double, triple, quadruple (or more) check, then the order in which to notate this goes: {+Red}{+Blue}{+Yellow}{+Green}.

For example, lets consider a Teams game where Yellow has just doschecked Blue and Green but Green was already in Check from Red. We would describe this move with the notation "+{+2}". If this was a Knight move it might be written as:

10. -- Nm6+{+2}

The checking order goes from Red clockwise to Green to keep things simple. If you think checking order should perhaps be considered relative to the player delivering the check (say for example, going Left clockwise) then let me know in the comments.

Game Analysis

At this point, you have essentially read all you need to know in order to understand this notational system. What follows is an analysis of a game of mine using this notational script. I was going to post it as a blog, and I might still do so, but I have been hesitant on account that I didn't want to start pushing conventions without community feedback.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Consider the move sequence:
1. h3 d7 g12 Nl6
2. Qj4 Qb7 Qe11 l5
3. Nf3 Nc9 Nf12 Nk4
4. j3 Qd9 Qg11 Nl6
5. Ni3 d11 Ni12 BxBi1
6. RxBi1 Ne10 ...

Find the best move for Yellow,

If you found 6. -- Qxb6, then congratulations, this is the best move in this postion and leads to a very fast mate to follow. For the purposes of this entry however, I would like to explore another move from Yellow that also leads to forced checkmate. 6. -- NxNe10.

- If 6. --- Nk4, preparing a check on red to prevent the mainline checkmates, then 7. jxNk4... Blue is then forced to play 7. - Qi9 (Preventing 7. QxRn4 #) this is followed by 7. -- Qxb6 ~ 8. Qe4+ (d5, Nc6, Nb7 Bb7) Qa6+ ~ 9. Qx(d5, Nc6, Nb7 Bb7) #

 - If 6. --- (l9, k9) then 7. Qe4+. 7. - (Nb7, Bb7, Qb7) is met with 7. -- Nc9 ~ 8. Qx(Nb7, Bb7, Qb7) #. If instead Blue decides to play 7. - (d5, c6, Nc6) then 7. -- Nc9+. In this position Green can now play 7. --- Qxi13... (any other move will allow for a trivial checkmate with 8. -- Qb6 to follow). 

This move allows Green to defend the b6 square from Yellow, but after 8. Qx(d5, c6, Nc6){+2} Ka7, Yellow can occupy the b6 square anyway (capturing the green Queen also leads to checkmate). After 8. -- Qb6, Green stops the "Waiting Mate" with 8. --- QxQb6. He now blocks Blue's escape and allows Red the finishing move 9. Qa8 #.

In this example, we have seen Green forced to block an escape square that Blue might have used to escape from the protected check being delivered by Red's Queen on a8. The act of forcing a players teammate to block an escape square that he would have otherwised used to escape checkmate could be called "Obstructions mate" or perhaps "Friends mate" maybe we could vote on what to call this type of checkmate? Who knows...

-----

PS: Can you tell from my suggestions so far that I really want to get into 4pc writing?

(Thank you for reading - Eldar)

Great articles, glad that you are into 4pc writing. 

how long did that take to write

interesting though

thankyou

and ages angelo :I, this ain't the half of it either... I'll give you a hint on the next post:

There are 160,000 different possible combinations of moves from 1 turn (or ply) of the board... what should we call them?

So many things wrong here, I'll elaborate tomorrow. Following thread.

Before writing these articles, please ask what is already in place. Again, over half of the stuff you've said already exists

@tommerall949

Thats why I'm writing these in the forums first before I put them in the blogs; I thought I would check with the community to see what conventions were already in place and gain feedback on the ideas I have come up with.

As for the idea of things already being in place - well...  I don't exactly know where this place you are referring to is! Unless you're referring to the 4pc wikibook, in which case, yes I am aware of it, I based this entire post on it. I am not yet aware of any dictionary or lexicon table being "out there" yet though to help people understand how we are supposed to communicate in 4pc. Forgive me if my efforts to seek clarification on these matters is affronting to you.

I have been wanting to write about 4pc in blogs but I have held back on account of not knowing what terms, names and systems to use. There isn't a list out there that says: these are the words we use to convey meaning of certain concepts; here is a list of conventionally understood openings, their names and mainlines. These things aren't obvious unless you hear it from another player or spend hours digging deep looking for clarification.

-

The system I have designed here is not so much to replace the current system as to enhance it... in fact the only real difference between this system I propose and the current standard is in colour indication. Where the standard uses letters to convey colour, this system uses hyphens. I have my reasons for preferring this system but we can argue about this detail as much as you like, ultimately it would come down to personal taste.

The rest of what is here is only as a means to make the notation more versatile, so more can be communicated and simpler.

Bare with me, lets consider the Fools mate for example...

Using the standard to describe the sequences that lead to fools mate on Green you would need to list out every single unique possible combination that leads to fools mate. If my math is correct then this would lead to having to write out 3568 unique individual lines! (2*2*2*(19+20+23+22+18 +18+32+31+25+24+23+23+23+22+19+20+21+21+21+21)). Using the notation I have prescribed, you can write out fools mate simply like this:

1. (h3, h4) ~ (g12, g11) (l7, k7)
2. QxQn8+ (/Qg13, Qh14, Bh13) Bm7 #

The only aspect I can see that can have any real possible area of dispute are the aspects pertaining to conditional moves. Here I have used square brackets [] and "capture brackets" Px(XX, XX) to try and encapsulate this. I admit that this area needs improvement and more thought put into it, I mentioned as such in the above.

-
I have not written these pieces you have read to be considered as canon in any sense, rather as a way to submit to the community what I have come up with to hear thier feedback so it can be improved upon or so I can clarify at least for myself what exactly is there so I can then formalise it by way of a blog. I am very thankful for the contributions you have made, particularly on the terminology posts. I might comment that a constructive argument or reasoning would be more helpful than dismissing something as stupid without giving any reason why you believe so.

What I have written is not meant to considered a formal article by any means. Consider it a test and discussion upon how we might improve certain matters related to the conventions we use to establish 4pc concepts (that's why its in the forums titled "Suggestion").

Frankly, since these are not meant to be articles and I have already been actively seeking out the standard convention of things without success, I will consider my efforts for improving the standard fine. I put a lot of thought into my work and refuse to push it onto anyone. I will write as I darn well please.

This is getting to look like a bunch of very interesting and challenging math concepts lol

I'm a mathematician =)

I am not reading that but I get the point