I searched a bit for a general convention but can't really find any. If anybody knows of any, please let me know as I do not want to reinvent the wheel.


My own thinking is to use this syntax:

[Move 45] -> b:A1 B2 C3 w:_ E5 F6 k:G7 H8 I9 w:T1 S2

(the moves are nonsensical)

1. Black plays A1 as move 45.
2. White plays B2.
3. Black plays C3.
4. White passes.
5. Black plays E5.
6. White plays F6.
7. Black takes ko at G7.
8. White plays H8.
9. Black takes I9
10. White plays T1.
11. Black play S2.

'w:' means it's a move by White.
'b:" means it's a move by Black.
'_' means it's a pass.
'k:' means it's a ko.

'w:' and 'b:' would be issued every 10 moves if it's not a ko.

The uppercase L is more clear than the ambiguity among:

• I, I, I
• 1, 1, 1
• l, l, l

A popular coordinate system omits the i column and skips to J.

Great, thank you. Do you think underscores makes it more readable than colons ?


[Move 45] -> b_A1 B2 C3 w_ E5 F6 k_G7 H8 J9 w_T1 S2

versus

[Move 45] -> b:A1 B2 C3 w:_ E5 F6 k:G7 H8 J9 w:T1 S2

How about this?

'+' or nothing indicates a Black non-ko move
'-' indicates a White non-ko move
'*' indicates a Black ko move
'/' indicates a White ko move
'.' indicates an even sequence of passes

45A1-B2+C3+E5-F6*G7-H8+J9-T1+S2

The White pass (or an odd number of passes) is inferred from having 2 '+' moves in a row. If you really need to indicate individual passes, you could use '.' for a pass, '+.' for a Black pass and '-.' for a White pass.

We could make this even more consise, but I don't know if that is a virtue.

_________________
The Adkins Principle:
At some point, doesn't thinking have to go on?
— Winona Adkins

Visualize whirled peas.

Everything with love. Stay safe.

How do you intend to use your syntax? Could you give an example?

_________________
Dave Sigaty
"Short-lived are both the praiser and the praised, and rememberer and the remembered..."
- Marcus Aurelius; Meditations, VIII 21

I would like to make it easier to read and visualize a sequence of moves in plain text for use in emails and plaintext documents.

For example, you get something like

D17 D15 C15 D16 C16 E17 C14 D14 D13 C17 D18 B17 E18

The moves are annotated to make it easier to visualize.

[Move 1] -> b:D17 D15 C15 D16 C16 E17 C14 D14 D13 w:C17 D18 B17 E18

My ideas are to:
1. Add the number of the starting move.
2. Break it into more readable chucks by adding 'w:' or 'b:' every 10 moves or when reasonable.
3. Taking note of the kos as they are particularly hard to keep track of by adding 'k:'.
4. Use 'w:_' or 'b:_' for passes.

Maybe some way to highlight the key moves too but I wouldn't want to make it too complex.



Bill, I would like it to be more intuitive. It's hard to guess what the mathematical operators means in your syntax.

FWIW, I think that this:



is more readable than this:


It's difficult to contribute without having a good idea of what balance you want to achieve between readability and conciseness.

_________________
be immersed

Thank you for letting me know about Chess Algebraic Notation !

I would argue that "a red circle with with a black outline" would be the human readable version rather than XML which is designed to be machine readable though.

That's exactly what Marcel said.

Like people said, diagrams are great. But if you want to keep it as text then actually describing the moves rather than coordinates is often more intelligible, but requires (at least for now) an intelligent Go-playing human to generate e.g. black approaches the top right corner from top side, white answers with knight's move, black slides, white 3-3. black 2-space extension. It can get hard to find non-ambiguous wording with weird moves in strange places, but as most moves are played for a reason in relation to existing stones on the board it usually works quite well.

As far as readability goes, sgf > diagram > using language (Black plays at E5) > any type of notation.

What I am saying is that given the constraint of plain text, you will necessarily sacrifice readability. If this is a real constraint, I don't see any reason not to use language for short sequences, as it doesn't require learning a syntax. If you are paying by the letter, I find listing each move on a separate line easier to read.

b A1
w B2
b C3
w D4

as opposed to: b A1 w B2 b C3 w D4

I would also encourage augmenting the list with words instead of symbols to indicate properties of moves:

b A1
w B2 captures
b C3
w D4 takes ko

is easier to read than:

b @A1
w $B2
b @C3
w #D4

Edit: I'm not sure that I agree with Uberdude's suggestion to use descriptive language, as that can become quite wordy, and also requires an accompanying diagram.

_________________
Patience, grasshopper.

For human readability, IMO nothing beats diagrams. As for emails and such, why, we write diagrams with text all the time, when we post diagrams here. If you don't have a program to convert diagram text, use a font with constant spacing, like Courier New.

Example: A diagram I posted to another thread here, altered slightly for sending via email.

B10 - B18
---------------------------------------
| . . . 6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
| . . 4 X O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
| . 7 . 5 . O . X . . 3 . 8 . . . . . . |
| . . . X . . O X . , . . . . . O . . . |
| . . . . . 1 2 O . . . . . . . . . . . |
| . . . . . . O . . . . . . . . . . . . |
| . . X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
| . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
| . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
| . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . |
| . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
| . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
| . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
| . . 9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
| . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
| . . . O . . . . . , . . . . . X . . . |
| . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
| . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
| . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
---------------------------------------

_________________
The Adkins Principle:
At some point, doesn't thinking have to go on?
— Winona Adkins

Visualize whirled peas.

Everything with love. Stay safe.

Uhm, no: (emphasis added)

… while I understand Morgoth Bauglir as saying that the phrase “a red circle with with a black outline” would be the human readable “notation”.

_________________
“The only difference between me and a madman is that I’m not mad.” — Salvador Dali ★ Play a slooooow correspondence game with me on OGS?

Frankly, what's wrong with having a 2D representation of the game (a diagram) instead of a 1D one (the list)?

As pointed out, in chess it's necessary to have a 1D representation because the board state overwrites itself frequently, but in go, this is very infrequent, and the cases when it happens can easily be handled out of band. You can have all the descriptive annotation in the world, but it will still be easier for a human to visualize from a diagram of moves than from a list.

I think having pass as part of the notation adds complexity but isn't useful. It's quite rare for move sequences to feature passes, outside of endgame problems. I suspect "white pass on move 5" stated outside of the sequence is better.

_________________
Occupy Babel!

The first go book I encountered was the Smith book, which used algebraic notation for games. This was extremely annoying to use for study. I liked what uberdude said about move descriptions. In TV games in Japan the game recorder announces moves with descriptions such as "keima gakari" (knight's move approach move), "kuro tsunagi" ( Black connects), "migi no hoshi shita" (right side below the star point), etc. It would almost be possible to play through a game with just these descriptions if the reader knew go terminology. It would also be a lot easier to memorize a sequence from the descriptions alone, especially if the reader were sufficiently familiar with go.

Another demonstration of the utility of diagrams comes from joseki dictionaries. The thumbnail diagrams are by far the easiest to use to look anything up. One wants to be able to see the sequence shape, whether the stones are oriented differently on the board or the colors are reversed.

Memorizing a sequence of moves is helped a lot by being able to see the shape that is developing, inferring the moves from that rather than memorizing move by move to see the shape.

I actually think that it is a real drawback of go that one cannot easily specify sequences of moves (and variations) purely with text.

When mastering chess, one learns to think of variations as text. You and I could both be looking at a position and I could say "What if e5, Nd7, Bxh7+, king takes, Qh5 check, does that work?" without moving the pieces, and you know what I'm talking about. The closest you can do in go is name the local shapes in a sequence like "hane, extend, cut, throw in", which helps, but at some point you have to make the actual moves.

Textual representations of moves also help when learning to visualize in chess. It is valuable visualization practice to read the text of a variation and try to move the pieces in your head. Go variations are generally represented as diagrams so the visualization has already been done for you. You can try to reproduce it by going back to the original diagram and trying to imagine the variation diagram being constructed, but it's not the same.

It's also easy to add alternative variations when writing chess lines, just putting things in parentheses (and you can nest them more than once). With go, when you try to list alternatives, you end up with atrocities such as "If Black 3 at 4, then White 3."

I don't know … maybe it’s just one of the nice things about it … like … you have to DO it to actually understand it … ?

Reminds me of that anecdotical composer who played his newest composition on the piano for his visiting friend, and when that friend afterwards asked him what the meaning of that composition was, he sat down again at the piano and played the whole thing, again

_________________
“The only difference between me and a madman is that I’m not mad.” — Salvador Dali ★ Play a slooooow correspondence game with me on OGS?