@Silver,

My point was precisely to point out that zone and ring don't have the same properties.

And my point was, that exactly this difference is helpful and that this is the reason for the adequacy of the zone-term.
I dont see any "same distance" if I look to the centre-spot, rather I perceive a centre-zone.

chriscool said:

Quote :

the term zone is inadequat because it doesn't imply that all spots are at the same distance.

 

--Last edited by SilverSurfer on 2005-11-16 21:57:35 --

I am lost.

Do you mean the representation would be 4 rings+1 zone ? 5 zones ? or what ?

This thing about 4 rings+1 spot or 5 rings or 5 zones or whatever is starting to piss me off. I don't see any reason not to keep it simple and will for now talk about rings 0 to 4 if i have to talk about rings

A attempt to give a We-suggestion:



nacre said:
" About ring terminology. I number rings from the center, this makes sense when you compare larger games (full board with side length 5) with smaller games (e.g a single group in the daisies, side length 2)
If you prefer 1 center + 4 rings, you can define the ring name from the radius of the ring, metric is manhattan distance = number of single-marble moves: ring 0 is the center marble, ring 4 is the outer ring."

chriscool said:
"My conclusion is that everyone should feel comfortable with both representations, but if one and only one should be chosen, then the rings only representation should be this one."

Kopedito said:
"Since I think it's not a matter of arguments but rather a matter of convention, I consider that both 0-based (4) or 1-based (5) conventions are acceptable."
"or we could maybe use 2 terms like 'ring' and 'zone'?"

Abalekon said:
"I'm afraid I am not the right person to give a well-argued opinion about rings.  I'm just a not too bad player speaking the voice of common sense, and for me a spot is not a circle, you need many spots to make a circle."

SilverSurfer said:
"A1-4 are expressions of common sense and intuitive views. This is very coherent to me.
But (B1) is a important technical analysis-view, I think so."


->> There was no agreement for one version. Therefore my proposal is that we keep some versions

4 rings and centre:            5 rings:          


4 zones and centre            5 zones

There are 4 short cuts: (4rc), (5r), (4zc) and (5z)

I hope that we all will indicate the according short cut, if we speak of  rings, zonces etc..

Maybe we will drop the zone term. We will see.
Are there any other proposals for the short cuts  ?

Thank you,
Best Regards,
SilverSurfer  

--Last edited by SilverSurfer on 2005-11-17 17:15:12 --

I think this discussion is getting a little bit confused because, actually, two different points are discussed :

1- what concepts should be used in the rings-representation : rings only or rings+center.

2- with a rings-only representation, should the center be ring 0 or ring 1. I think this was the point that kopedito was referring as just a matter of convention.

If he was referring to 1- as just a matter of convention, then i have to disagree. I don't think all representations have the same advantages and disadvantages and it makes sense to me to chose the representation being more convenient (in the same way we don't write english here just because it is a convention but because it is more convenient for us to communicate in english rather than in chinese).

About the term zone, i see two main differences with rings :
1- it doesn't refer necessarily to the center (we already agreed on this) ;
2- a zone described like "zone 4" would implicitly include, in my mind, rings 0 (or 1 depending which is the first ring) *to* 4 because it is often used to work that way when dealing with closed shapes (in drawing, computing or the branch of mathematics dealing with shapes - "mathématiques formelles" in french).  

--Last edited by chriscool on 2005-11-17 18:59:39 --

A. 4 rings or 5 rings
B. rings only - or rings and zones

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

• A.
  

There are some members, who prefer the 4 ring-centre-term. And there are some, who prefer the 5-ring-centre-term.

• B.
  

Probably we can pass the zone-term - there was only kopedito, who suggested the zone-term, and I guess he will agree, if we pass the zone-term.



Therefore my questions to you:
1. Where is now the problem for you to keep both ring-terms ? We can indicate each term with short-cuts.
2. You think "we" will come with your arguments to a decision, if the 4-rings-term or the 5-rings-term is better - and this will be not a personal decision, but the consensus-decision of all ?  

--Last edited by SilverSurfer on 2005-11-18 13:39:53 --

Hello,

there are now two topics: "Glossary" and "Discussion of the Glossary". This is a clearly arranged order.

You can find the Glossary here: http://148009.aceboard.net/148009-108-2328-0-Glossary.htm#vb

Thank  you,
Best Regards
Funky-AbaloneTheory-JazzClub