### Move notation. Dots and Boxes

5 replies. Last post: 2004-07-21

Move notation.
• Knox (Computer) at 2004-06-21

To be able to discuss games and alternative lines of play,

we need a notation for referring to specific moves. Since

a move is a line connecting two dots, an obvious method is to label the dots and specify a move by listing the two dots

being connected.

My first idea was to specify a dot by (r,c) where r is the

row number and c is the column number. In this notation,

the move connecting the dot in the lower-left corner with

the dot to its right would be specified as (6,1)–(6,2) or

more simply as 61–62 [I like this better]. The one

drawback to this notation is that it is easy to confuse

the row with the column and hence, the notation is prone

to error. To remedy this problem we can instead use

letters for the columns and numbers for the rows

(or vice-versa) similar to describing a chess board

with “algebraic notation.”

I propose we adopt following move notation. Label the

columns from left to right as a,b,c,d,e,f and label the

rows from *bottom* to top as 1,2,3,4,5,6. In this proposed notation, we would represent the move that connects the lower-left corner with the dot to its right as a1-b1. If

a turn consists of multiple moves because we have completed some boxes, then we can simply separate the moves by commas.

We would record the start of a hypothetical dots and boxes

game in the following manner.

1. b5-c5 2. c4-c5

3. b4-c4 4. b4-b5, d3-e3

5. f1-f2

The board would look then like the following.

6 + + + + + +

5 + +–+ + + +

\|Bl\|

4 + +–+ + + +

3 + + + +–+ +

2 + + + + + +

\|

1 + + + + + +

a b c d e f

This notation is consistent with the most commonly used

chess notation which is called algebraic notation.

People who are used to this notation would hate it if

you used letters for the rows and numbers for the columns,

or if you reversed the row numbering so that 1 was at the

top and 6 at the bottom (trust me on this).

I believe the proposed notation is simple, clear, and unambiguous. Comments? Alternative proposals?

• Knox (Computer) at 2004-06-21

The carefully constructed spacing from my ascii dots-and-boxes diagram got removed. Is there any way to prevent this?

Let me try again with html tags and see if that works

``````6  +  +  +  +  +  +5  +  +--+  +  +  +      |Bl|4  +  +--+  +  +  +3  +  +  +  +--+  +2  +  +  +  +  +  +                  |1  +  +  +  +  +  +   a  b  c  d  e  f
``````
• Nick Wedd at 2004-07-11

A Google search for '“dots and boxes” notation' finds several other methods:

http://homepages.cae.wisc.edu/~dwilson/boxes/explain.shtml

http://www.mathpuzzle.com/dotsandboxes.htm

http://216.239.59.104/search?q=cache:axwyz50beZgJ:www.msri.org/publications/books/Book29/files/westboxes.pdf+%22dots+and+boxes%22+notation&hl=en

• Knox (Computer) at 2004-07-12

But which notation do you like best?

In regards to the notations described in the three links

provided:

The third one requires a diagram of the board which misses

the point. The purpose of having a notation is to provide

a good *textual* method of describing the moves without

having to draw a complicated ascii diagram for each

variation.

I really don't like the first one. When recording moves,

you could easily reverse the row and column labels.

Perhaps more significantly, it seems next to impossible

to visualize a move in this notation without having a labeled board in front of you.

The second one seems like a good notation. This one

gives names to the squares instead of to the dots as

mine does. Both notations allow easy visualization of

the move on the board (once you get used to the notations).

I won't vote between mine and the one on the second link

because of any bias I might have towards my notation.

This issue is probably more significant for me because I

can freely discuss variations as Knox is playing the game

-- the discussion can't possibly effect Knox's moves. If

it could, Knox would have beaten Taral 15-10 whereas it

is now about to win 14-11.

• Jupp at 2004-07-21

Your notation is very clear. As a chess-player I'm used to it and prefer it. :)