That's right. I consider the X and Y thing bad design which I argued against. You can make longer jumps with [x,y] notation.
This is more a matter of taste than an objective advantage, though. The [x,y] notation needs at least 5 characters. With that many characters the XY notation can go up to [15,3] (GXXXX) or [11,11] (GYYYY). At which point the [x,y] notation already uses double digits. So the first cases where [x,y] would be more compact are [19,0] and [16,16]. It is extremely unlikey that such large leaps would be encountered in practice. (Perhaps for mapping a dual board or a two-level board on a rectangle, such as for Alice Chess.)
Even if it could be argued that [2,1] is better notation than N, it is just not Betza notation. Using multi-letter atoms for indicating atoms for which no single-letter notation exists has already been done by Betza himself (e.g. NN).
This is more a matter of taste than an objective advantage, though. The [x,y] notation needs at least 5 characters. With that many characters the XY notation can go up to [15,3] (GXXXX) or [11,11] (GYYYY). At which point the [x,y] notation already uses double digits. So the first cases where [x,y] would be more compact are [19,0] and [16,16]. It is extremely unlikey that such large leaps would be encountered in practice. (Perhaps for mapping a dual board or a two-level board on a rectangle, such as for Alice Chess.)
Even if it could be argued that [2,1] is better notation than N, it is just not Betza notation. Using multi-letter atoms for indicating atoms for which no single-letter notation exists has already been done by Betza himself (e.g. NN).