• Welcome to the Speedsolving.com, home of the web's largest puzzle community!
    You are currently viewing our forum as a guest which gives you limited access to join discussions and access our other features.

    Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community of 40,000+ people from around the world today!

    If you are already a member, simply login to hide this message and begin participating in the community!

Proposition - Let's fix some cubing terms!

StachuK1992

statue
Joined
Jul 24, 2008
Messages
3,812
Location
West Chester, PA
WCA
2008KORI02
YouTube
Visit Channel
[attempt to make use of this sub-forum]
There are a lot of 'standard' terms that we hold right now that I don't think are the best.

Maybe it's already too late to change some standards, but if it's possible, I'd love to change a few things.

Some quick examples of things I'd like to change/stop/do.
1-ZBF2L->ZBLS, as well as any other LS variations to be named as such.

2-Stop CFOP/Fridrich naming debate, finally.

3-Better meta-definitions for methods. F2L>LL would be one meta-method. CF would be another, perchance.
A nice way to organize methods other than "good" or "bad" or something too convoluted would be nice. I know Thom has already thought about this - other thoughts?

4-CLL/CMLL/CoLL/CIDFKLL. I can't even explain this naming convention. Sure, "CLL" means what it should in whatever context is appropriate, but I'd like to direct a reader's thinking of what CLL I'm referring too without setting up context.
4a-This idea also somewhat follows with ELL, on 3x3 LL(U) vs 3x3 LL(M) vs 4x4 LL(U)

5-I'd like there to be a standard format for publishing a method. Just a fancy way of displaying the attributes of a method, so one could publish faster, and hopefully get their point across quicker. I have some ideas about this - I'll post them tonight hopefully.

6-"2-gen". Without giving context.

7-Can we de-popularize "EJF2L" or at least change it to "I(m)CLS"?

8-Notation for grips.


Please feel free to address these points formally, and make your own as you see fit.
Perhaps it would be easiest to reference particular propositions as such;
"7 - That sounds awesome."

Let's get this rolling,
statue
 

Muesli

Premium Member
Joined
Jun 29, 2009
Messages
1,714
Location
Sheffield, UK
WCA
2009SMIT05
YouTube
Visit Channel
CFOP/Fridrich is the same debate as Vacuum cleaner/Hoover. I don't see the problem myself. When I read Fridrich I read CFOP, and when I read CFOP I read CFOP.

9- "lucky" v.s. "nonlucky"

I count either an OLL or PLL skip lucky. Xcrosses aren't really because they can be actively made to happen. OLL skips can too with fancy LS tricks but it's still lucky to get a case that you can use.
 
Last edited:

StachuK1992

statue
Joined
Jul 24, 2008
Messages
3,812
Location
West Chester, PA
WCA
2008KORI02
YouTube
Visit Channel
>9 I think someone suggested "if you skip a step that has more than an 80% chance of having to be dealt with" or something along this mindset.
I'd rather think about it in terms of move-count. For example, if I do an average of 100 move-count solves with 90% of the solves being withing a range of 45-55 moves, something below this would be 'lucky' and something above this could be 'unlucky.' Just a thought, not sure how that'd work out.

Another solution would be to just never ever use those terms and rather use 'no-skip' or 'full-step' if that's what you mean.


Muesli
>2 My issue isn't about whether one is right or one is wrong. I just hate having to 'hear' so many debates over such.
Likewise with Roux vs CFOP debates that just should be given up on at this point.
 

uberCuber

Member
Joined
Jun 24, 2010
Messages
3,921
Location
Tucson, Arizona, USA
WCA
2011THOM01
10. One big one is the use of the term "F2L", particularly in context of CFOP-type methods. F2L stands for "First 2 Layers", and IMO it should mean "First 2 Layers," not the rather arbitrary and commonly used "The rest of the First 2 Layers after already solving part of it in the first step of the solve." Going with that, and I've said this before, I always look at the F in CFOP as meaning "Finish First 2 Layers", rather than just plain "First 2 Layers".


11. Another thing that so many people seem to have a different interpretation on - use of the term "parity" in bigcube solves. Some people look at it from the purely mathematical point of view (i.e. "PLL parity" is not parity), and this definition makes sense in terms of non-reduction methods. However, as the majority of people use reduction methods for bigcubes, the majority of people use a reduction-based definition of parity, in which case you can have two parities in one solve. Personally, despite being a user of a method that ends up with reduction, I do not like considering "PLL parity" parity.
 
Last edited:

Cyrus C.

Member
Joined
Oct 17, 2009
Messages
2,159
Location
IOWA
WCA
2010COLA01
YouTube
Visit Channel
4a - I realize this would be difficult. Could we possibly change to using the prefix UL rather than LL? To remove ambiguity between M layer finishes and U layer finishes. e.g. PUL for CFOP, PML for Roux.

5 - This would be super cool. I'd like to see what ideas you have.

7 - Or maybe COLS? I never understood CLS' nomenclature...
 
Last edited:

qqwref

Member
Joined
Dec 18, 2007
Messages
7,834
Location
a <script> tag near you
WCA
2006GOTT01
YouTube
Visit Channel
You forgot the debate over exactly what we mean by "parity" :p For the record I prefer my definition (when you try to reduce to a particular subset, a parity case separates that subset from a coset that is visually similar but not actually solvable with only those moves) over the pure-math one.

1. Sounds good; it's definitely not a full F2L method.

2. I don't think this debate can end, because you have people like me who think Fridrich should be recognized for it, and then other people who think a descriptive name is better since she wasn't the inventor. And I guess there's a third class who wants to call the method Dockhorn-Treep.

4. It's difficult because there are a whole bunch of different things you might want to include/exclude, and so it'd be hard to make concise names that capture those distinctions. One possibility is to use N-CLL+X-Y for CLL on NxNxN cube keeping X and ignoring Y, and only using the identifiers that are actually necessary. So you'd have 2-CLL for 2x2x2, CLL+EO for COLL, CLL-M for CMLL, etc. And similarly for ELL: 3-ELL for the 3x3x3 algset (although 3- should be the default), 4-ELL for the 4x4x4 thing, ELL-C for solving edges before corners. For LL we could include a "which layer" in the prefix... 3M-LL (or just M-LL) would be the Roux last layer step.

5. How about a format like the one I used in http://www.speedsolving.com/forum/showthread.php?11896 ? You'd have a bolded title of a step, then a bunch of text/images/whatever describing the step, then some space before the next step. Small numbers of algs could be inserted inline; large numbers should be put in a spoiler either in the relevant section or at the very end.

6. Yes, we ought to avoid this - but I think it's fair to say that <R,U> (or any equivalent) is the default assumption when we see "2-gen" without any other qualification.

8. Why do we need a standardized notation for grips? How many people actually use grip notation at all?
 

Kirjava

Colourful
Joined
Mar 26, 2006
Messages
6,121
WCA
2006BARL01
YouTube
Visit Channel
Perfect starting thread <3

It's a shame my method classification system didn't get finished by now :(

1 - This is already starting to catch on. Wonderful.

2 - There's no debate - either is valid

3 - This is quite a cluster****. The problem is deciding /how/ meta your description becomes. F2L+EO falls outside of the F2L>LL meta description but is essentially in the same class with a small variation. You cannot simply put each method into a specific group, because many methods belong to many groups.

4 - I've pretty much given up on this and started calling everything either CLL or CLLEO. People generally understand what I'm talking about from context. No idea how to fix this properly yet. There should be a system for this stuff.

And if we're fixing this with a system - we could fix /every/ acronym. OCLL and COLL are two very different things, but you would have no idea which is which without checking. CPEOLL is a specific thing (yuk btw), but could mean any number of things.

5 - Publishing a method is the least difficult part of it's creation, I don't think this is an idea with much merit. More attributes on the wiki pages (like # algs is already there) would be good. Like listing the group types it belongs to. (CF, Reduction, etc)

6 - I believe 2-gen when discussed in the context of cubing should be assumed to mean "an algorithm that uses only two types of move" (or whatever the correct wording is, you know what I mean). Making it include all commutators etc removes any value the word has for us.

7 - "EJF2L" shouldn't even be a thing.

8 - Useless.

9 - The 'lucky' term has annoyed me for a long time. I've advocated phasing out the use of it for a while. When lucky solves can have higher movescounts and more difficult execution than non-lucky solves, what's the point of using the term to describe how easy a solve is? If you had a skip, say you had a skip. If F2L was unordinarily easy, say F2L was unordinarily easy. "nonlucky" just serves to validate easy solves with good times - it's at the point where my brain parses 'nonlucky' as 'fullstep but easy'.

10 - F2L.

Aaargh. It refers to a 2x2x3 block - the first two layers, yet CFOP has used the term to refer to that step that finishes the 2x2x3 block. It's akin to calling Step 4 in Petrus "F2L". I'd like to change the term CFOP is using but can't think of anything good for it - no one will adopt it if it's not snazzy. Pairs works but feels forced and awkward. Also, changing this will destroy the name "CFOP". Problematic :(

Very interested to see people's ideas - especially for 3 4 and 10.
 

qqwref

Member
Joined
Dec 18, 2007
Messages
7,834
Location
a <script> tag near you
WCA
2006GOTT01
YouTube
Visit Channel
I'd like to change the term CFOP is using but can't think of anything good for it - no one will adopt it if it's not snazzy.
Here's something - cross, fill in, orient, permute. It's not perfect, but it captures the idea of the step, and it starts with the right letter. Plus, it means we don't have to use an acronym inside another acronym (which I've always hated about the name CFOP).
 

qqwref

Member
Joined
Dec 18, 2007
Messages
7,834
Location
a <script> tag near you
WCA
2006GOTT01
YouTube
Visit Channel
That works too - it's no worse than "First two layers" :p

Another thing to debate: slightly unusual notations. If we want to standardize on a single notation for larger cubes (4x4x4 and up), what should we use - SiGN, WCA, Randelshofer, or something else entirely? Should we keep the Rw type stuff even though it doesn't cohesively extend to anything bigger than 5x5x5? What should the universal Megaminx notation be (U,R,L,F,D are agreed upon, but the rest much less so)? How about denoting rotations, tips, and face turns on the Pyraminx?
 

Kirjava

Colourful
Joined
Mar 26, 2006
Messages
6,121
WCA
2006BARL01
YouTube
Visit Channel
Heh. I like that we've freed up F2L now - this fixes a few problems. It now refers to a more meta group that various steps are members of. CFOP now has a more fitting and descriptive name for it's second step too.

Also - this doesn't even invalidate people saying things like "I messed up while doing F2L", because they were working on the first two layers. It's just like saying you messed up on LL instead of messed on on the specific part (OLL/PLL/w/e).
 

waffle=ijm

Waffo
Joined
Jun 9, 2008
Messages
3,511
Location
Waffletopia
WCA
2008MANA02
YouTube
Visit Channel
@qq - is L6E or LSE too ambiguous for Roux LL? While LSE could pose some confusion, L6E doesn't. Or are you aiming for a standardized name.

The Fridrich/CFOP debate will stop when you start giving other methods acronyms names too. Since CFOP/Fridrich is the only method of the big-4 that has acronyms for the steps, people will conform to using name. (ZZ is just ZZ, because who wants to call it the Zborowski method).
 

Athefre

Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2006
Messages
1,248
I've always been a fan of calling it LSE. It's a consistent three letters instead of a number thrown in the middle and english rules say to spell out the smaller numbers. Plus, L6E looks ugly.
 
Top