Standard Lettering Scheme for Reference

[aronpm]

I'm going to continue writing cycles using the actual location pieces, not a standard scheme. I don't think it will be very useful for writing cycles, to be honest.

 

[cmhardw]

I'm going to continue writing cycles using the actual location pieces, not a standard scheme. I don't think it will be very useful for writing cycles, to be honest.

I think that's fair, I don't think we should force anyone to use this new scheme. I, for one, would love the ability to simplify typed out example cycles though. I will personally use this standardized scheme (once we finalize one), but I by no means think it should be a requirement.

In topics where people don't know the scheme we can either refer them to the Wiki where it is defined, or I wouldn't mind typing a "translation" to the regular piece location lettering if it ever becomes an issue. Perhaps a nice programming-minded person could write a translator applet for us as well to simply this?

 

[riffz]

In topics where people don't know the scheme we can either refer them to the Wiki where it is defined, or I wouldn't mind typing a "translation" to the regular piece location lettering if it ever becomes an issue. Perhaps a nice programming-minded person could write a translator applet for us as well to simply this?

*Cough* Cride.

 

[Tim Major]

Hi Tim,

We're not really suggesting this as a method to actually be used when solving (though it certainly could be, there is nothing wrong with it). This standardized scheme is there for us to be able to write out piece cycles on the cube in a much simpler and nicer fashion when writing to each other on the forum, or talking in person at a competition. Keep in mind that we all use very different lettering schemes. This standardized method needs to be so simply defined that someone can re-derive it on the spot without have to try to memorize the scheme itself beforehand.

It just seems a silly, to use a standardized way for typing out the cycles, but not using the same ways for memo. Obviously it would take a lot of effort for all concerned, to change their labeling on pieces just for this, but otherwise it would just cause confusion. And we could try to encourage all newbies to take on the scheme too. This could help, for when recreating solves, just post the letters you memorised, and for them to match where pieces belong. If I was more into blind (I only do it in the weeklies usually), if a standardized lettering system was decided on, I'd go about switching my letters, to match the scheme. Just seems to make a lot more sense to me.

Edit: Right now I'm keeping mine the same, but if I were to take on BH, and the cycles were written in"Speffz", I'd relearn my system.

 

[cmhardw]

It just seems a silly, to use a standardized way for typing out the cycles, but not using the same ways for memo. Obviously it would take a lot of effort for all concerned, to change their labeling on pieces just for this, but otherwise it would just cause confusion. And we could try to encourage all newbies to take on the scheme too. This could help, for when recreating solves, just post the letters you memorised, and for them to match where pieces belong. If I was more into blind (I only do it in the weeklies usually), if a standardized lettering system was decided on, I'd go about switching my letters, to match the scheme. Just seems to make a lot more sense to me.

Edit: Right now I'm keeping mine the same, but if I were to take on BH, and the cycles were written in"Speffz", I'd relearn my system.

Tim, you do bring up a good point. Most of us coming up with the scheme letter our pieces around a face of the cube, whereas your scheme seems to letter pieces around a corner of the cube. I agree that our standardized scheme would seem very arbitrary in your shoes.

However, to type out a cycle in the "standard" scheme you would simply have to follow these rules:
1) On every face start as close to the top left corner as you can when defining the first letter on the face for your piece type.
2) Everything about the method is clockwise as seen from above the cube (i.e. letter clockwise to the corner, and move around the face in a clockwise fashion as if you're looking directly at that face, and starting with the first letter on that face).
3) Move in the face order: U F L B R D (Notice this is top to bottom, and clockwise around the middle faces)
4) To letter the D face, first perform an x2 cube rotation, then letter using the above rules.

As long as you follow these rules you do not need to remember this standardized scheme. I would also not recommend you to switch to this scheme as your actual blindfolded scheme if you already have a lettering scheme. I will certainly not switch my actual blindfolded memorization scheme to this scheme. However, it would be useful to have an easily recreated, standardized scheme that we can all type in relatively easily without having to memorize a new scheme.

Yes this is a bit more work for you, but no matter how we define a standardized scheme some people will find it VERY different from their scheme. Although my scheme is not as different from the standard scheme as yours is, just know that this standardized scheme is VERY different from my and many of our memorization lettering schemes. That's ok, it's not to memorize with, just to write cycles with on the forum, or to discuss cycles in person.

Think of it as allowing all of us blindfolded cubers an opportunity to speak one common language with each other, without always having to translate what we mean all the time.

Also, this standardized scheme is optional. As Aron already point out, you can just use the location naming that we all already know anyway as well. Consider the standardized scheme a convenience, not a requirement.

 

[Mike Hughey]

I remember when I wrote up my description of solving 4x4x4 centers, perhaps the biggest pain (and the thing that kept me from doing it for a while) was that I had to describe how I was going to letter the pieces. I either had to do that, or use the horribly cumbersome method we've been using. I still hate having to use that method. I've been discussing with Chris optimal algorithm choices as I've been learning BH wings (which I'm learning to love using), and I always hate having to write things like rDF when I could instead now write G. Multiply that times at least 100 letters I've had to type in these messages between me and Chris, and you have many minutes of my life I could have been using to do a BLD solve instead of working out the old notation naming.

So I for one will love having this option. My biggest problem is: this notation is so similar to mine, and yet a little different, that I'm probably going to occasionally get confused and give the wrong letter. But oh well - I hate the old lettering scheme so much, I don't mind dealing with that.

Someone should now redo the diagram showing:
a. this scheme on a 7x7x7 (to clarify oblique naming)
b. the other 3 faces on that 7x7x7

 

[reThinking the Cube]

This is great. :tu

If ULB is the starting corner, then I would suggest using the face order URFLBD. This is more intuitively clockwise than UFLBRD especially when using ULB as the starting corner. ULB->URB->URF correlates better to U->R->F than U->F->L. If on the other hand, URB was the starting corner (not), then the currently suggested UFLBRD would be the most intuitive clockwise progression.

What about the stickers that have not been assigned labels yet? How about a non-capitalized letter to designate the other stickers (same orbit,in the same quadrant)?

 

[cmhardw]

I've been discussing with Chris optimal algorithm choices as I've been learning BH wings (which I'm learning to love using), and I always hate having to write things like rDF when I could instead now write G. Multiply that times at least 100 letters I've had to type in these messages between me and Chris, and you have many minutes of my life I could have been using to do a BLD solve instead of working out the old notation naming.

Could not agree more. I'm very excited to start using this standardized scheme. So are we agreed on Speffz as the standard notation?

Before we start using it in posts and with each other, I feel it necessary that the Wiki page be updated completely so that we can always refer those who don't know the notation to one central place to look for it. How does everyone like my explanation of the 4 rules for the notation as a start? I'm absolutely open to suggestions, but those 4 rules will be how I remember the notation, personally, so I'd like to include something like that on the Wiki page in case it is useful for others as well.

Does anyone have a particular drive to write the page? I can try to write one, but I have not started a page from scratch before, only edited pre-existing pages. I'm not exactly sure how to start a new page. I could poke around and figure it out, but is anyone already somewhat familiar with this process?

If ULB is the starting corner, then I would suggest using the face order URFLBD.

I personally like the face order as is, but how do others feel about this? Agreed on UFLBRD, or still open for debate?

 

[Ville Seppänen]

You can write the wiki page if you want. And yeah those 4 rules look great.

EDIT: also UFLBRD order, I don't see why we should change it

 

[Mike Hughey]

What about the stickers that have not been assigned labels yet? How about a non-capitalized letter to designate the other stickers (same orbit,in the same quadrant)?

An interesting question. The reason we haven't mentioned them is that they don't generally matter when doing BLD solves, at least not with the methods that we typically use. The stickers on the corners all matter, and the stickers on the central edges matter, but the other stickers on the wings just don't matter at all with typical BLD methods. But of course, one could devise a method where they do matter, so it seems reasonable to have a name for them. I'm okay with lower-case letter from the same quadrant for those.

 

[reThinking the Cube]

However, to type out a cycle in the "standard" scheme you would simply have to follow these rules:
1) On every face start as close to the top left corner as you can when defining the first letter on the face for your piece type.
2) Everything about the method is clockwise as seen from above the cube (i.e. letter clockwise to the corner, and move around the face in a clockwise fashion as if you're looking directly at that face, and starting with the first letter on that face).
3) Move in the face order: U F L B R D (Notice this is top to bottom, and clockwise around the middle faces)
4) To letter the D face, first perform an x2 cube rotation, then letter using the above rules.

If ULB is the starting corner, then I would suggest using the face order URFLBD. This is more intuitively clockwise than UFLBRD especially when using ULB as the starting corner. ULB->URB->URF correlates better to U->R->F than U->F->L. If on the other hand, URB was the starting corner (not), then the currently suggested UFLBRD would be the most intuitive clockwise progression.

I personally like the face order as is, but how do others feel about this? Agreed on UFLBRD, or still open for debate?

UFLBRD does not move around the cube the same way as Rule#2 above moves around the face. If you want that to be consistent, then the face order has to be URFLBD.

 

[cmhardw]

UFLBRD does not move around the cube the same way as Rule#2 above moves around the face. If you want that to be consistent, then the face order has to be URFLBD.

reThinking, I understand your point, and I would like to acknowledge that. However, if we are going by the wording in my rules, and are taking that wording very literally, then "letter clockwise to the corner" would suggest to me to do the face order ULBRFD since traversing the faces as U L B goes clockwise around the ULB corner.

I personally still think that the face order should be UFLBRD and it seems that Speff agrees. Still, reThinking brings up a good point that we need to decide on a final face order that most agree on. I say we come up with something that most of us agree on now, because I feel it would be a good idea to have this method standardized right from the start, and then not changed unless we somehow discover a scheme that is much better than the current one.

 

[Zane_C]

This seems like a great idea. Although I wouldn't switch to it, I would definately learn it if it is/becomes widely accepted.

 

[riffz]

I still like UFLBRD. I don't think it violates any clockwise rules, as any choice for the second face is still somewhat arbitrary. I visualize it as spiraling from U to D, which makes sense for any second face choice. I just think F feels the most natural.

EDIT: As for obliques, what do you guys think of using upper case letters for the one set, and lower case for the other? I don't like the idea of having to specify anything more than that you're just talking about oblique centers. I don't even know the notation used for obliques, but how about starting at the left one closest to ULB for 'A', and the back one closest to ULB for 'a'?

This scheme would treat obliques like corners. The other option would be to treat them like edges and start at the back one closest to ULB for 'A', and the back one closest to UBR for 'a'. Again, this uppercase/lowercase idea is just a proposal.

 

[cmhardw]

EDIT: As for obliques, what do you guys think of using upper case letters for the one set, and lower case for the other? I don't like the idea of having to specify anything more than that you're just talking about oblique centers. I don't even know the notation used for obliques, but how about starting at the right one closest to ULB for 'A', and the back one closest to ULB for 'a'?

I like this suggestion. It goes with the fact that Aa Bb Cc Dd is usually how the uppercase and lowercase letters are written in primary school.

This scheme would treat obliques like corners. The other option would be to treat them like edges and start at the back one closest to ULB for 'A', and the back one closest to UBR for 'a'. Again, this uppercase/lowercase idea is just a proposal.

I'm ok with this too, but I personally like the first suggestion much better. This version violates the pattern we've been using up to now of the piece chunks, even though it is a good way to label in my opinion.

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

Can someone make a 5x5x5 and 7x7x7 picture fully labeled? We would need two views, UFL front and DBR back for each cube. If someone will supply me the pictures I will start the Wiki pages, and from there we can edit in any final changes.

Let's get this ball rolling! I want to start using this notation ASAP!

Chris

 

[riffz]

I like this suggestion. It goes with the fact that Aa Bb Cc Dd is usually how the uppercase and lowercase letters are written in primary school.

I had accidentally written "how about starting at the right one closest to ULB for 'A', and the back one closest to ULB for 'a'?", where the bold part should have read "left". I gather that you interpreted it how I intended it anyway, though.

I'll work on labelling a 7x7 tonight. Just heading home from work.

 

[reThinking the Cube]

reThinking, I understand your point, and I would like to acknowledge that. However, if we are going by the wording in my rules, and are taking that wording very literally, then "letter clockwise to the corner" would suggest to me to do the face order ULBRFD since traversing the faces as U L B goes clockwise around the ULB corner.

1) The quadrant lettering for the FACES will start out by going from left to right (ULB->URB) and proceed clockwise around the face.

2) The problem is that the FACE ORDER - UFLBRD starts out by going back to front. This is not consistent.

3) The face order URFLBD is consistent with the clockwise lettering scheme being proposed, but UFLBRD, while it is clockwise, is not traversing the cube in literally in the same clockwise order that the faces are being assigned.

4) Traversing the face order CLOCKWISE AROUND A CORNER PIECE - ULBRFD (that has stickers on 2 other faces besides the one we are trying to label), is NOT clockwise consistent with the quadrant face lettering scheme.

5) The face lettering scheme should be seen as traversing CLOCKWISE AROUND A FACE - not around a corner.

Therefore, the correct face order is: URFLBD

 

[Kynit]

The problem is that the FACE ORDER - UFLBRD starts out by going back to front.

It does? UFLBRD makes sense to me. I guess I see it as the faces in order of viewing: when I look at a cube, I glance at the top, then the front. It's very natural.

 

[reThinking the Cube]

It does? UFLBRD makes sense to me. I guess I see it as the faces in order of viewing: when I look at a cube, I glance at the top, then the front. It's very natural.

The 1st lettering quadrant for the face is located on the BACK (ULB).

It may be natural for you to proceed to the FRONT, but the face lettering scheme cannot get from ULB to a corner quadrant in the front by moving clockwise.

ULB->URB is the clockwise progression for the face, and that quadrant is located RIGHT.

Therefore, to be consistent with rules, the face order needs to be: URFLBD

 

[Sakarie]

I'm not sure wther I'll use this or not, since it's kind of annoying how it's _almost_ like my notation (for centers only).

For my own solving i prefer A and B being different side of the same cubie. But my lettering scheme is made for me, and probably nothing that would fit.

Just to show a different variant:

Spoiler

Corners:

A =Urf
B =Ruf
C =Fur
D =Ufl
E =Flu
F =Luf
G =Ubr
H =Bru
I =Rub
J =Dfr
K =Frd
L =Rdf
M =Dlf
N =Lfd
O =Fdl
P =Drb
Q =Rbd
R =Brd
S =Dbl
T =Bld
U =Ldb

Edges:

A =FR
B =RF
C =UR
D =RU
E =BR
F =RB
G =DR
H =RD
I =FL
J =LF
K =UL
L =LU
M =BL
N =LB
O =DL
P =LD
Q =FU
R =UF
S =UB
T =BU
U =BD
V = DB