TNoodle - WCA scrambler replacement

[qqwref]

If someone makes fun of the judge with lots of rotations, DNF the person...

So now we have to allow judges to DNF someone because they don't like the way they wrote the solution, even if it's valid and satisfies all the regulations (within 80 moves+rotations, solves cube, in FRUDLBxyzMES, etc.)? That's disturbingly close to letting a judge DNF someone for using the wrong method or having a solution that only makes sense when inverted, etc.

 

[Henrik]

There are official FMC solution sheets? We didn't have any at rapid dash open, just handed in a scrap piece of paper with your name on and a box around your final solution.

No there is no official FMC solution sheet. I think most competitions do as you did at Rapid Dash. I know the same is done in Denmark and Sweden.
I as an organizer print a sheet of paper with 6-8 copies of the same scramble on, and hand out one of them as a little strip of paper to the competitors. I would not like to be forced to use an "FMC solution sheet", though the idea is good. To me it almost sounds like it could be a waste of paper and ink.

 

[Bob]

No there is no official FMC solution sheet. I think most competitions do as you did at Rapid Dash. I know the same is done in Denmark and Sweden.
I as an organizer print a sheet of paper with 6-8 copies of the same scramble on, and hand out one of them as a little strip of paper to the competitors. I would not like to be forced to use an "FMC solution sheet", though the idea is good. To me it almost sounds like it could be a waste of paper and ink.

Forms like the one shown have been pretty standard in the United States for about five years or so. There has never been an official form or anything, but I have always given a form like the one from TNoodle. I think the idea of an official form is very good, but I suppose my opinion is biased since I have been the one to judge FMC so many times.

Currently, as long as a solution is clearly indicated, it's fine. I have graded solutions that have not been on the solution paper. However, when you receive solutions with boxes and arrows and carrots and things, it gets confusing. If I'm grading FMC and you confuse me, I will DNF you. An official sheet like this forces solutions to be written more clearly and are therefore in favor of the competitor. I have seen so many poorly written solutions that received DNFs.

 

[ardi4nto]

I think we should start another thread about official FMC regulations, like rotations counting, maximum lengths, official sheets and scrap paper.

My opinion in FMC
[1] Personally I don't like the idea of separating official and scrap paper, as long as the solution is written clearly and the judge can read it, then fine.
[2] About counting rotations: let say a competitor submit 75 moves solution and the solution contain 12 rotations. He doesn't want to having fun with FMC but just a beginner trying FMC. But it doubles the job of the judge: first, counting his moves and second, counting his moves+rotations to check it's a DNF or not.

 

[Pedro]

I think we should start another thread about official FMC regulations, like rotations counting, maximum lengths, official sheets and scrap paper.

My opinion in FMC
[1] Personally I don't like the idea of separating official and scrap paper, as long as the solution is written clearly and the judge can read it, then fine.
[2] About counting rotations: let say a competitor submit 75 moves solution and the solution contain 12 rotations. He doesn't want to having fun with FMC but just a beginner trying FMC. But it doubles the job of the judge: first, counting his moves and second, counting his moves+rotations to check it's a DNF or not.

Agreed totally. Why should a solution with 75 moves and 6 rotations not count and one with 50 moves and 29 rotations do?

 

[cuBerBruce]

An official sheet like this forces solutions to be written more clearly and are therefore in favor of the competitor.

LOL. I don't see how putting extra demands and constraints on the competitor is any way favorable to the competitor. It's the exact opposite.

(If providing the solution on the form is seen merely an option the competitor may use, then of course it doesn't really force any new demands and constraints on the competitor.)

The current WCA regulations allow me as a competitor to write out a nice "double-spaced" solution with no particular constraints on exact placement, number of moves on a line, etc. as a solution ready to hand in. More important for this discussion, it is possible for me to rather efficiently modify this hand-in ready solution to use an insertion. If I've provided myself sufficient extra space, I can do this without using carets or flow arrows so that the modified solution will still read left-to-right, top-to-bottom.

Anything that would limit my ability to take one hand-in ready solution, and efficiently modify it into a better hand-in ready solution, as described above, would definitely be unfavorable to me as a competitor. That is why I'd like to see the form be less constraining than it is. If it offers me more flexibility, I'm more likely to use it.

The current form is so restrictive, if the competitor tries to edit a solution he has already written down, it's almost a sure bet he'll have to use flow arrows (or similar things), something Bob seems to think this form should prevent.

Getting back to the thread topic...

With TNoodle apparently to become the official scramble generator for WCA competitions, and the fact that TNoodle produces a form like that has been used in the United States in recent years, it seems likely to me that the use of these forms will start becoming the norm worldwide. I also have to be wondering if the WRC is also considering rule changes to Fewest Moves, possibly even mandating the use of the form and competitors needing to provide the answer on the form. I sure hope not.

 

[Bob]

LOL. I don't see how putting extra demands and constraints on the competitor is any way favorable to the competitor. It's the exact opposite.

(If providing the solution on the form is seen merely an option the competitor may use, then of course it doesn't really force any new demands and constraints on the competitor.)

The current WCA regulations allow me as a competitor to write out a nice "double-spaced" solution with no particular constraints on exact placement, number of moves on a line, etc. as a solution ready to hand in. More important for this discussion, it is possible for me to rather efficiently modify this hand-in ready solution to use an insertion. If I've provided myself sufficient extra space, I can do this without using carets or flow arrows so that the modified solution will still read left-to-right, top-to-bottom.

Anything that would limit my ability to take one hand-in ready solution, and efficiently modify it into a better hand-in ready solution, as described above, would definitely be unfavorable to me as a competitor. That is why I'd like to see the form be less constraining than it is. If it offers me more flexibility, I'm more likely to use it.

The current form is so restrictive, if the competitor tries to edit a solution he has already written down, it's almost a sure bet he'll have to use flow arrows (or similar things), something Bob seems to think this form should prevent.

Getting back to the thread topic...

With TNoodle apparently to become the official scramble generator for WCA competitions, and the fact that TNoodle produces a form like that has been used in the United States in recent years, it seems likely to me that the use of these forms will start becoming the norm worldwide. I also have to be wondering if the WRC is also considering rule changes to Fewest Moves, possibly even mandating the use of the form and competitors needing to provide the answer on the form. I sure hope not.

You could of course just request a new sheet or use a pencil and eraser if you're worried about having to delete moves.

 

[Ranzha]

You could of course just request a new sheet or use a pencil and eraser if you're worried about having to delete moves.

Or, you know, just not have to fiddle around with an official sheet format and just have an empty box in which to write final solution only.
That could also help with explaining steps or methods or solution clarification.

 

[cuBerBruce]

You could of course just request a new sheet or use a pencil and eraser if you're worried about having to delete moves.

Insertions generally involve adding more moves (in that particular part of the solution where the insertion is being made) than are deleted. So even if I can erase, I will still need to add in extra moves in between the lines or in the margins.

If I use a new solution sheet, I have to write the whole solution from scratch. That takes more time. I may not have time to search the entire skeleton for an insertion. At some point, I will have to stop searching and just use the best I've found so far. If have to write the whole solution, I will have to stop searching sooner, and this may result in settling for a poorer insertion.

I'm getting the impression that the grid in the forms may be intended more to better help you write your solution "nicely" (for the judge's benefit) and not really to enforce strict placement of the moves by the competitor. If I know I will be allowed to make some exceptions in placing the moves on the grid positions so I can more reasonably edit a solution in place, including inserting some moves between the rows, then my objections to the form will largely go away. I just don't think the solution form should be constraining me (very much) from what I can do on a free form sheet. As Ranzha mentioned, I would generally prefer to the solution sheet to just have a large free-form box. Of course, from the judge's point of view, it doesn't help the competitor write straight rows, or help the judge with counting moves.

 

[Bob]

Insertions generally involve adding more moves (in that particular part of the solution where the insertion is being made) than are deleted. So even if I can erase, I will still need to add in extra moves in between the lines or in the margins.

If I use a new solution sheet, I have to write the whole solution from scratch. That takes more time. I may not have time to search the entire skeleton for an insertion. At some point, I will have to stop searching and just use the best I've found so far. If have to write the whole solution, I will have to stop searching sooner, and this may result in settling for a poorer insertion.

I'm getting the impression that the grid in the forms may be intended more to better help you write your solution "nicely" (for the judge's benefit) and not really to enforce strict placement of the moves by the competitor. If I know I will be allowed to make some exceptions in placing the moves on the grid positions so I can more reasonably edit a solution in place, including inserting some moves between the rows, then my objections to the form will largely go away. I just don't think the solution form should be constraining me (very much) from what I can do on a free form sheet. As Ranzha mentioned, I would generally prefer to the solution sheet to just have a large free-form box. Of course, from the judge's point of view, it doesn't help the competitor write straight rows, or help the judge with counting moves.

Like I stated before, I prefer to make things easier for the judges. Part of the reason why FMC is held so infrequently here is because of how much it sucks to run from an administrative standpoint. You need to find a judge willing to sit with the competitors and keep time for an hour and then you need to recruit judges to check (and in many cases double check--I always double check a solution that gave me a DNF and if I still get DNF, I give it to somebody else to verify) solutions. All this while another event is usually running concurrently with reduced manpower because you have potential judges competing in FMC. I consider anything that makes this process easier administratively more important than costing competitors a minute or two to transfer their solution.

Or, you know, just not have to fiddle around with an official sheet format and just have an empty box in which to write final solution only.
That could also help with explaining steps or methods or solution clarification.

There is no need for explanations or clarifications unless the solution is suspicious. Do people really give explanations of their solutions? No--very rarely.

 

[Ranzha]

There is no need for explanations or clarifications unless the solution is suspicious. Do people really give explanations of their solutions? No--very rarely.

If need be, however, then any extra blank space can be utilised, yes?

 

[Bob]

If need be, however, then any extra blank space can be utilised, yes?

In almost all cases, a verbal explanation would probably suffice. If it was an extraordinary case, I would probably just ask for it on the back of the scramble sheet.

 

[Lucas Garron]

It's great that everyone cares about having a good solution for FMC sheets, but this thread should be about more general things relating to TNoodle, and what other important features the official scrambler should have.

Please continue discussing FMC in this thread.

 

[ardi4nto]

On TNoodle:
Why it takes so long to generate 4x4 scrambles? took me 5 minutes for the first time. Does it implement random state scrambler for 4x4?

 

[Ranzha]

On TNoodle:
Why it takes so long to generate 4x4 scrambles? took me 5 minutes for the first time. Does it implement random state scrambler for 4x4?

NOTE: 4x4x4 scrambles may take up to 10 minutes to initialize and generate. If you are generating 4x4x4 scrambles, be patient while the loading bar may appear to be stuck.

...

The notion of "random state" is straightforward for 2x2x2-4x4x4, Pyraminx, and Clock: every possible state has equal weight.

Yes. 4x4 random state x_x Crazy stuff.

Is there a way to perhaps reorder the pages of the scrambles? For instance, so an organiser could be able to print scrambles in the scheduled order they appear in competition.

 

[Bob]

Seriously? What is the average time required to generate each round of five 4x4 scrambles?

 

[qqwref]

Uh, 4x4 random state? How many moves is it?

 

[uberCuber]

4x4 random state wtf

 

[Ranzha]

Lucas posted a pic on Instagram on 15 June.
http://instagram.com/p/L4zzCMgSp6/

The first scramble is 47 moves long.

 

[Lucas Garron]

Yes. 4x4 random state x_x Crazy stuff.

Is there a way to perhaps reorder the pages of the scrambles? For instance, so an organiser could be able to print scrambles in the scheduled order they appear in competition.

Yes, actually, although this is a hidden feature for now. You can click on a round and drag it to any position.

On TNoodle:
Why it takes so long to generate 4x4 scrambles? took me 5 minutes for the first time. Does it implement random state scrambler for 4x4?

Seriously? What is the average time required to generate each round of five 4x4 scrambles?

Yes, Clément put in a lot of work to make Bruce's solver work for this.
This is documented in the readme. (You can get to it from the little "?" in the corner of the TNoodle interface, or at https://bit.ly/tnoodle-readme-scramble)

For me, on the first run it takes a little under a minute for the solver to finish initializing and start generating scrambles. (The second time using TNoodle, it takes about 10 seconds to load the tables from disk.)
After that, it generates about 1 scramble per second.

It may take longer on other computers the first time you run TNoodle, but hopefully not much over 5 minutes. I think the initialization time a reasonable trade-off for high-quality official scrambles.