[WCA Regulations 2014] Clock Notation

[Kit Clement]

So Sarah told me that this was brought up as a concern to the WRC, so I thought I'd make a post to discuss the state of Clock notation.

From what I understand, the new notation for 2013 was designed to be easier to learn for those who don't do clock. This is a great feature, as many competitions need non-clock solvers to be the scramblers. But after doing 4 different comps with clock this year, I have found it to be more detrimental than helpful.

It takes about the same amount of time to teach new notation and old notation to those who don't know how to scramble it, and either way, they're still significantly slow/inaccurate at it. What ends up getting most of the comps through clock is pushing a fast clock solver through so he/she can scramble it. And then when that fast solver gets there, they sometimes don't know the new notation. And while it is quick to learn for them, the pin order is completely different and thus the scrambling is much slower. So I'd argue that while it may have some effect on helping those who don't know clock, it hurts the fast solvers who have to adjust to a new pin order, and they're the ones who are the driving force in scrambling clocks quickly.

The main problem here is that most clock timer/scramblers that are available for practicing still have some form of the old notation, and I don't see that changing. It's what most clock solvers are used to, and I don't see many switching to a timer/scrambler that has WCA notation even if one was available, as it's just not fast to scramble with a y2 in there. (It's likely that there may be a timing application with WCA notation out there, but I'm not aware of it) What was surprising to me was that even at my competition in July, a decent number of people there still didn't know there was new clock scrambling notation. Some of these people were pretty good clock solvers too.

Still, there is time for this notation to become more widespread and for people to gain more familiarity with it, but I just don't see scrambling notation with a y2 ever being used regularly in practicing clock. If it were my decision based on what I've seen, I'd like to go back to a notation with the Jaap pin order. I'm curious to see what others have seen with this new notation though. I'm sure that it may have worked better in other competitions, and I'm curious to hear what other thoughts people have.

 

[TheNextFeliks]

Though I don't do clock, I agree. I was at this competition and only three people could actually scramble clock iirc. It greatly slowed down the clock round.

 

[MirzaCubing]

At my CSP Spring 2013 competition, we weren't expecting the switch in Clock notation, and it threw us off; it took Evan, Dan, and Andrew a couple minutes to figure it out, but luckily we finished on time. I prefer Jaap

 

[Pedro]

I didn't have trouble switching to the new notation. And now I practice using it for scrambling. Just donwload the wca scrambler and get the scrambles. Not a big deal.

 

[qqwref]

Well, before I even think about clock notation, I think the way WCA handles scramblers is a problem. The situation right now is pretty much "just copy what TNoodle does". But that means a change to TNoodle will change the official method of scrambling, and as far as I can tell, when it does get changed, there is no official notice saying what exactly changed. If there is a bug in TNoodle, that means that that error is part of the official method of scrambling, at least until it's fixed. That means that this 5MB chunk of code is essentially, itself, the regulation on what official scrambles look like. I think the actual ideal scrambling method needs to be made very clear somewhere in the regulations/errata, so that other non-official WCA scramblers are possible - perhaps for situations where using Java is not possible, or where a program needs to be less than 5MB. Right now we just have the scrambler notation in the regulations, which is doubly bad - not only do the regulations refer to scrambles that can only be generated if you download a program and have several things installed on your computer, but the scrambler has notation that can only be understood by looking back to the regulations. Instead of all the information being in one place, the two parts of the puzzle are stored far away from each other.

Now I don't know if I'm the only one, but I can't even use TNoodle myself (when running the .jar file it just exits without opening a webpage like it's supposed to). I could use tnoodle.tk, sure, but that's not linked from the WCA page and I can't find anything on that site to confirm that it's indeed the newest version. I'm not saying this to ask for help getting it to run, but to point out how this way of doing things can easily cause problems. I can easily imagine someone who will get completely stuck trying to find some official-style scrambles to practice on. (Speaking of which, TNoodle is clearly not designed for generating scrambles one at a time as you solve.)


About the actual clock scrambles... I agree with the OP. Clock scrambles really can't be made all that much easier than the original version, all clock scrambling methods generate equally good scrambles, and all the fast people are used to it anyway. If we are really concerned about newbies we can switch to the version Jaap had with images, which was extremely clear. I've looked at the current version and it's pretty confusing to me. We have similar-looking notations that mean totally different things (DR versus DR+, U vs UR, the numbers in y2 versus U2, etc.). I don't really think either of the clock notations are great, but at least the old one was familiar and had a fixed pin pattern.

Here's yet another clock scrambling notation which we could use, btw. Label the corners as follows (we could put a little image of this on the scramble sheet):

A B
C D

Now an uppercase letter with a number (+X or -X) means to move that corner by that amount, and a lowercase letter (or series of letters) means to put those pins up and all other pins down (with a - meaning to put all pins down). A Jaap-type scramble could look like this:

ab B+2 D+1 bd A+3 B-5 cd B-5 D-1 ac A+6 B+6 bcd B-5 acd A+6 abc A+5 abd A+3 abcd A+6 - A+3 bc

 

[Lucas Garron]

There's no reason we couldn't switch back, and this thread has some of the right kinds of arguments. Things like "I don't like it" and "we shouldn't be focusing on making it easy for new scramblers" are bad arguments.

But any information rooted in how useful/annoying the new notation is *for actual competitions that have been running* is very useful. Our goal isn't to make the best clock notation for all purposes (including scrambling at home, qq); it's to have the most useful standard for running competitions.
But if it's most useful to use the old notation in *and* out of competition, that's fine, too.

qq: This thread isn't really about TNoodle, but the main point of TNoodle is not to implement a standard, but to *be* the official scrambler (see Regulation 4f, which was meant to avoid issues with organizers using "better" or"equivalent" scramblers without oversight). Unofficial use is a secondary concern.
Anyone is welcome to take the use the TNoodle source to make other useful things for cubers. Jeremy has actually gotten things to work in Javascript, for one. 4x4x4 is still slow in JS, though (which was my main motivation for abandoning Mark 2 and switching to TNoodle-only in the first place).

 

[Ranzha]

Here's kinda how it went at Berkeley yesterday:

When the clock round started, I saw the new notation for the first time. I tried reading the scramble intuitively on the first clock, checked the clock image on the pdf, then immediately checked the regs, saw that my intuition was correct, and put the clock in the cube cover. Soon after, Jeremy went to scramble with me, didn't know the new notation either, and so I briefed him. Later in the round, we asked if Ryan Jew or James Molloy could scramble clock, and both were happy to scramble until they saw the new notation. They quickly opted out, and I was left by the end of the round as the only clock scrambler, frantically scrambling the remaining clocks. Luckily, the other scrambler at the time (Ryan Lim?) was handling the much easier 2x2 scrambling.

What this says to me:
- The new notation hasn't reached enough people. This seems to be the biggest problem. To have scramblers be people unfamiliar with the new clock notation, even those fast at clock, hurts the efficiency of the competition. The issue of the notation being generally unknown can probably be fixed with widespread announcements that a new clock notation has been implemented, followed by better known at-home scrambling programs including the new notation.
- The new notation is questionably intuitive. The notation threw me a curveball. But after looking at it for a bit, I figured hey, might as well go for it and check afterwards. This is the only time where a notation has left me properly confused, but it wasn't difficult to figure out at all, but it could've gone wrong in many different places (whether notated pins go up/down, which gears to turn, pin placement at the end).

Another thing that happened a fair number of times yesterday was that judges were unclear as to the placement of the clock on the surface. This resulted in pins being misplaced, and so judges had to bring the clocks back to the scrambling table for pin readjustment. Luckily the competitors didn't see the scramble so that pins were the only readjustment =P

At the regulations meeting, I believe one issue raised was the ending pin state. While it is true that pins are essential to clock as a puzzle, clocks are notorious for causing problems between the scrambling table and the timer starting. Not to mention the ridiculous penalties for something like balance. It's not the competitor's fault for using puzzles which makes regulation less than ideal when it's the only kind of hardware for the puzzle that exists.

 

[AvGalen]

[thread hijack]Just remove clock. The only reason we are doing it is because it is an official Rubik's puzzle and that shouldn't be enough reason[/thread hijack]
[back ontopic]I always scramble clock at competitions and I hate the rotation in the scramble. It is needless and slows things down. Since clockscrambling has been changed it is more difficult, slower and has caused delays at competitions. Stop making changes to the regulations that don't improve things[/back ontopic]

 

[kinch2002]

Please just use concise notation with an explanation at the top/bottom for people who don't understand it. Soon enough, all scramblers will understand concise notation and it will all be fast. My scramble times with concise notation are half that of the the current official scrambler, and I'm not exaggerating. I have also never found any non-clock people who can work out how to scramble with the new notation, so it's not serving it's purpose at all. I would be happy to try and provide the explanation required if we want to go down this route.

 

[DrKorbin]

When the clock round started, I saw the new notation for the first time.
...
The new notation hasn't reached enough people.

Sorry - this is your problem. Each competitor must be familiar with and understand the WCA Regulations before the competition. And regs contain scramble notation for clock.

 

[ryanj92]

Having used the new notation twice now, I don't prefer it - infact, I'd argue that the old scramblers were easier to understand, as I think having U's and d's in a square is as about as intuitive as it gets!
The new scrambler never clarifies whether the written pins are to be pushed up or down, or the state of the pins that are not mentioned by each move (I remember a couple of people asking me if the second pin position just followed on the first). I feel the previous scrambles were more comprehensive, and simpler to explain - all you really have to do is explain what U and d mean, and what U=x and d=y mean. Everything follows on from that - all the moves are pretty much identical in nature.

 

[Dene]

Sorry - this is your problem. Each competitor must be familiar with and understand the WCA Regulations before the competition. And regs contain scramble notation for clock.

Ok cool now come back to the real world plz.

 

[Ranzha]

Sorry - this is your problem. Each competitor must be familiar with and understand the WCA Regulations before the competition. And regs contain scramble notation for clock.

I'm familiar with and understand the regs, just apparently not the most recent revision.

The problem is that I don't remember a change in clock notation being announced. I may have just missed it, I dunno, but if word of a new notation didn't reach multiple seasoned competitors, then something needs to be done about announcing revisions to the regs.

 

[DrKorbin]

I'm familiar with and understand the regs, just apparently not the most recent revision.

The problem is that I don't remember a change in clock notation being announced. I may have just missed it, I dunno, but if word of a new notation didn't reach multiple seasoned competitors, then something needs to be done about announcing revisions to the regs.

There was a change in regs, including clock notation.

 

[qqwref]

Our goal isn't to make the best clock notation for all purposes (including scrambling at home, qq); it's to have the most useful standard for running competitions.

You don't have to call me out on this as if I'm the only one who uses computer scrambles at home. The vast majority of the solves done are at home, and there has been a long history of people using official scramblers at home - even if sometimes it was only to get used to doing them in case they want to be a scrambler. And I don't think there's much difference between what makes a good WCA scrambler and what makes a good home scrambler. They both need to be easy to understand/explain, unambiguous, and random.

qq: This thread isn't really about TNoodle, but the main point of TNoodle is not to implement a standard, but to *be* the official scrambler (see Regulation 4f, which was meant to avoid issues with organizers using "better" or"equivalent" scramblers without oversight). Unofficial use is a secondary concern.
Anyone is welcome to take the use the TNoodle source to make other useful things for cubers. Jeremy has actually gotten things to work in Javascript, for one. 4x4x4 is still slow in JS, though (which was my main motivation for abandoning Mark 2 and switching to TNoodle-only in the first place).

Read what I said - I know that's your decision, and I'm arguing that it's a bad one. You can easily add a regulation such as 4f to make organizers use the same scrambler, without running into the problems I mentioned. Specifically, making TNoodle the official scrambler doesn't mean we can't provide official documentation about what an official scramble *is*.

Sorry - this is your problem. Each competitor must be familiar with and understand the WCA Regulations before the competition. And regs contain scramble notation for clock.

They also contain no easy-to-access scrambler, as I pointed out. So the regulations describe an abstract notation that you do not see in use. It's like asking people to learn LEGO instructions without getting to actually construct the building or even see the pieces.

 

[Mollerz]

So at UK competitions, Daniel Sheppard, Ryan Jones and I usually end up scrambling most rounds because people who don't solve clock just can't scramble it at all, the new notation really doesn't help. The only thing it's done so far is hinder the faster scramblers even further. I wouldn't be surprised if this is the case for pretty much all competitions.

I am going to say this, I would put a lot of money on pretty much ALL fast clock solvers practicing using concise notation. It really isn't that hard to use and it at least halves the time it takes experienced clock solvers to scramble. If concise was used I think it would help a lot since regardless of the type of shown, inexperienced clock scramblers are going to scramble slowly and probably incorrectly anyway.

 

[Michael Womack]

For along time I have been scrambling the 3x3 with a generated scramble its good for me. When I was first doing generated scrambles for 3x3 I was slow and accurate. But now I can scramble a 3x3 in 10 sec very accurately. But for Clock I like the older scrambles that are like this UU u5 and most of the timers still use this. I just learned that scramble not to long ago still not that fast at scrambling.
DD d-3

But if we sum up the scramble notion like this: U/D=pin position and the u/d= the corner clocks that needed to be turned. The u clocks are the ones that get turned and they are touching a pin that is in the U move.

 

[DrKorbin]

They also contain no easy-to-access scrambler, as I pointed out. So the regulations describe an abstract notation that you do not see in use. It's like asking people to learn LEGO instructions without getting to actually construct the building or even see the pieces.

Well, probably we should ask some online timer's author to implement new clock scrambling notation along with the old one. Will it solve this problem?

 

[AvGalen]

I'm familiar with and understand the regs, just apparently not the most recent revision.

The problem is that I don't remember a change in clock notation being announced. I may have just missed it, I dunno, but if word of a new notation didn't reach multiple seasoned competitors, then something needs to be done about announcing revisions to the regs.

Same here. I went to scramble clock, looked at the scrambles and thought ?????????
It took me a few minutes to understand it and then a few more tries to get it correctly every time but I honestly don't see any benefit. It is slower to scramble this way and certainly not easier.

 

[qqwref]

Well, probably we should ask some online timer's author to implement new clock scrambling notation along with the old one. Will it solve this problem?

Sure, I'd like to, but there's no documentation - I can't be sure how it works, what the probabilities are, what moves are possible where, and so on. I wouldn't want to make a WCA scrambler that doesn't even work properly, after all.