[WCA Regulations 2014] Clock Notation

[DrKorbin]

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.

You are free to dive into sources. It appears from function "PuzzleStateAndGenerator" that they just do 14 moves: UR+random number, DR+random number, etc.

But I agree it would be nice to have a description how scrambles are generated, without reading source codes.

 

[Kit Clement]

Since clock is just a vector space mod 12, random state will always be a random number generator from -5 to 6 for each part of the scramble. That is, assuming that the moves of the scramble form a basis for the clock, but it would be silly do try to make a random state from a non-basis set of vectors.

More on topic: it seems to me that the general consensus is that the new notation is more of a hindrance to those who know the Jaap pin order; and even if new WCA notation were used in timers, it wouldn't be widely used when practicing clock anyway. I'm actually kind of surprised there aren't really any people that are strongly in favor of the notation.

 

[TMOY]

Since clock is just a free module over the ring Z/12Z, random state will always be a random number generator from -5 to 6 for each part of the scramble. That is, assuming that the moves of the scramble form a basis for the clock, but it would be silly do try to make a random state from a non-basis set of vectors.

Just fixing your statement. A "vector space mod 12" makes no sense mathematically, but otherwise you're right.

More on topic: it seems to me that the general consensus is that the new notation is more of a hindrance to those who know the Jaap pin order; and even if new WCA notation were used in timers, it wouldn't be widely used when practicing clock anyway. I'm actually kind of surprised there aren't really any people that are strongly in favor of the notation.

FWIW, now that I'm used to it I prefer the new notation over the old one. And about compact notation, it may be fine for people who do 500 solves a day but it just confuses the average scrambler who doesn't necessarily know the pin order by heart.

 

[Laura O]

First of all: from my personal point of view I don't like the new notation either. I am used to the Jaap pin order for a long time and use them to practice at home, so scrambling a clock with the old notation is about 3 times faster than with the new one.

Nevertheless the new notation is far easier to teach, even to people who are not into clock solving by any means. I have done this in several competitions in the past months and I guess it took me 1 or 2 minutes each time to explain the symbols and graphics. Of course those people are not able to scamble as fast as someone who is used to it, but at least they can.

 

[Kit Clement]

Just fixing your statement. A "vector space mod 12" makes no sense mathematically, but otherwise you're right.

Derp, yeah, it's been a while since my last algebra class.

Would it be possible though to display both scrambles? With clock it wouldn't be terribly difficult to come up with a transformation between the two types ofscrambles with matrix algebra.

 

[TMOY]

It's even a trivial problem since both notations use the same basis, only in a different order.

 

[ryanj92]

I think the previous notation would be more useful than concise notation because someone who doesn't know the pin order would likely be flicking back and forth between two different parts of a page/two different sheets of paper, which probably wouldn't help scrambling accuracy... I can personally read a standard scramble like PPT's or qq Jaap order as fast as a concise scramble

 

[Stefan]

Would it be possible though to display both scrambles?

Damn, you thought about it before. Anyway... here's a mockup picture.

 

[antoineccantin]

Damn, you thought about it before. Anyway... here's a mockup picture.

Why +x and -y instead of x and y'?

 

[Sa967St]

Spoiler: image

Oh cool! Is it complicated to generate the same scramble using the two notations? Displaying both would be very useful, or maybe having separate documents for each notation.

I am a bit worried that it would cause some confusion, though. Do you think it would help if it was indicated at the top that you only perform one of the two scrambles?

 

[Yuxuibbs]

Damn, you thought about it before. Anyway... here's a mockup picture.

If this gets implemented, clock will go much smoother since people can just choose which notation they want to read.
I think the bottom notation is fine. Might look better to just remove the +'s and only use - and have the + be implied but it doesn't really matter.

 

[Stefan]

Why +x and -y instead of x and y'?

I don't know. Actually it was =x and =-y on the wiki (and then I just slightly changed that because the '-' wasn't very noticeable and to save space).

Is it complicated to generate the same scramble using the two notations?

Not at all. And as TMOY said above: "It's even a trivial problem since both notations use the same basis, only in a different order." (I haven't checked it, but I trust him )

maybe having separate documents for each notation.

I think together is sufficient and more economic/consistent/convenient (the latter two mostly for the organizer, I mean). Then again... whatever.

Do you think it would help if it was indicated at the top that you only perform one of the two scrambles?

Not at the top, I think. Who looks there?

It's two very different notations, I'd say it's hard to accidentally do both. Which could also only be done by people who know both notations, and those should also be smart enough not to do it. Also, the "final pin positions" provide a nice stop. But yeah, maybe a dotted line between the notations would help it further. And I did use different fonts already, though mostly because I needed to find some that made the text fit nicely.

 

[Sa967St]

Do you think it would help if it was indicated at the top that you only perform one of the two scrambles?

Not at the top, I think. Who looks there?

It's two very different notations, I'd say it's hard to accidentally do both. Which could also only be done by people who know both notations, and those should also be smart enough not to do it. Also, the "final pin positions" provide a nice stop. But yeah, maybe a dotted line between the notations would help it further. And I did use different fonts already, though mostly because I needed to find some that made the text fit nicely.

A dotted line would be very nice (I should have thought of that, lol).

I hope this gets implemented for 2014.

 

[Mike Hughey]

A dotted line would be very nice (I should have thought of that, lol).

I hope this gets implemented for 2014.

We've had updates in the scrambler in the middle of the year before; no reason why we couldn't do this before 2014.

 

[Kit Clement]

Do you think it would be cleaner to use the short form for scrambling? I.e., (3, 4) / (-3, 2) / (1, 6) / (-3, -5) // (6) / (0) / (-1) / (2) // (-2) / (0)

I think it would make the page look far less cluttered, and most who would opt for this notation know the pin pattern by heart. It is possible that people would be less accurate because the pins aren't there, but I know that when I scramble using this notation, I'm not even looking at the pins.

 

[Sa967St]

Do you think it would be cleaner to use the short form for scrambling? I.e., (3, 4) / (-3, 2) / (1, 6) / (-3, -5) // (6) / (0) / (-1) / (2) // (-2) / (0)

I think it would make the page look far less cluttered, and most who would opt for this notation know the pin pattern by heart. It is possible that people would be less accurate because the pins aren't there, but I know that when I scramble using this notation, I'm not even looking at the pins.

I don't think there's a need for it to be cleaner. Besides, it's not beginner-friendly.

 

[TheNextFeliks]

We need something barely cubers (noobs) can understand. So at comps they can scramble. It would have to be simple to learn.

 

[Kit Clement]

I don't think there's a need for it to be cleaner. Besides, it's not beginner-friendly.

But if we display two different notations, do we need both to be beginner friendly? Keep the current notation, and add the old notation in the short form for those who know the Jaap pin order. Maybe it won't be necessary if we believe the scrambles won't look too confusing cluttered, but I think it could lead to faster parsing for those who would use it (and most who would opt for it don't need the pins), and the current notation is there for ease of reading.
Either way though, showing both notations is a significant improvement.

 

[Sa967St]

But if we display two different notations, do we need both to be beginner friendly? Keep the current notation, and add the old notation in the short form for those who know the Jaap pin order. Maybe it won't be necessary if we believe the scrambles won't look too confusing cluttered, but I think it could lead to faster parsing for those who would use it (and most who would opt for it don't need the pins), and the current notation is there for ease of reading.
Either way though, showing both notations is a significant improvement.

I don't see the need to add the simplified Jaap notation if there's not much of a difference in how fast people parse it. It's more convenient for more people to use the full notation.

 

[Dene]

Heh so I just decided to look at the new notation for the first time, and now I realise how easy it is. I much prefer it to the old notation (although I'd still be super slow scrambling either way).

I can't see both scrambles being used by the WCA... it's redundant, and goes against what the WRC seem to be trying to achieve.