Finger trick notation

[Hypocrism]

(Referencing DeeDubb's post)

So, if I flick F' with my index finger,

R U R' F'(I3) R U R' U' R' F R2 U' R' would be used?

I3 is a weird way to do the first F'! At least it feels that way for me.
I would also include the notation for how you do the second F move. Mine is:

R U R' F'(I2) R U R' U' R' F(M2) R2 U' R'

 

[guysensei1]

I3 is a weird way to do the first F'! At least it feels that way for me.
I would also include the notation for how you do the second F move. Mine is:

R U R' F'(I2) R U R' U' R' F(M2) R2 U' R'

Heh, I do that because after R U R', my index is in the right place for F'. I use I3 for the T perm, N perm, Y perm, R perm and some OLLs too.

Mine is either M2 or I2 but mostly I2. Heck, I've even accidentally done R2 before because my hand slipped while executing.

 

[Kirjava]

How much easier would your M write up have been if you could use simple notation instead of having to describe each move as "left ring pushes from DB to UB"?

Not very. Replacing things like "ring" with a single character doesn't do much to make things easier when most of the content is explanations /why/ those fingertricks are used.

No notation I have seen would be able to succinctly convey how moves are executed to the same extent as words or video. I think it would be rather imprecise to use things like this. Verbose descriptions are useful in allowing people to 'get it'. Fingertricks have many unique things that any notation will invariably miss. Almost all of the time, fingertricks required for algs are obvious - and when they are not it will usually end up something special that falls outside the reach that your notation can describe.

By all means try to propose yet another arbitrary set of symbols and see if people adopt it though. These are just my experiences and thoughts.

 

[DeeDubb]

By all means try to propose yet another arbitrary set of symbols and see if people adopt it though. These are just my experiences and thoughts.

well, I proposed one, and we'll see if people use it. A couple already are in the posts above yours, which is a good start. I was a ling major, so I really get into language and orthography.

Off Topic: I do respect and study a great deal of your Roux work, so thank you for putting together those resources, they've been extremely helpful.

EDIT: I wonder if someone could program hands moving a cube around, to create 3D digital fingertrick guides, get on it programmers!

 

[Dane man]

Or you could just... you know... watch a video of someone doing the fingertricks...

Videos are an impractical way to try to share finger-tricks, because it requires that you record and then upload. And searching through videos for a finger-tricks is a hassle.

Somewhat. I considered this when posting, but there are better methods for doing this other than notation.

Unfortunately no, there aren't. If there are, please let us know, but video isn't one of them for the above reasons. Also, wordy descriptions are annoying to write up and even more difficult to read without having to search for your place in the alg.

I appreciate your sentiment but this is clearly an unneeded aspect of notation.

So is regular notation... or any notation at all for that matter, we could just use videos instead.

No notation I have seen would be able to succinctly convey how moves are executed to the same extent as words or video. I think it would be rather imprecise to use things like this. Verbose descriptions are useful in allowing people to 'get it'. Fingertricks have many unique things that any notation will invariably miss. Almost all of the time, fingertricks required for algs are obvious - and when they are not it will usually end up something special that falls outside the reach that your notation can describe.

By all means try to propose yet another arbitrary set of symbols and see if people adopt it though. These are just my experiences and thoughts.

Understood, but the idea of a notation is to find a way to simply describe these oddities without having to resort to awkward descriptions or uploading something to YouTube. If a notation could be established and standardized in a way that makes sense, then communicating these things would be much easier and would be more likely to get shared. Almost no one shares finger-tricks here on the forums because of the effort required to describe them either in words or video.

It doesn't need to be used to portray all algs, but only when fingertricking is being discussed.

But it also needs a notation for the initial grip position and grip changes made during the alg. For example some algs (eg starting with RUR'F') I generally start with the thumb on the D face and index/middle/ring on the U face. But others start with those three fingers on the B face, or even the D face (R2F2 starting algs). We could either develop a system for describing the initial position of each finger, or just give each standard grip position a name.

Also, whenever this is brought up people are cynical of it. But I think that's because it's quite easy for experienced cubers to work out their best fingertricks for an alg. It's not so easy for those beginning to fingertrick or at an intermediate level. This would probably be most helpful to that group, and I don't think a fingertrick notation is particularly more difficult to learn than regular notation.

True, many use different grips for even the same algs. I believe most people start RUR'F' the way you do (at least I do), but for those moments when a certain grip needs to be described, something like a simple number system might work (1,2,3 for thumb on bottom, front, top. Or perhaps a simple (tD), (tF), (tU)). For the left hand we could use something similar but put (ltD),(ltF),(ltU), etc.

And a finger-trick notation is something that I would have found useful, and still would, to discover new finger-tricks and faster ways to perform certain maneuvers.

Here's my idea off the top of my head.

LEFT HAND (lower case)

RIGHT HAND (upper case)

Initial corner location would be clockwise from corner to corner (similar to ABCD labeling for BLD) Note: you need to split double moves into separate moves for this (so no U2, R2, etc..)

That is a very interesting way to put it. It makes sense too. Unfortunately it's a little odd to try to remember that corner notation, but it would actually work. Unfortunately M and R are already in use as regular notation, but it could work with your bracketed method. I actually like it.

We're making progress.


So far we've defined the following as part of a full finger-trick notation:
-Finger in use
-Grip in use
-Corner being used

Anything else? And we can already start deciding on what will define these parts of the notation (I do like DeeDubb's notation for fingers and corners). A few proposals have already been made.

A simple example of DeeDub's notation mixed with Hypocrism's idea of a grip notation:
{tU} R' U(I2) R' F'(T3)
Jb perm example. {tD} is assumed when no grip is first indicated:
R U R' F'(T3) R U R' U' {tF} R' F R(R1) R U'(T3) R'
or
R U R' F'(i1) R U R' U' {tF} R' F R2 U'(i1) R'

 

[ryanj92]

Videos are an impractical way to try to share finger-tricks, because it requires that you record and then upload. And searching through videos for a finger-tricks is a hassle.

I have to disagree with you here, I've learnt many fingertricks using videos like this with a minimum amount of hassle in the past. Whether videos are a good way of learning fingertricks is entirely a matter of opinion. Which obviously means I also don't have criticisms for creating fingertrick notation, if it works for you.
I just don't think there's ever been a calling for it (i've seen two or three similar threads in my time here, none of them took off) because people haven't been massively struggling without it

here are a few of my suggestions:
- it needs to be concise, as reading/learning a complex notation could become more confusing than a similarly well written text description. (I'd argue it's just as easy to lose your place in a bunch of symbolic notation than it is a paragraph of text)

- define a 'standard' way of performing each move in context (wherever your grip is according to the preceding moves), in order to make the presentation of algs in this notation more concise. For many algs, the parts that require a specific notation are generally no more than a small part of the algorithm, and clarifying every single move would just be unnecessary. For example, if you did the Jb-perm R U R' F' R U R' U' R' F R2 U' R' with an index flick on the first F', then you would notate that part of the algorithm only (perhaps a couple of moves either side so you know how to enter and leave that maneuver). People don't need clarification as to how to do for example the first R, from a standard grip!

 

[Dane man]

I have to disagree with you here, I've learnt many fingertricks using videos like this with a minimum amount of hassle in the past. Whether videos are a good way of learning fingertricks is entirely a matter of opinion. Which obviously means I also don't have criticisms for creating fingertrick notation, if it works for you.
I just don't think there's ever been a calling for it (i've seen two or three similar threads in my time here, none of them took off) because people haven't been massively struggling without it

I was speaking more about the fact that in order to share finger-tricks, or to have a discussion about finger-tricks, one would have to record a new video and upload it. Something that could be simplified much more if all we had to do was write down an alg with a notation in a forum. I don't think that people struggle so much without a notation as much as they would like to talk about some and learn them without having to go through tons of videos that repeat the same basic tricks over and over, but they can't and don't because of a lack of simple convention.

here are a few of my suggestions:
- it needs to be concise, as reading/learning a complex notation could become more confusing than a similarly well written text description. (I'd argue it's just as easy to lose your place in a bunch of symbolic notation than it is a paragraph of text)

- define a 'standard' way of performing each move in context (wherever your grip is according to the preceding moves), in order to make the presentation of algs in this notation more concise. For many algs, the parts that require a specific notation are generally no more than a small part of the algorithm, and clarifying every single move would just be unnecessary. For example, if you did the Jb-perm R U R' F' R U R' U' R' F R2 U' R' with an index flick on the first F', then you would notate that part of the algorithm only (perhaps a couple of moves either side so you know how to enter and leave that maneuver). People don't need clarification as to how to do for example the first R, from a standard grip!

That does make a lot of sense. This is something that goes along with the idea of an assumptive notation (not requiring notation for every move). I think me and DeeDubb have been using our's that way anyway. Only the part that needs it gets it. And of course, simplicity and ease of understanding is the goal.

 

[teller]

I like idea of having a notation like this...but I have yet to see one that is readable. A few thoughts:

- Don't try to compress it too much. Like with the table of numbers above, no one will remember what number goes with what. If you have to spell out a sticker, then spell it out right in the alg. I doesn't have to be super-compact.
- Maybe rather than specifying a sticker, the corner can be assumed, and just a + or - for "push" or "pull."
- My YouTube channel is probably the toughest stress test for such a notation.

I don't know...it's tough. Sometimes I have a thumb on the corner itself, not touching any stickers, but on the "point" of the corner, and the alg won't work any other way. It seems easier to just describe it in English.

Good luck! Many have attempted this and failed...

 

[DeeDubb]

I like idea of having a notation like this...but I have yet to see one that is readable. A few thoughts:

- Don't try to compress it too much. Like with the table of numbers above, no one will remember what number goes with what. If you have to spell out a sticker, then spell it out right in the alg. I doesn't have to be super-compact.
- Maybe rather than specifying a sticker, the corner can be assumed, and just a + or - for "push" or "pull."
- My YouTube channel is probably the toughest stress test for such a notation.

I don't know...it's tough. Sometimes I have a thumb on the corner itself, not touching any stickers, but on the "point" of the corner, and the alg won't work any other way. It seems easier to just describe it in English.

Good luck! Many have attempted this and failed...

My notation isn't about what sticker it's touching. It's just to orient you based on which face you are turning. It starts from the upper left corner of the face when you look at it and move around counter clockwise. It doesn't matter which sticker you are on, but which piece. Once people have it memorized, it wouldn't be hard at all to follow. The only other thing I can think of is labeling the 8 corners 1 through 8, however that leave M moves out, because they don't engage a corner.

push and pull wouldn't really work, because there are places were you can push from two different spots, like index push on U from UFL or UBL

 

[guysensei1]

My notation isn't about what sticker it's touching. It's just to orient you based on which face you are turning. It starts from the upper left corner of the face when you look at it and move around counter clockwise. It doesn't matter which sticker you are on, but which piece. Once people have it memorized, it wouldn't be hard at all to follow. The only other thing I can think of is labeling the 8 corners 1 through 8, however that leave M moves out, because they don't engage a corner.

push and pull wouldn't really work, because there are places were you can push from two different spots, like index push on U from UFL or UBL

Well, I suggest just having the finger position. I mean, from UBL to do a U, you really can't pull unless you have superglue on your fingers. Same for the rest.

 

[Dane man]

I like idea of having a notation like this...but I have yet to see one that is readable. A few thoughts:

- Don't try to compress it too much. Like with the table of numbers above, no one will remember what number goes with what. If you have to spell out a sticker, then spell it out right in the alg. I doesn't have to be super-compact.

Actually, the 1234 notation he chose is very intuitive and doesn't really need a table, he just gave the table in case applying 1234 clockwise was unclear.

My notation isn't about what sticker it's touching. It's just to orient you based on which face you are turning. It starts from the upper left corner of the face when you look at it and move around counter clockwise. It doesn't matter which sticker you are on, but which piece. Once people have it memorized, it wouldn't be hard at all to follow. The only other thing I can think of is labeling the 8 corners 1 through 8, however that leave M moves out, because they don't engage a corner.

push and pull wouldn't really work, because there are places were you can push from two different spots, like index push on U from UFL or UBL

Actually I think that he might have a point, because think about this. When you're using your right hand, then you'll likely only be using the front or back of the right corner on that face, so U(I+) would be the right index finger on the front right corner of U instead of U(I-) which is using the back corner. With M it would be based on the finger (middle, ring and pinkie is down), for example M'(I-) would be right index on the top back edge, and M(r-) would be the left ring on the down back edge.

Though the issue comes when someone has a different kind of alg where a specific edge needs pushed or pulled in an odd way, for example M(I3) could not be expressed correctly using the + and - notation. So the + and - notation, while a good idea for compactness, assumes too much in such situations.

 

[Kirjava]

Unfortunately no, there aren't. If there are, please let us know, but video isn't one of them for the above reasons. Also, wordy descriptions are annoying to write up and even more difficult to read without having to search for your place in the alg.

No, descriptions that use words are no more annoying than writing anything. I imagine using a notation could actually be more arduous.

So is regular notation... or any notation at all for that matter, we could just use videos instead.

Videos would be awful for showcasing algorithms and the text works much better. There's a difference between knowing what you need to do and how you need to do it.

You do realise that the majority of the time fingertrick descriptions are not needed anyway?

Understood, but the idea of a notation is to find a way to simply describe these oddities without having to resort to awkward descriptions or uploading something to YouTube. If a notation could be established and standardized in a way that makes sense, then communicating these things would be much easier and would be more likely to get shared.

The point I'm making is that many fingertricks are unorthodox and it will be extremely difficult to find a notation to describe them.

Almost no one shares finger-tricks here on the forums because of the effort required to describe them either in words or video.

You're outright lying absurdly here.

 

[guysensei1]

.

The point I'm making is that many fingertricks are unorthodox and it will be extremely difficult to find a notation to describe them.




.

Can you provide a fingertrick that someone uses that can't be described with DeeDubb's notation?

 

[Dane man]

You do realize that the majority of the time fingertrick descriptions are not needed anyway?

Nothing is ever needed when it comes to cubing, just wanted or helpful.

The point I'm making is that many fingertricks are unorthodox and it will be extremely difficult to find a notation to describe them.

We've got one here. Take guysenei1's challenge.

You're outright lying absurdly here.

Do you see people sharing finger-tricks on these forums? I don't. I see people talking about their existence, but sharing finger-tricks? Rare.

And I've wanted to share and ask for finger-tricks for a while now, and I imagine that many others would too if there was an easy way to do so. Now with a notation we can.

Kirjava, you're adding nothing to this thread by going in this direction. Stop with the negativity or, on the next post, I will report you.

 

[Kirjava]

Can you provide a fingertrick that someone uses that can't be described with DeeDubb's notation?

I had some in mind. I'm just about to pop out to a UK comp but I'll do so when I return.

Nothing is ever needed when it comes to cubing, just wanted or helpful.

Of course, that's how I was functionally using the word 'needed'. Context will help you avoid semantic pedantry.

We've got one here. Take guysenei1's challenge.

Ok.

Do you see people sharing finger-tricks on these forums? I don't. I see people talking about their existence, but sharing finger-tricks? Rare.

Yeah, I see people sharing fingertricks on the forums. Their frequency of being posted is only due to their frequency of existence.

And I've wanted to share and ask for finger-tricks for a while now, and I imagine that many others would too if there was an easy way to do so. Now with a notation we can.

Go ahead, I'm not stopping you. I'm merely being realistic about their use.

Kirjava, you're adding nothing to this thread by going in this direction. Stop with the negativity or, on the next post, I will report you.

hahaha

 

[uberCuber]

Do you see people sharing finger-tricks on these forums? I don't. I see people talking about their existence, but sharing finger-tricks? Rare.

It's funny because I've asked about certain fingertricks -- and gotten very quick, not-even-slightly tedious text answers -- a couple of times in just the last month or so.

 

[Dane man]

It's funny because I've asked about certain fingertricks -- and gotten very quick, not-even-slightly tedious text answers -- a couple of times in just the last month or so.

Oh, really? Cool. Guess I just wasn't there then.

Learn anything that could help us out?

 

[uberCuber]

Oh, really? Cool. Guess I just wasn't there then.

Learn anything that could help us out?

Mm? They were fingertricks for specific algs that I was curious about at the time, not sure how that would help you create some notation.


I don't think it's a good idea to create a notation for this stuff, and here's why:

For a notation to be useful, people need to be able to look at it and immediately translate it in their minds into what it actually means. For people to do this, it needs to be commonly used; the common exposure will quickly burn the notation into their minds, like our notation for moves. Notice that people don't really mix up M/M' except when they are first starting, but I see people being unsure about E vs. E' pretty often. M is used commonly; E is not outside of BLD comms.

Now, I don't see this kind of notation being used commonly enough to have that instant understanding shared by everyone. Most algs wouldn't be written with fingertrick notation at all. I would get rather annoyed if people started using it where it was unnecessary: it would create extra work for me if I want to read the alg or copy it to my own records. The notation would only be used for uncommon/strange fingertrick. Even if the notation itself gets enough usage for people to be used to seeing it, there may be particular symbols that don't get seen too often, leading to confusion when they are used.

Simply put, there is little reason to go through the huge effort to try to spread a new notation throughout the entire cubing community when English sentences work just as well (and in my view, better).

 

[Dane man]

For a notation to be useful, people need to be able to look at it and immediately translate it in their minds into what it actually means. For people to do this, it needs to be commonly used; the common exposure will quickly burn the notation into their minds, like our notation for moves. Notice that people don't really mix up M/M' except when they are first starting, but I see people being unsure about E vs. E' pretty often. M is used commonly; E is not outside of BLD comms.

Now, I don't see this kind of notation being used commonly enough to have that instant understanding shared by everyone. Most algs wouldn't be written with fingertrick notation at all. I would get rather annoyed if people started using it where it was unnecessary: it would create extra work for me if I want to read the alg or copy it to my own records. The notation would only be used for uncommon/strange fingertrick. Even if the notation itself gets enough usage for people to be used to seeing it, there may be particular symbols that don't get seen too often, leading to confusion when they are used.

Simply put, there is little reason to go through the huge effort to try to spread a new notation throughout the entire cubing community when English sentences work just as well (and in my view, better).

You bring up a very good point. I think the same thing as well, but I still believe that some form of notation could be useful when finger-tricks are the topic of discussion. I've wanted to see more finger-tricks as the topic of discussion, but unfortunately, it's rarely discussed, probably because it's very awkward to try to use English to describe something, though it may be very possible. I'd like to see more threads and questions such as "What are your finger-tricks for PLL?", "What are your favorite finger-tricks? (non-sexy move)", "What do you think is the fastest way to do <alg>?", "Finger-trick comp! Who can make the fastest for <strange alg>?", and other things like that. When I went to look for finger-trick threads, I only found one that is slightly useful, but it only shows videos of really basic finger-tricks, when I wanted some kind of reference about advanced finger-tricks, how to improve finger-tricks, or perhaps how to choose a good alg for finger-tricks. I didn't find any of that, just small question and answer posts in random threads about very specific situations.

I know that finger-tricking is something rarely discussed, but I feel it has potential to really be a well developed tool if people could discuss it easier. That's what I'm looking to do here. If a finger-trick notation is established, then that would open up many possibilities for discussions and resources that otherwise would have been somewhat tiring to try to read and participate in because no one writes about their finger-tricks and algs in a standardized way yet. You could say that I'm over estimating the potential, but for those who feel that anything that gives them an edge counts, it could be just that helpful.

That's all.

It's not an emergency need, but I feel it's something that could become very useful for many people, whether beginner or expert. While it might take a while to catch on, and perhaps slightly more effort is required to understand it, it would still be useful and efficient.

 

[sneaklyfox]

The point I'm making is that many fingertricks are unorthodox and it will be extremely difficult to find a notation to describe them.

Can you provide a fingertrick that someone uses that can't be described with DeeDubb's notation?

What about this fingertrick used in a G perm?
R2 u' R U' R U R' u R2 B U' B'

For the u move I use the back of my right ring finger on an edge sticker. Does the notation cover that kind of move?