Finger trick notation

[Kirjava]

This grip system is inadequate for describing how I hold the cube when doing slice turns, and this is not just a 'weird exception'.

 

[Lazy Einstein]

This grip system is inadequate for describing how I hold the cube when doing slice turns, and this is not just a 'weird exception'.

From what I have read. You are not being constructive at all and at times are being pointlessly condescending. You really should stop posting if you are not going to help him work on making finger trick notation viable. Pointing out problems without offering a solution is just whining. If your point is that no solution exists, well I could obviously point out that just because a solution does not exist yet does not mean that a solution can not be found be working on the problem. Finally, if you are so confident that working on the problem can never yield a solution then I will quote the great Lebowski. “Yeah, well, you know, that's just, like, your opinion, man.” ― The Dude

Example:
Fix later. No comp

Expressing yourself and saying why you think finger trick notation will never work is totally fine, once. But this thread is 6 pages in and you seem like you are on a mission to make DaneMan give up on the idea of finger trick notation because you do not like the idea. If finger trick notation is ineffective, it will never work and the thread will die. However, your criticism has reached a point where it is essentially just spam. Please stop adding unnecessary length to this thread so that those who are interested in the potential of finger trick notation may discuss on making it effective.

 

[Kirjava]

From what I have read. You are not being constructive at all and at times are being pointlessly condescending. You really should stop posting if you are not going to help him work on making finger trick notation viable. Pointing out problems without offering a solution is just whining. If your point is that no solution exists, well I could obviously point out that just because a solution does not exist yet does not mean that a solution can not be found be working on the problem.

For someone wanting to develop fingertrick notation, my criticism is very constructive as it shows the weak aspects of the notation and points to places where it can be improved. I've stated that I am not trying to stop them make this notation, merely being realistic about it and offering places where I think it will perform poorly. This is useful information for people in this thread to know. I've even stated that people should propose a notation and see if it is adopted.

Finally, if you are so confident that working on the problem can never yield a solution then I will quote the great Lebowski. “Yeah, well, you know, that's just, like, your opinion, man.” ? The Dude

I have already stated in this thread that these are "just my experiences and thoughts" and you don't need to tell me that my opinions are my opinions with some weird pop culture reference.

Example:

You have literally just changed what I quoted to be some completely different thing.

I'd appreciate it if you edited your post to reflect what I actually quoted instead of wildly misrepresenting me.

Expressing yourself and saying why you think finger trick notation will never work is totally fine, once. But this thread is 6 pages in and you seem like you are on a mission to make DaneMan give up on the idea of finger trick notation because you do not like the idea. If finger trick notation is ineffective, it will never work and the thread will die.

I'm just being realistic. I have already recommended that a notation be made if people so desire, I'm just predicting how things will proceed after that so people have a better idea of the climate it is being released in and pointing out issues that may arise. If people are aware of the challenges they will be faced with, they are much better equipped to deal with them.

However, your criticism has reached a point where it is essentially just spam. Please stop adding unnecessary length to this thread so that those who are interested in the potential of finger trick notation may discuss on making it effective.

I believe I am being constructive and adding useful information to the thread. If you have a problem with my conduct the correct thing to do is to report my posts and let a moderator deal with it instead of causing drama.

 

[JustinJ]

Doesn't immediately come to mind, but I may have seen it. So that's at least one.
(Got a link to a video of someone using it in a speedsolve?)

 

[Lazy Einstein]

Kirjava post

You started off by pointing out what you saw as issues and it seemed great and I can understand why you are criticizing; it is important to do. My concern is that your posts seem to be getting less constructive and less helpful by not offering ideas for solution and are basically reiterating what you stated in previous posts. We get that you think notation can not account for grip among others things.
Do you have good examples from previous attempts at notation that were ineffective that could help DaneMan to avoid wasting time by independently coming to those same conclusions?
Did you attempt this yourself previously and were unsuccessful? If so, why didn't it work?

You have successfully brought to attention the potential problems with finger tricks notation but I'd like to see what points and ideas you have on the potential success of it.

 

[Kirjava]

You started off by pointing out what you saw as issues and it seemed great and I can understand why you are criticizing; it is important to do. My concern is that your posts seem to be getting less constructive and less helpful by not offering ideas for solution and are basically reiterating what you stated in previous posts. We get that you think notation can not account for grip among others things.

Pointing out new problems is not reiteration. It is better to point out problems even if I don't have solutions to post.

Would you like us all to pretend that no problems exist instead of facing them and potentially solving them?

Do you have good examples from previous attempts at notation that were ineffective that could help DaneMan to avoid wasting time by independently coming to those same conclusions?

It isn't so much because of the actual notation used, it's that because of the situation it seems like it will just not catch on.

Did you attempt this yourself previously and were unsuccessful? If so, why didn't it work?

I did not because I do not think it would be very useful or see any actual widespread use.

You have successfully brought to attention the potential problems with finger tricks notation but I'd like to see what points and ideas you have on the potential success of it.

I think a better plan of action is to create a guide explaining various basic fingertricks for beginners to bring them up to speed. Other than this I think proceeding as we have done so far is the correct thing to do.

Also, I'll ask again. Can you please remove or modify the fake quote you made because it is misrepresenting me.

 

[Dane man]

I've even stated that people should propose a notation and see if it is adopted.

Wait... when? If so, then okay, thanks for the support!

I have already stated in this thread that these are "just my experiences and thoughts"

You only need to say it once, though.

If people are aware of the challenges they will be faced with, they are much better equipped to deal with them.

Simply because I'm enthusiastic about an idea doesn't mean I don't see the challenges. Pointing them out without presenting a possible solution is not helping, but impeding, and would get you fired from any normal job, because as the saying goes, "I want solutions, not problems." I have expressed that I will continue the project to see if we can make one good enough to spread despite the difficulty of propagation.

I believe I am being constructive and adding useful information to the thread.

Not exactly, but your position as devil's advocate has definitely driven the modification and betterment of the notation so far. So I'm not sure whether to be annoyed or thank you. So... thanks.

But please state opposition only once instead of hammering it in with negative phrases such as "poor show", "You seem to be unaware of the popular A perm", "This grip system is inadequate", "I do not think it would be very useful or see any actual widespread use.", "You're outright lying absurdly", "Context will help you avoid semantic pedantry.", "hahaha", "By all means try to propose yet another arbitrary set of symbols and see if people adopt it", "This is more an exercise in futility.", and " this is clearly an unneeded aspect of notation."

So in using the same logic that you are using with us, I hope that the following criticism will be constructive for you: Almost every post you write here has had a condescending, and negative feel to it, not just by what you are saying, but by the expressions and vocabulary you use. It is extremely negative and gives off the feeling that you are writing them out of spite. So I recommend that if you want to be understood as helpful, then please change your language to be so understood, instead of being repetitively negative, and adding expressive emphasis to critiques so that they almost come off as attacks.

Are you willing to work on that?


@Lazy Einstein
I appreciate your support of the project and your attempt at clarifying things with Kirjava, but I think that we don't need to pursue this topic any farther. We can leave it at that, and let him be. If he ignores us, so be it, but I'm not gonna let it stop us from continuing the project. Thank you.

 

[Ollie]

In order for this to work:

1. The notation system seems to be solid, error free and cover every type of algorithm.
2. It also needs to be better than whatever system is in place at the moment. If there is no system currently in place, then you need to show how using your notation system is better than the norm. It may be that you're trying to fix a problem that doesn't exist.
3. It needs to be clear and comprehensible by everyone (or at least most people) or at least be as comprehensible as watching a video of the same fingertrick.

Thom is not being trying to hinder progress, he's being skeptical and applying the scientific method to your idea. Years of cubing experience + vast knowledge of methods = someone who you should try and co-operate with, even if your ideas don't always agree. If you believe you are right you need to demonstrate that your method satisfies the criteria above. The best ideas are still open to criticism.

Keep working on it, but don't ignore criticism.

 

[Kirjava]

Wait... when? If so, then okay, thanks for the support!

Here

You only need to say it once, though.

I did.

Simply because I'm enthusiastic about an idea doesn't mean I don't see the challenges. Pointing them out without presenting a possible solution is not helping, but impeding, and would get you fired from any normal job, because as the saying goes, "I want solutions, not problems." I have expressed that I will continue the project to see if we can make one good enough to spread despite the difficulty of propagation.

Pointing out places where improvement needs to be made is helping. Stop lying to yourself to try and make a point.

Not exactly, but your position as devil's advocate has definitely driven the modification and betterment of the notation so far. So I'm not sure whether to be annoyed or thank you. So... thanks.

I'm not playing devil's advocate. This is what I truly believe.

But please state opposition only once instead of hammering it in with negative phrases such as "poor show", "You seem to be unaware of the popular A perm", "This grip system is inadequate", "I do not think it would be very useful or see any actual widespread use.", "You're outright lying absurdly", "Context will help you avoid semantic pedantry.", "hahaha", "By all means try to propose yet another arbitrary set of symbols and see if people adopt it", "This is more an exercise in futility.", and " this is clearly an unneeded aspect of notation."

Most of those things are separate concepts pertaining to different things, I'm not really duplicating.

You however, are doing the very thing you complain about when you keep telling me to stop posting things. You already told me you don't like hearing my criticism.

So in using the same logic that you are using with us, I hope that the following criticism will be constructive for you: Almost every post you write here has had a condescending, and negative feel to it, not just by what you are saying, but by the expressions and vocabulary you use. It is extremely negative and gives off the feeling that you are writing them out of spite. So I recommend that if you want to be understood as helpful, then please change your language to be so understood, instead of being repetitively negative, and adding expressive emphasis to critiques so that they almost come off as attacks.

I think it's more of a problem that you're taking my evaluation as an attack instead of dealing with the points I make.

 

[Lucas Garron]

In order for this to work:

1. The notation system seems to be solid, error free and cover every type of algorithm.
2. It also needs to be better than whatever system is in place at the moment. If there is no system currently in place, then you need to show how using your notation system is better than the norm. It may be that you're trying to fix a problem that doesn't exist.
3. It needs to be clear and comprehensible by everyone (or at least most people) or at least be as comprehensible as watching a video of the same fingertrick.

Thom is not being trying to hinder progress, he's being skeptical and applying the scientific method to your idea. Years of cubing experience + vast knowledge of methods = someone who you should try and co-operate with, even if your ideas don't always agree. If you believe you are right you need to demonstrate that your method satisfies the criteria above. The best ideas are still open to criticism.

Keep working on it, but don't ignore criticism.

I think the people who are pursuing this idea:

Reject 1.
2. Believe that having a way to communicate fingertricks without videos is valuable enough.
Are definitely aiming for 3.

Kirjava has a lot of experience, but he's far from the average cuber. As I've stated before, even if this works for only for (most of the algs of) a vanilla Fridrich cuber I think that could be quite good.

I think there's sufficient awareness of the issues now, and it's more valuable to focus on trying to see if a system can meet the criteria.

 

[Kirjava]

2. Believe that having a way to communicate fingertricks without videos is valuable enough.

This already essentially exists.

As I've stated before, even if this works for only for (most of the algs of) a vanilla Fridrich cuber I think that could be quite good.

Possibly. Since anyone learning this notation will have to learn what fingertricks are mapped to glyphs anyway, I do wonder if it wouldn't be better to just produce a tutorial for common fingertricks and move sequences they appear in or help with along with some examples. I would've though this would produce cubers with a stronger ability to improvise trick combos on their own.

 

[Lucas Garron]

Possibly. Since anyone learning this notation will have to learn what fingertricks are mapped to glyphs anyway, I do wonder if it wouldn't be better to just produce a tutorial for common fingertricks and move sequences they appear in or help with along with some examples. I would've though this would produce cubers with a stronger ability to improvise trick combos on their own.

Although it would be useful for F2L, I think it would be more valuable for someone like me to learn how the really fast cubers do OLLs/PLLs. I used to have some suboptimal habits and probably still do. Oftentimes I was familiar with the right fingertricks but it didn't occur to me to do them that way.

Also, CLS.

 

[Dane man]

I would've though this would produce cubers with a stronger ability to improvise trick combos on their own.

This is actually a good idea. I encourage working to find one's own finger-tricks. And I believe if we can share our finger-tricks with each other to show the possibilities, then these improvisations could become more creative and more effective.

Here

I still can't see where you're saying we should do this. It looks more like you're blowing it off and discouraging it in that post. Try to look at how you come across with that wording and see if you can improve. Perhaps change "By all means try to propose yet another arbitrary set of symbols..." to "Though, I believe you should keep trying in case it works. If it does, that's great.". See? Much better.

1. The notation system seems to be solid, error free and cover every type of algorithm.
2. It also needs to be better than whatever system is in place at the moment. If there is no system currently in place, then you need to show how using your notation system is better than the norm. It may be that you're trying to fix a problem that doesn't exist.
3. It needs to be clear and comprehensible by everyone (or at least most people) or at least be as comprehensible as watching a video of the same fingertrick..

1- Not really. It doesn't need to include every crazy weird thing that some people do, just enough to be useful.
2- Looking to see if we can do that.
3- Most certainly, though, just as with regular cube notation, it will need to be performed to fully comprehend how it works.

 

[Kirjava]

This is actually a good idea. I encourage working to find one's own finger-tricks. And I believe if we can share our finger-tricks with each other to show the possibilities, then these improvisations could become more creative and more effective.

The point I was making was a worry that enforcing certain fingertricks for certain algs will potentially hamper innovation and creative ability.

I still can't see where you're saying we should do this. It looks more like you're blowing it off and discouraging it in that post. Try to look at how you come across with that wording and see if you can improve. Perhaps change "By all means try to propose yet another arbitrary set of symbols..." to "Though, I believe you should keep trying in case it works. If it does, that's great.". See? Much better.

I don't think you should keep trying, but you can try and see if it works if you want to. If it does I will be surprised. You just need to learn to interpret what I'm saying.

Although it would be useful for F2L, I think it would be more valuable for someone like me to learn how the really fast cubers do OLLs/PLLs.

I thought this information was already available?

 

[Dane man]

The point I was making was a worry that enforcing certain fingertricks for certain algs will potentially hamper innovation and creative ability.

Well, I agree with you. It shouldn't be used to enforce certain finger-tricks on certain algs. It's for for showing what kind of finger-tricks can be done. The goal is that a notation will encourage growth of finger-tricking techniques, not limit it to certain patterns. That's part of the reason I want it to be mostly assumptive, because it leaves a lot up to the cuber's creativity.

You just need to learn to interpret what I'm saying.

I guess I will. I'm sorry if I misunderstood what you were saying.

 

[Kirjava]

Well, it doesn't actually need to be enforced. It's just for showing what kind of finger-tricks can be done. The goal is that a notation will encourage growth of finger-tricking techniques, not limit it to certain patterns. That's part of the reason I want it to be mostly assumptive, because it leaves a lot up to the cuber's creativity.

I'm saying that you need to allow the opportunity for the learner to practise putting fingertricks to an alg without guidance at some point, otherwise that skill won't be as developed when he comes to algs without them. Unsure if this is a major issue, but is something to consider. Certainly worth documenting it and notifying the user.

This pertains solely to the scenario you now wish to deploy this endeavour in.

 

[Dane man]

I'm saying that you need to allow the opportunity for the learner to practise putting fingertricks to an alg without guidance at some point, otherwise that skill won't be as developed when he comes to algs without them. Unsure if this is a major issue, but is something to consider. Certainly worth documenting it and notifying the user.

Ah, that makes sense. It'd be basically like what happens when people learn to solve the cube from others with algs first, instead of trying to figure it out on their own to understand how to inuit solutions. When they come to intuitive F2L, they don't know what to do without an alg. That kinda what you're saying?

 

[Kirjava]

Kind of.

 

[teller]

I'm saying that you need to allow the opportunity for the learner to practise putting fingertricks to an alg without guidance at some point, otherwise that skill won't be as developed when he comes to algs without them. Unsure if this is a major issue, but is something to consider. Certainly worth documenting it and notifying the user.

This pertains solely to the scenario you now wish to deploy this endeavour in.

I hear this. I don't ask for help for grips when I see an alg, I figure it out what works.

But sometimes somebody has something that really works well and I can't figure out what they're doing, even from video...that sort of bugs me. It's usually a G-Perm.

 

[mark49152]

I'm saying that you need to allow the opportunity for the learner to practise putting fingertricks to an alg without guidance at some point, otherwise that skill won't be as developed when he comes to algs without them. Unsure if this is a major issue, but is something to consider. Certainly worth documenting it and notifying the user.

This pertains solely to the scenario you now wish to deploy this endeavour in.

That's the weakest argument yet against a finger trick notation. Although it would be nice to think this is about encouraging finger trick development, the specific objective of a notation is simply to enable easier communication of alg fingering, whenever and for whatever purpose the user wants. If I want to show someone how I execute my Ga perm, I will, whether there's a convenient notation or not.

Also, it's worth noting that alg notation already contains execution hints such as R2', rotations and wide turns. When an alg is written down such that it rotates to do some moves on R,U rather than F,U, that is an execution hint, and including some alternative hint that shows how to execute nicely on F,U instead would be no less valid or useful.