• Welcome to the Speedsolving.com, home of the web's largest puzzle community!
    You are currently viewing our forum as a guest which gives you limited access to join discussions and access our other features.

    Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community of 35,000+ people from around the world today!

    If you are already a member, simply login to hide this message and begin participating in the community!

New BLD Scramble Notation + Statistics (TPA and TPT) (NoahMetrics) (Noatation)

Noahaha

blindmod
Joined
Dec 19, 2011
Messages
3,015
Location
CT
WCA
2012ARTH01
YouTube
NoahCubes
This is something I've been using for a while, and I haven't seen it anywhere else, so here it is:

When someone posts a BLD time with a scramble, I don't always want to do the scramble to see how easy the scramble was.

How easy a BLD scramble is is very objective however, and really only depends on the number of corner targets, the number of edge targets and the number of flipped/twisted pieces.

I propose that people start posting with their times/scrambles something that looks like this:

(# of corner targets)[SUP](One apostrophe for evey twisted corner)[/SUP]/(# of edge targets)[SUP](One apostrophe for evey flipped edge)[/SUP]

So for example, this scramble:

L2 U2 L2 F2 D2 F2 D2 U B2 U F2 R' U2 B U R2 F R2 D F R'

For me would be accompanied by the notation 7'/12 (edges are even # because of how I do parity)

Note that this would not be the same for everyone, but if people scramble in their solving orientation, it should be quite similar.

Now when I tell you that my time was 34.40[10.59] on that scramble, you know approximately how good my execution was.

This leads me to two statistics that accompany this notation quite nicely:

TPA = Time Per Alg = (execution time)/(# of algs)

For this scramble, I had 11 algs: 6 edge cycles, 3 corner cycles, parity and one corner twisting alg.

My TPA would then be (34.40 - 10.59)/11 = (23.81)/11 = 2.16 seconds/alg

For BLD, this is a much better way to rate someone's execution than TPS in my opinion, since BLD is about your transitions from one alg to the next more than it is about how fast you can turn.

TPT = Time Per Target = (Memo time)/(Number of targets + Number of twisted and flipped pieces)

For that scramble my TPT was 10.59/20 = 0.53 seconds per target. The denominator is 20 because I had 7 corner targets, 12 edge targets and one twisted corner.

I think TPT is a better way to look at memo than simply looking at the memorization speed, because not all scrambles are the same. Even though this solve had slower memo than the 26.70 I got here, I count it as a better memo since there were many more targets and the TPT is much lower.

Anyway, I hope these statistics help people relate times to scrambles better, and help explain why a lot of BLDers have negative reactions to fast solves and positive reactions to slow solves.
 

Username

Member
Joined
Dec 15, 2012
Messages
3,413
Location
Finland
WCA
2013JOKI01
YouTube
TheUnknownCuber
Awesome! I will be using the scramble thingy in the future :D

Just to make sure

U2 D' R' U2 L D2 B' U2 D' F L2 B2 D2 B2 U R2 U2 F2 D' R2 L2

8/10''

Using M2/OP
 
Last edited:

A Leman

Member
Joined
Jan 22, 2012
Messages
631
Location
New Jersey
1)Did you list it as corners/edges because that is the order that you execute them in?
2)Should there be a exact order so you could know if someone got lucky on Xcenters or +centers?
3)what order should we decide upon?

Also,This is going to just describe how each of us personally look at a scramble because different buffers change the situation. It may be helpfull to label them with what you do at the end as well like UF-UBR-FX(for fixed). or FT for floating
 
Last edited:

Noahaha

blindmod
Joined
Dec 19, 2011
Messages
3,015
Location
CT
WCA
2012ARTH01
YouTube
NoahCubes
1)Did you list it as corners/edges because that is the order that you execute them in?
2)Should there be a exact order so you could know if someone got lucky on Xcenters or +centers?
3)what order should we decide upon?

Also,This is going to just describe how each of us personally look at a scramble because different buffers change the situation. It may be helpfull to label them with what you do at the end as well like UF-UBR-FX(for fixed). or FT for floating
1) I think I did it like that because I memo in that order.
2) I think so, but I have no idea what that might be. For bigger stuff it's probably easier just to label each number.

And yeah, this is really meant to show how easy a scramble is for the who did it. You can label more stuff if you want, but I think the X'/Y' can stand on its own.
 
Joined
Apr 23, 2010
Messages
1,390
Location
Scotland, UK
WCA
2009SHEE01
YouTube
bobthegiraffemonkey
Good idea. It also helps eliminate the issue of different colour schemes and different buffers. On the same scramble someone gets a nice solved piece for free, but when I look at it I might have a solved buffer, so I don't have to work out how nice the scramble would have been from the perspective of the solver.

Do you use this for bigblind? We would either need to establish an order for people to stick to, or simply specify it first when posting a result, e.g. 5BLD might be c/+/x/m/w: 7/19/20/11'/24, then people can write it in their personal solving order.
 

Noahaha

blindmod
Joined
Dec 19, 2011
Messages
3,015
Location
CT
WCA
2012ARTH01
YouTube
NoahCubes
Do you use this for bigblind? We would either need to establish an order for people to stick to, or simply specify it first when posting a result, e.g. 5BLD might be c/+/x/m/w: 7/19/20/11'/24, then people can write it in their personal solving order.
Yeah. I like the solving order idea. It could be like this too: 11'm/7c/20x/20+/24w
 

A Leman

Member
Joined
Jan 22, 2012
Messages
631
Location
New Jersey
Yeah. I like the solving order idea. It could be like this too: 11'm/7c/20x/20+/24w
I like this idea. I used to read the quarter turns of a scramble to figure out if someone had parity. I like this idea more because it is much more in depth. You can see the execution order and the targets are succinctly shown. I'll start using this.



It needs a name. I suggest that we call this Noah notation. It rhymes!
 
Last edited:

sneze2r

Member
Joined
Nov 30, 2012
Messages
162
Location
Rumia, Poland
WCA
2012JALO01
YouTube
sneze2r
Note that this would not be the same for everyone, but if people scramble in their solving orientation, it should be quite similar.
And if people would use the same buffers. When i do solve on scramble that is good in opinion of blinder who use different buffer, but same orientation, I do not see anything special on them.
 

MaeLSTRoM

Member
Joined
Jan 7, 2011
Messages
1,862
Location
UK
WCA
2011WALL02
YouTube
MLSTRMRVLTN
This is an awesome idea.



Anyone willing to put in the time to add this? It'd be great if qqwref has the time, because I (and many others it seems) use qqtimer for BLD.
I'm pretty sure Daniel has something like this coded for 4BLD centres, you could try asking him for how he went about it to add into a timer.
 

whauk

Member
Joined
Sep 28, 2008
Messages
464
Location
Germany
WCA
2008KARL02
YouTube
whauk
i see how more and more people use it and want to make a suggestion: (in blindsolving related texts) normally the first thing you think about when reading x/y is most likely a multiblind result. and after a short consideration you see that it makes no sense and conclude that it must be noah metrics (which then makes more sense). but what about keeping the confusion at a minimum and exchanging the "/" for a "|"? so people would be writing stuff like 8|10'' which is clearly distinguishable from multi immediately. also the "|" cannot be easily mistaken for a "1" and it looks like a completely neutral seperation between edges and corners.
i hope everyone understands my reasoning and also thinks it would be a good improvement. if so i hope its not too late to change this.
 

Noahaha

blindmod
Joined
Dec 19, 2011
Messages
3,015
Location
CT
WCA
2012ARTH01
YouTube
NoahCubes
i see how more and more people use it and want to make a suggestion: (in blindsolving related texts) normally the first thing you think about when reading x/y is most likely a multiblind result. and after a short consideration you see that it makes no sense and conclude that it must be noah metrics (which then makes more sense). but what about keeping the confusion at a minimum and exchanging the "/" for a "|"? so people would be writing stuff like 8|10'' which is clearly distinguishable from multi immediately. also the "|" cannot be easily mistaken for a "1" and it looks like a completely neutral seperation between edges and corners.
i hope everyone understands my reasoning and also thinks it would be a good improvement. if so i hope its not too late to change this.
I'm in.
 
Top