New Square-1 Notation

[blade740]

Tired of trying to memorize algs with the old notation?

R = Move the right half of the puzzle 180 degrees (clockwise)
u = move the U slice clockwise one “notch” Could be either (1,0) or (2,0) by old notation depending on what piece is to the right of the U notch.
u2 = move the U slice clockwise 2 “notches” Only used if there are 2 edges to he right of the U notch.
U = move the U slice clockwise 90 degrees. (3,0) in old notation
u4 = (4,0) in old notation
u5 = (5,0) in old notation
U2 = 180 degrees, (6,0)


M2: u R u’ d’ R’
single EO: d’ R U’ R’ u4 d R u4′ d’ R’ U R
J/J: R U’ R’ U D R D’ R’
N/J: R U R’ U’ R U R’ U’ R
Adj/adj: d R U’ R’ u d R u d’ R’
Opp/opp: u R u’ d’ R’ U2 R u d R’
Pure parity: R U’ R’ D R D’ R’ D R u R’ d R u’ R’ u4 R d2′ R’ d2 R u4′ d R U R’
Flip E Slice: R U2′ R U2′ R
7-1 Cubeshape: R u d’ R’ U’ d4′ R u2′ D R u’ d’ R U’ R

Bonus mini-solution.

 

[Lucas Garron]

Not bad, but I find it a little odd that u can sometimes mean the same as u2.
Also, I find it odd to see "R" for a move I think of as "R2," but I suppose it's shorter and doesn't cause any real confusion.

Would you mind writing my WR reconstruction in your notation as an example?

 

[masterofthebass]

scramble: u5' D R D R D' R U' d4' R D R U' D R d R U' d5' R u5' d R u2

u2' R u' d' R U' R d R U' D' R
R U' R d u4 R d' u4' R U R
U' d R D' R D R D' R D R
u R U R u' d' R U R u d R U2 R u' D'

 

[blade740]

nvm ninja'd

 

[cuBerBruce]

Also, I find it odd to see "R" for a move I think of as "R2," but I suppose it's shorter and doesn't cause any real confusion.

R = 180 degrees is what makes sense.

The "generators" are generally the smallest rotation that makes sense.
R is a 120-degree turn on Pyraminx.
R is a 72-degree turn on Megaminx.

So 180 degrees is what makes sense for R on Square-1. You would probably soon get tired of adding the 2 all the time anyway. Along the same lines, 30 degrees is what would make sense for U (or D) on Square-1.

I don't know if I like the inconsistency of what u means. I guess you're trying to devise a notation that tries to reduce the amount of numbers required.

I tend to like writing the apostrophe ("prime") before the number. I think it looks better that way, at least if you were to actually write exponents as exponents (superscripted).

 

[maggot]

Lol main reason why I won't touch a sq-1 is because I don't feel like committing time to struggling with the notation to learn the optimal algs. Cheers for this. I may pick one up now... now that I can easily translate the algs and then learn them accordingly.

 

[Dene]

A couple of things I want to point out:

I know R is the obvious choice, but surely there are some people that solve Sq1 left handed? I don't really see anything wrong with the old /

Why differentiate U and u and all sorts of things. Personally I think it is a bit messy and as such I am reluctant to bother going through your examples. I don't see what's wrong having U1 through U5 at most, and U1' through U5' at most. Same with the D face. Much simpler, although I suspect I might be overlooking something. I'm sure there's good reason you decided to go with what you have come up with.

 

[Tim Major]

Why differentiate U and u and all sorts of things. Personally I think it is a bit messy and as such I am reluctant to bother going through your examples. I don't see what's wrong having U1 through U5 at most, and U1' through U5' at most. Same with the D face. Much simpler, although I suspect I might be overlooking something. I'm sure there's good reason you decided to go with what you have come up with.

Along the lines of what I was thinking.
Btw, I do like the idea of the notation being changed, especially for scrambling, this should make things faster. Also, if made WCA legal, we could avoid problems that we always seem to run into (in the Australian and New Zealand comps), Faz, Dene and Nick Pappas are the only people capable of scrambling at a decent speed, and not making mistakes. Sq1 finals have taken way too long to run. Atleast with this idea, people who have never touched a sq1, should be able to work out how to scramble it.
I definitely prefer U, U2, U3, U4 and U5, and U', U'2, U'3, U'4, U'5 with R2. (All algs could be mirrored by adding/taking away prime symbols, and R to L. Also with R or L, you can have a prime symbol, to help show how to execute the alg quickly)

 

[Kenneth]

Also, I find it odd to see "R" for a move I think of as "R2," but I suppose it's shorter and doesn't cause any real confusion.

You adapt quick, I know from switching between normal and Domino notation (that uses R, F.. for R2, F2..).

 

[blade740]

I intended this notation to be more for algorithm memorization than anything else. It could also be used for scramblers, but I think there I'd prefer to always use u2 for clarity's sake.

 

[TMOY]

A couple of things I want to point out:

I know R is the obvious choice, but surely there are some people that solve Sq1 left handed? I don't really see anything wrong with the old /

Yes, me for example. The current notation is fine, becuse it's well-suited for lefties too (I just apply the first number of a pair to the D layer and the second to the U layer instead of the converse). If there were Ds and Us in the scramble it would just get confusing).

 

[Pedro]

I don't like u2 and U2...it's easy to mess up when trying to go quickly (scrambling, I mean).

 

[Lucas Garron]

A couple of things I want to point out:

I know R is the obvious choice, but surely there are some people that solve Sq1 left handed? I don't really see anything wrong with the old /

This notation is great for that. It's perfectly logical to introduce L.

I don't like u2 and U2...it's easy to mess up when trying to go quickly (scrambling, I mean).

I think scrambling should remain with the original notation, because sometimes people have to learn it fast, or don't do it often enough to remember how it works.