Wish Lin
Member
Wait, so what exactly are these moves’ notation? I am not catching up:
(Clockwise)
45
135
180
(Anti-clockwise)
45
135
Edit: Nevermind.
(Clockwise)
45
135
180
(Anti-clockwise)
45
135
Edit: Nevermind.
Last edited:
I'll be making new sheets tonight.That still doesn't make sense to me. Wouldn't that make RF+ turning the puzzle the smallest amount clockwise and RF- turning the puzzle the second smallest amount counterclockwise (since the smallest amount counterclockwise would necessarily be RF-', the inverse of RF+)?
|The images make things a lot more clear, and I'm a fan of the first
I think we can simplify scrambles even more if we use slightly different edge notation. We could use LU, LD, FU, FD, FL, FR, RU, and RD, and then just use y2s. Thoughts?
I don’t think 12 is enough. I think 16-20 would be better. The reason I brought that notation up is that it would really be simple to just do a y2 instead of keeping track of back edges.Jumbling would need to be in the scramble, or jumbling moves would be useless in a solve. It's best the cube comes scrambled outside of cubeshape.
I'm thinking 12 normal moves, 6 jumble-swaps, and 6 moves to get it out of cubeshape.
Jumbling would need to be in the scramble, or jumbling moves would be useless in a solve. It's best the cube comes scrambled outside of cubeshape.
I'm thinking 12 normal moves, 6 jumble-swaps, and 6 moves to get it out of cubeshape.
I'm with Ore - 12 isn't enough.I don’t think 12 is enough. I think 16-20 would be better. The reason I brought that notation up is that it would really be simple to just do a y2 instead of keeping track of back edges.
None of those are nearly enough to make the cube reasonably well scrambled. There's a reason this event does and always will take much longer to do than squan.Jumbling would need to be in the scramble, or jumbling moves would be useless in a solve. It's best the cube comes scrambled outside of cubeshape.
I'm thinking 12 normal moves, 6 jumble-swaps, and 6 moves to get it out of cubeshape.
I just thought of a way to do that but it might not be the greatest system but it’s worth discussing I think.@Sion, the system is now fantastic but is it possible to not use +, -, slashes or numbers to describe jumbling moves?
The random state generator needs to be at least 40 moves long with 10+ jumbling moves and 10+ shape shift moves IMO.
Middle move should be FU.I was thinking. Wouldn't the Right positive jumble be written as:
RU+ LF+ RF RU- LF-?
This makes sense, except that if an edge is not turned it doesn’t need to be notated. So turning clockwise you would go through:I have an idea: Why not use 2s? This will distinguish the jumbling notation away from normal notation, thus solving @Sion ’s original concern.
Take UF edge as an example, The six possible positions counting clockwise will be:
UF+
UF++
UF2
UF- -
UF-
No moves
This is super intuitive even to people that haven’t see anything about this(@Sion ‘s version still need to explain the ‘ )
Yes, my point is just that @Sion concerned about that UF and UF+ are totally different moves, so I added a “2” to distinguish.This makes sense, except that if an edge is not turned it doesn’t need to be notated. So turning clockwise you would go through:
UF+
UF++
UF
UF - -
UF -
No turn (no notation)