Swiss Cube Notation

[Musturd]

To me, this seems a lot more practical than the standard notation, other than initially figuring out the symbol that correlates to each face and direction.

I like this guy's reasoning for using it:
http://sisyphus.teil.cc/~martin/mmo/mmcc/notation/


EDIT: See page 2

 

[luke1984]

Looks interesting but I'm used to the standard " R U R' U' " notation, and I find it easy enough to read. I am going to look through the site a little.

Thanks for the link!

 

[Musturd]

I just completely learned the Swiss Notation. It only took in a few minutes. I memorize algorithms way faster this way. Memorizing an algorithm is just memorizing a number.

I love this.

BTW, that site has a nice Roux tutorial. I think the Swiss are natural Roux-ers because I checked speedcubing.ch and Roux was pretty popular.

 

[Swordsman Kirby]

"wow, that notation SUCKS"

 

[Musturd]

Or does it...




It doesn't. Compared to Swiss notation, standard is garbage.

 

[Ethan Rosen]

Or does it...




It doesn't. Compared to Swiss notation, standard is garbage.

That is nothing more than your opinion. The standard notation allows each face to be represented by a corresponding letter based off of the English word for the position of the faces. It can be learned in almost no time at all.
The only advantage that website lists is that using their notation, you can memorize the moves of a sequence easier. The thing that you want to ask yourself here is whether you actually want that. The general goal is to commit the algorithm to muscle memory as quickly as possible. Once this is done, it makes no difference what notation you learned it in.

The key reason to have a universal notation at all is to share sequences. Anyone can take the 5 seconds that U corresponds to Up and anyone can tell that U2 means to turn the top face twice. How many people can look at 77 and immediately understand that you need to turn the top layer twice?

 

[Lucas Garron]

BTW, that site has a nice Roux tutorial. I think the Swiss are natural Roux-ers because I checked speedcubing.ch and Roux was pretty popular.

That's because it's written by one person, a Roux-user.

 

[Musturd]

What about all non-native English speakers? What about the people who don't use the Latin alphabet? What about people who have different words for Up, Down, Left, Right, Front, and Back? It won't be learned in no time for them. I think it is actually easier for beginning cubers to learn the Swiss notation. The problem is that the standard notation is standard. It is unusual for a standard to change. For example, when we discovered that negatively charged particles flow through a ciruit, we didn't change the way we deal with current in Physics (that is with hypothetical positively charged flowing particles).

I just want to point out that memorization is easier (at least for me) in Swiss notation. I won't have an algorithm fully memorized (stored to muscle memory), but I can stop looking at algorithms written down, and focus more on the cube.
I learn faster this way.

BTW, that site has a nice Roux tutorial. I think the Swiss are natural Roux-ers because I checked speedcubing.ch and Roux was pretty popular.

That's because it's written by one person, a Roux-user.

What's written the tutorial, or speedcubing.ch?

 

[Swordsman Kirby]

What about the people who don't use the Latin alphabet?

Maybe x and y shouldn't have been used, then.

 

[Musturd]

What about the people who don't use the Latin alphabet?

Maybe x and y shouldn't have been used, then.

Touché.

 

[Lucas Garron]

What's written the tutorial, or speedcubing.ch?

Everything, I think...

 

[qqwref]

1) One part of this notation that is very silly IMO is the one where you use a different number for a clockwise and counterclockwise rotation of a given face. Why are 444 and 3 the same, or 44 and 33? It doesn't seem obvious to me and I think a user of this system would just have to memorize things like that. You don't seem to have any easy way to describe a 180-degree turn, either. And if you use numbers, how do you describe a sequence that is done N times, except by actually writing it out N times? If I want to talk about how (RUR'U')6 solves the cube, I don't have to write out or memorize 24 moves, it's just 4 moves repeated 6 times like it should be.
2) There's no real order in the faces you chose. It's R L F U B D - why? R and L are opposite but F and U (and B and D) aren't. You'll have to change around your notation a bit, because if it is not consistent then the notation is pretty much random and becomes a lot harder to memorize. I'm sure you know how much trouble people have had with memorizing the x/y/z rotations!
3) What are the x and y doing there? Those aren't numbers.
4) Isn't 0 a smaller number than 1? Or am I missing something?
5) I don't memorize algorithms by the notation and I never have (and I think maybe that is holding you back). As Ethan correctly points out, everyone fast learns algorithms either by watching how the pieces and blocks move around or by muscle memory (fingertricks). For instance when I learn an algorithm with RUR' in it, I don't memorize "R U R apostrophe", I memorize that it's just an RUR' fingertrick. Or, for the F(RUR'U')2F' example you used, I basically remember that it's two sexy moves with an F setup. I'm not going through and trying to remember 10 letters with and without apostrophes. It would be the same in any notation - I'm just converting to the moves in my head anyway, and remembering the moves, not the notation. So for me the better notation is the one which is prettier and which better describes the moves I'm doing, and for me that is DEFINITELY the standard notation. The only time I memorize effectively random moves is if I want to memorize a pretty pattern, but for that I would use muscle memory anyway.

So in short... I disagree with you, I think normal notation is better for speedcubers, and this notation has some serious consistency problems (order of faces, the x y thing) which makes it unsuitable for large-scale use.

 

[Ethan Rosen]

What about all non-native English speakers? What about the people who don't use the Latin alphabet? What about people who have different words for Up, Down, Left, Right, Front, and Back? It won't be learned in no time for them. I think it is actually easier for beginning cubers to learn the Swiss notation. The problem is that the standard notation is standard. It is unusual for a standard to change. For example, when we discovered that negatively charged particles flow through a ciruit, we didn't change the way we deal with current in Physics (that is with hypothetical positively charged flowing particles).

I just want to point out that memorization is easier (at least for me) in Swiss notation. I won't have an algorithm fully memorized (stored to muscle memory), but I can stop looking at algorithms written down, and focus more on the cube.
I learn faster this way.

What about people who don't use the Arabic number system?
I'm sure that memorizing the moves in an algorithm is easier in this notation, but once again, that is not the type of memorization that you want. Once you have the algorithm committed to muscle memory, what difference does it make if you can recite it (meaning say the notation) from memory? What matters is that if you want to post it on a website or video or another means of communication, that anyone can read it.
Consider competitions. Often times a scrambler (at lest in the beginning of a popular event) will be someone who isn't really a part of the community, such as a sibling, friend, or parent of a competitor. I think we can agree that they can learn what U F B L D R ' 2 mean without much effort. Try teaching the same person that a bunch of numbers correlate to the faces and what direction you turn them.

You said that it took you a few minutes to learn this notation. The standard notation really shouldn't take much more than a few seconds to learn, because you aren't really memorizing anything, it's just logic.

 

[Musturd]

OK. You both win.

 

[dChan]

Looks like an attempt to make cube notation look as complicated as Square-1 notation looks. In my opinion, the standard notation for the Rubik's Cube is much easier to read.

 

[Ton]

Looks like an attempt to make cube notation look as complicated as Square-1 notation looks. In my opinion, the standard notation for the Rubik's Cube is much easier to read.

I guess it is only to be used to memorize the sequences, not for me as I am bad in numbers. I memorize a sequences on how a pattern change on the cube

e.g. R U2 R' U' R U' R' would be
bar out to back , than to front , than put back

This is much simpler for me, I see an advantage for FM, but than again I am bad in numbers

 

[brunson]

I just want to point out that memorization is easier (at least for me) in Swiss notation.

If it works for you, then use it. Just because it works for you doesn't mean it works for everyone.

What about people who don't use the Arabic number system?

Like who? There are other numerical notations: Traditional Thai, Brahmi, Khmer, Chinese, e.g, but no modern society does math in anything other than Arabic as far as I could find.

 

[dChan]

Looks like an attempt to make cube notation look as complicated as Square-1 notation looks. In my opinion, the standard notation for the Rubik's Cube is much easier to read.

I guess it is only to be used to memorize the sequences, not for me as I am bad in numbers. I memorize a sequences on how a pattern change on the cube

e.g. R U2 R' U' R U' R' would be
bar out to back , than to front , than put back

This is much simpler for me, I see an advantage for FM, but than again I am bad in numbers

Yes, that's exactly how I memorize algorithms (though I am sure different people memorize different pattern changes). I guess I could see how memorization is easier for some people with this notation as different people are more naturally inclined toward one method of memorization or another.

 

[cuBerBruce]

The standard notation is based upon Singmaster notation. The original form of Singmaster notation was basically just a specialized usage of mathematical algebraic notation. (The "2" in R2, U2, etc. was written as an exponent.) So you could perform algebraic manipulations with the notation. You could equate sequences that had the same effect: F U' R' F R F' = U L' U' L F U'. But you wouldn't say that 471405 = 637247, would you? To me, the algebraic nature of standard notation is one of its biggest strengths.

One claimed advantage of Swiss notation was that it was easier to detect mirrored algs. Perhaps, it is a little easier for left-right mirroring. But for mirroring with respect to other axes, such as diagonal mirroring that you might use for F2L algs, I think the Swiss notation becomes less intuitive to do detect mirrors with, or for generating such mirror algs with.

 

[riffz]

What qqwref said...