# Swiss Cube Notation



## Musturd (Mar 25, 2009)

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 (Mar 25, 2009)

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 (Mar 26, 2009)

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 (Mar 26, 2009)

"wow, that notation SUCKS"


----------



## Musturd (Mar 26, 2009)

Or does it...




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


----------



## Ethan Rosen (Mar 26, 2009)

Musturd said:


> Or does it...
> 
> 
> 
> ...



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 (Mar 26, 2009)

Musturd said:


> 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 (Mar 26, 2009)

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.



Lucas Garron said:


> Musturd said:
> 
> 
> > 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.
> ...



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


----------



## Swordsman Kirby (Mar 26, 2009)

Musturd said:


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



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


----------



## Musturd (Mar 26, 2009)

Swordsman Kirby said:


> Musturd said:
> 
> 
> > What about the people who don't use the Latin alphabet?
> ...



Touché.


----------



## Lucas Garron (Mar 26, 2009)

Musturd said:


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


Everything, I think...


----------



## qqwref (Mar 26, 2009)

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 (Mar 26, 2009)

Musturd said:


> 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 (Mar 26, 2009)

OK. You both win.


----------



## dChan (Mar 26, 2009)

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 (Mar 26, 2009)

dChan said:


> 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 (Mar 26, 2009)

> 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 (Mar 26, 2009)

Ton said:


> dChan said:
> 
> 
> > 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.
> ...



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 (Mar 26, 2009)

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 (Mar 27, 2009)

What qqwref said...


----------



## DonQuixote (Mar 29, 2009)

I think by answering to qqwref I'll answer most things that came up here in this thread.



qqwref said:


> 1) ...Why are 444 and 3 the same, or 44 and 33? ... 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? ...


I can't quite see why it's silly that 444 and 3 are equal in their result. R' and RRR are the same, too.
There is no easy way to describe a 180-degree turn? As you've already written, it's 33 (and as easy as it gets, with standard notation it would be L2, same string length). But 33 and 44 are not equal (in their execution).
If one would expand the notation it wouldn't be a problem to describe a sequence done multiple times. (1728 2516)[2] etc. just be creative. 



qqwref said:


> 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. ...


I never thought about it that way, maybe because I did not expect any kind of order or consider it important. I agree, the natural numbers got an order, but faces on the cube do not.
Maybe by pairing opposite faces mirror sequences could be detected easier for all faces, I'd have to check on that.



qqwref said:


> 3) What are the x and y doing there? Those aren't numbers.


Because we use a number system to the base of 10, not 12.
The main point in introducing the Swiss notation was to get rid of the quote signs, thus shortening the sequence a bit as every basic turn (and those appear quite often) is described by one sign only. 



qqwref said:


> 4) Isn't 0 a smaller number than 1? Or am I missing something?


Same as point 2. The important thing was to cluster even and uneven numbers. And most people (who are not computer programmers) tend to start counting from 1, not 0.



qqwref said:


> 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). ...


Well, if you learn sequences with the Swiss notation, you don't memorize them by notation. That what most people get wrong. It's basically a mnemonic helping you learning and performing the sequences you need.
For instance, while performing the sequence, you aid yourself by saying, lets say, "five two six one seven one eight two". You still think in terms of fingertricks and cube moves. In later stages you can recite the number sequence if you get stuck while performing it

Naturally, people are very conservative when it comes to trying new things. Unless one does not try the Swiss notation, one does not have an idea what its advantages really are. I'm not badmouthing the standard notation. If you wanna try something different, do it. If not, don't.
From experience I can say that everybody who has tried this notation long enough loved it.

If one has some good ideas on changing to notation, I'd be glad to discuss them and improve the Swiss notation. Just send me a mail or something.

Kind Regards (and a thousand pardons for any grammatical errors etc.)
Martin


----------



## bundat (Mar 29, 2009)

DonQuixote said:


> If one would expand the notation it wouldn't be a problem to describe a sequence done multiple times. (1728 2516)[2] etc. just be creative.



"Being creative" with notation has caused quite some confusion though.
Like how cube rotations x,y,z are (r),(u),(f) in the notation in japanese websites.
So a japanese cuber (or someone used to their notation) might interpret that as a cube rotation in the same direction as a 2 turn.

And it seems to have more potential for confusion. Whereas in the standard notation, numbers won't be confused for anything else, the only confusion I observed is people thinking they meant double-layer turns with the lowercase letters.



> The main point in introducing the Swiss notation was to get rid of the quote signs, thus shortening the sequence a bit as every basic turn (and those appear quite often) is described by one sign only.



It doesn't shorten algs with M slices though.
The two characters of 2- is longer than M.
And with algs like M U M U M U M U' M U M U M U M U' (flips 4 edges without affecting permutation) it REALLY adds up.

I was looking at your Roux pages, and while the Swiss algs LOOKED shorter, it was only because M and U are really wide characters. The Swiss algs had higher character counts as the algs got longer, so this seems to defeat that purpose.



> For instance, while performing the sequence, you aid yourself by saying, lets say, "five two six one seven one eight two". You still think in terms of fingertricks and cube moves. In later stages you can recite the number sequence if you get stuck while performing it


It sounds nice that you have the number as a mnemonic, but in my experience, memorization through notation rather than muscle memory or watching blocks only hinders the person, and is actually a much slower way of memorizing.

Also, phrases such "fruruf", "ruru", "rfrf", and many others aren't bad as mnemonics either. They're much shorter too, being only a single word or a couple, as compared to an entire phrase of numbers.

Like the Y-perm is just "fruru rur fruru rifraf". Not only are the words short, the mnemonics also preserve the fingertricks when recited.

---

The few advantages stated, such as

- shortening the notation by taking out quotes (although it becomes longer when the notation has cube rotations, the M slice, or double-layer turns), or
- having numbers as mnemonics (which the original notation can also do to an extent, sometimes the mnemonics themselves will even teach you the proper fingertricks if you're a beginner)

isn't worth the trouble it will take learning it, for little to no advantage.

One major problem is the learning curve. I taught my roommate Singmaster notation in like 10 seconds, and I instantly had a scrambler while I was rallying solves. He couldn't keep up with my solve speed, but it helped anyway, and I was able to teach him a beginner method easily afterwards.
This seems impossible with the Swiss notation.

The immense learning curve for what seems to be a negligible advantage doesn't seem to be worth it. Your point of "shortening the notation" by removing the quotes for ccw turns gave me an idea for a notation using upper and lowercase letters, which in my opinion would have a much more easier learning curve:

R = cw turn, r = ccw turn, CR= cw cube rot., Cr = ccw cube rot., R2 = cw double layer turn, r2 = ccw double layer turn, etc.

It still has the advantage of removing the quotes, and also the weakness of having longer notation for cube rotations and double layers turns, but NOT for slices, and also without the immense learning curve that would scare away beginners (and possibly experienced cubers alike).

It would also have the added effect of teaching people to use their shift key, and would maybe teach youngsters used to chat-speak to type in proper sentences.
It sounds nice... F R U r u f, or FRUruf without spaces... looks visually appealing to me.
*claims all rights to that notation* 

-------------

Anyway, I can see that your point in your site (or rather, the only point that hasn't been refuted, unlike the one about mirror detection or not using the roman alphabet, because it is a valid point) is that it seems impossible to memorize something like F RUR'U' RUR'U' F' notation-wise, without committing it to muscle memory, and that STILL isn't memorizing it notation-wise, which can easily be proven by asking any CFOP user to recite PLL in notation and them being unable to (without having a cube in their hands, nor doing any hand movements with an "air cube", or mentally performing it).

I have no idea why you'd want to do that in the first place (memorizing notation-wise rather than execution-wise, as the notation doesn't matter, it's the execution that is important) for reasons other than to be a walking "guidebook" (which CFOP users can also do if they have a cube they can slow-motion-perform the alg on, or perform the alg mentally, albeit being slow and prone to error).

It seems like an advantage of the Swiss notation over the Singmaster notation, where the user can recall the alg in notation, but sadly, I see no purpose in doing so.

- If it's for alg recall to be able to communicate it to others, there are plenty of repositories such as online guides, or at worst, the cuber can write the notation down while slowly performing it mentally or physically.

- If it's for easier memorization, as has been stated by others, it's only a hinder (in fact, I think even watching blocks is a hinder, since you cannot just blast out the alg at 7-8 TPS or whatever your dexterity limit is, you have to see it so you have to slow down to 3-4 TPS, and it becomes a bad habit... I know this personally because I have a couple of F2L algs I memorized that way, and I absolutely cannot help watching unless I look away from the cube).

So while it is an advantage, the advantage seems useless, unless you can state a purpose that would justify the unnecessarily high learning curve (compared to Singmaster, that is).

And considering almost all of the cubing sites and guides out there use Singmaster, you would also have to go through the trouble of converting the notation, which doesn't seem worth it just to "know the notation of the alg you are doing".


----------



## EmersonHerrmann (Mar 29, 2009)

Musturd said:


> 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.



I don't really think that's a good idea...like 99% of the cubing world uses letters.


----------



## Deleted member 2864 (Mar 29, 2009)

interesting... i think I'll use standard just because I'm used to it by now... but maybe this would be good for memorizing long and hard algs... just converting it to a stream of numbers...


----------



## DonQuixote (Mar 30, 2009)

Justify the unnecessarily high learning curve?

Look kid, I already explained why people invented this notation and use it. There is no new information that I could give you. 

Maybe this will answer some of you questions:
http://www.speedsolving.com/forum/showthread.php?t=8092&highlight=swiss+notation

Kind Regards
Martin


----------



## bundat (Mar 30, 2009)

DonQuixote said:


> Look *kid*...



Superiority complex? That quip was unnecessary, thank you.

I love how you disregard my long post containing valid arguments about this notation, and instead dismiss me as a "kid" with whom you don't need to bother explaining to.

And sorry, I found nearly nothing in that thread about Swiss notation other than a brief mention in the first few posts, and more people saying that "no one memorizes written alg anyway". And even then, even in that respect, it sounds like the "OTKIVP" alternate notation is much better.


----------



## DonQuixote (Apr 2, 2009)

bundat said:


> DonQuixote said:
> 
> 
> > Look *kid*...
> ...


You're right, sorry 'bout that.

I'm pretty swamped with stuff to do and I did not think that there is a slight chance this discussion will evolve in a constructive manner.

Nevertheless:


bundat said:


> DonQuixote said:
> 
> 
> > If one would expand the notation it wouldn't be a problem to describe a sequence done multiple times. (1728 2516)[2] etc. just be creative.
> ...


If the notation is clearly defined, there is no actual confusion, only misuse.



bundat said:


> DonQuixote said:
> 
> 
> > The main point in introducing the Swiss notation was to get rid of the quote signs, thus shortening the sequence a bit as every basic turn (and those appear quite often) is described by one sign only.
> ...


I noticed that, too, but if one whats the shortest sequence possible you'd have to map every possible move onto a single character and that kind of notation indeed got a high level of complexity.
The Swiss notation never tried to shorten sequences, it was simply a result of removing quotation marks.
The nice thing in my opinion is the fact that you can add some cute operations to the move and it stays consistent and readable (once you've mastered the Swiss notation that is).



bundat said:


> DonQuixote said:
> 
> 
> > For instance, while performing the sequence, you aid yourself by saying, lets say, "five two six one seven one eight two". You still think in terms of fingertricks and cube moves. In later stages you can recite the number sequence if you get stuck while performing it
> ...


It has been quite a while since I learned a new sequence, but when I did, I was able to memorize the sequence as a set of numbers and then train the sequence. Learning became much more fluent for me as I did not have to look at the paper etc. to learn the sequence but help myself with the remembered numbers. This way I could assist myself until I had committed the sequence to my "muscle memory". A nice side effect was, that I could help myself at later states when I got stuck executing the sequence.



bundat said:


> ---
> 
> The few advantages stated, such as
> 
> ...


Maybe it's just me, but I experience "1728 5261" more readable than "RUR'U' FR'F'R" or "RUru FrfR". When I read a sequence in normal notation I tend to mismatch the quotation sign, having a horrible effect on the result of the sequence. The Swiss notation seems less error-prone to me in terms of reading errors. 



bundat said:


> -------------
> 
> Anyway, I can see that your point in your site (or rather, the only point that hasn't been refuted, unlike the one about mirror detection or not using the roman alphabet, because it is a valid point) is that it seems impossible to memorize something like F RUR'U' RUR'U' F' notation-wise, without committing it to muscle memory, and that STILL isn't memorizing it notation-wise, which can easily be proven by asking any CFOP user to recite PLL in notation and them being unable to (without having a cube in their hands, nor doing any hand movements with an "air cube", or mentally performing it).
> 
> ...


When I was a beginner, the standard notation scared me away. I experienced all those quotes very unintuitive and the sequences hard to learn.
When I stumbled across the Swiss notation, I was amazed because it had all the things I was missing in the standard notation. 

I think the main reason behind the Swiss notation (and the Roux method I guess) is the fact that one size does not fit all. It would be interesting to see when an experienced cuber switches to the swiss notation and shares his experience, but I guess the result would be different than learning it right away and as there are likely no new sequences to learn, one of the main advantages (IMHO) of the swiss notation vanishes.

Kind Regards
Martin


----------



## xXdaveXsuperstarXx (Aug 3, 2009)

Seriously, guy, how much scarier and unintuitive could 1728 be to a beginner? Or.. How attractive could _R U R' U'_ be (some may get this one)? Learning common triggers is SO much easier then learning numbers. How could you call standard notation unintuitive when I was able to learn it by myself (without the book).


----------



## jcuber (Aug 3, 2009)

Swordsman Kirby said:


> Musturd said:
> 
> 
> > What about the people who don't use the Latin alphabet?
> ...



I personally like japanese notation for cube rotations, much easier to understand for me.


----------



## xXdaveXsuperstarXx (Aug 3, 2009)

I believe the standard notation for cube rotations is perfectly fine. As I know the axises.


----------



## UberStuber (Aug 16, 2009)

Could be interesting with http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mnemonic_major_system


----------



## miniGOINGS (Aug 16, 2009)

I know which axi is which, it is just hard for me to figure out which way is prime.


----------



## Paul Wagner (Aug 16, 2009)

miniGOINGS said:


> I know which axi is which, it is just hard for me to figure out which way is prime.


all evens


----------



## miniGOINGS (Aug 16, 2009)

Paul Wagner said:


> miniGOINGS said:
> 
> 
> > I know which axi is which, it is just hard for me to figure out which way is prime.
> ...



Like, is z a F or B turn?


----------



## (X) (Aug 16, 2009)

miniGOINGS said:


> Paul Wagner said:
> 
> 
> > miniGOINGS said:
> ...



I always think that the z,x or y is clockwise when you look from the outside of the axis, or looking towards the centre


----------



## *LukeMayn* (Aug 16, 2009)

miniGOINGS said:


> Paul Wagner said:
> 
> 
> > miniGOINGS said:
> ...



x y z = R U F


----------



## LNZ (Aug 16, 2009)

I saw the article. I can remember chains of numbers much easier than chains of characters. 

And that is how most people learn things. For example, it is much easier for the brain to learn "1776" rather than the digits 1, 7, 7, 6 seperately. 

And the number chain "1776" can remind you of events in that year much easier than remembering all the events in that year and relating it to the number "1776".

But using a real cube and doing the alg many times is still a good way to learn an alg and you can re-write algs to make them easier to learn.


----------

