# Story time with Uncle Tyson: WCA's scrambling orientation



## macky (Nov 15, 2010)

Have you ever wondered why we scramble our cubes with white on top and green in front? Back in 2004, at the first Caltech competitions, cubes were scrambling according to the cross color given by each competitor at registration. Because not everyone starts with the cross (color neutrality was then unheard of among the top cubers...maybe some opposite colors on very special scrambles), at some point the WCA decided to use the same orientation for everyone by specifying a top color and a front color. But what colors to choose?

The following was the WCA board members' line of thought. Standard BOY (American) and Japanese are the two main color schemes. Most cubers solve the white cross and end on yellow, while Japanese cubers solve the blue cross and end on white. Since yellow and blue are switched between the two schemes, after this correction they really just solve from opposite sides. What's more convenient, Japanese cubers solved the cross on bottom, while this wasn't necessarily widespread elsewhere. Put these to together and we have a natural solution: scramble with white on top! Then, when scrambling one's own cube for practice, standard color scheme users can start by solving the white cross on top and japanese cubers can solve the blue cross on bottom, in either case without any initial rotation. This proved to be a great success, and a lot of serious cubers nowadays have made it a habit to scramble with this orientation.

I made up that explanation. This regulation has a real reason, and Uncle Tyson's going to tell you all about it....


----------



## waffle=ijm (Nov 15, 2010)

where's uncle tyson D:


----------



## DavidWoner (Nov 15, 2010)

How do you explain green front then?


----------



## Tyson (Nov 15, 2010)

I would be lying if I said the WCA regulations were completely written by me with no reference to anything else. The truth is, when I sat down to write the regulations for the US National Championships in 2004, I had already borrowed from many things in the past. Even though nothing was written until June of 2004, Caltech had held two tournaments by that time already, and we had already started to do things with certain procedures.

Things like the StackMat and the +2 penalty were simply borrowed from the 2003 World Championships. I started cubing in July of 2003, and so I was very disappointed to find out about the 2003 Toronto tournament in the San Francisco Chronicle, but clearly having been introduced to cubing only a few weeks before the actual event, there was no way for me to immerse myself deeply enough in the culture of speed cubing to have known about this competition. One procedure that I had borrowed when utilizing Caltech competition was which orientation to scramble the cube when preparing for a solve. I had heard in 2003 that competitors would say which color they used to solve the cross, and one would scramble with that color on top. This made sense for the a few reasons. At least for cross solvers, they would all be given the same initial state of forming their cross. It also seemed to make sense to allow people to see the cube relatively to their method, as opposed to an absolute random state.

After some conversations with some cubers, we started to debate whether or not this was a good idea. Giving the competitor of a choice was simply another thing that could be manipulated. Furthermore, it was discussed that since you really cannot predict how someone will view a cube, even though several people may use the same method, if everyone receives the same scramble without prior knowledge, no one can really complain about anything unfair. After all, the scrambling team has no idea what method a cuber uses, and cubers can simply solve different crosses, or use Petrus. I then had some conversations with people who attended WC 2003 and gained some insight as to why the Toronto championships asked for the solver's cross color. Ian Winokur informed me that the scrambles purposefully made the cross hard. The organizer didn't want people to get 'easy cross' cases. This, of course, is completely asinine. It assumes that competitors solve with crosses, which is true unless you're Lars Petrus. Mostly though, once this information got out, competitors would simply say that they solved with the lavender cross, or some other color in hopes of getting a random distribution of starting pieces, as opposed to one that is deemed not easy by the organizer. This was, of course, reinforced when I first spoke with the Toronto organizer, and he provided me with "certified" scrambles. None of this makes sense, because of the reasons I mentioned above. And really, many top cubers have expanded to utilize opposite color cross and color neutral cross methods. And we also have Lars Petrus, who is by definition, awesome.

So, it came time to decide how the WCA should scramble its cubes. White seemed like a logical choice for the top. White, after all, is not a color. And pretty much every cube has white, though some cubes substitute white for black. But almost every cube has white, and it's a very neutral color, since it's not a color. As is black, both white and black aren't really colors. So it made sense to put something neutral on top. What color, then would we put in front? Blue was out of the question, because Japanese color scheme cubes have blue opposite to white. So we were left with red, orange, or green. Of those three colors, my own personal favorite color is green. I prefer green to red or orange, and hence, I made my blindfold color scheme to utilize white on top and green in front. Conveniently, being in the position that I was, this became the official WCA color scheme. Since the color in front was pretty much arbitrary, no one really complained. Only a few people, perhaps only one other person out there, really knew the story to this, and I remember him making the comment, "Tyson's own personal color scheme." It's true... the WCA color scheme is my own personal color scheme. It's how I solve my cubes blindfolded, and it's how I displayed my cubes on my desk and on my bookshelf in college. And now, it's how the world scrambles its cubes.


----------



## waffle=ijm (Nov 15, 2010)

<3 history of stuff


----------



## CharlesOBlack (Nov 15, 2010)

Tyson said:


> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
if this is real.....

WIN.

also, 


> Lars Petrus, who is by definition, awesome.



DOUBLE WIN.


----------



## Kirjava (Nov 15, 2010)

Don't get me wrong - I enjoyed the insight, I've been told his information before though. Somewhere. Who told me?


----------



## jiggy (Nov 15, 2010)

I did not enjoy getting to the end of the first post, just to be told it wasn't true, and then to scroll down and see I had an _even longer_ post to read!

I kid, I kid. It's always interesting to find out where these things came from. Cool story.


----------



## XXGeneration (Nov 15, 2010)

Lol. The randomness of cubing is beautiful.


----------



## jazzthief81 (Nov 15, 2010)

Tyson said:


> I had heard in 2003 that competitors would say which color they used to solve the cross, and one would scramble with that color on top.



Yes, I remember this and I found this so ridiculous that I always said "orange", when I actually start on white.


----------



## Tyson (Nov 15, 2010)

The question now is, does anyone remember the guy who said that a cube that's 1 move off should be given 1 second penalty, and the cube N moves off should be given N seconds penalty? Does anyone remember when we were given extra solves for a POP?


----------



## Kirjava (Nov 15, 2010)

Does anyone remember pogs?


----------



## Kian (Nov 15, 2010)

Tyson said:


> The question now is, does anyone remember the guy who said that a cube that's 1 move off should be given 1 second penalty, and the cube N moves off should be given N seconds penalty? Does anyone remember when we were given extra solves for a POP?



Nobody could be sup 20!


----------



## waffle=ijm (Nov 15, 2010)

wasn't that petrus as well?


----------



## Rpotts (Nov 15, 2010)

waffle=ijm said:


> wasn't that petrus as well?


 
........wait...was he in some other pants?


----------



## qqwref (Nov 15, 2010)

Cool story, interesting to know  An added advantage of green front is that the L and R sides stay the same too on both schemes.


----------



## waffle=ijm (Nov 15, 2010)

Rpotts said:


> ........wait...was he in some other pants?


 
well the same thing happened to me with some other pants.
I just thought it would apply.


----------



## bluedasher (Nov 15, 2010)

Tyson said:


> White, after all, is not a color.



White is too a color. Your confusing white with black. Black is the absence of all color. White contains all colors. If white contains all colors it should be considered a color more than any other _Color_ there is.


----------



## Toad (Nov 15, 2010)

Kirjava said:


> Does anyone remember pogs?


 
YES.

I even have a POGS related T-shirt, will wear it next comp...


----------



## Stefan (Nov 15, 2010)

bluedasher said:


> White is too a color. Your confusing white with black. Black is the absence of all color.



"*Black is the color* of objects that do not emit or reflect light in any part of the visible spectrum"


----------



## rjohnson_8ball (Nov 15, 2010)

bluedasher said:


> White is too a color. Your confusing white with black. Black is the absence of all color. White contains all colors. If white contains all colors it should be considered a color more than any other _Color_ there is.


 
For paint and crayons: red+yellow+blue = black. For pixels and lighting: red+green+blue = white.

(edit)_My point here is that black and white are both colors (in the proper context). In the case of colored stickers on a cube, I would certainly treat black/white stickers as colored stickers just as much as any other colored stickers._(/edit)

Bruce Norskog pointed out to me that the Back face is Blue and the Right face is Red with the WCA orientation (and BOY scheme). Of the 6 standard colors, only Blue and Red have first letters matching a face notation.


----------



## bluedasher (Nov 15, 2010)

rjohnson_8ball said:


> For paint and crayons: red+yellow+blue = black. For pixels and lighting: red+green+blue = white.



http://www.colormatters.com/vis_bk_white.html#Anchor-The-35882


----------



## emg (Nov 15, 2010)

Tyson said:


> Does anyone remember when we were given extra solves for a POP?


 
Yes, and it was awesome. I also remember Macky popping, catching the piece after one bounce, putting it back in, and still being sub20 (back before sub15 became the new sub20)


----------



## Sa967St (Nov 15, 2010)

emg said:


> Yes, and it was awesome. I also remember Macky popping, catching the piece after one bounce, putting it back in, and still being sub20 (back before sub15 became the new sub20)


----------



## cmhardw (Nov 15, 2010)

jazzthief81 said:


> Yes, I remember this and I found this so ridiculous that I always said "orange", when I actually start on white.



I also over time started saying random colors. Eventually I would even just say "surprise me" or something similar most times.


----------



## qqwref (Nov 15, 2010)

Color is just one of the aspects of the appearance of an object. Black and white are clearly both colors. (If they weren't, what else would they be?)


----------



## Igora (Nov 15, 2010)

Stefan said:


> "*Black is the color* of objects that do not emit or reflect light in any part of the visible spectrum"


 
color in the context of it could be used simply as a convenient word for describing what black pertains to, while still keeping the scientific definition of color, being the reflected light in the visible spectrum. Being used in the same way that baldness can be considered a hair style, but still be the lack of hair. But given that definition, pure black is not apart of the visible spectrum and therefore not a color, but the lack of reflected light, or the lack of color.


----------



## Stefan (Nov 16, 2010)

To clarify: I didn't quote that about black because that is my opinion, but just to show that others have other opinions about it (and quite frankly, wikipedia ranks higher on my authority list than bluedasher). My opinion about black and white is that there are different valid opinions/definitions, and people seriously insisting that they are or aren't colors and that others with differing opinions are wrong, are themselves wrong.


----------



## qqwref (Nov 16, 2010)

Stefan said:


> My opinion about black and white is that there are different valid opinions/definitions, and people seriously insisting that they are or aren't colors and that others with differing opinions are wrong, are themselves wrong.


I don't really consider it a matter of opinion, because "color" is a clear term we're all intuitively familiar with. As long as most people would say "black" is an acceptable answer to the question "What color is this?", how can you say black isn't a color? The same applies to white.


----------



## Dene (Nov 16, 2010)

Sa967St said:


> Macky vid


 
Lolololol people cheering for sub20 solve  .
How I wish we were still in those days.


----------



## Stefan (Nov 16, 2010)

qqwref said:


> I don't really consider it a matter of opinion, because "color" is a clear term we're all intuitively familiar with.


 
We're also all familiar with "pea*nuts*", "brazil *nuts*" and "coco*nuts*", right? Doesn't mean botanists are wrong for having definitions where those aren't nuts.

If you're working with or studying colors and it makes more sense to have a definition where black or white aren't colors, where's the problem with that? I do find both "color theories" on the page bluedasher showed ok, they have legitimate uses.


----------



## Stefan (Nov 16, 2010)

Wait... after reading your post again, I'm confused. Were you disagreeing or agreeing with me? Let me put it this way:



qqwref said:


> As long as most people would say "black" is an acceptable answer to the question "What color is this?", how can you say black isn't a color?



I agree. Nobody should flat out say _"black isn't a color"_. But I do find it ok to say _"using definition X, black isn't a color"_. Same with white, and same with saying they *are* colors. It simply depends on the context, the application, and what makes most sense there.


----------



## KYLOL (Nov 16, 2010)

Samuel L. Jackson is colorless. NUUUUUUUUUUU.
Also, cool story Tyson.


----------



## bluedasher (Nov 16, 2010)

qqwref said:


> I don't really consider it a matter of opinion, because "color" is a clear term we're all intuitively familiar with. As long as most people would say "black" is an acceptable answer to the question "What color is this?", how can you say black isn't a color? The same applies to white.



Sure, people refer to black and white as colors, but scientifically speaking black is the absence of colors and white is all colors in the spectrum. Light causes objects to reflect colors that we can see based on the effect of a specific wavelength. Technically if you completely separate an object from all light it is black because it isn't reflecting anything. Thus black is more of a state of separation from light than a color. The same thing can be said so about white. If an object is white that is because of the wavelength of the spectrum that it occupies. White _could be_ classified as a color, but it is more of a state of containing all colors in the spectrum. 

I don't mean to get off topic so I won't continue this discussion. 

EDIT: I agree with your third post Stefan.


----------



## DavidWoner (Nov 16, 2010)

qqwref said:


> Cool story, interesting to know  An added advantage of green front is that the L and R sides stay the same too on both schemes.


 
All but two sides stay the same regardless of orientation. Why is L/R significant?


----------



## prostx23 (Nov 16, 2010)

qqwref said:


> Black and white are clearly both colors. (If they weren't, what else would they be?)



That is really the all encompassing question of life right?


----------



## waffle=ijm (Nov 16, 2010)

I still remember the time when they covered the cube after inspection <3 :3


----------



## cuBerBruce (Nov 16, 2010)

rjohnson_8ball said:


> Bruce Norskog pointed out to me that the Back face is Blue and the Right face is Red with the WCA orientation (and BOY scheme). Of the 6 standard colors, only Blue and Red have first letters matching a face notation.



Yes, the WCA convention is also my preferred orientation.

This is helpful in fewest moves solving where it is generally good practice to write down moves based upon the center color of the face being turned, rather than based upon how you have the cube oriented. When I turn the blue face clockwise, I write "B" regardless of how I have the cube oriented. If "blue" and the "back" were different faces, recording moves might be a little more error prone.

I also note that logos are normally on the white face and the WCA scheme has white up, where the logo is arguably most visible.


----------



## CharlieCooper (Nov 16, 2010)

waffle=ijm said:


> I still remember the time when they covered the cube after inspection <3 :3


 
Seems so weird that we used to do that. How annoying?! I much prefer the system now.


----------



## dillonbladez (Nov 16, 2010)

History sucks, but adding cubing to it changes everything


----------



## qqwref (Nov 16, 2010)

Stefan said:


> We're also all familiar with "pea*nuts*", "brazil *nuts*" and "coco*nuts*", right? Doesn't mean botanists are wrong for having definitions where those aren't nuts.


Interesting point, but it's a different situation, because plenty of people would not consider "coconut" an intuitive answer to the question "which nut is it".



Stefan said:


> I agree. Nobody should flat out say _"black isn't a color"_. But I do find it ok to say _"using definition X, black isn't a color"_. Same with white, and same with saying they *are* colors. It simply depends on the context, the application, and what makes most sense there.


There's no context here - it's the general context of non-scientific speech. I haven't seen anyone saying "by X definition black isn't a color", they're just flat out saying "black isn't a color" as if it's a universal law of nature. To me, when dealing in a general context, there is no point in having a definition unless you can talk about and explain common things in the world with it. Otherwise, your definition conflicts with how we actually view the world, and then there's no point in having that definition at all (you might as well define "color" as "species of elephant"). And I think most people see a black or white object in the same way they see a red object, and distinguish between black and red in the same way they distinguish between blue and red.



bluedasher said:


> Sure, people refer to black and white as colors, but scientifically speaking black is the absence of colors and white is all colors in the spectrum. Light causes objects to reflect colors that we can see based on the effect of a specific wavelength.


By "color" you mean "wavelength of visible light", yes? But then you will very rarely see single colors anyway. Yes, "white is all colors in the spectrum", but a bright blue light is also *almost* all colors in the spectrum - in fact the vast majority of objects you see reflect more than one wavelength of visible light towards your eyes. Even the sky is not strictly "blue", but simply has decreasing amounts of each wavelength as you move towards red. It is not useful (i.e. does not help our understanding of how colors are used by people, and of how they work) to define colors based on wavelengths of light, unless you are willing to exclude almost all colors you normally see.


----------



## cmhardw (Nov 16, 2010)

Speaking of story time with Uncle Tyson, whatever became of this?


----------



## FatBoyXPC (Nov 16, 2010)

Stefan said:


> "*Black is the color* of objects that do not emit or reflect light in any part of the visible spectrum"


 
That's wikipedia, where anybody would edit that definition. By definition, black is not a color:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/color

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/black - though if you go all the way down to the 20th definition, color is used in the definition.


----------



## qqwref (Nov 16, 2010)

fatboyxpc said:


> By definition, black is not a color:
> 
> http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/color
> http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/black


Color:
1. the quality of an object or substance with respect to light reflected by the object [...]

Black:
1. absorbing light without reflecting any of the rays composing it.

By these definitions I would say reflecting no light (i.e. being black) counts as a possible way an object could reflect light (i.e. a color), just like how "zero" is a number, and "nobody" is a possible set of people.


----------



## cmhardw (Nov 16, 2010)

Hi everyone,

Please move the general color discussion to the thread: Are white and black considered colors? This thread was recently created for this purpose.

Any color discussion in this thread as it relates to the official WCA scrambling scheme is fine. I am only referring to the more general discussion regarding black and white being colors, as well as color definitions.

Chris


----------



## Pixel 6 (Nov 17, 2010)

Good read. I knew there had to be a reason... never would have guessed that it was 1 man's preference though! That's crazy awesome.

- Pixel -

(edit... "my father used to make outrageous claims... like he invented the question mark."

- Dr. Evil -


----------

