# Finger trick notation



## mark49152 (Oct 26, 2013)

Is there a notation for describing fingering for algorithms? Like the way sheet piano music is annotated with fingering?

My notes are littered with annotations like "(g-rt-u)" embedded into algs (= regrip right thumb on U). These help me remember fingerings I've seen in videos or worked out myself when studying algs. At the moment though, it seems there's no concise and precise way for cubers to communicate fingerings, only by description or video.

If no such notation exists and anyone else cares, I'd be interested in helping to work one out here, and that's why I created this as a new thread rather than a OAQ.


----------



## MarcelP (Oct 26, 2013)

That is very interesting. When learning new algs I seem to have a problem with finding the best finger tricks. It would be nice if these where described in a uniform way.


----------



## kunparekh18 (Oct 26, 2013)

I thought of posting a fingertrick notation I thought of some time ago, but didn't, here's how I would "describe" fingertricks:

1. Hand - R or L.

2. Finger - 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 for thumb,index,middle,ring and pinky.

3. A or B, A for the front of the finger, B for the back.

4. Sticker - Conventional scheme or your BLD scheme (if you use Speffz, whatever suits you really), example, DFR would be F in my BLD scheme, so I would use F.

5. -Ps or -Pl for Push or Pull. Here, push means any turn away from you, while pull means any turn towards you. For example, a U' with the left hand would be a pull while a U' with the right hand (the way right-handed OHers do it) would be a push, I hope this is clear.

r for regrips (in the middle of an alg).
If you want to describe how you grip the cube while doing an alg instead of how you fingertrick it, you could use the same notation except the Ps or Pl part.

*Examples*:

1. How I would do the last F' of the common T-perm:

R1AF-Ps (here I call F' a "push" as if you would do an x U' (which is F') it would be a push).

2. How I do the first F' of the Jb perm (R U R' F' R U R' U' R' F R2 U' R' U')

R2BF-Ps (kind of like a Japanese U')

3. D's in the E perm (x' R U' R' D R U R D' R U R' D R U' R' D' )

L4BL-Ps (in my BLD lettering scheme LBD is L)

The Ps - Pl can be confusing sometimes, in this case D would usually be called a push and D' would be a pull, but if we go by the "towards-you away-from-you" logic D' would be a push and D would be a pull.


----------



## TDM (Oct 26, 2013)

kunparekh18 said:


> r for regrips (in the middle of an alg).


r could be confused with Rw or slicing on big cubes. I sometimes use . to show regrips, e.g. R' U R' U' R D' R' D . R' y R2 U' R2' Dw R2
I don't think the notation should be included in the alg, unless it's something small that won't make the algorithm difficult to read. Because of this, any 'notation' should be done separate to the alg, so we don't really need a notation as we could just describe it in words, as someone has done here.


----------



## Lucas Garron (Oct 26, 2013)

It would be nice to have a notation that is general enough to describe any algorithm accurately using finger tricks, but no one has made a proposal that clearly stands out as a good convention. (As a good example, the Heise keyboard layout for computer cubing was very well designed and caught on fast).

Make sure to take a look at Gripper.
Also: new thread, recovered source.


----------



## kunparekh18 (Oct 26, 2013)

TDM said:


> r could be confused with Rw or slicing on big cubes. I sometimes use . to show regrips, e.g. R' U R' U' R D' R' D . R' y R2 U' R2' Dw R2
> I don't think the notation should be included in the alg, unless it's something small that won't make the algorithm difficult to read. Because of this, any 'notation' should be done separate to the alg, so we don't really need a notation as we could just describe it in words, as someone has done here.



If that's the problem, rg could be better. I too don't think each and every finger trick should be included with every alg. If someone just asks a question on how to execute a particular alg one could explain using the above notation. 

I agree this notation could make an alg difficult to read. This notation is just for clarification


----------



## mark49152 (Oct 26, 2013)

I was thinking of notation that would be embedded in the alg, to avoid supplementary description while making it absolutely clear how the execution is intended. It should therefore be compact and minimal. It should be easy to read, although would be longer of course. It wouldn't be an essential part of the alg, just an unambiguous and uniform convention as an option for describing an execution of that alg where that's what someone wants to do. For example, on an alg page someone may write "algorithm XXX, suggested execution YYY". The YYY would be the alg with embedded fingering notation, in order to describe the fingering accurately, but the original alg XXX is still the most important information and the reader might choose to execute it differently anyway.

Thanks for the interesting comments so far. I'll see what comes in over the next few days, then try to combine the inputs into a proposal.


----------



## sneaklyfox (Oct 26, 2013)

This would be good, but I can't think of a neat, concise way to do it. If you come up with one, that would be nice.


----------



## kunparekh18 (Oct 26, 2013)

Update the alg.garron applet (RubikPlayer iirc), making it show the fingers on the cube as well?


----------



## cubernya (Oct 26, 2013)

kunparekh18 said:


> Update the alg.garron applet (RubikPlayer iirc), making it show the fingers on the cube as well?


The beta one is Javascript, so it'd be much more difficult to tell it where to put the fingers in a concise manner.


----------



## speedpicker (Oct 26, 2013)

I have spent the last year writing a guide to fingertricking and OLL, in which I devised my own notation system, which proceeds vertically. Here for example is 

Sune:

[Picture of case goes here]

(R U R' U) R U2’ R'

[Description of alg in words goes here]

Initial Grip: F RIU (grip the cube in F grip, that means thumb on F face, fingers opposite, and place the right index finger on U)
R R (R means with whole right hand)
U RI (RI means right index finger) 
R’ R (R means with whole right hand)
U RM (RM means right middle finger) 
R R (R means with whole right hand)
U2’ L IM DF (L IM DF means Left Index Middle finger Double Flick)
R’ R (R means with whole right hand)

Obviously the stuff in brackets is for the benefit of this post. Once you get the general idea it flows very well.

From a learning point of view it is clear precisely how to execute each individual movement as the abbreviations translate into intuitively understandable plain language, and annotations are provided where there are alternatives or an extra level of clarification is required. All algorithms are also described in words for further assistance in learning (things like: "eject front right pair using a standard ejection so the corner is above the front right slot, then the sledgehammer pair into the slot." I find this plain and simple explanation of an alg of tremendous benefit in initially learning the movement).

Progress on the book (its currently at 144 pages) has stalled since I got a new job which has taken up huge amounts of my free time (practice has stalled a bit too, grrr) but I hope to release the whole thing with detailed fingertrick suggestions for each popular OLL alg, including executions from top cubers and all from multiple angles and initial grips. This is in addition to a 35 page essay/guide on executing and selecting fingertricks for algorithms, an in depth discussion of nuanced rotation technique, an entirely new grip is introduced, as is a wholly original (and reaaaallly fast) fingertrick which can be applied to dozens of standard algs. If anyone wants to ask me anything about it, I will be at the British Champs, with a copy to hand. When I finally release it it will be as a kindle compatible ebook and as a PDF, so you can learn on the go with your phone/tablet/laptop/whatever.


----------



## Lchu613 (Oct 26, 2013)

Videos.


----------



## speedpicker (Oct 26, 2013)

The problem with videos is the mucking around trying to nail exactly what the guy did. Bear in mind what is second nature to the expert may take the beginner many passes to thoroughly absorb. Take Breandans OLL video: to be certain of every single subtlety, you have to watch it repeatedly, rewind certain parts again and again, and perhaps take notes during the process for later recall. You may ask "what was that finger doing whilst that move was going on? Exactly how did that regrip happen, I know it did, but when exactly, how did he do that R2 move and remain with his thumb still on the front? Not to mention the added bonus of having the information at your fingertips at any time, rather that having to load a video, go to 2:16, watch 5 seconds of footage and then rewind it. The benefits of having that all notated and written down should be clear. You then only need to refer to the video to clarify a point or to prove to yourself that a thing is possible. In an ideal learning situation, videos should supplement book learning, not the other way around.


----------



## mark49152 (Oct 26, 2013)

Using videos as a way of noting and communicating algorithm fingering makes about as much sense as using videos to note and communicate the algs themselves, IMHO.


----------



## KongShou (Oct 26, 2013)

I have an idea about this once

Why don't we number the fingers 0-9

So starting with the right hand, we have 1 for the thumb, 2 for index, 3 for middle, 4 for ring and 5 for little. This ways seems logical and intuitive. For the left hand we do a similar thing and have 6 for thumb, 7 for index, 8 for middle, 9 for ring and 0 for little. This is done so that we only need one digit. 
We can put this in front of the actual move in the algorithm, e.g. 2U, and move which require two fingers like U2 can have two numbers before it, in order, like 23U2 for the U2 double flick. There is cases where you have to push with your finger, for example I like doing U with my left index finger(7) sometimes. This can be denoted 7-U, using the - for the push. This is also useful for OH i imagine.

Now wrist turns can be written in small r and l, for right and left hand respectively. The inverse can be r' and l' for anticlockwise. An 180 degree turn is of course r2 or l2

We can also note where to put the fingers to start an algorithm, although this require more thought to invent a quick conventional way to note all the stickers. For now i suggest we use the old way of three letters to denote a corner, i.e. DFR or FUR, and two letters to denote an edge.. So my T perm might start with: 

1DR 2UFR 3UR 4UBR (leave blank for 5 as it does not touch the cube) 6FL 7BUL 8BL 9BLD 0DBL

However this way is quite tedious and I'm sure someone else could come up with a better way. 

For a turn we do not need to note the stickers because it is pretty clear where to press on the cube to turn it. However, if you say require the back of a finger to flick a side, then we can easily have 2' for the back of right index finger.

We can also have regrip in the form of a /. We can put either r or l in front of the dash to make it clear which hand it is. We can also have clockwise regrip and and anticlockwise regrip by putting a ' behind the letter. For example: r/ or l'/ There is also of course 180 degree regrip and that can be represented like r2/.

Using this notation my T perm would look like:

rR 2U r/r'R' 7U' r'R' 2F r2R2 7U' r'R' 7U' rR 7-U r'R' 1F'

Please give me some feedback. The only problem I can think of is that it looks confusing. But you can probable get over it. After all, there is only 4 types of notation: numbers for fingers, lower case letters for wrist turns, dash for regrip and - for a push move.


----------



## Lucas Garron (Oct 27, 2013)

theZcuber said:


> The beta one is Javascript, so it'd be much more difficult to tell it where to put the fingers in a concise manner.



Actually, it would be *easier* to modify. I'd totally be interested in such a feature, but it wouldn't be a top priority.



KongShou said:


> Please give me some feedback. The only problem I can think of is that it looks confusing. But you can probable get over it. After all, there is only 4 types of notation: numbers for fingers, lower case letters for wrist turns, dash for regrip and - for a push move.



Not a bad idea. My main concern isn't that it's confusing, it's that it is completely ambiguous. If something like this catches on, it would be really annoying to read and alg and not know immediately what it means. Something compatible with SiGN would be awesome, though. I could probably add it to the parser for http://alg.garron.us/ some day.


----------



## KongShou (Oct 27, 2013)

Lucas Garron said:


> Actually, it would be *easier* to modify. I'd totally be interested in such a feature, but it wouldn't be a top priority.
> 
> 
> 
> Not a bad idea. My main concern isn't that it's confusing, it's that it is completely ambiguous. If something like this catches on, it would be really annoying to read and alg and not know immediately what it means. Something compatible with SiGN would be awesome, though. I could probably add it to the parser for http://alg.garron.us/ some day.



Thanks for the feedback! Im glad that it is useful!

I guess to make it comatable with SiGN you can probably put it in brackets?
So:

R(r) U(2) R'(r/r') U'(7) R'(r') F(2) R2(r2) U'(7) R'(r') U'(7) R(r) U(7-) R'(r') F'(1)

And i agree that it is ambiguous, but there isnt much to learn so i guess you could get used to it quickly?


----------



## elrog (Oct 27, 2013)

kunparekh18 said:


> I thought of posting a fingertrick notation I thought of some time ago, but didn't, here's how I would "describe" fingertricks:
> 
> 1. Hand - R or L.
> 
> ...



This is an ok system, but there's no way to know how to hold the cube. You tell which finger does the pushing, flicking, or pulling, but you don't mention if you are griping the DF and DB edges like in ZZ, the left block like in Roux, or anything else. There really is no better way to get the information than a slowed down video shot from different angles of someone preforming the algorithm very quickly.


----------



## Lucas Garron (Oct 27, 2013)

I would propose the following changes:


Use braces instead of parentheses, to avoid a conflict of notation.
Keep the grip notation _before_ the move (since you need to know how to grip before you do the move).
Consistently use ' instead of -.
Have a letter for each finger. Ideally, I'd like the hands to be treated symmetrically, so the best idea I have is to append the lowercase letter of the hand.
Tr/Tl (Thumb)
Ir/Il (Index finger)
Mr/Ml (Middle finger)
Gr/Gl (rinG finger, to avoid having too many uses for "R")
Pr/Pl (Pinky finger)

Use the notation {#:sticker} to denote the condition that the numbered finger is on the sticker.
Define a standard grip: {1:FR} {2:BUR} {3:BR} {4}BDR {5:X} {6}FL {7}BUL {8}BL {9}BDL {10:X}, or {Tr:FR} {Ir:BUR} {Mr:BR} {Gr}BDR {Pr:X} {Tl}FL {Il}BUL {Ml}BL {Gl}BDL {Pl:X} with my finger suggestions.
Have defaults.
In standard grip, U is {2}U, U' is {2}U, R is {R}R, D' is {4}D', etc.
If {2:UFR}, then F is {2}F.
Standard followthroughs: Ir is followed by Mr (e.g. for U2), Gr is followed by Mr (e.g. for M2')

Use uppercase letters for L/R regrips.
Write regrips as separate moves.
Use / to denote resetting to the standard grip before the regrip
Specify that placing a finger over a sticker moves the existing finger (and doesn't specify where exactly that finger goes).

Implicitly assume that a finger on a sticker on an adjacent slice will be move over for a move, e.g. {4}M = {4:BD} {4}M

T-perm: {/R'} R U R' U' {R} R' F R2 U' R' U' {R'} R U R' {Tr}F'
U-perm: {/} R2' {Gr:FU} r2 U' M' U2' r' R U' {Ir:BR} {Gr}M2'
J-perm: {/R'} R U R' {Il:UFL} R U R' U' {R} R' F R2 U R'
G-perm: {/R'} R U R' y' R2 {Ml}u' {/} R U' R' U R' {Pr}u R2
G-perm: {R} R2' {Ml}u' R U' R {Tl}U R' {Ir}u R2 y' {/L'} L U' L'

I'm sure this isn't perfect, but I think it's relatively practical. Opinions?


----------



## KongShou (Oct 27, 2013)

Lucas Garron said:


> Use braces instead of parentheses, to avoid a conflict of notation.
> Keep the grip notation _before_ the move (since you need to know how to grip before you do the move).
> Consistently use ' instead of -.
> Use the notation {#:sticker} to denote the condition that the numbered finger is on the sticker.
> ...



I agree with all these, in fact, some of these ideas are brilliant.



Lucas Garron said:


> Have a letter for each finger. Ideally, I'd like the hands to be treated symmetrically, so the best idea I have is to append the lowercase letter of the hand.
> Tr/Tl (Thumb)
> Ir/Il (Index finger)
> Mr/Ml (Middle finger)
> ...



These im not sure about. The reason why i used numbers, especially all one digit long, is because i wanted to keep it short. Now i dont know about you, but It takes me much longer to find the right finger using your notation, even through it should supposedly make sense and intuitive. perhaps we can name it 1-5 from thumb to pinky, and have l or r after it. So 1r/1l 2r/2l 3r/3l 4r/4l 5r/5l. I know this contradict my previous statement about keeping it short, but i guess it is better to have it symmetrical. 



Lucas Garron said:


> Define a standard grip: {1:FR} {2:BUR} {3:BR} {4}BDR {5:X} {6}FL {7}BUL {8}BL {9}BDL {10:X}, or {Tr:FR} {Ir:BUR} {Mr:BR} {Gr}BDR {Pr:X} {Tl}FL {Il}BUL {Ml}BL {Gl}BDL {Pl:X} with my finger suggestions.
> Have defaults.
> In standard grip, U is {2}U, U' is {2}U, R is {R}R, D' is {4}D', etc.



I am really against the idea of a standard grip. I think everyone has their own turning style and so the notation should be kept as liberal as possible to allow the individual to develop their own "standard grip". Although this grip is probably common and most people use it, I still think it is a bad idea to standardise turning style. 

However i think the defaults could be developed further. They will save a lot of time and make everything easier. The obvious and intuitive stuff like U is {2}U shouldnt need to be noted down.



Lucas Garron said:


> Standard followthroughs: Ir is followed by Mr (e.g. for U2), Gr is followed by Mr (e.g. for M2')



I would agree with this as default, but for the M'2 doubleflick some people also like using Gr followed by Pr(or 4r 5r). This will then create ambiguity.

Thanks for the feedback and suggestions!


----------



## stoic (Oct 27, 2013)

These do all look rather confusing. (Might just be due to unfamiliarity and then it will flow, but it might also be a barrier to beginners). 
Would it be better to define the alg first in the usual way, then list the fingertrick notation separately (preferably on the line below)? For example, the wiki might list an alg then list a number of popular ways of performing it. 
As different people might have different fingertricks due to their own style, should we be embedding a specific turn style into the base alg itself?


----------



## mark49152 (Oct 27, 2013)

Some great ideas in this thread. Thanks everyone for the enthusiastic response! Here are my thoughts.

I like the idea of embedding the fingering in the alg in braces or brackets. It should still be possible to use parentheses for other things, like triggers, as they are today. In my own notes, I often use parentheses for grouping moves that are done with no regrip.
Some of the notations above do look cryptic and confusing. Compact is good, but since the purpose is explanation, some extra characters can be spent on clarity. It takes about 30 seconds to learn alg notation; it shouldn’t take much more than 30 seconds more to learn fingering notation. Things like letter-to-finger assignments take longer to learn and are less obvious than number-to-finger assignments. Likewise special symbols or special meanings of upper/lower case.
I like the idea that not every move needs fingering info in front of it. Attaching info to every move is the main reason some of the suggestions look cryptic. 
The idea of defaults is good, but I think it should depend on context. Otherwise defaults require learning, and more moves will be non-default and require annotation. Given the current grip, for some moves it’s going to be obvious which finger to use, or it’s not going to matter. The purpose of the annotations is to give guidance when it’s not obvious.
Notation should be focused on capturing basic information. Likewise, some details like gripping particular stickers might generate complexity in the notation that isn’t worthwhile. Once the cuber has got the basic fingering and started practicing, things like precise positioning of fingers on stickers will come naturally. The will no doubt be some creative fingerings that really can’t be fully captured in a notation. That’s OK – videos are best for that.

Of the examples above, Lucas’s are the ones I like best, as they are most recognizable as algs with hints embedded. Here is my suggestion for modifying the notation, by example rather than specification 


T-perm: {grip: [email protected]} R {2R} U R' U' R' {3R} F R2 U' R' {3L} U' R U R' {2R} F'
Jb-perm: {grip: [email protected]} R {2R} U R' {1R} F’ R U R' U' R' {3R} F R2 U’ R'
V-perm: z {grip: [email protected], [email protected]} {4L} D' R2 {4L} D R2 {2R} U R' {4L} D' R U' R {2L} U R' {4L} D R U'
Nb-perm: z {grip: [email protected], [email protected]} U' R {4L} D' {grip: [email protected]} R2' U R' {2,4L} [D U'] R {4L} D' {grip: [email protected]} R2' U R' D

Some OLLs:

{grip: [email protected]} {2R} S R U R' U' R' {3R} F {grip: [email protected]} R {2L} f ' 
{grip: [email protected]} R {2,3L} U2 R2' {3R} F R {2L} F' {2,3R} U2 R' F R {2L} F'
{grip: [email protected], [email protected]} {4L} M {3R} U R U R' U' {3,4L} M2 {3R} U R {2R} U' r'


(The "grip" label might be redundant if it's obvious enough from the @ sign alone.)


----------



## Kirjava (Oct 27, 2013)

Fingertrick notation will never be able to cover every type of fingertrick.

When people think fingertrick notation is usually needed, it tends to be in some alg that uses some non standard or non obvious trick.

For these I find that words are useful for conveying how it is done.


----------



## kunparekh18 (Oct 27, 2013)

elrog said:


> This is an ok system, but there's no way to know how to hold the cube. You tell which finger does the pushing, flicking, or pulling, but you don't mention if you are griping the DF and DB edges like in ZZ, the left block like in Roux, or anything else. There really is no better way to get the information than a slowed down video shot from different angles of someone preforming the algorithm very quickly.



"If you want to describe how you grip the cube while doing an alg instead of how you fingertrick it, you could use the same notation except the Ps or Pl part"

is what I wrote in the original post.


----------



## TDM (Dec 9, 2013)

Bump.
I've come up with my own notation, and this isn't meant to be part of the alg like in some of the previous posts; it's meant to be something separate.
There are two types of turns - turning with your wrist (e.g. R2; L'), and turning with your fingers (e.g. F, U'). I have separate ways of writing these two types of turns that look different, which makes it easier to tell which is which when reading them.
Finger: 0Y
Wrist: rx
0 = the finger number (0-9)
Y = start position of finger (A-X). Letter indicates which sticker the finger starts on using Speffz. For turns of the outer layers this shows the corner sticker, and for slice moves this shows which edge the finger starts on.
r = hand (l/r)
x = face thumb starts on (U/R/F/L/D/B)
. = regrip
, = small regrip (can be done at the same time as a turn/doesn't take much time)
To show you an example, this is how it would look for how I would execute an Rb perm:
R' U2 R U2' R' F R U R' U' R' F' R2 U'
ru 78Q rf 43R, rf 7c rd 7Q rf 4R. rf 6V rr 4R
I know it's quite long and isn't part of the alg, but I like how you can clearly show any type of turn (that I can think of at the moment). I'm sure it would be easy enough to read with practise. Thoughts?


----------



## Torch (Dec 9, 2013)

TDM said:


> Bump.
> I've come up with my own notation, and this isn't meant to be part of the alg like in some of the previous posts; it's meant to be something separate.
> There are two types of turns - turning with your wrist (e.g. R2; L'), and turning with your fingers (e.g. F, U'). I have separate ways of writing these two types of turns that look different, which makes it easier to tell which is which when reading them.
> Finger: 0Y
> ...


R U2 R' U' R U2 L' U R' U' L (J perm)
rd 78Q rf 4R rd 78Q lf, 7Q rf 4R lf

Is this right?


----------



## TDM (Dec 10, 2013)

Torch said:


> R U2 R' U' R U2 L' U R' U' L (J perm)
> rd 78Q rf 4R rd 78Q lf, 7Q rf 4R lf
> 
> Is this right?


I think so.

Something I forgot to mention before; this is not to be used with every alg all the time. It should only ones where the fingertricks may not be easy to understand.


----------



## Dane man (Jun 13, 2014)

*Assumptive Fingertrick Notation*

Today, I’d like to discuss a topic that has been of interest to me for a few years now. We love to share our favorite algs for certain cases of methods, and many of us share the same algs, but use completely different methods of execution. What I would like to see, is something that hasn’t been available to us, and that is the ability to use simple notation to express finger-tricks.

Now, a few methods have been proposed in this thread. But unfortunately, there appears to be nothing practical or standard for expressing finger-tricks. 

Now, why is that? It is because finger-tricks involve many variables, and many of the proposed notations attempt to over-describe certain attributes of a finger-trick (for example which face the finger is on, font/back of finger). And many of them attempt to make a notation for every finger, when most of the time, we use very few (for example, I mostly use my thumbs and pointer fingers). Another thing that is also done is attempting to describe the finger-trick for every move, but this is unnecessary with something like R U R’ U’. There is also the problem of which hand is in use with each trick. With these issues, many finger-trick notations quickly become impractical to learn.

So what could be the solution to all these problems? Something I’ve thought about is the use of assumptive notation, meaning that, using only one piece of data, the rest can be assumed. Example, if I wanted to say that the move U’ is done with the index finger, which index finger would you guess it should be? Where would that index finger push?

Some of us (at least I) would say that the left index finger pushes (or pulls) from the back. But if someone else finds it easier to use the right finger (perhaps depending on the grip at the moment of the movement), they can assume the right one. And this choice might also be dependent on the finger-tricks leading up to that move, or (in rare cases) the finger-tricks following.

This also works with moves that have no notation at all. For example with R U R’ U’ would could put: R (indexFingerNotation)U R’ (indexFingerNotation)U’. From that we can assume that R and R’ are regular turns and that U is done with the right pointer finger, and U’ with the left. We can even assume the correct grip for the first R because of the indicated finger for U (In this case, thumb on bottom, rest on top). Regrips would be assumed the same way, the cuber deciding where he is most comfortable with the movement.

Now, why would this work? Because the point of finger tricks is to make an algorithm easier and faster to execute. By using assumptive notation, one would almost automatically choose the easiest and smoothest way to execute said move based on his or her needs and natural tendencies (what is comfortable). And if the extra information is necessary (example, a finger-trick combo that is strange and unusual, but perhaps faster than what’s comfortable when you’re used to it) then it could be added. But when such is unnecessary, it should be excluded.

Why wouldn't it work? Because the point of finger-trick notation is to be more specific about the execution of an alg, and someone who assumes wrongly might do something that was not intended by the writer of the alg. And if we assume too much, then the reader might not be able to assume certain things that we want them to do without a little extra information like a regrip or certain piece's side on which to push. Now while the need of this information is rare, you'll never know when someone wants to share a very different but perhaps effective method. So what could we do to help that? Add some symbols to the notation, and only use them when needed. Done.


Here is an example notation that can be used to demonstrate what I’m talking about (it is not yet fully developed):


Spoiler: Simple Notation



< = either index finger (> = left index finger if you really need to specify)
^ = thumb
. = pinkie finger (pinkie finger and ring finger are interchangeable)
- = ring finger
* = middle finger

For _2 moves, two notations can go before the movement.


Spoiler: Extra Notation (only when necessary)



: = regrip
/ = use right finger
\ = use left finger
etc. you come up with some others, but only if necessary to avoid confusion.





Let’s apply it to sexy move:
-R <U R’ <U’

Now let’s have a few other simple examples:
R ^U’ R’ <U
<U R <U R’ .U R ^<U2 R’ (assumed regrip after <U)
R -D’ R’ <F
-*M2 <U -*M2 <*U2 -*M2 <U -*M2 (judging by the odd combination of fingers here, we can assume that it’s using certain fingers on one hand, and certain fingers on the other)

How about a few odd ones to show perhaps some weaknesses in this notation, or some new ways that finger-tricks could be done:
R ^B <D’ (This one is odd because look at where you’re hand ends up if you follow it assumptively)
<L’ U’ <L U’ <L’ U2 <L (Try to figure out a smooth way to do that. Hint: Right hand moves up. Here’s the same one using the left index finger notation: >L’ U’ <L U’ >L’ U2 <L)
*d’ (normal) ^d’ (using a thumb) -*d2 (strange but smooth)


These are just a few examples of what could be conveyed through an assumptive notation for finger-tricks.

If something like this could catch on and be implemented, then we could share some of the ways we do certain algs, and compare them to find the best match for us.

What do you all think?


----------



## Lazy Einstein (Jun 13, 2014)

I think it is an awesome idea(only read the notation quickly. Doing a big average. =P)

I don't know how many times I find myself wondering how others execute their finger tricks. Good notation for that may encourage more people to share. I'll read the post fully later and maybe elaborate more.


----------



## GlowingSausage (Jun 13, 2014)

I actually had the exact same idea a few weeks ago


----------



## Kirjava (Jun 13, 2014)

> Fingertrick notation will never be able to cover every type of fingertrick.
> 
> When people think fingertrick notation is usually needed, it tends to be in some alg that uses some non standard or non obvious trick.
> 
> For these I find that words are useful for conveying how it is done.



To add to this, there are dozens of proposed notations now and no one ever adopts them. Ever. This is more an exercise in futility.

People execute things differently to each other naturally anyway.


----------



## Lucas Garron (Jun 13, 2014)

Dane man said:


> < = either index finger (> = left index finger if you really need to specify)
> ^ = thumb
> . = pinkie finger (pinkie finger and ring finger are interchangeable)
> - = ring finger
> * = middle finger?



I think using symbols will not work for this. They are even more arbitrary than standard notation. If you forget which symbol is which finger, there's nothing to clue you in.

(In that other thread, I suggested naming fingers by letter, which is... a start?)




Kirjava said:


> People execute things differently to each other naturally anyway.


It would still be interesting to communicate *how*. An imperfect way could be better than nothing.


----------



## Dane man (Jun 13, 2014)

Kirjava said:


> ...no one ever adopts them. Ever. This is more an exercise in futility.


To quote The Princess Bride, "You're just saying that because no one ever has."

Seriously, though, if Thomas Edison would've given up on the light bulb after his hundredth try saying "Well, no one has ever done it before. I guess it's just useless to try then." We'd all be living by candle light to this day. I refuse to stop trying simply because it hasn't successfully been done before.



Lucas Garron said:


> I think using symbols will not work for this. They are even more arbitrary than standard notation. If you forget which symbol is which finger, there's nothing to clue you in.
> (In that other thread, I suggested naming fingers by letter, which is... a start?)


Well, it was an example notation after all. If a letter notation could be devised in an intuitive way, then I would gladly adopt it. I just wanted to demonstrate the method behind the notation, that instead of using brackets and confusingly over-written jumbles, we use a simple character to express something that needs little more than just that to correctly portray the idea.

I also chose symbols instead of letters to make sure that they wouldn't be confused with the already existing letter-clad notations that go along with our puzzles. And due to the fact that the letter notations need time and practice to be learned and remembered anyway (slices, prime, and lowercase layers in particular), I don't think it would be all that difficult for those at the level of using a finger-trick notation to learn and remember one, especially one that is as simplified as this. Though, yes, a lettered notation would be preferred.

What letters would you suggest, and how could we discern them from the already existing letters, especially if placed side by side?


----------



## DeeDubb (Jun 13, 2014)

Also, one thing is you can use the same finger for the same move in a different way. Like Left index for U from either UFL to UBL or UBL to UBR.

I think you could separate it into finger code and some sort of code for which corner to start on.

Here's my idea off the top of my head.

LEFT HAND (lower case)
i = index
m = middle
r = ring
p = pinky
t = thumb
w = wrist turn (usually not important to talk about)

RIGHT HAND (upper case)
I = index
M = middle
R = ring
P = pinky
T = thumb
W = wrist turn (usually not important to talk about)



Initial corner location would be clockwise from corner to corner (similar to ABCD labeling for BLD) Note: you need to split double moves into separate moves for this (so no U2, R2, etc..)

on U/U'
1 = UBL
2 = UBR
3 = UFR
4 = UFL

on F/F'
1 = UFL
2 = UFR
3 = DFR
4 = DFL

on B/B'
1 = UBR
2 = UBL
3 = DBL
4 = DBR

on D/D'
1 = DFL
2 = DFR
3 = DBR
4 = DBL

M is a bit harder, but still possible

1 = UF
2 = UB
3 = DB
4 = DF

These would be combined, and put in parenthesis after the move notation so "U(i4)" would be a U push with your right index finger starting from UFL (and obviously going to UBL, because that's the direction of the move)


L/R are pretty much always wrist moves, but they can be labeled if necessary.

Another important thing is, it wouldn't be necessary to label every single move with this notation, only moves that might have variation.

Like our J-Perm discussion last week for example.

Some people do :

R U R' F'(i1) R U R' U' R' F R2 U' R'

Other people do:

R U R' F'(T3) R U R' U' R' F R2 U' R'

Or discussing how you do M2, one person who does both with their right hand would say

"I do M'(R2)M'(P2)"

and another who does both with left would say

"I do M'(r2)M'(p2)"

and someone who does a weird left right thing would say

"I do M'(r2)M'(R2)"

You could use < > instead of ( ) if it confuses people. or whatever you want. It seems pretty intuitive this way though.


----------



## CriticalCubing (Jun 13, 2014)

Very great idea. Now people will know how to finger trick algs properly


----------



## ottozing (Jun 13, 2014)

CriticalCubing said:


> Very great idea. Now people will know how to finger trick algs properly



Or you could just... you know... watch a video of someone doing the fingertricks...

I agree with what Kir said.


----------



## Kirjava (Jun 13, 2014)

Lucas Garron said:


> It would still be interesting to communicate *how*. An imperfect way could be better than nothing.



Somewhat. I considered this when posting, but there are better methods for doing this other than notation.



Dane man said:


> To quote The Princess Bride, "You're just saying that because no one ever has."



I appreciate your sentiment but this is clearly an unneeded aspect of notation.


----------



## DeeDubb (Jun 13, 2014)

ottozing said:


> Or you could just... you know... watch a video of someone doing the fingertricks...
> 
> I agree with what Kir said.



Just because video exists doesn't negate the appeal of an efficient orthography to describe finger tricks. If that were the case, we could throw out all notation. Hell, we could throw out the written word completely now that we have YouTube and audiobooks. 




Kirjava said:


> Somewhat. I considered this when posting, but there are better methods for doing this other than notation.



How much easier would your M write up have been if you could use simple notation instead of having to describe each move as "left ring pushes from DB to UB"? There's definitely an appeal to creating notation. I think the hard part isn't coming up with the system, it's getting enough people on board with it, and the attitude that it's tried and failed and is therefore futile doesn't seem acceptable to me.


----------



## Hypocrism (Jun 13, 2014)

I do think a good fingertrick notation is needed. It doesn't need to be used to portray all algs, but only when fingertricking is being discussed.

But it also needs a notation for the initial grip position and grip changes made during the alg. For example some algs (eg starting with RUR'F') I generally start with the thumb on the D face and index/middle/ring on the U face. But others start with those three fingers on the B face, or even the D face (R2F2 starting algs). We could either develop a system for describing the initial position of each finger, or just give each standard grip position a name.

Also, whenever this is brought up people are cynical of it. But I think that's because it's quite easy for experienced cubers to work out their best fingertricks for an alg. It's not so easy for those beginning to fingertrick or at an intermediate level. This would probably be most helpful to that group, and I don't think a fingertrick notation is particularly more difficult to learn than regular notation.


----------



## guysensei1 (Jun 13, 2014)

(Referencing DeeDubb's post)

So, if I flick F' with my index finger,

R U R' F'(I3) R U R' U' R' F R2 U' R' would be used?


----------



## Hypocrism (Jun 13, 2014)

guysensei1 said:


> (Referencing DeeDubb's post)
> 
> So, if I flick F' with my index finger,
> 
> R U R' F'(I3) R U R' U' R' F R2 U' R' would be used?



I3 is a weird way to do the first F'! At least it feels that way for me.
I would also include the notation for how you do the second F move. Mine is:

R U R' F'(I2) R U R' U' R' F(M2) R2 U' R'


----------



## guysensei1 (Jun 13, 2014)

Hypocrism said:


> I3 is a weird way to do the first F'! At least it feels that way for me.
> I would also include the notation for how you do the second F move. Mine is:
> 
> R U R' F'(I2) R U R' U' R' F(M2) R2 U' R'



Heh, I do that because after R U R', my index is in the right place for F'. I use I3 for the T perm, N perm, Y perm, R perm and some OLLs too.

Mine is either M2 or I2 but mostly I2. Heck, I've even accidentally done R2 before because my hand slipped while executing.


----------



## Kirjava (Jun 13, 2014)

DeeDubb said:


> How much easier would your M write up have been if you could use simple notation instead of having to describe each move as "left ring pushes from DB to UB"?



Not very. Replacing things like "ring" with a single character doesn't do much to make things easier when most of the content is explanations /why/ those fingertricks are used.

No notation I have seen would be able to succinctly convey how moves are executed to the same extent as words or video. I think it would be rather imprecise to use things like this. Verbose descriptions are useful in allowing people to 'get it'. Fingertricks have many unique things that any notation will invariably miss. Almost all of the time, fingertricks required for algs are obvious - and when they are not it will usually end up something special that falls outside the reach that your notation can describe.

By all means try to propose yet another arbitrary set of symbols and see if people adopt it though. These are just my experiences and thoughts.


----------



## DeeDubb (Jun 13, 2014)

Kirjava said:


> By all means try to propose yet another arbitrary set of symbols and see if people adopt it though. These are just my experiences and thoughts.



well, I proposed one, and we'll see if people use it. A couple already are in the posts above yours, which is a good start. I was a ling major, so I really get into language and orthography. 

Off Topic: I do respect and study a great deal of your Roux work, so thank you for putting together those resources, they've been extremely helpful.

EDIT: I wonder if someone could program hands moving a cube around, to create 3D digital fingertrick guides, get on it programmers!


----------



## Dane man (Jun 13, 2014)

ottozing said:


> Or you could just... you know... watch a video of someone doing the fingertricks...


Videos are an impractical way to try to share finger-tricks, because it requires that you record and then upload. And searching through videos for a finger-tricks is a hassle.



Kirjava said:


> Somewhat. I considered this when posting, but there are better methods for doing this other than notation.


Unfortunately no, there aren't. If there are, please let us know, but video isn't one of them for the above reasons. Also, wordy descriptions are annoying to write up and even more difficult to read without having to search for your place in the alg.



Kirjava said:


> I appreciate your sentiment but this is clearly an unneeded aspect of notation.


So is regular notation... or any notation at all for that matter, we could just use videos instead.



Kirjava said:


> No notation I have seen would be able to succinctly convey how moves are executed to the same extent as words or video. I think it would be rather imprecise to use things like this. Verbose descriptions are useful in allowing people to 'get it'. Fingertricks have many unique things that any notation will invariably miss. Almost all of the time, fingertricks required for algs are obvious - and when they are not it will usually end up something special that falls outside the reach that your notation can describe.
> 
> By all means try to propose yet another arbitrary set of symbols and see if people adopt it though. These are just my experiences and thoughts.


Understood, but the idea of a notation is to find a way to simply describe these oddities without having to resort to awkward descriptions or uploading something to YouTube. If a notation could be established and standardized in a way that makes sense, then communicating these things would be much easier and would be more likely to get shared. Almost no one shares finger-tricks here on the forums because of the effort required to describe them either in words or video.



Hypocrism said:


> It doesn't need to be used to portray all algs, but only when fingertricking is being discussed.
> 
> But it also needs a notation for the initial grip position and grip changes made during the alg. For example some algs (eg starting with RUR'F') I generally start with the thumb on the D face and index/middle/ring on the U face. But others start with those three fingers on the B face, or even the D face (R2F2 starting algs). We could either develop a system for describing the initial position of each finger, or just give each standard grip position a name.
> 
> Also, whenever this is brought up people are cynical of it. But I think that's because it's quite easy for experienced cubers to work out their best fingertricks for an alg. It's not so easy for those beginning to fingertrick or at an intermediate level. This would probably be most helpful to that group, and I don't think a fingertrick notation is particularly more difficult to learn than regular notation.


True, many use different grips for even the same algs. I believe most people start RUR'F' the way you do (at least I do), but for those moments when a certain grip needs to be described, something like a simple number system might work (1,2,3 for thumb on bottom, front, top. Or perhaps a simple (tD), (tF), (tU)). For the left hand we could use something similar but put (ltD),(ltF),(ltU), etc.

And a finger-trick notation is something that I would have found useful, and still would, to discover new finger-tricks and faster ways to perform certain maneuvers. 



DeeDubb said:


> Here's my idea off the top of my head.
> 
> LEFT HAND (lower case)
> 
> ...


That is a very interesting way to put it. It makes sense too. Unfortunately it's a little odd to try to remember that corner notation, but it would actually work. Unfortunately M and R are already in use as regular notation, but it could work with your bracketed method. I actually like it.

We're making progress.


*So far we've defined the following as part of a full finger-trick notation:*
-Finger in use
-Grip in use
-Corner being used

Anything else? And we can already start deciding on what will define these parts of the notation (I do like DeeDubb's notation for fingers and corners). A few proposals have already been made.

_A simple example of DeeDub's notation mixed with Hypocrism's idea of a grip notation:
{tU} R' U(I2) R' F'(T3)
Jb perm example. {tD} is assumed when no grip is first indicated: 
R U R' F'(T3) R U R' U' {tF} R' F R(R1) R U'(T3) R'
or
R U R' F'(i1) R U R' U' {tF} R' F R2 U'(i1) R'_


----------



## ryanj92 (Jun 13, 2014)

Dane man said:


> Videos are an impractical way to try to share finger-tricks, because it requires that you record and then upload. And searching through videos for a finger-tricks is a hassle.



I have to disagree with you here, I've learnt many fingertricks using videos like this with a minimum amount of hassle in the past. Whether videos are a good way of learning fingertricks is entirely a matter of opinion. Which obviously means I also don't have criticisms for creating fingertrick notation, if it works for you. 
I just don't think there's ever been a calling for it (i've seen two or three similar threads in my time here, none of them took off) because people haven't been massively struggling without it 

here are a few of my suggestions:
- it needs to be concise, as reading/learning a complex notation could become more confusing than a similarly well written text description. (I'd argue it's just as easy to lose your place in a bunch of symbolic notation than it is a paragraph of text)

- define a 'standard' way of performing each move in context (wherever your grip is according to the preceding moves), in order to make the presentation of algs in this notation more concise. For many algs, the parts that require a specific notation are generally no more than a small part of the algorithm, and clarifying every single move would just be unnecessary. For example, if you did the Jb-perm R U R' F' R U R' U' R' F R2 U' R' with an index flick on the first F', then you would notate that part of the algorithm only (perhaps a couple of moves either side so you know how to enter and leave that maneuver). People don't need clarification as to how to do for example the first R, from a standard grip!


----------



## Dane man (Jun 13, 2014)

ryanj92 said:


> I have to disagree with you here, I've learnt many fingertricks using videos like this with a minimum amount of hassle in the past. Whether videos are a good way of learning fingertricks is entirely a matter of opinion. Which obviously means I also don't have criticisms for creating fingertrick notation, if it works for you.
> I just don't think there's ever been a calling for it (i've seen two or three similar threads in my time here, none of them took off) because people haven't been massively struggling without it



I was speaking more about the fact that in order to share finger-tricks, or to have a discussion about finger-tricks, one would have to record a new video and upload it. Something that could be simplified much more if all we had to do was write down an alg with a notation in a forum. I don't think that people _struggle_ so much without a notation as much as they would like to talk about some and learn them without having to go through tons of videos that repeat the same basic tricks over and over, but they can't and don't because of a lack of simple convention.



ryanj92 said:


> here are a few of my suggestions:
> - it needs to be concise, as reading/learning a complex notation could become more confusing than a similarly well written text description. (I'd argue it's just as easy to lose your place in a bunch of symbolic notation than it is a paragraph of text)
> 
> - define a 'standard' way of performing each move in context (wherever your grip is according to the preceding moves), in order to make the presentation of algs in this notation more concise. For many algs, the parts that require a specific notation are generally no more than a small part of the algorithm, and clarifying every single move would just be unnecessary. For example, if you did the Jb-perm R U R' F' R U R' U' R' F R2 U' R' with an index flick on the first F', then you would notate that part of the algorithm only (perhaps a couple of moves either side so you know how to enter and leave that maneuver). People don't need clarification as to how to do for example the first R, from a standard grip!


That does make a lot of sense. This is something that goes along with the idea of an assumptive notation (not requiring notation for every move). I think me and DeeDubb have been using our's that way anyway. Only the part that needs it gets it. And of course, simplicity and ease of understanding is the goal.


----------



## teller (Jun 13, 2014)

I like idea of having a notation like this...but I have yet to see one that is readable. A few thoughts:

- Don't try to compress it too much. Like with the table of numbers above, no one will remember what number goes with what. If you have to spell out a sticker, then spell it out right in the alg. I doesn't have to be super-compact.
- Maybe rather than specifying a sticker, the corner can be assumed, and just a + or - for "push" or "pull."
- My YouTube channel is probably the toughest stress test for such a notation.

I don't know...it's tough. Sometimes I have a thumb on the corner itself, not touching any stickers, but on the "point" of the corner, and the alg won't work any other way. It seems easier to just describe it in English.

Good luck! Many have attempted this and failed...


----------



## DeeDubb (Jun 13, 2014)

teller said:


> I like idea of having a notation like this...but I have yet to see one that is readable. A few thoughts:
> 
> - Don't try to compress it too much. Like with the table of numbers above, no one will remember what number goes with what. If you have to spell out a sticker, then spell it out right in the alg. I doesn't have to be super-compact.
> - Maybe rather than specifying a sticker, the corner can be assumed, and just a + or - for "push" or "pull."
> ...



My notation isn't about what sticker it's touching. It's just to orient you based on which face you are turning. It starts from the upper left corner of the face when you look at it and move around counter clockwise. It doesn't matter which sticker you are on, but which piece. Once people have it memorized, it wouldn't be hard at all to follow. The only other thing I can think of is labeling the 8 corners 1 through 8, however that leave M moves out, because they don't engage a corner.

push and pull wouldn't really work, because there are places were you can push from two different spots, like index push on U from UFL or UBL


----------



## guysensei1 (Jun 13, 2014)

DeeDubb said:


> My notation isn't about what sticker it's touching. It's just to orient you based on which face you are turning. It starts from the upper left corner of the face when you look at it and move around counter clockwise. It doesn't matter which sticker you are on, but which piece. Once people have it memorized, it wouldn't be hard at all to follow. The only other thing I can think of is labeling the 8 corners 1 through 8, however that leave M moves out, because they don't engage a corner.
> 
> push and pull wouldn't really work, because there are places were you can push from two different spots, like index push on U from UFL or UBL


Well, I suggest just having the finger position. I mean, from UBL to do a U, you really can't pull unless you have superglue on your fingers. Same for the rest.


----------



## Dane man (Jun 13, 2014)

teller said:


> I like idea of having a notation like this...but I have yet to see one that is readable. A few thoughts:
> 
> - Don't try to compress it too much. Like with the table of numbers above, no one will remember what number goes with what. If you have to spell out a sticker, then spell it out right in the alg. I doesn't have to be super-compact.


Actually, the 1234 notation he chose is very intuitive and doesn't really need a table, he just gave the table in case applying 1234 clockwise was unclear.



DeeDubb said:


> My notation isn't about what sticker it's touching. It's just to orient you based on which face you are turning. It starts from the upper left corner of the face when you look at it and move around counter clockwise. It doesn't matter which sticker you are on, but which piece. Once people have it memorized, it wouldn't be hard at all to follow. The only other thing I can think of is labeling the 8 corners 1 through 8, however that leave M moves out, because they don't engage a corner.
> 
> push and pull wouldn't really work, because there are places were you can push from two different spots, like index push on U from UFL or UBL


Actually I think that he might have a point, because think about this. When you're using your right hand, then you'll likely only be using the front or back of the right corner on that face, so U(I+) would be the right index finger on the front right corner of U instead of U(I-) which is using the back corner. With M it would be based on the finger (middle, ring and pinkie is down), for example M'(I-) would be right index on the top back edge, and M(r-) would be the left ring on the down back edge.

Though the issue comes when someone has a different kind of alg where a specific edge needs pushed or pulled in an odd way, for example M(I3) could not be expressed correctly using the + and - notation. So the + and - notation, while a good idea for compactness, assumes too much in such situations.


----------



## Kirjava (Jun 13, 2014)

Dane man said:


> Unfortunately no, there aren't. If there are, please let us know, but video isn't one of them for the above reasons. Also, wordy descriptions are annoying to write up and even more difficult to read without having to search for your place in the alg.



No, descriptions that use words are no more annoying than writing anything. I imagine using a notation could actually be more arduous.



Dane man said:


> So is regular notation... or any notation at all for that matter, we could just use videos instead.



Videos would be awful for showcasing algorithms and the text works much better. There's a difference between knowing what you need to do and how you need to do it.

You do realise that the majority of the time fingertrick descriptions are not needed anyway?



Dane man said:


> Understood, but the idea of a notation is to find a way to simply describe these oddities without having to resort to awkward descriptions or uploading something to YouTube. If a notation could be established and standardized in a way that makes sense, then communicating these things would be much easier and would be more likely to get shared.



The point I'm making is that many fingertricks are unorthodox and it will be extremely difficult to find a notation to describe them.



Dane man said:


> Almost no one shares finger-tricks here on the forums because of the effort required to describe them either in words or video.



You're outright lying absurdly here.


----------



## guysensei1 (Jun 13, 2014)

Kirjava said:


> .
> 
> The point I'm making is that many fingertricks are unorthodox and it will be extremely difficult to find a notation to describe them.
> 
> ...




Can you provide a fingertrick that someone uses that can't be described with DeeDubb's notation?


----------



## Dane man (Jun 13, 2014)

Kirjava said:


> You do realize that the majority of the time fingertrick descriptions are not needed anyway?


Nothing is ever _needed_ when it comes to cubing, just wanted or helpful.



Kirjava said:


> The point I'm making is that many fingertricks are unorthodox and it will be extremely difficult to find a notation to describe them.


We've got one here. Take guysenei1's challenge.



Kirjava said:


> You're outright lying absurdly here.


Do you see people sharing finger-tricks on these forums? I don't. I see people talking about their existence, but sharing finger-tricks? Rare. 

And I've wanted to share and ask for finger-tricks for a while now, and I imagine that many others would too if there was an easy way to do so. Now with a notation we can.

Kirjava, you're adding nothing to this thread by going in this direction. Stop with the negativity or, on the next post, I will report you.


----------



## Kirjava (Jun 13, 2014)

guysensei1 said:


> Can you provide a fingertrick that someone uses that can't be described with DeeDubb's notation?



I had some in mind. I'm just about to pop out to a UK comp but I'll do so when I return.



Dane man said:


> Nothing is ever _needed_ when it comes to cubing, just wanted or helpful.



Of course, that's how I was functionally using the word 'needed'. Context will help you avoid semantic pedantry.



Dane man said:


> We've got one here. Take guysenei1's challenge.



Ok.




Dane man said:


> Do you see people sharing finger-tricks on these forums? I don't. I see people talking about their existence, but sharing finger-tricks? Rare.



Yeah, I see people sharing fingertricks on the forums. Their frequency of being posted is only due to their frequency of existence.



Dane man said:


> And I've wanted to share and ask for finger-tricks for a while now, and I imagine that many others would too if there was an easy way to do so. Now with a notation we can.



Go ahead, I'm not stopping you. I'm merely being realistic about their use.



Dane man said:


> Kirjava, you're adding nothing to this thread by going in this direction. Stop with the negativity or, on the next post, I will report you.



hahaha


----------



## uberCuber (Jun 13, 2014)

Dane man said:


> Do you see people sharing finger-tricks on these forums? I don't. I see people talking about their existence, but sharing finger-tricks? Rare.



It's funny because I've asked about certain fingertricks -- and gotten very quick, not-even-slightly tedious text answers -- a couple of times in just the last month or so.


----------



## Dane man (Jun 13, 2014)

uberCuber said:


> It's funny because I've asked about certain fingertricks -- and gotten very quick, not-even-slightly tedious text answers -- a couple of times in just the last month or so.


Oh, really? Cool. Guess I just wasn't there then. 

Learn anything that could help us out?


----------



## uberCuber (Jun 13, 2014)

Dane man said:


> Oh, really? Cool. Guess I just wasn't there then.
> 
> Learn anything that could help us out?



Mm? They were fingertricks for specific algs that I was curious about at the time, not sure how that would help you create some notation.


I don't think it's a good idea to create a notation for this stuff, and here's why:

For a notation to be useful, people need to be able to look at it and immediately translate it in their minds into what it actually means. For people to do this, it needs to be commonly used; the common exposure will quickly burn the notation into their minds, like our notation for moves. Notice that people don't really mix up M/M' except when they are first starting, but I see people being unsure about E vs. E' pretty often. M is used commonly; E is not outside of BLD comms.

Now, I don't see this kind of notation being used commonly enough to have that instant understanding shared by everyone. Most algs wouldn't be written with fingertrick notation at all. I would get rather annoyed if people started using it where it was unnecessary: it would create extra work for me if I want to read the alg or copy it to my own records. The notation would only be used for uncommon/strange fingertrick. Even if the notation itself gets enough usage for people to be used to seeing it, there may be particular symbols that don't get seen too often, leading to confusion when they are used.

Simply put, there is little reason to go through the huge effort to try to spread a new notation throughout the entire cubing community when English sentences work just as well (and in my view, better).


----------



## Dane man (Jun 13, 2014)

uberCuber said:


> For a notation to be useful, people need to be able to look at it and immediately translate it in their minds into what it actually means. For people to do this, it needs to be commonly used; the common exposure will quickly burn the notation into their minds, like our notation for moves. Notice that people don't really mix up M/M' except when they are first starting, but I see people being unsure about E vs. E' pretty often. M is used commonly; E is not outside of BLD comms.
> 
> Now, I don't see this kind of notation being used commonly enough to have that instant understanding shared by everyone. Most algs wouldn't be written with fingertrick notation at all. I would get rather annoyed if people started using it where it was unnecessary: it would create extra work for me if I want to read the alg or copy it to my own records. The notation would only be used for uncommon/strange fingertrick. Even if the notation itself gets enough usage for people to be used to seeing it, there may be particular symbols that don't get seen too often, leading to confusion when they are used.
> 
> Simply put, there is little reason to go through the huge effort to try to spread a new notation throughout the entire cubing community when English sentences work just as well (and in my view, better).


You bring up a very good point. I think the same thing as well, but I still believe that some form of notation could be useful when finger-tricks are the topic of discussion. I've wanted to see more finger-tricks as the topic of discussion, but unfortunately, it's rarely discussed, probably because it's very awkward to try to use English to describe something, though it may be very possible. I'd like to see more threads and questions such as "What are your finger-tricks for PLL?", "What are your favorite finger-tricks? (non-sexy move)", "What do you think is the fastest way to do <alg>?", "Finger-trick comp! Who can make the fastest for <strange alg>?", and other things like that. When I went to look for finger-trick threads, I only found one that is slightly useful, but it only shows videos of really basic finger-tricks, when I wanted some kind of reference about advanced finger-tricks, how to improve finger-tricks, or perhaps how to choose a good alg for finger-tricks. I didn't find any of that, just small question and answer posts in random threads about very specific situations.

I know that finger-tricking is something rarely discussed, but I feel it has potential to really be a well developed tool if people could discuss it easier. That's what I'm looking to do here. If a finger-trick notation is established, then that would open up many possibilities for discussions and resources that otherwise would have been somewhat tiring to try to read and participate in because no one writes about their finger-tricks and algs in a standardized way yet. You could say that I'm over estimating the potential, but for those who feel that anything that gives them an edge counts, it could be just that helpful.

That's all. 

It's not an emergency need, but I feel it's something that could become very useful for many people, whether beginner or expert. While it might take a while to catch on, and perhaps slightly more effort is required to understand it, it would still be useful and efficient.


----------



## sneaklyfox (Jun 13, 2014)

Kirjava said:


> The point I'm making is that many fingertricks are unorthodox and it will be extremely difficult to find a notation to describe them.





guysensei1 said:


> Can you provide a fingertrick that someone uses that can't be described with DeeDubb's notation?



What about this fingertrick used in a G perm?
R2 u' R U' R U R' u R2 B U' B'

For the u move I use the back of my right ring finger on an edge sticker. Does the notation cover that kind of move?


----------



## Dane man (Jun 13, 2014)

sneaklyfox said:


> What about this fingertrick used in a G perm?
> R2 u' R U' R U R' u R2 B U' B'
> 
> For the u move I use the back of my right ring finger on an edge sticker. Does the notation cover that kind of move?


Yes, it does (though I'm not exactly sure which edge you mean). For the front edge:
R2 u' R U' R U R' u(R3) R2 B U' B'
If it's the back edge that you use, then it'd be:
R2 u' R U' R U R' u(R2) R2 B U' B'

Assuming u indicates a double layer turn, then R indicates right ring finger, and 3 (or 2) indicates the 3rd (or 2nd) clockwise corner of the combined u face. Being that you can only push from the edge to cause a double layer turn, you'd be forced to push on the edge to make it work, therefore with double layer turns, the notation will apply to the edge "behind" the corner indicated (if that side was facing you). Another example would be the very common d'(M3).


----------



## Renslay (Jun 13, 2014)

This all reminds me the history of muscal notations - everything was in chaos, and each country and region (or even school) used different symbols before the modern five-line staff notation spread. (And there are still many different notations as well.)


----------



## Dane man (Jun 13, 2014)

Renslay said:


> This all reminds me the history of muscal notations - everything was in chaos, and each country and region (or even school) used different symbols before the modern five-line staff notation spread. (And there are still many different notations as well.)


That happened with cubing notations as well. To this day there are still plenty of people who use d instead of Dw when it comes to the 3x3, even though WCA chose Dw notation. I remember more than ten years ago when people had all kinds of crazy cube notations on the internet. Gladly, one was finally whittled down and standardized, even for bigger cubes.


----------



## XTowncuber (Jun 13, 2014)

http://youtu.be/J_738z7xYeM?t=2m30s

Can you notate this? 

Not saying it's a bad idea, but I don't think this is going to catch on. It's more fun and more practical to just watch a video about it. (you say it's a hassle to record and upload videos about specific fingertricks, but I've done it several times for people. It's not all that bad.) 

On a mostly unrelated note, is there any way to embed a video so that it starts at a specific point? (2:30 in this case)


----------



## mark49152 (Jun 13, 2014)

As the guy who started the earlier thread referenced by the OP, I would really like to see a fingertrick notation and I disagree with those who advocate that text or video is good enough. However, as that thread developed I quickly came to the conclusion that there are two main barriers to it happening and thus we're unlikely to see a standard notation any time soon.

First, too many opinions and ideas but no interested and trusted authority (like WCA) to arbitrate and make decisions. That will always lead to fragmentation and thus failure.

Second, no major user or resource to drive adoption. If confined to occasional use on the forums the notation would either fade out or continue to fragment. 

I did ask Stachu if he would be interested to include fingertrick notations on algdb.net, but he declined. I think it would really need something like that to take off. If each alg posted on algdb.net could be accompanied by fingertrick hints in a specified notation, that would eventually become a defacto standard.


----------



## Dane man (Jun 14, 2014)

mark49152 said:


> First, too many opinions and ideas but no interested and trusted authority (like WCA) to arbitrate and make decisions. That will always lead to fragmentation and thus failure.
> 
> Second, no major user or resource to drive adoption. If confined to occasional use on the forums the notation would either fade out or continue to fragment.
> 
> I did ask Stachu if he would be interested to include fingertrick notations on algdb.net, but he declined. I think it would really need something like that to take off.


This is what I understand to be the problem. Here's the thing, for something to work, there needs to be a consensus among enough people that will use it, so that it'll get used. 

It needs to be organized somewhere (I'm thinking the Speedcubing Wiki, as that is now a popular internet resource for cubers, and it won't disturb other sites). When someone uses it (at least from the beginning) there will likely need to be a link to the page where the notation is posted (put the link in your post? in your sig?). And last but not least, we need to have good threads started on the main forums, just to discuss finger-tricks, and have the notation used (I suggest a challenge thread, or a comparison thread. e.g.: "How do _you_ finger-trick <common alg>?", "Who can make the best finger-trick for <difficult alg>?").

Yes, these are challenges, but not impossible. The lack of a notation is the reason it's difficult to get a notation out there. If we just choose a good one and start using it, that barrier will break, and the notation will begin to be used and recognized, perhaps even modified to suit the needs of the community.



XTowncuber said:


> http://youtu.be/J_738z7xYeM?t=2m30s
> Can you notate this?


Woah, really weird, but okay...
{tB} R2(T3) U(M2) S'(I2) U2(T4) S(I1) U(M1) R2(T1)
...yeah... doable, but really weird. It requires notation on every move. And isn't that bad for your wrist?


----------



## teller (Jun 14, 2014)

Dane man said:


> And isn't that bad for your wrist?



Dude...repetition is bad for your wrist. Novel movements like this are actually quite therapeutic.


----------



## Arkwell (Jun 16, 2014)

Dane man said:


> ~snip~




Good idea but if you go over to Noahaha's '13 Cubers one scramble' and watch all the best cubers solve you'll see each uses different fingertricks for the same alg. Watching 'Example Solves' with different cubers you see the same thing. For me asking better cubers about a specific alg I'm having trouble with worked much better. A lot of times I go to 'Request an Alg' and describe how I do it and they will always help(Thanks Teller & Anton!)and even film themselves which will beat notation any time.


----------



## Dane man (Jun 16, 2014)

Arkwell said:


> Good idea but if you go over to Noahaha's '13 Cubers one scramble' and watch all the best cubers solve you'll see each uses different fingertricks for the same alg. Watching 'Example Solves' with different cubers you see the same thing. For me asking better cubers about a specific alg I'm having trouble with worked much better. A lot of times I go to 'Request an Alg' and describe how I do it and they will always help(Thanks Teller & Anton!)and even film themselves which will beat notation any time.


The fact that all cubers use different finger-tricks is the reason for creating a notation. And as you can see from this thread, many would prefer a notation to descriptions or video because it's faster to read, simpler to produce, and able to be universally understood. 

We're not saying that video or words are bad or don't work, because they do. But we are saying that there is a more efficient way for these things to be expressed for the purposes of conversation and consistency.


----------



## Kirjava (Jun 16, 2014)

Dane man said:


> Take guysenei1's challenge.


----------



## Dane man (Jun 16, 2014)

Kirjava said:


>


Well, I guess it could be but we'd have to make some additions to the grip notation. Yours uses the same grip principle as XTownCuber's, so I guess that because that is also a popular trick grip, we should modify the grip notation. Thanks for showing that.

The normal grip notation currently only expresses the normal positions of the left and right hands. Piece specific gripping would need a few more things to express that. Because DeeDubb's notation doesn't talk about the specific grip involved, it can still express the fingertrick, though it'll be done without the grip expression (This is assuming that white is F):
{Grip notation} (R2'(M2) U2(M2) L2'(M4) B2(M2))*3

So the fault is in the grip notation. And the grip notation needs to be kept from getting overly complicated, while at the same time being specific about which fingers, where, and for how long to hold on (if entire alg, or until the finger-tricks require otherwise, or until the next grip notation). Thanks for pointing that out. 


Anyone have ideas on how we can improve the grip notation? (I've got to head out for a bit. I'll come back with something as well.)


----------



## Kirjava (Jun 16, 2014)

Dane man said:


> {Grip notation} (R2'(M2) U2(M2) L2'(M4) B2(M2))*3



There's no way you'll derive what I did in the video from that string of information. Poor show.



Dane man said:


> Anyone have ideas on how we can improve the grip notation? (I've got to head out for a bit. I'll come back with something as well.)



The fault is the grip notation for now, but extend your notation for this weird exception and I'll just find something else you'll need to account for. This will keep happening, as I explained.


----------



## Dane man (Jun 16, 2014)

Kirjava said:


> There's no way you'll derive what I did in the video from that string of information. Poor show.


Interesting thing about that, if the Grip notation was expressed correctly, then there would be no need for DeeDubb's notation in the alg. It would be {Hold onto _ Pieces with _ fingers} R2' U2 L2' B2. A possibility would be {T-R1, M-R2, t-Fc, m-Bc} R2' U2 L2' B2.



Kirjava said:


> The fault is the grip notation for now, but extend your notation for this weird exception and I'll just find something else you'll need to account for. This will keep happening, as I explained.


There is only so much you can do with the cube and your fingers. If you start using your tongue, then I'll stop.

Everything has it's limits, but that doesn't make it useless.


----------



## mark49152 (Jun 16, 2014)

Kirjava said:


> extend your notation for this weird exception and I'll just find something else you'll need to account for. This will keep happening, as I explained.


I don't think a finger trick notation should account for every weird exception. That would add complexity for minimal extra benefit. Instead it should carry just enough info to provide hints as to how to execute "typical" algs. Videos will always be better for showing weird stuff.


----------



## Dane man (Jun 16, 2014)

mark49152 said:


> I don't think a finger trick notation should account for every weird exception. That would add complexity for minimal extra benefit. Instead it should carry just enough info to provide hints as to how to execute "typical" algs. Videos will always be better for showing weird stuff.


Agreed, hence the desire for an assumptive finger-trick notation, instead of a fully-fledged finger-trick notation. There would be too much to add if we wanted to add everything, especially for the things that... well, basically no one does. But judging by what both XTownCuber and Kirjava have presented, that is something that would be common rather than exception, and so, we make a simple to understand grip notation, and beyond that, be assumptive.


----------



## Lucas Garron (Jun 17, 2014)

I pretty much agree that we shouldn't need to account for Kirjava's execution. I sometimes also do fun stuff that no one should ever need to notate, but for nearly all my solves and algs I use a standard set of fingertricks.
I still think a decent set of tricks should cover most of what every Fridrich solver uses, and possibly work well other methods, too.

I suppose I could be convinced otherwise if someone shows me lots of common algs that many cubers execute weirdly. Unless there are a lot I'm not thinking of, a decent fingertrick notation would still be quite useful.


----------



## goodatthis (Jun 17, 2014)

I guess that this is pretty much a "My PLLs" video in text form.


----------



## Kirjava (Jun 17, 2014)

Lucas Garron said:


> I pretty much agree that we shouldn't need to account for Kirjava's execution. I sometimes also do fun stuff that no one should ever need to notate, but for nearly all my solves and algs I use a standard set of fingertricks



You seem to be unaware of the popular A perm that was executed with a similar fingertrick to that video. This kind of stuff is going to crop up.


----------



## Lucas Garron (Jun 17, 2014)

Kirjava said:


> You seem to be unaware of the popular A perm that was executed with a similar fingertrick to that video. This kind of stuff is going to crop up.



Doesn't immediately come to mind, but I may have seen it. So that's at least one.
(Got a link to a video of someone using it in a speedsolve?)


----------



## blade740 (Jun 17, 2014)

I think a notation that covers MOST (certainly not all) fingertricks is possible, but the more complete you make it, the less precise it will be. 

First of all, define a standardized grip system: I think defining which face each thumb is resting (or which sticker, if you want to be extra precise) is sufficient. The other fingers freely float, though you could define which fingers hold the other side of the cube for completeness. 

I have proposed a system of ordered pairs in which the face each thumb rests on is represented by a number: 0 = D, 1 = F, 2 = U, etc. The reason for using numbers rather than simply the letters is because you can have grips like [1, 3] and [1,-1], in which the right thumb is on different faces, but the wrist is rotated 360 degrees. 



Next you define the X axis moves: R, L, l, r, and x. These moves are all done with the wrists (unless otherwise stated, but we'll get to that later). Wristing these turns results in a change to the grip. For example, starting in [1, 0] grip and performing a wrist R turn, you end up in [1, 1] grip. 

An X on its own stands for a cube rotation with both wrists (e.g., going from a [0, 0] to a [1, 1] grip). To define grip changes, you use the same ordered pair system: a [0, +1] grip shift moves your right wrist clockwise one place (similar to doing an R move). Y and Z rotations get much more difficult to define concisely, so for now I'm going to just leave them alone. In general, a rotation along the same axis as the face where the thumb is is done with a "slide", and one that goes perpendicular to the thumb (for example, a y rotation from [1, 1] grip) needs a regrip of that hand. This certainly doesn't cover all cases but it's close enough for now.

Any moves that are not performed with your wrist are described with the letter of the move, then (within brackets to signify a fingertrick), a letter signifying the finger used (T-I-M-R-P for thumb index middle ring pinky, lower case t-i-m-r-p for left hand), then (optionally) a sticker where the finger begins the move, and (again, optionally), either "pull" or "push".

Thus, starting from a 1,1 grip, the move written:
U[I, BRU, pull] is the simple pull of the right index finger to perform a U. However, if you're performing the move from the sticker opposite the thumb of that hand, you can omit the starting sticker. By "sticker opposite the thumb", I mean the usual resting place for an index finger: BRU for U from [1, 1] grip, UFR for F from [1, 0] grip, etc. This applies for similar moves with the ring/pinky fingers: BRD for D from [1, 1] grip, as well as things like E and S slice turns, I suppose. Similarly, assume most moves are "pull" moves, unless specified otherwise. I think allowing for "optional" notation keeps things more concise for the majority of written algs. 

Note that in my system, a "U2" generally signifies a single move. For the "double trigger" fingertrick, you'd generally write U_ U[M]

As an example, here are two different ways to perform a T-perm:

[1, 1] R U[I, BRU] R' U' R' F R2 U' R' U' R U[I, BRU] R' F'[T, DFR]

[1, 0] R U R' [0, +1] U' R' F R2 U' R' U' [0, -1] R U R' F'[T, DFR]

Anyway, I hope this makes as much sense to you all as it does to me. This system allows you to flexibly describe most fingertricks in use. Granted, kirjava's example doesn't work (although I have a few algs in this modified "column" grip and I think it could be separately defined), and I'm sure there are a million other exceptions, but it mostly works. Let me know if anything needs more explaining._


----------



## Kirjava (Jun 17, 2014)

This grip system is inadequate for describing how I hold the cube when doing slice turns, and this is not just a 'weird exception'.


----------



## Lazy Einstein (Jun 17, 2014)

Kirjava said:


> This grip system is inadequate for describing how I hold the cube when doing slice turns, and this is not just a 'weird exception'.



From what I have read. You are not being constructive at all and at times are being pointlessly condescending. You really should stop posting if you are not going to help him work on making finger trick notation viable. Pointing out problems without offering a solution is just whining. If your point is that no solution exists, well I could obviously point out that just because a solution does not exist yet does not mean that a solution can not be found be working on the problem. Finally, if you are so confident that working on the problem can never yield a solution then I will quote the great Lebowski. “Yeah, well, you know, that's just, like, your opinion, man.” ― The Dude

*Example:*
Fix later. No comp

Expressing yourself and saying why you think finger trick notation will never work is totally fine, once. But this thread is 6 pages in and you seem like you are on a mission to make DaneMan give up on the idea of finger trick notation because you do not like the idea. If finger trick notation is ineffective, it will never work and the thread will die. However, your criticism has reached a point where it is essentially just spam. Please stop adding unnecessary length to this thread so that those who are interested in the potential of finger trick notation may discuss on making it effective.


----------



## Kirjava (Jun 17, 2014)

Lazy Einstein said:


> From what I have read. You are not being constructive at all and at times are being pointlessly condescending. You really should stop posting if you are not going to help him work on making finger trick notation viable. Pointing out problems without offering a solution is just whining. If your point is that no solution exists, well I could obviously point out that just because a solution does not exist yet does not mean that a solution can not be found be working on the problem.



For someone wanting to develop fingertrick notation, my criticism is very constructive as it shows the weak aspects of the notation and points to places where it can be improved. I've stated that I am not trying to stop them make this notation, merely being realistic about it and offering places where I think it will perform poorly. This is useful information for people in this thread to know. I've even stated that people _should_ propose a notation and see if it is adopted.



Lazy Einstein said:


> Finally, if you are so confident that working on the problem can never yield a solution then I will quote the great Lebowski. “Yeah, well, you know, that's just, like, your opinion, man.” ? The Dude



I have already stated in this thread that these are "just my experiences and thoughts" and you don't need to tell me that my opinions are my opinions with some weird pop culture reference.



Lazy Einstein said:


> *Example:*



You have literally just changed what I quoted to be some completely different thing. 

I'd appreciate it if you edited your post to reflect what I actually quoted instead of wildly misrepresenting me.



Lazy Einstein said:


> Expressing yourself and saying why you think finger trick notation will never work is totally fine, once. But this thread is 6 pages in and you seem like you are on a mission to make DaneMan give up on the idea of finger trick notation because you do not like the idea. If finger trick notation is ineffective, it will never work and the thread will die.



I'm just being realistic. I have already recommended that a notation be made if people so desire, I'm just predicting how things will proceed after that so people have a better idea of the climate it is being released in and pointing out issues that may arise. If people are aware of the challenges they will be faced with, they are much better equipped to deal with them.



Lazy Einstein said:


> However, your criticism has reached a point where it is essentially just spam. Please stop adding unnecessary length to this thread so that those who are interested in the potential of finger trick notation may discuss on making it effective.



I believe I am being constructive and adding useful information to the thread. If you have a problem with my conduct the correct thing to do is to report my posts and let a moderator deal with it instead of causing drama.


----------



## JustinJ (Jun 17, 2014)

Lucas Garron said:


> Doesn't immediately come to mind, but I may have seen it. So that's at least one.
> (Got a link to a video of someone using it in a speedsolve?)


----------



## Lazy Einstein (Jun 17, 2014)

Kirjava said:


> Kirjava post



You started off by pointing out what you saw as issues and it seemed great and I can understand why you are criticizing; it is important to do. My concern is that your posts seem to be getting less constructive and less helpful by not offering ideas for solution and are basically reiterating what you stated in previous posts. We get that you think notation can not account for grip among others things. 
Do you have good examples from previous attempts at notation that were ineffective that could help DaneMan to avoid wasting time by independently coming to those same conclusions? 
Did you attempt this yourself previously and were unsuccessful? If so, why didn't it work? 

You have successfully brought to attention the potential problems with finger tricks notation but I'd like to see what points and ideas you have on the potential success of it.


----------



## Kirjava (Jun 17, 2014)

Lazy Einstein said:


> You started off by pointing out what you saw as issues and it seemed great and I can understand why you are criticizing; it is important to do. My concern is that your posts seem to be getting less constructive and less helpful by not offering ideas for solution and are basically reiterating what you stated in previous posts. We get that you think notation can not account for grip among others things.



Pointing out new problems is not reiteration. It is better to point out problems even if I don't have solutions to post.

Would you like us all to pretend that no problems exist instead of facing them and potentially solving them?



Lazy Einstein said:


> Do you have good examples from previous attempts at notation that were ineffective that could help DaneMan to avoid wasting time by independently coming to those same conclusions?



It isn't so much because of the actual notation used, it's that because of the situation it seems like it will just not catch on.



Lazy Einstein said:


> Did you attempt this yourself previously and were unsuccessful? If so, why didn't it work?



I did not because I do not think it would be very useful or see any actual widespread use.



Lazy Einstein said:


> You have successfully brought to attention the potential problems with finger tricks notation but I'd like to see what points and ideas you have on the potential success of it.



I think a better plan of action is to create a guide explaining various basic fingertricks for beginners to bring them up to speed. Other than this I think proceeding as we have done so far is the correct thing to do.

Also, I'll ask again. Can you please remove or modify the fake quote you made because it is misrepresenting me.


----------



## Dane man (Jun 17, 2014)

Kirjava said:


> I've even stated that people should propose a notation and see if it is adopted.


Wait... when? If so, then okay, thanks for the support!



Kirjava said:


> I have already stated in this thread that these are "just my experiences and thoughts"


You only need to say it once, though.



Kirjava said:


> If people are aware of the challenges they will be faced with, they are much better equipped to deal with them.


Simply because I'm enthusiastic about an idea doesn't mean I don't see the challenges. Pointing them out without presenting a possible solution is not helping, but impeding, and would get you fired from any normal job, because as the saying goes, "I want solutions, not problems." I have expressed that I will continue the project to see if we can make one good enough to spread despite the difficulty of propagation. 



Kirjava said:


> I believe I am being constructive and adding useful information to the thread.


Not exactly, but your position as devil's advocate has definitely driven the modification and betterment of the notation so far. So I'm not sure whether to be annoyed or thank you. So... thanks.

But please state opposition only once instead of hammering it in with negative phrases such as "poor show", "You seem to be unaware of the popular A perm", "This grip system is inadequate", "I do not think it would be very useful or see any actual widespread use.", "You're outright lying absurdly", "Context will help you avoid semantic pedantry.", "hahaha", "By all means try to propose yet another arbitrary set of symbols and see if people adopt it", "This is more an exercise in futility.", and " this is clearly an unneeded aspect of notation."

So in using the same logic that you are using with us, I hope that the following criticism will be constructive for you: Almost every post you write here has had a condescending, and negative feel to it, not just by what you are saying, but by the expressions and vocabulary you use. It is extremely negative and gives off the feeling that you are writing them out of spite. So I recommend that if you want to be understood as helpful, then please change your language to be so understood, instead of being repetitively negative, and adding expressive emphasis to critiques so that they almost come off as attacks. 

Are you willing to work on that?


*@Lazy Einstein*
I appreciate your support of the project and your attempt at clarifying things with Kirjava, but I think that we don't need to pursue this topic any farther. We can leave it at that, and let him be. If he ignores us, so be it, but I'm not gonna let it stop us from continuing the project. Thank you.


----------



## Ollie (Jun 17, 2014)

In order for this to work:

1. The notation system seems to be solid, error free and cover every type of algorithm.
2. It also needs to be better than whatever system is in place at the moment. If there is no system currently in place, then you need to show how using your notation system is better than the norm. It may be that you're trying to fix a problem that doesn't exist.
3. It needs to be clear and comprehensible by everyone (or at least most people) or at least be as comprehensible as watching a video of the same fingertrick.

Thom is not being trying to hinder progress, he's being skeptical and applying the scientific method to your idea. Years of cubing experience + vast knowledge of methods = someone who you should try and co-operate with, even if your ideas don't always agree. If you believe you are right you need to demonstrate that your method satisfies the criteria above. The best ideas are still open to criticism.

Keep working on it, but don't ignore criticism.


----------



## Kirjava (Jun 17, 2014)

Dane man said:


> Wait... when? If so, then okay, thanks for the support!



Here



Dane man said:


> You only need to say it once, though.



I did.



Dane man said:


> Simply because I'm enthusiastic about an idea doesn't mean I don't see the challenges. Pointing them out without presenting a possible solution is not helping, but impeding, and would get you fired from any normal job, because as the saying goes, "I want solutions, not problems." I have expressed that I will continue the project to see if we can make one good enough to spread despite the difficulty of propagation.



Pointing out places where improvement needs to be made is helping. Stop lying to yourself to try and make a point.



Dane man said:


> Not exactly, but your position as devil's advocate has definitely driven the modification and betterment of the notation so far. So I'm not sure whether to be annoyed or thank you. So... thanks.



I'm not playing devil's advocate. This is what I truly believe.



Dane man said:


> But please state opposition only once instead of hammering it in with negative phrases such as "poor show", "You seem to be unaware of the popular A perm", "This grip system is inadequate", "I do not think it would be very useful or see any actual widespread use.", "You're outright lying absurdly", "Context will help you avoid semantic pedantry.", "hahaha", "By all means try to propose yet another arbitrary set of symbols and see if people adopt it", "This is more an exercise in futility.", and " this is clearly an unneeded aspect of notation."



Most of those things are separate concepts pertaining to different things, I'm not really duplicating.

You however, are doing the very thing you complain about when you keep telling me to stop posting things. You already told me you don't like hearing my criticism.



Dane man said:


> So in using the same logic that you are using with us, I hope that the following criticism will be constructive for you: Almost every post you write here has had a condescending, and negative feel to it, not just by what you are saying, but by the expressions and vocabulary you use. It is extremely negative and gives off the feeling that you are writing them out of spite. So I recommend that if you want to be understood as helpful, then please change your language to be so understood, instead of being repetitively negative, and adding expressive emphasis to critiques so that they almost come off as attacks.



I think it's more of a problem that you're taking my evaluation as an attack instead of dealing with the points I make.


----------



## Lucas Garron (Jun 17, 2014)

Ollie said:


> In order for this to work:
> 
> 1. The notation system seems to be solid, error free and cover every type of algorithm.
> 2. It also needs to be better than whatever system is in place at the moment. If there is no system currently in place, then you need to show how using your notation system is better than the norm. It may be that you're trying to fix a problem that doesn't exist.
> ...



I think the people who are pursuing this idea:

Reject 1.
2. Believe that having a way to communicate fingertricks without videos is valuable enough.
Are definitely aiming for 3.

Kirjava has a lot of experience, but he's far from the average cuber. As I've stated before, even if this works for only for (most of the algs of) a vanilla Fridrich cuber I think that could be quite good.

I think there's sufficient awareness of the issues now, and it's more valuable to focus on trying to see if a system can meet the criteria.


----------



## Kirjava (Jun 17, 2014)

Lucas Garron said:


> 2. Believe that having a way to communicate fingertricks without videos is valuable enough.



This already essentially exists.



Lucas Garron said:


> As I've stated before, even if this works for only for (most of the algs of) a vanilla Fridrich cuber I think that could be quite good.



Possibly. Since anyone learning this notation will have to learn what fingertricks are mapped to glyphs anyway, I do wonder if it wouldn't be better to just produce a tutorial for common fingertricks and move sequences they appear in or help with along with some examples. I would've though this would produce cubers with a stronger ability to improvise trick combos on their own.


----------



## Lucas Garron (Jun 17, 2014)

Kirjava said:


> Possibly. Since anyone learning this notation will have to learn what fingertricks are mapped to glyphs anyway, I do wonder if it wouldn't be better to just produce a tutorial for common fingertricks and move sequences they appear in or help with along with some examples. I would've though this would produce cubers with a stronger ability to improvise trick combos on their own.



Although it would be useful for F2L, I think it would be more valuable for someone like me to learn how the really fast cubers do OLLs/PLLs. I used to have some suboptimal habits and probably still do. Oftentimes I was familiar with the right fingertricks but it didn't occur to me to do them that way.

Also, CLS.


----------



## Dane man (Jun 17, 2014)

Kirjava said:


> I would've though this would produce cubers with a stronger ability to improvise trick combos on their own.


This is actually a good idea. I encourage working to find one's own finger-tricks. And I believe if we can share our finger-tricks with each other to show the possibilities, then these improvisations could become more creative and more effective.



Kirjava said:


> Here


I still can't see where you're saying we should do this. It looks more like you're blowing it off and discouraging it in that post. Try to look at how you come across with that wording and see if you can improve. Perhaps change "_By all means_ try to propose _yet another_ _arbitrary_ set of symbols..." to "Though, I believe you should keep trying in case it works. If it does, that's great.". See? Much better.



Ollie said:


> 1. The notation system seems to be solid, error free and cover every type of algorithm.
> 2. It also needs to be better than whatever system is in place at the moment. If there is no system currently in place, then you need to show how using your notation system is better than the norm. It may be that you're trying to fix a problem that doesn't exist.
> 3. It needs to be clear and comprehensible by everyone (or at least most people) or at least be as comprehensible as watching a video of the same fingertrick..



1- Not really. It doesn't need to include every crazy weird thing that some people do, just enough to be useful.
2- Looking to see if we can do that.
3- Most certainly, though, just as with regular cube notation, it will need to be performed to fully comprehend how it works.


----------



## Kirjava (Jun 17, 2014)

Dane man said:


> This is actually a good idea. I encourage working to find one's own finger-tricks. And I believe if we can share our finger-tricks with each other to show the possibilities, then these improvisations could become more creative and more effective.



The point I was making was a worry that enforcing certain fingertricks for certain algs will potentially hamper innovation and creative ability.



Dane man said:


> I still can't see where you're saying we should do this. It looks more like you're blowing it off and discouraging it in that post. Try to look at how you come across with that wording and see if you can improve. Perhaps change "_By all means_ try to propose _yet another_ _arbitrary_ set of symbols..." to "Though, I believe you should keep trying in case it works. If it does, that's great.". See? Much better.



I don't think you should keep trying, but you can try and see if it works if you want to. If it does I will be surprised. You just need to learn to interpret what I'm saying.



Lucas Garron said:


> Although it would be useful for F2L, I think it would be more valuable for someone like me to learn how the really fast cubers do OLLs/PLLs.



I thought this information was already available?


----------



## Dane man (Jun 17, 2014)

Kirjava said:


> The point I was making was a worry that enforcing certain fingertricks for certain algs will potentially hamper innovation and creative ability.


Well, I agree with you. It shouldn't be used to enforce certain finger-tricks on certain algs. It's for for showing what kind of finger-tricks can be done. The goal is that a notation will encourage growth of finger-tricking techniques, not limit it to certain patterns. That's part of the reason I want it to be mostly assumptive, because it leaves a lot up to the cuber's creativity.



Kirjava said:


> You just need to learn to interpret what I'm saying.


I guess I will. I'm sorry if I misunderstood what you were saying.


----------



## Kirjava (Jun 17, 2014)

Dane man said:


> Well, it doesn't actually need to be enforced. It's just for showing what kind of finger-tricks can be done. The goal is that a notation will encourage growth of finger-tricking techniques, not limit it to certain patterns. That's part of the reason I want it to be mostly assumptive, because it leaves a lot up to the cuber's creativity.



I'm saying that you need to allow the opportunity for the learner to practise putting fingertricks to an alg without guidance at some point, otherwise that skill won't be as developed when he comes to algs without them. Unsure if this is a major issue, but is something to consider. Certainly worth documenting it and notifying the user.

This pertains solely to the scenario you now wish to deploy this endeavour in.


----------



## Dane man (Jun 17, 2014)

Kirjava said:


> I'm saying that you need to allow the opportunity for the learner to practise putting fingertricks to an alg without guidance at some point, otherwise that skill won't be as developed when he comes to algs without them. Unsure if this is a major issue, but is something to consider. Certainly worth documenting it and notifying the user.


Ah, that makes sense. It'd be basically like what happens when people learn to solve the cube from others with algs first, instead of trying to figure it out on their own to understand how to inuit solutions. When they come to intuitive F2L, they don't know what to do without an alg. That kinda what you're saying?


----------



## Kirjava (Jun 17, 2014)

Kind of.


----------



## teller (Jun 18, 2014)

Kirjava said:


> I'm saying that you need to allow the opportunity for the learner to practise putting fingertricks to an alg without guidance at some point, otherwise that skill won't be as developed when he comes to algs without them. Unsure if this is a major issue, but is something to consider. Certainly worth documenting it and notifying the user.
> 
> This pertains solely to the scenario you now wish to deploy this endeavour in.


I hear this. I don't ask for help for grips when I see an alg, I figure it out what works.

But sometimes somebody has something that really works well and I can't figure out what they're doing, even from video...that sort of bugs me. It's usually a G-Perm.


----------



## mark49152 (Jun 18, 2014)

Kirjava said:


> I'm saying that you need to allow the opportunity for the learner to practise putting fingertricks to an alg without guidance at some point, otherwise that skill won't be as developed when he comes to algs without them. Unsure if this is a major issue, but is something to consider. Certainly worth documenting it and notifying the user.
> 
> This pertains solely to the scenario you now wish to deploy this endeavour in.


That's the weakest argument yet against a finger trick notation. Although it would be nice to think this is about encouraging finger trick development, the specific objective of a notation is simply to enable easier communication of alg fingering, whenever and for whatever purpose the user wants. If I want to show someone how I execute my Ga perm, I will, whether there's a convenient notation or not.

Also, it's worth noting that alg notation already contains execution hints such as R2', rotations and wide turns. When an alg is written down such that it rotates to do some moves on R,U rather than F,U, that is an execution hint, and including some alternative hint that shows how to execute nicely on F,U instead would be no less valid or useful.


----------



## Kirjava (Jun 18, 2014)

mark49152 said:


> That's the weakest argument yet against a finger trick notation.



You're implying that my 'arguments are getting weaker', when this was something I suggested taking into consideration _when proceeding with using a fingertrick notation_.

Please learn how to interpret what I'm saying.


----------



## mark49152 (Jun 18, 2014)

Kirjava said:


> You're implying that my 'arguments are getting weaker', when this was something I suggested taking into consideration _when proceeding with using a fingertrick notation_.
> 
> Please learn how to interpret what I'm saying.


What did you mean by "without guidance" then?


----------



## Kirjava (Jun 18, 2014)

mark49152 said:


> What did you mean by "without guidance" then?



Please also note 'at some point' appended to that sentence. This means that 'without guidance' does not happen all the time.


----------



## Dane man (Jun 19, 2014)

So far, we've got DeeDubb's notation for the basic flick-tricks.

After a little thinking, I was able to come up with the following notation for grips.

=============================
Grip notation proposal:

Fingers will be labelled the same (upper-case = right, lower = left).
All grip notations are written in curly brackets {...} and only when necessary to define a non-standard or non-intuitive grip.

For basic grips:
TF - Right thumb on front, rest on back.
TU - Right thumb on up, rest on down.
TD - Right thumb on down, rest on up.
TB - Right thumb on back, rest on front (How the wrist is twisted depends on the direction of the following move)
TR, TL - You get the idea...

For basic groups with left hand:
tF, tU, tD, tB, tR, tL (same as right hand)

Piece specific grips are separated by a dash. For consistency, corners use DeeDubb's number method for defining corners. The finger will grip on the side of the corner defined (e.g.: T-R1 means that the right thumb is either on the top or front face of the 1 corner of the R side, depending on the rest of the grip and on moves). 

Edges are defined by the face letters (ex: M-BR, t-FL, t-FD, etc...). 

Center pieces are defined simply by the face letter (T-F is different than TF. TF is a basic grip, meaning it doesn't matter which piece is held. But T-F means the right thumb must be on the center piece).

The grip defined on specific pieces is maintained until a regrip is defined, or a move/trick requires that it be broken. (ex: {M-UR} R U(M2). This means that the defined grip is broken to perform U.)

Where grip is not defined, a normal grip is assumed (As the cuber feels works for the algorithm).
==============================

Additionally, double moves may be defined with prime to define direction (ex: F2') 

Demonstrations of complex finger-tricks:
Kirjava's finger-trick: {t-F, m-B, T-R1, M-R2} (R2' D2 L2' U2)*3 
XTownCuber's finger-trick: {M-R4, T-R3} R2 U S'(I2) U2' S(I1) U R2
A random finger-trick: {M-UL, T-UR} S2 D2 S2' {TD} R U R' U' D2(TD2, rD4)

============================

Now, this is to complete the notation. Beyond this, there will be no additions to the notation in order to keep it simple enough to learn and read. If there is something that this notation absolutely cannot explain, then word descriptions can be added where necessary, be it within the brackets of the grips or tricks, or outside the algorithm. (ex: M'(Use fingernail of right thumb to push back on the inside edge of UB)). And even though there will continue to be exceptions, the notation in it's current state covers most finger-tricks that are used for speedcubing in general, because, for speed cubing, especially at high speeds, overly complex finger-tricks that require lots of notation will usually be unnecessary and/or unfeasible for speedcubing purposes. And so the descriptions of the finger-tricks will usually be simple.

This is my proposal for a "completed" finger-trick notation. What do you think?


----------



## Arkwell (Jun 19, 2014)

Actually it will be nice to see 'Fingertrick' reconstructions along with the regular 'reconstructions'.


----------



## Dane man (Jun 20, 2014)

Arkwell said:


> Actually it will be nice to see 'Fingertrick' reconstructions along with the regular 'reconstructions'.


They would have to keep the finger trick notation separate though for those who just want the algs.


----------



## NE1 (Jan 13, 2019)

Wow no posts since 2014, I think it's pretty obvious that I didn't stumble on this thread by accident. It bothered me that every new cuber has to figure out their own finger tricks for algorithms so I wanted to create a finger trick notation that was easy to use. I read through this thread and liked what was posted but the fingertrick notation still seemed difficult to read for me personally, so I came up with some ideas that worked for me. I don't really post on the forum so sorry if this is the wrong place to put this.

*1. Which hand to use*

Notation:
RH | LH
U2 | 2U
U` | `U

As you can see, if you want to perform 2 turns of the U face with your left hand put the 2 on the left side of the U turn notation. If you want to perform a counterclockwise turn of the U face with your left hand put the ` on the left side of the U turn notation.


*2. Which finger to use*

0 = Thumb
1 = Index finger
2 = Middle finger
3 = Ring finger
4 = Pinky finger

RH | LH
U1 or U | 1U
U`1 or U` | 1`U or `U
D3 or D | 3D 
D`3 or D` | 3`D or `D


Since which hand is determined by the side that it is on, you can use the same numbers for each hand's fingers. You don't have to include the finger notation for the right hand if the U face is turned by the 1 or if the D face is turned by the 3. However, you have to include it for the left hand clockwise turns, otherwise there would be no way to denote that the turn uses the left hand.


*3. Grip notation*

This is pretty much the same idea as the grip notation proposed before but I think using [] looks better for regrips. So there are 4 grips for the right hand:
[H] = horizontal grip, thumb on F face and rest of fingers on B face
[V] = vertical grip, thumb on D face and rest of fingers on U face
[H`] = reverse vertical grip, thumb on B face and rest of fingers on F face
[V`] = reverse vertical grip, thumb on U face and rest of fingers on D face

An algorithm with one regrip would look like this: [V] (first part of algorithm) [H] (rest of algorithm)


*4. Misc.*
I didn't discuss R turns or L turns because those aren't turned with fingers and should be covered with the regrips.

+ can be used to indicate that you can perform these two turns at the same time such as `U+3D

I haven't figured out a way to denote which sticker the finger should use to make the turn without making the notation excessively difficult to read but I'm sure there is a way to do it if necessary.

Here are a couple algorithms that I put into fingertrick notation:
T-Perm: [H] R 1U R` `U R` F1 R2 `U R` `U R 1U R` F`0

Y-Perm: [H] 0F R `U R` `U R 1U R` F`0 R U0 R` `U R` F1 R F`0

V-Perm: [V] R [V] `U R U R` 3D R D3 R `U+3D R2 1U R2 D`1 R2


----------

