# Standard Lettering Scheme for Reference



## riffz (Nov 18, 2010)

> <Riffz> I hate talking about cycles in terms of 3 letters per piece
> <Riffz> I'd actually rather we chose a simple standard lettering scheme just for discussion lol
> <Riffz> I'd still find it easier to think about
> <Spef> zomg
> <Spef> we should




For me personally, I hate talking discussing BLD algs by typing things like ULB->FRD->LDB. It's time consuming and I often read them wrong. When posting the occasional alg, this notation is consistent and good to use, but when you're sending algs back and forth on IRC or posting a large amount of them, it's extremely annoying IMO.

Spef and I propose the following lettering scheme for cube pieces just for the sake of making discussion easier:

For any piece, start on the U face at the back left corner (for corners and x-centers) or at the back (for edges and +-centers) and work your way clockwise around that face, giving each piece a letter.

Then move to the F face and repeat, followed by the L, B, R, and D faces. The first piece on D would be DLF for corners, DF for edges.

So for corners we would have:

ULB = A
UBR = B
URF = C
UFL = D

FLU = E
FUR = F
FRD = G
FDL = H

and so on.

For edges:

UB = A
UR = B
UF = C
UL = D

FU = E
FR = F
FD = G
FL = H


And...



> <Spef> just **** wings


----------



## Cyrus C. (Nov 18, 2010)

How about edges are noted with numbers, so you can tell a difference. Or at least edges are I and on.


----------



## maggot (Nov 18, 2010)

its easy once read... may be a pain to type, but even more a pain when you have to decode. i guess if you're having a long BLD discussion, like you were just having. . .

edit: perhaps anyone within discussion could have a simple printout or a webpage that would mark stickers with the letternames to refer to? 

for example, post a picture of a cube and then on the sticker place your letters. . .


----------



## Forte (Nov 18, 2010)

awesome! now i have a memo system for corners lol


----------



## Cyrus C. (Nov 18, 2010)

maggot said:


> its easy once read... may be a pain to type, but even more a pain when you have to decode. i guess if you're having a long BLD discussion, like you were just having. . .


 
It'll probably be like normal notation. Once you get used to it, you'll skip the decoding step and think in terms of A-H.


----------



## riffz (Nov 18, 2010)

maggot said:


> its easy once read... may be a pain to type, but even more a pain when you have to decode. i guess if you're having a long BLD discussion, like you were just having. . .


 
I don't think it would take very long to skip the decoding step and just think of the stickers as letters.

Cyrus: The corners/x-centers don't end at I... There's 24 of each piece. It's usually pretty clear due to context / use of slice moves what type of pieces you're referring to in discussion anyway.


----------



## cmhardw (Nov 18, 2010)

> <Spef> just **** wings



I don't get it... Your definition fits perfectly with wings, why would you leave them unlettered? If you start at the same corner, and work clockwise lettering the wings in the same way, you letter all the wings.

So:
UBl = A
URb = B
UFr = C
ULf = D

FUl = E
FRu = F
FDr = G
FLd = H

RUf = I
RBu = J
RDb = K
RFd = L

BUr = M
BLu = N
BDl = O
BRd = P

LUb = Q
LFu = R
LDf = S
LBd = T

DBr = U
DLb = V
DFl = W
DRf = X

Everything follows the same scheme, always starting at the upper left corner when looking at a face. Just remember that DBR is considered the upper left corner when looking at D.

I like the overall idea of a lettering scheme, but for this to work this *has* to go into the Wiki.

Chris


----------



## riffz (Nov 18, 2010)

Chris, that's exactly what I was thinking, but I thought it was still a little less clear than for edges/corners/centers, so I left it out. Thanks for explaining so I didn't have to.

I'll look at adding it into the wiki, but I'd like to see some more feedback to determine whether people would actually bother using this or not.


----------



## aronpm (Nov 18, 2010)

cmhardw said:


> UBl = A


 
I'd do it the other way; UBr = A. I think it makes more sense to "go counterclockwise".


----------



## riffz (Nov 18, 2010)

aronpm said:


> I'd do it the other way; UBr = A. I think it makes more sense to "go counterclockwise".


 
But UBl is closer to ULB! (We disagreed about this on IRC before I posted this thread.)


----------



## aronpm (Nov 18, 2010)

Nevermind, I was confused by UB=A

I would do it like this, actually:






In my opinion it's easier to pick a direction, (clockwise), and those all go clockwise around that corner.

EDIT: The advantage of this way is that each piece is named similarly. A, in this scheme, would be ULB (corner), UL (edge), ULb (wing), Ulb (x center), Ul (+ center).

With what Riffz and Chris are saying, A would be ULB, UB, UBl, and probably Ulb and Ub. However if you switch to notating pieces counterclockwise then you get UBL, UB, UBl, Ubl, Ub, which is the _exact_ same; the only difference is that I go clockwise for consistency. If you're going clockwise around the face to label letters doesn't it make sense to go clockwise for everything else?


----------



## Mike Hughey (Nov 18, 2010)

At first, I thought it matched my lettering scheme exactly, then I saw you do the faces in a different order. (I do U F R B L D.) Oh, well.  It's still fairly close to my lettering scheme.

On the visual, did you get the G and H corners mixed up?


----------



## cmhardw (Nov 18, 2010)

I think whatever scheme we use should be *exactly* the same idea for all piece types. I can promise that I will put *absolutely no* effort into learning a new scheme. If there is one simple rule that I can follow to derive the standard lettering scheme then I will do that, and use it in all my posts referring to BLD cycles. I have switched my personal lettering so many times that I absolutely refuse to learn a new one at this point, even if it is a standard one.

This concept needs to be simple, and easy to implement, or I don't think it will be worth doing. Remember this method is not to be used *for solving*. It is to be used for *writing* down cycles on the forum.


----------



## riffz (Nov 18, 2010)

Mike Hughey said:


> At first, I thought it matched my lettering scheme exactly, then I saw you do the faces in a different order. (I do U F R B L D.) Oh, well. It's still fairly close to my lettering scheme.
> 
> On the visual, did you get the G and H corners mixed up?


 
Yes, I did. I just removed it for now because I don't have time to fix it lol. And yea, UFRBLD was a consideration, but I think the proposed order fits the whole theme of everything being ordered in a clockwise direction. (I know this might be confusing for you, since it's the same on every face other than L/R.)


----------



## Mike Hughey (Nov 18, 2010)

Aron's approach makes sense, but we should go ahead and define it for obliques in bigger cubes too. Might as well have a complete system for all cubes.


----------



## riffz (Nov 18, 2010)

cmhardw said:


> I think whatever scheme we use should be *exactly* the same idea for all piece types. I can promise that I will put *absolutely no* effort into learning a new scheme. If there is one simple rule that I can follow to derive the standard lettering scheme then I will do that, and use it in all my posts referring to BLD cycles. I have switched my personal lettering so many times that I absolutely refuse to learn a new one at this point, even if it is a standard one.
> 
> This concept needs to be simple, and easy to implement, or I don't think it will be worth doing. Remember this method is not to be used *for solving*. It is to be used for *writing* down cycles on the forum.


 
Exactly my thought process, which is why I don't like Aron's suggestion.

EDIT: Mike: I knew you'd want to extend it to >5x5 centers! 

I'm going to stop spamming the refresh button for now but I'll check this thread again before I go to bed.


----------



## cmhardw (Nov 18, 2010)

I agree that this should work for obliques, by the way. If we're going to make a scheme like this, let's do it well right from the start.

How about the scheme that has already been posted on the first page? Basically start at the upper left and work clockwise around?

We could do the same with obliques. Would we start with the letter A, on 6x6, as U(2l)(3b), and U(3l)(2b) which would be A for each oblique orbit?


----------



## aronpm (Nov 18, 2010)

How doesn't my suggestion label each piece the same? I picked a standard direction and applied it.

This is how I would apply it to 7x7: 





The purple centers are something else to discuss; "Ublw" (the one on the left) or "Ulb". The latter is kind of ugly because it flips from the standard, but it's also closer to that corner.


----------



## cmhardw (Nov 18, 2010)

aronpm said:


> How doesn't my suggestion label each piece the same? I picked a standard direction and applied it.



It seems to work fine. So we pick this wedge shaped block around the UBL corner and label everything A (in each different orbit). Then we work clockwise around the face through D as if you're looking directly at that face. Moving then to the F face do the same, then R face, then B face, then L face, then D face. The basis corner for D is the DBR corner when viewed after a z2 cube rotation.

Any objections to this? Going once? Going twice?

I don't really care how close or not close this is to my actual lettering scheme. To be perfectly honest this is incredibly different from my personal lettering scheme. However, the simple rule or process stated above can allow someone to not memorize this scheme, but derive it every time when writing out cycles on the forum.

I think it's a great idea, are we agreed? Or does anyone have any objection?

Chris


----------



## Mike Hughey (Nov 18, 2010)

I think it's fine, too. (My lettering scheme is closer to the one on the first page, but honestly, Aron's seems more consistent.)

But Chris, you didn't answer the question about the purple ones. I prefer the one on the right because then every piece on any sized cube sort of fits in the same "quadrant".


----------



## riffz (Nov 18, 2010)

Aron: Okay, I understand what you were saying now. It makes sense.

Chris: You said the order of faces would be UFRBLD, which is not the same as the scheme Spef and I proposed, although I like your's more personally. The reason we chose UFLBRD as the face order was because it preserved the idea that everything was clockwise, including how we worked our way around the side faces, although I think most people use the order you mentioned when labelling their centers (Spef actually uses the one I proposed.)

Also, it's the same for me, Chris. My actual lettering scheme is nothing like the one I proposed.

EDIT: I would have proposed that the first corner on the D face is DLB, since it's in a consistent position after an *x2*

EDIT2: Mike, I agree that the one on the right is better.


----------



## Mike Hughey (Nov 18, 2010)

Actually, you could say the order UFRBLD is also clockwise. It just depends on which way you look at the cube - if you look at it from below, this is clockwise.

It reminds me of one of those things that drives me crazy - when someone says: "Go to the end of the hall, and turn clockwise." Which direction do I turn? Am I supposed to turn clockwise as figured from looking down on my head, or from looking up at my feet?


----------



## cmhardw (Nov 18, 2010)

Mike Hughey said:


> I think it's fine, too. (My lettering scheme is closer to the one on the first page, but honestly, Aron's seems more consistent.)



Agreed that aron's method is a great way to handle this as a standard scheme that does not really infringe on anyone's method. It's simple to define and re-derive on the spot, and that's all we need.



> But Chris, you didn't answer the question about the purple ones. I prefer the one on the right because then every piece on any sized cube sort of fits in the same "quadrant".



I'd say the one on the right. Like Aron said let's just do everything clockwise for consistency.



riffz said:


> Chris: You said the order of faces would be UFRBLD, which is not the same as the scheme Spef and I proposed, although I like your's more personally. The reason we chose UFLBRD as the face order was because it preserved the idea that everything was clockwise, including how we worked our way around the side faces, although I think most people use the order you mentioned when labelling their centers (Spef actually uses the one I proposed.)



Yes sorry, personal scheme is bleeding through. Agreed that your scheme is more consistent. Clockwise from the top makes more sense for a standard scheme than clockwise from the bottom in my opinion. If we're going to say "everything clockwise" then we need to stick with it and make *everything* go clockwise.

So face order is set at: UFLBRD?

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

It seems we have this pretty close to being wrapped up. Any last details we're missing? Any last objections?


----------



## Mike Hughey (Nov 18, 2010)

I'm good with it.


----------



## cmhardw (Nov 18, 2010)

riffz said:


> EDIT: I would have proposed that the first corner on the D face is DLB, since it's in a consistent position after an *x2*


 
We need to decide this now. I don't care either way, but are we defining the D face after an *x2* or after a *z2* rotation? Any arguments on which one _seems_ more standard?


----------



## Mike Hughey (Nov 18, 2010)

riffz said:


> EDIT: I would have proposed that the first corner on the D face is DLB, since it's in a consistent position after an *x2*





cmhardw said:


> We need to decide this now. I don't care either way, but are we defining the D face after an *x2* or after a *z2* rotation? Any arguments on which one _seems_ more standard?


I'm confused. I thought the first corner on the U face is going to be URB, right? So using an x2, doesn't that make the first letter on the D face DRF? And using a z2, doesn't that make it DLB?

The fact that I'm confused concerns me - it shouldn't be confusing. I would think x2 makes more sense intuitively, but I'm not sure I can give an argument for it. It seems easier to "see" the face this way than it does by doing a z2.


----------



## cmhardw (Nov 18, 2010)

Mike Hughey said:


> I'm confused. I thought the first corner on the U face is going to be URB, right? So using an x2, doesn't that make the first letter on the D face DRF? And using a z2, doesn't that make it DLB?


 
Haha ok now I'm confused. I was going by the 7x7x7 picture posted earlier in the thread, showing UBL as the first corner on U (and thus the upper left corner on all faces).

Which corner will define each face "upper left" or "upper right" ? I think "upper left" fits with reading in books. I know this is culture specific, and ignores a HUGE percentage of the earth's population, but this forum is posted in English. I think our English speaking forum can use upper left as the definition of each starting corner without offending very many people. This would make our starting corner UBL. Does this seem agreeable?



> The fact that I'm confused concerns me - it shouldn't be confusing. I would think x2 makes more sense intuitively, but I'm not sure I can give an argument for it.



I also like the idea of an *x2* because we generally prefer R turns and L turns over F turns and B turns. So x2 it is?


----------



## riffz (Nov 18, 2010)

x is also before z in the alphabet 

Mike: we were talking about the first corner being ULB.

Maybe this will clarify things:






(in Aron's image the F and R faces were visible)


----------



## cmhardw (Nov 18, 2010)

riffz said:


> x is also before z in the alphabet
> 
> Mike: we were talking about the first corner being ULB.
> 
> ...


 
Can we maybe get a 7x7x7 image fully labeled like this as well? Also, for the Wiki page about this, we should definitely show the D,B, and R faces as well.

--edit--
Wait, I just realized that this picture labels pieces counterclockwise to the corner - but piece groups move clockwise around the face. I thought we had agreed to keep everything clockwise for consistency? Can we redo it so that the labelling of each piece chunk goes clockwise as seen from the corner, but keep otherwise the same scheme? I think this would be more "standard" and easier to remember/re-derive.
--edit--

What does everyone think?


----------



## riffz (Nov 18, 2010)

Chris: That was why I didn't like Aron's suggestion initially. I guess you just didn't realize what he was saying before.

His point was that this makes it consistent in the sense that *UL*B is the same letter as UL, although I still think this makes it harder to visualize, which was, IMO, more important.


----------



## Tim Major (Nov 18, 2010)

I found it much easier for me when learning bld, to label the stickers like this,
UBL: A
LBU: B
BUL: C

UBR: D
BUR: E
RUB: F

And so on. This way, all I need to memorise at first, is that;
UBL: A
UBR: D
UFR: G
UFL: J
(ADGJMPSV)
Then same on the bottom face. One sticker on each piece, so I can work out the other 3. All labeling goes clockwise around the cube, and around the pieces. 
With edges I do the same, starting at UR (UBL and UR are usually the Old Pochmann buffers). So on edges, all I need to know is where (ACEGIKMOQSUW) is, and I can work out the others. This standardized system doesn't seem as intuitive to me.
Just my view 

Edit: All stickers to memo are on the U/D faces, going in a clockwise direction, and labeling around a piece is also done clockwise. Of course you'll eventually be able to look at any sticker, and know what letter it is, but this is very easy for starting.


----------



## riffz (Nov 18, 2010)

Here's the original scheme that Spef and I proposed, which is what you just requested we revert to, I believe (lol!)


----------



## Ville Seppänen (Nov 18, 2010)

Yeah, that's what I wanted in the first place


----------



## Mike Hughey (Nov 18, 2010)

At first, I thought Aron's method made more sense, but now I see it really doesn't make any difference - Aron, this way, all the non-corner pieces are clockwise from the corner. So this also seems clockwise, every bit as much so as yours is.

Again, the problem is that you always have to ask clockwise with respect to what?

I like the original best, now that I realize they're really just the same. Now expand it to cover a 7x7x7 (which I think we've agreed how to do), and we'll be set.

Edit: Oh, but we still need to say how to letter the bottom face. I still think an x2 to look at the bottom face (which I now think gives the first letter U as DLF) makes the most sense. Am I wrong about that? It seems to contradict what riffz was saying.


----------



## aronpm (Nov 18, 2010)

Mike Hughey said:


> Again, the problem is that you always have to ask clockwise with respect to what?


 
The center piece. You're doing it with respect to the edge.


----------



## riffz (Nov 18, 2010)

I don't think it contradicts. I like x2 making DLF the first D corner.


----------



## aronpm (Nov 18, 2010)

You can change the starting corner to UBR and keep letters of the edges.


----------



## cmhardw (Nov 18, 2010)

riffz said:


> Here's the original scheme that Spef and I proposed, which is what you just requested we revert to, I believe (lol!)


 
Ok I misunderstood then. I thought we were describing the picture I am now quoting in this message (Ville and Riffz's original suggestion). I like their scheme because having everything clockwise with respect to viewing the cube from above is more consistent and more "standard" for the purposes we're striving for.

Also, I like having DLF be the starting corner for the D face (after an *x2* rotation as well).

So do we have an official standardized scheme? Did we leave anything out, or is there anything that we still need to debate?

For those preferring to move counterclockwise from the corner for the piece chunks, but to label chunks clockwise around the face, do you have an argument about how this could be viewed as more standard? I'm not shooting down the method, but labeling the pieces counterclockwise from the corner seems to be an irregularity that is not matched anywhere else in the labeling scheme. If this is to be a standard approach, I feel there should be no irregularities, personally.

Any last discussion needed before we finalize this?


----------



## riffz (Nov 18, 2010)

If we are finalizing this, then Spef and I would like to call it the Speffz Standard Lettering Scheme, mostly for comedic value.


----------



## cmhardw (Nov 18, 2010)

ZB_FTW!!! said:


> This standardized system doesn't seem as intuitive to me.
> Just my view


 
Hi Tim,

We're not really suggesting this as a method to actually be *used* when solving (though it certainly could be, there is nothing wrong with it). This standardized scheme is there for us to be able to write out piece cycles on the cube in a much simpler and nicer fashion when writing to each other on the forum, or talking in person at a competition. Keep in mind that we all use very different lettering schemes. This standardized method needs to be so simply defined that someone can re-derive it on the spot without have to try to memorize the scheme itself beforehand.

If you can show how your version would allow us to do this more easily than the current proposed version, I will certainly listen with an open mind to possibly change the standard scheme. So far though, this standard scheme is very easily defined, and easy to trace out without having to have it memorized.



riffz said:


> If we are finalizing this, then Spef and I would like to call it the Speffz Standard Lettering Scheme, mostly for comedic value.


 
I have no objection


----------



## aronpm (Nov 18, 2010)

I'm going to continue writing cycles using the actual location pieces, not a standard scheme. I don't think it will be very useful for writing cycles, to be honest.


----------



## cmhardw (Nov 18, 2010)

aronpm said:


> I'm going to continue writing cycles using the actual location pieces, not a standard scheme. I don't think it will be very useful for writing cycles, to be honest.


 
I think that's fair, I don't think we should force anyone to use this new scheme. I, for one, would love the ability to simplify typed out example cycles though. I will personally use this standardized scheme (once we finalize one), but I by no means think it should be a requirement.

In topics where people don't know the scheme we can either refer them to the Wiki where it is defined, or I wouldn't mind typing a "translation" to the regular piece location lettering if it ever becomes an issue. Perhaps a nice programming-minded person could write a translator applet for us as well to simply this?


----------



## riffz (Nov 18, 2010)

cmhardw said:


> In topics where people don't know the scheme we can either refer them to the Wiki where it is defined, or I wouldn't mind typing a "translation" to the regular piece location lettering if it ever becomes an issue. Perhaps a nice programming-minded person could write a translator applet for us as well to simply this?


 
*Cough* Cride.


----------



## Tim Major (Nov 18, 2010)

cmhardw said:


> Hi Tim,
> 
> We're not really suggesting this as a method to actually be *used* when solving (though it certainly could be, there is nothing wrong with it). This standardized scheme is there for us to be able to write out piece cycles on the cube in a much simpler and nicer fashion when writing to each other on the forum, or talking in person at a competition. Keep in mind that we all use very different lettering schemes. This standardized method needs to be so simply defined that someone can re-derive it on the spot without have to try to memorize the scheme itself beforehand.


It just seems a silly, to use a standardized way for typing out the cycles, but not using the same ways for memo. Obviously it would take a *lot* of effort for all concerned, to change their labeling on pieces just for this, but otherwise it would just cause confusion. And we could try to encourage all newbies to take on the scheme too. This could help, for when recreating solves, just post the letters you memorised, and for them to match where pieces belong. If I was more into blind (I only do it in the weeklies usually), if a standardized lettering system was decided on, I'd go about switching my letters, to match the scheme. Just seems to make a *lot* more sense to me.

Edit: Right now I'm keeping mine the same, but if I were to take on BH, and the cycles were written in"Speffz", I'd relearn my system.


----------



## cmhardw (Nov 18, 2010)

ZB_FTW!!! said:


> It just seems a silly, to use a standardized way for typing out the cycles, but not using the same ways for memo. Obviously it would take a *lot* of effort for all concerned, to change their labeling on pieces just for this, but otherwise it would just cause confusion. And we could try to encourage all newbies to take on the scheme too. This could help, for when recreating solves, just post the letters you memorised, and for them to match where pieces belong. If I was more into blind (I only do it in the weeklies usually), if a standardized lettering system was decided on, I'd go about switching my letters, to match the scheme. Just seems to make a *lot* more sense to me.
> 
> Edit: Right now I'm keeping mine the same, but if I were to take on BH, and the cycles were written in"Speffz", I'd relearn my system.


 
Tim, you do bring up a good point. Most of us coming up with the scheme letter our pieces around a *face* of the cube, whereas your scheme seems to letter pieces *around a corner* of the cube. I agree that our standardized scheme would seem very arbitrary in your shoes.

However, to type out a cycle in the "standard" scheme you would simply have to follow these rules:
1) On every face start as close to the top left corner as you can when defining the first letter on the face for your piece type.
2) Everything about the method is clockwise as seen from above the cube (i.e. letter clockwise to the corner, and move around the face in a clockwise fashion as if you're looking directly at that face, and starting with the first letter on that face).
3) Move in the face order: U F L B R D (Notice this is top to bottom, and clockwise around the middle faces)
4) To letter the D face, first perform an *x2* cube rotation, then letter using the above rules.

As long as you follow these rules you do not *need* to remember this standardized scheme. I would also not recommend you to switch to this scheme as your actual blindfolded scheme _if you already have a lettering scheme_. I will certainly *not* switch my actual blindfolded memorization scheme to this scheme. However, it would be useful to have an easily recreated, standardized scheme that we can all type in relatively easily without having to memorize a new scheme.

Yes this is a bit more work for you, but no matter how we define a standardized scheme some people will find it VERY different from their scheme. Although my scheme is not as different from the standard scheme as yours is, just know that this standardized scheme is VERY different from my and many of our memorization lettering schemes. That's ok, it's not to memorize with, just to *write* cycles with on the forum, or to discuss cycles in person.

Think of it as allowing all of us blindfolded cubers an opportunity to speak one common language with each other, without always having to translate what we mean all the time.

Also, this standardized scheme is optional. As Aron already point out, you can just use the location naming that we all already know anyway as well. Consider the standardized scheme a _convenience_, not a _requirement_.


----------



## Mike Hughey (Nov 18, 2010)

I remember when I wrote up my description of solving 4x4x4 centers, perhaps the biggest pain (and the thing that kept me from doing it for a while) was that I had to describe how I was going to letter the pieces. I either had to do that, or use the horribly cumbersome method we've been using. I still hate having to use that method. I've been discussing with Chris optimal algorithm choices as I've been learning BH wings (which I'm learning to love using), and I always hate having to write things like rDF when I could instead now write G. Multiply that times at least 100 letters I've had to type in these messages between me and Chris, and you have many minutes of my life I could have been using to do a BLD solve instead of working out the old notation naming.

So I for one will love having this option. My biggest problem is: this notation is so similar to mine, and yet a little different, that I'm probably going to occasionally get confused and give the wrong letter. But oh well - I hate the old lettering scheme so much, I don't mind dealing with that. 

Someone should now redo the diagram showing:
a. this scheme on a 7x7x7 (to clarify oblique naming)
b. the other 3 faces on that 7x7x7


----------



## reThinking the Cube (Nov 18, 2010)

This is great. :tu

If ULB is the starting corner, then I would suggest using the face order URFLBD. This is more intuitively clockwise than UFLBRD especially when using ULB as the starting corner. ULB->URB->URF correlates better to U->R->F than U->F->L. If on the other hand, URB was the starting corner (not), then the currently suggested UFLBRD would be the most intuitive clockwise progression.

What about the stickers that have not been assigned labels yet? How about a non-capitalized letter to designate the other stickers (same orbit,in the same quadrant)?


----------



## cmhardw (Nov 18, 2010)

Mike Hughey said:


> I've been discussing with Chris optimal algorithm choices as I've been learning BH wings (which I'm learning to love using), and I always hate having to write things like rDF when I could instead now write G. Multiply that times at least 100 letters I've had to type in these messages between me and Chris, and you have many minutes of my life I could have been using to do a BLD solve instead of working out the old notation naming.



Could not agree more. I'm very excited to start using this standardized scheme. So are we agreed on Speffz as the standard notation?

Before we start using it in posts and with each other, I feel it necessary that the Wiki page be updated completely so that we can always refer those who don't know the notation to one central place to look for it. How does everyone like my explanation of the 4 rules for the notation as a start? I'm absolutely open to suggestions, but those 4 rules will be how I remember the notation, personally, so I'd like to include something like that on the Wiki page in case it is useful for others as well.

Does anyone have a particular drive to write the page? I can try to write one, but I have not started a page from scratch before, only edited pre-existing pages. I'm not exactly sure how to start a new page. I could poke around and figure it out, but is anyone already somewhat familiar with this process?



reThinking the Cube said:


> If ULB is the starting corner, then I would suggest using the face order URFLBD.


 
I personally like the face order as is, but how do others feel about this? Agreed on UFLBRD, or still open for debate?


----------



## Ville Seppänen (Nov 18, 2010)

You can write the wiki page if you want. And yeah those 4 rules look great.

EDIT: also UFLBRD order, I don't see why we should change it


----------



## Mike Hughey (Nov 18, 2010)

reThinking the Cube said:


> What about the stickers that have not been assigned labels yet? How about a non-capitalized letter to designate the other stickers (same orbit,in the same quadrant)?


 
An interesting question. The reason we haven't mentioned them is that they don't generally matter when doing BLD solves, at least not with the methods that we typically use. The stickers on the corners all matter, and the stickers on the central edges matter, but the other stickers on the wings just don't matter at all with typical BLD methods. But of course, one could devise a method where they do matter, so it seems reasonable to have a name for them. I'm okay with lower-case letter from the same quadrant for those.


----------



## reThinking the Cube (Nov 18, 2010)

cmhardw said:


> However, to type out a cycle in the "standard" scheme you would simply have to follow these rules:
> 1) On every face start as close to the top left corner as you can when defining the first letter on the face for your piece type.
> 2) Everything about the method is clockwise as seen from above the cube (i.e. *letter clockwise to the corner*, and move around the face in a clockwise fashion as if you're looking directly at that face, and starting with the first letter on that face).
> 3) Move in the face order: U F L B R D (Notice this is top to bottom, and clockwise around the middle faces)
> 4) To letter the D face, first perform an x2 cube rotation, then letter using the above rules.





reThinking the Cube said:


> If ULB is the starting corner, then I would suggest using the face order URFLBD. This is more intuitively clockwise than UFLBRD especially when using ULB as the starting corner. ULB->URB->URF correlates better to U->R->F than U->F->L. If on the other hand, URB was the starting corner (not), then the currently suggested UFLBRD would be the most intuitive clockwise progression.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



UFLBRD does not move around the cube the same way as Rule#2 above moves around the face. If you want that to be consistent, then the face order has to be URFLBD.


----------



## cmhardw (Nov 18, 2010)

reThinking the Cube said:


> UFLBRD does not move around the cube the same way as Rule#2 above moves around the face. If you want that to be consistent, then the face order has to be URFLBD.


 
reThinking, I understand your point, and I would like to acknowledge that. However, if we are going by the wording in my rules, and are taking that wording very literally, then "letter clockwise to the corner" would suggest to me to do the face order ULBRFD since traversing the faces as U L B goes clockwise around the ULB corner.

I personally still think that the face order should be UFLBRD and it seems that Speff agrees. Still, reThinking brings up a good point that we need to decide on a final face order that most agree on. I say we come up with something that most of us agree on now, because I feel it would be a good idea to have this method standardized right from the start, and then not changed unless we somehow discover a scheme that is *much* better than the current one.


----------



## Zane_C (Nov 18, 2010)

This seems like a great idea. Although I wouldn't switch to it, I would definately learn it if it is/becomes widely accepted.


----------



## riffz (Nov 18, 2010)

I still like UFLBRD. I don't think it violates any clockwise rules, as any choice for the second face is still somewhat arbitrary. I visualize it as spiraling from U to D, which makes sense for any second face choice. I just think F feels the most natural.

EDIT: As for obliques, what do you guys think of using upper case letters for the one set, and lower case for the other? I don't like the idea of having to specify anything more than that you're just talking about oblique centers. I don't even know the notation used for obliques, but how about starting at the left one closest to ULB for 'A', and the back one closest to ULB for 'a'?

This scheme would treat obliques like corners. The other option would be to treat them like edges and start at the back one closest to ULB for 'A', and the back one closest to UBR for 'a'. Again, this uppercase/lowercase idea is just a proposal.


----------



## cmhardw (Nov 18, 2010)

riffz said:


> EDIT: As for obliques, what do you guys think of using upper case letters for the one set, and lower case for the other? I don't like the idea of having to specify anything more than that you're just talking about oblique centers. I don't even know the notation used for obliques, but how about starting at the right one closest to ULB for 'A', and the back one closest to ULB for 'a'?



I like this suggestion. It goes with the fact that Aa Bb Cc Dd is usually how the uppercase and lowercase letters are written in primary school.



> This scheme would treat obliques like corners. The other option would be to treat them like edges and start at the back one closest to ULB for 'A', and the back one closest to UBR for 'a'. Again, this uppercase/lowercase idea is just a proposal.


 
I'm ok with this too, but I personally like the first suggestion much better. This version violates the pattern we've been using up to now of the piece chunks, even though it is a good way to label in my opinion.

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

Can someone make a 5x5x5 and 7x7x7 picture fully labeled? We would need two views, UFL front and DBR back for each cube. If someone will supply me the pictures I will start the Wiki pages, and from there we can edit in any final changes.

Let's get this ball rolling! I want to start using this notation ASAP! 

Chris


----------



## riffz (Nov 18, 2010)

cmhardw said:


> I like this suggestion. It goes with the fact that Aa Bb Cc Dd is usually how the uppercase and lowercase letters are written in primary school.


 
I had accidentally written "how about starting at the *right* one closest to ULB for 'A', and the back one closest to ULB for 'a'?", where the bold part should have read "left". I gather that you interpreted it how I intended it anyway, though.

I'll work on labelling a 7x7 tonight. Just heading home from work.


----------



## reThinking the Cube (Nov 18, 2010)

cmhardw said:


> reThinking, I understand your point, and I would like to acknowledge that. However, if we are going by the wording in my rules, and are taking that wording very literally, then "letter clockwise to the corner" would suggest to me to do the face order ULBRFD since traversing the faces as U L B * goes clockwise around the ULB corner.*



1) The *quadrant lettering for the FACES will start out by going from left to right *(ULB->URB) and proceed clockwise around the face. 

2) The problem is that the FACE ORDER - UFLBRD starts out by going *back to front.* This is not consistent. 

3) The face order URFLBD is consistent with the clockwise lettering scheme being proposed, but UFLBRD, while it is clockwise, is not traversing the cube in literally in the same clockwise order that the faces are being assigned. 

4) Traversing the face order CLOCKWISE AROUND A CORNER PIECE - ULBRFD (that has stickers on 2 other faces besides the one we are trying to label), is NOT clockwise consistent with the quadrant face lettering scheme. 

5) The face lettering scheme should be seen as traversing CLOCKWISE AROUND A FACE - not around a corner. 

Therefore, the correct face order is: URFLBD


----------



## Kynit (Nov 18, 2010)

reThinking the Cube said:


> The problem is that the FACE ORDER - UFLBRD starts out by going *back to front.*


It does? UFLBRD makes sense to me. I guess I see it as the faces in order of viewing: when I look at a cube, I glance at the top, then the front. It's very natural.


----------



## reThinking the Cube (Nov 18, 2010)

Kynit said:


> It does? UFLBRD makes sense to me. I guess I see it as the faces in order of viewing: when I look at a cube, I glance at the top, then the front. It's very natural.



The 1st lettering quadrant for the face is located on the BACK (ULB).

*It may be natural for you to proceed to the FRONT, but the face lettering scheme cannot get from ULB to a corner quadrant in the front by moving clockwise.*

ULB->URB is the clockwise progression for the face, and that quadrant is located RIGHT. 

Therefore, to be consistent with rules, the face order needs to be: URFLBD


----------



## Sakarie (Nov 18, 2010)

I'm not sure wther I'll use this or not, since it's kind of annoying how it's _almost_ like my notation (for centers only).

For my own solving i prefer A and B being different side of the same cubie. But my lettering scheme is made for me, and probably nothing that would fit.

Just to show a different variant:



Spoiler



Corners:

A =Urf
B =Ruf
C =Fur
D =Ufl
E =Flu
F =Luf
G =Ubr
H =Bru
I =Rub
J =Dfr
K =Frd
L =Rdf
M =Dlf
N =Lfd
O =Fdl
P =Drb
Q =Rbd
R =Brd
S =Dbl
T =Bld
U =Ldb

Edges:

A =FR
B =RF
C =UR
D =RU
E =BR
F =RB
G =DR
H =RD
I =FL
J =LF
K =UL
L =LU
M =BL
N =LB
O =DL
P =LD
Q =FU
R =UF
S =UB
T =BU
U =BD
V = DB


----------



## cmhardw (Nov 18, 2010)

reThinking the Cube said:


> 1) The *quadrant lettering for the FACES will start out by going from left to right *(ULB->URB) and proceed clockwise around the face.
> 
> 2) The problem is that the FACE ORDER - UFLBRD starts out by going *back to front.* This is not consistent.
> 
> ...


 
reThinking, you do bring up some good points here. However, it seems that most people are agreeing that UFLBRD seems more natural.



> *Therefore, the correct face order is: URFLBD*



Since this standard scheme can be whatever we want it to be, and it is appearing that the majority concurs one way, then it seems that the method will likely go that way. I'm saying that based on experience of these kinds of dealings in the past.

Any other opinions on this?

By the way, if people want to retain the UFLBRD order then we can fix a lot of the issues of this being a bit of an inconsistency by rewording the one rule that says *everything must go clockwise*. We could simply describe the clockwise nature of piece lettering for the quadrants when we talk about quadrants, and list the face order as a set rule.

I'm ok with the inconsistency here, as UFLBRD does feel very "natural" to me then URFLBD. I'm not the only one that will be using the notation though, any other opinions on this before it becomes final?


----------



## reThinking the Cube (Nov 19, 2010)

aronpm said:


> ...I go clockwise for consistency. *If you're going clockwise around the face to label letters doesn't it make sense to go clockwise for everything else?*





cmhardw said:


> I think whatever scheme we use should be *exactly* the same idea for all piece types. I can promise that I will put absolutely no effort into learning a new scheme. If there is *one simple rule that I can follow to derive the standard lettering scheme* then I will do that, and use it in all my posts referring to BLD cycles.





riffz said:


> ...but I think the proposed order fits the whole theme of *everything being ordered in a clockwise direction.*





cmhardw said:


> However, the *simple rule* or process stated above can allow someone to not memorize this scheme, but derive it every time when writing out cycles on the forum.





riffz said:


> ...the face order was because it preserved the idea that *everything was clockwise, including how we worked our way around the side faces,*





cmhardw said:


> Like Aron said let's just do *everything clockwise for consistency*





cmhardw said:


> If we're going to say "everything clockwise" then we need to stick with it and make *everything* go clockwise.





cmhardw said:


> Wait, I just realized that this picture labels pieces counterclockwise to the corner - but piece groups move clockwise around the face. * I thought we had agreed to keep everything clockwise for consistency? * Can we redo it so that the labelling of each piece chunk goes clockwise as seen from the corner, but keep otherwise the same scheme? I think this would be more "standard" and easier to remember/re-derive.





cmhardw said:


> ...having *everything clockwise* with respect to viewing the cube from above is more consistent and more "standard" for the purposes we're striving for.





cmhardw said:


> ...but labeling the pieces counterclockwise from the corner seems to be an irregularity that is not matched anywhere else in the labeling scheme. If this is to be a standard approach, I feel there should be *no irregularities, *personally.





cmhardw said:


> This standardized method needs to be so *simply defined *that someone can re-derive it on the spot without have to try to memorize the scheme itself beforehand.





Spoiler






cmhardw said:


> By the way, if people want to retain the UFLBRD order then we can fix a lot of the issues of this being a bit of an inconsistency by rewording the one rule that says *everything must go clockwise*. We could simply describe the clockwise nature of piece lettering for the quadrants when we talk about quadrants, and list the face order as a set rule.
> 
> I'm ok with the inconsistency here, as UFLBRD does feel very "natural" to me then URFLBD.



Chris, your diplomacy skills are 2nd to none on this forum, but I wish to stay true to course. Rules based on what feels the most *natural* are a departure from what had been pledged previously.



*U.R.F.L.B.D.* = *U*niversal *R*ules *F*or *L*ettering *B*lind *D*iscussion :tu


----------



## Forte (Nov 19, 2010)

let's just choose one


----------



## cmhardw (Nov 19, 2010)

Will others following this thread please weigh in with their votes as well?

Basically what has happened recently is that reThinking pointed out, quite well in my opinion, that the face order UFLBRD _violates_ our rule of ordering everything in a clockwise direction, and in a consistent way. Following the way that we name quadrants always as seen from the top face as moving from the UBL corner to the _right_ toward the UBR corner, then face direction should go the same way. I think we can all agree U is an obvious starting choice. Starting at U the next face we move to in order to stay consistent with not only going always clockwise, but in a consistent way, then we _should_ go right and have the face order URFLBD.

If we are to choose the face order UFLBRD, then let's simply agree on it, and trash the "always clockwise" rule. If we really do want to keep things "always clockwise, and always consistent" then we need to adopt the face order URFLBD to stay with this consistency.

My vote is to use UFLBRD for its "natural" feeling, and to trash the "always clockwise" rule. I agree that this is an inconsistency, but I think this hybridized standard lettering will more closely match most of our _actual_ letterings which I assume move from U directly to F for many of us.

Others following the thread, *please weigh in on this with your opinions!*

Chris


----------



## Escher (Nov 19, 2010)

I'd have to +1 ReThinking's suggestion - I actually quite like his acronym.
A standardised lettering scheme should be intuitive and easy to learn for people who are relatively new to cubing - and what is intuitive to them is what is easy to remember - not what feels 'natural' to those who have been cubing longer.
Those of us who have been cubing long enough will be fine remembering either, I'm sure.


----------



## Mike Hughey (Nov 19, 2010)

I don't care about the order. For me, going clockwise looking from the bottom makes the most sense (which is why I lettered mine that way), so either one will feel equally unnatural to me. In fact, ReThinking's approach will probably confuse me less, since it will be more clearly different.

But honestly, it doesn't matter that much to me, one way or the other.


----------



## Ville Seppänen (Nov 19, 2010)

My vote goes for UFLBRD. All I have to say about it is that it just feels more natural.


----------



## riffz (Nov 19, 2010)

Ville Seppänen said:


> My vote goes for UFLBRD. All I have to say about it is that it just feels more natural.


 
Agreed. I still argue that this does not break any rules. I know that URFLBD fits more closely, but UFLBRD still spirals clockwise from U to D. reThinking is visualizing the face transition as clockwise around the URF corner, whereas UFLBRD transitions clockwise around the UFL corner.


----------



## StachuK1992 (Nov 19, 2010)

cmhardw said:


> In topics where people don't know the scheme we can either refer them to the Wiki where it is defined, or I wouldn't mind typing a "translation" to the regular piece location lettering if it ever becomes an issue. Perhaps a nice programming-minded person could write a translator applet for us as well to simply this?


 I'm in. What all is required?

In other words, what all are the possible "languages" to translate to/from?
I can make it Sunday night when I get back - shall check this thread.

(Although I kinda assume it will be done by someone before then. )


----------



## JonnyWhoopes (Nov 19, 2010)

I'm casting a vote for URFLBD.


----------



## cmhardw (Nov 19, 2010)

I'd like a few more people who were posting in this thread to weigh in before we make a final decision, please keep voting! This is awesome, we're almost *done!*


----------



## riffz (Nov 19, 2010)

I'd like to hear Stefan's opinion, tbh.


----------



## aronpm (Nov 19, 2010)

My vote goes to UFLBRD


----------



## cmhardw (Nov 19, 2010)

I'm tabulating these votes, so please keep them coming. This, as far as I know, is the last issue that needs to be resolved before we can finalize this standardized notation.


----------



## mr. giggums (Nov 20, 2010)

I would like URFLBD if there is still time to vote.


----------



## Sakarie (Nov 20, 2010)

So the main options are
URFLBD
or UFLBRD

How could one of them be MORE clockwise? And wouldn't consistency be to start from UBL and go clockwise, which would be UBRFLD?

Anywayz, I vote UFLBRD, but I wouldn't mind.


----------



## Lucas Garron (Nov 20, 2010)

UFLBRD

As a programmer, I've had to work with _so_ many face orders, and neither of these two is one of them.


----------



## MatsBergsten (Nov 20, 2010)

UFRBLD (ends in BLD, don't you see ), that's how I did it!
If I have to choose only by those two I go for UFLBRD.


----------



## Lumej (Nov 20, 2010)

I vote for URFLBD. It's what I use, and I think it's natural.


----------



## Mike Hughey (Nov 20, 2010)

MatsBergsten said:


> UFRBLD (ends in BLD, don't you see ), that's how I did it!


That's how I did it too! I love the fact that it ends in BLD - I never noticed that before.


----------



## reThinking the Cube (Nov 21, 2010)

*U*niversal *R*ules *F*or *L*ettering *B*lind *D*iscussion

*Some problems/solutions with all face orders beginning with [UF] are: *

1) Starting at U-face and proceeding to F-face will require adding an arbitrary rule just for that, since it does not suffice to say; "go clockwise", when it is clearly impossible to get from the BACK (UBL) to the FRONT (UFL)* by going clockwise about the U-face*. Therefore an exception rule will be required, that states something to the effect; "now proceed lettering from the U-face to the F-face, by deviating from the consistently clockwise face quadrant lettering scheme, because the transition from U to F feels more natural to some cubers by [x] cube rotation coupled with lettering that mimics the flow of the number "3" when written by hand." 

Solution:


Spoiler



*U.R.F.L.B.D. (100% Clockwise, 100% Consistent)*



2) After U->F-> what comes next? Some say it would be *natural* to proceed next to "L", but others say it is more *natural* for them to proceed next to "R". If we are going to reject the consistent clockwise rule in favor of what is *natural*, then we cannot resurrect it now to arbitrate the decision on which way to go next. It could also be argued that going from F to D could be considered just as *natural*, since we did move by [x] cube rotation in the 1st case (U->F), so why not do it again (F->D)? Here will be another arbitrary choice, without a rational way to support it, other than to say, "some of us agreed on doing it this way". So by beginning with U->F we end up with 3 equally arbitrary possibilities for the starting face orders - UFL,UFD,UFR. So whichever transition is picked, a majority of cubers would probably end up being disappointed with ANY of the face orders starting U->F->X->
Fried pork rinds are *natural*, but that doesn't make them kashrut.

Solution:


Spoiler



*U.R.F.L.B.D. (Made with 100% ALL *Natural* RULES)*



3) Discussed algs/cases are more likely to have stickers on URF over any other faces. It is nice to get the starting part of the alphabet in sequence with these 3 primary faces. The face order U->F->L skips R so that an inexperienced user of this scheme would have to manually go through the alphabet before they would know that the letter "Q" corresponded with the upper left corner of the R-face. The order [URF] gives the vowels [A-E-I] as the starting letters for those 3 faces. I think beginners trying to familiarize themselves with this lettering scheme would appreciate that rather simple and easy to remember progression. The acronym [URFLBD] will also be helpful in learning and remembering the proper face order.

Solution:


Spoiler



*U.R.F.L.B.D. (Easiest to Learn)*


----------



## riffz (Nov 21, 2010)

The idea is that the face transition for the 4 middle faces is clockwise around the Y axis. You cannot define U->R as clockwise when the face transitions will have to be around more than one axis. Both transitions (U->F, U->R) are equally "clockwise", as they can both be visualized as a downward clockwise spiral:







Please excuse my MS Paint skills.


----------



## reThinking the Cube (Nov 21, 2010)

riffz said:


> The idea is that the face transition for the 4 middle faces is clockwise around the Y axis. You cannot define U->R as clockwise when the face transitions will have to be around more than one axis. Both transitions (U->F, U->R) are equally "clockwise", as they can both be visualized as a downward clockwise spiral:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



*Both are clockwise, but only 1 is consistent.*



cmhardw said:


> Basically what has happened recently is that reThinking pointed out, quite well in my opinion, that the face order UFLBRD _violates_ our rule of ordering everything in a clockwise direction, and in a consistent way. Following the way that we name quadrants always as seen from the top face as moving from the UBL corner to the _right_ toward the UBR corner, then face direction should go the same way. I think we can all agree U is an obvious starting choice. Starting at U the next face we move to in order to stay consistent with not only going always clockwise, but in a consistent way, then we _should_ go right and have the face order URFLBD.
> 
> If we are to choose the face order UFLBRD, then let's simply agree on it, and trash the "always clockwise" rule. If we really do want to keep things "always clockwise, and always consistent" then we need to adopt the face order URFLBD to stay with this consistency.


----------



## riffz (Nov 21, 2010)

Starting at ULB and moving clockwise around the U face, there is only one possible transition, which is to UBR. There is no rule that states that you must move to the right and continue clockwise. Therefore I do not believe that UFLBRD is inconsistent with the given rules, since any face transition from U (excluding D) does not violate this rule, and must be somewhat arbitrary.

Also note that the cube rotation used to transpose F to U's position for the purpose of visualizing the piece ordering is an *x* move, which is the same move used to visualize the piece ordering on the D face. I could foresee people using a *z'* move to visualize the lettering on the R face, which would be wrong.


----------



## Sakarie (Nov 21, 2010)

I just remembered that the order UFRBLD would fit with my normal scheme, so I'll take back my UFLBRD-vote, and vote for UFRBLD instead.


----------



## riffz (Nov 21, 2010)

Sakarie said:


> I just remembered that the order UFRBLD would fit with my normal scheme, so I'll take back my UFLBRD-vote, and vote for UFRBLD instead.


 
I don't think we're even voting on that one lol. We at least want the 4 middle faces to be traversed in a clockwise direction.


----------



## Sakarie (Nov 21, 2010)

riffz said:


> I don't think we're even voting on that one lol. We at least want the 4 middle faces to be traversed in a clockwise direction.


 
They are clockwise, if you look from underneath!


----------



## reThinking the Cube (Nov 21, 2010)

Sakarie said:


> I just remembered that the order UFRBLD would fit with my normal scheme, so I'll take back my UFLBRD-vote, and vote for UFRBLD instead.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Naturally.



reThinking the Cube said:


> 2) After U->F-> what comes next? Some say it would be *natural* to proceed next to "L", but others say it is more *natural* for them to proceed next to "R". If we are going to reject the consistent clockwise rule in favor of what is *natural*, then we cannot resurrect it now to arbitrate the decision on which way to go next. It could also be argued that going from F to D could be considered just as *natural*, since we did move by [x] cube rotation in the 1st case (U->F), so why not do it again (F->D)? Here will be another arbitrary choice, without a rational way to support it, other than to say, "some of us agreed on doing it this way". * So by beginning with U->F we end up with 3 equally arbitrary possibilities for the starting face orders - UFL,UFD,UFR.* So whichever transition is picked, a majority of cubers would probably end up being disappointed with ANY of the face orders starting U->F->X->
> Fried pork rinds are *natural*, but that doesn't make them kashrut.
> 
> Solution:
> ...


----------



## riffz (Nov 21, 2010)

In response to the bolded text: Beginning with U->R we end up with 2 equally arbitrary possibilities for the starting face orders - URF,URD.

You're just repeating yourself, restating the fact that URFLBD is somehow more consistent than UFLBRD, which I have provided arguments against.

I'm going to do the same thing you do and just repost something I've already said, knowing full well that you've read it already:



riffz said:


> Starting at ULB and moving clockwise around the U face, there is only one possible transition, which is to UBR. There is no rule that states that you must move to the right and continue clockwise. Therefore I do not believe that UFLBRD is inconsistent with the given rules, since any face transition from U (excluding D) does not violate this rule, and must be somewhat arbitrary.
> 
> Also note that the cube rotation used to transpose F to U's position for the purpose of visualizing the piece ordering is an *x* move, which is the same move used to visualize the piece ordering on the D face. I could foresee people using a *z'* move to visualize the lettering on the R face, which would be wrong.


----------



## cmhardw (Nov 21, 2010)

I am still tabulating votes, so please keep them coming! I have to leave to go out of town on Tuesday this week, so I will tabulate votes until late Monday evening (early Tuesday morning) EST. After that I'll either post my results here, or give the tabulated info to someone who would like to continue the voting for a longer period.

Sound good?


----------



## Kirjava (Nov 21, 2010)

I vote for UFLBRD.

rethinking is forgetting that the order doesn't *have* to make sense


----------



## reThinking the Cube (Nov 21, 2010)

riffz said:


> You're just repeating yourself, restating the fact that URFLBD is somehow more consistent than UFLBRD, which I have provided arguments against.



Your arguments prove that you do not understand *yet*, that there is a distinct, and appreciable difference between the various face orders being proposed - in regards to their overall consistency (quadrant face lettering vs. cube face order). Sorry for repeating myself, but when you repeat arguments that have been refuted - you will harvest the repeats of their refutations.



riffz said:


> In response to the bolded text: Beginning with U->R we end up with 2 equally arbitrary possibilities for the starting face orders - URF,URD.



This is quite false, and is based on the [z'] premise you posted here.



riffz said:


> Also note that the cube rotation used to transpose F to U's position for the purpose of visualizing the piece ordering is an *x* move, which is the same move used to visualize the piece ordering on the D face. *I could foresee people using a z' move to visualize the lettering on the R face, which would be wrong.*



The 1st part of that post is correct. When you [x] cube rotate UBL (the 1st face quadrant of the 1st face U) maps directly to FUL(the 1st face quadrant of the 2nd face F). I take this to be a negative, in that - UFD might become the next assumed face order in this case. That is one of the problems with having a face order beginning with U->F.

Face order beginning U->F yields 3 or more arbitrary and inconsistent possibilities: [UFLBRD,UFDBRL,UFRBLD]

The 2nd part (which I bolded) is incorrect. When you [z'] cube rotate UBL (the 1st face quadrant of the 1st face U) does NOT map directly to RUF(the 1st face quadrant of the 2nd face R), but instead it maps to RBU. This is a positive, since in this case, there can be no false assumption that a [z'] cube rotation is the reason for the face order. That is one of the advantages of having a face order beginning with U->R.

Face order beginning U->R yields 1 consistent rule based possibility: [URFLBD]


----------



## Lucas Garron (Nov 22, 2010)

reThinking the Cube: Get your cube rotations right.

I don't want to argue against you because it'll achieve nothing (and I do think you have some validity), but please concede that there is some measure of arbitrariness in _any of the orderings proposed_. Some of your arguments might as well be used against you.

(Personally, I think riffz is right with his cube rotation comment.)


----------



## riffz (Nov 22, 2010)

reThinking: I still disagree with you, and I find it annoying that instead of elaborating, you simply state that I do not understand and that you will continue to repeat yourself. I think, however, that we are not going to convince the other to change their stance on this issue, so I will not be debating you further on this. 

Please be aware that I do not think that UFLBRD is any _more_ correct than URFLBD. I understand your reasoning for choosing it, but as Lucas said, any face ordering will be somewhat arbitrary. ("Clockwise" simply doesn't describe how to traverse the 6 faces of the cube in 3 dimensions.) In this case, I see no problem with choosing the face that feels most natural, since I do not believe that either choice violates the established rules.


----------



## reThinking the Cube (Nov 22, 2010)

Lucas Garron said:


> reThinking the Cube: Get your cube rotations right.
> 
> I don't want to argue against you because it'll achieve nothing (and I do think you have some validity), but please concede that there is some measure of arbitrariness in _any of the orderings proposed_. Some of your arguments might as well be used against you.
> 
> (Personally, I think riffz is right with his cube rotation comment.)



I wish I could also agree with riffz on this, but unfortunately that cube rotation comment is based on a misconception. The RUF face quadrant is not replacing the UBL face quadrant by a [z'] cube rotation. It actually would require [z' y] to do that. I really don't want to argue against any of you, but I do hope this explanation helps you get YOUR cube rotations right.

I will also concede, that most rules have some measure of arbitrariness, and requiring more rules, will make just about anything more arbitrary.


----------



## peedu (Nov 22, 2010)

I vote for URFLBD just because that's how I use it currently.


Peedu


----------



## riffz (Nov 22, 2010)

reThinking the Cube said:


> The RUF face quadrant is not replacing the UBL face quadrant by a [z'] cube rotation.


 
I never said that it was. My point was that it doesn't.


----------



## StachuK1992 (Nov 22, 2010)

URFBLD.
Chris: How long until you believe this may be finalized to some extent?


----------



## riffz (Nov 22, 2010)

StachuK1992 said:


> URFBLD.


 
Uh...

Chris: I wouldn't wait too much longer. I think that most people who care about this would have replied by now. Feel free to leave it open if you think that's better, though.


----------



## peedu (Nov 22, 2010)

Has anyone taken the assignment to come up with drawings for 5x5x5 and 7x7x7 full lettering scheme?

I can do it, but it will look as beatiful as on the second page:


riffz said:


> x is also before z in the alphabet
> 
> Mike: we were talking about the first corner being ULB.
> 
> ...


 
I really have not read all the thread and ask: Yellow on top, red in front?


Peedu


----------



## riffz (Nov 22, 2010)

I can make one tonight, seeing as I said I would last week and kind of forgot to. :\

I would say white on top and green in front, which is the standard orientation for scrambling.


----------



## cmhardw (Nov 22, 2010)

I agree that this project should continue while it still has momentum. In that case voting will definitely end Tuesday 11/23 at 2:00am EST because that's usually the time I get home from work and can log onto my computer


----------



## StachuK1992 (Nov 22, 2010)

I change my vote to UFLBRD.


----------



## Lucas Garron (Nov 22, 2010)

peedu said:


> riffz said:
> 
> 
> >


 


This one feels like it's starts on the left, not at UBL. Then again, obliques will be pesky either way.


----------



## riffz (Nov 23, 2010)

Lucas Garron said:


> This one feels like it's starts on the left, not at UBL. Then again, obliques will be pesky either way.


 
That one isn't correct. That's the one aronpm proposed that kind of got shot down.


----------



## reThinking the Cube (Nov 23, 2010)

How about instead of democracy rule, we appoint 3 capable and respected representatives? 

I would like to see this issue ultimately decided by: 
1) Stefan P. (for obvious reasons, and because he is a very sharp - no BS problem solver), 
2) Chris H.(again obvious, and because he is a very considerate diplomat/teacher/explaner), 
3) Michael G. (because he is a master at convincing others that he is always right, qqwref would end up forcing the others to provide very sound arguments in support of any choice that he didn't agree with.) 

After carefully debating the pros and cons, they would each recommend their preferred lettering scheme, and also provide an explanation as to why they think it is the best. If 2 out of those 3 can agree on something, then they can declare a winner, and I think we could all be satisfied with the outcome.


----------



## reThinking the Cube (Nov 23, 2010)

VERY VERY SORRY for the reposts. You guys are messing with me. 1st I was blocked from posting, and now all these duplicates. I tried to delete them, but it doesn't work. Mod will have to take them out. Sorry.

EDIT: OK, I got them all. That wasn't very nice. Please don't do that again.


----------



## cmhardw (Nov 23, 2010)

UFLBRD won the poll with 9 votes.

UFLBRD: Ville, cmhardw, Riffz, Kynit, aronpm, LucasGarron, MatsBergsten, Kirjava, Stachu
URFLBD: reThinking, Escher, JohnnyWhoopes, Mr giggums, Lumej, Peedu
UFRBLD: Sakarie

I will be going out of town tomorrow until Sunday night. If someone wants to start the Wiki page before then please feel free. If it has not been started by the time I return then I will start it. I was surprised at how divided this is. If people want to continue to debate this then I will, of course, be willing to listen and to contribute. To be honest I am mostly in favor of just defining the scheme while there is still momentum for this project and while people are still open to accept such a standardized scheme. I'll be back Sunday night EST to join into the debate again.

--edit--
reThinking, you repeat posts are not something caused by a mod or administrator. We, the mods and administrators, are aware of this issue and are trying to look into it.


----------



## cmhardw (Nov 24, 2010)

reThinking,

The more I think about it, the more I think URFLBD is actually an inconsistency in the _always_ clockwise rule. If we are imagining that everything starts on U, and that when choosing the face order we traverse clockwise from UBL to UBR, then going then to the R face is moving _counter-clockwise_ around the UBR corner. Should we not go clockwise around this corner as well? This would suggest the face order UBRFLD. Would you agree?

For the record, I agree with what many have said that there is always some arbitrary nature to any specific face order. I still prefer UFLBRD personally, but had the above thought about the URFLBD order when thinking about this thread.

So we're agreed on UFLBRD then?


----------



## riffz (Nov 24, 2010)

Am excite. Once we finalize this, I'll post my BLD edge algs with DF buffer, written in Speffz notation.


----------



## reThinking the Cube (Nov 24, 2010)

cmhardw said:


> reThinking,
> 
> The more I think about it, the more I think URFLBD is actually an inconsistency in the _always_ clockwise rule. If we are imagining that everything starts on U, and that when choosing the face order we traverse clockwise from UBL to UBR, then going then to the R face is moving _counter-clockwise_ around the UBR corner. Should we not go clockwise around this corner as well? This would suggest the face order UBRFLD. Would you agree?



Very funny,(wrong corner), and there is no inconsistency since (URF)LBD begins with the 1st 3 stickers of a very nice CLOCKWISE rotation around the (URF) corner. This was previously pointed out by riffz as well. 



cmhardw said:


> So we're agreed on UFLBRD then?



Can we get Stefan, and maybe a few more to weigh in on this 1st? This lettering scheme will be useful to non-blinders as well, even though very few of them are aware of it right now, and so they haven't contributed at all, to this very important decision.


----------



## riffz (Nov 30, 2010)

Have you had any time to work on the wiki page for this, Chris? Honestly, I would have started it myself by now but I'm unsure what to say and I've been pretty busy lately.


----------



## Stefan (Dec 1, 2010)

Chris asked me to comment on this, especially about UFLBRD vs URFLBD. And I don't get either, they both look the wrong direction to me. How do you visualize them? If I look at F and then at L, I'm moving to the left. Don't we read left-to-right? I'm confused. I'd find ULFRBD much more straight-forward:


----------



## cmhardw (Dec 1, 2010)

At this point, I'm not particularly set on any face order. I just want this to be decided upon so that we can start using it. I agree with Stefan's proposal as being a very clear, and easy, way to display this scheme on a Wiki page. It's easy to remember, the text rule describing it can either say "faces go left to right across the font and continue in a spiral" or "Proceed clockwise as seen from the bottom" as Mike suggested previously.

I'll start the discussion by casting a vote for Stefan's face order for the ease of displaying it on a Wiki page, a key part of this lettering scheme in the first place.


----------



## Mike Hughey (Dec 1, 2010)

I like Stefan's scheme too. I vote for this.

And I also like the fact that he has conveniently provided a diagram that is adequate for placing on a wiki page as-is. It's already good enough to be ready to use.


----------



## Stefan (Dec 1, 2010)

Alternatives if you want to take the reading order further:

```
Left-to-right on each side (like a book page, instead of clockwise):
   AB
   CD
EF IJ MN QR
GH KL OP ST
   UV
   WX
I like this about as much as my original suggestion.

Left-to-right along the whole layout:
   AB
   CD
EF GH IJ KL
MN OP QR ST
   UV
   WX
Don't quite like this...
```

Btw, did I get the same-letter-areas right? I've always looked at it as four rectangular quadrants:




(except I prefer reading clockwise, so that's mirrored from my normal view, but it matches the picture I've seen earlier in this thread)


----------



## Mike Hughey (Dec 1, 2010)

Stefan said:


> (except I prefer reading clockwise, so that's mirrored from my normal view, but it matches the picture I've seen earlier in this thread)



Sorry for my denseness, but I don't quite understand. Why is this not clockwise?


----------



## Stefan (Dec 1, 2010)

Mike Hughey said:


> Sorry for my denseness, but I don't quite understand. Why is this not clockwise?



For determining the areas, not for naming them. So mine looks like this:




And I meant clockwise as in reading around the nearest corner. So for example I have an *F*UR corner sticker, not *F*RU. And next to it I have the *F*Ur wing, not *U*Fr.


----------



## riffz (Dec 1, 2010)

I don't care about the face order. I *really* don't like the "left to right along the whole layout" scheme, though. I find it easier to use the scheme if I can remember the first letter of each face and have the next 3 on the same face. It makes it easier to recall, as I don't use the scheme when solving.

As for reading left to right on each face, I would prefer to stick to a clockwise rule as left-to-right would feel strange for + centers and obliques IMO.

I don't visualize it as moving clockwise around the corners, I just picture it as starting at the backmost, leftmost piece and moving in a clockwise direction around the face.


----------



## Stefan (Dec 1, 2010)

Stefan said:


> (except I prefer reading clockwise, so that's mirrored from my normal view, *but it matches the picture I've seen earlier in this thread*)



Oh wait, I just saw you did have both versions (first and second). I definitely prefer the one I'm used to  (the first one)



riffz said:


> I don't visualize it as moving clockwise around the corners, I just picture it as starting at the backmost, leftmost piece and moving in a clockwise direction around the face.



I meant how you visualize the whole thing, like the first image I posted (with A-X).


----------



## Stefan (Dec 1, 2010)

Alright, I understand now how clockwise-around-face instead of clockwise-around-corner rather suggests this one, so actually I prefer that now (might even switch my own scheme to that shape).


----------



## cmhardw (Dec 1, 2010)

I worry a bit that we are hijacking Speffz away from Speff and riffz, even though the method is their proposal. Although I think we should all weigh in, this is still their effort, so I think their opinions should have a little more weight than anyone else's.

As a compromise between the community as a whole, and Speff and riffz together, how about we continue to use their clockwise around the face lettering, and letter blocks that are clockwise to the corner. This is basically the same style scheme as what Speff and riffz suggested originally, and is the one shown in Stefan's most up to date picture. For the face order we will use the one Stefan suggested, ULFRBD since this makes it very easy to display the face order on a 2D picture of an unfolded cube. This will simplify things greatly for the Wiki article, rather than having two pictures of a cube, one from UFL and one from DBR. Simpler is better when it comes to this standard definition.

Sound like a good compromise? I am specifically asking Speff and riffz, but I feel others should still have the freedom to weigh in as well. I just think that we are starting to hijack Speff's and riffz's idea too much. If their scheme is not preferred then someone can invent another one with a different name.


----------



## riffz (Dec 1, 2010)

Sounds good to me.


----------



## Stefan (Dec 1, 2010)

cmhardw said:


> ULFRBD since this makes it very easy to display the face order on a 2D picture of an unfolded cube.



Well, you can put other face orders on a 2D picture just as easily. Just wouldn't be as nice (at least I don't see how).

Just to be clear: the suggestion now is my original A-X image?


----------



## cmhardw (Dec 2, 2010)

Stefan said:


> Well, you can put other face orders on a 2D picture just as easily. Just wouldn't be as nice (at least I don't see how).
> 
> *Just to be clear: the suggestion now is my original A-X image?*


 
Yes, at least that was my intention. I figure this is a good compromise between what has already been debated in the thread, and a nice face order that is easy to display on the Wiki page, and easy to learn.


----------



## Mike Hughey (Dec 2, 2010)

I am very happy with Stefan's original A-X image.


----------



## Ville Seppänen (Dec 2, 2010)

Mike Hughey said:


> I am very happy with Stefan's original A-X image.


 
Yeah, I'm happy with this.


----------



## cmhardw (Dec 3, 2010)

http://www.speedsolving.com/wiki/index.php/Speffz

It's started. Now fix it and make it better.


----------



## Lucas Garron (Dec 3, 2010)

cmhardw said:


> http://www.speedsolving.com/wiki/index.php/Speffz
> 
> It's started. Now fix it and make it better.



If case matters for the obliques, is there a prescribed capitalization for the other types of pieces?

It would also be interesting but possibly confusing to extend the Aa definition to edges.


----------



## riffz (Dec 3, 2010)

Page looks good, Chris! I knew you'd do a good job on that. Thanks!


----------



## Stefan (Dec 3, 2010)

Why is D singled out in the description, getting its own rule? I think it doesn't need that extra description, just like the other sides don't.

I'm still not sure about the obliques. Is it "A" and "a"? Or is one of them "Aa"? Made a picture to show how I guess it's supposed to look. And another as an alternative which doesn't just upper/lower-distinguish the obliques, but also the x-centers, t-centers and wings.


----------



## riffz (Dec 3, 2010)

Yes, you got the obliques right. I like the idea of extending the uppercase and lower case letters to distinguish between outer and inner centers/wings. I had considered that myself, but I wasn't sure it would really prove useful. I guess it can't hurt, though.


----------



## aronpm (Dec 3, 2010)

Printable cube?



Spoiler











Print it at 72 ppi and it should come out about the same size as a standard 3x3.


----------



## cmhardw (Dec 3, 2010)

Stefan said:


> Why is D singled out in the description, getting its own rule? I think it doesn't need that extra description, just like the other sides don't.



Please others feel free to edit the page. That's why it's in the Wiki. I do not claim any ownership of that page, I am just the one who started it. Please edit out any inconsistencies or errors to improve it.

As to why I put that rule in there, we had a debate earlier in the thread about whether DFL should be the starting corner on the D face (the upper-left corner after an x2 rotation) or DBR (the upper left corner after a z2 rotation).



> I'm still not sure about the obliques. Is it "A" and "a"? Or is one of them "Aa"? Made a picture to show how I guess it's supposed to look. And another as an alternative which doesn't just upper/lower-distinguish the obliques, but also the x-centers, t-centers and wings.


 
This is the picture I am trying to describe. I am interested in the idea of extending the uppercase and lowercase idea to other pieces, but what happens if the 8x8x8 and 9x9x9 cube are released and people attempt those BLD? *cough*Mike*cough* No matter which notation is used the uppercase and lowercase rule would either need to be scrapped or remade for the larger cubes. The debate in the thread only led to the obliques getting case lettering, which is why the Wiki page describes it as such. If people are interested in using upper and lower case lettering for the other pieces, then it would be a simple matter to change the picture to include a picture like Stefan's for the upper and lowercase lettering, and adding a rule for it in the text.


----------



## aronpm (Dec 5, 2010)

I know that the standard scheme has already been chosen, and I'm not posting this as an alternative to replace the current system. I've already argued for this system but I think most people don't use it, and it wasn't really understood properly, so I just wanted to post about it.

The issue of which letters are assigned to which groups isn't discussed here because it's not relevant to the system for grouping the stickers.

Here's an animated picture of how it works:





How it works: draw a line from the center to the corner. Imagine a small circle (radius less than the line drawn) centered on the corner. Following this corner clockwise leads to an edge. Form a triangle using this edge, the corner and the center (see the picture). All the stickers which are partially inside this triangle are grouped to use the same letter.

The property of this that I like is that commutators for different pieces are very similar.

For example, taking the corners UBR, FUR and LFD, the matching edges with the same letters are UB, FU, LF. The corner cycle is solved with [R', U L' U'], and the edge cycle with [M, U L' U]. Since the centers are basically extensions of the corners, the same applies to them. The difference between these two commutators is moving the interchange slice, R, inwards to become the M slice. However using the Speffz notation, the corner cycle would be matched with the edge cycle UR->FR->LD. The edge commutator here would be [R', E' L' E]. This cycle still is similar but it _feels_ different, although that is probably just personal bias.

I think this would be useful to someone who is using the same letter for their buffers (UFL and UF for example) because the cycles from those position are similar. The same property does apply to Speffz but in my opinion it is to a lesser degree.

On a related note, if you write corners using a clockwise notation (UBR instead of URB), then the first two letters of the corner make up the notation for the edge. Changing the last letter from the corner to lowercase also gives the wing. Changing the last two letters from the corner to lowercase gives the x-center, and changing the last letter from the edge to lowercase gives the +-center. This works for Speffz too but only if you adopt a counterclockwise notation.

I guess in the end it's still arbitrary anyway


----------



## Stefan (Dec 5, 2010)

Aron, isn't your 5x5 scheme exactly the same as Speffz's, only mirrored? Try the corners ULB, FLU and RDF, that results in yours being the worse one exactly like Speffz is the worse one in your example.

And with bigger cubes, your triangles won't cover all pieces.


----------



## aronpm (Dec 6, 2010)

Stefan said:


> Aron, isn't your 5x5 scheme exactly the same as Speffz's, only mirrored? Try the corners ULB, FLU and RDF, that results in yours being the worse one exactly like Speffz is the worse one in your example.


Yes it is. Like I said it's all based on arbitrary choices. I see what you mean with that example, and all I have to say in response is that ULB buffer sucks 



> And with bigger cubes, your triangles won't cover all pieces.


Sure, which is why another oblique is arbitrarily chosen. I'm still undecided which one is easier for me.


----------



## toastman (Dec 6, 2010)

Hola dudes,

Although it's somewhat of a n00b topic, what are people's thoughts as to a standard colouring scheme for discussions? Not a big deal, but would be interested in people's thoughts.

For the record, I'm U-White, F-Red, R-Blue. Have always been colour-neutral for sighted, haven't begun "serious" BLD yet and would wouldn't mind being in "synch" with the majority.


----------



## Lucas Garron (Dec 6, 2010)

toastman said:


> Although it's somewhat of a n00b topic, what are people's thoughts as to a standard colouring scheme for discussions? Not a big deal, but would be interested in people's thoughts.



White on top, green in front. Anything else should not be taken seriously as a standard anymore.
(I feel sorry for promoting YR instead of WG a few years ago.)


----------

