# TNoodle - WCA scrambler replacement



## jfly (Jul 11, 2012)

Hey all,

I've been working on a replacement for the WCA scramblers (with lots of help). If you have the time to check it out, please go to https://github.com/cubing/tnoodle/downloads and download TNoodle-0.6.9.jar. If you're on Windows or Mac, you should be able to just double click it, and your web browser should open up http://localhost:8080/. If you're on Linux, you'll probably have to manually run "java -jar TNoodle-0.6.9.jar". See http://bit.ly/tnoodle-readme-scramble for directions and some details.

Please let me know if you run into any issues!


----------



## Lucas Garron (Jul 11, 2012)

Just to make things clear, TNoodle will replace CubeExplorer and the other scramblers. Once the 2012 Regulations become finalized, it will be the *only* official scrambling program to be used for WCA competitions.

I've been working with Jeremy to work on making sure that TNoodle provides high-quality scrambles, but is also simple to use.
An important thing to note is that delegates will be required to save all scrambles used in official scrambles. TNoodle generates archives that should be easy to retain.

If you have any interest in the future of the WCA scrambler, please download and test TNoodle and let us know your thoughts (and any important issues).


----------



## kirtpro (Jul 11, 2012)

Problem, dialogue box comes up:

Could not find the main class:
net.gnehzr.tnoodle.server.TNoodleServer. Program will exit.


edit:
Downloading version 0.6.1 works for me though.

edit 2:
Looks good to me


----------



## jfly (Jul 11, 2012)

kirtpro said:


> Problem, dialogue box comes up:
> 
> Could not find the main class:
> net.gnehzr.tnoodle.server.TNoodleServer. Program will exit.



Thanks for trying this out! Would you try version 0.6.3 and tell me if it works for you now?


----------



## kirtpro (Jul 11, 2012)

Yep, opens up fine.
Just generated scrambles for all rounds, they all seem to work all right.

One thing though, there's no top border on the Fewest Moves PDF.
Not a big deal, just saying.
lol


----------



## Bob (Jul 11, 2012)

The maximum number of moves for FMC is 80 (including rotations), but you give 99 spaces to enter a solution. Why not offer just 8 rows of 10? It's easier to count that way, anyway, and alerts a competitor that their solution is too long if it doesn't fit.


----------



## Vincents (Jul 11, 2012)

Bob said:


> The maximum number of moves for FMC is 80 (including rotations), but you give 99 spaces to enter a solution. Why not offer just 8 rows of 10? It's easier to count that way, anyway, and alerts a competitor that their solution is too long if it doesn't fit.



My guess is cube rotations?


----------



## Bob (Jul 11, 2012)

Vincents said:


> My guess is cube rotations?



Cube rotations are included in the 80 moves.


----------



## aronpm (Jul 11, 2012)

Vincents said:


> My guess is cube rotations?


E1a) The maximum length of a solution is 80 (moves and rotations).


----------



## Henrik (Jul 11, 2012)

Bob said:


> The maximum number of moves for FMC is 80 (including rotations), but you give 99 spaces to enter a solution. Why not offer just 8 rows of 10? It's easier to count that way, anyway, and alerts a competitor that their solution is too long if it doesn't fit.



My guess is this line: "To delete moves, clearly erase/blacken them." (2nd line)


----------



## Bob (Jul 11, 2012)

Henrik said:


> My guess is this line: "To delete moves, clearly erase/blacken them." (2nd line)



I think we can spare an additional sheet of paper in this case. Do we anticipate somebody making 19 mistakes in a single scramble? When the scramble is written on this sheet, it should be at the end of finding the solution where it is just being transferred from the scrap paper.


----------



## jfly (Jul 11, 2012)

Henrik said:


> My guess is this line: "To delete moves, clearly erase/blacken them." (2nd line)



Clever, but that certainly was not the intention . I've uploaded version 0.6.6, which has exactly 80 spaces, as Bob requested.


----------



## Pedro (Jul 11, 2012)

Did you make it look for 3x3 scramble during 200ms? 

I'm trying version 0.6.6 right now and it looks good, except for the no-top-margin on the FM sheet.

EDIT:
No, you didn't make it look for 200ms 
Here are the % of occurrences for 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 and 21 movers:
0 - 0.1 - 2.2 - 6.9 - 32.1 - 58.7 (1000 in total)

And here are the same numbers for the 200ms version
2 - 1.7 - 14.3 - 36.9 - 40.9 - 6.0


----------



## BlueDevil (Jul 11, 2012)

Everything looks good, except for 2x2. I generated 10 scrambles, and 9 of them ended in R' U' (with the other ending in R2 U') Is that intended?


----------



## TMOY (Jul 11, 2012)

All the pyraminx scrambles seem to start with U L, too. I already noticed that at Saarland Open when I was scrambling (I started to do the wrong scramble on some pyra, realised it after 2 or 3 moves and then noticed that I had in fact done the correct moves )


----------



## aronpm (Jul 11, 2012)

BlueDevil said:


> Everything looks good, except for 2x2. I generated 10 scrambles, and 9 of them ended in R' U' (with the other ending in R2 U') Is that intended?





TMOY said:


> All the pyraminx scrambles seem to start with U L, too. I already noticed that at Saarland Open when I was scrambling (I started to do the wrong scramble on some pyra, realised it after 2 or 3 moves and then noticed that I had in fact done the correct moves )


These are due to how the solver finds a string of moves which solves the random state. Nothing to worry about, even though it looks weird.


----------



## TMOY (Jul 11, 2012)

In that case, wouldn't it be better to add U R at the end of every 2^2 scramble and L' U' at the beginning of every pyraminx scramble and do the appropriate cancellations ? The state would be just as random and the scrambles would be shorter on average.


----------



## Stefan (Jul 11, 2012)

aronpm said:


> These are due to how the solver finds a string of moves which solves the random state.



Especially when trying to reach a certain length (like 11 moves for 2x2 and pyraminx), because the solver can often use its favorite first few moves and still solve from there in the remaining number of moves.



TMOY said:


> The state would be just as random and the scrambles would be shorter on average.



I'm pretty sure they put in some extra effort in order to *not* have shortest scrambles but equally long scrambles. So that people watching the scramble area can't infer how easy a scramble is based on how quickly scrambling gets done.


----------



## PandaCuber (Jul 11, 2012)

So, youre saying. I can use this to generate the same scrambles that are used in competitions?


----------



## TMOY (Jul 11, 2012)

Stefan said:


> I'm pretty sure they put in some extra effort in order to *not* have shortest scrambles but equally long scrambles. So that people watching the scramble area can't infer how easy a scramble is based on how quickly scrambling gets done.



Yes, I'm well aware that we need to get rid of ridiculously short scrambles like 4 moves or so. But with my idea, the length of a scramble would always be between 9 and 13 moves (and 13 moves would be really rare), and a 9 moves long scramble has no reason to be particularly easy.


----------



## Stefan (Jul 11, 2012)

TMOY said:


> But with my idea, the length of a scramble would always be between 9 and 13 moves (and 13 moves would be really rare), and a 9 moves long scramble has no reason to be particularly easy.



Then why not just set the minimum number of moves to 9?

But I'd like the fixed 11 moves better, because saving two moves doesn't save much and setting a minimum like 9 is arbitrary (why not 8 or 10?).


----------



## jfly (Jul 11, 2012)

Pedro said:


> Did you make it look for 3x3 scramble during 200ms?



I did not, sorry. Just did: https://github.com/jfly/tnoodle/commit/421ba4c53ed7efd01d01fcf071946ed7a9924177. I've also released 0.6.8 with that change.



Stefan said:


> Then why not just set the minimum number of moves to 9?
> 
> But I'd like the fixed 11 moves better, because saving two moves doesn't save much and setting a minimum like 9 is arbitrary (why not 8 or 10?).



Yeah, fixed seems fine to me. The number of moves saved is so inconsequential. Not that I see this happening, but lets not let this turn into a debate about scramble filtering. TNoodle does not filter any scrambles. To do is a decision the WCA would have to make, not TNoodle.


----------



## Vincents (Jul 11, 2012)

jfly said:


> Yeah, fixed seems fine to me. The number of moves saved is so inconsequential. Not that I see this happening, but lets not let this turn into a debate about scramble filtering. TNoodle does not filter any scrambles. To do is a decision the WCA would have to make, not TNoodle.




It does mask scrambles, however. So people shouldn't know whether each scramble is actually easy. If you're going through the trouble of trying everything to see if it is, then you shouldn't be competing.


----------



## TMOY (Jul 11, 2012)

Vincents said:


> It does mask scrambles, however. So people shouldn't know whether each scramble is actually easy. If you're going through the trouble of trying everything to see if it is, then you shouldn't be competing.


That's precisely my point. It's possible to realize that a 4-move scramble is coming without really paying attention, just by noticing that the scramblers seem to go faster than usual. But if you're trying to tell 9-move scrambles for 10-move ones then you're definitely cheating.


----------



## cityzach (Jul 11, 2012)

Why Tnoodle of all names? haha


----------



## jfly (Jul 11, 2012)

cityzach said:


> Why Tnoodle of all names? haha



Quoth Ryan (the guy I made CCT with):


ryan said:


> Ryan: ccT scorcHed And Its remaiNs OODLEd.
> me: LOL
> i like it
> Ryan: Let's call it tnoodle



There's a restaurant in Berkeley called Thai Noodle where the cubers often go to eat.


----------



## qqwref (Jul 12, 2012)

I would like to say that TNoodle is too silly and undignified of a name for the official scrambler used by the international speedcubing authority. You guys can do whatever you like - I don't even go to competitions anymore - but I think it's a really poor decision to call it that.



TMOY said:


> That's precisely my point. It's possible to realize that a 4-move scramble is coming without really paying attention, just by noticing that the scramblers seem to go faster than usual. But if you're trying to tell 9-move scrambles for 10-move ones then you're definitely cheating.


The difference between a minimum of 9 moves and a minimum of 11 is negligible - knowing the scramble length in either case provides no useful information. The reason for the specific two starting moves is that the solver does a depth-first search through all 11-move solutions and prints the first one that fits, so if the first set of the first two moves it tries gives a solution, it won't even try the other starts.

For the record, the default (suboptimal) qqTimer scramblers use a minimum 2x2 length of 9 and a minimum pyraminx length of 8, and this doesn't generally have the issue of commonly repeated moves. Those two lengths are the lengths with the most positions in a God's Algorithm table.


----------



## CarlBrannen (Jul 12, 2012)

TMOY said:


> In that case, wouldn't it be better to add U R at the end of every 2^2 scramble and L' U' at the beginning of every pyraminx scramble and do the appropriate cancellations ? The state would be just as random and the scrambles would be shorter on average.



I agree completely. That the scrambles always look like that is an indication that the scramble code is not very optimal. Basic Shannon information theory.


----------



## qqwref (Jul 12, 2012)

CarlBrannen said:


> I agree completely. That the scrambles always look like that is an indication that the scramble code is not very optimal. Basic Shannon information theory.


It's not *supposed* to be optimal. That's the point.


----------



## cuBerBruce (Jul 12, 2012)

Bob said:


> The maximum number of moves for FMC is 80 (including rotations), but you give 99 spaces to enter a solution. Why not offer just 8 rows of 10? It's easier to count that way, anyway, and alerts a competitor that their solution is too long if it doesn't fit.



Because people like to write out their solutions spaced out within the form, so it easier to make corrections and change a solution to use an insertion. The form should give you space for at least 200 moves.


----------



## Bob (Jul 12, 2012)

cuBerBruce said:


> Because people like to write out their solutions spaced out within the form, so it easier to make corrections and change a solution to use an insertion. The form should give you space for at least 200 moves.



No, I really think that's what the scrap paper should be for. A solution can easily be transferred in the last couple minutes. The judges should only have to read a complete, clear and legible solution.


----------



## Vincents (Jul 12, 2012)

cuBerBruce said:


> Because people like to write out their solutions spaced out within the form, so it easier to make corrections and change a solution to use an insertion. The form should give you space for at least 200 moves.



You are allowed scratch paper.


----------



## Sebastien (Jul 12, 2012)

cuBerBruce said:


> Because people like to write out their solutions spaced out within the form, so it easier to make corrections and change a solution to use an insertion. The form should give you space for at least 200 moves.



I don't like the design to much as well, but in fact, there is no need to actually use that paper for the solution.


----------



## clement (Jul 12, 2012)

Stefan said:


> Especially when trying to reach a certain length (like 11 moves for 2x2 and pyraminx), because the solver can often use its favorite first few moves and still solve from there in the remaining number of moves.


Correct. If people don't like to see the same rotations at the beginning/end of scrambles, the order of moves during the search can be made random.


----------



## cuBerBruce (Jul 12, 2012)

Bob said:


> No, I really think that's what the scrap paper should be for.


When copying your solution from the scratch paper to the form, it's possible to accidentally leave out a move or make other mistakes. To fix the problem properly (in complete compliance with the rules stated on the form), you might in some cases have to pretty much rewrite the entire solution, perhaps even need a new form. It's always wise to spread out the solution so if you do make a mistake copying, you can fix it with a rather minimal amount of crossing out and rewriting. If the competitor is allowed some leniency in filling out the form (such as inserting a move in between two positions on the form because of a copying mistake), then I would like to see some sort of guidelines about that.

Also, let's say I come up with a solution with around 5 minutes left. I may want to write out the solution on the form right then to make sure I will have the solution ready when time expires. Then let's say I happen to find an insertion that improves my solution (even though I didn't expect I would in the time remaining). I may feel I don't have enough time to write out the new solution from scratch on a new form. Before these forms were used, I would simply have made sure to leave enough extra space around the moves of my solution so I could cross out some moves and write in some new moves in between two of the lines of my initial solution to create my new solution. But with the limited space you're allowed to use for the moves on these forms very greatly constrain the competitor's ability make this type of change. So these limited space forms actually create added constraints on the competitor that are not in any way specified or implied in the regulations. This is why I object so vehemently to these forms with such limited space/flexibility to write out the solution.


Bob said:


> A solution can easily be transferred in the last couple minutes.


I note that the competitor is not guaranteed to be warned when there are two minutes left. A competitor also risks getting a DNF if for some reason he/she fails to copy the complete solution during the last two minutes. It can be very risky to put off writing out the solution.



Bob said:


> The judges should only have to read a complete, clear and legible solution.


Spacing out a solution does not make the solution incomplete. I don't see that spacing out a solution makes a solution unclear or illegible. It seems quite clear you are only concerned about the judge here and not the competitor.



Sebastien said:


> I don't like the design to much as well, but in fact, there is no need to actually use that paper for the solution.


I'm not clear what you mean. Are you saying if you have a clear legible solution written on a scratch paper, you can hand that in to the judge as your official solution instead of the official form? I'm not so sure Bob would agree with that if that's what you mean.


----------



## Pedro (Jul 12, 2012)

cuBerBruce said:


> I'm not clear what you mean. Are you saying if you have a clear legible solution written on a scratch paper, you can hand that in to the judge as your official solution instead of the official form? I'm not so sure Bob would agree with that if that's what you mean.



This is what the regs say:
E2c) At the end of the 60 minutes the competitor must have his solution written down clearly for the judge, notation according to Article 12. Penalty: disqualification of the solve.

It doesn't say you need to hand off the "official" sheet or whatever. You may write your solution on a napkin, paper bag or something else. 
What we try to do with these sheets is make it easier to judge/count the solutions, but nothing stops (or at least nothing should stop) the competitor from writing the solution on the back of the sheet or another paper.

Also, I don't see the logic in counting rotations for the maximum lenght if we don't count them for the final result...

I agree that anything over 80 moves is just competitor having fun or whatever, but rotations shouldn't count here.


----------



## Sebastien (Jul 12, 2012)

Pedro said:


> This is what the regs say:
> E2c) At the end of the 60 minutes the competitor must have his solution written down clearly for the judge, notation according to Article 12. Penalty: disqualification of the solve.
> 
> It doesn't say you need to hand off the "official" sheet or whatever. You may write your solution on a napkin, paper bag or something else.
> What we try to do with these sheets is make it easier to judge/count the solutions, but nothing stops (or at least nothing should stop) the competitor from writing the solution on the back of the sheet or another paper.



This. To use terms like "official Paper" or "scrap paper" is complete nonsense as such things don't exist for FMC.



Pedro said:


> Also, I don't see the logic in counting rotations for the maximum lenght if we don't count them for the final result...
> 
> I agree that anything over 80 moves is just competitor having fun or whatever, but rotations shouldn't count here.



It is to prevent competitors from having fun with lots of rotations then.


----------



## qqwref (Jul 13, 2012)

1) We can hand in a solution on scrap paper? That would have saved me some real hassle last time :| I remember having to write really carefully to make sure the dark lines under each move on the official sheet didn't obstruct the moves and make it hard to tell apart stuff like B, R, F. This should be explicitly pointed out at the start of the round if it isn't already - in my experience people's experience with standardized testing makes them very wary of using non-official answer forms unless they are specifically told they can. Nobody wants to write down a valid solution and have it be DNF'd on a technicality.

2) Rotations ought to count as moves for FMC. Yes, I know we aren't used to thinking of them as moves; but then again we also aren't used to thinking of an M or M' as two moves in normal speedcubing. This would both ensure a more consistent movecount (between the move limit and the scoring system), and also help the judges: nobody can abuse the system. With the current rules someone could add a rotation or two in between every move of a 30-something-move solution and receive no penalty whatsoever. (I imagine someone handing in a solution written in <U,x,y,z> for the lulz.) And it would provide an incentive for people to eliminate rotations from their solution.


----------



## ben1996123 (Jul 13, 2012)

There are official FMC solution sheets? We didn't have any at rapid dash open, just handed in a scrap piece of paper with your name on and a box around your final solution.


----------



## Pedro (Jul 13, 2012)

I don't think rotations should count, because they don't affect the cube state as the turns do.

If someone makes fun of the judge with lots of rotations, DNF the person...


----------



## qqwref (Jul 13, 2012)

Pedro said:


> If someone makes fun of the judge with lots of rotations, DNF the person...


So now we have to allow judges to DNF someone because they don't like the way they wrote the solution, even if it's valid and satisfies all the regulations (within 80 moves+rotations, solves cube, in FRUDLBxyzMES, etc.)? That's disturbingly close to letting a judge DNF someone for using the wrong method or having a solution that only makes sense when inverted, etc.


----------



## Henrik (Jul 13, 2012)

ben1996123 said:


> There are official FMC solution sheets? We didn't have any at rapid dash open, just handed in a scrap piece of paper with your name on and a box around your final solution.



No there is no official FMC solution sheet. I think most competitions do as you did at Rapid Dash. I know the same is done in Denmark and Sweden. 
I as an organizer print a sheet of paper with 6-8 copies of the same scramble on, and hand out one of them as a little strip of paper to the competitors. I would not like to be forced to use an "FMC solution sheet", though the idea is good. To me it almost sounds like it could be a waste of paper and ink.


----------



## Bob (Jul 13, 2012)

Henrik said:


> No there is no official FMC solution sheet. I think most competitions do as you did at Rapid Dash. I know the same is done in Denmark and Sweden.
> I as an organizer print a sheet of paper with 6-8 copies of the same scramble on, and hand out one of them as a little strip of paper to the competitors. I would not like to be forced to use an "FMC solution sheet", though the idea is good. To me it almost sounds like it could be a waste of paper and ink.



Forms like the one shown have been pretty standard in the United States for about five years or so. There has never been an official form or anything, but I have always given a form like the one from TNoodle. I think the idea of an official form is very good, but I suppose my opinion is biased since I have been the one to judge FMC so many times.

Currently, as long as a solution is clearly indicated, it's fine. I have graded solutions that have not been on the solution paper. However, when you receive solutions with boxes and arrows and carrots and things, it gets confusing. If I'm grading FMC and you confuse me, I will DNF you. An official sheet like this forces solutions to be written more clearly and are therefore in favor of the competitor. I have seen so many poorly written solutions that received DNFs.


----------



## ardi4nto (Jul 13, 2012)

I think we should start another thread about official FMC regulations, like rotations counting, maximum lengths, official sheets and scrap paper.

My opinion in FMC
[1] Personally I don't like the idea of separating official and scrap paper, as long as the solution is written clearly and the judge can read it, then fine.
[2] About counting rotations: let say a competitor submit 75 moves solution and the solution contain 12 rotations. He doesn't want to having fun with FMC but just a beginner trying FMC. But it doubles the job of the judge: first, counting his moves and second, counting his moves+rotations to check it's a DNF or not.


----------



## Pedro (Jul 13, 2012)

ardi4nto said:


> I think we should start another thread about official FMC regulations, like rotations counting, maximum lengths, official sheets and scrap paper.
> 
> My opinion in FMC
> [1] Personally I don't like the idea of separating official and scrap paper, as long as the solution is written clearly and the judge can read it, then fine.
> [2] About counting rotations: let say a competitor submit 75 moves solution and the solution contain 12 rotations. He doesn't want to having fun with FMC but just a beginner trying FMC. But it doubles the job of the judge: first, counting his moves and second, counting his moves+rotations to check it's a DNF or not.



Agreed totally. Why should a solution with 75 moves and 6 rotations not count and one with 50 moves and 29 rotations do?


----------



## cuBerBruce (Jul 13, 2012)

Bob said:


> An official sheet like this forces solutions to be written more clearly and are therefore in favor of the competitor.



LOL. I don't see how putting extra demands and constraints on the competitor is any way favorable to the competitor. It's the exact opposite.

(If providing the solution on the form is seen merely an option the competitor may use, then of course it doesn't really force any new demands and constraints on the competitor.)

The current WCA regulations allow me as a competitor to write out a nice "double-spaced" solution with no particular constraints on exact placement, number of moves on a line, etc. as a solution ready to hand in. More important for this discussion, it is possible for me to rather efficiently modify this hand-in ready solution to use an insertion. If I've provided myself sufficient extra space, I can do this without using carets or flow arrows so that the modified solution will still read left-to-right, top-to-bottom.

Anything that would limit my ability to take one hand-in ready solution, and efficiently modify it into a better hand-in ready solution, as described above, would definitely be unfavorable to me as a competitor. That is why I'd like to see the form be less constraining than it is. If it offers me more flexibility, I'm more likely to use it.

The current form is so restrictive, if the competitor tries to edit a solution he has already written down, it's almost a sure bet he'll have to use flow arrows (or similar things), something Bob seems to think this form should prevent.

Getting back to the thread topic...

With TNoodle apparently to become the official scramble generator for WCA competitions, and the fact that TNoodle produces a form like that has been used in the United States in recent years, it seems likely to me that the use of these forms will start becoming the norm worldwide. I also have to be wondering if the WRC is also considering rule changes to Fewest Moves, possibly even mandating the use of the form and competitors needing to provide the answer on the form. I sure hope not.


----------



## Bob (Jul 13, 2012)

cuBerBruce said:


> LOL. I don't see how putting extra demands and constraints on the competitor is any way favorable to the competitor. It's the exact opposite.
> 
> (If providing the solution on the form is seen merely an option the competitor may use, then of course it doesn't really force any new demands and constraints on the competitor.)
> 
> ...



You could of course just request a new sheet or use a pencil and eraser if you're worried about having to delete moves.


----------



## Ranzha (Jul 13, 2012)

Bob said:


> You could of course just request a new sheet or use a pencil and eraser if you're worried about having to delete moves.



Or, you know, just not have to fiddle around with an official sheet format and just have an empty box in which to write final solution only.
That could also help with explaining steps or methods or solution clarification.


----------



## cuBerBruce (Jul 13, 2012)

Bob said:


> You could of course just request a new sheet or use a pencil and eraser if you're worried about having to delete moves.



Insertions generally involve adding more moves (in that particular part of the solution where the insertion is being made) than are deleted. So even if I can erase, I will still need to add in extra moves in between the lines or in the margins.

If I use a new solution sheet, I have to write the whole solution from scratch. That takes more time. I may not have time to search the entire skeleton for an insertion. At some point, I will have to stop searching and just use the best I've found so far. If have to write the whole solution, I will have to stop searching sooner, and this may result in settling for a poorer insertion.

I'm getting the impression that the grid in the forms may be intended more to better help you write your solution "nicely" (for the judge's benefit) and not really to enforce strict placement of the moves by the competitor. If I know I will be allowed to make some exceptions in placing the moves on the grid positions so I can more reasonably edit a solution in place, including inserting some moves between the rows, then my objections to the form will largely go away. I just don't think the solution form should be constraining me (very much) from what I can do on a free form sheet. As Ranzha mentioned, I would generally prefer to the solution sheet to just have a large free-form box. Of course, from the judge's point of view, it doesn't help the competitor write straight rows, or help the judge with counting moves.


----------



## Bob (Jul 13, 2012)

cuBerBruce said:


> Insertions generally involve adding more moves (in that particular part of the solution where the insertion is being made) than are deleted. So even if I can erase, I will still need to add in extra moves in between the lines or in the margins.
> 
> If I use a new solution sheet, I have to write the whole solution from scratch. That takes more time. I may not have time to search the entire skeleton for an insertion. At some point, I will have to stop searching and just use the best I've found so far. If have to write the whole solution, I will have to stop searching sooner, and this may result in settling for a poorer insertion.
> 
> I'm getting the impression that the grid in the forms may be intended more to better help you write your solution "nicely" (for the judge's benefit) and not really to enforce strict placement of the moves by the competitor. If I know I will be allowed to make some exceptions in placing the moves on the grid positions so I can more reasonably edit a solution in place, including inserting some moves between the rows, then my objections to the form will largely go away. I just don't think the solution form should be constraining me (very much) from what I can do on a free form sheet. As Ranzha mentioned, I would generally prefer to the solution sheet to just have a large free-form box. Of course, from the judge's point of view, it doesn't help the competitor write straight rows, or help the judge with counting moves.



Like I stated before, I prefer to make things easier for the judges. Part of the reason why FMC is held so infrequently here is because of how much it sucks to run from an administrative standpoint. You need to find a judge willing to sit with the competitors and keep time for an hour and then you need to recruit judges to check (and in many cases double check--I always double check a solution that gave me a DNF and if I still get DNF, I give it to somebody else to verify) solutions. All this while another event is usually running concurrently with reduced manpower because you have potential judges competing in FMC. I consider anything that makes this process easier administratively more important than costing competitors a minute or two to transfer their solution.



Ranzha V. Emodrach said:


> Or, you know, just not have to fiddle around with an official sheet format and just have an empty box in which to write final solution only.
> That could also help with explaining steps or methods or solution clarification.


There is no need for explanations or clarifications unless the solution is suspicious. Do people really give explanations of their solutions? No--very rarely.


----------



## Ranzha (Jul 13, 2012)

Bob said:


> There is no need for explanations or clarifications unless the solution is suspicious. Do people really give explanations of their solutions? No--very rarely.



If need be, however, then any extra blank space can be utilised, yes?


----------



## Bob (Jul 13, 2012)

Ranzha V. Emodrach said:


> If need be, however, then any extra blank space can be utilised, yes?



In almost all cases, a verbal explanation would probably suffice. If it was an extraordinary case, I would probably just ask for it on the back of the scramble sheet.


----------



## Lucas Garron (Jul 13, 2012)

It's great that everyone cares about having a good solution for FMC sheets, but this thread should be about more general things relating to TNoodle, and what other important features the official scrambler should have.

Please continue discussing FMC in this thread.


----------



## ardi4nto (Jul 14, 2012)

On TNoodle:
Why it takes so long to generate 4x4 scrambles? took me 5 minutes for the first time. Does it implement random state scrambler for 4x4?


----------



## Ranzha (Jul 14, 2012)

ardi4nto said:


> On TNoodle:
> Why it takes so long to generate 4x4 scrambles? took me 5 minutes for the first time. Does it implement random state scrambler for 4x4?





https://github.com/cubing/tnoodle/blob/master/server/src_tnoodle_resources/tnoodleServerHandler/server/readme-scramble.md said:


> NOTE: 4x4x4 scrambles may take up to 10 minutes to initialize and generate. If you are generating 4x4x4 scrambles, be patient while the loading bar may appear to be stuck.
> 
> ...
> 
> The notion of "random state" is straightforward for 2x2x2-4x4x4, Pyraminx, and Clock: every possible state has equal weight.



Yes. 4x4 random state x_x Crazy stuff.

Is there a way to perhaps reorder the pages of the scrambles? For instance, so an organiser could be able to print scrambles in the scheduled order they appear in competition.


----------



## Bob (Jul 14, 2012)

Seriously? What is the average time required to generate each round of five 4x4 scrambles?


----------



## qqwref (Jul 14, 2012)

Uh, 4x4 random state? How many moves is it?


----------



## uberCuber (Jul 14, 2012)

4x4 random state wtf


----------



## Ranzha (Jul 14, 2012)

Lucas posted a pic on Instagram on 15 June.
http://instagram.com/p/L4zzCMgSp6/

The first scramble is 47 moves long.


----------



## Lucas Garron (Jul 14, 2012)

Ranzha V. Emodrach said:


> Yes. 4x4 random state x_x Crazy stuff.
> 
> Is there a way to perhaps reorder the pages of the scrambles? For instance, so an organiser could be able to print scrambles in the scheduled order they appear in competition.



Yes, actually, although this is a hidden feature for now. You can click on a round and drag it to any position.



ardi4nto said:


> On TNoodle:
> Why it takes so long to generate 4x4 scrambles? took me 5 minutes for the first time. Does it implement random state scrambler for 4x4?





Bob said:


> Seriously? What is the average time required to generate each round of five 4x4 scrambles?


Yes, Clément put in a lot of work to make Bruce's solver work for this.
This is documented in the readme. (You can get to it from the little "?" in the corner of the TNoodle interface, or at https://bit.ly/tnoodle-readme-scramble)

For me, on the first run it takes a little under a minute for the solver to finish initializing and start generating scrambles. (The second time using TNoodle, it takes about 10 seconds to load the tables from disk.)
After that, it generates about 1 scramble per second.

It may take longer on other computers the first time you run TNoodle, but hopefully not much over 5 minutes. I think the initialization time a reasonable trade-off for high-quality official scrambles.


----------



## Ranzha (Jul 14, 2012)

Lucas Garron said:


> Yes, actually, although this is a hidden feature for now. You can click on a round and drag it to any position.



Oh wow, I can't believe I didn't notice considering the four-direction arrows =P Silly me.


----------



## cuBerBruce (Jul 14, 2012)

It looks like Clement has done a very nice job improving my 4x4x4 solver for use with TNoodle. He has apparently updated it to try multiple solutions for a given phase (to get average solution length down), reduced memory usage and still have it produce the solutions quickly.

I do have some concerns, though, about if this solver is really a correct random-state solver. With the 4x4x4, there are a couple of issues you need to watch out for in a random-state solver.

First, the puzzle has indistinguishable pieces. Because of this, puzzle states do not have unique inverse states. Thus, I would expect that the program would pick a puzzle state at random, run the solver, then invert the solver's solution to produce a sequence that generates the chosen state when starting from the solved state. The last step of my solver uses only half-turns. Thus, I would tend to expect the scrambles produced to start with some half-turn moves. It seems that some do, while others seem to end with several half-turn moves instead. I find this puzzling.

Secondly, the solver (at least the one I made) doesn't care what orientation the cube has when solved. (The puzzle doesn't have fixed centers that can serve as a reference for the orientation of the cube.) So when the solver is done, the cube might have "red-yellow" (up-front) orientation instead of "white-green" orientation. Simply inverting the solution would produce a scramble assuming "red-yellow" starting orientation instead of the WCA standard "white-green" orientation. I believe this can result in uneven probability distribution among the elements of a symmetry-equivalence class (with some elements having probability zero). Possibly, Clement is dealing with this issue in some way, but I can't immediately tell.


----------



## clement (Jul 16, 2012)

Thank you, Bruce.
About your first point, I was trying to solve using hex-search (3 orientations + inverse), but I soon realized that because the centers do not form a group, you could not use the inverse position. This has already been fixed in my own repository (https://github.com/clementgallet/FiveStage444) but is not incorporated yet into the main scrambler.
About your second post, you are right. The cube can end up in several orientations, and I didn't take that into account.
Thanks for reviewing.


----------



## cuBerBruce (Jul 16, 2012)

clement said:


> About your first point, I was trying to solve using hex-search (3 orientations + inverse), but I soon realized that because the centers do not form a group, you could not use the inverse position. This has already been fixed in my own repository (https://github.com/clementgallet/FiveStage444) but is not incorporated yet into the main scrambler.
> About your second post, you are right. The cube can end up in several orientations, and I didn't take that into account.



Great, I just wanted to be sure that the scrambler came up with a correct scramble for any chosen state before this was used for official competitions.

I note that I could have written the solver to force the orientation of the solved cube to be fixed. This would have caused some phases to have slightly more moves in the worst case. My solver was a sort of by-product of some work I did to come up with upper bounds on God's number for the 4x4x4. Because of that, I specifically opted for more flexible goal states so as to minimize the worst case number of moves in each phase.

For random state scrambler purposes, it might (but not necessarily) make sense to change the solver to force the orientation of the solved cube. I think this would especially make sense if the scrambler were intended to produce a particular cube orientation as well as a particular position. However, I am guessing what is being implemented is to simply producing a random position, but not a particular cube orientation for that position.

Clement mentioned using 3 orientations. One might wonder, if my solver is not solving to a particular cube orientation, if this would matter at all. Well, yes, it still matters. I'll give an example below using phase 1.

One of the goals of phase 1 is to orient the corners. To orient corners, my solver always places the white/yellow stickers on two opposite faces. It could be the U/D faces, the L/R faces, or the F/B faces. When Clement talks about using 3 orientations, I assume he means that in one case, it will place the red/orange stickers on opposite faces; and in another case, it will place the green/blue stickers on opposite faces. In all cases, the two faces can be any of the three possibilities.


----------



## okayama (Aug 29, 2012)

I noticed this scrambler, and wanted to try, but it didn't work.
When I accessed http://tnoodle.tk/scramble, it displayed just
"Loading scramble interface...", and after that nothing happened anymore.
My laptop is Mac OS X 10.7 (Lion), and I tried several browsers like
Safari, Chrome, Firefox, but all of them are NG.

I also tried to download the jar file from https://github.com/cubing/tnoodle/downloads
and executed "java -jar TNoodle-0.6.9.jar". Then it displayed


> INFO 10 1346256291178 net.gnehzr.tnoodle.utils.Launcher:wrapMain Re-execing with [java, -Xmx512m, -classpath, /Users/okayama/TNoodle-0.6.9.jar, net.gnehzr.tnoodle.server.TNoodleServer, -noReexec]
> TNoodle-0.6.9 started
> Opening http://xxx.yyy.zz.ww:8080 in browser. Pass -n to disable this!


and opened a browser, but the same happened as above. The version of java is


> $ java -version
> java version "1.6.0_33"
> Java(TM) SE Runtime Environment (build 1.6.0_33-b03-424-11M3720)
> Java HotSpot(TM) 64-Bit Server VM (build 20.8-b03-424, mixed mode)



If I explicitly accessed http://tnoodle.tk/scramble/Big Competition.pdf?FMC Round 1=333*fmc or
http://tnoodle.tk/scramble/My Comp.pdf?3x3 Round 1=333*5*2&3x3 Round 2=333*5 ,
appropriate scrambles were given.

Does anyone know why?


----------



## jfly (Aug 29, 2012)

okayama said:


> I noticed this scrambler, and wanted to try, but it didn't work.
> When I accessed http://tnoodle.tk/scramble, it displayed just
> "Loading scramble interface...", and after that nothing happened anymore.
> My laptop is Mac OS X 10.7 (Lion), and I tried several browsers like
> Safari, Chrome, Firefox, but all of them are NG.



This sounds like a bug with our javascript/html ui. Are you getting any error messages? Could you try again in Chrome, but with the developer toolbar (ctrl+shift+j to open)?


----------



## Mollerz (Aug 29, 2012)

Just to let you know there are moves such as 3U 3D' next to each other in the 6x6 scrambler and this is not meant to be allowed, you should probably fix that. I believe 4x4 is fine.


----------



## kinch2002 (Aug 29, 2012)

Not sure if this has been mentioned already but at N8W8 this weekend there were 6x6 scrambles with things like 3U 3D'

EDIT: So badly ninja'd there


----------



## jfly (Aug 29, 2012)

kinch2002 said:


> Not sure if this has been mentioned already but at N8W8 this weekend there were 6x6 scrambles with things like 3U 3D'
> 
> EDIT: So badly ninja'd there



Thanks, this has actually been fixed already, but we haven't uploaded a new version yet. See https://github.com/cubing/tnoodle/issues/59 for details.


----------



## cubernya (Aug 29, 2012)

kinch2002 said:


> Not sure if this has been mentioned already but at N8W8 this weekend there were 6x6 scrambles with things like 3U 3D'
> 
> EDIT: So badly ninja'd there



TNoodle was used to generate scrambles for that?...


----------



## okayama (Aug 30, 2012)

jfly said:


> This sounds like a bug with our javascript/html ui. Are you getting any error messages? Could you try again in Chrome, but with the developer toolbar (ctrl+shift+j to open)?



In console tab, there were some messages.
When I accessed http://tnoodle.tk/scramble, I got:


> Uncaught SyntaxError: Invalid regular expression: missing / mootools-more-1.4.0.1.js:1404
> Uncaught ReferenceError: Sortables is not defined ui.js:723
> mark2.ui.initialize ui.js:723
> (anonymous function) scramble:263


When I executed "java -jar TNoodle-0.6.9.jar", I got:


> Uncaught SyntaxError: Invalid regular expression: missing / mootools-more-1.4.0.1.js:1404
> Uncaught ReferenceError: Sortables is not defined ui.js:723



EDIT: Line 1404 of mootools-more-1.4.0.1.js is:


> 'a': /[ﾃ^Zﾃ｡ﾃ｢ﾃ｣ﾃ､ﾃ･ﾄζ�/g,


Seems garbled characters for me.


----------



## vcuber13 (Aug 30, 2012)

theZcuber said:


> TNoodle was used to generate scrambles for that?...


it was used at TOS a couple weeks ago


----------



## cubernya (Aug 30, 2012)

Since when is TNoodle the WCA scrambler? I don't really understand why people are using this instead of WCA scramblers when it's not official _yet_


----------



## jazzthief81 (Sep 2, 2012)

We have used TNoodle to generate the scrambles at N8W8 Summer 2012.

Jeremy, Clément, Chen, Lucas, Shelley and all the others that have worked on it: thank you very much for this excellent contribution to the community. This saves us delegates almost a whole evening's worth of work.

There are a few things I'd like to point out.

One of the scrambles for 6x6x6 contained the following move sequences: 3L' 3R and later on 3L2 3R2. Another scramble contained the following sequence: 3B' 3F. This doesn't do anything except rotate the puzzle. 

We also saw the following move sequences occur on 6x6x6 scrambles: 3D 3U2 and 3L 3R. These could be written down as one move instead of two moves and still achieve the same effect.

Another minor thing is that for multiple blindfolded, you can change the default number of scrambles to 30 and it would still fit on 6 pages.


----------



## masterofthebass (Sep 2, 2012)

this was already addressed.



jfly said:


> kinch2002 said:
> 
> 
> > Not sure if this has been mentioned already but at N8W8 this weekend there were 6x6 scrambles with things like 3U 3D'
> ...


----------



## jfly (Nov 8, 2012)

okayama said:


> In console tab, there were some messages.
> When I accessed http://tnoodle.tk/scramble, I got:
> 
> When I executed "java -jar TNoodle-0.6.9.jar", I got:
> ...



Sorry for the long delay here, but is this working for you now? The latest version of tnoodle (0.7.1) is available here https://github.com/cubing/tnoodle/downloads.


----------



## okayama (Nov 9, 2012)

jfly said:


> Sorry for the long delay here, but is this working for you now? The latest version of tnoodle (0.7.1) is available here https://github.com/cubing/tnoodle/downloads.


Great, I accessed http://tnoodle.tk/ by Chrome and it worked fine.


----------



## cubernya (Dec 18, 2012)

Bump. Is there any update on the status of this becoming the WCA scrambler? Is it happening in 2013?


----------



## Lucas Garron (Dec 18, 2012)

theZcuber said:


> Bump. Is there any update on the status of this becoming the WCA scrambler? Is it happening in 2013?


Yes, the current regulations have been sent to the Board. They wil hopefully be adopted with TNoodle as a new official scrambler on January 1. (With the old scramblers deprecated, but possibly still allowed.)


----------



## Jimmy Liu (Jan 30, 2015)

*What's wrong with my TNoodle?*

I put TNoodle-WCA-0.8.4.jar in a file called TNoodle, it should open a page on my browser but ended up with generating another two files as the picture shown below.

I am sure that I have downloaded the newest Java which may not be the reason.


----------



## Stefan (Jan 30, 2015)

I get tnoodle_resources as well, but not the other one. Anyway, try opening http://localhost:2014/


----------



## ChrisCuber123 (Mar 13, 2016)

*TNoodle 0.10.0 Not Working*

I downloaded TNoodle to generate some WCA scrambles, but it won't work on my computer (I have Java installed). When I open it, it just makes the files, but doesn't open http://localhost:2014/scramble in my browser. I don't know what's happening, can someone please tell me what to do to get this to work?


----------



## jfly (Mar 14, 2016)

ChrisCuber123 said:


> I downloaded TNoodle to generate some WCA scrambles, but it won't work on my computer (I have Java installed). When I open it, it just makes the files, but doesn't open http://localhost:2014/scramble in my browser. I don't know what's happening, can someone please tell me what to do to get this to work?



Please contact [email protected], with details and screenshots, if applicable, and we'll try to get you sorted out!


----------

