# Owen Notation



## Owen (Dec 2, 2011)

Okay, you may remember me mentioning "Owen Notation" several months ago. (Here)

It is about time that it comes to fruition! Here is goes:

Owen notation is based off the idea of turns being notated by two letter combinations, strung together into easy-to-read, and easy to memorize data strings.

For simplicity sake, I'll show you in comparison to "standard" notation, for the basic moves.

R = Ce
R' = Ca
L = Pe
L' = Pa
U = Se
U' = Sa
D = De
D' = Da
F = Fe
F' = Fa
M = Je
M' = Ja (M follows R)
E = Le
E' = La

For double turns, you just slam "m" to the end.

So, that's how basic moves work. The R U R' U' trigger would be CeSeCaSa. Fun and simple!

Here are some more advanced moves:

*Cube rotations*


x = Eh
x' = Ek
y = Oh
y' = Ok
z = Ah
z' = Ak



*Wide turns
*

You simple insert "i" between the two letters of the moves.

D would be "Die", M would be "Jie", etcetera.





I hope you enjoy, and start using this notation. I will add more to this post, so tell me if I missed anything.

THE T-PERM would look like:

CeSeCaSaCaFeCemSaCaSaCeSeCaFa


----------



## 4. (Dec 2, 2011)

Nice, but I think Ce/Se and Ca/Sa could be easily confused.


----------



## Andrew Ricci (Dec 2, 2011)

I dislike that even basic moves and rotations have two letters per single turn. Maybe Ca and Ce could be switched to C and Ca, but that's just like standard notation so what's the use? Plus, this will be much more difficult to memorize, since only Fa/Fe is similar to the actual face name. Sorry to say, but I just find it unnecessary.


----------



## Kirjava (Dec 3, 2011)

The problem with proposing a new notation is that it will be extremely difficult to get it adopted.

The problem with this notation is that the letters appear nonsensically assigned and things like Siem/Ciem sound almost exactly the same.

What's wrong with our current notation?


----------



## RNewms27 (Dec 3, 2011)

theanonymouscuber said:


> I dislike that even basic moves and rotations have two letters per single turn. Maybe Ca and Ce could be switched to C and Ca, but that's just like standard notation so what's the use? Plus, this will be much more difficult to memorize, since only Fa/Fe is similar to the actual face name. Sorry to say, but I just find it unnecessary.


 
If you remember R because it starts with the same letter as RIGHT, then it may be a problem for you. Audio memory will probably be simple for memorizing algs.


----------



## Owen (Dec 3, 2011)

Kirjava said:


> The problem with proposing a new notation is that it will be extremely difficult to get it adopted.
> 
> The problem with this notation is that the letters appear nonsensically assigned and things like Siem/Ciem sound almost exactly the same.
> 
> What's wrong with our current notation?


I believe I've explained this to you. In the standard notation M follows L. The current notation cannot be pronounced. The current notation is NO FUN. 

"C" is pronounced like it is in "Cat".


----------



## Sa967St (Dec 3, 2011)

The notation is clearly not useful for people who speak languages that don't primarily use Roman letters. 

I doubt it'd be useful for anyone. Who wants to see a system with 13 different letters being involved? 

Why is it important to you for algs to be 'pronounced'?


----------



## asportking (Dec 3, 2011)

I don't think it's THAT bad of a notation, but like someone (I think Kirjava?) said, it would be really hard to get everyone to adapt to a new notation. All of the youtube tutorials that have been made would be really confusing, because they'd be using the "old" notation. Along with all the cubing websites with algorithms, it just seems like a lot of work to change something that works perfectly fine already.


----------



## Sa967St (Dec 3, 2011)

Owen said:


> "C" is pronounced like it is in "Cat".


Then the "C"s should be changed to "K"s. It's not at all obvious that it's a hard C sound. 
In fact if algs in your notation were to be pronounced as if they were English words, most of the time Cs would come out as soft Cs.



asportking said:


> it just seems like a lot of work to change something that works perfectly fine already.


http://www.speedsolving.com/forum/s...est-turn-speed&p=566936&viewfull=1#post566936


----------



## qqwref (Dec 3, 2011)

My problem with this is the same as my problem with the speedcubing.ch notation which uses numbers to represent various moves. Although the approach might conceivably make it easier to memorize sequences of individual moves compared to trying to memorize standard notation, the fact is that it's a bad idea to memorize algs like that, unless you're doing something like FMC or pretty patterns where speed is irrelevant. You don't see a lot of fast cubers reciting "R, U, R', U', R', F, ..." by rote memorization when you ask them how to do a T perm. Instead, they know it in terms of triggers and what various groups of moves actually do on the cube. Then it's easy to translate that into any notation you know.

So, when you memorize something like "kesekasa", you end up with this sound in your head that you have to translate into turns one move at a time - you'd have to go through the whole sequence before you realize you can execute it as a ridiculously fast sexy-move trigger. It would be the same if I memorized the text "R U R' U'" itself, which is why I don't do that. The notation we use is only a way to communicate a concept that should be more intuitive; you can't develop any real level of understanding or speed if you are still concentrating on keeping track of the individual turns.


----------



## Owen (Dec 3, 2011)

The theory is with enough practice, you should be able to execute the algs just as fast as you can with the "standard" notation.


----------



## qqwref (Dec 3, 2011)

I disagree. Imagine you're reading through the alg in your head, and hearing it; you'd have to listen to 10+ syllables per second to get 10+ tps. I think it's clear that by the time you get 10+ tps you'd no longer be using your notation at all - you'd be using muscle memory or knowing the algorithm in terms of triggers, so you've wasted time learning how the alg sounded, when you could have memorized the triggers from the start.

As an example, what's easier to remember: F (R U R' U')2 F', or "F double sexy F'", or FeKeSeKaSaKeSeKaSaFa, from an intuitive standpoint? I think it's clearly the second one, and it's much easier to visualize the second one from the way it's written in the standard notation.

Also, I found this: http://www.speedsolving.com/forum/showthread.php?10705


----------



## Athefre (Dec 3, 2011)

I agree that adding sound to the memorization is something that should be avoided. I've been doing it unintentionally my whole puzzle solving time. I developed the habit because I first learned prime as i instead of '.

I learn a new sequence after the first or second execution and I have no problem recalling and keeping my execution speed as fast as everyone else. But, my mind pronounces the sound of every turn I make in solves. It's extremely annoying and I wish I could get it out of my head.


----------



## asportking (Dec 3, 2011)

I suppose this wouldn't be a bad idea for team BLD, assuming people could become fluent in this notation. As for it becoming the "standard" notation, I doubt it.


----------



## Tim Major (Dec 3, 2011)

Owen said:


> CeSeCaSaCaFeCemSaCaSaCeSeCaFa


 
I realised how bad this would be when I got to your example. It sounded good for memorisation until then. I taught my Dad FRUR'U'F' and FURU'R'F' like Fra-Rough and Für-Urf. It really helped him. So this sounded good, but that's a ridiculous amount of syllables for a T-perm.


----------



## CubicNL (Dec 3, 2011)

The only useful thing that could be added to notation is grip indication, though I think even that wouldn't work quite well.
I just don't really see what makes this better than the standard notation.


----------



## chrissyD (Dec 3, 2011)

Ever heard of KISS?

Keep It Simple Stupid

This is far too complicated. I mean CeSeCaSaCaFeCemSaCaSaCeSeCaFa as a T perm? Looks like something a French person would say.

The current notation is simple, easy to follow and makes sense. This however is none of those.



Owen said:


> The current notation is NO FUN.



Since when was notation meant to be fun? It's not designed to entertain you...


----------



## Owen (Dec 3, 2011)

This notation is very simple. Two letters for a move, all strung together.

No spaces, to apostrophies, no confusing formatting.


----------



## chrissyD (Dec 3, 2011)

How about...

We have notation where there is only one letter for a move and that letter corresponds to a certain face.

For example F will be front face, R will be Right face, L will be Left face. There will also be a space between each letter to make it easy to read and an apostrophe after some letters to distinguish which direction to turn the face.

If only such simple notation existed...


----------



## qqwref (Dec 3, 2011)

Owen said:


> No spaces, to apostrophies, no confusing formatting.


RUR-U-R-FR2U-R-U-RUR-F-


----------



## zmikecuber (Dec 3, 2011)

I think its just too much to memorize, and "Ce" being R. I mean R is self explanatory. R for right.

Something like Ra would even be simpler and more self explanatory... idk, I just dont really see a need for this, although its an interesting idea.

Make the sounds for the moves relate more to the move which they represent.


----------

