Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Simplify Rotation/Wide Move Notation or Remove entirely for Fewest Moves #757

Closed
EdHollingdale opened this issue Jul 16, 2019 · 80 comments
Closed

Comments

@EdHollingdale
Copy link

@EdHollingdale EdHollingdale commented Jul 16, 2019

Currently there are multiple ways to write rotations for fewest-moves. This ultimately leads to more ambiguity (which is something we should try to minimise to improve FMC grading consistency) and higher chances of false DNFs (some FMC graders may make a mistake between z and z' because they are less familiar with the notation for example).

I propose the following: either reduce the notation for rotations (we only have one way of writing U so why multiple ways of writing [u]?) OR remove rotations all together.

I am quite in favour of removing them entirely - rotations are not a move, so why should they be included in a solution? It also makes grading simpler (easier to count and less prone to miscounting).

@maconard

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

@maconard maconard commented Jul 16, 2019

I'm all for less ambiguous notation (I'd be in favor of x, x', y, y', z, z' rotations only), but I think removing rotations all together would make the event less open to newcomers -- less skilled FMC solvers or people trying to get into the event may not be able to visualize the angle they're doing turns or algorithms from without rotations yet.

@Baiqiang

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor

@Baiqiang Baiqiang commented Jul 17, 2019

@EdHollingdale

some FMC graders may make a mistake between z and z' because they are less familiar with the notation for example

I don't agree with this. Delegates must always grade the FMC sheet by themselves.

@HippolyteM

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

@HippolyteM HippolyteM commented Jul 17, 2019

Hi Baiqiang,
This is definitelty not required by the regulations.
Grading is like judging, so it could be done by anyone. Of course, given FM is a bit particular, we should always make sure this task is fulfilled by trusted competitors. But it would often be a nightmare to have FM graded by delegates only. If there are many competitors and only one delegate, it could take long to grade everything alone, and most of the time there are other events right after it so there could be no time for it. Grading with the help of several people can become very fast. Also, there is another issue with your way of doing if you are delegating alone, which is self judging. I would never grade my own sheet.

I quite agree with the fact we allow too many different moves tough. All possible moves cannot even be written on the official sheet. It would be perfectly ok for me to allow only one way of writing regulations.

@SAuroux

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor

@SAuroux SAuroux commented Jul 17, 2019

I think that getting rid of the bracket notation and just keeping the x/y/z-rotations would eliminate about 95% of all problems we have with rotations in FMC today.

@Baiqiang

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor

@Baiqiang Baiqiang commented Jul 17, 2019

@HippolyteM

This should be another thread but I want to say that delegates must check all results before submission. So they are required to grade FM sheets. I'm not saying you can't ask trusted competitors to help. But at least you need to check it by yourself.

@Ranzha

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

@Ranzha Ranzha commented Jul 17, 2019

I think bracket notation is useful and intuitive for competitors who are unfamiliar with xyz notation. I think that removing rotations for Fewest Moves creates a barrier to entry for new competitors because of methods new FMCers tend to use, and makes cutting edge FMC techniques (e.g. slice insertions, center insertions) far more difficult and unwieldy.

Perhaps clarifying with competitors the procedure for notating wide moves and rotations prior to each attempt will help with this, due to the prevalence of lowercase notation for wide moves and the somewhat arbitrary nature of xyz notation.

@maconard

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

@maconard maconard commented Jul 18, 2019

I've always been under the impression that xyz notation was normal and standard. Any algorithm I've ever seen online has been written using xyz notation. I didn't even know bracket notation for rotations existed until my first official FMC attempt, and I was so confused why I couldn't just write xyz since they make so much sense. 3D coordinate plane :)

@lgarron

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member

@lgarron lgarron commented Jul 18, 2019

Having spent a lot of time dealing with incidents and thinking about this issue, I strongly support removing all rotations.

The main issue is that every FMC solution grader needs to be aware of every possible valid move in order to grade correctly. I'm willing to bet that the average grader thinks that R2' is a valid move while not being aware that Rw is. (Until recently, even 1Rw and 3Rw were technically valid.)

I don't think that it's unreasonable to ask competitors to write solutions using only 18 valid moves. FMC already requires significant skill (finding a solution with at most 80 moves, and then transcribing it), and avoiding rotations may be extra work but is far from impossible for new cubers.
It would massively reduce the difficulty of describing to competitors and judges what notation is valid, and I think this benefit is worth it.

@maconard

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

@maconard maconard commented Jul 18, 2019

I know people that absolutely couldn't do FMC with their current abilities if rotations were removed and I know people who never use rotations no matter what anyway, so I suppose it's a toss up.

I'd put my support to keeping 1 set of rotations and removing all others, since that gets the most pros and the least cons.

We would still have rotations and at the same time the notation becomes easier to explain and grade since it's less ambiguous with fewer options. I know in my first FMC attempts I had choice paralysis, and it seems simple but afterwards I asked the delegate why I could do [u] when I could also do [d'], which seemed ridiculous to me.

I'd cast my favor towards keeping xyz rotations and removing all other rotations. Again, I've never seen an algorithm written down or online using bracket notation, outside of FMC attempts.

@Baiqiang

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor

@Baiqiang Baiqiang commented Jul 18, 2019

@lgarron

(Until recently, even 1Rw and 3Rw were technically valid.)

This is not true. The regulations says 1 < n < N.

@lgarron

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member

@lgarron lgarron commented Jul 18, 2019

The regulations says 1 < n < N.

Right. I added that for the 2019 Regs specifically to reduce the number of possible moves. ;-)
8104b4b

@lgarron lgarron added this to To do in [moved] Jul 18, 2019
@lgarron lgarron moved this from To do to Big Ideas in [moved] Jul 18, 2019
@DanielEgdal

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

@DanielEgdal DanielEgdal commented Jul 18, 2019

I would support removing all rotations for FM. Here are my reasons for it:

  • People would no longer be given stupidly strict DNF's like "Y" (capital y) or other writing mistakes. All the DNF's where the solution 'would work' are because of writing rotations incorrectly. (Well, except people writing parentheses in their solutions which I also think should still count as valid)
  • Saying "It's too hard to learn how write solutions without rotations" is a really bad excuse in my opinion. You should at least familarize yourself a bit with the event. Learning what colour/layer corresponds with one move is easier than learning 5BLD.
  • It would reduce counting erros and make it easier to explain the limit of the 80 moves (now excluding rotations). That would allow someone being more inefficient to get a result if they spent the 1 minute to learn which moves correspond to which layer.

I might have more points which come to mind, but these are the largest issues with rotations I see now.

@lgarron

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member

@lgarron lgarron commented Jul 19, 2019

I'm thinking of asking the WAC for input on how this will affect the community. @thewca/wrc-team, does that sounds like a good idea?

@ColorfulPockets

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

@ColorfulPockets ColorfulPockets commented Jul 19, 2019

I feel strongly that eliminating rotations entirely is bad. For one thing, there are advanced techniques such as “slicey shenanigans” which can occasionally use rotations while you’re doing the solve (typically you’d eliminate them by the end, but if you’re in a hurry you might not have time to).

Additionally, it serves to make the event less beginner-friendly. I used rotations in my first solve and I don’t think I would have gotten a success if I hadn’t, and trying it for the first time in competition and getting that success inspired me to learn more about it.

In my opinion, xyz rotations should be kept, and I wouldn’t mind having bracket rotations as an additional option as we have it now. My vote would be for no change.

@leeo3264

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

@leeo3264 leeo3264 commented Jul 19, 2019

[r] as syntactic sugar for x seems harmless enough, however I never see it outside of WCA FMC contests, and I have yet to find a competitor that uses it even when filling out FMC. As a software programmer, I supported it in my software, but it required careful programming to cover things like: [r]2 or [r2] or [l]2 or [l2] for x2 and [r'] or [r]' or [l] for x'. If whole-cube rotations are to be eliminated, I would propose doing it in three steps: step 1: eliminate the esoteric bracket notation and require x x' x2, y y' y2, or z z' z2. step 2: restrict the whole-cube rotations to at most 10 per solution. step 3: eliminate whole-cube rotations. Things like 3Rw for x have already been eliminated.

@maconard

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

@maconard maconard commented Jul 19, 2019

@leeo3264 I think your step 1 is excellent. Step 2 is reasonable, but I'm not sure how necessary it is. If someone did 11 rotations it would seem silly to DNF them for a good solution they did their best on. I would like to avoid step 3 😅

@UnderwaterCuber

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

@UnderwaterCuber UnderwaterCuber commented Jul 19, 2019

Dittoing @ColorfulPockets first two paragraphs because I’m thinking the same thing but can’t word it as eloquently :P

I definitely wouldn’t be opposed to limiting legal notation for rotations though to make them less ambiguous. x, y, z seem more common and clock uses them but they aren’t that intuitive and if people are going to be silly and not count things like Y as a rotation then they should be done away with.

Brackets are a lot more intuitive and as long as people aren’t writing them like { or ( then they are good.

I think the fmc sheets should have all legal moves on them as well just to help clear things up :)

@KitClement

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor

@KitClement KitClement commented Jul 19, 2019

No additional points to add, but I would support removing only bracket-type rotations over removing all rotations.

@theoleinad

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

@theoleinad theoleinad commented Jul 19, 2019

Hi all, my main event is FMC, I do not use rotations, but would like to add the following:
We want more people get involved in FMC, right?
So taking out completely the rotations will make people not wanting to participate in the future.

I think we should keep [r],[u],[b] (bracketed) rotations, since it's easier to understand and grade.
x,y,z rotations are a little more difficult to understand for an average cuber (for FMC means)

I voy for bracketed rotations only, not removing, since removing them will cause people to cease to participate.

@maconard

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

@maconard maconard commented Jul 19, 2019

At least in America, the 3D coordinate plane is an elementary school (~5th grade, age 10 or so) topic. I don't think I know anyone who couldn't describe the x, y, and z axes on a cube. Demonstrating clockwise and counterclockwise around an axis is a common exercise. That said, I can't speak well on this for the rest of the world though, which is important as this is a global matter.

The overlap of things like [u] and [d'] seems far less clear than a commonly defined mathematical notation taught regularly to even non-cubers.

@theoleinad

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

@theoleinad theoleinad commented Jul 19, 2019

At least in America, the 3D coordinate plane is an elementary school (~5th grade, age 10 or so) topic. I don't think I know anyone who couldn't describe the x, y, and z axes on a cube. Demonstrating clockwise and counterclockwise around an axis is a common exercise. That said, I can't speak well on this for the rest of the world though, which is important as this is a global matter.

So X rotation is looking from Left, or Right?
Y Rotation, looking from up or down?
Z Rotation, looking from Front or Back?

[u] and [d'] is the same movement, no issues there, you got it right, and you should know U and D' for FMC... so it's more "case" specific...

@DanielEgdal

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

@DanielEgdal DanielEgdal commented Jul 19, 2019

I discussed this topic with more with other Delegates in my region upon my first comment.
Daniel Wallin came with a good suggestion which we all seemed to think of as the best solution. For the record, this also covers other FM notation.
We should be more lenient but also consistent in the notation, so the suggestion was to keep all the current Face moves and only leave xyz rotations. All these moves should then be treated as the same whether or not they are lowercase or upper case. E.g. U, R, F, L, B, D, X, Y, Z are the same as u, r, f, l, b, d. x, y, z. Additionally the wide moves such as Rw should still be valid notation, the same goes for rw or RW or rW.
If we want to keep rotations, I think this is by far the best solution. This would remove all handwriting errors for people are not skilled enough with a pen or how certain letters have to be written but still knows the notation. There should not be any possible DNFs left for people confusing which ways to write different moves on a cube.

@ColorfulPockets

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

@ColorfulPockets ColorfulPockets commented Jul 19, 2019

I think that Daniel’s suggestion of defined leniency is the most sensible way to clarify notation. Just wanted to second that

@UnderwaterCuber

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

@UnderwaterCuber UnderwaterCuber commented Jul 19, 2019

I would like to third Daniels suggestion :P

@jamesquinn1

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

@jamesquinn1 jamesquinn1 commented Oct 14, 2019

"I'd like to make sure we also get feedback from Delegates and organizers on this (since they are the ones dealing with incidents in practice), but 83% of a serious FMC competitor group on Facebook is pretty significant even if you consider potential respondent population biases."

I've been an organizer for 5 fmc means this year, and I'm organizing 2 more in the next 2 months. I want them to stay.

From looking at the polls made in CF and Fewest Moves, which resulted in 74-10-3 and 148-14-17 votes. These are not changes the community wants!

IMO this boils down to one simple fact. If you don't know the notation, don't use it. Simple as that. Graders should have to know the regulations.

@alexmaasswca

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

@alexmaasswca alexmaasswca commented Oct 14, 2019

Why should the opinion of a single person outweigh 83% of a serious FMC Facebook group?
It is clear you are grasping for straws to try to support this if you have to resort to the opinion of one person to argue against the opinion of 148 people.

@casiku

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

@casiku casiku commented Oct 14, 2019

I like it because it means I won't have to learn advanced techniques (slicey shenanigans and center insertions), so it will be easier for me to compete. Lucky solutions will win instead of clever ones!

@UnderwaterCuber

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

@UnderwaterCuber UnderwaterCuber commented Oct 14, 2019

Negative affects of removing wide moves and rotations

  • Makes the event harder for beginners

    • First time or new competitors usually do FMC by using their normal speed solving methods, often relying on rotations or wide moves since those would come up in their solves normally (even slice moves, which can be very easily translated into face turns and wide moves, ex M2 = Rw2 R2) and while it is doable with practice, switching from using rotations to none takes time (certainly more time than it takes to read the regulations on what is and isn’t legal) and changes the nature of the event to be much less competitor friendly (the fact Lucas that implies that it doesn't matter if this makes it harder for beginners since this event is more "advanced" concerns me quite frankly). I find this to directly oppose the wca mission statement “Our mission is to have more competitions in more countries with more people and more fun, under fair and equal conditions.”
  • Potential to cause just as much confusion as it fixes

    • If we really are going off the idea that many competitors aren’t reading the regulations and that it’s causing problems then it goes both ways. If we did remove wide moves and rotations many competitors would DNF or allow illegal solutions. Following the implementation of the new regs there would be a large amount of incidents and DNFs.
  • Several advanced techniques use rotations.

    • This is the group of people that removing rotations would probably affect the least but it still affects them. Using things such as slicey schenanigans or center insertions require slice moves (translated into wide moves paired with face turns or face turns with rotations for FMC) and removing wide moves and rotations would make them take longer, as competitors would have to convert their wide moves and rotation using solutions to ones with just face turns. This could add as little as 1-2 minutes (as said by Sebastiano Toronto, a user of these methods and a proponent of removing rotations and wide moves) or several minutes (as suggested by several others).

Positive effects of removing wide moves and rotations (and counter arguments)

  • Competitors and graders may not understand some notation. Removing it would mean they don't have to deal with more notation.

    • Removing rotations and wide moves from fmc would mean removing notation that is already used in scrambles for other events (wide moves in big cubes, 3bld, 5bld, mbld, rotations in 4bld, clock). Using unfamiliarity with notation or too much complicated notation as an argument for its removal is invalid. If you can’t expect graders to understand legal notation then you also can’t expect scramblers to know the notation to scramble.
  • Issues with counting and grading

    • With the the proposal to make all solutions public I could see miscounted or incorrectly graded solutions being caught much more frequently seeing how the solutions will be exposed to a much larger amount of people than just the grader. As for counting, removing rotations makes it easier for judges to count has been used as an argument. The current two counting methods that can be employed to count are as follows:
      1. Count all the moves and skip over rotations.
      2. Count all rotations and moves and then subtract the number of rotations.
        I don’t think either of these methods are particularly difficult or complex, most people know how to count, most people know how subtraction works. Yes it is possible to make a mistake but odds are it will be caught.
  • Graders or competitors may not know legal notation, this fixes the problem for them.

    • Counterpoint: Graders shouldn’t be grading if they are clueless about which moves are or aren’t legal. You wouldn’t expect someone to scramble clock for example if they had no idea how notation worked, you would't expect unfamiliar with judging to be able to judge without instruction, etc. As for competitors, it’s ultimately their fault if they DNF by using invalid notation, they should read the regs before competing,
  • The community

    • Most people (many of whom are experienced FMC solvers or have organized the event) on this thread and online seem to agree that removing bracket rotations could be beneficial. Having two differing notations to do the same thing doesn’t really make sense, in addition it is possible that a grader could get [r] confused with R.
    • Most also seem to agree that removing all but face turn moves would cause many competitors to take more time, whether that’s as little as two minutes or as much as 10 minutes every bit of time matters in fmc.
    • Most people also agree that it’s difficult for beginners to not use any rotations or wide moves without practice. Seeing how everyone who has done fmc was a beginner at some point I feel like that’s a good indication that a large amount of beginners would do poorly when thrown into the new system. The argument that “it forces them to pick up good habits” is rather strange in my opinion. We have nothing in our current system that does that and I don’t see any reason to add something that does that, just because you compete doesn’t mean you want to be come really good, it may just be something fun to do.
  • Competitors wouldn’t have to know 12a2 and 12a4. This makes explaining how to grade take 1-2 minutes less and makes the regs slightly simpler.

    • Counterpoint: simpler is not necessarily equal to better

What moves our system currently uses and the pros and cons of each.

Currently the distribution of all legal moves is as follows:
18- face moves
18- wide moves
9- xyz rotations
9- bracket rotations

  • Face moves need to stay
  • Wide moves are very similar to face moves and as a result they are easily understandable. They are possible to confuse with face moves if competitors are writing in a sloppy manner.
  • xyz- can be hard to understand but are the most common way to write notations in the community, they are found in other events scrambles, and also hard to confuse with the other existing moves
  • Bracket rotations - easier to understand than xyz but possible to confuse with other moves if written sloppily. Only found in FMC.

Alternate solutions to current "problems"

  • Modify existing FMC sheets to be more clear about what is and isn’t legal.

    • One of the main arguments to remove wide moves and rotations is confusion and currently we don’t have all the legal moves written down easily for competitors, we may even want to expand upon what’s written to further clarify how all the moves work. Doing this and then explicitly stating that the only moves let’s you use are all on this sheet and that any other variances will result in a DNF makes things very clear to competitors.
  • Require or recommend first timers to receive an fmc briefing.

    • While it wouldn’t be doable to explain legal moves to everyone every time, it could benefit everyone to have beginners get shown what moves are legal to use, how they work and how they are written by the delegate or someone appointed by the delegate. This could be added as a requirement or as a guideline recommending to use this system.
  • Count rotations as moves

    • This removes any problems graders may have with counting and incentivized competitors to not use rotation while still allowing them the option to use them. Even if you would like rotations removed entirely I feel like a better path to go would be to announce removal of rotations in 2021 or 2022 and count rotations as moves in 2020. This would make the transition to removing rotations much more gradual and less sudden than the current system.
  • Remove bracket rotations

    • Most people on this thread seem to agree bracket rotations need to go. Removing them would make things less complex while allowing for the same current possibilities in solving. In addition this seems to be one of the most common reasons for DNF that I see. [R], {r}, (r), etc all are incorrect notation. Bracket rotations are also only used in FMC unlike xyz rotations. Lastly it is possible, although unlikely, to confuse [r] with R.
  • Remove wide moves

    • While I’m not a fan of this solution I would rather remove wide moves than rotations. They are used less often and have more of a conflict with being confused with something else. If rotations stayed then it would still allow for wide moves to be used with a little effort (ex Uw = D y). Removing bracket rotations and wide moves would cut the existing pool of moves from 54 to 27.
  • Remove xyz moves

    • I would rather remove bracket rotations but I feel it’s only fair to present the argument for this as well. xyz are less intuitive than bracket notations which can result in people getting more confused. [r] is hard to interpret as anything else but a grader may believe x to be equivalent with [r]’ or [u] for example. xyz moves are also used outside of FMC in scrambles.
  • A system that better catches mistakes

    • One big concern seems to be catching mistakes. There are several systems I think could do better than the current one. Any of these could be required or recommendations.
  1. Require the grader and competitor to both sign their agreement the final result. If the competitor does not believe the result to be correct they may ask for the assistance of a delegate. Failure to sign is a DNF. The biggest issue with this one is time, at a competition such as worlds it may not be easily doable to have everyone meet with a grader. This one would be best suited as a recommendation.
  2. Publishing results. Competitors may check their own results and find they were graded incorrectly, they could then report this. In addition other competitors looking through others solutions may find mistakes in grading, they could also report. This is the best solution in my opinion.
  3. Requiring two graders whom have to agree on the final result. I’m not a fan of this one being required seeing how fmc comps with only 2 people would become very difficult but it would help catch many mistakes
@CadyShields

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

@CadyShields CadyShields commented Oct 15, 2019

Background: I have graded many FMC solutions as I tend to be the proctor for the event and therefore often the grader. I have graded solutions of local competitions, at US Regional competitions, at US Nationals, and world record attempts. I am not someone who competitively does FMC and seldom compete in it. I have zero personal interest in this event; however, I feel it is my responsibility to voice my concerns and the concerns of others in the community.

  1. “Con: this will make the event less friendly to beginners.” This goes directly against the WCA Mission Statement: “Our mission is to have more competitions in more countries with more people and more fun, under fair and equal conditions.” Making an event harder is not something we should even consider doing. We want the community to grow, not be putting up barriers.

  2. Most beginners use CFOP for FMC. Writing down OLLs and PLLs is already difficult enough for most beginners but expecting them to write it with a fixed notation is exponentially harder.

  3. I personally contacted Zachary Ochs who won 2nd place at US Nationals 2019 in FMC. I wanted to hear what he had to say and how this would affect him (him being an example of a skilled FMCer). He gave me permission to share his comments with you. I think its important to listen to FMCers of all abilities. Zachary’s comments are of one person, but they should still be considered.
    He said
    a) “I think it’s bad for all skill levels. First, less experienced FMCers… it takes them a lot less time to write a rotation… instead of being restricted to the orientation they scrambled. Not to mention it’s much easier to write a simple rotations
    b) “for more experienced solvers, we are 99% of the time using the full hour to get as low of a move count as we can (and sometimes 1 hour just isn’t enough).” Having to always use fixed notation and no wide moves eats into time.

  4. If this change were to occur, for the next two years or so I would have to explicitly remind competitors that rotations and/or wide moves are no longer allowed. Making a change like this will cause more incidents than they prevent. It will be guaranteed that people will still use them and have to be DNFed even though they used once legal notation.

  5. The argument that is makes grading easier is simply not valid. As mentioned in my opening, I have graded many FMC solutions of all kinds and lengths. Rotations take all of 10 seconds to not count in the final move count of a solution. I have never once had an issue with incorrect rotation notation or grading attempts with them.

  6. The standard FMC sheet created by TNoodle could be updated to better explain what proper notation is. I think what is on there currently is more confusing than it needs to be. Changing this document would help with this problem: “This makes it very simple to explain to competitors and judges what counts as valid notation.”

  7. “Overall, I think that removing all wide moves and rotations has low immediate impact and no lasting damage” There is high immediate impact and severe lasting damage. Beginners especially are affected. The number of new competitors in the event would plummet.

In conclusion, removing rotations makes the event significantly harder (for beginners) for no tangible benefit. The mission of WCA is to encourage more people to compete and that directly correlates to competing in more events. We should not be putting up barriers for people to compete. More incidents will be caused by removing previously allowed notation than they ever would have prevented. It is the best interest of WCA and community to keep rotations (and wide moves) as notations allowed for FMC.

@chriscuber123

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

@chriscuber123 chriscuber123 commented Oct 15, 2019

  1. The argument that is makes grading easier is simply not valid. As mentioned in my opening, I have graded many FMC solutions of all kinds and lengths. Rotations take all of 10 seconds to not count in the final move count of a solution. I have never once had an issue with incorrect rotation notation or grading attempts with them.

Not to mention that rotations and wide moves already need to be known by scramblers for some events so expecting graders to know them is perfectly reasonable.

@KatieHull

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

@KatieHull KatieHull commented Oct 15, 2019

My opinion on this issue has not changed since the beginning of the discussion about this topic. I still do not believe we should remove rotations and wide moves from FMC.

My opinion on this boiled down to 2 reasons. I won't elaborate a lot about them here because many people above me have articulated these points. My 2 reasons are:
1.) It would make the event have a higher barrier of entry than it currently does and more difficult for beginners to participate successfully in.
2.) With the development of more advanced FMC techniques, the need to use these moves is now present in advanced solving as well as beginner solving.

I do not believe that WRC should move forward with a decision that (in my opinion) would significantly impact the community negatively, while only providing a small benefit for the small selection of the community that grades FMC attempts.

As a side note - and maybe a topic for another day, I've believed for a while that only delegates (and maybe organizers) should be the ones grading FMC attempts. In terms of arguing that graders have difficultly with the complexity of the current set of moves, I think that we should expect our delegates to know legal notation, and thus not have confusion with reading rotations and wide moves. From personal experience, the last time my local delegates and I allowed staff/competitors to grade FMC solutions, a mis-grading allowed the wrong competitor to advance to the next round (which is a problem when there's 3 rounds of FMC and this mistake is not noticed until after the attempts have been done!)

@chriscuber123

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

@chriscuber123 chriscuber123 commented Oct 15, 2019

I'm starting to doubt that the WRC reached a consensus on this issue (and others) like Lucas said they did. Katie seems to have been against it from the start, and Jules wants to keep at least the xyz rotation. Of course I haven't seen the opinion of every WRC member, but it seems weird that two of them have stated their opinions against it and none of them have supported it

@alexmaasswca

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

@alexmaasswca alexmaasswca commented Oct 15, 2019

In my eyes, the FMC community has already reached a very clear consensus (over 80%) to not remove wide moves, and to not remove rotations.

@chriscuber123

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

@chriscuber123 chriscuber123 commented Oct 15, 2019

In my eyes, the FMC community has already reached a very clear consensus (over 80%) to only remove brackets.

Weren't the polls on FB about whether or not to remove wide moves and rotations in general?

@alexmaasswca

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

@alexmaasswca alexmaasswca commented Oct 15, 2019

In my eyes, the FMC community has already reached a very clear consensus (over 80%) to only remove brackets.

Weren't the polls on FB about whether or not to remove wide moves and rotations in general?

edited

@edladd84

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

@edladd84 edladd84 commented Oct 16, 2019

For what it's worth I would prefer:

  • Keep xyz rotations (with a note on the score sheet saying x is a rotation following R etc).
  • Remove bracket notation
  • Keep wide moves with Rw notation
  • Only notation described on the score sheet is allowed
  • Count rotations as moves in the solution

This keeps the event open to beginners, but incentivizes learning how to write solutions with fixed reference frame. If an advanced solver wants to use slicey shenanigans, they'll have to manage their time in order to remove the rotations at the end.

@xsrvmy

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

@xsrvmy xsrvmy commented Oct 16, 2019

If an advanced solver wants to use slicey shenanigans, they'll have to manage their time in order to remove the rotations at the end.

Every minute counts in FMC. Requiring advanced solvers to change their strategy just to avoid miscounts is not that much of a good idea.
BTW consider this insertion: R L @ (@ = M'). There is no way to write this with one move without using rotations.

A bit of a random idea: ask competitors to circle or otherwise mark rotations so it's harder to miss when scoring.

@Jambrose777

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

@Jambrose777 Jambrose777 commented Oct 16, 2019

If an advanced solver wants to use slicey shenanigans, they'll have to manage their time in order to remove the rotations at the end.

Every minute counts in FMC. Requiring advanced solvers to change their strategy just to avoid miscounts is not that much of a good idea.
BTW consider this insertion: R L @ (@ = M'). There is no way to write this with one move without using rotations.

A bit of a random idea: ask competitors to circle or otherwise mark rotations so it's harder to miss when scoring.

His entire thread is about reducing the amount of valid notation and you want to increase the number of valid ways to write moves?

@chriscuber123

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

@chriscuber123 chriscuber123 commented Oct 16, 2019

A bit of a random idea: ask competitors to circle or otherwise mark rotations so it's harder to miss when scoring.

IMO having competitors do this will definitely cause more confusion. I don't know how FMC is done in Canada but in the (northeast) US, graders (myself included) usually circle rotations as they're grading so that it is easy for them to count after they verify that the solution works.

@xsrvmy

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

@xsrvmy xsrvmy commented Oct 17, 2019

His entire thread is about reducing the amount of valid notation and you want to increase the number of valid ways to write moves?

No it's just R L M' results in L2 x (whereas normally a slice insertion can be written using wide moves)

lgarron added a commit that referenced this issue Dec 1, 2019
Based on feedback, removing more than this may be beneficial, but some competitors strongly prefer to keep them. However, reducing to a single rotation sytem is generally supported, and the community prefers <x, y, z> over bracket rotations.
lgarron added a commit that referenced this issue Dec 1, 2019
Based on feedback, removing more than this may be beneficial, but some competitors strongly prefer to keep them. However, reducing to a single rotation sytem is generally supported, and the community prefers <x, y, z> over bracket rotations.
lgarron added a commit that referenced this issue Dec 1, 2019
Based on feedback, removing more than this may be beneficial, but some competitors strongly prefer to keep them. However, reducing to a single rotation sytem is generally supported, and the community prefers <x, y, z> over bracket rotations.
lgarron added a commit that referenced this issue Dec 2, 2019
* Only allow <x, y, z> rotations. Addresses #757.

Based on feedback, removing more than this may be beneficial, but some competitors strongly prefer to keep them. However, reducing to a single rotation sytem is generally supported, and the community prefers <x, y, z> over bracket rotations.

* Update wca-regulations.md

Co-Authored-By: Iván Brigidano Pérez <47502355+Ivan-Brigidano@users.noreply.github.com>

* Update wca-regulations.md

Co-Authored-By: Iván Brigidano Pérez <47502355+Ivan-Brigidano@users.noreply.github.com>

* Update wca-regulations.md

Co-Authored-By: Iván Brigidano Pérez <47502355+Ivan-Brigidano@users.noreply.github.com>

* Update wca-regulations.md

* Update wca-guidelines.md

* Update wca-guidelines.md

Co-Authored-By: Han Wu <3752812+hanwu85@users.noreply.github.com>
@AlexKatyukov

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

@AlexKatyukov AlexKatyukov commented Dec 4, 2019

Should I read r as R or not? One of the best ideas was to keep only xyz-rotations and standart moves to can recognize small letter as capital letter.

@xsrvmy

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

@xsrvmy xsrvmy commented Dec 4, 2019

If you see lower case r, the competitor probably meant Rw and it would be a DNF anyways.

@AlexKatyukov

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

@AlexKatyukov AlexKatyukov commented Dec 4, 2019

I saw r meant R :)
Okay, but what about Y meant y?

@xsrvmy

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

@xsrvmy xsrvmy commented Dec 4, 2019

This we should probably discuss.
Maybe Y should be allowed simply because X and Z can be interpreted as x and z, but let's see what the WRC has to say.

@sebastianotronto

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

@sebastianotronto sebastianotronto commented Dec 4, 2019

If someone wants to see the document I wrote that Lucas referred to in the announcement I am attaching it here (I thought Lucas was going to post it but I can't find it, maybe I misunderstood the conclusion of our little "you-do-it-or-I-do-it" chat).
fmc-rotations-community.pdf
attachment-1.pdf
attachment-2.pdf

@Ivan-Brigidano

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member

@Ivan-Brigidano Ivan-Brigidano commented Dec 4, 2019

Should I read r as R or not? One of the best ideas was to keep only xyz-rotations and standart moves to can recognize small letter as capital letter.

No. As stated by the guideline:

E2c4+) [CLARIFICATION] Examples of symbols or combinations of symbols that are not permitted in solutions for 3x3x3 Fewest Moves: M, e, r, Y (uppercase), T, U1, Ui, U3, U-, R++, R2', R'2, L'w, 1R, 2U, 2f, 2-3r, 1Rw, 3Rw, 2-3Rw, rw, Rr, *, →, ⮐, /, ., ?, [r], [r u], [F], , [f]', [f]2, [x], (x), (L), 2(Rw), (U)2, (U)', (R U)', (R U R'), [R, U], [R: U].

Accepting lowercase letters is the opposite of simplifying the notation.

@lgarron

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member

@lgarron lgarron commented Dec 14, 2019

If someone wants to see the document I wrote that Lucas referred to in the announcement I am attaching it here.

Thank you for compiling this document, and sharing it here! It was very helpful for evaluating possible changes. 😊

I thought Lucas was going to post it but I can't find it, maybe I misunderstood the conclusion of our little "you-do-it-or-I-do-it" chat.

Apologies for that. I had some other priorities, so you got around to it before me!

lgarron added a commit that referenced this issue Dec 31, 2019
* Improve wording for E2c1++ and E2c1++++. Closes #727.

* Fix typo in 9g.

Thanks to Brandon Harnish for finding!

* Fix typo: aleready → already

Thanks to Wilson Alvis for spotting this!

* Update `wca-states.md`. (#747)

- Update names:
  - Macedonia → North Macedonia
  - Swaziland → Eswatini
- Fix sorting order.

* Update a few Regs to correctly refer to "solve" instead of "attempt".

Thanks to Manu Vereecken for spotting these.

* Solve instead of attempt

* Fix weird sentence

* Improve the wording of 4b3.

Suggested by Gregor Grigorjan.

4b3b to 4b3d are still a tad ambiguous, but I think it's better to keep them concise instead of 100% clear.

* Add credit section on `wca-states.md`.

* List Armenia under Europe instead of Asia. (#773)

Fixes #772.

* Remove ambiguousness from A3b1

* List project boards

* Review

* Remove references to 1c3a

* Clarify C1b

Clarifying the use of surface during one handed solve.
Issue[#718](<#718>)

* Clarify camera display

Addressing issue #721

* Update wca-guidelines.md

* Update wca-regulations.md

Co-Authored-By: Lucas Garron <lgarron@worldcubeassociation.org>

* Update wca-regulations.md

* Update wca-regulations.md

* Update wca-guidelines.md

* 6a+ fix

There is no sense of calling it a ADDITION as it doesn't refer to a regulation.

* Update wca-regulations.md

* Update README.md

* Update wca-regulations.md

* Update wca-guidelines.md

* Update wca-regulations.md

* Update wca-guidelines.md

Co-Authored-By: Lucas Garron <lgarron@worldcubeassociation.org>

* Update wca-regulations.md

Co-Authored-By: Lucas Garron <lgarron@worldcubeassociation.org>

* Update wca-regulations.md

Co-Authored-By: Iván Brigidano Pérez <47502355+Ivan-Brigidano@users.noreply.github.com>

* Typo fixing

* Update README.md

* Update README.md

* Update title and introductory sentence in the `README.md`

The old intro sentence was more of a subtitle/noun fragment. This changes it into a full sentence.

* Update README.md

* Minutes Log inclusion on the README

* Update README.md

* Update README.md

* States.md punctuation fix

#774

* Update Minute log link and show it as code

* Minutes log link fix

* Update README.md

* E2c2++ WCA Delegate fixing

Thanks @hanwu85 for finding this!

* Rename "opaque object" for BLD to "sight blocker" (#864)

* Allow FMC solutions to be published (#852)

* Allow FMC solutions to be published

Addressing issue #125

* Update wca-regulations.md

* Extra attempt reason recording (#849)

* Extra attempt reason recording

* Update wca-guidelines.md

* Update wca-guidelines.md

Co-Authored-By: Iván Brigidano Pérez <47502355+Ivan-Brigidano@users.noreply.github.com>

* E4: Update "WCA" in "WCA Delegate" to match document style.

* Require scramblers signatures (#854)

* Require scramblers signatures

* Update wca-regulations.md

* Update wca-regulations.md

* Update wca-regulations.md

* Update wca-regulations.md

Co-Authored-By: Lucas Garron <lgarron@worldcubeassociation.org>

* Clarify how to handle missing scramble signatures. (#883)

* Clarify how to handle missing scramble signatures.

* Update wca-guidelines.md

Co-Authored-By: Iván Brigidano Pérez <47502355+Ivan-Brigidano@users.noreply.github.com>

* Turn A1c into 2j3 (#868)

* Turn A1c into 2j3

Addressing Issue #867. This way the regulation affects all events and not only speed solving events.

* Update wca-regulations.md

* Update wca-guidelines.md

* Restore A1c

* Update A6c from judge discretion to Delegate (#885)

* Allow clock pins to be distinguishable (#838)

* Allow clock pins to be distinguishable

Addressing issue  #759

* Update wca-guidelines.md

* Update wca-guidelines.md

* Update wca-guidelines.md

Co-Authored-By: Iván Brigidano Pérez <47502355+Ivan-Brigidano@users.noreply.github.com>

* Update A6e to Delegate discretion (#886)

* Update A6e to Delegate discretion

Addressing [this incident](https://www.worldcubeassociation.org/incidents/23)

* Update wca-regulations.md

* Update gramma in 2k3 and 2k4 so that it's easier to read. (#734)

* Allow to re-scramble duplicate cubes at MBLD (#887)

* Allow to re-scramble duplicate cubes at MBLD

* Update wca-guidelines.md

Co-Authored-By: Lucas Garron <lgarron@worldcubeassociation.org>

* O-rings recommendations movement from Guidelines to Regulations (#855)

* Update wca-guidelines.md

* Update wca-regulations.md

* Update wca-regulations.md

* Update wca-regulations.md

* Update wca-regulations.md

Co-Authored-By: Lucas Garron <lgarron@worldcubeassociation.org>

* Clarification for non-electric aids during FMC. (#839)

* Allow clock pins to be distinguishable

Addressing issue  #759

* Clarification for non-electric aids during FMC.

Addressing issue #815

* Update wca-regulations.md

* Update wca-guidelines.md

* 3h2a exception clarification (#832)

* 3h2a exception clarification

See Issue #826

* Update wca-regulations.md

* Update wca-regulations.md

Co-Authored-By: Lucas Garron <lgarron@worldcubeassociation.org>

* Specify that clock stands are allowed. (#890)

* Specify that clock stands are allowed.

* Update wca-regulations.md

* Update wca-regulations.md

* Minor changes to the README (#893)

* Remove a remaining "Rubik's" from the Style Guide (#892)

* README/style guide changes from the latter half of 2019.

* Change "combined rounds" to "cutoff rounds". Closes #543. (#889)

* Correct H1+ wording (#891)

* Correct H1+ wording

Thanks @Goosly for spotting it!

* Update wca-guidelines.md

* Update wca-guidelines.md

Co-Authored-By: Lucas Garron <lgarron@worldcubeassociation.org>

* Remove bracket rotations in favor of <x, y, z>. Addresses #757. (#888)

* Only allow <x, y, z> rotations. Addresses #757.

Based on feedback, removing more than this may be beneficial, but some competitors strongly prefer to keep them. However, reducing to a single rotation sytem is generally supported, and the community prefers <x, y, z> over bracket rotations.

* Update wca-regulations.md

Co-Authored-By: Iván Brigidano Pérez <47502355+Ivan-Brigidano@users.noreply.github.com>

* Update wca-regulations.md

Co-Authored-By: Iván Brigidano Pérez <47502355+Ivan-Brigidano@users.noreply.github.com>

* Update wca-regulations.md

Co-Authored-By: Iván Brigidano Pérez <47502355+Ivan-Brigidano@users.noreply.github.com>

* Update wca-regulations.md

* Update wca-guidelines.md

* Update wca-guidelines.md

Co-Authored-By: Han Wu <3752812+hanwu85@users.noreply.github.com>

* Revert A6c/A6e to judge's discretion. (#897)

* Revert "Update A6c from judge discretion to Delegate (#885)"

This reverts commit da52628.

* Revert "Update A6e to Delegate discretion (#886)"

This reverts commit 4c5d528.

* Improve H1+ wording (#908)

* Improve 2i2a+ wording (#909)

* Remove official status for 3x3x3 with Feet. (#912)

* Move 2j3 changes to 2k6 (#928)

* Update wca-regulations.md

* Update wca-guidelines.md

* Update wca-regulations.md

* Update wca-regulations.md

* Clarify how to handle missing scramble signatures. (#936)

* Clarify how to handle missing scramble signatures.

* Move phrase into paren to make it clear that it refers specifically to the reason.

* Update wca-guidelines.md

* Update wca-guidelines.md

* Update date for the 2020-01-01 release. (#939)

Co-authored-by: Manu Vereecken <manu.vereecken@hotmail.com>
Co-authored-by: Alberto Pérez de Rada Fiol <apdrf.94@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: Kotaro Terada <kotarot@apache.org>
Co-authored-by: Han Wu <3752812+hanwu85@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: Iván Brigidano Pérez <47502355+Ivan-Brigidano@users.noreply.github.com>
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
You can’t perform that action at this time.