From cube-lovers-errors@curry.epilogue.com Wed Jul 3 19:39:39 1996 Return-Path: cube-lovers-errors@curry.epilogue.com Received: from curry.epilogue.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by curry.epilogue.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id TAA08766; Wed, 3 Jul 1996 19:39:39 -0400 Precedence: bulk Errors-To: cube-lovers-errors@curry.epilogue.com Date: Wed, 3 Jul 1996 15:46:44 -0300 From: FERNANDO VON REICHENBACH Message-Id: <199607031846.PAA08649@cnea.edu.ar> To: Cube-Lovers@ai.mit.edu Subject: Moves: David wrote: > I chose to count R2 as one move as it takes one hand movement, hence > it takes about the same time as R, rather than twice as long. So my > counting is more appropriate to questions of time or efficiency, Although it is may be one hand move, R2 takes longer than R, if we start thinking that way, I suggest to give different values te each move (ie: R=1 R2=1.3 R'=1.2 L'=1 L=1.2 ...) depending on how long it would take to make that move, it could also depend on the previous move... We could have an 'efficiency coeficient' of a given formula, but I guess that would depend on many subjective factors (ie: if you are right or left-handed). I disagree with that, in our own cube meetings we used to have back in '82 (I was 18 then), we accepted the Q method cause it gave a lot of coherence in ALL formulas, and I'm not a mathemacian or group theorist, (a program will probably do R2=R+R+ taking exactly twice the time of one single move), eventually I rather put both counts in parenthesis, but I definetely choose the Q method. (Look at the samples in my 30/6 mail, I have a LOT more) Isidro Costantini Zappa/Hendrix/King Crimson music lover Olivos, Bs.As. PC hard/soft technician