The Name Common Twists Thread

[Rosti_LFC]

I would have said he could have twisted it point down and cleared away the garbage underneath, rather than sliding it underneath.

Having commentated, I really don't think that taking maybe six or seven extra words to say something with a bit more description and clarity is an issue. I'd much prefer it to using complex niche terminology that would exclude at least half the viewing audience from what I'm actually saying. If there's good people playing, then there probably won't be much scope to suggest what they perhaps should have done, and if it's meh people playing then usually there's not a great deal else to talk about anyway.

If these things were less numerous and were going to come up on an extremely regular basis and it would be easy for people to pick the terminology up pretty quickly, then I'd have less issue. But, as you pointed out yourself, there are several spin situations for each piece, and they don't come up that often (maybe once a match, each, at most?). It's enough just to know the various t-spin setups, and they have fairly distinctive names for the most part.

I can see why you'd want the names, and in a world where only hardcore players are going to watch the stream, it's fine, but there's no way in hell that everyone watching the stream is going to know them.

[myndzi]

I would have said he could have twisted it point down and cleared away the garbage underneath, rather than sliding it underneath.

Oh no, you said "slide!" You can't use that word, it's specialist terminology.

[!--quoteo--][div class=\\\'quotetop\\\']QUOTE[/div][div class=\\\'quotemain\\\'][!--quotec--]
Having commentated, I really don't think that taking maybe six or seven extra words to say something with a bit more description and clarity is an issue. I'd much prefer it to using complex niche terminology that would exclude at least half the viewing audience from what I'm actually saying. If there's good people playing, then there probably won't be much scope to suggest what they perhaps should have done, and if it's meh people playing then usually there's not a great deal to talk about anyway.
[/quote]

Once again, I am not suggesting complex niche terminology; I am suggesting linking specific self-descriptive verbs that are fairly natural already to specific maneuvers unambiguously. Just as it was natural for you to use the term "slide" above, I might have chosen the word "scoop" instead, since the twist makes a scooping motion. Some of the terms I chose are a little more contrived than others, but none of them are bars to the uninitiated understanding what is being said (and this is why I requested discussion - perhaps we can find terms that fit better). The advantage to choosing specific ones is that you can then contrast them to each other unambiguously.

[!--quoteo--][div class=\\\'quotetop\\\']QUOTE[/div][div class=\\\'quotemain\\\'][!--quotec--]
If these things were less numerous going to come up on an extremely regular basis and it would be easy for people to pick the terminology up pretty quickly, then I'd have less issue. But, as you pointed out yourself, there are several spin situations for each piece, and they don't come up that often (maybe once a match, each, at most?). It's enough just to know the various t-spin setups, and they have fairly distinctive names for the most part.
[/quote]

The reason this thread exists is because I was observing enough cases where it would be handy that I thought it was worthy of discussion. Your point of view is valuable, but I think you and the other posters who are resisting the idea is still partly because you don't understand what I am trying to say, which is perhaps my fault. Thus I am trying to clarify. This is not a "big" thing but a "little" thing. You all are making it out to be more than it is.

[Paul676]

I'll leave it to Rosti to make the points against this that I'd make. Number 1 of those is that tetris at high speed is already hard enough for the general public. If all the names were natural to use, we wouldn't need to use them, and if they're contrived, then they will take longer to explain than just describing the move in the first place. Both times there's no good reason to use them.

[Paradox]

[!--quoteo--][div class=\\\'quotetop\\\']QUOTE[/div][div class=\\\'quotemain\\\'][!--quotec--] I think you and the other posters who are resisting the idea is still partly because you don't understand what I am trying to say, blah blah blah[/quote]

Lol.

[!--quoteo--][div class=\\\'quotetop\\\']QUOTE[/div][div class=\\\'quotemain\\\'][!--quotec--]This is not a "big" thing but a "little" thing. You all are making it out to be more than it is.[/quote]

You are the one who made it into a thread. *facepalm*

[Rosti_LFC]

Oh no, you said "slide!" You can't use that word, it's specialist terminology.

It goes under my original comment of saying that it doesn't look like specialist terminology. Which is fine, so long as you don't go attaching a specific meaning to it, thus making possible to use the word "slide" in a completely incorrect way, despite the fact it's an everyday verb and probably applicable to plenty of other situations (for example "sliding" a piece under an overhang). It's bad enough when things like engineering take everyday words like "stress" and "strain" and apply an extremely specific technical definition to them, but at least with that you're never going to confuse mechanical strain with the term used in any other context.

I've sort of lost what your argument is now. It seems like basically you're saying that we should use words we might already use to describe the situations, except now you're saying that those words should be arbitrarily defined to be used in a very specific single situation. Players who know the terminology could potentially get confused and think they've missed something when the commentator just accidentally uses it in the wrong context (which would almost certainly happen) and uninitiated players won't even recognise that there's terminology being said.

EDIT: Paul said my last sentence better than I could

[myndzi]

I was just suggesting that we standardize some terms that work well with some moves for the benefit of brevity. Obviously there is underwhelming support for the idea, so I guess I'll let it die.

[Paradox]

I was just suggesting that we standardize some terms that work well with some moves for the benefit of brevity. Obviously there is underwhelming support for the idea, so I guess I'll let it die.

I still like the variation numbering idea :x which is basically defining the different spins. This would simply be giving a way that we can differentiate between them from a technical standpoint. Shouldn't be mentioned in commentary.

Your idea is good but I don't think it is practical for commentary. You don't want to go into too much detail if they are actually seeing it. So even though nicknaming would be easier, it wouldn't have any use.

[myndzi]

You are really stuck on what is happening, but commentary isn't just about that. You can't well describe a twist that somebody didn't perform without trying to describe a shape, which doesn't work well with words. (If he had dropped his next piece to sort of make an overhang near that one that's shaped kind of like a sideways T then he could have rotated that S left twice and slid it under to twist it in... - this is the kind of convoluted sentence I am talking about trying to simplify.) And it's not like we have replays or readily available fumen picture-in-picture or any number of other tools which would aid in concisely conveying certain simple concepts. Specific terms not only give a person something to search by, but self-descriptive ones can be imagined. Numbers are pretty useless for both.

[Edit edit edit... gonna stop bumping the thread since nobody really wants it, but I just wanted to comment on the irony of people who go to incredible lengths to perfect input finesse and efficiency shrugging off word efficiency ]

[arf]

I think using simple words like spin, twist, slide, etc. pretty much sum up everything. Doesn't matter if you have to use three words or 15 words to explain it. A lot of these situations don't come up that often for them to catch on. We can simplify saying t-spin doubles and t-spin triples to TSD and TSTs due to the frequency of these occurrences. I'm just saying... if there's going to be more terms, even I'm going to get confused.

[Paradox]

(If he had dropped his next piece to sort of make an overhang near that one that's shaped kind of like a sideways T then he could have rotated that S left twice and slid it under to twist it in... - this is the kind of convoluted sentence I am talking about trying to simplify.)

" Oh he could of made an s-spin double there. too bad. " = simple

[Rosti_LFC]

Yeah, no hard feelings myndzi. It's just I've got enough trouble remembering all the terms as it is, without people adding more niche ones.

Which is why I think some sort of numbered catalogue of spins is an even worse idea :x

[ZeroT]

 I concur...just saying SSD or JST stuff like that is perfectly sufficient.

[Paradox]

[!--quoteo--][div class=\\\'quotetop\\\']QUOTE[/div][div class=\\\'quotemain\\\'][!--quotec--]Which is why I think some sort of numbered catalogue of spins is an even worse idea :x[/quote]

The point isn't to be simple. Finesse is a catalogue of piece placements. I am just suggesting a reference. You don't see people saying "oh perform finesse movement A-3 ". I don't want it to be used in that way.

Basically I am saying that the variations should be numbered in the twists section. nothing more. Just for organization.

[myndzi]

Movin mah edit:
Paradox: the difference is between describing what could be done and how it could be done. What is fairly easy. How is fairly convoluted without diagrams.

The point isn't to be simple. Finesse is a catalogue of piece placements. I am just suggesting a reference. You don't see people saying "oh perform finesse movement A-3 ". I don't want it to be used in that way.

Basically I am saying that the variations should be numbered in the twists section. nothing more. Just for organization.

Because I wanted to respond to this train of thought. Numbering twists by their kick index would actually serve a useful function besides organization. I made a fumen in some thread showing the four kicks in rotation; increasing awareness of the order of kicks would not necessarily be a bad thing at all. (It would still be complicated of course)

[Rosti_LFC]

But there'd be so many fringe cases depending on the direction of twist, the type of twist, the piece, any potentially important parts of the stack and overhangs... it'd be quicker to fumen what you're talking about than it would be to find the corresponding number and for the other person to look it up.