• Welcome to the Speedsolving.com, home of the web's largest puzzle community!
    You are currently viewing our forum as a guest which gives you limited access to join discussions and access our other features.

    Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community of 40,000+ people from around the world today!

    If you are already a member, simply login to hide this message and begin participating in the community!

[Help Thread] The "Square-1 Help / Alg Sharing" thread

Sue Doenim

Member
Joined
Nov 9, 2016
Messages
448
Just an idea I think I'm gonna try and wanted throw out into the forums:

For square-1, parity cubeshape is a thing now. The problem with it is it requires a ton of practice and knowing 2 algs for each cubeshape case. Instead, why not detect parity during cubeshape and then use parity CP to eliminate parity. From what I understand CP Parity's big downfall is recognition time so if you know you need to use a parity cp alg from the beginning then it should be pretty close in speed to normal CP. This also gives you the benefit of a backup parity detection step. If you messed up detecting parity in inspection you can still take a second to recognize parity in CP step before executing an alg.

I do think that parity cubeshape is probably going to ultimately be better but I think this may be a good alternative/intermediate step to learning PCS as it practices the detection and only requires learning 8 algs to begin with.

Any thoughts/opinions on this?
The thing about this is that the hard part of PCS is detecting the parity. Fixing the parity is the easy part. If you understand parity, changing it to solved is the easy part. PCS isn't a set of algorithms; usually to change the parity, you just need to add in one move.
 
Joined
Dec 27, 2017
Messages
3
The thing about this is that the hard part of PCS is detecting the parity. Fixing the parity is the easy part. If you understand parity, changing it to solved is the easy part. PCS isn't a set of algorithms; usually to change the parity, you just need to add in one move.
Yeah. The main idea behind doing this is it will allow me to practice the parity detection with a failsafe to check for parity again. That way I'm not having to practice and learn too much at once. Eventually I will migrate to PCS.
 

Thom S.

Member
Joined
Sep 26, 2017
Messages
1,292
Just an idea I think I'm gonna try and wanted throw out into the forums:

For square-1, parity cubeshape is a thing now. The problem with it is it requires a ton of practice and knowing 2 algs for each cubeshape case. Instead, why not detect parity during cubeshape and then use parity CP to eliminate parity. From what I understand CP Parity's big downfall is recognition time so if you know you need to use a parity cp alg from the beginning then it should be pretty close in speed to normal CP. This also gives you the benefit of a backup parity detection step. If you messed up detecting parity in inspection you can still take a second to recognize parity in CP step before executing an alg.

I do think that parity cubeshape is probably going to ultimately be better but I think this may be a good alternative/intermediate step to learning PCS as it practices the detection and only requires learning 8 algs to begin with.

Any thoughts/opinions on this?

That's what I started doing some weeks ago
 

Isaac Lai

Member
Joined
Dec 21, 2014
Messages
1,329
Location
Singapore
WCA
2015LAII01
Just an idea I think I'm gonna try and wanted throw out into the forums:

For square-1, parity cubeshape is a thing now. The problem with it is it requires a ton of practice and knowing 2 algs for each cubeshape case. Instead, why not detect parity during cubeshape and then use parity CP to eliminate parity. From what I understand CP Parity's big downfall is recognition time so if you know you need to use a parity cp alg from the beginning then it should be pretty close in speed to normal CP. This also gives you the benefit of a backup parity detection step. If you messed up detecting parity in inspection you can still take a second to recognize parity in CP step before executing an alg.

I do think that parity cubeshape is probably going to ultimately be better but I think this may be a good alternative/intermediate step to learning PCS as it practices the detection and only requires learning 8 algs to begin with.

Any thoughts/opinions on this?
Resolving parity during cubeshape is both easier and more efficient. Most people who learn CSP would have a decent knowledge of most cubeshapes and which lead to the other, so learning cubeshape solutions is much easier than learning normal algorithms (like EP or CPP). Furthermore, I don't think that the transition to CSP is difficult or tedious enough to warrant such an intermediate step. The time and effort spent learning CPP could be better spent practising CSP instead.
 
Joined
Dec 9, 2017
Messages
79
Location
Somewhere over the rainbow
WCA
2017COST04
YouTube
Visit Channel
so I avg around 35-40 seconds.
Here are the things I know and how fast I am on them

Basic cube shape - 4 - 7 s
Intuitive CO - 4 s
beginners EO - 3 s - 7 s
Know advanced CP (8 algs) - 3 s - 4 s
ik z and h perm but not u perm for EP - 5 s
parity - 6 s

if anyone can help me especially on cubeshape and eo that will be greatly appreciated
 

cubeshepherd

Member
Joined
Feb 18, 2018
Messages
2,258
WCA
2016STEE01
so I avg around 35-40 seconds.
Here are the things I know and how fast I am on them

Basic cube shape - 4 - 7 s
Intuitive CO - 4 s
beginners EO - 3 s - 7 s
Know advanced CP (8 algs) - 3 s - 4 s
ik z and h perm but not u perm for EP - 5 s
parity - 6 s

if anyone can help me especially on cubeshape and eo that will be greatly appreciated

I was averaging the same time that you are averaging 2 months ago and now I am sub 30/27 globally (I have also done 200-500 solves in the last few months which has helped). I say this because for me the biggest thing to get sub 30 was first memorize all the EO (step 3) and CP (4) algs from this website http://www.cubezone.be/square1step4.html
Those algorithms are very easy to memorize and once you have them down I would recommend to first learn the first 12 algs form step 5 and any additional ones after that if you wish. (I only know the first 12 algs on step 5 at the moment). I fix Parity during step 5 since some of the algorithms are meant to fix parity, and are only parity algs.
Cubeshape should and will get faster with the more solves that you do, especially since you will start to find more efficient ways of doing CS. This link helps if you are looking for all cubeshape cases:http://www.alchemistmatt.com/cube/square1list.html

Lastly, Make sure that you have a good Square 1. I was using the qiyi cubical square 1, until last month where I then purchased the SCS Volt M, which and been an amazing cube and well worth the price.

Keep practicing and soon you will be sub 25.
 
Last edited:

1973486

Member
Joined
Jun 21, 2015
Messages
491
CO should not take 4 seconds, it's 3 slices. Are you sure those splits are true though, they add up to 33 seconds at worst and would make you avg about 30 assuming 50% parity.

Lastly, Make sure that you have a good Square 1. I was using the qiyi cubical square 1, until last month where I then purchased the SCS Volt M, which and been an amazing cube and well worth the price.

I'm sure the QiYi was holding you back from sub 30
 

cubeshepherd

Member
Joined
Feb 18, 2018
Messages
2,258
WCA
2016STEE01
CO should not take 4 seconds, it's 3 slices. Are you sure those splits are true though, they add up to 33 seconds at worst and would make you avg about 30 assuming 50% parity.



I'm sure the QiYi was holding you back from sub 30
You are right for the most part about the Qiyi holding me back, because there were many times that I could have gotten sub 30/25 solves/averages, but I did not due to the cube locking up or popping on me, (Mostly due to my rough turning style).

With that being said, had I not purchased the SCS Volt M I most likely would be sub 30 by this point, just be practicing cube-shape and getting faster with the new algorithms that I memorized a few months back.

Thank you though for pointing that out, since you are right on that.
 

1973486

Member
Joined
Jun 21, 2015
Messages
491
You are right for the most part about the Qiyi holding me back, because there were many times that I could have gotten sub 30/25 solves/averages, but I did not due to the cube locking up or popping on me, (Mostly due to my rough turning style).

With that being said, had I not purchased the SCS Volt M I most likely would be sub 30 by this point, just be practicing cube-shape and getting faster with the new algorithms that I memorized a few months back.

Thank you though for pointing that out, since you are right on that.

I think you missed the sarcasm, the fastest official avg with a QiYi is 8.24, it's not like it's a Calvin's or something. But if it's set up badly then it might slow you down a bit
 

cubeshepherd

Member
Joined
Feb 18, 2018
Messages
2,258
WCA
2016STEE01
I think you missed the sarcasm, the fastest official avg with a QiYi is 8.24, it's not like it's a Calvin's or something. But if it's set up badly then it might slow you down a bit
Oops he-he! I apologize for the missed sarcasm.
I do know that the previous world record was with a Qiyi square 1, and every time I tried someone else's square 1 I really enjoyed it, but with mine I was having trouble being sub 30 consistently, which after I got the Volt M, I was able to start consistently getting 23-29 second averages and I broke my pb single and average by quite a bit then I had with the normal Qiyi square 1.
On a different note, do you have any tips to being sub 20/15. Any help is much appreciated.
 
Joined
Dec 9, 2017
Messages
79
Location
Somewhere over the rainbow
WCA
2017COST04
YouTube
Visit Channel
Oops he-he! I apologize for the missed sarcasm.
I do know that the previous world record was with a Qiyi square 1, and every time I tried someone else's square 1 I really enjoyed it, but with mine I was having trouble being sub 30 consistently, which after I got the Volt M, I was able to start consistently getting 23-29 second averages and I broke my pb single and average by quite a bit then I had with the normal Qiyi square 1.
On a different note, do you have any tips to being sub 20/15. Any help is much appreciated.
I use a Volt
 

Space Cat

Member
Joined
Apr 15, 2017
Messages
20
Location
shhhh it's a seeecreeet
WCA
2017SEHA01
Very surprised people are keeping this thread up.
wait it's for help on a wca puzzle, of course, it'd be updated a lot.

Anyway, is anyone willing to share an algorithm for the H-perm and Z-perm?

I mean willing as in please share it here.
 

Neil Johnson

Member
Joined
Jan 12, 2017
Messages
7
WCA
2014JOHN05
YouTube
Visit Channel
I have a question regarding CSP. So, in this (http://sqfunnub.wixsite.com/42pnpls/csp-guide) document Lakshay (i think it is) mentioned that he uses this rule for reference schemes: "The first edge position for a shape on top is the leftmost (CCW-est) edge in the biggest group of edges of that shape. The sequence goes clockwise from there, numbering each edge position as 2nd, 3rd, 4th, ...., n where n is the number of edges the shape has." If you have 6 edges on bottom, do you start on top with the 2 edges, or do you start with the largest group of edges (basically start on bottom)? Thanks to anybody who takes the time to answer my question!!
 

Y2k1

Member
Joined
Jan 18, 2016
Messages
134
WCA
2017AHME03
I have a question regarding CSP. So, in this (http://sqfunnub.wixsite.com/42pnpls/csp-guide) document Lakshay (i think it is) mentioned that he uses this rule for reference schemes: "The first edge position for a shape on top is the leftmost (CCW-est) edge in the biggest group of edges of that shape. The sequence goes clockwise from there, numbering each edge position as 2nd, 3rd, 4th, ...., n where n is the number of edges the shape has." If you have 6 edges on bottom, do you start on top with the 2 edges, or do you start with the largest group of edges (basically start on bottom)? Thanks to anybody who takes the time to answer my question!!
This is the older method of csp tracing, which is similar to bld tracing. The newer method is by Cale Schoon and I find it easier to follow.


(all the cubeshape algs are in the description (not mine)).
 

1973486

Member
Joined
Jun 21, 2015
Messages
491
This is the older method of csp tracing, which is similar to bld tracing. The newer method is by Cale Schoon and I find it easier to follow.

This implies Cale's method obsoletes BLD tracing when it doesn't
 
Top