• 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!

Random Cubing Discussion

guysensei1

Member
Joined
Nov 24, 2013
Messages
5,143
Location
singapore
WCA
2014WENW01
Hypothetical scenario:
If we got a young child (current youngest solver is 2 years old so let's say he's 2) and taught him how to solve a cube at a young age, then taught him 1LLL algs and recognition, he would be done with all of them before his teenage years. If we trained his lookahead and TPS along the way, then he would truly be the fastest solver... Right?
 

yoinneroid

Member
Joined
May 15, 2010
Messages
723
WCA
2010UTOM01
YouTube
Visit Channel
Hypothetical scenario:
If we got a young child (current youngest solver is 2 years old so let's say he's 2) and taught him how to solve a cube at a young age, then taught him 1LLL algs and recognition, he would be done with all of them before his teenage years. If we trained his lookahead and TPS along the way, then he would truly be the fastest solver... Right?

or we could teach him roux, require him memorize all CLLEO and PL6E for a more reasonable number of algs...
 

IRNjuggle28

Member
Joined
Dec 8, 2013
Messages
1,017
YouTube
Visit Channel
Hypothetical scenario:
If we got a young child (current youngest solver is 2 years old so let's say he's 2) and taught him how to solve a cube at a young age, then taught him 1LLL algs and recognition, he would be done with all of them before his teenage years. If we trained his lookahead and TPS along the way, then he would truly be the fastest solver... Right?

Not necessarily. 1LLL wouldn't improve times more than 1 second. You're counting on his F2L also being amazing.

If your scenario was "start a kid speedcubing at 2 years old, and teach him full CFOP, and let him practice his entire childhood," I'm not sure he'd be that much slower than if he did 1LLL.

Cool idea, though. I find the difficult part believing that a 2 year old would have the attention span to learn an advanced method, and that they would have the interest to stick with a single hobby for long enough to become the best in the world. I think a 15 year old is more likely to love cubing until they're 25 years old than a 2 year old loving cubing until they're 12 years old. It's an interesting hypothetical, though.
 
Last edited:

Smiles

Member
Joined
Apr 22, 2012
Messages
573
YouTube
Visit Channel
or we could teach him roux, require him memorize all CLLEO and PL6E for a more reasonable number of algs...

IMO roux would be better because the huge amount of practice could lead to better manipulation of the pieces in a block building method. cfop is much easier to learn and execute at a high level at first, but that doesn't matter if its 10 years. the algs would be cool too
 

Smiles

Member
Joined
Apr 22, 2012
Messages
573
YouTube
Visit Channel
Hypothetical scenario:
If we got a young child (current youngest solver is 2 years old so let's say he's 2) and taught him how to solve a cube at a young age, then taught him 1LLL algs and recognition, he would be done with all of them before his teenage years. If we trained his lookahead and TPS along the way, then he would truly be the fastest solver... Right?

its one thing to be able to 1-look your last layer, its another to be able to muscle memory a gazillion algs with quick recognition and actually get any practice with any of them, even over 10 years because a lot of time is spent learning them. ollpll has 78 cases while 1LLL has 15000+? I don't think u can get every single alg to flow if you know that many. having sub-1 oll + sub-1 pll + recognition for both should be faster or the same speed as 1LLL
 

goodatthis

Member
Joined
Jan 11, 2014
Messages
841
Location
NY
WCA
2014CAVA01
YouTube
Visit Channel
its one thing to be able to 1-look your last layer, its another to be able to muscle memory a gazillion algs with quick recognition and actually get any practice with any of them, even over 10 years because a lot of time is spent learning them. ollpll has 78 cases while 1LLL has 15000+? I don't think u can get every single alg to flow if you know that many. having sub-1 oll + sub-1 pll + recognition for both should be faster or the same speed as 1LLL
I think 1LLL has about 4000 algs if my math is correct, 72 EP+CP cases per OLL, minus some for symetric OLLs (e.g. OLL 20, doublesune, etc)
 

yoinneroid

Member
Joined
May 15, 2010
Messages
723
WCA
2010UTOM01
YouTube
Visit Channel
I think 1LLL has about 4000 algs if my math is correct, 72 EP+CP cases per OLL, minus some for symetric OLLs (e.g. OLL 20, doublesune, etc)

Yep, 1LLL should have around 4000, the last time I tried to count thoroughly, it is 3915.

A rough counting of roux CLLEO give me 1376 while PL6E give me 720, a total of 2096, which is around half of 1LLL, and recognition seems easier to me, but probably I am wrong on that one.
 
Last edited:

goodatthis

Member
Joined
Jan 11, 2014
Messages
841
Location
NY
WCA
2014CAVA01
YouTube
Visit Channel
A rough counting of roux CLLEO give me 1376 while PL6E give me 720, a total of 2096, which is around half of 1LLL, and recognition seems easier to me, but probably I am wrong on that one.
If you do a 1-2 move setup (3 in some cases, but usually by choosing R vs r in SB you can avoid this) you can halve the number of CLLEO cases. Basically you make it so you have M2/solved centers, and an even number of flipped edges on U and D. This way, you basically just have OLLCP (D edges oriented) and the other, where both D edges are misoriented. Less than 600 algs. Not sure if anyone has thought of this but just an idea.

edit: examples

R2 B2 L2 D R F D F' D' L D2 L R
Here you would do an M2, then simple OLLCP for diag bad P.

F2 L' R' U2 B2 R' B2 R B2 R2 B' D' R D U2 L R
Here you would do U M2, then do the OLLCP variant with flipped D edges.

L2 B' L2 B L2 U2 B' D2 F' U' L' U' L' R D2 B2 R' B U2 x2
Here you would do F' doubleleftsexy F as OLLCP, except you need an alg that flips the D layer edges again. No setups needed in this case.
 
Last edited:

Smiles

Member
Joined
Apr 22, 2012
Messages
573
YouTube
Visit Channel
I think 1LLL has about 4000 algs if my math is correct, 72 EP+CP cases per OLL, minus some for symetric OLLs (e.g. OLL 20, doublesune, etc)

LOL my bad, I literally went on the speedsolving wiki page for 1LLL and chose a number. I could have chosen 62 thousand.
 

Stefan

Member
Joined
May 7, 2006
Messages
7,280
WCA
2003POCH01
YouTube
Visit Channel
The 2 is parity. The 6 is for circular permutations. Basic explanation: UF->UR->UL is the same as UR->UL->UF. So it is really (n-1)! or n!/n

So for PL3E there would just be 3!/3/2=1 case, the solved case? Three-cycles are impossible?
And for PL2E it would be 2!/2/2, so a half case?

Edit: Oops, I just realized you said algs, not cases. I'll try again without putting words in your mouth:

Lol. PL6E is only 60 algs. 6!/6/2

Lol. PL3E is only 1 alg. 3!/3/2
Lol. PL2E is only 0.5 algs. 2!/2/2

Still seems wrong, though.
 
Last edited:

IRNjuggle28

Member
Joined
Dec 8, 2013
Messages
1,017
YouTube
Visit Channel
Has anyone ever attempted GigaminxBLD?

In terms of number of pieces, it should be comparable to 8BLD or 9BLD. Not sure how the execution would go.

Nah. Being crazy enough to attempt 7BLD and up is extremely rare. Being able to tolerate how awful gigaminxes are for turning is also extremely rare. So far, those two extremely rare things have never overlapped in one person, to my knowledge. :p

EDIT: I did some 6x6 today. I got one solve that would've been pretty close to sub 3 without PLL parity. I also got a solve where I finished everything except last layer by 2:42 but I popped on OLL parity. And finally, I got a pop that made like 20 pieces fall out. 6x6 today sucked. :p At least I got a few fast 7x7 solves.
 
Last edited:

ryanj92

Member
Joined
Dec 26, 2011
Messages
1,575
Location
Sheffield, UK
WCA
2012JONE03
YouTube
Visit Channel
First of all, does parity mean you can switch the case with a U2 or something? I don't really get it.

Anyway, there's no such thing as PL2E that's why there's less than 1 algorithm.
And PL3E would only have 2 cases anyway, I guess I could explain this one if I knew the parity thing.
Parity means that the states with an odd number of swaps are unreachable, eg if you just swapped 2 edges, then that is one swap and the case is unreachable (without disassembly)
 
Top