• 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] Hoya Discussion

Nilsibert

Member
Joined
May 25, 2013
Messages
422
Location
Switzerland
WCA
2014FREY01
YouTube
Visit Channel
So I finally managed to put a video together, figured out a way to edit videos without having export quality problems using Vegas.

I'm still not too comfortable talking in english without a script, so excuse the boring and slow way I talk, I swear I'm not like that in reality ;) I really hope someone can get something out of it. I left out last 8 edges and 3x3 because even without showing me scrambling, the video was like 30 minutes long. Plus it's the same thing in Yau, and I think there's better videos for these things.
Also my times are usually more like between 1:00 and 1:15, gotta make an annotation saying that today.

So, here it is, enjoy if you can :)
[youtube]watch?v=XxxH2hNR_i4[/youtube]
 

Robert-Y

Member
Joined
Jan 21, 2009
Messages
3,289
Location
England
WCA
2009YAUR01
YouTube
Visit Channel
I want to clear something up with you guys that has been bugging me a bit. I think I finally learnt how to do edge pairing properly with the Hoya method. I think he uses 1-3-2-2.

Here's an example

(Begin with cross and centres solved with cross on bottom)

1. Look at FLu. Find its partner and place it in FRd. Now do Uw' to pair them up.
2a. Look at the wing that is now sitting in FLu. Find its partner and place it in BLd.
2b. Look at FLd. Find its partner and place it in FRu.
2c. Look at FRd. Find its partner and place it in BRu. Now do Uw to pair up these 3 couples.
(Note 2a, b and c may be done in a different order)
3. From here it seems to me that he simply rotates so that FR is unsolved, and solve 2 more edges using freestyle. Just perform a simple 3 wing cycle with FRu FLu and another wing on top. If there are 2 pairs left, place both on top and do: Rw' F U' R F' U r.

In the 4 examples from this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jPhcCv6MGP4. This seems to be the general way of doing it for 3 of the examples.

The approach he takes isn't that clear to me in the second example but here's what I got:

1. Look at FLd. Find its partner and place it in FRu. Now do Uw to pair them up.
2a. Look at the wing that is now sitting in FRu. Find its partner and place it in BRd.
2b. Look at BRu. Find its partner and place it in BLd.
2c. Look at FRd. Find its partner and place it in FLu. Now do Uw' to pair up these 3 couples.
(Note 2a, b and c may be done in a different order)
3. (Same as above)

Anyway it seems that he always does some 1-3-2-2 approach. Please stop suggesting that you can pair up edges as you would with my method, because that it is a different method and that is certainly not the approach which Jong-Ho has taken in any of the examples in his videos. If you're gonna suggest that, why not suggest solving cross and centres using Yau, too. Let's call that part of Hoya too! I hope you can see why I kinda think it's silly to suggest edge pairing from another method, and continue to call the entire method as a whole "Hoya".

Now you're ready to learn Hoya I hope :p
 

DeeDubb

Member
Joined
Mar 9, 2014
Messages
1,432
Location
South Korea
WCA
2014WHIT07
YouTube
Visit Channel
Anyway it seems that he always does some 1-3-2-2 approach. Please stop suggesting that you can pair up edges as you would with my method, because that it is a different method and that is certainly not the approach which Jong-Ho has taken in any of the examples in his videos. If you're gonna suggest that, why not suggest solving cross and centres using Yau, too. Let's call that part of Hoya too! I hope you can see why I kinda think it's silly to suggest edge pairing from another method, and continue to call the entire method as a whole "Hoya".

Now you're ready to learn Hoya I hope :p

I'll ask him about his edge pairing, but hopefully, he'll read this :)

I feel the same way when people do F2L style inserts for Roux :p
 

Nilsibert

Member
Joined
May 25, 2013
Messages
422
Location
Switzerland
WCA
2014FREY01
YouTube
Visit Channel
Thanks for clearing some things up robert. When I get home I'll take a look at his video and try this approach. It seems like a nice way of pairing edges. I think it could be kinda hard to deal with stuck edges, but I'll find that out I guess. What do you think about centers? From what I remember, he solves them adjacent, which to me seems quite hard but I guess when you know the color scheme well, which I do I guess, I think it could actually be quite efficient, couldn't it?
 

Hoya

Member
Joined
Aug 30, 2012
Messages
5
Location
Korea,Seoul
WCA
2008jong03
YouTube
Visit Channel
Anyway it seems that he always does some 1-3-2-2 approach. Please stop suggesting that you can pair up edges as you would with my method, because that it is a different method and that is certainly not the approach which Jong-Ho has taken in any of the examples in his videos. If you're gonna suggest that, why not suggest solving cross and centres using Yau, too. Let's call that part of Hoya too! I hope you can see why I kinda think it's silly to suggest edge pairing from another method, and continue to call the entire method as a whole "Hoya".

Now you're ready to learn Hoya I hope :p


First, my base of my edge pairing is as follows

1. After cross and cetres, I look at FLu or FRd and find its partner edge and place it in FRd ( if I look at FLu) or FLu ( if I look at FRd)

2a. Look at FLu and find its partner edge and if I can place this edge in BLd by using only L,U, I place it on BLd.

2a-1. if I can't place it in BLd, I do y and I place it in BRd.

2a-2. if I can't look at BLu, because to find BLd's partner edge is more easy, I skip step 2a and do y)

2b. Look at FLd and find its partner and place it in FRu.

2c. If I did 2a or 2a-1, I do Uw, but if I did 2a-2, I do y and repeat 2b and do Uw.

3. If I look at FLd or FRu first, I do the same thing on the other side. (Like mirrored image.)

4. So, I have 3 perfect edges on second and third layer and finsh last edges.


But, I am practising a little different solution.

It is as follows.

I sikp step 1 that I mentioned above, because it increases the probability of having a bad situation.
(Like that FLu's partner and FLd's partner are on BL)
And, I do 2-3.

I am considering to change my edge pairing to Sebastian and(?) Feliks's style.
So, I have a question. Why they use up edge for first target? I guess if I do like them, I can use only F,R,U or F,L,U when I do last 5 edges. right?
If That is the best way, I will change my solution.
 
Last edited:

Chree

Member
Joined
Jun 7, 2013
Messages
1,233
Location
Portland, OR, USA
WCA
2013BROT01
YouTube
Visit Channel
(Lots and lots of notation) I am considering to change my edge pairing to Sebastian and(?) Feliks's style.
So, I have a question. Why they use up edge for first target? I guess if I do like them, I can use only F,R,U or F,L,U when I do last 5 edges. right?
If That is the best way, I will change my solution.

Very good write up of your thought process. And I think you're right... starting with Step 1 (and subsequently doing 1-3-2-2) does have greater odds of a bad situation. 3-2-3 has its issues as well, but I find them much more manageable.

I can't speak for Felix and Sebastian (obviously), but the reason I started with the Up edge was just so I could quickly make a decision and not think about it as much. But I believe it’s arbitrary (and someone can correct me if I’m wrong). You can just as easily start 3-2-3 with Uw’, make your first target FLd and place it’s partner in FRu, and work around the cube that way if that’s what you’re more accustomed to. Or do the complete opposite of all of that and work clockwise instead. I believe that’s all a matter of preference and opportunity. Usually my first target is FLu and I’ll put its partner in FRd, but sometimes I’ll find the partner to BLu first, put it in FRd, and just go from there.

Either way, I definitely agree that 3-2-3 makes it easier to keep Last 5 Edges in the front slots which helps Lookahead. But I say this as someone who is literally half your speed.
 

TDM

Member
Joined
Mar 7, 2013
Messages
7,006
Location
Oxfordshire, UK
WCA
2013MEND03
YouTube
Visit Channel
Very good write up of your thought process. And I think you're right... starting with Step 1 (and subsequently doing 1-3-2-2) does have greater odds of a bad situation. 3-2-3 has its issues as well, but I find them much more manageable.
This is exactly why I switched from 6-2 to 3-2-3. Bad cases are far easier to deal with when using 3-2-3.
I can't speak for Felix and Sebastian (obviously), but the reason I started with the Up edge was just so I could quickly make a decision and not think about it as much. But I believe it’s arbitrary (and someone can correct me if I’m wrong). You can just as easily start 3-2-3 with Uw’, make your first target FLd and place it’s partner in FRu, and work around the cube that way if that’s what you’re more accustomed to. Or do the complete opposite of all of that and work clockwise instead. I believe that’s all a matter of preference and opportunity.
I think this is right. There's no advantage of going clockwise or anticlockwise, or of choosing the edge on u or d; most people learn it one way and then don't change because there's no reason to.
 

Robert-Y

Member
Joined
Jan 21, 2009
Messages
3,289
Location
England
WCA
2009YAUR01
YouTube
Visit Channel
The motivation behind the creation of my method was an attempt to improve chain pairing. Eliminating the need to look at D or the back slots helps to make this step easier. Doing 6-2 or 1-3-2-2 kinda goes against the idea :p I haven't thought about why we don't do 2-2-2-2 though. But to me it just seemed that once we've already done Uw/Uw' and setup 2 pairs of edges to be solved, we might as well solve one more before restoring centres while we're at it.
 

Chree

Member
Joined
Jun 7, 2013
Messages
1,233
Location
Portland, OR, USA
WCA
2013BROT01
YouTube
Visit Channel
I haven't thought about why we don't do 2-2-2-2 though. But to me it just seemed that once we've already done Uw/Uw' and setup 2 pairs of edges to be solved, we might as well solve one more before restoring centres while we're at it.

It seems you answered your own question just as soon as you presented it... but also, 2-2-2-2 will not always and immediately clear out the back slots, where 3-2-3 absolutely does.

While we're off the topic of Hoya specific methodology, I do have one more question on L8E. Is there anyone that uses something ELSE for L8E that they feel is better? Even Jong-Ho acknowledges the problems present in 1-3-2-2 and has (implicitly) said he intends to use 3-2-3. So are there alternatives?
 

Robert-Y

Member
Joined
Jan 21, 2009
Messages
3,289
Location
England
WCA
2009YAUR01
YouTube
Visit Channel
This doesn't really answer your question but freeslicing is interesting. But I don't know anyone who uses it on 4x4x4 these days. Yu Nakajima used to do this with standard reduction.
 
Joined
Feb 9, 2014
Messages
803
WCA
2014BLOC01
This doesn't really answer your question but freeslicing is interesting. But I don't know anyone who uses it on 4x4x4 these days. Yu Nakajima used to do this with standard reduction.

I've tried free slicing 4x4, and it felt awkward, and didn't really have any benefit of over 3-2-3, but maybe others will have better experiences with it.
 

mark49152

Premium Member
Joined
Oct 29, 2012
Messages
4,719
Location
UK
WCA
2015RIVE05
YouTube
Visit Channel
I've tried free slicing 4x4, and it felt awkward, and didn't really have any benefit of over 3-2-3, but maybe others will have better experiences with it.
I'm not sure I fully understand the notation. Is each number the number of dedges fixed by a single slice move? Or a pair of slice moves restoring the centers?

If the former, I use 2-1-1-1-1-2. The first two dedges are fixed into the back slots. Then I alternate between FR/FL using Dw/Dw' to slice. The reason I like this is because I only ever have to look at the front and top edge positions and I find it so much easier to find pieces.

It's probably very noobish, and I'm slow, but hey someone might be interested.
 

Chree

Member
Joined
Jun 7, 2013
Messages
1,233
Location
Portland, OR, USA
WCA
2013BROT01
YouTube
Visit Channel
I'm not sure I fully understand the notation. Is each number the number of dedges fixed by a single slice move? Or a pair of slice moves restoring the centers?

If the former, I use 2-1-1-1-1-2. The first two dedges are fixed into the back slots. Then I alternate between FR/FL using Dw/Dw' to slice. The reason I like this is because I only ever have to look at the front and top edge positions and I find it so much easier to find pieces.

It's probably very noobish, and I'm slow, but hey someone might be interested.

The latter: Number of dedges solved by a pair of slice moves.

The concept of 3-2-3 didn't sink in for me until I watched cyoubx's tutorial on it. Really breaks it down.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N69GNk0ToHw

He doesn't talk about rotations much. You'll just have to play around and find what works best for you. Then Jacob Hutnyk's response to CBC's questions on 4x4 filled in a couple other gaps:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kxtAi7XQ7i8
 

mark49152

Premium Member
Joined
Oct 29, 2012
Messages
4,719
Location
UK
WCA
2015RIVE05
YouTube
Visit Channel
The latter: Number of dedges solved by a pair of slice moves.
OK, I do 2-2-2-2 then. Thanks for the links, I will take a look. When I have tried 3-2-3 before, I have struggled because the third edge needed for the first step is so often alongside one of the others set up to be paired. So it ends up reverting to 2-2-2-2 anyway.
 

Chree

Member
Joined
Jun 7, 2013
Messages
1,233
Location
Portland, OR, USA
WCA
2013BROT01
YouTube
Visit Channel
OK, I do 2-2-2-2 then. Thanks for the links, I will take a look. When I have tried 3-2-3 before, I have struggled because the third edge needed for the first step is so often alongside one of the others set up to be paired. So it ends up reverting to 2-2-2-2 anyway.

I think I know what case you're talking about, so here's how I handle it. Say your preslice is Uw and your first target is FLu, you place its partner in FRd and the partner to FRu is stuck in FLd. In that case I'll usually just do a Uw to solve that piece and replace FL with an arbitrary (but unsolved) dedge, and then a Uw'. There will then be a new piece in FRu. If you're used to doing this, you can use your lookahead to immediately spot what that piece will be and start looking for its partner before you're done with this whole sequence of moves.

Another scenario, that I think Jacob covers: Lets say you get as far as finding partners for FRu and place it in BRd, and now BRu matches with FLd. For this I will usually abandon 3-2-3 by doing Uw2 y'. This solves the (now) FR slot and I'm trying to solve FLd, so I find its partner and palce it in FRu. then Uw to solve. You're right, that's essentially just 2-2 and you're left doing 2-2 to finish it up.

I think Jacob does a better job of showing the solution to that. The power of youtube.

Either way, neither of those cases happen as often as just having an awesome 3-2-3 cycle. And as long as you know how to handle them, it's not an issue. Besides, what happens just as often as either of those "bad cases" is you finish all of the first 3 pieces, and then BLu matches with FLd and you get a free 4th edge, leaving all the rest in the U layer. Robert has a post with algs for 2 or 3 bad edges remaining in the U layer, and some of them are really good. I at least recommend learning all the 2 piece algs. The only good 3 edge cases are the 3-swap ones... the rest are kinda tough to memorize.

http://www.speedsolving.com/forum/showthread.php?38421-Special-Yau-last-2-3-dedges-algorithms
 
Last edited:

mark49152

Premium Member
Joined
Oct 29, 2012
Messages
4,719
Location
UK
WCA
2015RIVE05
YouTube
Visit Channel
Thanks Chree. Yes it's the second case I was talking about. I probably need to study 3-2-3 better rather than hardening my own bad habits through uneducated practice.

Edit: are there any 4x4 scramblers that will scramble edges but leave the centers and cross solved? (I know about 4x4 edges in qqtimer and cstimer but they disrupt the cross edges.)
 
Last edited:

Chree

Member
Joined
Jun 7, 2013
Messages
1,233
Location
Portland, OR, USA
WCA
2013BROT01
YouTube
Visit Channel
Thanks Chree. Yes it's the second case I was talking about. I probably need to study 3-2-3 better rather than hardening my own bad habits through uneducated practice.

Edit: are there any 4x4 scramblers that will scramble edges but leave the centers and cross solved? (I know about 4x4 edges in qqtimer and cstimer but they disrupt the cross edges.)

I usually practice L8E by doing a random Uw slice, then a bunch of RUL moves but preserve the cross, slice again, RUL moves, slice again... etc.

Something just turned on with 5x5 for me yesterday. In an average of 25 I got 8 sub2's, 4 in a row at one point, giving me my first sub2 Ao5. Had 2 pops in the beginning and 3 of the last 5 solves were pretty slow, but the Ao25 was 2:05.37. Really, really good for me. I've improved about 20 seconds in the past 3 months.

I'm trying to build some good habits going for the cross. Helping lookahead by eliminating pieces from the back slots. Using some 3x3 cross techniques to bring mutliple pieces down from separate tredges at once. Moves like R'U'FR', FUFR', or R'FR', that'll flip and place adjacent pieces. And taking advantage of free slots.

I'm also trying to use some of the tricks I found for solving 2 pieces at once. Although some of them I'm finding aren't all that advantageous, or at least aren't any better than solving the peices 1 at a time. So... there's that.
 
Last edited:
Top