Duncan Bannon
Member
Oh, so it has nothing to do with ao1000 or comp average? Thanks
an Ao1000 can be a pretty good estimate of your global average if you feel it accurately represents your usual solve timesOh, so it has nothing to do with ao1000 or comp average? Thanks
40 or so should be fine.I have a program on my calculator that generates a random-move scramble for 3x3 of my desired length, since it's random-move as apposed to random-state (and can have things like B2 B'), what length should I have the scrambles be to make them good scrambles?
Well I didn't write the program, just copied it down... I don't understand much programmy things40 or so should be fine.
(It should be an easy exercise to modify it so that you don't get immediate move cancellations; say you have a list of all six faces, and you keep track of which was the last face used. Add a random number between 1 and 5, then mod 6, then look up which face that is in the list; repeat until you have the desired number of moves.)
Do you mean OLLCP or 1LLL?Is there such a thing as zbll for olls? If there is, where can find good algs (or possibly generate them myself)? Particularly oll 47.
I meant 1LL. Where exactly could I find Bindedsa's algs?Do you mean OLLCP or 1LLL?
For the former there's quite a few sets (including one on algdb iirc). For the latter I don't believe there is a full set which is good for speedsolving though there are a few partial sets such as @Bindedsa 's
I used to use zbls, coll and epll but I found it slower than just doing oll and pll and doing coll cases when I encountered them.The question is in the title. Which would be more efficient? Sorry if I messed something up, this is my first post. Thanks!