1. 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 30,000+ people from around the world today!
    Dismiss Notice

Parity Elimination

Discussion in 'Blindsolving Discussion' started by CxCxC, Nov 6, 2016.

  1. CxCxC

    CxCxC Member

    29
    3
    May 28, 2016
    Hello everyone,

    Method :
    Corners : OP / tuRBo
    Edges : M2 / tuRBo

    Suppose, I am using OP for corners and tuRBo for edges, then :
    Condition : I get odd number of targets for corner cycles
    Question : So, I know that the UB and the UL edges are going to be swapped in the end, so can I directly memorize the edges in such a way that I assume that the edges in the UB and the UL positions are swapped? Will this eliminate parity, or do I still get a parity?

    Thanks,
    CxCxC
     
    abunickabhi likes this.
  2. I'm guessing that you're doing the same parity as me (I memo corners, edges then execute in reverse). It's still a type of parity as you still need to do a y perm at the end of corners to swap the UL/UB edges back (and ofc solve the last corner).
     
  3. CxCxC

    CxCxC Member

    29
    3
    May 28, 2016
    Thanks for replying but what I wanted to say is that IF I memo the edges in a way that I assume that the UB piece is in the UL position and the UL piece is in the UB position and then solve the edges, then will it eliminate parity?

    I mean, this way, won't there be any need to exchange those edge pieces in the end?
    They will already be solved, right?
     
  4. Definitely! Afterwards, as you got an odd number of corner targets you'll swap them one last time in the end. So they'll end up in their correct spot.
    You can indeed use this technique in order to avoid parity. I personally use it only in multi but I know several people that actually use this even in standard 3BLD.
     
  5. CxCxC

    CxCxC Member

    29
    3
    May 28, 2016
  6. bobthegiraffemonkey

    bobthegiraffemonkey Member

    1,379
    132
    Apr 23, 2010
    Scotland, UK
    WCA:
    2009SHEE01
    YouTube:
    bobthegiraffemonkey
    This isn't "avoiding" parity, it's just one way of solving parity.
     
  7. Yeah you're right, I mean "way to avoid learning a (several) parity alg(s)"
     
  8. mark49152

    mark49152 Super Moderator Staff Member

    4,449
    2,837
    Oct 29, 2012
    UK
    WCA:
    2015RIVE05
    YouTube:
    mark49152
    Yes it's a valid way to solve parity. A year or so back, I asked on the forum what the probabilities were of getting more or fewer edge targets. I can't find the thread now, but the conclusion was that it's generally 50/50 whether you end up doing more or fewer swaps, although there are some cases where it may be better or worse. For example, if UL is flipped in place then solving it to UB during a cycle also avoids the need to flip the edge as you would with a regular parity fix.
     
  9. abunickabhi

    abunickabhi Member

    326
    77
    Jan 9, 2014
    Yo
    WCA:
    2013GHOD01
    YouTube:
    abunickabhi
    Eliminating parity is very hard , you can reduce its move count by adopting methods like 2e2e , and so on.
    But suppose a U 1-move premove to eliminate parity makes tracing very hard , and makes 3BLD feel like an FMC attempt.

    It is just best to choose a fast parity alg, like the J perm.
     

Share This Page