Should Square-2 be an Official Event?

[TheOneOnTheLeft]

A Square-2 has the move group <(1, 0), (0, 1), />. Once corners are paired and you've reduced to a Square-1, you're still left with edges that have a "width" of (1, 0). So the move group remains <(1, 0), (0, 1), /> because you still have unpaired edges to deal with.

 

[Robert-Y]

^ What I was trying to get at is the fact that we don't seem to cut out any moves by reducing a square 2 into a square 1. However with 4x4x4 > 3x3x3, if we ignore parity, we've essentially removed the necessity of using double layer turns, thus making it easier to solve.

Even if I couldn't solve a 3x3x3, reducing a 4x4x4 to a 3x3x3 still makes sense for the reason I've mentioned. But what if I couldn't solve a square-1. Does it seem sensible at all to reduce a square-2 to a square-1?

 

[irontwig]

If you're referring to corners and edges then you just show that you don't realize that there's only one type of piece (well, two if you count the middle).

 

[TMOY]

A Square-2 has the move group <(1, 0), (0, 1), />. Once corners are paired and you've reduced to a Square-1, you're still left with edges that have a "width" of (1, 0). So the move group remains <(1, 0), (0, 1), /> because you still have unpaired edges to deal with.

Yes, except that there is no such thing as a move group for Square-1. There is only a move set, which is part of the Square-2 move group, but not a group itself.

 

[SolveThatCube]

The sound of square-2 gives me a headache. I definitely don't think it should be an event.

 

[stoic]

I've tried a few things. Here are some ideas which I find more interesting:

1. Solve the bottom layer (either colour, doesn't matter). Then solve the top layer, one piece at a time. When I know I have "parity" I simply do a J perm. I couldn't find a shorter algorithm than this. This method can be improved quite a bit. I've found a few useful algorithms with the help of ksolve but I lost interest in the puzzle soon afterwards.

2. Reduce to a 2x2x3. Group all pieces with the same coloured stickers together and simply solve like a 2x2x3. I think this method could be the "best" but it's limited by how awkward it is to turn a square 2.

I'm sure there are other interesting methods to discover but people haven't explored square 2 enough.

Your first method is what I've been doing. The second one is cool though, thanks for the reply.

 

[CuberM]

I said yes because people may be interested in square-2, meaning how is another event going to hurt anyone? It's would also probably be a cool spectator event, probably not as good as 3BLD though.

 

[Dene]

A Square-2 has the move group <(1, 0), (0, 1), />. Once corners are paired and you've reduced to a Square-1, you're still left with edges that have a "width" of (1, 0). So the move group remains <(1, 0), (0, 1), /> because you still have unpaired edges to deal with.

Hmm I see what you're saying. But in this case it comes down to something technical, which is as much as I expected.

If I were to apply a more intuitive meaning of "move group", then it is obvious reducing a Square-2 to a Square-1 does reduce the move group. For just as in 4x4, when reduced to a 3x3, we can no longer slice through the middle (ignoring parity), when we pair the corners on a Square-2, we can no longer slice through them. This obviously reduces the number of moves available to us. Technically the move (0,1) is still available because of edges. But this is just something that is inherent to the puzzle in how it functions. Really, what you're leaning on when you say it doesn't reduce the "move group" is a technicality (ergo, in my opinion, meaningless).

I'm not saying reducing to a Square-1 is the best method, just that TMOY's example was poor. If you think of it like this: A Square-2 is just a Square-1 with more cuts through it. In the same way, a 5x5 is just a 3x3 with more cuts through it.

^ What I was trying to get at is the fact that we don't seem to cut out any moves by reducing a square 2 into a square 1. However with 4x4x4 > 3x3x3, if we ignore parity, we've essentially removed the necessity of using double layer turns, thus making it easier to solve.

Even if I couldn't solve a 3x3x3, reducing a 4x4x4 to a 3x3x3 still makes sense for the reason I've mentioned. But what if I couldn't solve a square-1. Does it seem sensible at all to reduce a square-2 to a square-1?

It's up for debate whether removing double layer turns makes a 4x4 easier to solve. Also, considering the fact that reduction makes up at least 50% of the solve (in the vast majority of cases, and certainly much more than 50% for 5x5+) this is a fairly weak argument.

But the more I think about it, reducing a Square-2 to a Square-1 makes sense. Rather than looking at it as a reduction method, you can look at it as another step in solving the puzzle. That is (depending on how you solve a Square-1):
1) Pair corners
2) Orient corners
3) Orient edges
4) Permute corners (parity)
5) Permute edges

Steps 1 and 2 could possibly be integrated too... I don't have a Square-2 to try on though.

To be honest I'm way out of touch with Square-1 these days (I had to look up my alg sheet to remind me of how I solve the thing). What I'm getting at is I'm not sure what the pros are doing these days. But the fastest people are averaging around 10 seconds it seems. If pairing corners adds about 2 seconds, that's a pretty damn fast method. I'd be surprised to see something notably faster.

 

[Robert-Y]

It's up for debate whether removing double layer turns makes a 4x4 easier to solve.

How could it not be easier? I can't see this being up for debate.

Also, considering the fact that reduction makes up at least 50% of the solve (in the vast majority of cases, and certainly much more than 50% for 5x5+) this is a fairly weak argument.

I don't understand your point that leads to the conclusion that my argument is weak. Please elaborate more?

But the more I think about it, reducing a Square-2 to a Square-1 makes sense. Rather than looking at it as a reduction method, you can look at it as another step in solving the puzzle. That is (depending on how you solve a Square-1):
1) Pair corners
2) Orient corners
3) Orient edges
4) Permute corners (parity)
5) Permute edges

How does this step make any sense? (in the case that you cannot solve a square 1)

 

[Dene]

How could it not be easier? I can't see this being up for debate.

Well, personally, I always preferred the reduction phase over 3x3 phase. I find it hard to hold the cube in a way that makes turning outer layers easy. I find it much more comfortable to do double layer turns. For my breakdowns these days, I'm usually 35~ redux, 25~ 3x3. If my solves are faster, it's usually due to a faster redux. That's just my personal preference though.

Really, the only reason doing inner slices used to suck was because of crappy hardware. Given how good 4x4s are nowadays, it might be time to explore other, more efficient methods (I don't know if any such methods exist; just a general comment).

I don't understand your point that leads to the conclusion that my argument is weak. Please elaborate more?

I guess my point is, when doing redux, the majority of your solve is still using the inner slices. It's only for a small portion at the end where you finally are free from them (ironically for you, when doing Yau this is even more so than classic redux). This obviously becomes more so when doing bigger cubes.

Now you said taking out inner slices makes it easier to solve the rest of the puzzle. This might be true, but it is only applicable to that small portion of the solve where you are finally free from the inner slices. So if this is the only reason for doing reduction, it's not a particularly good reason (hence weak argument).

How does this step make any sense? (in the case that you cannot solve a square 1)

By that point in my post I had deviated completely from the discussion . Those were just some of my thoughts.

Naturally it isn't obvious to solve a Square-2 in this way if you don't know how to solve a Square-1. However that doesn't mean it isn't potentially the fastest method.

To be honest, I don't know how to answer that question of yours. If you don't know how to solve a 3x3 I don't know if it makes sense to use redux either. The first 4x4 method I learnt, from the Rubik's booklet, solved corners first, then edges, then centres. In my opinion, this is the most intuitively obvious method (but probably not the fastest). So who knows what the most obvious method might be for solving a Square-2, without prior knowledge of a Square-1. But what I do know is, the method I proposed is probably amongst the fastest.

 

[Robert-Y]

Well, personally, I always preferred the reduction phase over 3x3 phase. I find it hard to hold the cube in a way that makes turning outer layers easy. I find it much more comfortable to do double layer turns. For my breakdowns these days, I'm usually 35~ redux, 25~ 3x3. If my solves are faster, it's usually due to a faster redux. That's just my personal preference though.

Really, the only reason doing inner slices used to suck was because of crappy hardware. Given how good 4x4s are nowadays, it might be time to explore other, more efficient methods (I don't know if any such methods exist; just a general comment).

My biggest big cubes strength would probably be the reduction phase too. But anyway, surely having reduced a 4x4x4 to a 3x3x3 (i.e. removing the necessity of double layer turns) has made it easier to solve the 4x4x4?

I guess my point is, when doing redux, the majority of your solve is still using the inner slices. It's only for a small portion at the end where you finally are free from them (ironically for you, when doing Yau this is even more so than classic redux). This obviously becomes more so when doing bigger cubes.

Now you said taking out inner slices makes it easier to solve the rest of the puzzle. This might be true, but it is only applicable to that small portion of the solve where you are finally free from the inner slices. So if this is the only reason for doing reduction, it's not a particularly good reason (hence weak argument).

Yeah I agree, I should have also mentioned the fact a lot of pieces are also being solved (i.e. centres)

Naturally it isn't obvious to solve a Square-2 in this way if you don't know how to solve a Square-1. However that doesn't mean it isn't potentially the fastest method.

I think it is currently the "best" method at the moment just because people have explored square 1 solving enough to be worth it. But I still feel that there are better methods. We just need to explore square-2 more...

To be honest, I don't know how to answer that question of yours. If you don't know how to solve a 3x3 I don't know if it makes sense to use redux either. The first 4x4 method I learnt, from the Rubik's booklet, solved corners first, then edges, then centres. In my opinion, this is the most intuitively obvious method (but probably not the fastest). So who knows what the most obvious method might be for solving a Square-2, without prior knowledge of a Square-1. But what I do know is, the method I proposed is probably amongst the fastest.

I think 4x4x4 reduction to 3x3x3 still makes sense because you are solving centres and reducing the puzzle to a small move group <LURDFB>. I believe that reducing a puzzle to a small move group makes it easier to solve in most cases.

 

[vcuber13]

But anyway, surely having reduced a 4x4x4 to a 3x3x3 (i.e. removing the necessity of double layer turns) has made it easier to solve the 4x4x4?

I find it much easier to do wing comms than edge comms. I don't know how to do a U-perm as a commutator on a 3x3, but, on a 4x4 it is fairly simple.

 

[guysensei1]

I don't know how to do a U-perm as a commutator on a 3x3,

M2 U M' U2 M U M2.

[M2 U M' U' M2, M2 U2 M2]

 

[josh42732]

I think that it should be an event because it adds a new part that has never been in cubing before. People would get a chance to set new records, and practice something new other than the same old thing.

 

[vcuber13]

M2 U M' U2 M U M2.

[M2 U M' U' M2, M2 U2 M2]

[M2 U: [M', U2]]
I haven't thought of that.

Also, I meant in a non-silly way, I would have done something like this
[R L: [E2, R' U' R]]

 

[henrysavich]

It's too similar to Sq-1, I'm generally against having events that overlap in skillset too much with another event. ( 7x7 & 6x6, 4BLD & 5BLD are events I think are too similar)
If a new event is added I think it should be something different, such as 15 puzzle.

Events that are too similar are a waste of comp time in my opinion, because only one event is needed to demonstrate the skill level for both puzzles

 

[stoic]

it would be cool to see some effort on unofficial speedsolving of it, like what was posted recently with the bump cube.

I couldn't see any UWR rankings anywhere, but from some ancient threads on here:
50.19 single
58.70 avg 5

Plus, bonus:
this from Meep

 

[MTGjumper]

It's a while since I put any effort into speedsolving it. I got down to low 50s average I believe, and I think I had a sub-40 single. It should be easy to beat those.