abunickabhi
Member
I have done 3x3 Rescramble in 2015 and 4x4 Rescramble in 2018.
3x3 Rescramble (with inspection, but participants mutually agreed not to use inspection) is already an event in Red Bull Cup since the last 3 years. Also 3x3 Match the scramble (without inspection) has been ongoing in the Speedsolving weekly comps for over a decade.
Currently, I am practicing a bit of 5x5 Rescramble (multiple looks, not one look) just for fun and noticed a few things that I would like to share. There are two approaches that I feel are contesting, and I am in a dilemma on which approach is the best.
Method 1:
1)To do centers in normal way (start from solved cube and match all 6 centres), and match the 6 centres (regard less of how much messed up outer layer gets).
The drill is the same as the 5x5 speedsolve drill, first one centre, then the opposite centre, then 2 adjacent centres on the E layers, and then last 2 centres.
2) Solve the tredges+corners using comms,
and then do inverse comms for tredges and corners, to match the scramble.
Method 2:
2) Complete BLD method via inverse comms of all 5 piece types (will be quite slow to do ig)
P.S. : The current 5x5 Rescramble one-look record is held by yuanzi with a time of 11:11.30. I do not think multiple looks 5x5 Rescramble has been tried out by anyone before.
I will try reconstructing Rescramble solves using both these strategies to see which one takes less moves. I am not an expert in making simulations of cube states, and I think doing simulation for this experiment is not that trivial.
Also, if you find any other efficient way of matching the scramble, do let me know in this thread.
3x3 Rescramble (with inspection, but participants mutually agreed not to use inspection) is already an event in Red Bull Cup since the last 3 years. Also 3x3 Match the scramble (without inspection) has been ongoing in the Speedsolving weekly comps for over a decade.
Currently, I am practicing a bit of 5x5 Rescramble (multiple looks, not one look) just for fun and noticed a few things that I would like to share. There are two approaches that I feel are contesting, and I am in a dilemma on which approach is the best.
Method 1:
1)To do centers in normal way (start from solved cube and match all 6 centres), and match the 6 centres (regard less of how much messed up outer layer gets).
The drill is the same as the 5x5 speedsolve drill, first one centre, then the opposite centre, then 2 adjacent centres on the E layers, and then last 2 centres.
2) Solve the tredges+corners using comms,
and then do inverse comms for tredges and corners, to match the scramble.
pros: no need of doing centre comms, which take time to execute as there are lot of slice moves. 6 centers can be done in 6 look with practice.
cons: match last 2 centres is tough, we have to use some comms to fix the 6th centre, since the 6th centre does not automatically match, like what happens in a 5x5 speed solve.
wings and midges+corners needs to be solved and then unsolved(unsolved to match the scramble), which cost, ~22 extra comms.
cons: match last 2 centres is tough, we have to use some comms to fix the 6th centre, since the 6th centre does not automatically match, like what happens in a 5x5 speed solve.
wings and midges+corners needs to be solved and then unsolved(unsolved to match the scramble), which cost, ~22 extra comms.
Method 2:
2) Complete BLD method via inverse comms of all 5 piece types (will be quite slow to do ig)
pros: number of looks required will be constant, about 35-43 (one look per comm)
Doing 1 look possible too, since it is BLD method, but one look will cost memo time, and few DNF attempts.
cons: center execution will take a lot of time
there might be lot of inverse comm mistakes
doing the parity first and then the solve is tricky, we have to trace 2 piece types for that (corners and wings). The trace to see parity wastes about 10-20 seconds.
Doing 1 look possible too, since it is BLD method, but one look will cost memo time, and few DNF attempts.
cons: center execution will take a lot of time
there might be lot of inverse comm mistakes
doing the parity first and then the solve is tricky, we have to trace 2 piece types for that (corners and wings). The trace to see parity wastes about 10-20 seconds.
P.S. : The current 5x5 Rescramble one-look record is held by yuanzi with a time of 11:11.30. I do not think multiple looks 5x5 Rescramble has been tried out by anyone before.
I will try reconstructing Rescramble solves using both these strategies to see which one takes less moves. I am not an expert in making simulations of cube states, and I think doing simulation for this experiment is not that trivial.
Also, if you find any other efficient way of matching the scramble, do let me know in this thread.
Last edited: