Sortega!

I don't know about this being a completely new idea (practically nothing ever is in 2x2 these days) but awesome job actually going ahead and making it a reality :)

Might learn it, has a great potential for one (and '1.5') look solves if you traced CP in inspection.

Exciting stuff :)
 
Lucas: Might I suggest re-formatting your site in the following way:
- Break the table into 9 visually separated sub-tables, and provide opaque 2D views (top layer for a case, bottom layer for a case group) instead of transparent 3D views. It's just a bit hard to see what's what at a glance.
- Break the algs into two parts. Generally there is one part that's just a bunch of moves, and then one part that's R Ux R' or R' Ux R. The exceptions are R, R2 U2 R, and the triggers. I think this would push full mastery back by a few hundred solves, but actually learning the algs will be a lot quicker.
 
Thank you so much for those suggestions, qq. The one about the opaque views has been bothering me but I just let it go since I knew stachu was going to be making a chart. Then your point about the algs, there was something else that was just slightly under my skin but I couldn't place it, and I think that will fix it!
 
qqwref said:
Lucas: Might I suggest re-formatting your site in the following way:
- Break the table into 9 visually separated sub-tables, and provide opaque 2D views (top layer for a case, bottom layer for a case group) instead of transparent 3D views. It's just a bit hard to see what's what at a glance.
- Break the algs into two parts. Generally there is one part that's just a bunch of moves, and then one part that's R Ux R' or R' Ux R. The exceptions are R, R2 U2 R, and the triggers. I think this would push full mastery back by a few hundred solves, but actually learning the algs will be a lot quicker.
Click to expand...

Only two-gen algs, and without trying to make them easy to understand:
http://cube.garron.us/sortega/files/sortega_1_0.pdf
 
Decent idea with the sorting. Fortunately I already know half of the orientation algs since I compiled a HTW set some time ago :)
 
I feel like a noob for posting this, but for "top view of bottom" you mean as if you can see through the top layer, NOT as if you do an x2? I'm also having issues following this since you're counting opposite colors as the same, unless I missed somewhere how that's the intention (but I really thought there wouldn't be any separation here).

Edit:
I'm doing some experimenting with the algs on my 2x2 and it appears as though the you are supposed to "see through" instead of x2. Although I'm still unsure about this separation question, as of why the opposite colors are white on the spreadsheet and all the other colors are black.

Edit 2:
I see that's why there are multiple algs now. Without brute force doing and memorizing, is there any way to logically sort out which ones separate?
 
Last edited:
fatboyxpc said:
I feel like a noob for posting this, but for "top view of bottom" you mean as if you can see through the top layer, NOT as if you do an x2? I'm also having issues following this since you're counting opposite colors as the same, unless I missed somewhere how that's the intention (but I really thought there wouldn't be any separation here).
Click to expand...
I knew this would be unclear, so I just tried to use the common term ("top view" as opposed to "bottom view"). I think a few people would use this chart without thinking about it, but if not, testing a few alg inverses should make it clear.

I think this is a better way to do it because you can visualize both halves of the cube from the same side instead of using cumbersome (physical or mental) rotations. See http://cube.garron.us/sortega/sortega-split.htm.

If anyone really wants it the other way, just switch the images between rows 4<->8, 5<->7, 6<->9.

fatboyxpc said:
Although I'm still unsure about this separation question, as of why the opposite colors are white on the spreadsheet and all the other colors are black.
Click to expand...
I posted an alg sheet, not a tutorial, so look at the method description. After the bar, you first orient the other 6 pieces, then go straight into sorting.

fatboyxpc said:
Edit 2: I see that's why there are multiple algs now. Without brute force doing and memorizing, is there any way to logically sort out which ones separate?
Click to expand...
Hmm? That has nothing to do with the multiple algs; those are just for mathematical completeness.

The best thing would be to look at the AUF and the first R turn, then look at the cube again and repeat.
 
Last edited:
deepSubDiver said:
Decent idea with the sorting. Fortunately I already know half of the orientation algs since I compiled a HTW set some time ago :)
Click to expand...
Do you mean Human Thistlethwaite? That would be an odd way to abbreviate it since the second syllable of "Thistlethwaite" doesn't begin with the "w" and HTA is a more common abbreviation.

And with "know half the algs" do you mean "know algs for half the cases" or "know good/optimal algs for half the cases"? When I started out with SS, I knew an alg for every case, but I could hardly say I knew any of SS.
 
Last edited:
Alright, thanks. It does allow for a nice separation case though, you don't have to worry about separation from various angles. It'll be quick recognition as well. I've also noticed a decent handful (I haven't counted an actual number, I just did some cases in reverse and noticed this) of these algs are also quite intuitive.
 
qqwref said:
I propose HÞÞ as an abbreviation for Human Thistlethwaite.

Any movecounts for Sortega? I don't care about step 0 but I'd like to see what a typical step 1+2 (with cancellations) would be in HTM/QTM.
Click to expand...

Step 0, bar)
No idea, but I think the average is less than 1. This method is probably best used when this step can be skipped by finding a bar with a nice orientation case.

Step 1, orientation)
Pure 2-gen HTM, all cases are equally likely:
{1, 1, 3, 9, 21, 33, 51, 69, 49, 6}
Mean: 7.247

Step 2, separation)
Same 2-gen, HTM, all cases are equally likely:
{1, 1, 3, 2, 6, 2}
Mean: 4.133

Step 3, PBL)
However you want to do it.

Step 1+2 are 11.38 if you never try to pick any easy cases, always stay 2-gen (even when something else is really obvious), and don't cancel the last move.
In practice, there are often a few choices for starts, you can always make a cancelation decision at the end of orientatio, and there are quite a few better algs out there, so I'd expect under ten moves to PBL.

I just did 10 random scrambles with pure Sortega (from the alg sheet), not even trying too hard:
11.00, 8.00, 10.00, 10.00, (12.00), 7.00, 8.00, 10.00, 9.00, (6.00), 11.00, 10.00 > 9.40 moves to PBL


fatboyxpc said:
I apologize if you feel this has already been answered, but to be clear, this method does still involve a separation step then?
Click to expand...
Step 2.
 
Which single corner case can always be avoided? The one that has diagonal swap on top and bars on bottom?

Edit: I kind of feel stupid now, I think you meant the one that is typically a R2 U' R2 for separation. What about the R2 U' R2 U' R2 case then, I'm guessing it's just as avoidable?

Edit 2: My question has been answered.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top