[Help Thread] Square-1 Discussion

[Czery]

Random proposal: how about using / to indicate clockwise slice turns and \ for counterclockwise slice turns? For example, (1,0) \ (3,0) / (-1,-1) \ (-2,1) / (-1,0) (for what it's worth, in my shorthand this could be written as 1 \ 3 / -1,-1 \ -2,1 / -1 )

I don't know. I though \ was used to indicate clockwise slice turns with the left hand and /' as counterclockwise slice turns on the right . Kind of like this applet. Then again, I don't know anyone who does slice turns with their left hand.

Just a suggestion though.

 

[Outsmash]

Hey! i'm new to square-1.
I'm still learning to solve it fluently. I use Andrew Knelson's website (Stage 1 for now) to guide me. After a week, my times are just under 3 minutes I don't know what takes so long. Guess I just have to practice.
I have a few questions though:
- I cannot fully understand parity recognition [ http://andrewknelson.com/square-1-tutorial/basic-parity/ ]. I seem to get it sometimes but the other times, I just end up with one edge swap in one layer at the end of my solve. Is there an efficient way for recognition of parity before CP?

-I have an MF8 sq-1 v2. The slice moves are really nice. But the U and D layers are really tight. I can't use my index finger to flick through these layers. I have to grip the layer with about 3-5 fingers and twist it around. Lube doesn't work too good either. Any suggestions?

- Also, is the Andrew Knelson page a good guide to one of the speedsolving methods? Or should I follow some other method?

Thank you =]

 

[blade740]

Hey! i'm new to square-1.
I'm still learning to solve it fluently. I use Andrew Knelson's website (Stage 1 for now) to guide me. After a week, my times are just under 3 minutes I don't know what takes so long. Guess I just have to practice.

How much of those 3 minutes is cubeshape? That is usually the slowest part for new solvers.

I have a few questions though:
- I cannot fully understand parity recognition [ http://andrewknelson.com/square-1-tutorial/basic-parity/ ]. I seem to get it sometimes but the other times, I just end up with one edge swap in one layer at the end of my solve. Is there an efficient way for recognition of parity before CP?

Do you know PLL for 3x3?

-I have an MF8 sq-1 v2. The slice moves are really nice. But the U and D layers are really tight. I can't use my index finger to flick through these layers. I have to grip the layer with about 3-5 fingers and twist it around. Lube doesn't work too good either. Any suggestions?

Pull off the top cap from one of the corner pieces. Inside, you'll see the circular track that runs through the pieces. Apply a bit of the lube of your choice to these tracks, and try to get a bit to drip down underneath. I prefer Maru Lube, but I used to use CRC silicone spray as well. You'll probably want to avoid thicker, gummier lubes like Lubix, as I find that these tend to slow down the puzzle a bit.

- Also, is the Andrew Knelson page a good guide to one of the speedsolving methods? Or should I follow some other method?
Thank you =]

This method is essentially a beginner version of Lars Vandenbergh's method. This is the method in use by the vast majority of fast solvers.

 

[MTGjumper]

Are you still using MF8 v1?

 

[vcuber13]

Hey! i'm new to square-1.
I'm still learning to solve it fluently. I use Andrew Knelson's website (Stage 1 for now) to guide me. After a week, my times are just under 3 minutes I don't know what takes so long. Guess I just have to practice.

like what andrew said cubeshape is probably the hardest part about being fast and consistent at sq1

I have a few questions though:
- I cannot fully understand parity recognition [ http://andrewknelson.com/square-1-tutorial/basic-parity/ ]. I seem to get it sometimes but the other times, I just end up with one edge swap in one layer at the end of my solve. Is there an efficient way for recognition of parity before CP?

you can recognise plls if you know them. its not something for you to learn now but keep it in mind when you get to maybe the 30 second range, you can learn parityCP which solves parity and cp at the same time, i posted a link earlier in this thread

- Also, is the Andrew Knelson page a good guide to one of the speedsolving methods? Or should I follow some other method?
Thank you =]

from what ive seen its good, there arnt many text based beginner methods to my knowledge

@simon you use the ball core don't you?

 

[MTGjumper]

Nuh-uh. Cubetwist still, although mine is getting worse. My mf8 v2 was awful.

I should have one of Calvin's sq1s to test soon, but I'm planning on buying a few Cubetwists sq1s before Euros (which I may be attending).

 

[Outsmash]

Thank you for the replies. Quite daunting when I see most of your signatures are sub 15.

How much of those 3 minutes is cubeshape? That is usually the slowest part for new solvers.

i average around 2:30. About half a minute for cubeshape. If it's really hard, a minute. I find it extremely intimidating to look at so many cube shapes and their mirrors, etc. hence, I refrain from learning any algs for any cubeshapes. I group all the edges on U and go through a few slices to get it down to cubeshape. What would be your suggestion? Note that I have read your guide to cubeshapes as well. that doesn't really help most of the time :\

Do you know PLL for 3x3?

Yeah. I do 2look LL. (Average sub-20). but sometimes, I see invalid PLL on U and valid PLL on D and I end up solving it without the parity alg. Dunno how :S

Pull off the top cap from one of the corner pieces. Inside, you'll see the circular track that runs through the pieces. Apply a bit of the lube of your choice to these tracks, and try to get a bit to drip down underneath. I prefer Maru Lube, but I used to use CRC silicone spray as well. You'll probably want to avoid thicker, gummier lubes like Lubix, as I find that these tend to slow down the puzzle a bit.

I did this and it made it smoother. But not that much. Enough to feel a little comfortable but not even close to be able to speedsolve. I'm guessing the v2 sucks?

This method is essentially a beginner version of Lars Vandenbergh's method. This is the method in use by the vast majority of fast solvers.

That EP algs page Do you need to learn all of them eventually?

you can recognise plls if you know them. its not something for you to learn now but keep it in mind when you get to maybe the 30 second range, you can learn parityCP which solves parity and cp at the same time, i posted a link earlier in this thread

Thank you and I can recognise PLLs if I know them? You mean the opposite or am I just confused? :|

 

[brandbest1]

I did this and it made it smoother. But not that much. Enough to feel a little comfortable but not even close to be able to speedsolve. I'm guessing the v2 sucks? :

Yes, it sucks terribly.

That EP algs page Do you need to learn all of them eventually?

You could, but only 20 or so EPs are necessary to get fast. Really just know Adjacent-Adjacent, Opposite-opposite and some parity cases (like adjacent).

 

[blade740]

Yes, it sucks terribly.

I like it.

 

[vcuber13]

Thank you and I can recognise PLLs if I know them? You mean the opposite or am I just confused? :|

i wasnt clear, i meant if you use a 3x3 method with plls and you can recognize all of the plls, you can see if there is parity based on that. for example if there is an f perm on top and a i perm on bottom you have parity.

 

[MTGjumper]

Still unsure whether to learn full EP or CP parity. Tell me what to do, people!

 

[Jokerman5656]

Still unsure whether to learn full EP or CP parity. Tell me what to do, people!

both

 

[Czery]

I know people use alternative adj-adj algorithms to reduce AUDF - ing. My question is do you think it's learning alternative algorithms for say edge orientation, corner permutation, etc is worth the time it saves.
I'm currently thinking about learning 1 or 2 alternative algs for each of the edge orientation case, particularly the ones that don't disturb corners. As of now most of my EO algs disturb corners which interferes with my EO to CP transition.

I'm also looking into forcing good EP's but when using parity CP this can be annoying.

 

[vcuber13]

Still unsure whether to learn full EP or CP parity. Tell me what to do, people!

depends on how familiar you are with paritycp already and how much parity ep affects your solves. for me i only used opp-h which seemed to lead to a lot of bad cases, and i started learning and using it around 25.

in my opinion recognition can be just as fast, and it is very useful.

 

[blade740]

Still unsure whether to learn full EP or CP parity. Tell me what to do, people!

CP Parity, although learning more EPs can't hurt either. That said, you're probably the fastest one here, so I'm not really in a position to tell you what to do.

I know people use alternative adj-adj algorithms to reduce AUDF - ing. My question is do you think it's learning alternative algorithms for say edge orientation, corner permutation, etc is worth the time it saves.
I'm currently thinking about learning 1 or 2 alternative algs for each of the edge orientation case, particularly the ones that don't disturb corners. As of now most of my EO algs disturb corners which interferes with my EO to CP transition.

I know 4 adj/adj EPs: from the front and back, and versions that both preserve the E slice and flip it. As for CO: the only one I use that affects CP is the single swap, and since I know what that one does, it doesn't really affect my lookahead. Plus, with parity CP recognition I still have to look at both layers, so I'm not really losing time if I don't see the CP before that.

As for alternative CP algs, I only know two: the pure opposite/opposite (1,0/2,-4/-2,4/) and adjacent/adjacent (0,-1/-2,1/2,2/0,-3/) corner swaps. Each one has come in handy about 5 times, and since the alternative would leave you with opp/opp or adj/adj EP respectively, it's not that big of a deal. Besides, the regular CP algs are amazing for lookahead, so I can't imagine doing anything else unless it's a 1-look case or something.

I'm also looking into forcing good EP's but when using parity CP this can be annoying.

True, but think of it this way: a parity EP is a bad case no matter what, so parity CP in and of itself is forcing good EPs.


Edit: I don't want to double-post, but I just wrote up a quick walkthrough on how to recognize parity before CP:

Spoiler

I. Are the corners permuted?
  A. Yes: How many edges are solved?
    1. One: [b]U[/b] ([color=green]No parity[/color])
    2. Two: Opposite or adjacent?
      a. Opposite: [b]Opp Edges[/b] ([color=red]Parity[/color])
      b. Adjacent: [b]Adj Edges[/b] ([color=red]Parity[/color])
    3. Four: [b]Solved[/b] ([color=green]No parity[/color])
    4. None: How many edges are the opposite color?
      a. None: is there a pair of edges swapped?
        1. Yes: [b]Z[/b] ([color=green]No parity[/color])
        2. No: [b]O[/b] ([color=red]Parity[/color])
      b. Two: [b]W[/b] ([color=red]Parity[/color])
      c. Four: [b]H[/b] ([color=green]No parity[/color])
II. Any blocks?
  A. It's all blocks: Any headlights?
    1. Yes: [b]J[/b] ([color=green]No parity[/color])
    2. No: [b]N[/b] ([color=green]No parity[/color])
  B. 1x3: Any other blocks?
    1. Yes, 2x2: [b]P[/b] ([color=red]Parity[/color])
    2. No: [b]F[/b] ([color=green]No parity[/color])
  C. 2x2: How many?
    1. One: Any headlights?
      a. Yes: [b]A[/b] ([color=green]No parity[/color])
      b. No: [b]V[/b] ([color=green]No parity[/color])
    2. Two: Opp Corners ([color=red]Parity[/color])
  D. 1x2: How many?
    1. One: Is it connected to the headlights?
      a. Yes: [b]R[/b] ([color=green]No parity[/color])
      b. No: [b]G[/b] ([color=green]No parity[/color])
    2. Two: Is there a headlights?
      a. Yes: How many of the blocks are connected to the headlights?
        1. Both: [b]T[/b] ([color=green]No parity[/color])
        2. One: Are the blocks touching?
          A. Yes: [b]D[/b] ([color=red]Parity[/color])
          B. No: [b]B[/b] ([color=red]Parity[/color])
        3. None: [b]K[/b] ([color=red]Parity[/color])
      b. No: Are the blocks touching?
        1. Yes: [b]S[/b] ([color=red]Parity[/color])
        2. No: [b]Y[/b] ([color=green]No parity[/color])
  E. 2x3: [b]Adj Corners[/b] ([color=red]Parity[/color])
  F. No blocks: Any headlights?
    1. Yes: Is the edge between the headlights the opposite color?
      a. Yes: [b]M[/b] ([color=red]Parity[/color])
      b. No: [b]C[/b] ([color=red]Parity[/color])
    2. No: Look at one corner and the two adjacent edges.  IgNoring the U/D color, how many sticker colors are there?
      a. Two: [b]X[/b] ([color=red]Parity[/color])
      b. Three: [b]E[/b] ([color=green]No parity[/color])
      c. Four: [b]Q[/b] ([color=red]Parity[/color])

If you don't care about permutation, and only want to determine parity, you can simplify a bit:

Spoiler

I. Are the corners permuted?
  A. Yes: How many edges are solved?
    1. One or Four: [color=green]No parity[/color]
    2. Two: [color=red]Parity[/color]
    3. None: How many edges are the opposite color?
      a. None: is there a pair of edges swapped?
        1. Yes: [color=green]No parity[/color]
        2. No: [color=red]Parity[/color]
      b. Two: [color=red]Parity[/color]
      c. Four: [color=green]No parity[/color]
II. Any blocks?
  A. It's all blocks: [color=green]No parity[/color]
  B. 1x3: Any other blocks?
    1. Yes, 2x2: [color=red]Parity[/color]
    2. No: [color=green]No parity[/color]
  C. 2x2: How many?
    1. One: [color=green]No parity[/color]
    2. Two: [color=red]Parity[/color]
  D. 1x2: How many?
    1. One: [color=green]No parity[/color]
    2. Two: Is there a headlights?
      a. Yes: How many of the blocks are connected to the headlights?
        1. Both: [color=green]No parity[/color]
        2. One or None: [color=red]Parity[/color]
      b. No: Are the blocks touching?
        1. Yes: [color=red]Parity[/color]
        2. No: [color=green]No parity[/color]
  E. 2x3: [color=red]Parity[/color]
  F. No blocks: Any headlights?
    1. Yes: [color=red]Parity[/color]
    2. No: Look at one corner and the two adjacent edges.  IgNoring the U/D color, how many sticker colors are there?
      a. Two or Four: [color=red]Parity[/color]
      b. Three: [color=green]No parity[/color]

 

[TMOY]

depends on how familiar you are with paritycp already and how much parity ep affects your solves. for me i only used opp-h which seemed to lead to a lot of bad cases, and i started learning and using it around 25.

in my opinion recognition can be just as fast, and it is very useful.

Personnally I use CP parity only in the N-solved and solved-N CP cses, in which the parity CP alg is almost as fast as the non-parity one. To recognize whether the layer with the N CP is in a parity state or not, just count the number of bars and apply the following rules:
- four bars: all in the same direction: no parity (N or Na-perm), some in opposite directions: parity;
- two bars: same direction: parity, opposite directions: no parity (V or Y-perm);
- no bars: the 3-color rule.

 

[MTGjumper]

My reason for not learning parity CP essentially boils down to: I love O perm. Also, parity CP occasionally makes cases that would yield decent parity EPs into horrible non-parity EPs.

 

[vcuber13]

As for alternative CP algs, I only know two: the pure opposite/opposite (1,0/2,-4/-2,4/) and adjacent/adjacent (0,-1/-2,1/2,2/0,-3/) corner swaps. Each one has come in handy about 5 times, and since the alternative would leave you with opp/opp or adj/adj EP respectively, it's not that big of a deal. Besides, the regular CP algs are amazing for lookahead, so I can't imagine doing anything else unless it's a 1-look case or something.

I use this as well when there is double parity, but because i only know the 2-2 swaps for ep and this eliminates things like o-w. the mirror is faster for my style though, 1,0/-1,2/-2,-2/3,0/

My reason for not learning parity CP essentially boils down to: I love O perm. Also, parity CP occasionally makes cases that would yield decent parity EPs into horrible non-parity EPs.

i find because im used to looking at pbl its not hard to predict ep, so you can use parity cp say half the time to eliminate stupid parity eps but not use it on the good ones

 

[APdRF]

So, I've been practicing square-1 for a bit but now I want to improve, but I think that I don't know all the things that are necessary to be a bit faster. I know almost all the EO's (two left) and CP's (T on bottom left) from CubeZone and for EP I use the adj/adj, opp/opp, opp/H and adj/none algorithms.

What should I learn to average around 20-25 seconds without much effort? I mean, I don't want to turn at 20 TPS to reach my goal

 

[MTGjumper]

How quick are you now? How long does cubeshape take?