Recent content by adimare

lol

I'll try to get to it. I coded this awhile ago and never really maintained it. There's even been changes in the way ppl do BLD that might warrant changes to the app, here's a few things that might be useful: 1. Allow changing letter scheme from Speffz to anything the user wants. 2. Add options...

Depends on your programming experience, but it shouldn't be too much trouble. Instead of solving the last piece (without counting the flipped ones) you'd have to swap it with a flipped piece and resume the solving alg from there.

@Old Tom Congratulations!!!

Great to know! And just for the record, in my books, if you closed your eyes to a scrambled cube, messed with it, and opened your eyes to a solved cube, it totally counts as a successful BLD solve :)

One thing you can try to reduce the frustration factor is to keep trying the same scramble until you get a success. So for instance, you could try a simple corners only scramble like this one: R' F2 L F2 U2 L2 U2 F2 L U' L U F2 L U R U' and if you fail, instead of trying a different scramble you...

Heise is the better method then: 4 squares: 1 sec Orient edges: 1.2 sec AB3C: 1.4 sec Last 3 corners: 2 sec 5.6 sec theoretical average. Brb switching to Heise. Am I doing it right?

I've been using ZZ for years now, yet whenever I do a random CFOP solve I seem to have no issues with this. Maybe a beginner in ZZ will spend less time figuring out where a pair goes than a beginner in CFOP does, but after a bit of practice I'm pretty sure the difference will either be...

~12 sec with ZZ. It's hard to tell what I average with CFOP because I stopped using it years ago. I tried it a few days ago because I got the urge to stop sucking at 4x4 and was able to get consistent times with what I get with ZZ after a few solves even though I... wait, why am I answering...

Planning a cross is way easier than planning an EO line. For the cross you directly plan how to solve 4 pieces, and that's it. The EO line requires you to first plan EO, then re-run the moves in your head while tracking 2 pieces to figure out how to solve them. A lot of times the line edges end...

It's funny how you use the verb "forces" to hide the fact that one method solves 4 pieces, while the other orients 12. There's a big difference between those two things. From my experience, having 4 pieces solved is a far better starting point than having 2 solved pieces and the remaining edges...

Time traveling CFOP: U2 R U R' // 1st pair B' U2 B2 L' B' L // 2nd pair U L' U' L U2 L' U L // 3rd pair U R' U' R // 4th pair U r U R U' r' F R' U R U' R' F' // LL U2 // AUF D' B' L' F' R F2 // Cross (from the past) Next: F2 U' R2 B2 R2 F2 D' F2 U' L2 U' L B' L2 R' D' B R' U' B2 U'

Time traveling ZZ solve: Scramble: L2 F2 R2 B2 U' L2 B U2 B2 L' U B2 R' D2 B2 D' F L B2 D2 Solution: (R' U L2 B D) // EO Line R' U2 R' L // 1st two pairs (L U' L' U L U' L') // 3rd pair (U R' U' R U' R' U' R) // 4th pair R B' R F2 R' B R F2 R2 // PLL U2 // AUF alg.cubing.net No need to post...

I understand your point but still feel the need to point out that that's also a commutator, could be written as [F' r U, R']. The point I'm trying to make is that you're claiming that this is an intermediate method for people who don't want to commit to something as advanced as BH, and yet I'm...

Yau. I consider it to be objectively better, but even if both methods were equally good, Yau still has more resources available (example solves, tip videos from elite cubers, reconstructions, etc).