Search results

If you do it that way, how do you end up learning the fancy HD-G where V+CO takes like 3.x moves on average? Cause that lowers the movecount by quite a lot.

How would one go about learning HD-G. Would they start with Guimond? Start with beginner's HD and then learn full HD with LOLS? other?

I normally solve 3x3/oh while iceskating. It is quite enjoyable.

I mess around with a number of methods but mostly use ZZ. That being said, I am not super good. 3x3 (single/avg): 18.17/25.86 Anyway, welcome!

Just wondering are their any numbers on how this compares to just CLL? Cause CLL is only 42 algs and this is 59.

This method looks very promising. Currently I average about 6.5 with ortega and it sounds like a much better solution than learning EG1 + EG2 + CLL.

Can you post pllalgs.txt that you used in the algsearch?

I have not look through the mthod, but it could be related to which center are solved/ doing eo

whenever you get errors like that, it generally means that you do not have a high enough move count(prunedepth+searchdepth) for a step or you do not have the right move group. I think you need to increase you move count for eo2x2x3 and potentially f2l as well.

ZZ-CT is a higher move count than all of the previous stated methods. This means that you will need to turn faster than people who know the other methods in order to get the same solve times. I think that any method that you enjoy and dedicate yourself to can lead to high speeds, but I do not...

Your search depth is way too small for f2l-1e. as it says, no solution found within search depth. That being said, you will probably run out of memory before increasing your search depth enough. You probably need to break f2l-1e into more substeps.

I would advise you to record your solves and then analyze them. You will be able to see what takes up the most time and how often you pause.

Oh, that is cool.

Is zbll worth the algs and can people recall them well enough? I am not even sure people can really master all of zzll well enough

@obelisk477 how so?

People are considering Petrus starting with @Tao Yu in this post:

Isn't this a way of defining better/worse methods?

@Tao Yu I don't think you can really claim the efficiency thing from HARCS that much. Petrus with ZBLL on average is 0.5 moves more efficient than ZZ with ZBLL. Also, in practice, humans are very inefficient compared to HARCS. On top of that, CFOP is an utter trash method in HARCS, but it is...

If anybody cares, I rewrote my earlier script so that it compiles as an exe that you can just double click. You can get it here if you want: https://github.com/bhansconnect/SolveAnalyzer

Just take the algs from here and pick the shortest alg for each case if you ignore the edge pieces.