Big Cube BLD Discussion

[guysensei1]

Wouldn't that destroy the wings positions?

It was going to be a U2 away if I did the 'correct' target anyway.

 

[CyanSandwich]

For 4BLD centers, using the U2 method, if I break into a new cycle with a U layer target (whose alg isn't U2), and the cycle ends, could I just do U2 instead of doing that target's alg? I've been considering this and don't immediately see any problems.

How could you break into a new cycle with a U layer target? You only break into a new cycle when all of the U targets are solved.

 

[guysensei1]

How could you break into a new cycle with a U layer target? You only break into a new cycle when all of the U targets are solved.

If you solve to the point when your buffer is solved, but not necessarily all the U targets, do you not break into a new cycle?

 

[tseitsei]

If you solve to the point when your buffer is solved, but not necessarily all the U targets, do you not break into a new cycle?

Not really. You just decide that that particular U-layer center doesn't belong to the buffer position but instead some other U-layer position and then you solve it there with your U2 alg.

As opposed to cycle break where you have to put your buffer piece (temporarily) to the wrong location and come back to it at the end of the new cycle to actually solve it...

 

[h2f]

If you solve to the point when your buffer is solved, but not necessarily all the U targets, do you not break into a new cycle?

No. This sticker belongs to U layer but it is not your buffer. This is the same as you have a corner from U layer in 3x3x3. You need to put this piece in its position. There are algs for this cases in U2 method.

 

[TheCoolMinxer]

Has one ever tried to do 5bld into a checkerboard or even superflip pattern? Shouldn't be that hard for 3bld tho

 

[Renslay]

Has one ever tried to do 5bld into a checkerboard or even superflip pattern? Shouldn't be that hard for 3bld tho

You mean solving it as a regular BLD then add the checkboard pattern before taking off the blindfold? Because that's the easiest way to do that.

 

[TheCoolMinxer]

You mean solving it as a regular BLD then add the checkboard pattern before taking off the blindfold? Because that's the easiest way to do that.

That's too easy No, memorize it in a checkerboard or whatever pattern, then solve it!

 

[guysensei1]

I guess this is more math, but on 4BLD, given that you always choose the best possible orientation (most solved pieces), what's the least solved pieces you can get? What cube state accomplishes this?

 

[Mollerz]

I guess this is more math, but on 4BLD, given that you always choose the best possible orientation (most solved pieces), what's the least solved pieces you can get? What cube state accomplishes this?

I think it was calculated you can always have 5 solved centres or more.

 

[bobthegiraffemonkey]

I think it was calculated you can always have 5 solved centres or more.

I'm sure 4 was worst case, but very rare. The idea is as follows (I'm just trying to describe what someone else said when this was discussed before, this isn't my idea)

-There are 24 orientations
-There are 24 centres
-Each centre will be solved in 4/24 orientations.

So on average, we have 4 solved centres across all orientations. Worst case is 4 solved in each orientation. Maybe that wasn't actually possible though?

 

[Mollerz]

https://www.speedsolving.com/forum/...mmon-best-of-4BLD-centers-solved-quot-problem

 

[bobthegiraffemonkey]

https://www.speedsolving.com/forum/...mmon-best-of-4BLD-centers-solved-quot-problem

That's the one, I tried searching for it and failed. So, 4 is the worst theoretically possible, but hasn't been demonstrated in practice. Anyone up for working it out?

 

[tseitsei]

https://www.speedsolving.com/forum/...mmon-best-of-4BLD-centers-solved-quot-problem

That thread didn't really prove if there exists 4 centers optimal cases or not. It just proved that 5 center optinal cases exist and IF 4 centers optimal do exists they are REALLY rare...

Or I don't understand anything and am stupid again

Edit: ninja'd

 

[guysensei1]

That's the one, I tried searching for it and failed. So, 4 is the worst theoretically possible, but hasn't been demonstrated in practice. Anyone up for working it out?

What about wings and corners?

 

[Berd]

What about wings and corners?

Who chooses their orientation on wings and centers?

 

[guysensei1]

Who chooses their orientation on wings and centers?

The question was based on the assumption that one chooses the orientation with the most solved pieces, regardless of type.

 

[cmhardw]

Who chooses their orientation on wings and centers?

In certain special cases you may have two edge groups created and in the correct locations with respect to each other. If the centers were not in a terrible position for this cube orientation, then I would be tempted to choose that orientation.

It is very probable that you will choose your orientation based on the number of solved centers, but there is a non-zero probability that your wings or even corners would convince you to choose the orientation based on those pieces instead.

 

[tseitsei]

In certain special cases you may have two edge groups created and in the correct locations with respect to each other. If the centers were not in a terrible position for this cube orientation, then I would be tempted to choose that orientation.

It is very probable that you will choose your orientation based on the number of solved centers, but there is a non-zero probability that your wings or even corners would convince you to choose the orientation based on those pieces instead.

I probably wouldn't even notice any solved wing or corner clusters before starting to memo those piece types (so after already memoing centers) because I focus so solely on centers to first choose orientation and not waste too much time on that and then actually memoing the centers

 

[cmhardw]

I probably wouldn't even notice any solved wing or corner clusters before starting to memo those piece types (so after already memoing centers) because I focus so solely on centers to first choose orientation and not waste too much time on that and then actually memoing the centers

Based on your WCA profile your times are significantly faster than mine, so I am probably using a slower technique. I think I also focus mostly on centers, but I have noticed solved wing groups before and have chosen the orientation that solves those wings. I do not think I have done this in competition.