• Welcome to the Speedsolving.com, home of the web's largest puzzle community!
    You are currently viewing our forum as a guest which gives you limited access to join discussions and access our other features.

    Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community of 40,000+ people from around the world today!

    If you are already a member, simply login to hide this message and begin participating in the community!

Pooker08

Member
Joined
Oct 2, 2020
Messages
1
hey I'm not a beginner i average around 20 secs on 3x3 and just got a 7x7 does anyone know how many parity's there are on a 7x7? And if so what are there algorithims.
 

Skewb_Cube

Member
Joined
May 7, 2020
Messages
322
some people might not be good at scrambling, so csTimer scrambling might be actually better

Ok, but I don't think someone can be good at handscrambling, it's just picking up a cube and doing random turns.

Even though the biggest cube I own is a 4x4, it's a bit confusing to follow a certain scramble, as @RiceMan_, I also prefer doing hand scrambles, like 3/5 scrambles, I do them wrong.
 

Nir1213

Member
Joined
Aug 31, 2020
Messages
1,465
YouTube
Visit Channel
Ok, but I don't think someone can be good at handscrambling, it's just picking up a cube and doing random turns.

Even though the biggest cube I own is a 4x4, it's a bit confusing to follow a certain scramble, as @RiceMan_, I also prefer doing hand scrambles, like 3/5 scrambles, I do them wrong.
i think in 4x4 csTimer uses Wca scrambles so its a good scramble
im not sure tho
 

Skewb_Cube

Member
Joined
May 7, 2020
Messages
322
i think in 4x4 csTimer uses Wca scrambles so its a good scramble
im not sure tho

Yes it does. I just use csTimer scrambles to really count the solves I do, because I think those are more balanced than handscrambling, for example, on July I got a sub-10 single but didn't really count it as PB because it was a hand scramble. But, yeah, if I had a 7x7 I would just handscramble to have more time to practice.
 

xyzzy

Member
Joined
Dec 24, 2015
Messages
2,877
Even though the biggest cube I own is a 4x4, it's a bit confusing to follow a certain scramble, as @RiceMan_, I also prefer doing hand scrambles, like 3/5 scrambles, I do them wrong.
Literally just practise scrambling.

Do the scramble, check against csTimer's "draw scramble" tool; if it doesn't match, solve and do the same scramble again, and repeat this until you get it right. 444 scrambles are only 45-ish moves long; it's not that hard to get them right consistently.

Ok, but I don't think someone can be good at handscrambling, it's just picking up a cube and doing random turns.
Humans are terrible at randomness.

There are ways around this (e.g. deliberately doing some fixed setup moves to break up most of the centre bars, then doing a "random" handscramble) but I suspect that's not what you had in mind.

---

To actually answer the question: I usually follow computer scrambles for big cubes up to 7.

You might think that handscrambles are "faster", but the reality is that handscrambling well enough to match the quality of computer scrambles takes so long that following a computer scramble is likely at most a few seconds slower, or possibly even faster. If you do moves at 2 tps, a 777 scramble takes only 50 seconds. For most people, that's basically nothing compared to the actual time taken to solve the cube; for the faster people (sub-3:00), they can probably do the scramble at a higher TPS anyway, so this is still basically irrelevant.

Also, protip: use SiGN scrambles instead of WCA scrambles. They're shorter (as in, text length), which means less eye travel and less mental effort needed to parse the scramble, which translates into doing the scrambles faster. Outside of WCA competitions (where ensuring fairness is more important), there is very little reason to use WCA notation for big cubes anyway.
 
Last edited:

xyzzy

Member
Joined
Dec 24, 2015
Messages
2,877
when should I learn l2c and l2e algs I avg 1:50 on 5x5
Any time you want to.

Treat L2C like F2L (or F2B, since you're a Rouxer): look at the algs to make sure you know what the efficient solutions are, but learn them by looking at how the pieces split apart and join together.

Priority for L2E algs should be (from highest to lowest):
1. all basic slice-flip-slice cases (including the double midge flip)
2. r U2 r U2 F2 r F2 l' U2 l U2 r2 (execute as r U2 r U2 x U2 r U2 3r' U2 3r B2 r2)
3. r2 F2 U2 r2 U2 F2 r2 (looks like PLL parity)
4. (F U' R U') (r2 F2 U2 r2 U2 F2 r2) (this case is missing from many alg sheets, including Speed Cube DB at the time of writing (!))
5. r U2 r2 U2 r' U2 r U2 r' U2 r2 U2 r and the inverse (diag checkerboards; this is the only L2E case where the best alg happens to be rU 2-gen)
6. all of the rest
 

Kaneki Uchiha

Member
Joined
Mar 22, 2020
Messages
573
Location
konohagakure
Any time you want to.

Treat L2C like F2L (or F2B, since you're a Rouxer): look at the algs to make sure you know what the efficient solutions are, but learn them by looking at how the pieces split apart and join together.

Priority for L2E algs should be (from highest to lowest):
1. all basic slice-flip-slice cases (including the double midge flip)
2. r U2 r U2 F2 r F2 l' U2 l U2 r2 (execute as r U2 r U2 x U2 r U2 3r' U2 3r B2 r2)
3. r2 F2 U2 r2 U2 F2 r2 (looks like PLL parity)
4. (F U' R U') (r2 F2 U2 r2 U2 F2 r2) (this case is missing from many alg sheets, including Speed Cube DB at the time of writing (!))
5. r U2 r2 U2 r' U2 r U2 r' U2 r2 U2 r and the inverse (diag checkerboards; this is the only L2E case where the best alg happens to be rU 2-gen)
6. all of the rest
I use yau and some of those algs distrupt the cross is there a sheet for l2e with cross?
 

Queenofkings

Member
Joined
Dec 30, 2020
Messages
3
I used to solve the 5x5 by doing the 4x4 first (ignoring the middle slice) then solving the 3x3 (big corners) to get the edges. That would bring me to the attached photo where I had a technique to swap the center edges until they were complete, finally solving the 3x3 with big centers to finish. That was years ago and I’ve forgotten what technique I used - muscle memory is giving me: u M u’ M’ after rotating the outer slices to get the configuration I want but of course that algorithm messes with all the centers so even if I get one right the others are screwed up. Does anyone have a suggestion? All of the center fixes I can find are for before the edges are done.
 

Attachments

  • AE06EF87-A795-4F56-9ADD-4DC71CC5C0C5.jpeg
    AE06EF87-A795-4F56-9ADD-4DC71CC5C0C5.jpeg
    34.1 KB · Views: 3

BenChristman1

Member
Joined
Oct 26, 2019
Messages
3,505
Location
The Land of 11,842 Lakes
WCA
2019CHRI11
SS Competition Results
I used to solve the 5x5 by doing the 4x4 first (ignoring the middle slice) then solving the 3x3 (big corners) to get the edges. That would bring me to the attached photo where I had a technique to swap the center edges until they were complete, finally solving the 3x3 with big centers to finish. That was years ago and I’ve forgotten what technique I used - muscle memory is giving me: u M u’ M’ after rotating the outer slices to get the configuration I want but of course that algorithm messes with all the centers so even if I get one right the others are screwed up. Does anyone have a suggestion? All of the center fixes I can find are for before the edges are done.
Go to 5:10 in the video. He uses a 6x6 for his example, but it works for any big cube.

 
Top