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.

Is it possible to solve all jumbling after doing cubeshape? So the rest of the solve will be jumble-move free. Otherwise it would be really hard to come up with algs for the rest of the cube.

Is it possible to solve all jumbling after doing cubeshape? So the rest of the solve will be jumble-move free. Otherwise it would be really hard to come up with algs for the rest of the cube.

Well, it's definitely possible. All you need to do is make sure that each orbit has exactly one of each color. But I'm not sure how practical it is to try to see that. Still, it's an interesting idea. I might just try a solve that way now.

Edit: Well, that actually went surprisingly well. It's an incredible pain trying to pay attention to all 4 orbits like that, but once you get them all solved, it makes for an easy helicopter-cube-like solve from that point forward. You still need to do jumbles at the end to handle cases where you need to change a 2-cycle into a 3-cycle, but other than that, it works very nicely and makes the rest of the solve very easy.

I kept track of the orbits by starting on the white side (as judged by the edge pieces, which can't move), and then going in order looking at the orbits of each of the white pieces in a predetermined order (blue-red, red-green, green-orange, orange-blue was the order I used). Once you get the first two orbits, "solving" the third orbit means you automatically also solve the fourth.

I still have my doubts that anyone who was really good at the puzzle would find this faster than a more layer-by-layer solve. But it is an interesting alternative, and a lot better than I expected it to be.

Well, it's definitely possible. All you need to do is make sure that each orbit has exactly one of each color. But I'm not sure how practical it is to try to see that. Still, it's an interesting idea. I might just try a solve that way now.

I believe it is possible to have all center pieces in the correct orbits (or at least appear so) and still require jumbling to solve: if a single edge/center is flipped it can be fixed with UR+ FL+ UF FL- UR- FR+ UL+ UF UL- FR- UF. I don’t know another way to flip a single edge piece, but I’ve reached that position several times.

I believe it is possible to have all center pieces in the correct orbits (or at least appear so) and still require jumbling to solve: if a single edge/center is flipped it can be fixed with UR+ FL+ UF FL- UR- FR+ UL+ UF UL- FR- UF. I don’t know another way to flip a single edge piece, but I’ve reached that position several times.

I think you mean UR+ FL+ UF FL- UR- FR- UL- UF UL+ FR+ UF.

But I wouldn't really consider that flipping the edge. That's swapping two sets of centers, plus an extra UF move. I say that because as is, you've also swapped two corners. If you leave off the UF, you have 4 centers that have swapped, and all the corners and the edge are still unchanged.

And dealing with those is as easy as doing that algorithm to fix it. And that is just a variant of what I was talking about before, where you have to convert a 2-cycle into a 3-cycle. Doing that algorithm essentially bypasses the need for it by swapping both. So technically, you were completely right - you do need jumbling to solve at the end. But it sure makes it easier to handle the end of the solve, at least from my perspective. Putting the pieces in the correct orbits at the beginning gives you a lot less restrictions so it's pretty easy to move them in. The only thing that makes it of questionable value is that it's hard to keep track of keeping all six colors in each orbit at the beginning.

I think you mean UR+ FL+ UF FL- UR- FR- UL- UF UL+ FR+ UF.

But I wouldn't really consider that flipping the edge. That's swapping two sets of centers, plus an extra UF move. I say that because as is, you've also swapped two corners. If you leave off the UF, you have 4 centers that have swapped, and all the corners and the edge are still unchanged.

And dealing with those is as easy as doing that algorithm to fix it. And that is just a variant of what I was talking about before, where you have to convert a 2-cycle into a 3-cycle. Doing that algorithm essentially bypasses the need for it by swapping both. So technically, you were completely right - you do need jumbling to solve at the end. But it sure makes it easier to handle the end of the solve, at least from my perspective. Putting the pieces in the correct orbits at the beginning gives you a lot less restrictions so it's pretty easy to move them in. The only thing that makes it of questionable value is that it's hard to keep track of keeping all six colors in each orbit at the beginning.

But all the centers are in the same orbits that they were in before that algorithm. You’re right about switching two corners. My point is that I don’t believe there is a way to fix this position without jumbling:

What if we do non-cubeshape scrambles, but with the bottom half staying in cube shape and only changing the top half’s shape. This would allow the puzzle to have a flat bottom for transportation’s sake, and reduce some of the annoying attributes of going into cube shape while still maintaining a decent amount of non-cube shape fun

But all the centers are in the same orbits that they were in before that algorithm. You’re right about switching two corners. My point is that I don’t believe there is a way to fix this position without jumbling:

I agree with your basic point (and I agreed with that in my previous post). But it still seems like there's a possible benefit to putting all the pieces in the right orbit before doing the rest of the solve, since the jumbling necessary at the end is pretty straightforward and easy. But I still doubt it would actually help someone who's really good at the puzzle.

It may be possible to, durimg inspection, at least identify a few jumbled centers. Maybe not all but... Id imagine that you could probably find a few.

What this would do for you, I don't exactly know. But... Maybe there is a way to determine how those pieces could be switched correctly to ensure correct orbit placement?
Thats all I can say, as I have limited knowledge on the puzzle as of late.

I actually wonder if such people exist right now XD. If such people do exist though, I would like to know whether my points are correct.

@Mike Hughey I know that dealing with jumbling in every step (like RedKB) is very annoying to me, but should be quite easy after a lot of practice, just like everything else in the cubing community.

But my main concern about getting rid of jumbling(making center into wrong orbit ones to be precise) before solving is because I am currently trying to develop a speed solving method for CC with complete alg sets for every step except cross like CFOP, and jumbling makes generating the algs ridiculously difficult. Some steps that has less than 20 algs when not jumbled has well over 100 algs when jumbled, and the algs are much longer and messier with jumble moves all over the place.

So far the only alg set I finish is L4C because corners have nothing to do with jumbling.

No you haven’t. You are talking about exactly what I am asking for, which is center pieces effected by jumbling moves. I am asking that if there is a way to correct all center orbits, or even better, getting rid of all jumbling moves(you just proved that impossible)before solving the cube after cubeshape.

No you haven’t. You are talking about exactly what I am asking for, which is center pieces effected by jumbling moves. I am asking that if there is a way to correct all center orbits, or even better, getting rid of all jumbling moves(you just proved that impossible)before solving the cube after cubeshape.

In principle I’m sure it would be possible to predict and fix odd edge orientation at the same point, but in practice I think it would be comparably difficult to predicting 6x6 parity after solving the centers and before edge pairing.

For what it's worth, I have tried several solves now with the approach of first (after cubeshape) putting pieces in their proper orbits, then solving without having to worry about swapping centers until the very end, and I am finding I am at least as fast that way as I am by solving the way I was previously solving (which is basically pretty similar to what RedKB taught on YouTube years ago for solving it).

It might just be because I'm so bad at solving it that way, though. But I am finding it's not too bad to look for the four orbits and fix them - when you don't have to worry about edges or corners at all while solving the orbits, it's usually pretty quick and easy to make the changes. And then the rest of the solve requires so much less thought, for me at least. Even the end is really straightforward - all the hard cases just go away this way. Again, though, that's probably just because I'm so bad at it. But it seems like it might be a really logical choice for a beginner's method to do it this way. I seem to be getting sub-8 solves most of the time now, which is seemingly respectable for a slow turner like me who's still new to the puzzle.

Hi, I'm new to the community. I have a problem with my first solve of the curvy copter and need a pll for two corners. The situation is weird and maybe you'll have a solution for this.

Hi, I'm new to the community. I have a problem with my first solve of the curvy copter and need a pll for two corners. The situation is weird and maybe you'll have a solution for this.