DuckubingCuber347's POGression thread. | Progression threads should be banned || It is finished

OtterCuber said:
If you execute the modified Y perm in OP an odd number of times, e.g., if you do it once now, you'll notice that the UL and UB edges are swapped. Thus, if you execute the modified Y perm an odd number of times in your solve, you'll need the [D' r2 U : M2] parity alg to un-swap those edges.
Click to expand...
Nitpick but the swapping algorithm is not a modified Y-perm, the Y-perm is derived from the swapping sequence.

Why must you solve that edges first? I don't see why solving corners produces a different parity (albeit CF is probably slightly worse).
 
DuckubingCuber347 said:
I've been spamming sighted solves with M2/OP (no memo) and can do it around ~55 seconds consistently with a best of 34 seconds. I'll try to works on corner memo and execution now. Sub-40 seems like a good goal for a beginner.

One question I do have about M2 is, why is there parity? I don't understand how it happens or why it's called "parity". In all of my sighted solves/slow solves I have never had this "parity" issue. I know it has something to do with an uneven amount of letters, but how does that affect the solve?

I've never seen a good explanation. I watched a Dylan Wang video around a year ago about M2 and I didn't get much out of it. Despite his reputation he's actually really bad at explaining concepts. When teaching about swapping I/S and C/W (I use a slightly different letter scheme so for me it would be E/O and C/W) when the M slice is rotated 180* instead of explaining how it works he just says, from what I remember, "Trust me on this", or something along those lines. I'm not even sure if he attempted to explain parity. A written explanation or a video explanation would be greatly appreciated.
Click to expand...
When you memo the corners, if there is an odd number of corner swaps, it affects the # of edges and the slice. Since there are an odd number of edges, there would be an odd number of slices, and that's the parity.
IMG_20230331_081344.jpg

Here, I had odd number swaps for edges, so the cube would like this when I finish the edges.
IMG_20230331_081355.jpg

After executing [D' L2 D [M2]], the cube looks like this.
It would be like you just did a y-perm. Seven more y-perms later and the two edges would be swapped.

Also, the question you just proposed has to do with the memo. Corners are memorized by visual images, but the edges are memorized in pairs with audio. Audio is good, but you forget audio a lot more quickly than visual images, so you have to solve the edges first if you don't want to forget the audio memo.
 
DuckubingCuber347 said:
Nitpick but the swapping algorithm is not a modified Y-perm, the Y-perm is derived from the swapping sequence.

Why must you solve that edges first? I don't see why solving corners produces a different parity (albeit CF is probably slightly worse).
Click to expand...

I don't think OP before M2 is impossible (i.e., CF). You just end up having to do some sort of U-perm to fix the edge problem that I mentioned earlier instead of the [D' r2 U : M2] "parity" alg.
 
Last edited:
Garf said:
When you memo the corners, if there is an odd number of corner swaps, it affects the # of edges and the slice. Since there are an odd number of edges, there would be an odd number of slices, and that's the parity.
Click to expand...
Solving the corners does not affect the slices, it affects one edge in the M slice and one edge on the S slice, both on the U layer (assuming you use OP). I am aware of what parity is, perhaps I should have made that clear, What I want to know is why it happens. I already know the how and what.
Garf said:
Here, I had odd number swaps for edges, so the cube would like this when I finish the edges.

After executing [D' L2 D [M2]], the cube looks like this.
It would be like you just did a y-perm. Seven more y-perms later and the two edges would be swapped.
Click to expand...
This is a poorly executed example. Thankfully, I did some experimentation before seeing your post and have a better understanding (though I'm not satisfied.)
Garf said:
Also, the question you just proposed has to do with the memo. Corners are memorized by visual images, but the edges are memorized in pairs with audio.\ Audio is good, but you forget audio a lot more quickly than visual images, so you have to solve the edges first if you don't want to forget the audio memo.
Click to expand...
I memorize using only audio. I have very poor visual memo (before you say anything, know this is a real issue and not something that can be weeded out with practice) so audio really isn't beneficial and just wastes time. Spending way more time memorizing with zero benefit or memorizing quicker, more straight forward sequences with more consistent results is a no-brainer in my specific situation.

I believe Jack Cai uses audio only so it's obviously at least valid lol.
 
DuckubingCuber347 said:
Solving the corners does not affect the slices, it affects one edge in the M slice and one edge on the S slice, both on the U layer (assuming you use OP). I am aware of what parity is, perhaps I should have made that clear, What I want to know is why it happens. I already know the how and what.

This is a poorly executed example. Thankfully, I did some experimentation before seeing your post and have a better understanding (though I'm not satisfied.)

I memorize using only audio. I have very poor visual memo (before you say anything, know this is a real issue and not something that can be weeded out with practice) so audio really isn't beneficial and just wastes time. Spending way more time memorizing with zero benefit or memorizing quicker, more straight forward sequences with more consistent results is a no-brainer in my specific situation.

I believe Jack Cai uses audio only so it's obviously at least valid lol.
Click to expand...

Glad you figured it out. Thanks for sharing the results of your experimentation.
 
DuckubingCuber347 said:
Solving the corners does not affect the slices, it affects one edge in the M slice and one edge on the S slice, both on the U layer (assuming you use OP). I am aware of what parity is, perhaps I should have made that clear, What I want to know is why it happens. I already know the how and what.

This is a poorly executed example. Thankfully, I did some experimentation before seeing your post and have a better understanding (though I'm not satisfied.)

I memorize using only audio. I have very poor visual memo (before you say anything, know this is a real issue and not something that can be weeded out with practice) so audio really isn't beneficial and just wastes time. Spending way more time memorizing with zero benefit or memorizing quicker, more straight forward sequences with more consistent results is a no-brainer in my specific situation.

I believe Jack Cai uses audio only so it's obviously at least valid lol.
Click to expand...

Parity happens because every move of the cube does an even amount of piece swaps. Doing a quarter turn of a face does 3 2-swaps of edges and 3 2-swaps of corners. The total number of swaps done is 6, so the parity is even. This applies to all 6 faces, thus there is no move that can perform an odd number of swaps on the cube, so every legal possible cube state will have an even number of swaps since no move can change the parity of the cube. As such, if you have reduced to a 2-swap of edges left to be solved, there must also be a 2-swap of corners to maintain even parity on the cube.

Also with regards to what garf said about the slices, it was within the context of M2. If you do M2 M2 to solve 2 targets, the opposite centers swap and then swap back in the M slice. If you have an odd number of targets, M2 M2 M2 does not return the centers back to their original positions. This was a poor explanation though given that it was not related to the actual definition of parity on the cube. It was merely a side effect of it.
 
Last edited:
DuckubingCuber347 said:
I started practicing 2x2 yesterday. I got a 1.1 on a 12STM solve which I believe is my first legitimate 10+ TPS solve. I still have to learn S/AS CLL but so far I'm doing pretty good and can sub-4 most solves.

I also got a 2.93 average of five with a counting 4.4x but you can leave me cry on my own.
Click to expand...
lol, I got a .9x on a 12STM solve.
 
Running for cube said:
Oh boy I only unofficially broke wr I could have done better.
Click to expand...
I got a down solve of .32 and I didn't get sub-nigel so there isn't too much to be happy about. 2x2 PB's are only special if you can have a faster PB than someone who is actually good.


A little update one week before the comp.

2x2: I'm comfortable with most of the cases and even get low-2 averages from time to time. I learned S/AS but I'm not good at recognition yet so I'll probably just try my best to avoid them.

OH: I'm getting pretty decent and average sub-18.5 when my turning is good. I still need to work on my consistency though because sometimes my turning is even more trash than usual as well as my lookahead and I struggle to get sub-20. Still no PB single but I did get a 13.95 which I believe is PB5. (I think PB is 11.98 or a low 12, I got it at a time when I only kept track of 3x3 single PB.)

Pyraminx: lol

3BLD: I successfully procrastinated until the week before the comp before doing any attempts. I got my first success last night as well as getting two very close solves.

Summary: I'll be focusing on mostly OH and 3BLD. OH so I can lower my global rank and 3BLD so I can get a success. I've come to a pretty big roadblock in my 2H average so I'm hoping just a get a decent average in comp. (10.3 would be ideal as that's about what I average). I don't really care about pyraminx but I might grind a little bit. As for 2x2 I'll just practice enough that I don't get rusty.
 
DuckubingCuber347 said:
I got a down solve of .32 and I didn't get sub-nigel so there isn't too much to be happy about. 2x2 PB's are only special if you can have a faster PB than someone who is actually good.


A little update one week before the comp.

2x2: I'm comfortable with most of the cases and even get low-2 averages from time to time. I learned S/AS but I'm not good at recognition yet so I'll probably just try my best to avoid them.

OH: I'm getting pretty decent and average sub-18.5 when my turning is good. I still need to work on my consistency though because sometimes my turning is even more trash than usual as well as my lookahead and I struggle to get sub-20. Still no PB single but I did get a 13.95 which I believe is PB5. (I think PB is 11.98 or a low 12, I got it at a time when I only kept track of 3x3 single PB.)

Pyraminx: lol

3BLD: I successfully procrastinated until the week before the comp before doing any attempts. I got my first success last night as well as getting two very close solves.

Summary: I'll be focusing on mostly OH and 3BLD. OH so I can lower my global rank and 3BLD so I can get a success. I've come to a pretty big roadblock in my 2H average so I'm hoping just a get a decent average in comp. (10.3 would be ideal as that's about what I average). I don't really care about pyraminx but I might grind a little bit. As for 2x2 I'll just practice enough that I don't get rusty.
Click to expand...
I barely did any practice for BLD before WA champs and somehow got a mean of 2:40. You should be good.
 
Garf said:
I barely did any practice for BLD before WA champs and somehow got a mean of 2:40. You should be good.
Click to expand...
Thanks! I was very worried that I wouldn't get a success since I haven't practiced and only successfully solved a 3x3 blindfolded once but if you can do it I should be fine since we all know everyone is exactly the same!
 
DuckubingCuber347 said:
Thanks! I was very worried that I wouldn't get a success since I haven't practiced and only successfully solved a 3x3 blindfolded once but if you can do it I should be fine since we all know everyone is exactly the same!
Click to expand...
Exactly! With your pace of practice, you could easily get WR! /o/
 
Competition was abysmal. The only event I did good at was pyraminx despite not doing a single practice solve. I didn't even do any warmup solves because I lent someone my pyraminx to compete with and then someone else as their warm up cube.

anyway, I have another competition on June 10th. No OH unfortunately but there is Hungarian Supernova.

I haven't really done many solves this year on Hungarian Supernova but I've been grinding for the comp and it's really fun. I managed to break the sub-80 barrier for average and I'm hoping to get to 69 global by the comp. Whether that will actually happen or not, I don't know. It's a fun goal though.

Besides grinding I'm also going to learn all the easy OLL's and PLL's. I learned 38 OLL's on Thursday but there are still a few more I want to learn in addition to drilling. I also learned N perms and most of EPLL but I still want to learn Q perms and some other easy ones.
 
I went to another competition. It wasn't great but at least it's not embarrassing like the others.

Highlights: 3.47 2x2 average (bad, but daft), 420th in the US for Hungarian Supernova average (now 422).

Hopefully next comp I do better. I didn't have that much time to practice Hungarian Supernova so I hope to be a lot better by the next time I get to compete.


Updates: I learned EG-1 for 2x2. In two days. Fun.
 
DuckubingCuber347 said:
I went to another competition. It wasn't great but at least it's not embarrassing like the others.

Highlights: 3.47 2x2 average (bad, but daft), 420th in the US for Hungarian Supernova average (now 422).

Hopefully next comp I do better. I didn't have that much time to practice Hungarian Supernova so I hope to be a lot better by the next time I get to compete.


Updates: I learned EG-1 for 2x2. In two days. Fun.
Click to expand...
I almost believed you for mega...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

P
Obscure events high ranking thread
Replies
0
Views
35
Powstick
P
someone.
Gan 16/Gan 17 settings thread
Replies
3
Views
89
Michael Wimberly
Michael Wimberly
Michael Wimberly
The 3x3 Cube Setup Thread
Replies
1
Views
34
4HEAD
4HEAD
someone.
Pryaminx thread
Replies
0
Views
44
someone.
someone.
P
  • Poll Poll
Cubing news channel/thread
Replies
13
Views
369
Powstick
P
Back
Top