Game: Opposite color solving

[beingforitself]

Here is a game:

Solve the cube with your normal method, only disregarding the difference between opposite colors (i.e., the when fully solved, the red-orange pair of sides will have random orange and red stickers on each side, same with yellow-white, etc. (or whatever color scheme you use)).

Theoretically this style of solving should be considerably faster than normal solving, but I have been having trouble getting the hang of it, especially correct cross-building (PLL/OLL recognition is a bit funky too, but easy to get used to after a few solves).

This is my best average of 5 so far:

1:21, (1:08), (1:53), 1:35, 1:17 = 1:24

My normal solve times are mid-30s.

 

[LNZ]

I was using Youtube to view some more cube and puzzle videos, and I came across a challenge posed by a person called "desie37". Solve the cube but not to the usual solved state but to the checkerboard pattern directly.

In this challenge you can't solve the cube to normal state and then simply do the checker board pattern. Anyone can form the checker board pattern on any sized cube in a solved state, including a 20x20 Gabbasoft cube.

This looks like a varaint on how to solve a 3x3 shepherds or super cube, so it is much harder to do.

Actually, I did buy a complete set of stickers for a 3x3 shepherds cube from Cubesmith recently and I am thinking of buying a cube from C4U without stickers to put them on.

 

[Lucas Garron]

Theoretically this style of solving should be considerably faster than normal solving

According to what "theory"? Mathematically, it takes trivially no more moves to solve a cube this way, and probably fewer. But "faster" in practice never had anything to do with that.

First 5 solves:

19.44 avg5: (22.58), 20.08, (17.27), 20.09, 18.16

Also, is HTA allowed?

 

[royzabeast]

Theoretically this style of solving should be considerably faster than normal solving

According to what "theory"? Mathematically, it takes trivially no more moves to solve a cube this way, and probably fewer. But "faster" in practice never had anything to do with that.

First 5 solves:

19.44 avg5: (22.58), 20.08, (17.27), 20.09, 18.16

Also, is HTA allowed?

It could be faster in the sense that for the cross and F2L, their is basically two pieces that can go any position instead of one. So less looking.

 

[Lucas Garron]

Theoretically this style of solving should be considerably faster than normal solving

According to what "theory"? Mathematically, it takes trivially no more moves to solve a cube this way, and probably fewer. But "faster" in practice never had anything to do with that.

First 5 solves:

19.44 avg5: (22.58), 20.08, (17.27), 20.09, 18.16

Also, is HTA allowed?

It could be faster in the sense that for the cross and F2L, their is basically two pieces that can go any position instead of one. So less looking.

*Four. (e.g. All the four F2L edges are the same.)

Anyhow, I'm still not convinced.

 

[TMOY]

I tried it and got approximately the same average as with normal solves (high 20s).
I also got 6:10.15 on a 7^3, 45 seconds better than my PB with normal solves

 

[brunson]

PLL recognition was really hard. I didn't try F2L, just did LBL, OLL and three PLLs.

 

[beingforitself]

Theoretically this style of solving should be considerably faster than normal solving

According to what "theory"? Mathematically, it takes trivially no more moves to solve a cube this way, and probably fewer. But "faster" in practice never had anything to do with that.

Average of 12 move count for cross+F2L:

(21) 27 27 24 (29) 29 25 27 25 25 28 28 = 26.5
Average cross = 3.6
Average F2L slot = 5.7

This makes an average of 26.5 + 20 = 46.5 moves for Fridrich, or 3.6 + (3 x 5.7) + 28 = 48.7 for MGLS.

The move count is nearly 10 less than normal, with exactly the same number (and type) of algorithms/steps. Additionally, all moves saved are during F2L, which has a lower TPS than LL (or ELS + CLS/PLL). That is pretty clearly faster.

You are correct, however, that "theoretically" was a stupid word choice. Ergo:

Experimentally, the move count of this style of solving suggests it should be considerably faster than normal solving.

 

[fanwuq]

puzzle:solved/opp neutral
2x2: 7.95/5
3x3: 17.08/66
4x4: 66.03/135

Done on hi-games simulator.

2x2 is easy because I'm somewhat familar with guimond and ortega. 3x3 is pretty hard. 4x4 allows many skips in edges and centers, because of reduction, but 3x3 stage is harder.

 

[TMOY]

Got a sub-1 opp neutral solve on 4^3 (57.72)
My PB with normal solbes is 1:09.

 

[rachmaninovian]

Got a sub-1 opp neutral solve on 4^3 (57.72)
My PB with normal solbes is 1:09.

i've always been opposite color neutral...it gives me more freedom in my opinion...even with slow solves I can sub 1

 

[fanwuq]

Got a sub-1 opp neutral solve on 4^3 (57.72)
My PB with normal solbes is 1:09.

i've always been opposite color neutral...it gives me more freedom in my opinion...even with slow solves I can sub 1

The purpose of the thread is to reduce every turn to double turns and treat opposite sides as the same color. For example, off by r2U2L2d2 counts as solved.

 

[Innocence]

That was really, really hard. It took me like 5 minutes to fully solve it, while normally I'm a 50 second averager. I think the hard part was figuring out what f2l moves were legal or not, even though technically there were twice as many legal moves. So eventually I switched to LBL, and then hit my second roadblock, PLL Recognition. Didn't do as bad as some, I only used 2 plls.