- Joined
- Nov 9, 2016

- Messages
- 406

- Likes
- 175

Thread starter
#1

HD or Higgs-Demars, is a method for 2x2 speedsolving, comparable to EG. It breaks the solve into two steps: orient all corners and force a V separation case, and solve the rest with one of 36 algs. Here are movecount comparisons for EG and HD.

HD:

V+CO: 3.90 moves (from 100 solves by myself)

NLL: 8.13 moves (from current algs, factoring in probability)

Total (AUFs included): 13.53 moves

Spoiler: NLL movecount distribution

EG:

Face (optimal): 3.80 (unsure)

EG case: 9.54 (factoring in probability, using algs from Chris Olsen's website)

Total (AUFs included): 14.84 moves

Other arguments:

Alg count:

HD: 41

EG: 128

One looking:

HD: Track permutation of 8 pieces

EG: Track permutation of 8 pieces, orientation of 4

Ergonomics:

HD: First step decent, second step good, rather undeveloped algs

EG: First step decent, second step great, developed algs

Add ons:

HD: possibly more NLLs but for non V separation cases

EG: TCLL, LEG, possibly TEG if you are crazy

Sorry for not making this way earlier. Credit to myself, @Thermex, @Shiv3r, and @Neuro for the method, also thanks a little bit to @efattah for helping with movecount. HD is way cool, I really hope some people prove its viability with fast times. Note that these statistics are not guaranteed to be perfectly accurate, but they should be. Also note that the method called HD here is known more specifically as HD-G, or HD-Guimond, as the first step is similar to that of Guimond. Please post any more arguments or aspects I missed, and feel free to debate against what I have here.

HD:

V+CO: 3.90 moves (from 100 solves by myself)

NLL: 8.13 moves (from current algs, factoring in probability)

Total (AUFs included): 13.53 moves

Moves: number of cases, chance, cumulative chance

0: 1, 0.56%, 0.56%

1: 0, 0%, 0.56%

2: 0, 0%, 0.56%

3: 3, 5%, 5.56%

4: 2, 4.44%, 10%

5: 3, 6.67%, 16.67%

6: 3, 6.67%, 23.33%

7: 7, 24.44%, 47.78%

8: 5, 11.11%, 58.89%

9: 15, 33.33%, 92.22%

10: 1, 2.22%, 94.44%

12: 1, 1.11%, 95.56%

13: 1, 4.44%, 100%

0: 1, 0.56%, 0.56%

1: 0, 0%, 0.56%

2: 0, 0%, 0.56%

3: 3, 5%, 5.56%

4: 2, 4.44%, 10%

5: 3, 6.67%, 16.67%

6: 3, 6.67%, 23.33%

7: 7, 24.44%, 47.78%

8: 5, 11.11%, 58.89%

9: 15, 33.33%, 92.22%

10: 1, 2.22%, 94.44%

12: 1, 1.11%, 95.56%

13: 1, 4.44%, 100%

EG:

Face (optimal): 3.80 (unsure)

EG case: 9.54 (factoring in probability, using algs from Chris Olsen's website)

Total (AUFs included): 14.84 moves

Other arguments:

Alg count:

HD: 41

EG: 128

One looking:

HD: Track permutation of 8 pieces

EG: Track permutation of 8 pieces, orientation of 4

Ergonomics:

HD: First step decent, second step good, rather undeveloped algs

EG: First step decent, second step great, developed algs

Add ons:

HD: possibly more NLLs but for non V separation cases

EG: TCLL, LEG, possibly TEG if you are crazy

Sorry for not making this way earlier. Credit to myself, @Thermex, @Shiv3r, and @Neuro for the method, also thanks a little bit to @efattah for helping with movecount. HD is way cool, I really hope some people prove its viability with fast times. Note that these statistics are not guaranteed to be perfectly accurate, but they should be. Also note that the method called HD here is known more specifically as HD-G, or HD-Guimond, as the first step is similar to that of Guimond. Please post any more arguments or aspects I missed, and feel free to debate against what I have here.

Likes:
kubnintadni