Older cubers discussions

[mitja]

I can see that logic but I think it's a little bit misleading. Since OP corner setup/restore are all max 2 HTM I consider OP corners to be "1 alg". Basic M2 I consider as 5 algs (I, S, C, W, Q) and everything else is intuitive. Setups/restore took much less time to get used to for me than what I'd typically call an alg (and improved my intuitive sense for the cube a lot).

I would say that all of those 50 are algs. The fact is they are mostly intuitive, but it doesn't mean they are not algs. The same goes for F2L, being intuitive doesn't make it non algs. I would say that when I understand the happening on the cube intuitively, I don't take it as an algorithm, but I am aware it is an algorithm.

 

[pglewis]

I would say that all of those 50 are algs. The fact is they are mostly intuitive, but it doesn't mean they are not algs. The same goes for F2L, being intuitive doesn't make it non algs. I would say that when I understand the happening on the cube intuitively, I don't take it as an algorithm, but I am aware it is an algorithm.

Right... but if I were considering learning 3bld today "50 algs" sounds really daunting even if it's technically accurate. Compared to learning 50 OLL algs, for example, it's nowhere near the same.

 

[One Wheel]

Since OP corner setup/restore are all max 2 HTM I consider OP corners to be "1 alg".

I would say that all of those 50 are algs. The fact is they are mostly intuitive, but it doesn't mean they are not algs.

I think I have to agree with @pglewis here. When I'm doing OP corners I use multiple combinations of setup moves, and I don't think of it in the same way as I think of algorithms at all. For example, R2 D' setup vs. F2 D: they set up the same sticker, but use different moves. I would consider the Y-perm the single alg, with setup moves before and after.

 

[mitja]

Right... but if I were considering learning 3bld today "50 algs" sounds really daunting even if it's technically accurate. Compared to learning 50 OLL algs, for example, it's nowhere near the same.

Yes I 100% agree.

 

[pglewis]

On the topic of 3bld, I was 0/2 at the coffee shop but actually encouraged. First one I left out at least a pair from edge memo but I was intentionally pushing ahead with less review. Second attempt was fairly smooth and off by a twisted corner.

 

[h2f]

Right... but if I were considering learning 3bld today "50 algs" sounds really daunting even if it's technically accurate. Compared to learning 50 OLL algs, for example, it's nowhere near the same.

It's comparable 50 OLL algs are often mirrors, or same patterns with other setups, or just doing 2 OLLs etc.

 

[mark49152]

It's comparable 50 OLL algs are often mirrors, or same patterns with other setups, or just doing 2 OLLs etc.

I disagree. Learning the setups is way easier and way more intuitive than learning 50 OLLs. I learned them in an hour, if that. It's not even fair to compare them to F2L cases, let alone OLLs.

At a work function in Budapest tonight, they laid on some entertainment... drum roll... a former Hungarian champion cuber! I don't recall his name but will look him up. He did some sighted solves and his finale was a theatrical 3 minute BLD solve, to great applause . People were really interested and it was nice to see cubing as entertainment rather than hobby for a change.

 

[openseas]

I disagree. Learning the setups is way easier and way more intuitive than learning 50 OLLs. I learned them in an hour, if that. It's not even fair to compare them to F2L cases, let alone OLLs.

Agree to Mark, not even comparable to 50 OLLs. All corner setups are less than hour effort needed whereas 50 OLL takes days or weeks (months to me). I wouldn't call setups as algs.

 

[newtonbase]

I disagree. Learning the setups is way easier and way more intuitive than learning 50 OLLs. I learned them in an hour, if that. It's not even fair to compare them to F2L cases, let alone OLLs.

At a work function in Budapest tonight, they laid on some entertainment... drum roll... a former Hungarian champion cuber! I don't recall his name but will look him up. He did some sighted solves and his finale was a theatrical 3 minute BLD solve, to great applause . People were really interested and it was nice to see cubing as entertainment rather than hobby for a change.

Were you tempted to show off? Do your colleagues know much about your hobby?

 

[pglewis]

Sliced a full second off the Ao12, finishing with a high 18 full step.

Spoiler: Solves

Generated By csTimer on 2018-3-5
solves/total: 12/12

single
best: 18.93
worst: 27.83

mean of 3
current: 22.50 (σ = 3.38)
best: 22.35 (σ = 1.28)

avg of 5
current: 22.76 (σ = 0.44)
best: 22.76 (σ = 0.44)

avg of 12
current: 23.26 (σ = 1.88)
best: 23.26 (σ = 1.88)

Average: 23.26 (σ = 1.88)
Mean: 23.28

Time List:
1. 21.73 F R2 B L2 B R2 F2 U2 R2 L' D2 B2 D' U2 F2 R' U' L' U
2. 25.77 L2 U F2 L D2 B D2 F L2 B2 U' R2 D' L2 D' L2 D2 R2 L
3. 21.32 L2 D2 B2 L' F2 R' B2 D2 F2 D2 L2 B U R2 U' L' F L2 U L F
4. 25.86 D' U' B2 L2 D2 U L2 R2 U' L U B F2 U L' D B U2 F2 R'
5. 27.83 L2 F D R2 U' R2 U' L' F R2 U2 D2 B' U2 D2 B D2 L2 F
6. 20.87 R2 B2 R2 B2 U2 L F2 D2 B2 R2 F R2 D B' R U F2 L U'
7. 23.08 L2 D' L2 F2 R2 U R2 B2 U R2 D F U F2 R' B' L D2 F L2 R
8. 23.11 F2 U2 F' L B' D' F' U D2 R' F2 D B2 L2 D' R2 U B2 D L2
9. 22.27 R2 F2 U2 B2 R' D2 L2 R F2 L2 U' B' L2 F2 U' R' F L' F' L'
10. 25.66 U2 L2 U' B2 R2 U' R2 B2 L2 B2 D2 B R' F' U R U R B D'
11. 22.90 B2 F2 U B2 R2 B2 F2 D' L2 U F U' F D F' L U B L2 B'
12. 18.93 R' D2 F2 U L2 R2 D R2 D' L2 F' R D' U R' F2 U2 L B2

 

[mark49152]

Were you tempted to show off? Do your colleagues know much about your hobby?

No I never talk about it at work, except I did tell one guy after the event. Showing off usually backfires with cubing anyway

 

[newtonbase]

No I never talk about it at work, except I did tell one guy after the event. Showing off usually backfires with cubing anyway

My workmates are probably sick of me talking about cubes. Our last get together was in the café at Saintsbury's.

 

[h2f]

I disagree. Learning the setups is way easier and way more intuitive than learning 50 OLLs. I learned them in an hour, if that. It's not even fair to compare them to F2L cases, let alone OLLs.

Agree to Mark, not even comparable to 50 OLLs. All corner setups are less than hour effort needed whereas 50 OLL takes days or weeks (months to me). I wouldn't call setups as algs.

Guys, I dont talk about learning but making all algs really fast. This setups needs fingertricks etc. in the same manner as you do speedsolve. I was using it long ago, but they become faster when I started thinking about them as one whole thing not made of pieces: setup+Yperm+undo. And my 50 algs is made for a comparison to 3style 800 algs. In fact it's not 800, its not even a half because of seutups, patterns etc. The image 50 vs 800 shows tons of solves one needs to be really good at 3style. The idea of commutator it's not hard to understand - 2 years ago me and my friend explained it to one guy 15 minutes before FMC attempt. And he did 28. But all you need is to make it really fluent.

 

[Mike Hughey]

I agree that this is true to make the algs really fast. But pretty much all of us in this thread aren't fast enough at BLD for that to really matter. Even when I was averaging around 1:00 for 3BLD (I'm closer to 1:45 now, I'm afraid - I've gone way downhill), my 3style algs were really bad and slow. But I could visualize them quickly and with no difficulty, and that was plenty good enough for a sub-minute 3BLD solve. You only really need to worry about fingertricks and such when you're going for sub-40 or maybe even sub-30.

Admittedly, though, if your goal is to eventually become world-class, it does mean you need to be aiming at fingertrickable algs. But if you're aiming for world class, you'll probably need to be doing 3style.

 

[mark49152]

The other argument against treating M2/OP as 50 algs is that cancellations and thinkahead are also important when you're trying to get fast, especially for M2. Also finding the most efficient ways to combine adjacent targets. In that sense it can be compared to F2L where a fluid, efficient solution usually wins out over spamming.

For OP, as Mike said and as came up a page or two ago, it's a waste of time practising fingertricks for solutions of 15-19 moves per piece. That effort is better directed at learning to solve with 4-7 moves per piece.

It's also unfair to characterise 3style as "800 algs" even if technically correct. In practice the major part of the benefit is in corners, which comprise 378 (?) comms that can be learned as setups to maybe a dozen core cases, and half are inverses anyway. Again that is much faster and easier to embed than say 378 ZBLLs.

 

[h2f]

For me alg is alg no matter if it's hard or easy to learn. My comparison in this thread is to courage other guys. As Mike wrote - we are not fast blinders but my point is that othes who started 3bld dont need to learn nothing more than OP to become for example sub2 solvers. That's all.

 

[h2f]

For OP, as Mike said and as came up a page or two ago, it's a waste of time practising fingertricks for solutions of 15-19 moves per piece. That effort is better directed at learning to solve with 4-7 moves per piece.

Let's start counting efficiency taking not moves but time for execution of the alg (including imagining and doing). In this point of view OP is much efficient for many of us. During comps only times matters, not a style.

 

[JanW]

If the goal is to encourage people, why talk about 50 algs? Just say you can get fast with a handful of algs+setup moves. That's a lot more encouraging, and also apparently how most people see it.

 

[SpartanSailor]

I think I have to agree with @pglewis here. When I'm doing OP corners I use multiple combinations of setup moves, and I don't think of it in the same way as I think of algorithms at all. For example, R2 D' setup vs. F2 D: they set up the same sticker, but use different moves. I would consider the Y-perm the single alg, with setup moves before and after.

I agree. When I started learning 3BLD in January, I discovered I only needed two algs for OP/OP. T-perm and y-perm. I already knew those. I was pleased and happy NOT to learn 50 new algs. In fact, I saw some tutorials that listed every setup-return as algs for every position on the cube. That was just too much for me. I visualise moving the piece to the swapping location, then move it back to its home position.

Sure, those are algs, but for me... I didn’t have to learn new algs and that was a huge relief. Still had to learn lettering scheme and figure out how to DO it, but it helped a lot to reduce what I needed to learn. I’m NOT efficient nor am I fast. I may eventually swap to M2 for edges, but even 5 algs at this point is not something I’m interested to learn.

I don’t use algs on bigger cubes to solve the Center pieces... intuitive and trial-error. I’m slow with those as well. And for now, for me, that’s okay.

I’m sure after I get an official success, I’ll be interested to learn M2.

 

[SpartanSailor]

The other argument against treating M2/OP as 50 algs is that cancellations and thinkahead are also important when you're trying to get fast, especially for M2. Also finding the most efficient ways to combine adjacent targets. In that sense it can be compared to F2L where a fluid, efficient solution usually wins out over spamming.

For OP, as Mike said and as came up a page or two ago, it's a waste of time practising fingertricks for solutions of 15-19 moves per piece. That effort is better directed at learning to solve with 4-7 moves per piece.

It's also unfair to characterise 3style as "800 algs" even if technically correct. In practice the major part of the benefit is in corners, which comprise 378 (?) comms that can be learned as setups to maybe a dozen core cases, and half are inverses anyway. Again that is much faster and easier to embed than say 378 ZBLLs.

When I hear someone say it takes 800 algs, it’s overwhelming to say the least. When someone breaks it down like this, it’s not so scary and far more reasonable.

If the goal is to encourage people to use a method, I believe a more reasonable explaination of what is involved is necessary. Just saying, “800 algs, but they’re easy” is daunting no matter what... Even if that is technically correct. My brain is going to reorganise those into fewer anyway...