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.

I believe for the most part that if your Ao50/Ao100 is under a certain time then you are globally averaging that event. To make it more clear, I have done 300+ solves in the last month in 3x3 and my Ao100 is 12.68 meaning that I am globally averaging sub 13. I believe that I am right on this but if I am not I am sure that someone will correct me, but for now I hope that this helps.

I believe for the most part that if your Ao50/Ao100 is under a certain time then you are globally averaging that event. To make it more clear, I have done 300+ solves in the last month in 3x3 and my Ao100 is 12.68 meaning that I am globally averaging sub 13. I believe that I am right on this but if I am not I am sure that someone will correct me, but for now I hope that this helps.

I think more solves than that is necessary. For example, Feliks Zemdegs' PB average of 100 is 5.97 seconds, but that doesn't mean his global average is sub-6. My personal opinion is that your Global Average is the answer to to this question: If you're about to solve a 3x3 (assuming you're warmed up and it's a cube you're comfortable using, etc.), what time would you expect to get? Or if you'd rather phrase your global average as sub-x, what's the lowest time you would expect to get under?

Hello, I'm using cube explorer to find all the cases for my new method, HVLS.

I tried to find out how to get all the possible cases by doing R U R' U' in cube explorer, removing all LL corners, besides the one from the removed F2L pair. I got 324 algorithms out of it, but I had somebody do the math and there should only be 162.

So my question is: Why is there 324 cases, instead of 162?

Hello, I'm using cube explorer to find all the cases for my new method, HVLS.

I tried to find out how to get all the possible cases by doing R U R' U' in cube explorer, removing all LL corners, besides the one from the removed F2L pair. I got 324 algorithms out of it, but I had somebody do the math and there should only be 162.

So my question is: Why is there 324 cases, instead of 162?

First of all, I'm sorry to say but that isn't a new method. What you described as HVLS is really WVCP (Winter Variation + Corner Permutation) and has been discussed before, I think algs have been created too.

But to (try to) answer your question however, it's not the math that's wrong but probably rather the way you were using Cube Exploror. On a video I watched a while ago, it says to do this to find all the possible cases for your input:
1) draw in the cube (you've already done that)
2) hit "Add and solve"
3) Wait. The video said at least until it gets to (21f) but that'll take a loonngg time probably, but for your purposes (16f) should be just fine.
4) Press "Stop Search" then "add solutions to main window"
5) then go to File>Save maneuvers and choose a file location
6) then go to options and check "Skip isomorphics when loading from file" AND "Isomorphy includes Inversion"
7) go to file>load maneuvers and find and select your file
8) Click "yes" when is asks about discarding cubes in the main window
9) you should have all the possible cases for the WVCP. They won't be the best algs but you'll have all the cases at least, to find better algs you'll have to search them one by one in cube explorer

If that didn't work then I don't know, that's what the guide I looked at said to do.

A better place for this would probably be "One Answer Software Question" I'd like to ask a question that your post spurred in my memory. How do you use Cube Explorer to find all the possible case for something?

Edit- Thanks @Aerma I posted that just after your post.

Hello, I'm using cube explorer to find all the cases for my new method, HVLS.

I tried to find out how to get all the possible cases by doing R U R' U' in cube explorer, removing all LL corners, besides the one from the removed F2L pair. I got 324 algorithms out of it, but I had somebody do the math and there should only be 162.

So my question is: Why is there 324 cases, instead of 162?

Your question is wrong, because there are 648 cases if you don't reduce by post-AUF and 162 cases if you do.

I'm guessing you get 324 because you didn't remove the LL edges and that forces a parity constraint on the corner permutation, but I don't know exactly what you did so this is just a guess.

First of all, I'm sorry to say but that isn't a new method. What you described as HVLS is really WVCP (Winter Variation + Corner Permutation) and has been discussed before, I think algs have been created too.

But to (try to) answer your question however, it's not the math that's wrong but probably rather the way you were using Cube Exploror. On a video I watched a while ago, it says to do this to find all the possible cases for your input:
1) draw in the cube (you've already done that)
2) hit "Add and solve"
3) Wait. The video said at least until it gets to (21f) but that'll take a loonngg time probably, but for your purposes (16f) should be just fine.
4) Press "Stop Search" then "add solutions to main window"
5) then go to File>Save maneuvers and choose a file location
6) then go to options and check "Skip isomorphics when loading from file" AND "Isomorphy includes Inversion"
7) go to file>load maneuvers and find and select your file
8) Click "yes" when is asks about discarding cubes in the main window
9) you should have all the possible cases for the WVCP. They won't be the best algs but you'll have all the cases at least, to find better algs you'll have to search them one by one in cube explorer

If that didn't work then I don't know, that's what the guide I looked at said to do.

Your question is wrong, because there are 648 cases if you don't reduce by post-AUF and 162 cases if you do.

I'm guessing you get 324 because you didn't remove the LL edges and that forces a parity constraint on the corner permutation, but I don't know exactly what you did so this is just a guess.

Oh, okay! Well then one suggestion, use ELL instead of OLL and EPLL as the step, no reason not to really. Well except recognition might be hard to get used to but I think it'd be better in the long run.

Oh, okay! Well then one suggestion, use ELL instead of OLL and EPLL as the step, no reason not to really. Well except recognition might be hard to get used to but I think it'd be better in the long run.

Is learning full OLLCP worth it? I already know COLL minus the sune and antisune cases, should I learn those? And what about the 6-move OLLs, should I learn the OLLCP cases of those?

Is learning full OLLCP worth it? I already know COLL minus the sune and antisune cases, should I learn those? And what about the 6-move OLLs, should I learn the OLLCP cases of those?

If your willing to drill, sune/antisune colls are pretty alright (ive always used them cause my pll sucks as a zzer), although if you can sub 2-3 ll with sune and pll than its not really worth it.

Is learning full OLLCP worth it? I already know COLL minus the sune and antisune cases, should I learn those? And what about the 6-move OLLs, should I learn the OLLCP cases of those?

I know and use a whole lot of OLLCP. There are a lot of good algs with good recognition but many cases I’ve never found good algs for. I used to use the S/AS COLLs and still do sometimes but only if my recognition is pretty immediate. The S/AS corner cases for all of the OLLs have the same recognition problem for me. Where I once learned algs for some of those cases, I’ve mostly abandoned them now. That said though, the more you practice them the better your recognition will be. You may gain more long-term advantage. As for the six-movers, I use them almost always and I usually feel ridiculous for it.

I am looking for the algorithms to a method that orients the last layer corners while placing the last F2L slot and keeps the orientation of the last layer edges.

I saw the algorithms for this 5 years ago but I can't find them or what this subset is called.