megaminxwin
Current Clock NR Holder
Yeah, but he hasn't come up with his list before, so he's trying to work out what he wants to use for the list. As a result, he's trying to think of what words he's trying to use.
I think. Maybe.
Random Blindfold Cubing Discussion
- Thread starter Xishem
- Start date
Yeah, but he hasn't come up with his list before, so he's trying to work out what he wants to use for the list. As a result, he's trying to think of what words he's trying to use.
I think. Maybe.
drewsopchak
Veteran
- Joined
- Apr 22, 2010
- Messages
- 875
- Location
- Central Upstate New York
- WCA ID
- 2010SOPC01
- YouTube
- Visit Channel
I mean cases in big cube BLD where you get both pieces of an edge.
Cubenovice
Forever Slow
I don't see where the issue is?
UB is a different target as BU
picking a random lettering scheme:
UB might be letter A
BU might be letter B
so UB-BU would be letter pair AB (Abacus) and BU-UB would be letter pair BA (BA Baracus)
???
Do you mean the same thing with letter pair list than the overall BLD community?
A list with all possible combinations of your lettering schem= a list of 400+ letter pairs
AbstractAlg
Veteran
so is there anything for SQ1 that aren't just algs?
Something that can be deductivly used to solve some cases?
Something that can be deductivly used to solve some cases?
DrKorbin
Veteran
If you invent something simple, you'll be great 
AbstractAlg
Veteran
If you invent something simple, you'll be great
Simple as that. I'll just invent something that dozens of mathematicians and geeks didn't invent for all this time. Suddenly, it's seems impossible.
But as speedcubing mantra says: "Don't ask if something can be done, ask how fast can it be done", I won't rage quit.
Loads of math to come now.
evogler
Regular
Since Marcell has been producing such great solves using all commutators, I've been pondering commutators vs. 3style.
I'm just curious if anyone who is knowledgeable about both has any thoughts about the WR being set with comms, when 3style is supposedly faster.
(I know he's doing rotations to use only M slices, and to use mostly U and R, so that's a speed/finger optimization compared to the BH list.)
Maybe the answer is just that different things work for different people? Maybe the simplicity of the way Marcell does it benefits him? Maybe you think he could be even faster with better algs? Just curious if the experts have any thoughts.
I'm just curious if anyone who is knowledgeable about both has any thoughts about the WR being set with comms, when 3style is supposedly faster.
(I know he's doing rotations to use only M slices, and to use mostly U and R, so that's a speed/finger optimization compared to the BH list.)
Maybe the answer is just that different things work for different people? Maybe the simplicity of the way Marcell does it benefits him? Maybe you think he could be even faster with better algs? Just curious if the experts have any thoughts.
DYGH.Tjen
Veteran
(Correct me if I'm wrong, anyone, thanks.) If I'm not mistaken, he sort of speed-optimises all his algs as well. So you can consider it 3-styleish commutators. If I'm not wrong there aren't THAT many 3style algs that are not comms in one way or another. Most are comms just executed differently, removing awkward fingermoves/fingertricks.
Marcell
Veteran
(Correct me if I'm wrong, anyone, thanks.) If I'm not mistaken, he sort of speed-optimises all his algs as well. So you can consider it 3-styleish commutators. If I'm not wrong there aren't THAT many 3style algs that are not comms in one way or another. Most are comms just executed differently, removing awkward fingermoves/fingertricks.
This.
evogler
Regular
I should have said rotation-optimized move-optimal commutators.
I took the 4 solves I know of of Marcell's (28.80 + 29.63 Mo3) and cut and pasted the edge cycles the way I group them in my head (I didn't count cube rotations in the setup move counts):
It's mostly optimal commutators oriented to use R/U/M or L/U/M, with some [M,U2] based commutators as well. I think there's only one where he chooses a longer than optimal commutator.
In contrast, I'm thinking of other things I've read 3cycle people doing:
U' M U2 M U M' U2 M' (non-[M,U2]-based M/U cycles)
L' U' R U R' U' M' U R U' Rw' U L (longer setups plus RUR'U' as an element of the commutator)
R2 U' Rw U R' U' M U R U' R' U R2 (similar)
R U R U R2 U' R' U' R' U2 (the RU cyclic shift thing)
It interested me that someone as fast as Marcell wasn't using any of the above types of algs. His style seems less "assorted", and more focused almost entirely on RUM or LUM oriented move-optimal commutators.
At any rate, it sounds like there's 2 votes that this isn't a very meaningful distinction? (Including one from the WR holder himself, whom I'm embarrassed to think I might seem like I'm arguing with :fp). I'd consider that a totally legitimate answer to my question.
I took the 4 solves I know of of Marcell's (28.80 + 29.63 Mo3) and cut and pasted the edge cycles the way I group them in my head (I didn't count cube rotations in the setup move counts):
R/U/M-based optimal commutators (0-1 setup moves):
[R2: [R', U M' U']] // DF->RF->RD
[x: [M', U R2 U']] // DF->FU->BR
[z': [U M2' U', R]] // z' (U M2 U') R (U M2 U') R' z
[x': [U' R U, M2]] // x' (U' R U) M2 (U' R' U) M2 x
[R, U' M2 U] // R (U' M2 U) R' (U' M2 U)
[U2: [U' R' U, M']] // (U R' U) M' (U' R U) M U2
[R: [R2, U M' U']] // R' (U M' U') R2 (U M U') R'
[u': [M', U' R U]] // DF->LU->FL
[x' D': [U' R2 U, M]] // DF->UB->BD
L/U/M-based optimal commutators (0-1 setup moves):
[z: [M', U L' U']] // z M' (U L' U') M (U L U') z'
[x': [M, U' L' U]] // x' M (U' L' U) M' (U' L U) x
[x: [U' L' U, M']] // x (U' L' U) M' (U' L U) M
[U' M' U, L] // (U' M' U) L (U' M U) L'
[L2': [L', U M2 U']] // L (U M2 U') L (U M2 U') L2'
[U M2 U', L'] // (U M2 U') L' (U M2 U') L
[U' M' U, L2'] // (U' M' U) L2' (U' M U) L2'
[M,U2] type commutator (0-2 setup moves):
[x: [U2, M']] // x (U2 M' U2 M) x'
[M', U2] // M' U2 M U2
[U x: [U2, M']] // U x U2 (M' U2 M) x' U'
[R' U': [M', U2]] // R' U' (M' U2' M) U' R
[L U': [M', U2]] // DF->UR->BL
D/U/M-based optimal commutator:
[D', M' U' M] // D' (M' U' M) D (M' U M)
1-move setup to 9-move R/U/M commutator:
[u R2: [R, U' M2 U]] // u R' (U' M2 U) R' (U' M2 U) R2 u'
[R2: [R', U M' U']] // DF->RF->RD
[x: [M', U R2 U']] // DF->FU->BR
[z': [U M2' U', R]] // z' (U M2 U') R (U M2 U') R' z
[x': [U' R U, M2]] // x' (U' R U) M2 (U' R' U) M2 x
[R, U' M2 U] // R (U' M2 U) R' (U' M2 U)
[U2: [U' R' U, M']] // (U R' U) M' (U' R U) M U2
[R: [R2, U M' U']] // R' (U M' U') R2 (U M U') R'
[u': [M', U' R U]] // DF->LU->FL
[x' D': [U' R2 U, M]] // DF->UB->BD
L/U/M-based optimal commutators (0-1 setup moves):
[z: [M', U L' U']] // z M' (U L' U') M (U L U') z'
[x': [M, U' L' U]] // x' M (U' L' U) M' (U' L U) x
[x: [U' L' U, M']] // x (U' L' U) M' (U' L U) M
[U' M' U, L] // (U' M' U) L (U' M U) L'
[L2': [L', U M2 U']] // L (U M2 U') L (U M2 U') L2'
[U M2 U', L'] // (U M2 U') L' (U M2 U') L
[U' M' U, L2'] // (U' M' U) L2' (U' M U) L2'
[M,U2] type commutator (0-2 setup moves):
[x: [U2, M']] // x (U2 M' U2 M) x'
[M', U2] // M' U2 M U2
[U x: [U2, M']] // U x U2 (M' U2 M) x' U'
[R' U': [M', U2]] // R' U' (M' U2' M) U' R
[L U': [M', U2]] // DF->UR->BL
D/U/M-based optimal commutator:
[D', M' U' M] // D' (M' U' M) D (M' U M)
1-move setup to 9-move R/U/M commutator:
[u R2: [R, U' M2 U]] // u R' (U' M2 U) R' (U' M2 U) R2 u'
In contrast, I'm thinking of other things I've read 3cycle people doing:
U' M U2 M U M' U2 M' (non-[M,U2]-based M/U cycles)
L' U' R U R' U' M' U R U' Rw' U L (longer setups plus RUR'U' as an element of the commutator)
R2 U' Rw U R' U' M U R U' R' U R2 (similar)
R U R U R2 U' R' U' R' U2 (the RU cyclic shift thing)
It interested me that someone as fast as Marcell wasn't using any of the above types of algs. His style seems less "assorted", and more focused almost entirely on RUM or LUM oriented move-optimal commutators.
At any rate, it sounds like there's 2 votes that this isn't a very meaningful distinction? (Including one from the WR holder himself, whom I'm embarrassed to think I might seem like I'm arguing with :fp). I'd consider that a totally legitimate answer to my question.
Marcell
Veteran
Don't be embarrassed to argue with me, I can be just as wrong as anyone else. The reason why I'm not using algs like the ones you listed is, uh, because I don't really know them. I used to do M2, then I switched to 3-cycles by gradually replacing my algs. I haven't really looked into speed-optimal algs, I just used comms, cause that's what I know. This wasn't by any means a calculated choice to prefer optimal commutators, that's just how it turned out.
So seeing that algs you showed as supposedly "3style algs", I'd say your question is absolutely legitimate. And I now have to think about the part where you consider the possibility that I could be even faster with a better assembled alg collection
So seeing that algs you showed as supposedly "3style algs", I'd say your question is absolutely legitimate. And I now have to think about the part where you consider the possibility that I could be even faster with a better assembled alg collection
DYGH.Tjen
Veteran
What would be your solution to this?
U L D' B' R U B2 R2 U' F R U2 L' F2 R' B2 R' F2 D2 F2 L2
I'm surprised I actually got a success lol
U L D' B' R U B2 R2 U' F R U2 L' F2 R' B2 R' F2 D2 F2 L2
I'm surprised I actually got a success lol
Ollie
Legend
That scramble was beaut! One corner cycle, if I did it right? 1:29 with 3OP
TMOY
Veteran
Corner orientation:
L U2 L' U2 L U L' U' L U2 L' U2 L U L' U'
x2 y L U L' U L U2 L' R' U' R U R' U2 R y X2
Corner permutation:
x' R U2 L' U2 R' U2 R U2 L U2 R' U2 x
Edges:
y2 D' M' U' R U M U' R' U D
y D' M' U L U' M U L' U' D
z' U' M U2 M2 U' L U M2 U2 M' U L' z y
D' M2 D' L D M2 D' L' D2
U' L' U' M2 U L U' M2 U2
92 STM, not taking into acount the obvious cancellations because I probably wouldn't have noticed them.
jonlin
Veteran
During M2 3-cycle, how do you do 3-cycles with 2 pieces within the M-slice?
Escher
Babby
Others correct me if I'm wrong, but 8 move comms plus U2/D2 conjugate sometimes should suffice, right?
Noahaha
blindmod
The way Zane teaches it is to set up one of your target pieces to UB and then do solve the two pieces normally with the added bonus that one of the targets is just an M2. It ends up being a commutator with M2 as the interchange.
rubiksarlen
Veteran
For cycles like DF > FU > BD, I usually do U' setup, then x M' U' R' U M U' R U x then undo setup, U.
Noahaha
blindmod
Has anyone tried this for 4BLD edges?
1. Define half of each of the 12 edges to be solved.
2. Solve the other 12 edge pieces so they match up with the "solved" 12 using commutators or whatever.
3. Solve the edges like it's a 3BLD based on the initial positions of the "solved" edges.
1. Define half of each of the 12 edges to be solved.
2. Solve the other 12 edge pieces so they match up with the "solved" 12 using commutators or whatever.
3. Solve the edges like it's a 3BLD based on the initial positions of the "solved" edges.
DrKorbin
Veteran
It's freaky. You'll use the same number of algs (~12 for pairing edges and ~11-12 for solving edges whole), but memorization will become more complex because during pairing you must search for another piece around all the cube. Not to mention inconvenient M2 move if you use M2 method for edges.
