Random Cubing Discussion

[bobthegiraffemonkey]

I still don't get why it hasn't just been called X-perm from the start. It makes far more sense than H perm, which would probably be a good name for what is called E-perm instead. It's always bugged me that several of the PLLs are strangely named.

 

[Stefan]

Right now we're at third place with 32 ups and 33 downs:
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=pll

Darn, 52 ups now but still only third place...

 

[applemobile]

I changed both my R perms today, and I feel damn sexy because of it. Come at me R perms.

 

[RNewms27]

http://www.cubedepotusa.com/apps/webstore/products/category/651848?page=1

THE QY!

 

[Rpotts]

I changed both my R perms today, and I feel damn sexy because of it. Come at me R perms.

What did you change from/to?

Is it weird that I think the standard Rb perm's inverse is better?

R2' F R U R U' R' F' R U2' R' U2 R

Right thumb for F', perhaps left index works better for some.

Eh, keyboard timing seems to lean towards normal being faster than inverse for me, but the inverse seems pretty much as good, maybe if I'd practiced it anywhere near as much.

 

[Stefan]

I like commutators. Came across an OLL that I dislike right now, stopped, and decided to solve LL instead: [R' L D' L' D R, U2]. Nothing fancy, I'm just happy this worked and and worked out so nicely, I actually didn't think it through but just started and then was pleasantly surprised.

 

[qqwref]

R U' R S2 R' U R' S2 + S2 R2 S2 R2
= R U' R S2 R' U R S2 R2
= U perm

!_!

 

[Escher]

How many moves in ETM is an eido U2'? 1?

If that's the case, what about eido U2' then a U with the same motion just in reverse?

And in that case, what if I do R' U2' R U, but the R is 'independent' to the U2'->U motion? Does that make the sequence 3 moves in ETM? Or is it counted in the same way that say, R' U R' is 3 moves?

 

[qqwref]

U2' should be one move ETM, U2'U should be two since you do actually have to reverse direction.

Honestly, though, if we're talking about the number of "moves" someone actually performed, we might as well consider triggers as two moves - when someone does RUR' they're really doing R (UR'). The last two moves aren't separate at all.

 

[Escher]

U2' should be one move ETM, U2'U should be two since you do actually have to reverse direction.

Honestly, though, if we're talking about the number of "moves" someone actually performed, we might as well consider triggers as two moves - when someone does RUR' they're really doing R (UR'). The last two moves aren't separate at all.

Okay, thanks. I wasn't sure of how 'soft' ETM was.

I definitely agree, I wish it was simple to create an easily understandable notation system for execution. It just feels like given the current language of cubing, any decent system of notation for hand movements would be completely outside of it. It ought to be done though, maybe a system using punctuation that can be written underneath the normal notation of an algorithm...

 

[stoic]

I wish it was simple to create an easily understandable notation system for execution. It just feels like given the current language of cubing, any decent system of notation for hand movements would be completely outside of it. It ought to be done though, maybe a system using punctuation that can be written underneath the normal notation of an algorithm...

This is a very interesting idea. I was thinking of this post when I was learning a new OLL this morning. I was working on OLL 34:

I was learning the wiki alg (R U R' U') B' (R' F R F') B ; after doing it a couple of times I immediately cancelled the (F' B) into an S (anyone else do this?); however more relevantly after practicing it for a while I found myself naturally changing the B' into (f' z)

So (R U R' U') B' (R' F R F') B becomes (R U R' U') f' z R' F R S (z')

I often see reconstructions by Brest notated "rotations may not be exactly what was performed" and I guess this is the point here. How much of this comes down to a cuber's individual style and how they position their fingers, and how much could it be notated?

 

[qqwref]

(R U R' U') B' (R' F R F') B

R U R' U' y' R' F' r U M
or even
R U R' U' y r' U' R U M'

 

[stoic]

R U R' U' y' R' F' r U M
or even
R U R' U' y r' U' R U M'

I like that second one. When I'm looking for a new alg I instinctively lean away from anything with a rotation; but with the standard notation one can't tell how fluidly it can be incorporated

 

[Julian]

I like that second one. When I'm looking for a new alg I instinctively lean away from anything with a rotation; but with the standard notation one can't tell how fluidly it can be incorporated

I'd say the rotation is the only downside to that alg :/

 

[Escher]

How much of this comes down to a cuber's individual style and how they position their fingers, and how much could it be notated?

I think there are certainly different 'classes' of ways to perform moves compared to the 'normal' way they are notated (given the number of ways we have adapted traditional '6 generator' notation to include execution types like r/u/m and M/E/S etc it could be a little difficult). With enough time I reckon it would be possible to make a reasonably intuitive system after looking at a lot of different styles and forming a few simple classes.

 

[5BLD]

Why S when you can F'B at the same time? S is rather awkward whilst S' is not..

 

[stoic]

Why S when you can F'B at the same time? S is rather awkward whilst S' is not..

Seems easier to me...

 

[tasguitar7]

I seem to notice that non-cubers are under the impression (as they have verbalized it often) that "it won't look like he's almost done and then suddenly he will be done". I think this originates from the visible destructiveness of most PLL algs and the pervasiveness of CFOP. So, when they see me solve Roux they seem stunned as the progression is much more apparent. What do you guys think, is it more entertaining for a non-cuber to watch a Roux solve or CFOP solve?

 

[PandaCuber]

I seem to notice that non-cubers are under the impression (as they have verbalized it often) that "it won't look like he's almost done and then suddenly he will be done". I think this originates from the visible destructiveness of most PLL algs and the pervasiveness of CFOP. So, when they see me solve Roux they seem stunned as the progression is much more apparent. What do you guys think, is it more entertaining for a non-cuber to watch a Roux solve or CFOP solve?

Noncubers seems to love moo.

 

[tasguitar7]

Noncubers seems to love moo.

Doesn't everybody? They hate giving inspection time though.