• 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.

    Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community of 35,000+ people from around the world today!

    If you are already a member, simply login to hide this message and begin participating in the community!

Request for a random state, NON-optimal 2x2 scrambler

DavidWoner

The Punchmaster
Joined
May 7, 2008
Messages
3,937
Location
Kansas City, MO, USA
WCA
2008WONE01
YouTube
Visit Channel
Yeah title. I dig the appeal of random-state scrambling, but giving optimal scrambles becomes a problem for 2x2. Short and/or 2gen scrambles can lead me (and I know others) to try/look for solutions we wouldn't otherwise try if someone else had scrambled the cube. This bothers me. I was wondering if it would be possible to make a random state scrambler that always spits out 12(?) move scrambles. This way you wouldn't ever be able to reverse the scramble to get the optimal solution, inadvertently or otherwise. It'd be cool if this was implemented into existing scramblers *cough*qq*coughcough* I'd do it myself but I suck at computers and the like. Thanks.
 

Cyrus C.

Member
Joined
Oct 17, 2009
Messages
2,159
Location
IOWA
WCA
2010COLA01
YouTube
Visit Channel
If you don't mind switching timers, cubemania isn't optimal.

EDIT: qqTimer has an option for non-optimal scrambles.

Whoops, read over those words.
 
Last edited:

maggot

Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
543
Location
Phoenix
i really want this as well. because when i am practice 2x2, if i dont look away while im scrambling and then randomly drop my cube on a table and pick it up funny, i tend to try to look for backward solns. after 1000's of scrambles, i can read the last 5 or so moves of the scramble and then look at my cube while i am applying them. its not so bad for the 8-10 move scrambles, but for the 5 move ones, yeah. . . i feel like sometimes the short scrambles i cheat myself unless i do some kind of dice roll with my cube. and if i do get a good time, i dont regard it.
 

Kenneth

Not Alot
Joined
Aug 10, 2007
Messages
1,693
Location
Kauparve, Hejde, Gotland, Sweden
WCA
2005GUST01
YouTube
Visit Channel
Would it be possible to create a scrambler for 2x2 and/or pyra that has a built in solver without to much hassle? The idea is to not use random position but random face moves. Let's say you create a 25 move FRU for 2x2 and then let it find a 12 move solution (all positions must be solvable in more than one way using 12 moves).

I find face scrambles harder on average than random setup for both 2x2 and pyra (don't ask me why it is so but it seems so to me =) this is the reason for me asking this.

Or if not a solver just a look up table that has got scrambles for all positions if it is a downloadable scrambler.

Hmm, that would be useful in three ways, random position look up, random face move position look up and also select random scramble from the list.
 
Last edited:

cuBerBruce

Member
Joined
Oct 8, 2006
Messages
914
Location
Malden, MA, USA
WCA
2006NORS01
YouTube
Visit Channel
I note that the scrambler linked to by Mike generates a random cube position, but not a random cube orientation. It always leaves the DLB cubie in place. The OP didn't specify whether by "random state" he wanted both the position and cube orientation to be random or just the position. I suppose it doesn't make that much difference, but if you really want both random position and random cube orientation, you should specify that.

I also note that with Pyraminx, standard scrambles do not change the orientation of the puzzle. With self-scrambling, this makes it even easier to see how you need to turn the corners (or whatever you call the pieces next to the trivial tips) to align them correctly.
 

Lucas Garron

Member
Joined
Jul 6, 2007
Messages
3,559
Location
California
WCA
2006GARR01
YouTube
Visit Channel
Yes, and I think that because you reach a level of around 9 moves optimally and then you kinda walk in circles there when applying more moves. The chance of getting really easy scrambles (3-5 moves) is therefore smaller than with random setup and that makes it harder on average.
Sorry to be blunt, but: I thought you'd be better at this math. The distribution levels out completely, and it does *not* walk in circles; you could make a sort of argument for it, but it's irrelevant. And of course, there's always a minuscule skew toward solved.
 
Top