Sq-1 Scrambling

[Jaysammey777]

Just some food for thought.
What if at the end of sq-1 scramble, it was turned 90 degrees. This would then alleviate the need for the piece of paper. But inspection would be difficult.
anyway just wondering what peoples thoughts were about this.

 

[Cale S]

How would you know which way to turn it at the end of inspection? You can't just say forward 90 degrees because you could do a y2 and then turning it forward would be the opposite direction.

 

[Jaysammey777]

you wouldnt that would be part of the solve

 

[willtri4]

That would be a pain. I don't see the problem with the cards.

 

[Cale S]

you wouldnt that would be part of the solve

If you start with the puzzle turned 90 degrees, there are always 2 different scrambles you could get by turning it back, meaning you would reduce the number of scrambled states to half of what it should be...

 

[Jaysammey777]

If you start with the puzzle turned 90 degrees, there are always 2 different scrambles you could get by turning it back, meaning you would reduce the number of scrambled states to half of what it should be...

I'm not saying you choose to revert it when you first get it, I'm saying that's part of the solve, which has the exact same scramble states, cause if you wanted to turn the other 90 degrees it would be the scramble + 180 degree turn

 

[not_kevin]

Hm, that's a pretty interesting idea, and I do like how it fixes the U/D misalignment issues. I don't really like how it puts the puzzle in a guaranteed-to-be-illegal state, and I'm a bit worried that having essentially 4 starting positions (doing either R or R' from either of the two possible starting positions) may make the puzzle a bit easier ('tho I don't think that it quite cuts the number of scramble states in half - it just means that there's a final turn that can let a sq-1er choose which of two similar-ish scrambles they'd like to start from). Overall, I think the paper method is fine as is, but I'm happy to see some innovative thought on the matter

 

[Sam N]

Hm, that's a pretty interesting idea, and I do like how it fixes the U/D misalignment issues. I don't really like how it puts the puzzle in a guaranteed-to-be-illegal state, and I'm a bit worried that having essentially 4 starting positions (doing either R or R' from either of the two possible starting positions)

Isn't that still only 2 starting positions? Sorry, maybe I'm not looking at it correctly, but it seems a 90 degree turn on one angle is equivalent to a 90 degree turn on the other angle. I feel like 2 out of the 4 cases overlap with others, but I might not be looking at it correctly.

Back to the post:

I like the idea, it is interesting to think about the added variance to the solve. I'm not sure if it could be included to the regulations, but it's not a bad idea and good food for thought. I'm not sure if it would alleviate the need for paper, as the puzzle can still be turned at 90 degree. Therefore the paper stopper would still probably be used. I also wonder if it would give a disadvantage or advantage compared to the normal scramble style. I suppose it depends on the given scramble.

 

[not_kevin]

Isn't that still only 2 starting positions? Sorry, maybe I'm not looking at it correctly, but it seems a 90 degree turn on one angle is equivalent to a 90 degree turn on the other angle. I feel like 2 out of the 4 cases overlap with others, but I might not be looking at it correctly.

But it's a z2 (or y2) of the state you're looking at - I do agree that there are only two valid scrambles you can get from it, but you can "generate" 4 different starts.

 

[Animorpher13]

I thought this post was going to be about how hard it is (for me anyway) to actually follow a scramble. Lol. Anyway, I think it would be weird for people to adjust to always doing half a turn at the beginning of every solve. And it would be kinda awkward too.