[Help Thread] Square-1 Discussion

[qwertycuber]

Yeah I've never been able to see the whole of the CS page.

This is pretty much the same thing

Here is my version of that page: http://hem.bredband.net/_zlv_/rubiks/sq1/sq1-shape-depth.html

Thanks, this is exactly what I was looking for.

 

[Rubik's cubed]

Hey guys, I want to learn obl, but it seems a bit confusing, can anyone help me out?

 

[Rubik's cubed]

Also the only reason I can't solve a square 1 without looking at a tutorial is parity. Not the memorization, but even looking at the alg, I still can't do it. Does anyone have any idea why?

 

[xyzzy]

Also the only reason I can't solve a square 1 without looking at a tutorial is parity. Not the memorization, but even looking at the alg, I still can't do it. Does anyone have any idea why?

Possible reasons: you're making some of the moves in the wrong direction or you're turning by the wrong amount for some moves. Step through the moves of the parity alg very carefully.

Alternatively, the alg you're looking at might just be wrong. This EP alg list has correct algs.

 

[Rubik's cubed]

Hi guys I'm trying to learn advanced cube shape but it seems confusing to me. I watched Brandon Lin's video but I don't understand how to reduce cases I don't know to ones I know to ones I know.

 

[KaiCube]

Usually I either reduce my cubeshape cases into either scallop-kite or scallop-scallop. I usually only turn it into scallop-scallop when there is a lot of edge pairs but most of the time I turn cubeshape cases into scallop-kite by creating a scallop on one layer pairing up the edges in certain ways to create a kite on the other layer then doing scallop-kite.

Also does anyone have any tips on improving sq1 tps?

 

[zeragon7]

Anyone know of a way to generate scrambles for only cube shape, so I can more efficiently get better at cube shape? It'd be nice to not have to do a whole scramble just to practice a step of the solve.

 

[Lid]

Anyone know of a way to generate scrambles for only cube shape, so I can more efficiently get better at cube shape? It'd be nice to not have to do a whole scramble just to practice a step of the solve.

http://mzrg.com/js/cubeshape_trainer.html

 

[Skyz]

Hi! i have a problem with sq1 notation. if an alg would be like /2 /-3/-1 etc. would -1 be one piece? and 2 2 pieces etc?

 

[WACWCA]

edges count as 1 and corners count as 2, so -1 is one edge in that direction, and something like 3 could be 3 edges or 1 edge and two corners

 

[applezfall]

any lin algs (I need DF+CP algs)

 

[1973486]

any lin algs (I need DF+CP algs)

 

[applezfall]

Thx

 

[guysensei1]

What's the easiest and safest way to remove edge caps of a Volt sq1? I want to try replacing yellow with black on my stickerless, but in removing the black edge caps on a broken black Volt i ended up breaking all the edge caps (luckily not the part I needed)

I'd like to be able to remove the stickerless caps without damaging them, if possible.

 

[UseableWings09]

Just an idea I think I'm gonna try and wanted throw out into the forums:

For square-1, parity cubeshape is a thing now. The problem with it is it requires a ton of practice and knowing 2 algs for each cubeshape case. Instead, why not detect parity during cubeshape and then use parity CP to eliminate parity. From what I understand CP Parity's big downfall is recognition time so if you know you need to use a parity cp alg from the beginning then it should be pretty close in speed to normal CP. This also gives you the benefit of a backup parity detection step. If you messed up detecting parity in inspection you can still take a second to recognize parity in CP step before executing an alg.

I do think that parity cubeshape is probably going to ultimately be better but I think this may be a good alternative/intermediate step to learning PCS as it practices the detection and only requires learning 8 algs to begin with.

Any thoughts/opinions on this?

 

[UseableWings09]

This could also serve as an intermediate step while learning all the CSP algs/cases.

 

[Sue Doenim]

Just an idea I think I'm gonna try and wanted throw out into the forums:

For square-1, parity cubeshape is a thing now. The problem with it is it requires a ton of practice and knowing 2 algs for each cubeshape case. Instead, why not detect parity during cubeshape and then use parity CP to eliminate parity. From what I understand CP Parity's big downfall is recognition time so if you know you need to use a parity cp alg from the beginning then it should be pretty close in speed to normal CP. This also gives you the benefit of a backup parity detection step. If you messed up detecting parity in inspection you can still take a second to recognize parity in CP step before executing an alg.

I do think that parity cubeshape is probably going to ultimately be better but I think this may be a good alternative/intermediate step to learning PCS as it practices the detection and only requires learning 8 algs to begin with.

Any thoughts/opinions on this?

The thing about this is that the hard part of PCS is detecting the parity. Fixing the parity is the easy part. If you understand parity, changing it to solved is the easy part. PCS isn't a set of algorithms; usually to change the parity, you just need to add in one move.

 

[UseableWings09]

The thing about this is that the hard part of PCS is detecting the parity. Fixing the parity is the easy part. If you understand parity, changing it to solved is the easy part. PCS isn't a set of algorithms; usually to change the parity, you just need to add in one move.

Yeah. The main idea behind doing this is it will allow me to practice the parity detection with a failsafe to check for parity again. That way I'm not having to practice and learn too much at once. Eventually I will migrate to PCS.

 

[Thom S.]

Just an idea I think I'm gonna try and wanted throw out into the forums:

For square-1, parity cubeshape is a thing now. The problem with it is it requires a ton of practice and knowing 2 algs for each cubeshape case. Instead, why not detect parity during cubeshape and then use parity CP to eliminate parity. From what I understand CP Parity's big downfall is recognition time so if you know you need to use a parity cp alg from the beginning then it should be pretty close in speed to normal CP. This also gives you the benefit of a backup parity detection step. If you messed up detecting parity in inspection you can still take a second to recognize parity in CP step before executing an alg.

I do think that parity cubeshape is probably going to ultimately be better but I think this may be a good alternative/intermediate step to learning PCS as it practices the detection and only requires learning 8 algs to begin with.

Any thoughts/opinions on this?

That's what I started doing some weeks ago

 

[Isaac Lai]

Just an idea I think I'm gonna try and wanted throw out into the forums:

For square-1, parity cubeshape is a thing now. The problem with it is it requires a ton of practice and knowing 2 algs for each cubeshape case. Instead, why not detect parity during cubeshape and then use parity CP to eliminate parity. From what I understand CP Parity's big downfall is recognition time so if you know you need to use a parity cp alg from the beginning then it should be pretty close in speed to normal CP. This also gives you the benefit of a backup parity detection step. If you messed up detecting parity in inspection you can still take a second to recognize parity in CP step before executing an alg.

I do think that parity cubeshape is probably going to ultimately be better but I think this may be a good alternative/intermediate step to learning PCS as it practices the detection and only requires learning 8 algs to begin with.

Any thoughts/opinions on this?

Resolving parity during cubeshape is both easier and more efficient. Most people who learn CSP would have a decent knowledge of most cubeshapes and which lead to the other, so learning cubeshape solutions is much easier than learning normal algorithms (like EP or CPP). Furthermore, I don't think that the transition to CSP is difficult or tedious enough to warrant such an intermediate step. The time and effort spent learning CPP could be better spent practising CSP instead.