[Help Thread] Square-1 Discussion

Here is a link to Sarah Strong's website for the EP cases.

http://sarah.cubing.net/square-1/ep

I don't feel like it's mandatory to know all the EP cases since you can turn all of the bad cases into reasonably nice ones. If these happen to be the same algorithms you saw on Simon's website, I apologize.
 
TMarshall said:
Does anyone have any alternate algs for the 4 w + u perm ep cases? I can't execute 4's or -4's on the bottom fast. Or, if there aren't any other good algs, could someone make a video showing how to execute those algs fast? Thanks in advance.
Click to expand...
You can also do H/op + adj/adj for these.
 
Raptor56 said:
Here is a link to Sarah Strong's website for the EP cases.

http://sarah.cubing.net/square-1/ep

I don't feel like it's mandatory to know all the EP cases since you can turn all of the bad cases into reasonably nice ones. If these happen to be the same algorithms you saw on Simon's website, I apologize.
Click to expand...

Ya i know I don't need to know full ep, but that case always was super annoying to me, so I kinda just wanted to learn algs for it. Either way, Opp-Opp then u-adj isn't too bad, so I think I'll stick to that for now.
 
In which order shall I learn EPs? Pls don't sort them to two groups.
Should I learn parity CP algs before?
Why no one uses Roux for squan? Is it significantly worse than Vandenberhg method?
How fast should be CS for 15/20/25 sec solver?
Thanks in advance!
 
Kudz said:
In which order shall I learn EPs? Pls don't sort them to two groups.
Should I learn parity CP algs before?
Why no one uses Roux for squan? Is it significantly worse than Vandenberhg method?
How fast should be CS for 15/20/25 sec solver?
Thanks in advance!
Click to expand...

For EP, I would suggest learning how to do all the cases that don't involve parity first. This includes thing like aj-aj, op-op, aj-op, cw U, ccw U, H, Z, etc. Most of these ep cases should be intuitive, and you'll figure out what works best for you over time. They should not take too long to figure out. I would also suggest learning parity EP cases. The ones that I feel are the most beneficial are O, W, aj, op, and aj-U cases. Ive learned other ep parity cases along the way, but those will help give you a good foundation.
 
Kudz said:
In which order shall I learn EPs? Pls don't sort them to two groups.
Should I learn parity CP algs before?
Why no one uses Roux for squan? Is it significantly worse than Vandenberhg method?
How fast should be CS for 15/20/25 sec solver?
Thanks in advance!
Click to expand...

Adj/adj, opp/opp, H, Z, Opp/O, opp/adj, U, U/U, W/adj... Then the rest in whatever order you feel like.

Parity CP is good to learn early. Recognition is the hardest part, so the sooner you start the better off you'll be. Plus it works wonders for your EP lookahead.

Roux is a decent method for intermediate solvers. It requires only a few algs to be fairly quick (say, 20-25). But it lacks the inherent advantages of v'bergh, the forced good cases and lookahead tricks that advanced solvers use. Basically, you'll hit a wall at some point where the only thing you can do to improve your method is to learn increasingly large and difficult alg sets. Whereas with Vandenbergh there are so many cool tricks and intuitive cases to learn that improve your average movecount without having to resort to a table of hundreds of algs.

As for cubeshape... I dunno, sub5 for the worst cases? That seems pretty reasonable but I'm just pulling numbers out of my ass at this point.
 
Kudz said:
Basicly I wanted to know should I do it like. non-parity U perms then non-parity zperms...

But thanks
Click to expand...

Well, I don't really know many parity EP cases. I simply don't do them because of parity CP. But after learning the ones I mentioned, I would just go set by set: you'll already know all the 1-1 swap and 0-2 swap cases, so learn the rest of the 2-2 swap cases (H/H, Z/Z, H/Z, U/Z, U/H). Then the rest of the 3-1 swap cases (O/adj, W/opp). Then the 3-3 swap cases (O/O, W/W, O/W). Then if you really want to learn parity cases, start on those. Learn all of the single swaps, then the 3/0 cases (O, W), 1/2 cases (adj/U, opp/H, etc), then the 3/2 (W/U, etc).

This order is pretty easy to remember and takes you roughly from easiest to hardest. The ones I listed in the previous post are mostly to allow you to use 2-look efficiently for the ones you haven't learned yet.
 
blade740 said:
Well, I don't really know many parity EP cases. I simply don't do them because of parity CP. But after learning the ones I mentioned, I would just go set by set: you'll already know all the 1-1 swap and 0-2 swap cases, so learn the rest of the 2-2 swap cases (H/H, Z/Z, H/Z, U/Z, U/H). Then the rest of the 3-1 swap cases (O/adj, W/opp). Then the 3-3 swap cases (O/O, W/W, O/W). Then if you really want to learn parity cases, start on those. Learn all of the single swaps, then the 3/0 cases (O, W), 1/2 cases (adj/U, opp/H, etc), then the 3/2 (W/U, etc).

This order is pretty easy to remember and takes you roughly from easiest to hardest. The ones I listed in the previous post are mostly to allow you to use 2-look efficiently for the ones you haven't learned yet.
Click to expand...

Okey now it makes sens for me.
Thanks!
 
I switched out the old cap with a lock nut I bought from Home Depot. Looks like the #6-32 is the right fit for the screw and the passage. I've done maybe ~200 solves since, and it hasn't had an issue yet, but that's not much of a promise given that flipping the core seemed to last for liek 600 last time.
 
Reposting some numbers from the facebook group for the sake of posterity:

Weighted for case probability:

For cases without parity:
CP = 4.722 twists
EP = 7.507 twists
Total: 12.229

For cases with parity:
Parity CP = 9.333 twists
Nonparity EP = 7.507 twists
Total: 16.840

Nonparity CP = 4.722 twists
Parity EP = 11.028 twists
Total: 15.750

So full EP saves on average 1.09 twists over parity CP (for parity cases alone - it's only about half a twist savings on average across all solves - 14.535 vs 13.990)

That said, for nonparity cases, I average 10.181 twists rather than 12.229 because of various tricks, bringing my real average down to 13.511 twists even with parity CP. And that actually doesn't count a few forces that I do through parity CP, I just used straight probabilities there.

Once I finish running the numbers for the parity CP cases I'll post my whole spreadsheet but for now I'm going to sleep.

TL;DR: Parity CP costs only 0.5 twists on average, not accounting for special tricks.
Click to expand...
 
^ Not taking into account that you save blocks during (non parity) CP almost every time - which probably lowers the average EP twist count - and not taking into account the look-ahead advantage of non-parity CP, especially if you have blocks :) (Maybe I'm wrong here, but that's how I would intuitively argue)
 
EMI said:
^ Not taking into account that you save blocks during (non parity) CP almost every time - which probably lowers the average EP twist count - and not taking into account the look-ahead advantage of non-parity CP, especially if you have blocks :) (Maybe I'm wrong here, but that's how I would intuitively argue)
Click to expand...

Yeah, the context of the fb post was analyzing the move-count efficiency of CPP versus regular CP+EP.
 
EMI said:
^ Not taking into account that you save blocks during (non parity) CP almost every time - which probably lowers the average EP twist count - and not taking into account the look-ahead advantage of non-parity CP, especially if you have blocks :) (Maybe I'm wrong here, but that's how I would intuitively argue)
Click to expand...

Correct. The first factor is included in the 10.181 number later in the post (among other tricks - the effects of just preserving blocks in CP would be much less pronounced). The lookahead factor for parity cases doesn't mean as much (I lookahead just fine with parity CP) although I'd suspect that preserving blocks probably saves 1-2 twists on average just like with the nonparity cases.

Anyway, the numbers for that part are based on things I actually do in solves - I could calculate what it would look like optimally for parity cases, but that doesn't necessarily mean that anyone has the recognition to do the optimal thing every time. It takes some fancy recognition tricks for me to be able to see and force good cases as much as I do, and I'm not sure anyone's put in that much work for the parity cases.
 
Last edited:
Here are some numbers from my PBL project:

[TABLE="class:grid"]
[TR][TR="colspan:4"]optimal twists for all PBLs[/TR][/TR]
[TR][TD]twists[/TD][TD]no parity[/TD][TD]parity[/TD][TD]total[/TD][/TR]
[TR][TD]0[/TD][TD]1[/TD][TD][/TD][TD]1[/TD][/TR]
[TR][TD]3[/TD][TD]6[/TD][TD][/TD][TD]6[/TD][/TR]
[TR][TD]4[/TD][TD]6[/TD][TD][/TD][TD]6[/TD][/TR]
[TR][TD]5[/TD][TD]51[/TD][TD][/TD][TD]51[/TD][/TR]
[TR][TD]6[/TD][TD]178[/TD][TD][/TD][TD]178[/TD][/TR]
[TR][TD]7[/TD][TD]387[/TD][TD]6[/TD][TD]393[/TD][/TR]
[TR][TD]8[/TD][TD]283[/TD][TD]48[/TD][TD]331[/TD][/TR]
[TR][TD]9[/TD][TD]56[/TD][TD]250[/TD][TD]306[/TD][/TR]
[TR][TD]10[/TD][TD][/TD][TD]398[/TD][TD]398[/TD][/TR]
[TR][TD]11[/TD][TD][/TD][TD]224[/TD][TD]224[/TD][/TR]
[TR][TD]12[/TD][TD][/TD][TD]42[/TD][TD]42[/TD][/TR]
[TR][TD]total[/TD][TD]968[/TD][TD]968[/TD][TD]1936[/TD][/TR]
[TR][TD]avg[/TD][TD]7.068[/TD][TD]9.942[/TD][TD]8.505[/TD][/TR]
[/TABLE]
[TABLE="class:grid"]
[TR][TR="colspan:4"]optimal moves for all PBLs[/TR][/TR]
[TR][TD]moves[/TD][TD]no parity[/TD][TD]parity[/TD][TD]total[/TD][/TR]
[TR][TD]0[/TD][TD]1[/TD][TD][/TD][TD]1[/TD][/TR]
[TR][TD]7[/TD][TD]1[/TD][TD][/TD][TD]1[/TD][/TR]
[TR][TD]8[/TD][TD]1[/TD][TD][/TD][TD]1[/TD][/TR]
[TR][TD]9[/TD][TD]6[/TD][TD][/TD][TD]6[/TD][/TR]
[TR][TD]10[/TD][TD]2[/TD][TD][/TD][TD]2[/TD][/TR]
[TR][TD]11[/TD][TD]7[/TD][TD][/TD][TD]7[/TD][/TR]
[TR][TD]12[/TD][TD]3[/TD][TD][/TD][TD]3[/TD][/TR]
[TR][TD]13[/TD][TD]25[/TD][TD][/TD][TD]25[/TD][/TR]
[TR][TD]14[/TD][TD]13[/TD][TD][/TD][TD]13[/TD][/TR]
[TR][TD]15[/TD][TD]70[/TD][TD][/TD][TD]70[/TD][/TR]
[TR][TD]16[/TD][TD]47[/TD][TD][/TD][TD]47[/TD][/TR]
[TR][TD]17[/TD][TD]116[/TD][TD]4[/TD][TD]120[/TD][/TR]
[TR][TD]18[/TD][TD]172[/TD][TD][/TD][TD]172[/TD][/TR]
[TR][TD]19[/TD][TD]165[/TD][TD]29[/TD][TD]194[/TD][/TR]
[TR][TD]20[/TD][TD]90[/TD][TD]28[/TD][TD]118[/TD][/TR]
[TR][TD]21[/TD][TD]133[/TD][TD]81[/TD][TD]214[/TD][/TR]
[TR][TD]22[/TD][TD]73[/TD][TD]142[/TD][TD]215[/TD][/TR]
[TR][TD]23[/TD][TD]31[/TD][TD]190[/TD][TD]221[/TD][/TR]
[TR][TD]24[/TD][TD]8[/TD][TD]127[/TD][TD]135[/TD][/TR]
[TR][TD]25[/TD][TD]4[/TD][TD]151[/TD][TD]155[/TD][/TR]
[TR][TD]26[/TD][TD][/TD][TD]119[/TD][TD]119[/TD][/TR]
[TR][TD]27[/TD][TD][/TD][TD]68[/TD][TD]68[/TD][/TR]
[TR][TD]28[/TD][TD][/TD][TD]28[/TD][TD]28[/TD][/TR]
[TR][TD]29[/TD][TD][/TD][TD]1[/TD][TD]1[/TD][/TR]
[TR][TD]total[/TD][TD]968[/TD][TD]968[/TD][TD]1936[/TD][/TR]
[TR][TD]avg[/TD][TD]18.510[/TD][TD]23.698[/TD][TD]21.104[/TD][/TR]
[/TABLE]
And here is a small list of the really short ones:

3 twists: op/op, Na/Na, Nb/Nb, Na/Nb, Nb/Na, pN/pN
4 twists: adj/adj, J/J, J/L, L/J, L/L, pJ/pJ
7 twists parities: op/Na, Na/op, op/Nb, Nb/op, H/pN, pN/H

7 moves: Na/Na
8 moves: J/J
9 moves: op/op, J/Na, Na/J, Na/Nb, Nb/Na, pN/pN
10 moves: J/L, L/J
11 moves: adj/adj, J/Nb, L/Na, Na/L, Nb/J, Nb/Nb, pJ/pJ
12 moves: -/J, J/-, L/L

and the lonely long one:
29 moves: Ra/Q

(p=pure corner swap)

.. and move numbers may not be 100% due to that I may not have found the optimal starting alignment for all cases :P
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Michael Wimberly
Vin3 Nova, MoYu RS3 M V5, and MGC Square-1 V2 Review
Replies
3
Views
198
Michael Wimberly
Michael Wimberly
abunickabhi
[Review] LBL Square-1
Replies
3
Views
308
Michael Wimberly
Michael Wimberly
iguana
Painful square-1 CS
Replies
0
Views
186
iguana
iguana
abunickabhi
Square-17
Replies
4
Views
341
abunickabhi
abunickabhi
2
Selling Premium Speedcubes at NAC 2026 – Limited Stock, Good Prices!
Replies
0
Views
296
2022datt02
2
Back
Top