• 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 40,000+ people from around the world today!

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

Silky

Member
Joined
Apr 5, 2020
Messages
605
What do you mean?

The short 3-cycle edge comms of the interchange-insert type have to use slice moves, because that's how you can isolate a single edge piece. The only other useful edge comms are the M' U2 M U2 type, which also use slice moves (but keep in mind that you can "split up" one of the slice moves without affecting move count, e.g. M' U2 M U2 = l' U2 M U2 L, both six moves long).

There are short 3-cycle algs that are not commutators, e.g. (R2 U' R2 f2)2 or (R2 u' R2 f2)2. There isn't exactly any rhyme or reason to how they work; they just do.


You can just get scrambles off csTimer or whatever.
So I think maybe this is more so a general 'hunch' of mine. It kind of goes off feeling for me so I'll do my best to put it into words.
The general idea is that, when looking at EPLL/L5EP, the algs feel as if they should be intuitive. In relative similar vein are things such as L5CO, OCLL, WV, which can all be found intuitively ( all 2 gen specifically ). Back to EPLL the main 'formula' is to take out pairs, cycle your U edges, and put everything back together. This is outlined in the 2GB method, however vaguely. This sets up for a completely intuitive 2GLL. In general I'd like to flesh out 2GB since the original proposal is rather unclear and abstract ( I'm a big fan of Imam's methods. HSC was much easier to understand given my background in Guimond and SSC ). anyway, while not specifically coms I feel that they'd still be generally related ( sister ideas I guess ). There maybe not be such a clear formula but thought I'd still ask.
 

GenTheThief

Member
Joined
Mar 18, 2016
Messages
2,217
Location
Illinois, USA
WCA
2016GEEN01
YouTube
Visit Channel
Yeah, but you can't enter your solution in csTimer nor does it keep track of your singles and averages. I'm thinking of a website like the SS Forums weekly comp FMC, except there are infinite scrambles.
You can generate FMC type scrambles on cstimer and switch the input to "typing" so that you can put in your movecount as the "time". To keep track of the solution, you can click on the time and add your solution in the "comment" in the dialogue box. That way it can keep track of singles and averages.
 

DetDuVil

Member
Joined
Jun 19, 2022
Messages
1
Location
Norway
I want to become as good as possible for a competition in 3.5 weeks. So far I have been grinding FMC hard for the last week or so and have been improving a lot. Mostly I have been looking at the FMC guide by Sebastiano Tronto (porkynator) and doing the reddit and speedsolving forum competitions. I have learned NISS, insertions and some blockbuilding techniques. I also know EO and have tried learning some DR.

Given all this, how do I improve the most in the 3.5 weeks? Should I start DR right away or wait until I am faster and better at NISS and insertions? If I start with DR, should I immediately learn HTR?

P. S.: If anyone has time to critique any of my solves in the competitions (u/DetDuVil on cubers.io and DetDuVil here on speedsolving) I would be very grateful! Unfortunately I have DNFed 3 due to time management, but there might still be inefficiencies to point out. Also just doing the competition solves helps as I will likely look at them and compare the solves to mine.
 

xyzzy

Member
Joined
Dec 24, 2015
Messages
2,630
Going through past weekly comp scrambles for last minute practice…

2022-24:
1. R' U' F R D2 U2 F D2 R2 F' L2 F' R2 B' R2 D R F2 U B U' B2 D R' U' F

Solution:
B D B' L U L D' L' U' L
D2 F2 D2 L' D R D' L D2 F
D' F R' B U F' L'

(L F U' B') // 222 (4/4)
B D B' L2 // xxcross (4/8)
(R F2 R' D F2 D') // ab5c3e (6/14)
Skeleton: B D B' L2 @3 D F2 D' @2 @1 R F2 R' B U F' L'
@1 = R D F D' F' R' // edges; ab5c (6-3/17)
@2 = D' L' D R D' L D R' // ab3c (8-4/21)
@3 = L' U L D' L' U' L D // finish (8-2/27)

2. R' U' F U2 B2 R' D2 L U2 F2 L2 R2 U2 F R2 D L R' F2 D2 B F2 U' R' U' F

Solution:
R2 F U F U F B U' B' R2
U' R U R' U' R' F' R U2 R
U2 R' F B2 D' R2 U D2 L F2

(F2 L') // EO (2/2)
(D2 U' R2 D B2) // 222 (5/7)
R2 F U F2 // 223 (4/11)
F' U F B U' B' R2 // F2L (7-1/17)
U' R U R' U' R' F' R U2 R U2 R' F // ZBLL (13/30)

3. R' U' F D' B L2 U2 L' F2 D' B L' F2 D F U2 R2 F B2 R2 U2 R' U' F

Solution:
L' D' L D' L' U L' U2 L' U
L U' L U D' L U' L' U L
D F2 B2 L2 D2 U' F L B F

(F' B' L' F') // EO (4/4)
(U D2 L2 B2) // 222 (4/8)
L' D' L D' // 223 (4/12)
(F2 D' L' D) // F2L-1 + pair (4/16)
L' U L' U' // F2L (4/20)
U' L' U L U' L U D' L U' L' U D // ZBLL (13-3/30)

The ZBLL abuse continues.
 

xyzzy

Member
Joined
Dec 24, 2015
Messages
2,630
wow more ZBLL abuse

R' U' F U2 F' D2 B2 F R2 D2 U2 F R B F2 U2 L' U R U L2 U R' U' F
(L R' F2 U' L B' L2) // 223 (7/7)
(U' R' U') // pF2L-1 (3/10)
R U // adjust (2/12)
D' F' U F' U' @ F2 D // edges; ab4c (7/19)
@ = L' U F' U' F' L U F' L' F' L U' F2 // ZBLL (13-4/28)

Final solution:
R U D' F' U F' U' L' U F'
U' F' L U F' L' F' L D R
U L2 B L' U F2 R L'

I also saw someone's answer sheet had only two rows filled up so… new NR single??

Second scramble went terribly, we don't talk about that. Almost no chance of hitting sub-30 mean this time, I guess, and even podiuming might be unlikely.

Edit: wow never mind I completely failed the second and third scrambles.
 
Last edited:

xyzzy

Member
Joined
Dec 24, 2015
Messages
2,630
How many ZBLLs do you know? Because it seems like you use it a lot in your FMC solves.
I know (or knew) all of the 10-move ZBLL cases, and I think most of the 11-move ones too. Among non-edge-oriented 1LLL, I think I know all of them up to 9 moves, and around half of the 10-movers, maybe?

Anyhow, it's a crutch I use to cover up my garbo blockbuilding. And sometimes it even pays off! Get a skeleton with ≤4 corners and ≤4 edges unsolved, throw them all in one layer with setup moves (or better yet, without any setup moves), and slap a 1LLL on it. Most other people don't do this because LL-alg insertions are really difficult to do quickly, and the time is usually better spent on finding better skeletons.

(edit: To be clear, I'm not saying that I'm good at this, or that it's not difficult for me. I often spend 15+ minutes on a single skeleton when I try to do this, which severely limits what I can do in terms of finding other skeletons, or doing insertions on other skeletons.)
 
Last edited:

Silky

Member
Joined
Apr 5, 2020
Messages
605
Scramble: D F L2 D2 F2 U L2 F2 D' L2 B2 D F2 R' B L U2 R U B2 L2
Just did this scramble for an example solve. Seems really good for FMC, wanted to see what solutions ya'll could come up with.
 

Rubiksmath

Member
Joined
Mar 26, 2018
Messages
4
I've been experimenting with solving corners first once DR is achieved and sadly not having much luck. I know people say edge insertions cancel a lot of moves in DR, however with a 3 cycle thats kinda offset (solvable with something like (R2 f2 R2 U)*2), ive yet to cancel a move. I know i am not great with insertions, however as far as I can tell the positions where said edges line up dont seem to have an alg to solve them that cancels a move fsr (i check in cube explorer, also i find corner insertions much more likely to cancel but its still rare for me). Anyway, besides the point. I got this DR in 12 moves which has corners solvable in 2 moves, with some fiddling i tried to get the amount of solved edges up but i couldnt achieve too much. Can anyone let me know how they might finish this one off? it could help me a lot.

Scr: L' R2 D B2 R2 D' F2 D L2 D' L2 F2 L2 R' F2 D' U' R' B U' B'

B U B' //EO (yes this inverts scramble but its painfully obvious and i didnt know it inverted scramble till after)

(R2 D R) R2 F2 U2 L' D L' //DR + corners solvable in 2 moves aside from AUF.

from here, L2 B2 R2 B2 (cancels 1 move) is about the best i can manage in terms of reducing edge swaps, but theres so many still including 2e in the E layer which I cant just solve like i would normally by inserting an E move or two after DR to fix them (i know doing R' instead of R in the NISS fixes that but it also makes the corners take a bit longer to solve and i get the same dreadful cases anyway). I have tried messing with U or D moves like the algorithms to solve those offset 3 cycles but nothing good has come of it. I have tried to carry on with the solve to just see if i can insert these swaps without using 50 trillion moves but I'm not able to, as these offset 3 cycles again dont cancel any moves as far as i can tell (and its also painful spending half an hour trying to find algs that solve the case, and finding maybe 5-10 algs that solve the case but cancel 0 moves, anyone know if theres a faster way to come up with/recognise which alg to use kinda like alg memorisation in cfop i guess, cause in a comp that would eat through my hour). Anyway, if someone could give me a bit of guidance as to how they might do it or a good solution from here. it would be appreciated.

Please use same DR but if you can find a better DR do let me know as I am also interested as to how one might come up with better solutions, obviously if insertion is before DR thats fine its still the same skeleton DR i guess.
 

Cale S

Member
Joined
Jan 18, 2014
Messages
2,415
Location
Iowa, USA
WCA
2014SCHO02
YouTube
Visit Channel
19 official single from Mental Breakdown MN 2022

R' U' F U' B D' U2 F R2 U2 F2 L2 D2 B L D' B' R2 B R' D' U R' U' F
U' F' D' L' B // EO
U' L2 D L // DR (9)
R2 D (B2 U) // HTR (13)
F2 R2 U2 B2 R2 // 18 to E slice

R2 D F2 R2 U2 ^ B2 R2 U' @ B2
@ = E
^ = E'

Solution: U' F' D' L' B U' L2 D L R2 D F2 R2 U D L2 B2 D' B2 (19)

other attempts were bad but here they are
R' U' F D' L' F U F2 U D' F' R' B U D L2 U D F2 U R' U' F

L B // 222
(R2 F R') // EO
U' F2 U' R2 (U R2) // 223
(F' U' F U2 F U2 F') // 18 to 3c

L B U' F2 U' R2 ^ F U2 F' U2 F' U F R2 U' R F' R2
^ = [L, F R F'] // 8-2

Solution: L B U' F2 U' R2 L F R F' L' F R' U2 F' U2 F' U F R2 U' R F' R2 (24)

with a few minutes left I had this:
(R) B2 L // EO
B' L2 F2 U2 F' D // DR (9)
U2 L2 B' U2 F D2 F // HTR (16)

which can give 22 by doing L2 D2 B2 L2 B2 L2 and slicing, but I was panicking so I tried finding something that didn't require slice inserting

I really need to start looking at every EO axis before spending too much time finding as many as I can on just one...
R' U' F U' L2 D L2 D R2 B2 D' U2 F L2 B R' F' D' L U' R' U' R' U' F

U L (R2 B R') // EO
F (U L2 F2 U' F2 U' B') // DR (13)
(L2 U F2 D) // HTR (17)
F2 R2 F2 // 19 to 2e2e
F2 U2 L2 B2 U2 F2 R2 D2 // 8-3

Solution: U L F' R2 U2 L2 B2 U2 F2 R2 D F2 U' L2 B U F2 U F2 L2 U' R B' R2 (24)

funny CFOP 26 I found 5 minutes into the attempt:
U' // sq
D2 F U' F' // 222
L2 B2 D F L' F' (L) // 223
(D R D R') // 3rd pair
(D B D B') // 4th pair
(B' D' L' D L B D2) // LL :)
 
Last edited:

Mrauo

Member
Joined
Sep 12, 2020
Messages
6
Location
Spain
WCA
2016LOPE44
YouTube
Visit Channel
Reconstructions of my 22.67 Mo3 from Aldeilla Open 2022 :)

B' (U R F')//EO (4/4)
R//DR-4e4c (1/5)
B2 D U2 F2 L F2 L//DRgc (7/12)
U2* L2 U' D* B2 U2* D L2 U'//AB3E (9/21)
U L2 F2 R2 D B2 R2 ^ F2//3e (8-5/24)

*w// (-3/21)
^ U' D y// (2/23)

Solution: B' R B2 D U2 F2 L F2 L D2 R2 L2 D' L2 F2 D R2 F2 U' D F' R' U'
23 moves

D B' U' F' L//EO+DR-2e4c (5/5)
B2 U2 F' U2 R2 U F2 U//DRgc (8/13)
F' R2 B' U2 D2 B'//HTR (6/19)
D2 B2 L2 U2 B2//finish (5/24)

Solution: D B' U' F' L B2 U2 F' U2 R2 U F2 U F' R2 B' U2 D2 B' D2 B2 L2 U2 B2
24 moves

F L B'//EO (3/3)
(U')//DR-2e4c (1/4)
R F2 R' D' B2 D//DRgc (6/10)
R' F2 L'//HTR (3/13)
F2 D2 L2 U2 L2 F2 U2 F2//finish (8/21)

Solution: F L B' R F2 R' D' B2 D R' F2 L' F2 D2 L2 U2 L2 F2 U2 F2 U

21 moves
 

trangium

Member
Joined
Jul 24, 2019
Messages
124
WCA
2019TRAN10
Around a month ago I tried 4x4 FMC.
Since Domino Reduction is such a good FMC method for 3x3, I extended it into a reduction-based method for 4x4, reducing from <U, D, L, R, F, B, Uw, Dw, Lw, Rw, Fw, Bw> to <U, D, L, R, F, B, Uw2, Dw2, Lw2, Rw2, Fw2, Bw2> to <U, D, L, R, F, B> then proceeding with 3x3 stage. It worked really well!

Scramble: D2 L2 U' R2 B2 L2 D R2 U B2 F' D' R U2 L R2 U' R2 D Fw2 D2 L' F' Rw2 B' L2 D2 Rw2 D2 Fw2 L' Uw Fw2 D2 R D' F' D Fw' Rw2 Fw Rw R2 F2
Rw Uw2 R U' Fw' // HTR U/D centers (5)
F2 B' Uw' R2 L F Uw // HTR centers (12)
F2 Rw2 U' Rw2 // 2e (16)
Fw2 // +1e (17)
U Rw2 // +1e (19)
U L2 D Fw2 // +1e, solve L/R centers (23)
D' U' R2 F Rw2 // +2e, create center bars (28)
B2 D' F' B' L B Rw' // solve centers and +2e, cancel into slice flip slice (35)
F' U L' F U' Rw' // reduction (41)
z2 y'
U2 L // EO (43)
D B2 U2 F' L2 [1] B2 U2 F' D // DR (52)
B L2 R2 D2 F L2 B' [2] F' // 5E (60)
[1] = U2 F2 D2 F2 U2 B2 (6-5/61) to 3E
[2] = B2 L' R D2 L R' (6-1/66) solves 3E

My second attempt was a DNF. I got to reduction in 38 but couldn't find anything for the 3x3 stage.

Scramble: L D' B' R U' B2 R' U' F2 R2 U' R2 D' L2 D L2 U R2 D L' D' Fw2 L2 Uw2 U' L D Rw2 Fw2 F2 D Rw2 Fw2 D2 Fw' U' R' D2 F Rw' F' Uw' F2 Uw2 R' D
Uw L' F2 Uw' Fw' R' Fw' // HTR LR centers (7/7)
B Rw2 F' D2 Rw // HTR centers + 1 edge (5/12)
Uw2 // 2 edges (1/13)
Fw2 // 3 edges (1/14)
U Fw2 // 4 edges (2/16)
F' U Fw2 // 6 edges (3/19)
F U2 D2 F' Uw R D2 R' Uw // 8 edges, force 2e2e (9/28)
R F L D F' L' Fw2 // reduction (7/35)
y2
(B' D2 L U F') // EO (5/5)
(D R' U L U L U') // DR (7/12)
L' F2 L D2 L' D2 (*) L U2 L' B2 F2 R' // HTR 2e2e + e-slice (12/24)
(*) D2 B2 D2 F2 U2 F2 // solve 2e2e (4/28)
DR part: L' [1] F2 L D2 L' B2 D2 F2 U2 F2 L U2 L' [2] B2 F2 R' [3] // solve e-slice (6-5/29)
// [1]: M' [2]: M' [3]: M2
R' D2 L B2 L' U2 B2 D2 F2 D2 L F2 R' F2 B2 R L2 // rewrite DR part without slices

Final solution: Uw L' F2 Uw' Fw' R' Fw' B Rw2 F' D2 Rw Uw2 Fw2 U Fw2 F' U Fw2 F U2 D2 F' Uw R D2 R' Uw R F L D F' L' Fw2 y2 R' D2 L B2 L' U2 B2 D2 F2 D2 L F2 R' F2 B2 R L2 U L' U' L' U' R D' F U' L' D2 B (64)

Scramble: B' L B2 R2 U D L' B L B2 D R2 L2 D B2 U2 R2 F2 R2 D' Rw2 B R2 Uw2 D' Fw2 D L2 B2 Uw2 L2 D' F' Rw Fw2 Rw R' D Uw R2 Uw B R' U
R Uw' R2 Uw // LR center HTR (4/4)
Rw2 U Rw U2 D2 Rw // Center HTR, avoid OLL parity, 2 edges (6/10)
Uw2 // 4 edges (1/11)
B Uw2 // 5 edges (2/13)
R2 D' B Uw2 // 7 edges (4/17)
R D' F2 B2 U' Fw2 // 8 edges, pre-reduction (6/23)
F2 L R B' D B' Uw2 // reduction (7/30)
z2 x
B2 L2 D' B' // EO (4/34)
(U' L2 D' F2 U' F2 B2 U L') // DR (9/43)
(D' F2 B2 U2 L2 U2 L2 D') // 3E (8/51)
3x3x3 stage portion: B2 L2 D' B' D L2 U2 L2 [*] U2 B2 F2 D L U' B2 F2 U F2 D L2 U
[*] U L R' F2 L' R U (7-1/57) solves 3E

Final solution:
R Uw' R2 Uw Rw2 U Rw U2 D2 Rw Uw2 B Uw2 R2 D' B Uw2 R D' F2 B2 U' Fw2 F2 L R B' D B' Uw2 z2 x B2 L2 D' B' D L2 U2 L2 U L R' F2 L' R U' B2 F2 D L U' B2 F2 U F2 D L2 U

My fourth attempt, 57 OBTM, is my best 4x4 FMC result so far.
The previous UWR was 65, according to the wiki. If that's accurate, I broke it by 8 moves!
It's been 8 months and I've gotten better at 3x3 FMC, so I thought I would try to improve the 3x3 stage of my fourth attempt (57 OBTM).

I used the inverse of my old 3x3 stage solution as a scramble: U' L2 D' F2 U' F2 B2 U L' D' F2 B2 U R' L F2 R L' U' L2 U2 L2 D' B D L2 B2

Then I found this 23 move solution with HTR:
U B2 L2 B' // EO (4)
(U2 R' D L2 B2 U' D2 L) // DR (12)
(D' F2 U' L2 D) // HTR (17)
(U2 R2 B2 F2 U2 L2) // Finish (23)

This improves the result by 4 moves, to 53 OBTM (30 for reduction, 23 for 3x3 stage).
Full solution: R Uw' R2 Uw Rw2 U Rw U2 D2 Rw Uw2 B Uw2 R2 D' B Uw2 R D' F2 B2 U' Fw2 F2 L R B' D B' Uw2 z2 x U B2 L2 B' L2 U2 F2 B2 R2 U2 D' L2 U F2 D L' D2 U B2 L2 D' R U2
 

xyzzy

Member
Joined
Dec 24, 2015
Messages
2,630
Does NISS only work for CFOP? I tried it with ZZ, and I didn't see how to make it work or maybe I'm just doing it wrong.
NISS doesn't care about what method the moves it's being used on came from.

Did the moves come from CFOP? Or ZZ? Or Petrus? Or DR? NISS doesn't know and doesn't care; it's just a way of manipulating move sequences.
 

Imsoosm

Member
Joined
Mar 30, 2022
Messages
1,140
Location
home
Does the number of bad edges during EO change in different orientations? For example my default is white/yellow top, green/blue front, if I change to red/orange top, white/yellow front, does the number change? Or does it always stay the same no matter what orientation?
 

Imsoosm

Member
Joined
Mar 30, 2022
Messages
1,140
Location
home
I tried doing NISS, but everytime I try to get the final solution, its always messed up. What is the way to get the final solution? btw I watched jperm's tutorial on it, and did it the way he showed
Write down all of the normal moves, the write down the inverse of the inverse moves. For example:
NormalInverse
R' U L2 U L
F' R B2 D2 U'
U2 D2 B2 L R'
D' U B2 U B
You write:
F' R B2 F2 U' U2 F2 B2 L R'
and then you write
B' U' B2 U' D
L' U' L2 U' R
 

IsThatA4x4

Member
Joined
Jul 18, 2021
Messages
759
Location
UK
WCA
2022RITC01
Does the number of bad edges during EO change in different orientations? For example my default is white/yellow top, green/blue front, if I change to red/orange top, white/yellow front, does the number change? Or does it always stay the same no matter what orientation?
For EO, edges can be oriented with the x, y, or z axes
In ZZ style EO, they are oriented with z, so z rotations do not affect EO, and the same goes for x and y.
This means you have 3 different axes to check for EO, assuming white top green front as the "standard" orientation, you've got:
-Green/blue front (z) (RULDF2B2)
-Red/orange front (x) (FBUDR2L2)
-White/yellow front (y) (RLFBU2D2)
That can each have their own number of bad edges.
 

Aldhi R.

Member
Joined
Jul 30, 2022
Messages
7
Location
Indonesia
YouTube
Visit Channel
Scr: L' R2 D B2 R2 D' F2 D L2 D' L2 F2 L2 R' F2 D' U' R' B U' B'

I found an amazing (at least for my level) solution of the scramble:

U D2 L D // EO
R' F2 R' B' R2 B // DR (10)
R' (B2 L' U2 L) // HTR (15)
(R2 F2 L2 B2) // finish (19)

Solution: U D2 L D R' F2 R' B' R2 B R' B2 L2 F2 R2 L' D2 L B2 (19)

Nice scramble apparently. Felt like there's even more shorter solution(s) than this.
 

Silky

Member
Joined
Apr 5, 2020
Messages
605
So I was playing around with some 2x2 solves hopping between different methods ( Guimond, VOP, HD-G, and CLL mostly ). anyway here's the scramble and the solution I came up with

Scramble U' R U' R2 U2 F2 U' F' D2

R' // 3/4 Guimond Face (1)
U2 R' U2 R' // Orientation (4/5)
U R2 U' R2 // PLFC (4/9)

I was curious if this move optimal ( which it is.. I think? ) so I ran it through Batch Solver and Cube Explorer. Interestingly, even when searching for 2 gen solutions, neither could come up with my solution, not even remotely close. Batch Solver came up as 'failed' and Cube Explorer immediately went to search depth 25. This doesn't feel possible to me especially for such a straight forward solution. If anyone is well versed in computer science, what's going on here? Is this just a flaw in the algorithm that is used in these programs? If so what is the theoretical explanation for this?

Update 1: Just ran it through a 3-gen RUL solution and it came up with R' U2 R' U2 R' U R2 U' L2 which is my solution, however with an L2 instead of an R2. Still confusing tho.

Update 2: Just ran through a bunch of 2-Gens scramble from CSTimer and have ran into the exact same problem when genning by 2-gen. However if genned RUL it has the ability to come up with 2-gen solution although struggles quite a lot.

Update 3: Trang has answered all of my questions :)
 
Last edited:
Top