If you're going to learn algs specifically for FMC, learn the more useful ones like 3e or 2e2e algs (especially the ones that aren't commutators).Can you list the algs for G perms and Z Perms for me, please???
Ah, sorry, I still have the 7FMC record of 313 moves (168 centres + 117 edge pairing + 28 3×3). Nobody ever updated the wiki for that and I'm not vain enough to do it myself.By the way, can I claim myself as a new world record holder of 6×6 FMC and 7×7 FMC?
Ah, sorry, I still have the 7FMC record of 313 moves (168 centres + 117 edge pairing + 28 3×3). Nobody ever updated the wiki for that and I'm not vain enough to do it myself.
That's still pretty cool though—not too many other madmen are willing to even try big cube FMC.
When it comes to OLL parity / edge parity, you should fix that during the centres rather than edge pairing; by using a different number of 2Xw/3Xw quarter turns to solve the centres, you can affect the parity of the edge pieces. Parity algs are long, so doing this parity avoidance is absolutely worth it.
There's no similar counting trick to handle PLL parity. What I do is just try different ways of edge pairing until I find something that doesn't lead to PLL parity. Especially easy on the last two edges if you get this kind of case, since one way of doing slice-flip-slice will give you PLL parity and the other one won't.
Ah, sorry, I still have the 7FMC record of 313 moves (168 centres + 117 edge pairing + 28 3×3). Nobody ever updated the wiki for that and I'm not vain enough to do it myself.
That's still pretty cool though—not too many other madmen are willing to even try big cube FMC.
When it comes to OLL parity / edge parity, you should fix that during the centres rather than edge pairing; by using a different number of 2Xw/3Xw quarter turns to solve the centres, you can affect the parity of the edge pieces. Parity algs are long, so doing this parity avoidance is absolutely worth it.
There's no similar counting trick to handle PLL parity. What I do is just try different ways of edge pairing until I find something that doesn't lead to PLL parity. Especially easy on the last two edges if you get this kind of case, since one way of doing slice-flip-slice will give you PLL parity and the other one won't.
Oh...I'm sorry, I wasn't aware that you already had the 7FMC record before (where can I access?)
yes you can for 6x6 at leasthello, this is my first post.
I tried FMC of 6x6x6 cube and 7x7x7 cube for the first time.
It took 20 hours for 7FMC and 6 hours for 6FMC, it was so tough for me.
Instead of writing down here, I've posted scrambles and solutions on my website, so please take a look if you like. (written in Japanese).
By the way, can I claim myself as a new world record holder of 6×6 FMC and 7×7 FMC?
I probably still have UWR singles for megaFMC (107)
This is an interesting question! And I'm glad you use the word linear correctly, which a lot of people don'tHello, everyone.
I have always heard of the well-known FMC, where NISS, Insertions, etc. are used. However, what about LINEAR FMC? Basically, it’s solving the cube in the fewest moves possible, but not being able to use NISS, insertions, or undo moves.
In this case, does edge orientation still matter? If so/not, what are the best methods that could be used to get the best results?
Hssandwich,
Great! Thanks for the suggestion!
The reason why I’ve asked about EO was because in Sebastiano Tronto’s FMC “How To”, he specifically averred that “the more bad edges there are, the harder things will be.” However, I didn’t know if that applied for Linear FMC as well.
In that case, should EO be done in the beginning, as in ZZ? Or should it be done in a later step, as in Petrus?
I think it depends on the situation. When doing a normal FMC attempt, you generally list out a long list of EOs and screen them for ones that give pairs or other nice starts. A strong majority of them usually don't lead to easy to find solutions right away. That said, having EO done right away is still a boon early on - if you make pairs after EO, they will have their edges oriented if you make them, making them far more useful than if you don't have EO done. I think the context of the scramble will guide you on which route to take - is there a nice, easy to use pair on the scramble? Do you have 4 bad edges from one angle, or are most angles giving bad EO cases (i.e. 10 bad edges)? That will guide if you should do it early or late.
Of course, with domino solutions being the new trend in FMC, EO first is an absolute must. From what I can tell as someone who is not well versed in DR, it seems that this is actually a great method for doing linear solutions given how methodical and prescriptive it can be with a great deal of efficiency. I don't know how likely it is that you can produce an EO that leaves nice cases for finishing DR (e.g. 2e4c or an insert) and how bad it would be if you picked an EO that produces a difficult to finish DR, and then went on to a DR with bad corners, so I don't know for sure how good this would be, but I imagine it would still be very effective overall compared to standard EO/block approaches.
Thank you so much!!yes you can for 6x6 at least
thats uwr excluding the 1 hour limit
good job