Sub1Hour
Member
Just got a 25 on OH with Petrus, I'm definitely switching.
Travelling to the future seems similar to insertions: you solve up to a certain point and then try to solve the remaining pieces somewhere else in your current solution/skeleton.Time Travel Solving
CFOP:
Normal
Scramble: B U2 B2 R' U2 L' U2 L2 R' U2 D' F2 U' B2 F L' B L'
X-Cross: z’ y’ D U B D’ L D’ L’ R’ U’ F2
Pair 1: U R’ F U2 F’
Pair 2: U R U2 R’ U R U2 R U R’
Pair 3: y U R U R’
OLL: U’ F (R U R' U') F' f (R U R' U') f'
PLL: U2 R' U' R U' L R U2 R' U' R U2 L' U R2 U R U
TTS (POCF)
Scramble: B U2 B2 R' U2 L' U2 L2 R' U2 D' F2 U' B2 F L' B L'
PLL: z’ y’ R' U2 D2 B2 R D' R' U B2 D' B2 R2 D' R U
OLL: U D F' D' R D' F R' D B' D F B U' D' R
X-Cross: D U B D’ L D’ L’ R’ U’ F2
Pair 1: U R’ F U2 F’
Pair 2: U R U2 R’ U R U2 R U R’
Pair 3: y U R U R’
LL Skip!
Roux:
Normal:
Scramble: B U2 B2 R' U2 L' U2 L2 R' U2 D' F2 U' B2 F L' B L'
Left 1x2x3: B L’ B’ R’ U2 M2 F
Right 1x2x3: U’ R U’ R U r U r’ U r’ U’ M’ U2 r’ U’ r
CMLL: R’ U’ R’ F R F’ R U’ R’ U2 R
LSE: M’ U2 M’ U2 M U M’ U M U2 M U M’ U2 M’
TTS:
Scramble: B U2 B2 R' U2 L' U2 L2 R' U2 D' F2 U' B2 F L' B L'
4c+4b (EPLR): E2 M’ E2 M U D M B' M' B2 M' B' M U' D'
4a: R2 U M’ U M’ U M’ U M’ U2 M’ U M’ U M’ U M’ U’ R2
Corners: F' U F U' R2 U2 F' D' F U2 D R2 F
Left 1x2x3: B L’ B’ R’ U2 M2 F
Right 1x2x2: U’ R U’ R U r U r’ U r’ U’ M’ U2 r’ U’ r
CMLL+LSE Skip!
This is like traveling to the future, seeing the problems that will occur, then coming back and preventing those problems in the present. An alternate way of doing this is of course to do a setup to place the pieces in the same positions as they would be in a normal solve, perform the normal alg, then undo the setup. I don't yet see any useful applications for this concept. Just something interesting to think about. Maybe the opposite version of this, traveling to the past, would be altering the solved cube in such a way that the scramble will result back in the solved state. Or altering the scramble itself if that would be allowable.
After I posted, I did think that it is similar to FMC techniques, though with more involvement. Interesting point about using it for the easy events. It has me thinking that there could be a method where the first step is to maybe solve a few pieces, see what the final case will be, then choose the best of several memorized paths to reduce the move count. Or follow that path before the first step, making that the actual first step. Maybe it would be fast or maybe it would require a lot of thinking. I'll think about this more.Travelling to the future seems similar to insertions: you solve up to a certain point and then try to solve the remaining pieces somewhere else in your current solution/skeleton.
I wonder if it's possible to apply it to something other than FMC and blindfolded solving. Maybe events where you can sometimes predict the whole solve like 2x2 and Pyraminx?
Too many algs. For the first step alone, there is (I think my math is off, but it gives an idea.) 864 algs: 3 (UR edge positions) x (2^2) (EO) x (4 x 3) (corner permutation) x (3 x 2) (corner orientation) = 864. Could someone with a better understanding of theory check my math?I had this idea for last layer where you solve two "J"s, so Im calling the idea JJLL. You start by doing an auf to permute the UB edge, and then an alg to orient that edge and permute and orient the UR edge, ULB corner, and URB corner, this forms a little "J". The next part you basically do the same thing without the auf at the beginning, and it solves the rest of the last layer, but there are likely less algs because of only 2 possible EOs. I think this would be a lot of algs and I dont really know if it would be useful. The number of algs could be reduced by doing beginners variations, such as doing EO first. Some of the algs would already be familiar, such as J perms. Thoughts?
How come you average 50 and I'm like sub-20 and I don't understand this?Too many algs. For the first step alone, there is (I think my math is off, but it gives an idea.) 864 algs: 3 (UR edge positions) x (2^2) (EO) x (4 x 3) (corner permissions) x (3 x 2) (corner orientation) = 864. Could someone with a better understanding of theory check my math?
"But you can solve the Rubiks cube fast so you must be good at math"How come you average 50 and I'm like sub-20 and I don't understand this?
Wait let me try to calculate this : UB Edge : 2 cases : UR edge : 6 cases Corner permutation : 6 Corner orientation : 9"But you can solve the Rubiks cube fast so you must be good at math"
That is what you sound like.
No. 9. You did 3 + 3 instead of 3 x 3.Corner orientation : 6
I don't particularly like 3x3, but love math.How come you average 50 and I'm like sub-20 and I don't understand this?
Nope. 4 positions for first corner times 3 for second equals 12.6 cases Corner permutation
If you don't like 3x3, then why are you on these forums? (not trying to roast or anything, just asking why if you don't like cubing)No. 9. You did 3 + 3 instead of 3 x 3.
I don't particularly like 3x3, but love math.
I still like cubing, just not especially 3x3.If you don't like 3x3, then why are you on these forums? (not trying to roast or anything, just asking why if you don't like cubing)
What events do you prefer?I still like cubing, just not especially 3x3.
This is proof that I love math, but my brain just can't deal.No. 9. You did 3 + 3 instead of 3 x 3.
EDIT 2: I'm dumb it's 3 x 2 so you're right.
EDIT 3: I thought you said it was 6 but you said 9 so you're wrong.
I don't particularly like 3x3, but love math.
EDIT:
Nope. 4 positions for first corner times 3 for second equals 12.
EDIT 4: With all those edits, we arrive at the same number.
SAME. I avg like 12-11 on 3x3 and the only reason I do 3x3 is when I get new hardware to break in or if I don't feel like doing mega squan or big cubes.I still like cubing, just not especially 3x3.
It kinda feels like it's trying to be a somewhat long event, but it's just too short. I dunno if that's why, but that's what I make of it.SAME. I avg like 12-11 on 3x3 and the only reason I do 3x3 is when I get new hardware to break in or if I don't feel like doing mega squan or big cubes.
I do agree that it is very general and not strictly defined, but I'm going to first try speedsolving with this freestyle method to see if I can get good times with it before I say it's slow and garbage. I bet that you're probably right that it is bad for speedsolving and way too general and that's what I will expect, to be honest. I'll try doing solves with it just in case.It's pretty cool but it's too general for speedsolving. But I agree with your thoughts.