• 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!

qwr

Member
Joined
Jul 24, 2019
Messages
3,371
YouTube
Visit Channel
@EngiNerdBrian thank you for your perspective. I think I was a little carried away in my own evaluation - part of my frustration is that since I learned to solve the cube when I was much younger, I didn't give myself the chance to discover anything on my own. I re-thought about it from a mathematics or CS research point of view and I'm always reminded of the Newton quote, "If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of giants". Even the people who do cutting-edge research are usually doing it in the margins, in the grand scheme of things extending humanity's knowledge a little bit into the unknown. People who truly contribute something fresh are rare and I have to be realistic in acknowledging that.

For now I think I'll move on from 3x3 and think about my 2x3x3 cuboid, mixup cube, or my FTO, both of which have received a lot less attention. The ideas I made up with my 3x3 can probably carry onto my 2x3x3 because my method was cuboid (2x2x3) / square-1 inspired with mainly R2 moves.
 

EngiNerdBrian

Premium Member
Joined
Jun 21, 2018
Messages
960
Location
Denver
YouTube
Visit Channel
@EngiNerdBrian thank you for your perspective. I think I was a little carried away in my own evaluation - part of my frustration is that since I learned to solve the cube when I was much younger, I didn't give myself the chance to discover anything on my own. I re-thought about it from a mathematics or CS research point of view and I'm always reminded of the Newton quote, "If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of giants". Even the people who do cutting-edge research are usually doing it in the margins, in the grand scheme of things extending humanity's knowledge a little bit into the unknown. People who truly contribute something fresh are rare and I have to be realistic in acknowledging that.

For now I think I'll move on from 3x3 and think about my 2x3x3 cuboid, mixup cube, or my FTO, both of which have received a lot less attention. The ideas I made up with my 3x3 can probably carry onto my 2x3x3 because my method was cuboid (2x2x3) / square-1 inspired with mainly R2 moves.
I totally know where you’re coming from. This same frustration is why I enjoy non wca puzzling so much. I try and solve all my non-wca puzzles intuitively. While my solution is often just applying commutators, 3-cycling edges, orienting corners with beginners method, it is still highly rewarding to connect the dots and apply the knowledge to something other than 3x3...especially because I like you didn’t do the discovery phase of 3x3 but just learned algs/methods/solutions from pamphlets/books/internet.
 
  • Like
Reactions: qwr

Abendregen

Member
Joined
Jan 1, 2021
Messages
8
I had an idea for a method for 2x2, partly inspired by Ortega, but i don't know if it is feasible or efficient.
I have no idea whether this already exists, but i haven't found any method yet that works like this.

So, there are 2 steps:
OBL (Orient Both Layers): Orients the top and bottom face using only one algorithm.
PBL (Permute Both Layers): Similar, to Ortega, permutes both layers into a solved state with one Algorithm.

Pros:
- All algorithms, no intuition. Leaving things to muscle memory is often faster and more reliable than intuition
- Recognition. OBL Recognition can be done in Inspection, while PBL recognition should be fast and can be done mid-solve.
- Speed. Uses only 2 algorithms to solve the cube.

Cons:
- Potentially big OBL algorithm set. I have no idea how many algorithms for OBL exist.



Do you think that such method could exist? If yes, would it be good for speedsolving?
(Name idea: O-PBL)
 

Mo_A2244

Member
Joined
May 11, 2020
Messages
383
YouTube
Visit Channel
I had an idea for a method for 2x2, partly inspired by Ortega, but i don't know if it is feasible or efficient.
I have no idea whether this already exists, but i haven't found any method yet that works like this.

So, there are 2 steps:
OBL (Orient Both Layers): Orients the top and bottom face using only one algorithm.
PBL (Permute Both Layers): Similar, to Ortega, permutes both layers into a solved state with one Algorithm.

Pros:
- All algorithms, no intuition. Leaving things to muscle memory is often faster and more reliable than intuition
- Recognition. OBL Recognition can be done in Inspection, while PBL recognition should be fast and can be done mid-solve.
- Speed. Uses only 2 algorithms to solve the cube.

Cons:
- Potentially big OBL algorithm set. I have no idea how many algorithms for OBL exist.



Do you think that such method could exist? If yes, would it be good for speedsolving?
(Name idea: O-PBL)
It sounds pretty good, but in terms of learning the algs, that'll be painful learning AND recognising them. But some people are dedicated I guess...
 

Abendregen

Member
Joined
Jan 1, 2021
Messages
8
It sounds pretty good, but in terms of learning the algs, that'll be painful learning AND recognising them. But some people are dedicated I guess...
OBL recognition generally wouldn't be a problem since there's inspection and PBL should be easy (i think?)
 

Mo_A2244

Member
Joined
May 11, 2020
Messages
383
YouTube
Visit Channel
OBL recognition generally wouldn't be a problem since there's inspection and PBL should be easy (i think?)
Maybe, but considering the thousand of algs you have to learn, it'll take maybe years to get the recognition on point for every solve. Good idea overall, but not sure its for the majority of people.
 

Abendregen

Member
Joined
Jan 1, 2021
Messages
8
Maybe, but considering the thousand of algs you have to learn, it'll take maybe years to get the recognition on point for every solve. Good idea overall, but not sure its for the majority of people.
yeah, i guess most people prefer intuition over hundreds of algorithms
 

xyzzy

Member
Joined
Dec 24, 2015
Messages
2,876
"OBL" as in orienting all the pieces: This has around 50 cases, mostly 4-5 moves. The "PBL" step then includes cases where pieces are in the wrong layers, which has many more cases than the normal PBL and is also harder to recognise on the fly.

"OBL" as in separating first-layer and last-layer pieces, and also orienting all of them: Lots of cases if you want to approach this algorithmically. Probably thousands.

You may also want to look into the Guimond method.
 

Abendregen

Member
Joined
Jan 1, 2021
Messages
8
"OBL" as in orienting all the pieces: This has around 50 cases, mostly 4-5 moves. The "PBL" step then includes cases where pieces are in the wrong layers, which has many more cases than the normal PBL and is also harder to recognise on the fly.

"OBL" as in separating first-layer and last-layer pieces, and also orienting all of them: Lots of cases if you want to approach this algorithmically. Probably thousands.

You may also want to look into the Guimond method.
thousands? i didn't expect it to be this huge. OBL on square-1 is about 80 cases, so i thought that OBL on 2x2 wouldn't be larger than 150 algs.
 

ender9994

Member
Joined
Nov 12, 2008
Messages
610
Location
Hopewell NJ
WCA
2008GROM01
YouTube
Visit Channel
Isn't OBL essentially the same as someone who can predict OLL while using Ortega for the first layer? (Although learning the algs would obviously be more efficient, I am not sure if the cost of learning the specific algs would be worth it). However I am not a great, or even good, 2x2 solver, so take that opinion with a grain of salt.

OR: is your OBL simply properly orienting both layers without placing them into their correct layer? I.E, all white and yellow pieces facing up or down, but then can be on either layer.
 

Abendregen

Member
Joined
Jan 1, 2021
Messages
8
Isn't OBL essentially the same as someone who can predict OLL while using Ortega for the first layer? (Although learning the algs would obviously be more efficient, I am not sure if the cost of learning the specific algs would be worth it). However I am not a great, or even good, 2x2 solver, so take that opinion with a grain of salt.

OR: is your OBL simply properly orienting both layers without placing them into their correct layer? I.E, all white and yellow pieces facing up or down, but then can be on either layer.
What i proposed was orienting pieces in their correct faces. And idk if predicting OLL with ortega is the same thing, since that is 2 algs, not 1.
 

BenChristman1

Member
Joined
Oct 26, 2019
Messages
3,505
Location
The Land of 11,842 Lakes
WCA
2019CHRI11
SS Competition Results
Isn't OBL essentially the same as someone who can predict OLL while using Ortega for the first layer? (Although learning the algs would obviously be more efficient, I am not sure if the cost of learning the specific algs would be worth it). However I am not a great, or even good, 2x2 solver, so take that opinion with a grain of salt.

OR: is your OBL simply properly orienting both layers without placing them into their correct layer? I.E, all white and yellow pieces facing up or down, but then can be on either layer.
After a bit of work, predicting OLL after first face becomes really easy, you can even get to the point where you try to cancel moves from your first face into the OLL, then after that, there are only 5 simple PBL algs (probably more like 20 if you want to do it rotationless). I’m to the point with Ortega where I can predict the OLL when the first side is 4 moves or less. This method would just be counting the first side and OLL as one step. Putting each piece oriented on its correct face would be a lot of algs, you would just be better off using Ortega.
 
  • Like
Reactions: qwr
Top