The Square-1 "Example Solve" Game

[bobthegiraffemonkey]

Someone else posting with parity control? Better join in.

Next scramble: (4, 3) / (-3, -3) / (-3, 0) / (0, -1) / (-3, 0) / (3, -3) / (-1, 0) / (4, 0) / (2, 0) / (-4, 0) / (-2, 0) / (6, 0)

Parity + cubeshape: 2,0/2,0/4,0/-4,1/3,0/
Block: 0,-4/-2,-5/
Corners: 0,3/-3,0/-3,3/-3,0/3,0/
EO: -4,-4/3,0/1,1/-4,-1/
EP: -3,0/0,1/0,3/1,0/6,0/-1,0/0,-3/6,-1/6,0/3,-2

Need to learn more LSE cases :/, Edges: 3,-3/0,-3/3,0/-1,-1/-3,0/0,3/0,-3/-5,1/6,0/-1,0

Next: (-2, -3) / (2, -1) / (6, 0) / (0, -3) / (-3, 0) / (0, -2) / (0, -3) / (0, -1) / (-2, -4) / (2, 0) / (0, -2) / (4, -3) / (0, -4) /

 

[Sam N]

Someone else posting with parity control? Better join in.

I started learning it from your tutorial about a month ago. So far most of the algs have been simple enough to learn, but my accuracy and inspection are what need improving. Hopefully I can get decent enough to use it at a competition. It seems to be the next step in getting faster at Square-1. I think it has a lot of potential.

Scramble: (-2, -3) / (2, -1) / (6, 0) / (0, -3) / (-3, 0) / (0, -2) / (0, -3) / (0, -1) / (-2, -4) / (2, 0) / (0, -2) / (4, -3) / (0, -4) /

Time: 10.80 should have been sub-10. Why did screw up the end of the solve!?

Cube-Shape: (0,1) / ( 4,0) / (-2,0) / (2,0) / (-1,0) / (-3,0) /

Corner orientation: (-5,3) /

Edge Orientation: (-1,-1) / (3,0) / (3,0) / (1,1) / (-3,0) / (-3,0) /

Corner Permutation: (-1,0) / (3,3) / (0,3) / (3,3) / (0,3) / (3,3) /

Edge Permutation: (1,-3) / (3,0) / (-1,-1) / (-2,1) / (-5,3) / (3,0) / (-1,-1) / (-2,1) /

AUF: (2,0)


Next Scramble: (-3,5) / (-5,3) / (-3,6) / (6,6) / (0,-3) / (0,3) / (-3,-3) / (-3,0) / (3,1) / (-2,4) / (2,2) / (2,-2) / (6,2) / (6,2) / (0,-4)

EDIT: that's actually a decent scramble.

 

[blade740]

Next Scramble: (-3,5) / (-5,3) / (-3,6) / (6,6) / (0,-3) / (0,3) / (-3,-3) / (-3,0) / (3,1) / (-2,4) / (2,2) / (2,-2) / (6,2) / (6,2) / (0,-4)

4,2/1,0/-3,-3/ | cubeshape

0,-4/0,3/4,1/-1,-4/ | wizard sh**

-3,5/-3,0/3,3/0,-3/ | I think I'll give myself an easy EP

-3,0/0,3/0,6/1,-5/-1,2/ | easy

3,7 | AUF like a boss

EDIT: that's actually a decent scramble.

Depends on your definition of "decent". I especially like how it's 1 twist from solved, 6 moves in. There's a reason we don't use that scrambler any more

Next Scramble: (0,6) / (0,3) / (-5,3) / (5,5) / (-2,3) / (-3,3) / (0,3) / (6,3) / (-3,3) / (6,3) / (3,3) / (6,0) / (6,3) / (6,3) / (0,3) /

 

[not_kevin]

4,2/1,0/-3,-3/ | cubeshape

0,-4/0,3/4,1/-1,-4/ | wizard sh**

-3,5/-3,0/3,3/0,-3/ | I think I'll give myself an easy EP

-3,0/0,3/0,6/1,-5/-1,2/ | easy

3,7 | AUF like a boss



Depends on your definition of "decent". I especially like how it's 1 twist from solved, 6 moves in. There's a reason we don't use that scrambler any more

Next Scramble: (0,6) / (0,3) / (-5,3) / (5,5) / (-2,3) / (-3,3) / (0,3) / (6,3) / (-3,3) / (6,3) / (3,3) / (6,0) / (6,3) / (6,3) / (0,3) /

lolno not that scramble pls

Nice wizard sh** - I gotta learn those from you! Also, is the EP done that way to get rid of the slice parity? Because it seems like those D turns are kinda slow, if you could get them to be U turns instead (so 1,0/3,0/-1,-1/4,1/6,0/6,0, just tacking the (R U2)x3 at the end)?

 

[blade740]

That alg might be a bit better, but I've been using mine for years and years, and the D turns don't slow me down. That's single push D2 with left ring finger

 

[not_kevin]

oh, nice! I can't quite get the hang of D2 with left ring, but then again, I can't really do U2' with left index >.<

Anyway, I'll let someone else go for the scramble you posted, because I've already done it before XD That being said, I just found a better solution, so maybe I'll post that when someone else finds ridiculousness

 

[Sam N]

Depends on your definition of "decent". I especially like how it's 1 twist from solved, 6 moves in. There's a reason we don't use that scrambler any more

Next Scramble: (0,6) / (0,3) / (-5,3) / (5,5) / (-2,3) / (-3,3) / (0,3) / (6,3) / (-3,3) / (6,3) / (3,3) / (6,0) / (6,3) / (6,3) / (0,3) /

Yeah, I suppose my use of the word decent was rather loose. It was a dumb scramble. I posted it without checking it first. (not a good idea) Nice wizard sh** btw, very cool.

Scramble: (0,6) / (0,3) / (-5,3) / (5,5) / (-2,3) / (-3,3) / (0,3) / (6,3) / (-3,3) / (6,3) / (3,3) / (6,0) / (6,3) / (6,3) / (0,3) /

Time: 6.31 (bad job) For some reason I feel like there is a waaaaaay better way to solve this scramble and I just missed it. @Not_kevin if you can, show me your solution to this. It'll probably make me feel dumb, but it will be helpful.


Solution:

Cube-Shape: (0,-3) /

Corner Permutation: (0,3) / (-3,0) / (3,3) / (0,-3) /

Edge Permutation: (-5,-3) / (-3,0) / (-1,-1) / (6,0) / (1,1) / (-3,0) /

AUF: (2,6)

Next Scramble (I checked it this time too )

(-3, 2) / (1, -3) / (6, -3) / (1, -3) / (5, 2) / (0, -2) / (-4, -3) / (0, -6) / (-1, -6) / (0, -4) / (5, 4) / (2, 0) / (0, 4) / (0, -6) / (2, -5) / (-2, 0)

 

[not_kevin]

Yeah, I suppose my use of the word decent was rather loose. It was a dumb scramble. I posted it without checking it first. (not a good idea) Nice wizard sh** btw, very cool.

Scramble: (0,6) / (0,3) / (-5,3) / (5,5) / (-2,3) / (-3,3) / (0,3) / (6,3) / (-3,3) / (6,3) / (3,3) / (6,0) / (6,3) / (6,3) / (0,3) /

Time: 6.31 (bad job) For some reason I feel like there is a waaaaaay better way to solve this scramble and I just missed it. @Not_kevin if you can, show me your solution to this. It'll probably make me feel dumb, but it will be helpful.


Solution:

Cube-Shape: (0,-3) /

Corner Permutation: (0,3) / (-3,0) / (3,3) / (0,-3) /

Edge Permutation: (-5,-3) / (-3,0) / (-1,-1) / (6,0) / (1,1) / (-3,0) /

AUF: (2,6)

So, this is the best solution I found (and I think the best Vandenbergh-esque solution that exists - Andrew, I'd love to see confirmation of this ) I won't include a time, because I've seen this scramble before, but with rehearsing it's fairly easily sub-4.

Scramble: (0,6) / (0,3) / (-5,3) / (5,5) / (-2,3) / (-3,3) / (0,3) / (6,3) / (-3,3) / (6,3) / (3,3) / (6,0) / (6,3) / (6,3) / (0,3) /

Solution:
Inspection: I notice that the CS is easy, and EO will be M2 (plus AUF), and the CP will be J/J, so I choose the best way to do this during inspection
CS + CO + setup: z2 (-3,0) / # I chose this over (0,-3) / because it's more finger-tricky, and it sets up better into the CP later (where I hold bars in back)
EO: (-3, -4) / (1,1) / # in a real solve, I'd probably do (-2,-3) / (-1, -1), but because I've seen the scramble, this is slightly better
PBL: (-4,0) [/ (-3,0) / (3,3) / (0,-3) /] # oh hey it's J/J from the best angle
AUF: (3,-3)
The solution is [7/19], which is, uh, pretty efficient

I'm, uh, not in my best mental state at the moment due to a going-away party for a co-worker, so I'll let someone else take the next scramble

 

[blade740]

So, this is the best solution I found (and I think the best Vandenbergh-esque solution that exists - Andrew, I'd love to see confirmation of this ) I won't include a time, because I've seen this scramble before, but with rehearsing it's fairly easily sub-4.

Scramble: (0,6) / (0,3) / (-5,3) / (5,5) / (-2,3) / (-3,3) / (0,3) / (6,3) / (-3,3) / (6,3) / (3,3) / (6,0) / (6,3) / (6,3) / (0,3) /

Solution:
Inspection: I notice that the CS is easy, and EO will be M2 (plus AUF), and the CP will be J/J, so I choose the best way to do this during inspection
CS + CO + setup: z2 (-3,0) / # I chose this over (0,-3) / because it's more finger-tricky, and it sets up better into the CP later (where I hold bars in back)
EO: (-3, -4) / (1,1) / # in a real solve, I'd probably do (-2,-3) / (-1, -1), but because I've seen the scramble, this is slightly better
PBL: (-4,0) [/ (-3,0) / (3,3) / (0,-3) /] # oh hey it's J/J from the best angle
AUF: (3,-3)
The solution is [7/19], which is, uh, pretty efficient

I'm, uh, not in my best mental state at the moment due to a going-away party for a co-worker, so I'll let someone else take the next scramble

Yeah, that's probably pretty optimal. My solution was essentially the same steps, but your AUFs are a bit nicer because of that z2.

Next Scramble: (6, 5)/(3, 0)/(-3, 0)/(-2, -5)/(5, -4)/(0, -3)/(0, -5)/(3, 0)/(3, 0)/(4, 0)/(-2, 0)/(-2, 0)/(6, 0)/

 

[Sam N]

Next Scramble: (6, 5)/(3, 0)/(-3, 0)/(-2, -5)/(5, -4)/(0, -3)/(0, -5)/(3, 0)/(3, 0)/(4, 0)/(-2, 0)/(-2, 0)/(6, 0)/


Solution:

CSP: / (0,2) / (-4,4) / (-1,4) / (-3,0) /

CP: (-5,-3) /

EO: (-4,-1) / (3,0) / (-3,0) / (1,1) / (3,0) / (-3,0) /

CP: (-1,-1) / (0,-3) / (0,3) / (0,-3) / (0,3) /

EP: (3,-3) / (1,1) / (6,0) / (-1,-1) / (-2,1) / (3,0) / (-1,-1) / (4,1) / (6,0) /

AUF: (-1,6)

Went over inspection for CSP. I'm nowhere near the 15 second mark unless it's a nice case. Hopefully I'll be able to get good enough to use it at a future comp.

Next Scramble:

(-3, 2) / (1, -3) / (6, -3) / (1, -3) / (5, 2) / (0, -2) / (-4, -3) / (0, -6) / (-1, -6) / (0, -4) / (5, 4) / (2, 0) / (0, 4) / (0, -6) / (2, -5) / (-2, 0)

 

[qaz]

Next Scramble: (6, 5)/(3, 0)/(-3, 0)/(-2, -5)/(5, -4)/(0, -3)/(0, -5)/(3, 0)/(3, 0)/(4, 0)/(-2, 0)/(-2, 0)/(6, 0)/


Solution:

CSP: / (0,2) / (-4,4) / (-1,4) / (-3,0) /

CP: (-5,-3) /

EO: (-4,-1) / (3,0) / (-3,0) / (1,1) / (3,0) / (-3,0) /

CP: (-1,-1) / (0,-3) / (0,3) / (0,-3) / (0,3) /

EP: (3,-3) / (1,1) / (6,0) / (-1,-1) / (-2,1) / (3,0) / (-1,-1) / (4,1) / (6,0) /

AUF: (-1,6)

Went over inspection for CSP. I'm nowhere near the 15 second mark unless it's a nice case. Hopefully I'll be able to get good enough to use it at a future comp.

Next Scramble:

(-3, 2) / (1, -3) / (6, -3) / (1, -3) / (5, 2) / (0, -2) / (-4, -3) / (0, -6) / (-1, -6) / (0, -4) / (5, 4) / (2, 0) / (0, 4) / (0, -6) / (2, -5) / (-2, 0)

/(2,3)/(1,2)/(3,0)/
(-3,1)/(2,5)/
(-2,-2)/(-3,0)/(-1,-1)/(4,1)/
(5,0)/(0,3)/(0,-3)/(0,3)/(0,-3)/
(-2,0)/(3,0)/(-1,-1)/(-2,1)/(-3,0)/(3,0)/(-1,-1)/(-2,1)/(-1,6)

Next: (0, 5)/(6, -3)/(0, 3)/(1, -2)/(3, 0)/(6, 0)/(0, -4)/(0, -3)/(5, -2)/(0, -2)/(1, 0)/(3, 0)/(0, -4)

 

[not_kevin]

Next: (0, 5)/(6, -3)/(0, 3)/(1, -2)/(3, 0)/(6, 0)/(0, -4)/(0, -3)/(5, -2)/(0, -2)/(1, 0)/(3, 0)/(0, -4)

Oh, I forgot about this thread - darned Nats getting in the way

Anyway:

Time: 11.734 keyboard, could've been better

CS: (-1,0) / (4,0) / (2,0) / (-1,4) / (-3,0) /
CO: (1,0) / (3,0) /
EO: (2,-1) / (-3,0) / (4,1) / (-4,-1) / (3,0) /
CP + fix layers: (3,1) / (-3,0) / (3,3) / (6,3) /
EP: (0,1) / (-1,-1) / (0,3) / (1,1) / (0,3) / (-1,-1) / (6,-2)

Next scramble: (0, -1) / (1, 4) / (-3, 0) / (0, -3) / (-4, -4) / (-3, -3) / (0, -2) / (-3, 0) / (0, -1) / (6, -5) / (-4, -4) / (4, -2) /

 

[blade740]

Next scramble: (0, -1) / (1, 4) / (-3, 0) / (0, -3) / (-4, -4) / (-3, -3) / (0, -2) / (-3, 0) / (0, -1) / (6, -5) / (-4, -4) / (4, -2) /

y2
/2,0/-4,0/1,0/-4,0/3,0/ | Cubeshape
0,5/-2,1/2,-1/0,3/ | OBL
0,-3/0,-3/0,3/-3,3/0,3/0,-3/ | CP
-5,1/3,0/-1,-1/3,0/-3,0/1,1/ 3,0/6,0/2,6 | W/Adj

That solve turned out to be pretty interesting, technique-wise. Cubeshape was suboptimal in movecount, but this way is much faster since it's 2gen. Then an OBL case that I think I learned from notkevin. On CP, I misaligned the bottom layer to force a better EP case. If I had started with 0,-2 before the J-perm, it would've given me W/Opp, which is one of my least favorite EPs. Instead, I get W/Adj, a pretty fast alg, and then move cancel in an E slice fix at the end. I didn't time this solve, but it flowed really well seemed pretty fast.

Next Scramble: (3, 2)/(-3, 0)/(3, 0)/(1, -5)/(6, 0)/(0, -3)/(0, -1)/(-3, 0)/(-1, 0)/(2, 0)/(0, -2)/(4, -3)/(2, -2)/

 

[not_kevin]

y2
/2,0/-4,0/1,0/-4,0/3,0/ | Cubeshape
0,5/-2,1/2,-1/0,3/ | OBL
0,-3/0,-3/0,3/-3,3/0,3/0,-3/ | CP
-5,1/3,0/-1,-1/3,0/-3,0/1,1/ 3,0/6,0/2,6 | W/Adj

That solve turned out to be pretty interesting, technique-wise. Cubeshape was suboptimal in movecount, but this way is much faster since it's 2gen. Then an OBL case that I think I learned from notkevin. On CP, I misaligned the bottom layer to force a better EP case. If I had started with 0,-2 before the J-perm, it would've given me W/Opp, which is one of my least favorite EPs. Instead, I get W/Adj, a pretty fast alg, and then move cancel in an E slice fix at the end. I didn't time this solve, but it flowed really well seemed pretty fast.

Next Scramble: (3, 2)/(-3, 0)/(3, 0)/(1, -5)/(6, 0)/(0, -3)/(0, -1)/(-3, 0)/(-1, 0)/(2, 0)/(0, -2)/(4, -3)/(2, -2)/

Ooh, nice - yeah, I liked that cubeshape, but I actually didn't know that OBL (although I remember you showing me this case as part of that "good-half" subset you generated). I should learn it

Time: 13.32, pretty locky, nothing very interesting.

z2 | I just liked doing the cubeshape better from this angle, 'tho it doesn't make much difference
2,0/0,1/-2,3/1,3/3,0/ | cubeshape
3,1/0,3/ | CO
-3,-3/3,0/3,0/-1,-1/-2,1/-3,0/ | EO, seeing that the D layer corners would be solved, but not paying enough attention to the U layer to predict
/-3,-3/3,0/-3,-3/3,0/-3,-3/ | CP, seeing that it'll leave me with adj/adj (as opposed to W/adj, which is still fast, but not as fast )
-3,-3/3,0/-1,-1/-2,1/1,3 | EP

Next Scramble: (0, -1) / (1, 4) / (0, -3) / (3, -3) / (3, 0) / (-1, -4) / (-5, 0) / (-3, 0) / (-3, -2) / (4, 0) / (2, 0) / (4, 0) /

 

[Sam N]

Scramble: (0, -1) / (1, 4) / (0, -3) / (3, -3) / (3, 0) / (-1, -4) / (-5, 0) / (-3, 0) / (-3, -2) / (4, 0) / (2, 0) / (4, 0) /

Time: 10.42 (should have been sub 10!)

Solution:

CSP: / (-4,0) / (-2,0) / (2,0) / (-1,0) / (-3,0) /

CP: (-2,-3) /

EO: (2,-1) / (3,0) / (-3,0) / (4,1) / (-3,0) /

CP: (-3,0) / (3,0) / (-3,0) / (-3,3) / (-3,0) / (2,-1) / | miss- align top for nice J.

EP: (0,-3) / (1,1) / (0,3) / (-1,-1) / | cancel into bottom z perm from look ahead. (saw bottom z perm at CP)

AUF: (6, -5)

Overall a really nice solve. I locked up at EO which prevented the sub 10.

Off topic question. Are there algs developed to solve EO+CP together? I've noticed about a handful of cases that can do this. It's probably not helpful to learn algs like this for EO cases such as (1,0) / (-1,-1) / (0,1) however it might have applications for other cases.

Examples:

Setup: (1,0) / (3,0) / (-4,-1) / (3,0) / (-3,0) / (0,1) /

#1 Alg that does EO: (1,0) / (-1,-1) / (-2,4) / (3,0) / (3,0) / (-1,-1) / (-2,1) / (-3,0) / | left with bar on bottom adjacent swap on top for CP

#2 Alg that does EP+CP: (0,-1) / (3,0) / (-3,0) / (4,1) / (-3,0) / | solves CP and EO

I've been swapping between these two for a while now. Most of the EO algs that I use -including the first one in the setup- don't affect CP. This often times allows me to look ahead into what CP case I'll be getting while I'm at the EO step. If my CP is done while I'm at EO and I have the case presented above, I would do the first alg since it doesn't influence CP. This would allow me to preserve the solved corners and skip CP. If I don't have solved corners or I have a specific CP case, I'll often do the second alg since I find it easier to finger trick, and it sometimes solves CP for me in the process. There are a couple of other algs that I use as well, But I don't want to spam this thread with off topic info. If this has already been developed, I would love to see the thread. I've tried looking up EO+CP algs, but all I get are threads for the separate steps, nothing where they are done together.

Next Scramble: (-2, -3) / (-1, -1) / (6, -3) / (-3, 0) / (-5, -2) / (-3, -4) / (-3, -3) / (-3, 0) / (4, 0) / (2, -2) / (6, -4)

I spot CSP! Scramble taken from qqtimer random state scramble generator.

 

[blade740]

Off topic question. Are there algs developed to solve EO+CP together?

Yes, David Woner started working on this years ago. There's some info available here. I linked straight to Lars' post with algs, but there's discussion throughout the thread. EDIT: alg list here

 

[Sam N]

Thanks for the quick reply, I'll look into that. I could take the nice ones and use them when the case pops up.

Next Scramble: (-2, -3) / (-1, -1) / (6, -3) / (-3, 0) / (-5, -2) / (-3, -4) / (-3, -3) / (-3, 0) / (4, 0) / (2, -2) / (6, -4)

 

[not_kevin]

Setup: (1,0) / (3,0) / (-4,-1) / (3,0) / (-3,0) / (0,1) /

#1 Alg that does EO: (1,0) / (-1,-1) / (-2,4) / (3,0) / (3,0) / (-1,-1) / (-2,1) / (-3,0) / | left with bar on bottom adjacent swap on top for CP

#2 Alg that does EP+CP: (0,-1) / (3,0) / (-3,0) / (4,1) / (-3,0) / | solves CP and EO

Yay, glad to see you switching to real scrambles :3 Before I get to my solve (pretty bad - still don't know CSP, and so I did the wrong CS as a result), just wanted to show a shorter alg (that should be pretty easy to learn for you) on doing that EO case with no CP:

your alg with N/J CP: (0,-1) / (3,0) / (-3,0) / (4,1) / (-3,0) /
alg with neutral CP: (0,-1) / (3,0) / (-3,0) / (1,1) / (3,0) / (-3,0) /

Basically, it's just your alg with a cancelled N/J alg.

Next Scramble: (-2, -3) / (-1, -1) / (6, -3) / (-3, 0) / (-5, -2) / (-3, -4) / (-3, -3) / (-3, 0) / (4, 0) / (2, -2) / (6, -4)

I wasn't going to post my solution, because it's so bad, but after thinking, there are some weird things I do, so I'll put it down. Most of the bad is because of the EP (I hate that case), so hopefully people can learn something from it.

CS: 2,0 / -2,0 / -2,-1 / 3,3 /
OBL: -3,-4 / -2,-2 / -4,-1 / 3,0 /
CP+switch layers: -6,1 / 0,-3 / 0,3 / 0,-3 / 6,-3 / #the misalign here means that I get opp/U (preserves two blocks on top, one on bottom) - misaligning the bottom isn't important because V will always lead to U, but the top prevents it from being W, which is worse than opp here)
EP (ew): 5,3 / 3,0 / -3,0 / 3,0 / 0,3 / 1,0 / 0,2 / 4,0 / 0,-4 / 2,0 / -3,2 / 3,-3 / 6,0 / -3,-3

The OBL here is nice, because the case you might confuse it with is also pretty fast (probably faster, honestly) and has a similar setup: setting up with 0,-1 / 1,4 / 0,3 / (and do the inverse to solve).

A different solution, using my old CS "alg" (which happens to do CSP, as well ):
CSP: 0,-2 / 4,0 / 0,1 / 3,3 /
CO: 4,0 / 0,3 / 0,3 /
EO: 0,3 / 3,0 / -1,-1 / -3,0 /
CP: 4,-3 / -3,0 / 3,3 / 0,-3 / # preserve dem blocks to get U/U rather than H/Z
EP: 0,1 / 5,-1 / -5,1 / 0,-3 / 0,3 / -1,-1 / 1,-2 / -1,0 # alas, it's bad U/U

For the EP here, I probably wouldn't have done it exactly like that - it's just convenient that I did it that way. Doing the opp/opp alg from this angle not only prevents needless AUF, but also "solves" the U layer corners - so doing the 0,-3 adjust means that the ABF at the end is just -1,0.

Next scramble: (6, -4) / (0, -3) / (1, -2) / (-1, -4) / (4, -3) / (3, 0) / (0, -5) / (3, 0) / (5, 0) / (-3, -2) / (-2, 0) / (5, -2)

 

[Sam N]

Scramble: (6, -4) / (0, -3) / (1, -2) / (-1, -4) / (4, -3) / (3, 0) / (0, -5) / (3, 0) / (5, 0) / (-3, -2) / (-2, 0) / (5, -2)

Time: 13.59

Solution:

Inspection: z2 | I like this angel better. It doesn't change much.

CS: (-2,0) / (-2,0) / (2,-3) / (-1,-2) / (-3,0) /

CO: (4,0) / (3,6) /

EO+CP: (2,-4) / (3,0) / (3,0) / (1,1) / (-6,0) / (-3,3) / (-3,0) / (3,0) / | I saw CP during EO, so I canceled into that.

This it what it would look like without cancellations. Red text is where cancellations took place.

EO: (2,-4) / (3,0) / (3,0) / (1,1) / (-3,0) / (-3,0) /

CP: / (3,0) / (-3,0) / (-3,3 / (-3,0) / (3,0) /

EP: (-3,6) / (3,0) /(-1,-1) / (-3,0) / (-3,0) / (1,1) / (6,0) / (-1,-1) / (-3,0) / (1,1) / | use AJ-AJ to get H-perm and canceled a couple of moves as well.

AUF: (-1,0)

The solve turned out pretty well. The cancellations during EO+CP were really nice.

Next Scramble: (4, 0) / (0, 6) / (3, 0) / (3, 0) / (-3, 0) / (0, -3) / (2, -1) / (-2, 0) / (3, 0) / (0, -3) / (-2, -4) / (0, -3) / (-1, -4) / (6, 0)

 

[willtri4]

Scramble: (4, 0) / (0, 6) / (3, 0) / (3, 0) / (-3, 0) / (0, -3) / (2, -1) / (-2, 0) / (3, 0) / (0, -3) / (-2, -4) / (0, -3) / (-1, -4) / (6, 0)

CS: (1, 0) / (1, -4) / (-2, 3) / (-1, -2) / (-3, 0) /

EO: (1, 3) / (6, 0) / (3, 0) / (3, 0) / (-1, -1) / (-3, 0) / (-3, 0) / Could have done (0, 2) at the start, but that would have been an opp-adj, and I like 3-3 much better.

Parity CP: (3, 4) / (-3, -3) / (0, 1) / (0, -2) / (0, 4) / (0, -4) / (0, -2) / (0, -1) / (3, 3) / I AUFed at the beginning to put one of the solved edges in the back where it would be preserved.

EP: (0, 5) / (-3, 0) / (0, 1) / (-3, 0) / (0, -1) / (-2, -2) / (-1, 0) / (-3, 0) / (0, -1) / (3, 0) / (3, 1)