The Square-1 "Example Solve" Game

[Cubing Forever]

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

29 Slices(9 slices to EP but EP ruined it):
0,4/-3,-4/-2,3/-1,-2/-3,0/ // CS
1,-3/2-1/ //CO
3,-3/1,1/ //EO
0,-3/ 0,-3 / 0,-1 / 3,0 / 0,1 / 0,3 / 0,-1 / -3,0 / 0,1 //D layer edges
-1,0 / -3,-3 / 0,1 / -2,-2 / 0,2 / 2,2 / 0,-1 / 3,3 / -2,0 / 2,2 / -3,-2 /6,6/ //Parity(O-)
5,-5 //ABL

Next: 3,-1/0,-3/-3,0/3,0/-2,-5/5,-4/-2,0/3,0/3,0/-1,0/2,-2/-2,-3/2,0

 

[Silky]

Next: 3,-1/0,-3/-3,0/3,0/-2,-5/5,-4/-2,0/3,0/3,0/-1,0/2,-2/-2,-3/2,0

Method: Lin

(4,-1) / (-3,2) / (2,1) / (0,3) / -- Cubeshape (4)
(-3,-1) / (-5,4) / (-1,-1) / (3,0) / (-3,0) / -- Lin Blocks (5/9)
(-2,1) / (2,5) / (3,0) / (-3,0) / (0,3) / (4,4 ) / (6,0) / -- CMDLL (7/16)
(-1,0) / (-3,-3) / (0,1) / (-2,-2) / (0,2) / (2,2) / (0,-1) / (3,3) / (-2,0) / (2,2) / (6,-2) -- EPPLL (10/26)

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

 

[DynaXT]

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

(4, -2) / (-4, 0) / (3, 0) / (2, 0) / (-3, 4) / (2, 0) / (3, 0) / (2, 4) / (-2, -1) / (3, 3) / -- CS
(-5, 0) / (0, -3) / (0, -3) / -- CO
(5, -1) / (-3, 0) / (4, 1) / (-4, -1) / (3, 0) / -- EO
(0, 4) / (-3, 0) / (3, 0) / (-3, 0) / (3, 0) / -- CP
/ (6, 0) / (6, 0) / -- Bar flip
(-2, 3) / (0, 3) / (-1, -1) / (1, -2) / (3, 3) / (0, 3) / (-1, -1) / (1, -2) / (2, -3) -- EP

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

 

[Silky]

(4, -2) / (-4, 0) / (3, 0) / (2, 0) / (-3, 4) / (2, 0) / (3, 0) / (2, 4) / (-2, -1) / (3, 3) / -- CS
(-5, 0) / (0, -3) / (0, -3) / -- CO
(5, -1) / (-3, 0) / (4, 1) / (-4, -1) / (3, 0) / -- EO
(0, 4) / (-3, 0) / (3, 0) / (-3, 0) / (3, 0) / -- CP
/ (6, 0) / (6, 0) / -- Bar flip
(-2, 3) / (0, 3) / (-1, -1) / (1, -2) / (3, 3) / (0, 3) / (-1, -1) / (1, -2) / (2, -3) -- EP

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

Did you use CSP at the beginning here?

 

[DynaXT]

Did you use CSP at the beginning here?

I don't think so, but I know the EO alg I used affects parity so that could explain what you're thinking.

 

[Silky]

I don't think so, but I know the EO alg I used affects parity so that could explain what you're thinking.

No, I was just curious how you came up with your cubeshape solution. Are you new to Squan?

 

[DynaXT]

No, I was just curious how you came up with your cubeshape solution. Are you new to Squan?

Kinda, started late Feb/early March, I just use a rather basic and intuitive method for CS.

 

[Silky]

Kinda, started late Feb/early March, I just use a rather basic and intuitive method for CS.

If you haven't learned barrel-kite I recommend it. It's also intuitive. Once you understand it, it feels just like F2L. Here's an alternative solution.

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

 

[DynaXT]

If you haven't learned barrel-kite I recommend it. It's also intuitive. Once you understand it, it feels just like F2L. Here's an alternative solution.

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

I do know other cases like scallop kite and shield shield, but I don’t use them as often as I should. I can execute the 8 pair star in about a second though, and my scallop kite is improving, but mostly fingertricks screw me over, so I just stick with the beginners.

 

[Silky]

I do know other cases like scallop kite and shield shield, but I don’t use them as often as I should. I can execute the 8 pair star in about a second though, and my scallop kite is improving, but mostly fingertricks screw me over, so I just stick with the beginners.

Try to implement it whenever you can, it makes a huge difference! Saved me 15+ seconds when I started.

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

Method: Lin

(0,-2) / (-1,0) / (0,1) / (0,3) / -- CS (4)
(0,-4) / (-3,-3) / (1,1) / (3,0) / -- Lin Blocks (4/8)
(-1,5) / (3,-3) / (0,3) / (0,-3) / (3,0) / (-5,4) / -- CMDLL (6/14)
(5,3) / (3,3) / (-1,0) / (2,-4) / (4,-2) / (0,-2) / (-4,2) / (1,-5) / (3,0) / (3,3) / (-3,0) -- EPPLL (10/24)

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

 

[DynaXT]

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

(4, -2) / (2, 0) / (-3, 4) / (2, 0) / (3, 0) / (2, 4) / (-2, -1) / (3, 3) / -- CS
(-2, 0) / (0, -3) / -- CO
(6, 3) / (3, 0) / (3, 0) / (-1, -1) / (-2, 1) / (-3, 0) / -- EO
(-1, 6) / (-3, 0) / (3, 0) / (-3, 0) / (3, 0) / -- CP
(-5, 0) / (0, 3) / (-1, -1) / (1, -2) / (-3, -3) / (0, 3) / (-1, -1) / (1, -2) / (6, -3) (0, 3) / (-1, -1) / (1, -2) / (2, 0) -- EP

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

 

[Silky]

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

(-4,0) / (0,-4) / (1,2) / (-3,-3) / -- CS (4)
(1,3) / (2,5) / (0,-3) / (4,1) / (3,0) / -- Lin Blocks (5/9)
(0,3) / (0,-3) / (-1,-4) / (4,1) / (-3,0) / (-3,0) / (0,3) / (0,6) / (0,-3) -- PLL+1 (8/17)

I swear Lin is more efficient than Vandenburgh

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

 

[Thom S.]

I swear Lin is more efficient than Vandenburgh

It actually is, the problem is that for Sq1 there have only ever been counting of slow solves, where the efficiency of Lin Blockbuilding comes through. Nobody has taken the time to analize speedsolves.
Because Blockbuilding efficiency is affected by nerves, Vandenbergh not so much.

 

[Silky]

It actually is, the problem is that for Sq1 there have only ever been counting of slow solves, where the efficiency of Lin Blockbuilding comes through. Nobody has taken the time to analize speedsolves.
Because Blockbuilding efficiency is affected by nerves, Vandenbergh not so much.

I've been bamboozled!! Can't believe that I've gone so long believing these lies. Glad to hear there's still more potential to be unlocked with Lin Not sure the movecount for Vandenburgh but Lin could potentially save 4-5 moves over it which would be pretty huge!!

 

[Thom S.]

Glad to hear there's still more potential to be unlocked with Lin

I recognise EO, CP and sometimes EP in one look but I always recognise EP wothout a look during Pre AUF so I solve with 2 looks. Pretty sure you can't do that with Lin

 

[Silky]

I recognise EO, CP and sometimes EP in one look but I always recognise EP wothout a look during Pre AUF so I solve with 2 looks. Pretty sure you can't do that with Lin

Not sure what that has to do with anything I said but cool.

 

[Thom S.]

Not sure what that has to do with anything I said but cool.

It was to show you the 4 Slices aren't counting fully when Vamdenbergh has other optimisations.

 

[Silky]

It was to show you the 4 Slices aren't counting fully when Vamdenbergh has other optimisations.

There's always tradeoffs between methods. Wasn't saying that efficiency was the end all be all of a good method or that it makes Lin better than Vandenbergh.

 

[ruffleduck]

3-look Vandenbergh is more efficient than Lin, which is basically the standard among top sq1ers nowadays

 

[Silky]

3-look Vandenbergh is more efficient than Lin, which is basically the standard among top sq1ers nowadays

Lin is also used at the top level. Has held WRs. But there's a definite answer here. Lets reopen the discussion here. For me personally I seem to run into more 25-29 move solves with Vandenbergh than with Lin. I use Sarah's Cubing Site so maybe it's just outdated?