Neilggghhh123
Member
OK fine ill tryThat's literally less than 1 tps. Get faster at cubeshape.
OK fine ill tryThat's literally less than 1 tps. Get faster at cubeshape.
what algs do you use?Does anyone have any alternate algs for the 4 w + u perm ep cases? I can't execute 4's or -4's on the bottom fast. Or, if there aren't any other good algs, could someone make a video showing how to execute those algs fast? Thanks in advance.
Currently I'm not using the algs, I just do an M2 and then deal with the U-adj. I've tried the algs that I've found on Simon crawford's ep list and I can't get them fast at all.what algs do you use?
You can also do H/op + adj/adj for these.Does anyone have any alternate algs for the 4 w + u perm ep cases? I can't execute 4's or -4's on the bottom fast. Or, if there aren't any other good algs, could someone make a video showing how to execute those algs fast? Thanks in advance.
Ya i know I don't need to know full ep, but that case always was super annoying to me, so I kinda just wanted to learn algs for it. Either way, Opp-Opp then u-adj isn't too bad, so I think I'll stick to that for now.Here is a link to Sarah Strong's website for the EP cases.
http://sarah.cubing.net/square-1/ep
I don't feel like it's mandatory to know all the EP cases since you can turn all of the bad cases into reasonably nice ones. If these happen to be the same algorithms you saw on Simon's website, I apologize.
For EP, I would suggest learning how to do all the cases that don't involve parity first. This includes thing like aj-aj, op-op, aj-op, cw U, ccw U, H, Z, etc. Most of these ep cases should be intuitive, and you'll figure out what works best for you over time. They should not take too long to figure out. I would also suggest learning parity EP cases. The ones that I feel are the most beneficial are O, W, aj, op, and aj-U cases. Ive learned other ep parity cases along the way, but those will help give you a good foundation.In which order shall I learn EPs? Pls don't sort them to two groups.
Should I learn parity CP algs before?
Why no one uses Roux for squan? Is it significantly worse than Vandenberhg method?
How fast should be CS for 15/20/25 sec solver?
Thanks in advance!
Adj/adj, opp/opp, H, Z, Opp/O, opp/adj, U, U/U, W/adj... Then the rest in whatever order you feel like.In which order shall I learn EPs? Pls don't sort them to two groups.
Should I learn parity CP algs before?
Why no one uses Roux for squan? Is it significantly worse than Vandenberhg method?
How fast should be CS for 15/20/25 sec solver?
Thanks in advance!
Basicly I wanted to know should I do it like. non-parity U perms then non-parity zperms...Adj/adj, opp/opp, H, Z, Opp/O, opp/adj, U, U/U, W/adj... Then the rest in whatever order you feel like.
Well, I don't really know many parity EP cases. I simply don't do them because of parity CP. But after learning the ones I mentioned, I would just go set by set: you'll already know all the 1-1 swap and 0-2 swap cases, so learn the rest of the 2-2 swap cases (H/H, Z/Z, H/Z, U/Z, U/H). Then the rest of the 3-1 swap cases (O/adj, W/opp). Then the 3-3 swap cases (O/O, W/W, O/W). Then if you really want to learn parity cases, start on those. Learn all of the single swaps, then the 3/0 cases (O, W), 1/2 cases (adj/U, opp/H, etc), then the 3/2 (W/U, etc).Basicly I wanted to know should I do it like. non-parity U perms then non-parity zperms...
But thanks
Okey now it makes sens for me.Well, I don't really know many parity EP cases. I simply don't do them because of parity CP. But after learning the ones I mentioned, I would just go set by set: you'll already know all the 1-1 swap and 0-2 swap cases, so learn the rest of the 2-2 swap cases (H/H, Z/Z, H/Z, U/Z, U/H). Then the rest of the 3-1 swap cases (O/adj, W/opp). Then the 3-3 swap cases (O/O, W/W, O/W). Then if you really want to learn parity cases, start on those. Learn all of the single swaps, then the 3/0 cases (O, W), 1/2 cases (adj/U, opp/H, etc), then the 3/2 (W/U, etc).
This order is pretty easy to remember and takes you roughly from easiest to hardest. The ones I listed in the previous post are mostly to allow you to use 2-look efficiently for the ones you haven't learned yet.
Weighted for case probability:
For cases without parity:
CP = 4.722 twists
EP = 7.507 twists
Total: 12.229
For cases with parity:
Parity CP = 9.333 twists
Nonparity EP = 7.507 twists
Total: 16.840
Nonparity CP = 4.722 twists
Parity EP = 11.028 twists
Total: 15.750
So full EP saves on average 1.09 twists over parity CP (for parity cases alone - it's only about half a twist savings on average across all solves - 14.535 vs 13.990)
That said, for nonparity cases, I average 10.181 twists rather than 12.229 because of various tricks, bringing my real average down to 13.511 twists even with parity CP. And that actually doesn't count a few forces that I do through parity CP, I just used straight probabilities there.
Once I finish running the numbers for the parity CP cases I'll post my whole spreadsheet but for now I'm going to sleep.
TL;DR: Parity CP costs only 0.5 twists on average, not accounting for special tricks.