PugCuber
Member
Yeah. I agree. Learn all of EO, and learn some more EP.
Should I learn CSP first or full EPLL?
And with csp, you learn full cs and then csp Right?CSP first; learn a few EP's that will help you do most cases but CSP eliminates all the parity cases, so it's definitely more useful to learn first.
You can honestly learn full CS while you learn CSP, but yeah just learning how to do each case (regardless of parity) helps tremendously in learning CSP later down the road.And with csp, you learn full cs and then csp Right?
Also, for full CS, how should I learn it? Like should I learn from a video or from a piece of paper with all the cases? Sorry if I’m overloading you with questions lol.You can honestly learn full CS while you learn CSP, but yeah just learning how to do each case (regardless of parity) helps tremendously in learning CSP later down the road.
Squan notation is weird, so Here’s an example. (1, 0) / (3, 0) / (3, 0) / (-1, -1) / (-2, 1) / (-3, 0) /I'm trying to learn sq-1, but it takes forever to get to cube shape; sometimes I'll have to just wait an hour then try again. Any tips on getting that down? Also, how to learn the algs? They seem like just random numbers, which are harder to learn than regular NxN algs
Squan notation is weird, so Here’s an example. (1, 0) / (3, 0) / (3, 0) / (-1, -1) / (-2, 1) / (-3, 0) /
this just means turn the top layer clockwise 1 line/piece. Then slice, then turn the top 3 lines/pieces, slice, turn the top 3 lines/pieces, slice, then turn the top anti clockwise 1 piece/line and the bottom side anti clockwise 1 piece/line then so on. It’s kinda weird but it makes sense once you’ve done it.
I kinda reccomend just learning scallop kite cs first cuz it’s a lot faster but still fairly simple.Yeah, I ended up getting that far in the tutorial lol. I have solved it(with the algs in front of me), but it usually takes forever to get past cube shape. I keep getting stuck with all the edges connected except one, which is in the top layer but disconnected from the rest
That's correct - it's the really old parity algorithm most of us from long ago used; I've never progressed past it and it is still the only parity algorithm I know.Ok, learning square-1. I've managed to get down to nothing left but adjacent parity multiple times. But every single time, I mess up the algorithm even though I'm looking right at it and making sure I don't mess it up. The alg I have written down is:
/ (-3, 0) / (0, 3) / (0, -3) / (0, 3) / (2, 0) / (0, 2) / (-2, 0) / (4, 0) / (0, -2) / (0, 2) / (-1, 4) / (0, -3) / (0, 3)
parity is when two edges are swapped (adjacent or opposite)So, I got double adjacent parity, I think I saw somewhere that double parity = no parity, but I'm not sure. So what's up with double parity?
parity is when two edges are swapped (adjacent or opposite)
If you have a z perm (two adj swaps on one layer) or adj/adj (two edges swapped on top layer and two edges swapped on bottom layer), you do not have parity.
There is no double parity on sq1 like there can be on 4x4
So how do I solve it? Currently I use
(/ 0,-3 / 0,3 / 0,-3 / 0,3) *2
for EP, I can solve the edges with one solved side and if none are solved then I have to do it twice
(1,0) / (3,0) / (-1,-1) / (-2,1) / (-1,0)
or
-2,0/3,0/-1,-1/-2,1/
or
1,0/0,3/-1,-1/1,-2/
or
0,-1/-3,0/1,1/2,-1/
work best for adj/adj swap.
Depending on the EP case you can use these to swap adjacent edges on the top and bottom layer.
It should be a cube when you execute these. Usually this is last step and all of these are the same algorithm just translated for easy use.What's the AUF/ADF on those?