• 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 35,000+ people from around the world today!

    If you are already a member, simply login to hide this message and begin participating in the community!

WANTED: New Dedge Flip Algorithm!

fanwuq

Member
Joined
Dec 5, 2007
Messages
2,833
WCA
2008FANW01
YouTube
fanwuq
Nothing in this entire thread has been useful for speedsolving and really only useful for some fewest moves stuff, which for 4x4 is pretty dumb to do anyway since you wouldn't do a solve with OLL parity anyway.
It's not useful for FMC either. It's an interesting idea to think about, but nothing practical came out of it.

That said, a few of the algs from this thread seem to be decent enough to be usable for speedsolves, or at least interesting for fewest moves purposes.
Really? New algs or algs that people have been using for years? I don't see any new algs that are better than existing algs for speed.
The idea of having an OLL parity alg for fewest moves is ridiculous.
1. Almost nobody does 4x4x4 FMC
2. Even fewer do it linearly and count in QTM. (When you don't do it linearly, you can fix parity much earlier.)

reParity™ - r U2 l' U2 x' r' U2 l U2 r' U2 l U2 l' U2 y' 2m2 y'

I don't care about fewest moves. I think you have been getting me confused with someone else. Actually do this alg, (SiGN) and then tell me your opinion.
I want to give you a chance to redeem yourself.
reParity™ is not that good; the y' 2m2 y' really messes up the flow of the alg. I don't see you finding any algs, you simply converted the notation of cmowla's algs to make the algs appear more fingertrick friendly. I don't see why you brand algs that you did not find, but that's another issue.

Your alg is much slower than algs that have existed for years. Nobody's going to stop you from using your algs, but you won't be able to persuade anyone to like your algs.
 

masterofthebass

Premium Member
Joined
May 13, 2007
Messages
3,923
Location
Denver, CO
WCA
2007COHE01
YouTube
masterofthebass
reParity™ - r U2 l' U2 x' r' U2 l U2 r' U2 l U2 l' U2 y' 2m2 y'

I don't care about fewest moves. I think you have been getting me confused with someone else. Actually do this alg, (SiGN) and then tell me your opinion.
I want to give you a chance to redeem yourself.
that alg is the only half decent thing to come out of this thread, and yet it still isn't good. The 2m2 really kills it, or otherwise it would be a somewhat decent alg.
 
Joined
Dec 11, 2009
Messages
294
I think it is quite amusing, that the so-called experts, have not picked up on this yet. FYI - I am not cmowla, and neither are you.
I think it is quite amusing that you feel you are an expert when people who are far faster/smarter than you are not :)

That said, a few of the algs from this thread seem to be decent enough to be usable for speedsolves, or at least interesting for fewest moves purposes. So, reThinking and cmowla, don't think you are suddenly gods of the cubing world, but I would like to thank you guys for the new algs.
Tag "so-called" was earned by all those that were passing judgement on algorithms that they hadn't really taken the time to look at. A little tongue in cheek, but Michael - "FAR faster/smarter" is a decent enough to be usable smug assumption, and rather condescending too! :)

Thanks appreciated.
 
Joined
Dec 11, 2009
Messages
294
reParity™ - r U2 l' U2 x' r' U2 l U2 r' U2 l U2 l' U2 y' 2m2 y'

I don't care about fewest moves. I think you have been getting me confused with someone else. Actually do this alg, (SiGN) and then tell me your opinion.
I want to give you a chance to redeem yourself.
that alg is the only half decent thing to come out of this thread, and yet it still isn't good. The 2m2 really kills it, or otherwise it would be a somewhat decent alg.
Maybe you need to work on your technique then:D

y' is just incorporated in the U2 move as combo (U and (u'd'D')), then the M2 is right there. Fast&Easy.

lucasparity™ is sweet, but reParity™ is even faster, and it's more symmetrical, easier to learn, and cleaner on LL change - useful for LL setups.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Dec 11, 2009
Messages
294
Nothing in this entire thread has been useful for speedsolving and really only useful for some fewest moves stuff, which for 4x4 is pretty dumb to do anyway since you wouldn't do a solve with OLL parity anyway.
It's not useful for FMC either. It's an interesting idea to think about, but nothing practical came out of it.
Not what I was interested in either.

That said, a few of the algs from this thread seem to be decent enough to be usable for speedsolves, or at least interesting for fewest moves purposes.

Really? New algs or algs that people have been using for years? I don't see any new algs that are better than existing algs for speed.
The idea of having an OLL parity alg for fewest moves is ridiculous.
1. Almost nobody does 4x4x4 FMC
2. Even fewer do it linearly and count in QTM. (When you don't do it linearly, you can fix parity much earlier.)
I don't care about fewest moves. That is cmowla's fetish. The main reasons I started this thread, was to get the emphasis AWAY from pure-parity fewest moves.

reParity™ - r U2 l' U2 x' r' U2 l U2 r' U2 l U2 l' U2 y' 2m2 y'

I don't care about fewest moves. I think you have been getting me confused with someone else. Actually do this alg, (SiGN) and then tell me your opinion.
I want to give you a chance to redeem yourself.
reParity™ is not that good; the y' 2m2 y' really messes up the flow of the alg. I don't see you finding any algs, you simply converted the notation of cmowla's algs to make the algs appear more fingertrick friendly. I don't see why you brand algs that you did not find, but that's another issue.
How is it that I converted cmowla alg? Total BS. You should PM him yourself, and when he tells you the truth - that he had nothing to do with any of my algs, then have the decency to edit that accusation out of your post. As far as branding lucasparity™ - I did that to give honor to Lucas. Doesn't he deserve that? Even the spelling with lowercase "l" is his way. Giving good names to algs is a good thing. Taking on the ™ just makes it official.

Your alg is much slower than algs that have existed for years. Nobody's going to stop you from using your algs, but you won't be able to persuade anyone to like your algs.
No its not. It is actually faster than all of them, but you have been practicing the others (for years), and so they only appear to be faster right now. This is getting funny, how hard you guys are trying to deny how nice reParity™ really is. Put aside your ego's and stop being retarded.
 
Last edited:

Escher

Babby
Joined
Jul 23, 2008
Messages
3,375
WCA
2008KINN01
YouTube
RowanKinneavy
Triple post alert...
Pointless post alert.
Triple posting isn't actually a 'shocking crime'.

No its not. It is actually faster than all of them, but you have been practicing the others (for years), and so they only appear to be faster right now. This is getting funny, how hard you guys are trying to deny how nice reParity™ really is. Put aside your ego's and stop being retarded.
No it isn't 'faster' than all of them. Your alg is nice, yes, but it isn't 'the fastest currently known to man' as you seem to be claiming.
While you have a good point about practice amounts; I don't use/know Lucas' parity despite knowing that it is faster than my current because I'm lazy, and I can still execute his algorithm faster than I can yours. Sorry.
 

miniGOINGS

Member
Joined
Feb 27, 2009
Messages
3,052
Haha, I don't have anything wrong with triple posts, just wanted to make sure that you know how to multipost so you don't get flamed in the future.
 

fanwuq

Member
Joined
Dec 5, 2007
Messages
2,833
WCA
2008FANW01
YouTube
fanwuq
reParity™ is not that good; the y' 2m2 y' really messes up the flow of the alg. I don't see you finding any algs, you simply converted the notation of cmowla's algs to make the algs appear more fingertrick friendly. I don't see why you brand algs that you did not find, but that's another issue.
How is it that I converted cmowla alg? Total BS. You should PM him yourself, and when he tells you the truth - that he had nothing to do with any of my algs, then have the decency to edit that accusation out of your post. As far as branding lucasparity™ - I did that to give honor to Lucas. Doesn't he deserve that? Even the spelling with lowercase "l" is his way. Giving good names to algs is a good thing. Taking on the ™ just makes it official.
Here's another weird pure double parity: (23q)
r U2 r' F2 l' B2 l B2 l' D2 l D2 l' F2 U2
I was playing around with the starting sequence (r U2 l' U2) which turns even faster for me than (r U2 r' U2). Also (r' B2 l B2) = x' (r' U2 l U2) another fast turner. After some thinkin' , and keeping with the 8-cycle of edges idea, I came up with this:

reParity™ - r U2 l' U2 x' r' U2 l U2 r' U2 l U2 l' U2 y' 2m2 y'

It's gonna be real hard to improve on this one.

EDIT: reParity™ - "(re)THINKER's (re)VENGE Parity Algorithm."
r U2 r' F2 l' B2 l B2 l' D2 l D2 l' F2 U2
r U2 l' U2 x' r' U2 l U2 r' U2 l U2 l' U2 y' 2m2 y'
They definitely aren't the same alg. :rolleyes:
If you argue otherwise, it's your fault not reading the thread and reinventing the wheel.

By the way, this thread is public, it's not just about what algs you like. We can discuss things about 4x4x4 FMC here if it relates to the topic, whether you like it or not.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Dec 11, 2009
Messages
294
No it isn't 'faster' than all of them. Your alg is nice, yes, but it isn't 'the fastest currently known to man' as you seem to be claiming.
While you have a good point about practice amounts; I don't use/know Lucas' parity despite knowing that it is faster than my current because I'm lazy, and I can still execute his algorithm faster than I can yours. Sorry.
I DO know lucasparity™. For me it WAS the fastest alg that I had to do dedge "flip" parity. Not anymore. I hope you are you using SiGN notation (r = (Rw), 2m2 = M2) to do the algs. It's not rocket science to be able to compare both algs, and see why reParity™ can be done somewhat faster. Maybe for some people, the turn sequences are not as familiar, but they can and will be done faster once you get used to it. For example (r U2 r' U2), or (r U2 r U2) are easy, but they are not quite as fast as (r U2 l' U2) due to subtle grip issues. The reParity™ alg is nothing but these fast (r' U2, l U2) type sequences "walking" back and forth the whole way. Its even shorter too. And the 2m2 argument can be wiped out by combining the last U2 with the y' to set up for the M2 like you didn't even have to do the cube rotation at all.
 
Joined
Dec 11, 2009
Messages
294
r U2 r' F2 l' B2 l B2 l' D2 l D2 l' F2 U2
r U2 l' U2 x' r' U2 l U2 r' U2 l U2 l' U2 y' 2m2 y'
They definitely aren't the same alg. :rolleyes:
If you argue otherwise, it's your fault not reading the thread and reinventing the wheel.
:) I haven't given up on the thread's idea just yet, and I am working on some other algs that get advantage by having more unsolved pieces. Applicability to FMC is also a possibility.



By the way, this thread is public, it's not just about what algs you like. We can discuss things about 4x4x4 FMC here if it relates to the topic, whether you like it or not.
I don't have anything at all against FMC. I just didn't think it was fair to set the value of this thread according to how many BQTM moves the algs had in them, or whether that was even a worthwhile pursuit. This over-emphasis (mostly by cmowla, and those that wanted to argue against him) on shortest BQTM alg kept setting up this thread (which is really about getting shorter algs by taking advantage of unsolved pieces) to be viewed in a harsh light. I really just don't have anything bad to say about FMC, whether you like it or not :D
 

joey

Member
Joined
Apr 8, 2007
Messages
4,410
WCA
2007GOUL01
YouTube
cardologist
I want to see how you do (r U2 l' U2), because it isn't faster than (r U2 r' U2) for me.

As far as branding lucasparity™ - I did that to give honor to Lucas. Doesn't he deserve that? Even the spelling with lowercase "l" is his way. Giving good names to algs is a good thing. Taking on the ™ just makes it official.
We have already honoured Lucas by calling it lucasparity, you just added the "tm". Which.. just makes it look weird.
 

Christopher Mowla

Premium Member
Joined
Sep 17, 2009
Messages
901
Location
New Orleans, LA
YouTube
4EverTrying
How is it that I converted cmowla alg? Total BS. You should PM him yourself, and when he tells you the truth - that he had nothing to do with any of my algs, then have the decency to edit that accusation out of your post.
Here's another weird pure double parity: (23q)
r U2 r' F2 l' B2 l B2 l' D2 l D2 l' F2 U2
I was playing around with the starting sequence (r U2 l' U2) which turns even faster for me than (r U2 r' U2). Also (r' B2 l B2) = x' (r' U2 l U2) another fast turner. After some thinkin' , and keeping with the 8-cycle of edges idea, I came up with this:

reParity™ - r U2 l' U2 x' r' U2 l U2 r' U2 l U2 l' U2 y' 2m2 y'

It's gonna be real hard to improve on this one.

EDIT: reParity™ - "(re)THINKER's (re)VENGE Parity Algorithm."
r U2 r' F2 l' B2 l B2 l' D2 l D2 l' F2 U2
r U2 l' U2 x' r' U2 l U2 r' U2 l U2 l' U2 y' 2m2 y'
They definitely aren't the same alg. :rolleyes:
If you argue otherwise, it's your fault not reading the thread and reinventing the wheel.
There are 2 possibilities:
1) Rethinker used my alg and modified it slightly to form his alg.
2) He came up with it himself and it happens to be very close to my "weird doubleparity alg".

I appreciate your backup, fanwuq, but he could have found his alg on his own. I can understand your reasoning of why you are convinced his alg is a clone of mine, due to the timing in which he found it (not long after I posted my alg which it resembles) and its appearance, but I personally choose to take his word for it. I wasn't comfortable with reThinker's tone towards me in his personal defense posts, but I will not let that change my decision of believing him.

fanwuq, feel free to believe the way you wish (I appreciate your support very much). All I thought was to post my opinion on it, since he was accused of copying my alg. That's all. Peace.
 
Joined
Dec 11, 2009
Messages
294
Here's another weird pure double parity: (23q)
r U2 r' F2 l' B2 l B2 l' D2 l D2 l' F2 U2
I was playing around with the starting sequence (r U2 l' U2) which turns even faster for me than (r U2 r' U2). Also (r' B2 l B2) = x' (r' U2 l U2) another fast turner. After some thinkin' , and keeping with the 8-cycle of edges idea, I came up with this:

reParity™ - r U2 l' U2 x' r' U2 l U2 r' U2 l U2 l' U2 y' 2m2 y'

It's gonna be real hard to improve on this one.

EDIT: reParity™ - "(re)THINKER's (re)VENGE Parity Algorithm."
r U2 r' F2 l' B2 l B2 l' D2 l D2 l' F2 U2
r U2 l' U2 x' r' U2 l U2 r' U2 l U2 l' U2 y' 2m2 y'
They definitely aren't the same alg. :rolleyes:
If you argue otherwise, it's your fault not reading the thread and reinventing the wheel.
There are 2 possibilities:
1) Rethinker used my alg and modified it slightly to form his alg.
2) He came up with it himself and it happens to be very close to my "weird doubleparity alg".

I appreciate your backup, fanwuq, but he could have found his alg on his own. I can understand your reasoning of why you are convinced his alg is a clone of mine, due to the timing in which he found it (not long after I posted my alg which it resembles) and its appearance, but I personally choose to take his word for it. I wasn't comfortable with reThinker's tone towards me in his personal defense posts, but I will not let that change my decision of believing him.

fanwuq, feel free to believe the way you wish (I appreciate your support very much). All I thought was to post my opinion on it, since he was accused of copying my alg. That's all. Peace.
OMG - I want someone to explain to me how I could have gotten to reParity™ from your "weird doubleparity alg". I will eat my cube raw, and the arm that it is attached to, if it can be shown how those two algorithms are somehow clones of each other. Just doing the alg using inner slices only, should tell you all you need to know. I can't believe fanwuq actually believes this cmowla. I interpreted his post totally different than you did.
 
Last edited:

Christopher Mowla

Premium Member
Joined
Sep 17, 2009
Messages
901
Location
New Orleans, LA
YouTube
4EverTrying
I can't believe fanwuq actually believes this cmowla. I interpreted his post totally different than you did.
Well, if he didn't mean what I thought he meant, then, please pardon my misunderstanding. (Even though I thought he said that, I still believed you nonetheless).

Since you asked someone to compare the two algs, here it is:
r U2 r' F2 l' B2 l B2 l' D2 l D2 l' F2 U2 (my alg)
r U2 l' U2 x' r' U2 l U2 r' U2 l U2 l' U2 y' 2m2 y' (your alg)

[Step 1] Taking the first 19q moves of each (the last moves are finishing moves and don't really count because they can easily be done to finish the task).
r U2 r' F2 l' B2 l B2 l' D2 l D2 l' (my alg)
r U2 l' U2 x' r' U2 l U2 r' U2 l U2 l' (your alg)

[Step 2] Getting rid of the cube rotation in your alg:
r U2 r' F2 l' B2 l B2 l' D2 l D2 l' (my alg)
r U2 l' U2 r' B2 l B2 r' B2 l B2 l' (your alg)

[Step 3] It is easy to see that the following bolded moves are identical:
r U2 r' F2 l' B2 l B2 l' D2 l D2 l' (my alg)
r U2 l' U2 r' B2 l B2 r' B2 l B2 l' (your alg)

[Step 4]
If I substitute r' for l' into your alg (and vice versa), all of the remaining inner-layer slices correspond exactly.

[Step 5] The following moves, although not the same, are repeated in the same location (and are outer-layer turns 180 degrees)
r U2 r' F2 l' B2 l B2 l' D2 l D2 l' (my alg)
r U2 l' U2 r' B2 l B2 r' B2 l B2 l' (your alg)

[Step 6] I can't really give a plausible explanation for the remaining moves (bolded), but...
r U2 r' F2 l' B2 l B2 l' D2 l D2 l' (my alg)
r U2 l' U2 r' B2 l B2 r' B2 l B2 l' (your alg)

That's about it. They almost have the same form and several of their moves are identical without making any substitutions. And note that I am not looking at what the algs do to the cube, but the algorithms on paper themselves. I know it wouldn't be obvious to do this, but that is the best explanation I can come up with (if he did mean what I thought he did).

Again, I believe you. Don't let this "explanation" make you think I don't. If fanwuq did mean what I thought he meant, he probably viewed the algorithms themselves and briefly did the majority of these steps in his head to see a similarity.

Edit:
The algs are being compared as being WCA notation (sorry I didn't mention it before...I will try not to forget than in the future).
 
Last edited:

Lucas Garron

Member
Joined
Jul 6, 2007
Messages
3,557
Location
California
WCA
2006GARR01
YouTube
LucasGarron
OMG - I want someone to explain to me how I could have gotten to reParity™ from your "weird doubleparity alg". I will eat my cube raw, and the arm that it is attached to, if it can be shown how those two algorithms are somehow clones of each other.
Convert your alg to a version without cube rotations or l-turns and ignore the leftover 3x3x3 moves.

Sorry about your arm.

Anyhow, it's just rather presumptuous to come with a new, trademarked alg if it's not even really new. Branding can be okay in certain aspects of cubing, but for your algs it's really not worthwhile.

By the way, I don't want the courtesy of a ™ after "lucasparity". That's what others called it, and that's all I ever want it to be called. And I don't really plan to go around naming my other algs stuff like ®2parity™ or XDiagonalizer or TwinParityAlgs. If an alg is worth talking about enough by name, it will get one (like the Sun, which actually doesn't really get talked about).

Compare it to math. It's not like we have the EuclideanAlgorithm™ or GaussLinearEliminatifier™. If you ever do something cool enough, it gets named after you, like "Green-Tao." Or be cool like Peter Shor. Individual cube algs are not really that important, man. ;)
 

Christopher Mowla

Premium Member
Joined
Sep 17, 2009
Messages
901
Location
New Orleans, LA
YouTube
4EverTrying
r U2 r' F2 l' B2 l B2 l' D2 l D2 l' (my alg)
r U2 l' U2 r' B2 l B2 r' B2 l B2 l' (your alg)
Seriously?
Do these algs on two different cubes (or replay them) side-by-side and see what happens to the pieces.

If that doesn't work, try r U2 r' l F2 l'
An amazing 6-move identity!
Oh, doing double-layer turns. Wow. The bolded moves in parenthesis are exactly the same apart from a cube rotation about x. The other bolded moves are obviously the same.

r U2 (r' F2) l' B2 l B2 (l' D2) l D2 l' (my alg)
r U2 (l' U2) r' B2 l B2 (r' B2) l B2 l' (reThinker's alg)

They are more related than I thought (as far as doing double-layer turns is concerned--but that is what reThinker uses to do his fix anyway). But still, I believe that reThinker did infact find his alg...I don't know how they came so closely related. Maybe this is good practice for me to take a not-so user-friendly alg (mine) and translate it to a better one (reThinker's), though my alg done with single layer turns is indeed a pure double parity with the UF and DB. Interesting.

Edit:
I didn't try to make my alg accomplish the same thing as reThinkers before, but this is the form (very ugly indeed):
r U2 r' F2 l' B2 l B2 l' D2 l D2 l' D2 2s2 z2
Edit:
Still, I am leaning on my first comparison of single slice turns (in WCA notation). By looking at it that way, the algs are less related (and reThinker has more of a point because he mentioned single slice turn differences to start with). It is amazing what double-layer turns can do, though.
 
Last edited:
Top