Weekly competition 2007-42 (2,3,3OH,4,5,BF,SQ1,MG,MMG,FMC,MM,PM,Relay)

3x3x3: (21.53) (18.22) 19.22 19.17 18.75 ==> 19.05

Fewest moves: 30 moves
scramble: B F U' B L D' F R2 U2 L F L U2 L2 B' F U (17)
My solve: R' F. L2 D R D' L2 D R' D'. D L2 F2 B L U' L' B D2 B' U F' U' F R' F' R F R' F R F (30)
explanation:
F2L minus pair: R' F .D L2 F2 B L U' L' B D2 B' (12)
Last pair and edges: U F' U' F R' F' R F R' F R F (24)
insertion at dot: L2 D R D' L2 D R' D', 2 moves cancel

I'm curious about your 27-move solve Arnaud!

Greetz;)

Guus
 
I have 1 question: I used U2 B as pre-moves, shouldn't the undo premoves be B' U2?
I was wondering that same thing

Actually, it worked out right. Your pre-moves should be the moves at the end of your solve. The idea is this - because you applied the pre-moves, it means your "solved state" after the scramble is whatever the cube looked like when you first applied the scramble. But you figure out how to solve it to a normal solved state first. Now, to get back to the original state of the cube before applying the scramble, you need to apply the exact same moves you applied as pre-moves, which means you apply U2 B, just as you did before the scramble. That gives you a cube that looks just like it did before you applied the scramble.

What I don't understand is how you saw that you could do those pre-moves and get such a nice easy solution. What was your logical progression to think of it?
 
I'm curious about your 27-move solve Arnaud!
It is posted already! Maybe you can explain the premove/undo premove question?

Nice solution Guus, very original F2L minus pair! And your solution is correct :)

For everyone that is interested in the scramble from Dutch National 2007, this was it:
D' U' F R D2 B' D2 U' F2 L F' L' R2 D2 B D2 L2 B' L2 R B2 F' D U' B'.
It has a lot of pieces already at the correct spot, but I liked the inverse scramble even better
B U D' F B2 R' L2 B L2 D2 B' D2 R2 L F L' F2 U D2 B D2 R' F' U D

My partial solution:
2x2x2 (4): L F' D' F
Cross + 2nd pair (7): R' B2 R
3rd pair + setup 4th pair (13): U' B2 U2 R' U' R
4th pair + last layer manipulation (22): L B' L' B2 L' D L D' B

Guus had a better ending. He recognised the Last Layer case and told me how it should/could have been:
2x2x2 (4): L F' D' F
Cross + 2nd pair (7): R' B2 R
3rd pair + setup 4th pair (13): U' B2 U2 R' U' R
4th pair (16): L B L'
Last Layer (27): D' R' D L' D' R2 D' R' D2 L B
 
I have 1 question: I used U2 B as pre-moves, shouldn't the undo premoves be B' U2?
I was wondering that same thing

Actually, it worked out right. Your pre-moves should be the moves at the end of your solve. The idea is this - because you applied the pre-moves, it means your "solved state" after the scramble is whatever the cube looked like when you first applied the scramble. But you figure out how to solve it to a normal solved state first. Now, to get back to the original state of the cube before applying the scramble, you need to apply the exact same moves you applied as pre-moves, which means you apply U2 B, just as you did before the scramble. That gives you a cube that looks just like it did before you applied the scramble.

What I don't understand is how you saw that you could do those pre-moves and get such a nice easy solution. What was your logical progression to think of it?

It is pretty hard to explain this, but I will try:
1. Perform the scramble with white on top and green on front.
2. D' makes a perfect column of orange-blue on the left. It also makes a line of green with red-orange on both sides. Red and orange are opposite colors, so this green line is also correct. Together this makes a pseudo 1x2x3 block.
3. Realize that to turn this pseuse 1x2x3 block into a pseudo 2x2x3 block all that is necessary are two more edges in the S-slice.
4. Realize that the best two positions for those two edges are UL and UR because the pseudo 1x2x3 block can be positioned at Up-Front with the green line correctly placed.
5. R2 puts an edge into the UR position with the correct orientation.
6. F2 moves the pseudo-1x2x3 block out of the way for the next edge.
7. B' L puts an edge into the UL position with the correct orientation and relative position compared to the UR edge.
8. F' finishes the pseudo-2x2x3 block.
9. Now to find out how to do the premoves you need to see that the green line is alread positioned correctly. So all you need to do is find the shortest move sequence that positions the white line and the blue-orange column
10. U2 positions the white line.
11. B positions the blue-orange column
12. Now that we know the premoves, undo all the moves (B' U2 F L' B F2 R2 D and undo the scramble.
13. Perform the premoves U2 B and do step 2 to 8 again. You can see that all pseudo-blocks are now real blocks.

After writing/reading step 9 to 13 it is also clear to me why I should finish wit U2 B and not B' U2

Chris: Before I tried to find a solution to your "big premove sequence + short triple extended cross F2L" I ran it through cube explorer. That found 15 moves optimal, so I decided not to try and find it. You already used 6 premoves and 5 regular moves, so the chances of me finding anything better than my own 27 move solution means I had to find a perfect solution and/or some cancellations. You just had bad luck with your last pair and no oriented edges on the last layer. All I could see was the obvious D R D' to form 3 last layer pairs and orient 2 last layer edges, but that only reduced the optimal solution to 14 moves.
 
Last edited:
You just had bad luck with your last pair and no oriented edges on the last layer.

Hey Arnaud,

I was hoping that it was just bad luck, I was so excited by that short pseudo F2L minus 1 pair. In general I want to explore this idea more of big premove sequence + super short F2L. I got the inspiration for it by watching how an optimal alg for a scramble seems to do seemingly random turns for a bit, then you see blocks, then boom it all comes together perfectly. Those last turns to me seem like they could be undoing a long premove sequence.

My idea is to pair up any blocks I see whatsoever into a pseudo F2L, then finish the LL using premoves to easier see what I am doing. As long as I always pair the shortest pseudo blocks I will end up with a lot of premoves, but also a very short start to F2L, which taken together could be hopefully a sub-20 move F2L.

I know this won't always be the best strategy, but it is always the first one I try on a scramble, at least to find any sort of pseudo block solve. Again I am a beginner at this, but this is my best thought so far as to what to attempt when seeing a scramble.

Man you guys inspire me to get better, nice solutions especially for only 1 hour. It took me about 8 hours to find my 31 move solution :-S

I'm at work right now, but when I get home I'll go through my FMC notes and edit my past 2 FMC entries (I've only done 3 counting this competition) to my 1 hour solutions.

Chris
 
It seems like a good and original approach, but you don't really need that to find short F2L solutions. I have found a couple of 13 move F2L solutions and those solutions don't have any premoves in them.

The biggest problem I see is that you are getting pretty tied up to your moves and premoves. There will not be a lot of room for "experimental" moves in there. If you do a more linear solve there are often ways to create a 2x2x3 block in 7 or 8 moves. That might be short, but leave you with a very bad continuation. Very often there is a moment in those 7 or 8 moves where you can just turn a side without affecting the 2x2x3 block building. This will often give you an entirely new perspective on the continuation after the 2x2x3 block. It is really difficult to explain this concept of a "random" move.

And finally I would like to say that having a lot of pairs/blocks build doesn't always mean there is a good/short/easy solution. Just look at your "big premove sequence + short triple extended cross F2L" with the D R D' continuation. A triple extended cross is already there so all that is left would be 5 corner-edge pairs. 3 of them are already made, but there is no way I would have found a short solution for that.

Once again, your idea sounds interesting, but there are some draw backs and it seems pretty time consuming.
 
Victor Larsen

I just got new cubes, and wanted to try them out. Here are my first 2x2x2, 4x4x4, and 5x5x5 attempts ever.

2x2x2:
Average: 17.19
Times: 16.59, 15.62, (33.31), (12.65), 19.87

2x2x2 BLD
Best: 2:36.14
Times: DNF, 2:36.14

4x4x4
Average: 3:20.17
Times: (4:12.32), (3:04.87), 3:17.37, 3:28.59, 3:14.56

5x5x5
Average: 6:14.52
Times: 6:04.89, (7:28.32), 6:08.54, 6:30.14, (5:28.39)
 
The rest of my results:

Megaminx: 2:33.50
2:42.21, (2:12.06), 2:35.53, 2:22.75, (2:48.18)

The new scramble notation is much faster.

Square-1: 1:04.87
56.92, (1:26.16), 1:07.97, (53.61), 1:09.71

Slow. Parity on 2nd and 4th solves.

Relay: 4:25.46

FMC
34 moves
R' D B D L2 B2 D' F D' B2 L' U L2 F L' U2 F' U' F L' D2 L U' L' D2 L F' U' F' U F' U' F U

Explanation:
2x2x3: R' D B D L2 B2 D' F D' B2
Orient edges: L' U L2 F L'
F2L: x y R2 U' R' U.R' U' R' U' R U' R' U R

This leaves a 3 corner cycle. Insert B' L2 B R' B' L2 B R at the dot, cancelling out 2 moves.

BLD

2x2x2: 59.44
2x2x2: 1:00.02

3x3x3: DNF
3x3x3: 3:11.25

The second 3x3 solve was great!
 
Hi :-)

Good to see so much fmc activity here. Dan's site is so inactive lately, and Ryan's linear challenge is having a break for now. There were only 3 active contestants for the last round: me, Ryan and Guus.

Arnaud, can you please post your 15 moves (when you find them). This gives at WORST 27 moves if no cancellations. Surely there is SOME cancellation ;-)

I should have inserted my last 3 corner cycles, but i had little time last week.
Probably not sub 30 anyway ... Oh well :D

-Per
 
I was very surprised that this forum/competition would become such a popular place for fewest moves. In the beginning it was basically Jack, Johannes and me that posted "real" fewest moves solutions. Most other solutions were short Fridrich solves. Then some other people started to get better, I posted a tutorial, Guus, you and lately Chris have come along and many others are starting to improve. 35 moves was good enough to win in the beginning, now you need to be sub-30.

I am not going to try and find my "15 moves, 2 misoriented corners" anymore. I tried to do it at the Dutch Nationals for too long. I am also very frustrated about it. And finally, this is the second time that I got a really short solution that leaves 2 misoriented corners (18 moves at Polish Open, 15 at Dutch Nationals). I am counting on the odds that they will be correctly oriented next time and that I will get a sub-20 solve :)

As you can tell, I am really into fewest moves. Somehow I can "just see" very nice combinations of moves to form good beginnings. Now all I need to learn to become really world class (like you, Guus and ZZ) are more algs, skeletons and become good at corner insertions. Edges-insertions, premoves, pseudo-blocks, block-building, edge-control, last layer manipulation, cancellations and intuition seem to be ok for me.

I am wondering if all of this has anything to do with my age. Guus, you, me and many other good fewest movers are from a generation were computer-found-algs and internet-shared-ideas just didn't exist when we started cubing. This means we have spent a lot of time figuring out things ourselves.
 
Hi :-)

I think the reason for rather moderate interest in fewest moves is the very low WOW!! factor involved. It simply is not all that spectator friendly. A fast solve would get the attention always ;-) For insiders fewest moves solving will hopefully have a stronger appeal in the future :D

-Per
 
Last edited:
I think the WOW factor is small when seen "live", but it is really big when you post a sub-30 solve.

I have taught some people around me and they are only slightly impressed by my speed. When I perform a fewest moves solution and everything falls together in the end they are extremely impressed because they know that a regular solve takes about 60 moves (and often about 100 for their beginner methods).

The same is also valid for blindsolving. If I solve a 2x2x2 people just think "it is smaller, so it is easy". If I solve it blindfolded people are really impressed because they see me perform 50/75 moves without looking. (I don't perform 3x3x3_bf in public because I am too slow)
 
I personally have gotten into fewest moves recently because I'm getting my butt kicked in all my other main focus categories ;-)

I've always been interested in fewest moves, and although I've never really practiced it I have studied the theory behind some of the different fewest moves techniques from talking with Per and Richard Patterson and reading the fewest moves group. For a while now I've tried to take a look at the really short fewest moves solutions on Dan's page sometimes to get an idea of how you guys do it.

Well now I want to get started trying it myself, and I want to start solving in competition too.

Chris
 
Back
Top