Weekly competition 2008-51

[Mike Hughey]

3x3x3 Fewest Moves: 35 moves
R L' F B' U D' L' R2 F U' R' D' L2 B' D F' L F B2 L2 D B2 R2 U2 R2 D F2 D' U' B F' L R' D U'
Cheating technique that might still work in competitions with inexperienced judges.

Nice method. I guess the clue should be the state of the cube about 7 turns from solved, huh?

It's a pretty neat trick. (Yeah, I've never seen it before.)

 

[Dene]

I don't get it, what's the trick? (Apart from the cube being set up really weirdly)

 

[MistArts]

Comment: Not a bad solution. I had real trouble with PLL parity, but I played around with it for a while and got rid of it. I still don't understand exactly what I'm doing to get rid of it, though - I wish I really understood how to remove PLL parity usefully, but I totally don't. 3x3x3 solution was pretty bad (40 moves), but I wasn't willing to work harder to try to find something better.

Let say you did Uw' R B' R B R' U R' Uw to a solved cube.

To solve, you would use Uw' R U' R B' R' B R' Uw to finish the last two dedges.

But to fix parity (or cause a parity), you would you use Dw R U' R B' R' B R' Dw' to finish edge pairing.

 

[Mike Hughey]

I don't get it, what's the trick? (Apart from the cube being set up really weirdly)

Spoiler

He rearranges the centers so that he can reassign the faces to undo the scramble (so you can't easily see it's just the scramble in reverse).

Comment: Not a bad solution. I had real trouble with PLL parity, but I played around with it for a while and got rid of it. I still don't understand exactly what I'm doing to get rid of it, though - I wish I really understood how to remove PLL parity usefully, but I totally don't. 3x3x3 solution was pretty bad (40 moves), but I wasn't willing to work harder to try to find something better.

Let say you did Uw' R B' R B R' U R' Uw to a solved cube.

To solve, you would use Uw' R U' R B' R' B R' Uw to finish the last two dedges.

But to fix parity (or cause a parity), you would you use Dw R U' R B' R' B R' Dw' to finish edge pairing.

Very cool - thank you!!

 

[Dene]

Ah, so he did do what I kind of thought he might have done. I guess it would have been more obvious if I had done the scramble over and over >.<

 

[guusrs]

FMC: 23 moves : D2 F D' B' L' D' L2 R2 F' R2 D' F2 R B R' B' R B' D B D' R' F
premove F to understand:
2x2x2: D2 F D' B' L' D' L2
3xcross: R2 F' R2 D' F2
Finish: R B R' B' R B' D B D' R'
undo premove: F

That was an amazing 23-move solve David, congrats

My FMC solution: D2 F' R U F' B L2 B' L F L' B U B2 L U B2 U R B U2 L F' B D2 F B' L (28)

explanation:
turn pre-scramble move R U2 to understand:
2x2x2: D2 F' R (3)
F2L minus pair: U'. F' L F L' B U B2 L U2 (13)
FL + corners: U' B2 U R B R' (18)
pre-scramble move correction: R U2 (18)
leaving 2 edges flipped.

I solved this in two steps:
1. at dot insert U2 F' B L2 B' F, 3 moves cancel (21),
leaving an edge 3-cycle
2. at end add L F' B D2 F B' L (28)

Happy Xmas everybody

Gus

 

[AvGalen]

so...... Stefan cheats and even admits it (but still loses by 12 moves)
a) He is such a big loser AND already feels bad because of Christmas. I'll let him get away with it
b) I ban him for 3 years
c) I congratulate him for this fun trick
d) I make him find a way to continue this start: B' D L' B R' F' D F R2 B' R' D2 (leaves a 5-cycle and a 3-cycle)

 

[guusrs]

FMC: 23 moves : D2 F D' B' L' D' L2 R2 F' R2 D' F2 R B R' B' R B' D B D' R' F
premove F to understand:
2x2x2: D2 F D' B' L' D' L2
3xcross: R2 F' R2 D' F2
Finish: R B R' B' R B' D B D' R'
undo premove: F

David,

I checked your solution.
What if you finish the last step with:
R B R' U R' U' R B' F
that would have been 21 moves!
Guus

 

[AvGalen]

FMC: 23 moves : D2 F D' B' L' D' L2 R2 F' R2 D' F2 R B R' B' R B' D B D' R' F
premove F to understand:
2x2x2: D2 F D' B' L' D' L2
3xcross: R2 F' R2 D' F2
Finish: R B R' B' R B' D B D' R'
undo premove: F

David,

I checked your solution.
What if you finish the last step with:
R B R' U R' U' R B' F
that would have been 21 moves!
Guus

I have been wondering the same thing. That 2x2x2 looks weird, then the 3xCross almost solves the entire cube and finally the "insert last pair" is a straightforward "connect, then insert" and he messes it up by wasting 2 moves :confused:

 

[Dene]

Oh man I just realised I'm late with this one sorry. I can't finish it today. I lost track of the time and I worked on monday when I usually do it and suddenly it's wednesday.

2x2x2: 8.97 9.78 14.38 9.75 10.59 => 10.04
The last one was +2

3x3x3: 19.00 17.93 21.43 17.58 20.36 => 19.10

3x3x3_OH: 35.68 35.18 36.52 38.34 38.03 => 36.74

3x3x3_feet: 2:33.93 1:34.81 1:35.30 2:02.83 1:33.22 => 1:44.31

5x5x5: 2:05.75 2:16.46 1:56.40 1:59.47 2:04.61 => 2:03.28

7x7x7: 6:29.94 5:35.65 5:32.46 6:10.21 5:25.44 => 5:46.11

 

[Jude]

Jude Wright (Chukk)

2x2x2: 2.06, 7.58, 5.72, 7.95, 4.70 = 6.00 --> 2 Lucky solves turned a terrible average into an only slightly bad average

2x2x2 BLD: DNF (18.50), DNF (37.31), 48.55= 48.55 --> Meh. First was off by 3 pieces, 2nd had 2 pieces twisted, 3rd was slow but careful.

3x3x3: 21.92, 17.80, 18.91, 19.72, 25.42 = 20.18 --> Ugh, almost ok 1st and last were pops :S

3x3x3 BLD: DNF, 3:22.23, DNF = 3:22.23 --> Wow, you can really see how out of practice I am

3x3x3 Multi BLD: 1/2 (12:08 (7:46 Memo)) = 0 points --> Ughh. I'm so annoyed with this result. Was aiming for sub 10, but after it got to about 9 minutes I realised I wasn't gonna make it so I went really slowly so I at least got success. But I didn't, so I'm angry. I'm sure the scrambles were particularly difficult this week. Last week I was sub 10 absolutely no problem :s

3x3x3 OH: 24.11, 28.62, 27.50, 29.05, 24.66 = 26.93 --> Good, all were non lucky.

4x4x4:1:41.42 (P), 1:42.81 (P), 1:33.88 (OP), 1:53.38 (OP), 1:31.42 (O) = 1:39.37 --> Sub 1:40 at least. I think I'm fairly consistently there now. If only I was luckier with parities :\

2x2x2 - 4x4x4 Relay = 1:45.30 --> Wow!! PB by 25 seconds! Been aiming for sub 2 minutes for ages, so I'm really happy with this. Times were roughly 5, 17, 1:23

Pyraminx: 12.02, 9.44. 9.45, 11.44, 10.88 = 10.59 --> Good, I'm pleased with this, especially since it's been less than a week since I learned an actual method to solve a Pyraminx.

 

[DavidWoner]

FMC: 23 moves : D2 F D' B' L' D' L2 R2 F' R2 D' F2 R B R' B' R B' D B D' R' F
premove F to understand:
2x2x2: D2 F D' B' L' D' L2
3xcross: R2 F' R2 D' F2
Finish: R B R' B' R B' D B D' R'
undo premove: F

David,

I checked your solution.
What if you finish the last step with:
R B R' U R' U' R B' F
that would have been 21 moves!
Guus

I have been wondering the same thing. That 2x2x2 looks weird, then the 3xCross almost solves the entire cube and finally the "insert last pair" is a straightforward "connect, then insert" and he messes it up by wasting 2 moves :confused:

Oh no! I guess I got so excited that I didnt even consider looking for anything else. I most likely would not have found that though, it is not a form of pair insertion that I am very familiar with. You guys forget that I have only done a handful of FMC's, and I don't have your decades of cubing experience. However, I will definitely learn it and remember it for the future.

 

[AvGalen]

FMC: 23 moves : D2 F D' B' L' D' L2 R2 F' R2 D' F2 R B R' B' R B' D B D' R' F
premove F to understand:
2x2x2: D2 F D' B' L' D' L2
3xcross: R2 F' R2 D' F2
Finish: R B R' B' R B' D B D' R'
undo premove: F

David,

I checked your solution.
What if you finish the last step with:
R B R' U R' U' R B' F
that would have been 21 moves!
Guus

I have been wondering the same thing. That 2x2x2 looks weird, then the 3xCross almost solves the entire cube and finally the "insert last pair" is a straightforward "connect, then insert" and he messes it up by wasting 2 moves :confused:

Oh no! I guess I got so excited that I didnt even consider looking for anything else. I most likely would not have found that though, it is not a form of pair insertion that I am very familiar with. You guys forget that I have only done a handful of FMC's, and I don't have your decades of cubing experience. However, I will definitely learn it and remember it for the future.

So.... you are saying you know about premoves, can find almost unfindable 2x2x2 blocks that extend to an almost solved cube in 5 more turns, beat the world record by 4 moves, but don't know how to insert an already formed pair that is on top of its slot into that slot in 4 moves???????
It is not very Christmissy, but I call ********. This is one of 3 most basic cases and the most obvious example of edge-control that exists.

 

[vloc15]

3x3:

1: 00:22.43
2: 00:26.78
3: 00:21.49
4: 00:25.86
5: 00:25.57

ave: 00:24.43

 

[DavidWoner]

So.... you are saying you know about premoves, can find almost unfindable 2x2x2 blocks that extend to an almost solved cube in 5 more turns, beat the world record by 4 moves, but don't know how to insert an already formed pair that is on top of its slot into that slot in 4 moves???????
It is not very Christmissy, but I call ********. This is one of 3 most basic cases and the most obvious example of edge-control that exists.

Not only is it not very Christmassy, it is not a nice thing to say at any time of year. Normally I would ignore such deeply offensive and unfounded(in my eyes) accusations. However, I am willing to chalk this one up to the fact that you don't know me as a person. In your speedsolving interview you listed your pet peeves as "Complaining, rudeness and not celebrating life." I have always listed mine as "Lying, stealing, and cheating." I don't want you to walk away from this with a poor and incorrect opinion of who I am, so I will attempt to make a case to convince you.

First of all, you talk about premoves as though they are a difficult concept, even though that is the first "advanced" fmc techniques I learned. If I can easily build a 1x2x2 block on the F face, but it is attached to DLF, and I need it on URF, then it is a simple premove F2 to move it there. Not a very hard concept.

I almost gave up on this start entirely, because it left a lot of ugly things (4 corners, 2 flipped edges.) I openly admit that I am terrible at finishing, and so I adopted a strategy of doing as many starts as I can, as fast as I can. I even say so here. Tim Sun and I did this the same night in #Rubik, he started a little while before me. He finished quickly as usual, and I told him about this start. He laughed at what a difficult finish it was, so I moved on to other starts, and didnt come back to this one until about 45-50 minutes in.

Also, just because I didnt use the same, and apparently obvious 2x2x3 block as many other people (including Tim), doesn't mean anything. If it pleases you, here is a move-by-move breakdown of my thoughts while making that 2x2x2.(and the rest)

scramble: B2 R2 B' U2 F2 U2 L2 B' D2 L2 R' D' R B' L D2 B U F R' U'

do this without premove, as I originally did. I scramble with white on top and green on front, red on right, american color scheme. this will help you since I will be referring to blocks/pieces by color, not position.

Okay, the obvious thing with this scramble is the white/green/orange block in front (hereafter called block 1) and the white/blue/orange block (block 2). the edges that go with this block are the white/blue(edge 3, so it wont be confused with block 1), orange/blue (4), and orange/green (5). those are the pieces I considered.

2x2x2: D2 F D' B' L' D' L2

D2: moves block 2 out of the way in preparation for attaching edge 4 to the orange center.
F: brings edge 4 down, and moves block 1 out of the way.
D': attaches edge 4 to orange center.
B': moves edge 3 in to place and out of the way.
L': raises edge 4 in order to attach block 2
D': attaches block 2, forming a 1x2x2
L2: places 1x2x2, forming 2x2x2.

you know what, I'm gonna keep going.

original 3-xcross: R2 F' R2 D' F'

R2: attaches edge 5 to green center, in preparation for attaching block 1. At this point I of course noticed the block that formed.
F': moves edge 5 into appropriate location to attach block 1
R2: attach block 1
D': move the 4th cross edge into position
F': finish 3xcross

I tried to finish this F2L a few ways, I tried to keyhole an F2l on the green side, and then gave up on this start for a while. played with R' D B' U' F2 U R' F' as a start and thats where I started playing with premove F. Then I came back to this one with premove F and it worked. A friend showed me that insertion technique on jason baum's site a loooonnng time ago, and I never bothered to learn anything else.

I hope I have convinced you, or at least made you wonder. I had no reason to cheat, its not like I won a prize for this. And since Mike and I were the first two to turn in solutions, and we both did much better than average, I genuinely expected you, Guus, and Mirek to turn in amazing solutions as well.

Also I shouldn't have to remind you Arnaud, but getting lucky is not a crime.

 

[Mike Hughey]

For what it's worth, David, I never doubted you. I could easily have made the same oversight a month or two ago. (Although admittedly I doubt I'd ever get a solve as good as this.) And I certainly understand premoves, and might have found that 2x2x2 block (not because I'm good, but because I'm not good, and if you're not good, it's quite possible to luck into something like that), and I didn't know even the most basic edge control until a couple of months ago, so I could have missed this then. At this point, I probably wouldn't miss this because I at least look at the couple easiest edge control possibilities, but a couple of months ago I definitely could have. It seems quite reasonable to me that this could have happened to you.

 

[Mirek]

So.... you are saying you know about premoves, can find almost unfindable 2x2x2 blocks that extend to an almost solved cube in 5 more turns, beat the world record by 4 moves, but don't know how to insert an already formed pair that is on top of its slot into that slot in 4 moves???????
It is not very Christmissy, but I call ********. This is one of 3 most basic cases and the most obvious example of edge-control that exists.

Not only is it not very Christmassy, it is not a nice thing to say at any time of year. Normally I would ignore such deeply offensive and unfounded(in my eyes) accusations. However, I am willing to chalk this one up to the fact that you don't know me as a person. In your speedsolving interview you listed your pet peeves as "Complaining, rudeness and not celebrating life." I have always listed mine as "Lying, stealing, and cheating." I don't want you to walk away from this with a poor and incorrect opinion of who I am, so I will attempt to make a case to convince you.

First of all, you talk about premoves as though they are a difficult concept, even though that is the first "advanced" fmc techniques I learned. If I can easily build a 1x2x2 block on the F face, but it is attached to DLF, and I need it on URF, then it is a simple premove F2 to move it there. Not a very hard concept.
...
...
Also I shouldn't have to remind you Arnaud, but getting lucky is not a crime.

I don't think you had to write so much. I believe that not only me consider your solution straigtforward and quite obvious. It just happened that we missed it and you did not. Then, you didn't see the shorter obvious finish. I remember that such thing happened to maybe each of us in the past. It's normal.

 

[AvGalen]

So.... you are saying you know about premoves, can find almost unfindable 2x2x2 blocks that extend to an almost solved cube in 5 more turns, beat the world record by 4 moves, but don't know how to insert an already formed pair that is on top of its slot into that slot in 4 moves???????
It is not very Christmissy, but I call ********. This is one of 3 most basic cases and the most obvious example of edge-control that exists.

Not only is it not very Christmassy, it is not a nice thing to say at any time of year. Normally I would ignore such deeply offensive and unfounded(in my eyes) accusations. However, I am willing to chalk this one up to the fact that you don't know me as a person. In your speedsolving interview you listed your pet peeves as "Complaining, rudeness and not celebrating life." I have always listed mine as "Lying, stealing, and cheating." I don't want you to walk away from this with a poor and incorrect opinion of who I am, so I will attempt to make a case to convince you.

First of all, you talk about premoves as though they are a difficult concept, even though that is the first "advanced" fmc techniques I learned. If I can easily build a 1x2x2 block on the F face, but it is attached to DLF, and I need it on URF, then it is a simple premove F2 to move it there. Not a very hard concept.
...
...
Also I shouldn't have to remind you Arnaud, but getting lucky is not a crime.

I don't think you had to write so much. I believe that not only me consider your solution straigtforward and quite obvious. It just happened that we missed it and you did not. Then, you didn't see the shorter obvious finish. I remember that such thing happened to maybe each of us in the past. It's normal.

Let's be clear: I didn't accuse you of cheating. I recognise your skill in finding blocks, knowing premoves and other FMC-techniques (and getting lucky is indeed not a crime). The reason I called ******** is not because of the first part of your solve. It is was because someone with your skillset said this

I most likely would not have found that though, it is not a form of pair insertion that I am very familiar with

The case you ended up with was basically this (I adjusted the cube-angle by a x' so the pair insertion is more obvious):
scramble: R' F R F'
And there are 3 obvious ways of inserting that pair and you really know (and use all 3 of those ways, just check your OLL's or even probably your Y-Perm)
1) U' F' U F (OLL and part of the most common Y-Perm)
2) U2 F' U2 F (another OLL)
3) F R' F R (edge-control and solves your cube)
But you choose this solution:
4) U' R U' B U B' R' :confused:

Again, I am not saying you couldn't have missed this one. I am just saying that the pair-insertion Guus and I mentioned is in your skillset.

 

[Stefan]

Guys, try this :

1) Enter Vault's R B R' B' R B' D B D' R' into this with "reversed play".

2) Go to the start of the alg. Watch how it solves the F2L considering blue as the "first side". That looks perfectly reasonable.

3) Go to the start again and watch how it solves the F2L considering red as the "first side". Now it does look as surprisingly wasteful as Arnaud says.

4) Repeat with Arnaud's R B R' U R' U' R B' and see how for blue as first side it's a non-obvious but learnable algorithm. Perfectly matches Vault's reaction.

So I believe Vault simply considered the "wrong F2L" and therefore missed the shorter solution obvious when considering the "right F2L" like Arnaud. Vault, is that correct?

Now, what lessons can be learned from this?

 

[philkt731]

Arnaud, try this:

1) Enter his R B R' B' R B' D B D' R' into this with "reversed play".

2) Go to the start of the alg. Watch how he solves the F2L considering blue as his "first side". That looks perfectly reasonable.

3) Go to the start again and watch how he solves the F2L considering red as his "first side". Now it does look as surprisingly wasteful as you say.

4) Repeat 1-3 with your R B R' U R' U' R B' and see how for blue as first side it's a non-obvious but learnable algorithm. Perfectly matches Vault's reaction.

Now, what lessons can be learned from this? (This question is for both Arnaud and Vault)

Ahh yes, and if you plug in R B R' U R' U' R B', it looks perfectly reasonable if red were the "first side", but very strange if blue was the "first side." Since there were really two 3xcrosses, we were looking at two different F2Ls...