Help me with this CHALLENGE!

Speed-Cubing
1

Hey Guys!

I was trying to, well speed cube…and it was all well before I saw that there are couple hundred algorithms that needed to be “mastered”. And I forgot that my goal deadline is coming up pretty soon.

I thought of associating “image of alg case” with the triggers that alg is made of (see https://www.cuberoot.me/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/119-Triggers.pdf - they have funny names, like “Fat Sexy” for r U R’ U)

Well there is still the other half of doing this remaining - how do we ACTUALLY use it as in a proper system like there are systems for remembering names (with unique features on face etc)?

Thanks!!!

2 Likes
2

Here’s the algorithms sheet site I’m trying to “master” - Shawn Boucke's Bookmarks - Speed Cube Database and Roux EO + ULUR - Google Docs

1 Like
3

Any particular reason you’ve chosen Roux over standard CFOP?

2 Likes
4

@bjoern.gumboldt Yes indeed, and for 2 reasons - I like it’s simplicity and the way it would be benefit my intuition powers and I like to be the “odd one out”. It feels good to say, “oh well I’m one of the very few sub-10 roux users”. I could really had picked up CFOP (I’m am already familiar with full F2L!) but I want something creative!

5

Well, guys help me beat this project!

Thanks

1 Like
6

It would help to know where you stand at the moment… on the one hand you say…

…on the other hand you say…

…makes me think you need a cheat sheet to solve the cube, but then you say…

…and full F2L is probably the last thing after getting 2-look PLL and OLL to full PLL/OLL… but even with just fundamental knowledge of F2L, 2-look OLL, and full PLL you could be at around 30 seconds.

So… how fast is your average solve? I mean, do you need tips on how to get from 30 seconds to 10 seconds or from 1 or 2 minutes to 10 seconds?

1 Like
7

Here’s how I’d approach it, if I was you, considering that you probably don’t already have a peg set you could re-use for this task, and you probably don’t want to spend a lot of time on a system, as you don’t have that many algos to tackle.

First
I’d assign an object for each of the regular turns.
I’d use something associative:

capital letters (regular turns) are something big
small letters (double-sliced turns) are something small
’ are the next letter in the alphabet - since there are no collisions, it works.

I’d go with first letter based associations.

R → Radio tower
R’ (S) → Sailboat
r roach
r’ (s) → sandcastle
U → UFO
U’ (P) → Palace
u → ukulele
u’ (p) → packaging (I’d use a small box)
L → Lighthouse
L’ (M) → Mountain
l → lantern
l’ (m) → mouse
D → Dinosaur
D’ (E) → Elephant
d → doughnut
d’ (e) → eagle
B → Bus
B’ (C) → Caravan
b → balloon
b’ (c) → coin
F → Ferris wheel
F’ (G) → Giraffe
f → feather
f’ (g) → grape

Does it use mid turns? I’ll leave them out, you can do them yourself.

Second
Since large portions of algos consist of the triggers, I suggest you come up with associations for those as well.
RUR’U’ could be something indecent.
RUR’U could be a compass.
You come up with the rest yourself.

Third
You need to come up with an association for the algo itself. As an example, I notice the H Rows looks a bit like a car. This will take considerable creativity.

Fourth
I’d use the algo association as a zoomed in virtual palace, and place the objects in it sequentially. Note that using regular link chains will likely not work too well here because of the large amount of potential collisions.

So, for H Rows:

F (R U R’ U’) (R U R’ U’) (R U R’ U’) F’
compresses to
F (R U R’ U’)3 F’

I suggest you learn the 0-9 shaper associations on this forum, as they’ll come in handy for this, and can be memorized in a few minutes.

I’d travel through a car, front-first, because that’s how it seems you execute the algo.
On the hood, I’d place a (F) erris wheel, interacting with the hood.
On the inside at the driver’s seat, I’d place 3 (lips) and RUR’U’ (whatever you come up with it), signifying the repetition.
On the back of the car, I’d place a (F’ → G)iraffe stomping on the car, flattening the trunk.

1 Like
8

I learned intuitive F2L before 2-look PLL and OLL. Maybe you’re not aware of it, but many people do F2L with barely any algos.

9

@bjoern.gumboldt sorry for the confusion - I am currently sub-20 with the beginners method (just know full F2L, no OLL/PLL algs). And I actually meant

Thanks.

10

@ink Thanks a lot for your efforts in writing a solution! It’s probably the best I saw and I really appreciate it :slight_smile:

11

Exactly, like I said…

…if somebody tells me…

…I assume they mean the 41 algorithms for full F2L, not intuitive F2L… what I don’t understand…

I mean maybe you mean 2-look PLL and not beginners PLL… which would be repetitive corner cycles and repetitive edge cycles.

If you are sub-20 without OLL and PLL, you must have the entire cross pre-planned and have excellent lookahead in F2L. Can you break down you times please for…

  • Cross xx sec.
  • F2L xx sec.
  • OLL xx sec.
  • PLL xx sec.

Presumably, your OLL/PLL must be the weakest, so I don’t understand why instead of learning 21 PLL algorithms for full PLL, you all of a sudden want to change to Roux when you’re already sub-20. Because full PLL versus beginners PLL, we’re already talking SECONDS that’ll get you closer to 10.

1 Like
12

But if it’s just a matter of showing off, then why not learn a blind solving method (3-style maybe) and just use that for your sighted solves as well…

…keep in mind that for BLD the inspection time is counted as well, so you can subtract that from the 14.67 here and you’d still be sub-10 with this solve. This particular one would be roughly 8 seconds, I think.

2 Likes
13

Just out of curiosity, since you seem to be quite knowledgeable on this - are you implying that intuitive F2L is inferior to the algos, and one should still do the algos after everything?

1 Like
14

@bjoern.gumboldt Oh well, thanks for replying!

Cross - 3-4 seconds (2 best)
F2L - I would say -10 seconds
Last layer (really I dont know a single OLL/PLL so I use the beginners method) - 5-10 second

Thanks

15

Really maybe, if I’m sub-10 with both Roux and CFOP that would be cool as well.

16

Okay, fair question I suppose, even though you’re quoting me on PLL as far as what I said about algorithms. What I did say was that if somebody tells me that they know “full F2L,” I understand that as knowing all the F2L algorithms; otherwise, they should have said I know “intuitive F2L” not “full F2L.” What I said as far as that was, that it is the last thing I’d learn. I didn’t say that you have to learn it, but if you do, it should be the last thing. I also didn’t say that you’re done after that and automatically at sub 10 seconds.

Now, I don’t know if we have the same understanding as far as the terms “intuitive” and “algorithms” which is maybe where there might be a misunderstanding. An algorithm is simply a set of instructions or in cubing terms, “a sequence of moves.” Now, as far as I’m concerned, you perform an algorithm either way. I’d assume that your understanding of these two terms might be ever so slightly different.

As far as intuition being inferior or superior… well, I guess that depends on your intuition. If we’re talking about a beginner coming from a layer-by-layer solve, who figures out that RUR’ is a thing, then that’s no different from learning the algorithm. Maybe elsewhere their intuition makes them perform a setup move to use another “intuition” they’ve used before. Maybe there’s a better algorithm instead. Also, there are not 41 algorithms; there are 41 cases and one or more algorithms per case. Which one of those works best for you depends on your knowledge of finger tricks and if you are physically able to perform them.

If on the other hand we’re talking about advanced F2L intuition, that’s a different story… but there are no algorithms for that… and I’d call that “advanced F2L” and not “intuitive F2L.” First of all, you want to reduce cube rotations. So instead of just having RUR’ intuition, you should know how to insert the two pieces into the back left instead of the front right as well. Secondly, standard algorithms don’t mess up other columns, so whilst still solving your first pair, you have empty slots that you can use. With every pair solved, you lose more and more of that freedom, but standard algorithms are basically always your last slot technique.

After that, take multi-slotting for example, where you solve one pair and set up the next pair at the same time. Essentially solving two pairs at the same time… or at least setting up the second for a really easy solve. Don’t want to list every last detail but maybe as a last one, partial edge control. Not really F2L anymore, but with your last pair you can control which OLL case you’ll run into. In the end, just more lookahead… and that is ultimately what is superior, that you always know or at least can anticipate your next move.

1 Like
17

I’m gaining quite a lot from this discussion, seeing y’all talk about the world of cubing :slight_smile:

18

Right… so don’t take this the wrong way please, but that’s some major volatility for everything that is not F2L. Let’s put some ballpark figures with this. I’m gonna use your 10 sec F2L as an anchor. C+F should be a little less than 2/3 and both LLs a little more than 1/3. With C+F roughly 80/20 and OLL somewhat faster than PLL. So you get…

Cross: 2 sec
F2L: 10 sec
OLL: 3 sec
PLL: 4 sec

That’s a total of 19 seconds. I’m not sure what you mean by…

…but assuming you have at least two more weeks, you should probably do the following:

  • Learn 2-look OLL and 2-look PLL this weekend
  • Learn full PLL over the next week
  • Learn your Cross blind in the second week

I’ll give you the algorithms in a separate post, but it is far from…

…equally important, you need to learn how to measure your performance much more precisely. Easiest would be to record yourself with your phone or a webcam. If you got a bad angle, you can call out “split” as you move through CFOP, but you need to know your times in comparison to the above benchmark figures. For sub 10 just divide by two and that is where you want to get to…

Cross: 1 sec
F2L: 5 sec
OLL: 2 sec
PLL: 2 sec

…you’re not gonna do full OLL over the next couple of weeks, so it’s at 2 instead of 1.5 for now. Also, the more realistic goal would be a consistent sub 20 over an average of 5. At the moment it seems you got a PB that is sub 20 but your average of 5 is more of a sub 30 from the looks of it.

There’s a category Memory Training Journals on the forum if you want to do an average 5 each day and post the times here to keep track of. There’s also Blindfolded Speed-Cubing that might have some answers to your other questions. I’ve also moved this post into the aforementioned category and out of General Memory Chat because the question is very domain specific.

Gonna go and grab the algorithms and post them next…

19

Here’s your 2-look OLL

3 algorithms for edge orientation and 7 for corner orientation to be done in sequence. The edges will take you 5 minutes. The rest might take a little longer, but they’re all pretty straight forward. So maybe an hour to get the hang of it. Might also benefit from watching this video for some help with trigger memo and execution: https://youtu.be/DTYvklyOpVM

Here’s your 2-look PLL

2 for corners and 4 for edges. These six will be part of the full PLL, so you’re already 1/3 done with full PLL once you got these down. Again, a video to help with memo and execution here: https://youtu.be/S61q3FYVFis

… and that’s it for this weekend! A total of 16 algorithms… definitely not a couple of hundred. For next week you got the remaining 15 PLLs here: http://badmephisto.com/pllprint2.pdf

Once you got full PLL, you should watch this video: https://youtu.be/qBYycb7hR4Y to get faster at recognizing the cases. And that’s it basically until next weekend. No real algorithms for the cross in week two. Just learn how to use your 15 second inspection to be able to do the cross blindfolded. If you can’t do it in 15 seconds inspection, start with one minute inspection and bring it down to 15 sec over the course of the week.

Hope that helps!

20

Thanks! You definitely are very experienced in this field. I will try to keep an online record at Memory Training Journals, and perhaps really follow your advice. You, probably saved my life.