Re: 3x3 twisty puzzle talk

On 15/10/2024 02:27, Daniel wrote:

Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> writes:
 

On 07/10/2024 03:32, Daniel wrote:

Hey folks -
Just subbed this NG hoping to get advice on 3x3 twisty cube
technique.
Currently, I'm learning Roux technique and strugling on the four
final
edges - the online wiki's seem to be written for a different sort of
reader because I simply don't understand. The online puzzle solvers
don't utilize predefined techniques.
Is this a good NG for this? Any cubers in here?
I tried a big cubing forum, but the people on there aren't friendly.
Thanks,
Daniel
>

>
I have a Rubik's cube (3x3) and I worked out my own way of solving it
back in 1980.  My method is "logical" [to me] rather than
speed-orientated - I'm not interested in all the speed
record/competition stuff!  The advantage (for me) of my method is that
it only has two phases [edges first, then corners], and doesn't
require memorising a big list of seemingly random looking transforms.
(Also my method uses the basic structure of the cube and similar
puzzles, and so with minor adjustments applies to all the cube
variants on the market.)

 Well good for you. I never had the mental fortitude to do it on my
own. Took youtube. You did what all the method creators did, you created
your own algorithms and stuck with it. Part of me wishes I stuck with
it, but oh well it's only a puzzle.
 The cube came out in nineteen-eighty. I was six years old and didn't
know pf it until the ads started appearing during after-school tv
shows about two years later, when I was eight. I wanted one instantly
and my mom got it for me about a month later. Never got far with it. Set
it down for many years.
 

I've never heard of Roux technique, but I'll give it a go and try to
help if you have any specific questions, hopefully together with a web
link to the method!

 Since my original post, I've done much more reading and found out that I
was misreading the moves. The Roux method is something I'm exploring to
speed my solves because I intend to do some 2025 competitions in my
local area and get on the boards. I'd like to achieve something less
than forty seconds when I get on the board so my scores aren't at the
bottom of the range. The community in my area isn't too heavy on the
children - there are some college students and older who compete, so I
won't feel too out-of-place.
 Roux is unique and gaining in popularity due to the decreased required
moves to solve the puzzle - hence reducing solve times. It entails
solving a 2x3 area on both sides so that the middle slice and the top
layer are unsolved. Solve the top corners. Once this is accompished, you
only have the middle slice and the top edges to solve.
 You can't solve with only slice moves until the corners are solved - and
there are dozens of algorithms developed for each case. But, I only use
one algorithm for the corners - so it isn't necessary.
 For me, Roux's magic is the final four on top. It's elementary to solve
the bottom layer because there's only two remaining squares. I've
standardized my solves with white layer on the bottom.
 Right now I'm simply studying them by learning the relationships of the
moves and how it makes sense. There is logic behind it, erasing the
notion of randomness. If I could learn chemistry in college, I can learn
these algorithms. I'll include a rough ascii drawing of Roux's
distinction below. I apologize for my horrible ascii art in advance:
               +-----+-----+-----+
             /|     |     |     |
            / |     |     |     |  x and y's denote the solved
           /  |     |     |     |  area. They can be any color.
          +   +-----+-----+-----+
         /|  /|     |     |     |   As you can see, the middle
        / | / |  x  |     |  y  |   slice and top layer are
       /  |/  |     |     |     |   the remains of the solution.
      +   + x +-----+-----+-----+   I didn't draw out the other side
     /|  /|  /|     |     |     |   for brevity's sake.
    / | / | / |  x  |     |  y  |
   /  |/  |/  |     |     |     |
  +   + x + x +-----+-----+-----+
  |  /|  /|  /     /     /     /
  | / | / | /  x  /     /  y  /
  |/  |/  |/     /     /     /
  + x + x +-----+-----+-----+
  |  /|  /     /     /     /
  | / | /  x  /     /  y  /
  |/  |/     /     /     /
  + x +-----+-----+-----+
  |  /     /     /     /
  | /  x  /     /  y  /
  |/     /     /     /
  +-----+-----+-----+
 

That's great ascii drawing.  I even understand what it's saying related to your desctiption of the method.  With my solving technique, the last 4 corners I would have to solve as two 3-corner transforms, which means 16 moves minimum but probably more due to pre/post "setup" moves.  (Coming from a maths background, I would call those "conjugation" moves.)  So not efficient.  OTOH with 5 corners to solve it would still be two 3-corner transforms unless I'm unlucky...  40 seconds for me would be /really/ fast, but I'm a bit rubbish at the whole physical twisting of the faces.  The first cube I had was the complete opposite of "slick" - it had a grating feel when twisting, and over time the internal workings wore away due to friction and it became looser and looser until you could almost shake it into separate pieces! :)
Anyhow, good luck with your speed cubing!
Mike.