Browse Groups

• ## [Speed cubing group] Re: Fridrich' limits

(22)
• NextPrevious
• ... I think it should be 527 cases for last c/e pair + orient corners. 17 of the F2L cases are asymmetrical and allow all 27 different corner orientation
Mar 3, 2005 1 of 22
View Source
> Also, out of curiousity, what are the number of algs
> for learning this system:
>
> insert c/e pair+ orient corners
>
> I know this is many more cases, and likely more
> difficult in recognition, but if anyone wants to flex
> their math muscles, feel free.

I think it should be 527 cases for last c/e pair + orient corners.

17 of the F2L cases are asymmetrical and allow all 27 different corner
orientation states.

4 of the cases have the F2L pieces already in their slot so they only
allow the 7 corner orientation cases due to symmetry.

2 of the cases are symmetrical across a line from BUL to FDR and so
each case only allows 20 possibly different corner orientations giving
40 for both of those together.

so 17*27 + 4*7 + 2*20 = 527

It's early in the morning and I only tried to do this in my head so
I'm going to call this an estimate just in case it comes out wrong. I
think it will be at least fairly close to the actual number if it is
wrong though. I'll do a more thorough count later (have to get to
class soon).

Chris
• going straight into zb wouldn t be a wise decision... atleast for my capabilities when i first started out. but good luck with that. bm rubikscubewhiz
Mar 3, 2005 1 of 22
View Source
going straight into zb wouldn't be a wise decision... atleast for my capabilities when i first started out. but good luck with that.
bm

rubikscubewhiz <rubikscubewhiz@...> wrote:

i was considering going straight into learning ZB once i learn OLL,
since i'll still be in "learning mode" as i call it. How long did
it take you to learn the ZBF2L?

--- In speedsolvingrubikscube@yahoogroups.com, cmhardw
>
> Yeah but I'm sure Macky uses a lot of stuff to influence the last
> layer with the last c/e pair. This still counts as Fridrich of
> course, but a sort of easier Fridrich since the odds for the OLLs
> change. Also, in a significant portion of the videos I've seen of
> Macky he ends with an edge three cycle, which implies liberal use
of
> COLL, at least for video solves :-D
>
> I've also wondered that. What is the limit of Fridrich assuming
> just OLL/PLL without influencing the LL? (Of course allowing as
> many F2L tricks as you can manage.)
>
> Btw, I'm almost done learning the ZBF2L, I will be finished
learning
> in about 2 weeks at my current pace, and after that I will start
> working on improving recognition on the newest cases of course.
In
> about a month I will try doing an average and see how it affects
my
> times. I'm very optimistic that recognition time will be
> insignificantly slower than normal F2L with practice (though still
> slower of course since the last slot of the F2L becomes a "look"
> instead of just plain intuition). I find it hard to believe that
> Macky doesn't use ZBF2L tricks or even straight up algs, but then
> again I do admit that it is possible. Opinion and hearsay :-D
>
> Chris
>
> --- In speedsolvingrubikscube@yahoogroups.com, Tyson Mao
<tmao@i...>
> wrote:
> > Definitely a lot faster. Macky averages sub-15 and he's not
> applying
> > COLL OLL nor does he do a VH-F2L or anything on everything...
> >
> > What I'm trying to say is, Macky averages sub-15 doing mostly
just
> the
> > basic Fridrich steps.
> >
> > Tyson Mao
> > MSC #631
> > California Institute of Technology

---------------------------------

To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/speedsolvingrubikscube/

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
speedsolvingrubikscube-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

:)
--Brent

---------------------------------
Celebrate Yahoo!'s 10th Birthday!
Yahoo! Netrospective: 100 Moments of the Web

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
• Hey everyone, Someone mentioned the cube is no brain activity and it s just memorization to know how to solve the cube (his time was 4 minutes or so-
Mar 10, 2005 1 of 22
View Source
Hey everyone,
Someone mentioned the cube is "no brain activity and it's just memorization" to know how to solve the cube (his time was 4 minutes or so- rookie). But do we really understand zbll and oll/pll? f2l I think we understand, but is it just memorization, or is it more? I beg to differ that it is just memorization...
bm

:)
--Brent

---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new resources site!

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
• ... memorization If that guy wants to get some good laughs (about himself) he should tell (neuro)psychologists that memorization is no brain activity...
Mar 10, 2005 1 of 22
View Source
--- In speedsolvingrubikscube@yahoogroups.com, Brent Morgan
<brentmorganmaster@y...> wrote:
>
> Someone mentioned the cube is "no brain activity and it's just
memorization"

If that guy wants to get some good laughs (about himself) he should
tell (neuro)psychologists that memorization is no brain activity...

Cheers!
Stefan
• I think true speedcubing, so Fridrich, ZBLL etc. is a mix of no-brainer memorized algs and intuition. Ideally you would have all 43,252,003,274,489,856,000
Mar 10, 2005 1 of 22
View Source
I think true speedcubing, so Fridrich, ZBLL etc. is a mix of
no-brainer memorized algs and intuition.

Ideally you would have all 43,252,003,274,489,856,000 God's algorithms
memorized with finger tricks etc..

However since that is absolutely impossible it is better to use logic
and intuition to get the cube to a point where you *can* have all
possible positions memorized and just apply memorized algorithms as
fast as your hands can possibly move.

I agree that this isn't truly solving the puzzle via logic alone, but
that's not what speedcubing is about - it's about solving as quickly
as possible. Someone who avergages 15 seconds who has no idea why
their sequences work is indeed a better speedcuber than someone who
uses their own algorithms, all of which they understand perfectly, but
averages 16-17 seconds. In speedcubing only the time matters, I mean
look at how we rank ourselves in competitions.

Now in terms of gernal puzzling I would say that the 15 second
averager who doesn't understand exactly how their algorithms work is a
much worse puzzler than the person who uses their own method.

It's a question a semantics to me. Would you rather be a good puzzler
or a good speedcuber? Or both? If you want to be a good puzzler
(which I imagine is how that one person who you met thinks) then yes
speedcubers as a general rule are poor puzzlers (who knows the
commutater notation/entire logic behind all their OLL and PLL algs?).
If you want to be a good speedcuber, then memorizing lots of cases is
the way to go.

Personally I consider myself a much better speedcuber than puzzler. I
understand the F2L pretty well, and I can figure out most any
rubik-like puzzle since I understand how commutaters work. However I
still use lots of algorithms that I don't understand at all.

I guess I am more interested in being a speedcuber than a puzzler.
But again that is just a personal choice. I think there are lots of
people who are good speedcubers and good puzzlers, some that are good
puzzlers but who maybe aren't as interested in speedcubing. It all
depends, and it's all based on semantics.

Chris

--- In speedsolvingrubikscube@yahoogroups.com, Brent Morgan
<brentmorganmaster@y...> wrote:
>
> Hey everyone,
> Someone mentioned the cube is "no brain activity and it's just
memorization" to know how to solve the cube (his time was 4 minutes or
so- rookie). But do we really understand zbll and oll/pll? f2l I
think we understand, but is it just memorization, or is it more? I
beg to differ that it is just memorization...
> bm
• ... Definitely both. In competitions, there could be a combined ranking that would mix speedcubing and FMC results. Gilles.
Mar 10, 2005 1 of 22
View Source
wrote:

> [...]
> Would you rather be a good puzzler
> or a good speedcuber? Or both?
> [...]

Definitely both.
In competitions, there could be a combined ranking that would mix
speedcubing and FMC results.

Gilles.
• Hi Bryan, I was wondering if the other student you ve taken would be working on the same project as me or would we be doing two separate things? Tyson Mao MSC
Mar 10, 2005 1 of 22
View Source
Hi Bryan,

I was wondering if the other student you've taken would be working on
the same project as me or would we be doing two separate things?

Tyson Mao
MSC #631
California Institute of Technology

On Mar 10, 2005, at 1:41 PM, cmhardw wrote:

>
>
> I think true speedcubing, so Fridrich, ZBLL etc. is a mix of
> no-brainer memorized algs and intuition.
>
> Ideally you would have all 43,252,003,274,489,856,000 God's algorithms
> memorized with finger tricks etc..
>
> However since that is absolutely impossible it is better to use logic
> and intuition to get the cube to a point where you *can* have all
> possible positions memorized and just apply memorized algorithms as
> fast as your hands can possibly move.
>
> I agree that this isn't truly solving the puzzle via logic alone, but
> that's not what speedcubing is about - it's about solving as quickly
> as possible. Someone who avergages 15 seconds who has no idea why
> their sequences work is indeed a better speedcuber than someone who
> uses their own algorithms, all of which they understand perfectly, but
> averages 16-17 seconds. In speedcubing only the time matters, I mean
> look at how we rank ourselves in competitions.
>
> Now in terms of gernal puzzling I would say that the 15 second
> averager who doesn't understand exactly how their algorithms work is a
> much worse puzzler than the person who uses their own method.
>
> It's a question a semantics to me. Would you rather be a good puzzler
> or a good speedcuber? Or both? If you want to be a good puzzler
> (which I imagine is how that one person who you met thinks) then yes
> speedcubers as a general rule are poor puzzlers (who knows the
> commutater notation/entire logic behind all their OLL and PLL algs?).
> If you want to be a good speedcuber, then memorizing lots of cases is
> the way to go.
>
>
> Personally I consider myself a much better speedcuber than puzzler. I
> understand the F2L pretty well, and I can figure out most any
> rubik-like puzzle since I understand how commutaters work. However I
> still use lots of algorithms that I don't understand at all.
>
> I guess I am more interested in being a speedcuber than a puzzler.
> But again that is just a personal choice. I think there are lots of
> people who are good speedcubers and good puzzlers, some that are good
> puzzlers but who maybe aren't as interested in speedcubing. It all
> depends, and it's all based on semantics.
>
> Chris
>
> --- In speedsolvingrubikscube@yahoogroups.com, Brent Morgan
> <brentmorganmaster@y...> wrote:
>>
>> Hey everyone,
>> Someone mentioned the cube is "no brain activity and it's just
> memorization" to know how to solve the cube (his time was 4 minutes or
> so- rookie). But do we really understand zbll and oll/pll? f2l I
> think we understand, but is it just memorization, or is it more? I
> beg to differ that it is just memorization...
>> bm
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
• Oh yeah, that was good. Replied to the wrong e-mail. In case anyone is wondering, it looks like I might end up at the VLA in New Mexico this summer. Tyson
Mar 10, 2005 1 of 22
View Source
Oh yeah, that was good. Replied to the wrong e-mail. In case anyone
is wondering, it looks like I might end up at the VLA in New Mexico
this summer.

Tyson Mao
MSC #631
California Institute of Technology

On Mar 10, 2005, at 1:59 PM, Tyson Mao wrote:

>
> Hi Bryan,
>
> I was wondering if the other student you've taken would be working on
> the same project as me or would we be doing two separate things?
>
> Tyson Mao
> MSC #631
> California Institute of Technology
>
> On Mar 10, 2005, at 1:41 PM, cmhardw wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> I think true speedcubing, so Fridrich, ZBLL etc. is a mix of
>> no-brainer memorized algs and intuition.
>>
>> Ideally you would have all 43,252,003,274,489,856,000 God's algorithms
>> memorized with finger tricks etc..
>>
>> However since that is absolutely impossible it is better to use logic
>> and intuition to get the cube to a point where you *can* have all
>> possible positions memorized and just apply memorized algorithms as
>> fast as your hands can possibly move.
>>
>> I agree that this isn't truly solving the puzzle via logic alone, but
>> that's not what speedcubing is about - it's about solving as quickly
>> as possible. Someone who avergages 15 seconds who has no idea why
>> their sequences work is indeed a better speedcuber than someone who
>> uses their own algorithms, all of which they understand perfectly, but
>> averages 16-17 seconds. In speedcubing only the time matters, I mean
>> look at how we rank ourselves in competitions.
>>
>> Now in terms of gernal puzzling I would say that the 15 second
>> averager who doesn't understand exactly how their algorithms work is a
>> much worse puzzler than the person who uses their own method.
>>
>> It's a question a semantics to me. Would you rather be a good puzzler
>> or a good speedcuber? Or both? If you want to be a good puzzler
>> (which I imagine is how that one person who you met thinks) then yes
>> speedcubers as a general rule are poor puzzlers (who knows the
>> commutater notation/entire logic behind all their OLL and PLL algs?).
>> If you want to be a good speedcuber, then memorizing lots of cases is
>> the way to go.
>>
>>
>> Personally I consider myself a much better speedcuber than puzzler. I
>> understand the F2L pretty well, and I can figure out most any
>> rubik-like puzzle since I understand how commutaters work. However I
>> still use lots of algorithms that I don't understand at all.
>>
>> I guess I am more interested in being a speedcuber than a puzzler.
>> But again that is just a personal choice. I think there are lots of
>> people who are good speedcubers and good puzzlers, some that are good
>> puzzlers but who maybe aren't as interested in speedcubing. It all
>> depends, and it's all based on semantics.
>>
>> Chris
>>
>> --- In speedsolvingrubikscube@yahoogroups.com, Brent Morgan
>> <brentmorganmaster@y...> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hey everyone,
>>> Someone mentioned the cube is "no brain activity and it's just
>> memorization" to know how to solve the cube (his time was 4 minutes or
>> so- rookie). But do we really understand zbll and oll/pll? f2l I
>> think we understand, but is it just memorization, or is it more? I
>> beg to differ that it is just memorization...
>>> bm
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
• Nice way in putting this down... I thought about this and I think it s more than just memorization ; however particular logic can lead to faster times (f2l,
Mar 10, 2005 1 of 22
View Source
Nice way in putting this down... I thought about this and I think it's more than "just memorization"; however particular logic can lead to faster times (f2l, etc.). I can solve it using techniques I can understand by logic but it will be over a minute...but for sub-20 i have to use fridrich oll/pll, etc. Interesting.
bm

I think true speedcubing, so Fridrich, ZBLL etc. is a mix of
no-brainer memorized algs and intuition.

Ideally you would have all 43,252,003,274,489,856,000 God's algorithms
memorized with finger tricks etc..

However since that is absolutely impossible it is better to use logic
and intuition to get the cube to a point where you *can* have all
possible positions memorized and just apply memorized algorithms as
fast as your hands can possibly move.

I agree that this isn't truly solving the puzzle via logic alone, but
that's not what speedcubing is about - it's about solving as quickly
as possible. Someone who avergages 15 seconds who has no idea why
their sequences work is indeed a better speedcuber than someone who
uses their own algorithms, all of which they understand perfectly, but
averages 16-17 seconds. In speedcubing only the time matters, I mean
look at how we rank ourselves in competitions.

Now in terms of gernal puzzling I would say that the 15 second
averager who doesn't understand exactly how their algorithms work is a
much worse puzzler than the person who uses their own method.

It's a question a semantics to me. Would you rather be a good puzzler
or a good speedcuber? Or both? If you want to be a good puzzler
(which I imagine is how that one person who you met thinks) then yes
speedcubers as a general rule are poor puzzlers (who knows the
commutater notation/entire logic behind all their OLL and PLL algs?).
If you want to be a good speedcuber, then memorizing lots of cases is
the way to go.

Personally I consider myself a much better speedcuber than puzzler. I
understand the F2L pretty well, and I can figure out most any
rubik-like puzzle since I understand how commutaters work. However I
still use lots of algorithms that I don't understand at all.

I guess I am more interested in being a speedcuber than a puzzler.
But again that is just a personal choice. I think there are lots of
people who are good speedcubers and good puzzlers, some that are good
puzzlers but who maybe aren't as interested in speedcubing. It all
depends, and it's all based on semantics.

Chris

--- In speedsolvingrubikscube@yahoogroups.com, Brent Morgan
<brentmorganmaster@y...> wrote:
>
> Hey everyone,
> Someone mentioned the cube is "no brain activity and it's just
memorization" to know how to solve the cube (his time was 4 minutes or
so- rookie). But do we really understand zbll and oll/pll? f2l I
think we understand, but is it just memorization, or is it more? I
beg to differ that it is just memorization...
> bm

---------------------------------

To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/speedsolvingrubikscube/

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
speedsolvingrubikscube-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

:)
--Brent

---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new resources site!

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
• ... memorization to know how to solve the cube (his time was 4 minutes or so- rookie). But do we really understand zbll and oll/pll? f2l I think we
Mar 11, 2005 1 of 22
View Source
--- In speedsolvingrubikscube@yahoogroups.com, Brent Morgan
<brentmorganmaster@y...> wrote:
>
> Hey everyone,
> Someone mentioned the cube is "no brain activity and it's just
memorization" to know how to solve the cube (his time was 4 minutes or
so- rookie). But do we really understand zbll and oll/pll? f2l I
think we understand, but is it just memorization, or is it more? I
beg to differ that it is just memorization...
> bm
>
>
>
> :)
> --Brent

Hi Brent,

Solving Rubik's Cube can be a mindless memory-based action.
Consider Evans cube-solving robot "deep cube": the robot has nothing
approaching comprehension.
However, this doesn't mean that all of it is a mindless
memory-based action.

Memorization and applying what is memorized within an integrated
system involves brain activity, though in the robot's case the brain
activity is Evan's. Remember the computer didn't program itself.

I think that comprehension beats mimicry hands down, but I also
appreciate discipline. There is the real possibility that memorisation
can lead to comprehension. This is the (understood) basis of our
schooling systems, even though there are, and have been, few signs
that many people do comprehend what they learn in schools.

Then there are the people who develop their own ways of solving the
cube and don't rely at all on the methods and algorithms of others.
Your friend cannot lump all solving under such a stereotypical
description as "no brain activity and it's just memorization."

Regards,

David J
• ... One other thing to point out to your friend: speedcubng, however you go about it, develops pattern recognition. DJ
Mar 11, 2005 1 of 22
View Source
--- In speedsolvingrubikscube@yahoogroups.com, "d_j_salvia"
<d_j_salvia@y...> wrote:
>
> --- In speedsolvingrubikscube@yahoogroups.com, Brent Morgan
> <brentmorganmaster@y...> wrote:
> >
> > Hey everyone,
> > Someone mentioned the cube is "no brain activity and it's just
> memorization" to know how to solve the cube (his time was 4 minutes or
> so- rookie). But do we really understand zbll and oll/pll? f2l I
> think we understand, but is it just memorization, or is it more? I
> beg to differ that it is just memorization...
> > bm
> >
> >
> >
> > :)
> > --Brent
>
> Hi Brent,
>
> Solving Rubik's Cube can be a mindless memory-based action.
> Consider Evans cube-solving robot "deep cube": the robot has nothing
> approaching comprehension.
> However, this doesn't mean that all of it is a mindless
> memory-based action.
>
> Memorization and applying what is memorized within an integrated
> system involves brain activity, though in the robot's case the brain
> activity is Evan's. Remember the computer didn't program itself.
>
> I think that comprehension beats mimicry hands down, but I also
> appreciate discipline. There is the real possibility that memorisation
> can lead to comprehension. This is the (understood) basis of our
> schooling systems, even though there are, and have been, few signs
> that many people do comprehend what they learn in schools.
>
> Then there are the people who develop their own ways of solving the
> cube and don't rely at all on the methods and algorithms of others.
> Your friend cannot lump all solving under such a stereotypical
> description as "no brain activity and it's just memorization."
>
> Regards,
>
> David J

One other thing to point out to your friend: speedcubng, however you
go about it, develops pattern recognition.

DJ
• I think solving the cube requires thinking but it is more of a subconscious thinking.
Mar 11, 2005 1 of 22
View Source
I think solving the cube requires thinking but it is more of a
subconscious thinking.
• It seems to me that even those who have memorised lots of algorithms without comprehension carry out at least 3 steps at each stage of solving a cube. The
Mar 12, 2005 1 of 22
View Source
It seems to me that even those who have memorised lots of algorithms without
comprehension carry out at least 3 steps at each stage of solving a cube.

The first is, as someone posted earlier, pattern recognition. This requires
an understanding of the sort of pattern to be looking for which depends on
the stage of solving (obvious examples would be searching for an F2L pair or
the difference between OLL and PPL in a 2 look LL).

The second is the call up from memory of the algorithm required for this
particular pattern. This is the real memory element.

Third is carrying out that algorithm on the cube itself. This is brain/hand
coordination - a complex mix of left and right brained activity I would have
thought.

As Chris pointed out in his excellent post speedcubing is different to
problem solving. I would think that speed in the first and third steps are
extremely important for speedcubers although the third step would hardly
register on a list of skills required for general puzzle and problem solving
I suspect.

The first step is critical to most puzzles and is required regardless of how
much memorisation has taken place.

While I've been writing this I can't helping comparing it to chess. Chess
performance relies very heavily on the first and second of these skills.
Pattern recognition cuts down enormously the amount of calculation required.
In the Kasparov era (had to get a mention in now he has announced his
retirement!) memory of concrete lines has become one of the major factors in
taking the game to new levels (supported very much by the huge databases of
games that are now available).

Duncan

----- Original Message -----
To: <speedsolvingrubikscube@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, March 12, 2005 12:26 AM
Subject: [Speed cubing group] Re: question

>
>
> I think solving the cube requires thinking but it is more of a
> subconscious thinking.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
• ... memorization to know how to solve the cube (his time was 4 minutes or so- rookie). But do we really understand zbll and oll/pll? f2l I think we
Mar 12, 2005 1 of 22
View Source
> Hey everyone,
> Someone mentioned the cube is "no brain activity and it's just
memorization" to know how to solve the cube (his time was 4 minutes or
so- rookie). But do we really understand zbll and oll/pll? f2l I
think we understand, but is it just memorization, or is it more? I
beg to differ that it is just memorization...
> bm

Before you can even think about starting to memorize algorithms you
have to understand how the cube is built and how the cubies move
relative to each other, that takes brain activity for sure.
I don´t believe you can become really fast at F2L by only learning
algs without understanding how they work and what they do, that too
takes brain activity. And at some point most of F2L will be mostly
intuitive because of this understanding. The LL might be more
memorizing but as people have pointed out, it also takes quick pattern
recognition and understanding commutators and conjugates makes it
easier to understand.
And now that was only speedsolving which maybe takes less brain
activity of the different types of solving. To be able to solve the
cube blindfolded or with a little less than 30 moves can´t be done
without lots of brain activity.

Just my two cents,
Mikael
Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.
• Changes have not been saved
Press OK to abandon changes or Cancel to continue editing
• Your browser is not supported
Kindly note that Groups does not support 7.0 or earlier versions of Internet Explorer. We recommend upgrading to the latest Internet Explorer, Google Chrome, or Firefox. If you are using IE 9 or later, make sure you turn off Compatibility View.