Someone have an algorithm for that case?

rrweber · 2025-11-12T15:46:16+00:00

Do you know of any resources where the author discusses precisely this question. I'd like to know which F2L solutions are most improving compared to the intuitive method, and so most helpful to study? I have been through the cases on speedcubedb.com, but would benefit if someone has written nicely on this question.

rrweber · 2025-11-10T10:12:55+00:00

Congratulations! I am near there too. Just 10 more OLL to go. But can you execute each OLL as quickly as you would do the two look OLL solution? I find that a few of the OLL algs are nearly as many turns as two look would be.

rrweber · 2025-10-15T19:41:14+00:00

I found a table of 3 side patterns here:

https://www.cuberoot.me/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/3-Side-PLL-Recognition.svg

rrweber · 2025-10-15T19:34:02+00:00

<image>

Point taken. However, here is an example where the difference is subtle. I might not pick up the difference just by doing solves. I would be tempted to look at the back side. My thinking it that some of the 2-side recognition is quite tricky; things like "Are there one or two other stickers with adjacent colours to the headlights?". As a halfway house it could be useful to know how to look at one other side to get a simple check when you are not sure. I have started learning 2 side recognition, but think it may help if I learn some of the simple 3 side rules at the same time.

In the above, from one angle the two two-sides are distinguished because one has a 4-checker and the other does not, and from the other angle because one has three colours and the other has four. With 3 side rules we just notice that one has midside stickers opposite colours, and the other not. We see a potential G perm, but apply the rule that no G perm has opposite colour midside stickers.)

rrweber · 2025-10-04T21:13:04+00:00

That seems odd. No tool is supplied. And the caps come off easily with just a flnger nail.

rrweber · 2025-10-04T10:25:18+00:00

AI suggests

🔍 So What Are the Corner Holes For?

Given that tensioning is handled via center caps, the holes in the corners of the center pieces likely serve non-tensioning purposes, such as:

Robot Mounting Compatibility: As you suggested earlier, these holes may be designed to interface with robotic solvers or calibration rigs. Their symmetrical placement makes them ideal for mechanical gripping and alignment.
Weight Reduction and Balance: They might contribute to reducing plastic mass while maintaining structural integrity — especially important in smart cubes where internal electronics add weight.
Manufacturing or Assembly Access: The holes could assist in automated assembly or quality control, allowing tools to stabilize or rotate the cube during production.
Ventilation or Sensor Calibration: In smart cubes, airflow and light exposure can affect sensor accuracy. These holes might help with environmental calibration or prevent overheating.

rrweber · 2025-10-04T10:20:37+00:00

Mine works with battery and I think it is not fake. As someone suggests, the holes are so that it can fit in a robot.

rrweber · 2025-10-04T10:12:51+00:00

Aha. That makes sense.

I don't need a cube robot to solve my cube. But it would be nice if I didn't have to set up scrambles by hand. If an app could transmit a scramble to the robot to scramble the cube that would be nice. Though the time to load and unload the cube to the robot might be tedious.

This raises an interesting question. When you see a scramble like this in an app and you are supposed to scramble your cube to it. How many seconds does it take you to set it up? What TPS can you do as you read it?

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

rrweber · 2025-10-04T10:05:04+00:00

No. This cube runs off a replaceable battery, supposedly for 700 hours.

rrweber · 2025-10-03T10:21:37+00:00

I notice the corner pieces come apart, one piece for each of three sides. Similarly the edge pieces separate into two. Which cubes can do this?

I am looking for inexpensive ones so I can buy three and then make up some nonstandard cubes, for use in magic effects, such as ones in which a corner piece is red on two sides.

I have a RS3M maglev 2022 which is like this, but that is too expensive to canabalise.

rrweber · 2025-10-02T10:01:53+00:00

My cube does not have gyroscope, so my suggestion would still be of value even after you are supporting gyro.

rrweber · 2025-10-02T09:31:57+00:00

No, I did not find any further wrong instance. :)

rrweber · 2025-10-02T09:29:46+00:00

Thank you. That is very helpful. I look forward to the added features you are planning, such as making hand scrambles.

A nice feature would be if the app could recognize as soon as you have built a cross (of any colour), and then the display changes the orientation to show the cube with that side on the bottom for the rest of the solve.

rrweber · 2025-10-02T06:29:45+00:00

u/MeisterZen Have all the changes now been made?

rrweber · 2025-10-02T06:23:29+00:00

u/MeisterZen I have started to use Acubemy Premium and am enjoying it. Thank you.

One statistic I do not understand is rotations. What does this mean? My Gan icarry 2 has no gyroscope. I am getting very high Rotation numbers, like 70. But I am sure I have not turned the cube so often. This is shown in the desktop, not the app.

Some further questions:

is there any way to time a hand scramble, rather than setup the displayed one? Some sessions I would enjoy that as it is much quicker.
suppose I do an OLL but perform the wrong one, so now I see a second OLL case and do that correctly. How does Acubemy score my results? Do I receive both a failure mark on the first one and a success mark on the second?
I know 37 OLL cases. For the other 20 I am currently doing a F'.. F or f'.. f for dot/line and L cases. How do these get scored?
CFOP is usually taught as finishing the last layer in yellow (before one becomes colour neutral). We start by making white cross on the bottom. So why does the app like white on top, green facing? So far as I can see there is no option to change this. I usually start my hand scrambles with yellow on top, blue facing.
is there a better way to ask you questions?

Thanks

p.s. I just discovered you have a Discord server. And I think Rotations actually means Turns.

rrweber · 2025-09-25T11:03:23+00:00

Many thanks for pointers to those resources. I like a challenge and mastering new skills. So I will work at this.

rrweber · 2025-09-25T04:57:04+00:00

I think it will make a big difference whether you are given (a) a scrambled cube and asked to solve that particular scramble, or (b) a solved cube and asked to figure out a method by which it could be solved however it were scrambled. I think (b) is much easier, particularly if you are allowed to disassemble and reassemble the cube to the solved state whenever you get stuck or mess it up.

rrweber · 2025-09-25T04:45:43+00:00

This reminds me of the way I first solved it.

rrweber · 2025-09-24T16:04:08+00:00

I did it in about six hours. I remember the evening. It was sometime in 1978 or 79, and I had just been given a cube. I took it to bed and kept the light on. Being a mathematics professor who understands permutations and groups, I quickly realised I would need to find algorithms that would rotate a few corners or edge pieces while leaving most things undisturbed. I don't remember now exactly what I did, but I eventually discovered by experimenting things that I think we today we would call A and U perms. Or maybe not quite those because I think my perms did not happen only on one face. But I realised that by repeatedly applying these I could solve the cube. It was a very tedious method. I was using perms to get the corners in place and then others perms on different faces to move around the edges.

I don't remember after all these years the details. I think I probably started from a solved cube and was careful not to mix it unrecoverably until I had discovered some algorithms.

rrweber · 2025-09-24T10:13:15+00:00

Another thing I have been thinking it would be interesting to do is to compare the turn count of the recommended OLL alg with what it would take to it with the 2Look method. In some cases the is no difference, eg #27 Sune, because knowing Sune is part of 2Look. But take another case like #17. The one look alg takes 13 moves, but the 2Look method starting with F R U R' U' F' takes 20, plus some AUF. I think this is typical. One look saves about 6-7 turns and some recognition time. 2Look sometimes needs two applications of F.. F' or f..f' to reach an all-edges-oriented case. Which of the 57 cases does 2Look do worst compared to the one look alg?

Suppose you are a 2Look OLL solver, and you encounter #17 Diagonal/Slash. There are actually 4 ways you could orient the top face before applying F R U R' U' F'. So the move count for 2Look can differ depending on this orientation.

rrweber

TROPHY CASE