From cube-lovers-errors@curry.epilogue.com Mon Jun 10 14:52:37 1996 Return-Path: cube-lovers-errors@curry.epilogue.com Received: from curry.epilogue.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by curry.epilogue.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id OAA22165 for ; Mon, 10 Jun 1996 14:52:36 -0400 Precedence: bulk Errors-To: cube-lovers-errors@curry.epilogue.com From: whuang@cco.caltech.edu Message-Id: <199606101427.HAA07096@accord.cco.caltech.edu> Subject: Re: "Better" Method? To: cube-lovers@ai.mit.edu Date: Mon, 10 Jun 1996 07:27:00 -0700 (PDT) X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL22] Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > Kristin Looney writes: > >my method: > > >1. do top corners. I always start with white. (intuitive) > >2. do bottom corners. > > 2a. bring bottom corner color onto bottom face (one of 2 patterns) > > 2b. orient bottom corners with each other (one of 2 patterns) > >3. fill in all but one edge on top and bottom (intuitive) > >4. fill in last edge (pattern) > >5. solve middle ring of edges (usually 2 patterns) > > >The only person I have ever met used this same method was Minh, > >the winner of the first U.S. championship. > > Odd. I use the same method, and before this I was almost convinced I was the > only one. I guess I never asked Minh. > > > The only differences between > >our methods was that he had more patterns memorized for step 5. I > >typically do one pattern, which gets me close, and then finish it up > >with one more pattern - where Minh could look at that last ring and > >instantly know a pattern that would bring the cube into it's final > >solved state. His hands were also a lot faster than mine. > > I only have two patterns for step 5. One basically permutes three edge > pieces, the other flips a pair. It does have the advantage of being > easy to explain, though. > > Come to think of it, my method is slightly different -- I orient the > corners BEFORE positioning them. > > >The beauty of this method is that there is very little to memorize - > >and although it doesn't give me very many 20 second times, it's > >always well under a minute. > > Ditto. > > I think the beauty of this "cubie"-oriented method is how easy it > generalizes to larger cubes. By just adding 2 patterns, I can solve the > 4x4x4, and one more pattern gives me the 5x5x5. I think the "layer"-oriented > method is much harder to generalize. > >