# big cube edges



## deadalnix (Jun 15, 2008)

I'm trying to improve myself to big cube blindfold.

I use commutators to solves edges, but I find some case difficult. Fot exemple, when you have a 3-cycle of edges to do, but two of the 3 are in the UF slot (UFr and UFl) ?


----------



## joey (Jun 15, 2008)

Where is the other piece? I don't think thats a bad case.
I can do it, but it's quite long, so there might be a better way.


----------



## Swordsman Kirby (Jun 15, 2008)

r2 method, anyone?


----------



## joey (Jun 15, 2008)

Swordsman Kirby said:


> r2 method, anyone?


Solving simple-closed 3-cycles with commutators, anyone?


----------



## deadalnix (Jun 15, 2008)

joey said:


> Where is the other piece? I don't think thats a bad case.
> I can do it, but it's quite long, so there might be a better way.



It the same for me. But quite long means bigger risk of error too. It's why I'm looking for a good solution.

Swordsman Kirby > I don't think r2 is a good method for big cube blind. Edges have no orientation. M2 is a realy good solution on 333 or 555 middle edges.


----------



## joey (Jun 15, 2008)

r2 is definitely a good method, what does the fact that edges don't have orientation matter?

My way is pretty easy, and I find it hard to mess up. If you give me a third edge, I can show you.


----------



## deadalnix (Jun 15, 2008)

OK let's try with fRU for exemple.


----------



## joey (Jun 15, 2008)

Let's see.
R' D' r2 U' R2 U F R F' r2 F R' F' U' R2 U D R

Oops, I used r2


----------



## deadalnix (Jun 15, 2008)

It's not easier than freestyle commutator. I have to conclude that theyre is not a simple solution for this categories of cases ?


----------



## Pedro (Jun 15, 2008)

yeah, there is...
if it's UFr -> UFl -> URf

just do r2 to set-up
then
[l D2 l', U]
then r2 back


----------



## joey (Jun 15, 2008)

What I showed _was_ a freestyle commutator. It just happend to be similair to the r2 method. I think the "algorithm" I just showed is realtively simple.

I think what I showed used the wrong targets :S BUT, it still shows the method I use for those types of cases.


----------



## fanwuq (Jun 15, 2008)

I guess you could some how set up to (lD2l'U2)*2 (the stadler edge pairing alg).
But I use r2. It's so much easier.


----------



## deadalnix (Jun 15, 2008)

Pedro said:


> yeah, there is...
> if it's UFr -> UFl -> URf
> 
> just do r2 to set-up
> ...



damned (I don't know if this expression means the same in english and french, but damned !) !

I adopt.

joey > I have some strange manipulation to solve these kind of cases like your alg. Pedro's one is much more clear. It apear like an evidence to me now, so I'm sure the solution is good


----------



## cmhardw (Jun 15, 2008)

joey said:


> Let's see.
> R' D' r2 U' R2 U F R F' r2 F R' F' U' R2 U D R
> 
> Oops, I used r2



r2 D' r' U2 r D r' U2 r'

Most of these cases are either 9 or 11 moves. For BH we call them "Edge orientation cases" and they are either 9 movers or algs that are a setup into a 9 mover (so 11 turns).

We are working on the published literature for the method, but it's slow going right now. The website will be up hopefully in the next couple months, or maybe a start to it sooner than that.

Chris


----------



## cmhardw (Jun 15, 2008)

Pedro said:


> yeah, there is...
> if it's UFr -> UFl -> URf
> 
> just do r2 to set-up
> ...



Yeah this case is a 10 move case, there are no optimizations shorter than 10 that I can think of.

I usually do (Rr) U2 F u F' U2 F u' F' (Rr)' on cases like this, but even that is 10 moves. Daniel and I call the metric mixing double turns with regular turns like that Block Turn Metric, or BTM. So 10 moves BTM vs. 10 moves HTM, either way it's 10 moves.

--edit--
Double post FTW! ;-)
This case is 11 moves optimally, see if you can find it ;-)

UFr->DBr->BDl
--edit--

Chris


----------



## Johannes91 (Jun 15, 2008)

cmhardw said:


> This case is 11 moves optimally, see if you can find it ;-)
> 
> UFr->DBr->BDl





Spoiler



[F r' : [r' F' r, B2]]

where [X : Y] = X Y X' and [X, Y] = X Y X' Y'.


----------



## joey (Jun 15, 2008)

cmhardw said:


> joey said:
> 
> 
> > Let's see.
> ...



Wait, that's actually move cancelling setups, it took me a few moments to realise.


----------



## Feanaro (Jun 16, 2008)

I use M2 method for edges and T-perm for corners. If a piece that belongs in one of the middle slices is somewhere in the middle slices in a different spot, I use set up moves and r' U2 r2 U2 r U2 r U2 l r2 U2 r' U2 r U2 l' U2 to put them in the right place. It is very easy.


----------



## cmhardw (Jun 16, 2008)

Johannes91 said:


> cmhardw said:
> 
> 
> > This case is 11 moves optimally, see if you can find it ;-)
> ...



Hey Johannes,

Yep, that's the one I like too ;-) I usually execute it like U' r2 U r' D2 r U' r' D2 r' U, but it's basically the exact same alg/idea, nothing different.

Chris


----------



## deadalnix (Jun 16, 2008)

Did you use algs like U'R'dRUR'd'R ?

And UFr->UBr->DBr or UFr->UBl->DBr ?


----------



## deadalnix (Jun 18, 2008)

up,

No (simple) idea for these cases ?

Chris : did you learn a commutator for each cases or simply complexes ones ? Your performances are realy impressives !


----------

