# Square-Kite Solving



## Lucas Garron (Dec 22, 2010)

Here's a fun variation on solving Square-1 that I came across while playing with my new Square-1 I bought at the European Championships:

Scramble the Square-1, then get it to square-kite. It's the farthest shape from cube-shape, and can be reached by starting from cube-shape and repeating (-a, 0)/ for the smallest positive a, as in the recent thread by Bruce.
Now, try to solve it. Of course, that's impossible, so just get as close as possible, where it can be solved by moving an edge on the kite to the opposite side.

All the fancy cube algs don't work, but most of the tricks still do, so it's a nice little test of your Square-1 intuition.

Mike Hughey, of course, will try this BLD.


----------



## DavidWoner (Dec 22, 2010)

~7 minutes first try.

Edit: 2:32.02


----------



## Mike Hughey (Dec 22, 2010)

I guess I'm too stupid to understand this challenge - sorry for my patheticness.

1. Are you figuring people will solve this without going to square in between? I think my intuition really stinks because I'm no good at figuring out how to do that. Or are you figuring on going to square, moving the pieces that need moving, and then going back to square-kite?
2. What is the recent post from Bruce that you're referring to?

I notice that getting to square-kite the way you say requires 24 slice turns. Correct? And I notice that the result is pretty close to solved - just 2 corners and a few edge pieces away. Is that the specific case David solved?


----------



## Lucas Garron (Dec 22, 2010)

Oops, I was thinking of Bruce because of other Square-1 research. I mean Robert Yau's thread.

Anyhow, my idea was to start and stay in Square-Kite.
(And yes, it's close to solved. So scramble in cube shape first. Parity sort of doesn't matter.)


----------



## cuBerBruce (Dec 22, 2010)

Mike Hughey said:


> 1. Are you figuring people will solve this without going to square in between? I think my intuition really stinks because I'm no good at figuring out how to do that. Or are you figuring on going to square, moving the pieces that need moving, and then going back to square-kite?


I think he meant to keep it "close" to square-kite, or possibly even keeping it in square-kite.


Mike Hughey said:


> 2. What is the recent post from Bruce that you're referring to?


I think he may have meant this thread, but I didn't even post in it.

EDIT: Ninja'ed


----------



## Lucas Garron (Dec 22, 2010)

cuBerBruce said:


> I think he meant to keep it "close" to square-kite, or possibly even keeping it in square-kite.


Right, keeping it in Square-Kite or Kite-Square after every turn. It feels like square-square, but "wobblier."


----------



## Mike Hughey (Dec 22, 2010)

Lucas Garron said:


> Oops, I was thinking of Bruce because of other Square-1 research. I mean Robert Yau's thread.


 
Thanks - I somehow missed reading that thread.



Lucas Garron said:


> Right, keeping it in Square-Kite or Kite-Square after every turn. It feels like square-square, but "wobblier."


Wow, that's hard. I'm starting to get how it's possible, but it's hard.


----------



## DavidWoner (Dec 22, 2010)

Lucas Garron said:


> Right, keeping it in Square-Kite or Kite-Square after every turn. It feels like square-square, but "wobblier."


 
Why don't you state this anywhere in the original post? You don't even imply this. It completely changes the challenge.


----------



## Dene (Dec 23, 2010)

I can get, with square on top, all 4 corners and three edges. I couldn't figure out how to get any further. I could also get all corners in the right place with no edges done but decided that wasn't the best way to go about this.


----------



## cuBerBruce (Dec 23, 2010)

C'mon, it isn't that hard. There is a very easy ...


Spoiler



There is a very easy edge 3-cycle (although it's not a U-perm). It's then not too hard to place edges correctly into the square. (I'm assuming corners were solved first.) Then swap the shapes, so the square is the other color, and then solve the edges of that square.

I also note that in a "solved" state, it is still "solved" if you were to swap the edges in the edge pair. Thus, there's no parity problem!


----------



## riffz (Dec 23, 2010)

DavidWoner said:


> Why don't you state this anywhere in the original post? You don't even imply this. It completely changes the challenge.


 
Lol. Yea, there was no indication that this was what you meant. I'm a sq1 nub so I doubt I'll have the patience for this.


----------



## blade740 (Dec 23, 2010)

Second try, 1:16.55
Third try, 46.15.

An interesting variant.


----------



## Nestor (Dec 23, 2010)

I took a SQ-1 and stickered so it is solved when in kite shape. I call it Treasure Box (If anyone has done this, tell me the proper name please).

At first I solved it the way you are describing, but keeping each half of the puzzle apart (so in the end I could finish with a slice) was too confusing given the new scheme. Now days I solve normally but leaving 2 edges swapped so in the last moves they fit into place.


----------



## Neo63 (Dec 23, 2010)

Very interesting...first try took about 10 minutes.

hmm is there a thread on the theory behind Square-1?


----------



## blade740 (Dec 24, 2010)

There's this but it's kinda old.


----------

