# Should Square-2 be an Official Event?



## Myachii (Dec 29, 2014)

I would like to make something clear right off the bat - I hold no opinion on this whatsoever. I was just curious to see what other people thought.

Square-1 has been an official event for over a decade. It is one of the most interesting puzzles, as it is the only WCA event which contains a shape-shifting puzzle (although it doesn't shift very much)

After seeing pictures of the Square-2 (which for those of you who don't know is a Square-1 with the corners cut in half), I began to wonder: With the extra challenge of matching the corners, would people want to have Square-2 as an official event alongside it's predecessor?

Like I said, I don't have an opinion as I don't even own a Square-2, but I was just wondering what you guys thought.

EDIT: Picture included for those who still don't know


----------



## LucidCuber (Dec 29, 2014)

I didn't even know what a square-2 was until just now. It's certainly better than the magic, I wouldn't be opposed to it.


----------



## Berd (Dec 29, 2014)

Hmmm, I think I would like to see a larger variety of events implemented - and feet removed


----------



## TDM (Dec 29, 2014)

I don't think it should be an event... not many people do square-1, and even fewer people would probably do square-2.


----------



## Bindedsa (Dec 29, 2014)

TDM said:


> I don't think it should be an event... not many people do square-1, and even fewer people would probably do square-2.


This.


----------



## Antonie faz fan (Dec 29, 2014)

we have enough events already


----------



## Coolster01 (Dec 29, 2014)

Square 2 is boring and we have sq1, which few do to begin with.


----------



## Hssandwich (Dec 29, 2014)

I think the WCA should put something like this is in, a new event which isn't too similar to an event already, so that people that aren't great at all the events, could be good at a new event.


----------



## guysensei1 (Dec 29, 2014)

Hssandwich said:


> I think the WCA should put something like this is in, a new event which isn't too similar to an event already, so that people that aren't great at all the events, could be good at a new event.



square 2 is actually really similar to square 1 in terms of solving...


----------



## Antonie faz fan (Dec 29, 2014)

Hssandwich said:


> I think the WCA should put something like this is in, a new event which isn't too similar to an event already, so that people that aren't great at all the events, could be good at a new event.



yeah but comp like us nationals, asian championships, euros and worlds have to have all the events and adding another event will cause time problems...


----------



## Schmidt (Dec 29, 2014)

guysensei1 said:


> square 2 is actually really similar to square 1 in terms of solving...



i have never touched a SQ-2, but I guess you could solve it like this: Connect the corners the right way, solve like SQ-1 = don't add much new.


----------



## guysensei1 (Dec 29, 2014)

Schmidt said:


> i have never touched a SQ-2, but I guess you could solve it like this: Connect the corners the right way, solve like SQ-1 = don't add much new.



Correct.


----------



## stoic (Dec 29, 2014)

I just got one of these, actually. 
It's cool and all, but as others have said it doesn't add much. 
(And the same applies to super square-1)


----------



## Hssandwich (Dec 29, 2014)

guysensei1 said:


> square 2 is actually really similar to square 1 in terms of solving...



I know, but having a new event might encourage slower people at 3x3 to do it. When Skewb was added, no one was amazing at Skewb in the UK, so I decided to practise more and try to become the best at it, I assume this also happened to people like Jonek. It would mean that people could just come out of nowhere to break the WR. I like the idea of this happening so I think it should happen again. Also, having another event might prevent competitions having other events, but it worked out OK with Skewb, so why should it be different?


----------



## irontwig (Dec 29, 2014)

Isn't this basically a puck puzzle?


----------



## ~Adam~ (Dec 29, 2014)

Hssandwich said:


> I know, but having a new event might encourage slower people at 3x3 to do it. When Skewb was added, no one was amazing at Skewb in the UK, so I decided to practise more and try to become the best at it, I assume this also happened to people like Jonek. It would mean that people could just come out of nowhere to break the WR. I like the idea of this happening so I think it should happen again. Also, having another event might prevent competitions having other events, but it worked out OK with Skewb, so why should it be different?



With all that in mind don't you think those great at square-1 already have a massive advantage and something else would be a better choice?

I personally don't think we need more events nor lose any. I would vote for feet to be removed but seeing how much media attention it gets I no longer think it's a good idea to remove it.

I would swap pyra for corner turning octahedron when the WRs have been stable for long enough because it's basically the same but takes a little longer. That same reasoning could be used to swap Sq1 for Sq2 in the future.


----------



## Randomno (Dec 29, 2014)

Berd said:


> Hmmm, I think I would like to see a larger variety of events implemented - and feet removed



But then CHJ would have BLD as his best event.


----------



## DavidCip86 (Dec 29, 2014)

I don't think it should be added because not many people do it at home, and I don't think it would be a very popular event


----------



## Robert-Y (Dec 29, 2014)

guysensei1 said:


> square 2 is actually really similar to square 1 in terms of solving...





Schmidt said:


> i have never touched a SQ-2, but I guess you could solve it like this: Connect the corners the right way, solve like SQ-1 = don't add much new.





guysensei1 said:


> Correct.


This really irritates me. We might as well remove 4x4x4: Connect the corners the right way, solve like a 2x2x2 = don't add much new.
Seriously there are more ways to solve a square 2 than just reducing it to a square 1. Just because barely anyone has explored the puzzle much doesn't mean it doesn't "add much new".


----------



## maps600 (Dec 29, 2014)

Robert-Y said:


> This really irritates me. We might as well remove 4x4x4: Connect the corners the right way, solve like a 2x2x2 = don't add much new.
> Seriously there are more ways to solve a square 2 than just reducing it to a square 1. Just because barely anyone has explored the puzzle much doesn't mean it doesn't "add much new"



Agreed.


----------



## tseitsei (Dec 29, 2014)

As always when someone proposes new event for WCA I say this:

It's already hard enough to fit all events in 2-day comp so why should we add new events?

Besides sq-1 is not really that popular currently so why should we add another event of "that kind"? I could understand it better if sq-1 was one of the most competed events and many people would want more of something little bit like that...


----------



## qqwref (Dec 29, 2014)

I think it would be nice to have a non-bandaged dihedral puzzle. I wouldn't necessarily be opposed to having Square-2 as an event, but it's quite unpopular, they generally don't turn particularly well, and due to the shape of the pieces it's kind of an annoying puzzle (easy to accidentally swap blue/green on one side, easy to accidentally swap U/D, hard to recognize what goes where, etc.). There may be a better dihedral puzzle.


----------



## stoic (Dec 29, 2014)

Robert-Y said:


> Seriously there are more ways to solve a square 2 than just reducing it to a square 1. Just because barely anyone has explored the puzzle much doesn't mean it doesn't "add much new".


Robert, I'd be interested in your insights on this. There's not much in the way of method documentation online, and I'm pretty sure you're on record previously saying that better speedsolving solutions need to be found. What approaches have you tried?


----------



## bobthegiraffemonkey (Dec 29, 2014)

Square-2 doesn't seem to be popular. Might be interesting to solve (never even seen one in person) but it will be similar to what is already a side event. Also, if you do choose to reduce to square-1, parity is much easier to solve so it doesn't even have that to make it interesting. Still, it would be cool to see some effort on unofficial speedsolving of it, like what was posted recently with the bump cube.


----------



## Lazy Einstein (Dec 29, 2014)

I'd say no. Honestly, if you find yourself getting bored, push to be good at sum of ranks.

If another puzzle HAD to be added, I would like to see either: 
a Cuboid like the 3x3x5;
Geared mixup puzzles; 
or different puzzles like the curvycopter.


----------



## Hssandwich (Dec 29, 2014)

If there was a new event, I think that 3x3x2 should be it. It is quick and easy to solve, it wouldn't be a long event really. There aren't any cuboids in the WCA competitions yet, I think this should be the first


----------



## Robert-Y (Dec 29, 2014)

ellwd said:


> Robert, I'd be interested in your insights on this. There's not much in the way of method documentation online, and I'm pretty sure you're on record previously saying that better speedsolving solutions need to be found. What approaches have you tried?


I've tried a few things. Here are some ideas which I find more interesting:

1. Solve the bottom layer (either colour, doesn't matter). Then solve the top layer, one piece at a time. When I know I have "parity" I simply do a J perm. I couldn't find a shorter algorithm than this. This method can be improved quite a bit. I've found a few useful algorithms with the help of ksolve but I lost interest in the puzzle soon afterwards.

2. Reduce to a 2x2x3. Group all pieces with the same coloured stickers together and simply solve like a 2x2x3. I think this method could be the "best" but it's limited by how awkward it is to turn a square 2.

I'm sure there are other interesting methods to discover but people haven't explored square 2 enough.


----------



## DGCubes (Dec 30, 2014)

I don't know. It bothers me when people are so opposed to adding new events, regardless of what they are. I wouldn't choose Square-2 as a new event, but I wouldn't really object to it either. Personally, I feel that 3x3x5 (cuboids + shapeshifting = really cool to watch and kind of a necessity) and Team-Blind (this is seriously getting popular and it adds a team aspect to cubing) would be the best events to add at the moment.


----------



## CiaranBeahan (Dec 30, 2014)

I'm going to say no because there are a lot other events that I would prefer to become official before square-2


----------



## Bh13 (Dec 30, 2014)

I would say no because there's already such a limited interst in square-1 (as stated earlier) that adding square-2 would be like adding 6x6 BLD or 4x4 with feet


----------



## brandbest1 (Dec 30, 2014)

Personally, I wouldn't mind having this as an official event (not that I'm any good at it or anything), however I don't feel as if Square-2 has the same popularity as Skewb when it was added. If anything Team BLD should be added beforehand.


----------



## Jimmy Liu (Dec 30, 2014)

No, because Brandon will get another NAR


----------



## JasonDL13 (Dec 30, 2014)

I don't care if it's added. But here is my opinion on "adding too many events:"

I personally think we should just add lots of cubes that are in high demand. If people want Sq2 then add it. Everyone hates feet and they still have it, is it popular?
Add varieties, why not do every event different ways? Maybe not FMC or MBLD for every event, but BLD and OH would be fun. Depending on the puzzle of course.

And if you want to say "it will take forever for competitions to hold the events:" MBLD, FMC, 5BLD, 4BLD will take forever to hold. So should we remove them? No. Lets just let competitions host what they want.

What's better, have too little events or too much?

I'm probably in the minority for this point of view, but that's my opinion.

Fun fact: I thought Skewb was pronounced Skweb for aolong time


----------



## waffle=ijm (Dec 30, 2014)

No one can scramble sq-1 at competitions which begs the question who will scramble sq-2s


----------



## TMOY (Dec 30, 2014)

Robert-Y said:


> 1. Solve the bottom layer (either colour, doesn't matter). Then solve the top layer, one piece at a time. When I know I have "parity" I simply do a J perm. I couldn't find a shorter algorithm than this. This method can be improved quite a bit. I've found a few useful algorithms with the help of ksolve but I lost interest in the puzzle soon afterwards.



Yep, that's basically how I solve it.



Robert-Y said:


> I'm sure there are other interesting methods to discover but people haven't explored square 2 enough.



Of course there are many possible methods. But most cubers would just follow the herd and solve it by reducing it to a square-1, which is, if you think of it, really absurd (do you solve a 3^3 by reducing it to a bandaged 3^3 ?)


----------



## Dene (Dec 30, 2014)

Personally I just don't see any need for it. As far as priorities for new events, I consider it low.



TMOY said:


> Of course there are many possible methods. But most cubers would just follow the herd and solve it by reducing it to a square-1, which is, if you think of it, really absurd (do you solve a 3^3 by reducing it to a bandaged 3^3 ?)



That is a horrible comparison. Most people solve 4x4+ by reducing to a 3x3.


----------



## Robert-Y (Dec 30, 2014)

Reducing a 4x4x4 to a 3x3x3 reduces the 4x4x4 to a smaller move group. This isn't the case with square 2 to a square 1. The second method I've mentioned makes more sense to follow in this way.


----------



## Dene (Dec 30, 2014)

Not sure what exactly you mean? Doesn't reducing a Square-2 to a Square-1 reduce it to a smaller move group?


----------



## Robert-Y (Dec 30, 2014)

Ok, then tell me what is this move group?


----------



## Dene (Dec 30, 2014)

Well I don't know, that's why I'm asking. You reduce the 4x4 to the move group of a 3x3 don't you? And you reduce a Square-2 to the move group of a Square-1 right?

Unless we're using some sort of technical term I'm not familiar with.


----------



## TheOneOnTheLeft (Dec 30, 2014)

A Square-2 has the move group <(1, 0), (0, 1), />. Once corners are paired and you've reduced to a Square-1, you're still left with edges that have a "width" of (1, 0). So the move group remains <(1, 0), (0, 1), /> because you still have unpaired edges to deal with.


----------



## Robert-Y (Dec 30, 2014)

^ What I was trying to get at is the fact that we don't seem to cut out any moves by reducing a square 2 into a square 1. However with 4x4x4 > 3x3x3, if we ignore parity, we've essentially removed the necessity of using double layer turns, thus making it easier to solve.

Even if I couldn't solve a 3x3x3, reducing a 4x4x4 to a 3x3x3 still makes sense for the reason I've mentioned. But what if I couldn't solve a square-1. Does it seem sensible at all to reduce a square-2 to a square-1?


----------



## irontwig (Dec 30, 2014)

If you're referring to corners and edges then you just show that you don't realize that there's only one type of piece (well, two if you count the middle).


----------



## TMOY (Dec 30, 2014)

TheOneOnTheLeft said:


> A Square-2 has the move group <(1, 0), (0, 1), />. Once corners are paired and you've reduced to a Square-1, you're still left with edges that have a "width" of (1, 0). So the move group remains <(1, 0), (0, 1), /> because you still have unpaired edges to deal with.



Yes, except that there is no such thing as a move group for Square-1. There is only a move set, which is part of the Square-2 move group, but not a group itself.


----------



## SolveThatCube (Dec 30, 2014)

The sound of square-2 gives me a headache. I definitely don't think it should be an event.


----------



## stoic (Dec 30, 2014)

Robert-Y said:


> I've tried a few things. Here are some ideas which I find more interesting:
> 
> 1. Solve the bottom layer (either colour, doesn't matter). Then solve the top layer, one piece at a time. When I know I have "parity" I simply do a J perm. I couldn't find a shorter algorithm than this. This method can be improved quite a bit. I've found a few useful algorithms with the help of ksolve but I lost interest in the puzzle soon afterwards.
> 
> ...


Your first method is what I've been doing. The second one is cool though, thanks for the reply.


----------



## CuberM (Dec 30, 2014)

I said yes because people may be interested in square-2, meaning how is another event going to hurt anyone? It's would also probably be a cool spectator event, probably not as good as 3BLD though.


----------



## Dene (Dec 30, 2014)

TheOneOnTheLeft said:


> A Square-2 has the move group <(1, 0), (0, 1), />. Once corners are paired and you've reduced to a Square-1, you're still left with edges that have a "width" of (1, 0). So the move group remains <(1, 0), (0, 1), /> because you still have unpaired edges to deal with.



Hmm I see what you're saying. But in this case it comes down to something technical, which is as much as I expected.

If I were to apply a more intuitive meaning of "move group", then it is obvious reducing a Square-2 to a Square-1 does reduce the move group. For just as in 4x4, when reduced to a 3x3, we can no longer slice through the middle (ignoring parity), when we pair the corners on a Square-2, we can no longer slice through them. This obviously reduces the number of _moves_ available to us. Technically the move (0,1) is still available because of edges. But this is just something that is inherent to the puzzle in how it functions. Really, what you're leaning on when you say it doesn't reduce the "move group" is a technicality (ergo, in my opinion, meaningless).

I'm not saying reducing to a Square-1 is the best method, just that TMOY's example was poor. If you think of it like this: A Square-2 is just a Square-1 with more cuts through it. In the same way, a 5x5 is just a 3x3 with more cuts through it.



Robert-Y said:


> ^ What I was trying to get at is the fact that we don't seem to cut out any moves by reducing a square 2 into a square 1. However with 4x4x4 > 3x3x3, if we ignore parity, we've essentially removed the necessity of using double layer turns, thus making it easier to solve.
> 
> Even if I couldn't solve a 3x3x3, reducing a 4x4x4 to a 3x3x3 still makes sense for the reason I've mentioned. But what if I couldn't solve a square-1. Does it seem sensible at all to reduce a square-2 to a square-1?



It's up for debate whether removing double layer turns makes a 4x4 easier to solve. Also, considering the fact that reduction makes up at least 50% of the solve (in the vast majority of cases, and certainly much more than 50% for 5x5+) this is a fairly weak argument.

But the more I think about it, reducing a Square-2 to a Square-1 makes sense. Rather than looking at it as a reduction method, you can look at it as another step in solving the puzzle. That is (depending on how you solve a Square-1):
1) Pair corners
2) Orient corners
3) Orient edges
4) Permute corners (parity)
5) Permute edges

Steps 1 and 2 could possibly be integrated too... I don't have a Square-2 to try on though.

To be honest I'm way out of touch with Square-1 these days (I had to look up my alg sheet to remind me of how I solve the thing). What I'm getting at is I'm not sure what the pros are doing these days. But the fastest people are averaging around 10 seconds it seems. If pairing corners adds about 2 seconds, that's a pretty damn fast method. I'd be surprised to see something notably faster.


----------



## Robert-Y (Dec 31, 2014)

Dene said:


> It's up for debate whether removing double layer turns makes a 4x4 easier to solve.


How could it not be easier? I can't see this being up for debate.


Dene said:


> Also, considering the fact that reduction makes up at least 50% of the solve (in the vast majority of cases, and certainly much more than 50% for 5x5+) this is a fairly weak argument.


I don't understand your point that leads to the conclusion that my argument is weak. Please elaborate more?


Dene said:


> But the more I think about it, reducing a Square-2 to a Square-1 makes sense. Rather than looking at it as a reduction method, you can look at it as another step in solving the puzzle. That is (depending on how you solve a Square-1):
> *1) Pair corners*
> 2) Orient corners
> 3) Orient edges
> ...


How does this step make any sense? (in the case that you cannot solve a square 1)


----------



## Dene (Dec 31, 2014)

Robert-Y said:


> How could it not be easier? I can't see this being up for debate.



Well, personally, I always preferred the reduction phase over 3x3 phase. I find it hard to hold the cube in a way that makes turning outer layers easy. I find it much more comfortable to do double layer turns. For my breakdowns these days, I'm usually 35~ redux, 25~ 3x3. If my solves are faster, it's usually due to a faster redux. That's just my personal preference though. 

Really, the only reason doing inner slices used to suck was because of crappy hardware. Given how good 4x4s are nowadays, it might be time to explore other, more efficient methods (I don't know if any such methods exist; just a general comment).



Robert-Y said:


> I don't understand your point that leads to the conclusion that my argument is weak. Please elaborate more?



I guess my point is, when doing redux, the majority of your solve is still using the inner slices. It's only for a small portion at the end where you finally are free from them (ironically for you, when doing Yau this is even more so than classic redux). This obviously becomes more so when doing bigger cubes. 

Now you said taking out inner slices makes it easier to solve the rest of the puzzle. This might be true, but it is only applicable to that small portion of the solve where you are finally free from the inner slices. So if this is the only reason for doing reduction, it's not a particularly good reason (hence weak argument).



Robert-Y said:


> How does this step make any sense? (in the case that you cannot solve a square 1)



By that point in my post I had deviated completely from the discussion  . Those were just some of my thoughts.

Naturally it isn't obvious to solve a Square-2 in this way if you don't know how to solve a Square-1. However that doesn't mean it isn't potentially the fastest method. 

To be honest, I don't know how to answer that question of yours. If you don't know how to solve a 3x3 I don't know if it makes sense to use redux either. The first 4x4 method I learnt, from the Rubik's booklet, solved corners first, then edges, then centres. In my opinion, this is the most intuitively obvious method (but probably not the fastest). So who knows what the most obvious method might be for solving a Square-2, without prior knowledge of a Square-1. But what I do know is, the method I proposed is probably amongst the fastest.


----------



## Robert-Y (Dec 31, 2014)

Dene said:


> Well, personally, I always preferred the reduction phase over 3x3 phase. I find it hard to hold the cube in a way that makes turning outer layers easy. I find it much more comfortable to do double layer turns. For my breakdowns these days, I'm usually 35~ redux, 25~ 3x3. If my solves are faster, it's usually due to a faster redux. That's just my personal preference though.
> 
> Really, the only reason doing inner slices used to suck was because of crappy hardware. Given how good 4x4s are nowadays, it might be time to explore other, more efficient methods (I don't know if any such methods exist; just a general comment).


My biggest big cubes strength would probably be the reduction phase too. But anyway, surely having reduced a 4x4x4 to a 3x3x3 (i.e. removing the necessity of double layer turns) has made it easier to solve the 4x4x4?



Dene said:


> I guess my point is, when doing redux, the majority of your solve is still using the inner slices. It's only for a small portion at the end where you finally are free from them (ironically for you, when doing Yau this is even more so than classic redux). This obviously becomes more so when doing bigger cubes.
> 
> Now you said taking out inner slices makes it easier to solve the rest of the puzzle. This might be true, but it is only applicable to that small portion of the solve where you are finally free from the inner slices. So if this is the only reason for doing reduction, it's not a particularly good reason (hence weak argument).


Yeah I agree, I should have also mentioned the fact a lot of pieces are also being solved (i.e. centres)



Dene said:


> Naturally it isn't obvious to solve a Square-2 in this way if you don't know how to solve a Square-1. However that doesn't mean it isn't potentially the fastest method.


I think it is currently the "best" method at the moment just because people have explored square 1 solving enough to be worth it. But I still feel that there are better methods. We just need to explore square-2 more...



Dene said:


> To be honest, I don't know how to answer that question of yours. If you don't know how to solve a 3x3 I don't know if it makes sense to use redux either. The first 4x4 method I learnt, from the Rubik's booklet, solved corners first, then edges, then centres. In my opinion, this is the most intuitively obvious method (but probably not the fastest). So who knows what the most obvious method might be for solving a Square-2, without prior knowledge of a Square-1. But what I do know is, the method I proposed is probably amongst the fastest.


I think 4x4x4 reduction to 3x3x3 still makes sense because you are solving centres and reducing the puzzle to a small move group <LURDFB>. I believe that reducing a puzzle to a small move group makes it easier to solve in most cases.


----------



## vcuber13 (Dec 31, 2014)

Robert-Y said:


> But anyway, surely having reduced a 4x4x4 to a 3x3x3 (i.e. removing the necessity of double layer turns) has made it easier to solve the 4x4x4?



I find it much easier to do wing comms than edge comms. I don't know how to do a U-perm as a commutator on a 3x3, but, on a 4x4 it is fairly simple.


----------



## guysensei1 (Dec 31, 2014)

vcuber13 said:


> I don't know how to do a U-perm as a commutator on a 3x3,



M2 U M' U2 M U M2.

[M2 U M' U' M2, M2 U2 M2]


----------



## josh42732 (Dec 31, 2014)

I think that it should be an event because it adds a new part that has never been in cubing before. People would get a chance to set new records, and practice something new other than the same old thing.


----------



## vcuber13 (Dec 31, 2014)

guysensei1 said:


> M2 U M' U2 M U M2.
> 
> [M2 U M' U' M2, M2 U2 M2]



[M2 U: [M', U2]]
I haven't thought of that.

Also, I meant in a non-silly way, I would have done something like this
[R L: [E2, R' U' R]]


----------



## henrysavich (Dec 31, 2014)

It's too similar to Sq-1, I'm generally against having events that overlap in skillset too much with another event. ( 7x7 & 6x6, 4BLD & 5BLD are events I think are too similar)
If a new event is added I think it should be something different, such as 15 puzzle.

Events that are too similar are a waste of comp time in my opinion, because only one event is needed to demonstrate the skill level for both puzzles


----------



## stoic (Dec 31, 2014)

bobthegiraffemonkey said:


> it would be cool to see some effort on unofficial speedsolving of it, like what was posted recently with the bump cube.


I couldn't see any UWR rankings anywhere, but from some ancient threads on here:
50.19 single
58.70 avg 5

Plus, bonus:
this from Meep


----------



## MTGjumper (Dec 31, 2014)

It's a while since I put any effort into speedsolving it. I got down to low 50s average I believe, and I think I had a sub-40 single. It should be easy to beat those.


----------

