# New FMC-ER at BW Open 2013



## mycube (Apr 6, 2013)

Moritz Karl solved the cube in 21 Moves at the BW Open 2013. NR, ER and secound person in FMC in the world!


----------



## kunparekh18 (Apr 6, 2013)

Amazing! 

Sent from my A75 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Username (Apr 6, 2013)

Nice! Congrats!


----------



## applemobile (Apr 6, 2013)

Reconstruction?


----------



## JianhanC (Apr 6, 2013)

Jimmy Coll's record finally broken, congrats!


----------



## Cubenovice (Apr 6, 2013)

Whauk!

Congratulations!

Looking forward to the solution!


----------



## Iggy (Apr 6, 2013)

Congrats!


----------



## antoineccantin (Apr 6, 2013)

lolwat

I didn't know Whauk was good at FMC... Was it really lucky?


----------



## Cubenovice (Apr 6, 2013)

antoineccantin said:


> I didn't know Whauk was good at FMC... Was it really lucky?



I know from the weekly FMC comp in the German forum that he knows NISS, Insertions and some ZBLL. He has multiple sub 30 solutions there.
Looking forward to the solution, I hope there are some "real" FMC techniques in it.


----------



## cxinlee (Apr 6, 2013)

Wow! This may get me interested in FMC.


----------



## mycube (Apr 6, 2013)

And here his solution: kind of lucky but not really undeserved, too.
Scramble: F' U2 L' D L F' L' B D2 B2 R F2 L' B2 R' L2 D2 R' U2

Start on Normal:
Double X-Cross: R2 U' B D2 B' D' L' B D'
Switch to inverse: 
F2L-1: F R F' D' R2 D 
Finish/LL-Skip: R' U' B U' B' U2

Solution: R2 U' B D2 B' D' L' B D' U2 B U B' U R D' R2 D F R' F' - 21 Moves


----------



## Username (Apr 6, 2013)

How do you switch to inverse?


----------



## JasonK (Apr 6, 2013)

Username said:


> How do you switch to inverse?



Perform the inverse of your solution thus far, then perform the inverse scramble.

So in that example you would do (on a solved cube): D B' L D B D2 B' U R2, then the inverse scramble.


----------



## antoineccantin (Apr 6, 2013)

JasonK said:


> Perform the inverse of your solution thus far, then perform the inverse scramble.
> 
> So in that example you would do (on a solved cube): D B' L D B D2 B' U R2, then the inverse scramble.



I thought the solution were not supposed to have anything to do with the scramble?


----------



## Cubenovice (Apr 6, 2013)

Nice scramble!

Clearly some effort was put into it (not staying with the 2x2x2 and the switch)

here's what I got straight of the 2x2x3 on the normal scramble:
R D' R2 D - F2L-1
F' U F U' - edge play
R2 U' R' U R2 - leaves 3 corners in 22 moves
too lazy for insertions


----------



## JasonK (Apr 6, 2013)

antoineccantin said:


> I thought the solution were not supposed to have anything to do with the scramble?



That's correct. How does it?


----------



## antoineccantin (Apr 6, 2013)

JasonK said:


> That's correct. How does it?



If you perform the inverse of the scramble...


----------



## JasonK (Apr 6, 2013)

antoineccantin said:


> If you perform the inverse of the scramble...



...you get an extra place to work from in finding a solution. Solution still isn't related to the scramble.


----------



## Renslay (Apr 6, 2013)

antoineccantin said:


> I thought the solution were not supposed to have anything to do with the scramble?



It doesn't. The scramble is just a "black box", it does a permutation on the cubies. But every permutation has a direct inverse (see the so called "cube group" in group theory), and you can clearly build up a solution for the inverse just as well.

With other words: if I change the given scramle to another one, which contains 200 moves, but does the same on the cube, it would not effected the solution and the way it has been found.

EDIT: for example, let's say in the competition they give just the scrabled cube - but not the scrabling itself. You search for a longer solution (for example, naive CFOP with 50-60 moves), write it down, and use it as your new scrambling algorithm. Of course you can still use its inverse. And again, the winner would came up with the same solution as above, with 21 moves. And the original scrabling would not even known - but that just not change anything.

The reason why they don't do this actually in a competition, and give you a relatively short scrambling, is because it would take more time to figure out a scrabling for yourself, or using your way too long (50-60 moves) scrambling. Unnecessarily. A competitor usually do many scrambling during that one hour.

Again: 20 moves of scrable = 21 moves of solution. 200 moves of scramble = 21 moves of solution. Unknown scramble = 21 moves of solution. The only difference is how much time would it take to find that solution.


----------



## Forte (Apr 6, 2013)

Renslay said:


> With other words: if I change the given scramle to another one, which contains 200 moves, but does the same on the cube, it would not effected the solution and the way it has been found.



Oh snap, this is an awesome way of explaining it 

Also nice ER Whauk!


----------



## Renslay (Apr 6, 2013)

Forte said:


> Oh snap, this is an awesome way of explaining it



Thanks.  And congratulation, Whauk!


----------



## antoineccantin (Apr 6, 2013)

I still don't understand D:


----------



## Renslay (Apr 6, 2013)

antoineccantin said:


> I still don't understand D:



Okay. Let's see a counter example. A write down this as my solution:
U2 R D2 L2 R B2 L F2 R' B2 D2 B' L F L' D' L F D2 F' U2 F D2 L U L' D2 L U' L' D2

Which is 31 steps, fair enough for me. But actually, it is nothing more, than:

[inverse scramble] + F' U2 F D2 F' U2 F D2 (commutator for 8 corners) + L U L' D2 L U' L' D2 (commutator for put them back)

This solution would be cheating, since I used the given scramble in my solution, I get an opportunity of it's shortness. If I wouldn't know the given scramble, I wouldn't be able to create such a sort solution.

Moritz used the *result* of the scramble, not the scramble itself. And he used the *result* of the inverse of the scramble. Not the moves in the scramble itself. If those moves would be different (but resulting the same scrambled cube), that would not effect the way how Moritz found the solution. Again, if I would change the scrambling into a 200 moves long one, Moritz would found the 21 step solution just as easy. However, I would be in trouble, since my soultion would be more than 200 moves with the same strategy.

Show me any scrambled cube (without showing how you scrambled it!), and I give you an inverse to it by myself. Therefore, I can use the result of the inverse (as a new scramble) whenever I want. Using the result of an inverse of a scramble is not equals to get an unfair opportunity of using the moves in the scramble itself.


----------



## guusrs (Apr 6, 2013)

wow, Congratz Moritz


----------



## whauk (Apr 8, 2013)

thanks for all your kind words 
i missed ER for OH really close sometimes. now that it is out of my reach i never expected to get a european record in my cubing career. when i found the solution i was like "oh thats really short, probably NR". my hands started shivering as i wrote down the solution. then i counted and was like "WTF 21" and the guys at my table told my that it was ER and 2nd in the world. i quintuple checked what i wrote down and handed in my solution after ~20 minutes. the rest of the time i wished i had checked it once more and hoped that everything was right and readable xD.
well ERs dont last forever but i will always be the first person to have made a 21 in FMC (which is god's number +1 and therefore very special) 
and btw 17 was optimal...


----------



## Robert-Y (Apr 8, 2013)

Congrats again Moritz!

Too bad Sebastian doesn't even have NR in FM which is a bit surprising...

Off-topic: Reminds me of the time in 2007 when Ron broke the 333 single WR and left Erik in second place in the world but no NR


----------



## Cubenovice (Apr 8, 2013)

whauk said:


> i quintuple checked what i wrote down and handed in my solution after ~20 minutes. the rest of the time i wished i had checked it once more and hoped that everything was right and readable xD.



That must have been a very nerving wait for the results confirmation 

May I ask why you made the switch after the XX-cross?
When Linus posted your solution I found a 28 mover straight of your XX-cross.

Start on Normal:
Double X-Cross: R2 U' B D2 B' D' L' B D'
From there:
R D' R2 D - F2L-1
F' U F U' - edge play
R2 U' R' U R2 - leaves 3 corners in 22 moves
Insertion for 28 HTM.

Anyway, from now on I will have a look at switching even if the continuation on the normal scramble looks good


----------



## whauk (Apr 9, 2013)

yes you may  well the obvious 4-move 2x2x2 didn't lead to sth on the normal nor on the inverse. (some blocks are there but i didn't see a good way to join them).
then i found the double x-cross with 2 possibilities (you can finish it with B D' or D' B). B D' leaves one block more but i wanted to check both on inverse first before forgetting it due to a decent continuation.
i just switch whenever i finish sth (or when lots of blocks appear). what you wrote down would probably have been my solution if i didn't find the 21.


----------

