# Determining Orientation of the Corners?



## byu (Dec 18, 2008)

I'm trying to learn to do a Blindfold 3x3x3 solve, but I don't know how to determine orientation of the corners. What are the easy rules for knowing whether it is oriented or not, if it isn't in the right place yet?


----------



## James Kobel (Dec 18, 2008)

It's very easy. Say you hold your cube with red on top and orange on the bottom. Any corner that has red or orange facing up on the top side and facing down on the bottom side is oriented. If a corner isn't, then it's unoriented.


----------



## blah (Dec 18, 2008)

@James Kobel: Stefan will probably kill you for that answer.

To be more precise, the most popular and common (and probably the only one used by BLD cubers) _definition_ of a correctly oriented corner is the one mentioned by James. IMO, it really is pretty pointless (practically) to use other definitions, but it's good to know the theory behind all this orientation stuff.


----------



## Stefan (Dec 18, 2008)

Nah, these days I have less time and rarely react to this when I see it. There's a different definition that's quite beneficial at least for execution, btw, but the downside is harder recognition.


----------



## blah (Dec 18, 2008)

And what might that definition be?


----------



## Stefan (Dec 18, 2008)

http://games.groups.yahoo.com/group/blindfoldsolving-rubiks-cube/message/661


----------



## deco122392 (Dec 18, 2008)

..... must he be so presice? its cool and all but i don't really .... i give up.ok . the link does define orientation. listen to the all mighty and infallible Stefan Pochmann.


----------



## joey (Dec 18, 2008)

If you notice it was actually someone else who brought his name up, I think he may have just left it alone otherwise.
Must you be so imprecise? 
That link just defines another way to orient corners, and I learnt from it, definitely interesting to read. 

(nowadays, I only believe in permutation anyway :/)


----------



## deco122392 (Dec 18, 2008)

ok i see that i was reacting on an infiriority complex issue. so id like to formally appoligize. i am sorry Stefan. and thank you joey and back on topic. the link he provided is nice beacouse it does word the way i see orientation. thank you Stefan


----------



## Stefan (Dec 19, 2008)

People sometimes take me way too seriously. Joey's right, I had seen the thread but didn't intend to reply, only did because of blah's post and only replied to his. The link was not for the method to define orientation schemes (and it's not even "the" one) but solely for the new orientation scheme and its benefit I had proposed there. And back then I only briefly included the definition method in order to help explain the new proposed orientation scheme and how it differs from the standard one. One fine day I intend to write a comprehensive article about this stuff (at least the way I see it), and I've come to the conclusion that until then it's pretty useless to mention it, which is the main reason I usually don't do that anymore these days (here I only did because blah already had).

Edit: Looks like the misunderstanding was that we were talking about two different kinds of "definition", one meaning one specific orientation scheme and one meaning a method to define such schemes (and sorry for using the fuzzy word "schemes", but I hope it's clear enough). The latter kind is somewhat off-topic, sorry for not making that clear.


----------



## TMOY (Dec 19, 2008)

Note that even with the standard orientation scheme (every U or D sticker on the U or D face) you can use 8-move commutators, for example L2 U R2 U' L2 U R2 U'.


----------



## Stefan (Dec 19, 2008)

Yes, but only a few cases. Can you give another example, not equivalent to that one?

With the other scheme there are trivial 8-move commutators for *all* cases (except the only-U and only-D cases, and those can be done with the 9-move Aperm).


----------



## TMOY (Dec 19, 2008)

If you count slice moves as one move you can use the H-perm (M2 U M2 U2 M2 U M2 U2); when you use another face than U or D as the LL you swap corners between layers.
Also useful (12 moves but fast), the triple sexy move (LF'L'F)^3.


----------



## Stefan (Dec 19, 2008)

No doubt there are nice short/fast algs for it. Though for four piece cases you'll probably need setup moves most of the time to make use of these nice algs.


----------



## cmhardw (Dec 20, 2008)

StefanPochmann said:


> http://games.groups.yahoo.com/group/blindfoldsolving-rubiks-cube/message/661



Stefan, after reading this post for the first time (back when you first posted it) was the first time I actually considered using a purely commutator approach to blindfolded solving. It took a while to finally get up the effort/courage to actually try it, and I ended up not using a orient first step in the beginning, but this post is mostly what prompted me to consider solving using commutators for the pieces. This of course includes using a parity fix alg for 2 swapped corners and 2 swapped edges, but I think you see what I mean.

I never said it before, but seeing this old post again reminded me, so thank you!

Chris


----------



## Stefan (Dec 21, 2008)

Thanks Chris, makes me happy to hear it was good for something. I'm not quite sure I expected the method to be actually used, but I believe I did want to disrupt old thinking. Blindcubing has always been the most exciting part of speedcubing for me since I started with it, not just the actual act but more importantly the development of new ideas and methods. Blindcubing has changed so much in the last few years and I think we still have some way to go.


----------

