Message #1933

From: Roice Nelson <roice3@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [MC4D] Re: yet more new puzzles and a prize
Date: Sun, 20 Nov 2011 19:33:49 -0600

Congratulations on solving the last {3,7} Nan! It’s really astonishing how
many puzzles you’ve conquered.

Six months of holding this group at bay is not too bad, but I ordered the
MC4D crystal cube yesterday - it was clear the challenge was about to fall
:) Please send me your address offline, and I’ll get it mailed off to you
as soon as it comes in!

Thanks for spending so much time with the 4D_Cubing group software, and for
all your enthusiasm here. It’s fun to watch and be a part of.

Cheers,
Roice

On Sun, Nov 20, 2011 at 5:08 PM, schuma <mananself@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> I just completed the solution of {3,7} FT. The save file is here:
>
>
> http://games.groups.yahoo.com/group/4D_Cubing/files/Nan%20Ma/37FT_solved.xml
>
> It took me 13050 moves and around 19.5 hours. I didn’t use macros. At this
> time I’ve solved all the three {3,7} puzzles, VT, ET and FT.
>
> About the solution of FT, there’s not much unique thing. All the pieces of
> the same type are in a single orbit.
>
> One thing in my solution that’s kind of interesting is the order of
> solving. I first solved the centers, then the central edges, then the large
> side-centers affecting the centers. So then I had to solve the centers
> again. Why did I solve the centers twice? It is related to my piece finding
> strategy. I first solved the center just for setting up a "reference". In
> this step I had to compare a scrambled puzzle with the initial state a lot
> in the initial viewpoint (only in this viewpoint can I perfectly align
> these two states). This is possible only because the centers are large.
> It’s impossible to do it using the edges because they are too small to see
> in the initial viewpoint.
>
> Using the centers as reference I solved the central edges. Then using the
> central edges as reference I can solve the side-centers. But unfortunately
> my algorithm for the side-centers affected the centers so I had to solve
> the centers, using side-centers as reference. The logic sounds cyclic but
> it works. There are not many centers (56) so that’s not much extra work.
>
> Nan
>
> — In 4D_Cubing@yahoogroups.com, "schuma" <mananself@…> wrote:
> >
> > Hi guys,
> >
> > I’m currently taking the challenge of {3,7} FT and solving it full
> throttle. Starting on Friday evening, I’ve used about 10 hours till now.
> All the large pieces have been solved and I’m going to worry about the tiny
> pieces from now. I hope I can get it done sometime on Sunday.
> >
> > Nan
> >
> > — In 4D_Cubing@yahoogroups.com, "schuma" <mananself@> wrote:
> > >
> > > — In 4D_Cubing@yahoogroups.com, Roice Nelson <roice3@> wrote:
> > > > I know for me, it feels more pure to not have too much help from the
> > > > software features. In the early days of MC4D, especially when going
> for
> > > > shortest solves, I used to write my setup moves down on paper!
> > >
> > > I totally agree. solving with or without aids are two different games.
> This is also why I hesitated a lot before I sent the previous post about
> computer aids. They change the nature of a puzzle. I don’t know if
> solutions with aids deserve your initial grand prize or not. But in either
> way, whenever a solution is very long, my feeling is basically the same: I
> start to question the meaning of doing it.
> > >
> > > Anyway, thank you for making these features. Having the option to use
> aids is definitely better than not having it.
> > >
> > > Nan
> > >
> >
>
>
>
>
> ————————————
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>