Message #1943

From: Nan Ma <mananself@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [MC4D] Re: yet more new puzzles and a prize
Date: Thu, 01 Dec 2011 20:34:12 -0800

Hi Roice,

I’ve got the crystal. It is beautiful. Thank you very much for it.

Nan

On Sun, Nov 20, 2011 at 5:33 PM, Roice Nelson <roice3@gmail.com> wrote:

> **
>
>
> 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
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>