Message #3295

From: Roice Nelson <roice3@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [MC4D] Re: Greetings
Date: Tue, 23 Feb 2016 11:35:21 -0600

Welcome Thomas!

My vote is that we mark this new solution as a first class record in a new
category, "shortest computer assisted solve". I’ve considered trying to
use the computer for attacks on the shortest competition in the past, and
it’d be great if more folks were motivated to do this. With advances in
this area we could, for example, come closer to intuiting what God’s Number
for the 3^4 might be. We don’t even have a rough idea of what it is right
now, upper OR lower bounds (as far as I know).

Congrats on your impressive solve, and happy to have you posting here.

Cheers,
Roice

On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 10:21 AM, Thomas Lehéricy
thomas.lehericy78@orange.fr [4D_Cubing] <4D_Cubing@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

>
>
> Indeed. I looked at the wiki page after my first solves, but didn’t
> understand everything and preferred to keep going with the method I was
> designing - at this point using an analogue of CFOP was just the thing to
> do, seing how intuitive it is when you know it well. Now that I read it
> again it looks very clear, and it indeed looks the same as my own method up
> to the last layer.
>
>
>
> The last 3D face can be done in at most twice as many moves as one would
> need for the 3D cube. To do that, one can simply "regrip" (rotate) the cube
> so that the face one turns is always the same. Of course it can be
> improved, for instance when using URU’R’: a single regrip in the middle and
> all moves will cancel… So it’s only an upper bound. I don’t know of any
> general method to optimize this step, although I would be extremely
> interested.
>
>
>
> The human Thitlethwaite is not particularly efficient at giving low-move
> counts solutions, but still better than CFOP. I think you can hope for a
> 40-50 move counts on average if you know all cases (which I don’t), without
> optimizing it for too long. What is good is that each step is rather
> intuitive, and it can be optimized and yields extremely good results:
> Kociemba’s algorithm is derived from it.
>
>
>
> Block-building methods seem the thing to do indeed. It seems to me that
> Matthew Sheerin built his first two layers like this in his record. It is
> not as optimized nor as flexible as Heise, and it would be indeed
> interesting to see how well Heise translates into 4D - but that’s far
> beyond my abilities right now.
>
>
>
> Thank you for your answer!
>
> Thomas
>
>
>
>