fmcutrecht-2024-solves.txt (10423B)

1 Round 1 Attempt 1 - 20 2 3 R' U' F D2 L' D2 B' U2 B' L2 F' L2 B' D2 R D U B' D R2 B2 D F' R' U' F 4 5 Solution: D B' U' F L D F2 R2 F2 B' R2 F' U B2 U B2 R2 U2 D2 F2 (20) 6 7 D B' U' F L //EO (5/5) 8 D //JZP (1/6) 9 (F2 L2 F2 U' F2 U) //DR (6/12) 10 B2 L2 F D2 B //HTR (5/17) 11 F2 D2 //Leave double slice (2/19 but actually 18) 12 13 Rewrite 14 D B' U' F L D 15 (F2 L2 F2 U' F2 U D2) 16 {B2 L2 F D2 B F2} 17 18 {} = F2 R2 F2 B' R2 F' (0/18) 19 20 For the part on inverse at first I rewrote it as 21 (F2 L2 D U' R2 D2 U L2 D') (3/21) 22 23 But then I found this non-obvious equivalent 24 (F2 D2 U2 R2 B2 U' B2 U') (-1/20) 25 26 Optimal from EO :) 27 28 Now if you look at the solution linearly on normal, it looks like a DR solve: 29 30 D B' U' F L //EO (5/5) 31 D //RZP (1/6) 32 F2 R2 F2 B' R2 F' //Sub-optimal DR, I would never look at this (6/12) 33 U B2 U //HTR (3/15) 34 B2 R2 U2 D2 F2 //Finish (5/20) 35 36 Adding a slice to turn the 11 move DR into a 12 mover is something I 37 would never consider, but in this case it make the HTR much easier. 38 39 40 The scramble had 14 EOs in 4, only 1 of which requiring NISS. I missed 41 some of the linear ones and I don't know why, maybe I felt some comp 42 pressure. 43 44 That turned out not to be a problem because the 4 move EOs all sucked. 45 I had a few short DRs from the, but they were all 5qt. From 4 move EOs, 46 mallard finds a 23 with RZP in 6 and DR in 12. With EO in 4 and RZP in 47 5 the best it finds is a 25. 48 49 Good time management on my part, I started rushing through 5 move EOs 50 at the right moment and found a bunch of direct RZPs, but did not try 51 to switch after each of them immediately. The EO I used was the 20th, 52 and it immediately stood out. Found the double slice quite early and I 53 have not worked on anything else after that. 54 55 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 56 Round 1 Attempt 2 - DNF (but I could have written down a 26, I'm stupid) 57 58 R' U' F D U2 B R2 F2 D2 F D2 B' U2 F L2 R' B2 R B2 U L2 R2 F' R' U' F 59 60 The most promising thing I had was this: 61 62 R2 U' R2 D' //EO (4/4) 63 L R2 D2 B L2 B L' //DR (7/11) 64 F' L2 F' R2 U2 B [1] //HTR (6/17) 65 U2 R2 F2 R2 U2 R2 //Leave slice (6/23) 66 67 I found it at 48 minute, plenty of time to complete the solve, right? 68 RIGHT? 69 Apparently not. The best I could find was a 26 and I did not bother 70 writing it down because FOR SURE I one can find at least a 24 on this, 71 right? Checking it now I see that [1] = B' F R2 B F' U2 gives 25, so why 72 did I not see it? I guess I'll never know. 73 74 Optimal from this DR is 22 with just one extra move for HTR: 75 76 D2 F U2 B [s1] U2 L2 F' //HTR with extra D2 at the start (7/18) 77 U2 L2 B2 [s2] //Leave slice (3/21) 78 [s1] = [s2] = S2 79 80 Had I found a good slicing on my leave slice in 23 I would probably looked 81 for more HTRs, and this is quite an obvious one. But I needed more time, 82 I am not that fast at checking HTRs (yet). 83 84 With a 22 on this scramble it would have been 21.33 ER mean. I am not quite 85 there yet, but this shows that I am not as far as I thought either :) 86 87 I should have written down the 26 and I would have been happy 88 with a sub23 mean. But It was not an easy call to make, a couple of minutes 89 at the end can make the different when finding difficult slices (and they did 90 in attempt 3!). 91 92 I also had this decent DR: 93 94 (D R' D2 B) //EO (4/4) 95 R U F2 B2 D R //DR (6/10) 96 U L2 D' B2 R2 D' B2 D' //Possible HTR 97 98 Optimal is 23 but it requires HTR in 20. 99 100 Again missed a couple of linear EOs in 4, not of a kind that I usually forget 101 to check. I just need to focus more in the EO phase. I also misse U R (U R) 102 but that can happen. 103 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 104 Round 1 Attempt 3 - 22 105 106 R' U' F R F L B' U D' F2 R F D2 R2 F R2 D2 B2 R2 U2 F2 L2 R' B' R' U' F 107 108 Solution: L2 B U2 R2 F' B R2 F L2 F' L2 U2 F' U B2 U' F2 B D' L U L' (22) 109 110 (L U' L') //EO (3/3) 111 (D B' F2 U B2 U') //DR 2qt (6/9) 112 L2 F (F U2 L2 B D2 B') //HTR +2qt (8/17) 113 (R2 U2 L2) //Leave slice, the dreaded 4x (3/20) 114 115 DR part all on inverse: 116 (F U2 L2 B D2 B' R2 U2 L2 F' R2) 117 118 The 4x slice can be solved by inserting two single slice moves in the same 119 direction separated by a (D)-sequence (see my slice theory page at 120 https://sebastiano.tronto.net/speedcubing/slice-theory). If you look at 121 this scramble, every three consecutive floppy moves are an I-sequence! 122 This is normally very good for simplifying a solution, but not for solving 123 a 4x. Indeed it took me around 20 minutes to finish my solve. 124 125 At first I found a 24 by inserting a 4x somewhere. 126 Then I found this, I don't remember how (my notes are very chaotic): 127 128 (B L2 D2 F D2 F' U2 B' F U2 L2 F B2 L2) (+3/23) 129 130 And with less than two minutes left I found this: 131 132 (F U2 L2 F L2 F' R2 B' F R2 U2 B' L2) (+2/22) 133 134 I wrote it down and finished checking at 59:30. If I had a good solve 135 (or just a non-DNF) on the second attempt, I would have freaked out. What 136 is going on with these hard slices?! 137 138 It turns out 22 is optimal from this DR, and there is no way to get it 139 in 2qt. Cool! 140 141 About the scramble: it was very good, there were many short DRs and I 142 did not even have time to check all the 4 move EOs - the one time where 143 I found all of them. Stupid 20 minutes slice from Hell. 144 145 Other interesting DRs: 146 B' R2 D F 147 U2 L2 U2 L' U' L' //3qt in 10, 24 optimal with 5qt bleh 148 149 B' R2 D F 150 (U2 R2 L U L) //3qt in 9 but it's fake HTR corners, 24 optimal 151 152 Pretty satisfied with this attempt :) 153 154 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 155 Round 2 Attempt 1 - 22 156 R' U' F L D' R2 D2 U2 B F2 D2 L2 U2 L2 B' L2 D' F R2 D' U B D2 R' U' F 157 158 (R) L' D' L //EO (4/4) 159 (D' F D' B' D') //DR (5/9) 160 (B' R2 U2 F2 L2 B') //HTR (6/15) 161 (U2 F2 D2 R2 D2 R2 F2) //Finish (7/22) 162 163 This was the easiest scramble of the comp. I found this solution early on and 164 I could not improve on it. 165 166 There were multiple 21s from this DR, all requiring 4qts. I checked some 167 of them, but I should have checked more. On the other hand, I traded one 168 move for the chance of finding an even better DR, which makes sense on 169 a scramble like this. 170 171 Most findable optimal finish, from the DR ending in (... B' D): 172 173 (F' L2 F' U2 R2 F U2 F) //HTR in 17 174 (D2 F2 R2 U2) //Leave slice in 21 175 +0 solve slice 176 177 But also a leave slice in 20, from the EO ending in ...D' L': 178 179 (F) U2 F' (U2 L2 F D2 F) //HTR in 17 180 D2 L2 U2 //Leave slice in 20 181 +1 slice 182 183 I was closer to this second solution than to the one from the linear HTR, 184 having tried (B) B (...) for HTR. I forgot to try and add a half turn 185 before making a qt of progress, a common mistake for me. 186 187 188 Other DRs: 189 190 D R' U2 L (F' R2 F' R2 B' L2 U) -> 11 4qt +13 191 R U' R' B / D U2 R' U2 L U' R2 U' -> 12 some crap +14 192 (D R D B') L' R B2 L R D2 L' D -> 12 less crap +12 193 (D B2 U' B) (U' B2 L' R' U) -> 9 4qt +14 194 (D B2 U' B) (U' F2 L' R' D') -> 9 4qt variation +13 195 (R D B') (U D' B2 D L' U2 L') -> 10 5qt +14 196 (R D B') U D B2 U2 D2 R D2 R -> 11 4qt +13 197 198 Even if I switched after (R D B'), I missed three DRs in 10 like a noob: 199 200 (R D B') D2 L2 U D' R F2 R -> 10 4qt +12 201 (R D B') F2 L2 U' D' R' F2 R' -> 10 4qt +12 202 (R D B) B2 R2 U' D' R' D2 R' -> 10 4qt +10 203 204 Optimal for the last DR is trivial: 205 206 U R2 D L2 U' B2 U //HTR in 17 207 L2 D2 R2 //Solved in 20 208 209 So I guess the choice of looking for more DRs after finding the 22 210 was correct. Or even better, I should have worked more on the 3 move 211 EO with direct RZP before moving to the 4 move EOs. In any case, even 212 if I did I would have needed to find and try all 3 variations of the DR 213 to find the best one. 214 215 Even though I could have done better, I am decently happy with my 216 performance on this attempt. 217 218 This scramble was 16 optimal. It felt like it, although the only optimal 219 solution is not findable with DR: 220 221 B2 D2 R' F' R F D2 L R D' L' D2 B' D2 R' D' (16) 222 223 But it looks findable with blocks: 224 225 (D R) //Square + pair (2/2) 226 (D2 B D2 L D L') B2 //F2L-1 (7/9) 227 (L' D2 F' R' F R D2) //Last pair (7/16) 228 229 LL skip 230 231 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 232 Round 2 Attempt 2 - 27 233 R' U' F R F' L' B2 L' F B L' D B' D' B2 U D2 L2 B2 D F2 R' U' F 234 235 Solution: Can't be bother writing it down 236 237 L B' F D' L //EO (5/5) 238 U F2 L2 U2 F' B2 U //DR 2qt (7/12) 239 (B' L2 B R2 U2 F' U2 F) //HTR (8/20) 240 (U2 B2 U2 R2 B2 D2 L2) //Leave slice (7/27) 241 +0 (but hard to find) 242 243 It was the only DR I had, +13 optimal with 4qt. 244 245 Wow, this scramble sucked. 246 247 There was no sub5 EO, only 65 EOs in 5, of which 33 linear. But I did 248 not write down that many, maybe a couple of dozen in total. The 8 bad 249 EOs that start with F to a different 8 bad case always elude me, and 250 this time I also missed some setup to F B. Plus other random EOs. 251 In the past I was better at 5 move EOs, but as I got better at the 4 252 move NISS ones, I got rusty with the long EO spam. 253 254 From one of the easy, linear EOs I missed: 255 256 F' U B' L' F //EO (5/5) 257 D F2 U2 R' //DR (4/9) 258 D L2 U2 B2 L2 U L2 D //HTR (8/17) 259 F2 R2 F2 R2 //Leave slice (4/21) 260 +1 261 262 The HTR above is very strange, I would have never tried that. After the 263 first qt you are in a case that requires a U2 fix, and when this happens 264 I always just do the first qt in the opposite direction to avoid the 265 extra fix. 266 267 There is also this 21 from a tricky DR: 268 269 L (B2 U' D2 L') //EO, I had this one (5/5) 270 (B U') //RZP, would not see this in a million years (2/7) 271 (D2 F' D) //DR (3/10) 272 (U2 F' L2 U2 D2 F L2 F') //HTR (8/18) 273 (D2 B2 R2) //Finish (3/21) 274 275 Conclusion: even though the scramble looked garbage, there was good stuff. 276 277 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 278 279 Round 2 Attempt 3 - 25 280 R' U' F R' L' D' L U' R2 D2 F' D R2 B R2 U2 F L2 F' L2 U2 R' B R' U' F 281 282 Solution: L B' D' F' U' B D2 F' B' R2 B R' D2 L2 F D2 F' L2 B2 L2 R2 U2 L2 B2 L2 283 284 L B' D' F' U' //EO (5/5) 285 B D2 F' B' R2 B R' //DR (7/12) 286 D2 L2 F D2 F' //HTR (5/17) 287 L2 B2 L2 R2 U2 L2 B2 L2 //Finish (8/25) 288 289 Unfortunately I missed the optimal finish by a light year. 290 From the DR ending in ...B R: 291 292 F (U2 B) //HTR (3/15) 293 (R2 B2 L2 U2 L2 D2) //Leave slice (6/21) 294 +1 295 296 Before I learned that 2qt DRs often require 4qt for optimal finish, this 297 kind of HTR was the second thing I would try. But now I learnt more stuff, 298 so I am worse (: 299 300 The scramble also looked shit at first. When I saw it I almost wanted 301 to give up. There are two sub-5 EOs, but they are garbage. Luckily, 302 multiple linear EOs turned out to be direct RZP, so it was workable. But 303 in the end I had nothing better than that 12+2 DR. 304 305 I am sad about the big blunder on the optimal finish. Apart from this, 306 I should have once again spammed more EOs in 5.