Message #621

From: Anthony <anthony.deschamps@yahoo.ca>
Subject: Re: Magic Cube 6^5 Solved
Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2009 21:01:18 -0000

— In 4D_Cubing@yahoogroups.com, Roice Nelson <roice3@…> wrote:
>
> I think the lack of experienced parity problems is likely due to the
> solution method (corners-in instead of centers-out). In Noel’s
> writeup about higher dimensional
> parities<http://games.groups.yahoo.com/group/4D_Cubing/message/522>,
> he described the issues like this:
>
> "When the puzzle is simplified to a 3x3, it will have configurations
that
> are normally impossible in a standard 3x3."
>
> But with a corners-in approach, the cube is never reduced to a 3x3 to
> be solved as that simpler puzzle. If I were a betting man, and
occasionally
> I am, I’d wager Levi’s general solution approach avoids parities
even on a
> 4^3 puzzle.
>
> My congratulations to Levi too! And my empathy for the addiction :)

I would agree that a corners in approach avoids parity problems. It’s
the solution that I use when I solve my 4^3. I guess it’s because
when you solve all the one of a kind pieces first (corners and edges)
then the face pieces can be solved without having to worry about
accidentally swapping two that look identical.

Congratulations on solving the 6^5. I personally haven’t gotten
around to finishing the 3^5 yet, but I can still somewhat comprehend
the magnitude of the challenge that you solved. Great job!

-Anthony Deschamps