Ron wrote:1) Can we say anything about the "scientific" state of the scrambling of Megaminx?
To put it differently: if we would do 100 moves like this, would the Megaminx be thoroughly scrambled?
Is there any guess about the maximum depth of Megaminx?
How would the current scrambling and your proposed scrambling compare? Harder, easier, roughly the same?
jaap wrote:It is clear that the set of move sequences this new method generates is a subset of those of the old method, so the scramble length will need to be at least as much as before for an equally fair scramble.
StefanPochmann wrote:jaap wrote:It is clear that the set of move sequences this new method generates is a subset of those of the old method, so the scramble length will need to be at least as much as before for an equally fair scramble.
Not necessarily. Think about the 3x3 and our usual 25 move scrambles, forbidding parts like LR'L2R. They're a subset of the set of all 25 move algorithms, but their quality is *better*.
Three questions? You forgot one?
Ron wrote:I will wait for Stefan's analysis, but they way it looks now, I want to propose this scramble program for the 2008 version of the WCA regulations.
BryanLogan wrote:So is the "Y" turn always suppose to be a +- 2?
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests