On 17/10/2024 09:30, Daniel wrote:

Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> writes:

On 15/10/2024 02:27, Daniel wrote:

Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> writes:

On 07/10/2024 03:32, Daniel wrote:

Hey folks -
Just subbed this NG hoping to get advice on 3x3 twisty cube
technique.
Currently, I'm learning Roux technique and strugling on the four
final
edges - the online wiki's seem to be written for a different sort of >>>>> reader because I simply don't understand. The online puzzle solvers
don't utilize predefined techniques.
Is this a good NG for this? Any cubers in here?
I tried a big cubing forum, but the people on there aren't friendly. >>>>> Thanks,
Daniel

I have a Rubik's cube (3x3) and I worked out my own way of solving it
back in 1980. My method is "logical" [to me] rather than
speed-orientated - I'm not interested in all the speed
record/competition stuff! The advantage (for me) of my method is that >>>> it only has two phases [edges first, then corners], and doesn't
require memorising a big list of seemingly random looking transforms.
(Also my method uses the basic structure of the cube and similar
puzzles, and so with minor adjustments applies to all the cube
variants on the market.)

Well good for you. I never had the mental fortitude to do it on my
own. Took youtube. You did what all the method creators did, you created >>> your own algorithms and stuck with it. Part of me wishes I stuck with
it, but oh well it's only a puzzle.
The cube came out in nineteen-eighty. I was six years old and didn't
know pf it until the ads started appearing during after-school tv
shows about two years later, when I was eight. I wanted one instantly
and my mom got it for me about a month later. Never got far with it. Set >>> it down for many years.

I've never heard of Roux technique, but I'll give it a go and try to
help if you have any specific questions, hopefully together with a web >>>> link to the method!

Since my original post, I've done much more reading and found out
that I
was misreading the moves. The Roux method is something I'm exploring to
speed my solves because I intend to do some 2025 competitions in my
local area and get on the boards. I'd like to achieve something less
than forty seconds when I get on the board so my scores aren't at the
bottom of the range. The community in my area isn't too heavy on the
children - there are some college students and older who compete, so I
won't feel too out-of-place.
Roux is unique and gaining in popularity due to the decreased
required
moves to solve the puzzle - hence reducing solve times. It entails
solving a 2x3 area on both sides so that the middle slice and the top
layer are unsolved. Solve the top corners. Once this is accompished, you >>> only have the middle slice and the top edges to solve.
You can't solve with only slice moves until the corners are solved -
and
there are dozens of algorithms developed for each case. But, I only use
one algorithm for the corners - so it isn't necessary.
For me, Roux's magic is the final four on top. It's elementary to
solve
the bottom layer because there's only two remaining squares. I've
standardized my solves with white layer on the bottom.
Right now I'm simply studying them by learning the relationships of
the
moves and how it makes sense. There is logic behind it, erasing the
notion of randomness. If I could learn chemistry in college, I can learn >>> these algorithms. I'll include a rough ascii drawing of Roux's
distinction below. I apologize for my horrible ascii art in advance:
+-----+-----+-----+
/| | | |
/ | | | | x and y's denote the solved
/ | | | | area. They can be any color.
+ +-----+-----+-----+
/| /| | | | As you can see, the middle
/ | / | x | | y | slice and top layer are
/ |/ | | | | the remains of the solution.
+ + x +-----+-----+-----+ I didn't draw out the other side
/| /| /| | | | for brevity's sake.
/ | / | / | x | | y |
/ |/ |/ | | | |
+ + x + x +-----+-----+-----+
| /| /| / / / /
| / | / | / x / / y /
|/ |/ |/ / / /
+ x + x +-----+-----+-----+
| /| / / / /
| / | / x / / y /
|/ |/ / / /
+ x +-----+-----+-----+
| / / / /
| / x / / y /
|/ / / /
+-----+-----+-----+

That's great ascii drawing. I even understand what it's saying
related to your desctiption of the method. With my solving technique,

Hey thanks. I thought it was janky. Almost went into the ascii newsgroup
for draawing suggestions.

the last 4 corners I would have to solve as two 3-corner transforms,
which means 16 moves minimum but probably more due to pre/post "setup"
moves. (Coming from a maths background, I would call those
"conjugation" moves.) So not efficient. OTOH with 5 corners to solve

I studied applied mathematics in college but it's been twenty years. In
the cubing world, the terms permutation and orientation are used. Much
of it seems to derive from mathematicians in teh 1980s who utilized
group theory to study the puzzle after it came out. I found old messages
from the early 1980s on a gopher search.

I was introduced to the cube in my (maths) student days by Prof. John Conway, seeing him playing
with one during a college evening meal with us to which he had been invited. Well now you know my
"link to fame"! lol. (..and I hear you asking "John who?" which is ok, but he was known by many
outside mathematician circles, due e.g. to his work on "Game of Life" and "Surreal numbers". So
it's possibly you've heard of him.) Conway of course loved the cube puzzle which was right up his
street, what with the group theory angle and all. It wouldn't surprise me at all to learn he had
published something on the maths of the cube.

it would still be two 3-corner transforms unless I'm unlucky... 40
seconds for me would be /really/ fast, but I'm a bit rubbish at the
whole physical twisting of the faces. The first cube I had was the
complete opposite of "slick" - it had a grating feel when twisting,
and over time the internal workings wore away due to friction and it
became looser and looser until you could almost shake it into separate
pieces! :)

I utilize a very simple algorithm for the top corner pieces that rotates
the right piece closest to you. It takes two uses of the algorithm to
flip it once, two more to flip it the second time, and two more to
restore the original direction. Alot of speed cubers utilize this
algorithm to warm up before a solve.

R' D' R D x2

R = Right slice rotated clockwise
R'= Right slice rotated counter-clock
D = (bottom) down slice rotated clockwise
D'= down slice rotated counter-clock

I posted a demo of the algorithm repeated on the same corner via rumble:

https://rumble.com/v5j008h-top-layer-solve-demo.html

So for the last layer, the beginner routine specifies orienting the edge pieces first. Let's pretend that you have the cross on top already and
need to finish the corner pieces. The beautiful logic is, the algorithm
I provided on top is all you need to finish. And, the algorithm will be
used to solve the puzzle that is divisible by six. There will always be
a minimum of two corners needing solved.

... two corners

https://rumble.com/v5j01dp-two-corners.html

... three corners

https://rumble.com/v5j01jp-three-corners.html

... four corners

https://rumble.com/v5j01p9-four-corners.html

So I solve the four corners that way, then solve the edge pieces - and
those are the algorithms I'm learning now.

OK, I see what's going on there. All those examples are where corner pieces are twisted, but in the
right location. I don't have anything special to handle that, and my 8-move corner transforms
displace (just) 3 corners. E.g. :

RTR' B' RT'R' B

So if two corners were twisted, I would apply the above, leaving 3 corners displaced, then another
routine variation of the above to solve. 2x8 moves to solve + 2x(0,1 or 2 conjugation moves). Let's
say 18 moves, which same as your video, assuming you realise that doing your transform 4 times is
equivalent to doing its inverse twice (8 moves instead of 16). I.e.

(R'D'RD)^4 // 16 moves
= (R'D'RD)'^2 // (inverse of (R'D'RD) transform done twice)
= (D'R'DR)^2 // only 8 moves

That holds because (R'D'RD)^6 = 1 [1 = identity transform: all faces left unchanged]. (In group
theory world we say (D'R'DR) has "order" 6).

Similarly, your 3 corner twist video uses 3x8 moves + conjugates, I would have to apply my 3-corner
transform twice: 16 moves + conjugates! For your 4-corner twist video you use 2 (R'D'RD)^2
transforms and 2 (R'D'RD)^4 transforms : 2x8 + 2x16 moves + conjugates. As above, you could use
less moves by replacing (R'D'RD)^4 with (D'R'DR)^2, which would lead to 4x8 = 32 moves +
conjugates. With my transform I would need 3 8-moves transforms so 24 moves + conjugates!

So on the face of it your approach isn't efficient regarding number of moves, but of course your
moves are very quick to apply. Maybe my moves are slower in practice as they involve 3 faces (R, T,
B) rather than just 2 (R, D). You are very quick twisting in your video!! My newest cube (probably
20 years old) cannot be twisted in the way you do! It is WAAAY to stiff, and there's no way I can
perform a twist with just one finger - if I push /really hard/ with one finger I can get a twist
started, but it will stop some way before completed, and then I'll have to readjust everything
losing finger-position to get the cube components adequately lined up. Alternatively, what I
actually have to do in practice is have firm 3-sided pressure with both left and right hands to make
every twist - slow slow slow :)

There is also the question of how you do a 3-corner-cycle permutation? (I.e. one like my transform
above.) You must need one of those, and it won't be more efficient than 8 moves, even if you're
ignoring the edges, so in theory you might use that to handle corner twists like I do. One good
feature of your approach is that it takes very little thinking - just being aware of which way each
corners need to twist and off you go. My approach does need thought regarding how to conjugate the
transforms correctly, which is something I do when I get there (pausing to consider) rather than
knowing it in advance.


Mike.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> writes:

On 17/10/2024 09:30, Daniel wrote:

Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> writes:

On 15/10/2024 02:27, Daniel wrote:

Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> writes:

On 07/10/2024 03:32, Daniel wrote:

Hey folks -
Just subbed this NG hoping to get advice on 3x3 twisty cube
technique.
Currently, I'm learning Roux technique and strugling on the four
final
edges - the online wiki's seem to be written for a different sort of >>>>>> reader because I simply don't understand. The online puzzle solvers >>>>>> don't utilize predefined techniques.
Is this a good NG for this? Any cubers in here?
I tried a big cubing forum, but the people on there aren't friendly. >>>>>> Thanks,
Daniel

I have a Rubik's cube (3x3) and I worked out my own way of solving it >>>>> back in 1980. My method is "logical" [to me] rather than
speed-orientated - I'm not interested in all the speed
record/competition stuff! The advantage (for me) of my method is that >>>>> it only has two phases [edges first, then corners], and doesn't
require memorising a big list of seemingly random looking transforms. >>>>> (Also my method uses the basic structure of the cube and similar
puzzles, and so with minor adjustments applies to all the cube
variants on the market.)

Well good for you. I never had the mental fortitude to do it on my
own. Took youtube. You did what all the method creators did, you created >>>> your own algorithms and stuck with it. Part of me wishes I stuck with
it, but oh well it's only a puzzle.
The cube came out in nineteen-eighty. I was six years old and didn't
know pf it until the ads started appearing during after-school tv
shows about two years later, when I was eight. I wanted one instantly
and my mom got it for me about a month later. Never got far with it. Set >>>> it down for many years.

I've never heard of Roux technique, but I'll give it a go and try to >>>>> help if you have any specific questions, hopefully together with a web >>>>> link to the method!

Since my original post, I've done much more reading and found out
that I
was misreading the moves. The Roux method is something I'm exploring to >>>> speed my solves because I intend to do some 2025 competitions in my
local area and get on the boards. I'd like to achieve something less
than forty seconds when I get on the board so my scores aren't at the
bottom of the range. The community in my area isn't too heavy on the
children - there are some college students and older who compete, so I >>>> won't feel too out-of-place.
Roux is unique and gaining in popularity due to the decreased
required
moves to solve the puzzle - hence reducing solve times. It entails
solving a 2x3 area on both sides so that the middle slice and the top
layer are unsolved. Solve the top corners. Once this is accompished, you >>>> only have the middle slice and the top edges to solve.
You can't solve with only slice moves until the corners are solved -
and
there are dozens of algorithms developed for each case. But, I only use >>>> one algorithm for the corners - so it isn't necessary.
For me, Roux's magic is the final four on top. It's elementary to
solve
the bottom layer because there's only two remaining squares. I've
standardized my solves with white layer on the bottom.
Right now I'm simply studying them by learning the relationships of
the
moves and how it makes sense. There is logic behind it, erasing the
notion of randomness. If I could learn chemistry in college, I can learn >>>> these algorithms. I'll include a rough ascii drawing of Roux's
distinction below. I apologize for my horrible ascii art in advance:
+-----+-----+-----+
/| | | |
/ | | | | x and y's denote the solved
/ | | | | area. They can be any color.
+ +-----+-----+-----+
/| /| | | | As you can see, the middle
/ | / | x | | y | slice and top layer are
/ |/ | | | | the remains of the solution.
+ + x +-----+-----+-----+ I didn't draw out the other side
/| /| /| | | | for brevity's sake.
/ | / | / | x | | y |
/ |/ |/ | | | |
+ + x + x +-----+-----+-----+
| /| /| / / / /
| / | / | / x / / y /
|/ |/ |/ / / /
+ x + x +-----+-----+-----+
| /| / / / /
| / | / x / / y /
|/ |/ / / /
+ x +-----+-----+-----+
| / / / /
| / x / / y /
|/ / / /
+-----+-----+-----+

That's great ascii drawing. I even understand what it's saying
related to your desctiption of the method. With my solving technique,

Hey thanks. I thought it was janky. Almost went into the ascii
newsgroup
for draawing suggestions.

the last 4 corners I would have to solve as two 3-corner transforms,
which means 16 moves minimum but probably more due to pre/post "setup"
moves. (Coming from a maths background, I would call those
"conjugation" moves.) So not efficient. OTOH with 5 corners to solve

I studied applied mathematics in college but it's been twenty
years. In
the cubing world, the terms permutation and orientation are used. Much
of it seems to derive from mathematicians in teh 1980s who utilized
group theory to study the puzzle after it came out. I found old messages
from the early 1980s on a gopher search.

I was introduced to the cube in my (maths) student days by Prof. John
Conway, seeing him playing with one during a college evening meal with
us to which he had been invited. Well now you know my "link to fame"!
lol. (..and I hear you asking "John who?" which is ok, but he was
known by many outside mathematician circles, due e.g. to his work on
"Game of Life" and "Surreal numbers". So it's possibly you've heard
of him.) Conway of course loved the cube puzzle which was right up
his street, what with the group theory angle and all. It wouldn't
surprise me at all to learn he had published something on the maths of
the cube.

I'm not familiar with him, but that doesn't mean much. I did study math
in college, and as I said it's been twenty years. Barely know calculus
anymore except for the most basic derivations and integrations.

I have friends on IRC who are in academic circles who I speak to on a
normal basis (in a cooking channel of all places) and asked for
suggestions on books regarding group theory aimed toward people with
math education and not for the layman nor the phd.

He suggested a textbook, and I thought "duh." So i'm looking for a
fairly priced older edition since newer editions just change the
homework problems around and change their page numbers so students are
forced to pay exorbidant prices for new editions.

I am fascinated by math subjects, which is why I studied it in college.

it would still be two 3-corner transforms unless I'm unlucky... 40
seconds for me would be /really/ fast, but I'm a bit rubbish at the
whole physical twisting of the faces. The first cube I had was the
complete opposite of "slick" - it had a grating feel when twisting,
and over time the internal workings wore away due to friction and it
became looser and looser until you could almost shake it into separate
pieces! :)

I utilize a very simple algorithm for the top corner pieces that
rotates
the right piece closest to you. It takes two uses of the algorithm to
flip it once, two more to flip it the second time, and two more to
restore the original direction. Alot of speed cubers utilize this
algorithm to warm up before a solve.
R' D' R D x2
R = Right slice rotated clockwise
R'= Right slice rotated counter-clock
D = (bottom) down slice rotated clockwise
D'= down slice rotated counter-clock
I posted a demo of the algorithm repeated on the same corner via
rumble:
https://rumble.com/v5j008h-top-layer-solve-demo.html
So for the last layer, the beginner routine specifies orienting the
edge
pieces first. Let's pretend that you have the cross on top already and
need to finish the corner pieces. The beautiful logic is, the algorithm
I provided on top is all you need to finish. And, the algorithm will be
used to solve the puzzle that is divisible by six. There will always be
a minimum of two corners needing solved.
... two corners
https://rumble.com/v5j01dp-two-corners.html
... three corners
https://rumble.com/v5j01jp-three-corners.html
... four corners
https://rumble.com/v5j01p9-four-corners.html
So I solve the four corners that way, then solve the edge pieces -
and
those are the algorithms I'm learning now.

OK, I see what's going on there. All those examples are where corner
pieces are twisted, but in the right location. I don't have anything
special to handle that, and my 8-move corner transforms displace
(just) 3 corners. E.g. :

RTR' B' RT'R' B

I was just demonstrating the one algorithm I use. I may find a newsgroup
for future video uploads.

So if two corners were twisted, I would apply the above, leaving 3
corners displaced, then another routine variation of the above to
solve. 2x8 moves to solve + 2x(0,1 or 2 conjugation moves). Let's say
18 moves, which same as your video, assuming you realise that doing
your transform 4 times is equivalent to doing its inverse twice (8
moves instead of 16). I.e.

(R'D'RD)^4 // 16 moves
= (R'D'RD)'^2 // (inverse of (R'D'RD) transform done twice)
= (D'R'DR)^2 // only 8 moves

That holds because (R'D'RD)^6 = 1 [1 = identity transform: all faces
left unchanged]. (In group theory world we say (D'R'DR) has "order"
6).

Similarly, your 3 corner twist video uses 3x8 moves + conjugates, I
would have to apply my 3-corner transform twice: 16 moves +
conjugates! For your 4-corner twist video you use 2 (R'D'RD)^2
transforms and 2 (R'D'RD)^4 transforms : 2x8 + 2x16 moves +
conjugates. As above, you could use less moves by replacing
(R'D'RD)^4 with (D'R'DR)^2, which would lead to 4x8 = 32 moves +
conjugates. With my transform I would need 3 8-moves transforms so 24
moves + conjugates!

So on the face of it your approach isn't efficient regarding number of
moves, but of course your moves are very quick to apply. Maybe my
moves are slower in practice as they involve 3 faces (R, T, B) rather
than just 2 (R, D). You are very quick twisting in your video!! My
newest cube (probably 20 years old) cannot be twisted in the way you
do! It is WAAAY to stiff, and there's no way I can perform a twist
with just one finger - if I push /really hard/ with one finger I can
get a twist started, but it will stop some way before completed, and
then I'll have to readjust everything losing finger-position to get
the cube components adequately lined up. Alternatively, what I
actually have to do in practice is have firm 3-sided pressure with
both left and right hands to make every twist - slow slow slow :)

Sounds like you have a name brand rubik's cube. It's widely considered a product marketed for non-cubers. Meant to sit on display or as a
stocking stuffer. The one in my videos was made for speed cubing and
cost less than a dollar out of China. THe one I have for competition has magnets and no springs.

You can fix your cube by loosening the screws in the center pieces and
maybe add some lubricant in between. That would improve the cube
immensely. By no means should it take such force to twist.

I completely agree about efficiency, the one algorithm I use for
flipping the top corners is extremely inefficient. I'm currently
learning algorithms that have been discovered over the years. Alot of professional speed cubers know them all by heart.

There is also the question of how you do a 3-corner-cycle permutation?
(I.e. one like my transform above.) You must need one of those, and
it won't be more efficient than 8 moves, even if you're ignoring the
edges, so in theory you might use that to handle corner twists like I
do. One good feature of your approach is that it takes very little
thinking - just being aware of which way each corners need to twist
and off you go. My approach does need thought regarding how to
conjugate the transforms correctly, which is something I do when I get
there (pausing to consider) rather than knowing it in advance.

The speed cube db has all the algorithms for each case and most of them
can be done with eight moves. I believe, for the four corners, there's forty-eight combinations in total. I dont know them yet, so for now I use
the one I do know to get the corners done.

Once I can get these algorithms drawn out in ansi, I plan on launching
my new bbs with a cubing door.


D

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Hey folks -

Just subbed this NG hoping to get advice on 3x3 twisty cube technique.

Currently, I'm learning Roux technique and strugling on the four final
edges - the online wiki's seem to be written for a different sort of
reader because I simply don't understand. The online puzzle solvers
don't utilize predefined techniques.

Is this a good NG for this? Any cubers in here?

I tried a big cubing forum, but the people on there aren't friendly.

Thanks,

Daniel

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 07/10/2024 03:32, Daniel wrote:

Hey folks -

Just subbed this NG hoping to get advice on 3x3 twisty cube technique.

Currently, I'm learning Roux technique and strugling on the four final
edges - the online wiki's seem to be written for a different sort of
reader because I simply don't understand. The online puzzle solvers
don't utilize predefined techniques.

Is this a good NG for this? Any cubers in here?

I tried a big cubing forum, but the people on there aren't friendly.

Thanks,

Daniel

I have a Rubik's cube (3x3) and I worked out my own way of solving it back in 1980. My method is
"logical" [to me] rather than speed-orientated - I'm not interested in all the speed
record/competition stuff! The advantage (for me) of my method is that it only has two phases [edges
first, then corners], and doesn't require memorising a big list of seemingly random looking
transforms. (Also my method uses the basic structure of the cube and similar puzzles, and so with
minor adjustments applies to all the cube variants on the market.)

I've never heard of Roux technique, but I'll give it a go and try to help if you have any specific
questions, hopefully together with a web link to the method!

Regards,
Mike.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 10/6/2024 7:32 PM, Daniel wrote:

Hey folks -

Just subbed this NG hoping to get advice on 3x3 twisty cube technique.

Currently, I'm learning Roux technique and strugling on the four final
edges - the online wiki's seem to be written for a different sort of
reader because I simply don't understand. The online puzzle solvers
don't utilize predefined techniques.

Is this a good NG for this? Any cubers in here?

I tried a big cubing forum, but the people on there aren't friendly.

Thanks,

Daniel

Coincidentally, I was just reading a couple of chapters about cubes in
Douglas Hofstadter's book "Metamagical Themas". These chapters were
originally printed in Hofstadter's column in Scientific American in
March 1981 ("Magic Cubology") and July 1982 ("On Crossing the Rubicon").
The first chapter in particular (March 1981) discusses the
step-by-step thought processes involved in figuring out a solving
technique. You also learn a bit about how group theory relates to cube solving.

--
Carl G.


--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG antivirus software.
www.avg.com

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

XPost: sci.lang, sci.math

On Mon, 7 Oct 2024 17:26:07 +0000, Carl G. wrote:

On 10/6/2024 7:32 PM, Daniel wrote:

Hey folks -

Just subbed this NG hoping to get advice on 3x3 twisty cube technique.

Currently, I'm learning Roux technique and strugling on the four final
edges - the online wiki's seem to be written for a different sort of
reader because I simply don't understand. The online puzzle solvers
don't utilize predefined techniques.

Is this a good NG for this? Any cubers in here?

I tried a big cubing forum, but the people on there aren't friendly.

Thanks,

Daniel

Coincidentally, I was just reading a couple of chapters about cubes in Douglas Hofstadter's book "Metamagical Themas". These chapters were originally printed in Hofstadter's column in Scientific American in
March 1981 ("Magic Cubology") and July 1982 ("On Crossing the Rubicon").
The first chapter in particular (March 1981) discusses the
step-by-step thought processes involved in figuring out a solving
technique. You also learn a bit about how group theory relates to cube solving.

omg!!! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FcP6QPF6RkE


i certainly loved Hof's book "Metamagical Themas" when it came out!

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Mon, 7 Oct 2024 17:26:07 +0000, Carl G. wrote:

On 10/6/2024 7:32 PM, Daniel wrote:

Hey folks -

Just subbed this NG hoping to get advice on 3x3 twisty cube technique.

Currently, I'm learning Roux technique and strugling on the four final
edges - the online wiki's seem to be written for a different sort of
reader because I simply don't understand. The online puzzle solvers
don't utilize predefined techniques.

Is this a good NG for this? Any cubers in here?

I tried a big cubing forum, but the people on there aren't friendly.

Thanks,

Daniel

Coincidentally, I was just reading a couple of chapters about cubes in Douglas Hofstadter's book "Metamagical Themas". These chapters were originally printed in Hofstadter's column in Scientific American in
March 1981 ("Magic Cubology") and July 1982 ("On Crossing the Rubicon").
The first chapter in particular (March 1981) discusses the
step-by-step thought processes involved in figuring out a solving
technique. You also learn a bit about how group theory relates to cube solving.

omg!!! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FcP6QPF6RkE


i certainly loved Hof's book "Metamagical Themas" when it came out!

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> writes:

On 07/10/2024 03:32, Daniel wrote:

Hey folks -
Just subbed this NG hoping to get advice on 3x3 twisty cube
technique.
Currently, I'm learning Roux technique and strugling on the four
final
edges - the online wiki's seem to be written for a different sort of
reader because I simply don't understand. The online puzzle solvers
don't utilize predefined techniques.
Is this a good NG for this? Any cubers in here?
I tried a big cubing forum, but the people on there aren't friendly.
Thanks,
Daniel

I have a Rubik's cube (3x3) and I worked out my own way of solving it
back in 1980. My method is "logical" [to me] rather than
speed-orientated - I'm not interested in all the speed
record/competition stuff! The advantage (for me) of my method is that
it only has two phases [edges first, then corners], and doesn't
require memorising a big list of seemingly random looking transforms.
(Also my method uses the basic structure of the cube and similar
puzzles, and so with minor adjustments applies to all the cube
variants on the market.)

Well good for you. I never had the mental fortitude to do it on my
own. Took youtube. You did what all the method creators did, you created
your own algorithms and stuck with it. Part of me wishes I stuck with
it, but oh well it's only a puzzle.

The cube came out in nineteen-eighty. I was six years old and didn't
know pf it until the ads started appearing during after-school tv
shows about two years later, when I was eight. I wanted one instantly
and my mom got it for me about a month later. Never got far with it. Set
it down for many years.

I've never heard of Roux technique, but I'll give it a go and try to
help if you have any specific questions, hopefully together with a web
link to the method!

Since my original post, I've done much more reading and found out that I
was misreading the moves. The Roux method is something I'm exploring to
speed my solves because I intend to do some 2025 competitions in my
local area and get on the boards. I'd like to achieve something less
than forty seconds when I get on the board so my scores aren't at the
bottom of the range. The community in my area isn't too heavy on the
children - there are some college students and older who compete, so I
won't feel too out-of-place.

Roux is unique and gaining in popularity due to the decreased required
moves to solve the puzzle - hence reducing solve times. It entails
solving a 2x3 area on both sides so that the middle slice and the top
layer are unsolved. Solve the top corners. Once this is accompished, you
only have the middle slice and the top edges to solve.

You can't solve with only slice moves until the corners are solved - and
there are dozens of algorithms developed for each case. But, I only use
one algorithm for the corners - so it isn't necessary.

For me, Roux's magic is the final four on top. It's elementary to solve
the bottom layer because there's only two remaining squares. I've
standardized my solves with white layer on the bottom.

Right now I'm simply studying them by learning the relationships of the
moves and how it makes sense. There is logic behind it, erasing the
notion of randomness. If I could learn chemistry in college, I can learn
these algorithms. I'll include a rough ascii drawing of Roux's
distinction below. I apologize for my horrible ascii art in advance:

+-----+-----+-----+
/| | | |
/ | | | | x and y's denote the solved
/ | | | | area. They can be any color.
+ +-----+-----+-----+
/| /| | | | As you can see, the middle
/ | / | x | | y | slice and top layer are
/ |/ | | | | the remains of the solution.
+ + x +-----+-----+-----+ I didn't draw out the other side
/| /| /| | | | for brevity's sake.
/ | / | / | x | | y |
/ |/ |/ | | | |
+ + x + x +-----+-----+-----+
| /| /| / / / /
| / | / | / x / / y /
|/ |/ |/ / / /
+ x + x +-----+-----+-----+
| /| / / / /
| / | / x / / y /
|/ |/ / / /
+ x +-----+-----+-----+
| / / / /
| / x / / y /
|/ / / /
+-----+-----+-----+

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 20/10/2024 06:49, Daniel wrote:

Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> writes:

On 17/10/2024 09:30, Daniel wrote:

Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> writes:

On 15/10/2024 02:27, Daniel wrote:

Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> writes:

I was introduced to the cube in my (maths) student days by Prof. John
Conway, seeing him playing with one during a college evening meal with
us to which he had been invited. Well now you know my "link to fame"!
lol. (..and I hear you asking "John who?" which is ok, but he was
known by many outside mathematician circles, due e.g. to his work on
"Game of Life" and "Surreal numbers". So it's possibly you've heard
of him.) Conway of course loved the cube puzzle which was right up
his street, what with the group theory angle and all. It wouldn't
surprise me at all to learn he had published something on the maths of
the cube.

I'm not familiar with him, but that doesn't mean much. I did study math
in college, and as I said it's been twenty years. Barely know calculus anymore except for the most basic derivations and integrations.

I have friends on IRC who are in academic circles who I speak to on a
normal basis (in a cooking channel of all places) and asked for
suggestions on books regarding group theory aimed toward people with
math education and not for the layman nor the phd.

He suggested a textbook, and I thought "duh." So i'm looking for a
fairly priced older edition since newer editions just change the
homework problems around and change their page numbers so students are
forced to pay exorbidant prices for new editions.

I am fascinated by math subjects, which is why I studied it in college.

Another option for you might be the excellent PDF papers by K. Conrad on algebra topics.

<https://kconrad.math.uconn.edu/blurbs/>

There are a lot of group theory topics, and they broadly start at the beginning and get more
advanced as you go down the page. I don't know what they would be like for someone trying to learn
group theory completely from scratch, but I found them as well written as any books I have read!
Perhaps one problem might be not enough exercises?... I don't know, but hey, they're there and
they're free, so no harm taking a look. :)

(If you wanted to ask specific questions about the papers, they would be off topic for this group,
but on topic I expect for say sci.math...)


Mike.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 15/10/2024 02:27, Daniel wrote:

Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> writes:

On 07/10/2024 03:32, Daniel wrote:

Hey folks -
Just subbed this NG hoping to get advice on 3x3 twisty cube
technique.
Currently, I'm learning Roux technique and strugling on the four
final
edges - the online wiki's seem to be written for a different sort of
reader because I simply don't understand. The online puzzle solvers
don't utilize predefined techniques.
Is this a good NG for this? Any cubers in here?
I tried a big cubing forum, but the people on there aren't friendly.
Thanks,
Daniel

I have a Rubik's cube (3x3) and I worked out my own way of solving it
back in 1980. My method is "logical" [to me] rather than
speed-orientated - I'm not interested in all the speed
record/competition stuff! The advantage (for me) of my method is that
it only has two phases [edges first, then corners], and doesn't
require memorising a big list of seemingly random looking transforms.
(Also my method uses the basic structure of the cube and similar
puzzles, and so with minor adjustments applies to all the cube
variants on the market.)

Well good for you. I never had the mental fortitude to do it on my
own. Took youtube. You did what all the method creators did, you created
your own algorithms and stuck with it. Part of me wishes I stuck with
it, but oh well it's only a puzzle.

The cube came out in nineteen-eighty. I was six years old and didn't
know pf it until the ads started appearing during after-school tv
shows about two years later, when I was eight. I wanted one instantly
and my mom got it for me about a month later. Never got far with it. Set
it down for many years.

I've never heard of Roux technique, but I'll give it a go and try to
help if you have any specific questions, hopefully together with a web
link to the method!

Since my original post, I've done much more reading and found out that I
was misreading the moves. The Roux method is something I'm exploring to
speed my solves because I intend to do some 2025 competitions in my
local area and get on the boards. I'd like to achieve something less
than forty seconds when I get on the board so my scores aren't at the
bottom of the range. The community in my area isn't too heavy on the
children - there are some college students and older who compete, so I
won't feel too out-of-place.

Roux is unique and gaining in popularity due to the decreased required
moves to solve the puzzle - hence reducing solve times. It entails
solving a 2x3 area on both sides so that the middle slice and the top
layer are unsolved. Solve the top corners. Once this is accompished, you
only have the middle slice and the top edges to solve.

You can't solve with only slice moves until the corners are solved - and there are dozens of algorithms developed for each case. But, I only use
one algorithm for the corners - so it isn't necessary.

For me, Roux's magic is the final four on top. It's elementary to solve
the bottom layer because there's only two remaining squares. I've standardized my solves with white layer on the bottom.

Right now I'm simply studying them by learning the relationships of the
moves and how it makes sense. There is logic behind it, erasing the
notion of randomness. If I could learn chemistry in college, I can learn these algorithms. I'll include a rough ascii drawing of Roux's
distinction below. I apologize for my horrible ascii art in advance:

+-----+-----+-----+
/| | | |
/ | | | | x and y's denote the solved
/ | | | | area. They can be any color.
+ +-----+-----+-----+
/| /| | | | As you can see, the middle
/ | / | x | | y | slice and top layer are
/ |/ | | | | the remains of the solution.
+ + x +-----+-----+-----+ I didn't draw out the other side
/| /| /| | | | for brevity's sake.
/ | / | / | x | | y |
/ |/ |/ | | | |
+ + x + x +-----+-----+-----+
| /| /| / / / /
| / | / | / x / / y /
|/ |/ |/ / / /
+ x + x +-----+-----+-----+
| /| / / / /
| / | / x / / y /
|/ |/ / / /
+ x +-----+-----+-----+
| / / / /
| / x / / y /
|/ / / /
+-----+-----+-----+

That's great ascii drawing. I even understand what it's saying related to your desctiption of the
method. With my solving technique, the last 4 corners I would have to solve as two 3-corner
transforms, which means 16 moves minimum but probably more due to pre/post "setup" moves. (Coming
from a maths background, I would call those "conjugation" moves.) So not efficient. OTOH with 5
corners to solve it would still be two 3-corner transforms unless I'm unlucky... 40 seconds for me
would be /really/ fast, but I'm a bit rubbish at the whole physical twisting of the faces. The
first cube I had was the complete opposite of "slick" - it had a grating feel when twisting, and
over time the internal workings wore away due to friction and it became looser and looser until you
could almost shake it into separate pieces! :)

Anyhow, good luck with your speed cubing!
Mike.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> writes:

On 15/10/2024 02:27, Daniel wrote:

Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> writes:

On 07/10/2024 03:32, Daniel wrote:

Hey folks -
Just subbed this NG hoping to get advice on 3x3 twisty cube
technique.
Currently, I'm learning Roux technique and strugling on the four
final
edges - the online wiki's seem to be written for a different sort of
reader because I simply don't understand. The online puzzle solvers
don't utilize predefined techniques.
Is this a good NG for this? Any cubers in here?
I tried a big cubing forum, but the people on there aren't friendly.
Thanks,
Daniel

I have a Rubik's cube (3x3) and I worked out my own way of solving it
back in 1980. My method is "logical" [to me] rather than
speed-orientated - I'm not interested in all the speed
record/competition stuff! The advantage (for me) of my method is that
it only has two phases [edges first, then corners], and doesn't
require memorising a big list of seemingly random looking transforms.
(Also my method uses the basic structure of the cube and similar
puzzles, and so with minor adjustments applies to all the cube
variants on the market.)

Well good for you. I never had the mental fortitude to do it on my
own. Took youtube. You did what all the method creators did, you created
your own algorithms and stuck with it. Part of me wishes I stuck with
it, but oh well it's only a puzzle.
The cube came out in nineteen-eighty. I was six years old and didn't
know pf it until the ads started appearing during after-school tv
shows about two years later, when I was eight. I wanted one instantly
and my mom got it for me about a month later. Never got far with it. Set
it down for many years.

I've never heard of Roux technique, but I'll give it a go and try to
help if you have any specific questions, hopefully together with a web
link to the method!

Since my original post, I've done much more reading and found out
that I
was misreading the moves. The Roux method is something I'm exploring to
speed my solves because I intend to do some 2025 competitions in my
local area and get on the boards. I'd like to achieve something less
than forty seconds when I get on the board so my scores aren't at the
bottom of the range. The community in my area isn't too heavy on the
children - there are some college students and older who compete, so I
won't feel too out-of-place.
Roux is unique and gaining in popularity due to the decreased
required
moves to solve the puzzle - hence reducing solve times. It entails
solving a 2x3 area on both sides so that the middle slice and the top
layer are unsolved. Solve the top corners. Once this is accompished, you
only have the middle slice and the top edges to solve.
You can't solve with only slice moves until the corners are solved -
and
there are dozens of algorithms developed for each case. But, I only use
one algorithm for the corners - so it isn't necessary.
For me, Roux's magic is the final four on top. It's elementary to
solve
the bottom layer because there's only two remaining squares. I've
standardized my solves with white layer on the bottom.
Right now I'm simply studying them by learning the relationships of
the
moves and how it makes sense. There is logic behind it, erasing the
notion of randomness. If I could learn chemistry in college, I can learn
these algorithms. I'll include a rough ascii drawing of Roux's
distinction below. I apologize for my horrible ascii art in advance:
+-----+-----+-----+
/| | | |
/ | | | | x and y's denote the solved
/ | | | | area. They can be any color.
+ +-----+-----+-----+
/| /| | | | As you can see, the middle
/ | / | x | | y | slice and top layer are
/ |/ | | | | the remains of the solution.
+ + x +-----+-----+-----+ I didn't draw out the other side
/| /| /| | | | for brevity's sake.
/ | / | / | x | | y |
/ |/ |/ | | | |
+ + x + x +-----+-----+-----+
| /| /| / / / /
| / | / | / x / / y /
|/ |/ |/ / / /
+ x + x +-----+-----+-----+
| /| / / / /
| / | / x / / y /
|/ |/ / / /
+ x +-----+-----+-----+
| / / / /
| / x / / y /
|/ / / /
+-----+-----+-----+

That's great ascii drawing. I even understand what it's saying
related to your desctiption of the method. With my solving technique,

Hey thanks. I thought it was janky. Almost went into the ascii newsgroup
for draawing suggestions.

the last 4 corners I would have to solve as two 3-corner transforms,
which means 16 moves minimum but probably more due to pre/post "setup"
moves. (Coming from a maths background, I would call those
"conjugation" moves.) So not efficient. OTOH with 5 corners to solve

I studied applied mathematics in college but it's been twenty years. In
the cubing world, the terms permutation and orientation are used. Much
of it seems to derive from mathematicians in teh 1980s who utilized
group theory to study the puzzle after it came out. I found old messages
from the early 1980s on a gopher search.

it would still be two 3-corner transforms unless I'm unlucky... 40
seconds for me would be /really/ fast, but I'm a bit rubbish at the
whole physical twisting of the faces. The first cube I had was the
complete opposite of "slick" - it had a grating feel when twisting,
and over time the internal workings wore away due to friction and it
became looser and looser until you could almost shake it into separate pieces! :)

I utilize a very simple algorithm for the top corner pieces that rotates
the right piece closest to you. It takes two uses of the algorithm to
flip it once, two more to flip it the second time, and two more to
restore the original direction. Alot of speed cubers utilize this
algorithm to warm up before a solve.

R' D' R D x2

R = Right slice rotated clockwise
R'= Right slice rotated counter-clock
D = (bottom) down slice rotated clockwise
D'= down slice rotated counter-clock

I posted a demo of the algorithm repeated on the same corner via rumble:

https://rumble.com/v5j008h-top-layer-solve-demo.html

So for the last layer, the beginner routine specifies orienting the edge
pieces first. Let's pretend that you have the cross on top already and
need to finish the corner pieces. The beautiful logic is, the algorithm
I provided on top is all you need to finish. And, the algorithm will be
used to solve the puzzle that is divisible by six. There will always be
a minimum of two corners needing solved.

... two corners

https://rumble.com/v5j01dp-two-corners.html

... three corners

https://rumble.com/v5j01jp-three-corners.html

... four corners

https://rumble.com/v5j01p9-four-corners.html

So I solve the four corners that way, then solve the edge pieces - and
those are the algorithms I'm learning now.

Anyhow, good luck with your speed cubing!
Mike.

Thanks!

+-+-+-+
| | | |
+-+-+-+
| | | |
+-+-+-+
| | | |
+-+-+-+

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

"Carl G." <carlgnews@microprizes.com> writes:

On 10/6/2024 7:32 PM, Daniel wrote:

Hey folks -
Just subbed this NG hoping to get advice on 3x3 twisty cube
technique.
Currently, I'm learning Roux technique and strugling on the four
final
edges - the online wiki's seem to be written for a different sort of
reader because I simply don't understand. The online puzzle solvers
don't utilize predefined techniques.
Is this a good NG for this? Any cubers in here?
I tried a big cubing forum, but the people on there aren't friendly.
Thanks,
Daniel

Coincidentally, I was just reading a couple of chapters about cubes in Douglas Hofstadter's book "Metamagical Themas". These chapters were originally printed in Hofstadter's column in Scientific American in
March 1981 ("Magic Cubology") and July 1982 ("On Crossing the
Rubicon"). The first chapter in particular (March 1981) discusses
the step-by-step thought processes involved in figuring out a solving technique. You also learn a bit about how group theory relates to
cube solving.

I will look at my library for this book, thanks for the heads up. I'm
actually fascinated by the group theory aspect, as I saw some archived
early usenet discussions on it at the university level where math
scholars were excited about it.

Available on gopher if you use it, search for rubik's cube and the
archive should appear near the top of the results page.

--
Carl G.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 10/17/2024 11:20 AM, Daniel wrote:

"Carl G." <carlgnews@microprizes.com> writes:

On 10/6/2024 7:32 PM, Daniel wrote:

Hey folks -
Just subbed this NG hoping to get advice on 3x3 twisty cube
technique.
Currently, I'm learning Roux technique and strugling on the four
final
edges - the online wiki's seem to be written for a different sort of
reader because I simply don't understand. The online puzzle solvers
don't utilize predefined techniques.
Is this a good NG for this? Any cubers in here?
I tried a big cubing forum, but the people on there aren't friendly.
Thanks,
Daniel

Coincidentally, I was just reading a couple of chapters about cubes in
Douglas Hofstadter's book "Metamagical Themas". These chapters were
originally printed in Hofstadter's column in Scientific American in
March 1981 ("Magic Cubology") and July 1982 ("On Crossing the
Rubicon"). The first chapter in particular (March 1981) discusses
the step-by-step thought processes involved in figuring out a solving
technique. You also learn a bit about how group theory relates to
cube solving.

I will look at my library for this book, thanks for the heads up. I'm actually fascinated by the group theory aspect, as I saw some archived
early usenet discussions on it at the university level where math
scholars were excited about it.

Available on gopher if you use it, search for rubik's cube and the
archive should appear near the top of the results page.

If you subscribe to the online version of Scientific American, you can
download *.PDF versions of the original articles. I recently subscribed because I wanted copies of the old Mathematical Games and Amateur
Scientist columns, plus some 1980s articles written about optical
illusions. I paid $39 for one year, but there are supposed to be
discounts for up to 70% off the regular cost (e.g., a 50% student discount).

--
Carl G.


--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG antivirus software.
www.avg.com

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

XPost: sci.lang, sci.math

HenHanna <HenHanna@dev.null> writes:

On Mon, 7 Oct 2024 17:26:07 +0000, Carl G. wrote:

On 10/6/2024 7:32 PM, Daniel wrote:

Hey folks -

Just subbed this NG hoping to get advice on 3x3 twisty cube technique.

Currently, I'm learning Roux technique and strugling on the four final
edges - the online wiki's seem to be written for a different sort of
reader because I simply don't understand. The online puzzle solvers
don't utilize predefined techniques.

Is this a good NG for this? Any cubers in here?

I tried a big cubing forum, but the people on there aren't friendly.

Thanks,

Daniel

Coincidentally, I was just reading a couple of chapters about cubes in
Douglas Hofstadter's book "Metamagical Themas". These chapters were
originally printed in Hofstadter's column in Scientific American in
March 1981 ("Magic Cubology") and July 1982 ("On Crossing the Rubicon").
The first chapter in particular (March 1981) discusses the
step-by-step thought processes involved in figuring out a solving
technique. You also learn a bit about how group theory relates to cube
solving.

omg!!! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FcP6QPF6RkE

i certainly loved Hof's book "Metamagical Themas" when it came out!

I didn't realize you had cross-posted in here.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

XPost: sci.lang, sci.math

On Thu, 31 Oct 2024 13:46:01 +0000, Daniel wrote:

HenHanna <HenHanna@dev.null> writes:

On Mon, 7 Oct 2024 17:26:07 +0000, Carl G. wrote:

On 10/6/2024 7:32 PM, Daniel wrote:

Hey folks -

Just subbed this NG hoping to get advice on 3x3 twisty cube technique. >>>>
Currently, I'm learning Roux technique and strugling on the four final >>>> edges - the online wiki's seem to be written for a different sort of
reader because I simply don't understand. The online puzzle solvers
don't utilize predefined techniques.

Is this a good NG for this? Any cubers in here?

I tried a big cubing forum, but the people on there aren't friendly.

Thanks,

Daniel

Coincidentally, I was just reading a couple of chapters about cubes in
Douglas Hofstadter's book "Metamagical Themas". These chapters were
originally printed in Hofstadter's column in Scientific American in
March 1981 ("Magic Cubology") and July 1982 ("On Crossing the Rubicon"). >>> The first chapter in particular (March 1981) discusses the
step-by-step thought processes involved in figuring out a solving
technique. You also learn a bit about how group theory relates to cube
solving.

omg!!! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FcP6QPF6RkE


i certainly loved Hof's book "Metamagical Themas" when it came out!

I didn't realize you had cross-posted in here.

(yes... i hope you dn't mind)


In Twitter(X), reposting, retweeting is expected, but in Usenet
Some folks get all bent out of shape about X-posting.


Hey... Since Twitter(X) is all about reposting, retweeting ,
maybe X isn't such a bad name for it!!!


https://video.twimg.com/amplify_video/1848622160983511040/vid/avc1/720x1280/5lKh8D9XQM89-OhY.mp4

Name of this game???

there seems to be a [Castling move], in which a Player
can do 2 things in one Turn (in some situation)

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

XPost: sci.lang, sci.math

HenHanna <HenHanna@dev.null> writes:

On Thu, 31 Oct 2024 13:46:01 +0000, Daniel wrote:

HenHanna <HenHanna@dev.null> writes:

On Mon, 7 Oct 2024 17:26:07 +0000, Carl G. wrote:

On 10/6/2024 7:32 PM, Daniel wrote:

Hey folks -

Just subbed this NG hoping to get advice on 3x3 twisty cube technique. >>>>>
Currently, I'm learning Roux technique and strugling on the four final >>>>> edges - the online wiki's seem to be written for a different sort of >>>>> reader because I simply don't understand. The online puzzle solvers
don't utilize predefined techniques.

Is this a good NG for this? Any cubers in here?

I tried a big cubing forum, but the people on there aren't friendly. >>>>>
Thanks,

Daniel

Coincidentally, I was just reading a couple of chapters about cubes in >>>> Douglas Hofstadter's book "Metamagical Themas". These chapters were
originally printed in Hofstadter's column in Scientific American in
March 1981 ("Magic Cubology") and July 1982 ("On Crossing the Rubicon"). >>>> The first chapter in particular (March 1981) discusses the
step-by-step thought processes involved in figuring out a solving
technique. You also learn a bit about how group theory relates to cube >>>> solving.

omg!!! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FcP6QPF6RkE


i certainly loved Hof's book "Metamagical Themas" when it came out!

I didn't realize you had cross-posted in here.

(yes... i hope you dn't mind)

No not at all. It's just that I didn't expect to grow an interest in
group theory after posting it - and then going into sci-math and seeing
your response again.

Cross posting is just dandy from my perspective.

In Twitter(X), reposting, retweeting is expected, but in Usenet
Some folks get all bent out of shape about X-posting.

Hey... Since Twitter(X) is all about reposting, retweeting ,
maybe X isn't such a bad name for it!!!

https://video.twimg.com/amplify_video/1848622160983511040/vid/avc1/720x1280/5lKh8D9XQM89-OhY.mp4

Name of this game???

there seems to be a [Castling move], in which a Player
can do 2 things in one Turn (in some situation)

I'll watch the video next time i'm in xwindows.

Daniel

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)