505,440 WCA MBLD Scrambles with 3-Style

Timo Forsthofer, Simon Hiesl

December 20, 2021

Abstract
We generated 505,440 WCA multiblind scramble with the official scrambling program (TNoodle)
and analyzed them with a python program we wrote for that purpose. For that reason we cannot
guarantee absolute flawlessness of our results. Our goal was to find as much information as possible
about the scrambles with the assumption of using 3-Style with UF and UFR buffers. We evaluated
the amount of flips, twists and the algorithm distributions with different advanced techniques like
(full) floating, LTCT and premoves.

Contents
1 Edge Flips 2

2 Corner Twists 3

3 Number of Algorithms using Basic 3-Style 4

4 Number of Algorithms using Full Floating 5

5 Number of Algorithms using only UB and UBL Floating 6

6 Number of Algorithms using Full UFR LTCT 7

7 Number of Algorithms using Full Floating and Full LTCT 8

8 Number of Algorithms using Premoves, Full Floating and LTCT 9

9 Comparison 10

10 Summary and Conclusion 14

1
1 Edge Flips

The first thing we did was to find the amount of flips in our scrambles. We did not include our
buffer UF.

Table 1: Edge Flips

0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Percentage 63.2% 29.1% 6.6% 1.0% 0.11% 0.01% 0.001%
Amount 319,357 146,928 33,561 4,986 558 44 6

Figure 1: Edge Flips

70
63.18

60

50
Percentage

40

30 29.07

20

10
6.64

0.99 0.11 9 · 10−3 1 · 10−3

0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Number of Flips

On average there are 0.458 edge flips per scramble (excluding the buffer).

2
2 Corner Twists

A corner an be twisted in two directions. The tuple (X , Y) denotes how many corners are twisted
in either direction, i. e. X corners are twisted clockwise and Y anti-clockwise or vice versa. Again
we did not include the buffer UFR.

Table 2: Corner Twists

(0 , 0) (1 , 0) (1 , 1) (2 , 0) (2 , 1) (2 , 2) (3 , 0)
Percentage 55.56% 32.82% 4.79% 4.78% 1.34% 0.09% 0.45%
Amount 280,808 165,877 24,194 24,141 6,770 444 2,294

(3 , 1) (3 , 2) (3 , 3) (4 , 0) (4 , 1) (4 , 2) (5 , 0) (5 , 1)
0.12% 0.017% 0.0006% 0.03% 0.009% 0.002% 0.0008% 0.0002%
608 85 3 156 43 12 4 1

Figure 2: Corner Twists

60
55.56

50

40
Percentage

32.82

30

20

9.56
10

1.79
0.24 2.6 · 10−2 3 · 10−3
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Number of Twists

On average there are 0.584 corner twists per scramble (excluding the buffer).

3
3 Number of Algorithms using Basic 3-Style

To determine the statistical distribution of the algorithm count, we made the following assump-
tions:
Basic 3-Style with UF and UFR buffers without floating, LTCT, etc. with white top and green front
orientation. Two flips and four flips count as one algorithm each, so up to four flips can be solved
with one algorithm, while five or six flips count as two. Two corners twisted in opposite directions
are considered one algorithm, while three corners twisted in the same direction contribute two
algorithms even if the buffer is not included. For parity we did a UR and UF pseudo swap.

Table 3: Number of Basic 3-Style Algorithms

5 6 7 8 9
Percentage 0.0% 0.001% 0.058% 1.56% 14.63%
Amount 0 3 294 7,900 73,937

10 11 12 13 14
Percentage 46.54% 31.16% 5.89% 0.17% 0.001%
Amount 235,215 157,489 29,758 837 7

Figure 3: Distribution of Basic 3-Style Algorithm Count

50
46.54
45

40

35
31.16
30
Percentage

25

20
14.63
15

10
5.89
5
1.56
0 1 · 10−3 5.8 · 10−2 0.17 1 · 10−3
0
5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
Number of Algorithms

The average algorithm count is 10.26. This distribution will from now on be our benchmark for
comparison.

4
4 Number of Algorithms using Full Floating

We took every possible opportunity for floating including executing parity from UFR and after-
wards doing a floating algorithm.

Table 4: Number of 3-Style Algorithms with Full Floating

5 6 7 8 9
Percentage 0.0002% 0.014% 0.51% 6.74% 30.81%
Amount 1 71 2,582 34,052 155,740

10 11 12 13 14
Percentage 44.98% 15.56% 1.36% 0.024% 0.0%
Amount 227,359 78,639 6,875 121 0

The 5 algorithm scramble is: F’ U’ D2 R U D2 R’ U F’ U R’ L2 U2 L2 U B2 U2 F2 D’ Rw’

Figure 4: Distribution of the 3-Style Algorithm Count with Full Floating

50
46.5 Full floating
45.0
45 Basic 3-Style

40

35
30.8 31.2

30
Percentage

25

20
15.6
14.6
15

10
6.7
5.9

5
1.6 1.4
0.5 0.1 0.0 0.2
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
0
5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
Number of Algorithms

The average algorithm count is 9.72

5
5 Number of Algorithms using only UB and UBL Floating

Now we wanted to find out how useful only one extra edge and one extra corner buffer would
be. Although UBL is not the best buffer for floating we decided to choose it since the gerneral
statistics of using one corner buffer don’t change significantly. Furthermore UBL is used by a lot
of cubers.

Table 5: Number of 3-Style Algorithms with UB and UBL Floating

5 6 7 8 9
Percentage 0.0% 0.003% 0.17% 3.33% 21.96%
Amount 0 16 866 16,847 110,984

10 11 12 13 14
Percentage 47.10% 23.93% 3.42% 0.089% 0.0004%
Amount 238,054 120,924 17,296 451 2

Figure 5: Distribution of the 3-Style Algorithm Count with UB and UBL Floating
50
47.1
46.5 UB/UBL floating
45 Basic 3-Style

40

35
31.2

30
Percentage

25 23.9
22.0

20

14.6
15

10
5.9

5 3.3 3.4
1.6
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.0 0.0
0
5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
Number of Algorithms

The average algorithm count is 10.02

6
6 Number of Algorithms using Full UFR LTCT

For the following statistics we did not float and used all LTCT algorithms (252) from the UFR
buffer with the standard UR-UF pseudo swap. LTCT was used not only to solve parity and one
corner twist but also to reduce two alg twist cases to one alg cases.

Table 6: Number of 3-Style Algorithms with LTCT

5 6 7 8 9
Percentage 0.0% 0.001% 0.088% 2.173% 18.442%
Amount 0 6 444 10,984 93,213

10 11 12 13 14
Percentage 52.104% 23.962% 3.186% 0.044% 0.0%
Amount 263,356 121,112 16,105 220 0

Figure 6: Distribution of the 3-Style Algorithm Count with LTCT

55
52.1
UFR LTCT
50 Basic 3-Style
46.5

45

40

35
31.2
Percentage

30

25 24.0

20 18.4

14.6
15

10
5.9

5 3.2
2.2
1.6
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0
0
5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
Number of Algorithms

The average algorithm count is 10.07

7
7 Number of Algorithms using Full Floating and Full LTCT

For this we assumed LTCT for all U layer buffers, as setups with U moves seem viable, but this
assumption doesn’t change a lot since this doesn’t appear often.

Table 7: Number of 3-Style Algorithms with Full Floating and LTCT

5 6 7 8 9
Percentage 0.0002% 0.019% 0.65% 8.36% 34.97%
Amount 1 97 3,284 42,252 176,755

10 11 12 13 14
Percentage 45.20% 10.15% 0.65% 0.005% 0.0%
Amount 228,439 51,314 3,274 24 0

Figure 7: Distribution of the 3-Style Algorithm Count with Full Floating and LTCT
50
46.5 FF and LTCT
45.2
45 Basic 3-Style

40
35.0
35
31.2

30
Percentage

25

20

14.6
15
10.2
10 8.4

5.9

5
1.6
0.7 0.6
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0
0
5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
Number of Algorithms

The average algorithm count is 9.58

8
8 Number of Algorithms using Premoves, Full Floating and
LTCT

We did at most one outer turn premove, if it solved three or more pieces compared to the original
scramble.

Table 8: Number of 3-Style Algorithms with Premoves, FF and LTCT

5 6 7 8 9
Percentage 0.003% 0.104% 1.63% 10.76% 34.78%
Amount 15 526 8,254 54,366 175,724

10 11 12 13 14
Percentage 42.62% 9.51% 0.61% 0.005% 0.0%
Amount 215,409 48,059 3,063 24 0

Figure 8: Distribution of the 3-Style Algorithm Count with Premoves, FF and LTCT
50
46.5 Premoves
45 Basic 3-Style
42.6

40
43.8
35
31.2

30
Percentage

25

20

14.6
15
10.8
9.5
10
5.9

5
1.6 1.6
0.6
0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0
0
5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
Number of Algorithms

The average algorithm count is 9.49. The premove was used in 5.97% of the scrambles.

9
9 Comparison

Figure 9: 6 Algers with Differnet Techniques in 505,440 Scrambles

600
526
500

400
Amount

300

200

97
100 71

3 6 16
0
Basic LTCT UB/UBL FF FF+LTCT Premoves

Figure 10: 7 Algers with Differnet Techniques in 505,440 Scrambles

8,254
8,000

6,000
Amount

4,000
3,284
2,582

2,000
866
294 444
0
Basic LTCT UB/UBL FF FF+LTCT Premoves

10
 Figure 11: 8 Algers with Differnet Techniques in 505,440 Scrambles
·104
6
54,366

5
42,252
4
34,052
Amount

2 16,847

10,984
1 7,900

0
Basic LTCT UB/UBL FF FF+LTCT Premoves

Figure 12: 9 Algers with Differnet Techniques in 505,440 Scrambles

·105
1.77 · 105 1.76 · 105

1.56 · 105
1.5

1.11 · 105
Amount

1 93,213

73,937

0.5

0
Basic LTCT UB/UBL FF FF+LTCT Premoves

11
 Figure 13: 10 Algers with Differnet Techniques in 505,440 Scrambles
·105
2.63 · 105
2.5 2.35 · 105 2.38 · 105
2.27 · 105 2.28 · 105
2.15 · 105
2
Amount

1.5

0.5

0
Basic LTCT UB/UBL FF FF+LTCT Premoves

Figure 14: 11 Algers with Differnet Techniques in 505,440 Scrambles

·105
1.6 1.57 · 105

1.4
1.21 · 105 1.21 · 105
1.2

1
Amount

78,639
0.8

0.6 51,314 48,059

0.4

0.2

0
Basic LTCT UB/UBL FF FF+LTCT Premoves

12
 Figure 15: 12 Algers with Differnet Techniques in 505,440 Scrambles
·104
29,758
3

2.5

2
Amount

17,296
16,105
1.5

1
6,875

0.5 3,274 3,063

0
Basic LTCT UB/UBL FF FF+LTCT Premoves

Figure 16: 13 Algers with Differnet Techniques in 505,440 Scrambles

837
800

600
Amount

451
400

220
200
121

24 24
0
Basic LTCT UB/UBL FF FF+LTCT Premoves

13
10 Summary and Conclusion

We detected parity in 50.03% of the scrambles, which lies within half a standard deviation. On
average 0.83 were solved, including the buffers. Excluding the buffers we had 0.458 edge flips and
0.584 corner twists per scramble. A viable premove was present in 5.97% of the scrambles. Two
floating buffers were almost as useful as all the additional buffers combined. While full foating and
premoves produced a lot of very good scrambles, LTCT was efficient in reducing bad ones. In the
following table we summarized the average algorithm count with the different techniques.

Table 9: Influence of the Different Techniques

Basic FF UB/UBL F LTCT FF LTCT Premoves
Average algs 10.26 9.72 10.02 10.07 9.58 9.49

Figure 17: Influence of the Different Techniques

12
10.26 10.07 10.02
10 9.72 9.58 9.49

8
Amount

0
Basic LTCT UB/UBL FF FF+LTCT Premoves

One particularly interesting scramble:

B2 D U R2 D’ B2 U’ R’ D R2 F’ R2 U2 B F2 L’ D2 U Fw’ Uw’
Here it is possible to obtain a 4-alger by doing an F’ premove and an alternative pseudo swap.

14