The whole area outlined by red is a corner and the two triangles coloured in blue are an edge. It is exceptionally hard to visualise because it isn't regular megaminx cuts it is 1.1.2 though because of the truncation the pyraminx crystal edges are gone and it can be solved like a megaminx.
Give it a try, do a corner PLL on it using only shallow cuts, it works that's what finally allowed me to see it. The edges can be thought of as one piece even though they are separated just like on 1.1.2. I found pairing edges on 1.1.8 to be quite a bit to get my head around having to make sure you had one and only one of every legal megaminx edge but on this it would be hell.

As a proper outline

1. make the corners first with the two colour pieces using basic stuff and a (1,1) commutator and check for parity which could manifest it'self as a single twisted corner but that would really just be a three cycle or two swapped corners which would be two three cycles.

2. fill out the corners with the big triangles with a very dirty (3,1)

3. solve centre pentagons (3,1)

4. pair edges making one of each (i.e no white yellow edge) with another (3,1) almost pure (small wide triangles move too) Also another parity possible here.

5. Add small wide triangles to corners (3,1)

6. solve reduced megaminx

The last move can be dropped from all the (3,1) algs and also the (1,1) and no undoing set-ups. As for a guess at move count i'd say 1500 is very conservative and it could go as low 1000 with some luck and a very determined solver but i really can't be sure yet (after solving 1.1.42 i feel the lower limit is under 1000 and perhaps a solve of around 980 is a good goal but i won't know till i try it). It seems pretty low but a couple of days ago would you have guessed 1.1.20 could be done in 900 moves?

Edit: I solved it in 720 moves... seems i was being a bit pessimistic.

This isn't parity? Seeing at you can get a similar case on the 4x4x4, and that's called parity, I automatically assumed that this would qualify as parity as well. Yes, this is the case I'm having. Usually I fix it with a 3-cycle, but last night I was too tired to get it right

Also, thanks for the numerous algorithms for the non-parity case on a Pyraminx Crystal. I think I'll just start my 1.1.20 solve over again, though. As I fell asleep with my computer on, which lead to a currently 18 hour long solve I would like to be able to solve it all at once, giving it a more genuine time. Not sure what puzzle I'll try after I finish this, as it looks like I'll fry my brain a little bit a long the way. Any suggestions?

That is a position parity case in the edge pairs. If you treat the pairs as whole pieces then they are in an odd permutation and the aren't solvable. The individual components of the pairs are in an even permutation and can be solved with 3-cycles. You have to break up and re-form your pairs to do it though. Elwyn hit this case on 1.1.19 and Julian provided a quite compact fix back on page 34. The sequence of moves don't apply to 1.1.20 but the overall idea behind the fix is exactly the same.

OK, I'll look into it. But as I said, I'll start my solve over again, so hopefully I won't get this case again I was planning on spending my day solving it, but social matters pulled me away. I might do it tonight, though.

idk if Gelatin Brain is taking suggestion for more puzzles, but i thought a lattice dodecahedron would be pretty cool. it would look just like 1.1.20 but it would have two layers on the vertexes.

It would be the master version of 1.2.1, right?

exactly!

Would also be fun to have some cuboids, like the 3x3x4 etc

Also, concerning 1.1.20. I got this far before Java shut down: I got so mad. But I do believe I know how to solve it now, as I constructed a (4,1) commutator to move the diamond pieces. I tried using a (3,1) commutator at first, but I never perfected it to be good enough, so I found that I could much more easily use a (4,1). But I actually didn't get a chance to perfect that one either, due to the Java thing. But it still worked better than the other ways I tried doing it. But all though I know how to solve it, it's still gonna take me a long time to do. So for now, I'm giving it a break. Might try some other applets though.

Choose 1.2.16 from the menu.
To tell you the truth, I don't like shallow cut puzzles. But why not...

are you implying that it is there? i dont think so because i dont see it anywhere

load any puzzle, and go to FILE in the top left of the applet.

that you for the puzzle gelatin brain it was fun.

thank you vdude. i never notice that file button before.

I just solved 1.2.1, it was a lot more annoying than hard. As I always ended up with only two pieces swapped. But I figured it out. Also I've been giving solving new applets a rest for a while, but I have a week off work now, so I think I'll be able to spend more time doing so. Meaning I'll finish 1.1.20 once and for all! I did solve almost all of it. I only had 3 trapezoids left, but once again, my computer decided to give me a hard time, and shut down

Also, Elwyn, if you see this, how did your solution method for 1.1.17 work out? Did you manage to solve it like a Megaminx?

Well as the records page shows i haven't actually gotten around to doing 1.1.17 yet... I did have a little bit of a twist but only got 7 corners grouped (just the 2 colour pieces) and decided it was going to take way too long and i'd have to really be ready for a LONG solve. I did however get the super megaminx fewest moves record to go with my megaminx one. And improved my megaminx, super megaminx, pyraminx crystal times and much improved my 1.1.5 move count, i think i could possibly beat Michaels with a couple more tries. First time i solved a gigaminx was on gelatinbrain, it took over three hours and i don't want to even guess at how many moves. Fewest moves just takes a little practice and a lot of patience or if your lucky seeing a puzzle in a different way to other people. I think you should solve 1.3.7 (similar to 1.3.6) and try to beat Michael's move count, or try to get a good megaminx or gigaminx count. I know you can come up with short algs and methods and that is the difficult part.That really is a nice way to do it and can be adapted to adjacent edges with only an extra 2 moves

Yeah, though your method for 1.1.17 looks like it will definitely work well, it doesn't surprise me that it will take some time to execute. My first Gigaminx solve was on gelatinbrain as well. I spent 2 hours and 7 seconds and used 1926 moves. I can solve it a lot faster now. My record with my non-virtual C4Y one is 21 minutes, though my move count haven't improved enough to make it on the record list yet.

But speaking of the record list, I just got a sub-300 Megaminx solve (I think my move count was 268), which means i accomplished my goal on at least making in on the list. I know, sub-300 is not all that impressive compared to the other move counts on that list, but it's a huge accomplishment for me, as both Megaminx and fewest moves as possible are two things I'm quite bad at, and never really practice. Maybe with a bit of practice I'll be able to sub-200 it

Hi, Gelatin Brain,

Today I tried to solve 3.9.2c. I think I have solved the puzzle but it
is not recognized by the applet. I solved the puzzle so that all the
external and internal pieces are correctly placed. Can you explain why it happens?
Please see attached
two screenshots of the state that I have reached.

The above screenshort shows the external appearance of it. In order to show the internal
pieces, I applied

RFU',FUR2,

to the puzzle and I get the following screenshot.


You can verify
that it has the correct pattern. Let me know if there indeed is anything left unsolved.

Since this solve is not recognized, I
don't know what to do except taking these screenshots and close it.
Can you check the criterion of this puzzle being solved? You may
notice that in this puzzle, there are many completely identical
pieces. All 64 pieces can be grouped into 16 groups. Each group
contains 4 identical pieces. I don't know whether this fact caused a
mistake in defining the solved status.

Also, I would greatly appreciate it if you consider my solve as a valid
one and put it into the statistics. I did this on July 28th, 2010. It
took me 2:20:40, and 14222 moves, as you can see in the screen shots.
Thanks.

Schuma

Finally solved Once again I left my computer on to avoid having to do it all over, but I think the actual solving time is about 5 hours. There were some minor changes (in bold) to my soltuion compared to the one I posted in one of my above posts:

1. Pair edges
2. Place edges onto their correct face, like on a Pyraminx Crystal
2.5. Solve permutation parity by splitting up the two pairs effected and re-pair them correctly
3. Solve center pentagons
4. Solve triangle pieces, like on 1.1.4/1.1.5
5. Solve diamond pieces using a (1,1) commutator at first, then switching to a (3,1)
6. Solve the trapezoids

And also I added a step 2.5 as all the 4 times I've paired up the edges, I've gotten the permutation parity.

I have a simple question regarding 4.1.2: are we not supposed to be able to do slice moves on it or am I the only one who can't do it?

I cannot do slice moves either, which is annoying. In order to do a slice move, I will rotate the whole thing and rotate outer layers back.

That drove me crazy my first solve too. Then when I got to the Dino Octa I realized you could 3-cycle the triangle pieces by commutating a face move instead of a slice move:

UFL',
[ULB,URF,ULB',URF]x2,
UFL,

This way you don't have to reorient the puzzle constantly.

Great job on 1.1.20, if you have the patience and persistence for that beast you'll be able to solve almost any puzzle here.

That's what I did at first as well, but since I'm so used to doing slice moves, it got so confusing and annoying that I never bothered to finish it. I will try this when I attempt another solve, thanks! I bet it will be a lot less annoying then having to reorient the puzzle all the time, as I previously used slice moves to cycle those triangle pieces. Thank you We'll have to wait and see about that, as I'm still nowhere near a solution to for instants the Pentultimate. I've managed to almost complete the six bottom faces, but after that I'm incredibly stuck

1.1.20Nice work!

Back when you were asking what puzzles to solve next i completely forgot about 1.1.19, similar to 1.1.8 and 1.1.18 but i'd say much easier then either. It is one of my favourite puzzles on the site and can be solved relatively quickly (in comparison to 1.1.20 most puzzles could be solved quickly i'd say). Don't let my 1:38:21 time put you off that was for fewest moves, i just solved it again in 20:31 taking the record and that was with getting parity which took a couple of minutes to fix.

As for the dino-octa and FTO i use reduction to octaminx and hence don't need slice moves

Pentultimate I wouldn't bother trying to get any but the first 5 corners around the bottom face before doing all the centres, but after the centres it really gets hard.

Already after a brief inspection of the puzzle, I wouldn't think it's going to be too difficult. Also I've already created a simple outline of how I will attempt to solve it:

1. Pair up the necessary pieces to create Megaminx edges (photo: blue-yellow edge)
2. Solve centers
3. Solve as Megaminx But - if I'm not mistaken, I believe I could get a permutation parity on this one, right? I haven't thought of any smart way to solve that yet, but I think I'll work my way around it if it occurs (my solutions are never smart or efficient, but they still tend to work out some how ). I've actually thought about doing it that way myself, but I guess I got to lazy to ever try it out. Maybe I'll do it one time I'm super bored or something, just for the fun of it. You're probably gonna laugh at me now, but before now I didn't even know what an octaminx was. I even gets harder? Wow, I have some real work to do if I want to finish this, huh?

I solve it centres first, your way is possible but the only way i can find to swap centres takes 84 moves just to do a 2-2 swap... easier to pair the edges whilst preserving centres i'd say.As i said last post it does get parity but it's easy to understand and fix, if you don't include the moves it took to re-solve part of the megaminx parity took me 17 moves.I don't see why i should, until a year and a half ago i didn't know there was such a thing as a 4x4x4 or megaminx or any twisty-puzzle but the Rubik's cube and i sure didn't know how to solve it. Though i am a little confused at how you planned to try reduction to octaminx without knowing what an octaminx even is?

Well, I figured out that I could just 3-cycle the centers the same way as on 1.1.4/1.1.5/1.1.20, but it does require me to do a lot of moves to place them all, and it won't only effect the centers, as I will have to use slice moves to do it, it will also swap a bunch of other pieces, which I just realized would also break up the paired Megaminx edges This will also happen even if I turn the outer layer with the sliced move. Arrhg, I though for a second there that I'd come up with something smart, but you are completely right, step 1 and 2 should be reversed for the simplicity of it. Thanks
I searched for it on Google right after reading your post, but before I knew what it was, I've been speculation about doing it that way without knowing what I would reduce it to if I did. Sorry for the added confusion, I tend to be rather short in explaining my reasoning sometimes

Also, I just discovered 1.1.39, which almost made me jump up and down of excitement. I have been looking for a puzzle similar to that one on Gelatin Brain, but I completely overlooked that one so far, but now my eyes are fixed on it, and I'm really looking forward to solving it

I loved 1.1.39 but I really recommend you do 1.1.8 first. The trapezoids under the corners on 1.1.39 are similar to The wide triangles on 1.1.8. Also note that 1.1.39 has CTRL+click.

Finally, I suggest Sjeord's reduction to Pyraminx Crystal idea. My method took so long. If you can see the 1.1.3 in it easily it will save you a ton of time.

Oh, that I hadn't noticed, thanks a lot! Yes, I actually saw that right away, which is one of the reasons I'm so excited about it. So I will of course reduce it to a PC, which I think I will figure out how to do without any major problems. But out of curiosity, how did you solve it if you didn't use that method?

EDIT: so for now, this is the planed order (taking yours and Elwyn's suggestions into account) for my next applets, all leading up to 1.1.39:
1.1.19 as this is suggested to be easier than 1.1.8
1.1.8 as this is helpful to solve 1.1.39
1.1.39 which I think will be a lot of fun

Recently I've been working on the 6.1.2 series. Although 6.1.2 was successfully solved and recognized by the applet, I had some problems with 6.1.2b and 6.1.2c. I have solved these two puzzles to the states as shown in the following screenshots.



I cannot find any difference between them and the "solved states". But they were just not recognized by the applet. I remember Elwyn had a similar problem. But eventually he found that the cuts were not aligned. It seems to me that in my case, the cuts are aligned. Does anyone here find anything wrong in my solve? Thanks.

They look solved to me and the fact your name is on the scoreboard for them makes me confused as to what the problem is? Perhaps it was a bug and gelatinbrain submitted the records manualy for you.
Also appart from the three 6.2.1 spheres there are apparently 2 puzzles you haven't solved (from the puzzles solved records you are at 279/284)and i was wondering what they are. Not long now till you finish which is beyond an amazing achievement. What will you do then

Gelatinbrain has seen my emails and has manually registered these solves. I really appreciate it.

So I need to solve three 6.2.1 puzzles, and two hidden puzzles. The mystic hidden puzzles are spheres. You can access them as follows: (1) open any other puzzle, (2) open the file menu and go to the sphere section, (3) under 6.2.1c, there are two empty lines. These two empty lines are the two unnamed puzzles, which are even not yet numbered. I know these two puzzles for several months but I have never tried to solve them.

I haven't figured out the algorithms for the 6.2.1 series and the two hidden puzzles. But it seems that 6.2.1 is a 8-axis (octahedral) version of 6.1.2. You can establish a correspondence between the pieces in 6.2.1 and those in 6.1.2. The two hidden puzzles are 4-axis (tetrahedral) version of 6.1.2. Given the similarity between these puzzles and the fact that you have solved 6.2.1 spheres, I'm pretty sure that you can easily solve 6.1.2 and the two hidden spheres.

They look pretty solved to me too, but I guess that's not an issue anymore since you're on the record page. Also, 5 applets left? You should be given a diploma or a price or something when you finish them all!

Finally, finally, I have solved all 284/284 puzzles. I made a diploma for myself for graduating from Gelatin Brain University.

According to GB's record page, the total solving time is at least 163 hours, which does not include preparing time before I hit the scramble button. Now I can have a good sleep. Wake me up if GB adds some new puzzles.

Congratulations, man! What an accomplishment!

Amazing, Congratulations!

We're (well, me ) relying on you to share your thoughts on the spheres! My summer classes are almost done and I'm finally graduating so I can't wait to catch up

Congratulations! Nice diploma. I wonder how many others will actually finish them all? Almost the complete opposite is happening to me: I just started university and barely have no time to do anything besides it

I haven't posted here in a while, but I just had to jump on when I saw this, to say:

Congratulations!

That is a great achievement.

(I've been catching up with this thread from time to time, enjoying your updates on tricky puzzles that I'm not sure I'll ever be able to solve, like the cube-within-cubes and spheres, and Elwyn's clever new 1.1.17 and 1.1.20 solutions. Next month I hope to get back to solving again.)

Even though i knew you were so close i'm still amazed you actually did it
Astonishing achievement! i can't comprehend how you did it so quickly as well.
Nice to know my move counts for the spheres i did weren't too easily beatable but i still get confused every time i try turning them
sure makes my goal of all 1.1.X seem a little bit small hahaha.
hahaha i'm in a similar boat, i've spent a fair bit of time i should be studying on this site and gelatinbrain.
I really hope you do, i'm still stuck looking for from page 33 and i've kind of given up looking for it even though i would really like to try reduction to pentultimate on that puzzle.

The inner (1,1) is made from a face move of 72 degrees and a vertex move, as far apart from each other as possible. Then the inner setup move pushes a group of 4 swapped pieces (a clump of three triangles and a corner) into a Pentultimate layer; the outer setup move slices off the corner and two triangles from that group to leave a single wide triangle isolated in the Pentultimate layer.

P.S. 356 for 1.3.7?! a) Congrats! b) Please can you give an outline/hints?

Your move count records are almost impossible for me to beat. I'm not good at finding efficient algorithms to solve a puzzle.

My style is like, to find a minimum set of algorithms that are sufficient to solve it. Once have found them, I don't have to think much during solving. It's less painful for me to work in this way. This method also enables me to figure out the methods and then solve the last five puzzles in two days.

The down side is, I usually use many more steps. Like, in the 6.2.1 series, I found a long algorithm to do a clean 3-cycle for the smallest triangles. In the last stage of solving, I used this algorithm for several times. This stage alone took hundreds of steps. But you can solve the whole thing in 193 steps. So your method is philosophically different from mine. I can never compete with you in terms of move counts unless I adopt another way of thinking.

I use a similar approach also requiring a lot of moves. Take 1.1.20 for example: I needed over 7000 moves to solve it, which is ridiculously much. I bet if I try doing it the way Elwyn did, I'll get a better count, but I imagine it's still going to be rather high. Getting as few moves as possible isn't something I'm good at. Solving them all makes every other goal seem small Though completing all of the 1.1.x series seems to be unlikely in my case. I feel that some of the puzzles there look really scary and intimidating. My goal for the time being is to solve at least 100 applets, which I'm no where near doing at the moment.

surprisingly I solved in a similar way to 1.1.15 but looking at your movecount for that one i suppose an outline of both would help. I solved both of them centers first, not centre pentagons but the whole center area. Building the centers isn't too hard, i do it kindof like 1.1.10. For both 1.1.15 and 1.3.7 the centres are made up of esentialy the same pieces. I kind of use these steps but i'll try to explain how i make the individual centres in more detail.

For the first 6 centers first i place 1 thin triangle with the two wide ones around it on the correct face then in the top half of the puzzle place two thin triangles around the pentagon and build another wide, thin, wide triangle group and slide it with the pentagon then group the single remaining thin and wide triangle and slide the grouped (now kind of a rhombus shape) pieces to join them. it's then just a matter of sliding this large trapazoidal group of pieces to join the 1 thin and 2 wide triangles that are already in place. (this would probably be a lot easier with pictures but i'm at uni and the computer's here don't like to let me use galatinbrain)

I do that for the first 6 centers of 1.1.15 but then solve the remaining center pentagons and use a slightly different method (actually kind of similar but you move the pentagon out of place to group it with some pieces then rotate it so those pieces come with it when you move it back) but you can pretty much do that for all but the last 2 centers of 1.3.7. When doing a slice on 1.1.15 or turning a corner on 1.3.7 you move the very center, 4 thin triangles and 3 wide triangles but for the last two centers i try and think of it as moving just the remaining 1 thin and 2 wide triangles (the ones that actually don't move) instead, that alwoes me to see it more clearly and solve the last two almost like gigaminx centres.

Finally solve like a megaminx or edges only megaminx for the two respective puzzles, though by that point i have already solved the bottom 10 edges (and 5 corners on 1.1.15) because i just like doing it that way like the gigaminx but in this case i doubt it saves manny moves.

I actually really like both of these puzzles hence why i put a fair bit of effort into explaining them, that and i still have 30 minutes till my lecture.

that was my other goal, i plan solve 2 more then 1.1.42 as practice for 1.1.17 (they're surprisingly similar) then 1.1.17 for my 100th

I give up!!!!! I just spent an hour looking for it and even with all those hints i feel like i couldn't find it in a million years. I don't know why, pretty sure i know the (1,1) because you told me it but it's those 2 setup moves, they just escape me no matter how long i look at it. I've never felt so much like something is right in front of me but completely unobtainable for no apparent reason at all.
On a less pathetic note do you think it's possible to find a shorter one if it didn't matter weather it messed up where the pentultimate centers and corners were, as in if i were doing reduction to pentultimate? As i would currently use a 6 move alg to esentialy cycle the thin triangles between pentultimate centres (1,(1,1)) with only doing the inner (1,1) once. This cycles groups of three triangles 2 wide one thin (though it actually is cycling the entire centre EXCEPT those three triangles but it can be looked at as almost the same thing) and messes up the pentultimate but that doesn't matter. If either of us find a shorter less pure one for the wide triangles or even if you tell me that one or the impossible happens and i find it, assuming the solver doesn't get parity sub 1000 would probably be rather possible. That was a lot of IFs wasn't it I am very different. First i have a good think about weather it can be reduced to another puzzle then if not what order would be the most efficient to cycle pieces, I think this phase is the one i like best because it involves trying to think about a puzzle in a new and different way and because i usually find it easier than the next step. I then try to find an alg then look for a shorter one until i think no shorter can be found, the problem is i now feel my ability to find said algs is very poor after looking for the above one for so long, this is often the most painful part for me, though it does feel good when you find a nice short alg by yourself. I find the actual solving to be more just something to do whilst i listen to music, i look around for complete three cycles and cycles that require the fewest set-up moves or if it's reduced i sometimes try a multiple things for one step to see how it affects the rest of the puzzle. I usualy solve to relax and hence prefer fewest moves to speed. I much prefer this step to the one before it because i never get the feeling i am completely lost of have no idea what i'm doing. I can just concentrate on doing something i know can be done and just see how well i can do it.

There have been a couple of puzzles where I know you and I have solved the puzzle using the exact same length routines and solved pieces in the exact same order. Even trying to be moderately efficient you still get about 50% of my move count. My only explanation is that you must be much more efficient about picking pieces in your 3-cycle that will place 2 or 3 rather than my usual 1 and sometimes 2. You must be much more efficient about setup moves too.

If I weren't so far behind in the efficient-solving basics I would be more motivated to compete against you and Julian for fewest moves. As it stands now, using the same strategy but getting double the moves is discouraging.

My only motivation for low-move routines is that since I don't use macros I want to keep my clicks below 3000 or so

I don't mean to change the "subject", but for some reason I'm not able to use any applets. I only get a blank screen where the puzzle is supposed to be. Anybody else having this problem?

This is usually caused by your browser/Java cache getting out of sync with what Gelatinbrain puts up on his site. On Windows you should clear your browser's cache, then close your browser (all instances of your browser). Then clear your Java cache (use the "Java" control panel applet, clear "Temporary Internet Files").

If that doesn't work for you, I have a test mirror that uses the bleeding edge JOGL native binaries here:
http://noh.ucsd.edu/~bmenrigh/gb/gb_mir ... g_edge.htm

You should only use that for testing, not solving. I keep it around so I can use the applet on my Linux boxes. I have confirmed that it works on Windows (32 and 64 bit).

If you can get my test working then you should be able to get the official applet working.

Dang Julian, this was HARD! I spent almost an hour figuring it out. I didn't understand your setup moves description so I just worked off of your (1,1) idea. I suppose my setup moves could be different than yours. Coming up with a (14,1) was pretty easy. I'm surprised you spotted the (8,1), it doesn't seem possible until you do it. You need to come back soon so you can share more brilliant routines like this

I just spent 20 minutes or so looking for a shorter non-pure wide-triangle cycle with no success. The (1,1) Julian suggested seems to need 2 setup moves to avoid two wide-triangle 3-cycles simultaneously.

Not really, i'd say getting all the time records or all the FM records or all the records of both would make solving them all pale in comparison , it's just close to impossible with people like Michael and Julian to compete with damn. I'm really up to the point of just asking for the alg if Julian is ok with telling it to me.Well i must admit i try much harder than just trying to be "moderately efficient" I only ever solve one at a time very rarely on the pentultimate corners or other pieces that require orientation and i only do it then if there is a corner in the correct spot miss oriented so i can solve one and get the other out of place.
What puzzles are you talking about because my advice would really be just to pick one or two, the two i practised cycling on the most were by far are pentultimate and starminx, and try to get as few moves as possible on that puzzle a few solves in a row. Those two work well because pentultimate corners need orienting but starminx triangles don't so you can practice both. Strangely the part i think i waste the most moves on the starminx, compared to Michael, is the pyraminx crystal edges. when i solve i spend far more time looking for cycles and short set-up moves than actually performing them
I check the whole puzzle for complete 3 cycles then if there are none at all look for few set up moves, this get's pretty ridiculouse on the starminx because of the crazy amount of different ways to perform my current three cycle, if i knew all the possible positions that can be cycled by it i think set-up moves would very rarely go above 2 or 3

Sometimes look of a cycle that will solve 2 and the third piece that is moved will then allow for another complete three cycle but that is a little difficult, does anyone else ever try this, Julian?

Now that you put it that way, I absolutely agree! Solving them all and getting first in both time and fewest moves would without a doubt not be a small goal. It would also mean that you would have to solve a lot of the puzzles more than once. But for now I feel that my own goal of solving 100 is plenty! Even compared to the goals others may have set for them selfs. You're almost there Thank you for the instructions. I did as you suggested, but it's still only a blank screen Quite frustrating, as last night was my only night off in a while, and hence my only chance to get some good solving time. But oh well.

Also, 1.3.2 looks very difficult. I would love to join in on the discussion about it and give this method a try, but that's going to be a little hard if GB doesn't work for me

Finally, I have a question regarding 1.1.19: would this count as an orientation parity?