# My 3x3 in 9.90 seconds video. The umm... "fake" one



## ben1996123 (Sep 7, 2009)

I have the scramble... and solution...

The scramble - thanks to cube explorer - B2 U' B2 D2 R B2 D2 L2 D2 R2 U' R' B2 U' F' R2 F' U'

The solution -

Cross: Unsure - I checked the video carefully, and realised I had made mistakes on this part, but I am unsure of what it actually is.
F2L #1: Unsure
F2L #2: Unsure
F2L #3: U' R' U R U y L U L'
F2L #4: U2 y' R' U2 R U' R' U' R U' R' U R
OLL:
PLL: U' y x L2 D2 L' U' L D2 L' U L'

See? Now do you believe that it wasnt fake?


----------



## 4Chan (Sep 7, 2009)

Hey.... this seems awfully familiar....

Didnt Charlie post something about this a few months ago...
(searches...)

Yeah, thats you.
http://www.speedsolving.com/forum/showthread.php?p=199879#post199879\

HAHA, NICE RECORDS.
0.16 2x2?!
HAHAH WAS IT A 2 MOVE SOLUTION?
YOURE NOT IMPRESSING ANYONE.

If this was some other forum, id tell you to gtfo nooblet


----------



## StachuK1992 (Sep 7, 2009)

ben1996123 said:


> See? Now do you believe that it wasnt fake?


No. I see the same thing as before.
A video, a scramble, and a solution.
Only this time, they were provided by you.

This thread should never have been made. you just made yourself a ditch.


----------



## IamWEB (Sep 7, 2009)

Embedding disabled by request...


----------



## ben1996123 (Sep 7, 2009)

Cubes=Life said:


> 0.16 2x2?!
> *HAHAH WAS IT A 2 MOVE SOLUTION?*
> If this was some other forum, id tell you to gtfo nooblet



It was a 1 move solution... I was on an optimal scrambler and the scramble was U


----------



## 4Chan (Sep 7, 2009)

ben1996123 said:


> Cubes=Life said:
> 
> 
> > 0.16 2x2?!
> ...



:fp

And you had the audacity to consider that a solve.
Congratulations, you just took it on to a whole new level.


----------



## JLarsen (Sep 7, 2009)

Lol you didn't have a single delay in the entire solve. You didn't have any reaction either. Any. None. Nice ditch you've dug though. Quite amusing. I'd like to see how far this goes now.


----------



## ben1996123 (Sep 7, 2009)

A bit pathetic, but I do agree, it is not really a solve, but since the scramble was U, It should be counted, I used the WCA scrambler.


----------



## Sa967St (Sep 7, 2009)

I still call hacks


----------



## Daniel Wu (Sep 7, 2009)

ben1996123 said:


> it is not really a solve





ben1996123 said:


> It should be counted



well...


----------



## mcciff2112 (Sep 7, 2009)

Lol, I think he seriously thought he could fool us by providing a solution. No solve has that easy of a cross, followed by that easy of a first insertion, followed by that easy of a second insertion, followed by your favorite F2L fingertrick, followed by an OLL skip. It just doesn't happen like that. Sorry


----------



## Ethan Rosen (Sep 7, 2009)

As some of you (fazrulz) may know, I'm usually pretty skeptical, but I believe him, and I think some of you guys should back off and stop assuming people can't be luckier and better than you are.
Also, who gives a flying duck about 2x2 single?


----------



## qqwref (Sep 7, 2009)

If you fill your signature with lucky single solve times, you have to expect that people are going to call you on it. I strongly suggest putting PB averages there instead (they'd give people a better representation of your skill) or at least nonlucky single times.


Also: after watching the video, I think your scramble and solution is wrong. Here's what I saw:

Scramble (yellow top, blue front): B U2 R2 D' U2 F2 U' L' B2 L' D L B2 L F2 R2 (16f*)
Double xcross: u U R'
F2L 3: U' R' U R U y L U L'
F2L 4: U2 y' R' U2 R U' R' U' R U' R' U R
OLL: (skipped)
PLL: U' y x L2 D2 L' U' L D2 L' U L'

33 move solve, pretty lucky if you ask me, but not necessarily fake.


----------



## fanwuq (Sep 7, 2009)

LOLOLOLOL
Just because most of his records are claimed to be insanely lucky and his unlucky best single is sup-15. 
Maybe I'm just unlucky. I can get at least one single better than his PB on hi-games.net every 5 solves, but I've yet to sub-11 any single, lucky or nonlucky.
I present several options:
1. He has no life and kept on scrambling to get really lucky scrambles
2. He is just lucky
3. He "generates" "scrambles."
4. Rehearsed solves.

No matter which option it is, it's insecure to claim lucky solves as PBs. Why not list your averages of 12?


----------



## Tortin (Sep 7, 2009)

Sa967St said:


> I still call hacks



Seconded.

Also, what exactly was the point of this thread? Why does it matter if other people think it's fake? If it's fake, it's fake. If it isn't, then it isn't. Other peoples' opinions aren't going to change that.


----------



## foxdi (Sep 7, 2009)

qqwref said:


> If you fill your signature with lucky single solve times, you have to expect that people are going to call you on it. I strongly suggest putting PB averages there instead (they'd give people a better representation of your skill) or at least nonlucky single times.
> 
> 
> Also: after watching the video, I think your scramble and solution is wrong. Here's what I saw:
> ...




this is what i saw in the vids ,  . it start with a u move .



but he provided the cross solution as 
_The solution -

Cross: L2 U2 R2_ 


so who is lying


----------



## mark3 (Sep 7, 2009)

My only problem is that he rotates the cube a lot during F2L, more than most other 9.xx solves I've seen. It seems those would be rehearsed.


----------



## Robert-Y (Sep 7, 2009)

I agree with Ethan and qq.


----------



## Kian (Sep 7, 2009)

qqwref said:


> If you fill your signature with lucky single solve times, you have to expect that people are going to call you on it. I strongly suggest putting PB averages there instead (they'd give people a better representation of your skill) or at least nonlucky single times.
> 
> 
> Also: after watching the video, I think your scramble and solution is wrong. Here's what I saw:
> ...



No, but the zero recognition time for someone not terribly fast to begin with makes me very skeptical.


----------



## anythingtwisty (Sep 7, 2009)

Hey guys, there's a reason it's called "lucky".


----------



## Faz (Sep 7, 2009)

Ethan Rosen said:


> As some of you (fazrulz) may know, I'm usually pretty skeptical, but I believe him, and I think some of you guys should back off and stop assuming people can't be luckier and better than you are.
> Also, who gives a flying duck about 2x2 single?



Ohai there Ethan. 



qqwref said:


> If you fill your signature with lucky single solve times, you have to expect that people are going to call you on it. I strongly suggest putting PB averages there instead (they'd give people a better representation of your skill) or at least nonlucky single times.
> 
> 
> Also: after watching the video, I think your scramble and solution is wrong. Here's what I saw:
> ...



Yes, that solution is the real one, and only 33 moves. That is one of the lowest ever more counts for a speedsolve, and getting 9.90 seconds gives you a tps of 3.3, which is quite slow. People with those sort of tps's average around 20 seconds. 

Also, the fact that there are barely any pauses in your solve lead me to believe that you rehearsed the scramble. If you want be to change my opinion, please convince me.

Solve these 5 scrambles, and make a video. I expect a sub 17 average, which is still quite lenient, considering most people only get sub 10 solves, lucky or nonlucky when they average sub 15.

But then again, there is still the chance you can practice these scrambles, and I'm not sure how to make sure you haven't

1. R2 F' B U' L R2 B R' B' F2 L' U' F B' R2 B2 F2 L2 D L2 R F' L' R F 
2. L B2 L' U' B L U B2 U' D L B2 U L2 U L' R' B D' L F2 B2 R' L2 D2 
3. L' D' L' U2 B2 F' U' B' U2 D2 L R' B' F' R2 D F U B' F2 U' B' F2 R2 B 
4. U D2 B R2 U' B L2 R' B2 D2 R2 U D B U' D L' R' D U F D2 F2 R B' 
5. F B L' D' U R' B' L' D2 L D2 B2 F' R F' R2 D' R L B2 L2 R' U' L2 R2


----------



## IamWEB (Sep 7, 2009)

He could start recording BEFORE you post the scrambles, and while in the same video, do the scrambles right after seeing the post.


----------



## CharlieCooper (Sep 7, 2009)

I have done all the commenting there is to be done on this video so I won't change my mind in that respect.

All I will say, is that Ben and I are pretty much identical at 3x3 if you look at our WCA pages. For that reason I know that getting a solve of this time is completely impossible for me. The only one time that I have sub 10ed was a complete last layer skip that I happened to speed solve while racing on webcam with joey, when I was quite a bit faster overall anyway (whereas when I have otherwise had a LLS I have just been slow solving). I have had quite a few 13s, and a maximum of 5 11s within pretty normal averages, but this has largely been because of taking advantage of block building and on the whole I do not get those times in regular averages.

As for the lad in question, Ben isn't a bad kid. I was probably too quick to judge him to be an annoying person due to what I perceived to be fake videos, and I admit that. I maintain my opinion, but I don't think Ben is a bad person at all. He came to the competition I organised, I lent him my square-1, he was the model competitor and was very polite. He is however quite young, and young cubers occasionally will... "embellish" their cubing CV. He wouldn't be the first to do that, nor would he be the last. I don't think he means to anger anyone at all, he just doesn't seem to realise how much it annoys people when videos appear "fake". 

Why am I posting so early? eurgh.
Lars is back from holidays!


----------



## qqwref (Sep 7, 2009)

CharlieCooper said:


> For that reason I know that getting a solve of this time is completely impossible for me.



Even with a three-move double extended cross?


----------



## CharlieCooper (Sep 7, 2009)

qqwref said:


> CharlieCooper said:
> 
> 
> > For that reason I know that getting a solve of this time is completely impossible for me.
> ...



Yeah probably - I don't think in crosses  Anyway, even with that it would still be pretty hard to get sub 10. I just attempted a few solves with the 2x2x3 part of the cube already done and even then I didn't get that many sub 10.


----------



## Yes We Can! (Sep 7, 2009)

@ Ben: I want to see a sub-1 4x4 solve please 

he can't practise that!


----------



## Jake Gouldon (Sep 7, 2009)

I average around 20 on a bad day yet I can still get sub-1 4x4...


----------



## ben1996123 (Sep 7, 2009)

> I want to see a sub-1 4x4 solve please



Lol, I have only ever had 2 sub 1 4x4's, both were extremely lucky. The 49.33 second one was 2 centres skipped, and about 5 edges skipped, with a 3x3 PLL skip. AND!!! I dont have a 4x4...


----------



## Novriil (Sep 7, 2009)

mcciff2112 said:


> Lol, I think he seriously thought he could fool us by providing a solution. No solve has that easy of a cross, followed by that easy of a first insertion, followed by that easy of a second insertion, followed by your favorite F2L fingertrick, followed by an OLL skip. It just doesn't happen like that. Sorry



I had that on FMC!! on a comp.. bad for me that I didn't know that I have to put cube rotations too  47 moves.. bad but cross was like 6 moves, then two F2L pairs were just U2 L' U' L, one with... some other stuff and then more..

no skips though 


Sorry I still don't believe You.




E: TWO CENTERS SKIPPED???!?!?!??! are you crazy? Do you hand scramble ? OMFG!


----------



## Ethan Rosen (Sep 7, 2009)

ben1996123 said:


> > I want to see a sub-1 4x4 solve please
> 
> 
> 
> Lol, I have only ever had 2 sub 1 4x4's, both were extremely lucky. The 49.33 second one was 2 centres skipped, and about 5 edges skipped, with a 3x3 PLL skip. AND!!! I dont have a 4x4...



Ok, I gave you the benefit of the doubt, but now that's gone. Switch me over to the people who don't believe anything you say.


----------



## ben1996123 (Sep 7, 2009)

mcciff2112 said:


> E: TWO CENTERS SKIPPED???!?!?!??! are you crazy? Do you hand scramble ? OMFG!



Nope, proper scramble


----------



## edd5190 (Sep 7, 2009)

ben1996123 said:


> mcciff2112 said:
> 
> 
> > E: TWO CENTERS SKIPPED???!?!?!??! are you crazy? Do you hand scramble ? OMFG!
> ...



Can you clarify this? Having a friend badly scramble doesn't make anything 'proper.'


----------



## mcciff2112 (Sep 7, 2009)

ben1996123 said:


> > I want to see a sub-1 4x4 solve please
> 
> 
> 
> Lol, I have only ever had 2 sub 1 4x4's, both were extremely lucky. The 49.33 second one was 2 centres skipped, and about 5 edges skipped, with a 3x3 PLL skip. AND!!! I dont have a 4x4...



Once I had a 4x4 scramble where all the centers were solved, all the edges were solved, and the 3x3 part was solved. It was my new PB


----------



## Ethan Rosen (Sep 7, 2009)

mcciff2112 said:


> ben1996123 said:
> 
> 
> > > I want to see a sub-1 4x4 solve please
> ...



I call shenanigans


----------



## Robert-Y (Sep 7, 2009)

I wonder what are the chances of getting 2 centres (2x2) already solved and in their correct positions... (probably badly worded...)


----------



## Jake Gouldon (Sep 7, 2009)

Robert-Y said:


> I wonder what are the chances of getting 2 centres (2x2) already solved and in their correct positions... (probably badly worded...)



The centre skips don't suprise me, I get it all the time (last 2 centers)... But the edges and PLL skip are just too suspicious.


----------



## 4Chan (Sep 7, 2009)

Robert-Y said:


> I wonder what are the chances of getting 2 centres (2x2) already solved and in their correct positions... (probably badly worded...)



I once had a cross skip~

But no, that statement seems to support ben...
I too think fazrulz is right, lets see an average in real time perhaps?
Webcam?

We provide scrambles, and see?

Its very possible, and very plausible.


----------



## (X) (Sep 7, 2009)

I don't average sub 17 but I recently got my new PB of 10.17 

It was a 36 move solve with a LL skip 

Here's the scramble (from CCT) : R D2 U2 B2 F' D2 L' R2 D2 U F' D L R2 B2 F L2 R F2 L U' B2 D R2 F

and here's my solution:

cross: z D R' D R' F'
F2L 1: U y R U' R' U2 R' U' R
F2L2: U' L U L' U2 L U L'
F2L3: L' U L
F2L4: y' R' U R U2 R' U2 R U' R' U R
LL: U2

EDIT: Lying about the scramble and solution is suspicious though, I'm just saying it's possible. But if he has never been sub 15 non-lucky I highly doubt this is a real solve. I'm very unstable and my best non-lucky is 13.xy

Sometimes you just get lucky


----------



## Robert-Y (Sep 7, 2009)

Jake Gouldon said:


> Robert-Y said:
> 
> 
> > I wonder what are the chances of getting 2 centres (2x2) already solved and in their correct positions... (probably badly worded...)
> ...



:s I'm not certain but I think that skipping at least one edge is common.


----------



## Jake Gouldon (Sep 7, 2009)

Robert-Y said:


> Jake Gouldon said:
> 
> 
> > Robert-Y said:
> ...



But 5 isn't.


----------



## mcciff2112 (Sep 7, 2009)

Ethan Rosen said:


> mcciff2112 said:
> 
> 
> > ben1996123 said:
> ...



Alright you got me


----------



## jdouglasusn (Sep 7, 2009)

Cubes=Life said:


> ben1996123 said:
> 
> 
> > Cubes=Life said:
> ...



I know right. I used a scrambler for my 2x2. (25 moves) After I did the scramble and went to inspection. i realized I only needed to do R,U2. (.5 seconds.) I'm not counting that. LOL


----------



## Robert-Y (Sep 7, 2009)

Jake Gouldon said:


> Robert-Y said:
> 
> 
> > Jake Gouldon said:
> ...



Fair enough


----------



## qqwref (Sep 7, 2009)

I think I've had about 5 edges skipped on a hi-games 4x4 solve. (It didn't have other skips, though).

It's not that being that lucky is impossible, but I really doubt it given ben's times. Unless he's the kind of person who practices all the time for months but never gets any faster, he has to be either really lucky or not legitimate.


----------



## ben1996123 (Sep 7, 2009)

(X) said:


> I don't average sub 17 but I recently got my new PB of 10.17
> 
> It was a 36 move solve with a LL skip
> 
> ...


Non Lucky PB is 14.25


----------



## ben1996123 (Sep 7, 2009)

Jake Gouldon said:


> Robert-Y said:
> 
> 
> > I wonder what are the chances of getting 2 centres (2x2) already solved and in their correct positions... (probably badly worded...)
> ...


The 4x4 solve was first 2 centres skipped, and it was a proper scramble from CCT v0.9.2


----------



## mark3 (Sep 7, 2009)

ben1996123 said:


> Jake Gouldon said:
> 
> 
> > Robert-Y said:
> ...



Your 5x5 and up times don't match with the rest of your times. They are slow for someone who is sub-1 on the 4x4.


----------



## Rikane (Sep 7, 2009)

mark3 said:


> ben1996123 said:
> 
> 
> > Jake Gouldon said:
> ...


I can easily average sub-25 on the 3^3 (I have proof of this), but I can't even sub 5min the 4^3. Does this mean I'm a fake?

Sometimes people just don't practice other cubes.

As for him being a fake? I don't really care at this point in time.


----------



## joey (Sep 7, 2009)

Also, I don't think he says that averages sub-1.


----------



## (X) (Sep 7, 2009)

ben1996123 said:


> (X) said:
> 
> 
> > I don't average sub 17 but I recently got my new PB of 10.17
> ...



You didn't answer to the fact that you faked the scramble/solve


----------



## Carrot (Sep 7, 2009)

mark3 said:


> ben1996123 said:
> 
> 
> > Jake Gouldon said:
> ...



I normally average 16-18 on 3x3x3... 1½ minutes on 4x4 and 6-10 minutes with 5x5x5... does that mean I'm a faker too? nice! =D


----------



## CharlieCooper (Sep 7, 2009)

Odder said:


> mark3 said:
> 
> 
> > ben1996123 said:
> ...



No. I think the point that is being made here is that Ben suggests that he gets lucky times of 9.xx, when his averages are not even sub 20. With 4x4 he gets lucky times that are sub 50, which is a little suspicious, when those who get such times on 4x4 are *usually* quite good at 5x5 too. 

What I find odd is that to get a sub 50 solve on a 4x4, when usually averaging 20 seconds for 3x3, one would need to have centres and edges done in 30 seconds maximum, which is being quite generous and assuming that one's execution of the 3x3 part of the solve is as fast as on a 3x3 cube.


----------



## waffle=ijm (Sep 7, 2009)

Fake or not, I don't care.

I'm just ticked off that he double posted on page 5.


----------



## daeyoungyoon (Sep 7, 2009)

_2x2 - 0.16 seconds - lucky (I was on an optimal scrambler and the scramble was U)

Square 1 - 7.39 seconds (lol, too lucky, CO, EO, EP skip, cube shape in 3 moves, CP, done.)

Lol, I have only ever had 2 sub 1 4x4's, both were extremely lucky. The 49.33 second one was 2 centres skipped, and about 5 edges skipped, with a 3x3 PLL skip. AND!!! I dont have a 4x4...

And this 3 move double extended cross..._

Can you tell me your secrets of getting so many lucky scrambles????


----------



## MTGjumper (Sep 7, 2009)

His square-1 PB is faster than my PB, lucky or non-lucky


----------



## Robert-Y (Sep 7, 2009)

MTGjumper said:


> His square-1 PB is faster than my PB, lucky or non-lucky



You should let Ben scramble your square-1 at Bristol Open


----------



## ben1996123 (Sep 7, 2009)

Robert-Y said:


> MTGjumper said:
> 
> 
> > His square-1 PB is faster than my PB, lucky or non-lucky
> ...


Not going to Bristol open. And I have decided to remove the 7.39 sq-1 from my channel descripton, since it was scrambled by someone else who dosent really scramble it very well.


----------



## Ethan Rosen (Sep 7, 2009)

ben1996123 said:


> Robert-Y said:
> 
> 
> > MTGjumper said:
> ...


----------



## ben1996123 (Sep 7, 2009)

Sorry, but I am serious. I am going to UK open in manchester.


----------



## Anthony (Sep 8, 2009)

(X) said:


> F2L4: y' R' U R U2 R' U2 R U' R' U R



Try this to solve that pair next time (unless you see a skip coming. ).

U' R' U2 R U R' U' R.


----------



## Anthony (Sep 8, 2009)

ben1996123 said:


> Sorry, but I am serious.


Dude! At this point, no one believes you. Either you're flat out lying or you're not scrambling the puzzles properly. Learn what the scrambling notation means and start scrambling using real computer generated scrambles.

I'm just getting tired of seeing this thread, it's pointless. You're not as fast as you think or say you are and everyone knows that. No go practice and come back when you grow up or get faster.


----------



## Ethan Rosen (Sep 8, 2009)

ben1996123 said:


> Sorry, but I am serious. I am going to UK open in manchester.



I was referring to the part about calling what was probably a <10 move solution on square-1 your PB.


----------



## anythingtwisty (Sep 8, 2009)

I remember seeing in the earlier thread something I think is vital to consider. Ben mentions that his friend scrambled the SQ-1 solve and I think he said that his friend originally scrambled the 9.90 solve. I still believe that the other solves (4x4 and 2x2) were actually lucky scrambles. Ben, just don't time the solves that are hand scrambled. I once had a kid scramble my cube in my math class who left me a 2x2x3 block. I probably could have achieved an unreal time (for me), but didn't time. Everyone, stop trying to take away this kid's reputation by saying stuff like "HE REHEARSED" or "HOW DID HE GET ALL THE LUCKY SCRAMBLES" or "FAKEFAKEFAKEFAKE". If he was a fake, he would not call it lucky. Frankly, I'm surprised a mod hasn't closed this thread yet, as I think it is a very bad thing to flame this kid when he has not hurt anything.


----------



## 4Chan (Sep 8, 2009)

^

It's a huge insult to people who achieve those times legitimately.


----------



## DavidWoner (Sep 8, 2009)

qqwref said:


> CharlieCooper said:
> 
> 
> > For that reason I know that getting a solve of this time is completely impossible for me.
> ...



Waris and I both got 10.xx on it, and we are both way below sub-20.



Robert-Y said:


> I wonder what are the chances of getting 2 centres (2x2) already solved and in their correct positions... (probably badly worded...)



According to qq its

(6 choose 2) * [3/23*2/22*1/21] * [4/20 * 3/19 * 2/18 * 1/17] = 1/572033 ~ .000001748

the chances of having 5 edges done is 

(12 choose 5) * (1/23) (1/21) (1/19) (1/17) (1/15) ~ .000338 ~ 1/2955

all of that time 1/72 for PLL skip equals

1/121705741100

yeah that seems probable



(X) said:


> You didn't answer to the fact that you faked the scramble/solve



Agreed, that is undoubtedly the most suspicious part of this. Offering a solution and scramble that obviously don't match the video. Before I found the scramble qq posted I kept rescrambling the one in the first post because it was so far from the one in the video that I was certain I was scrambling wrong.



MTGjumper said:


> His square-1 PB is faster than my PB, lucky or non-lucky



We got one in IRC that was kite-kite -> (3,0) -> flip middle slice. I got 2 something I don't really remember. We got a lot of nicely retarded ones in there, especially when Dene was doing 200-300 solves a day.

Ben: If you want anyone to have any respect for you, you need to stop lying about your times. Nobody is fooled, and nobody is impressed. For your own good, just tell the truth.


----------



## dbax0999 (Sep 8, 2009)

Perhaps Pochmann will come save him again. I don't know what to believe at this point.


----------



## TheBloodyTalon (Sep 8, 2009)

anythingtwisty said:


> I remember seeing in the earlier thread something I think is vital to consider. Ben mentions that his friend scrambled the SQ-1 solve and I think he said that his friend originally scrambled the 9.90 solve. I still believe that the other solves (4x4 and 2x2) were actually lucky scrambles. Ben, just don't time the solves that are hand scrambled. I once had a kid scramble my cube in my math class who left me a 2x2x3 block. I probably could have achieved an unreal time (for me), but didn't time. Everyone, stop trying to take away this kid's reputation by saying stuff like "HE REHEARSED" or "HOW DID HE GET ALL THE LUCKY SCRAMBLES" or "FAKEFAKEFAKEFAKE". If he was a fake, he would not call it lucky. Frankly, I'm surprised a mod hasn't closed this thread yet, as I think it is a very bad thing to flame this kid when he has not hurt anything.



i agree 100%
im not saying that it is fake or it is real..
its just that why would we talk about it?

if it is fake
it is up to him if he is faking himself...


----------



## Lofty (Sep 10, 2009)

Why is this such a big deal? 
Watch the video, then look at qqwerf's reconstruction. You'll see that qqwerf's lines up exactly with what you see in the video while the scramble and solution provided for us by ben do not line up at all. In the video the pair already made in the U layer is clearly visible as is the three cross pieces already in place. Using the scramble provided by ben you do not get these features. 
It is thus clear that ben is blatantly lying to us. If it was a real solve why would he lie to us? Its easy to say this is a real solve I have just lost the scramble and the solution.
However as Charlie stated he is just a young kid so we should probably back off of him, stop making such a big deal of it and just let him be.


----------



## 04mucklowd (Sep 10, 2009)

Cubes=Life said:


> ^
> 
> It's a huge insult to people who achieve those times legitimately.



I agree

People get those sorts of time through hard work
Not by getting "lucky" or faking it.


----------



## oskarasbrink (Sep 10, 2009)

OMG 0.16 2x2 lucky ? sub 1 nonlucky ?please count averages instead


----------



## PatrickJameson (Sep 10, 2009)

ben1996123's Youtube said:


> Magic - 0.78 seconds



Was this lucky too?


----------



## JLarsen (Sep 10, 2009)

I agree with Lofty let's just back off him. I mean, I don't care enough.


----------



## TheBloodyTalon (Sep 10, 2009)

04mucklowd said:


> Cubes=Life said:
> 
> 
> > ^
> ...




why? he mentioned that it was lucky and he is not really that fast...
why are you talking for others? let them tell if they are really insulted

anyway, i also really really hate liars..
but i also dont like people who judges other people..


----------



## CharlieCooper (Sep 10, 2009)

TheBloodyTalon said:


> 04mucklowd said:
> 
> 
> > Cubes=Life said:
> ...



I don't think anybody *likes* liars... and surely you are judging other people by saying that you don't like people who judge others. They could be lovely people other than that one flaw!


----------



## TheBloodyTalon (Sep 10, 2009)

CharlieCooper said:


> TheBloodyTalon said:
> 
> 
> > 04mucklowd said:
> ...




huh? did i judged anyone?
did i mentioned that someone judged someone?!
i hate someone judging someone.. is that judging?

hayst.... 
peace


----------



## CharlieCooper (Sep 10, 2009)

TheBloodyTalon said:


> CharlieCooper said:
> 
> 
> > TheBloodyTalon said:
> ...



No worries, misunderstanding.


----------



## Lt-UnReaL (Sep 10, 2009)

DavidWoner said:


> qqwref said:
> 
> 
> > CharlieCooper said:
> ...


 
I think a PLL skip on 4x4 is 1/144(correct me if I'm wrong) so it would actually be twice as rare as that...

1/243,411,482,200

Which is also about as twice as rare as getting 6 PLL skips in a row on any odd numbered cube...


----------



## ben1996123 (Sep 10, 2009)

PatrickJameson said:


> ben1996123's Youtube said:
> 
> 
> > Magic - 0.78 seconds
> ...


I thought I changed that a while ago. It is changed and correct now. Sorry about that.


----------



## PatrickJameson (Sep 10, 2009)

ben1996123 said:


> PatrickJameson said:
> 
> 
> > ben1996123's Youtube said:
> ...



What exactly is 'Unofficial rules'?


----------



## *LukeMayn* (Sep 10, 2009)

@ ben... -_- just happened to do it wrong... You know that the only person you're tricking is yourself.


----------



## shelley (Sep 10, 2009)

Thread locked. If this had been an official record I can see this raising a fuss, but seriously? No one cares about some lucky single you happened to get at home.


----------

