# New sub-10 WR



## Erik (May 5, 2007)

http://games.groups.yahoo.com/group/speeds...e/message/35411

We have a new sub-10 WR by Thibaut Jacquinot @ the Spanish open.
More details are to come.


----------



## pjk (May 5, 2007)

Very nice. I am not suprised...


----------



## Hubdra (May 5, 2007)

It was an OLL skip though.


----------



## Harris Chan (May 5, 2007)

No wonder


----------



## pjk (May 5, 2007)

Here is a translation of the page:
http://translate.google.com/translate?u=ht...Flanguage_tools

And here is an image posted:
http://www.rubikaz.com/IMG_3921.JPG


----------



## InfiniteZero (May 7, 2007)

RED EYES!!!! O_O


----------



## Inferno.Fighter.IV (May 9, 2007)

So even though there was an OLL skip they're still treating it as a normal solve, and as the world record?


----------



## gillesvdp (May 9, 2007)

Of course.
How can you tell if it was intended or not ?

Some persons (like me) know algorithms for a few cases with wich you can avoid the OLL step.
Then is it still OLL skip or not ?


==> It is the World Record.
(a previous world record used to be a PLL skip, by Leyan Lo if I remember well)

Gilles


----------



## Erik (May 9, 2007)

> _Originally posted by gillesvdp_@May 9 2007, 08:04 AM
> * Of course.
> How can you tell if it was intended or not ?
> 
> ...


 But what does it matter if it was intended? 
Sounds like they accept the world record more of the possibility that you know that you'd skip something. In other words because they can't check if it was lucky they accept it. I don't think they care about it  If people see me do my new method they all going to say, aah that was a lucky solve


----------



## Inferno.Fighter.IV (May 9, 2007)

I totally agree with both of you guys. Gilles, you made a very valid point,


> *Some persons (like me) know algorithms for a few cases with wich you can avoid the OLL step.
> Then is it still OLL skip or not ?*


That has made me think.


----------



## joey (May 9, 2007)

If you use an F2L insert + OLL, thats not lucky because you worked to it. You didn't skip a step, you just did it at the same time as another step.


----------



## pjk (May 10, 2007)

He solved the cube in the quickest time with the same scramble as everyone else, he deserves the record. It doesn't matter how he solved it, he solved it the quickest within the WCA regulations.

I have seen many times where you can setup for an OLL skip or even PLL skip.


----------



## Richard (May 10, 2007)

Isn't there a method type thing to influence the last layer edges, so then you're left with a coll solve for the complete last layer? so a one look?


----------



## Erik (May 10, 2007)

I wish it was that simple. It is called ZBLL and you orient the edges of the LL together with solving the last pair (lots of algo's) and then you have to do a kind of extended COLL which also takes care of the edge permutation (where a COLL would only solve all corners and leave you with an edge permutation). Again lots of algs. Nobody has learned all of them I think (yet)


----------



## joey (May 10, 2007)

I though I had read somewhere that someone had learnt them, and used them for FMC.

If you think ZBLL is too little algs, you could learn a one look LL from: http://puzzlingaddiction.com/Cube/ll-algs/


----------



## KJiptner (May 10, 2007)

> _Originally posted by joey_@May 10 2007, 12:44 PM
> * I though I had read somewhere that someone had learnt them, and used them for FMC.
> 
> If you think ZBLL is too little algs, you could learn a one look LL from: http://puzzlingaddiction.com/Cube/ll-algs/ *


 Haha... great list. I'll start learning today. Who was it to have the nerves to put this together?


----------



## Johannes91 (May 10, 2007)

> _Originally posted by Erik_@May 10 2007, 10:10 AM
> * Nobody has learned all of them I think (yet)  *


 That's not true. The guy who knows them has a goal to be able to solve the cube in less than 40 seconds and 40 moves at the same time.


----------



## joey (May 10, 2007)

So that would be about a 30 move F2L, I guess.

On the sub-10 business, I wonder who the first sub-10 OH will be!


----------



## KJiptner (May 10, 2007)

> _Originally posted by joey_@May 10 2007, 05:07 PM
> * So that would be about a 30 move F2L, I guess.
> 
> On the sub-10 business, I wonder who the first sub-10 OH will be! *


 Well definitely not me... :lol: No honestly, do you think this is possible?


----------



## joey (May 10, 2007)

People have got 12s solves, so maybe yes. A PLL/OLL skip, could probably give close to 11/10s.


----------



## Lt-UnReaL (May 10, 2007)

But the chances of that are 1/34992


----------



## pjk (May 10, 2007)

I don't think sub-10 OH will be happening with any of the current methods.


----------



## joey (May 10, 2007)

I meant PLL or OLL skip.

Hmm, if someone knew gods algorithm, they probably could!

What about a one handed robot, that would be interesting!


----------



## Johannes91 (May 11, 2007)

My fastest OH solve was only 28 moves and 13.75 seconds, and I lost some seconds because of lock ups and slow recognition. Sub-10 is definitely possible even without luck, it just requires very easy cases. At least if you using some more versatile methods than Fridrich.


----------



## gillesvdp (May 11, 2007)

Sub10 is possible non lucky if you have the most easiest cases.
But with regular cases and perfect execution, sub15 is reachable.
Well, that is my opinion.

Gilles


----------



## Johannes91 (May 11, 2007)

If I get the easiest non-lucky cases, whole solution is 8 moves.

Btw, you are doing some U'-moves in your F2L OH video... But you said you can't do it?


----------



## gillesvdp (May 11, 2007)

I know.
I also realised I could do R moves.


----------



## Lt-UnReaL (May 11, 2007)

> _Originally posted by joey_@May 10 2007, 10:00 PM
> * gods algorithm *


 ???


----------



## joey (May 11, 2007)

Check gods algorithm on wikipedia.org, or google it.


----------



## pjk (May 12, 2007)

Johannes, I certainly am totally for the method you are using, and I do believe it will be the future. Once I master (get to the point where I think I am at my limit) Fridrich, I will move on to another method and try to master it. I am thinking Roux/Petrus/Heise, or a combo deal. Especially for 1 hand, minimizing the move count will decrease the time limits in my mind. Can you give me a little rundown on how you solve? Don't you just build up the F2L using blocks, then use Fridrich LL algs? Thanks


----------



## Johannes91 (May 12, 2007)

> _Originally posted by PJK+May 12 2007, 12:01 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>*QUOTE* (PJK @ May 12 2007, 12:01 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Once I master (get to the point where I think I am at my limit) Fridrich, I will move on to another method and try to master it. I am thinking Roux/Petrus/Heise, or a combo deal.[/b]_


_
If you ever want to get good at a method that requires intuition, you should switch as soon as possible. You are just wasting your time practising Fridrich because you learn nothing about the cube.

<!--QuoteBegin-PJK_@May 12 2007, 12:01 AM
*Can you give me a little rundown on how you solve? Don't you just build up the F2L using blocks, then use Fridrich LL algs? Thanks*[/quote]
No, I don't even know Fridrich LL. I know Petrus, Heise and 200+ algs (excluding reflections), mostly for LL. I solve fewest moves style, which means that I'm not following any method, I just solve the pieces that look the easiest. Sometimes I don't orient edges after 2x2x3 but build a square and then orient them Heise style etc. I don't consider myself a speedcuber, because speed is not as important as move count for me. I speedsolve just because it's the most popular event.


----------



## KJiptner (May 12, 2007)

This sounds really interessting. Solving "Freestyle" with your intuitive knowledge of the cube. I admire the way you go. If this is something for the "mass" I'm not sure though.


----------



## pjk (May 12, 2007)

> *If you ever want to get good at a method that requires intuition, you should switch as soon as possible. You are just wasting your time practising Fridrich because you learn nothing about the cube.*


I have lots of learning to do w/ Fridrich! Once I get around a 13 second avg, I will say that I don't have much more to learn  I do understand that solving intuition takes time, but I'd like to get Fridrich down very well prior to moving to another method. Maybe you don't learn anything when you solve Fridrich, but I definitely do.



> *No, I don't even know Fridrich LL. I know Petrus, Heise and 200+ algs (excluding reflections), mostly for LL. I solve fewest moves style, which means that I'm not following any method, I just solve the pieces that look the easiest. Sometimes I don't orient edges after 2x2x3 but build a square and then orient them Heise style etc. I don't consider myself a speedcuber, because speed is not as important as move count for me. I speedsolve just because it's the most popular event.*


Ah, okay. I was watching your average on youtube and say that you did a PLL alg each time, or at least on the majority of the solves. As far as move count vs. speed, I really think move count will end up winning the speed race in the end. Coming up with an efficient method and then speeding that will be the quickest way to solve. Good luck.


----------



## Johannes91 (May 12, 2007)

> _Originally posted by PJK+May 12 2007, 04:18 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>*QUOTE* (PJK @ May 12 2007, 04:18 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>I have lots of learning to do w/ Fridrich! Once I get around a 13 second avg, I will say that I don't have much more to learn  I do understand that solving intuition takes time, but I'd like to get Fridrich down very well prior to moving to another method. Maybe you don't learn anything when you solve Fridrich, but I definitely do.[/b]_


_
Sure, there are many things to learn. Pattern recognition, looking ahead, turning speed, no delays etc. But I meant that you don't learn any new techniques used in the actual solving, because you already know what to do in each F2L case.




Originally posted by [email protected] 12 2007, 04:18 PM
*Ah, okay. I was watching your average on youtube and say that you did a PLL alg each time, or at least on the majority of the solves.*

Click to expand...

That's true, I think every solve had a PLL in the end. IIRC I used just basic Petrus F2L because multiple people have requested videos of that. I'm also much more consistent without using any fancy tricks, and I just wanted to get one decent average on video.

<!--QuoteBegin-PJK_@May 12 2007, 04:18 PM
*As far as move count vs. speed, I really think move count will end up winning the speed race in the end. Coming up with an efficient method and then speeding that will be the quickest way to solve. Good luck.*[/quote]
That's exactly what I'm thinking, too. It's really cool that someone who uses Fridrich agrees! B)


----------



## pjk (May 13, 2007)

Yeah, well, I do think non-Fridrich methods are the future, not only for 2 hand speedsolving, but also for 1 hand. Minimizing the move count it all what it is about.


----------



## Julio974 (Feb 1, 2019)

Now, sub-5 seconds solves are almost common at competitions. And, yes, I like to comment on very old threads.


----------



## Mike Hughey (Feb 1, 2019)

Julio974 said:


> Now, sub-5 seconds solves are almost common at competitions.


It is rather wild that is now true that it is quite rare to have a competition with a 3x3x3 winner having over a 10 second average. How much things have changed in just 12 years!



> And, yes, I like to comment on very old threads.


Not sure that's something to be proud of...


----------



## Kit Clement (Feb 2, 2019)

I find the discussion of methods particularly interesting here. I don't think there would be many that today would back Johannes' claims of drastically favoring shorter solutions over speed. But I don't think anyone at that time saw the evolution of cubing equipment that was about to begin in the next few years.


----------



## pjk (Feb 2, 2019)

A pure example of how hard it is to predict the future. I think all of my predictions from 12 years ago were way off.


----------

