# Monthly Computer Cube Competition 2: July 2009



## qqwref (Jul 3, 2009)

This is the second of monthly speedsolving.com computer cube competition! Hopefully this will give people an excuse to try computer cubes  Computer cubes are quite fun in my opinion, and they give you the opportunity to play with and practice puzzles that you wouldn't normally get a chance to see.

Here are the rules. _Please_ read these if you haven't yet!
- Please do all of the scrambles for a given round in a row. You get to decide when to start counting solves; that is, at some point before a solve you should decide that you will start counting times. At that point the next 3/5/12 solves you do on that puzzle count towards the competition and you may not do practice solves until you are done with the round. Do not rescramble; if you get a difficult scramble or make a mistake, just keep going, like in a real competition. However, if the program crashes or some other computer-related problem happens that prevents you from completing the solve, you may discard that solve and do a new one in its place. If you don't do enough scrambles I will add on DNS's at the end when calculating your average.
- You may use any simulator you want, although obviously you can't use a physical cube. Some good online ones are hi-games, gelatinbrain, and jfly's SquareOneSim, MegaminxSim, and PyraminxSim, but you may feel free to use any others. For Clock I strongly suggest Mitchell Stern's NxN clock simulator. If you want, you can even switch to a different simulator during the average, as long as you continue counting every solve you attempt.
- If the simulator you use lets you use any amount of inspection, please don't use more than 15 seconds, although I probably won't penalize you if you go over.
- If you submit very fast times that I don't believe you are capable of, please also provide some kind of proof that you can get those times. It doesn't have to be a high-quality video or anything; I just don't want people to win by cheating.
- For the Pyraminx event, you do not have to use a simulator with trivial tips, as I know not all simulators support this.
- At the end of the competition, for each event the top 5 people will receive, respectively, 6, 4, 3, 2, and 1 point(s). A DNF finish will not receive any points, however, and if fewer than 5 people get points in an event the remaining prizes will simply not be given. The final competition ranking is just a list of the people with the most points.

This competition starts now, and ends when July does (11:59pm eastern time on July 31st). I will keep a list of the best times so far in this post, updated whenever I feel like it.

Good luck and have fun!

The current list of puzzles are as follows:
- *2x2x2*: Average of 12.
- *3x3x3*: Average of 12.
- *4x4x4*: Average of 5.
- *5x5x5*: Average of 5.
- *6x6x6*: Average of 5.
- *7x7x7*: Average of 5.
- *3x3x3 BLD*: Best of 5.
- *Clock (3x3)*: Average of 12.
- *Clock (5x5)*: Average of 12.
- *Clock (10x10)*: Average of 5.
- *Dino Cube*: Average of 12.
- *Gigaminx*: Mean of 3.
- *Helicopter Cube*: Average of 5.
- *Megaminx*: Average of 5.
- *Pyraminx*: Average of 12.
- *Skewb*: Average of 12.
- *Square-1*: Average of 5.
- *Super-X*: Average of 5.

This competition is finished! The final results, and placings for each event, are listed here.


----------



## byu (Jul 3, 2009)

Brian Yu

3x3
25.16, DNS, DNS, etc.


----------



## Ethan Rosen (Jul 3, 2009)

Prepare to go down on heli cube this month.


----------



## Roux-er (Jul 3, 2009)

Roux-er 

3x3 75.63, 31.10, 41.79, 38.99, 48.80, etc.


----------



## Sa967St (Jul 3, 2009)

*2x2x2: 6.72*
8.07, 6.50, 5.80, 6.82, 7.54, 6.35, (10.11), 5.14, 5.08, 9.48, 6.42, (4.58)

*3x3x3: 15.88*
15.28, 17.48, 13.92, (20.29), 18.36, 14.35, 15.51, 19.54, (12.11), 14.37, 14.29, 15.74

*4x4x4: 1:19.20*
1:23.18, (1:14.45), 1:14.89, 1:19.53, (1:38.84)

*5x5x5: 2:23.42*
2:24.69, 2:23.72, (2:13.09), 2:21.86, (2:36.19),


----------



## Ethan Rosen (Jul 3, 2009)

Skewb:
:27 :37 :39 :30 :23 51) :34 :45 :44 :24 17) :27 
Average: 33

Dino Cube:
:10 :13 :12 :09 :13 :12 14) 6) :14 :11 :13 :11 
Average: 11.8

Much more to come


----------



## isaacthecuber (Jul 4, 2009)

4x4: 50.44
47.61, 55.24, 44.92, 50.22, 51.89, 55.56, 51.39, (56.13), 48.02, (42.45), 48.89, 50.67 

Fail.


----------



## Robert-Y (Jul 4, 2009)

2x2x2: (3.24), 5.60, 3.42, 4.50, 5.24, 5.81, 5.60, 6.80, 4.46, (8.17), 4.07, 6.78 => 5.228

Comment: 4 PLL skips

3x3x3: 10.12, 11.91, (14.48), 10.33, 10.81, 13.84, 12.52, 11.62, 11.61, 11.49, 9.21, (9.00) => 11.346

Comment: Messed up one F2L pair on the 14 and 13. PLL skip on both 9s.

4x4x4: 37.23, 48.40, 39.46 (P), 41.26, 41.01 (P) => 40.58

Comment: Didn't have any OLL parities but I still didn't get a sub-40 average  lol

5x5x5: 1:02.27, 1:09.64, 1:11.75, 1:17.88, 1:14.43 => 1:11.94

Comment: Meh.... and PLL skip on 1:11.75


----------



## masterofthebass (Jul 4, 2009)

2x2: 4.26, (14.19), 5.70, 6.66, 3.77, 3.81, 4.93, (.48), 4.12, 4.81, 4.43, 5.00 = 4.74
the .48 was R U2 R2 (on jeremy's sim)

3x3: 16.60, 14.09, 13.54, 14.68, 12.99, 12.83, 13.83, (21.76), (12.13), 14.14, 17.68, 14.72 = 14.51

4x4: 54.56, 59.02, (48.59), 58.85, (1:00.02) = 57.47

5x5: 1:22.43, 1:27.28, (1:28.09), (1:14.13), 1:21.68 = 1:23.79
YES a new PB 

6x6: (2:29.33), 2:38.09, 2:30.67, (3:16.10), 2:39.57 = 2:36.11

7x7: 3:48.35, (3:33.68), 4:07.25, 3:57.71, (4:16.76) = 3:57.77

Pyra: 9.86, 7.76, (16.54), 14.60, 12.60, 11.09, (6.37), 16.52, 14.73, 13.19, 8.75, 11.82 = 12.09

Sq-1: 23.67, (40.49), 30.37, (17.84), 31.26 = 28.43
I hate this sim. CP parity is really hard to recognize, and I can't seem to get my color scheme on it.

Mega: 126, (132), (115), 130, 127 = 2:07.66+.5 = 2:08.16

Skewb:

Super-x:

Dino:

Giga:


----------



## Ethan Rosen (Jul 4, 2009)

Pyraminx:
:12 :13 :14 16) :12 :12 :10 :12 :10 :10 6) :9 
Average: 11.4

Super-x (p denotes parity)
(1:05) 1:27 1:15 1:53p (2:15p)
Average: 1:31.67
The last solve had a really nasty parity.


----------



## qqwref (Jul 4, 2009)

I'll do more later 

*2x2*: 5.05 4.69 4.93 (13.26) 4.09 5.06 11.14 4.59 (3.52) 4.27 3.62 5.50 => 5.294
jfly's sim. Should've been sub-5 but I got two sup10s  Now everyone beats me.
*3x3*: 12.23 15.51 10.98 12.58 15.53 11.19 (16.32) 13.83 12.57 (10.96) 11.94 15.60 => 13.196
Ugh. Well, I wasn't going to win this one anyway...
*4x4*: (55.91p) (38.14o) 42.33d 42.97o 46.39n => 43.897
First solve sucked in every way possible. And why did all the good solves have to have OLL parity? 
*5x5*: 1:10.52 (1:11.01) 1:04.96 (59.22) 1:08.59 => 1:08.023
Pretty good. The 59 had really nice edges.
*6x6*: (1:59.22) 2:15.02 2:16.14 2:14.95 (2:28.21) => 2:15.370
Sub-2 single! That doesn't happen to me very often.
*7x7*: (2:59.51) 3:21.21 (3:23.71) 3:09.09 3:19.72 => 3:16.673
Meh.
*Pyraminx*: (5.37) 6.01 7.92 6.20 7.76 8.51 (11.67) 7.58 6.86 5.99 6.11 6.64 => 6.958
jfly's sim. Not bad.


----------



## dbax0999 (Jul 4, 2009)

A main reason I joined this thread was to participate in Pyraminx in this competition so....
*Pyraminx:* 6.64 6.16 8.09 8.43 3.52 (2.26) 6.01 (9.01) 7.69 7.38 4.88 7.09 => 6.589
Jfly's simulator, that was a great average for me  2.26 was the only lucky solve


----------



## trying-to-speedcube... (Jul 4, 2009)

2x2: 9.19 7.94 6.77 8.30 (9.25) 8.64 9.64 6.50 6.69 (5.75) 7.88 6.47
3x3: 19.41 (32.60) 31.55 29.04 (17.57) 21.67 24.69 21.03 25.25 22.82 22.60 17.64
Dino cube: 16 13 14 20 18 16 11 (21) 16 20 (11) 16


----------



## fanwuq (Jul 4, 2009)

Pyraminx.
Craziest session ever. I had 4 solutions that were like 3 or 4 moves.

Average: 5.433
Singles: 4.14	(1.38)	[8.31]	6.7	1.53	8.05	7.08	6.7	2.47	8.11	7.64	1.91

3x3: 
singles: 15.16 19.84 18.84 16.20 19.56 17.27 18.73 21.05 20.16 19.22 15.36 19.36
No warm up.


4x4: 1:07.480
Singles: 1:05.88 1:17.06 1:07.22 1:09.34 59.17
Details: Centers, edges, F2L, LL, Parity
18, 25, 13, 9, DP
18, 29, 14, 16 PP
13, 30, 13, 11 OP
12, 30, 18, 9 PP
13, 21, 15, 10 NP
Really good centers, decent edges, and crappy 3x3 stage for this set.

Square 1: 86.620
Singles: 78.17, 118.03, 88.89, 72.50, 92.80
I'm getting better. 

5x5:
2:33.32 2:38.89 2:20.28 2:33.78 2:29.42
2:20 is a new PB. Decent average. I'm liking 5x5 more.

Dino:
(megaminx):
(BLD):
(clock):


----------



## qqwref (Jul 6, 2009)

I did some clock.

*Clock (3x3)*: 9.403 11.627 9.434 10.124 (8.072) 9.944 (12.068) 10.044 9.925 10.876 11.026 8.582 => 10.0985
Many mistakes.
*Clock (5x5)*: 33.428 33.328 30.053 32.667 31.275 31.815 31.476 30.073 31.876 (29.312) 35.341 (37.614) => 32.1332
Pretty good, but the last two solves were slow.
*Clock (10x10)*: 2:35.433 (2:38.778) (2:26.060) 2:28.123 2:36.444 => 2:33.333
Awesome average. 2:26 is PB.


----------



## Mike Hughey (Jul 6, 2009)

All done!

*2x2x2:* 14.67, (7.14), 15.11, 18.50, 25.34, (37.12), 21.86, 24.44, 23.25, 24.44, 15.39, 16.87 = *19.987*
Comment: Last month was 56.505. I improved a little.  Using all Ortega because I can't handle Guimond with the strange color scheme.
*3x3x3:* 1:56.53, 1:06.84, (2:22.79), 57.62, 1:26.11, 1:08.39, 1:07.31, 55.50, 1:03.23, 1:32.56, 55.16, (48.27) = *1:12.925*
Comment: Last month was 1:57.678. Some improvement again, but not as much as with 2x2x2. All the solves over 1:30 were cases where I completely messed up the PLL and had to start with the cross again. 
*4x4x4:* 3:19.42 (OP), (3:47.59) (P), (3:05.82), 3:14.57 (O), 3:14.73 (OP) = *3:16.240*
Comment: Last month was 8:02.407. I'm using my color scheme now. That's much better. 
*5x5x5:* (5:39.66), 5:09.80, (4:30.90), 4:39.27, 5:00.54 = *4:56.536*
Comment: Last month was 10:06.78. Color scheme doesn't make as big a difference on odd-numbered cubes.
*6x6x6:* (12:05.21), 10:18.93 (O), 9:50.18, 9:15.71, (8:51.97) (P) = *9:48.273*
Comment: Last month was 21:23.397. Still improving with each solve. Very lucky parity.
*7x7x7:* (14:15.83), 13:09.58, (11:36.97), 13:13.12, 12:10.28 = *12:51.03*
Comment: Last month was 21:49.343.
*3x3x3 BLD:* DNF, DNF, DNF, 5:49.92, 4:49.85 = *4:49.85*
Comment: Last month was 5:50.32. I was worried for a while that I was going to DNF them all, and then I got both of the last two right! It's so wonderful when it lights up solved at the end. (Using Ryan's old BLD simulator.)
*Clock (3x3):* 22.234, 25.093, (1:12.983), 27.219, 22.327, 23.562, 24.484, 26.234, 24.359, (21.296), 25.281, 32.718 = *25.351*
Comment: Last month was 47.760. A little practice goes a long way. Ethan's going to have to practice if he doesn't want to be last.  (I bet it takes him about ten tries to get faster than me, though.) The 1:12 was a case where I thought I had it solved, but it wasn't solved. If it were a real solve, it would have been a DNF (because I would have stopped the timer).
*Clock (5x5):* (1:48.747), 1:38.561, (1:24.029), 1:46.654, 1:34.077, 1:47.233, 1:29.561, 1:34.858, 1:37.732, 1:26.295, 1:31.842, 1:32.592 = *1:35.941*
Comment: Last month was 3:23.651. I can see improving a bit more, but sub-30 seems like a mind-boggling time. I don't know how you do it!
*Clock (10x10):* 6:47.836, (6:57.414), 6:05.446, 6:05.399, (5:54.915) = *6:19.560*
Comment: This is just so much work. I realize that in order to get fast, you probably have to be turning dials while you're pushing the pegs, but I just can't seem to do that - I just make mistakes that way and cost myself time. It seems like it takes forever to reset the pegs at the beginning (which seems to be the most successful method for me to solve it). If only there were a "press your palm against all the pins to push them all in at once" button. 
*Dino Cube:* 25, 28, (42), 25, (24), 25, 35, 34, 35, 29, 29, 33 = *29.800*
Comment: Last month was 3:12.10. At least I'm consistent now - consistently slow, but consistent. 
*Gigaminx:* 31:40, 26:01, 24:31 = *27:24.000*
Comment: Last month was 47:41.300. Wow - I didn't think I would still be able to improve this much! I suspect it's going to get much harder to improve now, though. I'm very happy with these times!
*Helicopter Cube:* 5:01, (7:02), 5:22, 5:30, (4:31) = *5:17.667*
Comment: Last month was 11:45.300. I'm still a little flaky with my method with this. I solve the centers first, intuitively, and sometimes I have trouble finishing them off. Then I use a 3-cycle to solve the rest one piece at a time, and when I see parity (which for me is two pieces swapped), I apply a simple algorithm to fix it and keep going. At least parity doesn't affect my speed on this puzzle much.
*Megaminx:* 5:42, (6:14), 6:05, 5:07, (4:23) = *5:38.000*
Comment: Last month was 12:31.700. Don't let that last solve fool you. It ranks me 9th on gelatinbrain for speed, tied for 4th on moves (175). It was just outrageously lucky - pairs were magically falling together all through the solve. In my experience, nothing else in cubing feels quite as lucky as a really lucky megaminx solve.
*Pyraminx:* 31, 21, (41), 25, 34, 26, 34, (19), 26, 23, 28, 23 = *27.100*
Comment: Last month was 2:09.437, but that was using jfly's simulator. I decided to go with gelatinbrain this month; I just can't handle solving without being able to reorient it.
*Skewb:* (2:12), 56, 1:14, 58, 1:20, (38), 1:37, 52, 54, 1:20, 56, 1:13 = *1:08.000*
Comment: Last month was 10:02.700. It's nice actually having a method.  I still stink at gelatinbrain controls, though.
*Square-1:* 1:37.09 (P), 1:21.37 (P), (1:42.17) (P), (1:01.61), 1:33.15 (P) = *1:30.537*
Comment: Last month was 2:44.710. Rotten luck with parity. Still not as fast as with a real puzzle, but getting closer.
*Super-X:*: (14:24), (8:40), 10:29 (P), 12:19, 11:34 (P) = *11:27.333*
Comment: Last month was 21:25.700. I'm still pretty bad at this. If you're good at keeping several setup moves in your head, it's not so bad. And I'm normally not bad at that. But with gelatinbrain controls, I just can't handle it, and it kills me. But Ethan, thanks for telling me Michael's suggestion about using a J perm for parity - it really helps!


----------



## fanwuq (Jul 6, 2009)

Mr. Hughey, you can change the color scheme on hi-games.net.


----------



## Mike Hughey (Jul 6, 2009)

fanwuq said:


> Mr. Hughey, you can change the color scheme on hi-games.net.


Since I haven't seen instructions about it, I assume I have to register to do that? I haven't bothered to register yet.


----------



## MatsBergsten (Jul 6, 2009)

fanwuq said:


> Mr. Hughey, you can change the color scheme on hi-games.net.



Can you also change the keyboard/keys?

With my swedish keyboard I cannot find keys for F & F' and I have not yet managed to solve even a 2x2?

(And do you have to register to change keyboard keys meaning?)


----------



## Robert-Y (Jul 6, 2009)

1. Yes

2. On a qwerty keyboard, g and h are F' and F.

3. Yes but registration takes about half a minute.


----------



## qqwref (Jul 7, 2009)

Registration is pretty quick as Robert said, and yes, it allows you to change the color scheme and the controls. You can even put in controls which aren't already there, like Uw or Dw moves. In my opinion, it's worth it just to help store your best times - it keeps a replay of your best time, so you can show others if you get something really good


----------



## dbax0999 (Jul 7, 2009)

*2x2: *3.11, 6.37, 7.37, 7.33, 2.48, 6.22, 5.43, 8.98, 5.41, 5.51, 5.94, 5.94 => 5.863

I'll probably do more later... but i don't feel like it right now. Good thing I've got a month


----------



## tsaoenator (Jul 7, 2009)

Andy Tsao
3x3x3: 10.63, 11.65, 11.64, 11.77, (10.09), 10.78, 10.90, 11.65, (11.90), 11.34, 11.56, 10.66 = 11.258
4x4x4: (41.21), 46.39, (46.49), 44.96, 44.19 = 45.180 crap


----------



## Ethan Rosen (Jul 17, 2009)

Heli Cube: I've gotten much more efficient since last month
0:50 58) :047 046) :52
Average: 49.67


----------



## JLarsen (Jul 17, 2009)

Jesus christ @ QQ's times.


----------



## qqwref (Jul 21, 2009)

I did a few more events, just 3BLD left  Also updated the first post.

*Dino Cube*: (9) 12 (13) 11 10 9 9 10 10 10 10 11 => 10.2
I should probably be sub-10 on this...
*Gigaminx*: 10:41 9:27 9:36 => 9:54.7
holy *** sub-10 mean :O Also 9:27 is UWR.
*Helicopter Cube*: 45 (40) 42 (DNF) 41 => 42.7
Messed up the last alg on the DNF and I didn't bother to undo because I knew it'd be over 45 anyway.
*Megaminx*: 1:29 (1:21) 1:34 (1:51) 1:29 => 1:30.7
Unbelievably awful, had a huge amount of lag especially on the 1:51. If you can't beat this you're a noob.
*Skewb*: 13 20 24 (34) 12 16 18 23 16 24 14 (10) => 18.0
Wildly inconsistent. Still only know one algorithm ;-)
*Square-1*: 31.38 (37.12) 32.28 (19.50) 35.87 => 33.177
The 19 was a really easy scramble/solve. I don't know how to recognize things quickly on this.
*Super-X*: (2:32) 2:24 (1:32) 2:14 2:03 = 2:13.7
Honestly, I hate this puzzle.


----------



## esquimalt1 (Jul 27, 2009)

2x2x2 Average of 12: (0.70), 2.88, (13.36), 3.95, 8.63, 1.08, 4.22, 4.57, 3.50, 4.60, 5.85, 3.80 = 4.31

Done on Jeremy's sim. 0.70 was like 3-4 moves can't remember. This was a RA of 150 xDD

3x3x3: 13.17, 14.76, 15.91, (10.62), 11.65, 13.97, (16.54), 12.41, 15.98, 12.30, 11.55, 14.38 = 13.61

4x4x4: (59.19), (1:05.26), 1:02.22, 1:04.79, 1:01.70 = 1:02.93

5x5x5: 1:39.53, 1:45.21, 1:35.80, (2:07.97), (1:21.69) = 1:40.18

1:21 is a new pb!


----------



## qqwref (Jul 27, 2009)

esquimalt1 said:


> 2x2x2 Average of 12: (0.70), 2.88, (13.36), 3.95, 8.63, 1.08, 4.22, 4.57, 3.50, 4.60, 5.85, 3.80 = 4.31
> 
> Done on Jeremy's sim. 0.70 was like 3-4 moves can't remember. This was a RA of 150 xDD



Just to make sure, before the first solve you decided you were going to start doing counting solves, and then those 12 are the next 12 solves you did, right? Because you're not allowed to take a large session and then submit the best average in it, so if you did that I'd have to disqualify your time.


----------



## esquimalt1 (Jul 27, 2009)

Like out of the 150 solves those were the best 12 solves out of all 150. So you can say that I decided to start counting after the 0.70 solve.


----------



## trying-to-speedcube... (Jul 27, 2009)

If you decided to start counting after the 0.70 solve, you can't include the 0.70 in your average.


----------



## esquimalt1 (Jul 27, 2009)

Okay, then I decided to count the 0.70 then the 11 solves after that.


----------



## Escher (Jul 27, 2009)

esquimalt1 said:


> Okay, then I decided to count the 0.70 then the 11 solves after that.



Competitor A sits down at his PC, does a massive average, then decides that the next 12 solves will be for the competition, and he will definitely enter them.
Competitor B sits down at his PC, does a massive average, get's an awesome solve and says 'okay, the next 11 solves I do will be the average I'll enter'.

You can see why it's unfair, because competitor A might get no awesome solves, but B is 'guaranteed' at least one. So you should re-enter this months competition with completely new solves, or just DNF your average.


----------



## esquimalt1 (Jul 27, 2009)

Okay, I see what you're saying. I'll just practice for like 5 minutes then at one point i'll decide to start counting and whatever I get can be my submitted average.


----------



## esquimalt1 (Jul 27, 2009)

4.88, (2.78), (7.79), 3.46, 5.79, 4.93, 4.77, 4.17, 4.92, 5.29, 3.90, 3.70 = 4.58

If you don't believe I can achieve that I can prove it if you would like me to.


----------



## Mike Hughey (Jul 27, 2009)

esquimalt1 said:


> 4.88, (2.78), (7.79), 3.46, 5.79, 4.93, 4.77, 4.17, 4.92, 5.29, 3.90, 3.70 = 4.58
> 
> If you don't believe I can achieve that I can prove it if you would like me to.


I don't think it was a matter of anyone not believing you. It's just a matter of making sure you're going by the same rules as everyone else, to be fair. I would think this set of solves should be good.


----------



## Jude (Jul 27, 2009)

Square 1: 47.05, 1:44.86, 1:16.02, 1:20.33, 2:09.17 = 1:25.63

2x2x2: 4.09, 3.26, 7.98, 5.62, 7.59 = 5.76

3x3x3: 18.77, 17.42, 38.95, 28.31, 21.05 = 22.71


----------



## qqwref (Jul 28, 2009)

Mike Hughey said:


> esquimalt1 said:
> 
> 
> > 4.88, (2.78), (7.79), 3.46, 5.79, 4.93, 4.77, 4.17, 4.92, 5.29, 3.90, 3.70 = 4.58
> ...



This. If submitting your best average from a session was legal, my 2x2 average wouldn't have had a counting 11. (Are the rules clear enough? Should I rewrite a few of them again?)



Jude said:


> 2x2x2: 4.09, 3.26, 7.98, 5.62, 7.59 = 5.76
> 
> 3x3x3: 18.77, 17.42, 38.95, 28.31, 21.05 = 22.71



You know that 2x2 and 3x3 are average of 12, right?


----------



## esquimalt1 (Jul 28, 2009)

Yes, I understand now. You're saying that you can practice however much you want. But when you decide to start counting solves is when you may begin your average of 12. Not doing a bunch of solves then getting a good time, then counting the 11 solves after as your average.

My 3x3x3-5x5x5 solves were the first solves I even did so those are fine.


----------



## esquimalt1 (Jul 28, 2009)

7x7x7: 4:24.91, 4:35.85, 4:24.01, (4:23.50), (6:11.26) = 4:28.26

Messed up parity on last 2 edges on the last solve. Then I messed up again when I got back to it and it was just horrible. lol


----------



## Mike Hughey (Jul 29, 2009)

I finished them all again!

Not much time to spare, though - the month is almost over. Next month will be tougher because we're taking a very long road trip to Nationals. But I'll at least try to get some of them done.


----------



## DavidWoner (Jul 30, 2009)

5x5 Clock: 43.032, 42.500, (40.422), 43.844, 42.406, 42.954, 42.360, 45.734, (46.734), 44.812, 41.328, 42.516
Average: 43.14, Best Time: 40.42 Worst Time: 46.73

Not too bad.

10x10 Clock: (3:38.610), 3:38.047, 3:32.453, 3:25.703, (3:23.890)
Average: 3:32.06, Best Time: 3:23.89 Worst Time: 3:38.61

You can tell how much I do this one.

3x3 clock: 13.875, 13.765, 13.141, 13.203, (14.531), 13.937, 12.016, (11.438), 13.797, 13.016, 13.188, 12.593
Average: 13.24, Best Time: 11.43 Worst Time: 14.53

Not bad, although I'd prefer a different interface


----------



## MrData (Jul 31, 2009)

2x2: 4.63, (2.80), 4.00, 5.56, 4.83, 5.28, 5.72, (6.34), 4.19, 4.06, 5.20, 4.94

Average: 4.84
Best Time: 2.80
Worst Time: 6.34


----------



## Ethan Rosen (Aug 1, 2009)

2x2 (gelatinbrained)
:12 21) 09) :12 :10 :13 :15 :17 :14 :16 :13 :16
Average: 13.8 

Megaminx (also gelatinbrain)
(4:30) 3:56 4:12 (3:49) 4:14

Average: 4:07.33

Gigaminx: 
24:39 24:08 22:09

Average: 23:38.67


----------



## Jai (Aug 1, 2009)

*2x2:* 05.23, (02.36), 04.67, (07.97), 04.17, 05.58, 05.01, 04.91, 04.52, 05.28, 03.46, 02.73 = *4.56*

That's all I'm doing. Blah.


----------



## qqwref (Aug 2, 2009)

So, here are the final results, and then the rankings for all events:

*Final Results*
*1:* qqwref - 84 points!!!
*2:* Mike Hughey - 37 points!!
*3:* Ethan Rosen & masterofthebass - 27 points!
5: Robert-Y: 15 points
6: Vault312: 12 points
7: esquimalt1: 11 points
8: fanwuq & tsaoenator: 9 points
10: Jai: 6 points
11: dbax0999: 4 points
12: trying-to-speedcube...: 3 points
13: MrData, isaacthecuber, & Jude: 2 points
16: Sa967St: 1 point
17: Roux-er, byu: 0 points because you both DNF'd everything you tried :fp

Individual events:

```
[B]2x2[/B]
1. Jai: 4.556
2. esquimalt1: 4.581
3. masterofthebass: 4.749
4. MrData: 4.841
5. Robert-Y: 5.228
6. qqwref: 5.294
7. dbax0999: 5.863
8. Sa967St: 6.720
9. trying-to-speedcube...: 7.763
10. Ethan Rosen: 17.8
11. Mike Hughey: 19.987
12. Jude: DNF (only did 5 solves)

[B]3x3[/B]
1. tsaoenator: 11.258
2. Robert-Y: 11.346
3. qqwref: 13.196
4. esquimalt1: 13.608
5. masterofthebass: 14.510
6. Sa967St: 15.883
7. fanwuq: 18.454
8. trying-to-speedcube...: 23.570
9. Mike Hughey: 1:12.925
10. Roux-er: DNF (only did 5 solves)
10. byu: DNF (only did 1 solve)
10. Jude: DNF (only did 5 solves)

[B]4x4[/B]
1. Robert-Y: 40.577
2. qqwref: 43.897
3. tsaoenator: 45.180
4. isaacthecuber: 49.907
5. masterofthebass: 57.477
6. esquimalt1: 1:02.903
7. fanwuq: 1:07.480
8. Sa967St: 1:19.200
9. Mike Hughey: 3:16.240

[B]5x5[/B]
1. qqwref: 1:08.023
2. Robert-Y: 1:11.940
3. masterofthebass: 1:23.797
4. esquimalt1: 1:40.180
5. Sa967St: 2:23.423
6. fanwuq: 2:32.173
7. Mike Hughey: 4:56.537

[B]6x6[/B]
1. qqwref: 2:15.370
2. masterofthebass: 2:36.110
3. Mike Hughey: 9:48.273

[B]7x7[/B]
1. qqwref: 3:16.673
2. masterofthebass: 3:57.770
3. esquimalt1: 4:28.25
4. Mike Hughey: 12:50.993

[B]3x3 BLD[/B]
1. Mike Hughey: 4:49.85

[B]Clock (3x3)[/B]
1. qqwref: 10.0985
2. Vault312: 13.2531
2. Mike Hughey: 25.3511

[B]Clock (5x5)[/B]
1. qqwref: 32.1332
2. Vault312: 43.1486
3. Mike Hughey: 1:35.9405

[B]Clock (10x10)[/B]
1. qqwref: 2:33.333
2. Vault312: 3:32.0677
3. Mike Hughey: 6:19.5603

[B]Dino Cube[/B]
1. qqwref: 10.2
2. Ethan Rosen: 11.8
3. trying-to-speedcube...: 16.0
4. Mike Hughey: 29.8

[B]Gigaminx[/B]
1. qqwref: 9:54.7
2. Ethan Rosen: 23:38.7
3. Mike Hughey: 27:24.0

[B]Helicopter Cube[/B]
1. qqwref: 42.7
2. Ethan Rosen: 49.7
3. Mike Hughey: 5:17.7

[B]Megaminx[/B]
1. qqwref: 1:30.7
2. masterofthebass: 2:07.7
3. Ethan Rosen: 4:07.3
4. Mike Hughey: 5:38.0

[B]Pyraminx[/B]
1. fanwuq: 5.433
2. dbax0999: 6.589
3. qqwref: 6.958
4. Ethan Rosen: 11.4
5. masterofthebass: 12.092
6. Mike Hughey: 27.1

[B]Skewb[/B]
1. qqwref: 18.0
2. Ethan Rosen: 33.0
3. Mike Hughey: 1:08.0

[B]Square-1[/B]
1. masterofthebass: 28.433
2. qqwref: 33.177
3. fanwuq: 1:26.620
4. Jude: 1:27.070
5. Mike Hughey: 1:30.537

[B]Super-X[/B]
1. Ethan Rosen: 1:31.7
2. qqwref: 2:13.7
3. Mike Hughey: 11:27.3
```


----------



## Ethan Rosen (Aug 2, 2009)

That's a really nice improvement, especially on gigaminx Mike. I look forward to competing against you next month.


----------



## Mike Hughey (Aug 2, 2009)

Ethan Rosen said:


> That's a really nice improvement, especially on gigaminx Mike. I look forward to competing against you next month.



Thanks! I'm amazed how gigaminx seems to be one of my best events. I guess that's just because no one has ever spent much time practicing it, so I'm not so far behind on it compared to the other puzzles.

Note that I didn't accomplish my goal this month - I was still in last place other than DNFs on all events. But at least the gap above me was much smaller in most events, and I was first and last at the same time in one event.


----------



## Ethan Rosen (Aug 2, 2009)

That's only because I forgot to do 3x3 clock. Next month you should have no trouble beating me.


----------

