# Monthly Computer Cube Competition 4: September 2009



## qqwref (Sep 3, 2009)

This is the fourth 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. 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.

I personally recommend the following simulators:
- hi-games for the NxNxN cubes.
- ryanheise.com blind sim for 3x3x3 BLD.
- gelatinbrain for the Dino Cube, Gigaminx, Helicopter Cube, Skewb, and Super-X (they also have the NxNxN cubes, Pyraminx, and Megaminx).
- jfly's sims for Pyraminx, Megaminx, and Square-1.
- Mitchell Stern's NxN clock simulator for 5x5 and 10x10 clock (it also has 3x3 clock).
- jsclock (dvorak version) or Tim Sun's sim for 3x3 clock.

This competition starts now and ends at the end of September (that is, midnight EST on the night of September 30th). The final results are located here.

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.

Good luck and have fun!


----------



## DavidWoner (Sep 3, 2009)

Tim's sim

lawl rhyme.


----------



## StachuK1992 (Sep 3, 2009)

Hmm...I've decided to actually do this.

I'll do 2-3 tonight, then we'll see about doing new comp cubes for me tomm.

2: 14.75
13.66, 14.94, 12.70, 12.62, 12.10, (7.46), 14.81, 13.24, 18.97, 12.86, (21.75), 21.61

3: 43.90
47.24, 38.55, 55.34, 44.41, 49.66, (62.08), 38.09, 44.20, 39.20, 40.90, 41.42, (35.82)

I need to start actually practicing this.


edit: if you notice that my averages are slightly different for 2+3, sorry about that. The first time, I forgot to take out best and worst :/


----------



## Sa967St (Sep 3, 2009)

2x2x2: 5.89
6.01, 4.12, 6.73, 6.15, 6.93, (3.31), 4.80, 5.42, (DNF), 4.78, 7.34, 6.66

3x3x3: 16.11
15.47, 17.45, 15.40, 14.94, (21.75), 18.60, 15.03, 15.82, 18.39, 14.78, (14.46), 15.19


----------



## trying-to-speedcube... (Sep 3, 2009)

2x2: 5.63 6.34 6.80 5.16 8.45 8.59 7.94 5.92 11.75 (14.13) 5.38 (5.08)


----------



## Robert-Y (Sep 3, 2009)

4x4x4 average: 38.84

37.84 (O)
39.20 (O)
(37.60) (O)
39.48 (O)
(43.01) (P)

Lol at the slowest time


----------



## qqwref (Sep 3, 2009)

Stachuk1992 said:


> 2: 14.73
> 3: 44.74



You have to post all the times in your average, you know. I'm not going to accept that.

Robert-Y: NICE 4x4 average! Wow!


----------



## StachuK1992 (Sep 3, 2009)

qqwref said:


> Stachuk1992 said:
> 
> 
> > 2: 14.73
> ...


ah. then it's a good thing I have them written down here. Sorry about that.
I'll get to editing.


----------



## Robert-Y (Sep 3, 2009)

@qqwref: Thanks, I'm hoping to get times like these with my new little QJ I just ordered a few hours ago from dealperfect


----------



## JustinJ (Sep 3, 2009)

2x2: 1.95, 2.95, 2.06, (5.00), (0.75), 3.33, 3.42, 2.50, 2.34, 2.34, 3.47, 3.81 = 2.82

jfly's sim gives easy scrambles. (though usually not this easy)

srsly.


----------



## Robert-Y (Sep 3, 2009)

@Yalow: I think the average is 2.82

and congratulations!


----------



## JustinJ (Sep 3, 2009)

Robert-Y said:


> @Yalow: I think the average is 2.82
> 
> and congratulations!



Oh, thanks, I calculated it but I forgot to add it 

Thanks  but I'm gonna start using hi-games instead. expect 4.xx averages there 

Edit: maybe 5.xx, I forgot about the slower turning speed.


----------



## fanwuq (Sep 4, 2009)

Yalow said:


> 2x2: 1.95, 2.95, 2.06, (5.00), (0.75), 3.33, 3.42, 2.50, 2.34, 2.34, 3.47, 3.81 = 2.82
> 
> jfly's sim gives easy scrambles. (though usually not this easy)
> 
> srsly.



I remember for July I got a freakish 5.xx average on jfly's pyraminx sim. I had a few scrambles that were less than 5 moves.

2x2x2: 6.609
5.38	7.03	4.3	7.94	5.78	7.81	6.02	6.31	7.13	9.86	6.88	5.81
Sarah, I'm going to beat you at 3x3x3 and 2x2x2 one of these days...

5x5x5: 
2:33.80 2:26.78 2:17.92 2:24.61 2:06.86
Broke my PB single. 

4x4x4: 
59.03 57.44 65.53 69.56 59.58
Very good. 3 sub-60s!
Edit: 6 days after I did this, it is no longer very good. It's only average now.


----------



## Mike Hughey (Sep 4, 2009)

All done!

*2x2x2:* 14.55, 12.06, 19.55, 16.28, 13.77, (24.35), (10.11), 18.77, 18.03, 17.16, 15.61, 16.11 = *16.189*
Comment: I hate 2x2x2. I hate computer 2x2x2 even more - 15 seconds wouldn't be enough for inspection, and 5 seconds is just that much worse. I'm giving up completely on Guimond for computer 2x2x2; I can't do it without the inspection time. I'll just have to use Ortega when doing computer solves. At least it's a chance to practice Ortega.
*3x3x3:* 41.77, 46.22, 40.86, 45.58, 50.39, 51.14, 57.82, (32.52), 40.16, 44.35, (59.66), 50.35 = *46.864*
Comment: Hey, I'm still improving! 32.52 is my new PB single.
*4x4x4:* 2:32.26 [O], 2:40.75 [OP], (3:06.29) [OP], (2:13.22), 2:30.87 [O] = *2:34.627*
Comment: This felt really nice, especially considering the parity - I'm starting to get comfortable with 4x4x4.
*5x5x5:* 4:01.93, 4:08.98, (3:45.28), 3:59.93, (4:10.96) = *4:03.613*
Comment: Still getting better.
*6x6x6:* (9:19.19) [O], (7:23.05) [P], 7:23.35 [P], 7:57.97 [OP], 7:23.49 = *7:34.937*
Comment: Wow, it seemed so much easier this month.
*7x7x7:*10:48.86, (11:37.55), (10:34.27), 11:03.28, 11:01.59 = *10:57.91*
Comment: This still gets very tiring after a while.
*3x3x3 BLD:* 5:57.77, DNF, 4:29.89, DNF, 4:45.24 = *4:29.89*
Comment: The strange color scheme still throws me horribly, but it is getting more comfortable.
*Clock (3x3):* 16.312, 20.25, 16.297, 16.203, 17.344, (14.641), 14.828, 15.984, (27.984), 16.375, 20.25, 19.172 = *17.302*
Comment: Used Tim's sim. That felt like cheating - with Tim's sim, I can't mess up by turning the wrong dial. I do that a lot in real life.  Anyway, that means there's actually now a puzzle I can do better on a simulator than I can on the actual puzzle. 
*Clock (5x5):* 1:12.186, 1:17.842, (1:23.702), 1:18.483, 1:12.874, 1:21.858, 1:14.561, 1:14.780, 1:19.514, 1:10.858, (1:07.421), 1:12.811 = *1:15.577*
Comment: Found a slightly better method. Getting close to sub-minute.
*Clock (10x10):* 5:32.759, 5:03.322, (5:00.619), 5:40.118, (6:03.446) = *5:25.400*
Comment: Horrible - I made lots of big mistakes. Mistakes are very costly on a 10x10 if you don't notice them for a while.
*Dino Cube:* 30, 32, (48), 33, (23), 39, 25, 31, 30, 30, 26, 27 = *30.300*
Comment: I keep getting worse and worse.  I just make too many mistakes with gelatinbrain.
*Gigaminx:* 24:58, 24:33, 22:44 = *24:05.000*
Comment: There, Ethan - at least this month I made it a bit of a challenge for you.  (Although I'm sure you should still win.)
*Helicopter Cube:* 3:20 (P), 4:03, 3:53, (4:06) (P), (2:45) = *3:45.333*
Comment: There, that's much better. I still stink at it, but at least now I'm starting to approach having a real system. Now we'll see if I still remember how next month.  (I'm taking notes this month, to see if that helps.)
*Megaminx:* 5:56, (6:00), 5:24, 5:31, (4:47) = *5:37.000*
Comment: I got worse. Actually, I think it's just a difference between lucky and unlucky solves. When you're not very good, megaminx is much more affected by lucky solves than most puzzles, and the effect is compounded by gelatinbrain.
*Pyraminx:* 19, 25, 17, 30, (16), (39), 25, 24, 23, 24, 24, 22 = *23.300*
Comment: Every month, I try jfly's simulator, and every month I decide I just can't do it. This month I was running about a minute per solve when I gave up, so I'm improving on it, but not enough to compete with gelatinbrain.
*Skewb:* 53, 48, 43, 1:02, 48, 48, (1:10), 58, 54, (33), 58, 34 = *50.600*
Comment: Bad. These were mostly bad cases, so I don't think I actually got worse.
*Square-1:* 1:34.42, (43.70), (2:15.56) (P), 1:27.69, 1:36.89 (P) = *1:33.000*
Comment: Hey, I'm improving! (Not really - my last month's time was 1:33.013. )
*Super-X:* 8:57 (P), 5:10, 5:08, (9:25), (5:01) = *6:25.000*
Comment: Glad to get both of the ones I didn't do last month out of the way first. It was nice only getting parity once!


----------



## Ethan Rosen (Sep 4, 2009)

@Mike: I'm curious as to how you do the helicopter cube. You mentioned in another thread that you had a bunch of algs for it that you had to remember. Since the core method that I (and I think most other people) is pretty easily done with just one alg, I assume you're doing something else. 

Also: Super-x: 
1:11 (1:32p) 1:17 (1:04) 1:13

Average: 1:13.67

This week I'm using a different mouse. My mouse last week was fairly nonfunctional, so I expect do do better this week.


----------



## Mike Hughey (Sep 4, 2009)

Ethan Rosen said:


> @Mike: I'm curious as to how you do the helicopter cube. You mentioned in another thread that you had a bunch of algs for it that you had to remember. Since the core method that I (and I think most other people) is pretty easily done with just one alg, I assume you're doing something else.



No, my message must have been misleading - I was just stupid enough to forget even a very simple solution method. I do centers "intuitively", and then solve corners with just one 3-cycle algorithm (and inverse, and mirror when I feel ambitious), which I guess I could write like this: FR FD FL FD FR FD FL FD. Then I use the following when I get "parity": (FU FL LU) * 3. Then I just use setup moves to make everything work.

What I forgot for last month (I only had an hour or so to try anyway, so part of it was the time pressure) was first of all the overall approach, although I eventually remembered it, and then what my 3-cycle was. I did remember the parity fixer, though. Once I figured out the 3-cycle again and did a couple of successful solves, it all came back to me.

Also, this month I got a bit better at solving centers. Now that I've written up how I do it, I'm mainly afraid I'll forget how the centers work again by next month, since I didn't write that part up in my notes.


----------



## dbax0999 (Sep 20, 2009)

David Adams
Pyraminx: (8.41), 7.91, 7.55, 6.20, 6.17, 5.11, 7.33, 4.03[Lawlz], 4.03[Again??? Wtf that was wierd], 6.28, 4.98, (1.83)[what a way to end that average. wow that was lucky] = 5.96

Jfly = Easy Scrambles

Ok I tried clock this week. So here are my miserable times:
Clock: 22.694, 23.412, 24.387, 26.112, 24.334, 23.862, 22.032, (40.736), 22.030, (20.015), 30.732, 20.331 = 23.9926

That was pretty good for me I guess. This is a really fun puzzle tho. Expect some sub-20's next week  (hopefully)


----------



## Ethan Rosen (Sep 26, 2009)

Heli Cube:
56) 48) :48 :54 :51 
Average: 51


----------



## masterofthebass (Sep 26, 2009)

2x2: 3.36, 5.58, 5.74, 5.17, (12.68), 9.84, 5.85, 5.38, (3.31), 6.48, 7.70, 5.29 => uh.... wooops
3x3: 14.62, 14.59, 14.61, 14.66, 15.52, 15.04, 15.04, 14.29, 14.56, (18.67), (13.88), 15.21 => 14.81
4x4: (46.39), (57.77), 54.15, 56.66, 52.97 => 54.59
5x5: (1:20.11), 1:26.38, (1:29.48), 1:21.60, 1:24.73 => 1:24.24
6x6:
7x7:


----------



## qqwref (Sep 26, 2009)

- 2x2: 7.55, (3.94), 5.75, 4.17, 5.81, 5.34, 6.06, (9.36), 4.89, 4.38, 6.95, 6.17 => 5.71
- 3x3: 15.56, 12.73, (10.50), 14.09, 12.45, 11.81, 11.39, 13.28, 14.09, (20.20), 13.12, 12.11 => 13.06
- 4x4: 47.61, (39.74), 42.86, 47.28, (49.80) => 45.92
- 5x5: 1:13.84, 1:15.73, (1:22.50), 1:12.66, (1:08.36) => 1:14.08
- 6x6: (2:46.75), (2:06.31), 2:45.67, 2:22.33, 2:27.59 => 2:31.86
- 7x7: 3:10.30, 3:12.00, (3:21.30), 3:10.41, (2:55.53) => 3:10.91
Failed 2x2, 3x3, 5x5, and 6x6 
- Clock (3x3): (8.995), 7.859, 8.267, 7.226, 6.275, 7.159, 5.966, 6.804, 6.639, 6.928, 6.423, (5.889) => 6.9546
Didn't think it'd be sub7 from the beginning, but it was. Yay.
- Clock (5x5): 33.985, 32.297, 34.062, 33.531, 34.579, 34.547, 34.266, 31.578, (35.297), 33.891, 34.875, (31.563) => 33.761
Out of practice, but not bad.
- Clock (10x10): (2:40.532), 2:39.844, 2:32.890, 2:32.172, (2:23.500) => 2:34.969
Very nice last solve. 4.578 tps 
- Dino Cube: 10, (14), 9, 10, 8, 11, (6), 14, 7, 8, 12, 7 => 9.6
Too many bad solves, but there were quite a few good solves too.
- Gigaminx: 11:39, 8:46, 10:30 => 10:18.3
On the first solve I couldn't tell the difference between red and orange so afterwards I switched to the home version of gelatinbrain and used a much yellower orange (ffb000). Turns out the home version lets you move around the cube faster and also seems to do the turns faster too (with animation off) so the second solve was OMG FAST UWR LOL. Unfortunately on the third solve my mouse started being shitty so I lost a ton of time.
- Helicopter Cube: 46, 40, 34, (30), (53) => 40.0
Nice.
- Megaminx: (1:08), 1:25, 1:23, 1:20, (1:43) => 1:22.7
Huge lag from AIM on the last few solves.
- Pyraminx: (2.95), 4.91, 6.56, 5.66, 5.91, 5.14, 5.05, 6.66, 5.08, 4.92, 4.45, (8.05) => 5.43
Awesome. Ridiculously long warm-up sessions rock.
- Skewb: 20, (36), 24, 19, 23, 13, 21, 14, 17, 14, (12), 12 => 17.7
Bad start, but good average.
- Square-1: (32.02), 25.88, 22.94, (17.91), 21.56 => 23.46
Really nice average.
- Super-X: (1:01), (1:38), 1:24p, 1:09, 1:22p => 1:18.3
Someday I will catch up, Ethan


----------



## DavidWoner (Oct 1, 2009)

I do what I want, when I want.

3x3:

21.08, 22.00, 21.95, 22.58, (25.22), 20.37, 21.52, (18.02), 20.50, 18.17, 20.23, 18.05 = 20.65


----------



## qqwref (Oct 1, 2009)

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

*Final Results*
*1:* qqwref - 90 points!!!
*2:* Mike Hughey - 58 points!!
*3:* masterofthebass - 13 points!
4: Ethan Rosen: 10 points
5: dbax0999: 7 points
6: fanwuq, Robert-Y, Sa967St, & Yalow: 6 points
10: DavidWoner: 2 points
11: StachuK1992: 1 point
12: trying-to-speedcube...: 0 points 

Individual events:

```
[B]2x2[/B]
1. Yalow: 2.817
2. qqwref: 5.707
3. Sa967St: 5.894
4. masterofthebass: 6.039
5. fanwuq: 6.609
6. trying-to-speedcube...: 7.196
7. Stachuk1992: 14.751
8. Mike Hughey: 16.189

[B]3x3[/B]
1. qqwref: 13.063
2. masterofthebass: 14.814
3. Sa967St: 16.107
4. DavidWoner: 20.645
5. Stachuk1992: 43.901
6. Mike Hughey: 46.864

[B]4x4[/B]
1. Robert-Y: 38.840
2. qqwref: 45.917
3. masterofthebass: 54.593
4. fanwuq: 1:01.380
5. Mike Hughey: 2:34.627

[B]5x5[/B]
1. qqwref: 1:14.077
2. masterofthebass: 1:24.237
3. fanwuq: 2:23.103
4. Mike Hughey: 4:03.613

[B]6x6[/B]
1. qqwref: 2:31.863
2. Mike Hughey: 7:34.937

[B]7x7[/B]
1. qqwref: 3:10.903
2. Mike Hughey: 10:57.910

[B]3x3 BLD[/B]
1. Mike Hughey: 4:29.89

[B]Clock (3x3)[/B]
1. qqwref: 6.9546
2. Mike Hughey: 17.3015
3. dbax0999: 23.9926

[B]Clock (5x5)[/B]
1. qqwref: 33.7611
2. Mike Hughey: 1:15.5767

[B]Clock (10x10)[/B]
1. qqwref: 2:34.9687
2. Mike Hughey: 5:25.3997

[B]Dino Cube[/B]
1. qqwref: 9.6
2. Mike Hughey: 30.3

[B]Gigaminx[/B]
1. qqwref: 10:18.3
2. Mike Hughey: 24:05.0

[B]Helicopter Cube[/B]
1. qqwref: 40.0
2. Ethan Rosen: 51.0
3. Mike Hughey: 3:45.3

[B]Megaminx[/B]
1. qqwref: 1:22.7
2. Mike Hughey: 5:37.0

[B]Pyraminx[/B]
1. qqwref: 5.434
2. dbax0999: 5.959
3. Mike Hughey: 23.3

[B]Skewb[/B]
1. qqwref: 17.7
2. Mike Hughey: 50.6

[B]Square-1[/B]
1. qqwref: 23.460
2. Mike Hughey: 1:33.000

[B]Super-X[/B]
1. Ethan Rosen: 1:13.7
2. qqwref: 1:18.3
3. Mike Hughey: 6:25.0
```


----------



## Mike Hughey (Oct 1, 2009)

So at first I thought, oh great, I'm back to last place in every event. Then I found this:



qqwref said:


> *Clock (3x3)*
> qqwref: 6.9546
> dbax0999: 23.9926
> Mike Hughey: 17.3015



So what happened, qqwref - did you just get so used to putting me last that you ordered them this way out of habit? 

Anyway, I am getting better - I was a lot closer to the pack in some of the other events than I've been before.


----------



## qqwref (Oct 1, 2009)

Oh! My mistake, you're right. I must've read his time and assumed it was something better. I'll fix that.


----------



## fanwuq (Oct 2, 2009)

Doesn't affect my ranking, but my 4x4x4 average certainly was not 1:07.


----------



## qqwref (Oct 2, 2009)

Ah, it was 1:01.38, not 1:07.38. I must have misread the time.


----------

