# The Race to Sub-2



## byu (Mar 4, 2009)

I'm not sure if this should be in the Blindfold section or the Off-Topic Discussion section, but I figured I'd put it here.

happa95 and I are having a race to see who can get to consistent sub-2 averages first (3x3 BLD). I'm wondering if anyone else is interested in participating in this race. If you want to participate, you have to match the follow criteria.

*CRITERIA:*

-You do not already get consistent sub-2 averages

*RULES:*

-The winner will be the first person to get a non-rolling average of 5 solves with maximum of one DNF or one single time over 2 minutes. There has been some confusion over this rule. Basically this means you must have 4 sub-2 solves in one session of 5 solves.
-Use computer scrambles
-If you have won, make a post giving the 5 times, and any other things that you want to tell about the average
-All other WCA BLD rules apply

*CURRENT COMPETITORS:*
Name (Average, Consistency)
1. byu (2:50, 90%)
2. happa95 (2:29, 78%)
3. Mike Hughey (2:15, 70%)
4. Micael (4:20, 50%)
5. Sa967St
6. Gparker
7. Ellis
8. not_kevin
9. rahulkadukar
10. fazrulz (2:30 20%)
11. mande (3:30, 75%)
12. Chuberchuckee
13. SimonWestlund
14. fanwuq
15. snckdude

*Results*
1. happa95
2. byu
3. fazrulz

So, is anyone interested in participating in this race?


----------



## Ellis (Mar 4, 2009)

byu said:


> If you want to participate, you have to match the follow criteria:
> 
> -You are not already sub-2



Happa already has many sub 2 solves, doesn't he?


----------



## byu (Mar 4, 2009)

Ellis said:


> byu said:
> 
> 
> > If you want to participate, you have to match the follow criteria:
> ...



Me too, but neither of us average sub 2 consistently


----------



## Mike Hughey (Mar 4, 2009)

I've had a bunch of sub-2 solves, but I don't average it consistently.

Perhaps you can define it - it would be best if there were a specific goal to shoot for. That way we'll know who wins. If your goal seems reasonable, I'd love to join the race. So how would you like to define the winner?


----------



## Faz (Mar 4, 2009)

Sub 2 average of 5 non rolling?


----------



## happa95 (Mar 4, 2009)

fazrulz said:


> Sub 2 average of 5 non rolling?



erm what is non-rolling exactly? *checks cubefreak glossary* 
hmmm.....


----------



## Ellis (Mar 4, 2009)

happa95 said:


> fazrulz said:
> 
> 
> > Sub 2 average of 5 non rolling?
> ...



This would mean that you can't continue the average after 5 solves and have to start over after each average.
Sorry I dont know if that "hmmm..." means that you figured out what it means and are thinking about it or couldnt find it at all.


----------



## happa95 (Mar 4, 2009)

Ellis said:


> happa95 said:
> 
> 
> > fazrulz said:
> ...



ah thanks for that! Okay faz, I'm fine with that. Just ask byu. I've gotten sub-2:30 non-rolling averages before =)


----------



## byu (Mar 4, 2009)

OK, so the winner will be defined as getting a non-rolling average of 12 solves that is sub-2:00. I'll update the first thread.


----------



## Mike Hughey (Mar 4, 2009)

byu said:


> OK, so the winner will be defined as getting a non-rolling average of 12 solves that is sub-2:00. I'll update the first thread.



Is that a legitimate average of 12 - meaning no more than 1 DNF? Or are you planning on throwing out DNFs and just counting successful solves? A legitimate average of 12 is pretty rough anyway - I've probably only had 10 or 15 of them ever. My personal best of those is 2:21.65, so I've definitely got some work to do to get there. (And I've never kept track of averages of 12 throwing out DNFs before; if I ever get more than a couple of DNFs, I almost always quit for the day. )

By the way, I really appreciate this race - it might be just the extra motivation I need to finally get a sub-1:30 in competition, which is my big goal for 3x3x3 BLD.


----------



## AvGalen (Mar 4, 2009)

Mike Hughey said:


> byu said:
> 
> 
> > OK, so the winner will be defined as getting a non-rolling average of 12 solves that is sub-2:00. I'll update the first thread.
> ...


No Mike, your big goal should be a 5/5 multi-blind to show those two guys that did 4/4 and 2/2 who is the master


----------



## Gparker (Mar 4, 2009)

AvGalen said:


> Mike Hughey said:
> 
> 
> > byu said:
> ...





Or 5x5 5/5 multi blind xD


----------



## Mike Hughey (Mar 4, 2009)

AvGalen said:


> No Mike, your big goal should be a 5/5 multi-blind to show those two guys that did 4/4 and 2/2 who is the master


Yeah, that 2/2 guy - who does he think he is, anyway? Temporary world record holder, pffft.


----------



## byu (Mar 4, 2009)

OK, so I think this is fair. Of the average of 12, throw out all DNFs, but if you get more than 5 DNFs, the average counts as DNF. That would mean that you would need at least 12/17 successful in a row to succeed.


----------



## AvGalen (Mar 4, 2009)

byu said:


> OK, so I think this is fair. Of the average of 12, throw out all DNFs, but if you get more than 5 DNFs, the average counts as DNF. That would mean that you would need at least 12/17 successful in a row to succeed.



That's a crazy rule.

If you do an average of 12, you do 12 solves
If you do 12 solves you remove highest and lowest and divide by ten (that's why it's an average of 12, not 10)
2 DNF's simply means no average.

Good luck achieving that sub 2


----------



## byu (Mar 4, 2009)

So what would be a better rule?


----------



## Ellis (Mar 4, 2009)

well, a non-rolling average of 5 would be better. You'd need 4/5 success rate to get the average rather than 12/17. Or another option would be who can get the average of 5 with no times over 2 minutes (allowing one DNF or one time over 2 minutes because it's not counted in the average).


----------



## Gparker (Mar 4, 2009)

i would do this but im no where near an average of sub 10 minutes! need to practice alot more, when is the deadline?


----------



## Micael (Mar 4, 2009)

Count me in the race, though I have little chance with my current average of 4-5min.

Since it should be "consistent", an average of 12 is better than 5. A standard average of 12 (a DNF is allowed). That rule is simple and everyone is used to.


----------



## shelley (Mar 4, 2009)

Since it's a race, I suppose the deadline is effectively whenever the first person reaches that goal.


----------



## Sa967St (Mar 5, 2009)

byu said:


> So, is anyone interested in participating in this race?


hmm, sure I'll join. I average between 2:00-2:30 right now. I need to practice BLD for the Motor City Open anyway


----------



## byu (Mar 5, 2009)

OK, so should it be average of 5 or average of 12? I want to know what you think


----------



## happa95 (Mar 5, 2009)

Ellis said:


> Or another option would be who can get the average of 5 with no times over 2 minutes (allowing one DNF or one time over 2 minutes because it's not counted in the average).



I like this idea.


----------



## byu (Mar 5, 2009)

OK, we'll go with that.


----------



## Gparker (Mar 5, 2009)

oh i knew that lol, i guess im in but i know i wont win but its good practice


----------



## byu (Mar 5, 2009)

Don't be so negative. It just may be so that everyone here forgets about BLD in the next few days (not saying its likely) and you end up winning. You never know what will happen.


----------



## Gparker (Mar 5, 2009)

i guess i dont know whatll happen

I just got my first sub 10 average of 3 so im getting there


----------



## Ellis (Mar 5, 2009)

I'm in. I've yet to get any sub-2 single, but I rarely practice and could use some extra motivation. 



> -The winner will be the first person to get an average of 5 solves without any time over 2:00 and a maximum of 1 DNF



This should be changed to "...5 solves with maximum of one DNF or one single time over 2 minutes."

The way it is makes it sound like an average of (1:59, 1:59, 1:59, 1:59, DNF) would be ok when an average of (1:59, 1:59, 1:59, 1:59, 2:01) is not.


----------



## byu (Mar 5, 2009)

Thanks Ellis, I changed the rules to that.


----------



## Sa967St (Mar 5, 2009)

Ellis said:


> > -The winner will be the first person to get an average of 5 solves without any time over 2:00 and a maximum of 1 DNF
> 
> 
> This should be changed to "...5 solves with maximum of one DNF or one single time over 2 minutes."
> ...


Wait...what? 
Is the average calculated like a normal 3x3x3 speed average, (with the best and worst removed and the remaining 3 averaged) or is it just trying doing 5 consecutive solves with only 0 or 1 of them being a DNF or over 2 mins?


----------



## byu (Mar 5, 2009)

Sorry for the confusion. The winner will be the first person to get 5 solves where none of them are over 2 minutes and a maximum of 1 DNF is allowed. This is not like a normal speed average.


----------



## not_kevin (Mar 5, 2009)

I'll join. I need BLD practice anyway... (I avg somewhere in the 2:xx)


----------



## MistArts (Mar 5, 2009)

byu said:


> Sorry for the confusion. The winner will be the first person to get 5 solves where none of them are over 2 minutes and a maximum of 1 DNF is allowed. This is not like a normal speed average.



You're telling us to purposely DNF a solve over 2 minutes?


----------



## Ellis (Mar 5, 2009)

MistArts said:


> byu said:
> 
> 
> > Sorry for the confusion. The winner will be the first person to get 5 solves where none of them are over 2 minutes and a maximum of 1 DNF is allowed. This is not like a normal speed average.
> ...



I told him to update that, and he did... I don't know why his explanation of it is still the same though. 



> RULES:
> 
> -The winner will be the first person to get an average of 5 solves with maximum of one DNF or one single time over 2 minutes



All times included in the average have to be under 2 minutes... but if you take off the slowest time, that is not actually included in the average. So the worst result can be anything as long there are four times under 2 minutes.


----------



## Mike Hughey (Mar 5, 2009)

It might be interesting to watch our progress.

My first try (very very bad):
DNF, 2:46.59, 2:12.20, 2:30.53, DNF = DNF

It seems like I always do very badly for a couple of days after a multi attempt (I just did 8/10 two days ago). It seems like doing multi causes me to slow down too much, and I have to work to get back up to speed again. Hopefully this will improve later today or tomorrow.

I might just update this post for a while with additional attempts, rather than continually adding posts to the thread.

This is fun!


----------



## Sa967St (Mar 5, 2009)

Ellis said:


> All times included in the average have to be under 2 minutes... but if you take off the slowest time, that is not actually included in the average. So the worst result can be anything as long there are four times under 2 minutes.


 it's not really an "average" then.


----------



## Mike Hughey (Mar 5, 2009)

Sa967St said:


> Ellis said:
> 
> 
> > All times included in the average have to be under 2 minutes... but if you take off the slowest time, that is not actually included in the average. So the worst result can be anything as long there are four times under 2 minutes.
> ...



Well, it's still an average, but there's nothing saying what the average needs to be. It's just necessary for all but one of the solves to be successful and sub-2.

I think it's a reasonable goal. It's all arbitrary anyway, and I think that if I could get a set of five solves like this, I could really feel like I'm starting to average sub-2. So I'm happy with this goal.

By the way, I did come close to meeting this goal once - a couple of months ago I got the following:
1:54.25 1:54.86 2:54.78 (1:50.65) (3:00.51) = 2:14.63

It was the first 5 solves of my best ever true average 10/12, which was a 2:21.65 average.


----------



## Micael (Mar 5, 2009)

If I understand, the rule is finally fixed as
"5 consecutives sub-2 with no DNF allowed".

That is ok for me.

Edit: ok I have just read the post of Ellis, 1 DNF or plus-2 is allowed


----------



## Ville Seppänen (Mar 5, 2009)

eh, isn't it easier to say that atleast 4 of the times must be sub2? Just so everyone understands.


----------



## Gparker (Mar 5, 2009)

i like what ville said, it should really just be an average and over 2 mins could be the same as a dnf, or otherwise 4 times sub 2.


----------



## byu (Mar 6, 2009)

Mike Hughey said:


> It might be interesting to watch our progress.
> 
> My first try (very very bad):
> DNF, 2:46.59, 2:12.20, 2:30.53, DNF = DNF
> ...



OK, I'll do it now too.
I'm timing memorization-only because I think it is worthwhile to practice memo only first, and then execution only, to focus on where I need to improve. So, here is 5 memos:

34.12, (40.19), 32.89, (19.85), 26.19 = 31.06

My memo is pretty good I think, but my execution is terrible, about 2 minutes. If I want a chance at winning the contest, I'll have to improve it.

By the way everyone, I updated the rules to make it more clear. You need 4 solves that are sub-2, and the 5th can be anything.


----------



## Gparker (Mar 6, 2009)

Yea!! learned M2, way faster than old pochmann for me, first try sub 9! and i went really slow because i was making sure of keeping track og the m slice


----------



## Mike Hughey (Mar 6, 2009)

byu said:


> OK, I'll do it now too.
> I'm timing memorization-only because I think it is worthwhile to practice memo only first, and then execution only, to focus on where I need to improve. So, here is 5 memos:
> 
> 34.12, (40.19), 32.89, (19.85), 26.19 = 31.06
> ...



Wow - you should get there easily. Everyone thinks my execution is outrageously slow, and my best ever memo time is still over 30 seconds. With that kind of memo time, you should be easily sub-2 already.

I think I'm just going to need to get lucky on 4 solves to win this.


----------



## rahulkadukar (Mar 6, 2009)

Well I am now consistently getting sub 4. So put me in.


----------



## byu (Mar 7, 2009)

OK, competitors:

-byu
-happa95
-Mike Hughey
-Micael
-Sa967St
-Gparker
-Ellis
-not_kevin
-rahulkadukar

Just to make things a little more interesting, please post your current average for successful solves with BLD, and your current consistency with solves. I will put this information next to your name in the first post.

Mine is 2:50, 90%


----------



## happa95 (Mar 7, 2009)

my average of 74 starting from 2/14/09 is 2:29.94.


----------



## byu (Mar 7, 2009)

Consistency?


----------



## happa95 (Mar 7, 2009)

17/74 were DNFs so like 78% but remember, this is an average of 74, starting back when I was just starting to get good.


----------



## Gparker (Mar 7, 2009)

im really not sure what my average is or consistancy since ive been on and off with blind, now im on and i can probably start consistant averages under 9 with M2, i just need to keep practicing images

i guess ill do an average right now and see what i get


----------



## Mike Hughey (Mar 9, 2009)

So I notice that the rules on the first post don't say anything about non-rolling (even though there was a lot of discussion earlier about it) - does that mean that rolling averages are okay? And if not, how long do you have to wait before starting a new non-rolling average? (That's probably the biggest problem with not allowing rolling averages - it's just so arbitrary to not allow them. It's pretty much a way to make the goal tougher simply by making it more improbable.)

Anyway, here were my first 7 solves today:

DNF, DNF, 1:56.61, 3:00.32, 2:05.08, 2:38.79, 2:04.81

So if we're allowed rolling averages, that gives me a 2:16.23 average. Still nowhere near the goal, but a little better than my previous try.

Oh, and my true average is probably somewhere around 2:15, and I'd guess my average (at home) is around 70%. (It's slightly worse than 50% in competition. )

And byu, I think it's silly for you to practice memorization at this point - execution is your whole issue. Do you pause a lot during your solves?

I'll just start keeping all my attempts here. Tries 1 and 2 are from above.

Try 1: DNF, 2:46.59, 2:12.20, 2:30.53, DNF = *DNF*
Try 2: DNF, DNF, 1:56.61, 3:00.32, 2:05.08 = *DNF*
Try 3: 2:44.14, (2:15.42), 3:03.64, 2:20.59, (DNF) = *2:42.79*
Try 4: 2:54.11, (3:15.03), 2:39.34, 2:20.86, (1:36.89) = *2:38.10* (I had 9 successes in a row - my best RA was 2:15.53)
Try 5: 2:34.07, DNF, DNF, 2:50.04, 2:22.89 = *DNF* (Terrible memory recall problems.)
Try 6: 2:20.79, 2:12.64, 2:10.26, (DNF), (2:04.86) = *2:14.56* (Cool - finally sub-2:15! Consistent, but unfortunately no sub-2's.)
Try 7: 2:03.59, DNF, DNF, 2:36.26, 2:08.95 = *DNF*
Try 8: 2:43.32, 2:37.13, (DNF), 2:46.04, (2:23.71) = *2:42.16*
Try 9: 1:52.65, 2:10.76, 3:33.34, DNF, DNF = *DNF* (It started so good, but then my brain turned to mush and I couldn't remember anything. )
Try 10: 1:57.25, (2:12.58), 2:08.94, 2:08.94, (1:48.65+) = *2:05.04*
Try 11: 2:01.06, (2:45.43), (1:50.65), 2:35.22, 1:52.76 = *2:09.68*
Try 12: (DNF), 2:32.47, (3:08.36), 2:36.15, 2:25.70 = *2:31.44* (I hadn't tried this in over a week; I've gotten rusty.)
Try 13: 1:53.92, 2:31.76, 2:36.93, DNF, DNF = *DNF* (The fourth one was 1:53.43, just 2 corners twisted. The fifth one was going good too, but then it slipped in my hands. )
Try 14: (2:03.86), (DNF), 2:06.28, 2:49.72, 3:53.72 = *2:56.57* (Started pretty good, but my memory started failing me toward the end.)
Try 15: 2:45.25, 2:02.90, (DNF), (1:45.93), 1:58.16 = *2:15.44* (This was feeling good at the end - pity there's the "no rolling averages" rule.)
Try 16: (2:36.92), (DNF), 4:59.87, 3:53.87, 3:34.96 = *4:09.57* (My first try with BH corners.)
Try 17: (2:05.43), 2:30.35, (DNF), 3:19.29, 3:15.81 = *3:01.82* (First 2 with 3OP corners, last 3 with BH.)


----------



## byu (Mar 9, 2009)

Thanks Mike for pointing that out. I edited the first post to say "non-rolling".

I just finished learning all the R2 algs yesterday, so I think with R2 I can get faster times since solving each piece takes less moves (As of 2 days ago, I used old pochmann for edges and corners)

I tried a BLD solve with M2/R2 yesterday, complete failure because I forgot that the R slice is rotated every other swap.


----------



## Micael (Mar 10, 2009)

My stats: (4:20, 50%)
I used M2-R2. Memo is about 2:30.

That was my last 12 cubes. I thought I was more accurate than that. This competition revived my passion for BLD, so I hope to upgrade my accuracy during the next few days. I already noted some of my weaknesses to work on.


----------



## byu (Mar 10, 2009)

Quick update on how I'm doing.
I did 5 solves and got these results:

2:15.89, 1:12.64, DNF, 2:05.19, 4:19.27

I'm very inconsistent. In an average of 5, I will usually get 1 sub-1:30, a few near 2, one terrible one, and possibly a DNF. I will definitely need to improve my consistency if I want to win this race.

Sidenote:
M2/R2 rules! If you use old pochmann corners still, switch to R2, it's so easy and so FAST!


----------



## tim (Mar 10, 2009)

byu said:


> Sidenote:
> M2/R2 rules! If you use old pochmann corners still, switch to R2, it's so easy and so FAST!



Could you upload a video of one of your faster solves with R2? I once tried it, but i didn't find it much faster than classic pochmann corners. Maybe that's just my lack of dexterity.


----------



## byu (Mar 10, 2009)

tim said:


> byu said:
> 
> 
> > Sidenote:
> ...



Sorry, my webcam is really low quality, and that's all I can use. I was asked to film a video of me doing BLD and all I got were a few frames (maybe one every two seconds).


----------



## tim (Mar 11, 2009)

byu said:


> tim said:
> 
> 
> > byu said:
> ...



Ok, 0.5 fps doesn't sound like "video" to me .


----------



## Gparker (Mar 11, 2009)

really? i love old pochmann and thats what tim ^^ uses, and its super easy

EDIT: well i guess any corner method is fast with practice


----------



## byu (Mar 11, 2009)

tim said:


> byu said:
> 
> 
> > tim said:
> ...



Not to me either. If I can get it to maybe 24 fps, or preferably 30, then I'll try and tape it.


----------



## Gparker (Mar 15, 2009)

i just did an average of 5 with a new pb

Statistics for 03-15-2009 13:34:44

Cubes Solved: 3/5
Number of Pops: 0
Average: 7:54.16
Standard Deviation: 2:19.40
Best Time: 4:52.56
Worst Time: 10:31.39
Individual Times:
1.	10:31.39	L' U' B2 F' L2 D' U F' U' L' R2 B2 L R B2 D2 B D' U2 F' L' R D2 R' D'
2.	DNF	D U' L' R2 U F2 L B' D' L' R' F R' F' U2 B' F' D U F2 R' D' L R' F'
3.	DNF	L' R' F' D' U2 F2 L F' L' F L' B L R U L R' B2 F2 L2 D2 U' L2 F2 R
4.	8:18.53	L2 F2 R2 B2 R2 D' R B F2 U' F2 L2 R2 D U' B F2 L R F L2 U' B U B2
5.	4:52.56	B2 D B F2 L' R2 D2 B F' L' R D L2 R2 F2 L D' U2 L' D' U2 B' L B2 D2


----------



## happa95 (Mar 15, 2009)

Sorry people but I'm getting REALLY close. I had an average of 5 with one DNF. The average was sub-2:15, but not sub-2.


----------



## Sa967St (Mar 15, 2009)

I'm getting several sub-2's each day, but they're not consecutive and I get an awful lot of DNF's >_<


----------



## happa95 (Mar 16, 2009)

Statistics for 03-15-2009 17:13:08

Cubes Solved: 5/5
Number of Pops: 0
Average: 1:57.03
Standard Deviation: 20.05
Best Time: 1:22.24
Worst Time: 2:23.62
Individual Times:
1.	2:05.88	B' F2 D2 U2 B2 L2 B' F' D2 B R2 B D2 U2 F2 L2 R' B2 F2 L2 R2 D L' R' F'
2.	1:54.05	L R2 D U' B2 F2 L2 B2 U L B2 F' D2 U2 F' D2 B F L' U2 L' R B' L D
3.	2:23.62	U2 L2 D2 U2 B' F' L D' F2 U' L R' F' L' U' L2 B R D' U2 R B D' B F2
4.	1:59.34	U2 F2 L' R B L B L2 B' F2 L2 U' B2 D U2 F' U' B2 F D R' D2 U2 F2 D2
5.	1:22.24	D2 U2 F' D' U' R' D' B' F' D2 U B F2 D2 U B2 R2 F U' R' B' L D2 U' F2



I should have won! But i haven't yet because of your rules!!! ARGH!


----------



## Faz (Mar 16, 2009)

I think his rules are quite fair, and to win you need to be consistently sub 2.

PS: I would like to join.

Fazrulz: 2:30, 20%


----------



## byu (Mar 16, 2009)

fazrulz - You're going to need a higher accuracy than 20% if you're going to win 

Anyway, does anyone know why my memo seems to get slower each day? Two days ago I was sub-35, now I'm at sub-60 seconds. I even got a couple of sub-20s last week.


----------



## byu (Mar 18, 2009)

My memo is still inconsistent, 35-60 seconds usually. On harder solves, I can get much higher. But, I ALMOST won this competition, I did an average of 5 today, and these are my results:

1:47.12
1:02.19
DNF
1:54.69
3:32.19

The DNF was off by two misoriented edges, I forgot to flip UF at the end. The 3:32 had terrible execution since I forgot the R2 algorithm to shoot to FUR and then after that the one to shoot to RBD and had to stall there thinking for a while, and that slowed me down considerably.

If only my memo were consistently sub-40, like they were two weeks ago before I started M2/R2, then I would win the race. But M2/R2 has slown down my memo.


----------



## Faz (Mar 18, 2009)

My memo is 90 seconds lol.

I will post my attempts here later - I will do 25 solves.


----------



## Sa967St (Mar 18, 2009)

I am going to lose :/
2:17.28, 2:10.93, 2:10.75, DNF, DNF


----------



## mande (Mar 18, 2009)

Even though I have never gotten a sub-2 single....I'm in please.
Average 3:30, consistency 75%


----------



## Faz (Mar 18, 2009)

I got a 1:47 and 1:51 DNFs today. Also, I got a non rolling average of 5 - with only 1 DNF!!!!

It was 2:28.


----------



## Micael (Mar 18, 2009)

PB average. This competition is cool, even though I am rather racing for sub-3.

Single:
2:56 (1:36)
3:41 (2:08)
3:47 (2:28)
3:11 (1:57)
3:07 (1:54)

Average:
3:20 (2:00)


----------



## Chuberchuckee (Mar 18, 2009)

I would like to join even though I have absolutely no experience with BLD (yet), though I hope to start as soon as today. It seems that I only have a very, very miniscule chance of winning, but, because I am motivated by competition, I would still like to join. 

(Besides, I must just win somehow.)


----------



## Faz (Mar 19, 2009)

2:28 average of 5 with only one DNF! - I am working on my consistency.

I have also had several sub 2 DNF's


----------



## happa95 (Mar 20, 2009)

At long last, I have gotten a "legitimate" sub-2 average. Sub-1:40, actually. Unfortunately, I do not have the details because I was using cubetimer at my mom's school but the average was 1:37.xx and I had 1 DNF.


----------



## Sa967St (Mar 20, 2009)

Leaf wins >_<, shall we still race for second place?


----------



## happa95 (Mar 20, 2009)

Sa967St said:


> Leaf wins >_<, shall we still race for second place?



LEAVES FTW!


----------



## byu (Mar 20, 2009)

Yes, let's race for second


----------



## Mike Hughey (Mar 20, 2009)

happa95 said:


> At long last, I have gotten a "legitimate" sub-2 average. Sub-1:40, actually. Unfortunately, I do not have the details because I was using cubetimer at my mom's school but the average was 1:37.xx and I had 1 DNF.



Congratulations! You were obviously very close, so I'm not all that surprised. You deserved the win.

Race for second place!


----------



## Gparker (Mar 20, 2009)

we should continue this till like 10th, its a really good motivation. well it was for me


----------



## Sa967St (Mar 20, 2009)

I think I'm getting worse >_<
DNF, 2:37.66, 2:06.57, 2:06.98, 2:21.88


----------



## Gparker (Mar 20, 2009)

Sa967St said:


> I think I'm getting worse >_<
> DNF, 2:37.66, 2:06.57, 2:06.98, 2:21.88



wow, i must say im very jealous  i wish i was averageing all of these times. its weird how people are getting worse. byu told me his memo is increasing in his time so hes learning freestyle

oh and i learned visual corners its fast 

sarah, you still use old pochmann?


----------



## Mike Hughey (Mar 20, 2009)

Gparker said:


> we should continue this till like 10th, its a really good motivation. well it was for me


I agree. I could see myself winding up 10th, so continuing that long would be really nice! 



Sa967St said:


> I think I'm getting worse >_<
> (DNF), 2:37.66, (2:06.57), 2:06.98, 2:21.88 = *2:22.17*


Me too, even more so. 
2:43.32, 2:37.13, (DNF), 2:46.04, (2:23.71) = *2:42.16*

I just had a successful 7x7x7 BLD today, though (1:00:23.14). I'm always really awful at 3x3x3 BLD on days when I'm good at big cubes BLD (and vice-versa).

For this set of 5, I really struggled with memory recall - I think I went too fast memorizing.


----------



## SimonWestlund (Mar 20, 2009)

Can I join? 

I'm not close to sub 2.. I average around 4 minutes ATM.. but it will probably make me practise more.

I'm learning M2 Old Pochmann now.. so my times will get a little faster when I've learnt that I think.


----------



## Sa967St (Mar 20, 2009)

Gparker said:


> sarah, you still use old pochmann?


CO: freestlye
CP: classic pochmann + 3cycle
EP: classic pochmann + TuRBo

I likes


----------



## Gparker (Mar 20, 2009)

Sa967St said:


> Gparker said:
> 
> 
> > sarah, you still use old pochmann?
> ...



haha, its like your own version of freestyle


----------



## byu (Mar 20, 2009)

I just won second. I don't have scrambles, I used cubetimer. Times were

1:36.29, 1:12.19, DNF(1:33.84), 1:04.03, 1:52.16

All memo was sub-45. DNF off by two misoriented edges. I used freestyle edges, old pochmann corners. I would have used R2 corners, but I don't know how to do a parity fix for that with freestyle edges


----------



## SimonWestlund (Mar 20, 2009)

byu said:


> I just won second. I don't have scrambles, I used cubetimer. Times were
> 
> 1:36.29, 1:12.19, DNF(1:33.84), 1:04.03, 1:52.16
> 
> All memo was sub-45. DNF off by two misoriented edges. I used freestyle edges, old pochmann corners. I would have used R2 corners, but I don't know how to do a parity fix for that with freestyle edges



Congratz!

Did you play a little safe on the last one?

You are way past 2 minutes!  

I can join right? Even though I'm averaging around 4 minutes.


----------



## Faz (Mar 20, 2009)

The two people who started the challenge came 1st and second...

I gotta come 3rd, but i have to beat sarah and mike...


----------



## Mike Hughey (Mar 21, 2009)

byu said:


> I just won second. I don't have scrambles, I used cubetimer. Times were
> 
> 1:36.29, 1:12.19, DNF(1:33.84), 1:04.03, 1:52.16
> 
> All memo was sub-45. DNF off by two misoriented edges. I used freestyle edges, old pochmann corners. I would have used R2 corners, but I don't know how to do a parity fix for that with freestyle edges



Wow - awesome! I knew you were close - I was surprised it took you this long. Congratulations!


----------



## byu (Mar 21, 2009)

Mike Hughey said:


> byu said:
> 
> 
> > I just won second. I don't have scrambles, I used cubetimer. Times were
> ...



Thanks. my new goal is to learn 4x4 BLD


----------



## Faz (Mar 22, 2009)

Post 1000! I don't really care that this post isnt very important.

I learnt 3op for corners, as I feel old pochman is slow 

I have had a few successful solves, but I am a bit slower as my cp sucks. I expect to be sub 2 in the next month.

PS: this post doesn't count - off topic


----------



## SimonWestlund (Mar 22, 2009)

it still says 999...


----------



## trying-to-speedcube... (Mar 22, 2009)

Posts in the off-topic discussion aren't counted...


----------



## Faz (Mar 23, 2009)

lol yeah.


----------



## Faz (Mar 24, 2009)

Cubes Solved: 4/10
Average: 2:33.85
Standard Deviation: 29.40
Best Time: 1:55.00
Worst Time: 3:13.80
Individual Times:
1.	DNF	L' R D' B2 F D2 B' U2 L R' F D L2 B2 F L2 R2 F' D2 U2 B F L2 R2 U	3 edges 3 corners
2.	DNF	D2 U' F2 D' U2 L R2 D B' F2 D L R' D F D F L' R' B' F' D B2 R B'	Did parity on the wrong 2 corners!!!!!
3.	2:46.58	D U L R' D U' R' D U' L' R2 U L' F2 D U L' R B' F L2 R' F2 U' R'	Yippee
4.	3:13.80	B' F2 D U B' F D F' R B L2 R D B L2 R2 B R' F' U' B2 F' D U2 R'	weird scramble
5.	DNF	D' U' L B' L2 R' B F2 L2 R' D L2 F' D U B' F' D2 B R2 B2 U2 R2 B2 F	screwed up CO
6.	DNF	B2 D R2 D' F2 U B2 F' D U' L D' U2 L2 R B F R' U2 R' B' R' D2 U F	didnt see 2 edges during memo
7.	1:55.00	D U' B' D2 U L' B' F' R F R' D2 U L' D2 B2 R' D2 F' L B D' U' L' F2	Pb's ftw
8.	2:20.03	R2 D2 B L R D' F D2 B F2 L2 B D U2 B2 F' D2 U B' F2 U B' F' D' U	2 fast ones in a row!
9.	DNF	D L' R B F2 L2 B U2 L' U' L' B2 F2 L2 U2 B F2 L2 F U' R' B F2 D U2	2 flipped edges 
10.	DNF	F2 L D' F2 D2 B' F2 D F2 L D' F2 D U2 B2 D' U' F2 L' U2 L U' L' R' D2	got mixed up on the edges


----------



## fanwuq (Mar 24, 2009)

I'm in. I average just maybe 3:30. I don't have much time to practice, but hopefully I'll reach this goal before the end of this year.

1.	3:47.63	D2 U' B2 F D2 U' F' D2 F2 R' U F2 L2 R' B' L2 R' B L' R D R' U B' D' 
2.	POP	U L U L R2 F' L' D2 U2 B D' B2 F' L R' F' D R' B' F' L2 R2 D' U' L 
3.	2:43.63	U R U' B F' D U F2 L F D F' L2 F' L2 R2 F' U L2 R2 U' L' B D U2 
4.	POP	U2 R' U' R' F' U R D U2 L R' B' F' D L2 R2 D' U L' U2 L' D' R B2 R 
5.	DNF	F2 R' B' F L' R2 F' D2 B' D B2 D' U L' D2 B2 F D L R' U2 F L F2 L' 
6.	DNF	L R2 D U B2 F' R2 F2 R2 B' D' U2 R' B2 R2 D L' R' U2 F2 D L' R2 B F2 
7.	DNF L' R U' L' F2 R B2 F L' B2 D' U2 R2 U2 B2 F D U L2 D2 F L2 U2 F U 
8.	DNF	F D' U B R' U' L' F R D' U B2 D U B2 R U' B F2 D B F2 U L B 

The pops were around 2:40 and I was almost finished. The DNF's were way over 4 minutes. I think the 5th scramble's corners were really tough. It had really weird orientations.


----------



## Mike Hughey (Mar 24, 2009)

By far my closest try yet:

1:57.25, (2:12.58), 2:08.94, 2:08.94, (1:48.65+) = *2:05.04*

Wow! I was off by a quarter turn on the last one. It was really easy:
F2 U' F2 D F' R' D' L' R2 F B' U B2 D U2 L F D' F' U' L2 R' F R' D'

After each solve, I immediately applied the next scramble, and I took no more than a ten second rest after applying each scramble before starting the next solve.

Edit: I decided to continue the average (after a few minutes break), and I got a legitimate 10/12 average.
1:57.25, 2:12.58, 2:08.94, 2:08.94, (1:48.65+), 2:56.12, 1:55.81, 2:14.68, 2:34.84, (DNF), 2:39.86, 2:36.09 = *2:20.51*

New personal best, although not by much. Every solve over 2:15 included a really BAD memory pause. The 2:56.12 felt like a 1:30 solve until I got stuck trying to remember some of the edges.


----------



## byu (Mar 24, 2009)

Nice Mike! That's two sub-minutes in 1 average of 5. You just need two more in an average of 5 to get 3rd place.

I am attempting to work on 4x4 BLD, but centers mess me up. Plus I haven't learned all of the r2 algs yet.


----------



## snckdude (Mar 24, 2009)

I want to join i just pick up M2 and want to try it out!


----------



## Faz (Mar 25, 2009)

Cubes Solved: 5/10
Average: 2:26.77
Standard Deviation: 27.66
Best Time: 1:35.36
Worst Time: 2:53.06
Individual Times:
1.	DNF	B2 F' U B' F D' L R' D U2 B' F2 L D L' B' L' R D L R' F' U R2 D'	messed up corners.
2.	2:29.64	L D' U B' L2 D2 F' D2 U2 B' L D U F U' L2 R2 U B2 F2 L B F' R2 D	hmm.. 
3.	2:48.75	D2 U B' F' D2 U B' F2 U L' R2 F2 R U' B D L2 R' D L' D2 U2 F' D B	slow, but accurate 
4.	2:53.06	F L D2 B2 U L' F2 R B F2 U' B' F2 R U2 R2 U' R' D U R' F2 D' B F	same again
5.	DNF	L2 U' B' L2 R U2 B' F D U F2 D R B' R2 B2 F L2 F' R B2 U2 B' F' D2	Off by a h perm on f face
6.	2:27.02	F U L' R B' F2 D2 U2 R' B2 U L' R D' U' L D2 U' B2 U' L' F' D L2 R	yay
7.	1:35.36	B2 F2 R' D2 L2 R' F' D2 F U2 F' L2 R D2 U' L R2 B2 F' R U' L R D' F	wow.... easy corners.
8.	DNF	L' R' B' F2 D' U2 F D2 B' D' U2 B U' L R2 D2 B2 L2 R2 D2 U' B2 L' B2 R	3 edges
9.	DNF	R2 B2 F D' B2 L' R' B' F D' U L2 D L2 R U2 B' F2 D' B2 F' U B2 R' U	4 edges 6 corners
10.	DNF	U R D F' D' L' B U L' U2 L R2 F' D2 L2 F' R F L2 D U' F' D2 B2 F'	got confused about parity


----------



## Faz (Apr 14, 2009)

1:45.25, 1:42.38, (2:01.28), 1:57.20, 1:50.80

Oh snap!


----------



## Mike Hughey (Apr 16, 2009)

I'm getting closer:
(DNF), (1:45.93), 1:58.16, 2:05.49, 1:54.33 = *1:59.33*

My first ever sub-2 average of 5, I think!

This fails to win the race on two counts, though:
1. One of the counting solves is over 2 minutes, and
2. It was part of a rolling average; the first two solves were 2:45.25 and 2:02.90.

And yeah, I did try another one after this; it was a 2:13 DNF, so that didn't help with issue #1 either.

For anyone who's interested, my record of attempts so far is here.


----------



## byu (Apr 16, 2009)

Wow mike, nice job


----------



## Gparker (Apr 16, 2009)

fazrulz said:


> 1:45.25, 1:42.38, (2:01.28), 1:57.20, 1:50.80
> 
> Oh snap!



congrats 

as for me. im getting closer. and i thought id never make it to sub 2. but now im close to sub 3. i remember i entered this race over like 8 minutes


----------



## SimonWestlund (Apr 16, 2009)

fazrulz said:


> 1:45.25, 1:42.38, (2:01.28), 1:57.20, 1:50.80
> 
> Oh snap!



what place were you? 3rd? Good job!


----------



## Gparker (Apr 16, 2009)

did an average of 5, consistancy 80%

Statistics for 04-16-2009 14:32:18

Cubes Solved: 4/5
Number of Pops: 0
Average: 3:06.28
Standard Deviation: 34.18
Best Time: 2:39.12
Worst Time: 4:04.92
Individual Times:
1.	2:39.12	L' F' D' F2 L2 R B F U2 B2 U B2 F R' B2 F U' F R2 B2 F2 L' B' L' R2
2.	4:04.92	R2 D2 U' L' D2 U' R2 B F2 D' U' R2 B U R2 B2 F2 D' U' F U F' L' B' F
3.	DNF	L B2 U2 B L R2 D U2 R2 B' F2 D2 U B' F L R B F2 D2 U2 L R2 F' R'
4.	2:50.11	F2 D L' R D U B' L2 R B2 F' L' R2 F D2 L' R' D' U2 B2 D2 F2 D' B F2
5.	2:50.98	U' L R2 B F U2 F' R D' U B F' D U F D' U2 F D' R' U' R' B F2 D2


close to sub 3


----------



## SimonWestlund (Apr 16, 2009)

Gparker said:


> did an average of 5, consistancy 80%
> 
> Statistics for 04-16-2009 14:32:18
> 
> ...



Nice, I'll try to get one without 2 DNFs too, to see how close we are 

I used the same scrambles..

2:38.40
(3:25.27)
2:53.44
2:52.96
(2:36.44)

= 2:48.27

 no DNFs


----------



## byu (Apr 17, 2009)

SimonWestlund said:


> Gparker said:
> 
> 
> > did an average of 5, consistancy 80%
> ...



Same scrambles

1:32.19
1:25.37
1:47.56
1:29.42
DNF (1:30.27, off by two flipped edges)

I'm not in this race anymore, but I thought I'd post my times for those scrambles anyway.


----------



## Mike Hughey (Apr 22, 2009)

Okay, so this is a big step back, but it's still fun for me:
(2:36.92), (DNF), 4:59.87, 3:53.87, 3:34.96 = *4:09.57*
Edges were still M2; corners were done with commutators (about half were BH algorithms; there are still a lot I don't know).

My slow speeds were due primarily to two things:
1. When I got a BH case I didn't know, I would often spend some time trying to figure out an optimal algorithm for it.
2. My edge memo is just secure enough to work with very quick corner memo and solving. When I'm slow and inefficient and have to think lots about the corners, it takes me a while afterwards to recall the edges. I probably lost a minute per solve on all but the first solve due to this.

I think it should be fairly easy to get down to 2:30 with BH once I have the algorithms all learned. I'm not sure if it will help my overall 3x3x3 speed. But this proves it should be accurate and fast enough for multi, ultimately, which was my real reason for learning it. If I have to use BH for multi and 3OP for single solves, I'll do that, but I'm still hopeful it will help my overall solve speed someday.


----------



## Gparker (Apr 28, 2009)

okay, i did an average of 5 and it was sub 3!! im considering learning 3OP for corners but im not sure

Statistics for 04-27-2009 21:13:48

Cubes Solved: 5/5
Number of Pops: 0
Average: 2:55.78
Standard Deviation: 41.21
Best Time: 1:54.64
Worst Time: 3:43.17
Individual Times:
1.	3:19.14	F D U' B F2 R D U2 L' B' F' R D2 R2 D2 F2 D2 U2 F' D' U2 F U2 L R'
2.	2:20.05	F' R2 D2 U' R' D2 B2 U2 L D' F L2 R' D2 U2 F D2 U2 F2 L' D' U2 R' D' U'
3.	3:43.17	D L B F D' U' R' D B' F' L2 B D U2 B' F L' R2 B F2 L2 D2 F D2 U'
4.	1:54.64	R D' U L' R B2 L2 R' U' R D L' R' B D2 U F' L R2 B' U B2 R2 D2 B
5.	3:21.92	D' R2 D B2 U B R D2 U' R' B' R' U2 L D U2 B' F2 L' F2 D U' F2 L R


a new pb and it was sub 2! i cant wait to average sub 2 consistantly 

who thinks i should switch corner methods for old pochmann to 3OP or TuRBo or something of that sort. i know happa95 won and he uses the same method i do but i stink at corners.


----------



## Mike Hughey (Apr 28, 2009)

Gparker said:


> okay, i did an average of 5 and it was sub 3!!
> a new pb and it was sub 2! i cant wait to average sub 2 consistantly


Nice job!



Gparker said:


> who thinks i should switch corner methods for old pochmann to 3OP or TuRBo or something of that sort. i know happa95 won and he uses the same method i do but i stink at corners.


I'd recommend you not switch to 3OP, since you already know Classic Pochmann. That means you're already used to memorizing with stickers instead of pieces. No point in switching from there to 3OP and then back to memorizing stickers someday when you want to switch to BH or freestyle or the like. So I recommend you try Turbo, freestyle, BH, or R2 instead.

3OP is a pretty powerful system to learn when you're starting out, but once you've learned Classic Pochmann, I just don't see any good reason to switch to 3OP.


----------



## Gparker (Apr 28, 2009)

Mike Hughey said:


> Gparker said:
> 
> 
> > who thinks i should switch corner methods for old pochmann to 3OP or TuRBo or something of that sort. i know happa95 won and he uses the same method i do but i stink at corners.
> ...



Ok, I'll probably look into Turbo or freestyle. But could you explain what BH is? is it anything like freestyle?


----------



## Mike Hughey (Apr 28, 2009)

Gparker said:


> Mike Hughey said:
> 
> 
> > Gparker said:
> ...


Daniel gives an outline of how they work here. It's a lot like freestyle; the main difference is that with BH, you already know exactly which algorithm you'll use for any given pair. It seems overwhelming because there are 378 algorithms to learn (just for the corners), but it's actually very much more manageable than that because you learn how the commutators work and then you can basically see them mirrored, inversed, or rotated around the cube. So there are really lots less than that, when you take that into account. Daniel and Chris describe it as being similar to learning intuitive Fridrich F2L for speedsolving, and I must agree that it is VERY similar. About the same amount of work, and very much the same kind of process.

I just got serious about learning BH a little over a week ago, and already I know just about all of the algorithms. Unfortunately, some of the difficult ones still take me 30 seconds or so to recall, so I don't have them learned well enough yet, but I'm getting there. Another few weeks and I should be up to my former 3OP speed with BH, or maybe better. And it's amazing how few moves it takes me now to solve corners. I really like it!


----------



## Gparker (Apr 28, 2009)

Mike Hughey said:


> Gparker said:
> 
> 
> > Mike Hughey said:
> ...





thats a very interesting method. and i am sure you will learn them and be used to it very soon .i think im going to try and learn TuRBo. Im not sure if iill like it enough to stick with it. i dont know if you happen to know how to do parity do you? im going to guess its like this:

Ok, you have an odd number of edge swaps on the cube so im going to guess you will have corner parity also. And to solve corner parity you just set the edges and corners up into a PLL and solve it. I use M2, how would you do parity? im going to guess you to U'F2UM2U'F2U and UB and UL will be flipped and you set it up into a PLL from there. Am i right?


----------



## Mike Hughey (Apr 28, 2009)

Gparker said:


> Ok, you have an odd number of edge swaps on the cube so im going to guess you will have corner parity also. And to solve corner parity you just set the edges and corners up into a PLL and solve it. I use M2, how would you do parity? im going to guess you to U'F2UM2U'F2U and UB and UL will be flipped and you set it up into a PLL from there. Am i right?



Actually, I prefer T perms and N perms (since it's mostly T perms), so with M2, I do M'F2M'F2 so UB and UF will be swapped. And then I set it up into a PLL from there.


----------



## Mike Hughey (Apr 30, 2009)

My latest very bad try:
(2:40.96), (DNF), 4:00.50, 4:43.12, 3:48.41 = *4:10.68*

Awful times, but the good news is that it was done with full BH corners! I knew every single BH algorithm for all 5 solves. (The first time that's happened for me over this many solves.) The DNF had 3 corners wrong, but I just cycled them the wrong direction as a stupid mistake.

Actually, I tend to solve the corners fairly quickly. Memo is as fast as it was with 3OP or maybe even faster (always less than a minute), but then when I finish doing the corners, I find that I had to think so hard about the corners that I've forgotten my edge memo. Then it takes me a couple of minutes (literally) to remember what the edges are, hence the really bad times.

I still think this will work well once I get used to it.

Edit:
I did a second try right after the first one. I did a little better this time.
2:21.49, 2:20.51, (2:20.32), 3:38.66, (DNF) = *2:46.89*

The DNF was 1:57.84, and I just had 2 corners twisted because I memorized the wrong letter. I love the fact that with images, your memory can actually improve as you do more during the same session.


----------



## Sa967St (Apr 30, 2009)

I almost forgot about this! I'll do an average of 5 now.


EDIT:

2:30.18, 2:13.76, DNF [1:56.20], DNF [2:53.17], 2:01.27


----------



## byu (Apr 30, 2009)

Nice job Mike! And this is all with full BH corners? You improve fast!


----------



## Mike Hughey (May 1, 2009)

byu said:


> Nice job Mike! And this is all with full BH corners? You improve fast!



Yes, it's with full BH corners, except that on one of that last batch of solves, I couldn't remember one of the commutators. But I went back afterwards and refreshed my memory, so hopefully I won't forget it next time.

I think I got a little unlucky on the first set of five, and lucky on the second set. But I do think I'm improving.

Nice job, Sarah - with just a little more practice you can be the next one!

Attempts with BH corners (note that these are just some of them - I've done more than this; these are just the ones I felt were interesting enough to justify posting):
1. (2:36.92), (DNF), 4:59.87, 3:53.87, 3:34.96 = *4:09.57* My first try with BH corners.
2. (2:05.43), 2:30.35, (DNF), 3:19.29, 3:15.81 = *3:01.82* First 2 with 3OP corners, last 3 with BH.
3. (2:40.96), (DNF), 4:00.50, 4:43.12, 3:48.41 = *4:10.68*
4. 2:21.49, 2:20.51, (2:20.32), 3:38.66, (DNF) = *2:46.89*
5. (DNF (2:14)), 2:37.37, 2:20.31, (2:03.78), 3:42.43 = *2:53.37* Not as good as the previous one, but this one wasn't nearly as lucky, so it actually felt better.
6. 1:59.25, DNF (2:34), 2:00.36, DNF (2:01.83), DNF (2:59) = *DNF* The DNFs were close, and I'm definitely getting faster. I think I can tell now that I'm really going to be faster with BH corners.
7. 2:37.44, 3:02.30, DNF, DNF, 2:27.81 = *DNF* Grr - these were some very tough scrambles, and I had some memory issues.
8. 2:29.31, DNF (1:53), DNF (2:10), 2:30.62, 2:34.00 = *DNF* Ugh. I feel like I'm good enough to be sub-2 now, but things keep going wrong when I take these averages. Badly.
9. 2:14.14, DNF (2:58), DNF (2:38), 2:38.15, 2:00.34 = *DNF* Another day, another bad average.
10. 2:03.97, 2:13.84, (1:45.39), (DNF (2:07.44)), 1:58.14 = *2:05.31* Wow! Only a few tenths worse than my best non-BH average! I love when there are no twisted corners or parity with BH corners - it's so easy it feels like cheating. 
11. 2:09.61, (1:47.84), 1:52.44, (2:56.54), 1:56.14 = *1:59.40* Hey, a sub-2 average! Still not sub-2 for the contest yet, but I'm almost there now! The fourth one could have been fast too, but I had a memory failure.
12. 2:09.14, 2:32.23, DNF, DNF, 1:50.75 = *DNF* I'm disappointed, but this is fairly typical for me now. I'm averaging a little over 50% accuracy, which I'm not very happy with, but oh well.
13. 2:08.33, 2:06.92, (1:53.55), 2:33.87, (6:26.20) = *2:16.37* Bleah. I'm having so much trouble having secure enough memory. In this set, I was doing fine until the last one, and I just couldn't remember it. I finally dredged it up by trying all possible letter combinations.
14. 2:00.44, (1:43.48), 1:58.01, (3:17.64), 2:14.78 = *2:04.41* This one started so nice - even though I got the heartbreaking 2:00.44 at first, I thought it was going to be it, because it was going so well. But my memory failed me on the fourth one.


----------



## Mike Hughey (Sep 19, 2009)

At last I can resurrect this ancient thread to submit my final post here.

(DNF (2:06.00)), 1:43.96, (1:41.09), 1:54.33, 1:52.78 = *1:50.36*

Yes!!!! Does this make me fourth place? (Tortoise-style racing on my part, I think.)

The first one had two edges flipped (I still sometimes mess up with parity on the bad edges - it slowed me down a lot, too). I just had a big breakthrough - I discovered I can memorize the edges with images all in one group, where before I would memorize them in two groups. It speeds up solving a lot.

The first three were for this week's competition; the last two were the last two scrambles from the multi for this week's competition, in reverse order.


----------



## Micael (May 2, 2010)

Finally done with this

1:37.17+ (DNF) (1:17.40) 1:44.70 1:45.38 = 1:42.42

The fastest had 3 pieces solved, so lucky.


----------



## Sa967St (May 2, 2010)

oooh, I remember this thread!
...and I still haven't gotten a sub2 'average'


----------



## Ranzha (May 2, 2010)

I'm in.
I average 4:30 per solve, and 100% success rate.

For srs, I haven't DNF'd.


----------

