# Monthly Computer Cube Competition 1: June 2009



## qqwref (May 29, 2009)

I had the idea for a monthly computer cube competition. This is the first one; if I get enough people participating (say, 10+) I intend to keep doing one every month. Hopefully this will give people an excuse to try computer cubes  They are quite fun IMO and you have the opportunity to play with and practice puzzles that you wouldn't normally get a chance to see.

Here are the rules:
- Please do all of the scrambles for a given round in a row. You get to decide when the next 5 or 12 solves will count (although it must be before you scramble for the first counting solve), but once you've started doing counting solves, you can't do practice solves on that puzzle until you are done with that round. (This is similar to doing Magic in competition.) Do not rescramble; if you get a difficult scramble or make a mistake right at the beginning, just keep going. 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.
- You may use any simulator you want. Some good online ones are hi-games, gelatinbrain, and jfly's SquareOneSim and MegaminxSim, but you can use any others if you can find them. For Clock I strongly suggest Mitchell Stern's NxN clock simulator. You can also switch simulators between solves.
- If the puzzle gives you any amount of inspection please don't use more than 15 seconds, although I 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.

This competition starts now, and ends when June does (11:59pm pacific time on June 30th). I will keep a list of the best times so far in this post, updated whenever I feel like it.


The rounds are listed below. I've made the short puzzles average of 12 because in a monthly competition you should have plenty of time
- *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. new!
- *Dino Cube*: Average of 12.
- *Gigaminx*: Mean of 3.
- *Helicopter Cube*: Average of 5.
- *Megaminx*: Average of 5.
- *Pyraminx*: Average of 12. (It's okay to use a version without trivial tips.)
- *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.


----------



## fanwuq (May 29, 2009)

Yes!!! Finally I won't suck!

2x2x2: 6.67 7.36	7.08	7.97	9.52	8.25	8.03	6.23	5.3	7.78	6.55	5.59
Average: 7.15
A bit better than expected. I forgot Ortega because I haven't done this in a long time. Most of them are LBL, I think 4 are CLL.

3x3x3: 15.83 18.49 18.81 15.97 22.05 19.17 16.73 18.88 16.47 15.58 18.2 17.8
Average: 17.64
Could be better. 

5x5x5: expect 2:30

Clock: expect 30s

Results will be posted soon.
I might do megaminx, dino cube, and gigaminx, but I don't feel like using gelatinbrain.

Edit:
Pyraminx:
Singles: 12.11	10.70	9.31	3.56	15.53	14.31	9.98	11.00	12.84	9.00	10.03	8.73
Average: 10.801
Jfly's simulator. No rotation is quite annoying. I also had to solve the tips.

Edit 2: 
I could resist the urge to do 4x4 No longer:
58.11 1:10.30 1:08.72 58.41 1:19.42
Average: 1:05.810
This is pretty good for me. 2 sub-60s in one average is very nice. The last one was just bad, I didn't focus.


----------



## Sa967St (May 29, 2009)

I'll just be doing 3x3x3, that's all I practice right now.

*3x3x3: 16.47*
18.27, (12.89), 20.17, 17.03, 15.89, 18.10, 16.52, 13.71, (25.73), 14.29, 13.59, 16.17

I need to work on my consistency @[email protected]


----------



## byu (May 29, 2009)

*3x3x3*
25.17, 29.18, 26.12, 30.12, (36.19), 29.11, (24.36), 26.12, 27.19, 25.43, 26.19, 27.85 = 27.25

Michael, can I help you tally scores at the end of each month? I have an idea that I'm working on for points (similar to 4c in weekly comp)

*2x2x2*
10.35, 9.38, 12.34, (15.36), 10.19, (8.53), 10.35, 11.16, 11.19, 10.35, 11.12, 11.36 = 10.78

*3x3x3 BLD*
DNF, 4:15.36, DNF, DNF, 5:36.12 = 4:15.36


----------



## Ethan Rosen (May 29, 2009)

It's a bit late to think right now, but I'll do clock, super-x, heli cube, dino cube, pyra, and maybe a couple of others.


----------



## qqwref (May 29, 2009)

byu said:


> Michael, can I help you tally scores at the end of each month? I have an idea that I'm working on for points (similar to 4c in weekly comp)



You can help me out if I need help, but I probably won't since I can't imagine more than (say) 50 people doing this. I won't be doing points in the sense of the weekly competition, though - you will only get points for coming in the top 3 (or so... depends on the weighting) in an event, not just for participating. It shouldn't be convoluted, like the weekly competition one is.


----------



## qqwref (May 29, 2009)

I'm putting my competition results here. I'll do more events later 

*2x2x2* - 6.73 5.22 4.61 4.61 4.03 4.75 5.54 4.01 5.51 (3.57) 5.74 (12.96) = 5.08
Pretty good. Messed up an alg on the last one.
*3x3x3* - (18.65) 13.37 12.13 10.90 (9.26) 13.10 13.02 11.16 14.28 12.82 14.54 15.16 = 13.05
9.26 was OLLskip.
*4x4x4* - (1:02.45) 43.35 43.72 44.41 (35.71) = 43.83
35.71  woot
*5x5x5* - (1:30.84) 1:07.74 (1:02.43) 1:13.61 1:10.16 = 1:10.50
Normal average, on the 1:30 I messed up on a G-perm
*6x6x6* - 2:15.17 2:15.25 (2:19.37) 2:13.84 (2:05.96) = 2:14.75
Meh.
*7x7x7* - 3:12.31 (2:48.71) 3:12.46 (3:20.97) 3:17.93 = 3:14.23
2:48! Awesooooome!
*Clock (3x3)* - 9.734 10.365 12.258 8.272 14.661 15.202 (8.172) 9.654 10.585 10.065 8.993 (20.980) = 10.979
Totally failed a couple of solves :|
*Clock (5x5)* - 33.388 30.314 31.215 32.988 33.047 30.744 (34.059) 30.393 28.311 (28.290) 29.933 29.923 = 31.026
I was worried about not getting any sub30s and then I got 4 in a row 
*Dino Cube* - 10 9 11 11 13 11 10 12 13 (6) (13) 9 = 10.9
Not bad.
*Gigaminx* - 11:11 9:36 11:56 = 10:54.3
Whoa, I got a sub-10  Didn't expect that!
*Helicopter Cube* - (1:06) 51 (37) 42 43 = 45.3
Really bad beginning.
*Megaminx* - 1:17 1:20 (1:28) (1:14) 1:17 = 1:18.0
Good.
*Pyraminx*: 9 12 10 11 12 13 11 11 (8) (16) 10 11 = 11.0
Should be easy to beat ;-) Used the gelatinbrain version, which doesn't have tips.
*Skewb*: 17 26 15 19 (12) 16 16 22 30 (35) 18 20 = 19.9
I should probably learn Tryczak. Still sub20 though 
*Square-1*: 38.50 46.22 40.29 (53.23) (27.25) = 41.67
Not that bad  The 27 had just opp-opp on both sides for EP.
*Super-X* - (2:04) 1:30 (1:27) 1:40 2:00 = 1:43.3
2:04 and 2:00 had parity.


----------



## Faz (May 29, 2009)

*2x2:* 8.61, 8.20, 5.61, 7.41, 8.69, 6.44, (4.91), 5.70, 6.02, (10.74), 5.49, 7.19 = *6.94*

Decent

*3x3: *25.63, 23.91, (38.81), 21.08, (19.44), 31.08, 29.66, 20.81, 24.77, 26.81, 20.95, 21.67 = *24.64*

ifailatcopmutercubeslolz


----------



## alifiantoadinugroho (May 29, 2009)

I just learned clock.. Don't laugh if I get bad times ><

*Clock* = 29.156, 27.391, 34.156, 32.984, 28.375, 28.125, 26.766, 27.547, 29.313, 28.078, 29.718, 28.766
Average = 28.531


----------



## Robert-Y (May 29, 2009)

2x2x2: 4.14, 5.15, 6.61, 5.31, 4.37, 5.94, 6.89, 5.16, 4.74, 2.59, 7.98, 3.07 => 5.14

3x3x3: Good first half, but gave up near the end because it was getting bad (Mainly because of 5 secs inspection, so sometimes did not see cross. Best time was 8.98 not lucky) Next time, I'll use the original cube simulator.

4x4x4:

1. 41.28 (P)
2. 43.51 (O)
3. 41.50 (O&P)
4. 37.41
5. 39.92 (O)

=> 40.90

Surprisingly bad for me...

5x5x5:

1. 1:07.79
2. 1:19.84
3. 1:10.30 (PLL skip)
4. 1:12.53
5. 1:10.71

=> 1:11.18

Dammit, you win this time Michael... 

EDIT: Oh fudge. I didn't read the rules. I thought you weren't allowed to warm up. Oh well, I'll just wait for the next competition.


----------



## SimonWestlund (May 29, 2009)

2x2: *7.26*
6.63, 8.14, (11.31), 6.67, 4.47, 3.99, 6.97, 8.67, 6.47, 7.52, 6.89, 10.19

3x3:* 29.53*
27.22, 26.97, (38.39), 26.77, 35.78, (24.22), 27.55, 28.72, 34.56, 25.11

clock: *18.91*
18.21, (21.92), 17.51, 20.03, 19.39, 20.23, 18.93, 17.60, 17.62, (15.98), 19.57, 20.03

bah! I suck!


----------



## edw0010 (May 30, 2009)

Ok so i did the 2x2x2 twice because it was my first time so its only for laughs, i couldn't be bothered with the averages so ill just post my times.

Round1
4:57.69, 2:21.80, 1:03.29, 1:16.34, 41.72, 30.86, 38.23, 35.37, 32.87, 44.14, 45.59, 30.63

Round2
28.21, 21.68, 18.37, 31.86, 26.08, 27.39, 41.76, 24.82, 14.85, 16.11, 21.06, 19.40

All done in the space of 24 hours


----------



## Ethan Rosen (May 30, 2009)

super-x: 1:20 (67 moves) (1:09) (60 moves) 1:45 (82 moves, parity) (2:30) (89 moves, bad parity 1:32 (62 moves)

These were all pretty bad

Average: 1:32.33
Meh

Dino Cube:
:13 :12 :11 :14 :09 :13 :14 :14 18) :15 :13 6)

Average: 12.8


----------



## DavidWoner (May 31, 2009)

5x5 clock plz


----------



## qqwref (May 31, 2009)

Haha, okay, I'll add it


----------



## masterofthebass (May 31, 2009)

2x2: 8.31, (21.60), 4.03, 7.54, (2.69), 8.42, 6.06, 9.53, 10.04, 5.72, 5.98, 7.56 = 7.31

3x3: 17.71, 20.42, (9.49), 14.33, 17.78, 14.70, 16.69, (24.74), 16.17, 15.07, 14.79, 12.36 = 16.00
w00t! finally sub10. (PLLskip)

4x4: 56.86, (52.21), (59.35), 54.16, 56.71 = 55.91

5x5: (1:32.49), (1:18.28), 1:22.00, 1:22.26, 1:28.26 = 1:24.17


----------



## qqwref (May 31, 2009)

I updated the first post - it should contain all times posted so far, ranked appropriately.

Simon Westlund, you only did ten 3x3 solves... do you want to give it another try?  I'd be OK with it.


----------



## rcnrcn927 (Jun 1, 2009)

You have to use virtual cubes? If so, can you use gabbasoft? And I'll probably be in, but will only do 2x2-7x7 for now.


----------



## qqwref (Jun 1, 2009)

Uh, yes, you DO have to use virtual cubes... since it's a computer cube competition. Gabbasoft is a virtual cube and therefore completely fine.


----------



## rcnrcn927 (Jun 1, 2009)

I'll be doing definitely 2x2 and 3x3, maybe bigger if I get around to it.


----------



## Jude (Jun 1, 2009)

2x2x2: DNF, DNF, DNF, DNF, 5.52, 7.91, DNF, DNF, DNF, DNF, 7.31 = DNF --> _LOL NICE!! I know all but like 6 or 7 of the CLLs (ones with funny rotations) on computer 2x2x2, and every solve except 3 I got one of those few... Awesome... P.S. Anyone know a 2x2x2 sim like hi-games but with longer inspection? I can't see FL in that time.. _


----------



## MistArts (Jun 1, 2009)

*5x5 Clock:* 56.757, (1:06.900), 56.162, 49.589, 58.048, 52.130, 52.614, 53.893, 51.158, 52.182, 48.144, (47.554) = 53.068


----------



## qqwref (Jun 1, 2009)

Jude said:


> Anyone know a 2x2x2 sim like hi-games but with longer inspection? I can't see FL in that time...



Then you shouldn't be doing CLL...?

Try CuboidSim. It gives you up to 15 seconds of inspection and you can also start turning whenever you want. (Now that I think of it, I probably should've used this for my 2x2 solves. Oh well.)


----------



## Jude (Jun 1, 2009)

qqwref said:


> Jude said:
> 
> 
> > Anyone know a 2x2x2 sim like hi-games but with longer inspection? I can't see FL in that time...
> ...



Meh, I can see FL fine in real life, I just have difficulty seeing it on the online cube in only 5 seconds. I don't really fancy using a different method for online cubes than I do for real life. I suppose it doesn't help I only use 2 cube rotation keys ('y' and 'a')...



qqwref said:


> Try CuboidSim. It gives you up to 15 seconds of inspection and you can also start turning whenever you want. (Now that I think of it, I probably should've used this for my 2x2 solves. Oh well.)



Excuse me if I'm missing something obvious, but isn't that a 3x3x3 simulator? Or do you mean just using the corners of it for 2x2x2?


----------



## qqwref (Jun 1, 2009)

It's a cuboid simulator (did you not notice the name?). You can change the number of layers on each axis in the "options" menu. It's just the default that is 3x3x3...


----------



## Jude (Jun 1, 2009)

qqwref said:


> It's a cuboid simulator (did you not notice the name?). You can change the number of layers on each axis in the "options" menu. It's just the default that is 3x3x3...



Hmm, not sure how I managed to miss that, I'll do my solves on there next week. Thanks for replying, but you don't have to be so condescending..


----------



## blade740 (Jun 1, 2009)

Gigaminx: 32:42, 28:08, 26:02 => 28:57.3 almost forgot to add this in <_<


----------



## Ethan Rosen (Jun 1, 2009)

More gelatinbrain
Pyraminx
:11 :13 :10 :18 :16 :13 :14 :12 20) :13 :14 10)
Average = 13.4
That's what I get for using gelatinbrain 

3x3 clock (I'm as bad as this virtually as I am on a real one )

43.313 (54.350) 46.592 44.461 49.161 48.239 45.046 44.809 52.451 (38.107) 44.801 47.269
I suck
Average: 46.621

Heli cube: 2:33 (2:05) (New PB!) (2:36) 2:07 2:27
Average: 2:22.33

Gigaminx and megaminx still to come

Edit: I figured I would do 2x2 on GB as well. Note that the turning on gb isn't even remotely smooth, I can't do all of the ortega algs on it, and there is no inspection time

2x2:
18 16 14 20 14 (10) 20 14 (21) 14 18 13
Average: 16.1


----------



## Mike Hughey (Jun 1, 2009)

Time to bring the quality of this competition down.  Sorry, Michael, but I can't resist a competition, no matter how bad I am at it.

I did them all!

*2x2x2:* 1:07.78, 1:11.26, 48.98, (2:07.97), 39.48, 47.50, 1:16.81, 1:40.33, 36.16, 49.58, (26.95), 27.17 = *56.505*
Comment: Yes! Sub-minute! On a 2x2x2. How pathetic. It's starting to get a little better, though.
*3x3x3:* 2:14.87, (4:06.47), 2:44.69, 1:32.06, 1:47.47, 1:50.95, 1:49.61, 1:55.42, (1:30.89), 2:28.94, 1:40.66, 1:32.11 = *1:57.678*
Comment: Not even any real sign of improvement. Very sad.
*4x4x4:* (9:54.93), 6:03.01, 9:17.83 (OP), 8:46.38 (OP), (5:01.07) = *8:02.406*
Comment: My first 5 successful 4x4x4 computer solves ever, I think. Wow, 7x7x7 is going to take a LOOOOONG time!  (And I shudder to think what gigaminx will be like.)
*5x5x5:* (14:09.66), 11:00.63, 9:59.76, (8:45.14), 9:19.95 = *10:06.78*
Comment: Aww, almost sub-10.
*6x6x6:* 25:13.94, 20:49.05 (P), (17:33.76), 18:07.20 (P), (26:24.24) (OP) = *21:23.3967*
Comment: I thought I was starting to get better at it, and then I hit OLL parity on the last solve. It took me four tries to get it right. 
*7x7x7:* (30:32.69), 23:32.51, 21:33.77, 20:21.75, (18:24.67) = *21:49.3433*
Comment: Aww, almost beat my 6x6x6 time! Since the color schemes are so unfamiliar to me, evens are much harder for me than odds. And I finally started figuring out a good way to avoid handshifting, which really sped me up. After all this practice on the big cubes, my 3x3x3 times are going to be LOTS better next month!
*3x3x3 BLD:* DNF, 8:45.77, 6:15.32 (2:41), 5:50.32 (2:30), DNF = *5:50.32*
Comment: I used Ryan Heise's old simulator that supports BLD. It was very frustrating to use because there's no way to see where you went wrong when you mess up. But it sure is thrilling when it lights up after you successfully solve it! I did about 7 DNFs before I finally got a succesful solve (until I got one, I was starting to think maybe it was broken - "Surely that one wasn't a DNF!" ), and after that first successful solve, I did these five. It's also much harder not having a way to do a B or B' turn. That really hurts.
*Clock (3x3):* (1:18.58), 1:01.73, 59.27, 48.58, 53.48, 50.41, 45.37, 36.58, 44.31, 38.87, 39.00, (34.20) = *47.76*
Comment: At least I improved as I went.
*Clock (5x5):* (10:53.16), 7:09.27, 5:11.70, 3:35.71, 2:48.06, 2:31.53, 2:39.25, 2:39.93, 2:33.68, (2:06.40), 2:23.38, 2:24.00 = *3:23.651*
Comment: Umm, so you can see I actually figured out how to solve the thing around solve 5. As you can probably guess, these were my first 12 ever 5x5 clock attempts.
*Dino Cube:* (9:45), 9:03, 3:09, 2:03, 2:57, 6:14, 1:47, 1:34, 1:20, 1:03, 2:51, (37) = *3:12.10*
Comment: My first 12 tries at a dino cube. I finally started to understand a proper way to solve it towards the end. I still get so confused with which direction it's going to turn when I click it.
*Gigaminx:* 59:48, 44:31, 38:45 = *47:41.333*
Comment: Wow, this wasn't as hard as I expected it to be. I quickly discovered that AVG edgematching works fantastically well on gigaminx; that made it so easy. The problem was I was trying to do it the same way you do AVG on 5x5x5, which is a mistake because it's so hard to find those little middle edge pieces. I realize now I should do things with a floating buffer, so I don't have to look for the little bitty pieces. (Pick a middle edge, then find the wing to go with it.) I was very happy though that I got 8th place on gelatinbrain for fewest moves; AVG is very efficient on gigaminx!
*Helicopter Cube:* (56:49), 15:55, 9:02, (8:05), 10:19 = *11:50.333*
Comment: Wow - being able to throw out first and last really helps on this one! I'm afraid I'll forget all my algorithms by next month. 
*Megaminx:* (36:20), 13:09, 12:03, 12:23, (10:44) = *12:31.667*
Comment: I did the first one with jfly's sim. Then I realized I couldn't handle that, and besides, if there's any hope of me doing gigaminx, it will be with gelatinbrain, so I might as well get used to it, so I switched to gelatinbrain. As frustrating as it is that the mouse clicks on gelatinbrain seem intuitively backwards to me (Was it written by a left-hander? It seems like I choose the wrong direction 90% of the time, unless I consciously think about it), I'm still much better with the mouse than with the keyboard. I noticed that my last time would put me 26th if I had logged in and submitted it (I guess I should have done that - I'll start doing it now), and my move count was actually 232 - 16th place!
*Pyraminx:* 7:30.98, 1:13.83, 50.84, 2:39.60, 27.41, (6.44), 2:51.51, 54.93, 16.56, 2:55.28, 1:53.43, (DNS) = *2:09.437*
Comment: I felt like I needed to use jfly's sim because it felt like cheating to not use the tips. (I know Michael said it was okay, but I still wanted to do the tips.) But I have a terrible time being unable to rotate it. For Pyraminx, I just can't think through them; all my algorithms are in muscle memory only, since I practice it so little. The sub-minute solves required the algorithms I know how to do with fixed orientation; the others required me using the mouse to drag the puzzle into a position where I could see it, and then playing with the keys until I could figure out which key went with which tip.
*Skewb:* (49:31), 43:54, 36:42, 3:49, 3:25, 2:04, 1:34, 3:12, 2:21, (1:15), 2:05, 1:21 = *10:02.70*
Comment: Guess where I finally figured out a system?  I knew from something I had heard before that skewb was a lot like pyraminx. I really just lucked into the first solve - I solved 4 corners plus centers (like I would on a pyraminx), and the other 4 corners just happened to be right. Really outrageously lucky. For the second solve, I knew how to solve the first 4 corners plus centers right away, but didn't get lucky. So for a while I just scrambled and tried again, over and over. By the end of that solve, I figured out how to do 2 2-cycles of the remaining corners, ignoring orientation. So then I got lucky and the orientation eventually came out. On the third one, I finally decided I needed to find a way to twist two corners when I had just two corners twisted. So I started trying things and eventually found a long, tedious algorithm for that. After that, it was easy.  Now I guess I need to learn a more speedsolving-friendly way to solve it. But it was fun figuring it out.
*Square-1:* (4:35.96), 2:06.34, 1:57.85, (1:35.84), 4:09.94 (P) = *2:44.71*
Comment: Wow, square-1 actually isn't all that hard to do on a computer! Much easier than a 3x3x3, in my opinion. I made mistakes on algorithms in the two bad solves and had to essentially solve twice. With a little practice, I might be as good here as on the physical puzzle.
*Super-X:* (1:07.00), 25:45 (P), 18:19, 20:13 (P), (8:41) = *21:25.667*
Comment: Whew - I'm glad I managed that. It was really scary for a while - it took me a while to see the 3-piece commutators. But once I saw them, it wasn't too bad. For parity, I guessed right away that if I just did a quarter turn of a face and then solved again piece by piece, it would fix the parity, so I just did that. I can see why Ethan might call it annoying.


----------



## qqwref (Jun 1, 2009)

Jude said:


> qqwref said:
> 
> 
> > It's a cuboid simulator (did you not notice the name?). You can change the number of layers on each axis in the "options" menu. It's just the default that is 3x3x3...
> ...



Sorry, I guess I just expected that you'd be a bit more patient with it, and thought you were kind of lazy for just immediately assuming it only did 3x3. The first thing I do when I see a new simulator is to play with it and explore all the things it can do, and if someone gave me a link to a simulator in response to a question about where to find a 2x2 one, the first thing I'd look for would be the 2x2 option. Sorry for being condescending.



Mike Hughey said:


> Time to bring the quality of this competition down.  Sorry, Michael, but I can't resist a competition, no matter how bad I am at it.



I don't mind at all  This competition is in no way only for the fastest people.


----------



## tsaoenator (Jun 2, 2009)

Andy Tsao
2x2x2: maybe coming soon
3x3x3: 12.34, (10.26), 11.14, 11.46, 10.59, 11.04, (12.83), 12.63, 10.63, 10.59, 11.05, 11.99 = 11.35
4x4x4: (37.99), 42.62, (46.85), 44.09, 40.83 = 42.51

I haven't done computer solves in a while...


----------



## Robert-Y (Jun 2, 2009)

The tsaoenator is back! 

I still haven't beaten your 9.93 avg on the original cube sim  (I don't really care about Garzon. I assume he's a cheater)


----------



## tsaoenator (Jun 2, 2009)

Well you're pretty close. Let's race to see which of us can beat Garzon first.


----------



## Ethan Rosen (Jun 2, 2009)

Gigaminx: 28:30 24:32 23:30 
Average: 25:30.667


----------



## Robert-Y (Jun 2, 2009)

3x3: 10.26, 10.80, 14.37, 10.55, 9.22, 11.35, 12.51, 12.66, 12.20, 11.72, 9.15, 10.94

=> 11.221

Comment: Didn't perform that well during the second half. I couldn't immediately spot my first f2l pair on the 14 and on some 12s. I had an easy oll + cross perm on the 9.15. (RL U2 R'L' y' R'L' U2 RL. Very good computer PLL alg ). All non lucky (well except maybe some crosses).



tsaoenator said:


> Well you're pretty close. Let's race to see which of us can beat Garzon first.



It wont be either of us, it'll be Harris  Who knows, he might make a come back


----------



## trying-to-speedcube... (Jun 2, 2009)

2x2: 6.44 6.74 9.19 7.20 (16.83) 9.11 10.08 12.56 7.34 12.69 10.33 (6.19) = 9.17 *Sub-10 *
3x3: 28.55 27.05 24.00 33.80 36.88 (44.78) 24.45 27.69 26.39 (22.66) 41.50 28.80 = 29.91 *Sub-30 *
4x4: 2:18.45 (2:49.50) 2:19.22 2:47.48 (2:16.05) = 2:28.38 *Yay.*
Square-1: (193.02) 179.53 100.75 (79.94) 82.30 = 120.86


----------



## Robert-Y (Jun 3, 2009)

Hmm... we could also do OH, but I'm not sure if this will be a popular event.


----------



## fanwuq (Jun 3, 2009)

Robert,
Have you thought about change the keyboard layout so that it could be good for OH? Or perhaps use Isocubesim or Gabbasoft instead?

Michael,
Why is this Monthly? It should be weekly or bi-weekly. Don't make me do gigaminx. 
Monthly would give me more than enough time to do all the events, but some of these puzzles I just don't want to touch.


----------



## Robert-Y (Jun 3, 2009)

No I haven't thought about changing the keyboard layout. I'm assuming that Andy didn't change his keyboard layout when he did his sub-15 OH avg, but I don't know...


----------



## Mike Hughey (Jun 3, 2009)

fanwuq said:


> Michael,
> Why is this Monthly? It should be weekly or bi-weekly. Don't make me do gigaminx.
> Monthly would give me more than enough time to do all the events, but some of these puzzles I just don't want to touch.


Well, I know my opinion shouldn't count much because I'm so bad at this, but I very much prefer monthly. Precisely because since it's monthly, I'll get to eventually do all the events. I'm very much looking forward to gigaminx (in an extremely masochistic sort of way).


----------



## qqwref (Jun 3, 2009)

I updated the first post. Let me know if I've missed anything 



fanwuq said:


> Michael,
> Why is this Monthly? It should be weekly or bi-weekly. Don't make me do gigaminx.
> Monthly would give me more than enough time to do all the events, but some of these puzzles I just don't want to touch.



The reason this is monthly is because I have no idea how much interest it will generate. If it picks up, I'll consider making it happen more often. And don't do gigaminx unless you want to... at least you aren't doing as much as Mike Hughey, who does three 4x4BLDs, three 5x5BLDs, a 6x6BLD, and a 7x7BLD every week, and apparently wants to do all the events in this competition too! (Much respect, Mike.) Just doing one gigaminx solve every week or so will make you improve quite a bit, by the way. Eidolon had a PB of over an hour a few weeks ago, and then he did (iirc) two solves for fun and three for this competition, and now his best time is 26 minutes.



Robert-Y said:


> No I haven't thought about changing the keyboard layout. I'm assuming that Andy didn't change his keyboard layout when he did his sub-15 OH avg, but I don't know...



I don't think he did. His solves have a lot of stuff that says he used a normal layout and pretty much kept his hand on one side of the keyboard.


And Mike: You may think you're bad at everything, but you almost beat Ethan Rosen at 3x3 clock... maybe if you had done a few more practice solves


----------



## Mike Hughey (Jun 3, 2009)

qqwref said:


> ... apparently wants to do all the events in this competition too!


Yes, I do, although admittedly I'm a little scared by the remaining ones I've never tried. (Helicopter cube, super-X, skewb, and of course gigaminx.) I want to do them all without practice solves. I hope I can figure out how to do them when I actually try them.



qqwref said:


> And Mike: You may think you're bad at everything, but you almost beat Ethan Rosen at 3x3 clock... maybe if you had done a few more practice solves


Huh. And he's even better than me at clock with the real thing (which admittedly doesn't take much). (Not to mention that he's really good at computer cubes.) It's a real surprise to me I almost caught him. But Ethan, you still beat me - congratulations!


----------



## Robert-Y (Jun 3, 2009)

Hey, I've thought of another category...

3x3x3 no rotations at all (including inspection) average of 5 . I've tried it a few times, it's not actually too difficult, the hardest part I found was when you have to use B moves, but it's not much of a problem after some practice.


----------



## fanwuq (Jun 3, 2009)

Robert-Y said:


> Hey, I've thought of another category...
> 
> 3x3x3 no rotations at all (including inspection) average of 5 . I've tried it a few times, it's not actually too difficult, the hardest part I found was when you have to use B moves, but it's not much of a problem after some practice.



That's pointless, not hard at all. In fact, that's how I did my pyraminx solves this competition. You can't rotate in Jfly's pyraminx simulator.


----------



## Robert-Y (Jun 3, 2009)

fanwuq said:


> Robert-Y said:
> 
> 
> > Hey, I've thought of another category...
> ...



Oh wait, I forgot, I'm talking about Ryan's original cube simulator if that changes anything...

EDIT: Yay, just did a 10.41


----------



## qqwref (Jun 3, 2009)

Uh, that's not a new puzzle or event at all. That's just a silly way of doing a normal puzzle. Not adding it (or OH).


----------



## Robert-Y (Jun 3, 2009)

... Ok

Btw, is anyone else going to do BLD (apart from maybe Spef)?


----------



## Mike Hughey (Jun 3, 2009)

Robert-Y said:


> ... Ok
> 
> Btw, is anyone else going to do BLD (apart from maybe Spef)?



I already said I intend to, but I'm waiting a little while because I think if I did it right now, I'd make too many keystroke mistakes and blow it. I want to at least have a chance at success. I still too often get confused about which key to hit when making moves.


----------



## Ethan Rosen (Jun 4, 2009)

@Mike. Thanks! I strongly recommend solving a few of the easier puzzles before trying the super-x. The reasoning behind this isn't that the super-x is particularly hard, just that the controls for gelatinbrain can be a bit annoying. I do strongly recommend the super-x though.


----------



## masterofthebass (Jun 5, 2009)

Gigaminx: 15:53, (16:33), (14:14) = 15:33.33

Super-X: 2:45, 2:56, DNF (parity), 4:28, 3:18 = 2:45


----------



## MatsBergsten (Jun 5, 2009)

Robert-Y said:


> ... Ok
> 
> Btw, is anyone else going to do BLD (apart from maybe Spef)?


I tried but I cannot turn the cube and make the moves sufficiently good.
I realize I would rather practice on a real cube.


----------



## Ethan Rosen (Jun 6, 2009)

Ok this is probably my last one

Megaminx: 4:34 (4:52) 4:48 (4:02) 4:26
Average: 4:36


----------



## Jude (Jun 6, 2009)

qqwref said:


> Sorry, I guess I just expected that you'd be a bit more patient with it, and thought you were kind of lazy for just immediately assuming it only did 3x3. The first thing I do when I see a new simulator is to play with it and explore all the things it can do, and if someone gave me a link to a simulator in response to a question about where to find a 2x2 one, the first thing I'd look for would be the 2x2 option. Sorry for being condescending.



Good response. Seriously, despite clearly losing the 'argument', it made me smile. Nh sir.

Edit: Forgot 'nh' is not a commonly used acronym. It means 'nice hand' and is used in Poker when you are outplayed.


----------



## Lt-UnReaL (Jun 7, 2009)

2x2: 5.76, (2.67), (9.23), 5.67, 9.00, 6.47, 3.88, 4.86, 5.34, 8.25, 2.76, 6.38
5.837 avg

3x3: 19.02, (24.25), 19.66, 21.89, 18.26, 21.02, 20.11, (15.99), 19.25, 19.93, 16.77, 23.49
19.940 avg


----------



## Mike Hughey (Jun 24, 2009)

I just wanted to say that I did them all! I suspect that will be a lot easier next month. (Unless Michael decides to add a bunch of new puzzles next month.)

I was very happy that I was able to solve them all. For most of them, I counted my first attempt, just to make it more challenging.


----------



## qqwref (Jun 25, 2009)

I updated the front post. Really nice job for doing all the puzzles Mike  I think I'm going to try 3BLD just so I can share that with you, but I doubt I'll succeed 

By the way, I only see 11 pyraminx solves in your post. So your 7:30 is unfortunately counting. (Or you could just do another solve.)


----------



## Ethan Rosen (Jun 25, 2009)

@Mike:
First off, nice job solving everything!
Second, a faster way to do Parity on super-x is to do a Jperm and then resolve. I take no credit for this btw, it was qqwref's idea


----------



## Mike Hughey (Jun 25, 2009)

Ethan Rosen said:


> @Mike:
> First off, nice job solving everything!


Thank you - I have to admit I'm really rather proud of it.  Although admittedly it's totally nothing compared to all the computer puzzles you've solved.


Ethan Rosen said:


> Second, a faster way to do Parity on super-x is to do a Jperm and then resolve. I take no credit for this btw, it was qqwref's idea


That's nice. That would definitely make a big difference - half the work!


----------



## Mike Hughey (Jun 29, 2009)

Huh. I can't believe I only did 11 pyraminx solves.  I hate DNFs - especially when they're for something that stupid. It's funny - I threw out best and worst, totaled the other 9, and then divided by 10. And the average was way better, since my first solve was SO BAD. Oh well, maybe I'll do better next month.

My goal next month: to not be last place among non-DNFs in at least one event, for a change.


----------



## qqwref (Jul 3, 2009)

Okay, sorry for not updating earlier, but the final update is now 

I did five BLD solves, but they were all DNFs 

These are the final rankings. I've decided that I'm going to give out points as follows:
- In every event, the top five places get 6, 4, 3, 2, and 1 point(s) respectively.
- If there are not five competitors in an event, any prizes not handed out are discarded, and not divided among the winners of that event.
- A DNF receives no points, even if it was in the top 5 results.
So, here are the final results, and then the rankings for all events:

*Final Results*
*1:* qqwref - 86 points!!!
*2:* Mike Hughey - 39 points!!
*3:* Ethan Rosen - 26 points!
4: Robert-Y: 20 points
5: masterofthebass: 14 points
6: tsaoenator & fanwuq: 8 points
8: byu: 6 points
9: MistArts, SimonWestlund, & trying-to-speedcube...: 4 points
12: Lt-UnReaL & alifiantoadinugroho: 3 points
14: blade740 & fazrulz: 2 points
16: Sa67St: 1 point
17: edw0010 & Jude: no points

Individual events:

```
[B]2x2[/B]
1. qqwref: 5.075
2. Robert-Y: 5.138
3. Lt-UnReaL: 5.837
4. fazrulz: 6.936
5. fanwuq: 7.151
6. SimonWestlund: 7.262
7. masterofthebass: 7.319
8. trying-to-speedcube...: 9.168
9. byu: 10.779
10. Ethan Rosen: 16.1
11. edw0010: 23.498
12. Mike Hughey: 56.505
13. Jude: DNF

[B]3x3[/B]
1. Robert-Y: 11.221
2. tsaoenator: 11.346
3. qqwref: 13.048
4. masterofthebass: 16.002
5. Sa67St: 16.374
6. fanwuq: 17.635
7. Lt-UnReaL: 19.940
8. fazrulz: 24.637
9. byu: 27.248
10. trying-to-speedcube...: 29.911
11. Mike Hughey: 1:57.678
12. SimonWestlund: DNF

[B]4x4[/B]
1. Robert-Y: 40.900
2. tsaoenator: 42.513
3. qqwref: 43.827
4. masterofthebass: 55.910
5. fanwuq: 1:05.810
6. trying-to-speedcube...: 2:28.383
7. Mike Hughey: 8:02.407

[B]5x5[/B]
1. qqwref: 1:10.503
2. Robert-Y: 1:11.180
3. masterofthebass: 1:24.173
4. Mike Hughey: 10:06.780

[B]6x6[/B]
1. qqwref: 2:14.753
2. Mike Hughey: 21:23.397

[B]7x7[/B]
1. qqwref: 3:14.233
2. Mike Hughey: 21:49.343

[B]3x3 BLD[/B]
1. byu: 4:15.36
2. Mike Hughey: 5:50.32
3. qqwref: DNF

[B]Clock (3x3)[/B]
1. qqwref: 10.9789
2. SimonWestlund: 18.912
3. alifiantoadinugroho: 28.9453
4. Ethan Rosen: 46.6142
5. Mike Hughey: 47.760

[B]Clock (5x5)[/B]
1. qqwref: 31.0256
2. MistArts: 53.0677
3. Mike Hughey: 3:23.651

[B]Dino Cube[/B]
1. qqwref: 10.9
2. Ethan Rosen: 12.8
3. Mike Hughey: 3:12.1

[B]Gigaminx[/B]
1. qqwref: 10:54.3
2. masterofthebass: 15:33.3
3. Ethan Rosen: 25:30.7
4. blade740: 28:57.3
5. Mike Hughey: 47:41.3

[B]Helicopter Cube[/B]
1. qqwref: 45.3
2. Ethan Rosen: 2:22.3
3. Mike Hughey: 11:45.3

[B]Megaminx[/B]
1. qqwref: 1:18.0
2. Ethan Rosen: 4:36.0
3. Mike Hughey: 12:31.7

[B]Pyraminx[/B]
1. fanwuq: 10.801
2. qqwref: 11.0
3. Ethan Rosen: 13.4
4. Mike Hughey: 2:09.437

[B]Skewb[/B]
1. qqwref: 19.9
2. Mike Hughey: 10:02.7

[B]Square-1[/B]
1. qqwref: 41.670
2. trying-to-speedcube...: 2:00.860
3. Mike Hughey: 2:44.710

[B]Super-X[/B]
1. Ethan Rosen: 1:32.3
2. qqwref: 1:43.3
3. masterofthebass: 3:34.0
4. Mike Hughey: 21:25.7
```


----------



## Mike Hughey (Jul 3, 2009)

I think maybe the point system is a little off. I came in last place in every event (other than DNFs), and often I was a factor of ten away from the next person, and I still came in second overall. A little ridiculous, I think. Maybe last place for an event shouldn't get points, no matter how many people compete. Or something - I mean, this is ridiculous!

If you have another competition this month, I hope to do better than last, so there's room for me to improve. I've gotten a lot better on most of them since this competition.


----------



## qqwref (Jul 3, 2009)

You might have been many times slower than the first-place person, but still, the first-place person was the only person who managed to beat you. If nobody else put in the effort to solve the puzzle, you deserve to have a few extra points on them. It's like in an official competition: only one or two people may solve 4x4BLD or 5x5BLD, but no matter how slow they are they still receive prizes, because nobody else even completed the event.


----------



## Mike Hughey (Jul 3, 2009)

Well, thanks for setting this whole thing up (and for having another competition this month). I'm slowly climbing the charts on some of the gelatinbrain puzzles - it's fun!


----------

