# QuadLeaks & The Gosbee "notice i said the way i do it and not my method" Method



## Quadrescence (Dec 30, 2010)

The following is an email to the great *Dan Gosbee* (also known as *d*) who invented modern cube competition, and his response. All of it is verbatim, except for two removals to avoid personally identifying information --- these emails were neither sent nor received by me.

​ 
---------------- TO: Dan Gosbee ---------------- 

Hey Dan, I'm wondering about your rubiks cube method. What steps does  
it entail? 

Thanks. 


---------------- FROM: Dan Gosbee ---------------- 

do you always interupt without identifying your name or source of 
obtaining ones email address??? 

who the hell are you and what are you talking about????????????? 

<_name removed_>, hello, 

hmmm.....thats another item they had no authorization to do on that 
web site......I will be taking care of that....as well there was no 
wca during the wc2003 event fyi........ 

I will give you the info you are asking for "only" because you took 
the time to hunt me down.....i have attached marc's watermans bottom 4 
corner algorythms.........some dont work(you have to figure out which 
ones) . 

I am very suprised someone would be sending me an email especially 
since I have no involvement in the cube world for various reasons and 
i will not engage in any conversation regarding the reasons why.... 

but thats all a long story i will not discuss.... 

methods....another issue i have but anyway...are you looking to learn 
the corners methods? 

waterman's does all 8 corners and then the edges of the top side (not 
in any particular order)......once that is done the cube is rotated 
and the remaining 8 edges are done using slice moves......in pairs ie 
insert 2 edges at a time.....for the bottom layer corners, he uses 
corner positioning versus myself using patterns as the look ahead 
move..... 

the way i do it is: notice i said the way i do it and not my method? 
all so called methods used these days including friedrich are derived 
from the original david singmaster book written back in 1980'ish... 

I do the 8 corners first . usually the first top 4(6-7 moves or less) 
and then all 4 bottom corners in 1 algorythm , however i have 
compilled a series of moves to acheive the last top corner and all 4 
bottom corners in 1 move...... 

after the corners you have the edges only to deal with(you need to 
have the top side and all 8 cotrners done within 10 seconds to get a 
time of around 16-17 seconds...............i can excecute pairs as any 
combination or position of the cube to acheive the edge insertions.... 

therefore: 

all 8 corners first...then pair combinations to insert the top 
edges.........after that only 8 edges are left........once again 
insert pairs into the middle slice or bottom (doesnt matter). once the 
top edges and all corners are done there are only 2 moves to acheive 
complition......however approx 300 algorythms exists for those said 2 
moves...... 

With regards to your cubing method? are you a corners first person or 
f2l.....because if your an f2l it will take about 6 months to focus 
your eyes to recognize the moves ahead.......it takes some time.... 

let me know where your at and I will help you out if you wish. 

ps-where do you live? <_location removed_>? 

d


----------



## DavidWoner (Dec 30, 2010)

Haha, classic d.


----------



## BigSams (Dec 30, 2010)

... so the guy took the time to give you a lengthy response and you put, what he probably believed to be a private email, on a public forum to make fun of him...


----------



## MichaelP. (Dec 30, 2010)

BigSams said:


> ... so the guy took the time to give you a lengthy response and you put, what he probably believed to be a private email, on a public forum to make fun of him...


 
I was thinking the same thing.


----------



## KYLOL (Dec 30, 2010)

You mean Dan *Goon*sbee?
kakakak.
Edit : Don't make me bring my Donkey Kong arm in here Michael P / BigSams. Once I start swinging, I don't stop, So you can run and tell *THAT* homeboy.


----------



## abctoshiro (Dec 30, 2010)

I can't understand what he says...this is what I got. He uses CF and says that he uses an alg to solve the last corner and the other four (like L5C). Please clarify.


----------



## TMOY (Dec 30, 2010)

Well, from this thread we all know that the OP is the fantastic guy who averages sub-6 but will never go to a competition because beating Erik, Rowe and Faz would be way too easy for him and thus no fun.
I wiould really be interested in a publication by Anybodyleaks of a video of him getting a sub-6 average with the Gosbee method.


----------



## Quadrescence (Dec 30, 2010)

Jeez Louise, you people sure don't tolerate anything!



BigSams said:


> ... so the guy took the time to give you a lengthy response and you put, what he probably believed to be a private email, on a public forum to make fun of him...


 
Nope. Read the post again. And you're just interpreting it as making fun of him. I respect the guy. Apparently you don't.



TMOY said:


> Well, from this thread we all know that the OP is the fantastic guy who averages sub-6 but will never go to a competition because beating Erik, Rowe and Faz would be way too easy for him and thus no fun.
> I wiould really be interested in a publication by Anybodyleaks of a video of him getting a sub-6 average with the Gosbee method.


 
I don't use the Gosbee method. And yes, I am quite a fantastic guy, thank you for the compliment!



[abc]toshiro;509021 said:


> I agree with you man. Why does he keep trolling here? He's getting worse, you know. Ya think he will nao get an IP permaban?
> 
> Dear CFOPnotFridrich, whateverSerbia, Pochamnn... Die in a fire. Srsly. It's better than defaming someone, you know.
> 
> Sorry for the rage.


 
How is this trolling? This is genuine, authentic knowledge. I am not trying to cause any upheaval. Also, "die in a fire". That doesn't seem to appropriate. In fact, I'd say that's a threat, and could even be constituted as verbal assault, something not tolerated on this forum.



TMOY said:


> If it was possible the mods would probably already have done it. He must be using dynamic IPs or proxys or whatever makes IP-permabanning him too difficult.


 
You seem to be very good at the internet.


----------



## Quadrescence (Dec 30, 2010)

[abc]toshiro;509079 said:


> You thought that this was directed at you? Wow man. Get lost if you think this was directed at you. I'm directing this to the troll with the image macros, can't you see? I don't care if that's verbal assault. I know it's offending (sorry for that), but I am pissed of at trolls.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
Well, you are discussing in this thread. I can only assume you are being on-topic! Just ignore image macro trollz, they'll be removed. You don't need to fuel their burning desire to annoy you.

As for sarcasm, it's not appropriate. I know someone who is sub-20 with Gosbee Method, in fact, the original poster. So I am not sure why fast times could be unheard of.


----------



## Quadrescence (Dec 30, 2010)

[abc]toshiro;509086 said:


> Yeah man. I am just annoyed.
> 
> 
> 
> Video or not real. Now.


 
Perhaps if I could afford a video camera.


----------



## TMOY (Dec 30, 2010)

And even if you could, you wouldn't film yourself anyway because it's against your religious beliefs.


----------



## EricReese (Dec 30, 2010)

He just has too much schoolwork with a sick mom, abusive dad, and he needs sleep, even though hes up at 2 in the morning and keeps replying to the thread...



Spoiler



I hope someone gets the joke..



Also, since when is sub20 considered fast?


----------



## abctoshiro (Dec 30, 2010)

EricReese said:


> He just has too much schoolwork with a sick mom, abusive dad, and he needs sleep, even though hes up at 2 in the morning and keeps replying to the thread...
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Sub-20 is considered fast when we were non-cubers.


----------



## TMOY (Dec 30, 2010)

Sub-22.95 is considered fast since 1982. You should know that.


----------



## abctoshiro (Dec 30, 2010)

My statement that "sub-20 is considered fast when we were non-cubers" is also correct. What ya think of this, man?


----------



## EricReese (Dec 30, 2010)

Anything from like 17-21 is just average. But, just my opinion

@TMOY, lol.

Yes I'm calling myself slow, I was just putting my views out there.


----------



## TMOY (Dec 30, 2010)

I vote for calling this kind of trolls ("I've done a great average, unfortunately I am unable to show you any evidence of it") the Fermat trolls.
(Note that Pierre de Fermat was definitely not a troll, he was a very serious scientist. Only his marvellous proof turned out to be false and he couldn't fill the gap in it, that's why he never published it in full.)


----------



## Quadrescence (Dec 30, 2010)

TMOY said:


> I vote for calling this kind of trolls ("I've done a great average, unfortunately I am unable to show you any evidence of it") the Fermat trolls.
> (Note that Pierre de Fermat was definitely not a troll, he was a very serious scientist. Only his marvellous proof turned out to be false and he couldn't fill the gap in it, that's why he never published it in full.)


 
Except that his "proof", even if it existed, was highly unlikely to be correct. But I suspect you know that as I suspect you are familiar with algebraic geometry and analytic number theory, and have read Andrew Wiles' proof of the theorem.


----------



## macky (Dec 30, 2010)

TMOY said:


> I vote for calling this kind of trolls ("I've done a great average, unfortunately I am unable to show you any evidence of it") the Fermat trolls.
> (Note that Pierre de Fermat was definitely not a troll, he was a very serious scientist. Only his marvellous proof turned out to be false and he couldn't fill the gap in it, that's why he never published it in full.)


 
Haha nice, though I'd hate to have Fermat's name associated with these trolls. Also, I think Fermat did really think that his proof was correct (he wrote down some correct theorems in the margin, again without proof, and IIRC some whose proofs looked doable in Fermat's time). Considering that Dedekind domains weren't properly formalized until much later, he probably used unique factorization into irreducibles, which of course fails for general number fields.


----------



## Quadrescence (Dec 30, 2010)

macky said:


> Haha nice, though I'd hate to have Fermat's name associated with these trolls. Also, I think Fermat did really think that his proof was correct (he wrote down some correct theorems in the margin, again without proof, and IIRC some whose proofs looked doable in Fermat's time). Considering that Dedekind domains weren't properly formalized until much later, he probably used unique factorization into irreducibles, which of course fails for general number fields.


 _But does it fail for an infinite number of algebraic number fields?_


----------



## maggot (Dec 30, 2010)

Quadrescence said:


> _But does it fail for an infinite number of algebraic number fields?_



that is the question. . .


----------



## macky (Dec 30, 2010)

Quadrescence said:


> _But does it fail for an infinite number of algebraic number fields?_


 
Uh, yeah, there are only finite many imaginary quadratic extensions with trivial class group. I think you mean, "does unique factorization _hold_ for an infinite number of number fields?" Because that's apparently open (I had to look it up...I only knew this was open for the real quadratic extensions).


----------



## Quadrescence (Dec 30, 2010)

mackyman, that is indeed what I meant.

accept the mystery


----------



## TMOY (Dec 30, 2010)

macky said:


> Haha nice, though I'd hate to have Fermat's name associated with these trolls.



As another example, the name of Galileo has already been associated to a lot of trolls. That hasn't ruined his reputation so far.



macky said:


> Also, I think Fermat did really think that his proof was correct (he wrote down some correct theorems in the margin, again without proof, and IIRC some whose proofs looked doable in Fermat's time). Considering that Dedekind domains weren't properly formalized until much later, he probably used unique factorization into irreducibles, which of course fails for general number fields.


 
Yes, it seems quite obvious that he tried that approach , not knowing that it was doomed anyway.


----------



## prostx23 (Dec 30, 2010)

Trying to get this a bit back on topic... I'm glad to see his explanation of his "method". Why did he drop out the cubing world? His reply started out hostile, but towards the end he seemed genuinely enthuastic to be explaining his method, so he seems to still enjoy cubing. Or at least talking about it.


----------



## Quadrescence (Dec 30, 2010)

prostx23 said:


> Trying to get this a bit back on topic... I'm glad to see his explanation of his "method". Why did he drop out the cubing world? His reply started out hostile, but towards the end he seemed genuinely enthuastic to be explaining his method, so he seems to still enjoy cubing. Or at least talking about it.


 
I'm not sure why. But his method was a secret for a long time IIRC. I think he got sick and tired of all the politics and how everything runs these days, just like I have.


----------



## qqwref (Jan 1, 2011)

TMOY said:


> I vote for calling this kind of trolls ("I've done a great average, unfortunately I am unable to show you any evidence of it") the Fermat trolls.


Perhaps we could just call them "Liars"?

Quad: Cool conversation from Dan, too bad it was shown in a non-serious-looking way. Very neat to see some explanation. I'd like to know more about the "there are only 2 moves to acheive complition......however approx 300 algorythms exists for those said 2 moves......" bit...


----------

