# I call BS.



## qqwref (Jan 20, 2009)

Right, so, as some of you may know, I got what I believe is the first sub-1 (computer) 5x5 solve ever on Friday. It was a 59.06.

So now I see that since then Robert Yau has had a 55.11. His previous PB was 1:00.18. At this point I'd like to note that the solve doesn't look especially easy/lucky. So here's what we have:
- In a few days, Robert Yau improved his PB by 5.07 seconds (8.4%) to beat the best known time by 3.95 seconds (6.68%). He clearly did this on purpose since it was right after my time. I don't think anyone can set a PB single solve on command.
- This is not the first time that he took the computer 5x5 record back pretty much immediately.
- This guy has never been to a competition and there are no videos of him, in any form, on youtube or strangepuzzle. So all we have is his computer solves.

So what I'm saying is, I'm not so sure he's legitimate. I call BS. It's not just the fact that he beat my record, but the fact that he beat it so quickly AND by so much. Again note that the only record of him is his computer solves and the fact that people have talked to him online. Note that he is first in 3x3, 4x4, and 5x5 on hi-games (all by a significant margin), which tells me that either he's by far the best computer cuber in the world, or that he's cheating somehow. I won't believe it until I see some evidence.


----------



## 4weeksAndImSub60 (Jan 20, 2009)

I won't believe what you say till I see evidence.


----------



## 4Chan (Jan 20, 2009)

I totally agree with Michael (qqwref)

I recall an earlier thread about Robert Yau, and this is quite a sudden improvement.

Sub-1 is quite an acheivement, and cheaters deface such acheivements.

Congratulations on the sub-1 as well!


----------



## Vulosity (Jan 20, 2009)

4weeksAndImSub60 said:


> I won't believe what you say till I see evidence.




http://hi-games.net/cube-5x5x5/watch?u=146


----------



## Erik (Jan 20, 2009)

I agree on the point that you never saw him, so you are never 100% sure.
But to call him a possible cheater is a bit too far fetched.

Is it really that weird he breaks your record after you did a record? Of course he starts trying extra hard after you break his record, just like I started to do more 5x5 after Dan broke my 5x5 WR. 
EDIT: I could also say it's weird you post this just after he breaks your record (which was also amazing)...

His solves look totally not weird. He does a normal method, a pairing method similair to AVG which he explained to me a couple of times (still don't totally understand it ) 

I've been chatting with Robert for quite a while now and I'm almost 100% sure (can never be fully sure untill you've seen him like I said) he's real. We've been chatting about normal cube things, algs for perms tips for OH etc etc. The only fact is that he's never been to a competition because he's busy. This happened before. Remember Marc van Beest? Though at least Marc got a webcam you'd say, true. But it shows that it's not that weird that a fast cuber can exist without having been to competitions. 

All in all I only heared and experienced a lot and good things to prove he IS real than the little fact that you never saw him and therefore doubt his 'realness'. 

I asked him and he said that edges on that specific solve were quite lucky because a lot were already paired after centres. He's now checking if he can find a videocamera to make a vid to prove he's real. This is to be continued..

EDIT: could you please also say (next time) what you mean by things like BS? I'm sure not everyone knows. They might think you mean Bart Simpson, Bruce Springsteen, Boy Scouts or whatever


----------



## Odin (Jan 20, 2009)

Vulosity said:


> http://hi-games.net/cube-5x5x5/watch?u=146



NO WAY! thats some major hax..... i agree with qqwerf.


----------



## Pedro (Jan 20, 2009)

what's "to call BS"?

I watched his solve and it does look "normal"...


----------



## Jacco (Jan 20, 2009)

That's just competition, face it.


----------



## MistArts (Jan 20, 2009)

There's already been a discussion. 

http://www.speedsolving.com/forum/showthread.php?t=7575&highlight=Robert+Yau


----------



## fanwuq (Jan 20, 2009)

I've always been suspicious of any one who beats Michael Gottlieb at computer cubes. Why? Because he is already amazing enough. I can't imagine anyone to be better than him.
I was a bit suspicious of Michal Halczuk before he showed up beating the ER of 5x5 at competition.
But I do think Robert Yau is legit. He has been doing the ryanheise simulators since the beginning (before me, and I started maybe 1.4 years ago) and probably does the simulator more than anyone else and focuses more on that than real cubes. I'm also so much better at the simulator than real cubes. I dropped my 4x4 record from ~1:50 to 1:11 in just one day of practice. I think it's also possible for him to make significant improvements too.
I usually always agree with QQ, but not on this one.


----------



## qqwref (Jan 20, 2009)

Erik said:


> But to call him a possible cheater is a bit too far fetched.


If it is not allowed to say "I think X is cheating", it is impossible to catch cheaters. I would rather that a few people with fast times and no proof have to prove themselves, then that one person with fast cheated times can stay at the top of the record list. If you are going to spend so much time practicing that you can get an unofficial world record in a highly contested event, I don't think it's asking much at all that you prove you're for real.



Erik said:


> His solves look totally not weird. He does a normal method, a pairing method similair to AVG which he explained to me a couple of times (still don't totally understand it )


Yes, he uses a normal method, but that doesn't mean it MUST be real. A while back there was a 5.96 second cheating solve on hi-games that someone made with what appeared to be a computer program to do a Fridrich solve with no delay. Of course Robert has also beaten this...



Erik said:


> I've been chatting with Robert for quite a while now and I'm almost 100% sure (can never be fully sure untill you've seen him like I said) he's real. We've been chatting about normal cube things, algs for perms tips for OH etc etc.


Yes, but remember how Matyas was very fast at normal cube things like 5x5, except that it turned out he was looking under the blindfold? You can't cheat on a 5x5 solve - Matyas really did have a lot of skill. But he was cheating on one thing, and I'm just suggesting that maybe Robert is the same (that is, cheating on computer cubes only). I hope not, but I need to make sure.



Pedro said:


> what's "to call BS"?
> 
> I watched his solve and it does look "normal"...


It means to say that you think something is fake, or at least that you're suspicious of it.


----------



## jazzthief81 (Jan 20, 2009)

Vulosity said:


> http://hi-games.net/cube-5x5x5/watch?u=146



Looking at that, I would say it could be improved even more. During the edges there were some clear hesitations and looking around going on.


----------



## tim (Jan 20, 2009)

Odin said:


> Vulosity said:
> 
> 
> > http://hi-games.net/cube-5x5x5/watch?u=146
> ...



Great comment...


----------



## Erik (Jan 20, 2009)

qqwref said:


> If it is not allowed to say "I think X is cheating", it is impossible to catch cheaters. I would rather that a few people with fast times and no proof have to prove themselves, then that one person with fast cheated times can stay at the top of the record list. If you are going to spend so much time practicing that you can get an unofficial world record in a highly contested event, I don't think it's asking much at all that you prove you're for real.


Are we on the 'take-discussion-on-every-point-you-say' tour? Whatever you like. I never said it's not allowed, I just say it's a bit far fetched to shout 'possible cheater' when someone is just faster and you don't know him. 
And I talked to him, he's trying to make some material. Tomorrow he'll be trying to send a vid of a 1:15 (it was the only thing he could get in 5 min) and he'll be trying to get a bit more in the weekend.



Erik said:


> His solves look totally not weird. He does a normal method, a pairing method similair to AVG which he explained to me a couple of times (still don't totally understand it )





> Yes, he uses a normal method, but that doesn't mean it MUST be real. A while back there was a 5.96 second cheating solve on hi-games that someone made with what appeared to be a computer program to do a Fridrich solve with no delay. Of course Robert has also beaten this...


Why don't you doubt my computer solves then? You never had proof I am even capable of solving a cube on the computer. Just the fact that he's faster makes that you demand his proof and not mine. He could just refuse to make vids to annoy you, but luckily he's actually a nice guy and tries to make some videos. Nobody likes it when people are suddenly pointing fingers at you.



> Erik said:
> 
> 
> > I've been chatting with Robert for quite a while now and I'm almost 100% sure (can never be fully sure untill you've seen him like I said) he's real. We've been chatting about normal cube things, algs for perms tips for OH etc etc.
> ...


So you are saying Robert might be legit on 5x5 computer solves but cheats at 2x2 OH solves at home? This argument doesn't say anything besides the fact that it's possible that people cheat. And for *** sake, I thought we agreed on not saying his name in combination with cheating and blindfolded. 

All in all. Mostly I agree with you on discussions and might even support you a lot of the time. But this time I don't see your point at all in calling BS on Robert at all. Your argumentation has twisted from: 'innocent untill proven otherwise' (which is mainly what you argue from, or at least it looks to me like that) to 'possibly guilty when not proven'. To me it just looks like a childish act as a reaction of losing a record, sorry to say. 
You could've just asked Robert himself, or asked me (or anyone in contact with him) to make a vid, which he's going to now, to prove he's real. 
Now people are already seriously thinking he's a cheater which is not something he deserved.


----------



## AvGalen (Jan 20, 2009)

Why don't you guys have a "live" average of 5 competition?
Winner takes the glory
Loser becomes the loser (but still second in the world)


----------



## masterofthebass (Jan 20, 2009)

qqwref said:


> which tells me that either *he's by far the best computer cuber in the world*, or that he's cheating somehow.



I think you have your answer right there.


----------



## ThePizzaGuy92 (Jan 21, 2009)

How can you guys be so blind?! 
Have you not looked at his profile on hi-games?
http://hi-games.net/profile/146

He flat out said, "I am not a cheater"

PROOF!


----------



## PatrickJameson (Jan 21, 2009)

Well for the sake of discussion, let's say he did cheat. How?

I'd like to see the program behind it if there is one . It'd be a pretty sweet program.


----------



## tim (Jan 21, 2009)

I don't know how Heise's simulator is implemented, but i guess the applet sends some kind of replay to the server. He just could've made the replay by hand.


----------



## qqwref (Jan 21, 2009)

Erik said:


> Your argumentation has twisted from: 'innocent untill proven otherwise' (which is mainly what you argue from, or at least it looks to me like that) to 'possibly guilty when not proven'. To me it just looks like a childish act as a reaction of losing a record, sorry to say.
> You could've just asked Robert himself, or asked me (or anyone in contact with him) to make a vid, which he's going to now, to prove he's real.
> Now people are already seriously thinking he's a cheater which is not something he deserved.



I just find it hard to believe that, as soon as I beat the best time he's ever gotten, he suddenly destroys it. If he can beat his PB by 5 seconds, why was it so slow in the first place? Besides I was actually wondering about it before, when he got a 1:01 and then 1:00, and the biggest reason is simply that I've never seen him do a solve so I can't know. For you or Michal or someone like that it is "okay, I know this guy, I trust him" - or at the very least "this guy has gone to a competition, so he really is good at bigcubes" - but Robert is a big ? and I don't know or trust him. He could be anyone. Has anyone on speedsolving met him in real life, ever?

Incidentally it wasn't my intention to ruin his reputation or anything, I just don't believe the times and I want to see some basic proof. If someone is convinced he is fake just because his time is fast they are an idiot.



PatrickJameson said:


> I'd like to see the program behind it if there is one . It'd be a pretty sweet program.



I would also like to see the program behind "Haydee Pasha". But I doubt we will ever see it.



tim said:


> I don't know how Heise's simulator is implemented, but i guess the applet sends some kind of replay to the server. He just could've made the replay by hand.



This is an interesting idea. If you knew the data format and you could intercept the replay, you could make a replay that had the same moves, but with no pauses (or much fewer pauses). This might be easier than making a solver program.


----------



## qqwref (Jan 21, 2009)

Robert says stop posting in this thread, so... let's see what happens?


----------



## minsarker (Jan 21, 2009)

I respect "Robert's" (quotations because I dont know him) wishes that he doesnt want anyone to post but I really wanted to. It does seem odd that he beats his PR by 5sec right after you beat him but thats life. Maybe he was just having fun up until now, just solving for fun. Now he sees someone is close to him so he really starts trying and practicing and beats it.

Its not unbelievable, but I do understand where you are coming from that it seems suspicious. In the end, it can go both ways easily.


----------



## Dene (Jan 21, 2009)

minsarker said:


> I respect "Robert's" (quotations because I dont know him) wishes that he doesnt want anyone to post but I really wanted to. It does seem odd that he beats his PR by 5sec right after you beat him but thats life. Maybe he was just having fun up until now, just solving for fun. *Now he sees someone is close to him so he really starts trying and practicing and beats it.*



Dude, qqwref is hardly new to hi-games...

BTW I have no stance on this, I just had to correct the silly statement.


----------



## minsarker (Jan 21, 2009)

Sorry, let me rephrase that. Now he saw someone beat him so he really starts trying and practicing and beats it.

Its really a matter of motivation and probably human nature as well. I know at least I do it in sports. I don't really care if people get almost as good as me, but the second their better I'm done and just go for it.


----------



## Rikane (Jan 21, 2009)

What if he just got a lucky solve? I mean, Erik (I think) even said it before, something along the lines of Robert saying that most of the pairs were made for him already.


----------



## EmersonHerrmann (Jan 21, 2009)

Hmmm...I have no position on this, but I think we should have a section called "cubing conspiracies" on the forum for these types of threads


----------



## Lt-UnReaL (Jan 21, 2009)

It wouldn't be that hard to code a program to slow down the time. I bet that's how that guy got 27 seconds on tessellate on hi-games.


----------



## qqwref (Jan 21, 2009)

As far as I can tell the 27 seconds is real/verified - there are youtube videos and he's well-known in the tetris community. If they trust him, I do.


----------



## Derrick Eide17 (Jan 21, 2009)

it's usually like this for a lot of things like cubemania, etc. Records are posted by people and most of them are obviously fake and some you just never know. Of course there are people on the side that think they cheated, and people who wont judge and believe it is legit. It's pretty much the same thing and theres no way to prove it so Michael is entitled to believe he could be cheating etc just as others are entitled to believe probably not a cheater, the solve looks normal.


----------



## ccchips296 (Jan 21, 2009)

but on CM, you can just manually add times and theres no verification....for this, they record a video and stuff so its not really the same...


----------



## Faz (Jan 21, 2009)

Erik - Get him on the forum......... Now.


----------



## Derrick Eide17 (Jan 21, 2009)

ccchips296 said:


> but on CM, you can just manually add times and theres no verification....for this, they record a video and stuff so its not really the same...



of course there is less proof and much easier to cheat but thats not what im getting it. There were always be doubts on records etc and some people will think one thing and others think differently. There is NO way to change that so its no point in arguing...


----------



## ccchips296 (Jan 21, 2009)

true......you can just let them be i suppose. its not like theyre winning anything from cheating on hi net and CM and whatnot.


----------



## Robert-Y (Jan 21, 2009)

Ok I registered as soon as I got home and I have not read the rules yet because I can't be bothered, so sorry in the future if I do something wrong on the forum.

Ok so, I am not a cheater, I cannot fully prove that I am not cheating nor can anyone else on hi-games.net, even Michael himself. I want to make a video of myself solving with my hands in the video, along with the program, but people are now saying that I could've created the replay, so can you guys please tell me what I can do to prove I'm not a cheater?


----------



## blah (Jan 21, 2009)

Actually, not that I doubt you at all - I really don't have an opinion and don't feel the need to have an opinion on this whole issue - but how do we know that the person whose username is Robert-Y on speedsolving.com is the same Robert Yau on hi-games.net? 

Point is, people can question all they want till you show yourself I guess.


----------



## Robert-Y (Jan 21, 2009)

Ok how do I prove I am Robert Yau? (This proving business has gotten out of hand)


----------



## Escher (Jan 21, 2009)

dont worry about it, he was joking.

just record yourself solving, real life or simulated (both?), and stick it on youtube.


----------



## blah (Jan 21, 2009)

Chillax man, I was just kidding. I already said I have no reason to doubt you, nor any reason not to. I just wanted to point out the fact that if someone refuses to believe you, they're gonna be asking questions like that.


----------



## Mike Hughey (Jan 21, 2009)

Yeah, you shouldn't worry about it at all.

Just start participating here in the forum, and assuming you're for real, your knowledge will essentially prove you are who you are through your posts. Erik has already been convinced that you're likely able to do this, through similar interaction.

Also, obviously, a YouTube video would go a long way towards convincing people. Most of us won't suspect you of faking that, since it would seem pretty silly for someone to fake something like that.

In my opinion, your behavior so far has certainly been consistent with that of someone who is for real.

In short, I hope you'll participate regularly here, and become a regular part of the community. And I hope your solves are really real, because they're quite amazing to watch!


----------



## Robert-Y (Jan 21, 2009)

Ok, I'll try and make a video over the weekend or before the weekend if I get time, but how do I now prove that I don't use a program which fixes the scrambles? In fact how would anyone do this?


----------



## qqwref (Jan 21, 2009)

I'm not looking for 100% certainty, I just want something to show you're real so i can believe you. You could just record more than one solve in a row or something (so it's not a replay), or one solve with hands; something basic will do. Basically I just want confirmation that you're an actual person capable of actually getting fast times.


----------



## Robert-Y (Jan 21, 2009)

Ok, Michael, that's not really problem. Well, maybe the videoing part. I can film solves of myself solving but you can barely see the cube. I don't have a tripod or anything, just my sister's video camera.


----------



## fanwuq (Jan 21, 2009)

A youtube video of you solving would be really cool to watch. I'm quite certain that Robert really is that good at cubing. Why would anyone go on hi-games.net often, talk to cubers a lot and cheat for his results? It just doesn't make any sense.
He's also very nice willing to discuss his methods and help other cubers. No cheater would do that.
Hi-games only keep your PB solves, so most people's PBs are a bit lucky anyway. And he spends a lot of time on it, so it makes sense that he would not only encounter many more easy solves, but also get very fast at it too.
Of course it is a shock that anyone could beat Michael Gottlieb at a computer cube by so much, but it is possible since Robert has been at the top of the list also.

Edit:
you can probably first tape that you are a real person, set the camera down to see only your hands, then back up after you solve.


----------



## blah (Jan 21, 2009)

qqwref said:


> I'm not looking for 100% certainty, I just want something to show you're real so i can believe you. You could just record more than one solve in a row or something (so it's not a replay), or *one solve with hands*; something basic will do. Basically I just want confirmation that you're an actual person capable of actually getting fast times.



Seems like a good idea. You can hack a computer solve, you can set up a physical 3x3x3 solve (think yish), but I think multiple physical 5x5x5 solves aren't really set up-able, unless you're really as desperate as yish, if not more  I think the some of us would be convinced if you can just sub-2 (assuming you have a really crappy 5x5x5), I know I would


----------



## Escher (Jan 21, 2009)

what about buying this?

http://www.ebuyer.com/product/140184

i got it a couple of days ago and its awesome 
if you can spare like a tenner its definitely worth getting a webcam...


----------



## Robert-Y (Jan 21, 2009)

@ Blah: Are you saying that you want proof that my 5x5x5 times in real life are good? If so, well there're not, read my "about myself" thread. Not to boast but, I beat Michael's 5x5x5 times, before I started practising on the 5x5x5 again.

Good computer times doesn't necessarily mean good real life times, as many of you already know.


----------



## blah (Jan 21, 2009)

Robert-Y said:


> @ Blah: Are you saying that you want proof that my 5x5x5 times in real life are good? If so, well there're not, read my "about myself" thread. Not to boast but, I beat Michael's 5x5x5 times, before I started practising on the 5x5x5 again.
> 
> Good computer times doesn't necessarily mean good real life times, as many of you already know.



Sorry if I was unclear. I don't want or need any proof from you. Like I said, it really doesn't bother me whether you're real or not, but you've posted enough to prove that you're a real human being, so I have no doubts about that (unless you're some sick computer program that controls the world and has superhuman AI like that freak computer in Eagle Eye ). And if you're a real human being and you have a conscience and you're not as retarded as yish, which I believe few if not none in the world are, then I have absolutely no reason to doubt your skills at all. You're innocent until proven guilty. I just said it would be a good idea for you to do a physical 5x5x5 solve to convince a lot of people here, I didn't request anything


----------



## Dene (Jan 22, 2009)

Hey Robert,

What are your cube 5x5x5 times like? I assume that you would be pretty quick with that too.


----------



## fanwuq (Jan 22, 2009)

Dene said:


> Hey Robert,
> 
> What are your cube 5x5x5 times like? I assume that you would be pretty quick with that too.



http://www.speedsolving.com/forum/showpost.php?p=126095&postcount=5


----------



## Dene (Jan 22, 2009)

Ah thanks fanwuq. That's what I get for not checking that subforum


----------



## EmersonHerrmann (Jan 22, 2009)

blah said:


> Like I said, it really doesn't bother me whether you're real or not, but you've posted enough to prove that you're a real human being, so I have no doubts about that (unless you're some sick computer program that controls the world and has superhuman AI like that freak computer in Eagle Eye ).



Hahahahahaha that made me laugh so hard xD

Robert: You could make a video of you doing a computer solve...like, show the keyboard and stuff  that could prove that you are "real"-ly good at computer 5x5


----------



## FU (Jan 22, 2009)

i don't hate michael gottlieb or what but i'd like to see him swallow his words and apologize once (and if) robert yau 'proves' himself


----------



## brunson (Jan 22, 2009)

I can't believe Robert is going to waste his time. In my country it is not the responsibility of the accused to prove his innocence, it is the responsibility of the prosecution to prove his guilt.


----------



## Mike Hughey (Jan 22, 2009)

I don't want to see the video in order to prove Robert is telling the truth. I just want to see the video because it would be a really, really cool video!!!

(Especially the video showing him at the keyboard solving a computer cube.)


----------



## brunson (Jan 22, 2009)

I would be up for that, too.


----------



## (X) (Jan 22, 2009)

Mike Hughey said:


> I don't want to see the video in order to prove Robert is telling the truth. I just want to see the video because it would be a really, really cool video!!!
> 
> (Especially the video showing him at the keyboard solving a computer cube.)



yes im really looking forward to see that video


----------



## Robert-Y (Jan 22, 2009)

Umm not to disappoint but, I've made the video, but IMO it's not that good , but who knows, you might like it. I'm gonna upload the video soon (The solving time was 1:08 which is around my avg).

Let me point out something out: Dan Cohen went from 1:12 to 1:05 in less than a day, also I think Michael went from 1:04 to 59 on the computer, so me going from 1:00 to 55 isn't that amazing lol


----------



## qqwref (Jan 22, 2009)

brunson said:


> I can't believe Robert is going to waste his time. In my country it is not the responsibility of the accused to prove his innocence, it is the responsibility of the prosecution to prove his guilt.



This isn't a "prosecution", and this isn't your country or its legal system either (it's the Internet). I just don't believe the time. If Robert doesn't want to make any kind of proof, _absolutely nothing_ will happen to him - the only effect is that I won't ever believe his time. You and Erik can complain as much as you want about the fact that I don't automatically believe everything, but no amount of complaining will make me more likely to believe it. A video will.

Besides, in many other communities which track high scores in games (see: cyberscore.net, groovestats, the Stepmania community), asking for proof is standard. Robert is the only one out of the top 8 5x5 solvers who hasn't been in a competition, so I think it's entirely reasonable to request some kind of verification to make sure he's real. If you think it's unreasonable, you must be living in some kind of happy world of unicorns and princesses where every score is legitimate and nobody ever cheats or lies.


----------



## qqwref (Jan 22, 2009)

brunson said:


> No, Michael, I just think you're a tool. Please provide video confirmation otherwise or else I'll just have to continue with my belief.



Actually, brunson, I think you're a tool as well. Please provide video confirmation otherwise or else I'll just have to continue with my belief.

EDIT: brunson removed his post. But I'm not going to.


----------



## Robert-Y (Jan 22, 2009)

hmm? I'm a bit confused by you, Michael. I thought you were thinking that maybe I'm cheating, but you're hoping I'm not. Now I think you really think I'm just a cheater.


----------



## qqwref (Jan 22, 2009)

The situation is that I don't really believe your 55, but I would like to believe it (and yes, I do hope you're legitimate), even though I can't without some sort of proof. I'm finding it quite annoying that people are criticising me for asking for proof, and unfortunately the only way to argue against them is to take the position that "Robert may very well be a cheater and I need confirmation he isn't". I continue to find it disturbing that people in this community find the very idea of not believing a time to be suspect and immoral, since after all we DID have someone who has been proved to have cheated in an official tournament and to have thus stolen more than a thousand dollars from us.


----------



## Kian (Jan 22, 2009)

it's really sad that we have people calling each other "tools" and facetiously asking for proof otherwise. can we grow up, please?

listen, either the guy makes the video and michael believes him or he doesn't and michael doesn't. what michael believes on this topic should be unimportant to anyone else. maybe this wasn't the best medium for him to ask about the time, but he did, and that's that. nothing we can do about that now. now let's just move on because at the end of the day it's just NOT THAT IMPORTANT.


----------



## Robert-Y (Jan 22, 2009)

Thanks Kian, I was just about to post something like that.

@Michael: Don't worry I think you kinda have good reasons to believe I'm a cheater, I have good reasons to believe that "garzon" is a cheater (for those who know who I'm talking about)


----------



## brunson (Jan 22, 2009)

You're right, it was wrong of me to post that. This is not the place.

Edit: offensive post redacted.


----------



## Robert-Y (Jan 22, 2009)

Ok guys, Erik (Akkersdijk) is hopefully gonna upload the video tomorrow or sometime in a few days. (My ICT skills aren't that good lol)


----------



## qqwref (Jan 22, 2009)

Robert-Y said:


> Thanks Kian, I was just about to post something like that.
> 
> @Michael: Don't worry I think you kinda have good reasons to believe I'm a cheater, I have good reasons to believe that "garzon" is a cheater (for those who know who I'm talking about)



Yeah, who *is* Garzon Gonzales? A Google search for ""garzon gonzales" cube" turns up... nothing.


----------



## Robert-Y (Jan 22, 2009)

Michael, you did a 31.18 on the computer 4x4 and you skipped 4 edges during edge pairing, plus you had a PLL skip. Seriously, can you really think that my 55 is a fake now?  (since the luck I had on the 5x5x5 is less than what you had for your 4x4x4 solve)


----------



## Derrick Eide17 (Jan 22, 2009)

Robert-Y said:


> Michael, you did a 31.18 on the computer 4x4 and you skipped 4 edges during edge pairing, plus you had a PLL skip. Seriously, can you really think that my 55 is a fake now?  (since the luck I had on the 5x5x5 is less than what you had for your 4x4x4 solve)



oh come on let's not get into THIS now.
You will have a video up you said? so we just wait until then


----------



## Robert-Y (Jan 22, 2009)

I'm just merely trying to convince Michael that it's not fake before the video gets posted for fun lol. It's kinda funny for me because I'm the only one who truly knows that my solve is not fake


----------



## qqwref (Jan 22, 2009)

I just want to make sure, though, you know? (Also, the 31 was really easy, just like the 35 before it... A good nonlucky time for me is 37ish. When I got the 35 it was so lucky I thought I'd never beat it, and indeed it took a long time for me to even get another sub-40!)


----------



## fanwuq (Jan 23, 2009)

qqwref said:


> I just want to make sure, though, you know? (Also, the 31 was really easy, just like the 35 before it... A good nonlucky time for me is 37ish. When I got the 35 it was so lucky I thought I'd never beat it, and indeed it took a long time for me to even get another sub-40!)



You got probably at least 5 sub-40s yesterday. 
So I guess this thread is for indicting suspicious people on hi-games.net?

Garzon is very suspicious. If you look at his 4x4 solve, the 3x3 stage is very slow and his look ahead and turning speed are bad.

What about 54?
He's #54 for 4x4 and his 10X10 times are really awesome and 3 minutes faster than his 9x9...
He's not even sub-20 for 3x3 and has a horrible 31 WPM.


----------



## PatrickJameson (Jan 23, 2009)

fanwuq said:


> Garzon is very suspicious. If you look at his 4x4 solve, the 3x3 stage is very slow and his look ahead and turning speed are bad.
> 
> What about 54?
> He's #54 for 4x4 and his 10X10 times are really awesome and 3 minutes faster than his 9x9...
> He's not even sub-20 for 3x3 and has a horrible 31 WPM.



That could be for many reasons. One, he could have done the 9x9 just once so he could be ranked. 

I personally hate doing really big cubes on hi-games. 9x9 is my least favorite on hi-games basically because well, why not do 10x10?


----------



## byu (Jan 23, 2009)

This is really off the topic of this, but after watching some replays on hi-games, I decided to sign up, but I haven't received the confirmation email yet, and it's been at least 30 minutes. How long does it usually take?


----------



## qqwref (Jan 23, 2009)

Robert posted a video: http://www.speedsolving.com/forum/showthread.php?t=8928.

So, he's definitely legitimate. I believe him now and I'm sorry I doubted him in the first place.


----------



## masterofthebass (Jan 23, 2009)

byu said:


> This is really off the topic of this, but after watching some replays on hi-games, I decided to sign up, but I haven't received the confirmation email yet, and it's been at least 30 minutes. How long does it usually take?



check your spam folder. That happened to me a couple of times with the login key.


----------

