# 2x2x2 "COLD" solving averages using ORTEGA method



## reThinking the Cube (May 10, 2010)

I am curious as to how ORTEGA 2x2x2 method times would be affected by totally removing the pre-inspection. 
This poll - http://www.speedsolving.com/forum/showpost.php?p=376959&postcount=1
shows a very good representation for 2x2x2 Ortega times WITH pre-inspection/lookahead.

What would your average times be using Ortega method, WITHOUT allowing any pre-inspection (just random scramble and go/no peeking = "COLD" solve)?

...


----------



## Neo63 (May 10, 2010)

5.62 avg of 5, about a second slower

I got 9 on one solve cuz I saw two blocks and hesitated about which one to start with >.<


----------



## reThinking the Cube (May 10, 2010)

Neo63 said:


> 5.62 avg of 5, about a second slower
> 
> I got 9 on one solve cuz I saw two blocks and hesitated about which one to start with >.<



Why not include that 9sec. in the average? That is what is going to happen - when you don't get any pre-inspection!

...


----------



## Kirjava (May 10, 2010)

wtf is preinspection.


----------



## puzzlemaster (May 10, 2010)

reThinking the Cube said:


> Neo63 said:
> 
> 
> > 5.62 avg of 5, about a second slower
> ...



In an average of 5, the worst time is cut...the 9 was in the average...it was cut. Learn2average.


----------



## nlCuber22 (May 10, 2010)

5.91, 7.61, 6.77, 5.43, 6.88 = 6.52
Doesn't make much of a difference to me.
I voted <8.
EDIT: Haha. Got a 10.45 and rolled it into a 7.08 average


----------



## Kirjava (May 10, 2010)

in during pollskew


----------



## Cyrus C. (May 10, 2010)

The only reason I think I'm good* at 2x2x2 is because I'm good* at using inspection.

* In relation to my other times on other cubes.


----------



## RyanO (May 10, 2010)

I don't know why anyone would ever do this.


----------



## reThinking the Cube (May 10, 2010)

Kirjava said:


> wtf is preinspection.



Since normal inspection(15 sec.) for a solve is not timed, I chose - for the sake of clarity, to make a distinction by adding the prefix - "pre". The inspection for a "Cold" solve would have to take place during the timing. So with the added format, we can have two kinds of inspection. One of them is done while timed, the other is not. So I chose to refer to the later as "preinspection" to make that distinction. Yeah, technically in WCA rules/terminology, there is only "inspection". For this poll question, "pre-inspection" is the more appropriate term.

...



Cyrus C. said:


> The only reason I think I'm good* at 2x2x2 is because I'm good* at using inspection.
> 
> * In relation to my other times on other cubes.



Exactly, and some methods rely on inspection more than others. If cubers answer this poll honestly, we can compare the results of the previous poll, and come up with a good idea of how inspection (or lack of) affects times with Ortega 2x2x2.

...


----------



## DavidWoner (May 10, 2010)

current avg100: 3.96 (σ = 0.73)



Spoiler



5.09, 4.32, 3.22, 4.20, 4.42, 3.10, 4.52, 2.63, 2.80, 3.92, 4.36, 4.27, 4.20, 4.31, 2.83, 6.97, 4.15, 5.47, 4.97, 4.41, 4.49, 2.19, 3.37, 4.53, 4.81, 4.65, 4.50, 2.40, 4.77, 3.46, 3.82, 4.93, 4.41, 3.59, 5.26, 2.23, 4.73, 4.64, 4.38, 3.45, 4.78, 3.68, 4.70, 3.95, 4.01, 3.80, 3.91, 2.78, 3.97, 2.58, 3.68, 3.74, 4.39, 5.66, 4.21, 3.65, 3.61, 3.61, 3.49, 4.46, 4.34, 3.42, 4.83, 3.55, 3.52, 3.58, 3.73, 3.77, 4.96, 3.64, 3.53, 3.95, 4.21, 5.28, 4.12, 3.37, 5.18, 4.02, 3.70, 3.36, 2.80, 4.33, 4.62, 2.57, 3.85, 4.75, 3.38, 4.46, 5.08, 3.46, 4.09, 3.72, 2.81, 3.30, 3.50, 3.67, 4.02, 3.59, 2.86, 2.99



I may have been a bit liberal with the definition of Ortega. Rowan will beat this anyway.


----------



## reThinking the Cube (May 10, 2010)

DavidWoner said:


> current avg100: 3.96 (σ = 0.73)
> 
> 
> 
> ...



These times are a bit too fast - are you using regular (+inspection) solving format?! Maybe this 100a could be for the other poll? For this poll, you cannot have ANY inspection that is untimed. Just random scramble and go. Make sure to time it that way, and then post your averages. Thanks.

...


----------



## Escher (May 10, 2010)

reThinking the Cube said:


> DavidWoner said:
> 
> 
> > current avg100: 3.96 (σ = 0.73)
> ...



Just... shut up.


----------



## DavidWoner (May 10, 2010)

reThinking the Cube said:


> DavidWoner said:
> 
> 
> > current avg100: 3.96 (σ = 0.73)
> ...



So an avg100 that is barely sub4 is "too fast", yet you included sub3 as an option in your poll?


----------



## reThinking the Cube (May 10, 2010)

Kirjava said:


> in during pollskew



I see.  You and ErikJ (both are sub-5 2x2x2 WITH inspection), but you voted sub-3 WITHOUT inspection! Can this be fixed?

..


----------



## IamWEB (May 10, 2010)

Press the Reset button.


----------



## Hyprul 9-ty2 (May 10, 2010)

I got a 5.03 avg 12, about half a second higher than with inspection.


----------



## reThinking the Cube (May 10, 2010)

DavidWoner said:


> So an avg100 that is barely sub4 is "too fast", yet you included sub3 as an option in your poll?



I wanted the choices to be consistent with this previous Ortega method poll -http://www.speedsolving.com/forum/showpost.php?p=376959&postcount=1

I know that your current 2x2x2 average is very close to 4sec. with free 15sec. inspection. Seems reasonable to me for your times to increase if you are skipping inspection. If you got those times (100a =3.96s) without any inspection, or previous familiarity with the scrambles, then I apologize for assuming otherwise.

..


----------



## Forte (May 10, 2010)

reThinking the Cube said:


> I know that your current 2x2x2 average is very close to 4sec. with free 15sec. inspection.



Do you now >_>


----------



## waffle=ijm (May 10, 2010)

Forte said:


> reThinking the Cube said:
> 
> 
> > I know that your current 2x2x2 average is very close to 4sec. with free 15sec. inspection.
> ...



lol. that is all.


----------



## Anthony (May 10, 2010)

reThinking the Cube said:


> I know that your current 2x2x2 average is very close to 4sec. with free 15sec. inspection.



You're as clueless as ever.


----------



## Hyprul 9-ty2 (May 10, 2010)

Do you really average sub 3 on the 2x2 with Ortega?


----------



## reThinking the Cube (May 10, 2010)

Anthony said:


> reThinking the Cube said:
> 
> 
> > I know that your current 2x2x2 average is very close to 4sec. with free 15sec. inspection.
> ...



[DAVID WONER] 2x2 Cube 
Competition Round Place Best Average Result Details 
Oklahoma Open 2010 Final 2 2.06 4.09 4.27 4.34 2.06 3.65 5.05 
First 3 3.11 4.29 3.83 4.61 4.63 4.44 3.11 
Chicago Open 2010 Final 4 2.53 5.23 9.31 4.77 2.53 6.63 4.28 
First 3 4.40 4.97 4.40 5.46 5.19 4.56 5.15 
Cubetcha 2009 Final 1 4.11 4.57 4.11 4.72 4.65 4.96 4.33 
First 1 3.80 4.39 6.63 3.83 3.80 3.90 5.44 
US Nationals 2009 Final 10 5.12 5.86 6.21 5.12 6.15 5.21 7.18 
First 16 5.38 5.95 5.38 5.71 6.21 6.82 5.93 
Missouri Open 2009 Final 1 4.93 5.99 12.00 4.94 8.06 4.96 4.93 
First 2 4.11 6.25 6.91 10.38 7.65 4.11 4.19 
Carnegie Mellon Spring 2009 Final 14 3.00 DNF DNF 5.16 DNF 3.00 DNF 
Fort Lee Winter 2009 Final 6 3.80 6.31 3.93 8.05 3.80 10.38 6.96 
Newark Winter 2009 Final 13 3.38 7.60 8.06 3.38 7.66 7.25 7.88 
Carnegie Mellon Fall 2008 Final 6 6.34 10.75 7.68 6.34 12.15 12.43 23.71 
Westchester Fall 2008 Final 7 6.59 7.42 6.59 7.41 7.86 7.00 9.90 
Drexel Fall 2008 Final 4 2.68 6.33 7.30 6.33 6.52 6.15 2.68


----------



## dannyz0r (May 10, 2010)

and that tells you what he averages at home?


----------



## Neo63 (May 10, 2010)

waffle=ijm said:


> Forte said:
> 
> 
> > reThinking the Cube said:
> ...



this


----------



## reThinking the Cube (May 10, 2010)

dannyz0r said:


> and that tells you what he averages at home?



No, and not worth debating. *What is important for the purpose of this poll, is to be able to see the RELATIVE DIFFERENCE between inspected solves and non-inspected 2x2x2 solves using Ortega.* If DW's average was done without inspection, then like I had stated earlier, I apologize for assuming otherwise. The point of this is so that we can compare what happens to solve times, and be able to see precisely how important good inspection is to getting faster times using Ortega method.

DW: could you post (2) sets of 100aver. - one with inspection, and one without inspection for 2x2x2 Ortega?

..


----------



## Anthony (May 10, 2010)

reThinking the Cube said:


> Anthony said:
> 
> 
> > reThinking the Cube said:
> ...


Facebook says u dum:
David 'd-bone' Woner: Finally something went right this week: current avg1000: 2.99 (σ = 0.59) best avg100: 2.81 (σ = 0.47) best avg12: 2.37 (σ = 0.36)


----------



## Kian (May 10, 2010)

5.89 but I got lucky cases. I imagine without inspection I'd be closer to 7. 

Also, this is the second time we've done a no inspection thread and I was wayyy too close to my normal average. I think this proves I'm incompetent and/or don't plan ahead in inspection.


----------



## DavidWoner (May 10, 2010)

reThinking the Cube said:


> DW: could you post (2) sets of 100aver. - one with inspection, and one without inspection for 2x2x2 Ortega?
> 
> ..



Already done in the relevant thread. I think it was 3.45 for those too lazy to check.


----------



## reThinking the Cube (May 10, 2010)

DavidWoner said:


> reThinking the Cube said:
> 
> 
> > DW: could you post (2) sets of 100aver. - one with inspection, and one without inspection for 2x2x2 Ortega?
> ...



3.44 Thanks. I guess you HAVE improved a lot recently. I see you posted it there, over an hour after the one here. I checked beforehand (not too lazy), and if it had been there first, I wouldn't have had to ask you about it. I also didn't have the privilege of being in Oklahoma this April, like some others (Anthony,&friends), where I could have maybe witnessed this for myself. "Clueless" NOT>

David "d-Bone" Woner: Have you ever tried letting a buddy scramble your 2x2x2, without letting you see it, and then have him toss it to you, so that you are starting the time as soon as you remove your hands from the timer to catch it? I did this recently, and the times I got were absolutely terrible! (main inspiration for this poll) I would be very interested in seeing your average of 100, or even 12 doing it "exactly" that way.

...


----------



## Weston (May 10, 2010)

You do realize that making a FF is very easy to plan quickly right?
So I'm pretty sure what David did was just take like half a second to plan out his FF and then do a normal solve from there. You don't actually have to start turning as soon as you start the timer...

EDIT: I did one solve and it was 4.04. I can easily see how David did sub 4.


----------



## Faz (May 10, 2010)

current avg12: 4.25

I suck.


----------



## reThinking the Cube (May 10, 2010)

Weston said:


> So I'm pretty sure what David did was just take like half a second to plan out his FF and then do a normal solve from there. You don't actually have to start turning as soon as you start the timer...



By stating this, you believe that he needs to use only about 1/2 of a second out of the 15 second inspection to equal his best averages. At least to me - this doesn't seem possible - especially with Ortega or Guimond fast averages. 

David "d-Bone" Woner: Do you really use this fast "half a second suffices" inspection technique?


----------



## Faz (May 10, 2010)

reThinking the Cube said:


> Weston said:
> 
> 
> > So I'm pretty sure what David did was just take like half a second to plan out his FF and then do a normal solve from there. You don't actually have to start turning as soon as you start the timer...
> ...



No he obviously doesn't.

EDIT: Lol at "d-bone"


----------



## Weston (May 10, 2010)

reThinking the Cube said:


> Weston said:
> 
> 
> > So I'm pretty sure what David did was just take like half a second to plan out his FF and then do a normal solve from there. You don't actually have to start turning as soon as you start the timer...
> ...


Actually I'm pretty sure that 3.96 is a horrible average for him.


----------



## Escher (May 10, 2010)

I feel this didn't get through the first time:


Escher said:


> Just... shut up.


----------



## reThinking the Cube (May 10, 2010)

Escher said:


> I feel this didn't get through the first time:
> 
> 
> Escher said:
> ...



Fool.

...


----------



## Escher (May 10, 2010)

reThinking the Cube said:


> Fool.
> 
> ...



No need for ad hominem attacks, I was just giving you advice.

Seeing as you proceeded to post a lot of mistaken assumptions, it would probably have been wise to take it.


----------



## Kirjava (May 10, 2010)

reThinking the Cube said:


> Kirjava said:
> 
> 
> > wtf is preinspection.
> ...




No, you made this up because you realised 'pre-inspection' isn't the correct term when I asked you about it.


----------



## reThinking the Cube (May 10, 2010)

Escher said:


> reThinking the Cube said:
> 
> 
> > Fool.
> ...



Did I really "proceed to post a lot of mistaken assumptions", or did you just "mistakenly" assume that to be the case, so that you could have a RETARDED EXCUSE for being a JERK? You even started the following thread about forum etiquette, and I wonder what the hell has happened to your good attitude since -



StefanPochmann said:


> Rule #1 should just be "Don't be a jerk". Possibly extended with "The following rules help you achieve that".
> Also interesting: http://tinyurl.com/y6lowc



So you see Rowan(Escher), and the rest of the incestuous groopies, there is no need for you to be ad hominem hypocrites, ... for I am also just giving YOU some advice. Seeing as you have proceeded to post a lot of unwarranted insults towards me, it would probably be wise to take it. 

In the future, please say something that contributes, or just stfu. Trying to be a smartass at my expense is just plain stupid. How many times do I have to spank you kids before you learn this lesson?

...


----------



## DavidWoner (May 10, 2010)

reThinking the Cube said:


> Weston said:
> 
> 
> > So I'm pretty sure what David did was just take like half a second to plan out his FF and then do a normal solve from there. You don't actually have to start turning as soon as you start the timer...
> ...



Ortega requires less inspection than any other method BY FAR. Since you only need to find four stickers for the first step and 4 for the second, recognition/prediction between early steps is incredibly easy. Permutation of first layer can sometimes be recognized during OLL, and since I know how my Ortega OLLs affect all CLL cases, PBL recog is not really affected with no inpection. A CLL only or Guimond only average with no inspection would be closer to 5s, if not slower.



reThinking the Cube said:


> and the rest of the *incestuous* groopies,



lolwat


----------



## Escher (May 10, 2010)

reThinking the Cube said:


> Did I really "proceed to post a lot of mistaken assumptions"


Well, maybe just one.

Your initial reply to David Woner was really quite condescending; "That's too fast, you've done it wrong, please try again", basing your opinion on his competition results, and ignoring his recent posts of his averages, the fact he is a super-moderator on this forum and that he is consistently one of the best posters here. Later you then admit the competition results you posted show nothing, so I don't really know why you posted them in the first place. Perhaps you initially made a mistaken assumption that they have a great deal of meaning:


reThinking the Cube said:


> I know that your current 2x2x2 average is very close to 4sec.





reThinking the Cube said:


> dannyz0r said:
> 
> 
> > and that tells you what he averages at home?
> ...



At least you apologise here for the assumption you shouldn't have made in the first place:


reThinking the Cube said:


> If DW's average was done without inspection, then like I had stated earlier, I apologize for assuming otherwise.



Anyway,



reThinking the Cube said:


> In the future, please say something that contributes, or just stfu. Trying to be a smartass at my expense is just plain stupid. How many times do I have to spank you kids before you learn this lesson?
> 
> ...


You're being really condescending again. 
Honestly speaking, my good attitude disappears when you start posting because I have a prejudice against you based on your attitude here and in other threads. 

Anyway, if you'd like my contribution, here is a no-inspection avg of 25:
(7.24), 5.49, 6.09, 4.24, 4.16, 3.49, 4.67, 4.65, (2.53), 3.98, 4.24, 3.92, 4.25, 4.72, 4.16, 4.67, 4.75, 4.56, 3.16, 4.70, 3.66, 4.01, 4.44, 5.70, 4.01 = 4.42

So brother/lover/father/uncle Woneykins wins.


----------



## reThinking the Cube (May 10, 2010)

DavidWoner said:


> Ortega requires less inspection than any other method BY FAR. Since you only need to find four stickers for the first step and 4 for the second, recognition/prediction between early steps is incredibly easy. Permutation of first layer can sometimes be recognized during OLL, and since I know how my Ortega OLLs affect all CLL cases, PBL recog is not really affected with no inpection. A CLL only or Guimond only average with no inspection would be closer to 5s, if not slower.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Explained well. 1) For reference, how about giving approx. times for each of the steps - typical averages depending on whether you had determined the case during inspection or needed to recognize it on the fly. For me the FF without ANY inspection adds a big chunk, and then the OLL case needs to also be recognized, rather than just executed as predicted. 2) How much inspection time would it typically take for you to be able to work out the whole 2x2x2 solve in advance, and what sort of times could you average with those predetermined solves?

...


----------



## qqwref (May 10, 2010)

reThinking, you are still an idiot. I keep hoping you'll get better and you keep coining new terms when they're not needed, putting "..." after every post for no reason, thinking fast people aren't fast, talking about stuff you don't understand at all, not using proper grammar, disrespecting people who literally know more than you about every facet of cubing, and in general being an ass. If you continue like this nobody will ever respect you. Don't you understand that you COULD fit into the community? A little "sorry, my mistake" goes a long way.

Anyway, I did an average. I guess my normal average is about 5.0 with this method.
best avg12: 6.59 (σ = 0.77)
6.38, 5.88, 6.00, 6.99, 7.51, (5.43), 5.71, 6.45, 5.87, 6.90, 8.21, (DNF)


----------



## Slowpoke22 (May 10, 2010)

8.19 a12, but also my first solves of the day. Times were all over the place. Normal a12 for me is 5.75ish.


----------



## reThinking the Cube (May 10, 2010)

Escher: I thought being "concise" really meant something to you. 
How will I ever repay you for this diatribe of your love? 



Escher said:


> reThinking the Cube said:
> 
> 
> > Did I really "proceed to post a lot of mistaken assumptions"
> ...



Stop! That is not the true wording, and I really didn't mean it to be taken that way. Check out the "?!" punctuation, and reread it without bias. But yeah, I can see now how that might be misinterpreted. No offense intended, sorry "d-Bone".



Escher said:


> basing your opinion on his competition results,



Yes, I did, base my opinion concerning DW's times, upon the information available to me at the time - official WCA 2x2x2 competition results. Later on, I learned some more about DM's 2x2x2 solving ability, and so my opinion on this subject is based upon many things.



Escher said:


> and ignoring his recent posts of his averages,



Hadn't seen them. OOOOH, my bad, you got me, I will admit my shame:fp, in that, YES - I wasn't fully prepared for a David "d-Bone" Woner Exam, prior to posting my poll question. Give me a break.



Escher said:


> the fact he is a super-moderator on this forum


Yes, no dispute there.



Escher said:


> and that he is consistently one of the best posters here.



I can agree with that one as well. The pen-spring 2x2x2 mod is a good example. Another that comes to mind is the 4x4x4 H-perm video demonstration, and many others. Thank you DW



Escher said:


> Later you then admit the competition results you posted show nothing, so I don't really know why you posted them in the first place.



Posted in response to baseless insult "clueless" as regards DM's expected times being ~4 sec. 



reThinking the Cube said:


> I know that your current 2x2x2 average is very close to 4sec.



That is true. That is what the official WCA competition results show, and that is why I posted them. 



reThinking the Cube said:


> dannyz0r said:
> 
> 
> > and that tells you what he averages at home?
> ...



I am not saying "worthless" here in regards to the posted results (as you falsely claimed earlier), it is simply "not worth debating" as in - "what the hell is the matter with you people" for trying to sidetrack the thread with this?



Escher said:


> At least you apologise here for the assumption you shouldn't have made in the first place:
> 
> 
> reThinking the Cube said:
> ...



Escher, 

Are you able to do the same, by apologizing for your mistaken assumptions, and unkind posts that you have directed towards me?



Escher said:


> Anyway,
> 
> 
> reThinking the Cube said:
> ...



You seriously need to read and enjoy more of my _fine attitudinal threads_, so that you can fully unbias yourself. It's not healthy for you to be so prejudiced, especially against someone as gifted as me.



Escher said:


> Anyway, if you'd like my contribution, here is a no-inspection avg of 25:
> (7.24), 5.49, 6.09, 4.24, 4.16, 3.49, 4.67, 4.65, (2.53), 3.98, 4.24, 3.92, 4.25, 4.72, 4.16, 4.67, 4.75, 4.56, 3.16, 4.70, 3.66, 4.01, 4.44, 5.70, 4.01 = 4.42



Thank you. I liked it - a lot.


----------



## Edward (May 10, 2010)

I lol'd.
I'll participate when I get my 2x2 back up, and learn ortega.


----------



## Kirjava (May 10, 2010)

moar liek *de*Thinking the Cube amirite?


----------



## reThinking the Cube (May 10, 2010)

qqwref said:


> reThinking, you are still an idiot.



Are you trying to set an example for me to follow here?



qqwref said:


> I keep hoping you'll get better and you keep coining new terms when they're not needed,


The latest one is "Cold Solve" = timed solving without any inspection. Do you have a better name for this? If not, then it was needed. How insecure are you, that other people cannot even coin their own terms for things without you (Lord Gottlieb) getting offended.



qqwref said:


> putting "..." after every post for no reason,



Reason: I wanted to further seperate the body text from the signature line. I will stop doing that, as a special favor just for you.



qqwref said:


> thinking fast people aren't fast,


What makes you think I'm not fast?



qqwref said:


> talking about stuff you don't understand at all,


Yeah, if that is your opinion, then it is YOU that doesn't understand these things.



qqwref said:


> not using proper grammar,


Mine is better than yours, but I wouldn't be offended if someone PM'd me some tips. English is not my native.



qqwref said:


> disrespecting people who literally know more than you about every facet of cubing


You don't know me yet, and you don't know what I know yet. Why are you so determined to embarrass yourself?



qqwref said:


> and in general being an ass.


What is so bad about being an ass? You seem to be exceptionally good at it.


----------



## qqwref (May 10, 2010)

reThinking the Cube said:


> qqwref said:
> 
> 
> > I keep hoping you'll get better and you keep coining new terms when they're not needed,
> ...


You seem pretty insecure yourself, to have to assume everyone is arrogant just so you don't feel bad about how you're completely unable to fit into the community. It's called a "no-inspection solve", anyway, and not only is this a better name (people have already used 'cold solving' to mean, you guessed it, solving with cold hands... and also to mean solving without any warm-up) but it doesn't require any explanation because the name already explains what's going on. 



reThinking the Cube said:


> qqwref said:
> 
> 
> > putting "..." after every post for no reason,
> ...


If you took the time to actually read some posts on the forum you'd see that nobody does that (ergo it's not necessary). Why would you insist on being different in even the smallest things? It doesn't make people think "this guy is so different, he must be more creative than all of us", but rather "this guy is so different, he is probably just some noob who can't contribute anything useful".



reThinking the Cube said:


> qqwref said:
> 
> 
> > thinking fast people aren't fast,
> ...


Does it matter? But it's the fact that this is *speed*solving and that fast people post their times here, at least once in a while. I haven't seen you post any fast times or videos. Still, it's not about you, it's about Woner, and I think it's very rude (on a speedsolving forum, remember) to question someone's times just because they're fast and you aren't familiar with how fast they are. Questioning someone who's proved themselves time and again (if you'd only look) doesn't make you look like a clever skeptic. It makes you look like someone who can't do basic research, and establishes you as an antagonist to some very well-respected and friendly (perhaps not to you!) forum members.



reThinking the Cube said:


> qqwref said:
> 
> 
> > talking about stuff you don't understand at all,
> ...


This is a pretty pathetic defense.



reThinking the Cube said:


> qqwref said:
> 
> 
> > not using proper grammar,
> ...


Again, why do you think you have to attack everyone? You come across as incredibly arrogant, and not just to me.



reThinking the Cube said:


> qqwref said:
> 
> 
> > disrespecting people who literally know more than you about every facet of cubing
> ...


I think we've seen a pretty good approximation of how little you really know about cubing and cubing theory from your posts. If you think this is a misinterpretation, I'm not going to stop you from making better posts.


----------



## Escher (May 10, 2010)

reThinking the Cube said:


> Stop! That is not the true wording, and I really didn't mean it to be taken that way.



Nah, it's not the true wording but I couldn't think of a better way to summarise it without just quoting it verbatim. 



reThinking the Cube said:


> Yes, I did, base my opinion concerning DW's times, upon the information available to me at the time



This entire forum should count as information available to at the time...



reThinking the Cube said:


> Escher said:
> 
> 
> > and ignoring his recent posts of his averages,
> ...



Okay, I guess I was being a bit harsh here. Still, it should be made very clear that official times aren't at all reliable when comparing against unofficial times, and even less reliably when comparing against an unofficial event (such as no-inspection 2x2). Just look at Gabriel Dechichi - he has a 13.xx avg in competition, yet several sub 11 avgs of 12 on youtube, and an 8.9x avg of 12 unofficially.

Also, this post is regarding your response to Woner - I actually think the thread itself is quite interesting and of course you don't need to know anything about the contributors beforehand...



reThinking the Cube said:


> reThinking the Cube said:
> 
> 
> > I know that your current 2x2x2 average is very close to 4sec.
> ...



But that's exactly the thing, you *don't* know how close or not his avg to 4s is... Or maybe I'm not getting the point here?



reThinking the Cube said:


> I am not saying "worthless" here in regards to the posted results (as you falsely claimed earlier)


Whoa whoa whoa, I never said 'worthless'. I said 'nothing', as in, 'nothing relative to this context' and then implied they don't have a 'great deal of meaning'. I'm not dumb enough to think there's no relation whatsoever. 



reThinking the Cube said:


> Escher said:
> 
> 
> > At least you apologise here for the assumption you shouldn't have made in the first place:
> ...



Sure, I apologise for telling you to shut up, I should have been less reactionary and made myself clearer.



reThinking the Cube said:


> Escher said:
> 
> 
> > You're being really condescending again.
> ...



Hmm, I've read enough of your threads, and posts towards members of the forum I respect not to reconcile you to me here.

Perhaps in the future I'll make my criticisms more clear.

Btw, re: being concise; you can write as long posts as you like as long as you aren't unnecessarily verbose


----------



## riffz (May 11, 2010)

I think you should clarify the usage of Ortega, since doing a CLL solve is technically within the confines of the Ortega method. I would define Ortega to be only using ONE OLL for each case to make this poll more accurate. I think by 'liberal' David probably meant that he used CLL in a lot of the cases.

EDIT:

Average: 8.29
Standard Deviation: 1.77
Best Time: 4.39
Worst Time: DNF
Individual Times:
1.	7.00	F' U R2 U R2 U' F R
2.	9.33	R U2 F' R U' R U' R2 F2
3.	(4.39)	U R' U' R' U2 F U2 F R2
4.	6.89	R2 U' F2 U R2 F' R' U R2
5.	6.80	R' U2 R F' R2 F2 U R'
6.	13.47	R U' F U' R2 U2 R' F' R
7.	8.69	R F2 U' R' U' R2 F
8.	6.91	F' R U R2 F2 U' R2 U R
9.	8.80	R F' U' R F' R U2 R F'
10.	(DNF)	R2 U2 F' U R' F2 U2 F' R2
11.	7.80	F U' R F' R2 F R' F2 R'
12.	7.17	R' U F' U2 F U' F U'

That was... frustrating.


----------



## Forte (May 11, 2010)

Kirjava said:


> reThinking the Cube said:
> 
> 
> > Kirjava said:
> ...


This is still true btw


----------

