# 3x3x3 : October 30, 2006



## pjk (Oct 30, 2006)

1) F' B' U R' F D2 L2 D U' R' F2 B' D F2 R2 U2 R' F' D2 R2 F U L U' F'
2) R2 F' R B' L2 F2 D' F2 R D' U2 B2 L D' R2 D2 U' R2 D F B D U R2 D2
3) B2 L2 D' L' D2 R' D B' U D R B D R' B D' U R' F2 R' B' L2 D' U' R2
4) R2 U' R2 F' U' D B' L' B2 D2 R' B2 D R2 L F2 R' L' D2 L2 F2 B D2 F' D
5) R2 L D' B D B' D L2 D2 F' D2 U B R2 B2 L U' F' L F2 L2 B2 R2 B L'


----------



## tsaoenator (Oct 31, 2006)

(10.70) 13.23 15.66 (15.72) 14.17 = 14.35

Wow the first solve was easy...

Andy


----------



## pjk (Oct 31, 2006)

(18.30) (25.58) 25.55 22.33 20.38
Average: 22.75

First solve was pretty easy, I wish I was good enough to get a 10.70 solve .


----------



## Piotr (Oct 31, 2006)

(14.88) 16.72 15.61 (17.78) 15.08
average:15.80


----------



## MasterofRubix (Nov 3, 2006)

19.79 (17.67) 22.48 (23.78) 23.23
Average: 21.83

Almost a sub-20 average...


----------



## Lt-UnReaL (Dec 6, 2006)

> _Originally posted by tsaoenator_@Oct 31 2006, 12:47 AM
> * (10.70) 13.23 15.66 (15.72) 14.17 = 14.35
> 
> Wow the first solve was easy...
> ...


 Amazing, I can't even get below 3 minutes!


----------



## longshot789 (Dec 7, 2006)

Don't worry about it LT. I have been doing the cube for a month and a half, but I have been completely absorbed by it. I do it a few hundred times a day. I have brought my average from above 3 minutes down to my current average of 35 seconds. It'll amaze you how fast you can improve just by doing the cube a lot. Of course you reach an asymptote, but duh... So buck up and don't get discouraged. I posted times in two of the competitions on here, one was just over a minute, and the other was just over 40 seconds, they were only a couple weeks apart. I'm sure you'll catch a method that works for you and you'll begin to get fast.


----------



## Erik (Dec 7, 2006)

Name: Erik Akkersdijk
Average: 15.49
Times: (12.14), 15.39, 14.06, (22.06), 17.02

Normal average, first solve was easy x-cross. I don't have a clue what happened on the 22 it seemed fast...


----------



## Lt-UnReaL (Dec 8, 2006)

> _Originally posted by longshot789_@Dec 7 2006, 04:49 AM
> * Don't worry about it LT. I have been doing the cube for a month and a half, but I have been completely absorbed by it. I do it a few hundred times a day. I have brought my average from above 3 minutes down to my current average of 35 seconds. It'll amaze you how fast you can improve just by doing the cube a lot. Of course you reach an asymptote, but duh... So buck up and don't get discouraged. I posted times in two of the competitions on here, one was just over a minute, and the other was just over 40 seconds, they were only a couple weeks apart. I'm sure you'll catch a method that works for you and you'll begin to get fast. *


 Ah, thanks.  I just do not know where to find out where to get faster, but longer algorithms. I've searched everywhere.


----------



## AvGalen (Dec 8, 2006)

"Faster, but longer algorithms" sounds to me like 2 generators. These are algorithms that only move 2 sides of the cube (R and U for example)

example short(12): (R2 U R2 U') (R2 F2 R2) (U' F2 U) (R2 U2)
example 2-gen(16): (R' U' R U') (R U R U') (R' U R U) (R2 U' R' U2)

The 2-gen can be executed faster eventhough it requires more moves.


But when you are still above 1 minute, don't focus on finding better algorithms. Focus on finding a better method and on faster recognition of cases.

This is probably the level you are at now: http://www.deepcube.net/beginner.html?

And this is were I am now (30.xx seconds average): http://www.deepcube.net/intermediate.html?


----------



## cmhardw (Dec 10, 2006)

Chris Hardwick
16.67 average
(14.38) 17.84 (19.47) 17.48 14.68


----------



## longshot789 (Dec 10, 2006)

*Times:* 34.64 [29.59] [43.68] 37.65 35.90
*Average:* 36.06


----------



## Lt-UnReaL (Dec 13, 2006)

> _Originally posted by AvGalen_@Dec 8 2006, 11:32 AM
> * "Faster, but longer algorithms" sounds to me like 2 generators. These are algorithms that only move 2 sides of the cube (R and U for example)
> 
> example short(12): (R2 U R2 U') (R2 F2 R2) (U' F2 U) (R2 U2)
> ...


 Oh cool, but what I meant though was faster algorithms, and to solve more sides. Say I wanted to solve a corner on the white side, but maybe I could solve the piece above that too, all in the same algorithm?
And yep, that level is about where I am at.


----------



## AvGalen (Dec 13, 2006)

Unfortunately what you mean isn't faster algorithms. It is more algorithms. The extra piece that you want to solve can be on multiple locations, so you would need multiple algorithms.

If you want to discuss this further, I think it would be better to start a new thread.


----------

