# Random Cubing Discussion



## Kirjava (Jul 28, 2010)

Often I have ideas or thoughts that I'd like to post or discuss, but there doesn't exist a topic for. This happens a few times a week and usually consists of method ideas that don't yet merit their own threads - I resorted to discussing RouxZZ in the accomplishments thread, for example.

Think of it like the one answer one question thread, but for adults.


To start us off, I wanna post a video of kirjavaparity ^_^


----------



## waffle=ijm (Jul 28, 2010)

O kirjava parity...sexy


----------



## hawkmp4 (Jul 28, 2010)

That is a sexy parity.


----------



## ariasamie (Jul 28, 2010)

so actually it is going to be the new "I just realized that..." thread!


----------



## Kirjava (Jul 28, 2010)

ariasamie said:


> so actually it is going to be the new "I just realized that..." thread!




I wouldn't post RANDOM stuff like this in that thread~


----------



## cincyaviation (Jul 28, 2010)

After getting 2 PLL skips in a row and like 6 corner permutation skips after doing CLS, i realized that you could theoretically learn a bunch of algs for each case to solve the corners almost every time, i just don't know how many algs you would need.


----------



## Kirjava (Jul 28, 2010)

For CLS or OLL?

OLLCP is quite popular already - I think CLS would be like a bajillion algs.


----------



## vcuber13 (Jul 28, 2010)

well, if its 5 corners with 3 orientations, only half are possible, so it should be 5! x [3! / 2]
or
\( 
5! \times \frac{3!}{2}
\)

\( 
=120 \times 3
\)

\( 
=360 \)

not sure if this is right, but I think so.


----------



## Kirjava (Jul 29, 2010)

That sounds wrong :/ isn't it more like 104*6 = 624?

Also, recog would be fun. CLL with 5 corners XD


----------



## cincyaviation (Jul 29, 2010)

How many would it be to do CLS plus solve edges? corner perms are pretty fast too


----------



## vcuber13 (Jul 29, 2010)

why 6?

edit:
like 1 step mgls (or ls or whatever)?
21*104=~2100


----------



## Kirjava (Jul 29, 2010)

vcuber13 said:


> why 6?




Four corners have six permutations.

lol we're discussing this on IRC


----------



## Matt S (Jul 29, 2010)

Kirjava said:


> vcuber13 said:
> 
> 
> > why 6?
> ...



Except, not all six are distinguishable for symmetrical orientations.


----------



## StachuK1992 (Jul 29, 2010)

Kirjava said:


> lol we're discussing this on IRC


0.o
I have to start watching what I say if there are gonna be tons of IRC log links now!


----------



## Kirjava (Jul 29, 2010)

Matt S said:


> Except, not all six are distinguishable for symmetrical orientations.




Good point. That makes it an upper bound.

I can't think of how to work out the true number of cases without manually omitting cases I know are symmetrical. Any ideas?


----------



## qqwref (Jul 29, 2010)

That Kirjava parity is clever as ****. Nice job.


----------



## TheCubeMaster5000 (Jul 29, 2010)

it's fake


----------



## qqwref (Jul 29, 2010)

It's like ten turns. Just figure it out from the video, invert, execute on a solved cube.


----------



## ariasamie (Jul 29, 2010)

Can someone give 1 or more scrambles with green on front, white on top, which when I hold the cube like orange on front and yellow on top and I do old pochmann for BLD I don't have to break into new cycles at all. and can you tell me where you got them from?


----------



## vcuber13 (Jul 29, 2010)

has anyone figured out the notation yet?


----------



## Kirjava (Jul 29, 2010)

btw, here's the scramble from Minh Thai's 22.95 world record solve.

U L2 D' B2 U' R2 B2 F2 D' F2 L2 R2 F R2 D L2 R2 B' L' D' R F'

A reconstruction is in the works :O


----------



## Cubenovice (Jul 29, 2010)

Kirjava said:


> btw, here's the scramble from Minh Thai's 22.95 world record solve.
> 
> U L2 D' B2 U' R2 B2 F2 D' F2 L2 R2 F R2 D L2 R2 B' L' D' R F'
> 
> A reconstruction is in the works :O



My times on this scramble
CF: 2:38.00 
CFOP: 45.50 = my average
LBL as my daughter does it, incl daisy: 1:14.84
ZZ: disqualification (first timed solve, was still checking out EO)
Dimzay EF: DNF Fail on corners (purposly NOT using any known algs)


----------



## jiggy (Jul 29, 2010)

Cubenovice said:


> Kirjava said:
> 
> 
> > btw, here's the scramble from Minh Thai's 22.95 world record solve.
> ...


Ooo, that's a fun game!

00:21.81 (about average for me) SUCK IT THAI!!


----------



## riffz (Jul 29, 2010)

Cubenovice said:


> Kirjava said:
> 
> 
> > btw, here's the scramble from Minh Thai's 22.95 world record solve.
> ...


----------



## Cubenovice (Jul 29, 2010)

Why o why?

Why did I start something that I* knew *would make me look bad?


----------



## ariasamie (Jul 29, 2010)

Kirjava said:


> ariasamie; U' F' R U F2 B' U2 R' F' U2 B U B2 U' R2 D2 F2 L2 U R2
> 
> Just made it with acube



thank you Thom. it worked.


----------



## Athefre (Jul 31, 2010)

(More) Intuitive Corner Method

*Step 1: Three Pieces of a Face*

Like Guimond, you'll first be placing three matching or opposite oriented corners on D.

*Step 2: Orientation*

Now using only F' and R moves, and adjusting U-layer, replace DFL and DBR with corners from U while also orienting two corners on U. After you have done this, you are left with a three move orientation. If you have three oriented corners on U, take the single misoriented corner on U and place it at DFL or DBR with an F' or R move, based on the way it is facing.

*Step 3: Three Pieces of a layer*

Place three corners of a layer on D in their correct positions using R2/F2/L2/B2/U/D. Have the free slot be at DFR when you are finished.

*Step 4: Finish*

Your goal here is to pair up all corners. You have one of four options:

1. If the two U corners counter-clockwise to the remaining D corner (that is on U) are opposite, place the remaining D corner at UFR and do R2UR2 (U'R2 afterwards to form the U and D layer).
2. If the two U corners clockwise to the remaining D corner are opposite, place the remaining D corner at UFR and do F2U'F2 (UF2).
3. If there is a pair on U, place the remaining D corner in it's correct position (DFR) using an F2 or R2 move - depending on which of those moves breaks up the U pair (you want to break it up while placing the remaining D corner). Now, after a y rotation, you are left in a position to do option 1 or option 2.
4. If all three U corners are correct or if all three U corners are opposite, place the remaining D corner at UBL and do R2UR2 (or F2U'F2). After a y rotation, you have one of the other options.

*Example Solves:*

Scramble - D' U R U2 D F2 D R2 F2 B2 L D2 B F' L2 D2 L2 R F R2 L' B2 L' F2 D2

Step 1: y2
Step 2: U'R U2 F'UF
Step 3: UL2 U'F2U'F2UF2 U'

Scramble - U' R2 F' D2 R' D2 R F2 L2 U L' D F2 D' R' B' L' R' B' L' F L B R' L

Step 1: x'y'
Step 2: U'F'U'RF'UF
Step 3: U2F2R2
Step 4: U'F2 y' UF2U'F2UF2

Scramble - F R' F' R F' L R' B' R D' B' F' L' D' U2 B2 D2 L F2 R B D' B R' F2

Step 1: x2
Step 2: U F' F' R F'UF
Step 3: L2D'R2
Step 4: U R2UR2 y U2R2UR2 U'R2



Spoiler



How this started - I saw Thoms post about how he thought there should be something really simple for 2x2x2 that just hadn't been found yet. So, I made it my goal to find something more intuitive than what is out there. I felt like having three pieces on D was great, it's simple. So I kept that step as the first. Having the second step be setting it up into a three move orientation seemed obvious. But, I noticed that working with the free slot at DFR and trying to turn it into that had problems (for a beginner). Often DFR would be oriented while working with the slot (leaving you with a face to have to undo) and there is too much trial and error. I wanted to keep DFR _misoriented_ but still have two oriented corners on U. Then came the idea.

Of course, the orientation step in Guimond is intuitive to more experienced solvers. But, I'm hoping this is easy for a beginner to understand. Hopefully I haven't messed up and missed something that ruins this idea.


I'm considering making a topic about this, but first I would have to improve this post with more details and pictures. I thought I would give it a test here first.


----------



## Cride5 (Jul 31, 2010)

@Athefre, have you seen this?
http://www.speedsolving.com/forum/showthread.php?t=22684


----------



## Athefre (Jul 31, 2010)

Yes I have and it's just a coincidence that they are similar, trust me. The differences I see are:

- In yours it is creating pairs near the beginning, after the three D-layer pieces.
- In yours there is a separation of the layers after orientation and a final permutation of pairs.
- I wanted to avoid a long sequence of moves as the final step (yours isn't very long, I think it's great they you left it at one sequence). I wanted something repetitive, short (R2UR2 or F2U'F2), and easy to understand. I had other ideas for Step 4 (use one pair solving sequence, having one of the D-layer pieces be in the wrong position [for a final R2U'R2, etc. move]), but I felt that this was the simplest.

Most 2x2x2 methods are about the same. It's usually either make three pieces as the first step, or make a layer as the first step.


----------



## Cride5 (Jul 31, 2010)

Athefre said:


> Yes I have and it's just a coincidence that they are similar, trust me. The differences I see are:
> 
> - In yours it is creating pairs near the beginning, after the three D-layer pieces.
> - In yours there is a separation of the layers after orientation and a final permutation of pairs.
> ...



Step 1 basically has the goal of creating 3 on the bottom and an adjacent pair on the top (all of opposite colours). The pairs just provide intermediate sub-steps to make it easier. The idea in this step is to use just R/U moves. From there its just 3 moves to two oriented faces.

There is no 'separation' step, but instead it is done during solving of permutation. First a pair is built and held in DL, and then R2/U moves are used 'square-1' style to solve the rest.

I had a wee look at your website ... and there was quite an interesting 3x3 method idea. I kindof came up with something similar a while ago too, lol  ... but I can see there are also differences there as well. Basically a Guimond-style 3x3 solve, starting with orientation, followed by separation, then permutation of individual layers.
http://www.speedsolving.com/forum/showthread.php?t=15534

I guess these kind of 'orient-first' methods can be quite good fun, but probably not so practical in speedsolving - mainly because of lookahead problems. Guimond is probably the exception because it is possible to do all the stuff which requires a glance ad D and B during inspection, leaving the rest of the cube solvable by looking only at U, F and R...


----------



## qqwref (Jul 31, 2010)

Really neat 2-gen algorithm:

(R U R2 U' R') (U' R' U2 R U)

The effect is pretty neat, but try to figure out how it works too, that's crazy as well. (Yes, that's a *fully intuitive* 2gen 3-cycle on edges.)


----------



## joey (Jul 31, 2010)

That's really cool qq.


----------



## Athefre (Jul 31, 2010)

Cride5 said:


> Step 1 basically has the goal of creating 3 on the bottom and an adjacent pair on the top (of opposite colours). The pairs just provide intermediate sub-steps to make it easier. The idea in this step is to use just R/U moves. From there its just 3 moves to two oriented faces.
> 
> There is no 'separation' step, but instead it is done during solving of permutation. First a pair is built and held in DL, and then R2/U moves are used 'square-1' style to solve the rest.




I actually find your corner method kind of difficult. I find myself "trying" things during the final part of Step 1 instead of understanding what I'm doing. Maybe I'm not reading correctly, or maybe I just need think longer before I make a move.



Cride5 said:


> I had a wee look at your website ... and there was quite an interesting 3x3 method idea. I kindof came up with something similar a while ago too, lol  ... but I can see there are also differences there as well. Basically a Guimond-style 3x3 solve, starting with orientation, followed by separation, then permutation of individual layers.
> http://www.speedsolving.com/forum/showthread.php?t=15534




I saw that  After, and during the creation, I looked around on speedsolving, the speedsolving Wiki, Twisty Puzzles, and the Yahoo! group to make sure there wasn't anything out there like it.


----------



## qqwref (Jul 31, 2010)

joey: Yeah, I can't believe I found it by messing up a solve on the sim.

Some setups can also get you to an 11f U-perm:
R U2 R U R U R2 U' R' U' R2


----------



## Cride5 (Jul 31, 2010)

Athefre said:


> Cride5 said:
> 
> 
> > Step 1 basically has the goal of creating 3 on the bottom and an adjacent pair on the top (of opposite colours). The pairs just provide intermediate sub-steps to make it easier. The idea in this step is to use just R/U moves. From there its just 3 moves to two oriented faces.
> ...



Once you have a pair in UL and you're holding one in DL, try this (using only R/U):

* If you see 3 on top 3 on bottom, do R ... if it leaves just 2 pairs then go back to 3 on top 3 on bottom and preserve a different pair in the top, then do R.
* If you have 4/2 and R doesn't create 3/3, then do R to create a 2/2, break up the pair on U to build an alternative pair.
* If you have 2/2 and can't create anything with R-moves, do U R to create an alternative pair on top, you should now be able to get 4/2


----------



## Athefre (Jul 31, 2010)

Cride5 said:


> Once you have a pair in UL and you're holding one in DL, try this (using only R/U):
> 
> * If you see 3 on top 3 on bottom, do R ... if it leaves just 2 pairs then go back to 3 on top 3 on bottom and preserve a different pair in the top, then do R.
> * If you have 4/2 and R doesn't create 3/3, then do R to create a 2/2, break up the pair on U to build an alternative pair.
> * If you have 2/2 and can't create anything with R-moves, do U R to create an alternative pair on top, you should now be able to get 4/2



That definitely helps _me_, but I think I would have trouble getting a beginner to remember it. I know when I first started I struggled to learn the 7 sequences in the method that came with my cube. It was extremely annoying, making me want to give up sometimes.

Of course, my idea isn't perfect either. I think beginners would have a hard time remembering where they were supposed to place the lone D corner (that is on U) before they do either R2UR2 or F2U'F2.


----------



## Cride5 (Jul 31, 2010)

I guess the idea is, that if a beginner forgets what to do they can just try randomly turning R/U to create and destroy pairs until they get what they're looking for. It's a bit like returning sq-1 back to a square ... even if you have no idea what you're doing, if you fiddle for long enough you'll get it. Doing this over time you'll eventually build up a system and recognise all the sub-cases.

I think what sets apart an intuitive method from an algorithmic method is that the details don't really matter ... as long as the solver is aware of the sub-goals to be reached, they should be able to kludge together the bits in between, even if the exact moves have been forgotten.


----------



## Athefre (Jul 31, 2010)

Still considering making a topic. But I worry that it will be a repeat of my NMCMLL topic. I'm still not sure if anyone besides Gilles, Thom, and Mini truly understand the recognition.

I'll definitely need pictures to make sure people really see the idea behind Step 2. I found you can not only use F' and R moves during the step, but also F and R' - gotta pay attention to the RUF or FUR sticker though so you don't form a face on D. I can also combine Option 1 and Option 2 in Step 4 and give a better description of those.


----------



## iChanZer0 (Jul 31, 2010)

any information on multislotting??


----------



## ThatGuy (Jul 31, 2010)

i had a thought about color neutral training. I've been doing 2gen solves alternating colors so who knows if it works.


----------



## ariasamie (Aug 12, 2010)

qqTimer can be more accurate than a stackmat.
because you can't get a 0.00 with a stackmat!





this photo is not made by photoshop or paint.
sometimes I just keep hitting the space button so fast that the timer doesn't even stop.


----------



## Kirjava (Aug 12, 2010)

You can get 0.00 on a QJ timer.

Athefre/Cride - I still think your 2x2x2 methods are too complicated - too much to remember!

However,



Cride5 said:


> I think what sets apart an intuitive method from an algorithmic method is that the details don't really matter ... as long as the solver is aware of the sub-goals to be reached, they should be able to kludge together the bits in between, even if the exact moves have been forgotten.




I've actually seen this happen at the "solve all edges" point in 8355. The guy I taught made up his own system for doing it.


----------



## Cride5 (Aug 12, 2010)

Kirjava said:


> Athefre/Cride - I still think your 2x2x2 methods are too complicated - too much to remember!


How about the '35' method 


@ariasamie, just because a timer can register better time resolution doesn't mean it's more accurate. A general problem with PC based timers (and this includes CCT) is that they share processing with other tasks. If your computer decides that some task is more important than 'stop timer' then your times are going to be wrong. Personally, I would trust a Stackmat/QJ timer more than anything on a PC.


----------



## Kirjava (Aug 12, 2010)

Cride5 said:


> Kirjava said:
> 
> 
> > Athefre/Cride - I still think your 2x2x2 methods are too complicated - too much to remember!
> ...




idk man, it's better - but it's still confusing. I was hoping for something really intuitive - something I can teach someone in 30 seconds.

The biggest problem is solving the adj swap intuitively. Doing one move and solving the corners again gets confusing because people forget where the corners are supposed to be.


----------



## Cride5 (Aug 12, 2010)

The problem with adj swap is that any alg for it is going to be at least 9 moves. It's very difficult to break that down into intuitive sub-steps.

The method I suggested makes half of the moves (the final 5) completely intuitive and difficult to mess up, because the cube is reduced to the R2, U group. As long as they don't let go of bottom-left two cubies, it should be a doddle.

The hardest part is the first 5 moves, setting up for the re-grip. It requires the solver to remember:
* Bring DR pair up to UB
* Break it up
* Do the R2 swap
* Regrip

... I can't really think of a nicer way to do it. Perhaps some kind memory trick would help. ... like an acronym for the steps. All I could think of is: BASS (Back, And Split then Swap).


----------



## ben1996123 (Aug 13, 2010)

Kirjava said:


> You can get 0.00 on a QJ timer.







You can also get 0.00 on this.


----------



## qqwref (Aug 13, 2010)

Easy to remember two-swap on back (for 2x2x2):
R2 D2 (R'F')*7.5 D2 F2

I had the idea of making a StackMat-like timer that runs on 1000 Hz (yes, three decimal places) instead of 60 Hz. I don't know if this is a reasonable modification but I'm going to give it a shot.


----------



## jms_gears1 (Aug 13, 2010)

<3 kirjavaparity.


----------



## shelley (Aug 13, 2010)

Kirjava said:


>



This makes me want to make a magic with Look of Disapproval on the solved side. I would not compete with it, but I would lend it out to anyone who asks at competitions.

Unfortunately, this would involve me owning a magic.


----------



## qqwref (Aug 13, 2010)

shelley said:


> Unfortunately, this would involve me owning a magic.


If you're worried about that, I could do the owning for you. It would just be on an indefinite, free lease.


----------



## shelley (Aug 13, 2010)

I... suppose that could work? It would also make things easier if you happen to already have an extra magic lying around, because I certainly don't.


----------



## ben1996123 (Aug 13, 2010)

lolkirparity

3R' U' (2F' F) U2 (2F F') U 2M' U2 R


----------



## Kirjava (Aug 13, 2010)

qqwref said:


> Easy to remember two-swap on back (for 2x2x2):
> R2 D2 (R'F')*7.5 D2 F2




That is sexy. I lol'd at *7.5.


----------



## qqwref (Aug 13, 2010)

shelley said:


> I... suppose that could work? It would also make things easier if you happen to already have an extra magic lying around, because I certainly don't.



I do actually. It's kinda tight and has my own custom inserts in it, but your idea is way better than mine was.


----------



## ariasamie (Aug 13, 2010)

Cride5 said:


> @ariasamie, just because a timer can register better time resolution doesn't mean it's more accurate. A general problem with PC based timers (and this includes CCT) is that they share processing with other tasks. If your computer decides that some task is more important than 'stop timer' then your times are going to be wrong. Personally, I would trust a Stackmat/QJ timer more than anything on a PC.


I know. I was just joking


----------



## irontwig (Aug 13, 2010)

5 corner cycle: [MU2M',F]


----------



## qqwref (Aug 13, 2010)

irontwig said:


> 5 corner cycle: [MU2M',F]



Hm, interesting. And [M'U2M,F] does the same plus an H perm on F. Also, (M'U2MF)2 does two corner 3-cycles with no edges changed.


EDIT: Oh yeah, and that U perm I was showing people at Nats:
(M'U2M) U (M'U2M) U (M'U2M)


----------



## Kirjava (Aug 14, 2010)

Another LL method me and Rob played with; FreePLL/PureOLL

FreePLL;

Y- F R U R' U' F'
V- R U' R' F R F' U R
R- R U R' U' R' F R F'
A- Niklas
U- Sune
N- R U R' F' L' U' L F
J- R' F R U R' U' F U R
G- R U2' R' U2 R' F R F'
T- R U R' U R U' R' U' R' F R F' / F R U R' U' R U' R' U' R U R' F'
E- R' U' R U' R' U y' R' U R B / R U R' U R' F R F' R U2 R'
F- F R U' R' U R B U B' R' F'
Z- F R U R' U' F' f R U R' U' f' / R' F' U' F U R2 B U B' U' R'

We never generated all the PureOLL algs, because they suck. So here's 2look; (The EO algs affect some corners, too. The adj alg might actually be useful for other things)

EO;

Adj- R' U' R2 B' R' B2 U' B'
Opp- B' R' U2 B U B2 R B R2 U R2 B
All- R' U' F' U F R F R U R' U' F'

CO;

L- [r' u R2 u' r, U2]
U- (RBS) (RFS)
T- (RFS) (LFS)
Pi- R U2 F2 R' U' F R' U2 F' U2 R2 F U R' F U2
Sune- U' B U' F U2 B2 D' R2 U D F' U' B
H- U R L' D' R2 U2 R' D R2 U2 L U' L2 B2 L2


----------



## Gavin (Aug 14, 2010)

qqwref said:


> Oh yeah, and that U perm I was showing people at Nats:
> (M'U2M) U (M'U2M) U (M'U2M)



Thats pretty neat. And there is also the R U R' U' L' U' L U2 R U' R' U' L' U L. Lots of strange U perms...


----------



## qqwref (Aug 15, 2010)

Kirjava said:


> Another LL method me and Rob played with; FreePLL/PureOLL
> 
> FreePLL;
> 
> ...


I didn't call it this but I've had this idea too (a long time ago). Unfortunately flipping stuff is so move-intensive that this idea is essentially useless for speed, OH, and FM.

As for "pure OLL" though, if you're going to go 2-look, I really recommend doing corners first. Edges are easy to do with MU algs, but the more complex corner flips are pretty ugly, and I imagine there are much nicer ones out there if you allow some edges to be flipped too.

EDIT: Oh, check this out.
(U2) R U2 l' U2 L U' r' U2 L' U2 r U'


----------



## irontwig (Aug 15, 2010)

Kirjava said:


> We never generated all the PureOLL algs



Bernard and Mirek did, though:
http://www.ai.univ-paris8.fr/~bh/cube/solutions_o2.html
http://www.ws.binghamton.edu/fridrich/L1/twfl.htm


----------



## Kirjava (Aug 15, 2010)

qqwref said:


> I didn't call it this but I've had this idea too (a long time ago). Unfortunately flipping stuff is so move-intensive that this idea is essentially useless for speed, OH, and FM.




We basically came to the same conclusion. Was fun to research though. I just named it this because I didn't want to just say PLL/OLL - I knew that others would've thought of it before.



qqwref said:


> As for "pure OLL" though, if you're going to go 2-look, I really recommend doing corners first. Edges are easy to do with MU algs, but the more complex corner flips are pretty ugly, and I imagine there are much nicer ones out there if you allow some edges to be flipped too.




tru.dat. I only suggested it because /some/ of the corners flips are nice and I thought they all be. I didn't realise the rest were dire until writing it out.



qqwref said:


> EDIT: Oh, check this out.
> (U2) R U2 l' U2 L U' r' U2 L' U2 r U'




Oh ****. Time to learn for BLD.



irontwig said:


> Kirjava said:
> 
> 
> > We never generated all the PureOLL algs
> ...




Yah, we saw these and concluded that they sucked. I actually meant that we never generated /good/ algs. ^_^


----------



## Kirjava (Aug 16, 2010)

RU'r'U'M'UrUr'
FU and RU edges go in D
BU and FD edges go in UL/UR

r'U'RU'M'UR'UR
rU'R'U'M'URUR'

RUR'UM'U2MURU'R'

U.
M2U'M'U2M'U'M2

H.
< Robert> M2UM'U2M2U2MU'M2

dotskips
UM'U2M2U2M'U'
U'M2U2MU2MU

Posting LSE stuff because my LSE is fast enough and I don't know anymore tricks.

I've realised that I need to work on my second block.

Here are my stats for the first block;

2.42, 2.07, 2.51, 2.39, (2.79), 1.78, 1.39, (1.32), 2.08, 2.64, 2.14, 1.63 = 2.11

Here are my stats for the first two blocks;

number of times: 100/100
best time: 4.88
worst time: 11.58

current avg5: 6.87 (σ = 0.19)
best avg5: 5.91 (σ = 0.60)

current avg12: 6.77 (σ = 0.66)
best avg12: 6.43 (σ = 0.82)

current avg100: 7.26 (σ = 1.29)
best avg100: 7.26 (σ = 1.29)

Need more lookaheads.

EDIT:

lol here are big greens 

19:55:30 <BigGreen> 2.07, 2.76, 2.14, 2.36, 1.78, (0.97), 2.72, 2.04, 3.20, 2.06, 1.89, (3.60) = 2.30 first block

21:50:47 <BigGreen> 5.55, 5.16, 5.37, (13.47), 5.68, 6.56, 5.72, 4.30, 4.85, (3.93), 5.67, 4.15 = 5.3 avg
21:50:50 <BigGreen> both blocks


----------



## jiggy (Aug 16, 2010)

While I was trying to figure out something else, I stumbled across this.

(L2 D' L2 D) (U L2 U' L2)

A double J-perm. Interesting, but I don't think very useful.


----------



## trying-to-speedcube... (Aug 16, 2010)

Ya that's the sq1 double J: R2 U' R2 U D R2 D' R2


----------



## jiggy (Aug 16, 2010)

Excellent, square 1 algs were exactly what I was trying to figure out. (I'd rather figure the puzzle out for myself than follow a tutorial.)


----------



## TheCubeMaster5000 (Aug 16, 2010)

It's not easy to figure out...


----------



## jiggy (Aug 16, 2010)

TheCubeMaster5000 said:


> It's not easy to figure out...


If it was, what would be the point? =) I've finished CP now. I discovered a bunch of algs I thought would do for EO and EP but they didn't translate over to the sq1. Back to the drawing board!


----------



## blade740 (Aug 16, 2010)

CP alg, misalign a layer by 1, CP alg. Bingo, EP. You can set it up to do EO too if you like.


----------



## spdcbr (Aug 16, 2010)

Can anyone direct me to some sources to learn EOline for ZZ? I've checked some tutorials and stuff but they just confusing and dont help much. Anyone know a helpful and reliable resource?


----------



## Truncator (Aug 16, 2010)

spdcbr said:


> Can anyone direct me to some sources to learn EOline for ZZ? I've checked some tutorials and stuff but they just confusing and dont help much. Anyone know a helpful and reliable resource?


http://cube.crider.co.uk/zz.php?p=eoline

It takes a lot of practice to get used to it.


----------



## hawkmp4 (Aug 17, 2010)

Understanding the EO step of Petrus might help you understand the concept before you try to do the whole cube like that.


----------



## Kirjava (Aug 17, 2010)

LR'l'URU'lrUR'U2L'Ur'l'U'LUL'URU'lUR'U'R

4x4x4 ELL

what


----------



## qqwref (Aug 17, 2010)

what?

MUM' U2 MUM'
l F'LF l' F'L'F


----------



## hawkmp4 (Aug 17, 2010)

What's the second algorithm for? It doesn't seem to do anything useful.

EDIT: Nevermind. Performing it on the correct puzzle helps.


----------



## mr. giggums (Aug 17, 2010)

qqwref said:


> l F'LF l' F'L'F



R' U' R U r' U' R' U Rw' or
x r U' R U r' U' R' U


----------



## rachmaninovian (Aug 17, 2010)

i has 4by4 :3


----------



## (X) (Aug 17, 2010)

rachmaninovian said:


> i has 4by4 :3



F*** that's small!

ballcore?


----------



## blade740 (Aug 17, 2010)

Working on a new sq1 method...

http://crunchatize.me/sq1pbl.php


----------



## irontwig (Aug 17, 2010)

blade740 said:


> Working on a new sq1 method...
> 
> http://crunchatize.me/sq1pbl.php



Very resonable alg count.


----------



## blade740 (Aug 17, 2010)

It'll be cut in half due to mirrors. Sub1000 algs is learnable.


----------



## rachmaninovian (Aug 17, 2010)

(X) said:


> rachmaninovian said:
> 
> 
> > i has 4by4 :3
> ...


hahahaha no. turning kinda stinks..but its turnable.

the mech is liek 3x3 bandaged into 2x2 extended to a 4x4. 3D printing hurts my pocket...cost me 40 bucks including shipping..


----------



## Athefre (Aug 18, 2010)

Simpler?

Step 1: Three corners of a face (Matching or opposite).
Step 2: My orientation method (or another if there is something better).
Step 3: Solve a pair of corners and place them at DL. Then, solve the other pair of corners that belong with the pair at DL. Don't place this newly created pair at DR. Place it at UR. You'll have, for example, a correct pair of red corners at DL and the other correct pair of red corners at UR.
Step 4: Do a y rotation so that your completed pairs are at DB and UF. Now, do L2UR2U' until the remaining two uncompleted pairs are solved. If you notice one uncomplete pair left at DF, place it at UB (x2 rotation or F2U2F2) and perform the sequence until it is solved. Align the completed pairs and you are finished.

[size=-2]A simpler way to do Step 3 is to not really have the pairs be completed pairs and use Step 4 to pair up all four uncompleted pairs. But, that's more moves and maybe not as fun. Maybe easier for a beginner though.[/size]


----------



## qqwref (Aug 18, 2010)

Maybe I should have been more clear.

This:


qqwref said:


> MUM' U2 MUM'
> l F'LF l' F'L'F


is a solution to this:


Kirjava said:


> LR'l'URU'lrUR'U2L'Ur'l'U'LUL'URU'lUR'U'R


----------



## Cride5 (Aug 18, 2010)

Athefre said:


> Simpler?
> 
> ...[orientation method]...
> 
> ...


Niiice! This is like sexy move for 2x2 

Just some quick analysis. The move counts (excluding setup/alignments) are:
Solved: 1/6 - 0
Opp: 1/6 - 24
Adj-1: 2/6 - 16
Adj-2: 1/6 - 8
Adj-3: 1/6 - 32
Avg: (24+2*16+8+32)/6 = 16

If also using mirror: R2 U' L2 U
Avg: (24+2*16+8+8)/6 = 12

So not too bad for a beginner method, thanks for sharing!



Athefre said:


> A simpler way to do Step 3 is to not really have the pairs be completed pairs and use Step 4 to pair up all four uncompleted pairs. But, that's more moves and maybe not as fun. Maybe easier for a beginner though.


It's not possible to solve this way if you have an adjacent-swap on 1 D-layer pair and 1 U-layer pair. No 3-cycle of these pieces will ever create another pair.


----------



## Athefre (Aug 18, 2010)

Cride5 said:


> Niiice! This is like sexy move for 2x2




I've actually been thinking of it more as a half-turn version of L'URU'LUR' (or RU'L'UR'U'L) because of the way it moves corners around on a 3x3 without changing edges.



Cride5 said:


> Athefre said:
> 
> 
> > A simpler way to do Step 3 is to not really have the pairs be completed pairs and use Step 4 to pair up all four uncompleted pairs. But, that's more moves and maybe not as fun. Maybe easier for a beginner though.
> ...




I guess I just assumed it would work since I had never run into problems.


----------



## Athefre (Aug 18, 2010)

Hey, can I have an example of a case where it wouldn't work? I don't think I understand.


----------



## Cride5 (Aug 18, 2010)

R2 U' R2 U' D' R2 U' R2 D2


----------



## Athefre (Aug 18, 2010)

The point of the sequence is to have the pairs separated diagonally on the cube. That's what I meant for the main Step 3 and the option I had in little writing. It's hard for me to explain, as usual. Maybe these pictures will show it:

Step 3 Option (with all pairs not completely solved):











And of course with the regular Step 3, the UF and DB pairs would be complete.


----------



## hawkmp4 (Aug 18, 2010)

I find that method to be more complicated than teaching someone how to make a first layer (which most people, I've found, grasp pretty intuitively) and then using R'D'RD commutator for orientation of the LL and RDR' for permutation. I've had good luck with teaching people the concept of commutators, even those who haven't solved a twisty puzzle before.


----------



## Cride5 (Aug 18, 2010)

Athefre said:


> The point of the sequence is to have the pairs separated diagonally on the cube.


OK, so how about:
R2 U' R2 U' D' R2 U' R2 F2 D2


----------



## Athefre (Aug 18, 2010)

Cride5 said:


> Athefre said:
> 
> 
> > The point of the sequence is to have the pairs separated diagonally on the cube.
> ...




Doing that forwards, the color pairs aren't diagonal. Doing that backwards, you have a completed pair at UB and an unsolved pair at DF and UF. Remember, you are supposed to put unsolved pairs at UB.

So, the solution to that would be x2(L2UR2U')*4 z2 (L2UR2U')*4


----------



## Cride5 (Aug 18, 2010)

no workey


----------



## Athefre (Aug 18, 2010)

Heh  That was just to complete the pairs. Of course, add an F2 at the end to align the pairs and solve the cube.

EDIT: Wait, I'm not sure what's happening in that link.

EDIT 2: Oh, you put the forwards version in.

I really have to get off, I'll explain more tomorrow.


----------



## Cride5 (Aug 18, 2010)

OK, so applying the alg an odd number of times will break up your UF/DB pairs, so we can't do that. An even number of applications of the alg performs a 3-cycle. The case I presented cannot be solved by a 3-cycle unless some of the solved pairs are broken up. Trust me, it won't work - it's theoretically impossible.

By breaking up all the pairs it can be solved with:
U2 (L2 U R2 U')*2 x2 (L2 U R2 U')*2 z2 (L2 U R2 U')*4 F2

... but breaking up pairs isn't in your specification. Moreover, if you're breaking up pairs without an understanding of what you're doing it will involve a lot of trial and error!


----------



## KboyForeverB (Aug 18, 2010)

ariasamie said:


> qqTimer can be more accurate than a stackmat.
> because you can't get a 0.00 with a stackmat!
> 
> 
> ...


That's very true, that's why few moths ago I stopped using cubetimer and used qqtimer. Now I use CCT (FTW!!)


----------



## Athefre (Aug 18, 2010)

Cride5 said:


> OK, so applying the alg an odd number of times will break up your UF/DB pairs, so we can't do that. An even number of applications of the alg performs a 3-cycle. The case I presented cannot be solved by a 3-cycle unless some of the solved pairs are broken up. Trust me, it won't work - it's theoretically impossible.




Doing your case forwards, of course it doesn't work because it's not following my steps. Doing it backwards, it does work.



Cride5 said:


> ... but breaking up pairs isn't in your specification. Moreover, if you're breaking up pairs without an understanding of what you're doing it will involve a lot of trial and error!




I'm just not seeing how this is trial and error. You do L2UR2U' until you see that the UB pair is solved, and of course you could let someone know that it takes an even number of times for it to correct itself to have your UF and DB pairs back to where they were. That's not exactly trial and error in my mind. So, obviously, instead of being taught to do L2UR2U' they could be taught to do that twice then check the UB pair. If it isn't solved, they just have to do that sequence twice again. Like you said, similar to "sexy move" where you repeat it until what you need done is done.

For now, let's forget about the Step 3 option I had in my original post and just go with the first idea of having two completed pairs. Now, here are some examples (Scramble with Yellow on top and Blue on front):

Scramble: F U' R U' R2 U' R2 U2 F2

Orient - z' F2 U'F' UR F'UF
Pair + Place at DL - L2
Other Pair (notice your pair at DL is red, so you now have to make the other red pair and place it at UR) - U2R2U'
Complete remaining two pairs - y (L2UR2U')*2
All pairs are solved, now finish with F2U'.

Scramble: R2 U F U2 R' F U2 R'

Orient - x'y U'F' F'U'F
Pair + Place at DL - R2D'
Other Pair (Notice your pair at DL is yellow, so solve the other yellow pair and place it at UR) - UR2U'
Complete remaining two pairs - y (L2UR2U')*4 x2 (L2UR2U')*4 
Finish with F2U'
[size=-2]In this example, the pairs could have been completed with (R2U'L2U)*2. But that's not what I've been teaching. Similar to not telling a beginner that they could have done the inverse of "sexy move".[/size]

Scramble: F R U R2 F' R F U' R2 U2

Orient - x UR F' RU'R'
Pair + Place at DL - Already there
Other Pair (Your DL pair is green, solve the other green pair) - Already there
Complete remaining two pairs - y (L2UR2U')*4
Finish with F2U

Scramble: F' R U2 R F2 U2 R' F' R'

Orient - x' F' U2RU'R'
Pair + Place at DL - UL2
Other Pair (Your DL pair is yellow, solve the other yellow pair) - U'R2U'R2UR2U'
Complete remaining two pairs - y x2 (L2UR2U')*4
Finish with F2U

Scramble: F' U R F' R2 F R' F R' U' 

Orient - z2 y U'F' U2RU'R'
Pair + Place at DL - L2
Other Pair (Your DL pair is orange) - U'R2U
Complete remaining two pairs - y, UB and DF are already complete
Finish with F2U2


----------



## Zyrb (Aug 18, 2010)

A tip to everyone, dont throw your cube against a wall, you may be be unfortunate like me and have one of your center pieces unscrew itself and make the cap stuck onto the cubie *sigh* thats why I have multiple cubes


----------



## hawkmp4 (Aug 18, 2010)

Zyrb said:


> A tip to everyone, dont throw your cube against a wall, you may be be unfortunate like me and have one of your center pieces unscrew itself and make the cap stuck onto the cubie *sigh* thats why I have multiple cubes



A very thin blade works for caps that are remarkably tight. You might want to try that before you give up.


----------



## Cride5 (Aug 18, 2010)

Athefre said:


> Cride5 said:
> 
> 
> > OK, so applying the alg an odd number of times will break up your UF/DB pairs, so we can't do that. An even number of applications of the alg performs a 3-cycle. The case I presented cannot be solved by a 3-cycle unless some of the solved pairs are broken up. Trust me, it won't work - it's theoretically impossible.
> ...


OK, so can you use alg.garron.us to demonstrate it working? Ie, set the scramble to: R2 U' R2 U' D' R2 U' R2 F2 D2 ... and solve it, then post a link here.




Athefre said:


> Cride5 said:
> 
> 
> > ... but breaking up pairs isn't in your specification. Moreover, if you're breaking up pairs without an understanding of what you're doing it will involve a lot of trial and error!
> ...


yup ... that works if you solve to D-layer pairs first, but not for solving _all_ pairs ... unless of course you can demonstrate a solve of the case I outlined above 




Athefre said:


> For now, let's forget about the Step 3 option I had in my original post and just go with the first idea of having two completed pairs.


I have no problem with the original technique, it works quite nicely actually.


----------



## Athefre (Aug 18, 2010)

Cride5 said:


> OK, so can you use alg.garron.us to demonstrate it working? Ie, set the scramble to: R2 U' R2 U' D' R2 U' R2 F2 D2 ... and solve it, then post a link here.




The problem with that scramble is that it's not following my steps. Remember, after orientation, the two pairs you solve are supposed to be matching (if your cube is oriented based on Yellow and White on U/D and the first pair you solve is white, you have to solve the other white pair) and they are supposed to be placed diagonally - one at DL and the other at UR. _Then_ you do a y rotation and use L2UR2U' to solve the two remaining pairs.

alg.garron.us solution

I'm getting errors when I try to link, maybe it's just my computer. I have to select the puzzle size and click "Test" for it to work.


----------



## Weston (Aug 18, 2010)

I've been working on some F2L tricks such as
x U' R' U' F R' F' R U l
x r' U' F2 r U r' F L

Does anyone have more tricks like these that I could add to my list?


----------



## Cride5 (Aug 18, 2010)

Athefre said:


> The problem with that scramble is that it's not following my steps.


So if the cube ends up in that state after orientation, what is the solver supposed to do?

Your solution (like mine) breaks up existing pairs in order to build different pairs. Using it in this way requires more understanding than simply 'place complete pairs in DB and UF then apply alg to create new pairs'. The assumption is that solved pairs should remain solved. In order to use the technique like this your guide will need to explain a lot more, stating where it is desirable to break up existing pairs ... and I would argue that it's not very beginner friendly.


----------



## Athefre (Aug 18, 2010)

This is extremely hard for me to explain but seems so very very simple in my mind. Did you go through all of my example solves? They all do the exact same thing:

Scramble with Yellow on top and Blue on front: F' R U2 R F2 U2 R' F' R'

-- Orient - x' F' U2RU'R'
-- *Solve* a pair and place it at DL. - UL2
-- What color is the pair you just placed at DL? It is Yellow. Now, solve the other Yellow pair and place it at UR. - U'R2U'R2UR2U'
You now have a solved pair at DL and a solved pair at UR. The U color at UR is Yellow and the D color at DL is Yellow.
- Do a y rotation. Hey, look, UB is already solved for you. L2UR2U' is meant to be used to solve pairs at UB. But, wait, the DF pair isn't solved so do x2 to put it at UB. Now you can continue - (L2UR2U')*4


----------



## Athefre (Aug 18, 2010)

The pairs have to always be separated like this:










Notice that the Yellow bars are diagonal from each other on the cube and the White bars are diagonal from each other on the cube. This is so that the sequence will work. If someone just follows my steps and puts that second pair they *solve* at UR and does the y rotation, they will be fine.

Not like this:









And not like this:


----------



## Athefre (Aug 18, 2010)

Maybe I could explain better through examples in chat.


----------



## Cride5 (Aug 19, 2010)

I totally understand the content of your examples ... that's what I was referring to as your 'original technique'. The scrambles I gave you can easily be solved using the 'original technique' ... but they can't be solved with:



Athefre said:


> A simpler way to do Step 3 is to not really have the pairs be completed pairs and use Step 4 to pair up all four uncompleted pairs. But, that's more moves and maybe not as fun. Maybe easier for a beginner though.


----------



## Athefre (Aug 19, 2010)

Cride5 said:


> I totally understand the content of your examples ... that's what I was referring to as your 'original technique'. The scrambles I gave you can easily be solved using the 'original technique' ... but they can't be solved with:
> 
> 
> 
> ...




But, it's the same situation. I've tried it many times and haven't run into problems but I guess it's possible that there are situations where it wouldn't work. In that quote of mine, the steps would be:

Step 2: Pair up two Red corners (for example) and place them at DL, the pair doesn't have to be a solved pair. Then, pair up the other two Red corners and place them at UR. As in the original, it's very important to have them separated at DL and UR.
Step 3: Same as the original Step 3. Except, when you have solved the UB and DF pairs, you do a y2 and and now the other unsolved pairs are at UB and DF.

So, you completely understand the original method? I didn't give enough detail in the original post, but maybe that little option I suggested isn't so good for a beginner. I mean, it doesn't seem so hard to explain and show to someone "A pair of Reds at DL and a pair of Reds at UR".

It doesn't matter I guess, the original is fine.


----------



## qqwref (Aug 19, 2010)

If your method is getting to the point where people here have trouble understanding it, how do you intend to teach it to beginners?


----------



## Athefre (Aug 19, 2010)

It looks like the only thing he didn't understand, or that I'm thinking about wrong, was the little optional step, not the method itself.

I think I would be able to teach someone this very quickly in person. I have trouble explaining things in writing. You know I'm doing something wrong when I can't even help people understand NMCMLL.


----------



## Kirjava (Aug 19, 2010)

Athefre said:


> You know I'm doing something wrong when I can't even help people understand NMCMLL.




Lies. You explained it to me in one sentence.


----------



## Athefre (Aug 19, 2010)

This is my favorite topic on speedsolving. I get to post things I've been working on without worrying if they are worthy of a new topic and I get to check out other people's ideas.


----------



## Kirjava (Aug 19, 2010)

Yah, it's cool. I've put a bunch of stuff here that would otherwise be unreleased.


----------



## Kirjava (Aug 19, 2010)

Example solve for Kyle;

F2 R L U' B2 F' D B F L2 D F' U F2 U D L' B2 L2 U R U' D' R2 U2

1) U B' L F L F' L2 F2 L' F R U' x2
2) R' D2 L2 D F D R2 U2 R' 
3) R2 B R' U B U2 R2 U R B' U y
4) R2 U2 F R F' U' R2 F' U' F U' R2 U2
5) R' U R U R' U2 R U' R' U' R U2


----------



## irontwig (Aug 19, 2010)

Weston said:


> I've been working on some F2L tricks such as
> x U' R' U' F R' F' R U l
> x r' U' F2 r U r' F L
> 
> Does anyone have more tricks like these that I could add to my list?



Found this with cube explorer l2' U l2 U R' D' r U2 M


----------



## StachuK1992 (Aug 19, 2010)

So. CPLL+ELL would be...how many algs? I want to say 84, 21 PLLs per 4 edge cases (all, adj, opp, none)

But Thom then said 6*48=288.

So then I looked again, and thought

21 (regular PLL)
21 (all edges flipped)
Those only get a set of PLL each, since the angle doesn't matter.

21*2 (opp edges)
One set where flipped on L/R, one on U/B.

21*4 (adj edges)
One set per AUF.

21 + 21 + 42 + 84 = 168.

Is this correct?


----------



## Athefre (Aug 19, 2010)

Athefre said:


> Step 2: My orientation method (or another if there is something better).



I keep thinking about this, feeling terrible. So, I want to say I'm sorry if that was disrespectful. It's unlike me to post things like that.


----------



## qqwref (Aug 19, 2010)

Kirjava said:


> Example solve for Kyle;
> 
> F2 R L U' B2 F' D B F L2 D F' U F2 U D L' B2 L2 U R U' D' R2 U2
> 
> ...



cool stuff...

how many algs would you estimate for each of the last four steps?


----------



## Kirjava (Aug 19, 2010)

Roughly 50/12/20/10. I think those numbers can be cut down though - and this was a quick estimate with some guessing regarding AUFs and stuff.


----------



## irontwig (Aug 19, 2010)

Stachuk1992 said:


> So. CPLL+ELL would be...how many algs? I want to say 84, 21 PLLs per 4 edge cases (all, adj, opp, none)
> 
> But Thom then said 6*48=288.
> 
> ...



#Non-EPLL PLLs=22-5=17 (Don't forget pure flips)

ELL: 29
Regular PLL: 17
PLLEF: 17 (Like CLLEF)
Opp flip: 2*17-2=32 (N-perm overcount)
Adj flip: 4*17-2-6=60 (E&N-perm overcount)
Sum: 29+17+17+32+60=155

Please correct me if this is wrong.
*Edit:* There's actually only two adj flip Es.
*Edit2:* Of course all pure flips are ELLs, how could I forget that? And I wrote 19 instead of 29 in the sum, yikes.


----------



## StachuK1992 (Aug 19, 2010)

irontwig said:


> Stachuk1992 said:
> 
> 
> > Spoiler
> ...


I'm not sure if it's right, but I sure do like the numbers better. 
However, recog will probably deter me from learning this, but I can at the very least learn ELL and see what I feel like from there.


----------



## qqwref (Aug 21, 2010)

Here's a little Rubik's Slide 3-cycle.

(left counterclockwise)*4
effect: topleft -> midright -> middle -> topleft


----------



## ThatGuy (Aug 21, 2010)

I just had a thought about using ZB with a Roux base. Do the two blocks, then place DB and DF edges while orienting the U face edges and finishing with ZBLL. The advantage here (I think) is that because DBDF placement would only be using M and U the corners would remain the same allowing for an early read into the corner recognition in ZB. I don't actually know how helpful knowing the corner case is ahead of time is or how many algs would be required for DBDF placement. Is this plausible?


----------



## waffle=ijm (Aug 21, 2010)

ThatGuy said:


> I just had a thought about using ZB with a Roux base. Do the two blocks, then place DB and DF edges while orienting the U face edges and finishing with ZBLL. The advantage here (I think) is that because DBDF placement would only be using M and U the corners would remain the same allowing for an early read into the corner recognition in ZB. I don't actually know how helpful knowing the corner case is ahead of time is or how many algs would be required for DBDF placement. Is this plausible?



Roux+LBL Type methods...they don't mix...

EDIT - Corner recognition is easy and quick. And algs for DF DB? srsly. You need algs for that?


----------



## ThatGuy (Aug 21, 2010)

waffle=ijm said:


> ThatGuy said:
> 
> 
> > I just had a thought about using ZB with a Roux base. Do the two blocks, *then place DB and DF edges while orienting the U face edges* and finishing with ZBLL. The advantage here (I think) is that because DBDF placement would only be using M and U the corners would remain the same allowing for an early read into the corner recognition in ZB. I don't actually know how helpful knowing the corner case is ahead of time is or how many algs would be required for DBDF placement. Is this plausible?
> ...



Including U layer edges orientation


----------



## Kirjava (Aug 21, 2010)

Anyone using roux would learn OLLCP/KCLL instead of ZBLL.

Anyone using CFOP would use F2L instead of F2B.


----------



## Tim Major (Aug 21, 2010)

ThatGuy said:


> I just had a thought about using ZB with a Roux base. Do the two blocks, then place DB and DF edges while orienting the U face edges and finishing with ZBLL. The advantage here (I think) is that because DBDF placement would only be using M and U the corners would remain the same allowing for an early read into the corner recognition in ZB. I don't actually know how helpful knowing the corner case is ahead of time is or how many algs would be required for DBDF placement. Is this plausible?



So you skip CMLL and do the orientation of l6e, then ZBLL...
Sounds fastish buuut... are you actually going to learn them? One big advantage is recognizing the corners while doing the l6e orientation, so recog sounds great.


----------



## StachuK1992 (Aug 21, 2010)

waffle=ijm said:


> ThatGuy said:
> 
> 
> > I just had a thought about using ZB with a Roux base. Do the two blocks, then place DB and DF edges while orienting the U face edges and finishing with ZBLL. The advantage here (I think) is that because DBDF placement would only be using M and U the corners would remain the same allowing for an early read into the corner recognition in ZB. I don't actually know how helpful knowing the corner case is ahead of time is or how many algs would be required for DBDF placement. Is this plausible?
> ...


Alright, how about this:

First Block
1x2x2
'ELS' only caring about DF and DB EO
CLS
CPEOLL (I'm actually about to be done learning this. I added a few sexy algs there)
L6EP

heehee.

First block can be all pre-planned - even waffles can do it.
1x2x2 blocks are easysauce, and it doesn't matter whether the slot left is in the BR or FR.
The 'ELS' can be completely intuitive. Just do an R, then solve UR while orienting DF and DB.
CLS is sexy. As far as I'm concerned, all cases are sub2able. Give me a month more of training, and I shall prove this, and that MANY are sub1able. 
CPEOLL is only like 15 cases, and the cool thing with Roux here is that you don't care about the permutation of DF and DB, so you can have EVEN BETTER ALGS.
L6EP is easycake. Maybe you guize can even influence it earlier, right?

This sounds like a TOTALLY LEGIT METHOD THAT YOU SHOULD ALL TRY.
I shall post an example solve laterz.


----------



## Toad (Aug 21, 2010)

I like the sound of this Statue method... Is cool.


----------



## blakedacuber (Aug 21, 2010)

just wondering has anybody found a quick alg that would fix to adjacent edges swapped on a 3x3


setup: M' Y' M' U M U2 Y M


----------



## Kirjava (Aug 21, 2010)

blakedacuber; I posted this a while ago.


----------



## Meep (Aug 21, 2010)

ThatGuy said:


> waffle=ijm said:
> 
> 
> > ThatGuy said:
> ...



That's a lot easier than it sounds. I used to do that with my silly F2L-first method where I did CMSLL or something after the F2L then oriented edges when inserting the final 'cross piece' into the D layer. Finished off with a U H or Zperm lol


----------



## Anonymous (Aug 21, 2010)

Does anyone use M' U R U' r' instead of R' F R F' for partial edge control? I realized recently that it was an alternative, and I feel like sometimes my hand is in a better position for it.


----------



## blakedacuber (Aug 21, 2010)

Kirjava said:


> blakedacuber; I posted this a while ago.



tthanks!!
how do you know so many algs??
also is there any programe i can download that generates algs??


----------



## Kirjava (Aug 21, 2010)

blakedacuber said:


> Kirjava said:
> 
> 
> > blakedacuber; I posted this a while ago.
> ...




Finding them by hand or generating them. I think I made that one for BLD or something.



blakedacuber said:


> also is there any programe i can download that generates algs??




CubeExplorer, acube, ksolve, jarcs and I think there are more on the wiki.


----------



## jms_gears1 (Aug 22, 2010)

BEST
2
FRIP EVAH
M'UMU'M'U'M'UM'U2MUM2UM'U2MU2


----------



## StachuK1992 (Aug 22, 2010)

jms_gears1 said:


> BEST
> 2
> FRIP EVAH
> M'UMU'M'U'M'UM'U2MUM2UM'U2MU2


I really hope that this is a joke.
(M' U)*4 U (M' U)*3 M'


----------



## jms_gears1 (Aug 22, 2010)

Stachuk1992 said:


> jms_gears1 said:
> 
> 
> > BEST
> ...


your's does not have variety mine does >: O


----------



## StachuK1992 (Aug 22, 2010)

Anonymous said:


> Does anyone use M' U R U' r' instead of R' F R F' for partial edge control? I realized recently that it was an alternative, and I feel like sometimes my hand is in a better position for it.


I do, depending on the CO of the U-layer stickers.


----------



## qqwref (Aug 22, 2010)

BEST 2 TWIST EVER

r U2 r' U r U2 r' U r U2 r' U' r U2 r' U R U' R' U' R U R' U'


----------



## vcuber13 (Aug 22, 2010)

BEST Z PERM EVER

M2 U M2 U' M E2 M E2


----------



## qqwref (Aug 22, 2010)

NOT BEST ENOUGH

U M E S U2 S' R2 F2 M' F2 E L2 S' D2 S M' S M S' L2 u S' D2 S U S' D2 S U2 L2 u' l2 U L2 U' M2 d F2 U' F2 E


----------



## Kirjava (Aug 23, 2010)




----------



## waffle=ijm (Aug 23, 2010)

holy ****ing ****


----------



## StachuK1992 (Aug 23, 2010)

waffle=ijm said:


> holy ****ing ****


The other videos are just as epic.


----------



## Stefan (Aug 23, 2010)

Stachuk1992 said:


> (M' U)*4 U (M' U)*3 M'



Too complicated, I prefer (M' U)*4 (U M')*4.


----------



## StachuK1992 (Aug 23, 2010)

StefanPochmann said:


> Stachuk1992 said:
> 
> 
> > (M' U)*4 U (M' U)*3 M'
> ...


Ah, I like that way of writing it.


----------



## vcuber13 (Aug 23, 2010)

qqwref said:


> NOT BEST ENOUGH
> 
> U M E S U2 S' R2 F2 M' F2 E L2 S' D2 S M' S M S' L2 u S' D2 S U S' D2 S U2 L2 u' l2 U L2 U' M2 d F2 U' F2 E



lol, the best was that u perm.


----------



## EVH (Aug 23, 2010)

New H-perm on the 4x4

(r U')*9 r U

SigN


----------



## vcuber13 (Aug 23, 2010)

thats old


----------



## EVH (Aug 23, 2010)

Oh sorry, I'm a Rubik's noob.


----------



## qqwref (Aug 23, 2010)

U-perm on Halpern-Meier Pyraminx, Jing's Pyraminx, Master Pyraminx, etc. etc.:
U' R U' R' L R' L' R U'


----------



## Yes We Can! (Aug 24, 2010)

1.71 F2 U' R' F2 U2 R' F' R'

Exercise: Find the LL skip  (It's AUF less and the solution is 9 moves).

Solution:



Spoiler



x' z' x' U F R U' R' U R' U' R



I find it interesting how it looks like a really hard scramhle, but really it's just a very easy one


----------



## Robert-Y (Aug 24, 2010)

I had a different solution:

FL: y z R' F' U' F'

CLL: F R U R' U' F' U

which cancels to y z R' F' U' R U R' U' F' U which also just happens to be 9 moves


----------



## Escher (Aug 24, 2010)

@Conny: I'm disgusted at the thought that anybody would do a 9 move FL


----------



## Kirjava (Aug 24, 2010)

No idea why I did this, I don't like Square1.


----------



## dada222 (Aug 25, 2010)

Anyone have any idea what happened of joel's speedcubing page? Old link is this.
http://solvethecube.110mb.com/


----------



## Cubenovice (Aug 25, 2010)

Link works for me...


----------



## dada222 (Aug 25, 2010)

Works now.


----------



## vcuber13 (Aug 25, 2010)

I started like 2 days ago


----------



## jiggy (Aug 25, 2010)

Could someone please hook me up with the pure flip algs for these cases?










By pure flip, I mean only the two edges flip and nothing is permuted. Thanks a gazillion.


_Added to list of things to do: Brush up on edge commutation._


----------



## Forte (Aug 25, 2010)

There are a bunch here
(they're part of ELL)


----------



## jiggy (Aug 25, 2010)

Forte said:


> There are a bunch here
> (they're part of ELL)


*Whacks head* ELL! Should'a thunk of that! Hero!


----------



## Forte (Aug 25, 2010)

jiggy said:


> Forte said:
> 
> 
> > There are a bunch here
> ...



The one I use isn't explicitly listed there anyway 
I use the inverse of the first one, but I'm really liking the second one done like M' U' M U2 M' U' M' U' M' U2 M U' M2


----------



## StachuK1992 (Aug 25, 2010)

jiggy said:


> Could someone please hook me up with the pure flip algs for these cases?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


(M' U)*4 (U M')*4

and L F [(M' U)*4 (U M')*4] F' L' 
or r U R' U' r' U2 R U R U' R2 U2 R
or M U M' U2 M U M U M U2 M' U M2

edit: wow. ninja'd majorly.


----------



## jiggy (Aug 25, 2010)

Haha, well thanks both of you anyway! I'm actually a huge fan of r U R' U' r' U2 R U R U' R2 U2 R. ELL seems to have some really nice algs...added to list of things to do? No, jiggy! Bad jiggy! Back to your thesis!


----------



## Kirjava (Aug 26, 2010)

I'd like "Human Kociemba" to exist. Time to throw some ideas around;

F2 R U2 R U' L F U L' U2 F' L' B2 F' L' F' U' D F D' L B2 D R2 F'

1) y2x' DM'F'LU2 x' rUr'U2M'U2B'RBR'Ur'U'RUrB'R'BM2UMUMU
2) y2 R2U'F2UF2U'R2DL2U'L2uL2U


----------



## jiggy (Aug 26, 2010)

You do some crazy stuff, at crazy o'clock in the morning, Kir!

This is pretty impressive, do you think you could break down your solution and explain your thought process a bit?


----------



## Kirjava (Aug 26, 2010)

Sure. I've been playing around with this idea for a while now so I've had some practise getting good at it.

Step 1 is reduction to opposite colours on each side. It's sort of like reduction to the half turn group, but there is a parity that exists requiring non half turns to solve. I can do this consistantly sub10 for speed, or consistantly sub30 movecount if I spend enough time on it.

The actual solution I got was just a CN Roux solve split into these four steps;

y2x' DM'F'LU2 x'
rUr'U2M'U2B'RBR'
Ur'U'RUrB'R'B
M2UMUMU

Step 2 is the rest of the solution. Just like Kociemba, this should be solved with the <U,D,R2,F2,L2,B2> group. The general idea is solve some pieces -> solve the rest with an alg. I don't yet have a good system for this step or a list of useful algs yet - this is was I was hoping I'd get help with.

y2 R2U'F2UF2U'R2
DL2U'L2uL2U


----------



## jiggy (Aug 26, 2010)

Kirjava said:


> Step 2 is the rest of the solution. Just like Kociemba, this should be solved with the <U,D,R2,F2,L2,B2> group. The general idea is solve some pieces -> solve the rest with an alg. I don't yet have a good system for this step or a list of useful algs yet - this is was I was hoping I'd get help with.



Well, I don't know if this is what you're looking for, but you could break it down into 

<U,D,R2,F2,L2,B2>
2a) Orientate U and D corners 
2b) Permute U and D corners together (5 cases) 
2c) Solve the remaining edges 

Which is all very intuitive, and can be executed fairly rapidly. But it's probably adding quite significantly to your move count. This is quite similar to the end of Human Thistlethwaite, but I can't help feeling there's a more efficient way of doing things. I think I'm going to keep toying with your idea and see if I spot anything!


----------



## Kirjava (Aug 26, 2010)

That obviously works, but the idea is to setup into a position you know how to solve from a collection of algorithms. I think this is the best approach for getting a low movecount. (Also, U and D corners will already be oriented by that point)

I've been generating a list of useful algorithms that range from 5 to 8 moves - I'm waiting until I can form a coherant method from them before I post them though. It's too hit and miss at the moment to be useful.


----------



## jiggy (Aug 26, 2010)

Yeah, I thought you would likely be looking for something a bit more like this. I did have a reason for throwing in the orientate step (EDIT: By orientate, I mean for opposite colours, in a similar way to Phase 3 of H.T.), but I'd like to study the problem a bit more before I talk about it.

I'd be interested in hearing more about the kind of state you hope to set the cube up into before solving with an algorithm. What is your main motivation when you perform this step, or is this still an area you're working on?


----------



## Kirjava (Aug 26, 2010)

I don't have a strict method for step 2 yet - it's more trial and error (which is what it will end up being with or without structure, anyway). I generally try and solve as many pieces as I can in the fewest moves possible and see what state it leaves me in. 

I think with some more development and enough time given for a solve this step could be solved near optimally.

I think the worst cases are like 15 moves?

Sidenote; Step1 is essentially a 3 colour cube solve.


----------



## Kirjava (Aug 26, 2010)

Just did a 1 hour FMC attempt with this method. Step 1 started off really well but I couldn't find a nice continuation. (I also cheated a bit and didn't quite bother to finish) I bet sub20 moves for step1 is easy with some work.

L F2 U2 B U R' F B U' D' R2 U F L2 U' D2 B R2 L B U' F' U2 D B'

xR'D2U - 1x2x3
xU'r'U'r2 - Triple xcross
yRUR'U'RU2R' - F2L (yuk)
FR'F'RURU'R' - LL
yB2R2U'M2U'R2D' - Trial and error win
yL2UR2UR2 - Super easy

35 moves


----------



## Robert-Y (Aug 30, 2010)

Weird and kinda nice bad R perm for 2H:

LH: (U L' U' L U) (L F' L' U2) y x (L U' L U) (L2' B2' L)

RH: (U' R U R' U') (R' F R U2') y' x) (R' U R' U') (R2 B2 R')


----------



## Robert-Y (Aug 30, 2010)

Wow this megaminx alg: R U2 R' U2' R' F R U2 R U2' R' F'

does nothing :fp

oh well


----------



## hawkmp4 (Aug 30, 2010)

R U R' U' R' F R U2 R U2' R' F' is an OLL, but solves the same case Sune does, so not very helpful.

EDIT: That IS a Sune. Exactly a Sune.  

EDIT 1.5: By which I mean, the above algorithm has the exact same effect as R U R' U R U2' R'.

EDIT 2: Related only in that it's the same puzzle:
In case anyone was curious, I worked out that R BR BL L F is of order 756. I'm sick of counting cycles now. I've never done that before.


----------



## Robert-Y (Aug 31, 2010)

If the current naming system for PLLs wasn't used, how would you name each PLL?

For the one commonly known as "R perm" I think maybe "7 perm" is more accurate 

And also I think 2/4 G perms could be considered R perms. Example: do these moves: R2' u' R U' R U R' u R2 y' L U' L' U2. Wouldn't you agree that the incorrectly permuted pieces and the centre make an "R" shape?


----------



## CubesOfTheWorld (Sep 1, 2010)

I wanted to bring this up:
The reason I think that skewb should always be an unofficial event because the times are so inconsistent, at least with my method. You can have a 40 second NL, and also have a 15 second NL. The averages would be so inaccurate. That is just my opinion.


----------



## shelley (Sep 1, 2010)

That is not the correct context for the word "inaccurate". If the averages are calculated properly, they are accurate.


----------



## Mike Hughey (Sep 1, 2010)

CubesOfTheWorld said:


> I wanted to bring this up:
> The reason I think that skewb should always be an unofficial event because the times are so inconsistent, at least with my method. You can have a 40 second NL, and also have a 15 second NL. The averages would be so inaccurate. That is just my opinion.



Other methods allow it to be much more consistent. Anyone who's good at it would be pretty consistent. But I must admit that lucky skewb solves will be overwhelmingly fast. I would expect some sub-2 skewb solves if people got serious about it.


----------



## qqwref (Sep 1, 2010)

I guess that is a conceivable problem with Skewb, though. It would be similar to Pyraminx and 2x2 in that lucky solves matter a lot when someone's not so fast, and not very much when someone is very experienced.


----------



## Kirjava (Sep 1, 2010)

CubesOfTheWorld said:


> The reason I think that skewb should always be an unofficial event because the times are so inconsistent




This is just you. Sure, you can get lucky singles - but this is the same as every other event.


----------



## Edward (Sep 1, 2010)

CubesOfTheWorld said:


> I wanted to bring this up:
> The reason I think that skewb should always be an unofficial event because the times are so inconsistent, at least with my method. You can have a 40 second NL, and also have a 15 second NL. The averages would be so inaccurate. That is just my opinion.



So you're saying that because you can lucky singles that are below your usual level of skill, it shouldn't be an official event? Might as well get rid of everything but FMC...


----------



## aronpm (Sep 1, 2010)

Edward said:


> CubesOfTheWorld said:
> 
> 
> > I wanted to bring this up:
> ...



You can get lucky in FMC too.

*cough CFOP with LL skip cough*


----------



## irontwig (Sep 1, 2010)

Yeah, a lot of FMC techniques revolve around the idea of getting more chances at getting lucky at a particular scramble.


----------



## Mike Hughey (Sep 1, 2010)

Uh, yeah, I think FMC is one of the worst events for unreasonably lucky solves. I know my current personal best of 31 moves was ridiculously lucky.


----------



## Tim Reynolds (Sep 1, 2010)

Kirjava said:


> Example solve for Kyle;
> 
> F2 R L U' B2 F' D B F L2 D F' U F2 U D L' B2 L2 U R U' D' R2 U2
> 
> ...



(this post is a bit old, but oh well)

That method looks interesting. I might be interested in exploring it a bit. I'm guessing you haven't generated many algs for it yet?

How easy is it to make a layer? I've never experimented with that at all. I'm afraid I'd end up just doing cross and corners, or taking forever to block build stupidly.


----------



## Kirjava (Sep 1, 2010)

Tim Reynolds said:


> Kirjava said:
> 
> 
> > Example solve for Kyle;
> ...




I used to have most of the algs for step 2 when I was learning it. They're lost to time now though.

You can probably average 2.5 seconds for making a layer.


----------



## qqwref (Sep 2, 2010)

Huh, look a' this.

(F R' F' r U R U' r') (R U' R') (F R' F' R) y' (R' U R) (B' R B R')


----------



## StachuK1992 (Sep 2, 2010)

Who wants some 2GLL algs? 

(note - I wrote this in Notepad++ as a .py file, so the formatting is a bit off...
so go get notepad++, or just deal with it )

Average move-count for the algs I've chosen - 13.18 moves.

If you don't understand stuff (like my, erm 'notation') please let me know.


----------



## Robert-Y (Sep 5, 2010)

It's a bit hard to describe my idea I just had so I'll just provide some algs for now 

L R U2 R' L'
y L' R' U2 R L
L U' R' u' R2 u R U L'
L2 F2' U L' r' U2' R2 B R2' U2'
L2 F2' L2' U M2' U M2' U M U2 M'


----------



## Anonymous (Sep 5, 2010)

Robert-Y said:


> It's a bit hard to describe my idea I just had so I'll just provide some algs for now
> 
> L R U2 R' L'
> y L R U2 R' L'
> ...



Insert the two pairs in the wrong positions using VHF2L and Winter's Variation, then permute last layer as you switch them?

My interpretation is probably stupid.


----------



## Edward (Sep 5, 2010)

U D F' R2 F' U' L' R B U' D R2 F' D2 R' F2 B' L' D B F R U F' L2

x' L' F D L x' u F' u'
R U2 R' U' L' U L
U' L U' L' U2 R' U' R
F' U F L U' L' U2 l U L' U' M'
R U' R' U R U R'
U2
R U R' U' R' F R F'
PLL


And who cares about my movecount when it feels good. What you need is some real manhood...


----------



## StachuK1992 (Sep 5, 2010)

Edward said:


> ~


your xs are backwards. like x = x', etc


----------



## Edward (Sep 5, 2010)

Stachuk1992 said:


> Edward said:
> 
> 
> > ~
> ...



Oh, thank you, fix'd.


----------



## qqwref (Sep 5, 2010)

Robert-Y said:


> It's a bit hard to describe my idea I just had so I'll just provide some algs for now
> 
> L R U2 R' L'
> y L' R' U2 R L
> ...



I like this idea  I bet most of the algs will be icky, though. Here are a few more:

A: (x' r2) U2 l' U' l U2 r' U r D2 r2
G: (x' R2) U2 (x r2) R' U R' B2 R U' R' F2 r2
T: L' R2 D' R U2 R' D R2 L
J: L' U R' U2 L U' R


----------



## Robert-Y (Sep 5, 2010)

From qqwref's alg: I found this:

T: x' r' R2 U' R z' R2' U' L U2 u


----------



## qqwref (Sep 5, 2010)

That alg is horrible.


----------



## Robert-Y (Sep 5, 2010)

It can't be that bad if I can sub-2 it consistently and it's basically like an A perm...

Btw Keemy and I looked for funny f2l thing + EPLLs. They suck, don't bother wasting your time trying to find something good


----------



## qqwref (Sep 5, 2010)

Haha, you're saying a 9-move algorithm "can't be that bad" if you can consistently sub-2 it? I think you are WAY too fast for that to make any sense 

EDIT: Here:
x r' R2 D' R U2 R' D r R2


----------



## Kirjava (Sep 6, 2010)

Ooms method .


----------



## theace (Sep 7, 2010)

what's a good square 1 method? The one i use gives me an avg of 1:30


----------



## qqwref (Sep 7, 2010)

http://www.cubezone.be/square1.html

...but for the edge permutation step, don't learn everything yet, just start with any one parity and the adjacent/adjacent, opposite/opposite, U-perm, Z-perm, and H-perm algorithms.


----------



## amostay2004 (Sep 8, 2010)

A fun and fast 3 cycle alg

(U D' R) U' M' U2 M U' (R' D U') - my fastest is 1.15 with it.

Also (U D' R) U M' U2 M U (R' D U') for the other way round. My best is 1.31 with this.


----------



## jms_gears1 (Sep 8, 2010)

OMG BEST 2X2 YPERM EVAZ

F(RUR'U')(RUR'U')(RUR'U')F' (R2U2RU2R2)

oh oh oh and A GOOD HPERM:

FB' F(RUR'U')(RUR'U')(RUR'U')F' (R2U2RU2R2) F(RUR'U')(RUR'U')(RUR'U')F' (R2U2RU2R2)F'B


----------



## qqwref (Sep 10, 2010)

Edge 3-cycle + two corner flips.
(R U' R U' R) D (R' U R' U R') D'.

Similar, edge 3-cycle + four corner flips.
(R U' R U' R) D2 (R' U R' U R') D2.


----------



## Kirjava (Sep 10, 2010)

holy balls they're not bad for CMLL


----------



## Kirjava (Sep 15, 2010)

Ok, anyone considered a cubeshape+parity method?

(Of course you have - you've just never bothered to see if it works)

You'd have to like, find a way of tracing/detecting in each shape and solving the shape differently depending on the parity.

Any ideas?


----------



## qqwref (Sep 15, 2010)

Memorize Mike Hughey's translation matrices, then track the cycles of 8 corners and 8 edges, in inspection, to determine if the cycles will have parity or not? Sounds incredibly impractical.


----------



## Kirjava (Sep 15, 2010)

Indeed. So maybe there is a way to trace without using the translation matrix for the shape? Trace in the random shape, not the cubeshape.


----------



## blade740 (Sep 15, 2010)

There's absolutely no way to recognize it in 15 seconds.


----------



## riffz (Sep 15, 2010)

blade740 said:


> There's absolutely no way to recognize it in 15 seconds.



Prove it.


----------



## qqwref (Sep 15, 2010)

You're multiplying two permutations on 16 elements and then checking to see if it's odd or not. Not gonna happen unless someone spends literally years working on it. I don't think you can check each one separately, either, because you'll have different numbers of pieces in each layer - you have to trace through the matrix.


----------



## blade740 (Sep 15, 2010)

riffz said:


> blade740 said:
> 
> 
> > There's absolutely no way to recognize it in 15 seconds.
> ...



Try to tell the difference between this and this. You have to literally look at every single sticker on every single piece and determine what the overall permutation will be after you solve cubeshape.


----------



## riffz (Sep 15, 2010)

blade740 said:


> riffz said:
> 
> 
> > blade740 said:
> ...



That's not a proof.

(I was just picking on you for using the word "absolutely")


----------



## theace (Sep 15, 2010)

Is the COLL, CML and all the fancy new stuff better than pure CFOP?


----------



## jms_gears1 (Sep 15, 2010)

theace said:


> Is the COLL, CML and all the fancy new stuff better than pure CFOP?



Whaa.... 
Well knowing more algs cant hurt...


@Kirjava, could you make videos of your CMLL algs soon? It would be awesome sauce.


----------



## Kirjava (Sep 15, 2010)

Uhh, maybe.

Why do you want the video though? You already have the algs.


----------



## jms_gears1 (Sep 16, 2010)

Kirjava said:


> Uhh, maybe.
> 
> Why do you want the video though? You already have the algs.



Because I want to see how you execute them. Some of mine are ok but im realllly slow at them.


----------



## Robert-Y (Sep 16, 2010)

How about a PLL execution UWR list for each PLL on this forum? I'd like to see where I would be on this list since my PLLs are "slow" compared to many other people. However I'm not sure if they are "slow" compared to other people during solves. I think videos would be nice and also if we post our algorithms too...

We could also have a PLL execution UWR list for OH...


----------



## theace (Sep 16, 2010)

how slow are your plls? My left handed g perms last 4 seconds.


----------



## irontwig (Sep 16, 2010)

You don't need to do any g-perms with your left hand, just mirror front to back instead of right to left or however one might explain it.


----------



## Robert-Y (Sep 16, 2010)

It's true that you don't need to but it's helpful in a solve in order to prevent unnecessary AUFs and y turns, to save a bit of time.


----------



## qqwref (Sep 16, 2010)

Doesn't save any time if your left-handed algs are way slower


----------



## theace (Sep 16, 2010)

I need better:

G Perms, E Perms, F Perms and V Perms


----------



## a small kitten (Sep 17, 2010)

Me too.


----------



## xXzaKerXx (Sep 17, 2010)

Try this F perm: R U R' U' R' U R U2 R' L' U R U' L U' R U' R' 

Weston and Lofty both use this for OH.


----------



## Kirjava (Sep 18, 2010)

02:57:13 <+Nibblr> 3x3 Scramble #13566: L2 B2 L' F2 L' F' L' D' L D F2 B U2 F' R' D2 F L2 B D' R2 F2 U' L2 F2
02:58:06 <+Kirjava> D'FEM2F
02:58:19 <+RobertY> wait
02:58:20 <+Kirjava> E goes teh same way as D
02:58:27 <+RobertY> should I start now?
02:58:33 <+Kirjava> yah
02:58:39 <+RobertY> ,start
02:58:53 <+Kirjava> x'y'
02:59:00 <+Kirjava> U2R'U2
02:59:06 <+Venim> back
02:59:09 <+Kirjava> R'U
02:59:12 <+Kirjava> r'
02:59:15 <+Kirjava> UR
02:59:21 <+statue> j`ey: enh
02:59:22 <+Kirjava> U
02:59:25 <+Kirjava> antisune
02:59:31 <+Kirjava> t perm
02:59:34 <+statue> that's essentially what I did :/
02:59:42 <+Kirjava> MUM'U2
02:59:47 <+Kirjava> MUM'
02:59:58 <+Kirjava> U2M'U2MU
03:00:06 <+Kirjava> F2MF2M' solved
03:00:12 <+RobertY> ,stop
03:00:13 <+Nibblr> Time for RobertY: 1:32.58
03:00:14 <+RobertY> yes
03:00:15 <+RobertY> !
03:00:17 <+Kirjava> haha
03:00:17 <+RobertY> solved
03:00:18 <+RobertY> 
03:00:18 <+Kirjava> awesome

IRC teamsolving


----------



## EVH (Sep 18, 2010)

theace said:


> I need better:
> 
> G Perms, E Perms, F Perms and V Perms



F Perm(with block in the back): R' U2 R' d' R' F' R2 U' R' U R' F R U' F

Do you use the Rowe Hessler E Perm?


----------



## Kenneth (Sep 18, 2010)

2x2x2 CLL

[10:51] <Kenta> Z' U2 R' U' R2 U' R' U' R U' R' [U']

[11:07] <SimonWestlund> 0.94 Kenta 
[11:07] <SimonWestlund> 0.91
[11:07] <SimonWestlund> 0.90
[11:07] <SimonWestlund> 0.80

The alg is like, you start over, solve the two unsolved by doing z', then you solve the other two to FL, first one directly, second inserting Antisune and then you get a LL-skip 

Who said you cannot swap two corners using 2g???


----------



## qqwref (Sep 18, 2010)

lol, nice find 

It was known we could do that case 2gen because of z' (R' U')*7.5, but that algorithm is pretty fast.


----------



## joey (Sep 18, 2010)

I actually really like Kenneth's alg.


----------



## Robert-Y (Sep 18, 2010)

Kenneth said:


> 2x2x2 CLL
> [10:51] <Kenta> Z' U2 R' U' R2 U' R' U' R U' R' [U']
> 
> ...
> ...



Nice find and thanks! It makes it so much easier to remember this alg


----------



## Kenneth (Sep 18, 2010)

mmm, I always try to dissect the algs to knowned moves, to make them "intuitive" and easy to remember.

@ qq: yes, I think I posted about it earlier, a year a go or so. But it is cheating, for real it is a triple 2-cycle.

@ Joey: it's hard to not like it, even I can do it fast! Just wait until Rowe gets his hands on it, he will probably sub 0.5 it


----------



## riffz (Sep 18, 2010)

Kenneth said:


> 2x2x2 CLL
> 
> [10:51] <Kenta> Z' U2 R' U' R2 U' R' U' R U' R' [U']



 I love this alg.


----------



## Ville Seppänen (Sep 19, 2010)

Kenneth said:


> 2x2x2 CLL
> 
> [10:51] <Kenta> Z' U2 R' U' R2 U' R' U' R U' R' [U']
> 
> ...


 
I've used this for ages. I think I even showed that alg to you in some finnish competition.


----------



## ariasamie (Sep 20, 2010)

(just if you don't know) www.postsecret.com is where some people post their secrets anonymously.
this one is one of the funniest confessions I saw today!


Spoiler


----------



## qqwref (Sep 20, 2010)

Here's a list of the top 10 people in 3BLD single + 3speed average.


```
Alexander Yu                       56.54
Ville Seppänen                     57.29
Gabriel Alejandro Orozco Casillas  57.66
Tse-Kan Lin                        59.31
Yuhui Xu                         1:00.31
Rowe Hessler                     1:02.66
Yumu Tabuchi                     1:05.19
Chester Lian                     1:08.28
Timothy Sun                      1:08.87
Muhammad Iril Khairul Anam       1:09.09
```


----------



## Kenneth (Sep 20, 2010)

Ville Seppänen said:


> I've used this for ages. I think I even showed that alg to you in some finnish competition.



Mabye, but I never remember algs I did not find myself =)

I had one other 2g that I used before but it was different and not this easy and fast.

All Optimal RU algs for the case:



Spoiler



For all algs do z' first.

URUR'URUR2URU2 (11,13)
URUR2URU2RURU' (11,13)
URUR2UR2URUR2U2 (11,15)
URUR2U2RURU2RU2 (11,15)
URU'RURU2RUR2U (11,13)
URU'R2U2R'URU2RU2 (11,15)
URU2RURU'RURU2 (11,13)
URU2RUR2URUR'U (11,13)
URU2RU2RURU2R2U (11,15)
URU2RU2RUR'U2R2U' (11,15)
URU2R2URUR2UR2U (11,15)
UR'URUR2URU2RU (11,13)
UR'U'R'U2R'U'R2U'R'U' (11,13)
UR'U'R2U'R2U'R'UR2U2 (11,15)
UR'U2R2U'RUR2UR2U (11,15)
UR2URUR'URUR2U (11,13)
UR2URUR2U2RURU2 (11,15)
UR2URU'R2U2R'URU2 (11,15)
UR2URU2RURU'RU (11,13)
UR2UR2URUR2U2RU (11,15)
UR2UR2URU'R2U2R'U (11,15)
UR2U2RURU2RU2RU (11,15)
UR2U2RU'R'U2R'U2R'U' (11,15)
RURU'RURU2RUR2 (11,13)
RURU2RUR2URUR' (11,13)
RURU2RU2RURU2R2 (11,15)
RURU2R2URUR2UR2 (11,15)
RUR'URUR2URU2R (11,13)
RUR'U2R2U'RUR2UR2 (11,15)
RUR2URUR'URUR2 (11,13)
RUR2URU2RURU'R (11,13)
RUR2UR2URUR2U2R (11,15)
RUR2UR2URU'R2U2R' (11,15)
RUR2U2RURU2RU2R (11,15)
RU'RURU2RUR2UR (11,13)
RU'R'U'R2U'R'U2R'U'R' (11,13)
RU'R'U2R'U2R'U'RU2R2 (11,15)
RU'R2U2R'URU2RU2R (11,15)
RU2RURU'RURU2R (11,13)
RU2RURU2R2URUR2 (11,15)
RU2RUR'U2R2U'RUR2 (11,15)
RU2RUR2URUR'UR (11,13)
RU2RU2RURU2R2UR (11,15)
RU2RU2RUR'U2R2U'R (11,15)
RU2R2URUR2UR2UR (11,15)
RU2R2UR'U'R2U'R2U'R' (11,15)
U'RURU2RUR2URU (11,13)
U'RUR2UR2URU'R2U2 (11,15)
U'RU'R'U'R2U'R'U2R'U' (11,13)
U'RU2R2UR'U'R2U'R2U' (11,15)
U'R'UR'U'R'U2R'U'R2U' (11,13)
U'R'UR2U2RU'R'U2R'U2 (11,15)
U'R'U'RU'R'U'R2U'R'U2 (11,13)
U'R'U'R2U'R'U2R'U'R'U (11,13)
U'R'U'R2U'R2U'R'U'R2U2 (11,15)
U'R'U'R2U2R'U'R'U2R'U2 (11,15)
U'R'U2R'U'R'UR'U'R'U2 (11,13)
U'R'U2R'U'R2U'R'U'RU' (11,13)
U'R'U2R'U2R'U'RU2R2U (11,15)
U'R'U2R'U2R'U'R'U2R2U' (11,15)
U'R'U2R2U'R'U'R2U'R2U' (11,15)
U'R2U'R'UR2U2RU'R'U2 (11,15)
U'R2U'R'U'RU'R'U'R2U' (11,13)
U'R2U'R'U'R2U2R'U'R'U2 (11,15)
U'R2U'R'U2R'U'R'UR'U' (11,13)
U'R2U'R2U'R'UR2U2RU' (11,15)
U'R2U'R2U'R'U'R2U2R'U' (11,15)
U'R2U2R'URU2RU2RU (11,15)
U'R2U2R'U'R'U2R'U2R'U' (11,15)
R'URUR2URU2RUR (11,13)
R'URU2RU2RUR'U2R2 (11,15)
R'UR'U'R'U2R'U'R2U'R' (11,13)
R'UR2U2RU'R'U2R'U2R' (11,15)
R'U'RU'R'U'R2U'R'U2R' (11,13)
R'U'RU2R2UR'U'R2U'R2 (11,15)
R'U'R'UR'U'R'U2R'U'R2 (11,13)
R'U'R'U2R'U'R2U'R'U'R (11,13)
R'U'R'U2R'U2R'U'R'U2R2 (11,15)
R'U'R'U2R2U'R'U'R2U'R2 (11,15)
R'U'R2U'R'U'RU'R'U'R2 (11,13)
R'U'R2U'R'U2R'U'R'UR' (11,13)
R'U'R2U'R2U'R'UR2U2R (11,15)
R'U'R2U'R2U'R'U'R2U2R' (11,15)
R'U'R2U2R'U'R'U2R'U2R' (11,15)
R'U2R'U'RU2R2UR'U'R2 (11,15)
R'U2R'U'R'UR'U'R'U2R' (11,13)
R'U2R'U'R'U2R2U'R'U'R2 (11,15)
R'U2R'U'R2U'R'U'RU'R' (11,13)
R'U2R'U2R'U'RU2R2UR' (11,15)
R'U2R'U2R'U'R'U2R2U'R' (11,15)
R'U2R2U'RUR2UR2UR (11,15)
R'U2R2U'R'U'R2U'R2U'R' (11,15)
U2RURU'RURU2RU (11,13)
U2RURU2RU2RURU2 (11,15)
U2RURU2R2URUR2U (11,15)
U2RUR'U2R2U'RUR2U (11,15)
U2RUR2URUR'URU (11,13)
U2RU'R'U2R'U2R'U'RU2 (11,15)
U2RU2RURU2R2URU (11,15)
U2RU2RUR'U2R2U'RU (11,15)
U2R'URU2RU2RUR'U2 (11,15)
U2R'U'RU2R2UR'U'R2U' (11,15)
U2R'U'R'UR'U'R'U2R'U' (11,13)
U2R'U'R'U2R'U2R'U'R'U2 (11,15)
U2R'U'R'U2R2U'R'U'R2U' (11,15)
U2R'U'R2U'R'U'RU'R'U' (11,13)
U2R'U2R'U'RU2R2UR'U' (11,15)
U2R'U2R'U'R'U2R2U'R'U' (11,15)
U2R2URUR2UR2URU (11,15)
U2R2UR'U'R2U'R2U'R'U (11,15)
U2R2U'RUR2UR2URU' (11,15)
U2R2U'R'U'R2U'R2U'R'U' (11,15)
R2URUR'URUR2UR (11,13)
R2URUR2UR2URUR2 (11,15)
R2URUR2U2RURU2R (11,15)
R2URU'R2U2R'URU2R (11,15)
R2URU2RURU'RUR (11,13)
R2UR'U'R2U'R2U'R'UR2 (11,15)
R2UR2URUR2U2RUR (11,15)
R2UR2URU'R2U2R'UR (11,15)
R2U'RUR2UR2URU'R2 (11,15)
R2U'R'UR2U2RU'R'U2R' (11,15)
R2U'R'U'RU'R'U'R2U'R' (11,13)
R2U'R'U'R2U'R2U'R'U'R2 (11,15)
R2U'R'U'R2U2R'U'R'U2R' (11,15)
R2U'R'U2R'U'R'UR'U'R' (11,13)
R2U'R2U'R'UR2U2RU'R' (11,15)
R2U'R2U'R'U'R2U2R'U'R' (11,15)
R2U2RURU2RU2RUR (11,15)
R2U2RU'R'U2R'U2R'U'R (11,15)
R2U2R'URU2RU2RUR' (11,15)
R2U2R'U'R'U2R'U2R'U'R' (11,15)


----------



## Athefre (Sep 26, 2010)

I'm kind of out of this hobby, at least for now. But, I just wanted to post something that I had thought of a few days after my last post in this topic.

I found that, after you've placed three same/opposite corners on D and the free slot is at DFR, FRU'R'D can be used to orient a corner at ULF. Just keep placing misoriented corners at ULF and doing that sequence and everything will be oriented. I'm not sure if that's good enough for a beginner or if, like someone said before, LBL is still the easiest to teach. I just wanted to post that I had started using that instead of the other orientation idea in my first post in this topic. Probably because it doesn't involve "work" or much thought. I started to think that the final three move orientation isn't that easy for a beginner.


----------



## Robert-Y (Sep 28, 2010)

I know this is sorta old news:

Ryousuke Higo is back with more videos:






@anyone who doesn't know who he is: A japanese guy who was extremely fast compared to others at OH a few years ago...


----------



## Yes We Can! (Sep 29, 2010)

Ridiculous "solution"

R' L' D' B2 U' F R' B R' F' B2 L2 F' R2 F' B2 L2 U' B2 R F R2 B' F2 U

"Solution":

x2 D U R' y2 F R2 U2 F2 R2 F' L2

That's 10 moves to solve 70% of all pieces on the cube. Weird stuff...


----------



## Olivér Perge (Sep 29, 2010)

qqwref said:


> Here's a list of the top 10 people in 3BLD single + 3speed average.
> 
> 
> ```
> ...


 
What about 3x3x3 single + 3x3x3 blindfolded single? (Sorry if someone already posted that before.)


----------



## qqwref (Sep 29, 2010)

Olivér Perge said:


> What about 3x3x3 single + 3x3x3 blindfolded single? (Sorry if someone already posted that before.)




```
Ville Seppänen                     54.23
Alexander Yu                       54.27
Gabriel Alejandro Orozco Casillas  55.11
Yuhui Xu                           56.16
Tse-Kan Lin                        57.83
Rowe Hessler                     1:00.99
Yumu Tabuchi                     1:03.59
Haiyan Zhuang                    1:04.63
Chester Lian                     1:04.94
Zhi Qiao                         1:06.01
```
Interesting that Haiyan made the list. He's the only one on here with a sup20 single.


----------



## Tim Reynolds (Sep 30, 2010)

All people with best average in an event exactly two times the best single:


```
Lánder Osés Oliveira  	2008OSES01  	magic  	128  	256
Mikolaj Stepczak 	2009STEP02 	pyram 	1093 	2186
Feliks Zemdegs 	  	2009ZEMD01 	222 	128 	256
Marco D'Addezio 	2009DADD01 	222 	995 	1990
Jhong-En Wei 	  	2010WEIJ01 	222 	256 	512
Dawid Grobelny 	  	2010GROB01 	magic 	155 	310
```

I checked up to 20 times and these are the only ones I found. There are some 1.5's also:


```
Lucas Brynte  			2005BRYN01  	222  	734  	1101
David Bergling 			2007BERG01 	222 	1188 	1782
Ge Liu 				2008LIUG01 	magic 	194 	291
Jiong Wu 			2008WUJI02 	magic 	194 	291
Yi Cai 				2009CAIY01 	magic 	128 	192
Mike Catchen 			2009CATC01 	333oh 	4640 	6960
Gustavo Maysonnave Franck 	2009FRAN05 	magic 	136 	204
Tam Ming Ki 			2009KITA01 	magic 	136 	204
Tristan Penson 			2009PENS02 	222 	844 	1266
Benjamin Wong 			2010WONG01 	222 	396 	594
Philipp Zurowski 		2010ZURO01 	magic 	184 	276
Wriddhi Banerjee 		2010BANE01 	333 	5688 	8532
Zilong Wei 			2010WEIZ02 	magic 	206 	309
Jacob Rand 			2010RAND02 	magic 	172 	258
Dhay-Parn Lou 			2010LOUD01 	222 	696 	1044
Liang Liu 			2010LIUL03 	magic 	186 	279
```


----------



## Robert-Y (Oct 2, 2010)

Sq-1 method idea:

1. Cubeshape
2. LD CEC block
3. RD CEC block
4. L2E of D
5. PLL + parity

I think there's around 50 algorithms to learn for this method.

This idea came from Tse-Kan Lin's method. He can sub-20 with his method:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7dLRUr8bclo


EDIT: or how about...
4. L2E of D + parity
5. PLL


----------



## bluecloe45 (Oct 2, 2010)

does anyone know Stefan Huber's youtube channel?


----------



## teller (Oct 2, 2010)

bluecloe45 said:


> does anyone know Stefan Huber's youtube channel?


 
http://www.youtube.com/user/SinH4


----------



## cincyaviation (Oct 2, 2010)

Robert-Y said:


> Sq-1 method idea:
> 
> 1. Cubeshape
> 2. LD CEC block
> ...


Sounds like SQ-1 Nub roux, but why 50 algs?


----------



## Robert-Y (Oct 2, 2010)

40+ for PLL + parity and maybe 5-10 for L2E of D I think.

Also, I just got a 27.71 like this  (M2 for step 4 and J perm for step 5 )


----------



## Toad (Oct 2, 2010)

cincyaviation said:


> Sounds like SQ-1 Nub roux, but why 50 algs?


 
PLL with parity...

And maybe "algs" for some of the D edges cases.


----------



## cincyaviation (Oct 2, 2010)

randomtoad said:


> PLL with parity...
> 
> And maybe "algs" for some of the D edges cases.


 
Oh, hadn't thought of parity.


----------



## Kirjava (Oct 2, 2010)

11 moves.


----------



## qqwref (Oct 2, 2010)

That might be more impressive if it was easier to see what colors the stickers were.

Not sure how to optimize this: L u' R U' R' u d R U R' d' L'


----------



## Kirjava (Oct 2, 2010)

Eh, it's not impressive. I was playing with F3L stuff and that popped up and I showed someone on IRC. "zomg I'll randomly post it"


----------



## qqwref (Oct 2, 2010)

But what's the 11 move solution?


----------



## Kirjava (Oct 2, 2010)

You posted it, you're just thinking in the wrong metric


----------



## Kirjava (Oct 2, 2010)

I found r'drd'R'F'Uwf2Uw'FUwf2Uw'Rdr'd'r and Dan found U'[b'R2b,r][Fr2F',R']U.

While dan's alg does the two seperately, mine does them both at once. Same length though.

I wonder if less than 18 is possible.


----------



## Robert-Y (Oct 2, 2010)

I just realised that with Tse-Kan's method and the method I was thinking of, you could do pseudo blocks like with Roux...

(However, with the method I was thinking of, steps 4 and 5 would be harder to do...)


----------



## Cyrus C. (Oct 2, 2010)

What's this LL method called. You solve the EO and CP in one step, then the CO and EP in another step (this can be 2 gen)? Does anyone have algorithms for it or use it? If it hasn't been thought of, which I doubt, do you think it would be a good LL method?


----------



## Kirjava (Oct 2, 2010)

EOCP/2GLL


----------



## qqwref (Oct 2, 2010)

Kirjava said:


> I found r'drd'R'F'Uwf2Uw'FUwf2Uw'Rdr'd'r and Dan found U'[b'R2b,r][Fr2F',R']U.
> 
> I wonder if less than 18 is possible.


 
(RF'R'U2) (b'Rb Lw' b'R'b' Lw) (U2RFR') [16]

EDIT: A while ago Per found this:
(RF'R') (Lw'U2Lw u Lw'U2Lw u') (RFR') [14]


----------



## Cubenovice (Oct 3, 2010)

And now for something more beginner-stuff...

I am still using 2 look OLL and was wondering what you guys think of the following:
For all the cases with no edges solved, instead of using the typical beginners method alg F (R U R' U') F' f (R U R' U') f' use: 
M U (R U R' U') M2 (U R U' r') instead.

The latter alg leaves CO intact so you for these cases you actually go to a "1 look" system; Still using 2 seperate algs but you know the 2nd alg upfront.
You could even AUF before the 1st alg so you can flow straight into the 2nd.
Offcourse for the specific dot case you would still use F (R U R' U') F' f (R U R' U') f' to OLL.


----------



## StachuK1992 (Oct 3, 2010)

Cyrus C. said:


> What's this LL method called. You solve the EO and CP in one step, then the CO and EP in another step (this can be 2 gen)? Does anyone have algorithms for it or use it? If it hasn't been thought of, which I doubt, do you think it would be a good LL method?


 
The algs from the CPEOLL wiki page will work (16 of them), but won't always be the best, because those algs care about CO.

Then, 2GLL algs. Check BOCA under ZZ under variation D. 84 of those, totaling 100 algs.

I think it could be decent.


----------



## qqwref (Oct 3, 2010)

Cubenovice said:


> For all the cases with no edges solved, instead of using the typical beginners method alg F (R U R' U') F' f (R U R' U') f' use:
> M U (R U R' U') M2 (U R U' r') instead.


Well, F (R U R' U') F' f (R U R' U') f' is really awful to perform, so I'd definitely suggest using something else. The one you suggest is one of my OLLs, and it's pretty nice. You might also want to try (F R' F' R2) r' U (R U' R') U' M'.


Don't wanna make a new post, so:
Obvious thing that people don't always realize: Your chance of a LL skip on 2x2 is always the same (1/(27*6)) before you see the scramble, but after you see the scramble this probability may substantially increase or decrease.


----------



## DavidWoner (Oct 4, 2010)

U F2 R' F2 R2 F' U2 

y F' U2 R' U2' R2 U' B2 R2

pro


----------



## QCcuber4 (Oct 4, 2010)

Kirjava said:


> Often I have ideas or thoughts that I'd like to post or discuss, but there doesn't exist a topic for. This happens a few times a week and usually consists of method ideas that don't yet merit their own threads - I resorted to discussing RouxZZ in the accomplishments thread, for example.
> 
> Think of it like the one answer one question thread, but for adults.
> 
> ...



AHMAIGAWD!! I LOVE YOU!!


----------



## Innocence (Oct 4, 2010)

QCcuber4 said:


> AHMAIGAWD!! I LOVE YOU!!


 
Cool story bro.

Wait...what?

anyway...Anyone else share my pain where you're learning a method, but still uncomfortably slow with it, and the temptation to switch back is growing way too much? At least with your first method there is no easy way out, the only way to solve faster is to practise.

Anyone have any tips?


----------



## Kirjava (Oct 5, 2010)

Not worth it's own thread.

Trying to get a sub12 avg12 on video >.>


----------



## Kirjava (Oct 5, 2010)

<3


----------



## qqwref (Oct 5, 2010)

5x5 method idea: Keyhole Style LBL
- 1x4x5 block, place it either on D with the free slot on F, or B with the free slot on U.
- Make the next three layers of the block, one layer at a time from B/D.
- You should now have two consecutive layers left. I suggest pairing centers, pairing edges AvG style (kinda like Yau with Uw moves), and then finishing with Petrus.

EDIT: 2:12.01, 2:08.49+, 2:18.37, (DNF), 2:01.29, 2:07.52, (1:56.42), 2:03.37, 2:18.08, 1:58.19, 2:03.20, 2:21.61 => 2:09.21


----------



## Kirjava (Oct 6, 2010)

ffffffffffff


----------



## davaquie (Oct 6, 2010)

Yeah, I can't believe I found it by messing up a solve on the sim.


----------



## Kirjava (Oct 6, 2010)

random cool solve

R' D' U2 F' R' L' B' U B' D R2 D2 F D' B R2 L2 D U' B2 R B2 U2 L2 B

x2y
R2U'BR'U'L2
xy'
M2U'RUR2U'R'UR'UM'URU'R'URU'R'
U'
R'U'RU'R'UF'UFrM'
U2M2U'R2

41 moves 11.63 sec


----------



## qqwref (Oct 7, 2010)

Improvement of above method:

- Build two opposite centers, place on L/R
- 1x4x5 block on L
- Make the next three layers of the block, one layer at a time from L, one center at a time and inserting the edge when appropriate
- Switch the solved 4x4x5 block to BD; pair edges (I suggest pairing a full one first, placing on DF, then using AvG with Uw moves) and finish with Petrus

EDIT: Got sub2  And a 1:40 single (would have been sub-1:40 if I hadn't had trouble stopping the timer).
2:04.37, 2:09.73, (1:40.15), 1:54.81, 1:58.55, (2:15.74), 1:51.96, 2:12.30, 1:54.43, 1:49.76, 2:02.77, 1:55.81 => 1:59.45


----------



## qqwref (Oct 8, 2010)

Dan Knights Z perm: R B' R' B F R' F B' R' B R F2 U

Now reverse it: U F2 R B R' B' F R' F B R' B' R
WTF? It's a Z perm on D, plus the equivalent of an E move. I can't explain that.


----------



## Martijn (Oct 8, 2010)

Wooho! Just got my first speedcube! (had a non-lubed original rubiks) It's a FII, and I love it! Its still a little loose so playing around with the tension (read: struggling to get the caps off).. 

/me is happy


----------



## onionhoney (Oct 9, 2010)

U2 R2 D' F D' B2 U' L U2 D2 R B2 R2 D B' D B L R' D L' U' R D2 R' 

Solution:

y x' L' y R U2 R' y D2 B' R' B R' 9
u R U' R' D' 5 14
R' U R 3 17
y' R' U2 R U2 y F' U L' UL F 10 27
y2 U' R2 U2 R2 U' R2 U' R2 8 35
y' R' D R' U2 R D' R U' R U R U2 R' U R' U2 16 51

A new method invented by myself.

Cross->1 pair of F2L->3 F2L edges->last layer EO and 1 corner at the same time->last layer EP together with 1 corner -> L5C

What do you think of it?


----------



## vcuber13 (Oct 10, 2010)

[1.-1]/[3.0]/[-4.0]/[0.4]/[0.-3]/[0.-4]/[0.1]


----------



## EVH (Oct 10, 2010)

qqwref said:


> Dan Knights Z perm: R B' R' B F R' F B' R' B R F2 U
> 
> Now reverse it: U F2 R B R' B' F R' F B R' B' R
> WTF? It's a Z perm on D, plus the equivalent of an E move. I can't explain that.



 That doesn't make any sense........


----------



## flan (Oct 13, 2010)

I didn't want to create a new thread because its such a bad review but I just thought I'd share my thoughts of the DaYan 4x4.

So out of the box this cube is very bad but after lubing it gets much better. It feels sturdy and crunchy as you move. Not really clicky. 

Overall I like the feel of this cube It has a pleasing feel to me which I like. One problem is this cube is very big. Larger than my v5. But thats ok because it looks like a normal 3x3 with extra layers getting me 'cube on steriods' comments at school which I never even got from my 7x7 because if the puny sized cubies.

The inner layers of this cube feel smooth and it isnt too bad solving this cube as a 2x2 except for the size.

Sorry for not commenting much on the speedcubing aspects of this cube, the reason I didnt was because I know nothing about 4x4s and have only just decided to get serious and I've only ever owned a rubiks. Just felt like giving my 2 cents (zimbabwe cents).


----------



## KYLOL (Oct 18, 2010)

Here is a method I am working on. I average about 49 moves with it. The example solves below are some average solves.
I use Petrus normally. This method is nearly the same. I start with a 2x2x3 block. I then move on to finish F2L, but I build a 1x2x2 block on U layer and preserve it while I place my last CE pair into F2L. This will leave me with a ZBLL case containing a 1x2x2 block ( the number of cases is low, I've learned nearly half of them in just a few days). The trick is to get from your 2x2x3 block -> ZBLL case as efficiently as possible. The majority of the moves are wasted here, in preserving / moving around blocks. I've come up with really unique ways to fluently push around my blocks, almost ignoring them as I finish my F2L. I understand every few days someone starts a "Hey, check out my new awesome method that is 10 seconds slower than fridrich" thread, but this method I use is only a few seconds slower than Petrus ( I haven't practiced much with it yet...kylol still 2slow2Bpro ). ao12 petrus = 13.85, ao12 new method = 19ish.
WHERE IS MY PEMBRO? THOM-BOMB?

R2 B F R L2 U2 L2 B' F' U D' L R D' L' B' L2 D' F B U' D' L R' U


U' D' l D L D
U' F2 U R'B' R B
x
U' R' U R U2
R U' R U R2 U' R' U R' U' R U R2 U' R2 U R
U2
M' x' U2 L2 U' L2 U' L2 U' R U' L




L R B2 F' U2 R2 B' F L2 R B' R F2 L' F2 B' U' L2 B' U' R F2 R U2 B'

U2 l2 f
z2
U R U R2 U F' U' F U'
x
U2 R' U' R2 U R' U' R' U R' U' R U R2 U' R'
y
R U' R
y'
M'E M D
L F R' F' L' F R F'




D2 R F U R U F R' L' U' D2 B' U' L F R D2 R F' B D' B' U2 L2 B'

D' R' U R U2 F D'
F' D F2
x' y'
R' U' R U' F R' F'
z' y2
R U' R' U2 L F L'
y'
U R U R U R' U2 R U2 R'
U'
R' F' L F R F' L' F


----------



## qqwref (Oct 18, 2010)

holy **** it's kyle allaire

I haven't seen you in ages


EDIT: oh yeah and that method kinda resembles tripod which is: 2x2x2 block -> 2x2x3 block -> build another 2x2x1 block on one of the layers -> build yet another 2x2x1 block (on the other layer) -> add in a corner/edge pair -> last 5 pieces in one alg. I don't get how you're finishing the F2L with the block on U but it seems like doing that would be more efficient than the tripod way if you could manage it (and clearly you can, but I don't think I could).


----------



## Kenneth (Oct 18, 2010)

KYLOL said:


> Here is a method I am working on. I average about 49 moves with it. The example solves below are some average solves.
> I use Petrus normally. This method is nearly the same. I start with a 2x2x3 block. I then move on to finish F2L, but I build a 1x2x2 block on U layer and preserve it while I place my last CE pair into F2L. This will leave me with a ZBLL case containing a 1x2x2 block...



I think Johannes Laire knows this method, including all needed ZB cases ([wiki]L3C[/wiki] makes half the group).

Just the other day I was thinking of this LL method but ignoring EO for the two unsolved edges, that would be twice the number of cases for the last step (108 including duplicates).

Edit: aha, tripod...


----------



## jiggy (Oct 18, 2010)

Recently, I've been playing around with conjugated PLLs.





Set up: B2 L' D B D' B' L F2 L2 D L2 B2 U' F2 U F2 D' F2 D
(Set ups generated by a random online cube solver.)

As you can see, the simple example above requires just two edges to be swapped and two corners to be swapped. Of course, we could just solve this with OLL and PLL, but we'd be missing the opportunity of an easy 1LLL if we did!

In this situation, we can apply [F R S], as a set up move, followed by a J-perm before reversing the set up moves.


Of course, we can use this in other ways than a 1LLL; the other day, I came across this case:







Set up: L' F2 R U2 F2 R2 D2 B2 R D2 F2 R2 B2 R' U' L2 F2 R2 D' R

Which can easily be solved with (y') B [Y-perm] B'.


Mostly, I've been playing with these for fun. However, I think I could find them moderately useful for FMC...the biggest road block I've hit so far is if a piece is in the correct position, but with the incorrect orientation. That's a real pain!

Anyway, I don't for a second believe I'm the only person to have messed around with this! I'd be interested to hear any thoughts you guys might have about it. Have you found a good solution for my problem? What do you think about an FMC application? I'm worried that by chucking a PLL alg in there you would probably bump up your move count quite harshly.


----------



## qqwref (Oct 19, 2010)

Yeah, I've tried this before for Tripod (I don't know all the algs yet lol). For the last 5 pieces you can often get a two corner and two edge swap, and setting that up to a PLL is relatively easy. Perhaps a faster way to do the first case is like this:
F R y x' (R2 U2 R' U' R U2 L' U R' U' M') y' R' F'

I think this technique could be useful in FMC but only if you are left with a 2-2 swap and you know some efficient 2-2 swap algs (such as the 10-move J perm, or the 11-move T).


----------



## jiggy (Oct 19, 2010)

I wouldn't say it can _only_ work with 2-2 swaps, I've also made this work for 3-3 swaps (G-perm) but the set up moves can get pretty hairy! (Although maybe I'm just not so good at spotting the optimum set ups yet!)

I think it is definitely a technique which can only be used in special situations. I wonder if a human could find a shorter solution with standard FMC methods, though...


EDIT:


qqwref said:


> F R y x' *(R2 U2 R' U' R U2 L' U R' U' M')* y' R' F'


This is an interesting alg. Just out of my own curiosity, does it belong to a particular method/subset or have you done something clever I haven't spotted?


----------



## irontwig (Oct 19, 2010)

Well, it just looks like it's a bad case, it takes 10 moves to leave three edges and 11 to leave three corners.


----------



## jiggy (Oct 19, 2010)

Just a quick example of a 3-3 swap I just met:






(This may be easier to see on the 3D cube below, or if you execute the set up)

Set up: F2 D2 R F R' B D B' D F2 U2 B R2 B R2 B2 U2 L2 F' L2


My solution, executed from the start point on the right, blue on front:

[D' L2 D2 B' M] (x2) G-perm (x2) [M' B D2 L2 D]

With the G-perm at 12 HTM, that works out at 6 + 12 + 6 = 24 moves for the final 6 pieces.

=/ Not great, to be honest.


For comparison, I'll give an M-turn heavy edge commutation + corner commutation a quick try.

[U S'] (M' U2 M) D (M' U2 M) D' [S U']
y2 x
[U' L] (F' U' F) D2 (F U F') D2 [L' U]

Possibly not the optimal edge/corner coms, but they'll do for now.

Edge: 3 + 5 + 1 + 5 + 1 + 3 = 18
Corner: 2 + 3 + 1 + 3 + 1 + 2 = 12
= 30 HTM

24 < 30, which makes the conjugated G-perm better than my attempt at coms. There may be better coms out there, however. Overall, I'm not sold, but I do think that it's a very easy thing to do, which is a plus for the lazy cuber! =)


Anyway, given that the whole cube should be (optimally) solvable in 20 moves, 24 for 6 pieces (even the final 6) is probably a bit expensive. What do you guys think?


----------



## Escher (Oct 19, 2010)

Better edge comm: y' U' M2 B' R' B M2 B' R B U y (12 moves inc. U setup)

I'm sure theres a BH alg that's shorter too.


----------



## irontwig (Oct 19, 2010)

Why don't you just use inserted three-cycles instead?


----------



## jiggy (Oct 19, 2010)

Heh, I knew there would be better coms out there, I didn't really put too much time into it! =P Having said that, there may be a better way to set up for the G-perm too. Either way, I don't think conjugated PLLs hold much promise. But they are pretty fun, and at the end of the day, isn't that more important than an excellent solve?

What? No? Darn!



irontwig said:


> Why don't you just use inserted three-cycles instead?


Yeah, I'm sure if you were to have applied something like insertions at an earlier stage you would avoid this whole problem. I know I've been chatting about an FMC application, but the only application it ever really had for me was a bit of fun! ; )


----------



## Kirjava (Oct 19, 2010)

Escher said:


> y' U' M2 B' R' B M2 B' R B U y


 
U R' U' M' U R U' M


----------



## number1failure (Oct 19, 2010)

currently teaching 2 people LBL. one is on the green side corners, other is still on cross


----------



## qqwref (Oct 19, 2010)

jiggy said:


> This is an interesting alg. Just out of my own curiosity, does it belong to a particular method/subset or have you done something clever I haven't spotted?


It's just an R setup to a RU2R' etc J perm, which combines well in speedsolving and saves a move in FMC. It's equivalent to a J perm of the other type with flipped edges.

Here's an interesting alg I just found:
U' R' U' R U2 L' U R' U' L U' R
Reminiscent of a J perm. It effect is J perm + 2 corner twist (one of which is outside the J perm).



number1failure said:


> currently teaching 2 people LBL. one is on the green side corners, other is still on cross


Why green? You can teach LBL just as well on any color. But I think it's kind of mean to push people into being used to a slightly unusual coloring.


----------



## JonnyWhoopes (Oct 19, 2010)

R' U' R U R' U' R U' R' U R U R' U R U2 R' U R U2

What would you call that type of alg? It's a two corner twist, but it doesn't affect any other pieces. Found by hand.


----------



## qqwref (Oct 19, 2010)

I'd call it a pure 2-twist. That's a pretty neat one.


----------



## waffle=ijm (Oct 20, 2010)

I decided to do some dots (E2 M' E2 M)

Cubes Solved: 100/100
Number of Pops: 0
Average: 0.56
Standard Deviation: 0.13
Best Time: 0.40
Worst Time: 1.21

I got tired around the 1-20 were bleh. I guess I wasn't warmed up enough. 21-49 - pretty average for me 50-60 I started to feel tired. The rest, I got a sudden boost. I noticed lots of .43-.45. Last 10 or so were mainly sub-0.50

Thom, you should try this with cubes like the Guhong so accurately turning doesn't count nearly as much and you don't have to follow through completely on the E2.


----------



## riffz (Oct 20, 2010)

Escher said:


> Better edge comm: y' U' M2 B' R' B M2 B' R B U y (12 moves inc. U setup)
> 
> I'm sure theres a BH alg that's shorter too.


 
U L2 U' M' U L2 U' M

edit: Didn't see Kirjava's post, but mine's better for that angle, anyway.


----------



## ninjabob7 (Oct 20, 2010)

So I thought of an event idea yesterday. It will never become official but might be fun unofficially.

You take two cubes and apply the same scramble to both. Cover one cube while you solve the other, then put on a blindfold before uncovering and solving the second cube. There is no preinspection and your time is how long it takes to solve both.

I call it Twin BLD, and the idea is that you'll solve the first cube with more or less your normal method, memorizing the steps as you go, and then apply the same solution to the second cube. This basically allows you to learn the memorization part of speedBLD without learning how to trace pieces through the solve. Covering the second cube prevents you from reviewing your memo after solving the first cube.

I haven't done it successfully yet, but when I do I expect it to be about 2:30 (slightly faster than my normal BLD times, but would improve quickly). I think it could be done without any memo system, but it would be easier with one. For instance, you could use code words for each F2L case (like in team BLD) instead of trying to remember the shape.


----------



## qqwref (Oct 20, 2010)

ninjabob7 said:


> You take two cubes and apply the same scramble to both. Cover one cube while you solve the other, then put on a blindfold before uncovering and solving the second cube. There is no *inspection* and your time is how long it takes to solve both.


Interesting idea. It's pretty hard for me at the moment but I imagine it could be pretty fun/fast. Maybe it'll help with reconstructions :]


----------



## riffz (Oct 20, 2010)

Like speedBLD without tracing. Might actually be fun!


----------



## Anthony (Oct 20, 2010)

58.52 first try.
40.11 third try.


----------



## oprah62 (Oct 20, 2010)

Anthony said:


> 58.52 first try.
> 40.11 third try.


 
Wrong thread?


----------



## Tim Major (Oct 20, 2010)

oprah62 said:


> Wrong thread?


 
er... wut?


----------



## Mike Hughey (Oct 20, 2010)

Anthony said:


> 58.52 first try.
> 40.11 third try.


 
If it's the right thread, you can't be serious!?!?!

If you are, that's awesome!


----------



## joey (Oct 20, 2010)

I did it sub1, it's kinda easy, and with one cube.

Me and daniel lundwall tried this at EC '10. We didn't get a success.. it was 2am after all.
One does a speedsolve, and then calls it out to the next person.

Me and Kirjava did it a week ago? We got a untimed success.


----------



## Kirjava (Oct 20, 2010)

It's easier with CFOP


----------



## riffz (Oct 20, 2010)

Kirjava said:


> It's easier with CFOP


 
I can definitely see why that would be true.


----------



## ninjabob7 (Oct 20, 2010)

joey said:


> I did it sub1, it's kinda easy, and with one cube.
> ...
> One does a speedsolve, and then calls it out to the next person.


I'm not sure you understand what I'm trying to do. It's one person solving two cubes: the first one sighted and the second one blind.



Anthony said:


> 58.52 first try.
> 40.11 third try.


Wow. Is this with CFOP, and if so how do you memorize? Do you remember shapes or moves for the F2L pairs (or neither)?


----------



## riffz (Oct 20, 2010)

Anthony said:


> 58.52 first try.
> 40.11 third try.


 
Do you use your teamBLD codes to help yourself memorize?


----------



## joey (Oct 20, 2010)

ninjabob7 said:


> I'm not sure you understand what I'm trying to do. It's one person solving two cubes: the first one sighted and the second one blind.
> 
> 
> Wow. Is this with CFOP, and if so how do you memorize? Do you remember shapes or moves for the F2L pairs (or neither)?


I've done it by myself and as a team.


----------



## theace (Oct 20, 2010)

They should really add a team BLD as a competition!

I'm having a hard time with the last unfold of my magic. Any suggestions? My average is around 2. If a screw up on the last unfold, it goes up to 3 or 4 too sometimes. It does go lower as well. Broke 4 PBs today: 1.91, 1.90, 1.83, 1.78, 1.69


----------



## Mike Hughey (Oct 20, 2010)

joey said:


> I did it sub1, it's kinda easy, and with one cube.
> 
> Me and daniel lundwall tried this at EC '10. We didn't get a success.. it was 2am after all.
> One does a speedsolve, and then calls it out to the next person.
> ...


 
I think sometimes I just fail to appreciate just how horribly awful I am at 3x3x3 speedsolve than most of you are. You're all totally amazing to me. I suspect if I were sub-15, I wouldn't find this all that hard either, but at the moment it just seems mind-boggling.


----------



## qqwref (Oct 20, 2010)

I'm well under sub-15 and I absolutely cannot do this at all.

I'm getting times around a minute, but I always forget something in F2L.

EDIT: 1:10.36 success after about 20 tries today.



Spoiler



R2 D2 R' F B U' R2 B D U' B' D' F2 U2 B2 D L' B2 L B2 U' L2 B2 R2 D
xcross: U F B' R L' U2 L2
F2L2: y L' U L U' L' U' L y
F2L3: y R U' R' U2 y' R' U' R
F2L4: U2 L U2 L' U' L U L'
OLL: R U R' U' M' U R U' r'
PLL: U y (V perm)


----------



## Kirjava (Oct 20, 2010)

and that's why there's no point learning 2 look LSE


----------



## Kirjava (Oct 21, 2010)

12:14:09 <+Kirjava> U2 M2 F U2 M2 U2 F' U2 
12:17:01 <+Kirjava> M2 U' F2 M2 F2 U
12:22:42 <+Kirjava> R2 D M2 D2 M2 D R2

I'm betting it's faster to solve cases like these 'normally'


----------



## Escher (Oct 21, 2010)

Kirjava said:


> 12:14:09 <+Kirjava> U2 M2 F U2 M2 U2 F' U2
> 12:17:01 <+Kirjava> M2 U' F2 M2 F2 U
> 12:22:42 <+Kirjava> R2 D M2 D2 M2 D R2
> 
> I'm betting it's faster to solve cases like these 'normally'



They work well with the old style M2 - that is - R2 r2:

U2' R2 r2' F U2' R2 r2' U2' F' (thumb flick) U2'

R2 r2' U' F2 (RH double index flick) R2 r2' F2 U (LH push on LBU)

Got to say I prefer:

l2' U' M2 U2' M2 U' R2'

for the latter, using RH ring to reach up and pull down on UB (kind of like R' r M') for M2, and starting with LH thumb on DL and fingers on UL. Does an x2 though...

Pretty sure I can sub 1 all of these easily with a little practice (but I'm really hungover right now so cba).


----------



## Kirjava (Oct 21, 2010)

Escher said:


> l2' U' M2 U2' M2 U' R2'


 
lol nice

I should've posted the alternatives really;

UM2U2M2U MU2M'U2
UMU2M2U2M'U'M2
UM2U2M2U MU2MU2M2


----------



## Escher (Oct 21, 2010)

Kirjava said:


> UM2U2M2U MU2M'U2
> UMU2M2U2M'U'M2
> UM2U2M2U MU2MU2M2



>_>


----------



## Tim Major (Oct 22, 2010)

Major Permute ^.^ (Pyraminx crazy method)
Taken from the idea of turning Layer By Layer into Face Permute. I generated all algs for this, as noone else had, but didn't really see much potential over Polish V. So then I thought a preposterous idea of turning Polish V into V Permute (and obviously, this gave me the right to name it after myself ^.^) 
I wasn't originally going to post about it, as I planned to learn all algs by Melbourne Summer Open 2011, and then surprising everyone 
1. Make non matching V. Estimated 0-3 moves on average (I've had quite a lot of skips)
2. Solve all!  Estimated 4-10 moves on average 
*As rotations are annoying, after first step you have to manually rotate to V on the D face, with the empty slot at DF in these examples.*

[18:23] <Nibblr> Pyraminx Scramble #1997: U B L B U' L' B' U B L U R' L l' 
B R L (3)
U' L B U' R B' L' R' (8)
(11)

[18:46] <Nibblr> Pyraminx Scramble #1999: L B R B L U R U' R' L' U u r' 
L' U' B (3)
R' 2flip (9)
(12)

[18:48] <Nibblr> Pyraminx Scramble #2000: R' U B L R' B U R B U B' U R' B' l u r 
U' L' B R' (4)
U' L U L' R U R' (7)
(11)

[18:55] <Nibblr> Pyraminx Scramble #2001: L R U R' B L R U' R U' R' U L' U L U L u' r' 
U R' B' (3)
L B' L U' B U L (7)
(10)

[18:58] <Nibblr> Pyraminx Scramble #2002: L R U R B L R L' U R' L' B' u r 
R U (2)
U L' U' L U' R U' R' U' (9)
(11)

[19:01] <Nibblr> Pyraminx Scramble #2003: U L R' B U R U' B U' B' R' U L l' r 
R L U' (3)
R L B U L' U B' R' (8)
(11)

These had quite bad first steps, but as you can see, this can give 1 look Pyra solves, every solve.

There are 4 distinct sets, plus 2 mirrors.
*V.*
CW.
Adj swap.
Adj swap with one solved.
Solved.

Then about 30 algs in solved and clockwise, 15-20 in the Adj swap sets.
I know the solved set, and the BR and BL adj switch algs for solved 3rd edge, and flipped 3rd edge with 1 edge solved (I also know a few sexy algs such as L' R' L R L' R L R')
I made my algs with this ( http://www.jaapsch.net/puzzles/javascript/pyraminj.htm ) and tested, changed, added rotations/inverses. For these examples I made a few of the algs then, without testing, so they're prolly not the best.
Now I hope noone makes and learns all the algs before me 

Edit: I had all of the Face Permute algs up, but webs.com screwed me over


----------



## jms_gears1 (Oct 22, 2010)

Kirjava should post execution videos of his CMLL algs : D?


----------



## Kirjava (Oct 28, 2010)

Skipped two steps XD


----------



## Anthony (Oct 28, 2010)

Mike Hughey said:


> If it's the right thread, you can't be serious!?!?!
> 
> If you are, that's awesome!


 


ninjabob7 said:


> Wow. Is this with CFOP, and if so how do you memorize? Do you remember shapes or moves for the F2L pairs (or neither)?


 


riffz said:


> Do you use your teamBLD codes to help yourself memorize?


 
I'm a bit late to reply because I didn't notice the responses, but anyway..
I actually find the hardest part remembering the cross for some reason (unless F2L is hard) because I do use my TeamBLD codes. As long as there aren't too many cube rotations/AUFs before pairs, TeamBLD codes work great.  Admittedly, my 40 was pretty lucky because the F2L was very nice.


----------



## Robert-Y (Oct 28, 2010)

Mad Kirjava laughter


----------



## Rpotts (Oct 28, 2010)

lol 2.46 H perm. Too bad, if you expected it could've been like low 7s.


----------



## Robert-Y (Oct 29, 2010)

T perm: x' (R D R U' R' U) (R2 D' R U' R' U D R D' R') x

Can anyone do this fast?


----------



## Robert-Y (Oct 29, 2010)

Also, a "nice" L perm I found by hand:

x' (R D' R') F (R D R') F2 (R D' R') F (R D R') x

No U (and u) moves!

My best time with this alg is about 1.5 which is reasonably fast...

(You can see how this was found by hand if you know how it works )


----------



## Kirjava (Oct 29, 2010)

23:17:21 <+Nibblr> Roux Scramble #266: M' U' M2 U' M' U' M U M U' M U M' U M2 U

THIS JSUT HAPPENED!!!>!


----------



## qqwref (Oct 29, 2010)

HAHAHAHAHAHA


----------



## DavidWoner (Oct 31, 2010)

I liek


----------



## Kirjava (Nov 1, 2010)

Random Human Kociemba stuff;

Awkward:
U2 D R2 D' F2 D2 R2 D' F2 D

Awkward Diag:
D' F2 U' F2 D R2 U' F2 U' F2 D R2 D'

Diag:
U F2 U2 R2 U F2 U2 F2 R2 U F2 U2 R2

Looking for a nice stage 2 solution still


----------



## StachuK1992 (Nov 1, 2010)

Kirjava said:


> Human Kociemba...
> Looking for a nice stage 2 solution still


 Just a thought: Vandenbergh.
Do E slice first, then treat as sq-1, but oddly?

Sorry, but I haven't really seen your other posts concerning this.
Seems interesting. Time to experiment.


----------



## Kirjava (Nov 1, 2010)

StachuK1992 said:


> Just a thought: Vandenbergh.
> Do E slice first, then treat as sq-1, but oddly?


 
It sucks.

I can solve phase 2 in at most 3 algs if I'm going for speed, but anything more than 2 is too many imo.


----------



## StachuK1992 (Nov 1, 2010)

Kirjava said:


> It sucks.
> 
> I can solve phase 2 in at most 3 algs if I'm going for speed, but anything more than 2 is too many imo.


 Ah, gotcha.
What have been some ideas up until this point?


----------



## Kirjava (Nov 1, 2010)

I can't remember most of them. Usually **** I think of gets dismissed pretty early.

Some ideas that jump out at me are; Corners -> Edges, 2*OppFace -> Everything, Layer+Corners -> Everything, Ring

I can't think of anything that would work well in most situations. Feels like there should be something though.

Freestyle/Trial and Error is great for FMC, but doesn't work for speedsolving at all.

It's all a shame because phase 1 is so easy and fast


----------



## StachuK1992 (Nov 1, 2010)

Hrm, what struck me first is

RING + DBL + DFL
L6C
EO + DL + DR
L6E

But that's too many steps and kinda not fun.
How fast is step 1 for you?


----------



## Kirjava (Nov 1, 2010)

like 8 seconds

2*OppFace is pretty interesting. It's like Sq1 Cubeshape. Then the second part would just be a 1 look alg.


----------



## StachuK1992 (Nov 1, 2010)

2*OppFace?
Sorry, don't understand your terminology here. :/


----------



## Kirjava (Nov 1, 2010)

Solve two opposite faces, ignoring permutation and the E slice.


----------



## StachuK1992 (Nov 1, 2010)

Ooh, I'm liking that. It feels like an expanded Roux block to me, not like Sq-1 cubeshape so much. I'm doing L and R.
Hrm.

Edit:
How many algs would that be after that step? ish.

Edit 2: this is looking nicer and nicer with each solve


----------



## Kirjava (Nov 1, 2010)

It's like Sq1 in the way that it uses a 'flowcharting' based method to solve it. Unless you're doing it differently to me 

I just had a solve where phase 2 was R2B2L2 N perm. ****'s lucky.


----------



## Kirjava (Nov 1, 2010)




----------



## StachuK1992 (Nov 1, 2010)

Sexy.


----------



## Martijn (Nov 1, 2010)

Anyone tried the 30th year anniversary wooden cube yet?


----------



## StachuK1992 (Nov 1, 2010)

What would be a badass way to apply Triangular Francisco to big cubes?


----------



## Escher (Nov 1, 2010)

Human Kociemba is sexy as ****.


----------



## oprah62 (Nov 1, 2010)

human centipide is f*cking crazy.


----------



## StachuK1992 (Nov 1, 2010)

Escher said:


> Human Kociemba is sexy as ****.


 
But how does one transfer this to big cubes?
It doesn't need to be good. Just sexy and TF.


----------



## joey (Nov 1, 2010)

It's ugly.


----------



## riffz (Nov 2, 2010)

oprah62 said:


> human centipide is f*cking crazy.


 
You're really pleased with yourself, aren't you? You also posted that in the youtube description.


----------



## CharlesOBlack (Nov 4, 2010)

StachuK1992 said:


> What would be a badass way to apply Triangular Francisco to big cubes?


 
maybe:

-opposite centers
-triangle
-4 centers
-edges

then whatever else TFM does on 3x3.


----------



## qqwref (Nov 6, 2010)

2x2 method idea:
0) 2x1 block of the same color on left half of D face.
1) Orient remaining 6 pieces without messing up the block.
2) Finish sorting by placing the other two pieces of the D color.
3) PBL.

Step 1 can easily be done in inspection, and steps 1+2 should be reasonable. Step 1 can often be done efficiently 2gen, and step 2 always can. I kinda like the idea of pure 2gen up to PBL.


----------



## Faz (Nov 6, 2010)

Cool method bro

2.65, 3.16, 2.65, 2.36, 3.15, 4.91, 2.77, 3.83, 3.58, 1.34, 3.80, 3.40 = 3.14


----------



## Tim Major (Nov 6, 2010)

wat Faz


----------



## uberCuber (Nov 6, 2010)

fazrulz said:


> Cool method bro
> 
> 2.65, 3.16, 2.65, 2.36, 3.15, 4.91, 2.77, 3.83, 3.58, 1.34, 3.80, 3.40 = 3.14


 
the fu--


----------



## vcuber13 (Nov 8, 2010)

92 of the top 100 averages are from 2010.


----------



## StachuK1992 (Nov 8, 2010)

qqwref said:


> Orient remaining 6 pieces without messing up the block.


 
Do I smell CLS?


----------



## qqwref (Nov 8, 2010)

StachuK1992 said:


> Do I smell CLS?


It's a similar concept to CLS/SS. However, since you are orienting 6 pieces instead of orienting 5 and placing 1, you have more freedom, and you can often start off with a few moves that make the rest very easy.


----------



## bluecloe45 (Nov 8, 2010)

I am happy. I am consistently sub 4 at 2x2


----------



## Lucas Garron (Nov 8, 2010)

qqwref said:


> 2x2 method idea:
> 0) 2x1 block of the same color on left half of D face.
> 1) Orient remaining 6 pieces without messing up the block.
> 2) Finish sorting by placing the other two pieces of the D color.
> ...


 
If I find the algs for it, may I shamelessly suggest GG for Gottlieb-Garron? I'm more interested in it than the equally-cool-sounding SS, even though SS has CLS. 

[ Place of the old URL]

The cases are pretty simple, short, cascade (like Square-1 shapes), always allow a choice of last R direction, and allow gradual PBL prediction.

EDIT: In a discussion with qq, we settled on his brainstorm idea of *Sorgeta*: http://cube.garron.us/sortega/


----------



## blade740 (Nov 8, 2010)

If I find CFOP algs it doesn't mean I can call it FN.


----------



## Lucas Garron (Nov 8, 2010)

blade740 said:


> If I find CFOP algs it doesn't mean I can call it FN.


I said I was being shameless. Half of a method is actually making it usable... and I needed a name for the file.

I welcome good suggestions for a descriptive name, though. Not sure if qq wants "Gottlieb," nor am I convinced he's the first to think of it (I've tried a few things in this direction, though I'm not sure I've looked into specifically this before), but the field is open.

By the way: 243 cases, 72 if you ignore AUF.
2-gen, the depth distribution is: {1, 1, 3, 9, 21, 33, 51, 69, 49, 6}


----------



## qqwref (Nov 8, 2010)

I talked to Lucas about naming. I think I like "sortega".

I didn't expect that the step 1 could be so efficient with only 2gen, so that's a pleasant surprise. Some cases can be substantially improved with moves like F'UF.


----------



## StachuK1992 (Nov 9, 2010)

I need a good alg for
R F' U2 R2 F' R F2 R' F R2 U2 F R'

Basically, I need it to
flip the top 4 edges
diagonal swap top corners

not care about DFR orientation
not care about orientation of corners
not care about permutation of edges.

Would be much appreciated, thanks.


----------



## vcuber13 (Nov 9, 2010)

so you need the alg for like a cp/eo?


----------



## Robert-Y (Nov 9, 2010)

For now, you could do something simple like:

Right wide anti sune then easy P

(r U2 R' U' R U' r') (f R U R' U' f')


----------



## StachuK1992 (Nov 9, 2010)

vcuber13 said:


> so you need the alg for like a cp/eo?


 Yes, but it is also allowed to mess up the orientation of FDR


Robert-Y said:


> For now, you could do something simple like:
> 
> Right wide anti sune then easy P
> 
> (r U2 R' U' R U' r') (f R U R' U' f')


 Ah, that's great for now; thanks!


----------



## Robert-Y (Nov 15, 2010)

222 method idea based on Sortega:

2x2 method idea:
0) 2x1x1 block on left half of D face.
1) Orient remaining 6 pieces without messing up the block (i.e. so that only opposite colours are pointing up and down)
2) Place a corner which belongs in the D layer, in the RDB (or RDF) position (max 2 moves I think?)
3) Permute the 6 corners

Step 3 recognition can be easy. If we place D corner in the RDB for step 2, and then if we turn the top layer so that the other D corner is in the LUB position, then we'll can easily see all of the U corners clustered together. All what we need to do is now is spot certain patterns using the stickers on the R and F faces, from which we can deduce the algorithm that we need to execute.

For example:

Do: y L' U' L F L' U2 L y' U2 R U' R'

Let's assume I can remember from step 2 that the D corner in the RDB position doesn't match with the LD block.

I've already turned the top layer so that the other D corner is in the LUB.

Now I've noticed that I've got a bar of the same colour in front of me from the RUF and RDF corner stickers and also, the colour of the front sticker of the LUF corner is the opposite of the bar.

Therefore I know which alg I need to do. (You can just do: R U R' U2' y L' U2 L F' L' U L for now. I haven't bothered to look through all of the solutions for this case, I just stopped when I found an algorithm that's decent enough)

Obviously, this is just one technique for recognition. You could perhaps do something else like: just look for bars (or the absence of bars).


----------



## Tim Major (Nov 17, 2010)

IRC team bld.
So, me and aronpm were going to do it, with me just posting 2 targets at a time. He messed up (I'm pretty sure) and then we were going to try another. It somehow changed to be him telling me the moves, with his bld method.

[19:48] <Nibblr> 3x3 Scramble #15003: R' F L2 D' L2 R U' L2 F2 L F D L2 U' R D' U' B' D R' L B U2 B' F' 
[19:49] <Tim_Major> cfop, or bld method? 
[19:49] <aronpm> bld 
[19:50] <Tim_Major> go 
[19:50] <aronpm> LD2L' U2 LD2L' U2 
[19:50] <aronpm> X' L2 D2 LU2L' D2 LU2L X 
[19:51] <aronpm> Y' X U' R'D2R U R'D2R X'Y 
[19:51] <aronpm> Y X R'UR' D2 RU'R' D2 R2 X' Y' 
[19:52] <aronpm> F2 SEXY*2 L' ANTISEXY*2 L F2 
[19:52] <aronpm> L' U M2 U R' U' M2 U R U2 L 
[19:53] <aronpm> U2 M2 X' U' R U M2 U' R' U X U2 
[19:53] <aronpm> X' U R2 U M2 U' R2 U M2 U2 X 
[19:53] <aronpm> U R2 U' M2 U R2 U' X' L U L' U' M2 U L U' L' X 
[19:54] <aronpm> U' L2 U' M' U L2 U' M U2 
[19:54] <aronpm> SEXY M2 ANTISEXY M2 
[19:54] <aronpm> Y L2 TPERM L2 
[19:54] <aronpm> DONE 
[19:54] <Tim_Major> 4:13.03 
[19:54] <Tim_Major> solved 
[19:54] <Tim_Major> XD 
[19:54] <Tim_Major> **** yeah 

He said he used M2 for edges, but that's pretty ****ing freestyle M2 xD
Yeah so we got it


----------



## Kirjava (Nov 18, 2010)

[F2:[RUR'U',L2]]

I just love writing algs like that.


----------



## vcuber13 (Nov 18, 2010)

thats a pretty cool alg


----------



## Kirjava (Nov 20, 2010)

03:20:03 <+Nibblr> 3x3 Scramble #15048: U2 R2 F2 D2 F' U2 B D2 L B' D2 U2 R F2 D' U2 R' F' R' B2 U' R' U2 R B'
03:21:44 <+Kirjava> URFRLB'L x'y
03:22:34 <+Kirjava> RUrUMUR2U'R'
03:23:20 <+Kirjava> yRU2R2U'R2U'R2U2Ry
03:23:27 <+Kirjava> M'U2MU'
03:23:45 <+Kirjava> 28 moves total solve


----------



## irontwig (Nov 20, 2010)

"Do the same thing on the other side": 
B' R' U R B L U' L'
R' U2 R U B L U2 L' U' B'


----------



## Cyrus C. (Nov 21, 2010)

Mildly fun unofficial event: 

You get a scramble. You're given 1 hour to find the most speed friendly solution to the scramble, rules are basically the same as FMC. At the end of the hour, or whenever you're ready, you preform the solution as quickly as possible. You're scored on the time it took you to preform the solution.

Sort of a mix between FMC and SpeedBLD, sort of.


----------



## aronpm (Nov 21, 2010)

Cyrus C. said:


> Mildly fun unofficial event:
> 
> You get a scramble. You're given 1 hour to find the most speed friendly solution to the scramble, rules are basically the same as FMC. At the end of the hour, or whenever you're ready, you preform the solution as quickly as possible. You're scored on the time it took you to preform the solution.
> 
> Sort of a mix between FMC and SpeedBLD, sort of.


Faz wins automatically.


----------



## qqwref (Nov 21, 2010)

How about FMC with some kind of non-HTM metric? It would be a similar idea, but much less emphasis would be placed on your individual speed. Something like this for instance:
- 1 point for every R, r, L, l, U, or M move
- 2 points for every other move
- 1 point for every rotation, not counting rotations before any actual turns are performed
- 0.5 points for every half turn (including rotations)
- -0.5 points for every sequence like RU' or F'R (etc.)


----------



## Kirjava (Nov 24, 2010)

I learned heise

D2 B' D2 L B D2 B' L' F' B' D2 L B' D' R' D R U2 R D R L U2 B' F

y2FR2UR
DBUB'U2z2
LR'FRL'UL'U'L y'RU'R'
B2D2F2
xL'ULU'R'UL'U'Lx'
D2B2U2L'

38 moves


----------



## Lucas Garron (Nov 24, 2010)

qqwref said:


> How about FMC with some kind of non-HTM metric? It would be a similar idea, but much less emphasis would be placed on your individual speed.



Gripper FMC? Find a solution with the minimum Gripper score.


----------



## Athefre (Nov 24, 2010)

Kirjava said:


> I learned heise
> 
> D2 B' D2 L B D2 B' L' F' B' D2 L B' D' R' D R U2 R D R L U2 B' F
> 
> ...


 
Lately I've been using ZZ with the Heise two pair, three corner ending because I got tired of memorizing and forgetting sequences. I only use RUL after EOLine, even for the edge, pair, and corner cycles. The whole solve is too easy except, not that I solve for speed, sometimes I find it difficult to create the second pair without a long pause. Yeah, I could do an edge cycle if the corner I want to use is oriented, but I would rather not.


----------



## Kirjava (Nov 24, 2010)

D L D' B' U' R U2 F U' F R' B F' R D B2 R F2 U B' L' B' L' U' B2 

8.98 with a 1 sec lockup

L'FL2x'yU'RUR'U'
L'UR2U'R'UrM'U'R
U2MUM2U2M'U'M2U2M2

27 moves


----------



## Cubenovice (Nov 24, 2010)

WTF speed FMC...


----------



## Kirjava (Nov 26, 2010)

CLL+1Edge -> L3E is kinda like OLLCP for CLL

it's a basic version of my idea for a 1LLL system that requires few algs ^_^


----------



## abctoshiro (Nov 26, 2010)

Throwing out an idea here:

My wtf method:

EO
middle layer edges (not necessarily solved)
CO (uhm, if i don't know the an alg to orient the corners, i randomly do r2 U/U'/U2)
1 look separation (jacube)
parity (R2 U2 R2 or M2 U2 M2)
PBL (jaacube again)

not fast, inefficient, just pure fun playing around with my cube.


----------



## irontwig (Nov 26, 2010)

Kirjava said:


> CLL+1Edge -> L3E is kinda like OLLCP for CLL
> 
> it's a basic version of my idea for a 1LLL system that requires few algs ^_^


 
It's like Snyder's approach, but with a edge cycle rather than corner cycle in the end. Actually I thought about ways to avoid the flip+3-cycle ELLs the other day.


----------



## uberCuber (Nov 27, 2010)

Scramble with cross color on bottom: L2 R2 B2 L2 R F' U' B U' F2 U2 D R2 D' R U D' L' F2 U B' U' D2 B' R

U2 L2 U F L B R D' L
y2 U R' F2 R L' F L' F' L F2
U R' F R2 U R' U' F2 U F
U2 R U R' U R U r' F R' F' r
41 moves

that was cool


----------



## qqwref (Nov 30, 2010)

...How did you see that?


----------



## Weston (Dec 1, 2010)

I can do this in my head (without the piano).
Seems possible to get fast at, but I don't think I'll switch.
Basically assign one note of a scale to each corner.
If you wanted, you could also use a chromatic scale to have more notes (13 instead of 8, maybe for edges?) but then it gets very atonal and hard to remember.


----------



## riffz (Dec 1, 2010)

Yea, I tried that out before. It'd probably work well, but in combination with my auditory edges memo it didn't fit for me.


----------



## Athefre (Dec 2, 2010)

This may be me being stupid and I've somehow looked over this the last five years. I noticed that instead of writing "last slot", "last pair", "FR+DFR pair", or "UF+UFL pair", you can write dFR or lFU.


----------



## ahmedkl (Dec 2, 2010)

I am sub-35 , When i solve cube infront of people i kinda feel weird  and usually i solve some like 5-10sec slow . I know i lack confidence but still you feel the pressure when so many people come and see you


----------



## qqwref (Dec 2, 2010)

Athefre said:


> This may be me being stupid and I've somehow looked over this the last five years. I noticed that instead of writing "last slot", "last pair", "FR+DFR pair", or "UF+UFL pair", you can write dFR or lFU.


Hm, I guess you could. I'd probably confuse it with wing notation though.


----------



## Athefre (Dec 2, 2010)

qqwref said:


> Hm, I guess you could. I'd probably confuse it with wing notation though.


 
I hadn't thought of that. But, it should be easy to tell from context whether someone is talking about 3x3 or big cubes.


----------



## riffz (Dec 2, 2010)

I've always just heard people refer to it at FR pair, FL pair, etc. Seems simple enough already.


----------



## Kirjava (Dec 2, 2010)

Anyone have any ideas for a CLL+1 system? Anything I think up isn't viable for one reason or another.

The only thing that is simple and doesn't require a billion algs is using a different system for each CLL case. 

Would work, but it's a lot to work out for something I'm not going to use outside of FreeFOP.


----------



## uberCuber (Dec 2, 2010)

qqwref said:


> ...How did you see that?


 
don't worry it wasn't a speedsolve 

I was trying out some...for lack of a better name, non-Petrus/Heise-speedsolve-method-based FMC, and that was an awesome result that I got


----------



## Athefre (Dec 2, 2010)

riffz said:


> I've always just heard people refer to it at FR pair, FL pair, etc. Seems simple enough already.


 
I've found it strange saying that because "FR Pair" could mean either "FR+DFR" or "FR+UFR". It's not so bad with CFOP, but when you're naming pairs in methods like Heise or describing a new step, it's confusing.


----------



## Kynit (Dec 2, 2010)

What's the maximum optimal movecount for a first 5x5 center? Has anyone ever done calculations about this?


----------



## uberCuber (Dec 2, 2010)

Kynit said:


> What's the maximum optimal movecount for a first 5x5 center? Has anyone ever done calculations about this?


 
I haven't seen any movecount analysis for bigcubes, I would be interested in this too if anyone knows about anything like this.


----------



## TheMachanga (Dec 2, 2010)

Is it just me, or does something like 15.35 sound like a "real", true 15 average. While if someone gets a 15.02 average, it's close to a 14, so you can tell yourself you're almost at a 14 average. What I'm saying is, when someone says they average n, you think of n.20-n.40 average, rather than n.01 or n-1.90.


----------



## vcuber13 (Dec 3, 2010)

R' F R U R' U' F' U R U2 S L' U' L U L F' L' f (U)


----------



## Kirjava (Dec 3, 2010)

vcuber13 said:


> R' F R U R' U' F' U R U2 S L' U' L U L F' L' f (U)


 
S goes the other way.

Anyway, B' R2 F R F' U R B L U' L'.


----------



## vcuber13 (Dec 3, 2010)

ahh, ya i knew it went with F i guess i was thinking f went the other way


----------



## Athefre (Dec 3, 2010)

Kirjava said:


> Anyone have any ideas for a CLL+1 system?


 
All I've thought is to have two sequences for each CLL. Before learning, pick a slot you want to solve every time for each corner orientation. Then use M' or M2 to place that slot's edge at DB (or use DF if you want) and have sequences that preserve the DF/DB edges you placed on U while solving the edge. I guess the sequence could also re-place DF/DB. It would be two sequences per case because DF/DB could be along the same line as the target slot or along the other, and I say M' or M2 so that once the edge is at DB it's always the same orientation.

Doesn't seem simple enough.


----------



## 4. (Dec 4, 2010)

I just got my Lubix Guhong and its awesome! My f-2 sucks compared to it. 
Just wanted to tell someone...


----------



## Cubenovice (Dec 5, 2010)

Hi There,
I'm looking for an alg that performs the fRURURURUf OLL on opposite sides of the cube without changing the middle layer.
( not fRURURURUf x2 fRURURURUf...)
Unfortunately I know way too little of the cube solving programs to properly explore this.

Couldn't such an alg be readily available in one of the more advanced 2x2x2 methods? Although middle layer may be effected...

I'll let you know later what I need it for, exploring something funny but don't want to share too soon ;-)


----------



## Kirjava (Dec 5, 2010)

B' R' F2 L2 D2 F' R B F' D2 R


----------



## Cubenovice (Dec 5, 2010)

Thom, thx for the quick reply but while it does leave the middle layer intact it also sends two edges to the opposite layer.


----------



## ben1996123 (Dec 5, 2010)

I figured out how to make algs rotationless, but people have probably known about it before though 

G perm example

normal alg: R U R' y' R2 u' R U' R' U R' u R2

my way of doing it rotationless: R U R' [U' D] R2 U' R U' R' U R' U R2 [U D']


----------



## Toad (Dec 5, 2010)

ben1996123 said:


> I figured out how to make algs rotationless, but people have probably known about it before though
> 
> G perm example
> 
> ...


 
You should probably have given an example of one of the G perms that isn't often done rotationless... (Hint: f R f')

EDIT: Works nicely for the (R' U' R) G perm though. I like


----------



## Kirjava (Dec 5, 2010)

ben1996123 said:


> I figured out how to make algs rotationless, but people have probably known about it before though


 
I believe that not doing rotations is a concept that some people are familiar with, yes.


----------



## ben1996123 (Dec 5, 2010)

randomtoad said:


> You should probably have given an example of one of the G perms that isn't often done rotationless... *(Hint: f R f')*
> 
> EDIT: Works nicely for the (R' U' R) G perm though. I like



Um... I don't know a G perm that starts with f R f'


----------



## Toad (Dec 5, 2010)

ben1996123 said:


> Um... I don't know a G perm that starts with f R f'


 
The example you gave can be done as:

f R f' R2 u' R U' R' U R' u R2


----------



## Athefre (Dec 5, 2010)

Another way I thought for CLL+1 is to, before inserting the final pair, create another pair on U. I don't know how many cases it would be, but I'm sure it could be reduced by these:

1. Always make an oriented pair - Removes the Pi and H orientations.
2. Always make a pair that faces the same way - Makes it so that each orientation has either one or two possible locations for the solved edge, not three for some orientations if you were to not care about the way the pair faces.


----------



## Athefre (Dec 6, 2010)

Well, I guess the pair would always have to be oriented 

I find it difficult, but maybe others wouldn't. How many cases is it? ~50 if the pair always faces the same way?


----------



## Kirjava (Dec 6, 2010)

Why would it have to be oriented?

A viable possibility, but it adds an extra step to the solve. Don't really like that tbh.

However, making a pair in LL seemingly makes CLL+1 reeeally easy for me to do with the algs I know at the moment.

Making the pair is a bit like heise actually.


----------



## Athefre (Dec 6, 2010)

Yeah, I didn't think you would like that it's an extra step. I thought it would have to be oriented since, if it's not, the edge isn't _really_ solved and it would add a bunch more cases (wouldn't it?).


----------



## qqwref (Dec 6, 2010)

It seems to me that the LL pair would make LS+LL into four substeps with separate recognition for each (pair F2L, make corner and insert pair, CLL+1, L3E). This is more than the common 3-step solutions such as F2L/OLL/PLL, F2L/CPEOLL/2GLL, F2L/CLL/ELL, ELS/CLS/PLL, etc. F2L/CLL+1/L3E is still 3 steps, if you could manage CLL+1 in one. I think it would be very difficult for a 4-step style to compete with a 3-step one at the highest speeds, because of the extra recognition.


----------



## Puzzle (Dec 6, 2010)

I've got a 11.99 solve on 3x3 with stackmat. With stackmat. 3rd gen of course. I knew that stck can't display .99


----------



## StachuK1992 (Dec 6, 2010)

3rd gen?
Since when are we on 3rd gen? I'm out of the loop here.


----------



## amostay2004 (Dec 6, 2010)

Not all .99s are not displayable by the stackmat. I think 9.99 is not possible


----------



## abctoshiro (Dec 6, 2010)

For CLL + 1 (1 corner in last slot? If I am right...):

ELS then:

I do a one-look, two alg system. Uh-huh:

1. Corner Commutators (Uh, 3 cycles.)
2. L3C finish. 

If I am right.


----------



## Kirjava (Dec 6, 2010)

You are wrong. It's like this;

<+Nibblr> 3x3 Scramble #15381: R2 L2 F2 R' B U2 B' R B2 D U2 F' L' B F U2 D F2 R2 L2 D' B2 D R' L

xcross - r2 F2 R f M2
F2L #2 - x' U' R2 U2 R2 U'
F2L #3 - x U' R U R' U R U'
F2L #4 - y' x' U R U' R' U R U R'
CLL+1 - U2 R U2 R' U' R U' R' U2 r U R' U R U2 r'
L3E - U r U R' U' M U R U' R' U2


----------



## Kirjava (Dec 6, 2010)

Example #2

D2 R' F2 D' B L' U B' D2 B D2 U R2 B U' F B' U' F B U2 F U L' D'

2x2x3 - E' R' U' L R2
EO - F' L' U' L y' 
F2L - R2 U' R U' R2 U2 R U2 R' U x z'
CLL+1 - B' R B R' U2 R' U2 R
L3E - M' U M U2 M' U M


----------



## Athefre (Dec 6, 2010)

qqwref said:


> It seems to me that the LL pair would make LS+LL into four substeps with separate recognition for each (pair F2L, make corner and insert pair, CLL+1, L3E). This is more than the common 3-step solutions such as F2L/OLL/PLL, F2L/CPEOLL/2GLL, F2L/CLL/ELL, ELS/CLS/PLL, etc. F2L/CLL+1/L3E is still 3 steps, if you could manage CLL+1 in one. I think it would be very difficult for a 4-step style to compete with a 3-step one at the highest speeds, because of the extra recognition.


 
Yeah, that's what we were talking about when we said "extra step".


----------



## qqwref (Dec 6, 2010)

Athefre said:


> Yeah, that's what we were talking about when we said "extra step".


Mm, I didn't know that I wasn't allowed to have the same opinion as someone else, or to explain said opinion in more detail. Thanks for letting me know. I'm sure the new rule will make puzzle theory discussion a lot better.


EDIT: Kirjava: A Petrus/ZZ start with CLL+1 seems interesting. Does it seem a little odd to you, though, to be orienting the LL edges and then un-orienting them later (for L3E)? I don't think a small inefficiency like that is necessarily a problem, but it's funny that it works out that way.


----------



## Athefre (Dec 6, 2010)

qqwref said:


> Mm, I didn't know that I wasn't allowed to have the same opinion as someone else, or to explain said opinion in more detail. Thanks for letting me know. I'm sure the new rule will make puzzle theory discussion a lot better.



Um, I wasn't being mean. My original message was going to be:

"That's what we were talking about when we said "extra step"."

But I decided to add the "Yeah, " to the beginning to hopefully let you know that I'm not meaning it in a harsh way. I just thought it was obvious that it's an extra step, that it's four steps compared to the usual three.




qqwref said:


> A Petrus/ZZ start with CLL+1 seems interesting.


 
I've been considering it as a one-look LL for Petrus or ZZ, but since I find it so hard I'm unable to see how fast it can be done. Then I think "There's probably no advantage over ZZ-b anyway."


----------



## Athefre (Dec 7, 2010)

Let's be friends, qq.


----------



## oll+phase+sync (Dec 7, 2010)

Athefre said:


> Well, I guess the pair would always have to be oriented
> 
> I find it difficult, but maybe others wouldn't. How many cases is it? ~50 if the pair always faces the same way?



If I have an oriented pair in U layer I can use L3C or Sunes to CLL+1 + L3E, faster (less moves) than OLL PLL. and much less algs ( 21 L3C + 4 Sunes + 9 L3E )

The good thing about L3C algs is: 
- that i doesent matter wich of the two possible edges is connected to the corner
- just 6 essentially differnt algs ... or just build your commutator on the fly (flight may be a little slow though )
- The nasties 2 L3C get replaced by sunes.

For waterman style solves it's may be easiers to buid one oriented LL- pair during first layer, especially if last First layer piece is an corner.




The other idea to get to CLL+1 I had is M-Conjugation

It's sad that M/M2-conjugation to L3C algs is absolutly pointless.

M2-conjugation and using a CLL that "flips the bar" (like Z or T Perm), don't work for me since almost none of my CLL's has this "bar flip" property. (ZZ users may call this parity after phasing)

Finaly for Sune's M-Conjugations works  , but I totally fail on recognition.


----------



## qqwref (Dec 7, 2010)

Athefre said:


> Um, I wasn't being mean.


Oh, okay. I thought you were berating me for saying / expanding on something that had already been said.



Athefre said:


> I've been considering it as a one-look LL for Petrus or ZZ, but since I find it so hard I'm unable to see how fast it can be done.


Wouldn't the only one-look Petrus/ZZ LL be ZBLL or a minor variant? You could play with the LL a bit during F2L to diminish cases (although that would kinda add an extra step to F2L) but CLL+1 is not a one-look system (since 3 edges remain).

You could do COLL+1 and end up with a U perm (with 1/3 chance of skip). That could be interesting, not optimally fast but a good way to work up to ZBLL.


----------



## joey (Dec 7, 2010)

Athefre said:


> Let's be friends, qq.


QQ


----------



## Athefre (Dec 7, 2010)

qqwref said:


> Wouldn't the only one-look Petrus/ZZ LL be ZBLL or a minor variant? You could play with the LL a bit during F2L to diminish cases (although that would kinda add an extra step to F2L) but CLL+1 is not a one-look system (since 3 edges remain).
> 
> You could do COLL+1 and end up with a U perm (with 1/3 chance of skip). That could be interesting, not optimally fast but a good way to work up to ZBLL.



I guess I shouldn't have said one-look, and I guess it wouldn't be CLL+1 anymore. I mean an amount of steps similar to ZZ-b (two opposite edges before placing the last pair). It would be:

Create the two pairs and place the F2L pair
Sequence

I'm definitely not saying it's good. I'm unsure about the recognition, speed, and number of cases (always using a pair that faces the same way). ZZ-b's phasing is really easy, the recognition isn't bad, and it's only about 170 cases.


----------



## Tim Major (Dec 8, 2010)

Spoiler



[17:59] <Tim_Major> waffle and kir agreed on 40-50 stm on a usual solve for roux
[17:59] <Tim_Major> I average like, 45-55 cfop 
[17:59] <Tim_Major> and cfop is so easy and brain-dead to use  
[17:59] <Anonymous> well 40-50 to better than 50 
[17:59] <Anonymous> also i average like 70 probably >.< 
[18:00] <Tim_Major> 5 moves saves like, a second  
[18:01] <Tim_Major> 30 move f2l 
[18:01] <Tim_Major> 10 move OLL 
[18:01] <Tim_Major> eperm 
[18:02] <Anonymous> my cross is so bad >.> 
[18:02] <Tim_Major> [18:02] <Nibblr> 3x3 Scramble #15399: R2 L F' B D2 F2 B' D2 B2 R' D' R' L2 U2 L R B' F2 L U' R2 D' U' L D 
[18:03] <Anonymous> hm 
[18:03] <Anonymous> x L' R U' R2 x
[18:04] <Anonymous> LUL2U'L (5/9) 
[18:05] <Anonymous> UR'U'RU2R'UR (8/17) 
[18:05] <Anonymous> U'LU2L'U y' L'U'L' (8/25) 
[18:06] <Anonymous> U'R'U2RU2R'UR(8/33) 
[18:07] <Anonymous> r'R2UR'UrU2r'UM' (10/43) 
[18:07] <Anonymous> FRU'R'U'RUR'F' RUR'U'R'FRF' U (18/61) 
[18:03] <Tim_Major> z2 M' U' L2 x' 
[18:03] <Tim_Major> R U R2 U' R 
[18:04] <Tim_Major> U L' U' L U' L F' L' F 
[18:04] <Tim_Major> d L' U' L 
[18:04] <Tim_Major> U R' U2 R U R' U' R 
[18:05] <Tim_Major> l U2 L' U' L U' l' 
[18:05] <Tim_Major> U’ M2 U’ M2 U’ M’ U2 M2 U2 M’ (46 STM)
[18:08] <Tim_Major> and I'd do that in a solve 
[18:16] <Tim_Major> wow 
[18:16] <Tim_Major> your pair insertion 
[18:16] <Tim_Major> sucks 
[18:16] <Anonymous> ;_; 
[18:16] <Tim_Major> don't you look at all at affecting other pairs? 
[18:16] <Tim_Major> hey, I'm giving you advice  
[18:17] <Anonymous> hey, I am terrible at recognition, leave me alone  
[18:17] <Anonymous> like idk how people can recog coll while doing OLL 
[18:17] <Anonymous> ****, I can't even recognise oll, I mostly just look at EO 
[18:17] <Tim_Major> [18:05] <Anonymous> UR'U'RU2R'UR (8/16) 
[18:18] <Tim_Major> try U R' U' R U' R B' R' B 
[18:18] <Tim_Major> I mean 
[18:18] <Tim_Major> don't you look for that stuff 
[18:18] <Anonymous> no 
[18:18] <Anonymous> i just see and gogo 
[18:18] <Anonymous> i don't have time to stop and look 
[18:19] <Tim_Major> then, SLOW DOWN AND LOOK AHEAD 
[18:19] <Tim_Major>  
[18:20] <Tim_Major> every time I insert a pair 
[18:20] <Tim_Major> I look for the best way to insert it 
[18:20] <Tim_Major> to effect the pair I'm tracking 
[18:22] <Tim_Major> I don't need to slow down 
[18:22] <Tim_Major> I can't turn much faster than I do 
[18:22] <Anonymous> i can't lookahead properly 
[18:22] <Anonymous> I basically just look for the corner 
[18:23] <Anonymous> and cross to f2l lookahead is nonexistant 
[18:23] <Tim_Major> lolnub 
[18:24] <Tim_Major> gogogo cross bld, next 2 pairs bld, next 2 pairs bld
[18:24] <Tim_Major> trust your gut feeling 
[18:24] <Tim_Major> when trying 2 pairs 
[18:25] <Tim_Major> 1st pair, you should always get (bld) 
[18:25] <Tim_Major> look at another pair 
[18:25] <Tim_Major> after solving 1st pair, trust your gut feeling 
[18:25] <Tim_Major> idk about you, but my gut feeling is usually right 


Heavily edited irc pm log (edited out personal, off topic, and merged some comments and fixed mistakes)
In summary, do you guys do basic multislotting in your solves? The person I was speaking with doesn't, he just turns as fast as he can 
If I'm solving the first pair, I trace another one, and when it comes to inserting pairs, I do it in a way to stop that pair from being a bad pair, and trying to make it a nice pair. I have an example in the logs 
I'm mainly asking fast people (ie: sub 12 *cfop users* )


----------



## qqwref (Dec 8, 2010)

I'm technically sub 12, I guess. I don't use any basic multislotting but I do try to affect edges during F2L (not just the last pair) to make OLL easier.


----------



## irontwig (Dec 8, 2010)

Learning short LL algs is pretty easy:

R' U2 R U2 R B' R' B (CLL)
R' U2 R U2 r B' R' B M (COLL/ZBLL)

:3 Almost done with 10htm ZBLL, 11htm ZBLL or 10htm LL next?


----------



## Kirjava (Dec 8, 2010)

Yah, that's how I do some of my COLL. S'easier than learning new algs and works on almost every sune case.


----------



## oll+phase+sync (Dec 9, 2010)

qqwref said:


> You could do COLL+1 and end up with a U perm (with 1/3 chance of skip). That could be interesting, not optimally fast but a good way to work up to ZBLL.


 
So in case you get oriented edges and an oriented Corner edge pair in U - Layer doing L3C + UPerm look like an real speed improvment, recognition is easy (easier then COLL alone), just 23 cases, low movecount ...

Is anybody activly using this?


----------



## abctoshiro (Dec 9, 2010)

Since this is a random cubing discussion thread, I now present to you my "method":

Uhm,
ZZF2L-XELS-L5Corners.

More detail in my new blog at my signature.

Need to sleep.


----------



## irontwig (Dec 9, 2010)

Nice for FMC (especially with insertions), I don't know about speed. L5C can probably be quite nasty at times.


----------



## abctoshiro (Dec 9, 2010)

I use it sometimes for speed, and I average 30s with it (I average 19-23 with Roux). L5C is sometimes nasty. Also, I need to look on Heise's page for some inspiration for ideas for XELS-L5C shortcuts.


----------



## StachuK1992 (Dec 9, 2010)

How many algs is L5C, 486? I'm guessing that's too high.


----------



## abctoshiro (Dec 9, 2010)

L5C has a very high alg count that's why I divided it into two parts. 

EDIT: Page updated. Check the page at the link at my sig.


----------



## StachuK1992 (Dec 9, 2010)

[abc]toshiro;497831 said:


> L5C has a very high alg count that's why I divided it into two parts.


 I'm simply wondering out of curiosity.
Here's my logic behind my guess:

DFR can go in any of 3 places (URF, RFU, FUR) because you can always AUF to make one corner be in the correct relative place.
the piece at UFR or any of those positions can then go to any of 9 positions (3*3)
so 27 so far
Then, that can go to any of 6 positions
so 162.

Then really, that can only go in one position, so my upper limit guess now is 162.


Reading over that, it's not really clear but I'm not sure how to better explain it.


----------



## abctoshiro (Dec 9, 2010)

I'm not sure how to calculate L5C alg-count but I'm just guessing a very high number. Most algs can't be mirrored (I also guess).
But I'm trying to understand your explanation.




[Uhm, in my page, I didn't indicate that UFR or RFU or FUR is just a reference to permutation, not orientation.]


----------



## Athefre (Dec 10, 2010)

A little interesting:

http://games.groups.yahoo.com/group/speedsolvingrubikscube/message/42605


----------



## qqwref (Dec 10, 2010)

Counting the algs for L5C (in one look, allowing AUF before and after, counting mirrored positions as separate) I get:
- If DFR is in place then the possible LL permutations are solved (8+8+8 orientations), 3-cycle (2 permutations * 27+27+27 orientations), or 2-2-cycle (1 permutation * 15+15+15 orientations).
- If DFR is not in place, assume the piece in DFR gets permuted to UFR (but then no more AUF is possible), so the possible permutations are 3-cycle (3 permutations * 27+27+27 orientations), 2-2-cycle (3 permutations * 27+27+27 orientations), or 5-cycle (6 permutations * 27+27+27 orientations).

So I count 1203 cases. I think this is a bit much to memorize. It would be very very roughly about 300 if you can invert/mirror algs on the fly.


----------



## oll+phase+sync (Dec 10, 2010)

qqwref said:


> I'm technically sub 12, I guess. I don't use any basic multislotting but I do try to affect edges during F2L (not just the last pair) to make OLL easier.



If I understand corretly, you do not "die hard" force orientd edges during F2L. Do you have an estimation/percentage howoften you get 4 oriented LL edges.


----------



## qqwref (Dec 10, 2010)

How could I possibly estimate that? I guess I could do a lot of solves and record it but that would take a while.


----------



## abctoshiro (Dec 10, 2010)

Athefre said:


> A little interesting:
> 
> http://games.groups.yahoo.com/group/speedsolvingrubikscube/message/42605


 
Now that was similar to mine. Very similar. Except that I do EO first before F2L.

Can someone sub-20 or sub-15 do an Ao5 of my "method"? I wanna see how fast solvers do it.

Sorry if I'm a bit annoying.


----------



## Tim Reynolds (Dec 11, 2010)

Random 6-twist: (R U D' R' U' D)*3


----------



## joey (Dec 11, 2010)

Hey tim, how's your official 12.49 average feel?


----------



## Tim Reynolds (Dec 11, 2010)

A hell of a lot better than I'm getting these days.


----------



## qqwref (Dec 11, 2010)

[abc]toshiro;498202 said:


> Can someone sub-20 or sub-15 do an Ao5 of my "method"? I wanna see how fast solvers do it.


Sure. I did a whole bunch of solves, still not 100% used to it though. I like how intuitive it is.

best avg12: 24.22 (σ = 2.54)
25.13, 30.10, (15.95), 22.90, 23.64, 21.18, (DNF), 22.70, 26.70, 25.38, 22.14, 22.34


----------



## Kirjava (Dec 12, 2010)




----------



## JonnyWhoopes (Dec 13, 2010)

Sexymove LSE six-flip.

R' D' R D (r U r' U')3 (R U R' U')3 D' R' D R

I dunno. I like it. SM = fun.


----------



## oll+phase+sync (Dec 13, 2010)

JonnyWhoopes said:


> Sexymove LSE six-flip.
> 
> R' D' R D (r U r' U')3 (R U R' U')3 D' R' D R
> 
> I dunno. I like it. SM = fun.



Not so special LSE only orient 6 edges (don'T know if they are already know)

R' F R U M U' R' F' r

R' U r U M U' r' U' r 

I don't use them personally because I feel there is alway somthing better on could do instead. 
EDIT I mean M/M' and then just orient 4 Edges but if UR/UL slot are free, these algs may be handy to orient and place UR/UL in one go.


----------



## qqwref (Dec 13, 2010)

The mirror of your second one (R U' r' U' M' U r U r') is pretty good. Kirjava told me about it a while ago.


----------



## oll+phase+sync (Dec 13, 2010)

qqwref said:


> How could I possibly estimate that? I guess I could do a lot of solves and record it but that would take a while.



Sorry to insist, I don't want you to do long time statistics - not even short time. I'm more interessted in your personal feelings like:

Do you still run into "no edge oriented" OLL case, without knowing before, or other unpleasant OLLs ?

Do you get 4 oriented edges so often, that you would consider using "enhancements" to get further profit from it?

And if you don't mind further inquery, regarding ZZF2L-XELS-L5C:

Did you consider to do it in the folowing order F2L_minus_one_Slot + EO + XELS + L5C ? (more or less on the heise site)

During the first part of L5C do you always solve DFR corner? 

[abc]toshiro, please answer ,too.


----------



## oll+phase+sync (Dec 13, 2010)

qqwref said:


> The mirror of your second one (*R U' *r U' M' U r U r') is pretty good. Kirjava told me about it a while ago.



the *prime mix* in the citing drove me nuts, but finally your right r'UrU M'U'r'U'R is much better. copy.


----------



## JonnyWhoopes (Dec 13, 2010)

oll+phase+sync said:


> Not so special LSE only orient 6 edges (don'T know if they are already know)
> 
> R' F R U M U' R' F' r
> 
> ...


 
Yah, I only liked them because they used the sexymove, which can be performed incredibly fast. They're not even close to being efficient, and you'd need high TPS to make it worthwhile. However, it was kind of cool to make an alg out of nothing but sexymoves.


----------



## irontwig (Dec 13, 2010)

R U R D R' U R L' B2 L D' R2
R U2 R DRU'R',DL' B2 L D' R2

Hmm...


----------



## abctoshiro (Dec 14, 2010)

oll+phase+sync said:


> And if you don't mind further inquery, regarding ZZF2L-XELS-L5C:
> 
> Did you consider to do it in the folowing order F2L_minus_one_Slot + EO + XELS + L5C ? (more or less on the heise site)
> 
> ...


 
Uhm, I also consider solving it like F2L then EO, but EO before F2L is much better for me. 
In the L5C, I shoot the current corner to other corners in the U-layer. If the DFR corner is in position, I either replace it or do COLL/EPLL.


----------



## qqwref (Dec 14, 2010)

oll+phase+sync said:


> Do you still run into "no edge oriented" OLL case, without knowing before, or other unpleasant OLLs? Do you get 4 oriented edges so often, that you would consider using "enhancements" to get further profit from it?


I do run into it occasionally, but only if I had an icky F2L case (one which can only be solved directly or converted into a RUR' type insertion). I don't consider any other OLLs unpleasant; some are slower than others, but it would be way more effort to avoid those than it would be worth to not have them. And no, I don't think I need any more "enhancements" in my solves.



oll+phase+sync said:


> Did you consider to do it in the folowing order F2L_minus_one_Slot + EO + XELS + L5C ? (more or less on the heise site)


EO+XELS seems like a lot of moves just to shuffle edges around, although I guess pre-EO is too. On the other hand XELS+L5C is basically three steps for LS+LL whereas EO+XELS+L5C would be four (which is too much ).



oll+phase+sync said:


> During the first part of L5C do you always solve DFR corner?


No, I solve whatever seems easiest to solve first.



oll+phase+sync said:


> the *prime mix* in the citing drove me nuts, but finally your right r'UrU M'U'r'U'R is much better. copy.


I don't understand you, but I see my mistake - the first r should be an r' (I meant to post R U' r' U' M' U r U r').



JonnyWhoopes said:


> Yah, I only liked them because they used the sexymove, which can be performed incredibly fast. [...] However, it was kind of cool to make an alg out of nothing but sexymoves.


Sexymoves on U are kinda fast, sure, but not fast enough that having more than twice the moves is worth it. It is cool to have an alg of only that type of move though.


----------



## oprah62 (Dec 14, 2010)

Looking for some tricky f2l tricks.


----------



## Rpotts (Dec 14, 2010)

what kind of tricks? LL influencing tricks? f2l influencing tricks/multislotting? open slot tricks? Or justs good algs for ugly cases/angles? 

Tricks numbah 1: Setup - R U' x' R U' (R' U R') x - Solve with inverse, performed more like (l U' R) (U l' U R')

Tricksy numbah deux: Setup - R U R U R U' R' U' R' U2 - Solve with same alg - R U R U R U' R' U' R', completely preserves orientation, allowing you to force an OLL skip, also rotationless and 2-gen, ofc.

Tricksy numbah tres: Setup - (R U R') D2 (R U' R) - Multislotting yay. D2 (R U R') D2 (R U' R') Solve with D2 to make the FR pair, sexy to remove FR pair from f2l while correctly inserting the BL f2l corner. D2 to reposition the first layer, solving the BL slot, inverse sexy to replace the FR pair. D2 (R U R') D2 (R U' R')

Tricksy numbah katër: Setup - R2 U R2 U' R2 - rare multislotting/open slotting case. The setup alg sloves the case, and could be used for either f2l pair, or both, if you happen to get exactly this case.

Tricksy numbah fem: Setupd - z F (U R U' R') F' z' - Cross on left multislotting trick, there are tons of obscure f2l cases involving multi or open slotting that can be solved with variations of F (sexy, or sexy + 1 move) F' and the like. Obviously this case is solved with z F (R U R' U') F' z', but play around with them and see what you can find. 

Hope these are some tricksies that you had in mind.


----------



## oprah62 (Dec 14, 2010)

Yeah, I was think some cool inserts our for awkward cases. I know some LL influences, but I like some you posted. Thanks.
Maybe some with M/M' or u/u' moves?
Thanks.


----------



## Tyson (Dec 14, 2010)

http://www.incrediblethings.com/lists/everything-youd-want-to-know-about-rubiks-cube/

They did a pretty good job with Erik.


----------



## StachuK1992 (Dec 15, 2010)

I dislike that all of the information seems really cool and all, and then there's that random guy that's all "It took me 26 years!"


----------



## qqwref (Dec 15, 2010)

I guess I like the accuracy of the information, but they kinda failed on the drawing part, except for Erik.

What's up with "Some say that if you stack them on top of one another, it would equal the same distance from the North Pole to the South Pole"? This isn't an opinion, it's a verifiable mathematical fact. (300 million)(57mm) = 17.1 km; the diameter of the Earth is roughly 12.8 km. Close enough for laypeople to consider it "the same", perhaps?

What is the CoolBrands list? What makes the Rubik's company cool? They seem to be on the list right now (see http://www.coolbrands.uk.com/_assets/files/CB2010-11_official_results.pdf) - why was the 2007 list more important?


----------



## aronpm (Dec 15, 2010)

qqwref said:


> This isn't an opinion, it's a verifiable mathematical fact. (300 million)(57mm) = 17.1 km; the diameter of the Earth is roughly 12.8 km. Close enough for laypeople to consider it "the same", perhaps?


 
That's a very small world


----------



## blade740 (Dec 15, 2010)

> Check out this infographic from our friends at the Online Dating Blog and impress your significant other with all your cube knowledge.



I didn't expect anyone at the Online Dating Blog to know anything about cubes.


----------



## qqwref (Dec 15, 2010)

aronpm said:


> That's a very small world


 
Haha, oops. Replace every instance of "km" with "Mm".


----------



## qqwref (Dec 18, 2010)

Interesting F2L tricks:

R' F' R U' R U R' F
F' R U' R' U R' F R


----------



## ariasamie (Dec 19, 2010)

Spoiler






Kirjava said:


>


----------



## ~Phoenix Death~ (Dec 19, 2010)

ariasamie said:


> Spoiler


 
My dog woke up from me LMAOing


----------



## ariasamie (Dec 19, 2010)

~Phoenix Death~ said:


> My dog woke up from me *LMAOing*


 
there is a built-in *ing* in *L*
look:
Laugh*ing* my !!! off


----------



## ~Phoenix Death~ (Dec 19, 2010)

ariasamie said:


> there is a built-in *ing* in *L*
> look:
> Laugh*ing* my !!! off


 
Ok, fine. 
Ahem
My dog woke up from me LMAO


----------



## TheMachanga (Dec 20, 2010)

I just noticed that there's never been a mass produced v mech 2x2, or similar mach 2x2. Why is this? (If there has who made it?)


----------



## riffz (Dec 20, 2010)

qqwref said:


> Interesting F2L tricks:
> 
> R' F' R U' R U R' F
> F' R U' R' U R' F R


 
Nice. For the 2nd one I use U' R' F R F' R U' R'


----------



## oll+phase+sync (Dec 20, 2010)

Request: I'm searching for algs wich does the same to LL corners like an A perm / Jperm but also trows around edges in E and U layer (preferably form U to E) 

An exsample would be this t*u*ned A-Perm: x R2 D2 R *u* R' D2 R *u'* R (It only mixes edges in their current Layer)

Since it is chrismas I even wish me an preserved edge in E layer, too 

At first I thought I could easily find additional "mods" but failed.


----------



## qqwref (Dec 21, 2010)

R U2 R' U' R U2 l' U R' U' l
R u2 R' U' R u2 L' U R' U' L
r U2 R' U' R U2 L' U r' U' L
R U2 R' u' R U2 L' U R' U' L E'
R u R' F' R U R' U' R' F R2 u' R U'
R u R' U' R' F R2 U' R' U' R U R' F' R E R'
R u R' u' R' f R2 U' R' U' R U R' F' U2 S' U2
R2 U R2 U' R2 y' R2 U' R2 U R2 d' (doesn't move edges out of E)


----------



## irontwig (Dec 21, 2010)

Inspired by Thom's big cube method chart. Petrus gets a little CF, since Lars' default way is COLL-EPLL.


----------



## Olivér Perge (Dec 21, 2010)

Y permutation: R2 D R2 U' R2 D' R2 D U R2 D' R2 U R2 U' R2


----------



## Toad (Dec 21, 2010)

Olivér Perge said:


> Y permutation: R2 D R2 U' R2 D' R2 D U R2 D' R2 U R2 U' R2



Ooooh!! I like this...


----------



## Baian Liu (Dec 22, 2010)

4x4 edge flip

http://alg.garron.us/?alg=y-_y_2R_U..._2R-_2L-_U2_2L_u2_2R2_3R2_u2_2R_3R&cube=4x4x4


----------



## oll+phase+sync (Dec 23, 2010)

qqwref said:


> R U2 R' U' R U2 l' U R' U' l
> R u2 R' U' R u2 L' U R' U' L
> r U2 R' U' R U2 L' U r' U' L
> R U2 R' u' R U2 L' U R' U' L E'
> ...


 
Wow great! Thanks! R U2 R' U' R U2 L' U R' U' L , is a great J so are the mods (I just used to mirror my other J untill now)!




Baian Liu said:


> 4x4 edge flip
> 
> http://alg.garron.us/?alg=y-_y_2R_U..._2R-_2L-_U2_2L_u2_2R2_3R2_u2_2R_3R&cube=4x4x4


 
Incredible, I didn't believe that can be done with so few moves. EDIT like this Notation more: r U2 r' l' U2 l u2U2 r2l2 u2U2 rl' EDIT2 got fouled

P.S. How did you come up with these algs?


----------



## Kynit (Dec 23, 2010)

Baian Liu said:


> 4x4 edge flip
> 
> http://alg.garron.us/?alg=y-_y_2R_U..._2R-_2L-_U2_2L_u2_2R2_3R2_u2_2R_3R&cube=4x4x4


 
Now wait just a minute...


----------



## Kirjava (Dec 25, 2010)

I have a boner


----------



## riffz (Dec 25, 2010)

Kirjava said:


> I have a boner


 
cool.


----------



## Godmil (Dec 27, 2010)

Baian Liu said:


> 4x4 edge flip
> 
> http://alg.garron.us/?alg=y-_y_2R_U..._2R-_2L-_U2_2L_u2_2R2_3R2_u2_2R_3R&cube=4x4x4


 
AGH! I just got my first 4x4 yesterday and thought I should go straight for learning this parity alg. I'm not familiar with 4x4 notation, and couldn't load the applet so spent a good hour trying to get this working, before I got the applet to load and found out it was a joke


----------



## oll+phase+sync (Dec 27, 2010)

Godmil said:


> AGH! I just got my first 4x4 yesterday and thought I should go straight for learning this parity alg. I'm not familiar with 4x4 notation, and couldn't load the applet so spent a good hour trying to get this working, before I got the applet to load and found out it was a joke


 
[FUBAR] works perfect, just my translation was wrong ...[/FUBAR]

got fouled!


----------



## Kynit (Dec 27, 2010)

oll+phase+sync said:


> works perfect


 
Come on, now. Have you even tried it?


----------



## ben1996123 (Dec 27, 2010)

Pretty cool G perm, could be fast with practise I think.

b2 M2 U' R2 U R2 D' R2 D r2 F2


----------



## qqwref (Dec 27, 2010)

ben1996123 said:


> Pretty cool G perm, could be fast with practise I think.
> 
> b2 M2 U' R2 U R2 D' R2 D r2 F2


EWWWWWW

I think that's awful. But hey, I just suck at F2 and b2 moves, maybe it's just me...


----------



## ben1996123 (Dec 28, 2010)

qqwref said:


> EWWWWWW
> 
> I think that's awful. But hey, I just suck at F2 and b2 moves, maybe it's just me...



I do it like this


----------



## qqwref (Dec 28, 2010)

I honestly can't follow such a low-quality video.

I'm not really so interested in fingertricks as much as, say, can you do it quickly?


----------



## Kirjava (Dec 30, 2010)

L2 F R B2 R2 L B' R B2 D B2 U L' R' B2 F R D' L2 U' L R' F2 R2 D

LBL2B2Rxy'
rU'R'URURUMUM'U'r'
U'FRUR'U'F'
U2M'U2M'U'M2U2R2

8.57

33 moves. the solve ends in R2.


----------



## TheMachanga (Dec 30, 2010)

I went to the mall and found 4 stores that sell V-cubes. Do you think V-cubes will start becoming more of a Rubik's-like brand? What's next? A TV commercial advertising v-cubes?


----------



## StachuK1992 (Dec 30, 2010)

TheMachanga said:


> I went to the mall and found 4 stores that sell V-cubes. Do you think V-cubes will start becoming more of a Rubik's-like brand? What's next? A TV commercial advertising v-cubes?


 Woah, this is in Illinois? What stores? Like, Toys 'r Us and such?


----------



## amostay2004 (Dec 30, 2010)

I've seen V-Cubes being sold in a souvenir shop when I was backpacking around Europe as well. I think it was in Prague. Needless to say, the prices were absolutely crazy


----------



## mr. giggums (Dec 30, 2010)

StachuK1992 said:


> Woah, this is in Illinois? What stores? Like, Toys 'r Us and such?


 
While christmas shopping my mom told me a store (Marbles was it's name) that had v-cubes 5 and 7. It was in Naperville, IL.


----------



## nitay6669 (Dec 30, 2010)

well, there are only 2 stores here that sell rubiks brands. one also sell V6 and V7
i asked them why the don't sell V5 and they told me it was because they already got rubiks 5X5:fp


----------



## oll+phase+sync (Dec 30, 2010)

Kirjava said:


> L2 F R B2 R2 L B' R B2 D B2 U L' R' B2 F R D' L2 U' L R' F2 R2 D
> 
> LBL2B2Rxy'
> rU'R'URURUMUM'U'r'
> ...


 
By wich way/methode did you recognize the corner case so fast


----------



## LearningCode (Dec 30, 2010)

Hmm..
I tried googling a CLL-Trainer, but couldn't find one.

So, I made one.
It's crude and I stole the images and algorithms from the Speedsolving wiki with only a few changes to some of the stuff =x

If the original owner of the images doesn't like it there, tell me and I'll come up with an alternative xD
Tell me if it has been of any use to any of you ><


----------



## Rpotts (Dec 30, 2010)

In the U case, holding the headlights on back, if the two disoriented corners have the same sticker facing up, and the stickers on the front are opposite then you know it's diag - F sexy F'


----------



## LearningCode (Dec 30, 2010)

Oh, and the site only works on Mozilla Firefox.
It won't work with Chrome or IE because I'm a lazy-ass piece of **** to bother with cross-browser compatibility =x

*[EDIT]*


Rpotts said:


> In the U case, holding the headlights on back, if the two disoriented corners have the same sticker facing up, and the stickers on the front are opposite then you know it's diag - F sexy F'


*self-facepalm*
I wrote it as: 
U'
(F R U)
(R' U' F')

What the hell was I thinking? o.0

*[EDIT=2]*
Fixed =x


----------



## Ranzha (Dec 30, 2010)

r u r' u' r' f r2 u' r' u' r u r' f' u


----------



## LearningCode (Dec 30, 2010)

R' L' U2 L2 R2 U2 L R D M2 D2 M2 D M2 D2


----------



## qqwref (Dec 30, 2010)

LearningCode said:


> R' L' U2 L2 R2 U2 L R D M2 D2 M2 D M2 D2


M2 u M2 U2 M2 U M2 U D'


----------



## LearningCode (Dec 30, 2010)

qqwref said:


> M2 u M2 U2 M2 U M2 U D'


 
;O


----------



## Rpotts (Dec 30, 2010)

LearningCode - That program is nice, the images are fine, but goddamn do some of those algs suck. Please add good algs (maybe multiple for different cases) for instance - you use the 3x3 Double sune for the pure H case, when you could use R2 U2 R' U2 R2, way better.
check out David Woner's site for lots of good 2x2 algs

Also, grouping algs in triggers is nice, but it looks cleaner and is easier to follow if it's laid out horizontally, not vertically.

imo this - (R' U2 R) y (R' U R' U') (R U' R) looks nicer than
-
(R' U2 R) y
(R' U R' U')
(R U' R)


----------



## LearningCode (Dec 30, 2010)

Sorry ><
I stole all of them from the Speedsolving wiki =x

I'll get to it ^^


----------



## Tyjet66 (Dec 31, 2010)

In reference to the discussion on the previous page (V-cubes being sold in stores,) I live near the Mall of America and I haven't seen any V-cubes there.


----------



## TheMachanga (Dec 31, 2010)

StachuK1992 said:


> Woah, this is in Illinois? What stores? Like, Toys 'r Us and such?


 
Chicago is pretty much LOADED with v-cubes. We have Cat and Mouse, Marbles: The Brain Store, This other game store (sells jig-puzzles and board games), and many more. I went to downtown today and found some while window shopping. The prices are as I recall: V-cube 7 is around $49. That's all I saw though, I think V5 was $27 but I don't remember.


----------



## Rpotts (Dec 31, 2010)

Tyjet66 said:


> In reference to the discussion on the previous page (V-cubes being sold in stores,) I live near the Mall of America and I haven't seen any V-cubes there.



My friend bought his 5x5 and 7x7 from the Marbles puzzle store in MoA after Cubetcha


----------



## Tyjet66 (Dec 31, 2010)

Rpotts said:


> My friend bought his 5x5 and 7x7 from the Marbles puzzle store in MoA after Cubetcha


 
Hmm... Next time I go, I'll have to check it out.


----------



## Nestor (Dec 31, 2010)

Baian Liu said:


> 4x4 edge flip
> 
> http://alg.garron.us/?alg=y-_y_2R_U..._2R-_2L-_U2_2L_u2_2R2_3R2_u2_2R_3R&cube=4x4x4


 
Time to change parity alg... :O


----------



## whauk (Dec 31, 2010)

multislotting:
x R U r2 U' R2 U r2 U' R' x'

this is actually fast and useful (in case one slot is already filled like this)


----------



## StachuK1992 (Dec 31, 2010)

whauk said:


> multislotting:
> x R U r2 U' R2 U r2 U' R' x'
> 
> this is actually fast and useful (in case one slot is already filled like this)


  that's actually really cool! Thanks.


----------



## LearningCode (Dec 31, 2010)

Rpotts said:


> LearningCode - That program is nice, the images are fine, but goddamn do some of those algs suck. Please add good algs (maybe multiple for different cases) for instance - you use the 3x3 Double sune for the pure H case, when you could use R2 U2 R' U2 R2, way better.
> check out David Woner's site for lots of good 2x2 algs
> 
> Also, grouping algs in triggers is nice, but it looks cleaner and is easier to follow if it's laid out horizontally, not vertically.
> ...


 
Fixed stuff.
Added algs for 2x2x2 CLL where necessary.

Tell me if there's anything else =x
I find it easier to follow triggers vertically..

So I made an option to switch between horizontally and vertically aligned algs =x
Go go go!
Take a look at it now ^^


----------



## vcuber13 (Dec 31, 2010)

not cubing but i just noticed a few days ago:

\( 
\frac{d}{dx} \hspace{2 mm} \pi r^2 = 2 \pi r
\)
so the derivative of the area of a circle is the circumference.


----------



## StachuK1992 (Dec 31, 2010)

vcuber13 said:


> not cubing but i just noticed a few days ago:
> 
> \(
> \frac{d}{dx} \hspace{2 mm} \pi r^2 = 2 \pi r
> ...


 
psst.
Derive the volume of, idk, spheres?


----------



## Vinny (Dec 31, 2010)

To be honest V Cubes are waaaaay overpriced. And it's not even like the quality is all that good...


----------



## vcuber13 (Dec 31, 2010)

StachuK1992 said:


> psst.
> Derive the volume of, idk, spheres?


 
i only started learning how to derive stuff like 3 weeks ago so i thought it was fairly interesting, although it may be obvious.
also i probably should have put d/dr or pi x^2 = 2 pi x


----------



## aronpm (Dec 31, 2010)

vcuber13 said:


> not cubing but i just noticed a few days ago:
> 
> \(
> \frac{d}{dx} \hspace{2 mm} \pi r^2 = 2 \pi r
> ...


\( \frac{d}{dr} (\pi r^2) = 2 \pi r \)

Similarly,
\( \frac{d}{dr} (\frac{4}{3} \pi r^3) = 4 \pi r^2 \)
Such that the derivative of the volume of a sphere is the surface area.



vcuber13 said:


> also i probably should have put d/dr or pi x^2 = 2 pi x


Except \( \pi x^2 = 2 \pi x \) is only correct for \( x=0 \) and \( x=2 \)


----------



## Rpotts (Dec 31, 2010)

UnAbusador said:


> Time to change parity alg... :O


 
Lol are you serious?


----------



## Rpotts (Dec 31, 2010)

LearningCode said:


> Added algs for 2x2x2 CLL where necessary.
> 
> Tell me if there's anything else =x
> I find it easier to follow triggers vertically..
> ...


 
Anytime you have an alg that's for 2x2/3x3 you need a new one for 2x2. (Other than like sune/niklas/fsexy)

I can't recognize some of the cases sometimes the stickers I use are grayed out. I like the idea of the hyper cll, kinda, but most cases have multiple ways to recognize, and I prefer ones I can do on 2 or 3 sides (U R F usually)

Also, clicking on the "vertical" button causes the button to alternate between "n" and "&" lol

The program is a really nice idea, and I want to use it, but i'd still need to go to Woner's alg page lol, and I definitely prefer the images showing all stickers, rather than just hyper.


----------



## Tyjet66 (Dec 31, 2010)

Ugh... I can easily memo 5 edges for BLD but 6 keeps kicking my ass. I am using the "tap"/visual memo method and the old pochmann solving method, it works quite nicely for me. I can get the memorization of the 6 edges down but every single time I somehow mess up on the execution, but I always execute correctly for 5 edges, I fail to understand what I'm doing wrong... I guess I'll just keep up practicing... =/


----------



## CubeLTD (Dec 31, 2010)

Hmm.. Since this is a Random discussion thread, and I cba to find the FML thread, I'll post it here.

Washing out my cube pieces. One side cap and one edge cap fell off and went down the drain. Should of plug the drain. =\. I took my cubies out immediately. Since I was cleaning out my cube, I decide to tension it anyway, since it was getting loosed. I assembled it back together. I had one center cap on the cube but not put on because I wasn't don't setting the tension on that side I guess. Well I guess I took like a 5 minute break from setting the tension and totally forgot that the center cap was still on top of the cube but not put on correctly. So I took the cube and just shook it very hard because it was heavy from all that water, and my center cap flew off somewhere in my living room. I searched for it for 1hr and 30 minute, but no luck. I lost a side cap, a edge cap, and now a center cap, in less than 1 hour. And now I'm sad. =\


----------



## Tyjet66 (Dec 31, 2010)

1. Open the trap for the sink. 2. have someone help look for the cap in the living room.


----------



## PoviIas (Dec 31, 2010)

That is my first recorded spin. 
I solved in 15,90 once when I wasn't recording.
My avarage is about 21 seconds.
What I want to ask is whether choosing other cube could imrove my time.
This is DIY type A. And I do not realli like it. I can't spin fast. It stucks.
Any suggestions about what cube should I choose?
Thank you in advance.


----------



## vcuber13 (Dec 31, 2010)

aronpm said:


> Except \( \pi x^2 = 2 \pi x \) is only correct for \( x=0 \) and \( x=2 \)


 
thats not what i meant, since i had d/dx in the equation i should have put x's instead of r's, or replace the r's with x's, because what i have is deriving relative to x but i have r's in the equation.


----------



## Brian Kremer (Dec 31, 2010)

I just got my first last layer skip.


----------



## LearningCode (Dec 31, 2010)

Brian Kremer said:


> I just got my first last layer skip.


 
Damn.
I've never gotten that before =/


----------



## JackJ (Dec 31, 2010)

This is a meh F2L trick I found. 

F B' (R U R' U')*3 F' B

It's pretty nice for righties who dont like L moves or y2's. It also effects the LL pieces the same as y2 (R U R' U')*3


----------



## whauk (Dec 31, 2010)

JackJ said:


> F B' (R U R' U')*3 F' B
> 
> It's pretty nice for righties who dont like L moves or y2's. It also effects the LL pieces the same as y2 (R U R' U')*3



lol what about z (RUR'U')*3 z'
same effect, no awkward moves


----------



## JackJ (Dec 31, 2010)

Wow, I can't believe I have never seen that before.


----------



## Kynit (Dec 31, 2010)

LearningCode: the averages are affected by skipped cases; should this work? You can get fairly drastic changes just by skipping one case with a fast/slow time.

EDIT: I mean your CLL trainer btw


----------



## Athefre (Dec 31, 2010)

If anyone was ever wanting to be a non-matching block user with ZZ or Petrus but didn't want to memorize the 83 NMCOLL cases then have awkard EPLL, or use OCLL then struggle with PLL recognition, here are sequences for something that makes more sense.

http://www.athefre.110mb.com/NMLL.html

As with Roux, the only advantage would come from the blocks. You better be good at blockbuilding and be able to take advantage of the lucky cases, else this isn't any better than regular blocks with OCLL+PLL.


----------



## LearningCode (Jan 1, 2011)

Kynit said:


> LearningCode: the averages are affected by skipped cases; should this work? You can get fairly drastic changes just by skipping one case with a fast/slow time.
> 
> EDIT: I mean your CLL trainer btw


 
I know =x
So it's better if I don't let skipped cases affect it?

*[EDIT]*
A simple fix, really xD
I changed one line of code, skipped cases no longer affect average times ^^

*[EDIT=2]*
Anyone think I should extend this thing for other sets of algorithms?
(Like OLL, PLL, Ortega, ELL)


----------



## Kirjava (Jan 1, 2011)

oll+phase+sync said:


> By wich way/methode did you recognize the corner case so fast


 
I just use my normal recognition and if a corner is from a different layer I invert the F/B colours.


----------



## oll+phase+sync (Jan 1, 2011)

Athefre said:


> If anyone was ever wanting to be a non-matching block user with ZZ or Petrus but didn't want to memorize the 83 NMCOLL cases then have awkard EPLL, or use OCLL then struggle with PLL recognition, here are sequences for something that makes more sense.
> 
> http://www.athefre.110mb.com/NMLL.html
> 
> As with Roux, the only advantage would come from the blocks. You better be good at blockbuilding and be able to take advantage of the lucky cases, else this isn't any better than regular blocks with OCLL+PLL.


As far as I understand I have to figure out the corner orientation case by myself first (are there any tricks as this schould be the difficult part *EDIT2: Understood now not difficult at all just as normal OCLL plus option for opposit colors.*
When I got the A-G case , I just compare F/B L/B ... 

 

EDIT Now the Cube is displayed correctly (had to invert my input) EDIT2 but this cube exsample does not belong into this methode!


When I scramble like this R2ULU'RUL' U2 I know I have to do a Niklas and F/B should tell me this. I just don't see what F/B measn


----------



## Athefre (Jan 1, 2011)

It's not about orienting U colors. Opposite orientation (R2 block) is easy to recognize. I don't know of any tricks for recognizing U colors when you have "adjacent" blocks (R block). It's difficult because maybe the U colors on the left should be yellow but the ones on the right should be oriented to be green. Which yellows and which greens do you choose to orient? There are three of each. So you have to spend your time looking for the two orange+yellow corners and the two red+green corners. Too time consuming.

On the page I posted, you forget the U colors and instead orient L/R colors to L/R. That includes edges. Then you permute the L+M+R layers.

R2 L' F' R L U' R' L' F L2 U2 R B' U D R2 U2 D' R2 U' R' D' F2 U2 L2

EOLine - DU'F'UL'U'B'D2
F2L - R'L2UL2UL' RUR2U2R'URUR'
Separate - U' RU2R'U'RUR'U'RU'R'
Permute - U2 lzR2x'U2rUr'U2lU'l y'U2M'

B L R2 B2 R U F B2 U L' B' F2 U' R' L U L2 R B2 U' D' B' D' U R'

EOLine - UL'U'BR'U2R2D
F2L - UL2U'L2 ULU2 D'F2D R2U'R'U'R
Separate - U2 R'U2RULU2R'U'RU2L'
Permute - U' FR2U'L'UR2U'LUF' U'R

R2 B L2 R2 B2 D2 U F D' F' U' L' U L D2 F R F2 B' L R' F B' L F2

EOLine - U'F'UL'R'B'RD'
F2L - UR'U2 R2URLU L2U'L'U'LU'L'U2 R'ULU'L'
Separate - RU2R'U'RU'R2U2RUR'UR
Permute - RU'R'URU'LUL'Ux'U2RU2R2 xU2rR2


----------



## Athefre (Jan 2, 2011)

See any two cases that match? Keeping recognition from being possible without AUF or tilts.



Spoiler



*1*
*2*
*3*
*4*
*5*
*6*
*7*
*8*
*9*
*10*
*11*
*12*
*13*
*14*
*15*


----------



## Andrew Ricci (Jan 2, 2011)

Some MU U Perms. I didn't find them on the wiki, and they are quite nice, so let me know if anyone uses them.

Ua: M' U2 M U M' U2 M U M' U2 M

Ub: M' U2 M U' M' U2 M U' M' U2 M


----------



## JonnyWhoopes (Jan 2, 2011)

theanonymouscuber said:


> Some MU U Perms. I didn't find them on the wiki, and they are quite nice, so let me know if anyone uses them.
> 
> Ua: M' U2 M U M' U2 M U M' U2 M
> 
> Ub: M' U2 M U' M' U2 M U' M' U2 M


 
I've been using these for about 3-4 months. They're very intuitive.


----------



## Andrew Ricci (Jan 2, 2011)

JonnyWhoopes said:


> I've been using these for about 3-4 months. They're very intuitive.


 
Yeah, I thought someone (or multiple someones) would be using them/know them. I found them just by messing around with M moves.


----------



## Reinier Schippers (Jan 2, 2011)

I know them but I prefer a 2gen RU alg I also like to play around with M's i dunno why


----------



## Kirjava (Jan 2, 2011)

theanonymouscuber said:


> Yeah, I thought someone (or multiple someones) would be using them/know them. I found them just by messing around with M moves.


 
All MU EPLL is just Roux.


----------



## Cyrus C. (Jan 2, 2011)

What do you guys think of learning EG-1 before CLL? If you solve one face, the probability of having an adjacent swap is 2/3, solved is 1/6. Wouldn't it make sense to learn EG-1 first and get 2/3 of the cases out of the way?


----------



## JonnyWhoopes (Jan 2, 2011)

Kirjava said:


> All MU EPLL is just Roux.


 
All MU ELL is just Roux.


----------



## Kirjava (Jan 2, 2011)

JonnyWhoopes said:


> All MU ELL is just Roux.


 
pureflips.


----------



## JonnyWhoopes (Jan 2, 2011)

Kirjava said:


> pureflips.


 
Granted.


----------



## Escher (Jan 2, 2011)

Cyrus C. said:


> What do you guys think of learning EG-1 before CLL? If you solve one face, the probability of having an adjacent swap is 2/3, solved is 1/6. Wouldn't it make sense to learn EG-1 first and get 2/3 of the cases out of the way?


 
Do it.
It's not as easy because no OLLs overlap with EG-1 as they do with CLL so you have 'more' to memorise, especially if you aren't familiar with COLL recognition already. It's also probably not as fast on it's own, but don't take my word for it.


----------



## qqwref (Jan 2, 2011)

If you're sure you want to learn EG, it's more useful to learn EG-1 first than to learn CLL first.


----------



## miotatsu (Jan 2, 2011)

on the topic of that human kociemba idea discussed back a ways in this thread: I wonder how many moves/how fast that could be
also while I'm at it does anyone have algs for the "Advanced Human Thistlethwaite" method by pseudoprogrammer/grant slatton? I have been trying to get in contact with him but he doesn't seem to go online very often...


----------



## qqwref (Jan 3, 2011)

miotatsu said:


> on the topic of that human kociemba idea discussed back a ways in this thread: I wonder how many moves/how fast that could be


a minimum of 37 moves and 12.86 seconds, it's impossible to go faster or more efficient


----------



## miotatsu (Jan 3, 2011)

well I am more interested in what kind of move count you could probably average with it, not the absolute minimum


----------



## qqwref (Jan 5, 2011)

OH (or 2h?) trick to put in an unconnected pair while flipping edges:

(U2) r U' r' U' r U r'


----------



## cmhardw (Jan 5, 2011)

I guess this is the best place to post this - I just got a LL skip! I wasn't timing the solve, just doing some slow solves for practice. It took me a while to realize that it was a LL skip. I scrambled, and on the last F2L pair I got a pair that I've recently been practicing being able to do on the back of the cube. After doing the pair a U2 AUF solved the cube. I didn't realize and just scrambled the cube again. About 10 turns in I realized... wait.... O_O


----------



## ariasamie (Jan 5, 2011)

cmhardw said:


> I guess this is the best place to post this - I just got a LL skip! I wasn't timing the solve, just doing some slow solves for practice. It took me a while to realize that it was a LL skip. I scrambled, and on the last F2L pair I got a pair that I've recently been practicing being able to do on the back of the cube. After doing the pair a U2 AUF solved the cube. I didn't realize and just scrambled the cube again. About 10 turns in I realized... wait.... O_O


 
lol ! when my only LL skip happened, I was thinking if it was an OLL or a PLL skip!! after about 5 seconds... woah!!! I got a LL skip!


----------



## Xishem (Jan 5, 2011)

ariasamie said:


> lol ! when my only LL skip happened, I was thinking if it was an OLL or a PLL skip!! after about 5 seconds... woah!!! I got a LL skip!


 
I got a LL skip yesterday, along with 7 PLL skips and 2 OLL skips :O yesterday was just my lucky day, I guess.


----------



## Tyjet66 (Jan 5, 2011)

So, today at school, I was practicing my edges for Old Pochmann, I gave 4 full attempts (edges only) and succeeded 3 times. But I'm curious, for people who do full BLD solves, what is your success rate?


----------



## Rpotts (Jan 6, 2011)

uhhhhhh, you're going to get a lot of very different answers. A beginner BLD cuber may reply very low, 10% or so, and an expert may claim over 90% or something. Why does it matter? Getting 3/4 attempts (even for only edges) is good for a beginner.


----------



## Tyjet66 (Jan 6, 2011)

I was merely curious. Although, I have found out that I have yet to fail any memorization, my only failures are due to set-up moves or somehow messing up T-perms or Y-perms (rare but it happens.)


----------



## qqwref (Jan 6, 2011)

Another (obvious?) F2L trick, this one is kinda a multislotting one:

R' F R U2 F'


----------



## ariasamie (Jan 6, 2011)

wow!


Spoiler



chuck!!


----------



## Cubenovice (Jan 6, 2011)

miotatsu said:


> also while I'm at it does anyone have algs for the "Advanced Human Thistlethwaite" method by pseudoprogrammer/grant slatton? I have been trying to get in contact with him but he doesn't seem to go online very often...



I asked the same question abut a week ago but so far no reply...
Currently generating some extra algs to orient multiple corners at once without messing up EO *and* keeping equator edges in the E slice. (They may permute within the layer though)
Unfortunately cube explorer does not seem to facilitate this specific restriction. 

Some algs for U face corner orientation (with "fixed" E slice) for the 6 "non-Sune" cases with one corner already oriented.
Note: these may affect corners on the D face but that is still to be solved anyway...
I still have to check for versions that may permute E slice edges.
F U R2 U' R2 F'
F' U2 R2 U2 R2 F
R' U R U2 R' U R
R U' R' U2 R U' R'
F R2 U2 R2 U2 F'
F R2 U R2 U' F'

As I see it there are max 13 additional algs to learn for orienting all corners in two steps:
U face: 81-1= 80 80/AUF= 20 distinct cases (of which 7 are standard OLL) 
After solving these you can only have a std OLL left on the D face.

Whan I have some more info I would like to move this discussion to one of the existing HTA threads.


----------



## Tyjet66 (Jan 7, 2011)

When doing BLD solves (or, attempts) does anyone else have their heart pumping really fast towards the end? It's weird but it keeps happening to me.


----------



## Zane_C (Jan 7, 2011)

Tyjet66 said:


> When doing BLD solves (or, attempts) does anyone else have their heart pumping really fast towards the end? It's weird but it keeps happening to me.


I love that feeling of adrenaline pumping into you. 
It doesn't happen as much as it used to, but it still happens on multi attempts where I think I haven't already failed. Same goes for 5bld. My heart was going crazy on my first 7BLD attempt, I literally had to stop and breath because I was shaking too much with the last few pieces.


----------



## HelpCube (Jan 7, 2011)

Zane_C said:


> I love that feeling of adrenaline pumping into you.
> It doesn't happen as much as it used to, but it still happens on multi attempts where I think I haven't already failed. Same goes for 5bld. My heart was going crazy on my first 7BLD attempt, I literally had to stop and breath because I was shaking too much with the last few pieces.


 
yea, especially when you know it was a tricky BLD solve but you figured it all out, gives you alot of satisfaction


----------



## JackJ (Jan 10, 2011)

B' F' R B' L' D F U' B2 D2 R2 F' B R2 U' R' U2 D' L R B D U' B2 R 

x' U L R' B2 U2 F2 x'
R U' R' U y' R' U R
y2 R' U R U' R' U' R
U R U' R'
y2 R U R' U' F R' F' R
U f R U R' U' f'
U' R' U L' U2 R U' R' U2 L R

54 moves 11.11 seconds 4.86 tps

I thought it was a pretty smooth solution.


----------



## ben1996123 (Jan 10, 2011)

Kinda off topicish, but still relevant to the forum, 1/2 million total posts.

Also I was so shocked at school today when someone said "Rubik cube", and not something like ananeroobicks croob.


----------



## qqwref (Jan 15, 2011)

Here's a tricky subset to try:
<x, y, z, U M2 U', U' M2 U>

I got down to 2 flipped edges and couldn't figure out how to solve that. The solution method is interesting and actually somewhat reminiscent of the more complicated edge-turning cubes.


----------



## mr. giggums (Jan 16, 2011)

just messing around with <x, y, z, U M2 U', U' M2 U> and here's a couple of algs (most are obvious).

UL-UR DF-DB - U M2 U' U' M2 U or
UL-UR DF-DB - U' M2 U U M2 U'

UL-BR-DF - [U M2 U' , z]*2
UL-DF-BR - [U' M2 U , z]*2

UL-FR-DF - (U' M2 U z U M2 U' z')*2
UL-DF-FR - (U M2 U' z U' M2 U z')*2

UR-DL-UL - [U M2 U' U' M2 U , z]*2
UR-UL-DL - [z , U M2 U' U' M2 U]*2


----------



## qqwref (Jan 16, 2011)

Nice finds (but your commutator notation on UL-BR-DF is wrong, it is just (U M2 U' z U M2 U' z')2). Took me a while to see why the last one works.


----------



## mr. giggums (Jan 16, 2011)

qqwref said:


> Nice finds (but your commutator notation on UL-BR-DF is wrong, it is just (U M2 U' z U M2 U' z')2). Took me a while to see why the last one works.


 
Actually the inverse of U M2 U' is U M2 U'.

Also how they work is you but a piece (UR, DF, or DB) in the UL slot. Then you put another piece in that slot (DL, FR, BR) in the UL slot and then undo every thing. Of course the centers would be effected too but something like M2 E2 M2 E2 would effect them. So there are a lot more algs to be formed using this method.

EDIT: found two flip
[U M2 U' , z]*2 x y [U M2 U' , z]*2 x' y' [U M2 U' , z]*2

EDIT2: formed into an adjacent two flip
x y U M2 U' U' M2 U x' y' (above two flip) x y U M2 U' U' M2 U x' y'

After typing xy and x'y' I think that there should be notation for a rotation around a corner. (Could be the same as a skewb notation.)


----------



## qqwref (Jan 16, 2011)

mr. giggums said:


> Actually the inverse of U M2 U' is U M2 U'.


Oh, you're right, my bad.



mr. giggums said:


> After typing xy and x'y' I think that there should be notation for a rotation around a corner. (Could be the same as a skewb notation.)


I've seen "w" used for a rotation around the UFR corner. I don't think it would be practical to have a symbol for every possible corner rotation though.



mr. giggums said:


> EDIT: found two flip
> [U M2 U', z]*2 x y [U M2 U' , z]*2 x' y' [U M2 U' , z]*2


How about this:
[z, U M2 U']*2 x y [U M2 U', z]*2 y' x'


----------



## mr. giggums (Jan 16, 2011)

qqwref said:


> I've seen "w" used for a rotation around the UFR corner. I don't think it would be practical to have a symbol for every possible corner rotation though.



Yeah, I figured that it wouldn't be that practical.



qqwref said:


> How about this:
> [z, U M2 U']*2 x y [U M2 U', z]*2 y' x'


 
I thought that there would be a solution like that but mine is the first one I came up with.

Also does this generate the full edge group + opposite centers.


----------



## qqwref (Jan 16, 2011)

I think so. Any edge can be placed anywhere, and 3-cycles and 2-flips are possible, so arbitrary 3-cycles should be possible. We can move centers themselves with something like
U M2 U' x2 y U M2 U' y' x2


----------



## mr. giggums (Jan 16, 2011)

ccw U-Perm - z2 U' M2 U z2 [U M2 U' U' M2 U , z]*2 z2 U' M2 U z2
cw U-Perm - z2 U' M2 U z2 [z , U M2 U' U' M2 U]*2 z2 U' M2 U z2

H-Perm - z U M2 U' U' M2 U z2 U M2 U' U' M2 U x' z U M2 U' U' M2 U z' x U M2 U' U' M2 U z2 U M2 U' U' M2 U z'
I need a better H-Perm and the best Z-Perm I can find is 2 U-Perms.


----------



## qqwref (Jan 16, 2011)

Possibly slow Z-perm:
x' U M2 U2 M2 U x2 U M2 U2 M2 U x'
U M2 U'
x U M2 U2 M2 U x2 U M2 U2 M2 U
z' U M2 U' z2 y U M2 U' z' [11 applications]

EDIT: Interesting 3-cycle:
[x' U M2 U2 M2 U x U M2 U']2 [6]


----------



## riffz (Jan 18, 2011)

x' U r U' L' U' L U r' U' r U L' U' r' U L U'

Just the common Y perm from a different angle. It find it faster than U2 (F R U' R' U' R U R' F' R U R' U' R' F R F') U2


----------



## 4. (Jan 18, 2011)

the Mufang 3x3 is the most underrated cube ever... it's awesome.


----------



## Godmil (Jan 18, 2011)

4. said:


> the Mufang 3x3 is the most underrated cube ever... it's awesome.


 
What are you comparing it with?


----------



## Robert-Y (Jan 18, 2011)

riffz said:


> x' U r U' L' U' L U r' U' r U L' U' r' U L U'
> 
> Just the common Y perm from a different angle. It find it faster than U2 (F R U' R' U' R U R' F' R U R' U' R' F R F') U2



I'd use: (R' U2 R' F' R2 U') (R' F' U' F R U R' F U2' R) (well actually the mirror of this)

I can get around 1.6-1.7 secs with this.


----------



## miotatsu (Jan 19, 2011)

Cubenovice said:


> As I see it there are max 13 additional algs to learn for orienting all corners in two steps:
> U face: 81-1= 80 80/AUF= 20 distinct cases (of which 7 are standard OLL)
> After solving these you can only have a std OLL left on the D face.
> Whan I have some more info I would like to move this discussion to one of the existing HTA threads.


 
mhmm, and also will there be additional algs for the corner permutation? also one other thing to consider is doing the final edges before the double-turn group is reached can have some tricky cases in terms of keeping the E slice intact, I have been doing a fair amount of solves where I do the E slice and then this step and I noticed a good amount of the cases can be solved normally without breaking it, so that is decent at least


----------



## riffz (Jan 19, 2011)

Robert-Y said:


> I'd use: (R' U2 R' F' R2 U') (R' F' U' F R U R' F U2' R) (well actually the mirror of this)
> 
> I can get around 1.6-1.7 secs with this.


 
Oooooh. Awesome. Thanks.


----------



## cmhardw (Jan 25, 2011)

I just had a realization today. When you practice speedsolving more often... your times get faster. Who knew? :fp


----------



## qqwref (Jan 28, 2011)

Another way to do this WV case...
R2' F' R U R U' R' F R

An F2L trick (both backwards and forwards):
R' U' R' U R' U' R2


----------



## Magix (Jan 28, 2011)

Hey people, there are enough of those "how to get faster" threads around here, thought I'd just ask here. I keep reading about beginners who say they get like an average of 1 minute 30 on beginners method and stuff. I was at like 3 minutes on beginners method and now with friedrichs (2 look oll pll) I'm at around 1 min 15 sec average. Best was I believe 51 seconds.

Now I know practice, lookahead, less cube rotation, etc, but compared to these beginners I seem to be getting horrible times. Am I doing something wrong or do I actually just need to practice more? >.<
How long did it take you all to get a constant average of like sub 50, 40, etc?


----------



## qqwref (Jan 28, 2011)

A whole bunch of things could be the culprit:
- you take a long time to find pieces
- you have a bad cube
- you tend to do everything on the bottom
- you turn slowly and/or don't know fingertricks
- you use way too many moves for the cross/F2L

Don't worry about how long you take, because the journey is as fun as actually being fast, maybe even more fun (cubing is less interesting when you aren't improving). Some people take 5+ years from when they learn to when they finally get sub-20; others can do it in 3-4 months. Just go with the flow, and work on any problems you find.


----------



## cmhardw (Jan 28, 2011)

Ok you grammarians really get to shine on this one. I think I understand why laypeople, when typing, refer to a "Rubik's cube" as a "Rubik cube", or "Rubix cube", or generally things other than what we would consider the correct "Rubik's cube." I think they are going by the fact that using "Rubik's cube" in many sentence constructions just generally does not make grammatical sense.

Here is what I mean. John owns two wristwatches. I want one of those watches. I would never say "I would like to buy a John's watch." I would usually say "I would like to buy one of John's watches."

Now we know that Mr. Rubik invented an awesome toy, probably one of the coolest toys in the history of toys in most of our opinions. As he is the inventor of the toy we shall refer to it as his invention, his cube. Therefore this particular toy puzzle is referred to as Rubik's cube as opposed to John's cube or a generic cube with no qualifier.

I would now like to buy one of these cubes. Using the same logic as for John's watch I would never say "I would like to buy a Rubik's cube" ... No wait... I would actually say that - every single time.

I think this is the problem. "Rubik cube" implies that the word "Rubik" is an adjective modifying "cube." "Rubix cube" also implies that the word "Rubix" is an adjective modifying the word cube. These make grammatical sense taken in this context. Saying "I would like to buy a Rubik's cube" is grammatically using the possessive "Rubik's" to modify the noun "cube," essentially using it as an adjective. I think most laypeople reject this construction as awkward or wrong, and instead type "Rubik" or "Rubix."

I don't consider myself a grammar nazi, grammarian, or generally qualified to make intricate distinctions for things like this in the English language. So, for those of you who are - *discuss*


----------



## qqwref (Jan 28, 2011)

People who spell it "Rubix" simply don't understand that the word is meant to be a possessive. And I think people who spell it "Rubik Cube" or "Arubix cube" etc. misheard the term and then never bothered to do even the most minimal research to look up what it was really called.

Anyway, there's nothing grammatically wrong with using Rubik's to describe a noun. The same construction exists in many other contexts: "Parkinson's disease", "Avogadro's number", "Botts' dots". It's not the most common way to describe an eponymous object or idea, but it's by no means ungrammatical.

About the "John's watch" example, you wouldn't want to say "I want to buy a John's watch" because "John's watch" is not a common term, and thus it is used to refer to a specific item: the watch John owns. So saying "a John's watch" is like saying "a that book". Some common terms also imply a specific item (Avogadro's number), but others, like Rubik's Cube, imply something there are many of, and so you would necessary use the term in a different way than you would use John's watch. It even makes sense to add another possessive: "I can't solve John's Rubik's Cube".

But at the real heart of the issue, we have the fact that "Rubik's Cube" is after all a proper noun and brand name, and we know those don't really have to follow common grammatical patterns. Thus you can cook a dish with some I Can't Believe It's Not Butter!, or listen to a Panic! at the Disco song, or view a spreadsheet on Google Documents. (Is Google an adjective? Does it matter?)


----------



## ilikecubing (Jan 29, 2011)

qqwref said:


> An F2L trick (both backwards and forwards):
> R' U' R' U R' U' R2


 

Woww awsome trick,thanks  are there more like this?


----------



## qqwref (Jan 30, 2011)

I'm sure there are more like that - you should look for some yourself.

Has anyone done BLD 2-2-cycles like this?:
U' R U' (M2 U2 M2) U' R' U
Similar alg, interesting way of doing a commutator:
U' R U' M2 U2 M2 U' R' U' M2 U2 M2


EDIT: Here's an interesting way to practice partial edge control for OH: do a top 4-flip, and then a 2gen scramble.


----------



## Robert-Y (Jan 31, 2011)

Hmm I was just browsing the video section of this forum and noticed that good accomplishments on video aren't getting that many comments as they normally would in the past (IMO)...

http://www.speedsolving.com/forum/showthread.php?27133-3x3-OH-18.12-Average-of-12-by-moka
http://www.speedsolving.com/forum/showthread.php?27091-4x4x4-Cube-Avg-42.14
http://www.speedsolving.com/forum/s...9.39-and2x2-7x7-Relay-9-36.96-By-asiahyoo1997

I thought it was a bit weird. Not that the threads NEED comments or anything. I guess that knowing what Faz can achieve is making other people's videos seem not as impressive or something...


----------



## aronpm (Jan 31, 2011)

qqwref said:


> People who spell it "Rubix" simply don't understand that the word is meant to be a possessive.


 
Or just don't know. It's surprising how many people know what a Rubik's cube is (or don't, even) but don't know the name. If they haven't seen the name written before I don't think that "Rubix" is a terrible crime against humanity that's worse than killing babies, since having an "x" is all hip and cool, and people would expect a hip and cool product like the Rubik's Cube to have a name like that.


----------



## Kian (Jan 31, 2011)

When I'm not absolutely certain how to spell a word/proper noun, I look it up. I do so because I respect myself too much to put such an error next to my name when it's just so simple to get correct. There's really no excuse for carelessness. There's nothing wrong with not knowing something; there is something wrong with being too lazy to perform even the simplest of tasks.


----------



## aronpm (Jan 31, 2011)

Kian said:


> I do so because I respect myself too much to put such an error next to my name when it's just so simple to get correct.


 
Unfortunately you don't represent the majority of the population in that aspect


----------



## Yes We Can! (Jan 31, 2011)

Chris: I was recently thinking about this when trying to figure out a nice, short and attractive title for a youtube tutorial. I thought "The easiest solution to Rubik's Cube" would be good. Surely, when a cuber reads this, it seems grammatically wrong but when you think about it, it's perfectly fine.


----------



## Zane_C (Jan 31, 2011)

I stuffed up a two flip and got this 13 move U-perm: R' U2 R2 U R' U' R' U2 R U R U' R'


----------



## qqwref (Feb 2, 2011)

New idea for all you BLD freaks out there: BLD average of 12.

Not an average of BLD solves, but a blindfolded average. You can use as much inspection as you want before all of the solves, but once you start the timer for the first cube, you are no longer allowed to look at the cubes. (So basically you're doing a 12 cube multi, but individually timing each cube's exec, and ignoring the amount of memo time.)


----------



## Cyrus C. (Feb 2, 2011)

qqwref said:


> New idea for all you BLD freaks out there: BLD average of 12.
> 
> Not an average of BLD solves, but a blindfolded average. You can use as much inspection as you want before all of the solves, but once you start the timer for the first cube, you are no longer allowed to look at the cubes. (So basically you're doing a 12 cube multi, but individually timing each cube's exec, and ignoring the amount of memo time.)



Speed Multi BLD?


----------



## cmhardw (Feb 2, 2011)

qqwref said:


> New idea for all you BLD freaks out there: BLD average of 12.


 
That kind of reminds me of the speed averages of 12 I used to do back in the day for fun (but done blindfolded instead of sighted obviously). I'm not sure if I would be willing to attempt the blindfold average of 12 yet, I don't even know how I would do with a regular 12 cube multi attempt. This sounds difficult to attempt to be honest, but I'm sure there are some multi people out there who may be up for the challenge 

As to the speed average of 12, for those who haven't done it before, the goal is to perform an average of 12 as quickly as possible. The time measures how long it takes you to perform the full average attempt. You can either do this on your own, scrambling for yourself, or have someone scramble for you. Just make a note as to which format you used. I think I was able to get a time of around 4:30-4:45 with my roommate scrambling my next cube for me. I don't remember my scrambling alone times, but it was obviously a bit slower.

Definitely worth trying if you're bored and have never done it before. It's a good way to waste time and also get some practice in.


----------



## Ordos_Koala (Feb 2, 2011)

speed average of 12... sounds interesting  I'm sure I'll try it (but I'll surely miss the pre-inspection time)


----------



## Tim Major (Feb 3, 2011)

*Beginner Layer by Layer method.*
It uses 2 algs (R U R' U' R' F R F') and (F R U' R' U' R U R' F')

*Steps.*
Cross. (intuitive)
Corners. (intuitive)
Edges. [FU->FR: R (R U R' U' R' F R F') R'. BU->RF: F' (R U R' U' R' F R F') F.
Edge orientation. (alg 1, or 2 or both)
Corner Orientation on top. (variations of 1 and 2)
Corner Permutation with T-perm or Y-perm. (combination of alg 1 and 2)
Edge Permutation with T-perm or Y-perm. (combination of 1 and 2)

Scramble: B D L2 U' B L B' F' R2 U B2 R' F' L2 B R' U2 D L' R' U' L B F' L2 


Spoiler



D' U' L' F2 U B2

R U R' U R U' R'
U2 L' U L 
L U L'
R' U' R U' R' U R

U2 y' R (R U R' U' R' F R F') R'
y' F' (R U R' U' R' F R F') F
U y' F' (R U R' U' R' F R F') F
U2 y' R (R U R' U' R' F R F') R'

U2 (F R U' R' U' R U R' F')

U2 (F R U' R' U' R U R' F') U2 (R U R' U' R' F R F')
U2 (F R U' R' U' R U R' F') (F R U' R' U' R U R' F') U' (F R U' R' U' R U R' F')

U' (R U R' U' R' F R F') (F R U' R' U' R U R' F')
(R U R' U' R' F R F') (F R U' R' U' R U R' F')
(F R U' R' U' R U R' F') (R U R' U' R' F R F')
U' (R U R' U' R' F R F') (F R U' R' U' R U R' F') U2


About 30 moves cancel (I did 2 T-perms in a row, no AUF, to show)
All PLLs can be solved more efficiently than CPLL, EPLL, but for beginners, this is how I would do it.

Edit: I used alg.garron.us, but the preview cube was tiny, so I didn't bother


----------



## Cubenovice (Feb 3, 2011)

Why not:
Cross + three corners
Then all edges intuitive via keyholing
Then only Pochmannesque corners via Y-perm = only one alg to learn
or even better: commutators for last 5 corners= NO algs


----------



## Mike Hughey (Feb 3, 2011)

qqwref said:


> New idea for all you BLD freaks out there: BLD average of 12.
> 
> Not an average of BLD solves, but a blindfolded average. You can use as much inspection as you want before all of the solves, but once you start the timer for the first cube, you are no longer allowed to look at the cubes. (So basically you're doing a 12 cube multi, but individually timing each cube's exec, and ignoring the amount of memo time.)


 
I hate to admit it, but I still like ben's method better. Use a single cube, perform each scramble, then memorize, then unscramble it. Also memorize the scrambles. Then with a single cube, go through the whole average, scrambling, then solving. For full effect, it must be done on video. It would be so much more impressive.


----------



## Ordos_Koala (Feb 3, 2011)

Mike Hughey said:


> I hate to admit it, but I still like ben's method better. Use a single cube, perform each scramble, then memorize, then unscramble it. Also memorize the scrambles. Then with a single cube, go through the whole average, scrambling, then solving. For full effect, it must be done on video. It would be so much more impressive.


 
but when you learn scrambles, you can then just do it backwards...


----------



## qqwref (Feb 3, 2011)

cmhardw said:


> As to the speed average of 12, for those who haven't done it before, the goal is to perform an average of 12 as quickly as possible. The time measures how long it takes you to perform the full average attempt. You can either do this on your own, scrambling for yourself, or have someone scramble for you. Just make a note as to which format you used. I think I was able to get a time of around 4:30-4:45 with my roommate scrambling my next cube for me. I don't remember my scrambling alone times, but it was obviously a bit slower.


So, if you have someone scrambling, it's equivalent to a 12-cube relay, and if you don't, it's equivalent to a Real Man's average (of 12), right?



Mike Hughey said:


> I hate to admit it, but I still like ben's method better. Use a single cube, perform each scramble, then memorize, then unscramble it. Also memorize the scrambles. Then with a single cube, go through the whole average, scrambling, then solving. For full effect, it must be done on video. It would be so much more impressive.


You'd do the whole average blindfolded, right? This would look kinda cool, but from the perspective of someone watching, if they don't see the memo it's just a demonstration of how much data you can remember, whereas if they DO then it loses some of its effect from knowing you've tried the scrambles before (even if it was just during memo). I think mine would look more like an average of 12 on film (just with a very long inspection phase before any solves begin).


----------



## JonnyWhoopes (Feb 3, 2011)

Ordos_Koala said:


> but when you learn scrambles, you can then just do it backwards...


 
Of course you could, but I have a feeling that anybody with enough drive to do this is going to it right. Otherwise it would just be a waste of time, as it would be obvious they didn't do it normally.


----------



## ben1996123 (Feb 3, 2011)

qqwref said:


> So, if you have someone scrambling, it's equivalent to a 12-cube relay, and if you don't, it's equivalent to a Real Man's average (of 12), right?
> 
> 
> You'd do the whole average blindfolded, right? This would look kinda cool, but from the perspective of someone watching, if they don't see the memo it's just a demonstration of how much data you can remember, whereas if they DO then it loses some of its effect from knowing you've tried the scrambles before (even if it was just during memo). I think mine would look more like an average of 12 on film (just with a very long inspection phase before any solves begin).



Something else I just thought of (although it would probably take hours), 3x3 bld reverse speed bld. Start the timer, look at the scramble without the cube and figure out what the cube will look like (reverse speed bld), then apply the scramble to the cube without looking at the cube, put blindfold on, and then solve. So its kinda like BLD with no memo. I've done this on floppy cube before where I would scramble the cube without looking at it and work out what the scramble was. Then put bldfold on and solve with no memo.


----------



## qqwref (Feb 4, 2011)

Random E perms:
x' R U' R u2 L' U M' x' U' R u2 L' U L R2 x (14s)
R' U L' u2 R U' M' B r' u2 R U' r x' (13s)


----------



## amostay2004 (Feb 4, 2011)

qqwref said:


> Random E perms:
> x' R U' R u2 L' U M' x' U' R U2 L' U L R2 x (14s)
> R' U L' u2 R U' M' B r' u2 R U' r x' (13s)


 First one doesn't seem to work


----------



## Kenneth (Feb 4, 2011)

4x4x4 centres and edges tip:

Pair up last four centres as 1x2 blocks, that you store at the B, D and F sides of the r and l slices (any random order). If you do that you can pair up and store six dedges (store in BR, BL, DR, DL, FR, FL) before you compleate the centres. The benefit is that you can pair edges using r/l + U2 moves without having to restore the centres after. If you have to do a U or a U', then put a solid centre in U first (any of the four will do). Fixing the centres after the first six edges is easy and few moves.

While pairing the 1x2 centres you may get into a 'checkers' situation when doing the last ones, the easiest way to fix that is to move one already solved block having the same colour as one of the pieces at top to the U-layer to form a 3-piece L, turn U or U' and replace the block you removed with the half new one.

If you are really advanced you can pair up and place 8 dedges at the R and L sides, keep track of how many that are flipped (you need this for parity), solve centres while pairing two dedges to FD/BD (domino moves), pair the last two dedges and solve OLL-parity in one go (5 algs needed) and then you just bloody phase the rest to solved state...


----------



## Tim Major (Feb 4, 2011)

Cubenovice said:


> Why not:
> Cross + three corners
> Then all edges intuitive via keyholing
> Then only Pochmannesque corners via Y-perm = only one alg to learn
> or even better: commutators for last 5 corners= NO algs


The idea of mine was to be easy for anyone. Not everyone can learn commutators right off the bat, and the first method you talk of can run into some bad cases on the last 5 edges.
Also, the algs I use, if you put them together, form the "1 alg" you use. Mine are just used more effectively.


----------



## Kirjava (Feb 4, 2011)

Anyone know a comm to cycle 3 edge on a face turning octahedron?

The only ones I can find affect edges.


----------



## irontwig (Feb 4, 2011)

Kirjava said:


> Anyone know a comm to cycle 3 edge on a face turning octahedron?
> 
> The only ones I can find affect edges.


 
lolwut


----------



## Kirjava (Feb 4, 2011)

lol I meant affect centres.


----------



## ben1996123 (Feb 4, 2011)

3x3 no algs method I came up with a while ago. Just commutators but whatever.

Intuitive cross and 3/4 2nd layer edges
keyhole for 3/4 first layer corners (D moves and R U(') R')
Last F2L edge
Commutators A perm for last first layer corner (something like z x R' D R U' R' D' R U2 R' D R U' R' D' R U')
OELL (z2 M' U2 M U M' U' M' (some D move) inverse, some D move')
OCLL (z' sexymove n stuff)
PCLL (a perm)
PELL (R' E R n stuff)

Example:

Scramble: L U L' U R2 U' B R' L' B2 R2 D2 U2 R2 B' L' B U L' D U2 R2 U2 R' D2
Cross: U B' M x' D2 L' D2 L D2
Edges: L U' L' R' U R F U2 F'
Corners: D' [R U R' U']3 D2 U' [R U R' U']3 D' R U' R' D2 F' U' F D2
Last edge: U' F' U' F (So I can do an example for the corner)
Last corner: U' z x R' D' R U' R' D R U2 R' D' R U' R' D R z'
OELL: x2 y' M' U2 M U M' U' M D2 M' U M U' M' U2 M z2
OCLL: z' [[U' R' U R]2 L]3 z
PCLL: R' D R U2 R' D' R U R' D R U R' D' R
PELL: R' E R U R' E' R U' R' E R U' R' E' R U' R' E R U R' E' R U


----------



## Cubenovice (Feb 4, 2011)

ben1996123 said:


> 3x3 no algs method I came up with a while ago. Just commutators but whatever.
> 
> Intuitive cross and 3/4 2nd layer edges
> keyhole for 3/4 first layer corners (D moves and R U(') R')
> ...


 
The constant switching between edges and corners makes me dizzy...


----------



## ilikecubing (Feb 4, 2011)

An Nb perm i found myself,it might have been discussed before,not sure about that so posted it.

R' U' R U' (L U' R' U L' U2 R U' R' U2 R) U R' U R

also L' U' L U (L U' R' U L' U2 R U' R' U2 R) U' L' U L

similar to R U R' U (J perm) U' R U' R' Na perm


----------



## Kirjava (Feb 4, 2011)

lol wouldn't just doing BH give a lower movecount?


----------



## StachuK1992 (Feb 4, 2011)

y = -(10 (683 x-12100))/(x-100), x != 100 (percent)
x is percentage, and y is days.

x ~= 17.716 right now
I've been cubing for about 17.716% of my life.

And its inverse: y = (100 (x+1210))/(x+6830)
where x is the number of days from now, and y is percentage

On, August 18, 2011, I will have been cubing for 1/5 of my life. (195 days from now)

Find yours.


----------



## Kirjava (Feb 4, 2011)

32%


----------



## ben1996123 (Feb 4, 2011)

Kirjava said:


> lol wouldn't just doing BH give a lower movecount?



Probably, but isn't BH lots and lots and lots and lots and lots and lots and lots and lots of algs?


----------



## Kirjava (Feb 4, 2011)

BH is 0 algs.


----------



## ben1996123 (Feb 4, 2011)

Kirjava said:


> BH is 0 algs.



0.o....

So what is the method with all of the 3 cycles and like, 600 algs then?


----------



## Yes We Can! (Feb 4, 2011)

ben1996123 said:


> 0.o....
> 
> So what is the method with all of the 3 cycles and like, 600 algs then?


 
comms.


----------



## qqwref (Feb 4, 2011)

amostay2004 said:


> First one doesn't seem to work


 
Sorry, should be: x' R U' R u2 L' U M' x' U' R *u2* L' U L R2 x



PS: Also, enough about not calling commutators algs even when how to use them is nontrivial, because plenty of decent algs can be written as (non-obvious) commutators:
H = [M2 U, M2 U']
U = [F2 U2 F2, F2 U M' U' F2]
Z = [M2 U' M' U2 M U M2, M2 U' M2 U M2]
A = [R' F R, R2 B2 R2]
E = x[R U' R', D][R U R', D]
G = [R2 u R' U b, b' R' b]
J = [R' U R, R' L' d2 L R]
N = [L U' R L' U R', R U' L d2 L' U R']
too lazy to try to do the rest lol
EDIT:
T = [l, F R' F'][F R U' R', U']
Y = [U, F R U' R'][l, F R' F']


----------



## ben1996123 (Feb 4, 2011)

Yes said:


> comms.


 
...is it faster than BH?


----------



## Yes We Can! (Feb 4, 2011)

ben1996123 said:


> ...is it faster than BH?


 
BH = Comms (with fixed buffer afaik)

If you don't understand comms, have fun learning 600 algs. Otherwise it's just intuitive.


----------



## Cubenovice (Feb 4, 2011)

Yes said:


> BH = Comms



Ich denke Lolben ist angewiesen...


----------



## qqwref (Feb 4, 2011)

I kinda want to keep going now 
V = [L U' R' U L', U'] [U R', U2]
R = [R U2 R' U2 R', R U R' F']
F = [R', U] [R2 F' R2, R2 U' R2] [R, R2 F R2]
comms~


----------



## irontwig (Feb 4, 2011)

Random 10 move LL alg I learned yesterday: R:[B2 D B',U]


----------



## aronpm (Feb 4, 2011)

Yes said:


> BH = Comms (with fixed buffer afaik)
> 
> If you don't understand comms, have fun learning 600 algs. Otherwise it's just intuitive.


 
It was quite fun, thank you 

And actually it's 378+440=818 "algs".

Yes, I do understand comms, I just wanted to learn each case as an alg.


----------



## Yes We Can! (Feb 4, 2011)

Cubenovice said:


> Ich denke Lolben ist angewiesen...


 
I don't really understand if you are lolben-ing me or lolben 

Aron: oright, I was just thinking about corners and just assumed Ben's number was right.
Did you really learn it ALL by heart without understanding the logic behind it?


----------



## qqwref (Feb 4, 2011)

This is a really ugly commutator for the standard 2gen U perm, is there a nicer one?
[R2 U R U D' z', R U' R']


----------



## JonnyWhoopes (Feb 4, 2011)

qqwref said:


> This is a really ugly commutator for the standard 2gen U perm, is there a nicer one?
> [R2 U R U D' z', R U' R']


 
[R2 D', U2 M' U2 M]

::EDIT Nvm, I'm horrible at comms. That's actually [R2 D': [U2, M']]


----------



## irontwig (Feb 4, 2011)

JonnyWhoopes said:


> [R2 D', U2 M' U2 M]
> 
> ::EDIT Nvm, I'm horrible at comms. That's actually [R2 D': [U2, M']]


 


qqwref said:


> the standard 2gen U perm


 
>_>


----------



## ben1996123 (Feb 4, 2011)

I just made a 2x2x1 scrambler for the lolz.

Download and change file extension to .swf


----------



## JonnyWhoopes (Feb 4, 2011)

irontwig said:


> >_>


 
ohai there. I really should just stop posting.


----------



## aronpm (Feb 5, 2011)

Yes said:


> Aron: oright, I was just thinking about corners and just assumed Ben's number was right.
> Did you really learn it ALL by heart without understanding the logic behind it?


 
Well I had to make the alg first, that requires the commutator knowledge. But I used programs to associate letter pairs with the alg (like KR = RUM'U2MUR'), so that I wouldn't have to do any thinking while solving corners. Edges are still a bit thinky, I haven't fully associated all the cases yet, but I can solve every cycle.


----------



## ben1996123 (Feb 5, 2011)

z D' U' R2 D R D' R2 U R' D R


----------



## vcuber (Feb 5, 2011)

im sorry, im entirely new here and thought that the "random cubing discussion" page would be the place to ask this. how do people get so fast at things like the megaminx and v cube 7? im already entirely too slow with them (megaminx is 8 minutes 5 seconds and the v7 is about 18 minutes). but then you go to youtube and like, within the first minute they have all the centers done. i know it requires practice, but surely it must require something more?


----------



## uberCuber (Feb 5, 2011)

vcuber said:


> im sorry, im entirely new here and thought that the "random cubing discussion" page would be the place to ask this. how do people get so fast at things like the megaminx and v cube 7? im already entirely too slow with them (megaminx is 8 minutes 5 seconds and the v7 is about 18 minutes). but then you go to youtube and like, within the first minute they have all the centers done. i know it requires practice, but surely it must require something more?


 
that something more is even more practice, and with practice you discover your own tricks to deal with certain cases faster. There really is nothing else to say. For megaminx I can sub-2:15, and I have never looked at a single megaminx tutorial of any kind, and I very rarely practice it, same with 7x7, and i can sub-9 that


----------



## vcuber (Feb 5, 2011)

uberCuber said:


> that something more is even more practice, and with practice you discover your own tricks to deal with certain cases faster. There really is nothing else to say. For megaminx I can sub-2:15, and I have never looked at a single megaminx tutorial of any kind, and I very rarely practice it, same with 7x7, and i can sub-9 that


 
well then compared to me i guess you are the ubercuber


----------



## JonnyWhoopes (Feb 5, 2011)

Also, for future reference, questions that generally would have only one answer, or limited answers, should go to the OAQT (One Answer Question Thread).

Welcome to the forums!


----------



## TMOY (Feb 5, 2011)

ben1996123 said:


> 0.o....
> 
> So what is the method with all of the 3 cycles and like, 600 algs then?


 
It's lolBH.


----------



## uberCuber (Feb 5, 2011)

vcuber said:


> well then compared to me i guess you are the ubercuber


 
its the internet, so its hard to tell the tone of this post, but just to clarify I wasn't trying to show off that I am faster than you (there's no point in that; besides I am slow compared to a lot of people anyway). my point was that I have gotten to that speed without looking at tutorials; improvement came simply from practicing and finding out tricks myself


----------



## Diniz (Feb 5, 2011)

Lol, pretty useless, but i just figured out how to do the last layer with only F R U R' U' F' + setups.
Making T= F R U R' U' F' 

*OLL:*
Pretty easy to orient edges..
To orient corners use this Antisune alg: T U' T U T T

*PLL:*
If the corners are diagonaly permuted use:
Y perm: T T U2 T U' (Antisune) U2 (Antisune) U' (Antisune) U

If the are adjcently permuted use:
F R' F' (Y perm) F R F'

To permute edges use:
U perm: T (Antisune) U T

41secs single =P:





The method i use is intuitive cross + second layer edges, then I use FRUR'U'F' to solve the first layer corners, then OLL and PLL.


----------



## Cubenovice (Feb 7, 2011)

If you ever run into a LL that is solved apart from two opposite flipped corners and you do not know commutators:

A right-left or left-right combo of the fingertricky "corner-twisted-in-place" F2L alg twists your opposite LL corners:
R U R' U2 R U' R' U R U R' 

BTW I was amazed to find that a google search on speedsolving.com:"R U R' U2 R U' R' U R U R'" only resulted in two posts, not even mentioning it's use for F2L


----------



## riffz (Feb 8, 2011)

Cubenovice said:


> If you ever run into a LL that is solved apart from two opposite flipped corners and you do not know commutators:
> 
> A right-left or left-right combo of the fingertricky "corner-twisted-in-place" F2L alg twists your opposite LL corners:
> R U R' U2 R U' R' U R U R'
> ...


 
I would just do R U' R' U R U2' R' U R U' R' for F2L and not pay attention to anything else.


----------



## qqwref (Feb 8, 2011)

Cubenovice said:


> If you ever run into a LL that is solved apart from two opposite flipped corners and you do not know commutators:
> 
> A right-left or left-right combo of the fingertricky "corner-twisted-in-place" F2L alg twists your opposite LL corners:
> R U R' U2 R U' R' U R U R'


So you're saying the full algorithm would be:
R U R' U2 R U' R' U R U R' y' R' U' R U2 R' U R U' R' U' R

This is actually pretty decent, although there are certainly a few ways to do those twisted-corner ones, so I have a feeling I'd end up getting this one wrong as often as right. Perhaps this is nicer:
(r' u R2 u' r U2)2
And a 2gen way based on the sune-sune 2-flip:
R U' (R U R' U R U2 R' U2 R' U' R U' R' U2 R) U' R'


----------



## Tim Reynolds (Feb 8, 2011)

My RUL alg for that case, which I think flows nicely.

R U' R' (L' U2 L U L' U L) R U2 R' U'


----------



## StachuK1992 (Feb 8, 2011)

Cubenovice said:


> R U R' U2 R U' R' U R U R'


 
Welcome to CLS!


----------



## Cubenovice (Feb 8, 2011)

Because I am very lazy when it comes to learning algs I execute this as:
R U R' U2 R U' R' U R U R' y L' U' L U2 L' U L U' L' U' L

That's right I am so lazy I just use left handed versions of most my algs... Also for OLL and PLL


----------



## Tyjet66 (Feb 9, 2011)

I'm sick of my Dayan + MF8, it's like brand new and I freaking hate it!!! So, I'm thinking of selling it online, what would be a fair price for one? I have barely used it and it is pre-lubed.


----------



## bobthegiraffemonkey (Feb 10, 2011)

For opposite corners flipped in U I would probably use:
R U2 R' L' U' L U' R U' R' L' U2 L (U)


----------



## Kirjava (Feb 10, 2011)

U' D2 R2 F2 B2 U' D' B R2 B2 L' B2 L2 D U L2 U D2 R U D' B' D U B2

CF; y R2F2R2 x'y'
L; UM'U'x'
R; R'UM'U'RU'M2Ur2
LSE; UMUM'UMU2M'U'M'U2MU2R2

29 moves / 9.57 seconds = 3.0 tps


----------



## hatter (Feb 10, 2011)

I didn't want to make a new thread for this but thought someone may be interested in it.

http://www.hottopic.com/hottopic/Ac...-Gravity-Puzzle-Cube-BiFold-Wallet-939976.jsp


----------



## riffz (Feb 11, 2011)

hatter said:


> I didn't want to make a new thread for this but thought someone may be interested in it.
> 
> http://www.hottopic.com/hottopic/Ac...-Gravity-Puzzle-Cube-BiFold-Wallet-939976.jsp


 
 Do want.


----------



## Ordos_Koala (Feb 11, 2011)

hatter said:


> http://www.hottopic.com/hottopic/Ac...-Gravity-Puzzle-Cube-BiFold-Wallet-939976.jsp


 
This bi-fold wallet features a puzzle cube image. Interior includes card slots, a clear ID display and a billfold.
I read "blindfold" instead of billfold


----------



## ben1996123 (Feb 15, 2011)

Bad R perm:

(R' F R F') U (r U R' U' M) U' (r U R' U' M) U

Best so far is 1.60, good, considering the alg I normally use is almost sup 2

EDIT: Just got 1.41 (√2 ftw.)


----------



## Tim Major (Feb 17, 2011)

3x3 top 100 averages.
1 from 2008.
1 from 2009.
69 from 2010.
29 from one and a half months so far in 2011.

Top 15 are sub 10.
8 from 2010.
7 from 2011.

Why are the standards getting so much higher, and why are the most recent, the fastest? Is it new cubes (I don't believe this is the case)? The fact that more people are competing in competitions?
Also, I thought it was interesting to note that only 2 averages from before 2010 made the top 100.


----------



## Cubenovice (Feb 17, 2011)

Simple: There are more kids these days.
And the faster you solve your cube, the smaller the chance that some random kid grabs your cube and poses with it!


----------



## Tim Major (Feb 17, 2011)

Cubenovice said:


> some random kid grabs your cube and poses with it!


Some random kid!!
Shouldn't there be more chance, considering you mentioned there are more kids these days?


----------



## qqwref (Feb 17, 2011)

Tim Major said:


> Also, I thought it was interesting to note that only 2 averages from before 2010 made the top 100.


 
Oh yeah, and those two averages are *tied*.

What. The. ****.


Anyway I think there are two reasons: first, people are legitimately getting faster due to better cubes; second, it often takes a few competitions to start to get good times. Nobody would have a top100 average from 2009 or earlier if they haven't improved it; and the good averages are all relatively recent because it just took a while for people to get that fast and then to do it in comp.

Another interesting thing: in the top 100 averages, there are none from <2008 and two from 2009 (Zolnowski and Pichedpan).


----------



## AndrewRocks (Feb 17, 2011)

*Speed of New Method*

I just learned Petrus, I'm a bit disappointed because I thought it would be very unique. The first two layers is very neat and fun, but the last layer seems just like 2 look oll/pll. Maybe I had a bad guide, dunno. :confused:

Anyway, I timed my first Petrus attempt and it turned out to be 3:27. Which I'm pretty happy with, I imagine I can get it to under a minute with a little more practice. I can do Freidrich's in about 45 seconds.


----------



## CubicNL (Feb 17, 2011)

AndrewRocks said:


> I just learned Petrus, I'm a bit disappointed because I thought it would be very unique. The first two layers is very neat and fun, but the last layer seems just like 2 look oll/pll. Maybe I had a bad guide, dunno. :confused:
> 
> Anyway, I timed my first Petrus attempt and it turned out to be 3:27. Which I'm pretty happy with, I imagine I can get it to under a minute with a little more practice. I can do Freidrich's in about 45 seconds.



Last layer is the last look of 2-look oll, because with Petrus you orient the edges before finishing F2L and pll is just the same as normal.


----------



## irontwig (Feb 17, 2011)

No Petrus LL is COLL+EPLL or 2GLL if CP is skipped.


----------



## Bapao (Feb 17, 2011)

Magix said:


> Hey people, there are enough of those "how to get faster" threads around here, thought I'd just ask here. I keep reading about beginners who say they get like an average of 1 minute 30 on beginners method and stuff. I was at like 3 minutes on beginners method and now with friedrichs (2 look oll pll) I'm at around 1 min 15 sec average. Best was I believe 51 seconds.
> 
> Now I know practice, lookahead, less cube rotation, etc, but compared to these beginners I seem to be getting horrible times. Am I doing something wrong or do I actually just need to practice more? >.<
> How long did it take you all to get a constant average of like sub 50, 40, etc?



It took me 2 months of off and on practice to get 48sec on beginners method. 
I adapted the corner alg I had learnt for the first layer to make the corners rotate in both directions instead of repeating one alg 5 times in just one direction. 
I also concentrated on intuitive cross methods, put the cross on the bottom ect. 
I'm currently practicing Key Hole and still need to get proficient at that. I also swapped several of the beginner algs for faster ones which cut down cube rotations. 
Giving intuitive F2L a shot also helps you learn about corner/ edge pairs. Although I don't purposely make pairs yet, I still insert them if they happen to create themselves during a solve. 
All of the above helped me get faster at beginners method. 
Bear in mind that I am a really slow learner and still wrist the cube a lot, so others will manage 50 seconds using beginners method faster.


----------



## CubicNL (Feb 17, 2011)

irontwig said:


> No Petrus LL is COLL+EPLL or 2GLL if CP is skipped.


That's a possibility, the way he does it is with 2-look oll and pll


----------



## JonnyWhoopes (Feb 17, 2011)

CubicNL said:


> That's a possibility, the way he does it is with 2-look oll and pll


 
IIRC on Petrus' website, COLL+EPLL was the advance path he recommends.


----------



## Kirjava (Feb 17, 2011)

R U B' U' R' F2 U2 D' L R' F2 U2 L' D U L' B' F' U F U2 F' R L D

yU'FM2x
U2R'URUrU'MU'R'UrU'R'UR
R2B'R'BR'F'U'FRUR'
M2UMU2MUM2U2M2

39 moves / 6.42 seconds = 6 tps


----------



## Anonymous (Feb 17, 2011)

I'm pretty sure I've seen at least a few pretty fast Petrus users use "2-look OLL" + PLL. (I think it's more accurate to say OCLL than 'two look OLL' in this case, but whatever.)


----------



## JonnyWhoopes (Feb 17, 2011)

Anonymous said:


> I'm pretty sure I've seen at least a few pretty fast Petrus users use "2-look OLL" + PLL. (I think it's more accurate to say OCLL than 'two look OLL' in this case, but whatever.)


 
That doesn't mean that Petrus doesn't recommend COLL+EPLL.


----------



## qqwref (Feb 17, 2011)

The real essence of the Petrus method is the way the F2L is constructed. Petrus's website contains a whole bunch of different ways to do the last layer, so it's clear there is not one official style "Petrus LL". There's nothing wrong with using OCLL+PLL if you're already used to the recognition and algorithms (in fact it's probably a far better idea than switching to something which is about equally fast, like COLL+EPLL).


----------



## Anonymous (Feb 17, 2011)

I was just commenting. OCLL + PLL, COLL + EPLL, COELL + CPLL, they're all perfectly legitimate LL techniques for methods like Petrus. I was mostly talking about what the first guy said, which was something to the effect of "I was disappointed that the LL system was the same".


----------



## KYLOL (Feb 17, 2011)

Just from my personal experience - The fastest way to do the final layer with the Petrus method is to force OLL skips ( Study a bit of Winter Variation for tips ). I get skips around 8-10% of the time if I had to make a quick estimate. I should clarify that I manipulate the Last layer very early, sometimes I can see that I have 2-3 LL corners already oriented so I will try to build the rest of my F2L while preserving them. It does become difficult because the move count starts to pile up a bit, but I think it still trims a bit of time in the end. And a quick update for anyone who cares - I'm average low 13's with the Petrus method. Hi Thom and Michael.

edit: typos


----------



## Kirjava (Feb 17, 2011)

Oh hey Kyle. Be faster.


----------



## oll+phase+sync (Feb 17, 2011)

The last 2 month I spend improving my Petrus times. (but I believe all this applies to ZZ as well)

1. I tried EJF2L (I an Im case of MGLS) to simplify Step 2 - (it's appliable in Step 4 , too) --- MY PROBLEM IS - Most time in Step 2 I need for finding the 3 pieces, not in solving them.

2. COLL + "Last 5 Edges" (<- From L2L4) {{to simplify Step 2 - (it's appliable in Step 4 , too) }} --- That really means only tracking 2 pieces instead of 3. (instead of the F2L EDGE you place any U Layer Edge) --- MY PROBLEM IS if I place th U-Layer Edge missoriented I have to use extra mind power for Step 3 (Edge Orientation)

3. Partial COLL - When I first read on this forum COLL recognition would be faster than PLL recognition I didn't believe that, but meanwhile I recognize many of my favorite fast COLLs the moment I see the OCLL case --- This definitivley makes me faster. (and I think it's a quite common strategy )

4. Phase recognition - that means in sometimes at the End of F2L (step 4) I just see what the edge case is (If its just 1 move I still aktivly phase). Now I just pick a suitable COLL (e.g. Sune or Antisune or Niklas), that way I'm able to narrow down the range of possible PLLs (often down to just 2)
This sounds compex, but even selecting and doing an N-perm is faster for me than full PLL recognition + execution for my favorite PLL.
- My personal feeling is that this way of solving is the fastest LastLayer stategy I can do currently. 

EXPERIMENTALs

STEP2 MGLS: The idea is simple - plan ahead full step1+2 during inspection  ... since this is pretty much impossible skip one Corner completely to make it easier - this is very similar to EJF2L - This would almost be a full step skip every solve  - but it's above my processing power  

My next MGLS idea was to merge Step 2 and Step 3 together (and again not solving the Step 2 corner at all ) - that means orienting all edges wihle placing both Step 2 edges, --- It feels a little bit like EOLINE to me (with the bonus that at least 4 edges are already oriented), maybe it would be a good simplyfication to only orient U and D edges during this merging step ??? 

I would be interessted if anyone tried things like this? 

P.S. My Roux times improved even without traininig, so I didn't fullfill my signature goal


----------



## Cyrus C. (Feb 17, 2011)

When doing the Step2 MGLS you have to make sure that the corner is a U layer corner.


----------



## KYLOL (Feb 18, 2011)

Kirjava said:


> Oh hey Kyle. Be faster.


 
I'm trying to get good at BLD. Leave me alone!
I'm too fat to be faster.


----------



## oll+phase+sync (Feb 18, 2011)

Cyrus C. said:


> When doing the Step2 MGLS you have to make sure that the corner is a U layer corner.


 
Right - Odds are 5 good corners against 2 bad - I would hope its not so much of a problem if you spot them early enough.


----------



## qqwref (Feb 19, 2011)

Does anyone do the "L-perm" this way?

R' U' R B R' U' R U R B' R2' U R U
or: R' U' l U l' U' R U l U' l' R' U R U


----------



## blade740 (Feb 22, 2011)

How I recognize Square-1 Permutation using blocks and bars.

Also applies to 3x3 PLL and 4x4 (redux) parity PLL. 

http://crunchatize.me/square-1-pll-recognition/


----------



## qqwref (Feb 22, 2011)

Cool site, very nice diagrams (might also be useful for 4x4, arguably?). It's really too bad there isn't any way to represent the Ph perm with one letter, though... I like your E/W/Q recognition idea.

I wonder, for all you guys with the WCA database and SQL experience, has anyone (i.e. list the people who) improved their personal best single or average, in any event, by a multiple of 10.00 seconds? (Anything where the hundredths weren't recorded doesn't count, of course, since you can't tell if it was an exact multiple or not.)


----------



## ben1996123 (Feb 24, 2011)

R U' R2 U2 R r U R' U' r' U2 R U

pure 2 flip adjacent. Ive used it in F2L for ages but only just realised it was pure with a U at the end  can sub 2 it easily.


----------



## irontwig (Feb 24, 2011)

Pretty prå alg.


----------



## Kenneth (Feb 25, 2011)

Supercube centre piece orientation comutator:

A : M' E M
B : U/U'/U2

A setup the R-centre to the U-layer, B orients it to any position you like, A' restores centres to their correct positions and B' orients the U-centre in the opposite direction compared to R.

Example, orients R and U' : (M' E M) U (M' E' M) U'


----------



## DavidWoner (Feb 26, 2011)

2.06 F' R2 F2 U R2 U F' R2 F2 R' U' 

z R' U R U' R' U' R U' R' / R2' F2 R2 U

I'd been wanting a new non-separating alg for that orientation case for ages, so I made it up during inspection


----------



## Anthony (Feb 26, 2011)

DavidWoner said:


> I'd been wanting a new non-separating alg for that orientation case for ages, so I made it up during inspection


Like a boss.


----------



## JackJ (Feb 26, 2011)

My solution to Erik's infamous 7.08.

Scramble: D2 R2 F2 L' B2 R F2 R' F2 D2 U2 R U B D B2 L2 B' L R2 F'

F L' U' D
F R' F' R
U' y' R U2 R' U' R U R'
L' U L2 U' L'
U L' U2 L2 F' L' F
U2 F R U R' U' F' f R U R' U' f'
R2 u' R U' R U R' u R2' y R U' R' U2

F L' U' D F R' F' R U' y' R U2 R' U' R U R' L' U L2 U' L' U L' U2 L2 F' L' F U2 F R U R' U' F' f R U R' U' f' R2 u' R U' R U R' u R2' y R U' R' U2


----------



## Anthony (Feb 26, 2011)

DavidWoner said:


> 2.06 F' R2 F2 U R2 U F' R2 F2 R' U'
> 
> z R' U R U' R' U' R U' R' / R2' F2 R2 U



I just tried it and that's awesome.  I hated doing F' L F L' F' L F L' for that case.


----------



## Kirjava (Feb 28, 2011)

20:23:25 <+Kirjava> YESSS
20:23:31 <+Kirjava> 9.25 R2 D2 U2 L D2 B F' U2 F' U2 F' U' L2 F' L2 B' R D2 R2 L' F B R2 F2 U2 
20:23:36 <+Kirjava> non matching    
20:24:17 <+Kirjava> x2 y' U'R2UL z'
20:24:30 < Asdfgfdsa> Kirjava: pro master epic champion :O
20:24:42 < jernqvist> lol4pairs
20:24:48 <+Kirjava> r2UR'U'RUR2U'R2UR
20:25:05 <+Kirjava> RU2R'U'RU'R'
20:26:09 <+Kirjava> M'U(M'M2)UM2UM'U2LR
20:26:21 < statuek> ,seen jernqvist
20:26:23 <+Nibblr> jernqvist was seen speaking in #rubik 1m40s ago
20:26:26 < statuek> ,seen j`ey
20:26:26 < statuek> *
20:26:28 <+Nibblr> j`ey was seen speaking in #rubik 5h42m48s ago
20:26:34 <+Kirjava> 32 mvoes lol


----------



## Xishem (Mar 2, 2011)

Could anyone give me an average movecount for 5x5 (or 4x4, but preferably 5) centers for reduction in STM? I'd like to know what fast people average.


----------



## DavidWoner (Mar 2, 2011)

Anthony said:


> I just tried it and that's awesome.  I hated doing F' L F L' F' L F L' for that case.


 
Well that's just sexy move written a stupid way. Previously I was using R U2 R' U' R2 U' R2'

But I like that sexymove version for preserving FL permutation, as long as you hold it at a different angle.


----------



## AngeL (Mar 2, 2011)

At what point during a big cube solve is parity determined? I'm guessing you're locked in to a particular parity once you finish the Reduction Phase, but I don't know enough about cubing theory to back that up.


----------



## qqwref (Mar 2, 2011)

Parity is determined once you finish two adjacent centers, assuming you never make those centers more than one move from solved.


----------



## uberCuber (Mar 2, 2011)

qqwref said:


> Parity is determined once you finish two adjacent centers, assuming you never make those centers more than one move from solved.


 
oh wow its that soon? I always thought it wasn't until you completely finished the centers..


----------



## bobthegiraffemonkey (Mar 2, 2011)

qqwref said:


> Parity is determined once you finish two adjacent centers, assuming you never make those centers more than one move from solved.


 
Surely that depends? On even layered cubes PLL parity is influenced by how you pair up edges, unless I'm much mistaken. [d, R F' U R' F] [u', F' R U' F R'], where d and u are inner layer turns only, creates PLL parity without 'unsolving' the centers. Though I guess if you want to get technical, PLL 'parity' isn't actually a parity since it is 2 2-cycles.


----------



## qqwref (Mar 2, 2011)

Fair enough, my post was only talking about the OLL parities (which are the same as BLD parities). PLL parity can be fixed with 3-cycles only, so it is indeed affected by exactly how the edges are paired.


----------



## Cyrus C. (Mar 3, 2011)

Has anybody done much development of a method for the Vulcan? 

This is the method I've worked out for it:
1. Solve one side of the puzzle, minus the tips. 


Spoiler











2. Solve the next layer.


Spoiler










3. Solve the tips.


Spoiler










4. Pair the edges up with Ro U' Ro' U' Ro U' Ro' and Ro U Ro' U Ro U Ro'.


Spoiler










5. Parity fix with ???.
6. Solve last layer like in normal pyraminx

- For parity I just mess around with the edges a bit, and hope it solves, I haven't worked out an actual algorithm. 
- "o" means outer layer. So Ro means the Right outer layer. It's weird, sorry. Is there any better alternative?
- If you want to get advanced you can place edges while pairing them for the Last Layer, rather than pairing then solving.

EDIT: Found a parity fix: Ro U Ro' U Ro U Ro U Ro U Ro' U Ro

It's in my weird notation, sorry. If you don't understand, tell me and I'll elaborate. Even better, present me with better notation methods.


----------



## asportking (Mar 3, 2011)

Maybe just a lowercase letter instead of "o" for outer layers? Besides that, I can't really think of any other notation methods, but I think your's works just fine.


----------



## deepSubDiver (Mar 3, 2011)

For Fridrich, ZZ or Roux, does anyone solve corner permutation before finishing F2L/2nd block? Still trying to find a good system for recognition..


----------



## StachuK1992 (Mar 3, 2011)

deepSubDiver said:


> For Fridrich, ZZ or Roux, does anyone solve corner permutation before finishing F2L/2nd block? Still trying to find a good system for recognition..


 If you're referring to ZZ-d (or otherwise reducing the LL to 2GLL), this can actually be done somewhat easily;
Let's say you were doing a ZZ solve, and had done the left block (so you have your 2x2x3, basically, with oriented edges.
From there, get one corner (probably DBR) in place. This should be a maximum of 2 moves, because you don't care about orientation.
From there, there are only 6 cases. 

But then there's recognition, which is the same as my CPLS recognition "method."

Basically:
you can used a shortened/optimal CPLS if you'd like.


----------



## deepSubDiver (Mar 3, 2011)

Sounds like a little too much overhead but I guess I'm getting you wrong. What I basically do is putting the D corners into D (not essentially permuted) and apply one of two algs (L U' (R'/R2) U L') to solve CP. Continuing with a <R,U,Rw,M> right block, the LL will be a 2GLL case.


----------



## DavidWoner (Mar 3, 2011)

Average of 5: 1.86
1. 1.79 R' F R U' F' R2 U R' U' R' U'
y R U R U' R' U' y' R2 U R2' U

2. 1.54 F' R2 F2 R' F2 R' U R' U' R' U'
x y' F' U' R U R' U' R2 U' R2' U

3. (2.75) R F2 U' F' R U F' R U' R' U'
z' R' U2 R B2 R2' F R U R' U' F' U2

4. (1.16) R F2 R' F' U R2 U' F' U' R' U'
F2 R U R' U' F'

5. 2.25 F' R F U' F U' F R2 F' R' U' 
z2 R U' R' U R U2' L U2 R' U R' F'

I lold


----------



## Anthony (Mar 4, 2011)

Remember when Yumu got his 10.83 WR average not THAT long ago and most people were like "SUB 11?!!"?






Andrew Kang and Paolo Moriello are tied at 50th right now with 10.87 averages.


----------



## IamWEB (Mar 4, 2011)

Well that was back when competition times actually had some differences between practice times.


----------



## qqwref (Mar 4, 2011)

Can anyone post some sample solves or something for the Nutella pyraminx method? I watched the tutorial, but still don't really understand what you have to recognize, or what's being solved when.


----------



## Kenneth (Mar 4, 2011)

F-PLL + U/U' and you can solve it using A-PLL and Z-PLL. So... F=A+Z


----------



## y235 (Mar 4, 2011)

It reminds me, why Faz called like that?


----------



## StachuK1992 (Mar 4, 2011)

y235 said:


> It reminds me, why Faz called like that?


 I lol'd.


----------



## Kenneth (Mar 4, 2011)

y235 said:


> It reminds me, why Faz called like that?



Feliks Almighty Zemdegs (or something).


----------



## y235 (Mar 4, 2011)

Thanks


----------



## amostay2004 (Mar 7, 2011)

F R' U2 D' B' R L' D R' F2 R D' L B' L B' F2 u D2 f' D' F2 L2 f D2 R' D U' B' D2 R B D2 F U2 u2 r2 L R2 B

4x4 scramble from qqtimer with only 5 double layer turns 

I got 50s OLL parity on this, good for me


----------



## Tim Major (Mar 9, 2011)

qqwref said:


> Can anyone post some sample solves or something for the Nutella pyraminx method? I watched the tutorial, but still don't really understand what you have to recognize, or what's being solved when.


 
Ok, I just looked at the first 2~ minutes of the video then, with your post in mind.
It's basically Oka, but different first few steps (unless I'm understanding wrongly). It seems very similar to Oka, Oka style, just it does avoid bad cases, and does more at once.

Scramble: U L R U L' R' L R B' R L' (I just took the tips off) 

Youtube Oka
1. B' L'
2. R Dw' R' Dw' R
3. L' R' L R
This solves the top 2 edges around a corner, then orients centres, then places the 3rd top edge. It now leaves the bottom 3 edges to be solved.

Advanced Oka
1. L' R
2. (U) R Dw' R L' R' L R
3. (U') R U R'
In this case the last 3 edges skipped, it's basically inserting 1 edge solved, then the second edge, so that it would be right with 3 moves (into the other slot). This is "solved" for now. You then orient the centres, find the 3rd edge and do R U R' to simultaneously solve the 2nd and 3rd edge. This is to be used in combination with Oka, youtube style, and you look ahead to see which method would work better, and to make sure the 3rd edges isn't in the 2nd edge's spot.
Another example of Oka, Oka style to clarify.


Spoiler



U L U R L' B' U L U' L' B
1. 
2. U' L U L' U' R'
3. Dw L' U L


Now back to the original scramble, and using the Nutella method.

Nutella Method
1. B U L U R' L (B, U')
2. Dw' R' L' R L' R L

I rotate to put what the aim of the first step is. One of the top edges solved (at the back), and the other 2 swapped, but on the right colour.

You then finish just like Oka.

Notation: Normal Pyraminx notation, with (U) = rotations with a U turn, followed by the bottom. Also, Dw' = turning the bottom layer like a 3x3.


----------



## qqwref (Mar 9, 2011)

Ahh, I think I see now. I was trying to also pair up the B corner, and also wasn't sure whether you had freedom to place any two of the three front edges in those two slots. The video doesn't really make it clear, but I think I could actually do some Nutella solves now (once I learn the algs).


----------



## Carrot (Mar 9, 2011)

advanced Oka should be:
1(Forcing an easier center case than just L): (U) L' U R 
2+3: U' R L' U' R'


----------



## EVH (Mar 12, 2011)

(R u R' u') (R U R' U')x3 6 Edge Flipper

Sorry if I'm not the first to create this.


----------



## cincyaviation (Mar 12, 2011)

EVH said:


> (R u R' u') (R U R' U')x3 6 Edge Flipper
> 
> Sorry if I'm not the first to create this.


 
I think you mean (R u R' u') x3 (R U R' U') x3


----------



## riffz (Mar 12, 2011)

cincyaviation said:


> I think you mean (R u R' u') x3 (R U R' U') x3


 
Yup, and Stefan posted that in the BLD algs thread.


----------



## nitay6669 (Mar 13, 2011)

((R U R' U')x2 (R U' R' U)x2)X2 3 corners flip


----------



## Kirjava (Mar 17, 2011)




----------



## DavidWoner (Mar 17, 2011)

I lold, then I got sad


----------



## Andrew Ricci (Mar 18, 2011)

Funny thing is, if you do the OLL parity fix (4x4) on 3x3, it has the exact same effects except for the single edge flip (duh).

r2 B2 U2 L U2 R' U2 R U2 F2 R F2 L' B2 r2 

Besides being impractical and irrational, it's awesome!


----------



## JonnyWhoopes (Mar 18, 2011)

theanonymouscuber said:


> Funny thing is, if you do the OLL parity fix (4x4) on 3x3, it has the exact same effects except for the single edge flip (duh).
> 
> r2 B2 U2 L U2 R' U2 R U2 F2 R F2 L' B2 r2
> 
> Besides being impractical and irrational, it's awesome!


 
I'm pretty sure that the r is unnecessary. They can just be R2s.


----------



## Anonymous (Mar 18, 2011)

Kirjava said:


>


 
Did he give up on 1LLL? He was toying with the idea, I thought.


----------



## oll+phase+sync (Mar 18, 2011)

Anonymous said:


> Did he give up on 1LLL? He was toying with the idea, I thought.


 
Who he is?


----------



## Tim Major (Mar 18, 2011)

oll+phase+sync said:


> Who he is?


 
Chris Tran.


----------



## asportking (Mar 18, 2011)

So, this just randomly occurred to me (that's why I'm posting it in the Random cubing discussion thread), what if there was a thing where you had to reassemble a 3X3 as fast as possible? It would be kind of pointless, but maybe a little fun.


----------



## MaeLSTRoM (Mar 18, 2011)

Has anyone else noticed that you can recognise colors better in daylight than in artificial light, artificial just seemt too "yellow".


----------



## Andrew Ricci (Mar 18, 2011)

JonnyWhoopes said:


> I'm pretty sure that the r is unnecessary. They can just be R2s.


 
Ah, I see. Thanks for that.


----------



## aronpm (Mar 18, 2011)

MaeLSTRoM said:


> Has anyone else noticed that you can recognise colors better in daylight than in artificial light, artificial just seemt too "yellow".


 
You can get white lights.


----------



## DavidWoner (Mar 18, 2011)

asportking said:


> So, this just randomly occurred to me (that's why I'm posting it in the Random cubing discussion thread), what if there was a thing where you had to reassemble a 3X3 as fast as possible? It would be kind of pointless, but maybe a little fun.


 
http://www.speedcubing.com/records/recs_dext_assemble_333.html


----------



## Kirjava (Mar 21, 2011)

http://games.groups.yahoo.com/group/speedsolvingrubikscube/message/5368

lol


----------



## Tim Major (Mar 22, 2011)

Kirjava said:


> http://games.groups.yahoo.com/group/speedsolvingrubikscube/message/5368
> 
> lol


 
I lol'd.
And "These pads in the future will be modified with the Rubiks logo etc
and will be implemented onto the rubiks site for purchase and will be
used for all future events..."
This never happened, and isn't planned to happen is it? I don't see any reason for it.


----------



## Kirjava (Mar 23, 2011)




----------



## Kirjava (Mar 25, 2011)

http://www.areyoulogical.com/cube/snydermethod3.html

Vapourware. Snyder is a nut.


----------



## Yes We Can! (Mar 25, 2011)

Kirjava said:


>


 
Did you record it last Friday?


----------



## Kirjava (Mar 25, 2011)

Kirjava said:


> http://www.areyoulogical.com/cube/snydermethod3.html


 
"I estimate that I have solved the cube 1.7 million times."

...


----------



## Cubenovice (Mar 25, 2011)

" It will forever change cube solving as it will allow the solver to average about 30 turns in a speed solve."


----------



## miniGOINGS (Mar 25, 2011)

Kirjava said:


> http://www.areyoulogical.com/cube/snydermethod3.html
> 
> Vapourware. Snyder is a nut.


 
I am seriously suspicious of his claims (even though he told me not to be!) and do not plan on supporting him with money so thathe can come up with a method to solve the cube (in an average of 4.5 seconds) in about a year. On the plus side though, it can be learned "in a few months time".


----------



## Kirjava (Mar 25, 2011)

Yeah. Kirjava is skeptical.

Snyder should tell me his ideas for this, as there's no way something like this is possible with the conventional style of methods.

Potentially possible with flowcharting and some type of recognition abstraction.


----------



## miniGOINGS (Mar 25, 2011)

Kirjava said:


> Yeah. Kirjava is skeptical.
> 
> Snyder should tell me his ideas for this, as there's no way something like this is possible with the conventional style of methods.
> 
> Potentially possible with flowcharting and some type of recognition abstraction.



Well, he says that he's going to make a program (?) that determines that fastest humanly possible way of sovling the cube (method, algorithms, fingertricks, etc.), which I'm not sure is even possible. I mean, I would love to see this actually happen, but then why hasn't it already?

It seems like method ideas are becoming exhausted at such a rate that if there was a "Snyder Method 3", it would have been found by now, but oh well.


----------



## Owen (Mar 25, 2011)

http://www.speedsolving.com/forum/showthread.php?24822-Tony-Snyder-solves-the-cube

Lots of discussion about the Snyder method here.


----------



## miniGOINGS (Mar 25, 2011)

Owen said:


> http://www.speedsolving.com/forum/showthread.php?24822-Tony-Snyder-solves-the-cube
> 
> Lots of discussion about the Snyder method here.



Yea, I was reading his page on the Wiki (http://www.speedsolving.com/wiki/index.php/User:Tony_Snyder) and his method's page (http://www.speedsolving.com/wiki/index.php/Snyder) a while ago, and now I'm just not sure whether he is being hopeful or delusional.


----------



## teller (Mar 25, 2011)

Kirjava said:


>


 
I dunno what you're doing, but that full frontal U' push is sexy.


----------



## Mike Hughey (Mar 25, 2011)

Kirjava said:


> "I estimate that I have solved the cube 1.7 million times."



I thought that sounded insane, but I did the calculations, and I guess it's not, really. If you assume he spent 1000 hours per year solving the cube, which is just 20 hours a week, in 29 years he'd have spent 1,740,000 minutes solving the cube. That allows him to meet his claim if he can scramble and then solve a cube per minute.

I'm guessing it's a pretty good bet this is exactly how he calculated it - what do you think? So coincidental that it comes out to 1.7 million times.

While 20 hours a week sounded quite reasonable to me at first, it is more than I thought. I just calculated an estimate of the amount of time it took me to do this week's weekly competition (which is probably about 80% of the cubing I do each week, now that I'm back to doing the whole competition each week), and including scrambling and solving time (but not any other wasted time in between), it came to just 10 hours. (I was really surprised - I expected it to be much more!) And that included every single event (including 6x6x6 BLD and 7x7x7 BLD, a full 60 minute multi, and a full 60 minutes on fewest moves), and even BLD solves for each non-cubic puzzle (the megaminx BLD attempt was an hour and 20 minutes). So 20 hours of actual continuous cubing is a lot of time per week, at least from my perspective. Especially if you do it for 29 years!


----------



## qqwref (Mar 25, 2011)

Yeah, it's hard for me to believe that someone could spend 3 hours solving 3x3, every day, for 30 years. It's sure possible, but I can't believe someone would actually do it.

The "Snyder method 3" idea is really iffy too. 30 moves in speedsolving? Choosing the objectively best stages and fingertricks? Requiring a sponsor? It seems many times more likely that Tony is deluded about how much improvement is really possible, than that he can really improve on all existing speed methods by some 30%.


----------



## Anthony (Mar 26, 2011)

1.72 F' R2 F R' F' U' F R' F2 R2 U'

Cool solution
z2 y' F U' R2 U' R2 U R2 U R


----------



## JackJ (Mar 27, 2011)

12.35 reconstruction

R L D B2 R2 F' D' U R L2 D R2 F' D2 B L D U2 F' D2 U2 R2 B2 U R' 

U B' D2 L' U R' F R
y' R U' R2 U R
U R U R' U' R U R' U' R U R' 
y' R U2 R' U' R U R'
U2 r U r' R U R' U' r U' r'
U' F R U' R' U' R U R' F' R U R' U' R' F R F'

63 moves, 5.1 tps


----------



## qqwref (Mar 29, 2011)

A random 8-flip I found:
(l U' R' U2)8


----------



## cmhardw (Mar 30, 2011)

Roux melts my brain, but it's still fun  I just felt that it needed saying


----------



## RyanReese09 (Mar 30, 2011)

cmhardw said:


> Roux melts my brain, but it's still fun  I just felt that it needed saying


 
I saw you start it in the race to sub30 thread so I thought I'd join in! I think it's time I started venturing out to new methods anyway.


----------



## cmhardw (Mar 30, 2011)

RyanReese09 said:


> I saw you start it in the race to sub30 thread so I thought I'd join in! I think it's time I started venturing out to new methods anyway.


 
Sounds good! I'll race you to sub-30 if you're down for it  Right now I can't even pull off consistent sub-60. I'm also going full color neutral with Roux. I figure it's time I did it anyway, and learning a new method is a great excuse to try.


----------



## RyanReese09 (Mar 30, 2011)

cmhardw said:


> Sounds good! I'll race you to sub-30 if you're down for it  Right now I can't even pull off consistent sub-60. I'm also going full color neutral with Roux. I figure it's time I did it anyway, and learning a new method is a great excuse to try.


 
I'm going with white/yellow on my top/bottom with any sort of horizontal holding position (aka YG, YO, WB, WG)

I'm ~ 40. Times vary so much depending on how fast I can recognize a good way to blockbuild.

Let the race commence >.


----------



## DavidWoner (Mar 30, 2011)

cmhardw said:


> Sounds good! I'll race you to sub-30 if you're down for it  Right now I can't even pull off consistent sub-60. I'm also going full color neutral with Roux. I figure it's time I did it anyway, and learning a new method is a great excuse to try.


 
Kir would tell you to keep white/yellow fixed on L/R. He says it makes finding/placing L/R edges during LSE much easier.


----------



## oll+phase+sync (Mar 30, 2011)

DavidWoner said:


> Kir would tell you to keep white/yellow fixed on L/R. He says it makes finding/placing L/R edges during LSE much easier.


I also prefer w/y at L/R and think it's much more beginenr friendly, but as far as I know Waffle uses w/y at U/D.

personally when I tried to do Roux with with yellow on top, I preferd to first place UL or UR and do second edge plus EO watermanish. 

Is there a big green opinion on this?


----------



## oll+phase+sync (Mar 30, 2011)

I tried to learn some fancy stuff for the non matching blocks Roux case ( first block D-color is differnt from second block d-color)

Doing Roux this way is great because you have so much more freedom for your blocks 

Currently instead of fancy I go for simple by using TOTAL DISORIENTATION:

Wich means I use one out of seven standard CO algs (Sune, Bruno, FSexyF', ...) to make my L/R colors face up. (this is total disoriented now)

But there only 4 cases:

F (RUR'U')x3 F'
R2URUR'U'RUR'UR (or what ever DoubleSune variation you like)
RU'L'UR'ULUL'UL (Pi case with bars on top)
R'F2 y'U R2U'R2U'R2 yR (PI case with X on top)

Recog in the same order (a same color pair on the side must have same U-color, too):
2 same color pairs
no same color pairs
1 same color pair
X case

Edit: the only thing wich makes this methode not absolut beginner friendly, is that EO gets a little more difficult with non matching blocks.


----------



## NeedReality (Mar 30, 2011)

oll+phase+sync said:


> I also prefer w/y at L/R and think it's much more beginenr friendly, but as far as I know Waffle uses w/y at U/D.
> 
> personally when I tried to do Roux with with yellow on top, I preferd to first place UL or UR and do second edge plus EO watermanish.
> 
> Is there a big green opinion on this?


 
This is actually kind of odd, because I messaged BigGreen asking him about color orientation earlier today.

I personally use Y/W for U/D, though I'm wondering if switching to fixed side colors would be better (or if fixed top/sides together is too restricting). I found it a bit easier to transition from Fridrich with Y/W on U/D because that's how I did F2L and such, so it was easier to see how pieces matched together for blocks.


----------



## Cubenovice (Mar 30, 2011)

If even Chris is getting into Roux I have no excuse not to try it.
It is the only “main” method I have not looked into yet…

Regarding the non-matching blocks:
Inspired by the usage of pseudo blocks in FMC I have been using these more and more in CFOP, ZZ and Petrus solves over the last couple of weeks.
I find it makes solving more challenging and thus much more fun.

Double face turn pseudo blocks work just fine for EO and LL recognition but the quarter turn pseudo blocks take some more effort.


----------



## riffz (Mar 30, 2011)

Cubenovice said:


> Regarding the non-matching blocks:
> Inspired by the usage of pseudo blocks in FMC I have been using these more and more in *CFOP*, ZZ and Petrus solves over the last couple of weeks.
> I find it makes solving more challenging and thus much more fun.



:\


----------



## Athefre (Mar 30, 2011)

DavidWoner said:


> Kir would tell you to keep white/yellow fixed on L/R. He says it makes finding/placing L/R edges during LSE much easier.


 
You mean Gilles originally would tell someone to use white/yellow on L/R.


----------



## Athefre (Mar 30, 2011)

oll+phase+sync said:


> Edit: the only thing wich makes this methode not absolut beginner friendly, is that EO gets a little more difficult with non matching blocks.


 
The only solutions I've found are:

1.

a. At the end of the second block, since it usually ends in R/R' always adjust the centers to match that block (or the opposite block if you choose).
b. During Step 3, or even during the second block, watch the edge opposite of the the block you adjusted the centers to. So if you adjusted centers to match the right block, watch the UL edge. If you adjusted the centers according to the left block, watch for the UR edge. This edge you are watching is the one that makes non-matching orientation more difficult to recognize. If you know where it is, then you've solved the problem.

2. Cubacca's second LSE idea. And various other LSE methods that don't focus on orientation.


----------



## oll+phase+sync (Mar 30, 2011)

Athefre said:


> 1.
> 
> a. At the end of the second block, since it usually ends in R/R' always adjust the centers to match that block (or the opposite block if you choose).
> b. During Step 3, or even during the second block, watch the edge opposite of the the block you adjusted the centers to. So if you adjusted centers to match the right block, watch the UL edge. If you adjusted the centers according to the left block, watch for the UR edge. This edge you are watching is the one that makes non-matching orientation more difficult to recognize. If you know where it is, then you've solved the problem.


 
Great! and simple !! I can't beleave I never thought of it. I always tracked both UR and UL edge instead of just one.


----------



## miniGOINGS (Mar 30, 2011)

Just got a 16.58 while warming up (6th solve of the day, I average low 20s).

F2 B2 D' B R L2 F' B' L' F2 U2 L' D2 L' U' L2 B2 F L F2 R L' D' B2 F
x' y2
U R' U2 M F u' M2 u (8)
r' U' R2 U' M U r U' r' U' M' U R' U2 R (15/23)
R U R' U R U r' F R' F' R (11/34)
U M' U M' U2 M' U M' U2 M' U2 M' U M' U2 M2 U2 M' (18/52)

Sad thing is, my blocks were pretty bad, and I just found a 10 move CMLL alg for that case. >.<

Some how the L6E was a lot of moves, but had no U' or M, so it was faster than normal I guess.


----------



## JackJ (Apr 3, 2011)

Neat-o solution... blocks came out of nowhere. 

U2 R' U B' U L B' D2 U' F R2 L2 D F D U B D' B F2 L2 R2 F' B L 

x2 F U2 R' F R U
y z' x' F' R U R' L' U' L
F U' y2 x' R U' R' U' R U R' U2 R U' R'
F' r U R' U' r' F R
U R U' R U R U R U' R' U' R2 U' F2

Time: 18.86. Pretty good.


----------



## cmhardw (Apr 5, 2011)

Can anyone confirm this from experience? Does anyone else do this?

I've noticed that fairly often in my Roux solves that at the very end I come down to a commutator 3 cycle during LSE. Most of the time this happens after orienting edges, but my current pb single solve (31.91) it happened immediately after finishing corners.

Looking at it, there are two scenarios where you can end with a commutator 3 cycle, rather than 1) orient edges 2) place L and R edges 3) permute the rest.

Situation 1) After having done F2B and U layer corners, you have a commutator 3 cycle (Probability: 1/72)
Situation 2) After having done F2B, U layer corners, and orienting the last six edges you have a commutator 3 cycle (Probability: 1/9)

Therefore the probability of ending with a commutator 3 cycle is:
\( \left(\frac{1}{72}\right)+\left(\frac{71}{72}\times\frac{1}{9}\right)=\frac{10}{81} \approx 12.34\% \)

So it's likely that in an average of 12 solves, that at least one solve will end in a commutator 3 cycle rather than the steps I listed above.

Does anyone else do this during Roux? Is this worth pursuing further?


----------



## Athefre (Apr 5, 2011)

Can you give some examples?


----------



## DavidWoner (Apr 5, 2011)

cmhardw said:


> Does anyone else do this during Roux? Is this worth pursuing further?


 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0NKjizrcGUs

The difficulty for most people is recognizing them quickly enough, especially if they are not oriented.


----------



## oll+phase+sync (Apr 6, 2011)

Sometimes I spot a 3 cycle after orientation, but most most of the time I ignore them. (I don't use direct commutator solving for these cases, though)

If UR/UL are placed befor orientation 3-cycles apear quite often and it is esay to spot.
But I can only regcognize, the correct 3-cycle fast, if centers are already aligned.


----------



## cmhardw (Apr 6, 2011)

@Athefre: In my solve what happened was that after solving F2B, and then corners, before beginning LSE, I noticed that a lot of stuff was solved. I aligned the centers with an M layer turn, and noticed that I was down to a 3 cycle of edges. Since I am still very much a beginner with Roux (and dare I say it an expert with commutators) I solved the cube with: x' z' E R U' R' E' R U R' and done.

I figured that I could orient edges, place L/R edges, then permute the M layer edges. But, at this stage at least, my recognition and alg knowledge is so minimal for Roux that it would be much faster to just solve the cube directly in 8 turns 

I do understand that for those at a much higher level in Roux solving, that the recognition could be much slower and also with any necessary cube rotations and such that this method could actually end up being slower. For now I will use commutators when I see them, but if I end up sticking with Roux long enough to get sub-30 at it, I may try to move away from this for a more "proper" Roux style ending.

@Woner, @oll+phase+sync: Thanks for the responses. I'm gathering that using comms at the end of a Roux solve is ok only if it doesn't kill your recognition completely, or slow you down over the "proper" Roux ending. At last for now, ending with a comm is definitely preferable for me over ending with the proper Roux steps, as I am still so new to Roux solving in general.


----------



## StachuK1992 (Apr 6, 2011)

Is there any reason we don't have a notation for A B A? I suggest [A| B] for that, and for A B A B (I've yet to see a case for this) I guess [A|| B] could work.
Example:
[R U' R'| U2 F' U' F U] =
R U' R' U2 F' U' F U R U' R'

not much shorter, but it helps me memo.


----------



## cmhardw (Apr 6, 2011)

StachuK1992 said:


> Is there any reason we don't have a notation for A B A? I suggest [A| B] for that, and for A B A B (I've yet to see a case for this) I guess [A|| B] could work.
> Example:
> [R U' R'| U2 F' U' F U] =
> R U' R' U2 F' U' F U R U' R'
> ...


 
Per had a post from a while back talking about this.

There's also a great post made by someone, I think Lucas or Michael, about how to extend this to double conjugations. I can't find it at the moment, but I'm still looking.


----------



## StachuK1992 (Apr 6, 2011)

cmhardw said:


> Per had a post from a while back talking about this.
> 
> There's also a great post made by someone, I think Lucas or Michael, about how to extend this to double conjugations. I can't find it at the moment, but I'm still looking.


 I think a notation for A B A would be pretty useful. I'm going to just use the notation I've been using for now.

Thanks for the link.


----------



## DavidWoner (Apr 6, 2011)

StachuK1992 said:


> and for A B A B (I've yet to see a case for this) I guess [A|| B] could work.


 
Uhhh... (A B)*2? I feel like I'm missing something because of how incredibly obvious that is.


----------



## JonnyWhoopes (Apr 6, 2011)

DavidWoner said:


> Uhhh... (A B)*2? I feel like I'm missing something because of how incredibly obvious that is.


 
No, the rest of us are just idiots.


----------



## Athefre (Apr 6, 2011)

cmhardw said:


> @Athefre: In my solve what happened was that after solving F2B, and then corners, before beginning LSE, I noticed that a lot of stuff was solved. I aligned the centers with an M layer turn, and noticed that I was down to a 3 cycle of edges. Since I am still very much a beginner with Roux (and dare I say it an expert with commutators) I solved the cube with: x' z' E R U' R' E' R U R' and done.
> 
> I figured that I could orient edges, place L/R edges, then permute the M layer edges. But, at this stage at least, my recognition and alg knowledge is so minimal for Roux that it would be much faster to just solve the cube directly in 8 turns
> 
> I do understand that for those at a much higher level in Roux solving, that the recognition could be much slower and also with any necessary cube rotations and such that this method could actually end up being slower. For now I will use commutators when I see them, but if I end up sticking with Roux long enough to get sub-30 at it, I may try to move away from this for a more "proper" Roux style ending.


 
Thanks, I've never noticed this. I guess I've been too busy solving the way I've always done it. It's cool but, similar to what you said, unless you can recognize and execute this in 3 seconds, it's best to stay with the regular way.


----------



## oll+phase+sync (Apr 6, 2011)

A B A = (AB) *1.5


----------



## Kirjava (Apr 7, 2011)

That only works when A and B are the same length.

I don't think ABA appears enough that we need to create special notation for it.


----------



## StachuK1992 (Apr 7, 2011)

Kirjava said:


> That only works when A and B are the same length.
> 
> I don't think ABA appears enough that we need to create special notation for it.


 Adding | to our notation isn't really a big enough deal to disallow such use.
I've found quite a few uses for such, personally.


----------



## riffz (Apr 7, 2011)

Kirjava said:


> I don't think ABA appears enough that we need to create special notation for it.


 
Sorry Stachu but I agree.


----------



## oll+phase+sync (Apr 7, 2011)

Kirjava said:


> That only works when A and B are the same length.
> 
> I don't think ABA appears enough that we need to create special notation for it.



For sure! length is defined by: Lenght(A) = 1 = Lenght(B) 

Is there a commenly used notation for repeating a subset of moves? (exsample Sune5 = RUR'UR)


----------



## Kirjava (Apr 7, 2011)

StachuK1992 said:


> Adding | to our notation isn't really a big enough deal to disallow such use.
> I've found quite a few uses for such, personally.


 
Sure, but who is going to use it? The reason why [A,B] and A:* exist is because they're commonly used and it actually makes them easier to read and understand. There's nothing special about the form ABA.*


----------



## qqwref (Apr 7, 2011)

How about this: A B A => (A) B $1. (Or (A) (B) $1, it doesn't matter.)


----------



## StachuK1992 (Apr 7, 2011)

qqwref said:


> How about this: A B A => (A) B $1. (Or (A) (B) $1, it doesn't matter.)


 I'd like to stick with the convention of [Asymbol B]
Right now, I'm going to just |, and if it picks up, then good. Otherwise, oh well.
I see this as something that could be potentially useful, and I don't see any reason to not use such.


----------



## qqwref (Apr 7, 2011)

I can't see it picking up, because there really aren't a lot of algs in that form. There's no reason an alg should look like that (it seems like almost all nontrivial examples would just be coincedence), so unless you spent a lot of time learning algs that happened to be written that way, you'd end up just forgetting it.

Plus: the Asymbol B thing only works because the symbol is some kind of punctuation. Having a non-punctuation symbol in there (| % & * # @) doesn't look natural.


----------



## DavidWoner (Apr 7, 2011)

Double parity in stachunotation because I was bored. [r2 F2| ((r|| U2)((F2| r)| r')))]


----------



## StachuK1992 (Apr 7, 2011)

DavidWoner said:


> Double parity in stachunotation because I was bored. [r2 F2| ((r|| U2)((F2| r)| r')))]


 That's disgusting; I obviously wouldn't go /that/ crazy with it.

Also, more like
[r2 F2| [[r|| U2][[F2| r]| r']]]]


----------



## irontwig (Apr 8, 2011)

R' F2 B2 L' R F' R' D L B L' R2 B2 D' L' R' U2 B2 L2 D U2 B2 U2 L U2 

Guimond-Kociemba:

y' U' R' U2 R [CO]
z x U M' U R L U M' U [EOa]
x' U M U M U M2 U [EOb]
R U2 L2 U2 L' U2 R2 U2 R2 [Pseudo-F2L]
R U R B' D2 F L' F' D2 B2 R' B' U' L' [Pseudo and parity fix]


----------



## cmhardw (Apr 8, 2011)

@Stachu and others following the discussion about the [A | B] notation:

[R L F2 B2 R' L' | U]

amidoinitrite?


----------



## StachuK1992 (Apr 8, 2011)

cmhardw said:


> @Stachu and others following the discussion about the [A | B] notation:
> 
> [R L F2 B2 R' L' | U]
> 
> amidoinitrite?


Ha!
Some "real" examples that I've used:
U [R U' R'| U2] U' (F R' F' R)
[R U' R'| U2 (F' U' F) U]
[M' U M| U2] & mirror
etc


----------



## DavidWoner (Apr 8, 2011)

Setup for an f2l I just got:

B' U B U2 L U L' U' D' R' U2 R D F U R' F' R

wat du?

R' F R U' F' or R' F U' R F' is an obvious start, but I can't figure out a really nice way to keyhole the last two edges.

I guess R' F U' R F' / L U' L' U' R' U' R d' R' U' R works, but I feel like there is something better.


----------



## StachuK1992 (Apr 8, 2011)

I found this for when the corners were oriented, but...
R' F R U' F' to start
then
y2 U' (R U2 R') U' [L' F'; U2]
too many moves, though


----------



## MaeLSTRoM (Apr 8, 2011)

Does anyone else think that 2BLD would be a good easy event and a good intro to BLD for BLD newbies (like me.)


----------



## StachuK1992 (Apr 8, 2011)

Just do 3BLD.
In some ways, doing 2BLD could actually inhibit you, making you used to changing angles and such.

Also, Random BLD cubing disc. or OAQT might have served you better for this.


----------



## irontwig (Apr 8, 2011)

DavidWoner said:


> Setup for an f2l I just got:
> 
> B' U B U2 L U L' U' D' R' U2 R D F U R' F' R
> 
> ...



Perhaps: R' F U' F D' F L F' D F' R F' R' U' R


----------



## qqwref (Apr 8, 2011)

Weird idea I had:

1: D' L' (R' U R) L D
2+3: R' F R U' F'
4: y R' U R U' R' U' R

Optimal is 12f*, but in typical optimal solve fashion, none of them are even the least bit intuitive.


----------



## cuBerBruce (Apr 8, 2011)

Following the discussion about the [A | B] notation:

First, I note that the commutator notation is a standard mathematical notation having nothing really to do with cubing. If you view Singmaster's notation as basically a use of standard mathematical notation, then use of the commutator notation ( [P,Q] ) comes "for free" so to speak. Unfortunately (in my view), the cubing community has extended Singmaster's notation in a number of ways that go against its mathematical origin. I tend to dislike such extensions, especially when cubing notation extensions actually conflict with mathematical notation.

In particular I would argue that the notation:

(A B)*1.5

or 

\( (A B)^{1.5} \)
(corresponding to the repetition notation Singmaster used)

is especially bad as it doesn't really make any sense mathematically if A and B are taken to be group elements, and certainly wouldn't mean (mathematically speaking) the same thing as A B A.

(I remind everybody that in Singmaster's notation, repetition was represented by exponentiation, since exponentiation corresponds to repeated multiplication for a multiplicative group.)


----------



## StachuK1992 (Apr 8, 2011)

Bruce: if you were to have a notation system for commutators and conjugates (and A B A, in addition) what system would you prefer as to not contradict the pure mathematical notation developed by Singmaster?

You criticize our current notation system, and suggested ones, but do not provide an alternative.
Perhaps people would be more keen to stray from disregarding the notation's mathematical origin if a better or equally understandable notation was suggested?

-Stachu


----------



## qqwref (Apr 8, 2011)

cuBerBruce said:


> Unfortunately (in my view), the cubing community has extended Singmaster's notation in a number of ways that go against its mathematical origin. I tend to dislike such extensions, especially when cubing notation extensions actually conflict with mathematical notation.


I see where you're coming from, but Singmaster's notation is certainly not ideal, for a few reasons. There's convenience (it's a hassle to have to use superscripts whenever we want to describe repeated turns, and the ^-1 notation is awkward if you use it a lot) and there's the need for notation that doesn't exist in group theory (or, if it does exist, is very awkward). The truth is, normal group theory notation is just not adapted for writing long sequences of elements in a way that is concise and easy to remember. (It IS useful for formal manipulation, when there are many possible types of operation that need to be carefully distinguished.) Rather than trying to conform to what's useful in some completely different field, we should be trying to change our current notation to make it as useful as possible for this field.

Stachu: I looked at your examples and I just don't see A B A being a natural form. It certainly does appear sometimes, but there's never an intuitive reason that the alg has to look that way (unless A is self-inverse). I see it as just an aid to memorization. Perhaps you would be interested in the idea of color-coding groups of moves? For instance, something like RUR' could be blue, something like R'FRF' could be red, any 2+ move sequence repeated inside one alg could be green, and any 2+ move sequence repeated (in inverted form) inside one alg could be yellow.


----------



## cuBerBruce (Apr 8, 2011)

StachuK1992 said:


> Bruce: if you were to have a notation system for commutators and conjugates (and A B A, in addition) what system would you prefer as to not contradict the pure mathematical notation developed by Singmaster?
> 
> You criticize our current notation system, and suggested ones, but do not provide an alternative.
> Perhaps people would be more keen to stray from disregarding the notation's mathematical origin if a better or equally understandable notation was suggested?



Well, like some others, I'm not convinced of the the need for a "PQP" notation. (And I also strongly dislike when people use "B" as both a constant and a variable at the same time!) There are standard mathematical conventions for both commutators and conjugation. Exponentiation is what's used in mathematics for conjugation. This does not conflict with exponentiation for repetition because repetition has a numerical exponent, while for conjugation the exponent is a group element.

There is an issue in mathematics that the notation is used differently in different places. [P,Q] can mean \( PQP^{-1}Q^{-1} \) or \( P^{-1}Q^{-1}PQ \). Similarly, \( P^Q \) can mean \( Q^{-1}PQ \) or \( QPQ^{-1} \). The latter conventions in each case seem to make more sense for cubing and, of course, the latter interpretation of commutator notation is what we actually use in the cubing community. The conjugation notation does not seem to be well received in the cubing community, though.

The nice thing about simply regarding the notation as mathematical notation is all the notation that comes for free from mathematics. For example, generator notation (e.g. <R,U> ) is standard mathmematical notation. When we regard the notation as mathematical notation, we don't need to *define* these things; they've been defined for us.

I acknowledge there's also some issues with big cubes and other puzzles where the where it's been awkward to maintain compatibility with mathematical notation conventions.



qqwref said:


> I see where you're coming from, but Singmaster's notation is certainly not ideal, for a few reasons. There's convenience (it's a hassle to have to use superscripts whenever we want to describe repeated turns, and the ^-1 notation is awkward if you use it a lot) and there's the need for notation that doesn't exist in group theory (or, if it does exist, is very awkward).



I am not advocating to actually use superscripts, especially when it's awkward to do so. And Singmaster actually used the apostrophe instead of an exponent of -1, even though that's not standard mathematical convention. Myself, I prefer to omit the * and write, say, (FR'F'R)3 instead of (FR'F'R)*3 (or more logical mathematically speaking, (FR'F'R)^3), consistent with writing U2 rather than U*2 or U^2. It's more conventions like (R) instead of x that I don't like as it unnecessarily gives parentheses a new meaning inconsistent with it's usual meaning of grouping. (Yeah, I know a lot of cubers probably dislike x, y, and z, or at least the way they're mapped to the axes, but I'd rather use something like Rc (like we have Rw) than (R). But I'm also OK with x, y, and z as they are.)


----------



## qqwref (Apr 8, 2011)

cuBerBruce said:


> Exponentiation is what's used in mathematics for conjugation.


Yes, and this is an ugly, awkward notation, and is occasionally ambiguous/confusing. When I took abstract algebra, I never wrote conjugates this way.



cuBerBruce said:


> There is an issue in mathematics that the notation is used differently in different places. [P,Q] can mean \( PQP^{-1}Q^{-1} \) or \( P^{-1}Q^{-1}PQ \). Similarly, \( P^Q \) can mean \( Q^{-1}PQ \) or \( QPQ^{-1} \). The latter conventions in each case seem to make more sense for cubing and, of course, the latter interpretation of commutator notation is what we actually use in the cubing community.


Hang on. First, neither notation makes "more sense" for cubing (either would be equally valid IMO, but I personally prefer the ones that put the non-inverted things first); second, I'm pretty sure [P,Q] is generally written to mean PQP'Q'. There is an issue in group theory where it isn't always entirely obvious what direction the multiplication goes; fortunately it's always left-to-right in cubing (glad we didn't take the right-to-left order from math  ).



cuBerBruce said:


> The nice thing about simply regarding the notation as mathematical notation is all the notation that comes for free from mathematics.


Unfortunately, few cubers are serious mathematicians, so this isn't anywhere near as useful as it sounds. And whenever we can invent a notation which is better for our purposes than the one math uses, I say we should use it.



cuBerBruce said:


> Myself, I prefer to omit the * and write, say, (FR'F'R)3 instead of (FR'F'R)*3 (or more logical mathematically speaking, (FR'F'R)^3), consistent with writing U2 rather than U*2 or U^2.


Right. Personally I write P^3 and P3 only (never P*3) but P3 is definitely not a standard mathematical notation, despite how convenient it is. To be consistent, you'd have to use a superscript.



cuBerBruce said:


> It's more conventions like (R) instead of x that I don't like as it unnecessarily gives parentheses a new meaning inconsistent with it's usual meaning of grouping.


I don't like this either (for the same reason as the conjugate notation). Just like conjugate notation, though, it looks like not everyone uses it - so that's nice.


----------



## cuBerBruce (Apr 9, 2011)

qqwref said:


> To be consistent, you'd have to use a superscript.


Huh? I was talking about the consistency (or inconsistency) between the syntax used for repetition of a standard generator and the syntax used for repetition of a sequence of moves. You don't have to use superscripting in order to be consistent between the two. You seem to be talking about consistency with mathematical notation here.


----------



## qqwref (Apr 9, 2011)

Yeah, isn't that what you were suggesting?


----------



## cuBerBruce (Apr 9, 2011)

qqwref said:


> Yeah, isn't that what you were suggesting?


 
I said writing "(FR'F'R)3" is consistent with writing "U2".


----------



## qqwref (Apr 9, 2011)

We already do write (FR'F'R)3 (well, most of us). But your point at the beginning was that we should try to use standard mathematical notation whenever possible. Do you no longer agree with that?


----------



## cuBerBruce (Apr 9, 2011)

qqwref said:


> We already do write (FR'F'R)3 (well, most of us).


Yeah but a lot of people write (FR'F'R)*3 but nobody writes U*2 to be consistent as far as I'm aware of. 



qqwref said:


> But your point at the beginning was that we should try to use standard mathematical notation whenever possible. Do you no longer agree with that?


Well, of course I acknowledge there is some awkwardness in superscript notation, and I don't expect the speedcubing community to change to using it on a wide scale. Can we even do general superscripts on this forum without the math tag? (I know there is a superscript 2 character in UNICODE that is one workaround, but superscripts are still awkward to use and also often results in text needing more space.)

Did I say "whenever possible"? I think that wording may be a little stronger than what I was trying to argue. But I think if the notation departs too much from mathematical conventions, then it becomes more awkward to use the notation to express the math concepts and other related math notation (like "<R,U>" for expressing group generators).


----------



## freshcuber (Apr 9, 2011)

cuBerBruce said:


> Yeah but a lot of people write (FR'F'R)*3 but nobody writes U*2 to be consistent as far as I'm aware of.


 

U2 is a single move and there's no need for U*2. That'd be like using U*1 for U. Unnecessary because it's not a combination of moves whereas triggers like FR'F'R, and RUR'U' are series of moves. When executing a series of moves like that it's just easier to put *2/*3 than typing it out three times because it's shorter and simpler. You have to tell the person how many times to execute a trigger but when doing a U2 it's only ever done once in an algorithm.


----------



## riffz (Apr 9, 2011)

freshcuber said:


> When executing a series of moves like that it's just easier to put *2/*3 than typing it out three times because it's shorter and simpler.


 
You obviously didn't understand his point.


----------



## cuBerBruce (Apr 9, 2011)

freshcuber said:


> U2 is a single move and there's no need for U*2.


 
You can regard U2 as a single move but it still means the move U repeated two times. Singmaster did not *define* a move "U2". He defined the move \( U \) as an element of the Rubik's Cube group, and let mathematical conventions "define" what \( U^2 \) means.



freshcuber said:


> That'd be like using U*1 for U.


Don't be silly. Using a repetition count of 1 is just as unnecessary for a standard generator as it is for a sequence like (F R' F' R). That analogy doesn't work at all.

In Singmaster's notation, \( U \) is a group element. Writing \( U^2 \) means doing \( U \) twice. \( (F R' F' R) \) is another group element. \( (F R' F' R)^2 \) means doing it twice. Singmaster used the exact same notation for repeating a sequence as he did for repeating a standard generator such as \( U \). He didn't even have to define what exponentiation means. What raising a group element to a power was defined long before Rubik's Cube was even invented.

I might add that mathematicians had also (a long time ago) defined what it means to raise a group element to a negative power. And specifically, a group element raised to a power of -1 is always the inverse of that group element. Singmaster defined the apostrophe symbol (although we typically say "prime") as a shorthand for raising something to the power of -1 (in other words, its inverse). So by defining the "prime" operation along with six basic moves {U, D, L, R, F, and B} as group elements, mathematics conventions provided notation for describing not only all 18 face turns, but all 43+ quintillion elements of the Rubik's Cube group.



freshcuber said:


> Unnecessary because it's not a combination of moves whereas triggers like FR'F'R, and RUR'U' are series of moves. When executing a series of moves like that it's just easier to put *2/*3 than typing it out three times because it's shorter and simpler. You have to tell the person how many times to execute a trigger but when doing a U2 it's only ever done once in an algorithm.


Since U and (F R' F' R) are both group elements, we don't _need_ two different notations for what it means for doing U twice and doing (F R' F' R) twice. The * in (F R' F' R)*2 is just as unnecessary as the * in U*2.


----------



## Kirjava (Apr 9, 2011)

As soon as someone adds an '*' symbol into an algorithm I suddenly have no idea what they're talking about. 

It's extremely important to standardise otherwise people just have no clue. (RUR'U')*6 ?!? What the hell is that?


----------



## riffz (Apr 9, 2011)

Kirjava said:


> (RUR'U')*6 ?!? What the hell is that?


 
I prefer this alg:


----------



## oll+phase+sync (Apr 11, 2011)

irontwig said:


> Guimond-Kociemba:
> 
> 
> R U R B' D2 F L' F' D2 B2 R' B' U' L' [Pseudo and parity fix]


 
Do you develop the above part of the solution on the fly?


----------



## irontwig (Apr 11, 2011)

Parity fix: R U B:B' R B' D2 F L' F' D2 B2 R' where the conjugated alg is a ten move ZBLL (T-perm in T orienation).


----------



## oll+phase+sync (Apr 11, 2011)

cuBerBruce said:


> In particular I would argue that the notation:
> 
> (A B)*1.5
> 
> ...


 
If defining an Operator funcMult( A, 2) = A + A = AA makes mathematical sense, as you say, and the standard operator would be funcMult(A, 2) = A*2 

Defining any Operator for funcBiTail( A, B ) = ABA makes mathematical sense, too.


----------



## cuBerBruce (Apr 12, 2011)

oll+phase+sync said:


> If defining an Operator funcMult( A, 2) = A + A = AA makes mathematical sense, as you say, and the standard operator would be funcMult(A, 2) = A*2



In mathematics, A + A is not the same as AA. If A is an element of a multiplicative group, A + A is not mathematically meaningful.


----------



## Kirjava (Apr 14, 2011)

D F R' U' B' L' B' U B F2 L' R2 U' L F U' B' F2 L2 F2 B' R U F2 B'

L2U2F'R' yx'
R'UR2UrU'R'U2R2Ur'
U'MUMUMU'M2U'

24 moves

what?!


----------



## DavidWoner (Apr 14, 2011)

L' U L (R U2 R' U' R U' R') L' U2 L
and
L' U2 L (R U R U' R U2 R') L' U' L

same alg but for 2x2 R' F R2 U2 R' U' R U' R2' F2 R


----------



## Kirjava (Apr 14, 2011)

[[F'R,D2],U2] for optimal


----------



## riffz (Apr 14, 2011)

Kirjava said:


> [[F'R,D2],U2] for optimal



I'll save others the trouble of reading nested comms and cancelling moves:

F' R D2 R' F U2 F' R D2 R' F U2

Pretty fast.


----------



## qqwref (Apr 14, 2011)

Also known as [[ru',R2],U2].


----------



## qqwref (Apr 14, 2011)

Interesting LL alg (hold LL on left): (r U r') U2 (R U' L' U R') U2 r U'

EDIT: Also, (r2 U r') U2 (R U' L2 U R') U2 r U'


----------



## RyanReese09 (Apr 14, 2011)

qqwref said:


> Interesting LL alg (hold LL on left): (r U r') U2 (R U' L' U R') U2 r U'
> 
> EDIT: Also, (r2 U r') U2 (R U' L2 U R') U2 r U'


 
Might switch to that 2nd alg if I can perform it faster, hate my OLL for that case.


----------



## DavidWoner (Apr 14, 2011)

RyanReese09 said:


> Might switch to that 2nd alg if I can perform it faster, hate my OLL for that case.


 
The first r2 of that alg is unnecessary, and is more commonly written as F U' R2 D R' U2 R D' R2' U F' aka [F U' R2 D R': U2] and is my favorite alg for that case. I assume you're using the R U2 R2 etc alg for that case now, which does suck (though it's a useful OLLCP). You might also try r U2 R' U' R2 r' U R' U' r U' r' in addition to the F U' one in order to prevent diag corner CP PLLs.


----------



## RyanReese09 (Apr 14, 2011)

DavidWoner said:


> The first r2 of that alg is unnecessary, and is more commonly written as F U' R2 D R' U2 R D' R2' U F' aka [F U' R2 D R': U2] and is my favorite alg for that case. I assume you're using the R U2 R2 etc alg for that case now, which does suck (though it's a useful OLLCP). You might also try r U2 R' U' R2 r' U R' U' r U' r' in addition to the F U' one in order to prevent diag corner CP PLLs.


 
Yeah I was using the R U2 R2 one. It does suck. I can't decide which I like better, qq's rotationed version of that alg, or the F U' R2 alg. Meh, shall time both.

I just started OLLCP last week, and have most of the awkward OLLs done (in the sense of, I can always avoid a diag CP PLL)


----------



## teller (Apr 15, 2011)

RyanReese09 said:


> Yeah I was using the R U2 R2 one. It does suck. I can't decide which I like better, qq's rotationed version of that alg, or the F U' R2 alg. Meh, shall time both.


 This one isn't horrible:

*r U2 R' U' M (R U R' U') r U' r' *


----------



## Athefre (Apr 15, 2011)

A couple of months ago I taught my brother how to solve; using 8355. Sometime later I showed him that he can improve his solve times using pairs. He quickly got frustrated and resorted to orienting the corner in a desirable way then pairing it with the edge, then got tired of that and resorted further back to the original 8355. I thought the way he was creating pairs was interesting.

Place the corner at UFR then,

If the edge is oriented, place it at UB and perform F'U'FU until the pair can be slotted with RUR'.
If the edge is misoriented, place it at UL and perform RUR'U' until the pair can be slotted with F'U'F.


----------



## DavidWoner (Apr 15, 2011)

DavidWoner said:


> You might also try r U2 R' U' R2 r' U R' U' r U' r'


 


teller said:


> This one isn't horrible:
> 
> *r U2 R' U' M (R U R' U') r U' r' *


 
ಠ_ಠ


----------



## Athefre (Apr 16, 2011)

I'm thinking that maybe OCELL and NMLL would work better if the first step involved orienting the L/R colors instead of U colors. It looks like it would lead to better sequences for the second step. So, merge the two ideas into one and it would work for an LL with oriented edges and for the people that use non-matching blocks in Petrus or ZZ.

I feel like I have to continually stress that I know that nobody so far uses non-matching blocks.


----------



## Kirjava (Apr 16, 2011)

Athefre said:


> I feel like I have to continually stress that I know that nobody so far uses non-matching blocks.


 
In which methods? I know they're actively used in Roux/Petrus. People use them in ZZ but I don't know if that's by people who use ZZ as a main method.


----------



## Escher (Apr 16, 2011)

Athefre said:


> I feel like I have to continually stress that I know that nobody so far uses non-matching blocks.


 
I do in 2x2 :3


----------



## teller (Apr 16, 2011)

DavidWoner said:


> ಠ_ಠ


 
Oops...okay, I'm fired.


----------



## Athefre (Apr 16, 2011)

Maybe I should have said "complete non-matching in 3x3x3 speed" (forgot about you Rowan) which doesn't just mean opposite blocks.

Is there a name for an LL method that orients the corners and separates opposite edges (not necessarily placing the two edge bars correct relative to each other)? Then PLL for the second step. It looks like it would be 23 cases - 14 for Orient+Separate, 9 for PLL.

EDIT: Actually, I think it's 30. How did I forget the "correct" 7?


----------



## oll+phase+sync (Apr 18, 2011)

Athefre said:


> Is there a name for an LL method that orients the corners and separates opposite edges (not necessarily placing the two edge bars correct relative to each other)? Then PLL for the second step. It looks like it would be 23 cases - 14 for Orient+Separate, 9 for PLL.


 
For corners there are 7 orientations.

For edges there are 3 possibilities: edge-3-cycle, other-3-cycle, no-3-cycle

For corner oriented case, just the two 3-cycles are necessary.

3*7 + 2 = 23 - this way of couting does not use any kind of L/R - color placement (I didn't understand your plan, or how just 7 more algs are enough to make a differece)

All this cases can be solved by 9 PLLs (the PLLs not doing an edge-3-cycle A T H E N F Z), 

It's like doing phasing during OLL instead of during F2L.


----------



## qqwref (Apr 18, 2011)

I don't think I like how the 9 remaining PLLs contain N, F, and E :|

The 3*7 + 2 explanation is wrong because it's true that there are 3 edge possibilities and 7 COs, but with the solved CO there are actually only 2 edge possibilities (solved and adjacent swap). So there are 3*7+2 cases if you include the skip case, but only 3*7+1 if you don't.


----------



## Athefre (Apr 18, 2011)

Yeah, after I made the post I seriously thought about what PLLs it included and moved on other ideas.


----------



## oll+phase+sync (Apr 18, 2011)

qqwref said:


> ... but only 3*7+1 if you don't.


 
correct just 22 instead of 23 cases. Recognition is also very nice for this step. And for the Sune-Pattern the 3 algs are just Sune, (U')Antisune and Niklas, for Bruno und Doublesune mirroring just gives you the 2nd 3-Cycle.

I never got any deeper into this myself, because using phasing during F2L reduces this step back from 22 to just 7 cases. Adding alternativ CO algs enables me again to get rid of not nice PLLs most of the time. (thats what my username stands for ) 

@Athefre: Did you calculate the move count of your original methode (is it in this thread too?). My estimation was that it was even lower then COLL+EPLL?


----------



## Kirjava (Apr 18, 2011)

Well, I don't think statuenotation will catch on, but I'd like to propose something meaningful;

[X|Y|Z] = XYX'ZY'Z'

Used to use this for generating intuitive 5 cycles.


----------



## qqwref (Apr 18, 2011)

How about calling that [X;Z:Y]? (Thus it is reminiscent of the [X:Y] notation, which it is related to.)

By the way, your sequence is equivalent to [Z:[Z'X, Y]].


----------



## cmhardw (Apr 18, 2011)

qqwref said:


> How about calling that [X;Z:Y]? (Thus it is reminiscent of the [X:Y] notation, which it is related to.)


 
Wasn't the semi-colon already defined in a commutator notation on this board? I could swear Michael that either you or Lucas (or Stefan, etc.) already introduced this.

--edit--
iirc [a;b:c,d] was:
a b c d c' d' b' a'


----------



## qqwref (Apr 18, 2011)

I think the idea of using ; as a substitute for :, and having some weird precedence thing, was all Lucas's. I don't really like it because it adds a lot of confusion (for humans at least!) while saving only a few characters. But even if you are using his notation there is no reason to ever write [a;b:c], because it would mean [a:[b:c]] which could be written easier as simply [ab:c].


----------



## riffz (Apr 18, 2011)

cmhardw said:


> Wasn't the semi-colon already defined in a commutator notation on this board? I could swear Michael that either your or Lucas (or Stefan, etc.) already introduced this.
> 
> --edit--
> iirc [a;b:c,d] was:
> a b c d c' d' b' a'


 
Yea, I think the semi colon and colon were proposed both as conjugate notation, one having precedence over the commutator comma.


----------



## Kirjava (Apr 18, 2011)

qqwref said:


> How about calling that [X;Z:Y]?.


 
Looks ugly tbh.

It doesn't matter what character you use or whatever. [x_y_x] or [x`y`z] or [x{y}x] or something. 

We all know that I'll end up having to explain what it means each time it's used anyway


----------



## Athefre (Apr 18, 2011)

oll+phase+sync said:


> @Athefre: Did you calculate the move count of your original methode (is it in this thread too?). My estimation was that it was even lower then COLL+EPLL?


 
I don't have the knowledge to calculate move count.


----------



## Erzz (Apr 19, 2011)

Section 2.03 of this, replace StarCraft II / SCII with "cubing". I think it fits quite well.

Edit: The next section is also applicable, if you make a few more substitutions.


----------



## qqwref (Apr 22, 2011)

This sequence (in SiGN) on the 5x5x5 needs to be executed 281,801,520 times to return to solved again:
(B' 2D R' 3D' R 2D' R' 3D R B) (R2 r d2 u2) (f' l' f2 l f l u' f' l' f2 l)

http://www.randelshofer.ch/cube/pro...R-MDRBR2TRTD2TU2TF-TL-TF2TLTFTLTU-TF-TL-TF2TL

This number (16 * 9 * 5 * 7 * 11 * 13 * 17 * 23) is probably the highest possible order for the 5x5x5. A factor of 19 is also possible (on 6x6x6+ the highest possible order is 19 times this or 5,354,228,880) but there just aren't enough orbits to use all of the factors on the 5x5x5. In this sequence, the three 24-piece orbits are being used as (23), (13,11), and (17,7), the middle edge orbit is (8,4) with a flip on both cycles, and the corner orbit is (5,3) with a twist on both cycles.


----------



## Athefre (Apr 23, 2011)

I've been wondering how I went five years without knowing that most cubers scramble with white on U and green on F. It took that recent origin topic for me to find out. Maybe because I haven't been to a competition.

Here I've been scrambling with white/yellow on L/R and getting confused when I see Thom provide example solves and I end up with orange/red blocks. I've been thinking all this time that he was seeing easy color neutral solves.

I guess it doesn't matter and I don't plan to change my habit. It's just depressing that I didn't know.


----------



## Rpotts (Apr 23, 2011)

Athefre said:


> Here I've been scrambling with white/yellow on L/R and getting confused when *I see Thom provide example solves and I end up with orange/red blocks.* I've been thinking all this time that he was seeing easy color neutral solves.


 
I thought Thom always solved with white/yellow on LR?? Like, 4-colour neutral.


----------



## DavidWoner (Apr 23, 2011)

He does, athefre hasn't been scrambling with white on U like Thom.


----------



## DavidWoner (Apr 25, 2011)

I just did D U R U' R' U R U' R' U D' R U' R' in a speedsolve


----------



## whauk (Apr 25, 2011)

qqwref said:


> This sequence (in SiGN) on the 5x5x5 needs to be executed 281,801,520 times to return to solved again:
> (B' 2D R' 3D' R 2D' R' 3D R B) (R2 r d2 u2) (f' l' f2 l f l u' f' l' f2 l)
> 
> http://www.randelshofer.ch/cube/pro...R-MDRBR2TRTD2TU2TF-TL-TF2TLTFTLTU-TF-TL-TF2TL
> ...


 
wow thats really interesting.
can you produce a higher order if you allow rotations?
what are the highest orders for the other cubes? (2x2, 3x3 and 4x4)


----------



## qqwref (Apr 25, 2011)

whauk said:


> can you produce a higher order if you allow rotations?


No. Moving the fixed centers doesn't let us improve any of the available factors, and adding parity to the middle edge and corner orbits doesn't help either.



whauk said:


> what are the highest orders for the other cubes? (2x2, 3x3 and 4x4)


2x2 - 45
3x3 - 1260 without rotations, 2520 with rotations
4x4 - I think it's 765765


EDIT: Oh, and the highest order on any N-minx is (2^5 * 3^3 * 5^2 * 7^2 * 11 * 13 * 17 * 19 * 23 * 29 * 31 * 37 * 41 * 43 * 47 * 53 * 59) = 9,690,712,164,777,231,700,912,800. I think this requires at least 9 60-piece orbits, and the Teraminx has 8, so as far as I can tell this is first possible on the Petaminx.


----------



## Athefre (Apr 25, 2011)

I've realized there are a lot of things I've yet to do.

- BLD
- Never timed a big cube solve
- 2x2 average (nor learned a 2x2 specific method)
- Went to a competition

I've created a couple of unique methods (well, my first one is no longer unique and my newest one could be considered a ZZ version of the most hated method during the Twisty Puzzle days). Most of my time has been spent figuring out non-matching Roux, ZZ, and Petrus and creating methods. I would like to do other things (especially BLD), but I lose the motivation almost immediately after I start.


----------



## JackJ (Apr 26, 2011)

No cube is 100% pop resistant, but this is close.

[youtube]bmCXfngI7Jk&feature=channel_video_title[/youtube]


----------



## Kirjava (Apr 26, 2011)

MS2F

2 ATM
3 STM
5 HTM
4 SQTM
7 QTM

Metrics are fun.


----------



## Godmil (Apr 26, 2011)

Kirjava said:


> MS2F
> 
> 2 ATM
> 3 STM
> ...


 
Oh gawd, now I understand how Andrew feels.
What's MS2F?


----------



## uberCuber (Apr 26, 2011)

Hint: M S2 F


----------



## riffz (Apr 26, 2011)

Kirjava said:


> MS2F
> 
> 2 ATM
> 3 STM
> ...


 
<3 SQTM


----------



## Athefre (Apr 27, 2011)

Alright, so what about an LL method that orients the corners and ensures that the edges aren't opposite each other?

15 + 12 (PLL) = 27

Unless I've forgotten something again in my case counting.



Spoiler



Oriented - M2UM’U2MUM2

Antisune:

Correct - L'URU'LUR'
Switch - (U’) RU2R'U'RU'R'

Sune:

Correct - RU'L'UR'U'L
Switch - RUR'URU2R'

L:

Correct - (U2) FR'F'LFRF'L'
Switch - (U2) rU2R2FRF'RU2r'

U:

Correct - (U) R2D'RU2R'DRU2R
Switch - (U) R'U2RFU'R'U'RUF'

T:

Correct - (U') rUR'U'L'URU'
Switch - LU’RUL’R’U2RUR’

Pi:

Correct - (U2) RU2l'UR'ULUL'U2RU'
Switch - RU2R2U'R2U'R2U2R

H:

Correct - F(RUR’U’)3F’
Switch - RU2R'U'RUR'U'RU'R'


----------



## cuBerBruce (Apr 28, 2011)

whauk said:


> what are the highest orders for the other cubes? (2x2, 3x3 and 4x4)


 


qqwref said:


> 2x2 - 45
> 3x3 - 1260 without rotations, 2520 with rotations
> 4x4 - I think it's 765765


I found these two papers online which concurs with the 765765 being the highest order for the 4x4x4. The first is in German, but the 2nd one appears to be very much related and in English.

http://www.kubologie.de/doc/jufo-4w.pdf
http://www.kubologie.de/doc/jmc-report.pdf

These papers give the following order-765765 maneuver: U Lw b' x'

(I've translated their expression into WCA notation.)

The maximum order for an element of the <U,R,F> 2x2x2 group is 36. (qqwref's value of 45 for the <U,D,L,R,F,B> 2x2x2 group is correct for that group, of course.)

I note that in general, when talking about orders of maneuvers of various puzzles, one needs to be careful in stating exactly what you mean. Not only is there cube rotations vs. no cube rotations (as in <U,D,L,R,F,B> vs. <U,x,y,z> groups), but also whether or not rotating of a central face piece matters or not. I also note that many cubes sites will define "order" differently from the mathematical definition.

The mathematical term defines the order of a group element as the smallest positive power the group element must be raised to so that the result is the identity element of the group. On cubing sites, the order of a maneuver is often defined as the smallest number of times the maneuver must be performed (starting from a solved state) to make the cube solved again. These definitions are not equivalent!

First of all, the standard 3x3x3 "cube group" is commonly considered to have 43,252,003,274,489,856,000 elements and can be denoted in generator notation by <U,D,L,R,F,B>. In this group, the center pieces are considered fixed reference pieces with respect to which we interpret the various moves (U, D, etc.). It is often desirable (especially in the context of specifying speedsolving maneuvers) to not consider the center pieces to be fixed references, but to think of the cube as having an external frame of reference. Since the center pieces can now be moved around in 24 different arrangements with respect to this reference frame, cubing notation became extended with new symbols such as x, y, z to represent 90-degree whole cube rotations. We can describe this group in generator notation by <U,x,y,z>. (We could also say <U,D,L,R,F,B,x,y,z>, <U,D,L,R,F,B,M,E,S> or even just <U, x, y>, as long as the generators listed can be combined in some way to produce every possible transformation allowed by this group.)

The <U,x,y,z> group is 24 times larger than the standard cube group. Note also that if we start from the solved state, the "move" x does not change the cube from being solved to being not solved. It only changes the orientation of the cube with respect to the reference frame. So while x does not change the "intrinsic state" of the cube, it does make an important change with respect to the reference frame, so it is not an identity element, but an element of order 4. Doing x four times always brings the cube back to the state (with respect to the reference frame) that we started with. So the first way that the definitions of "order" above can be different is in the fact that the group may represent several "solved states" simply by representing a cube in 24 different orientations, whereas there is never more than one identity element in a group.

The 4x4x4 and larger cubes generally have pieces on each face that are considered identical. So a maneuver (applied some number of times) might move such identical pieces around within the same faces, and thus would still be considered solved. However, if we apply the maneuver to some other cube state, we may see that there is an effect on the pieces. But in a group, only the identity element has a null effect. The set of "positions" of the puzzle is not compatible with the mathematical concept of a group. However, the way the actual pieces can be rearranged by maneuvers can still be modeled as a group (for standard, non-bandaged NxNxN cube puzzles, anyway). But the identity element of such a group is the "null transformation" that doesn't move any piece somewhere else. So the mathematical definition of "order" would mean you apply the maneuver until every piece is back to its original place, even if a smaller number of applications of the maneuver might make the puzzle looked solved (and even in the same cube orientation) because of identical pieces being permuted among themselves.

Anyway, we can also talk about orders of elements for the supercube group. For the <U,D,L,R,F,B> 3x3x3 supercube group, the maximum order of an element is 1980. I'm not aware if the maximum order of the <U,x,y,z> 3x3x3 supercube group has been reported before. I am fairly convinced it is 5040. An element having that order is:

R L2 U S2 D L2 U L' E2 L U Rw2 D2 R2 D' L' E2 S L S Lw E' L' E' S2

If 5040 is not high enough for you, we can consider the illegal 3x3x3 supercube group (where disassembly reassembly is allowed, but not restickering) with cube rotations allowed. I'm pretty sure the highest order in that group is 7920.


----------



## qqwref (Apr 28, 2011)

cuBerBruce said:


> These papers give the following order-765765 maneuver: U Lw b' x'


Confirmed (in SiGN: U l 2B' x'). 4 block turns is optimal, unless there was an error in my program.



cuBerBruce said:


> On cubing sites, the order of a maneuver is often defined as the smallest number of times the maneuver must be performed (starting from a solved state) to make the cube solved again. These definitions are not equivalent!


Right, they're not. I like the "until it's solved" definition more, though, because it matches the way you'd play around with such sequences on a real cube - by doing them until the cube is solved again.



cuBerBruce said:


> For the <U,D,L,R,F,B> 3x3x3 supercube group, the maximum order of an element is 1980. I'm not aware if the maximum order of the <U,x,y,z> 3x3x3 supercube group has been reported before. I am fairly convinced it is 5040. An element having that order is:
> R L2 U S2 D L2 U L' E2 L U Rw2 D2 R2 D' L' E2 S L S Lw E' L' E' S2
> 
> If 5040 is not high enough for you, we can consider the illegal 3x3x3 supercube group (where disassembly reassembly is allowed, but not restickering) with cube rotations allowed. I'm pretty sure the highest order in that group is 7920.


Hmm, interesting. Where do these numbers come from?


----------



## cuBerBruce (Apr 28, 2011)

cuBerBruce said:


> For the <U,D,L,R,F,B> 3x3x3 supercube group, the maximum order of an element is 1980. I'm not aware if the maximum order of the <U,x,y,z> 3x3x3 supercube group has been reported before. I am fairly convinced it is 5040. An element having that order is:
> 
> R L2 U S2 D L2 U L' E2 L U Rw2 D2 R2 D' L' E2 S L S Lw E' L' E' S2
> 
> If 5040 is not high enough for you, we can consider the illegal 3x3x3 supercube group (where disassembly reassembly is allowed, but not restickering) with cube rotations allowed. I'm pretty sure the highest order in that group is 7920.


 


qqwref said:


> Hmm, interesting. Where do these numbers come from?


 
3x3x3 supercube group (without rotations)
1980 = 11 * 45 * 4.
That's 11 for the edges, 45 for the corners, and 4 for the centers.

3x3x3 supercube group (with rotations)
5040 = 7 * 45 * 16.
That's 7 for the edges, 45 for the corners, and 16 for the centers.
The centers group of the 3x3x3 supercube (with rotations) has elements of order 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 8, 12, and 16. Order 16 requires transformations having void cube parity. Since you need an even permutation of the corners to get the 45, you need an odd permutation of edges to satisfy void cube parity. Hence, you can't use a factor of 11 from the edges since you also need a 2-cycle or a 4-cycle.

3x3x3 illegal supercube group (with rotations)
7920 = 11 * 45 * 16.
With the illegal supercube, parity constraints are removed.


----------



## oll+phase+sync (Apr 28, 2011)

Athefre said:


> Alright, so what about an LL method that orients the corners and ensures that the edges aren't opposite each other?
> 
> 15 + 12 (PLL) = 27


Is there a non-matching Block recognition bonus hidden somewhere?

Besides U and J non of my favorites are in the PLL set.


----------



## Athefre (Apr 28, 2011)

oll+phase+sync said:


> Is there a non-matching Block recognition bonus hidden somewhere?


 
Nope. U colors are too hard to find in some block combinations for this to work for that. The non-matching version, which I've been working on along with the other NMLL on my site, is to orient the L/R colors to U and separate the edges. That is 38 cases but has more difficult recognition than if L/R colors were separated as in the original.


----------



## Kirjava (May 5, 2011)




----------



## Innocence (May 5, 2011)

Kirjava said:


>


 
That's what you get for using an OMGWTFBBQ hybrid guhong.


----------



## Athefre (May 8, 2011)

Roux Step 4c

One way I've thought to know the 3-cycle is to, while finishing 4b, watch the edge that goes to DF. With M'U2M' for example it's easy to see that the UB sticker will be at DF. Then you'll see where its friend is on U.

- If the U friend matches the U center, place it at UF, M'U2
- If the U friend doesn't match the U center, place it at UB, MU2

What it doesn't work well for are the M2U2M(U2) and M2U2M'(U2) cases. I like this better than the L/R same/opposite colors way that a couple of people have talked about in the Roux guide topic, because you don't have to worry about whether you are supposed to align the corners correctly or align the edges according to the F/B centers.

With this way, you don't have to think about the F/B centers or the UL/UR edges.


----------



## Athefre (May 8, 2011)

I wrote the rules wrong. It should instead be:

Place the U friend at UB (whether it matches the U center or not). And if you instead watched the edge that went to DB, place it's U friend at UF. I've done a bunch of solves and this is very easy. And for the M2U2M(U2) and M2U2M'(U2) cases, it only adds one more move.


----------



## oll+phase+sync (May 9, 2011)

Athefre said:


> U friend


 
What kind of friend is this?


----------



## Athefre (May 9, 2011)

Examples (scramble all with orange on U, green on F):

U M U2 M U M2 U' M U M2 U M' U' M' U M U M2 U2 M2 U M2 U M U' M'

Orient + place - M2UM'UMU2*M2*
With this, you should have seen that during, and a little before, the last M2, A red edge went to DF. And you see that the other red edge is at UR. So place it at UB and do MU2 (because it doesn't match the center).

M2 U2 M' U2 M2 U2 M U' M2 U M2 U2 M U' M U M U' M U2 M U' M2 U M'

Orient + place - M2U'M'UM*U2M2*
During U2M2, you see that a red edge went to DF. And you see that the other red edge is at UR. Place it at UB and do M'U2 (it matches the center).

U M' U' M' U M' U M' U2 M2 U' M U M U M2 U M U M2 U2 M' U M2 U'

Orient + place - UMUM'UM2U'*M'U2M'*
During M'U2M', you see that an orange edge went to DF. And you see that the other orange edge is at UR. Place it at UB and do MU2 (doesn't match the center).

This is so easy. Sometimes you'll instead watch an edge that goes to DB, and it works the same way. There is no recognition time for this as with the "rotate cube", "tilt cube", or this. It's all lookahead and there is no thinking time. After only a few solves, the lookahead for this became a habit.


----------



## Kirjava (May 11, 2011)

15:25:37 <+Kirjava> spof
15:25:50 <+Kirjava> jesuf golo
15:25:58 <+Kirjava> dun gohin
15:26:26 <+Kirjava> femucs zumdigs
15:26:46 <+Kirjava> chros trun
15:27:07 <+Kirjava> hooyun zrohing
15:31:03 <+Kirjava> putdrak jomushin
15:31:13 <+Kirjava> tosin meow
15:31:18 -!- WhoBe|off is now known as WhoBe
15:31:29 <+Kirjava> stuvin heebor
15:31:30 -!- WhoBe is now known as WhoBe|off
15:31:41 <+Kirjava> ondrow kong
15:32:03 <+Kirjava> tam myuujar
15:32:23 <+Kirjava> dovas weener
15:35:05 <+Kirjava> erok ogorzjoke
15:35:45 <+Kirjava> jyop schpoopos
15:35:50 < MortenArborg> what are you on?
15:36:07 <+Kirjava> marton whorebrag
15:36:42 < MortenArborg> ok
15:37:03 <+Kirjava> shouteero magosomo
15:37:12 < MortenArborg> aronpm: lol
15:37:26 < MortenArborg> xD
15:38:05 -!- PatrickBic [[email protected]] has joined #rubik
15:38:08 -!- mode/#rubik [+v PatrickBic] by ChanServ
15:38:29 <+Kirjava> aran poodo maflo
15:38:42 <+statue> ha
15:38:53 <+Kirjava> stocho kirag
15:46:45 <+statue> do rowe
15:52:01 <+Kirjava> roux hosslaire
15:52:18 <+Kirjava> jewhonnis lore


----------



## Godmil (May 11, 2011)

Well that certainly covers the 'random' from this thread title.


----------



## qqwref (May 11, 2011)

I did some calculations and I'm pretty certain 10 realcubes underwater is possible. (Anyone agree/disagree?)


----------



## ilikecubing (May 11, 2011)

qqwref said:


> I did some calculations and I'm pretty certain 10 realcubes underwater is possible. (Anyone agree/disagree?)



Looks really challenging,i badly want to try this kind of a thing,so suppose if I average 20 secs I have to stay for 3 minutes,20 seconds underwater holding my breath,would be fun!!! Hey but won't the cubes get wet??


----------



## qqwref (May 11, 2011)

ilikecubing said:


> so suppose if I average 20 secs I have to say for 3 minutes,20 seconds underwater holding my breath


Somewhere around there, yeah. Keep in mind that both cubes and fingers will be a bit slower in water (plus you'll be going without inspection), so if you want to average around 20 seconds you'll have to be quite a bit faster on land.



ilikecubing said:


> Hey but the won't the cubes get wet??


Yep. You probably don't want to use your best speedcube for this, and it wouldn't hurt to air the cubes out afterwards. I'm not really sure what is involved in a good underwater cube, but I'd assume you want the kind of cube that's decent without lube, and that has rounded pieces to prevent lockups.


----------



## MaeLSTRoM (May 11, 2011)

qqwref said:


> Yep. You probably don't want to use your best speedcube for this, and it wouldn't hurt to air the cubes out afterwards. I'm not really sure what is involved in a good underwater cube, but I'd assume you want the kind of cube that's decent without lube, and that has rounded pieces to prevent lockups.


 
Logically you could use a bad cube aswell, becuase if it has a lot of frictionh normally (Hint at storeboughts), the water would potentially remove some of the friction between the peices, like a thick lubricant (Hint at lubix)


----------



## qqwref (May 11, 2011)

But the goal is to have a good cube in the water, not to *improve* a cube. The water does lubricate the pieces slightly, but it won't fix a high-friction cube, and you definitely don't want to be putting in a lot of physical effort to do turns in an underwater attempt.


----------



## Rpotts (May 11, 2011)

I think a loose cube like an A5 or any new Dayan could be advantageous, counteract the pressure of water on your hands and the cube. Pops would be crazy though, lol.


----------



## vcuber13 (May 12, 2011)

it took me 1 year, 3 months, 7 days (416 days) to get a official 5x5 single faster than my first (official) 4x4 single.


----------



## joey (May 13, 2011)

I like rubik's cubes


----------



## Athefre (May 13, 2011)

lol


----------



## MaeLSTRoM (May 17, 2011)

Hey guys, twistypuzzles.com/forum has stopped working for me, I get an SQL error, anyone else having this problem?


----------



## Hershey (May 17, 2011)

OMG this is creepy, the devil's number was my best time in a 2x2 average:

Average of 5: 8.48
1. *(6.66)* U' F R F2 U' F U 
2. (11.47) F' R F' U F' U2 R2 
3. 9.41 R2 U' F R F2 R F2 R F' U' 
4. 7.38 F' R2 U F' U2 F2 U' R U' 
5. 8.66 R' F U R F2 U R2 U


----------



## JonnyWhoopes (May 17, 2011)

MaeLSTRoM said:


> Hey guys, twistypuzzles.com/forum has stopped working for me, I get an SQL error, anyone else having this problem?


 


I'm getting the SQL error as well.


----------



## StachuK1992 (May 18, 2011)

If I were ever close to WR status, I'd make sure there were only females near me when solving.
Then, we wouldn't have to deal with those "you can't get a girl" comments any more.


----------



## Ltsurge (May 18, 2011)

StachuK1992 said:


> If I were ever close to WR status, I'd make sure there were only females near me when solving.
> Then, we wouldn't have to deal with those "you can't get a girl" comments any more.



ok.................... :fp


----------



## StachuK1992 (May 18, 2011)

This is random cubing discussion. This was entirely relevant, and a suggestion to anyone who cubes, randomly.


----------



## irontwig (May 18, 2011)

lolaznpodium


----------



## Tiersy (May 18, 2011)

Considering the fact that I want to get fast i.e sub-20 am I weird/dumb/(insert adjective) because I solve using Petrus instead of CFOP? 
It is quite likely that if i had practised CFOP as long asi have Petrus I would be sub-20 by now. I love doing Petrus but still get frustrated because I get a lof of low 40 second solves... I don't understand me sometimes, is anyone else in this situation?


----------



## TMOY (May 18, 2011)

Sub-20 is achievable with any decent speedsolving method. If you feel more comfortable with Petrus than with CFOP, then just stick to Petrus.


----------



## Tiersy (May 18, 2011)

TMOY said:


> Sub-20 is achievable with any decent speedsolving method. If you feel more comfortable with Petrus than with CFOP, then just stick to Petrus.


 
Oh I will, Petrus is amazing!

I just think that learning CFOP would be a faster was of achieving really quick times. I am just gonna stick at Petrus even if it takes longer to get my times down. SUb-30 avg here I come!!!


----------



## Kirjava (May 18, 2011)

Tiersy said:


> I am just gonna stick at Petrus even if it takes longer to get my times down.!


 
Maybe your times are going down quicker than they would if you'd've learned CFOP.


----------



## Cool Frog (May 18, 2011)

Kirjava said:


> Maybe your times are going down quicker than they would if you'd've learned CFOP.


 
Maybe not. All just maybe.


----------



## Tiersy (May 18, 2011)

Kirjava said:


> Maybe your times are going down quicker than they would if you'd've learned CFOP.


 
Maybe, who knows... I'm certainly not gonna test that out at this stage 

My actual understanding i.e spatial intelligence of the cube sucks that is why I opted to learn Petrus in the first place, I think there is a lot to be said for intuitive solving in whatever method you choose to use. Plus Petrus style block-building floats my boat.

When I have the time I think it'd be great to know full PLL and OLL too, add COLL and a good understanding of intuitive F2L to the list. That'd make you a really solid cuber.


----------



## Bapao (May 18, 2011)

Kirjava said:


>


 
Is that a once stickerless-GuHong with white stickers on the black face? Was confused at first 

Love the way you just keep going even though the cube is falling apart


----------



## uberCuber (May 18, 2011)

Tiersy said:


> That'd make you a really solid cuber.


 
I think everybody on this forum is already a solid cuber. (at least I haven't seen anyone who was 100% liquid/gas?)


----------



## Xishem (May 18, 2011)

uberCuber said:


> I think everybody on this forum is already a solid cuber. (at least I haven't seen anyone who was 100% liquid/gas?)



Neither have I seen anyone who is 100% solid.


----------



## uberCuber (May 18, 2011)

Touche

I am slightly confused at how knowledge PLL, OLL, COLL, and F2L can change the state of matter of a human being.


----------



## teller (May 18, 2011)

Tiersy said:


> Oh I will, Petrus is amazing!
> 
> I just think that learning CFOP would be a faster was of achieving really quick times. I am just gonna stick at Petrus even if it takes longer to get my times down. SUb-30 avg here I come!!!


I tend to think the best CFOPers have some Petrus in them. You might want to join the dark side (CFOP is quicker, easier...more seductive) some day, but I wouldn't be in a hurry to do so. Keep building those blocks...


----------



## Forte (May 19, 2011)

joey gouly likes rubik's cubes


----------



## Bapao (May 19, 2011)

uberCuber said:


> I think everybody on this forum is already a solid cuber. (at least I haven't seen anyone who was 100% liquid/gas?)


 
I am 100% hot air.


----------



## Robert-Y (May 19, 2011)

How many sub 15 Roux-ers are there? Kirjava, Waffo, Biggreen, Roux...

Sorry if I've missed someone obvious out


----------



## Cubenovice (May 19, 2011)

Robert-Y said:


> How many sub 15 Roux-ers are there? Kirjava, Waffo, Biggreen, Roux...
> 
> Sorry if I've missed someone obvious out



Nah... I'm 100% sure both Thom and Giles are more then 15 years old.
Not sure about Waffo and Big Green.
;-)


----------



## Yes We Can! (May 19, 2011)

Robert-Y said:


> How many sub 15 Roux-ers are there? Kirjava, Waffo, Biggreen, Roux...
> 
> Sorry if I've missed someone obvious out


 
I think Ville is sub-15 with it.


----------



## Escher (May 19, 2011)

How on earth I hadn't thought of this way of solving the pair is beyond me, especially when it offers zero regrips and better for initial hand position:

R U R' U R' U' R2 U' R'

Really nice when the first U is performed with LH index push on LBU.


----------



## Robert-Y (May 19, 2011)

but surely you could just do R' U R U R' U' R and do the second U with your left index?...

Actually I'd just do a "corny U"...


----------



## Escher (May 19, 2011)

Robert-Y said:


> but surely you could just do R' U R U R' U' R and do the second U with your left index?...
> 
> Actually I'd just do a "corny U"...


 
But then you have to put your thumb on UF... That newer way just flows better with my usual f2l and it's the kind of case I force often


----------



## Robert-Y (May 19, 2011)

Wait, just start in standard grip and do the first U with left index


----------



## Escher (May 19, 2011)

Robert-Y said:


> Wait, just start in standard grip and do the first U with left index


 
Yeah cause that doesn't feel like trash or isn't at all an inefficient use of your hands


----------



## jrb (May 19, 2011)

Kirjava said:


>



I lol'd too.


----------



## Cool Frog (May 19, 2011)

jrb said:


> I lol'd too.


 
I loled because of a few things.
1.Turning style
2.Movecount
3.Stickered GuHong
4. Beginning of black and yellow started playing at the end. It loled at you.


----------



## Yes We Can! (May 20, 2011)

Robert-Y said:


> but surely you could just do R' U R U R' U' R and do the second U with your left index?...
> 
> Actually I'd just do a "corny U"...


 
What's a corny U? 
And is corny an adjective or a name?


----------



## DavidWoner (May 20, 2011)

Rather than the standard Denial > Anger > Bargaining > Depression > Acceptance stages Kir goes through Denial > Denial > Denial > Denial > Lolz.


----------



## Cool Frog (May 20, 2011)

DavidWoner said:


> Rather than the standard Denial > Anger > Bargaining > Depression > Acceptance stages Kir goes through Denial > Denial > Denial > Denial > Lolz.


 
Even true for good times.


----------



## Yes We Can! (May 21, 2011)

Found this alg for an awkward shape OLL yesterday.
Setup: M F U R U' R' F' U' M'
Alg: M U (F R U R' U' F') M'

...not sure if it's new but I haven't seen people using it.


----------



## joey (May 21, 2011)

Ya, it's old!


----------



## JonnyWhoopes (May 25, 2011)

Is it just me, or are blockbuilding method users out in force recently? Every time somebody asks for help, there's a huge rush of blockbuilders running in to convert the newbies.


----------



## qqwref (May 25, 2011)

Yau/redux combination for 6x6x6:
- white and yellow centers
- make three full white edges, place on L as they are made
- finish the last 4 centers on M
- *pair up outer and inner wing pairs*, I don't think anyone uses this in practice but the recognition shouldn't be too bad
- finish entire rest of cube like Yau on 4x4x4


----------



## uberCuber (May 25, 2011)

Making the centers of a 6x6 while preserving the three edge pairs just sounds annoying and is why I will always use pure reduction on cubes bigger than 4x4


----------



## qqwref (May 25, 2011)

It's not... you just do 5r moves instead of x moves. And you make sure not to turn F or B.


----------



## Cool Frog (May 25, 2011)

JonnyWhoopes said:


> Is it just me, or are blockbuilding method users out in force recently? Every time somebody asks for help, there's a huge rush of blockbuilders running in to convert the newbies.


 I seem to see that also. I gave up so whatevs.


qqwref said:


> It's not... you just do 5r moves instead of x moves. And you make sure not to turn F or B.


----------



## uberCuber (May 25, 2011)

qqwref said:


> It's not... you just do 5r moves instead of x moves. And you make sure not to turn F or B.


 
I know how to do it, but it's annoying and slow to solve like that on large centers. (yes I realize that is an opinionated statement :3)


----------



## Kirjava (May 25, 2011)

qqwref said:


> - make three full white edges, place on L as they are made
> - finish the last 4 centers on M


 
Even I don't do this. 6x6x6 sucks to turn when it isn't on qCube.


----------



## irontwig (May 25, 2011)

So you solve all centres first? What about 5x5?


----------



## Kirjava (May 25, 2011)

K4 on 5x5x5, anything bigger I do all centres first and then pair four edges.


----------



## Bapao (May 25, 2011)

JonnyWhoopes said:


> Is it just me, or are blockbuilding method users out in force recently? Every time somebody asks for help, there's a huge rush of blockbuilders running in to convert the newbies.


 
My PS3 is better than your XBox360...


----------



## aronpm (May 25, 2011)

b4p4076 said:


> My PS3 is better than your XBox360...


 
Lol PlayStation Network


----------



## Bapao (May 25, 2011)

aronpm said:


> Lol PlayStation Network


----------



## Godmil (May 25, 2011)

I've recently been changing a lot of my OLLs, not to get better algs, but to get better orientations.
It occurred to me that the first thing I do when I see the OLL is look at the stickers on top (I then know which group it is) then I look at the stickers on the side to work out the exact one. It occured to me that if I had the same orientation for all the algs in a group (such as lighting ones always being on the left, or Knight Move ones always being horizontal with the corner pointing down), then as soon as I knew the group I could AUF to put it into the correct orientation, and while doing that I can work out which exact case it is. Which should save time (at least for someone who's as slow at recognition as I am).


----------



## Rpotts (May 25, 2011)

there is on knight move that I always recognize from a U2 off, so sometimes I'll end up U4ing, such a nub.


----------



## MaeLSTRoM (May 25, 2011)

Would this be a good way to solve big-cubes:

3 centres around one corner
Pair the 3 edges + 1 corner to make a N-1xN-1xN-1 block
Finish centres
Pair up one CE pair so that only R&U are left to solve
Solve petrus-style 2-Gen stage

Any Ideas?


----------



## miniGOINGS (May 25, 2011)

Godmil said:


> I've recently been changing a lot of my OLLs, not to get better algs, but to get better orientations.
> It occurred to me that the first thing I do when I see the OLL is look at the stickers on top (I then know which group it is) then I look at the stickers on the side to work out the exact one. It occured to me that if I had the same orientation for all the algs in a group (such as lighting ones always being on the left, or Knight Move ones always being horizontal with the corner pointing down), then as soon as I knew the group I could AUF to put it into the correct orientation, and while doing that I can work out which exact case it is. Which should save time (at least for someone who's as slow at recognition as I am).


 
I did this with PLL, all of the algs with adjacent corner swaps (2/3 of them) start with corners needing to be switched on R. That way as soon as I knew it was a PLL with an adjacent corner swap, I AUF'd and then recognized the edge permutation.


----------



## Kirjava (May 25, 2011)

MaeLSTRoM said:


> Pair up one CE pair so that only R&U are left to solve
> Solve petrus-style 2-Gen stageAny Ideas?


 
need to make a ECE pair to finish the 3x3x4
need to pair the rest of the edges and fix EO parity and fix CP for 2gen


----------



## MaeLSTRoM (May 25, 2011)

Kirjava said:


> need to make a ECE pair to finish the 3x3x4
> need to pair the rest of the edges and fix EO parity and fix CP for 2gen


 
Whoops, forgot to put that in. I was thinking more for cubes>=5x5, I think it would be quite slow on 4x4 relative to reduction/K4/whatever...

Actually Nevermind, just gave it a go, and its much slower than reduction.


----------



## irontwig (May 25, 2011)

Generally speaking direct solving methods get worse as the cube size increases.


----------



## miniGOINGS (May 25, 2011)

irontwig said:


> Generally speaking direct solving methods get worse as the cube size increases.


 
Any known specific reason?


----------



## MaeLSTRoM (May 25, 2011)

irontwig said:


> Generally speaking direct solving methods get worse as the cube size increases.


 
That's probably true, it was just a random Idea, hence the random discussion thread.

And another thing: If on an even layered cube, you placed the corners in a solvable position, is every combination of the other peices solvable?


----------



## irontwig (May 25, 2011)

Yes, at least with a non-super cube.


----------



## Kirjava (May 25, 2011)

MaeLSTRoM said:


> And another thing: If on an even layered cube, you placed the corners in a solvable position, is every combination of the other peices solvable?


 
Yep.

Anyway, I don't think every direct solving method suffers as badly.

Cage is pretty bad because of all the centre comms. I think K4 and Redux give comparable times on 7x7x7. If I could do centres and pair four edges as fast as dan our times would be about the same.


----------



## MaeLSTRoM (May 25, 2011)

What about KBCM?


----------



## Kirjava (May 25, 2011)

Rawrby4 columns are pretty suck on biggercubes I guess.


----------



## qqwref (May 25, 2011)

Kirjava said:


> Even I don't do this. 6x6x6 sucks to turn when it isn't on qCube.


Surely some people have good 6x6x6s, though, right? I mean, considering the tps some people get.



MaeLSTRoM said:


> Would this be a good way to solve big-cubes:
> 
> 3 centres around one corner
> Pair the 3 edges + 1 corner to make a N-1xN-1xN-1 block
> ...


Nope. Once you've got those 3 centers made, there's no way to pair edges other than the standard reduction style (2 or more at once). So this can't be more efficient than Reduction+Petrus, and will probably be worse, because the order of steps doesn't always let you take advantage of easy cases on future centers/edges.


Roux-by-4/KBCM doesn't work so well on bigger cubes, because the centers+columns with <2R,3R,...,U> step starts to break when +centers get involved. As far as K4 on 7x7x7, no clue whether this can compete with Redux on the highest level (I'd have to try it on the sim a few times but I can't think of a nice hand position for it). It's entirely possible that Dan's edges are lacking in lookahead, or that Kir's edge comms have very high tps.


----------



## oll+phase+sync (May 26, 2011)

Godmil said:


> ...such as lighting ones always being on the left



when I see a lightning bolt I always AUF, so the oriented Corner is at UFL (Sune case) or UBL (Antisune case) 
The Sune/Antisune case can be predicted by looking at any corner. And my algs are that way that I don't need additional AUF afterwards.


----------



## Godmil (May 26, 2011)

I forgot to mention that I'm also doing the same thing with PLL. a 1x3 block (Ja,Jb,F) always goes on the Left hand side (Except U-perms that are easy enough to spot and I solve from two orientations each anyway), 2x2 goes in UFL (I changed my A perms so that they fitted my V-Perm orientation, so I just place the block and know the PLL based on the stickers to either side of the block). All I need to do is redo my R-Perms (which I've never been happy with) so that they have headlights on the left and then they'll match up with my G-Perms.


----------



## Rpotts (May 26, 2011)

I thought that would be useful back when I was finishing PLL, but it limits your alg choice too much. Just get used to recognizing from multiple angles, after hundreds of solves you sorta just "auto-AUF" without really thinking. You should be able to recognize V perm by simply seeing a 2x2 block + diagonal corners (opp stickers on each face) or by seeing the pattern it makes on the other side of the block.


----------



## Godmil (May 26, 2011)

oh, I'm getting better at pll recognition, but I suck at some angles (the non block faces of V-perm, or any G-perm angle where you can't see the 2 block), I think I'll need to spend time properly working on 2 face recognition.


----------



## TMOY (May 26, 2011)

Kirjava said:


> Cage is pretty bad because of all the centre comms.


 Lol, there's much more in solving centers last than just niklas niklas niklas. Learning to use 4-move comms and thus reducing the move couny by a lot allows to go much faster than you seem to think.


----------



## Cool Frog (May 26, 2011)

TMOY said:


> Lol, there's much more in solving centers last than just niklas niklas niklas. Learning to use 4-move comms and thus reducing the move couny by a lot allows to go much faster than you seem to think.


 
lol
true


----------



## DavidWoner (May 26, 2011)

Godmil said:


> I forgot to mention that I'm also doing the same thing with PLL. a 1x3 block (Ja,Jb,F) always goes on the Left hand side (Except U-perms that are easy enough to spot and I solve from two orientations each anyway), 2x2 goes in UFL (I changed my A perms so that they fitted my V-Perm orientation, so I just place the block and know the PLL based on the stickers to either side of the block). All I need to do is redo my R-Perms (which I've never been happy with) so that they have headlights on the left and then they'll match up with my G-Perms.


 
This kind of stuff will hurt you in the long run and probably not help in the short run.


----------



## Kirjava (May 26, 2011)

TMOY said:


> Lol, there's much more in solving centers last than just niklas niklas niklas. Learning to use 4-move comms and thus reducing the move couny by a lot allows to go much faster than you seem to think.


 
My main method used to be cage, no need to patronise.

I was talking about the problems with using so many inner slice moves that alternate between adjacent axis. Not great to fingertrick.


----------



## ben1996123 (May 28, 2011)

So... Lightake has this:






named as "LL Color Heart *Rice Dumpling* Magic IQ Test Color Cube White"

I lold.


----------



## uberCuber (May 28, 2011)

rice dumpling lol


----------



## TeddyKGB (May 29, 2011)

IQ test, lol


----------



## qqwref (Jun 1, 2011)

I think FMC scrambles should always be non-optimal. If they are optimal, it actually makes it more difficult to find a valid optimal solution - because it is likely to be related to (read: the inverse of) the scramble


----------



## MaeLSTRoM (Jun 1, 2011)

^Agreed.

Random Question: Does anyone else actually use Z4 or is it just me?


----------



## Kirjava (Jun 1, 2011)

Conrad uses it.


----------



## Kirjava (Jun 2, 2011)

That 'method' from the F3L thread;

L2 R D' B2 D2 R B R' U' R D B2 F2 D' B' F U R' L D U R' U L' B'

Cross: z' D' M B L x
1: U2 L2 B L U2 B' U L
2: F2 L2 U' L U L2 F U' F
3: L U L' R' F' U2 F R
4: B2 U' B D' B' U D B2 D' B' D
ELL: R U R' U' M' U R U' R' U' M U2 M' U' M


----------



## qqwref (Jun 2, 2011)

Kirjava said:


> That 'method' from the F3L thread;
> 
> L2 R D' B2 D2 R B R' U' R D B2 F2 D' B' F U R' L D U R' U L' B'
> 
> ...


Interesting idea, isn't it (although I don't actually remember this being posted)?

Actually, I could see a variant of this (similar to L2L2) being potentially useful - cross + 2 F2L pairs, F2L + CO (with WV?), F2L + CP, ELL.


----------



## vcuber13 (Jun 2, 2011)

from here http://www.speedsolving.com/forum/showthread.php?29712-F3L&p=585566#post585566


----------



## qqwref (Jun 2, 2011)

Oh, the *recent* F3L thread. Didn't see that one, thought Kir was referring to the older one that ran for several pages before being closed.


----------



## Athefre (Jun 3, 2011)

Wow, look at all of the heartless people in that topic.


----------



## emolover (Jun 3, 2011)

Kirjava said:


> That 'method' from the F3L thread;
> 
> L2 R D' B2 D2 R B R' U' R D B2 F2 D' B' F U R' L D U R' U L' B'
> 
> ...


 
If you were to speed solve using that method, how long would it take you?


----------



## Kirjava (Jun 3, 2011)

Too long. 1x1x3 columns are not a smart move for a number of reasons.


----------



## Rubiks560 (Jun 3, 2011)

Interesting, Amazon finally sells black V-Cubes. http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_n...s&field-keywords=V-Cube+5&rh=i:aps,k:V-Cube+5


----------



## PM 1729 (Jun 4, 2011)

Twists UFL and ULB
[RUR'UR,U2R'U2]

Not sure if this has been posted already.


----------



## Rpotts (Jun 4, 2011)

wow I'm going to admit that writing it in comm notation made me not realize that it's two sunes.

it's known.


----------



## riffz (Jun 4, 2011)

LOL


----------



## MaeLSTRoM (Jun 4, 2011)

TwistyPuzzles.com is down, again. LOL


----------



## ben1996123 (Jun 5, 2011)

http://lightake.com/detail.do/sku.3D_Rubik_s_Cube-25845


----------



## AustinReed (Jun 5, 2011)

What's wrong with "aerobics cube"? I don't understand.


----------



## Zane_C (Jun 5, 2011)

I like it how a DNF solve can be said to have been DNF'ed.


----------



## Robert-Y (Jun 5, 2011)

http://www.worldcubeassociation.org/results/statistics.php#7

Finally, Dan did it


----------



## qqwref (Jun 5, 2011)

Haha, nice job Dan. And even with that Pyraminx!

(Why am I still on that list?)


----------



## Mike Hughey (Jun 7, 2011)

Congratulations, Dan - I know you've wanted that for a long time!



qqwref said:


> (Why am I still on that list?)


Because back when you were really good, you were so good that you're still pretty good. And I think that almost everyone who's really good has taken to specializing now. Only crazy people try to be good at everything these days.  (You notice that, as awful as I am, I still keep trying...)


----------



## uberCuber (Jun 7, 2011)

Mike Hughey said:


> (You notice that, as awful as I am, I still keep trying...)


 
I think if I were to try to describe you in a word or two, awful is definitely not one of the words that would come to mind.


----------



## gbcuber (Jun 7, 2011)

Mike Hughey said:


> Congratulations, Dan - I know you've wanted that for a long time!
> 
> 
> Because back when you were really good, you were so good that you're still pretty good. And I think that almost everyone who's really good has taken to specializing now. *Only crazy people try to be good at everything these days.  *(You notice that, as awful as I am, I still keep trying...)



Feliks doesn't even have to try, though


(999th)


----------



## uberCuber (Jun 7, 2011)

gbcuber said:


> Feliks doesn't even have to try, though


 
arrrrgh *Feliks does have to try* 
and judging by the fact that Feliks is not even on that list, he is not "good" at _everything_


----------



## Xishem (Jun 7, 2011)

OHMIGOD FELIKS IS SO GEWD.

/faz fanboy


----------



## uberCuber (Jun 7, 2011)

Xishem said:


> OHMIGOD FELIKS IS SO GEWD.
> 
> /faz fanboy


 
There is nothing wrong with saying that Feliks is very good, seeing as he holds 12 WRs. 
The irritating part is when people say that he does it without trying.


----------



## Kirjava (Jun 9, 2011)

am I doing this right
can you give me tips


----------



## Robert-Y (Jun 9, 2011)

The start of the yellow centre was a little poor. You should've just done U Rw U Rw' or something similar. And just before you did the last turn of the 4th centre you could've looked ahead and added the green 2x1 bar by doing a U2, to save 2 moves


----------



## Kirjava (Jun 9, 2011)

there are more mistakes ^^


----------



## Robert-Y (Jun 9, 2011)

How many are there to find? I might try and find them all tomorrow (my life is so exciting )


----------



## Kirjava (Jun 9, 2011)

idk

it's just like a lazy example solve


----------



## Athefre (Jun 12, 2011)

I've considered this before (many times), but thought it would be too difficult so I always threw the idea away.

I'm thinking I can cut down the number of cases for non-matching CLL to the normal 42 by presenting them in a different way. By combining each CLL's two cases together to make one image, recognition can be as easy as CLL and have the same number of cases. It would still be eight stickers to look at (just like CLL) and you would still always know where to look.

I expect I would still have a difficult time explaining how to use it and I don't have the website programming knowledge to make appealing pages.


----------



## ilikecubing (Jun 13, 2011)

How many algs minimum should I learn to sub 3 k4 ELL?


----------



## riffz (Jun 13, 2011)

ilikecubing said:


> How many algs minimum should I learn to sub 3 k4 ELL?


 
Is that even reasonable?


----------



## Kirjava (Jun 13, 2011)

He means steps, not seconds. (I think)

You shouldn't learn algs, you should learn commutators.

I need to rewrite that ELL page or something. Everyone just skips the paragraphs of text at the beginning and just scrolls down to the algs.


----------



## Athefre (Jun 13, 2011)

There are a lot of paragraphs. Maybe people are just too lazy to read it.

Maybe you could keep it simple in the beginning. Explain that they should understand the step but not memorize and describe how commutator and conjugate notation works. Then at the end include the rest of the helpful stuff.


----------



## Kirjava (Jun 13, 2011)

tbh I never intended to cater for beginners. It's an advanced method that beginners /shouldn't/ be learning.

But they learn it anyway and end up trying to do OLL ;_;

I want to rewrite all the LL algs in comm notation. cba tho >.>


----------



## qqwref (Jun 13, 2011)

Kirjava said:


> I want to rewrite all the LL algs in comm notation. cba tho >.>


This kinda sounds like fun. If I finish I'll PM you the HTML file.


----------



## Kirjava (Jun 13, 2011)

Oh, that would be awesome.


----------



## qqwref (Jun 13, 2011)

You already know this alg (well, setup by an M move), but you probably don't know it could be written like this. Pretty sweet. I discovered it while working on the K4 page.

[Rw' U2 R, R U R' U']

(Very related: [M U2, R2 U R' U' R']. This one is probably easier to wrap your head around.)


EDIT: Might as well put some other 4x4 discoveries here:
[Lw2 D' R2 D: Fw2 U2 l2 U2 Fw2]
[b: [R L u2 R' L', U]]
l R' U2 R2 U R' U' R' U2 (Rwl') U R U' Rw'
x' U' R U l' U' R' U R2 U R' U' l' U R U' R2 l2 x
[S' U': [F' R u2 R' F, U']]
[S' U' : [F' R d2 R' F, U']] (this case isn't on the K4 site)

EDIT:
x' U' R U l' U' R' U R2 U R' U' l' U R U' R2 l2 x
= x' r2 U' R U l' U' R' U R2 U R' U' l' U R U' (R2M2) x


----------



## oll+phase+sync (Jun 14, 2011)

Athefre said:


> I've considered this before (many times), but thought it would be too difficult so I always threw the idea away.
> 
> I'm thinking I can cut down the number of cases for non-matching CLL to the normal 42 by presenting them in a different way. By combining each CLL's two cases together to make one image, recognition can be as easy as CLL and have the same number of cases. It would still be eight stickers to look at (just like CLL) and you would still always know where to look.
> 
> I expect I would still have a difficult time explaining how to use it and I don't have the website programming knowledge to make appealing pages.


 
I'm not sure I get it right looking at this http://www.athefre.110mb.com/NMCMLL.html and comparing the two E4-* cases (both in the first columne) they look so different! how would you combine them?


----------



## Athefre (Jun 14, 2011)

For each L/R orientation, there are two usable patterns that work for this. Those patterns match up for each corner case (E4 for example). I would need to make a new page because, for this pattern merge, some of the patterns in my original image wouldn't work. Example:

Setup (With white/yellow on L/R): FU'L'UR2U'LUR2F'

- You see the white/yellow orientation at URF, UBR, LBU, and LUF.
- URF and UBR are opposite. LBU and LUF are opposite. This is your first pattern.

Setup 2 (for the "second" E4 case): U FU'L'UR2U'LUR2F'

- You see the white/yellow orientation at FUR, BRU, BUL, and FLU.
- FUR and BUL are opposite. BRU and FLU are opposite. This is the second pattern.

- Now look at the stickers at URF and UBR. Then look at the stickers at LBU and LUF. It's the same as the pattern in the first setup.

With this, recognizing the orientation of the L/R colors is the first priority. Then you look for the second pattern. You would need to know where to look for each L/R orientation. That's the only additional information needed compared to CLL, but it's still just like memorizing 42 cases. This may be something that someone would naturally develop if I had the right patterns shown in the NMCLL image.


----------



## Kirjava (Jun 14, 2011)

this is awesome


----------



## qqwref (Jun 16, 2011)

Does anyone remember my intuitive 2gen cycle alg: (U' R' U2 R U) (R U R2 U' R')?

I just realized that you can use it to create an uncommon but short 2gen U perm... watch this:
R2 U (U' R' U2 R U) (R U R2 U' R') U' R2
= R U2 R U R U R2 U' R' U' R2

Also, what the hell?: R U R' U' R' U' R' U R U
This is also a "two setup'd single moves" type alg: [R U: R'] [U' R': U].
And it's a cyclic shift of (URURU)(R'U'R'U'R'), which is a well-known F2L alg, and also one that I'm not sure how it works. It's got to be one of the shortest useful algs which can't be written as a fixed-centers commutator.


----------



## irontwig (Jun 16, 2011)

Isn't obvious; you just do two 4e4c cycles ?


----------



## qqwref (Jun 16, 2011)

Well, sure, but it's not obvious to me why it works so nicely


----------



## oll+phase+sync (Jun 16, 2011)

Athefre said:


> - Now look at the stickers at URF and UBR. Then look at the stickers at LBU and LUF. It's the same as the pattern in the first setup.



That's cool, I never realized it so far: If I know one L/R-pattern a CLL-alg produces, but the pattern don't show up, then I just have to look for that pattern as a F/B - pattern.

But it don't works in NMCLL cases ? right?


Also you created 23 different LR patterns groups, (each with up to 4 subcases) to use LR pattern recognition, my idea would be to declare ~50% of these "pattern groups" to "not a pattern" wich means each time I see a L/R "not a pattern" I know that I have to look for an F/B pattern. 

Am I still on track?

currently I see no systematic how Algs are distributed amog the pattern groups, so I'm not sure an optimal (42 case) "pattern" / "not a pattern" separation exists.


----------



## Athefre (Jun 16, 2011)

oll+phase+sync said:


> But it don't works in NMCLL cases ? right?



It works for NMCLL and is the reason I posted about it. I'll admit, I haven't went through every case to test if this works perfectly. That's why I started with "I'm thinking" when I began describing this. I've only checked a couple of orientation sets. I have run across a couple of cases (H1 and H6) that behave a little differently, but it doesn't seem to matter because those orientations are so simple with fewer cases.

All you have to do to see how this works is apply the inverse of your sequence and find the L/R orientation. Then with solved corners again, do U or U' then apply the inverse of your sequence. Find the L/R orientation and you have your other pattern. It would take a little more time to memorize this compared to CLL because in addition to the 42 cases you would have to look over the 23 possible orientations and learn where to look for stickers (which wouldn't be the same as the image on my page).


----------



## oll+phase+sync (Jun 16, 2011)

(normal case FU'L'UR2U'LUR2F') L/R is E4-2 pattern F/B is E4-1 - fine (expected)




(R2 case R2 FU'L'UR2U'LUR2F') L/R is E4-2 pattern U/D is E4-2 too - fine (surprising to me)




(R case R FU'L'UR2U'LUR2F') L/R is E4-2 pattern but I don't see another E4 pattern

Instead of E4-* pattern I should maybe say E4 pattern case.


----------



## Athefre (Jun 16, 2011)

For your last example, the remaining E4 pattern is FUR/BUL (they are opposites) and BRU/FLU (they are opposites). Notice in your first example that you could say FUR/BUL are opposite and BRU/FUL are opposite. Notice that FUR/BUL are on the yellow corners and BRU/FUL are on the white corners.


----------



## ben1996123 (Jun 17, 2011)




----------



## Robert-Y (Jun 17, 2011)

Not bad, I still prefer the one on anthony's website though: (R' U R') (U2 R U' R' U R U' R2)


----------



## cuboy63 (Jun 17, 2011)

> Not bad, I still prefer the one on anthony's website though: (R' U R') (U2 R U' R' U R U' R2)


I prefer this too.
I think I can get 0.8x.
Wanna go on TTW and talk about 2x2 algs again, Rob?
Or we can talk about something else.


----------



## Escher (Jun 17, 2011)

This is also good imo: (R' U R') U R' U2' R U' R U' R


----------



## Robert-Y (Jun 17, 2011)

Bill: Sorry not today, I have to leave tomorrow for a competition 

Rowan: yeah this one is also nice, I can't do eido U2's very well though :/


----------



## riffz (Jun 17, 2011)

No one likes R2’ U' R U2 R' U2’ R U' R2 ?


----------



## oll+phase+sync (Jun 17, 2011)

Athefre said:


> Notice that FUR/BUL are on the yellow corners and BRU/FUL are on the white corners.


 
I try to make a ruleset out of this (it seems to be more deterministic(easy) than I first believed):

1. identify the L/R case (white/yellow), there are 23 cases

2a. There are two corners with yellow stickers, these corners have 2 colors in common (one is yellow) -> *ignore this*
2b. The remainig two stickers on the yellow corners are always opposite colors. -> these are the first two stickers of the second pattern

3a+b. Just the same as step 2 to get the next two stickers for the second pattern.

4. the second patter is again one of the 23 cases and the combination tells me the alg.


my considerations (?):
a) the 23 cases are the same for both steps in theory, but in practise I memoryse pattern 1 as two set of stickers of the same color, while I have to identify pattern 2 as set of opposite colored stickers

b) there are only 42 pattern combos, but they can be combined in one of two orders.


----------



## Athefre (Jun 17, 2011)

That's how I used to recognize NMCLL, but using the matching colors, which are actually the U colors, instead of the opposites. The problem is that it's not as fast as a set recognition pattern.


----------



## Hershey (Jun 22, 2011)

Bump?

This L2L4 stuff is getting to my head.
First layer average solve times

Average of 5: 8.98
1. (6.98) R' L D' R2 F R2 F2 L' F2 L' U' D2 B' L2 U' D2 L2 F R' B2 D2 F R2 L D2 
2. (19.31) L U' F' L R' U B' F R B D2 R' L2 F' D U B U L2 F2 U2 D L' B2 L 
3. 8.31 F R' L2 D' L' F U' F2 D2 F L2 F U' L D2 U B R F' U2 D2 F' U F2 B 
4. 8.37 L2 D2 L' D B2 U2 D2 L2 F B' U2 L' D' R' B' F U D' L2 D B2 U L R F 
5. 10.27 R B2 R2 D B F2 R2 B R' L2 B2 R F L2 R2 F2 R2 U2 D2 B2 F2 U D2 L' F2 

2nd "solve" was fail. I could solve the entire cube in less than 18 seconds.


----------



## irontwig (Jun 23, 2011)

LBL trick from Josef Trajber's book: R2 U2 R' U2 R2. I was like :0


----------



## Kirjava (Jun 23, 2011)

irontwig said:


> LBL trick from Josef Trajber's book: R2 U2 R' U2 R2. I was like :0


 
Looks like someone doesn't do enough Roux XD.


----------



## ben1996123 (Jun 23, 2011)

V-cube shipping is good. I ordered 3 v-cube 2's on Tuesday and they arrived the day after.


----------



## jack3256 (Jun 23, 2011)

Switching methods is so difficult I just switched to Roux and K4 from the crappy standard CFOP and Yaudux (which is ok), so what do you guys think is the standard time to get as fast/proficient with a new method as with your old?


----------



## Athefre (Jun 23, 2011)

oll+phase+sync said:


> I try to make a ruleset out of this (it seems to be more deterministic(easy) than I first believed):
> 
> 1. identify the L/R case (white/yellow), there are 23 cases
> 
> ...


 
I think I was reading this incorrectly. Originally, I thought you were suggesting a "find the opposite colors yourself" recognition. Now I see that you were describing how you were understanding it.


----------



## riffz (Jun 23, 2011)

jack3256 said:


> Switching methods is so difficult *I just switched to Roux and K4 from the crappy standard CFOP and Yaudux (which is ok)*, so what do you guys think is the standard time to get as fast/proficient with a new method as with your old?


 
I think you're switching for the wrong reasons.


----------



## jack3256 (Jun 23, 2011)

riffz said:


> I think you're switching for the wrong reasons.


 
That isn't why I'm switching, I'm fast with Yaudux and CFOP but I don't enjoy solving with them it's somewhat autonomous whereas I find my new 2 methods require some thought and I find them more fun to solve with, roux got me back into 3x3 as K4 got me back into 4x4


----------



## Stefan (Jun 24, 2011)

Had a weird solve, trying linear fewest moves. Double extended cross after 17 moves, and funnily the last two (adjacent) pairs were already solved, except in the wrong slots. Usually I'd swap them with [F U' L : U2], but I noticed the 6-moves OLL so did OLL before F2L. And then I ended up with an F perm "right on top" of the two wrong F2L pairs, so I set up the rest to be solved by a U2 turn:

f R U R' U' f'
[L D F' R2 F R' : U2]


----------



## riffz (Jun 24, 2011)

Stefan said:


> Had a weird solve, trying linear fewest moves. Double extended cross after 17 moves, and funnily the last two (adjacent) pairs were already solved, except in the wrong slots. Usually I'd swap them with [F U' L : U2], but I noticed the 6-moves OLL so did OLL before F2L. And then I ended up with an F perm "right on top" of the two wrong F2L pairs, so I set up the rest to be solved by a U2 turn:
> 
> f R U R' U' f'
> [L D F' R2 F R' : U2]


 
Heh, that was cool.


----------



## Kirjava (Jun 24, 2011)

*Roux Method Guide*
(For CFOP users)


Solve DL then DR
Do four f2L slots
Do DB and DF
OLL/PLL


----------



## StachuK1992 (Jun 24, 2011)

BUT WHAT'S THE MVOECUONT VERSUS CFOP AND HOW MANY ALGS ARE THERE?


----------



## qqwref (Jun 24, 2011)

TAHT DOESNT SOUND LIKE A VERY GOOD METHOD I MEAN WHY NOT JUST START WITH THE CROSS BECAUSE YOUR WAY HAS SLIEC MOVS

I TRYD A FEW SOLVES AND MY LBL TIMES ARE FASTR SO IT SUCKS


----------



## StachuK1992 (Jun 24, 2011)

I THINK WE SHOULD DO SOME PHASING


----------



## AndreasFrom (Jun 24, 2011)

I THINK WE SHOULD DO EO FIRST


----------



## AJ Blair (Jun 24, 2011)

I THINK WE SHOULD STOP YELLING


----------



## ben1996123 (Jun 24, 2011)

I THINK WE SHOULD USE SOME 0ING


----------



## oll+phase+sync (Jun 24, 2011)

Kirjava said:


> Solve DL then DR + one FL2 slot (but use blockbuilding)
> Do three f2L slots
> ...
> Do DB and DF


 
I lately tried to get more colour neutral with Roux by having white on D-Face instead of white on L-face ... Solving DB/DF is really tempting sometimes that way


----------



## oll+phase+sync (Jun 24, 2011)

Hershey said:


> Bump?
> 
> This L2L4 stuff is getting to my head.
> First layer average solve times
> ...



How many "steps"/looks do you use for first layer, I need at least 3 looks wich is still to much as I believe.

I wonder how consistent your movecount is (~24), It's not so difficult to get sub 20 moves.


----------



## oll+phase+sync (Jun 24, 2011)

Athefre said:


> I think I was reading this incorrectly. Originally, I thought you were suggesting a "find the opposite colors yourself" recognition. Now I see that you were describing how you were understanding it.


 
In fact I tried to understand how your "NMCMLL Version 3" could work (still no idea, but I'm very interessted) 
But finally I now understand how you created Version 2


----------



## Stefan (Jun 26, 2011)

Stefan said:


> Had a weird solve, trying linear fewest moves.


 
Another, though just the F2L part. Does that count as quadruple multi-slotting? Wasn't looking ahead, though, just happened randomly.

F' D2 L' U' L D2 F
U2 L U' L'
R L' U L
U' R'


----------



## qqwref (Jun 27, 2011)

A bunch of random similarities I found between me and Chris Hardwick:
- we both used to be world-class in a few popular events, but have since stopped being competitive in them;
- we both moved on to less-popular events that we can still get impressive results in;
- we both won the 4x4x4 event at a US Nationals competition (once);
- we both haven't competed since US Nationals 2010;
- we're both very interested in math;
- we are both knowledgeable in cube theory;
- we both invented methods (that other people have learned since then);
- we're both active on this forum, and have a large number of posts.


----------



## cmhardw (Jun 27, 2011)

qqwref said:


> A bunch of random similarities I found between me and Chris Hardwick:
> - we both used to be world-class in a few popular events, but have since stopped being competitive in them;
> - we both moved on to less-popular events that we can still get impressive results in;
> - we both won the 4x4x4 event at a US Nationals competition (once);
> ...


 
Wow, very cool!

I thought this was neat:
Rounding to the tenth's place, your pb single is 7.6 times faster than my pb single in the following two events:
- Square-1
- Megaminx

I'll see if I can find more things 

--------

On a much more random note I felt like being silly.

I did a scrambling average. Basically I started the timer (no inspection) scrambled the cube, stopped the timer, immediately started the timer again, scrambled with the next alg, stopped the timer, rinse and repeat  I did not verify whether or not I had scrambled correctly, but I made my best effort to scramble correctly.

08.73, 07.71, 09.03, 07.68, 07.86, (09.07), 07.93, 07.95, 09.02, (07.27), 08.25, 08.44 = 8.26


----------



## Hershey (Jun 27, 2011)

oll+phase+sync said:


> How many "steps"/looks do you use for first layer, I need at least 3 looks wich is still to much as I believe.
> 
> I wonder how consistent your movecount is (~24), It's not so difficult to get sub 20 moves.


 
I do:
cross
4 corners. lol


----------



## StachuK1992 (Jun 27, 2011)

Hershey, ollphasesync:
http://stachu.cubing.net/firstlayer/
I'm getting ~15.


----------



## uberCuber (Jun 27, 2011)

cmhardw said:


> I did a scrambling average. Basically I started the timer (no inspection) scrambled the cube, stopped the timer, immediately started the timer again, scrambled with the next alg, stopped the timer, rinse and repeat  I did not verify whether or not I had scrambled correctly, but I made my best effort to scramble correctly.
> 
> 08.73, 07.71, 09.03, 07.68, 07.86, (09.07), 07.93, 07.95, 09.02, (07.27), 08.25, 08.44 = 8.26



7.32, 6.89, 6.70, (6.23), 7.78, 7.49, 7.35, 7.20, (8.08), 7.42, 8.00, 6.50 = 7.26

that was fun


----------



## uberCuber (Jun 27, 2011)

StachuK1992 said:


> Hershey, ollphasesync:
> http://stachu.cubing.net/firstlayer/
> I'm getting ~15.


 
"Once you’ve done the edges ... do two edges at a time."

lol might want to fix that


----------



## TylerKerr (Jun 27, 2011)

nice sega one haha


----------



## oll+phase+sync (Jun 27, 2011)

uberCuber said:


> "Once you’ve done the edges ... do two CORNERS at a time."


 
I Never tried to do this. I case of of an oriented but missplaced Corner in the First Layer I could think of doing some fast (recog,exec,moves) commutator. ( [R'D'R,U] an stuff )

Is this the kind of alg you speak of? Or do speek of things like preparing two oriented edges in D and than do M'F2M-things ?


----------



## bluecloe45 (Jun 27, 2011)

Kirjava said:


> this is awesome


 
Thats pretty funny


----------



## StachuK1992 (Jun 27, 2011)

oll+phase+sync said:


> I Never tried to do this. I case of of an oriented but missplaced Corner in the First Layer I could think of doing some fast (recog,exec,moves) commutator. ( [R'D'R,U] an stuff )
> 
> Is this the kind of alg you speak of? Or do speek of things like preparing two oriented edges in D and than do M'F2M-things ?


For edges-first, there are a number of algs like that one that may help reduce 'bad' cases, but overall, they should be fairly intuitive and flowy. I tend to do the B corners then the F corners (edges on D).

For corners-first, there are plenty 'bad cases' that my sammich approach doesn't provide optimal solutions for, and so algs (that would become intuitive) would be apt to learn.


I'll fix that mistake on the site today; thanks for pointing it out!

statue


----------



## Jorghi (Jun 27, 2011)

... I used to be addicted to cubing. Now I'm not cuz I have to learn all the OLLs and PLLs............


----------



## Kirjava (Jun 27, 2011)

just learn ZBLL instead


----------



## aminayuko (Jun 28, 2011)

to bluecloe45:young fingers rule


----------



## BC1997 (Jun 28, 2011)

an someone direct me to the thread that was made specifically for a person to ask for example for a cube that turns well and has very good corner cutting abilities, then another person gives him the cube, sorry for the out of context question.


----------



## riffz (Jun 28, 2011)

One Answer Question Thread. It's stickied in the Speedcubing Help/Questions section.


----------



## qqwref (Jul 2, 2011)

Here's a really weird way to do a 4-cycle of c/e pairs:
R F R L' B L D L' B' L R' F' R'

And here's a single commutator that performs _two twisted corner 2-cycles_:
(R' F R) (L' B L) (R' F' R) (L' B' L)
= (l' U l) (r' U r) (l' U' l) (r' U' r)


----------



## Stefan (Jul 3, 2011)

qqwref said:


> Here's a really weird way to do a 4-cycle of c/e pairs:
> R F R L' B L D L' B' L R' F' R'


 
That one's old...

This one, too: [L B M D L : S] D' (and [L B R L' F L : E] D is the easier version)
It's somewhat the dual idea, cycling four edge/center pairs in a layer rather than four corner/edge pairs. I just added a D-turn to make it cycle corner/edge pairs instead.


----------



## Tim Major (Jul 6, 2011)

Messing with lots of Last pair last layer methods, with EP of 5 edges as the last step (from L2L4)
1. F2L -1 pair.
2. FL corner and orientation of LL corners.
3. Permutation of corners and orientation of edges.
4. EP.

CO seems decent, but I'm just doing in intuitively, the 10-20 algs would make this much nicer.
But the EO + CP, I know a few that I just randomly picked up, these seem decent, but I don't know enough to truly judge.
EP seems to be much better than PLL, longest alg on statue's site is 15 moves.(not just judging on movecount, they're very nice other than this 15 move <RU> alg which I can't find a good grip for)

Thoughts? Anyone care to point out some flaws? :3


----------



## whauk (Jul 6, 2011)

qqwref said:


> Here's a really weird way to do a 4-cycle of c/e pairs:
> And here's a single commutator that performs _two twisted corner 2-cycles_:
> (R' F R) (L' B L) (R' F' R) (L' B' L)
> = (l' U l) (r' U r) (l' U' l) (r' U' r)



found one too by playing around:
E R E' B' E R' E' B


----------



## StachuK1992 (Jul 6, 2011)

:s
x2 R' U M2 U' R' U' M2 U R2


----------



## Stefan (Jul 6, 2011)

whauk said:


> found one too by playing around:
> E R E' B' E R' E' B



So many E turns but it only affects corners. Pretty cool.


----------



## StachuK1992 (Jul 6, 2011)

Discussing the naming for a 4x4 method:
RoarByFour = RouxByFour= KBCM = Columns (old name)

New proposal: ROAR (Roux On A Revenge)


----------



## riffz (Jul 6, 2011)

StachuK1992 said:


> :s
> x2 R' U M2 U' R' U' M2 U R2



Hadn't thought about making 5-cycles like that. I thought you had just typed a comm wrong at first 

O look purposely screwing up comms can be fun: R U' M U R' U M' U'


----------



## irontwig (Jul 6, 2011)

StachuK1992 said:


> KBCM = Columns (old name)


 
lolno


----------



## StachuK1992 (Jul 6, 2011)

Doing center-center-edge pairs falls under the Columns meta-method, by various definitions.


----------



## Kirjava (Jul 6, 2011)

After you do CLL, the F3L is normally filled in with Columns techniques in this style of method. It has been known as 'columns' by various people. (Not so much anymore though)


----------



## irontwig (Jul 6, 2011)

So I guess you mean Gottlieb columns (Ce...CeE) rather than Akimoto columns (E...ECo)?


----------



## qqwref (Jul 6, 2011)

I think that was roughly the way of thinking. Akimoto's method seems to be mostly forgotten, due to (among other things) being a pretty slow method overall, and not really all that applicable to modern solving.


----------



## Tim Major (Jul 7, 2011)

Tim Major said:


> 1. F2L -1 pair.
> 2. FL corner and orientation of LL corners.
> 3. Permutation of corners and orientation of edges.
> 4. EP.



LS+LL scramble from qqtimer. 
U2 F' U2 F R U' R' F' U F R U R' F' U2 F U2 F' U2 F U2 R U' R' U R U2 R' F' U2 F U2 F' U F

CO, EOCP, EP.
1. U2 R U2 R' U2 R U2 R' (9)
2. F U R' U' F D2 F U F' D2 F2 R (12)
3. U R M2 U M2 U M' U2 M2 U2 M' U2 R' U (14)
35 moves.

FOP
1. U2 R U' R' U' R U' R' U R U' R' (12)
2. U R U2 R2 F R F' U2 R' F R F' (12)
3. U' R' U R U' R2 F' U' F U R F R' F' R2 U' (16)
40 moves.

I admit this wasn't the best scramble for CFOP (and I would always force the OLL away from dot OLL through 1. U2 R U' R' U' R U' R2 F R F' (11)) but this method is promising.
The CO was my intuition, the 2nd step was just cube explorer (restricted, optimal was 10 iirc), and then EP. So far I can sub 1.5 all EPs I've tried, better than my PLLs, and the one we originally thought to be the worst, Robert found and awesome alg for which I have gotten 1.21 on. All algs are new, and can be improved.
Thoughts?


----------



## riffz (Jul 7, 2011)

Sounds decent for OH, as 2 of the 3 steps can be 2-gen while avoiding difficult recognition systems like CPLS. Not sure its worth it for 2H. I've never tried recognizing L5E before.


----------



## DavidWoner (Jul 7, 2011)

Tim Major said:


> LS+LL scramble from qqtimer.
> U2 F' U2 F R U' R' F' U F R U R' F' U2 F U2 F' U2 F U2 R U' R' U R U2 R' F' U2 F U2 F' U F
> 
> I admit this wasn't the best scramble for CFOP


 
Or maybe you should work on your CFOP.
d R' U2 R y R U2 R' U R' F R F' (12/12)
U2 R' U' R U' R' U2 R (8/20)
R U' R U R U R U' R' U' R2 (11/31)

Recognizing L5E would suck I bet.


----------



## Escher (Jul 7, 2011)

Tim Major said:


> LS+LL scramble from qqtimer.
> U2 F' U2 F R U' R' F' U F R U R' F' U2 F U2 F' U2 F U2 R U' R' U R U2 R' F' U2 F U2 F' U F


 
R' U' R U' R' U2 R2 U' R' (9)
M U R U R' U' M' R' F R F' (11)
R2 B2 R F R' B2 R F' R U2 (10)
= 31

or (much cooler)

U R U R x' U' R' U x U2 R' (9)
l U2 L' U' L U' l' (7)
y' x R' U R' D2 R U' R' D2 R2 B2 (9)

= 26

kekekekekeke


----------



## qqwref (Jul 7, 2011)

Escher said:


> U R U R x' U' R' U x U2 R' (9)
> l U2 L' U' L U' l' (7)
> y' x R' U R' D2 R U' R' D2 R2 B2 (9)


=
U R U l U' R' U F2... (8)
U2 L' U' L U'... (5)
R D2 R' U' R D2 R' U l' U2 (10)
= 23 moves lol


----------



## Hershey (Jul 7, 2011)

StachuK1992 said:


> Hershey, ollphasesync:
> http://stachu.cubing.net/firstlayer/
> I'm getting ~15.


 
15 moves?


----------



## StachuK1992 (Jul 7, 2011)

Yes, somewhere around 13-15 moves is my average with these strategies.


----------



## Tim Major (Jul 10, 2011)

DavidWoner said:


> Or maybe you should work on your CFOP.
> d R' U2 R y R U2 R' U R' F R F' (12/12)
> U2 R' U' R U' R' U2 R (8/20)
> R U' R U R U R U' R' U' R2 (11/31)
> ...


 
No, I wouldn't usually solve like this, I was just doing I guess, "pure CFOP".
And do you mean recognising EP? It's very easy. I look for a opposite corner edge corner (ie: like one side of a H-perm.) See where it is in relation to the F2L edge, then solve. And my EPs are 0.6~-1.4~s, whereas for PLL it's .68-1.81. And I've only known full EP for a few days, and the algs are getting nicer and nicer. The worst alg atm is R' U' R U l U2 l' D' R D B2 which could just be R zperm U2 R'. If someone can sub 1 that alg, I'm sure the rest of EP could be sub 1'd.
My normal solving for that scramble (U2 F' U2 F R U' R' F' U F R U R' F' U2 F U2 F' U2 F U2 R U' R' U R U2 R' F' U2 F U2 F' U F) would be;
U2 R U' R' U' R U' R2 F R F'
U2 R U R' U R U' R' U' R' F R F'
U R U R' y' R2 u' R U' R' U R' u R2
35 moves. I wasn't going for FMC here, I was going for nice fingertricks. But I might usually do some EO on the 3rd pair, or other tricks that I may discover later. As I was just pasting raw algs for the proposed method, I thought I'd do likewise with CFOP.
EP recog is just as fast as PLL for me, if not faster.


----------



## oll+phase+sync (Jul 11, 2011)

DavidWoner said:


> Recognizing L5E would suck I bet.


 
Here is my way of recognizing (this doc only contains edge 5-cycles since these are the only difficult algs for recognition)

It's working by putting FR edge to UB and looking at the edges/opposite colors of FR,FU,RU. 

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1w1TYYuKEKNv3vLGK_9Z-L0NMWMvWm4UrZJmiEaLx7CE/edit?hl=en_US

It is quite easy, but I need to AUF before doing the recognition, while for PLL I sometimes recognize a case directly.


----------



## Tim Major (Jul 11, 2011)

oll+phase+sync said:


> It is quite easy, but I need to AUF before doing the recognition, while for PLL I sometimes recognize a case directly.


 
Well I often recognise the case instantly in EP. I find your description, a description for PLL and EP. I would just make sure the FR edge is at BU, and see which edges are opposite swaps. If none are it's one of 2 cases. I need to look at 3 faces maximum.

Edit: do you have more up to date/faster algs than http://stachu.cubing.net/l2l4/eo.html which Statue basically put together quickly to get move counts?


----------



## Basel (Jul 11, 2011)

I think I just found the most awesome Stickers for Cubes:

http://thismobilelife.com/rubicraft/index.html


----------



## oll+phase+sync (Jul 12, 2011)

Tim Major said:


> Edit: do you have more up to date/faster algs than http://stachu.cubing.net/l2l4/eo.html which Statue basically put together quickly to get move counts?


 
I will try your recognition system. 
Regarding EO I don't use algs for EO, but do it intuitiv (more or less)

Like F + EO + PLACE_FR + AUF + F' (this can be done in 90% of all cases)

or

PLACEFR(e.g. rU'MUR') + EO + PLACE_DF

This is the only alg I use:
*M' U2 F M2 U' M2 U F' U M *

I estimate that I average at 12/13 moves that may


----------



## Tim Major (Jul 12, 2011)

oll+phase+sync said:


> Regarding EO I don't use algs for EO, but do it intuitiv (more or less)
> 
> Like F + EO + PLACE_FR + AUF + F' (this can be done in 90% of all cases)


 
Could you give an example?


----------



## Godmil (Jul 12, 2011)

Basel said:


> I think I just found the most awesome Stickers for Cubes:]


They are quite cool looking, but I just had to laugh at this line on the site: "I am using Milton Bradley cubes (so you are getting a high-quality cube)" Also I think he's mistaking tiles and stickers.


----------



## StachuK1992 (Jul 12, 2011)

Heehee. More to come.


----------



## waffle=ijm (Jul 12, 2011)

need moar stachu stop slacking D:<


----------



## StachuK1992 (Jul 13, 2011)

StachuK1992 said:


> Heehee. More to come.


 
Now supports move restrictions in the form of "RUDF2."


----------



## qqwref (Jul 13, 2011)

So what is this exactly - is it just going to be an ACube frontend, or are you going to incorporate something much more complex like an alg-quality heuristic?

Would you consider allowing pieces to be defined either in terms of stickers, or in terms of the pieces themselves? So for instance you could fill in a single red sticker somewhere, and then define another piece to be green-orange-yellow with the orientation unknown.


----------



## fireshaper (Jul 13, 2011)

Basel said:


> I think I just found the most awesome Stickers for Cubes:
> 
> http://thismobilelife.com/rubicraft/index.html


 
Thanks for the mention! I know that I named the stickers wrong and I am going to correct that. I was td about stickers from someone who used the word "tiles" so I presumed that was the correct word for the stickers on cubes. I do apologize if anyone was mislead by this misuse of terminology.


----------



## DavidWoner (Jul 13, 2011)

Tim Major said:


> And do you mean recognising EP? It's very easy.


 
Easy doesn't mean it doesn't suck. I think it requires looking around too much.


----------



## Tim Major (Jul 13, 2011)

DavidWoner said:


> Easy doesn't mean it doesn't suck. I think it requires looking around too much.


 
It can be (I don't because I'm lazy) recognized with 2 faces, you just need to see 3 stickers, and know where the F2L edge is. FR FU RU.


----------



## timeless (Jul 13, 2011)

anyone tried using decal stickers on their cubes?


----------



## StachuK1992 (Jul 13, 2011)

qqwref said:


> So what is this exactly - is it just going to be an ACube frontend, or are you going to incorporate something much more complex like an alg-quality heuristic?
> 
> Would you consider allowing pieces to be defined either in terms of stickers, or in terms of the pieces themselves? So for instance you could fill in a single red sticker somewhere, and then define another piece to be green-orange-yellow with the orientation unknown.


 It's ACube (version 3...for now!) with a GUI frontend, also incorporating a Gripper function, ranking algs by time rather than movecount (when wanted).

I'm working with Jelinek for full support for ACube4, which will include a few new fun things.


This program will have essentially all of the features as ACube3, plus a few.


----------



## Godmil (Jul 13, 2011)

StachuK1992 said:


> It's ACube with a GUI frontend,



Thank you thank you thank you thank you!


----------



## StachuK1992 (Jul 13, 2011)

I guess it's out, so I'll just put updates for it here - does anyone mind?

It now supports:
-full cubes
-move restrictions (I only want RUD algs for something)
-sorting by metric (QTM, FTM, STM)
-GUI input
-"Show all" and "Show optimal" algs
-GUI output of algs
-neglectable first/last moves (equivalent to ~UD in aCube).

It still needs
-to have gripper function implemented
-to incomplete cubes

What else? I have a number of other suggestions, but I figure here would be the best place to ask for them. I'm working on this a decent amount, so in order to get my expected release date of Friday, I need as much pre-feedback as I can get.

I hope to get all of the above options done today.

statue


----------



## irontwig (Jul 13, 2011)

StachuK1992 said:


> I guess it's out, so I'll just put updates for it here - does anyone mind?
> 
> It now supports:
> -full cubes
> ...


 
Cool beans, man.


----------



## StachuK1992 (Jul 13, 2011)

Now for better output, and gripper.


----------



## AndreasFrom (Jul 13, 2011)

StachuK1992 said:


>


 
I hope you will excuse my curiosity; but what IDE is this?


----------



## StachuK1992 (Jul 13, 2011)

JCreator. It's not bloated, works on Windows (so I can code at work) and manages projects pretty well.


----------



## AndreasFrom (Jul 13, 2011)

StachuK1992 said:


> JCreator. It's not bloated, works on Windows (so I can code at work) and manages projects pretty well.


 
Okay, thank you. I recognized some Java code, but it was neither Eclipse nor Netbeans


----------



## irontwig (Jul 13, 2011)

StachuK1992 said:


> I guess it's out, so I'll just put updates for it here - does anyone mind?
> 
> It now supports:
> -full cubes
> ...


 

How about being able to have double layer turns in the move restrictions e.g. <R,r,M,U> or <R,r,L,l,U>?


----------



## StachuK1992 (Jul 13, 2011)

irontwig said:


> How about being able to have double layer turns in the move restrictions e.g. <R,r,M,U> or <R,r,L,l,U>?


 As of now, wide moves are not supported in aCube, therefore not supported in GripACube.

However, I will work on workarounds for this, eventually.

Note - sorted out my output! Gripping time!


----------



## StachuK1992 (Jul 13, 2011)

Thoughts on where to put output?
Most are saying to have a separate frame (window) open, like CubeExplorer. I do like keeping things on one window, though. We'll see.


----------



## irontwig (Jul 13, 2011)

Looks good to me at least.


----------



## uberCuber (Jul 13, 2011)

It looks great to me, Stachu; thanks for working on this!


----------



## StachuK1992 (Jul 14, 2011)

Here's a .jar of the current alpha version.

Things it doesn't have:
-good output
-incomplete cube support
-pandas
-gripper implementation.

These should all be done tomorrow. Especially the third one.

Have fun alpha-testing this. Let me know your results; I should release beta tomorrow night much more formally.


----------



## riffz (Jul 14, 2011)

This is great, Stachu. But perhaps you should make your own thread now.


----------



## irontwig (Jul 14, 2011)

How about starting with with a solved rather than blank cube? Or even better with CE style buttons.


----------



## Cool Frog (Jul 15, 2011)

I love U2 flick


----------



## whauk (Jul 15, 2011)

even faster:
R U' R' U R U' L U r' F U2 R U2 R2
if you only care about the fingertrick: yes thats what i use as well. pretty cool also for OH. (and i started using it with right)


----------



## Cool Frog (Jul 15, 2011)

whauk said:


> even faster:
> R U' R' U R U' L U r' F U2 R U2 R2
> if you only care about the fingertrick: yes thats what i use as well. pretty cool also for OH. (and i started using it with right)


 Its just 4x4 OLL parity, Not really anything I would use in a real solve. Just U2 spamming.
Thanks for the alg BTW (Lets learn this and use it one day and feel cool)
Been doing U2 flick forever, I want to be able to do this on 4x4...


----------



## asportking (Jul 21, 2011)

So......not sure where to post this, but I just managed to teach my brother how to solve the cube. I only taught him beginners method, but I think he might have potential. He picked up the cube and instinctively started using fingertricks for U and F moves, so who knows? Maybe someday he'll sub-10 or something like that.


----------



## Ltsurge (Jul 21, 2011)

asportking said:


> So......not sure where to post this, but I just managed to teach my brother how to solve the cube. I only taught him beginners method, but I think he might have potential. He picked up the cube and instinctively started using fingertricks for U and F moves, so who knows? Maybe someday he'll sub-10 or something like that.



the next faz?! 

train the padwan 
teach him the way


----------



## asportking (Jul 21, 2011)

ltsurge said:


> the next faz?!
> 
> train the padwan
> teach him the way


Not now....one day, when he is old enough, I will teach him the way.....of fridrich....


----------



## Ltsurge (Jul 21, 2011)

asportking said:


> Not now....one day, when he is old enough, I will teach him the way.....of fridrich....


 
too old and he will remeber emotion 

learn you will 

ok screw yoda


----------



## asportking (Jul 21, 2011)

If it takes him two minutes to solve the last layer, and literally had no idea how to solve the cube two hours ago, I don't think he's ready for f2l


----------



## DavidWoner (Jul 22, 2011)

For 2x2

U2 R2 U2 R U2 F' U2 R' U' R' U'

z2 x' R2 U' R' U' L' U2
or written as
z2 [L: (R U' R')] (L U' L') U2

funfun


----------



## whauk (Jul 22, 2011)

two twisted corner 3-cycles
(R' F B' R U' D)*5
found by messing around


----------



## qqwref (Jul 23, 2011)

An interesting 2gen sequence (ignore the centers):
M U' M' U M' U M' U' M

A variation which only affects the E centers:
M U' M' U M' u M' u' M

And finally, a void parity:
M U' M' U M' U M' U' R U R' U' M U R U' R'


----------



## StachuK1992 (Jul 25, 2011)

Is <R,U,2F> seem like decent enough notation for a 3x3 alg that is limited to only U moves, R moves, and a maximum of two F moves?


----------



## RyanReese09 (Jul 25, 2011)

Yes.


----------



## qqwref (Jul 25, 2011)

StachuK1992 said:


> Is <R,U,2F> seem like decent enough notation for a 3x3 alg that is limited to only U moves, R moves, and a maximum of two F moves?


I'd say no since 2F itself is a move in SiGN (the same as S on 3x3 and f on 4x4+) so it could be confusing.

How about <R,U,2*F>? (Alternatively, <R,U>+2*F.)


----------



## uberCuber (Jul 25, 2011)

qqwref said:


> I'd say no since 2F itself is a move in SiGN (*the same as S' on 3x3* and f on 4x4+) so it could be confusing.
> 
> How about <R,U,2*F>? (Alternatively, <R,U>+2*F.)


 
? Judging by alg.garron.us, S follows F (meaning 2F = S on 3x3, not S')


----------



## qqwref (Jul 25, 2011)

Oh, you're right. My bad.


----------



## riffz (Jul 25, 2011)

StachuK1992 said:


> Is <R,U,2F> seem like decent enough notation for a 3x3 alg that is limited to only U moves, R moves, and a maximum of two F moves?


 
I would say no. I read that as SiGN. I'd say something along the lines of what qq suggested (<R,U>+2*F) would be better.


----------



## timeless (Jul 26, 2011)

anyone actually got lightake cube bags? never got 1 from recent order


----------



## Kirjava (Jul 28, 2011)

http://www.youtube.com/kzxathcx

I made a channel for fake vids.

Any suggestions? I'd be nice if someone had kuti videos that weren't already floating around youtube.

I think it's useful to mirror stuff like this.


----------



## Stefan (Jul 28, 2011)

If you do this, I'd say include explanations, evidence not in the video, and how certain we can be that it's fake.


----------



## Kirjava (Jul 28, 2011)

I was going to include the word "suspected" before fake.

We can't be certain that they are fake for most videos. 

Besides, this isn't really for the public - it's to mirror the videos so they can still be used when the original creators take them down.


----------



## Stefan (Jul 28, 2011)

Kirjava said:


> Besides, this isn't really for the public - it's to mirror the videos so they can still be used when the original creators take them down.


 
Ah, ok. Still, these videos will likely have a discussion here, so a link to that would be good. And maybe one or two sentences summarizing the situation. Just so that when people get to the video, they're not lost wondering how it is fake. In some cases it's rather obvious for a good cuber, in other cases it's impossible to tell without background information.


----------



## cubersmith (Jul 28, 2011)

Kirjava said:


> I was going to include the word "suspected" before fake.
> 
> We can't be certain that they are fake for most videos.
> 
> Besides, this isn't really for the public - it's to mirror the videos so they can still be used when the original creators take them down.


 
I think the only events that have been proven to be cheated in, are clock and bld


----------



## Cubenovice (Jul 28, 2011)

Is it intended as a "hall of shame" or would it also feature stuff like Kirjava-parity?

How will you make the distinction between a "malicious" fake solve and stuff like inside jokes?


----------



## cubersmith (Jul 28, 2011)

Oh wait do you mean things people have done on camera at home? or in comp?


----------



## Kirjava (Jul 28, 2011)

Stefan said:


> Ah, ok. Still, these videos will likely have a discussion here, so a link to that would be good. And maybe one or two sentences summarizing the situation. Just so that when people get to the video, they're not lost wondering how it is fake. In some cases it's rather obvious for a good cuber, in other cases it's impossible to tell without background information.



A link to the relevant forum post is a good idea, I'll start doing that.



cubersmith said:


> I think the only events that have been proven to be cheated in, are clock and bld



You misunderstand!



Cubenovice said:


> Is it intended as a "hall of shame" or would it also feature stuff like Kirjava-parity?
> 
> How will you make the distinction between a "malicious" fake solve and stuff like inside jokes?



I'll just post the malicious ones. It's not even really a hall of shame, just a safer place to store the videos than on my hard drive.



cubersmith said:


> Oh wait do you mean things people have done on camera at home? or in comp?



Both!


----------



## Andrew Ricci (Jul 28, 2011)

Sounds like a good idea, but would you also like fake videos like Lucas Garron used to make? Ones where we task people to find out how it was done?


----------



## Kirjava (Jul 28, 2011)

no, that's not the purpose of the channel


----------



## Andrew Ricci (Jul 28, 2011)

Kirjava said:


> no, that's not the purpose of the channel


 
I get what you meant, I was just wondering if you would have those as well. Okay, then.


----------



## qqwref (Jul 28, 2011)

That channel seems like a really cool idea. You should probably add Kuti videos though (and that fake 6x6 solve, and old lolben stuff, and...)


----------



## Kirjava (Jul 28, 2011)

qqwref said:


> That channel seems like a really cool idea. You should probably add Kuti videos though (and that fake 6x6 solve, and old lolben stuff, and...)


 
unfortunatly lots of kuti videos got taken down.

feel free to paste links for me to upload tho.


----------



## cubersmith (Jul 28, 2011)

Kirjava said:


> unfortunatly lots of kuti videos got taken down.
> 
> feel free to paste links for me to upload tho.


 
Sorry for misunderstanding. I like the idea alot actually.


----------



## Kirjava (Jul 28, 2011)

the idea alot is like my favourite alot


----------



## uberCuber (Jul 28, 2011)

I'm wondering what an idea alot would even look like.


----------



## Clayy9 (Jul 28, 2011)

Kirjava said:


> the idea alot is like my favourite alot


 
What does the idea alot look like?


----------



## cubersmith (Jul 28, 2011)

eh.. did I say something wrong?


----------



## uberCuber (Jul 28, 2011)

cubersmith said:


> eh.. did I say something wrong?


 
http://hyperboleandahalf.blogspot.com/2010/04/alot-is-better-than-you-at-everything.html


----------



## Kirjava (Jul 28, 2011)

anyone know where guimond's fakebld solve is?


----------



## kinch2002 (Jul 28, 2011)

Kirjava said:


> anyone know where guimond's fakebld solve is?


This one?


----------



## Kirjava (Jul 28, 2011)

næh, it was just him with a friend scrambling for him and he pretends to memo


----------



## cubersmith (Jul 28, 2011)

cubersmith said:


> Sorry for misunderstanding. I like the idea a lot actually.


 
Fix'd


----------



## qqwref (Jul 28, 2011)

kuti:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8CB38wG2XkI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CzhCqY3kAcs
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hyEbkrjTeag, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zDsQ7NnhJKU, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RiPf_zJMNok

yish:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bJV7ntJQMDI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QNFHWjym7W4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0GhmPdMTOOE

lolben:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=trQGESluBT0

other (I don't guarantee fakeness):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v2fmQifHVB0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ojXmMFnCJM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YRMwa7IaPvA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x_ATieP38pQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UkMxAhbFbXk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zePA3uIbB5I
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eJFMxukpatM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V6qw8x9Na9c
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ej6-KUqMEDI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gG7-x5-woac
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DmyRTmfCAKc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XTNud0ky6uc

I couldn't find the fake 6x6 video; all I remember is that the centers and most of the edges were solved stupidly fast, then the rest was very slow, and the time wasn't all that impressive.


----------



## irontwig (Jul 28, 2011)

Kirjava said:


> næh, it was just him with a friend scrambling for him and he pretends to memo


 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ywBlPgxCN4

lolizocomments


----------



## Kirjava (Jul 28, 2011)

Ok, Gaetan's video is mirrored.

I'll go through the list and upload a bunch of those qq.

Feel free to post more for me to upload, but this is mainly for things that are likely to be removed.


----------



## cubersmith (Jul 28, 2011)

Kirjava said:


> Ok, Gaetan's video is mirrored.
> 
> I'll go through the list and upload a bunch of those qq.
> 
> Feel free to post more for me to upload, but this is mainly for things that are likely to be removed.


 
This channel could be popular. Have you made it yet?

EDIT: If so, can we get a link?


----------



## aronpm (Jul 28, 2011)

cubersmith said:


> This channel could be popular. Have you made it yet?
> 
> EDIT: If so, can we get a link?


 
It's in his post 2 pages back...


----------



## cubersmith (Jul 28, 2011)

aronpm said:


> It's in his post 2 pages back...


 
Thanks


----------



## Kirjava (Aug 3, 2011)

D' with left ring finger

y/n?


----------



## uberCuber (Aug 3, 2011)

sometimes


----------



## RyanReese09 (Aug 4, 2011)

Depends on alg. Eperm, for example.

Been doing this for...ever. Ever since I learned PLL.

PB Eperm is .88 FYI.


----------



## qqwref (Aug 4, 2011)

Yeah, I'd do that for high TPS algs (or anything OH) but for normal 2h use I'd use my right ring.


----------



## Kirjava (Aug 4, 2011)

ya sure, right ring isn't available though. just wondering if it's something that people do if no alternative is around.


----------



## DavidWoner (Aug 4, 2011)

Don't forget about right index for D' http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z3SdWN5jPHk


----------



## Kirjava (Aug 4, 2011)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BzkSSu4KjS0

"This 37 turn solve is a good example of Snyder Method 2"

How is skipping a step demonstrating a good example?


----------



## Stefan (Aug 4, 2011)

I think he addressed that in the comments (assuming that's the skip you mean, don't know what he skipped there).


----------



## irontwig (Aug 4, 2011)

Well, not really it's just lolsnyderlogic.


----------



## Kirjava (Aug 4, 2011)

"One of the goals of this method is to solve the last layer in the fewest moves possible, or approximately the fewest moves. Currently I do this around 20% of the time, and I'm convinced that I can push that to 100% or near 100% within a few months."

The claim about 100% near optimal LL solutions (like many of his) will likely never come to fruition, and the fact that the claim of currently 20% of LL cases being 1 look for him quite frankly absurd. Being able to cover 1/5 of LL cases that have at least two edges oriented would require nearly 800 algs.

There used to be a definition of "lucky" that said that if something happened less than 20% of the time, it was lucky.


----------



## Jostle (Aug 4, 2011)

anyway, D' with left ring. Yeah, I could use it, I may even change to this for my E perm.


----------



## uberCuber (Aug 4, 2011)

Kirjava said:


> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BzkSSu4KjS0
> 
> "This 37 turn solve is a good example of Snyder Method 2"
> 
> How is skipping a step demonstrating a good example?


 
I love how he spent more than 15 seconds scrambling the cube and then had 2 opposite white edge pieces already solved.
Also, lol at how his talking is just cut off at the end of the video


----------



## ben1996123 (Aug 4, 2011)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=plQbnfxG2sA

2:52.88 square 1 "bld"


----------



## uberCuber (Aug 4, 2011)

ben1996123 said:


> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=plQbnfxG2sA
> 
> 2:52.88 square 1 "bld"


 
Clearly a legitimate bld solve with nubvandenbergh method


----------



## Escher (Aug 4, 2011)

Kirjava said:


> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BzkSSu4KjS0
> 
> "This 37 turn solve is a good example of Snyder Method 2"
> 
> How is skipping a step demonstrating a good example?


 
Wowwwwwwww he is terrible at cubing.


----------



## oll+phase+sync (Aug 5, 2011)

Kirjava said:


> the fact that the claim of currently 20% of LL cases being 1 look for him quite frankly absurd.



I always belived this 20% claim comes from "enforcing more" while enforcing 2 oriented edged like "orient 4 edges" or an "2x2x1 Block". That sounded reasonable to me, if some knows a lot of LL cases.

But I can't see a path leading to 100%


P.S. Personally - an event happening 20% of all time is not lucky but already very regular.


----------



## riffz (Aug 5, 2011)

Kirjava said:


> D' with left ring finger
> 
> y/n?


 
I use it all the time for algs like R U2 R D R' U2 R D' R2 in BLD.


----------



## Kirjava (Aug 7, 2011)

lolwut


----------



## Cubenovice (Aug 7, 2011)

These guys make me ashamed to be Dutch...


----------



## Kirjava (Aug 7, 2011)

Are they making fun of his english? I thought they were but I don't see why >_>


----------



## Cubenovice (Aug 7, 2011)

Kirjava said:


> Are they making fun of his english? I thought they were but I don't see why >_>



Yep and off his youtube videos and his puzzle "fetish"...
They say that there is no better entertaiment that watching his videos, "old guy with child like enthousiasm about puzzles in less than phantastic English with bad pronounciation".

Good thing that their own English in the prank phone call was much worse.

I especially disliked their laughter with the comment about "living life to the fullest" in the audio fargment where Oscar mentioned he was dedicating one of the puzzles to his father who had passed away.

Oh well,Ooscar mentioned himself that he has a big fat accent and apart from that I think his English is pretty fine.


----------



## Kirjava (Aug 7, 2011)

Reminds me of this


----------



## irontwig (Aug 7, 2011)

Cubenovice said:


> Good thing that their own English in the prank phone call was much worse.


 
Yes, very obviously Dutch, not that it's anything wrong with having an accent as long as you're understandable.


----------



## Kirjava (Aug 8, 2011)

http://web.archive.org/web/20091026193545/http://geocities.com/abcmcfarren/math/math.htm


----------



## qqwref (Aug 8, 2011)

Oo, nice find. It's like a proto-Jaapsch.net 

The cube solutions don't look very efficient, but they're interesting approaches nonetheless.


----------



## mr. giggums (Aug 9, 2011)

<U,D,R,r> solving for 4x4

I just tried it and it took a little while but I got it with only comms. There seems to be no parities (or I got lucky).

Here is my first approach...


Spoiler



1. centers
2. paired cross edges (cross on left)
3. Left Layer
4. Middle Layer edges
5. CLL
6. ELL

This is like k4 on left.



^That solution isn't very efficent so I might try a different one and see how it goes.


----------



## qqwref (Aug 9, 2011)

There are definitely parities for that. I think I'd do centers -> pair edges -> orient edges -> UDR 3x3 with parities (so, similar to yours).


----------



## mr. giggums (Aug 9, 2011)

I'm not counting PLL parity (it isn't actually a parity only a 2x2 cycle) I'm still not sure about OLL parity but I did another solve and didn't get it. I'll try your method.


----------



## mr. giggums (Aug 9, 2011)

I just tried with your method and found that OLL parity is possible. So does any one know of a <U,D,R,r> OLL parity alg.


----------



## Kirjava (Aug 9, 2011)

mr. giggums said:


> does any one know of a <U,D,R,r> OLL parity alg.



Use r until someone finds something better.

<UDRr> sounds fun to play with, but I'm about to go to bed.


----------



## qqwref (Aug 9, 2011)

r U2 r U2 r U2 r U2 r + r' D U2 (U R2 U' r U R2 U' r') D' U2 r + U (D' R2 D r' D' R2 D r) U'
= r U2 r U2 r U2 r D U R2 U' r U R2 U' r' D' U2 r U D' R2 D r' D' R2 D r U'

A bit long, but hey, it should work.


----------



## uberCuber (Aug 9, 2011)

Rw U2 Rw U2 Rw U R Rw U2 R2 U Rw U R Rw2 U Rw U' Rw


----------



## TMOY (Aug 9, 2011)

mr. giggums said:


> I just tried with your method and found that OLL parity is possible. So does any one know of a <U,D,R,r> OLL parity alg.



(U2 r)^5 preserves centers and changes wing parity.


----------



## JonnyWhoopes (Aug 9, 2011)

Idea: Keyhole on left.

Step 1: FL minus one corner.
Step 2: Utilize open corner slot to finish 3/4 of MS.
Step 3: Finish slot.
Step 4: Rotate and LL of choice.

Fun and IMO faster than your basic keyhole.

::EDIT::


JonnyWhoopes said:


> My apologies. I know it's not that different. Didn't mean to make it sound like I did anything like "ZOMG CHECK OUT MY ZOMGORZ NEW MEHTODS!!" Haha. I guess the only real difference is that I meant for FL to be blockbuilt. Maybe everybody does that already? I've always just done cross and then corners.


----------



## StachuK1992 (Aug 9, 2011)

You mean keyhole.


----------



## Rpotts (Aug 9, 2011)

Yeah that's just basic keyhole, except you are doing it on left (no difference.)

What do you consider basic keyhole then?


----------



## JonnyWhoopes (Aug 9, 2011)

My apologies. I know it's not that different. Didn't mean to make it sound like I did anything like "ZOMG CHECK OUT MY ZOMGORZ NEW MEHTODS!!" Haha. I guess the only real difference is that I meant for FL to be blockbuilt. Maybe everybody does that already? I've always just done cross and then corners.


----------



## Kirjava (Aug 10, 2011)

mr. giggums said:


> <U,D,R,r>


 
Centres
DL 1x3x4 Block
RD 1x3x4 Block
<R,U,D> CLL
[r,RUR'U'], RU2R':[r,RUR'U'], <R,U>, etc ELL


----------



## Tim Major (Aug 10, 2011)

JonnyWhoopes said:


> My apologies. I know it's not that different. Didn't mean to make it sound like I did anything like "ZOMG CHECK OUT MY ZOMGORZ NEW MEHTODS!!" Haha. I guess the only real difference is that I meant for FL to be blockbuilt. Maybe everybody does that already? I've always just done cross and then corners.



Yeah, I tried your way. Just did Roux block + pair, nice and efficient, but I'm crap at block building, I can do it efficiently, but not fast. Cross (or xcross) + 3 corners = 3-4s. Roux block + pair = 6s


----------



## reThinking the Cube (Aug 13, 2011)

Too bad, there are a lot of good and interesting ideas, that are going unseen or getting buried in this heap thread.


----------



## timeless (Aug 15, 2011)

*Alpha CC (was: Top Cube Gimmicks)*

Alpha CC- i mean its worse than A5 and whats the point of the hollowed pieces (looks cool?) which makes it too light/fragile


----------



## emolover (Aug 15, 2011)

It sucks because you don't have the other part of the edge that you are suppose to put in.

Lubix products.

@ianography: Ugg... I hate your avatar.


----------



## timeless (Aug 15, 2011)

yah lubix is overpriced and overhyped


----------



## Kirjava (Aug 17, 2011)

There are a lot of good ideas that would go unposted without this thread.


----------



## Athefre (Aug 17, 2011)

I usually post my ideas here first as a test for the response. If the response is good or if I feel there is potential, I'll continue developing it and repost in more detail in a more specific topic or create a new topic of my own if it is worthy.


----------



## DaveyCow (Aug 17, 2011)

Kirjava said:


> D' with left ring finger
> 
> y/n?



left finger? so like you push on BLD corner?


----------



## DaveyCow (Aug 17, 2011)

uberCuber said:


> I love how he spent more than 15 seconds scrambling the cube and then had 2 opposite white edge pieces already solved.



lol indeed  solved-scramble ftw!


----------



## uberCuber (Aug 17, 2011)

DaveyCow said:


> left finger? so like you push on BLD corner?


 
Well, the L sticker of that piece, so LBD.


----------



## Hershey (Aug 17, 2011)

Random thought: 

On the speedsolving wiki, Roux is said to have a 48 movecount on average. Now, if someone had 10 turns/1 second turn speed, then it would take about 4.8 seconds (pauses not included) to solve the cube. Even if someone had 9 TPS, it would take about 5.33 (pauses not included).

CFOP is said to have 56 movecount on average. If someone had 10 TPS, 5.6 seconds would be the time.

My point is that *in theory*, Roux might be faster than CFOP. Pretty obvious actually.


----------



## Shortey (Aug 17, 2011)

Hershey said:


> Random thought:
> 
> On the speedsolving wiki, Roux is said to have a 48 movecount on average. Now, if someone had 10 turns/1 second turn speed, then it would take about 4.8 seconds (pauses not included) to solve the cube. Even if someone had 9 TPS, it would take about 5.33 (pauses not included).
> 
> ...


 

Look ahead is different... you're just basically saying that Roux is a better method because it has a lower movecount.


----------



## RyanReese09 (Aug 17, 2011)

Shortey said:


> Look ahead is different... you're just basically saying that Roux is a better method because it has a lower movecount.


 
You basically said what I was going to write, minus a few...selective words .


----------



## Godmil (Aug 17, 2011)

Hershey said:


> Random thought:
> 
> On the speedsolving wiki, Roux is said to have a 48 movecount on average. Now, if someone had 10 turns/1 second turn speed, then it would take about 4.8 seconds........



Follow through with that random thought... Heise has a 40 or less move count, why do you think nobody uses it for speed solving?


----------



## 5BLD (Aug 17, 2011)

Hershey said:


> Random thought:
> 
> On the speedsolving wiki, Roux is said to have a 48 movecount on average. Now, if someone had 10 turns/1 second turn speed, then it would take about 4.8 seconds (pauses not included) to solve the cube. Even if someone had 9 TPS, it would take about 5.33 (pauses not included).
> 
> ...


 
That is when you discard lookahead, and stuff like that.
And you can never tell anyway which is faster.
And IN THEORY, if someone could turn at infinity tps, they'd be the same speed. 

Anyway, stuff like this is rather irrelevant to us as speedcubers... because we're animals. And therefore there are many variables, unlike machines.


Godmil said:


> Follow through with that random thought... Heise has a 40 or less move count, why do you think nobody uses it for speed solving?


 
I agree... 
I use it for speedsolving on rare occasions, but that's besides the point 
Actually, it's not besides the point. The reason why I'm so slow is due to lookahead limits. It is incredibly hard to look ahead with Heise.
Like in Roux, on a much, much larger scale.


----------



## DaveyCow (Aug 17, 2011)

uberCuber said:


> Well, the L sticker of that piece, so LBD.



hehe oh yeah i meant LBD (dyslexic BLD)


----------



## Hershey (Aug 17, 2011)

5BLD said:


> lookahead limits.


 
How many seconds minimum does one have to pause in a Roux speedsolve"


----------



## 5BLD (Aug 17, 2011)

Minimum? I have absolutely no idea, as no one can answer that question.
Because the future of cubing is so unknown, methods developing at an alarming rate. 
We will never know the answer to your question, therefore.

Actually if I were to be a pain the backside, id say minimum pausing is zero seconds. Just turn at 1 tps. And go for speed.

However the serious answer to your question is the former.

My previous answer was in respect to the present-time.
I personally pause for 1-2 seconds a solve. Maybe more. Or less.

It's a rather interesting topic to discuss, human limits, and the future of cubing.


Edit: if you were talking about the fast rouxers, we are all different (don't flame me for calling myself 'fast'. I meant that in a broader sense if you get me).
We all hesitate differently. Watch our videos to see.


----------



## RNewms27 (Aug 17, 2011)

Especially when Jessica Fridrich estimated a full step solve of her method was limited to 7 seconds. Human estimates are kind of difficult...


----------



## 5BLD (Aug 17, 2011)

Yup. As a rule of thumb, estimates are always gonna be wrong 
Because right now speedcubing is so... New.


----------



## cubersmith (Aug 17, 2011)

RNewms27 said:


> Especially when Jessica Fridrich estimated a full step solve of her method was limited to 7 seconds. Human estimates are kind of difficult...


 
We can make educated guesses though, like for example is sub 5 average possible?


----------



## Hershey (Aug 18, 2011)

5BLD said:


> I personally pause for 1-2 seconds a solve.


 
Hmm... As I said:


Hershey said:


> On the speedsolving wiki, Roux is said to have a 48 movecount on average. Now, if someone had 10 turns/1 second turn speed, then it would take about 4.8 seconds (pauses not included) to solve the cube. Even if someone had 9 TPS, it would take about 5.33 (pauses not included).



Even if someone had 1-2 second pause in the solve, 5.33+2=7. Now if we look at Big Green or other fast Roux users, they might pause even less. Which means *sub 7 average is definitely possible for Roux.*


----------



## Andrew Ricci (Aug 18, 2011)

Hershey said:


> Even if someone had 1-2 second pause in the solve, 5.33+2=7. Now if we look at Big Green or other fast Roux users, they might pause even less. Which means *sub 7 average is definitely possible for Roux.*


 
You can't just add up a couple of numbers and say, "Oh, look what's possible!" I don't think anyone using roux will be able to get the TPS and lookahead of a CFOP solve. Different methods work differently, and none of these estimates of yours have any backing.


----------



## qqwref (Aug 18, 2011)

Indeed. And TPS isn't a constant number, but rather depends strongly on what turns are being done. Show me a cuber who can execute R2DBU2F'R'F'L2D2B2U2 as fast as a 2-gen U-perm, and I'll show you a cuber who calculates speed solutions using Kociemba. (That is, a cubing robot.)


----------



## Rpotts (Aug 18, 2011)

True and oftentimes what gets people high TPS is using inefficient finger friendly solutions, adding to movecount and semi-artificially increasing TPS. This would skew a simple movecount x TPS formula for calculating "human-limit" averages.


----------



## Godmil (Aug 18, 2011)

Agh, you're still not getting it Hershey, just cause Faz can average 9tps in a cfop solve (of which his oll/pll will be faster and cross/f2l will probably be slower) you cant expect someone to block build at that kind of speed. There are so many factors involved: Move count (like you said), amount of thought that needs to into each stage to achieve a reasonably optimal solution (of which the number of possible cases is a factor), ability to look ahead easily (looking for pieces on the bottom back will be harder than the top face), typical cube rotations required, algs being optimised for speed (not using 6-gen algs), blah blah blah...
The main thing is, some methods with lower move counts, but also require lower tps, because more time needs to be spent thinking about how to get the move count down, and performing turns that aren't ideal for speed... it's all about finding the right balance.


----------



## 5BLD (Aug 18, 2011)

Then there's the debate about people developing insane lookahead using an efficient method.
We will never know. 

What we do know is we can't tell for sure that 'roux will get the WR' or 'roux will never get the WR'

It would be easy to do it simply quantitively, but we are humans, and that brings up the question 'is it humanly possible?'
Godmil basically stated what I wanted to say from here.


----------



## Kirjava (Aug 18, 2011)

Godmil said:


> The main thing is, some methods with lower move counts, but also require lower tps, because more time needs to be spent thinking about how to get the move count down, and performing turns that aren't ideal for speed... it's all about finding the right balance.


 
Not focusing on the movecount so much tends to give more speed optimised solutions. Sometimes.

I don't think the 'thinking' is a big factor. Doesn't seem to slow down BigGreen's TPS.


----------



## 5BLD (Aug 18, 2011)

Hm.. Does biggreen optimise his solutions?
Have you ever watched him in slow motion?
I'm curious...


----------



## oll+phase+sync (Aug 19, 2011)

Godmil said:


> Follow through with that random thought... Heise has a 40 or less move count, why do you think nobody uses it for speed solving?



Is a 40 move speedcubing average with Heise really possible?


----------



## StachuK1992 (Aug 19, 2011)

Regarding that^^
By 'speedcubing' do you just mean 'linear solving', or do you mean something beyond that?
If so, then I'd say yes. Heise is powerful.


----------



## 5BLD (Aug 19, 2011)

oll+phase+sync said:


> Is a 40 move speedcubing average with Heise really possible?


 
Yeah. Another vote for yes.
Going for speed, maybe..... I'll still go for yes.

The blockbuilding involved is so predominant in respects to the whole solve...


----------



## Hershey (Aug 19, 2011)

I don't think Big Green pauses very much. Also, the amount of sub 7 solves he has, I am guessing that at least sub 7 to low 7 seconds average is possible? Or can someone only get sub 7 solves if they get lucky?


----------



## 5BLD (Aug 19, 2011)

Hm... yeah we don't know much about his style... he turns too fast and doesn't really talk about his style...
I'm still wondering whether he actually optimises his solutions or just turns insanely fast and looks ahead. As Thom said earlier, efficiency is everything...


----------



## Andrew Ricci (Aug 19, 2011)

5BLD said:


> Hm... yeah we don't know much about his style... he turns too fast and doesn't really talk about his style...
> I'm still wondering whether he actually optimises his solutions or just turns insanely fast and looks ahead. As Thom said earlier, efficiency is everything...


 Have you seen the solutions he's posted to some of his really fast (sub 8) solves? Most of his blocks are really efficient.


----------



## 5BLD (Aug 19, 2011)

No I have not; I will search around...


----------



## Hershey (Aug 19, 2011)

5BLD said:


> No I have not; I will search around...


 
http://www.speedsolving.com/forum/search.php?searchid=250416

http://www.speedsolving.com/forum/s...uestion-thread&p=626237&viewfull=1#post626237

http://www.youtube.com/user/LuigiStl


----------



## cmhardw (Aug 20, 2011)

Take the argument to PM. Those involved will know who they are.


----------



## Athefre (Aug 21, 2011)

I've been thinking about a video idea. The title would be "Inspection" and the content of the video would focus on a SpeedBLD solution (or tutorial). With music from the movie Inception, the stages of the solve would be demonstrated while also showing how the pieces for the next stage are affected (by highlighting them or leaving the unnecessary pieces black). Then a "zoom" through the cube to the next stage of the solve; solving those previously affected pieces while showing the effects on the pieces for the next step of the solve. Repeat until solved.


----------



## Kirjava (Aug 21, 2011)




----------



## 5BLD (Aug 21, 2011)

As usual, loving the turn style, Kirjava 
By the way, that was some lucky LSE...


----------



## Kirjava (Aug 21, 2011)

got 7.61 +2 a few solves later.

damn


----------



## Brest (Aug 21, 2011)

Kirjava said:


> Spoiler



R2 U R2 B2 D' B2 D' F' D' U R D R B2 D' B' D R2 D'

z' U' r' U' // 1x2x2
R2 U R' U' // 1x2x3
x2 r2 U' r2 (r'R) U2' R U R' // 1x2x2
R' U M' U' r // 1x2x3
M' U U' R U R' U' R' F R F' // CMLL
U2 (r'R) U M' (R'M'r) U2 // L6E
alg.garron

39stm / 8.08sec / 4.83tps

Wow great solve, sweet ending!
How early did you predict L6E could be solved in so few moves? Was it EO --> OMGWTFDone?


----------



## Kirjava (Aug 21, 2011)

Oh nice, thanks for the reconstruction! 

I noticed the easy solution right after EO.


----------



## Hershey (Aug 22, 2011)

Brest said:


> 39stm / 8.08sec / 4.83tps


 
I'm sorry, what?!!!


----------



## uberCuber (Aug 22, 2011)

Hershey said:


> I'm sorry, what?!!!


 
8.08 * 4.83 = ~39


----------



## Hershey (Aug 22, 2011)

uberCuber said:


> 8.08 * 4.83 = ~39


 
That was just a rhetorical question. I just thought the solve was amazing, especially since it is 4.83 TPS yet the solve was so fast.


----------



## qqwref (Aug 22, 2011)

I found a good way to make Pochmann-style supercube stickers in javascript, so I'm working on a supercube version of qCube  I'm really interested in this project (mainly because I wanna know how fast they can be solved!) but keeping track of the extra stickers and border properties is really tricky.


----------



## Yes We Can! (Aug 22, 2011)

I just got 8.99 on my stackmat zomgwow. I've never gotten x.99 before.


Spoiler


----------



## qqwref (Aug 23, 2011)

Finished the supercube sim. I found it pretty tough to think through the changes that needed to be made.

http://mzrg.com/js/qcube-supercube.html


----------



## riffz (Aug 23, 2011)

qqwref said:


> Finished the supercube sim. I found it pretty tough to think through the changes that needed to be made.
> 
> http://mzrg.com/js/qcube-supercube.html


 
It's pretty.


----------



## Cyrus C. (Aug 24, 2011)

Cool 2x2x2 solution:

Scramble: U' R2 F R' F U' R' F2 U' R' U'

Solution: x2 F' L' F R F' L F U' R


----------



## Kirjava (Aug 25, 2011)

http://twistypuzzles.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=1&p=264753



> [23:21:24] Kirjava: Greg: Luke is sub10?
> [23:21:28] Greg: but srsly kirjava, making assumptions generally gets you unappreciated by others
> [23:21:31] LukeB: Yes I am
> [23:21:34] LukeB: Often anyhow
> ...





> [23:26:38] Kirjava: Greg: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I9epbGd1OEU
> ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
> [23:27:45] Greg: LMAO
> [23:27:49] Greg: i noticed you cheated
> ...



Twisty is like a weird parallel universe.


----------



## Julian (Aug 26, 2011)

/ (smallest possible number > 0, 0) *82 returns to cubeshape (as well as oriented/separated).


----------



## qqwref (Aug 26, 2011)

Kirjava said:


> Twisty is like a weird parallel universe.


I get that impression too. It's its own weird little enclave, cut off from the outside world, developing their own new, weird ideas and standards and expectations that are often bizarre.

The bit about expecting #rubik to be representative of the cubing community as a whole (or even speedsolving as a whole) was pretty weird. I don't expect someone with no clue about the larger cubing community to know that, but as an ex-#er, it feels almost blatantly obvious that they are not one and the same.


----------



## qqwref (Aug 26, 2011)

Some silly supercube-safe U perms:

RL U2D2 R'U'R U2D2 L'UR'
RF U'D R'U'R UD' F'UR'
R2 S2 R'U'R S2 R'UR'
M2U M'U2M U2 M'U2M UM2

(If you're wondering why, I've been doing some supercube solving, and the U perm is a kind of icky case - the normal algs don't work.)


----------



## DavidWoner (Aug 26, 2011)

Do you have a full set of supercube safe PLLs? Or at least a set that won't do more than a U2 on centers? I don't have Gs or a V I like for supercubes.


----------



## qqwref (Aug 26, 2011)

I think I'm missing G, V, and Z. For G I've been doing J plus U, for V I've been doing J plus A, and for Z I've been doing Z plus center fix. I should definitely go find some better ones.

EDIT: I guess I need to learn these:
G - R L U2 R' L' y' R' U L' U2 R U' L U2 and inverse/mirror
V - R' U2 R U2 L U' R' U L' U L U' R U L'
Z - R' U' R' F R F' U R F' U' L' U L F


----------



## qqwref (Sep 1, 2011)

Has anyone ever solved a Clock with their feet?


----------



## cubersmith (Sep 1, 2011)

qqwref said:


> Has anyone ever solved a Clock with their feet?



I don't think so, but 7x7 has been done:

Omg lolololol impossible


----------



## DavidWoner (Sep 1, 2011)

qqwref said:


> Has anyone ever solved a Clock with their feet?


 
I'll try to remember to do it tomorrow.


----------



## Mike Hughey (Sep 1, 2011)

qqwref said:


> Has anyone ever solved a Clock with their feet?


 
How about megaminx? It seems like that would be really hard.

Magic and master magic would be interesting too.


----------



## Andrew Ricci (Sep 1, 2011)

Mike Hughey said:


> How about megaminx? It seems like that would be really hard.
> 
> Magic and master magic would be interesting too.


 
OFITA Magic? One foot in the air?


----------



## Mike Hughey (Sep 1, 2011)

theanonymouscuber said:


> OFITA Magic? One foot in the air?


 
If anyone ever pulls that off, I want video!


----------



## cubernya (Sep 1, 2011)

I'll try to solve my magic with my feet, but in the air...umm no. I can't even figure out the first twist for OHITA magic lol


----------



## qqwref (Sep 3, 2011)

Rouxctangular Francisco (a Triangular Francisco variation):
- build the bottom layer except for DF and DFR (so, a triangle plus an edge, or a roux block plus a corner)
- solve the middle layer TF style
- solve the DFR corner while orienting the top corners (so, CLS with 5 free edges)
- solve the DF edge while orienting the top edges
- PLL

EDIT: 18.53 avg12, I could do better but I am really bad at building rouxblocks...


----------



## qqwref (Sep 5, 2011)

I got a mid 17 average with Rouxctangular. Anyway, an LUR A-perm:

(L' U' L) (R U R' U') L' U (R U' R' U) L


----------



## AJ Blair (Sep 5, 2011)

qqwref said:


> Has anyone ever solved a Clock with their feet?


 
9:11.94

Gosh that's a pain...my clock is garbage too...that didn't help...

Edit: 4:02.52...

This is kinda entertaining...


----------



## DavidWoner (Sep 5, 2011)

qqwref said:


> Has anyone ever solved a Clock with their feet?


 
3:41.08 First try. Fail. Pegs suck.


----------



## AJ Blair (Sep 5, 2011)

DavidWoner said:


> 3:41.08 First try. Fail. Pegs suck.


 
Yeah, that was the hardest part for me too...that and the clock falling over, pushing the all the pegs up...


----------



## Athefre (Sep 6, 2011)

I've been testing different ways to solve RF+RB with the corners. I've found a few that are easy enough. One has stood out the most. It feels faster and more efficient than making them separate steps. I've also moved away from EP5 for the final step and started using an intuitive direct-solving method.

1: EOLine
2: Corners + RF+RB
3: EP

R' D' L D U2 R L B2 L' F D' U' B' R' B D B D U2 R B L R B' D2

1: DF'D2R'LFB2
2: DU2R'D' U2R'URU'R'U'R2U'R'URU'R' U'RUR'UL'URU'LU2R'
3: M2U2M'U2M'

R2 B L F R' B' L U' R U' B2 F2 U2 L D2 L U2 L2 B' U L2 B U R F'

1: BU'FBLBU'D2L'
2: R'D2U'R'D' U2RU'R2U'RUR' U2rUR'U'r'FRF'
3: D'U'MD2M'D'UM2U'M2UM'U2MU'

F2 D' R L2 D2 F U' B L R' U' L' U R2 F R' B2 D' U2 R' L F2 L' F2 L

1: RFUD'BLB2
2: DU2R2D' R2URU'r2U2M2UR' U2 RUR'U'RU'R'U2RU'R'U2RUR'
3: M'U2M'DM2D'U2M2UM'U2M'



Spoiler



Oriented Salvia Columns First Roux


----------



## Phlippieskezer (Sep 7, 2011)

'Method' I've been fiddling around with on 4x4+...
I wouldn't be surprised if it's been thought up before, but (and you can probably guess its inspiration):

1. Solve two opposite centres.

2. Solve "Rouxblock" (i.e. 4x3x1 for 4x4x4 cube).

3. Solve opposite "Rouxblock."

4. CMLL.

5. Solve centres on M.

6. E(M)LL.


----------



## JonnyWhoopes (Sep 7, 2011)

Pretty sure that's Stadler.


----------



## Phlippieskezer (Sep 7, 2011)

JonnyWhoopes said:


> Pretty sure that's Stadler.


 
(Assuming you're talking to me...)
Neat. Thanks. 

Though, the wiki isn't giving me any results, but Google did. So, you're right.

Guess that's my new big cube method. :3
(The only difference in what I was doing before is that I was directly solving the edges with commutators, whilst it looks like he [Stadler] sort of pairs them up and then solves them).


----------



## qqwref (Sep 7, 2011)

Is this well-known?

(r' F r) (F R U2 R' F') (and the inverse)


----------



## Stefan (Sep 7, 2011)

qqwref said:


> Is this well-known?
> 
> (r' F r) (F R U2 R' F') (and the inverse)


 
Darn, I'm kinda using the inverse ((F R U2 R') (F' L' U' L)) but never thought about inverting it.


----------



## teller (Sep 7, 2011)

qqwref said:


> Is this well-known?
> 
> (r' F r) (F R U2 R' F') (and the inverse)


 
I published (F R U2 R' F') and all of it's mirrors in my first rotationless F2L vid, and the reaction I got to the general case was that no, it's not well known. I do solve your case that way, but I think about it as targeting the general setup rather than a standalone alg.


----------



## Athefre (Sep 8, 2011)

It's possible to get Kinect working on PC. I wonder how well it would work as a control method for computer cubes.

It probably wouldn't be able to track above a certain TPS or as accurately as a solver would like, but it seems like it would be fun.


----------



## bobthegiraffemonkey (Sep 9, 2011)

Might be useful to some people, and it does end with a random lol. Wasn't really sure where to post this tbh, I figured this thread would do.


----------



## Godmil (Sep 9, 2011)

Athefre said:


> It's possible to get Kinect working on PC. I wonder how well it would work as a control method for computer cubes.


AFAIK The drivers have been for people to develop for it no the PC... however it would be kinda pointless cause you don't need depth perception to recognise the colours on a cube face. Also the non ir cam part isn't that great. The Playstation Eye would be better as it's a pretty good webcam (and cheap too).


----------



## macky (Sep 9, 2011)

qqwref said:


> Is this well-known?
> 
> (r' F r) (F R U2 R' F') (and the inverse)


 
My site lists L'ULFRU2'R'F with the note "reduction by L'UL." Because you know, FRU2'R'F should be well known.


----------



## Athefre (Sep 9, 2011)

Godmil said:


> AFAIK The drivers have been for people to develop for it no the PC... however it would be kinda pointless cause you don't need depth perception to recognise the colours on a cube face. Also the non ir cam part isn't that great. The Playstation Eye would be better as it's a pretty good webcam (and cheap too).


 
I've also considered Playstation Eye before - to be used as a way to time a physical cube solve without a physical timer. But, what I meant with my previous post, and what I thought would be fun, is for a solver to be able to control a computer cube with Kinect tracking hand movements. Not having to hold a physical cube. It wouldn't be as useful as my first idea, but I think it would be fun in a silly way to feel like you have telekinetic powers.


----------



## JonnyWhoopes (Sep 9, 2011)

Could somebody explain to me why [L', U2] [L, F2] [R, U2] works?


----------



## qqwref (Sep 9, 2011)

The Kinect idea might be fun, but it definitely won't be as fast as a hi-games type cube unless you add in some kind of fingertrick macros (which I don't recommend in general).

Jonny: I don't have an explanation for why it works as written (other than that the three edge cycles cancel each other out), but it's equivalent to L' U2 L U2 R U2 L' U2 L U2 R' U2 = [L': [U2, L U2 R U2 L']] which is a pretty intuitive 3-cycle commutator.


----------



## Godmil (Sep 9, 2011)

Athefre said:


> I've also considered Playstation Eye before - to be used as a way to time a physical cube solve without a physical timer. But, what I meant with my previous post, and what I thought would be fun, is for a solver to be able to control a computer cube with Kinect tracking hand movements. Not having to hold a physical cube. It wouldn't be as useful as my first idea, but I think it would be fun in a silly way to feel like you have telekinetic powers.



Oh yeah, that's a really cool idea  precision may be a slight issue with the kinect, but it would be cool.


----------



## DavidWoner (Sep 10, 2011)

I often see oriented edges defined as those solvable within <R, L, U, D, F2, B2> Isn't this redundant? Why don't we say <R, L, U, D> since F2 and B2 already fall under that moveset? 

There is probably something more elegant but for now this proof suffices: F2 = R L' U2 R' L U D R U R2 U' R' U' R' U2 R D' alg.garron.us


----------



## Kirjava (Sep 10, 2011)

I think that's a bit silly.


----------



## qqwref (Sep 10, 2011)

It's a good point mathematically, but I think the point of showing all 6 moves on the generator is to easily see the differences between cube groups. It's obvious that the difference between <U,L,R,D,F2,B2> and <U,L,R,D,F,B> is that you can't do quarter turns on F or B; it's less obvious when you write them as <U,L,R,D> and <U,R,D,F,B>.

Actually, I think it's been a long trend in cubing to use mathematical formulations that make more intuitive sense, whether or not they are actually formally correct.


----------



## cuBerBruce (Sep 10, 2011)

DavidWoner said:


> I often see oriented edges defined as those solvable within <R, L, U, D, F2, B2> Isn't this redundant? Why don't we say <R, L, U, D> since F2 and B2 already fall under that moveset?
> 
> There is probably something more elegant but for now this proof suffices: F2 = R L' U2 R' L U D R U R2 U' R' U' R' U2 R D' alg.garron.us







qqwref said:


> It's a good point mathematically, but I think the point of showing all 6 moves on the generator is to easily see the differences between cube groups. It's obvious that the difference between <U,L,R,D,F2,B2> and <U,L,R,D,F,B> is that you can't do quarter turns on F or B; it's less obvious when you write them as <U,L,R,D> and <U,R,D,F,B>.
> 
> Actually, I think it's been a long trend in cubing to use mathematical formulations that make more intuitive sense, whether or not they are actually formally correct.


 
Well, there is nothing mathematically _incorrect_ with including generators that are redundant in this way when using group generator notation. I think <R, L, U, D, F2, B2> is generally used simply to indicate you _can_ turn the F and B layers without misorienting edges (but only half-turns). I suppose this convention goes back to the Thistlethwaite algorithm where you certainly want to make use all of the basic moves at each step, and including the F2 and B2 in the group generator notation emphasizes you can still use those basic turns in that particular step. (Yeah, I know, Thistlethwaite actually used <L, R, F, B, U2, D2> instead, but basically nobody uses his notion of orientation these days.)


----------



## MTGjumper (Sep 10, 2011)

U2

Is it a half turn or a double turn? (And I've realised as I've been writing this that someone could say "no, it's a band")


----------



## 5BLD (Sep 10, 2011)

Half turn. Double (layer) turn is like Uw. 
That's what I think at least.


----------



## DavidWoner (Sep 10, 2011)

Double layer turn and double turn are not the same thing.


----------



## y235 (Sep 11, 2011)

In the last few days i played around with the idea of reducing a 3x3 into a floppy cube (which is actually a variation of columns method).
The method i came up with is that:

1.solve F2L-cross and treat opposite colors as the same color with the following restrictions:
a. the number of D stickers in D face should be even.
b. if the number of D stickers in D face is 2, they must be adjacent to each other

2. CLL

3. solve edges columns (2 edges and a center from the same color):
3a. solve one edge column - using things like U M U' M', and put it between the correct corner columns.
3b. solve another one without destroying the first one - just put the solved one on L/R and do S to preserve it.
3c. last 2 columns - there are some algs here:
UF,UR switch and flip - R F U' D R2 U D' F R'
UR UF switch and DF DR switch - U' F2 R2 F2 U2 R2 F2 R2 U'
(i had more but i lost them)

4. solve as a floppy cube


----------



## irontwig (Sep 12, 2011)

lolmetaandacronyms:
ALF: Adjacent Layers First (LBL, CFOP, Petrus, etc...)
OLAF: Opposite LAyers First (Roux, CF, Waterman, etc...)


----------



## JackJ (Sep 13, 2011)

Nub belt I came up with a few years back, used to think it had potential. 

http://alg.garron.us/?alg=R_U-_F_R-..._R2_U_B-_D2_L2_F_B2_U-_B2_L-_B2_D2_F_R-_B-_U-

57 moves if I counted correctly.


----------



## whauk (Sep 13, 2011)

has anyone solved a cube in his mouth so far?
a friend today showed me the she can make turns on a cube (by using teeth and toungue somehow)...

as she won't learn blind i think a mirror will work pretty well. i hope she will succeed... (and i will film it of course)


----------



## Phlippieskezer (Sep 13, 2011)

*K4 as a beginner method*

So, I've been considering teaching a nub to cubing a beginner method, and actually thought doing something like K4 might not be a bad idea. 
You have some basic blockbuilding in the start in the form of a Rouxblock, but you still have a smooth LBL kind of a solve. Might want to do LL a bit differently, though. Thoughts? Anybody done this before? 

- this is on a 3x3x3, of course


----------



## qqwref (Sep 13, 2011)

It's certainly a legit way to teach a beginner the middle edges in a LBL solution. I don't think anything else from K4 would be applicable to a beginner solution, though.


----------



## MostEd (Sep 13, 2011)

Phlippieskezer said:


> So, I've been considering teaching a nub to cubing a beginner method, and actually thought doing something like K4 might not be a bad idea.
> You have some basic blockbuilding in the start in the form of a Rouxblock, but you still have a smooth LBL kind of a solve. Might want to do LL a bit differently, though. Thoughts? Anybody done this before?
> 
> - this is on a 3x3x3, of course



Its a cool thing... i tried, but hey, i solved like that, but i used 2look ell and 


man it could be a seperate method for kir's 10sub 10


----------



## Cubenovice (Sep 13, 2011)

whauk said:


> a friend today showed me the she can make turns on a cube (by using teeth and toungue somehow)...



I think she is trying to tell you something


----------



## DaveyCow (Sep 13, 2011)

whauk said:


> has anyone solved a cube in his mouth so far?


 
that's just silly


----------



## Kirjava (Sep 13, 2011)

Phlippieskezer said:


> So, I've been considering teaching a nub to cubing a beginner method, and actually thought doing something like K4 might not be a bad idea.
> You have some basic blockbuilding in the start in the form of a Rouxblock, but you still have a smooth LBL kind of a solve. Might want to do LL a bit differently, though. Thoughts? Anybody done this before?
> 
> - this is on a 3x3x3, of course


 
I do this when I do LBL. You can see it in my 20 methods video.


----------



## Escher (Sep 13, 2011)

whauk said:


> has anyone solved a cube in his mouth so far?


 
No but I got pretty good at doing it one-handed.


----------



## Phlippieskezer (Sep 14, 2011)

Kirjava said:


> I do this when I do LBL. You can see it in my 20 methods video.


 
Oh, neat. I didn't even notice that was really K4 (until now, obviously). 
But do you think this would be viable as a beginner method? I figure having some blockbuilding in there so that they have a fair feel for the cube off the get-go, but still keeping it simple is important.


----------



## Kirjava (Sep 14, 2011)

I think the F3L technique for F2L might be a bit too compicated for beginners. Dan wanted to teach some poeple like that but I don't know if he ever got around to it.


----------



## Phlippieskezer (Sep 14, 2011)

Kirjava said:


> I think the F3L technique for F2L might be a bit too compicated for beginners.


 
Really? I figured that would be fairly simple to teach, even if you just teach one of the algs and tell them to invert it, and do rotations (it's being treated as a beginner method, so those really shouldn't hurt). 
Do you think a complete nub will be able to grasp solving the 3x2x1 block (with blockbuilding), though?

PS: I might end up trying this tomorrow.


----------



## Kirjava (Sep 14, 2011)

Phlippieskezer said:


> Really? I figured that would be fairly simple to teach, even if you just teach one of the algs and tell them to invert it, and do rotations (it's being treated as a beginner method, so those really shouldn't hurt).


 
I was talking about the F3L technique, so no rotations. 

The thing you just described is normal LBL


----------



## bobthegiraffemonkey (Sep 15, 2011)

Moar stuff. Didn't get any feedback from the last one, maybe this time people will give me some? This one has me failing more in it because I'm tired, so should be funny. I dunno, I've not actually watched it back .


----------



## Hershey (Sep 15, 2011)

bobthegiraffemonkey said:


> Moar stuff. Didn't get any feedback from the last one, maybe this time people will give me some? This one has me failing more in it because I'm tired, so should be funny. I dunno, I've not actually watched it back .


 
Interesting G perms!


----------



## Robert-Y (Sep 15, 2011)




----------



## qqwref (Sep 15, 2011)

<M,U> supercube-safe U perm:

(M' U M) U (M' U2 M) U (M' U M) U2


PS: Interesting idea, Robert - combining the pair and the 2x1 block of centers does seem to allow pretty much everything else to be put together without disturbing the cross. It seems like a pretty good variant for Yau.


----------



## Kirjava (Sep 17, 2011)

need to commit some ideas to 'paper'

5x5x5 LL idea;
solve tredge -> ELL (always easy) -> tredge -> L2T

6x6x6 and up cross&centres idea;
2 opp centres -> centre -> connect dedge -> centre -> connect dedge -> L2C -> 2 dedges


----------



## Cool Frog (Sep 17, 2011)

Kirjava said:


> need to commit some ideas to 'paper'
> 
> 5x5x5 LL idea;
> solve tredge -> ELL (always easy) -> tredge -> L2T
> ...


 
How bad do you think Parity+2 flip(midges) algs would be?


----------



## Kirjava (Sep 17, 2011)

Cool Frog said:


> How bad do you think Parity+2 flip(midges) algs would be?


 
You would never get that case with the technique I listed.


----------



## Cool Frog (Sep 17, 2011)

Ah, yes. I meant if you didn't use the method described (I guess It wasn't a good idea to quote you:fp)


----------



## Kirjava (Sep 17, 2011)

I just do 2look when I get that case. 5x5x5 ELL never appears to take me more than 4 looks. 7x7x7 ELL never takes more than 6.


----------



## Kirjava (Sep 18, 2011)

stuffffff


----------



## Stefan (Sep 18, 2011)

Gosh why did I even watch Thom's video, should've known I'd feel like a noob afterwards. Strengthens my love for the 4x4 and its endless solving options, though.


----------



## jrb (Sep 20, 2011)

Has anyone thought of this substep before? If so, could someone give me a link to the algs?

Solve the cross and three F2L pairs so the cube looks like this:






Then, orient all the edges and put the edge that belongs in the last F2L pair in its correct position:





After this, insert the corner into its slot and orient all the corners on the top:


----------



## uberCuber (Sep 20, 2011)

Isn't that just [wiki]MGLS[/wiki]?


----------



## Escher (Sep 20, 2011)

http://cube.garron.us/MGLS/

Cool that you had the same idea, but I'm afraid you're about 4 years late!


----------



## StachuK1992 (Sep 20, 2011)

MGJBLS now!

This is basically MGLS-ZZ.


----------



## jrb (Sep 20, 2011)

Escher said:


> I'm afraid you're about 4 years late!



Lol:fp


----------



## Rpotts (Sep 22, 2011)

What I did in my downtime at work today -

*I randomly typed out scrambles*

F' U2 R' D U L2 F' D B' R B2 F' L2 R' D' F R2 U' R2 U2 L' F'



Spoiler



x2 y' R D L F2 (4)
R' U' R2 U R2' U' R (7, 11)
U' L' U' L (4, 15)
U2 R U' R' U2 l U L' U' M' (10, 25)
U2 R U' R' (4, 29)
R U R' U R U' R' U' R' F R F' (12, 41)
M2 U' M U' U' M' U' M2 U (9, 50)

50 moves ETM


 
L2 F' B2 R D2 U2 R' U' D F B' L2 F2 R D' R2 L' B' L' D L2 F 



Spoiler



x2 L2 R B' d' L F' u' (7)
U L U' L' (4, 11)
R U' R' U R U R2' U R (9, 20)
U' F R U2 R' F' r' F' r (9, 29)
U' R U2 R' U' R U R' U' U' R' F R F' (14, 43)
U' (M' U' M U')*3 (13, 56)

56 moves ETM


 

L2 F B' R2 L D' U F B2 L2 R U2 R2 D L D' R B F2 L2 D2 R'



Spoiler



z f D R D' R' D (6)
L' U L U' L' U' L (7, 13)
U2 f' U' L2 U f (6, 19)
l U' R' U x U2 R' U' R (9, 28)
U F U R U' R' F' R U' R' (10, 38)
F R U R' U' R U R' U' F' (10, 48)
M2 U' M U' U' M' U' M2 U' (9, 57)

57 moves ETM


 

R U R2 B' L2 D L' D2 F2 L B' D2 L D' R2 B F2 U L2 R U R



Spoiler



x2 D F L2 B2 D2 (5)
U' l U' R' U l' U R2 U R' (10, 15)
U F R U2 R' F' (6, 21)
(U2 + y) R' U R U' R' U R (8, 29)
r U' R U' R' U2 r (7, 36)
U M2 U' M' U' U' M U' M2 (9, 45)

45 moves ETM


 

F' U2 F2 B' R B L2 B D' L R D2 U2 R U R' U2 F B2 D L D' F



Spoiler



x2 D F R2 L' F' R' L2 D' R2 (9)
U2 R U R' L' U L
R U' R' U2 y' R' U' R
U2 r U' r' F U' L' U L 
(unfinished)



I tried to make them cool while avoiding rotations, but they are not necessarily representative of my actual solves, lol. Anything worthwhile?


----------



## Rpotts (Sep 22, 2011)

MOAR


F2 L B2 R U2 D' F' L B' F' R2 D' L U2 R U R B2 L' F 



Spoiler



x2 y' D' R' D2 U2 B' R' U2 F (8)
L U' L' (3, 11)
(U D) R U' R' D' (5, 16)
l' U R' U' l U' R (7, 23)
U2 F' r U r' (5, 28)
U' f R U R' U' f' (7, 35)
U' R2' U' S' U2 S U' R2' U' (9, 44)

44 moves ETM


 

R L2 B2 F2 D' R D' B L2 F' R2 U L2 U2 R D' R2 B



Spoiler



x2 l' (U' D') x' u L2 D2' (6)
R U' R2' U R (5, 11)
U2 F R U2 R' F' (6, 17)
U' L U' L' U' L U2' L' (8, 25)
U R U2 R' U R' F R' F (9, 34)
U' L U' R' U L' U' R (8, 42)
U' R2' U' S' U2 S U' R2' (8, 50)

50 moves ETM


 

B' R2 B L U2 D2 F' R' L2 U R2 U' F' U D B' L D2 B



Spoiler



x2 L' D' F' R B' u2 (6)
R2 u' R2' u R2 (5, 11)
D' L' U' L D2 L' U2 L D' (9, 20)
U L2' U2 L2 U L2' U L2 (8, 28)
R U2' R2' U' R2 U' R2' U2' R (9, 37)
M2 U' M' U' U' M U' M2 U2' (9, 46)

46 moves ETM


 

B' U2 B2 F' R' D' U2 L B F' L U2 L2 R' F2 D B' R U2



Spoiler



First Try :

x2 R' U' R' F L2 D2' (6)
B' R U' R' B (5, 11)
u2 R' U' R E2' R' U R (8, 19)
L' U2 L U R U R' (7, 26)
U' L' U2 L U L' U' L (8, 34)
U' R' U' l' U R U' R' U R U' B l (12, 46)
U' M' U' M2 U' M2 U' M' U' U' M2 U' (13, 59)

59 moves ETM

Second Try :

x2 R' U' R' F L U' L U D2 (9)
R' U2 R2 U' R' d' R' U R (9, 18)
U' L U L2' U' L2 U L' (8, 26)
U M' U' L' U2 L U L' U' l (9, 35)
U' r U2 R' F R' F' R U' R U' r' U2 (13, 48)

48 moves ETM


----------



## JonnyWhoopes (Sep 24, 2011)

Columns first variant/CF variant solves:

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

Solve 1:


Spoiler



First // x' B D2
Second // F2 U' F
Third // R' U r U2 r' U' r
Fourth and centers // y' M U' M2 U2 r U R'
OCLL // F R U R' U' R U R' U' F'
Insert edge and free another // U M2 U2 M U2 M
Insert edge // d M' U2 M
Orientation/last edge // d M' U' M' U' M' U' M U' M' U2 M
PLL // L' U' L y' R2' u R' U R U' R u' R2 U'



I'll get to the other tomorrow. Family just got here.

::EDIT:: Lol, let's be honest. I'll never get to these. If somebody else asks for the rest of the solves, I'll do them. But I have no motivation on my own.


----------



## JackJ (Sep 24, 2011)

10.85, 23.18, 15.04, 12.79, 14.25 = 14.03

Lmfao consistency.


----------



## Kirjava (Sep 25, 2011)

22:50 <+Nibblr> 3x3 Scramble #21061: F' D2 U L2 F2 U2 R2 L' U' L D2 L' R F2 U B2 F2 U' D2 L R2 F D' L2 U2

B R' F L' R U2 D B' D L' U L U2 B' U' B L2 B L B' L2 B L B' L' R U2 L' B2 R B2 D2 F2 R' F2 L F2 L2 U2


----------



## Athefre (Sep 25, 2011)

Probably Unnecessary Beginner LSE Orientation

1. Place an oriented edge at DB
2. Adjust U to have a misoriented edge at BU
3. M'UM until 3 on U, 1 on D goal


----------



## bobthegiraffemonkey (Sep 26, 2011)

R U' r' U r' R U' r U r'
Is this known? I found it messing around today and I like it, especially since I've started practicing Roux recently.


----------



## xabu1 (Sep 26, 2011)

bobthegiraffemonkey said:


> R U' r' U r' R U' r U r'
> Is this known? I found it messing around today and I like it, especially since I've started practicing Roux recently.


 
OR for that, you could do U' M U2 M' U2 M' U M'

I am just wondering why we would change the step from being 2 gen with M and U


----------



## timeless (Oct 3, 2011)

easy f2l B' D2 L2 B' L' R' F' U' D2 R2 L2 B' F' U R2 F U' L' F' L' R2 B2 D' R F
32.98 had a pop
my pb is 26 btw


----------



## Athefre (Oct 3, 2011)

*ZZ-OF:*

F2 R2 D2 L U' F B2 L' B F2 U' F' L F L' U R B2 U' B' F2 L2 D U L

EOLine: z F'R2U'BL'U'L'
Block 1: U'R'U'
Block 2: D2R2D'R'D'
Separate: R DR'U'RD'R'
Corners: D2F2UD'F2
Edges: M2U'M'u2MD U2MU2MU'M2U'MU2M'


----------



## qqwref (Oct 4, 2011)

Interesting idea, but it's pretty awkward to do a solve like that...

Here's one: tripod LL on the Megaminx. You just build a 2x3 block on U before you insert your last pair, then put in the last pair without disturbing it. You now have 3 corners and 2 edges left; the 3 corners are either misoriented in some way or in some kind of 3-cycle, and the 2 edges are either solved or flipped. So there are 54 cases, which isn't all that bad, and if you use a quick alg to orient edges (you can do it while you're inserting that F2L pair) you are left with either a nice 3-cycle or a corner orientation alg. Pretty spiffy.


----------



## Athefre (Oct 4, 2011)

qqwref said:


> Interesting idea, but it's pretty awkward to do a solve like that...


 
What is the awkward part for you? Is it the RUD, the view (looking to see pieces on D), the edges step?. Of course there's the RUL option, but then that would require a z rotation for the final eight edges.


----------



## qqwref (Oct 4, 2011)

It's the view of U/D and the final 8 edges, mostly. Doing cross-on-left ZZ is a little unusual but I'm sure anyone would get used to it pretty quickly.


----------



## Athefre (Oct 4, 2011)

Not that I plan to use or promote it. I just think that the separation step (the first step of NMLL) works well in orienting the corners and placing the final two belt edges at the same time. I also prefer the edges step to the common idea of "two PLLs".


----------



## uberCuber (Oct 5, 2011)

qqwref said:


> Interesting idea, but it's pretty awkward to do a solve like that...
> 
> Here's one: tripod LL on the Megaminx. You just build a 2x3 block on U before you insert your last pair, then put in the last pair without disturbing it. You now have 3 corners and 2 edges left; the 3 corners are either misoriented in some way or in some kind of 3-cycle, and the 2 edges are either solved or flipped. So there are 54 cases, which isn't all that bad, and if you use a quick alg to orient edges (you can do it while you're inserting that F2L pair) you are left with either a nice 3-cycle or a corner orientation alg. Pretty spiffy.


 
I'm actually pretty sure I've seen this before.


----------



## Kirjava (Oct 5, 2011)

:3


----------



## Cheese11 (Oct 5, 2011)

Kirjava said:


> :3


 
Dude thats pree solid.


----------



## Meep (Oct 5, 2011)

Kirjava said:


> Penguin Magics
> 
> :3


 
Omg it's Meep


----------



## Tim Major (Oct 6, 2011)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nCtErzHMtH8&feature=related
This made me rage, and reminded me of Kir's fake channel. Fakes are lame, especially as this is obviously from a fairly popular user.
1323 views, 35 likes, 1 dislike (me lol).
Anyone up for a group flame?


----------



## jms_gears1 (Oct 6, 2011)

Tim Major said:


> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nCtErzHMtH8&feature=related
> This made me rage, and reminded me of Kir's fake channel. Fakes are lame, especially as this is obviously from a fairly popular user.
> 1323 views, 35 likes, 1 dislike (me lol).
> Anyone up for a group flame?


I find it funny that in multiple points, he taps a corner then taps the edge. 
>RFU goes to DF


----------



## Cubenovice (Oct 6, 2011)

Kirjava said:


> Pinguin Image



I'd prefer a version with Happy Feet on it's way back home:


----------



## Godmil (Oct 6, 2011)

Tim Major said:


> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nCtErzHMtH8&feature=related
> This made me rage, and reminded me of Kir's fake channel. Fakes are lame, especially as this is obviously from a fairly popular user.
> 1323 views, 35 likes, 1 dislike (me lol).
> Anyone up for a group flame?



AGHH! Look at that blue cross, just an M move and he's got 5 of the 6 visible edges there solved. That gets me so pissed off. Couldn't help leaving a sarcy comment.
Also where is Kirjava's fakes channel again, cause this is a good contender.


----------



## xabu1 (Oct 6, 2011)

jms_gears1 said:


> I find it funny that in multiple points, he taps a corner then taps the edge.
> >RFU goes to DF


 
that is because he was doing a blind fridrich solve, which I find is wierd


----------



## RyanReese09 (Oct 6, 2011)

xabu1 said:


> that is because he was doing a blind fridrich solve, which I find is wierd


 
Noone can speedbld memo in subminute

That being said, it's lol he's trying to pull this off as real.


----------



## ben1996123 (Oct 6, 2011)

Tim Major said:


> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nCtErzHMtH8&feature=related
> This made me rage, and reminded me of Kir's fake channel. Fakes are lame, especially as this is obviously from a fairly popular user.
> 1323 views, 35 likes, 1 dislike (me lol).
> Anyone up for a group flame?



disriked.


----------



## Cubenovice (Oct 6, 2011)

Tim Major said:


> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nCtErzHMtH8&feature=related


Video removed by user...


----------



## Kirjava (Oct 6, 2011)

check your cache? I'll reupload if anyone has a copy


----------



## Kirjava (Oct 6, 2011)




----------



## ben1996123 (Oct 6, 2011)

Kirjava said:


> [noparse]
> 
> 
> 
> [/noparse]



._.


----------



## qqwref (Oct 6, 2011)

Kirjava said:


> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WqJF3tKDnrA


Well that was a waste of time. I would have been a lot more impressed if they had replaced the 20 seconds of random editing with an actual realtime solve. Why bother producing a video like that when the vast majority of people don't have the time and money to fly to some random conference to see the thing in person?


----------



## Kirjava (Oct 6, 2011)

It looks fast though. I imagine it averages at least sub10.


----------



## Tim Major (Oct 6, 2011)

As I don't have access to the private forum, I will argue, or agree here, sure out of place, but that's what happens when such restrictions are made.



Erik said:


> 2. sheet of paper to block the timer. Some people like to have a small sheet of paper on the timer to not be distracted by the blinking lights or the time itself to check break-down times for example. Currently not allowed.


I don't mind which way this goes, I don't think it would change things, maybe some people see it as helping, or you could just, not look? If it's unfair to remove the flashing light, are you saying a next brace, which physically doesn't allow you to look down at the timer would be unfair? Strange example/bad argument, sure, but I think it's strange to have a ban on a little piece of paper, as long as it doesn't hinder the judge. I think it's a bad idea to have in magic/master magic, the judge can't tell if it's been stopped early or later, often in master magic the competitor's hands are low. This shouldn't be a problem as there's no checking for break downs in master magic. The display lags behind, so it will always finish after the competitor, so for such events it shouldn't be covered.
I am no a strong believer for either side here.



Erik said:


> 3. listening to music during solving. Blocks out noise, and might get you in a nice rythm for solving. Currently not allowed.


At many venues there is music playing, so if your argument for feet is that at venues with carpet they have an advantage, and should be allowed to replicate the conditions if available, isn't the music replicating? The only issue here would be if someone couldn't remember parity for a big cube, and decided to loop it and pass it off as their music. Again, I don't use music to help my solves, so I don't mind if this is passed or not.



Erik said:


> 4. Bringing your own airconditioning or lamp: changing the present environment provided by the organization. Currently not allowed.


This seems ridiculous, and I didn't realise it wasn't allowed (who would seriously do this every competition) but at one competition in Melbourne it was high 30s low 40s celcius, and people were asked to bring in fans from home if they had them. They were not set up to gush into a competitors face, but likewise with feet, isn't this just a measure to make conditions less varied? Some venues have fans on the roof, does this mean those venues can't be used? I've never seen or heard about lamps being used, but some venues have horrible lighting, so surely they'd be allowed, as long as not obstructing the judge's view, or annoying other competitors.



Erik said:


> 5. Bring a second stackmat, to put under the normal mat to provide more elasticity in the surface. It helps during feet and compensates for the competitions where there is a carpet, rubber or any other non hard-as-concrete floor. Currently not allowed (though it has been done and apparently been approved by delegates).


Seems fair to me for all reasons I've stated above.

Any strange rules, or unclear rules should be delegates discretion. Our comps now always have 2 delegates, because Dene has moved to Melbourne, so if ever there are rules we are unsure about, we have two delegates to express their ideas.

This is probably the only reason I am against the private forum (excluding the fact I can't post there) is that threads that I feel should've been made public are put there instead. You don't have to specialise in any field to give a logical opinion on this. I have been involved in the organisation and running (no, not solely, as part of a team) all of the Australian competitions.



Erik said:


> - are the current regulations (especially A5b) written in a way that clearly states which of the unwanted or unfair things are to blocked out, and the ok-things approved?


It's definitely unclear, and if I had to judge off A5b I would say no to all things mentioned. I don't think there should be a list of accepted things, as that would be subjective and change. It should say something like "anything to help make conditions neutral, as to delegates discretion should be allowed".


----------



## Kirjava (Oct 6, 2011)

olol you're implying that background music everyone can hear and music played personally on an mp3 player are the same thing


----------



## bobthegiraffemonkey (Oct 8, 2011)

Got a couple of responses to my last one, hope people like it. Not so many this time. New execution for G perms (I think), I found out inverse standard V perm is good, and couple of other things.


----------



## IAssemble (Oct 9, 2011)

qqwref said:


> Well that was a waste of time. I would have been a lot more impressed if they had replaced the 20 seconds of random editing with an actual realtime solve. Why bother producing a video like that when the vast majority of people don't have the time and money to fly to some random conference to see the thing in person?


 
Judging by the description there may be a follow up video soon... ;-)


----------



## IAssemble (Oct 9, 2011)

Kirjava said:


> It looks fast though. I imagine it averages at least sub10.


 
I probably shouldn't say this yet but... yes, CubeStormer II averages well under sub10! Keep a look out for the next video


----------



## y235 (Oct 9, 2011)

qqwref said:


> Interesting idea, but it's pretty awkward to do a solve like that...
> 
> Here's one: tripod LL on the Megaminx. You just build a 2x3 block on U before you insert your last pair, then put in the last pair without disturbing it. You now have 3 corners and 2 edges left; the 3 corners are either misoriented in some way or in some kind of 3-cycle, and the 2 edges are either solved or flipped. So there are 54 cases, which isn't all that bad, and if you use a quick alg to orient edges (you can do it while you're inserting that F2L pair) you are left with either a nice 3-cycle or a corner orientation alg. Pretty spiffy.


what about the cases when you have 2 2-cycles?


----------



## MaeLSTRoM (Oct 9, 2011)

y235 said:


> what about the cases when you have 2 2-cycles?



if you mean a edge 2-cycle + corner 2-cycle, like a Tperm on a 3x3 cube, those cases are imossible to get on a megaminx.


----------



## y235 (Oct 9, 2011)

MaeLSTRoM said:


> if you mean a edge 2-cycle + corner 2-cycle, like a Tperm on a 3x3 cube, those cases are imossible to get on a megaminx.


 
why?


----------



## mr. giggums (Oct 9, 2011)

y235 said:


> why?


 
When you make a single turn on the megaminx it cycles a 5-cycle of edges and a 5-cycle of corners. What this means is that the parity for both edges and corners will always be even making it impossible to get 2 2-cycles of both corners and edges because then the parity would be odd.


----------



## Anthony (Oct 11, 2011)

Awesome 4x4 results:

1	Hao-Zheng Lin: 44.28 
2	Han-Cyun Chen: 44.32 
3	Cornelius Dieckmann: 44.54 
4	Yu Nakajima: 44.77 
5	Jr-Wei Jang: 47.14 
6	Kuo-Hao Wu: 47.18

And they all had a 40.xx single or better.


----------



## IAssemble (Oct 13, 2011)

qqwref said:


> Well that was a waste of time. I would have been a lot more impressed if they had replaced the 20 seconds of random editing with an actual realtime solve. Why bother producing a video like that when the vast majority of people don't have the time and money to fly to some random conference to see the thing in person?


 
For those of you who won't be able to attend ARM TechCon to see this live, here's a full solve - enjoy!


----------



## Kirjava (Oct 13, 2011)

ok, that's scary fast

ever thought of getting a better turning cube?

then again, maybe you don't need one


----------



## Escher (Oct 13, 2011)

IAssemble said:


> For those of you who won't be able to attend ARM TechCon to see this live, here's a full solve - enjoy!


 
WTF


----------



## IAssemble (Oct 13, 2011)

Kirjava said:


> ok, that's scary fast
> 
> ever thought of getting a better turning cube?
> 
> then again, maybe you don't need one



Thanks!

Actually there's a fine balance.... if the cube is too slick, the middle tends to slice when the cube is tilted because of the acceleration involved!


----------



## Godmil (Oct 13, 2011)

Woah! That's scary fast. Well done! btw, what kinda ARM is in that phone? Does it come up with the complete solution before it starts or is it predicting and optimising as it goes?


----------



## IAssemble (Oct 13, 2011)

Godmil said:


> Woah! That's scary fast. Well done! btw, what kinda ARM is in that phone? Does it come up with the complete solution before it starts or is it predicting and optimising as it goes?


 
Thanks 

It is a dual-core ARM Cortex-A9 running at 1.2GHz.

The software finds several complete solutions and picks the best in typically 50 to 200ms before it starts the mechanical solve. I have tried the idea of "optimising as it goes" in the past but once the first move or two are committed it is extremely unlikely to find a better solution.


----------



## Godmil (Oct 13, 2011)

50-200ms? That's amazing. So what kinda move count does it usually come up with.


----------



## IAssemble (Oct 13, 2011)

Godmil said:


> 50-200ms? That's amazing. So what kinda move count does it usually come up with.


 
Thanks.

The average is just under 21 moves. The video shows a 21 move solve.


----------



## qqwref (Oct 13, 2011)

Ah, very nice. The previous video didn't even come remotely close to doing this justice; this video is a lot better. I'm quite impressed.

Could you do an average of 12, perhaps? Get 12 scrambles (25 moves is OK, cube explorer would be better though) and record the times, then take the average of the middle 10. I think since Feliks is a robot too he should have to compete against this, so it would be interesting to know how far he has to go


----------



## IAssemble (Oct 13, 2011)

qqwref said:


> Ah, very nice. The previous video didn't even come remotely close to doing this justice; this video is a lot better. I'm quite impressed.
> 
> Could you do an average of 12, perhaps? Get 12 scrambles (25 moves is OK, cube explorer would be better though) and record the times, then take the average of the middle 10. I think since Feliks is a robot too he should have to compete against this, so it would be interesting to know how far he has to go



I'm glad you like this video better 

Thanks for the suggestion, yes, perhaps we should consider another video if there is enough interest...

If we did this then using Cube Explorer for the scramble would be the best idea wouldn't it!

It would be interesting to see Feliks compete against CubeStormer II... of course we would let him have the normal human inspection time just to make it close!


----------



## Athefre (Oct 13, 2011)

I think a lot of people would be interested in a robot average if it was posted in Video Gallery.


----------



## Athefre (Oct 16, 2011)

My attempt at a human computer-like method.

B D U' L2 F2 R2 F2 R2 D R D2 F' D' B' D2 F2 L2 F' U R' L' F B L R2

x LDF'LRB
L'U2L2U'L'R'
U R'ULU'RUL' U
F2B2R'U2RF2R'F2R2F2R2U2 LD2R'U2RD2R'U2L'U2M2

Way more moves than I hoped for and not suitable for speedsolving. Kind of fun though.


----------



## Kirjava (Oct 16, 2011)

EO -> Something with edges -> Something with corners -> solve everything

I don't even think that's right. What are the steps?


----------



## Athefre (Oct 16, 2011)

Kirjava said:


> EO -> Something with edges -> Something with corners -> solve everything
> 
> I don't even think that's right. What are the steps?


 
1. EO + any two M edges at DF/DB
2. Two "oriented piece" 1x2x3 blocks on L and R
3. Orient remaining four corners and move remaining two M edges to M. (First step of NMLL)
4. Two real 1x2x3 blocks on L and R - while simultaneously trying to permute M.
5. Permute remaining four corners and position remaining four edges. (Second step of NMLL)


----------



## Athefre (Oct 18, 2011)

I do realize that it's not that similar to the usual computer methods. That's why I said computer-like. More human than computer with the 1x2x3s and the two four corner-four edge steps.


----------



## Kirjava (Oct 19, 2011)




----------



## StachuK1992 (Oct 19, 2011)




----------



## Stefan (Oct 19, 2011)

Just a thought about the beginner method, second layer edges after cross on bottom: Instead of teaching *two* cases/algorithms (one for each edge orientation), put it at UL (any orientation) and repeat R U R' U' F' U' F U' until it's solved (goes into FR). Also works for flipping an edge in place (doing the alg twice).


----------



## bobthegiraffemonkey (Oct 22, 2011)

Some more fingertricks.


----------



## brandbest1 (Oct 22, 2011)

StachuK1992 said:


> View attachment 1826


 
lol
that should be a new cubing term, "abipark"


----------



## qqwref (Oct 22, 2011)

A very silly E-perm:
F2 L2 D2 R U2 R' E' S L' U2 L S' E D2 L2 F2


----------



## Jaycee (Oct 22, 2011)

Is that meant to cycle 3 edges as well? 

EDIT : Nevermind. I was doing the Es the wrong way. >.>


----------



## teller (Oct 24, 2011)

To me, the cube is a musical instrument. I try to play it better, more fluently, and more masterfully, but most of all more artfully. Love first, profit second.

Also:

_If you ever drop your keys into a river of molten lava, let 'em go, because man, they're gone._
-- Jack Handy


----------



## 5BLD (Oct 24, 2011)

Has anyone tried something like MGLS but permuting corners? 
I've discovered a few algs when messing about with CMLL algs and accidentally twisting corners and I find it sometimes beneficial to leave a corner twisted on the second block.

Edit: I do mean for just I and Im cases. It'd be rather complicated for the rest of them.


----------



## qqwref (Oct 24, 2011)

Some more silly algs (with interesting effects):
R U R2 U2 R D' R' U2 R2 U' R' D
U M' S U F2 U' S' M U F2 U2
R u R' u' L S L' u R u' R' B2 L S' L' B2
R S E' R' E S'
(R2 U2 R2 S)2
R L D R' D L' U L D' R D' L' R' U'
U' M2 U R2 E' F2 D' S2 D F2 E R2
R U R2 U' R' S' U' R' U2 R U S


----------



## Kirjava (Oct 24, 2011)

5BLD said:


> Has anyone tried something like MGLS but permuting corners?


 
CPLS


----------



## Mike Hughey (Oct 24, 2011)

qqwref said:


> (R2 U2 R2 S)2


I realize the point of this was the fascinating nature of the algorithm, but in case someone likes this one, I wanted to point out that quicker is: F M2 S M2 f' (or any of the many similar alternatives). I use it often for big cubes BLD (5x5x5 or 7x7x7) to solve centers when I reorient.


----------



## 5BLD (Oct 24, 2011)

Kirjava said:


> CPLS


 
Yes, CPLS. Is there a good set on the net for it? The only CPLS algs I found were on Stachu's site and they had no I or Im which are the cases I want.

I think CPLS might be a good idea and I'd like to give it a chance...


----------



## Stefan (Oct 24, 2011)

qqwref said:


> Some more silly algs (with *interesting effects*):
> R U R2 U' R' S' U' R' U2 R U S


 
You tricked me!

(but I like it)


----------



## riffz (Nov 19, 2011)

Random ZBLS alg I found for inserting a pair to BL slot. Assuming it's known but I just found it while messing around.

l U' R' F R U l'

EDIT: for FR slot its r U' r' U r U r', which I'm sure is known now


----------



## tasguitar7 (Nov 22, 2011)

Ok so I am a Petrus/4lll user and I came up with a pretty cool intuitive way of solving all but 2 edges and 3 corners.

1. Petrus F2l minus one corner/edge pair
2. Use empty slot and sexy move to build 1x2x2 block on top layer
3. Expand 1x2x2 to 1x2x3 using same techniques.
4. (first non-intuition part) Use T-perm, bruno, and sexy move to solve remaining edges/corners.

Is this cool or new? also what do you guys think about it? I find the intuitiveness fun and it seems simpler (to me, at least) than the Heise method (even if less efficient).


----------



## Athefre (Nov 22, 2011)

It's a common idea when considering how to blockbuild as much as the puzzle allows.


----------



## qqwref (Nov 22, 2011)

That sounds a lot like the Tripod method. I find it's really fun to do casual solves with.


----------



## tasguitar7 (Nov 22, 2011)

Nice link! yeah that is actually pretty similar to what I have started doing. I might start using his "supertwistflip", It would actually drastically cut down move count from the way I am currently doing it.


----------



## Kirjava (Nov 23, 2011)

00:24:36 < kinch2002> Kirjava: just posted O perms with layers moving other ways too: 
http://www.speedsolving.com/forum/s...-of-Algorithms&p=673105&viewfull=1#post673105
00:24:49 <+Kirjava> nice
00:24:53 <+j`ey> trolo: wat
00:25:02 <+Kirjava> maybe we should make a method based around EPBL?
00:25:32 <+Kirjava> all we have to do to make it unique is to make it not columns
00:25:42 < kinch2002> belt...
00:25:47 <+Kirjava> so four F2L pairs is out of the question
00:25:49 <+Kirjava> belt is shitty
00:25:55 < kinch2002> yep
00:25:57 <+Kirjava> CF is shitty
00:26:17 < kinch2002> learn OBLCP
00:26:19 <+Kirjava> 1x1x3, another 1x1x3
00:26:24 <+Kirjava> CLL
00:26:30 <+Kirjava> orient edges
00:26:32 <+Kirjava> seperate
00:26:36 <+Kirjava> EPBL
00:26:41 <+Kirjava> or some other random combination of ****

B' U F R L' D R2 D' L2 U2 B R' L D' U2 L2 U2 D2 B2 U F2 R' D' B L

1x1x3; L2
1x1x3; R'F'U2R'U2F'R
CLL; y R2'U'RFR'UR2U'R'F'R
ULUR; M2UF'MF'M'F2Ux
EO; D'L'R'B'M'BR2Fx
ES; F'B'D2F'B'L2B2R2

then EPBL

gasmus knows a great alg for that EPBL


----------



## riffz (Nov 23, 2011)

Kirjava said:


> B' U F R L' D R2 D' L2 U2 B R' L D' U2 L2 U2 D2 B2 U F2 R' D' B L
> 
> 1x1x3; L2
> 1x1x3; R'F'U2R'U2F'R
> ...


 
Maybe I'm just dumb but I can't get this solution to work for me.


----------



## Athefre (Nov 23, 2011)

Daniel Beyer asked me if it was possible to determine whether and which two corners are switched using the patterns in the NMCLL image.

Looking at two adjacent corners, and checking two sets of two related (same or opposite) colors, one set belonging to U and the other L/R or F/B, creates a unique orientation that tells if the two corners are switched or not.

http://i140.photobucket.com/albums/r25/Athefre/PermutationFinal.png

Probably not useful for speed and I've realized that this is similar to how I used to intuitively recognize CMLL, but it's cool to use this with your speed-optimized recognition to see why cases look the way they do. This isn't exclusive to NMCLL and is a natural, realistic way of determining corner permutation for CLL.


----------



## Kirjava (Nov 23, 2011)

riffz said:


> Maybe I'm just dumb but I can't get this solution to work for me.


 
Sorry, fixed it


----------



## oll+phase+sync (Nov 24, 2011)

tasguitar7 said:


> Ok so I am a Petrus/4lll user and I came up with a pretty cool intuitive way of solving all but 2 edges and 3 corners.
> 
> 1. Petrus F2l minus one corner/edge pair
> 2. Use empty slot and sexy move to build 1x2x2 block on top layer
> 3. Expand 1x2x2 to 1x2x3 using same techniques.


sometimes its easy, but often i need L moves to get an 1x2x3 on top, 


tasguitar7 said:


> 4. (first non-intuition part) Use T-perm, bruno, and sexy move to solve remaining edges/corners.


Why this 3 algs?
Sexy moxe ... when all edges are placed I can turn the cube and then SM orient the corners ... maybe this?
T Perm: when my 1x2x3 is at the right side of the top layer R U2 T-Perm U2 R' changes the swaps the two edges and preserves the 1x2x3 ... maybe because of this ?
Bruno: A Bruno (9move Pi COLL) really breaks every block in one layer I can't see a use for this? (did you mean NIKLAS)


----------



## DYGH.Tjen (Nov 24, 2011)

Umm.. The fastest 3x3 avg100 ever done? Anyone knows? Has anyone done sub-9? Thanks (;


----------



## ben1996123 (Nov 25, 2011)

DYGH.Tjen said:


> Umm.. The fastest 3x3 avg100 ever done? Anyone knows? Has anyone done sub-9? Thanks (;



I'm guessing 7.9 - 8.3


----------



## riffz (Nov 25, 2011)

I'm positive someone has done sub -9.

EDIT: ninja'd


----------



## Alcuber (Nov 25, 2011)

Feliks has a 7.78


----------



## adragast (Nov 25, 2011)

One time, my 3x3 cube was 3 move away from a full white/yellow face. Unfortunately I had no idea how to take advantage of this (human kociemba ? hta ?). Anyone up to create a (lol)method which begins with creating an opposite-colour face ?


----------



## y235 (Nov 25, 2011)

my friend told me about a nath teacher who first solves L U and R faces, but i think he misunderstood him.


----------



## qqwref (Nov 25, 2011)

adragast said:


> One time, my 3x3 cube was 3 move away from a full white/yellow face. Unfortunately I had no idea how to take advantage of this (human kociemba ? hta ?). Anyone up to create a (lol)method which begins with creating an opposite-colour face ?


1) opposite-color face
2) orient corners of the opposite face; place solved face on L
3) insert right edges + orient middle edges, Waterman style
4) domino!

(EDIT: alternate and slightly faster steps 1-3:
1) opposite color rouxblock + 1 corner
2) use remaining corner slot to orient opposite face's corners in one alg (using something like CLS), place almost-solved face on L
3) use remaining edge slot to insert three R edges, then orient edges and insert UL/UR like Roux L6E)


----------



## Kirjava (Nov 26, 2011)




----------



## Rpotts (Nov 27, 2011)

It starts turning at about 1.5 and finishes at around 4.9, ridiculous.


----------



## benskoning (Nov 27, 2011)

Kirjava said:


>


 
here is the first one


----------



## 4. (Nov 27, 2011)

Hey... just a thought: would it be any good to solve 2x3x1 blocks on either side like in Roux, then solve the front and back centers + bottom edges using intuition and finally the last layer like in fridrich?


----------



## Jaycee (Nov 27, 2011)

^ Most people find that as the "Noob's Roux F2L"


----------



## Phlippieskezer (Nov 27, 2011)

Isn't that known as "rouxfop"?


----------



## Specs112 (Nov 27, 2011)

That gets suggested at least once a month.


----------



## 4. (Nov 27, 2011)

OK... but is it any good?


----------



## 5BLD (Nov 27, 2011)

Nope.


----------



## tasguitar7 (Nov 28, 2011)

Does anyone else like the idea of one on one "race" solves? (2+ cubers, same scramble, start at same time etc)


----------



## RyanReese09 (Nov 28, 2011)

It's called head to head. And it's happened in some competitions. E.g. Newark Head to Head Competition.


----------



## jrb (Nov 28, 2011)

A cake my mom made me for my birthday.


----------



## tozies24 (Nov 30, 2011)

DID YOU KNOW?!?!?!

You can get an Average of 12 that is lower than your average of 5.


----------



## Stefan (Nov 30, 2011)

tozies24 said:


> DID YOU KNOW?!?!?!
> 
> You can get an Average of 12 that is lower than your average of 5.


 
YES.


----------



## emolover (Nov 30, 2011)

tozies24 said:


> DID YOU KNOW?!?!?!
> 
> You can get an Average of 12 that is lower than your average of 5.


 
Yes... At one point my PB average of 12 better then my PB average of 5.


----------



## tozies24 (Nov 30, 2011)

emolover said:


> Yes... At one point my PB average of 12 better then my PB average of 5.


 
lol, I was doing some solves today and my 12 was .02 less than my 5 and I got interested in the fact that your 12 could be better than your 5... hence random cubing discussion thread


----------



## wontolla (Nov 30, 2011)

tozies24 said:


> DID YOU KNOW?!?!?!
> 
> You can get an Average of 12 that is lower than your average of 5.


 
It sounds odd to me. Wouldn't your average of 5 become the best subset of your average of 12? Thus, avg5 would be always lower than avg12.


----------



## Stefan (Nov 30, 2011)

wontolla said:


> It sounds odd to me. Wouldn't your average of 5 become the best subset of your average of 12? Thus, avg5 would be always lower than avg12.


 
1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1


----------



## bobthegiraffemonkey (Nov 30, 2011)

Stefan said:


> 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1


 
Strange that I didn't know this fact since statistics is part of the title of my university course. Also, I love when counter-intuitive results can be demonstrated with such a simple-looking example. Cool.


----------



## uberCuber (Dec 1, 2011)

tozies24 said:


> DID YOU KNOW?!?!?!
> 
> You can get an Average of 12 that is lower than your average of 5.


 
For 6x6, my PB avg12 is sub-3, my PB avg5 is not.


----------



## Cheese11 (Dec 1, 2011)

tozies24 said:


> DID YOU KNOW?!?!?!
> 
> You can get an Average of 12 that is lower than your average of 5.


 
Yes.


----------



## 5BLD (Dec 2, 2011)

For the second block do you guys tend to use faster sequences or shorter movecount? It's interesting because I watched back on some of my videos and:
setup R' U M R U M'
now in two different solves I saw myself use both of these:
R' U R U R' U' R
M U' (R'M') U' R
the first is 7 moves, the second is 5. Which do you use? The first seems faster fingertrick wise although the second is also pretty fast, although the right hand will have to have a mini re grip which costs a fraction of a second.


----------



## Jaycee (Dec 8, 2011)

I found it odd that this two edge flip wasn't in the OLL or ELL page, so I added it. Excuse my stupidity if it was already there, but I'm fairly certain it wasn't. >__>

M' U M' U M' U M' U2 M' U M' U M' U M' 

Probably much better for ELL/BLD than OLL.


----------



## Rpotts (Dec 8, 2011)

I'm not sure if it's in wiki pages or not but I learned it here on the forums. Albeit with U' not U.

It's just the (M' U)4 four-flip (DB DF UB UL) done twice with a single U in between aka - 

[(M' U)*4, U]


----------



## Kirjava (Dec 8, 2011)




----------



## tasguitar7 (Dec 9, 2011)

I was messing around with sune and sexy move and came up with the super quadruple sune triple sexy move aka the worst y perm since F R U R' U' F': 
R U (R' U R U')4 U' R' U F (R U R' U')3 F'

super useless!


----------



## JackJ (Dec 12, 2011)

Would anyone find out how fast my anti sune really was? Starts at 23ish.


----------



## Rpotts (Dec 12, 2011)

It appears to be about 17 frames but you don't let off the timer until you're doing the first U' and you stop it well before you finish the last R.


----------



## JyH (Dec 15, 2011)

according to dan selzer


----------



## qqwref (Dec 15, 2011)

Saw this on the TASVideos forum; though it was kind of applicable here too...


----------



## cmhardw (Dec 15, 2011)

I'm going to buy THAT guy.

Apparently I really am this late to the party.

For COLL Case #1 on Bob Burton's page you can either setup to a Y perm or do a cyclic shift of an N perm.

I've been looking for YEARS for a good alg for this case, and after practicing last night I realized that I have two really good choices right there.

:fp


----------



## Rpotts (Dec 15, 2011)

Yea I unfortunately have developed a bad habit of using that 19 move Y perm setup for that COLL, soooo not worth it. save 10 moves and get an Adj PLL which won't cost you more than 9 moves HTM (other than a EPLL skip, in which case, yes use it for ZBLL only lol.)


----------



## Kirjava (Dec 15, 2011)

cmhardw said:


> I'm going to buy THAT guy.
> 
> Apparently I really am this late to the party.
> 
> ...


 
next you'll be telling us that you can do diagpi coll with [RU2R',TripleSledgehammer]


----------



## cmhardw (Dec 15, 2011)

Rpotts said:


> Yea I unfortunately have developed a bad habit of using that 19 move Y perm setup for that COLL, soooo not worth it. save 10 moves and get an Adj PLL which won't cost you more than 9 moves HTM (other than a EPLL skip, in which case, yes use it for ZBLL only lol.)



The cyclic shift of an N perm is really not half bad, I may end up using that for this case. I feel like I've probably seen this alg before, and just did not comprehend how it worked until just last night.



Kirjava said:


> next you'll be telling us that you can do diagpi coll with [RU2R',TripleSledgehammer]


 
Hmmm... That's a lot of moves, but seems nice to execute. I'll have to try it when I have a cube (at work now). Very cool!


----------



## riffz (Dec 15, 2011)

Chris, have you tried R' U R U' B L' B L B2 R B' R' B ?


----------



## Brest (Dec 16, 2011)

riffz said:


> Chris, have you tried R' U R U' B L' B L B2 R B' R' B ?


(R' U R U') x' (U L' U L) U2 (R U' R' U) (x)


----------



## Robert-Y (Dec 16, 2011)

riffz said:


> Chris, have you tried R' U R U' B L' B L B2 R B' R' B ?


 
It's not that great in a solve in my experience, but it's still quite fast.


----------



## Jaycee (Dec 18, 2011)

I just got the exact same last layer twice in a row. Same OLL and PLL. It was the exact same placement of the pieces for PLL (As in I had to do a U' both times so I could perform the alg to solve it, and it was the same "color scheme" [Blue bar in back, green headlights on left] both times), and the same AUF. I just want to post this even though I'm not sure where it should go. xP


----------



## Godmil (Dec 18, 2011)

That certainly is rare, hand scrambled?


----------



## Jaycee (Dec 18, 2011)

Nope! 2 separate scrambles from GQtimer.


----------



## ottozing (Dec 18, 2011)

For oll 31 i came up with an algorithm a while back and put it in the wiki. i thought i would post it here aswell. y' (S R U R' U' Fw' U' F). any thoughts?


----------



## Kirjava (Dec 19, 2011)

cmhardw said:


> Hmmm... That's a lot of moves, but seems nice to execute. I'll have to try it when I have a cube (at work now). Very cool!


 
****, I meant [RU2R':TripleSledgehammer], not [RU2R',TripleSledgehammer].

Much fewer moves


----------



## oll+phase+sync (Dec 19, 2011)

Brest said:


> (R' U R U') x' (U L' U L) U2 (R U' R' U) (x)



I think I'll get this ^ for free. (not sure where chris will put the money  )

this one (U')R'U'RFR2D'RUR'DR2U'F' (13) looks good but I may didn't practise enought and COLL-combo x'U'R'DRUR'DR z RU'R'DRUR'D' (16) was faster for me.


----------



## Robert-Y (Dec 20, 2011)

http://www.worldcubeassociation.org/results/c.php?i=SpanishChampionship2011&allResults=1#555

Look at Dario Roa Sánchez' 555 single NR. Surely that's a typo?


----------



## Robert-Y (Dec 28, 2011)

http://worldcubeassociation.org/results/c.php?i=UTOpen2011

Old news but it seems like Kazuhito is back with his crazy turning style?


----------



## JasonK (Dec 28, 2011)

Robert-Y said:


> http://worldcubeassociation.org/results/c.php?i=UTOpen2011
> 
> Old news but it seems like Kazuhito is back with his crazy turning style?


 
Is that this guy?

Cos that is some seriously weird turning...


----------



## Kirjava (Dec 30, 2011)

how do I made a 1x2x2 here fast?

FU2R' is an obvious solution, but y2FR2F'L' seems faster

EDIT:

5BLD suggests;

17:43 < fivebld> oop i mean z soz
17:43 < fivebld> nope, ill do some Uw thing
17:43 <+Kirjava> zFR2u'
17:43 <+Kirjava> gotit


----------



## Piebomb (Dec 31, 2011)

*Keyhole+intuitivef2l*

Basically combine intuitive f2l and keyhole for more effectiveness/fewer moves complicated to explain imma do an example solve

scramble:R2 U' L R U r2 U l U L U2 M (Meh good enough)

Solution:F R' D' R L' U' L U L' D L' U2 L D' R U R' D' R' U' R D L' U' L U L' U' L U L' U' L U D2 E F' U2 F U2 F U F' U2 R' U M U' R U M' (i think) OLL+PLL

Hmm bad example but I suck being efficent at stuff this prolly wouldve taken me more moves if I'd been doing straight f2l


----------



## Cubenovice (Dec 31, 2011)

Piebomb said:


> Basically combine intuitive f2l and keyhole for more effectiveness/fewer moves complicated to explain imma do an example solve
> 
> scramble:R2 U' L R U r2 U l U L U2 M (Meh good enough)
> 
> ...



You have found the right thread, that is indeed quite random...


----------



## Stefan (Dec 31, 2011)

Piebomb said:


> Basically combine intuitive f2l and keyhole for more effectiveness/fewer moves complicated to explain imma do an example solve
> 
> scramble:R2 U' L R U r2 U l U L U2 M (Meh good enough)
> 
> ...


 
Doesn't work. Also, it would be good to break it into separate steps (and possibly comment each) rather than one long line, I'm not really interested in having to guess what you're doing.


----------



## Rpotts (Dec 31, 2011)

Yea and that was a 50 move F2L, no way is that more efficient than "straight f2l"


----------



## Specs112 (Dec 31, 2011)

So I was in New York to look at some colleges.

I was cubing during the NYU tour. This other kid in the tour group comes up to me. The first thing I notice is that he says he cubes. The second thing I notice is that his left arm's been amputated.

He wanted to race. So I beat a one-handed guy at OH.

Am I a terrible person?


----------



## qqwref (Dec 31, 2011)

Wait, did you use one hand or two?


----------



## Specs112 (Dec 31, 2011)

qqwref said:


> Wait, did you use one hand or two?


 
One hand. I wasn't sure if it was more of a dick move to handicap myself or to not.


----------



## qqwref (Dec 31, 2011)

Ah, okay then. I think that's fair and you shouldn't feel bad - you raced him on equal terms, so if you won, it was by skill, not by having an unreasonable advantage.


----------



## RyanReese09 (Dec 31, 2011)

How fast was he?


----------



## Specs112 (Dec 31, 2011)

RyanReese09 said:


> How fast was he?


 
High 40s, don't remember exactly.


----------



## RNewms27 (Jan 2, 2012)

In the store "As Seen On TV" I spotted a V-cube 2b. wat


----------



## GlowingSausage (Jan 2, 2012)

Jaycee said:


> I just got the exact same last layer twice in a row. Same OLL and PLL. It was the exact same placement of the pieces for PLL (As in I had to do a U' both times so I could perform the alg to solve it, and it was the same "color scheme" [Blue bar in back, green headlights on left] both times), and the same AUF. I just want to post this even though I'm not sure where it should go. xP


 
that happend to me 3 times in a row. lol
cubetimer or cct scrambles. idk
but i don't know if they were the same AUFs and bot color sceme :l


----------



## tasguitar7 (Jan 3, 2012)

I got a C4U 3x3x7 for christmas and was wondering if anyone had a better method to solve it than the one I came up with. (standard 3x3x3 slice is the M-slice in my method)
1. Make fully functioning (separate all pieces into the appropriate layer)
2. Build 1x2x3 in each of the three left layers
3. Build 1x2x3 in each of the three right layers
4. solve the remaining outer layer corners
5. LSE
6. solve the remaining inner layer corners using k4 ell algs


----------



## Athefre (Jan 3, 2012)

This should work:

http://www.speedsolving.com/forum/showthread.php?28778-Kirjava-s-3x3x5-Method


----------



## JonnyWhoopes (Jan 3, 2012)

Has anybody here dabbled with Sq1 direct solving methods?


----------



## DavidWoner (Jan 3, 2012)

Do you mean cubeshape->direct solve, or straight up direct solving?

The former has been done many times, with Screw, Baum, Tse-Kan, Sun, Hashimoto, etc.

Methods that solve cubeshape last are not humanly practical.


----------



## Kirjava (Jan 9, 2012)

avg12 next


----------



## timelonade (Jan 9, 2012)

JonnyWhoopes said:


> Has anybody here dabbled with Sq1 direct solving methods?


 
Could always just play around with the patterns you use to get it into cubeshape and watch where pieces go. At times you could probably revert to cubeshape indirectly (by changing to different shapes then to cube shape from there) in order to maintain stuff, possibly giving skips/total solve.

I am a lowly sq1 noob and I dont know any EPs so im using this as my way of solving (trying to anyway..)


----------



## Brest (Jan 10, 2012)

Kirjava said:


> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> ...


B' D2 F2 R2 D2 B' L2 R2 B2 L' U R2 D' L2 R2 F' R' F' U

x' // inspection
U R' F' R2 (x' z) M' U r' // 2x2x2
(x' y' x') (R l) F D2' (x y) R' F R // XXcross
y' U' L' U L // 3rd pair
R U2' R' U R U' R' // 4th pair
U U' r' R U F R U R' U' F' M' U' // OLLCP

```
Step	Time	STM	stps	ETM	etps
[COLOR="red"]Total:	9.24	37	4.00	41	4.44[/COLOR]
F2L:	6.44	25	3.88	30	4.66
LL:	2.80	12	4.29	11	3.93
```


----------



## Kirjava (Jan 10, 2012)

Oh, awesome. Thanks Brest! 

Silly rotations


----------



## Godmil (Jan 10, 2012)

was that supposed to be a FreeFOP solve? If so are you practicing that a lot?


----------



## JasonK (Jan 10, 2012)

Godmil said:


> was that supposed to be a FreeFOP solve? If so are you practicing that a lot?


 
He was demonstrating that he knows OLLCP now (I think).


----------



## Kirjava (Jan 10, 2012)

WTF2L? said:


> He was demonstrating that he knows OLLCP now (I think).


 
Nah, I just wanted a non-Roux sub10 video.

Godmil: I'm not really practising it, I just want a good average on video.


----------



## 5BLD (Jan 17, 2012)

Why does an 'I don't care' attitude produce best results? Or does it? (am I the only one?)

Like for lookahead, if I try to look ahead, I just completely stop looking ahead? Do you get this, and how to get round the problem? (not big enough for a new thread, not small enough for OAQT, and it's more discussion than question)


----------



## Escher (Jan 17, 2012)

5BLD said:


> Why does an 'I don't care' attitude produce best results? Or does it? (am I the only one?)
> 
> Like for lookahead, if I try to look ahead, I just completely stop looking ahead? Do you get this, and how to get round the problem? (not big enough for a new thread, not small enough for OAQT, and it's more discussion than question)


 
I like to think of the effect as like this; while you watch a movie, you make a ton of verbal comments about what all of the characters are doing in each scene, and what they're thinking at the time.

While sometimes you might have revelations, most of the time you aren't going to be following the narrative easily, because you spend so much time talking about it unnecessarily.

You spend so much time thinking about what's going to happen, you don't actually let yourself make it happen.


----------



## timeless (Jan 18, 2012)

how fast can you guys do RUR'U' x6 one handed?
just did it in 3.46sec, 6.94 tps


----------



## emolover (Jan 18, 2012)

5BLD said:


> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I have noticed this with my own solving. It is not my look ahead I am talking about, it is my general solve. When I was solving on Saturday and got my first sub 11 and 12 averages of 5 and 12. I only do for the most part 50 timed solves a week and I am still improving. 

Does anyone have an idea for why this happens? I seem to be at this slow but consistent rate of improment for all puzzles even if the fact that is that I do not practice them. When I do 25 7x7 solves and the average is a 5:50 or something like that yet if I haven't practiced and these are my first solves they could be as low as 4:30 average.

It just annoys me. How do I overcome this?


----------



## Tim Major (Jan 18, 2012)

timeless said:


> how fast can you guys do RUR'U' x6 one handed?
> just did it in 3.46sec, 6.94 tps


 
2.84 L'ULU'*6. Not warmed up, fourth try.
What's your average?


----------



## Godmil (Jan 18, 2012)

5BLD said:


> Why does an 'I don't care' attitude produce best results? Or does it? (am I the only one?)


 
Cause you're more relaxed. A lot of the things you do while solving should just come naturally now... if you over think it, or worry about it, it just gets in the way.


----------



## MostEd (Jan 18, 2012)

emolover said:


> I have noticed this with my own solving. It is not my look ahead I am talking about, it is my general solve. When I was solving on Saturday and got my first sub 11 and 12 averages of 5 and 12. I only do for the most part 50 timed solves a week and I am still improving.
> 
> Does anyone have an idea for why this happens? I seem to be at this slow but consistent rate of improment for all puzzles even if the fact that is that I do not practice them. When I do 25 7x7 solves and the average is a 5:50 or something like that yet if I haven't practiced and these are my first solves they could be as low as 4:30 average.
> 
> It just annoys me. How do I overcome this?


 It's like regeneration.
Your fingers get time to "heal" back muscle tissue and they're stronger


----------



## ben1996123 (Jan 18, 2012)

5BLD said:


> Why does an 'I don't care' attitude produce best results? Or does it? (am I the only one?)



I usually get sub 10s on 3x3 sim when I don't care so you're not the only one.


----------



## aronpm (Jan 18, 2012)

ben1996123 said:


> I usually get sub 10s on 3x3 sim when I don't care so you're not the only one.


"when I don't care" = new scramble if not pll skip?


----------



## Stuhl (Jan 18, 2012)

> Why does an 'I don't care' attitude produce best results? Or does it? (am I the only one?)
> 
> Like for lookahead, if I try to look ahead, I just completely stop looking ahead? Do you get this, and how to get round the problem? (not big enough for a new thread, not small enough for OAQT, and it's more discussion than question)



Well, yeah. Same here! When i do an average of 50 and i get my first "over 20", then i try hard to get good times sub 15 (of course just good for me ). Then i get much worse and i when i try to concentrate more and more i get worse and worse....
Maybe it's just this kind of "rage" that slows you down.

I also recognised, that i'm often thinking about a lot of other stuff while solving a cube. About things like "What did i do last weekend. What will i do next weekend. How is the weather today....."
Somehow it's like jogging or doing some sport where you don't need to think, you just need to do...
That kinda scares me, because maybe if i just could concentrate some more on the F2L or whatever, i would improve my times........
Do some of you have similar problems?


----------



## 5BLD (Jan 18, 2012)

Rage. Yes.
It seems irrational but it does happen and I just get worse and worse and worse and eventually have to take a break before continuing..,


----------



## ben1996123 (Jan 18, 2012)

aronpm said:


> "when I don't care" = new scramble if not pll skip?



no.


----------



## timeless (Jan 19, 2012)

Tim Major said:


> 2.84 L'ULU'*6. Not warmed up, fourth try.
> What's your average?


 
45 after warmed up


----------



## Athefre (Jan 23, 2012)

ZZ before ZZ:

http://games.groups.yahoo.com/group/speedsolvingrubikscube/message/5114


----------



## Godmil (Jan 24, 2012)

Athefre said:


> ZZ before ZZ:
> 
> http://games.groups.yahoo.com/group/speedsolvingrubikscube/message/5114



Heise came up with ZZ? Wow. But I hope this doesn't lead to another Fridrich/CFOP split 
Nice find.

Edit: and the next post is a proto-Roux! Cubing history is fascinating.


----------



## Specs112 (Jan 24, 2012)

Godmil said:


> Heise came up with ZZ? Wow. But I hope this doesn't lead to another Fridrich/CFOP split
> Nice find.


 
This is fascinating. Doesn't Heise already have a method named after him though?

On a more random note, I had a dream last night about meeting Michael Womack and punching him in the face.

This confirms two things which I have suspected for a while.
1. My unconscious mind is pretty ****ed up.
2. I shouldn't spend so much time on this forum. Maybe I should go outside once in a while.


----------



## Athefre (Jan 24, 2012)

Maybe the most important thing is that Zbigniew was the one that saw that it was unique enough to develop, create variations, and have a website.


----------



## Tim Major (Jan 24, 2012)

Godmil said:


> Heise came up with ZZ? Wow. But I hope this doesn't lead to another Fridrich/CFOP split
> Nice find.
> 
> Edit: and the next post is a proto-Roux! Cubing history is fascinating.


 
"PS: This method is useless for sub20
cubing."

I wonder (I'll find out now) when he first published/discussed the method we now know as Roux. Because this is very similar.


----------



## Athefre (Jan 24, 2012)

http://games.groups.yahoo.com/group/speedsolvingrubikscube/message/5923


----------



## Kirjava (Jan 29, 2012)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dj-p9VJwnhw#t=1m

lol oskar


----------



## Kirjava (Jan 30, 2012)

R perm -> 7 perm

YOU KNOW IT MAKES SENSE


----------



## Cubenovice (Jan 30, 2012)

Kirjava said:


> R perm -> 7 perm
> 
> YOU KNOW IT MAKES SENSE



Fo shizzle... Does that mean the other one is an y2 1 perm?


----------



## Kirjava (Jan 31, 2012)




----------



## tozies24 (Feb 7, 2012)

I had a thought today. What if one of us hit our heads or something and had cubing amnesia. MEANING: we couldn't remember how to cube but in our mind somewhere there were all of the tricks and things that we have learned over the years. You would look at your desk and say, I must have been able to solve these at one point because I see myself on youtube but now I can't even make one side. But your muscle memory is still there. What do you think would happen? I think that a person would most likely start learning it over and then over time figure it out and be able to progress faster because they already know all the steps. This would be interesting to test but I don't want to give anyone a headache.


----------



## insane569 (Feb 7, 2012)

tozies24 said:


> I had a thought today. What if one of us hit our heads or something and had cubing amnesia. MEANING: we couldn't remember how to cube but in our mind somewhere there were all of the tricks and things that we have learned over the years. You would look at your desk and say, I must have been able to solve these at one point because I see myself on youtube but now I can't even make one side. But your muscle memory is still there. What do you think would happen? I think that a person would most likely start learning it over and then over time figure it out and be able to progress faster because they already know all the steps. This would be interesting to test but I don't want to give anyone a headache.


 
Like waking up one day and seeing a kid with a cube and just owning him without knowing where you learned how to solve. It would be scary. And having alot of cubes without knowing why you have them. I would probably sit there and stare for awhile before I attempted to do anything.


----------



## tozies24 (Feb 7, 2012)

insane569 said:


> Like waking up one day and seeing a kid with a cube and just owning him without knowing where you learned how to solve. It would be scary. And having alot of cubes without knowing why you have them. I would probably sit there and stare for awhile before I attempted to do anything.



no you would wake up one day and you would see a kid and you didn't know how to solve it but you thought you did haha. they would own you but then you would just have to send them to your wca profile or whatever. but then you couldn't do it in person so it wouldn't matter. I don't know. it was a random cubing thought so here is the appropriate place


----------



## ressMox (Feb 7, 2012)

tozies24 said:


> I had a thought today. What if one of us hit our heads or something and had cubing amnesia. MEANING: we couldn't remember how to cube but in our mind somewhere there were all of the tricks and things that we have learned over the years. You would look at your desk and say, I must have been able to solve these at one point because I see myself on youtube but now I can't even make one side. But your muscle memory is still there. What do you think would happen? I think that a person would most likely start learning it over and then over time figure it out and be able to progress faster because they already know all the steps. This would be interesting to test but I don't want to give anyone a headache.


 
I've always sort of wondered this myself, but for slightly different reasons. Some of the most fun I've ever had was when I started looking at a cube for the first time and tried to see if I could solve it myself.


----------



## Kirjava (Feb 7, 2012)

R' U R U B U B' to setup

how do I solve the second block? :S

edit; R' U F R U R' U' F' R lolwow


----------



## 5BLD (Feb 7, 2012)

Don't you like UR'U'rU2(r'M)U'R?
How about U2r'UMUM2UR?


----------



## Kirjava (Feb 7, 2012)

not really


----------



## mariano.aquino (Feb 9, 2012)

Maybe I'm missing something... are you using roux..? Why not:
R'U'M'U'r?

Edit: R'U'MU'r


----------



## Kirjava (Feb 9, 2012)

because that doesn't solve it?


----------



## mariano.aquino (Feb 9, 2012)

Kirjava said:


> because that doesn't solve it?



Sorry, I just edited my alg. I put an extra '


----------



## aronpm (Feb 9, 2012)

mariano.aquino said:


> Sorry, I just edited my alg. I put an extra '


 
Doesn't work


----------



## mariano.aquino (Feb 9, 2012)

Kirjava said:


> R' U R U B U B' to setup
> 
> how do I solve the second block? :S
> 
> edit; R' U F R U R' U' F' R lolwow



My bad, I thought you had edited your setup, and I was using your solution as setup for the case..


----------



## Jaycee (Feb 17, 2012)

This has probably been posted somewhere before but I was bored and found this by myself. :O

Apply F2 R2 D' U' L2 B2 L2 B2 D U F2 R2 to a solved cube in WCA orientation.


----------



## RNewms27 (Feb 17, 2012)

Jaycee said:


> This has probably been posted somewhere before but I was bored and found this by myself. :O
> 
> Apply F2 R2 D' U' L2 B2 L2 B2 D U F2 R2 to a solved cube in WCA orientation.


 
Try the cube on the very top of this website


----------



## Jaycee (Feb 17, 2012)

RNewms27 said:


> Try the cube on the very top of this website


 
Yeah, that's what it is.


----------



## PandaCuber (Feb 17, 2012)

OBLBL On 3x3.

Scramble: U2 B2 D2 R2 D' L2 R2 F2 U2 F2 R' B2 F L F2 L2 R2 U' L2 B2

z' x' F U L2 M' U' M2 U2 B2 U F2 B' //Make Roux block
M' U' M' U M //Red Green Edge
U M U2 M' //Orange Green Edge, Petrus block done
z' y' U2 F L' U' L // EO 
y' R'U R U2 R U' R' U2 R' U' R U' R' U R //F2L
U2 R U R' U R U L' U R' U' L // COLL
U2 R2' U R U R' U' R' U' R' U R' U' //PLL

alg.garron

~65 moves. 

Nice method. Combines Roux and Petrus. I like.


----------



## emolover (Feb 17, 2012)

Nice one panda!


----------



## Ickenicke (Feb 17, 2012)

Wow, fantastic idea!


----------



## Jaycee (Feb 17, 2012)

PandaCuber said:


> OBLBL on 3x3.


 
That's cool! :O


----------



## emolover (Feb 17, 2012)

OBLBL on 2x2 

U R2 U2 R U' F2 R F' U2

y R' D R D2
U' R U' R U R'
R U R' U R U L' U R' U' L U


----------



## Jaycee (Feb 17, 2012)

emolover said:


> OBLBL on 2x2


 
Damn you emolover I was just going to do that. D:


----------



## qqwref (Feb 17, 2012)

Heh. OBLBL on 3x3 is entertaining, but pure Petrus is a lot better


----------



## PandaCuber (Feb 17, 2012)

qqwref said:


> Heh. OBLBL on 3x3 is entertaining, but pure Petrus is a lot better


 
OBLBL on 3x3 is a little less intuitive . So best of both worlds?


----------



## Jaycee (Feb 17, 2012)

PandaCuber said:


> OBLBL on 3x3 is a little less intuitive . So best of both worlds?


 
Nice new avatar.

I think it's entertaining enough to be used when just cubing casually, but not in speedsolves. Maybe if someone could make the Rouxblock a little more efficient then just doing edges then corners


----------



## PandaCuber (Feb 17, 2012)

Jaycee said:


> Nice new avatar.
> 
> I think it's entertaining enough to be used when just cubing casually, but not in speedsolves. Maybe if someone could make the Rouxblock a little more efficient then just doing edges then corners


 
Roux block? 10 moves..Then had 2 edges. then petrus block done.


----------



## Rpotts (Feb 17, 2012)

pandacuber said:


> U2 B2 D2 R2 D' L2 R2 F2 U2 F2 R' B2 F L F2 L2 R2 U' L2 B2



y' x2 U' r U2 r' R2 U' R F' L // 1x2x3 (9) 
y' U2 l' U2 l F U' F' // 1 edge + pair (7, 16) 
y' U2 l' U l // 1 edge (4, 20)
y' U r U2 r' // f2l-1 (4, 24)
d R' U R U' M U' R' U r f2l + OLL (10, 34)
M2 U' M' U2 M U' M2 // PLL (7, 41)

41 STM


----------



## MostEd (Feb 18, 2012)

boring....(no so much )
IMO 

I've tried this before, but the EO part still sucks and theFD BD edge inserting doesn;t look blockbuuildy


----------



## aronpm (Feb 18, 2012)

Jaycee said:


> This has probably been posted somewhere before but I was bored and found this by myself. :O
> 
> Apply F2 R2 D' U' L2 B2 L2 B2 D U F2 R2 to a solved cube in WCA orientation.


 
http://www.speedsolving.com/forum/s...avorites-icon.&p=269101&viewfull=1#post269101



I dunno why people said things like "Nice one" and "Fantastic idea" to 3x3 OBLBL...


----------



## Eleredo (Feb 19, 2012)

Just did a 8x8x8 solve.


----------



## Jaycee (Feb 19, 2012)

aronpm said:


> http://www.speedsolving.com/forum/s...avorites-icon.&p=269101&viewfull=1#post269101
> 
> 
> 
> I dunno why people said things like "Nice one" and "Fantastic idea" to 3x3 OBLBL...


 
I had a feeling it wasn't new! 

I just think it was cool to see, I don't really think it's a viable way of speedsolving on 3x3. I just love the method so much on 4x4 that I love to see it anywhere


----------



## Kirjava (Feb 22, 2012)

Oh my gawwwwd


----------



## DavidWoner (Feb 23, 2012)

PandaCuber said:


> OBLBL On 3x3.
> 
> Scramble: U2 B2 D2 R2 D' L2 R2 F2 U2 F2 R' B2 F L F2 L2 R2 U' L2 B2
> 
> ...



This is just using 20(!) moves to make a 2x2x3 with unnecessary restrictions then doing plain old petrus. I give it 2/10.


----------



## Kirjava (Feb 23, 2012)

bleh


----------



## oll+phase+sync (Feb 27, 2012)

DavidWoner said:


> This is just using 20(!) moves to make a 2x2x3 with unnecessary restrictions then doing plain old petrus. I give it 2/10.


 
M' U' M' U M //Red Green Edge
U M U2 M' //Orange Green Edge, Petrus block done

this could be just r2 U M' U' r2 and there are cubers who speed build the Roux-block in 8/9 moves - so move count is not that bad. (I still use the option to place just one M-Edge and finish with: COLL + Last-Five-Edges or CLL + 2-Edges(last F2L-edge and one in U) + 3-Edges-ELL if I don't orient edges )


----------



## qqwref (Feb 28, 2012)

yockee said:


> I have actually spoken to Calvin of HKnow about the plastic situation [...] and what I found out [...] was that the white and colored plastics are softer due to being strictly ABS, while the black plastic is ABS + PVC, which is harder



ah HA! I've thought white cubes tended to be better for quite a while (years?) but was never really sure of a reason. I think this pretty much counts as proof.


----------



## Lucas Garron (Feb 28, 2012)

qqwref said:


> yockee said:
> 
> 
> > I have actually spoken to Calvin of HKnow about the plastic situation [...] and what I found out [...] was that the white and colored plastics are softer due to being strictly ABS, while the black plastic is ABS + PVC, which is harder
> ...


Ooh, indeed, this sounds pretty reasonable. I've always been convinced that white cubes generally have a "smoother" feel.


----------



## Cubenovice (Feb 28, 2012)

ABS-PC not P*V*C...
See Stefan's post with Calkvin's feedback in the plastic / Force cube thread.

PC and P*V*C are *very* different materials.

Anyway; as per Stefan's post nowadays ALL dayan cubes / colors are made in pure ABS.

From there it is as I have always said: pigment types and levels, raw material differences and processing conditions.
That alone is enough to give different "properties". Question is just if you will acually feel it in a cube 

White requires much more pigments than black which actuallys mean that white cubes are *harder* than black cubes LOL


----------



## Rpotts (Feb 29, 2012)

Description said:


> 10.54 L F' R F L' B' L' F' D' B U R2 U2 F2 U R2 B2 D' R2 L2
> 
> z2 y' F' R' F' D' R2 // XCross - 1 cross edge (5)
> U y U R U R' // Second pair (6, 11)
> ...



Wish I insta-recognized the Niklas and sub10'd.

:C


----------



## Cubenovice (Feb 29, 2012)

Sahid Velji said:


> So since Dayan now makes all their cubes with the same plastic, the force cube and white versus black cubes issue can now be dismissed as false? As in, there is no difference between white and black, and there is no difference between a force cube and a regular stickered cube in terms of plastic content? I hope that made sense.



Unfortunately the answer to "force cube and white versus black cubes issue " is no...
Dayan now produces everything in pure ABS but older versions are still out there (at cubers and possibly at retailers and stores) so there will be material differences between cubes.

I know from personal experience in testing ABS-PC blends with various colors / pigment loadings that there can be significant differences in properties just based on the type/loading of pigments. As mentioned before: question remains if these differences (at pigment levels used by Dayan) actually make a difference in "feel" of a cube.

The "difference between colors" discussion is a never ending one.

Unless...
Dayan or another manufacturer would do an extensive test run; preparing cubes in different colors from the exact same batch of ABS, assemble them exactly the same (using cubies from exactly the same mold-cavities in the exact same location in the cube, all with identical finishing of parting lines and injection points) and have them tested blindfolded by some highly experienced cubers. 
Yes, blindfolded: you don't want people to be influenced by what they see.


----------



## Brest (Mar 1, 2012)

Here is an average of 5 to try. Scramble as shown, solve however you like. Gogogogo!

1st y x' (orange U / white F)
*B D2 R2 F2 D2 F' L2 F' L2 D2 R' B2 L2 F U L' B U' F2*
2nd x2 (yellow U / Blue F)
*F2 U' F2 D' U2 B2 U R' D' B' F' R' F L2 U' L2 R2 D U'*
3rd y x2 (yellow U / orange F)
*B F L2 R2 U2 F' L' B2 U2 F' U' B U' L2 R' D2 U R2 B'*
4th x y2 (green U / white F)
*F2 U2 L B2 D2 L2 F' R2 U L' F' R B' L D2 L' U F' L2*
5th x y (green U / red F)
*D2 B2 R2 D2 F' R2 D2 L B U B2 R2 B2 R2 D U2 R B' F2*


----------



## ben1996123 (Mar 4, 2012)




----------



## ottozing (Mar 4, 2012)

Brest said:


> Here is an average of 5 to try. Scramble as shown, solve however you like. Gogogogo!
> 
> 1st y x' (orange U / white F)
> *B D2 R2 F2 D2 F' L2 F' L2 D2 R' B2 L2 F U L' B U' F2*
> ...


 
1st solve-16.71 (worst)
2nd solve-16.58
3rd solve-14.95
4th solve-13.31 (best)
5th solve-14.90

average-15.48
method-CN CFOP


----------



## Kirjava (Mar 6, 2012)

02:55:27 <+Brest> R2 U2 R2 U' F2 D2 R2 U' R2 F2 U F' U2 L' U' L D' L2 U2 F R

03:08:09 <+Kirjava> L' B2 y2 R2 U' R U M U' x U2 R U' R' U2 R2 x' M U' M2 U M U' M' U M

23 STM / 29 HTM


----------



## JianhanC (Mar 18, 2012)

There was a Megaminx solve I did a while back. I swear I started the timer like normal, and then proceeded with the solve. It felt slow and sloppy, and yet when I stopped the timer, it said 57.xx. I knew it wasn't fast during the solve, but it was sub-1 according to the timer. So I thought that the timer lagged and didn't count the solve as a PB. Does qqtimer have problems like these or does felt-slow-but was-actually-not solves a lot more common? whauk had a sub-10 solve recently but he claimed that it felt super slow.


----------



## aronpm (Mar 18, 2012)

JianhanC said:


> There was a Megaminx solve I did a while back. I swear I started the timer like normal, and then proceeded with the solve. It felt slow and sloppy, and yet when I stopped the timer, it said 57.xx. I knew it wasn't fast during the solve, but it was sub-1 according to the timer. So I thought that the timer lagged and didn't count the solve as a PB. Does qqtimer have problems like these or does felt-slow-but was-actually-not solves a lot more common? whauk had a sub-10 solve recently but he claimed that it felt super slow.


 
If qqtimer does that, it's not because of qqtimer, it's because of the computer's system clock (or your browser running the javascript extremely slow). qqtimer gets the time (in milliseconds) from the system clock. (_Some_) Stackmats do have problems with this though :\


----------



## Kirjava (Mar 20, 2012)

Hackmat :3


----------



## emolover (Mar 20, 2012)

Does it do what I think it does? Or is it just a clever bomb?

Tell us how you did this please.


----------



## Owen (Mar 20, 2012)

Does anyone know God's number for the x-cross? How could this be calculated?


----------



## JonnyWhoopes (Mar 20, 2012)

I'm bored of cubing. I want somebody to indulge my laziness and tell me which method I should choose for my next main.


----------



## iEnjoyCubing (Mar 20, 2012)

JonnyWhoopes said:


> I'm bored of cubing. I want somebody to indulge my laziness and tell me which method I should choose for my next main.



Make a new method that somehow involves FiM. I would definitely use it.


----------



## Cool Frog (Mar 20, 2012)

JonnyWhoopes said:


> I'm bored of cubing. I want somebody to indulge my laziness and tell me which method I should choose for my next main.


 
L2LK


----------



## insane569 (Mar 20, 2012)

Spoiler






Kirjava said:


> Hackmat :3





 
Kir that is the greatest thing ever. I thought about doing something to my timer along these lines but wasnt sure how to go about doing it and never bothered to look it up.


----------



## JonnyWhoopes (Mar 20, 2012)

Cool Frog said:


> L2LK


 
Link to documentation? Again, I'm lazy.


----------



## Specs112 (Mar 20, 2012)

iEnjoyCubing said:


> Make a new method that somehow involves FiM. I would definitely use it.


 
First, be the pony. Second...


----------



## Evan Liu (Mar 20, 2012)

JonnyWhoopes said:


> Link to documentation? Again, I'm lazy.


http://stachu.cubing.net/l2lk/


----------



## JonnyWhoopes (Mar 20, 2012)

151 algs... hmm... Challenge considered.


----------



## thackernerd (Mar 20, 2012)

JianhanC said:


> There was a Megaminx solve I did a while back. I swear I started the timer like normal, and then proceeded with the solve. It felt slow and sloppy, and yet when I stopped the timer, it said 57.xx. I knew it wasn't fast during the solve, but it was sub-1 according to the timer. So I thought that the timer lagged and didn't count the solve as a PB. Does qqtimer have problems like these or does felt-slow-but was-actually-not solves a lot more common? whauk had a sub-10 solve recently but he claimed that it felt super slow.



I had a 16.xx one time and it felt like a 25.xx on qqtimer.


----------



## JonnyWhoopes (Mar 20, 2012)

JonnyWhoopes said:


> 151 algs... hmm... Challenge considered.


 
I've been trying to do some walkthrough solves, and it looks like a lot of cases are missing? Or maybe I just don't know how to interpret them. Like, in CO, there are no cases where the edge is in the U layer.


----------



## StachuK1992 (Mar 20, 2012)

That's because you only have to deal with those cases 1/70 times, and I just can't justify learning dozens of more algs for that.


----------



## JonnyWhoopes (Mar 20, 2012)

So what was your plan on how to deal with those cases?


----------



## oll+phase+sync (Mar 20, 2012)

JonnyWhoopes said:


> I've been trying to do some walkthrough solves, and it looks like a lot of cases are missing? Or maybe I just don't know how to interpret them. Like, in CO, there are no cases where the edge is in the U layer.


 
Or just redifine Step1: Build a layer(D) and ensure at least one F2L edge already is somewhere in the E-layer, I think this cuts down the CO cases by 50%, and if there are multiple edges you may even choose the best.


----------



## StachuK1992 (Mar 20, 2012)

JonnyWhoopes said:


> So what was your plan on how to deal with those cases?


 Honestly, I'd just do CO and throw in an edge k4-style. Hopefully the specific case isn't too hard to just make up.


----------



## Kirjava (Mar 20, 2012)

Maybe in those cases it's smarter to change stratergy. Solve two edges and do CLL or something.


----------



## irontwig (Mar 20, 2012)

Owen said:


> Does anyone know God's number for the x-cross? How could this be calculated?


 
http://www.speedsolving.com/forum/s...2x2-move-count&p=185213&viewfull=1#post185213


----------



## JonnyWhoopes (Mar 20, 2012)

So, I'm seriously considering learning L2Lk. This'll be quite fun. =D


----------



## Kirjava (Mar 20, 2012)

emolover said:


> Does it do what I think it does?


 
Probably not. It's just powered by USB and the reset switch has been replaced with that clunky ****er at the front.


----------



## Eazoon (Mar 20, 2012)

lubix or silicube?


----------



## JonnyWhoopes (Mar 20, 2012)

Is there a hub for L2Lx discussions? I searched using the forum search, but all I could come up with was stachu's website thread. I don't feel like continually spamming this thread up with L2Lk stuff.


----------



## StachuK1992 (Mar 20, 2012)

The only real hub is emailing me or bumping one of my old threads ;p


----------



## IAssemble (Mar 20, 2012)

JonnyWhoopes said:


> I'm bored of cubing. I want somebody to indulge my laziness and tell me which method I should choose for my next main.


 
If you're bored of solving it yourself you could always build your own robot to solve it for you!? ;-)


----------



## Cheese11 (Mar 21, 2012)

JonnyWhoopes said:


> I'm bored of cubing. I want somebody to indulge my laziness and tell me which method I should choose for my next main.


 
Triangular Fransisco. Go.


----------



## oll+phase+sync (Mar 22, 2012)

JonnyWhoopes said:


> Is there a hub for L2Lx discussions? I searched using the forum search, but all I could come up with was stachu's website thread. I don't feel like continually spamming this thread up with L2Lk stuff.




These are the threads I know of.

http://www.speedsolving.com/forum/showthread.php?24508-L2L4-The-Lost-Methode-Help-Find-it!
http://www.speedsolving.com/forum/s...ntation-(-quot-Finished-quot-)-and-Discussion
http://www.speedsolving.com/forum/showthread.php?27821-L2L4-Website-Announcement
http://www.speedsolving.com/forum/showthread.php?29979-My-First-Layer-Techniques.


Stachu has some(all) "two F2L edges at a time (while preserving corners,...)"-algs on his site.
So if you really run into a case where all F2L edges are in U-layer, you could just do CLL and than use these algs twice.


P.S. I more or less stopped(paused) with L2L4 ... I still think there should be people who can learn to solve a complete single layer very fast, ... but it seems I'm not one of them.

P.S.2 when getting a free solved F2L edge during a waterman solve (before or after CLL) I'm was faster when flipping over to L2L4 ( one reason might be better recognition with L2L , the other my limited waterman repertoire )


----------



## timeless (Mar 22, 2012)

21.15 D2 B2 L2 B2 R U2 L U2 F2 L B2 D' B' R' D' B F2 R B' D' 
one of the few scrambles where i can lookahead to f2l during inspection

whenever i do CN, i sometimes accidently solve a white pair instead of the orange (in this case)


----------



## JonnyWhoopes (Mar 24, 2012)

So, I decided that I simply don't have the time to dedicate to L2Lk right now. I'll be switching to a columns first/corners first-esque method after Brown. I'm already sub-20 with it, so I feel some potential.


----------



## Stefan (Mar 25, 2012)

If Einstein were a cuber, he'd say E=zMz'.


----------



## Kirjava (Mar 28, 2012)

http://www.scribd.com/sribachan/d/58001400-Notes-on-Rubik-s-Magic-Cube

ty 4 link brest <3


----------



## Brest (Mar 29, 2012)

Kirjava said:


> http://www.scribd.com/sribachan/d/58001400-Notes-on-Rubik-s-Magic-Cube
> 
> ty 4 link brest <3


 
"The problem seems to occur most commonly among teenage disco freaks as a result of too much finger-snapping."
=)


----------



## Owen (Mar 30, 2012)

*Hard limit for 3x3x3*

Assuming a one move scramble at light speed, the hard limit for 3x3x3 speedcubing is 1.418×10^-10 seconds. (According to Wolfram Alpha).

Just thought that was neat.


----------



## Julian (Mar 30, 2012)

Owen said:


> Assuming a one move scramble at light speed, the hard limit for 3x3x3 speedcubing is 1.418×10^-10 seconds. (According to Wolfram Alpha).
> 
> Just thought that was neat.


And what if the cube is smaller?


----------



## JonWhite (Mar 30, 2012)

Owen said:


> Assuming a one move scramble at light speed, the hard limit for 3x3x3 speedcubing is 1.418×10^-10 seconds. (According to Wolfram Alpha).
> 
> Just thought that was neat.


 
uh huh, and end with a pile of smoking plastic shavings?


----------



## aronpm (Mar 30, 2012)

Julian said:


> And what if the cube is smaller?


 
The time will be shorter


----------



## Specs112 (Mar 30, 2012)

But once light-speed cubing is possible, the WCA will have to rewrite the rules to take into account time dilation and reference frames and stuff and it's going to get very messy.


----------



## Robert-Y (Mar 31, 2012)

I just thought it was kinda cool 

(I used green guhong edges)


----------



## RNewms27 (Mar 31, 2012)

That must have potential to be art in some way. Very, very, difficult art.


----------



## qqwref (Apr 4, 2012)

On the first day of Cubemas, a package came for me...
an unstickered 3x3!

[...]
On the twelfth day of Cubemas, a package came for me...
Twelve megaminxes,
Eleven Master Magics,
Ten Lubix Fusions,
Nine sets of stickers,
Eight Dayan Planets,
Seven modded V-Cubes,
Six QJ timers,
Five Maru lubes!
Four 2x2s,
Three bigcubes,
Two blindfolds,
and an unstickered 3x3!


----------



## Sillas (Apr 4, 2012)

Eazoon said:


> lubix or silicube?


Lubix


----------



## 5BLD (Apr 5, 2012)

wfteasy blocks 
U2 L2 D L2 F2 D R2 B2 R2 D U F U B' L D' U F' L F' L


----------



## JackJ (Apr 5, 2012)

Why don't we start keeping record of all the reconstructions being done. The reconstruction thread is just too messy to find all the reconstructions we want. Maybe we should add a website where we can add reconstructions of anyone we want. Each cuber could have their own page full with strictly just their reconstructions. Maybe an add on to the wiki?


----------



## Godmil (Apr 5, 2012)

That is a really good idea. Think how much we could learn by having a handy to reach record of all the reconstructed solves by people like Faz et al.


----------



## aronpm (Apr 5, 2012)

JackJ said:


> Why don't we start keeping record of all the reconstructions being done. The reconstruction thread is just too messy to find all the reconstructions we want. Maybe we should add a website where we can add reconstructions of anyone we want. Each cuber could have their own page full with strictly just their reconstructions. Maybe an add on to the wiki?


I wrote some software (php+mysql) for a simple tag database which could store reconstructions with tags (like "feliks zemdegs, 4x4, official, 35.65"), but it's really only intended for personal use (i.e., 1 person has access to add reconstructions, other people can only search). I gave a copy to Brest but I don't think he set it up


----------



## Kirjava (Apr 8, 2012)

add parity to this case






it's now easier


----------



## qqwref (Apr 11, 2012)

R B D' U2 y 2L 2U' 2D (3-4l) 3U' 3D (2-3r') 4u' (2-6r) U D2 B' R' 6f' U (2-6f) D (2-6f') U' (2-6f) D' F (26 btm)

http://cube.crider.co.uk/visualcube...R'LxUD2B'R' 6f'U 6fF'D 6f'FU' 6fF'D'F&fmt=png


----------



## Kirjava (Apr 11, 2012)

qqwref said:


> R B D' U2 y 2L 2U' 2D (3-4l) 3U' 3D (2-3r') 4u' (2-6r) U D2 B' R' 6f' U (2-6f) D (2-6f') U' (2-6f) D' F (26 btm)
> 
> http://cube.crider.co.uk/visualcube...R'LxUD2B'R' 6f'U 6fF'D 6f'FU' 6fF'D'F&fmt=png


 
That is obscene


----------



## MaeLSTRoM (Apr 11, 2012)

Kirjava said:


> "IMG" add parity to this case "IMG" it's now easier


 
Lol, or you could just;
[F2:[r2,B' R B R',l2]]


----------



## Kirjava (Apr 11, 2012)

MaeLSTRoM said:


> Lol, or you could just;
> [F2:[r2,B' R B R',l2]]


 
I already exlained


----------



## irontwig (Apr 11, 2012)

Why not just [F2 r2:[F' R' F, M2]]?


----------



## musicninja17 (Apr 12, 2012)

The Wiki really, really needs work in the hardware/cube section...I feel like we wouldn't get as much annoying traffic on "i want a cube that does x and x" if we can throw all of our knowledge together on there.

http://www.speedsolving.com/wiki/index.php/Category:3x3x3_Cubes

Example....this is really not a good landing page for 3x3 cubes when we already start describing them under their own brand name pages.

Which, by the way, also need updating.

The alpha needs a writeup on the CC, and Dayan needs general pictures/cleanup all around.

I don't feel like i'm qualified enough for the job...


----------



## JonnyWhoopes (Apr 13, 2012)

I feel like not many of the newbies to the forum know who Austin Moore is. This saddens me.


----------



## aronpm (Apr 13, 2012)

JonnyWhoopes said:


> I feel like not many of the newbies to the forum know who Austin Moore is. This saddens me.


 
Yeah, same with BigGreen. They are both great at Roux.


----------



## JonnyWhoopes (Apr 13, 2012)

aronpm said:


> Yeah, same with BigGreen. They are both great at Roux.


 
Exactly. Everybody is all "5BLD is new faz of roux" and forget about the trailblazers of Roux


----------



## BigGreen (Apr 13, 2012)

No one knows me because I am a ninja.


----------



## Julian (Apr 13, 2012)

BigGreen said:


> No one knows me because I am a ninja.


That's a pretty good reason.


----------



## CRO (Apr 14, 2012)

Dunno where to post it, and I don't want to open a new thread but:

1.61 Pyraminx single WR by Bruno Bereczki @Slovenian open 2012


----------



## Ickenicke (Apr 14, 2012)

CRO said:


> Dunno where to post it, and I don't want to open a new thread but:
> 
> 1.61 Pyraminx single WR by Bruno Bereczki @Slovenian open 2012


 

LOL scramble?


----------



## CRO (Apr 14, 2012)

7 moves + tips


----------



## ThomasJE (Apr 14, 2012)

Vid? Don't make it 3 WR's with no video.

And also, Daniel Sheppard broke the 5BLD WR at Rapid Dash. 7:0x.yz.


----------



## Ickenicke (Apr 15, 2012)

Most people knows of ZBLL. (1LLL when all edges are oriented.) But you need nearly 500 algs if you want to learn that.

I wonder how many algs you need if all corners are oriented?

CPEOLL does already exist, and the first five situations is very easy to solve in 1-look with PLL/ELL.

But how many algs would it be for the 10 remaining situations?

Is this already a method? 

I am just wondering if it is hard to solve LL in 1-look if I get all corners oriented.


----------



## Athefre (Apr 16, 2012)

How to reduce CLL+1 to CLLx2:

For each of the eight orientations pick a permanent edge slot. Taking Sune for example, you would always solve the edge to the right of the oriented corner.



If the edge is within the M-slice, use M' or M2 to place the edge at DB always in the same orientation. Then, your corner alg will cycle DB->UR->UL and do a Z-Perm.

Setup: F' U' F U2 R U B L U2 L' U B' U' R'
Solution: U2M' y R'U2R2URUR2U2R' y' U2M

If the edge is within the S-slice, it's the same thing except only a DB->UR->UL cycle.

Setup: F' L' U' L U F U B' U' R' U R B
Solution: M2U' FRU'r'U2rUR'URU'R'F' UM2


----------



## jonlin (Apr 16, 2012)

Ickenicke said:


> Most people knows of ZBLL. (1LLL when all edges are oriented.) But you need nearly 500 algs if you want to learn that.
> 
> I wonder how many algs you need if all corners are oriented?
> 
> ...


 
It's called ELL, I'm suprised you don't know this already.
29 cases, 3 with pure flips.


----------



## Julian (Apr 16, 2012)

jonlin said:


> It's called ELL, I'm suprised you don't know this already.
> 29 cases, 3 with pure flips.


No, ELL is for when the corners are completely solved solved, not just oriented.


----------



## Cool Frog (Apr 16, 2012)

U S' U2 M' U' M S U2
8 STM

Anything better (Found by hand BTW)


----------



## Stefan (Apr 16, 2012)

Cool Frog said:


> U S' U2 M' U' M S U2
> 8 STM
> 
> Anything better (Found by hand BTW)



8 STM and 9 SQTM:
E M S' D S2 U' S' M'


----------



## Julian (Apr 17, 2012)

Doing an F-perm, J-perm, T-perm, Y-perm, or Z-perm on a pyraminx results in a center twist (sune case).

Algs in order:
R' U' F' R U R' U' R' F R2 U' R' U' R U R' U R
R U R' F' R U R' U' R' F R2 U' R' U'
R U R' U' R' F R2 U' R' U' R U R' F'
F R U' R' U' R U R' F' R U R' U' R' F R F'
R' U' R U' R U R U' R' U R U R2 U' R'

Substitute L on pyra for F in algs.


----------



## ottozing (Apr 17, 2012)

Cool Frog said:


> U S' U2 M' U' M S U2
> 8 STM
> 
> Anything better (Found by hand BTW)


 
R (U D') R' (U' D) M2 U2 M2 U' D' R (U' D) R' (veeeeeeeeery looong but fingertickable)

EDIT: im asuming you want an alg for speedsolving and not for fmc.


----------



## Cool Frog (Apr 17, 2012)

ottozing said:


> R (U D') R' (U' D) M2 U2 M2 U' D' R (U' D) R' (veeeeeeeeery looong but fingertickable)
> 
> EDIT: im asuming you want an alg for speedsolving and not for fmc.


 
I actually meant for FMC =P


----------



## aronpm (Apr 17, 2012)

Cool Frog said:


> I actually meant for FMC =P


 
>FMC

>STM


----------



## irontwig (Apr 17, 2012)

CE spits out R2 U R2 F2 R2 U2 F2 R2 F2 U R2 at a whopping 20 qtm.


----------



## Kirjava (Apr 18, 2012)

http://pastehtml.com/raw/bv5loq85g.html


----------



## Godmil (Apr 18, 2012)

Kirjava said:


> http://pastehtml.com/raw/bv5loq85g.html


 
Nice one.


----------



## Kirjava (Apr 18, 2012)

M U' M U M U2 M' U2 M2 U M U M' U M U2 M U2 M U

CFOP USERS WILL NEVER KNOW THE JOY OF RECOGNISING THIS CASE


----------



## Stefan (Apr 18, 2012)

Kirjava said:


> M U' M U M U2 M' U2 M2 U M U M' U M U2 M U2 M U
> 
> CFOP USERS WILL NEVER KNOW THE JOY OF RECOGNISING THIS CASE



Case for what, solving the whole cube or some substep? And please explain the joy, maybe I can at least appreciate it when I understand it, similar to a good joke that had to be explained to me.

I'm guessing you solve with M2 U2 M' U M' U' M U2?


----------



## Kirjava (Apr 18, 2012)

AS A CFOP USER YOU WILL NEVER KNOW



Spoiler



solution is M'UMU'M' UM'U2M'U - the latter half is the thing that is delicious to recognise bcoz ez 4c case


----------



## Stefan (Apr 18, 2012)

But you recognize it after those first five moves, right? Or already before?


----------



## Cheese11 (Apr 18, 2012)

Kirjava said:


> M U' M U M U2 M' U2 M2 U M U M' U M U2 M U2 M U
> 
> CFOP USERS WILL NEVER KNOW THE JOY OF RECOGNISING THIS CASE


 
OMG SO FUN.


----------



## Kirjava (Apr 18, 2012)

Yeah, you probably start to realise what case it is before the five moves, but at that point you know for sure.

I just love all the different magical cases like that. Maybe I should make a list.


----------



## jonlin (Apr 18, 2012)

How in the world do you get on the IRC?


----------



## Stefan (Apr 18, 2012)

Kirjava said:


> Yeah, you probably start to realise what case it is before the five moves



If I'm not mistaken, at that point there are 46080 cases, and you recognize that one? You're a freak. (I mean that in a positive way, of course)


----------



## Kirjava (Apr 18, 2012)

Stefan said:


> If I'm not mistaken, at that point there are 46080 cases, and you recognize that one? You're a freak. (I mean that in a positive way, of course)


 
No, sorry, I meant before the last five moves, so after 3/4 moves or something.

Although, recognising full solutions for nonlucky LSE cases isn't unheard of.


----------



## TMOY (Apr 19, 2012)

aronpm said:


> >FMC
> 
> >STM



Since when is it forbidden to do FMC with STM ? It is just, unfortunately, not the way the WCA does it.

BTW, the following alg is also relatively short and more finger-trickable, and works for domino as well:

U L2 U' (L2 F2)^3 U L2 U'


----------



## Kirjava (Apr 19, 2012)

http://pastehtml.com/raw/bvawjy4gk.html

<3 roux


----------



## Cubenovice (Apr 19, 2012)

Kirjava said:


> http://pastehtml.com/raw/bvawjy4gk.html
> 
> <3 roux



Dunno what I was doing but I had something like 2 out of 5 correct 

http://if.qiyuuu.com


----------



## 5BLD (Apr 19, 2012)

Kirjava said:


> http://pastehtml.com/raw/bvawjy4gk.html
> 
> <3 roux


 
<3 yay my recog system
make one for my colour scheme too please?


----------



## Kirjava (Apr 19, 2012)

http://pastehtml.com/raw/bvb72lk91.html


----------



## Cool Frog (Apr 19, 2012)

What are the other colors? Kinda confusing since I can't tell what the centers are...


----------



## Kirjava (Apr 19, 2012)

they're

BU UB U UF FU F FD


----------



## gogozerg (Apr 20, 2012)

Kirjava said:


> AS A CFOP USER YOU WILL NEVER KNOW
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
A slower possibilty: u2M'U'MUMu2M2


----------



## Escher (Apr 20, 2012)

F2 D F2 D2 L2 U L2 U' L2 B D2 R2

Lolz.


----------



## Kirjava (Apr 20, 2012)

http://pastehtml.com/raw/bvecmm8h0.html

version that saves times

86 avg12


----------



## Kirjava (Apr 20, 2012)

http://pastehtml.com/raw/bveu58s50.html

keyboard controls

56 avg12


----------



## 5BLD (Apr 21, 2012)

My pet peeve of long dreary youtube tutorials drove me to make this s***:






Totally useless and ununderstandable or after a couple times watching you can undeerstand?


----------



## Ickenicke (Apr 21, 2012)

5BLD said:


> Totally useless and ununderstandable or after a couple times watching you can undeerstand?



I think it was pretty good for a video in 2 min.


----------



## cubelover111 (Apr 22, 2012)

I dont want to make a new thread so I thought I will post it here.
So instead of just doing OLS we could first orient the edges in the 3rd f2l slot and then do CLS. I dont know if its good or not but its just an idea.
I know that my explanation is pathetic.


----------



## Julian (Apr 22, 2012)

cubelover111 said:


> I dont want to make a new thread so I thought I will post it here.
> So instead of just doing OLS we could first orient the edges in the 3rd f2l slot and then do CLS. I dont know if its good or not but its just an idea.
> I know that my explanation is pathetic.


This?


----------



## A Leman (Apr 22, 2012)

*A Partial EO cross*

I have not heard of anyone using this, so I thought it is worth mentioning. When I don't see a really good x-cross, I look for a good cross and its 4 f2l edges orientations.Then, I make them all good during my cross. Since I only care about fixing a small amount of edges, it normally takes only one or two extra moves at most for an easy f2l stage(and I know where all of my edges are). It’s like a ZZ/CFOP hybrid that only cares about the edges needed for F2l. In my opinion, this is easier to see than an eo-line and sometimes better than an X-cross. Here are 2 example solves to scrambles I just generated. *What are your opinions about this type of cross? *

Example 1
Scramble
U2 R2 L U' F2 D R B F' D2 R2 D U' F' L R F' L U F D2 B U' R2 U2
Inspection y x’ all edges are good so i keep them that way
R2 U2 L2 R U’R’ U’ F' Partial EO cross(8)
U’ L’ U L pair 1 (12) cancelation
L U’ L’ R’ U’R pair 2 (17)
LU’ L’ U’ RUR’ pair 3 (24)
L U2 L’ U’ L U L’ pair 4 (31) 
U’ rUr’ RUR’ U’ rU’r’ OLL (42)
U2 R U R’ F’ R U2 R’ U2 R’ F R U R U2 R’ PLL (58)

Example 2
Scramble
U2 F' B2 R' D U2 R2 U D B R2 U' R F' B2 L D2 R' F2 D2 R2 U2 D2 L' B2
Inspection y
D’ L D2 U’ L’ F Partial Eo cross minus one pair for blockbuilding purposes(6)
R U2 R’ pair 1 (9)
L2 U’ R’ U R U’ L’ U L’ block and setup for next pair(18)
U’ R’ U' R pair 3 (22)
U’ L U L’ set up to RLS (26)
L’ B L2 U L’ U’ B’ RLS (33)
R’ U2 R U2 R’ F R U R’ U’ R’ F’ R2 U PLL (47)


----------



## JonnyWhoopes (Apr 22, 2012)

It's been discussed plenty of times in the past. The general consensus is this: it sucks. Don't bother with it.


----------



## A Leman (Apr 22, 2012)

JonnyWhoopes said:


> It's been discussed plenty of times in the past. The general consensus is this: it sucks. Don't bother with it.



Where and Why? I'm honestly interested


----------



## Escher (Apr 23, 2012)

A Leman said:


> Where and Why? I'm honestly interested


 
Why: because edges oriented f2l takes a bunch more moves than edges not oriented f2l, even if you count rotations as moves. In addition, the <R, U, L> movegroup is not a 'good' movegroup simply because some good algs happen to be <R, U, L>. I much prefer <R, U, y>, and I think the general consensus is that it's better.

Where: there are some stats available for EOCross+f2l movecount, ignoring U layer edges should only make your EOCross one or two moves better on average.


----------



## Kirjava (Apr 23, 2012)

5BLD said:


>


 
Pretty cool, but ULUR explanation was a bit lacking imo.


----------



## 5BLD (Apr 23, 2012)

[21:36] <f`vebld> U2MUMU2MU2MU'MU2M
[21:36] <f`vebld> Kirjava: how'd you solve?
[21:38] <+Kirjava> U2MUM' U2M'U2M'U M2U2M'U2M'
[21:38] <f`vebld> R'FRU M2 U'R'F'R
[21:40] <+Kirjava> f`vebld: RFRU' M2 UR'F'R
[21:44] <+Kirjava> R'FRU' M' UR'F'r
[21:45] <+Kirjava> f`vebld: hold on
[21:45] <+Kirjava> f`vebld: R' U r U' M' U r' U' r

need to find ULUR preserving M slice 2flip...


----------



## Kirjava (Apr 23, 2012)

22:56 < Rawrbert> I prefer R U' r' U M' U' r U r'
22:56 < Rawrbert> (just mirrored)


----------



## BigGreen (Apr 23, 2012)

F2 M' F2 U M'


----------



## blakedacuber (Apr 23, 2012)

kir,
whats that alg for A perm edges? was doing some roux and it popped up


----------



## Kirjava (Apr 23, 2012)

R' E' R' D2 R E R' D2 R2


----------



## blakedacuber (Apr 23, 2012)

Kirjava said:


> R' E' R' D2 R E R' D2 R2


 
Wow my attempt was horribly off :O but i did create a long but cool way of doing the the M' E2 M E2 alg


----------



## 5BLD (Apr 23, 2012)

U: M'UM, d2 =>
U M'UM U2 MU'M'U


----------



## DYGH.Tjen (Apr 24, 2012)

Kir/5BLD, mind explaining briefly the 'new' LSE4c recog method? Would really like to hear from you guys. Thanks


----------



## Kirjava (Apr 24, 2012)

track the colour of the sticker that ends up at BU => work out the case you don't know based on that info


----------



## 5BLD (Apr 24, 2012)

DYGH.Tjen said:


> Kir/5BLD, mind explaining briefly the 'new' LSE4c recog method? Would really like to hear from you guys. Thanks


 
To add to kir's point, the way i do it is look at said sticker DURING ULUR SOLVING at least. 

Awkward at first, but since I taught it to Kir last week he's gotten almost back to the same speed- plus it eliminates the pause


----------



## ben1996123 (Apr 24, 2012)

longest standing WR (22 moves FMC) has now been held for over 3 years.


----------



## DYGH.Tjen (Apr 25, 2012)

Kirjava said:


> track the colour of the sticker that ends up at BU => work out the case you don't know based on that info


 


5BLD said:


> To add to kir's point, the way i do it is look at said sticker DURING ULUR SOLVING at least.
> 
> Awkward at first, but since I taught it to Kir last week he's gotten almost back to the same speed- plus it eliminates the pause


 
Hmm, look at the sticker as in the sticker that ends up at BU? Then work out the case? Lol needs more detailed explanation (or I'm just a nub)


----------



## Cool Frog (Apr 25, 2012)

DYGH.Tjen said:


> Hmm, look at the sticker as in the sticker that ends up at BU? Then work out the case? Lol needs more detailed explanation (or I'm just a nub)


 
Look at BU See FU and the F face.

Tis all you need.


----------



## TheAwesomeAlex (Apr 25, 2012)

is there any videos of FMC?


----------



## irontwig (Apr 25, 2012)

TheAwesomeAlex said:


> is there any videos of FMC?


 
I'm actually planning to film my attempt at the weekly competition.


----------



## Cubenovice (Apr 25, 2012)

TheAwesomeAlex said:


> is there any videos of FMC?



Daniel has got a FMC video tutorial in the works.


----------



## Kirjava (Apr 25, 2012)




----------



## kinch2002 (Apr 25, 2012)

Cubenovice said:


> Daniel has got a FMC video tutorial in the works.


It's not getting anywhere at the moment because I lack a camera. It will be more like a series of tips and tricks, rather than a tutorial.


----------



## emolover (Apr 25, 2012)

I wish I had a stickerless to do that to.


----------



## Cubenovice (Apr 25, 2012)

Maybe here is a good place to ask:

Is there a good resource for learning more about cyclic shifts?
I do not mean the specific BH cases (as in the BH thread) but the overall concept and applications.


----------



## Julian (Apr 25, 2012)

Spoiler






Kirjava said:


>





I remember seeing something like that on the twistypuzzles forum a while back. I remember they were trying to pack as many different 'solves' as possible onto one cube (yours has 2). Stickers, plastic, image, texture, etc.


----------



## Escher (Apr 25, 2012)

Kirjava said:


> _pics_


 
This is what we were talking about at the comp recently right?


----------



## blakedacuber (Apr 25, 2012)

Kirjava said:


>


 
I imagine that your avg is significantly higher with that? 20+ seconds?


----------



## Kirjava (Apr 25, 2012)

Escher said:


> This is what we were talking about at the comp recently right?


 
hellz yeah, I remembered it recently


----------



## Cool Frog (Apr 26, 2012)

Kirjava said:


>


 
I did this like forever ago, but was too lazy/cheap to scramble the black/white side....

Painful to solve the inner 3x3 =/


----------



## Jaycee (Apr 26, 2012)

What exactly is the point of that kind of cube?


----------



## irontwig (Apr 26, 2012)

me said:


> I'm actually planning to film my attempt at the weekly competition.


 
Unfortunately, the camera shut off after 30 minutes, but it was a meh-worthy 30 mover that Jaycee soundly beat anyway, so who cares.


----------



## Julian (Apr 27, 2012)

Has anyone considered or tried closing your eyes during PLL? I found myself doing it sometimes, and I think it could help because it eliminates external stimuli. Not distracted by any visual input, I seem to execute algs smoother/have less lockups. Thoughts?


----------



## 5BLD (Apr 27, 2012)

I get this with CMLL too- I pop loads when looking while doing CMLL time attacks but not at all when closing my eyes. My dilemma however is if I close my eyes I can't lookahead to 4b. I know what 4a will be though.


----------



## ottozing (Apr 27, 2012)

Julian said:


> Has anyone considered or tried closing your eyes during PLL? I found myself doing it sometimes, and I think it could help because it eliminates external stimuli. Not distracted by any visual input, I seem to execute algs smoother/have less lockups. Thoughts?


 
im acctualy the exact opposite :/ when i close my eyes, my algorithms are less fluid.


----------



## Mike Hughey (Apr 27, 2012)

Julian said:


> Has anyone considered or tried closing your eyes during PLL? I found myself doing it sometimes, and I think it could help because it eliminates external stimuli. Not distracted by any visual input, I seem to execute algs smoother/have less lockups. Thoughts?


 
I actually find myself doing that fairly often - especially with T perms; I just can't seem to help myself. But I find that it seems to both slow me down and cause me to make more mistakes, so I think it's actually a bad idea. I think I do it primarily out of habit because I do so many T perms blindfolded - it just seems more natural to do them with my eyes closed. I'm really trying to break myself of the habit, though, because I do think it slows me down.


----------



## Michael1026 (Apr 28, 2012)

I found a PLL algorithm and I'm kind of happy. It's a pretty simple alg, but I wouldn't be surprised is someone else already found it.

R U2 R' U2 R' F R2 U' R' U' R U R' F' R U R' U R U2 R'


----------



## Jaycee (Apr 28, 2012)

Michael1026 said:


> I found a PLL algorithm and I'm kind of happy. It's a pretty simple alg, but I wouldn't be surprised is someone else already found it.
> 
> R U2 R' U2 R' F R2 U' R' U' R U R' F' R U R' U R U2 R'


 
That's really funny - I did find it a while back and was told (I think) it had already been found.


----------



## Michael1026 (Apr 28, 2012)

Jaycee said:


> That's really funny - I did find it a while back and was told (I think) it had already been found.


I found it really randomly.


----------



## Rpotts (Apr 28, 2012)

Michael1026 said:


> I found a PLL algorithm and I'm kind of happy. It's a pretty simple alg, but I wouldn't be surprised is someone else already found it.
> 
> R U2 R' U2 R' F R2 U' R' U' R U R' F' R U R' U R U2 R'


 
That is 3 OLLs with a few cancelled moves between the first two. 

R U2 R' U2 R' F R F' - F R U' R' U' R U R' F' - Sune


----------



## Michael1026 (Apr 28, 2012)

Rpotts said:


> That is 3 OLLs with a few cancelled moves between the first two.
> 
> R U2 R' U2 R' F R F' - F R U' R' U' R U R' F' - Sune


Ah, I didn't even know the first OLL algorithm.


----------



## Rpotts (Apr 28, 2012)

Yea, for the first OLL -

y2 r' U' R U' R' U2 r 

is more common, but that alg is useful for OLLCP, or just for that angle.


----------



## Jaycee (Apr 28, 2012)

The way I found it was by messing around with T-Perm and changing the first four moves from R U R' U' to R U2 R' U2' xP


----------



## Cubenovice (Apr 28, 2012)

Rpotts said:


> Yea, for the first OLL -
> 
> y2 r' U' R U' R' U2 r
> 
> is more common, but that alg is useful for OLLCP, or just for that angle.



Don't forget FMC, it is one of few 8 move LL algs.


----------



## cubernya (Apr 28, 2012)

G perm <3 R U2 R' U2 R' F R U R' U' R' F' R U R2 U' R' U' R U R' U' R U2 R' U

26 turns but so finger tricky (it has most of a T perm in it)


----------



## qqwref (Apr 28, 2012)

Might as well just do something like R U R' F' R U R' U' R' F R2 U' R2 U R' U' R' U' R' U R U R2 then...


----------



## JonnyWhoopes (Apr 30, 2012)

I would like to laud whichever mod cleaned up this thread. It's not often I get to see you guys in action, it was cool to see it as it happened.


----------



## Cheese11 (Apr 30, 2012)

Kirjava said:


> Spoiler



Mother of god. *takes off sunglasses*


----------



## 5BLD (May 3, 2012)

I just sat on my cube and did E moves to break it in. So many centre cap pops- i wonder if I'm putting too mch pressure on it...


----------



## Czery (May 3, 2012)

5BLD said:


> I just sat on my cube and did E moves to break it in. So many centre cap pops- i wonder if I'm putting too mch pressure on it...


 
Wait - you *SAT* on your cube... 
Doing that can _effectively_ prevent caps from falling off. 

At least it's not as bad as the MF8 Square 1 caps. Those caps fall of as if the caps were lubed themselves.


----------



## Athefre (May 5, 2012)

I may be the only one that finds this interesting and am talking to myself, but here are some new and old uses for what I guess would be called Edge and Corner Transformations:



Spoiler: OLLCP





Setup: F' U' L' U L F L' U2 L U L' U L (From Robert Yau's document)

Usually the solution would be the reverse. But, another way is to turn it into a different case like this:

M' U' - F R U R' U' F' - U2 M





Spoiler: CLL+1





Setup: B L U' L' B' R' U2 L' U' L2 D F2 D' L' R
Solution: M' - R' U2 l U' R U L' U R' U r - U2M
Solves the green edge at UB.



Setup: L F U F' U' L2 B L' B' L2 F U2 F'
Solution: M2 - R' U2 l U' R U L' U R' U r - U2M2
Solves the green edge at UF.

Usually CLL+1 would be ~330 cases. But, using this simple M setup, the set is reduced to ~80 cases without a large increase in movecount and often gives the chance for a cancellation at the beginning of CLL+1 and a cancellation at the beginning of L3E.

CLL+1 can be reduced to 2, 3, 4, etc times the number of CLL cases.





Spoiler: ELL





Solution: M' U - M2 U M U2 M' U M'

The first two moves place an oriented edge on the D-layer and turn the case into an all oriented 3-cycle with the last M2 and setup undo (M) cancelling. Edge transformation isn't very useful for ELL because there are so few cases. The best thing is that it gives you the ability to easily create your own algs and understand how they work.





Spoiler: CLL





Setup: U L2 U' L U' R U R' F L' U' R'

Transformation: L2 - U2 L' U2 L' B L B' - U' R'

As with ELL, the biggest use here is being able to understand the relationship among cases. Full list and better description here.


This can be applied to almost anything. Its usefulness depends on what it's being applied to. Anything can be reduced to 0 cases. But there is a difference between a setup and an algorithm. The further you try to reduce, the more complex the setup is, but fewer cases. The less you try to reduce, the more cases, but maybe better algorithms. You have to find the right balance considering recall, move count, and comfort.


----------



## Kirjava (May 5, 2012)

Case reduction is akin to 1look2alg systems for attacking large algsets. Both have their own advantages. 

How about you try doing 1LLL case reduction? 

EDIT: 

02:56 <+Kirjava> also I like how all the kids are making stupid LS methods
02:56 <+Kirjava> while the real development is happening in LL


----------



## Athefre (May 5, 2012)

Kirjava said:


> Case reduction is akin to 1look2alg systems for attacking large algsets. Both have their own advantages.
> 
> How about you try doing 1LLL case reduction?



I've been working on this off and on but haven't finished all edge angles. Give me some time and I'll post. I'm not optimistic though because I'm unsure of how easy 1LLL recognition would be.


----------



## JonnyWhoopes (May 5, 2012)

I still want CLL+1 to be a feasible thing.


----------



## Kirjava (May 5, 2012)

It is. I'm releasing an alg list at some point in the near future.


----------



## JonnyWhoopes (May 5, 2012)

Kirjava said:


> It is. I'm releasing an alg list at some point in the near future.


 
I have never loved you more than I do right now.


----------



## Specs112 (May 5, 2012)

JonnyWhoopes said:


> I have never loved you more than I do right now.


 
OTP OTP OTP


----------



## Julian (May 6, 2012)

4x4: last F2L slot is solved corner, flipped edge. An even number of LL edges are oriented. Flip F2L edge with pure OLL parity to dodge regular OLL parity? I've been doing this when it (rarely) comes up.


----------



## MostEd (May 6, 2012)

Julian said:


> 4x4: last F2L slot is solved corner, flipped edge. An even number of LL edges are oriented. Flip F2L edge with pure OLL parity to dodge regular OLL parity? I've been doing this when it (rarely) comes up.


 
If this happens to me i pure flip(inner slices) the f2l edge, try to avoid it tho, extra rotations suck


----------



## Cool Frog (May 6, 2012)

Athefre said:


> I may be the only one that finds this interesting and am talking to myself, but here are some new and old uses for what I guess would be called Edge and Corner Transformations:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
That OLLCP (Since I know this one)
Roberts Alg is quite awkward for me and he just suggested to do the M' U' since it is faster (for me to perform)

There is another case 


R2 D' R [[FRUR'U'F'] U] R' D R2


----------



## zzomtceo (May 8, 2012)

*New last slot method proposal*

I would like to propose a method where you solve the last slot+corners or edges and then finish with ELL or CLL depending on which way you solved the last slot.


----------



## JohnLaurain (May 8, 2012)

zzomtceo said:


> I would like to propose a method where you solve the last slot+corners or edges and then finish with ELL or CLL depending on which way you solved the last slot.


 
Algorithms?


----------



## qqwref (May 9, 2012)

Improvement on OBLBL for big cubes: for the last floor[(N-2)/2] layers of centers (so 2 layers on 6x6/7x7, 3 layers on 8x8/9x9, etc), do one entire center at a time in layers. So for 7x7x7 if the three centers were green, orange, blue you would do:
- green layer 1, orange layer 1, blue layer 1
- green layer 2, orange layer 2, blue layer 2
- green middle layer, orange middle layer, blue middle layer
- green layer 4, green layer 5, orange layer 4, orange layer 5, blue layer 4, blue layer 5
This saves on commutators since you only have to use them for the last colored center (so, no more commutators than in reduction).

There are also two more center tricks: (1) if you have the last row on the right of the top face and the extra oblique on the back of the top face, you can save slice turns by doing something like x r' U' 3R' U r U' 3R U; (2) you can do y m' U2 m to move centers around without messing up the block, usually saving 1-2 comms.

Also, I find it really nice to pair up the final edges on M, rather than on E as I was trying before.


----------



## cubernya (May 9, 2012)

zzomtceo said:


> I would like to propose a method where you solve the last slot+corners or edges and then finish with ELL or CLL depending on which way you solved the last slot.


 
I would say that corners would be better, because the ELL algs are better than L4C. However, could you figure out how many algs there would be for each set?


----------



## zzomtceo (May 9, 2012)

theZcuber said:


> I would say that corners would be better, because the ELL algs are better than L4C. However, could you figure out how many algs there would be for each set?


 
I'll try, but all I know is ZLS-E would use less. Right now I want to find the ZLS-C algs more because they are, like you said, better.


----------



## Athefre (May 10, 2012)

In case I don't eventually finish full LL, here is ZB reduced to ~160 cases.

http://pastebin.com/ggQGCqve

I could really make this any number, but 160 was about the lowest I would go before setups got ridiculous. 120 wouldn't have been much worse. Like a lot of my ideas, I'm posting this here because I think it's interesting but don't intend this for speedsolving or I don't see it getting much attention in it's own topic.


----------



## Kirjava (May 10, 2012)

zzomtceo said:


> I'll try, but all I know is ZLS-E would use less. Right now I want to find the ZLS-C algs more because they are, like you said, better.


 
They both use way to many for anyone to even consider this or any form of this method.


----------



## zzomtceo (May 10, 2012)

theZcuber said:


> I would say that corners would be better, because the ELL algs are better than L4C. However, could you figure out how many algs there would be for each set?


 
My estimates say well over 1000 but even if it is less than that I agree with kirjava.


----------



## Kirjava (May 10, 2012)

zzomtceo said:


> My estimates say well over 1000


 
What are these estimates based on?


----------



## zzomtceo (May 10, 2012)

Kirjava said:


> What are these estimates based on?


 
3^4 corner orientations times 5! corner permutations is 9720. 5 edge permutations times two edge orientations is 10. 9720 times 10 is 97200. Divide by 4 to eliminate AUFs and get 24300. Well over 1000.


----------



## bobthegiraffemonkey (May 10, 2012)

[M U2 M2 U2, U' R U] = M U2 M2' U R U' M2' U2 M' U' R' U

Weird and kinda fun comm. Works on bigcubes and is centre friendly.


----------



## Kirjava (May 10, 2012)

zzomtceo said:


> 3^4 corner orientations times 5! corner permutations is 9720. 5 edge permutations times two edge orientations is 10. 9720 times 10 is 97200. Divide by 4 to eliminate AUFs and get 24300. Well over 1000.


 
ahahaha that's amazing - based on your other posts, I was not expecting you to have done any actual math, especially not for it to be correct


----------



## Kirjava (May 11, 2012)




----------



## Escher (May 11, 2012)

Kir: I approve of your hoodie and your execution.


----------



## TMOY (May 14, 2012)

Kirjava said:


> ahahaha that's amazing - based on your other posts, I was not expecting you to have done any actual math, especially not for it to be correct



I didn't expect the math to be correct either. And actually it isn't 

You have to consider the different possible cases:

- if both edge and corner are already in the slot: 6 possible orientations, and the U corners correspond to the 43 CLL cases (including skip) which makes 258 cases. (the D corner being misoriented doesn't change the number of cases.)
- If the corner is in the slot but the edge isn't: 6 orientations again, 3^3*4!=648 possibilities for the U corners, hence 3888 cases.
- If the edge is in the slot but the corner isn't: 6 prientations again. The U corner being in the slot doesn't matter because of the final AUF; that leaves 3^3*3!=162 possibllities for the U corners, hence 972 cases.
- If both edge and corner are on the U layer: 6 orientations again. As above, the U corner being in the slot doesn't matter, which leaves 648 possibilities for coners, hence 3888 cases.

We thus obtain a grand total of 258 + 3888 + 972 + 3888 = 9006 cases (including skip). Still well over 1000.


----------



## cuBerBruce (May 15, 2012)

TMOY said:


> You have to consider the different possible cases:
> 
> - if both edge and corner are already in the slot: 6 possible orientations, and the U corners correspond to the 43 CLL cases (including skip) which makes 258 cases. (the D corner being misoriented doesn't change the number of cases.)
> - If the corner is in the slot but the edge isn't: 6 orientations again, 3^3*4!=648 possibilities for the U corners, hence 3888 cases.
> ...


 
Well, TMOY seems to be reducing the number of cases by both pre-AUF and post-AUF, except in the case of corner in slot, edge not in slot.

The total number of configurations, and cases reduced by pre-AUF and post-AUF, or post-AUf only are:


```
total         Cases reduced by      cases reduced
                        configurations   pre-AUF & post-AUF   only by post-AUF
C in slot, E in slot         3888              258                 972        
C in slot, E not in slot    15552              972                3888
C not in slot, E in slot    15552              972                3888
Neither C nor E in slot     62208             3888               15552
                            -----             ----               -----
Total                       97200             6090               24300
```

If you use both pre-AUF and post-AUF reduction for the both corner and edge in slot cases, and only post-AUF for the other cases, then the case count would be 258+3888+3888+24300 = 23586.


----------



## TMOY (May 15, 2012)

OK, I see what I did wrong. Actually in the case C in slot and E not in slot, I reduced by pre-AUF only, not post-AUF only.

I agree with the result of 6090. Whici is still well over 1000


----------



## nicoc77 (May 18, 2012)

*Reflex games improve my "look ahead"*

I don't know if any of you guys have done this... I was playing A LOT of reflex games like the ones on missionred.com and OSU! to improve my mouse precision in RTS games. And after a few days I notice that my look ahead during F2L started to improve, I was able to find pairs a bit faster and solve them without looking. In a week more or less I went for a barely under 30" Ao12 to now almost consistent 25, 26 sec average.

So I encourage you guys to try this and tell me what your results and thoughts are, because to me it helps a lot.

Cheers and sorry for my english.

Nico.


----------



## tozies24 (May 18, 2012)

I was thinking about a new set of algorithms that could help. Say you have f2l solved except one of the edges is flipped. Instead of fixing it, what if we had algorithms that could solve OLL and flip the edge too. I know the algorithms could be nasty, but this would shave off a few seconds.


----------



## Evan Liu (May 18, 2012)

tozies24 said:


> I was thinking about a new set of algorithms that could help. Say you have f2l solved except one of the edges is flipped. Instead of fixing it, what if we had algorithms that could solve OLL and flip the edge too. I know the algorithms could be nasty, but this would shave off a few seconds.


http://www.speedsolving.com/forum/showthread.php?36481-Yet-another-OLS-subset-OLS-FE


----------



## Escher (May 18, 2012)

tozies24 said:


> I was thinking about a new set of algorithms that could help. Say you have f2l solved except one of the edges is flipped. Instead of fixing it, what if we had algorithms that could solve OLL and flip the edge too. I know the algorithms could be nasty, but this would shave off a few seconds.


 
I published this not even a month ago  http://www.speedsolving.com/forum/showthread.php?36481-Yet-another-OLS-subset-OLS-FE

Wow, ninja'd so close together the posts seemed to merge after I pressed quick reply O_O


----------



## jonlin (May 19, 2012)

You want to know what I saw during my year of cubing:
Last year, the puzzles called Knockoffs were very frowned upon.
Now, because of the recent activity of Verdes, and Seven Towns:
Everybody is saying: "Screw originals, go knockoffs!


----------



## qqwref (May 20, 2012)

R D' B2 D R' U' L2 U

L' R D B2 D' R2 U R U' L = M B U2 B' R2' F R F' r

R F2 D2 F2 R F2 D2 F2


----------



## MostEd (May 20, 2012)

I hate this, I learn 3 cmlls today, for the Pi case, and one of them came up, meh why can't i perform algs properly..
Lol at cube fly


----------



## insane569 (May 21, 2012)

Checking FB. I find the smallest Rubiks cube unofficial. But the cube it sits on looks nothing like a Rubiks. More like a dayan.(BTW its 6mm in size)


----------



## ben1996123 (May 22, 2012)

MostEd said:


> [noparse]
> 
> 
> 
> ...



dafuq. RAGEQUIT. Also, [R U2 R'R' F R F')3].


----------



## Cool Frog (May 22, 2012)

ben1996123 said:


> dafuq. RAGEQUIT. Also, [R U2 R'R' F R F')3].


 
Also the alg he was trying to do much sexier.

R' U' R U' R' U F' U F R


----------



## drewsopchak (May 31, 2012)

I feel like there are wayyyy too many guides that aren't useful.... like "how to be sub x", or "guide to effective pll time attacks" et cetera.


----------



## Escher (Jun 5, 2012)

My girlfriend says;

David Woner, Kirjava, Rowan, a small kitten, and Michael Womack are the only cool cubers. Everyone else is just a prommie/bully.

Thoughts?


----------



## Cubenovice (Jun 5, 2012)

I think your girlfriend is telling you that she herself and those other folks are cool cubers.
You are just a prommie/bully



edit: hey! you edited out the "me" in the list of cool cubers!


----------



## a small kitten (Jun 5, 2012)

Wait what?


----------



## Kirjava (Jun 5, 2012)

I agree with everything she says.


----------



## Rpotts (Jun 5, 2012)

I wouldn't consider myself a prommie, lol I just had to look that up. I guess I'm a bully. :C


----------



## qqwref (Jun 6, 2012)

Escher said:


> My girlfriend says;
> 
> David Woner, Kirjava, Rowan, a small kitten, and Michael Womack are the only cool cubers. Everyone else is just a prommie/bully.


Your girlfriend may be a troll.


----------



## Jaycee (Jun 6, 2012)

#PLL was just the number 1 top worldwide trend on Twitter. Finally some recognition for cubers! xD

(Yes, I know what the majority of world knows as PLL)


----------



## Stefan (Jun 7, 2012)

Jaycee said:


> #PLL was just the number 1 top worldwide trend on Twitter. Finally some recognition for cubers! xD
> 
> (Yes, I know what the majority of world knows as PLL)



Right now we're at third place with 32 ups and 33 downs:
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=pll


----------



## god of rubic 2 (Jun 7, 2012)

A few days back when I was walking home from school, I saw a car with the number plate "ZNE BLD" and it reminded me a lot of "Zane Blindfold", I thought it was pretty cool and thought I'd share it


----------



## Kirjava (Jun 7, 2012)

Stefan said:


> Right now we're at third place with 32 ups and 33 downs:
> http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=pll



"Jessica Fridrich Method"

*weeps*


----------



## A Leman (Jun 7, 2012)

Stefan said:


> Right now we're at third place with 32 ups and 33 downs:
> http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=pll



"After finishing my OLL, I had to do an easy corner PLL." :fp

It's called an A-perm, do we really talk like that?


----------



## aronpm (Jun 7, 2012)

A Leman said:


> "After finishing my OLL, I had to do an easy corner PLL." :fp
> 
> It's called an A-perm, do we really talk like that?



H perm is also a corner PLL


----------



## A Leman (Jun 7, 2012)

aronpm said:


> H perm is also a corner PLL



True. your point is another reason why a speedcuber would not just say something like "easy corner pll"


----------



## Rpotts (Jun 7, 2012)

That is an urban dictionary definition from 5 years ago. Not everyone uses the same lingo, especially not years ago.


----------



## Edward (Jun 7, 2012)

aronpm said:


> H perm is also a corner PLL



Please help me. I don't understand this ;___; 
It... only moves/affects edges...


----------



## Escher (Jun 7, 2012)

Edward said:


> Please help me. I don't understand this ;___;
> It... only moves/affects edges...



Do a U2 and discover X-PLL!!! <3


----------



## Kirjava (Jun 7, 2012)

it's weird how top 10 for 2x2x2 single isn't even sub1 yet


----------



## bobthegiraffemonkey (Jun 7, 2012)

I still don't get why it hasn't just been called X-perm from the start. It makes far more sense than H perm, which would probably be a good name for what is called E-perm instead. It's always bugged me that several of the PLLs are strangely named.


----------



## Stefan (Jun 8, 2012)

Stefan said:


> Right now we're at third place with 32 ups and 33 downs:
> http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=pll



Darn, 52 ups now but still only third place...


----------



## applemobile (Jun 14, 2012)

I changed both my R perms today, and I feel damn sexy because of it. Come at me R perms.


----------



## RNewms27 (Jun 15, 2012)

http://www.cubedepotusa.com/apps/webstore/products/category/651848?page=1

THE QY!


----------



## Rpotts (Jun 15, 2012)

applemobile said:


> I changed both my R perms today, and I feel damn sexy because of it. Come at me R perms.


What did you change from/to?

Is it weird that I think the standard Rb perm's inverse is better?

R2' F R U R U' R' F' R U2' R' U2 R

Right thumb for F', perhaps left index works better for some.

Eh, keyboard timing seems to lean towards normal being faster than inverse for me, but the inverse seems pretty much as good, maybe if I'd practiced it anywhere near as much.


----------



## Stefan (Jun 17, 2012)

I like commutators. Came across an OLL that I dislike right now, stopped, and decided to solve LL instead: [R' L D' L' D R, U2]. Nothing fancy, I'm just happy this worked and and worked out so nicely, I actually didn't think it through but just started and then was pleasantly surprised.


----------



## qqwref (Jun 17, 2012)

R U' R S2 R' U R' S2 + S2 R2 S2 R2
= R U' R S2 R' U R S2 R2
= U perm

!_!


----------



## Escher (Jun 21, 2012)

How many moves in ETM is an eido U2'? 1?

If that's the case, what about eido U2' then a U with the same motion just in reverse?

And in that case, what if I do R' U2' R U, but the R is 'independent' to the U2'->U motion? Does that make the sequence 3 moves in ETM? Or is it counted in the same way that say, R' U R' is 3 moves?


----------



## qqwref (Jun 22, 2012)

U2' should be one move ETM, U2'U should be two since you do actually have to reverse direction.

Honestly, though, if we're talking about the number of "moves" someone actually performed, we might as well consider triggers as two moves - when someone does RUR' they're really doing R (UR'). The last two moves aren't separate at all.


----------



## Escher (Jun 22, 2012)

qqwref said:


> U2' should be one move ETM, U2'U should be two since you do actually have to reverse direction.
> 
> Honestly, though, if we're talking about the number of "moves" someone actually performed, we might as well consider triggers as two moves - when someone does RUR' they're really doing R (UR'). The last two moves aren't separate at all.



Okay, thanks. I wasn't sure of how 'soft' ETM was.

I definitely agree, I wish it was simple to create an easily understandable notation system for execution. It just feels like given the current language of cubing, any decent system of notation for hand movements would be completely outside of it. It ought to be done though, maybe a system using punctuation that can be written underneath the normal notation of an algorithm...


----------



## stoic (Jun 23, 2012)

Escher said:


> I wish it was simple to create an easily understandable notation system for execution. It just feels like given the current language of cubing, any decent system of notation for hand movements would be completely outside of it. It ought to be done though, maybe a system using punctuation that can be written underneath the normal notation of an algorithm...


This is a very interesting idea. I was thinking of this post when I was learning a new OLL this morning. I was working on OLL 34: 

I was learning the wiki alg (R U R' U') B' (R' F R F') B ; after doing it a couple of times I immediately cancelled the (F' B) into an S (anyone else do this?); however more relevantly after practicing it for a while I found myself naturally changing the B' into (f' z)

So (R U R' U') B' (R' F R F') B becomes (R U R' U') f' z R' F R S (z')

I often see reconstructions by Brest notated "rotations may not be exactly what was performed" and I guess this is the point here. How much of this comes down to a cuber's individual style and how they position their fingers, and how much could it be notated?


----------



## qqwref (Jun 23, 2012)

ellwd said:


> (R U R' U') B' (R' F R F') B



R U R' U' y' R' F' r U M
or even
R U R' U' y r' U' R U M'


----------



## stoic (Jun 23, 2012)

qqwref said:


> R U R' U' y' R' F' r U M
> or even
> R U R' U' y r' U' R U M'



I like that second one. When I'm looking for a new alg I instinctively lean away from anything with a rotation; but with the standard notation one can't tell how fluidly it can be incorporated


----------



## Julian (Jun 23, 2012)

ellwd said:


> I like that second one. When I'm looking for a new alg I instinctively lean away from anything with a rotation; but with the standard notation one can't tell how fluidly it can be incorporated


I'd say the rotation is the only downside to that alg :/


----------



## Escher (Jun 23, 2012)

ellwd said:


> How much of this comes down to a cuber's individual style and how they position their fingers, and how much could it be notated?



I think there are certainly different 'classes' of ways to perform moves compared to the 'normal' way they are notated (given the number of ways we have adapted traditional '6 generator' notation to include execution types like r/u/m and M/E/S etc it could be a little difficult). With enough time I reckon it would be possible to make a reasonably intuitive system after looking at a lot of different styles and forming a few simple classes.


----------



## 5BLD (Jun 23, 2012)

Why S when you can F'B at the same time? S is rather awkward whilst S' is not..


----------



## stoic (Jun 24, 2012)

5BLD said:


> Why S when you can F'B at the same time? S is rather awkward whilst S' is not..



Seems easier to me...


----------



## tasguitar7 (Jun 28, 2012)

I seem to notice that non-cubers are under the impression (as they have verbalized it often) that "it won't look like he's almost done and then suddenly he will be done". I think this originates from the visible destructiveness of most PLL algs and the pervasiveness of CFOP. So, when they see me solve Roux they seem stunned as the progression is much more apparent. What do you guys think, is it more entertaining for a non-cuber to watch a Roux solve or CFOP solve?


----------



## PandaCuber (Jun 29, 2012)

tasguitar7 said:


> I seem to notice that non-cubers are under the impression (as they have verbalized it often) that "it won't look like he's almost done and then suddenly he will be done". I think this originates from the visible destructiveness of most PLL algs and the pervasiveness of CFOP. So, when they see me solve Roux they seem stunned as the progression is much more apparent. What do you guys think, is it more entertaining for a non-cuber to watch a Roux solve or CFOP solve?



Noncubers seems to love moo.


----------



## tasguitar7 (Jun 29, 2012)

PandaCuber said:


> Noncubers seems to love moo.



Doesn't everybody? They hate giving inspection time though.


----------



## oll+phase+sync (Jun 29, 2012)

PandaCuber said:


> Noncubers seems to love moo.



Waterman beginners methode ( First Face on U, Ledges one by one ) is quite understandable to an spectator (they still keep asking why I don't solve the last edge of the first layer)

Non cubers, who at least tried to learn to solve the cube, are already very biased to love LBL (first face on U) (I suspect them to believe thats the only possible way to solve the cube)


----------



## applemobile (Jun 29, 2012)

How much about getting faster do people think is psychological? As in, you break your record, then after that you suddenly get loads of solves that were much faster than your previous record. Does it affect different people differently and can you fool your brain? Everyone at some time i bet has spotted in the corner of their eye that they are mid way though a very fast solve, then panic, and mess up. How does one combat this?


----------



## tasguitar7 (Jun 29, 2012)

applemobile said:


> How much about getting faster do people think is psychological? As in, you break your record, then after that you suddenly get loads of solves that were much faster than your previous record. Does it affect different people differently and can you fool your brain?



I think it is very psychological. I can only get fast solves when no one else is talking and I am not thinking in words. I can (must) think about the solve, however, as soon as actual words get into my head like "what was that alg?" or something, or even completely unrelated thought I completely lose focus and the solve falls apart. I think that may be because I am a very auditory person and I almost hear the things I think.



applemobile said:


> Everyone at some time i bet has spotted in the corner of their eye that they are mid way though a very fast solve, then panic, and mess up. How does one combat this?



I call it PB anxiety and I have it bad. I have not found a cure.


----------



## applemobile (Jun 29, 2012)

Right after posting that i did a PB adv of 5 and 12 :lol:


----------



## applemobile (Jun 29, 2012)

tasguitar7 said:


> I think it is very psychological. I can only get fast solves when no one else is talking and I am not thinking in words. I can (must) think about the solve, however, as soon as actual words get into my head like "what was that alg?" or something, or even completely unrelated thought I completely lose focus and the solve falls apart. I think that may be because I am a very auditory person and I almost hear the things I think.
> 
> .




I completely get this. My best times are when i'm getting tired and just solving on auto pilot. When i am alert i say the name of the colour piece i am looking for in my head.


----------



## tasguitar7 (Jun 29, 2012)

applemobile said:


> I completely get this. My best times are when i'm getting tired and just solving on auto pilot. When i am alert i say the name of the colour piece i am looking for in my head.



Yeah, I'm most helped when I have my massive noise blocking headphones on playing classical, jazz, and fusion instrumentals. No lyrics = maximum focus. And it helps me get into a groove, which I guess is the same as your auto-pilot.


----------



## Cool Frog (Jun 29, 2012)

When I do solves my mind is empty and clear. Unless I want to think about something then I do.


----------



## tasguitar7 (Jun 29, 2012)

Cool Frog said:


> When I do solves my mind is empty and clear. Unless I want to think about something then I do.



Does thinking about something else affect the solve?


----------



## Kattenvriendin (Jun 29, 2012)

I actually practice my solves while watching TV or a movie. When I do a timed solve it is stressing because I HAVE to get this and that done (cross, F2L) in a certain amount of time. Without that stressor I actually believe I solve the cube faster because I am relaxed enough to actually take in the things that I see instead of looking frantically.


----------



## ben1996123 (Jun 29, 2012)

I usually get fast solves on qCube 3x3 when I'm not trying to solve quickly or look ahead or anything and fail a lot when I do try.


----------



## Robert-Y (Jun 30, 2012)

It just took my stackmat timer 48 seconds to reach "10 minutes". Is this the UWR?


----------



## Escher (Jun 30, 2012)

Robert-Y said:


> It just took my stackmat timer 48 seconds to reach "10 minutes". Is this the UWR?



Nah, when mine broke a while ago it was experiencing around 1min/s 

Time travel is cool.


----------



## ben1996123 (Jun 30, 2012)

Robert-Y said:


> It just took my stackmat timer 48 seconds to reach "10 minutes". Is this the UWR?



video please?


----------



## drrubikscube (Jun 30, 2012)

Is yau method for bigger cubes such as 5x5 possible?


----------



## vcuber13 (Jun 30, 2012)

yes, it gets harder and less efficient though.


----------



## mdolszak (Jul 3, 2012)

Just bought a WitLong for $11 (free shipping) on eBay: http://www.ebay.com/itm/Type-C-IV-4...ultDomain_0&hash=item27c625f91d#ht_4137wt_829

The original price was $15 (free shipping), but the seller accepted my offer of $11.


Just putting this out there for anyone who wants to try to get a WitLong for cheap.


----------



## amostay2004 (Jul 3, 2012)

Random thought - anyone else thinks Dene looks like Chris Hemsworth?


----------



## MTGjumper (Jul 3, 2012)

I'm sure he'd appreciate the comparison.


----------



## Stefan (Jul 3, 2012)

http://www.wca2000.com/
http://www.wca2004.com/
http://www.wca2008.com/
http://www.wca2011.com/
http://www.wca2012.com/
http://www.wca2014.com/
http://www.wca2016.com/
http://www.wca2020.com/


----------



## cubernya (Jul 3, 2012)

Stefan said:


> http://www.wca2000.com/
> http://www.wca2004.com/
> http://www.wca2008.com/
> http://www.wca2011.com/
> ...



<3 WCA2011


----------



## jonlin (Jul 3, 2012)

Kattenvriendin said:


> I actually practice my solves while watching TV or a movie. When I do a timed solve it is stressing because I HAVE to get this and that done (cross, F2L) in a certain amount of time. Without that stressor I actually believe I solve the cube faster because I am relaxed enough to actually take in the things that I see instead of looking frantically.



Breaking the Habit


----------



## qqwref (Jul 4, 2012)

http://www.wca2012.com said:


> Over 9,000 delegates


hahahahahahahaha wow


----------



## Jaycee (Jul 4, 2012)

qqwref said:


> http://www.wca2012.com said:
> 
> 
> > Over 9,000 delegates
> ...



Mindgasm.


----------



## tasguitar7 (Jul 4, 2012)

So for a while I've been using my own big cube method. Maybe it has already been proposed or maybe it isn't that good (I prefer it to reduction). It isn't quite as complicated as K4 which is just weird to me.

For an nxn cube:
1. Centers
2. Pair up and solve cross color edges
3. F(n-1)L - 1: Solve all but LL and 1 CE slot. So pair up edges and corner for each slot
4. Strange parityish step - pair up last f2l edge (not corner, just edge parts), pair up 1 LL edge, orient all edges (and small-sub-edges) (petrus style), place last CE pair
5. COLL
6. ELL (3 algs per solve or less, usually 2, all but one alg (i guess two with mirrors) are comms)


----------



## ottozing (Jul 4, 2012)

tasguitar7 said:


> So for a while I've been using my own big cube method. Maybe it has already been proposed or maybe it isn't that good (I prefer it to reduction). It isn't quite as complicated as K4 which is just weird to me.
> 
> For an nxn cube:
> 1. Centers
> ...



sounds interesting, would you mind writing up an example solve?


----------



## tasguitar7 (Jul 4, 2012)

ottozing said:


> sounds interesting, would you mind writing up an example solve?



Working on it


----------



## tasguitar7 (Jul 4, 2012)

4x4, using SiGN

B2 D B2 U R B2 F' U' R u F2 D2 f D f u f2 D B' U D' B R f B' D' u2 R2 B' u' f r L2 f F R f2 F' U r2 //scramble
U' f' r' B' r B' r' x2 L2 u2 b' R2 b B u' L d2 L' d L' d' F2 d F2 d' d2 F' B2 d2 // centers
U l' B L' B' l B D' // first cross edge
U L' U' r B' R B r' R2 F R y' // second cross edge
l2 U R U' l2 R' U F'L y' z' // third cross edge
l' U L' U' l L F U' F' z y'// fourth cross edge
U L' U' L y U r R' U R U' R' r' R F' U F y2// first f3l pair
R U R' U' r R' U R U' r' U' F' U F U R U' R' y// second f3l pair
U' L U' L' R U R' U2 F' U' F U f' F U' F' U f R U' R' y2 // third f3l pair
F' U F U' r R' U R U' r' //pair up ll edge
U R U' R' F' U2 F // Orient ll edge while setting up for pair up of last f3l pair
U' r R' U R U' r' //pair up last f3l edge
U' R U' R' U2 R U2 R' U2 //Set up to finish EO
r R' U R U' r' // finish EO
U' R U R' U R U R' // finish f3l
U' l'rR' U' L U R U' r'lL' F // COLL
U2 R U' R U R U R U' R' U' R2 U2 // ELL
B2 r2 R2 D L2 D' R2 r2 D L2 D' B2 // Commutator

http://alg.garron.us/?alg=B2_D_B2_U_R_B2_F-_U-_R_u_F2_D2_f_D_f_u_f2_D_B-_U_D-_B_R_f_B-_D-_u2_R2_B-_u-_f_r_L2_f_F_R_f2_F-_U_r2_//scramble%0AU-_f-_r-_B-_r_B-_r-_x2_L2_u2_b-_R2_b_B_u-_L_d2_L-_d_L-_d-_F2_d_F2_d-_d2_F-_B2_d2_//_centers%0AU_l-_B_L-_B-_l_B_D-_//_first_cross_edge%0AU_L-_U-_r_B-_R_B_r-_R2_F_R_y-_//_second_cross_edge%0Al2_U_R_U-_l2_R-_U_F-L_y-_z-_//_third_cross_edge%0Al-_U_L-_U-_l_L_F_U-_F-_z_y-//_fourth_cross_edge%0AU_L-_U-_L_y_U_r_R-_U_R_U-_R-_r-_R_F-_U_F_y2//_first_f3l_pair%0AR_U_R-_U-_r_R-_U_R_U-_r-_U-_F-_U_F_U_R_U-_R-_y//_second_f3l_pair%0AU-_L_U-_L-_R_U_R-_U2_F-_U-_F_U_f-_F_U-_F-_U_f_R_U-_R-_y2_//_third_f3l_pair%0AF-_U_F_U-_r_R-_U_R_U-_r-_//pair_up_ll_edge%0AU_R_U-_R-_F-_U2_F_//_Orient_ll_edge_while_setting_up_for_pair_up_of_last_f3l_pair%0AU-_r_R-_U_R_U-_r-_//pair_up_last_f3l_edge%0AU-_R_U-_R-_U2_R_U2_R-_U2_//Set_up_to_finish_EO%0Ar_R-_U_R_U-_r-_//_finish_EO%0AU-_R_U_R-_U_R_U_R-_//_finish_f3l%0AU-_l-rR-_U-_L_U_R_U-_r-lL-_F_//_COLL%0AU2_R_U-_R_U_R_U_R_U-_R-_U-_R2_U2_//_ELL%0AB2_r2_R2_D_L2_D-_R2_r2_D_L2_D-_B2_//_Commutator&cube=4x4x4

The solve is like 200 moves which is way too much. However, I'm not that good at 4x4 (or big cubes, I'm just starting to practice them) so the centers could probably be cut down a lot as well as many of the moves in each step as most of the method is highly intuitive.


----------



## Stefan (Jul 4, 2012)

qqwref said:


> hahahahahahahaha wow



Lol and wow indeed. I didn't look farther than the titles so I missed this gem. Did you actually read the page or did that just catch your eye?


----------



## Robert-Y (Jul 5, 2012)

http://worldcubeassociation.org/results/p.php?i=2010HYUN01
http://worldcubeassociation.org/results/p.php?i=2010GREG01
http://worldcubeassociation.org/results/p.php?i=2011MERL01

Each of these person's first official sub 10 solve was a sub 8. The last guy was averaging 17 seconds when he got his 7 second solve. I was almost certain it was a typo until I saw his his wca profile picture


----------



## qqwref (Jul 5, 2012)

Stefan said:


> Lol and wow indeed. I didn't look farther than the titles so I missed this gem. Did you actually read the page or did that just catch your eye?


It just caught my eye. I didn't even open up all the sites


----------



## CarlBrannen (Jul 5, 2012)

Old cubers never die. Turns out one of the astronomy professors (Guy Worthey) here (Washington State University) used to solve in 30 seconds back in the day (say 30 years ago) he said. I handed him my painted guhong to give him an idea what the new cubes feel like and since it was already scrambled he promptly solves it. I was amazed.

He did three layers, one at a time, and then did something on the last layer that looked like it was solving the corners completely, then the edges. I showed him what I've learned of Fridrich so far, cross, F2L, and my not yet completely memorized 2L OLL and then 2L PLL.


----------



## PandaCuber (Jul 6, 2012)

Cause i know the good cubers watch this thread:
Pros and Cons of CLL/ELL Vs OLL/PLL.


----------



## Rpotts (Jul 6, 2012)

OLL/PLL has relatively simple recognition and numerous excellent algs found and perfected for every case. 

CLL/ELL has slightly lower movecount and a few less algs but the recognition seems to be more difficult, I'm not sure how good people are but recognizing ELL from 2 sides seems difficult.


----------



## MostEd (Jul 6, 2012)

Rpotts said:


> OLL/PLL has relatively simple recognition and numerous excellent algs found and perfected for every case.
> 
> CLL/ELL has slightly lower movecount and a few less algs but the recognition seems to be more difficult, I'm not sure how good people are but recognizing ELL from 2 sides seems difficult.


you don't really need 2 sides, since there's fillped edges you can see stuff on U


----------



## Escher (Jul 6, 2012)

MostEd said:


> you don't really need 2 sides, since there's fillped edges you can see stuff on U



That's a point actually, I imagine that ELL can be recognised with 2+ U face stickers & 3 F face...


----------



## aronpm (Jul 6, 2012)

Escher said:


> That's a point actually, I imagine that ELL can be recognised with 2+ U face stickers & 3 F face...



U perm


----------



## Escher (Jul 6, 2012)

aronpm said:


> U perm



Good point aronub. 

Any other non-EPLL exceptions?


----------



## aaronb (Jul 6, 2012)

M' U2 M2 U2 M' U M2 U M2 U2 Z-perm
Just playing around and found this. Couldn't find it in the algorithm database. Anyone else use this or seen this Z-perm?


----------



## 5BLD (Jul 6, 2012)

I think it's fairly well known.


----------



## Julian (Jul 6, 2012)

aaronb said:


> M' U2 M2 U2 M' U M2 U M2 U2 Z-perm
> Just playing around and found this. Couldn't find it in the algorithm database. Anyone else use this or seen this Z-perm?


Inverse of the most popular Z-perm.


----------



## ben1996123 (Jul 6, 2012)

cool, wolfram alpha is learning about cubing.


----------



## JohanTheAwsome1 (Jul 6, 2012)

drrubikscube said:


> Is yau method for bigger cubes such as 5x5 possible?



Ofc it is possible but not in any way as efficient as on a 4x4, for bigger cubes such as 5x5> people often use freeslice reduction!


----------



## qqwref (Jul 7, 2012)

Escher said:


> Good point aronub.
> 
> Any other non-EPLL exceptions?


Nope, you can recognize all (ELL-EPLL) cases by just looking at the top face and knowing the AUF position.


----------



## oll+phase+sync (Jul 8, 2012)

Escher said:


> Good point aronub.
> 
> Any other non-EPLL exceptions?




Looking at two sides of the U-face, count the different visible colors (2 color of then edges plus the colors of the corners) (U-color is not counted) 

a) 2 colors => solved! , pure flip!, Z-variation
b) 4 colors => H-variation! , Z-Variation
c) 3 colors one edge in place => a edge 3-cycle the one edge you see is enough to identify the cycle. 
c) 3 colors no edge in place => a edge 3-cycle again, the missing color is inplace

This is not meant as ELL recognition system, but just a proof that looking at two sides is enough to identify the permutation case, combining this with the U-Orientation gives the exact ELL 

qqref mentions: seeing 1 side face and U-face is also enought (ecept EPLL cases ),
wich can be proofed, by using the very same 4 cases a) to d)


----------



## 5BLD (Jul 10, 2012)

Someone told me I should make the transition between FB and SB smoother. Maybe if I took that literally...?
Inspired by what waffle claimed to be zeroing (but didn't actually do it)

[09:16] <+taeng> 3x3x3 scramble #304: R2 D' F2 R2 U F2 D' U2 B2 U' L' R2 D2 L' F L' U' B' D F'
[09:25] <Rouxuor> First Square_[kinda]_: xy' RrU
[09:25] <Rouxuor> Funny stuff: B2uB'RU2B'R' _//an insertion of B2 , then finishing first block so that the first SB square ends up solved_
[09:25] <Rouxuor> Last pair: U'Mr'U'r
_CMLL: U2R'UR2Dr'U'rD'R2U'r
EO: UM'U2M'U'M
ULUR: U2M2U'
EP: M'U2M_
[09:26] <Rouxuor> i wonder if i can do this in a speedsolve
alg garron
*39 STM*

[09:32] <+taeng> 3x3x3 scramble #306: L2 B2 D' U2 L2 B2 L2 B2 D' R2 D' L' B U L2 B2 F' U L' F2 L'
[09:47] <f`vebld> o
[09:47] <f`vebld> i forgot i havvent posted the thingy if for some strange reason someone is interested
[09:47] <f`vebld> x2y' D'L'D
[09:47] <f`vebld> B'D'R'E'FR'UM -- used solver for this one
[09:47] <f`vebld> xy'RUR'URUR'
_U2R'UrU2R2'FRF'r
URUR'U'M'URU'r'
U2M2U'MU2M
U2M2U_
alg garron
*47 STM (regular roux avg/just a tiny bit below)*


[10:08] <+taeng> 3x3x3 scramble #307: B2 D2 L' U2 L' U2 B2 L2 B2 R F D' L U F2 R2 B2 F D B
zrU'R'u

then 

(R'r')UR2UM'B'
R'U'RUR'U'RUr' (found quickly- I actually did this in a speedsolve and planned all of it in inspection! except last pair ofc.)
UR'DRU'RUR'UR'D'R
UM'U'MU'M'U2MUM'U2M2U2M

MDB2D'M'Br' //found after ages and leads to a better solution
UrU'r'
U'R'U'RU'R'URFR'F'Ur
UM etc...d.asac.


----------



## PandaCuber (Jul 10, 2012)

I cant seem to find anything good within 15 seconds. How do you do itt?


----------



## 5BLD (Jul 10, 2012)

Use more than 15s XD
But I do intend to plan FB+first square in inspection eventually. Either way today this has really confused me- finding good solutions was brainracking, but hopefully I'll get used to it. It's like learning to be efficient again, only, there's an easy way out that tempts me when I try. (for some people this easy way may be like F2L pairs with roux blocks, another example of what I'm describing)


----------



## Kirjava (Jul 11, 2012)

5BLD said:


> But I do intend to plan FB+first square in inspection eventually



you're weird


----------



## StachuK1992 (Jul 11, 2012)

Thought I'd try out a AMA on Reddit. Maybe we can get someone better/more famous and grab more attention?


----------



## applemobile (Jul 11, 2012)

StachuK1992 said:


> Thought I'd try out a AMA on Reddit. Maybe we can get someone better/more famous and grab more attention?



I would suggest you just keep away from that cesspool all all together


----------



## 5BLD (Jul 11, 2012)

If we did a AMA with speedsolving community not reddit it would be far more/actually interesting


----------



## cmhardw (Jul 17, 2012)

Random post that does not deserve its own thread:

Over the past week I've taught one of my coworker's kids how to solve the cube. Today he solved a fully scrambled cube without any help for the very first time. He had been coming with his dad to my school during his dad's office hours, and I'm friends with his dad already. I love that feeling of teaching someone how to solve, and then seeing the total excitement in their faces when they get their very first solve without help! Fun stuff!


----------



## 5BLD (Jul 17, 2012)

Me too! I've also recently taught someone to cube... On orchestra tour, I taught him Roux in about 5 hours of a long coach journey to here... Was very exciting to see his first solve, and it made me smile just the same to see him enjoy solving it, well repeatedly and finding so many new things...

Also, what joy when you see them beat their PB tho its only like 1:30, yet they just started


----------



## PandaCuber (Jul 18, 2012)

5BLD said:


> Me too! I've also recently taught someone to cube... On orchestra tour, I taught him Roux in about 5 hours of a long coach journey to here... Was very exciting to see his first solve, and it made me smile just the same to see him enjoy solving it, well repeatedly and finding so many new things...
> 
> Also, what joy when you see them beat their PB tho its only like 1:30, yet they just started



lol nice. how many people have you taught?


----------



## 5BLD (Jul 18, 2012)

4 or 5


----------



## cmhardw (Jul 19, 2012)

5BLD said:


> Me too! I've also recently taught someone to cube... On orchestra tour, I taught him Roux in about 5 hours of a long coach journey to here... Was very exciting to see his first solve, and it made me smile just the same to see him enjoy solving it, well repeatedly and finding so many new things...



Very cool, and yes I agree that this feeling is just as exciting as getting my own very first solve without help! I always have a huge smile every time someone I taught solves their very first cube!



5BLD said:


> Also, what joy when you see them beat their PB tho its only like 1:30, yet they just started



I have only experienced this once or twice. I have two friends who I've taught where they both stuck with it for a bit and tried to get faster. Almost everyone I've taught is happy to learn to solve it, and never pursues faster times. This is totally fine, I'm glad they are able to learn it and feel good about themselves to know how to solve it period! That's very cool that you've taught people who are interested to stick with cubing, and try to get faster!


----------



## blakedacuber (Jul 20, 2012)

@5BLD did you teach them roux? or was it just a beginner method?

also because someone might care,
I stumbled upon mr.Jskyler youtube today, so i asked if e was still cubing, his reply" Yes i do actually. Also I am working on memorizing SkV. I will be making a video on SkV soon as well as a video on some transitional tips and a few walkthrough solves. "


----------



## 5BLD (Jul 20, 2012)

blakedacuber said:


> @5BLD did you teach them roux? or was it just a beginner method?



Roux of course, I did say 
He ended up doing something like MBR after a while of difficult blockbuilding the way I do it
I did save him before it was too late

He still solves corners then waterman style inserts for SB
Pairs, another time, let's see him sub-minute first


----------



## blakedacuber (Jul 21, 2012)

Random fact, every official average I've done with an puzzle has been a better average than the previous done with that puzzle.


----------



## TheMachanga (Jul 21, 2012)

I don't really know where else to say this, but do people who are not color neutral do FMC on white cross always? I think the former world record was on white cross, and I noticed another cross was way easier after looking at the reconstruction. However, white cross gave him an LL skip, but still.


----------



## uberCuber (Jul 21, 2012)

TheMachanga said:


> I don't really know where else to say this, but do people who are not color neutral do FMC on white cross always?



I would hope they aren't starting on a cross at all. I'm not color neutral for speedsolving, but for FMC I just blockbuild whatever I see.


----------



## TheMachanga (Jul 21, 2012)

uberCuber said:


> I would hope they aren't starting on a cross at all. I'm not color neutral for speedsolving, but for FMC I just blockbuild whatever I see.



Ok, then last layer on yellow?


----------



## uberCuber (Jul 21, 2012)

TheMachanga said:


> Ok, then last layer on yellow?



No. Just because I can't recognize F2L cases on other colors quite as fast as I can on white when speedsolving doesn't mean it's at all difficult to consider the cube from a color-neutral standpoint during FMC, when you don't have to recognize a case and act in a fraction of a second.


----------



## TMOY (Jul 23, 2012)

And if solving color neutral for FMC still causes you trouble, you also have the option of scrambling with a different orientation.


----------



## vcuber13 (Jul 23, 2012)

What is the shortest 2 or 4 cycle within the UF and UB dedge in <r,U2>?

I found one by hand that's 25 htm.


----------



## Kirjava (Jul 23, 2012)




----------



## 5BLD (Jul 23, 2012)

vcuber13 said:


> What is the shortest 2 or 4 cycle within the UF and UB dedge in <r,U2>?
> 
> I found one by hand that's 25 htm.



I don't see how HTM is a good metric for this?


----------



## uberCuber (Jul 23, 2012)

5BLD said:


> I don't see how HTM is a good metric for this?



Just a guess, perhaps he means that in SiGN notation, with the r being a wide turn rather than slice move? That would make HTM more reasonable than for slice moves.


----------



## 5BLD (Jul 23, 2012)

Kirjava said:


>



:/
So much persuasion 
So little information
So much time


----------



## EVH (Jul 24, 2012)

Good find, very interesting, and I think it is viable; I did feel like he was trying to sell me something, not explain a new method though.


----------



## vcuber13 (Jul 24, 2012)

5BLD said:


> I don't see how HTM is a good metric for this?



how isn't it? if it were qtm each U2 would be two moves

and i meant r to be just the slice, i think qq showed that <Rw, U2> can't be done.


----------



## Julian (Jul 24, 2012)

vcuber13 said:


> how isn't it? if it were qtm each U2 would be two moves
> 
> and i meant r to be just the slice, i think qq showed that <Rw, U2> can't be done.


What about STM?


----------



## vcuber13 (Jul 24, 2012)

forgot about that, and that slices are two in htm


----------



## evogler (Jul 24, 2012)

Random question: Has anyone worked on software to simulate fingering for / estimate finger-friendliness of sequences of moves?


----------



## Athefre (Jul 24, 2012)

evogler said:


> Random question: Has anyone worked on software to simulate fingering for / estimate finger-friendliness of sequences of moves?



I've been working on a program that sorts a list of sequences based on their potential feel.

I doubt I'll finish it before the end of the year because something has come up.


----------



## evogler (Jul 24, 2012)

Neat. May I ask roughly how you approach the problem?
I've thought about either searching for desirable fragments, or trying to simulate where the cuber's fingers would actually be, and what moves they would be ready to make without re-positioning. That plus branching when there are multiple ways to execute something (like when there are half turns that could go either way).
I've just been toying a tiny bit with the latter idea. I kept track of R turns, and considered it a negative to do a U (but not U') if the sum of R turns wasn't 0. Just a first stab, but it seemed to select better than average sequences from a list.


----------



## Robert-Y (Jul 24, 2012)

I calculated 3916 "unique" LL cases. I just counted the number of repeated cases in Kirjava's huge 2alg LL table and subtracted it from 4128 (43 rows * 96 columns).

Does this sound reasonable? Can anyone back this up?


----------



## irontwig (Jul 24, 2012)

Sounds about right, should be something between (492/176)*1211 and 4*1211.


----------



## StachuK1992 (Jul 24, 2012)

Evogler,

An old one by badmephisto, works pretty well.
http://www.cubing.net/software/
See "gripper"


I also made an inefficient one shown here
http://ideone.com/mfVk3

I had a better one, but I can't find my code anywhere.


----------



## cuBerBruce (Jul 25, 2012)

Robert-Y said:


> I calculated 3916 "unique" LL cases. I just counted the number of repeated cases in Kirjava's huge 2alg LL table and subtracted it from 4128 (43 rows * 96 columns).
> 
> Does this sound reasonable? Can anyone back this up?



Yes, it's exactly correct, if you're including the solved case as a case.


----------



## Robert-Y (Jul 25, 2012)

Ah thanks Bruce.

I found this post + following replies a few seconds ago:

http://games.groups.yahoo.com/group/speedsolvingrubikscube/message/12137


----------



## evogler (Jul 25, 2012)

Stachu- Cool! So yours is based on static time estimates for each type of move, and Badmephisto's is kind of what I was saying, tracking the rotation of the right hand.
This motivates me to keep playing around with this idea. Thanks for sharing.


----------



## Robert-Y (Jul 25, 2012)

It's equivalent to about 10 normal sized bottles of maru lube


----------



## Godmil (Jul 25, 2012)

Robert-Y said:


> It's equivalent to about 10 normal sized bottles of maru lube



Excellent, where did you find this?


----------



## MWilson (Jul 25, 2012)

I think you can get the large one on lightake.


----------



## Kirjava (Jul 25, 2012)

http://web.archive.org/web/20080310...ultimedia/Thom Barlow 3x3x3 15_58 seconds.wmv

lol2006


----------



## zzomtceo (Jul 30, 2012)

I've created an alternate name for Roux: ROUX 
*R*ight after left 1x2x3 blocks
*O*rient and permute corners
*U* and M edges are oriented
*X*treme awesomeness is achieved as LSE is completed


----------



## mrpotatoman14 (Jul 30, 2012)

Kirjava said:


> http://web.archive.org/web/20080310...ultimedia/Thom Barlow 3x3x3 15_58 seconds.wmv
> 
> lol2006


sexy hair is sexy


----------



## bluecloe45 (Jul 30, 2012)

Kirjava said:


> http://web.archive.org/web/20080310...ultimedia/Thom Barlow 3x3x3 15_58 seconds.wmv
> 
> lol2006



I love you


----------



## Kirjava (Jul 30, 2012)

what the hell just happened

last scramble: U2 B L2 F2 R2 D F' L' R D B2 D' L' R' U' B D R2 F D B' R2 U B2 U' 

FB - u'R' y2 URU2R'UR2 x y 
SB - U'R'URURU'R'UR2U2(R'M')U'R
CLL - U2R2U'RFR'UR2U'R'F'
LSE - R'

8.43


----------



## PandaCuber (Jul 30, 2012)

Kirjava said:


> what the hell just happened
> 
> last scramble: U2 B L2 F2 R2 D F' L' R D B2 D' L' R' U' B D R2 F D B' R2 U B2 U'
> 
> ...



R U Hacks


----------



## Endgame (Jul 31, 2012)

zzomtceo said:


> I've created an alternate name for Roux: ROUX



the creativity is strong in this one 



zzomtceo said:


> *R*ight after left 1x2x3 blocks
> *O*rient and permute corners
> *U* and M edges are oriented
> *X*treme awesomeness is achieved as LSE is completed



This sounds awesome.. because Roux is awesome.


----------



## bluecloe45 (Jul 31, 2012)

Lol I just found this in my email from about 3 years ago. I was such a Bob fanboy

me: hello please talk
6:11 PM 
Bob: hi

me: when will the next east coast cubing competion be?

Bob: i think march 6 is MIT

me: where is that

Bob: boston

me: thanks
6:12 PM 
you were at the dc open

Bob: yes

me: i got your autograph!1

Bob: were you the one i yelled at?

me: yes!!

Bob: haha
6:13 PM 
that was perfect timing

me: it was'

what your main speedcube
6:14 PM 
Bob: an edison

me: sweet .

do you have an F2
6:15 PM 
Bob: nah

me: oh

Bob: never tried an F

me: i got my first sub 20 on tape today!!

Bob: cool
6:16 PM 
me: i know i put it on youtube
6:17 PM 
ballw
6:18 PM 
sor\
6:19 PM 
Bob: ?

me: SORRY MY FRIEND WENT CRAZY
6:20 PM 
is a 28 second avg good for and 11 year old?
6:21 PM 
Bob: lol

me: ?

Bob: i didnt start cubing until like 15

er, 16
6:22 PM 
me: oh well i have been only doing it for 3 months
6:26 PM 
did you get my friend adams email?
6:28 PM 
Bob: oh just now

yeah

me: sorry


----------



## Ninja Storm (Jul 31, 2012)

Finished the first draft, felt like posting it.


*RUR'U' AND I KNOW IT*

When I walk on by, girls be looking like,
"Dang, he fly"
I flick to the beat,
Half a second H-Perm is pretty neat, yeah.

This is how I roll, Guhong, Zhanchi, all the others are old.
Or go bold with the Lingyun II,
Don't have one? Well you're pretty screwed.

Girl look at that Guhong,
Girl look at that Guhong,
Girl look at that Guhong,
iCubemart!

Girl look at that Guhong,
Girl look at that Guhong,
Girl look at that Guhong,
iCubemart!

When I'm out of my house,
this is what I see.
Non-cubers start drooling and they're staring at me,

I've got cubes in my hands, and I ain't afraid to solve it(solve it, solve it)

RUR'U' and I know it.
RUR'U' and I know it.

When I'm at Euro's,
Them U-perms, I got plenty of those.
And when I'm at World Champs,
I win 1st place for all my cheering fans.

This is how I roll,
Dayan, Shengshou, all the others are old
We're headed to the timer, baby,
Don't be nervous.
No lube or matching stickers, and I still get service

Girl look at that Guhong,
Girl look at that Guhong,
Girl look at that Guhong,
iCubemart!

Girl look at that Guhong,
Girl look at that Guhong,
Girl look at that Guhong,
iCubemart!

When I'm out of my house,
this is what I see.
Non-cubers start drooling and they're staring at me,

I've got cubes in my hands, and I ain't afraid to solve it(solve it, solve it)

RUR'U' and I know it.
RUR'U' and I know it.

RURURUR'U', Yeah
RURURUR'U', Yeah
RURURUR'U', Yeah
RURURUR'U', Yeah, yeah

It's so sexy, man
It's so sexy man,
Yeah, RUR'U' and I know it.

Girl look at that Guhong,
Girl look at that Guhong,
Girl look at that Guhong,
iCubemart!

Girl look at that Guhong,
Girl look at that Guhong,
Girl look at that Guhong,
iCubemart!

When I'm out of my house,
this is what I see.
Non-cubers start drooling and they're staring at me,

I've got cubes in my hands, and I ain't afraid to solve it(solve it, solve it)

RUR'U' and I know it.
RUR'U' and I know it.


----------



## drewsopchak (Jul 31, 2012)

Took me 390 solves to get an oll skip today.


----------



## bluecloe45 (Jul 31, 2012)

My Zhanchi is popping


----------



## applemobile (Jul 31, 2012)

I enjoy watching people jump on the roux bandwagon, and fall straight off the back 3 days later.


----------



## pedrinroque (Aug 1, 2012)

*New A perm*

R' U L' Uw2 R U' R' Uw2 R L
or
U'RD'Rw2UR'U'Rw2UD

It looks like a J just change R2 for Rw2 on second case
I thing sub 1 is possible

the same idea to E-perm
(z) (U' R D' Rw2' U R' D)2 (z')


----------



## drewsopchak (Aug 1, 2012)

pedrinroque said:


> R' U L' Uw2 R U' R' Uw2 R L
> or
> U'RD'Rw2UR'U'Rw2UD
> 
> ...


Or you could just do the A9


----------



## nqwe (Aug 2, 2012)

bluecloe45 said:


> My Zhanchi is popping



I know this is weird, but my ZhanChi was popping, due to the reasonof lockups caused by torpedos.
I cut the torpedos that they would fit for my GuHong. I didn't liked it, so i took the torpedos back in the ZhanChi. The torpedos are loose now -> less lockups -> less popping.


----------



## 5BLD (Aug 2, 2012)

drewsopchak said:


> Or you could just do the A10



*A9


----------



## drewsopchak (Aug 2, 2012)

How much of an advantage is roux's low move count?


----------



## 5BLD (Aug 2, 2012)

Big enough for me to be fast. I averge about 47 STM on average i think. I am quite a slow turner...


----------



## drewsopchak (Aug 2, 2012)

5BLD said:


> Big enough for me to be fast. I averge about 47 STM on average i think. I am quite a slow turner...



I noticed that your faster solves often have a lower move-count than others. Do you think roux has more potential for speed than CFOP?


----------



## 5BLD (Aug 2, 2012)

drewsopchak said:


> Do you think roux has more potential for speed than CFOP?


I hesitate to but I say- yes. But one thing I notice is I don't turn nearly as fast as people my speed. Whether thats a result of or a cost of being efficient I don't know. Is it harder to look ahead? I don't know.


----------



## PandaCuber (Aug 2, 2012)

5BLD said:


> I hesitate to but I say- yes. But one thing I notice is I don't turn nearly as fast as people my speed. Whether thats a result of or a cost of being efficient I don't know. Is it harder to look ahead? I don't know.



Imagine if you turned 8-9tps....epicWR


----------



## Endgame (Aug 2, 2012)

That would probably be at the expense of his lookahead


----------



## 5BLD (Aug 2, 2012)

Endgame said:


> That would probably be at the expense of his lookahead



Indeed, which is why I want to make smoothness a priority. I am making turn speed a slow progression.


----------



## Escher (Aug 2, 2012)

5BLD said:


> Indeed, which is why I want to make smoothness a priority. I am making turn speed a slow progression.



Good. Consistency is key - and in a sense you guarantee yourself future improvement independent of your progression in other areas of solving.


----------



## Robert-Y (Aug 4, 2012)

[U' R U x U R2 U', l]

"Pure" OLL parity alg for 3 coloured 4x4x4


----------



## cubecraze1 (Aug 4, 2012)

Do people apply random 3x3 methods to 4x4? I was trying it today and it was quite fun. Obviously not efficient but still fun to do.


----------



## nqwe (Aug 4, 2012)

Roux on 4x4 is the best


----------



## qqwref (Aug 4, 2012)

4x4x4 or 5x5x5: [l2 U2 l2 r U2 r']2


----------



## cubecraze1 (Aug 4, 2012)

nqwe said:


> Roux on 4x4 is the best



eww Roux 4x4 i tried that one and it took for ever.


----------



## ben1996123 (Aug 4, 2012)

qqwref said:


> 4x4x4 or 5x5x5: [l2 U2 l2 r U2 r']2



[l', U2 r U2 r' U2]


----------



## vcuber13 (Aug 5, 2012)

cubecraze1 said:


> eww Roux 4x4 i tried that one and it took for ever.



you probably don't know what your doing then.


----------



## cubecraze1 (Aug 5, 2012)

vcuber13 said:


> you probably don't know what your doing then.



No not really the point wasn't really to go fast though it was to have fun. I never looked up a tutorial or anything.


----------



## bobthegiraffemonkey (Aug 5, 2012)

This came up in a couple of solves recently, and it made me wonder.
I finished F2L, and recognised OLL. It was easy to recognise which CLL case it would be, and I noticed this after I started the OLL alg, which happens to be the only alg I use for that OLL, that I would get a CPLL skip. After finishing the alg, LL was solved. Did I get a PLL skip or an EPLL skip?


Spoiler



"Try learning some more OLLCP" isn't the answer I'm looking for, just in case anyone wanted to point that out


----------



## aznanimedude (Aug 5, 2012)

EPLL is just a subset of PLL anyway so i'd just call it PLL skip


----------



## Robert-Y (Aug 5, 2012)

Anticipated CPLL skip, EPLL skip?


----------



## vcuber13 (Aug 5, 2012)

aznanimedude said:


> EPLL is just a subset of PLL anyway so i'd just call it PLL skip



as would i


----------



## evogler (Aug 5, 2012)

Another programming question: Has anyone tried to write a program that approaches solving a cross the way a human being would approach it?


----------



## 5BLD (Aug 5, 2012)

cubecraze1 said:


> No not really the point wasn't really to go fast though it was to have fun. I never looked up a tutorial or anything.



Rawr.
I used to use it and avged like 1:20 (fast for me at the time)
Now I pair *most* of the edges before LSE. Gotten some sub-1s with it (fast for me at the time, i havent touched 4x4 for months).
It's not awfully awful.


----------



## cubecraze1 (Aug 5, 2012)

I found it that the harder i made it the more fun it would be. So, I solved the block on the right/left did corners then i solved the rest of the centres then using 5x5 parity algs solved the other edges.

Edit: after the edges were all paired up I just did lse normally.


----------



## 5BLD (Aug 5, 2012)

I used to do something like K4LL for LSE after solving centres
Or id pair two edges, solve centres, then do K4L4E


----------



## cubecraze1 (Aug 5, 2012)

yeah but i don't know k4ll, i only know the first 3 layers. So i just solve the last edges with 5x5 parity. If i knew k4ll then i would do that though.


----------



## vcuber13 (Aug 5, 2012)

5BLD said:


> I used to do something like K4LL for LSE after solving centres
> Or id pair two edges, solve centres, then do K4L4E





cubecraze1 said:


> yeah but i don't know k4ll, i only know the first 3 layers. So i just solve the last edges with 5x5 parity. If i knew k4ll then i would do that though.


ELL*


----------



## 5BLD (Aug 5, 2012)

Not necessarily ELL, hence I said solve two edges (a pair) not necessarily DFDB.


----------



## bluecloe45 (Aug 5, 2012)

5BLD said:


> Indeed, which is why I want to make smoothness a priority. I am making turn speed a slow progression.



Make slow turning the new thing!
Also how does it feel to be the fastest cuber in the world?


----------



## 5BLD (Aug 5, 2012)

bluecloe45 said:


> Make slow turning the new thing!
> Also how does it feel to be the *fastest cuber in the world?*



I'm feeling Feliks' Fanboys running furiously towards you... I don't know if I'm the fastest tbh. I have the fastest avg100 sure but...

Eh, well it feels nice to be fast- I don't exactly feel like a champion, but it makes me excited to see whether I can break any records at my next comp.

It doesnt feel like I am one of the fastest though. Although I've had a very fast avg100 it doesn't feel like I am fast- it feels it'll need to be done officially.


----------



## Robert-Y (Aug 6, 2012)

Hmm... How does team fewest moves with maybe 10 or 20 minutes total time sound? (Just an unofficial event suggestion)


----------



## emolover (Aug 6, 2012)

Robert-Y said:


> Hmm... How does team fewest moves with maybe 10 or 20 minutes total time sound? (Just an unofficial event suggestion)



If you can talk, that is pretty lame. But if you are prohibited to talk, that sounds like fun.


----------



## applemobile (Aug 9, 2012)

Unifficial event: a random time is generated, The timer is covered and the competitors have to get as close to that time as possible, but not be under it.

I.e scramble is generated along with time, 15.68. Timer is covered up, competitor solves as usual but attempting to get as close to 15.68 seconds as possible without going under it. Why? Because.


----------



## ThomasJE (Aug 9, 2012)

applemobile said:


> Unifficial event: a random time is generated, The timer is covered and the competitors have to get as close to that time as possible, but not be under it.
> 
> I.e scramble is generated along with time, 15.68. Timer is covered up, competitor solves as usual but attempting to get as close to 15.68 seconds as possible without going under it. Why? Because.



Well, if you average a few seconds over that, then you would just go flat out. So giving faster cubers less of an advantage. I'm assuming that bang-on would be 0.00, 17 seconds (using your example of 15.68) would be a time of 17 - 15.68 = 1.32, and a time under 15.68 would be DNF. So, what would the average be? Ao5 would mean you would only be able to have 1 DNF.


----------



## applemobile (Aug 9, 2012)

Yes, the whole idea is that faster cubers don't have an advantage. Most cubers never have a hope in hells chance I winning anything, but something like this would be fun for everyone. Kinda like the Magic, makes people think they are good at something. Yes finishing too soon would be a DNF, but that's the risk you have to take.


----------



## applemobile (Aug 9, 2012)

It also wouldn't have to be ao5, it could be a head to head competition.


----------



## uberCuber (Aug 9, 2012)

evogler said:


> Another programming question: Has anyone tried to write a program that approaches solving a cross *the way a human being would approach it*?



In what way would this be different from any of the move-optimal solvers that already exist? It is really not that difficult to find optimal solutions in regular inspection.


----------



## speedcubingman (Aug 10, 2012)

Justin Bieber gets a 55 sec average: PB!!!
I get a 55 sec average: what is wrong with me?!?!?!
Feliks Zemdegs gets a 55 sec average: *sighs with relief* just a nightmare. 

my lingyun popped today, now i cant find the edge!!!


----------



## Renslay (Aug 10, 2012)

Hm... What kind of cube-pranks do you know? For example, I just found a way how to play a trick on a non-cuber (or not-so-experienced cuber):

Perform this on a solved 4x4: u2 M2 Uw2 M2 U2 M
Cuber: "If you can solve this for me in a few seconds, I pay you a beer!"
Non-cuber: "Yeah, free beer!" (Get the cube) "Wait, what?" (Doing R L R' L2 R etc.)

Another prank (whick I actually use... occasionally... sorry) is the next one:

Cuber: "If I scramble the cube with only ONE move, can you undo it?"
Non-cuber: "Sure!"
Cuber: (Execute R'UR' or a similar fingertrick - it is one move after all... even in its sound) "Your turn."
Non-cuber: (blinks)
Cuber: (Do the inverse with the same speed)


----------



## Noahaha (Aug 10, 2012)

Renslay said:


> Hm... What kind of cube-pranks do you know? For example, I just found a way how to play a trick on a non-cuber (or not-so-experienced cuber):
> 
> Perform this on a solved 4x4: u2 M2 Uw2 M2 U2 M
> Cuber: "If you can solve this for me in a few seconds, I pay you a beer!"
> ...



Swap two adjacent faces.


----------



## 5BLD (Aug 10, 2012)

Renslay said:


> Hm... What kind of cube-pranks do you know? For example, I just found a way how to play a trick on a non-cuber (or not-so-experienced cuber):
> 
> Perform this on a solved 4x4: u2 M2 Uw2 M2 U2 M
> Cuber: "If you can solve this for me in a few seconds, I pay you a beer!"
> ...



Assemble a ball core 4x4 without the sphere on the inside. Leave it on a table at work/school. Make the first person who touches it feel really guilty as you walk in and pretend to be furious.

Also, you can do the same thing with 3x3, with one turn from solved. This even makes noncubers tempted...


----------



## Tao Yu (Aug 10, 2012)

Do R'U2RUR'zR2UR'DR (J perm without the last move)

Put your thumb over the FDR sticker and cover the BRD and BR stickers with your fingers to hide the J perm
I now looks like it needs only one move to be solved lol

I do this all the time lol


----------



## 5BLD (Aug 10, 2012)

Twist a corner then scramble, watch a sexy method user mess up at the very end...


----------



## Julian (Aug 10, 2012)

1. Scramble a sq-1 with / 6,6 / 2,-2.
2. Hand it to them so they see F and R faces (or B and L).
3. Enjoy.


----------



## Renslay (Aug 10, 2012)

Another one, which I used to fell of. :/
Put three Floppy cube on each other, make it look like a 3x3x3. Leave the upper one rotated (like a "U2"), and wait for the cubers. Someone will want to solve it...


----------



## evogler (Aug 10, 2012)

uberCuber said:


> In what way would this be different from any of the move-optimal solvers that already exist? It is really not that difficult to find optimal solutions in regular inspection.



I'm thinking about the process. If I try to describe my own cross-solving, I might describe it as "spotting familiar patterns that I know how to solve efficiently, then looking for how I can involve the remaining pieces to get them solved with a minimum of additional moves, and trying out 1 or 2 or occasionally 3 of these basic approaches". Even if a thorough brute-force search of all possible sequences of moves yields the same solution for the computer, we've gotten there by very different means.

It interests me to try to get a computer to do it more like I do, recognizing patterns and constructing a single solution. More out of curiosity than for any expected practical benefit. I'm curious, for example, how many rules you would need to get it to solve well. I don't really have a sense in myself of how much information my cross-solving process uses, and reconstructing my thought process in software seems like a way to find that out. 

I guess conceivably it could be actually useful for improving at more challenging "intuitive" steps (e.g. xcross). Although I think new cubing ideas are usually not as useful as their inventors would wish.


----------



## 5BLD (Aug 10, 2012)

A good start may be to get it to solve two edges optimally and get it to find optimal inserted moves to solve the other two.


----------



## qqwref (Aug 11, 2012)

Renslay said:


> Perform this on a solved 4x4: u2 M2 Uw2 M2 U2 M


= Uw2 M2 Uw2 M


I remember a cubing prank with a Square-1 I once did. The guy was an experienced solver so he was pretty familiar with his color scheme. So, I swapped the corner caps and the left and right center caps, and then solved it back to the mirrored color scheme. Of course, because of the way I did it, there was nothing wrong with the stickers or anything. Then I just had to wait until he tried to do a speedsolve and got confused


----------



## uberCuber (Aug 11, 2012)

R2' U2' F R2 F' U2' R' U R'

An F2L edge flip that I can actually almost sub-1 <3 <3 <3

Why did I not discover this a long time ago


----------



## Escher (Aug 11, 2012)

uberCuber said:


> R2' U2' F R2 F' U2' R' U R'
> 
> An F2L edge flip that I can actually almost sub-1 <3 <3 <3
> 
> Why did I not discover this a long time ago



It's been on opticubes for years


----------



## uberCuber (Aug 11, 2012)

And that's what I get for not ever really looking at any F2L algs :'(


----------



## evogler (Aug 11, 2012)

5BLD said:


> A good start may be to get it to solve two edges optimally and get it to find optimal inserted moves to solve the other two.


Ya, that sounds reasonable.


----------



## mrpotatoman14 (Aug 12, 2012)

http://www.everbuying.com/product180538.html f*** yeah


----------



## antoineccantin (Aug 12, 2012)

For all those people interested in clock, I've worked hard to make this great video for y'all!






Thanks to this amazing technique, I now have a 9.61 avg12 and 8.58 avg5!

(this video is a response to Womack's how to sub-20)


----------



## bobthegiraffemonkey (Aug 19, 2012)

P = r2' F2 r U2 r U2' x U2 r U2' r' U2 r U2 r2' U2' x'.

F2 U' R U2' (P x) R' 3f (R 3l)
R' U R2 P U2 R2' U' R
R U' R2' U2' P R2 U R'
F' R U R' P U2 R U' R' F
R' U2' P R
2R U2 2R U2 2R' U2 2R U2 2L' U2 2R U2 2R' U2 3r' R2 2r' U2 2R'

When I learned that OLL parity alg recently, I experimented a little. Does anyone think this is a good idea? It could probably be improved a little and feel free to change the algs to ones you prefer which do the same thing, just throwing the concept out there. Idea is for OLL parity: OLL alg to leave one flipped edge, OLL parity + CP, PLL. I reckon I'll use this in conjunction with my 4x4 1LOLL system for some cases.


----------



## qqwref (Aug 22, 2012)

4x4x4, WCA notation:

r U r U r' U' r' U' r U r U' r' U r' U r U2 r'

Unfortunately, I'm still having trouble solving <U,r>...


----------



## Kirjava (Aug 28, 2012)

just wanted to post something, nothing special


----------



## Julian (Sep 4, 2012)

Just realized that shooting to RBD with OP corners (R2 U' R' U' R U R' F' . R U R' U' R' F), which is R F' setup cancelled into Y-perm, is also the standard T-perm wrapped around the "."


----------



## JonnyWhoopes (Sep 5, 2012)

Cubers are freaking obsessed with initialisms and acronyms. The most popular method is an acronym, with initialisms within it. Even our governing body has a sub body with an initialism containing the initialism of the main body within it.


----------



## cubecraze1 (Sep 5, 2012)

any one tried a triathlon sort of thing? MO3 with 3 different methods.
To do this the methods would probably be:
CFOP
Roux
Petrus or ZZ?
Results?


----------



## Ked Ki (Sep 5, 2012)

cubecraze1 said:


> MO3 with 3 different methods.



Kir and 5BLD did better: Sub-20 with 20 methods:
http://www.speedsolving.com/forum/showthread.php?32139-Sub-20-with-20-different-methods
http://www.speedsolving.com/forum/showthread.php?34290-Sub-20-with-20-different-methods


----------



## cubecraze1 (Sep 5, 2012)

Ked Ki said:


> Kir and 5BLD did better: Sub-20 with 20 methods:
> http://www.speedsolving.com/forum/showthread.php?32139-Sub-20-with-20-different-methods
> http://www.speedsolving.com/forum/showthread.php?34290-Sub-20-with-20-different-methods



yeah i've seen that. It's pretty O_O and they would pwn at it


----------



## 5BLD (Sep 5, 2012)

cubecraze1 said:


> any one tried a triathlon sort of thing? MO3 with 3 different methods.
> To do this the methods would probably be:
> CFOP
> Roux
> ...



I've been trying to do a sub-19 with 19 lately. It was a problem i didn't include scrambling in that video. Mo3 could be interesting though.


----------



## cubecraze1 (Sep 5, 2012)

5BLD said:


> I've been trying to do a sub-19 with 19 lately. It was a problem i didn't include scrambling in that video. Mo3 could be interesting though.



sub 3 with 3 methods O_O


----------



## Kirjava (Sep 6, 2012)




----------



## cubecraze1 (Sep 7, 2012)

@Kir what's that? Can't watch it atm using 3G :/


----------



## JasonK (Sep 7, 2012)

cubecraze1 said:


> @Kir what's that? Can't watch it atm using 3G :/



10.09 avg12


----------



## Hunter (Sep 8, 2012)

Oh my win.

http://www.zazzle.com/wtf2l_your_pll_makes_me_loll_cubingweekly_com_tshirt-235311828582199371


----------



## PandaCuber (Sep 8, 2012)

Hunter said:


> Oh my win.
> 
> http://www.zazzle.com/wtf2l_your_pll_makes_me_loll_cubingweekly_com_tshirt-235311828582199371



Punny.


----------



## Kattenvriendin (Sep 8, 2012)

Plain and simple: do not get your index finger stuck in something so it swells up and you have an ET finger without the light. It makes for crappy cubing!

*hopes swelling goes down plenty before next week's cubing event!*


----------



## mdolszak (Sep 9, 2012)

An interesting thing to think about is the future for puzzle hardware (cubes themselves). With amazing cubes like Zhanchis, Guhongs, C-Vs, etc. on the market, will there be a point where it is simply impossible to make cubes (at least 3x3s) any better? 

Let's look at corner cutting. The top cubes on the market right now can cut 45 degrees and reverse cut about 2/3 of a cubie pretty easily. On some cubes, it can cut any misalignment one way or another (regular or reverse). In my opinion, corner cutting is a feature that has pretty much been maxed out.

Even other features like pop and lockup reduction and speed are starting to reach their full potentials. Look at the Zhanchi. It rarely, if ever, pops or locks up, and it's an extremely fast cube.

So what are people's thoughts on the future of cubing hardware? Do you think that there will come a time, in the near future possibly, where cubes become literally "perfect?" What do you think will happen then?

Discuss.


----------



## cubecraze1 (Sep 9, 2012)

A cube that is:
45 degree cutting
45 degree reverse cutting
no pops
no lockups
feel of a 55mm ZhanChi
Speed of a 55mm ZhanChi
Perfect out of the box
Never wears out.

That's about it that would be perfect for me. But I don't think it would ever get this good I think we have pretty good cubes atm so it won't get so much better. But of coarse DaYan may fall at one point to another brand you never know.


----------



## MWilson (Sep 9, 2012)

I'll be impressed when I can cut a 45º M layer with an E. Maybe I would settle for a cube that will snap (lightly) to perfect alignment within 20º on every turn.


----------



## ben1996123 (Sep 9, 2012)

cubecraze1 said:


> 45 degree cutting
> 45 degree reverse cutting



Wouldn't that just cause you to mess up algs more often?


----------



## uberCuber (Sep 9, 2012)

ben1996123 said:


> Wouldn't that just cause you to mess up algs more often?



But when would you actually try to do a 45-degree cut in the middle of a speedsolve? The benefit of a cube being able to cut 45 degrees is that smaller cuts are then very easy/smooth, not so that you can actually cut 45 degrees during solves.


----------



## cubecraze1 (Sep 9, 2012)

ben1996123 said:


> Wouldn't that just cause you to mess up algs more often?



No because I wouldn't use 45 degree reverse cutting in a solve. If someone has inaccurate turning like that then that's just O_O


----------



## Hunter (Sep 11, 2012)

I just got 3 PBs in a row!

2:38.14 on 5x5, then 8:50.19 followed by 8:35.36 on 7x7 in all consecutive solves!!


----------



## amostay2004 (Sep 11, 2012)

What happened to Dan Cohen? Seemed to have vanished from the community lately


----------



## ben1996123 (Sep 11, 2012)

cubecraze1 said:


> No because I wouldn't use 45 degree reverse cutting in a solve. If someone has inaccurate turning like that then that's just O_O



Why would you want 45 degree (reverse) cutting?


----------



## Kirjava (Sep 11, 2012)

amostay2004 said:


> What happened to Dan Cohen? Seemed to have vanished from the community lately



he got broody


----------



## cubecraze1 (Sep 11, 2012)

ben1996123 said:


> Why would you want 45 degree (reverse) cutting?



Something to brag about


----------



## ben1996123 (Sep 16, 2012)

F R' F R2 U' R' U' R U R' F' R U R' U' F'


----------



## PandaCuber (Sep 16, 2012)

Ponies...Dem Stickers...wtf


----------



## ben1996123 (Sep 16, 2012)

PandaCuber said:


> Ponies...Dem Stickers...wtf



my stickers normally get a lot worse than that before I resticker them 



Spoiler: moar ponies


----------



## Stefan (Sep 18, 2012)

Don't know how well-known, but I just discovered this for F2L pair FR:

Setup: R U' R B' R2 B
Solve: B' R2 B R' U R'
The B' with right ring finger pulling *U*BR


----------



## Robert-Y (Sep 18, 2012)

That is amazingly short and useful. I think we should all know this, thanks!


----------



## Cool Frog (Sep 19, 2012)

z U' R U' R' U' R' U' R U R U2

Regripless Clockwise U-perm?

Its the fastest that I can do any of the RU U-perms. 
Opinions? Times? fingertricks?


----------



## uberCuber (Sep 22, 2012)

The one good solve I did get on camera earlier before my phone died:


----------



## qqwref (Sep 22, 2012)

a 4x4 pattern (in SiGN)
U' R U u R2 u' 2B' u R2 u' 2B U' R' U
= U' R U u R2 d' 2R' d R2 d' 2R 3d' L' U
= R' U R r U2 l' 2U' l U2 l' 2U x' R' U' R

Did the last one in 3.35


----------



## emolover (Sep 23, 2012)

On Friday in ceramics my teacher asked me how many moves it took me to solve the cube. 

I found that interesting as I have never been asked that by a noncuber.


----------



## cubecraze1 (Sep 24, 2012)

I was thinking about making a roux tutorial titled "How to solve the Rubik's cube" So then non cubers can learn how to solve the Rubik's cube with roux. I feel that roux being a lower move count it would probably be a good start for non cubers to start their cubing "career". As of learning an "easy" method then a "hard" method you start with a more difficult method so you already have more cubing knowledge by starting with a harder method.

What do you think?


----------



## CJF2L 1 (Sep 24, 2012)

yes definitely


----------



## Tyjet66 (Sep 30, 2012)

Wow, the Shengshou 4x4 V4 is amazing! I just got it today and I am very satisfied with it. Has Shengshou always made this high quality of products?


----------



## ducttapecuber (Oct 1, 2012)

Tyjet66 said:


> Wow, the Shengshou 4x4 V4 is amazing! I just got it today and I am very satisfied with it. Has Shengshou always made this high quality of products?



Please make a review!


----------



## Tyjet66 (Oct 1, 2012)

I wouldn't really know how to review it. I don't have much to compare it to other than the Rubik's 4x4 and we all know how bad that is. Aside from that, I don't want to take it apart to show the internals. All that aside, I've only had it for one day so I don't really have a full opinion on it yet. Also, I'm a 4x4 noob lol.

However, if you like the 4x4 at all, or are thinking about it, GET THIS CUBE!!! 
This is where I got it:
http://www.icubemart.com/apps/webstore/products/show/3308277
It took 5 days to receive, and I'm in Minnesota. After shipping it was 15$, and it was a 15$ well spent.


----------



## StachuK1992 (Oct 1, 2012)

No comment.


----------



## JonnyWhoopes (Oct 1, 2012)

StachuK1992 said:


> No comment.



That gave me a good laugh for the night. Heh.


----------



## qqwref (Oct 1, 2012)

Is it "turn ludicrously fast"?


----------



## Noahaha (Oct 1, 2012)

OMG ROFL


----------



## Stefan (Oct 1, 2012)

Great spoof. Now make a Mike Kotch version. Like "Trainers and cubers hate him. Find out his one weird trick to get on TV".


----------



## Noahaha (Oct 1, 2012)

Or make a Stefan Pochmann version. Like "Cubers hate him. Find out his one weird trick to win every argument."


----------



## Endgame (Oct 1, 2012)

the mods hate him. find out his one weird trick to accumulate a lot of infractions.


----------



## Robert-Y (Oct 1, 2012)

Cubers hate him. Find out his one weird trick to breaking all of the BLD world records.

inb4 people think of the wrong guy


----------



## Escher (Oct 1, 2012)

Robert-Y said:


> inb4 people think of the wrong guy



inb4 most cubers nowadays probably don't even know who you might be referring to


----------



## Endgame (Oct 1, 2012)

lolmátyás


----------



## qqwref (Oct 1, 2012)

Cubers hate him. Find out his one weird trick to stop people from talking about other bigcube brands.


----------



## StachuK1992 (Oct 1, 2012)

Maybe we can put these kinds of "ads" on The Carrot?
http://carrot.cubing.net/


----------



## mrpotatoman14 (Oct 1, 2012)

ducttapecuber said:


> Please make a review!


I can honestly say I can tell no difference at all between V3 and V4.


----------



## ducttapecuber (Oct 1, 2012)

mrpotatoman14 said:


> I can honestly say I can tell no difference at all between V3 and V4.



Is your v3 modded?


----------



## 5BLD (Oct 3, 2012)

[21:07] <Rouxuor> U2rUr'UrU'r'
[21:08] <Rouxuor> why has nobody told me this before??


----------



## mrpotatoman14 (Oct 3, 2012)

ducttapecuber said:


> Is your v3 modded?


No


----------



## ducttapecuber (Oct 3, 2012)

Could you please make a comparison video


----------



## mrpotatoman14 (Oct 3, 2012)

ducttapecuber said:


> Could you please make a comparison video


Quite frankly it's not worth my time.


----------



## qqwref (Oct 4, 2012)

4x4x4 "O" perm

M2 U M2 U M' U2 l2 U2 r2 Uw2 r2 u2 M'


----------



## Tyjet66 (Oct 4, 2012)

qqwref said:


> 4x4x4 "O" perm
> 
> M2 U M2 U M' U2 l2 U2 r2 Uw2 r2 u2 M'



Am I missing something, or does this just kinda scramble the cube?


----------



## qqwref (Oct 4, 2012)

Are you executing M as the middle two layers and l2/r2 as single layer slice turns?


----------



## vcuber13 (Oct 4, 2012)

it works


----------



## Tyjet66 (Oct 4, 2012)

Ahh, got it. Thanks.


----------



## StachuK1992 (Oct 4, 2012)

Woah, qq, that's really nice!


----------



## vcuber13 (Oct 4, 2012)

two years ago today the sq1 single was broke


----------



## mrpotatoman14 (Oct 7, 2012)

http://www.amazon.com/Rock-Solid-Sh...qid=1349564415&sr=8-16&keywords=cube+stickers
cringe


----------



## Julian (Oct 7, 2012)

Bobby d'Angelo brought it to my attention that until last weekend, we both had an official 3x3 average of 12.29, both set in the final round of a competition on May 19, 2012. We both came in third place, and both of our third solves that average were 13.25.


----------



## WBCube (Oct 8, 2012)

mrpotatoman14 said:


> http://www.amazon.com/Rock-Solid-Sh...qid=1349564415&sr=8-16&keywords=cube+stickers
> cringe



I don't get how people don't know that they can just take the cube apart and not destroy the stickers


----------



## bobthegiraffemonkey (Oct 8, 2012)

l U' R' U R l' r' U2 R2 U R' U' R' U2 3r U R U' 3r' 2R2 x' U' R U l'
Centre safe . More seriously in the same vein:
F2 r2' U 3l' R' U2 R2 U R' U' R' U2 3r U R U' 3r' 3l U' r2' F2
I might actually even use this.


----------



## Kirjava (Oct 11, 2012)

1. 9.62 F2 L D2 U2 B2 F2 R2 B2 L' U2 L' U' R2 B L D' F L R2 B2 D'
2. 8.94 F R2 F2 R2 F' L2 B U2 B' D' F2 L R B U2 B2 L2 D' B' R
3. 8.93 D F2 U B2 R2 U' B2 D2 F2 L2 F2 R' U F' U2 R F L D F' U'
4. (9.89) D2 F' L' F2 B2 D B' D' F' B2 U2 F2 R U2 L U2 B2 R' L F2
5. (8.28) F U2 F U2 L2 R2 U2 F U2 L2 F2 U' B U' L U B' L2 F R U2


Spoiler: Reconstructions






Spoiler: Video



[youtubewide]9G7GwpzI3tk[/youtubewide]





Spoiler: 1st solve



F2 L D2 U2 B2 F2 R2 B2 L' U2 L' U' R2 B L D' F L R2 B2 D'

y' x' // inspection
M' U r' y // LF block
R' U2' F' // LB pair
U' r2 M U M' r U R' U' R2 U // RF block
R U' R // RB pair
U2' R U R' U R U L' U R' U' L // CMLL
U M' U M' U M U' M' // EO
U' M2' U M U2 M' U' // UL/UR
M' U2 M U2 // EP
View at alg.garron.us

```
[B]Step	Time	STM	stps	ETM	etps[/B]
[COLOR="red"]Total	9.62	51	5.30	58	6.03	[/COLOR]	[B][SIZE="4"]%[/SIZE]
							Step		Time	STM	ETM[/B]
Lblock	1.32	6	4.55	8	6.06		Lblock/F2B	26.5%	30.0%	32.0%
Rblock	3.67	14	3.81	17	4.63		Rblock/F2B	73.5%	70.0%	68.0%
[COLOR="blue"]F2B	4.99	20	4.01	25	5.01	[/COLOR]	[COLOR="blue"]F2B/Total	51.9%	39.2%	43.1%[/COLOR]

CMLL	1.79	12	6.70	13	7.26		CMLL/Total	18.6%	23.5%	22.4%
[COLOR="blue"]LSE	2.84	19	6.69	20	7.04	[/COLOR]	[COLOR="blue"]LSE/Total	29.5%	37.3%	34.5%[/COLOR]
L10P	4.63	31	6.70	33	7.13		L10P/Total	48.1%	60.8%	56.9%
```



Spoiler: View as executed



F2 L D2 U2 B2 F2 R2 B2 L' U2 L' U' R2 B L D' F L R2 B2 D'

y' x' // inspection
M' U r' y // LF block
R' U' U' F' // LB pair
U' r2 r' R U R' R M' r U R' U' R2 U // RF block
R U' R // RB pair
U' U' R U R' U R U L' U R' U' L // CMLL
U M' U M' U r' R U' M' // EO
U' M2' U M U2 M' U' // UL/UR
M' U2 M U2 // EP
View at alg.garron.us








Spoiler: 2nd solve



F R2 F2 R2 F' L2 B U2 B' D' F2 L R B U2 B2 L2 D' B' R

y2 // inspection
U M' U y' L U x2' // LB block
U' R U R' F // LF pair
r U R U R // RF block
U' r U' R' // RB pair
U2 F R U' R' U R U R' U R U' R' F' // CMLL
U M' U' M' // EO
U2 M' U2 M U' M2' U // UL/UR
U2 M' U2 M' // EP
View at alg.garron.us

```
[B]Step	Time	STM	stps	ETM	etps[/B]
[COLOR="red"]Total	8.94	48	5.37	52	5.82	[/COLOR]	[B][SIZE="4"]%[/SIZE]
							Step		Time	STM	ETM[/B]
Lblock	2.30	10	4.35	12	5.22		Lblock/F2B	54.8%	52.6%	57.1%
Rblock	1.90	9	4.74	9	4.74		Rblock/F2B	45.2%	47.4%	42.9%
[COLOR="blue"]F2B	4.20	19	4.52	21	5.00	[/COLOR]	[COLOR="blue"]F2B/Total	47.0%	39.6%	40.4%[/COLOR]

CMLL	2.10	14	6.67	15	7.14		CMLL/Total	23.5%	29.2%	28.8%
[COLOR="blue"]LSE	2.64	15	5.68	16	6.06	[/COLOR]	[COLOR="blue"]LSE/Total	29.5%	31.3%	30.8%[/COLOR]
L10P	4.74	29	6.12	31	6.54		L10P/Total	53.0%	60.4%	59.6%
```



Spoiler: View as executed



F R2 F2 R2 F' L2 B U2 B' D' F2 L R B U2 B2 L2 D' B' R

y2 // inspection
U M' U y' L U x2' // LB block
U' R U R' F // LF pair
r U R U R // RF block
U' r U' R' // RB pair
U U F R U' R' U R U R' U R U' R' F' // CMLL
U M' U' M' // EO
U U M' U2 M U' M2' U // UL/UR
U2 M' U2 M' // EP
View at alg.garron.us








Spoiler: 3rd solve



D F2 U B2 R2 U' B2 D2 F2 L2 F2 R' U F' U2 R F L D F' U'

z // inspection
r U r U x // LB block
F' // LF pair
U' r2 U' M' U R U' R' U R' U' R // RF block
M2' U2 R U2' R' U r // RB pair
R U2 R' U' R U' R' // CMLL
M' U M' U' M U M' // EO
M2' U' M U2 M' U' // UL/UR
U2 M' U2 M // EP
View at alg.garron.us

```
[B]Step	Time	STM	stps	ETM	etps[/B]
[COLOR="red"]Total	8.93	48	5.38	52	5.82	[/COLOR]	[B][SIZE="4"]%[/SIZE]
							Step		Time	STM	ETM[/B]
Lblock	1.20	5	4.17	6	5.00		Lblock/F2B	25.1%	20.8%	21.4%
Rblock	3.58	19	5.31	22	6.15		Rblock/F2B	74.9%	79.2%	78.6%
[COLOR="blue"]F2B	4.78	24	5.02	28	5.86	[/COLOR]	[COLOR="blue"]F2B/Total	53.5%	50.0%	53.8%[/COLOR]

CMLL	1.58	7	4.43	7	4.43		CMLL/Total	17.7%	14.6%	13.5%
[COLOR="blue"]LSE	2.57	17	6.61	17	6.61	[/COLOR]	[COLOR="blue"]LSE/Total	28.8%	35.4%	32.7%[/COLOR]
L10P	4.15	24	5.78	24	5.78		L10P/Total	46.5%	50.0%	46.2%
```



Spoiler: View as executed



D F2 U B2 R2 U' B2 D2 F2 L2 F2 R' U F' U2 R F L D F' U'

z // inspection
r U r U x // LB block
F' // LF pair
U' r2 U' M' U R U' R' U R' U' R // RF block
M' M' U U R U' U' R' U r // RB pair
R U2 R' U' R U' R' // CMLL
M' U M' U' M U M' // EO
M2' U' M U2 M' U' // UL/UR
U2 M' U2 M // EP
View at alg.garron.us








Spoiler: 4th solve



D2 F' L' F2 B2 D B' D' F' B2 U2 F2 R U2 L U2 B2 R' L F2

x' y // inspection
r2 B // LB block
r' F' // LF pair
U' r' U' r U r U R' U' R U' R' U R2 // RF block
U R' M' U' r // RB pair
R' U' R U' R' U2' R2 U R' U R U2' R' // CMLL
U' M U M' U' M U M' // EO
U2 M' U2 M U M2' U // UL/UR
M U2 M' U2 // EP
View at alg.garron.us

```
[B]Step	Time	STM	stps	ETM	etps[/B]
[COLOR="red"]Total	9.89	57	5.76	61	6.17	[/COLOR]	[B][SIZE="4"]%[/SIZE]
							Step		Time	STM	ETM[/B]
Lblock	0.83	4	4.82	4	4.82		Lblock/F2B	19.3%	17.4%	17.4%
Rblock	3.46	19	5.49	19	5.49		Rblock/F2B	80.7%	82.6%	82.6%
[COLOR="blue"]F2B	4.29	23	5.36	23	5.36	[/COLOR]	[COLOR="blue"]F2B/Total	43.4%	40.4%	37.7%[/COLOR]

CMLL	2.37	15	6.33	17	7.17		CMLL/Total	24.0%	26.3%	27.9%
[COLOR="blue"]LSE	3.23	19	5.88	21	6.50	[/COLOR]	[COLOR="blue"]LSE/Total	32.7%	33.3%	34.4%[/COLOR]
L10P	5.60	34	6.07	38	6.79		L10P/Total	56.6%	59.6%	62.3%
```



Spoiler: View as executed



D2 F' L' F2 B2 D B' D' F' B2 U2 F2 R U2 L U2 B2 R' L F2

x' y // inspection
r2 B // LB block
r' F' // LF pair
U' r' U' r U r U R' U' R U' R' U R // RF block
R U R' M' U' r // RB pair
U' U R' U' R U' R' U' U' R2 U R' U R U' U' R' // CMLL
U' R r' U M' U' R r' U M' // EO
U2 M' U2 M U M2' U // UL/UR
M U2 M' U2 // EP
View at alg.garron.us





Spoiler: Bonus



D2 F' L' F2 B2 D B' D' F' B2 U2 F2 R U2 L U2 B2 R' L F2

z' M2 U' y x2
U r M' U R
U R U R' U' R U R'
U R U2 R' U' R U R' U' R U R' U' R U' R'
U M U' M' U2 M' U M U'
M U2 M U2
View at alg.garron.us








Spoiler: 5th solve



F U2 F U2 L2 R2 U2 F U2 L2 F2 U' B U' L U B' L2 F R U2

y' x' // inspection
U' r U r' U' (y x2) // LB block
U (r L) F' // LF pair
U' r U r U R U R' U R U' R' // RF block
R' U' R U R' U' R // RB pair
U' F R U' R' U R U R' F' // CMLL
U' M' U M' U2 M' U' M' // EO
U M U2 M' U M2' // EP
View at alg.garron.us

```
[B]Step	Time	STM	stps	ETM	etps[/B]
[COLOR="red"]Total	8.28	51	6.16	52	6.28	[/COLOR]	[B][SIZE="4"]%[/SIZE]
							Step		Time	STM	ETM[/B]
Lblock	1.67	8	4.79	9	5.39		Lblock/F2B	38.0%	29.6%	32.1%
Rblock	2.72	19	6.99	19	6.99		Rblock/F2B	62.0%	70.4%	67.9%
[COLOR="blue"]F2B	4.39	27	6.15	28	6.38	[/COLOR]	[COLOR="blue"]F2B/Total	53.0%	52.9%	53.8%[/COLOR]

CMLL	1.53	10	6.54	10	6.54		CMLL/Total	18.5%	19.6%	19.2%
[COLOR="blue"]LSE	2.36	14	5.93	14	5.93	[/COLOR]	[COLOR="blue"]LSE/Total	28.5%	27.5%	26.9%[/COLOR]
L10P	3.89	24	6.17	24	6.17		L10P/Total	47.0%	47.1%	46.2%
```



Spoiler: View as executed



F U2 F U2 L2 R2 U2 F U2 L2 F2 U' B U' L U B' L2 F R U2

y' x' // inspection
U' r U r' U' (y x2) // LB block
U (r L) F' // LF pair
U' r U r U R U R' U R U' R' // RF block
R' U' R U R' U' R // RB pair
U' F R U' R' U R U R' F' // CMLL
U' M' U M' U2 M' U' M' // EO
U M U2 M' U M2' // EP
View at alg.garron.us








Spoiler: Statistics





```
Average (removing fastest and slowest solve)
			
[B]Step	Time	STM	stps	ETM	etps[/B]
[COLOR="red"]Total	9.16	49.00	5.35	54.00	5.89	[/COLOR]	[B][SIZE="4"]%[/SIZE]
							Step		Time	STM	ETM[/B]
Lblock	1.61	7.00	4.36	8.67	5.39		Lblock/F2B	34.5%	33.3%	35.1%
Rblock	3.05	14.00	4.59	16.00	5.25		Rblock/F2B	65.5%	66.7%	64.9%
[COLOR="blue"]F2B	4.66	21.00	4.51	24.67	5.30	[/COLOR]	[COLOR="blue"]F2B/Total	50.8%	42.9%	45.7%[/COLOR]

CMLL	1.82	11.00	6.03	11.67	6.40		CMLL/Total	19.9%	22.4%	21.6%
[COLOR="blue"]LSE	2.68	17.00	6.34	17.00	6.34	[/COLOR]	[COLOR="blue"]LSE/Total	29.3%	34.7%	31.5%[/COLOR]
L10P	4.51	28.00	6.21	29.33	6.51		L10P/Total	49.2%	57.1%	54.3%
```


```
Mean (5/5)
									
[B]Step	Time	STM	stps	ETM	etps[/B]
[COLOR="red"]Total	9.13	51.00	5.58	55.00	6.02	[/COLOR]	[B][SIZE="4"]%[/SIZE]
							Step		Time	STM	ETM[/B]
Lblock	1.46	6.60	4.51	7.80	5.33		Lblock/F2B	32.3%	29.2%	31.2%
Rblock	3.07	16.00	5.22	17.20	5.61		Rblock/F2B	67.7%	70.8%	68.8%
[COLOR="blue"]F2B	4.53	22.60	4.99	25.00	5.52	[/COLOR]	[COLOR="blue"]F2B/Total	49.6%	44.3%	45.5%[/COLOR]

CMLL	1.87	11.60	6.19	12.40	6.62		CMLL/Total	20.5%	22.7%	22.5%
[COLOR="blue"]LSE	2.73	16.80	6.16	17.60	6.45	[/COLOR]	[COLOR="blue"]LSE/Total	29.9%	32.9%	32.0%[/COLOR]
L10P	4.60	28.40	6.17	30.00	6.52		L10P/Total	50.4%	55.7%	54.5%
```


```
Best from each field
								
[B]Step	Time	STM	stps	ETM	etps[/B]
[COLOR="red"]Total	8.28	48	6.16	52	6.28[/COLOR]
				
Lblock	0.83	4	4.82	4	6.06
Rblock	1.90	9	6.99	9	6.99
[COLOR="blue"]F2B	4.20	19	6.15	21	6.38[/COLOR]
			
CMLL	1.53	7	6.70	7	7.26
[COLOR="blue"]LSE	2.36	14	6.69	14	7.04[/COLOR]					
L10P	3.89	24	6.70	24	7.13
```


----------



## Escher (Oct 11, 2012)

Kirfast <3
Go go sub 10 in comp.


----------



## Kirjava (Oct 11, 2012)

am trying to get sub10 avg12 on video. did 9.91, but one of the solves was a +2 

reading the recons, I've noticed that I almost never do M or M' as two moves anymore


----------



## skittlez350 (Oct 12, 2012)

This was probably found out before, but I wanted to share my findings. A lot of cubers hate that springy sound/feeling they get in some cubes, and my mf8 v2 megaminx had that feeling on the red side. I took apart the whole thing to lube and tension, and when I was tensioning the red side, I mistakenly pulled out the screw, and I think I found out where the springy noise comes from. One of the washers on the screw were broken, not completely, but they were pretty....lets say chipped. I think that's where the weird noise/feeling comes from.


----------



## qqwref (Oct 12, 2012)

Which of these 4x4 algs is less dumb?

(R' U R U' R') (M2 U M2 U M' U2 l2 U2 r2 Uw2 r2 u2) (l'Rw U R' U' R)
(M2 U M' U2 M U) (l2 U2 r2 Uw2 r2 u2)


----------



## uberCuber (Oct 12, 2012)

qqwref said:


> Which of these 4x4 algs is less dumb?
> 
> (R' U R U' R') (M2 U M2 U M' U2 l2 U2 r2 Uw2 r2 u2) (l'Rw U R' U' R)
> (M2 U M' U2 M U) (l2 U2 r2 Uw2 r2 u2)



I'm gonna go with the one that's 10 moves shorter

EDIT: Wow, I really like this. Thank you for the alg!


----------



## Kattenvriendin (Oct 12, 2012)

skittlez350 said:


> This was probably found out before, but I wanted to share my findings. A lot of cubers hate that springy sound/feeling they get in some cubes, and my mf8 v2 megaminx had that feeling on the red side. I took apart the whole thing to lube and tension, and when I was tensioning the red side, I mistakenly pulled out the screw, and I think I found out where the springy noise comes from. One of the washers on the screw were broken, not completely, but they were pretty....lets say chipped. I think that's where the weird noise/feeling comes from.


Pretty much every cube I have gotten in has had this. From 3x3s to megaminxes to 6x6 to you name it, I would not be amazed if the 11x11 I have coming in has it. I have yet to encounter a cube that does not have it. I always take them apart to the core and lube and tension things.

Just yesterday a ShengShou 3x3 for a friend, and yep, that had it. No washers in there mind you, so the tingting came from the spring jumping on the screw there. And what do you know.. the one that tingtinged the most? The spring was in the centerpiece upside down. Pre assembled, ok, but I always check things to make sure they are assembled OK to begin with.


----------



## Cubenovice (Oct 12, 2012)

Kattenvriendin said:


> The spring was in the centerpiece upside down. Pre assembled, ok, but I always check things to make sure they are assembled OK to begin with.



Just how would a spring be upside down? 
Typically springs are symmetrical.


----------



## Kattenvriendin (Oct 12, 2012)

The shengshou spring in that 3x3 is asymmetrical. Narrow up top, wider on bottom.


----------



## Owen (Oct 13, 2012)

Remember this thread, and how everyone dismissed the OP? I think the cube turned out to legitimately lived up to it's hype.


----------



## JonnyWhoopes (Oct 14, 2012)

Owen said:


> Remember this thread, and how everyone dismissed the OP? I think the cube turned out to legitimately lived up to it's hype.



I agree. The GuHong completely changed 3x3 hardware as it was known at the time, and I'd _almost_ say it changed cubing style overall.


----------



## Jaycee (Oct 14, 2012)

Owen said:


> Remember this thread, and how everyone dismissed the OP? I think the cube turned out to legitimately lived up to it's hype.



OP was kind of a jerk about it (if that's possible). He was like "I'll rub it in your face!" "It's the best cube evar!"

Also, reading these posts made me lol (because of how things are now) :


Akuma said:


> Nothing beats the YJ 3x3 as fasr as corner cutting goes. I have yet to see a single cube be more smooth or cut corners better than YJs.





Parity said:


> I think this cube is rushed ... and it looks like crap.


----------



## ben1996123 (Oct 14, 2012)

R U2 R' U2 R' F R U R U' R2 F' R U R U' R'


----------



## StachuK1992 (Oct 14, 2012)

That's a really nice alg! How'd you find it?


----------



## ben1996123 (Oct 14, 2012)

Doing random turns on a 2x2, I see if I can find an alg thats easy to do that doesn't do anything. Then I did it on a 3x3 and it was almost an ELL alg so I just added a move at the beginning and end.


----------



## Cool Frog (Oct 14, 2012)

ben1996123 said:


> R U2 R' U2 R' F R U R U' R2 F' R U R U' R'





StachuK1992 said:


> That's a really nice alg! How'd you find it?



Two OLLCP's from my perspective
R U2 R' U2 R' F R F'
F U R U' R2 F' R U R U' R' (Which in itself is two OLLCP's) 


Spoiler



inverse of sexy sledge fruruf
F U R U' R' F' 
F R' F' R U R U' R'


----------



## Endgame (Oct 14, 2012)

Cubenovice said:


> Just how would a spring be upside down?
> Typically springs are symmetrical.



Grab a Dayan cube and flip a spring. there's your asymmetry



Kattenvriendin said:


> Just yesterday a ShengShou 3x3 for a friend,



I still haven't gotten my stuff and I'm ****ing pissed about it lol


----------



## mrpotatoman14 (Oct 16, 2012)

Wtf I just had my fifth OLL skip of the day.

EDIT: 6, this one was winter variation though.


----------



## F perm (Oct 20, 2012)

Feliks Zemdegs, faster human cuber
Felix Baumgartner, fastest human free faller
I'd have to collect more data for a solid conclusion, but for now I will tentatively say that Felix/Feliks is a fast name 

EDIT: Just noticed both are Australian too... and the plot thickens.
EDIT2: Never mind, Felix is *Austrian*. Whatever, I'm dumb


----------



## JasonK (Oct 20, 2012)

Baumgartner is *Austrian*, not Australian


----------



## qqwref (Oct 20, 2012)

F perm said:


> Feliks Zemdegs, faster human cuber
> Felix Baumgartner, fastest human free faller
> I'd have to collect more data for a solid conclusion, but for now I will tentatively say that Felix/Feliks is a fast name
> 
> ...


Back in the day we used to say that to be fast required an M in your name. There were surprisingly many examples. Of course, our friend zeMdegs fits the pattern perfectly.


----------



## F perm (Oct 20, 2012)

What were some examples? Other than Zemdegs, ofc.


----------



## uberCuber (Oct 20, 2012)

Me, ofc


----------



## cubernya (Oct 20, 2012)

Don't forget Felix Lee!


----------



## Robert-Y (Oct 20, 2012)

Sébastien Felix

Although I never found any evidence to back up his unofficial times...


----------



## Julian (Oct 20, 2012)

http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/11s378/i_am_dan_brown_aka_pogobat_on_youtube_i_probably/


----------



## qqwref (Oct 20, 2012)

F perm said:


> What were some examples? Other than Zemdegs, ofc.


Milan Baticz, Mate Horvath, Frank Morris, Shotaro Makisumi, Toby Mao, Tyson Mao, Minh Thai, Matyas Kuti, Edouard Chambon, Ron van Bruchem, Yumu Tabuchi, Mitsuki Gunji, Stefan Pochmann, Clement Gallet, Michael Fung, Yu Jeong-Min, Yu Nakajima, Matt Walter, Jason Baum, and maybe others.


----------



## Mikel (Oct 20, 2012)

qqwref said:


> Milan Baticz, Mate Horvath, Frank Morris, Shotaro Makisumi, Toby Mao, Tyson Mao, Minh Thai, Matyas Kuti, Edouard Chambon, Ron van Bruchem, Yumu Tabuchi, Mitsuki Gunji, Stefan Pochmann, Clement Gallet, Michael Fung, Yu Jeong-Min, Yu Nakajima, Matt Walter, Jason Baum, and maybe others.


You forgot to include yourself!


----------



## ottozing (Oct 20, 2012)

No M in Rowe Hessler : O


----------



## qqwref (Oct 20, 2012)

Mikel said:


> You forgot to include yourself!


I don't like to brag


----------



## bobthegiraffemonkey (Oct 20, 2012)

ottozing said:


> No M in Rowe Hessler : O


There is if you read it upside-down ...


----------



## qqwref (Oct 21, 2012)

Some little algs for 4x4 LBL.
Rw U Rw' U' Rw' F Rw F'
Rw U Rw' u Rw U' Rw' Uw'
Rw U' Lw' U Rw' U' Lw
Rw U Rw' U Rw U2 Rw'


----------



## Escher (Oct 21, 2012)

bobthegiraffemonkey said:


> There is if you read it upside-down ...



Maybe I can be in the club too then :3


----------



## qqwref (Oct 21, 2012)

If you guys couldn't tell by my list of names, the M thing was noticed many years ago ;D


----------



## amostay2004 (Oct 21, 2012)

No M in Erik Akkersdijk


----------



## 5BLD (Oct 21, 2012)

There is an M if you turn it 90 deg crockweisse


----------



## waffle=ijm (Oct 21, 2012)

5bld need to change name alex mau


----------



## qqwref (Oct 21, 2012)

Another weird 4x4 thing. Yes, these are all slice turns.
u' r2 u r b r2 b' r' u' r2 u' r2 u2


----------



## blade740 (Oct 22, 2012)

22:00 < eido_> scramble: (-5, 0)/(-4, 5)/(0, -3)/(-5, -2)/(-1, -4)/(0, -5)/(0, -3)/(-3, -3)/(0, -3)/(-2, 0)
22:00 < eido_> reconstruction: (z2) 0,-3/0,3/-1,5/0,3/1,4/-1,2/0,3/6,6/-2,1/2,2/0,-3/-3,-5
22:00 < eido_> 7.96 
22:01 < eido_> that was a seriously magic sq1 solve... cubeshape skip, one look orientation, one look permutation


----------



## Hunter (Oct 25, 2012)

It would be cool to have a cuber make a "3x3 Style" or "Cubing Style" parody of Gangnam style.


----------



## tim (Oct 25, 2012)

Hunter said:


> It would be cool to have a cuber make a "3x3 Style" or "Cubing Style" parody of Gangnam style.



Not exactly a parody, but it's a start: http://9gag.com/gag/5661377


----------



## Hunter (Oct 25, 2012)

That is pretty awesome.


----------



## applemobile (Oct 25, 2012)

You know, i think this forum needs a 'showboating' thread. Or even a competition of the same style. I.e a ''Zomg sub 20/15/10 is so easy,'' a place where you can post video's of your self showing off whilst achieving times that other people struggle to do. For instance one could get a sub 20 single with the slowest possible TPS, or perhaps spin around whilst getting sub 10, or whilst drinking a refreshing glass of milk, or eating some delicious cheese pizza, or driving some form of motorized vehicle, or whilst riding a camel, or upside down, or a sub 1.00 3bld whilst being waterboarded, or Multiblind in a room full of people shouting out random algs and targets. I don't know, think about it yourself. 

I'm sure the fast cubers on here must get bored of telling people how to get sub 30, and is about time they had some fun and showed off their talent. It also could be used by the people who are stuggling to have a look, and realise what really is achievable.


----------



## A Leman (Oct 25, 2012)

applemobile said:


> You know, i think this forum needs a 'showboating' thread. Or even a competition of the same style. I.e a ''Zomg sub 20/15/10 is so easy,'' a place where you can post video's of your self showing off whilst achieving times that other people struggle to do. For instance one could get a sub 20 single with the slowest possible TPS, or perhaps spin around whilst getting sub 10, or whilst drinking a refreshing glass of milk, or eating some delicious cheese pizza, or driving some form of motorized vehicle, or whilst riding a camel, or upside down, or a sub 1.00 3bld whilst being waterboarded, or Multiblind in a room full of people shouting out random algs and targets. I don't know, think about it yourself.
> 
> I'm sure the fast cubers on here must get bored of telling people how to get sub 30, and is about time they had some fun and showed off their talent. It also could be used by the people who are stuggling to have a look, and realise what really is achievable.



Or solving a cube OH while chuging beer in 16 seconds. I bumped into rowe doing this on youtube here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o-22lMEGLwA&list=UUn6_mDIXk0iLCJFtRNdeALQ&index=1&feature=plcp


----------



## bobthegiraffemonkey (Oct 25, 2012)

applemobile;793993For instance one could get a sub 20 single with the slowest possible TPS[/QUOTE said:


> I'm thinking something like FMC with a very small time limit? One minute limit linear FMC would be interesting. I'd like to see what, if anything, comes from your post (sadly I can't do anything personally since I'm too slow).


----------



## 5BLD (Oct 25, 2012)

Applemobile, i think that'd be a great fun idea. I wouldn't get involved much though as i think us being able to solve cubes this fast is already impressive... Who knows maybe ill think of something.

I like the whole approaching the frowned-upon showing off thing thing.


----------



## applemobile (Oct 25, 2012)

People do shun people showboating, but if there was a place for it i can't see what everyone deal is. Lets face it, if you could do backflip before stopping the timer in a competition and know you would still win, you would do it? Right? sub 15 Triangular Francisco?


----------



## 5BLD (Oct 25, 2012)

Me? Nope. I'd want to get the best time i could possibly get 
If i got WR somehow in a first round then for second round if i could sub15 triangular francisco then maybe I'd think of doing i

Cubing in public though perhaps I'd juggle three flame torches in one hand while tap dancing and solvig with one hand with table abuse, if I could. Showing off is really taboo but a thread dedicated to it _could_ work out well...


----------



## WBCube (Oct 26, 2012)

Fastest foot solve with Huge snow boots on


----------



## vcuber13 (Oct 26, 2012)

WBCube said:


> Fastest foot solve with Huge snow boots on



is that a question?


----------



## JasonK (Oct 26, 2012)

vcuber13 said:


> is that a question?



I think he's referring to the discussion about a showboating thread.


----------



## evogler (Oct 26, 2012)

Has anyone had noteworthy (good or bad) results from practicing with jarcs?


----------



## 5BLD (Oct 26, 2012)

Yup, the first blocks are almost impossible to see by hand


----------



## ducttapecuber (Oct 28, 2012)

I decided to post this video discussing the Dayan Guhong. I know that there are a few factual errors but I corrected that in the description which is:


> Description:
> This is my little talk about the DaYan GuHong. They are my favorite cube and so here I talk about them for 7 minutes.
> I hope that you liked this video and if you want to see more please comment down below.
> Factual Corrections:
> ...



Check out some more videos on my channel if you would like (link in my signature)


----------



## nqwe (Oct 28, 2012)

ducttapecuber said:


> Mini Zhanchi's are the "newest" Dayan cube, however the newest mechanism is the GuHong v2



I thought they had improved the internals of the minis?


----------



## ducttapecuber (Oct 28, 2012)

nqwe said:


> I thought they had improved the internals of the minis?



No the internals are the same just smaller. The center pieces are slightly different however, but are pretty much the same as the regular 57mm zhanchi


----------



## musicninja17 (Oct 29, 2012)

evogler said:


> Has anyone had noteworthy (good or bad) results from practicing with jarcs?



What are jarcs?


----------



## F perm (Oct 29, 2012)

Jarcs is just another rubiks cube solver. It's an online solver that can also do cool stuff like find optimal crosses, eolines, 1x2x3's and 2x2x2's blocks.
Link


----------



## JasonK (Oct 29, 2012)

musicninja17 said:


> What are jarcs?



Just another Rubik's Cube solver


----------



## Jaycee (Oct 29, 2012)

Ohhhhhhhh, it's an ACRONYM! 

This "Aha!" moment was brought to you by.....


----------



## musicninja17 (Oct 29, 2012)

JasonK said:


> Just another Rubik's Cube solver



Is there anything like this out there that I can grab and rotate the cube in 3d space?


----------



## irontwig (Oct 29, 2012)

musicninja17 said:


> Is there anything like this out there that I can grab and rotate the cube in 3d space?



Apply moves: xyz?


----------



## ducttapecuber (Oct 29, 2012)

I remade this video to fix the factual errors that my previous one had.


----------



## yockee (Oct 29, 2012)

Hahaha, I see my comment from earlier, sparked an adventure for you, today!


----------



## ducttapecuber (Oct 29, 2012)

yockee said:


> Hahaha, I see my comment from earlier, sparked an adventure for you, today!


 haha, yes, at least now there isn't numerous factual errors. (i hope)


----------



## musicninja17 (Nov 6, 2012)

Hey. Anybody have opinions on an MGLS-type almost intuitive alternative to orienting LL while inserting last pair? ...I guess I would say more intuitively forcing OLL skips?

I came up with something yesterday. (lets say your F2L slot is on your FR.) When you get to your fourth pair, connect them but leave them on the U face. Make sure there's an oriented edge next to it, making a 1x2x2 block. (occupying UR, UBL, and UB) You then look at the orientation of the yellow edge stuck in your F2l slot (at FR, whether yellow is facing you or facing right). 
If it's facing you, rotate U so that an oriented edge is on UR. Slice the F2l-slot edge up to that, and then turn U to another misoriented edge and bring that one down into the slot, and repeat. If the rest of the edges are oriented on U, just slice your target edge up top, and bring down your F2l pair.

The thing is, as I've been doing that, I've found some intuitive cases that also orient the corners if you do it right.


Just a rant. Anyone understand what i'm getting at? I'll throw up a video later.


----------



## A Leman (Nov 6, 2012)

I am confused about what to call it now, but look up RLS or RV for Rowe variation. He has a webpage with every OLL skip while inserting the last pair. I know it isn't completly intuitive, but you can get Alot of ideas from his list and can notice parts of OLL's and other algs/insertions that make understanding them easier.

I think it stoped being RLS when RLS was found to also mean Repetitive leg syndrome.(off topic)


----------



## musicninja17 (Nov 7, 2012)

A Leman said:


> I am confused about what to call it now, but look up RLS or RV for Rowe variation. He has a webpage with every OLL skip while inserting the last pair. I know it isn't completly intuitive, but you can get Alot of ideas from his list and can notice parts of OLL's and other algs/insertions that make understanding them easier.
> 
> I think it stoped being RLS when RLS was found to also mean Repetitive leg syndrome.(off topic)



Thank you! I wonder if anybody has an extension that integrates edge orientation as well. Or a subset of connecting last F2L pair and positioning them for WV...


----------



## qqwref (Nov 8, 2012)

A weird 4x4x4 thing: (Rw' F Rw2 U' Rw')6


----------



## ben1996123 (Nov 9, 2012)

qqwref said:


> A weird 4x4x4 thing: (Rw' F Rw2 U' Rw')6



I found this recently:
((Rw' F Rw2 U' Rw2 F Rw)2 x2)2 [y'u2 r2)2 [x' U':[l2 U';r2 U]]]


----------



## evogler (Nov 19, 2012)

Does anyone have experience with planning cross + f2l edge piece orientation during inspection?

EDIT: After 2000 trials, optimal solutions seem to add ~1.7 moves average vs. cross alone. (With fixed cross and fixed orientation). Compared to ~1.54 extra for xcross. For whatever that's worth. (That does make think of another question: Any interesting counterexamples to the idea that goals with similar average optimal move counts would be approximately equally hard to do optimally?)


----------



## Kirjava (Nov 20, 2012)

R2 U R2 F' U F R2 U R'

The 'obvious' 10 mover is pretty cool. (The one that starts z'RUR'U' etc)


----------



## Stefan (Nov 21, 2012)

Kirjava said:


> R2 U R2 F' U F R2 U R'
> 
> The 'obvious' 10 mover is pretty cool. (The one that starts z'RUR'U' etc)



I don't understand, just seems to mess things up.


----------



## kinch2002 (Nov 21, 2012)

I think he means that you should use the pseudo first layer that's on L by doing z' sexysledge then undo pseudo-ness R2 U2
2x2 btw


----------



## Kirjava (Nov 21, 2012)

Yeah. 

The other 10 mover on yellow requires cancellations and a speed-unoptimal alg.


----------



## Stefan (Nov 21, 2012)

kinch2002 said:


> 2x2 btw



:fp

Thanks. Also for explaining the rest, I don't think I would've seen that myself as the sexy move just messed things up.


----------



## qqwref (Nov 21, 2012)

Megaminx, found this by accident XD

(R U R') U2 (R U' R') U2 (R U R') U (R U R') U' (R U' R') U (R U' R') U2


----------



## qqwref (Nov 24, 2012)

Another minx CPLL

x' R' U' R U R' D' R U' R' U D R x

edit: lol it works on 3x3 too XD


----------



## Ollie (Dec 2, 2012)

This has probably been discovered already. If so, sorry. If not, try doing a Ua/Ub-perm replacing the R moves with Rw. So R -> Rw, R' -> Rw', R2 -> Rw2. 

Keep repeating. Every 4 repetitions it does something significant (flips edges and cycles DF -> DR -> UR.)

Not particularly useful, but I thought it was cool. I guess it would be nice to know how it works, I'll have a look when I have some time.

*tumbleweed*


----------



## Kirjava (Dec 14, 2012)

COLL is way more useful in Roux than it is in CFOP


----------



## whauk (Dec 15, 2012)

Ollie said:


> This has probably been discovered already. If so, sorry. If not, try doing a Ua/Ub-perm replacing the R moves with Rw. So R -> Rw, R' -> Rw', R2 -> Rw2.
> 
> Keep repeating. Every 4 repetitions it does something significant (flips edges and cycles DF -> DR -> UR.)
> 
> ...



every "wide U-perm" cycles the centers by one M move, messes up some edges and leaves the corners where they have been. so it is not that surprising that after 4 repetitions the centers are correct again and just some edges have moved...


----------



## HEART (Dec 15, 2012)

Am i the only one that loves their SS7, but doesn't want to? I feel somewhat dedicated to my V7, but SS7 is just so wonderful and amazing and stable and and and ;_;


----------



## 5BLD (Dec 15, 2012)

You're probably being loyal to that money that you had to part with in order to have the v cube in your possession


----------



## HEART (Dec 17, 2012)

... but they were a gift :c


----------



## qqwref (Dec 17, 2012)

You can always keep it around for your collection... I mean I still have old ES5's and stuff. If you think you can buy one cube and have it always be the best for speedsolving, you're gonna be disappointed.


----------



## qqwref (Dec 25, 2012)

4x4x4 <R,r,U> stuff found by hand:

an OLL
Rw U2 Rw' U' R U r U2 Rw'

a rather long PLL parity
R U2 Rw' U' R U r U2 r' U' R' U r U2 r U R U' r' U2 r U R' U' r' U2 R U2 R'

a pure 2-flip
r U2 r' U' R U r U2 r' R2 U2 R2 U R' U' R' U2 R

another PLL parity
Rw U R' U' r' U2 r' U' R U r U2 r' R2 U2 R2 U R' U' R' U2 R r2 U R U' Rw'

and another PLL parity, this one isn't that bad
U r2 U r2 U2 r2 U2 r2 U r2 U2 r' U2 r2 U2 r2 U2 r U

okay this is just silly
r2 (r U2 r U2 r U2 r U2 r)2 r2
= r' U2 r U2 r U2 r U2 r2 U2 r U2 r U2 r U2 r'

it also works with Rw's
U Rw' U2 Rw U2 Rw U2 Rw U2 Rw2 U2 Rw U2 Rw U2 Rw U2 Rw' U

and an OLL parity. lol
Rw U2 Rw U2 Rw' U2 R' U2 r U2 r U2 r U2 r Rw U2 Rw U2 Rw' U2 Rw' U' Rw2 U R2 U' r U R2 U' r' Rw2 U


----------



## antoineccantin (Jan 6, 2013)

Boca is down


----------



## Jakethedrummer (Jan 10, 2013)

How many of you guys have a like "beater cube" you know, like one you throw in your backpack and stuff

Sent from Ice Cream Sandwich Eatin' Optimus V


----------



## 5BLD (Jan 10, 2013)

I take my 50mm zhanchi with me everywhere, it exploded on the bus twice yesterday tho


----------



## Bhargav777 (Jan 10, 2013)

I remember phil Yu telling me that Stachu and himself worked on algos to solve a twisted corner that's been put in its right spot and also finish the oll (with all edges oriented) simultaneously. He showed one of those cases in his oh walk through solves. I'm pretty sure its not cls cos he said there are around 40 cases and he's yet to come up with a good name for it. anyone with an idea of what it could be?


----------



## applemobile (Jan 10, 2013)

Sounds like...Skyler Variation?


----------



## Noahaha (Jan 10, 2013)

Bhargav777 said:


> I remember phil Yu telling me that Stachu and himself worked on algos to solve a twisted corner that's been put in its right spot and also finish the oll (with all edges oriented) simultaneously. He showed one of those cases in his oh walk through solves. I'm pretty sure its not cls cos he said there are around 40 cases and he's yet to come up with a good name for it. anyone with an idea of what it could be?



That's just EJLS. It's a subset of CLS.


----------



## Bhargav777 (Jan 11, 2013)

Not available on ss wiki, any good link from where I can learn?


----------



## Brest (Jan 11, 2013)

Bhargav777 said:


> Not available on ss wiki, any good link from where I can learn?



https://sites.google.com/site/rubiksinfo/3x3x3/ejf2l


----------



## mDiPalma (Jan 11, 2013)

Has anyone tried playing the wikipedia game - but on the WCA official results pages?

As in....start at one cuber and try to click the least links while getting to another goal cuber.

I normally go from my page to some arbitrary world-class cuber, but I'm sure if we could randomize the start and goal pages, this could be fun!


----------



## ninja cuber (Jan 13, 2013)

I was thinking of using Petrus for the first 2 layers and after that getting a cross on the last layer and then i could use a CFOP style last layer with one of the seven OLL's for the cross and then have the PLLs. Do you guys recon this can become at least sub 15 with practice?
Or should i just learn Full OLL ?( i already know full PLL)


----------



## Veerexx (Jan 13, 2013)

1. Your signature should be changed to a 'stupid person', not a dumb person... Look up the definition of dumb one day.
2. There are a lot of methods that could become sub-15 with a lot of practice. The difference is that there are only a few that could be potential methods to gain consistent sub-7 like Feliks has proven with CFOP. (See his most recent average of 12 video).
3. Go for it buddy, I bid you good luck.


----------



## JasonK (Jan 13, 2013)

Veerexx said:


> 1. Your signature should be changed to a 'stupid person', not a dumb person... Look up the definition of dumb one day.



Dumb is a synonym for stupid in most English dialects.

On topic: What you're describing is still Petrus. Most fast Petrus users don't use the beginner LL from Lars's website, they either do OCLL/PLL (what you described) or COLL/EPLL. You can definitely become sub-15 with this, there are quite a few sub-15 Petrus users.


----------



## CubeRoots (Jan 13, 2013)

ninja cuber said:


> I was thinking of using Petrus for the first 2 layers and after that getting a cross on the last layer and then i could use a CFOP style last layer with one of the seven OLL's for the cross and then have the PLLs. Do you guys recon this can become at least sub 15 with practice?



From your wording, I think you might have misunderstood petrus a little. In petrus you don't do first two layers followed by getting a cross (i.e. Edge Orientation)... you do a 2x2x3 block, THEN do EO, THEN complete first two layers. If you want a simple-ish way to sub-15 then you can easily do that using CFOP with 2-look last layer (learn full OLL, or at least L and line cases).


----------



## Stefan (Jan 13, 2013)

Twisting all LL pieces in place: ((F R U' R') (F' L' U L))2


----------



## ninja cuber (Jan 13, 2013)

CubeRoots said:


> From your wording, I think you might have misunderstood petrus a little. In petrus you don't do first two layers followed by getting a cross (i.e. Edge Orientation)... you do a 2x2x3 block, THEN do EO, THEN complete first two layers. If you want a simple-ish way to sub-15 then you can easily do that using CFOP with 2-look last layer (learn full OLL, or at least L and line cases).



What i meant was after the 2x2x3 block you fix the bad edges and then complete the first two layers and as the bad edges were fixed you get a cross on the last layers and therefore you only require the 7 algorithms for the orientation of those cases, so its like the 2 look OLL but you dont actually spend more time to form a cross on the last layer thats what i was meaning


----------



## JasonK (Jan 13, 2013)

ninja cuber said:


> What i meant was after the 2x2x3 block you fix the bad edges and then complete the first two layers and as the bad edges were fixed you get a cross on the last layers and therefore you only require the 7 algorithms for the orientation of those cases, so its like the 2 look OLL but you dont actually spend more time to form a cross on the last layer thats what i was meaning



Yeah, that's just Petrus.


----------



## Noahaha (Jan 13, 2013)

ninja cuber said:


> What i meant was after the 2x2x3 block you fix the bad edges and then complete the first two layers and as the bad edges were fixed you get a cross on the last layers and therefore you only require the 7 algorithms for the orientation of those cases, so its like the 2 look OLL but you dont actually spend more time to form a cross on the last layer thats what i was meaning



OLL/PLL is good to start out, but the only good way to take advantage of the LL cross is to use COLL/EPLL. Otherwise, you might as well be using CFOP.


----------



## aznanimedude (Jan 13, 2013)

You spelled ZBLL wrong


----------



## qqwref (Jan 13, 2013)

Noahaha said:


> OLL/PLL is good to start out, but the only good way to take advantage of the LL cross is to use COLL/EPLL. Otherwise, you might as well be using CFOP.


Honestly, I don't think COLL/EPLL saves much time unless you are way faster with the EPLLs than the rest of PLL. In general PLL is almost as fast as EPLL, and most OCLLs let you lookahead to figure out most of the PLL before you get there. It may not be worth giving that up if you consider the extra recognition + the time to actually learn and get comfortable with COLL.


----------



## Noahaha (Jan 13, 2013)

qqwref said:


> ...way faster with the EPLLs than the rest of PLL.



I think that accurately describes me.


----------



## cmhardw (Jan 14, 2013)

Cracked.com is a humor site that lists articles about various things. Today the cube is mentioned pretty prominently in one of their articles!

clicky!


----------



## Bhargav777 (Jan 15, 2013)

I am sorry, I actually wanted cases that already had the corner solved, where we try to finish the edge insert and also the oll simultaneously


----------



## Ollie (Jan 15, 2013)

cmhardw said:


> Cracked.com is a humor site that lists articles about various things. Today the cube is mentioned pretty prominently in one of their articles!
> 
> clicky!



519 quintillion possible combinations, apparently!


----------



## 5BLD (Jan 16, 2013)

Solve a rubiks cube in minutes bahahahahaha


----------



## qqwref (Jan 16, 2013)

Nothing particularly amusing about that to me. Sure, you could spend a lot of time and get much better at it, but you could also put hundreds of hours into speed reading or mental math and get ridiculous at those too. The article's specifically about things anyone can learn, relatively quickly, without all that much effort.


----------



## Kirjava (Jan 20, 2013)

been solving on a cube with red and orange swapped

took 33 solves to notice


----------



## Escher (Jan 21, 2013)

Lol bad f2l no rotations trix: R' F' U F U2 R


----------



## 5BLD (Feb 4, 2013)

I just got 2 (semi forced orientation but) CMLL skips in a row. I wasnt warmed up. OH.

4. 13.84 F' L B' L B U' D B R2 D2 F2 D2 R U2 F2 R2 F2 D2 B2 
5. 14.33 L U2 R2 U2 B2 L' D2 L D2 R2 B2 D R U L B' R B' R' F

edit:
another cmll skip wtf. and another bad solve.
11. 11.98 B' R U2 D' F' R' F R L D F2 L2 B2 U' L2 D R2 U F2 B2


----------



## Pheromone (Feb 11, 2013)

*How to get faster psychologically on a 3x3*

Ok, I don't know why, but this actually works.

Step one: Buy a rubiks 4x4 cube if you don't have one

Step two: Scramble, you don't need to solve it, maybe do some plls also.

Step three: Go back to your 3x3 and it will feel way different because of how stiff the 4x4 was. 

PS. When you time yourself, don't look at the timer until your fully done, it slows you Down.

Also, I got my PB (23s, coming from 35, this is great) using this.


----------



## Jakethedrummer (Feb 23, 2013)

Sweet I will try that!


----------



## Smiles (Mar 4, 2013)

Pheromone said:


> Ok, I don't know why, but this actually works.
> 
> Step one: Buy a rubiks 4x4 cube if you don't have one
> 
> ...



yu nakajima used to do 5x5 between 3x3 solves in competitions. i always figured that this was the reason why.
after you play with a big cube for a while a 3x3 just looks really simple, like there are so few pieces to solve.
and of course, the turning feel too.



Kirjava said:


> been solving on a cube with red and orange swapped
> 
> took 33 solves to notice



how'd that happen?


----------



## Kirjava (Mar 4, 2013)

Smiles said:


> how'd that happen?



I'm like, blind to opposite colours. As long as similar colours are opposite to each other, I don't have any kind of recognition problems.


----------



## qqwref (Mar 7, 2013)

Random algs for Constrained Cube 90:

pure flip, DF/DR/BU/BL
r U M U M' U' M U' M' U M U M' U' M U R'

F2L edge flip
R F U R' U' F' U F R F' R' (U')

pure flip, FR/UF
R F U R' U' F' U F R F' R' U' F U R U' F' L F R' F' L'

3 edge cycle
l D M' U M D' M' U' L'

4 corner pure flip
(r U r' l U l' r U' r' l U' l')2

U perm with messed up corners (I use this in solves)
R U R' B U' B U R U' R' B U B' U'

pure U perm
F L U L' U' F' l D M' U M D' M' U' L' F U L U' L' F'


----------



## antoineccantin (Mar 9, 2013)

Justin Mallari UWR OH avg100: 12.97:
(also 11.10 avg5 and 11.96 avg12)


Spoiler: times



9.904, 12.001, 12.191, 13.648, 10.928, 13.600, 12.433, 10.256, 11.648, 12.080, 11.489, 13.008, 11.984, 14.320, 14.977, 13.169, 11.647, 14.111, 13.728, 12.447, 11.184, 13.872, 11.983, 14.881, 14.032, 12.865, 10.401, 13.681, 14.255, 13.023, 14.273, 14.192, 13.008, 13.137, 13.520, 12.576, 13.873, 13.663, 13.696, 12.016, 12.144, 13.073, 13.713, 12.519, 12.577, 13.520, 14.127, 12.400, 12.528, 13.920, 14.576, 12.256, 13.776, 13.633, 13.715, 13.796, 13.183, 12.977, 13.409, 14.208, 13.712, 13.681, 13.472, 14.064, 10.064, 12.368, 13.424, 12.128, 13.744, 13.424, 12.913, 12.736, 13.249, 13.296, 13.344, 12.799, 13.312, 13.999, 13.361, 12.928, 11.023, 10.895, 8.848, 13.056, 11.408, 12.845, 13.217, 12.737, 13.345, 13.984, 13.919, 13.809, 13.809, 12.927, 13.217, 11.857, 13.009, 11.088, 11.249, 11.823


----------



## Divineskulls (Mar 11, 2013)

I didn't really know exactly where to put this, so here I am. Master Kilominx super-long parity alg:



Spoiler



r' (R' U2' R2 U R' U' R' U2 L F R F' L') r y2 l (L U2 L2' U' L U L U2' R' F' L' F R) l'

Rw' U2' R2 U R' U' R' U2 L F R F' L' r y2 Lw U2 L2' U' L U L U2' R' F' L' F R l'




The parts in () are pure edge flipping algs.


----------



## qqwref (Mar 12, 2013)

Is that all one alg? Because
r (U' R2' U F R F') r2 R' L2' DL' B L2 (U R' U' BR' R2 BR) r' R B L2' DL L2


----------



## Divineskulls (Mar 12, 2013)

qqwref said:


> Is that all one alg? Because
> r (U' R2' U F R F') r2 R' L2' DL' B L2 (U R' U' BR' R2 BR) r' R B L2' DL L2


Yeah :/ I'm not very good with finding algs, and this is the best I came up with. To be honest, I couldn't get your alg to work, it just kept scrambling my minx, but it's definitely a problem on my end. I think I'm gonna stick with mine; it's a lot easier to remember for me, and I know exactly what it does.


----------



## Czery (Mar 14, 2013)

I have a club at my HS and I'm trying to convince people there to go to local tournament next week. 

Everyone I ask to go keeps on telling me that they're not fast enough to go. I literally asked 5 people and they all gave me the exact same answer. 
When I first started cubing I didn't care how fast I was, I just had this intrinsic motivation to out there and test myself. 

What am I doing wrong! :O


----------



## qqwref (Mar 14, 2013)

Divineskulls said:


> I couldn't get your alg to work, it just kept scrambling my minx, but it's definitely a problem on my end.


Could be on my end, I wrote the alg without some of the spaces so there may be some mistakes with the wrong layers being written there. I'll have to make a video or something someday. I don't have a Kilominx on me right now so I can't check it :|


----------



## qqwref (Apr 2, 2013)

Supercube centers contain about 51.4% more information than regular centers.

see wolframalpha


----------



## Stefan (Apr 3, 2013)

qqwref said:


> Supercube centers contain about 51.4% more information than regular centers.
> 
> see wolframalpha



Why divide by 2?


----------



## Noahaha (Apr 15, 2013)

Even the worst solve looks great in slo mo:


----------



## qqwref (Apr 16, 2013)

Stefan said:


> Why divide by 2?


The factor of 2 is because center orbit parity is completely determined by edge parity. If you solve all the edges first, which I do on hugecube mouse sims, none of the center orbits can have odd parity at all. (Even if you disregard the edges, there are way more center orbits than parity constraints - on an 8x8x8, for instance, there are only really two center parity constraints, but 9 orbits.)


----------



## MWilson (Apr 16, 2013)

Noahaha said:


> Even the worst solve looks great in slo mo:
> 
> *video*



I can't tell if it sounds more like distant gunfire, what fireworks would sound like if you were under water, or piles of wood falling. Whatever it sounds like, it would be really good as a "sound coming from a nearby corridor" in a horror game.


----------



## googlebleh (Apr 16, 2013)

Dominate said:


> I can't tell if it sounds more like distant gunfire, what fireworks would sound like if you were under water, or piles of wood falling. Whatever it sounds like, it would be really good as a "sound coming from a nearby corridor" in a horror game.



Someone skateboarding.


----------



## pijok (Apr 24, 2013)

*Roux LSE Stuff*

Roux LSE Stuff:
we all know that there are tricks for eo depending on UL+UR position:
Set Up: M' U' M' U M' U M' U' M' U M' U M' U M'
EO (with misoriented centers): M'
UL + UR: U2 M U2 M'
Finish: U' M U2

it also works for UF + UB position:
Set Up: U M' U' M' U M' U M' U' M' U M' U M' U M'
Pseudo EO?: M'
UF + UB: U2 M U2 M'
Finish: U' M U

don't know whether it is useful
maybe with good lookahaed during cmll?


----------



## 5BLD (Apr 25, 2013)

Yes, i do that. There are strange 2 flip 1 move EOs as well.


----------



## pijok (Apr 25, 2013)

5BLD said:


> Yes, i do that. There are strange 2 flip 1 move EOs as well.


even with UF+UB edge position? 

I guess you use a lot of LSE Tricks. Are there more non MU ones like RU'r'U'M'UrUr'?


----------



## Renslay (Apr 25, 2013)

pijok said:


> it also works for UF + UB position:
> Set Up: U M' U' M' U M' U M' U' M' U M' U M' U M'
> Pseudo EO?: M'
> UF + UB: U2 M U2 M'
> Finish: U' M U



I don't really see how does it work. Could you explain it further?


----------



## pijok (Apr 25, 2013)

If you solve UF+UB first you just solve it an U away from a solved cube:
Example (without misoriented centers):
Scramble: U' M U' M' U' M2 U' M2 U M' U2 M2 U M2 U2 M U M U' M2 U2 M U M U M'
4a: U M' U2 M' U2 M U' M'
4b(with UF+UB): U2 M2 U'
4c: M U2 M U2 M2


----------



## Renslay (Apr 25, 2013)

pijok said:


> If you solve UF+UB first you just solve it an U away from a solved cube:
> Example (without misoriented centers)



Aaah, now I see it. Thanks!


----------



## 5BLD (Apr 25, 2013)

pijok said:


> even with UF+UB edge position?
> 
> I guess you use a lot of LSE Tricks. Are there more non MU ones like RU'r'U'M'UrUr'?



Yes. And yes I use em all. Other than 2 flip weird ones.
I think of the UFUB one in a different way.


----------



## Kirjava (Apr 29, 2013)

Where the hell did this come from.


----------



## qqwref (Apr 30, 2013)

Are there any full solves in there?


----------



## mark49152 (Apr 30, 2013)

They made it look like hard work!


----------



## ben1996123 (May 3, 2013)

okso qqwref came up with a silly idea about how to make a sim for blind people

so I just threw this together


----------



## antoineccantin (May 4, 2013)

Random cool R-perm: R' F R F' U R U R' U2 r U R' U' M


----------



## Renslay (May 6, 2013)

Funny, but I find F2B in Roux easier than inserting the F2L-pairs (excluding the cross) in CFOP. At least in color/case recognition.


----------



## qqwref (May 9, 2013)

A nice little 5x5x5 pattern:
[r2 U2: r] U2 [r2 U2: r]
[L U' R: 2U2] [R U' L: 2U2]
[L' U R': 2U2] [R' U L': 2U2]
[F R B F' L F: 2U 3U2 4U']
d D u U


----------



## Smiles (May 9, 2013)

Renslay said:


> Funny, but I find F2B in Roux easier than inserting the F2L-pairs (excluding the cross) in CFOP. At least in color/case recognition.



yeah even though im a cfop i find F2B very natural and all the pieces just present themselves. F2L has so many rules.

on a slightly related note, when i replace my stickers i peel off just enough to give myself a challenge like solving 1 side or 2 sides.
and as a reference, i can solve the cube on average in about 12.5 seconds.

2 opposite sides takes me about 16 - 20 seconds.
1 side takes me around 6 - 8 seconds, which is how long my F2L takes.
3 sides takes too long for me to even bother.

just goes to show how accustomed we are to our methods.

--

and just slightly related to that,
i can recognize and complete the first block while inspecting while being full colour neutral (normally for Roux i restrict my U colour to white/yellow) and then i slow down a bit for the second block, CMLL is completely normal, then LSE becomes a huge pain.

i am fully colour neutral for CFOP, and some people claim that by being colour neutral they can magically start to visualize piece relationships instead of colour patterns (and they couldn't do that before)
well when i change methods i'm no longer the same; for Roux i had to train my white/yellow for U/D, just to have something familiar in every solve to ease up on my brain.
when learning, i learned how Roux piece relationships work. but could i be colour neutral right there?
i can still do full colour neutral, but it takes so much brain work because my brain is trying to relate all that stuff to CFOP. if i had magically developed an eye for piece relationships, i'd breeze through that no problem. the only reason i can do CMLL normally is because i remember all those patterns from COLL.

further evidence that my brain has simply stored 6 times as many color patterns:
sometimes when i'm solving and my brain goes lolwat for a second i end up inserting an F2L pair with the corner and edge both flipped, resulting in a terrible reslot. and it always looks the same. i wouldn't get the edge in right or the corner in right, both would be flipped.
the reason is because for a second i totally forgot what my cross colour was and i would start assuming it was one of the other 2 colours on the corner piece. then when recognizing the F2L case by looking at 1 sticker on the edge piece, i'd assume everything is normal and just insert it normally as if my cross colour were different.
the result is the wrong colour on the D face (obviously) and the edge flipped.

this happens about once every 50 - 100 solves and had never happened before i became comfortably colour neutral.

methods, methods, methods


----------



## Kirjava (May 9, 2013)

Smiles said:


> just goes to show how accustomed we are to our methods.



or how bad you are at finding shortcuts for less stickers


----------



## Smiles (May 9, 2013)

Kirjava said:


> or how bad you are at finding shortcuts for less stickers



well give me a day with it and i'd be doing it as fast as i should be, but just a few solves and i'm even slower than doing a fully stickered cube.


----------



## Kirjava (May 9, 2013)

Smiles said:


> my brain has simply stored 6 times as many color patterns



Thumbs up. Many CN solvers don't realise this.


----------



## Kirjava (May 20, 2013)

I think that M'U2MU2MUM' is better than M'U2M'U2MUM'.

This isn't the first time switching from M' to M made something faster.


----------



## Lchu613 (May 21, 2013)

How do you do Ms faster than M's?


----------



## Kirjava (May 21, 2013)

with fingertricks

not exclusively, but it fits better in that sequence


----------



## Owen (Jun 7, 2013)

I just realized that 'Feliks' and 'Rubiks' often both suffer from the same spelling error.


----------



## Noahaha (Jun 7, 2013)

Owen said:


> I just realized that 'Feliks' and 'Rubiks' often both suffer from the same spelling error.



That's awesome =D


----------



## already1329 (Jun 7, 2013)

Owen said:


> I just realized that 'Feliks' and 'Rubiks' often both suffer from the same spelling error.



It's "Rubik's".


----------



## Stefan (Jun 15, 2013)

That awesome moment... when you were certain you had forgotten that alg but then your hands do it anyway and you just watch and are like "wow" (for me it just was R U2 R2 u' R' u R for the FR F2L pair).


----------



## ben1996123 (Jun 15, 2013)

Stefan said:


> That awesome moment... when you were certain you had forgotten that alg but then your hands do it anyway and you just watch and are like "wow" (for me it just was R U2 R2 u' R' u R for the FR F2L pair).



there was this one time a few years ago when I got a headlights/chameleon 2gll case, I didnt know any 2gll, and somehow I just did an alg with a bunch of R and U moves in that I'd never done/seen before and it solved the cube

i was liek wut


----------



## Wassili (Jun 15, 2013)

Happened the same for me with the R U H-Perm. Just did random R2 U2 R moves and it worked


----------



## Wulf (Jun 19, 2013)

I don't know where else to put this so I'll throw it here

Was just casually solving without timing myself while playing dorf fort and got a LL skip. Would have been around 12 seconds ;A;


----------



## Owen (Jun 21, 2013)

I've recently been addicted to solving a 4x4x2 cuboid in isocubesim. What are your favorite computer cuboids to solve?


----------



## BrainOfSweden (Jun 21, 2013)

Stefan said:


> That awesome moment... when you were certain you had forgotten that alg but then your hands do it anyway and you just watch and are like "wow" (for me it just was R U2 R2 u' R' u R for the FR F2L pair).



It really is awesome. I was pretty sure now that I just got back into cubing again that I would have to relearn most algs, but after a few solves realized most of them still came naturally. Great feeling.


----------



## Tim Major (Jun 22, 2013)

BrainOfSweden said:


> It really is awesome. I was pretty sure now that I just got back into cubing again that I would have to relearn most algs, but after a few solves realized most of them still came naturally. Great feeling.



I had two competitions after absolutely 0 solving for months (I haven't actively practised in a long time, but during this time I didn't even solve it once a week)

I messed up lots of algorithms, and I thought I'd forgotten the majority of my 2x2 CLLs and lots of other 3x3 niche algorithms like the one Stefan posted, but slowly some of these have just randomly come back to me.

I had a 3x3 ZBLL which I knew I used to know, I just let me hands turn the cube expecting to be wrong but I got it right. I've had this happen a few times since, but it seems some of my algorithms such as 2x2 CLL, Pyraminx algorithms especially are long gone. I was doing 2x2 and Pyraminx with simply layer by layer at the competitions.


----------



## Noahaha (Jun 22, 2013)

I have an OLL that I can only do when it comes up in a solve.


----------



## Renslay (Jun 22, 2013)

Noahaha said:


> I have an OLL that I can only do when it comes up in a solve.



Once my friend asked me to show my V-perm. I couldn't. The very moment I tried to slow down and focus on the moves (to write them down), I forgot the algorithm. It took me about 10-15 minutes to recall the moves one by one...


----------



## TDM (Jun 23, 2013)

What do you think is the fastest it's possible to get without looking ahead during F2L?


----------



## antoineccantin (Jun 23, 2013)

TDM said:


> What do you think is the fastest it's possible to get without looking ahead during F2L?



Sub-10 is possible.


----------



## uberCuber (Jun 24, 2013)

TDM said:


> What do you think is the fastest it's possible to get without looking ahead during F2L?



How exactly do you define 'not looking ahead'? Closing your eyes during cross, opening them to find the first pair, closing them again to actually solve the pair, and so on?


----------



## qqwref (Jun 24, 2013)

Let Q = L' F L

(Q U' Q U)2 Q = J perm
(Q U2)4 Q = N perm


----------



## Renslay (Jun 25, 2013)

I sneezed on my cube then I automatically said "sorry".


----------



## Robert-Y (Jun 27, 2013)

Don't you just love it when your stackmat timer is low on power and goes mad?


----------



## Stefan (Jun 27, 2013)

Robert-Y said:


> Don't you just love it when your stackmat timer is low on power and goes mad?



Have mercy and kill it already.


----------



## Kirjava (Jul 9, 2013)




----------



## Tao Yu (Jul 9, 2013)

Kirjava said:


> Spoiler



Are you using the ksim keymap? I found the ksim layout hard to get used to. 

I have tried using roux on the your sim using u/m (thats r/r') for M'/M and I like it. My fastest so far is 13.12 and I average 15 ish.

Also,I found using rR' and R'r on the standard heise layout is actually notbad surprisingly


----------



## Kirjava (Jul 9, 2013)

Tao Yu said:


> Are you using the ksim keymap? I found the ksim layout hard to get used to.



Yeah, my fastest is like 11. I used to average like 22 with qcube.

when I get to LSE I switch and put my left and right middle and index fingers on FGHJ. I just practised LSE scrambles like this to get used to it.

heise isn't bad, but after getting used to it this is much better.






Totally at work right now.


----------



## PeelingStickers (Jul 11, 2013)

My punishment for starting the timer with cube in hand is always a horrible PLL!


----------



## qqwref (Jul 13, 2013)

For 3x3x3: Fw' L U2 R' U L2 U' R U2 L' Fw

or the mirror, Fw R' U2 L U' R2 U L' U2 R Fw'


----------



## Kirjava (Jul 13, 2013)

qqwref said:


> For 3x3x3: Fw' L U2 R' U L2 U' R U2 L' Fw
> 
> or the mirror, Fw R' U2 L U' R2 U L' U2 R Fw'



I've always executed this as [U'RU2r'U,L2]


----------



## antoineccantin (Jul 15, 2013)

Random super easy recog 1LLL case:

F D R' U' R D' R2 U R' U' R2 U F'

So F J-perm F'. Pretty fast (I'm sure there's something better though).


----------



## Julian (Jul 15, 2013)

Kirjava said:


> I've always executed this as [U'RU2r'U,L2]


Yup, JJ and 4te taught me that a while ago.


----------



## googlebleh (Jul 15, 2013)

antoineccantin said:


> Random super easy recog 1LLL case:
> 
> F D' R' U' R D R2 U R' U' R2 U F'
> 
> So F J-perm F'. Pretty fast (I'm sure there's something better though).



uhm check the alg? It's supposed to be for this case right?


----------



## Schmidt (Jul 15, 2013)

Random conspiracy therory: The perfect SS 4x4x4 has already been made. They just make minor adjustments for each new version, so we have to buy them all, instead of releasing the ultimate cube!


----------



## Ranzha (Jul 15, 2013)

antoineccantin said:


> F *D* R' U' R *D'* R2 U R' U' R2 U F'



ftfy

@googlebleh Here you go


----------



## Julian (Jul 16, 2013)

http://i.imgur.com/gfJqBHU.jpg

random pic, consistent with regulations


----------



## maxcube (Jul 16, 2013)

Gotta love almost setting a new PB solve







... that +2 ;~;


----------



## Ninja Storm (Jul 16, 2013)

Schmidt said:


> Random conspiracy therory: The perfect SS 4x4x4 has already been made. They just make minor adjustments for each new version, so we have to buy them all, instead of releasing the ultimate cube!



This is why you get your hands on a v3 and never buy another .-.


----------



## cmhardw (Aug 12, 2013)

*Expected number of solved edge and tredge groups (4x4 and 5x5)*

*4x4x4 speedsolving:*
When solving 4x4x4 using standard reduction (not Yau), at the beginning of the edge pairing step you are expected to have \( \frac{12}{23} \) of an edge group already paired up. Basically this means that about half of your solves you will have no edge groups already paired up, and about half your solves you will have one edge group already paired up (expected value). Proof.

*5x5x5 speedsolving:*
When solving 5x5x5 using standard reduction, at the beginning of the edge pairing step you are expected to have \( \frac{1}{46} \) of a tredge group already paired up. Basically this means that about 1 in every 46 solves there will be one tredge group already paired up, the rest of your solves will have no tredge groups already paired up (expected value). Proof.


----------



## rj (Aug 14, 2013)

I dual between CFOP and Roux, depending on the scramble. Is that normal?


----------



## aceofspades98 (Aug 14, 2013)

rj said:


> I dual between CFOP and Roux, depending on the scramble. Is that normal?


That is method neutrality. Not very common, but it has been used before.


----------



## kcl (Aug 14, 2013)

aceofspades98 said:


> That is method neutrality. Not very common, but it has been used before.



I used to when I was close in speed between roux and CFOP. Now I'm twice as fast with CFOP so roux is just for fun.


----------



## rj (Aug 14, 2013)

OK, thanks!


----------



## AvGalen (Aug 14, 2013)

cmhardw said:


> *4x4x4 speedsolving:*
> When solving 4x4x4 using standard reduction (not Yau), at the beginning of the edge pairing step you are expected to have \( \frac{12}{23} \) of an edge group already paired up. Basically this means that about half of your solves you will have no edge groups already paired up, and about half your solves you will have one edge group already paired up (expected value). Proof.
> 
> *5x5x5 speedsolving:*
> When solving 5x5x5 using standard reduction, at the beginning of the edge pairing step you are expected to have \( \frac{1}{46} \) of a tredge group already paired up. Basically this means that about 1 in every 46 solves there will be one tredge group already paired up, the rest of your solves will have no tredge groups already paired up (expected value). Proof.


How about semi-pairs on 5x5x5? (meaning 1 center edge has 1 outer edge attached)
In my experience this happens about half of the solves on 5x5x5 but because I save semi-pairs during general center-solving and final centers I only have to solve roughly 20 out of 24 semi-pairs


----------



## cmhardw (Aug 14, 2013)

AvGalen said:


> How about semi-pairs on 5x5x5? (meaning 1 center edge has 1 outer edge attached)
> In my experience this happens about half of the solves on 5x5x5 but because I save semi-pairs during general center-solving and final centers I only have to solve roughly 20 out of 24 semi-pairs



At the moment I'm not exactly sure how I would calculate that. I'm interested to look into this more, and I hope my math skills are up to the challenge  Thanks Arnaud! This will be a fun math problem to puzzle over for a few days! If I figure this out I'll certainly post about it.


----------



## Mike Hughey (Aug 14, 2013)

AvGalen said:


> How about semi-pairs on 5x5x5? (meaning 1 center edge has 1 outer edge attached)
> In my experience this happens about half of the solves on 5x5x5 but because I save semi-pairs during general center-solving and final centers I only have to solve roughly 20 out of 24 semi-pairs



Thanks for asking this - I was about to ask the same thing.

And Chris, thanks for doing those calculations - I've always wondered what the numbers were for that.


----------



## cmhardw (Aug 14, 2013)

AvGalen said:


> How about semi-pairs on 5x5x5? (meaning 1 center edge has 1 outer edge attached)
> In my experience this happens about half of the solves on 5x5x5 but because I save semi-pairs during general center-solving and final centers I only have to solve roughly 20 out of 24 semi-pairs





Mike Hughey said:


> Thanks for asking this - I was about to ask the same thing.
> 
> And Chris, thanks for doing those calculations - I've always wondered what the numbers were for that.



Thinking about this more, I will count semi-pairs as strictly semi-pairs only. Basically I will count the expected value of having a midge and exactly one wing solved next to it. I will not count tredges in this calculation at all. I was unsure before how to calculate this as I wasn't sure how to handle fully solved tredges. The easy answer is I won't, and I should (hopefully) be able to calculate this tonight after work   You're welcome Mike, and I too am curious about these numbers!

--edit--
I just realized that the 5x5x5 wing parity case where 10 tredges are solved and 2 tredges are each a semi pair with one wing swapped with the other semi-pair will count as a "2 semi-pair" case. There's nothing really I can do about this, unless you guys want me to somehow treat solved tredges as 2 semi-pairs. I don't really know how to handle that calculation yet (treating solved tredges as 2 semi-pairs). I will calculate the expected number of true semi-pairs later tonight, even though this will count the wing parity case as in the same class of cases where wings and midges are totally scrambled, with only two semi-pair edges created. I'm still curious of that result, it will at least work as a good estimate for semi-pairs even though it doesn't factor in that solved tredges are "better" than scrambled tredges.

tl;dr
I feel like we should count solved tredges somehow as "better" than scrambled tredges. I will try to look into counting solved tredges as 2 semi-pairs even though I currently don't know how to do that yet (maybe I do, but not sure).

--edit-- #2
Question: Is a solved tredge "better", "worse" or "same as" two semi-pairs in the strict sense of the term "semi-pair"?


----------



## PianoCube (Aug 14, 2013)

Is it any good to use WV with Ortega 2x2?


----------



## cmhardw (Aug 14, 2013)

cmhardw said:


> --edit-- #2
> Question: Is a solved tredge "better", "worse" or "same as" two semi-pairs in the strict sense of the term "semi-pair"?



If a solved tredge is treated exactly the same as two semi-pairs in the strict sense of that term, then I know how to do this calculation, and can have it done by tonight.

I am still curious to know how 5x5x5 solvers view a solved tredge vs. two semi-pairs. If 5x5x5 solvers view them as not the same, then the calculation I run tonight will function as a great estimate, but it will not really model how solvers use the reduction method.


----------



## cmhardw (Aug 14, 2013)

I feel this warrants a double post. If people don't agree then either I or another mod can merge the two.

*5x5x5 expected number of semi-pairs:*
When solving 5x5x5, assuming you have no preference between a solved tredge vs. two semi-pairs, then you are expected to have 1 semi-paired edge at the start of edge pairing when solving using the reduction method. This also assumes that you use no techniques to either create or preserve semi-pairs during the building of centers. Proof.


----------



## Mike Hughey (Aug 14, 2013)

Cool. Would it be stretching too much to ask what are the odds that you'll have at least 1 semi-paired edge?

For AvG solving (like Arnaud and I use), a solved tredge is in a way disadvantageous vs. two semi-pairs, because then we don't have an "easy" place to start. Generally I do like Erik Akkersdijk says he does - I just go ahead and pick a random edge and solve it if I don't find a semi-pair immediately, so I don't really find it all that disadvantageous most of the time. The problem is if I pick a random edge and it is immediately a "problem edge", but that happens rather rarely.

For freeslice solving, I'd think a solved tredge would probably be advantageous vs. two semi-pairs. Interesting how the two methods are kind of opposite on this - I never really thought about that before.


----------



## cmhardw (Aug 14, 2013)

Mike Hughey said:


> Cool. Would it be stretching too much to ask what are the odds that you'll have at least 1 semi-paired edge?



Nope 

The probability of having at least one semi-pair is:
\( 1-\frac{1}{24!}\sum_{i=0}^{24} \left( \begin{array}{ccc} 24 \\ i \end{array}\right)(24-i)!(-1)^i\approx0.632121 \)

There is an approximately \( \frac{100(e-1)}{e}\% \) chance that you will have at least one semi-pair 



Mike Hughey said:


> For AvG solving (like Arnaud and I use), a solved tredge is in a way disadvantageous vs. two semi-pairs, because then we don't have an "easy" place to start. Generally I do like Erik Akkersdijk says he does - I just go ahead and pick a random edge and solve it if I don't find a semi-pair immediately, so I don't really find it all that disadvantageous most of the time. The problem is if I pick a random edge and it is immediately a "problem edge", but that happens rather rarely.
> 
> For freeslice solving, I'd think a solved tredge would probably be advantageous vs. two semi-pairs. Interesting how the two methods are kind of opposite on this - I never really thought about that before.



If you or any 5x5x5 solvers have input on how the two cases compare, that is how a solved tredge compares to two semi-pairs, I can try to calculate a form of expected value for number of (semi-pairs + tredges). I would need to know something like "a tredge is 1.5 semi-pair to me" or "a tredge is 0.8 of a semi-pair to me". I still can't guarantee that I know exactly _how_ to calculate that kind of a weighted average, but I have some ideas.


----------



## Mike Hughey (Aug 14, 2013)

cmhardw said:


> There is an approximately \( \frac{100(e-1)}{e}\% \) chance that you will have at least one semi-pair



That's a really cool result.

It also feels kind of useful to know - it gives me a better feel for how hard I should look for a semi-pair before starting.


----------



## qqwref (Aug 15, 2013)

In terms of moves, a tredge is worth two semi-pairs to me, but in terms of time it might be a little less since it can confuse me a bit (I think I have 5 edges left but there are only 4). Not sure how to calculate the impact of that though.


----------



## PeelingStickers (Aug 15, 2013)

At odds of 1 in 373,248 to 1 I got 3 (Nb) perms in a row.

OK, maybe not THAT unlikely as I handscrambled so I may influence the PLL, but that is insane.

And I've only ever had one LL skip...


----------



## uberCuber (Aug 15, 2013)

PeelingStickers said:


> OK, maybe not THAT unlikely as I handscrambled so I may influence the PLL, but that is insane.



Unless your F2L solutions were absurdly short, I wouldn't say the handscrambling would affect the very last step of the solve, since there would have been numerous different ways to solve your scrambles, most of which would not have resulted in the Nb.


----------



## PeelingStickers (Aug 15, 2013)

I did DNF one solve when I aw the N perm because it annoyed me xD, then started scrambling from the Nb position, but I doubt that would have much of an effect


----------



## scottishcuber (Aug 15, 2013)

PianoCube said:


> Is it any good to use WV with Ortega 2x2?



SS method: http://www.speedsolving.com/wiki/index.php/SS_Method


----------



## cmhardw (Aug 16, 2013)

Tonight I tried doing 5x5x5 double turns only, and it was really hard! It's a lot like 3x3x3 double turns only, but with the element of trying to use reduction too. You really have to use order of a permutation to figure out ways to cycle small numbers of t-centers or to fix centers. It probably took me 20 minutes to figure it out, but now I'm really hooked and want to try this again!


----------



## Mollerz (Aug 16, 2013)

cmhardw said:


> Tonight I tried doing 5x5x5 double turns only, and it was really hard! It's a lot like 3x3x3 double turns only, but with the element of trying to use reduction too. You really have to use order of a permutation to figure out ways to cycle small numbers of t-centers or to fix centers. It probably took me 20 minutes to figure it out, but now I'm really hooked and want to try this again!


That sounds like something we should do at a UK comp. brb


----------



## qqwref (Aug 23, 2013)

(L' R Uw)24 on 3x3x3 - flips/twists a total of 11 pieces in place


----------



## Cubetastic (Aug 23, 2013)

I just made a set of algorithms for what I call Partial Winter Variation

Its exactly like winter variation but instead of orienting the corners and edges with the algorithms while inserting the last f2l pair, mine only orients the edges so you only need to know 2-look oll.

It has a total of 14 algorithms (counting mirrors)

Is it worth implementing?


----------



## JonnyWhoopes (Aug 23, 2013)

Cubetastic said:


> I just made a set of algorithms for what I call Partial Winter Variation
> 
> Its exactly like winter variation but instead of orienting the corners and edges with the algorithms while inserting the last f2l pair, mine only orients the edges so you only need to know 2-look oll.
> 
> ...



First off, I think you misunderstand what Winter Variation actually is.

Second off, you aren't the first to come up with the idea. Others have tried it and have found it to have minimal value. Look up both ZBF2L and VH.


----------



## cubernya (Aug 23, 2013)

Cubetastic said:


> I just made a set of algorithms for what I call Partial Winter Variation
> 
> Its exactly like winter variation but instead of orienting the corners and edges with the algorithms while inserting the last f2l pair, mine only orients the edges so you only need to know 2-look oll.
> 
> ...



VHLS


----------



## AvGalen (Aug 23, 2013)

Mike Hughey said:


> Cool. Would it be stretching too much to ask what are the odds that you'll have at least 1 semi-paired edge?
> 
> For AvG solving (like Arnaud and I use), a solved tredge is in a way disadvantageous vs. two semi-pairs, because then we don't have an "easy" place to start. Generally I do like Erik Akkersdijk says he does - I just go ahead and pick a random edge and solve it if I don't find a semi-pair immediately, so I don't really find it all that disadvantageous most of the time. The problem is if I pick a random edge and it is immediately a "problem edge", but that happens rather rarely.
> 
> For freeslice solving, I'd think a solved tredge would probably be advantageous vs. two semi-pairs. Interesting how the two methods are kind of opposite on this - I never really thought about that before.



I missed these posts, but just wanted to let you and Chris know that I read and appreciated it.
Technically a tredge is simply 2 semi-pairs, but for "bigcubes method" it is a big advantage to have a tredge while for AvG-pairing I would much prefer to have 2 semi-pairs instead of 1 tredge. It also seems to me that the way I do semi-pairs I benefit a lot from "short cycles" where I get "a free semi-pair" every time. I don't think there is an easy way of putting a general weight on such cases that can be put into an easy formula


----------



## qqwref (Aug 24, 2013)

qqwref said:


> (L' R Uw)24 on 3x3x3 - flips/twists a total of 11 pieces in place


(R' F B' R U D')4 on 3x3x3 - flips/twists a total of 16 pieces in place


----------



## cmhardw (Sep 10, 2013)

If someone does a good job of swapping two opposite colors on your solved cube, then it is impossible for you to tell which colors they swapped. Cool!


----------



## Robert-Y (Sep 10, 2013)

Oh yeah, it also applies to pyraminxes (and other tetrahedrons...) cool


----------



## Lchu613 (Sep 11, 2013)

cmhardw said:


> If someone does a good job of swapping two opposite colors on your solved cube, then it is impossible for you to tell which colors they swapped. Cool!



My friend trolled me, he made a tower of cubes and told me my cube (which was in the middle) had the orange and red stickered backwards. Little did I know, the cube was upside-down.


----------



## Stefan (Sep 16, 2013)

Buffy Buffy Buffy Buffy Buffy Buffy Buffy Buffy Buffy Buffy Buffy Buffy Buffy Buffy Buffy Buffy Buffy Buffy Buffy Buffy Buffy Buffy Buffy Buffy Buffy Buffy Buffy Buffy Buffy Buffy Buffy Buffy Buffy Buffy Buffy Buffy Buffy Buffy Buffy Buffy Buffy Buffy Buffy Buffy Buffy Buffy Buffy Buffy Buffy Buffy Buffy Buffy Buffy Buffy Buffy Buffy Buffy Buffy Buffy Buffy Buffy Buffy Buffy Buffy Buffy Buffy Buffy Buffy Buffy Buffy Buffy Buffy Buffy Buffy Buffy Buffy Buffy Buffy Buffy Buffy Buffy Buffy Buffy Buffy Buffy Buffy Buffy Buffy Buffy Buffy Buffy Buffy Buffy Buffy Buffy Buffy Buffy Buffy Buffy Buffy Buffy Buffy Buffy Buffy Buffy Buffy Buffy Buffy Buffy Buffy Buffy Buffy Buffy Buffy Buffy Buffy Buffy Buffy Buffy Buffy Buffy Buffy Buffy Buffy Buffy Buffy Buffy Buffy Buffy Buffy Buffy Buffy Buffy Buffy Buffy Buffy Buffy Buffy Buffy Buffy


----------



## Kirjava (Sep 16, 2013)

Stefan said:


> Buffy Buffy Buffy Buffy Buffy Buffy Buffy Buffy Buffy Buffy Buffy Buffy Buffy Buffy Buffy Buffy Buffy Buffy Buffy Buffy Buffy Buffy Buffy Buffy Buffy Buffy Buffy Buffy Buffy Buffy Buffy Buffy Buffy Buffy Buffy Buffy Buffy Buffy Buffy Buffy Buffy Buffy Buffy Buffy Buffy Buffy Buffy Buffy Buffy Buffy Buffy Buffy Buffy Buffy Buffy Buffy Buffy Buffy Buffy Buffy Buffy Buffy Buffy Buffy Buffy Buffy Buffy Buffy Buffy Buffy Buffy Buffy Buffy Buffy Buffy Buffy Buffy Buffy Buffy Buffy Buffy Buffy Buffy Buffy Buffy Buffy Buffy Buffy Buffy Buffy Buffy Buffy Buffy Buffy Buffy Buffy Buffy Buffy Buffy Buffy Buffy Buffy Buffy Buffy Buffy Buffy Buffy Buffy Buffy Buffy Buffy Buffy Buffy Buffy Buffy Buffy Buffy Buffy Buffy Buffy Buffy Buffy Buffy Buffy Buffy Buffy Buffy Buffy Buffy Buffy Buffy Buffy Buffy Buffy Buffy Buffy Buffy Buffy Buffy Buffy



lol, 420


----------



## qqwref (Sep 18, 2013)

For fun, I computed some God's Algorithm tables for a puzzle that looks like a 2x2x2 but has four possible moves instead of three: U, R, F, and rotating the UFR corner (a move I called "w"). There are 3 times as many positions as on a normal 2x2x2.


```
Moves   HTM      QTM
0       1        1
1       11       8
2       90       51
3       717      306
4       5315     1722
5       36372    9288
6       226396   47915
7       1202923  227469
8       4243588  945926
9       4886281  2942196
10      420636   4862890
11      150      2659285
12               385150
13               2501
```


A sample HTM antipode: F R F2 U' R F R' F' R2 F2 w
A sample QTM antipode: F R U' w U' R F' R w' U2 F' U'


----------



## TheNextFeliks (Sep 18, 2013)

So basically, is parity caused by non fixed centers or just by number of layers?


----------



## rj (Sep 18, 2013)

TheNextFeliks said:


> So basically, is parity caused by non fixed centers or just by number of layers?



Non fixed centers.


----------



## Stefan (Sep 18, 2013)

qqwref said:


> A sample HTM antipode: F R F2 U' R F R' F' R2 F2 w
> A sample QTM antipode: F R U' w U' R F' R w' U2 F' U'



Same god's number as regular 2x2x2 in HTM, and *smaller* in QTM. Fascinating.

Maybe we should be thankful if the scrambler accidentally twists a corner


----------



## Stefan (Sep 26, 2013)

I just realized Michal was really un*faz*ed in the WC2011 final. I seem to notice odd word parts today, earlier saw a "quick *naviga*tion" button here but thought of a different word.


----------



## cmhardw (Oct 2, 2013)

*Neat alternative scrambling/solving approach*

Stefan's recent post about simulating the cube gave me an idea for a neat way to scramble/solve.



Spoiler






Stefan said:


> Not sure if new, but I came up with a neat way to simulate.
> 
> Represent the state as a string like
> *"UF UR UB UL DF DR DB DL FR FL BR BL UFR URB UBL ULF DRF DFL DLB DBR"*
> ...






A "turn" of a face would mean to cycle all the pieces that were on that face in the solved state _as they would cycle_ on the solved cube.

Example:
Assume a cube has BOY color scheme and is in the standard scrambling orientation with white on top and green on front. I will now do the "turn" U. This takes the cube from solved to the state of having done the turn U normally.

Next I will do the "turn" L. On a solved cube this cycles the corners as orange-white-green -> orange-green-yellow -> orange-yellow-blue -> orange-blue-white -> orange-white-green. On a solved cube the turn L would cycle the edges as: Orange-white-> orange-green -> orange-yellow -> orange-blue -> orange-white.

Before doing the turn L my cube currently has the U layer turned once clockwise. Doing the turn L will cycle all the pieces as described above. In blindfold cycle notation this will mean that to the state of [U layer turned once clockwise] my turn L will do the cycles:
(BUL -> LFD -> LDB -> BRU -> BUL) and
(BU -> LF -> LD -> LB -> BU)

When scrambling/solving this way, effectively you would do "turns" by doing a 3 cycle on corners, a 3-cycle on edges, setup to a (T-perm, R-perm, etc.) then setdown. It would be tedious, but interesting! I'm not entirely sure how I would approach solving it.

--edit--
double turns would be performing two 2-cycles on corners, and also on edges so you would have multiple options for doing double turns.


----------



## Stefan (Oct 2, 2013)

Chris, would that mean that the scramble
U' F2 U F2 U' B2 F2 L2 D' L2 D' L' R U' B' U2 F2 D B' F2 D2 (normal turns)
would have the solution
U F2 U' F2 U B2 F2 L2 D L2 D L R' U B U2 F2 D' B F2 D2 (your kind of turns)
?


----------



## cmhardw (Oct 3, 2013)

Stefan said:


> Chris, would that mean that the scramble
> U' F2 U F2 U' B2 F2 L2 D' L2 D' L' R U' B' U2 F2 D B' F2 D2 (normal turns)
> would have the solution
> U F2 U' F2 U B2 F2 L2 D L2 D L R' U B U2 F2 D' B F2 D2 (your kind of turns)
> ?



I don't know. I did look at:

Scramble: U L (my turns)
Which has solution U' L' (normal turns)

I don't know why this is the case, it's not intuitively obvious to me. This is interesting! I'll try looking at other scrambles to see this relationship and figure out why it is (I feel like you already have).


----------



## bobthegiraffemonkey (Oct 3, 2013)

cmhardw said:


> I don't know why this is the case, it's not intuitively obvious to me. This is interesting! I'll try looking at other scrambles to see this relationship and figure out why it is (I feel like you already have).



I also suspect Stefan has the answer, but anyway:


Spoiler



Consider your turns as setting up to solved state using the moves scrambled so far, then
U L [your turns] = U (U' L U) [normal turns] = L U [normal turns]


----------



## Stefan (Oct 3, 2013)

Yeah, I was mainly asking to confirm I had correctly understood what Chris is talking about 



Spoiler: My explanation



I guess similar to bob's explanation, just in my words and with a larger example...

If scramble was
(in normal turns) U' F R2 D'
and we want to do
(in Chris's turns) U F' R2 D,
then we can do that first Chris-U not as two 3-cycles and a double swap but instead by properly setting up the U pieces in the U layer and simply doing a normal U turn there (and then undo the setup). So do (D R2 F') U (F R2 D'). But that solves the cube with the first four moves and then rescrambles it with the last three moves. So it's now like the cube was only scrambled with F R2 D'. Repeat with the remaining moves.



Spoiler: My suggestion for solving



Speedblind-plan a solution, e.g., D R2 F' U, then apply the moves in reverse order using Chris-style moves.


----------



## qqwref (Oct 4, 2013)

A 4-twist on 3x3x3: r U2 R' U2 y' R2 D2 r U' r' D2 r' U' L U l2' U'


----------



## kunparekh18 (Oct 4, 2013)

qqwref said:


> A 4-twist on 3x3x3: r U2 R' U2 y' R2 D2 r U' r' D2 r' U' L U l2' U'



R2 U' R' U' R U R U R U' R2 U R' U R U' R' U R U2 R'


----------



## bundat (Oct 4, 2013)

I personally find the concept of inspection weird.


Especially in a world where many noncubers hide the cube from you when scrambling, as if they think you can actually memorize a hand scramble instantly and do it backwards to solve the cube.
"Solving it in your head", before the timer even starts, would most likely be unacceptable by those standards.

And personally, I agree, because the recorded time excludes a portion of the "solve" (despite being purely a thinking step, I feel it is still part of the "solving process", so it shouldn't be excluded from the recorded time).

To put it into perspective, someone could probably memo during the 15 second inspection, put on a blindfold, and 3-style it and get a 15 second "solve time".
A time which just seems incorrect to me, because it excludes the thinking time, and is just the time for the mechanical part of the solve. And he didn't even have to look at the cube the entire recorded "solving time". (Of course, this isn't the actual case, and people just plan [x]cross [+pair] or 1st block [+some 2nd block], but this is just to make a point)



And for an event where the world record is 5.55 seconds, and world class cubers can easily get sub-8 or even sub-7 times, 15 seconds inspection just seems ridiculous to me.


Granted, changing the rules now would be troublesome and probably unacceptable (issues with existing records and whatnot), but maybe a separate event (or events) would be nice.

Like:
"no inspection 3x3"
"no inspection 3x3 OH"
"no inspection 2x2"

Also, personally, I think inspection looks so much like the pause when someone has bad/no lookahead, and has to stop to look for the next step. Except it's untimed.


----------



## Kirjava (Oct 4, 2013)

Holding inspection and non inspection events seems a bit cumbersome.

What procedure would you use for no-inspection?


----------



## Stefan (Oct 4, 2013)

bundat said:


> I personally find the concept of inspection weird.



Both no-inspection and reduced-inspection have been discussed before, no-inspection has even been tried at some comps a while back but failed.


----------



## rj (Oct 4, 2013)

Kirjava said:


> Holding inspection and non inspection events seems a bit cumbersome.
> 
> What procedure would you use for no-inspection?



Same as BLD, you remove the cover thyself.


----------



## cmhardw (Oct 4, 2013)

rj said:


> Same as BLD, you remove the cover thyself.



We would need a standard cover so that all competitors use covers of the same shape/dimensions and weight no matter where they compete.


----------



## rj (Oct 4, 2013)

cmhardw said:


> We would need a standard cover so that all competitors use covers of the same shape/dimensions and weight no matter where they compete.



Well, don't we have that for BLD?


----------



## Ninja Storm (Oct 4, 2013)

rj said:


> Well, don't we have that for BLD?



No, we don't. We have covers that differ from competition to competition or delegate to delegate.


----------



## Kirjava (Oct 4, 2013)

rj said:


> Same as BLD, you remove the cover thyself.



That is horrific


----------



## CheesecakeCuber (Oct 4, 2013)

rj said:


> Well, don't we have that for BLD?



Then WR will be way too hard to break becuz it does take some time to lift the cover...you could be off by .xx


----------



## rj (Oct 4, 2013)

CheesecakeCuber said:


> Then WR will be way too hard to break becuz it does take some time to lift the cover...you could be off by .xx



True. We're talking 3x3 w/o inspection, though.


----------



## bundat (Oct 4, 2013)

Kirjava said:


> Holding inspection and non inspection events seems a bit cumbersome.


I agree that it seems cumbersome.

Since 3x3 with inspection is still the main event, and no-inspection is only a side event, maybe we can have it open only for 3x3 (with inspection) final round qualifiers. And only a single round.

Sort of an "attraction" type of thing at first, which will (hopefully) make people gain interest.



> What procedure would you use for no-inspection?





rj said:


> Same as BLD, you remove the cover thyself.


I think removing the cover yourself would be too slow for a 3x3 speedsolve event, if we want it to have comparable results to the with-inspection records.

What I would suggest would be, with the competitor's hands on the stackmat, to have the judge remove the cover, and start a stopwatch at the same time.

- The competitor must start the timer within 3 seconds, or a +2 penalty will be given.
- The competitor must start the timer within 5 seconds, or the solve will be considered a DNF.

Also, the judge might give a verbal signal, or a verbal 3-2-1 countdown before removing the cover so that it won't be too surprising.

One can argue that this still provides a (reduced) 3 second inspection, but given how short that time is, plus adding the time needed by the judge to get his arm (and the cover) out of the way, since the stopwatch is already running then, I don't think anyone would risk the +2 for a 3 second rotationless inspection.



Stefan said:


> Both no-inspection and reduced-inspection have been discussed before, no-inspection has even been tried at some comps a while back but failed.



Ah, are you referring to the 2010 regulation idea about reducing inspection to 10 seconds?
Thanks for making me look that up, that was a good read, provided me with a lot more insight to this.
I also learned a new word from Chris, ambivalent

Personally, I think reduced inspection is an unacceptable "compromise". It does not properly address the issue of there being a part of the solving process (a thinking step) being outside of the recorded solve time. At the same time, it introduces issues with existing records' validity and whatnot.

IMO it should be all-or-nothing.

Also, could you explain what you mean by the no-inspection attempts failing? Do you mean they failed to gain any traction or support, and the idea was soon abandoned?
Or do you mean the event failed because of complaints or problems? Like not having a consistent process, or inconsistencies with initial cube orientation, or whatnot?
I would really appreciate knowing the details on how these events fared.

-----

Personally, I think promoting no-inspection as a new standard over with-inspection, is comparable to promoting Roux as the new mainstream method over CFOP.

In that, one is already way too established, both as the standard, and in people's minds, that nothing short of a total upheaval will change it. But I feel that we should give it a chance (besides the ones linked above).
Of course, people gave Roux a chance, and now, it is actually not a total impossibility, being away only by a WR by 5BLD. Perhaps all no-inspection also needs is a chance. Maybe the increased credibility of such solves to noncubers might be so much more appealing that it attracts media attention, who knows?
But I also think they should remain separate events.
Just like how CFOP seemingly has some merits over Roux (big cubes, OHITA), oh I just know I'll get heat from Kir for this line lol
I believe 15 second inspection also has its merits, like allowing methods like ZZ and every-solve-xcross to exist.

I at least believe that just like Roux over CFOP, no-inspection won't be the new standard, but it has the potential to be just as well-established and recognized as with-inspection.


----------



## Stefan (Oct 4, 2013)

bundat said:


> Ah, are you referring to the 2010 regulation idea about reducing inspection to 10 seconds?



That's one of the times inspection was discussed, yes. I'm sure we talked several times both about reduced-inspection and about no-inspection, though.



bundat said:


> Also, could you explain what you mean by the no-inspection attempts failing? Do you mean they *failed to gain any traction or support, and the idea was soon abandoned?*



Yep, that. Maybe there are still some people doing it so it's not completely abandoned, but I don't know about it.


----------



## qqwref (Oct 20, 2013)

[L' D2 L, R U R']


----------



## TDM (Oct 21, 2013)

qqwref said:


> [L' D2 L, R U R']


[L' U2 L, R U R'] = R U2 R'


----------



## kannabie (Oct 30, 2013)

maybe offtopic, but i just needed to share this with someone:
I just applied fullbright (w/black) cubicle.us stickers to my stickerless colored dayan and now i wonder why it didn't come to my mind before...
bright stickers over dull and bleak dayan original colors have produced a very interesting effect and the cube now looks a lot better than before )))


----------



## pipkiksass (Oct 30, 2013)

kannabie said:


> maybe offtopic, but i just needed to share this with someone:
> I just applied fullbright (w/black) cubicle.us stickers to my stickerless colored dayan and now i wonder why it didn't come to my mind before...
> bright stickers over dull and bleak dayan original colors have produced a very interesting effect and the cube now looks a lot better than before )))



Pic pls!


----------



## CubeSurfer (Oct 31, 2013)

pipkiksass said:


> Pic pls!


Yes that would be very interesting to see!


----------



## kannabie (Oct 31, 2013)

kannabie said:


> will do!
> as soon as I get home to that cube and a camera : )



pictures time!
all pics taken without flash. stickered cube is dayan zhanchi 50mm, stickers - thecubicle.us full bright with black instead of white.
the effect is: it seems like the sides of the cube are made of colored transparent plastic and painted white on the inside (except white/black side). i think that it's a lot better than original stickerless version : ))



Spoiler: Pictures



1. original dayan colors. the cube is panshi 57, not zhanchi. it depicts only color scheme which is similar to that of stickerless zhanchi.






2. "stickered" stickerless zhanchi 50





3. checkered pattern





4. scrambled


----------



## jdbryant (Oct 31, 2013)

That's pretty cool... but I'm pretty sure my recognition would be really awful.


----------



## kannabie (Oct 31, 2013)

it shouldn't be once you get used to black instead of white. all other colors are the same.


----------



## Lchu613 (Nov 1, 2013)

That's smexy.

Wish even more that they didn't /outlaw/ stickerless cubes. Just because it looks awesome.


----------



## Joël (Nov 1, 2013)

Hey guys, just a random announcement, for those who didn't know:

There is going to be an unofficial competition at a Dutch radiostation tonight!

https://www.3fm.nl/nieuws/detail/357315/1-november:-Ball-Park-Music-in-de-Freaknacht

If you are a Dutch cuber, you might want to join me and a few others.


----------



## rj (Nov 1, 2013)

kannabie said:


> pictures time!
> all pics taken without flash. stickered cube is dayan zhanchi 50mm, stickers - thecubicle.us full bright with black instead of white.
> the effect is: it seems like the sides of the cube are made of colored transparent plastic and painted white on the inside (except white/black side). i think that it's a lot better than original stickerless version : ))
> 
> ...




That looks really fun.


----------



## Cubenovice (Nov 1, 2013)

Joël said:


> Hey guys, just a random announcement, for those who didn't know:
> 
> There is going to be an unofficial competition at a Dutch radiostation tonight!
> 
> ...



Watch live at http://www.3fm.nl/webcam/popup tonight from 01:00h to 04:00h.


----------



## kannabie (Nov 2, 2013)

jdbryant said:


> That's pretty cool... but I'm pretty sure my recognition would be really awful.





pipkiksass said:


> Awesome, GJ!





Lchu613 said:


> That's smexy.
> 
> Wish even more that they didn't /outlaw/ stickerless cubes. Just because it looks awesome.





rj said:


> That looks really fun.



thanks everyone for appreciation)
first i thought - what's the point in stickering already COLORED cube?", but when i found spare unused stickers, i was, like, - "what the hell, i should try this" : ))
now i think of applying stickers of exact opposite color (yellow side - purple stickers, green- red, etc.) to another stickerless colored dayan. i think that should be amusing, although paifully hard for recognition.


----------



## Kirjava (Nov 2, 2013)

Fun to watch mod discussion appear then predictably get removed.


----------



## qqwref (Nov 2, 2013)

This whole thing reminds me of Stalin's "nonperson" campaigns.


----------



## CubeSurfer (Nov 3, 2013)

kannabie said:


> thanks everyone for appreciation)
> first i thought - what's the point in stickering already COLORED cube?", but when i found spare unused stickers, i was, like, - "what the hell, i should try this" : ))
> now i think of applying stickers of exact opposite color (yellow side - purple stickers, green- red, etc.) to another stickerless colored dayan. i think that should be amusing, although paifully hard for recognition.


 Haha that's a crazy idea! Do post pics if you end up doing it!


----------



## TDM (Nov 6, 2013)

wtf, my WCA profile comes up before my speedsolving profile.
The weird thing is that I don't have any link to my WCA profile from speedsolving.


----------



## StachuK1992 (Nov 6, 2013)

WTF indeed.
Even trying it incognito results in a similar page. Very strange.


----------



## rj (Nov 6, 2013)

StachuK1992 said:


> WTF indeed.
> Even trying it incognito results in a similar page. Very strange.



Maybe he's hiding something.


----------



## TDM (Nov 6, 2013)

rj said:


> Maybe he's hiding something.


I'm hiding something in this spoiler! (a large image)


Spoiler


----------



## rj (Nov 6, 2013)

TDM said:


> I'm hiding something in this spoiler! (a large image)
> 
> 
> Spoiler



OK, thanks.


----------



## Stefan (Nov 6, 2013)

TDM said:


> I'm hiding something in this spoiler! (a large image)



Nah, what you're really hiding is that until recently, you did have your WCA id in your profile here.


----------



## rj (Nov 6, 2013)

Stefan said:


> Nah, what you're really hiding is that until recently, you did have your WCA id in your profile here.



Hmmm. Proof?


----------



## Stefan (Nov 6, 2013)

rj said:


> Hmmm. Proof?



http://www.bing.com/search?q=2013MEND03+site:speedsolving.com
Click on the triangle to the right of the result URLs to get the cached version.


----------



## rj (Nov 6, 2013)

Stefan said:


> http://www.bing.com/search?q=2013MEND03+site:speedsolving.com
> Click on the triangle to the right of the result URLs to get the cached version.



Very good. You no use google?


----------



## Stefan (Nov 7, 2013)

rj said:


> Very good. You no use google?



Google is my default and you can see it there as well, but in this case I went to bing because Google itself was kind of under suspicion.


----------



## Renslay (Nov 10, 2013)

I just recently realized that with my first 3x3 memo technique, I memorized 1 word / piece, which means about 20 words for a 3x3. Now I use letter pairs, and for a 4x4, I memorize about:
8 words (centers with LP/image)
8 words (edges with LP/LT/LQ combined with pure visuals and auditory)
4 words (corners with syllables/auditory)
Which is (very roughly!) equivalent to 20 words.

So, technically, when I first solved a 3x3 BLD, I would able to memorize a 4x4 with the same effort... Even if it's not the case, my mind is blown.


----------



## irontwig (Nov 14, 2013)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N_D6DLN-Lco

Too bad it's hard to see wtf is going on.


----------



## Zeotor (Nov 14, 2013)

*What Is The Easiest Method For Sub-15?*

Which method is the easiest to use for sub-fifteen times (on average) for 3x3x3?
Is it easier to be sub-fifteen with CFOP or Roux?

BLD Example - It is easier to be sub-fifty with 3-Style than with Classic Pochmann. (I'm fairly sure that statement is correct.) Basically ignore the memorization method aspect for the sake of example. Also, I'm not asking about sub-fifteen 3BLD times. I'm just using BLD methods for an example.

I didn't post this in "The One Answer Question Thread" because it doesn't seem like it has a simple answer.


----------



## kcl (Nov 14, 2013)

Zeotor said:


> Which method is the easiest to use for sub-fifteen times (on average) for 3x3x3?
> Is it easier to be sub-fifteen with CFOP or Roux?
> 
> BLD Example - It is easier to be sub-fifty with 3-Style than with Classic Pochmann. (I'm fairly sure that statement is correct.) Basically ignore the memorization method aspect for the sake of example. Also, I'm not asking about sub-fifteen 3BLD times. I'm just using BLD methods for an example.
> ...



I suppose technically CFOP. There's no real answer but CFOP has way more sub 15 people.


----------



## pijok (Nov 14, 2013)

kclejeune said:


> I suppose technically CFOP. There's no real answer but CFOP has way more sub 15 people.


I suppose technically Roux. There's no real answer but CFOP has way more people who are not sub 15.


----------



## TDM (Nov 14, 2013)

Zeotor said:


> Which method is the easiest to use for sub-fifteen times (on average) for 3x3x3?
> Is it easier to be sub-fifteen with CFOP or Roux?
> 
> BLD Example - It is easier to be sub-fifty with 3-Style than with Classic Pochmann. (I'm fairly sure that statement is correct.) Basically ignore the memorization method aspect for the sake of example. Also, I'm not asking about sub-fifteen 3BLD times. I'm just using BLD methods for an example.
> ...


BLD methods isn't a very good example as some methods, such as 3-style, are definitely better than others, such as OP. There isn't really any "best" 3x3 method for sighted solving, but imo Roux is best for 2H, ZZ for OH and CFOP if you're going to do both/bigcubes a lot. Also, for some people, getting faster is easier with some methods than with others. My blockbuilding sucks, so I'm still averaging over 1.5 times what I do with CFOP when using Roux. For me, I could get sub-15 by the end of the year, but for Roux it'd probably take me another 6 months more (as a guess. I'd have to improve my blockbuilding a lot, learn CMLL and get used to LSE, which I'm really slow at atm and have a lot of pauses).
So there isn't really an answer to your question.


----------



## kcl (Nov 14, 2013)

pijok said:


> I suppose technically Roux. There's no real answer but CFOP has way more people who are not sub 15.



I didn't really want to answer for this reason. Roux has lower movecount yet people can be the same speed with CFOP. There is no real answer.


----------



## mark49152 (Nov 14, 2013)

Why do preassembled cubes come with crappy lube on the pieces, slowing down breaking in, yet no lube in the core meaning awful spring noise? Cube manufacturers: please lube the core but leave the pieces dry!


----------



## TheOneOnTheLeft (Nov 15, 2013)

mark49152 said:


> Why do preassembled cubes come with crappy lube on the pieces, slowing down breaking in, yet no lube in the core meaning awful spring noise? Cube manufacturers: please lube the core but leave the pieces dry!



Presumably it's because it makes the cube seem better for out of the box performance, and it's far easier to squirt some lube on the pieces, taking less than a minute to spread it around, compared to the more precise and time consuming task of lubing the core.


----------



## mark49152 (Nov 15, 2013)

TheOneOnTheLeft said:


> Presumably it's because it makes the cube seem better for out of the box performance, and it's far easier to squirt some lube on the pieces, taking less than a minute to spread it around, compared to the more precise and time consuming task of lubing the core.


Indeed. Actually mine was a rhetorical question as an expression of irritation. I don't know what the emoticon is for that.


----------



## RCTACameron (Dec 5, 2013)

While playing around with a 3x3, I found that these were interesting to repeat doing until the cube was solved again:
R U R' F' y
R' F R F' R y

The first takes 120 repetitions to get back to solved. I was doing the second one, but gave up when this told me that it took 1260 repetitions to solve. :O


----------



## MadeToReply (Dec 5, 2013)

Doing R+ D- R- D+ a lot on a megaminx eventually will cycle 10 centres. Like a lot a lot a lot too many times to count


----------



## RCTACameron (Dec 5, 2013)

MadeToReply said:


> Doing R+ D- R- D+ a lot on a megaminx eventually will cycle 10 centres. Like a lot a lot a lot too many times to count



Wow :O That would look cool. I wouldn't want to try though.


----------



## TDM (Dec 5, 2013)

MadeToReply said:


> Doing R+ D- R- D+ a lot on a megaminx eventually will cycle 10 centres. Like a lot a lot a lot too many times to count


After doing it for a while, all the corners and about half the edges are solved again  I think the edges are an 18-cycle... if that means I have to do this 17 more times, then I think this is going to take a while.
Did something wrong


----------



## Stefan (Dec 7, 2013)

Just a probably known F2L alg I just made up (maybe useful for edge control), plus variations:
f U R U' R2' f'
R' F' U' F U2 R
F R U R' U2 F'


----------



## TDM (Dec 23, 2013)

I timed my F2L cases, and got a graph that looks kind of random:


Spoiler











Now look what happens when you order it by time:


Spoiler










Didn't expect to see that much of a pattern. Has anyone else tried this?


----------



## applemobile (Dec 24, 2013)

I don't believe it


----------



## KongShou (Dec 24, 2013)

That's amazing


----------



## uberCuber (Dec 24, 2013)

That's pretty cool, when you order your cases from fastest to slowest, you get a graph that goes from fastest to slowest! What an exciting and surprising pattern!

srsly though, I have no idea what kind of point you were trying to make


----------



## TDM (Dec 24, 2013)

uberCuber said:


> srsly though, I have no idea what kind of point you were trying to make


I expected it to be more like what is is now, and not to produce a symmetrical pattern.


----------



## Tim Major (Dec 25, 2013)

Just got a Galaxy S4 and filmed a slowmo Z-perm: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mcByA1darHI&feature=youtu.be

I can do it sub 1 with this fingertrick very frequently. M'2 U' etc.

Not sure where to post this, but this should be ok


----------



## Stefan (Jan 4, 2014)

Just came across this funny-looking "bead-surface" 4x4:
http://zcube.cn/Standard/4x4x4/DianSheng-4x4x4-Bead-surface.html


----------



## Robert-Y (Jan 4, 2014)

That is how I used to imagine the perfect cube would be, with ultimate corner cutting.


----------



## TheNextFeliks (Jan 10, 2014)

For my engineering design class, I need to bring in something to reverse engineer, something I can take apart and cad the pieces. I think I might do my square-1. Pretty straight forward. No real weird shapes or features


----------



## qqwref (Jan 13, 2014)

Weird idea: inverse PLL attack. Instead of executing all 21 PLLs, you must start from a solved state and bring the cube to each PLL at some point during the move sequence. The 21 PLLs do not all have to appear on the same side.

How fast can this be done? I imagine the optimal solution would involve spamming easy perms, but other than that, I dunno.


----------



## kcl (Jan 13, 2014)

qqwref said:


> Weird idea: inverse PLL attack. Instead of executing all 21 PLLs, you must start from a solved state and bring the cube to each PLL at some point during the move sequence. The 21 PLLs do not all have to appear on the same side.
> 
> How fast can this be done? I imagine the optimal solution would involve spamming easy perms, but other than that, I dunno.



Wait so as in like you could do the same A perm twice and knock off two birds with one stone?


----------



## Tim Major (Jan 13, 2014)

Yes, also follow the two aperms with uperms to cover the gperms and other 3 edge, 3 corner PLLs


----------



## qqwref (Jan 13, 2014)

kclejeune said:


> Wait so as in like you could do the same A perm twice and knock off two birds with one stone?


Yeah, those two A perms would bring it into both A perm positions.


----------



## kcl (Jan 13, 2014)

qqwref said:


> Yeah, those two A perms would bring it into both A perm positions.



This is intriguing. I will try it tomorrow.


----------



## qqwref (Jan 16, 2014)

I found a bandaged 3x3x3 with a God's Number of 96 (!!). This destroys my previous longest.







God's Algorithm table:


Spoiler





```
Moves	Positions
0	1
1	6
2	12
3	12
4	12
5	15
6	21
7	12
8	12
9	18
10	36
11	36
12	36
13	45
14	63
15	36
16	36
17	54
18	108
19	108
20	108
21	135
22	189
23	108
24	105
25	132
26	252
27	252
28	252
29	324
30	432
31	252
32	240
33	348
34	684
35	684
36	684
37	864
38	1188
39	684
40	648
41	828
42	1620
43	1620
44	1620
45	2052
46	2808
47	1620
48	1584
49	2268
50	4428
51	4428
52	4428
53	5616
54	7668
55	4428
56	4101
57	4750
58	9084
59	9084
60	9084
61	11667
62	15585
63	9084
64	8287
65	8720
66	15444
67	15444
68	15444
69	20802
70	25530
71	15444
72	11966
73	8156
74	13188
75	13188
76	13188
77	18828
78	20736
79	13188
80	8428
81	2992
82	3696
83	3696
84	3696
85	6336
86	4752
87	3696
88	1071
89	46
90	48
91	48
92	48
93	93
94	51
95	48
96	3
Total positions: 405000
```




Antipodes:


Spoiler



1) R' U F' U L' U' F U' R' U F' U L U' F U' R' U F' U L' U' F U' R' U F' U L U' F U' R U F' U L' U' F U' R U F' U L U' F U' R' U F' U L' U' F U' R U F' U L U' F U' R U F' U L' U' F U' R' U F' U L U' F U' R U F' U L' U' F U' R' U F' U L U' F U2

2) R' U F' U L' U' F U' R' U F' U L U' F U' R' U F' U L' U' F U' R' U F' U L U' F U' R U F' U L' U' F U' R U F' U L U' F U' R' U F' U L' U' F U' R U F' U L U' F U' R U F' U L' U' F U' R' U F' U L U' F U' R U F' U L' U' F U' R' U F' U L U' F U

3) R' U F' U L' U' F U' R' U F' U L U' F U' R' U F' U L' U' F U' R' U F' U L U' F U' R U F' U L' U' F U' R U F' U L U' F U' R' U F' U L' U' F U' R U F' U L U' F U' R U F' U L' U' F U' R' U F' U L U' F U' R U F' U L' U' F U' R' U F' U L U' F U'


----------



## Phillip1847 (Jan 16, 2014)

R u R' u' R' f R f' U2 R' F R U R' U' F' U R y u R U R' u' R' F R2 U' R' U' R U R' F'
best N perm Ever.
Its fatsexysledge, Z OLL, y, u(sexy) u' U last bit of T - perm.
I can sub-8 it.
On a somewhat more serious note, how come a lot of good cubers have (no offense) somewhat stocky hands. I'd think they would have long fingers, but they don't.
okay, on a more serious note, what about an event where a scramble was given(just the cube, not the actual notation of how to get there) and a cuber had to solve the cube as if that was the solved position instead of where all colors match?


----------



## Julian (Jan 16, 2014)

Phillip1847 said:


> okay, on a more serious note, what about an event where a scramble was given(just the cube, not the actual notation of how to get there) and a cuber had to solve the cube as if that was the solved position instead of where all colors match?


This is known as 'match the scramble' and can be a lot if fun.


----------



## qqwref (Jan 16, 2014)

Phillip1847 said:


> R u R' u' R' f R F' U2 R' F R U R' U' F' U R y u R U R' u' R' F R2 U' R' U' R U R' F'
> best N perm Ever.
> Its fatsexysledge, Z OLL, y, u(sexy) u' U last bit of T - perm.
> I can sub-8 it.


lol ew



Phillip1847 said:


> On a somewhat more serious note, how come a lot of good cubers have (no offense) somewhat stocky hands. I'd think they would have long fingers, but they don't.


Who knows, maybe the extra muscle mass in the fingers helps for turning stuff super fast.



Phillip1847 said:


> okay, on a more serious note, what about an event where a scramble was given(just the cube, not the actual notation of how to get there) and a cuber had to solve the cube as if that was the solved position instead of where all colors match?


That's called Match the Scramble (MTS). It used to be a part of the weekly tournaments here, but I don't know if it still is.


----------



## JackJ (Jan 21, 2014)

I don't understand why a company hasn't began mass producing a larger 2x2. My Dayan is too small for my liking and I'm sure it's costing me time. Around a 55mm would be perfect for me, I think.


----------



## antoineccantin (Jan 21, 2014)

JackJ said:


> I don't understand why a company hasn't began mass producing a larger 2x2. My Dayan is too small for my liking and I'm sure it's costing me time. Around a 55mm would be perfect for me, I think.



There are 55mm Fangshi 2x2s...


----------



## JackJ (Jan 21, 2014)

antoineccantin said:


> There are 55mm Fangshi 2x2s...



Oh, I didn't know. I've tried a regular one and they're horrible imho. I guess I should edit my suggestion. A good company produce one, such as Dayan or Wittwo, (or Type C, whatever they're called nowadays).


----------



## antoineccantin (Jan 21, 2014)

JackJ said:


> Oh, I didn't know. I've tried a regular one and they're horrible imho. I guess I should edit my suggestion. A good company produce one, such as Dayan or Wittwo, (or Type C, whatever they're called nowadays).



That's funny, I love mine.


----------



## JackJ (Jan 21, 2014)

Really? The normal sized one is just complete garbage for me. Maybe it would handle better if it was a bit bigger. I might just have to get one now.


----------



## antoineccantin (Jan 21, 2014)

JackJ said:


> Really? The normal sized one is just complete garbage for me. Maybe it would handle better if it was a bit bigger. I might just have to get one now.



What did you dislike about it? The only issue I have with it is the occasional catching. Other than that it's smooth and fast and cuts well.


----------



## JackJ (Jan 21, 2014)

antoineccantin said:


> What did you dislike about it? The only issue I have with it is the occasional catching. Other than that it's smooth and fast and cuts well.



The catching mainly. I also thought the absurdity of the corner cutting made it hard to control.


----------



## mark49152 (Jan 22, 2014)

JackJ said:


> The catching mainly. I also thought the absurdity of the corner cutting made it hard to control.


My Fangshi catches much less than my LingPo. The LingPo was a much greater disappointment, for me.


----------



## Mikel (Jan 28, 2014)

I just tried solving a 3x3 using the principles of Bob Burton's pyraminx method.

The solve was 6:48.93. I gave up because I knew it would take too long.


----------



## Kirjava (Mar 18, 2014)




----------



## Renslay (Mar 18, 2014)

Kirjava said:


> image



Is that a home made mat surface?


----------



## yoshinator (Mar 18, 2014)

wat. the 5x5 avg wr is like 18 seconds faster than it was the last time not feliks held it

watfaztoofazt


----------



## antoineccantin (Mar 18, 2014)

yoshinator said:


> wat. the 5x5 avg wr is like 18 seconds faster than it was the last time not feliks held it
> 
> watfaztoofazt



Last time Feliks didn't have the 3x3 WR avg it was 10.07.


----------



## Kirjava (Mar 19, 2014)

Renslay said:


> Is that a home made mat surface?



I jsut drew on a mat


----------



## Renslay (Mar 20, 2014)

Posting a scramble in the "Easy / Lucky / Funny / Hard / Weird scrambles" thread without any description annoys me just as much as posting a link without any description where it will lead. Is it easy? Is it lucky? Is it funny? Is it hard? Is it weird? Is it good for CFOP? Is it good for BLD? Is it good for Triangular Francisco? Should I scramble my cube to take a look at it? And when I scramble, why can't I see anything special about it? Is it because the poster had a typo? Is it because his method is not what I'm familiar with? Because if it is an EOline skip for example, I'm sure I won't notice it. And if the poster would write "Here is an EOline skip", then I would be "ah, okay, thanks, that is not what I'm looking for".

I should go to sleep.


----------



## Bhargav777 (Mar 20, 2014)

Can someone answer this please? 
Consider, I'm solving megaminx. While dropping it down and after stopping the timer, the cube rolls and is about the fall. To be on the safer side I keep my hand below the table where it might land. The cube falls over my Palm and I just put it back on the table. The judge sees I make no turns either while catching or while redirecting it back to the table. Will that be a +2 or no penalty?


----------



## kcl (Mar 20, 2014)

Bhargav777 said:


> Can someone answer this please?
> Consider, I'm solving megaminx. While dropping it down and after stopping the timer, the cube rolls and is about the fall. To be on the safer side I keep my hand below the table where it might land. The cube falls over my Palm and I just put it back on the table. The judge sees I make no turns either while catching or while redirecting it back to the table. Will that be a +2 or no penalty?



If your judge is a mildly decent person they'll say no penalty. To be safe it's probably best to let it fall and ask the judge to inspect it first.


----------



## antoineccantin (Mar 20, 2014)

Bhargav777 said:


> Can someone answer this please?
> Consider, I'm solving megaminx. While dropping it down and after stopping the timer, the cube rolls and is about the fall. To be on the safer side I keep my hand below the table where it might land. The cube falls over my Palm and I just put it back on the table. The judge sees I make no turns either while catching or while redirecting it back to the table. Will that be a +2 or no penalty?



Take your jacket and throw it under the table so that your megaminx lands on it, unharmed.


----------



## TDM (Mar 20, 2014)

kclejeune said:


> If your judge is a mildly decent person they'll say no penalty.


If your judge is a mildly decent judge they'll say +2.


----------



## kcl (Mar 20, 2014)

TDM said:


> If your judge is a mildly decent judge they'll say +2.



If your judge understands the fact that megaminx(es?) roll pretty easily, they'll probably be understanding.


----------



## TDM (Mar 20, 2014)

kclejeune said:


> If your judge understands the fact that megaminx(es?) roll pretty easily, they'll probably be understanding.


"If your judge understands [something], they'll probably be understanding" 
If it's in the regulations that they should give a +2 or a DNF at their discretion, an understanding judge will give them a +2 as that's the least they can give.


----------



## kcl (Mar 20, 2014)

TDM said:


> "If your judge understands [something], they'll probably be understanding"
> If it's in the regulations that they should give a +2 or a DNF at their discretion, an understanding judge will give them a +2 as that's the least they can give.



That being said, give me credit. I said to be safe you should either A. Ask them to catch it
B. Ask to catch it
C. Let it fall and ask to pick it up.


----------



## TDM (Mar 20, 2014)

kclejeune said:


> That being said, give me credit. I said to be safe you should either A. Ask them to catch it
> B. Ask to catch it
> C. Let it fall and ask to pick it up.


You never said the first two before, although I'd agree with you that any of those would be a good thing to do.


----------



## kcl (Mar 20, 2014)

TDM said:


> You never said the first two before, although I'd agree with you that any of those would be a good thing to do.



Touché, but my point was to get help from the judge whether it be them grabbing it or them granting you permission to grab it.


----------



## Bhargav777 (Mar 20, 2014)

antoineccantin said:


> Take your jacket and throw it under the table so that your megaminx lands on it, unharmed.


Sadlee, I'm no Bruce Lee to have that reflex  


TDM said:


> If your judge is a mildly decent judge they'll say +2.


Got one for 3x3 a few comps back, so I should just be patient enough to drop it down properly, right? Thanks! 


kclejeune said:


> That being said, give me credit. I said to be safe you should either A. Ask them to catch it
> B. Ask to catch it
> C. Let it fall and ask to pick it up.


Last one seems doable. Thanks anyway


----------



## TDM (Mar 20, 2014)

Bhargav777 said:


> Sadlee, I'm no Bruce Lee to have that reflex


You could put it down before.


> Got one for 3x3 a few comps back, so I should just be patient enough to drop it down properly, right? Thanks!


Trying to drop it vertically and not have it roll out of your hands should reduce how much it rolls after you stop the timer. If that doesn't work, it's either let it fall or slow down the solve... neither of which are good options. If what I said doesn't work, then sorry, but idk what to do


----------



## uberCuber (Mar 20, 2014)

TDM said:


> "If your judge understands [something], they'll probably be understanding"
> If it's in the regulations that they should give a +2 or a DNF at their discretion, an understanding judge will give them a +2 as that's the least they can give.



Actually, the judge can give no penalty. A6e says you can't touch the puzzle until the judge inspects it. Well, as a judge, my inspection of the puzzle is generally finished as the timer is being stopped. By the time it starts rolling off the table, I have already inspected it and the competitor is free to catch it.


----------



## kcl (Mar 20, 2014)

uberCuber said:


> Actually, the judge can give no penalty. A6e says you can't touch the puzzle until the judge inspects it. Well, as a judge, my inspection of the puzzle is generally finished as the timer is being stopped. By the time it starts rolling off the table, I have already inspected it and the competitor is free to catch it.



That's basically why I said what I did, because this is how I judge stuff also. Unless it's a big cube with obliques switched, it only takes a couple seconds to inspect.


----------



## antoineccantin (Mar 20, 2014)

kclejeune said:


> That's basically why I said what I did, because this is how I judge stuff also. Unless it's a big cube with obliques switched, it only takes a couple seconds to inspect.



And obliques being switched aren't something you can fix in one second while catching it.


----------



## kcl (Mar 21, 2014)

antoineccantin said:


> And obliques being switched aren't something you can fix in one second while catching it.



Also true, which is why I think it would be no penalty with a lot of judges.


----------



## Kit Clement (Mar 21, 2014)

kclejeune said:


> That's basically why I said what I did, because this is how I judge stuff also.



But this has nothing to do with being a decent person, it's just how the regulations are written. I can be a total ass and still be able to judge whether their puzzle is solved before it was touched, and then apply what I think would be the worst case penalty to that. Maybe if the judge wasn't attentive enough a penalty would have to apply, but whether that judge is a decent person or not is just a judgement of character, nor their judging ability.


----------



## Bhargav777 (Mar 22, 2014)

Kit Clement said:


> But this has nothing to do with being a decent person, it's just how the regulations are written. I can be a total ass and still be able to judge whether their puzzle is solved before it was touched, and then apply what I think would be the worst case penalty to that. Maybe if the judge wasn't attentive enough a penalty would have to apply, but whether that judge is a decent person or not is just a judgement of character, nor their judging ability.



Why not something like, "you are allowed to catch it with your Palm and drop it back on the table unless the judge is sure that you made no moves later"?


----------



## guysensei1 (Mar 22, 2014)

I think this is an ok place to post this...





















I haven't done blue yet. Will do when my cubicle stickers arrive.


----------



## Ninja Storm (Mar 22, 2014)

That green one looks pretty sick. Are you trading/selling these?


----------



## guysensei1 (Mar 23, 2014)

Ninja Storm said:


> That green one looks pretty sick. Are you trading/selling these?



I've sold them all to my friends. 
If there is enough people here willing to buy one, I may make another batch.


----------



## antoineccantin (Mar 26, 2014)




----------



## Jaysammey777 (Mar 30, 2014)

*Weilong Extra Torpedo*

So Today I picked up my mini Weilong and it rattled. Well turns out that inside one of the edges was an extra torpedo. Just thought I'd share.


----------



## Lchu613 (Mar 30, 2014)

Haha nice, I guess you won't have to worry about losing a torpedo. Wonder how that happened.


----------



## antoineccantin (Mar 31, 2014)

So that's where my torpedo disappeared to!


----------



## yoshinator (Apr 1, 2014)

Good angle?


----------



## Tim Major (Apr 1, 2014)

I realise you undid the moves at the start, but if this wasn't a test video that would be dumb. You did some mobes, undid them, then redid them. Instead get a new scramble.

Also angle isn't great IMO. Would be good for tutorials but your old angle was better + showed the timer.


----------



## kcl (Apr 1, 2014)

Tim Major said:


> I realise you undid the moves at the start, but if this wasn't a test video that would be dumb. You did some mobes, undid them, then redid them. Instead get a new scramble.
> 
> Also angle isn't great IMO. Would be good for tutorials but your old angle was better + showed the timer.



Eh I would disagree. If I have a timer fail and forget to reset stackmat or something, I'll undo moves if I've only done a couple. It's not a major deal and I generally ignore those unless I'm doing comp practice.


----------



## qqwref (Apr 14, 2014)

Solved a random <Rw,U> scramble on the 4x4x4 in 2:36.70.

Scramble: U2 r' U r' U' r U2 r' U2 r U r' U2 r U' r U r' U r' U' r U2 r U r' U r' U r2 U2 r' U r' U2 r U' r U r' U2 r U' r' U r U r U' r

Method:


Spoiler



1) Intuitively pair up and solve DR edge.
2) Intuitively pair up and solve BR edge. Then pair DBR with DBr and insert them (r'U2rU2 stuff).
3) Solve remaining corners with U and r(U^n)r' triggers.
4) Solve edges using this 2-cycle (flip UR edge): r' U' r U' r U' r2 U2 r2 U' r U2 r' U2 r U2 r U r U r' U' r U2 r'
5) Solve centers using this 3-cycle (Ufr->Fru->Ufl): r U2 r' U' r U' r2 U2 r2 U r' U' r' U2 r U r' U r2 U2 r2 U' r


----------



## ryanj92 (Apr 14, 2014)

yoshinator said:


> Good angle?



I think a few degrees higher and you should be able to get the cube and the timer in there  I don't know how adjustable GoPro cameras are though, so may be impossible...


----------



## 10461394944000 (Apr 15, 2014)

qqwref said:


> Solved a random <Rw,U> scramble on the 4x4x4 in 2:36.70.
> 
> Scramble: U2 r' U r' U' r U2 r' U2 r U r' U2 r U' r U r' U r' U' r U2 r U r' U r' U r2 U2 r' U r' U2 r U' r U r' U2 r U' r' U r U r U' r
> 
> ...



Just got this (got pretty lucky with the centres):






edit: 1:53.380

Move optimal 5x5 <r,U> pure parity (33 moves)

also a pretty nice regripless 4x4 <r,U> adjacent pll parity alg


----------



## qqwref (Apr 16, 2014)

1:52.34 after many tries (also 2:18.84 avg5 = 2:33.37, 2:18.79, 2:04.37+, (2:37.98), (1:52.34)).


----------



## Rocky0701 (Apr 16, 2014)

qqwref said:


> 1:52.34 after many tries (also 2:18.84 avg5 = 2:33.37, 2:18.79, 2:04.37+, (2:37.98), (1:52.34)).


You guys should now try it with 5x5


----------



## 10461394944000 (Apr 16, 2014)

Rocky0701 said:


> You guys should now try it with 5x5



It's easy because the midges and the + centres are bandaged together so you just need a U perm, which is easy anyway because you can just treat it like 3x3x2 <R,U>.

I think 5x5 <3r, U> would probably be a lot harder but I haven't tried it yet.


----------



## bobthegiraffemonkey (Apr 23, 2014)

Decided to sort out my double parity algs and learn them (especially for 5x5), and was reminded of an idea I had a while back for 4x4 parity but didn't post. I never stuck with it, but it might have potential.

If you can tell you have OLL parity before LS, then you can insert the edge flipped, and with a wrong corner with the U sticker on D (basically a U layer corner upside-down), then solve OLL treating the D sticker of the F2L corner as a U sticker. Then either:
-Inspect for PLL parity, and fix the edge and two wrong corners with either OLL parity or double parity to leave a non-parity PLL case. I think I found a few tricks to influence/solve CP at the same time.
-Do a PLL to either solve LL (apart from the wrong corner), or to leave 2 swapped edges opposite each other. Then fix as above.

Pro: don't need to use 2 parity algs in a single solve.
Con: recognition might be awkward but probably doable. Having a wrong corner is confusing.

P.S. I plan to use these for DP: (F2 x) l2' U2 l U2 l' U2 l U2' (B2 x2') r U2 r U2' (r' l') / (F2 x) l2' U2 3l U2 3l' U2 3l U2' (B2 x2') r U2 3r U2' (r' 3l').


----------



## GG (Apr 28, 2014)

http://puu.sh/8r3nF.jpg 
Erik Akkersdijk has 7,080 subscribers! 
And he's famous for his 7.08 single.
Just had to share this coincidence.
(honestly I didn't edit this go check for yourselves: https://www.youtube.com/user/frk17 )


----------



## qqwref (Apr 29, 2014)

http://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-news-from-elsewhere-27156775

A Chinese company is now 3D printing houses. That's right, full-size houses. Does anyone wanna spend a few thousand bucks and try to get them to 3D print the world's largest twisty puzzle? Since it's 3D printed, it can be any kind of design


----------



## Tim Major (Apr 29, 2014)

Crowd fund a huge functional 3x3!

Would need a special design for turning, or to have it suspended from the centre pieces?


----------



## Rocky0701 (Apr 29, 2014)

Tim Major said:


> Crowd fund a huge functional 3x3!
> 
> Would need a special design for turning, or to have it suspended from the centre pieces?


We should hit up Moyu and get permission to base it off of the WeiLong


----------



## qqwref (Apr 29, 2014)

Or, hit up Oskar van Deventer and get his permission to make a 65x65x65 based off of his 17x17x17 design


----------



## qqwref (Apr 30, 2014)

Rw2' F2 R2 U' R2' F2 Rw2 U'

Pretty fast 3-cycle that works on 3x3x3 and 3x3x2.


----------



## Athefre (May 2, 2014)

I've noticed a few posts in the past where someone doesn't understand the specifics of certain CLL recognition systems. I'm going to try to show the differences.*

Standard:*


Spoiler: Details



*1.* *Find the orientation of the stickers that match the U center color*



*2. Check set positions for matching, neutral, or opposite colors*

Example 1 - R U R' U R U2 R'

Example 2 - R U' L' U R' U' L





*NMCLL:*



Spoiler: Details



*1.* *Find the orientation of the stickers that match the L+R center colors*



*2. Check set positions for matching, neutral, or opposite colors*

Example 1 - U2 F R' F' R U2 R U2 R' U'

Example 2 - U2 F' L F L' U2 L' U2 L U





*Hyperorientations:*



Spoiler: Details



*1.* *Find the orientation of the stickers that match the U center color*



*2a. Check a set position

**

2b. Find the remaining orientation of related stickers*

Example 1 - R U R' U R U2 R'

Example 2 - R U' L' U R' U' L


----------



## 10461394944000 (May 18, 2014)

sune

U2


----------



## DeeDubb (May 19, 2014)

10461394944000 said:


> sune
> 
> U2



I like it. It might be a little longer than the original, but it's so ergonomic, you could crank out the TPS!


----------



## 10461394944000 (May 19, 2014)

DeeDubb said:


> I like it. It might be a little longer than the original, but it's so ergonomic, you could crank out the TPS!



yeah it's move optimal in <r,u> too wich is cool


----------



## 10461394944000 (May 20, 2014)

3x3:

(r' f r2 u' r2 f r)2 = [L' U2 L, E2]


----------



## Rocky0701 (May 20, 2014)

It was kinda funny. In English today my teacher was googling something and she had the projector loading and it had the Rubik's cube and she's like "Oh yeah, i was watching the news this morning and they said today was the 40th aniversary of the cube" and then literally like half of the class just stares at me to see my reaction because most of them know i speedsolve.


----------



## kinch2002 (May 20, 2014)

Bhargav777 said:


> Can someone answer this please?
> Consider, I'm solving megaminx. While dropping it down and after stopping the timer, the cube rolls and is about the fall. To be on the safer side I keep my hand below the table where it might land. The cube falls over my Palm and I just put it back on the table. The judge sees I make no turns either while catching or while redirecting it back to the table. Will that be a +2 or no penalty?


Yeah, I know I'm like 2 months late, but having read the responses I feel like replying, as none of them seem to state that a penalty MUST be applied for catching it. The judge cannot inspect the puzzle while it is rolling because

_10b) Only the resting state of the puzzle, after the timer has been stopped, is considered._

Therefore the puzzle has not been inspected when it is touched and the following regulation must be applied, for a +2 or DNF at the judge's discretion:

_A6e) The competitor must not touch or move the puzzle until the judge has inspected the puzzle. Penalty: disqualification of the attempt (DNF). Exception: If no moves have been applied, a time penalty (+2 seconds) may be assigned instead, at the discretion of the judge._

I think the risk of pieces/caps popping is probably quite high if the floor is hard so I would catch the puzzle and hope that the judge is alert enough to give you the benefit of the doubt that the puzzle was solved before it was caught and therefore it's a +2.

Or you could put the puzzle down a bit more carefully


----------



## Bhargav777 (May 20, 2014)

kinch2002 said:


> Yeah, I know I'm like 2 months late, but having read the responses I feel like replying, as none of them seem to state that a penalty MUST be applied for catching it. The judge cannot inspect the puzzle while it is rolling because
> 
> _10b) Only the resting state of the puzzle, after the timer has been stopped, is considered._
> 
> ...



Thanks


----------



## guysensei1 (May 20, 2014)

10461394944000 said:


> 3x3:
> 
> (r' f r2 u' r2 f r)2 = [L' U2 L, E2]



How are you finding these wide turn things?

I only know one

r u r' u' r' f r2 u' r' u' r u r' f' (AKA standard T perm with wide turns) = L B D' R' B' R D2 B' L' D' B R D' R'

Switches 3 f2l pairs around.


----------



## Kirjava (May 20, 2014)

I assume he's using ksolve.


----------



## 10461394944000 (May 20, 2014)

Kirjava said:


> I assume he's using ksolve.



yes

but I found (r' f r2 u' r2 f r)2 manually

2 flip
dots
3 cycle
U perm
R U


----------



## vcuber13 (May 20, 2014)

Is there anywhere that has the odds of each OLL?

Edit: Jessica's page has it: http://www.ws.binghamton.edu/fridrich/Mike/orient.html


----------



## irontwig (May 20, 2014)

vcuber13 said:


> Is there anywhere that has the odds of each OLL?



Looks the same after y: 1/216
Looks the same after y2: 1/108
The rest: 1/54


----------



## vcuber13 (May 20, 2014)

irontwig said:


> Looks the same after y: 1/216
> Looks the same after y2: 1/108
> The rest: 1/54



That makes sense, thanks.


----------



## elrog (May 21, 2014)

Athefre said:


> I've noticed a few posts in the past where someone doesn't understand the specifics of certain CLL recognition systems. I'm going to try to show the differences.*
> 
> Standard:*
> 
> ...



I would like to add my CLL recognition system to this. I am working on making a page that shows each recog case with an alg for various kinds of CLL. Any name suggestions would be nice as well.

*UN-NAMED:*


Spoiler: Details



*1. Look at a corner and take note of the 2 colors on it that are not the U center color
*


*2. Find the location of the matching colors*

Example 1 - U2 R' U' R U' l U' R' U l' U2 R

Example 2 - U2 R' U2 R U R' U R2 U' r' F R' F' r



I am aware that you can't use this recognition system from 2 sides, but with so few pieces to look for, it is easy to track them before you get to the step.


----------



## antoineccantin (May 25, 2014)

Sajwo said:


> No, she's not.



So I'm the best Skewber in he World other than Jonatan?
lolnotatall


----------



## kcl (May 25, 2014)

antoineccantin said:


> So I'm the best Skewber in he World other than Jonatan?
> lolnotatall



I'm a random skewb nub! Hurray!


----------



## Przemek Kaleta (May 25, 2014)

antoineccantin said:


> So I'm the best Skewber in he World other than Jonatan?
> lolnotatall



For a wile. 



kclejeune said:


> I'm a random skewb nub! Hurray!


IMO - yes, you are. Sorry :<


----------



## kcl (May 25, 2014)

Przemek Kaleta said:


> IMO - yes, you are. Sorry :<



Reasoning?


----------



## Przemek Kaleta (May 25, 2014)

kclejeune said:


> Reasoning?



https://www.worldcubeassociation.org/results/p.php?i=2013LEJE03


----------



## kcl (May 25, 2014)

Przemek Kaleta said:


> https://www.worldcubeassociation.org/results/p.php?i=2013LEJE03



If you mean to tell me I suck at skewb just because of a single official average, I'll just quit arguing now because I guarantee you're too thick headed and stubborn to see my points.


----------



## yoinneroid (May 25, 2014)

kclejeune said:


> If you mean to tell me I suck at skewb just because of a single official average, I'll just quit arguing now because I guarantee you're too thick headed and stubborn to see my points.



Well, it's just how the polish see cubing records, they basically use the wca records to decide someone's skills, probably using the unofficial pbs as tie-breakers or something, I mean, they value only the official records if someone claims to be good, that's why they make as many comps as possible, to allow people to proof that they are as good as they claim they are. These are probably not entirely true, but that's how I view things.


----------



## DuffyEdge (May 25, 2014)

I think that since WCA rankings are really the only reliable indicator of how good somebody is, then it's reasonable to use it to determine who's better than who.

Having said that, I also don't think it's correct to believe there is a single "best" person in the world in anything. More like a small group of people who are at the top. Much like Nadal, Djokovic, Federer, Murray etc are the best in the world at tennis.


----------



## Sajwo (May 25, 2014)

kclejeune said:


> If you mean to tell me I suck at skewb just because of a single official average, I'll just quit arguing now because I guarantee you're too thick headed and stubborn to see my points.



Or maybe you just suck at skewb


----------



## Przemek Kaleta (May 25, 2014)

xD There is no other ways to define who is fast.


----------



## kcl (May 25, 2014)

Sajwo said:


> Or maybe you just sucks at skewb



Case and point.


----------



## arcio1 (May 25, 2014)

yoinneroid said:


> Well, it's just how the polish see cubing records,


It's how Sajwo and Przemek see cubing records. Don't try to tell what Poles are like by looking at Przemek's and Sajwo's posts, trust me.


yoinneroid said:


> they make as many comps as possible, to allow people to proof that they are as good as they claim they are. These are probably not entirely true, but that's how I view things.


We organise so many comps because we are able to do that. Don't try to look for hidden meaning.


Seriously, don't try to discuss with Przemek and Sajwo, it makes no sense. Przemek is a person, who thinks that if you are slower than Feliks - you suck. I mean, would anyone on this forum say that 10.30 mo100 on 3x3 is slow as ****? He did. I think that Sajwo just thinks that he is a better person than anyone else here and doesn't deserve discussion.


----------



## Sajwo (May 25, 2014)

arcio1 said:


> I think that Sajwo just thinks that he is a better person than anyone else here and doesn't deserve discussion.



No, I just think that unofficial results means nothing. You can have 4.xx ao100 (kclejeune for example) and you're still a noob because of your official results


----------



## kcl (May 25, 2014)

Sajwo said:


> No, I just think that unofficial results means nothing. You can have 4.xx ao100 (kclejeune for example) and you're still a noob because of your official results



By your own logic, Jonatan's 4.08 ao12 means nothing.


----------



## Sajwo (May 25, 2014)

You have to be kidding..


----------



## uberCuber (May 25, 2014)

Sajwo said:


> You have to be kidding..



You just said yourself that it means nothing, so no, I don't think he was kidding.


----------



## Coolster01 (May 25, 2014)

Sajwo: I LOVE YOU! APPARENTLY I'M THE FASTEST 2x2 SOLVER IN THE WORLD NOW, THANKS TO YOUR STATEMENT!


----------



## Sajwo (May 25, 2014)

It doesn't make Kennan a fast cuber. Jonatan is currently the fastest person in the skewb (and his official results are just about the same as his unofficial results)
And for Kennan, 4.xx ao100 is kinda hard to believe considering his 8.xx avg5 - just another yoshinator for now

Rami, you are


----------



## XTowncuber (May 25, 2014)

Sajwo said:


> It doesn't make Kennan a fast cuber. Jonatan is currently the fastest person in the skewb (and his official results are just about the same as his unofficial results)
> And for Kennan, 4.xx ao100 is kinda hard to believe considering his 8.xx avg5 - just another yoshinator for now


Interesting view of things. Can't say I agree with it at all, I rather like that the community is built on trust.


----------



## yoshinator (May 25, 2014)

Sajwo said:


> )And for Kennan, 4.xx ao100 is kinda hard to believe considering his 8.xx avg5 - just another yoshinator for now



But I have a good official avg now! 

Or are you refering to before?


----------



## kcl (May 25, 2014)

Sajwo said:


> It doesn't make Kennan a fast cuber. Jonatan is currently the fastest person in the skewb (and his official results are just about the same as his unofficial results)
> And for Kennan, 4.xx ao100 is kinda hard to believe considering his 8.xx avg5 - just another yoshinator for now
> 
> Rami, you are



You are literally too stupid to argue with. I'm not even going to waste my energy trying.


----------



## Sajwo (May 25, 2014)

kclejeune said:


> You are literally too stupid to argue with. I'm not even going to waste my energy trying.



Thanks, I won.


Jacob, I was refering to before, I have nothing to you right now


----------



## kcl (May 25, 2014)

*Yu Da Hyun Megaminx 39.94 +2 single at an unofficial competition*



Sajwo said:


> Thanks, I won.
> 
> 
> Jacob, I was refering to before, I have nothing to you right now



You didn't win. Take a look at this thread. Pretty much everyone disagrees.


I have a question. Antoine didn't have an official sub 10 average until just a few months ago. I suppose you just thought all his times were fake?


----------



## TDM (May 25, 2014)

Sajwo said:


> And for Kennan, 4.xx ao100 is kinda hard to believe considering his 8.xx avg5 - just another yoshinator for now


You honestly think you can take one average of 5 under pressure and say that's what they actually average, and think any times much better than that are fake? In the only round of 2x2 I've ever done, I had a 6.95 average and a 5.91 was the best single. I averaged 5 at the time of that competition. Don't just assume official results can be used to determine how fast someone is, because they can't.
Also, why specifically choose yoshinator? There are plenty of other cubers who have faked times, and yoshinator admitted it and apologised. It's unfair to say someone who has faked times (which you have no evidence of in this case) is "just another yoshinator".


----------



## Antonie faz fan (May 25, 2014)

Sajwo said:


> It doesn't make Kennan a fast cuber. Jonatan is currently the fastest person in the skewb (and his official results are just about the same as his unofficial results)
> And for Kennan, 4.xx ao100 is kinda hard to believe considering his 8.xx avg5 - just another yoshinator for now
> 
> Rami, you are



dude, when you don't do well at 3bld at a comp i do not hear anyone complaining that you cheat or something at other comps/at home becuase you mess up at a comp ( as example:a1:06.55 3bld solves you did witch is like twice youre avg, i didnt see anyone complaining). this was Kennan's 3rd comp and obviously he was one of the best cubers and had the capabiltiy to get WR/NAR ( at skewb). you as a really fast (3 bld) cuber should understand how it is to have the capability to get WR. conclusion: messing up solves.


----------



## kcl (May 25, 2014)

ITT: sawjo looks like an idiot and a jerk with trust issues, rami is now faster than Chris, I'm clearly faking my skewb times


----------



## Rubiks560 (May 25, 2014)

Wow. I wasn't aware that I wasn't the best at 2x2.
I guess 1.9x AO100 > 1.64. My bad. Thanks for clearing that up Sajwo. I'm silly


----------



## kcl (May 25, 2014)

Rubiks560 said:


> Wow. I wasn't aware that I wasn't the best at 2x2.
> I guess 1.9x AO100 > 1.64. My bad. Thanks for clearing that up Sajwo. I'm silly



Obviously, 1.9 = larger than 1.64
Larger = greater 
Greater = better 

rami is better, step it up nub


----------



## Bhargav777 (May 25, 2014)

Sajwo - even if that is the case, why would you want to point it out and go on hurting people? What kind of happiness does it give you? Why not just congratulate people and leave instead of pointing out that someone else is faster than them? 
Frankly speaking, it took me almost a year to get one sub 17.25 oh average when I was averaging sub 14.5 at home. Sometimes nerves, sometimes disturbances. Only when the right moment appears,things can be done. But that time it's hard to take back your words.


----------



## Sajwo (May 25, 2014)

Because I don't like Kennan's arrogance. He think's that he's extremaly good (or maybe even the best), but his not.

And if Chris were the best in 2x2, he would have been WR holder. He's not so he's not the best


----------



## Ollie (May 25, 2014)

Sajwo said:


> Because I don't like Kennan's arrogance. He think's that he's extremaly good (or maybe even the best), but his not.
> 
> And if Chris were the best in 2x2, he would have been WR holder. He's not so he's not the best



Person A has held the world record in 2x2x2 10 times, the most recent being a 1.50s ao5, and has much faster unofficial times at home.
Person B averages 5.00s at home, gets 5 very lucky scrambles in comp and gets a 1.49s ao5 WR.

is B > A? You seem to be over-generalizing.


----------



## Sajwo (May 25, 2014)

Yes


----------



## Ollie (May 25, 2014)

Sajwo said:


> Yes



Person A has 20x sub-2 official ao5s. Person B has 19x sub-6 ao5s and the freak 1.49 ao5 wr.

B > A?

Edit: for clarity, person B has 19x SUP-5s ao5's


----------



## Sajwo (May 25, 2014)

Ollie said:


> Person A has 20x sub-2 official ao5s. Person B has 19x sub-6 ao5s and the freak 1.49 ao5 wr.
> 
> B > A?
> 
> Edit: for clarity, person B has 19x SUP-5s ao5's



Yes, and You are not the fastest person in 4BLD 
Don't know if I said that before, but single WR means much less than avg




Person A have 3 official 4BLD results ~2:30
Person B beat his result by 0.15. Do you agree that A>B?


----------



## Ollie (May 25, 2014)

Sajwo said:


> Yes, and You are not the fastest person in 4BLD
> Don't know if I said that before, but single WR means much less than avg
> 
> 
> ...



So:

1. unofficial times and previous records have no worth
2. only your fastest official average matters
3. unless its 4BLD/5BLD when your missing average (_which isn't even official_) matters more than your WR single.

Cherry picking much?


----------



## XTowncuber (May 25, 2014)

Sajwo said:


> Yes.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


A>B...but only officially. B could be better than A if we look at what times they get at home.


----------



## Kit Clement (May 25, 2014)

Sajwo said:


> Yes, and You are not the fastest person in 4BLD
> Don't know if I said that before, but single WR means much less than avg
> 
> 
> ...



I'd possibly agree with that hypothetical example, but you really need more information (what they do at home, how many official attempts they've had, etc.) to make that decision. Regardless, you aren't the authority on who is best in the world at any given event, and I think you have come off extremely condescending toward Ollie's and several other cubers' achievements recently.


----------



## Robert-Y (May 25, 2014)

At the time when Sameer broke the 2x2x2 WR avg, would you have said that Sameer is the best in the world at 2x2x2?


----------



## Sajwo (May 25, 2014)

1 Yes
2 Yes
3 I do not know why it's not ranked officialy. It should be just like 3BLD
4 I do not believe in your unofficial times
5 You didn't answered my question


----------



## Ollie (May 25, 2014)

Sajwo said:


> 1 Yes
> 2 Yes
> 3 I do not know why it's not ranked officialy. It should be just like 3BLD
> 4 I do not believe in your unofficial times
> 5 You didn't answered my question



3. regardless, it isnt. Your position on 3 directly contradicts your positions on 1 and 2.
4. believe what you want
5. the question you changed 2/3 times before I got the chance to see it? And I agree with Kit's post that more information is required. I.e. current WRs, previous records, global average times at home, how many competitions that person has been to.


----------



## arcio1 (May 25, 2014)

Robert-Y said:


> At the time when Sameer broke the 2x2x2 WR avg, would you have said that Sameer is the best in the world at 2x2x2?



Don't even try, he is going to answer "yes" to all of these questions in order to not "lose" this argument.


----------



## Sajwo (May 25, 2014)

Ollie said:


> 5. the question you changed 2/3 times before I got the chance to see it? And I agree with Kit's post that more information is required. I.e. current WRs, previous records, global average times at home, how many competitions that person has been to.



It look the same as it was looking at the beginning


----------



## DuffyEdge (May 25, 2014)

kclejeune said:


> I too am faster than Feliks zemdegs because I have an unofficial single sub his official average



I am faster at 5BLD than Ollie because I have a faster unofficial single than his official mean

and that goes for 4BLD and MBLD too


----------



## joey (May 25, 2014)

If you talk about who is #1 in the World, this discussion would be a lot shorter.


----------



## DeeDubb (May 25, 2014)

I'm not sure how it's Yu Da Hyun's fault that Korea doesn't have any delegates living in the country. She broke the single WR in a competition setting, and has many videos solving sub 40 at home. If you put her, Feliks, and Simon in a competition tomorrow, you would honestly not have your money on her because Korea doesn't have the delegates to give her the opportunity to post official times?


----------



## TDM (May 25, 2014)

I'm just not going to try arguing with him; there isn't much point. I'm thinking one of the main reasons why he's only interested in official results is his lucky 3x3 single that put him in the top 30 in the world. Even ignoring that, his arguments are ridiculous and he doesn't listen to anyone. There are some people on here that just can't accept they're wrong... and never will.


----------



## DeeDubb (May 25, 2014)

TDM said:


> I'm just not going to try arguing with him; there isn't much point. I'm thinking one of the main reasons why he's only interested in official results is *his lucky 3x3 single that put him in the top 30 in the world*. Even ignoring that, his arguments are ridiculous and he doesn't listen to anyone. There are some people on here that just can't accept they're wrong... and never will.



Except he said Ollie's 4BLD didn't matter because it was only a single....


----------



## antoineccantin (May 25, 2014)

Yay I'm the fastest in the world at OH even though Michal, Justin, Feliks, Piti and Hyo-Min have a faster unofficial avg12!


----------



## TDM (May 25, 2014)

DeeDubb said:


> Except he said Ollie's 4BLD didn't matter because it was only a single....


Sorry, I didn't read all of his posts, thought it was all the same thing tbh. The rest of my post still applies.


----------



## Rubiks560 (May 25, 2014)

Honestly...Sajwo, 
You can't base who is the OVERALL best based on the WR. What about the previous SQ1 WR? That was not deserved and he certainly wasn't the best. 
You're giving the Polish people such a bad image. Never met someone more stuck up on these forums.

Yes, I think I'm the overall best at 2x2. I don't have WR. Why? Because my last few comps have had absolute crap scrambles. Maybe if you knew anything about 2x2 you would understand that.


----------



## TeddyKGB (May 26, 2014)

arcio1 said:


> Don't even try, he is going to answer "yes" to all of these questions in order to not "lose" this argument.



He already lost...


joey said:


> If you talk about who is #1 in the World, this discussion would be a lot shorter.



Is it me?


----------



## kcl (May 26, 2014)

Let me ask a new question. I'm quite aware you feel that Jonatan is superior to me and anybody else on planet earth who can solve skewb right now. If one day I magically got another comp with skewb, and happened to get WR, would I suddenly become the best skewb solver in your brain?


----------



## Przemek Kaleta (May 26, 2014)

kclejeune said:


> Let me ask a new question. I'm quite aware you feel that Jonatan is superior to me and anybody else on planet earth who can solve skewb right now. If one day I magically got another comp with skewb, and happened to get WR, would I suddenly become the best skewb solver in your brain?



Yes of course.


----------



## Tim Major (May 26, 2014)

Kennan, you said, "You are too stupid to argue with"

...over 30 posts later and you're still here.

Kennan if you truly think you're that good at Skewb, then learn to ignore Sajwo. But I agree, official results are the most important medium.

The world record holder obviously can handle comp pressure better than you (maybe because he has things in his life other than cubing? Not trying to be mean but it's all you do all day)

I think saying Rami>Chris is very different. They have both proven to be very fast, Chris is only 0.02 off the world record, his ao1000 isn't 60% of his comp times, it's almost the exact same.

There have been too many cheaters and liars to disregard a medium (comp solves) as proof for skill.

So Kennan just leave this thread now, you're arguing that you're as good as someone with SEVERAL sub 5 official skewb averages. Don't say "I've only had one chance". His WORST Skewb average was 6.14 out of 16 averages since you got your 8.xy average. Your BEST has been 8.xy

Sajwo and Przemek may come off blunt, but they're basing their opinions off facts. You're just being emotional.


Now on a completely unrelated note, Riley Woo now has the 3x3 UWR! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v6s9l7kgwRM&feature=youtu.be

It was a misscramble, and extremely lucky so no point seriously counting it as UWR, but still pretty cool


----------



## kcl (May 26, 2014)

Tim Major said:


> ~snip~



oh joy, I get to deal with you and your crap again. Official results ARE important, but they by no means solely define somebody's skill level. Take Drew as an example. His ao100 is not much slower than mine (5.05?), but his average in comp isn't sub 6. You're going to say the averages are closer than mine are. That's true, but my point remains the same. 

Next, when it comes to comp nerves, I handle them just fine. Dixon was particularly bad because of pretty bad scrambles and overall nervousness for the specific event. After all, it was my first round of skewb ever. So, saying I have no life and I only cube is completely false. Most of my life is actually school/music related, contrary to popular belief. 

You mention both Chris and Rami proving to be very fast. I agree completely, but look at how many chances they've had to prove themselves. I have had exactly one round of skewb, and I was barely even sub 6. If you mean to tell me that's not a disadvantage, you have brain damage of some kind. If you don't believe my times I honestly don't care. You like giving me crap for stuff either way, I'll just deal with it because I know the times are not fake. 

I'm not arguing that I am as good as the WR holder. I'm stating it as fact. I hold the UWRs. Fact enough for you? I'm saying I have only had one chance, because, let's be real. I'VE ONLY HAD ONE CHANCE. It was nerve-racking, and you're still forgetting about the aspect of luck (which I did not get). Also note, he has had 16 averages since my piece of trash. If that's not saying enough as to why he has a better average than I do, I'm not sure what will. You say that my best has been 8.04. My ONLY has been 8.04. I'm not gonna lie, the average sucks.

Sajwo and Przymek are being stupid, just as you are right now. The only facts they accept are official ones. The point they're trying to make (and you now also) is like trying to say Bill Wang was worse than Antoine at 3x3 before he got NAR. He posted lots of sub 8, even some sub 7. Did you not believe him simply because he didn't have a chance to compete? That's the same as calling me fake/not fast at skewb. I hold the UWRs, so what if I haven't gotten to compete yet? I was barely sub 6 when I did my official skewb average. I have another question. Who do you think the fastest pyra solver in the world is? You automatically say Drew, they'll say it's oscar roth andersen. So yes, they are saying things based on facts, but they are completely ignoring unofficial times which are half of it. My ao100 is less than the current WR ao5, and you mean to tell me I'm not in the same league? The logic just doesn't add up. I'm not being emotional in the slightest. I'm defending skills I have worked hard to reach.


----------



## Tim Major (May 26, 2014)

kclejeune said:


> You automatically say Drew, they'll say it's oscar roth andersen.



Oh, I didn't know I'd say that. Considering Odder said on cubecast that he averages 2.7 or something, I see no reason to think that Drew is faster. If Drew's PB ao100 is 2.5~ then I assume Drew is slower than 2.7 (though this may be wrong)

You get so angry about it, and very defensive. Just stop going everywhere going on about how good you are at Skewb if you haven't backed it up in comp. For example, Antoine got NAR and your comment? "those scrambles look so easy".

Anyway have fun debating against people who don't agree with you and won't change their minds, I've heard it's productive.


----------



## IRNjuggle28 (May 26, 2014)

This is the stupidest thing I've seen on here in forever. Tim, do you even believe in the points you're arguing for? Because you seem like you're just playing devil's advocate. If anything, I'd rather think that you're just overly confrontational than that you actually believe the BS you're arguing in favor of. Sure, some of the things that Kennan said could rub people the wrong way. That doesn't do anything to change how fast he is. And your only response to Kennan pointing out that AO100 is more telling than a single AO5 was to imply that he was a cheater. 

I can't tell if Sajwo and Przemek are trolling or not, but they're full of ****.


----------



## tseitsei (May 26, 2014)

My two cents: I believe most of the peoples times they post here (including kclejeunes times) are real, BUT I think the official competition times ARE THE MOST IMPORTANT in measuring who is the best. After all that's why we have competitions. To compete and find out who is the fastest (also for fun ofcourse  ).

I think so mainly because just like in any other sport you have to "prove"(even tough I believe peoples unofficial times) that you are better than your opponent in official competition. Nobody really cares how good you are when practising by yourself, you must do well in competitions. That's one of the great things in many sports: you have to do well in the right place and time.

Again just my opinion. You are free to agree/disagree if you want.


----------



## Tim Major (May 26, 2014)

tseitsei said:


> My two cents: I believe most of the peoples times they post here (including kclejeunes times) are real, BUT I think the official competition times ARE THE MOST IMPORTANT in measuring who is the best. After all that's why we have competitions. To compete and find out who is the fastest (also for fun ofcourse  ).
> 
> I think so mainly because just like in any other sport you have to "prove"(even tough I believe peoples unofficial times) that you are better than your opponent in official competition. Nobody really cares how good you are when practising by yourself, you must do well in competitions. That's one of the great things in many sports: you have to do well in the right place and time.
> 
> Again just my opinion. You are free to agree/disagree if you want.



This guy basically summed up my entire view. I don't think Kennan is lying, but official results>unofficial


----------



## DeeDubb (May 26, 2014)

The thing is, if someone has a lot more opportunities to compete than someone else, then of course they will have a much higher chance to do better. It's simple statistics. I think the competition is important, and determined the official world record holders, but a world record holder is not necessarily the "best" at any given event. Like the thing with Yu Da Hyun. If Ilkoo had hopped on a plane and made the event official, she has the WR single in mega, but since he didn't, she doesn't. Does Ilkoo's ability to come to Korea make Da Hyun a better/worse solver? Of course not, but by some definitions here, it does.


----------



## tseitsei (May 26, 2014)

DeeDubb said:


> The thing is, *1. if someone has a lot more opportunities to compete than someone else, then of course they will have a much higher chance to do better. It's simple statistics.* I think the competition is important, and determined the official world record holders, *2. but a world record holder is not necessarily the "best" at any given event.* Like the thing with Yu Da Hyun. If Ilkoo had hopped on a plane and made the event official, she has the WR single in mega, but since he didn't, she doesn't. *3. Does Ilkoo's ability to come to Korea make Da Hyun a better/worse solver? Of course not, but by some definitions here, it does.*



1. Yeah, of course someone who goes to a competitions a lot has more chances to do better times officially, but that's just how it goes.

2. This is true. A world record holder is not necessarily the best at that event at that moment. For example Sergei Pubka isn't the best Pole Vault jumper in the world today, obviously, buut he is still the world record holder as long as someone will break his record in an OFFICIAL COMPETITION, not in practise comps or training camps.

3. No, it does make her a better/worse cuber. But if Usain Bolt doesnät compete in Olympic games he can't break WR there or win the olympic champion title. Da Hyun is clearly VERY good at mega, but someone else has done it faster OFFICIALLY. That's just part of any sport really. If you don't compete you can't win.


----------



## Ollie (May 26, 2014)

I don't think anyone disputes the importance of official records. By definition, they are the only objective measure of who is the best. But in reality, competitions are infrequent and do not always reflect a person's true ability. Which is why we look at other evidence such as CRs, NRs, whether the person has won any major competitions such as the WC, unofficial times, contributions to the community, ability to cope under pressure, etc. Which is what this argument was about?

I'm also fairly sure Sawjo was trolling. I hope...


----------



## tseitsei (May 26, 2014)

Ollie said:


> I don't think anyone disputes the importance of official records. By definition, they are the only objective measure of who is the best. But in reality, competitions are infrequent and do not always reflect a person's true ability. Which is why we look at other evidence such as CRs, NRs, whether the person has won any major competitions such as the WC, unofficial times, contributions to the community, ability to cope under pressure, etc. Which is what this argument was about?
> *
> I'm also fairly sure Sawjo was trolling. I hope...*



I kind of agree but I still think that saying "I have xx:xx average at home unofficially" is kind of like usain bolt saying "I ran 100m in 9.20s a week ago at practise". Ok, good for you but now do it in real competition...

Also I completely agree with bolded part. That was just stupid and arrogant behaviour.


----------



## JackJ (May 26, 2014)

Who even cares? This is supposed to be a hobby. Sure competition is great, passion is too. Pointless arguing is dumb.


----------



## kcl (May 26, 2014)

Tim Major said:


> Oh, I didn't know I'd say that. Considering Odder said on cubecast that he averages 2.7 or something, I see no reason to think that Drew is faster. If Drew's PB ao100 is 2.5~ then I assume Drew is slower than 2.7 (though this may be wrong)



If Odder averaged 2.7 wouldn't he have UWR ao100..?
Next, I didn't say Antoine's scrambles looked easy to degrade his record. I was stating it as fact, and I still have great respect for his solving. He fully deserves the record. 
"Anyway have fun debating against people who don't agree with you, I hear it's productive."
That's like all you do on these forums anyway..



Tim Major said:


> This guy basically summed up my entire view. I don't think Kennan is lying, but official results>unofficial



And the point I'm trying to make to you is that I haven't had the chance to get the oh so important official results. Since Dixon, I have not had a comp with skewb within a 12 hour radius. I've improved greatly, and I will no doubt smash my current average with the next one I get.


----------



## Ninja Storm (May 26, 2014)

kclejeune said:


> And the point I'm trying to make to you is that I haven't had the chance to get the oh so important official results. Since Dixon, I have not had a comp with skewb within a 12 hour radius. I've improved greatly, and I will no doubt smash my current average with the next one I get.



For the one chance you had, you bombed.

You're claiming crazy times that you can't back up with official results, and people are giving you flack for that. However, I've seen Sajwo being extremely mean to people for their times, so don't feel too bad about it.

Until you get those types of times in competition, not everyone will have faith in you. Surely you must realize that.



tseitsei said:


> My two cents: I believe most of the peoples times they post here (including kclejeunes times) are real, BUT I think the official competition times ARE THE MOST IMPORTANT in measuring who is the best. After all that's why we have competitions. To compete and find out who is the fastest (also for fun ofcourse  ).
> 
> I think so mainly because just like in any other sport you have to "prove"(even tough I believe peoples unofficial times) that you are better than your opponent in official competition. Nobody really cares how good you are when practising by yourself, you must do well in competitions. That's one of the great things in many sports: you have to do well in the right place and time.
> 
> Again just my opinion. You are free to agree/disagree if you want.



What a perfect way to describe this situation.


----------



## XTowncuber (May 26, 2014)

Well if Sajwo was trolling, I'd say he definitely succeeded.


----------



## kcl (May 26, 2014)

Ninja Storm said:


> For the one chance you had, you bombed.
> 
> You're claiming crazy times that you can't back up with official results, and people are giving you flack for that. However, I've seen Sajwo being extremely mean to people for their times, so don't feel too bad about it.
> 
> Until you get those types of times in competition, not everyone will have faith in you. Surely you must understand that.



I get that. I bombed it, I'm not denying that. It was also two months ago, and I have improved a lot. I also have no doubt I will smash it the next time I get to compete in skewb. I can't prove myself until I get that chance. And yeah don't worry, he's not affecting me. Just motivating me even more to go for a record haha.


----------



## yoshinator (May 26, 2014)

kclejeune said:


> I get that. I bombed it, I'm not denying that. It was also two months ago, and I have improved a lot. I also have no doubt I will smash it the next time I get to compete in skewb. I can't prove myself until I get that chance. And yeah don't worry, he's not affecting me. Just motivating me even more to go for a record haha.



I hate to jump in here, because I know I'm not one to be talking, but: How is this time's "no doubt" different from last time? Last time you said "no doubt" you'd get NAR/WR, but you didn't. How is now any different?


----------



## kcl (May 26, 2014)

yoshinator said:


> I hate to jump in here, because I know I'm not one to be talking, but: How is this time's "no doubt" different from last time? Last time you said "no doubt" you'd get NAR/WR, but you didn't. How is now any different?



I'm not guaranteeing I'll break a record this time. Last time I didn't realize how much more pressure there is when you're capable of WR. I know I'll smash my current average because it's so awful, but I'm not going to try and say I can sub 4.78 on crappy scrambles.


----------



## DuffyEdge (May 26, 2014)

kclejeune said:


> I'm not guaranteeing I'll break a record this time. Last time I didn't realize how much more pressure there is when you're capable of WR. I know I'll smash my current average because it's so awful, but I'm not going to try and say I can sub 4.78 on crappy scrambles.



When is your next Skewb competition?


----------



## kcl (May 26, 2014)

DuffyEdge said:


> When is your next Skewb competition?



If I can convince Brandon to have a round at Iowa, June 7. If not, probably nats unless I can organize something in the summer.


----------



## DuffyEdge (May 26, 2014)

kclejeune said:


> If I can convince Brandon to have a round at Iowa, June 7. If not, probably nats unless I can organize something in the summer.



I hope you do well! People might start doubting your times if you don't…

No pressure


----------



## qqwref (May 26, 2014)

Wow, I respect Sajwo and Tim Major so much less because of this discussion. Nice job guys.


----------



## Jaycee (May 26, 2014)

ITT: 

-Sajwo likes to make people feel bad
-Tim Major goes out of his way to target Kennan *yet again*
-"If you don't hold WR you suck"

Now I remember why I stopped coming here.


----------



## Przemek Kaleta (May 26, 2014)

The point is that unnoficial times mean nothing . Kennan thinks that he is the best in the world at skewb ("I can smash WR easily" , "Congrats to him, but it just got a whole lot harder for me to get WR..", scrambles looked way good ) and I know he is good but he forgets that there are better cubers, who proved their skill at competition (btw Miłosz Gdula said he has 4.3 avg100 and Tomasz Bogdanik has ~3.7 avg 12). I don't want to offense anyone, but his arrogance is annoying for me. Now I'm going to stop arguing and wait for his official times. I care about them more than about unnoficial UWRs. Good luck Kennan. Bye


----------



## kcl (May 26, 2014)

Przemek Kaleta said:


> The point is that unnoficial times mean nothing . Kennan thinks that he is the best in the world at skewb ("I can smash WR easily" , "Congrats to him, but it just got a whole lot harder for me to get WR..", scrambles looked way good ) and I know he is good but he forgets that there are better cubers, who proved their skill at competition (btw Miłosz Gdula said he has 4.3 avg100 and Tomasz Bogdanik has ~3.7 avg 12). I don't want to offense anyone, but his arrogance is annoying for me. Now I'm going to stop arguing and wait for his official times. I care about them more than about unnoficial UWRs. Good luck Kennan. Bye


Oh I'm sorry, those are unofficial times so I guess I don't care. I don't THINK I can beat WR. I KNOW I can, I get averages lower very frequently, I'm not sure why you're trying to deny this. I'm not trying to be arrogant, I'm stating a fact. I am capable of WR. Also, if Tomasz has 3.7x why did you try and post 4.08 as UWR? I could make the same argument about them that you make about me, nether of them has a sub 5 official average.


----------



## Sajwo (May 26, 2014)

kclejeune said:


> Oh I'm sorry, those are unofficial times so I guess I don't care. I don't THINK I can beat WR. I KNOW I can, I get averages lower very frequently, I'm not sure why you're trying to deny this. I'm not trying to be arrogant, I'm stating a fact. I am capable of WR. Also, if Tomasz has 3.7x why did you try and post 4.08 as UWR? I could make the same argument about them that you make about me, nether of them has a sub 5 official average.



For sure their times are more legit than yours.


----------



## kcl (May 26, 2014)

Sajwo said:


> For sure their times are more legit than yours.



It's pretty clear you think I'm fake. I'm not. You've already lost this battle.


----------



## 10461394944000 (May 26, 2014)

Przemek Kaleta said:


> The point is that unnoficial times mean nothing.



you are wrong


----------



## antoineccantin (May 26, 2014)

I agree Kennan might be a little arrogant saying he could beat WR easily, but you shouldn't judge his speed solely by his official times. The first time I competed in skewb, I got total crap, just like he did.
However, on the third time I competed I got lucky, and got a great average. Does that mean my overall average was suddenly faster? No. All it means is that I got a better average in competition.

Official and unofficial times are two different things, and are used to measure two different things. Unofficial times measure how fast you've gotten at home, and official times measure the times you have achieved in an official competition setting. Period. Neither are perfect measures of a competitor’s true speed. However, the official results are 100% legitimate, and therefore most often use to find out who's the best.


----------



## kcl (May 26, 2014)

antoineccantin said:


> I agree Kennan might be a little arrogant saying he could beat WR easily, but you shouldn't judge his speed solely by his official times. The first time I competed in skewb, I got total crap, just like he did.
> However, on the third time I competed I got lucky, and got a great average. Does that mean my overall average was suddenly faster? No. All it means is that I got a better average in competition.
> 
> Official and unofficial times are two different things, and are used to measure two different things. Unofficial times measure how fast you've gotten at home, and official times measure the times you have achieved in an official competition setting. Period. Neither are perfect measures of a competitor’s true speed. However, the official results are 100% legitimate, and therefore most often use to find out who's the best.



Thank you. I agree with almost all of what you said, but I would like to clear up me sounding arrogant.. I never ever intended to sound stuck up or anything like that. Antoine fully deserves the average he got, as does Jonatan. When I say I am capable of beating WR fairly easily, I do not mean by any means that I am the only one capable. There are a lot of people who could break it at the present moment. (including you. Yes, you are vgj at skewb)

So other than that I completely agree with what you said. It's luck of the draw when it comes to skewb, in the one round I got I happened to have bad luck. 

So TL;DR I agree with Antoine completely, and I honestly didn't intend to sound arrogant or stuck up. I apologize sincerely if I ever came across that way. Thanks.


----------



## IRNjuggle28 (May 26, 2014)

Sajwo said:


> For sure their times are more legit than yours.



So you got a 6 second single, and are ranked 30th in the world. Are you the 30th best in the world at 3x3 just because you got that single? Because that's basically what your arguments could conclude. 

You're being a moron. If you define being good at cubing as having good official results, then your argument is essentially "WR holder has good official results because he has good official results." It's pointless. Kennan's speed is completely independent of his competition results. I can't tell if you're trolling or if you're just an idiot, but you're annoying as **** either way.


----------



## antoineccantin (May 26, 2014)

kclejeune said:


> Antoine fully deserves the average he got



You really think so? I don't


----------



## TDM (May 26, 2014)

IRNjuggle28 said:


> So you got a 6 second single, and are ranked 30th in the world. Are you the 30th best in the world at 3x3 just because you got that single? Because that's basically what your arguments could conclude.


I made that point, but


Sajwo said:


> Yes, and You are not the fastest person in 4BLD
> Don't know if I said that before, but single WR means much less than avg


Apparently singles don't matter, even for bigBLD...


----------



## Tim Major (May 26, 2014)

qqwref said:


> Wow, I respect Sajwo and Tim Major so much less because of this discussion. Nice job guys.





Jaycee said:


> -Tim Major goes out of his way to target Kennan *yet again*



I'm not targeting Kennan, I'm stating my viewpoint. I would say the same for others too. To be honest though, I am sick of Kennan's incredible arrogance, when he doesn't back it up.

Post your PBs, sure, but stop calling yourself the best in the world.


----------



## kcl (May 26, 2014)

antoineccantin said:


> You really think so? I don't


Seriously, I do. Getting lucky is not a crime, and you deserved a good average. You've put a lot of time into skewb, and you wouldn't have gotten an average that good despite easy scrambles without the time you put in. 



Tim Major said:


> I'm not targeting Kennan, I'm stating my viewpoint. I would say the same for others too. To be honest though, I am sick of Kennan's incredible arrogance, when he doesn't back it up.
> 
> Post your PBs, sure, but stop calling yourself the best in the world.


I never called myself the best in the world. Not once. Please do not call me arrogant, that is definitely not my intent. There are several people around my speed and I happily acknowledge that. I'm not sure what type of mental disability you have to not understand why I can't back up my times in comp yet. *​I have not had a comp with skewb since dixon, where I averaged a second slower than I do now. I bombed my average there. *Obviously I cannot back up my times yet. Duh. As soon as I get more rounds of skewb, I can redeem my piece of crap average from dixon. Does that make sense? Good.


----------



## scottishcuber (May 26, 2014)

kclejeune said:


> Thank you. I agree with almost all of what you said, but I would like to clear up me sounding arrogant.. I never ever intended to sound stuck up or anything like that. Antoine fully deserves the average he got, as does Jonatan. When I say I am capable of beating WR fairly easily, I do not mean by any means that I am the only one capable. There are a lot of people who could break it at the present moment. (including you. Yes, you are vgj at skewb)
> 
> So other than that I completely agree with what you said. It's luck of the draw when it comes to skewb, in the one round I got I happened to have bad luck.
> 
> So TL;DR I agree with Antoine completely, and I honestly didn't intend to sound arrogant or stuck up. I apologize sincerely if I ever came across that way. Thanks.



To be honest, this has suddenly turned into a debate all about your skill-level in skewb. It was supposed to be about official vs. unofficial times and how together they give a better indication of who may be the best solver than when referring to _just_ official or _just_ unofficial times (something Sajwo failed to realise despite it being painfully obvious).

Onto the current debate: To be honest I don't care if you come across as arrogant, it has no effect on whether or not you are capable of getting world-class unofficial/official times in skewb. 

I still find it weird, however, that despite the fact that you have posted some incredible times in skewb and some pretty good times in 3x3 _and_ the fact that you record videos quite regularly, that you still don't have any good avg videos. None. Your avg100 is sub5 (right?) and yet you can't replicate that for an avg12 on cam. Your 3x3 avg100 is 9.4x (I think)...but you only have a 9.80 avg12 on cam - you should be able to get that in your sleep.


----------



## Lazy Einstein (May 26, 2014)

Sajwo said:


> It doesn't make Kennan a fast cuber. Jonatan is currently the fastest person in the skewb (and his official results are just about the same as his unofficial results)
> And for Kennan, 4.xx ao100 is kinda hard to believe considering his 8.xx avg5 -* just another yoshinator for now*
> 
> Rami, you are



I haven't read the rest of this thread yet but I definitely have to say this add-on is pointless insult. -1


Edit: Props to TDM for sticking up for Yosh


----------



## kcl (May 26, 2014)

scottishcuber said:


> To be honest, this has suddenly turned into a debate all about your skill-level in skewb. It was supposed to be about official vs. unofficial times and how together they give a better indication of who may be the best solver than when referring to _just_ official or _just_ unofficial times (something Sajwo failed to realise despite it being painfully obvious).
> 
> Onto the current debate: To be honest I don't care if you come across as arrogant, it has no effect on whether or not you are capable of getting world-class unofficial/official times in skewb.
> 
> I still find it weird, however, that despite the fact that you have posted some incredible times in skewb and some pretty good times in 3x3 _and_ the fact that you record videos quite regularly, that you still don't have any good avg videos. None. Your avg100 is sub5 (right?) and yet you can't replicate that for an avg12 on cam. Your 3x3 avg100 is 9.4x (I think)...but you only have a 9.80 avg12 on cam - you should be able to get that in your sleep.



9.80 ao12 was epic failure. I fully admit that. I only really uploaded it because I was happy about 8.77 ao5. I realized it could be sub 9 on cam and got nervous. Take a look at the last 5 solves. As for skewb I haven't recorded anything lately, or even solved the puzzle. I lost a piece of a torpedo and can't find it. Once I reglue that, I'll get a decent skewb average on cam. I'm not trying to make stupid excuses, they are the actual reasons.


----------



## Coolster01 (May 27, 2014)

Rubiks560 said:


> Wow. I wasn't aware that I wasn't the best at 2x2.
> I guess 1.9x AO100 > 1.64. My bad. Thanks for clearing that up Sajwo. I'm silly



*1.870


----------



## megaminxwin (May 27, 2014)

I really want Kennan to get the world record now, just to shut these people up.


----------



## yoshinator (May 27, 2014)

Back to actual "Random" cubing discussion: Do you guys think that this is a good angle? What can I do to make it better?

[video=youtube_share;hFuqVsgWheo]http://youtu.be/hFuqVsgWheo[/video]


----------



## SpicyOranges (May 27, 2014)

yoshinator said:


> Back to actual "Random" cubing discussion: Do you guys think that this is a good angle? What can I do to make it better?



I like this angle



Tim Major said:


> URL
> Now on a completely unrelated note, Riley Woo now has the 3x3 UWR! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v6s...ty cool[/QUOTE]
> Then why even bring it up?


----------



## Ninja Storm (May 27, 2014)

SpicyOranges said:


> Then why even bring it up?



It is the _random_ cubing discussion thread.


----------



## ryanj92 (May 27, 2014)

yoshinator said:


> Back to actual "Random" cubing discussion: Do you guys think that this is a good angle? What can I do to make it better?


Angle is fine 
These sorts of angles tend to only get better the further over the shoulder you can get...


----------



## IRNjuggle28 (May 27, 2014)

Riley's 3.52 doesn't count as UWR because it was scrambled wrong by one move? It's called "unofficial" for a reason. That seems small enough to pass, as far as unofficial records go. It at least deserves a mention on the UWR page for LOLs. Maybe there should be a "stupid solves" section of the UWR page?

Angle looks really good, Jacob.


----------



## yoshinator (May 27, 2014)

SpicyOranges said:


> I like this angle





ryanj92 said:


> Angle is fine
> These sorts of angles tend to only get better the further over the shoulder you can get...





IRNjuggle28 said:


> Angle looks really good, Jacob.



Thanks guys! I'll try it with the tripod a bit higher and looking down next time.


----------



## tseitsei (May 27, 2014)

yoshinator said:


> Back to actual "Random" cubing discussion: Do you guys think that this is a good angle? What can I do to make it better?



As others said this is quite good already. The best angle tough is to have a go pro on your head, then it basically shows us the exact same angle you see as a solver


----------



## yoshinator (May 28, 2014)

tseitsei said:


> As others said this is quite good already. The best angle tough is to have a go pro on your head, then it basically shows us the exact same angle you see as a solver



The problem is that a lot of people didn't like it, they said the head movement was distracting.


----------



## kcl (May 28, 2014)

yoshinator said:


> The problem is that a lot of people didn't like it, they said the head movement was distracting.



Stabilize it bro


----------



## yoshinator (May 28, 2014)

kclejeune said:


> Stabilize it bro



Like, with the youtube editor thingy?


----------



## yoshinator (May 29, 2014)

Did the stabilization from youtube do enough to make the gopro bearable? I'm looking for answers from the people who didn't like the gopro before (Drew!)

Thanks


----------



## DavidCip86 (May 29, 2014)

I think you should zoom out a little. And maybe do like half the videos gopro and half regular? I kinda like both angles


----------



## XTowncuber (May 29, 2014)

yoshinator said:


> Did the stabilization from youtube do enough to make the gopro bearable? I'm looking for answers from the people who didn't like the gopro before (Drew!)



Good. The only thing that bothered me previously was movement during the solve, especially F2L. Almost gone here.


----------



## kcl (May 29, 2014)

Looks great now, if you can angle it so that the cube is a bit more centered I think it would be just about perfect.


----------



## yoshinator (May 29, 2014)

XTowncuber said:


> Good. The only thing that bothered me previously was movement during the solve, especially F2L. Almost gone here.



Perfect, thanks!



kclejeune said:


> Looks great now, if you can angle it so that the cube is a bit more centered I think it would be just about perfect.



Thanks! 

I honestly don't think I'll be using the gopro much, it's pretty uncomfortable to have on my head, and using it is just so much less convenient than using my regular camera.


----------



## 10461394944000 (May 29, 2014)

V perm+flip edges: x D' R' U' R2 D R2 D' R U R' U' R' D R' U R2 x'


----------



## IRNjuggle28 (May 29, 2014)

10461394944000 said:


> V perm+flip edges: x D' R' U' R2 D R2 D' R U R' U' R' D R' U R2 x'



The alg actually seems nicer than regular V perms. Lol. How did you find it?


----------



## 10461394944000 (May 29, 2014)

IRNjuggle28 said:


> The alg actually seems nicer than regular V perms. Lol. How did you find it?



cube explorer


----------



## Mollerz (May 29, 2014)

yoshinator: Your timer starts are still terribly awful and bad and feel bad and give me your tps skill pls


----------



## yoshinator (May 29, 2014)

Mollerz said:


> yoshinator: Your timer starts are still terribly awful and bad and feel bad and give me your tps skill pls



<3


----------



## Nilsibert (May 29, 2014)

Am I the only one that gets terrible times when trying to film a session? I'm getting more and more sub 15 averages and my PB's are a dream(from my view, of course). I'd love to "prove" it and have a video of a 14.xx or even 13.xx average, but I'm terrible as soon as I set up my camera. Today I got this:

number of times: 42/42
best time: 13.95
worst time: 26.27

current avg5: 23.89 (σ = 1.14)
best avg5: 16.65 (σ = 0.86)

current avg12: 19.94 (σ = 2.91)
best avg12: 17.75 (σ = 1.08)

session avg: 19.06 (σ = 2.20)
session mean: 19.22

This is a nightmare, and it's due to lock ups, badly executed or plain wrong algs, terrible LL recognition, unintentionally turning sides(like u instead of U, vice versa, or random S turns) and my ability to look ahead just not being present. It's like I never learned it. 

I know it's pressure and stress making my hands shaky and all, but how do I get rid of it? I tried to calm down and tell myself to turn slower and look ahead. I turned slower, but still my ability to look ahead just seemed gone. 
It's so frustrating, I even handled my first competition better than this. Does or did anyone else have this problem? If so, how do/did you deal with it?


----------



## Renslay (May 29, 2014)

Nilsibert said:


> Am I the only one that gets terrible times when trying to film a session?



No, same here. I am around 14.xy on average, but on camera, I can only do 16.xy...


----------



## TDM (May 29, 2014)

Nilsibert said:


> Am I the only one that gets terrible times when trying to film a session? I'm getting more and more sub 15 averages and my PB's are a dream(from my view, of course). I'd love to "prove" it and have a video of a 14.xx or even 13.xx average, but I'm terrible as soon as I set up my camera.


Same, and I don't know what to do. I tried filming a 20 minute session once, when I was averaging 15. I had around 5 sub-15 times. I couldn't really post the video and ask for help when they weren't anything like my solves. Every part of my solve was bad: I couldn't look ahead, recog LL or execute anything without lockups.

So sorry, can't help


----------



## kcl (May 29, 2014)

Nilsibert said:


> Am I the only one that gets terrible times when trying to film a session? I'm getting more and more sub 15 averages and my PB's are a dream(from my view, of course). I'd love to "prove" it and have a video of a 14.xx or even 13.xx average, but I'm terrible as soon as I set up my camera. Today I got this:
> 
> number of times: 42/42
> best time: 13.95
> ...



Happens to me with skewb. Just keep filming and you'll get that one good average.


----------



## 10461394944000 (May 29, 2014)

Nilsibert said:


> Am I the only one that gets terrible times when trying to film a session?



no, if I try and record 3x3 then I suddenly start averaging 12 instead of 9-10


----------



## thatboyahcubah (May 29, 2014)

Does anyone know a good mod/ tension/ anything else to prevent corner twisting on the MoYu AoLong? It's flippin amazing otherwise but I get cornertwists in about a 1/4 of my solves


----------



## XTowncuber (May 29, 2014)

thatboyahcubah said:


> Does anyone know a good mod/ tension/ anything else to prevent corner twisting on the MoYu AoLong? It's flippin amazing otherwise but I get cornertwists in about a 1/4 of my solves


tighten it. Worked for me. Tensioning it is tricky but it definitely has a sweet spot (IMO).


----------



## thatboyahcubah (May 29, 2014)

XTowncuber said:


> tighten it. Worked for me. Tensioning it is tricky but it definitely has a sweet spot (IMO).


yeah. you're right, tensioning is difficult to say the least. I guess I just turn violently bc I get twists often, even when the tensions are fairly tight.


----------



## Nilsibert (May 31, 2014)

kclejeune said:


> Happens to me with skewb. Just keep filming and you'll get that one good average.



Well today I tried just that. Best I could get was a 15.xx average. But even if I got that one good average, that doesn't really solve the problem does it? :/ I really shouldn't even film myself until I'm consistently sub 15. I have to relearn look ahead now, I almost lost it.
I think I'll just do that.


----------



## IRNjuggle28 (Jun 1, 2014)

So, this just happened. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0iv8tMHbA9Q

I think we have a "best troll" candidate already for this year's forum awards.


----------



## Tim Major (Jun 1, 2014)

IRNjuggle28 said:


> View attachment 4153
> 
> So, this just happened. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0iv8tMHbA9Q
> 
> I think we have a "best troll" candidate already for this year's forum awards.



And then you realise who Niko is.


----------



## yoshinator (Jun 1, 2014)

Does anybody know what happened to KCIII? He hasn't posted on here in months, and nobody's seen him on skype in ages. What happened?


----------



## 10461394944000 (Jun 1, 2014)

yoshinator said:


> Does anybody know what happened to KCIII? He hasn't posted on here in months, and nobody's seen him on skype in ages. What happened?



are you sure?

Last Activity: 1 Day Ago


----------



## Robert-Y (Jun 2, 2014)

Is there any point in using the term "forced"? Sometimes you see people saying things like I did R' F R F' instead of U R U' R' for my last pair to skip OLL. In those cases, it's more likely that the person did that to orient all edges and got a OCLL skip.

What do people really mean when they say that they "forced" a skip?


----------



## TDM (Jun 2, 2014)

Robert-Y said:


> Is there any point in using the term "forced"? Sometimes you see people saying things like I did R' F R F' instead of U R U' R' for my last pair to skip OLL. In those cases, it's more likely that the person did that to orient all edges and got a OCLL skip.
> 
> What do people really mean when they say that they "forced" a skip?


If they knew MW and did a sledgehammer to skip OLL, then I'd say that was forced. If they did it to orient edges, whether they knew it would give an OCLL skip or not, then that isn't a forced OLL skip, it's a forced OELL skip; the OCLL skip was luck.


----------



## Robert-Y (Jun 2, 2014)

I think that makes sense. Another random example: Let's say you've learnt full PLL. And let's say you are doing a solve and you get a T perm for PLL. I guess you could say that you forced an EPLL skip or CPLL skip by doing T perm, although you probably wouldn't ever hear this, but I guess it's true


----------



## kinch2002 (Jun 2, 2014)

Here's my attempt:

Where X is any step, or even any other part of a step i.e. could be OLL, or just OELL.
For X to be forced, you must
1. Know at least 2 different algs for completing the particular step you are doing
2. Use an alg that is not the outright fastest for completing that step, but with the aim of getting a better result overall
3. Know that X will be done after doing the alg


----------



## TheNextFeliks (Jun 2, 2014)

kinch2002 said:


> Here's my attempt:
> 
> Where X is any step, or even any other part of a step i.e. could be OLL, or just OELL.
> For X to be forced, you must
> ...



I like these. So like if I did a mirror of a COLL, knowing it would cause an EPLL skip that would be forced. 

My general definition: An action performed as an alternative to another, usually more common/fast/etc. action in order to create a better/easier solution.


----------



## TDM (Jun 2, 2014)

Robert-Y said:


> I think that makes sense. Another random example: Let's say you've learnt full PLL. And let's say you are doing a solve and you get a T perm for PLL. I guess you could say that you forced an EPLL skip or CPLL skip by doing T perm, although you probably wouldn't ever hear this, but I guess it's true


Only if using 4lLL; otherwise you're not doing EPLL or CPLL, so you don't have either of those steps to skip 


kinch2002 said:


> 2. Use an alg that is not the outright fastest for completing that step, but with the aim of getting a better result overall


What if you know all the algs of that set and it just happens to be the easiest of them? Then would it still be a forced skip (e.g. if you used ZZ and knew WV and had R U' R' as WV, would that be a 'forced OCLL skip')?


----------



## uberCuber (Jun 2, 2014)

TDM said:


> Only if using 4lLL; otherwise you're not doing EPLL or CPLL, so you don't have either of those steps to skip
> 
> What if you know all the algs of that set and it just happens to be the easiest of them? Then would it still be a forced skip (e.g. if you used ZZ and knew WV and had R U' R' as WV, would that be a 'forced OCLL skip')?



If you use ZZ and full WV, than OCLL isn't even a step for you anymore; your method is now [EOLine -> F2L-1 -> WV -> PLL]. So your first sentence applies: there's no OCLL step to skip. EDIT: wait there's still R U R' insert never mind

Now if you use CFOP with WV, OLL is still actually a step for you that you can't 'skip' every single time, and I think your point applies a little better. I don't have an answer to that question, though. Even knowing WV, I'd feel a little silly claiming a forced O(C)LL skip with a R U' R' insert.


----------



## kcl (Jun 2, 2014)

uberCuber said:


> If you use ZZ and full WV, than OCLL isn't even a step for you anymore; your method is now [EOLine -> F2L-1 -> WV -> PLL]. So your first sentence applies: there's no OCLL step to skip. EDIT: wait there's still R U R' insert never mind
> 
> Now if you use CFOP with WV, OLL is still actually a step for you that you can't 'skip' every single time, and I think your point applies a little better. I don't have an answer to that question, though. Even knowing WV, I'd feel a little silly claiming a forced O(C)LL skip with a R U' R' insert.



I would call it "predicted"


----------



## TDM (Jun 2, 2014)

uberCuber said:


> If you use ZZ and full WV, than OCLL isn't even a step for you anymore; your method is now [EOLine -> F2L-1 -> WV -> PLL]. So your first sentence applies: there's no OCLL step to skip. EDIT: wait there's still R U R' insert never mind
> 
> Now if you use CFOP with WV, OLL is still actually a step for you that you can't 'skip' every single time, and I think your point applies a little better. I don't have an answer to that question, though. Even knowing WV, I'd feel a little silly claiming a forced O(C)LL skip with a R U' R' insert.


Yeah, I did contradict myself, you're right. It's hard to say whether that could be called a forced skip or not... or if it even a skip if that's your method.
I don't know what to call a forced skip any more...


----------



## ryanj92 (Jun 2, 2014)

kinch2002 said:


> Here's my attempt:
> 
> Where X is any step, or even any other part of a step i.e. could be OLL, or just OELL.
> For X to be forced, you must
> ...



for me, 1) and 3) suffice (because as TDM said, sometimes you just get the short case anyway)

i would go with something like 'deliberately combine 2 steps or sub-steps of a method (eg f2l-4 and OLL in CFOP, CMLL and 4a in Roux), using a known algorithm'


----------



## mark49152 (Jun 2, 2014)

I would say a forced skip is when for two steps X and Y, you choose a solution to X that also solves Y, but is different to what you would normally do to solve X alone.


----------



## kinch2002 (Jun 2, 2014)

How can 1 and 3 suffice? So every time I get an OLL skip and I see it coming it's forced?


----------



## Robert-Y (Jun 2, 2014)

mark49152 said:


> I would say a forced skip is when for two steps X and Y, you choose a solution to X that also solves Y, but is different to what you would normally do to solve X alone.


Let X be the last F2L pair, and let Y be the last layer. Instead of doing U R U' R', I do R' F R F' and skip the last layer. With this definition, I have forced a last layer skip. Is that sensible?


----------



## ryanj92 (Jun 2, 2014)

kinch2002 said:


> How can 1 and 3 suffice? So every time I get an OLL skip and I see it coming it's forced?



I think it depends when you saw it coming 
Say U' R U' R' solves a last pair and OLL. If you see that this is the case before you do the alg, then i would consider that forced. If you work out halfway through the step that you're going to get a skip, then that's not forced because you already decided to put the pair in for some other reason (EOLL skip, whatever). i don't see how omitting 2) implies this :s


----------



## mark49152 (Jun 2, 2014)

Robert-Y said:


> Let X be the last F2L pair, and let Y be the last layer. Instead of doing U R U' R', I do R' F R F' and skip the last layer. With this definition, I have forced a last layer skip. Is that sensible?


Last layer isn't generally an individual step, but if you had learned 1LLL and knew you were forcing a skip, yes. Let Y = OLL or OELL and it makes more sense.

Now let Y = OLL and let Z = PLL. I do R' F R F' expecting to skip Y and fortuitously skip Y+Z, the whole last layer. I could say that I forced OLL skip, but skipping PLL too was lucky.


----------



## kinch2002 (Jun 3, 2014)

ryanj92 said:


> Say U' R U' R' solves a last pair and OLL. If you see that this is the case before you do the alg, then i would consider that forced


I do not agree with this at all  You did nothing different to the normal way of solving it. You just got lucky and knew it before the alg.


----------



## ryanj92 (Jun 3, 2014)

kinch2002 said:


> I do not agree with this at all  You did nothing different to the normal way of solving it. You just got lucky and knew it before the alg.



That's fair enough 
How would you consider a case like that then? Just 'I saw the OLL skip'?


----------



## qqwref (Jun 3, 2014)

I think it should be possible to force a skip in every solve, which means sometimes the fastest alg should be the one you end up using. So I would say you forced a skip if you (a) know multiple algs for a case, and you choose one of them (c) specifically in order to skip part or all of a future step. So if you always or almost always use one alg, and happen to see that it skips the next step, you didn't force it because condition (b) isn't satisfied - you did that alg because you always do, not because it causes the skip.


----------



## guysensei1 (Jun 4, 2014)

I can do S moves OH... is that any useful?


----------



## TDM (Jun 4, 2014)

guysensei1 said:


> I can do S moves OH... is that any useful?


If you use S moves in any of your algs (e.g. S R U R' U' R' F R f', or S R U R' U' x R' U R u' x' for OH) then yes, but most algs don't include S moves.


----------



## guysensei1 (Jun 4, 2014)

TDM said:


> If you use S moves in any of your algs (e.g. S R U R' U' R' F R f', or S R U R' U' x R' U R u' x' for OH) then yes, but most algs don't include S moves.



The problem is that most algs I know with S moves have lots of R as well, so it sucks for me with my right hand.


----------



## Rocky0701 (Jun 4, 2014)

guysensei1 said:


> The problem is that most algs I know with S moves have lots of R as well, so it sucks for me with my right hand.


Then just mirror the algorithm and make them L moves?


----------



## guysensei1 (Jun 4, 2014)

Rocky0701 said:


> Then just mirror the algorithm and make them L moves?



Then the S becomes S' which is weird for me.


----------



## Kirjava (Jun 4, 2014)

Can't we just describe what happened in the solve and extra informational circumstances instead of arguing about nomenclature that won't be adopted?


----------



## kinch2002 (Jun 4, 2014)

Kirjava said:


> Can't we just describe what happened in the solve and extra informational circumstances instead of arguing about nomenclature that won't be adopted?


This is generally the approach I prefer actually, for exactly the reason that has emerged as always - it's too hard give an all-encompassing definition of terms like 'forced'. I still wanted to give a go at defining it though, just for fun


----------



## ryanj92 (Jun 4, 2014)

kinch2002 said:


> This is generally the approach I prefer actually, for exactly the reason that has emerged as always - it's too hard give an all-encompassing definition of terms like 'forced'. I still wanted to give a go at defining it though, just for fun



+1, also it doesn't stop other people throwing these terms around willy-nilly to mean a whole variety of things 

(also, i've given your definition of 'forced' more thought and it makes a lot more sense to me now)


----------



## TDM (Jun 4, 2014)

guysensei1 said:


> The problem is that most algs I know with S moves have lots of R as well, so it sucks for me with my right hand.


Well aside from that and its mirror, I don't know any algs that have S moves in... I guess S moves wouldn't be useful for you then, sorry


----------



## bobthegiraffemonkey (Jun 7, 2014)

A weird solve challenge that I've contemplated a few times but never really tried, and I don't think I've posted about. It's a sort of visual bandaging.

Pick a colour, and hold the cube so that 3 faces are visible. Only turns which keep all stickers of the chosen colour visible are allowed (including slice moves). That is, the only legal states have all stickers of the chosen colour on 3 adjacent faces (meeting around a corner). Make sure to scramble like this too, I have no idea if any state with stickers on 3 adjacent faces can be reached from the scrambled state, though I suspect it wouldn't actually be a problem. Also, turn carefully as it would be easy to accidentally break the rule.

I guess a strategy would be to try to get all the stickers back onto one face (might be difficult), then work out algs which preserve that.

I'd be impressed if anyone could manage this.

Edit: don't know if I got lucky or not, solved a layer.


----------



## 10461394944000 (Jun 7, 2014)

anyone tried <r,u> solving on 3x3? heres an edge 3 cycle: (r' u' r u2 r u' r' u)2

U perm in <r,u,f>: f2 r2 u' r2 u f2 r2 f2 u f2 u' r2
which can be turned into F2 (R2 U R2' U' R2) F2 (L2' U' L2 U L2') which is a cool 3x3x2 alg

also does anyone know what the current upper/lower bounds are for god's number on a supercube?


----------



## guysensei1 (Jun 9, 2014)

Has anyone else experienced this...
1) Solve that feels like it has very few pauses and feels fluid and yet it turns out the time is meh?
2) Solve that has a lot of lockups and pauses and yet the time is very good?


----------



## SolveThatCube (Jun 9, 2014)

guysensei1 said:


> Has anyone else experienced this...
> 1) Solve that feels like it has very few pauses and feels fluid and yet it turns out the time is meh?
> 2) Solve that has a lot of lockups and pauses and yet the time is very good?



Yes.


----------



## Nilsibert (Jun 9, 2014)

guysensei1 said:


> Has anyone else experienced this...
> 1) Solve that feels like it has very few pauses and feels fluid and yet it turns out the time is meh?
> 2) Solve that has a lot of lockups and pauses and yet the time is very good?




1) Unfortunately yes, mostly it ends up to be a 16.xx when I had the feeling it's gonna be 13.xx or 14.xx
2) Unfortunately no


On another note, is it worth to learn VHF2L for when the pair is made(or even the full set) at all? Does anyone use it on a regular basis?


----------



## Antonie faz fan (Jun 9, 2014)

guysensei1 said:


> Has anyone else experienced this...
> 1) Solve that feels like it has very few pauses and feels fluid and yet it turns out the time is meh?
> 2) Solve that has a lot of lockups and pauses and yet the time is very good?



yes
no


----------



## TDM (Jun 9, 2014)

guysensei1 said:


> Has anyone else experienced this...
> 1) Solve that feels like it has very few pauses and feels fluid and yet it turns out the time is meh?
> 2) Solve that has a lot of lockups and pauses and yet the time is very good?


Yes for the first question. The second one hasn't happened since April 1st when I used qqTimer.


Nilsibert said:


> On another note, is it worth to learn VHF2L for when the pair is made(or even the full set) at all? Does anyone use it on a regular basis?


Not really, but learn some of the easy cases if you can. I know F R U R' F', F R U' R' F', R' F R F', R U' R', and R' F R F' U2 R' F R F', although I don't use the last one.


----------



## Bindedsa (Jun 9, 2014)

Nilsibert said:


> On another note, is it worth to learn VHF2L for when the pair is made(or even the full set) at all? Does anyone use it on a regular basis?



I've learnt them all and for a while used them, but it's not better. I use them for OH, but not TH.


----------



## Nilsibert (Jun 9, 2014)

Bindedsa said:


> I've learnt them all and for a while used them, but it's not better. I use them for OH, but not TH.



Of course for OH it makes more sense, I didn't even think of that. 

And thanks TDM, I think I'll incorporate these in to my solves. Sledge hammer I'm already using since it's easy.


----------



## coinman (Jun 13, 2014)

This was fun, but I guess you have seen this before?
http://meelelahutus.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/302.gif


----------



## antoineccantin (Jun 13, 2014)

Two [untimed] LL skips in the last 20 minutes... Both were forced OLL skip though.


----------



## Nilsibert (Jun 14, 2014)

I was wondering... I'd like to finally get into OH. Now imo, for OH, ZZ is pretty awesome. I learned ZZ before, I once wanted to switch to it as a main method.
Now does it make sense to use ZZ even when I use CFOP for 2H and I'm slowly but surely getting sub 15?
I love the idea of avoiding rotation and being able to use COLL/EPLL. I'm aware that I can't avoid PLL, since I probably wouldn't learn Sune/Antisune COLL.


----------



## Renslay (Jun 14, 2014)

guysensei1 said:


> Has anyone else experienced this...
> 1) Solve that feels like it has very few pauses and feels fluid and yet it turns out the time is meh?
> 2) Solve that has a lot of lockups and pauses and yet the time is very good?



Yes for both. The first one is too often... As for the second, I remember a case when I thought "Meh, this is around 15 sec" and is was like 12.


----------



## TDM (Jun 14, 2014)

Nilsibert said:


> I was wondering... I'd like to finally get into OH. Now imo, for OH, ZZ is pretty awesome. I learned ZZ before, I once wanted to switch to it as a main method.
> Now does it make sense to use ZZ even when I use CFOP for 2H and I'm slowly but surely getting sub 15?
> I love the idea of avoiding rotation and being able to use COLL/EPLL. I'm aware that I can't avoid PLL, since I probably wouldn't learn Sune/Antisune COLL.


I use CFOP for 2H and ZZ for OH and I'm just sub-15 2H, and I think I'm not the only one who uses ZZ for OH but not 2H.
Btw, you should probably learn the diag-swap sune/antisune COLLs because you can then avoid bad PLLs (and give yourself an EPLL) and they aren't too bad to recognise.


----------



## Bindedsa (Jun 14, 2014)

TDM said:


> I use CFOP for 2H and ZZ for OH and I'm just sub-15 2H, and *I think I'm not the only one who uses ZZ for OH but not 2H*.
> Btw, you should probably learn the diag-swap sune/antisune COLLs because you can then avoid bad PLLs (and give yourself an EPLL) and they aren't too bad to recognise.


I'm pretty sure Neil Morales does and he's second in the world for OH single.


----------



## teller (Jun 16, 2014)

I am mediocre speed-wise by modern standards. ~15. But do you know what gives me a little twinge of pleasure after cubing for 30+ years? That if I had a Tardis and could go back to the first championship in 1982, I could TOTALLY hand Minh Thai his ass. I watched him on TV back then, on that show, "That's Incredible" and couldn't fathom how he could be sub-25. Yeah well... 22.95 doesn't impress me anymore! Ha!!!!


----------



## guysensei1 (Jun 16, 2014)

teller said:


> I am mediocre speed-wise by modern standards. ~15. But do you know what gives me a little twinge of pleasure after cubing for 30+ years? That if I had a Tardis and could go back to the first championship in 1982, I could TOTALLY hand Minh Thai his ass. I watched him on TV back then, on that show, "That's Incredible" and couldn't fathom how he could be sub-25. Yeah well... 22.95 doesn't impress me anymore! Ha!!!!



Minh Thai doesn't have modern speedcubes!

(Btw, if you go back, make sure you own him with fancy fingertricks)


----------



## teller (Jun 16, 2014)

guysensei1 said:


> Minh Thai doesn't have modern speedcubes!
> 
> (Btw, if you go back, make sure you own him with fancy fingertricks)



I could beat him on a Rubik's brand, I am certain. Fingertricks or not!


----------



## IRNjuggle28 (Jun 19, 2014)

... I only just now figured out that F perms are R' U' F' (T perm) F U R. I wonder how I missed that for so long???


----------



## TDM (Jun 19, 2014)

IRNjuggle28 said:


> ... I only just now figured out that F perms are R' U' F' (T perm) F U R. I wonder how I missed that for so long???


Y perms are made of two OLLs; swap those two and cancel some moves and you have a T perm.
And J perms are R U R' F' (T perm) F R U' R' with 8 moves cancelled.
R2 F2 R2 (R perm) R2 F2 R2 is the Gc perm too...


----------



## guysensei1 (Jun 19, 2014)

TDM said:


> Y perms are made of two OLLs; swap those two and cancel some moves and you have a T perm.
> And J perms are R U R' F' (T perm) F R U' R' with 8 moves cancelled.
> R2 F2 R2 (R perm) R2 F2 R2 is the Gc perm too...



So conjugating T perms with R U R' F produces the same result as moving the last 4 moves of the T perm to the front? Cool!

Also,

F perm (R' U2 R' d' ..........) is R' U R (V perm) R' U' R


----------



## TDM (Jun 19, 2014)

guysensei1 said:


> So conjugating T perms with R U R' F produces the same result as moving the last 4 moves of the T perm to the front? Cool!
> 
> Also,
> 
> F perm (R' U2 R' d' ..........) is R' U R (V perm) R' U' R


Yes, because those are the last 4 moves you're conjugating it by  The inverse of those 4 moves then cancel themselves out at the end.
R' U2 R' U' R D' R' D R' [U D'] R2 U' R2' D R U' R = awesome F perm.
I can now do F perms from three angles! Not sure if it's worth learning it from the fourth (1x3 bar on F).


----------



## guysensei1 (Jun 19, 2014)

TDM said:


> Yes, because those are the last 4 moves you're conjugating it by  The inverse of those 4 moves then cancel themselves out at the end.
> R' U2 R' U' R D' R' D R' [U D'] R2 U' R2' D R U' R = awesome F perm.
> I can now do F perms from three angles! Not sure if it's worth learning it from the fourth (1x3 bar on F).



Ooh, the mirror L U2 L U L' D L D' L U' D L2 U L2 D' L' U L' is good for OH! I may switch


----------



## TDM (Jun 19, 2014)

guysensei1 said:


> Ooh, the mirror L U2 L U L' D L D' L U' D L2 U L2 D' L' U L' is good for OH! I may switch


Too many L/U'/D moves at the start for me. I tried the front/back mirror instead:
L' U2 L' U' L D' L' D L' U D' L2 U' L2 D L U' L
But then the end has too many L/U'/D moves...


----------



## guysensei1 (Jun 19, 2014)

TDM said:


> Too many L/U'/D moves at the start for me. I tried the front/back mirror instead:
> L' U2 L' U' L D' L' D L' U D' L2 U' L2 D L U' L
> But then the end has too many L/U'/D moves...



This mirror looks nicer! Imma give it a try


----------



## Tim Major (Jun 19, 2014)

TDM said:


> Yes, because those are the last 4 moves you're conjugating it by  The inverse of those 4 moves then cancel themselves out at the end.
> R' U2 R' U' R D' R' D R' [U D'] R2 U' R2' D R U' R = awesome F perm.
> I can now do F perms from three angles! Not sure if it's worth learning it from the fourth (1x3 bar on F).



My main Fperm solves bar at front

M' U2 r U' x' R U2 r' U r' R2 U2 R2


----------



## 10461394944000 (Jun 19, 2014)

fun thing: any LS+LL case can be solved with some combination of aufs, sexymoves and sledgehammers. let P = R U R' U' and Q = R' F R F' then:

Q3 U2 P' U P U P2 U = F perm
U Q P2 Q P Q' U Q2 P' Q' = 4 edge flip
[U, (P Q')2] = niklas
U P2' U2 P' U2 P U P' = pure pi
U P Q P' Q P U P U' P = R perm


----------



## Kirjava (Jun 19, 2014)

10461394944000 said:


> fun thing: any LS+LL case can be solved with some combination of aufs, sexymoves and sledgehammers.



Suspected this, we tried solving with this restriction at one point. Thanks for the proof.


----------



## TDM (Jun 19, 2014)

Tim Major said:


> My main Fperm solves bar at front
> 
> M' U2 r U' x' R U2 r' U r' R2 U2 R2


Nice alg, but I don't think I really need to do F perms from four angles  I can also do Aa/Ab/L/Ua from three though.


----------



## yoshinator (Jun 19, 2014)

A video about OLLCP, which alg should I use?


----------



## DeeDubb (Jun 19, 2014)

Rocking the batman PJ bottoms? Niiiice!


----------



## Kirjava (Jun 20, 2014)

yoshinator said:


> A video about OLLCP, which alg should I use?



I use the RUR'U'F' one for OLLCP. Got 1.01 after trying like 3 times.


----------



## IRNjuggle28 (Jun 21, 2014)

Am I the only person who hates the 9 move A perm? It's one of my least favorite PLLs and I might switch algs because I just can't stand it. I'd take a G perm any day over an A perm. It's short, and it's probably faster than I think, but I'm using an overly loose Zhanchi and I can't count how many times I've popped A perms. 

E perms are awful. I guess I hate all the CPLLs. Unless you count H perms.


----------



## Bindedsa (Jun 21, 2014)

IRNjuggle28 said:


> Am I the only person who hates the 9 move A perm? It's one of my least favorite PLLs and I might switch algs because I just can't stand it. I'd take a G perm any day over an A perm. It's short, and it's probably faster than I think, but I'm using an overly loose Zhanchi and I can't count how many times I've popped A perms.
> 
> E perms are awful. I guess I hate all the CPLLs. Unless you count H perms.



I don't like A perms either and probably prefer G perms, but I don't hate them.


----------



## guysensei1 (Jun 21, 2014)

IRNjuggle28 said:


> Am I the only person who hates the 9 move A perm? It's one of my least favorite PLLs and I might switch algs because I just can't stand it. I'd take a G perm any day over an A perm. It's short, and it's probably faster than I think, but I'm using an overly loose Zhanchi and I can't count how many times I've popped A perms.
> 
> E perms are awful. I guess I hate all the CPLLs. Unless you count H perms.



You're not the only one. I especially hate the R2 D2 one. Lockups lockups and more lockups. The doubleflick D2 doesn't work out for me, and single flicks aren't any better. At least the other A perm isn't that bad.

I'm currently using wrist turns for the D2 in the R2D2 A perm.


----------



## TDM (Jun 21, 2014)

IRNjuggle28 said:


> Am I the only person who hates the 9 move A perm? It's one of my least favorite PLLs and I might switch algs because I just can't stand it.
> 
> E perms are awful. I guess I hate all the CPLLs. Unless you count H perms.


I hate all CPLLs, including H perms, except E perms 
I found R' D' R U2 R' D R U' R' D' R U' R' D R yesterday on algdb.net, and I quite like it, but it is very long compared to normal A perms. I also use R U R' F' r U R' U' r' F R2 U' R' for one AUF (the same one people use r U r' U' r' F r2 U' r' U' r U r' F' U for). I don't know any good algs for Ab though.


----------



## porkynator (Jun 21, 2014)

How about doing it like

x' R2 U2 R D R' U2 R D' R

?


----------



## Bindedsa (Jun 21, 2014)

guysensei1 said:


> You're not the only one. I especially hate the R2 D2 one. Lockups lockups and more lockups. The doubleflick D2 doesn't work out for me, and single flicks aren't any better. At least the other A perm isn't that bad.
> 
> I'm currently using wrist turns for the D2 in the R2D2 A perm.



You can try doing the mirror of the R' U R' one, he D2's become U2's the only downside is that instead of the first moving being a wide l' its x and R at the same time.


----------



## IRNjuggle28 (Jun 21, 2014)

TDM said:


> I hate all CPLLs,* including H perms*, except E perms



Wut. How do you hate H perms? 



porkynator said:


> How about doing it like
> x' R2 U2 R D R' U2 R D' R



Seems way better. Thanks.


----------



## TDM (Jun 21, 2014)

IRNjuggle28 said:


> Wut. How do you hate H perms?


Because I can't do M2'. I do it as R' [r M'], which is great for U perms but not H/Z perms. For H/Z perms I either do that or M' M', both of which aren't very fast. My H/Z perms are still faster than many of my other PLLs but I can't get a decent TPS on them.
(E: and I only like E perms when I execute them well)


----------



## IRNjuggle28 (Jun 21, 2014)

TDM said:


> Because I can't do M2'. I do it as R' [r M'], which is great for U perms but not H/Z perms. For H/Z perms I either do that or M' M', both of which aren't very fast. My H/Z perms are still faster than many of my other PLLs but I can't get a decent TPS on them.
> (E: and I only like E perms when I execute them well)



...why can't you do M2'? Ring finger, then middle finger? And some people use pinkys?


----------



## TDM (Jun 21, 2014)

IRNjuggle28 said:


> ...why can't you do M2'? Ring finger, then middle finger? And some people use pinkys?


I can't do it in a solve because I have to regrip, and it's a very slow regrip. I also often miss the M' with the middle finger, and if I then do the U' afterwards (for the H perm) I have to do U' U' U' or U2' U', then some very slow M fingertrick due to my hand position to correct the mistake. When timing algs I do M2', but I can't do it efficiently or quickly in a solve.


----------



## Bindedsa (Jun 21, 2014)

TDM said:


> I can't do it in a solve because I have to regrip, and it's a very slow regrip. I also often miss the M' with the middle finger, and if I then do the U' afterwards (for the H perm) I have to do U' U' U' or U2' U', then some very slow M fingertrick due to my hand position to correct the mistake. When timing algs I do M2', but I can't do it efficiently or quickly in a solve.



I have to regrip as well, I think it's because I do M moves with my right hand and I hold it slightly high than my left. I don't really dislike the regrip for Z and M, but I don't use MU Uperms because of it, even though when timing I can do the clockwise one faster than RU. Perhaps you should try lefty.


----------



## TDM (Jun 21, 2014)

Bindedsa said:


> I have to regrip as well, I think it's because I do M moves with my right hand and I hold it slightly high than my left. I don't really dislike the regrip for Z and M, but I don't use MU Uperms because of it, even though when timing I can do the clockwise one faster than RU. Perhaps you should try lefty.


I hold my left and right hands at the same height when I do MU stuff, so there's no regrip for me unless I need to do an M2' like in H/Z perms, but I don't need to do this for MU U perms. What do you mean try lefty? You mean doing M moves with my left hand? That would just have the same problem but mirrored...


----------



## Bindedsa (Jun 21, 2014)

TDM said:


> I hold my left and right hands at the same height when I do MU stuff, so there's no regrip for me unless I need to do an M2' like in H/Z perms, but I don't need to do this for MU U perms. What do you mean try lefty? You mean doing M moves with my left hand? That would just have the same problem but mirrored...



I assumed you had a similar grip. I can do lefty M' moves regripless and M2 with my pinky, it's just slower and since you can't do the right hand one anyway.


----------



## SolveThatCube (Jun 23, 2014)

*My First EVER Official Solve*


----------



## ottozing (Jun 23, 2014)

I'm a total nub when it comes to counting frames and stuff, but I'd really like to see the exact (or at least something that's more accurate than what I did) tps on that last layer.


----------



## guysensei1 (Jun 23, 2014)

This made my day.


----------



## scottishcuber (Jun 23, 2014)

ottozing said:


> I'm a total nub when it comes to counting frames and stuff, but I'd really like to see the exact (or at least something that's more accurate than what I did) tps on that last layer.



It would take too long for me to download this vid. 

Open it with windows media player, right-click > Enhancements > Play speed settings. A window comes up with two buttons to toggle frame by frame, just count how many frames there are, x, then do 30/x.


----------



## 10461394944000 (Jun 23, 2014)

SolveThatCube said:


> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LMymMeo2LbA



the judge is supposed to lift the cube cover


----------



## SolveThatCube (Jun 23, 2014)

10461394944000 said:


> the judge is supposed to lift the cube cover



I know but some of the judges didn't look like they were going to do it when I told them I was ready so I just did it.


----------



## CyanSandwich (Jun 23, 2014)

SolveThatCube said:


>


Haha my first official pyraminx solve was faster. I average 16 or something globally and you average like.. 8-9?


----------



## SolveThatCube (Jun 23, 2014)

CyanSandwich said:


> Haha my first official pyraminx solve was faster. I average 16 or something globally and you average like.. 8-9?



7-8. 

Just checking you know that this was my first ever official solve of any sort (pyraminx was one of the first events in the comp)


----------



## Bindedsa (Jun 23, 2014)

SolveThatCube said:


> 7-8.
> 
> Just checking you know that this was my first ever official solve of any sort (pyraminx was one of the first events in the comp)



What was you pyra avg?


----------



## CyanSandwich (Jun 23, 2014)

SolveThatCube said:


> 7-8.
> 
> Just checking you know that this was my first ever official solve of any sort (pyraminx was one of the first events in the comp)


Oh yeah I knew that. Just found it a bit funny that I had a faster first solve considering how much faster you are. I guess it helped that I didn't care what I got for pyraminx.


----------



## xsolver (Jun 23, 2014)

I stopped doing timed solves like a week ago(?), and today i timed myself and it turned out complete crap. Just shows how much practice is important, timed solves also. I might do only F2L training for a few days/weeks, wanna get it to sub10.


----------



## TDM (Jun 23, 2014)

SolveThatCube said:


> first official solve video


I remember my first official solve... I forgot about AUF and got a +2. It was my worst 2x2 Ao5 since I stopped using my LanLan (when I averaged ~9). The average was 6.95 iirc; I averaged sub-5 at the time.


----------



## Nilsibert (Jun 23, 2014)

I just realized that turning fast and "half" look ahead gets me quite some 14s or even 13s or even 12s averages, while turning "as fast as possible while still having (almost) full look ahead" gets me pretty bad times(16 17 18 or even 19). So I guess I'm just gonna practice a ton with timed solves, instead of the "cliché" turning slow all the time. I'll still do that when not timing, but looking ahead is quite harder to do when going slow. Also it helps tps, which has suffered because I never practiced it.


----------



## TDM (Jun 23, 2014)

Nilsibert said:


> I just realized that turning fast and "half" look ahead gets me quite some 14s or even 13s or even 12s averages, while turning "as fast as possible while still having (almost) full look ahead" gets me pretty bad times(16 17 18 or even 19).


Yep, the best thing to do imo is turn fast and look ahead  Just not too fast, which is what I do sometimes, or too slow, which what people do when they read "slow down and look ahead". "Slow down" doesn't mean turn slow_ly_; it means turn slow_er_!


----------



## Nilsibert (Jun 23, 2014)

TDM said:


> Yep, the best thing to do imo is turn fast and look ahead  Just not too fast, which is what I do sometimes, or too slow, which what people do when they read "slow down and look ahead". "Slow down" doesn't mean turn slow_ly_; it means turn slow_er_!



True that! Many People suggest turning as fast as possible without a single pause and constant "perfect" look ahead, and then slowly increasing turning speed. This however never really works for me, turning slow makes it even harder for me. I'm best when I find that middle ground.


----------



## SolveThatCube (Jun 24, 2014)

Bindedsa said:


> What was you pyra avg?



A COMPLETE FAIL.

Well that was the first solve.
Next solve was another 10.
Then a 5.
Then another 10 but it was +2 so it was a 12.
Then what should have been a 6 but the timer didn't stop and I didn't realise until it hit 8.

So the average was a 9 



TDM said:


> I remember my first official solve... I forgot about AUF and got a +2. It was my worst 2x2 Ao5 since I stopped using my LanLan (when I averaged ~9). The average was 6.95 iirc; I averaged sub-5 at the time.



heh. My first official 2x2 solve was a +2 as well, the same thing happened. The average turned out to be a 5 when I avg 3 seconds at home.


----------



## Coolster01 (Jun 24, 2014)

Super random, I just noticed how I correspond to Antoine:

Me in 2x2 = him in OH (WR averages until Michal came in, probably gonna happen with Chris taking mine, too)
Me in skewb = him in feet (not great officially, but pretty darn good at home)
Me in feet = him in skewb (NAR averages, NR singles)

Pretty cray cray imo


----------



## Kirjava (Jun 24, 2014)

Coolster01 said:


> Pretty cray cray imo



mundane


----------



## kinch2002 (Jun 24, 2014)

Maybe I can do better. Me and Evan Liu.


*Event**Daniel**Evan*Official events completed3333World Records33Continental Records23Competitions3535First competition20092009Rubik's Cube10.4810.584x4 Cube42.7339.765x5 Cube1:22.431:19.832x2 Cube2.643.183x3 blindfolded1:44.191:46.183x3 one-handed18.9118.593x3 fewest moves26.3331.333x3 with feet1:06.461:04.59Megaminx1:12.811:14.72Pyraminx5.094.89Square-118.7621.73Rubik's Clock7.516.61Skewb6.898.446x6 Cube2:44.332:41.307x7 Cube4:02.543:55.05

On the non-cubing side, here's another one: We have both studied Mathematics at Trinity College, Oxford.


----------



## Bindedsa (Jun 24, 2014)

kinch2002 said:


> Maybe I can do better. Me and Evan Liu.
> 
> 
> *Event**Daniel**Evan*Official events completed3333World Records33Continental Records23Competitions3535First competition20092009Rubik's Cube10.4810.584x4 Cube42.7339.765x5 Cube1:22.431:19.832x2 Cube2.643.183x3 blindfolded1:44.191:46.183x3 one-handed18.9118.593x3 fewest moves26.3331.333x3 with feet1:06.461:04.59Megaminx1:12.811:14.72Pyraminx5.094.89Square-118.7621.73Rubik's Clock7.516.61Skewb6.898.446x6 Cube2:44.332:41.307x7 Cube4:02.543:55.05
> ...


You also both podiumed in clock at world champs last year.


----------



## Coolster01 (Jun 24, 2014)

kinch2002 said:


> Maybe I can do better. Me and Evan Liu.
> 
> 
> *Event**Daniel**Evan*Official events completed3333World Records33Continental Records23Competitions3535First competition20092009Rubik's Cube10.4810.584x4 Cube42.7339.765x5 Cube1:22.431:19.832x2 Cube2.643.183x3 blindfolded1:44.191:46.183x3 one-handed18.9118.593x3 fewest moves26.3331.333x3 with feet1:06.461:04.59Megaminx1:12.811:14.72Pyraminx5.094.89Square-118.7621.73Rubik's Clock7.516.61Skewb6.898.446x6 Cube2:44.332:41.307x7 Cube4:02.543:55.05
> ...



Holy woahhhhhhhhh


----------



## Evan Liu (Jun 24, 2014)

kinch2002 said:


> Maybe I can do better. Me and Evan Liu.


Great time to invoke this comparison!  
As a result of these similarities, there's also this, as I mentioned the other day:


kinch2002 said:


> *Pairs of people who nemesize*
> (A count of pairs in Carrot's third table)
> 
> 
> ...


Plus we're both "platinum members" now. As you said, scarily similar.


----------



## Chree (Jun 24, 2014)

Nilsibert said:


> True that! Many People suggest turning as fast as possible without a single pause and constant "perfect" look ahead, and then slowly increasing turning speed. This however never really works for me, turning slow makes it even harder for me. I'm best when I find that middle ground.



And of course there's simply "turning as fast as my lookahead allows". This is porbably that middle ground you speak of. If I can't see a the next pair, I'm moving too fast and hafta back down.

I've also tried variable turn speeds. Since my F2L is algorithmic, I start out each alg at full speed and then decelerate for the insert. It gives my lookahead a moment to catch up and spot the next pair. This has had mixed results. My lookahead just isn't good enough yet to keep up with fast turning. But wanted to throw out there to see if anyone else has tried it.


----------



## Nilsibert (Jun 24, 2014)

Chree said:


> And of course there's simply "turning as fast as my lookahead allows". This is porbably that middle ground you speak of. If I can't see a the next pair, I'm moving too fast and hafta back down.
> 
> I've also tried variable turn speeds. Since my F2L is algorithmic, I start out each alg at full speed and then decelerate for the insert. It gives my lookahead a moment to catch up and spot the next pair. This has had mixed results. My lookahead just isn't good enough yet to keep up with fast turning. But wanted to throw out there to see if anyone else has tried it.



Kind of. Sometimes I track a piece or 2 in my mind, sometimes I just have fast recognition. It depends, but I'm always a bit faster than my look ahead would allow. I can't actually follow a pair while solving another. If I go slow enough to do that, it becomes much harder to look into the next one. I mostly just look at the whole cube and spot pieces and remember them as I solve. That's why my times can be really good but also pretty bad at times. Sometimes it just works out and sometimes I'm lost. In the end, I feel that pushing myself by turning quite fast and forcing myself to look ahead makes me improve more than when I try to consciously do it. It's hard to explain.


----------



## Chree (Jun 24, 2014)

Nilsibert said:


> Kind of. Sometimes I track a piece or 2 in my mind, sometimes I just have fast recognition. It depends, but I'm always a bit faster than my look ahead would allow. I can't actually follow a pair while solving another. If I go slow enough to do that, it becomes much harder to look into the next one. I mostly just look at the whole cube and spot pieces and remember them as I solve. That's why my times can be really good but also pretty bad at times. Sometimes it just works out and sometimes I'm lost. In the end, I feel that pushing myself by turning quite fast and forcing myself to look ahead makes me improve more than when I try to consciously do it. It's hard to explain.



I can believe that... the hard to explain part  no one could explain lookahead for me and I couldn't do it for more than my first year of speedcubing, until one day it just clicked.

One of the things I realized that helps is... let's say you have 2 F2L edges in the U layer and you quickly spot one of their corners. I'll make sure to solve that pair using an alg that preserves all the other slots, also guaranteeing that other edge will still be in the U layer when I'm done. So, while I'm solving the first pair I'll try to find the other corner and track it instead of the edge. Finding the edge again is quicker knowing that it'll stay in the U layer.

I'll also try to take a mental note of the orientation of that 2nd edge. That let's me think ahead about if solving the 2nd pair is gonna be 2gen or need a rotation.

I assume this is basically what full fluid lookahead entails. Except tracking both pieces at once.


----------



## mDiPalma (Jun 24, 2014)

Incorrectly assuming that cubers don't consciously influence later steps during current steps, do we have any optimal upper bounds and medians for movecounts for all of the steps in all of the major methods?


----------



## Robert-Y (Jun 25, 2014)

^I think we do not, but to me, calculating it could be tricky for any method...

Random, unrelated:
I found this video yesterday http://pann.nate.com/video/52369600
I was wondering if anyone know if Yu Jeong Min's 11.76 former WR was filmed? Does anyone know if the videos can still be found. I have a feeling that I've watched them before, and Harris Chan told me that he thinks he has seen competition videos of him before, but maybe not of his WR.

Older cubers, please help!


----------



## IRNjuggle28 (Jun 25, 2014)

mDiPalma said:


> Incorrectly assuming that cubers don't consciously influence later steps during current steps, do we have any optimal upper bounds and medians for movecounts for all of the steps in all of the major methods?


Well, I can cover a few of the easier ones.

For CFOP, any F2L case where both pieces are in the U layer, as well as any case where one piece is in the correct slot (with any orientation) and the other is in the U layer, can be solved in 8 or less HTM. Cases where pieces are in slots can take more than that.

OLL: 6-11 moves
PLL: 9-14 moves
LL: 6-16 moves

Roux L6E Orientation: Best case is 3 STM/6 HTM. Worst one is at most 9 STM/10 HTM. (Thank you to DeeDubb for catching my mistake)

I think that any L4E Roux case can be solved in 4 STM. Not sure about that one, but can't think of anything that would be an exception. 

Things like 1x2x3 blocks and 2x2x2/2x2x3 are waaaay harder. 

I think studies on optimal cross solutions have been done, but I don't know where to look for one.


----------



## DeeDubb (Jun 25, 2014)

IRNjuggle28 said:


> Well, I can cover a few of the easier ones.
> 
> For CFOP, any F2L case where both pieces are in the U layer, as well as any case where one piece is in the correct slot (with any orientation) and the other is in the U layer, can be solved in 8 or less HTM. Cases where pieces are in slots can take more than that.
> 
> ...



I use Rw' F R U M' U' R' F' R. Is that 10 HTM?


----------



## CyanSandwich (Jun 27, 2014)

I just had a 21 minute feet DNF

Was up to T-perm at about 6:30, took 1:30 to do it, had a corner twist. Tried to twist it back, ended up twisting another corner in the wrong direction. Eventually twisted it into a solvable state. Did OLL, had an A perm. Popped.

Feet is the worst.


----------



## SolveThatCube (Jun 30, 2014)

I NOW HAVE A WCA PROFILE... WITH REALLY BAD TIMES ON IT...
https://www.worldcubeassociation.org/results/p.php?i=2014ADCO01


----------



## yoinneroid (Jun 30, 2014)

SolveThatCube said:


> I NOW HAVE A WCA PROFILE... WITH REALLY BAD TIMES ON IT...
> https://www.worldcubeassociation.org/results/p.php?i=2014ADCO01



yay
and damn, two OcRs in a single comp


----------



## ottozing (Jun 30, 2014)

yoinneroid said:


> yay
> and damn, two OcRs in a single comp



To be fair, they were pretty much his for the taking  Still, very nice to see new Feet OcR's, especially ones that are actually decent


----------



## SolveThatCube (Jun 30, 2014)

ottozing said:


> To be fair, they were pretty much his for the taking  Still, very nice to see new Feet OcR's, especially ones that are actually decent



Sorry I took your NR... not.


----------



## yoinneroid (Jul 3, 2014)

applying CPF2L without preorienting edges will result with an LL subset solvable with <R,U,M,r>
how many cases are there? 600ish?
some algs:
U R2 r' U R' U R U' R' U r U2 r' U' M'
r U r' U R U' R' M' U' r' U2 r' U2 R U R' U r
U R' U2 R U R' U' R U R' U R U2 r' U' r U' R' U M U r
limiting it to those moves might make alg recall terrible though, just like 2GLL for me :/


----------



## guysensei1 (Jul 3, 2014)

yoinneroid said:


> applying CPF2L without preorienting edges will result with an LL subset solvable with <R,U,M,r>
> how many cases are there? 600ish?
> some algs:
> U R2 r' U R' U R U' R' U r U2 r' U' M'
> ...



Well technically they're just <R,r,U>

I'm not a math guy, so I can't help you, but I do particularly love this subset because of siamese cubes. It's like doing OLLCP every time. Ha.


----------



## kcl (Jul 3, 2014)

Not sure where to put this, but rami just got a scramble identical to one from his 1.69 average. Does this have calculable odds? 

F2 R2 U' R' U2 R F R2 U'

R F' R' U R' U2 R F U2 F R


----------



## 10461394944000 (Jul 3, 2014)

kclejeune said:


> Not sure where to put this, but rami just got a scramble identical to one from his 1.69 average. Does this have calculable odds?
> 
> F2 R2 U' R' U2 R F R2 U'
> 
> R F' R' U R' U2 R F U2 F R



1/3674160?


----------



## IRNjuggle28 (Jul 5, 2014)

Try Niklas on a megaminx. I was surprised by what it did.


----------



## 10461394944000 (Jul 6, 2014)

IRNjuggle28 said:


> Try Niklas on a megaminx. I was surprised by what it did.



3 corner cycle/nothing depending on what you use as the L face


----------



## Bhargav777 (Jul 6, 2014)

IRNjuggle28 said:


> Try Niklas on a megaminx. I was surprised by what it did.



Try doing it with U2 and U2'. It works.


----------



## 10461394944000 (Jul 7, 2014)

http://www.reddit.com/r/Cubers/comments/29zx6j/master_rubiks_cube_in_4_days/

Become a master of Rubik's Cube™ in under 4 days - for only $4 (original price $49)! You will be lectured by a certified Rubik's Cube™ Professional, who has the ability to solve Rubik's Cube™ in less than 2 minutes! That's a World Record!

The good news that he will not be using notes! Yes, that's right. He did not learn with it, so he will not teach it. Instead, he will show you the moves with arrows and shapes. As the title says, you will learn to solve the cube in 4 days, but that does not mean you will be FAST in a week! NO, it will take you some time depends on how much you practice, to solve the cube in 3 minutes or less, and you will learn in a way that will enable you to memorize all the steps in 4 to 7 day.

Thank you.







Spoiler



top kek


Spoiler



i'm not sure this belongs here but it doesnt really deserve its own thread. images in case it gets deleted:


Spoiler


----------



## mark49152 (Jul 7, 2014)

10461394944000 said:


> Become a master of Rubik's Cube™ in under 4 days - for only $4 (original price $49)!


Hilarious! Wait, is that really >1000 people signed up?

Oh and there's another one where 8 people signed up to learn to do it in 3 minutes for $97. See all 10 steps in HD slow motion, and become the life and soul of every party! (Where are these parties? I want to go.)

I have a better idea - for only $50 I will teach you to use Google. In only 2 days, without notes!


----------



## Tim Major (Jul 7, 2014)

mark49152 said:


> See all 10 steps in HD slow motion, and become the life and soul of every party! (Where are these parties? I want to go.)



Someone at a house party had a cube so I solved it with a big group and was instantly the life and soul of (it)!!

Whatever, that guy is just smart, making money off suckers.


----------



## Nilsibert (Jul 8, 2014)

And once again I find myself in the situation where I'm tempted to switch to ZZ. I used it once for a month or 2 and went back to cfop again. It's not about times, I know that it won't magically make me faster, at first it'll make me much slower. But I just love ZZF2L, the fixed orientation(if you choose just one) and therefor always knowing exactly what belongs where. Having edges oriented makes for great use of COLL and in the future possibly ZBLL. But now it's even more frustrating because I'm starting to hit sub15 again. 
Last time I switched I was still struggling to get sub 20 I think. What made me go back was just frustration with EOline and being impatient because I got slower and didn't improve fast. Also the freedom in ZZF2L and having 3 pieces to track was really hard compared to cfop F2L.
I don't know what to do :/ any recommendations?


----------



## Renslay (Jul 8, 2014)

Nilsibert said:


> And once again I find myself in the situation where I'm tempted to switch to ZZ. I used it once for a month or 2 and went back to cfop again. It's not about times, I know that it won't magically make me faster, at first it'll make me much slower. But I just love ZZF2L, the fixed orientation(if you choose just one) and therefor always knowing exactly what belongs where. Having edges oriented makes for great use of COLL and in the future possibly ZBLL. But now it's even more frustrating because I'm starting to hit sub15 again.
> Last time I switched I was still struggling to get sub 20 I think. What made me go back was just frustration with EOline and being impatient because I got slower and didn't improve fast. Also the freedom in ZZF2L and having 3 pieces to track was really hard compared to cfop F2L.
> I don't know what to do :/ any recommendations?



If you like ZZ more, then switch, even if it means your times will increase. For me enjoying the solving provided by the method is more important than seconds or miliseconds.


----------



## Nilsibert (Jul 8, 2014)

Renslay said:


> If you like ZZ more, then switch, even if it means your times will increase. For me enjoying the solving provided by the method is more important than seconds or miliseconds.



Thanks! I think I'm just gonna practice it. My EOLine planing is already much better than it was when I first switched. I guess because of cross planing experience. I did a couple of solves and man, is it fun finding tricks to build blocks. It's a little challenge to get rid of CFOP F2L thinking and taking adventage of more freedom in moves, but it's great fun. I'll stick with it for now, and see how well I get used to it. Not gonna time myself anytime soon though.


----------



## G2013 (Jul 8, 2014)

Is possible to force a LL skip? What algorithm knowledge do you need to have?


----------



## Coolster01 (Jul 8, 2014)

G2013 said:


> Is possible to force a LL skip? What algorithm knowledge do you need to have?



Technically you could leave an insertion and then do commutators or common PLL algs or something so that you'd be left with R U' R' xD


----------



## BrianJ (Jul 8, 2014)

Coolster01 said:


> Technically you could leave an insertion and then do commutators or common PLL algs or something so that you'd be left with R U' R' xD



When ever my cousin would have me make a layer on 2x2, I would do this to get a last layer skip. He got annoyed and left me to cube.


----------



## porkynator (Jul 8, 2014)

G2013 said:


> Is possible to force a LL skip? What algorithm knowledge do you need to have?


L' U2 R U2 R' U2 L is a nice case to know; it is a pair commutator [L' U2 L, Dw2]. Two similar cases are:
[R' Dw R, U]
[R' Dw R, U']


----------



## G2013 (Jul 8, 2014)

But is there any way of doing it fast?
Because if you start commutating the time will be really long


----------



## TDM (Jul 8, 2014)

G2013 said:


> But is there any way of doing it fast?
> Because if you start commutating the time will be really long


I guess you could do something like this with ZZ:
1- EOLine
2- Left 2x2
3- Permute corners during last slot with ZZ-porky v1 (or v2 if you can)
4- Something similar to WV during the right 2x2 (harder with an extra corner to orient that isn't in the U layer, but there's no other slot to preserve)
5- Permute edges as you insert the last slot, probably easier in two stages


----------



## G2013 (Jul 8, 2014)

thanks 
anyway, I will stay with fridrich xD


----------



## 10461394944000 (Jul 10, 2014)

managed to stop my gen2 stackmat from march 2008 on x.99



Spoiler


----------



## Kirjava (Jul 10, 2014)

uhm

is that one of the ones that runs at 60hz?


----------



## 10461394944000 (Jul 10, 2014)

Kirjava said:


> uhm
> 
> is that one of the ones that runs at 60hz?



yeah pretty sure it is, I think this is only the 2nd time I've seen a gen2 stop on x.99


----------



## Kirjava (Jul 11, 2014)

I know 0.99 is impossible, but maybe 1.99 is? try getting it again...

cba actually working it out atm


----------



## 10461394944000 (Jul 11, 2014)

Kirjava said:


> I know 0.99 is impossible, but maybe 1.99 is? try getting it again...
> 
> cba actually working it out atm



pretty sure "impossible" is actually just "extremely unlikely", I'm pretty sure the other time I stopped it on x.99 was actually 0.99.

edit:


----------



## guysensei1 (Jul 11, 2014)

I just saw YouTube advertisements for Jayden McNeill and Tony Fisher's YouTube channels.

So yeah.


----------



## TDM (Jul 11, 2014)

guysensei1 said:


> I just saw YouTube advertisements for Jayden McNeill and Tony Fisher's YouTube channels.
> 
> So yeah.


I haven't seen Jayden's, but I've seen Tony Fisher's multiple times. I've also seen RedKB's, but not for a while.


----------



## Renslay (Jul 11, 2014)

When I participated on my first official competition back in 2005, the world record holder for 3x3 was Shotaro Makisumi with a single WR 12.11 and an average WR 14.52.
Those times motivated me to dig myself into speedcubing, trying to go from a Petrus-beginner 0:50 to a sub20 Rouxer, and further on. Although I can achive better results from time to time now, I still keep in mind those numbers and trying to beat them as a challange.

Today, right after I sat down to do some solvings, I started with these:




Spoiler: Image












Exact average and almost exact single...

A tribute to a great and inspirational cuber (provided by sheer luck). :tu


----------



## Filipe Teixeira (Jul 11, 2014)

I remeber when I was so happy of having a sub Mihn Thai single. (22.95) lol
but the world record back then was 7.08 
EDIT: y so many tabs?


----------



## TDM (Jul 11, 2014)

filipemtx said:


> I remeber when I was so happy of having a sub Mihn Thai single. (22.95) lol
> but the world record back then was 7.08


The world record when I started was 5.66. Suddenly I don't feel like I've been cubing for very long  My current PB single beats the WR before 7.08, but I'm still not even near a sub-7.08 single yet...


----------



## Chree (Jul 11, 2014)

TDM said:


> The world record when I started was 5.66. Suddenly I don't feel like I've been cubing for very long  My current PB single beats the WR before 7.08, but I'm still not even near a sub-7.08 single yet...



Sometimes I like to think that I've spent the last 1 and a half years catching up to the history of world records.

So far I'm only caught up to 2006 .


----------



## Renslay (Jul 11, 2014)

filipemtx said:


> EDIT: y so many tabs?



Important (checking often) tabs, todo lists, "don't forget" tabs and "read/watch this if you have some time" sites.


----------



## Ninja Storm (Jul 11, 2014)

TDM said:


> The world record when I started was 5.66. Suddenly I don't feel like I've been cubing for very long  My current PB single beats the WR before 7.08, but I'm still not even near a sub-7.08 single yet...



Same here :c

This makes me feel young again in the cubing world.


----------



## jonlin (Jul 12, 2014)

I sort of started when the 7.08 video was posted on youtube.


----------



## guysensei1 (Jul 12, 2014)

Random questions for random cubing discussion:
Which 1LLL case(s) takes the most moves optimally?
What is the god's number for edges solved, corners scrambled cases?
And finally,
What is the god's number for edges scrambled, corners solved cases?


----------



## TDM (Jul 12, 2014)

guysensei1 said:


> What is the god's number for edges scrambled, corners solved cases?


20, superflip. Don't know the other answers though


----------



## RjFx2 (Jul 12, 2014)

I started when the WR was (and is) 5.55 seconds. My PB single only beats Jessica Fridrich's 4th place in 2003...


----------



## yoinneroid (Jul 13, 2014)

guysensei1 said:


> Which 1LLL case(s) takes the most moves optimally?









R U R' B' U' R2 U2 R U F R U R2 U' F' B (16f*)

it has no inverse or mirror

found this by manually scanning the LL list, so might miss other 16 movers cases, or even longer cases
I took note of the 15 movers while scanning, that is until I found this case


----------



## maps600 (Jul 13, 2014)

TDM said:


> The world record when I started was 5.66. Suddenly I don't feel like I've been cubing for very long  My current PB single beats the WR before 7.08, but I'm still not even near a sub-7.08 single yet...



Teehee when I started it was 5.55. I'm a nub.


----------



## guysensei1 (Jul 13, 2014)

I just want to say that the weilong is amazing at resisting overlubing.

I had to lube it 3 times with weight 5 (yes, weight FIVE!) just to get it slow enough for me to use. And I think it's speeding back up again for some reason. Maybe I'm just getting used to it.

That's all.

EDIT: It sped back up again... Where did all the lube go?!


----------



## DeeDubb (Jul 13, 2014)

guysensei1 said:


> I just want to say that the weilong is amazing at resisting overlubing.
> 
> I had to lube it 3 times with weight 5 (yes, weight FIVE!) just to get it slow enough for me to use. And I think it's speeding back up again for some reason. Maybe I'm just getting used to it.
> 
> ...



man, I've had the opposite experience with my weilong and aolong. If I even slightly overlube, it gets crazy gummy... maybe you like a different feel than me.


----------



## guysensei1 (Jul 13, 2014)

DeeDubb said:


> man, I've had the opposite experience with my weilong and aolong. If I even slightly overlube, it gets crazy gummy... maybe you like a different feel than me.



Which is strange, because all of my friend's weilongs felt like my mini weilong: ultra smooth and controllable. Whereas mine is super fast and crunchy. :/


----------



## brian724080 (Jul 13, 2014)

guysensei1 said:


> Which is strange, because all of my friend's weilongs felt like my mini weilong: ultra smooth and controllable. Whereas mine is super fast and crunchy. :/



Is that because your friend's solved it a lot more than you have?


----------



## guysensei1 (Jul 13, 2014)

brian724080 said:


> Is that because your friend's solved it a lot more than you have?



Probably.

I'll just use mine more. It got me many PBs so


----------



## Nilsibert (Jul 13, 2014)

I think I'm gonna practice blue cross now for a week just for the fun of it. I've gotten pretty comfortable with yellow by now, so I figured I'd just try to move on to a third color. It's extremely confusing and I make a ton of mistakes, but I see it as an experiment and a fun challenge. If I can manage to get color neutral in however long it takes, ANYONE can. 
I just hope I'll stick to it.


----------



## IRNjuggle28 (Jul 14, 2014)

On the 3x3 stage of solving a 5x5, I got the same F2L case all 4 times in a row, counting mirrors. It was the case that's solved with R U R' U' R U R', as well as the mirror of that. All four pairs. What are the odds of this?


Nilsibert said:


> I think I'm gonna practice blue cross now for a week just for the fun of it. I've gotten pretty comfortable with yellow by now, so I figured I'd just try to move on to a third color. It's extremely confusing and I make a ton of mistakes, but I see it as an experiment and a fun challenge. If I can manage to get color neutral in however long it takes, ANYONE can.
> I just hope I'll stick to it.



I think it would be best to practice in color pairs. Work on blue and green at the same time. That way, you're getting used to the E layer color scheme instead of just the cross color.


----------



## Lazy Einstein (Jul 14, 2014)

Nilsibert said:


> I think I'm gonna practice blue cross now for a week just for the fun of it. I've gotten pretty comfortable with yellow by now, so I figured I'd just try to move on to a third color. It's extremely confusing and I make a ton of mistakes, but I see it as an experiment and a fun challenge. If I can manage to get color neutral in however long it takes, ANYONE can.
> I just hope I'll stick to it.



It's super fun. You'll be surprised how fast you get comfortable with it.


----------



## Nilsibert (Jul 14, 2014)

IRNjuggle28 said:


> I think it would be best to practice in color pairs. Work on blue and green at the same time. That way, you're getting used to the E layer color scheme instead of just the cross color.



I don't think so... The basic color scheme of blue has to "make sense" to me first I think, then green will be easier. I try to develop my ability to filter blue as a cross color. I did the same with yellow; I exclusively solved yellow for a 3-5 days or so, to make sure I develop that ability. And knowing the white on D color scheme so well made yellow easier since it's just the other way around. 
I think working in pairs would also work, but sticking to one until I get comfortable with it makes a bit more sense to me.




Lazy Einstein said:


> It's super fun. You'll be surprised how fast you get comfortable with it.


Indeed it is! Started yesterday and already it's getting a bit easier. I'm still horrible at it, but at least I'm not completely lost all the time. The thing is that I've had rubiks cubes my whole life, and even when I figured out myself how to make one side(not layer) as a kid 15-20 years ago, it was always white. I sort of looked at it as obligatory. When I learned some version of LBL 10 years ago I stuck to white cross aswell. So basically I kinda go against what has been burned into my mind over my whole life so far, so I think I'll need some patience. Even yellow cross was pretty hard and I'm still not that great at it.
But as said, its a lot of fun, didn't think it would be.


----------



## ryanj92 (Jul 14, 2014)

Nilsibert said:


> I think I'm gonna practice blue cross now for a week just for the fun of it. I've gotten pretty comfortable with yellow by now, so I figured I'd just try to move on to a third color. It's extremely confusing and I make a ton of mistakes, but I see it as an experiment and a fun challenge. If I can manage to get color neutral in however long it takes, ANYONE can.
> I just hope I'll stick to it.



This is precisely how I'm working towards CN. I agree that it is best to start with one of the pair, and then use the other after a while, for the reasons you said (getting familiar with the order of the E-layer colours)
After 1-2 weeks of light practise my green cross is only trailing my white+yellow by a couple of seconds at most, now, and I can get sub-15 singles on easy crosses (surely the whole point, right? ), and i'm throwing in some blue cross now also.
Also it is really fun isn't it, keeps you thinking


----------



## Nilsibert (Jul 14, 2014)

ryanj92 said:


> This is precisely how I'm working towards CN. I agree that it is best to start with one of the pair, and then use the other after a while, for the reasons you said (getting familiar with the order of the E-layer colours)
> After 1-2 weeks of light practise my green cross is only trailing my white+yellow by a couple of seconds at most, now, and I can get sub-15 singles on easy crosses (surely the whole point, right? ), and i'm throwing in some blue cross now also.
> Also it is really fun isn't it, keeps you thinking



Well I could surely get faster with a single color, but CN is fun and can get you easy crosses 
Also practising yellow made me sub 15 again on white, because I had to go slow, so it improved my lookahead.
I just like the idea of CN and it's a fun challenge. I got a bit bored with constant lookahead practice, and if it helps that too, then it's all the better.


----------



## IRNjuggle28 (Jul 14, 2014)

Nilsibert said:


> I don't think so... The basic color scheme of blue has to "make sense" to me first I think, then green will be easier. I try to develop my ability to filter blue as a cross color. I did the same with yellow; I exclusively solved yellow for a 3-5 days or so, to make sure I develop that ability. And knowing the white on D color scheme so well made yellow easier since it's just the other way around.
> I think working in pairs would also work, but sticking to one until I get comfortable with it makes a bit more sense to me.



I suppose the reason our perspectives are different is that I've solved both white and yellow for the majority of the time I've been cubing, and I now have no bias at all between the two. If I were to attempt to become color neutral, working in color pairs would work well for me because I'm used to that, but I also see that what you're saying makes sense since you solved a fixed color.


----------



## guysensei1 (Jul 14, 2014)

With all this talk about CN, I wondered:
There are people neutral on 1 axis (2 colors for cross)
and people neutral on all axes (fully CN)

Is there any cuber who's neutral on 2 axes? (4 colors for cross)


----------



## IRNjuggle28 (Jul 14, 2014)

guysensei1 said:


> With all this talk about CN, I wondered:
> There are people neutral on 1 axis (2 colors for cross)
> and people neutral on all axes (fully CN)
> 
> Is there any cuber who's neutral on 2 axes? (4 colors for cross)



Yeah, there are a couple people who solve 4 cross colors. I think one had a user name of "jeff" followed by 5 random numbers. I remember 2 or 3 who do that.

As for that being neutral on 2 axes, rethink that. All CFOP users are neutral on the Y axis, unless you never rotate. (I know that's a bit different than what you meant, but still)

There are also many Roux users who are neutral on two axes.


----------



## guysensei1 (Jul 14, 2014)

IRNjuggle28 said:


> Yeah, there are a couple people who solve 4 cross colors. I think one had a user name of "jeff" followed by 5 random numbers. I remember 2 or 3 who do that.
> 
> As for that being neutral on 2 axes, rethink that. All CFOP users are neutral on the Y axis, unless you never rotate. (I know that's a bit different than what you meant, but still)
> 
> There are also many Roux users who are neutral on two axes.



Lol yeah. I had no other way to explain it without it being all convoluted...

:fp

EDIT: I have no idea what I'm saying. I can't english today.


----------



## IRNjuggle28 (Jul 14, 2014)

guysensei1 said:


> EDIT: I have no idea what I'm saying. I can't english today.



Nope, you actually made perfect sense.  Take a look at this thread if you haven't seen it; it might interest you. I found the guy I was talking about. His username is jeff081692 and he mentions his interest in solving 4 cross colors in here, on this page. http://www.speedsolving.com/forum/showthread.php?34834-Color-Neutral-Transition-Thread/page28


----------



## DeeDubb (Jul 14, 2014)

guysensei1 said:


> Lol yeah. I had no other way to explain it without it being all convoluted...
> 
> :fp
> 
> EDIT: I have no idea what I'm saying. I can't english today.



I've become x2/y color neutral with Roux, meaning I can start with either yellow or white top or bottom, and start with any other color as my first block. Though, this is similar to being yellow/white cross, unless you have a specific order your insert F2L, which I don't think anyone does. I think x2/y CN is a bit harder on Roux though, because of the freedom that block building has vs. the cross. I don't know any Roux solvers that are completely color neutral.


----------



## Stefan (Jul 15, 2014)

This is where the fastest cubers should come from:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alghero


----------



## Renslay (Jul 15, 2014)

Stefan said:


> This is where the fastest cubers should come from:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alghero



Why?


----------



## guysensei1 (Jul 15, 2014)

Renslay said:


> Why?



Alg hero
Algorithm hero


----------



## Renslay (Jul 15, 2014)

guysensei1 said:


> Alg hero
> Algorithm hero



:fp: okay, got it...
(Funny, I usually get the jokes like that...)


----------



## porkynator (Jul 16, 2014)

Solved a megaminx counting moves: 162. No idea if this is any good. Has anybody already tried this?


----------



## G2013 (Jul 16, 2014)

I did with lots of puzzles, also with megaminx. I do like 250-300 moves


----------



## TDM (Jul 16, 2014)

porkynator said:


> Solved a megaminx counting moves: 162. No idea if this is any good. Has anybody already tried this?


13+7+7+10+8+15+4+17+5+12+15+12+8+7+7+9+8+7+37+17 = 225. I thought I'd be much higher... but if you include rotations I would guess that number goes above 500, knowing how good I am at Mega.


----------



## porkynator (Jul 16, 2014)

129 Second try
Btw I use heise (bkockbuilding + corners commutator a the end) and I don't care at all about speed.
E: 151 third try


----------



## uberCuber (Jul 17, 2014)

188, solving how I would normally


----------



## 10461394944000 (Jul 17, 2014)

porkynator said:


> Solved a megaminx counting moves: 162. No idea if this is any good. Has anybody already tried this?



167, but I forced a 2x2x1 block in LL and all the edges were solved after S2L so LL was just a corner comm for OLL and normal CP comms for PLL


----------



## SolveThatCube (Jul 17, 2014)

The white and yellow on the WCA logo should be swapped.


----------



## yoinneroid (Jul 17, 2014)

SolveThatCube said:


> The white and yellow on the WCA logo should be swapped.



and yet only a few people realize this 
(all of the important figures in the WCA probably have known this for a very long time though)
EDIT: also TDM's post


----------



## TDM (Jul 17, 2014)

SolveThatCube said:


> The white and yellow on the WCA logo should be swapped.


That depends on which colour scheme you use. I used to use that colour scheme, so that isn't wrong for me. There isn't any right colour scheme that it 'should' be.
Also how do you know it isn't blue and green that are swapped? Or red and orange? Or blue-green AND white-orange?
(also it's the same colour scheme as the solved cubes on the main forum page)


----------



## SolveThatCube (Jul 17, 2014)

yoinneroid said:


> and yet only a few people realize this
> (all of the important figures in the WCA probably have known this for a very long time though)
> EDIT: also TDM's post



I've known it for a while too but I was just on there now and saw it again...



TDM said:


> That depends on which colour scheme you use. I used to use that colour scheme, so that isn't wrong for me. There isn't any right colour scheme that it 'should' be.
> Also how do you know it isn't blue and green that are swapped? Or red and orange? Or blue-green AND white-orange?
> (also it's the same colour scheme as the solved cubes on the main forum page)



I never said it was 'wrong', I was actually very careful about that.
Well, you could swap blue and green, red and orange, or white and yellow and it would do the same thing.

Calm down.


----------



## TDM (Jul 17, 2014)

SolveThatCube said:


> I never said it was 'wrong', I was actually very careful about that.


True, but you did say the colours "should" be swapped.


Spoiler: Google's definition of should



should
ʃʊd/Submit
verb
1.
used to indicate obligation, duty, or *correctness*, typically when criticizing someone's actions.
"he should have been careful"


So if you don't think it's correct, surely that means you think it's wrong?


----------



## guysensei1 (Jul 17, 2014)

Am I the only one who mixes and matches cores in cubes?
I always swap out cores for other cube's fancy colored cores just for the lol. My moyu weilong has a blue maru cx3 core and my mini weilong has some black colored core I got from a friend, and he has no idea how he got it anyone know what brand this might be from?


----------



## Future Cuber (Jul 17, 2014)

guysensei1 said:


> Am I the only one who mixes and matches cores in cubes?
> I always swap out cores for other cube's fancy colored cores just for the lol. My moyu weilong has a blue maru cx3 core and my mini weilong has some black colored core I got from a friend, and he has no idea how he got it anyone know what brand this might be from?


how do they turn?????


----------



## guysensei1 (Jul 17, 2014)

Future Cuber said:


> how do they turn?????



No difference.
And it shouldn't make a difference.
I only did it because I like having the 'customised' impression on my cube. 

The pieces never actually touch the core anyway.


----------



## Stefan (Jul 17, 2014)

TDM said:


> True, but you did say the colours "should" be swapped.
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Google's definition of should
> ...



You must have missed the "*obligation, duty, or*" part.

However, I really don't think the image should have a yellow background.


----------



## CriticalCubing (Jul 17, 2014)

guysensei1 said:


> No difference.
> And it shouldn't make a difference.
> I only did it because I like having the 'customised' impression on my cube.
> 
> The pieces never actually touch the core anyway.


One time I changed the cores and springs and the cube was on loose tensions, so 2 centre piece popped and the cubic shape was no more. The screws, washers and springs were never to be found again!


----------



## guysensei1 (Jul 17, 2014)

CriticalCubing said:


> One time I changed the cores and springs and the cube was on loose tensions, so 2 centre piece popped and the cubic shape was no more. The screws, washers and springs were never to be found again!



Oh dear.

Don't use loose tensions I guess!


----------



## 10461394944000 (Jul 19, 2014)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZLWr-Lcdiig

can anyone find a slower solve video on youtube?


----------



## mark49152 (Jul 19, 2014)

10461394944000 said:


> can anyone find a slower solve video on youtube?



I wonder if any of those 168 viewers watched more than the first 10 seconds?


----------



## TDM (Jul 19, 2014)

mark49152 said:


> I wonder if any of those 168 viewers watched more than the first 10 seconds?


Maybe they watched the first and last 10 to see him finish 







Almost a million posts! Less than a thousand to go.


----------



## guysensei1 (Jul 19, 2014)

Finding events with similar WRs

3x3 and clock 
7x7 and 4BLD 
4x4 and 3BLD 

The rest aren't that close anymore.

Just for fun. 

EDIT:
if you google 'wca id' , this guy is the first result:
https://www.worldcubeassociation.org/results/p.php?i=2010MORE02


----------



## ryanj92 (Jul 19, 2014)

guysensei1 said:


> Finding events with similar WRs
> 
> 3x3 and clock
> 7x7 and 4BLD
> ...


Also, feet is fairly close to 3BLD and 4x4x4.


----------



## guysensei1 (Jul 19, 2014)

ryanj92 said:


> Also, feet is fairly close to 3BLD and 4x4x4.



True.

Would mega and 5x5 be considered close enough?


----------



## guysensei1 (Jul 21, 2014)

I'm not sure if this is bad, but everytime I see someone post a whole new thread with stuff like 'hey guys how do i get faster' or 'how do i lube my zhanchi',

I always think 'inb4 mod moves the thread'...

I feel bad just posting this.


----------



## Renslay (Jul 21, 2014)

guysensei1 said:


> I'm not sure if this is bad, but everytime I see someone post a whole new thread with stuff like 'hey guys how do i get faster' or 'how do i lube my zhanchi',
> 
> I always think 'inb4 mod moves the thread'...
> 
> I feel bad just posting this.



Believe me, feel the same.


----------



## CriticalCubing (Jul 21, 2014)

Renslay said:


> Believe me, feel the same.


Saw your signature! Boomerang good for someone knowing only old pochmann? Or I need to learn M2 also?


----------



## Renslay (Jul 21, 2014)

CriticalCubing said:


> Saw your signature! Boomerang good for someone knowing only old pochmann? Or I need to learn M2 also?



Boomerang is only for the corners. So for edges, you can use M2 or OldPochmann (or Turbo or BH, etc), whatever you like. The only case where your chosen edge-method matters is the parity (how to deal with it; since parity "connects the edges and the corners"). But I can help you with that if you need.

Also I made the description as clear as possible, so beginners should understand it too (by "beginner" I mean someone who already knows how general BLD solvings work, like breaking into new cycle, slot, target, and so on).

If you have any questions, feel free to send me a PM!


----------



## goodatthis (Jul 21, 2014)

Has anyone ever thought of FMC in QTM? It would probably be pretty similar to regular FMC, but I would assume it would make cancellations and insertions slightly less effective and slightly more time consuming. Just a thought I had.


----------



## kinch2002 (Jul 21, 2014)

10461394944000 said:


> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZLWr-Lcdiig
> 
> can anyone find a slower solve video on youtube?







He doesn't even finish during the 43 minutes...





Yeah I know it's not a particularly normal solve but it's still a solve.

I searched rubik's cube slow -motion -mo -turning -tutorial and then sorted by video length.


----------



## Renslay (Jul 21, 2014)

goodatthis said:


> Has anyone ever thought of FMC in QTM? It would probably be pretty similar to regular FMC, but I would assume it would make cancellations and insertions slightly less effective and slightly more time consuming. Just a thought I had.



I would rather consider an FMC in STM. Roux-like solves can be really interesting!


----------



## goodatthis (Jul 21, 2014)

Renslay said:


> I would rather consider an FMC in STM. Roux-like solves can be really interesting!



I agree, any sort of EO in an FMC solve could be done more effectively with slice moves. I was also thinking, what about some sort of other axial turn metric for FMC? Maybe there could be a competition to find out what turn metric would result in the fewest amount of moves?


----------



## IRNjuggle28 (Jul 21, 2014)

goodatthis said:


> I agree, any sort of EO in an FMC solve could be done more effectively with slice moves. I was also thinking, what about some sort of other axial turn metric for FMC? Maybe there could be a competition to find out what turn metric would result in the fewest amount of moves?



The answer would be STM or one of the other metrics that counts slices as one move.


----------



## goodatthis (Jul 21, 2014)

IRNjuggle28 said:


> The answer would be STM or one of the other metrics that counts slices as one move.


From my understanding, in other ATM metrics, if you do M' R2, that would be considered one move. I'm not completely sure, since the wiki page on ATM is fairly short.


----------



## Renslay (Jul 21, 2014)

goodatthis said:


> From my understanding, in other ATM metrics, if you do M' R2, that would be considered one move. I'm not completely sure, since the wiki page on ATM is fairly short.



Indeed. Turning anything on the x axis (for example) counts as 1 move. So M' R L2 R L' M' R L2 is just one move. The second move comes when you change the axis.
So the center-turning sequence U R L U2 R' L' U R L U2 R' L' is actually 8 moves in ATM, as shown here: (U) (R L) (U2) (R' L') (U) (R L) (U2) (R' L').


----------



## G2013 (Jul 21, 2014)

Who is the person that knows most amount of algorithms?
I've heard of people that are full ZBLL, and lots of things like that, but who haves the WR of most algorithms memorized?


----------



## IRNjuggle28 (Jul 22, 2014)

goodatthis said:


> From my understanding, in other ATM metrics, if you do M' R2, that would be considered one move. I'm not completely sure, since the wiki page on ATM is fairly short.





Renslay said:


> Indeed. Turning anything on the x axis (for example) counts as 1 move. So M' R L2 R L' M' R L2 is just one move. The second move comes when you change the axis.
> So the center-turning sequence U R L U2 R' L' U R L U2 R' L' is actually 8 moves in ATM, as shown here: (U) (R L) (U2) (R' L') (U) (R L) (U2) (R' L').



Wow, very interesting. Hadn't heard of those. Kieran, if you're interested enough, you should start a challenge thread for ATM FMC. 




G2013 said:


> Who is the person that knows most amount of algorithms?
> I've heard of people that are full ZBLL, and lots of things like that, but who haves the WR of most algorithms memorized?



A few people learned full ZBLL, but they learned it for FMC, not for speedsolving. You also have to define "algorithm" more clearly in order to find out who knows the most.

Out of active speedsolvers, the answer would be Jabari Nuruddin, aka BindeDSA. He knows full 2GLL, and about 2/3 of full ZBLL. I'm sure he also knows a fair number of 2x2 algorithms.


----------



## uberCuber (Jul 22, 2014)

IRNjuggle28 said:


> A few people learned full ZBLL, but they learned it for FMC, not for speedsolving. You also have to define "algorithm" more clearly in order to find out who knows the most.
> 
> Out of active speedsolvers, the answer would be Jabari Nuruddin, aka BindeDSA. He knows full 2GLL, and about 2/3 of full ZBLL. I'm sure he also knows a fair number of 2x2 algorithms.



I very strongly doubt that bindedsa knows more algorithms than any other speedsolvers right now. Btw 2GLL is a subset of ZBLL, so it is redundant to mention it alongside "2/3 of full ZBLL".


----------



## IRNjuggle28 (Jul 22, 2014)

uberCuber said:


> I very strongly doubt that bindedsa knows more algorithms than any other speedsolvers right now. Btw 2GLL is a subset of ZBLL, so it is redundant to mention it alongside "2/3 of full ZBLL".



I was trying to specify what parts of ZBLL he knew. Some people learn ZBLL by the OCLL subsets. Bindedsa learned the cases with corners permuted. He could know that much ZBLL and not know full 2GLL, so I don't see it as redundant.

Who knows more algs than him? If you spit out a few names, I'm happy to admit that I was incorrect. However, I assumed that if somebody knew more, we would know their names. Anybody with enough dedication to cubing to learn that much seems unlikely to be unknown to the community. 

"algorithm" needs a more specific definition. By some definitions, the answer would be the bigBLD solvers who use 3 cycles. It's thousands of cases, and if the person asking the question considers each case a different alg, then that's their answer.


----------



## JackJ (Jul 22, 2014)

IRNjuggle28 said:


> Who knows more algs than him?


I'm sure Chris Tran did at one point.


----------



## goodatthis (Jul 22, 2014)

G2013 said:


> Who is the person that knows most amount of algorithms?
> I've heard of people that are full ZBLL, and lots of things like that, but who haves the WR of most algorithms memorized?



In a thread (too lazy to link it right now, just seach how many algs in the search box) Rowe Hessler said probably about 1000. He said it was just an estimate, and I'm also not sure if he was joking or not.



IRNjuggle28 said:


> Wow, very interesting. Hadn't heard of those. Kieran, if you're interested enough, you should start a challenge thread for ATM FMC.



Maybe, but I think I should run it by the FMCers first, see what they think.


----------



## uberCuber (Jul 22, 2014)

IRNjuggle28 said:


> Who knows more algs than him? If you spit out a few names, I'm happy to admit that I was incorrect. However, I assumed that if somebody knew more, we would know their names. Anybody with enough dedication to cubing to learn that much seems unlikely to be unknown to the community.



Well, I'd need to know how many algs he knows himself. I'm not even sure he knows more than me at this point. Either way though, Kirjava learned full OLLCP (300+ algs) at some point, and he knows absurd amounts of other stuff. Justin Harder similarly. Even consider Chris Olson, who knows a couple hundred algs just for 2x2 on top of whatever he knows for 3x3 and stuff. AFAIK RobYau knows decent chunks of both OLLCP and ZBLL. I'm sure there are others I should be thinking of as well.


But yes, this is definitely a problem with counting this stuff:



> "algorithm" needs a more specific definition. By some definitions, the answer would be the bigBLD solvers who use 3 cycles. It's thousands of cases, and if the person asking the question considers each case a different alg, then that's their answer.


----------



## IRNjuggle28 (Jul 22, 2014)

uberCuber said:


> Well, I'd need to know how many algs he knows himself. I'm not even sure he knows more than me at this point. Either way though, Kirjava learned full OLLCP (300+ algs) at some point, and he knows absurd amounts of other stuff. Justin Harder similarly. Even consider Chris Olson, who knows a couple hundred algs just for 2x2 on top of whatever he knows for 3x3 and stuff. AFAIK RobYau knows decent chunks of both OLLCP and ZBLL. I'm sure there are others I should be thinking of as well.


Fair enough. It's also likely that Kir knows a ton of algs because he knows a ton of methods. Roux, CFOP, and Petrus only overlap a certain amount, and I'm pretty sure Kir knows all the intuitive F2L/block algs for all the methods, of which there are hundreds. (depending on the definition of "alg," of course) Why would he even learn full OLLCP? He uses Roux. I guess he must have used it to try to make CLL and EO a single step, because there's barely a point otherwise.


----------



## guysensei1 (Jul 23, 2014)

guysensei1 said:


> Which 1LLL case(s) takes the most moves optimally?



I found one more.
It's E perm + pure 4 flipped edges. Takes (at least) 16 moves. I have cubeexplorer running right now and it's gotten up to 16.

Would anyone be so kind as to list all the 16 move (if that's even the highest optimal movecount for 1LLL) 1LLL cases?

EDIT: got the optimal alg.
U2 F R D2 F' R2 U B' R2 B U' R2 F D2 R' F' 16 HTM.


----------



## Renslay (Jul 23, 2014)

guysensei1 said:


> I found one more.
> It's E perm + pure 4 flipped edges. Takes (at least) 16 moves. I have cubeexplorer running right now and it's gotten up to 16.
> 
> Would anyone be so kind as to list all the 16 move (if that's even the highest optimal movecount for 1LLL) 1LLL cases?
> ...



But without AUF, it is only 15...
(I think the length of the PLLs is usually measured without AUF, am I correct?)


----------



## PJKCuber (Jul 23, 2014)

Weird, but I kind hate MMAP because he has so many puzzles even though he's slower than me. I only have 4


----------



## G2013 (Jul 23, 2014)

Replying to all who replied me:
I define "algorithm" as a group of predefined moves that someone memorize sometimes with a name (like the PLLs) and execute to complete the substep that that group of moves belong to.
I know someone that knows 800-900.
And I teached myself like 400 algorithms.


----------



## Stefan (Jul 23, 2014)

How to do a single quarter turn as a commutator:


Spoiler



[U, remove U-layer pieces from cube]
Credit to I think TMOY or Bruce for this idea (was how to do a single corner twist as a commutator, iirc).

Now I'm thinking whether it might be possible without taking pieces out of the cube, maybe with eighth turns and similar to how you can do U2 as [U, [L R:d2]]. Or with some other creative ways?


----------



## antoineccantin (Jul 23, 2014)

G2013 said:


> Replying to all who replied me:
> I define "algorithm" as a group of predefined moves that someone memorize sometimes with a name (like the PLLs) and execute to complete the substep that that group of moves belong to.
> I know someone that knows 800-900.
> And I teached myself like 400 algorithms.



So that includes BLD commutators then? I suppose Roman must know many thousands of algorithms, considering how many different types of pieces he solves on 10BLD.


----------



## IRNjuggle28 (Jul 24, 2014)

IRNjuggle28 said:


> this





antoineccantin said:


> So that includes BLD commutators then? I suppose Roman must know many thousands of algorithms, considering how many different types of pieces he solves on 10BLD.



Well, I mentioned that in one of my earlier posts, which I quoted, but I'm not sure that I agree with the idea that what's used on 10BLD is different enough to count as a different algorithm. If Roman had a 100x100x100 cube, he would know how to do 3 cycles there too using the exact same concepts he would on a smaller cube. But would you say that he knows millions and millions of algorithms? After 4x4, the corner center piece algorithms are all the same. After 5x5, the plus center algorithms are all the same. After 6x6, the oblique algorithms are all the same. I don't think 10BLD really requires more algorithms than 6 or 7.


----------



## tseitsei (Jul 24, 2014)

antoineccantin said:


> So that includes BLD commutators then? I suppose Roman must know many thousands of algorithms, considering how many different types of pieces he solves on 10BLD.



I would say that this definition actually DOESN'T include BLD commutators as algorithms...

Because I would say I learned commutators the same way as F2L: By understanding how the cube works and coming up with a solution for each case on my own.

Well obviously I know by now both BLD comms and F2L by muscle memory just like PLLs but I didn't initially learn them as algorithms as I did with PLLs and OLLs.

Also I could easily come up with a different way to solve any BLD 3-cycle or F2L pair on the spot but I couldn't do that for OLLs and PLLs that easily because OLL/PLL are just move sequences I have learned (algorithms) and don't actually know how they work. And F2L and comms are intuitive ways for me to solve the cube by actually UNDERSTANDING what I'm doing (intuitive --> not algorithms)


----------



## uberCuber (Jul 24, 2014)

If someone were to learn BH algorithmically rather than intuitively (e.g. aronpm), then it would seem to fit his definition, being predefined moves that someone memorized


----------



## tseitsei (Jul 24, 2014)

uberCuber said:


> If someone were to learn BH algorithmically rather than intuitively (e.g. aronpm), then it would seem to fit his definition, being predefined moves that someone memorized



Yeah that's true. I just thought nobody/very few people learn it that way.
Especially for big cubes because you would need to learn so many algs for 5BLD  

Don't know the exact numbers but something like >400 algs per piece type so corners, midges, wings, x-centers, +-centers= 5*400= over 2000 algorithms for 5BLD...
Seems like a ridiculous amount of work, because just by learning how comms work you could solve all those cases intuitively. And I don't think ANYONE has ever learned bigBLD this way  That would be just stupid...


----------



## guysensei1 (Jul 25, 2014)

Am I the only one who first learnt the U perms with the solved edge facing me?


----------



## TDM (Jul 25, 2014)

guysensei1 said:


> Am I the only one who first learnt the U perms with the solved edge facing me?


I thought I was the only one who _didn't_...


----------



## IRNjuggle28 (Jul 25, 2014)

guysensei1 said:


> Am I the only one who first learnt the U perms with the solved edge facing me?



I know two Ua perms and two Ub perms that I use during speedsolves and all of them have the solved edge facing me. The only ones I know that don't always have the solved edge facing me are the 7 STM/9 HTM ones that I do intuitively for FMC.


----------



## Nilsibert (Jul 25, 2014)

Once again I gave up on CN, for good this time. I still, after 2 weeks or so, have problems solving on yellow. And if I do an average dual color neutral, solving on yellow kills my lookahead and gets me horrible times. Switching around is the biggest problem. Exclusively solving yellow is fine after a while, but doing both is hard.
I'm happy if I can get dual color neutral, and it seems like a goal that I can actually accomplish.


----------



## G2013 (Jul 25, 2014)

antoineccantin said:


> So that includes BLD commutators then? I suppose Roman must know many thousands of algorithms, considering how many different types of pieces he solves on 10BLD.


No, for me commutators are intuitive moves. Like entire solves, they are groups of groups of moves that are in the "whole 3x3 substep". My definition is incomplete, but I knew you were going to understand it anyway.


guysensei1 said:


> Am I the only one who first learnt the U perms with the solved edge facing me?


No, you aren't  I also did, but I've learnt the optimal algorithms instead of the 2-gen one.

...

What do you think about this J-perm: R' U' R F2 R' U R F' R' U' R F' R' U R F' ?
Credit to DGraciaRubik for the idea of a J-perm made by treating pairs like pieces, and for writing this quite simple algorithm:
(r' D' r) U (r' D r) U (r' D' r) U2 (r' D R)
On this thread.
I transformed it into the algorithm you see above using this tool.

Maybe this one be better: R' F' R D2 R' F R D' R' F' R D' R' F R D'


----------



## guysensei1 (Jul 26, 2014)

G2013 said:


> No, for me commutators are intuitive moves. Like entire solves, they are groups of groups of moves that are in the "whole 3x3 substep". My definition is incomplete, but I knew you were going to understand it anyway.
> 
> No, you aren't  I also did, but I've learnt the optimal algorithms instead of the 2-gen one.
> 
> ...



That J perm is good but I think the existing one is so good people won't bother switching?.

Cool alg anyway.


----------



## SolveThatCube (Jul 30, 2014)

I've switched to the mini aolong...



Spoiler



*RANDOM*


----------



## qqwref (Aug 2, 2014)

I heard Moyu is going to make a new 100x100 cube, so I wanted to make a scrambler for it. I figure since TNoodle uses Java I should too. Is this a good start?


```
OneHundredByOneHundredByOneHundredCubeRandomStateScramblerFactory
 oneHundredByOneHundredByOneHundredCubeRandomStateScramblerFactory =
 new OneHundredByOneHundredByOneHundredCubeRandomStateScramblerFactory();
OneHundredByOneHundredByOneHundredCubeRandomStateScrambler
 oneHundredByOneHundredByOneHundredCubeRandomStateScrambler =
 oneHundredByOneHundredByOneHundredCubeRandomStateScramblerFactory
  .newOneHundredByOneHundredByOneHundredCubeRandomStateScrambler();
```


----------



## 10461394944000 (Aug 2, 2014)

qqwref said:


> I heard Moyu is going to make a new 100x100 cube, so I wanted to make a scrambler for it. I figure since TNoodle uses Java I should too. Is this a good start?
> 
> 
> ```
> ...



wow that is amazing can you write me another one in whitespace? ill give you 5 dollars and florian mod your 100x100 thanks


----------



## 10461394944000 (Aug 3, 2014)

Spoiler: position



1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
38 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22
23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33
34 35 36 37 12 39 40 41 42 43 44
45 46 47 48 0 50 51 52 53 54 55
56 57 58 59 86 61 62 63 64 65 66
67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77
78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 60 87 88
89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99
100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110
111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 120 119 49


fix the black pieces in position so they cant move. the 12 and 86 cant be solved in less than 6250 moves

and heres the optimal solutation


```
UUUURRDDDDDDDDRRUUUUUUUUUULLLLLLLLLDLDDDDDDDDDRRUUUUUUUURRDDDDDDDDRRUUUUUUUURRDDDDDDDDRRUUUUUUUUUULLLLLLLLLDLDDDDDDDDDRRUUUUUUUURRDDDDDDDDRRUUUUUUUURRDDDDDDDDRRUUUUUUUUUULLLLLLLLLDLDDDDDDDDDRRUUUUUUUURRDDDDDDDDRRUUUUUUUURRDDDDDDDDRRUUUUUUUUUULLLLLLLLLDLDDDDDDDDDRRUUUUUUUURRDDDDDDDDRRUUUUUUUURRDDDDDDDDRRUUUUUUUUUULLLLLLLLLDLDDDDDDDDDRRUUUUUUUURRDDDDDDDDRRUUUUUUUURRDDDDDDDDRRUUUUUUUUUULLLLLLLLLDLDDDDDDDDDRRUUUUUUUURRDDDDDDDDRRUUUUUUUURRDDDDDDDDRRUUUUUUUUUULLLLLLLLLDLDDDDDDDDDRRUUUUUUUURRDDDDDDDDRRUUUUUUUURRDDDDDDDDRRUUUUUUUUUULLLLLLLLLDLDDDDDDDDDRRUUUUUUUURRDDDDDDDDRRUUUUUUUURRDDDDDDDDRRUUUUUUUUUULLLLLLLLLDLDDDDDDDDDRRUUUUUUUURRDDDDDDDDRRUUUUUUUURRDDDDDDDDRRUUUUUUUUUULLLLLLLLLDLDDDDDDDDDRRUUUUUUUURRDDDDDDDDRRUUUUUUUURRDDDDDDDDRRUUUUUUUUUULLLLLLLLLDLDDDDDDDDDRRUUUUUUUURRDDDDDDDDRRUUUUUUUURRDDDDDDDDRRUUUUUUUUUULLLLLLLLLDLDDDDDDDDDRRUUUUUUUURRDDDDDDDDRRUUUUUUUURRDDDDDDDDRRUUUUUUUUUULLLLLLLLLDLDDDDDDDDDRRUUUUUUUURRDDDDDDDDRRUUUUUUUURRDDDDDDDDRRUUUUUUUUUULLLLLLLLLDLDDDDDDDDDRRUUUUUUUURRDDDDDDDDRRUUUUUUUURRDDDDDDDDRRUUUUUUUUUULLLLLLLLLDLDDDDDDDDDRRUUUUUUUURRDDDDDDDDRRUUUUUUUURRDDDDDDDDRRUUUUUUUUUULLLLLLLLLDLDDDDDDDDDRRUUUUUUUURRDDDDDDDDRRUUUUUUUURRDDDDDDDDRRUUUUUUUUUULLLLLLLLLDLDDDDDDDDDRRUUUUUUUURRDDDDDDDDRRUUUUUUUURRDDDDDDDDRRUUUUUUUUUULLLLLLLLLDLDDDDDDDDDRRUUUUUUUURRDDDDDDDDRRUUUUUUUURRDDDDDDDDRRUUUUUUUUUULLLLLLLLLDLDDDDDDDDDRRUUUUUUUURRDDDDDDDDRRUUUUUUUURRDDDDDDDDRRUUUUUUUUUULLLLLLLLLDLDDDDDDDDDRRUUUUUUUURRDDDDDDDDRRUUUUUUUURRDDDDDDDDRRUUUUUUUUUULLLLLLLLLDLDDDDDDDDDRRUUUUUUUURRDDDDDDDDRRUUUUUUUURRDDDDDDDDRRUUUUUUUUUULLLLLLLLLDLDDDDDDDDDRRUUUUUUUURRDDDDDDDDRRUUUUUUUURRDDDDDDDDRRUUUUUUUUUULLLLLLLLLDLDDDDDDDDDRRUUUUUUUURRDDDDDDDDRRUUUUUUUURRDDDDDDDDRRUUUUUUUUUULLLLLLLLLDLDDDDDDDDDRRUUUUUUUURRDDDDDDDDRRUUUUUUUURRDDDDDDDDRRUUUUUUUUUULLLLLLLLLDLDDDDDDDDDRRUUUUUUUURRDDDDDDDDRRUUUUUUUURRDDDDDDDDRRUUUUUUUUUULLLLLLLLLDLDDDDDDDDDRRUUUUUUUURRDDDDDDDDRRUUUUUUUURRDDDDDDDDRRUUUUUUUUUULLLLLLLLLDLDDDDDDDDDRRUUUUUUUURRDDDDDDDDRRUUUUUUUURRDDDDDDDDRRUUUUUUUUUULLLLLLLLLDLDDDDDDDDDRRUUUUUUUURRDDDDDDDDRRUUUUUUUURRDDDDDDDDRRUUUUUUUUUULLLLLLLLLDLDDDDDDDDDRRUUUUUUUURRDDDDDDDDRRUUUUUUUURRDDDDDDDDRRUUUUUUUUUULLLLLLLLLDLDDDDDDDDDRRUUUUUUUURRDDDDDDDDRRUUUUUUUURRDDDDDDDDRRUUUUUUUUUULLLLLLLLLDLDDDDDDDDDRRUUUUUUUURRDDDDDDDDRRUUUUUUUURRDDDDDDDDRRUUUUUUUUUULLLLLLLLLDLDDDDDDDDDRRUUUUUUUURRDDDDDDDDRRUUUUUUUURRDDDDDDDDRRUUUUUUUUUULLLLLLLLLDLDDDDDDDDDRRUUUUUUUURRDDDDDDDDRRUUUUUUUURRDDDDDDDDRRUUUUUUUUUULLLLLLLLLDLDDDDDDDDDRRUUUUUUUURRDDDDDDDDRRUUUUUUUURRDDDDDDDDRRUUUUUUUUUULLLLLLLLLDLDDDDDDDDDRRUUUUUUUURRDDDDDDDDRRUUUUUUUURRDDDDDDDDRRUUUUUUUUUULLLLLLLLLLDRURRRRRRRRRDDDDDDDDDDLLUUUUUUUULLDDDDDDDDLLUUUUUUUULLDDDDDDDDLLUUUUUUUUURURRRRRRRRRDDDDDDDDDDLLUUUUUUUULLDDDDDDDDLLUUUUUUUULLDDDDDDDDLLUUUUUUUUURURRRRRRRRRDDDDDDDDDDLLUUUUUUUULLDDDDDDDDLLUUUUUUUULLDDDDDDDDLLUUUUUUUUURURRRRRRRRRDDDDDDDDDDLLUUUUUUUULLDDDDDDDDLLUUUUUUUULLDDDDDDDDLLUUUUUUUUURURRRRRRRRRDDDDDDDDDDLLUUUUUUUULLDDDDDDDDLLUUUUUUUULLDDDDDDDDLLUUUUUUUUURURRRRRRRRRDDDDDDDDDDLLUUUUUUUULLDDDDDDDDLLUUUUUUUULLDDDDDDDDLLUUUUUUUUURURRRRRRRRRDDDDDDDDDDLLUUUUUUUULLDDDDDDDDLLUUUUUUUULLDDDDDDDDLLUUUUUUUUURURRRRRRRRRDDDDDDDDDDLLUUUUUUUULLDDDDDDDDLLUUUUUUUULLDDDDDDDDLLUUUUUUUUURURRRRRRRRRDDDDDDDDDDLLUUUUUUUULLDDDDDDDDLLUUUUUUUULLDDDDDDDDLLUUUUUUUUURURRRRRRRRRDDDDDDDDDDLLUUUUUUUULLDDDDDDDDLLUUUUUUUULLDDDDDDDDLLUUUUUUUUURURRRRRRRRRDDDDDDDDDDLLUUUUUUUULLDDDDDDDDLLUUUUUUUULLDDDDDDDDLLUUUUUUUUURURRRRRRRRRDDDDDDDDDDLLUUUUUUUULLDDDDDDDDLLUUUUUUUULLDDDDDDDDLLUUUUUUUUURURRRRRRRRRDDDDDDDDDDLLUUUUUUUULLDDDDDDDDLLUUUUUUUULLDDDDDDDDLLUUUUUUUUURURRRRRRRRRDDDDDDDDDDLLUUUUUUUULLDDDDDDDDLLUUUUUUUULLDDDDDDDDLLUUUUUUUUURURRRRRRRRRDDDDDDDDDDLLUUUUUUUULLDDDDDDDDLLUUUUUUUULLDDDDDDDDLLUUUUUUUUURURRRRRRRRRDDDDDDDDDDLLUUUUUUUULLDDDDDDDDLLUUUUUUUULLDDDDDDDDLLUUUUUUUUURURRRRRRRRRDDDDDDDDDDLLUUUUUUUULLDDDDDDDDLLUUUUUUUULLDDDDDDDDLLUUUUUUUUURURRRRRRRRRDDDDDDDDDDLLUUUUUUUULLDDDDDDDDLLUUUUUUUULLDDDDDDDDLLUUUUUUUUURURRRRRRRRRDDDDDDDDDDLLUUUUUUUULLDDDDDDDDLLUUUUUUUULLDDDDDDDDLLUUUUUUUUURURRRRRRRRRDDDDDDDDDDLLUUUUUUUULLDDDDDDDDLLUUUUUUUULLDDDDDDDDLLUUUUUUUUURURRRRRRRRRDDDDDDDDDDLLUUUUUUUULLDDDDDDDDLLUUUUUUUULLDDDDDDDDLLUUUUUUUUURURRRRRRRRRDDDDDDDDDDLLUUUUUUUULLDDDDDDDDLLUUUUUUUULLDDDDDDDDLLUUUUUUUUURURRRRRRRRRDDDDDDDDDDLLUUUUUUUULLDDDDDDDDLLUUUUUUUULLDDDDDDDDLLUUUUUUUUURURRRRRRRRRDDDDDDDDDDLLUUUUUUUULLDDDDDDDDLLUUUUUUUULLDDDDDDDDLLUUUUUUUUURURRRRRRRRRDDDDDDDDDDLLUUUUUUUULLDDDDDDDDLLUUUUUUUULLDDDDDDDDLLUUUUUUUUURURRRRRRRRRDDDDDDDDDDLLUUUUUUUULLDDDDDDDDLLUUUUUUUULLDDDDDDDDLLUUUUUUUUURURRRRRRRRRDDDDDDDDDDLLUUUUUUUULLDDDDDDDDLLUUUUUUUULLDDDDDDDDLLUUUUUUUUURURRRRRRRRRDDDDDDDDDDLLUUUUUUUULLDDDDDDDDLLUUUUUUUULLDDDDDDDDLLUUUUUUUUURURRRRRRRRRDDDDDDDDDDLLUUUUUUUULLDDDDDDDDLLUUUUUUUULLDDDDDDDDLLUUUUUUUUURURRRRRRRRRDDDDDDDDDDLLUUUUUUUULLDDDDDDDDLLUUUUUUUULLDDDDDDDDLLUUUUUUUUURURRRRRRRRRDDDDDDDDDDLLUUUUUUUULLDDDDDDDDLLUUUUUUUULLDDDDDDDDLLUUUUUUUUURURRRRRRRRRDDDDDDDDDDLLUUUUUUUULLDDDDDDDDLLUUUUUUUULLDDDDDDDDLLUUUUUUUUURURRRRRRRRRDDDDDDDDDDLLUUUUUUUULLDDDDDDDDLLUUUUUUUULLDDDDDDDDLLUUUUUUUUUURRRRRRRRRRDDDDDDDDDDLLUUUUUUUULLDDDDDDDDLLUUUUUUUULLDDDDDDDDLLUUUUUUUUUURRRRRRRRRRDDDDDDDDDDLLUUUUUUUULLDDDDDDDDLLUUUUUUUULLDDDDDDDDLLUUUUUUUUUURRRRRRRRRRDDDDDDDDDDLLUUUUUUUULLDDDDDDDDLLUUUUUUUULLDDDDDDDDLLUUUUUUUUUURRRRRRRRRRDDDDDDDDDDLLUUUUUUUULLDDDDDDDDLLUUUUUUUULLDDDDDDDDLLUUUUUUUUUURRRRRRRRRRDDDDDDDDDDLLUUUUUUUULLDDDDDDDDLLUUUUUUUULLDDDDDDDDLLUUUUUUUUUURRRRRRRRRRDDDDDDDDDDLLUUUUUUUULLDDDDDDDDLLUUUUUUUULLDDDDDDDDLLUUUUUUUUUURRRRRRRRRRDDDDDDDDDDLLUUUUUUUULLDDDDDDDDLLUUUUUUUULLDDDDDDDDLLUUUUUUUUUURRRRRRRRRRDDDDDDDDDDLLUUUUUUUULLDDDDDDDDLLUUUUUUUULLDDDDDDDDLLUUUUUUUUUURRRRRRRRRRDDDDDDDDDDLLUUUUUUUULLDDDDDDDDLLUUUUUUUULLDDDDDDDDLLUUUUUUUUUURRRRRRRRRRDDDDDDDDDDLLUUUUUUUULLDDDDDDDDLLUUUUUUUULLDDDDDDDDLLUUUUUUUUUURRRRRRRRRRDDDDDDDDDDLLUUUUUUUULLDDDDDDDDLLUUUUUUUULLDDDDDDDDLLUUUUUUUUUURRRRRRRRRRDDDDDDDDDDLLUUUUUUUULLDDDDDDDDLLUUUUUUUULLDDDDDDDDLLUUUUUUUUUURRRRRRRRRRDDDDDDDDDDLLUUUUUUUULLDDDDDDDDLLUUUUUUUULLDDDDDDDDLLUUUUUUUUUURRRRRRRRRRDDDDDDDDDDLLUUUUUUUULLDDDDDDDDLLUUUUUUUULLDDDDDDDDLLUUUUUUUUUURRRRRRRRRRDDDDDDDDDDLLUUUUUUUULLDDDDDDDDLLUUUUUUUULLDDDDDDDDLLUUUUUUUUUURRRRRRRRRRDDDDDDDDDDLLUUUUUUUULLDDDDDDDDLLUUUUUUUULLDDDDDDDDLLUUUUUUUUUURRRRRRRRRRDDDDDDDDDDLLUUUUUUUULLDDDDDDDDLLUUUUUUUULLDDDDDDDDLLUUUUUUUUUURRRRRRRRRRDDDDDDDDDDLLUUUUUUUULLDDDDDDDDLLUUUUUUUULLDDDDDDDDLLUUUUUUUUUURRRRRRRRRRDDDDDDDDDD
```



Spoiler: video











and heres the graph of the gods algorithm depth table


----------



## Iggy (Aug 3, 2014)

*Worlds 2015 in São Paulo, Brazil?*

https://www.worldcubeassociation.org/results/c.php?i=WC2015

Wat


----------



## Torch (Aug 3, 2014)

Iggy said:


> https://www.worldcubeassociation.org/results/c.php?i=WC2015
> 
> Wat



They announced it while no one was looking.


----------



## TDM (Aug 3, 2014)

Iggy said:


> https://www.worldcubeassociation.org/results/c.php?i=WC2015
> 
> Wat


probably too far for me again


----------



## DuffyEdge (Aug 3, 2014)

Iggy said:


> https://www.worldcubeassociation.org/results/c.php?i=WC2015
> 
> Wat



But… they had the world cup and the olympics


----------



## SolveThatCube (Aug 3, 2014)

TDM said:


> probably too far for me again



I know, same here. 



DuffyEdge said:


> But… they had the world cup and the olympics



It's weird...


----------



## TheNextFeliks (Aug 3, 2014)

DuffyEdge said:


> But… they had the world cup and the olympics



Brazil is too OP


----------



## 10461394944000 (Aug 3, 2014)

10461394944000 said:


> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> ...



o wow if you do the same snake type of thing using the 15x15 and use tiles 33 and 146 then gods number is 19940


----------



## guysensei1 (Aug 4, 2014)

I just bought a Fangshi ShuangRen and it had a blue core. It has the same shape as the old fangshi cores, but it's moyu-core blue...


----------



## guysensei1 (Aug 5, 2014)

Oskar... Seriously?

https://www.shapeways.com/model/2344022/full-turn-cube.html?modelId=2344022&materialId=6


----------



## yoinneroid (Aug 5, 2014)

guysensei1 said:


> Oskar... Seriously?
> 
> https://www.shapeways.com/model/2344022/full-turn-cube.html?modelId=2344022&materialId=6



lol, fully un-functional 3x3x3 Rubik's Cube
that alone should make it worthy to buy XD


----------



## goodatthis (Aug 5, 2014)

As of last night, I was ranked exactly 10000th in the world in 3x3 average. That's actually kind of cool, if it weren't for the fact that I don't do well at comps. (My global average is right about sub 20)


----------



## Filipe Teixeira (Aug 6, 2014)

what about this method:

make a side, make opposite side, permute bottom, permute top, E slice

or:

make bottom layer, make top layer, E slice


----------



## TDM (Aug 6, 2014)

filipemtx said:


> what about this method:
> 
> make a side, make opposite side, permute bottom, permute top, E slice
> 
> ...


First one is just a slower version of the second.
The second method would be so inefficient because you would have to preserve the first layer. You could just not solve two corners and an edge in between, as that would then give you an extra side to turn, allowing you to solve the other layer much more efficiently.
... oh wait thats just roux


----------



## goodatthis (Aug 6, 2014)

Just wanted to post an alg I found that's pretty cool... (r U' r' U') x5 Flips all LL edges as well as FR and FD

Also if you replace U with u you get a cyclic alg (at least I think it is) that does some neat things.


----------



## TDM (Aug 6, 2014)

goodatthis said:


> Just wanted to post an alg I found that's pretty cool... (r U' r' U') x5 Flips all LL edges as well as FR and FD


I found the mirror of this a while ago. I'm guessing you found this OH too?


----------



## goodatthis (Aug 6, 2014)

TDM said:


> I found the mirror of this a while ago. I'm guessing you found this OH too?



Yes haha, when I have another hand busy, I'll do all sorts of stuff with r and u moves lol.


----------



## CyanSandwich (Aug 8, 2014)

Hehe

Average of 5: 16.97
*1. 16.97 B' R2 U2 L B D' R' L U' R' D2 B2 U2 B2 L' D2 F2 L' D2 L' 
2. 16.97 B' R' D L U' R F' U' R2 L' F2 B U2 B2 U2 R2 L2 B L2 B' L2 
3. 16.97 F' B2 L2 D' B' U D2 L' F L' U2 B2 D2 R2 D2 L B2 R D2 R2* 
4. (17.46) L B2 U' L B2 R D2 B L2 F2 L2 F2 R' B2 R' F2 R' D2 L' 
5. (15.96) R2 B2 U2 R2 B R2 B' L2 R2 B F' U' B' D2 R' D L' D' L F' L'


----------



## SolveThatCube (Aug 9, 2014)

CyanSandwich said:


> Hehe
> 
> Average of 5: 16.97
> *1. 16.97 B' R2 U2 L B D' R' L U' R' D2 B2 U2 B2 L' D2 F2 L' D2 L'
> ...



lol


----------



## TDM (Aug 9, 2014)

So my dad has been writing something whilst I've been competing, and I wasn't sure what it was I hadn't looked at it until just now, and apparently he wants to send this to a newspaper when he finishes it:
(a few things are in italics; these are my only edits)


Spoiler



I should have known! We had arrived at xxx _(he didn't know the name)_, primary school and venue of the European Rubik's Cube Competition being held in Roskilde, Denmark. There was more life on the deck of the Marie Celeste than here. No banners, no welcome committee, no sign of life, nothing. Then I spotted them. Three lanky, malnourished lads sporting black rucksacks and instantly recognisable as Cubers. Geeks to you and me. My son is one. We followed them into the school gym where the bright colours and noise of the 280 odd (in both senses of the word) competitors contrasted sharply with the empty silence of the playground a minute before.
For those of you who have never been to a Rubik's Cube competition before you have missed a treat. It is like watching magic. If you have ever tried and failed to solve a cube – that annoying little puzzle that looks so simple but is fiendishly difficult - this is like being trackside at the Olympics. I had an inkling of this when we were at Gatwick. Louis, my son, had been absent-mindedly solving his cube when he was spotted by 3 teenage girls. One of them had plucked up the courage to ask him what his fastest solve time was. 'Seven point four' he said laconically. 'Seven point four minutes?' she said in wonder. 'No. Seconds' . She ran away to tell her friends, the shock and awe riddle across her face.
Here at Roskilde, Europe's cubing elite have gathered for 3 days of intense competition. Three days I hear you cry. Well, for Cubers the Rubik's cube itself is just the tip of the iceberg. There are skewbes, square-ones, pyramix, megamix, 2x2x2, 'clocks', 5x5x5, 7x7x7, not to mention the blindfold sections all exquisitely difficult…unless you know how. And this lot know how! The winning average (average of 5 solves) for the Rubik's Cube is likely to be just over 8 seconds though the world record for a single solve is 5.55 seconds XXXXXXXXXX youtube link _(he was going to edit this in when he found the link)_. The lovely thing, however, is that all the Cubers are really a community and they do not really compete with each other. The main thing is just to be in the same room as other like-minded people. Rather beautifully, it is not the winning that matters, it is the taking part. Yes, really!
But who are they, this bunch of nerdy-types? I watch as they empty their rucksacks onto the tables. Each has over a dozen different cubes, a pile of unhealthy snack-food and bottled drinks with enough tartrazine to keep vivisectionists happy. Then they get cubing. If you can imagine dozens of typewriters (or daisywheel printers, if you are not that old or a rusty bike chain if you are even younger!) crunching away incessantly you will begin to understand the sound of the competition room. When they walk they cube, when they talk they cube and, yes, when they go to the toilet they cube ( well, there is also a one-handed competition you know!). I HAVE SEE IT!! 
They have all the gear…special screw-drivers for altering the tension, lube (lubricant), electronic timers, blindfolds and competition T-shirts!
The UK contingent number around 12 though this is not a team event. There is no qualifying time – anyone can enter though it is fair to say that there are no slouches here and several British Cubers have held world marks. Less than 10% of participants here are female though the number of women Cubers is growing according to the organisers.. There are around 15000 registered Cubers in the world (those that have entered official competitions) but the number of people cubing is in the millions – the Cube being the highest selling toy in the world - ever.
Now those of you who look askance at the Rubik's Cube should take note. Originally, the cube was invented by the eponymous Mr Rubik - an Hungarian architect - not as a toy but to improve and develop spatial awareness amongst his bright pupils. And there is no doubt that although there is a nerdy element amongst Cubers they are a clever bunch and likely to be very high achievers. The annoying little plastic puzzle has managed to silently transcend the world of toys and is now delineating a select band of highly intelligent individuals. Nerdy they may be how I wish I were one of them. The new Rubik's Speed Cube, for high performance cubers has just made its debut (available online only but in shops by October). It should be on your shopping list today but if you are buying for someone else avoid the cheap imports from China.
The European Rubik's Cube Competition is taking place 8th-10th August in Roskilde, Denmark and Louis de Mendonça from _[deleted school name]_ (and soon from _[deleted school name]_) is hoping to make it to the final rounds.


Am I the only one who thinks he portrays cubers quite negatively in this?

There are some positive paragraphs - like the one starting "For those of you who have never been ...", and a few other bits here and there, but most of them are about cubing - not the cubers themselves...


----------



## uberCuber (Aug 9, 2014)

TDM said:


> There are around 15000 registered Cubers in the world (those that have entered official competitions)



There are actually over 30000.

But yeah, it's weird, it seems like a pretty negative portrayal for awhile, and then suddenly at the end he calls them all intelligent and says he wishes he was one of them.


----------



## TDM (Aug 9, 2014)

uberCuber said:


> There are actually over 30000.
> 
> But yeah, it's weird, it seems like a pretty negative portrayal for awhile, and then suddenly at the end he calls them all intelligent and says he wishes he was one of them.


I know... he's asked me and a few other people, so it's more accurate than what some people write about cubers, but there are still some errors. I don't even think most cubers know how many people are registered without checking the WCA website.

That did confuse me too, and apparently he says it's all completely positive and he sees nothing wrong with cubers, and that article isn't supposed to show cubers negatively in any way... I don't understand him sometimes


----------



## IRNjuggle28 (Aug 10, 2014)

TDM said:


> stuff



If I write a detailed reply to that article, will you show it to your dad? (I'm sure you've already pointed out a lot of it to him, but parents often take criticism more seriously when it's coming from someone who isn't their kid, annoying as that is.)

EDIT: practicing LS+LL, and got a scramble with sune in it. R U' R' U' R U' R' F' U F* R U R' U R U2 R'* F' U F U' F' U2 F U' F' U F U2 F' U F U'


----------



## TDM (Aug 10, 2014)

IRNjuggle28 said:


> If I write a detailed reply to that article, will you show it to your dad? (I'm sure you've already pointed out a lot of it to him, but parents often take criticism more seriously when it's coming from someone who isn't their kid, annoying as that is.)


yeah I would, but if you don't send it to me in the next 40 mins he won't get it for 10 hours


----------



## IRNjuggle28 (Aug 10, 2014)

> There was more life on the deck of the Marie Celeste than here. No banners, no welcome committee, no sign of life, nothing. Then I spotted them.


The reason that there are not banners or welcome committees is that cubing is not a *spectator* sport. Unlike many other sports, cubing competitions are made to appeal to the athletes, not the spectators. That is the reason that it doesn't appear welcoming in the way that other sports venues might. 


> Three lanky, malnourished lads sporting black rucksacks and instantly recognisable as Cubers. Geeks to you and me. My son is one. We followed them into the school gym where the bright colours and noise of the 280 odd (in both senses of the word) competitors contrasted sharply with the empty silence of the playground a minute before.


Cubers are not neccesarily geeks, and they _definitely_ do not look malnourished. Let's take a look at the world record holders in many of the main disciplines. Mats Valk(3x3 record holder), Feliks Zemdegs (3x3, 5x5, 7x7 record holder), Marcin Zalewski (3x3 blindfolded), Oliver Frost (4x4 and 5x5 blindfolded), and many other big name cubers all appear to have classic good looks, and do not appear to be malnourished or geeky in appearance. Kevin Hays (6x6 world record holder) is a very accomplished competitive swimmer. Drew Brads (best pyraminx solver in the world) is a basketball player. Chris Olson (best 2x2 solver in the world) is a frisbee player. "Geek" implies abnormal interests and subpar social skills, and I don't agree that cubers in general have either of those problems. 


> For those of you who have never been to a Rubik's Cube competition before you have missed a treat. It is like watching magic. If you have ever tried and failed to solve a cube – that annoying little puzzle that looks so simple but is fiendishly difficult...


You, like many others who don't know how to solve cubes, have made the mistake of thinking "I don't understand how to solve cubes. That must mean that solving cubes is difficult." And you are very wrong. The only thing that is difficult is doing it completely on your own without a tutorial. And you know what else that's true of? The level of math you would teach a 9 year old. If studying math in school wasn't a given, the odd person who could do basic algebra would be considered just as magical, skilled, and yes, nerdy, as the people who can solve Rubik's cubes. Conversely, if solving Rubik's cubes was taught to every kid at every elementary school, being able to solve a cube in 20 seconds would be so commonplace it wouldn't even be thought of as requiring any skills that aren't ubiquitous among humans. You do not have to be intelligent or dexterous or gifted in any way to solve a cube. You merely have to spend a few days learning the techniques; something that you and the other people who think you're watching something magical are utterly unwilling to do. But by all means, keep thinking of me and my fellow cubers as geniuses. It's flattering. 


> The lovely thing, however, is that all the Cubers are really a community and they do not really compete with each other. The main thing is just to be in the same room as other like-minded people. Rather beautifully, it is not the winning that matters, it is the taking part. Yes, really!


This is the part of your article where you really hit the nail on the head. That's one of the perks of being part of a small sport--the community is small enough that everyone there is an human being, not just another competitor. It is a wonderful community that anybody is welcome to be part of.


> And there is no doubt that although there is a nerdy element amongst Cubers they are a clever bunch and likely to be very high achievers. The annoying little plastic puzzle has managed to silently transcend the world of toys and is now delineating a select band of highly intelligent individuals.


I actually would agree that the cubing community is very intelligent, but not for the reasons you implied earlier in the article. I would reverse cause and effect, and instead of saying that solving cubes requires intelligence, I would say that intelligent people are more likely to be interested in solving a puzzle. You definitely do not have to be intelligent to solve a cube. It's also worth noting that the highly intelligent people in this community are more frequently the ones that develop solving methods, understand cube theory, and create cube related software, and less frequently the ones who are fast solvers. 


> Nerdy they may be how I wish I were one of them.


Then become one. It's less difficult than you expect, and we'd be happy to have you join us.


----------



## Tim Major (Aug 10, 2014)

I don't know about calling cubers "socially awkward" as wrong. Sure lots of normal cubers are around. But the amount of kids who have little social skills/are weird at cubing comps greatly outweighs when I'm with non-cubers. I feel like at least 30% of the people at cubing comps I've been to are pretty socially awkward. Also using "Chris Olson plays frisbee" as proof of cubers not being nerds is stupid. I talk to Chris on skype often and I WOULDN'T call him socially awkward, but saying "Chris Olson *plays* frisbee" sounds so "geeky", the image you're trying to escape from. Also you chose a lot of strange pictures when saying they're not geeks...

Anyway the article obviously has overall negative comments apart from the occasional positive comment. But I think arguing saying, "CUBERS AREN'T GEEKY/SOCIALLY AWKWARD" in the way you just did kind of proves the stereotype mentioned in the article.

Plenty of cubing friends I could imagine going places for non-cubing reasons. But then you get some others, and whilst I'm friends with them, I think even they would admit to being socially awkward as ****


----------



## IRNjuggle28 (Aug 10, 2014)

Tim Major said:


> I don't know about calling cubers "socially awkward" as wrong. Sure lots of normal cubers are around. But the amount of kids who have little social skills/are weird at cubing comps greatly outweighs when I'm with non-cubers. I feel like at least 30% of the people at cubing comps I've been to are pretty socially awkward. Also using "Chris Olson plays frisbee" as proof of cubers not being nerds is stupid. I talk to Chris on skype often and I WOULDN'T call him socially awkward, but saying "Chris Olson *plays* frisbee" sounds so "geeky", the image you're trying to escape from. Also you chose a lot of strange pictures when saying they're not geeks...
> 
> Anyway the article obviously has overall negative comments apart from the occasional positive comment. But I think arguing saying, "CUBERS AREN'T GEEKY/SOCIALLY AWKWARD" in the way you just did kind of proves the stereotype mentioned in the article.
> 
> Plenty of cubing friends I could imagine going places for non-cubing reasons. But then you get some others, and whilst I'm friends with them, I think even they would admit to being socially awkward as ****



Fair points. Some cubers probably are a bit on the awkward side, though I don't think most are. But I won't feel too bad about arguing that cubers in general aren't awkward, even if we are more awkward than I admitted, since I'm talking to someone who is publicly calling all cubers geeks and nerds. Aim high, hit low.  I was more interested in saying "there's nothing intrinsically awkward or geeky about speedsolving" than "speedsolvers aren't awkward."

It's amusing to me that I'm the one arguing that I'm the one saying these things, since I'm an autistic person with social anxiety disorder. 

In America, frisbee isn't thought of as geeky... it's a serious sport over here. I was surprised to hear that! I assume ultimate frisbee isn't as big elsewhere?


----------



## Renslay (Aug 10, 2014)

[x z', y] = [x z', z]

Therefore, y = z!


----------



## Cale S (Aug 10, 2014)

Renslay said:


> [x z', y] = [x z', z]
> 
> Therefore, y = z!


[U D2, z2] = [U D2, x2]

Therefore, z2 = x2
Diving both sides by 2 gives z = x
Combining with y = z shows that
x = y = z

Q.E.D.


----------



## TDM (Aug 10, 2014)

He read your posts, and this is what he says:
"Guys, guys, I think you've got this wrong. There are cubers and there are non-cubers; I am writing to the non-cubers. I think non-cubers perceive someone who has such a narrow, dedicated 'pastime'/'hobby' (call it what you will) which by its difficulty excludes a large part of society as nerdy or geeky. You may disagree with this, but that is _our_ perception. You could be physicists or astronomers, but how we perceive you would be the same. What I'm trying to get across to non-cubers is that you are very intelligent people - worth appreciating and being part of. We could easily dismiss you as 'nerdy-types', but what I'm saying is that you are really intelligent people and should not be dismissed, but should be appreciated for your gifts. I am really sorry if you've misunderstood my words, but I think that although I am 'setting you up' as geeks, I am then extoling your virtues, and trying to get people involved with what you are doing.
Please read it again, but from the point of view from a non-cuber and with an open mind.
I'd like to see your thoughts and I'll make amendments if necessary."

...


----------



## Renslay (Aug 11, 2014)

A silly idea...

For T-shirts / proposals / etc:

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

*I love *




* !*


----------



## guysensei1 (Aug 13, 2014)

Challenge (I guess it will be doable only for sub-10 people...)

1)scramble your cube
2)start inspection time 
3) inspect and solve the cube before the 15 seconds runs out.


----------



## kcl (Aug 13, 2014)

guysensei1 said:


> Challenge (I guess it will be doable only for sub-10 people...)
> 
> 1)scramble your cube
> 2)start inspection time
> 3) inspect and solve the cube before the 15 seconds runs out.



Not too difficult. The harder way to do it is to sub 15 a realman solve. (Scramble inspect and solve). My PB for that is 12.x


----------



## guysensei1 (Aug 15, 2014)

How did people generate the 5x5 L2E algs? There hasn't been a 5x5 solver yet.


----------



## porkynator (Aug 15, 2014)

Now I'm fairly sure that is possible to average sub40 moves with Heise (linear solves).


----------



## Future Cuber (Aug 15, 2014)

PkJ is missing!!!!


----------



## guysensei1 (Aug 15, 2014)

Future Cuber said:


> PkJ is missing!!!!



He's banned.


----------



## qqwref (Aug 15, 2014)

guysensei1 said:


> How did people generate the 5x5 L2E algs? There hasn't been a 5x5 solver yet.


Either by playing around or by solving in <Rw,Lw,U2,B2,F2,D2> (which you can do on 3x3x3 by restricting moves and ignoring some stickers). Those algs aren't guaranteed optimal.


----------



## Robert-Y (Aug 15, 2014)

^This. I simply treat the cube like some extension of a Rubik's Domino.

Also use ksolve


----------



## kinch2002 (Aug 15, 2014)

Yeah, I used ksolve to try to find a good alg for the checkerboard l2e case, but where you'd normally have to flip one edge round before doing the standard alg. I failed at finding anything better than 3 move flip the standard alg.


----------



## CriticalCubing (Aug 15, 2014)

Future Cuber said:


> PkJ is missing!!!!



He got a 1 month ban! so he wont show up for a month!


----------



## Future Cuber (Aug 15, 2014)

CriticalCubing said:


> He got a 1 month ban! so he wont show up for a month!


Why did he get banned???


----------



## guysensei1 (Aug 15, 2014)

Future Cuber said:


> Why did he get banned???



For repeatedly asking silly questions and refusing to stop asking silly questions. That is my guess.


----------



## Future Cuber (Aug 15, 2014)

guysensei1 said:


> For repeatedly asking silly questions and refusing to stop asking silly questions. That is my guess.



Ahhh...Now i get it 
well it is obviously his fault 
we asked him to stop and he did'nt

Edit :-btw how did you guys know that he was banned ???


----------



## G2013 (Aug 15, 2014)

Finally!
Why only 1 month?


----------



## IRNjuggle28 (Aug 16, 2014)

CriticalCubing said:


> He got a 1 month ban! so he wont show up for a month!


How do you know it's for 1 month?



Future Cuber said:


> Edit :-btw how did you guys know that he was banned ???


His profile will say it, right under his username.


----------



## guysensei1 (Aug 16, 2014)

What's with that weird line of text on top of the page that you get when you edit posts?


Spoiler


----------



## SolveThatCube (Aug 16, 2014)

guysensei1 said:


> What's with that weird line of text on top of the page that you get when you edit posts?
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> ...



idk. I've never seen that before. :confused:


----------



## Iggy (Aug 16, 2014)

guysensei1 said:


> What's with that weird line of text on top of the page that you get when you edit posts?
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> ...



Yeah I get that sometimes too


----------



## Stefan (Aug 16, 2014)

I wonder if Ryan DeLine could get away with replacing his cube mid-solve with a solved one he smuggled inside his beard.


----------



## Kit Clement (Aug 16, 2014)

Stefan said:


> I wonder if Ryan DeLine could get away with replacing his cube mid-solve with a solved one he smuggled inside his beard.


He just trimmed it recently, but maybe when it's at full length.


----------



## TeddyKGB (Aug 16, 2014)

Stefan said:


> I wonder if Ryan DeLine could get away with replacing his cube mid-solve with a solved one he smuggled inside his beard.



Unfortunately I did in fact trim it about a week ago, but I'll grow it back out and try it.


----------



## Torch (Aug 18, 2014)

There are now over 1000 official sub-8 singles.


----------



## TDM (Aug 20, 2014)

CyanSandwich said:


> Hehe
> 
> Average of 5: 16.97
> *1. 16.97 B' R2 U2 L B D' R' L U' R' D2 B2 U2 B2 L' D2 F2 L' D2 L'
> ...


33. (15.20) D F2 R2 U' L2 F2 D2 L2 D' B2 U2 R L D' U2 R F R' B F' L2 U2
34. 12.88 B2 F2 R2 F2 D' F2 U B2 U F2 L2 B' L' D U L F' D' R D2 U
35. (11.50) F2 L2 U2 F2 D' U2 F2 U F2 R2 U2 R F R' D2 R' D F' D2 B R U2
36. 12.88 D' B2 U L2 D F2 L2 U' L2 U B2 L D2 B D B' F' R' F' D B D2
37. 12.88 B2 D R2 L2 D F2 D' L2 D' U2 F2 L' B2 F R' F2 D B' L2 U F2 U2

Not consecutive, but still all three were counting... close enough


----------



## G2013 (Aug 20, 2014)

Torch said:


> There are now over 1000 official sub-8 singles.



Or...
There are now over 1000 people with a sub-8 official PB


----------



## bobthegiraffemonkey (Aug 20, 2014)

G2013 said:


> Or...
> There are now over 1000 people with a sub-8 official PB



Nope. Read it more closely .


----------



## G2013 (Aug 20, 2014)

Oops!!
I didn't look at the results well, but now I see that Feliks appears 5 consecutive times and now I understand!
Sorry


----------



## Renslay (Aug 20, 2014)

What is the biggest bump? I mean, I just found a reply to a 5 years old post...


----------



## Cale S (Aug 20, 2014)

Renslay said:


> What is the biggest bump? I mean, I just found a reply to a 5 years old post...


This thread is 7 and a half years old and I saw a post from a few days ago, but now it seems to have been deleted.


----------



## TDM (Aug 20, 2014)

Cale S said:


> This thread is 7 and a half years old and I saw a post from a few days ago, but now it seems to have been deleted.


Kir bumped this a couple of months ago, but his post was deleted and the thread was locked to prevent it being bumped again.


----------



## guysensei1 (Aug 24, 2014)

Heh... I would need around 3.5 posts per day until 24th November to get 4 posts per day in my first year on Speedsolving. Should I go for it?


----------



## Renslay (Aug 24, 2014)

guysensei1 said:


> Heh... I would need around 3.5 posts per day until 24th November to get 4 posts per day in my first year on Speedsolving. Should I go for it?



No.

Try to go for quality instead of quantity.


----------



## guysensei1 (Aug 24, 2014)

Renslay said:


> No.
> 
> Try to go for quality instead of quantity.



Why not both?


----------



## Please Dont Ask (Aug 24, 2014)

guysensei1 said:


> Why not both?



I feel that they are inversely propotional


----------



## TDM (Aug 24, 2014)

Renslay said:


> No.
> 
> Try to go for quality instead of quantity.


But surely that would mean he has to post less?



Please Dont Ask said:


> I feel that they are inversely propotional


oops


----------



## rebucato314 (Aug 24, 2014)

I am the "socially awkward" type. Pretty sure.


----------



## goodatthis (Aug 25, 2014)

Am I the only one who thinks of a highly dangerous type of viral pneumonia when I hear of a SAR (as in South American record)?


----------



## SolveThatCube (Aug 25, 2014)

goodatthis said:


> Am I the only one who thinks of a highly dangerous type of viral pneumonia when I hear of a SAR (as in South American record)?



As far as I'm aware. lol


----------



## Athefre (Aug 25, 2014)

Synthetic Aperture Radar


----------



## qqwref (Aug 25, 2014)

Cale S said:


> This thread is 7 and a half years old and I saw a post from a few days ago, but now it seems to have been deleted.


Oh my god early 2007 was 7 and a half years ago.

Oh my god.

what have I done with my life


----------



## Destro (Aug 25, 2014)

Just because a person is a cuber doesn't mean that he/she is a nerd. I'm horrible at math and science.


----------



## goodatthis (Aug 25, 2014)

Also another quick little piece of my mind, if I ever have to take a field sobriety test, I'll just pull out a cube and solve it in front of the officer. I wonder if Kirjava has ever tried that


----------



## guysensei1 (Aug 25, 2014)

Destro said:


> Just because a person is a cuber doesn't mean that he/she is a nerd. I'm horrible at math and science.



I fit that stereotype perfectly...


----------



## Tim Major (Aug 25, 2014)

You can still solve cubes on all sorts of drugs, but it would probably work if they weren't drug testing you!


----------



## Ninja Storm (Aug 25, 2014)

qqwref said:


> Oh my god early 2007 was 7 and a half years ago.
> 
> Oh my god.
> 
> what have I done with my life



Sat on the internet and posted on a cubing forum?


----------



## TheNextFeliks (Aug 25, 2014)

goodatthis said:


> Also another quick little piece of my mind, if I ever have to take a field sobriety test, I'll just pull out a cube and solve it in front of the officer. I wonder if Kirjava has ever tried that



I thought I heard him say he's done one bld while drunk. Or maybe that was Chris?


----------



## bobthegiraffemonkey (Aug 25, 2014)

TheNextFeliks said:


> I thought I heard him say he's done one bld while drunk. Or maybe that was Chris?



SozzleBLD is an unofficial event with several people having successes.


----------



## tseitsei (Aug 25, 2014)

TheNextFeliks said:


> I thought I heard him say he's done one bld while drunk. Or maybe that was Chris?



I have done quite a few BLD solves while more or less drunk 

Usually when (drunk)people hear that I can solve it blindfolded they want to see it. And I like to show them 

I have noticed that I can get very consistent successes while quite drunk if I just review my memo many times and take it slowly. Times for this kind of solves are usually something around 1:30 for me. Which is still impressive enough for most people


----------



## SolveThatCube (Aug 26, 2014)

Someone needs to break 7x7 WR that is not faz.


----------



## IRNjuggle28 (Aug 26, 2014)

SolveThatCube said:


> Someone needs to break 7x7 WR that is not faz.



I think Kevin might be a bit out of practice now, but for a while, he was the best in the world at it. He held all the UWRs. He just didn't have any comps.  I hope Kevin gets it back. Or imvelox, or someone.


----------



## CyanSandwich (Aug 26, 2014)

TheNextFeliks said:


> I thought I heard him say he's done one bld while drunk. Or maybe that was Chris?





tseitsei said:


> I have done quite a few BLD solves while more or less drunk


I got my 5BLD PB whilst a bit tipsy.


----------



## Torch (Aug 26, 2014)

5 of the 10 best podiums of all time are from August 2014.

Golden age of cubing, anyone?


----------



## Stefan (Aug 26, 2014)

Torch said:


> 5 of the 10 best podiums of all time are from August 2014.
> 
> Golden age of cubing, anyone?



How rare is it that the current month has so many?


----------



## IRNjuggle28 (Aug 27, 2014)

Torch said:


> 5 of the 10 best podiums of all time are from August 2014.
> 
> Golden age of cubing, anyone?



Nah. Cubers are still improving constantly. The best podiums will continue to be extremely recent. It's not that August 2014 is special; it's that the best results will continue to be beaten. In December, December will be every bit as much a "golden age" as August is now.


----------



## goodatthis (Aug 27, 2014)

I think it may be caused by the lack of school in the summer months, so cubers are reaching their "peak" of practicing near the end of the summer. And maybe in December too, since cubers are cooped up indoors with more time to practice.


----------



## Julian (Aug 27, 2014)

goodatthis said:


> I think it may be caused by the lack of school in the summer months, so cubers are reaching their "peak" of practicing near the end of the summer. And maybe in December too, since cubers are cooped up indoors with more time to practice.


Also big comps attracting lots of fast cubers.


----------



## Tim Major (Aug 27, 2014)

IRNjuggle28 said:


> Nah. Cubers are still improving constantly. The best podiums will continue to be extremely recent. It's not that August 2014 is special; it's that the best results will continue to be beaten. In December, December will be every bit as much a "golden age" as August is now.



There has been US Nats, Euros, Aus Nats, a 2 day UK comp, a 3 day UK comp, an American comp with 4 rounds of 3x3 etc. Lots of big comps in areas with fast cubers. December will not be the same. Next year around this year will probably


----------



## IRNjuggle28 (Aug 27, 2014)

Tim Major said:


> There has been US Nats, Euros, Aus Nats, a 2 day UK comp, a 3 day UK comp, an American comp with 4 rounds of 3x3 etc. Lots of big comps in areas with fast cubers. December will not be the same. Next year around this year will probably



I'm sure that there are months that are heavier than others in terms of competitions/records/great podium times. The point of my post wasn't August versus December. The point was that right now is not a golden age compared to [random time in the future]. If more records are being broken right now, it's because of comp schedules, not because of a "golden age of cubing."


----------



## Stefan (Aug 27, 2014)

IRNjuggle28 said:


> Nah. Cubers are still improving constantly. The best podiums will continue to be extremely recent. It's not that August 2014 is special; it's that the best results will continue to be beaten. In December, December will be every bit as much a "golden age" as August is now.



Unless I'm mistaken (it's a hack), here are all months that at some point were in the top 10 at least four times:

Aug 2008 : 4 times
Jul 2010 : 4 times
Oct 2010 : *5 times*
Apr 2011 : 4 times
Aug 2011 : 4 times
Aug 2014 : *5 times*

That does look special to me. Only the second 5, and even 4 is rare.



IRNjuggle28 said:


> If more records are being broken right now, it's because of comp schedules, not because of a "golden age of cubing."



Well you could say the comp schedule is what *makes* it "golden".

But yeah, I dislike the term _"golden age"_ being thrown around without supporting statistics. Second time I've seen that this month after [post=1006284]this[/post] and goodatthis sadly never answered [post=1006303]my request[/post].


----------



## Torch (Aug 27, 2014)

Stefan said:


> But yeah, I dislike the term _"golden age"_ being thrown around without supporting statistics. Second time I've seen that this month after [post=1006284]this[/post] and goodatthis sadly never answered [post=1006303]my request[/post].



Sorry about the choice of terminology; I probably should have come up with a less clichéd title. What do you think would be a better one?


----------



## Stefan (Aug 27, 2014)

Torch said:


> Sorry about the choice of terminology; I probably should have come up with a less clichéd title. What do you think would be a better one?



I don't have an alternative suggestion. I probably would've just pointed out the 5 out of 10 and not called it anything 

It wasn't that bad, though, at least it was fairly clear what you meant and it's actually special. I guess I'm just not a fan of buzzwords.


----------



## goodatthis (Aug 27, 2014)

I didn't even realize I didn't answer your request, I thought I did 

Well I would define a "golden age" in historical terms as a time where society is excelling. In this case, it would mean that the cubing community is excelling, and by this I mean WRs are being improved upon. But improvements in the cubing community don't always mean WRs either. Also, golden age is a little like an ice age, they don't happen just once. 

But I do agree with you about terms just being flung around.


----------



## Stefan (Aug 27, 2014)

goodatthis said:


> Well I would define a "golden age" in historical terms as *a time* where society is excelling.



The "golden" isn't the problem, the "age" is. Which is why that's what I asked about. And "a time" is really no better. Is it a month, a year, a calendar year, something else? Without knowing what you mean, it's not verifiable or falsifiable and thus bad.



goodatthis said:


> Also, golden age is a little like an ice age, they don't happen just once.



Well, I'd say in general both versions would work, but the possible non-uniqueness was clear because you said _"*a* golden age"_ rather than _"*the* golden age"_.

Edit:


Spoiler: WRs by Year



Using data from WCA_export451_20140827 and Stefan's WCA forum statistics tool.


*Year**WRs**WRs until Aug 8*19821120031802004423020055625200653282007733820087446200976482010814320118048201255382013422320145344



Spoiler: SQL code



SELECT
year Year,
sum((regionalSingleRecord='WR')+(regionalAverageRecord='WR')) WRs,
sum(if(month*100+day<=808, (regionalSingleRecord='WR')+(regionalAverageRecord='WR'), 0)) 'WRs until Aug 8'
FROM Results JOIN Competitions ON Competitions.id = competitionId
WHERE regionalSingleRecord='WR' OR regionalAverageRecord='WR'
GROUP BY year
ORDER BY year;


----------



## qqwref (Aug 27, 2014)

How do those stats change if you add cheaters' times back in?


----------



## Stefan (Aug 27, 2014)

I'm undecided whether I'm just unwilling or also unable to do that


----------



## SolveThatCube (Aug 28, 2014)

https://www.worldcubeassociation.org/results/p.php?i=2011HANS05

lol


----------



## guysensei1 (Aug 28, 2014)

SolveThatCube said:


> https://www.worldcubeassociation.org/results/p.php?i=2011HANS05
> 
> lol



Has it always been like that, or did he change the picture after the US Nationals interview? (Also, was that interview just a random question, or some reference?)


----------



## SolveThatCube (Aug 28, 2014)

guysensei1 said:


> Has it always been like that, or did he change the picture after the US Nationals interview? (Also, was that interview just a random question, or some reference?)



Nah, I think someone has just been messing around with it, last week it was a pic of Chris Olson lol 
I don't know if that was a reference to something or not...


----------



## Fawn (Aug 28, 2014)

I've been wanting to learn more about how to eventually organize/start a competition. Also just need to attent more comps. I only have 1 official 3x3 average and it's embarrassingly slow.


----------



## qqwref (Aug 29, 2014)

all 3x3x3 scrambles can be solved in at most 6.5 galloner turns


----------



## Stefan (Aug 29, 2014)

qqwref said:


> all 3x3x3 scrambles can be solved in at most 6.5 *galloner* turns



What?


----------



## qqwref (Aug 29, 2014)

4 quarts = 1 gallon


----------



## goodatthis (Aug 29, 2014)

qqwref said:


> 4 quarts = 1 gallon



Nice, that was very clever


----------



## Cale S (Aug 29, 2014)

Also, every 3x3 scramble can be solved in at most $6.50


----------



## Stefan (Aug 30, 2014)

Cale S said:


> Also, every 3x3 scramble can be solved in at most $6.50



Another explanation, please...


----------



## Cale S (Aug 30, 2014)

Stefan said:


> Another explanation, please...


http://reliable-vendor.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/quarters.jpg



Spoiler



I now realize I probably should have said 6.5 dollar _turns_ instead.


----------



## goodatthis (Aug 30, 2014)

Saving this for when (if) a certain metric's Gods number is found:



Spoiler



All 3x3 scrambles can be solved in at most 5 pizza slices


Spoiler



For Stefan


Spoiler



SQTM, if the number is 20, 20 quarter pizza slices = 5 slices


----------



## Cale S (Aug 30, 2014)

How about "Every 3x3 scramble can be solved in at most __ turns in this metric"


Spoiler



The number would have to be 20 or less, don't know exactly what it is. Does anyone know the current upper and lower bounds for atm? What about stm? (I know there are positions that take at least 18)


----------



## IRNjuggle28 (Aug 30, 2014)

Cale S said:


> How about "Every 3x3 scramble can be solved in at most __ turns in this metric"
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> ...



For STM, I think I remember qqwref saying that the number was definitely less than 20. So, I guess lower bound is 18 and upper bound is 19?


----------



## guysensei1 (Aug 31, 2014)

What's the fastest time anyone has taken from starting cubing to getting a sub-10 ao5?

I have a friend who has been cubing for less than or around a year and he got several sub-10 ao5s already.


----------



## TDM (Aug 31, 2014)

guysensei1 said:


> What's the fastest time anyone has taken from starting cubing to getting a sub-10 ao5?
> 
> I have a friend who has been cubing for less than or around a year and he got several sub-10 ao5s already.


I thought faz was averaging sub-10 after a year...


----------



## guysensei1 (Aug 31, 2014)

TDM said:


> I thought faz was averaging sub-10 after a year...



O_O


----------



## Bindedsa (Aug 31, 2014)

guysensei1 said:


> What's the fastest time anyone has taken from starting cubing to getting a sub-10 ao5?
> 
> I have a friend who has been cubing for less than or around a year and he got several sub-10 ao5s already.


I doubt it's me, but I got my first around 11 months. If I were to guess I would say it's Kennan.


----------



## SolveThatCube (Aug 31, 2014)

TDM said:


> I thought faz was averaging sub-10 after a year...



I'm pretty sure it was 14 months.


----------



## Iggy (Aug 31, 2014)

3x3 rankings are getting really fast. My 10.27 official single is now 999th in the world


----------



## CyanSandwich (Aug 31, 2014)

Iggy said:


> 3x3 rankings are getting really fast. My 10.27 official single is now 999th in the world


It's crazy how aiming for top 1000 is actually an optimistic goal. I've done at least 30,000 solves and have gotten 1 single at home faster than that.


----------



## TDM (Aug 31, 2014)

SolveThatCube said:


> I'm pretty sure it was 14 months.


Oh, maybe whoever said that was wrong. Still, people probably get their first sub-10 Ao5 when they average 13ish (an estimate based on my times), so he almost certainly got a sub-10 Ao5 in less than a year.


----------



## scottishcuber (Aug 31, 2014)

TDM said:


> Oh, maybe whoever said that was wrong. Still, people probably get their first sub-10 Ao5 when they average 13ish (an estimate based on my times), so he almost certainly got a sub-10 Ao5 in less than a year.



Nope you're just weird. I got my first sub10 avg5 when i was averaging low11.


----------



## kcl (Aug 31, 2014)

scottishcuber said:


> Nope you're just weird. I got my first sub10 avg5 when i was averaging low11.



Mine was when I was inconsistent 12-13 with a bit of luck. I think it was like 9 months.


----------



## TDM (Aug 31, 2014)

scottishcuber said:


> Nope you're just weird. I got my first sub10 avg5 when i was averaging low11.


Oh... I have a sub-10 Mo3 and and almost sub-10 Ao5 and I'm sup-14. I must just be weird. I did get my first sub-10 single when I was averaging 17...


----------



## Fawn (Aug 31, 2014)

kclejeune said:


> Mine was when I was inconsistent 12-13 with a bit of luck. I think it was like 9 months.



I got one not that long ago. But instead of _a bit_ of luck, I got 3 PLL skips in a row.

I've been getting semi-serious about improving on regular 3x3. I was obsessed with Megaminx for a while, but it's been a long time since I've practiced. I also got into 3BLD for a while. But that kept me at a 15 second average, and I wanted something better. My global is like 12.5, which I'm pretty happy with. All of my best friends know how to solve the cube, and they kept poking fun at me because when I learned, I was extremely slow. I was never able to get a sub-1 Ao5 with beginner's.


----------



## kcl (Aug 31, 2014)

Jim said:


> I got one not that long ago. But instead of _a bit_ of luck, I got 3 PLL skips in a row.
> 
> I've been getting semi-serious about improving on regular 3x3. I was obsessed with Megaminx for a while, but it's been a long time since I've practiced. I also got into 3BLD for a while. But that kept me at a 15 second average, and I wanted something better. My global is like 12.5, which I'm pretty happy with. All of my best friends know how to solve the cube, and they kept poking fun at me because when I learned, I was extremely slow. I was never able to get a sub-1 Ao5 with beginner's.


Believe it or not the best I ever got with dan brown was in the 1:30's. I wonder what I could do now..


----------



## IRNjuggle28 (Sep 3, 2014)

I only just found out that Arnaud is the one who gave the sexy move its name. Is this common knowledge?


----------



## goodatthis (Sep 3, 2014)

IRNjuggle28 said:


> I only just found out that Arnaud is the one who gave the sexy move its name. Is this common knowledge?


Is there a name for U R U' R' instead of inverse sexy? Because that move is just as sexy as the sexy move, if not sexier. How about Yxes move? Pronounced Yix-ess


----------



## TDM (Sep 3, 2014)

goodatthis said:


> Is there a name for U R U' R' instead of inverse sexy? Because that move is just as sexy as the sexy move, if not sexier. How about Yxes move? Pronounced Yix-ess


I just call it inverse sexy. You could call it sexy' if you wanted to 

Other random stuff: I've never talked to anyone who uses Petrus as their main method before, only CFOP and Roux... but apparently my new maths teacher uses Petrus.


----------



## goodatthis (Sep 3, 2014)

TDM said:


> I just call it inverse sexy. You could call it sexy' if you wanted to
> 
> Other random stuff: I've never talked to anyone who uses Petrus as their main method before, only CFOP and Roux... but apparently my new maths teacher uses Petrus.


Haha at least your math teacher knows how to solve a cube  I solved my guidance counselors picture cube once, and I noticed that a 2x2x2 was already made and she said that someone else had tried to solve it once... Maybe they used Petrus? It's also possible that someone did a lousy job of scrambling, and there were just lots of blocks.

E: I've gone to only 4 comps, and I've met method-users of every method in the big 4, one at each (CFOP, Petrus, ZZ, and Roux in order)


----------



## TDM (Sep 3, 2014)

goodatthis said:


> Haha at least your math teacher knows how to solve a cube  I solved my guidance counselors picture cube once, and I noticed that a 2x2x2 was already made and she said that someone else had tried to solve it once... Maybe they used Petrus? It's also possible that someone did a lousy job of scrambling, and there were just lots of blocks.
> 
> E: I've gone to only 4 comps, and I've met method-users of every method in the big 4.


Maybe they tried to solve it, but didn't want to break the block and gave up?
I still haven't seen a ZZ user, unless I've forgotten someone... I don't think I've seen a Hoya user other than myself either. But then I have only been to two comps...


----------



## goodatthis (Sep 3, 2014)

TDM said:


> Maybe they tried to solve it, but didn't want to break the block and gave up?
> I still haven't seen a ZZ user, unless I've forgotten someone... I don't think I've seen a Hoya user other than myself either. But then I have only been to two comps...


Oh yes, I forgot about Hoya, one of my cubing buddies uses Hoya. And probably the only reason why I've met a ZZ user is because Phil Yu lives relatively close to me (a few hours maybe) What about people you've met that use other methods for other puzzles? I guess I'll put my mini list here.

skewb: Sarah's (all three)
Ranzha's
1alg

3x3: CFOP 
Roux
ZZ
petrus

4x4: Yau
Hoya 
Redux

also a little fun fact, the roux user I met actually knows what triangular Francisco is lol. Not many people do


----------



## Chree (Sep 3, 2014)

TDM said:


> Other random stuff: I've never talked to anyone who uses Petrus as their main method before, only CFOP and Roux... but apparently my new maths teacher uses Petrus.



Would it count if I said I USED TO use Petrus as my main method? Lars' site used to be the very first result when you googled "how to solve a rubik's cube". I imagine there are a lot of people that learned his method first before moving onto one of the other big 4.


----------



## TDM (Sep 3, 2014)

Chree said:


> Would it count if I said I USED TO use Petrus as my main method? Lars' site used to be the very first result when you googled "how to solve a rubik's cube". I imagine there are a lot of people that learned his method first before moving onto one of the other big 4.


No, that would make it too easy 
I remember looking at that site for half an hour and giving up because I couldn't blockbuild... I still can't :fp


----------



## goodatthis (Sep 3, 2014)

TDM said:


> No, that would make it too easy
> I remember looking at that site for half an hour and giving up because I couldn't blockbuild... I still can't :fp


I know right, any sort of text tutorials on blockbuilding is just like- uh wut 
FMC actually really helped my blockbuilding ability, even doing it fast, you just learn to recognize certain cases and patterns.


----------



## TDM (Sep 3, 2014)

goodatthis said:


> I know right, any sort of text tutorials on blockbuilding is just like- uh wut
> FMC actually really helped my blockbuilding ability, even doing it fast, you just learn to recognize certain cases and patterns.


Yeah, Roux has been helping mine, but not with building 2x2x2 blocks, only "2D" blocks. I don't have the patience for FMC. I barely even have the patience for 3BLD, which isn't even five minutes...


----------



## goodatthis (Sep 5, 2014)

Lol some kid just tried arguing with me in the comments of one of Felik's WR videos (maybe it was someone else, idk) that the cube is solved completely with algorithms, after I told another person that the LL is a small portion of the solve. It just really insanely ticks me off when people pretend to know things about topics they clearly don't, or when they just make up information. like one time someone here tried telling me that orientation and permutation are not independent from each other... In a discussion on cube theory

/rant

E: and he wasn't talking about BLD.


----------



## Smiles (Sep 5, 2014)

goodatthis said:


> Lol some kid just tried arguing with me in the comments of one of Felik's WR videos (maybe it was someone else, idk) that the cube is solved completely with algorithms, after I told another person that the LL is a small portion of the solve. It just really insanely ticks me off when people pretend to know things about topics they clearly don't, or when they just make up information. like one time someone here tried telling me that orientation and permutation are not independent from each other... In a discussion on cube theory
> 
> /rant
> 
> E: and he wasn't talking about BLD.



Don't argue with stupid people. They'll bring you down to their level, then beat you with experience.
- quote from the internet


----------



## guysensei1 (Sep 5, 2014)

Am I the only one who's annoyed that the SS 7x7 is faster than the 6x6?


----------



## SolveThatCube (Sep 5, 2014)

guysensei1 said:


> Am I the only one who's annoyed that the SS 7x7 is faster than the 6x6?



Nope.

I would probably enjoy 6x6 if I had one that turns well. But it just hurts my fingers.


----------



## goodatthis (Sep 6, 2014)

Hmm I think I just found the shortest H perm possible... In ATM

(R L) U2 (R' L') (F' B') U2 (F B)= 6 moves ATM

Compared to 7 moves in ATM (STM really) for the MU one.


----------



## bobthegiraffemonkey (Sep 6, 2014)

Got myself a nice little skewb (is it weird to like stock MoYu?) a couple of days ago. Wasn't sure how much I would get into it, but I found a nice little alg execution with a >180 degree turn, and that's how I knew I'd be able to have fun with it. I think I might have a strange attitude towards speedsolving .


----------



## qqwref (Sep 9, 2014)

N: R L U2 R' L'
T: L' R2 D' R U2 R' D R2 L
F: U D l' D2 R U2 R' D2 l U' D' or L' R' E2 R U R' D2 R U' L
Y: R2 B2 U R2 F2 r2 U r2 F2
V: L' U R u R2 u' R' U' L
R: r2 F2 R U R' B2 R U' R' F2 r2
J: L U' R U2 L' U R'
G: r2 F2 r2 R' U R' B2 R U' R' B2 R2


----------



## Robert-Y (Sep 9, 2014)

Haha, this idea again 

I couldn't seem to find anything decent for EPLLs


----------



## Owen (Sep 9, 2014)

Apparently Notch is a cuber now.

https://twitter.com/notch/status/508990476721328128


----------



## XTowncuber (Sep 9, 2014)

Owen said:


> Apparently Notch is a cuber now.
> 
> https://twitter.com/notch/status/508990476721328128



He also recently posted that he had been binge watching Oskar Van Deventer


----------



## rokicki (Sep 9, 2014)

IRNjuggle28 said:


> For STM, I think I remember qqwref saying that the number was definitely less than 20. So, I guess lower bound is 18 and upper bound is 19?



Lower is 18 (by existence proof); upper is 20 (by half-turn proof).

I'd be shocked if it turned out to be greater than 18.

I've recently, to my surprise, become very interested in the AQTM
(R2 is 2, but LR and L'R are both 1).


----------



## goodatthis (Sep 9, 2014)

rokicki said:


> Lower is 18 (by existence proof); upper is 20 (by half-turn proof).
> 
> I'd be shocked if it turned out to be greater than 18.
> 
> ...



honestly anything with axial turns is just plain cool

People who like ATM are the hipsters of the cubing community.


----------



## qqwref (Sep 9, 2014)

A long time ago when I used Ryan Heise's cube sim, I remember noticing that the amount of time an alg would take to execute was based on its length in AQTM  So R2 would be 2 time units, but L R would be one.


----------



## brian724080 (Sep 9, 2014)

XTowncuber said:


> He also recently posted that he had been binge watching Oskar Van Deventer



Lets get him to join this forum


----------



## guysensei1 (Sep 9, 2014)

brian724080 said:


> Lets get him to join this forum



Agreed!

-----------

I would love for Cubeexplorer to be available on mobile. I'm certain I'm not the only one.


----------



## brian724080 (Sep 10, 2014)

guysensei1 said:


> I would love for Cubeexplorer to be available on mobile. I'm certain I'm not the only one.



There should be a website for it too, like alg.cubing.net


----------



## guysensei1 (Sep 10, 2014)

What's the UWR for 3x3 no inspection?


----------



## Bindedsa (Sep 10, 2014)

I don't know if anyone has commented on this, but the top 100 for 3x3 averages is now sub 9.5. It seems like not too long ago sub 10 was enough for top 100.


----------



## Iggy (Sep 10, 2014)

Bindedsa said:


> I don't know if anyone has commented on this, but the top 100 for 3x3 averages is now sub 9.5. It seems like not too long ago sub 10 was enough for top 100.



That's just crazy. More than 50 people have sub 9 averages too


----------



## Ninja Storm (Sep 10, 2014)

Bindedsa said:


> I don't know if anyone has commented on this, but the top 100 for 3x3 averages is now sub 9.5. It seems like not too long ago sub 10 was enough for top 100.



I've been kicked out for quite a while and it makes me sad :C

On the other hand, it's a great motivator to improve.


----------



## SolveThatCube (Sep 12, 2014)

The WCA website has changed.


----------



## guysensei1 (Sep 12, 2014)

SolveThatCube said:


> The WCA website has changed.



Indeed.


----------



## guysensei1 (Sep 13, 2014)

Hypothetical scenario:
If we got a young child (current youngest solver is 2 years old so let's say he's 2) and taught him how to solve a cube at a young age, then taught him 1LLL algs and recognition, he would be done with all of them before his teenage years. If we trained his lookahead and TPS along the way, then he would truly be the fastest solver... Right?


----------



## yoinneroid (Sep 13, 2014)

guysensei1 said:


> Hypothetical scenario:
> If we got a young child (current youngest solver is 2 years old so let's say he's 2) and taught him how to solve a cube at a young age, then taught him 1LLL algs and recognition, he would be done with all of them before his teenage years. If we trained his lookahead and TPS along the way, then he would truly be the fastest solver... Right?



or we could teach him roux, require him memorize all CLLEO and PL6E for a more reasonable number of algs...


----------



## guysensei1 (Sep 13, 2014)

yoinneroid said:


> or we could teach him roux, require him memorize all CLLEO and PL6E for a more reasonable number of algs...



Oh yes this.


----------



## goodatthis (Sep 13, 2014)

Yes, he probably would be the fastest, but you have to take into account certain childcare laws.


----------



## IRNjuggle28 (Sep 13, 2014)

guysensei1 said:


> Hypothetical scenario:
> If we got a young child (current youngest solver is 2 years old so let's say he's 2) and taught him how to solve a cube at a young age, then taught him 1LLL algs and recognition, he would be done with all of them before his teenage years. If we trained his lookahead and TPS along the way, then he would truly be the fastest solver... Right?



Not necessarily. 1LLL wouldn't improve times more than 1 second. You're counting on his F2L also being amazing.

If your scenario was "start a kid speedcubing at 2 years old, and teach him full CFOP, and let him practice his entire childhood," I'm not sure he'd be that much slower than if he did 1LLL.

Cool idea, though. I find the difficult part believing that a 2 year old would have the attention span to learn an advanced method, and that they would have the interest to stick with a single hobby for long enough to become the best in the world. I think a 15 year old is more likely to love cubing until they're 25 years old than a 2 year old loving cubing until they're 12 years old. It's an interesting hypothetical, though.


----------



## Smiles (Sep 14, 2014)

yoinneroid said:


> or we could teach him roux, require him memorize all CLLEO and PL6E for a more reasonable number of algs...



IMO roux would be better because the huge amount of practice could lead to better manipulation of the pieces in a block building method. cfop is much easier to learn and execute at a high level at first, but that doesn't matter if its 10 years. the algs would be cool too


----------



## SolveThatCube (Sep 14, 2014)

IRNjuggle28 said:


> Not necessarily. 1LLL wouldn't improve times more than 1 second....



1 second is a lot.


----------



## Smiles (Sep 14, 2014)

guysensei1 said:


> Hypothetical scenario:
> If we got a young child (current youngest solver is 2 years old so let's say he's 2) and taught him how to solve a cube at a young age, then taught him 1LLL algs and recognition, he would be done with all of them before his teenage years. If we trained his lookahead and TPS along the way, then he would truly be the fastest solver... Right?



its one thing to be able to 1-look your last layer, its another to be able to muscle memory a gazillion algs with quick recognition and actually get any practice with any of them, even over 10 years because a lot of time is spent learning them. ollpll has 78 cases while 1LLL has 15000+? I don't think u can get every single alg to flow if you know that many. having sub-1 oll + sub-1 pll + recognition for both should be faster or the same speed as 1LLL


----------



## goodatthis (Sep 14, 2014)

Smiles said:


> its one thing to be able to 1-look your last layer, its another to be able to muscle memory a gazillion algs with quick recognition and actually get any practice with any of them, even over 10 years because a lot of time is spent learning them. ollpll has 78 cases while 1LLL has 15000+? I don't think u can get every single alg to flow if you know that many. having sub-1 oll + sub-1 pll + recognition for both should be faster or the same speed as 1LLL


I think 1LLL has about 4000 algs if my math is correct, 72 EP+CP cases per OLL, minus some for symetric OLLs (e.g. OLL 20, doublesune, etc)


----------



## yoinneroid (Sep 14, 2014)

goodatthis said:


> I think 1LLL has about 4000 algs if my math is correct, 72 EP+CP cases per OLL, minus some for symetric OLLs (e.g. OLL 20, doublesune, etc)



Yep, 1LLL should have around 4000, the last time I tried to count thoroughly, it is 3915.

A rough counting of roux CLLEO give me 1376 while PL6E give me 720, a total of 2096, which is around half of 1LLL, and recognition seems easier to me, but probably I am wrong on that one.


----------



## TheNextFeliks (Sep 14, 2014)

yoinneroid said:


> A rough counting of roux CLLEO give me 1376 while PL6E give me 720, a total of 2096, which is around half of 1LLL, and recognition seems easier to me, but probably I am wrong on that one.



Lol. PL6E is only 60 algs. 6!/6/2


----------



## yoinneroid (Sep 14, 2014)

TheNextFeliks said:


> Lol. PL6E is only 60 algs. 6!/6/2



lol I'm so far off, 2 is probably for parity right? what's the 6 for?


----------



## goodatthis (Sep 14, 2014)

yoinneroid said:


> A rough counting of roux CLLEO give me 1376 while PL6E give me 720, a total of 2096, which is around half of 1LLL, and recognition seems easier to me, but probably I am wrong on that one.


If you do a 1-2 move setup (3 in some cases, but usually by choosing R vs r in SB you can avoid this) you can halve the number of CLLEO cases. Basically you make it so you have M2/solved centers, and an even number of flipped edges on U and D. This way, you basically just have OLLCP (D edges oriented) and the other, where both D edges are misoriented. Less than 600 algs. Not sure if anyone has thought of this but just an idea.

edit: examples

R2 B2 L2 D R F D F' D' L D2 L R 
Here you would do an M2, then simple OLLCP for diag bad P.

F2 L' R' U2 B2 R' B2 R B2 R2 B' D' R D U2 L R 
Here you would do U M2, then do the OLLCP variant with flipped D edges.

L2 B' L2 B L2 U2 B' D2 F' U' L' U' L' R D2 B2 R' B U2 x2
Here you would do F' doubleleftsexy F as OLLCP, except you need an alg that flips the D layer edges again. No setups needed in this case.


----------



## TheNextFeliks (Sep 14, 2014)

yoinneroid said:


> lol I'm so far off, 2 is probably for parity right? what's the 6 for?



The 2 is parity. The 6 is for circular permutations. Basic explanation: UF->UR->UL is the same as UR->UL->UF. So it is really (n-1)! or n!/n


----------



## Smiles (Sep 14, 2014)

goodatthis said:


> I think 1LLL has about 4000 algs if my math is correct, 72 EP+CP cases per OLL, minus some for symetric OLLs (e.g. OLL 20, doublesune, etc)



LOL my bad, I literally went on the speedsolving wiki page for 1LLL and chose a number. I could have chosen 62 thousand.


----------



## Stefan (Sep 14, 2014)

TheNextFeliks said:


> The 2 is parity. The 6 is for circular permutations. Basic explanation: UF->UR->UL is the same as UR->UL->UF. So it is really (n-1)! or n!/n



So for PL*3*E there would just be 3!/3/2=1 case, the solved case? Three-cycles are impossible?
And for PL*2*E it would be 2!/2/2, so a half case?

Edit: Oops, I just realized you said algs, not cases. I'll try again without putting words in your mouth:



TheNextFeliks said:


> Lol. PL6E is only 60 algs. 6!/6/2



Lol. PL*3*E is only 1 alg. 3!/3/2
Lol. PL*2*E is only 0.5 algs. 2!/2/2

Still seems wrong, though.


----------



## guysensei1 (Sep 14, 2014)

Has anyone ever attempted GigaminxBLD?

In terms of number of pieces, it should be comparable to 8BLD or 9BLD. Not sure how the execution would go.


----------



## IRNjuggle28 (Sep 14, 2014)

guysensei1 said:


> Has anyone ever attempted GigaminxBLD?
> 
> In terms of number of pieces, it should be comparable to 8BLD or 9BLD. Not sure how the execution would go.



Nah. Being crazy enough to attempt 7BLD and up is extremely rare. Being able to tolerate how awful gigaminxes are for turning is also extremely rare. So far, those two extremely rare things have never overlapped in one person, to my knowledge. 

EDIT: I did some 6x6 today. I got one solve that would've been pretty close to sub 3 without PLL parity. I also got a solve where I finished everything except last layer by 2:42 but I popped on OLL parity. And finally, I got a pop that made like 20 pieces fall out. 6x6 today sucked.  At least I got a few fast 7x7 solves.


----------



## ryanj92 (Sep 14, 2014)

Smiles said:


> First of all, does parity mean you can switch the case with a U2 or something? I don't really get it.
> 
> Anyway, there's no such thing as PL2E that's why there's less than 1 algorithm.
> And PL3E would only have 2 cases anyway, I guess I could explain this one if I knew the parity thing.


Parity means that the states with an odd number of swaps are unreachable, eg if you just swapped 2 edges, then that is one swap and the case is unreachable (without disassembly)


----------



## Smiles (Sep 14, 2014)

ryanj92 said:


> Parity means that the states with an odd number of swaps are unreachable, eg if you just swapped 2 edges, then that is one swap and the case is unreachable (without disassembly)



Sorry i deleted my comment because I found out what parity was LOL.
I kinda meant parity in context to Roux, which I think isn't the same thing. I know what parity is in general though, like on 4x4, 6x6, void cube, etc.
According to google it's the E2 M E2 M' case.



TheNextFeliks said:


> The 2 is parity. The 6 is for circular permutations. Basic explanation: UF->UR->UL is the same as UR->UL->UF. So it is really (n-1)! or n!/n



are you sure the circular permutation argument can eliminate cases?
because here's what i'm thinking:
6! means first edge can go anywhere (6 possibilities), next edge can go in anywhere of the 5 remaining spots, etc.
now that has nothing to do with swaps (it's not counting swaps), just the position of each edge. UF -> UR -> UL is one of the 6! possible permutations. UR->UL->UF is the same permutation, it never got counted multiple times anyway so i don't see why you can divide to get rid of it.

anyway i might be wrong, can someone care to explain this?
my math is just L6E cases = 6!/2, or LnE = n!/2
and then there's the solved case, so number of algs is just subtract 1.

intuitively for like L3E there would be 1 solved case + 2 3-cycles, which makes 3 cases or 2 algs.
3!/2 = 3 cases, and subtract 1 is 2 algs.
and then obviously for L2E there would be 1 solved case and 0 algs.
2!/2 = 1 case, and subtract 1 is 0 algs.

shouldn't the same thing work for L6E?

edit: i meant permutation only, like PL6E rather than L6E


----------



## yoinneroid (Sep 14, 2014)

Smiles said:


> are you sure the circular permutation argument can eliminate cases?
> because here's what i'm thinking:
> 6! means first edge can go anywhere (6 possibilities), next edge can go in anywhere of the 5 remaining spots, etc.
> now that has nothing to do with swaps (it's not counting swaps), just the position of each edge. UF -> UR -> UL is one of the 6! possible permutations. UR->UL->UF is the same permutation, it never got counted multiple times anyway so i don't see why you can divide to get rid of it.
> ...



Nope, you need to multiply further by 2^5 for orientation to calculate L6E
and also there are cases UF-UL-UB and UF-UB-UR which will be counted differently by the 6!, but it can be solved by the same algs for PL6E with some AUF, maybe the only way to remove these is by manual counting? I actually did that for my 1LLL counting :/


----------



## Smiles (Sep 14, 2014)

yoinneroid said:


> Nope, you need to multiply further by 2^5 for orientation to calculate L6E
> and also there are cases UF-UL-UB and UF-UB-UR which will be counted differently by the 6!, but it can be solved by the same algs for PL6E with some AUF, maybe the only way to remove these is by manual counting? I actually did that for my 1LLL counting :/



oh we're doing EO? i thought CLLEO came before this. was i mistaken? o_o

EDIT: my mistake, i forgot to say PL6E instead of L6E

and your 3-cycle example makes sense. anyway i forgot AUFs. TheNextFeliks's example was describing 2 cases for the same edge permutation. idk maybe i just didn't get it


----------



## goodatthis (Sep 14, 2014)

guysensei1 said:


> Has anyone ever attempted GigaminxBLD?
> 
> In terms of number of pieces, it should be comparable to 8BLD or 9BLD. Not sure how the execution would go.


Yep. I asked this a while ago, I believe mike hughey has attempted it. I think he said he was off by 20%.

edit:



Mike Hughey said:


> I've tried Gigaminx BLD three times so far (quite a while ago); attempts were 6 hours the first time, 4 1/2 hours the second and third time. All were around 20% incorrect. I still have my gigaminx on the kitchen counter staring at me, making me feel guilty every time I go by it and don't pick it up to try again.
> 
> 
> Oh, and Chris Hardwick and I have both done 4/4 4x4x4 multis in negative time (2010 and 2011). And while we're talking about that, last year I had a -17 minute 7x7x7 BLD solve.
> ...


----------



## yoinneroid (Sep 14, 2014)

Smiles said:


> oh we're doing EO? i thought CLLEO came before this. was i mistaken? o_o
> 
> EDIT: my mistake, i forgot to say PL6E instead of L6E
> 
> and your 3-cycle example makes sense. anyway i forgot AUFs. TheNextFeliks's example was describing 2 cases for the same edge permutation. idk maybe i just didn't get it



Actually, I would like to keep it at 359/360 cases, treating cases that need AUF as different algs, the existence of another 'free' layer (M layer) complicates things a bit too much for me


----------



## Mike Hughey (Sep 15, 2014)

goodatthis said:


> Yep. I asked this a while ago, I believe mike hughey has attempted it. I think he said he was off by 20%.



My gigaminx keeps sitting on my kitchen counter, taunting me. I must get back to trying it again someday.


----------



## cmhardw (Sep 15, 2014)

I've always wondered if someone stopped cubing for a long time, would they remember their algorithms after coming back to it again? I recently discovered something about myself: I forgot the 4x4x4 wing edge parity algorithm that I first learned.

I was able to recall it by experimenting on the cube some, using a combination of knowing what exactly a parity algorithm is trying to achieve (scramble and solve centers using an odd number of inner slice quarter turns), as well as using muscle memory. I was able to, without looking it up, remember my old parity algorithm!

Still, I think it's weird that I can forget an alg I've executed hundreds of, perhaps even a couple thousand, times over the years. So I think the answer is: after extended breaks you do forget algorithms. However, they can be brought back if you can find one of your old associations to that alg. Neato?


----------



## TDM (Sep 15, 2014)

cmhardw said:


> I've always wondered if someone stopped cubing for a long time, would they remember their algorithms after coming back to it again? I recently discovered something about myself: I forgot the 4x4x4 wing edge parity algorithm that I first learned.
> 
> I was able to recall it by experimenting on the cube some, using a combination of knowing what exactly a parity algorithm is trying to achieve (scramble and solve centers using an odd number of inner slice quarter turns), as well as using muscle memory. I was able to, without looking it up, remember my old parity algorithm!
> 
> Still, I think it's weird that I can forget an alg I've executed hundreds of, perhaps even a couple thousand, times over the years. So I think the answer is: after extended breaks you do forget algorithms. However, they can be brought back if you can find one of your old associations to that alg. Neato?


I've found I have forgotten the first ever OLL parity alg I learned (the horrible pure edge flip one), but tbh it isn't that important anyway. I can do all COLLs for the U case, so I just do my normal OLL parity (actually double parity) alg followed by COLL, which is probably faster than doing the pure flip alg when I get pure flip for OLL just because the alg is so bad, which could also lead to another bad PLL.


----------



## tseitsei (Sep 15, 2014)

cmhardw said:


> I've always wondered if someone stopped cubing for a long time, would they remember their algorithms after coming back to it again? I recently discovered something about myself: I forgot the 4x4x4 wing edge parity algorithm that I first learned.
> 
> I was able to recall it by experimenting on the cube some, using a combination of knowing what exactly a parity algorithm is trying to achieve (scramble and solve centers using an odd number of inner slice quarter turns), as well as using muscle memory. I was able to, without looking it up, remember my old parity algorithm!
> 
> Still, I think it's weird that I can forget an alg I've executed hundreds of, perhaps even a couple thousand, times over the years. So I think the answer is: after extended breaks you do forget algorithms. However, they can be brought back if you can find one of your old associations to that alg. Neato?



Seems about right.

Nowadays I solve 3x3 so little that I sometimes forget some of my OLLs, but I can usually "get them back" by messing around with the case for a while and just remembering that alg again...


----------



## Renslay (Sep 15, 2014)

cmhardw said:


> I've always wondered if someone stopped cubing for a long time, would they remember their algorithms after coming back to it again? I recently discovered something about myself: I forgot the 4x4x4 wing edge parity algorithm that I first learned.
> 
> I was able to recall it by experimenting on the cube some, using a combination of knowing what exactly a parity algorithm is trying to achieve (scramble and solve centers using an odd number of inner slice quarter turns), as well as using muscle memory. I was able to, without looking it up, remember my old parity algorithm!
> 
> Still, I think it's weird that I can forget an alg I've executed hundreds of, perhaps even a couple thousand, times over the years. So I think the answer is: after extended breaks you do forget algorithms. However, they can be brought back if you can find one of your old associations to that alg. Neato?



I had to re-learn some 4x4 and square-1 algs after I didn't solve them for months - despite I used those algorithms many hundred times.
Sometimes I was able to reconstruct the algs, and sometimes I had to look after them, which caused a "Heureka! Now I remember!" moment.


----------



## Mike Hughey (Sep 16, 2014)

cmhardw said:


> Still, I think it's weird that I can forget an alg I've executed hundreds of, perhaps even a couple thousand, times over the years. So I think the answer is: after extended breaks you do forget algorithms. However, they can be brought back if you can find one of your old associations to that alg. Neato?



I've forgotten a number of algorithms I've executed thousands of times WITHOUT having taken an extended break. Unless you call a week an extended break. It's very frustrating - I think that's why I have so much trouble getting very good at 3x3x3 speedsolving.

Fortunately, like you say, it is usually possible to eventually dredge it up, although sometimes it is quite hard.

I've forgotten my 2-bar-in-front PBL for 2x2x2 5 or 6 times - one time it happened to me at Nationals, after I had done several hundred 2x2x2 solves in practice the week before the competition. I remember I had to ask Shaden to show it to me right before I went up to do 2x2x2. I'm sure I must have done that alg thousands of times.

I often wonder if this is age-related.


----------



## CyanSandwich (Sep 16, 2014)

cmhardw said:


> I've always wondered if someone stopped cubing for a long time, would they remember their algorithms after coming back to it again? I recently discovered something about myself: I forgot the 4x4x4 wing edge parity algorithm that I first learned.
> 
> I was able to recall it by experimenting on the cube some, using a combination of knowing what exactly a parity algorithm is trying to achieve (scramble and solve centers using an odd number of inner slice quarter turns), as well as using muscle memory. I was able to, without looking it up, remember my old parity algorithm!
> 
> Still, I think it's weird that I can forget an alg I've executed hundreds of, perhaps even a couple thousand, times over the years. So I think the answer is: after extended breaks you do forget algorithms. However, they can be brought back if you can find one of your old associations to that alg. Neato?


I still do square-1 every week for the weekly comp, but I sometimes forget algs. Although I generally remember them without looking them up. I also learned some corner comms as algs so I could use TuRBo corners for 3BLD. But I didn't use them enough and forgot most of them.

I've forgotten all the gear cube algs. I suppose I've forgotten all the Dan Brown 3x3 algs that weren't transferred to CFOP.


----------



## SolveThatCube (Sep 16, 2014)

moyu skewbs can corner twist...


----------



## IRNjuggle28 (Sep 18, 2014)

When you got your first sub 10 single, what was your average of 100 PB? I have a 14.78 AO100, and I still don't have a sub 10. I've come very close, and failed a lot of fast solves.


----------



## guysensei1 (Sep 18, 2014)

IRNjuggle28 said:


> When you got your first sub 10 single, what was your average of 100 PB? I have a 14.78 AO100, and I still don't have a sub 10. I've come very close, and failed a lot of fast solves.



First sub-10 single: 9.91 LL skip when I was averaging ~17-18

First fullstep sub-10: 9.xx single when I was averaging low 14. I don't do ao100s very often at all, but I would say it would be around low 14 as well.


----------



## XTowncuber (Sep 18, 2014)

IRNjuggle28 said:


> When you got your first sub 10 single, what was your average of 100 PB? I have a 14.78 AO100, and I still don't have a sub 10. I've come very close, and failed a lot of fast solves.



I bet I had a sub 10 ao12 before I ever actually did an ao100. 

But yeah, I probably averaged 14-15 when I got my first one. You'll get it soon, I'm sure.


----------



## TDM (Sep 18, 2014)

IRNjuggle28 said:


> When you got your first sub 10 single, what was your average of 100 PB? I have a 14.78 AO100, and I still don't have a sub 10. I've come very close, and failed a lot of fast solves.


I was averaging ~18 when it happened. If you can count using WV as fullstep, then it was fullstep...
9.23


----------



## guysensei1 (Sep 18, 2014)

I just realised that this particular N perm for OH:
R U R' U R U2 R' U' R U2 L' U R' U' L U' R U' R'
is actually just sune + some ZBLL.

That ZBLL section is actually pretty nice for diagonal swap antisune COLL.


----------



## ryanj92 (Sep 18, 2014)

IRNjuggle28 said:


> When you got your first sub 10 single, what was your average of 100 PB? I have a 14.78 AO100, and I still don't have a sub 10. I've come very close, and failed a lot of fast solves.


I wanna say it was high 16, maybe very low 17. 8 move LL though 
(That was about 9 months ago, and I've only had one more since, which was 'full step' (2 move cross, obvious pairs, LL was sune into T perm or something similar). I also fail a lot of easy solves...)


----------



## Bindedsa (Sep 18, 2014)

guysensei1 said:


> I just realised that this particular N perm for OH:
> R U R' U R U2 R' U' R U2 L' U R' U' L U' R U' R'
> is actually just sune + some ZBLL.
> 
> That ZBLL section is actually pretty nice for diagonal swap antisune COLL.


For COLL, I prefer: R' U' R U' L U' R' U L' U2 R. It's just the inverse of the FB mirror to the case you referenced. I never used it though, just did sune until I finished the set.


----------



## CyanSandwich (Sep 18, 2014)

IRNjuggle28 said:


> When you got your first sub 10 single, what was your average of 100 PB? I have a 14.78 AO100, and I still don't have a sub 10. I've come very close, and failed a lot of fast solves.


In February, I got a 9.50 when my ao100 PB was 17.85. F2l was pretty easy and I had a 7 move last layer.
It's still my only sub-*11*. Basically sheer luck and I probably got it way earlier (in terms of average) than most people.


----------



## cmhardw (Sep 18, 2014)

IRNjuggle28 said:


> When you got your first sub 10 single, what was your average of 100 PB? I have a 14.78 AO100, and I still don't have a sub 10. I've come very close, and failed a lot of fast solves.



I got my first sub-10 single when I was averaging about 14.9 on an average of 100. I'd say you may be due soon, but really _try_ to go faster on solves and push yourself. You may get worse averages of 12, but your fastest singles may drop below 10 seconds. That's what I was trying at the time.


----------



## Smiles (Sep 19, 2014)

guysensei1 said:


> I just realised that this particular N perm for OH:
> R U R' U R U2 R' U' R U2 L' U R' U' L U' R U' R'
> is actually just sune + some ZBLL.
> 
> That ZBLL section is actually pretty nice for diagonal swap antisune COLL.



sure you can call it that,
but it's also this:

(R U R' U) // setup
R U2 R' U' R U2 L' U R' U' L // J perm
(U' R U' R') // undo setup


----------



## guysensei1 (Sep 19, 2014)

Smiles said:


> sure you can call it that,
> but it's also this:
> 
> (R U R' U) // setup
> ...



Indeed.


----------



## IRNjuggle28 (Sep 21, 2014)

I'm interested to see what will happen to Sebastian Weyer's 5x5 times because of the Aochuang. His solving style seems to fit the Aosu perfectly, and the Moyu 5x5 is undoubtedly more similar to the Aosu than to the Shengshou 5x5.


----------



## guysensei1 (Sep 21, 2014)

IRNjuggle28 said:


> I'm interested to see what will happen to Sebastian Weyer's 5x5 times because of the Aochuang. His solving style seems to fit the Aosu perfectly, and the Moyu 5x5 is undoubtedly more similar to the Aosu than to the Shengshou 5x5.


This sounds good.


----------



## Robert-Y (Sep 21, 2014)

http://cubecomps.com/live.php?cid=632&cat=1&rnd=2

Taewon Hwang 10.67 official average with Roux

I guess the method is still spreading around Asia


----------



## goodatthis (Sep 21, 2014)

What would some of you guys consider to be your biggest contribution to the cubing community? 

For me, my CxLL Guide would probably be my biggest contribution. Its small, but I think it did help the community.


----------



## maps600 (Sep 21, 2014)

Robert-Y said:


> http://cubecomps.com/live.php?cid=632&cat=1&rnd=2
> 
> Taewon Hwang 10.67 official average with Roux
> 
> I guess the method is still spreading around Asia



gjroux


----------



## PJKCuber (Sep 21, 2014)

Robert-Y said:


> http://cubecomps.com/live.php?cid=632&cat=1&rnd=2
> 
> Taewon Hwang 10.67 official average with Roux
> 
> I guess the method is still spreading around Asia


Kaijun Lin is faster.


----------



## Renslay (Sep 21, 2014)

Robert-Y said:


> http://cubecomps.com/live.php?cid=632&cat=1&rnd=2
> 
> Taewon Hwang 10.67 official average with Roux
> 
> I guess the method is still spreading around Asia



That's good to hear!


----------



## IRNjuggle28 (Sep 22, 2014)

goodatthis said:


> What would some of you guys consider to be your biggest contribution to the cubing community?
> 
> For me, my CxLL Guide would probably be my biggest contribution. Its small, but I think it did help the community.



I haven't contributed much.  I do have some ideas about Yau versus Reduction on 5x5 that I'd like to write down, and that might be worth something once I do it.


----------



## guysensei1 (Sep 22, 2014)

IRNjuggle28 said:


> I haven't contributed much.  I do have some ideas about Yau versus Reduction on 5x5 that I'd like to write down, and that might be worth something once I do it.



I contributed... 
This N perm: z U' R' (U D') R U' R2 D R' D' R2 (U D) R' U' R U
and this OLL: R2 S' R2 U' S2 U' R2 S' R2


----------



## Iggy (Sep 22, 2014)

goodatthis said:


> What would some of you guys consider to be your biggest contribution to the cubing community?
> 
> For me, my CxLL Guide would probably be my biggest contribution. Its small, but I think it did help the community.



I don't think I've contributed at all :/


----------



## StachuK1992 (Sep 22, 2014)

goodatthis said:


> What would some of you guys consider to be your biggest contribution to the cubing community?.


Nothing, yet.


----------



## CriticalCubing (Sep 22, 2014)

goodatthis said:


> What would some of you guys consider to be your biggest contribution to the cubing community?
> 
> For me, my CxLL Guide would probably be my biggest contribution. Its small, but I think it did help the community.


Seeing this inspired me to make a OLL Sheet.
Will do for PLL Later onwards


----------



## TDM (Sep 22, 2014)

goodatthis said:


> What would some of you guys consider to be your biggest contribution to the cubing community?


spamming "or you could just use petrus" at every opportunity
I haven't really contributed much, but maybe Hoya5? I am the only person who uses it (that really does show how good a contribution it is ), but I still think it's a decent method.


----------



## cmhardw (Sep 22, 2014)

Ha! I just realized that you can make the cube-in-a-cube pattern by doing two 3-cycle commutators of 2x1x1 blocks! I don't know why I never thought to do that before. Previously I had always done the dot-pattern on centers, then done two edge 3-cycles and then twisted the two corners to build the inside cubes of the pattern. I'm sure others already knew of this. Neat


----------



## Robert-Y (Sep 22, 2014)

Or you could even go step further and do a 3-cycle commutator of L shaped blocks using a double turn for the interchange(? not sure if this is the right word)?


----------



## ryak2002 (Sep 22, 2014)

does anyone have any memorizing tips!


----------



## cmhardw (Sep 22, 2014)

Robert-Y said:


> Or you could even go step further and do a 3-cycle commutator of L shaped blocks using a double turn for the interchange(? not sure if this is the right word)?



I don't see it yet, but I will keep thinking on it. My thoughts right now are that an interchange move would need to be a wide layer turn and would thus affect centers too. I am thinking from the perspective of trying to cycle the 6 corners and 6 edges that comprise the border to the two 2x2x2s in the pattern.



ryak2002 said:


> does anyone have any memorizing tips!



The more work you do up front in creating/bettering a memory system, the easier it will be to memorize later on. Start with a simple system at first, then improve to better systems over time. Your memory gets better the more you use it, so start now.


----------



## ryak2002 (Sep 22, 2014)

cmhardw said:


> I don't see it yet, but I will keep thinking on it. My thoughts right now are that an interchange move would need to be a wide layer turn and would thus affect centers too. I am thinking from the perspective of trying to cycle the 6 corners and 6 edges that comprise the border to the two 2x2x2s in the pattern.
> 
> 
> 
> The more work you do up front in creating/bettering a memory system, the easier it will be to memorize later on. Start with a simple system at first, then improve to better systems over time. Your memory gets better the more you use it, so start now.



What do you mean by 'System'?


----------



## Hssandwich (Sep 22, 2014)

TDM said:


> spamming "or you could just use petrus" at every opportunity
> I haven't really contributed much, but maybe Hoya5? I am the only person who uses it (that really does show how good a contribution it is ), but I still think it's a decent method.


Ahem, you are not the only person who uses hoya5. I'm not that good but I got a 2:21 single at ABHC.


----------



## mark49152 (Sep 22, 2014)

Hssandwich said:


> Ahem, you are not the only person who uses hoya5. I'm not that good but I got a 2:21 single at ABHC.


Yeah I also use what I would call Hoya5 - same steps as 4x4 Hoya but adapted for 5x5 - but does Hoya5 refer to a particular kind of adaptation? And if so, is there a description published anywhere?


----------



## cmhardw (Sep 22, 2014)

ryak2002 said:


> What do you mean by 'System'?



There are many memory systems you can learn, and each one specializes in helping you remember a certain type of material. For cubing you should learn to work with letters or even letter pairs. Read the wiki entry on blindfolded solving for a place to start and learn more. Follow the links in that article to learn even more.


----------



## ryak2002 (Sep 22, 2014)

How do you get your times to go below your posts?


----------



## ryak2002 (Sep 22, 2014)

cmhardw said:


> There are many memory systems you can learn, and each one specializes in helping you remember a certain type of material. For cubing you should learn to work with letters or even letter pairs. Read the wiki entry on blindfolded solving for a place to start and learn more. Follow the links in that article to learn even more.



Thanks!


----------



## TDM (Sep 22, 2014)

mark49152 said:


> Yeah I also use what I would call Hoya5 - same steps as 4x4 Hoya but adapted for 5x5 - but does Hoya5 refer to a particular kind of adaptation? And if so, is there a description published anywhere?


Hoya5 is when you solve three cross pieces (L/B/R), then solve either the BL or BR edge, and then solve that F2L pair. You then solve the other pair in the same way, then continue as normal. If you use AvG edge pairing, lookahead for pairing the remaining edges is very easy. At least it is for me. I only half-read what AvG said and just experimented a bit, so I think what I do is slightly different.
(I do a U/D mirrored version of what AvG does, making the semi-pair in LFd and using u moves to pair stuff... there could be other differences I don't know of though)


----------



## Stefan (Sep 22, 2014)

cmhardw said:


> Ha! I just realized that you can make the cube-in-a-cube pattern by doing two 3-cycle commutators of 2x1x1 blocks! I don't know why I never thought to do that before.



How I do it, one of my favorite algs (it's an F2L alg done four times):
(R' F' R U R U' R' F x y')4


----------



## Stefan (Sep 22, 2014)

Robert-Y said:


> Or you could even go step further and do a 3-cycle commutator of L shaped blocks using a double turn for the interchange(? not sure if this is the right word)?



Or an alg for the L-swap and "commutate" it with a cube rotation 
[U2 R' F' L F2 L' F D' F2 D R U2, x y']


----------



## XTowncuber (Sep 23, 2014)

ryak2002 said:


> How do you get your times to go below your posts?



At the top right of the page to to settings and then click edit signature on the bottom left. Then you can put in whatever you like and hit save signature.


----------



## kcl (Sep 23, 2014)

goodatthis said:


> What would some of you guys consider to be your biggest contribution to the cubing community?
> 
> For me, my CxLL Guide would probably be my biggest contribution. Its small, but I think it did help the community.



I suppose making Sarah advanced Skewb tutorials is the only helpful thing I've ever done for this community.


----------



## qqwref (Sep 23, 2014)

Stefan said:


> Or an alg for the L-swap and "commutate" it with a cube rotation
> [U2 R' F' L F2 L' F D' F2 D R U2, x y']


An L-swap that is a setup to a half turn, as Robert-Y suggested:
[U2 F' L (R D R'): F2]


----------



## Renslay (Sep 23, 2014)

goodatthis said:


> What would some of you guys consider to be your biggest contribution to the cubing community?



Hmmm.

The Boomerang method,
the 2x2x2 optimal solver with the compressed look-up table, written in Matlab (thanks Stefan and Tom!),
and the Roux example thread.


----------



## CriticalCubing (Sep 23, 2014)

Renslay said:


> Hmmm.
> 
> The Boomerang method,
> the 2x2x2 optimal solver with the compressed look-up table, written in Matlab (thanks Stefan and Tom!),
> and the Roux example thread.


Your Boomerang method is awesome


----------



## cmhardw (Sep 23, 2014)

ryak2002 said:


> Thanks!



You're welcome



Stefan said:


> How I do it, one of my favorite algs (it's an F2L alg done four times):
> (R' F' R U R U' R' F x y')4





Stefan said:


> Or an alg for the L-swap and "commutate" it with a cube rotation
> [U2 R' F' L F2 L' F D' F2 D R U2, x y']





qqwref said:


> An L-swap that is a setup to a half turn, as Robert-Y suggested:
> [U2 F' L (R D R'): F2]



Perhaps I am just being dense here, but I still can't see how to cycle an L shaped block. Thank you all for posting your algs, but I am trying not to look at them until I can figure out the basic idea you are using. If I get stuck, of course I'll look at the algs. Once I understand the idea I definitely want to look at the algs you have here and see what they do.

Before I start studying the algs you all posted, when you say an L shaped block do you mean one made up of 2 corners and 2 edges? For example, one such L shaped block around my 2x2x2 cube-in-a-cube would be at UB+UBL+UL+UFL. Do I understand the L shapes correctly? Or do you mean an L shaped block like UB+UBL+UL? Now that I think about it, the latter seems to make more sense.

I'll post again if I figure it out.


----------



## Robert-Y (Sep 23, 2014)

I meant a pair of edges and corners that form an L shape or even a J shape (Think about the L or J perm to help).


----------



## XTowncuber (Sep 23, 2014)

goodatthis said:


> What would some of you guys consider to be your biggest contribution to the cubing community?
> 
> For me, my CxLL Guide would probably be my biggest contribution. Its small, but I think it did help the community.



Popularizing some pyra methods, mainly 1-flip. Also making florianed pyras cool and lego skewb torpedoes


----------



## qqwref (Sep 24, 2014)

cmhardw said:


> Before I start studying the algs you all posted, when you say an L shaped block do you mean one made up of 2 corners and 2 edges? For example, one such L shaped block around my 2x2x2 cube-in-a-cube would be at UB+UBL+UL+UFL


Yep. Two of them make a layer, three of them make the part of the cube that is affected by cube-in-a-cube (minus twisted corners).


----------



## elrog (Sep 24, 2014)

goodatthis said:


> What would some of you guys consider to be your biggest contribution to the cubing community?
> 
> For me, my CxLL Guide would probably be my biggest contribution. Its small, but I think it did help the community.



Well, I come up with all sorts of ideas, but they only serve to occupy the readers time since no one uses them (myself included for most of them). I really think just answering a few questions here and there helps out though.

To StachuK: Don't be so modest. algdb.net is really nice.


----------



## CyanSandwich (Sep 26, 2014)

This probably sounds ridiculous, but do you think anyone's done over a million 3x3 solves?

That's about 274 a day for 10 years or 548 a day for 5 years. I mean, it seems plausible for someone who practices a lot and has been doing it for a while.


----------



## qqwref (Sep 26, 2014)

Tony Snyder estimates he's done 1.7 million solves.


----------



## CyanSandwich (Sep 26, 2014)

qqwref said:


> Tony Snyder estimates he's done 1.7 million solves.


Oh awesome. That's pretty crazy.


----------



## CriticalCubing (Sep 26, 2014)

Hahaa, Guys new WR
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nw1A4oztZqY


----------



## Tim Major (Sep 26, 2014)

CyanSandwich said:


> Oh awesome. That's pretty crazy.



Tony Snyder is also a career ********ter so I doubt he's done nearly that many


----------



## guysensei1 (Sep 28, 2014)

My PB ao5 is less than 2 seconds faster than my global average, and my PB ao12 is around 1 second faster than my global average... WHY CONSISTENCY... WHY?!


----------



## IRNjuggle28 (Sep 28, 2014)

guysensei1 said:


> My PB ao5 is less than 2 seconds faster than my global average, and my PB ao12 is around 1 second faster than my global average... WHY CONSISTENCY... WHY?!


Wow, that's boring.  But I got a 1:21 5x5 single when I averaged almost 2:00 on 5x5 and my previous PB was 1:38, and it kind of sucks because I haven't come even close to beating it in the months since then despite having improved a lot. So maybe it's a good thing that you're consistent. If your PB average of x is closer to your global average, you'll beat it more often because it moves with your average instead of going in random giant jumps. It's better for motivation.

6x6 is the most inconsistent WCA speed event there is because of so many different parities. Are you consistent with that too?


----------



## guysensei1 (Sep 28, 2014)

IRNjuggle28 said:


> Wow, that's boring.  But I got a 1:21 5x5 single when I averaged almost 2:00 on 5x5 and my previous PB was 1:38, and it kind of sucks because I haven't come even close to beating it in the months since then despite having improved a lot. So maybe it's a good thing that you're consistent. If your PB average of x is closer to your global average, you'll beat it more often because it moves with your average instead of going in random giant jumps. It's better for motivation.
> 
> 6x6 is the most inconsistent WCA speed event there is because of so many different parities. Are you consistent with that too?


PB single is more than 20 seconds faster than my global average. Not sure if that's 'consistent'

I don't even know what my global average is anymore


----------



## Randomno (Sep 28, 2014)

Top 100 results for 3x3 single. If you want to be on that list, you need to get *6.84* seconds or below.

Top 1000 results for 3x3 single. To be on that list, you need to get *7.93* or below.

*How ridiculous Feliks is:*


He holds 41 of the top 100 3x3 times.
On the top 100 people, where competitors only appear once, the cut-off is *7.61*.
In 2011, the year he got 5.66, only 2 other people achieved 6.84 or less, Nipat Charoenpholphant and Mats Valk. (see below)

*What the top of the results leaderboard looked like at the end of 2011:*


Feliks Zemdegs 5.66
Feliks Zemdegs 6.18
Feliks Zemdegs 6.24
Mats Valk 6.41
Feliks Zemdegs 6.55
Feliks Zemdegs 6.65
Feliks Zemdegs 6.65
Feliks Zemdegs 6.65
Feliks Zemdegs 6.77 2010[/red]
[*]Nipat Charoenpholphant 6.78
[*]Mats Valk 6.84
[*]Nipat Charoenpholphant 6.84
[*]Feliks Zemdegs 6.88
[*]Che-Ting Chu 6.89
[*]Anthony Brooks 6.93
[*]Feliks Zemdegs 7.03



*People with more than one appearance on top 100 results (when a tie, in order of fastest time):*


Feliks Zemdegs (41)
Alexander Lau (9)
Mats Valk (8)
Cornelius Dieckmann (6)
Lucas Etter (5)
Kevin Costello III (3)
Nipat Charoenpholphant (3)
Michał Pleskowicz (2)
Sebastian Weyer (2)
Bill Wang (2)

*Total:* 81

And lastly... Alex Lau has 69 of the top 100 solves in the UK. Quite a lot huh? Not really.

Do you think this deserves its own thread? It's pretty ridiculous...


----------



## Stefan (Oct 1, 2014)

Someone should do a cubing competition at SkillCon. Calls itself _"the ultimate object manipulation convention"_ and looks quite neat. It's even in the Riviera in Vegas. Just stay within one calendar year, please, I don't even want to think about how to handle it on the WCA site otherwise 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lkfQJG_jI9I
http://skillcon.org/


----------



## guysensei1 (Oct 1, 2014)

Looks like Tunisia is the first African country (that isn't South Africa) to hold an official competition.
https://www.worldcubeassociation.org/results/c.php?i=TunisiaOpen2014


----------



## Please Dont Ask (Oct 8, 2014)

Am i the only one who permutes the last layer in 5 sec (while solving the cube)


----------



## guysensei1 (Oct 8, 2014)

Please Dont Ask said:


> Am i the only one who permutes the last layer in 5 sec (while solving the cube)



no...?


----------



## Randomno (Oct 9, 2014)

Shapeways actually had their massive price increase today, not Oct 7 like CBC said.

17x17 now costs almost 8 THOUSAND DOLLARS (almost 11k if you want it in black). A few days ago, it cost 1.5k.

This will largely hinder my goal of getting nearly all easily available 3x3 sizes... "Frosted Ultra Detail" will likely become a popular material option.


----------



## goodatthis (Oct 12, 2014)

So at Harvard fall 2014 yesterday, I was off by a U2 on one of my solves. The judge wasn't completely sure, so he asked me if it was a +2 or DNF. I told him it was a plus 2, and he was about to write it down when the kid next to me said it was a DNF. I told him that it's not a DNF because the WCA recognizes HTM as the metric for determining +2s and FMC and the like, and he preceded to angrily refute what I was saying and was adamant that my solve was a DNF. 1 or 2 other people came over and said it was a DNF, then when they finally called a delegate (or a more experienced judge, wasnt sure who came over), he confirmed it was a +2. 

sometimes it just really irks me when people are adamant they are right, when they really have no clue what they're talking about.


----------



## EMI (Oct 12, 2014)

goodatthis said:


> So at Harvard fall 2014 yesterday, I was off by a U2 on one of my solves. The judge wasn't completely sure, so he asked me if it was a +2 or DNF. I told him it was a plus 2, and he was about to write it down when the kid next to me said it was a DNF. I told him that it's not a DNF because the WCA recognizes HTM as the metric for determining +2s and FMC and the like, and he preceded to angrily refute what I was saying and was adamant that my solve was a DNF. 1 or 2 other people came over and said it was a DNF, then when they finally called a delegate (or a more experienced judge, wasnt sure who came over), he confirmed it was a +2.
> 
> sometimes it just really irks me when people are adamant they are right, when they really have no clue what they're talking about.



Also the judge is really doing a bad job if he asks the competitor about the penalty. When a judge asks me if I get a penalty, I tell him or her to ask another judge or the delegate.

What I find to be a more complicated situation is when you get the same scramble for the second time. In that case:
- You can never be sure if it's the same scramble again, and in theory there could be the same scramble twice in a row.
- You can't be sure if it's the wrong scramble, or the last scramble was the wrong one.
- That means, you still should solve the scramble! But if you solved it, and then tell the judge it's the same scramble, you can't prove it ...
- I'm sure this is happening many times, and people don't tell their judge, because they propably get a good time. (Someone once had a WR because of this, and admitted it years later)
- etc.

How should one react as competitor / judge?
What I do: When I inspect and think it is the same scramble, I will say to the judge "I think it is the same scramble". Then I will solve it, if possible using the same solution to go sure. If I am sure that it's the same scramble, I will tell the delegate.


----------



## TDM (Oct 12, 2014)

I was having a discussion with a friend about this edge pairing case, and whether or not it was 'parity': would you say this case was parity or not? And why?
(also does anyone have a better alg than that one?)


----------



## yoinneroid (Oct 12, 2014)

TDM said:


> I was having a discussion with a friend about this edge pairing case, and whether or not it was 'parity': would you say this case was parity or not? And why?
> (also does anyone have a better alg than that one?)



It is parity, you can't solve the two wing edges without affecting other pieces


----------



## TDM (Oct 12, 2014)

yoinneroid said:


> It is parity, you can't solve the two wing edges without affecting other pieces


Ok, I just wasn't sure how you would define 'parity' when not on the 3x3 stage, but that sounds like a good definition.


----------



## EMI (Oct 12, 2014)

TDM said:


> Ok, I just wasn't sure how you would define 'parity' when not on the 3x3 stage, but that sounds like a good definition.



This or you can't solve it with three-cycles of edges. (but the other definition is better)


----------



## Goosly (Oct 12, 2014)

TDM said:


> Ok, I just wasn't sure how you would define 'parity' when not on the 3x3 stage, but that sounds like a good definition.



If you need an odd number of slice moves to solve the edges, it's parity.
In this case (l' U2 l' U2 F2 l' F2 r U2 r' U2 l2), the slice moves are: l', l', l', r, r', l2. That's 7 slice moves. 7 is odd. Therefor this is parity.


----------



## qqwref (Oct 13, 2014)

Wolfram|Alpha thinks you must be on drugs to solve a big minx: http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=petaminx
It thinks you mean 'ketamine', which is used as an anesthetic and as a recreational drug.



EMI said:


> What I find to be a more complicated situation is when you get the same scramble for the second time.
> [...]
> What I do: When I inspect and think it is the same scramble, I will say to the judge "I think it is the same scramble". Then I will solve it, if possible using the same solution to go sure. If I am sure that it's the same scramble, I will tell the delegate.


Yeah, it's tough. A long time ago this happened to me right after a really good OH solve (16 seconds, which was amazing at the time). I got the same scramble, said "yeah, I'm pretty sure this is the same scramble", solved it with the same solution just to make sure, and got another 16, which of course wasn't legitimate  It took me more than 2.5 years to get another real 16.


----------



## kcl (Oct 13, 2014)

EMI said:


> Also the judge is really doing a bad job if he asks the competitor about the penalty. When a judge asks me if I get a penalty, I tell him or her to ask another judge or the delegate.
> 
> What I find to be a more complicated situation is when you get the same scramble for the second time. In that case:
> - You can never be sure if it's the same scramble again, and in theory there could be the same scramble twice in a row.
> ...



When a judge asks me about a penalty I tell them what I would tell them as a judge, not based on what's in my favor.


----------



## Randomno (Oct 13, 2014)

Video idea: Have a 5BLD solve throughout the whole video, whilst showing other solves in smaller boxes around the video space. Example with my pro MS Paint skills.


----------



## TDM (Oct 18, 2014)

Has anyone tried scrambling a Skewb 2-gen (using only R and L moves) and then solving it 2-gen? If you can do it, what's your method? I can't actually do it...

This question could probably be asked somewhere else, but it's relevant to this post and I don't want to post unnecessarily, so: if you start with a scrambled Skewb and then solved two opposite corners of a layer (like the block you get if you scramble 2-gen), can you always solve it with 2-gen? If not, why not? I don't know much about Skewb...


----------



## Bindedsa (Oct 18, 2014)

TDM said:


> Has anyone tried scrambling a Skewb 2-gen (using only R and L moves) and then solving it 2-gen? If you can do it, what's your method? I can't actually do it...
> 
> This question could probably be asked somewhere else, but it's relevant to this post and I don't want to post unnecessarily, so: if you start with a scrambled Skewb and then solved two opposite corners of a layer (like the block you get if you scramble 2-gen), can you always solve it with 2-gen? If not, why not? I don't know much about Skewb...


No you cant. if you scramble 2gen, After inserting 2 corners, you'll always get either Pi or solved corners and either solved centers or H/Z conjugates. I have no idea why though.


----------



## TDM (Oct 18, 2014)

Bindedsa said:


> No you cant. if you scramble 2gen, After inserting 2 corners, you'll always get either Pi or solved corners and either solved centers or H/Z conjugates. I have no idea why though.


I've just managed to get a U perm of centres (FL -> U -> BR). I thought I had an L case for corners once, but then realised I had two opposite corners swapped in D... I'm still trying to get an L case for corners with the D layer corners solved, but it's hard enough solving the D layer corners 
E: got an L case for corners.
... are you sure you always get what you said?


----------



## Bindedsa (Oct 18, 2014)

TDM said:


> I've just managed to get a U perm of centres (FL -> U -> BR). I thought I had an L case for corners once, but then realised I had two opposite corners swapped in D... I'm still trying to get an L case for corners with the D layer corners solved, but it's hard enough solving the D layer corners
> E: got an L case for corners.
> ... are you sure you always get what you said?



By 2 gen, you mean turning two adjacent corners right? I tried using K solve a while ago and it could not do a Uperm 2 gen, which is when I realized this. Are you sure your not turning a third face?


----------



## TDM (Oct 18, 2014)

Bindedsa said:


> By 2 gen, you mean turning two adjacent corners right? I tried using K solve a while ago and it could not do a Uperm 2 gen, which is when I realized this. Are you sure your not turning a third face?


Two opposite corners of the same face, like only using R/L moves.


----------



## Bindedsa (Oct 18, 2014)

TDM said:


> Two opposite corners of the same face, like only using R/L moves.



Oh, I was talking about something different


----------



## cmhardw (Oct 21, 2014)

Are there any adjacent states that are both optimally solved in 20 turns (HTM)? So for example, I have a state that is optimally solved in 20 moves HTM, I perform one turn in HTM and the new state is also optimally solved in 20 moves HTM?


----------



## guysensei1 (Oct 21, 2014)

cmhardw said:


> Are there any adjacent states that are both optimally solved in 20 turns (HTM)? So for example, I have a state that is optimally solved in 20 moves HTM, I perform one turn in HTM and the new state is also optimally solved in 20 moves HTM?



How can this possibly work? If I make 1 move on a 20 HTM optimal position, shouldn't you get closer to the solved state?

(If I'm missing something here, please correct me)


----------



## Goosly (Oct 21, 2014)

cmhardw said:


> Are there any adjacent states that are both optimally solved in 20 turns (HTM)?



If there is a state that has A R2 as an optimal solution (A represents any 19 moves), then the state A R' is one move away from the first state, and also has a 20 move optimal solution. But I guess you want 2 states where the last move of the optimal solution is different


----------



## martinss (Oct 21, 2014)

guysensei1 said:


> How can this possibly work? If I make 1 move on a 20 HTM optimal position, shouldn't you get closer to the solved state?
> (If I'm missing something here, please correct me)



Well, let's say we have a state optimally solved in 20 turns.
Let's do U, there are 2 possibilities:
- The new state is optimally solved in 20 turns. (NO optimal solve for the 1st state starts with U)
- The new state is optimally solved in 19 turns. (One of the optimal solve for the 1st state starts with U)

- The new state can't be optimally solved in 18 turns or less. (The optimal solve for the 1st state will be in 19 turns or less)
- The new state can't be optimally solved in 21 turns or more. (because god's number is 20)

S <-----------------------20 irreducible moves-----------------------> V state
O................................................................................................|
L................................................................................................U
V................................................................................................|
E................................................................................................V
D <-----------------------19 or 20 irreducible moves ? -----------------> W state





Goosly said:


> If there is a state that has A R2 as an optimal solution (A represents any 19 moves), then the state A R' is one move away from the first state, and also has a 20 move optimal solution. But I guess you want 2 states where the last move of the optimal solution is different



Are you sure ? If there is a state that has A R2 as an optimal solution (A represents any 19 moves), then why B R can't be an other optimal solution (B represents any other 19 moves) ? I mean if A R2 is an optimal solution, maybe B R is an other optimal solution and so the state A R' may have B (19 moves) as an optimal solution...

S <-----------------------19 irreducible moves-----------------------> X state ----
O................................................................................................|...............R2
L................................................................................................R.................. -----> V State (with a 20 moves optimal solution)
V................................................................................................|.................. -----> 
E................................................................................................V...............R
D <-----------------------20 irreducible moves-----------------------> W state -----


----------



## Stefan (Oct 21, 2014)

What's the highest number of (htm-)optimal solutions for some state?


----------



## martinss (Oct 21, 2014)

Stefan said:


> What's the highest number of (htm-)optimal solutions for some state?



For the superflip :
http://alg.cubing.net/?alg=U_R2_F_B_R_B2_R_U2_L_B2_R_U-_D-_R2_F_R-_L_B2_U2_F2
http://alg.cubing.net/?alg=F_B_U2_R_F2_R2_B2_U-_D_F_U2_R-_L-_U_B2_D_R2_U_B2_U
http://alg.cubing.net/?alg=U_R2_F_B_R_B2_R_U2_L_B2_R_U-_D-_R2_F_D2_B2_U2_R-_L
http://alg.cubing.net/?alg=R_L_D2_B-_L2_F2_R2_U-_D_R-_D2_F-_B-_D-_F2_D-_R2_U-_F2_D-
http://alg.cubing.net/?alg=R2_F_B_R_B2_R_U2_L_B2_R_U-_D-_R2_F_D2_B2_U2_R-_L_U
http://alg.cubing.net/?alg=U_F_U2_F_L2_B_U2_F_R-_L-_F2_D_R2_U2_L2_F-_B_L_F2_D
http://alg.cubing.net/?alg=U-_R2_U-_F2_D-_R2_U-_B_F_U2_L-_B2_R2_F2_D-_U_F-_U2_L-_R-

So at least 7

(At least 112 ? Can we do that ?
7*2 for Mirror (M)
*2 for Mirror (E)
*2 for Mirror (S)
*2 for Inverted)


----------



## cmhardw (Oct 21, 2014)

guysensei1 said:


> How can this possibly work? *If I make 1 move on a 20 HTM optimal position, shouldn't you get closer to the solved state?*
> 
> (If I'm missing something here, please correct me)



I'm asking whether or not there is a counter-example to the bolded phrase.


----------



## Hypocrism (Oct 21, 2014)

guysensei1 said:


> How can this possibly work? If I make 1 move on a 20 HTM optimal position, shouldn't you get closer to the solved state?
> 
> (If I'm missing something here, please correct me)



That assumes there is a 20-move solution for that position starting with every single possible first move. I think that's unlikely (granted on no evidence) so I'd say, no, you don't necessarily get closer to solved.


----------



## PJKCuber (Oct 21, 2014)

Odd layered puzzles don't have internal pieces right?


----------



## martinss (Oct 21, 2014)

PJKCuber said:


> Odd layered puzzles don't have internal pieces right?


Puzzles as 1x1x1, 3x3x3, 5x5x5, 7x7x7, 9x9x9, 11x11x11... don't need to have internal pieces, except the core (3D cross). But some 3x3x3s have removable torpedoes. My Rubik's brand 4x4x4 don't have internal pieces : it's a ball with some holes (instead of the core). But most of Even layered puzzles are Odd layered puzzles with some hidden pieces.


----------



## IRNjuggle28 (Oct 22, 2014)

*PEDs*

I'm not posting this in the WCA regulations forum because obviously nothing will be done about it. Nothing CAN be done about it. The WCA is in no position to start drug testing.

But what's the policy on performance enhancing drugs? Even common medications can work as that. I guarantee Adderall would make some people solve faster. In particular, I think bigBLD or MBLD memo would go much faster on a stimulant used to treat ADHD.

If somebody wants to use them, the community is powerless to stop them. But I'm interested in hearing ideas on what people *should* do.


----------



## guysensei1 (Oct 22, 2014)

martinss said:


> Puzzles as 1x1x1, 3x3x3, 5x5x5, 7x7x7, 9x9x9, 11x11x11... don't need to have internal pieces, except the core (3D cross). But some 3x3x3s have removable torpedoes. My Rubik's brand 4x4x4 don't have internal pieces : it's a ball with some holes (instead of the core). But most of Even layered puzzles are Odd layered puzzles with some hidden pieces.



Actually if you made some fancy elaborate mechanism for a big cube I'm sure you could make it have internal pieces.


----------



## qqwref (Oct 22, 2014)

cmhardw said:


> Are there any adjacent states that are both optimally solved in 20 turns (HTM)? So for example, I have a state that is optimally solved in 20 moves HTM, I perform one turn in HTM and the new state is also optimally solved in 20 moves HTM?


Rockicki answered this a while ago, and out of all the 20f* positions he had, most were not adjacent to any other, but there were a substantial number that were adjacent to another one in his list, and the largest 'cluster' of 20f* positions was 8.
Link to that info and some further details (scroll down to the comments): http://cubezzz.dyndns.org/drupal/?q=node/view/523



IRNjuggle28 said:


> But what's the policy on performance enhancing drugs? Even common medications can work as that. I guarantee Adderall would make some people solve faster. In particular, I think bigBLD or MBLD memo would go much faster on a stimulant used to treat ADHD.
> 
> If somebody wants to use them, the community is powerless to stop them. But I'm interested in hearing ideas on what people *should* do.


The official policy is "there is no penalty". I think I would say, just don't do anything unsafe... cubing's not worth health risks.


----------



## IRNjuggle28 (Oct 22, 2014)

qqwref said:


> The official policy is "there is no penalty". I think I would say, just don't do anything unsafe... cubing's not worth health risks.


I never had any doubt that there was no official penalty. And I wasn't asking because I'm interested in trying it. Not my style. I consider using stimulants specifically to get better times in competition cheating without a question. I'm not convinced using drugs to enhance performance (in any sport) is "wrong," but I definitely think doing so* in competition* would be wrong. Just my opinion. My question wasn't "can people do it," it was "should people do it."

I was more wondering about the gray areas of competing. What about people who have a prescription for ADHD medication, and are supposed to take it every day? They aren't using it to get better times, but they are given an unequal advantage. They can't be asked to not take their usual meds on comp day, though. 

Sidenote: If I ever wind up taking an ADHD med that's a stimulant again, I would keep my PBs set while on that medication separate from off it. Getting to where you can't break a PB without an (addictive) medication is a slippery slope, and the difference between doing a mentally challenging task on Adderall versus off it is unbelievable.

I'm kind of curious if Maskow does this. He mentioned "taking 30 pills a day to improve memory," and while the implication of what he said is a bit different than the situation I'm anticipating... you never know.


----------



## qqwref (Oct 22, 2014)

It's an extremely grey area, though. Sure, something like Ritalin can improve concentration and memory, but I'm sure there are some foods that also have effects on those things, even if not to the same degree. Is there really a difference between a nutritional chemical, and a pharmaceutical chemical, if they have the same effect, just to different degrees? But if someone could take vitamin supplements to improve their mental ability, they can also eat certain foods to do that too. Then should we regulate cubers' diets to prevent this kind of thing? I think it's hard to draw the line between what's OK and what isn't, and honestly, there seems to be no "magic bullet", like steroids in weightlifting, that would provide an unreasonably large advantage in cubing.

It seems like chess has grappled with this kind of thing too. There have been some drug tests in the past decade or two but many players (even very good ones who pass the tests) think they are a bad idea. Chess is far more mental than normal cubing, but when you compare it to FMC...


----------



## IRNjuggle28 (Oct 22, 2014)

qqwref said:


> It's an extremely grey area, though. Sure, something like Ritalin can improve concentration and memory, but I'm sure there are some foods that also have effects on those things, even if not to the same degree. *Is there really a difference between a nutritional chemical, and a pharmaceutical chemical, if they have the same effect, just to different degrees?* But if someone could take vitamin supplements to improve their mental ability, they can also eat certain foods to do that too. Then should we regulate cubers' diets to prevent this kind of thing?


Usually, the line is thought to fall somewhere between something that's at least quasi-natural and something that obviously isn't. Healthy diet is thought of as natural; medications are not. If you look at the semantics of what "nature" really is, I'm sure the definition of natural I'm using isn't accurate, but I think the point gets across... Society definitely has a bias against manmade supplements versus pseudo-natural ones. The manmade ones usually turn out to have more (easily traceable) negative side effects than the "natural" ones. For example, Adderall increases heart rate, blood pressure, anxiety, and is quite addictive.That's not as much the case with altering your diet. You're definitely right that there's not an obvious place to draw the line, but regulating diet is obviously past it and PEDs aren't. That's what I think the difference between nutritional and pharmaceutical chemicals is. The problem is not so much their primary function as their risk of side effects or of user error. Pharmaceuticals are usually more damaging, and it's much easier to be irresponsible with them. 



qqwref said:


> There seems to be no "magic bullet", like steroids in weightlifting, that would provide an unreasonably large advantage in cubing.


Yep. I'm not so worried about what would happen right now as I am the potential slippery slope if people did ever discover something that worked really well for cubing. We don't want competitions where you have to use a drug to be world class. But, I might as well just hold on to these thoughts and only revisit them if it becomes a problem. The fact that cubing isn't a professional sport means people are much less likely to cheat in ways that are damaging to them.


----------



## guysensei1 (Oct 22, 2014)

I just had a deja vu moment while solving a cube and managed to 'remember' where many pieces are correctly... O_O


----------



## tseitsei (Oct 23, 2014)

What is a gods number for solving 1x2x2 block on 3x3x3 cube? How about 1x2x3 block?


----------



## PJKCuber (Oct 24, 2014)

Has anybody noticed that the image of a solved cube next to the thread name is wrongly stickered? White and yellow are in the wrong positions


----------



## Stefan (Oct 24, 2014)

PJKCuber said:


> Has anybody noticed that the image of a solved cube next to the thread name is wrongly stickered? White and yellow are in the wrong positions



No, they're not.


----------



## guysensei1 (Oct 24, 2014)

Stefan said:


> No, they're not.



Yes they are. at least on the mobile site. 

Unless you are referring to how the stickering scheme technically isn't 'wrong', but just not standard?


----------



## Stefan (Oct 24, 2014)

guysensei1 said:


> Unless you are referring to how the stickering scheme technically isn't 'wrong', but just not standard?



Yep.


----------



## slinky773 (Oct 26, 2014)

Where did Dene go?


----------



## goodatthis (Oct 26, 2014)

slinky773 said:


> Where did Dene go?


Banned, although I asked and no one answered why or how long.


----------



## Lazy Einstein (Oct 26, 2014)

goodatthis said:


> Banned, although I asked and no one answered why or how long.



Crazy. I was just about to ask this.


----------



## Randomno (Oct 26, 2014)

goodatthis said:


> Banned, although I asked and no one answered why or how long.



Probably a build-up of infractions, maybe something to do with Johnny's thread. I'm guessing it'll be a month or less.


----------



## FailCuber (Oct 26, 2014)

I know I am a noob but what if the buffer and the corner that gets that buffer's corner get solved both. I mean i know the corner that gets that buffer's corner get solved but what if the buffer get solved too????


----------



## Genius4Jesus (Oct 26, 2014)

goodatthis said:


> Banned, although I asked and no one answered why or how long.



Dene said some kind of blunt/rude stuff in this thread: https://www.speedsolving.com/forum/showthread.php?50009-What-s-allowed-in-competitions

But, Dene's posts are gone now.


----------



## Randomno (Oct 26, 2014)

Genius4Jesus said:


> Dene said some kind of blunt/rude stuff in this thread: https://www.speedsolving.com/forum/showthread.php?50009-What-s-allowed-in-competitions
> 
> But, Dene's posts are gone now.



Oh yeah, I remember that. Wasn't Billy in the convo there?


----------



## STOCKY7 (Oct 27, 2014)

I was the one who said to Dene that he was being way to harsh on the new guy. -Especially considering we were all are just as nieve when we started out cubing


----------



## STOCKY7 (Oct 27, 2014)

he also deleted my post where I confronted him :/


----------



## guysensei1 (Oct 29, 2014)

Interesting how the thread IDs 2 and 1 are both inaccessible. I wonder what's on there.

EDIT: how did that happen

Is Robert Yau a mod? How was my post edited by him?

OK IM DUMB HOW DID I NOT NOTICE

GOSH


----------



## Renslay (Oct 29, 2014)

cmhardw said:


> Are there any adjacent states that are both optimally solved in 20 turns (HTM)? So for example, I have a state that is optimally solved in 20 moves HTM, I perform one turn in HTM and the new state is also optimally solved in 20 moves HTM?



Yes, there are, for example:

B1L1B3L3F2D3R1B3U1D2B1L1B2R1D1R3B2R2B2R3
L2F3L2D1F2B2L1B3R2B1D3R3F1U1L1R2D2B2L3R2

Both of them optimal 20f*, and the difference between them is an F/F' turn.

A cluster of 9 cube states with 20f* has been found, see below (they form a connected graph, where an edge means a single move):



Spoiler: Quote






> Here is a cluster of 9 (by position):
> 
> There are only six unique mod-M+inv in this set of 9.
> 
> ...






There are many more smaller clusters.

Source:
http://cubezzz.dyndns.org/drupal/?q=node/view/523 -> "Length of the neighbors of the 20f* positions"


----------



## Robert-Y (Oct 29, 2014)

guysensei1 said:


> Interesting how the thread IDs 2 and 1 are both inaccessible. I wonder what's on there.


It's trash 
Just redundant threads.


----------



## guysensei1 (Nov 2, 2014)

What are the conditions required for a 1LLL case to be solvable by F <R,U> F'? A certain corner permuation? A certain edge orientation?

Eg: F R U R' U' F', F R U' R' U' R U R' F', F R' U' R2 U' R2 U2 R U' F' etc.


----------



## obelisk477 (Nov 2, 2014)

guysensei1 said:


> What are the conditions required for a 1LLL case to be solvable by F <R,U> F'? A certain corner permuation? A certain edge orientation?
> 
> Eg: F R U R' U' F', F R U' R' U' R U R' F', F R' U' R2 U' R2 U2 R U' F' etc.



My intuition says that it can't be a diag corner swap case, and (more obviously) can only have 2 unoriented edges. But I can't prove any of that.


----------



## guysensei1 (Nov 2, 2014)

obelisk477 said:


> My intuition says that it can't be a diag corner swap case, and (more obviously) can only have 2 unoriented edges. But I can't prove any of that.



There could be no edge unoriented as well. F triplesexy F'.


----------



## qqwref (Nov 2, 2014)

guysensei1 said:


> What are the conditions required for a 1LLL case to be solvable by F <R,U> F'? A certain corner permuation? A certain edge orientation?
> 
> Eg: F R U R' U' F', F R U' R' U' R U R' F', F R' U' R2 U' R2 U2 R U' F' etc.


It's pretty much "do an F move and see if the position is 2gen-able". So, keeping in mind that any edge that comes from UF or goes to UF gets flipped, you can do any combination of:
- 3 cycle of any 3 edges
- any legal corner twist
- swap UL and UR, UFL->UBR->UFR->UBL->UFL (or the same cycle but inverted) - this is equivalent to F ([RU'R': U] + 3cycle to solve UF and UB again) F' or the same with U' in the conjugate
- swap UFL<->UFR and UBL<->UBR


----------



## pinser (Nov 3, 2014)

Which looks more impressive, OH ZZ or 2H Roux?


----------



## guysensei1 (Nov 3, 2014)

pinser said:


> Which looks more impressive, OH ZZ or 2H Roux?



Yes.
(As in, they're both awesome!)


----------



## CriticalCubing (Nov 3, 2014)

pinser said:


> Which looks more impressive, OH ZZ or 2H Roux?



2h Roux. At the end of solve, nothing beats elegance of Roux.


----------



## IRNjuggle28 (Nov 4, 2014)

pinser said:


> Which looks more impressive, OH ZZ or 2H Roux?


Definitely Roux, no question about it for me. OH usually looks clumsy to me, and Roux is sexy.


----------



## qqwref (Nov 4, 2014)

What is the shortest (or a short) sequence of moves Q, such that every position can be solved by crossing out some moves of Q and then executing the rest in the original order?

For instance: say your sequence is R U R2, then you could execute nothing or R or U or R2 or R U or R R2 (= R') or U R2 or R U R2. But you can't do U U or R2 U.

There is an obvious theoretical lower limit of 66 moves (with fewer, there are not enough subsets of Q's moves) but I think the real minimum will be quite a bit more than that. We could also create an upper bound by defining a method that solves one piece at a time and just writing down all the solutions in order, i.e. start with a list of algs to solve DB from every position, write them in order, then get a list of algs to solve DF from every position without disturbing DB, write those in order at the end, etc. etc. I don't know how big this would actually be.


----------



## Stefan (Nov 4, 2014)

qqwref said:


> There is an obvious theoretical lower limit of 66 moves (with fewer, there are not enough subsets of Q's moves)



240 moves is an upper bound:
(R R2 L L2 U U2 D D2 F F2 B B2)20


----------



## qqwref (Nov 4, 2014)

Hah, I didn't even think of that. Of course. That's way simpler than my method thing.


----------



## guysensei1 (Nov 5, 2014)

Does there exist a list of members sorted by posts per day?
Or post count?


----------



## TDM (Nov 5, 2014)

guysensei1 said:


> Does there exist a list of members sorted by posts per day?
> Or post count?


postcount
Not sure about posts per day...


----------



## Stefan (Nov 5, 2014)

TDM said:


> postcount
> Not sure about posts per day...



Whoa, I finally passed Arnaud!


----------



## RageCuber (Nov 5, 2014)

qqwref said:


> It's an extremely grey area, though. Sure, something like Ritalin can improve concentration and memory, but I'm sure there are some foods that also have effects on those things, even if not to the same degree. Is there really a difference between a nutritional chemical, and a pharmaceutical chemical, if they have the same effect, just to different degrees? But if someone could take vitamin supplements to improve their mental ability, they can also eat certain foods to do that too. Then should we regulate cubers' diets to prevent this kind of thing? I think it's hard to draw the line between what's OK and what isn't, and honestly, there seems to be no "magic bullet", like steroids in weightlifting, that would provide an unreasonably large advantage in cubing.
> 
> It seems like chess has grappled with this kind of thing too. There have been some drug tests in the past decade or two but many players (even very good ones who pass the tests) think they are a bad idea. Chess is far more mental than normal cubing, but when you compare it to FMC...



If the delagate somehow found out a competitor was using they could use 2k3) (if a competitor) Behaves in a way that is _unlawful_, violent or indecent; or intentionally damages venue facilities or personal property within the venue.


----------



## PJKCuber (Nov 5, 2014)

pinser said:


> Which looks more impressive, OH ZZ or 2H Roux?



To non cubers a fast OH solver would look way more improve than a 2H Roux solver. But, to cubers imo 2H Roux is


----------



## Cale S (Nov 5, 2014)

qqwref said:


> What is the shortest (or a short) sequence of moves Q, such that every position can be solved by crossing out some moves of Q and then executing the rest in the original order?
> 
> For instance: say your sequence is R U R2, then you could execute nothing or R or U or R2 or R U or R R2 (= R') or U R2 or R U R2. But you can't do U U or R2 U.
> 
> There is an obvious theoretical lower limit of 66 moves (with fewer, there are not enough subsets of Q's moves) but I think the real minimum will be quite a bit more than that. We could also create an upper bound by defining a method that solves one piece at a time and just writing down all the solutions in order, i.e. start with a list of algs to solve DB from every position, write them in order, then get a list of algs to solve DF from every position without disturbing DB, write those in order at the end, etc. etc. I don't know how big this would actually be.


If you allow rotations but count them as moves, the shortest I can find is
(y x x2 U U2)20
100 etm

Using wide moves instead of rotations:
(Uw D' Rw L' Rw2 Lw2 U U2)20
160 htm

If you only use normal face turns, I can't think of anything better than what Stefan said.


----------



## obelisk477 (Nov 6, 2014)

Thinking about getting these fingerweights for Christmas to improve TPS


----------



## mark49152 (Nov 6, 2014)

TDM said:


> Not sure about posts per day...


Looks like a shoot-out between you and Kennan


----------



## guysensei1 (Nov 6, 2014)

mark49152 said:


> Looks like a shoot-out between you and Kennan



I'm lagging behind by 1 post per day. 

(I'd say that I have the unofficial AsR for posts per day...)


EDIT: also, Kennan wins. He's been here for less time (few days less) and he has ~200-300 more posts


----------



## TDM (Nov 6, 2014)

guysensei1 said:


> I'm lagging behind by 1 post per day.
> 
> (I'd say that I have the unofficial AsR for posts per day...)
> 
> ...


I didn't post for around two months though - I first posted in may. I also didn't really post as much when I first started - is there any way to calculate posts/day for just 2014?


----------



## mark49152 (Nov 6, 2014)

TDM said:


> I didn't post for around two months though - I first posted in may. I also didn't really post as much when I first started - is there any way to calculate posts/day for just 2014?


If you really want to maximise your score, why not just spam the forum more?


----------



## guysensei1 (Nov 7, 2014)

> D L B2 L F2 R2 B2 R' U2 B D' L' F L' D2 B L' D2 F2
> D' L' B2 L' F2 R2 B2 R U2 B' D L F' L D2 B' L D2 F2
> 
> Take a look at these 2 scrambles. I've simply inverted every individual move of the scramble. Apart from the visual similarity, are these scrambles related in any way? Can one predict what the second scramble will be like given a picture of what the first scramble looks like?




Copied this over from OAQT. It wasn't gonna get answered there and will probably get buried.


----------



## goodatthis (Nov 7, 2014)

guysensei1 said:


> Copied this over from OAQT. It wasn't gonna get answered there and will probably get buried.


I really don't know about scrambkes like that, but I do know that inverse scrambles work something like this:

Normal: Block A needs to go in Position A, currently in Position B
Inverse: Block B needs to go in Position B, currently in Position A
So basically whatever position a piece occupies, the piece that needs to go there will occupy the solved position of the original piece on the inverse scramble.


----------



## whauk (Nov 7, 2014)

guysensei1 said:


> Copied this over from OAQT. It wasn't gonna get answered there and will probably get buried.



If you execute 2 T-perms you get a solved cube. However if you execute R' U' R U R F' R2 U R U R' U' R F R' U' R U R F' R2 U R U R' U' R F (that is 2 T-perms with every move inverted) you get some pretty arbitrary looking position. So you cannot identify the other position. Also the two move sequences don't fix the same pieces. I assume it is pretty safe to say, that "inverting every move" has no useful properties.


----------



## Cale S (Nov 7, 2014)

guysensei1 said:


> D L B2 L F2 R2 B2 R' U2 B D' L' F L' D2 B L' D2 F2
> D' L' B2 L' F2 R2 B2 R U2 B' D L F' L D2 B' L D2 F2
> 
> Take a look at these 2 scrambles. I've simply inverted every individual move of the scramble. Apart from the visual similarity, are these scrambles related in any way? Can one predict what the second scramble will be like given a picture of what the first scramble looks like?


If you were only given an image of the first scramble, there are infinitely many ways you could get to that position (and probably multiple ways that would be move-optimal). If you see that doing D L B2 L F2 R2 B2 R' U2 B D' L' F L' D2 B L' D2 F2 will get to that position and invert every move, you will get this. However, you could also reach the first position with L' B' D2 L F' R' D R L U' R2 F2 U2 R2 D F2 D2 R2 D' F2 B2 L2, and inverting every move of that sequence of moves gives you something different. Unlike inverting a scramble, inverting each individual move doesn't correlate two specific scrambles.


Spoiler: explanation of why it's so random



Every face turn you can do either does four 2-cycles (2 of corners, 2 of edges) or two 4-cycles (1 of corners, 1 of edges). Let's say we have the scramble D F. If we focus on only the edges, the D move does the 4-cycle DF>DR>DB>DL. Then the F move does the 4-cycle DF>LF>UF>RF. The final result is the same as doing the 7-cycle DF>DR>DB>DL>LF>UF>RF.
If you invert each move, the 4-cycles become inverted, so D' does DF>DL>DB>DR and F' does DF>RF>UF>LF. The result is the 7-cycle DF>DL>DB>DR>RF>UF>LF. If we say that the 7-cycle the original scramble did was a>b>c>d>e>f>g, the scramble with each move inverted would be a>d>c>b>g>f>e. The order the pieces are cycled in was completely messed up, and that was only with 2 moves. With up to 20 moves, the cycles are rearranged so much that there is no correlation whatsoever. It would be like doing BLD but doing your memo in a random order. The result is entirely random.


----------



## Stefan (Nov 9, 2014)

Cale S said:


> Spoiler: explanation of why it's so random
> 
> 
> 
> ...



That doesn't explain it.



Spoiler: Hint



You can't possibly explain it with only two sides, because in those cases, there *is* a strong connection and it *isn't* random.


----------



## TDM (Nov 9, 2014)

guysensei1 said:


> EDIT: also, Kennan wins.


OR DOES HE!?


----------



## guysensei1 (Nov 10, 2014)

TDM said:


> OR DOES HE!?



OMGWTFBBQ IS THIS sup-10 posts per day?!


EDIT: also, how often is the posts per day count updated?


----------



## TDM (Nov 10, 2014)

guysensei1 said:


> OMGWTFBBQ IS THIS sup-10 posts per day?!
> 
> 
> EDIT: also, how often is the posts per day count updated?


It was 11.8x at the time of posting  He'd joined less than two days ago though.
and I don't know... I think he had 11.87 posts/day, which suggests that it could be updated constantly, because no integer divided by 2 gives you a decimal ending in .87.


----------



## mark49152 (Nov 10, 2014)

TDM said:


> It was 11.8x at the time of posting  He'd joined less than two days ago though.
> and I don't know... I think he had 11.87 posts/day, which suggests that it could be updated constantly, because no integer divided by 2 gives you a decimal ending in .87.


Give him a chance, two days is not a fair sample. I bet there is a two-day window somewhere in your membership where you way exceeded 11.87


----------



## guysensei1 (Nov 10, 2014)

mark49152 said:


> Give him a chance, two days is not a fair sample. I bet there is a two-day window somewhere in your membership where you way exceeded 11.87



TDM messaged me about posting 40 posts in 3 hours or something like that some time ago XD

EDIT: It was 17 posts in 2 hours. So 17/2*24= 204 posts per day XD


----------



## TDM (Nov 10, 2014)

mark49152 said:


> Give him a chance, two days is not a fair sample. I bet there is a two-day window somewhere in your membership where you way exceeded 11.87


I know 2 days isn't a fair sample, that's what I was trying to say... and I'm sure there has been more than one day where I've gone over 20 posts


----------



## mark49152 (Nov 10, 2014)

guysensei1 said:


> TDM messaged me about posting 40 posts in 3 hours or something like that some time ago XD
> 
> EDIT: It was 17 posts in 2 hours. So 17/2*24= 204 posts per day XD


For a split second there, you were at an almost infinite number of posts per day


----------



## guysensei1 (Nov 11, 2014)

When can a 1LLL case be solvable by F <R,U,D> F'?


----------



## IRNjuggle28 (Nov 11, 2014)

guysensei1 said:


> When can a 1LLL case be solvable by F <R,U,D> F'?


My guess is any permutation with at least 2 edges oriented. <R,U,D> covers any PLL case and any OCLL case, and F (RUD) F' can orient either 2 or 0 edges, but not 4. It might depend on whether you allow cube rotations or AUF before executing the alg. Being able to choose which face is F would matter for orienting edges, if not for other stuff too. And maybe having all the RUD moves fall between the F and the F' limits what can be done in a way I haven't thought of. Someone who knows puzzle theory confirm pls.


----------



## guysensei1 (Nov 11, 2014)

IRNjuggle28 said:


> My guess is any permutation with at least 2 edges oriented. <R,U,D> covers any PLL case and any OCLL case, and F (RUD) F' can orient either 2 or 0 edges, but not 4. It might depend on whether you allow cube rotations or AUF before executing the alg. Being able to choose which face is F would matter for orienting edges, if not for other stuff too. And maybe having all the RUD moves fall between the F and the F' limits what can be done in a way I haven't thought of. Someone who knows puzzle theory confirm pls.



Cube rotations would be allowed.


----------



## TDM (Nov 11, 2014)

guysensei1 said:


> Cube rotations would be allowed.



If you allow cube rotations then surely you can solve anything? You can solve the entire cube with just U, x and y if you really wanted to...


----------



## Julian (Nov 11, 2014)

TDM said:


> If you allow cube rotations then surely you can solve anything? You can solve the entire cube with just U, x and y if you really wanted to...



He means y rotations before the alg (i.e. pre-AUF).


----------



## TDM (Nov 11, 2014)

Julian said:


> He means y rotations before the alg (i.e. pre-AUF).


Sorry, didn't see the 'before the alg' part...


----------



## qqwref (Nov 11, 2014)

guysensei1 said:


> When can a 1LLL case be solvable by F <R,U,D> F'?


Should be anything with at least two oriented edges.

Random 1LLL scramble: U2 F2 U F2 L2 U' L2 F2 U' F2 R' F D F D' F2 R 
Solution: (y U') F (U R U' R U R D R' U' R D' R) F'

Another scramble: B' U2 B U2 F2 R2 B' R2 F' U2 R B U' B U2 B' R' F'
Solution: (y2 U') F (D' R U R' D2 R' U R U D' R U' R2 U' R U) F'

Another: F2 L2 R2 B' D2 B' D2 F2 R2 B' F' L' F2 U2 F' L' B' U', nope

Another: B2 L2 D2 B2 U' F2 D' F2 D F2 U' R' B L' F2 U2 L B' R'
Solution: (y' U) F (U' R2 U2 R U2 R' D R' U2 R D' R U' R U R2) F'

Some weird ZBLL: R2 U' R2 D R2 U' R2 U R2 U R' U R D' R' U' R'
Solution: (U) F (U2 R' U R2 U' R2 U' R2 U2 R' D R' U2 R U2 D') F'


----------



## guysensei1 (Nov 11, 2014)

qqwref said:


> Should be anything with at least two oriented edges.



Can't be. The pure 2 edge flip can't be solved like this can it?


----------



## bobthegiraffemonkey (Nov 11, 2014)

guysensei1 said:


> Can't be. The pure 2 edge flip can't be solved like this can it?



I think you're correct, but I can't quite figure out what the restriction is, I don't think it's something obvious.

Edit: 
Ignore me, I thought F <R,U> F' not F <R,U,D> F'


----------



## qqwref (Nov 11, 2014)

Opposite edge flip (UF/UB): (U2) F (U D R2 U2 R2 U2 R U2 R' U2 R2 U2 R2 U' D') F'

Adjacent edge flip (UF/UR): (U) F (D R2 U' R' U' R U2 R2 U' D') F'

The magic of AUF


----------



## Robert-Y (Nov 11, 2014)

F U R' D R' U' R D' R' U' R' U R U R2 F'

EDIT: Ah it seems I was too late...


----------



## guysensei1 (Nov 12, 2014)

Never expected that it could be done!

So can all the 1LLL that has the 2 edge flip OLLs be solved with F <R,U,D> F'?


----------



## Stefan (Nov 12, 2014)

Why is AUF not cheating, especially after you were asked about cube rotations and AUF and only allowed cube rotations?


----------



## guysensei1 (Nov 12, 2014)

Stefan said:


> Why is AUF not cheating, especially after you were asked about cube rotations and AUF and only allowed cube rotations?



Apologies on my part. AUF and cube rotations are allowed.


----------



## qqwref (Nov 12, 2014)

Stefan said:


> Why is AUF not cheating, especially after you were asked about cube rotations and AUF and only allowed cube rotations?


In this case I figured it'd be safe to interpret the question as "is there an alg of this type for this LL position" - so AUF and y rotations are OK because that's the kind of stuff you'd do in a solve to set up your algorithm of choice anyway.


----------



## guysensei1 (Nov 12, 2014)

qqwref said:


> In this case I figured it'd be safe to interpret the question as "is there an alg of this type for this LL position" - so AUF and y rotations are OK because that's the kind of stuff you'd do in a solve to set up your algorithm of choice anyway.


Yes this was what I was meaning to say.

Has anyone found out what are the conditions needed for a LL case to be solvable with F <R,U,D> F', with cube rotations, 'pre-alg-AUF' and 'post-alg-AUF' allowed?

EDIT: nvm I read qqwref's earlier post and it said the condition.


----------



## qqwref (Nov 12, 2014)

(U F U2 F R' F U' R2 F2 R) x2 y' (F' R' U2 R' F2 R2 F U2 R2 U R' U2 R2 F U R)

Just another way of making a superflip... for big or awkward cubes where you don't wanna have to regrip much and definitely can't do M slices.


----------



## Stefan (Nov 12, 2014)

qqwref said:


> (U F U2 F R' F U' R2 F2 R) x2 y' (F' R' U2 R' F2 R2 F U2 R2 U R' U2 R2 F U R)
> 
> Just another way of making a superflip... for big or awkward cubes where you don't wanna have to regrip much and definitely can't do M slices.



Another one:
(U (R U R' F)5 U' x2)2


----------



## Antonie faz fan (Nov 16, 2014)

1 
Mattia Furlan 

Italy 
2:49.91 3:04.63 2:53.80 2:56.11 2:49.91 
2 
Bence Barát 

Hungary 
2:49.97 2:53.88 3:04.72 2:56.19 2:49.97 
lel their average is very close, their best single is very close, Bence's 3rd and Mattia's 2nd solve are very close and Bence's 2nd solve and Mattia's 3rd solve are very close  .


----------



## qqwref (Nov 16, 2014)

The fastest 3x3x3 times that have been gotten by the same person more than once:
Feliks with two 5.66s
and then Feliks with two 6.18s
and then Feliks with three 6.31s
and then Feliks with two 6.53s
and then Feliks with two 6.56s
and then Feliks with three 6.65s
and then Feliks with two 6.69s
and then Feliks with three 6.75s
and then Feliks with two 6.77s
...and then Alexander Lau with two 6.83s


----------



## guysensei1 (Nov 17, 2014)

Is it just me or is it that the 'show signature' option seems to randomly not be activated?


----------



## ~Adam~ (Nov 18, 2014)

I wonder how much the 2x2 WR average would go up without inspection.


----------



## Tim Major (Nov 18, 2014)

cube-o-holic said:


> I wonder how much the 2x2 WR average would go up without inspection.



Everyone would just use CLL with inefficient layers, so TPS and CLL recognition would be the only things that matter. Would remove the solution from mattering entirely


----------



## qqwref (Nov 19, 2014)

<R,U,y> cube-in-cube-in-cube alg:

R' U R' U' R2 U2 R U' R2 y2 U2 R2 U2 R' U' y R2 y' U R U' y R' U2 R2 U' R' y' R2 y2


----------



## GG (Nov 20, 2014)

qqwref said:


> <R,U,y> cube-in-cube-in-cube alg:
> 
> R' U R' U' R2 U2 R U' R2 y2 U2 R2 U2 R' U' y R2 y' U R U' y R' U2 R2 U' R' y' R2 *y2*


bold y2 redundancy x) other than that nice alg. I prefer it like this :3
R' U R' U' R2 U2 R U' R2 U2 *L2 U2 L'* U y' R2 y' U R U' y R' U2 R2 U' R' y' R2


----------



## IRNjuggle28 (Nov 20, 2014)

How do I access my post history in specific threads? I'm looking for a list of every Accomplishment Thread post I've ever made, if someone could show me how to get that.

And my earlier question: How do I get a third signature line?


----------



## Stefan (Nov 20, 2014)

IRNjuggle28 said:


> How do I access my post history in specific threads? I'm looking for a list of every Accomplishment Thread post I've ever made, if someone could show me how to get that.



Go to the subforum where the thread is, click on the Replies number, then in the popup click on your Posts number.

Edit: Nice, Thom currently leads this thread with 2[sup]8[/sup] posts (I like powers of 2).


----------



## Brest (Nov 20, 2014)

IRNjuggle28 said:


> How do I get a third signature line?



You press enter, you are on a new line, and then type.


----------



## guysensei1 (Nov 20, 2014)

Brest said:


> You press enter, you are on a new line, and then type.



You forgot the part about becoming a premium member.


----------



## IRNjuggle28 (Nov 20, 2014)

Brest said:


> You press enter, you are on a new line, and then type.


lol


guysensei1 said:


> You forgot the part about becoming a premium member.


I'd wondered if that was it, but this didn't mention it.


----------



## cmhardw (Nov 20, 2014)

I am attending a talk at Christopher Newport University today by one of the math professors who is giving an overview of the group theory topics that apply to the cube. His talk will cover the order of a permutation, and I am supplying a number of cubes for his participants to be able to attempt to experience the order of a permutation by applying an algorithm repeatedly to a solved cube until it solves again. I am present at the talk, in part, to help unscramble any wayward cubes that get messed up in that process  I am also interested in the group theory topics, and seeing them presented in a proper way by a mathematician. Very cool!


----------



## IRNjuggle28 (Nov 20, 2014)

cmhardw said:


> I am attending a talk at Christopher Newport University today by one of the math professors who is giving an overview of the group theory topics that apply to the cube. His talk will cover the order of a permutation, and I am supplying a number of cubes for his participants to be able to attempt to experience the order of a permutation by applying an algorithm repeatedly to a solved cube until it solves again. I am present at the talk, in part, to help unscramble any wayward cubes that get messed up in that process  I am also interested in the group theory topics, and seeing them presented in a proper way by a mathematician. Very cool!


If a video is taken, you should post the link on here. Sounds interesting.


----------



## Pailly19 (Nov 21, 2014)

well, there are only 2 stores here that sell rubiks brands. one also sell V6 and V7
i asked them why the don't sell V5 and they told me it was because they already got rubiks 5X5:fp


----------



## Ágoston Török (Nov 21, 2014)

Hello guys,
I have a question. I was wondering how many possible cases does the Last Layer have? So if I wanted to solve the LL with one algorithm always (just in theory ofc.) how many algorithms did I have to learn? (something tells me that the answer is not just simply 21*57 (+1 solved case).


----------



## Randomno (Nov 21, 2014)

Ágoston Török said:


> Hello guys,
> I have a question. I was wondering how many possible cases does the Last Layer have? So if I wanted to solve the LL with one algorithm always (just in theory ofc.) how many algorithms did I have to learn? (something tells me that the answer is not just simply 21*57 (+1 solved case).



1221.


----------



## TDM (Nov 21, 2014)

Ágoston Török said:


> Hello guys,
> I have a question. I was wondering how many possible cases does the Last Layer have? So if I wanted to solve the LL with one algorithm always (just in theory ofc.) how many algorithms did I have to learn? (something tells me that the answer is not just simply 21*57 (+1 solved case).


Including solved, 1212. There's a page on the wiki for this: 1lLL.


----------



## goodatthis (Nov 21, 2014)

Ágoston Török said:


> Hello guys,
> I have a question. I was wondering how many possible cases does the Last Layer have? So if I wanted to solve the LL with one algorithm always (just in theory ofc.) how many algorithms did I have to learn? (something tells me that the answer is not just simply 21*57 (+1 solved case).


I'm pretty sure that this is how it's done

51 OLL cases with no symmetry, 51*72= 3672 
5 OLL cases with U2 symmetry, 5*36= 180
2 OLL cases with 4-way symmetry, 2*21= 42

3672+180+42=3894 possible algs to learn. The 1212 figure excludes mirrors and inverses (I think, maybe something else too), so it's not really accurate. You might as well say that full ZBLL is 177 algs.

Easy way to figure out things like this:

So I got the 72, 36, and 21 by finding the number of possible PLL cases for each. Technically, PLL is 21 algs because the top face is solved, so you can simply perform an alg from a different angle because a solved face has what's known as symmetry. 

A good way to think of symmetry is if you can do a U/U'/U2 and perform the alg (and it solves the case), the case has total symmetry, if you can only do a U2 the case has U2 symmetry, and if you can't do any, the case has no symmetry. Keep in mind that when I say case, I mean orientation cases and permutation cases separately. 

So for PLL, there are 4 cases with total symmetry, (H, N, N, solved) 2 cases with U2 symmetry (Z and E) and 16 with no symmetry. From that, there's 4 cases for each no symmetry case, 2 cases for each U2 symmetry case, and 1 case for each total symmetry case. So (4*1)+(2*2)+(16*4)=72, so 72 total PLL cases.

Now if we do the same for OLL, we get 51 no symmetry cases, 5 U2 symmetry cases, and 2 total symmetry cases. For the U2 symmetry cases, we have to halve the number of possible PLL cases, so we get 36, and for the total symmetry cases (pure 4-flip, and solved), we simply take the number of PLL cases as we see them, so 21. Then we just do the math above, and theres the answer.


----------



## Ágoston Török (Nov 24, 2014)

goodatthis said:


> I'm pretty sure that this is how it's done
> 
> 51 OLL cases with no symmetry, 51*72= 3672
> 5 OLL cases with U2 symmetry, 5*36= 180
> ...



Thank you very much!


----------



## guysensei1 (Nov 28, 2014)

R U R' U F' U' F and R B' R B R' U R' are 7 move optimal solutions for the exact same position on the cube.As far as I can tell the 2 solution aren't related in any way. Are there any such pairs of optimal solutions that are 6 moves or less?

EDIT: I realise taking away the first R will give a 6 move pair.
U R' U F' U' F and B' R B R' U R'


----------



## Stefan (Nov 28, 2014)

Those sixers are quite related. Invert B' R B R' U R' and you get R U' R B' R' B, then rotate the cube so that R and U switch places and you get the first alg.

Jaap has a similar triple here:
http://www.jaapsch.net/puzzles/cayley.htm#identities


----------



## guysensei1 (Nov 28, 2014)

Stefan said:


> Those sixers are quite related. Invert B' R B R' U R' and you get R U' R B' R' B, then rotate the cube so that R and U switch places and you get the first alg.


Thanks. I see how they're related now.


> Jaap has a similar triple here:
> http://www.jaapsch.net/puzzles/cayley.htm#identities




Hmm. Interesting page. God's number for 2 gen scrambling is still 20?! Example of such a position?


----------



## TDM (Nov 28, 2014)

guysensei1 said:


> Hmm. Interesting page. God's number for 2 gen scrambling is still 20?!


Interesting... is God's number 20 for 3-gen (both RUL and RUF)?

(also, something else hopefully random enough for this thread, if you don't count the 67 days between my join date and my first post I have over 7 posts per day now: 3971/((3971/6.29)-67)=7.04, not including this post)


----------



## guysensei1 (Nov 28, 2014)

TDM said:


> Interesting... is God's number 20 for 3-gen (both RUL and RUF)?



How many RUL positions are there? RUF?


----------



## qqwref (Nov 28, 2014)

guysensei1 said:


> How many RUL positions are there? RUF?


RUL: 8! * 3^7 * 10! / 2 = 159,993,501,696,000
RUF: 7! * 3^6 * 9! * 2^8 / 2 = 170,659,735,142,400


----------



## guysensei1 (Nov 29, 2014)

The reviews on The Cubicle of the moyu 13x13 are rather weird...



qqwref said:


> RUL: 8! * 3^7 * 10! / 2 = 159,993,501,696,000
> RUF: 7! * 3^6 * 9! * 2^8 / 2 = 170,659,735,142,400




Would it be feasible for a computer to check these for optimal solutions in their respective 3 gens?


----------



## qqwref (Nov 29, 2014)

Sure, finding optimal solutions is quite doable. It's a bit much to do a God's Algorithm table without some cleverness, though.


----------



## Torch (Dec 2, 2014)

I've never sub-1.5ed any PLL even once, and I'm almost sub-15. Is that normal?


----------



## obelisk477 (Dec 2, 2014)

Torch said:


> I've never sub-1.5ed any PLL even once, and I'm almost sub-15. Is that normal?



Idk if its normal, but my LL is ~6.25 and I'm almost sub-16 so I'm right there with you.


----------



## guysensei1 (Dec 2, 2014)

Torch said:


> I've never sub-1.5ed any PLL even once, and I'm almost sub-15. Is that normal?



Maybe you use roux?


----------



## Rocky0701 (Dec 2, 2014)

Torch said:


> I've never sub-1.5ed any PLL even once, and I'm almost sub-15. Is that normal?


I wouldn't say it's normal but it isn't exactly abnormal either. I average almost sub 17 and I just got a 1.43 U perm on my third try.


----------



## GuRoux (Dec 2, 2014)

guysensei1 said:


> Maybe you use roux?



then h and z perm should be under.


----------



## Randomno (Dec 2, 2014)

GuRoux said:


> then h and z perm should be under.



Depends how long you've been using M slice and double M slice.


----------



## IRNjuggle28 (Dec 2, 2014)

Torch said:


> I've never sub-1.5ed any PLL even once, and I'm almost sub-15. Is that normal?


Nope, that's very weird.  How much do you try? Give the <MU> U perms a go. They're the only PLLs I can sub 1.


----------



## guysensei1 (Dec 2, 2014)

Torch said:


> I've never sub-1.5ed any PLL even once, and I'm almost sub-15. Is that normal?


Ok on a more serious note I could sub-1 J, T, H, U and A perms before sub-15...

Work on your TPS I suppose. Just spam the algs.


----------



## brian724080 (Dec 4, 2014)

Torch said:


> I've never sub-1.5ed any PLL even once, and I'm almost sub-15. Is that normal?



If you do, then you'll be sub-15


----------



## guysensei1 (Dec 5, 2014)

What is God's number for Roux L6E if:
1)We allowed only <M,U> to be used? STM here.
2)We allowed all faces of the cube to turn? HTM here.


EDIT: Unrelated topic, but, Shengshou, why don't they just spend that little extra to get better screws whose heads don't degrade after a few turns?! It really annoys me and I am afraid of tensioning any Shengshou cube.


----------



## Please Dont Ask (Dec 5, 2014)

guysensei1 said:


> What is God's number for Roux L6E if:
> 1)We allowed only <M,U> to be used? STM here.
> 2)We allowed all faces of the cube to turn? HTM here.
> 
> ...



For the "EDIT" part --- Yeah, I know Right. I ruined one of the screw .Thank god I did not loosen it too much ortherwise I would not be able to screw it back in


----------



## qqwref (Dec 5, 2014)

guysensei1 said:


> What is God's number for Roux L6E if:
> 1)We allowed only <M,U> to be used? STM here.
> 2)We allowed all faces of the cube to turn? HTM here.


For question 1: 20 STM or 23 SQTM.


Spoiler



STM:

```
Moves	Positions
0	1
1	6
2	18
3	54
4	161
5	472
6	1346
7	3523
8	8374
9	17254
10	31575
11	40622
12	40200
13	25959
14	10643
15	2816
16	882
17	320
18	80
19	12
20	2
Total positions: 184320

2 antipodes:
U M U M U M U2 M' U2 M U M' U' M U' M' U' M U' M2
U M U M U M U' M U' M U2 M U' M' U' M' U2 M U M2
```

SQTM:

```
Moves	Positions
0	1
1	4
2	10
3	24
4	58
5	140
6	338
7	816
8	1909
9	4296
10	8893
11	17160
12	28891
13	37996
14	37678
15	27186
16	13051
17	4128
18	1199
19	372
20	122
21	36
22	10
23	2
Total positions: 184320

2 antipodes:
U2 M2 U M U2 M' U M U M' U M U M' U' M' U' M U M'
U2 M2 U M U2 M' U M' U M' U' M U' M U M' U M U M
```




2) Good question, not sure if there's an easy way to do this, since it can't be done in ksolve and there would be 184320 positions to check (so you'd have to generate them all and feed them through a solver). If it helps, the antipodes listed above all have 15f* solutions (e.g. R F' B' U R' L B' R2 F' L2 B U' D R' D2 (15f*)).


----------



## IRNjuggle28 (Dec 9, 2014)

Trivia question that nobody will get: Out of those who do NOT have an official 3BLD mean, who has the fastest official 3BLD single?


Spoiler



Aron Puddy-Mathew, ranked 30 in the world


----------



## guysensei1 (Dec 11, 2014)

Who are some really fast Yau5 users? I know of Justin Thomas and Pedro Roque only.


----------



## IRNjuggle28 (Dec 11, 2014)

guysensei1 said:


> Who are some really fast Yau5 users? I know of Justin Thomas and Pedro Roque only.


Robert Yau. 
*trollface*


----------



## guysensei1 (Dec 11, 2014)

IRNjuggle28 said:


> Robert Yau.
> *trollface*



He uses Yau5?


----------



## scottishcuber (Dec 11, 2014)

guysensei1 said:


> He uses Yau5?



yes lol


----------



## IRNjuggle28 (Dec 20, 2014)

I JUST REALIZED MATYAS KUTI AND I HAVE THE SAME BIRTHDAY. THIS IS SERIOUSLY NOT OK.


----------



## guysensei1 (Dec 20, 2014)

IRNjuggle28 said:


> I JUST REALIZED MATYAS KUTI AND I HAVE THE SAME BIRTHDAY. THIS IS SERIOUSLY NOT OK.



OMYGOSHWHAT


----------



## Habs (Dec 20, 2014)

Well, I was solving my 2×2 the other day and it popped. Which has only happened 2 times before, I was having a hard time getting the piece back in and then I realized it had actually broke. So now I no longer have a 2x2 -_-


----------



## rjcaste (Dec 20, 2014)

I'm averaging a bit over 20 seconds and my last layer is about 5-10 seconds (my first two layers takes about 9-13 seconds). I notice I'm really slow with algs, for example my J Perm time attack best is only 1.46 and I normally, in execution on a random alg, take about 2-4 seconds. Is that normal?

I also sometimes get stuck in the middle of algorithms, as in catching, but I think that's something to do with tensioning or maybe lubing.


----------



## TDM (Dec 20, 2014)

Habs said:


> Well, I was solving my 2×2 the other day and it popped. Which has only happened 2 times before, I was having a hard time getting the piece back in and then I realized it had actually broke. So now I no longer have a 2x2 -_-


I broke my DaYan 2x2 centre piece... the cube still worked fine though; the only difference was that it popped more often.
But someone wanted to buy it, and now I now don't have a DaYan 2x2


----------



## guysensei1 (Dec 20, 2014)

Is JARCS messing up big time for anyone else? None of the displays show up.


----------



## TDM (Dec 20, 2014)

guysensei1 said:


> Is JARCS messing up big time for anyone else? None of the displays show up.


It isn't working for me either.


----------



## Berd (Dec 20, 2014)

Happy Birthday Faz! :*


----------



## Bindedsa (Dec 20, 2014)

What are the current rules on moves during inspection, as long as it's under 45* it's cool right?


----------



## guysensei1 (Dec 20, 2014)

Take a 6x6 and do the following:
Turn U by 15 degrees
Turn 2U by 15 degrees
Turn 3U by 15 degrees
Turn 4U by 15 degrees
Turn 5U by 15 degrees

You'll now have this cool fancy spiral looking cube. Let's say I was solving and stopped the timer with the cube looking like this. Would it be considered solved or +2?


----------



## Please Dont Ask (Dec 20, 2014)

guysensei1 said:


> Take a 6x6 and do the following:
> Turn U by 15 degrees
> Turn 2U by 15 degrees
> Turn 3U by 15 degrees
> ...



I say it is a +2 b'coz the U layer will also move when move the other 'U' layers
When you turn 3U by 15 degrees, The U layer would have moved by 45 degrees
But I might be wrong as well .
--Please correct me if im wrong


----------



## TDM (Dec 20, 2014)

Please Dont Ask said:


> I say it is a +2 b'coz the U layer will also move when move the other 'U' layers
> When you turn 3U by 15 degrees, The U layer would have moved by 45 degrees
> But I might be wrong as well .
> --Please correct me if im wrong


I don't know, I thought it was that each layer had to be <45 degrees from the layers adjacent to it, so it wouldn't be +2, but I'm not sure about this.


----------



## tseitsei (Dec 20, 2014)

It's solved.

You compare the misalignment to the adjacent layers only. 

For example you only compare U layer to 2U layer and not D- layer (or any other layer below 2U layer...)


----------



## guysensei1 (Dec 23, 2014)

If given a picture of all 6 sides of a scrambled cube, how hard would it be to manually figure out what the inverse scramble looks like? I know that:
1)number of edges that are misoriented are the same
2)pieces/blocks that are solved will show up on the inverse as solved, but their positions may change


----------



## deadmanlsh (Dec 23, 2014)

guysensei1 said:


> If given a picture of all 6 sides of a scrambled cube, how hard would it be to manually figure out what the inverse scramble looks like? I know that:
> 1)number of edges that are misoriented are the same
> 2)pieces/blocks that are solved will show up on the inverse as solved, but their positions may change



As with all problems regarding the formation of inverses (with limited information i.e. cubie colours only, no scramble etc.), the most practical way currently would be to reverse a BLD solution. If you memorised ABCDEFGH for the original scramble, Just colour the cube according to how a scramble with HGFEDCBA as the solution would look like.


----------



## Stefan (Dec 23, 2014)

guysensei1 said:


> If given a picture of all 6 sides of a scrambled cube, how hard would it be to manually figure out what the inverse scramble looks like?



If spot X holds piece Y, then in the inverse, spot Y holds piece X. So should be trivial.


----------



## theROUXbiksCube (Dec 23, 2014)

How to use JARCS for EO or Roux First block?
Vid much appreciated?


----------



## TDM (Dec 23, 2014)

theROUXbiksCube said:


> How to use JARCS for EO or Roux First block?
> Vid much appreciated?


Is JARCS actually working for you? It isn't for me...


----------



## theROUXbiksCube (Dec 23, 2014)

TDM said:


> Is JARCS actually working for you? It isn't for me...



Never used it but want to find more efficient blocks


----------



## TDM (Dec 23, 2014)

theROUXbiksCube said:


> Never used it but want to find more efficient blocks


No, I mean the website itself isn't working.


----------



## theROUXbiksCube (Dec 23, 2014)

Pictures aren't loading for you either?


----------



## TDM (Dec 23, 2014)

theROUXbiksCube said:


> Pictures aren't loading for you either?


Nope.


----------



## guysensei1 (Dec 24, 2014)

I've always wanted a timer that could hide all your solve times until you wanted them to show. This would prevent PB fails from nervousness. It would also be cool to hide all of them until an ao50 for example.




TDM said:


> Nope.



It's not just the pictures that don't work. The solver doesn't work either.

EDIT: I'm curious, does JARCS use brute force solving?


----------



## obelisk477 (Dec 24, 2014)

guysensei1 said:


> I've always wanted a timer that could hide all your solve times until you wanted them to show. This would prevent PB fails from nervousness. It would also be cool to hide all of them until an ao50 for example.



You could (in qqTimer for example) just move your window offscreen until it covers your times? Maybe it's different in other timers, idk I never use them.

EDIT: Now for my own thought; Isn't the direction of M arbitrary? Couldn't M just as easily have been M'? And E and S by extension


----------



## AlphaSheep (Dec 24, 2014)

obelisk477 said:


> EDIT: Now for my own thought; Isn't the direction of M arbitrary? Couldn't M just as easily have been M'? And E and S by extension



M, E and S are clockwise when looking down the x, y and z axis, so it's not arbitrary. Although x, y and z do make up a left-handed coordinate system, which is a little unusual.


----------



## obelisk477 (Dec 24, 2014)

AlphaSheep said:


> M, E and S are clockwise when looking down the x, y and z axis, so it's not arbitrary. Although x, y and z do make up a left-handed coordinate system, which is a little unusual.



That's what I meant by arbitrary. That the 'right hand coordinate system' could have been chosen instead.


----------



## guysensei1 (Dec 24, 2014)

obelisk477 said:


> That's what I meant by arbitrary. That the 'right hand coordinate system' could have been chosen instead.



Always annoyed me that y follows U, x follows R and z follows F but M does not follow R and neither does E (I think?)

EDIT: I've been messing around with 2 gen megaminx solving and I realised that the last layer corners aren't automatically solved (or can be AUFed to be solved) once the 'F2L' is solved. Why?


----------



## Cale S (Dec 24, 2014)

guysensei1 said:


> I've been messing around with 2 gen megaminx solving and I realised that the last layer corners aren't automatically solved (or can be AUFed to be solved) once the 'F2L' is solved. Why?



Do R2' U' R2 F2 R2' F2' U' F2 R2 F2' R2' U2 R2 U'. This is an edge 5-cycle, and edges can be solved 2-gen (I didn't use a 2-gen alg because this one is shorter). Now do a U move. It is now a corner 5-cycle, and because it was reached by doing an edge cycle and a U move, it can also be reached 2-gen, which means corner permutation can be changed in <R,U>.


----------



## TDM (Dec 24, 2014)

guysensei1 said:


> I've always wanted a timer that could hide all your solve times until you wanted them to show. This would prevent PB fails from nervousness. It would also be cool to hide all of them until an ao50 for example.


You can hide stats on qqTimer, or with Prisma, you can move the window down so the times/stats aren't on the screen.



> It's not just the pictures that don't work. The solver doesn't work either.
> 
> EDIT: I'm curious, does JARCS use brute force solving?


I noticed this too. I'm not sure whether the pictures not working is related to the solver not working or not.



Cale S said:


> Do R2' U' R2 F2 R2' F2' U' F2 R2 F2' R2' U2 R2 U'. This is an edge 5-cycle, and edges can be solved 2-gen (I didn't use a 2-gen alg because this one is shorter). Now do a U move. It is now a corner 5-cycle, and because it was reached by doing an edge cycle and a U move, it can also be reached 2-gen, which means corner permutation can be changed in <R,U>.


Why not just do R2 U2' R2' U' R2 U2' R2' to show you can permute them 2-gen?


----------



## Randomno (Dec 25, 2014)

Are you guys out enjoying Christmas or something? Madness.


----------



## IRNjuggle28 (Dec 25, 2014)

Randomno said:


> Are you guys out enjoying Christmas or something? Madness.


Heh. My family has been over, and I've hardly had a chance to cube.
To all fixed cross/dual cross solvers: if you had to give up the color(s) you solve right now and pick a new cross color, which would you choose?
To color neutral solvers, which cross color would you pick if you for some reason had to solve fixed cross for the rest of your cubing career?


----------



## Randomno (Dec 25, 2014)

IRNjuggle28 said:


> To all fixed cross/dual cross solvers: if you had to give up the color(s) you solve right now and pick a new cross color, which would you choose?
> To color neutral solvers, which cross color would you pick if you for some reason had to solve fixed cross for the rest of your cubing career?



Yellow or red.


----------



## guysensei1 (Dec 25, 2014)

IRNjuggle28 said:


> Heh. My family has been over, and I've hardly had a chance to cube.
> To all fixed cross/dual cross solvers: if you had to give up the color(s) you solve right now and pick a new cross color, which would you choose?
> To color neutral solvers, which cross color would you pick if you for some reason had to solve fixed cross for the rest of your cubing career?



White. Because that's the color of cross I use on big cubes.


----------



## MennoniteCuber1 (Dec 25, 2014)

Got a Fisher cube for Christmas and having trouble recognizing PLLs. Any pointers?


----------



## MennoniteCuber1 (Dec 25, 2014)

Sorry realized it's a YJ wheel.


----------



## guysensei1 (Dec 25, 2014)

MennoniteCuber1 said:


> Sorry realized it's a YJ wheel.



Track where the pieces should go to identify PLLs. So if you see that there are 3 corners needing to be cycled then it's an A perm and so on


----------



## Nilsibert (Dec 25, 2014)

Haven't practiced in a while, but somehow I got a 4x4 AO12 of about 1:07. Before I was always around 1:15 avg. Also, on 3x3 I still manage to get sub 15 averages, even a sub 13 AO5. The thing is that I mostly get good solves(11-13s) when I turn quite fast and just "kinda" look ahead. Rather than following pieces, I try to keep an overview over the whole cube as I'm solving. It's hard to do and doesn't always work, but when it does, it's awesome and I get good times. Going slower and trying to look ahead more makes me slower, as well as just spamming tps without looking ahead of course.

I wonder how people generally progress after sub 15? 

Btw am I the only one who has big problems learning COLL? PLL and OLL was fine, but COLL with all these cases based on the same OLL... I forget them all the time, or mistake them for another alg. I have the same problem with CLL on 2x2, which I decided to finally learn because I want to get into 2x2 more.


----------



## guysensei1 (Dec 25, 2014)

Nilsibert said:


> I wonder how people generally progress after sub 15?



For me... Once I broke sub-15 (~4 months ago?) I went from there to sub-14 in a week or two and then haven't improved since lol.


----------



## ThomasJE (Dec 25, 2014)

MennoniteCuber1 said:


> Got a Fisher cube for Christmas and having trouble recognizing PLLs. Any pointers?



I saw that and read it as 'Fischer Cube'. I guess I've been playing too much chess recently...


----------



## MennoniteCuber1 (Dec 25, 2014)

It's G perms mostly


----------



## guysensei1 (Dec 26, 2014)

Would anyone like to attempt the 4 limbs 3x3 relay? 

Basically, do right hand OH, left hand OH, right foot solving and left foot solving in any order (or all at once if you're insane) I would try it but I can't turn with one foot at all.


----------



## Nilsibert (Dec 26, 2014)

guysensei1 said:


> For me... Once I broke sub-15 (~4 months ago?) I went from there to sub-14 in a week or two and then haven't improved since lol.




That isn't really encouraging  But I would guess the best thing to do would be just to keep going with the "fast but still kinda looking ahead" during solves and going slow during untimed practice.


----------



## ryak2002 (Dec 27, 2014)

first time of the day 1:06.86
UUUUGGGGGGG... i have a feeling that it's going to be a bad cubing day.


----------



## Rocky0701 (Dec 27, 2014)

ryak2002 said:


> first time of the day 1:06.86
> UUUUGGGGGGG... i have a feeling that it's going to be a bad cubing day.


When I start out really bad like that, I just switch to another event for a while, then go back when I feel like it.


----------



## guysensei1 (Dec 28, 2014)

Didn't feel like bumping the sticker thread, so I posted here...

I hate hate HATE stickering the weilong V1. On one side of the corner piece, due to the way the pieces come together, there is a seam on the piece that causes stickers to look ugly on it. Trying to avoid that seam causes the sticker to be a little to off to one side. Anyone bothered by this or am I just too OCD to let it slide?


----------



## Cubeologist (Dec 28, 2014)

guysensei1 said:


> Anyone bothered by this or am I just too OCD to let it slide?



Yes. It makes the edge of the sticker heave up and you have to use the cube for weeks to get it to look normal. I have also noticed that it makes that part of the sticker more prone to chipping since it protrudes a bit more. I am glad that I am not the only one who was annoyed by this haha.


----------



## Randomno (Dec 28, 2014)

4. 27.979 L' B2 D2 F2 R2 U2 L U2 B2 L B2 U' R' D' R' B' D' L' F D 
5. 27.976 F B' L F R' F2 B L' F' D' F' L2 F D2 B2 D2 B L2 B' D2 F

Coincidence? I think not. Illuminati.


----------



## rjcaste (Dec 28, 2014)

IRNjuggle28 said:


> To all fixed cross/dual cross solvers: if you had to give up the color(s) you solve right now and pick a new cross color, which would you choose?
> To color neutral solvers, which cross color would you pick if you for some reason had to solve fixed cross for the rest of your cubing career?



Yellow, I'm fixed on white. I sometimes solve on yellow just for fun and it's not too bad, only a few seconds off my white times.


----------



## Randomno (Dec 29, 2014)

I only just realised Erik's 7.08 was beaten twice on the same day.

What was everyone's reaction when this happened?


----------



## Randomno (Dec 29, 2014)

Reddit thread about a cube solver somehow blew up.

http://www.reddit.com/r/InternetIsB...iksolve_a_website_to_help_you_solve_a_rubiks/


----------



## Tim Major (Dec 29, 2014)

Randomno said:


> I only just realised Erik's 7.08 was beaten twice on the same day.
> 
> What was everyone's reaction when this happened?



rowe shouldve won


----------



## Randomno (Dec 30, 2014)

I've done the lefty J perm so many times that I'm actually decent at it.


----------



## PenguinsDontFly (Dec 31, 2014)

how do you add hyperlinks (where you click on a word or phrase and it takes you to a website) in your signature?


----------



## Randomno (Dec 31, 2014)

PenguinsDontFly said:


> how do you add hyperlinks (where you click on a word or phrase and it takes you to a website) in your signature?



The same way you do for normal posts.


----------



## TDM (Dec 31, 2014)

PenguinsDontFly said:


> how do you add hyperlinks (where you click on a word or phrase and it takes you to a website) in your signature?


Highlight word, Ctrl+L
(L = Link)


----------



## Randomno (Dec 31, 2014)

TDM said:


> Highlight word, Ctrl+L
> (L = Link)



Huh, I never knew you could do it this way. I just use BBCode.


----------



## Randomno (Jan 1, 2015)




----------



## Stefan (Jan 3, 2015)

Just had one of those rare solves where I did the last layer with an *O*rientation alg, then another *O*rientation alg because the first one was a mistake, then a *P*ll-*S*kip. Accordingly, I call this the *OOPS* method.


----------



## guysensei1 (Jan 4, 2015)

Was I the only one who did 2 Look PLL with EP->CP instead of the other way around?


----------



## Lucas Wesche (Jan 4, 2015)

guysensei1 said:


> Was I the only one who did 2 Look PLL with EP->CP instead of the other way around?



I did 2 look PLL in this way too


----------



## Smiles (Jan 4, 2015)

Stefan said:


> Just had one of those rare solves where I did the last layer with an *O*rientation alg, then another *O*rientation alg because the first one was a mistake, then a *P*ll-*S*kip. Accordingly, I call this the *OOPS* method.



wow i do that all the time. i like the name of that.


----------



## guysensei1 (Jan 4, 2015)

Would anyone like to come up with a creative name for this COLL and its mirror? I'm coming up with a ZBLL U alg list and I've sorted them by COLL, with a name for each (2GLL, Diagswap, double bars, checkerboard are the 4 that I have used) and I'm clueless as to whats a good name for those 2 remaining COLLs. Help?


----------



## CriticalCubing (Jan 4, 2015)

guysensei1 said:


> Was I the only one who did 2 Look PLL with EP->CP instead of the other way around?



Sorry, but in 2 look PLL we do corners first and then edges. I dont know EP or CP full forms 

Question: 4x4 Colour Neutral vs Solving white and yellow all the time?


----------



## tseitsei (Jan 4, 2015)

CriticalCubing said:


> Sorry, but in 2 look PLL we do corners first and then edges. I dont know EP or CP full forms
> 
> Question: 4x4 Colour Neutral vs Solving white and yellow all the time?



You can just as well do 2-look PLL solving edges first and then corners


----------



## AlphaSheep (Jan 4, 2015)

guysensei1 said:


> Would anyone like to come up with a creative name for this COLL and its mirror?


I call them slash and backslash.

Edit: I should add that I didn't come up with this, but I can't remember where I got it.


----------



## imvelox (Jan 7, 2015)

Anyone knows if cubesmith's bright blue peels off as much as their standard blue?


----------



## ryak2002 (Jan 10, 2015)

why was StanleyCuber banned?


----------



## Berd (Jan 10, 2015)

ryak2002 said:


> why was StanleyCuber banned?


Another one bites the dust :*


----------



## PenguinsDontFly (Jan 10, 2015)

Why are movecount measurements all metric? For example: stm, obtm, qtm, htm. What would happen if stm was imperial?


----------



## ryak2002 (Jan 10, 2015)

Berd said:


> Another one bites the dust :*



what do you mean?


----------



## qqwref (Jan 11, 2015)

Here's an optimal random state Pyraminx scrambler in Javascript.
Only 926 bytes (!!!) without the <script> tags.


```
<script>document.write(function(){r=Math.random;var x=[],y=[],t="0103",u="3524",v="1245",w="1203",p=o=0;for(f=360;f--;){x[f]=[];for(g=4;g--;){d=f;e=[5,4];for(a=3;a<7;a++){e.splice(d%a,0,6-a);d=0|(d/a)}c=e[t[g]];e[t[g]]=e[u[g]];e[u[g]]=e[v[g]];e[v[g]]=c;for(a=0;a<4;a++){d*=6-a;for(c=0;c<6;c++){if(e[c]==a)break;d+=e[c]>a}}x[f][g]=d}}for(f=2592;f--;){y[f]=[];for(g=4;g--;){e=[];d=f;for(a=e[5]=0;a<5;a++){e[5]^=e[a]=d%2;d>>=1}for(a=6;a<=9;a++){e[a]=d%3;d=0|(d/3)}e[g+6]++;c=e[t[g]];e[t[g]]=e[u[g]];e[u[g]]=e[v[g]]^1;e[v[g]]=c;e[w[g]]^=1;for(a=9;a>5;a--)d=d*3+e[a]%3;for(a=5;a--;)d=d*2+e[a];y[f][g]=d}}while(p+o==0){p=0|r()*360;o=0|r()*2592}for(f=0;;f++)if(g=q(p,o,f,-1,"")){for(a=4;a--;)0|3*r()&&(g+=" "+"rulb"[a],0|r()*2&&(g+="'"));return g}function q(j,k,l,m,n){if(l){var a,d;for(d=0;d<4;d++){if(d-m){b=j;c=k;for(a=0;a<2;a++){b=x[b][d];c=y[c][d];if(e=q(b,c,l-1,d,n+"ULRB"[d]+(a?"' ":" ")))return e}}}return!1}else return j+k?!1:n}}())</script>
```

Here's a jsfiddle: http://jsfiddle.net/2unnhuhh/


----------



## Seanliu (Jan 11, 2015)

guysensei1 said:


> Would anyone like to come up with a creative name for this COLL and its mirror? I'm coming up with a ZBLL U alg list and I've sorted them by COLL, with a name for each (2GLL, Diagswap, double bars, checkerboard are the 4 that I have used) and I'm clueless as to whats a good name for those 2 remaining COLLs. Help?



U-Chameleon?


----------



## joshsailscga (Jan 14, 2015)

Anybody know what happened to Ian Bourn's 3x3 UWR? It disappeared from the wiki.


----------



## qqwref (Jan 14, 2015)

Looks like FailCuber removed it. Who's Ian Bourn?

EDIT: The only confirmation of the 3.63 that I can find is this old deleted wiki page http://webcache.googleusercontent.c...ndex.php/Ian_Bourn+&cd=10&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us which looks like Ian wrote it himself. Considering this is a very lucky solve I don't think it should really be counted, if it is even true, which I'm not so sure of (30 moves in 3.63 seconds, on an unknown scramble with an 8 move cross?).


----------



## IRNjuggle28 (Jan 14, 2015)

qqwref said:


> Looks like FailCuber removed it. Who's Ian Bourn?
> 
> EDIT: The only confirmation of the 3.63 that I can find is this old deleted wiki page http://webcache.googleusercontent.c...ndex.php/Ian_Bourn+&cd=10&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us which looks like Ian wrote it himself. Considering this is a very lucky solve I don't think it should really be counted, if it is even true, which I'm not so sure of (30 moves in 3.63 seconds, on an unknown scramble with an 8 move cross?).



It was discussed in one of the facebook groups. Kennan and some others know him and/or think it's legitimate. I don't know details, though.


----------



## ottozing (Jan 14, 2015)

IRNjuggle28 said:


> It was discussed in one of the facebook groups. Kennan and some others know him and/or think it's legitimate. I don't know details, though.



Yeah I know Ian and have good reason to believe it's legit. He hovers around 9-10 seconds usually and as you probably know, the solve was really lucky/easy. His comp avg is only low 11 because he doesn't get to compete much/gets really nervous.


----------



## FailCuber (Jan 14, 2015)

qqwref said:


> Looks like FailCuber removed it. Who's Ian Bourn?
> 
> EDIT: The only confirmation of the 3.63 that I can find is this old deleted wiki page http://webcache.googleusercontent.c...ndex.php/Ian_Bourn+&cd=10&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us which looks like Ian wrote it himself. Considering this is a very lucky solve I don't think it should really be counted, if it is even true, which I'm not so sure of (30 moves in 3.63 seconds, on an unknown scramble with an 8 move cross?).



I'm the one who removed it. I removed it because he was insulting Randommo
and I deleted the single because he is obviously a troll.


----------



## guysensei1 (Jan 14, 2015)

FailCuber said:


> I'm the one who removed it. I removed it because he was insulting Randommo
> and I deleted the single because he is obviously a troll.



Except that he is (pretty much) sub-10 and may well not be a troll.

EDIT: Also, isn't the UWR like 3.5something by Riley Woo?


----------



## TDM (Jan 14, 2015)

guysensei1 said:


> EDIT: Also, isn't the UWR like 3.5something by Riley Woo?


Yeah, this isn't even the UWR...


----------



## kcl (Jan 14, 2015)

FailCuber said:


> I'm the one who removed it. I removed it because he was insulting Randommo
> and I deleted the single because he is obviously a troll.



But he isn't.. Charlie removed the original page on unwarranted grounds, he was asking for it. You have no right to get involved in it and take down the page again as some kind of revenge. The single was legit, now please quit all this whining.


----------



## Ranzha (Jan 14, 2015)

If you don't know and love Ian, you're not paying attention.


----------



## waffle=ijm (Jan 14, 2015)

I'm pretty sure everyone knows Ian they just don't recognize him and constantly glance over him.


----------



## IRNjuggle28 (Jan 14, 2015)

waffle=ijm said:


> I'm pretty sure everyone knows Ian they just don't recognize him and constantly glance over him.


What's his username on here?


----------



## TDM (Jan 14, 2015)

IRNjuggle28 said:


> What's his username on here?


ianography


----------



## FailCuber (Jan 16, 2015)

What happend to Cube Authority?


----------



## Berd (Jan 16, 2015)

FailCuber said:


> What happend to Cube Authority?


Yeah that fizzled


----------



## guysensei1 (Jan 23, 2015)

Sometimes when trying to warm up for OH I can many many many solves without getting that 'warmed up' feeling in my fingers. 

And I can keep trying to warm up my hand until it gets tired and I still can't get normal times. Anyone else get this?


----------



## GG (Jan 23, 2015)

guysensei1 said:


> Would anyone like to come up with a creative name for this COLL and its mirror? I'm coming up with a ZBLL U alg list and I've sorted them by COLL, with a name for each (2GLL, Diagswap, double bars, checkerboard are the 4 that I have used) and I'm clueless as to whats a good name for those 2 remaining COLLs. Help?



Bowtie.


----------



## JemFish (Jan 28, 2015)

guysensei1 said:


> Sometimes when trying to warm up for OH I can many many many solves without getting that 'warmed up' feeling in my fingers.
> 
> And I can keep trying to warm up my hand until it gets tired and I still can't get normal times. Anyone else get this?



I remember a time when my piano teacher told me that the warmest part of your body are your armpits. So next time you prepare for a cubing session, stuff your hands up your armpits and smile.


----------



## brian724080 (Jan 28, 2015)

guysensei1 said:


> Sometimes when trying to warm up for OH I can many many many solves without getting that 'warmed up' feeling in my fingers.
> 
> And I can keep trying to warm up my hand until it gets tired and I still can't get normal times. Anyone else get this?



I have that feeling too, but for a different reason. My times are fairly bad when they're cold, so it feels like I can do many solves...


----------



## Animorpher13 (Jan 28, 2015)

same thing happens to me. I just try to resist the urge to cube (although that rarely works XD)


----------



## obelisk477 (Jan 28, 2015)

guysensei1 said:


> Sometimes when trying to warm up for OH I can many many many solves without getting that 'warmed up' feeling in my fingers.
> 
> And I can keep trying to warm up my hand until it gets tired and I still can't get normal times. Anyone else get this?



Maru


----------



## Iggy (Feb 11, 2015)

Top 1000 for 3x3 single is now sub 10!


----------



## guysensei1 (Feb 11, 2015)

Iggy said:


> Top 1000 for 3x3 single is now sub 10!



holy crud


----------



## Berd (Feb 11, 2015)

Iggy said:


> Top 1000 for 3x3 single is now sub 10!



Amazing!


----------



## Torch (Feb 11, 2015)

Apparently Feliks is from Alabama?


----------



## TDM (Feb 11, 2015)

JARCS is working again (the last time I saw someone talk about JARCS was when it wasn't working, so I don't know if other people have seen this)


----------



## guysensei1 (Feb 16, 2015)

TDM said:


> JARCS is working again (the last time I saw someone talk about JARCS was when it wasn't working, so I don't know if other people have seen this)


It's been working since some weeks ago.


What is the probability that a random state scramble (that is WCA legal) on 3x3 is self inverse?


----------



## CyanSandwich (Feb 16, 2015)

Huh, well this is pretty cool I guess.

current avg5: 15.00 (σ = 0.31)
best avg5: 15.00 (σ = 0.31)

current avg12: 16.00 (σ = 1.12)
best avg12: 16.00 (σ = 1.12)


----------



## megaminxwin (Feb 17, 2015)

There hasn't been a single world record in any event since the 14th of December, which makes this the longest drought since 2005, and the sixth longest time overall.

Weird.


----------



## Torch (Feb 17, 2015)

I met someone who actually knew something about cubing today! I was cubing while waiting for lunch at a restaurant, and the waiter told me that his wife was a cuber. He knew about speedcubes and the Moyu 13x13, though he did drop the "used to peel the stickers off" line. All in all, pretty cool!


----------



## Berd (Feb 17, 2015)

Torch said:


> I met someone who actually knew something about cubing today! I was cubing while waiting for lunch at a restaurant, and the waiter told me that his wife was a cuber. He knew about speedcubes and the Moyu 13x13, though he did drop the "used to peel the stickers off" line. All in all, pretty cool!


Sneaklyfox?!


----------



## whauk (Feb 18, 2015)

guysensei1 said:


> What is the probability that a random state scramble (that is WCA legal) on 3x3 is self inverse?



According to this thesis https://people.kth.se/~boij/kandexjobbVT11/Material/rubikscube.pdf (p. 60) there are 170911549183 elements in the cube group of order two. There are 6 states (rotate some face 180°) that are not WCA legal. So the probability is 170911549177/43252003274489856000 which is about 4*10^{-9}


----------



## PenguinsDontFly (Feb 18, 2015)

Berd said:


> Sneaklyfox?!



Georgia is far from ontario...


----------



## IAssemble (Feb 18, 2015)

Torch said:


> I met someone who actually knew something about cubing today! I was cubing while waiting for lunch at a restaurant, and the waiter told me that his wife was a cuber. He knew about speedcubes and the Moyu 13x13, though he did drop the "used to peel the stickers off" line. All in all, pretty cool!



Cool!

I was sitting in a coffee shop idly solving a cube a few days ago and got chatting to somebody who asked me if I'd seen the video of CUBESTORMER 3 on the internet? You should have seen his expression when I told him who I was!?!?!?!


----------



## Berd (Feb 18, 2015)

IAssemble said:


> Cool!
> 
> I was sitting in a coffee shop idly solving a cube a few days ago and got chatting to somebody who asked me if I'd seen the video of CUBESTORMER 3 on the internet? You should have seen his expression when I told him who I was!?!?!?!


Haha, that would be funny.


----------



## IAssemble (Feb 18, 2015)

Berd said:


> Haha, that would be funny.



It really happened!


----------



## FailCuber (Feb 18, 2015)

Has anyone got banned in a certain sub forums for a very long time?? I am banned in the WCA regulations forums for 6 months for saying feet is a dirty event.


----------



## SolveThatCube (Feb 18, 2015)

FailCuber said:


> Has anyone got banned in a certain sub forums for a very long time?? I am banned in the WCA regulations forums for 6 months for saying feet is a dirty event.



Well you should be.


----------



## guysensei1 (Feb 18, 2015)

FailCuber said:


> Has anyone got banned in a certain sub forums for a very long time?? I am banned in the WCA regulations forums for 6 months for saying feet is a dirty event.



That can't be all you did right?


----------



## theROUXbiksCube (Feb 18, 2015)

FailCuber said:


> Has anyone got banned in a certain sub forums for a very long time?? I am banned in the WCA regulations forums for 6 months for saying feet is a dirty event.



Srsly?


----------



## penguinz7 (Feb 18, 2015)

Feet *is* a dirty event.


----------



## TDM (Feb 18, 2015)

penguinz7 said:


> Feet *is* a dirty event.


Not if you clean your feet!


----------



## penguinz7 (Feb 18, 2015)

TDM said:


> Not if you clean your feet!



Yeah, but do people ever actually do that at a comp?


----------



## Mike Hughey (Feb 18, 2015)

penguinz7 said:


> Yeah, but do people ever actually do that at a comp?



I always do (when competing in feet). I keep several packets of wipes in my cubing bag for just that purpose.


----------



## penguinz7 (Feb 18, 2015)

Mike Hughey said:


> I always do (when competing in feet). I keep several packets of wipes in my cubing bag for just that purpose.



I'm glad to hear that, but honestly I would feel really awkward doing that in front of a bunch of people..


----------



## IRNjuggle28 (Feb 19, 2015)

The "difficulty" of feet is doing an equivalent task (solving a 3x3) with a clumsier tool (feet instead of hands). That's really, really pointless. You're not even solving a more difficult puzzle, you're just arbitrarily restricting the amount of coordination you're allowed to use to solve it. Feet ARE cleaner than hands, but most of the people who complain about the hygiene of feet solving are really just looking for an excuse to get feet out of the official events, which I don't blame them for doing since it's really ****ing stupid.


----------



## obelisk477 (Feb 19, 2015)

IRNjuggle28 said:


> You're not even solving a more difficult puzzle, you're just arbitrarily restricting the amount of coordination you're allowed to use to solve it.



Now I wonder what other events this could describe...hmm


----------



## Berd (Feb 19, 2015)

obelisk477 said:


> Now I wonder what other events this could describe...hmm


OH dear... I dOHn't know what that could be...


----------



## guysensei1 (Feb 19, 2015)

Berd said:


> OH dear... I dOHn't know what that could be...


I think I can single handedly answer this question. Wait... No. I can't... Dang i forgot


----------



## penguinz7 (Feb 19, 2015)

So when are they adding OF?


----------



## theROUXbiksCube (Feb 19, 2015)

penguinz7 said:


> So when are they adding OF?



The WCA should be "hopping" to it real soon.


----------



## TDM (Feb 19, 2015)

74. 12.09 F2 D2 B2 U2 R2 U B2 F2 D' L2 U' L B D F R2 U' R2 F L B2 D
75. 12.37 B2 R2 B2 U' F2 U' L2 D F2 D2 R2 B D' F' R L U' F2 D' U2 R2 L2
76. 14.38 B2 D' B2 R2 D' L2 F2 D' U F2 L2 F U R2 D U' R2 B' L B' F U
77. 16.25 F2 D2 U F2 L2 D B2 L2 B2 D2 L2 F' R2 B R2 L' F' D' F D B'

74, 75 and 77 all had the same LL except AUFs (R U2 R D R' U2 R D' R2).


----------



## TDM (Feb 20, 2015)

One million posts.


----------



## penguinz7 (Feb 20, 2015)

TDM said:


> One million posts.


----------



## FailCuber (Feb 20, 2015)

TDM said:


> One million posts.
> 
> http://i.imgur.com/vWoLCaP.png



Who's the guy who posted the 1 millionth post?


----------



## Stefan (Feb 20, 2015)

FailCuber said:


> Who's the guy who posted the 1 millionth post?



[post=1000000][noparse][post=1000000]...[/post][/noparse][/post]


----------



## Berd (Feb 20, 2015)

TDM said:


> One million posts.
> 
> http://i.imgur.com/vWoLCaP.png


Gj guys


----------



## Mike Hughey (Feb 20, 2015)

Stefan said:


> [post=1000000][noparse][post=1000000]...[/post][/noparse][/post]



I am very happy that it was Mats who did it.


----------



## martinss (Feb 20, 2015)

Stefan said:


> [post=1000000][noparse][post=1000000]...[/post][/noparse][/post]


Your post is the 1061780th :[post=1061780]1061780[/post] but 

SpeedSolving.com Puzzle Forum Statistics:
Threads : 41,081
Posts : 1,000,085
Members : 25,953
Welcome to our newest member, vietducvinamilk

-> Something doesn't work ? (maybe the statistics doesn't count the deleted posts whereas [noparse][post=xxx]...[/post][/noparse] does...). I think FailCuber asked about the 1000000th undeleted post...


----------



## TDM (Feb 20, 2015)

martinss said:


> -> Something doesn't work ? (maybe the statistics doesn't count the deleted posts whereas [noparse][post=xxx]...[/post][/noparse] does...). I think FailCuber asked about the 1000000th undeleted post...


Yes, this is it. Even if a post is deleted, its number doesn't get given to a new post, so the millionth post by its number isn't the same as the millionth undeleted post.


----------



## martinss (Feb 20, 2015)

So is there a way to know the guy who made the statistics going from 999.999 to 1.000.000 posts ?


----------



## Stefan (Feb 20, 2015)

martinss said:


> So is there a way to know the guy who made the statistics going from 999.999 to 1.000.000 posts ?



Possibly for the mods, but not for us, as we can't see what got deleted when.


----------



## guysensei1 (Feb 23, 2015)

What's the smallest N such that on a 3x3 there exists a depth-N position that can be (nontrivially) attained in N+1 moves too?


----------



## qqwref (Feb 23, 2015)

I don't know about the smallest, but off the top of my head, FRUR'U'F' U = U' RBUB'U'R' U2 and U F2U2F2U2F2 U = R2F2U2R2U2F2R2U2.

edit: D2 R2 L2 U = U2 R2 L2 D2 U'


----------



## joshsailscga (Feb 24, 2015)

I found out today that qqtimer has a subset for pll scrambles, and it just gave me a scramble of nothing. It literally said "scramble:_________________". I just thought that was funny. 

Also, I got through 260 pll's (including 5 different auf's) before it gave me a z-perm.


----------



## Smiles (Feb 25, 2015)

qqwref said:


> D2 R2 L2 U = U2 R2 L2 D2 U'



I was thinking:
U' L2 B L B' = U2 F' L F L2 U

5:6 not shorter but pretty good


----------



## guysensei1 (Mar 3, 2015)

What's the shortest algorithm that can affect (unsolve?) 4 corners pure? Doesn't matter where they are or how the 4 corners are affected. Can be a 2-2 swap or a 4 corner twist or 1 corner twisted and a 3 cycle.

What's the shortest for 5 corners?


----------



## Stefan (Mar 3, 2015)

guysensei1 said:


> What's the shortest algorithm that can affect (unsolve?) 4 corners pure?



U 

Don't know about shortest, but X perm or sexy3 are decent.

What do you want this for?


----------



## guysensei1 (Mar 3, 2015)

Stefan said:


> U
> 
> Don't know about shortest, but X perm or sexy3 are decent.
> 
> What do you want this for?



'Pure' as in without affecting anything else 

I don't really want this for anything. Just curiosity.


----------



## Stefan (Mar 3, 2015)

guysensei1 said:


> 'Pure' as in without affecting anything else



I know. Why do you say that again? Did you not check the link?


----------



## guysensei1 (Mar 3, 2015)

Stefan said:


> I know. Why do you say that again? Did you not check the link?



Hahahah, i see what you did there


----------



## Berd (Mar 3, 2015)

Off the top of my head, triple sledgehammer or sexy move is only 12 moves.


----------



## AlphaSheep (Mar 3, 2015)

X perm can be done in 10 moves which is move optimal afaik... http://alg.cubing.net/?alg=F2_L2_R2_B2_D_B2_R2_L2_F2_U


----------



## Berd (Mar 5, 2015)

A review from The Cubicle's 13x13 page: 

When I received this package at my doorstep, I couldn't believe the size of it. I am not one for working out to often, so I knew that there was no way I could lift the package into my home. After hours of intense thinking and planning, I decided that the most efficient way of transporting this package into my house was not to bring the package to my house; but bring my house to my package! It was genius! I arranged a few guys to come over and demolish my home. But don't worry we rebuilt it a few inches over so that the package had a roof covering it. But the challenges were still not over... I had to find a way to open the package that contained the moyu 13x13. All of my knifes were in the dish washer. Then I remembered I had 20 sharp objects, my teeth! I fast as I could I bit around the package. The swallowed and spit out cardboard. Then I saw it... The 13x13 laid right in front of my eyes. My heart raced and pounded against my chest. Little did I know but in the next 3 seconds I was to pass out! Minutes past by until I woke up. This was it, now was the time I would turn the moyu 13x13! I lined my hands up against the edges of the cube. My muscles vibrated as I readied myself. The soft layers of the cube turned with ease and I squealed with joy! After seconds of playing the puzzle popped! I didn't feel like putting it back together, so I just threw it away. Overall I really enjoyed my time with the moyu 13x13 and I think you should get it. 

I found it pretty funny.


----------



## biscuit (Mar 5, 2015)

Berd said:


> A review from The Cubicle's 13x13 page:
> 
> (...)
> 
> I found it pretty funny.



I would agree with that


----------



## martinss (Mar 5, 2015)

Berd said:


> A review from The Cubicle's 13x13 page:
> 
> When I received this package at my doorstep, I couldn't believe the size of it. I am not one for working out to often, so I knew that there was no way I could lift the package into my home. After hours of intense thinking and planning, I decided that the most efficient way of transporting this package into my house was not to bring the package to my house; but bring my house to my package! It was genius! I arranged a few guys to come over and demolish my home. But don't worry we rebuilt it a few inches over so that the package had a roof covering it. But the challenges were still not over... I had to find a way to open the package that contained the moyu 13x13. All of my knifes were in the dish washer. Then I remembered I had 20 sharp objects, my teeth! I fast as I could I bit around the package. The swallowed and spit out cardboard. Then I saw it... The 13x13 laid right in front of my eyes. My heart raced and pounded against my chest. Little did I know but in the next 3 seconds I was to pass out! Minutes past by until I woke up. This was it, now was the time I would turn the moyu 13x13! I lined my hands up against the edges of the cube. My muscles vibrated as I readied myself. The soft layers of the cube turned with ease and I squealed with joy! After seconds of playing the puzzle popped! I didn't feel like putting it back together, so I just threw it away. Overall I really enjoyed my time with the moyu 13x13 and I think you should get it.
> 
> I found it pretty funny.



I don't understand the meaning of this review (my english isn't very good). Is he exaggerating the fact that it's a very big cube and inventing a fake story about that ? (In this case, i would admit that it's a bit funny too.)


----------



## StachuK1992 (Mar 5, 2015)

Yes, that is the joke.


----------



## cuBerBruce (Mar 7, 2015)

guysensei1 said:


> What's the shortest algorithm that can affect (unsolve?) 4 corners pure? Doesn't matter where they are or how the 4 corners are affected. Can be a 2-2 swap or a 4 corner twist or 1 corner twisted and a 3 cycle.
> 
> What's the shortest for 5 corners?





AlphaSheep said:


> X perm can be done in 10 moves which is move optimal afaik... http://alg.cubing.net/?alg=F2_L2_R2_B2_D_B2_R2_L2_F2_U



That X-perm alg is indeed optimal, and there are no cases for 4 bad corners in less than 10 moves. So 10 is minimal for 4 bad corners.

The only "n bad corners" cases (n > 0) less than 10 moves are corner 3-cycles and this 6 bad corners case (and symmetrical equivalences):

(U2 R2 F2)3


----------



## qqwref (Mar 8, 2015)

Assuming the cubecomps results are correct, IranFMC 2015 is a very silly competition.

14 competitors - of which 6 (43%) got no successful solves at all. In fact, 64% of solves were DNF or DNS. The best three solves were 29, 30, 32 - but those cubers did not get means. Nobody else got a solve under 37 moves. Actually, only two people (14%) got a mean, and the winning mean was 52.33 moves, which is roughly the same as a high-end CFOP speedsolve.

Pretty bad... but not quite as bad as Java FMC Cube Day 2010


----------



## guysensei1 (Mar 8, 2015)

qqwref said:


> Assuming the cubecomps results are correct, IranFMC 2015 is a very silly competition.
> 
> 14 competitors - of which 6 (43%) got no successful solves at all. In fact, 64% of solves were DNF or DNS. The best three solves were 29, 30, 32 - but those cubers did not get means. Nobody else got a solve under 37 moves. Actually, only two people (14%) got a mean, and the winning mean was 52.33 moves, which is roughly the same as a high-end CFOP speedsolve.
> 
> Pretty bad... but not quite as bad as Java FMC Cube Day 2010



Wasn't there this one other comp where almost everyone had a DNF average for 3x3?


----------



## cuBerBruce (Mar 9, 2015)

guysensei1 said:


> What's the shortest for 5 corners?



I believe I have solved all symmetrically distinct pure 5 bad corners cases in Cube Explorer. The minimal move count is 10. All 10-move cases are 5-cycles.

U2 F U2 R2 D2 L2 B L2 D2 R2 (10f*)
F' U2 F U2 L' U2 F' U2 F L (10f*)
F R' U2 R U2 F' U2 R' U2 R (10f*)
U F2 R' F2 U' F2 U R U' F2 (10f*)
B U B' L2 B L2 U' L2 B' L2 (10f*)
F2 U2 L F2 L' U2 F2 L' U2 L (10f*)
F U2 R2 D2 L2 B L2 D2 R2 U2 (10f*)
L' B2 U2 L' B2 L U2 B2 L U2 (10f*)
F2 R' F2 U' F2 R F2 R' U R (10f*)
L2 U' B U L2 U' L2 B' L2 U (10f*)
U L2 U' B U L2 U' L2 B' L2 (10f*)
L2 B L2 U L2 U' B' U L2 U' (10f*)
R2 F' R2 F U' F' R2 F R2 U (10f*)
U F2 R F2 R' U' R F2 R' F2 (10f*)
U' R2 F' R2 U R2 U' F U R2 (10f*)
R2 U' F' U R2 U' R2 F R2 U (10f*)
F2 D R2 D' F2 R2 D' F2 D R2 (10f*)
F2 R' F2 U F2 R F2 R' U' R (10f*)
F U' F' R2 F R2 U R2 F' R2 (10f*)
L2 B2 U' B2 L2 F2 R2 D' R2 F2 (10f*)
R2 D R2 B' R2 B D' B' R2 B (10f*)
R2 F' R2 F U F' R2 F R2 U' (10f*)
B U2 L' U2 L B' L' U2 L U2 (10f*)
B U2 B' L' B U2 B' U2 L U2 (10f*)

Incidentally, the worst case optimal move count was 17. These are pure 5-twist cases.
R' F2 U R U' L2 B2 U' B2 U B2 L2 R' F2 U R U' (17f*)
U' L2 R D2 B2 L' D2 F L' F' R2 U2 F' R' F' R2 U' (17f*)

EDIT:
I now believe I have solved all symmetrically distinct cases for 4 bad corners with Cube Explorer. The minimal cases are all double swaps:

F2 D B2 L2 D' F2 U B2 R2 U' (10f*)
R2 F2 D L2 D' F2 R2 U B2 U' (10f*)
R2 B D2 B' R2 U2 F L2 F' U2 (10f*)
L2 R2 D2 F' D2 L2 R2 U2 B' U2 (10f*)
R' D2 B2 F2 U2 L' D2 B2 F2 U2 (10f*)

The worst case is 16 moves. All 16-move cases are pure twists.

F' U2 F U2 F2 R' D' F' L F2 L' D R U' F' U' (16f*)
R F2 U' L' R' D L R U F2 R' D U L' D' U' (16f*)
U' R B L2 F' U2 R2 F R' D2 R' U2 F L2 R' U' (16f*)


----------



## josh42732 (Mar 15, 2015)

Now this is the life. Solving 5x5 and listening to jazz. If only I was fast....


----------



## guysensei1 (Mar 21, 2015)

top 11 for 3x3 average is sub-8. Holy


----------



## qqwref (Mar 21, 2015)

https://www.worldcubeassociation.org/results/p.php?i=2013CRPT03

WCA ID is not what you'd expect from his name... and he has a -03 suffix, but there is no 2013CRPT01 or 2013CRPT02.


----------



## Randomno (Mar 21, 2015)

qqwref said:


> https://www.worldcubeassociation.org/results/p.php?i=2013CRPT03
> 
> WCA ID is not what you'd expect from his name... and he has a -03 suffix, but there is no 2013CRPT01 or 2013CRPT02.



 I've only known WCA to exclude letters in ID if they're special characters.


----------



## TDM (Mar 21, 2015)

I don't think anybody noticed, but a few weeks ago, Mats' WR was 2 years old. I don't think it'll make it a third year...


----------



## AlexMaass (Mar 21, 2015)

TDM said:


> I don't think anybody noticed, but a few weeks ago, Mats' WR was 2 years old. I don't think it'll make it a third year...



im going to be disappointed if feliks doesn't get it on his next comp (he probably won't get it)


----------



## Randomno (Mar 21, 2015)

TDM said:


> I don't think anybody noticed, but a few weeks ago, Mats' WR was 2 years old. I don't think it'll make it a third year...



Yeah, Stefan posted about the anniversary in the WR thread and several people thought there was a new single WR.


----------



## Smiles (Mar 22, 2015)

Does anyone know where I can find HLS algs?
that would be OLS with a split pair.

I looked at the youtube channel that was made for OLS but they dont have HLS.


----------



## pdilla (Mar 22, 2015)

Smiles said:


> Does anyone know where I can find HLS algs?
> that would be OLS with a split pair.
> 
> I looked at the youtube channel that was made for OLS but they dont have HLS.



Isn't OLS a combination of VLS and HLS?

*EDIT---*

Ah, but it's not there. Only VLS and WV algs. My mistake.


----------



## guysensei1 (Mar 24, 2015)

View attachment 5014

Making force cube Weilongs again. A look at the distribution of each of the 6 colors of torpedoes and corner piece thingies.


----------



## Randomno (Mar 25, 2015)

I always get a really fast solve after watching a bunch of example solves. After a few solves though, I'm back to a sup 20 pausefest.


----------



## Smiles (Mar 25, 2015)

Randomno said:


> I always get a really fast solve after watching a bunch of example solves. After a few solves though, I'm back to a sup 20 pausefest.



then keep watching example solves.
I can do an example solve in 19 seconds, so if you look ahead a lot you can definitely sub 20 more often!


----------



## qqwref (Mar 25, 2015)

R U R' d R' U R U R' U2 R U y R U R'


----------



## guysensei1 (Mar 25, 2015)

qqwref said:


> R U R' d R' U R U R' U2 R U y R U R'



It's... An A perm?


----------



## TheCoolMinxer (Mar 28, 2015)

http://m.cubecomps.com/competitions/868/events/20/rounds/2/results

I wonder what the scramble was...


----------



## Lucas Wesche (Mar 28, 2015)

TheCoolMinxer said:


> http://m.cubecomps.com/competitions/868/events/20/rounds/2/results
> 
> I wonder what the scramble was...



lol, I wish I was there


----------



## Randomno (Mar 28, 2015)

How long should Floppy Cube scrambles be? qq gives me 25, cs gives me 4.


----------



## martinss (Mar 28, 2015)

Randomno said:


> How long should Floppy Cube scrambles be? qq gives me 25, cs gives me 4.



Floppy Cube God's number is 8 (http://www.jaapsch.net/puzzles/floppy.htm). So with a 4-move-scramble, you can get only 92 states / 192 possible states.


----------



## qqwref (Mar 29, 2015)

It should probably be random state. I'm too lazy to write one though.


----------



## Berd (Mar 29, 2015)

TheCoolMinxer said:


> http://m.cubecomps.com/competitions/868/events/20/rounds/2/results
> 
> I wonder what the scramble was... [emoji14]


Scramble 5 looked good!


----------



## TDM (Mar 29, 2015)

qqwref said:


> It should probably be random state. I'm too lazy to write one though.


While we're talking about random state scrambles... why is it that qqtimer.net doesn't have random state Skewb scrambles, but mzrg.com/qqtimer does?


----------



## martinss (Mar 29, 2015)

qqwref said:


> It should probably be random state. I'm too lazy to write one though.



Here's one :

```
[URL="https://ideone.com/4mkVZp"]
from random import * 
i=randrange(0,192)
P= "LFRFRFRFRFRFLFRFRFRFRLRFRFRFRFRFRLRFRFRFRFRFRLR"
devilalg = P+"F"+P+"B"+P+"F"+P+"B"
print devilalg[:i][/URL]
```
I know scrambles are way too long... I'm too lazy to write a program which do shorter ones...


----------



## qqwref (Mar 29, 2015)

TDM said:


> While we're talking about random state scrambles... why is it that qqtimer.net doesn't have random state Skewb scrambles, but mzrg.com/qqtimer does?


Don't use qqtimer.net. I can't get onto it to update, so it is a very old version.


----------



## TDM (Mar 29, 2015)

qqwref said:


> Don't use qqtimer.net. I can't get onto it to update, so it is a very old version.


I don't usually, but mzrg.com is blocked on my college's wifi, so I use it occasionally. But most of the time, when I don't want to use Prisma, I use mzrg.com/qqtimer.


----------



## Stefan (Mar 30, 2015)

Stefan said:


> Just had one of those rare solves where I did the last layer with an *O*rientation alg, then another *O*rientation alg because the first one was a mistake, then a *P*ll-*S*kip. Accordingly, I call this the *OOPS* method.



OOPS - I did it again.


----------



## Randomno (Mar 30, 2015)

Stefan said:


> OOPS - I did it again.



Can I have a cookie for knowing what you were talking about before seeing the quote?


----------



## Stefan (Mar 30, 2015)

Randomno said:


> Can I have a cookie for knowing what you were talking about before seeing the quote?



But do you also know the song?

If yes, then take as many as you like.


----------



## Randomno (Mar 30, 2015)

Stefan said:


> But do you also know the song?
> 
> If yes, then take as many as you like.



I haven't played that in so long... I've earned 30 quintillion cookies since I left.


----------



## guysensei1 (Mar 30, 2015)

Stefan said:


> take as many as you like.



Do I also get cookies for guessing that it leads to cookie clicker?


----------



## Smiles (Mar 30, 2015)

guysensei1 said:


> Do I also get cookies for guessing that it leads to cookie clicker?



Do I also get cookies for guessing that someone will have a post about how they guessed it was cookie clicker before I could post about it?


----------



## PJKCuber (Mar 30, 2015)

Stefan said:


> OOPS - I did it again.



We should write a song about Object Oriented Programming in C++.


----------



## JemFish (Apr 1, 2015)

I was about to post a "[WR] Maskow - 45/45 MBLD (57:24)" as a hoax for April Fools, but thought better just in case anyone got offended (somehow), or if the administrators didn't like it.


----------



## IRNjuggle28 (Apr 1, 2015)

I have an idea for April Fools day that I hope qqwref or someone pulls someday. Someone who wrote and can edit a popular cube timer. 

Rig the timer so that it runs slower than it should. Make the timer count .8 or .9 for every full second for the day. Enough to significantly improve times, but not so fast that people notice that the timer is counting incorrectly. Everybody will think they're breaking their average PBs and flip out over being 10-20% faster overnight. Then, the next day, let the forum know what you did, and that they weren't actually faster than usual. 

I don't know how easy programming a timer to do that is, or whether Michael or anyone else would be mean enough to do this to the rest of us.


----------



## Bindedsa (Apr 1, 2015)

IRNjuggle28 said:


> I have an idea for April Fools day that I hope qqwref or someone pulls someday. Someone who wrote and can edit a popular cube timer.
> 
> Rig the timer so that it runs slower than it should. Make the timer count .8 or .9 for every full second for the day. Enough to significantly improve times, but not so fast that people notice that the timer is counting incorrectly. Everybody will think they're breaking their average PBs and flip out over being 10-20% faster overnight. Then, the next day, let the forum know what you did, and that they weren't actually faster than usual.
> 
> I don't know how easy programming a timer to do that is, or whether Michael or anyone else would be mean enough to do this to the rest of us.



I feel like he might have done this before. I might be completely wrong though.


----------



## CyanSandwich (Apr 1, 2015)

That did happen at some point, but I can't remember if it was intentional or not.


----------



## JemFish (Apr 1, 2015)

As of April the 1st, 2015, there have been 37 024 people who have officially solved a Rubik's Cube, and only 1 person (Zoe Orphanides from Cyprus) took more than 10 minutes to solve one.

*EDIT*:

And she is ranked no. 2 in Cyprus for her single.


----------



## Iwill Cube (Apr 1, 2015)

Those are some cool magics


----------



## qqwref (Apr 1, 2015)

(Not April Fools) I wonder if I'm one of the oldest cubers to get an official 10.xx 3x3 average. I'll probably get a sub-10 eventually if I keep cubing, but yeah, 10 will do for now 



IRNjuggle28 said:


> I have an idea for April Fools day that I hope qqwref or someone pulls someday. Someone who wrote and can edit a popular cube timer.
> 
> Rig the timer so that it runs slower than it should. Make the timer count .8 or .9 for every full second for the day. Enough to significantly improve times, but not so fast that people notice that the timer is counting incorrectly. Everybody will think they're breaking their average PBs and flip out over being 10-20% faster overnight. Then, the next day, let the forum know what you did, and that they weren't actually faster than usual.


Last year for April Fools I set qqtimer to run at a *random* speed from 0.6x to 1.4x. It would choose it when you loaded up the page, and then stay that way. So some people got a faster timer, some people got a slower one... hehe


----------



## Smiles (Apr 1, 2015)

qqwref said:


> Last year for April Fools I set qqtimer to run at a *random* speed from 0.6x to 1.4x. It would choose it when you loaded up the page, and then stay that way. So some people got a faster timer, some people got a slower one... hehe



i keep a document of all my PBs...
you just made me check if i ever broke a PB on april 1st =.=
and turns out no i didn't, which is awesome

i probably got the 1.4x


----------



## IRNjuggle28 (Apr 1, 2015)

qqwref said:


> Last year for April Fools I set qqtimer to run at a *random* speed from 0.6x to 1.4x. It would choose it when you loaded up the page, and then stay that way. So some people got a faster timer, some people got a slower one... hehe


Oh wonderful. Glad you thought of it; that's too good a prank to never pull. It's obnoxiously wonderful. Too bad I (apparently) didn't use qqtimer that day!


----------



## guysensei1 (Apr 1, 2015)

JemFish said:


> As of April the 1st, 2015, there have been 37 024 people who have officially solved a Rubik's Cube, and only 1 person (Zoe Orphanides from Cyprus) took more than 10 minutes to solve one.
> 
> *EDIT*:
> 
> And she is ranked no. 2 in Cyprus for her single.


It was NR at some point.


----------



## Stefan (Apr 1, 2015)

JemFish said:


> only 1 person (Zoe Orphanides from Cyprus) took more than 10 minutes to solve one.



False.



IRNjuggle28 said:


> Rig the timer so that it runs slower than it should. Make the timer count .8 or .9 for every full second for the day.



That's an ******* idea because it hurts credibility in cubing. Think of forum competitions, record lists, etc not being valid. Not cool.


----------



## JemFish (Apr 1, 2015)

Stefan said:


> False.



Oh yes, I didn't think of that. I was only seeing the best single time, and only of one person.


----------



## Psyph3r (Apr 1, 2015)

My question, and i don't mean to be elitist, is how can you actually only be able to solve in 10 minutes. What method is there that takes you 10 minutes to do a 3x3. The only one that I can think of is not a method but rather a person who doesn't know how to solve the cube in any way other than massive iteration or even more intriguing a person who doesn't know a method but rather is intelligent enough to solve the cube while sitting in front of a timer without a method. 

Maybe the 10 minute solvers are actually the smartest among us.


----------



## bobthegiraffemonkey (Apr 1, 2015)

Psyph3r said:


> My question, and i don't mean to be elitist, is how can you actually only be able to solve in 10 minutes. What method is there that takes you 10 minutes to do a 3x3. The only one that I can think of is not a method but rather a person who doesn't know how to solve the cube in any way other than massive iteration or even more intriguing a person who doesn't know a method but rather is intelligent enough to solve the cube while sitting in front of a timer without a method.
> 
> Maybe the 10 minute solvers are actually the smartest among us.



Maybe they only know a beginner method and have practiced very little, so they have low tps, slow recognition and high movecount? I don't see what's so hard to understand here.


----------



## SpeedCubeReview (Apr 1, 2015)

It ow ld take me five minutes when I started. I can see 10 minutes for a beginner as possible


----------



## AlexMaass (Apr 1, 2015)

TheCoolMinxer said:


> http://m.cubecomps.com/competitions/868/events/20/rounds/2/results
> 
> I wonder what the scramble was...



only if Łukasz Burliga did better on that scramble...


----------



## Hssandwich (Apr 1, 2015)

AlexMaass said:


> only if Łukasz Burliga did better on that scramble...



I can't find any videos of the solve.


----------



## Ross The Boss (Apr 1, 2015)

IRNjuggle28 said:


> I have an idea for April Fools day that I hope qqwref or someone pulls someday. Someone who wrote and can edit a popular cube timer.
> 
> Rig the timer so that it runs slower than it should. Make the timer count .8 or .9 for every full second for the day. Enough to significantly improve times, but not so fast that people notice that the timer is counting incorrectly. Everybody will think they're breaking their average PBs and flip out over being 10-20% faster overnight. Then, the next day, let the forum know what you did, and that they weren't actually faster than usual.
> 
> I don't know how easy programming a timer to do that is, or whether Michael or anyone else would be mean enough to do this to the rest of us.



speaking as someone who has over 3000 times logged on qqtimer and is trying to track progression over 5000 solves (i didnt know that prisma was a thing untill i was already 2500 solves deep), i say that this would be pretty high up on the list of unfunny and asshatish pranks.


----------



## JemFish (Apr 2, 2015)

Psyph3r said:


> Maybe the 10 minute solvers are actually the smartest among us.



That may be very true. Just imagine Jessica Fridrich sitting there working out these OLLs and PLLs without the help of a computer. *ugh*


----------



## tseitsei (Apr 2, 2015)

> That's an ******* idea because it hurts credibility in cubing. Think of forum competitions, record lists, etc not being valid. Not cool.



Yeah. I totally agree with stefan here. That would just be idiotic idea to alter some popular timer used by so many speedcubers around the world... As already stated by stefan and rossthecuber people use trusted timers (like qqtimer) to participate in forum competitons and keep track of PBs so messing with them is very *********g stupid imo...


----------



## DeeDubb (Apr 2, 2015)

IRNjuggle28 said:


> I have an idea for April Fools day that I hope qqwref or someone pulls someday. Someone who wrote and can edit a popular cube timer.
> 
> Rig the timer so that it runs slower than it should. Make the timer count .8 or .9 for every full second for the day. Enough to significantly improve times, but not so fast that people notice that the timer is counting incorrectly. Everybody will think they're breaking their average PBs and flip out over being 10-20% faster overnight. Then, the next day, let the forum know what you did, and that they weren't actually faster than usual.
> 
> I don't know how easy programming a timer to do that is, or whether Michael or anyone else would be mean enough to do this to the rest of us.



qqref did it last year[/quote], I remember getting angry because I thought my 27 second PB (lol) was not legit.


----------



## bobthegiraffemonkey (Apr 6, 2015)

Ideas I've been thinking about for 4x4 parity:

First of all, I'm dealing with cases with OLL parity, and want to do at most 1 parity alg and 2 looks to finish regardless of whether or not there is PLL parity too, without influencing the LL in F2L. CLL + (OLL parity ELL) has some good potential, I need to work on ELL recog but I think it works well. I've also considered, instead of solving CLL, 'solve' to the CLL case which you get by doing a standard non-pure OLL parity (bar-bar U? setup with F R2 D R' U R D' R2' U' F'). Then, you can 1-look 2-alg the rest, possibly with some tricks to make stuff nicer. Don't know much about recog for this yet, but it could work and the solutions should be good on average.

Also, there may be more ideas to use with this. For example, no-swap H (doublesune) cases can always be solved to L3E using only doublesune or inverse and/or mirror, using the fact that there's always at least 1 oriented edge. There's also the following tricks for diag oriented (A6)

[R U R' F' : l' U2 l' U2 l U2 l' U2 r U2' l' U2 l U2' (r' l2') U2 l]
R' (F2 x) l2' U2 l U2 l' U2 l U2' (B2 x2') r U2 r U2' (r' l') U2 R

My strange choice of parity alg executions aside, thoughts?


----------



## mark49152 (Apr 8, 2015)

I know that 2-gen algs cannot affect CP. Why is that? What's the theory behind it, and is there a simple explanation?


----------



## qqwref (Apr 8, 2015)

mark49152 said:


> I know that 2-gen algs cannot affect CP. Why is that? What's the theory behind it, and is there a simple explanation?



http://www.jaapsch.net/puzzles/pgl25.htm


----------



## mark49152 (Apr 9, 2015)

qqwref said:


> http://www.jaapsch.net/puzzles/pgl25.htm


Perfect, thanks!


----------



## TDM (Apr 9, 2015)

I recently disassembled my ZhanChi and found seven washers, two of which were on the wrong end of the spring. That explains why I only had 5 in my WeiLong...


----------



## Berd (Apr 9, 2015)

TDM said:


> I recently disassembled my ZhanChi and found seven washers, two of which were on the wrong end of the spring. That explains why I only had 5 in my WeiLong...


How the...


----------



## CubeCow (Apr 10, 2015)

Berd said:


> How the...



When washing out cubes, things can get mixed up.


----------



## TDM (Apr 10, 2015)

CubeCow said:


> When washing out cubes, things can get mixed up.


Nope, I've never disassembled two cubes at once before. This was the first time disassembling my ZhanChi.


----------



## Psyph3r (Apr 10, 2015)

TDM said:


> Nope, I've never disassembled two cubes at once before. This was the first time disassembling my ZhanChi.



It's thos damn cube ghosts again.


----------



## DeeDubb (Apr 11, 2015)

yu da hyeon breaks her wr single. Average isn't looking good.


----------



## Iggy (Apr 11, 2015)

DeeDubb said:


> yu da hyeon breaks her wr single. Average isn't looking good.



Woah nice. What was the time?

Edit: Oh okay it's on Cubecomps. dat counting 38 though


----------



## guysensei1 (Apr 11, 2015)

What's the fastest sub-x for all OH PLLs?
There are a few 'all sub-3' videos on YouTube. I vaguely recall a 'all sub-2' somewhere but I can't find it.


----------



## joshsailscga (Apr 17, 2015)

Random thought...imagine if Rami had gotten the Riley Woo misscramble last year...his neighbors would still be deaf


----------



## cmhardw (Apr 17, 2015)

Katie and I were on campus at the University of Wisconsin in Madison at the Dairy store. The school's dairy department makes ice cream, milk, cheese and sells them to the community on campus via this store. While eating ice cream there, we saw a class of middle school students who were there on a field trip. There was a group of about five of them who had a whole bunch of Rubik's puzzles. Katie and I introduced ourselves as also being cubers and chatted with them for a little bit. Small world to meet a bunch of cubers like that! It was very neat


----------



## guysensei1 (Apr 18, 2015)

cmhardw said:


> Katie and I were on campus at the University of Wisconsin in Madison at the Dairy store. The school's dairy department makes ice cream, milk, cheese and sells them to the community on campus via this store. While eating ice cream there, we saw a class of middle school students who were there on a field trip. There was a group of about five of them who had a whole bunch of Rubik's puzzles. Katie and I introduced ourselves as also being cubers and chatted with them for a little bit. Small world to meet a bunch of cubers like that! It was very neat



Nice! I see a few cubers now and then but I never dare to talk to them...


----------



## guysensei1 (Apr 19, 2015)

Moyu should make a dino cube and call it the KongLong


----------



## the super cuber (Apr 20, 2015)

at NCR open 2015 on april 11-12th, in the 2x2 finals there was a potential WR scramble which came in the 4th solve of group A- U2 R' U2 F2 U' R U' R U' R' U'

solution- z y U' R2 U2 R' U2 

the best time on it was 1.51 and there were 1.91 and 1.94 solves on it as well.


----------



## cmhardw (Apr 21, 2015)

Katie asked me to explain the Roux method to her, so I showed her a walk-through solve. She then asked what the method that I used was called (I taught her a keyhole F2L and commutator LL approach). I told her that I use "CFOP" and then said what each letter stood for. She then said that she thought it should stand for "Cluster **** Of Permutations" instead  That totally cracked me up and I thought I would share!


----------



## joshsailscga (Apr 21, 2015)

cmhardw said:


> She then said that she thought it should stand for "Cluster **** Of Permutations" instead



I guess she's not wrong. That's pretty funny


----------



## Iggy (Apr 21, 2015)

Wow, I've been spending the past few days doing many 5BLD sighted solves to improve my comms, and now a Malaysian comp without any BLD events gets announced


----------



## guysensei1 (Apr 21, 2015)

Iggy said:


> Wow, I've been spending the past few days doing many 5BLD sighted solves to improve my comms, and now a Malaysian comp without any BLD events gets announced



I signed up too


----------



## Iggy (Apr 21, 2015)

guysensei1 said:


> I signed up too



See you there  Also I think it's time I start practising skewb lol


----------



## Stefan (Apr 22, 2015)

cmhardw said:


> Katie asked me to explain the Roux method to her, so I showed her a walk-through solve. She then asked what the method that I used was called (I taught her a keyhole F2L and commutator LL approach). I told her that I use "CFOP" and then said what each letter stood for. She then said that she thought it should stand for "Cluster **** Of Permutations" instead  That totally cracked me up and I thought I would share!



LOL, she's a keeper . You should ask her about all our other acronyms.


----------



## bobthegiraffemonkey (Apr 22, 2015)

4x4: (U' r' U r' U r U2 r U r' U r' U')2


----------



## Sub20Pls (Apr 23, 2015)

cmhardw said:


> Katie and I were on campus at the University of Wisconsin in Madison at the Dairy store. The school's dairy department makes ice cream, milk, cheese and sells them to the community on campus via this store. While eating ice cream there, we saw a class of middle school students who were there on a field trip. There was a group of about five of them who had a whole bunch of Rubik's puzzles. Katie and I introduced ourselves as also being cubers and chatted with them for a little bit. Small world to meet a bunch of cubers like that! It was very neat



I'm one of the kids you met that day at Babcock Hall. It was a pleasant surprise to run into you. It really is a small world and the internet is very much the same way. It was really cool to meet you, one of the state's better cubers, and it was shocking to me that I was able to stumble upon you online.


----------



## cmhardw (Apr 25, 2015)

Sub20Pls said:


> I'm one of the kids you met that day at Babcock Hall. It was a pleasant surprise to run into you. It really is a small world and the internet is very much the same way. It was really cool to meet you, one of the state's better cubers, and it was shocking to me that I was able to stumble upon you online.



Welcome to the forum! It was very cool to meet you at Babcock hall, and it is a little crazy how even the Internet is such a small world too  Happy cubing!


----------



## qqwref (Apr 28, 2015)

Silly 1LLL things:
- NLL is a way of splitting 1LLL into subsets based on the minimal number of pieces left unsolved after AUFing. 2LL has 2 pieces unsolved, 3LL has 3 pieces unsolved, etc. Everything up to 3LL should be pretty easy to learn, and 4LL is probably doable with effort. 5LL is very big. I don't know what the case counts are for all the groups, though.
- ΔLL-I and ΔLL-II. These are by analogy with the Tripod and Line subsets - there are 3 solved pieces in a roughly equilateral triangle. ΔLL-I has ULF/ULB/UR solved and ΔLL-II has UL/UB/UFR solved. Greek letters and Roman numerals go great together.


----------



## guysensei1 (May 1, 2015)

Someone should organize a comp called 'Elitist Open 2015' and the cutoffs for events will be sub-(top 10% time in that event)


----------



## qqwref (May 1, 2015)

I remember talking about the same kind of idea with people at a recent competition. Just something with really tough cutoffs on every event, so only the best people in the area will get solves... and then of course you can do pretty much every speed event. Given how many people typically compete in competitions around here, it is probably the only way to get most events done without a several-day comp.


----------



## guysensei1 (May 2, 2015)

This probably isn't a big deal, but when people in competitions don't start the timer and proceed to make moves to the cube, shouldn't the solve be considered a DNS? Because they didn't actually start the solve?


----------



## Isaac Lai (May 2, 2015)

guysensei1 said:


> This probably isn't a big deal, but when people in competitions don't start the timer and proceed to make moves to the cube, shouldn't the solve be considered a DNS? Because they didn't actually start the solve?



But they technically also exceeded inspection because it is counted as moves made during inspection

EDIT: unless they realised immediately


----------



## guysensei1 (May 9, 2015)

What's the shortest 3 cycle of corners on 2x2? Is it still 8 moves? What's the longest optimal 3 cycle on 2x2? Still 12 moves?


----------



## TDM (May 9, 2015)

guysensei1 said:


> What's the longest optimal 3 cycle on 2x2? Still 12 moves?


Isn't God's number 11 on 2x2?


----------



## guysensei1 (May 9, 2015)

TDM said:


> Isn't God's number 11 on 2x2?



Derp.

Are there any 11 movers that are 3 corner cycles?


----------



## willtri4 (May 12, 2015)

I just had this 4x4 mo3:



Notice anything?


----------



## guysensei1 (May 12, 2015)

2:30.00?

EDIT: Oh. cool that.


----------



## IRNjuggle28 (May 13, 2015)

Out of 3x3, OH, 4x4, 5x5, 6x6, and 7x7, Feliks' worst rank in single or average is 3x3 single. He's third in the world. His best event is the only event where he isn't 2nd in the world or better in both single and average.


----------



## Julian (May 13, 2015)

IRNjuggle28 said:


> Out of 3x3, OH, 4x4, 5x5, 6x6, and 7x7, Feliks' worst rank in single or average is 3x3 single. He's third in the world. *His best event is the only event where he isn't 2nd in the world or better in both single and average.*


I would say 5x5 is his best event.
EDIT: well, hmm, maybe not anymore actually

Since when are there >20 pages of search results? Cool.


----------



## Torch (May 14, 2015)

The best misspelling of Feliks's name ever.


----------



## guysensei1 (May 15, 2015)

Is it weird that I've gotten many 12.xx OH singles, 3 10.xx singles, but not one 11.xx?


----------



## Suzuha (May 23, 2015)

How fast of an improvement is sub 20 in 6 months?


----------



## guysensei1 (May 23, 2015)

GoldenOak said:


> How fast of an improvement is sub 20 in 6 months?



uhh, assuming everyone starts out at 5 minutes, which is completely arbitrary, about 1.6 seconds a day.


----------



## PenguinsDontFly (May 23, 2015)

guysensei1 said:


> uhh, assuming everyone starts out at 5 minutes, which is completely arbitrary, about 1.6 seconds a day.



I think he's asking how good it is.


----------



## SpeedCubeReview (May 23, 2015)

GoldenOak said:


> How fast of an improvement is sub 20 in 6 months?



Try to not compare yourself to others but instead be happy where you are. If some say it's fast you will most likely be happy, but if people say it's slow progress you may feel disheartened. Try to not ever worry about your progress. It will happen on your own time.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## TDM (May 23, 2015)

GoldenOak said:


> How fast of an improvement is sub 20 in 6 months?


Better than me


----------



## cashis (May 23, 2015)

Why aren't people as fast with ZZ as with Roux and CFOP?


----------



## TDM (May 23, 2015)

cashis said:


> Why aren't people as fast with ZZ as with Roux and CFOP?


There are even fewer ZZ users than there are Roux users, and the few ZZers that there are usually practise more OH than 2H.


----------



## cashis (May 23, 2015)

TDM said:


> There are even fewer ZZ users than there are Roux users, and the few ZZers that there are usually practise more OH than 2H.



thought so


----------



## qqwref (May 25, 2015)

fastest 3x3x3 average and single from someone with WCAID starting with...

```
[B]WCAID	Average	Cuber				Single	Cuber[/B]
1982	17.86	 Guus Razoux Schultz		15.58	 Guus Razoux Schultz
2003	11.84	 Shotaro Makisumi		8.50	 Shotaro Makisumi
2004	10.53	 Edouard Chambon		8.38	 Gunnar Krig
2005	8.79	 Erik Akkersdijk		6.93	 Milan Baticz
2006	8.25	 Yumu Tabuchi			6.09	 Yumu Tabuchi
2007	7.45	 Mats Valk			5.55	 Mats Valk
2008	8.63	 Anthony Brooks			6.42	 Anthony Brooks
2009	6.54	 Feliks Zemdegs			5.66	 Feliks Zemdegs
2010	7.50	 Bill Wang			5.25	 Collin Burns
2011	7.37	 Alex Lau			5.96	 Alexander Lau
2012	7.69	 Kevin Costello III		5.91	 Jayden McNeill
2013	7.98	 Seung Hyuk Nahm		6.13	 Kaijun Lin
2014	9.49	 Aldair Coronel Ruiz		7.30	 Shaowei Hou
2015	10.50	 Andrey Che			7.52	 John Carlo Magallon
```



Torch said:


> Can I see that for singles?



EDIT: Added. Also, I never noticed this before, but your last name is hilarious.


----------



## Torch (May 25, 2015)

qqwref said:


> fastest 3x3x3 average from someone with WCAID starting with...
> 1982: 17.86, Guus Razoux Schultz
> 2003: 11.84, Shotaro Makisumi
> 2004: 10.53, Edouard Chambon
> ...



Can I see that for singles?


----------



## qqwref (May 25, 2015)

This guy's WCA ID makes no sense: https://www.worldcubeassociation.org/results/p.php?i=2011MAAA01


----------



## OLLiver (May 25, 2015)

guysensei1 said:


> 2:30.00?
> 
> EDIT: Oh. cool that.



One question....what exactly is up with your profile picture? I have seen so many people with this picture and whats going on lol?


----------



## Julian (May 25, 2015)

qqwref said:


> This guy's WCA ID makes no sense: https://www.worldcubeassociation.org/results/p.php?i=2011MAAA01


Unrecognized characters are replaced with A. Or did you mean something else?


----------



## qqwref (May 25, 2015)

Julian said:


> Unrecognized characters are replaced with A. Or did you mean something else?


Are they? I thought they would just be skipped.


----------



## Cale S (May 25, 2015)

Julian said:


> Unrecognized characters are replaced with A. Or did you mean something else?



I thought unrecognized characters were just ignored? Like 2013KOSK01


----------



## guysensei1 (May 26, 2015)

Turn a skewb 60 degrees, what's the angle between the 2 touching square centers?


----------



## IAssemble (May 26, 2015)

guysensei1 said:


> Turn a skewb 60 degrees, what's the angle between the 2 touching square centers?



Someone better check, but I think...

Consider square has side length 2
By Pythagoras, diagonal from centre of square to corner of square is sqrt(2)
So distance from centre of cube to centre of square is also sqrt(2)
So triangle formed at centre of edge of square between centre of cube and centre of square has angle arctan(sqrt(2))
So angle between two squares when edges touch is 2*arctan(sqrt(2)) in degrees = 109.471221 degrees (via google calculator)


----------



## Isaac Lai (May 28, 2015)

Is there any metric that:

-counts M as one move
-counts R2 as two moves
-does not count cube rotations


----------



## TDM (May 28, 2015)

Isaac Lai said:


> Is there any metric that:
> 
> -counts M as one move
> -counts R2 as two moves
> -does not count cube rotations


SQTM


----------



## Julian (May 28, 2015)

qqwref said:


> Are they? I thought they would just be skipped.





Cale S said:


> I thought unrecognized characters were just ignored? Like 2013KOSK01



I don't know the policy, but I know that I've seen replacement with A before.


----------



## qqwref (May 30, 2015)

Does anyone fast do this for OH?:
- Rouxblock
- Finish cross with <r, R, U>
- Finish F2L/OLL/PLL as normal


----------



## Isaac Lai (May 30, 2015)

Julian said:


> I don't know the policy, but I know that I've seen replacement with A before.



Is it not because the letter can't be skipped (that weird thing is the last character)?


----------



## Tim Major (May 30, 2015)

comp in 3 hours wooo


----------



## qqwref (May 30, 2015)

qqwref said:


> Does anyone fast do this for OH?:
> - Rouxblock
> - Finish cross with <r, R, U>
> - Finish F2L/OLL/PLL as normal


I've done some tests with this and despite spending a lot of extra moves/time in the first two steps (I'm really bad at them) most of my solves are sub20 and I've had some sub15 singles. It may have potential.


----------



## Robert-Y (May 30, 2015)

I will try, thanks for suggesting


----------



## Robert-Y (May 30, 2015)

I'm not great at making the first block and I find building the rest of the cross a bit difficult, but surely this is worth doing when the first block is easy.


----------



## whauk (May 31, 2015)

qqwref said:


> Does anyone fast do this for OH?:
> - Rouxblock
> - Finish cross with <r, R, U>
> - Finish F2L/OLL/PLL as normal


I just tried this. I consider myself as relatively fast in OH (15 avg at home) and relatively good in blockbuilding. These are my results:
number of times: 30/30
best time: 12.37
worst time: 21.69
best avg5: 17.61 (σ = 0.34)
best avg12: 17.75 (σ = 1.58)
session avg: 18.20 (σ = 1.40)
session mean: 18.08

The 12 was nonlucky. I guess I would get at least as fast as with CFOP using this method.


----------



## TDM (May 31, 2015)

qqwref said:


> Does anyone fast do this for OH?:
> - Rouxblock
> - Finish cross with <r, R, U>
> - Finish F2L/OLL/PLL as normal


I used to do this, but my blockbuilding was awful back then. It's probably best to be method neutral between this and CFOP, since the block isn't always easy.

What do you think about orienting edges during cross so the F2L is finished 2-gen? It could be worth it to just orient the F2L edges if they're in a nice position.


----------



## cashis (May 31, 2015)

TDM said:


> What do you think about orienting edges during cross so the F2L is finished 2-gen? It could be worth it to just orient the F2L edges if they're in a nice position.



ZZ?


----------



## AlexMaass (May 31, 2015)

Has anyone done a zbll time attack? I would love to see it.


----------



## Isaac Lai (May 31, 2015)

http://m.cubecomps.com/competitions/969/events/1/rounds/3/results

Is Hyeon Kyo Kyoung the fastest ZZ user?


----------



## Bilbo7 (May 31, 2015)

I've got sub 40 in 4 months so pretty good!


----------



## Robert-Y (May 31, 2015)

Isaac Lai said:


> http://m.cubecomps.com/competitions/969/events/1/rounds/3/results
> 
> Is Hyeon Kyo Kyoung the fastest ZZ user?



You think he used ZZ?


----------



## Isaac Lai (May 31, 2015)

Robert-Y said:


> You think he used ZZ?



https://youtu.be/SPmKPzO6bu4

Also, from his videos of solves it looks like he does indeed use ZZ.


----------



## Robert-Y (May 31, 2015)

However: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wo0P-wEAvbQ

So I doubt he used ZZ


----------



## obelisk477 (May 31, 2015)

Robert-Y said:


> However: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wo0P-wEAvbQ
> 
> So I doubt he used ZZ



Also, from a youtube comment: "I use ZZ only for OH TPS practice now though."


----------



## molarmanful (Jun 2, 2015)

Just a thought: how many calories would you burn by speedsolving a 3x3, assuming that you are doing an average of 5, no pauses in between (solve -> immediately scramble after stopping timer)? This _randomly_ popped into my head while reading the Seven Towns Infringement thread.


----------



## obelisk477 (Jun 2, 2015)

molarmanful said:


> Just a thought: how many calories would you burn by speedsolving a 3x3, assuming that you are doing an average of 5, no pauses in between (solve -> immediately scramble after stopping timer)? This _randomly_ popped into my head while reading the Seven Towns Infringement thread.



From a quick test, my Hualong has a kinetic frictional resistance of about 1.53 N. To get this to a unit of energy, we need to multiply this by a distance; namely, the length the cube travels through per turn. Most cubes are 57mm and so have a radius of ~28mm, meaning that you expend about .0673 J of energy per quarter turn. But you typically do, say, maybe 2 half turns for every 3 quarter turns in a solve, so to account for this we might say that you expend more like .0942 J per turn in a solve, since some are quarter and some are half. An average speedsolve is something like 55 moves, so you might expend 5.18 J per speedsolve. As for the scramble, if it's random state (most of which use more half turns in the scrambles), you might expend .1 J per turn and so use a total of 2 J to scramble, bringing the total per scramble and solve to ~7.18 J per solve, or 35.9 J in an average of 5 which converts to:

tl;dr: 8.58 calories per avg5 or 171.6 calories per avg100.

I suspect its a little higher than this; you expend energy turning your hands and fingers and holding up your arms and the cube and whatnot. But that seems roughly accurate.


----------



## molarmanful (Jun 2, 2015)

obelisk477 said:


> From a quick test, my Hualong has a kinetic frictional resistance of about 1.53 N. To get this to a unit of energy, we need to multiply this by a distance; namely, the length the cube travels through per turn. Most cubes are 57mm and so have a radius of ~28mm, meaning that you expend about .0673 J of energy per quarter turn. But you typically do, say, maybe 2 half turns for every 3 quarter turns in a solve, so to account for this we might say that you expend more like .0942 J per turn in a solve, since some are quarter and some are half. An average speedsolve is something like 55 moves, so you might expend 5.18 J per speedsolve. As for the scramble, if it's random state (most of which use more half turns in the scrambles), you might expend .1 J per turn and so use a total of 2 J to scramble, bringing the total per scramble and solve to ~7.18 J per solve, or 35.9 J in an average of 5 which converts to:
> 
> tl;dr: 8.58 calories per avg5 or 171.6 calories per avg100.
> 
> I suspect its a little higher than this; you expend energy turning your hands and fingers and holding up your arms and the cube and whatnot. But that seems roughly accurate.



Wow, there's actually less calories burned in an average of 5 (given that it takes you 5 minutes to finish an average of 5, scrambling time included) than there is after sitting for 5 minutes (which burns ~15 calories). If your math is right, and cubing is considered a sport, then sitting should probably be considered a sport because it actually burns more calories  

_Of course, I'm assuming that we're defining a sport by the amount of calories it burns._


----------



## obelisk477 (Jun 2, 2015)

molarmanful said:


> Wow, there's actually less calories burned in an average of 5 (given that it takes you 5 minutes to finish an average of 5, scrambling time included) than there is after sitting for 5 minutes (which burns ~15 calories). If your math is right, and cubing is considered a sport, then sitting should probably be considered a sport because it actually burns more calories
> 
> _Of course, I'm assuming that we're defining a sport by the amount of calories it burns._



Yeah, your body has to do alot to keep itself warm and the brain running and heart pumping. But I think your ~15 calorie number is off. If that were true, you'd burn 180 calories per hour sitting, 2880 if you sat all 16 hours of a waking day. That seems high, I would imagine its more like ~7 calories for sitting for 5 minutes

EDIT: And I only calculated *additional* calories. So the number should be the one i calculated + calories burned sitting and thinking


----------



## tseitsei (Jun 2, 2015)

molarmanful said:


> _Of course, I'm assuming that we're defining a sport by the amount of calories it burns._



Bad definition IMO...


----------



## willtri4 (Jun 2, 2015)

obelisk477 said:


> From a quick test, my Hualong has a kinetic frictional resistance of about 1.53 N. To get this to a unit of energy, we need to multiply this by a distance; namely, the length the cube travels through per turn. Most cubes are 57mm and so have a radius of ~28mm, meaning that you expend about .0673 J of energy per quarter turn. But you typically do, say, maybe 2 half turns for every 3 quarter turns in a solve, so to account for this we might say that you expend more like .0942 J per turn in a solve, since some are quarter and some are half. An average speedsolve is something like 55 moves, so you might expend 5.18 J per speedsolve. As for the scramble, if it's random state (most of which use more half turns in the scrambles), you might expend .1 J per turn and so use a total of 2 J to scramble, bringing the total per scramble and solve to ~7.18 J per solve, or 35.9 J in an average of 5 which converts to:
> 
> tl;dr: 8.58 calories per avg5 or 171.6 calories per avg100.
> 
> I suspect its a little higher than this; you expend energy turning your hands and fingers and holding up your arms and the cube and whatnot. But that seems roughly accurate.



In cycling, a good rule of thumb is that the number of calories burned is roughly equal to the number of joules expended. This is because even though there there are 4.184 joules in a calorie, only about a quarter of the calories burned are put towards the work being measured. I expect it would be similar in cubing.


----------



## PenguinsDontFly (Jun 2, 2015)

willtri4 said:


> In cycling, a good rule of thumb is that the number of calories burned is roughly equal to the number of joules expended. This is because even though there there are 4.184 joules in a calorie, only about a quarter of the calories burned are put towards the work being measured. I expect it would be similar in cubing.



are you talking about CALORIES or KILOCALORIES? the larger unit, kilocalorie, is more commonly used for dietary reasons because it is more convenient, and it is equal to 4.184 KILOJOULES.


----------



## qqwref (Jun 4, 2015)

Solving a cube by sight is easy, and by touch is not that much harder. So there are three senses left. Anyone wanna try solving a cube by taste?

It'd be like a textured cube, but each side is white and has a different white powder on it: salt (salty), sugar (sweet), flour (mild taste), msg (savory), citric acid (acidic/lemony), malic acid (sour).


----------



## obelisk477 (Jun 4, 2015)

qqwref said:


> Solving a cube by sight is easy, and by touch is not that much harder. So there are three senses left. Anyone wanna try solving a cube by taste?
> 
> It'd be like a textured cube, but each side is white and has a different white powder on it: salt (salty), sugar (sweet), flour (mild taste), msg (savory), citric acid (acidic/lemony), malic acid (sour).



The only event grosser than feet


----------



## guysensei1 (Jun 4, 2015)

qqwref said:


> Solving a cube by sight is easy, and by touch is not that much harder. So there are three senses left. Anyone wanna try solving a cube by taste?
> 
> It'd be like a textured cube, but each side is white and has a different white powder on it: salt (salty), sugar (sweet), flour (mild taste), msg (savory), citric acid (acidic/lemony), malic acid (sour).


those stickers are gonna wear off real quick.


----------



## mark49152 (Jun 4, 2015)

obelisk477 said:


> The only event grosser than feet


Except for feet solving by taste. And no you can't pick it up with your hands to taste it, you must get down on all fours to lick.


----------



## Isaac Lai (Jun 4, 2015)

I doubt that this is possible to do, but it would be awesome if someone was able to take the cube image out of a video of someone speedsolving and allow us to see only the hand movements. It would be interesting to see, especially for OH and skewb solves (and maybe feet).


----------



## cashis (Jun 4, 2015)

Solving by hearing could be buttons with noises on them


----------



## WayneMigraine (Jun 4, 2015)

obelisk477 said:


> From a quick test, my Hualong has a kinetic frictional resistance of about 1.53 N. To get this to a unit of energy, we need to multiply this by a distance; namely, the length the cube travels through per turn. Most cubes are 57mm and so have a radius of ~28mm, meaning that you expend about .0673 J of energy per quarter turn. But you typically do, say, maybe 2 half turns for every 3 quarter turns in a solve, so to account for this we might say that you expend more like .0942 J per turn in a solve, since some are quarter and some are half. An average speedsolve is something like 55 moves, so you might expend 5.18 J per speedsolve. As for the scramble, if it's random state (most of which use more half turns in the scrambles), you might expend .1 J per turn and so use a total of 2 J to scramble, bringing the total per scramble and solve to ~7.18 J per solve, or 35.9 J in an average of 5 which converts to:
> 
> tl;dr: 8.58 calories per avg5 or 171.6 calories per avg100.
> 
> I suspect its a little higher than this; you expend energy turning your hands and fingers and holding up your arms and the cube and whatnot. But that seems roughly accurate.



True, but the frictional force is applied perpendicular to the radius so shouldn't it actually be calculated as a torque force (unless you already took that into account when calculating μ?)


----------



## NeilH (Jun 4, 2015)

cashis said:


> Solving by hearing could be buttons with noises on them



We need a cuber with pro Arduino skills and it could work.

We could use this: http://www.arduino.cc/en/Main/ArduinoBoardNano

The cube would probably have to be big.


----------



## obelisk477 (Jun 4, 2015)

WayneMigraine said:


> True, but the frictional force is applied perpendicular to the radius so shouldn't it actually be calculated as a torque force (unless you already took that into account when calculating μ?)



If I told you the way I measured it you would probably cringe, so suffice it to say that the total turning force (integrating torque over the length of the radius) was measured, and not at a specific point on the radius.


----------



## qqwref (Jun 4, 2015)

cashis said:


> Solving by hearing could be buttons with noises on them


ben1996123 made a sim a while ago that gives no visual indication of the cube but just plays sound. I think he did a solve on it.


----------



## cashis (Jun 5, 2015)

qqwref said:


> ben1996123 made a sim a while ago that gives no visual indication of the cube but just plays sound. I think he did a solve on it.



Wish Ben wasn't banned "kek"


----------



## qqwref (Jun 5, 2015)

Yeah. He's a cool guy.


----------



## pman843 (Jun 5, 2015)

Im currently learning full zbll, which consists of 493 algs. 
Just some back ground info: I am 14, and around sub 18-17 on 3x3 CFOP.
So right now im at about 127 zblls...but im 6 days into it.
I have been learning at a steady pace of 16 algs a day, ive finshed full 2gll, and know about 10 other random zblls, plus 4 zzlls(not including zzlls found in 2gll). Also include 21 plls because those are also zblls
A this pace, if i keep it going(i most likely can), i will have finished full zbll in roughly one month.

Im going to US nats, so if you want to come up and talk to me about it, feel free, also reply with questions or comments idc.


----------



## spyr0th3dr4g0n (Jun 5, 2015)

pman843 said:


> Im currently learning full zbll, which consists of 493 algs.
> Just some back ground info: I am 14, and around sub 18-17 on 3x3 CFOP.
> So right now im at about 127 zblls...but im 6 days into it.
> I have been learning at a steady pace of 16 algs a day, ive finshed full 2gll, and know about 10 other random zblls, plus 4 zzlls(not including zzlls found in 2gll). Also include 21 plls because those are also zblls
> ...



How do you intend to do recognition?


----------



## qqwref (Jun 5, 2015)

qqTimer has random state 8-puzzle/15-puzzle/24-puzzle scramblers now  Also 3x3x3 with random orientation.


----------



## pman843 (Jun 5, 2015)

spyr0th3dr4g0n said:


> How do you intend to do recognition?



First I recognize the coll, then I look for bars along the cube.(1x2 or 1x3 blocks of color, but mostly 1x2's)
Seeing the blocks can give you the case most of the time after you see the coll, but sometimes you have to look for more, like there could be 2 cases that have the same 1x2 block in the same spot. So than when you have that, which you mostly see in the sune, antisune sets, you look at adjacent edges to see if they are opposite colors or adjacent colors which would tell you the edge cycle. As for cases that have no blocks, you can recognize those almost all the time from looking at the FU edge, RU edge, and the two stickers on the UFR corner. Like seeing which colors are opposite or same.
Hope that answered your question


----------



## cashis (Jun 5, 2015)

qqwref said:


> qqTimer has random state 8-puzzle/15-puzzle/24-puzzle scramblers now  Also 3x3x3 with random orientation.



How does the notation go


----------



## qqwref (Jun 5, 2015)

D = move a piece down into the space, D2 = move two pieces down into the space, and so on. For 3x3x3 with random orientation, it's just x y z rotations after the scramble.


----------



## FailCuber (Jun 5, 2015)

What's the best earmuff for BLD??


----------



## cmhardw (Jun 5, 2015)

FailCuber said:


> What's the best earmuff for BLD??



I like Bilsom T3 or their equivalent.


----------



## FailCuber (Jun 5, 2015)

cmhardw said:


> I like Bilsom T3 or their equivalent.



How is 3m peltor?


----------



## cmhardw (Jun 5, 2015)

FailCuber said:


> How is 3m peltor?



3M Peltor seems good. Get the X5 if you can.


----------



## joshsailscga (Jun 5, 2015)

New game: replace D in all algs with Chris's sig ^

Edit: check out the wiki, Feliks put up UWR for 6x6 single, mo3, and a012.


----------



## Berd (Jun 5, 2015)

joshsailscga said:


> New game: replace D in all algs with Chris's sig ^
> 
> Edit: check out the wiki, Feliks put up UWR for 6x6 single, mo3, and a012.


Wow! Less than a second in the single!


----------



## ryanj92 (Jun 5, 2015)

wow. i like how he doesn't even wait for kevin to quit properly before taking the big cube UWR's


----------



## CyanSandwich (Jun 6, 2015)

joshsailscga said:


> Edit: check out the wiki, Feliks put up UWR for 6x6 single, mo3, and a012.


My 6x6 prediction for this year is not looking good.
https://www.speedsolving.com/forum/showthread.php?50789-2015-Predictions/page3/post#23


----------



## joshsailscga (Jun 6, 2015)

In the thread from his last comp he said he really liked Jay's Aoshi, I wonder if he's switched over from Shengshou


----------



## guysensei1 (Jun 9, 2015)

For FMC, if we wrote down the inverse scramble, and changed every B' move to U D R2 L2 U' D' F' U D R2 L2 U' D' or its rotated/mirrored variants, and every B2 with U D' R2 F2 L2 U' D F2 R2 or rotated/mirrored, and doing the same thing to some other moves as well, looking for the best cancellations along the way, how unsuspicious will the final solution be?


----------



## Deleted member 19792 (Jun 16, 2015)

Fun Fact: Did you know that Sarah Strong has 502 DNFs? Including results + DNF averages, but not best times.

Another Fun Fact: Sarah can't do it anymore because of the regulations.


----------



## AlexMaass (Jun 16, 2015)

joshsailscga said:


> In the thread from his last comp he said he really liked Jay's Aoshi, I wonder if he's switched over from Shengshou


He has.


----------



## qqwref (Jun 17, 2015)

guysensei1 said:


> For FMC, if we wrote down the inverse scramble, and changed every B' move to U D R2 L2 U' D' F' U D R2 L2 U' D' or its rotated/mirrored variants, and every B2 with U D' R2 F2 L2 U' D F2 R2 or rotated/mirrored, and doing the same thing to some other moves as well, looking for the best cancellations along the way, how unsuspicious will the final solution be?


I think it would be pretty obvious when they ask you to explain your weird solution  I think it would either be blatant, or very long... or both.


----------



## joshsailscga (Jun 17, 2015)

qqwref said:


> I think it would be pretty obvious when they ask you to explain your weird solution  I think it would either be blatant, or very long... or both.



Plus the solution has to be sub-80 moves


----------



## Isaac Lai (Jun 17, 2015)

Don't know if this can be found out, but who has the most number of posts and the highest average number of posts per day?


----------



## Cale S (Jun 17, 2015)

Isaac Lai said:


> Don't know if this can be found out, but who has the most number of posts and the highest average number of posts per day?



number of posts: https://www.speedsolving.com/forum/memberlist.php?order=desc&sort=posts&pp=30


----------



## guysensei1 (Jun 17, 2015)

Isaac Lai said:


> Don't know if this can be found out, but who has the most number of posts and the highest average number of posts per day?



A list of posts per day doesn't exist though...


----------



## IRNjuggle28 (Jun 17, 2015)

Isaac Lai said:


> Don't know if this can be found out, but who has the most number of posts and the highest average number of posts per day?


As far as people who have both a high number of posts and a high number of posts per day, I think TDM is a pretty safe bet as #1.


----------



## Berd (Jun 17, 2015)

IRNjuggle28 said:


> As far as people who have both a high number of posts and a high number of posts per day, I think TDM is a pretty safe bet as #1.


I would be a close no. 2!


----------



## TDM (Jun 17, 2015)

Berd said:


> I would be a close no. 2!


nope

E:


Cale S said:


> number of posts: https://www.speedsolving.com/forum/memberlist.php?order=desc&sort=posts&pp=30


wow, I didn't realise I had so many posts... I'm 7th. I have more posts than anyone who joined after 2007.


----------



## StachuK1992 (Jun 17, 2015)

Woah, I'm not even in the top 20 any more.


----------



## onionhoney (Jun 17, 2015)

So um...does anyone think the How many cubers have already achieved sub10? thread needs a newer version? I mean the old thread is not maintained anymore, plus we got way too many sub-10 or sub-9 cubers nowadays. What about "how many cubers have achieved sub-7, 7.5, 8, respectively in a100?" This is a better indicator and keeps the size reasonable. Anyone in favor of this?


----------



## Tim Major (Jun 17, 2015)

strakerak said:


> Fun Fact: Did you know that Sarah Strong has 502 DNFs? Including results + DNF averages, but not best times.
> 
> Another Fun Fact: Sarah can't do it anymore because of the regulations.



Or what, they'll DNF her?!?!

She'll be fine, she's part of the organising team, and her DNFing solves is made up for by her judging/running/scrambling etc, and the regulation talks about "delegate's discretion". She's not _really_​ doing it maliciously.


----------



## FailCuber (Jun 17, 2015)

I average 12 on 3x3 and 1minute on 4x4 and 2 min 50 secs for 5x5 I really suck at big cubes right?


----------



## Berd (Jun 17, 2015)

FailCuber said:


> I average 12 on 3x3 and 1minute on 4x4 and 2 min 50 secs for 5x5 I really suck at big cubes right?


I average 2:25 on 5x5 and I'm sub 18 3x3.


----------



## joshsailscga (Jun 17, 2015)

IRNjuggle28 said:


> As far as people who have both a high number of posts and a high number of posts per day, I think TDM is a pretty safe bet as #1.



5550 posts / 830 days = 6.7 posts per day for two years and three months...




FailCuber said:


> I average 12 on 3x3 and 1minute on 4x4 and 2 min 50 secs for 5x5 I really suck at big cubes right?



I guess compared to your 3x3 speed, your 5x5 could be called slow, but it really depends how much you practice each one. I personally also find that the bigger the cube, the more difficult it is for me to handle. I average low 17s for 3x3 and sub-2:30 for 5x5, but my 6x6 average is around 6:30, because I can't control turning it without popping or locking up.


----------



## OLLiver (Jun 17, 2015)

So this is something which I think deserves more defining, terminology improvements and Acronyms. 
So I myself use cross and F2L and sometimes VHLS, but I am currently learning full ZBLL. When I complete this fate worse than death (assuming it actually doesn't cause death ;p ), I will find myself wondering what to call this method. 
Will It be CFVZ? cross, f2l, vhls. ZBLL? but sometimes VHLS isn't necessary because the normal f2l inserts also orients the edges sometimes. and CFV/CFVS sounds terrible (method names should sound cool) 
Or Should It get a entire new name? as this 'method' is a long way from fridrich but a long way from ZZ. So what do you guys think this method should be called?


----------



## Berd (Jun 17, 2015)

OLLiver said:


> So this is something which I think deserves more defining, terminology improvements and Acronyms.
> So I myself use cross and F2L and sometimes VHLS, but I am currently learning full ZBLL. When I complete this fate worse than death (assuming it actually doesn't cause death ;p ), I will find myself wondering what to call this method.
> Will It be CFVZ? cross, f2l, vhls. ZBLL? but sometimes VHLS isn't necessary because the normal f2l inserts also orients the edges sometimes. and CFV/CFVS sounds terrible (method names should sound cool)
> Or Should It get a entire new name? as this 'method' is a long way from fridrich but a long way from ZZ. So what do you guys think this method should be called?



Its just a CFOP variant I guess. You are inspiring me to learn ZBLL!


----------



## TDM (Jun 17, 2015)

joshsailscga said:


> 5550 posts / 830 days = 6.7 posts per day for two years and three months...


If you say 765 days because I didn't start posting for two months, you get 7.25 posts per day!

Berd: just remembered someone else who beats you on posts per day, PDF


----------



## OLLiver (Jun 17, 2015)

Berd said:


> Its just a CFOP variant I guess. You are inspiring me to learn ZBLL!



Maybe I'll brainstorm for a while and get back to this.
You should attempt some of it like me! I am almost 10% of the way there 45/501 Algs (INC PLL)


----------



## Berd (Jun 17, 2015)

OLLiver said:


> Maybe I'll brainstorm for a while and get back to this.
> You should attempt some of it like me! I am almost 10% of the way there 45/501 Algs (INC PLL)


Did you include COLL in that?


----------



## OLLiver (Jun 17, 2015)

Berd said:


> Did you include COLL in that?



No I Didn't, I know full COLL, but I wouldn't know the ZBLL case.
EDIT: lol if I count COLL its 85/501 ,.
EDIT #2, wow I have learnt 105ish algs since the 2cnd week of may (VHLS hehe)


----------



## Berd (Jun 17, 2015)

OLLiver said:


> No I Didn't, I know full COLL, but I wouldn't know the ZBLL case.
> EDIT: lol if I count COLL its 85/501 ,.
> EDIT #2, wow I have learnt 105ish algs since the 2cnd week of may (VHLS hehe)


Impressive! I need to finish COLL!


----------



## guysensei1 (Jun 18, 2015)

The 1LLL subset where corners are oriented but not edges (aka the 4flip and the 2 2flip OLLs) should be called ELLCP.
Random thought for random cubing discussion


----------



## cmhardw (Jun 18, 2015)

Tonight I solved one layer on my Eitan Star for the first time! I feel like this is a major accomplishment for me, and I am loving this puzzle!


----------



## hkpnkp (Jun 18, 2015)

cmhardw said:


> Tonight I solved one layer on my Eitan Star for the first time! I feel like this is a major accomplishment for me, and I am loving this puzzle!



Its an extremely complex puzzle right ?


----------



## guysensei1 (Jun 18, 2015)

cmhardw said:


> Tonight I solved one layer on my Eitan Star for the first time! I feel like this is a major accomplishment for me, and I am loving this puzzle!



Good luck with the edges, if you're solving those last.


----------



## Isaac Lai (Jun 18, 2015)

Why do Rouxers improve so quickly? (I'm looking at you PDF and Alex Lau)


----------



## PenguinsDontFly (Jun 18, 2015)

Isaac Lai said:


> Why do Rouxers improve so quickly? (I'm looking at you PDF and Alex Lau)



because i have no life.


----------



## Berd (Jun 18, 2015)

PenguinsDontFly said:


> because i have no life.


Hahahaha. 


I think it's also due to the fact there's no exuse to 'learn more algs' you just have to solve haha.


----------



## NeilH (Jun 18, 2015)

For those of you who know ZZ and Roux or CFOP, how would you compare ZZF2L to Roux F2B or CFOP F2L? My main method is CFOP, and I average 23 with that. I average 30-35 with Roux, and I don't know if I should try making Roux my main or try ZZ. Is it worth learning ZZ? And one last question: how long did it take you guys to learn ZZ?


----------



## TDM (Jun 18, 2015)

NeilH said:


> For those of you who know ZZ and Roux or CFOP, how would you compare ZZF2L to Roux F2B or CFOP F2L? My main method is CFOP, and I average 23 with that. I average 30-35 with Roux, and I don't know if I should try making Roux my main or try ZZ. Is it worth learning ZZ? And one last question: how long did it take you guys to learn ZZ?


ZZF2L is more similar to CFOP F2L than Roux F2B. ZZ has some worse F2L cases than CFOP, but also quite a few better ones. However they're mostly similar, both for solving them, and their total movecounts.

Roux F2B is very different. You start with the FB, which is similar to cross/EOLine, but in my opinion it's a bit worse. It's harder to fingertrick and is a couple of extra moves. However, the SB is much nicer than ZZF2L and CFOP F2L. It's a completely different way of solving though, and I think it's really quite hard to compare it to either F2L method. It's pseudo 2-gen (R,r,U only), which makes fingertricking easier, and the lookahead is about the same difficulty as with the other F2L methods.

It's definitely worth learning ZZ. You don't have to switch to it but it's a very useful method to know - you can learn a lot from it. It takes a bit of practise to do EOLine though. It took me a couple of hours of practise spread over a few days to get my EOLines to not be awful.


----------



## PenguinsDontFly (Jun 18, 2015)

Berd said:


> Hahahaha.
> 
> 
> I think it's also due to the fact there's no exuse to 'learn more algs' you just have to solve haha.



Its true though...


----------



## tseitsei (Jun 19, 2015)

PenguinsDontFly said:


> Its true though...



Mm... no. No it's not true. At all. Some people just improve faster than others. 

For cfop examples of fast improvement see Username and kclejeune....


----------



## cmhardw (Jun 19, 2015)

hkpnkp said:


> Its an extremely complex puzzle right ?



Yes, definitely! It took me a while to even understand the piece types, their orbits, and which sides to turn to move each piece type. 



guysensei1 said:


> Good luck with the edges, if you're solving those last.



I'm still trying to plan how to move on from the first layer, though I'll probably go face-layer by face-layer like on a megaminx unless I hit any snags. I discovered last night that I have the makings of a commutator for edges as I, accidentally, found a simple way to change only one edge on one layer. So if I get really stuck on edges I could at least just use commutators and setup moves if I had nothing else to use.


----------



## NeilH (Jun 19, 2015)

> ZZF2L is more similar to CFOP F2L than Roux F2B. ZZ has some worse F2L cases than CFOP, but also quite a few better ones. However they're mostly similar, both for solving them, and their total movecounts.
> 
> Roux F2B is very different. You start with the FB, which is similar to cross/EOLine, but in my opinion it's a bit worse. It's harder to fingertrick and is a couple of extra moves. However, the SB is much nicer than ZZF2L and CFOP F2L. It's a completely different way of solving though, and I think it's really quite hard to compare it to either F2L method. It's pseudo 2-gen (R,r,U only), which makes fingertricking easier, and the lookahead is about the same difficulty as with the other F2L methods.
> 
> It's definitely worth learning ZZ. You don't have to switch to it but it's a very useful method to know - you can learn a lot from it. It takes a bit of practise to do EOLine though. It took me a couple of hours of practise spread over a few days to get my EOLines to not be awful.



Thanks, this helps a lot. I'll be sure to learn ZZ.


----------



## scottishcuber (Jun 19, 2015)

onionhoney said:


> So um...does anyone think the How many cubers have already achieved sub10? thread needs a newer version? I mean the old thread is not maintained anymore, plus we got way too many sub-10 or sub-9 cubers nowadays. What about "how many cubers have achieved sub-7, 7.5, 8, respectively in a100?" This is a better indicator and keeps the size reasonable. Anyone in favor of this?



I'm definitely interested in this.


----------



## megaminxwin (Jun 22, 2015)

This weekend, over 40,000 people will have solved a 3x3 at least once in competition.

_*Forty thousand.*_ Man.


----------



## Stefan (Jun 22, 2015)

megaminxwin said:


> This weekend, over 40,000 people will have solved a 3x3 at least once in competition.



Why do you think so? It looks unlikely to me (though I haven't checked the not-yet-entered competitions).


----------



## TDM (Jun 22, 2015)

Stefan said:


> Why do you think so? It looks unlikely to me (though I haven't checked the not-yet-entered competitions).


This, and there are 13 competitions this weekend.


----------



## Stefan (Jun 22, 2015)

TDM said:


> This, and there are 13 competitions this weekend.



That shows the number of people who have *participated*, not the number of people who have *solved*. The latter is about 150-160 lower. And only seven competitions are left to be entered. And on average, competitions add 16-17 new competitors.


----------



## TDM (Jun 22, 2015)

Stefan said:


> That shows the number of people who have *participated*, not the number of people who have *solved*. The latter is about 150-160 lower. And *only seven competitions are left to be entered*. And on average, competitions add 16-17 new competitors.


Oh. Well if you include the competitions at the end of this week (which I think he was doing), then that's 13 times 16-17 = ~200 new competitors, which would be more than enough.


----------



## megaminxwin (Jun 23, 2015)

Stefan said:


> That shows the number of people who have *participated*, not the number of people who have *solved*. The latter is about 150-160 lower. And only seven competitions are left to be entered. And on average, competitions add 16-17 new competitors.



Okay, I amend my statement to 40,000 people having participated instead. It's still possible though, considering only 157 more people need to compete, and there are _223_ new people attending a competition this weekend. 66 of those people don't have to go and it's still 40,000 in total.


----------



## Isaac Lai (Jun 23, 2015)

Does anyone else who times themselves a lot with their phone find that they seem slower when they time with keyboard? (And strangely enough, has no problems with stackmats????)


----------



## guysensei1 (Jun 23, 2015)

What the heck


----------



## PenguinsDontFly (Jun 23, 2015)

Isaac Lai said:


> Does anyone else who times themselves a lot with their phone find that they seem slower when they time with keyboard? (And strangely enough, has no problems with stackmats????)



I dont really use my phone as a timer (anymore...) buy I am the exact opposite! I always did fine on phone and computer, but on stackmat, I average 1 WHOLE SECOND slower....



guysensei1 said:


> What the heck



Thats a ripoff!


----------



## Berd (Jun 23, 2015)

guysensei1 said:


> What the heck


Haha this was on fb this morning haha.


----------



## tseitsei (Jun 23, 2015)

guysensei1 said:


> What the heck



I LOLled 

But then I was disappointed because: "Shipping: May not ship to Finland" 


BUT I had a real question(s) also:
What are the optimal avg movecount and optimal worst case movecount for 2x2x2 block on 3x3 cube? Also same for 2x2x3 block?


----------



## Iggy (Jun 23, 2015)

guysensei1 said:


> What the heck



LOL hahaha


----------



## IRNjuggle28 (Jun 23, 2015)

I'm thrilled that Halczuk finally got another WR. He's been one of the best in the world at 6x6 and 7x7 for quite a while, and he used to be the undisputed king of those events, but he hadn't broken a world record since 2011. I'm so glad that he finally is back at the top in something.


----------



## NeilH (Jun 24, 2015)

Three things:

1. I average about 21-23.5 on 3x3, I use CFOP with 2-look OLL and beginner's method PLL. (Rubik's Solution Guide) I learned F2L when I averaged 55 with beginner's and 2-look OLL, and it's still improving quickly. Do you guys think it's viable to be a 15 second average with 2-look OLL and beginner's PLL? I'm not too lazy to learn PLL, but I want to try it just for fun. What do you think of this?

2. What ever happened to Minh Thai? Random thought.

3. Does anyone here speedsolve Calvin's 3x3x5 cuboid? I got one yesterday and my PB is 2:10.xx. What do you think of cuboids as official WCA events?


----------



## joshsailscga (Jun 24, 2015)

guysensei1 said:


> What the heck



From the Moyu megaminx thread:


SirWaffle said:


> I want it released quicker, can I trade chj for it?


----------



## Berd (Jun 24, 2015)

NeilH said:


> Three things:
> 
> 1. I average about 21-23.5 on 3x3, I use CFOP with 2-look OLL and beginner's method PLL. (Rubik's Solution Guide) I learned F2L when I averaged 55 with beginner's and 2-look OLL, and it's still improving quickly. Do you guys think it's viable to be a 15 second average with 2-look OLL and beginner's PLL? I'm not too lazy to learn PLL, but I want to try it just for fun. What do you think of this?
> 
> ...


Learning the 6 2 look plls shouldn't be hard; it would decrease your times a lot. 2 look OLL can get you to a 15 second avg tho.


----------



## Isaac Lai (Jun 24, 2015)

How the heck did this guy https://www.worldcubeassociation.org/results/p.php?i=2013SCHM02 get his single?


----------



## Iggy (Jun 24, 2015)

IRNjuggle28 said:


> I'm thrilled that Halczuk finally got another WR. He's been one of the best in the world at 6x6 and 7x7 for quite a while, and he used to be the undisputed king of those events, but he hadn't broken a world record since 2011. I'm so glad that he finally is back at the top in something.



Me too


----------



## Berd (Jun 24, 2015)

Isaac Lai said:


> How the heck did this guy https://www.worldcubeassociation.org/results/p.php?i=2013SCHM02 get his single?


What!? 20 sec average haha!


----------



## IRNjuggle28 (Jun 24, 2015)

Feliks got a 6.88 official OH solve when his unofficial PB was 5.93. That's roughly equivalent to him getting a 4.05 official 2H solve, considering that his PB is 3.52.

(6.88/5.93) x 3.52 = 4.049


----------



## penguinz7 (Jun 24, 2015)

I'd like to get a sub-20 single with 10 different methods, and I can currently do CFCE, CFOP, Roux, Salvia, and FreeFOP pretty easily, and petrus with some luck.
I'm thinking I'll probably also try belt and columns first. Any other suggestions? I don't really want to learn a whole bunch of new algs..


----------



## Berd (Jun 24, 2015)

penguinz7 said:


> I'd like to get a sub-20 single with 10 different methods, and I can currently do CFCE, CFOP, Roux, Salvia, and FreeFOP pretty easily, and petrus with some luck.
> I'm thinking I'll probably also try belt and columns first. Any other suggestions? I don't really want to learn a whole bunch of new algs..


CLL/ELL?


----------



## penguinz7 (Jun 24, 2015)

Berd said:


> CLL/ELL?



That's CFCE  
I could do beginners method with EOEPCOCP LL, or EOCOEPCP LL.
I thought maybe heise, but it looks kind of difficult..


----------



## TDM (Jun 24, 2015)

Berd said:


> CLL/ELL?





penguinz7 said:


> I'd like to get a sub-20 single with 10 different methods, and I can currently do *CFCE*, CFOP, Roux, Salvia, and FreeFOP pretty easily, and petrus with some luck.


Penguinz: ZZ? CF could also be possible.


----------



## willtri4 (Jun 24, 2015)

penguinz7 said:


> I'd like to get a sub-20 single with 10 different methods, and I can currently do CFCE, CFOP, Roux, Salvia, and FreeFOP pretty easily, and petrus with some luck.
> I'm thinking I'll probably also try belt and columns first. Any other suggestions? I don't really want to learn a whole bunch of new algs..



ZZ, Human Thistlewaite

E: Ninja'd


----------



## Berkmann18 (Jun 24, 2015)

willtri4 said:


> ZZ, Human Thistlewaite
> 
> E: Ninja'd



Also Ortega, (full) keyhole, OLS, ZB, Human Kociemba, Triangular Francisco, waterman, EF, Advanced LbL


----------



## penguinz7 (Jun 24, 2015)

willtri4 said:


> ZZ, Human Thistlewaite
> 
> E: Ninja'd





TDM said:


> Penguinz: ZZ? CF could also be possible.



Whoops, completely forgot to mention ZZ, I need to get a lot better at eoline though.. CF sounds like it would be pretty hard, but I'll give it a shot. I'll look into Human thistlethwaite


----------



## TDM (Jun 24, 2015)

penguinz7 said:


> CF sounds like it would be pretty hard, but I'll give it a shot.


I find this method to be fastest, especially if you use Roux:
1- Corners like 2x2, 5 seconds
2- Fix two centres (Rouxblock colours), <one second
3- Three edges on L to make a Roux (preserving corners), ~6 seconds
4- Three edges on R, leaving just LSE, ~5 seconds because easier lookahead
5- LSE, ~3 seconds

Total = 20


----------



## penguinz7 (Jun 24, 2015)

TDM said:


> I find this method to be fastest, especially if you use Roux:
> 1- Corners like 2x2, 5 seconds
> 2- Fix two centres (Rouxblock colours), <one second
> 3- Three edges on L to make a Roux (preserving corners), ~6 seconds
> ...



Hmm that might work, I'll try it out. thanks!


----------



## IRNjuggle28 (Jun 24, 2015)

IRNjuggle28 said:


> Feliks got a 6.88 official OH solve when his unofficial PB was 5.93. That's roughly equivalent to him getting a 4.05 official 2H solve, considering that his PB is 3.52.


I'll add to that, actually:
(6.88/5.93) x 3.52 = *4.049*, which is what his official 3x3 single would be if it was as fast relative to his unofficial 3x3 single as his official 3x3 OH single is to his unofficial 3x3 OH single. 
(6.88/11.72) x 6.54 = *3.839*, which is what his official 3x3 single would be if it was as fast relative to his 3x3 average as his 3x3 OH single is in relation to his 3x3 OH average.

We already knew, but this gives us some numbers to back up just how good that 3x3 OH single is, and just how bad his 3x3 single is given how good a 3x3 solver he is.


----------



## DeeDubb (Jun 27, 2015)

http://cubecomps.com/live.php?cid=984&cat=3&rnd=1

17.90 4x4 WR? Must be a mistake, right?


----------



## Berd (Jun 27, 2015)

DeeDubb said:


> http://cubecomps.com/live.php?cid=984&cat=3&rnd=1
> 
> 17.90 4x4 WR? Must be a mistake, right?


Must be. Surely. ....


----------



## bobthegiraffemonkey (Jun 27, 2015)

DeeDubb said:


> http://cubecomps.com/live.php?cid=984&cat=3&rnd=1
> 
> 17.90 4x4 WR? Must be a mistake, right?



Going by the average, it's a typo. It happens a lot.


----------



## Isaac Lai (Jun 27, 2015)

DeeDubb said:


> http://cubecomps.com/live.php?cid=984&cat=3&rnd=1
> 
> 17.90 4x4 WR? Must be a mistake, right?



Yup it is a mistake


----------



## qqwref (Jun 27, 2015)

Very silly "method": misorient all edges, do a ZZ solve, apply superflip algorithm. I got a 29.63 avg5. Trying to do 3gen blockbuilding (or even F2L pairs) with all the edges wrong is a total mind*******.


----------



## cashis (Jun 28, 2015)

curious ab posts per day
~660 posts/ 330 days
exactly 2 kek


----------



## qqwref (Jun 28, 2015)

3x3x3 + intermediate minesweeper in 30.84


----------



## cashis (Jun 28, 2015)

qqwref said:


> 3x3x3 + intermediate minesweeper in 30.84



UWR!!!


----------



## guysensei1 (Jun 28, 2015)

cashis said:


> UWR!!!



GET GUINESS IN ON THIS


----------



## joshsailscga (Jun 28, 2015)

wat my best intermediate time is like 45ish without 3x3. That's fast :O


----------



## qqwref (Jun 28, 2015)

It wasn't a particularly great intermediate time (17 something), it just took several tries to get an intermediate done on the first try, so I stopped there


----------



## Berkmann18 (Jun 28, 2015)

What a weird method, but why would someone do the superflip alg after doing a ZZ ? It should before and also the superflip alg isn't the most efficient to orient all the edges as it's 36 HTM compared to a 6 mover.


----------



## Isaac Lai (Jun 28, 2015)

http://cubecomps.com/live.php?cid=981

UHHHHHHHHHHHH... I really don't know whether this is an error, because since he is sub-10, one would think that such a single is perhaps(?) possible, but anyway...

EDIT: nvm it's an error


----------



## qqwref (Jun 28, 2015)

Berkmann18 said:


> What a weird method, but why would someone do the superflip alg after doing a ZZ ? It should before and also the superflip alg isn't the most efficient to orient all the edges as it's 36 HTM compared to a 6 mover.


It's a silly method, not intended for speed, but as a fun challenge.


----------



## cashis (Jun 28, 2015)

So, for 2x2, is EG-1 bar on right and EG-1 bar on front a thing? If not, would it be worth it to learn? I wouldn't think so, but it would save a D move/rotation, which might (maybe) cut a fraction of a second off of your average.
Also, TCLL EG-2 could be a thing, since it would be just as many cases as TCLL because it's symmetrical
TCLL EG-1 would be a nightmare tho


----------



## PenguinsDontFly (Jun 28, 2015)

cashis said:


> So, for 2x2, is EG-1 bar on right and EG-1 bar on front a thing? If not, would it be worth it to learn? I wouldn't think so, but it would save a D move/rotation, which might (maybe) cut a fraction of a second off of your average.
> Also, TCLL EG-2 could be a thing, since it would be just as many cases as TCLL because it's symmetrical
> TCLL EG-1 would be a nightmare tho



No, the bar is held on back or left. IMO, different algs for front and right are not very useful. If you one look the solve (isnt hard with eg1), you can almost always make the face and do the alg rotationless.


----------



## cashis (Jun 28, 2015)

PenguinsDontFly said:


> No, the bar is held on back or left. IMO, different algs for front and right are not very useful. If you one look the solve (isnt hard with eg1), you can almost always make the face and do the alg rotationless.



okie thx. you could just mirror algs for bar on right if you wanted to. I think it would still be useful, although maybe im speaking out my rear bc I don't know eg-1 yet


----------



## PenguinsDontFly (Jun 28, 2015)

cashis said:


> okie thx. you could just mirror algs for bar on right if you wanted to. I think it would still be useful, although maybe im speaking out my rear bc I don't know eg-1 yet



no problem. once you learn eg1, you will realize how easy it is to set up the cases the way you want them and how easy it is to one look.


----------



## cashis (Jun 28, 2015)

PenguinsDontFly said:


> no problem. once you learn eg1, you will realize how easy it is to set up the cases the way you want them and how easy it is to one look.



still working on cll there's a few cases im too lazy to learn  
do you know eg-2?


----------



## PenguinsDontFly (Jun 28, 2015)

cashis said:


> still working on cll there's a few cases im too lazy to learn
> do you know eg-2?



ooh no way. I started eg 1 last week and I only know 4/7 sets, but I force the face to give me the cases I know, and if I cant see a way to do it efficiently, I pick another face/maybe a layer. CLL is meh.


----------



## cashis (Jun 28, 2015)

PenguinsDontFly said:


> ooh no way. I started eg 1 last week and I only know 4/7 sets, but I force the face to give me the cases I know, and if I cant see a way to do it efficiently, I pick another face/maybe a layer. CLL is meh.



yeah, cll is definitely meh, but I can do full faces pretty efficiently so its Gucci.
gonna learn eg-1 soon but I just don't have enough time :/
also we should prob take this to the pms so we don't spam this thread


----------



## Berkmann18 (Jun 29, 2015)

qqwref said:


> It's a silly method, not intended for speed, but as a fun challenge.



Yeah.


----------



## Berd (Jun 29, 2015)

PenguinsDontFly said:


> ooh no way. I started eg 1 last week and I only know 4/7 sets, but I force the face to give me the cases I know, and if I cant see a way to do it efficiently, I pick another face/maybe a layer. CLL is meh.


Don't forget the O set! You know 5/8 sets! (Seeing as it's only a 2 alg set for eg-1 lol.)


----------



## guysensei1 (Jun 29, 2015)

Has anyone ever gotten a megaminx LL skip?


----------



## Berd (Jun 29, 2015)

guysensei1 said:


> Has anyone ever gotten a megaminx LL skip?


What are the odds for that?


----------



## StachuK1992 (Jun 29, 2015)

rough upper bound

CO: 3^4
CP: 5!
EO: 2^4
EP: 5!

vs similar 3x3 upper bound

CO: 3^3
CP: 4!
EO: 2^3
EP: 4!


(3^4)*(5!)*(2^4)*(5!) = 18,662,400


(3^3)*(4!)*(2^3)*(4!) = 124,416

Really bad figures, but roughly a lot less likely than 3x3


----------



## cashis (Jun 29, 2015)

StachuK1992 said:


> but roughly a lot less likely than 3x3



Well I could have told you that!


----------



## guysensei1 (Jun 29, 2015)

cashis said:


> Well I could have told you that!



Using magic (aka search function)
OLL skip is: 1/1296
PLL skip is: 1/720
LL skip = 1/1296*720 = 1/933120


----------



## TheCoolMinxer (Jun 29, 2015)

What can I do against constantly missscrambling? Especially 2x2 and 3x3?


----------



## guysensei1 (Jun 29, 2015)

TheCoolMinxer said:


> What can I do against constantly missscrambling? Especially 2x2 and 3x3?


Turn slow and lookah- wait no just turn slowly


----------



## JustinTimeCuber (Jun 29, 2015)

Has anyone ever thought of TEG2+ and TEG2-? They would be like TCLL except with an EG-2 case. It would be much harder to create the algorithms for TEG1 because there are 4 times as many.


----------



## TDM (Jun 29, 2015)

JustinTimeCuber said:


> Has anyone ever thought of TEG2+ and TEG2-? They would be like TCLL except with an EG-2 case. It would be much harder to create the algorithms for TEG1 because there are 4 times as many.


Yes, it's been thought of before. I don't know if algorithms have been generated for it though.


----------



## guysensei1 (Jun 30, 2015)

I learnt a COLL some time ago, and I have not gotten it in the 300+ solves I've done since then. Then today I just got that case 3 times in a row.

Cool stuff.


----------



## ryanj92 (Jun 30, 2015)

CAL pointed out on cyoubx' friends that Daniel Wallin's 4.20 clock single has been changed to a DNF...

does anybody know why that is?


----------



## cashis (Jun 30, 2015)

I'm finally sub 12 woo


----------



## Evan Liu (Jul 1, 2015)

ryanj92 said:


> CAL pointed out on cyoubx' friends that Daniel Wallin's 4.20 clock single has been changed to a DNF...
> 
> does anybody know why that is?





Spoiler



Daniel himself looked at his video and saw that his 4.20 sec solve in Clock might not be solved at all. 

Screenshot of the last frame where the back is visible:
http://imgur.com/2rHXbxs

The video was sent to the board, which agreed to DNF the solve as they and Daniel are quite sure that he does not make a turn to solve the clocks on the back that are off as one of his last moves.


----------



## josh42732 (Jul 1, 2015)

What's the average time for megaminx and 7x7 if one is a 18-21 second solver on 3x3?


----------



## OLLiver (Jul 1, 2015)

69/501 ZBLLS argh this truly is a fate worse than death


----------



## Lazy Einstein (Jul 1, 2015)

OLLiver said:


> 69/501 ZBLLS argh this truly is a fate worse than death



Glad to see you are enjoying ZBLL. Lol
Also aren't there only 493 ZBLL?


----------



## OLLiver (Jul 1, 2015)

Lazy Einstein said:


> Glad to see you are enjoying ZBLL. Lol
> Also aren't there only 493 ZBLL?



Lol yes it is so fun. 
Whoops lol *facepalm


----------



## joshsailscga (Jul 1, 2015)

Isaac Lai said:


> http://cubecomps.com/live.php?cid=981
> 
> UHHHHHHHHHHHH... I really don't know whether this is an error, because since he is sub-10, one would think that such a single is perhaps(?) possible, but anyway...
> 
> EDIT: nvm it's an error



What did you see there?


----------



## Tim Major (Jul 1, 2015)

Isaac Lai said:


> How the heck did this guy https://www.worldcubeassociation.org/results/p.php?i=2013SCHM02 get his single?



I think it's extremely unlikely it's legitimate, but not much can be done without proof.


----------



## ottozing (Jul 1, 2015)

Tim Major said:


> I think it's extremely unlikely it's legitimate, but not much can be done without proof.



Odder was at the comp and told me it was legit. His overall PB was an 11, but he got like an easy XXcross or something and then sexysledge into PLL skip. I think that's what happened anyway.


----------



## Tim Major (Jul 1, 2015)

ottozing said:


> Odder was at the comp and told me it was legit. His overall PB was an 11, but he got like an easy XXcross or something and then sexysledge into PLL skip. I think that's what happened anyway.



I thought that's what he was told at the comp, not that he actually witnessed it. Similarly with how the 4.41 was "XXXcross OLL skip J-perm"


----------



## Isaac Lai (Jul 1, 2015)

joshsailscga said:


> What did you see there?



A guy supposedly got a 4.67 WR single in a 9.33 average, but they were actually his 2x2 results.


----------



## ottozing (Jul 1, 2015)

Tim Major said:


> I thought that's what he was told at the comp, not that he actually witnessed it. Similarly with how the 4.41 was "XXXcross OLL skip J-perm"



Not that similar imo.

Firstly, a high 7 with a much luckier LL by a guy hovering around sub 20 seems way more plausible than a mid 4 by a similar person. Secondly, the competition itself wasn't prone to something as problematic as this like Perry Open was from what I can tell. This meaning faking a high 7 probably wasn't as easy as putting up a scrambled cube that you memorized an easy solution to (It's noteworthy that the 7 was the last solve of his average).

Basically, this guy getting a legit 7 seems more likely than him slipping a fake 7 through a well run competition.


----------



## Tim Major (Jul 1, 2015)

ottozing said:


> Not that similar imo.
> 
> Firstly, a high 7 with a much luckier LL by a guy hovering around sub 20 seems way more plausible than a mid 4 by a similar person. Secondly, the competition itself wasn't prone to something as problematic as this like Perry Open was from what I can tell. This meaning faking a high 7 probably wasn't as easy as putting up a scrambled cube that you memorized an easy solution to (It's noteworthy that the 7 was the last solve of his average).
> 
> Basically, this guy getting a legit 7 seems more likely than him slipping a fake 7 through a well run competition.



There are definitely ways to cheat even very well organised competitions, but yes I realise the situations are a little different. At the end of the day, it's impossible to prove either way and the benefit of the doubt has to go to the competitor. For example, maybe he switched cubes after his 4th solve, the one he gave was half-scrambled, when it got to the scramble table, some runner assumed it was scrambled and took it to a table.

Anyway, the guy who asked about it got a couple of answers at least, everything I've said is pure speculation, I just don't see a 18 second solver getting an official 7 in an event like 3x3.


----------



## Isaac Lai (Jul 1, 2015)

Tim Major said:


> There are definitely ways to cheat even very well organised competitions, but yes I realise the situations are a little different. At the end of the day, it's impossible to prove either way and the benefit of the doubt has to go to the competitor. For example, maybe he switched cubes after his 4th solve, the one he gave was half-scrambled, when it got to the scramble table, some runner assumed it was scrambled and took it to a table.
> 
> Anyway, the guy who asked about it got a couple of answers at least, everything I've said is pure speculation, I just don't see a 18 second solver getting an official 7 in an event like 3x3.



The thing is, the fact that it stayed as the NR of a relatively developed and prominent country (cubing wise) means that it is probably legit, because people (much like us) would probably have done an investigation on that solve, and they would have found that it was fake if he cheated.


----------



## Tim Major (Jul 1, 2015)

Isaac Lai said:


> The thing is, the fact that it stayed as the NR of a relatively developed and prominent country (cubing wise) means that it is probably legit, because people (much like us) would probably have done an investigation on that solve, and they would have found that it was fake if he cheated.



But if there's no video or reliable witnesses, there's no way they could prove it was fake. If they tried investigating by showing him the scramble, all he would have to do (hypothetically, if he did cheat) would be to say 'nup can't remember my solution' which would be perfectly acceptable.


----------



## Robert-Y (Jul 1, 2015)

Ok, I don't believe it now.

http://iwca.jp/competition/scrambles/competitionId/DanishOpen2014/eventId/333

Either the scramble is:

L' U' R' L U2 L B' D L' F L2 B' R2 F' D2 F' B' R2 L2
or
U' L2 U2 B2 U R2 B2 D' B2 U R2 F' L2 D' B D' B L' B2 U

Neither seem easy to get a 7 on for a 18 second solver.


----------



## cashis (Jul 1, 2015)

Why can't we just trust the guy got a good solve?


----------



## Isaac Lai (Jul 1, 2015)

Robert-Y said:


> Ok, I don't believe it now.
> 
> http://iwca.jp/competition/scrambles/competitionId/DanishOpen2014/eventId/333
> 
> ...



I played around with the scramble and got two free pairs on yellow cross. Not sure if it means anything but it could(?) be rearranged to form a XXcross.


----------



## Tim Major (Jul 1, 2015)

Isaac Lai said:


> I played around with the scramble and got two free pairs on yellow cross. Not sure if it means anything but it could(?) be rearranged to form a XXcross.



I'm sure on either scramble there are nice solutions. But for an 18 second solver to get a 7 that had a double X-cross? It has to be a pretty obvious double X-cross, and the entire solve would have to be probably 30 moves at most.


----------



## JustinTimeCuber (Jul 1, 2015)

cashis said:


> Why can't we just trust the guy got a good solve?



Yeah, there is always a chance to get lucky. I got a pretty amazing solve for me (at the time) during Lawrence Spring 2015 with a 15.03 average. The time was 11.90:

11.90 B2 F2 U2 R2 U L2 R2 B2 U F' U F' U2 B L2 R U2 F L U

y2 x
U' L D' L2 y2 x' L F' L' D'
R' U' R d L' U L
[R U R' U']2 R U R'
y R' U R
R U' R' U2 y' R' U' R
U2 l' U' L U l F' L' F
U y R U R' U' R' F R2 U' R' U' R U R' F'

And I got lucky, by doing something badly. The cross sucked, and the OLL was from a weird angle. But if I hadn't done those, it would have been a much higher time. I got a T perm, a free pair, and some easy F2L cases. People can get lucky.


----------



## bobthegiraffemonkey (Jul 1, 2015)

Robert-Y said:


> L' U' R' L U2 L B' D L' F L2 B' R2 F' D2 F' B' R2 L2



Best attempt:

y' x L' U' L U2 L U l D' R' D U' R //12 move XX cross, not too difficult and leaves a 4-move pair ... not sure how to end it nicely.


----------



## TDM (Jul 1, 2015)

Robert-Y said:


> Ok, I don't believe it now.
> 
> http://iwca.jp/competition/scrambles/competitionId/DanishOpen2014/eventId/333
> 
> ...


There was some discussion about this a while ago, closer to when it happened:


mycube said:


> L' U' R' L U2 L B' D L' F L2 B' R2 F' D2 F' B' R2 L2.
> 
> but he can't reconstruct the solution.
> after some minutes trying i found this solution with the descriped LL:
> ...


----------



## Tim Major (Jul 2, 2015)

That just doesn't feel like a speedsolve to me, seems like a nub FMC solution, and it also doesn't match his description (triple X-cross instead of double). The first 13 moves are so well thought out, but there's no way he saw that far ahead so I feel like those 13 moves would take 4-5 seconds minimum, leaving an 18 second solver 2-3 seconds to do 20 moves. If his solution exists I don't think it could be that one, it'd be more likely that his double X-cross was mostly luck, rather than planned out, because otherwise the TPS just wouldn't be there. I wonder what punishment, if any, he'd receive apart from the stripping of his record if he came now and admitted to cheating


----------



## qqwref (Jul 2, 2015)

I think it's worth considering the possibility that the cube was scrambled wrong... I don't expect anyone to go through all the slightly-different scrambles but I bet at least one of them has easy blocks.


----------



## TDM (Jul 2, 2015)

Tim Major said:


> That just doesn't feel like a speedsolve to me, seems like a nub FMC solution, and [...]


I do agree with most of this. I think a misscramble is likely, especially if he couldn't reconstruct it. Odder said it was real which is why I believed it at first, but I didn't consider the possibility of a misscramble at the time, only a typo.


----------



## cashis (Jul 2, 2015)

I dont think it really matters, tbh


----------



## Isaac Lai (Jul 2, 2015)

It is worth noting that people who are not as fast tend to do (sometimes) super inefficient cross (or for that matter F2L) solutions because to them, it is easy to understand. Faster people would probably not think of such a solution because the inefficiency would be stupid.


----------



## NeilH (Jul 2, 2015)

https://www.worldcubeassociation.org/results/c.php?allResults=All+Results&competitionId=WC2003
Go to #59

Oceanic Record used to be 54.29 and now it's 5.61.


----------



## calci (Jul 5, 2015)

How to calculate average of 5 in Excel?
I know it could be *=(SUM(A1:E1)-MIN(A1:E1)-MAX(A1:E1))/3* but it doesn't work if I have a DNF in the average.


----------



## Berkmann18 (Jul 5, 2015)

calci said:


> How to calculate average of 5 in Excel?
> I know it could be *=(SUM(A1:E1)-MIN(A1:E1)-MAX(A1:E1))/3* but it doesn't work if I have a DNF in the average.



The formula is correct but keep in mind that in any programmable environment, you cannot assume that "DNF" would be treated as an integer in the first place instead of a string. So it's quit difficult to work with but you would need to use if ladders to see if you have more than one DNF therefore a DNF average/mean and use ifs as an addition to the Max() and Min() functions so it would regard "DNF" as the worst thing instead of ignoring it as it would be N/A ( also obtainable with *=NA*).

If you need some extra help, you can email me the sheet at: _[email protected]_.


----------



## Username (Jul 7, 2015)

Just a random observation. 

Does someone else solve with their left pinky on the D-face? I've been getting my skin scratched off recently and just now noticed my stickers are scratching it when I do some of my algorithms.


----------



## theROUXbiksCube (Jul 7, 2015)

where can I get the scrambles for a comp that has already passed?


----------



## Ronxu (Jul 7, 2015)

Username said:


> Just a random observation.
> 
> Does someone else solve with their left pinky on the D-face? I've been getting my skin scratched off recently and just now noticed my stickers are scratching it when I do some of my algorithms.



I'm having trouble coming up with a way to hold a cube without having my pinky finger on D. To answer your question, yes.


----------



## TDM (Jul 7, 2015)

theROUXbiksCube said:


> where can I get the scrambles for a comp that has already passed?


You should be able to get them on iWCA if the competition is in the WCA database.


----------



## Robert-Y (Jul 7, 2015)

Username said:


> Just a random observation.
> 
> Does someone else solve with their left pinky on the D-face? I've been getting my skin scratched off recently and just now noticed my stickers are scratching it when I do some of my algorithms.



Yes but not the right pinky. Strange...


----------



## Berkmann18 (Jul 7, 2015)

Username said:


> Just a random observation.
> 
> Does someone else solve with their left pinky on the D-face? I've been getting my skin scratched off recently and just now noticed my stickers are scratching it when I do some of my algorithms.



I use both pinkies and I never had that feeling apart from over doing OH solves.


----------



## josh42732 (Jul 8, 2015)

Berkmann18 said:


> I use both pinkies and I never had that feeling apart from over doing OH solves.


Funny. I'm the opposite. My stickers are actually peeling off because of this and have had to resort to superglue to fix them.


----------



## cashis (Jul 8, 2015)

My pinkies kinda just hang off the D face when I solve.
I can't see how having them there would cause stickers to peel though? Unless you're pressing upward?


----------



## Tim Major (Jul 8, 2015)

Ronxu said:


> I'm having trouble coming up with a way to hold a cube without having my pinky finger on D. To answer your question, yes.



Don't have a cube on me but looked at my youtube channel, my pinky is permanently on the B side, not the D side (and it's not like I have small hands, I've rarely found anyone with bigger hands)


----------



## CyanSandwich (Jul 8, 2015)

Finished cross+centers on 4x4 and only had 2 edges to pair. Took me a while to realize, and double parity so it wasn't fast.

Edit: If someone doesn't mind, what are the odds of that?


----------



## Berkmann18 (Jul 8, 2015)

CyanSandwich said:


> Finished cross+centers on 4x4 and only had 2 edges to pair. Took me a while to realize, and double parity so it wasn't fast.
> 
> Edit: If someone doesn't mind, what are the odds of that?



You have 25% of chance to get that parity as for the L6E skip I'm not sure.


----------



## Ronxu (Jul 8, 2015)

Tim Major said:


> Don't have a cube on me but looked at my youtube channel, my pinky is permanently on the B side, not the D side (and it's not like I have small hands, I've rarely found anyone with bigger hands)



Weird. I have average sized hands and trying to fit all my fingers on B felt very uncomfortable. How do you hold the cube for OH?


----------



## obelisk477 (Jul 8, 2015)

Whats the longest word that can be spelled with UDLRBF letters? 

I suppose Rw, Bw and such could be included for fun.


----------



## Username (Jul 8, 2015)

obelisk477 said:


> Whats the longest word that can be spelled with UDLRBF letters?
> 
> I suppose Rw, Bw and such could be included for fun.



why aren't M E and S included?


----------



## PenguinsDontFly (Jul 8, 2015)

obelisk477 said:


> Whats the longest word that can be spelled with UDLRBF letters?
> 
> I suppose Rw, Bw and such could be included for fun.



the longest one i can thing of is only 2 letters lol. the hardest restriction is that the only vowel is U. Lets add xyz and MSE.


----------



## obelisk477 (Jul 8, 2015)

PenguinsDontFly said:


> the longest one i can thing of is only 2 letters lol. the hardest restriction is that the only vowel is U. Lets add xyz and MSE.



mmm, maybe no rotations, but I think slices are a good addition.


----------



## TDM (Jul 8, 2015)

obelisk477 said:


> Whats the longest word that can be spelled with UDLRBF letters?
> 
> I suppose Rw, Bw and such could be included for fun.


I included MES, and used this website.

Here are some of the longest (6+ letters only): fumblers slumber rumbles rumbled fumbles fumbler fumbled umbels surfed rumble rubles lumber fumble femurs dumber burled

A couple of those don't look like real words...

E: including xyz, again 6+ only

slumbery fumblers slumber rumbles rumbled fumbles fumbler fumbled umbels surfed surely rumble rudely rubles reflux myself medfly lumber fumble flyers fleury femurs exurbs dumbly dumber buyers burley burled bruxes bruxed belfry


----------



## PenguinsDontFly (Jul 8, 2015)

TDM said:


> I included MES, and used this website.
> 
> Here are some of the longest (6+ letters only): fumblers slumber rumbles rumbled fumbles fumbler fumbled umbels surfed rumble rubles lumber fumble femurs dumber burled
> 
> ...



what about "deemed"? i guess the website doesnt like using the same letter more than once in the same word...


----------



## Hssandwich (Jul 8, 2015)

Bemusedly. Form someone's sig.


----------



## qqwref (Jul 8, 2015)

Use this website: http://www.litscape.com/word_tools/words_made_from.php

Some nice longer words: blubbery, bullseye, deferred, dressers, dumbbell, embedded, freezers, mulberry, murderers, redeemed, refereed, reflexes, remember, resemble, seedless, suffered, beelzebub, blessedly, blueberry, bumblebee, embezzler, uselessly, elderberry, fuddy-duddy...

And if you allow i (e.g. Mi S R E M E M B E R E D): beryllium, bluebirds, disbelief, dismembers, fireflies, fulfilled, midsummer, rebuilder, semifluid, desireless, dismissers, lifelessly, mesmerized, reimbursed, dismembered, submersible, misremembered...

Finally, if you allow a for antislice, you could get Di S E M Ba R Ra S S E D or Lai S S E z Fai R Ei S M  Or, with no i, S E L Fa D D R E S S E D.


EDIT: Oh yeah, the real reason I was here. Memorize (a) a list of 10 PLLs that you can do without rotations (e.g. H Ja Jb Ra Rb T Ua Ub Y Z) (b) the following five rotations: x z, z', z', z', z2 x (c) any position that moves a lot of stickers around, like cube-in-cube or superflip. Now if I give you any number from 0 to 999999 you can turn it into a (different?) scrambled cube that you can solve BLD knowing only that number. To scramble, apply the PLL for digit 1, the first rotation, the PLL for digit 2, ..., the PLL for digit 6, the position from part c. And do the reverse to solve it.


----------



## qqwref (Jul 11, 2015)

A 3x3xN alg: F2 Rw2 U R2 U' L2 U Lw2 Uw' R2


----------



## Berkmann18 (Jul 11, 2015)

qqwref said:


> A 3x3xN alg: F2 Rw2 U R2 U' L2 U Lw2 Uw' R2



The alg should be F2 Rw2 U R2 U' L2 U R2 U' B2 x2 or F2 Rw2 U R2 U' L2 U Lw2 D' F2


----------



## Isaac Lai (Jul 11, 2015)

http://cubecomps.com/live.php?cid=1033&cat=11&rnd=1

Seriously??? Only top two advance to the final? This must be a mistake


----------



## Berkmann18 (Jul 11, 2015)

Isaac Lai said:


> http://cubecomps.com/live.php?cid=1033&cat=11&rnd=1
> 
> Seriously??? Only top two advance to the final? This must be a mistake



Yes, that's weird.


----------



## Isaac Lai (Jul 15, 2015)

I just realised that Maskow's MultiBLD WR and Feliks' 3x3 average WR were set on the same day.


----------



## Iggy (Jul 15, 2015)

Isaac Lai said:


> I just realised that Maskow's MultiBLD WR and Feliks' 3x3 average WR were set on the same day.



Yeah I remember this happening. That weekend was kinda crazy lol


----------



## bobthegiraffemonkey (Jul 17, 2015)

In my quest to keep trying to find new Na algs in the hope that one day I'll find one I don't hate:

l F' R' U' R z' R U' R' U' r U l' U R' U' R2


----------



## obelisk477 (Jul 17, 2015)

bobthegiraffemonkey said:


> In my quest to keep trying to find new Na algs in the hope that one day I'll find one I don't hate:
> 
> l F' R' U' R z' R U' R' U' r U l' U R' U' R2



You inspired me to look some:

F' R U R' U' R' F R2 F U' R' U' R U F' R' U2 

Thumb push up for F', sexy, sledge hammer with R2 but on the last F (instead of F') you push with your ring finger at RDB, U' R U, F' (pull with ring finger), R' U2


----------



## PenguinsDontFly (Jul 18, 2015)

What would happen if someone got a sub 5.25 official OH single? I know it is highly unlikely that this would happen, but it is an interesting idea. Would the person also be given the 3x3 WR? if not then it would be stupid to have an OH WR that is faster than the 2H WR.


----------



## Berd (Jul 18, 2015)

PenguinsDontFly said:


> What would happen if someone got a sub 5.25 official OH single? I know it is highly unlikely that this would happen, but it is an interesting idea. Would the person also be given the 3x3 WR? if not then it would be stupid to have an OH WR that is faster than the 2H WR.


Haha or with feet!


----------



## Stefan (Jul 18, 2015)

PenguinsDontFly said:


> What would happen if someone got a sub 5.25 official OH single? I know it is highly unlikely that this would happen, but it is an interesting idea. Would the person also be given the 3x3 WR? if not then it would be stupid to have an OH WR that is faster than the 2H WR.



That could easily happen with *N*Rs, at least if someone fast from a slow country wanted to.


----------



## qqwref (Jul 18, 2015)

No, they would not get a 3x3x3 speedsolve WR, since results don't transfer over between events. There are a few people with better OH singles than speedsolve singles.


----------



## PenguinsDontFly (Jul 18, 2015)

Stefan said:


> That could easily happen with *N*Rs, at least if someone fast from a slow country wanted to.



? what ?



qqwref said:


> No, they would not get a 3x3x3 speedsolve WR, since results don't transfer over between events. There are a few people with better OH singles than speedsolve singles.



but doesnt that just sound stupid to you? "WCA annnounces that it is faster to solve a rubiks cube one handed than two handed". lol neil morales.


----------



## obelisk477 (Jul 18, 2015)

qqwref said:


> No, they would not get a 3x3x3 speedsolve WR, since results don't transfer over between events. There are a few people with better OH singles than speedsolve singles.



But _should_ they get the WR? That's the real question. I say yes.


----------



## joshsailscga (Jul 18, 2015)

PenguinsDontFly said:


> lol neil morales.



qqwref's point tho...


----------



## qqwref (Jul 18, 2015)

obelisk477 said:


> But _should_ they get the WR? That's the real question. I say yes.


No, because they're different events. What that means is that that solve wasn't done during a 3x3x3 speedsolve round, which means it's basically unofficial with respect to that event. It's the same as if you get a sub-WR solve in practice right before the solves. Allowing stuff like that (or, similarly, records in OH/BLD/FMC/feet for people who feel like doing that during 3x3x3 speedsolve) would be unfair to all the people who only get a certain number of attempts.


----------



## mark49152 (Jul 18, 2015)

PenguinsDontFly said:


> "WCA annnounces that it is faster to solve a rubiks cube one handed than two handed"


And they would have the results to prove it. (Not likely though!)


----------



## AlexMaass (Jul 18, 2015)

Came up with this lol z-perm

(R2 U') * 5 S R2 S' U'

and the 2 gen version
(R2 U') * 5 R U2 R2 U2 R2 U2 R'


----------



## Berkmann18 (Jul 18, 2015)

PenguinsDontFly said:


> What would happen if someone got a sub 5.25 official OH single? I know it is highly unlikely that this would happen, but it is an interesting idea. Would the person also be given the 3x3 WR? if not then it would be stupid to have an OH WR that is faster than the 2H WR.



It would just be an OH WR single.


----------



## Berkmann18 (Jul 18, 2015)

AlexMaass said:


> Came up with this lol z-perm
> 
> (R2 U') * 5 S R2 S' U'
> 
> ...



Nice algs.


----------



## Iggy (Jul 18, 2015)

http://www.cuber.com.br/worlds/live.php?compid=59

Chan Hong Lik is getting really good wow


----------



## qqwref (Jul 19, 2015)

Whoa, that's kind of ridiculous considering his age


----------



## Isaac Lai (Jul 19, 2015)

Iggy said:


> http://www.cuber.com.br/worlds/live.php?compid=59
> 
> Chan Hong Lik is getting really good wow



Dat feet tho


----------



## cashis (Jul 19, 2015)

So...has anyone noticed that Faz held the 4BLD world record at one point?


----------



## Tim Major (Jul 19, 2015)

cashis said:


> So...has anyone noticed that Faz held the 4BLD world record at one point?



No, everyone was completely oblivious to a 4bld WR that smashed the previous WR by over a minute, it flew completely under the radar


----------



## cashis (Jul 19, 2015)

Tim Major said:


> No, everyone was completely oblivious to a 4bld WR that smashed the previous WR by over a minute, it flew completely under the radar



:-( 
ok sry didnt kno faz was that good at blind


----------



## joshsailscga (Jul 19, 2015)

cashis said:


> So...has anyone noticed that Faz held the 4BLD world record at one point?



Your attention to the WCA record page has come about four years too late 

*Edit:* I think I remember when he did a commentary with someone a while ago who asked him what his most memorable record was, or something along those lines, and he said probably the 4BLD because even he didn't expect it.


----------



## IRNjuggle28 (Jul 19, 2015)

I feel like Feliks is actually better at the two handed cubic events than the world record list shows. In 3x3, everyone knows he's the best and he has 19 out of the top 20 averages, but doesn't have the single world record. In 4x4, Weyer has both world records, even though Feliks has 6 of the top 10 results in both single and average. In 5x5, Feliks is dominant; no need to list stats. In 6x6, Hays has an average that's slightly better, and the top 10 results is spread fairly evenly. Nowhere near out of reach for Feliks. In 7x7, Feliks has both records, and they're pretty out of reach for the rest of the world. 

I'm not just being a Feliks fanboy.  Objectively, Feliks seems better than the number of world records he has. He's unquestionably the best in every event where he has the world record, and in the ones where he doesn't (4x4 and 6x6) best in the world is much closer between Feliks and the WR holders. Feliks seems more likely to gain records in 4x4 and 6x6 than to lose records in 5x5 or 7x7.

EDIT: also worth noting: Kevin did hold all four 6x6/7x7 records, for about 20 minutes.  It's been quite a while since that happened, if ever, so congrats for that.


----------



## PenguinsDontFly (Jul 20, 2015)

Am I the only who accidentally starts doing 2H solves in an OH session? sometimes I just forget.... hopefully this doesnt happen in a comp lol!


----------



## theROUXbiksCube (Jul 20, 2015)

PenguinsDontFly said:


> Am I the only who accidentally starts doing 2H solves in an OH session? sometimes I just forget.... hopefully this doesnt happen in a comp lol!



instant dnf


----------



## PenguinsDontFly (Jul 20, 2015)

theROUXbiksCube said:


> instant dnf



i was about to write that at the end of the post but i thought it was pretty self-explanatory. this happen to you?


----------



## Berkmann18 (Jul 20, 2015)

It happened to me a few times regardless of when I started OH where 55% of the solves were finished TH.


----------



## Bindedsa (Jul 20, 2015)

PenguinsDontFly said:


> i was about to write that at the end of the post but i thought it was pretty self-explanatory. this happen to you?



I've done it more than once :/


----------



## Isaac Lai (Jul 21, 2015)

PenguinsDontFly said:


> Am I the only who accidentally starts doing 2H solves in an OH session? sometimes I just forget.... hopefully this doesnt happen in a comp lol!



[youtube]https://youtu.be/f4KD6gAKDwY[/youtube]


----------



## SpeedCubeReview (Jul 21, 2015)

So, I don't know where to post or who to contact, but i stumbled upon this with a google search for something and man is this outdated. https://www.speedsolving.com/wiki/index.php/Rubik's_Cube_Fact_sheet


----------



## JamesDanko (Jul 23, 2015)

This may not be the thread, but I have a funny story.


Today I was doing a foot solve, and right agh the start of a G-Perm, I saw a spider crawling across my stack mat. I had just started the G-Perm, and I hate spiders, and I wanted to complete the foot solve, so I picked up the cube (with my feet) and began my attempt to kill this spider. I started to just pick up the cube and drop it on the darn thing, but it didn't seem to get hurt by that, so I used the corner of the cube, and tried to get it that way. After a long, hard fought battle on both ends, the spider was now gone, and my cube was stained. I then finished the G-Perm, and stopped the timer. 6:53.44 second foot solve, with a spider fight in the middle.

I kinda wish I didn't have to kill the spider, but I absolutely hate the darn things, so to pay my respects R.I.P Thomas the spider.


----------



## Berkmann18 (Jul 23, 2015)

OrangeCuber said:


> This may not be the thread, but I have a funny story.
> 
> 
> Today I was doing a foot solve, and right agh the start of a G-Perm, I saw a spider crawling across my stack mat. I had just started the G-Perm, and I hate spiders, and I wanted to complete the foot solve, so I picked up the cube (with my feet) and began my attempt to kill this spider. I started to just pick up the cube and drop it on the darn thing, but it didn't seem to get hurt by that, so I used the corner of the cube, and tried to get it that way. After a long, hard fought battle on both ends, the spider was now gone, and my cube was stained. I then finished the G-Perm, and stopped the timer. 6:53.44 second foot solve, with a spider fight in the middle.
> ...



If I were you I would have speeded up the execution even if I had to push myself (and the cube) away to finish the solve even tho I don't do feet solves.


----------



## willtri4 (Jul 23, 2015)

ViolaBouquet said:


> So, I don't know where to post or who to contact, but i stumbled upon this with a google search for something and man is this outdated. https://www.speedsolving.com/wiki/index.php/Rubik's_Cube_Fact_sheet



There are a lot of outdated pages on the wiki.


----------



## guysensei1 (Jul 23, 2015)

Has anyone ever attempted a 4 cubes relay with 4 limbs? Left hand left foot right hand right foot, one cube per limb, any limb order.

Video would be entertaining


----------



## OLLiver (Jul 23, 2015)

guysensei1 said:


> Has anyone ever attempted a 4 cubes relay with 4 limbs? Left hand left foot right hand right foot, one cube per limb, any limb order.
> 
> Video would be entertaining



Lol I will practice it


----------



## Tao Yu (Jul 23, 2015)

Has anyone ever done a solve with only one foot? I feel like it must be possible, but I've never seen anyone do it or post about it.


----------



## Username (Jul 23, 2015)

Tao Yu said:


> Has anyone ever done a solve with only one foot? I feel like it must be possible, but I've never seen anyone do it or post about it.



Louis Cormier has


----------



## Tao Yu (Jul 23, 2015)

Username said:


> Louis Cormier has



Wow. I wonder if anyone will ever be crazy enough to attempt it BLD. Trying to keep track of the orientation of the cube would be a nightmare.


----------



## Isaac Lai (Jul 23, 2015)

Username said:


> Louis Cormier has



This is impressive but stupid


----------



## Cale S (Jul 23, 2015)

Tao Yu said:


> Wow. I wonder if anyone will ever be crazy enough to attempt it BLD. Trying to keep track of the orientation of the cube would be a nightmare.



CHJ has done BLD with feet before, and I think one other person might have, but I'm not sure


----------



## antoineccantin (Jul 23, 2015)

Isaac Lai said:


> This is impressive but stupid



And Rami has done it twice as fast 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CJfE-zs3zaY


----------



## guysensei1 (Jul 23, 2015)

Isaac Lai said:


> This is impressive but stupid



There's this too and I'm pretty sure Rami had one too


----------



## G2013 (Jul 23, 2015)

Omg, Rami is insane really


----------



## Tao Yu (Jul 23, 2015)

Cale S said:


> CHJ has done BLD with feet before, and I think one other person might have, but I'm not sure


Actually, I meant one foot BLD. Because people always joke about it...

Rafael Cinoto also has a video of WF BLD: https://youtu.be/1by7YB16Ugo. I think Timothy Sun has done it before as well (no video though).


----------



## qqwref (Jul 24, 2015)

(Rw2 Uw' U' R' U Uw Rw2 U2)2


----------



## obelisk477 (Jul 25, 2015)

Isaac Lai said:


> This is impressive but stupid



Most people say this about speedsolving in general


----------



## Berd (Jul 25, 2015)

qqwref said:


> (Rw2 Uw' U' R' U Uw Rw2 U2)2 [emoji14]


Hahah! I like that! I also like the 2 gen one for big cubes!


----------



## qqwref (Jul 30, 2015)

R' F' R B' Dw2 B R' F R ?_?


----------



## guysensei1 (Jul 30, 2015)

qqwref said:


> R' F' R B' Dw2 B R' F R ?_?



It makes a mess?


----------



## Berd (Jul 30, 2015)

guysensei1 said:


> It makes a mess?


I was going to say haha...


----------



## Julian (Jul 30, 2015)

qqwref said:


> R' F' R B' Dw2 B R' F R ?_?


Is this supposed to be shortest T-perm?


----------



## qqwref (Jul 30, 2015)

Yeah, it's a T-perm ignoring the rest of the cube. There are a ton of 9-htm solutions with and without AUF.


----------



## IRNjuggle28 (Aug 2, 2015)

*Turn fast and lookahead?*

This is particularly true of centers on big cubes, but true to a degree all the time: my lookahead is better when I turn faster, or more accurately, my lookahead is better when I'm able to turn fast. Being more alert and more in the zone usually leads to my lookahead and my turning both improving, which makes good lookahead overlap with fast turning for me. Furthermore, lockups destroy my lookahead. There's not really a reason they should, but they sure do. They ruin the flow of the solve, and my lookahead worsens drastically. This makes me wildly inconsistent at times; I've gone from averaging 4:15 to averaging 3:50 on 7x7 in one day just because of lubing it, which made me turn faster _and_ look ahead better. 

When I'm in the zone, I find myself automatically going all out on solves, and I think intentionally slowing my turning down to improve my lookahead would break whatever focus is allowing me to be faster than usual. Long story short, "turn slow and lookahead" is a great idea in theory, but I rarely find it to work well in practice. I might modify the statement to "do whatever helps yourself look ahead better," because turning slow usually isn't it. I was curious if anyone else is this way?


----------



## guysensei1 (Aug 2, 2015)

Agree, I can't turn slow on 6x6 without losing lookahead


----------



## Nilsibert (Aug 2, 2015)

Same here. My lookahead is best when I turn moderately fast(3x3). Turning too slow or too fast both make my lookahead worse. It's all about finding that sweet middle. It's pretty hard though, so my times can be all over the place from 11s to 15-16s.


----------



## IRNjuggle28 (Aug 14, 2015)

I remember back when I was slow, thinking that by the time I was sub 15, I'd quit putting F2L pairs in the wrong slot, and by the time I was sub 1 on 4x4, I'd quit solving my centers wrong. Ha. HA HA HAA.


----------



## Rubiks560 (Aug 16, 2015)

Can someone give me the earliest known date to when ortega was invented? The earliest I've heard so far is 2000.


----------



## Stefan (Aug 16, 2015)

Rubiks560 said:


> Can someone give me the earliest known date to when ortega was invented? The earliest I've heard so far is 2000.



Have you asked Josef already?


----------



## guysensei1 (Aug 16, 2015)

IRNjuggle28 said:


> I remember back when I was slow, thinking that by the time I was sub 15, I'd quit putting F2L pairs in the wrong slot, and by the time I was sub 1 on 4x4, I'd quit solving my centers wrong. Ha. HA HA HAA.



I thought that when I was sub-15, I could always plan out my cross. Lol.


----------



## Stefan (Aug 16, 2015)

Stefan said:


> Have you asked Josef already?



Or... I guess this is Ortega himself, and maybe he'll tell you if you buy him the watch that he put on his wishlist just recently


----------



## Rubiks560 (Aug 16, 2015)

Stefan said:


> Have you asked Josef already?



Any ideas where I could contact him? Guess I'm not sure where to start.


----------



## PenguinsDontFly (Aug 16, 2015)

Dont you guys hate it when your PB ao5 is faster than your PB mo3?


----------



## TDM (Aug 16, 2015)

guysensei1 said:


> I thought that when I was sub-15, I could always plan out my cross. Lol.


I thought when I was going to get sub-15, I would do it with ZZ first. Ha. Still not there yet.

Edit: found the post and... it was sub-*12*, not sub-15: [post=936610]link[/post]. I'm _definitely_ not there yet.


----------



## Stefan (Aug 16, 2015)

Rubiks560 said:


> Any ideas where I could contact him? Guess I'm not sure where to start.



Try the email address on the bottom of his website.


----------



## Berkmann18 (Aug 16, 2015)

PenguinsDontFly said:


> Dont you guys hate it when your PB ao5 is faster than your PB mo3?



It never happened to me and it statistically unlikely.


Sent from my iPod touch using Tapatalk


----------



## PenguinsDontFly (Aug 16, 2015)

Berkmann18 said:


> It never happened to me and it statistically unlikely.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPod touch using Tapatalk



its not unlikely at all. its more likely to get 3 fast solves separated by a non-counting slow solve than it is to have 3 fast solves in a row.


----------



## TDM (Aug 16, 2015)

Berkmann18 said:


> It never happened to me and it statistically unlikely.


What do you mean by "statistically unlikely"? All you need is to have the slowest solve in the middle of the Ao5.


----------



## Reprobate (Aug 16, 2015)

I was curious and checked my Prisma timer history. Nowhere is my average of 5 better than my mean of 3, but for 4x4 the difference is less than half a second, and it's only 1.5 seconds for 7x7.


----------



## PenguinsDontFly (Aug 16, 2015)

Reprobate said:


> I was curious and checked my Prisma timer history. Nowhere is my average of 5 better than my mean of 3, but for 4x4 the difference is less than half a second, and it's only 1.5 seconds for 7x7.



this only recently happened to me in OH...


----------



## joshsailscga (Aug 16, 2015)

PenguinsDontFly said:


> Dont you guys hate it when your PB ao5 is faster than your PB mo3?



It's kind of funny though  I think that's currently the case for a couple events for me, can't remember which ones though.


----------



## cuBerBruce (Aug 16, 2015)

Rubiks560 said:


> Can someone give me the earliest known date to when ortega was invented? The earliest I've heard so far is 2000.



I don't know about the Ortega 3x3x3 method, but what is (now) called the "Ortega 2x2x2" method goes back to at least 1981. It was published in a booklet "Jeff Conquers the Cube in 45 Seconds" by Jeffrey Varasano (copyright 1981) as part of a corners first solution for the 3x3x3 cube.


----------



## Rubiks560 (Aug 16, 2015)

cuBerBruce said:


> I don't know about the Ortega 3x3x3 method, but what is (now) called the "Ortega 2x2x2" method goes back to at least 1981. It was published in a booklet "Jeff Conquers the Cube in 45 Seconds" by Jeffrey Varasano (copyright 1981) as part of a corners first solution for the 3x3x3 cube.



Yeah, I met him. I'm going to make an ortega tutorial with a history lesson telling people why it should be called Varasano and not Ortega. But I'd like to have info of Ortegas release date for comparison in the video.


----------



## Berkmann18 (Aug 16, 2015)

TDM said:


> What do you mean by "statistically unlikely"? All you need is to have the slowest solve in the middle of the Ao5.



I never got a single time a faster Ao5 than the fastest Mo3 on a session or several sessions combined.


----------



## Bindedsa (Aug 17, 2015)

Berkmann18 said:


> I never got a single time a faster Ao5 than the fastest Mo3 on a session or several sessions combined.



People have had sessions with better Ao12s than Ao5s before, Mo3 being faster than Ao5 is a lot more likely to occor.


----------



## IRNjuggle28 (Aug 17, 2015)

PenguinsDontFly said:


> its not unlikely at all. its more likely to get 3 fast solves separated by a non-counting slow solve than it is to have 3 fast solves in a row.



But with MO3, the best solve is counting. I can get a 7 (I've had 5 or so) and then two decent solves (let's say 12.5; my PB AO100 is 12.94) and get a MO3 better than any AO5 I've ever gotten (PB AO5 is 11.02). Fluke good solves matter in MO3, and not in AO5. 

It definitely happens. I've had AO5 faster than MO3, and even AO12 faster than AO5 (in big cubes, not in 3x3) but that doesn't happen to me too often. 

To answer your original post, no. It's not annoying to me; I would love for that to happen on 3x3. AO5 is what matters; I'd rather have a MO3 that's disproportionately bad than an AO5 that is. For big cubes, it's annoying, since MO3 matters more.


----------



## Berkmann18 (Aug 17, 2015)

Bindedsa said:


> People have had sessions with better Ao12s than Ao5s before, Mo3 being faster than Ao5 is a lot more likely to occor.



I know.


Sent from my iPod touch using Tapatalk


----------



## guysensei1 (Aug 17, 2015)

my 3x3 single and average world ranking differ by only 3 O_O


----------



## joshsailscga (Aug 17, 2015)

guysensei1 said:


> my 3x3 single and average world ranking differ by only 3 O_O



I guess that means compared to the average cuber, you had the average amount of luckiness for your single :O


----------



## Bindedsa (Aug 17, 2015)

guysensei1 said:


> my 3x3 single and average world ranking differ by only 3 O_O



Mine only differ by 1, I'm pretty sure they've been the same before.


----------



## TheCoolMinxer (Aug 17, 2015)

guysensei1 said:


> my 3x3 single and average world ranking differ by only 3 O_O



At some point, my OH single and avg had the exact same world rankings.  (16xy)


----------



## IRNjuggle28 (Aug 20, 2015)

In the almost two years I've been cubing, I've never felt like I reached a plateau. I never practiced an event tons without improvement, likely because I practice everything from 3x3 to 7x7. Whenever I got stuck on one event, I could practice others and beat PBs. I feel like I'm finally reaching a more difficult plateau in 3x3, though. My best AO100 is 12.94, and getting a sub 13.20 AO100 is pretty normal for me. I've gotten lots of low 13 averages, but am not really breaking through. I'll probably have to do something other than just a lot of solves if I want to improve more. Slow turning. New fingertricks. Metronome solves. Something. A new cube is worth considering, too, although I don't expect to average any better than 12.6 or so with a perfect cube. It's odd that 3x3 is the first event I reached a true plateau in; I'm much better at 5, 6, and 7. You'd think I'd run out of improvement room in those first.


----------



## IRNjuggle28 (Aug 21, 2015)

F2 sexy F2 and the inverse. Try it. Might be useful. Had no idea that solved an F2L case


----------



## guysensei1 (Aug 21, 2015)

IRNjuggle28 said:


> F2 sexy F2 and the inverse. Try it. Might be useful. Had no idea that solved an F2L case



I learnt this from Porkynator's FMC tutorial. I don't use it in normal solves as F2 is awkward but I do in FMC, just to see if anything good happens.


----------



## obelisk477 (Aug 21, 2015)

IRNjuggle28 said:


> F2 sexy F2 and the inverse. Try it. Might be useful. Had no idea that solved an F2L case



lol look at how alg.cubing interpreted it.. I just copy pasted without thinking about it and was like 'this doesn't look correct...'


----------



## OLLiver (Aug 22, 2015)

Ok here is a question-
Which method in your opinion has the potential to be faster ZZ or ZB?


----------



## Hssandwich (Aug 22, 2015)

obelisk477 said:


> lol look at how alg.cubing interpreted it.. I just copy pasted without thinking about it and was like 'this doesn't look correct...'



Brilliant!


----------



## KRAMIST (Aug 22, 2015)

can nyone upload or pm me pavan ravichandra's average against chris olsen at us nats 2015


----------



## Berkmann18 (Aug 22, 2015)

OLLiver said:


> Ok here is a question-
> Which method in your opinion has the potential to be faster ZZ or ZB?



I think it's ZB.


----------



## AlexMaass (Aug 23, 2015)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QDkp5CnWJBY&feature=youtu.be




This is a good unofficial challenge to do, Tao Yu could probably get sub 30 on this.


----------



## SpeedCubeReview (Aug 23, 2015)

So I think I found out that I used too much lube in my cube. I gave it to a 5th grade student to mix up and he described turning the cube as "It's like cutting an avocado." 

Harsh kid.


----------



## Tao Yu (Aug 24, 2015)

AlexMaass said:


> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QDkp5CnWJBY&feature=youtu.be
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QDkp5CnWJBY&feature=youtu.be
> This is a good unofficial challenge to do, Tao Yu could probably get sub 30 on this.



*32.728*  F' U2 F' U D' F U2 L D' F L F' L2 F2 U2 D2 R2 F' L2 U2 R2

Using ZZ, roux and CFOP (aolong, fangshi v2, fangshi v1). Had a really smooth run, but it can definitely be improved.


----------



## PenguinsDontFly (Aug 24, 2015)

Tao Yu said:


> *32.728*  F' U2 F' U D' F U2 L D' F L F' L2 F2 U2 D2 R2 F' L2 U2 R2
> 
> Using ZZ, roux and CFOP (aolong, fangshi v2, fangshi v1). Had a really smooth run, but it can definitely be improved.



gogo sub 30


----------



## AlexMaass (Aug 24, 2015)

Tao Yu said:


> *32.728*  F' U2 F' U D' F U2 L D' F L F' L2 F2 U2 D2 R2 F' L2 U2 R2
> 
> Using ZZ, roux and CFOP (aolong, fangshi v2, fangshi v1). Had a really smooth run, but it can definitely be improved.



sub 30 on cam pls


----------



## Tao Yu (Aug 24, 2015)

AlexMaass said:


> sub 30 on cam pls



Gonna try now. I reckon I've done enough ZZ avg12s for one day...

Did you use 15 second inspection? I actually didn't for that 32.

Edit: 31.200 U2 F L2 B L2 B' D2 L2 F' L2 B' D B F2 D' R' F' U F D2 with 15 second inspection on cam.
Edit: 30.816 R B' U B' U' D B2 L' B U B2 U' F2 D' B2 L2 F2 D' L2 D
Edit: My camera is out of battery now. No sub 30 yet. I'll try again tomorrow.

Got a 39.09 avg12 though.


----------



## AlexMaass (Aug 24, 2015)

Tao Yu said:


> Gonna try now. I reckon I've done enough ZZ avg12s for one day...
> 
> Did you use 15 second inspection? I actually didn't for that 32.
> 
> ...



noice, yeah I tried to like use 15 seconds inspection, I don't think inspection time should matter really, unless you're gonna use a BLD method or something


----------



## Tao Yu (Aug 24, 2015)

AlexMaass said:


> noice, yeah I tried to like use 15 seconds inspection, I don't think inspection time should matter really, unless you're gonna use a BLD method or something



Cool. I think I'll just use 15 seconds inspection. I think those two times I posted show that it's possible.


----------



## TheGermanCuber (Aug 24, 2015)

Hello people, do you know a good tutorial for 555-13 13 13 lbl i cant find it out on my own ?


----------



## OLLiver (Aug 25, 2015)

Who knows the most algorithms in the world? Excluding BLD Algs. Just regular Algs. Obviously there are people who know over 500. but who knows the most and how many does that person know?


----------



## Isaac Lai (Aug 25, 2015)

OLLiver said:


> Who knows the most algorithms in the world? Excluding BLD Algs. Just regular Algs. Obviously there are people who know over 500. but who knows the most and how many does that person know?



BindeDSA?


----------



## IRNjuggle28 (Aug 25, 2015)

Yeah, I think BindeDSA's a pretty safe bet for #1. As for how many, I don't know specifics, but counting full ZBLL, some of OLS, tripod, line, other 1LLs, and tons of skewb sets, not to mention ordinary stuff like F2L algs, the number is easily 1000 and might be significantly higher.


----------



## tseitsei (Aug 25, 2015)

OLLiver said:


> Who knows the most algorithms in the world? Excluding BLD Algs. Just regular Algs. Obviously there are people who know over 500. but who knows the most and how many does that person know?



Define alg. And define bld alg.


----------



## OLLiver (Aug 25, 2015)

tseitsei said:


> Define alg. And define bld alg.



I will define an alg by defining what it is not. E.g. Roman Strakhov who can do 9x9x9 BLD. The many sequences of moves he does to solve it are not algorithms.


----------



## guysensei1 (Aug 25, 2015)

OLLiver said:


> I will define an alg by defining what it is not. E.g. Roman Strakhov who can do 9x9x9 BLD. The many sequences of moves he does to solve it are not algorithms.



Are scrambles algs?


----------



## OLLiver (Aug 25, 2015)

guysensei1 said:


> Are scrambles algs?


nae they are not


----------



## tseitsei (Aug 25, 2015)

Is A-perm an alg?

Are some of the weirder F2L cases algs?

Is Sune an alg?


----------



## MennoniteCuber1 (Aug 25, 2015)

What happened to memyselfandpi?


----------



## TDM (Aug 25, 2015)

Anyone know a good <Rw, U> 3x3 method?


----------



## United Thought (Aug 25, 2015)

Are this and this the same thing except this[0] has fewer algs and they orient the last layer/solve the F2L pair in a different order?


----------



## OLLiver (Aug 26, 2015)

Yes to all


----------



## Berkmann18 (Aug 26, 2015)

TDM said:


> Anyone know a good <Rw, U> 3x3 method?



You should perhaps take a look at: https://maxcubing.wordpress.com/2015/01/23/berkmanns-method/



United Thought said:


> Are this and this the same thing except this[0] has fewer algs and they orient the last layer/solve the F2L pair in a different order?



It's as you said, done in a different order but it's not same thing except they both 2-look the LSOLL.


----------



## Bindedsa (Aug 26, 2015)

OLLiver said:


> Who knows the most algorithms in the world? Excluding BLD Algs. Just regular Algs. Obviously there are people who know over 500. but who knows the most and how many does that person know?



I know well over 1k, but some intuitive BLD methods might be considered more extensive.


----------



## OLLiver (Aug 26, 2015)

Bindedsa said:


> I know well over 1k, but some intuitive BLD methods might be considered more extensive.



I feel like you deserve some sort of title for learning all those algs. Lord of the Algs perhaps?


----------



## PenguinsDontFly (Aug 26, 2015)

OLLiver said:


> I feel like you deserve some sort of title for learning all those algs. Lord of the Algs perhaps?



algdb.jabari


----------



## 2180161 (Aug 26, 2015)

the mefferts venus pillow is the same as a 3x3 right?


----------



## joshsailscga (Aug 26, 2015)

MennoniteCuber1 said:


> What happened to memyselfandpi?



At some point, all things must come to an end, even youtube channels.


----------



## tseitsei (Aug 26, 2015)

OLLiver said:


> Yes to all



If this was an answer to me then:

Why is aperm an alg but otherbld comms are not? Aperm is just one of those commutators.

Why are F2L cases algs even if I have learned them all completely intuitively?

Also even sune is quite easy to come up with/learn/"use" intuitively: 1. Take on pair out 2. Move it by doing U 3. Insert it back normally.


----------



## OLLiver (Aug 26, 2015)

tseitsei said:


> If this was an answer to me then:
> 
> Why is aperm an alg but otherbld comms are not? Aperm is just one of those commutators.
> 
> ...



A Perm is used outside BLD solving therefore it is an alg.
You misunderstand. The F2L cases that you have learned, not figured out intuitively are Algs.
Most people (99.99%) don't figure out sune intuitively.


----------



## tseitsei (Aug 26, 2015)

OLLiver said:


> A Perm is used outside BLD solving therefore it is an alg.
> You misunderstand. The F2L cases that you have learned, not figured out intuitively are Algs.
> Most people (99.99%) don't figure out sune intuitively.



Comms are used outside of bld. During fmc insertions and some solving methods (Heise for example).

For the other 2: So the way you have learned those move sequences defines if they are algs or not?
In that case it depends on the PERSON instead of the actual CASE/MOVE SEQUENCE if it's an alg or not.

But then how about cases like my A perms? I learned it as an alg but I am nowadays thinking lf it as one bld comm since I solve bld much more than sighted. Is this an alg for me or not?
Also many f2l cases work similarly. You first look them up and learn them like algs but then you understand how they work and they become more and more intuitive...
Intuitive vs. algs isn't as black and white as you (and many others think). They kind of blend in together and in many cases it's quite hard or impossible to tell one from another...


----------



## IRNjuggle28 (Aug 26, 2015)

tseitsei said:


> Define alg.


Memorized sequence of moves.


tseitsei said:


> Define bld alg.


Intuitive sequence of moves derived from memorized commutator theory (or another memorized method of BLD solving) that's easily applicable enough to many cases that each individual case doesn't need to be memorized.


OLLiver said:


> I will define an alg by defining what it is not.


That's already not a definition. 


guysensei1 said:


> Are scrambles algs?


If you memorize them, yeah. They're pointless algs, but algs. 


tseitsei said:


> Comms are used outside of bld. During fmc insertions and some solving methods (Heise for example).


They're intuitive there as well. Learning what a comm is and how it works isn't necessarily intuitive, but once you understand how they work, applying that knowledge to any 3 cycle you encounter is intuitive. It doesn't involve case-specific memorization.


tseitsei said:


> For the other 2: So the way you have learned those move sequences defines if they are algs or not?
> In that case it depends on the PERSON instead of the actual CASE/MOVE SEQUENCE if it's an alg or not.


Yes. That is how the colloquial definition of "algorithm" works. "Memorized sequence of moves" is what everyone knows the word to mean commonly. I don't see the point into turning this into a semantics argument; you and everyone else knew what he meant. Whenever someone asks how many algs someone knows, they're asking how much they've memorized. Intuitive sequences vs memorized sequences are thought of differently, and rightfully so. It may not be clear what's an alg and what's not, but it is clear what question the OP was asking when he said "who knows the most algs." It's also clear the answer is Jabari. Not BLD solvers.


----------



## tseitsei (Aug 26, 2015)

IRNjuggle28 said:


> Whenever someone asks how many algs someone knows, they're asking how much they've memorized. Intuitive sequences vs memorized sequences are thought of differently, and rightfully so. It may not be clear what's an alg and what's not, but it is clear what question the OP was asking when he said "who knows the most algs." It's also clear the answer is Jabari. Not BLD solvers.



As I asked above: Is my a perm an alg. I have learned it by memorizing it but I'm currently using it very much the same way as any other bld com (so pretty much intuitively...). And yeah I totally agree that bindedsa probably knows most "algs" but the answer to question "how many algs I/you/anyone knows" isn't that straightforward and easy since different people consider different things as algs.


----------



## IRNjuggle28 (Aug 26, 2015)

tseitsei said:


> As I asked above: Is my a perm an alg. I have learned it by memorizing it but I'm currently using it very much the same way as any other bld com (so pretty much intuitively...). And yeah I totally agree that bindedsa probably knows most "algs" but the answer to question "how many algs I/you/anyone knows" isn't that straightforward and easy since different people consider different things as algs.


Edited the answer to that into my first post. I would consider it an alg when used as a PLL, but not as a BLD alg. I do think that the way a sequence of moves is used determines if it's an alg or not; I don't think alg is an objective description of a sequence of moves. It describes how the sequence of moves is applied.

EDIT: might as well add a disclaimer. I know this isn't the only definition of "alg" and I don't think the others are wrong in any objective way. I just think the definition I'm using is the most functional definition when it comes to discussing speedsolving.


----------



## zyxantjcae654 (Aug 26, 2015)

The intention to OLL, ignoring relative positions, and the intention to use subset ZBLL but the same as the OLL algo--is considered just 1 algo?


----------



## tseitsei (Aug 26, 2015)

IRNjuggle28 said:


> Edited the answer to that into my first post. I would consider it an alg when used as a PLL, but not as a BLD alg. I do think that the way a sequence of moves is used determines if it's an alg or not; I don't think alg is an objective description of a sequence of moves. It describes how the sequence of moves is applied.
> 
> EDIT: might as well add a disclaimer. I know this isn't the only definition of "alg" and I don't think the others are wrong in any objective way. I just think the definition I'm using is the most functional definition when it comes to discussing speedsolving.



By that definition I think all f2l cases would be algs and all comms used in bld would be algs. Because even though I have learned them intuitively I nowadays use them automatically from muscle memory without thnking why or how they work. Just like any other (pll) alg


----------



## IRNjuggle28 (Aug 26, 2015)

zyxantjcae654 said:


> The intention to OLL, ignoring relative positions, and the intention to use subset ZBLL but the same as the OLL algo--is considered just 1 algo?


Hmm, interesting point. Yeah, I would still consider it one alg; not sure what else it could be considered. It's a memorized sequence of moves either way (meaning that it's an alg) and it's an identical sequence of moves no matter whether it's used as OLL or ZBLL. (meaning that it's one alg, not multiple algs)



tseitsei said:


> By that definition I think all f2l cases would be algs and all comms used in bld would be algs. Because even though I have learned them intuitively I nowadays use them automatically from muscle memory without thnking why or how they work. Just like any other (pll) alg


"memorized sequence of moves" describes how they are learned, not just how they are used. F2L algs and BLD comms aren't initially memorized; they're figured out intuitively, then practiced to the point where they can be applied as easily as if they'd been memorized. I think by my definition, they clearly aren't algs.


----------



## tseitsei (Aug 26, 2015)

IRNjuggle28 said:


> "memorized sequence of moves" describes how they are learned, not just how they are used. F2L algs and BLD comms aren't initially memorized; they're figured out intuitively, then practiced to the point where they can be applied as easily as if they'd been memorized. I think by my definition, they clearly aren't algs.



Well someone from this forum (was it aronpm?) actually learned 3-style by learning every case as algs and not intuitively. So would you say that those were algs when he used them?


----------



## IRNjuggle28 (Aug 26, 2015)

tseitsei said:


> Well someone from this forum (was it aronpm?) actually learned 3-style by learning every case as algs and not intuitively. So would you say that those were algs when he used them?


He memorized 800+ algs? Impressive. Yes, I suppose they would be considered algs in this case, even though they typically aren't. If this was a common situation, I'd think that my definition of "algorithm" was a bad one. I think this is a rare exception, though, and that 3-style is typically an intuitive method.


----------



## zyxantjcae654 (Aug 26, 2015)

So in conclusion, ZBLL controls the whole LL no matter in orientation only or with solving. That includes OLL and PLL. And you can do multiple intentions using a specific algo. Whoo.


----------



## TDM (Aug 26, 2015)

Berkmann18 said:


> You should perhaps take a look at: https://maxcubing.wordpress.com/2015/01/23/berkmanns-method/


I can only use <r, U> though.


----------



## Berkmann18 (Aug 26, 2015)

TDM said:


> I can only use <r, U> though.



What are you trying to do exactly ?


----------



## PenguinsDontFly (Aug 26, 2015)

TDM said:


> I can only use <r, U> though.



RCFOP.

I just invented it. For every move that isnt <r,U>, you ROTATE. Its an OH method for people with tiny hands.


----------



## TDM (Aug 26, 2015)

Berkmann18 said:


> What are you trying to do exactly ?


Reddit's weekly competition has <r, U> as one of the events.


----------



## Berkmann18 (Aug 26, 2015)

Have you tried to do like ZZ but with only the two gen you specified or something like that ?


----------



## qaz (Aug 26, 2015)

This is the method I use for <r, U>:
1. solve bottom center and DR edge (intuitive)
2. solve the back F2L pair (intuitive)
3. solve DB edge
- misorient edge and put at UL, then do (r' U r) U (r' U r) U' (r' U' r)
4. orient edges (setup moves may be needed)
- r U' r2 U' r2 U r2 U r' U r2 U r2 U' r2 - orients UL and UF
5. solve U-layer edges one by one
- r2 U' r2 U' r U r2 U' r2 U2 r2 U r2 U' r U r2 - cycles DF-UB-FR (moves edge at DF to UB)

sub-1 definitely possible with this


----------



## TDM (Aug 26, 2015)

qaz said:


> This is the method I use for <r, U>:
> 1. solve bottom center and DR edge (intuitive)
> 2. solve the back F2L pair (intuitive)
> 3. solve DB edge
> ...


Thank you, this is (almost) perfect!

One question: How do you solve the last five corners? You don't seem to do that at all.


----------



## qaz (Aug 26, 2015)

Oh whoops, I forgot that step!

1. solve bottom center and DR edge (intuitive)
2. solve the back F2L pair (intuitive)
3. solve DB edge
- misorient edge and put at UL, then do (r' U r) U (r' U r) U' (r' U' r)
*4. solve corners <r, U> like a 2x2 without messing up the back F2L (solve DFR then rest with sune/antisune)*
5. orient edges (setup moves may be needed)
- r U' r2 U' r2 U r2 U r' U r2 U r2 U' r2 - orients UL and UF
6. solve U-layer edges one by one
- r2 U' r2 U' r U r2 U' r2 U2 r2 U r2 U' r U r2 - cycles DF-UB-FR (moves edge at DF to UB)


----------



## TDM (Aug 26, 2015)

qaz said:


> Oh whoops, I forgot that step!
> 
> 1. solve bottom center and DR edge (intuitive)
> 2. solve the back F2L pair (intuitive)
> ...


Thank you!

Any advice for step 5? I find myself having to use the step 6 alg to get pieces to the U layer, which slows me down a lot.

Edit: Just realised I could do r setup moves, so I think that should help.


----------



## qaz (Aug 26, 2015)

TDM said:


> Thank you!
> 
> Any advice for step 5? I find myself having to use the step 6 alg to get pieces to the U layer, which slows me down a lot.
> 
> Edit: Just realised I could do r setup moves, so I think that should help.


Yeah, that'd what I do as well. I only came up with this method a few days ago, so if you see something that you think could be improved chances are you're right.


----------



## TDM (Aug 27, 2015)

qaz said:


> Yeah, that'd what I do as well. I only came up with this method a few days ago, so if you see something that you think could be improved chances are you're right.


I was talking to ben about this and he uses an F2L -> 3-look LL method. It makes EP much faster, and there are no misoriented edges not on U. I think that could be a bit faster. Most of the LL was repeating an L-shape OLL, except for the U perm alg, which I can't remember at the moment.


----------



## qaz (Aug 27, 2015)

TDM said:


> I was talking to ben about this and he uses an F2L -> 3-look LL method. It makes EP much faster, and there are no misoriented edges not on U. I think that could be a bit faster. Most of the LL was repeating an L-shape OLL, except for the U perm alg, which I can't remember at the moment.



How fast is Ben with his method? I've gotten a 36.xx ao12 with mine, but if his is significantly faster I'll probably just use it instead...


----------



## TDM (Aug 27, 2015)

qaz said:


> How fast is Ben with his method? I've gotten a 36.xx ao12 with mine, but if his is significantly faster I'll probably just use it instead...


From what he's posted on FB (though he might have beaten these since then):
15.849, 16.677, 18.556, 14.551, 21.246, 14.503, 23.028, (23.388), 14.029, 15.607, (13.943), 14.498= 16.854
(23.388), 14.029, 15.607, (13.943), 14.498 = 14.711
9.549 single


----------



## United Thought (Aug 28, 2015)

Hang on, with this <r, U> method, can't you just use Roux where you do CMLL earlier on or something? (Using r R' = M', etc, obviously)

Also,

What is the minimum number of solves in an average you need for it to be called a global average?


----------



## PenguinsDontFly (Aug 28, 2015)

United Thought said:


> Hang on, with this <r, U> method, can't you just use Roux where you do CMLL earlier on or something? (Using r R' = M', etc, obviously)
> 
> Also,
> 
> What is the minimum number of solves in an average you need for it to be called a global average?



I would say 1000 solves is considered a global average.


----------



## Username (Aug 28, 2015)

United Thought said:


> What is the minimum number of solves in an average you need for it to be called a global average?



I consider global average to be the average you get when your amount of solves is infinite. As this is impossible to accomplish, just use some smaller number that still isn't all too small (like 500+ atleast)


----------



## PenguinsDontFly (Aug 28, 2015)

Username said:


> I consider global average to be the average you get when your amount of solves is infinite. As this is impossible to accomplish, just use some smaller number that still isn't all too small (like 500+ atleast)



well its dependent on the event as well. I think for 3x3, 1000 is the right number. something like 2x2 or skewb I would say like 5000, but like 250 for 4x4.


----------



## TDM (Aug 28, 2015)

I simply don't count my PBs as my global average. What I say is my global average is what I think I average. I guess you _could_ use PB Aox if you don't do Aoxs often though (and x is large).


----------



## qaz (Aug 28, 2015)

TDM said:


> From what he's posted on FB (though he might have beaten these since then):
> 15.849, 16.677, 18.556, 14.551, 21.246, 14.503, 23.028, (23.388), 14.029, 15.607, (13.943), 14.498= 16.854
> (23.388), 14.029, 15.607, (13.943), 14.498 = 14.711
> 9.549 single


Ok then, I guess his method is a lot better haha




United Thought said:


> Hang on, with this <r, U> method, can't you just use Roux where you do CMLL earlier on or something? (Using r R' = M', etc, obviously)
> 
> Also,
> 
> What is the minimum number of solves in an average you need for it to be called a global average?



You can't do R moves in this solving style, only r, so no.


----------



## United Thought (Aug 28, 2015)

qaz said:


> You can't do R moves in this solving style, only r, so no.



Oh, ok. Should have guessed that from <*r*, U>

Thanks to everyone who replied to my question about global average(too many posts to quote)


----------



## Berkmann18 (Aug 28, 2015)

United Thought said:


> Hang on, with this <r, U> method, can't you just use Roux where you do CMLL earlier on or something? (Using r R' = M', etc, obviously)
> 
> Also,
> 
> What is the minimum number of solves in an average you need for it to be called a global average?



At least 100 solves, But 500+ is preferable.


----------



## PenguinsDontFly (Aug 28, 2015)

Berkmann18 said:


> At least 100 solves, But 500+ is preferable.



ooh 100 is way too low. I used to use ao 100s, but then realized that even ao 100s can be quite lucky.


----------



## United Thought (Aug 28, 2015)

PenguinsDontFly said:


> ooh 100 is way too low. I used to use ao 100s, but then realized that even ao 100s can be quite lucky.



tru dat


----------



## Berkmann18 (Aug 28, 2015)

PenguinsDontFly said:


> ooh 100 is way too low. I used to use ao 100s, but then realized that even ao 100s can be quite lucky.



Woow.


----------



## IRNjuggle28 (Aug 29, 2015)

TDM said:


> I simply don't count my PBs as my global average. What I say is my global average is what I think I average. I guess you _could_ use PB Aox if you don't do Aoxs often though (and x is large).


Yeah, I think that's the only sensible way to do it. It's not that hard to gauge, usually. 

It's a pet peeve of mine when people call themselves sub _ as soon as they get a sub _ average of 100, or sometimes even an AO12 if they're particularly ridiculous. Your average can fluctuate plenty; even on 3x3, you can average a second above your best AO100. Hell, on 7x7 I can average 15 seconds above my PB AO100 on a bad day. I'm by far not the only person who is like this, so do what Louis said; just estimate what you average instead of using PBs.


----------



## OLLiver (Aug 29, 2015)

OMG wtf. https://www.speedsolving.com/wiki/index.php/List_of_Unofficial_World_Records
2.98 for 3x3 single? that is actually insane....is this legit?
Edit. Tried the scramble...XX cross, F sexy F' OLL. PLL+auf skip. got 3.99 lol. My non lucky PB is 8.73. What a lol scramble


----------



## Iggy (Aug 29, 2015)

OLLiver said:


> OMG wtf. https://www.speedsolving.com/wiki/index.php/List_of_Unofficial_World_Records
> 2.98 for 3x3 single? that is actually insane....is this legit?



Wat, is that even a legit scramble?


----------



## OLLiver (Aug 29, 2015)

Iggy said:


> Wat, is that even a legit scramble?


Its so ridiculous right?


----------



## TDM (Aug 29, 2015)

Iggy said:


> Wat, is that even a legit scramble?


Don't know, but it does look _very_ easy...

y'
L U M' x'
U2 R2 U R'
y R U2 R' U' R U R'
F R U R' U' F'

no AUFs anywhere.


----------



## KRAMIST (Aug 29, 2015)

got a pb of 9.07 and i average 23.02


----------



## OLLiver (Aug 29, 2015)

KRAMIST said:


> got a pb of 9.07 and i average 23.02



Should you count it as a PB if its not your scramble? also the amount of skill required for this solve is almost 0


----------



## y235 (Aug 29, 2015)

Random thought:

If you try to turn too fast, your lookahead worsens and your solve takes more time. Yet the movecount approximately stays the same.
Therefore, by increasing your tps you actually reduce your tps.


----------



## TDM (Aug 29, 2015)

y235 said:


> Therefore, by increasing your tps you actually reduce your tps.


It would be more accurate to say that you reduce your _average_ TPS. Your actual TPS would be higher, though the pauses make the average much less.


----------



## CyanSandwich (Aug 30, 2015)

current avg5: 1:12.24
current avg12: 1:12.24

Thought that was a nice little coincidence.


----------



## Animorpher13 (Aug 31, 2015)

Why are Speedstack Timers quite expensive? And where is a good place to get one at a good price?


----------



## AlexMaass (Aug 31, 2015)

Animorpher13 said:


> Why are Speedstack Timers quite expensive? And where is a good place to get one at a good price?



http://www.speedstacks.com/store/retail/speed-stacks-stackmat-pro-timer/

This is not expensive tbh


----------



## 2180161 (Aug 31, 2015)

what program do people use to get a blueprint (i guess) of a custom cube that they can 3D print?


----------



## TMarshall (Aug 31, 2015)

2180161 said:


> what program do people use to get a blueprint (i guess) of a custom cube that they can 3D print?



I don't 3d print, but if I remember correctly there's something called solidworks that can do that. 

And also a question to people who are good at side events/not 3x3: I'm sure most of you have seen Noah Arthurs and Feliks Zemdegs's videos on "climbing the mountain". Some of you have probably also read the book Moonwalking with Einstein or read http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2011/02/20/magazine/mind-secrets.html?_r=0. My question is, how do you apply these techniques to big cubes or side events? Particularly with big cubes, most people say that the only way to get good is to practice a lot. However, people like Mattia Furlan became incredibly quick at 7x7 in a ridiculously short amount of time. Was this due to just practicing a massive amount, or were there 'deliberate practice' techniques that you applied to your practice, and how did you apply them? sorry if this makes no sense, I couldn't find a good way to phrase this


----------



## 2180161 (Aug 31, 2015)

what type of plastic are most cubes made out of?


----------



## willtri4 (Aug 31, 2015)

TMarshall said:


> I don't 3d print, but if I remember correctly there's something called solidworks that can do that.
> 
> And also a question to people who are good at side events/not 3x3: I'm sure most of you have seen Noah Arthurs and Feliks Zemdegs's videos on "climbing the mountain". Some of you have probably also read the book Moonwalking with Einstein or read http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2011/02/20/magazine/mind-secrets.html?_r=0. My question is, how do you apply these techniques to big cubes or side events? Particularly with big cubes, most people say that the only way to get good is to practice a lot. However, people like Mattia Furlan became incredibly quick at 7x7 in a ridiculously short amount of time. Was this due to just practicing a massive amount, or were there 'deliberate practice' techniques that you applied to your practice, and how did you apply them? sorry if this makes no sense, I couldn't find a good way to phrase this



I'm solidly sub-25 on sq1 and I've had one for 4 months. A lot of that is I practice it much more than anything else, but also learning tips+tricks, shortcuts, trying new things, etc. also helped. For sq1 specifically you need to have a good understanding of how each step can influence the next / knowing what algs do.


----------



## Animorpher13 (Aug 31, 2015)

AlexMaass said:


> http://www.speedstacks.com/store/retail/speed-stacks-stackmat-pro-timer/
> 
> This is not expensive tbh



Oh, sorry. I found some that were like ~$10 on eBay but I can see that they are just knockoffs now. 

How fast should someone be before they invest in a Speedstack timer?


----------



## PenguinsDontFly (Aug 31, 2015)

Animorpher13 said:


> Oh, sorry. I found some that were like ~$10 on eBay but I can see that they are just knockoffs now.
> 
> How fast should someone be before they invest in a Speedstack timer?



its not necessary unless you find yourself failing in comp because of pickup and drop.


----------



## SpeedCubeReview (Sep 1, 2015)

What is the best web or iPhone timer that has CSV export function?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## CubeWizard23 (Sep 1, 2015)

2180161 said:


> what program do people use to get a blueprint (i guess) of a custom cube that they can 3D print?



I use a program called alibre/geomagic


----------



## IRNjuggle28 (Sep 1, 2015)

KRAMIST said:


> got a pb of 9.07 and i average 23.02


I thought you got a sub 10 AO12?


----------



## KRAMIST (Sep 1, 2015)

IRNjuggle28 said:


> I thought you got a sub 10 AO12?



as i explained to ottozing that was on 2x2 not on 3x3 but this was on 3x3 for the uwr scramble


----------



## guysensei1 (Sep 1, 2015)

What's the minimum number of yes/no questions (you are only allowed to ask if one *sticker* is a certain color) that you have to ask to be able to solve any cube? You can't see the cube of course, and you have amazing logical deduction and piece tracking skills and so on.


----------



## y235 (Sep 1, 2015)

guysensei1 said:


> What's the minimum number of yes/no questions (you are only allowed to ask if one *sticker* is a certain color) that you have to ask to be able to solve any cube? You can't see the cube of course, and you have amazing logical deduction and piece tracking skills and so on.



Just some quick thoughts, I might try to actually solve it later:

1. Your question is equivalent to "What number of stickers do you need to know in order to uniquely determine the state of the cube (assuming it's solvable)?" 
2. In order to know the colors of a corner piece you only need to see two of it stickers (assuming you know the way the centers are arranged. If you don't, that can take six more questions.)
3. If you know all corners but one, and all edges but one, you know everything. So an upper bound would be 2*7 (all corners - 1) + 2 * 11 (all edges - 1) = 36. 
You can actually make it 35 because if you don't know one of the other stickers, you can figure it out by the permutation cycles. 
(Now I see that you're talking about yes/no questions, and not asking for color of a sticker. But you can just ask about each of the six colors - or actually, just five. So 5*35 is an upper bound, yet it's impossible that each sticker would require 5 questions so you can probably make it better).
4. A trivial lower bound: each question gives you two possible answers, so you need at least log(number of states)~65.2 questions, so that's at least 66. If you're considering colors and not yes/no questions, that would be ~25.23, so at least 26.

EDIT: The bound mentioned in 3. is actually 8*5+8*5+8*4+8*3+3*2 = 142, which is better than 5*35 = 175. (I got to that by arguing that there aren't that much stickers that take a lot of questions to determine their color)


----------



## IRNjuggle28 (Sep 1, 2015)

guysensei1 said:


> What's the minimum number of yes/no questions (you are only allowed to ask if one *sticker* is a certain color) that you have to ask to be able to solve any cube? You can't see the cube of course, and you have amazing logical deduction and piece tracking skills and so on.


That's a fascinating question! I'm not even sure how calculable it is, but great question nonetheless.



Spoiler: My thoughts, which I realized are mostly mistaken shortly after finishing writing them.



A reasonable upper bound is 43, or 45 if you don't start with the cube in a known orientation. One question for each of the 54 stickers on the cube, minus 6 questions for each center sticker (I'm assuming the cube starts in a fixed orientation; if it doesn't, then add 2, because that's how many center stickers you need to know in order to know the cube's orientation), and minus 3 corner stickers and 2 edge stickers, since you can use the configuration of the other pieces to determine the exact position of the final corner and final edge. This would tell you where every piece is on the cube, and be sufficient for a BLD solve, or even a speedsolve, since we're given amazing deduction, piece tracking, and memory. 

54 stickers - 6 centers - 3 corner stickers - 2 edge stickers = *43*, plus 2 to determine center orientation if that isn't given = *45.*

There are plenty of circumstances where you wouldn't need to know all three stickers on a piece to know what every sticker on that piece was, but I have no idea how to calculate how frequently you wouldn't have to know every sticker. I imagine it would vary a lot depending on how lucky you get with your questions. For example, if you've solving white cross, have solved three white corners already and you get lucky and ask about a particular corner sticker location and are told it's white, you know what the other stickers on that piece are immediately, with no further questions. If you don't get lucky, you'll have to ask more than one question about that specific piece. I imagine there are tons of tricks for getting as much information as possible out of what stickers you do know, and to deduce what the rest of the stickers would have to be, but I wouldn't even know where to begin with calculating what the minimum number of yes/no questions needed to solve the cube 100% of the time is. 

One approach that I think technically should be allowed is filling in the colors of the cube, Soduku style. If you know 75% or so of the stickers on the cube, you could use your amazing deduction skills to make a list of every possible state the cube can be in; every possible way the 25% of the stickers you don't know the colors of could go on the cube in a way that makes the cube solvable. You could then find a solution to the cube in every one of those positions, and although you wouldn't know which of your many solutions was actually the solution to the cube, you would know that one of those many solutions does in fact solve the cube. In this case, you wouldn't need anywhere near 43 yes/no questions to solve the cube. This approach is a bit of a slippery slope, though, as it hypothetically would work without knowing any of the stickers. You'd know that one out of your 57 quintillion solutions solved the cube then as well.  

I look forward to seeing a true puzzle theoretician get their hands on this question. 

EDIT: ninja'd, but I'll leave the ideas here anyway even though some of them were already thought of.

The previous poster is right about only needing to know two corner stickers for each corner; that's a pretty simple mistake I made. I think that lowers my upper bound from 43 to 36, as you need one less corner sticker on each of the seven corners that aren't the final corner, which can be determined by the previous 7 corners alone.

EDIT2: Totally forgot about the yes/no aspect. I was thinking one word answers, not yes/no. So, this post is terribly flawed.


----------



## Ninja Storm (Sep 1, 2015)

If you knew the locations of all the edges(so 22 stickers,) wouldn't you only need to know the orientation of the last two corners in order to determine what they are? This would mean you'd need to get one sticker on each piece, so you'd be at -4 instead of -3, giving you 42/44 questions.

EDIT: You wouldn't even need the guess a sticker of the last piece, because you'll know the orientation of 7 corners, thus determining the 8th. so -5 for corners instead of -3, giving you 41/43 questions.

EDIT2: oh I didn't even see the post detailing it all


----------



## TheCoolMinxer (Sep 1, 2015)

Is there a ranking for (mini) Guildford challenge? Because a lot of people recently tried this and a ranking would be pretty cool


----------



## CubeWizard23 (Sep 1, 2015)

My brother thinks he is the second best OH minxer with a single of 6 something? Anyone pls prove him wrong


----------



## TheCoolMinxer (Sep 2, 2015)

CubeWizard23 said:


> My brother thinks he is the second best OH minxer with a single of 6 something? Anyone pls prove him wrong



Do you mean minutes? I have a 2:45 and I think Rob has a 2:15 or so, there are some videos on YouTube with sub5 mega OH Singles I think (not sure)


----------



## guysensei1 (Sep 2, 2015)

IRNjuggle28 said:


> That's a fascinating question! I'm not even sure how calculable it is, but great question nonetheless.



I was inspired when a friend blindfolded me and asked me to do that. Took a while.


----------



## Berd (Sep 2, 2015)

TheCoolMinxer said:


> Do you mean minutes? I have a 2:45 and I think Rob has a 2:15 or so, there are some videos on YouTube with sub5 mega OH Singles I think (not sure)


Bahgrav (?!) Has a 2 as well.


----------



## PenguinsDontFly (Sep 3, 2015)

Do people count PBs from twist the web?


----------



## Berkmann18 (Sep 3, 2015)

PenguinsDontFly said:


> Do people count PBs from twist the web?



It depends on the scramble.


----------



## TheCoolMinxer (Sep 3, 2015)

PenguinsDontFly said:


> Do people count PBs from twist the web?



I do  (when I get a PB)


----------



## PenguinsDontFly (Sep 3, 2015)

Berkmann18 said:


> It depends on the scramble.



ao 5?



TheCoolMinxer said:


> I do  (when I get a PB)



lol


----------



## TDM (Sep 3, 2015)

PenguinsDontFly said:


> Do people count PBs from twist the web?


I definitely do not for 2x2 or 3x3. Same with Sunday Contest. I used to, but I get so many more sub-10s and PBs that I don't any more. There are far more very easy scrambles.


----------



## PenguinsDontFly (Sep 3, 2015)

TDM said:


> I definitely do not for 2x2 or 3x3. Same with Sunday Contest. I used to, but I get so many more sub-10s and PBs that I don't any more. There are far more very easy scrambles.



 dammit back to old pb ao 5...


----------



## guysensei1 (Sep 3, 2015)

PenguinsDontFly said:


> Do people count PBs from twist the web?



Big cubes should be ok. The rest not really
Maybe mega.


----------



## IAmAPerson (Sep 3, 2015)

fml average

Would've had my first sub-3 average of 5 with SubSS...average:

Generated By csTimer on 2015-9-3
avg of 5: 3.23

Time List:
1. (2.06) F' R U F2 U F2 U2 F2 U' 
2. (7.75+) R2 U2 R2 U' R2 F' U' F' U2 
3. 2.49 F2 R2 U' R2 F' R U' R' U' 
4. 2.73 R2 U F' U F' U F' U F' 
5. 4.47 U' R2 U' R' U2 R' U R' U'

The fail came on the last solve. Planned solution (1-look):

y2 z' //Inspection
U2 R U' R' U2 R U2' R' U2 //OA with PBL skip

Actual solution:
y2 z' //Inspection
U2 R U2' _/* <-- here was my deadly mistake to ruin my average */_ R' U2 R U2' R' //Supposed to OA with PBL skip
//OH CRAP moment
U' R U R' //Layer
U R U R' U' R' F R F' //OLL
U' R' U L' U2 R U' R' U2 [R L] U' //PLL


----------



## Julian (Sep 4, 2015)

PenguinsDontFly said:


> Do people count PBs from twist the web?


Definitely no if random-state exists elsewhere.


----------



## PenguinsDontFly (Sep 4, 2015)

Julian said:


> Definitely no if random-state exists elsewhere.



I dont care about that PB anymore because I beat it today anyway lol. Why doesnt TTW have random state??? Solving with others is fun, but sort of pointless if you cant count PBs.


----------



## NeilH (Sep 4, 2015)

PenguinsDontFly said:


> I dont care about that PB anymore because I beat it today anyway lol. Why doesnt TTW have random state??? Solving with others is fun, but sort of pointless if you cant count PBs.



Wow you baller




because TTW is nub


----------



## 2180161 (Sep 4, 2015)

TDM said:


> BLD methods isn't a very good example as some methods, such as 3-style, are definitely better than others, such as OP. There isn't really any "best" 3x3 method for sighted solving, but imo Roux is best for 2H, ZZ for OH and CFOP if you're going to do both/bigcubes a lot. Also, for some people, getting faster is easier with some methods than with others. My blockbuilding sucks, so I'm still averaging over 1.5 times what I do with CFOP when using Roux. For me, I could get sub-15 by the end of the year, but for Roux it'd probably take me another 6 months more (as a guess. I'd have to improve my blockbuilding a lot, learn CMLL and get used to LSE, which I'm really slow at atm and have a lot of pauses).
> So there isn't really an answer to your question.



Really old post, but aren't you sub-15 with both now?


----------



## NeilH (Sep 4, 2015)

2180161 said:


> Really old post, but aren't you sub-15 with both now?



yea, i think he's actually sub 14


----------



## Isaac Lai (Sep 4, 2015)

https://www.worldcubeassociation.org/results/c.php?i=JuevesCubico2015

Um wut one competitor registered with less than a week till registration closes?


----------



## Iggy (Sep 4, 2015)

Isaac Lai said:


> https://www.worldcubeassociation.org/results/c.php?i=JuevesCubico2015
> 
> Um wut one competitor registered with less than a week till registration closes?



Wow, and he's the organiser and delegate


----------



## CyanSandwich (Sep 4, 2015)

Isaac Lai said:


> https://www.worldcubeassociation.org/results/c.php?i=JuevesCubico2015
> 
> Um wut one competitor registered with less than a week till registration closes?


There are 14 people registered on the website.
http://www.cubingsouthamerica.com/JuevesCubico2015/competitors.php


----------



## TDM (Sep 4, 2015)

2180161 said:


> Really old post, but aren't you sub-15 with both now?


Yep, I average mid-high 13 with both. Looking at the date, I was probably around 18 seconds with CFOP (I was sub-20 in September and ~17 in December), so I might have still been at 30+ with Roux. Haha.

Edit: postcount just went up 60 from this post :O I'm guessing Marcel's thread was moved to general discussion?
E2: yep.


----------



## IRNjuggle28 (Sep 4, 2015)

Berkmann18 said:


> It depends on the scramble.


If you're deciding whether to count something as a PB depending on whether the scramble felt easy, you've missed the point of PBs and your PBs aren't legitimate. If you're going to filter scrambles, do it. If you're not going to, that's fine too. But don't handpick the scrambles you're going to not count; that's not objective at all and makes it so there's no consistent standard your scrambles have to meet.


----------



## Berkmann18 (Sep 5, 2015)

IRNjuggle28 said:


> If you're deciding whether to count something as a PB depending on whether the scramble felt easy, you've missed the point of PBs and your PBs aren't legitimate. If you're going to filter scrambles, do it. If you're not going to, that's fine too. But don't handpick the scrambles you're going to not count; that's not objective at all and makes it so there's no consistent standard your scrambles have to meet.


Mate, why would I ever count lol scrambles when they pop up ? And yes it did happened where I had a "PB" but having a 2-mover on 2x2 or cube shape solved with easy orientation on sq1 is just NOPE.


----------



## IRNjuggle28 (Sep 5, 2015)

Berkmann18 said:


> Mate, why would I ever count lol scrambles when they pop up ? And yes it did happened where I had a "PB" but having a 2-mover on 2x2 or cube shape solved with easy orientation on sq1 is just NOPE.


...why not just use a decent scrambler then? I repeat: handpicking the scrambles you're deleting isn't objective. It's not like it's a huge deal, but what's the appeal to deleting easy solves instead of just getting a scrambler that filters them out?

First post was way more blunt than I intended; sorry for that.


----------



## Berkmann18 (Sep 6, 2015)

IRNjuggle28 said:


> ...why not just use a decent scrambler then? I repeat: handpicking the scrambles you're deleting isn't objective. It's not like it's a huge deal, but what's the appeal to deleting easy solves instead of just getting a scrambler that filters them out?
> 
> First post was way more blunt than I intended; sorry for that.



I do use decent scramblers, TTW is only when friends ask me to race them.
And you forget that TTW doesn't save times and scrambles so do I when I don't get legit PBs.
So don't get me wrong I don't delete easy solves as I don't save them on/from TTW.


Sent from my iPod touch using Tapatalk


----------



## Isaac Lai (Sep 10, 2015)

What is the square-1 scrambling orientation? My square-1's middle layer's green side isn't the bar which can be moved, so do I start with red or orange?


----------



## AlphaSheep (Sep 10, 2015)

Isaac Lai said:


> What is the square-1 scrambling orientation? My square-1's middle layer's green side isn't the bar which can be moved, so do I start with red or orange?



4d3) Square-1 is scrambled beginning with the darker colour on front (out of the 2 possible scrambling orientations).
So you should use red, unless it's a really pale red and really dark orange.


----------



## Tyler Comfy Hat (Sep 10, 2015)

So now that I've recieved my AoShi, I noticed that (coincidentally) all my cubic mains are from different brands.

2x2: DaYan
3x3: Gans (356)
4x4: Yuxin
5x5: Cyclone Boys
6x6: Moyu (AoShi)
7x7: Shengshou (Mini)

What a time to be alive, huh?


----------



## Berkmann18 (Sep 10, 2015)

Tyler Comfy Hat said:


> So now that I've recieved my AoShi, I noticed that (coincidentally) all my cubic mains are from different brands.
> 
> 2x2: DaYan
> 3x3: Gans (356)
> ...



Lol, what about the skewb or you didn't got one yet ?


----------



## Tyler Comfy Hat (Sep 10, 2015)

Berkmann18 said:


> Lol, what about the skewb or you didn't got one yet ?



I was talking about NxN cubes, my Skewb is Moyu. Although my Square-1 is MF8, so that fits.


----------



## Berkmann18 (Sep 10, 2015)

Tyler Comfy Hat said:


> I was talking about NxN cubes, my Skewb is Moyu. Although my Square-1 is MF8, so that fits.



I know that's why I asked the way I need although I forgot that you also had a square-1 that I sold to you.


----------



## Tyler Comfy Hat (Sep 10, 2015)

I don't remember buying a sq-1 from you? I think you're confusing me with someone else. I _did_ buy some cuboids off you, though.


----------



## Berkmann18 (Sep 10, 2015)

Tyler Comfy Hat said:


> I don't remember buying a sq-1 from you? I think you're confusing me with someone else. I _did_ buy some cuboids off you, though.



Yeah, my bad I thought it was one of the puzzles I sold to you.


----------



## Bindedsa (Sep 10, 2015)

Tyler Comfy Hat said:


> I was talking about NxN cubes, my Skewb is Moyu. Although my Square-1 is MF8, so that fits.



Get a Qiyi and switch to it for the hell of it.


----------



## Phinagin (Sep 10, 2015)

Tyler Comfy Hat said:


> So now that I've recieved my AoShi, I noticed that (coincidentally) all my cubic mains are from different brands.
> 
> 2x2: DaYan
> 3x3: Gans (356)
> ...


Get a YJ YuHu megaminx, technically different company from moyu.


----------



## Bindedsa (Sep 10, 2015)

I just realized that my main skewb has a broken corner, one of the fixed corners stalk was disconnected from the rest of the piece. Luckily, I have an extra Moyu skewb, to replace the piece. I wonder if fixing it will have a a significant affect.


----------



## obelisk477 (Sep 11, 2015)

Bindedsa said:


> I just realized that my main skewb has a broken corner, one of the fixed corners stalk was disconnected from the rest of the piece. Luckily, I have an extra Moyu skewb, to replace the piece. I wonder if fixing it will have a a significant affect.



watch it make you worse


----------



## TDM (Sep 11, 2015)

Phinagin said:


> Get a YJ YuHu megaminx, technically different company from moyu.


Or a QJ.


----------



## Ordway Persyn (Sep 14, 2015)

I'm just curios but how many COLL, ELL, ZBLL, OCPLL, and 1LLL algs are there for megaminx. I'm not Interested in learning them but i'm sure that not even Bindedsa would attempt full ZBLL on Megaminx.


----------



## Berd (Sep 14, 2015)

Ordway Persyn said:


> I'm just curios but how many COLL, ELL, ZBLL, OCPLL, and 1LLL algs are there for megaminx. I'm not Interested in learning them but i'm sure that not even Bindedsa would attempt full ZBLL on Megaminx.


I'm pretty sure it was sup 1000 for ZBLL.


----------



## joshsailscga (Sep 14, 2015)

Berd said:


> I'm pretty sure it was sup 1000 for ZBLL.



It must be that much at least, there's over 200 algs (218?) for full PLL alone


----------



## Isaac Lai (Sep 14, 2015)

The China Championship has 500+ registered competitors including Faz, Mats, Antoine and Collin, and I think Anthony Brooks is also going. Funny thing is, China's fastest cuber isn't even going.


----------



## Bindedsa (Sep 14, 2015)

Ordway Persyn said:


> but i'm sure that not even Bindedsa would attempt full ZBLL on Megaminx.



You doubt me? Honestly, if I liked mega I might. I've considered learning full PLL and I almost never solve it.


----------



## Ninja Storm (Sep 14, 2015)

Bindedsa said:


> You doubt me? Honestly, if I liked mega I might. I've considered learning full PLL and I almost never solve it.



There's Mega at Slow N Steady


----------



## Bindedsa (Sep 14, 2015)

Ninja Storm said:


> There's Mega at Slow N Steady



I didn't even register. I don't enjoy mega.


----------



## ryanj92 (Sep 17, 2015)

Something weird - if you take the J perm R' U L' U2 R U' R' U2 R L and replace all the U moves with wide U moves (R' u L' u2 R u' R' u2 R L), it does a pairs 3-cycle that looks like an A perm


----------



## penguinz7 (Sep 17, 2015)

ryanj92 said:


> Something weird - if you take the J perm R' U L' U2 R U' R' U2 R L and replace all the U moves with wide U moves (R' u L' u2 R u' R' u2 R L), it does a pairs 3-cycle that looks like an A perm



T-perm with all wide moves does basically the same thing.


----------



## Cale S (Sep 18, 2015)

funny ZBLL thing

setup: U R' U2 L U' L' R U R' U2 L U' R U' L' U2

R U2 R' U2 
z' y' J perm

basically like doing OLL in 4 moves


----------



## whauk (Sep 18, 2015)

Today I had two LL skips. The times were 8.04 OH and 9.69 2H...


----------



## guysensei1 (Sep 18, 2015)

Cale S said:


> funny ZBLL thing
> 
> setup: U R' U2 L U' L' R U R' U2 L U' R U' L' U2
> 
> ...



Faz did a video on this
https://youtu.be/O4sqvNU1Bg8


----------



## Berkmann18 (Sep 18, 2015)

penguinz7 said:


> T-perm with all wide moves does basically the same thing.



Yeah and if you do with just wide R moves it would give you an Ab perm with AUF which is really useful.


----------



## TDM (Sep 19, 2015)

I was trying some 2x2 2-gen solving, and... LBL is very slow. Does anyone know a better method for it? I think orient -> permute could be quite fast, even if it is a lot of algs (72 for orientation, intuitive permutation).

E: orienting DBR reduces the number of cases to 24, and is 1-2 moves max.

E2: a very quick check on Lucas Garron's Sortega page makes me thing that orienting the DBR sticker to be facing B could have slightly better algs.


----------



## PenguinsDontFly (Sep 19, 2015)

TDM said:


> I was trying some 2x2 2-gen solving, and... LBL is very slow. Does anyone know a better method for it? I think orient -> permute could be quite fast, even if it is a lot of algs (72 for orientation, intuitive permutation).
> 
> E: orienting DBR reduces the number of cases to 24, and is 1-2 moves max.
> 
> E2: a very quick check on Lucas Garron's Sortega page makes me thing that orienting the DBR sticker to be facing B could have slightly better algs.



try EG? TCLL? always having the bar and face/layer solvable by just RU makes it pretty easy.


----------



## TDM (Sep 19, 2015)

PenguinsDontFly said:


> try EG? TCLL? always having the bar and face/layer solvable by just RU makes it pretty easy.


That could work, but the setups would be long. Plus it doesn't really take advantage of having the cube in 2-gen, since you can usually make a bar very quickly anyway (if one isn't solved already).


----------



## TheGermanCuber (Sep 21, 2015)

Is there a puzzle wich is not too expensive but keeps me solving for a while?


----------



## guysensei1 (Sep 21, 2015)

TheGermanCuber said:


> Is there a puzzle wich is not too expensive but keeps me solving for a while?



http://www.cubezz.com/Buy-3821-CubeTwist+Bandaged+3x3x3+Magic+Cube+DIY+Kit+Black.html


----------



## bluesk1 (Sep 23, 2015)

guysensei1 said:


> http://www.cubezz.com/Buy-3821-CubeTwist+Bandaged+3x3x3+Magic+Cube+DIY+Kit+Black.html



out of stock ...


----------



## obelisk477 (Sep 23, 2015)

TheGermanCuber said:


> Is there a puzzle wich is not too expensive but keeps me solving for a while?



Yuhu Megaminx if you haven't tried mega yet


----------



## Ordway Persyn (Sep 24, 2015)

I have been on speedsolving.com for 1 year!


----------



## bluesk1 (Sep 24, 2015)

Ordway Persyn said:


> I have been on speedsolving.com for 1 year!



Congratulations!


----------



## willtri4 (Sep 28, 2015)

My megaminx KinchRank and my official OH single are both 38.28.


----------



## joshsailscga (Oct 11, 2015)

Saw a license plate the other day that said "BLDRBOB" and genuinely wondered for a few seconds what Blinder Bob was supposed to be...


----------



## PJKCuber (Oct 11, 2015)

I just found that Mofang in Mandarin means Cube and maybe that's why I've heard the term Mofanglutan on this site before.


----------



## Iggy (Oct 13, 2015)

I'm exactly 1000th in the world for OH single lol

But that means I won't be in the top 1000 for all ranks soon :/


----------



## joshsailscga (Oct 18, 2015)

I find it pretty funny that V-cubes still holds a podium position in world rankings because of Meep's crazy 5x5 single.


----------



## Isaac Lai (Oct 18, 2015)

Since Jules Desjardin got a sub-9 3x3 average yesterday, only one more person needs to get a sub-9 average for the top 100 to become sub-9.

Edit:
Nvm, Reinier Schippers got a 8.60 at the Dutch Open, making the top 100 sub-9


----------



## Iggy (Oct 18, 2015)

Isaac Lai said:


> Since Jules Desjardin got a sub-9 3x3 average yesterday, only one more person needs to get a sub-9 average for the top 100 to become sub-9.





Isaac Lai said:


> Nvm, Reinier Schippers got a 8.60 at the Dutch Open, making the top 100 sub-9



Wow, that's crazy. Top 100 for single is getting really fast too, almost sub Erik


----------



## PenguinsDontFly (Oct 18, 2015)

just found a year-old aolong v1 in my desk and somehow it turns better than my main weilong...


----------



## JustinTimeCuber (Oct 22, 2015)

The maximum possible TPS is around 947,045,759 TPS.
Maximum "radius" of a cube is diagonal to center, so 57 cm * sqrt 2 * 0.5 * 0.01 m/cm = 0.403050865 m
Multiply by pi/2 for length of arc: 0.633110819 m
divide by speed of light: about 2.1 ns
1/x: 947,045,759 TPS
Edit: oops unit fail multiply answer by 10:
9,470,457,590 TPS


----------



## tseitsei (Oct 22, 2015)

JustinTimeCuber said:


> The maximum possible TPS is around 947,045,759 TPS.
> Maximum "radius" of a cube is diagonal to center, so 57 cm * sqrt 2 * 0.5 * 0.01 m/cm = 0.403050865 m
> Multiply by pi/2 for length of arc: 0.633110819 m
> divide by speed of light: about 2.1 ns
> ...



So we need smaller cubes then...


----------



## JustinTimeCuber (Oct 23, 2015)

tseitsei said:


> So we need smaller cubes then...



yeah true dat
Does anyone here know what the relativistic effects of turning a cube at say, 9 billion tps (about 0.9503c)?
It would probably be super weird. Length contraction in 360 degrees of directions just doesn't make sense to me...


----------



## TDM (Oct 23, 2015)

JustinTimeCuber said:


> yeah true dat
> Does anyone here know what the relativistic effects of turning a cube at say, 9 billion tps (about 0.9503c)?
> It would probably be super weird. Length contraction in 360 degrees of directions just doesn't make sense to me...



relevant what if


----------



## joshsailscga (Oct 23, 2015)

TDM said:


> relevant what if



Oh man, I love that blog  This baseball one is the first one I ever found, and it's still my favorite. It seems to be pretty inactive for now, though


----------



## JustinTimeCuber (Oct 23, 2015)

TDM said:


> relevant what if



ok so simple answer: everyone dies


----------



## rj (Oct 23, 2015)

JustinTimeCuber said:


> yeah true dat
> Does anyone here know what the relativistic effects of turning a cube at say, 9 billion tps (about 0.9503c)?
> It would probably be super weird. Length contraction in 360 degrees of directions just doesn't make sense to me...



You could be sub-nanosecond only to you, you'd just be sub 10 to everyone else. It might also create a microsingularity while sounding like a TARDIS, too.


----------



## Iggy (Oct 24, 2015)

Edward Lin got a 6.83 official 3x3 single, now the top 100 is sub Erik


----------



## Isaac Lai (Oct 24, 2015)

Iggy said:


> Edward Lin got a 6.83 official 3x3 single, now the top 100 is sub Erik



So much GJ today


----------



## TDM (Oct 24, 2015)

Iggy said:


> Edward Lin got a 6.83 official 3x3 single, now the top 100 is sub Erik



Wow, and the top-100 averages are almost entirely sub-9 too - 100th is exactly 9.00. 3x3's getting fast.


----------



## PenguinsDontFly (Oct 24, 2015)

TDM said:


> Wow, and the top-100 averages are almost entirely sub-9 too - 100th is exactly 9.00. 3x3's getting fast.



go chris!!!!1


----------



## Isaac Lai (Oct 25, 2015)

TDM said:


> Wow, and the top-100 averages are almost entirely sub-9 too - 100th is exactly 9.00. 3x3's getting fast.



Swann Castel's 8.48 average makes the top 100 sub-9.


----------



## Sajwo (Oct 25, 2015)

708 days, 555 days, 525 days :confused: :confused: Guess the next WR is 4.50 then


----------



## Berd (Oct 25, 2015)

Sajwo said:


> http://i59.tinypic.com/33xc36c.png
> 
> 708 days, 555 days, 525 days :confused: :confused: Guess the next WR is 4.50 then


That's insane haha, imagine if it actually was :O


----------



## Isaac Lai (Oct 25, 2015)

Sajwo said:


> http://i59.tinypic.com/33xc36c.png
> 
> 708 days, 555 days, 525 days :confused: :confused: Guess the next WR is 4.50 then



Whoa 2015 records are already in the picture!


----------



## Torch (Oct 26, 2015)

The Danish Special 2016 is happening in 2015. Hm.

EDIT: And it's fixed.


----------



## OLLiver (Oct 27, 2015)

Ok, I was enjoying a fine stroll down the UWR page and realised the UWR for pyraminx doesn't exist? Does anyone know what the UWR for single is? Is it sub 1?


----------



## Isaac Lai (Oct 27, 2015)

OLLiver said:


> Ok, I was enjoying a fine stroll down the UWR page and realised the UWR for pyraminx doesn't exist? Does anyone know what the UWR for single is? Is it sub 1?



Nobody cares, seriously. Too many people will claim it with scambles which aren't legit.


----------



## OLLiver (Oct 27, 2015)

Isaac Lai said:


> Nobody cares, seriously. Too many people will claim it with scambles which aren't legit.



Do you think any legit sub 1 solves exist?


----------



## Bindedsa (Oct 27, 2015)

OLLiver said:


> Do you think any legit sub 1 solves exist?



I'm like 99% I've seen drew post sub 1 singles in the accomplishment thread before.


----------



## Isaac Lai (Oct 27, 2015)

OLLiver said:


> Do you think any legit sub 1 solves exist?



Found one (took me a while though lol)


XTowncuber said:


> U R' B R B' U' B U' u'
> 
> .86


----------



## guysensei1 (Oct 27, 2015)

Isaac Lai said:


> Found one (took me a while though lol)


Wait till Drew gets a 2-flip as a scramble.
(Unless optimal for 2flip isn't 8...)


----------



## Iggy (Oct 27, 2015)

OLLiver said:


> Ok, I was enjoying a fine stroll down the UWR page and realised the UWR for pyraminx doesn't exist? Does anyone know what the UWR for single is? Is it sub 1?



There's this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dkSXFV-qdwY


----------



## Isaac Lai (Oct 28, 2015)

Iggy said:


> There's this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dkSXFV-qdwY



But 5 moves isn't legal.


----------



## Ninja Storm (Oct 29, 2015)

I watched the WCA page update live with ODU results.

As far as I could tell, it updates singles first, then averages.


----------



## pinser (Oct 31, 2015)

Which event has the greatest difference in the top 100?
ie-top 100 in 3x3 are about the same speed, while mega has a much greater difference


----------



## PenguinsDontFly (Oct 31, 2015)

pinser said:


> Which event has the greatest difference in the top 100?
> ie-top 100 in 3x3 are about the same speed, while mega has a much greater difference



probably mbld or 5bld


----------



## Isaac Lai (Nov 1, 2015)

pinser said:


> Which event has the greatest difference in the top 100?
> ie-top 100 in 3x3 are about the same speed, while mega has a much greater difference



7x7 is quite big for a more "normal" event (not BLD or FMC)


----------



## obelisk477 (Nov 5, 2015)

Can someone ~10ish on 3x3 do a relatively substantial average of timed PLLs without inspection and tell me what they get


----------



## TheCoolMinxer (Nov 7, 2015)

Does someone know what happened to Zane? Because he isn't active on YT since 2 years now. Why did stop cubing?


----------



## LL Cool Skip (Nov 11, 2015)

Brushed up on my tripod algs today... Passed one up during OH practice.
Sometimes I wonder why OH is even an event... 80 solves later I remember I have things I'm supposed to be doing.
2 wrong slots, half an N-perm, OLL, PLL... Still sub-30.

random cubing poetry


----------



## Chree (Nov 11, 2015)

LL Cool Skip said:


> Brushed up on my tripod algs today... Passed one up during OH practice.
> Sometimes I wonder why OH is even an event... 80 solves later I remember I have things I'm supposed to be doing.
> 2 wrong slots, half an N-perm, OLL, PLL... Still sub-30.
> 
> random cubing poetry



I dig it.


----------



## TDM (Nov 16, 2015)

Anyone know why this happened? I think this is over double the previous record, which hadn't changed for a while.


----------



## Ordway Persyn (Nov 16, 2015)

Maybe that was all the spam bots XD, Or maybe someone linked speed solving on a big cubing channel.


----------



## Ordway Persyn (Nov 17, 2015)

I always noticed that my Mini SS can revers cut half a Cubie. is that normal? My full size SS can't really revers cut. I noticed that my mini is more rounded off than the regular. I always thought that the mini was exactly the same as the regular but smaller and with a different feel.


----------



## 2180161 (Nov 17, 2015)

LL Cool Skip said:


> Brushed up on my tripod algs today... Passed one up during OH practice.
> Sometimes I wonder why OH is even an event... 80 solves later I remember I have things I'm supposed to be doing.
> 2 wrong slots, half an N-perm, OLL, PLL... Still sub-30.
> 
> random cubing poetry


I can see the influences; rumi, yeats, Li Bo, Dickensen,


----------



## LL Cool Skip (Nov 17, 2015)

Cube competition
My hands are sweaty again
Rosin bag next time

Haiku


----------



## Isaac Lai (Nov 22, 2015)

Amidst all the hype over WRs, nobody noticed that Tanzer Balimtas' 8.93 average makes the world's top 100 sub-9! Also Lucas Etter 30.76 4x4 average


----------



## Torch (Nov 24, 2015)

Brandon Mikel is currently ranked 69th in the world for MBLD.


----------



## Ninja Storm (Nov 24, 2015)

Isaac Lai said:


> Amidst all the hype over WRs, nobody noticed that Tanzer Balimtas' 8.93 average makes the world's top 100 sub-9! Also Lucas Etter 30.76 4x4 average



Tanzer also got a 6.21 minutes before I got my 5.09. 

Sorry Tanzer, I still love you <3


----------



## guysensei1 (Nov 25, 2015)

sub-1 cross+centers on 6x6, solve isn't sub-3 
;_;


----------



## joshsailscga (Nov 25, 2015)

When was the last time someone's single+average ranking in 3x3 was better than Feliks?
(Lucas has 1+2 which beats Faz's 4+1 right now)


----------



## Ordway Persyn (Nov 26, 2015)

At winter camp, another scout in my troop brought a Rubik's brand 2-4, they were bad. I always wondered how they would feel


----------



## JamesDanko (Nov 28, 2015)

I wonder what solvers (Roux, CFOP) have the best understanding of the cube? Which ones understand how pieces are effected and how it works overall the best? I would have to guess ZZ, with edge orientation giving a great understanding of how solving works.


----------



## joshsailscga (Nov 28, 2015)

JamesDanko said:


> I wonder what solvers (Roux, CFOP) have the best understanding of the cube? Which ones understand how pieces are effected and how it works overall the best? I would have to guess ZZ, with edge orientation giving a great understanding of how solving works.



I would say Roux rather than ZZ, you need a pretty thorough understanding of what's going to move where for planning F2B.


----------



## Cale S (Nov 28, 2015)

JamesDanko said:


> I wonder what solvers (Roux, CFOP) have the best understanding of the cube? Which ones understand how pieces are effected and how it works overall the best? I would have to guess ZZ, with edge orientation giving a great understanding of how solving works.



FMC solvers


----------



## Praetorian (Nov 28, 2015)

JamesDanko said:


> I wonder what solvers (Roux, CFOP) have the best understanding of the cube? Which ones understand how pieces are effected and how it works overall the best? I would have to guess ZZ, with edge orientation giving a great understanding of how solving works.



alex lau the man himself


----------



## MoyuFTW (Nov 28, 2015)

Ninja Storm said:


> Tanzer also got a 6.21 minutes before I got my 5.09.
> 
> Sorry Tanzer, I still love you <3



Wait you're Keaton Ellis....(Just realised) What... I just thought you were just a regular not too fast cuber like most. Obviously I didn't read your signature... Mind blown though. Such a significant figure hanging out with all the rest of us slow peeps


----------



## joshsailscga (Nov 28, 2015)

MoyuFTW said:


> Wait you're Keaton Ellis....(Just realised) What... I just thought you were just a regular not too fast cuber like most. Obviously I didn't read your signature... Mind blown though. Such a significant figure hanging out with all the rest of us slow peeps



LOL, honestly the only really fast person I can think of who doesn't have a forum account is Lucas. Or maybe he does and just doesn't ever post, I'm not sure.


----------



## Isaac Lai (Nov 28, 2015)

joshsailscga said:


> LOL, honestly the only really fast person I can think of who doesn't have a forum account is Lucas. Or maybe he does and just doesn't ever post, I'm not sure.



He does. It's called lucascube.


----------



## guysensei1 (Dec 1, 2015)

We are on the verge of the first 3 digit WCA ID number. One more Wang or Chen and we will achieve it.


----------



## Isaac Lai (Dec 1, 2015)

guysensei1 said:


> We are on the verge of the first 3 digit WCA ID number. One more Wang or Chen and we will achieve it.



Lmao I was gonna post this


----------



## PenguinsDontFly (Dec 1, 2015)

JamesDanko said:


> I wonder what solvers (Roux, CFOP) have the best understanding of the cube? Which ones understand how pieces are effected and how it works overall the best? I would have to guess ZZ, with edge orientation giving a great understanding of how solving works.



Tao Yu.


----------



## Cale S (Dec 5, 2015)

Has anyone considered a 2-look L2C system for 5x5 where you solve the "corners" (xcenters) and then the "edges" (+centers)?
Most of the cases are really nice, and there aren't very many. I think it could be pretty consistently efficient.
http://bit.do/2lookL2C


----------



## joshsailscga (Dec 5, 2015)

Cale S said:


> Has anyone considered a 2-look L2C system for 5x5 where you solve the "corners" (xcenters) and then the "edges" (+centers)?
> Most of the cases are really nice, and there aren't very many. I think it could be pretty consistently efficient.
> http://bit.do/2lookL2C



That doc doesn't have public access. Just thinking about it, though, it seems like for the 'edges' there would be too many slice moves to be speedsolve-friendly.


----------



## Praetorian (Dec 5, 2015)

PenguinsDontFly said:


> Tao Yu.



def tao yu


----------



## Cale S (Dec 5, 2015)

joshsailscga said:


> That doc doesn't have public access. Just thinking about it, though, it seems like for the 'edges' there would be too many slice moves to be speedsolve-friendly.



oh oops I fixed it now

there are actually less slice moves than there seems like there would be, and the most common case (I think) doesn't have any if you do it as 2 fast 3 move triggers


----------



## guysensei1 (Dec 5, 2015)

what's the shortest 2gen alg that affects corners but leaves edges fixed? I know a few 12 move ones.


----------



## Cale S (Dec 5, 2015)

guysensei1 said:


> what's the shortest 2gen alg that affects corners but leaves edges fixed? I know a few 12 move ones.



maybe this? M2 U2 M2 U M2 U2 M2 U


----------



## guysensei1 (Dec 5, 2015)

Cale S said:


> maybe this? M2 U2 M2 U M2 U2 M2 U



Should have added 'in HTM'


----------



## qqwref (Dec 5, 2015)

guysensei1 said:


> what's the shortest 2gen alg that affects corners but leaves edges fixed? I know a few 12 move ones.


12 moves is optimal, according to Cube Explorer.

All the 12s:


Spoiler



U R U R U R2 U R U R U R2 (12f*)
U R U R U2 R U R U R U2 R (12f*)
U R U R U' R2 U' R2 U2 R' U2 R' (12f*)
U R U R2 U R U R U R2 U R (12f*)
U R U R2 U' R U' R' U2 R2 U2 R' (12f*)
U R U R' U2 R2 U2 R' U' R U' R2 (12f*)
U R U R' U2 R' U2 R2 U' R2 U' R (12f*)
U R U2 R U R U R U2 R U R (12f*)
U R U2 R U2 R2 U' R2 U' R' U R' (12f*)
U R U2 R2 U2 R U' R' U' R2 U R' (12f*)
U R U2 R' U R2 U' R' U2 R U' R2 (12f*)
U R U2 R' U R' U' R2 U2 R2 U' R (12f*)
U R U2 R' U2 R U R' U2 R U2 R' (12f*)
U R U' R U2 R' U' R' U R2 U2 R2 (12f*)
U R U' R U' R' U2 R' U2 R2 U R2 (12f*)
U R U' R2 U R2 U' R U R2 U' R2 (12f*)
U R U' R2 U2 R2 U' R' U R' U2 R (12f*)
U R U' R2 U' R2 U2 R' U2 R' U R (12f*)
U R U' R' U R U' R' U R U' R' (12f*)
U R2 U R U R U R2 U R U R (12f*)
U R2 U R U' R U' R' U2 R' U2 R2 (12f*)
U R2 U R2 U2 R U2 R U' R' U' R' (12f*)
U R2 U R2 U2 R' U2 R' U' R U' R (12f*)
U R2 U R' U R' U R2 U R' U R' (12f*)
U R2 U R' U' R' U' R U2 R U2 R2 (12f*)
U R2 U2 R U2 R U' R' U' R' U R2 (12f*)
U R2 U2 R2 U R U' R U2 R' U' R' (12f*)
U R2 U2 R2 U R' U' R' U2 R U' R (12f*)
U R2 U2 R2 U2 R2 U R2 U2 R2 U2 R2 (12f*)
U R2 U2 R' U2 R' U' R U' R U R2 (12f*)
U R2 U' R U R2 U' R2 U R U' R2 (12f*)
U R2 U' R U2 R' U' R2 U R' U2 R (12f*)
U R2 U' R U' R' U2 R2 U2 R' U R (12f*)
U R2 U' R2 U R U' R2 U R2 U' R (12f*)
U R2 U' R2 U R2 U' R2 U R2 U' R2 (12f*)
U R2 U' R2 U R' U' R2 U R2 U' R' (12f*)
U R2 U' R' U R2 U' R2 U R' U' R2 (12f*)
U R2 U' R' U2 R U' R2 U R U2 R' (12f*)
U R2 U' R' U' R U2 R2 U2 R U R' (12f*)
U R' U R U2 R U2 R2 U' R2 U' R' (12f*)
U R' U R U2 R2 U2 R U' R' U' R2 (12f*)
U R' U R2 U R' U R' U R2 U R' (12f*)
U R' U R2 U' R' U' R U2 R2 U2 R (12f*)
U R' U R' U R2 U R' U R' U R2 (12f*)
U R' U R' U2 R' U R' U R' U2 R' (12f*)
U R' U R' U' R2 U' R2 U2 R U2 R (12f*)
U R' U2 R U R U' R2 U2 R2 U' R' (12f*)
U R' U2 R U R2 U' R U2 R' U' R2 (12f*)
U R' U2 R U2 R' U R U2 R' U2 R (12f*)
U R' U2 R2 U2 R' U' R U' R2 U R (12f*)
U R' U2 R' U R' U R' U2 R' U R' (12f*)
U R' U2 R' U2 R2 U' R2 U' R U R (12f*)
U R' U' R U R' U' R U R' U' R (12f*)
U R' U' R2 U R2 U' R' U R2 U' R2 (12f*)
U R' U' R2 U2 R2 U' R U R U2 R' (12f*)
U R' U' R2 U' R2 U2 R U2 R U R' (12f*)
U R' U' R' U2 R U' R U R2 U2 R2 (12f*)
U R' U' R' U' R U2 R U2 R2 U R2 (12f*)
U2 R U R U R U2 R U R U R (12f*)
U2 R U R U' R2 U2 R2 U' R' U R' (12f*)
U2 R U R2 U' R U2 R' U' R2 U R' (12f*)
U2 R U R' U R2 U' R' U' R U2 R2 (12f*)
U2 R U R' U R' U' R2 U' R2 U2 R (12f*)
U2 R U R' U2 R U2 R' U R U2 R' (12f*)
U2 R U2 R U R' U R' U' R2 U' R2 (12f*)
U2 R U2 R U' R' U' R' U R2 U R2 (12f*)
U2 R U2 R2 U R2 U R' U' R' U' R (12f*)
U2 R U2 R2 U2 R2 U2 R U2 R2 U2 R2 (12f*)
U2 R U2 R2 U' R2 U' R' U R' U R (12f*)
U2 R U2 R' U R U2 R' U2 R U R' (12f*)
U2 R U2 R' U2 R U2 R' U2 R U2 R' (12f*)
U2 R U2 R' U' R U2 R' U2 R U' R' (12f*)
U2 R U' R U R2 U2 R2 U R' U' R' (12f*)
U2 R U' R U' R U2 R U' R U' R (12f*)
U2 R U' R2 U R U2 R' U R2 U' R' (12f*)
U2 R U' R' U2 R U2 R' U' R U2 R' (12f*)
U2 R U' R' U' R2 U R' U R U2 R2 (12f*)
U2 R U' R' U' R' U R2 U R2 U2 R (12f*)
U2 R2 U R U' R U2 R' U' R' U R2 (12f*)
U2 R2 U R2 U R U' R U' R' U2 R' (12f*)
U2 R2 U R2 U R' U' R' U' R U2 R (12f*)
U2 R2 U R2 U2 R2 U2 R2 U R2 U2 R2 (12f*)
U2 R2 U R' U' R' U2 R U' R U R2 (12f*)
U2 R2 U2 R U R' U R2 U' R' U' R (12f*)
U2 R2 U2 R U2 R2 U2 R2 U2 R U2 R2 (12f*)
U2 R2 U2 R U' R' U' R2 U R' U R (12f*)
U2 R2 U2 R2 U R2 U2 R2 U2 R2 U R2 (12f*)
U2 R2 U2 R2 U2 R U2 R2 U2 R2 U2 R (12f*)
U2 R2 U2 R2 U2 R2 U2 R2 U2 R2 U2 R2 (12f*)
U2 R2 U2 R2 U2 R' U2 R2 U2 R2 U2 R' (12f*)
U2 R2 U2 R2 U' R2 U2 R2 U2 R2 U' R2 (12f*)
U2 R2 U2 R' U R U R2 U' R U' R' (12f*)
U2 R2 U2 R' U2 R2 U2 R2 U2 R' U2 R2 (12f*)
U2 R2 U2 R' U' R U' R2 U R U R' (12f*)
U2 R2 U' R U R U2 R' U R' U' R2 (12f*)
U2 R2 U' R2 U2 R2 U2 R2 U' R2 U2 R2 (12f*)
U2 R2 U' R2 U' R U R U R' U2 R' (12f*)
U2 R2 U' R2 U' R' U R' U R U2 R (12f*)
U2 R2 U' R' U R' U2 R U R U' R2 (12f*)
U2 R' U R U R U' R2 U' R2 U2 R' (12f*)
U2 R' U R U R2 U' R U' R' U2 R2 (12f*)
U2 R' U R U2 R' U2 R U R' U2 R (12f*)
U2 R' U R2 U' R' U2 R U' R2 U R (12f*)
U2 R' U R' U R' U2 R' U R' U R' (12f*)
U2 R' U R' U' R2 U2 R2 U' R U R (12f*)
U2 R' U2 R U R' U2 R U2 R' U R (12f*)
U2 R' U2 R U2 R' U2 R U2 R' U2 R (12f*)
U2 R' U2 R U' R' U2 R U2 R' U' R (12f*)
U2 R' U2 R2 U R2 U R U' R U' R' (12f*)
U2 R' U2 R2 U2 R2 U2 R' U2 R2 U2 R2 (12f*)
U2 R' U2 R2 U' R2 U' R U R U R' (12f*)
U2 R' U2 R' U R U R U' R2 U' R2 (12f*)
U2 R' U2 R' U' R U' R U R2 U R2 (12f*)
U2 R' U' R U2 R' U2 R U' R' U2 R (12f*)
U2 R' U' R U' R U R2 U R2 U2 R' (12f*)
U2 R' U' R U' R2 U R U R' U2 R2 (12f*)
U2 R' U' R2 U R' U2 R U R2 U' R (12f*)
U2 R' U' R' U R2 U2 R2 U R U' R (12f*)
U2 R' U' R' U' R' U2 R' U' R' U' R' (12f*)
U' R U R U R' U2 R' U2 R2 U' R2 (12f*)
U' R U R U2 R' U R' U' R2 U2 R2 (12f*)
U' R U R2 U R2 U2 R' U2 R' U' R (12f*)
U' R U R2 U2 R2 U R' U' R' U2 R (12f*)
U' R U R2 U' R2 U R U' R2 U R2 (12f*)
U' R U R' U' R U R' U' R U R' (12f*)
U' R U2 R U2 R2 U R2 U R' U' R' (12f*)
U' R U2 R U' R U' R U2 R U' R (12f*)
U' R U2 R2 U2 R U R' U R2 U' R' (12f*)
U' R U2 R' U2 R U' R' U2 R U2 R' (12f*)
U' R U2 R' U' R2 U R' U2 R U R2 (12f*)
U' R U2 R' U' R' U R2 U2 R2 U R (12f*)
U' R U' R U R2 U R2 U2 R' U2 R' (12f*)
U' R U' R U2 R U' R U' R U2 R (12f*)
U' R U' R U' R2 U' R U' R U' R2 (12f*)
U' R U' R2 U R U R' U2 R2 U2 R' (12f*)
U' R U' R2 U' R U' R U' R2 U' R (12f*)
U' R U' R' U2 R2 U2 R' U R U R2 (12f*)
U' R U' R' U2 R' U2 R2 U R2 U R (12f*)
U' R2 U R U R' U2 R2 U2 R' U' R (12f*)
U' R2 U R U2 R' U R2 U' R' U2 R (12f*)
U' R2 U R U' R2 U R2 U' R U R2 (12f*)
U' R2 U R2 U' R U R2 U' R2 U R (12f*)
U' R2 U R2 U' R2 U R2 U' R2 U R2 (12f*)
U' R2 U R2 U' R' U R2 U' R2 U R' (12f*)
U' R2 U R' U R U2 R2 U2 R U' R' (12f*)
U' R2 U R' U2 R U R2 U' R U2 R' (12f*)
U' R2 U R' U' R2 U R2 U' R' U R2 (12f*)
U' R2 U2 R U2 R U R' U R' U' R2 (12f*)
U' R2 U2 R2 U2 R2 U' R2 U2 R2 U2 R2 (12f*)
U' R2 U2 R2 U' R U R U2 R' U R' (12f*)
U' R2 U2 R2 U' R' U R' U2 R U R (12f*)
U' R2 U2 R' U2 R' U R U R U' R2 (12f*)
U' R2 U' R U R U R' U2 R' U2 R2 (12f*)
U' R2 U' R U' R U' R2 U' R U' R (12f*)
U' R2 U' R2 U2 R U2 R U R' U R' (12f*)
U' R2 U' R2 U2 R' U2 R' U R U R (12f*)
U' R2 U' R' U R' U R U2 R U2 R2 (12f*)
U' R2 U' R' U' R' U' R2 U' R' U' R' (12f*)
U' R' U R U' R' U R U' R' U R (12f*)
U' R' U R2 U R2 U2 R U2 R U' R' (12f*)
U' R' U R2 U2 R2 U R U' R U2 R' (12f*)
U' R' U R2 U' R2 U R' U' R2 U R2 (12f*)
U' R' U R' U R U2 R U2 R2 U' R2 (12f*)
U' R' U R' U2 R U R U' R2 U2 R2 (12f*)
U' R' U2 R U2 R' U' R U2 R' U2 R (12f*)
U' R' U2 R U' R U R2 U2 R2 U R' (12f*)
U' R' U2 R U' R2 U R U2 R' U R2 (12f*)
U' R' U2 R2 U2 R' U R U R2 U' R (12f*)
U' R' U2 R' U2 R2 U R2 U R U' R (12f*)
U' R' U2 R' U' R' U' R' U2 R' U' R' (12f*)
U' R' U' R U2 R U2 R2 U R2 U R' (12f*)
U' R' U' R U2 R2 U2 R U R' U R2 (12f*)
U' R' U' R2 U R' U R U2 R2 U2 R (12f*)
U' R' U' R2 U' R' U' R' U' R2 U' R' (12f*)
U' R' U' R' U R2 U R2 U2 R U2 R (12f*)
U' R' U' R' U2 R' U' R' U' R' U2 R' (12f*)
U' R' U' R' U' R2 U' R' U' R' U' R2 (12f*)
R U R U R U2 R U R U R U2 (12f*)
R U R U R2 U R U R U R2 U (12f*)
R U R U R' U2 R' U2 R2 U' R2 U' (12f*)
R U R U2 R U R U R U2 R U (12f*)
R U R U2 R' U R' U' R2 U2 R2 U' (12f*)
R U R U' R2 U2 R2 U' R' U R' U2 (12f*)
R U R U' R2 U' R2 U2 R' U2 R' U (12f*)
R U R2 U R U R U R2 U R U (12f*)
R U R2 U R2 U2 R' U2 R' U' R U' (12f*)
R U R2 U2 R2 U R' U' R' U2 R U' (12f*)
R U R2 U' R U2 R' U' R2 U R' U2 (12f*)
R U R2 U' R U' R' U2 R2 U2 R' U (12f*)
R U R2 U' R2 U R U' R2 U R2 U' (12f*)
R U R' U R2 U' R' U' R U2 R2 U2 (12f*)
R U R' U R' U' R2 U' R2 U2 R U2 (12f*)
R U R' U2 R U2 R' U R U2 R' U2 (12f*)
R U R' U2 R2 U2 R' U' R U' R2 U (12f*)
R U R' U2 R' U2 R2 U' R2 U' R U (12f*)
R U R' U' R U R' U' R U R' U' (12f*)
R U2 R U R U R U2 R U R U (12f*)
R U2 R U R' U R' U' R2 U' R2 U2 (12f*)
R U2 R U2 R2 U R2 U R' U' R' U' (12f*)
R U2 R U2 R2 U' R2 U' R' U R' U (12f*)
R U2 R U' R U' R U2 R U' R U' (12f*)
R U2 R U' R' U' R' U R2 U R2 U2 (12f*)
R U2 R2 U R2 U R' U' R' U' R U2 (12f*)
R U2 R2 U2 R U R' U R2 U' R' U' (12f*)
R U2 R2 U2 R U' R' U' R2 U R' U (12f*)
R U2 R2 U2 R2 U2 R U2 R2 U2 R2 U2 (12f*)
R U2 R2 U' R2 U' R' U R' U R U2 (12f*)
R U2 R' U R U2 R' U2 R U R' U2 (12f*)
R U2 R' U R2 U' R' U2 R U' R2 U (12f*)
R U2 R' U R' U' R2 U2 R2 U' R U (12f*)
R U2 R' U2 R U R' U2 R U2 R' U (12f*)
R U2 R' U2 R U2 R' U2 R U2 R' U2 (12f*)
R U2 R' U2 R U' R' U2 R U2 R' U' (12f*)
R U2 R' U' R U2 R' U2 R U' R' U2 (12f*)
R U2 R' U' R2 U R' U2 R U R2 U' (12f*)
R U2 R' U' R' U R2 U2 R2 U R U' (12f*)
R U' R U R2 U R2 U2 R' U2 R' U' (12f*)
R U' R U R2 U2 R2 U R' U' R' U2 (12f*)
R U' R U2 R U' R U' R U2 R U' (12f*)
R U' R U2 R' U' R' U R2 U2 R2 U (12f*)
R U' R U' R U2 R U' R U' R U2 (12f*)
R U' R U' R2 U' R U' R U' R2 U' (12f*)
R U' R U' R' U2 R' U2 R2 U R2 U (12f*)
R U' R2 U R U R' U2 R2 U2 R' U' (12f*)
R U' R2 U R U2 R' U R2 U' R' U2 (12f*)
R U' R2 U R2 U' R U R2 U' R2 U (12f*)
R U' R2 U2 R2 U' R' U R' U2 R U (12f*)
R U' R2 U' R U' R U' R2 U' R U' (12f*)
R U' R2 U' R2 U2 R' U2 R' U R U (12f*)
R U' R' U R U' R' U R U' R' U (12f*)
R U' R' U2 R U2 R' U' R U2 R' U2 (12f*)
R U' R' U2 R2 U2 R' U R U R2 U' (12f*)
R U' R' U2 R' U2 R2 U R2 U R U' (12f*)
R U' R' U' R2 U R' U R U2 R2 U2 (12f*)
R U' R' U' R' U R2 U R2 U2 R U2 (12f*)
R2 U R U R U R2 U R U R U (12f*)
R2 U R U R' U2 R2 U2 R' U' R U' (12f*)
R2 U R U2 R' U R2 U' R' U2 R U' (12f*)
R2 U R U' R U2 R' U' R' U R2 U2 (12f*)
R2 U R U' R U' R' U2 R' U2 R2 U (12f*)
R2 U R U' R2 U R2 U' R U R2 U' (12f*)
R2 U R2 U R U' R U' R' U2 R' U2 (12f*)
R2 U R2 U R' U' R' U' R U2 R U2 (12f*)
R2 U R2 U2 R U2 R U' R' U' R' U (12f*)
R2 U R2 U2 R2 U2 R2 U R2 U2 R2 U2 (12f*)
R2 U R2 U2 R' U2 R' U' R U' R U (12f*)
R2 U R2 U' R U R2 U' R2 U R U' (12f*)
R2 U R2 U' R2 U R2 U' R2 U R2 U' (12f*)
R2 U R2 U' R' U R2 U' R2 U R' U' (12f*)
R2 U R' U R U2 R2 U2 R U' R' U' (12f*)
R2 U R' U R' U R2 U R' U R' U (12f*)
R2 U R' U2 R U R2 U' R U2 R' U' (12f*)
R2 U R' U' R2 U R2 U' R' U R2 U' (12f*)
R2 U R' U' R' U2 R U' R U R2 U2 (12f*)
R2 U R' U' R' U' R U2 R U2 R2 U (12f*)
R2 U2 R U R' U R2 U' R' U' R U2 (12f*)
R2 U2 R U2 R U R' U R' U' R2 U' (12f*)
R2 U2 R U2 R U' R' U' R' U R2 U (12f*)
R2 U2 R U2 R2 U2 R2 U2 R U2 R2 U2 (12f*)
R2 U2 R U' R' U' R2 U R' U R U2 (12f*)
R2 U2 R2 U R U' R U2 R' U' R' U (12f*)
R2 U2 R2 U R2 U2 R2 U2 R2 U R2 U2 (12f*)
R2 U2 R2 U R' U' R' U2 R U' R U (12f*)
R2 U2 R2 U2 R U2 R2 U2 R2 U2 R U2 (12f*)
R2 U2 R2 U2 R2 U R2 U2 R2 U2 R2 U (12f*)
R2 U2 R2 U2 R2 U2 R2 U2 R2 U2 R2 U2 (12f*)
R2 U2 R2 U2 R2 U' R2 U2 R2 U2 R2 U' (12f*)
R2 U2 R2 U2 R' U2 R2 U2 R2 U2 R' U2 (12f*)
R2 U2 R2 U' R U R U2 R' U R' U' (12f*)
R2 U2 R2 U' R2 U2 R2 U2 R2 U' R2 U2 (12f*)
R2 U2 R2 U' R' U R' U2 R U R U' (12f*)
R2 U2 R' U R U R2 U' R U' R' U2 (12f*)
R2 U2 R' U2 R2 U2 R2 U2 R' U2 R2 U2 (12f*)
R2 U2 R' U2 R' U R U R U' R2 U' (12f*)
R2 U2 R' U2 R' U' R U' R U R2 U (12f*)
R2 U2 R' U' R U' R2 U R U R' U2 (12f*)
R2 U' R U R U R' U2 R' U2 R2 U' (12f*)
R2 U' R U R U2 R' U R' U' R2 U2 (12f*)
R2 U' R U R2 U' R2 U R U' R2 U (12f*)
R2 U' R U2 R' U' R2 U R' U2 R U (12f*)
R2 U' R U' R U' R2 U' R U' R U' (12f*)
R2 U' R U' R' U2 R2 U2 R' U R U (12f*)
R2 U' R2 U R U' R2 U R2 U' R U (12f*)
R2 U' R2 U R2 U' R2 U R2 U' R2 U (12f*)
R2 U' R2 U R' U' R2 U R2 U' R' U (12f*)
R2 U' R2 U2 R U2 R U R' U R' U' (12f*)
R2 U' R2 U2 R2 U2 R2 U' R2 U2 R2 U2 (12f*)
R2 U' R2 U2 R' U2 R' U R U R U' (12f*)
R2 U' R2 U' R U R U R' U2 R' U2 (12f*)
R2 U' R2 U' R' U R' U R U2 R U2 (12f*)
R2 U' R' U R2 U' R2 U R' U' R2 U (12f*)
R2 U' R' U R' U R U2 R U2 R2 U' (12f*)
R2 U' R' U R' U2 R U R U' R2 U2 (12f*)
R2 U' R' U2 R U' R2 U R U2 R' U (12f*)
R2 U' R' U' R U2 R2 U2 R U R' U (12f*)
R2 U' R' U' R' U' R2 U' R' U' R' U' (12f*)
R' U R U R U' R2 U' R2 U2 R' U2 (12f*)
R' U R U R2 U' R U' R' U2 R2 U2 (12f*)
R' U R U2 R U2 R2 U' R2 U' R' U (12f*)
R' U R U2 R2 U2 R U' R' U' R2 U (12f*)
R' U R U2 R' U2 R U R' U2 R U2 (12f*)
R' U R U' R' U R U' R' U R U' (12f*)
R' U R2 U R2 U2 R U2 R U' R' U' (12f*)
R' U R2 U R' U R' U R2 U R' U (12f*)
R' U R2 U2 R2 U R U' R U2 R' U' (12f*)
R' U R2 U' R2 U R' U' R2 U R2 U' (12f*)
R' U R2 U' R' U2 R U' R2 U R U2 (12f*)
R' U R2 U' R' U' R U2 R2 U2 R U (12f*)
R' U R' U R U2 R U2 R2 U' R2 U' (12f*)
R' U R' U R2 U R' U R' U R2 U (12f*)
R' U R' U R' U2 R' U R' U R' U2 (12f*)
R' U R' U2 R U R U' R2 U2 R2 U' (12f*)
R' U R' U2 R' U R' U R' U2 R' U (12f*)
R' U R' U' R2 U2 R2 U' R U R U2 (12f*)
R' U R' U' R2 U' R2 U2 R U2 R U (12f*)
R' U2 R U R U' R2 U2 R2 U' R' U (12f*)
R' U2 R U R2 U' R U2 R' U' R2 U (12f*)
R' U2 R U R' U2 R U2 R' U R U2 (12f*)
R' U2 R U2 R' U R U2 R' U2 R U (12f*)
R' U2 R U2 R' U2 R U2 R' U2 R U2 (12f*)
R' U2 R U2 R' U' R U2 R' U2 R U' (12f*)
R' U2 R U' R U R2 U2 R2 U R' U' (12f*)
R' U2 R U' R2 U R U2 R' U R2 U' (12f*)
R' U2 R U' R' U2 R U2 R' U' R U2 (12f*)
R' U2 R2 U R2 U R U' R U' R' U2 (12f*)
R' U2 R2 U2 R2 U2 R' U2 R2 U2 R2 U2 (12f*)
R' U2 R2 U2 R' U R U R2 U' R U' (12f*)
R' U2 R2 U2 R' U' R U' R2 U R U (12f*)
R' U2 R2 U' R2 U' R U R U R' U2 (12f*)
R' U2 R' U R U R U' R2 U' R2 U2 (12f*)
R' U2 R' U R' U R' U2 R' U R' U (12f*)
R' U2 R' U2 R2 U R2 U R U' R U' (12f*)
R' U2 R' U2 R2 U' R2 U' R U R U (12f*)
R' U2 R' U' R U' R U R2 U R2 U2 (12f*)
R' U2 R' U' R' U' R' U2 R' U' R' U' (12f*)
R' U' R U R' U' R U R' U' R U (12f*)
R' U' R U2 R U2 R2 U R2 U R' U' (12f*)
R' U' R U2 R2 U2 R U R' U R2 U' (12f*)
R' U' R U2 R' U2 R U' R' U2 R U2 (12f*)
R' U' R U' R U R2 U R2 U2 R' U2 (12f*)
R' U' R U' R2 U R U R' U2 R2 U2 (12f*)
R' U' R2 U R2 U' R' U R2 U' R2 U (12f*)
R' U' R2 U R' U R U2 R2 U2 R U' (12f*)
R' U' R2 U R' U2 R U R2 U' R U2 (12f*)
R' U' R2 U2 R2 U' R U R U2 R' U (12f*)
R' U' R2 U' R2 U2 R U2 R U R' U (12f*)
R' U' R2 U' R' U' R' U' R2 U' R' U' (12f*)
R' U' R' U R2 U R2 U2 R U2 R U' (12f*)
R' U' R' U R2 U2 R2 U R U' R U2 (12f*)
R' U' R' U2 R U' R U R2 U2 R2 U (12f*)
R' U' R' U2 R' U' R' U' R' U2 R' U' (12f*)
R' U' R' U' R U2 R U2 R2 U R2 U (12f*)
R' U' R' U' R2 U' R' U' R' U' R2 U' (12f*)
R' U' R' U' R' U2 R' U' R' U' R' U2 (12f*)


----------



## obelisk477 (Dec 5, 2015)

Whats to stop me from organizing a comp and calling it US Nationals 2016 on January 2nd with me and some other random cuber as the only organizers?


----------



## Cale S (Dec 5, 2015)

obelisk477 said:


> Whats to stop me from organizing a comp and calling it US Nationals 2016 on January 2nd with me and some other random cuber as the only organizers?



The WCA has to approve competitions, and they probably wouldn't approve that for some strange reason


----------



## obelisk477 (Dec 5, 2015)

Cale S said:


> The WCA has to approve competitions, and they probably wouldn't approve that for some strange reason



My point being that they have no regulations about preventing someone from claiming the right to host a national competition. At least not to my knowledge.


----------



## Torch (Dec 5, 2015)

obelisk477 said:


> My point being that they have no regulations about preventing someone from claiming the right to host a national competition. At least not to my knowledge.



There are no regulations against odd competition names, but until recently many of those were rejected.


----------



## qqwref (Dec 8, 2015)

New metric idea for Square-1: "qtm". / counts as 1 move, (0,x) or (x,0) counts as x/3 moves rounded up. So /(3,-3)/ is 4 moves, as is (6,6). Alternately, / counts as 2 moves - maybe some Square-1 experts could chime in on whih makes more sense.


----------



## shadowslice e (Dec 8, 2015)

qqwref said:


> New metric idea for Square-1: "qtm". / counts as 1 move, (0,x) or (x,0) counts as x/3 moves rounded up. So /(3,-3)/ is 4 moves, as is (6,6). Alternately, / counts as 2 moves - maybe some Square-1 experts could chime in on whih makes more sense.



I don't really qualify as an expert but I think that ATM (where any moves on the the same axis count as one-ie U D counts as one moves) as most of the algs or just moves in general will be doing double moves (slice moves depending on how you look at it).


----------



## willtri4 (Dec 8, 2015)

qqwref said:


> New metric idea for Square-1: "qtm". / counts as 1 move, (0,x) or (x,0) counts as x/3 moves rounded up. So /(3,-3)/ is 4 moves, as is (6,6). Alternately, / counts as 2 moves - maybe some Square-1 experts could chime in on whih makes more sense.





shadowslice e said:


> I don't really qualify as an expert but I think that ATM (where any moves on the the same axis count as one-ie U D counts as one moves) as most of the algs or just moves in general will be doing double moves (slice moves depending on how you look at it).



If this is for measuring TPS more accurately (which I assume it is), then I think each (x, y) pair should only count for the bigger move. In my experience, the time to execute (3, -3) would be closer to (3, 0) than to (6, 0). Also I feel like / should count as 1 move. / is technically more turning, but I feel like it's faster and easier than an equivalent layer turn.


----------



## not_kevin (Dec 9, 2015)

qqwref said:


> New metric idea for Square-1: "qtm". / counts as 1 move, (0,x) or (x,0) counts as x/3 moves rounded up. So /(3,-3)/ is 4 moves, as is (6,6). Alternately, / counts as 2 moves - maybe some Square-1 experts could chime in on whih makes more sense.





willtri4 said:


> If this is for measuring TPS more accurately (which I assume it is), then I think each (x, y) pair should only count for the bigger move. In my experience, the time to execute (3, -3) would be closer to (3, 0) than to (6, 0). Also I feel like / should count as 1 move. / is technically more turning, but I feel like it's faster and easier than an equivalent layer turn.



I agree that counting pairs of moves makes more sense, yeah - in practice, if I do a (3,6), I'm not really gonna do U D D, I'm gonna do (U D) D at worst.

I think I agree that / feels more like 1 move than 2. Then again, QTM on 3x3 equates R to U, and R2 U R2' is definitely slower than R U R' on a 3x3, maybe it should be considered 2 moves. But I think we're getting more into the arguments between QTM and HTM on 3x3 at this point. I'd probably say that the equivalent of QTM should be 2 for /, and ceil(max(x/3, y/3)) for (x,y); for HTM, it would be 1 for /, and 1 for any (x,y) pair (aka, the WCA counting system).


----------



## qqwref (Dec 10, 2015)

Taking the max of x and y sounds good. I was aiming for something a bit closer to ETM - something which would give a very rough idea of how long an alg really takes to execute.


----------



## not_kevin (Dec 10, 2015)

qqwref said:


> Taking the max of x and y sounds good. I was aiming for something a bit closer to ETM - something which would give a very rough idea of how long an alg really takes to execute.



In that case, I think max is probably your best bet, yeah.

As for moves, because of my turning style, I find that (-4,y) (at least once in cubeshape) feels like 1 move, while (4,y) tends to feel like 1.2-1.5. I don't like doing anything more than |3| on D - in fact, I think that other than ABFs between steps and maybe 1 move in cubeshape, I just don't do anything more than |3| on D. So ceil(x/3) is probably close enough, but just some feedback on what I subjectively feel when turning. (Of course, the correct thing is to film myself doing moves, both in algs and in solves, and see how long everything tends to take. But I'm lazy )


----------



## Ordway Persyn (Dec 10, 2015)

Which is the best CoLL subset to start with? I know most people will save Sunes and Antisunes for last so H, Pi, T, L, or U?


----------



## Berd (Dec 10, 2015)

Ordway Persyn said:


> Which is the best CoLL subset to start with? I know most people will save Sunes and Antisunes for last so H, Pi, T, L, or U?


I did H first.


----------



## shadowslice e (Dec 10, 2015)

Ordway Persyn said:


> Which is the best CoLL subset to start with? I know most people will save Sunes and Antisunes for last so H, Pi, T, L, or U?



H or Pi have nice algs and easy recognition.


----------



## TDM (Dec 10, 2015)

I think L has the easiest algs by far - all are 8-9 moves except triple (anti)sune. H is a smaller set though, so I think many people learn that first.


----------



## PenguinsDontFly (Dec 10, 2015)

Ordway Persyn said:


> Which is the best CoLL subset to start with? I know most people will save Sunes and Antisunes for last so H, Pi, T, L, or U?



I learned H first. only 4 algs: F triple sexy F', double antisune, sune cancelled into niklas, and F insert U R U2 R' U' sexy F'.


----------



## Bindedsa (Dec 11, 2015)

The accomplishment thread is a pretty cool log of everyone's progress, I was wondering if there was an easy way for me too get a list of all of my posts. It would be cool be if I could make a log of all of my progress.


----------



## Torch (Dec 11, 2015)

Bindedsa said:


> The accomplishment thread is a pretty cool log of everyone's progress, I was wondering if there was an easy way for me too get a list of all of my posts. It would be cool be if I could make a log of all of my progress.



Just go to the thread, click "Search Thread", then "Advanced Search", then type your username in the box labeled "User Name", and click "Search Now".


----------



## Bindedsa (Dec 12, 2015)

Torch said:


> Just go to the thread, click "Search Thread", then "Advanced Search", then type your username in the box labeled "User Name", and click "Search Now".



Thanks, I knew about the search thread function, but I didn't know you could search by username.


----------



## bobthegiraffemonkey (Dec 12, 2015)

Had my Christmas party last night, showing off the usual (3x3, 3BLD, 4x4, 5x5, couple of random puzzles). Turns out, red wine is not a very good lubricant. Just my stickerless Gans 357 though so it's easy to clean out.


----------



## JustinTimeCuber (Dec 12, 2015)

qqwref said:


> New metric idea for Square-1: "qtm". / counts as 1 move, (0,x) or (x,0) counts as x/3 moves rounded up. So /(3,-3)/ is 4 moves, as is (6,6). Alternately, / counts as 2 moves - maybe some Square-1 experts could chime in on whih makes more sense.



should be called qqtm lel

Has anyone ever made an icosahedral cube?


----------



## Cale S (Dec 12, 2015)

JustinTimeCuber said:


> Has anyone ever made an icosahedral cube?



Well if it's icosahedral it can't be a cube but there are icosahedron shaped puzzles like this, this, or this


----------



## obelisk477 (Dec 13, 2015)

What's the number of possible LS positions, disregarding pre-AUF? I can't figure out how to not double count AUF psotions, I always get confused


----------



## Cale S (Dec 13, 2015)

obelisk477 said:


> What's the number of possible LS positions, disregarding pre-AUF? I can't figure out how to not double count AUF psotions, I always get confused





Spoiler



if the corner is in U, always bring it above the last slot

for cases where the corner is in place, it can be in one of 3 orientations, and the edge can be in place oriented, in place flipped, in U oriented, or in U flipped. One of these cases is solved so 3*4 - 1 = 11 cases with the corner in place

for cases where the corner is in U, it can still be in one of 3 orientations, and the edge can be in place oriented, in place flipped, or in any of the 4 U positions flipped or oriented. 3*10 = 30 cases with the corner in U

11 + 30 = *41*
basically all these: http://algdb.net/Set/F2L


----------



## obelisk477 (Dec 13, 2015)

Cale S said:


> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Doh...I meant including LL CO and EO


----------



## Cale S (Dec 13, 2015)

obelisk477 said:


> Doh...I meant including LL CO and EO



so full OLS instead of LS?



Spoiler



you can use AUF for the cases with both LS pieces permuted, which there are 5 of

edge flipped, corner solved: put the only flipped or only oriented edge in front, then there are 3^3 = 27 CO cases, 54 total cases
edge flipped, corner oriented cw: put only flipped or only oriented edge in front, then still 3^3 = 27 CO cases, still 54 total
edge flipped, corner oriented ccw: yeah same thing again so 2 * 3^3 = 54 total cases
edge solved, corner oriented cw: 8 CO cases not including AUF, but now the edge cases are L, line, dot, and cross. Normally this would be 108 cases but you can use symmetries to reduce this. For cross cases, this is just a subset of CLS, which has 8 cases. Dot also has 8 cases. L has no rotational symmetry so it's just 27 cases. For line cases, place the CO first, and then you'll have either a vertical or horizontal line. However, for the CO case with 90 degree rotational symmetry, you only have 1 case, so there are 7*2 + 1 = 15 cases. The total is 8 + 8 + 15 + 27 = 58 cases
edge solved, corner oriented ccw: This is just the mirror of the last case so also 58.

The total of these is 54*3 + 58*2 = 278

For cases where you cannot AUF, it's a lot easier because it's just 8 EO cases and 27 CO cases for all 36 of them, which makes 36*8*27 = 7776


So the total for OLS is 8054


----------



## JustinTimeCuber (Dec 13, 2015)

Cale S said:


> *Well if it's icosahedral it can't be a cube* but there are icosahedron shaped puzzles like this, this, or this


fine


----------



## PenguinsDontFly (Dec 13, 2015)

my hair has been wet for like 10 hours. I think Chris' shampoo is working.


----------



## OLLiver (Dec 14, 2015)

The top 100 3x3 singles are about to all be sub 7!


----------



## shadowslice e (Dec 14, 2015)

OLLiver said:


> The top 100 3x3 singles are about to all be sub 7!



Just out of interest, how many of those are feliks? Half?


----------



## Berd (Dec 14, 2015)

shadowslice e said:


> Just out of interest, how many of those are feliks? Half?


He was talking about indervidual people.


----------



## Sajwo (Dec 14, 2015)

shadowslice e said:


> Just out of interest, how many of those are feliks? Half?



only one


----------



## OLLiver (Dec 14, 2015)

Ok what year will all the top individual 100 singles be sub 6? I'm gonna say 2021


----------



## shadowslice e (Dec 14, 2015)

Berd said:


> He was talking about indervidual people.



oh ok.

*individual


----------



## nvpendsey (Dec 14, 2015)

JustinTimeCuber said:


> The maximum possible TPS is around 947,045,759 TPS.
> Maximum "radius" of a cube is diagonal to center, so 57 cm * sqrt 2 * 0.5 * 0.01 m/cm = 0.403050865 m
> Multiply by pi/2 for length of arc: 0.633110819 m
> divide by speed of light: about 2.1 ns
> ...



Was this somehow related to the following quote



> Seriously no one got this idea?? (Everything is hypothetical)(cube it friction less)
> Assume that the corners (of the corners of the cube) are moving at light speed and the cube is regular 57mm.the corners would be (57/2)*sqrt2 away form the axis of rotation.therefore the circumference would be (57/2)*sqrt2*2pi = 57*sqrt*pi.dividing it by 4 to get the length traveled by the corner in one Quater turn (57*sqrt2*pi/4).Dividing this by speed of light (in mm/s) to get the minimum time taken for one quarter.(2.112 x 10^-10 sec per move)And then multiplying this value with god number ie. 26 (in QTM). The final answer is 5.491 * 10^-9 seconds or approx 5.5 nano seconds


----------



## Sajwo (Dec 14, 2015)

OLLiver said:


> Ok what year will all the top individual 100 singles be sub 6? I'm gonna say 2021



This year only 10 people got sub6 single. 2021 seems quite possible  Maybe late 2020?


----------



## guysensei1 (Dec 14, 2015)

Did OLL parity and lost my grip and damaged the sticker in a rather interesting way...


----------



## Chree (Dec 14, 2015)

guysensei1 said:


> Did OLL parity and lost my grip and damaged the sticker in a rather interesting way...
> 
> 
> View attachment 5724



Okay, Wolverine.


----------



## guysensei1 (Dec 16, 2015)

Including parity, how many cases are there for solving the square-1 that's cubic with 1 alg? Would it be in the thousands?


----------



## shadowslice e (Dec 16, 2015)

guysensei1 said:


> Including parity, how many cases are there for solving the square-1 that's cubic with 1 alg? Would it be in the thousands?



i think it would be 8!x8!/8/2 (rotations and Aufs)= ~46million


----------



## guysensei1 (Dec 16, 2015)

shadowslice e said:


> i think it would be 8!x8!/8/2 (rotations and Aufs)= ~46million



okay, how many algs for:
1) move all white to the bottom, all yellow to the top with 1 alg
2) solve everything with 1 alg


----------



## kliang9299 (Dec 16, 2015)

So I have these transparent Aolong V2 force cubes and I'm curious, how much do you guys think they're worth? I'm thinking about selling them on the Buy, Sell, Trade forum eventually since I really only use the blue one. They aren't stickered but are all lubed and tensioned and mostly unused, only turned to see if the tensioning was good.


----------



## Ordway Persyn (Dec 16, 2015)

kliang9299 said:


> So I have these transparent Aolong V2 force cubes and I'm curious, how much do you guys think they're worth? I'm thinking about selling them on the Buy, Sell, Trade forum eventually since I really only use the blue one. They aren't stickered but are all lubed and tensioned and mostly unused, only turned to see if the tensioning was good.



I'd say $2-3 more than what an Aolong normally costs.


----------



## Jbacboy (Dec 17, 2015)

If you get a forced OLL skip during a solve, is that solve still fullstep? Have been wondering this for years (jk just about 5 minutes)


----------



## shadowslice e (Dec 17, 2015)

Jbacboy said:


> If you get a forced OLL skip during a solve, is that solve still fullstep? Have been wondering this for years (jk just about 5 minutes)



If you intentionally forced it, I would say yes if it was actually different from what you normally do.


----------



## Jbacboy (Dec 17, 2015)

shadowslice e said:


> If you intentionally forced it, I would say yes if it was actually different from what you normally do.


Ok, cool.


----------



## not_kevin (Dec 17, 2015)

guysensei1 said:


> okay, how many algs for:
> 1) move all white to the bottom, all yellow to the top with 1 alg
> 2) solve everything with 1 alg



Hey, guess what method I've been working on 

So, counting all AUFs/ADFs as different, and all mirrors/inverses as different, there are 4900 different OBL cases and 331,776 different PBL cases. Eliminating only AUFs and ADFs, this goes down to 336 and 20,736. Practically, 'tho, after reducing for most of the common symmetries, there are only 74 different OBL cases, and 1936 PBL cases. Because of this, I think that 1-alg OBL is tractable, but PBL is gonna have to be two algs for a good while.



Spoiler: calculations



4900 OBLs = (8 choose 4)^2, choose which of the 8 corners/edges will be white, twice
331776 PBLs = 4!^4, 4! for each set of U/D layer corners/edges

336 ABF-unique OBLs = computer-generated with a program my girlfriend wrote - sorry no better source :< We're working on making the method actually fully nice-looking and usable first.
20736 ABF-unique PBLs = (3! * 4!)^2, fix one corner in each layer, and permute the other pieces

74 unique OBLs = again, computer-generated. Accounts for L-R symmetry (eg, we count 1,0 / 3,0 / the same case as 0,-1 / 3,0 /), U/D symmetry (eg, we count 1,0 / 3,0 / the same as 1,0 / 0,3 /), and yellow-white symmetry (we count the solved case to be the same as / 6,6 /). There's actually another possible symmetry case one could use, which is corner-edge symmetry (so, 1,0 / -1,-1 / is the same as 1,0 / 2,2 /), but the algs "feel" different enough and most people [at least, in my experience] don't normally visualize this symmetry, so most of our work will be focused on not using that symmetry.
1936 unique PBLs = 44^2, there are 44 "unique" PLLs including the solved case (this is easily confirmed by looking up Square-1 PLL alglists, which all list 43 different algs)


----------



## Jbacboy (Dec 18, 2015)

Just realized that top 100 for skewb is sub-5. Cool stuff


----------



## willtri4 (Dec 18, 2015)

I recently got bumped out of the top 100 for square-1 average. Oh well, I'll get it back if I can go to SnS winter.


----------



## Isaac Lai (Dec 18, 2015)

willtri4 said:


> I recently got bumped out of the top 100 for square-1 average. Oh well, I'll get it back if I can go to SnS winter.



(slightly off-topic) 
What happened to your Youtube channel btw?


----------



## qqwref (Dec 18, 2015)

a Square-1 cubeshape trainer: http://mzrg.com/js/cubeshape_trainer.html


----------



## Berd (Dec 18, 2015)

qqwref said:


> a Square-1 cubeshape trainer: http://mzrg.com/js/cubeshape_trainer.html


This is what I needed, thank you!


----------



## willtri4 (Dec 18, 2015)

Isaac Lai said:


> (slightly off-topic)
> What happened to your Youtube channel btw?



One of my videos got removed, I think it was the thing about scrambles in the description. Then somehow that was considered "repeated or severe violations" and the channel was suspended. I appealed the video removal, and they said the video got put back, but the channel is still suspended. Now I don't know what to do  I can't appeal the suspension.


----------



## Sajwo (Dec 18, 2015)

https://www.youtube.com/user/TheMaoiSha/featured

How this is possible? He's got 610 000 subsribers


----------



## Ordway Persyn (Dec 19, 2015)

Sajwo said:


> https://www.youtube.com/user/TheMaoiSha/featured
> 
> How this is possible? He's got 610 000 subsribers



apparently there is a lot of spanish speaking speed cubers, He gets many views per video so I'm sure those 610K subs are real.


----------



## Isaac Lai (Dec 19, 2015)

http://cubecomps.com/live.php?cid=1289&compid=30

This guy is so lucky...


----------



## cuberkid10 (Dec 19, 2015)

Isaac Lai said:


> http://cubecomps.com/live.php?cid=1289&compid=30
> 
> This guy is so lucky...


His PB single before was 14.xx 0.0


----------



## Isaac Lai (Dec 19, 2015)

cuberkid10 said:


> His PB single before was 14.xx 0.0



1.91 skewb single in the final in addition to 1.73 NR before


----------



## Hssandwich (Dec 19, 2015)

Now Faz and Lucas are the only two people to have multiple sub 1 2x2 solves officially.


----------



## TheCoolMinxer (Dec 19, 2015)

Isaac Lai said:


> http://cubecomps.com/live.php?cid=1289&compid=30
> 
> This guy is so lucky...



And also almost 3 skoob sub2's in 10 solves  I want dem scrambles


----------



## FailCuber (Dec 19, 2015)

Isaac Lai said:


> 1.91 skewb single in the final in addition to 1.73 NR before



ugh he's like avging like 5 but he got like 3 ll skips and he went to a comp i couldn't go to..... i'm so jealous ugh.....


----------



## Isaac Lai (Dec 19, 2015)

FailCuber said:


> ugh he's like avging like 5 but he got like 3 ll skips and he went to a comp i couldn't go to..... i'm so jealous ugh.....



One does not simply get an LL skip on skewb.


----------



## Hssandwich (Dec 19, 2015)

Isaac Lai said:


> One does not simply get an LL skip on skewb.



One does if one's layers are inefficient.


----------



## Isaac Lai (Dec 19, 2015)

Hssandwich said:


> One does if one's layers are inefficient.



7 moves or more, that is. 

Edit: Which, I might add, is exceedingly hard to one-look to sub-2 times.


----------



## Hssandwich (Dec 19, 2015)

Isaac Lai said:


> 7 moves or more, that is.



Yes, so very inefficient, I always try to have a maximum of 6 move layers.


----------



## FailCuber (Dec 19, 2015)

Isaac Lai said:


> One does not simply get an LL skip on skewb.



Oh I was talking about One sledge/hedge cases. he got like 3 one sledge cases


----------



## Cale S (Dec 19, 2015)

http://cubecomps.com/live.php?cid=1288&cat=1&rnd=2

counting 5.78... is this the first counting sub-6?

also Faz didn't win the comp lol


----------



## Jbacboy (Dec 19, 2015)

Cale S said:


> http://cubecomps.com/live.php?cid=1288&cat=1&rnd=2
> 
> counting 5.78... is this the first counting sub-6?
> 
> also Faz didn't win the comp lol


 I believe that he had one at WC 2015, but not completely sure.


----------



## Cale S (Dec 19, 2015)

Jbacboy said:


> I believe that he had one at WC 2015, but not completely sure.



Yeah, I just remembered that he did in the semifinal, and it was even faster (5.72). Also in another round he had a +2 solve that would have been another counting sub-6.


----------



## guysensei1 (Dec 21, 2015)

I've had 6 3x3 scrambles today with a solved 2x2x1 block, wtf


----------



## TheCoolMinxer (Dec 21, 2015)

I have to many solves in Cstimer, so ist doesn't open anymore haha. It hink there arme around 7000-8000 solves. I have to use qqtimer now


----------



## Bindedsa (Dec 21, 2015)

TheCoolMinxer said:


> I have to many solves in Cstimer, so ist doesn't open anymore haha. It hink there arme around 7000-8000 solves. I have to use qqtimer now



Clear your cache.


----------



## OLLiver (Dec 23, 2015)

chances of LL skip if you force EO? e.g. With ZBF2L, VHF2L


----------



## Torch (Dec 23, 2015)

OLLiver said:


> chances of LL skip if you force EO? e.g. With ZBF2L, VHF2L



1/1944


----------



## guysensei1 (Dec 26, 2015)

Has anyone ever attempted a Realman 2-4 BLD relay on a single 4x4? It would go something like this,
1) scramble as a 2x2
2) memo 2x2
3) solve 2x2 eyes open
4) scramble as a 3x3
5) memo 3x3
6) solve 3x3 eyes open
7) scramble 4x4
8) memo 4x4
9) apply 3x3 scramble on top of that
10) apply 2x2 scramble on top of that
11) solve 2x2 BLD, solve 3x3 BLD then 4x4 BLD


----------



## Cale S (Dec 26, 2015)

guysensei1 said:


> Has anyone ever attempted a Realman 2-4 BLD relay on a single 4x4? It would go something like this,
> 1) scramble as a 2x2
> 2) memo 2x2
> 3) solve 2x2 eyes open
> ...



Not being able to orient the 4x4 would be kind of annoying, but I'll have to try this tomorrow


----------



## guysensei1 (Dec 26, 2015)

Cale S said:


> Not being able to orient the 4x4 would be kind of annoying, but I'll have to try this tomorrow



You can orient the 4x4. Just apply the 3x3 scramble over your chosen orientation and the stuff should work just fine. Of course you'd have to scramble the 3x3 part in your orientation otherwise it gets really messy when you start the execution...


----------



## Cale S (Dec 26, 2015)

guysensei1 said:


> You can orient the 4x4. Just apply the 3x3 scramble over your chosen orientation and the stuff should work just fine. Of course you'd have to scramble the 3x3 part in your orientation otherwise it gets really messy when you start the execution...



I guess I didn't really look at the order, I was thinking you would have to remember the rotations you did before 4BLD memo or something like that


----------



## guysensei1 (Dec 26, 2015)

Cale S said:


> I guess I didn't really look at the order, I was thinking you would have to remember the rotations you did before 4BLD memo or something like that



If you're memoing 4x4 last it shouldn't matter but if you prefer another order then the orientation would matter.


----------



## guysensei1 (Dec 27, 2015)

Since there's a thread discussing a case that 'probably will never happen but could', I figured I'd just ask this related question. 
I've been thinking about what happens if some guy did FMC, and randomly wrote down 17 moves or so and it turns out to be the exact optimal solution. Since he randomly wrote them down, he can't really explain his solution, but he didn't cheat. Should he be given WR?


----------



## PenguinsDontFly (Dec 27, 2015)

guysensei1 said:


> Since there's a thread discussing a case that 'probably will never happen but could', I figured I'd just ask this related question.
> I've been thinking about what happens if some guy did FMC, and randomly wrote down 17 moves or so and it turns out to be the exact optimal solution. Since he randomly wrote them down, he can't really explain his solution, but he didn't cheat. Should he be given WR?



no. if you cant explain it, you're either cheating or super lucky and dont deserve a wr.


----------



## guysensei1 (Dec 27, 2015)

PenguinsDontFly said:


> super lucky



2x2 single, skewb single, and former sq1 single? Getting lucky is not a crime


----------



## Cale S (Dec 27, 2015)

guysensei1 said:


> Since there's a thread discussing a case that 'probably will never happen but could', I figured I'd just ask this related question.
> I've been thinking about what happens if some guy did FMC, and randomly wrote down 17 moves or so and it turns out to be the exact optimal solution. Since he randomly wrote them down, he can't really explain his solution, but he didn't cheat. Should he be given WR?



He can't prove that he didn't cheat so no one would actually believe him, and he wouldn't be given the WR even though he didn't cheat


----------



## guysensei1 (Dec 27, 2015)

Cale S said:


> He can't prove that he didn't cheat so no one would actually believe him, and he wouldn't be given the WR even though he didn't cheat



Okay, what if his explanation was 'I memorised the optimal solution for this exact cube state and it happened to come out as a scramble'?

And let's assume the delegate was absolutely sure without a doubt that he didn't cheat.


----------



## Cale S (Dec 27, 2015)

guysensei1 said:


> Okay, what if his explanation was 'I memorised the optimal solution for this exact cube state and it happened to come out as a scramble'?
> 
> And let's assume the delegate was absolutely sure without a doubt that he didn't cheat.



If the delegate was 100% sure he didn't cheat he could get the WR, but there's no way to know whether or not he cheated


----------



## PenguinsDontFly (Dec 27, 2015)

guysensei1 said:


> 2x2 single, skewb single, and former sq1 single? Getting lucky is not a crime



every wr requires some luck but also some skill. if I got skewb single scramble would I get wr? of course not. I dont even know how to turn a skewb.


----------



## PenguinsDontFly (Dec 27, 2015)

dddddouble post!!!

If "2-Gen scramble" means a scramble using only 2 layers, then wouldn't 2-gen UWRs be held by alex lau???


----------



## guysensei1 (Dec 27, 2015)

PenguinsDontFly said:


> dddddouble post!!!
> 
> If "2-Gen scramble" means a scramble using only 2 layers, then wouldn't 2-gen UWRs be held by alex lau???



What about 2gen <U,D>


----------



## Sajwo (Dec 27, 2015)

Cale S said:


> He can't prove that he didn't cheat so no one would actually believe him, and he wouldn't be given the WR even though he didn't cheat



This.  Cubing is not always fair.


----------



## shadowslice e (Dec 27, 2015)

Sajwo said:


> This.  Cubing is not always fair.



True but in general that's why you should pay attention to averages.

Though most of the time, the single is held by a person who most people see as worthy.


----------



## PenguinsDontFly (Dec 27, 2015)

guysensei1 said:


> What about 2gen <U,D>



well technically isnt that moving the same layer cuz its the same axis?


----------



## tseitsei (Dec 27, 2015)

PenguinsDontFly said:


> well technically isnt that moving the same layer cuz its the same axis?



How about <M,E> group then?


----------



## PenguinsDontFly (Dec 27, 2015)

tseitsei said:


> How about <M,E> group then?



thats harder than MU. fingertricks suck and there are some bad cases (I think).


----------



## tseitsei (Dec 27, 2015)

PenguinsDontFly said:


> thats harder than MU. fingertricks suck and there are some bad cases (I think).



Yeah fingertricks suck but it is 6-moves max (isn't it? I'm not entirely sure tough. I'm thinking 2 moves max to fix the edges and then it's just a 4-mover case left...) and always simple to 1-look so I believe it could be superfast


----------



## TheCoolMinxer (Dec 27, 2015)

Funfact: There's a village/small city called "Hoya" ~30 km away from me


----------



## AlexMaass (Dec 27, 2015)

guysensei1 said:


> What about 2gen <U,D>



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WF5B1UrC72g

yep I hold the YTUWR for ao12


----------



## PenguinsDontFly (Dec 27, 2015)

AlexMaass said:


> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WF5B1UrC72g
> 
> yep I hold the YTUWR for ao12



noob I can beat that OH BLD


----------



## guysensei1 (Dec 28, 2015)

Has anyone actually sub-1'd the R U R' U Jperm U' R U' R' N perm?


----------



## Torch (Dec 29, 2015)

Just putting this guy and his recent NR up for discussion.


----------



## Ninja Storm (Dec 29, 2015)

Reminds me of Jonah Crosby.


----------



## TDM (Dec 29, 2015)

Torch said:


> Just putting this guy and his recent NR up for discussion.



It does seem a bit weird that he gets a sub-9 average after only having had one sub-9 before that, but I don't think it's a mistake since it doesn't look like he was given someone else's results.


----------



## Isaac Lai (Dec 30, 2015)

Ninja Storm said:


> Reminds me of Jonah Crosby.



Wasn't that his overall PB?


----------



## Ninja Storm (Jan 1, 2016)

By 0.6 IIRC.

If I got that lucky I'd have WR for both single and average.


----------



## OLLiver (Jan 1, 2016)

top 100 3x3 singles about to all be sub 7


----------



## Ninja Storm (Jan 2, 2016)

Right now I'm wishing that there was an easy way to access a country's records/rankings from someone's profile, instead of having to go to the world rankings page and changing it to country. Instead of clicking the time to go to the ranking, would it be possible to click the ranking for world/continental/nation and go to the rankings of world/continental/nation?


----------



## FastCubeMaster (Jan 2, 2016)

Cubing never gets boring*.*


----------



## JustinTimeCuber (Jan 4, 2016)

Ninja Storm said:


> Right now I'm wishing that there was an easy way to access a country's records/rankings from someone's profile, instead of having to go to the world rankings page and changing it to country. Instead of clicking the time to go to the ranking, would it be possible to click the ranking for world/continental/nation and go to the rankings of world/continental/nation?



no really someone implement this

should I make a thread for a comp I'm going to if it doesn't already have a thread?


----------



## JustinTimeCuber (Jan 5, 2016)

Just made a photo for my WCA profile. It's stupid.


----------



## Berd (Jan 5, 2016)

JustinTimeCuber said:


> Just made a photo for my WCA profile. It's stupid.


1337 3x3 average rank! Elite!


----------



## Torch (Jan 6, 2016)

GUYS IM WINNING

EDIT: Not any more, thanks a lot Corey


----------



## JustinTimeCuber (Jan 6, 2016)

Berd said:


> 1337 3x3 average rank! Elite!



l33t skilz
it won't be when the music city results are posted
I think I'll be top 800


----------



## qqwref (Jan 7, 2016)

Ben found a Square-1 2gen corner 3-cycle that is pretty cool:

/3/1/-4/-4/4/4/-4/4/-4/-1/-3/

And another with two corners on U:
/3/1/-4/-4/4/-4/-4/3/-3/


----------



## JustinTimeCuber (Jan 7, 2016)

qqwref said:


> Ben found a Square-1 2gen corner 3-cycle that is pretty cool:
> 
> /3/1/-4/-4/4/4/-4/4/-4/-1/-3/
> 
> ...



How do you interpret this notation?


----------



## Blake4512 (Jan 7, 2016)

JustinTimeCuber said:


> How do you interpret this notation?




/(3,0)/(1,0)/(-4,0)/(-4,0)/(4,0)/(4,0)/(-4,0)/(4,0)/(-4,0)/(-1,0)/(-3,0)/

/(3,0)/(1,0)/(-4,0)/(-4,0)/(4,0)/(-4,0)/(-4,0)/(3,0)/(-3,0)/


----------



## ryanj92 (Jan 8, 2016)

https://gyazo.com/410123700d45cf0f66a04a30b6f1be82

when did this change? are the 6 and 7 icons painfully small on other peoples monitors too? i can barely count the layers, thinking a square with a 6/7 in it would be more clear...

EDIT: oh i see if you hover over it tells you the event i guess that's okay


----------



## guysensei1 (Jan 8, 2016)

ryanj92 said:


> https://gyazo.com/410123700d45cf0f66a04a30b6f1be82
> 
> when did this change? are the 6 and 7 icons painfully small on other peoples monitors too? i can barely count the layers, thinking a square with a 6/7 in it would be more clear...
> 
> EDIT: oh i see if you hover over it tells you the event i guess that's okay


What the heck


----------



## Berd (Jan 8, 2016)

ryanj92 said:


> https://gyazo.com/410123700d45cf0f66a04a30b6f1be82
> 
> when did this change? are the 6 and 7 icons painfully small on other peoples monitors too? i can barely count the layers, thinking a square with a 6/7 in it would be more clear...
> 
> EDIT: oh i see if you hover over it tells you the event i guess that's okay


That's cool!


----------



## Torch (Jan 8, 2016)

ryanj92 said:


> https://gyazo.com/410123700d45cf0f66a04a30b6f1be82
> 
> when did this change? are the 6 and 7 icons painfully small on other peoples monitors too? i can barely count the layers, thinking a square with a 6/7 in it would be more clear...
> 
> EDIT: oh i see if you hover over it tells you the event i guess that's okay



They've had this for a while on Cubing China, I guess they finally put it on the WCA site too.


----------



## YouCubing (Jan 9, 2016)

Once I was helping scramble 6x6 at a comp. Then I looked at the cube, and the scramble on the screen and... it was correct :O


----------



## JustinTimeCuber (Jan 9, 2016)

this

should I make a thread for it?


----------



## shadowslice e (Jan 11, 2016)

Does anyone have any idea what Erno Rubik's method for the cube was?

Cause I heard that he refused to sell it until he solved it and he managed to after 3 months.


----------



## Berd (Jan 11, 2016)

shadowslice e said:


> Does anyone have any idea what Erno Rubik's method for the cube was?
> 
> Cause I heard that he refused to sell it until he solved it and he managed to after 3 months.


It was a corners first method I think.


----------



## Matt11111 (Jan 11, 2016)

Berd said:


> It was a corners first method I think.



I think so too. That's how most people solved it back then.


----------



## shadowslice e (Jan 11, 2016)

Matt11111 said:


> I think so too. That's how most people solved it back then.



Yeah but idk whether or not he did that cause he didn't learn from anyone so he may have done blocks/faces like most people start with.


----------



## Matt11111 (Jan 11, 2016)

shadowslice e said:


> Yeah but idk whether or not he did that cause he didn't learn from anyone so he may have done blocks/faces like most people start with.



Perhaps.


----------



## Cale S (Jan 12, 2016)

Wojciech Knott missed clock WR average by one hour on one clock dial:


Spoiler


----------



## penguinz7 (Jan 12, 2016)

Cale S said:


> Wojciech Knott missed clock WR average by one hour on one clock dial:
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> ...



An hour off WR? what a slow nub


----------



## YouCubing (Jan 12, 2016)

Cale S said:


> Wojciech Knott missed clock WR average by one hour on one clock dial:
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> ...



ouchy
this is why I don't like the clock regs


----------



## ottozing (Jan 12, 2016)

YouCubing said:


> ouchy
> this is why I don't like the clock regs



Whether one hour off was a +2 or a DNF would've still cost him the record, so I don't really know what you're on about.


----------



## RhysC (Jan 12, 2016)

YouCubing said:


> ouchy
> this is why I don't like the clock regs



imo you should really be complaining about the clock companies


----------



## PenguinsDontFly (Jan 17, 2016)

I think as a community we should learn from this


----------



## ryanj92 (Jan 19, 2016)

has there ever been much thought put into devising a 'recognition metric' to compare different methods/steps?

a simple example might be 'this step scores 1 point for every sticker you need to look at in order to determine the case'

so OLL would be perhaps 6 (8 u layer stickers, but you only -need- to see 6 of them), and also PLL (as PLL can be recognised from 2 sides). and then OLLCP would be 9-10 (6 for OLL, 3-4 for CP), and EPLL 2.

needs a bit more thought, but i'd be interested to hear if anyone else has tried this before


----------



## YouCubing (Jan 19, 2016)

ottozing said:


> Whether one hour off was a +2 or a DNF would've still cost him the record, so I don't really know what you're on about.



Hmm, good point.
But I still don't like the Clock regs 



RhysC said:


> imo you should really be complaining about the clock companies



This is the truest post ever.



PenguinsDontFly said:


> I think as a community we should learn from this
> (video)



The post that got Justin banned.
Well really his post got him banned but you know what I mean.


----------



## ottozing (Jan 19, 2016)

ryanj92 said:


> has there ever been much thought put into devising a 'recognition metric' to compare different methods/steps?
> 
> a simple example might be 'this step scores 1 point for every sticker you need to look at in order to determine the case'
> 
> ...



This sounds really cool, and I'd like to see this explored for sure. Another thing that would have to be taken into account is the number of places you have to look for such pieces. Stuff like second block of Roux, F2L pairs, basically anything where what you solve after recognition leaves unsolved pieces (Obviously OLL is different because you're involving all of the pieces and only involving one sticker on each piece). Not sure how that would work out though, and I'm not really cunning enough to think of anything more codified beyond that


----------



## FailCuber (Jan 19, 2016)

DaHyun Yu is going to break the megaminx WR in Febuary 13th.


----------



## AlphaSheep (Jan 19, 2016)

ryanj92 said:


> a simple example might be 'this step scores 1 point for every sticker you need to look at in order to determine the case'


An obvious extension would be +1 point for every additional face involved. Because a hypothetical recognition system that involves looking at one sticker on each of the 6 faces is far inferior to OLL recognition where all 6 stickers are on the same face.

Also needs a means of taking into account blocks, because recognising a 2x2x1 block is easier than recognising 3 different stickers (excluding a centre?)

Needs more thought, but I like the idea.


----------



## ryanj92 (Jan 20, 2016)

ottozing said:


> This sounds really cool, and I'd like to see this explored for sure. Another thing that would have to be taken into account is the number of places you have to look for such pieces. Stuff like second block of Roux, F2L pairs, basically anything where what you solve after recognition leaves unsolved pieces (Obviously OLL is different because you're involving all of the pieces and only involving one sticker on each piece). Not sure how that would work out though, and I'm not really cunning enough to think of anything more codified beyond that





AlphaSheep said:


> An obvious extension would be +1 point for every additional face involved. Because a hypothetical recognition system that involves looking at one sticker on each of the 6 faces is far inferior to OLL recognition where all 6 stickers are on the same face.
> 
> Also needs a means of taking into account blocks, because recognising a 2x2x1 block is easier than recognising 3 different stickers (excluding a centre?)
> 
> Needs more thought, but I like the idea.



very good points! my first thought is to suggest 1 point for each 'layer' involved - so last layer stuff would score 1, <R,U> stuff 2, etc.
either added on to the total or displayed like x+y or x/y...
i'm surprised nobody has thought about this much before - i might start a thread about this tomorrow when i've given it some more time


----------



## mark49152 (Jan 20, 2016)

ryanj92 said:


> https://gyazo.com/410123700d45cf0f66a04a30b6f1be82
> 
> when did this change? are the 6 and 7 icons painfully small on other peoples monitors too? i can barely count the layers, thinking a square with a 6/7 in it would be more clear...
> 
> EDIT: oh i see if you hover over it tells you the event i guess that's okay


What an awful, pointless change. Yes the icons look OK, but the information is not as well laid out or clear, and it is horribly slow and buggy on mobile. A classic case of making cosmetic changes for the sake of it at the expense of practical utility. I do hope they don't ruin the rest of the WCA site by making similar changes. IMHO the current WCA site design is one of the best I have seen - simple, clear, compact and uncluttered.


----------



## whauk (Jan 20, 2016)

ryanj92 said:


> has there ever been much thought put into devising a 'recognition metric' to compare different methods/steps?
> 
> a simple example might be 'this step scores 1 point for every sticker you need to look at in order to determine the case'
> 
> ...



Recognizing blocks is easier than recognizing difficult patterns of adjacent/opposite colors. So this metric should probably include the type of comparison that you have to apply to the stickers. Not sure if this was your intention or how to formalize it though.
Example: E-perm recognition (Do you have to do a U before the alg or not?) is way harder than PLL-skip recognition.


----------



## guysensei1 (Jan 24, 2016)

I do not own a rubiks clock, I am signed up for clock in a comp that's less than a month away, there's no time to get a physical one, so I intend on borrowing one on the day itself to use. But I know how to solve one (I did it once on a simulator)
I did this for pyraminx too last year 

Anyone else do this? Lol
How easy is clock to sub-30? Because that's the cutoff.


----------



## qqwref (Jan 27, 2016)

guysensei: Clock is very easy to sub-30, especially if you are familiar with the method and recognition. The hardest part for you will be knowing how much you have to move your fingers to turn the corners a given amount. If you warm up a bit with the clock you're going to use you should be able to do it with only minor corrections. Each solve has only 14 turns so you have plenty of time.


A 3x3x3 alg I found in a word document I made on 3/31/2000:
LB’T’RBTR’BL’D2RFD2B’F’DBDL’D’LD2R’DRDFD’FT2B’T2B’F2DBDRD’R’L’DLDBD’B’F’D’FLDL’F’DFDR’D’RD’R’D2RD’
Or in modern notation:
LB'U'RBUR'BL'D2RFD2B'F'DBDL'D'LD2R'DRDFD'FU2B'U2B'F2DBDRD'R'L'DLDBD'B'F'D'FLDL'F'DFDR'D'RD'R'D2RD'


----------



## OLLiver (Feb 3, 2016)

are large hands better for TH/ Speedcubing in general? My hand span from thumb to pinky tip is 23.5cm or 9.25 inches. what do you guys think/what are your hand spans?


----------



## joshsailscga (Feb 7, 2016)

Chad Harris won MBLD at Peach State with zero points


----------



## Berd (Feb 7, 2016)

joshsailscga said:


> Chad Harris won MBLD at Peach State with zero points


Ouch. I remember my first comp where Ollie Frost beat me to 3rd with a 2/2.


----------



## mark49152 (Feb 7, 2016)

Berd said:


> Ouch. I remember my first comp where Ollie Frost beat me to 3rd with a 2/2.


Hey Ollie did that the first time I entered MBLD too. I got 2/2 in 16 minutes and he did it in 2 minutes taking 3rd


----------



## Christopher Mowla (Feb 7, 2016)

I know this is kind of random (hence, why I am posting this in this thread), but I made a post on Reddit a few days ago containing links to calculate the number of positions of the nxnxn Rubik's cube and minx^n puzzles, as well as links to other mathematical formulas that I found, cofounded, or obtained from another cuber. I also included a secondary link to conveniently get the power of 10 of any given calculation (since most results are very large numbers).

It's the most comprehensive formula link post I have ever made, and that's why I am mentioning it here for those interested to either bookmark or save that page (just in case).


----------



## JustinTimeCuber (Feb 10, 2016)

If you ever plan on taking cubes on a plane, prepare for confused TSA agents


----------



## OLLiver (Feb 10, 2016)

JustinTimeCuber said:


> If you ever plan on taking cubes on a plane, prepare for confused TSA agents



really? I took 5 cubes of various sizes from Australia to New Zealand last week. Didn't even get selected for random check lol. But in all seriousness did the TSA agent really get confused over some rubiks cubes?


----------



## JustinTimeCuber (Feb 11, 2016)

Well it went through the X-ray machine and they saw a bunch of squares and they were confused


----------



## shadowslice e (Feb 11, 2016)

OLLiver said:


> really? I took 5 cubes of various sizes from Australia to New Zealand last week. Didn't even get selected for random check lol. But in all seriousness did the TSA agent really get confused over some rubiks cubes?



They for confused by my Megaminx when I went to Malaysia to see relatives


----------



## guysensei1 (Feb 11, 2016)

JustinTimeCuber said:


> If you ever plan on taking cubes on a plane, prepare for confused TSA agents



The customs at Singapore, Perth and Japan airports didn't say anything.


----------



## Isaac Lai (Feb 11, 2016)

Biggest unofficial comp ever?http://nusmathsoc.org/cube/list.html


----------



## mark49152 (Feb 12, 2016)

guysensei1 said:


> The customs at Singapore, Perth and Japan airports didn't say anything.


I've flown many times through many airports with cubes and only been stopped once. I saw two operatives pointing and discussing what they saw on the scan, before they pulled aside my bag. All they could really see was the six screws as hard white lines on the screen. I think the shape/arrangement was just unfamiliar so they looked out of curiosity, because it was obviously only screws and not something threatening.


----------



## Jbacboy (Feb 12, 2016)

JustinTimeCuber said:


> If you ever plan on taking cubes on a plane, prepare for confused TSA agents



The guy who checked my ticket one time was actually a cuber and was talking to me about nationals XD


----------



## penguinz7 (Feb 20, 2016)

http://cubecomps.com/live.php?cid=1281&cat=6&rnd=1

Podium for 7x7 at this comp all got NR single and average for their countries. Has this happened before? I'm guessing it probably has at some early comp


----------



## Berkmann18 (Feb 21, 2016)

JustinTimeCuber said:


> Well it went through the X-ray machine and they saw a bunch of squares and they were confused



I went travelled several times with twisty puzzles (not just cubes) and they were never ever confused or suspicious about it.


Sent from my iPod touch using Tapatalk


----------



## guysensei1 (Feb 21, 2016)

penguinz7 said:


> http://cubecomps.com/live.php?cid=1281&cat=6&rnd=1
> 
> Podium for 7x7 at this comp all got NR single and average for their countries. Has this happened before? I'm guessing it probably has at some early comp


Same comp, it almost happened again in 5x5 final.


----------



## joshsailscga (Mar 1, 2016)

Now that everyone here has discovered Patrick Ponce since his numerous 5 second singles, the title of "fastest cuber you've never heard of" falls to Max Park.


----------



## guysensei1 (Mar 1, 2016)

joshsailscga said:


> Now that everyone here has discovered Patrick Ponce since his numerous 5 second singles, the title of "fastest cuber you've never heard of" falls to Max Park.


Holy cow he's good


----------



## joshsailscga (Mar 1, 2016)

guysensei1 said:


> Holy cow he's good



Right? 
He's also the one who put up a video of a 47 second 4x4 OH solve recently.


----------



## bobthegiraffemonkey (Mar 3, 2016)

Today's wtf monent: I was hand-scrambling a 3x3 while not really paying attention to the cube. When I stopped and looked down, the last move I was making brought the cube back to solved. I knew hand scrambles were bad, but ... what?!?


----------



## shadowslice e (Mar 3, 2016)

bobthegiraffemonkey said:


> Today's wtf monent: I was hand-scrambling a 3x3 while not really paying attention to the cube. When I stopped and looked down, the last move I was making brought the cube back to solved. I knew hand scrambles were bad, but ... what?!?



Lol wow! the closest i've had is a corner skip.


----------



## guysensei1 (Mar 16, 2016)

Is it possible to get to all regular 5x5 positions using only 4x4 style scrambles (no Bw, Lw or Dw), similarly can you get to all regular 7x7 states without using 3B, 3L and 3D?


----------



## Matt11111 (Mar 16, 2016)

bobthegiraffemonkey said:


> Today's wtf monent: I was hand-scrambling a 3x3 while not really paying attention to the cube. When I stopped and looked down, the last move I was making brought the cube back to solved. I knew hand scrambles were bad, but ... what?!?



You just pulled a RedKB.


----------



## Berkmann18 (Mar 16, 2016)

guysensei1 said:


> Is it possible to get to all regular 5x5 positions using only 4x4 style scrambles (no Bw, Lw or Dw), similarly can you get to all regular 7x7 states without using 3B, 3L and 3D?



No as some of them does require those moves.


----------



## Berd (Mar 16, 2016)

shadowslice e said:


> Lol wow! the closest i've had is a corner skip.


I remember that


----------



## not_kevin (Mar 16, 2016)

Berkmann18 said:


> No as some of them does require those moves.



I was thinking about this, actually... I think it's possible. I haven't fleshed out the proof, but here's some intuition:

If we can show that we can move the corners, edges, wings, and centers however we want (independent of the other pieces, that is), then that should be enough. Corners and edges are given, since there isn't any restriction on <F,B,L,R,U,D>. Wings can be shown to be given because it's definitely possible to solve wings relative to their midges without <Bw,Lw,Dw> - just do beginners-style 3-cycles over and over, flipping edges around using rotations and R U R' F R' F' R.

The final thing I want to prove is centers - intuitively, we can use a heavily-modified version of U2 to always push the targets to a place that the U2 alg is in our set (eg, the location Fru, which we can do by f' u f U2 f u' f' - so, moving a piece like Bdl could be done with B2 u2 [Fru alg] u2 B2). Not super sure how to handle niklas-like cases yet, but it shouldn't be hard.

Obviously, it's not gonna be move-efficient, and a random-move 4x4 scrambler won't have a reasonable distribution of 5x5 states, but that's not the question at hand  Remember that you can reach all 3x3 states without ever doing a D move! You can just do L R F2 B2 U L R F2 B2 every time you would normally get one


----------



## Cale S (Mar 16, 2016)

guysensei1 said:


> Is it possible to get to all regular 5x5 positions using only 4x4 style scrambles (no Bw, Lw or Dw), similarly can you get to all regular 7x7 states without using 3B, 3L and 3D?



Yes



Spoiler: replace all Lw moves with this



L U2 B2 F2 D2 Rw' R D2 F2 B2 U2 B2 F2 R2 Rw2 D Rw R' U R2 U' R Rw' U R2 U' D' Rw2 R2 D Rw R' U R2 U' R Rw' U R2 U' D' Rw2 R2 D Rw R' U R2 U' R Rw' U R2 U' D' Rw2 R2 B2 F2 



and replace Dw and Bw with variations of that


----------



## Berkmann18 (Mar 17, 2016)

not_kevin said:


> I was thinking about this, actually... I think it's possible. I haven't fleshed out the proof, but here's some intuition:
> 
> If we can show that we can move the corners, edges, wings, and centers however we want (independent of the other pieces, that is), then that should be enough. Corners and edges are given, since there isn't any restriction on <F,B,L,R,U,D>. Wings can be shown to be given because it's definitely possible to solve wings relative to their midges without <Bw,Lw,Dw> - just do beginners-style 3-cycles over and over, flipping edges around using rotations and R U R' F R' F' R.
> 
> ...



Good point.


Sent from my iPod touch using Tapatalk


----------



## qqwref (Mar 17, 2016)

Cale S said:


> Yes
> 
> 
> 
> ...



More efficient version (22 htm):
U2 B2 F2 D2 Rw' D2 B2 F2 U D' L2 U' D' Rw U D L2 U' D' Rw' U2 D2


----------



## Username (Mar 18, 2016)

Today is 10 years since Anssi's first feet WR's (and the start of his long dominance) and his 3x3 Avg WR.


----------



## qqwref (Mar 18, 2016)

qqwref said:


> More efficient version (22 htm):
> U2 B2 F2 D2 Rw' D2 B2 F2 U D' L2 U' D' Rw U D L2 U' D' Rw' U2 D2


Even shorter (17 htm) and with only one Rw:
U2 B2 F2 U D' L2 U' D' Rw' D U L2 D U' F2 B2 U2


----------



## guysensei1 (Mar 28, 2016)

Defining solved to mean having a piece in the correct location but not necessarily in the right orientation, given a random state scramble, what are the probabilities of having n solved pieces for n=1 to 20?


----------



## shadowslice e (Mar 28, 2016)

guysensei1 said:


> Defining solved to mean having a piece in the correct location but not necessarily in the right orientation, given a random state scramble, what are the probabilities of having n solved pieces for n=1 to 20?



I'm guessing centres are fixed?

Because if not N</=1 

But seriously would full dots (all 6) be 20 or 0 in your thinking?


----------



## guysensei1 (Mar 28, 2016)

shadowslice e said:


> I'm guessing centres are fixed?
> 
> Because if not N</=1
> 
> But seriously would full dots (all 6) be 20 or 0 in your thinking?


Solved with respect to centers.
dots is 2 because the 2 corners are twisted but still in the same position.


----------



## CornerCutter (Mar 31, 2016)

Hi there, 

When your scrambling your cube from like cubetimer.com, does it really matter if you scramble it exactly how the alg says how to do it? If I did a U instead of a U' in the scramble it wouldn't really matter, it is still scrambled well. 

Just a fun thought.


----------



## Torch (Mar 31, 2016)

CornerCutter said:


> Hi there,
> 
> When your scrambling your cube from like cubetimer.com, does it really matter if you scramble it exactly how the alg says how to do it? If I did a U instead of a U' in the scramble it wouldn't really matter, it is still scrambled well.
> 
> Just a fun thought.



Yes, it does matter. Scrambles are generated to produce a specific random state of the cube, so changing one move will generate a completely different cube state.


----------



## willtri4 (Mar 31, 2016)

CornerCutter said:


> Hi there,
> 
> When your scrambling your cube from like cubetimer.com, does it really matter if you scramble it exactly how the alg says how to do it? If I did a U instead of a U' in the scramble it wouldn't really matter, it is still scrambled well.
> 
> Just a fun thought.



It's not a big deal if you misscramble. You should try to scramble correctly, but it's not like you'll get a scramble that's much more or less difficult. Also, the scrambles on cubetimer.com are not random state (i.e. they're bad), try cstimer.net


----------



## FastCubeMaster (Mar 31, 2016)

I was hand scrambling a few solves, and then one solve I did, as I started F2L, I realised it was the EXACT SAME scramble as the one I did right before that solve.
As I finished the solve it was same OLL and same PLL and everything.

I scramble pretty fast and I'm sure it's more moves than a scramble from CStimer, so I was surprised!


----------



## Isaac Lai (Mar 31, 2016)

FastCubeMaster said:


> I was hand scrambling a few solves, and then one solve I did, as I started F2L, I realised it was the EXACT SAME scramble as the one I did right before that solve.
> As I finished the solve it was same OLL and same PLL and everything.
> 
> I scramble pretty fast and I'm sure it's more moves than a scramble from CStimer, so I was surprised!



It's pretty commonplace.


----------



## Cale S (Mar 31, 2016)

FastCubeMaster said:


> I was hand scrambling a few solves, and then one solve I did, as I started F2L, I realised it was the EXACT SAME scramble as the one I did right before that solve.
> As I finished the solve it was same OLL and same PLL and everything.
> 
> I scramble pretty fast and I'm sure it's more moves than a scramble from CStimer, so I was surprised!



I've had this happen to me like 6 times in a row with some skewb handscrambles


----------



## Teoidus (Mar 31, 2016)

FastCubeMaster said:


> I was hand scrambling a few solves, and then one solve I did, as I started F2L, I realised it was the EXACT SAME scramble as the one I did right before that solve.
> As I finished the solve it was same OLL and same PLL and everything.
> 
> I scramble pretty fast and I'm sure it's more moves than a scramble from CStimer, so I was surprised!



I only use generated scrambles for this exact reason--I'm too paranoid of my hands now


----------



## IQubic (Apr 3, 2016)

Anyone have the scramble and reconstruction of Lucas Etter's 4.9 WR?


----------



## Ninja Storm (Apr 3, 2016)

IQubic said:


> Anyone have the scramble and reconstruction of Lucas Etter's 4.9 WR?



http://cubesolv.es/solve/4271


----------



## Matt11111 (Apr 3, 2016)

Torch said:


> Yes, it does matter. Scrambles are generated to produce a specific random state of the cube, so changing one move will generate a completely different cube state.


I think it would only affect 8 pieces for one wrong move.

Sent from my SM-T230NU using Tapatalk


----------



## wir3sandfir3s (Apr 3, 2016)

Looking to create some methods with someone as a collar on skype or something.
Check out some of my other methods or ideas, like Hawaiian Kociemba and some others on the new ideas thread.


----------



## TheCoolMinxer (Apr 3, 2016)

Robert Yau 50.56 5x5 ER single wat, 2nd in the world

http://cubecomps.com/live.php?cid=1442&cat=4&rnd=2


----------



## hkpnkp (Apr 8, 2016)

New yj yuchuang 5x5 ! _ https://www.facebook.com/moyumagiccube/posts/972319522849008


----------



## TheAlex6119 (Apr 10, 2016)

Am I the only one who gets interrupted while solving every time? My mom destroys every good average I do D: I need someone who understands me, I feel very frustrated. (this post isn't random at all xD)


----------



## JustinTimeCuber (Apr 11, 2016)

I just noticed that my national ranking averages for 2-5, OH, and Skewb are all multiples of 10. Well then...
3x3: 140
2x2: 140
4x4: 590
5x5: 500
OH: 1030
Skewb: 440


----------



## OLLiver (Apr 15, 2016)

Ok...I have dos/dva/ two questions. 
Where are the south american championships? or the Oceanic/Australasian champs? Or the African champs? 
These are continents too last time I Checked right?


----------



## Goosly (Apr 15, 2016)

OLLiver said:


> Ok...I have dos/dva/ two questions.
> Where are the south american championships? or the Oceanic/Australasian champs? Or the African champs?
> These are continents too last time I Checked right?



Where is the Antarctic championships?


----------



## AlphaSheep (Apr 15, 2016)

OLLiver said:


> Ok...I have dos/dva/ two questions.
> Where are the south american championships? or the Oceanic/Australasian champs? Or the African champs?
> These are continents too last time I Checked right?



I'd love an African Championship, but the reality is that there are only two countries in Africa that have competitions and they are literally as far apart as African countries can get (almost 11000 km). Travel in Africa is difficult and expensive.

As it is, we already have to split our "Nationals" in South Africa into two competitions at opposite ends of the country because only a handful of people can afford to travel long distances for competitions.

Once we've got 2 or 3 more countries involved though, there will definitely be an African Championship.


----------



## OLLiver (Apr 15, 2016)

Goosly said:


> Where is the Antarctic championships?


Hey man. I'll become a delegate and I will make it happen

E: South americans care too weigh in on a the idea of a South American championships? I vote Chile or Argentina cause you can fly there direct from NZ.

E#2:Australasians/oceanians? care to weigh in on the idea of continental champs?
I vote broome(not really)


----------



## Hssandwich (Apr 17, 2016)

Fun fact: this is what speedsolving.com looked like in 2003:


----------



## CyanSandwich (Apr 18, 2016)

OLLiver said:


> E#2:Australasians/oceanians? care to weigh in on the idea of continental champs?
> I vote broome(not really)


It would just be a whole bunch of Australians with a few New Zealanders there. Australian nationals essentially.

If it was in NZ I would be down though.


----------



## CubeDatCube (Apr 18, 2016)

TheAlex6119 said:


> Am I the only one who gets interrupted while solving every time? My mom destroys every good average I do D: I need someone who understands me, I feel very frustrated. (this post isn't random at all xD)



No, your not the only one.

My mum just comes in whenever she feels like it.


----------



## TheCoolMinxer (Apr 22, 2016)

Are Gianfranco Huanqui and Juan Pablo Huanqui brothers?


----------



## Berd (Apr 22, 2016)

TheCoolMinxer said:


> Are Gianfranco Huanqui and Juan Pablo Huanqui brothers?



Yep! They're racing for a wr!


----------



## TheCoolMinxer (Apr 22, 2016)

Berd said:


> Yep! They're racing for a wr!


Oh, that's cool


----------



## Cale S (Apr 30, 2016)

If one center cap falls off on 4 cubes in MBLD, are they considered solved?


----------



## YouCubing (May 1, 2016)

so WCADB says Skewb WR avg in 2.76 by Michał. WCADB is usually a week or so late in terms of the official WCA results.
Cubecomps says Skewb WR avg is 2.93 by Jonatan. Cubecomps is usually a few days early in terms of the official WCA results.
Did Michał get DNF'd? what am I missing here?


----------



## obelisk477 (May 1, 2016)

Cale S said:


> If one center cap falls off on 4 cubes in MBLD, are they considered solved?



What makes you think they wouldnt be?


----------



## Cale S (May 1, 2016)

obelisk477 said:


> What makes you think they wouldnt be?




5b5c) If more than one part with one coloured face is affected, the puzzle is considered unsolved (DNF).
I remembered this and wasn't sure if it applied to each cube in MBLD or all the cubes as a whole


----------



## Hssandwich (May 4, 2016)

For those who didn't know already, Eli Jay's 1.8 UKNR skewb single was 11 moves, making the solve almost 6TPS.


----------



## CLL Smooth (May 8, 2016)

Odder could have named his 5x5 Hoya variant Oscar De La Hoya.


----------



## guysensei1 (May 12, 2016)

How many ways are there to resticker a Rubik's cube given a 6 colors, 9 identical stickers per color? 1 sticker per square obviously. As a useless bound, it's somewhere between 43 quintillion*12 and 54!

And how 'groups' are there in those? A 'group' is a bunch of stickerings which can be turned into one another by turning the Rubik's cube.


----------



## AlphaSheep (May 12, 2016)

guysensei1 said:


> How many ways are there to resticker a Rubik's cube given a 6 colors, 9 identical stickers per color? 1 sticker per square obviously. As a useless bound, it's somewhere between 43 quintillion*12 and 54!
> 
> And how 'groups' are there in those? A 'group' is a bunch of stickerings which can be turned into one another by turning the Rubik's cube.


The first question is easy. It's 54! = (2.31x10^71) if there are no restrictions on combinations of stickers.

The second question is a lot more interesting. FYI, these are called orbits. My first guess as a rough estimate would be 54! / 43 quintillion. This won't be correct but I imagine it's close.


----------



## guysensei1 (May 12, 2016)

AlphaSheep said:


> The first question is easy. It's 54! = (2.31x10^71) if there are no restrictions on combinations of stickers


Are you sure? 54! would be correct if all stickers were distinct but for a cube they're not. (6 groups of 9 stickers)


----------



## AlphaSheep (May 12, 2016)

Oops. That somehow slipped my mind. You have to divide by the number of ways each group of 9 stickers can be arranged. This means the answer is 54!/((9!)^6) = 1.01x10^38. The relevant formula is permutations of multisets.


----------



## guysensei1 (May 12, 2016)

AlphaSheep said:


> Oops. That somehow slipped my mind. You have to divide by the number of ways each group of 9 stickers can be arranged. This means the answer is 54!/((9!)^6) = 1.01x10^38. The relevant formula is permutations of multisets.


Ah, I actually know this formula. Didn't think of using it. I think this number should be further divided by 24 to account for double counting different orientations of the same state...?


----------



## Cale S (May 12, 2016)

guysensei1 said:


> Ah, I actually know this formula. Didn't think of using it. I think this number should be further divided by 24 to account for double counting different orientations of the same state...?



There are states that don't change after being rotated


----------



## Daniel Lin (May 13, 2016)

Cale S said:


> There are states that don't change after being rotated


yup, so its a slightly bigger number than what youd get just dividing by 24
so how would you calculate it then? Would you have to do a case by case analysis to see which states are symmetrical?


----------



## hamfaceman (May 20, 2016)

So apparently the upcoming Cong's Design pyra and skewb will have magnets instead of ball bearings. Seems pretty interesting, but it'd be impossible to change the clickiness without getting new magnets. Thoughts on this?


----------



## CrzyCbzz (May 20, 2016)

Hssandwich said:


> For those who didn't know already, Eli Jay's 1.8 UKNR skewb single was 11 moves, making the solve almost 6TPS.


I got a 1.98 on 10 move solution so 5tps


----------



## Torch (May 21, 2016)

It looks like there's a problem with this competition's cubecomps. Everyone who had a special character in their name got cut off, leading to competitors named "Mois" and "Jes" with no last names.


----------



## Cale S (May 30, 2016)

Why is it that the scrambles listed here for FMC do not start and end with R' U' F even though the comp was after the scrambler change?
http://iwca.jp/competition/scrambles/competitionId/CanberraAutumn2016/eventId/333fm


----------



## obelisk477 (May 30, 2016)

Cale S said:


> Why is it that the scrambles listed here for FMC do not start and end with R' U' F even though the comp was after the scrambler change?
> http://iwca.jp/competition/scrambles/competitionId/CanberraAutumn2016/eventId/333fm



Maybe everything was printed out and genned before the regs took effect?


----------



## Ronxu (May 30, 2016)

Cale S said:


> Why is it that the scrambles listed here for FMC do not start and end with R' U' F even though the comp was after the scrambler change?
> http://iwca.jp/competition/scrambles/competitionId/CanberraAutumn2016/eventId/333fm



Probably an outdated version of tnoodle.

Official competitions must always use the current version of the official scramble program.
hmm


----------



## Jaycee (Jun 10, 2016)

Tfw. (not PB, but finished the avg100 for today like this)


----------



## shadowslice e (Jun 10, 2016)

So just out of interest, has anyone actually tried 4x4x4 FMC seriously? I feel like it would be an interesting puzzle because you would need to balance a lot more things than with 3x3x3.


----------



## obelisk477 (Jun 10, 2016)

shadowslice e said:


> So just out of interest, has anyone actually tried 4x4x4 FMC seriously? I feel like it would be an interesting puzzle because you would need to balance a lot more things than with 3x3x3.



I think most attemps consist of cage method and then inserting center comms afterwards


----------



## OLLiver (Jun 14, 2016)

does anyone know some ZBLL for feet?


----------



## guysensei1 (Jun 20, 2016)

Helped scramble for comp recently, and I noticed that 4x4 scrambles were purely outer layer moves for the first 20 moves or so, then the inner layer moves started to come in. Is there any reason why this was done rather than just having inner layer moves scattered throughout the whole scramble?


----------



## xyzzy (Jun 20, 2016)

guysensei1 said:


> Helped scramble for comp recently, and I noticed that 4x4 scrambles were purely outer layer moves for the first 20 moves or so, then the inner layer moves started to come in. Is there any reason why this was done rather than just having inner layer moves scattered throughout the whole scramble?



TNoodle uses random-state scrambles for the 4x4x4, and since the 4x4x4 solver is based on reduction, the solution to the random state ends in a 3x3x3 solve (i.e. only outer-layer moves). Taking the inverse of this solution generates the scramble, which is why the first ~20 moves of the scramble use only outer-layer turns.


----------



## guysensei1 (Jun 20, 2016)

xyzzy said:


> TNoodle uses random-state scrambles for the 4x4x4, and since the 4x4x4 solver is based on reduction, the solution to the random state ends in a 3x3x3 solve (i.e. only outer-layer moves). Taking the inverse of this solution generates the scramble, which is why the first ~20 moves of the scramble use only outer-layer turns.


Wow, didn't know that 4x4 was random state too!


----------



## TheCoolMinxer (Jun 22, 2016)

Don't know if someone posted it already, but the appearently the SS Aurora Megaminx came out recently. Sems like it is a pre-modded SS  I think I will order it along with the xman megaminx ^^

https://thecubicle.us/shengshou-aurora-megaminx-p-6018.html


----------



## mafergut (Jun 22, 2016)

TheCoolMinxer said:


> Don't know if someone posted it already, but the appearently the SS Aurora Megaminx came out recently. Sems like it is a pre-modded SS  I think I will order it along with the xman megaminx ^^
> 
> https://thecubicle.us/shengshou-aurora-megaminx-p-6018.html


Wow! Thanks for the heads up. I was planning on buying an XMD Galaxy but this sounds very interesting for those of use that love the smoothness of the SS Mega but don't have the skill nor the time to mod it so this is a very nice alternative. Maybe I'll end up buying both. SS is lately calling everything they improve "Aurora", they have also produced an Aurora 5x5 which is supposed to be an improvement over the Wind 5x5.


----------



## shadowslice e (Jun 28, 2016)

Has anyone ever tried doing six-person solving? So one person controls one face and each person has to turn their own face and none of the others.


----------



## CLL Smooth (Jun 28, 2016)

shadowslice e said:


> Has anyone ever tried doing six-person solving? So one person controls one face and each person has to turn their own face and none of the others.


The Goobik's cube has to be solved with 3 people. I believe each person can control one axis.


----------



## JustinTimeCuber (Jun 30, 2016)

I just got the weirdest 3x3x3 ao50 (the time breakdown):

9+: 4
10+: 4
11+: 13
12+: 13
13+: 7
14+: 7
15+: 1
16+: 1


----------



## obelisk477 (Jul 1, 2016)

JustinTimeCuber said:


> I just got the weirdest 3x3x3 ao50 (the time breakdown):
> 
> 9+: 4
> 10+: 4
> ...



I'm used to seeing '+' as meaning '+2' and at first i was like how on earth did he get that many +2s


----------



## guysensei1 (Jul 1, 2016)

JustinTimeCuber said:


> I just got the weirdest 3x3x3 ao50 (the time breakdown):
> 
> 9+: 4
> 10+: 4
> ...


Good illustration of a normal distribution


----------



## TDM (Jul 1, 2016)

guysensei1 said:


> Good illustration of a normal distribution


Except times aren't usually normal distributed since there's a positive skew - which there is here


----------



## Cale S (Jul 4, 2016)

Just realized this today:

God's number for building a 2x2x2 block on 3x3 is 8 moves. For a specific 2x2x3, it's 12 moves.

2 x 2 x 2 = 8
2 x 2 x 3 = 12



Spoiler



posted this is the wrong thread earlier because typing "random cubing" in my URL bar suggests the blindfolded discussion thread


----------



## FastCubeMaster (Jul 4, 2016)

JustinTimeCuber said:


> I just got the weirdest 3x3x3 ao50 (the time breakdown):
> 
> 9+: 4
> 10+: 4
> ...





guysensei1 said:


> Good illustration of a normal distribution



A normal distribution would be symmetrical when put in a graph.



TDM said:


> Except times aren't usually normal distributed since there's a positive skew - which there is here



Yeah, true


----------



## Iggy (Jul 9, 2016)

http://cubecomps.com/live.php?cid=1627&compid=54

Marcin Zalewski is back :O


----------



## Torch (Jul 10, 2016)

Iggy said:


> http://cubecomps.com/live.php?cid=1627&compid=54
> 
> Marcin Zalewski is back :O



And look who else: http://cubecomps.com/live.php?cid=1627&compid=28


----------



## gateway cuber (Jul 11, 2016)

That moment when an R' D' F EO-Line take you 1.2x seconds and your solve ends up being an 11.27... Total ZZ sub-10 single fail. ZBLL recognition was slow too, but I also just started learning ZBLL. Anyway I could've gotten a sub-10 with ZZ today but then, yeah...


----------



## JustinTimeCuber (Jul 11, 2016)

Ooooh idea
someone who knows how to code well should make this:

6 degrees of seperation cubing style
A link is a competition, so examples:

2013BARK01 and 2013BARK01: 0 ()
2013BARK01 and 2016STRO01: 1 (2013BARK01 and 2016STRO01 competed together at Music City Winter 2016)
2013BARK01 and 2009ZEMD01: 2 (2013BARK01 and 2010BREC01 competed together at UIUC Spring 2013, 2010BREC01 and 2009ZEMD01 competed together at World Championship 2013)


----------



## 1973486 (Jul 11, 2016)

Similar stuff has been done before, e.g. Blonk number, don't remember if anyone has programmed that exactly though


----------



## obelisk477 (Jul 11, 2016)

Cale S said:


> Just realized this today:
> 
> God's number for building a 2x2x2 block on 3x3 is 8 moves. For a specific 2x2x3, it's 12 moves.
> 
> ...



So for F2L, its 2x3x3=18!


----------



## Cale S (Jul 11, 2016)

obelisk477 said:


> So for F2L, its 2x3x3=18!



2 times 2 times 3 isn't 18 factorial

also God's number is actually 27, not 20


----------



## obelisk477 (Jul 11, 2016)

Cale S said:


> 2 times 2 times 3 isn't 18 factorial
> 
> also God's number is actually 27, not 20


u r genus


----------



## qaz (Jul 11, 2016)

JustinTimeCuber said:


> Ooooh idea
> someone who knows how to code well should make this:
> 
> 6 degrees of seperation cubing style
> ...


I wrote a quick Python script to do this: https://www.dropbox.com/s/fwt3gnrhtmu0v52/degrees_of_separation.zip?dl=0
(It's pretty large because it contains the WCA database)

Most I've seen so far is 4:

Input WCA ID 1: 2016PAGL01
Input WCA ID 2: 2013BROW04

Degrees of freedom: 4
2013BROW04 was at USNationals2014 with 2007LUCH01
2007LUCH01 was at PhilippinesOpen2007 with 2007CANA01
2007CANA01 was at ClashOfCubersDavao2015 with 2015BALO02
2015BALO02 was at SumerSpeedCubeOlympics2016 with 2016PAGL01

EDIT: made some optimizations as of 12:40 AM CDT July 11, 2016


----------



## JustinTimeCuber (Jul 11, 2016)

Minh Thai would probably create some higher numbers, but that is kinda cheating

e: I can't get the Python script to work, but that's probably because I have some super outdated version of Python from like 2013 with some incompatability


----------



## qaz (Jul 11, 2016)

JustinTimeCuber said:


> Minh Thai would probably create some higher numbers, but that is kinda cheating
> 
> e: I can't get the Python script to work, but that's probably because I have some super outdated version of Python from like 2013 with some incompatability


I wrote it for python 2.7 and not 3.x, that's probably important


----------



## qaz (Jul 12, 2016)

Current nemesis list (only <10 nemeses):
http://pastebin.com/MR62FXff


----------



## TheCoolMinxer (Jul 19, 2016)

A lot of people want to add other stats into the WCA profiles, for example the method or meta averages.

But I think that the sum of ranks single and average should somehow appear in the profile and not be hidden on an extra website. I thought about that, beacuse maybe some people (including me) aren't extraordinary good at one event, so that sum of ranks is their best "event" Let me nkow what you think about that, since for me that's a simple and the next consequential way to extend your WCA profile. I didn't want to start a new thread for that, so I thought this is the best place...


----------



## Jaycee (Jul 21, 2016)

So the absolute strangest thing just happened. I got a 15.05 with an OLL skip to J-perm. I thought to myself, "Dang, that's my average time. F2L must've been horrible if my entire last layer was one of the best PLLs. .... Eh, at least it wasn't an LL skip with horrible F2L, then I'd be really salty." 

And then the solve right after, I got my first LL skip in at least 3 years.

R2 F' L2 D2 B' D2 R2 B2 U2 B' D L' R' U2 F' R' D' R

9.17. My second fastest time! Unfortunately, I can't find the solution at the moment.

(tbh i'm a lil salty that it's not a PB, but more freaked out that it happened in the first place)


----------



## JustinTimeCuber (Jul 21, 2016)

TheCoolMinxer said:


> A lot of people want to add other stats into the WCA profiles, for example the method or meta averages.
> 
> But I think that the sum of ranks single and average should somehow appear in the profile and not be hidden on an extra website. I thought about that, beacuse maybe some people (including me) aren't extraordinary good at one event, so that sum of ranks is their best "event" Let me nkow what you think about that, since for me that's a simple and the next consequential way to extend your WCA profile. I didn't want to start a new thread for that, so I thought this is the best place...


Kinchranks. Enough said.


----------



## Ordway Persyn (Jul 21, 2016)

Does anyone else sticker their square one with blue and green in front and back rather than red and orange?
just wondering.


----------



## Berd (Jul 21, 2016)

Ordway Persyn said:


> Does anyone else sticker their square one with blue and green in front and back rather than red and orange?
> just wondering.


I do! I can't stand it not being in wca orientation (I have white on top too)!


----------



## CLL Smooth (Jul 22, 2016)

Are you ready yet?
8 seconds... 12 seconds... Go!
That's a DNF.

haiku


----------



## SolveThatCube (Jul 27, 2016)

Spot what's wrong with this picture:



Spoiler


----------



## mafergut (Jul 28, 2016)

SolveThatCube said:


> Spot what's wrong with this picture:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## mark49152 (Jul 28, 2016)

mafergut said:


> Well, 94 seconds is a bit of a strange time ...


Oh yeah. I thought they meant the guy's shirt. Or the UFO on the table.


----------



## SolveThatCube (Jul 29, 2016)

Yup. Where the hell did 94 come from? Display fail.


----------



## Umm Roux? (Jul 30, 2016)

Text wall removed.


----------



## wir3sandfir3s (Jul 30, 2016)

No member intro?


----------



## Umm Roux? (Jul 30, 2016)

wir3sandfir3s said:


> No member intro?


Sorry, relatively new


----------



## shadowslice e (Aug 1, 2016)

Probably just Snyder exaggerating stuff again but I've had my curiosity aroused if anyone knows anything about Snyder3 and if it had any legitimate existence even if not to the amount claimed. I did half an hours digging and found nothing so in guessing not but if anyone knows anything.


----------



## obelisk477 (Aug 1, 2016)

shadowslice e said:


> Probably just Snyder exaggerating stuff again but I've had my curiosity aroused if anyone knows anything about Snyder3 and if it had any legitimate existence even if not to the amount claimed. I did half an hours digging and found nothing so in guessing not but if anyone knows anything.



Well idk about Snyder3, but as a side note I really only just now looked at what snyder method was. To me it's seems like:

Snyder Method is to CFOP as
ZZ-CT is to ZZ


----------



## shadowslice e (Aug 1, 2016)

obelisk477 said:


> Well idk about Snyder3, but as a side note I really only just now looked at what snyder method was. To me it's seems like:
> 
> Snyder Method is to CFOP as
> ZZ-CT is to ZZ


Yeah that's Snyder2 and it sort of is like FreeF2L/Almost tripod/heise. It's good but not as good as his hype I don't think.


----------



## obelisk477 (Aug 1, 2016)

How would sum of ranks be affected if feet was dropped as an official event?


----------



## Daniel Lin (Aug 1, 2016)

obelisk477 said:


> How would sum of ranks be affected if feet was dropped as an official event?


Feliks would definitely be #1 for both single and average


----------



## 1973486 (Aug 1, 2016)

Daniel Lin said:


> Feliks would definitely be #1 for both single and average



Not for single.


----------



## Cale S (Aug 5, 2016)

interesting sequence of moves I found that does nothing:

D2 B' D2 F B' L2 B L2 B F'


----------



## guysensei1 (Aug 5, 2016)

Cale S said:


> interesting sequence of moves I found that does nothing:
> 
> D2 B' D2 F B' L2 B L2 B F'


[D2 B' D2;S'] ?
EDIT: which does nothing because D2 B' D2 does not affect the S slice


----------



## Cale S (Aug 5, 2016)

guysensei1 said:


> [D2 B' D2;S'] ?
> EDIT: which does nothing because D2 B' D2 does not affect the S slice


wow how did I not see that

I thought it had something to do with the slice moves


----------



## guysensei1 (Aug 5, 2016)

Cale S said:


> wow how did I not see that
> 
> I thought it had something to do with the slice moves


How'd you find it anyway?


----------



## Cale S (Aug 5, 2016)

guysensei1 said:


> How'd you find it anyway?



it's actually really weird and involves spoilers for the Weekly FMC


Spoiler



*L D U2 F' B' U' R' B R' F2 U L F B2 D2 U F' B' U F2*

first I found a 7 move 2x2x3 like this:

D L B // roux block
F' D2 B D2 // 2x2x3

then later I found a 5 move 2x2x3:

D L' B L2 B 

I noticed the cases I got were similar, so I tried doing the inverse of the first and then doing the second and saw it was only off by an F', so D L' B L2 B F' is equivalent to D L B F' D2 B D2

removing the D at the beginning means L' B L2 B F' is equivalent to L B F' D2 B D2 
then you can add L' to the beginning of both and get L2 B L2 B F' is equivalent to B F' D2 B D2

so if you do the first one and then the inverse of the second you get an alg that does nothing: L2 B L2 B F' D2 B' D2 F B'


----------



## guysensei1 (Aug 14, 2016)

What would happen if in an official comp, some guy did random moves which happened to be the optimal solution of that scramble and he got sub-4.90?

Or if during BLD some guy just puts on the blindfold immediately and does random moves and somehow gets really lucky and its sub-WR?


----------



## Umm Roux? (Aug 14, 2016)

1/43 quintillion probability of that occurring, it would be very likely that the cube was misscrambled.


----------



## guysensei1 (Aug 14, 2016)

Umm Roux? said:


> 1/43 quintillion probability of that occurring, it would be very likely that the cube was misscrambled.


I know the odds are unlikely, but it's nonzero. So let's say it was found that the scramble was correct and they could not find evidence of cheating, new WR or 'throw away because too lucky?'


----------



## Umm Roux? (Aug 14, 2016)

guysensei1 said:


> I know the odds are unlikely, but it's nonzero. So let's say it was found that the scramble was correct and they could not find evidence of cheating, new WR or 'throw away because too lucky?'


Then it will most likely stand as the world record unless the cuber voluntarily gives it up. Or “The competitor found the scramble somehow”


----------



## Daniel Lin (Aug 14, 2016)

guysensei1 said:


> I know the odds are unlikely, but it's nonzero. So let's say it was found that the scramble was correct and they could not find evidence of cheating, new WR or 'throw away because too lucky?'


I don't think anyone would believe the WR guy, but I guess they'd have to accept it unless there's evidence he cheated


----------



## turtwig (Aug 14, 2016)

guysensei1 said:


> I know the odds are unlikely, but it's nonzero. So let's say it was found that the scramble was correct and they could not find evidence of cheating, new WR or 'throw away because too lucky?'



But if he did random moves than he doesn't know how to solve it. In the last comp I went to there was a kid who did the 'solve a face until it's solved' for 2x2. He got a 3 minute average but a 10s single and I heard that they were debating whether or not he should be disqualified as his method is very sketchy.
Hard to say, there would probably be a lot of debate. If the competitor doesn't actually know how to solve it I guess they could DNF it because he would be expecting a DNF.
A1c) A competitor participating in an event must be able to fulfil the event's requirements (e.g. know how to solve the puzzle). A competitor must not compete with expectation of a DNF result or an intentionally poor result.
If he did know how to solve it, but chose to do random moves, it might fall under also fall under this rule.


----------



## Daniel Lin (Aug 22, 2016)

When is the Moyu Magnetic Skewb coming out??


----------



## Torch (Aug 29, 2016)

https://www.worldcubeassociation.org/competitions/Wirewood22016/results/all#epyram

Now that's what I call Triangular Francisco!


----------



## TDM (Aug 29, 2016)

Torch said:


> https://www.worldcubeassociation.org/competitions/Wirewood22016/results/all#epyram
> 
> Now that's what I call Triangular Francisco!


Not only were there three Franciscos, but it was also on a puzzle with triangular faces!


----------



## Torch (Aug 30, 2016)

TDM said:


> Not only were there three Franciscos, but it was also on a puzzle with triangular faces!



There's an illuminati joke in here somewhere, but I'm not going make it.


----------



## PenguinsDontFly (Aug 30, 2016)

Torch said:


> There's an illuminati joke in here somewhere, but I'm not going make it.


Isnt triangular francisco some weird experimental method for 3x3? That makes three 3s, Makavelli in this, Killuminati, all through ur body.


----------



## GoldCubes29 (Aug 30, 2016)

No. But it's still the greatest 3x3 method known to mankind.

here


----------



## guysensei1 (Sep 8, 2016)

R2 u R2 u' R2 y R2 u' R2 u R2

10 move 5-cycle of corners.

Is there a shorter 5-cycle?


----------



## Torch (Sep 8, 2016)

I saw a guy today who looked exactly like a 40 year old version of Mark Boyanowski


----------



## xyzzy (Sep 9, 2016)

guysensei1 said:


> R2 u R2 u' R2 y R2 u' R2 u R2
> 
> 10 move 5-cycle of corners.
> 
> Is there a shorter 5-cycle?



I scrolled through a few hundred edge-preserving algs generated by Cube Explorer up to 9 moves and didn't see any 5-cycles, so 10 moves is probably the shortest for corner 5-cycles. There's (U2 R2 F2)3 for a 2-cycle + 4-cycle, though, which is 9 moves.


----------



## Daniel Lin (Sep 10, 2016)

my left hand is kinda sore. wondering if i should I take a break from cubing. lol
my right hand is normal


----------



## shadowslice e (Sep 10, 2016)

Daniel Lin said:


> my left hand is kinda sore. wondering if i should I take a break from cubing. lol
> my right hand is normal


Righty OH?


----------



## IRNjuggle28 (Sep 10, 2016)

Daniel Lin said:


> my left hand is kinda sore. wondering if i should I take a break from cubing. lol
> my right hand is normal


I've gotten that too. It's my left hand because that's the hand I do U2 with, which is more fatiguing than R and L moves because you're using fingers, not wrists. Is that why your left hand is sore, or do you not know why?

Take it easy for a while. If you cube with sore hands, your turning style will change to avoid doing painful things and you'll have trouble reversing that. Cubing while injured is a great way to mess up your technique, so cube at your own risk for now


----------



## Torch (Sep 10, 2016)

http://cubecomps.com/live.php?cid=1752&cat=2&rnd=2

Dat 2x2 podium


----------



## bobthegiraffemonkey (Sep 11, 2016)

Was thinking today about how I should maybe try practicing cross BLD to get better, and had an idea for a challenge (I would be really bad at it so I'm leaving it to other people). Thought someone might find it interesting.

The idea is to solve in a certain number of looks (enforced with a blindfold) without pre-inspection, and there would be different rankings based on how many looks you choose to use. Kinda like speed-BLD, with more looks and with inspection being timed too. It seems like it should help with lookahead.

If it isn't clear here is an example in detail: a difficult version could be 3-looks, which for CFOP might be something like

0) Start timer
1a) Inspect cross + 1 pair
1b) Blindfold on and solve cross + 1 pair
2a) Blindfold off and inspect rest of F2L
2b) Blindfold on and solve F2L
2a) Blindfold off and inspect LL
2b) Blindfold on and solve LL
3) Stop timer


----------



## Daniel Lin (Sep 11, 2016)

bobthegiraffemonkey said:


> Was thinking today about how I should maybe try practicing cross BLD to get better, and had an idea for a challenge (I would be really bad at it so I'm leaving it to other people). Thought someone might find it interesting.
> 
> The idea is to solve in a certain number of looks (enforced with a blindfold) without pre-inspection, and there would be different rankings based on how many looks you choose to use. Kinda like speed-BLD, with more looks and with inspection being timed too. It seems like it should help with lookahead.
> 
> ...


interesting idea. 3 looks can't be too difficult. lots of people can do cross+1 in inspection. And it's easy to predict CP after OLL. Then you could track the edges to figure out the PLL

maybe you could make it so that each look you do multiplies your time? e.g. 4 looks with a total time of 30 seconds, would give you a time of 2 minutes


----------



## joshsailscga (Sep 13, 2016)

Interesting statistic:
So Lucas Etter is good at 3x3, but he first came into fame for being a world-class 2x2er. Faz is a 3x3 god, but basically couldn't care less about 2x2. 
Current sum of single+average for 3x3: Lucas beats Faz.
Current sum of single+average for 3x3 plus 2x2: Faz beats Lucas.
Probably the only time in cubing history anyone ever cared about 2x2 single.


----------



## Cale S (Sep 13, 2016)

lol what is this
http://m.cubecomps.com/competitions/1744/events/4/rounds/1/results


----------



## shadowslice e (Sep 13, 2016)

Cale S said:


> lol what is this
> http://m.cubecomps.com/competitions/1744/events/4/rounds/1/results


I know that guy must've been pissed he was so close to sub-1 but they DNFed all his other solves


----------



## GoldCubes29 (Sep 19, 2016)

Cale S said:


> lol what is this
> http://m.cubecomps.com/competitions/1744/events/4/rounds/1/results



CubeComps be like: We're sorry, but no one made the cutoff. Have a bad day.


----------



## joshsailscga (Sep 20, 2016)

Just got a complete F2L skip while solving 5x5...


----------



## gateway cuber (Sep 20, 2016)

bobthegiraffemonkey said:


> Was thinking today about how I should maybe try practicing cross BLD to get better, and had an idea for a challenge (I would be really bad at it so I'm leaving it to other people). Thought someone might find it interesting.
> 
> The idea is to solve in a certain number of looks (enforced with a blindfold) without pre-inspection, and there would be different rankings based on how many looks you choose to use. Kinda like speed-BLD, with more looks and with inspection being timed too. It seems like it should help with lookahead.
> 
> ...


I wasn't timing Myself but I did 3 once:
Look 1: X-cross + pairing 2nd pair
Look 2: finish Pair 2, do Pair 3
Look 3: TSLE (I don't use zzct but I knew the case), Sledge x3.
EDIT: I probably took me around 15 mins


----------



## genericcuber666 (Sep 20, 2016)

joshsailscga said:


> Just got a complete F2L skip while solving 5x5...


 how with redux? did you try to influence it?


----------



## joshsailscga (Sep 20, 2016)

genericcuber666 said:


> how with redux? did you try to influence it?


Straight redux, no influencing. Craziest thing I've ever seen.


----------



## Smiles (Sep 20, 2016)

joshsailscga said:


> Just got a complete F2L skip while solving 5x5...



I think you mean F4L...



Spoiler



which is even crazier!


----------



## OLLiver (Sep 20, 2016)

Has there ever been a comp in the arctic circle? 
Also can someone tell me the furthest north and south comps ever?


----------



## Ksh13 (Sep 20, 2016)

OLLiver said:


> Has there ever been a comp in the arctic circle?
> Also can someone tell me the furthest north and south comps ever?


There was Arctic Open 2015 which was in Tromsø, Norway, which is in the arctic circle.


----------



## StachuK1992 (Sep 20, 2016)

joshsailscga said:


> Just got a complete F2L skip while solving 5x5...


No, you didn't.


----------



## obelisk477 (Sep 21, 2016)

joshsailscga said:


> Just got a complete F2L skip while solving 5x5...



If you didn't do any influencing during redux, thats the equivalent probability of them taking the cover off of your 3x3 in comp and only having LL scrambled


----------



## AlphaSheep (Sep 21, 2016)

OLLiver said:


> Has there ever been a comp in the arctic circle?
> Also can someone tell me the furthest north and south comps ever?


After a quick look at the map, the furthest south looks like either Wellington, New Zealand or Puerto Montt, Chile, both at 41°S.


----------



## OLLiver (Sep 21, 2016)

AlphaSheep said:


> After a quick look at the map, the furthest south looks like either Wellington, New Zealand or Puerto Montt, Chile, both at 41°S.


YES


----------



## joshsailscga (Sep 22, 2016)

obelisk477 said:


> If you didn't do any influencing during redux, thats the equivalent probability of them taking the cover off of your 3x3 in comp and only having LL scrambled


I get what you're saying, but the only other possibility I can think of is that I was so in the zone that I didn't even register doing F2L. Which I guess is significantly more likely, but all I know is I got to OLL and my brain went 'wtf there was no F2L' so hard I just stopped solving.


----------



## StachuK1992 (Sep 22, 2016)

Ok. In any case, you didn't skip F2L, so now it seems like you're just trying to cover up a lie.


----------



## Torch (Sep 27, 2016)

Nats 2017 will have qualifying times for events apparently:
 
https://www.worldcubeassociation.org/competitions/Skillcon2016#general-info


----------



## JustinTimeCuber (Sep 27, 2016)

b... b... b... but... I want to compete in all the events at Nationals
D:


----------



## TheSilverBeluga (Sep 28, 2016)

I just realized how many cubing acronyms you can make using only 3x3 scrambling notation:

F2L
LBL
BLD

There's probably more I can't think of, too.


----------



## JustinTimeCuber (Sep 28, 2016)

TheSilverBeluga said:


> I just realized how many cubing acronyms you can make using only 3x3 scrambling notation:
> 
> F2L
> LBL
> ...


ELL
ER
zBLL (kinda)
M2 (also very kinda)
zz (I'm trying too hard)
zBF2L (stop it Justin)

e: just realized that this refers to FDR2D2


----------



## 1973486 (Sep 29, 2016)

https://www.worldcubeassociation.org/results/p.php?i=2009BRZE01

This was Kalina Brzezinska right? Not sure why it doesn't list former name like for Tonia Kowalczyk, for example.


----------



## TheSilverBeluga (Oct 1, 2016)

I just realized something: I'm faster than Feliks Zemdegs, Mats Valk, and Lucas Etter COMBINED.


----------



## JustinTimeCuber (Oct 1, 2016)

TheSilverBeluga said:


> I just realized something: I'm faster than Feliks Zemdegs, Mats Valk, and Lucas Etter COMBINED.


well I'm faster than Feliks Zemdegs and Mats Valk combined so there


----------



## h2f (Oct 1, 2016)

1973486 said:


> https://www.worldcubeassociation.org/results/p.php?i=2009BRZE01
> 
> This was Kalina Brzezinska right? Not sure why it doesn't list former name like for Tonia Kowalczyk, for example.


Yes.


----------



## AlphaSheep (Oct 1, 2016)

OLLiver said:


> Has there ever been a comp in the arctic circle?
> Also can someone tell me the furthest north and south comps ever?


Finally remembered to actually check this. The answer is yes, there has been one comp in the arctic circle: the Arctic Open 2015 in Tromsø, Norway.

Also, here are lists of the furthest north and south comps.


Spoiler: Top 20 North





```
+------+-----------------------------+-----------+-----------+----------+------+-------+-----+
| rank | name                        | cityName  | countryId | latitude | year | month | day |
+------+-----------------------------+-----------+-----------+----------+------+-------+-----+
|    1 | Arctic Open 2015            | Tromsø    | Norway    |  69.6798 | 2015 |     2 |  22 |
|    2 | Luleå Open 2015             | Luleå     | Sweden    |  65.5848 | 2015 |     4 |  18 |
|    3 | Iceland Open 2012           | Reykjavik | Iceland   |  64.1353 | 2012 |     6 |   9 |
|    4 | Iceland Open 2014           | Reykjavik | Iceland   |  64.1237 | 2014 |     6 |  14 |
|    5 | Norwegian Open 2008         | Trondheim | Norway    |  63.4346 | 2008 |     2 |  17 |
|    6 | Norwegian Open 2010         | Trondheim | Norway    |  63.4346 | 2010 |     2 |  13 |
|    7 | Norwegian Open 2011         | Trondheim | Norway    |  63.4346 | 2011 |     2 |  12 |
|    8 | Norwegian Championship 2012 | Trondheim | Norway    |  63.4305 | 2012 |     2 |  18 |
|    9 | Trondheim Fall 2011         | Trondheim | Norway    |  63.4305 | 2011 |    11 |  19 |
|   10 | Trondheim Spring 2012       | Trondheim | Norway    |  63.4305 | 2012 |     4 |  28 |
|   11 | Trondheim Cube Day 2012     | Trondheim | Norway    |  63.4263 | 2012 |    11 |  24 |
|   12 | Norwegian Open 2009         | Trondheim | Norway    |  63.4195 | 2009 |     2 |  14 |
|   13 | Norwegian Championship 2014 | Trondheim | Norway    |  63.4158 | 2014 |     3 |   8 |
|   14 | Norwegian Championship 2016 | Trondheim | Norway    |  63.4158 | 2016 |     3 |   4 |
|   15 | Trondheim Fall 2014         | Trondheim | Norway    |  63.4158 | 2014 |    11 |   8 |
|   16 | Vaasa Open 2009             | Vaasa     | Finland   |  63.1070 | 2009 |     5 |  16 |
|   17 | Sandö Open 2009             | Kramfors  | Sweden    |  62.9304 | 2009 |     1 |  17 |
|   18 | Karstula Open 2012          | Karstula  | Finland   |  62.8823 | 2012 |     6 |  16 |
|   19 | Tampere Open 2008           | Tampere   | Finland   |  61.4956 | 2008 |    10 |  25 |
|   20 | Finnish Open 2015           | Tampere   | Finland   |  61.4502 | 2015 |     6 |  13 |
+------+-----------------------------+-----------+-----------+----------+------+-------+-----+
```






Spoiler: Top 20 South





```
+------+--------------------------------+------------------+-------------+----------+------+-------+-----+
| rank | name                           | cityName         | countryId   | latitude | year | month | day |
+------+--------------------------------+------------------+-------------+----------+------+-------+-----+
|    1 | Great South Open 2016          | Christchurch     | New Zealand | -43.5357 | 2016 |    10 |  22 |
|    2 | Los Lagos Open 2016            | Puerto Montt     | Chile       | -41.4728 | 2016 |     4 |   2 |
|    3 | Wellington Winter 2015         | Wellington       | New Zealand | -41.3197 | 2015 |     6 |  21 |
|    4 | Wellington Autumn 2014         | Wellington       | New Zealand | -41.3196 | 2014 |     5 |   4 |
|    5 | Wellington Autumn 2016         | Wellington       | New Zealand | -41.3180 | 2016 |     5 |  22 |
|    6 | New Zealand Championships 2010 | Wellington       | New Zealand | -41.2910 | 2010 |     7 |  10 |
|    7 | New Zealand Championships 2009 | Wellington       | New Zealand | -41.2906 | 2009 |     7 |  18 |
|    8 | Palmerston North 2016          | Palmerston North | New Zealand | -40.3526 | 2016 |     9 |  25 |
|    9 | Melbourne Winter 2014          | Melbourne        | Australia   | -37.9914 | 2014 |     6 |  29 |
|   10 | Connor's Cube Day 2016         | Melbourne        | Australia   | -37.9095 | 2016 |     5 |  29 |
|   11 | Lifestyle Seasons Summer 2014  | Melbourne        | Australia   | -37.8441 | 2014 |     1 |  11 |
|   12 | Lifestyle Seasons Summer 2015  | Melbourne        | Australia   | -37.8439 | 2015 |     1 |  31 |
|   13 | Lifestyle Seasons Winter 2015  | Melbourne        | Australia   | -37.8439 | 2015 |     8 |   1 |
|   14 | Melbourne Spring 2013          | Melbourne        | Australia   | -37.8323 | 2013 |    11 |   9 |
|   15 | Cubing Classic 2016            | Melbourne        | Australia   | -37.8252 | 2016 |     3 |  19 |
|   16 | Australian Nationals 2015      | Melbourne        | Australia   | -37.8169 | 2015 |    10 |   3 |
|   17 | Melbourne Autumn 2015          | Melbourne        | Australia   | -37.8169 | 2015 |     3 |  22 |
|   18 | Melbourne Autumn 2016          | Melbourne        | Australia   | -37.8169 | 2016 |     4 |  30 |
|   19 | Melbourne Cube Day 2014        | Melbourne        | Australia   | -37.8169 | 2014 |    11 |   9 |
|   20 | Australian Nationals 2011      | Melbourne        | Australia   | -37.8152 | 2011 |     8 |  27 |
+------+--------------------------------+------------------+-------------+----------+------+-------+-----+
```



Database version: WCA_export013_20160930


----------



## OLLiver (Oct 2, 2016)

T


AlphaSheep said:


> Finally remembered to actually check this. The answer is yes, there has been one comp in the arctic circle: the Arctic Open 2015 in Tromsø, Norway.
> 
> Also, here are lists of the furthest north and south comps.
> 
> ...


Thanks so much for this!
Great south open is gonna be awesome


----------



## guysensei1 (Oct 2, 2016)

I made a thing


----------



## TheSilverBeluga (Oct 4, 2016)

I accidentally left the timer running over night...
16:34:23.913 D' F2 U B2 F2 L2 D' B2 D2 F2 D F' U R' D' R' B U' F' R U


----------



## joshsailscga (Oct 5, 2016)

Apparently the Valk's official measurement is 5.55cm


----------



## hamfaceman (Oct 5, 2016)

joshsailscga said:


> Apparently the Valk's official measurement is 5.55cm


If they're making cubes that are the same size as Mats' official times, then we can expect a pretty good keychain 2x2 soon.


----------



## TheSilverBeluga (Oct 5, 2016)

hamfaceman said:


> If they're making cubes that are the same size as Mats' official times, then we can expect a pretty good keychain 2x2 soon.



The real question is, how expensive will the 7x7 be?


----------



## JustinTimeCuber (Oct 5, 2016)

they don't have to use cm, now do they? Maybe they'll make a 0.56 decimeter 2x2.


----------



## Torch (Oct 5, 2016)

Anyone know if FMC USA is going to be a thing this year?


----------



## GoldCubes29 (Oct 7, 2016)

joshsailscga said:


> Apparently the Valk's official measurement is 5.55cm


Looks like we can expect a 5.13 cm Mini Valk3 pretty soon.


----------



## Cale S (Oct 8, 2016)

Torch said:


> Anyone know if FMC USA is going to be a thing this year?



it's announced now, cool
https://www.worldcubeassociation.org/competitions/FMCUSA2016

I probably won't be able to go again...


----------



## Jbacboy (Oct 11, 2016)

Anyone else notice Erik got a 6.75?
Sub Erik ftw


----------



## TDM (Oct 11, 2016)

Jbacboy said:


> Anyone else notice Erik got a 6.75?
> Sub Erik ftw


Yep, someone posted it on Reddit. I can't find a thread on SS, I'm surprised nobody thought of posting it until now.


----------



## AlphaSheep (Oct 11, 2016)

TDM said:


> Yep, someone posted it on Reddit. I can't find a thread on SS, I'm surprised nobody thought of posting it until now.


Erik did make a thread, although that was after @Jbacboy posted it. 
https://www.speedsolving.com/forum/threads/rip-7-08-hello-6-75.62625/


----------



## gateway cuber (Oct 12, 2016)

has anybody heard or no anything about a user called scubereo? And do any of the moderators know where he works, cause out of the blue he said he worked for amazon and wanted me to review their cubes or something. I saw he hadn't posted on the forums before so I told him to give me some proof he worked for amazon. Really weird considering I'm not world class at anything...


----------



## Berd (Oct 12, 2016)

gateway cuber said:


> has anybody heard or no anything about a user called scubereo? And do any of the moderators know where he works, cause out of the blue he said he worked for amazon and wanted me to review their cubes or something. I saw he hadn't posted on the forums before so I told him to give me some proof he worked for amazon. Really weird considering I'm not world class at anything...


I got a message too. Again, not particularly fast.


----------



## Daniel Lin (Oct 12, 2016)

gateway cuber said:


> has anybody heard or no anything about a user called scubereo?


got this today

Hi friend, are you still cubing? I'm from a cube retailer on amazon, would like to invite some one review our cubes. tell me in email: [email protected] if you are interested.


speaking of amazon, why don't people order there instead of from the cubicle or speedcubeshop? are the cubes worse? some of the prices on amazon are insanely cheap


----------



## obelisk477 (Oct 13, 2016)

Daniel Lin said:


> got this today
> 
> Hi friend, are you still cubing? I'm from a cube retailer on amazon, would like to invite some one review our cubes. tell me in email: [email protected] if you are interested.
> 
> ...



There used to be problems with people getting cubes that weren't what they claimed to be (ordering an Aolong v2 and getting a Guanlong or something). There may be some reputable sellers on Amazon, and others to avoid, but most people just conflate those bad experiences with the entirety of Amazon itself and order elsewhere to be safe.


----------



## TheSilverBeluga (Oct 13, 2016)

Daniel Lin said:


> got this today
> 
> Hi friend, are you still cubing? I'm from a cube retailer on amazon, would like to invite some one review our cubes. tell me in email: [email protected] if you are interested.



I got that exact same message.


----------



## Torch (Oct 18, 2016)

"with an average of seconds"


----------



## gateway cuber (Oct 18, 2016)

I just wanted to give people a heads up about the forum awards coming up in just over a month so be thinking about who deserves what...

2015 thread:https://www.speedsolving.com/forum/threads/2015-forum-awards.56189/#post-1134712

unless somebody beats me to it, I won't include nearly as many categories...

EDIT: I'll probably be making the thread in just a few weeks so everybody has time to make their vote and announce the final results in early December.


----------



## newtonbase (Oct 19, 2016)

Daniel Lin said:


> speaking of amazon, why don't people order there instead of from the cubicle or speedcubeshop? are the cubes worse? some of the prices on amazon are insanely cheap


I was sent what was meant to be a G4 by an Amazon seller so I could review it and it was nothing like my other ones. I'd be very wary about what I buy on there.


----------



## Matt11111 (Oct 19, 2016)

gateway cuber said:


> I just wanted to give people a heads up about the forum awards coming up in just over a month so be thinking about who deserves what...
> 
> 2015 thread:https://www.speedsolving.com/forum/threads/2015-forum-awards.56189/#post-1134712
> 
> ...


Wait, you can hire yourself as the host?


----------



## StachuK1992 (Oct 19, 2016)

Matt11111 said:


> Wait, you can hire yourself as the host?


Yep, that's how it always works.
The first person to create a non-crap forum awards around December 1st wins.


----------



## Matt11111 (Oct 19, 2016)

StachuK1992 said:


> Yep, that's how it always works.
> The first person to create a non-crap forum awards around December 1st wins.


Scuse me while I draft a forum awards thread.


----------



## StachuK1992 (Oct 19, 2016)

Matt11111 said:


> Scuse me while I draft a forum awards thread.


Dibs were called.

Always respect the dibs.


----------



## CLL Smooth (Oct 19, 2016)

We spend hours working on seconds.
No one understands this but us.


----------



## CLL Smooth (Oct 25, 2016)

When there's no OH
Why am I still practicing
It for my next comp


----------



## FastCubeMaster (Oct 25, 2016)

I showed one of my friends the video from cubeorithms 'why cubing is so addictive,' and he replied with:
"Yeah but that doesn't explain why you have 12 of the same kind."
I have 6 3x3's (facepalm)


----------



## guysensei1 (Oct 27, 2016)

I just noticed that the Malaysian NR 3x3 single is Erik


----------



## joshsailscga (Oct 31, 2016)

Who is Ellis Landers? (OH ao12 UWR on wiki) He is not in WCA database.


----------



## guysensei1 (Oct 31, 2016)

Been messing around with 6x6 L2E and I'm wondering if using L2E algs (the 'parity' ones that is) is even worth it on 6x6. Let's talk about the wing 2-swap alg, L' U2 L' U2 F2 L' F2 R U2 R' U2 L2 (bad notation, if you do big cubes you should know this). Is it worth it to use this alg (and other parity L2E algs) and risk getting another OLL parity, or is it faster to just setup that case to a single 'paritied' edge and leave that for LL?


----------



## gateway cuber (Oct 31, 2016)

I use L2E but don't listen to me my 6x6 solves aren't even time able...


----------



## Hssandwich (Oct 31, 2016)

guysensei1 said:


> Been messing around with 6x6 L2E and I'm wondering if using L2E algs (the 'parity' ones that is) is even worth it on 6x6. Let's talk about the wing 2-swap alg, L' U2 L' U2 F2 L' F2 R U2 R' U2 L2 (bad notation, if you do big cubes you should know this). Is it worth it to use this alg (and other parity L2E algs) and risk getting another OLL parity, or is it faster to just setup that case to a single 'paritied' edge and leave that for LL?


I mean not great at 6x6, but at I'd assume that it's faster to not do the alg, since it's effectively doing 2 algs in the solve (L2E and OLL parity) rather than just the one. If you have parity, that is.


----------



## guysensei1 (Nov 1, 2016)

Hssandwich said:


> I mean not great at 6x6, but at I'd assume that it's faster to not do the alg, since it's effectively doing 2 algs in the solve (L2E and OLL parity) rather than just the one. If you have parity, that is.


Yeah but if you don't have parity it's much faster to do the L2E. So it's kind of like weighing which set of algs is faster.


----------



## Torch (Nov 3, 2016)

Torch said:


> Nats 2017 will have qualifying times for events apparently:
> View attachment 6954
> https://www.worldcubeassociation.org/competitions/Skillcon2016#general-info


And here they are


----------



## guysensei1 (Nov 3, 2016)

Torch said:


> And here they are


Ooh neat, that means that Nats will (most likely) be the largest comp with no new participants.


----------



## gateway cuber (Nov 8, 2016)

Just so everybody can know what happened this weekend...
WR 3x3 single: 4.74 Mats Valk
WR 5x5 single: 41.27 Feliks Zemdegs
WR 3x3 BLD single: 18.50 Kaijun Lin
WR 3x3 BLD Mean: 24.38 ^
WR 4BLD single: 2:02.49 ^
WR 5BLD single: 4:46.74 ^
WR 6x6 Mean: 1:37.85 Feliks Zemdegs

meanwhile I broke my humble PB single with a 6.68 (Feliks averages that at home!)

insanity....


----------



## joshsailscga (Nov 10, 2016)

Somebody needs to set Juan Pablo up with a kilominx


----------



## Torch (Nov 10, 2016)

joshsailscga said:


> Somebody needs to set Juan Pablo up with a kilominx


----------



## oliviervlcube (Nov 10, 2016)

quality :s


----------



## Daniel Lin (Nov 11, 2016)

on cube explorer, how do you allow M moves but not E or S moves?
there's only an option for slice moves


----------



## TDM (Nov 11, 2016)

Daniel Lin said:


> on cube explorer, how do you allow M moves but not E or S moves?
> there's only an option for slice moves


I don't think that's an option.


----------



## Daniel Lin (Nov 11, 2016)

TDM said:


> I don't think that's an option.


why tho
M moves can make algs so much better
but then 99% of the algs I'm getting have E or S


----------



## TDM (Nov 11, 2016)

Daniel Lin said:


> why tho
> M moves can make algs so much better
> but then 99% of the algs I'm getting have E or S


I don't think writing a program which can do that, and especially generate the algs _quickly_, is particularly easy...


----------



## Cale S (Nov 11, 2016)

Daniel Lin said:


> why tho
> M moves can make algs so much better
> but then 99% of the algs I'm getting have E or S



I don't think an alg that works well with E or S moves would have a great solution with M moves unless you rotated


----------



## shadowslice e (Nov 13, 2016)

Cale S said:


> I don't think an alg that works well with E or S moves would have a great solution with M moves unless you rotated


I think he means that an algs that has moves from the subset {R,U,L,D,F...} can often be made better if your use M moves as well as the standard outer turn moves.


----------



## joshsailscga (Nov 14, 2016)

Ellis Landers now has OH ao5 and ao12 UWR's. I'm really curious as to who he actually is. I would imagine at that speed he's been to a comp before, but he must be registered under a different name because both 'Ellis' and 'Landers' searches don't turn up anyone likely to be him. Although it would be really funny if that's actually Keaton.


----------



## OLLiver (Nov 15, 2016)

Countries in South America ordered by those with most cubers who have competed first?
(aka what countries in South America have the most cubers?)


----------



## Cale S (Nov 16, 2016)

Can someone confirm if God's number for this Qiyi puzzle is 7?

and is there a way to do this in ksolve?


----------



## guysensei1 (Nov 16, 2016)

Cale S said:


> Can someone confirm if God's number for this Qiyi puzzle is 7?
> 
> and is there a way to do this in ksolve?


Looks simple enough to brute force. It's a bandaged Rex cube isn't it?


----------



## xyzzy (Nov 16, 2016)

guysensei1 said:


> Looks simple enough to brute force. It's a bandaged Rex cube isn't it?



Also a pyraminx without tips or edge orientation, or a skewb with four corners removed.

Move count distribution:
0: 1
1: 8
2: 48
3: 288
4: 1640
5: 7582
6: 15262
7: 4221
8: 110


----------



## guysensei1 (Nov 16, 2016)

xyzzy said:


> Also a pyraminx without tips or edge orientation, or a skewb with four corners removed.
> 
> Move count distribution:
> 0: 1
> ...


Can you give an example of an 8 move position? I wonder if they're interesting looking or just messy


----------



## xyzzy (Nov 16, 2016)

guysensei1 said:


> Can you give an example of an 8 move position? I wonder if they're interesting looking or just messy



3-cycle three centres around a corner and 3-cycle the other three centres. (Doesn't matter if you do the 3-cycles both clockwise, both anticlockwise, or in opposite directions; all of these are 8-movers.) I haven't checked the other eight-movers, but most of them are probably messy.


----------



## Cale S (Nov 16, 2016)

xyzzy said:


> 3-cycle three centres around a corner and 3-cycle the other three centres. (Doesn't matter if you do the 3-cycles both clockwise, both anticlockwise, or in opposite directions; all of these are 8-movers.) I haven't checked the other eight-movers, but most of them are probably messy.



wow, I tested one of them and it gave almost 100 different optimal solutions


Spoiler



Solving jldsld
Depth 0
Depth 1
Depth 2
Depth 3
Depth 4
Depth 5
Depth 6
Depth 7
Depth 8
U F R' U' L R L' F'
U F L R U' F' R' L'
U F L' F' R' U' L R
U F' R U F' U R' F'
U R U F' R U R F
U R L' F L R' U' F'
U R' U' F' L' F L R
U R' L' F' R U' L F
U L F L' F' R' U' R
U L R L' F R' U' F'
U L R' U' F' L' F R
U L' R F' U' R' L F
U' F' U R L F R' L'
U' R U L' R' F L F'
U' R F' R U F' R F'
U' R' U' L U' R' L' R'
U' R' F U R L F' L'
U' R' F' L' R U F L
U' L' U' R' L R' U' R'
U' L' F R' L R U F'
U' L' R F R' L U F'
F U R U F' R U R
F U R' L' F' R U' L
F U L' R F' U' R' L
F R U' L F' R' L' U
F R L R F' L R L
F R L' U' F' L R' U
F L U L F' U L U
F L U' R' F' U L' R
F L R' U F' L' U' R
F' U F R' U' L R L'
F' U F' R U F' U R'
F' U R L' F L R' U'
F' U L R L' F R' U'
F' U' R U L' R' F L
F' U' R F' R U F' R
F' U' L' F R' L R U
F' U' L' R F R' L U
F' R U L U' F L' R'
F' R F L' R' U L U'
F' R F' L R F' R L'
F' R L U' F U L' R'
F' R' U' F L' U L R
F' R' U' L F L' U R
F' R' L F' L R F' L
F' R' L R U' L' F U
F' L U R' F R U' L'
F' L F U' L' R U R'
F' L F' U L F' L U'
F' L R U R' F U' L'
F' L' U F' U L F' U
F' L' U L R' U' F R
F' L' R' U F U' R L
F' L' R' F U' R U L
R U F U' F' L' R' L
R U L U' F L' R' F'
R U L' R' F' U' F L
R U' L F' R' L' U F
R F U L R' F' L' U'
R F U' F' L' R' U L
R F L' R' U L U' F'
R F' L R F' R L' F'
R L U' F U L' R' F'
R L R F' L R L F
R L' U' F' L R' U F
R L' R' F' U' F U L
R' U' F L' U L R F'
R' U' R' L' U L' R' L'
R' U' L F L' U R F'
R' F' R L U F L' U'
R' L F' L R F' L F'
R' L R U' L' F U F'
R' L' F R L U F' U'
R' L' F' U' L R F U
R' L' R' U R' L' U' L'
L U R' F R U' L' F'
L U L F' U L U F
L U' R' F' U L' R F
L U' L' F' R' F R U
L F U' L' R U R' F'
L F R U L' F' U' R'
L F R' F' U' L' R U
L F' U L F' L U' F'
L R U R' F U' L' F'
L R U' L' F' R' F U
L R F R' F' U' L' U
L R' U F' L' U' R F
L' U F' U L F' U F'
L' U L R' U' F R F'
L' U' F L U R F' R'
L' U' F' R' U L F R
L' U' L' R L' U' R' U'
L' F' L U R F U' R'
L' R' U F U' R L F'
L' R' F U' R U L F'
L' R' L' U' R U' L' U'

Time: 1.865s


----------



## gateway cuber (Nov 18, 2016)

feliks friday four episode #23





4th or 5th fastest solve of all time I believe...

1st bill wang PB 3.70
1st Feliks PB 3.7x
3rd Dmitry Dorbachev 3.93
4th this I think...

I could've missed one...
(drew said his 3.72 didn't count...)


----------



## 1973486 (Nov 18, 2016)

"Dorbachev"

Bill has a high 3 and Feliks has at least 3 3s.


----------



## gateway cuber (Nov 18, 2016)

like I said, I could've missed one...
I thought Bill's signature said his PB was 4.15?
Anyway still a realllyyyy fast solve.


----------



## 1973486 (Nov 18, 2016)

IDK, he posted a 3 in the Accomplishment Thread recently though.


----------



## gateway cuber (Nov 18, 2016)

oh yeah that's right, I'll put his solve in my post...


----------



## Cale S (Nov 18, 2016)

Doesn't Rowan Kinneavy have a 3?


----------



## gateway cuber (Nov 18, 2016)

who's that?


----------



## 1973486 (Nov 18, 2016)

https://www.worldcubeassociation.org/results/p.php?i=2008KINN01 I'd be surprised if he does though...


----------



## Cale S (Nov 18, 2016)

1973486 said:


> https://www.worldcubeassociation.org/results/p.php?i=2008KINN01 I'd be surprised if he does though...



It might have been like a low 4 or possibly high 4, I remember seeing a reconstruction with a super lol F2L and LL skip or something


----------



## Torch (Nov 18, 2016)

1973486 said:


> https://www.worldcubeassociation.org/results/p.php?i=2008KINN01 I'd be surprised if he does though...



https://www.speedsolving.com/forum/threads/accomplishment-thread.1688/page-1203#post-670889


----------



## 1973486 (Nov 18, 2016)

Torch said:


> https://www.speedsolving.com/forum/threads/accomplishment-thread.1688/page-1203#post-670889



Hm okay then, exactly 5 years ago today


----------



## FastCubeMaster (Dec 2, 2016)

This is a weird question, but what is the most amount of moves done to a 3x3 possible without going back to a state of the cube already been done, in other words, every move has to make the cube different than it ever was before.

People may think it's 43 Quintillion, but I don't reckon it is, although I have no idea how that could be worked out.


----------



## AlphaSheep (Dec 2, 2016)

FastCubeMaster said:


> This is a weird question, but what is the most amount of moves done to a 3x3 possible without going back to a state of the cube already been done, in other words, every move has to make the cube different than it ever was before.
> 
> People may think it's 43 Quintillion, but I don't reckon it is, although I have no idea how that could be worked out.


People don't think it's 43 Quintillion, people have actually proven that it is 43 Quintillion. Read this if you're interested http://bruce.cubing.net/ham333/rubikhamiltonexplanation.html


----------



## gateway cuber (Dec 5, 2016)

what do you guys think of a comp thread where we compete to find the best solution (in terms of execution) every week and then vote on the last week's solution? (not voting for oneself.) we could have cfop, roux, zz, and oh categories...


----------



## Daniel Lin (Dec 6, 2016)

what's the UWR for match the scramble?

just tried it today and it is really fun!


----------



## guysensei1 (Dec 6, 2016)

Daniel Lin said:


> what's the UWR for match the scramble?
> 
> just tried it today and it is really fun!


Best I could find was 31.76 by Kaijun





Also he did it BLD


----------



## Daniel Lin (Dec 6, 2016)

guysensei1 said:


> Best I could find was 31.76 by Kaijun


k then I have the UWR lol
25.14


----------



## guysensei1 (Dec 6, 2016)

Daniel Lin said:


> k then I have the UWR lol
> 25.14


Did you use BLD methods or sighted methods?


----------



## Daniel Lin (Dec 6, 2016)

guysensei1 said:


> Did you use BLD methods or sighted methods?


BLD

I don't think sighted methods are as good


----------



## Torch (Dec 6, 2016)

Daniel Lin said:


> what's the UWR for match the scramble?
> 
> just tried it today and it is really fun!





guysensei1 said:


> Best I could find was 31.76 by Kaijun
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I have a 31.56 with sighted method, I agree BLD is better though


----------



## mark49152 (Dec 6, 2016)

So how's it done? A regular BLD memo then just execute all the targets in reverse?


----------



## cuberkid10 (Dec 7, 2016)

Random, to anyone who has the WuQue: Does anyone else think it is poo? Mine turns pretty poorly. It's super slow, even with Maru and DNM lube. It catches a whole bunch, probably due to the speed. I'm fairly disappointed with it, especially with all the hype around it.


----------



## Daniel Lin (Dec 7, 2016)

mark49152 said:


> So how's it done? A regular BLD memo then just execute all the targets in reverse?


yup



cuberkid10 said:


> Random, to anyone who has the WuQue: Does anyone else think it is poo? Mine turns pretty poorly. It's super slow, even with Maru and DNM lube. It catches a whole bunch, probably due to the speed. I'm fairly disappointed with it, especially with all the hype around it.


yay I don't have to buy another 4x4 XD


----------



## obelisk477 (Dec 7, 2016)

cuberkid10 said:


> Random, to anyone who has the WuQue: Does anyone else think it is poo? Mine turns pretty poorly. It's super slow, even with Maru and DNM lube. It catches a whole bunch, probably due to the speed. I'm fairly disappointed with it, especially with all the hype around it.



DNM is pretty new, maybe Chris screwed up your cube


----------



## cuberkid10 (Dec 7, 2016)

Daniel Lin said:


> yay I don't have to buy another 4x4 XD


What's interesting is that pretty much everyone else who has the cube loves it.



obelisk477 said:


> DNM is pretty new, maybe Chris screwed up your cube


Lol, I don't think so. I've put DNM in many other cubes and it works great in all of them.


----------



## Torch (Dec 7, 2016)

cuberkid10 said:


> What's interesting is that pretty much everyone else who has the cube loves it.
> 
> 
> Lol, I don't think so. I've put DNM in many other cubes and it works great in all of them.



I know people loved the prototype but I've heard mixed things about the production version.

-Raymond Goslow, famed hardware expert


----------



## Jaysammey777 (Dec 7, 2016)

For the mts discussion got a 30.69 with a regular Cfop today!

Why don't we keep track of this on the uwr page?


----------



## Torch (Dec 8, 2016)

Jaysammey777 said:


> For the mts discussion got a 30.69 with a regular Cfop today!
> 
> Why don't we keep track of this on the uwr page?


Because I'm too lazy to create a wiki account


----------



## joshsailscga (Dec 10, 2016)

Funny thing I found: from solved cube, Y perm, ccw U perm, U'. Makes sense when you think about it, but at first it makes you go, 'what'?


----------



## TDM (Dec 10, 2016)

joshsailscga said:


> Funny thing I found: from solved cube, Y perm, ccw U perm, U'. Makes sense when you think about it, but at first it makes you go, 'what'?


... what am I looking at here? It just gives an E perm.


----------



## Rcuber123 (Dec 10, 2016)

TDM said:


> ... what am I looking at here? It just gives an E perm.


It gives a yperm


----------



## TDM (Dec 10, 2016)

Rcuber123 said:


> It gives a yperm


Oops, sorry. Still not sure what's so special though...


----------



## mark49152 (Dec 11, 2016)

TheMaoiSha has hit 1,000,000 subscribers. Wow. Which English language cubing channel has most subscribers?


----------



## guysensei1 (Dec 11, 2016)

mark49152 said:


> TheMaoiSha has hit 1,000,000 subscribers. Wow. Which English language cubing channel has most subscribers?


RedKB at just under 300000 subs


----------



## joshsailscga (Dec 11, 2016)

TDM said:


> Oops, sorry. Still not sure what's so special though...



If you keep doing the ccw U perm then U', it keeps making a Y perm over and over. Nothing particular special about it, just thought it was funny.

Edit: completely unrelated, but Crazybadcuber has apparently bought 500 MF3's to make mosaics with.


----------



## Torch (Dec 11, 2016)

"FMC Aisa 2016"


----------



## Shiv3r (Dec 11, 2016)

guys,in the comp I was in yesterday, 2TFI san diego 2016, someone set the OH national record! This is the same comp ColorfulPockets came to.


----------



## TheCoolMinxer (Dec 11, 2016)

Shiv3r said:


> guys,in the comp I was in yesterday, 2TFI san diego 2016, someone set the OH national record! This is the same comp ColorfulPockets came to.


That's max park and he got WR avg aswell...


----------



## Rcuber123 (Dec 11, 2016)

Shiv3r said:


> guys,in the comp I was in yesterday, 2TFI san diego 2016, someone set the OH national record! This is the same comp ColorfulPockets came to.


Hey later set the WR and not only did colorful pockets go to the comp he organised it.


----------



## Shiv3r (Dec 12, 2016)

TheCoolMinxer said:


> That's max park and he got WR avg aswell...


Is there a video of the solve? I would like to do that... and I knew colorfulpockets was a volunteer, I didnt think he organized it...


----------



## guysensei1 (Dec 14, 2016)

Is F U R U' R' U R U2 R' U' R U R' F' (the standard COLL) or R' U' F' R U R' U' R' F R2 U2 R' U2 R better for the checker pi COLL?
Just came across the latter and I thought it was way better


----------



## CLL Smooth (Dec 14, 2016)

guysensei1 said:


> Is F U R U' R' U R U2 R' U' R U R' F' (the standard COLL) or R' U' F' R U R' U' R' F R2 U2 R' U2 R better for the checker pi COLL?
> Just came across the latter and I thought it was way better


Good alg. I like yours better. I'm going to work on switching.


----------



## Daniel Lin (Dec 14, 2016)

guysensei1 said:


> Is F U R U' R' U R U2 R' U' R U R' F' (the standard COLL) or R' U' F' R U R' U' R' F R2 U2 R' U2 R better for the checker pi COLL?
> Just came across the latter and I thought it was way better


oh yeah I know both algs but I've used the standard alg for COLL

what about R U2 R' U' R U' r' F' r U R' U2 r' F2 r


----------



## obelisk477 (Dec 14, 2016)

guysensei1 said:


> Is F U R U' R' U R U2 R' U' R U R' F' (the standard COLL) or R' U' F' R U R' U' R' F R2 U2 R' U2 R better for the checker pi COLL?
> Just came across the latter and I thought it was way better




R2' F R U R U' R' F' R U' R' U' R U R' U R is longer but also a decent RUF


----------



## Joel2274 (Dec 14, 2016)

Shiv3r said:


> guys,in the comp I was in yesterday, 2TFI san diego 2016, someone set the OH national record! This is the same comp ColorfulPockets came to.



Were you apart of his mannequin challenge?


----------



## cuberkid10 (Dec 14, 2016)

What is the fastest (known) 3x3 official average with cross on top?

I know Cornelius Dieckmann has 9.49 (2/5) with a mix and he has a 9.28 (2/5) with a mix, but I'm not sure how much those "count" because he uses it less than half the time. (Tried to link videos and got an error, but they're on his channel from a few years back).


----------



## Isaac Lai (Dec 14, 2016)

cuberkid10 said:


> What is the fastest (known) 3x3 official average with cross on top?
> 
> I know Cornelius Dieckmann has 9.49 (2/5) with a mix and he has a 9.28 (2/5) with a mix, but I'm not sure how much those "count" because he uses it less than half the time. (Tried to link videos and got an error, but they're on his channel from a few years back).







4/5 here, though the last (and also inconsequential) solve's cross may not be entirely on top.


----------



## joshsailscga (Dec 21, 2016)

Wooah Yu Da-Hyun is back, check out wiki UWR's 

And yes, I am also aware of official results recently as well.


----------



## 1973486 (Dec 21, 2016)

joshsailscga said:


> Wooah Yu Da-Hyun is back, check out wiki UWR's
> 
> And yes, I am also aware of official results recently as well.



Yeah, she (or her dad, not sure who runs the YT channel) posted some unofficial YTUWRs, though I'm not sure those are her overall PBs. Bit hard to find out though.


----------



## guysensei1 (Dec 24, 2016)

cuberkid10 said:


> Random, to anyone who has the WuQue: Does anyone else think it is poo? Mine turns pretty poorly. It's super slow, even with Maru and DNM lube. It catches a whole bunch, probably due to the speed. I'm fairly disappointed with it, especially with all the hype around it.


I tried one today and it was really slow, the owner said that they couldn't speed it up with lube..,


----------



## asacuber (Dec 24, 2016)

guysensei1 said:


> I tried one today and it was really slow, the owner said that they couldn't speed it up with lube..,


I tried someone's yesterday and it was quite fast

E: Does anyone know why cameron was DNF'd at WC2011 on the 2nd solve of 2x2 finals?


----------



## 1973486 (Dec 24, 2016)

asacuber said:


> E: Does anyone know why cameron was DNF'd at WC2011 on the 2nd solve of 2x2 finals?



https://www.worldcubeassociation.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=959


----------



## obelisk477 (Dec 24, 2016)

Rant: I cannot stand it whenever I see someone post asking for an algorithm to directly swap two LL wings or whatever on big cubes because they came up with 'their own method for 4x4' after trying it for the first time. For the love of God, there's a reason people use reduction -- look it up before posting, amirite? It might be more annoying than the 3 people per month who come up with the idea for 'Roux-CFOP hybrid' by solving DF and DB after FB and SB.


----------



## Torch (Dec 28, 2016)

They changed the name and order of events!!!

I DON'T KNOW HOW TO FEEL ABOUT THIS


----------



## 1973486 (Dec 28, 2016)

Did they update anything else while it was down?


----------



## sqAree (Dec 28, 2016)

Torch said:


> View attachment 7329
> They changed the name and order of events!!!
> 
> I DON'T KNOW HOW TO FEEL ABOUT THIS



Wait, what, what were their names before and what was the original order?


----------



## Torch (Dec 28, 2016)

sqAree said:


> Wait, what, what were their names before and what was the original order?


----------



## Iggy (Dec 29, 2016)

Torch said:


> View attachment 7329
> They changed the name and order of events!!!
> 
> I DON'T KNOW HOW TO FEEL ABOUT THIS



This really threw me off when I checked my profile this morning  Gonna take me a while to get used to it


----------



## guysensei1 (Dec 29, 2016)

Torch said:


> View attachment 7329
> They changed the name and order of events!!!
> 
> I DON'T KNOW HOW TO FEEL ABOUT THIS


At least the arrangement is more organised than it was last time


----------



## GenTheThief (Dec 29, 2016)

Torch said:


> View attachment 7329
> They changed the name and order of events!!!
> 
> I DON'T KNOW HOW TO FEEL ABOUT THIS


I like the name change. That makes sense.
I feel like they should have moved 4/5/MBLD up with the other cubic events though. Makes as much sense as moving 6/7.


Now my profile has a big hole where I'm missing 5/6/BLD averages/mean...


----------



## DGCubes (Dec 29, 2016)

I was about to make a lengthy post asking why they chose that seemingly arbitrary order from 3BLD and down, but then I realized its alphabetical, lol. 

I generally like this new order, but it comes with the downside of completely throwing off a Java sum of ranks program I hacked together over the summer that basically parses the HTML code of the inputted competitor's page based on the old names in their old orders. Too bad, lol.


----------



## EntireTV (Dec 30, 2016)

DGCubes said:


> I was about to make a lengthy post asking why they chose that seemingly arbitrary order from 3BLD and down, but then I realized its alphabetical, lol.
> 
> I generally like this new order, but it comes with the downside of completely throwing off a Java sum of ranks program I hacked together over the summer that basically parses the HTML code of the inputted competitor's page based on the old names in their old orders. Too bad, lol.


haha sucks


----------



## Amelia Cheng (Jan 2, 2017)

Imagine if you could buy 3x3's made especially for OH. They would be like the X-Man Galaxy megaminxes. They would have ridges or indents in the pieces and ect.


----------



## GenTheThief (Jan 2, 2017)

Amelia Cheng said:


> Imagine if you could buy 3x3's made especially for OH. They would be like the X-Man Galaxy megaminxes. They would have ridges or indents in the pieces and ect.


I most mini cubes are redesigned to accommodate OH solving.
Or do you mean, a full out cube only for OH, not a good cube shrunken down?
I think the ridges/indents would make it harder to pinky-flick R'

They might be helpful for Feet though.
Now that would be interesting...


----------



## guysensei1 (Jan 6, 2017)

Stickerless cubes have always been hard to use for me, since my palms sweat a lot and I don't have the stickers to make some texture on the surface for me to grip. Has anyone tried putting transparent noncolored stickers on top of stickerless cubes? Just a silly idea to make stickerless puzzles feel like stickered ones. They should be WCA legal from what I understand.


----------



## xyzzy (Jan 6, 2017)

guysensei1 said:


> Has anyone tried putting transparent noncolored stickers on top of stickerless cubes? Just a silly idea to make stickerless puzzles feel like stickered ones. They should be WCA legal from what I understand.



There's this earlier post in the one-answer regs thread that seems to indicate doing this isn't comp-legal.


----------



## Daniel Lin (Jan 10, 2017)

how many "non intuitive" 3cycles are there?

The ones I know are

[R B L F, U]
(L2 f2 L2 U)*2
R2 U R U R' U' R' U' R' U R'
R D2 L2 F U2 L2 D2 B R

Any others?
And it seems that there are only weird algs for edges


----------



## Teoidus (Jan 10, 2017)

There's a strange edge 3cycle based on <R2,U2,F2> I think.


----------



## Cale S (Jan 10, 2017)

Daniel Lin said:


> how many "non intuitive" 3cycles are there?
> 
> The ones I know are
> 
> ...



(L2 f2 L2 U)2 can also be solved with (f2 R2 U R2)2 

there's this kind of thing: L F R U' R' F' L' B' U B

I don't really understand how this corner cycle works:
R U2 R' F2 R U2 R' U2 R' F2 R U2

but with an alg that long you might as well find things like
F R' F' R U2 r' U' R2 U' R2 U2 r U2


----------



## CyanSandwich (Jan 10, 2017)

Daniel Lin said:


> how many "non intuitive" 3cycles are there?
> 
> The ones I know are
> 
> ...


(M U M' U)*2



Cale S said:


> I don't really understand how this corner cycle works:
> R U2 R' F2 R U2 R' U2 R' F2 R U2


[R U2 R' : [F2, R U2 R' U2 R']]


----------



## Daniel Lin (Jan 10, 2017)

Cale S said:


> (L2 f2 L2 U)2 can also be solved with (f2 R2 U R2)2


mind=blown



Cale S said:


> L F R U' R' F' L' B' U B


cyclic shift of mirror of my first alg

the shortest corner cycle I could find was this Aperm: R2 D R2 D' F2 R2 U' R2 U F2


----------



## guysensei1 (Jan 10, 2017)

Daniel Lin said:


> how many "non intuitive" 3cycles are there?
> 
> The ones I know are
> 
> ...


This is kinda related to the U perm, R U R U R U' R' U' R' U'

EDIT: regarding corner cycles... r U r' U' r' F r2 U' r' U' r U r' F' U lol

EDIT 2: I saved 2 moves R U R' F' r U R' U' r' F R2 U' R' also r U R' F' r U R' U' r' F R2 U' r' works too


----------



## Daniel Lin (Jan 10, 2017)

guysensei1 said:


> This is kinda related to the U perm, R U R U R U' R' U' R' U'


yeah just a setup



guysensei1 said:


> EDIT: regarding corner cycles... r U r' U' r' F r2 U' r' U' r U r' F' U lol


wat

I'm learning these for FMC btw. Are there actually no other weird corners cases (that are 10 moves or less)?


----------



## guysensei1 (Jan 10, 2017)

Daniel Lin said:


> wat


also r u r' u' r' f r2 u' r' u' r u r' f' u 
is a pair 3-cycle


----------



## xyzzy (Jan 10, 2017)

guysensei1 said:


> This is kinda related to the U perm, R U R U R U' R' U' R' U'



That's actually how I learnt the 2-gen U perm algs! I knew this one because I was using it for F2L, but it took me forever to realise I could conjugate it into a U perm.


----------



## Username (Jan 10, 2017)

Daniel Lin said:


> how many "non intuitive" 3cycles are there?



An infinite amount if you don't limit movecount


----------



## Jbacboy (Jan 10, 2017)

Whoa US Nats is already almost halfway filled. Wonder how long it will take to reach 800.


----------



## Shiv3r (Jan 10, 2017)

Hey guys, Would anyone be interested in an AvG edge pairing tutorial? I want to make one cuz I learned it and I want to make it easier for others to learn. There are practically no tutorials online...


----------



## Teoidus (Jan 10, 2017)

Is Kirjava still alive?


----------



## shadowslice e (Jan 10, 2017)

Teoidus said:


> Is Kirjava still alive?


Yes. He posted on here a few weeks ago about another cool program he made (I think he occasionally goes to comps as well but I'm not so sure about that anymore).


----------



## Shiv3r (Jan 10, 2017)

Hey guys, the AvG 5x5 edge pairing tutorial (written) is complete, It's here. If enough people like it, then I'll make a video tutorial.


----------



## Torch (Jan 11, 2017)

I was browsing the farthest-back pages of the WCA front page, and I found that this:
 
doesn't match this:
 
Perhaps there was a third round that was later annulled?


----------



## biscuit (Jan 11, 2017)

Torch said:


> I was browsing the farthest-back pages of the WCA front page, and I found that this:
> View attachment 7371
> doesn't match this:
> View attachment 7372
> Perhaps there was a third round that was later annulled?



They only had 16 competitors, so they weren't allowed to have a 3rd round, but I'd assume they weren't aware of the rule. Here is the link to the post on the WCA board about it

https://www.worldcubeassociation.or...=6&t=326&p=1350&hilit=Florida+open+2007#p1350


----------



## mark49152 (Jan 11, 2017)

Teoidus said:


> Is Kirjava still alive?


He's registered for Manchester Open this weekend.


----------



## guysensei1 (Jan 12, 2017)

On a 3x3, what's the shortest length of algorithm that flips any number** of edges in place and leaves everything else untouched? Is it 13 moves?

What about the shortest algorithm that flips any number** of corners but leaves everything else untouched? Is it 12 moves?

Also i found this cool easy to remember 12 move corner twisting alg
(R' U2 R F' D2 F)2

**non-zero number please


----------



## xyzzy (Jan 12, 2017)

guysensei1 said:


> On a 3x3, what's the shortest length of algorithm that flips any number** of edges in place and leaves everything else untouched? Is it 13 moves?



12-move edge flips: (M' U)4 and (R r y)6 and their rotations/mirrors/inverses/conjugates.
12-move corner twists: the one you posted + rotations/mirrors/conjugates. (Incidentally also an alg I used for the old FMC NR, lol.)

There's nothing shorter.


----------



## Torch (Jan 14, 2017)

I just had a really weird 6x6 pop. I was doing a turn of the outer 2 layers during centers, and one of the outer wings randomly jumped across a center and forced itself into another edge. I had one edge group with 5 pieces, and one with 3. To fix it, I had to pop the extra wing out and put it back in its proper edge.


----------



## jonlin (Jan 15, 2017)

How does the cubing nemesis thing work?

Everyone who is a nemesis is faster than me at 3x3 but otherwise I don't get it much


----------



## TDM (Jan 15, 2017)

jonlin said:


> How does the cubing nemesis thing work?
> 
> Everyone who is a nemesis is faster than me at 3x3 but otherwise I don't get it much


A nemesis is someone who is faster than you in EVERY event.


----------



## bobthegiraffemonkey (Jan 16, 2017)

TDM said:


> A nemesis is someone who is faster than you in EVERY event.


That's maybe a little unclear, since only the events that you have competed in matter. For example, Nicolas Naing only did megaminx and got WR, so he didn't have a nemesis.


----------



## shadowslice e (Jan 16, 2017)

bobthegiraffemonkey said:


> That's maybe a little unclear, since only the events that you have competed in matter. For example, Nicolas Naing only did megaminx and got WR, so he didn't have a nemesis.


But even if the events he didn't do mattered, he would still have no nemesis because no one would be faster than him mega...


----------



## bobthegiraffemonkey (Jan 16, 2017)

shadowslice e said:


> But even if the events he didn't do mattered, he would still have no nemesis because no one would be faster than him mega...


That's what I get for typing a reply too quickly, oops.


----------



## shadowslice e (Jan 19, 2017)

You know, I think it would be pretty interesting to hook a cuber up to an MRI machine or something to see what happens physiologically and psychologically. I feel like in the middle of a longer session faster cubers could enter some meditative state or similar like the way chess grandmasters sometimes can.


----------



## Daniel Lin (Jan 19, 2017)

which commutator(s) take the most number of moves to solve using slice place commutators?
setups to [M', U2]

I thought the max was 9 moves but I found a case (DF FL LD) that takes 11 moves

so is 11 the max?


----------



## Teoidus (Jan 19, 2017)

shadowslice e said:


> You know, I think it would be pretty interesting to hook a cuber up to an MRI machine or something to see what happens physiologically and psychologically. I feel like in the middle of a longer session faster cubers could enter some meditative state or similar like the way chess grandmasters sometimes can.



To add onto this I'd want to look at their visual processing system as there could be interesting circuits in there that specifically code for things like CLL recognition. Can also look at sensorimotor cortex


----------



## Teoidus (Jan 19, 2017)

How many moves on average would it take to use <R,r,U,M> to solve the EOLine (aka EO + DF + DB) given FB solved?


----------



## winniethe2 (Jan 19, 2017)

bobthegiraffemonkey said:


> That's maybe a little unclear, since only the events that you have competed in matter. For example, Nicolas Naing only did megaminx and got WR, so he didn't have a nemesis.


Not super relevant but it's cool that now nicolas naing has a nemesis. Highest event rank to have a nemesis?


----------



## AlphaSheep (Jan 19, 2017)

shadowslice e said:


> You know, I think it would be pretty interesting to hook a cuber up to an MRI machine or something to see what happens physiologically and psychologically. I feel like in the middle of a longer session faster cubers could enter some meditative state or similar like the way chess grandmasters sometimes can.


I think they probably do. The Johannesburg 2014 competition took place in a science centre, which had a machine with EEG headsets which measure your brain activity. Just for fun, Mats and Feliks put the headsets on while they were cubing. They were basically in a pure zen state while cubing.


----------



## guysensei1 (Jan 19, 2017)

Does doing 2 random state scrambles back to back give you a random state?


----------



## xyzzy (Jan 19, 2017)

guysensei1 said:


> Does doing 2 random state scrambles back to back give you a random state?



Doing a uniform random-state scramble followed by anything (as long as this "anything" is independent of the first scramble) will preserve the uniform distribution, so yeah.

Edit: Not true for bandaged puzzles like squan, since the second scramble might not be compatible with the first.


----------



## JustinTimeCuber (Jan 20, 2017)

fazzles liked my tweet
life goal accomplished

Sent from my MotoE2(4G-LTE) using Tapatalk


----------



## Cale S (Jan 20, 2017)

xyzzy said:


> Doing a uniform random-state scramble followed by anything (as long as this "anything" is independent of the first scramble) will preserve the uniform distribution, so yeah.
> 
> Edit: Not true for bandaged puzzles like squan, since the second scramble might not be compatible with the first.



Is it also not true for puzzles with equivalent pieces? Since not all permutations are in the scrambler


----------



## shadowslice e (Jan 20, 2017)

JustinTimeCuber said:


> fazzles liked my tweet
> life goal accomplished
> 
> Sent from my MotoE2(4G-LTE) using Tapatalk


Shouldn't this go in the accomplishment thread?


----------



## Teoidus (Jan 20, 2017)

Can you converge on a random state scramble by:
Hand scrambling a bit
Throwing cube up in air and catching
Some sufficiently large n number of times?

My impression is that, even if your hand scramble is always the same, your scramble is essentially some permutation P interspersed between random rotations. Which should be random (hm, unless P is something weird like a 3cycle, halfturn, identity, etc, but i hope people aren't hand scrambling like that)


----------



## Cale S (Jan 20, 2017)

Teoidus said:


> Can you converge on a random state scramble by:
> Hand scrambling a bit
> Throwing cube up in air and catching
> Some sufficiently large n number of times?
> ...



That's essentially like doing a longer and longer random move scramble, which approaches an even distribution of states with more moves but never reaches it


----------



## xyzzy (Jan 21, 2017)

Cale S said:


> Is it also not true for puzzles with equivalent pieces? Since not all permutations are in the scrambler



This is a bit tricky to answer. The key observation to make is that, even on puzzles with equivalent pieces, every possible move is a permutation of all the possible states—in other words, that every move can be undone. After applying a random-state scramble, the probability of being in any state is equal (= 1 / (# of states)).

Applying any fixed move after a random-state scramble only shuffles these probabilities around, which effectively does nothing at all since they were equal to begin with. Likewise, applying any fixed move sequence also effectively does nothing. Consequently, applying a move sequence chosen at random from any set will also do nothing.

On the other hand, if you apply random moves _before_ the random-state scramble, then on puzzles with equivalent pieces, this is not necessarily the same as just doing one random-state scramble. The above argument doesn't work because you don't start in the stationary distribution, and you can't just "take the inverse" to force the above argument, because puzzles with equivalent pieces (usually**) don't have a group structure.

** I think there was some puzzle that was isomorphic to one of the sporadic simple groups despite having equivalent centres. Can't remember what it's called, though. (Edit: it's the trapentrix, which isn't one of the sporadic simple groups.)


----------



## winniethe2 (Jan 21, 2017)

Cale S said:


> Is it also not true for puzzles with equivalent pieces? Since not all permutations are in the scrambler


Superflip+superflip=solved so yeah the resulting distributions aren't identical


----------



## joshsailscga (Jan 23, 2017)

Just checked the wiki and...
wth has Rowe been doing with SQ1!!??
That's insane


----------



## 1973486 (Jan 23, 2017)

joshsailscga said:


> Just checked the wiki and...
> wth has Rowe been doing with SQ1!!??
> That's insane



Yeah it was a while ago but I didn't update the UWR page for ages.


----------



## Cale S (Jan 23, 2017)

joshsailscga said:


> Just checked the wiki and...
> wth has Rowe been doing with SQ1!!??
> That's insane



He also has a 9.56 avg1000 which isn't listed on the wiki


----------



## FastCubeMaster (Jan 23, 2017)

Because this judge had no BLD judging experience, Jack's first solve was disqualified. The average was almost OcR, but he did get a resolve at the end.
Should it have been disqualified?


----------



## Torch (Jan 23, 2017)

FastCubeMaster said:


> Because this judge had no BLD judging experience, Jack's first solve was disqualified. The average was almost OcR, but he did get a resolve at the end.
> Should it have been disqualified?



Based on previous precedent, he should get the original solve.


----------



## shadowslice e (Jan 29, 2017)

What other forums are there besides SS (including foreign language forums)?


----------



## sqAree (Jan 29, 2017)

shadowslice e said:


> What other forums are there besides SS (including foreign language forums)?



I use http://speedcube.de/forum/ (German), but also known outside of Germany for the weekly FMC comp.


----------



## Daniel Lin (Jan 29, 2017)

shadowslice e said:


> What other forums are there besides SS (including foreign language forums)?



http://speedcubing.ru/forum/

lol i don't know russian. found this because of a random BLD method
http://speedcubing.ru/forum/index.php?topic=53.0


----------



## Loiloiloi (Feb 1, 2017)

http://www.gettyimages.com/photos/f...r&mediatype=photography&phrase=feliks zemdegs

I'm tempted to buy these just to put them on something completely unrelated to cubing


----------



## Loiloiloi (Feb 1, 2017)

shadowslice e said:


> What other forums are there besides SS (including foreign language forums)?


This is pretty inactive but there's a lot of good content still here from a while ago
http://twistypuzzles.com/forum/


----------



## GenTheThief (Feb 3, 2017)

https://www.cubingusa.com/state.php...-OK-TX-AR-LA&event=333&single=0&submit=Submit
Apparently, Feliks, Mats, and Jay are all from the south.

Also, I didn't know that I was Midwest #2 for Feet single/average.
kel


----------



## guysensei1 (Feb 5, 2017)

What are the fastest yau5/6/whatever 7x7 solves officially/unofficially on cam?

Best i could find is


----------



## gateway cuber (Feb 7, 2017)

My mind was just blown, chris tran has once again revolutionized cubing






I did the math and if runners and scramblers did this at a comp with approx. 2000 solves (about a 100 person comp) it could save up to 76 minutes! that's an hour and a quarter!


----------



## Cale S (Feb 7, 2017)

gateway cuber said:


> My mind was just blown, chris tran has once again revolutionized cubing
> 
> 
> 
> ...



While it is a good method to use, as some others have pointed out it would not actually save that much time in a real comp, because scramblers are pretty much always ahead of the solving/judging so that they always have cubes ready, meaning scrambling more efficiently wouldn't save more time 

I also think that it is more important for the scrambler to do their job accurately, and the runner (not necessary at comps but most have them) to be as quick as possible to run the comp smoothly


----------



## gateway cuber (Feb 7, 2017)

Um, I don't see your point, considering scramblers are technically behind the rate of solving due to having to wait for a competitor to solve in order to receive a cube for scrambling. If I'm missing your point please re-explain but I really do think that scrambling this way could allow for an entire extra event at most comps...


----------



## Cale S (Feb 7, 2017)

gateway cuber said:


> Um, I don't see your point, considering scramblers are technically behind the rate of solving due to having to wait for a competitor to solve in order to receive a cube for scrambling. If I'm missing your point please re-explain but I really do think that scrambling this way could allow for an entire extra event at most comps...



In my experience of scrambling, the scramblers always have scrambled cubes ready and are waiting for solves to be completed. At this point, scrambling faster won't help you because the cubes won't be solved any faster.


----------



## Chree (Feb 7, 2017)

gateway cuber said:


> My mind was just blown, chris tran has once again revolutionized cubing
> 
> 
> 
> ...



James Molloy made a response to this video that puts everything into perspective.

https://www.speedsolving.com/forum/threads/how-to-be-a-scrambler-runner-at-a-competition.63642/


----------



## gateway cuber (Feb 8, 2017)

Cale S said:


> In my experience of scrambling, the scramblers always have scrambled cubes ready and are waiting for solves to be completed. At this point, scrambling faster won't help you because the cubes won't be solved any faster.


I can see how this would apply to finals and events with very few competitors, but the cubers outnumber the scramblers so wouldn't they be receiving cubes faster than they scramble them?


----------



## Cale S (Feb 8, 2017)

gateway cuber said:


> I can see how this would apply to finals and events with very few competitors, but the cubers outnumber the scramblers so wouldn't they be receiving cubes faster than they scramble them?



At first the scramblers are behind because everyone is waiting on them, but because it takes less time to scramble than to complete a solve the scramblers will eventually always have cubes ready for the runners


----------



## Chree (Feb 8, 2017)

Cale S said:


> At first the scramblers are behind because everyone is waiting on them, but because it takes less time to scramble than to complete a solve the scramblers will eventually always have cubes ready for the runners



Eh, this isn't always the case. There are plenty of events where having slow scramblers IS a problem. Whenever we host Clock or Square-1, it takes a little extra work to put together a good Scrambler Schedule to ensure that we have adequate scramblers that can move through the group as fast as we can. Otherwise the scramblers will, indeed, hold up the entire show. But even there, we focus on people who can scramble accurately as opposed to who can scramble quickly. Because a repeat scramble will cost the competition even more time, and a misscramble can cost the competitor their record.

The MOST important job of a scrambler is to ensure that the cube is scrambled correctly. If someone doesn't wanna take a few extra seconds to make sure that you scrambled the cube correctly, they should not be doing that job. Accuracy is a thousand times more important than speed. I don't know how many One-Handed NR/CR/WR's we have to put in jeopardy before this is obvious.

Just don't ever stack the covers.


----------



## Jbacboy (Feb 9, 2017)

Anyone else realize that GMM has a Rubik's Cube on set? Just noticed it today.


----------



## xyzzy (Feb 16, 2017)

A classmate just told me that the cutoff for 4×4×4 at Singapore Open dropped from 70 seconds to 60 seconds… 

I'm guessing it's not possible to improve by ten seconds in two days, RIP.


----------



## guysensei1 (Feb 16, 2017)

xyzzy said:


> A classmate just told me that the cutoff for 4×4×4 at Singapore Open dropped from 70 seconds to 60 seconds…
> 
> I'm guessing it's not possible to improve by ten seconds in two days, RIP.


Just hope you get lucky on the first 2 solves.

Also 1:40 5x5 cutoffs wow, what is UWR for hardest 5x5 cutoff?


----------



## xyzzy (Feb 16, 2017)

guysensei1 said:


> Just hope you get lucky on the first 2 solves.
> 
> Also 1:40 5x5 cutoffs wow, what is UWR for hardest 5x5 cutoff?



Lol yeah, I'll try. I think the cutoffs are quite a bit stricter than "usual" cutoffs because last year's comp was quite far behind the planned schedule.


----------



## Daniel Lin (Feb 24, 2017)

i just realized
my 3BLD times are roughly double my 3x3 times

I'm sub 30 3BLD and sub 15 3x3
and my 3BLD pb is 18.86 while 3x3 is 9.42
pb av5 is low 25, while for 3x3 it's low 12


----------



## Confucius (Feb 27, 2017)

Do ypu guys think it is possible, in theory, to memorize enough algorithms to get a 2x2x2 average of under a second?


----------



## YouCubing (Feb 27, 2017)

got 3 overall PBs in my comp this weekend  this brings my total of overall PBs gotten in comp (including former ones) to 23 :O

how many have y'all gotten


----------



## guysensei1 (Feb 27, 2017)

YouCubing said:


> got 3 overall PBs in my comp this weekend  this brings my total of overall PBs gotten in comp (including former ones) to 23 :O
> 
> how many have y'all gotten


5bld was pb, second success ever
The two 9/10 multis were 10 cube attempt pbs, fmc nr mean was overall PB since i dont do means except officially

I believe 3:08 nr single was overall pb at the time.


----------



## CLL Smooth (Feb 27, 2017)

YouCubing said:


> got 3 overall PBs in my comp this weekend  this brings my total of overall PBs gotten in comp (including former ones) to 23 :O
> 
> how many have y'all gotten


I've gotten overall mega pb avg all three times I've competed in it. 3 for me


----------



## Cale S (Feb 27, 2017)

YouCubing said:


> got 3 overall PBs in my comp this weekend  this brings my total of overall PBs gotten in comp (including former ones) to 23 :O
> 
> how many have y'all gotten



MBLD several times (17/17, 20/23, 19/23 * 2, 21/23)
mega average twice 
almost 4x4 single but +2
former 4BLD NAR


----------



## guysensei1 (Feb 27, 2017)

Just a funny convo with a sub-9 guy i had...

Me: Don't you hate it when you spend 10s of inspection tracking this pair and then the corner and edge end up in separate slots?
Him: uhh, then why did you track that pair?
Me: I didn't know it would end up in that spot...
Him: lol


----------



## Ksh13 (Feb 27, 2017)

YouCubing said:


> got 3 overall PBs in my comp this weekend  this brings my total of overall PBs gotten in comp (including former ones) to 23 :O
> 
> how many have y'all gotten


46.27 4x4 average and 1:22.31 5x5 single, which was PB by 6 seconds. And FMC single I guess since I have never done a proper FMC attempt with all WCA rules at home.


----------



## Torch (Feb 27, 2017)

YouCubing said:


> got 3 overall PBs in my comp this weekend  this brings my total of overall PBs gotten in comp (including former ones) to 23 :O
> 
> how many have y'all gotten



47.51 4x4 single (Indiana 2015), 27 FMC single (Florida Feast 2014, FMC USA 2015, Athens Winter 2016), 1:21.07 Mega single (Athens Summer Omega 2016), 5.71 Pyra single and 7.49 Pyra average (Indiana 2015)

Hm, that's more than I thought!


----------



## TheMachanga (Feb 27, 2017)

Is anyone else annoyed by the fact that almost every single youtube cubing video has crappy EDM playing the whole time, be it a solve or a tutorial or even background music. And if the video doesn't have music playing during the video itself, you better believe there'll be a 10 second intro with EDM blasting in your face. 


Does anyone have any channel reccomondations that don't do this? I'm slowly getting back into cubing and recently have been lurking around the youtube cubing community (wow things have changed haha)


----------



## shadowslice e (Feb 27, 2017)

TheMachanga said:


> Is anyone else annoyed by the fact that almost every single youtube cubing video has crappy EDM playing the whole time, be it a solve or a tutorial or even background music. And if the video doesn't have music playing during the video itself, you better believe there'll be a 10 second intro with EDM blasting in your face.
> 
> 
> Does anyone have any channel reccomondations that don't do this? I'm slowly getting back into cubing and recently have been lurking around the youtube cubing community (wow things have changed haha)


Mine doesn't but there's only one video so it might not be of much use (just snarky and sarcastic captions)

Kavin and Kian don't normally but they use roux so may be of limited use.


----------



## Smiles (Feb 27, 2017)

TheMachanga said:


> Is anyone else annoyed by the fact that almost every single youtube cubing video has crappy EDM playing the whole time, be it a solve or a tutorial or even background music. And if the video doesn't have music playing during the video itself, you better believe there'll be a 10 second intro with EDM blasting in your face.
> 
> 
> Does anyone have any channel reccomondations that don't do this? I'm slowly getting back into cubing and recently have been lurking around the youtube cubing community (wow things have changed haha)



My channel! I've been firmly against this since the start. No intros and no music and no rambling.

youtube.com/JPerm

I make tutorials on everything


----------



## Joel2274 (Feb 27, 2017)

TheMachanga said:


> Is anyone else annoyed by the fact that almost every single youtube cubing video has crappy EDM playing the whole time, be it a solve or a tutorial or even background music. And if the video doesn't have music playing during the video itself, you better believe there'll be a 10 second intro with EDM blasting in your face.
> 
> 
> Does anyone have any channel reccomondations that don't do this? I'm slowly getting back into cubing and recently have been lurking around the youtube cubing community (wow things have changed haha)


I don't know many channels that don't have intro music...why does it bother you so much? Do you just not like EDM?


----------



## TDM (Feb 27, 2017)

TheMachanga said:


> Is anyone else annoyed by the fact that almost every single youtube cubing video has crappy EDM playing the whole time, be it a solve or a tutorial or even background music. And if the video doesn't have music playing during the video itself, you better believe there'll be a 10 second intro with EDM blasting in your face.
> 
> 
> Does anyone have any channel reccomondations that don't do this? I'm slowly getting back into cubing and recently have been lurking around the youtube cubing community (wow things have changed haha)


This is one of the main reasons why I don't bother watching any cubing videos any more. I don't watch anything if there's a >5 second intro, and if there's music going on I also won't listen.


----------



## Daniel Lin (Feb 28, 2017)

i found a new alg for dots!!11!!!!
really fast

y (R' F R f')6 y'


----------



## FastCubeMaster (Feb 28, 2017)

TheMachanga said:


> Is anyone else annoyed by the fact that almost every single youtube cubing video has crappy EDM playing the whole time, be it a solve or a tutorial or even background music. And if the video doesn't have music playing during the video itself, you better believe there'll be a 10 second intro with EDM blasting in your face.
> 
> 
> Does anyone have any channel reccomondations that don't do this? I'm slowly getting back into cubing and recently have been lurking around the youtube cubing community (wow things have changed haha)


Try this Australian BigBLDer. He's the one that got me into this type of music and now I love it.
AQBBQA
Edit: His latest video


----------



## NoobishCuber (Feb 28, 2017)

I think the QiYi Warrior W should have been more hyped than it was.


----------



## Elo13 (Mar 1, 2017)

YouCubing said:


> got 3 overall PBs in my comp this weekend  this brings my total of overall PBs gotten in comp (including former ones) to 23 :O
> 
> how many have y'all gotten



At my first comp I got a 2:06.xx 5x5 solve and 2:27.xx average (pb by 12 and 5 seconds respectively)
Last weekend I was 0.1 seconds off my 4x4 overall pb and would have been extremely close to mega overall pb avg if I didn't DNF a 1:19 because of a corner twist


----------



## Torch (Mar 6, 2017)

http://www.instructables.com/id/rubiks-cube-with-FEET/

This is the greatest thing I have ever seen.


----------



## 1973486 (Mar 6, 2017)

Torch said:


> http://www.instructables.com/id/rubiks-cube-with-FEET/
> 
> This is the greatest thing I have ever seen.



I knew I was doing something wrong


----------



## FastCubeMaster (Mar 21, 2017)

Anyone know where or when this cube came out?
http://www.magiccubemall.com/p/Limi...-Smooth-Speedcube-Macaron-Purple_2143706.html
Is it only a magiccubemall thing?


----------



## asacuber (Mar 21, 2017)

FastCubeMaster said:


> Anyone know where or when this cube came out?
> http://www.magiccubemall.com/p/Limi...-Smooth-Speedcube-Macaron-Purple_2143706.html
> Is it only a magiccubemall thing?



Wait lol. Isn't that the thing that faz used in is 2-7 uwr?


----------



## SolveThatCube (Mar 21, 2017)

FastCubeMaster said:


> Anyone know where or when this cube came out?
> http://www.magiccubemall.com/p/Limi...-Smooth-Speedcube-Macaron-Purple_2143706.html
> Is it only a magiccubemall thing?



No. A friend of mine has one. It's just a limited edition Gans Air.
http://www.candyspeed.com/product/773/gan-356-air-macaron-purple-limited-grand-master-edition


----------



## pinser (Mar 23, 2017)

I stopped the timer at 0.003 on a stackmat


----------



## SolveThatCube (Mar 24, 2017)

pinser said:


> I stopped the timer at 0.003 on a stackmat















0.002



__ SolveThatCube
__ Mar 24, 2017
__ 6



Stackmat timer stopped at 0.002 
WR?




Sorry to one up you mate


----------



## GenTheThief (Mar 26, 2017)

Guys
A couple of days ago, one of our new kittens walked across the keyboard while I was doing stuff on my laptop.

He opened like 6 new windows and typed into the search bar of one:

kiamnsq1
clearly he forgot that his name is kian mansour instead of kiam nansour

The future has been predicted by my kitten 
Kian should be getting into sq-1 any time soon


----------



## Torch (Mar 27, 2017)

Does anybody know what the average movecount of ZBLL is in QTM (ignoring AUFs)? I know it's 12.08 in HTM, but I'd be interested to know what the difference is.


----------



## obelisk477 (Mar 27, 2017)

Torch said:


> Does anybody know what the average movecount of ZBLL is in QTM (ignoring AUFs)? I know it's 12.08 in HTM, but I'd be interested to know what the difference is.



12.08 HTM is for optimal, but i calculated this once for speed algs:

T ZBLL average movecount from Jabari's doc: 14.18 HTM, 16.24 QTM

Hope that helps sorta


----------



## Ordway Persyn (Apr 1, 2017)

I just noticed at the current swiss comp it says that 13x13 is being held as an unofficial event.
(I don't know if it's an April fools or actually real, probably the former).


----------



## Torch (Apr 1, 2017)

Ordway Persyn said:


> I just noticed at the current swiss comp it says that 13x13 is being held as an unofficial event.
> (I don't know if it's an April fools or actually real, probably the former).



Wouldn't be the first time...


----------



## Cale S (Apr 1, 2017)

Ordway Persyn said:


> I just noticed at the current swiss comp it says that 13x13 is being held as an unofficial event.
> (I don't know if it's an April fools or actually real, probably the former).



There was a competition before in Switzerland with 13x13

edit: I was a minute too slow


----------



## Fábio De'Rose (Apr 1, 2017)

_Once done, the cube will have 9 sides, _

....Will it?


----------



## CubeCubeCube (Apr 3, 2017)

Hello 
I figured out that one can divide the Y Perm into 4 steps (should be obvious) and if you put it into two other arragements it will result in a T- or a J-Perm (F and F' or R and R are left out or written as R2 so it is mostly not directly visible).
For me it makes learning those two algs (I knew the Y-Perm already from 2x2) really easy to me. So do you know other similarities? (Besides something like L-Perm=J mirrored )


----------



## Ksh13 (Apr 3, 2017)

So I just looked through Feliks' old videos (like mid-2009 old) and it seems that at that point of time he averaged about the same as me on pretty much everything 2-7 except 5x5 (10-11 on 3x3, 50-something on 4x4, low 3 on 6x6, low 5 on 7x7, 3 or something on 2x2). On 5x5 I average ~1:45 and on July 20th 2009 he uploaded his 1:16 5x5 Australian Record single. I also noticed that in March 2009 his PB single was 1:25. I'm thinking like, how much 5x5 did he practice back then? Cause it seems like it would have to be a crazy amount, since he improved by over 10 seconds in 3 months on a V-cube 5, and he was so much better at it than he was at all other things (he actually had a PB Ao5 of 9.76 on 3x3 in July 2009).


----------



## TheSilverBeluga (Apr 4, 2017)

Prior to this weekend, the number of official sub-6 solves was exactly 100. I just thought I'd point that out, since it seems like a pretty big milestone.

31 of them were by Feliks.


----------



## Matt11111 (Apr 4, 2017)

TheSilverBeluga said:


> Prior to this weekend, the number of official sub-6 solves was exactly 100. I just thought I'd point that out, since it seems like a pretty big milestone.
> 
> 31 of them were by Feliks.


Good job Feliks.


----------



## guysensei1 (Apr 7, 2017)

A qiyi squan is 54mmx54mmx55mm, cubeshape is a lie


----------



## JTcuber (Apr 9, 2017)

Hey, has anyone made Winter Variation-CP?


----------



## CLL Smooth (Apr 9, 2017)

JTcuber said:


> Hey, has anyone made Winter Variation-CP?


I remember seeing someone compile algs for Winter Variation+CP. 
https://www.speedsolving.com/forum/threads/algorithms-for-wvcp.55916/


----------



## JTcuber (Apr 9, 2017)

CLL Smooth said:


> I remember seeing someone compile algs for Winter Variation+CP.
> https://www.speedsolving.com/forum/threads/algorithms-for-wvcp.55916/


Hm. The images in the doc don't seem to work for me. Are they working for you? All I get where the images of the cube should be are blank cells.


----------



## obelisk477 (Apr 9, 2017)

JTcuber said:


> Hm. The images in the doc don't seem to work for me. Are they working for you? All I get where the images of the cube should be are blank cells.



I copied and updated it. Crider's image stuff has been down for a while. click


----------



## JTcuber (Apr 9, 2017)

obelisk477 said:


> I copied and updated it. Crider's image stuff has been down for a while. click


Wow. That looks really difficult to recognize...
I may just stick to ZZLL


----------



## obelisk477 (Apr 9, 2017)

JTcuber said:


> Wow. That looks really difficult to recognize...
> I may just stick to ZZLL



Good plan, most people agree CPLS stuff isnt practical in a speedsolve.


----------



## guysensei1 (Apr 9, 2017)

Anyone knows what's up with WCAdb? Hasn't been updated in almost 2 weeks now


----------



## Torch (Apr 14, 2017)

It appears Wisconsin has secretly seceded


----------



## CornerCutter (Apr 18, 2017)

Hello,

I was wondering which is better in a WCA competition when you get a major pop on a 4x4 or bigger cube. To stop the time and get a DNF or to take some time to put the cube back together?


----------



## JustinTimeCuber (Apr 18, 2017)

Write-in: Use a cube that doesn't explode

But seriously, I'd usually DNF it, especially if it's 4x4 or 5x5 because I could still get an average.


----------



## Ordway Persyn (Apr 18, 2017)

I'd DNF for the sake of the competition. I don't want the competition to run behind schedule because of me.


----------



## AlphaSheep (Apr 18, 2017)

CornerCutter said:


> Hello,
> 
> I was wondering which is better in a WCA competition when you get a major pop on a 4x4 or bigger cube. To stop the time and get a DNF or to take some time to put the cube back together?


The thing is, you still have to get it back together and solved before your next attempt anyway... So it depends entirely on how the competition is flowing and whether or not there's a need for me to clear the timer. 

Anyway, I don't tolerate cubes that can pop. If rather not complete at all than risk having a pop.


----------



## FastCubeMaster (Apr 18, 2017)

Or if you want you can just DNF that attempt then borrow someone else's 5x5 or another of your own for future attempts so you don't waste time.


----------



## Ordway Persyn (Apr 18, 2017)

Does anyone know a solving video or something thats not an add older than this? I believe this is the oldest remaining cubing video on youtube.


----------



## Daniel Lin (Apr 18, 2017)

idk if right place to ask but
is it possible to write this 5cycle as 2 comms canceled?

M' U M U'


----------



## bobthegiraffemonkey (Apr 18, 2017)

Daniel Lin said:


> idk if right place to ask but
> is it possible to write this 5cycle as 2 comms canceled?
> 
> M' U M U'


I'm not sure why you would want to, it's already 1 comm which makes sense.


----------



## Daniel Lin (Apr 18, 2017)

bobthegiraffemonkey said:


> I'm not sure why you would want to, it's already 1 comm which makes sense.


how does [M', U] make sense?

can it be decomposed into 2 3cycles?


----------



## bobthegiraffemonkey (Apr 19, 2017)

Daniel Lin said:


> how does [M', U] make sense?
> 
> can it be decomposed into 2 3cycles?


It's just a 5-cycle. M' changes 2 pieces in U, then you move the U layer to change which pieces you're affecting. Maybe I can help you understand it better though.

Let X be the 3-cycle DF->FU->UB, so something like [D:[M',U R2 U']], and note that [M',U] does the same as [X,U] (ignoring centre orientations of course). Clearly [X,U] is kinda like doing DF->FU->UB then DF->UL->RU, [M',U] does the same but more directly. Does that help any?


----------



## Rpotts (Apr 20, 2017)

So I randomly decided to do PLL Time Attacks again for the first time in years, in a feeble attempt to solidify a few algs I'm switching up, like the RUD G perms. Anyone have any advice for a different order of PLLs to make it easier? I just started with a U perm and chose the next alg based on my hand position to try and avoid regrips, but towards the end it sort of fell apart. From the beginning until the end of Ab there are no regrips at all. 

Just felt like sharing. 


```
Ua Ub T J F Rb Gc V Y Aa Ab E L Nb Gd Ga Ra Gb Na H Z

Ua -- 11 -- R U' R U R U R U' R' U' R2
Ub -- 11 -- R2' U R U R' U' R3 U' R' U R'
T  -- 14 -- R U R' U' R' F R2 U' R' U' R U R' F'
J  -- 13 -- R U R' F' R U R' U' R' F R2 U' R'
F  -- 18 -- R' U' F' R U R' U' R' F R2 U' R' U' R U R' U R
Rb -- 13 -- R' U2 R U2' R' F R U R' U' R' F' R2
Gc -- 15 -- R2' F2 R U2 R U2' R' F R U R' U' R' F R2
V  -- 14 -- R' U R' d' R' F' R2 U' R' U R' F R F
Y  -- 17 -- F R U' R' U' R U R' F' R U R' U' l' U R U'
Aa -- 9  -- R' U R' D2 R U' R' D2 R2
Ab -- 9  -- R2' D2 R U R' D2 R U' R x'
E  -- 16 -- x' R U' R' D R U R' D' R U R' D R U' R' D' 
L  -- 11 -- r U' R' U L' U2 R U' R' U2 R
Nb -- 17 -- R' U R U' R' F' U' F R U R' U' R U' y R U R'
Gd -- 14 -- R U R' (U' D) R2 U' R U' R' U R' U R2 D'
Ga -- 14 -- R2 U R' U R' U' R U' R2 (D U') R' U R D'
Ra -- 15 -- R U' R' U' R U R D R' U' R D' R' U2 R'
Gb -- 12 -- F' U' F R2 u R' U R U' R u' R2'
Na -- 21 -- R U R' U R U R' F' R U R' U' R' F R2 U' R' U2 R U' R'
H  -- 7  -- M2' U' M2' U2' M2' U' M2'
Z  -- 9  -- M' U' M2' U' M2' U' M' U2' M2'
    
Sum - 280
Avg - 13.333

Best Time - 33.963
Best TPS -- 8.244
Avg Time -- 1.617
```


----------



## Luke8 (Apr 23, 2017)

I get H-Perms way more often than PLL skips, yet they both have a 1/72 chance of occurring.


----------



## Tabe (Apr 23, 2017)

So I've got a couple of questions relating to the history of cubing:

1) When (and why) did the standard color scheme change to the current one? On original Rubik's cubes, it used to be white/blue, yellow/green, red/orange instead of the current white/yellow, blue/green, red/orange

2) What is generally accepted as the first real speed cube to be released?


----------



## Luke8 (Apr 23, 2017)

Tabe said:


> So I've got a couple of questions relating to the history of cubing:
> 
> 1) When (and why) did the standard color scheme change to the current one? On original Rubik's cubes, it used to be white/blue, yellow/green, red/orange instead of the current white/yellow, blue/green, red/orange
> 
> 2) What is generally accepted as the first real speed cube to be released?



I don't know number 1, but number 2 I think is the Rubik's DIY. The Rubik's DIY allowed you to customize tensions and take it apart and mod it. If you want the first non-Rubik's brand speedcube as an answer, ask an older cuber, I'm too new.


----------



## Ordway Persyn (Apr 23, 2017)

Luke8 said:


> I don't know number 1, but number 2 I think is the Rubik's DIY. The Rubik's DIY allowed you to customize tensions and take it apart and mod it. If you want the first non-Rubik's brand speedcube as an answer, ask an older cuber, I'm too new.


I believe the first non Rubik's speed cube was the Alpha I.


----------



## 2180161 (Apr 24, 2017)

Does anyone still use Waterman? And what is the fastest time achieved with it?


----------



## Daniel Lin (Apr 24, 2017)

Tabe said:


> When (and why) did the standard color scheme change to the current one? On original Rubik's cubes, it used to be white/blue, yellow/green, red/orange instead of the current white/yellow, blue/green, red/orange


white and yellow look similar, so that's why they're on opposite faces

same with orange and red


----------



## Tabe (Apr 24, 2017)

I suppose that makes sense. I know that I much prefer the original color scheme.


----------



## TheSilverBeluga (May 1, 2017)

Feliks is no longer the lowest sum of ranks for 3x3-5x5 average :O


----------



## Luke8 (May 1, 2017)

Do cubers have their fingers insured for a lot of money? It would suck if you set a world record then had all of your fingers fall off, preventing more solves. Of course, their is feet solving, but the question remains.


----------



## Fábio De'Rose (May 1, 2017)

Luke8 said:


> It would suck if you set a world record then had all of your fingers fall off



Uh.... What?


----------



## mark49152 (May 1, 2017)

Fábio De'Rose said:


> Uh.... What?


Well he's right, it would suck


----------



## Torch (May 1, 2017)

Luke8 said:


> Do cubers have their fingers insured for a lot of money? It would suck if you set a world record then had all of your fingers fall off, preventing more solves. Of course, their is feet solving, but the question remains.





Fábio De'Rose said:


> Uh.... What?





mark49152 said:


> Well he's right, it would suck


Fun fact: a few hours after I set the Feet NAR, Jacob almost ran over my foot with his car (accidentally, of course).


----------



## cuberkid10 (May 1, 2017)

Torch said:


> Fun fact: a few hours after I set the Feet NAR, Jacob almost ran over my foot with his car (accidentally, of course).


Don't worry. If that ever happens again, I have a decapitated foot from you in my apartment that I can lend you.


----------



## Luke8 (May 2, 2017)

cuberkid10 said:


> Don't worry. If that ever happens again, I have a decapitated foot from you in my apartment that I can lend you.



That's not creepy at all.


----------



## xyzzy (May 2, 2017)

Practising 3×3×3 stage on my 5×5×5, and:






As good a place as any other to stop for the night.


----------



## shadowslice e (May 2, 2017)

cuberkid10 said:


> Don't worry. If that ever happens again, I have a decapitated foot from you in my apartment that I can lend you.


But you can't decapitate a foot....
Well, unless you look like this:


----------



## Torch (May 2, 2017)

shadowslice e said:


> But you can't decapitate a foot....
> Well, unless you look like this:
> View attachment 7920


Well, the place I got it from for her was pretty shady, you never know what they might have been chopping up...


----------



## YouCubing (May 2, 2017)

Torch said:


> Well, the place I got it from for her was pretty shady, you never know what they might have been chopping up...


this is my favorite thing on all of the forums


----------



## Mastermind2368 (May 2, 2017)

Ordway Persyn said:


> I believe the first non Rubik's speed cube was the Alpha I.


Incorrect. People used studio cubes back in very early 2000's.


----------



## Rpotts (May 2, 2017)

Yea that and the Japanese Speedcubing Kit are the oldest ones I know of, though I don't know which of the "Type A/B/C/etc" was first, they were all around the same time that I started.


----------



## Ksh13 (May 2, 2017)

Mastermind2368 said:


> Incorrect. People used studio cubes back in very early 2000's.


Wasn't the studio cube and the japanese kit produced by Rubik's?


----------



## FastCubeMaster (May 5, 2017)

Heyyy, The WCA 'persons' layout changed, including more information! Looks cool

Shows me my medal collection and also total solves.
I've been to 3 comps and have 169 total solves


----------



## sqAree (May 5, 2017)

Additional information is always nice. What I dislike tho is that the profile's subsections are less compact compared to before.


----------



## Ordway Persyn (May 5, 2017)

Ksh13 said:


> Wasn't the studio cube and the japanese kit produced by Rubik's?


Yeah, I believe those where made by the rubik's brand.
Did the Edison/Joy cube come out before the Alpha I??


----------



## mark49152 (May 5, 2017)

sqAree said:


> Additional information is always nice. What I dislike tho is that the profile's subsections are less compact compared to before.


Yeah I agree and I don't like that now only one event is visible at a time. It's irritating having to click the tabs especially when you also have to scroll left and right so much to see the content, on mobile.


----------



## Luke8 (May 6, 2017)

I just changed my profile pic because a new forum user did the same one.


----------



## Confucius (May 7, 2017)

It is always important to have water nearby while deep in a cubing sesh. The other day I had to stop a sesh early because I realized I was insanely thirsty. Don't make my mistake.


----------



## Underwatercuber (May 11, 2017)

My Lubicle 1 just came! This stuff is freakin nuts. It makes my cubes insanely fast. I think it is like DNM37 2.0!


----------



## TheSilverBeluga (May 15, 2017)

The WCA statistics page added sub-5 solves to "most sub-X solves in Rubik's Cube." No one has more than one... yet.


----------



## Underwatercuber (May 15, 2017)

TheSilverBeluga said:


> The WCA statistics page added sub-5 solves to "most sub-X solves in Rubik's Cube." No one has more than one... yet.


Feliks and Max are the only two who get them somewhat frequently unnoficcially. Feliks gets more but max is improving quickly


----------



## Dr_Detonation (May 16, 2017)

Underwatercuber said:


> Feliks and Max are the only two who get them somewhat frequently unnoficcially. Feliks gets more but max is improving quickly



His rate of improval is amazing


----------



## joshsailscga (May 17, 2017)

Underwatercuber said:


> Feliks and Max are the only two who get them somewhat frequently unnoficcially. Feliks gets more but max is improving quickly



Or that Max and Feliks are the only ones who post videos of their solves very frequently. I'm sure there are other cubers who get fairly frequent 4's.


----------



## guysensei1 (May 20, 2017)

I recall having read that the pochmann style scrambling for megaminx cannot reach all megaminx positions, how is this proven?


----------



## whauk (May 20, 2017)

guysensei1 said:


> I recall having read that the pochmann style scrambling for megaminx cannot reach all megaminx positions, how is this proven?


The number of possible Megaminx scrambles is bigger than the number of positions that can be reached with a Pochmann style scramble.


----------



## shadowslice e (May 20, 2017)

guysensei1 said:


> I recall having read that the pochmann style scrambling for megaminx cannot reach all megaminx positions, how is this proven?


You have (4^10)^7*2^7 different position in pochmann whixh is around 1.78e44 compared to around 20!*40!*3^20*2^20/2/3= 1.27e87 so dicounting symmetries for both is is fairly clear that pochmann would need quite a few more turns to even have the same number of possibilities (and would even then likely have many duplicate positions).

This is similar to how the lower bound of 18 was reached for 3x3.


----------



## guysensei1 (May 20, 2017)

shadowslice e said:


> You have (4^10)^7*2^7 different position in pochmann whixh is around 1.78e44 compared to around 20!*40!*3^20*2^20/2/3= 1.27e87 so dicounting symmetries for both is is fairly clear that pochmann would need quite a few more turns to even have the same number of possibilities (and would even then likely have many duplicate positions).
> 
> This is similar to how the lower bound of 18 was reached for 3x3.


How did you get the number of positions for pochmann? I am confused


----------



## shadowslice e (May 20, 2017)

guysensei1 said:


> How did you get the number of positions for pochmann? I am confused


It's just the number of turn sequences (and it turns out I got it slightly wrong but that actually reduces the number of positions) The correct calculation is (2^10)^7*2^7=2^77=1.51e23

2^10 because you have 10 R and D moves in each line (++ or -- each time) and when you do a U or U' you also have two choices (but 7 times so 2^7). The ^7 is because there are 7 lines


----------



## xyzzy (May 20, 2017)

shadowslice e said:


> 2^10 because you have 10 R and D moves in each line (++ or -- each time) and when you do a U or U' you also have two choices (but 7 times so 2^7). The ^7 is because there are 7 lines



Wait, don't the standard scramble sequences always end with D++ U or D-- U' in each line? That would mean that there's no 2^7 contribution from the U and U' choice.


----------



## shadowslice e (May 20, 2017)

xyzzy said:


> Wait, don't the standard scramble sequences always end with D++ U or D-- U' in each line? That would mean that there's no 2^7 contribution from the U and U' choice.


They do but doesn't the U/U' affect the rotation so the R would affect different pieces depending on the combination of U and D moves wouldn't it?

In the same way that doing d U r2 is not the same as d U' R2 or d' U' R2


----------



## xyzzy (May 20, 2017)

shadowslice e said:


> They do but doesn't the U/U' affect the rotation so the R would affect different pieces depending on the combination of U and D moves wouldn't it?
> 
> In the same way that doing d U r2 is not the same as d U' R2 or d' U' R2


Yeah, but this ultimately doesn't affect the number of 70-move Pochmann-style scrambles, which is 2^70.


----------



## YouCubing (May 27, 2017)

fun fact: out of next weekend's 14 competitions (which isn't a lot compared to many of the recent weeks), 6 don't have 3x3. that's almost half.


----------



## TheSilverBeluga (May 28, 2017)

In the 6.25 Bay Area competition, the format for 2x2 will be "best of 1." Because, why not?


----------



## Dr_Detonation (Jun 2, 2017)

I'm a genius. I just discovered that it's extremely difficult to get my average while blasting heavy metal through my tablet. Derp


----------



## Daniel Lin (Jun 3, 2017)

what is the average optimal movecount for
1. 2x2
2. skewb
3. pyraminx


----------



## xyzzy (Jun 3, 2017)

Daniel Lin said:


> what is the average optimal movecount for
> 1. 2x2
> 2. skewb
> 3. pyraminx



1. ~ 8.755
2. ~ 8.364
3. ~ 7.795 ignoring tips, ~10.462 with tips

Source: Jaap's Puzzle Page + Python one-liner to calculate weighted averages.


----------



## Underwatercuber (Jun 3, 2017)

xyzzy said:


> 1. ~ 8.755
> 2. ~ 8.364
> 3. ~ 7.795 ignoring tips, ~10.462 with tips
> 
> Source: Jaap's Puzzle Page + Python one-liner to calculate weighted averages.


Optimal move count 13x13...


----------



## xyzzy (Jun 3, 2017)

Underwatercuber said:


> Optimal move count 13x13...



Work in progress! I'll have numerical upper bounds for all cubes soon(tm), along with kilominx and megaminx after that. (Spoiler: the upper bounds for the cubes will scale as O(n^2), so they're not asymptotically tight.)

Of course, an exact figure is going to be impossible to compute, so you'll have to settle for a rather poor approximation.


----------



## Daniel Lin (Jun 10, 2017)

what's the fastest way to reconstruct a solve (from a video) without a scramble?


----------



## 1973486 (Jun 10, 2017)

Daniel Lin said:


> what's the fastest way to reconstruct a solve (from a video) without a scramble?



Just record the moves without a scramble or put the cube state into CE to gen one


----------



## Daniel Lin (Jun 16, 2017)

how many total last layer algs (not cases) are there that are 10 moves or less?
what about 9 or less?


----------



## 1973486 (Jun 16, 2017)

Daniel Lin said:


> how many total last layer algs (not cases) are there that are 10 moves or less?
> what about 9 or less?


http://hem.bredband.net/bunker7/fmc/fmc-ll.html


----------



## xyzzy (Jun 16, 2017)

Daniel Lin said:


> how many total last layer algs (not cases) are there that are 10 moves or less?
> what about 9 or less?



According to Birdflu:

1 zero-move alg
4 six-move algs (fruruf etc.)
10 seven-move algs (Niklas, Sune, fat Sune, etc.)
38 eight-move algs (sexysledge, longsexysledge (can have M/M' moves inserted to get an alternative eight-move alg), the C shape OLL with a bar (two eight-move algs for the same case), twistflip, R U R' F' L' U' L F, alternative fat Sune alg, corner commutators, and the mirrors/inverses thereof)
144 nine-move algs
706 ten-move algs


----------



## guysensei1 (Jun 18, 2017)

->haven't really practiced (ie anything more than 1 or 2 solves) 6x6 since february
->didnt even bring my 6x6 to comp
->borrowed someone's stickerless wuhua 
->still nr mean wut


Tldr dont practice=improvements


----------



## guysensei1 (Jun 20, 2017)

For comps with no 3x3, what determines if theres a winner or if the wca announcement looks like this?


----------



## Cale S (Jun 20, 2017)

guysensei1 said:


> For comps with no 3x3, what determines if theres a winner or if the wca announcement looks like this?



Sometimes other events are decided as the main event, I've won a comp with FMC as the main event as well as a comp with 3BLD as the main event


----------



## Underwatercuber (Jun 25, 2017)

Any idea why moyu has a prize if people break wr with their CLOCK when they don't even have more than one prototype:l idk if it's just me but that doesn't seem to work out...


----------



## DGCubes (Jul 5, 2017)

Oh yeah, so I was driving the other day and saw two cars immediately in front of me (one in my lane, and one to the left) and we were all stopped at a stoplight. I looked at the license plates, and one had UWR as part of it, and the other had DNF. If I had my phone on me I would've taken a picture, but there was a green light pretty soon after anyway.


----------



## LegendaryMJS (Jul 5, 2017)

guysensei1 said:


> ->haven't really practiced (ie anything more than 1 or 2 solves) 6x6 since february
> ->didnt even bring my 6x6 to comp
> ->borrowed someone's stickerless wuhua
> ->still nr mean wut
> ...



Nice. I am from Singapore too. my younger Brother wants to take over the NR for 2x2 single that you hold.


----------



## Luke8 (Jul 9, 2017)

Feliks is the only person to have a sub-Mitch average in a comp.


----------



## GenTheThief (Jul 10, 2017)

https://www.worldcubeassociation.or...SA&eventId=333oh&years=&mixHist=Mixed+History
So Eric Vissepo now holds USA OH NRs...? But they're really slow?
And who the heck is Paul Lin or Alex Gonzalez? Why are they both credited with NRs with times that are way higher than the current and previous NRs?


----------



## Underwatercuber (Jul 10, 2017)

GenTheThief said:


> https://www.worldcubeassociation.or...SA&eventId=333oh&years=&mixHist=Mixed+History
> So Eric Vissepo now holds USA OH NRs...? But they're really slow?
> And who the heck is Paul Lin or Alex Gonzalez? Why are they both credited with NRs with times that are way higher than the current and previous NRs?


LOL


----------



## FastCubeMaster (Jul 10, 2017)

DGCubes said:


> Oh yeah, so I was driving the other day and saw two cars immediately in front of me (one in my lane, and one to the left) and we were all stopped at a stoplight. I looked at the license plates, and one had UWR as part of it, and the other had DNF. If I had my phone on me I would've taken a picture, but there was a green light pretty soon after anyway.


That reminds me of when I saw DGC haha


----------



## Hssandwich (Jul 10, 2017)

GenTheThief said:


> https://www.worldcubeassociation.or...SA&eventId=333oh&years=&mixHist=Mixed+History
> So Eric Vissepo now holds USA OH NRs...? But they're really slow?
> And who the heck is Paul Lin or Alex Gonzalez? Why are they both credited with NRs with times that are way higher than the current and previous NRs?


Eric used to hold Puerto Rican NRs in pretty much everything, but Puerto Rico was recently updated to be a part of the US, so his nationality has now been changed. The results are still listed as NRs though, I guess because it would be unfair to ignore them?
I don't know much about Paul or Alex though, so I can only guess that they were also NRs of countries that are now part of the USA.


----------



## 1973486 (Jul 10, 2017)

It's probably an oversight, IIRC NRs are marked manually


----------



## shadowslice e (Jul 11, 2017)

Here's a weird thing:

I am
28 NR mega single/average
36 NR 3x3 single/average
29 NR OH single/ 28 NR average
586 CR OH single/average

Which is literally all the events I've done with an average. wtf


----------



## bren077s (Jul 13, 2017)

Ok, just wondering, how many people when they watch people that are really fast feel like they are going really slow and then somehow have really good times? A lot of the time when I am watching fast solves, the solve seems to go pretty slow and I feel like the solve took a lot longer than it actually did. When I solve, it generally feels so much faster and yet my solves are so much slower. Does anyone else experience this and does anybody know why this happens(besides the fact that I am not good)?


----------



## GenTheThief (Jul 13, 2017)

bren077s said:


> Ok, just wondering, how many people when they watch people that are really fast feel like they are going really slow and then somehow have really good times? A lot of the time when I am watching fast solves, the solve seems to go pretty slow and I feel like the solve took a lot longer than it actually did. When I solve, it generally feels so much faster and yet my solves are so much slower. Does anyone else experience this and does anybody know why this happens(besides the fact that I am not good)?


I know the feeling. You'll be watching someone turning at a decent speed, but nothing amazing, and they'll stop and it'll be an 8.
This is mostly because of lookahead. When you solve, you don't notice all the micro pauses that you have between steps. Take a video of a solve or two and watch it. You'll be surprised at how many pauses you have. This is also (probably) due to adrenaline.


----------



## oneshot (Jul 13, 2017)

Did they ever try like a "round-robin" head to head event? Like you start with 16 people, they all get the same scramble, but they sit face to face, and they both put their hands on the timer. The judge would say, "Go" and they let go of the timer and lift the cover and start the solve. Whoever finishes first, wins that round and the other person is eliminated. They work their way down to a final 2 solvers, one becoming champion. There wouldn't be a set amount of inspection time, the faster they can inspect and start the solve, the better.
This must have been tried, right? A link to a video would be great if anyone has one.
Brian


----------



## bren077s (Jul 13, 2017)

oneshot said:


> Did they ever try like a "round-robin" head to head event? Like you start with 16 people, they all get the same scramble, but they sit face to face, and they both put their hands on the timer. The judge would say, "Go" and they let go of the timer and lift the cover and start the solve. Whoever finishes first, wins that round and the other person is eliminated. They work their way down to a final 2 solvers, one becoming champion. There wouldn't be a set amount of inspection time, the faster they can inspect and start the solve, the better.
> This must have been tried, right? A link to a video would be great if anyone has one.
> Brian



That sounds amazing


----------



## oneshot (Jul 13, 2017)

Or, a relay race type event where there are two teams of 3 people. All 3 puzzles are covered. The judge says, "Go" and the first person on each team starts to solve. When the first person is done and they drop their cube on the table, the second person on the team can uncover their puzzle, etc.
I think it would build some suspense, like you would be thinking, "even though team one is ahead at the first solver, maybe team two can catch up"
It would also be interesting to see how people would choose their teams.


----------



## EntireTV (Jul 13, 2017)

bren077s said:


> Ok, just wondering, how many people when they watch people that are really fast feel like they are going really slow and then somehow have really good times? A lot of the time when I am watching fast solves, the solve seems to go pretty slow and I feel like the solve took a lot longer than it actually did. When I solve, it generally feels so much faster and yet my solves are so much slower. Does anyone else experience this and does anybody know why this happens(besides the fact that I am not good)?



Many people talk about this but I've never had this actually happen to me... I'm usually just in amazement


----------



## Rcuber123 (Jul 13, 2017)

oneshot said:


> Did they ever try like a "round-robin" head to head event? Like you start with 16 people, they all get the same scramble, but they sit face to face, and they both put their hands on the timer. The judge would say, "Go" and they let go of the timer and lift the cover and start the solve. Whoever finishes first, wins that round and the other person is eliminated. They work their way down to a final 2 solvers, one becoming champion. There wouldn't be a set amount of inspection time, the faster they can inspect and start the solve, the better.
> This must have been tried, right? A link to a video would be great if anyone has one.
> Brian


That's a knockout. A round Robin is everyone against everyone with no elimination


----------



## joshsailscga (Jul 14, 2017)

Most insane 5BLD podium ever at Worlds...
Also, Max almost took the 5x5 avg from Faz in Round 1, prior to Faz destroying it in Round 2.


----------



## efattah (Jul 14, 2017)

oneshot said:


> Did they ever try like a "round-robin" head to head event? Like you start with 16 people, they all get the same scramble, but they sit face to face, and they both put their hands on the timer. The judge would say, "Go" and they let go of the timer and lift the cover and start the solve. Whoever finishes first, wins that round and the other person is eliminated. They work their way down to a final 2 solvers, one becoming champion. There wouldn't be a set amount of inspection time, the faster they can inspect and start the solve, the better.
> This must have been tried, right? A link to a video would be great if anyone has one.
> Brian



In freediving (breath-holding) contests it is usually like cubing, the best time wins and everyone starts at a different time. In 2005 the first ever head-to-head elimination event was held, the rule was simple, just hold your breath longer than your opponent and you move to the next round, the time is irrelevant. The competition was a big success (and huge budget, in front of the Prince of Monaco), but sadly the format was never adopted again. It would be an excellent spectator sport for cubing, but the luck issue is a big problem.


----------



## IRNjuggle28 (Aug 3, 2017)

No way... anyone else ever done this?

Average of 5: 11.48
1. 11.48 U2 R' D2 L2 R U2 L' D2 F2 U2 L' D' B U B' L' U L2 D' F2 
2. (10.97) U2 B2 L2 F' L2 D2 R2 B2 U2 F R2 U L F R U2 R2 D' L' D B2 
3. 11.48 R2 D' F2 U F2 L2 D' R2 D2 R2 F2 L U L F' L2 R D U2 B' L2 
4. 11.48 U2 F2 R2 B2 L2 U2 B2 F2 U' R2 F' L' F2 U' R B2 U' L B' D B2 
5. (11.48) F2 D2 B' D2 U2 B2 U2 R2 B R2 U F R' B2 L R U R' D R'


----------



## efattah (Aug 3, 2017)

IRNjuggle28 said:


> No way... anyone else ever done this?
> 
> Average of 5: 11.48
> 1. 11.48 U2 R' D2 L2 R U2 L' D2 F2 U2 L' D' B U B' L' U L2 D' F2
> ...



Most I have had is two consecutive solves with exactly the same time... never 4 of 5 !!


----------



## Ordway Persyn (Aug 3, 2017)

The above has had me thinking, who has the smallest gap between official single and average? (I'm mostly asking for 3x3, other events may apply)


----------



## JustinTimeCuber (Aug 3, 2017)

I just picked up a square-1 sideways and tried to do an H perm.

I realized it was a square-1 after the first M2.


----------



## FastCubeMaster (Aug 3, 2017)

So lots of people unofficially do half turn solves on 3x3, I haven't really thought this through, but is there some way you can create a 3x3 so that its mechanism is restricted to half turns?


----------



## PaintballCat (Aug 3, 2017)

*Has anyone ever done this?
*
so I did a random 5x5 solve, stopped the timer and didn't even look at the time. Just kinda, went on and did whatever for a few minutes.
Looked at the screen later and realized I PB'd. By 10 seconds. (3:05, I don't like big cubes)


----------



## shadowslice e (Aug 4, 2017)

FastCubeMaster said:


> So lots of people unofficially do half turn solves on 3x3, I haven't really thought this through, but is there some way you can create a 3x3 so that it is restricted to half turns?


Yes, have a look at human thistlethwaite, orient first and other similar reduction methods.


----------



## I_<3_SCS (Aug 4, 2017)

this is a random thread. anyone ever solve a 4x4 feet?


----------



## Mike Hughey (Aug 4, 2017)

I_<3_SCS said:


> this is a random thread. anyone ever solve a 4x4 feet?


There are 11 people who have done it listed here.
http://speedcubing.com/records/recs_dext.html


----------



## Cale S (Aug 4, 2017)

I_<3_SCS said:


> this is a random thread. anyone ever solve a 4x4 feet?



I've done 5x5 with feet before, and Louis Cormier has done 8x8


----------



## TheCoolMinxer (Aug 4, 2017)

Mike Hughey said:


> There are 11 people who have done it listed here.
> http://speedcubing.com/records/recs_dext.html


That's kinda old lol. I have a 2:07 


I_<3_SCS said:


> this is a random thread. anyone ever solve a 4x4 feet?


Yep, also 2, 5, 7, Mega, Pyra, Skewb, Clock lol
I attempted 3bld once but failed completely. (M2/OP isn't just the right method for that one )


----------



## GenTheThief (Aug 4, 2017)

I_<3_SCS said:


> this is a random thread. anyone ever solve a 4x4 feet?


I've done 1-6 and megaminx WF.


----------



## JustAnotherGenericCuber (Aug 4, 2017)

shadowslice e said:


> Yes, have a look at human thistlethwaite, orient first and other similar reduction methods.


I think he means so that the mechanism only allows for half turns


----------



## FastCubeMaster (Aug 4, 2017)

Also didn't Joshua Feran do every single event with feet?


----------



## 1973486 (Aug 4, 2017)

FastCubeMaster said:


> Also didn't Joshua Feran do every single event with feet?



Not the blinds. I've wanted to beat his time but I need to learn to write with feet for FMC. I also want to beat Louis' biggest NxN with feet but that involves buying something bigger than an 8x8. Also I'm 6 seconds off Louis' 6x6 with feet but I'm not sure how long it would take to get that time again.

I've done 2-7, one foot, Mega, Pyra, Clock, Skewb and Square-1.


----------



## AlphaSheep (Aug 4, 2017)

FastCubeMaster said:


> So lots of people unofficially do half turn solves on 3x3, I haven't really thought this through, but is there some way you can create a 3x3 so that its mechanism is restricted to half turns?


I think you could do this by making raised arm at different radial distances from the core of the cube on the E, M and S slice edges and tracks on the corresponding centres. It would be possible to do a quarter turn, but after that, you'd only be able to turn a face 45 degrees before it locks up because the bump wouldn't line up with the track on the centre.

In fact, this probably wouldn't be too difficult to do as a mod to a normal 3x3.


----------



## bobthegiraffemonkey (Aug 4, 2017)

FastCubeMaster said:


> So lots of people unofficially do half turn solves on 3x3, I haven't really thought this through, but is there some way you can create a 3x3 so that its mechanism is restricted to half turns?


Yup, Oscar made one.


----------



## Rpotts (Aug 13, 2017)

Generated By csTimer on 2017-8-13
single: 2.02

Time List:
1. 2.02 F2 D' F2 U' D2

U2 D R2 U R2 U' D 

Is that UWR?


----------



## 1973486 (Aug 22, 2017)

1973486 said:


> Also I'm 6 seconds off Louis' 6x6 with feet but I'm not sure how long it would take to get that time again



Well that's one down


----------



## Benjamin Warry (Aug 22, 2017)

Just wait till people are solving the qiyi 19x19 with feet.


----------



## Daniel Lin (Aug 22, 2017)

is there an OLLCP trainer?

where you can choose cases like in roman's ZBLL trainer


----------



## ECSCuber (Aug 22, 2017)

Do you think if Feliks switched to Roux, everyone else would switch? I feel like he could easily average sub 5 with his TPS


----------



## greentgoatgal (Aug 23, 2017)

Probably lol. But he's not going to switch.


----------



## ECSCuber (Aug 28, 2017)

greentgoatgal said:


> Probably lol. But he's not going to switch.


Yeah, Although I do think there is more potential for roux than CFOP, considering Kian has only been cubing for 3 years and already has a global 6.2 average, and official 6.6 NR.


----------



## JustAnotherGenericCuber (Aug 28, 2017)

ECSCuber said:


> Yeah, Although I do think there is more potential for roux than CFOP, considering Kian has only been cubing for 3 years and already has a global 6.2 average, and official 6.6 NR.


What about max?


----------



## Mastermind2368 (Aug 28, 2017)

JustAnotherGenericCuber said:


> What about max?


Personally, when people say "Who inspires you?" I have never said Max. Why? Cause when I started cubing, he had a 9 avg, fast, but world class? No. When I started cubing, I loved Faz because of how fast he is in NxN puzzles, so unless the only people who could switch to it would be people who started this year or late last year.


----------



## Sue Doenim (Aug 29, 2017)

Mastermind2368 said:


> Personally, when people say "Who inspires you?" I have never said Max. Why? Cause when I started cubing, he had a 9 avg, fast, but world class? No. When I started cubing, I loved Faz because of how fast he is in NxN puzzles, so unless the only people who could switch to it would be people who started this year or late last year.


Watch this and tell me Max doesn't inspire you.


----------



## Mastermind2368 (Aug 30, 2017)

Sue Doenim said:


> Watch this and tell me Max doesn't inspire you.
> <iframe width="500" height="300" src="
> 
> 
> ...


Hey, it might have not sounded like it, but even though I don't worship him, I think he is a cool guy. I look to some people and they make me wonder, "How could I ever do that.?" For example, Phill, he is one of the fastest cubers with ZZ and I can only get sub 14.5, I look up to him, do I have pictures of him hanging on my wall and only buy cubes from thecubicle.us ? Ofc, not! I look up to lots of cubers, but not for sub 5 avg with CFOP. Not many people know this, but I have a small bit of autism, so in that way he shows that autistic cubers can be fast. My friend John Albright inspires me because he is a very cool guy to hang out with and still super fast at skewb. Jay and Kevin Min inspire me because they use Yau5. I could go on but you get the idea, sub 5 avg makes me want to be faster, but sub 10 avg with ZZ makes me want to be a better ZZ user.


----------



## guysensei1 (Sep 2, 2017)

My fastest counting official 4x4 solve is a 38.41 but my fastest official 4x4 average is 39.22 lol

why am i so consistent help


----------



## guysensei1 (Sep 8, 2017)

if im 6 feet tall, can i use all 6 of those feet during feet solving?


----------



## Sue Doenim (Sep 12, 2017)

I've got a weird way of recognizing my sune/antisune CxLLs (CMLLs, COLL, CLLs, etc.). I knew and used the algs with normal recognition for COLL earlier when I used ZZ, but then switched to Roux. Then, when learning CMLLs, I kind of just invented my own recog method. I feel like it's better for AUFless recognition. Honestly, I haven't put this to use beyond pure (anti) sunes and niklases. Basically, I look at the top face and determine what two stickers are opposites, and where they are in relation to the OCLL case, leaving you with 3 sets of 2 cases. Then, using a third sticker of the same/opposite color, differentiate between the final cases. Is this bad?


----------



## TDM (Sep 12, 2017)

Sue Doenim said:


> I've got a weird way of recognizing my sune/antisune CxLLs (CMLLs, COLL, CLLs, etc.). I knew and used the algs with normal recognition for COLL earlier when I used ZZ, but then switched to Roux. Then, when learning CMLLs, I kind of just invented my own recog method. I feel like it's better for AUFless recognition. Honestly, I haven't put this to use beyond pure (anti) sunes and niklases. Basically, I look at the top face and determine what two stickers are opposites, and where they are in relation to the OCLL case, leaving you with 3 sets of 2 cases. Then, using a third sticker of the same/opposite color, differentiate between the final cases. Is this bad?


Well, this is basically a 4-sticker system, since you're using all three on U, plus one more. Imo 3-sticker systems are _usually_ best.

I wrote up a guide here with four recognition systems, designed for people learning to recog Sunes from several/all angles. It might be worth taking a look.

Alternatively, you can learn how to recognise just by looking at the U face. You'll need to learn which colours are clockwise from which other colours, so it's harder to learn, but potentially much faster and much more flexible.


----------



## Zerksies (Sep 14, 2017)

Budget of cubes is really no issue for me. I've bought GANS UM and SM and no matter what i keep going back to my MoYu GTS2m. It has a nice smooth feel and turns really nice. I don't even need to lube the pieces just the core to reduce spring noise. But a GANS cube I love the feel of the cube in my hands I like the rounded edges and slightly bigger size and weight of a that cube. But no matter how i tweak the gans i keep going back to my GTS2M


----------



## gokkar (Sep 14, 2017)

Nothing wrong with that. Use whatever cube you feel comfortable with.


----------



## asacuber (Sep 15, 2017)

it seems only yesterday that marcin zalewski was in 10th place for best 3x3 single... now he is(technically) at 100

time sure does fly.



guysensei1 said:


> if im 6 feet tall, can i use all 6 of those feet during feet solving?



I need more help. If I am 5 feet three inches then what am I supposed to do with those three inches??????!?!?!?!


----------



## T1_M0 (Oct 2, 2017)

Heyyy, when did they add national and continental championship podiums to WCA profiles? Does a continental championship podium also qualify for gold member now?


----------



## applezfall (Oct 2, 2017)

T1_M0 said:


> Heyyy, when did they add national and continental championship podiums to WCA profiles? Does a continental championship podium also qualify for gold member now?


1.idk
2.no


----------



## newtonbase (Oct 2, 2017)

T1_M0 said:


> Heyyy, when did they add national and continental championship podiums to WCA profiles? Does a continental championship podium also qualify for gold member now?


It was announced on Saturday.


----------



## guysensei1 (Oct 12, 2017)

Am i the only one who's had a very fragile wuhua? I've broken the center stalk 3 times now doing innocent things like fixing pops and dropping it from (very) small heights... 

Just ranting cause im pissed af cause it just broke and theres a comp tomorrow, agagahgagagahsdbbcndnekwosicjfn


----------



## 1973486 (Oct 12, 2017)

guysensei1 said:


> Am i the only one who's had a very fragile wuhua? I've broken the center stalk 3 times now doing innocent things like fixing pops and dropping it from (very) small heights...
> 
> Just ranting cause im pissed af cause it just broke and theres a comp tomorrow, agagahgagagahsdbbcndnekwosicjfn



People complain about WuHuas and WuJis breaking all the time...


----------



## Underwatercuber (Oct 12, 2017)

1973486 said:


> People complain about WuHuas and WuJis breaking all the time...


Because it’s annoying and it happened all the time XD


----------



## xyzzy (Oct 12, 2017)

guysensei1 said:


> Am i the only one who's had a very fragile wuhua? I've broken the center stalk 3 times now doing innocent things like fixing pops and dropping it from (very) small heights...



Mine hasn't broken despite hundreds of pops (and a couple of corner twists), although I don't think I've ever actually dropped my Wuhua.

My general strategy is something like this: if it's an outer x-centre pop, I'll remove one of the outer wing pieces first, then reinsert the x-centre and the wing in that order; if it's an oblique pop, I'll remove the outer wing and an outer x-centre, then reinsert. This seems to be easier than trying to force a centre piece with other pieces blocking the way, and the outer wings seem to be relatively "safe" to remove/insert.


----------



## applezfall (Oct 14, 2017)

how many official solves and DNFs do you have?
I have 209 solves and 1 dnf yay.The dnf was becouse I didnt start the timer lol


----------



## JustAnotherGenericCuber (Oct 14, 2017)

Lol i only have 21 solves but 4 of those are plus twos


----------



## applezfall (Oct 15, 2017)

JustAnotherGenericCuber said:


> Lol i only have 21 solves but 4 of those are plus twos


I have 7 +2s


----------



## Ordway Persyn (Oct 15, 2017)

My WCA ID says 236 completed solves. I've counted and I have 9 DNF's, plus a DNS (which is marked as a DNF).

One of them was an OH solve where I accidentally stopped the timer midway through, one from MBLD, and the rest were from 3BLD. DNF's are common in blind events.


----------



## 1973486 (Oct 15, 2017)

1915 solves, 105 DNFs (57 from blind)

Out of the DNFs I can remember... dropped the cube at the end of the solve and multiple centers caps came off, got a corner twist (3x3), timer reset, overinspection (2x2), over time limit (4x4 and Mega), dropped the cube (OH), couldn't turn and gave up, stopped the timer as soon as I started it because nervous (Feet), made a turn in inspection, timer reset _and_ an unsolved puzzle (Mega), solved everything to 6 (Clock, the rest were probably off by the obvious amounts), didn't know how to solve (before the reg was introduced), couldn't reassemble puzzle (Skewb), didn't realise the cube was unsolved by two edges, stopped timer when starting (Square-1).


----------



## Ksh13 (Oct 15, 2017)

484 solves, 15 DNFs, a stupid amount of +2s. I think I have 3 3x3 finals with 2 +2s.


----------



## xyzzy (Oct 15, 2017)

38 completed, 2 DNFs.

First DNF was because the timer didn't start, second one was for FMC because I messed up cancelling moves in an insertion. Also had one +2 for "exceeding inspection", which was really "didn't notice timer didn't start, picked up cube, placed it back down, started the timer properly, oops you took too long to notice".


----------



## Competition Cuber (Oct 17, 2017)

263 solves, 17 DNFs


----------



## guysensei1 (Oct 18, 2017)

(R2 U R2 U')5 is a 3-cycle of edges lol

R2 U R2 (R2 U R2 U')5 R2 U' R2= R2 U2 R2 U' (R2 U R2 U')4 R2 U' R2 is a U perm


----------



## applezfall (Oct 18, 2017)

lol https://thecubicle.us/senhuan-mars-p-7528.html


----------



## Underwatercuber (Oct 18, 2017)

applezfall said:


> how many official solves and DNFs do you have?
> I have 209 solves and 1 dnf yay.The dnf was becouse I didnt start the timer lol


225 solves and 26 DNFs


----------



## xyzzy (Oct 19, 2017)

Qiyi's releasing the Wuhua v2 in about a week. Supposedly has a sturdier design and faster inner layers.

Also on their Twitter feed, two more non-WCA puzzles: the Clover Cube and the Pentacle Cube. Kinda excited about the Pentacle because of how cool it looks, but there's no release date announced yet.

(inb4 "what about clock?")


----------



## Mellis Ferton (Oct 19, 2017)

9 solves and 1 DNF...

Timer reset rip.


----------



## AlphaSheep (Oct 19, 2017)

applezfall said:


> how many official solves and DNFs do you have?
> I have 209 solves and 1 dnf yay.The dnf was becouse I didnt start the timer lol


581 solves, 8 DNFs, 1 DNS. 
Of the DNFs, 5 were unsuccessful 3BLD attempts, 2 were MBLD attempts, both of which were 0/2, and the last was a feet solve that I kept messing up and gave up on. The DNS was a 3BLD attempt that I chose not to do because I was too tired.


----------



## FastCubeMaster (Oct 19, 2017)

xyzzy said:


> Qiyi's releasing the Wuhua v2 in about a week. Supposedly has a sturdier design and faster inner layers.
> 
> Also on their Twitter feed, two more non-WCA puzzles: the Clover Cube and the Pentacle Cube. Kinda excited about the Pentacle because of how cool it looks, but there's no release date announced yet.
> 
> (inb4 "what about clock?")


What about clock?

No, seriously the Qiyi Wuhua v2 is NOT particularly nice out of the box, it's really slow and bumpy and just annoying to solves on. I did 5 solves and they were about 40 seconds over my official mean of 3:13


----------



## guysensei1 (Oct 20, 2017)

What's the largest possible difference between # of oriented edges on 3x3 you can get just by choosing a different cube orientation? Is 0-12 possible?


----------



## xyzzy (Oct 20, 2017)

guysensei1 said:


> What's the largest possible difference between # of oriented edges on 3x3 you can get just by choosing a different cube orientation? Is 0-12 possible?


Nope, maximum is eight (e.g. this). If you take the difference between the orientation with the most flipped edges and the orientation with the least flipped edges, the probability distribution of that value is like this:

0: 9520020/70963200 ~ 13.42%
2: 35338752/70963200 ~ 49.80%
4: 21719448/70963200 ~ 30.61%
6: 4159488/70963200 ~ 5.86%
8: 225492/70963200 ~ 0.32%



Spoiler: code





```
from itertools import product
from collections import Counter

combs = Counter(tuple(sorted(a[:4]) + sorted(a[4:8]) + sorted(a[8:])) for a in product(range(3), repeat=12) if 4 == a.count(0) == a.count(1))
orients = [a for a in product(range(2), repeat=12) if sum(a) % 2 == 0]

difference_counter = Counter()

for comb in combs:
  for orient in orients:
  flip_counts = [0, 0, 0]
  for i in range(3):
  flip_counts[ i] = sum((orient[j] + (j // 4 == i) + (comb[j] == i)) % 2 for j in range(12))
  difference_counter[max(flip_counts) - min(flip_counts)] += combs[comb]

print(difference_counter)
```

Modified from https://www.speedsolving.com/forum/threads/probability-thread.20384/page-63#post-1218637


----------



## guysensei1 (Oct 21, 2017)

How hard would it be to write a program like JARCS/HARCS, except it can use NISS to find blocks too? 

Related, I wonder if God's Number for 2x2x2 blocks is still 8 when NISS can be used.


----------



## Roman (Oct 23, 2017)

What's the UWR for the rex cube? Can't find it there https://www.speedsolving.com/wiki/index.php/List_of_Unofficial_World_Records


----------



## 1973486 (Oct 23, 2017)

Roman said:


> What's the UWR for the rex cube? Can't find it there https://www.speedsolving.com/wiki/index.php/List_of_Unofficial_World_Records



The best I found was a sub-1:30 mentioned in the comments here


----------



## guysensei1 (Oct 23, 2017)

Insertion finder cancelled 6 moves while inserting a 6 move edge comm inside an 8 move corner comm... giving... this thing

R' D' L F2 L' D R


----------



## TDM (Oct 24, 2017)

guysensei1 said:


> Insertion finder cancelled 6 moves while inserting a 6 move edge comm inside an 8 move corner comm... giving... this thing
> 
> R' D' L F2 L' D R


Isn't this a standard SV alg? when executed as R' D' r U2 r' D R.


----------



## Ordway Persyn (Oct 26, 2017)

I remember a week or so ago I saw thread on Antonie breaking the 2x2 WR average with a 1.37, but then it disappeared, and it turned out it was like a 2 average. Can someone tell me what was up with that? I'm assuming someone was spreading a false rumor, or I'm just crazy.


----------



## Isaac Lai (Oct 26, 2017)

Ordway Persyn said:


> I remember a week or so ago I saw thread on Antonie breaking the 2x2 WR average with a 1.37, but then it disappeared, and it turned out it was like a 2 average. Can someone tell me what was up with that? I'm assuming someone was spreading a false rumor, or I'm just crazy.


It was a prank


----------



## James Hake (Nov 10, 2017)

Got my first sub 12 ao100 today (CFOP with like 2/3 OLL)
And now I kinda wanna switch to roux


----------



## joshsailscga (Nov 18, 2017)

http://cubecomps.com/live.php?cid=2656&cat=18&rnd=1

Somebody got a 5BLD mean.


----------



## TDM (Nov 18, 2017)

joshsailscga said:


> http://cubecomps.com/live.php?cid=2656&cat=18&rnd=1
> 
> Somebody got a 5BLD mean.


Some other people have these too: https://www.worldcubeassociation.org/results/misc/missing_averages/

Kaijun's best mean is almost half a minute ahead of the 2nd best person's _single_...


----------



## ttesc255 (Nov 26, 2017)

Cool new alg for this case





U' F R' F' R F' U2 F U R U R'
I found it when messing around with insertions


----------



## xyzzy (Nov 26, 2017)

Consider the following:

Megaminx FMC, but only scrambling notation can be used. (In other words, no rotations allowed; only R++, R--, D++, D--, U and U' are legal moves.)


----------



## guysensei1 (Nov 26, 2017)

xyzzy said:


> Consider the following:
> 
> Megaminx FMC, but only scrambling notation can be used. (In other words, no rotations allowed; only R++, R--, D++, D--, U and U' are legal moves.)



Can I use R++ R++ to simulate R' or can I only alternate r and d moves?


----------



## xyzzy (Nov 26, 2017)

guysensei1 said:


> Can I use R++ R++ to simulate R' or can I only alternate r and d moves?


Sure, why not? (Are you actually going to try this, lol)


----------



## ttesc255 (Nov 26, 2017)

Petaminx FMC is a great idea


----------



## guysensei1 (Dec 1, 2017)

This is probably hard to answer but I thought it was interesting,

What's the shortest algorithm on Square-1 that looks valid but cannot be executed fully on any square 1 state?


----------



## xyzzy (Dec 1, 2017)

guysensei1 said:


> What's the shortest algorithm on Square-1 that looks valid but cannot be executed fully on any square 1 state?



Found this one (might not be shortest): / (1,1) / (2,2) / (-1,-1) /

If the (2,2) leads to a "sliceable" shape, then it must be moving at least one corner piece across the slice, so if you do a (-1,-1) after that, there'll be at least one corner preventing the slice. If you require that the initial shape is sliceable, then the initial slice is unnecessary.


----------



## guysensei1 (Dec 14, 2017)

What's the rarest single cubeshape on sq1? By 'single' I mean one side of a cubeshape. I'm guessing this one is the CEECEECEE shape, though i can't be sure.

What's the rarest combined cubeshape? I'm guessing square/square.


----------



## 1973486 (Dec 14, 2017)

guysensei1 said:


> What's the rarest single cubeshape on sq1? By 'single' I mean one side of a cubeshape. I'm guessing this one is the CEECEECEE shape, though i can't be sure.
> 
> What's the rarest combined cubeshape? I'm guessing square/square.



This has some probabilities


----------



## teboecubes (Dec 15, 2017)

ttesc255 said:


> Petaminx FMC is a great idea


and yottaminx fmc bld with feet


----------



## TipsterTrickster (Dec 15, 2017)

teboecubes said:


> and yottaminx fmc bld with feet


With one foot


----------



## teboecubes (Dec 15, 2017)

TipsterTrickster said:


> With one foot


no inspection


----------



## Competition Cuber (Dec 16, 2017)

teboecubes said:


> no inspection





TipsterTrickster said:


> With one foot


1 foot _and_ OH


----------



## TipsterTrickster (Dec 16, 2017)

Competition Cuber said:


> 1 foot _and_ OH


And a 30 minute time limit.


----------



## teboecubes (Dec 16, 2017)

teboecubes said:


> and yottaminx fmc bld with feet





TipsterTrickster said:


> With one foot





teboecubes said:


> no inspection





Competition Cuber said:


> 1 foot _and_ OH





TipsterTrickster said:


> And a 30 minute time limit.


yottaminx fmc multiblind with one foot and one hand no inspection with 30 minute time limit...

that's a great idea for an event!


----------



## T1_M0 (Dec 22, 2017)

What kind of prizes do you think would be good? I'm planning on getting something for my next comp.


----------



## joshsailscga (Jan 2, 2018)

Stumbled on this video on youtube and thought it was pretty funny:


----------



## Dr_Detonation (Jan 20, 2018)

anyone notice that when you listen to loud music and you can't hear your cube that it suddenly feels different? Especially magnetic ones.they feel smoother when i can't hear them.


----------



## Reed Merrill (Jan 20, 2018)

Dr_Detonation said:


> anyone notice that when you listen to loud music and you can't hear your cube that it suddenly feels different? Especially magnetic ones.they feel smoother when i can't hear them.


Sometimes I miss the sounds of my cube, but yeah.


----------



## Ashton (Jan 24, 2018)

Let's say we denote R2 as Rh. Now we can denote the slices in this way: R2, R3, R4 and so on. Then, we can have one-way expressions like these: Rw4h (4Rw2), Lw3h' (3Lw2'), Rw2-4h (2-4Rw2).
What do you think?


----------



## teboecubes (Jan 24, 2018)

Ashton said:


> Let's say we denote R2 as Rh. Now we can denote the slices in this way: R2, R3, R4 and so on. Then, we can have one-way expressions like these: Rw4h (4Rw2), Lw3h' (3Lw2'), Rw2-4h (2-4Rw2).
> What do you think?


Nice idea, and something that could be used for 6x6 and up, but I think we already have a too established notation system to make any major changes. Good idea tho.


----------



## Brest (Jan 24, 2018)

Ashton said:


> Let's say we denote R2 as Rh. Now we can denote the slices in this way: R2, R3, R4 and so on. Then, we can have one-way expressions like these: Rw4h (4Rw2), Lw3h' (3Lw2'), Rw2-4h (2-4Rw2).
> What do you think?


Have a look at SiGN Notation


----------



## Competition Cuber (Jan 24, 2018)

joshsailscga said:


> Stumbled on this video on youtube and thought it was pretty funny:


Wait a sec, did he fist-pump before he took the blindfold off? Even some non cubers could tell it was fake.


----------



## joshsailscga (Jan 24, 2018)

Competition Cuber said:


> Wait a sec, did he fist-pump before he took the blindfold off?



Well regarding that, I would point you to Marcin Zalewski's 23.80, LOL.


----------



## Cubed Cuber (Jan 25, 2018)

Competition Cuber said:


> Wait a sec, did he fist-pump before he took the blindfold off? Even some non cubers could tell it was fake.


The smile at the end of the video looked like he was messed up on his fake. LOL


----------



## Thomas Figura (Jan 28, 2018)

He had eye holes. Pause buffer at 0:51.

Does any use the wide- r moves t perm for their aa perm?
I do.


----------



## Reed Merrill (Jan 28, 2018)

Thomas Figura said:


> He had eye holes. Pause buffer at 0:51.
> 
> Does any use the wide- r moves t perm for their aa perm?
> I do.


No, but that sounds kind of cool! I'll give it a try


----------



## James Hake (Jan 28, 2018)

top 100 in 2x2 single are all sub 1


----------



## FastCubeMaster (Jan 28, 2018)

James Hake said:


> top 100 in 2x2 single are all sub 1


Yay lol


----------



## greentgoatgal (Jan 29, 2018)

Thomas Figura said:


> He had eye holes. Pause buffer at 0:51.
> 
> Does any use the wide- r moves t perm for their aa perm?
> I do.


Could you post the alg?


----------



## Brest (Jan 29, 2018)

greentgoatgal said:


> Could you post the alg?


r U r' U' r' F r2 U' r' U' r U r' F'


----------



## CLL Smooth (Jan 29, 2018)

greentgoatgal said:


> Could you post the alg?


Or there’s this one that I like better: R U R’ F’ r U R’ U’ r’ F R2 U’ R’


----------



## ruwix (Jan 31, 2018)

Have you seen this one?


----------



## Underwatercuber (Feb 2, 2018)

Lol


----------



## JustAnotherGenericCuber (Feb 2, 2018)

Underwatercuber said:


> Lol


That sub 4 average tho


----------



## Daniel Lin (Feb 11, 2018)

What's the average optimal movecount for solving 1) a face 2) a layer, on skewb?


----------



## Cale S (Feb 11, 2018)

Daniel Lin said:


> What's the average optimal movecount for solving 1) a face 2) a layer, on skewb?



https://www.speedsolving.com/forum/threads/skewb-discussion-and-help.39716/page-6#post-932053

ttps://www.speedsolving.com/forum/threads/skewb-discussion-and-help.39716/page-7#post-932345


----------



## Daniel Lin (Feb 13, 2018)

Cale S said:


> https://www.speedsolving.com/forum/threads/skewb-discussion-and-help.39716/page-6#post-932053
> 
> ttps://www.speedsolving.com/forum/threads/skewb-discussion-and-help.39716/page-7#post-932345



thank u 

what are the stats for 2x2 (optimal face and layer)?


----------



## Sue Doenim (Feb 15, 2018)

The Cubicle's Roux shirt is dumb. They should make one that says Rouxvolution or something.


----------



## Reed Merrill (Feb 15, 2018)

Agreed, but it might not be very likely, seems like they're more into ZZ over there . Waffo uses roux though!


----------



## Competition Cuber (Feb 15, 2018)

https://www.speedsolving.com/forum/threads/2016-forum-awards.62882/

Why did no one do this for 2017?


----------



## CLL Smooth (Feb 15, 2018)

Competition Cuber said:


> https://www.speedsolving.com/forum/threads/2016-forum-awards.62882/
> 
> Why did no one do this for 2017?


I believe the consensus was that it encited too much negativity


----------



## xyzzy (Feb 18, 2018)

history
repeats
itself


xyzzy said:


> A classmate just told me that the cutoff for 4×4×4 at Singapore Open dropped from 70 seconds to 60 seconds…



Soft cut for 5×5×5 at SG Championship 2018 dropped from 1:40 to 1:35, just as I get to averaging around 1:37 over the past few weeks… There's a decent chance I'll end up with official averages for 2-7 _except 5_ after this comp.


----------



## teboecubes (Feb 18, 2018)

*clackclackclackclackclackclackclackclackclackclackclackclackclackclackclackclackclackclackclackclackclackclackclackclackclackclackclackclackclackclackclackclackclackclackclackclackclackclackclackclackclackclackclackclackclackclackclackclack*


----------



## Daniel Lin (Feb 20, 2018)

is there a tetrahedron puzzle where each side looks like this?

(not a pyraminx)


----------



## Cale S (Feb 20, 2018)

Daniel Lin said:


> is there a tetrahedron puzzle where each side looks like this?
> 
> (not a pyraminx)


Jing Pyraminx


----------



## TyeDye (Mar 7, 2018)

Found this alg for an A perm, thought it was cool:
Aa: (y') r2 U r2 U' r2 U' D r2 U' r2 U r2 D' U
Ab: (y) D U ' r2 U' r2 U r2 D' U r2 U r2 U' r2 U'

Got the idea from earlier when someone mentioned using the wide R turn T perm for their A perms and I wondered if it could be applied to the (R U) T perm that I had learned earlier this year. I really like it as a non-rotation A perm (I always despised the original A perms specifically because of their rotation beforehand). I actually used it in a comp earlier this week. It's not the most amazing because it is a very wide turning alg but I think it has a nice flow to it.

Edit: Last move on Aa could be an E slice move, if you're trying to fingertrick it. Same for the first move of Ab


----------



## joshsailscga (Mar 7, 2018)

TyeDye said:


> Found this alg for an A perm, thought it was cool:
> Aa: (y') r2 U r2 U' r2 U' D r2 U' r2 U r2 D' U
> Ab: (y) D U ' r2 U' r2 U r2 D' U r2 U r2 U' r2 U'
> 
> ...



That's pretty interesting. I think it's probably not great if your objective is to be as fast as possible, because the typical A-perms are around .5 seconds for top cubers, but if you care more about the feel than the speed it's pretty sweet. Definitely a very non-typical finish to a solve, almost a square-1 feel.


----------



## cubeshepherd (Mar 11, 2018)

Could someone please explain the different levels of cubing members when people say either "Platinum, Gold etc. Members" I know what and how someone gets the platinum level, but the rest I have not been able to find any information on. Thank you all very much in advance for taking the time to help answer.


----------



## Mike Hughey (Mar 11, 2018)

cubeshepherd said:


> Could someone please explain the different levels of cubing members when people say either "Platinum, Gold etc. Members" I know what and how someone gets the platinum level, but the rest I have not been able to find any information on. Thank you all very much in advance for taking the time to help answer.


"All WCA Events Completion" Club


----------



## Duncan Bannon (Mar 11, 2018)

Mike Hughey said:


> "All WCA Events Completion" Club


Thanks, IK I wasn't the one asking but I had wondered before. Is there an up to date version?


----------



## cubeshepherd (Mar 11, 2018)

Mike Hughey said:


> "All WCA Events Completion" Club


Thank you @Mike Hughey very much for the link.


----------



## Mike Hughey (Mar 11, 2018)

I knew I had seen this around somewhere, but couldn't remember where. But I found it. This is (semi-)automated, so it stays up to date.

http://wcadb.net/awecc.php


----------



## xyzzy (Mar 15, 2018)

Since I think I have enough reputation on this forum that I can sacrifice some of it by disagreeing with existing convention: I think "false equivalence" and "false equivocation", as applied to puzzles with identical pieces, are bad and misleading terms and people should stop using them. The problem now is to come up with a sufficiently catchy replacement term, I guess.

(I've mentioned this (once) in r/cubers before and maybe I hadn't built up enough of a reputation there as "that guy who knows a lot about puzzle theory", because people started arguing back with horrendously shaky arguments demonstrating _exactly_ why I disliked those terms.)


----------



## AlphaSheep (Mar 16, 2018)

xyzzy said:


> Since I think I have enough reputation on this forum that I can sacrifice some of it by disagreeing with existing convention: I think "false equivalence" and "false equivocation", as applied to puzzles with identical pieces, are bad and misleading terms and people should stop using them. The problem now is to come up with a sufficiently catchy replacement term, I guess.
> 
> (I've mentioned this (once) in r/cubers before and maybe I hadn't built up enough of a reputation there as "that guy who knows a lot about puzzle theory", because people started arguing back with horrendously shaky arguments demonstrating _exactly_ why I disliked those terms.)


Can you give an example? I'm familiar with those terms as logical fallacies but I don't think I've seen them used in the context of puzzles.

Ok, I tested out my Google before posting, and I found a post where someone refers to what some call "parity" involving a twisted single-coloured corner on a mastermorphix as "false equivalency". I agree with you, "false equivalency" is a terrible term here, but I also agree that "parity".

I've always just thought of this as a free twist, because I can twist that corner for free when twisting another corner. I also think of free swaps on other puzzles (eg Sudoku cube has identical edges)


----------



## xyzzy (Mar 16, 2018)

AlphaSheep said:


> Ok, I tested out my Google before posting, and I found a post where someone refers to what some call "parity" involving a twisted single-coloured corner on a mastermorphix as "false equivalency". I agree with you, "false equivalency" is a terrible term here, but I also agree that "parity".


That's one example, although I don't think it's a common usage. And calling apparent corner twists "parity" gets me too, because the definition of the word "parity" came from mathematics and it means whether something is even or odd, nothing more.



AlphaSheep said:


> Can you give an example? I'm familiar with those terms as logical fallacies but I don't think I've seen them used in the context of puzzles.


As I understand them, they're applied to puzzles with identical parts that can be swapped, e.g. the edges of a mastermorphix. (And like you've pointed out, depending on the exact stickering, a sudoku cube might have identical pieces too.) Swapping such pieces, on a puzzle that has a parity constraint, then leads to a "parity-like" situation where you have to do the seemingly impossible task of swapping only two pieces. The solution is to do a pair of 2-cycles instead, which is an even permutation.

My objection to those terms is that it leads one to think that the (completely legit) equivalence of pieces is somehow false, illegitimate. Were one to take a puzzle with such identical pieces in its solved state, then disassemble and reassemble with just two identical pieces swapped, who in their right mind would argue that it's not _really_ solved?


----------



## Sue Doenim (Mar 19, 2018)

Larynx -> Larynges
Phalanx -> Phalanges
Megaminx -> Megaminges


----------



## joshsailscga (Apr 2, 2018)

Livia Kleiner is the new Jabari- first sub-17 OH avg was sub-15 as well:

https://www.worldcubeassociation.org/persons/2013KLEI03?event=333oh
https://www.worldcubeassociation.org/persons/2014NURU01?event=333oh


----------



## guysensei1 (Jun 4, 2018)

What is the average number of random moves needed to solve a random-state scramble?


----------



## JustAnotherGenericCuber (Jun 18, 2018)

Noah Arthurs is signed up to go to WCCT Cupertino, his first comp since October 2016


----------



## asacuber (Jun 24, 2018)

lol


----------



## joshsailscga (Jul 15, 2018)

This will have been overlooked due to the 1:47, but congrats to Christopher Yen for joining the short short list of cubers who have beaten Faz in 3x3 finals, at WCCT-Fresno.

EDIT: Unrelated, Max Hilliard missed WR 3BLD mean by .01 at Mental Breakdown as well.


----------



## Trexrush1 (Aug 2, 2018)

I just got the X-Man wingy skewb and now every other skewb feels very pillowed. I cant shake off the feeling either. Its kind of annoying and very weird to solve on non-concave skewbs now.


----------



## Daniel Lin (Aug 27, 2018)

Just found out today that f2 R D R' f2 R D' R D R2 is just the mirror of the inverse of r2' F r U' r U2' R' F R U2'. I thought they were separate algs xd

Also, rewriting T-perm + twist gives J-perm :O 
r U' r U2' R' F R U2' r2' F 
r U' R U2' r' F r U2' R'r' F 

Mind blown


----------



## purplecuber (Sep 6, 2018)

I just got my x-man skewb and I love it! anyone have lube tipe for it?


----------



## cubeshepherd (Sep 6, 2018)

purplecuber said:


> I just got my x-man skewb and I love it! anyone have lube tipe for it?


Based off of what I have experienced I would say to use a thicker lube, since (for me at least) if I use a runnier lube like the DNM-37 it seem to disipate really fast, and I find that I have to relube it every 25-45 solves. But if I use a thicker lube like the SCS galaxy/Traxxas 50k then that lasts much longer, and I do not have to lube my Wingy Skewb as often as I do with the DNM-37.


----------



## 1001010101001 (Sep 6, 2018)

Should I put Gans lube or lubicle silk in a 354?


----------



## Trexrush1 (Sep 7, 2018)

purplecuber said:


> I just got my x-man skewb and I love it! anyone have lube tipe for it?


 I use Silk. Doesnt slow it down too much but adds a nice feeling as well


----------



## auienrst (Sep 20, 2018)

Not sure if this is the best thread to ask, but:

Do you know a page like https://www.puzzlerank.com/puzzle-ratings ? The site is currently down, and Wayback Machine doesn't have that page archived 

It was a list of a lot of puzzles (a lot), with difficulty ranking. There were classic twisty puzzles, crazy unicorn, eitan star, bermuda, geranium...
If anyone has made a back-up, or something equivalent, that would be great.


----------



## 1001010101001 (Sep 21, 2018)

Hi


Spoiler



Well, that IS random...


----------



## cubeshepherd (Sep 21, 2018)

1001010101001 said:


> Hi
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> ...


More like awkward, with a smidgen of random mixed in


----------



## xyzzy (Sep 21, 2018)

Today's xkcd strip mentions magnetic Rubik's cubes in the title text. "Actually really cool" indeed!


----------



## CLL Smooth (Nov 7, 2018)

It’s been at least 10000 solves since my last sub-10
Edit: I got that sub-10 last week


----------



## joshsailscga (Dec 3, 2018)

So...I know this is mathematically possible but I've never actually seen it happen...
Ao12 is better than ao5 or mo3.


----------



## AbsoRuud (Dec 4, 2018)

My times go up and down. One time I had such a bad patch, my Ao200 < Ao100 < Ao50 < Ao25 < Ao12 < Ao5.

So yeah. It happens.


----------



## joshsailscga (Dec 9, 2018)

3-way podium tie. Has this ever happened before?

http://cubecomps.com/live.php?cid=3779&cat=3&rnd=3


----------



## Daniel Lin (Dec 24, 2018)

What's the name of this puzzle (if it exists) ?


----------



## Thom S. (Dec 24, 2018)

Daniel Lin said:


> What's the name of this puzzle (if it exists) ?
> 
> View attachment 9808



This looks like a 3x3 fishered on 3 Axes, which would be an Axis Cube


----------



## willtri4 (Dec 24, 2018)

Looks like it would function like a Redi cube with centers


----------



## xyzzy (Dec 25, 2018)

Compy Cube: http://twistypuzzles.com/cgi-bin/puzzle.cgi?pkey=1821 (equivalent to Redi Cube with centres, as mentioned above)
Rex Cube with straight cuts: http://twistypuzzles.com/cgi-bin/puzzle.cgi?pkey=6624 (another corner-turning puzzle, but with deeper cuts like a skewb)


----------



## pjk (Apr 9, 2019)

Odd thought: years ago whenever there was a record broken, it got a huge amount of attention with everyone congratulating the record breaker. Now, when a world record is broken, aside from a lot of video views, there is hardly much comment activity. What has caused this dynamic shift in the community?


----------



## PapaSmurf (Apr 9, 2019)

Faster people are less easy to come by online, and in general, there are less people active on the forums etc. Even on discord, fast people aren't active on the servers.


----------



## Ronxu (Apr 9, 2019)

pjk said:


> Odd thought: years ago whenever there was a record broken, it got a huge amount of attention with everyone congratulating the record breaker. Now, when a world record is broken, aside from a lot of video views, there is hardly much comment activity. What has caused this dynamic shift in the community?


everyone migrated to facebook


----------



## willtri4 (Apr 10, 2019)

Ronxu said:


> everyone migrated to facebook


and/or reddit, discord, youtube, and instagram


----------



## dudefaceguy (Apr 11, 2019)

I was doing some one-handed solving on the subway today, and the guy next to me mentioned that he had seen me working on it last month. He asked me if I had solved it yet, so I solved it for him. I thought it was a cool moment.

I periodically get reactions from folks on the train, which I think is fun. I've had a slow clap from across the platform after a 4x4 solve, random congratulations, and one long conversation with someone about cubes and how different they are from the original Rubik's (I was using a stickerless 4x4). Any other commuter solvers?


----------



## AbsoRuud (Apr 11, 2019)

dudefaceguy said:


> I was doing some one-handed solving on the subway today, and the guy next to me mentioned that he had seen me working on it last month. He asked me if I had solved it yet, so I solved it for him. I thought it was a cool moment.
> 
> I periodically get reactions from folks on the train, which I think is fun. I've had a slow clap from across the platform after a 4x4 solve, random congratulations, and one long conversation with someone about cubes and how different they are from the original Rubik's (I was using a stickerless 4x4). Any other commuter solvers?


I'd solve on my commute, but I need both hands on the steering wheel of the car.


----------



## ImmolatedMarmoset (Apr 11, 2019)

dudefaceguy said:


> I was doing some one-handed solving on the subway today, and the guy next to me mentioned that he had seen me working on it last month. He asked me if I had solved it yet, so I solved it for him. I thought it was a cool moment.
> 
> I periodically get reactions from folks on the train, which I think is fun. I've had a slow clap from across the platform after a 4x4 solve, random congratulations, and one long conversation with someone about cubes and how different they are from the original Rubik's (I was using a stickerless 4x4). Any other commuter solvers?


Same thing here! I often practice skewb or 3x3 on the train where I live, so I will often get reactions from people. I don’t solve fast at all, maybe around 27 secs, but people are often still amazed.


----------



## pjk (Apr 11, 2019)

willtri4 said:


> and/or reddit, discord, youtube, and instagram





Ronxu said:


> everyone migrated to facebook


True, a lot of the community shifted to other channels, but around 800 people a day are still visiting here, so that can't be the only reason.


----------



## PapaSmurf (Apr 11, 2019)

pjk said:


> True, a lot of the community shifted to other channels, but around 800 people a day are still visiting here, so that can't be the only reason.


800?! It seems like 50 tbh.
Also, how many of them are actually fast? Like world class?


----------



## Thom S. (Apr 11, 2019)

To be fair, I visit this forum at least 4 Times a day, so it kind of adds up if there are other people without a life like me


----------



## ImmolatedMarmoset (Apr 11, 2019)

Thom S. said:


> To be fair, I visit this forum at least 4 Times a day, so it kind of adds up if there are other people without a life like me


Hah! Just 4? I visit it about 12 times a day!


----------



## CornerCutter (Apr 11, 2019)

pjk said:


> True, a lot of the community shifted to other channels, but around 800 people a day are still visiting here, so that can't be the only reason.


Yeah, it would be nice to see the WR blow up more. Maybe we are getting used too the same people break the records.


----------



## pjk (Apr 12, 2019)

PapaSmurf said:


> 800?! It seems like 50 tbh.
> Also, how many of them are actually fast? Like world class?


It's a good question - not sure. But they aren't anymore likely to comment on a WR than someone new to speedcubing - so that wouldn't explain the drop either.


----------



## ImmolatedMarmoset (Apr 12, 2019)

pjk said:


> It's a good question - not sure. But they aren't anymore likely to comment on a WR than someone new to speedcubing - so that wouldn't explain the drop either.


Well, I did notice Jack Cai (Altha on these forums, I think) post on the WR page for his record, so...


----------



## PapaSmurf (Apr 12, 2019)

pjk said:


> It's a good question - not sure. But they aren't anymore likely to comment on a WR than someone new to speedcubing - so that wouldn't explain the drop either.


From older things such as cubecast, old posts etc. it's the fast people congratulating the people who are challenging them, or the experienced people. I haven't seen someone such as chris hardwick or stefan pochmann on here since I've been a member, and I very rarely have proper conversations with people here. 

TL;DR, a lot of the people who are active aren't as experienced and probably are less able to have in depth discussions.


----------



## ImmolatedMarmoset (Apr 12, 2019)

PapaSmurf said:


> From older things such as cubecast, old posts etc. it's the fast people congratulating the people who are challenging them, or the experienced people. I haven't seen someone such as chris hardwick or stefan pochmann on here since I've been a member, and I very rarely have proper conversations with people here.
> 
> TL;DR, a lot of the people who are active aren't as experienced and probably are less able to have in depth discussions.


I consider myself as being somewhat inexperienced, and I think I could have a discussion here about pretty much anything with anybody. It’s just about being open to learning every day, and I learn very quickly.


----------



## StachuK1992 (Apr 15, 2019)

:wave:

It's amazing to think how many hours I spent here between 2008 and 2012. 
2000hrs?

Any old cubers still on this site?


----------



## Mike Hughey (Apr 15, 2019)

StachuK1992 said:


> :wave:
> 
> It's amazing to think how many hours I spent here between 2008 and 2012.
> 2000hrs?
> ...


Me! I was mostly gone for about 2 years (2015-2017), but came back a couple of years ago. Good to see you back, Stachu!


----------



## pjk (Apr 15, 2019)

StachuK1992 said:


> :wave:
> 
> It's amazing to think how many hours I spent here between 2008 and 2012.
> 2000hrs?
> ...


Welcome back Stachu, it's been awhile. It's a whole new generation here - much of the community has spread across social media. Are you getting back into cubing?



Mike Hughey said:


> Me! I was mostly gone for about 2 years (2015-2017), but came back a couple of years ago. Good to see you back, Stachu!


It's a bit strange how interest in hobbies work. I go through months of intense interest, and then months of little interest. And this cycle has continued for years. It seems to be the same amongst a lot of people.


----------



## aerocube (Apr 18, 2019)

the current UWR as stated by speedsolving wiki is 8:17.688
i suck at 4x4 so i couldn't do that,but i'm pretty sure anyone with a half decent time could smash that record,pretty sure someone like max park could do that in 30-40 seconds


----------



## PapaSmurf (Apr 18, 2019)

No it isn't. It's stated as 30.99 seconds by Bill Wang. Just checked, and you're looking at virtual cube relays.


----------



## aerocube (Apr 18, 2019)

PapaSmurf said:


> No it isn't. It's stated as 30.99 seconds by Bill Wang. Just checked, and you're looking at virtual cube relays.


thanks,i was about to edit that as i saw it was wrong but you've already said it


----------



## AbsoRuud (Apr 19, 2019)

So I couldn't wait anymore nad I ordered the Meilong 3x3x3, Yulong V2 M, the Kylin V2 M (deep red), a Lingao Clock and the MGC 2x2x2.

And a Wingy Skewb for a co-worker and a Warrior W for another co-worker. I am infecting people with my hobby.


----------



## cmhardw (Apr 21, 2019)

StachuK1992 said:


> :wave:
> 
> It's amazing to think how many hours I spent here between 2008 and 2012.
> 2000hrs?
> ...



Hi Stachu!

First day back on this site in a long time for me. I started having problems with Tapatalk connecting a couple years ago and mostly migrated to a Facebook around that time.

I’m still cubing, though parenting means that free time for cubing is a precious and rare commodity these days. I did a coaching session with Jay McNeill recently to give me a kick in the rear end and identify the biggest things about my cubing that still hold me back.

Shout out to Mike and Pat as other older cubers still around!

I haven’t contributed new content to the community in ages as I feel like most of my content is too old to be relevant anymore. I’ve thought a bit about videos or other content talking about how cubing changes as you get older, but that content feels pretty niche and might not have a huge following.

I’m still around and still love cubing, I just don’t feel I have anything new or exciting to add and mostly lurk these days *shrug*


----------



## PapaSmurf (Apr 21, 2019)

Woah. The og people are here. @StachuK1992 I know you were interested in L2L methods a while back. Here's the best one I could think of: Layer, 3 E slice edges (probably comms/other algs), CLL, L5E. Could be extended to: layer-corner, keyhole 3 edges, L5C, L5E. L5C is 614 algs though, although if you add up the moves in each alg, it comes to the same as ZBLL ish.


----------



## pjk (Apr 22, 2019)

cmhardw said:


> Hi Stachu!
> 
> First day back on this site in a long time for me. I started having problems with Tapatalk connecting a couple years ago and mostly migrated to a Facebook around that time.


Hey Chris! Good to hear from you.

Tapatalk was causing a lot of issues in the past so we abandoned it, though the functionality of the mobile site has got a lot better since we first installed Tapatalk. Are you using the forum on mobile now? Any feedback you have would be useful.



> I’m still cubing, though parenting means that free time for cubing is a precious and rare commodity these days. I did a coaching session with Jay McNeill recently to give me a kick in the rear end and identify the biggest things about my cubing that still hold me back.


Nice! What were the biggest tips you got from Jay? I saw your PB avg for 3x3, impressive. 



> I haven’t contributed new content to the community in ages as I feel like most of my content is too old to be relevant anymore. I’ve thought a bit about videos or other content talking about how cubing changes as you get older, but that content feels pretty niche and might not have a huge following.
> 
> I’m still around and still love cubing, I just don’t feel I have anything new or exciting to add and mostly lurk these days *shrug*


Part of me thinks that most constructive sort of discussion has already been had, for the most part. There is only so much you can talk about it, but I could be totally wrong. 

Much of your older content is still super relevant I'd say - tons of people still read it. There has also been a shift in the demographics I think - as the community has grown, a lot more younger people have come into the community, which changes the dynamic of how the community discusses things. It's been a fascinating thing to watch.


----------



## ImmolatedMarmoset (Apr 22, 2019)

Sorry to slightly change the topic, but there’s an idea I’ve been toying around with recently to help people improve at 3x3 and other events. I listen to old episodes of the cubing show, and in one of the 2016 ones they mention that the best way to improve at 3x3 is to watch people solve who have jut broken the time barrier you are about to break. This make sense because you can evaluate what they’re doing and see how you need to change your solves to match theirs. For example, let’s say I was averaging 16 secs and really wanted to average sub 15. I would watch a cuber who is averaging around 14 seconds, using the same method as me, do an average of 5 and pick out what they’re doing that I’m not. The problem with this idea, I realized, is that these solves (that are not necessarily world-class) can be very hard to find, because either you can’t really see what the person is doing (e.g competition solves), or they just aren’t there on commonly found/used YouTube channels because these youtubers know that solves are not a good way to make your channel grow.

So I thought of 2 possible fixes to this problem. Both of these have to do with consolidating a bunch of solves in one place, but they do it in different ways. My first idea was to have a YouTube channel dedicated to collecting averages of 5 from people of different speeds and different methods. You would have multiple playlists for different skill levels and different barriers that have been broken. This is probably the easiest idea, but I don’t like it as much as my other idea because it’s not as organized. 

My other idea was to create a separate database on it’s own website, structured like Algdb.net. Each puzzle/event (yes, this format would let you have other events as well, like OH or 4x4) would have it’s own major category, and then each major event category would be split into methods (for 3x3 I’d imagine there would be CFOP, Roux, and ZZ). Each of those method categories would be split up into barriers that people often break, like sub-25, sub-20, sub-15, etc. In each of those method categories would simply be a bunch of videos of people solving just past the barrier that others are trying to break.

The concept for both the Youtube and the website database idea are the same, but the execution would be very different. Tell me if either of these ideas would be a viable thing to do, and if I should pursue them. Some parts of this post probable don’t make any sense, so please tell me if that is the case and I will answer your question.

Sorry for the ramble!


----------



## xyzzy (Apr 22, 2019)

ImmolatedMarmoset said:


> Sorry to slightly change the topic, but there’s an idea I’ve been toying around with recently to help people improve at 3x3 and other events. I listen to old episodes of the cubing show, and in one of the 2016 ones they mention that the best way to improve at 3x3 is to watch people solve who have jut broken the time barrier you are about to break. This make sense because you can evaluate what they’re doing and see how you need to change your solves to match theirs. For example, let’s say I was averaging 16 secs and really wanted to average sub 15. I would watch a cuber who is averaging around 14 seconds, using the same method as me, do an average of 5 and pick out what they’re doing that I’m not. The problem with this idea, I realized, is that these solves (that are not necessarily world-class) can be very hard to find, because either you can’t really see what the person is doing (e.g competition solves), or they just aren’t there on commonly found/used YouTube channels because these youtubers know that solves are not a good way to make your channel grow.
> 
> So I thought of 2 possible fixes to this problem. Both of these have to do with consolidating a bunch of solves in one place, but they do it in different ways. My first idea was to have a YouTube channel dedicated to collecting averages of 5 from people of different speeds and different methods. You would have multiple playlists for different skill levels and different barriers that have been broken. This is probably the easiest idea, but I don’t like it as much as my other idea because it’s not as organized.
> 
> ...


Have you seen this:

__
https://www.reddit.com/r/Cubers/comments/an6nrb

It's unfortunate that it received so little attention because this seems (potentially) very useful.


----------



## ImmolatedMarmoset (Apr 22, 2019)

xyzzy said:


> Have you seen this:
> 
> __
> https://www.reddit.com/r/Cubers/comments/an6nrb
> ...


Cool! Thanks. I don’t prowl reddit a whole ton, so thanks for bringing this up.


----------



## Iwannaganx (Sep 5, 2019)

So earlier today I was just thinking about....
Finish this sentence! I think it would be cool to just have a random thoughts thread, as sometimes I just suddenly think about something cubing related and want to share it with the world.
Happy thinking!


----------



## GAN 356 X (Sep 10, 2019)

Wouldn't it be nice if Gan cubes were cheaper?


----------



## pjk (Sep 20, 2019)

Anyone ever try meditating before solving at competitions? Wondering how this would help with nerves. 

Also, I was reading recently in 'The Art of Learning" and he was talking about mind control and mind training. I know there are various techniques for staying calm when under pressure, such as running right beforehand to get your heart rate up, but I wonder what techniques could be practiced to stay more focused and less nervous during competition rather than simply taking deep breaths.


----------



## AbsoRuud (Sep 20, 2019)

pjk said:


> Anyone ever try meditating before solving at competitions? Wondering how this would help with nerves.
> 
> Also, I was reading recently in 'The Art of Learning" and he was talking about mind control and mind training. I know there are various techniques for staying calm when under pressure, such as running right beforehand to get your heart rate up, but I wonder what techniques could be practiced to stay more focused and less nervous during competition rather than simply taking deep breaths.


A bit of nerves is good, that gets your brain active. But too much nerves is not a good thing. I think meditation would make you too relaxed and I'm not sure if that would be beneficial. Also, I'm not sure how effectively one could meditate in a room full of people talking all at once. 

I don't think you should rely on too many 'tricks' to get your nerves down. They can become crutches that weigh you down. It's a matter of having the right amount of nerves to give you that focus, but not enough nerves to make you forget your entire plan for solving First Block right after you let go fo the timer. (I speak from experience.)


----------



## asacuber (Sep 21, 2019)

I need help finding a video, it had phil yu ordering 50 panshis (or something along those lines)


----------



## joshsailscga (Sep 22, 2019)

asacuber said:


> I need help finding a video, it had phil yu ordering 50 panshis (or something along those lines)



AHAHAHAHA I'm sorry I can't help you but I think this the best post I've ever seen in this thread XD


----------



## Benjamin Warry (Sep 22, 2019)

asacuber said:


> I need help finding a video, it had phil yu ordering 50 panshis (or something along those lines)






Is this what you're looking for?


----------



## Filipe Teixeira (Sep 22, 2019)

Lmao


----------



## asacuber (Sep 22, 2019)

Benjamin Warry said:


> Is this what you're looking for?


yes! thanks


----------



## Berkmann18 (Sep 22, 2019)

pjk said:


> Anyone ever try meditating before solving at competitions? Wondering how this would help with nerves.
> 
> Also, I was reading recently in 'The Art of Learning" and he was talking about mind control and mind training. I know there are various techniques for staying calm when under pressure, such as running right beforehand to get your heart rate up, but I wonder what techniques could be practiced to stay more focused and less nervous during competition rather than simply taking deep breaths.



Yup and it helps.
I'll suggest you to also lookup sophrology techniques like the box method etc.


----------



## Tony Fisher (Sep 25, 2019)

Wouldn't it be silly if non cube events weren't referred to as cubing? ie Pyraminxing, Clocking, Square Oning, Megaminxing. And wouldn't it be even sillier if puzzle parts were named in a similar fashion? So where you get cubies on a cube you get pyraminxies, megaminxies etc.


----------



## Cuberstache (Sep 26, 2019)

cubeshepherd said:


> Random question, but what happened to @Dat1AsianDude? Can't seem to find him anywhere.


https://www.speedsolving.com/members/dat1asiandude.43573/
I know him in person; he goes to my local comps. I feel ok saying this because you can pretty easily find this from the speedsolving comp results, but his name is Max Siauw and his WCA ID is 2017SIAU02


----------



## cubeshepherd (Sep 26, 2019)

CuberStache said:


> https://www.speedsolving.com/members/dat1asiandude.43573/
> I know him in person; he goes to my local comps. I feel ok saying this because you can pretty easily find this from the speedsolving comp results, but his name is Max Siauw and his WCA ID is 2017SIAU02


Yeah, sorry for the original post (which I just deleted). I could not find his profile page for some reason, hence the original post but I just found it. Sorry for bothering


----------



## KAINOS (Sep 26, 2019)

Are there any tutorial/guide on leor method? Especially on efficient EOLine. I'm using ZZ as my main method so doing EO itself is fine, but I find doing it in the MIDDLE of the solve rather than in the beginning pretty tricky.


----------



## Zarxrax (Oct 4, 2019)

I quit cubing like 6 years ago, and now I'm getting back into it, starting with the 2x2x2. I'm trying to remember my old PBL algs, and there is one that is eluding me. For the PBL case with 1 bar, I had learned two algorithms for that--one for when the bar is on top, and one for when the bar is on bottom. I've been searching through various alg lists, but I can't seem to find the one that I used when the bar is on bottom. 

The muscle memory came back to me momentarily, and I was able to perform the alg 1 time, but then I lost it again. It started with an L, and then there was a D2 somewhere after that, and that is all I can remember of it. Does anyone know this alg??


----------



## Tabe (Oct 4, 2019)

Here ya go:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/17F0E-iVOGetHmV69i0QTI6j-06M4nWx9/view?usp=drivesdk

Might be a different alg than you're looking for now that I look at your post again. But there's good algs on that sheet nonetheless.


----------



## AbsoRuud (Oct 4, 2019)

Just reverse the one for when the bar is on top.


----------



## Zarxrax (Oct 5, 2019)

I found the one I was looking for, it was L D' R U2 R' D L' . I was misremembering it a bit.


----------



## Zarxrax (Oct 28, 2019)

Has no one released a bluetooth stackmat timer yet? It seems like an obvious thing.


----------



## noobycube (Nov 2, 2019)

So I just solved the 4x4 yay! (I didn't learn it I solved it)
And it got me thinking, if I use my solved 4x4 as a 2x2 (by only twisting 2 pieces at a time) what would happen? Well obviously nothing good, you might accidentally only turn 1 piece then you have to go back. The cube is bigger and corner-cutting is no nice. So I tried this "event" and here are my results (I didn't practice this I only did it once)

PB: 13.30
Ao5: 18.21
14.45
13.30 (11.30, +2)
21.34
24.26
18.92
---------
My ACTUAL 2x2
PB: 6.07
Ao5 12.39

Try it yourself! What are your results? Maybe even try using a 6x6 as a 2x2, or an 8x8. Or a freakin 9x9 as a 3x3 (BIIIIIIIG OOF) Didn't try any of those as my biggest nxn is a 4x4.

Note: NOT ACTUALLY RECOMMENDING THIS AS A WCA EVENT THIS IS JUST A MISTAKE


----------



## alexiscubing (Nov 2, 2019)

ive doe that efore but its kinda dumb just sayin


----------



## noobycube (Nov 2, 2019)

alexiscubing said:


> ive doe that efore but its kinda dumb just sayin


Yup, might even be the dumbest of dumb or smart of stupid, dumb weird of method events. (What did I just say?) I didn't really mean it to be taken super seriously.

But wtf 9x9 acting as a 3x3 or oof 16x16 actin as 4x4


----------



## PapaSmurf (Nov 2, 2019)

KAINOS said:


> Are there any tutorial/guide on leor method? Especially on efficient EOLine. I'm using ZZ as my main method so doing EO itself is fine, but I find doing it in the MIDDLE of the solve rather than in the beginning pretty tricky.


I presume you can solve FB , RB and LL. So EODFDB is quite easy. It's based off the fact that r* U/U' r* flips four edges (as does M* U/U' M*). So orientate your centres after FB (have your D colour on either U or D), then solve 4 bad edges at a time. If you have 2, you can do either some F U F' type thing, exactly like ZZ, or you can do r U R U' r' (look at how that works) or something similar. 6 and 8 are just the same as ZZ. So for 6, you could do 2 then 4, 4 then 2, 3 then 4 and for 8, 4 then 4. Then solve DFDB without messing up EO.


----------



## cubeshepherd (Nov 15, 2019)

Just came across this video on the WCA youtube channel and really thought it was great, and thought it would be good to share. Also, I am hoping that they do more soon, even though almost all of that is on Github but still for people that don't want to read/go through everything, the video is a great addition.


----------



## Mike Hughey (Nov 20, 2019)

Did the community survey they discuss there ever happen? If so, I think I somehow missed it.


----------



## cubeshepherd (Nov 20, 2019)

Mike Hughey said:


> Did the community survey they discuss there ever happen? If so, I think I somehow missed it.


Someone correct me if I am wrong, but from what I have read on GitHub, the survey's are something that they are working on still, and will be released within the next few months (maybe once they get the WCA forums up and running).


----------



## Mike Hughey (Nov 21, 2019)

cubeshepherd said:


> Someone correct me if I am wrong, but from what I have read on GitHub, the survey's are something that they are working on still, and will be released within the next few months (maybe once they get the WCA forums up and running).


Okay, that would feel better. It's just that, from the video, it sounded like they intended to get it out sometime in the next couple of weeks from when the meeting was held, and that video is over 2 months old.


----------



## PetrusQuber (Dec 8, 2019)

So basically, yesterday I looked on the web for something that explains why parity is impossible and needs to be fixed by means not part of the cube movegroup. It came up with this seriously advanced paper, mostly filled with random equations and stuff, etc. I clicked out, and found Ryan Heise’s page on Parity, which lead me to the laws of the cube, and now I can reason why I have to twist a corner and am not cheating to a non cuber. Just in case they don’t give up after I say ’it involves university level advanced mathematical group theory’ (which it doesn’t really).


----------



## Cubinwitdapizza (Dec 8, 2019)

Ok?


----------



## PetrusQuber (Dec 8, 2019)

Cubinwitdapizza said:


> Ok?


?
If it’s about the using a thread just for this, well I originally thought to post here, I thought it would be better to post it in the Group Theory sub section.


----------



## Cubinwitdapizza (Dec 8, 2019)

I just mean you told them something not true? i thought this was supposed to be explaining advanced group theory.
EDIT: Never mind misread lol


----------



## cubeshepherd (Dec 19, 2019)

Don't know if it worth creating a new thread for this, but the WCA just released the new Regulations for 2020: https://www.worldcubeassociation.org/posts/wca-regulations-january-2020


----------



## CopBabyCombo (Dec 20, 2019)

If F3L was possible then you would only need to know one OLL (M' U2 M U2 M' U M U2 M' U2 M).once you got done with F3L you would not have to spend a fraction of a second to recognize the OLL since you already know the OLL to solve. If F2L is more complicated then layer by Layer, and F2L is way faster, then why wouldn't F3L be faster then F2L?


----------



## Parity Nightmare (Dec 20, 2019)

How is this possible??


----------



## Etotheipi (Dec 20, 2019)

Please explain more indepth what you mean by F3L, how would you go about solving it? Do you mean solving pairs of 3 pieces into the slots? Please elaborate.


----------



## WoowyBaby (Dec 20, 2019)

I'm not exactly sure what you're thinking of, but I have a pretty good idea. Is this correct?

Example- Scr: L' D2 U' L2 F2 D L2 F2 R2 D2 U' R2 F' L' R2 U2 B' F' U' F'
(y')
L2 F' L' u' R' u // Cross
R' U R y' L' U' L2 U2 L' // 1st F3L
U' R' U2 M F M' U' R // 2nd F3L
R' F R F' U' F' U' F U // 3rd F3L
y R U2 R' U M' F' U2 F r' U2 R U R' U R U2 // Last F3L
U M' U M U' M' U M U M' U2 M U' // L4E

Either way, it is really, really difficult to solve with this. I struggled SOO MUCH with just this one solution. There's a lot of hard thinking involved sometimes, so this would be impossible to speedsolve, unless you want to get 3 minutes or something 
F3L is WAAYY too hard even without the whole speedsolving aspect, which ya know is probably what you care about. So, my vote goes for F2L. Lmao


----------



## Filipe Teixeira (Dec 20, 2019)

I think you're restricting yourself too much.


----------



## Parity Nightmare (Dec 20, 2019)

I mean it could work.
The steps for this "New Method" can be.
Cross -> First 4 Bars (What you call First 3 Layers in this thread) -> ELL

WOOHOO!!! We have a new method name!!!!
CFE or CFBE or CF4BE!!!


----------



## PetrusQuber (Dec 20, 2019)

I just noticed looking at the Member’s section, and Today’s Birthdays...
Happy birthday Feliks !


----------



## Filipe Teixeira (Jan 31, 2020)

I was just casual solving and then I got to the last pair and didn't solve EO before inserting the pair. I didn't even get the time to regret before seeing the OLL was F R U R' U' F' and pll skip.


----------



## Cuberstache (Jan 31, 2020)

Filipe Teixeira said:


> I was just casual solving and then I got to the last pair and didn't solve EO before inserting the pair. I didn't even get the time to regret before seeing the OLL was F R U R' U' F' and pll skip.


I had the exact same thing happen to me a couple years ago, in competition:


----------



## xyzzy (Feb 6, 2020)

Welp, nationals got cancelled postponed indefinitely here, thanks to the nCoV situation. (Probably a good thing because both my Wuji and Spark are in non-comp-legal conditions currently…)


----------



## ProStar (Feb 6, 2020)

xyzzy said:


> Welp, nationals got cancelled postponed indefinitely here, thanks to the nCoV situation. (Probably a good thing because both my Wuji and Spark are in non-comp-legal conditions currently…)



Wait, does that include the world or just that area? Cause I already bought a plane ticket from Mars to NA champs, and it's very hard to get ahold of ISS Airlines.


----------



## xyzzy (Feb 6, 2020)

ProStar said:


> Wait, does that include the world or just that area? Cause I already bought a plane ticket from Mars to NA champs, and it's very hard to get ahold of ISS Airlines.


Is the comp still listed on the WCA website? If yes, you're good to go.


----------



## ProStar (Feb 6, 2020)

xyzzy said:


> Is the comp still listed on the WCA website? If yes, you're good to go.



Ok, I'm fine. I thought I was gonna have to cancel my plane ticket. It was very hard to get a ticket from mars to there, so I wasn't looking forward to contacting ISS Airlines.


----------



## xyzzy (Feb 6, 2020)

ProStar said:


> Ok, I'm fine. I thought I was gonna have to cancel my plane ticket. It was very hard to get a ticket from mars to there, so I wasn't looking forward to contacting ISS Airlines.


I mean, I'd be more concerned about the return trip. We don't have any service to send people to Mars yet; how're you going to go back there?


----------



## PetrusQuber (Feb 6, 2020)

xyzzy said:


> I mean, I'd be more concerned about the return trip. We don't have any service to send people to Mars yet; how're you going to go back there?


It’s easy, he just has to book a normal plane flight, equipped with Mandalorian iron armour and a powerful big cannon. And also make sure he’s facing towards Mars. And make sure his colony is facing towards him. Then he can press the red button, escape the atmosphere, and have a happy journey to Mars


----------



## ProStar (Feb 6, 2020)

xyzzy said:


> I mean, I'd be more concerned about the return trip. We don't have any service to send people to Mars yet; how're you going to go back there?



I hired the ISS to take me down, I'm just tying a rope to it before they drop me off. Then I'll climb up it and they'll take me back to Mars.


----------



## N's-cvt (Feb 10, 2020)

First official post as I am new to the forums and starting off with a general question I have had for a few years is which method looks cooler to watch some solve with? Just wanted to see what the cubers out there think.


----------



## ProStar (Feb 10, 2020)

Probably ZZ-b, because it's impressive to do a 1lll. But ZZ-a is way more impressive, cause you need full ZBLL


----------



## WarriorCatCuber (Feb 10, 2020)

ZZ-b. It's better for solving anyway.


----------



## PapaSmurf (Feb 10, 2020)

ZZ-CT looks cool to solve with, but ZZ-A is by far the best ZZ variant.


----------



## Hazel (Feb 10, 2020)

I think CT looks cooler because TTLL is a neat and unique concept, but ZZ-b is more impressive due to the 1LLL-style. ZZ-a is even more impressive though, as ZBLL is twice as impressive as ZZLL.


----------



## Ghaleon (Feb 10, 2020)

I live in San Francisco and I like to solve the Rubik's Cube while I ride the subway or the bus. I have met friends of speed cubers several times, although three days ago or so was the first time I actually met a fellow cuber. He was with his friends. Se saw me solving the cube and asked me to borrow it. I did. He tried to solve it, and I noticed he was using finger tricks and he was fast. He got stuck on what I call the second part of the two-look OLL based upon how to upper layer of the cube looked like (what comes after the dot, the elbow, and the line, if you understand what I mean). He forgot the algorithm for that. I understand because I'm learning these algorithms myself.

I continued to solve it after he gave me back the cube. He noticed I was looking at the algorithms on my phone. He didn't say I was cheating, like noncubers tend to say. He said he had a guide like that and that after a while it becomes muscle memory and you don't need the guide. His best time was 36 seconds. He said I have a good cube and that he should start carrying his cube so he can solve it on the bus.

When I solved it, he and his friends clapped. The entire interaction was a good experience, not just the clapping.


----------



## Etotheipi (Feb 10, 2020)

Once we were having some guests over that we had never met, and before they came, I was thinking about the probability that one was a cuber. Then when they came I found out that one of them was a sub-25 ish solver. I was very surprised.


----------



## Filipe Teixeira (Feb 11, 2020)

zz-ct looks painful for me.
AUF is bad, then there is ADF
eww


----------



## Pyjam (Feb 11, 2020)

Isn't Roux the *coolest* method to look at?


----------



## PetrusQuber (Feb 11, 2020)

Pyjam said:


> Isn't Roux the *coolest* method to look at?


I fix up Petrus not having M slices by using MU EPLLS . This applies to other methods too. (I think L6E is the coolest bit)


----------



## Filipe Teixeira (Feb 11, 2020)

if this isn't cool idk what it is


----------



## brododragon (Feb 19, 2020)

I know @Iwannaganx has already made a thread like this, but that thread is kinda old and a bit different than this one. Only post thoughts here that make you think (basically r/showerthoughts for Cubers). The next person should comment/react to the last person's post.

I'll start off:
For Petrus/ZZ these two LL methods probably have the same move-count:

EO, 2-Gen F2L, ZBLL
No EO, 3-Gen F2L, OLL, and PLL


----------



## ProStar (Feb 19, 2020)

I don't think V-Perms suck that much, I like mine(relatively)


----------



## kubesolver (Feb 19, 2020)

ProStar said:


> I don't think V-Perms suck that much, I like mine(relatively)


I think they really suck.


My thought:
If somebody's goal is to beat single 3x3 WR he/she should only learn those OLLs that are sub 0.5able, same with PLLs, constantly practice on easy-cross scrambles with all edges oriented or maybe even practice with a fake scramble generator that creates 4 move xcross into free pair, into free pair, into free pair and either OLL skip into Jb or Sune into PLL skip.


----------



## ProStar (Feb 19, 2020)

kubesolver said:


> If somebody's goal is to beat single 3x3 WR he/she should only learn those OLLs that are sub 0.5able, same with PLLs, constantly practice on easy-cross scrambles with all edges oriented or maybe even practice with a fake scramble generator that creates 4 move xcross into free pair, into free pair, into free pair and either OLL skip into Jb or Sune into PLL skip.



I think single-driven people should focus on learning bigger alg sets that aren't useful super often but are amazing when they do show up(i.e VLS allows you to get an LL skip kind of).


----------



## brododragon (Feb 19, 2020)

kubesolver said:


> I think they really suck.
> 
> 
> My thought:
> If somebody's goal is to beat single 3x3 WR he/she should only learn those OLLs that are sub 0.5able, same with PLLs, constantly practice on easy-cross scrambles with all edges oriented or maybe even practice with a fake scramble generator that creates 4 move xcross into free pair, into free pair, into free pair and either OLL skip into Jb or Sune into PLL skip.


And go to any comp they can. That is really weird to think about, though.


----------



## kubesolver (Feb 19, 2020)

ProStar said:


> I think single-driven people should focus on learning bigger alg sets that aren't useful super often but are amazing when they do show up(i.e VLS allows you to get an LL skip kind of).


I really think the opposite is true. When I look at single WR videos and failed wr videos I see PLL skip all over and not zblls
Failed attempts include people who got surprised by the skip and failed at auf. 
I would practice predicting at least one piece for all simple OLL and be prepared to auf it assuming the PLL skip.


----------



## ProStar (Feb 19, 2020)

kubesolver said:


> I really think the opposite is true. When I look at single WR videos and failed wr videos I see PLL skip all over and not zblls
> Failed attempts include people who got surprised by the skip and failed at auf.
> I would practice predicting at least one piece for all simple OLL and be prepared to auf it assuming the PLL skip.



But it's easier to get lucky if you know ZBLL


----------



## ProStar (Feb 19, 2020)

Etotheipi said:


> Once we were having some guests over that we had never met, and before they came, I was thinking about the probability that one was a cuber. Then when they came I found out that one of them was a sub-25 ish solver. I was very surprised.



Did he beat you in a race?


----------



## xyzzy (Feb 23, 2020)

Saw this headline while scrolling through HN and did a double take…


----------



## brododragon (Feb 23, 2020)

ZBLL isn't 1LLL. EO is an extra look (or two).


----------



## ProStar (Feb 23, 2020)

brododragon said:


> ZBLL isn't 1LLL. EO is an extra look (or two).



ZBLL is a type of 1lll. With ZB, when you get to the LL it takes one look to solve it


----------



## brododragon (Feb 23, 2020)

ProStar said:


> ZBLL is a type of 1lll. With ZB, when you get to the LL it takes one look to solve it


That's like saying PLL is 1LLL because by the time you get to it it's 1 Look.


----------



## ProStar (Feb 23, 2020)

brododragon said:


> That's like saying PLL is 1LLL because by the time you get to it it's 1 Look.



No, because you use OLL after all that's left is LL. With ZB, by the time F2L is done all you need to do is ZBLL. If you were to use full OLS+PLL, then I'd say that you used 1lll.


----------



## brododragon (Feb 23, 2020)

ProStar said:


> No, because you use OLL after all that's left is LL. With ZB, by the time F2L is done all you need to do is ZBLL. If you were to use full OLS+PLL, then I'd say that you used 1lll.


I guess I'm saying the total number of looks is the same, with a similar move-count, since F2L requires an extra look.


----------



## Brest (Feb 24, 2020)

brododragon said:


> I guess I'm saying the total number of looks is the same, with a similar move-count, since F2L requires an extra look.


Solving the 4th slot while solving EO is only 1 look


----------



## ProStar (Feb 24, 2020)

dudefaceguy said:


> I see what you're saying, but the EO step



For ZBLS, the LS is solved while doing EO. So for CFOP it's:

Cross
1st Pair
2nd Pair
3rd Pair
4th Pair
OLL PLL

And for ZB:

Cross
1st Pair
2nd Pair
3rd Pair
ZBLS
ZBLL


----------



## dudefaceguy (Feb 24, 2020)

ProStar said:


> For ZBLS, the LS is solved while doing EO. So for CFOP it's:
> 
> Cross
> 1st Pair
> ...


I hit Reply by accident in the middle of a sentence, haha.


----------



## ProStar (Feb 24, 2020)

dudefaceguy said:


> I see what you're saying, but the fact that the EO step is first gives other benefits throughout the solve. It's also planned in inspection, so the "look" isn't counted towards solving time. All methods have planning in inspection, but EO/line is designed to use all of the inspection time, thereby saving time elsewhere in the solve (such as the last layer).
> 
> You are right that you pay for the single look last layer, but the idea is that it's not supposed to cost as much as a whole second look in the middle of a solve. More experienced cubers than I have opined at length about whether ZZ actually achieves this goal or not.



I think you lost coherency halfway through the post, I'll dissect is as well as I can.



dudefaceguy said:


> I see what you're saying, but the fact that the EO step is first gives other benefits throughout the solve. It's also planned in inspection, so the "look" isn't counted towards solving time.



Wait, did this suddenly become a campaign for ZZ? I don't recall that discussion...



dudefaceguy said:


> All methods have planning in inspection, but EO/line is designed to use all of the inspection time, thereby saving time elsewhere in the solve



EO/Line can be planned in a couple seconds by semi-advanced ZZ solvers, it doesn't take the entire inspection time



dudefaceguy said:


> You are right that you pay for the single look last layer, but the idea is that it's not supposed to cost as much as a whole second look in the middle of a solve



When did brododragon say anything about paying for 1lll? He simply said that F2L takes longer when using ZBLS(which it really doesn't). And for the last time, ZBLS doesn't require any more looks than normal F2L and recognizing the case doesn't take very long.


(I don't have a bunch of personal experience with ZB, so @Tao Yu, if I said anything you think is wrong then please feel free to correct me)


----------



## Tao Yu (Feb 24, 2020)

ZBLS is slower than F2L. Just look at any ZBLS alg spreadsheet, a lot of the time you need to use algs that are longer or slower in order to orient the edges.

I think if you want to compare methods, you should not care too much about the exact number of looks and instead take a more holistic approach. As people have argued in this thread, there are things far more important than looks.


----------



## brododragon (Feb 24, 2020)

Tao Yu said:


> ZBLS is slower than F2L. Just look at any ZBLS alg spreadsheet, a lot of the time you need to use algs that are longer or slower in order to orient the edges.


This is where I stand. Also, since F2L becomes do natural, you almost don't have to do a look, while algs can't take a decent chunk of time to recognize.


----------



## dudefaceguy (Feb 24, 2020)

ProStar said:


> I think you lost coherency halfway through the post, I'll dissect is as well as I can.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Alright never mind about that then.


----------



## Tao Yu (Feb 24, 2020)

I'm just saying that if the whole point you wanted to make was that it generally takes extra effort to force ZBLL in solves, then you could have just said it that way, and few people would disagree with you. Looks aren't really relevant in this conversation imo.


----------



## PetrusQuber (Mar 2, 2020)

Illuminati confirmed... Could this be an omen???


----------



## PetrusQuber (Mar 2, 2020)

And at the same time, 743 reactions, 347 backwards


----------



## brododragon (Mar 2, 2020)

Illuminati
Itanimulli


----------



## RiceMan_ (Mar 4, 2020)

what is your pb


----------



## brododragon (Mar 4, 2020)

RiceMan_ said:


> what is your pb


Who's PB?


----------



## RiceMan_ (Mar 4, 2020)

brododragon said:


> Who's PB?


anyone's pb


----------



## brododragon (Mar 4, 2020)

41.390 w/ petrus. F2L-1 already solved and PLL skip.


----------



## ProStar (Mar 4, 2020)

3x3: 12.22 w/ CFOP
2x2: .50 w/ LBL


----------



## brododragon (Mar 4, 2020)

Pyra PB is 5.45 with keyhole


----------



## icarneiro (Mar 4, 2020)

Is it possible that someday someone will break the sub1min single in 6x6?


----------



## Tabe (Mar 4, 2020)

icarneiro said:


> Is it possible that someday someone will break the sub1min single in 6x6?


Without a doubt. Max already has a 1:03 at home.


----------



## brododragon (Mar 4, 2020)

Almost everyone has more messages than reactions, right? Well, I wanna change that.

First, though somebody needs to volunteer. Who ever volunteers should probably change their preferences so reactions don't make an alert.

After somebody volunteers and changes their settings, react to every post of theirs.

Please do this. What else are you gonna do?


----------



## ProStar (Mar 4, 2020)

brododragon said:


> Almost everyone has more messages than reactions, right? Well, I wanna change that.
> 
> First, though somebody needs to volunteer. Who ever volunteers should probably change their preferences so reactions don't make an alert.
> 
> ...



I volunteer. I always thought it would be funny for someone with a decent amount of messages to have a higher reaction score than messages. Good luck keeping up with how often I post though


----------



## brododragon (Mar 4, 2020)

ProStar said:


> I volunteer. I always thought it would be funny for someone with a decent amount of messages to have a higher reaction score than messages. Good luck keeping up with how often I post though


Alright. Do you have your settings changed?


----------



## ProStar (Mar 4, 2020)

brododragon said:


> Alright. Do you have your settings changed?



I'm gonna change them after I break my PB for most notifs at once 

I expect 1,640+(my messages) reactions. Also only certain reactions add points, so probably stick with like/love


----------



## brododragon (Mar 4, 2020)

ProStar said:


> I'm gonna change them after I break my PB for most notifs at once


Alright! Everybody assemble and react to @ProStar’s posts!


----------



## ProStar (Mar 4, 2020)

Holy crap less than a minute and already 20+ notifs


----------



## WarriorCatCuber (Mar 4, 2020)

Reply


ProStar said:


> Holy crap less than a minute and already 20+ notifs


No ! By going on this thread you removed some of them !


----------



## brododragon (Mar 4, 2020)

ProStar said:


> Holy crap less than a minute and already 20+ notifs


Still haven't finished your profile page.

Also thanks for the additional material


----------



## ProStar (Mar 4, 2020)

Ok turning off alerts. I follow both of you, so I'm just gonna check my news feed lol


----------



## brododragon (Mar 4, 2020)

@WarriorCatCuber and anyone else helping, laughing whenever it’s not extremely inappropriate because why not.


----------



## ProStar (Mar 4, 2020)

brododragon said:


> @WarriorCatCuber and anyone else helping, laughing whenever it’s not extremely inappropriate because why not.



*confused*


----------



## brododragon (Mar 4, 2020)

ProStar said:


> *confused*


dang it. That was an appropriate time to laugh.

My inbox is basically only you for pages.


----------



## ProStar (Mar 4, 2020)

brododragon said:


> My inbox is basically only you for pages.



same for my news feed lol


----------



## brododragon (Mar 4, 2020)

ProStar said:


> same for my news feed lol


Dang it. Appropriate again.



ProStar said:


> I'm gonna change them after I break my PB for most notifs at once
> 
> I expect 1,640+(my messages) reactions. Also only certain reactions add points, so probably stick with like/love


what about laughing? cause thats all I've been doing


----------



## ProStar (Mar 4, 2020)

brododragon said:


> what about laughing? cause thats all I've been doing



love, like, and laughing all add stuff


----------



## Cubingcubecuber (Mar 7, 2020)

ProStar said:


> I'm gonna change them after I break my PB for most notifs at once
> 
> I expect 1,640+(my messages) reactions. Also only certain reactions add points, so probably stick with like/love


Done


----------



## Cuberstache (Mar 14, 2020)

Look at this ao5 lol the consistency of the counting times

Generated By csTimer on 2020-03-14 (solving from 2020-03-14 09:27:31 to 2020-03-14 09:29:50)
avg of 5: *10.00*

Time List:
1. (9.08) U' B' U2 F' R2 F2 U2 L2 D2 B R2 D2 F' D' R2 B' R' F' R' U R @2020-03-14 09:27:31 
2. 9.96 U2 L F L2 F2 D2 U2 F D2 B2 L2 F' L2 F' D' F L' D2 F' L' @2020-03-14 09:27:54 
3. (12.64) B2 F2 R2 F2 U B2 D' U2 F2 D B D' R' F' U F2 L2 B2 F' @2020-03-14 09:28:21 
4. 10.02 D2 L U2 L2 D2 B2 R F2 L2 U2 B2 R2 U L2 B L' R B R' D @2020-03-14 09:28:49 
5. 10.02 L' F' L2 F2 D U L2 D' B2 D' B2 F2 R2 B2 F D' U L' F' D' U @2020-03-14 09:29:50


----------



## Cubingcubecuber (May 15, 2020)

I don't know where to post this but did anyone know about Air Jeff?


----------



## PetrusQuber (May 15, 2020)

Cubingcubecuber said:


> I don't know where to post this but did anyone know about Air Jeff?


I normally call it Bruno or Pi. Bruno from Lars’ website, Pi from when I started learning the COLL cases.


----------



## WarriorCatCuber (May 15, 2020)

Cubingcubecuber said:


> I don't know where to post this but did anyone know about Air Jeff?


I called it Dead Guy, but then I switched to calling it Pi.


----------



## PetrusQuber (May 15, 2020)

WarriorCatCuber said:


> I called it Dead Guy, but then I switched to calling it Pi.


Explanation?


----------



## Username: Username: (May 15, 2020)

Cubingcubecuber said:


> I don't know where to post this but did anyone know about Air Jeff?


I call it the pseudo H because on one side the corners looked like they were an H case, then the other corners showed up, I also call it the odd one because the two corners are not facing the same side with each other like the other two corners.


----------



## WarriorCatCuber (May 15, 2020)

PetrusQuber said:


> Explanation?


I found it in this random roux doc on this forums and I guess the headlights are like the chin and the eyes are rolled to the side ?


----------



## brododragon (May 15, 2020)

Is one look EO2x2x3 > Last Block > and ZBLL ZZ or Petrus?


----------



## ProStar (May 15, 2020)

brododragon said:


> Is one look EO2x2x3 > Last Block > and ZBLL ZZ or Petrus?



Where do you put the block after doing EO223?


----------



## brododragon (May 15, 2020)

ProStar said:


> Where do you put the block after doing EO223?


Where the EO223 isn't?


----------



## ProStar (May 15, 2020)

brododragon said:


> Where the EO223 isn't?



Do you do EO while influencing 2x2x3 or 2x2x3 while influencing EO?


----------



## WarriorCatCuber (May 15, 2020)

brododragon said:


> Is one look EO2x2x3 > Last Block > and ZBLL ZZ or Petrus?


This is ZZ. It's called ZZ-omega


----------



## brododragon (May 15, 2020)

ProStar said:


> Do you do EO while influencing 2x2x3 or 2x2x3 while influencing EO?


Don't ZZers do it both ways?


----------



## ProStar (May 15, 2020)

brododragon said:


> Don't ZZers do it both ways?



Typically for EOLine/Cross EO is done first, but EO is done in a way that offers a favorable position of the Line/Cross pieces.


----------



## WarriorCatCuber (May 15, 2020)

WarriorCatCuber said:


> This is ZZ. It's called ZZ-omega


Why the laughing reactions? It's actually called that.


----------



## Cuberstache (May 15, 2020)

WarriorCatCuber said:


> Why the laughing reactions? It's actually called that.


It's a funny-sounding name


----------



## Sub1Hour (May 16, 2020)

WarriorCatCuber said:


> This is ZZ. It's called ZZ-omega


Sorry, I prefer Petrus-Alpha or Heise-Beta. Perhaps CFOP-Gamma could also work. What about YruRU-Delta?


----------



## goidlon (May 30, 2020)

Cubing at home 5 cheater
Hey everybody I was doin cubing at home 5 and looked at 3x3 results and I saw this



I mean what the heck is this non sense they dont even have WCA profile!


----------



## PetrusQuber (May 30, 2020)

It is kind of sad this happens, but it’s bound to. Some people are probably getting knocked out of their rightful ranking, and not making a round because of cheaters :/. At least they don’t make it to the final round since you need to stream.
I remember for some reason in [email protected] 1 my times got submitted twice, and I felt so bad for the person who missed the next round


----------



## Cubingcubecuber (Jun 3, 2020)

Look at the top review on this


----------



## PetrusQuber (Jun 3, 2020)

Cubingcubecuber said:


> Look at the top review on this


I hope thats somebody trying to be funny.


----------



## EvanTheCuber (Jun 3, 2020)

lol, i think so. John Smith is a very common disguise name, John is a very common first name, same as smith for a last name. Or he's faking an identity, you never know


----------



## Sub1Hour (Jun 3, 2020)

Cubingcubecuber said:


> Look at the top review on this


The 2 dislikes are the cops that pulled him over but couldn't arrest him cause they could not find the goods


----------



## FluxDigital01 (Jun 15, 2020)

Is anyone interested in participating in a BLD Race to sub-x thread? The most recent one I could find was back in 2018.


----------



## fun at the joy (Jun 15, 2020)

FluxDigital01 said:


> Is anyone interested in participating in a BLD Race to sub-x thread? The most recent one I could find was back in 2018.


I would be interested.


----------



## CrispyCubing (Jun 15, 2020)

FluxDigital01 said:


> Is anyone interested in participating in a BLD Race to sub-x thread? The most recent one I could find was back in 2018.


Yeah go for it, I’m in.


----------



## FluxDigital01 (Jun 16, 2020)

fun at the joy said:


> I would be interested.





CrispyCubing said:


> Yeah go for it, I’m in.



Okay! I'll try to start it as soon as I can!


----------



## FluxDigital01 (Jun 19, 2020)

Sorry for double posting, but I just had an idea. 

Get this: a BLD lettering scheme based on the IPA. 

If the sticker is a the first in the pair, you use the consonant chart laid over the cube net. If it's the second, you use the vowel chart laid over the net. If you know the charts by heart (like me), then it'll probably be easy to learn the scheme. Additionally, you could even use the ejective chart, clicks, or tones to convey other information like twists, flips, and special cases.


----------



## zslane (Aug 9, 2020)

Quick question about competitions:

I've seen quite a lot of videos of competitions, and the solve routine seems to go like this: cube is scrambled out of view of the solver and then placed under the box shield. The box is removed and the inspection timer starts (or does something else trigger the timer start?). The solver picks up the cube and inspects it. They put it back down and place their hands on the stackmat pads. A couple seconds later they take their hands off the pads and begin their solve. At the end of their solve they drop the cube and smack the pads to stop the timer.

So my question is this: after putting the cube down from inspection and placing hands on the stackmat pads, is the inspection timer still counting down?


----------



## Nmile7300 (Aug 9, 2020)

Yes it is still counting down until you release your hands off the timer. This is why most people advise you to put your hands on the timer right away if you hear the judge say "12 seconds". Also, your are pretty much correct in saying that the box being removed is what triggers the inspection start, but I would like to add that the cover is lifted and the inspection timer is started when you say "ready".


----------



## BenChristman1 (Aug 9, 2020)

zslane said:


> Quick question about competitions:
> 
> I've seen quite a lot of videos of competitions, and the solve routine seems to go like this: cube is scrambled out of view of the solver and then placed under the box shield. The box is removed and the inspection timer starts (or does something else trigger the timer start?). The solver picks up the cube and inspects it. They put it back down and place their hands on the stackmat pads. A couple seconds later they take their hands off the pads and begin their solve. At the end of their solve they drop the cube and smack the pads to stop the timer.
> 
> So my question is this: after putting the cube down from inspection and placing hands on the stackmat pads, is the inspection timer still counting down?


Self-promotion incoming:

This is a good thread to learn about comps. I’m still working on it, but the first 2 sections are done!









How To: WCA Competitions


This is a guide for anybody who wants to attend their first WCA (World Cube Association) competition. There are many rules and common courtesies to follow at WCA competitions, so there is a lot to learn before you go to your first one! Obviously, (at the time of writing) there are not very many...




www.speedsolving.com


----------



## ProStar (Aug 10, 2020)

zslane said:


> Quick question about competitions:
> 
> I've seen quite a lot of videos of competitions, and the solve routine seems to go like this: cube is scrambled out of view of the solver and then placed under the box shield. The box is removed and the inspection timer starts (or does something else trigger the timer start?). The solver picks up the cube and inspects it. They put it back down and place their hands on the stackmat pads. A couple seconds later they take their hands off the pads and begin their solve. At the end of their solve they drop the cube and smack the pads to stop the timer.
> 
> So my question is this: after putting the cube down from inspection and placing hands on the stackmat pads, is the inspection timer still counting down?



The judge will ask you if you are ready to begin inspection. You have up to a minute to signal that you are ready. When you say you're ready, the judge will start a stopwatch and take the cover off of the cube simultaneously. As soon as the timer for the solve has begun(you've placed your hands on the stackmat and then taken them off), the judge will stop the stopwatch.

So yes, the inspection timer runs until the stackmat has begun


----------



## vidcapper (Aug 13, 2020)

Who will be the first to post a 19x19 solve video?


----------



## Kaneki Uchiha (Aug 20, 2020)

does anyone else get good/average times one day and then for two to three days after that they get bad times?


----------



## vidcapper (Aug 20, 2020)

Kaneki Uchiha said:


> does anyone else get good/average times one day and then for two to three days after that they get bad times?



They are the bane of my cubing! 



vidcapper said:


> Who will be the first to post a 19x19 solve video?



I see there is now one posted. The link... 






What sort of time do you think the UWR will be by the end of year? I'm guessing 1.25 to 1.5 hours?


----------



## Bh13 (Aug 31, 2020)

Hey all! I'm just now returning to cubing after about a 3-1/2 year hiatus (College sure is a time-eater). What are the biggest things that have been happening in the cubing world in the past few years that I should know about?


----------



## PapaSmurf (Aug 31, 2020)

Petrus was used to break the current world record, competitions don’t exist and Tao Yu learnt ZBLL in 6 weeks.


----------



## Spacey10 (Aug 31, 2020)

Bh13 said:


> Hey all! I'm just now returning to cubing after about a 3-1/2 year hiatus (College sure is a time-eater). What are the biggest things that have been happening in the cubing world in the past few years that I should know about?





PapaSmurf said:


> Petrus was used to break the current world record, competitions don’t exist and Tao Yu learnt ZBLL in 6 weeks.


More of accidental Petrus, wr is now 3.47, leo is getting consistent 4s with a lot of 3s. Ya boi Feliks now holds YTUWR with a 3.33, and yeah


----------



## PapaSmurf (Aug 31, 2020)

Definitely accidental but still Petrus.
I'm pretty sure Patrick Ponce has a 2.99, but 3.33 definitely isn't UWR.


----------



## Spacey10 (Aug 31, 2020)

PapaSmurf said:


> Definitely accidental but still Petrus.
> I'm pretty sure Patrick Ponce has a 2.99, but 3.33 definitely isn't UWR.


I meant YTUWR, I'll edit the post


----------



## Bh13 (Aug 31, 2020)

Wow that's pretty crazy, do a lot of top cubers use ZBLL at this point? I remember several years ago it was thought to be too time intensive to learn and too challenging to implement to really be of any benefit.


----------



## Spacey10 (Aug 31, 2020)

Bh13 said:


> Wow that's pretty crazy, do a lot of top cubers use ZBLL at this point? I remember several years ago it was thought to be too time intensive to learn and too challenging to implement to really be of any benefit.


Well, a lot of world class speedcubers have learned a chuck of ZBLL, but only easy to recognize ones


----------



## PetrusQuber (Sep 1, 2020)

Lots of new cubes obviously, there’s the Gan 356 XS, Valk Elite, Moyu Weilong WR M 2020 and the Dayan Tengyun V2 M for flagships right now. Cubes like the Meilong M, RS3M 2020 and Qiyi MS are the best budget cubes around and compete to almost flagship levels


----------



## zslane (Sep 11, 2020)

Question for all: *At what point did you start timing your solves?*


----------



## Spacey10 (Sep 11, 2020)

zslane said:


> Question for all: *At what point did you start timing your solves?*


Approx 50 seconds


----------



## BenChristman1 (Sep 11, 2020)

zslane said:


> Question for all: *At what point did you start timing your solves?*


About 25-30. I got a Stackmat really late compared to most people. I didn’t know about csTimer until after I got my Stackmat. Another question, I got it about 1.5-ish years ago and haven’t had to change the batteries. Is this normal?


----------



## SpeedyCube (Sep 11, 2020)

zslane said:


> Question for all: *At what point did you start timing your solves?*



Years ago, I first started timing when I got down to about 3 minutes. Haha, now I average 55 seconds or so and dropping


----------



## PetrusQuber (Sep 11, 2020)

I started timing as soon as I could solve .


----------



## Username: Username: (Sep 12, 2020)

zslane said:


> Question for all: *At what point did you start timing your solves?*


Immediately after I solved the cube.


----------



## I'm A Cuber (Sep 12, 2020)

PetrusQuber said:


> I started timing as soon as I could solve .





Username: Username: said:


> Immediately after I solved the cube.


Same


----------



## Nmile7300 (Sep 12, 2020)

For me I learned about Cstimer when I averaged about 25, before then, I would always have to get someone else to time me or use this really bad stopwatch I had at my house.


----------



## Nir1213 (Sep 12, 2020)

Nmile7300 said:


> For me I learned about Cstimer when I averaged about 25, before then, I would always have to get someone else to time me or use this really bad stopwatch I had at my house.


hmm i used to use cstimer but i didnt really like it. I first timed myself when i got my first single of 5 minutes. Then i used cstimer at around 3 - 1.30 minutes.


----------



## Skewb_Cube (Sep 12, 2020)

zslane said:


> Question for all: *At what point did you start timing your solves?*



As soon as I finished learning how to solve the cube because I wanted to improve so much and just became addicted


----------



## Bh13 (Sep 16, 2020)

Not sure if there's a better thread for this, but do most cubes now use magnets? It seems like magnetized cubes are pretty prevalent.


----------



## zslane (Sep 16, 2020)

From what I can tell, magnets are pretty much present in all new cubes these days except in the very cheapest ones.


----------



## Tabe (Sep 16, 2020)

Bh13 said:


> Not sure if there's a better thread for this, but do most cubes now use magnets? It seems like magnetized cubes are pretty prevalent.


Yes. For WCA puzzles, even budget cubes have magnets. There are exceptions but those are becoming far less common.


----------



## zslane (Sep 28, 2020)

I have a magnetic Pyraminx and a magnetic Skewb that both make an audible _click _when I turn them. What is causing this clicking noise? (I'm not talking about spring noise; these don't have any of that).


----------



## Tabe (Sep 28, 2020)

zslane said:


> I have a magnetic Pyraminx and a magnetic Skewb that both make an audible _click _when I turn them. What is causing this clicking noise? (I'm not talking about spring noise; these don't have any of that).


This is usually an indicator that the magnets are not glued into place. They're probably sitting in a slot and can move around when you turn the cube. A drop of glue will fix it.


----------



## qwr (Oct 13, 2020)

I've always thought that double moves (like U2) take longer than one move but shorter than two moves. So why not count them as 1.5 moves :thunkful:


----------



## PetraPine (Oct 13, 2020)

It would be more awkward to do FMC+more awkward to do reconstructions


----------



## abunickabhi (Dec 18, 2020)

Anyone here into doing 3-cycles and 5-cycles for 3x3 speedsolve event?


----------



## Deleted member 55877 (Jan 15, 2021)

I doubt this will have any benefit to speedsolving... But a few days ago i realized that any algorithm repeated an even number of times will not affect EO. If you think of an algorithm as a "toggle" for the some of the edges (by which I mean it switches some edges from bad->good or good->bad) it becomes pretty clear that if you repeat the algorithm twice, all of the "toggled" edges are toggled back... meaning that EO isn't affected.

I know this is stupid but I thought it was interesting nonetheless. there's probably there's some other post that already mentioned this but whatever lol


----------



## Kit Clement (Jan 15, 2021)

This is clearly false. Repeat just F R U R' U' F twice and you'll see that two edges are unoriented, regardless of which of the 3 orientations you choose. That alg does affect 2 edges' EO state, but it also cycles pieces, so it doesn't switch the EO state of the same pieces each time.


----------



## Deleted member 55877 (Jan 15, 2021)

Kit Clement said:


> This is clearly false. Repeat just F R U R' U' F twice and you'll see that two edges are unoriented, regardless of which of the 3 orientations you choose. That alg does affect 2 edges' EO state, but it also cycles pieces, so it doesn't switch the EO state of the same pieces each time.


ahh true, i didn't take into account permutation


----------



## abunickabhi (Jan 16, 2021)

Alex Davison said:


> I doubt this will have any benefit to speedsolving... But a few days ago i realized that any algorithm repeated an even number of times will not affect EO. If you think of an algorithm as a "toggle" for the some of the edges (by which I mean it switches some edges from bad->good or good->bad) it becomes pretty clear that if you repeat the algorithm twice, all of the "toggled" edges are toggled back... meaning that EO isn't affected.
> 
> I know this is stupid but I thought it was interesting nonetheless. there's probably there's some other post that already mentioned this but whatever lol


Every algorithm affects EO differently. It depends on the number of F and B turns the alg has, and if it has rotations too. As Kit said, the refutation of the even conjecture, is F R U R' U' F.


----------



## xyzzy (Jan 16, 2021)

A better counterexample would be something that truly leaves edges flipped in place after an even number of iterations, like M' U M U' M' U M U M' U2 M (flips all four last layer edges after two iterations).


----------



## qwr (Feb 7, 2021)

Brian Sun, well known for his "pls" vids where he shows someone's video then shows a "better" alg, apparently got copyright striked. I think this use of copyright striking is malicious and the clips are used in fair use (specifically for use in scholarly criticism), though youtube's copyright system is widely known to be abusable. 
That aside, some people in discords apparently view his "pls" vids as derogatory or condescending which might be the case. 



I have no idea what this is about


----------



## qwr (Feb 9, 2021)

Another fun fact: MMAP is a minecraft youtuber (almost 100k subs https://www.youtube.com/user/MMAPGaming) and stormchaser (with another 100k subs https://www.youtube.com/user/MeMyselfAndMovies)


----------



## MJS Cubing (Feb 9, 2021)

qwr said:


> Another fun fact: MMAP is a minecraft youtuber (almost 100k subs https://www.youtube.com/user/MMAPGaming) and stormchaser (with another 100k subs https://www.youtube.com/user/MeMyselfAndMovies)


I knew about the storm chasing thing, but not about Minecraft. That’s interesting


----------



## xyzzy (Feb 10, 2021)

Random observation: Any scramble with (at least) 10 edge pieces in the correct location but flipped must take at least 9 moves to solve.

Not hard to prove by computer search (fire up Cube Explorer and manually check the twenty or so different such scrambles), but the fun thing is that this can be proved _without_ computer search or massive case exhaustion.

The ten flipped edges will be flipped for any of the three EO orientations. For, say, the F-B axis, there will be either 10 or 12 bad edges, and since each F/B quarter turn will affect at most 4 bad edges, this means that at least 3 F/B quarter turns must be used. Same reasoning applies to the other two axes. Therefore at least 3+3+3 = 9 moves must be used to solve any such scramble.

A slight modification of the above argument leads to a stronger conclusion, one that you _can't_ prove just by using Cube Explorer: any solution must use 9 moves that are not half turns.


----------



## MJS Cubing (Feb 10, 2021)

I like this thread because I can come and pretend that all the math makes sense to me. who says you need to be good at math to solve a cube?


----------



## qwr (Feb 10, 2021)

MJS Cubing said:


> I like this thread because I can come and pretend that all the math makes sense to me. who says you need to be good at math to solve a cube?


if you're talking about xyzzy's most recent post, all you need to know is the concept of good edges and bad edges, which you can probably understand if you know roux basics


----------



## Cubing Forever (Feb 11, 2021)

xyzzy said:


> Random observation: Any scramble with (at least) 10 edge pieces in the correct location but flipped must take at least 9 moves to solve.
> 
> Not hard to prove by computer search (fire up Cube Explorer and manually check the twenty or so different such scrambles), but the fun thing is that this can be proved _without_ computer search or massive case exhaustion.
> 
> ...


This is just a modification to "superflip takes at least 20 moves to solve" thing bc the edges are superflipped but we do not take into account the corner permutation thus leading to shorter solutions (9 being the lower bound). Am I right?
(TLDR, what you say is, a superflip with corners unsolved needs at least 9 moves to be solved right?)


----------



## xyzzy (Feb 11, 2021)

Cubing Forever said:


> This is just a modification to "superflip takes at least 20 moves to solve" thing bc the edges are superflipped but we do not take into account the corner permutation thus leading to shorter solutions (9 being the lower bound). Am I right?
> (TLDR, what you say is, a superflip with corners unsolved needs at least 9 moves to be solved right?)


Yeah, pretty much, except showing that superflip needs 20 moves requires a relatively long computer search, whereas this is a three-line proof where the most complicated calculation is 10/4 = 2.5 . (Obviously, calculating more lets you get better bounds.)

Also, "almost superflips" (e.g. this) are within scope for my argument.


----------



## Cubing Forever (Feb 19, 2021)

Random observation (could be false)
Diag PLLs can never be less than 13 moves long. The shortest diag PLLs are:
Nb (R2 U2 F2 U' R2 U2 R2 F2 U' F2 U2 F2 R2) and Na (L2 U2 F2 U L2 U2 L2 F2 U F2 U2 F2 L2) both of which are 13 moves long(in HTM).
(Ikr the words "shortest" and "N perms" shouldn't be in one sentence lol)

Another one (about 2GLL):
By definition, 2GLL means solving the LL with a 2 Gen moveset (RU, LU or MU). With this definition, we can include the ELL cases as 2GLL cases too since ELL is just cycling or flipping edges which can be done with MU. With this, the total number of 2GLLs is 84+29=113 cases.
However, if we define 2GLL as a subset of ZBLL, then we cannot include ELL since the edges need not be oriented for ELL but they need to be oriented for ZBLL. So, defining 2GLL as a subset of 1LLL(rather than ZBLL), we can assume that the ELLs can be classified as "2GLLs" right?


----------



## xyzzy (Feb 19, 2021)

Cubing Forever said:


> Diag PLLs can never be less than 13 moves long. The shortest diag PLLs are:
> Nb (R2 U2 F2 U' R2 U2 R2 F2 U' F2 U2 F2 R2) and Na (L2 U2 F2 U L2 U2 L2 F2 U F2 U2 F2 L2) both of which are 13 moves long(in HTM).


Correct (for face turn metric); optimal Y perm is 13 moves too, and optimal E perm and V perm are both 14 moves.



Cubing Forever said:


> 2GLL means solving the LL with a 2 Gen moveset
> […]
> we can assume that the ELLs can be classified as "2GLLs" right?


"2GLL" already _specifically_ means the last layer cases that can be solved using only R and U moves. It's not a catch-all term for all 2-gen-solvable last layer subsets using any two generators you want.

If, say, you choose Rw and U as your generators, then you get the 1LLL subset with corners permuted and no other restriction. If you choose more esoteric generators (like R U R' and F' U F or something; nobody said the generators had to be single moves) then you might get _all_ the last layer cases.

(Also: just because it's called "2-gen last layer" doesn't mean that you _have_ to use 2-gen algs to solve those cases. I use RUL/RUS/RrU/RBL/RUD for a handful of 2GLL cases.)


----------



## qwr (Feb 24, 2021)

I came up with a silly J perm executions

R U2 R' U' R U2 r' F R' F' r
L' U2 L U L' U2 l F' L F l'


----------



## Cubing Forever (Feb 24, 2021)

xyzzy said:


> any solution must use 9 moves that are not half turns.


Part of the reason is because half turns preserve EO and quarter turns break it right?

(Take this with a pinch of salt because I'm not as smart as you lol)


----------



## H0BB3 (Mar 1, 2021)

What do you think about the roxenda magic cube megaminx /pyraminx/random cube box off of amazon


----------



## Cubing Forever (Mar 1, 2021)

H0BB3 said:


> What do you think about the roxenda magic cube megaminx /pyraminx/random cube box off of amazon


Actually, it's creative.


----------



## rubik2005 (Mar 1, 2021)

H0BB3 said:


> What do you think about the roxenda magic cube megaminx /pyraminx/random cube box off of amazon


Roxenda isn't a cube brand, but rather the name of the seller on the Amazon paga. Same thing with D-Fantix. The actual brands are Qiyi, Moyu, Cyclone Boys, ShengShou, YJ, GAN, and maybe a few others that I forgot. Amazon is generally not the best place for you to order cubes, for sometimes they charge you more and don't always offer benefits like discount codes and rewards as seen in stores like TheCubicle, SpeedCubeShop, DailyPuzzles, etc.

As for budget cubes, the Moyu MF3RS 2020 is conside the best performing cube (and only comes in at around $9 USD), the YJ MGC is one of the best big-cube lines (4x4 - 7x7), and there are other options for WCA events such as the YLM M square-one and the Cyclone Boys skewb which people seem to reccomend.


----------



## SH03L4C3 (Mar 1, 2021)

rubik2005 said:


> Roxenda isn't a cube brand, but rather the name of the seller on the Amazon paga. Same thing with D-Fantix. The actual brands are Qiyi, Moyu, Cyclone Boys, ShengShou, YJ, GAN, and maybe a few others that I forgot. Amazon is generally not the best place for you to order cubes, for sometimes they charge you more and don't always offer benefits like discount codes and rewards as seen in stores like TheCubicle, SpeedCubeShop, DailyPuzzles, etc.
> 
> As for budget cubes, the Moyu MF3RS 2020 is conside the best performing cube (and only comes in at around $9 USD), the YJ MGC is one of the best big-cube lines (4x4 - 7x7), and there are other options for WCA events such as the YLM M square-one and the Cyclone Boys skewb which people seem to reccomend.


yes. On amazon, a meilong M is $10, and on TC it is $6 (not including reward points and discount codes).


----------



## rubik2005 (Mar 1, 2021)

SH03L4C3 said:


> yes. On amazon, a meilong M is $10, and on TC it is $6 (not including reward points and discount codes).


The sellers on Amazon only care about profit. Nothing else


----------



## DNF_Cuber (Mar 1, 2021)

rubik2005 said:


> The sellers on Amazon only care about profit. Nothing else


yeah, that's kinda the most important part of business.


----------



## SH03L4C3 (Mar 1, 2021)

rubik2005 said:


> The sellers on Amazon only care about profit. Nothing else


yes. I have experience with all of the amazon sellers customer service when I used to buy from there (DFantix, Cuberspeed, liangcuber and others) and I must say, DFantix has the best customer service , the others are trash.


----------



## DNF_Cuber (Mar 1, 2021)

SH03L4C3 said:


> yes. I have experience with all of the amazon sellers customer service when I used to buy from there (DFantix, Cuberspeed, liangcuber and others) and I must say, DFantix has the best customer service , the others are trash.


D-Fantix has the worst puzzles though. Cuberspeed is probably the best. (IMO)


----------



## H0BB3 (Mar 1, 2021)

DNF_Cuber said:


> D-Fantix has the worst puzzles though. Cuberspeed is probably the best. (IMO)


Yeah but I feel like if you are going to spend the money you may as well just order off of a speed cubing website.


----------



## rubik2005 (Mar 1, 2021)

DNF_Cuber said:


> yeah, that's kinda the most important part of business.


While it's important, it's not the most important factor. If I had business, I would rather sell products and earn a profit of 10% with a group of 20 loyal customers than sell products and earn a profit of 60% but only two people buy from me. If you don't have a good connection with your audience (speedcubers and Amazon), you won't get them to buy from you, and that's why they target non-cubers/beginners instead (they don't know about other cube stores and shop on Amazon all the time. 

The Cubicle is really engaged with the community, and this is seen through the sponsoring of competitions/cubers, Social Media (Twitch, YouTube, Instagram), etc. which is a very influential reason as to why so many of us are drawn to them. They help us, we help them.


----------



## SH03L4C3 (Mar 1, 2021)

H0BB3 said:


> Yeah but I feel like if you are going to spend the money you may as well just order off of a speed cubing website.


I guess it is better for small orders because you are not paying shipping.


----------



## H0BB3 (Mar 1, 2021)

SH03L4C3 said:


> I guess it is better for small orders because you are not paying shipping.


True because I ordered off of cubing out loud for 3 cubes and the 10dollar shipping killed the price..


----------



## DNF_Cuber (Mar 1, 2021)

rubik2005 said:


> While it's important, it's not the most important factor. If I had business, I would rather sell products and earn a profit of 10% with a group of 20 loyal customers than sell products and earn a profit of 60% but only two people buy from me. If you don't have a good connection with your audience (speedcubers and Amazon), you won't get them to buy from you, and that's why they target non-cubers/beginners instead (they don't know about other cube stores and shop on Amazon all the time.
> 
> The Cubicle is really engaged with the community, and this is seen through the sponsoring of competitions/cubers, Social Media (Twitch, YouTube, Instagram), etc. which is a very influential reason as to why so many of us are drawn to them. They help us, we help them.


I meant total profit not profit margin


----------



## Cubing Forever (Mar 10, 2021)

I discovered that the 4x4 OLL parity alg is a U ZBLL which looks like this on 3x3:


----------



## pyrapyravince (Mar 18, 2021)

I just figured something out

Kilominx: Kilobyte
Megaminx: Megabyte
Gigaminx: Gigabyte

And then teraminx (terabyte) examinx (exabyte), and so on and so forth.
So, a 1x1x1 megaminx would be a bytaminx.

I might be dumb and this is obvious for some other people.

Topic change: What the hek does minx mean?


----------



## xyzzy (Mar 18, 2021)

pyrapyravince said:


> I just figured something out
> 
> Kilominx: Kilobyte
> Megaminx: Megabyte
> ...


They're named after SI prefixes. "Mega" and higher aren't in common use outside of science and computers; in colloquial usage, we say "tonne" rather than "megagram", for example. This is probably why your first association to kilo/mega/giga/tera are with computer storage units rather than SI prefixes in general.

(The notation "n×n" minx also bothers me a lot—these things aren't squares or rectangles, so why are we calling them as if they are? The Chinese nomenclature (n-jie wumofang, lit. "n-layered megaminx") is… better, I guess? I still don't really like that either, tbh. Names are weird.)

The "minx" in pyraminx, megaminx, etc. are all thanks to Uwe Meffert, as I understand it. He likes the name, so he used it in a whole bunch of puzzles he was selling.


----------



## qwr (Mar 18, 2021)

xyzzy said:


> (The notation "n×n" minx also bothers me a lot—these things aren't squares or rectangles, so why are we calling them as if they are? The Chinese nomenclature (n-jie wumofang, lit. "n-layered megaminx") is… better, I guess? I still don't really like that either, tbh. Names are weird.)



like my friend would say, that's a 3-cube or a 2-cube!

the naming of kilominx doesn't make sense either because if megaminx is 3 layered and gigaminx is 5 layered, then the 1x1 minx should be the kilominx. then someone came up with kibimimx which doesn't make sense really because kibi is only 2.4% bigger than kilo (1000 vs 1024). so the name should be master kilominx since it's like a 2x2 or something equally stupid. 

mefferts also used the minx name for pyraminx and I think there's a whole separate naming scheme for those.


----------



## DNF_Cuber (Mar 18, 2021)

qwr said:


> mefferts also used the minx name for pyraminx and I think there's a whole separate naming scheme for those.


I think that goes master, professor, royal, and emperor


----------



## pyrapyravince (Mar 21, 2021)

who else noticed that the corner cutting on the gan air is pretty bad?


----------



## Mr. McCubing (Apr 1, 2021)

What on earth is this product picture?

This is one of the pictures for the gan i carry on tc what is it an iphone 1?


----------



## Zain_A24 (Apr 1, 2021)

I'm being told it's an iPhone 4
GAN i Carry releases 4th April (4/4)
Coincidence?* I think not*


----------



## Mr. McCubing (Apr 1, 2021)

Zain_A24 said:


> I'm being told it's an iPhone 4
> GAN i Carry releases 4th April (4/4)
> Coincidence?* I think not*


That's very interesting. It still looks weird to have an ancient phone in the pic lol. And dang gan is really copying apple.

Sent from my Pixel 3 using Tapatalk


----------



## abunickabhi (Apr 16, 2021)

Anyone hyped about master FTO? It is cool, and is finally being mass produced.


----------



## carcass (Apr 19, 2021)

Rename for CFOP
people don't like calling it fridrich because she didn't make it, she popularized it.
SIngmaster mad the cross
Schoof made F2L
the Dockhorns and Treep made OLL+PLL
Singmaster, Schoof, Dockhorn, Treep
For all the F2L, we have sching-mooster as the mix
for LL we have dreep-horp as the mix of names
As a result, if we want CFOP to be named like Roux, it should be called Sching-Mooster-Dreep-Horp
its science bois


----------



## pyrapyravince (Apr 22, 2021)

isnt it weird that cubicle can sell mystery puzzles for 5 dollars. theres a possibility that you can get a gan duo for 5 dollars.
How do they afford to do that? 
Also, some people could buy a bunch of 3 dollar cubes, and then sell them for the real price at a comp.


----------



## rubik2005 (Apr 22, 2021)

pyrapyravince said:


> isnt it weird that cubicle can sell mystery puzzles for 5 dollars. theres a possibility that you can get a gan duo for 5 dollars.
> How do they afford to do that?
> Also, some people could buy a bunch of 3 dollar cubes, and then sell them for the real price at a comp.


That's not really how it works. The only time they've done something similar is putting a Gan 11 M Pro (UV I think) into the $35 mystery puzzles bin. The cubes will be within their range of price, so if you pay $3 or $5, you'll likely get a budget cube or something no more than like $10. So it's not like there's a chance of you getting a 17x17 if you buy a $35 mystery puzzle

With the selling at comps thing, yea maybe. But they'll likely only make like $5 of profit depending on the cube, or simply have no use for it and would sell for an even lower price just to get rid of it. But otherwise, it would be better to just buy a new cube anyway unless you want to try it beforehand.


----------



## PapaSmurf (Apr 23, 2021)

Notation is quite simple. The easiest way to get used to it is just to scramble lots of cubes and check them every time. Using something like CSTimer with the draw scramble function is probably the best way, plus it gives loads of customising options that make it the most popular timer by a long way.


----------



## pyrapyravince (Apr 24, 2021)

andrewnewman4 said:


> has anyone figured out the notation yet?


' means reverse, and 2 means two times.
*
R means right.*
R: Rotate the right side up, or clockwise
R': Rotate the right side down, or counterclockwise
R2: Rotate the right side 2 times or clockwise.
*L means left.*
L: Rotate the left side down, or clockwise
L': Rotate the left side up, or counterclockwise.
L2: Rotate the left side 2 times.
*F means front.*
F: Rotate the front side down, or clockwise
F': Rotate the front side up, or counterclockwise
F2: Rotate the front side 2 times
*B means back.*
B: Rotate the back side up, or clockwise
B': Rotate the back side down, or counterclockwise
B2: Rotate the back side 2 times
*U means up.*
U: Rotate the top side to the left, or clockwise
U': Rotate the top side to left, or clockwise
U2: Rotate the top side 2 times.
*D means down.*
D: Rotate the bottom side to the right, or clockwise
D': Rotate the bottom side to the left, or counterclockwise.
D2: Rotate the bottom side to the left

Remember, slice moves rotate the same to the letter closest to them in the alphabet.
*M means middle.*
M: Slide the layer between L and R down, like L
M': Slide the layer between L and R up, like L'
M2: Slide the layer between L and R 2 times
*E means equator.*
E: Slide the layer between D and U to the right, like D
E': Slide the layer between D and U to the left, like D'
E2: Slide the layer between D and U 2 times.
*S means standing.*
S: Slide the layer between F and B down, like F
S': Slide the layer between F and B up, like F'
S2: Slide the layer between F and B 2 times

w (meaning wide) / lowercase means moving the face and the adjacent slice. It can be mixed and matched with other notations. So moving F and S down, is f/ Fw.

Cube rotations rotate the entire cube.
x: Rotate the entire cube the on R.
x': Rotate the entire cube on R'.
x2: Rotate the entire cube 2 times on R.
y: Rotate the entire cube on U.
y': Rotate the entire cube on U'.
y2: Rotate the entire cube 2 times on U.
z: Rotate the entire cube on F.
z': Rotate the entire cube on F'.
z2: Rotate the entire cube two times on F.


----------



## abunickabhi (Apr 24, 2021)

Has anyone heard of the tate notation for memorising triggers in cubing?

There is also swiss notation.


----------



## PapaSmurf (Apr 24, 2021)

Most alternative notations don't really do anything more than what Singmaster notation can do. With experience, you can easily identify triggers and know how to fingertrick them. Also, they don't really help when you have something like R' F R' U (sexy), as you don't execute the sexy in there the same way as from neutral, so breaking down into common triggers ignores a lot of potential nuance.


----------



## vidcapper (Apr 28, 2021)

Do you use cstimer with the timer running, or hidden? I prefer the latter, otherwise I find it a distraction.


----------



## BenChristman1 (Apr 28, 2021)

vidcapper said:


> Do you use cstimer with the timer running, or hidden? I prefer the latter, otherwise I find it a distraction.


I have it updating every second, just so that when I record my solves, it’s easier to predict what the time will be just by watching the video.


----------



## qwr (Apr 29, 2021)

Don't cube when tired. My times have suffered and my recognition is in slow motion


----------



## abunickabhi (Apr 29, 2021)

I agree, excessive practice can be detrimental. It is just important to do a bit everyday.


----------



## Kaiju_cube (Apr 29, 2021)

I've nodded off in the middle of doing an alg,.. woke up holding the cube like, _"WTF is this thing in my hand?"  _


----------



## qwr (Apr 29, 2021)

this was from my 2x2 session late last night. I thought my times were getting worse but maybe not on average. but I definitely made more mistakes and had less very fast singles.





abunickabhi said:


> I agree, excessive practice can be detrimental. It is just important to do a bit everyday.


the thing is, my practice isn't excessive. I get _mentally_ tired after 50 solves, not even fingers tired.


----------



## cuberbutnotacuber (Apr 30, 2021)

Everyone should take a break once in a while. I took a break from cubing for a few weeks, because I was getting mentally stressed due to schoolwork, exams, and trying to get to Sub 50. (Around December). And now I feel so much more refreshed.


----------



## abunickabhi (Apr 30, 2021)

qwr said:


> the thing is, my practice isn't excessive. I get _mentally_ tired after 50 solves, not even fingers tired.


I guess the best strategy you can have right now, is just to build a bit more endurance day by day. 

If you practice daily for like a few weeks straight, the tiredness should disappear.


----------



## qwr (Apr 30, 2021)

abunickabhi said:


> I guess the best strategy you can have right now, is just to build a bit more endurance day by day.
> 
> If you practice daily for like a few weeks straight, the tiredness should disappear.


Good idea.
I think the tiredness comes because I try to focus very hard during inspection and solving, and it is not easy for me to maintain focus for any extended amount of time, be it homework or videogames or cubing


----------



## Filipe Teixeira (Apr 30, 2021)

thats kinda obvious, imagine cubing while holding a tire


----------



## vidcapper (May 1, 2021)

I wonder if there's a UWR for solving a 3x3 using just the beginners method?


----------



## BenChristman1 (May 1, 2021)

vidcapper said:


> I wonder if there's a UWR for solving a 3x3 using just the beginners method?


Here’s the first thing that I think of, but I’m sure there’s a faster time than these somewhere.


----------



## AlgoCuber (May 1, 2021)

Most of the cubes on Amazon are ripoffs. They just rebrand and repackage a cheap cube and sell them for a way higher price. Or, they market it as "D-Fantix Gan 11 M Pro" or "GAN 11 M Pro 3x3 Speed Cube by Cuberspeed", making it seem like they made it. Some of the names are also super cringy like "The Amazing IQ Tester." I also spent 5 minutes reading cubes reviews on amazon, and the bad reviews aren't hard to find at all. Most of the bad reviews say things like "a 62mm 4x4 is way too small, almost as small as my 3x3" even though it is standard size, "cube exploded into pieces after a few months" which is just a pop and is pretty normal. Tighten the cube to make it pop less. If the cube even pops once, that's a automatic 1 star review, though.

I'm not going to blame the reviewers though, they're probably beginners who just learned how to cube and don't know any cube stores. I do wish amazon reviewers would do more research on cubes, and the redistributor brands would stop making it seem like their cubes.

Just a small rant lol


----------



## povlhp (May 2, 2021)

BenChristman1 said:


> Here’s the first thing that I think of, but I’m sure there’s a faster time than these somewhere.


He is cheating. 
to me, beginners method does not use M slice moves. They are impossible on a rubiks brand.
And beginners method is sexy move to turn corners. At least to me.


----------



## BenChristman1 (May 2, 2021)

povlhp said:


> He is cheating.
> to me, beginners method does not use M slice moves. They are impossible on a rubiks brand.
> And beginners method is sexy move to turn corners. At least to me.


Just because somebody uses the beginner’s method doesn’t mean that they use a Rubik’s brand. In fact, most people who use the beginner’s method probably don’t use a Rubik’s brand, because most people who can solve a cube either do it often enough to invest in a speedcube, or they don’t solve cubes enough to bother buying a speedcube.


----------



## povlhp (May 2, 2021)

BenChristman1 said:


> Just because somebody uses the beginner’s method doesn’t mean that they use a Rubik’s brand. In fact, most people who use the beginner’s method probably don’t use a Rubik’s brand, because most people who can solve a cube either do it often enough to invest in a speedcube, or they don’t solve cubes enough to bother buying a speedcube.


What is beginners method to you ?
Is it anything that does layer by layer ? 
So CMOP ? Cross - middle - OLL - PLL


----------



## xyzzy (May 2, 2021)

povlhp said:


> What is beginners method to you ?
> Is it anything that does layer by layer ?
> So CMOP ? Cross - middle - OLL - PLL


If it's a method that a beginner uses, it's a "beginner's method". Not sure why you're so insistent that beginner's method must be a very specific thing when there are many, many tutorials that teach many, many variations of the basic layer by layer method.

(And for the record, even when I was using a terrible completely non-fingertrickable cube, I still did use slice moves sometimes. (Executed as two normal moves, of course.) Sometimes slice moves are just the most intuitive way to solve something, like inserting a missing edge piece into the first layer.)


----------



## xyzzy (May 5, 2021)

I just noticed that the WCA website now includes scrambles on the competition info page, so you no longer need to dive into the database or use a third-party website (like wcadb.net) to get the scrambles.


----------



## abunickabhi (May 5, 2021)

Yes getting access to scrambles is quicker now. I think this feature was included over a month ago.


----------



## pyrapyravince (May 8, 2021)

xyzzy said:


> If it's a method that a beginner uses, it's a "beginner's method". Not sure why you're so insistent that beginner's method must be a very specific thing when there are many, many tutorials that teach many, many variations of the basic layer by layer method.
> 
> (And for the record, even when I was using a terrible completely non-fingertrickable cube, I still did use slice moves sometimes. (Executed as two normal moves, of course.) Sometimes slice moves are just the most intuitive way to solve something, like inserting a missing edge piece into the first layer.)



Yup. Theres the baby method by gan, and the intermediate beginner method.

Baby method:

Solve the cross
Put in the corners
Put in the edges
F2L COMPLETED
Make a cross on the top with F R U R' U F'.
Reduce all cases to sunes and anti sunes with anti sune
OLL COMPLETED
Permute the corners with J perms.
Solve the edge plls with reverse u perms.
Intermediate beginner method

Solve the cross
Put in corners
Put in edges
F2L COMPLETED
Make a cross on the top with F R U R' U F', and f R U R' U' f'.
Solve the corner olls with the respective algorithms
OLL COMPLETED
Permute the corners with Y perm and J perm.
Solve the edge plls with the respective algorithms.
Some beginner methods use keyhole F2L, which is faster, some beginner methods learn most of the F2Ls. Beginner methods are really mix and match.


----------



## AlgoCuber (May 8, 2021)

pyrapyravince said:


> Solve the cross
> Put in corners
> Put in edges
> F2L COMPLETED
> ...


So basically.

Cross
LBL F2L
2 Look OLL
2 Look PLL
Standard beginner's method


----------



## rubik2005 (May 17, 2021)

Does anyone know what the thing on the back of TheCubicle's business card is supposed to be?


----------



## pyrapyravince (May 18, 2021)

AlgoCuber said:


> So basically.
> 
> Cross
> LBL F2L
> ...



and the cubesolve.com method. Do cross, f2l, solve the edges, solve a corner, and do corner commutators. So weird.


----------



## povlhp (May 18, 2021)

To me beginner methods are the ones that are easy, few algorithms.
The books from around 1980 is surely not a beginners method.
I see the J.Perm method with only 3 simple algorithms (sexy, sune, and the 3 corner swap) as a real beginners method. No letters needed.
If a beginner is taught F2L, it is not really a beginners method. 
I know intuitive F2L can be taught without algorithms.

Using Sune to turn corners and permute edges later is considered beginners method as well, as it is still simple layer-by-layer. I think I read about that method somewhere.


----------



## xyzzy (May 24, 2021)

cursed U perm


----------



## Sub1Hour (May 24, 2021)

xyzzy said:


> cursed U perm


This must be wiped of the face of the earth or so help me I will end this monstrosity


----------



## ruffleduck (May 24, 2021)

i had the strangest dream last night where Tingman did a RUS Ua perm in an official solve but accidentally dropped the cube on the judge's head. And the judge was Tingboy.


----------



## SH03L4C3 (May 24, 2021)

Guys. Daily puzzles now sponsored the largest youcuber with over 2 million subscribers, Mike Boyd XD


----------



## Scollier (May 24, 2021)

SH03L4C3 said:


> Guys. Daily puzzles now sponsored the largest youcuber with over 2 million subscribers, Mike Boyd XD



Woahhhh I saw that video previously but didn't know that they had sponsored him. Congrats to Daily Puzzles!!

Also, RedKB, Cuborithms, and Tingman all commented on the video!!


----------



## Sub1Hour (May 31, 2021)

Remember teir lists? Here's mine, you guys should make some too


----------



## Cubing Forever (May 31, 2021)

Sub1Hour said:


> View attachment 15873
> Remember teir lists? Here's mine, you guys should make some too





Well, here's mine and yes, cloncc is S tier worthy

E: oh wait, I made another one. 


cross with edges oriented is ZZ EOCross, Line with edges oriented is ofc vanilla ZZ, 223 with edges oriented is LEOR, 222 is Petrus


----------



## ruffleduck (May 31, 2021)




----------



## Cubing Forever (May 31, 2021)

zzoomer said:


> View attachment 15879


Nice tier list but I have a suggestion:
Heise and belt go in just stop cubing lol


----------



## Nmile7300 (May 31, 2021)




----------



## rubik2005 (May 31, 2021)

Nmile7300 said:


> View attachment 15883


Why is Shengshou so low?


----------



## Nmile7300 (May 31, 2021)

rubik2005 said:


> Why is Shengshou so low?


D tier is mostly companies that are largely inactive. Also name a shengshou cube thats widely considered the best on the market or even a top contender.


----------



## Cubingcubecuber (May 31, 2021)

Nmile7300 said:


> D tier is mostly companies that are largely inactive. Also name a shengshou cube thats widely considered the best on the market or even a top contender.


Mr m pyra is apparently good


----------



## rubik2005 (May 31, 2021)

Nmile7300 said:


> D tier is mostly companies that are largely inactive. Also name a shengshou cube thats widely considered the best on the market or even a top contender.


19x19, 17x17,14x14 
They're not that bad of a brand. Mr. M series
Its definitely not the best brand, but I see now reason why you put it at the same level as Rubik


----------



## BenChristman1 (May 31, 2021)

rubik2005 said:


> Why is Shengshou so low?


Shengshou doesn’t really have any main-contenders for WCA puzzles, but most of their non-WCA puzzles are really good.


----------



## rubik2005 (May 31, 2021)

BenChristman1 said:


> Shengshou doesn’t really have any main-contenders for WCA puzzles, but most of their non-WCA puzzles are really good.


Right. @Nmile7300 are you basing the tier on WCA puzzles?


----------



## Nmile7300 (May 31, 2021)

rubik2005 said:


> Right. @Nmile7300 are you basing the tier on WCA puzzles?


I didn't base this off on non-WCA because many of the companies on the tier list (I didn't make this) don't even make non WCA cubes. I could make a separate list for non-WCA, but I'd have to remove Valk, Gan, Guoguan, etc. and replace them with companies that only make non-WCA.

EDIT: Non WCA tier list


----------



## ruffleduck (May 31, 2021)

Nmile7300 said:


> View attachment 15883


I agree with all of it except Dayan should be in S tier because a) Dayan cubes are AWESOME b) Dayan means "goose" in Chinese which alongside the holy duck is objectively the best animal.


----------



## Nmile7300 (May 31, 2021)

zzoomer said:


> I agree with all of it except Dayan should be in S tier because a) Dayan cubes are AWESOME b) Dayan means "goose" in Chinese which alongside the holy duck is objectively the best animal.


Yeah for sure. I just feel like they need a more complete lineup of cubes first. Also geese are amazing


----------



## MuaazCubes (Jun 1, 2021)

I found this efficient way to do a checkerboard pattern

when I found this out I was like "wow this is so efficient"


----------



## Cubing Forever (Jun 1, 2021)

controversial tier list since I use bad algs


----------



## RoundUpCubing (Jun 1, 2021)

been a while since i posted, thought this would be fun


----------



## DiamondGolem12 (Jun 1, 2021)

My tier lists idk


----------



## SH03L4C3 (Jun 1, 2021)

I can never make up my mind when doing tier lists but here it is for now


----------



## ruffleduck (Jun 1, 2021)

It's making me cringe seeing so many people overrate 4x4


----------



## Cubing Forever (Jun 1, 2021)

Nmile7300 said:


> View attachment 15883


I agree with all of this but MFJS is S tier because it's products are godly but dirt cheap.
Also, Tier List Thread anyone?


----------



## SH03L4C3 (Jun 1, 2021)

Cubing Forever said:


> Also, Tier List Thread anyone?











The Tier list thread


This thread is for anyone to put their cubing-related tier list and for people to try tier lists that others have found or made. How to try a tier list: 1. Go to https://tiermaker.com/ 2. Search for your tier list or create one. Popular Tier lists...




www.speedsolving.com


----------



## MethodNeutral (Jun 2, 2021)

I wasn't sure where else to post this, but I had a proposal/question about cubing terminology.

As many of us know, "Lookahead" refers to the process of determining what the next step of your solve will be while still executing the current step. This is done to reduce pauses.

However, "Lookahead" is almost exclusively used to refer to the intuitive part of solves. I think there should be a similar term, "Lookinto", which refers to this same concept when applied to the algorithmic part of solves. I don't believe this has a term yet, other than "Prediction" which is often used informally when this topic is discussed.

Some examples of Lookinto include:

[CFOP/ZZ] Predicting AUF after PLL
[CFOP/ZZ] Predicting PLL (or just CP case) after OLL
[CFOP] Using non-standard algs for 2-look OLL in order to predict the second look (link to Jperm's video on the topic)
[Roux] Predicting EO before executing CMLL and/or using a different CMLL alg for a better EO case
[Roux] EOLR (this borders on lookahead since this is an intuitive step, so its inclusion is debatable)
While these are the more-or-less standard applications of Lookinto, there is more potential for the concept. For example, we can choose to use COLL algs which preserve a 1x2x2 block in LL in order to Lookinto EPLL. This can lead to 1LLL for many cases when edges are oriented (does not apply to H/Pi cases).

I'm interested to hear your thoughts! Does this already have a name, or do you think we shouldn't introduce this new term? What other applications of Lookinto can you think of?


----------



## Porcupine01 (Jun 3, 2021)

just realized that, you can make someone say something really stupid


----------



## Porcupine01 (Jun 3, 2021)

Cubing Forever said:


> pineapple pizza is worse than normal pizza


see?


----------



## CrispyCubing (Jun 3, 2021)

MethodNeutral said:


> I wasn't sure where else to post this, but I had a proposal/question about cubing terminology.
> 
> As many of us know, "Lookahead" refers to the process of determining what the next step of your solve will be while still executing the current step. This is done to reduce pauses.
> 
> ...


I think prediction is already a pretty good term to describe this. Even if you don’t completely know what the next alg will be, you can still predict a few pieces.

Do you have other reasons to not use prediction? I don’t see how people using it informally means we need a different special term for it.


----------



## ruffleduck (Jun 3, 2021)

I think this should go in this thread.

I just ordered a black stickered RS3M 2020, a Tengyun 3x3 (v1), and the MGC square-1 from TheCubicle! Very excited to try them out. I will likely make an unboxing video.


----------



## DuckubingCuber347 (Jun 3, 2021)

I had a thought that would go great in the pfp but uhhh.... (*cough* @pjk *cough*) they are currently deactivated so I'll just say it here.

If Phil Yu used Roux would he be refered to as Phil "Roux"?


----------



## Cubing Forever (Jun 4, 2021)

Porcupine01 said:


> PINEAPPLE PIZZA IS THE BEST!!


Did you just say that?


----------



## Waffles (Jun 4, 2021)

Yes I mean I was kind of expecting it to be random but not this strange...


----------



## Waffles (Jun 4, 2021)

Also I have something to actually discuss: does anyone actually use EOLL or something like it? I know COLL is popular because of like recognition and fast algorithms but like most people can do A perms sub 0.8. Yes there is a chance of am E perm but tbh it’s kind of like the Z perm of EOLL.

Also how many algorithms would there be and would it be a waste of time?

Just saying: I’m not actually considering learning it, I was just kind of wondering.


----------



## Porcupine01 (Jun 4, 2021)

Cubing Forever said:


> Did you just say that, I respect it


Ö thanks!


----------



## ruffleduck (Jun 4, 2021)

Waffles said:


> Also I have something to actually discuss: does anyone actually use EOLL or something like it? I know COLL is popular because of like recognition and fast algorithms but like most people can do A perms sub 0.8. Yes there is a chance of am E perm but tbh it’s kind of like the Z perm of EOLL.
> 
> Also how many algorithms would there be and would it be a waste of time?
> 
> Just saying: I’m not actually considering learning it, I was just kind of wondering.


EP recognition is much harder than CP recognition, and A/E perms are slower than U/H/Z in both recognition and speed. I highly doubt anyone uses EOLL and if they do they should stop using it.


----------



## Sub1Hour (Jun 4, 2021)

zzoomer said:


> EP recognition is much harder than CP recognition, and A/E perms are slower than U/H/Z in both recognition and speed. I highly doubt anyone uses EOLL and if they do they should stop using it.


Did you mean to say EP is harder than CP? Cause I'm pretty sure E perm has by far the worst recog


----------



## ruffleduck (Jun 4, 2021)

Sub1Hour said:


> Did you mean to say EP is harder than CP? Cause I'm pretty sure E perm has by far the worst recog


Yeah, that's what I said.


----------



## Sub1Hour (Jun 4, 2021)

The Applicators you get with the angstrom lubes make an excellent cleaning tool for those valk edges that are impossible to clean.


----------



## Waffles (Jun 5, 2021)

Yep kinda expecting that lol


----------



## MethodNeutral (Jun 5, 2021)

CrispyCubing said:


> I think prediction is already a pretty good term to describe this. Even if you don’t completely know what the next alg will be, you can still predict a few pieces.
> 
> Do you have other reasons to not use prediction? I don’t see how people using it informally means we need a different special term for it.



That’s true, I just think the concept could be explored more like in the way I brought up, and by giving it a name we can bring more attention to it. I think prediction is a fine term, but we could have also used “prediction” instead of “lookahead”. By giving it a term I think it warranted more focus from the community, and I think prediction/lookinto deserves more focus.


----------



## rubik2005 (Jun 5, 2021)

Thecubingcuber347 said:


> Can you report someone in CubingTime?


Are talking about Lightyear...? I've had bad experiences with him to say the least, but he hates when I ignore him


----------



## xyzzy (Jun 9, 2021)

Nobody really should be caring about this, but I do have to defend my reputation because Christopher Mowla is, somehow, really upset that I decided to spend time trying to teach him things.

See the edit at: https://www.speedsolving.com/threads/one-answer-puzzle-theory-question-thread.56699/post-1443444



Spoiler: blah blah blah tl;dr



This is a pattern I recognise because we're similar people. We both think we're very smart (I mean, it's true, we both _are_ very smart), and we're both very proud of our work and like to plug it every time we have a chance to. And because I recognise it and I see myself in this, I have to point it out: he _knew_ he wrote his original 2-gen corner permutation proof under rushed time conditions, he _admitted_ that his "proofs" were probably incomplete, he _had been told_ years ago that the proofs were flawed (this wasn't something I sprung on him just last Saturday), and he still plugs his Math StackExchange answer repeatedly.

(To be clear, I don't take issue with the rest of that answer. My only beef is with the 2-gen corner permutation part. Unfortunately, that's also the most interesting part and the part that deserves the most scrutiny.)

Perhaps I should have worded my initial response more cordially, but seeing incorrect proofs repeatedly being posted annoys the hell out of me. You may remember I had a link to a LessWrong article about fake explanations in my signature for about a year (before removing it somewhat more recently). This is exactly the kind of fake explanation I had in mind. (I'm not saying that Christopher is the only offender. He's not even the biggest offender! This is just the most recent incident I can think of.) You can string together a bunch of keywords and maybe give readers an impression that you know what you're talking about, but if it falls apart upon closer inspection, (i) it fails to serve the purpose of an explanation and (ii) now you've tricked less-critical readers into accepting a non-explanation. I consider preventing (ii) from happening to be my life duty.

If your objection is that "at least he tried to write a proof; you haven't!", then I should point out that I actually have, three times over. I just never posted any of them here. One of them exists somewhere in my disorganised pile of notes (this is the outer automorphism proof I sketched in another post), one of them exists on my personal blog, and one of them exists on a different forum. I vaguely had plans to turn one of them into a video lecture but real life and general laziness got in the way. (Maybe I should now, while the topic is still fresh in my mind. If there's only one good thing to come out of this petty dispute…)

ALSO FOR THE NTH TIME I WANT TO MAKE IT CLEAR: I'm trying to _not_ hold any personal grudge against Christopher. Despite his somewhat snarky response in the puzzle theory OAQT (I'm not blind to snark; I'm snarky all the time, how could I be?), I still mentioned him in the hopes that he would find what I wrote interesting and hopefully bury the hatchet there. But nope, eyes-up reaction, for god knows what reason. And let's not forget how he referred to my suggestion of partially disabling animated avatars with a bullet list of points of how it's a bad idea; never mind that I only suggested that as a compromise between disabling animated avatars entirely and still having them on the site, in an attempt to placate as many people as possible.



I half-expect this post to get deleted, but hopefully I'll have made my point clearly enough before that happens.


----------



## Sub1Hour (Jun 12, 2021)

I don’t know how I never realized this before but if you use the speffz letter scheme the right face says poo



Yes, its stupid, but its interesting


----------



## Waffles (Jun 13, 2021)

Sub1Hour said:


> I don’t know how I never realized this before but if you use the speffz letter scheme the right face says pooView attachment 16073
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, its stupid, but its interesting



lol yes my memo for edges once ended with PO and then my corner memo began with OP


----------



## PikachuPlayz_MC (Jun 14, 2021)

It kinda just clicked for my that in order to get a good average of 5, you must keep a tight range of times. idk, just something i noticed yesterday.


----------



## Cubing Forever (Jun 14, 2021)

Breaking news!!
It seems that Jay McNeill has changed his opinion on ZZ. He'll probably make an updated video on ZZ(If you're in the ZMS discord, you probably know this already)


----------



## WarriorCatCuber (Jun 14, 2021)

Cubing Forever said:


> Breaking news!!
> It seems that Jay McNeill has changed his opinion on ZZ. He'll probably make an updated video on ZZ(If you're in the ZMS discord, you probably know this already)


Impossible. What a traitor to the anti-ZZ gang.


Seriously, he has such strong opinions against ZZ, I can't believe he'll change them.


----------



## DuckubingCuber347 (Jun 14, 2021)

Screenshotted this right before @Filipe Teixeira deleted it. You're welcome.


----------



## ruffleduck (Jun 14, 2021)

the cruZZade marches forward!!


----------



## Filipe Teixeira (Jun 14, 2021)

I find ZZ a great method, just like petrus and roux. it's very fun to solve and brilliant.
I wish I had the idea. it would be called the FFF method or FMT method


----------



## DuckubingCuber347 (Jun 15, 2021)

Filipe Teixeira said:


> I find ZZ a great method, just like petrus and roux. it's very fun to solve and brilliant.
> I wish I had the idea. it would be called the FFF method or FMT method


FFF "Fumble, Finish, Fail"


----------



## DuckubingCuber347 (Jun 17, 2021)

We have yet another cube on the forums.


----------



## ProStar (Jun 18, 2021)

Thecubingcuber347 said:


> View attachment 16127
> 
> We have yet another cube gan simp on the forums.



So true


----------



## Cubing Forever (Jun 19, 2021)

Thecubingcuber347 said:


> View attachment 16127
> 
> We have yet another cube on the forums.


@GAN 356 X
this person
@x man tornado v2 (idk correct capitalization so it won't ping)
So we have 3 cubes here


----------



## LBr (Jun 19, 2021)

I find that the zz method is more for the novelty than for practical speedsolving


----------



## ruffleduck (Jun 19, 2021)

LBr said:


> I find that the zz method is more for the novelty than for practical speedsolving


Have you tried EOcross?


----------



## LBr (Jun 19, 2021)

Thecubingcuber347 said:


> View attachment 16127
> 
> We have yet another cube on the forums.


Oh yeah, and lets just get to the point. GAN is a good brand, but it doesn't have the godly status that every beginner thinks it does


----------



## ProStar (Jun 19, 2021)

LBr said:


> Oh yeah, and lets just get to the point. GAN is a good brand, but it doesn't have the godly status that every beginner thinks it does



Gan makes very good cubes. The problem is that they're no better than the cubes that are 1/2 its price (if we're talking about the RS3M or Guhong, it's like 1/6 of the price).


----------



## Filipe Teixeira (Jun 21, 2021)

imagine 20tps heise method


----------



## ruffleduck (Jun 22, 2021)

Thecubingcuber347 said:


> imagine speedsolving with Domino Reduction


----------



## SH03L4C3 (Jun 22, 2021)

If I buy from TC, do I have to pay for shipping when I return something?


----------



## BenChristman1 (Jun 22, 2021)

SH03L4C3 said:


> If I buy from TC, do I have to pay for shipping when I return something?


This page on their site kind of makes it sound like you do, but they don’t outright say it.


----------



## DuckubingCuber347 (Jun 24, 2021)

Yes!!! 347!


----------



## SH03L4C3 (Jun 24, 2021)

Thecubingcuber347 said:


> View attachment 16184
> 
> Yes!!! 347!


dont think about liking that message


----------



## Sub1Hour (Jun 24, 2021)

LBr said:


> Oh yeah, and lets just get to the point. GAN is a good brand, but it doesn't have the godly status that every beginner thinks it does


Don't say it don't say it don't say it don't say it

Okay, I'm gonna say it.



Spoiler: Saying it



Gan cubes are fine, but the company itself is an absolute embarrassment to the community. Ever since 2018 with the release of the Gan 356 X, there has been nothing but recycled mechanisms. The Gan 354 was their last original puzzle. The Gan 356 X has the exact same mechanism excluding customization options and size. As of September 11th of 2018, there has been a total of 3 unique 3x3 piece designs, being the 354/X, XS, and the 11 Pro. Would you like to guess how many 3x3 puzzles Gan has produced (excluding smart cubes and the monster go series) since then? 16. Imagine taking 3 puzzle designs and milking them for 16 puzzles. It's absolutely atrocious. That's not even taking into account that Gan is marketing these puzzles as being completely unique. More than 75% of their releases are the same exact puzzle with different magnets, GES, or plastic coatings. Gan straight up ignores the fact that cubes like the M and X are the exact same puzzles in almost all of their marketing. The way they handle their marketing is anti-consumer at best. Now, the way that Moyu handled the original WRm is much more honest and straightforward. It wasn't perfect, they still marketed the cube as being completely distinct from the GTS3 at first, but at least it was something that people asked for. I remember when the GTS3 first came out and many people were turned off by the strong magnets and ridges. Then Moyu listened to us and gave us a ridgeless puzzle with weak magnets. Never have I met a single person who looked at the Gan X and said, "Oh, I wish this cube had a slightly different GES system with fewer settings and a lack of magnet customization!"

Gan puzzles aren't awful, but their company practices for the last few years have been sad, especially since they were so much more innovative back in the day. 

The moral of the story is to just buy a valk 3



I'll go ahead and make that a spoiler since everyone else on this website is probably sick of me talking about this but I'll go ahead and talk about it again.



LBr said:


> I find that the zz method is more for the novelty than for practical speedsolving


Including subsets like ZZCT, ZZ could possibly be the method of the future, and it's far from being a novelty considering its movecount and high TPS ceiling.


----------



## SH03L4C3 (Jun 24, 2021)

Sub1Hour said:


> Don't say it don't say it don't say it don't say it
> 
> Okay, I'm gonna say it.
> 
> ...


I dont care how long it is, its going in my signature


----------



## Sub1Hour (Jun 24, 2021)

SH03L4C3 said:


> I dont care how long it is, its going in my signature


Im getting flashbacks to when prostars signature was like 50 lines long


----------



## Filipe Teixeira (Jun 24, 2021)

hmmm I think the developers didn't foresee this


----------



## Sub1Hour (Jun 24, 2021)

Who wants to bet on how long @SH03L4C3's signature lasts before the admins take action? I'd say he's got until midnight MDT before it's gone.


----------



## SH03L4C3 (Jun 25, 2021)

Sub1Hour said:


> Who wants to bet on how long @SH03L4C3's signature lasts before the admins take action? I'd say he's got until midnight MDT before it's gone.


its gone XD


----------



## rubik2005 (Jul 1, 2021)

When can stores add a product that hasn't been released and start taking pre-orders for them? TC and SCS have done videos on products that weren't on their site immediately (like the Weilong AI), so do they need to wait until the orders begin to ship on their way to them?


----------



## BenChristman1 (Jul 1, 2021)

I should know this, but how would I go about framecounting a TPS spam?


----------



## ruffleduck (Jul 2, 2021)

BenChristman1 said:


> I should know this, but how would I go about framecounting a TPS spam?


I can do it for you, if you like. If you would prefer to do it yourself, all you have to do is count the number of frames your execution takes then divide it by the FPS to get the time, then divide the number of turns by the time.


----------



## Waffles (Jul 2, 2021)

zzoomer said:


> all you have to do is count the number of frames your execution takes then divide it by the FPS to get the time, then divide the number of turns by the time.



I was going to ask this. Thanks anyway...

Also how can you tell what FPS your camera records in? I’m too lazy to look it up myself.


----------



## ruffleduck (Jul 2, 2021)

Waffles said:


> I was going to ask this. Thanks anyway...
> 
> Also how can you tell what FPS your camera records in? I’m too lazy to look it up myself.


What i do is i just go frame by frame until the second counter increases. the number of frames it took is the FPS. (most cameras are 30FPS, high quality cameras are often 60FPS, if that helps)


----------



## xyzzy (Jul 2, 2021)

Waffles said:


> Also how can you tell what FPS your camera records in?


(i) Your camera should have a frame rate option somewhere. Delve into the settings menu if there is one.
(ii) On your computer, use MediaInfo. (Warning: this will not be accurate when VFR is involved.)
(iii) In whatever video editing software you use, you should be able to see the timecodes of the individual frames. This is especially relevant if you have weird cameras that record in variable frame rate (VFR) while still accurately recording timestamps. In this case, _don't_ actually count frames, but just subtract the start and end times.


----------



## Sub1Hour (Jul 2, 2021)

rubik2005 said:


> When can stores add a product that hasn't been released and start taking pre-orders for them? TC and SCS have done videos on products that weren't on their site immediately (like the Weilong AI), so do they need to wait until the orders begin to ship on their way to them?


I think it’s when the final product packaging and accessories get finalized, the reviews copies of a puzzle are usually just the cube by itself or with any required tools to use adjustment systems


----------



## Sub1Hour (Jul 4, 2021)

I always love the editing of these videos Z3 puts out on holidays 
Happy 4th of July!


----------



## abunickabhi (Jul 4, 2021)

Sub1Hour said:


> I always love the editing of these videos Z3 puts out on holidays
> Happy 4th of July!


Happy Independence's day everyone!

240+ years yay


----------



## Sub1Hour (Jul 5, 2021)

__
http://instagr.am/p/CQcqkiCJ1L1/
I refuse to believe this is from the actual YJ Instagram page
It’s too good to be true


----------



## Waffles (Jul 11, 2021)

I’m driving down the West Gate Freeway, looking out the window, and see a large piece of graffiti saying “Feliks Zemdegs - a legend”

Excuse me, what


----------



## Cubing Forever (Jul 11, 2021)

Waffles said:


> I’m driving down the West Gate Freeway, looking out the window, and see a large piece of graffiti saying “Feliks Zemdegs - a legend”
> 
> Excuse me, what


whoa what? Cubing is really popular in Aus right?


----------



## LBr (Jul 11, 2021)

imagine cubing reaching 'the outside world'!

the speed cubers documentary lol


----------



## Sub1Hour (Jul 11, 2021)

LBr said:


> imagine cubing reaching 'the outside world'!
> 
> the speed cubers documentary lol


Why we cube was also pretty big, but it wasn’t on any streaming platforms, however it did win an award at a film festival, I forgot which one


----------



## DuckubingCuber347 (Jul 11, 2021)

Sub1Hour said:


> Why we cube was also pretty big, but it wasn’t on any streaming platforms, however it did win an award at a film festival, I forgot which one


"Why We Cube" was a beautiful documentary and really inspiring whenever you feel like you hit a roadblock.


----------



## LBr (Jul 11, 2021)

Thecubingcuber347 said:


> "Why We Cube" was a beautiful documentary and really inspiring whenever you feel like you hit a roadblock.


why we cube was as good, but when I have a cube in public, a lot of people refer to the netflix one when they see me cubing in public. Agreed about the whole streaming service thing and that would be the reason more random people have seen it


----------



## DuckubingCuber347 (Jul 11, 2021)

LBr said:


> why we cube was as good, but when I have a cube in public, a lot of people refer to the netflix one when they see me cubing in public. Agreed about the whole streaming service thing and that would be the reason more random people have seen it


"Why We Cube" is more aimed towards cubers while ones like "The Speedcubers" can draw in outside audiences better.


----------



## Waffles (Jul 15, 2021)

zzoomer said:


> I can do it for you, if you like. If you would prefer to do it yourself, all you have to do is count the number of frames your execution takes then divide it by the FPS to get the time, then divide the number of turns by the time.



I’m using my phone’s camera and I want to ask: how can I find the footage, or slow it down enough to see individual frames? I’m assuming it’s not what I initially did, which is go into the photos app and click on the video. If it helps, I’m using a rather old iPhone 6.


----------



## Cubing Forever (Jul 15, 2021)

Waffles said:


> how can I find the footage, or slow it down enough to see individual frames?


Upload it unlisted on YT and then use ">" and "<" keys to move forward or back by one frame


----------



## Waffles (Jul 15, 2021)

Cubing Forever said:


> Upload it unlisted on YT and then use ">" and "<" keys to move forward or back by one frame



kthnx im not sure how i didnt figure that one out


----------



## qwr (Jul 15, 2021)

Waffles said:


> kthnx im not sure how i didnt figure that one out


I wouldn't upload to YouTube because they reduce video quality a lot with compression. Just open it in VLC or any competent video editor/player


----------



## xyzzy (Jul 15, 2021)

qwr said:


> VLC or any competent video editor/player


The implication here is that VLC is not a competent video player
which is absolutely true; use mpv instead

I don't remember off-hand VLC's keybinds for frame-stepping, but in mpv the default keybinds for frame-stepping are , (comma) and . (full stop). (Same as on YouTube, actually, but mpv's seeking is a lot more reliable and you don't have to suffer from random buffering.)


----------



## SH03L4C3 (Jul 15, 2021)

Cubing Forever said:


> Upload it unlisted on YT and then use ">" and "<" keys to move forward or back by one frame


or upload it to drive and have the same features as youtube and do It from there. Also if you are on Iphone, you can slide the slider and do the math to calculate the frames. That is what I do


----------



## LBr (Jul 22, 2021)

I just want to say that while I was cubing today, someone asked me 'are you a speeedcuber?,' I said 'yes.' He told me he was sub 8.5, did a session and got several sub 8 averages of 5, and 3 sub 7 singles. I tried some of his cubes, and instantly I was like a second faster and got lots of 12s.

I also solved my first 6x6, and learned 2 new f2l cases that I would like to share.

For the one with the flipped pair, white facing up, just do U', sledge, insert.

For the one where the corner is in, but the edge is flipped, do sledge, R U' R' U, then solve the case after


----------



## qwr (Jul 22, 2021)

LBr said:


> I tried some of his cubes, and instantly I was like a second faster and got lots of 12s.


so what you're saying is... hardware does matter


----------



## LBr (Jul 22, 2021)

qwr said:


> so what you're saying is... hardware does matter


yeah, but that's not the moral, there isn't one


----------



## Filipe Teixeira (Jul 22, 2021)

LBr said:


> I just want to say that while I was cubing today, someone asked me 'are you a speeedcuber?,' I said 'yes.' He told me he was sub 8.5, did a session and got several sub 8 averages of 5, and 3 sub 7 singles. I tried some of his cubes, and instantly I was like a second faster and got lots of 12s.


That's so cool! I never met a cuber faster than me in person


LBr said:


> I also solved my first 6x6


Congrats!


LBr said:


> For the one with the flipped pair, white facing up, just do U', sledge, insert.
> 
> For the one where the corner is in, but the edge is flipped, do sledge, R U' R' U, then solve the case after


I knew both of them, for second one I tend to leave for the last slot and do EO by inserting a bad edge on the slot, rotating and solving, and a sledge in the end if 3 ll edges are flipped


----------



## qwr (Jul 22, 2021)

yeah sledge is a useful trick because it flips over a bad corner and separates it from the edge


----------



## LBr (Jul 22, 2021)

Filipe you should consider going to a comp provided if one shows up near you, because you have been cubing for 10 years, seem passionate about it and have not gone yet


----------



## Filipe Teixeira (Jul 22, 2021)

LBr said:


> Filipe you should consider going to a comp provided if one shows up near you, because you have been cubing for 10 years, seem passionate about it and have not gone yet


nearest comp is 8h from here D:


----------



## DuckubingCuber347 (Jul 23, 2021)

I thought the TPS was a 3x3 time. Almost had a heart attack


----------



## stwert (Jul 24, 2021)

I am a relatively new cuber and I have been using my right thumb for F and f and my left thumb for F' and f'. Is that a bad habit I should kick or is that fine? I see index finger used more, but I find it awkward to bring it to the front of the cube. How would you fingertrick f(sexy)f'?


----------



## Waffles (Jul 24, 2021)

personally, 

(regrip right thumb to bottom) F with right index, R, U with right index, R' (take right middle finger off cube), U' with left index, F' with right thumb.

(I also sometimes use right index for final F, depends whether I was turning fast enough)


----------



## stwert (Jul 24, 2021)

Waffles said:


> personally,
> 
> (regrip right thumb to bottom) F with right index, R, U with right index, R' (take right middle finger off cube), U' with left index, F' with right thumb.
> 
> (I also sometimes use right index for final F, depends whether I was turning fast enough)


Sorry I was thinking wide f, but I appreciate the reply. I feel like thumb on the bottom back and right index on two layers feels pretty unstable.

But I think I do need to get in the practice of using my index for F and F' or right thumb underneath for F'


----------



## Waffles (Jul 24, 2021)

stwert said:


> Sorry I was thinking wide f, but I appreciate the reply. I feel like thumb on the bottom back and right index on two layers feels pretty unstable.
> 
> But I think I do need to get in the practice of using my index for F and F' or right thumb underneath for F'


It works for me personally. everybody's different

with wide f:

left index on S layer, push, regrip right thumb to DBR, put right index on cube, R U R' U', f' with right index.


----------



## PetrusQuber (Jul 24, 2021)

stwert said:


> I am a relatively new cuber and I have been using my right thumb for F and f and my left thumb for F' and f'. Is that a bad habit I should kick or is that fine? I see index finger used more, but I find it awkward to bring it to the front of the cube. How would you fingertrick f(sexy)f'?


I do it similarly to you, but the other way round (left thumb for F, right thumb for F’)
It depends on the situation and fingertricks following. I don’t see why you’d need to do that, but probably no regrip, use my thumbs to move the wide fs. Maybe even my right index finger on UR.


----------



## Sub1Hour (Jul 24, 2021)

stwert said:


> I am a relatively new cuber and I have been using my right thumb for F and f and my left thumb for F' and f'. Is that a bad habit I should kick or is that fine? I see index finger used more, but I find it awkward to bring it to the front of the cube. How would you fingertrick f(sexy)f'?


I use my right thumb for almost every single F/F'. I do F sexy F' like this
Right thumb on the UFR corner (F Sticker) to push down as the F, do sexy move with right thumb falling on the DRF Edge, (F sticker), then push up to F'
If I'm in a grip where my middle finger is on the UR edge, then I'll do the first F with my index finger, then execute it the exact same way.



Speaking of fingertricks, how many of you guys use the Edio U2? I use it instead of a double flick with my left hand.


----------



## DuckubingCuber347 (Aug 6, 2021)

Twitch


Twitch is the world's leading video platform and community for gamers.




clips.twitch.tv





This is how TheCubicle handles scammers.


----------



## Sub1Hour (Aug 7, 2021)

TheCubingCuber347 said:


> Twitch
> 
> 
> Twitch is the world's leading video platform and community for gamers.
> ...


Imagine if someone was actually on the other end and replied


----------



## kubesolver (Aug 23, 2021)

I was randomly browsing some non-cubing online shop and realized how huge margins these shops must have.


----------



## MeSub20 (Aug 25, 2021)

Anyone want to cube with me via conversation? I am 24 second average


----------



## CFOP INC (Aug 25, 2021)

Does anyone know a good 4x4 oll parity alg.


----------



## xyzzy (Aug 25, 2021)

CFOP INC said:


> Does anyone know a good 4x4 oll parity alg.


Why do you ask?

The one most people use nowadays is:
r U2 x r U2 r U2 r' U2 l U2 r' U2 r U2 r' U2 r'

There's also this other fancy alg that might be worth trying:
R U 2R U R' U' r2 R U2 r2 U r U2 r' U2 r U' r2 U2 r'
(I know of literally no one other than myself who uses this alg, lol. It's not that bad, despite the length.)


----------



## CFOP INC (Aug 25, 2021)

I'm new to 4x4 and I was wondering if there were any better ones.


----------



## CubeRed (Aug 25, 2021)

Sub30cuber said:


> Anyone want to cube with me via conversation? I am 24 second average


I messaged you. What do I do now?


----------



## MeSub20 (Aug 26, 2021)

CubeRed said:


> I messaged you. What do I do now?


now that I have your username we can cube with each other (via conversation so we won't risk hitting the post limit) and post our times on our conversation message board.


----------



## SH03L4C3 (Aug 28, 2021)

Do Any of you cube on your roof? I find it relaxing, especially at sunrise because it's not boiling hot and you can watch the sun as you cube. I like to climb on my roof and pick the highest point to do a few solves. My hands do get sweaty because I am nervous I will fall or drop the cube from the height but you start to get used to it after about a dozen roof sessions. One time I almost fell because I was walking and cubing but the chimney saved me from falling onto the concrete part of our backyard.


----------



## Taysoncube (Oct 16, 2021)

Have you ever missed +2? It often started to happen to me. I don't know if it's right!


----------



## ProStar (Oct 16, 2021)

SH03L4C3 said:


> Do Any of you cube on your roof? I find it relaxing, especially at sunrise because it's not boiling hot and you can watch the sun as you cube. I like to climb on my roof and pick the highest point to do a few solves. My hands do get sweaty because I am nervous I will fall or drop the cube from the height but you start to get used to it after about a dozen roof sessions. One time I almost fell because I was walking and cubing but the chimney saved me from falling onto the concrete part of our backyard.



I used to do that but then I got yelled at

so now I have to do it at night


is putting small text at the bottom of your post still funny? idk anymore


----------



## SH03L4C3 (Oct 16, 2021)

ProStar said:


> I used to do that but then I got yelled at
> 
> so now I have to do it at night
> 
> ...


Its always funny when the neighbors drive by


----------



## CubeRed (Oct 16, 2021)

SH03L4C3 said:


> Its always funny when the neighbors drive by


Hey is that a kid up in the roof? What the hell is he doing there at 6am?


----------



## Filipe Teixeira (Oct 17, 2021)

please revive this puzzle

*quote*

quadplex sim: 37.849 single (uwr probably - i dont know how much qqwref may have played around with it)

I think i've found a decent method for both triplex and quadplex.

sim found here: http://mzrg.com/js/quadplex-u.html
triplex (original and easier version): http://mzrg.com/js/triplex.html
679-751-781-826-840

*end quote*

https://www.speedsolving.com/threads/accomplishment-thread.1688/post-1070034


----------



## Reed Merrill (Oct 17, 2021)

CFOP INC said:


> Does anyone know a good 4x4 oll parity alg.


I use r’ (U2 r U2 r U2) r2 F2 (r’ U2 r’ U2) F2 r2 F2, it's basically a slightly different execution of the most popular alg. The F2 moves feel pretty much like righty U2s


----------



## tsmosher (Oct 18, 2021)

Reed Merrill said:


> I use r’ (U2 r U2 r U2) r2 F2 (r’ U2 r’ U2) F2 r2 F2, it's basically a slightly different execution of the most popular alg. The F2 moves feel pretty much like righty U2s



That looks interesting. I'll have to try that.

I have started to use the inverse of the popular Lucas parity alg. Which flows a lot better in my opinion and can be done without that awkward x regrip at the very beginning.

R U2 R U2 R' U2 R U2 L' U2 Rw U2 R' U2 R' B2 R' (x')

or

R U2 R U2 R' U2 R U2 L' U2 Rw U2 R' U2 R' x' U2 R'


----------



## Filipe Teixeira (Nov 13, 2021)

I just wanted to say that ZZ-r has 16 last layer algs.


----------



## tsmosher (Nov 13, 2021)

Filipe Teixeira said:


> I just wanted to say that ZZ-r has 16 last layer algs.


Requires you to learn EOLine/EOCross and LS phasing concepts though. LS phasing is only easy when your last F2L pair reduces to insertion of a premade pair on the U layer. (Otherwise, you can do a sune to phase edges before OCLL...)

Then 7 OCLL-EPP algs and 9 PLL algs (most of which you probably already know).

One beginners approach I used to teach people was: daisy/cross, F2L, EOLL with phasing (not that many cases/algs), OCLL-EPP, PLL.

EDIT: But most newbies want something simpler than that, such as sune reduction or SVOLL as part of a 4+LLL.


----------



## Cubing Forever (Nov 14, 2021)

Filipe Teixeira said:


> I just wanted to say that ZZ-r has 16 last layer algs.


but ZZ with 2 look PLL has 13 LL algs, of which 7 can just be sune combos(which is better if we're talking about beginner-friendliness)


----------



## ruffleduck (Nov 14, 2021)

but you can solve LL intuitively with 0 algorithms


----------



## Filipe Teixeira (Nov 14, 2021)

zz-r is phasing + 16 algs 2 LOOK


----------



## tsmosher (Nov 14, 2021)

Filipe Teixeira said:


> zz-r is phasing + 16 algs 2 LOOK


It is phasing during LS (1-2 looks), OCLL-EPP, and PLL. So, 3 looks (really 3.5 because I consider it 1 look for LS case and ".5 look" for phasing during insertion).


----------



## CornerTwisted (Jan 17, 2022)

Thank me later.

D2 B2 U2 F2 L2 B2 F2 D2 F2 U2 R' L U2 R' L'


----------



## cuberswoop (Jan 17, 2022)

:confused

Isn't this already in the Wiki?


----------



## IsThatA4x4 (Feb 18, 2022)

Bump (ish)
This is random (obviously) but I made a list of things cubers never say, it's relatively short so I'll probably keep adding to it:
I love parity, it adds so much variety to the events
***some of these may be controversial viewer discretion is advised***
GAN cubes are priced so fairly
That was a +2
A bad time? Must've been a skill issue
Actually I main the GAN 12 maglev peacock edition
I never forget my algs
Rubik's brands are the only real cubes
N perm is hands down the best PLL
Triple parity? That seems fair
Nah I don't need new cubes
I love dot OLLs, I try to force them every solve
Tymon's solves make so much sense, even a baby could follow them
I never do more than one pre-AUF for PLL
2x2 is the most skill-based event
Square-1 notation is the best
I use the Heise method
Of course I don't pause, I would never be sub-optimal
I use a stopwatch to time all my solves
My main event is 21x21
I'm so consistent
Purple internals? Yeah I don't need them
They should add cold handed as an event
I have such accurate turning
Actually I won't count that
U3? I never did such a thing


----------



## qwr (Feb 19, 2022)

IsThatA4x4 said:


> Bump (ish)
> This is random (obviously) but I made a list of things cubers never say, it's relatively short so I'll probably keep adding to it:
> I love parity, it adds so much variety to the events
> ***some of these may be controversial viewer discretion is advised***
> ...


skill issue


----------



## IsThatA4x4 (Feb 19, 2022)

qwr said:


> skill issue


Sums me up pretty well


----------



## mencarikebenaran (Feb 22, 2022)

i just realised that Jb perm is actually : R U R' F' - sexy moves - sledgehammer - F R U' R'
but the undo setup is cancelled.


----------



## AJT17 (Apr 25, 2022)

I just recently magnetized my 10x10, but I think I messed up, because when it is scrambled some of the edges are repelling, and I think I forgot to make sure the polarity was the same with all of the pieces. I might have to get a new one, since when I do an outer layer turn, I can barely get it to turn because of the repelling magnets moving the pieces away.


----------



## CFOP INC (Apr 25, 2022)

That is a big whoopsies there.


----------



## AJT17 (Apr 25, 2022)

CFOP INC said:


> That is a big whoopsies there.


Yeah, I am just a little bit upset about it, although it works fine when it is solved, but that is not the reason I did it, to have it sit around being solved, and nice to do outer layer turns while solved.


----------



## AJT17 (Apr 25, 2022)

I have resorted to just disassembling the 10x10, and will take out the magnets to put them in correctly. I hope I can put the cube back together after, because I have only taken apart up to a 4x4 with even layered cubes.


----------



## xyzzy (Jun 25, 2022)

(Too long to fit in profile post + I probably want to edit this later on.)

Comp wrap-up:

1. First comp I've been to since… 2019? It's been a while.
2. My being face-blind and the mask-wearing makes it really hard to remember people. I'm so sorry; I can't recognise most of the people there.
3. Three events, three PBs. An average of one PB per event isn't too shabby!
4. I may or may not have weirded out my 4×4×4 judge (I think it was Firstian (I'm so sorry I am extremely face-blind)) with my wacky squares method for cross+reduction and my CP+2GLL last layer.
5. I _definitely_ weirded out my 6×6×6 judge, lmao. Said my solves were completely unlike any others he'd seen. (I'm extremely sorry, I don't remember his name/face.) For all I know, Anyu and I were probably the only M-slice edge pairing users there. Average was pretty good, a solid 5+ seconds lower than my usual average. Something something the power of having had only three hours of sleep.
6. OH was… whatever. Double PB, but (i) my last official OH results were bad compared to my global average at the time and (ii) aside from one good single, these results are still bad compared to my global average now. Judge was Chong Wen, congratulated me on my sub-20 single with Antisune ZBLL. 
7. Speaking of, I feel like nerves were a big part of why I choked OH so hard. Big cubes gave me enough time for my mentality to stabilise during the solve, but OH goes by much more quickly _and_ shaky hands are much, much worse on OH than on other events. Probably should've signed up for 222 just to get my nerves on point even if I don't care about that meme event.
8. Also got sort-of-a-PB on Jstris PC Mode in between events: 16 PCs on a touchscreen. (Keyboard PB is 45.)
9. If you saw someone messing around with an FTO on stage, that was me.
10. Idk if I'll be signing up for the FMC+BLD comp in July. Inconvenient for reasons I won't disclose here, but also, more importantly, oh god do I have to practise FMC again

(Did I just name-drop three really good cubers in one single post? I pale in comparison to them in just about everything, lol.)


----------



## xyzzy (Jun 25, 2022)

Imsoosm said:


> Trying to figure out which person is you


Even without this post, it's not too difficult to find my WCA profile, lol. (But keep it to yourself; leave it as a puzzle for the others!)


----------



## Burrito (Aug 31, 2022)

Check out this new cube https://www.speedsolving.com/thread...o-max-pro-max-deluxe-mini-air-air-lite.87736/


----------



## Burrito (Aug 31, 2022)

Does anyone here use the CTCIOOAWIAHA method? (Complete the cube In only one algorithm which is a huge algset)


only 43 quintillion algs 

not that much guys


----------



## qwr (Aug 31, 2022)

Burrito Does Cubes said:


> Does anyone here use the CTCIOOAWIAHA method? (Complete the cube In only one algorithm which is a huge algset)
> 
> 
> only 43 quintillion algs
> ...


I would be quite impressed if you actually had the algorithm you're joking about, since that "Devil's Algorithm" would be afaik a puzzle theory breakthrough









Hamiltonian circuit for the entire 2x2x2 cube group


I have found a Hamiltonian circuit for the entire 2x2x2 cube group (3674160 elements). I note that my solution was developed independently from the solution for the subgroup posted by cubemir. For compactness, I use variables to define sub-sequences of moves. The following conventions are...




www.speedsolving.com






The Devil's Algorithm



edit: I misread and I thought you meant 1 algorithm over and over, not applying a single algorithm like in God's Number


----------



## Burrito (Aug 31, 2022)

Check out this good song Cubing Rap OMG


----------



## AJT17 (Sep 1, 2022)

I just did my 5000th solve


----------



## LBr (Sep 2, 2022)

r U R’ U R’ F R F’ R U2 r’ U r U2 R’ U’ R U’ r’


----------



## LBr (Sep 2, 2022)

WV alg for gun (sides(idk of this is common knowledge))
(U) F’ R U2 R’ U2 R’ F R
The other alg on jperms site is trash compared to this. It’s just insert * pi


----------



## ruffleduck (Sep 3, 2022)

LBr said:


> idk of this is common knowledge


this alg is common knowledge


----------



## Klaudiusz Szyprocinski (Oct 24, 2022)

I was casually solving a 3x3. At the end of the solve, I got the N perm. I proceeded to immediately scramble the cube. At the end of my second solve, I again got an the N perm. I scrambled the cube right away like in the previous solve. On my 3rd solve, I once again got the N perm. At this point I was really scared that I will need to buy a new cube to get rid of this issue. I scrambled the cube to see how high my streak of bugged N perms will continue. I was not surprised during the fourth solve, which obviously ended with the N perm, that I once again refused to solve. Unfortunately I couldn't pull of a whole average of 5 as the last solve resulted in the R perm.

Do you also have any mysterious stories related to cubing?


----------



## Filipe Teixeira (Oct 24, 2022)

cool

for me...
I started cubing in 2010, and never got LL skip when timing
only when casual solving like 5 or 6 times


----------



## Foreright (Oct 24, 2022)

I had 6 CMLL skips in one session of approx. 60 solves the other day - 4 of them in a row and 1 about 3 solves after  I go through some streaks of getting the same CMLL multiple times in a row too - just the way it goes sometimes


----------



## DuckubingCuber347 (Oct 25, 2022)

My last-5 PB ao5's were all full-step solves. I'm incapable of getting lucky.


----------



## ruffleduck (Oct 25, 2022)

The probability of 4 N perms in a row is (2/72)^4 or 0.00006%. Very impressive.


----------



## Abram Grimsley (Oct 25, 2022)

Klaudiusz Szyprocinski said:


> I was casually solving a 3x3. At the end of the solve, I got the N perm. I proceeded to immediately scramble the cube. At the end of my second solve, I again got an the N perm. I scrambled the cube right away like in the previous solve. On my 3rd solve, I once again got the N perm. At this point I was really scared that I will need to buy a new cube to get rid of this issue. I scrambled the cube to see how high my streak of bugged N perms will continue. I was not surprised during the fourth solve, which obviously ended with the N perm, that I once again refused to solve. Unfortunately I couldn't pull of a whole average of 5 as the last solve resulted in the R perm.
> 
> Do you also have any mysterious stories related to cubing?


One time I got 5 v-perms in a row! Lol


----------



## Cubing_Marmot (Oct 25, 2022)

One time I got 3 pll skips in a row. But I was not timing myself...


----------



## Thom S. (Oct 25, 2022)

I once got 5 U Perms in a row.
All Ub
All the same PreAUF
All the Same PostAUF
But different COLL cases, 3 different cases.


----------



## cubenerd74 (Oct 25, 2022)

Cubing_Marmot said:


> One time I got 3 pll skips in a row. But I was not timing myself...


rip


----------



## OldSwiss (Oct 25, 2022)

I also think that I get the same PLL in a row quite more often than mathematics would tell.
I never had 6 but 3 or 4 in a row.

Maybe one explanation is that you don't count the first one if you don't wait for a specific pll. So 3 in a row is more like 2 if you don't wait for a specific pll. But with 5 or 6 this effect is not so big anymore.


One strange thing for me: all my PB are foll step. 
Every time i get a skip, I've made some mistakes or a very bad F2L earlier in the solve and already lost the time that I save from the skip


----------



## Foreright (Oct 25, 2022)

OldSwiss said:


> One strange thing for me: all my PB are foll step.
> Every time i get a skip, I've made some mistakes or a very bad F2L earlier in the solve and already lost the time that I save from the skip



I think this is pretty normal - whenever I get step skips (I'm using Roux - generally CMLL skip) it totally screws with me and it often takes 2 or 3 seconds to realize why I can't recognise the case  Looking at my spreadsheet, of my 20 best times only two (PB3 and PB5) have a CMLL skip, the rest are all full step.


----------



## abunickabhi (Oct 25, 2022)

Thom S. said:


> I once got 5 U Perms in a row.
> All Ub
> All the same PreAUF
> All the Same PostAUF
> But different COLL cases, 3 different cases.


If you are doing COLL, then it is not lucky.

Getting U perms in a row has more odds.


----------



## Swagrid (Oct 25, 2022)

throughout the month of May I was absolutely on fire for LL skips. Normally I get around1/300 but for that month it damn near cut in half to about 1/145.


----------



## NigelTheCuber (Oct 25, 2022)

Once I got a LL skip, but that was during oh and I didn't even get a pb


----------



## Filipe Teixeira (Oct 25, 2022)

abunickabhi said:


> If you are doing COLL, then it is not lucky.
> 
> Getting U perms in a row has more odds.


ohhhhhhhhh the luck police arrived


----------



## Megaminx lover (Oct 25, 2022)

I handscrambled the same scramble 3 times in a row


----------



## AJT17 (Oct 25, 2022)

Megaminx lover said:


> I handscrambled the same scramble 3 times in a row


That is not very uncommon, since your hand will get used to a certain pattern, so you get the same scramble multiple times.


----------



## Thom S. (Oct 25, 2022)

abunickabhi said:


> If you are doing COLL, then it is not lucky.
> 
> Getting U perms in a row has more odds.


Indeed, as each U Perm has like a 1 in 4 chance.
But usually it's just getting U Perms.
Both the same PreAUF and PostAUF is still quite more lucky.



OldSwiss said:


> I also think that I get the same PLL in a row quite more often than mathematics would tell.


Statistics for things that have 0.00006%, like in a post above, may not make sense, even if your sample size is in the 5 Digits. If you do 100 Million solves, the curve should flatten out to what the statistic says.
You also have to remember, ignoring angle-independent PLLs like H Perm, if you get 1 Ua Perm, it's no different if you next get 4 F Perms or F, Ub, Ja, A. Both have the same chance, you just find one of them more lucky than the other.


----------



## ruffleduck (Oct 25, 2022)

abunickabhi said:


> If you are doing COLL, then it is not lucky.


(1/48)^4 = 1 in 5,308,416 chance. I would consider that pretty lucky.


----------



## abunickabhi (Oct 26, 2022)

ruffleduck said:


> (1/48)^4 = 1 in 5,308,416 chance. I would consider that pretty lucky.


Okay I agree with you. My bad.


----------



## espeed (Oct 27, 2022)

Random thought: I realised what kept me away from improving my F2L the most is the sheer organisation of F2L cases. It confuses me that cases are not just mirrored, but it's mirror + rotation because FR slot is always the assumed target slot. Then again pieces in wrong slot (like on speedcubedb) confuses me more. Also the mirror + rotation algorithm is not always included in the mirror + rotation case. So one has to find the case pairs (which is easy on LS but not that easy in wrong slot cases) and mirror it.

Also different U positions make a whole other difference, which is not made explicit in most resources. One has to dig thorugh the alg alternatives.


----------



## Filipe Teixeira (Nov 10, 2022)

I've got an idea
3x3 / tetris relay
you have 15sec inspection, solve 3x3, then do tetris 40L and subtract 3 seconds from the total (the 3 seconds you have to wait for the tetris session to start)
what do you guys think?
for me sub2:15 would be super fast


----------



## NONOGamer12 (Nov 10, 2022)

POV Discord


----------



## Fukuoka Kengo James (Nov 14, 2022)

Does anyone think that this looks like a square-1


----------



## Fukuoka Kengo James (Nov 15, 2022)

This should look more like a square-1


----------



## cubenerd74 (Nov 16, 2022)

I once got a LL skip during oh but i screwed up F2L so badly that it was just a normal time(this is my only LL skip ever btw)


----------



## CubeGuy321 (Nov 26, 2022)

HI guys i made a google form for cubers 








Cuberism Cubing Forum







docs.google.com


----------



## Filipe Teixeira (Nov 28, 2022)

I found a good drill to practice tps spam and getting muscle memory on alg inverses

if you want to learn two cases that are inverses of each other, do:

1. alg (setup to inverse)
2. inverse (solve the setup)
3. inverse (setup to alg)
4. alg (solve the setup)

repeat from number 1

that helps with alg recogniton and muscle memory. (I'm doing to drill COLL inverses)


----------



## LBr (Nov 28, 2022)

Me: the UK isn’t good at cubing, but we do have 1 world record.
Dad: what event is it?
Me: clock average
Dad: Ohhhhh…..
Me: yeahh…
Dad: it’s not even a 3 dimensional puzzle (smh)


----------



## Filipe Teixeira (Nov 28, 2022)

LBr said:


> Me: the UK isn’t good at cubing, but we do have 1 world record.
> Dad: what event is it?
> Me: clock average
> Dad: Ohhhhh…..
> ...


dang I have to get a clonk but it's a little expesive with the taxes
EDIT: and I got a good magnetic skewb and barely touched it since I got it


----------



## OldSwiss (Nov 30, 2022)

Filipe Teixeira said:


> I found a good drill to practice tps spam and getting muscle memory on alg inverses
> 
> if you want to learn two cases that are inverses of each other, do:
> 
> ...



That reminds me that I made a cool Excel List with all the OLL Cases and their relations to each other.
Sometimes (like Sune and Antisune) you see it directly because the Algs are reversed, but sometimes you don't learn the reverse Alg because of Fingertricks, Lefty... In these cases it's good to know.
That helped me a lot to learn Full OLL. I've always learned a couple of OLL together as pairs of inverse Algs.

Unfortunately I lost it at a recent HD Crash :-(
This was not in the Backup yet.
Maybe I do it again.


----------



## gsingh (Nov 30, 2022)

CubeGuy321 said:


> HI guys i made a google form for cubers
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Why is this an option


----------



## Fukuoka Kengo James (Nov 30, 2022)

gsingh said:


> View attachment 21325
> Why is this an option


In case Tymon and Max Park fill in this form XD


----------



## Filipe Teixeira (Nov 30, 2022)

Fukuoka Kengo James said:


> In case Tymon and Max Park fill in this form XD


inclusion lololol


----------



## Filipe Teixeira (Nov 30, 2022)

CubeGuy321 said:


> HI guys i made a google form for cubers
> 
> 
> 
> ...


it asks the average twice


----------



## PikachuPlayz_MC (Dec 7, 2022)

you know what's so crazy to me, all cubers who take a break can come back after a few months and just be as good if not better when they stopped. I recently took a long break from cubing and branched off into other things utilizing my finger dexterity. but I can still average about 13 seconds after a warm up.


----------



## Thom S. (Dec 8, 2022)

PikachuPlayz_MC said:


> you know what's so crazy to me, all cubers who take a break can come back after a few months and just be as good if not better when they stopped. I recently took a long break from cubing and branched off into other things utilizing my finger dexterity. but I can still average about 13 seconds after a warm up.


I dropped 15 seconds in a few months


----------



## EngiNerdBrian (Dec 8, 2022)

PikachuPlayz_MC said:


> you know what's so crazy to me, all cubers who take a break can come back after a few months and just be as good if not better when they stopped. I recently took a long break from cubing and branched off into other things utilizing my finger dexterity. but I can still average about 13 seconds after a warm up.


What other activities did you do to utilize finger dexterity?


----------



## Everyone (Dec 10, 2022)

Notation is very hard to remember
Someone please give me a guide, I can’t even do the example solve forum for this.
I do know R goes up and U goes left, so L would go down and D would go right. Z turns up and down in some way but I can’t remember.


----------



## joshsailscga (Dec 11, 2022)

Everyone said:


> Notation is very hard to remember
> Someone please give me a guide, I can’t even do the example solve forum for this.
> I do know R goes up and U goes left, so L would go down and D would go right. Z turns up and down in some way but I can’t remember.


Instead of thinking of left and up etc, it is clockwise for each face. " U " is clockwise when looking at the U face, and " U' " is counterclockwise.
x, y, and z rotations follow R, U, and F moves respectively.

Example using your left/right/up/down notation (but move on from that as quickly as you can):
R U R' U' x y' means " R up, U left, R down, U right, F face becomes U face, F face becomes R face "


----------



## OldSwiss (Dec 12, 2022)

Everyone said:


> Notation is very hard to remember
> Someone please give me a guide, I can’t even do the example solve forum for this.
> I do know R goes up and U goes left, so L would go down and D would go right. Z turns up and down in some way but I can’t remember.


One thing that really helps to learn notation is using a smart cube.
Depending on the software they follow you trough the scramble with animations or tell you at least if you are wrong 
After a couple of scrambles you know where to turn.

And it's also fun to track your solves and times.


If you don't have a smartcube you can use 




__





CubeDB - Online Reconstruction Tool






cubedb.net





You can either copy/paste into the scramble field to see how the scramble looks like or leave the scramble field empty and copy the scramble into the "enter moves here" field to see the steps of the scramble.

2x2 and 3x3 Notation is not so hard to lean. 
For Scrambles it's just 6 layers clockwise or counterclockwise, for algs sometimes 3 more for slice moves but probably you don't need these. 
I've never did S and E moves
Scrambling a big cube is a thing of it's own, I still didn't learn after half a year of cubing


----------



## PikachuPlayz_MC (Dec 15, 2022)

EngiNerdBrian said:


> What other activities did you do to utilize finger dexterity?


fnigerboarding.


----------



## Cuber.Hello.com(: (Dec 15, 2022)

PikachuPlayz_MC said:


> fnigerboarding.


That's cool. Are you good at it? Do you even have one of those cute little boards?


----------



## Filipe Teixeira (Dec 15, 2022)

Cuber.Hello.com(: said:


> That's cool. Are you good at it? Do you even have one of those cute little boards?


Fingerboarding is RAD

back in 2004 used to make my own fingerboards

I didn't have money to buy a tech deck so I would get a cheap ruler and a lighter to make the nose and tail, with no trucks or wheels at all, just to do the flips and slides on my bed (that made it easier to do the tricks) on homemade obstacles

oh good times


----------



## Caden Fisher (Dec 15, 2022)

PikachuPlayz_MC said:


> fnigerboarding.


Same! Im really bad though. I’m still learning to kickflip


----------



## Caden Fisher (Dec 15, 2022)

Just got a cool impossible flip off of my diy shoebox stair set








IMG_2701


Watch "IMG_2701" on Streamable.




streamable.com


----------



## Filipe Teixeira (Dec 16, 2022)

Caden Fisher said:


> Just got a cool impossible flip off of my diy shoebox stair set
> 
> 
> 
> ...


cool
try doing front foot impossibles, is easier than an impossible


----------



## Caden Fisher (Dec 16, 2022)

Filipe Teixeira said:


> cool
> try doing front foot impossibles, is easier than an impossible


Thanks! I will


----------



## Everyone (Dec 20, 2022)

How do I get under 1 minute? My record is 1:40 seconds.


----------



## Filipe Teixeira (Dec 20, 2022)

Everyone said:


> How do I get under 1 minute? My record is 1:40 seconds.


https://www.speedsolving.com/threads/how-to-get-faster-roadmaps.74737/


----------



## Manxkiwi (Dec 21, 2022)

joshsailscga said:


> x, y, and z rotations follow R, U, and F moves respectively.


Thank you, I have struggled to remember which way x, y & z go quickly, without referencing notes. I think this has just solved my problem. Quite simple now I look at it, but I had a problem locking it in.


----------



## EthanMCuber (Dec 21, 2022)

Does anyone know what the WR is for the Rubik’s Impossible (or if there is one)? I solved it in about 30 minutes, but I used notes, so I was wondering if I could try to go for WR.


----------



## Cuber.Hello.com(: (Dec 21, 2022)

You solved the Impossible Cube? It's impossible!


----------



## Jorian Meeuse (Dec 21, 2022)

EthanMCuber said:


> Does anyone know what the WR is for the Rubik’s Impossible (or if there is one)? I solved it in about 30 minutes, but I used notes, so I was wondering if I could try to go for WR.


Well idk what the WR is but it's definitely not 30 minutes:


----------



## EthanMCuber (Dec 21, 2022)

Cuber.Hello.com(: said:


> You solved the Impossible Cube? It's impossible!


It’s not, it’s just hard. I’m making a YouTube video on it, will post that on the forum once I’m done editing it.


----------



## Manxkiwi (Dec 21, 2022)

I think he was being facetious!
I have an 'impossible' and I must say what a terrible excuse for a cube it is! The idea is fun, but the physical cube is abysmal. In 2022 when you can get great speed cubes for $5, I dont think Rubiks can hold their heads high over this cube. It's worse than the 'regular' cube they make, by far.
Anyway, rant over. Merry Christmas everyone..


----------



## lucazdoescubingstuff (Dec 22, 2022)

who here agrees that kilominx should be an official wca event


----------



## DuckubingCuber347 (Dec 22, 2022)

Manxkiwi said:


> I think he was being facetious!
> I have an 'impossible' and I must say what a terrible excuse for a cube it is! The idea is fun, but the physical cube is abysmal. In 2022 when you can get great speed cubes for $5, I dont think Rubiks can hold their heads high over this cube. It's worse than the 'regular' cube they make, by far.
> Anyway, rant over. Merry Christmas everyone..


You missed something. The Rubik's impossible isn't supposed to be a speed cube at all. It's a novelty puzzle and turns quite well for a Rubik's brand puzzle in my opinion. If you want a $5 speedcube go ahead and get one. That's not what the Impossible is. Rubik's largely tailors to puzzle solvers, not speedcubers.


----------



## Manxkiwi (Dec 23, 2022)

I know it's not supposed to be a speed cube. My point was that in 2022 there is no excuse to make such a terrible cube. As I stated, I have one and it's way worse than the regular Rubik's 3x3 imo. I wouldn't expect it to be like a speed cube, it was a comparative statement that even the cheapest cubes are pretty good. The 'Impossible' is absolutely atrocious!! It's not like they're new to cube manufacturing is it?
Anyway, as also stated, I was just having a bit of a rant


----------



## Running for cube (Dec 23, 2022)

Team blind should be an event. Who agrees?


----------



## Thom S. (Dec 23, 2022)

Manxkiwi said:


> I know it's not supposed to be a speed cube. My point was that in 2022 there is no excuse to make such a terrible cube. As I stated, I have one and it's way worse than the regular Rubik's 3x3 imo. I wouldn't expect it to be like a speed cube, it was a comparative statement that even the cheapest cubes are pretty good. The 'Impossible' is absolutely atrocious!! It's not like they're new to cube manufacturing is it?
> Anyway, as also stated, I was just having a bit of a rant


Remember that even cubes turning bad by todays standard need really high tolerances for their plastic injection moulding.


Running for cube said:


> Team blind should be an event. Who agrees?


No. Makes you have cubing friends in order to compete in every event. Also, it will be very, possibly too noisy in comps


----------



## L1meDaBestest (Dec 29, 2022)

Running for cube said:


> Team blind should be an event. Who agrees?


Team blind certainly is fun. How would they rank it though? Would the world record go to 2 people, and could someone on the world record team also be a member of the WR2 team? Is there a distinction between the solver and the speaker or would they change positions throughout the average? Definitely would be cool to be an event although there's a lot that needs to be thought about and changed in the ranking system so it probably shouldn't be an event.


----------



## Fukuoka Kengo James (Dec 30, 2022)

Just wondering if gear cuboid is possible…


----------



## Running for cube (Dec 30, 2022)

I bet you could do it.


----------



## Fukuoka Kengo James (Dec 30, 2022)

Fukuoka Kengo James said:


> Just wondering if gear cuboid is possible…


Something like gear 3x3x5 would be really fun. Considering that gear 5x5 exists, we know that it is possible to have 5 layers in a gear cube.


----------



## d--- (Dec 31, 2022)

Running for cube said:


> Team blind should be an event. Who agrees?


Ooooo absolutely


----------



## Thom S. (Dec 31, 2022)

Fukuoka Kengo James said:


> Just wondering if gear cuboid is possible…


3x3x5 might be possible in the sense that different tooth gears mesh if they have the same module. 
But you face the problem that the mechanism needs to fit inside the 3x3x3 space which makes the outer pieces very hard hard to find a way to get them moving. Then you need to remember that the long faces can only be turned with a 4 move.
I'd givt the idea to manufacturers but this is a rather amitious idea.


----------



## Running for cube (Dec 31, 2022)

The way that they have ranked mirror cube is that the teller inspects for 15 seconds and then tells the executioner what to do. The overall time is ranked. Idk if they switch people though. Both of the people earn the prize money.


----------



## Fukuoka Kengo James (Monday at 6:54 AM)

Does anyone know what's the UWR of rayminx? 

There is a 12-hour full solve video on youtube:


----------



## xyzzy (Monday at 8:59 AM)

Manxkiwi said:


> I know it's not supposed to be a speed cube. My point was that in 2022 there is no excuse to make such a terrible cube. As I stated, I have one and it's way worse than the regular Rubik's 3x3 imo. I wouldn't expect it to be like a speed cube, it was a comparative statement that even the cheapest cubes are pretty good. The 'Impossible' is absolutely atrocious!! It's not like they're new to cube manufacturing is it?


There actually _is_ an excuse. On a puzzle like this, you absolutely do not want to have pops or corner twists happening, making a difficult-to-solve puzzle into one that really is literally impossible to solve. The turning may be sub-par, but it's good enough.

Now, whether the designer/manufacturer thought of this angle when they made the puzzle, we have no way of knowing.


----------



## Fukuoka Kengo James (Monday at 1:49 PM)

Have anyone seen a transparent moyu cube stand before?


----------



## Cuber.Hello.com(: (Monday at 1:50 PM)

Fukuoka Kengo James said:


> View attachment 21641
> 
> Have anyone seen a transparent moyu cube stand before?


No. It looks pretty slick though.


----------



## Manxkiwi (Monday at 9:50 PM)

xyzzy said:


> There actually _is_ an excuse. On a puzzle like this, you absolutely do not want to have pops or corner twists happening, making a difficult-to-solve puzzle into one that really is literally impossible to solve. The turning may be sub-par, but it's good enough.
> 
> Now, whether the designer/manufacturer thought of this angle when they made the puzzle, we have no way of knowing.


That's a good point, one I hadn't considered. But I still dont think it needs to be quite so appalling! It's way worse than the regular Rubik's, which doesn't come close to corner twisting.


----------



## Caden Fisher (Tuesday at 3:00 AM)

I had an idea for a puzzle. A 3x3 with sliding tiles. It would be hard to make because the tiles would fall out half way through turns, but it would be pretty cool. You could have one with colors and maybe even an 8 puzzle one. That would be fun to solve. I’m not good at editing so I don’t have a pic though


----------



## Fukuoka Kengo James (Tuesday at 4:50 AM)

Caden Fisher said:


> I had an idea for a puzzle. A 3x3 with sliding tiles. It would be hard to make because the tiles would fall out half way through turns, but it would be pretty cool. You could have one with colors and maybe even an 8 puzzle one. That would be fun to solve. I’m not good at editing so I don’t have a pic though


Tiles will need magnets to be held in place.


----------



## Caden Fisher (Tuesday at 5:11 AM)

Fukuoka Kengo James said:


> Tiles will need magnets to be held in place.


Sounds like a good job for you then. Lol


----------



## sDLfj (Tuesday at 12:23 PM)

Caden Fisher said:


> I had an idea for a puzzle. A 3x3 with sliding tiles. It would be hard to make because the tiles would fall out half way through turns, but it would be pretty cool. You could have one with colors and maybe even an 8 puzzle one. That would be fun to solve. I’m not good at editing so I don’t have a pic though


They make something similar to this now. It's called a Rubik's Slide.


----------



## Caden Fisher (Tuesday at 9:01 PM)

sDLfj said:


> They make something similar to this now. It's called a Rubik's Slide.
> 
> View attachment 21647


Cool! Thanks for sharing!


----------



## Running for cube (Tuesday at 9:12 PM)

I just came up with a new idea for an event: blind fmc. You use a mirror cube instead of a normal cube and are blindfolded. Writing notes might be hard tho.


----------



## d--- (Tuesday at 10:05 PM)

Have a notaror beside you, who writes stuff down and reads it out. 
Time limit?


----------



## Garf (Tuesday at 10:09 PM)

Running for cube said:


> I just came up with a new idea for an event: blind fmc. You use a mirror cube instead of a normal cube and are blindfolded. Writing notes might be hard tho.





d--- said:


> Have a notaror beside you, who writes stuff down and reads it out.
> Time limit?


Is it just me, or does this sound like a type of team FMC?


----------



## ProStar (Tuesday at 10:18 PM)

I seem to recall someone doing all WCA events blindfolded at some point, but I can’t remember who it was. Included in “all WCA events” was of course FMC. I don’t remember for sure how they did it, though. @Mike Hughey are you perhaps the one who did it?


----------



## Running for cube (Tuesday at 10:26 PM)

That was Graham I think, but I didn’t watch the vid so I can’t be sure. The mega guildford.


----------



## Mike Hughey (Wednesday at 12:03 AM)

ProStar said:


> I seem to recall someone doing all WCA events blindfolded at some point, but I can’t remember who it was. Included in “all WCA events” was of course FMC. I don’t remember for sure how they did it, though. @Mike Hughey are you perhaps the one who did it?


I was attempting to do it at one point; I never did all events in one week, and certainly not in a single attempt, but I have done every event individually blindfolded (including feet, magic, and master magic!). The FMC was crazy and I was only able to do it because it was before the 80 move maximum rule - I did it in 118 moves. My rule was that I could spend as long as I wanted staring at the solved cube and the scramble, but then had to pull on the blindfold before starting to write down the solution. (The justification is that the blindfold must be on during the entire solving phase, and so that means no turning the cube before donning the blindfold, and no writing the solution either since that's the important part of FMC.) At the time, it wasn't necessarily true that you had a picture to go off of (and anyway my color scheme is wrong for the typical picture), so the approach was to use the scramble to work out where each piece was by tracing it through the scramble, then memorize the configuration BLD-style. Then you could pull on the blindfold and write down your BLD solution. Once the blindfold is on, you are of course allowed to turn the cube, which can be helpful to make sure you don't make mistakes writing down the moves. But it is hard keeping track of where to put your pen for the next algorithm as you're writing them down.

In order to do this with the 80 move rule now, it would probably be necessary to do it speed-BLD style instead. Which would really be crazy hard.

My FMC solution was here; at the time it was the UWR:








Weekly competition 2010-04


3x3 OH: 33.85, 26.23, 27.44, 29.93, 33.06 current avg5: 30.14




www.speedsolving.com





Daniel Sheppard was actually the first to do it; that was here:








Weekly competition 2010-02


3x3x3 MultiBLD: 10/12 59:00.00 40 minutes memo. Total time was 58:xx. Triple checked everything. No recall delay lasted more than 5 seconds. Execution mistake on second last cube because I was rushing. Something went wrong with the first cube but I can't find out why because apparently I...




www.speedsolving.com


----------



## ProStar (Wednesday at 1:20 AM)

Mike Hughey said:


> I was attempting to do it at one point; I never did all events in one week, and certainly not in a single attempt, but I have done every event individually blindfolded (including feet, magic, and master magic!). The FMC was crazy and I was only able to do it because it was before the 80 move maximum rule - I did it in 118 moves. My rule was that I could spend as long as I wanted staring at the solved cube and the scramble, but then had to pull on the blindfold before starting to write down the solution. (The justification is that the blindfold must be on during the entire solving phase, and so that means no turning the cube before donning the blindfold, and no writing the solution either since that's the important part of FMC.) At the time, it wasn't necessarily true that you had a picture to go off of (and anyway my color scheme is wrong for the typical picture), so the approach was to use the scramble to work out where each piece was by tracing it through the scramble, then memorize the configuration BLD-style. Then you could pull on the blindfold and write down your BLD solution. Once the blindfold is on, you are of course allowed to turn the cube, which can be helpful to make sure you don't make mistakes writing down the moves. But it is hard keeping track of where to put your pen for the next algorithm as you're writing them down.
> 
> In order to do this with the 80 move rule now, it would probably be necessary to do it speed-BLD style instead. Which would really be crazy hard.
> 
> ...



As someone bad at BLD, this seems incredibly impressive; more so than 5BLD


----------

