# Weekly competition 2008-12



## AvGalen (Mar 18, 2008)

*2x2x2*
*1. *L2 D L B' D2 R2 D' B2 L F2 D2 R' D2 B' D2 R F2 U' B' U R' B2 D2 L' F2
*2. *D' L2 U L' U L D2 L' U2 R' F2 D F' R F' U F' U B2 L2 F' D' R' B2 D
*3. *U' R' D' L2 F' U2 L' U R' U L D' R2 D2 L D' L2 F' R B2 R B2 L2 D R
*4. *R U2 F2 D' R' U R2 F' U2 F D L' D2 L2 D F U2 B R' U2 R2 B D R D'
*5. *F2 L' F L' D2 F' U F2 L2 F' R' U2 L2 D2 L' F R2 U' F D2 L F R D' B2

*3x3x3*
*1. *D L' R D2 U2 L R U2 B D' R' B F' U R' B F2 L R2 U L2 R' D2 F2 D
*2. *F R' D2 U2 B2 L' R' D' B2 D2 B' D F2 L R F L' F R2 D B U F2 L' R2
*3. *R F' L D' U2 R' D2 U L R' B D2 B' R D2 U' R B2 F D' U2 R D' U' L2
*4. *D L2 B' R2 F L D2 F2 L2 R F L2 F D2 U R2 D' L' R2 U' F L R D' F
*5. *D2 R2 D' B D B2 L' B D' U' B' D2 U B2 F D2 U' L' R2 B' F' L2 U' F' U2

*4x4x4*
*1. *D B F2 U' B R2 F' r2 R2 U2 L2 B f' F r2 B L' r' R2 B' f' F2 L' B f u f L' B' D' L r2 B2 f F' u2 f' D L' R2
*2. *D2 U' B u' U' B2 u' r B' u B2 f D' u' f2 u2 B2 L r F' D f2 F R' u2 R' B' U2 L F D2 u' U L2 U' L2 D2 U' R' F2
*3. *F R' U F' U' B2 f F r' u2 B' U f' D u U' R2 B' u R2 D f L2 r2 R2 D u B2 f F' D' R' f2 r2 F' u U2 R2 D2 U'
*4. *D2 U2 r' B' R B' D2 r2 R' D2 u' U' F u2 U' L r2 R2 f L r u2 L u2 U' F' L2 u L r B F D' U2 B2 r2 u' L r' R'
*5. *L r u L2 R' f2 L' r' u2 U2 B' f2 F2 U' B f2 R2 D u' U' L' u U2 r R U2 F' L r F R' f' u' U' r D' U2 R' B2 L'

*5x5x5*
*1. *B' b l' F d2 L2 B' R2 B2 b f2 F2 R2 U L' D' B2 U2 f2 L' D' L f2 D2 B U2 F' L' d2 F2 d' l2 D d u' U F' D d l b l r2 D2 u U2 R D d' u' U2 R' U' L' U' F2 D F2 l D2
*2. *D' d' U' F' D' d' u' L r' u2 l R2 B d' u2 U' B' D' d' u2 B2 b2 F2 r2 b2 L2 l2 r R d u' B2 l B u B2 b' L2 b D' R2 B r2 R' f2 U' B b F2 L' l' R' D' u R2 B' F D' B L2
*3. *D2 u2 B2 F D F u F L' l B f' l2 D B2 L2 r u2 B' b F l' U L l B2 b2 f' F D r' B' f' F U B2 u' l' r' B2 R' B D R' u F' d2 u' b U' L2 B2 b2 F' l D' d2 u' U F'
*4. *D2 u2 b2 f l R2 d B b2 f L' R2 F' D2 u U l' R' D B b f F L' r R B l2 F' L l' r R' u F2 d2 B' F' D' U2 B' b R2 B2 d2 U f2 F D u2 B2 l' u B' f L2 l' r R' D
*5. *r' D l' u2 B' f2 F2 r D' R' U2 b' D u2 L U l R' B l b2 d2 U2 F' D2 u2 U l2 d2 u2 L B' b' F' L B b' f F r u' F' l2 D2 d' u R U2 B D' f' F2 L B' D d2 u2 U l' f2

*2x2x2 Blindfolded*
*1. *U' F' D' L2 B' L' D2 B2 U F2 R' U B L F2 U L2 F U R' D F' L B U
*2. *U' R' U' R2 F2 R F R2 D' F2 R B L U2 L2 U2 R2 F2 D L D' B' R2 B' R2
*3. *U B' U' B' L' D' R B' D2 B' U F' L2 U' L' U L' U2 L' F' D' F2 L2 F2 R2

*3x3x3 Blindfolded*
*1. *B' F L2 U F2 R' B' F2 L' B2 F2 D' L' U2 L R D U2 L D' L D' U R2 B2
*2. *D2 U F2 R2 F L B2 F' R D2 B F2 D U R' U2 B F' D L R B' U B2 U
*3. *U L' R2 D' B L' R B2 F' D2 U' F2 L R2 D2 U' R' U' B' F2 R' U B U' F2

*4x4x4 Blindfolded*
*1. *f2 L B2 r2 B2 f' F2 r2 R2 B2 f' L r' B D' u U2 L' D F' R B2 u' U' B' L' r2 R' f F' L' r2 R2 F U' B R2 u2 B D
*2. *L' r u B2 D r f r D' u' f' R' B' f' F2 U2 L2 r2 U2 B L D' B D2 R2 D2 u2 B' f' F U' F' r R' f' D u2 U' r' f'
*3. *U L r R2 D' u L' r B' U B r D R' u' r B f' F2 U f2 r2 U' r u' f' D' f D2 L' R f' L' U R B U2 L' u2 U'

*5x5x5 Blindfolded*
*1. *u' b u' B2 L' r2 R' B' b2 f d u' U' B f2 D2 B2 r B' R2 U l2 r' R' F2 u2 R2 D l' b L2 d U2 R b d R2 D L2 r B2 L' u B' f F' L' l2 F' d L' B' F' d' U' L2 R' B b f'
*2. *r2 R2 D' d2 u U' B' R F l r U B l F R2 D' r' R D B2 l2 R F L2 B' b' d2 L2 l2 U' l2 r b' F2 D f' l b' u2 B b' u2 l2 R' b2 f2 F' D2 f' U r' R u B2 d B d' b' r2
*3. *B b f' F' L2 d U R b2 D r2 d2 L2 u B' D2 d2 u' U2 r2 b f F r' f2 F2 R' B2 R2 U2 b2 f R2 u2 F2 d' u2 F' D2 d' u U L2 b' f2 F2 R b2 u' U f2 F R F' l F2 D U2 l B'

*3x3x3 Multiple Blindfolded*
*1. *B F D2 R D' F R' U' L B L' R F' R2 F D U' B' U L R D2 F' R2 F2
*2. *L2 R B2 L R' F R F2 R B' U' F R2 F D2 U L2 D2 U2 R2 B' D' U L R
*3. *F L2 D' L B2 D B F R' U B' F U' L' D B L' R B2 L' B' F L2 B' F2
*4. *D U2 F' D2 U' L' R2 D2 U' F' U L2 U L' R B2 U' L' R B2 F' D' R2 B U2
*5. *F2 L D2 B2 F' D R2 B2 D' B R2 B' F R D' U' B2 F2 R2 F D B2 F' R2 F
*6. *B2 F U2 L2 D2 U L2 D' U' L' D2 U2 F L R' B' F U' F' D2 F2 L2 B' D U2
*7. *R B2 F2 R U' L2 F' U L2 U2 B R' D' B2 R' U' R2 U R2 F D2 L' R2 U B2
*8. *L' B F2 D' B2 F D2 L R B L B D R F' R D F' L2 D U B F U' F
*9. *R2 D R' D L' R D U2 B2 L2 R D2 U' F' D L' D2 B2 F' D' L R B' R' F'
*10. *U' B' R U F L2 D2 U' R U2 L R D2 L U B2 F U' F L' U' B U L R2
*11. *D' U' F D' L U' L' D' B' U' B2 U2 F' L' U2 R' D' B2 D2 U B' F2 L2 R U2
*12. *L' R B' F R' U2 B' F2 D2 U2 F' D2 B' D' U R' F U2 B2 L' R2 B F' L' R'
*13. *L F' R U B U2 B2 D B F' D' L D2 L' F2 R D L2 R2 B F2 L' D2 U L2
*14. *B F D2 F D2 B L' B' U L2 U R2 D L2 R D U' B2 D L2 D2 R F L' R'
*15. *B' U B' D2 U' B F L R2 D B' U L2 R' F U2 B' F D U2 R D' U F2 D
*16. *B2 F D U' B2 D U R' D2 U B U F2 L R2 D2 U2 B' R F' L2 U L2 U B2
*17. *R2 D' U' B2 U2 R D U2 F2 U B2 R D' U R B L' R F2 D' B' F' D' U' F'
*18. *F L' R B2 F' U' B' U F2 L2 D U' F U2 L D2 U B' F2 D2 U' L' D2 U2 B
*19. *L D2 L' U' F R' D' B F D L2 D2 U L' R D F2 L' U' B R2 B2 D L2 B
*20. *D L2 R F D U' L D' B L' R' U' B L2 B2 U2 R U' R2 B L2 R' U' L2 R
*21. *D2 U' R' D' F' U B2 F2 L2 R2 F R' U2 L R2 B2 F2 L' R2 B2 F2 L2 D' R2 F
*22. *D' L R2 B2 F R D' U2 L' R' B2 F2 R U2 R B F2 D2 U B F D2 B' D2 F
*23. *R F' D' U' R2 D' R' B' F' U' F D R2 D U' L D2 U B' D U' L D2 U' B'
*24. *L B' F' L D2 U' B' F' L2 D' U B2 F U' B' F D' U2 B' L2 R D2 U R2 D'
*25. *D2 U L' D2 F R' D2 L2 D2 F' D U' L R2 B' D' R' D U L' B F L2 R2 D

*3x3x3 One Handed*
*1. *R F' D2 R U B2 D F L R' B' D B F2 D U2 B2 D' F U' L2 R' F' L2 R
*2. *B L2 D2 U' R B2 F U' L2 B' F D U' B D2 B D2 U B' F2 U2 F' L B' F
*3. *U2 L2 R' D B2 F2 L2 R B' F R' D U' L2 B F D R' D2 U' B2 F2 U L' D2
*4. *L2 B' L2 B F2 U R2 B2 D' F D U2 R D B' D U L2 U F R B2 L2 R' F2
*5. *D2 U L2 R U2 B D2 B' U L B' U' B D' U2 L2 R' D2 U' F' R2 U B' F2 R2

*3x3x3 With Feet*
*1. *R' D' U2 F U2 B D' L2 R' D' U B F2 R2 D' U' F L R' U2 L R D B2 U
*2. *B2 F R2 D' U2 R B' R2 B F' D2 U2 L2 R D' R2 B' F' L R' D' F D' B' D
*3. *B' F2 D U' L B2 D2 L D L2 B F' D' U2 F2 L' F L D2 F R2 U2 L2 D F
*4. *L' F L F2 R' U2 F' D U L R' F2 R' U2 L2 R2 D2 U2 F' L' R2 B F D2 F2
*5. *B' L' B' L2 R D L2 D2 B F R B2 F U' R2 D2 R2 B' F D' U2 L D2 U R2

*3x3x3 Fewest Moves*
*1. *L2 B2 F' D' U B F' R' D L2 D U L R2 B2 D' R U2 B2 D2 R' D2 L' R' B2 F L2 B2 F2 D' L B F R2 U B2 D2 U L' R D2 U' B' F U (45 moves original)
F D2 U' F' L2 D' B2 L' B D' R F' R' F' U' R2 U2 (17 moves optimal solution, easier to apply multiple times)

*2x2x2+3x3x3+4x4x4+5x5x5 Relay*
*1. *(2x2x2) F' U' B R' U R' F2 U R F2 R B U' R B D' F2 L' F' U2 B' L F D' B
*1. *(3x3x3) U B' U2 R' D' U R B2 F2 L R' F2 D F R' D2 U2 B' L U' B2 D U B' R2
*1. *(4x4x4) D' u f' F' D' f2 L' r R2 u2 f F D' u2 U' B f2 F' L2 B2 f2 F L' r' R2 F' D' f D' R' f2 U f2 R' D' R2 D U2 R' B2
*1. *(5x5x5) d2 f2 u' B F2 l d l' r D' u2 U' L' l' b2 u2 L R2 B b' f r2 R b L2 R2 U l' r' R' f L' D r2 d' u' F D2 l2 R2 f2 U2 b F L2 R2 d' U' l D' b2 u' B2 L2 D2 d' b' L B u'

*Magic* (Just do 5 solves)
*1. *
*2. *
*3. *
*4. *
*5. *

*Master Magic* (Just do 5 solves)
*1. *
*2. *
*3. *
*4. *
*5. *

*Clock* (*UddU u=-1,d=5* would mean Up-Left-pin is *Up*, Up-Right-pin is *Down*, Down-Left-pin is *Down*, Down-Right-pin is *Up* and that you need to turn a corner that has its pin *up* rotated *counterclockwise by 1 hour* and that you need to turn a corner that has its pin *down* rotated *clockwise by 5 hours*)
*1. *UUdd u=-5,d=3 / dUdU u=6,d=1 / ddUU u=4,d=-2 / UdUd u=4,d=3 / dUUU u=2 / UdUU u=2 / UUUd u=1 / UUdU u=1 / UUUU u=-1 / dddd d=2 / UUUU
*2. *UUdd u=0,d=-1 / dUdU u=3,d=1 / ddUU u=-1,d=1 / UdUd u=5,d=0 / dUUU u=-2 / UdUU u=2 / UUUd u=-2 / UUdU u=-2 / UUUU u=3 / dddd d=2 / UdUd
*3. *UUdd u=5,d=-2 / dUdU u=-4,d=5 / ddUU u=2,d=-4 / UdUd u=2,d=5 / dUUU u=1 / UdUU u=-4 / UUUd u=5 / UUdU u=4 / UUUU u=6 / dddd d=1 / dUUU
*4. *UUdd u=1,d=1 / dUdU u=3,d=4 / ddUU u=3,d=3 / UdUd u=-5,d=-3 / dUUU u=5 / UdUU u=6 / UUUd u=3 / UUdU u=5 / UUUU u=6 / dddd d=-4 / dddd
*5. *UUdd u=2,d=1 / dUdU u=-2,d=-4 / ddUU u=-4,d=2 / UdUd u=1,d=4 / dUUU u=-2 / UdUU u=1 / UUUd u=2 / UUdU u=-1 / UUUU u=5 / dddd d=-2 / ddUd

*MegaMinx* (If you don't know notation, learn it from the WCA! Scrambling MegaMinx is a pain in the ....That is why I now give you the choice between two types of scrambles. The second scrambling method was proposed by Stefan Pochmann at the WCA-site and he explains it here. Currently I will give scrambles by his scrambler, but in the future I might provide scrambles with less moves. Let me (and him) know what you think!)
*1. *E4 D4 A f2 b d2 F3 B4 D c e4 d2 F4 f4 D4 f2 a2 b2 f4 e3 d2 c4 f3 e4 C2 B d B3 D4 e4 a4 d3 c4 d B4 d f3 C4 c F3 e2 C a4 f3 a3 b a3 f2 a2 f e2 a4 f2 b3 c4 a2 f e2 d2 c3
*2. *B3 C3 F e4 C b a4 c4 a2 e a d a4 f2 b e2 C F a3 f C c3 e4 a e4 d c f C2 F3 A B4 a3 c4 b3 c d3 c3 e2 B c4 F2 E4 d B f4 a2 b3 c d3 f a2 d f2 D2 e2 C3 B4 b3 D4
*3. *a c a3 d3 f3 b e4 f2 D3 b c4 b4 c a4 b E3 b3 E a2 d4 F d2 F d2 f b3 c3 b3 D2 A2 c d4 a2 e2 C3 E4 d4 e4 d4 F2 B2 f4 a4 f D e3 f4 e2 C2 E4 A3 F2 d2 F4 d B b3 e B2 F3
*4. *c3 d2 c f4 D4 e3 f3 C4 d2 e3 d2 c d3 c b4 D2 F3 d3 f4 e3 C3 F2 f3 C b f2 D3 c2 d e3 f2 C2 c3 b2 D C2 D3 c4 e4 C f2 a3 e3 C3 A2 B2 F4 e2 a2 f4 b2 D b3 a3 e2 a4 e3 a3 f D3
*5. *B4 C2 f2 D3 F3 b3 f2 b d4 a3 c2 b4 d2 e3 f2 e3 a3 e4 d3 c3 b4 d3 f2 C4 D2 a4 e C3 a2 c4 d2 c2 F2 e2 f4 C4 F2 B F3 b4 a3 f2 D f3 b2 e3 d f4 a3 d2 a3 b3 D4 F2 E e4 C D2 c2 f4
*1. *R-- D-- R-- D-- R-- D-- R-- D++ R-- D-- R++ D-- R-- D-- Y--
R++ D-- R-- D-- R++ D-- R++ D++ R++ D-- R-- D-- R++ D++ Y--
R-- D++ R++ D-- R-- D++ R-- D-- R++ D-- R-- D++ R++ D++ Y++
R++ D-- R-- D++ R-- D++ R-- D-- R++ D-- R++ D-- R++ D-- Y--
R++ D-- R-- D-- R++ D-- R-- D++ R++ D-- R-- D-- R++ D-- Y++
R-- D++ R-- D++ R++ D-- R++ D++ R++ D++ R-- D++ R++ D++ Y++
R++ D-- R-- D++ R++ D++ R-- D++ R++ D++ R++ D-- R++ D-- Y--
*2. *R-- D++ R-- D-- R++ D-- R++ D-- R-- D++ R-- D-- R-- D++ Y++
R-- D++ R-- D++ R++ D++ R++ D++ R++ D-- R-- D++ R++ D++ Y--
R++ D-- R++ D-- R-- D++ R-- D-- R-- D-- R++ D-- R-- D-- Y--
R-- D++ R++ D-- R-- D-- R-- D-- R-- D++ R-- D-- R-- D-- Y--
R-- D-- R++ D-- R-- D++ R++ D++ R-- D-- R++ D-- R-- D-- Y--
R-- D-- R-- D-- R++ D++ R-- D++ R++ D++ R++ D-- R++ D++ Y--
R-- D-- R-- D++ R++ D++ R++ D-- R-- D++ R++ D++ R-- D++ Y--
*3. *R++ D++ R++ D++ R-- D-- R-- D++ R-- D-- R-- D++ R-- D-- Y++
R-- D-- R-- D-- R-- D++ R++ D-- R-- D-- R++ D++ R++ D-- Y--
R-- D++ R-- D++ R-- D-- R-- D++ R++ D-- R++ D++ R-- D++ Y--
R-- D-- R-- D-- R++ D++ R-- D++ R++ D-- R++ D++ R++ D-- Y++
R-- D++ R++ D++ R-- D++ R++ D-- R++ D++ R++ D++ R++ D-- Y++
R++ D++ R++ D-- R-- D-- R-- D-- R++ D++ R++ D-- R++ D++ Y++
R-- D++ R-- D++ R++ D++ R++ D-- R-- D++ R-- D++ R-- D-- Y--
*4. *R++ D++ R++ D++ R-- D++ R++ D-- R-- D++ R++ D++ R-- D++ Y--
R++ D++ R-- D-- R++ D++ R++ D++ R-- D++ R++ D-- R++ D-- Y--
R++ D-- R-- D++ R++ D-- R-- D++ R++ D++ R-- D-- R-- D-- Y++
R++ D-- R++ D++ R++ D++ R-- D-- R++ D++ R-- D-- R-- D++ Y--
R-- D++ R-- D++ R-- D-- R-- D++ R++ D++ R-- D-- R-- D++ Y++
R-- D-- R++ D-- R-- D-- R++ D++ R++ D++ R-- D++ R-- D-- Y++
R-- D++ R-- D++ R++ D++ R-- D++ R++ D++ R-- D++ R++ D++ Y++
*5. *R-- D++ R-- D-- R++ D-- R++ D++ R++ D-- R++ D-- R-- D++ Y--
R++ D-- R-- D-- R-- D++ R-- D-- R-- D++ R++ D++ R++ D++ Y--
R-- D-- R-- D-- R++ D-- R++ D-- R++ D++ R++ D++ R++ D++ Y--
R-- D++ R-- D++ R-- D-- R-- D-- R-- D++ R++ D-- R++ D++ Y--
R-- D++ R++ D-- R-- D-- R-- D-- R++ D-- R++ D-- R++ D++ Y--
R-- D-- R-- D-- R++ D-- R++ D-- R++ D++ R-- D++ R-- D++ Y--
R++ D++ R-- D-- R-- D-- R-- D++ R-- D++ R-- D-- R-- D-- Y--

*Pyraminx* (If you don't know notation, learn it from the WCA! It's really easy. The first (small) letters are for the tips, then come the normal moves)
*1. *l' r b' u U L' B' R' L' U R' B' L' R' B' U' R' L' R' U
*2. *l r b u B' L U' B U L' R' U B U' R' B L' B' L' B
*3. *l' u U L U' L R U' R U' L U' L' B' U R' B' U R B'
*4. *l r b u' U' R B U' B' U R U' B' U' L B L R' U' B
*5. *l' r b U' L' U' L' B' L' B U R' L R U L U B R U'

*Square-1*
*1. *6,5 / 3,-5 / 0,3 / 3,3 / 6,0 / 3,1 / 3,0 / 5,2 / -2,3 / 0,3 / 0,3 / 4,0 / -2,4 / -2,0 / 0,2 / 6,0 / 0,2
*2. *1,-3 / -3,6 / 3,3 / 2,2 / 1,4 / 5,0 / 3,0 / 3,0 / 2,0 / 4,2 / 2,0 / 4,4 / -4,2 / 1,4 / 2,0 / -2,0
*3. *0,2 / -3,3 / -5,0 / 6,3 / 3,0 / -1,3 / 0,3 / 0,4 / -4,3 / 0,2 / 0,2 / 3,0 / -4,0 / -2,4 / 0,2 / -2,4 / 0,4 /
*4. *0,2 / 0,1 / 3,3 / 5,0 / 2,0 / 6,0 / 0,4 / 4,0 / 0,4 / 2,0 / -4,0 / 6,5 / 4,0 / 0,1 / 6,0 / 0,5 / 0,4 / 0,5 / 5,2
*5. *4,-3 / -1,0 / 0,3 / 1,2 / -3,4 / -5,0 / 2,2 / -3,4 / 6,3 / 0,3 / -5,0 / -4,1 / 6,3 / 5,4 / 4,3 /


Just to make sure everyone understands: We follow the official WCA rules for all events. The only exception for this is the experimental scrambling method for MegaMinx. For relay you have 15 seconds of inspection in total, you can use any order to solve the cubes and the rest of the relay-rules should be obvious. Here are some other things that people often don't know:

For big-cubes a small letter in the scramble means double layer turn, not slice turn
For multiple blind you can choose how many cubes you are going to do (let me know if 25 scrambles is not enough). If you choose 5 cubes you have to use the first 5 scrambles.
For one-handed you can only use one hand during inspection
For with feet you can only use feet during inspection
For Fewest Moves there is a 1 hour time limit
For every event you participate in you will be rewarded points. You will also be rewarded points according to your ranking. Because this is quite a complicated system you can read about it in this thread. The results of the competition will be available as soon as possible after the competition closes in this thread.

If you think other events should be added to this competition you can influence that in the 2008: Other events for Weekly competition thread 

This competition starts now and ends tuesday/wednesday nightchange (officialy), but I will only close a competition after the new one is on-line.


----------



## AvGalen (Mar 18, 2008)

*Fewest Moves Analysis*

Reserved for Fewest Moves Analysis


----------



## Erik (Mar 18, 2008)

Eriiiiiiiiiik
2: 4.73, (3.27), 3.58, 4.83, (6.20)=>4.38
3: (8.73), (12.25), 9.73, 11.31, 11.82=>10.95 em... good 
4: (54.73), 59.56, 59.17, (1:13.33), 59.38=>59.37 HORRIBLE
OH: (25.21), 28.35, (33.64), 30.06, 27.43=>28.61


----------



## Henrik (Mar 18, 2008)

Henrik
*2x2:* 8.35 5.88 (9.10) (4.85) 7.23 => *7.15* sec
That was really bad.
*3x3:* 13.82 15.72 15.79 (12.82) (18.88) => *15.11* sec
First had PLL skip then two A-perms then a J perm and the last was a mess.
*4x4:* (1:29.18) 1:24.91 1:28.58 (1:17.56) 1:24.41 => *1:25.97* min
Pretty good for a new non-lubed cube and for me  All had Parity (as i remember it)
*5x5:* 2:19.15 (1:59.71) 2:14.12 2:19.90 (2:47.96) => *2:17.72* min 
WOW my first sub-2 my best avg. ever and mostly consistent. On the last i messed up on parity.
*3x3OH:* 37.63 38.19 (31.01) (45.23) 33.50 => *36.44* sec
hmm not good

*Megaminx:* (2:14.09) 2:25.62 (3:17.87) 2:24.93 2:37.03 => *2:29.19* min

*3x3BLD:* *(2:44.90)* 2:54.33 (3:02.64) => *2:44.90* min
ok I guess with no warm up too.
*4x4BLD:* 20:41.14, DNF (19:20min), *20:30.63* min => *20:30.63* min
*MultiBLD:* *2/3* 19:35.45 min => *DNF*
something went wrong on my last cube.
*5x5BLD:* DNF (1:14:04h)
this is the 2nd time I try this. I was for some reason off by 3 edges. I use r2 and M2 for edges and fixed buffer for all centers. (comutators) And Pochmann corners.

*Magic:* (0.96) 0.96 0.98 (1.28) 1.03 => *0.99* sec 
Finally broke old record of 1 sec 

Erik you beat me today grrr !!! (nice picture by the way )


----------



## ExoCorsair (Mar 18, 2008)

2x2x2: 6.31 8.58 9.83 6.79 8.99 = 8.12
3x3x3: 23.65 21.50 23.53 24.55 19.80 = 22.89
4x4x4: 1:27.49 1:23.87 1:37.65 1:35.31 1:26.69 = 1:29.83
5x5x5: 2:20.43 2:12.19 2:12.66 2:02.97 2:06.74 = 2:10.53
Magic: 1.33 1.34 DNF 1.24 DNF = DNF
Master Magic: 2.84 3.13 6.66 2.84 DNF = 4.21
Pyraminx: 9.94 19.23 17.43 19.25 18.65 = 18.43
3x3x3 Fewest Moves:
2x2x2 Block: B' R' U2 R U B U (7, 7)
F2L Pair: F' l' F' R F (5, 12)
F2L Pair: U' R2 U2 R' U (5, 17)
F2L Pair: R U' R U (4, 21)
Skip OLL: z' y' R U' R' F' U F R U' R' (9, 30)
A-perm: U L F' L B2 L' F L B2 L2 (10, 40)
Time: Approximately 20 minutes.

Not a good week again. Hopefully warm-ups will help for Princeton.


----------



## pjk (Mar 19, 2008)

*3x3 Speedsolve:* 17.30 15.50 (17.86) (14.35) 17.12 ==> Avg: 16.64
Not too good. 3 solves over 16 sucks for me.
*4x4 Speedsolve: *(71.41) 73.89 78.18 81.71 (83.51) ==> Avg: 1:17.93
Too bad my times exponentially increased....
* 3x3 OH:* (39.40) 34.67 (33.81) 38.75 34.98 ==> Avg: 36.13
Decent, good enough.


----------



## philkt731 (Mar 19, 2008)

2: 4.38 3.84 3.02 4.25 4.33 = 4.14 nice

2bld: 29.28 42.78 Dnf = 29.28


----------



## MistArts (Mar 19, 2008)

*3x3x3*: (22.09), 27.32, 27.03, 25.15, (27.84) = 25.86
Comment: First is PLL skip. 
*4x4x4*: 2:43.68, 2:39.99, DNS, DNS, DNS = 2:41.84
Comment: Me is no good at 4x4.
*2x2x2 BLD*: 
Comment: 
*3x3x3 BLD*: (DNF), (DNF), (DNF) = DNF
Comment: First one was off by 3 CP. Second was a mess. Third was off by 3 EP.
*3x3x3 OH*: (DNS), (DNS), (DNS), (DNS), (DNS) = DNF
Comment: Yep.
*FMC*: (10/DNF)
R' D' R U' L' D U' R' F R'
*Explanation:*
2x2x2: R' D' R U' L' D
2x2x3: U' R' F R'
Comment: Didn't feel like continuing


----------



## dolphyfan (Mar 19, 2008)

2: 8.45, 10.17, (7.64), 8.56, (13.05)= 9.06 
3: (20.17), 17.84, 17.27, (16.20), 19.88= 18.33
4: 1:49.88, 2:08.69, 1.53.05, (1:49.86), (2:21.92)= 1:57.21
5: 3:38.67, (3:15.77), (4:16.76), 3:24.25, 3:45.62= 3:46.18
2x2bld: DNF, DNF, DNF= DNF  have to get used to no centers.
Relay: 6:10.11
Pyraminx: 22.05, (DNF), 18.16, 22.33, (9.36)= 20.85
3oh: 1:26.27, (45.08), 1:04.24, (1:32.17), 1:25.67= 1:18.73 haven't done this in a long time 
3bld: DNF, DNF, DNF= DNF new method(3 cycle) new memo method(shapes)


----------



## alexc (Mar 19, 2008)

*2x2:* (6.43) 7.83 7.61 6.50 (9.27) -> 7.31
Nice, my 2x2 practice has paid off. 

*3x3:* (19.41) 18.88 (15.46) 17.44 17.59 -> 17.97
My first sub 18 average of 5!  All solves were sub 20! 

*4x4:* 1:59.78 (2:12.43) 1:59.63 (1:51.77) 2:01.84 -> 2:00.42
Decent, not my best, but good enough. No parities on the 1:51. 

*3x3oh:* 36.66 (33.50) 36.66 (41.00) 40.68 -> 38.00
Pretty good, but could have been better.

*2x2bld:* 57.94 52.30 DNF(53.40) -> 52.30
Not my best, but still good. 

*3x3bld:* 2:05.86 3:02.91 2:12.69 -> 2:05.86
I'm glad that I got them all right! I screwed up the edges on the 3:02 solve, but I managed to go back through the memo and fix it.

*3x3multibld:* 1/2 (8:09.91)
GRRRRRRR!!!  I'm so sick of 1/2!!!!! The second cube was off by 2 flipped edges. Well, at least I'm not getting 0/2.


----------



## tim (Mar 19, 2008)

*multi bld*
3/4, 9:03.89 (4:50 memo) = 2 (points?)

damn, i'm so stupid...
btw. sub-8/3 cubes


----------



## Mike Hughey (Mar 19, 2008)

tim said:


> *multi bld*
> 3/4, 9:03.89 (4:50 memo) = 2 (points?)
> 
> damn, i'm so stupid...
> btw. sub-8/3 cubes



We all know you won't have trouble with the new rules, Tim. You're probably hoping they'll change it to 3 minutes per cube - then you'd have the event all to yourself.  (Edit: well, maybe you and Rowe.)

Anyway, the new rules haven't taken effect yet, so I'm still going for 8 cubes this week. I'm sure our rules shouldn't change until the official ones do. Maybe they'll change the limit to 10 minutes - there seems to be a bit of pressure for it; I can make that. If they don't change the new rule, I've GOT to get faster.


----------



## alexc (Mar 19, 2008)

Mike Hughey said:


> tim said:
> 
> 
> > *multi bld*
> ...



I think 10 minutes is a bit more reasonable than 8. However, if they decide to keep it at 8 minutes, I wouldn't be that mad. I tried 3 cubes today for the first time and the attempt was 4 minutes under the proposed limit and I'm always at least 6 minutes under the limit for 2 cubes. But that doesn't mean I don't want to get any faster!  My goal by the U.S. Open is at least 5 cubes and about 4-5 minutes for memorizing/solving each cube.


----------



## Dene (Mar 19, 2008)

*3x3x3:* 21.19 26.43 20.46 18.77 22.43 => 21.36
No good at all...

*3x3x3_OH:* 41.09 31.55 32.61 40.11 41.34 => 37.94
Beautiful x-cross just formed right in front of my eyes on the second one, I have my colour neutrality to thank for that  . I think the second one was an x-cross too, because I don't recall getting one of the pairs that I noticed a bit after, and the F2L was as fast as my second solve.

*3x3x3_feet:* 2:00.28 2:45.78 2:08.00 1:57.96 2:26.18 => 2:11.45
Considering this is the only practise I get, I'm happy with this  

*4x4x4:* 2:30.05 2:25.00 2:38.91 2:47.43 2:17.33 => 2:31.32
At least I got one decent time out of this, it seems I'm having a bad day for everything except OH...

*5x5x5:* 4:34.61 3:56.25 13:41.25 4:29.13 4:18.44 => 4:27.40
Uuuh.... Pop... yea... Bad average


----------



## tim (Mar 20, 2008)

Mike Hughey said:


> tim said:
> 
> 
> > *multi bld*
> ...



Argh, sorry, i didn't want to show off.
I'm also sure, that Arnaud will use the old rule for his competition. I just wanted to get used to the new rule . And i also think, that they should change the time limit to 10 minutes.
Anyway, good luck Mike .


----------



## Mike Hughey (Mar 20, 2008)

I think that as soon as the new rules go into effect for official competitions, we should adopt them here (with the same exceptions that we already have in place). But not until then.

Also, I hope that if they wind up throwing out 5x5x5 BLD officially next year (which looks like it might be likely and I would be very depressed about), we might keep it going here. (And for that matter, we should probably add 6x6x6 BLD and 7x7x7 BLD here when the cubes are available.  )


----------



## Dene (Mar 20, 2008)

Is that really going to happen? Why would they do that? It has so much potential.


----------



## Mike Hughey (Mar 20, 2008)

I will admit I'm just reading between the lines; I have a question in the WCA forum about it to try to clarify. But it does seem pretty clear to me that 5x5x5 BLD has been targeted for removal. Here is the rule:

9e3) The proposal to remove an event is done by selecting the event with a low number of competitors in the previous calendar year. The proposal is made each calendar year in February, on the forum of the WCA website.

It is possible this could change, but the way things are now, I don't know of any other event that is likely to have as few competitors as 5x5x5 BLD. Is there any other event that even comes close? This rule makes it sound like the only event they will consider removing each year will be the one with the low number of competitors, and I think it is likely this will be 5x5x5 BLD until something even more outrageously difficult is introduced (like 5x5x5 multiBLD, or 6x6x6 BLD, etc.). So is there any other way to look at this rule? With feet has had only 12 competitors so far this year, but it seems to be catching on more. And lots of people can at least do it, so it's not likely to be exceeded by 5x5x5 BLD, I think. I don't know how many 5x5x5 BLD competitors there have been this year, but I'm pretty sure it must be in the low single digits, and only one person has succeeded (István).


----------



## dbeyer (Mar 20, 2008)

I talked with Tyson and Ron about such events. Things such as multi blind on big cubes and uber-cubes blind, are very time consuming, low key, unpopular, hard to organize without neglecting other events. With our current regulations as far as blindfolds are concerned leads to an extremely inconvienenced judge sitting through lunch, maybe even dinner (my multi-5x5 bld at worlds took me about 3h 30m). 

Mike as of 2008, I believe Istvan is the only one to have competed in 5x5 blind. There are still other sub-30 competitors who have yet to find a competition. 

Which or whatever ... its rather discouraging ... a cheater discourages other people away from cubing because of his overwhelming calibur (fooling us all), and then with him out of the picture, those people pick the cube back up just to have officials decide, "oh you can't do that anymore anyway ..."

To continue: I got off track I guess ...
The officials want to stick to special side events, such as one-handed, blindfolded, multiblind, fewest moves, with feet ... keep this all 3x3 bound.

4x4 and 5x5 bld was an exception that slipped through the cracks once Pochmann and Dror got their solves, and then Chris pioneered the frontier.

I sent this email to Ron after a weekend of practice at Chris' during Summer 07.


Sent: Wednesday, June 06, 2007 1:44 AM
Subject: Possible Official Events


> Chris and I have explored multi-big cube bld. Right now, we know
that two 
> 4x4s is reasonable.
>
> What do you think?
>
> Chris solved two 4x4s in about 35m 
>
> So ... what do you think?

His reply:
Hi Daniel,

There are two reasons why I think this will not be an official event.
For now at least.
1) WCA board only wants official special events for Rubik's 3x3x3 Cube.
2) there is no uniform opinion in WCA board on the multiple blindfolded event

Have fun,
Ron


----------



## ExoCorsair (Mar 20, 2008)

Someone should just establish a rival association in which those sort of events *would* be official.


----------



## cmhardw (Mar 20, 2008)

I have already sent a message to the WCA board asking to allow us to set a precedent to drastically reduce the overall time cap for the BLD events in general. I would be very sad to see 5x5x5 BLD deleted (with 4x4x4 BLD probably soon to follow). Seeing as how I dedicated almost 2.5 years of my life to give up practicing speedcubing for the sake of taking up blindfolded cubing (and big cube blind) 100%. Daniel and I have already created a very extensive method for big cubes blind, the Beyer-Hardwick method which we intend to have published soon. Should we even bother posting the literatue that explains the results of our efforts if the events are to be deleted anyway?

My proposal is to allow for a "standard" competition format for big cubes BLD to be 5x5x5 BLD best of 1, and 4x4x4 best of 2. The same format as worlds 2007. However, instead of having the time cap be 3 hours, have it be 1 hour.

All top big cube BLD competitors who compete in this online competition would be able to get through 3 solves in this nature within 1 hour. By the way, the proposed format from me again is that if you are mid-solve by the time the 1 hour cap rolls around, you may finish that solve, but you may not attempt any remaining un-attempted solves after that final one is completed.

Given these rules I feel any serious big cube BLD cuber on this forum could complete 3 solves in this nature.

I am also reading between the lines, but I feel this rule was created specially to target big cube BLD (since no other events have fewer competitors).

Frankly if the events are deleted I will be incredibly ****ed off to have wasted 2.5 years of my life dedicating myself to training my mind, learning memory techniques, practicing memory techniques, practicing commutators from all possible angles on all possible sides, pushing my memory to the limits, etc. just to have all that effort become null and voided.

If the big cube BLD events are not to be deleted, and I am mis-interpretting things, then I apologize to the WCA board. However with the rules as written I think this rule is clearly written with big cubes BLD in mind.

I am hoping the WCA board accepts my idea to drastically reduce the overall allowable time limit for big cubes BLD, as a compromise to deleting the event entirely.

Chris


----------



## Dene (Mar 20, 2008)

So... what about 2x2x2? As one of the least time consuming event, it could almost be regarded as pointless. Certainly 5x5x5 BLD>2x2x2 in my opinion.


----------



## alexc (Mar 20, 2008)

I agree with Dene, I think 5x5 blindfolded is much more impressive than solving a 2x2. I don't know if I'll ever try 5x5 blindfolded, but I think it should stay an event to satisfy the people who enjoy doing it. (Chris, Daniel, Istvan, Mike, etc.)


----------



## Mike Hughey (Mar 20, 2008)

Chris, I'm very happy to see your post. It's comforting to see that a "big name" shares my opinions, so I don't have to carry the torch for this. I'm sure my opinions would carry no weight, but yours might. (You'll notice that I posted something before you did about this rule, but I posted mine in the "Article 9" section, instead of the main thread like you did.)

I think my success at big cubes BLD should be enough to prove that anyone can really get to the point of being able to meet your proposed time cap if they'll just practice hard enough. I might have been stuck with just trying 4x4x4 and not 5x5x5 at the Virginia Open because of the cap, but I could have done that there, and then practiced harder so I would have been able to try for both now at Chattahoochee.

As soon as I first read the new rules, my thought was the same as yours, Chris, and I had trouble sleeping the night the rules draft came out, because I couldn't see any other purpose for the new rule except to be an attempt to remove big cubes BLD. At least it's true that now 4x4x4 BLD is catching on pretty well. I think there's a good chance that it will have more competitors than 3x3x3 with feet by the end of next year, so perhaps 3x3x3 with feet would go before 4x4x4 BLD does. (I also don't like the fact that this might lead to us getting in a battle with Anssi to try to get people to sign up for our event, to keep it from getting deleted.)

At first, I got into big cubes BLD just to be able to say I could do it (and also for the extra points in this competition  ), but now that I'm actually starting to get kind of fast, it's really gotten fun! I really don't want to lose these events!

If we lose this battle, I'm sure we'll have to consider Jon's suggestion.  The nice thing about that approach is that we could add things like big cubes BLD multi, 7x7x7 BLD, etc. (7x7x7 BLD multi, anyone?) The only problem is that we'd have to have week-long competitions.


----------



## Mike Hughey (Mar 20, 2008)

Sorry for the double post, but Daniel, I just noticed your off-handed comment about the 5x5x5 multiBLD at Worlds (I missed it the first time I read your post). You did a 5x5x5 multiBLD there? Were you successful? And I guess I should ask, how many cubes?  I've made two attempts at 5x5x5 multiBLD - I'm going for one attempt per week. The first one was off by just two wings on one cube; the second one was a good bit worse with both cubes having 14 pieces out of place, I'm afraid. Both were just a little over an hour. I'm almost as fast per cube with 5x5x5 multiBLD as I am with regular 5x5x5 BLD, so it's kind of fun. And a 4x4x4 BLD just seems SO EASY after doing a 5x5x5 multiBLD.


----------



## Pedro (Mar 20, 2008)

Mike Hughey said:


> Sorry for the double post, but Daniel, I just noticed your off-handed comment about the 5x5x5 multiBLD at Worlds (I missed it the first time I read your post). You did a 5x5x5 multiBLD there? Were you successful? And I guess I should ask, how many cubes?  I've made two attempts at 5x5x5 multiBLD - I'm going for one attempt per week. The first one was off by just two wings on one cube; the second one was a good bit worse with both cubes having 14 pieces out of place, I'm afraid. Both were just a little over an hour. I'm almost as fast per cube with 5x5x5 multiBLD as I am with regular 5x5x5 BLD, so it's kind of fun. And a 4x4x4 BLD just seems SO EASY after doing a 5x5x5 multiBLD.



he tried three 5x5x5s

memorisation was about 2 hours, if I'm not wrong...and he was doing it at the main stage, on sunday, I think...dunno how he could concentrate that hard


----------



## Pedro (Mar 20, 2008)

*3x3x3* = 13.98
13.97, (12.73), 13.99, 13.98, (16.45)
LOL! What is that SD?!  (12 was PLL skip...did some wrong U moves until I got it right ¬¬)

*3x3x3 BLD* = 1:31.89
DNF(1:19), 1:31.89, DNF (1:24)
First was pretty ugly...34d had 2 edges flipped

*3x3x3 OH* = 27.57
(32.22), 28.10, (20.87), 31.55, 23.05
Pretty inconsistant...the 30+ had mistakes on OLL 

*3x3x3 Multi BLD* = 1/2, 5:31.83
 Did just 2 this time, but messed some stuff on the first

*4x4x4* = 1:18.29
1:16.37, (1:28.13), (1:14.59), 1:23.15, 1:15.35 
At least is sub-1:20 

*4x4x4 BLD* = 
11:06.96, ... , ...

*Megaminx* = 2:23.91
(2:39.26), 2:26.44, 2:24.41, 2:20.87, (2:14.88)
Bleh


----------



## Mike Hughey (Mar 20, 2008)

Wow - 3 5x5x5's! What was the result?

Pedro, very nice time on the 4x4x4 BLD! You got fast really quick.


----------



## Pedro (Mar 20, 2008)

Mike Hughey said:


> Wow - 3 5x5x5's! What was the result?
> 
> Pedro, very nice time on the 4x4x4 BLD! You got fast really quick.



Well, I had just 2 successful solves, so I guess you can't really say I *am* fast 

but this one was good...still need to get memo times better...I think Tim can memorise in like 3-4 mins...and Chris can almost memorise+solve while I just memorise 

btw, did you watch the video? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=29TbaxhQfs4)


----------



## Mike Hughey (Mar 20, 2008)

There, I just watched it. Commutators on the edges! I was expecting r2. I shouldn't say this (because you'll start beating me every week), but you should really try r2 for edges. It's amazing how quickly you can get fast at it, and I have a feeling you'll cut a minute off your solving time by switching. If you were as fast as Chris at commutators, maybe you wouldn't, but from watching the video, I suspect you'd be much faster with r2, at least at first. Of course, commutators are likely to be the faster way with lots of practice, so maybe for the long run you should stay with them, but for now, I suspect you'd get a big boost by switching.

My fastest memorization for the 4x4x4 is just 4 minutes, but I'm usually more in the 6 minute range like you.

Anyway, nice to have you in the rapidly-growing 4x4x4 BLD club!


----------



## Stefan (Mar 20, 2008)

Number of competitors:

*2007*
3x3 feet: 21
4x4 blind: 18
5x5 blind: 10

*2008*
3x3 feet: 15
4x4 blind: 11 
5x5 blind: 2

(why is this hidden in a competition thread?)


----------



## FU (Mar 20, 2008)

*3x3x3:*

1. 19.42
2. 18.53
3. 16.22
4. (14.22)
5. (20.83)

Average = 18.06


----------



## rafal (Mar 20, 2008)

Rafal Guzewicz

*3x3x3 BLD:* 58.11 1:13.65 DNF = *58.11*
Sub-20 memo on each solve. Last one was off by two misoriented edges.
*4x4x4 BLD:* 6:52.84 DNF DNF = *6:52.84*
Not too good... But I had a few months break from practising big cubes blind and now I'm getting into this again.
*5x5x5 BLD* 17:34 DNF 15:14 = *15:14*
During the first solve I was distracted three times, second one was a POP, and the third scramble was easy, but I stopped for over a minute to recall missing letters.

And I must say, that I would be surprised if 5x5x5 BLD was deleted. Well, I haven't done a successful official solve yet, but I assure you, I can do it  And like Chris said - it doesn't have to be time-consuming. And like Mike said - it's really fun to solve big cubes blindfolded. So, why delete it? I don't know. But it's not my call...


----------



## Pedro (Mar 20, 2008)

Mike Hughey said:


> There, I just watched it. Commutators on the edges! I was expecting r2. I shouldn't say this (because you'll start beating me every week), but you should really try r2 for edges. It's amazing how quickly you can get fast at it, and I have a feeling you'll cut a minute off your solving time by switching. If you were as fast as Chris at commutators, maybe you wouldn't, but from watching the video, I suspect you'd be much faster with r2, at least at first. Of course, commutators are likely to be the faster way with lots of practice, so maybe for the long run you should stay with them, but for now, I suspect you'd get a big boost by switching.
> 
> My fastest memorization for the 4x4x4 is just 4 minutes, but I'm usually more in the 6 minute range like you.
> 
> Anyway, nice to have you in the rapidly-growing 4x4x4 BLD club!



well...I looked at r2 sometime ago, but didn't want to use it because I was lazy to learn the algs for the r edges...

and...as you said, commutators are probably faster in the long run...once you get really used to them, of course 

I still have a lot to do...the commutators only will get better with solves and more solves...and...I think I can move faster...that 4x4 is a new one, about 2 weeks old, so it's not completely broken in...and I will try to move as fast as I can from now on, instead of going for "sure and safe" 

hope I can do sub-10 by july, when we'll have a competition (and 6 or 7 multi)


----------



## dbeyer (Mar 20, 2008)

Stupid mistakes led to some errors on the cubes. It was about 2hrs memo, 90m exe. I was in front of the main stage. I had to stuff the cubes in Frank's bookbag, occassionally pausing to make sure the cubes were still in place. I actually had one in my lap, I was solving one, and one was in his bookbag. I couldn't remember corners, which I actually did with a memory system. I feel that corners are too random and out of practice for me to memorize that many sets of corners.

When I made that attempt, it was with other persons' cubes, which I was unfamiliar with. So I became convicted to use commutators on corners to reduce move count, so that I wouldn't lock up or pop, botching the solve. I let my memory screw me over instead 

Since then I've worked with Chris on an execution system for 5x5 blindfolded, I've said it for a while, but now we are working in coordination on a system for how to handle all 2000+ cases of cycles on the 5x5. Before this attempt, I felt that corner commutators were not worth it. Now I feel as though it's an integral part of the method.


Later,
DB


----------



## Mike Hughey (Mar 20, 2008)

Wow, Daniel, that sounds like a great (and very challenging) experience! Thanks for the info.

When I try multiple big cubes, I add the corners to the memory system as well (all but the last cube, at least).

I would really have trouble with other people's cubes, since I have a very weird color scheme.

It would be neat to eventually learn your method. I decided to get good with what I'm doing now first, though - I'm still not really advanced enough to jump into your method. Maybe in a few more months, I'll be ready to try something like that. I can see why the corners would eventually seem important - corners are a lot more work to memorize when doing orient/permute.


----------



## Dene (Mar 20, 2008)

Oh, don't say remove feet! I'm quite good at it  . I think it is much more fun than BLD  .


----------



## dbeyer (Mar 21, 2008)

4x4: 
S1. 7:41.39


----------



## cmhardw (Mar 21, 2008)

Chris Hardwick
--------------
3x3x3_bld: 1:45.23 DNF DNS
4x4x4_bld: 7:04.64 7:05.20 DNS
5x5x5_bld: 17:16.74 DNS DNS

At least the 4x4's were consistent. My hat's off Rafal ;-) Very nice times!

Chris


----------



## Derrick Eide17 (Mar 21, 2008)

2x2x2- 6.14, 6.85, 6.14.= 6.37 avg) ( yeah i didnt do good, who cares, my cube isnt that great yet.

3x3x3- 14.48, 14.25, 15.89.= 14.87 avg) ( GOD i suck....

4x4x4- 1:11.51, 1:31.59, DNF, 1:11.79, 1:03.54= 1:18.30) (The 1:31 was a POP, grr... and the DNF was also another POP, and 3 peices!! i just took the damn DNF lol. oh well next week i'll do... Better?

5x5x5- 2:31.71, 1:59.24, 2:20.27, 2:17.06, 2:16.92 = 2:18.08 avg) (Wow i SUCK.

3x3x3 OH- 38.23, 34.69, 31.67= 34.86 avg) (i friggin SUCK at OH i mise well just quit... 


2x2x2 BLD- 24.76, 26.98, DNF= 24.76) ( FINALLY something im GOOD at!)
3x3x3 BLD- 2:08.35, DNF, DNF= 2:08.35) (This one was HARD to submit because it was SO SUCKY... im a disgraceful piece of **** for doing this bad.
Multi BLD- 4/4 cubes - 21:05.04 

I was just mad tonight because i was doing really bad in BLD tonight, so I tried a 4 cube Multi BLD lol. Wow am i ACTUALLY winning with this so far? lol xD

FMC- 46 moves- i just tried one time, with normal CFOP solve. :\


----------



## mrCage (Mar 21, 2008)

Hi 

Or why not just cycle the members more frequently? This way the WCA board reflects the members' opinion much better. Im not personally against anyone who have volunteered to be a WCA board member. But really more people should get the chance to become WCA board members. 

Maybe even split the WCA board into subsections. One part dealing with organisation of competition, one dealing with regulations and regulation enforcements, one dealing with marketing .... etc etc ... These are just some ideas tossed out 

- Per


----------



## Mike Hughey (Mar 21, 2008)

dbeyer said:


> 4x4:
> S1. 7:41.39



Wow, Daniel - you really can go fast! I always suspected it (especially with your "If you only knew" last week), but I'm pretty sure this is the first time you ever posted a sub-10 time here. Very impressive! Your new method must be paying off.


----------



## Mike Hughey (Mar 21, 2008)

Mike Hughey:
*2x2x2:* 10.58, 14.18, 12.31, 10.75, 10.84 = *11.30*
*3x3x3:* 37.75, 31.52, 25.62, 26.52, 30.08 = *29.37*
Comment: Wow! Sub-30 two weeks in a row! Maybe I really can keep this going.
*4x4x4:* 1:56.03 (O), 1:47.30, 1:58.11 (OP), 1:50.11 (O), 2:24.32 (P) = *1:54.75*
Comment: Sub-2 again! I’m getting better.
*5x5x5:* 3:16.35, 3:14.90, 3:08.43, 3:17.50, 3:02.59 = *3:13.23*
Comment: My best avg of 5 ever! Part of a new PB average of 10: 3:20.63.
*2x2x2 BLD:* DNF (46.91), DNF (44.80), 1:13.41 = *1:13.41*
Comment: Well, that was a shame. The first two were both easy, but I messed them up.
*3x3x3 BLD:* 2:49.02, DNF (3:12.50), 2:33.53 = *2:33.53*
Comment: Overall, this was a good week for me for BLD speed, but bad for accuracy.
*4x4x4 BLD:* 10:47.24 (5:19 mem), DNF (13:41.60, 8:16 mem), 16:29.00 (7:35 mem) = *10:47.24*
Comment: My concentration was off on the last two. On the third one, I spent about 5 minutes to recall the contents of one location. Otherwise, it would have been sub-12 I’m sure.
*5x5x5 BLD:* DNF (28:00.36, 14:53 mem), 33:29.70 (18:03 mem), DNF (22:13.15, 10:20 mem) = *33:29.70*
Comment: Argh! The third one was off by just 3 wings; I apparently left one wing piece out of my memo. My memorization was really secure, though – I actually triple-checked it; I was finished with my first memorization pass at just 7:15! Maybe I really can beat 25 minutes! The first one was off by just 2 x centers, so I was really close on all of them.
*3x3x3 multiBLD:* *6/8 (1:18:12.64)*
Comment: Memorization was 55:10. It looks like Ron is giving in to sticking with 10 minutes per cube, so this would be competition valid (barely). I need to work on my speed, though. I missed the first cube by 5 corner orientations (I must have memorized them backwards), and the last cube by 4 corners and 4 edges (apparently messed up a setup move).
*3x3x3 OH:* 1:02.11, 56.42, 55.98, 47.89, 1:03.36 = *58.17*
Comment: It’s nice to be under a minute a couple of weeks in a row.
*3x3x3 WF:* 3:29.25, 3:00.02, 3:05.80, 2:27.46, 2:55.40 = *3:00.41*
Comment: Almost sub-3; maybe next week I’ll make it.
*Relay:* *DNF (1:00:05.94, 36:17 mem)*
Comment: 5x5x5 was wrong by 2 central edges misoriented and 2 X centers swapped. The other cubes were all correct again. Almost less than an hour! I hope I finally get this next week.
*Magic:* 2.56, 2.63, 3.81, 21.56, 3.25 = *3.23*
Comment: Trying out a new Magic; it’s not stable yet and the strings are coming off sometimes.
*Master Magic:* 5.22, 6.56, 6.72, 5.09, 5.15 = *5.64*
*Clock:* Still don’t have one. Anyone want to bring one to sell me at Chattahoochee? 
*MegaMinx:* 3:15.38, 3:06.34, 3:44.56, 3:01.30, 3:26.09 = *3:15.94*
Comment: I liked the fact that the last scramble had all 7 Y—‘s. Are we going to switch to the new notation and scramble method and length now that the WCA have finally decided on it?
*Pyraminx:* 28.09, 24.80, 26.36, 24.06, 21.63 = *25.07*
*Square-1:* 1:21.91 (P), 1:41.09 (P), 2:09.16 (P), 1:56.47 (P), 1:36.41 = *1:44.66*
*Fewest Moves:* *40 moves*
B’ R’ U2 R U B2 D’ B’ U2 B D B’ U’ F D L’ F2 L R2 F D’ F2 D2 F’ D2 F’ L’ F’ L F’ D F U’ B U F U’ B’ U F’
2x2x2: B’ R’ U2 R U B . U
x-cross: F D L’ F2 L R2
3rd pair: F D’ F2 D2 F’ D’
edges: D’ F’ L’ F’ L F’ D F
2 corners: U’ B U F U’ B’ U F’
insert at .: B D’ B’ U2 B D B’ U2
Cancellations around insertion and after the 3rd pair.
I wasted all my time trying to find a direct 2x2x3, but never found a good one. So then I came up with this start very late. I only had 7 minutes left to find insertions for the last 5 corners. I’m pretty happy I managed to find the insertion I did in time, given that I only had 7 minutes! It would have been nice to find another insertion for the other corners.


----------



## joey (Mar 21, 2008)

*3x3:* 16.27 14.91 15.34 (14.08) (18.03) *Average:* 15.50
Good, except the last solve.

*3x3 BLD:* DNF[1:32.93] 1:13.61 DNS


----------



## rafal (Mar 21, 2008)

cmhardw said:


> Chris Hardwick
> --------------
> 3x3x3_bld: 1:45.23 DNF DNS
> 4x4x4_bld: 7:04.64 7:05.20 DNS
> ...



Thanks Chris! I think we are at the same point in blindfold, only you are more accurate. Well, I'll have to work on this.


----------



## dChan (Mar 21, 2008)

Geez, I practice all day long pulling off good times and I get these:

3x3x3 Avg. 25.93
(22.93), 26.75, 26.07, (27.84), 24.98

2x2x2 Avg. 15.23
(19.88), 15.00, 15.31, (14.53), 15.38

The only thing my 3x3x3 times prove is that I don't get times too close to 30 seconds anymore(but even then I still pulled a 27.84). So stupid, though my average is 25 seconds I was pulling off faster times earlier in the day.

I can't even begin to say how stupid my 2x2x2 times are. What's up with the 19.88? Who does that? And why are none of my 2x2x2 times low? lol, I must have been really off or something.

I didn't get to copy down all the OH scrambles yesterday(my printer is out of ink) so I'll have to see if I can still get them in by tommorrow. Man these are bad times!


----------



## dbeyer (Mar 21, 2008)

I suppose, it was just really good memo, no review, fluent recall and execution. I was very well rested. Lets see what tonight brings eh? Everything came together for a really good solve, thanks Mike.

Mike, last week when I made my comment, it was in reference to an injury that tolled heavily on my execution. Don't doubt my excitement with that sub-8 either.

Rafal and Chris still stomped me 
Maybe you will too


----------



## Mike Hughey (Mar 22, 2008)

Oh, sorry to hear about the injury - hope you're recovering well. As for your solve, it's the no review part that I would need to get good enough to do to have a chance at sub-8. Right now, I can sometimes succeed with no review, but when I do, it's usually really slow because I have too many pauses between pieces recalling the memo. To get a really good time, I've discovered I MUST review, at the moment. On my first ever sub-10 today, I reviewed the memo twice. I probably finished memorizing well before 4 minutes, but when I started solving it was 4:48. So the review is costing me a minute or more.

Rafal and Chris are both simply amazing.


----------



## cmhardw (Mar 22, 2008)

Mike Hughey said:


> Oh, sorry to hear about the injury - hope you're recovering well. As for your solve, it's the no review part that I would need to get good enough to do to have a chance at sub-8. Right now, I can sometimes succeed with no review, but when I do, it's usually really slow because I have too many pauses between pieces recalling the memo. To get a really good time, I've discovered I MUST review, at the moment. On my first ever sub-10 today, I reviewed the memo twice. I probably finished memorizing well before 4 minutes, but when I started solving it was 4:48. So the review is costing me a minute or more.
> 
> Rafal and Chris are both simply amazing.



Hey Mike,

If I may interject. Try starting to just review less, don't just simply stop reviewing altogether. For example, only review your memo once. Review completely, and thoroughly - but absolutely under no circumstances whatsoever review more than once.

Just a thought? I do something similar to the above. On my fastest solves I only review the first location of each piece type or not at all. On my slowest solves I review everything through once. Sometimes I get a weird mix, like I'll review wings but not centers and goofy stuff like that.

As for the last comment, I think Rafal is probably faster than I am now. I'll try to catch up of course, but if my time has come then that's cool too ;-)

Chris


----------



## Dene (Mar 24, 2008)

I added my foot times to mine. I'm getting quite good now! sub2 average here I come!


----------



## alexc (Mar 24, 2008)

Dene said:


> I added my foot times to mine. I'm getting quite good now! sub2 average here I come!



Wow, how do you do foot solving? I tried a solve once and it took me like over 10 minutes! Do you have really long toes or something?


----------



## DennisStrehlau (Mar 24, 2008)

Well...
I tried 21 cubes yesterday, as training for the Danish Open...
at first, i just wanted to do 20, but to beat the UWR eventually, i tried 21 then...Derrick was looking all the time (memo and solve)...
so i tried and finished at almost 6:00 am!!!!!!!
man, i was tired and couldnt concentrate during the solve, but the memo was great and i didnt forget anything, so the most important part, the memo, worked fine (really happy about that) and i even invented some new images for the pieces...
Well, i had a DNF (i really started too late man) and had:

MULTI-BLD:

18/21...

Will do that again, cause the result was SH**!!!
We will see how many cubes i am doing in Danmark...
BY THE WAY: I HATED THESE SCRAMBLES ARNAUD!!!
Greetings...Dennis


----------



## KJiptner (Mar 24, 2008)

*3x3x3 BLD: * *1:12.22*, DNF, 1:29.72 Not that fast anymore.


----------



## Mirek (Mar 24, 2008)

Here is my 1-hour FMC, nothing special. The scramble was 
F D2 U' F' L2 D' B2 L' B D' R F' R' F' U' R2 U2, solving - 
U' D2 L B2 D L'. R D2 B' D L' D2 U' R B' R' B R2 U R2 U' R2 U and insert at the dot F R' B2 R F' R' B2 R 
= U' D2 L B2 D L' F R' B2 R F' R' B2 R2 D2 B' D L' D2 U' R B' R' B R2 U R2 U' R2 U (30)
Mirek


----------



## Dene (Mar 24, 2008)

alexc said:


> Dene said:
> 
> 
> > I added my foot times to mine. I'm getting quite good now! sub2 average here I come!
> ...



Not at all, you don't really rely on your toes too much (or at least I don't). I only really use my big toes. It didn't really take long for me to get this fast, I have probably only done 100ish solves total.


----------



## guusrs (Mar 24, 2008)

*FMC 28 moves*

solve: R2 D' R2 F' D2 R' L U' L' U R' U R' D' F2 U2 F2 U F2 U F2 R B U B' U' R' U' (28)
explanation:
F2L minus corner: R2 D' R2 F' D2 R' L U' L' U R' U R' D' (14)
F2L: F2 U2 F2 U F2 U F2 (21)
LL: R B U B' U' R' U' (28)

Congratz Arnaud, you win!

greetz

Gus


----------



## AvGalen (Mar 24, 2008)

This weeks fewest moves was EASY. This is what I got in 1 hour, all different solutions and all pretty good

First one: PLL-skip in 33. This was almost a linear solve, I only took back a couple of moves.
Create 2x2x1 (3): R' D' R
Almost 2x2x2 (2-5): U' L'
Add 1 cross-edge while securing an F2L pair(2-7): D2 R
Finish (X-)Cross with 2 pairs made (5-12): D2 L F' L' D
Insert 2nd pair (4-16): R B' R' B
"Insert 3rd pair" while creating the fourth pair (2-18): U' F
Restore F2L, secure 4th pair (4-22): U R' F' R
Finish F2L (4-26): U L' U2 L
OLL (6-32): R' U' F' U F R
Correct LL (1-33): U

Second one: Prove (for Mike) that you can get a 32 move solution, even with a 10 move OLL AND a 15/16 move PLL 
Do premove D' to see what is going on
2x2x2 and 1 extra cross edge (5): R' D' F' R D2
Double X-Cross (4-9): U R2 U R'
Create a pair and a "ligned up pair" (3-11): R' U' R
Insert the "ligned up pair" (4-15): U R' U' R
Finish F2L (3-18): L U2 L'
Now how do you go from a good start like this to a 10 move OLL and then a 16 move PLL (and a undo premove) and still beat a solve that had a PLL-skip? Watch 
OLL (10-22): L U2 L' B' U B U' L U2 L'
PLL (15-30): L U2 L' U2 R' U L U' R U' R' U L' U' R
Correct LL and undo Premove (2-32): U2 D'
Those L U2 L' kept cancelling  I found that OLL by just playing around with the pair. It's a good thing when you don't know an OLL. Henrik told me the one that he uses and it is much faster and less moves, but it doesn't cancel very well 
The PLL is just the inverse (and from the back) version of L' U R U' L U L' U R' U' L U2 R U2 R'. It is one of the few PLL's I know because it is so easy to understand and memorize (just play around with the pairs at FL and FR)

But a "real" FMC solution wins in 27 
Do premove D' to see what is going on
2x2x2 and 1 extra cross edge (5): R' D' F' R D2
2x2x3 (4-9): R' L U' L'
Triple X-Cross + create 4th pair (7-16): U R . U' R2 B' R' B
F2L + corners last layer leaving 3 edges (4-20): U' R U' R'
Correct LL and undo Premove (2-22): U D'
Insert edge-3cycle at . cancelling 1 move (6-27): R2 F' B U2 F B'

Final solution (27): R' D' F' R D2 R' L U' L' U R' F' B U2 F B' U' R2 B' R' B U' R U' R' U D'


Again Guus, we have an almost identical solution. You chose a slightly different start (R2 instead of R'), but the 2x2x3 block was identical. Then you couldn't make the 2-pairs on the right anymore so you had to improvise (which you did really nicely). Your PLL skip was very original/lucky like my corner-skip was


----------



## Karthik (Mar 25, 2008)

*Karthik Puthraya*
*3x3x3: *20.58, 19.86, 19.60, 23.01, 18.16 = *20.02*
Comment: Bad.
*4x4x4: *86.93, 87.44, 92.24, 102.29, 84.25 = *88.87*
Comment:Not bad.


----------



## pete (Mar 25, 2008)

*pete*
*Fewest Moves: DNF* (ran out of time)

my first ever attempt at FMC

y x2 B2 d' R2 B' d2 L d' B D2 B' D U' F' R F R' x' y' R' D2 R U2 R' D2 R U2 R (25 moves)
leaves me with 4 unsolved (connected) pieces

top cross with corner + 2 middle layer edges : y x2 B2 d' R2 B' d2 L (6 moves) 
insert corner/edge pair : d' B D2 B' (4 moves)
insert (non-matching) corner/edge pair : D U' F' R F R' (6 moves)
commutator to solve 2 corners : x' y' R' D2 R U2 R' D2 R U2 R (9 moves)

I don't know if it was possible to get to this point in a better position,
I don't understand yet those insertions so I have to look at that.


----------



## masterofthebass (Mar 25, 2008)

Dan Cohen

2x2: 6.93 7.36 8.52 6.21 8.88 = *7.60*
bad... I really don't like my brother's 2x2.
3x3: 16.44 17.66 15.28 21.03 15.91 = *16.67*
not bad...
4x4: 1:15.78 1:13.53 1:17.36 1:28.52 58.34 = *1:15.55*
done way before this latest avg...
5x5: 2:15.84 2:02.06 1:55.50 2:05.38 2:06.05 = *2:04.49*
horrific...
3x3_OH: 27.00 30.78 29.53 31.40 22.91 (PLL skip) = *29.10*
Clock: 14.71 12.52 13.93 19.81 12.13 = *13.72*
Megaminx: 2:29.69 2:12.19 2:17.50 2:36.05 2:13.05 = *2:20.08*
Pyraminx: 15.00 13.11 9.15 12.05 9.93 = *11.69*
Square-1: 30.66 36.80 45.41 40.72 52.96 = *40.97*


----------



## AvGalen (Mar 25, 2008)

*2x2x2*: 10.22 *8.43* 8.91 *16.72* 13.47 = *10.87
3x3x3*: 24.90 *23.44* 25.13 *36.25* 30.41 = *26.81
*comment: All F2L's were done with CFOP F2L's. I am almost as fast/slow as I am with keyhole.
*4x4x4*: 1:41.63 (O) 1:41.48 (OP) *1:35.28* (P) 1:41.78 *1:50.56* (P) = *1:41.63*
*5x5x5*: 2:42.43 *3:18.28* 2:33.97 2:41.03 *2:22.68* = *2:39.14*
*2x2x2_bf*: *DNF, DNF*, *1:04.91* = *1:04.91*
comment: (I tried to go fast)
*3x3x3_bf*: *6:52.52*, *DNF, DNF* = *6:52.52*
*3x3x3_mbf*: Will post tomorrow
*3x3x3_oh*: 48.93 48.30 *55.44* *40.27* 48.27 = *48.50*
*FMC*: 27, R' D' F' R D2 R' L U' L' U R' F' B U2 F B' U' R2 B' R' B U' R U' R' U D'
*Relay*: *5:04.44* (OP)
*Magic*: *1.84* 2.55 *3.05* 2.31 2.55 = *2.47*
*Master Magic*: *5.61* *11.81* 5.68 10.72 8.68 = *8.36*
*Clock*: *26.72* *53.06* 29.38 45.75 34.44 = *36.52*
comment: It's broken
*MegaMinx*: *3:30.88* 3:24.28 3:18.94 3:09.27 *2:50.25* = *3:17.50*
comment: Using F2L (not keyhole) helps. Improving every solve. Figured out that finding an edge, then the corner is faster for me
*PyraMinx*: *20.28* 15.05 *14.94 14.94* 15.80 = *15.26*
*Square-1*: *42.93* 52.40 (P) 1:15.80 (P) 1:44.47 (P) *1:46.58* (P) = *1:17.56*
comment: from really good to really bad


----------



## Gunnar (Mar 26, 2008)

Maybe I'm a little late, but here are some times I got. The OH-times are part of my new personal best average of 10: 22.46. 

2x2 - (4.56), (5.72), 5.70, 5.52, 4.67 => 5.30

3x3 - 15.19, (16.19), 12.97, 13.86, (10.78) => 14.01

3x3OH - 23.05, (19.19), (26.39), 25.50, 20.75 => 23.10


----------



## Mike Hughey (Mar 26, 2008)

AvGalen said:


> *MegaMinx*: *3:30.88* 3:24.28 3:18.94 3:09.27 *2:50.25* = *3:17.50*
> comment: Using F2L (not keyhole) helps. Improving every solve. Figured out that finding an edge, then the corner is faster for me



That's why I've always been close to as fast as you on MegaMinx. I wondered why I could keep up with you on it, but not any other puzzle. I hadn't thought about how much it might hurt to do keyhole when you have so many corner/edge pairs to do. I guess my days of keeping up with you on MegaMinx will soon be over. Oh well, at least for this week I got you on Master Magic and (barely) MegaMinx.  And yes, I've always gone for finding the edge first, then the corner - it's really much faster that way for me too.


----------

