Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 18

Thread: Rowe's 51 solve reconstructed

  1. #1
    Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Uberlandia, MG - Brazil
    WCA Profile
    2007GUIM01
    YouTube
    PedroSG
    Posts
    1,670

    Default Rowe's 51 solve reconstructed


  2. #2
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    New York, NY, USA
    WCA Profile
    2007SUNT01
    YouTube
    swordsmankirby
    Posts
    1,793

    Default

    See, Rowe, freestyle, regardless of how much you hate it, is still faster than the original 3-cycle. :P
    Team #

  3. #3
    Member Derrick Eide17's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Brockville, Ontario
    YouTube
    youtube.com/user/magnum66
    Posts
    1,395

    Default

    Rowe is the best BLD cuber in the world! without a doubt. Great job Rowe!

  4. #4
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    WCA Profile
    2007GOUL01
    YouTube
    cardologist
    Posts
    4,298

    Default

    Just to give my input on Rowe's solve (of which I reconstrcuted in paralell to Pedro)

    Instead of doing:
    B' U F R U' R' U' R U R' F' R U R' U' x R' U R U' x' U' B
    U F R U' R' U' R U R' F' R U R' U' x R' U R U' x' U'

    He could have done:
    y' R2 D' L' U R2 U' L U R2 U' D R2 y

    He said that he didn't think of that fast enough to do it, I think the solve would have been a good sub50 if he had done it that way.
    #

  5. #5
    mod cmhardw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Virginia
    WCA Profile
    2003HARD01
    Posts
    3,212

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by joey View Post
    He could have done:
    y' R2 D' L' U R2 U' L U R2 U' D R2 y
    Or F2 R2 F L2 F' R2 F L2 F

    Or if you want to speed optimize: x U2 R2 U L2 U' R2 U L2 U x'

    It's 3 shorter moves in HTM to achieve the same corner 3 cycle, and in my opinion faster to execute. Daniel and I have been optimizing our corner 3 cycles

    And I agree Rowe's solve was crazy fast. That's cool to think that sub-50 is possible on a BLD solve, including memorization!

    Chris

  6. #6
    Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    39

    Default

    I'd say, with near-100% confidence, that blindfold cubing times of ~40 seconds can be achieved (execution + memorization)

  7. #7
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    WCA Profile
    2007GOUL01
    YouTube
    cardologist
    Posts
    4,298

    Default

    Yes, we know they can be. Rowe has gotten 40s, and two sub40 I think.
    #

  8. #8
    Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    39

    Default

    Wow, sub-40 already? What's the best time achieved so far?

  9. #9
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    WCA Profile
    2007GOUL01
    YouTube
    cardologist
    Posts
    4,298

    Default

    Apparently 37.54 by Rowe. I remember he did a 38.xx while racing each other.

    Marcus: Is your "new" method the same method Rowe is using here? Will you release details of your method?
    #

  10. #10
    Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    39

    Default

    I've only recently gotten back into blindcubing, but my goal is to combine orientation and permutation in a three-cycle method that is easy to apply in memory. I feel that accomplishing this style of approach is "optimal" for blindfold solving in the way that Fridrich is "optimal" for speedsolving. Solving pieces one at a time uses too many moves and solving orientation and permutation separately also has many elements of wasted efficiency. The hard part in such an approach is accounting for even cycles, because I am having issues figuring out an effective way to integrate them into memory approaches. It is also easy to run into the trap where you're looking at memorizing hundreds of algorithms. I haven't fully practiced the method yet either, but my best time with it is 1:05 (I had a few lucky cases faster than this but I don't count them), which isn't too bad. It's really only 40% complete or so (I have a lot of work to do for edge cycles) but I think it has some decent kick to it. I call it the "Omni" method simply because it aims to fully solve pieces with every algorithm. I'm also trying to figure out a very consistent way to handle parity issues.

    I feel the more braindead a method is, the better. "Figuring out" what to do during execution is wasted time. Simply being able to go through your memory hooks and execute blindly is the fastest way to go.
    Last edited by MarcusStuhr; 02-27-2008 at 08:44 AM.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •