One-Answer 3x3x3 Speedsolving Question Thread

Discussion in 'One-Answer Question Forum' started by teller, Jan 15, 2009.

Welcome to the Speedsolving.com. You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to join discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community of over 30,000 people, you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!

If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us and we'll help you get started. We look forward to seeing you on the forums!

Already a member? Login to stop seeing this message.
  1. aavlee

    aavlee Member

    5
    0
    Dec 6, 2016
    I'm currently doing cross on bottom, intuitive F2L, 4LLL. My solves are around 1:10 on average over the last 50.

    My F2L can take around 40-45 seconds which I think is my biggest area of improvement. I have been slowing it down to practice lookahead since it takes me a little bit to recognize pairs. I'm also *always* rotating the cube to do the inserts.

    My question is should I immediately start learning to do my inserts from all sides? Obviously this is going to slow me down at first but I am trying to figure out if I should add learning this on top of pair recognition or practice 1 at a time.
     
  2. Last edited: Jan 4, 2017
  3. Dash Lambda

    Dash Lambda Member

    395
    160
    Jun 23, 2016
    Ambiguaville
    WCA:
    2016SCHU05
    I suggest you do drills where you don't rotate your cube through your entire F2L. Of course you won't consistently do zero rotations in timed solves, but it can help reduce them.
    After a bit of practice, you'll find that a lot of cases that were awkward to do from a different angle become very natural, though there will of course be other cases that just remain awkward.

    I disagree partially.
    For instance, I would probably handle example 9 like this.
     
    GenTheThief likes this.
  4. Whoops.
    I forgot to change examples 9-10.
    I think I would still solve it the way in my example.
    Your way is probably better though. Unless you have an EO skip.
     
    Dash Lambda likes this.
  5. CJ!

    CJ! Member

    5
    1
    Jan 4, 2017
    [R U R’ F’] {[R U R’ U’]
    [R’ F] [R2 U’ R’] U’}

    I dont know what it means mean an algorithm has (R U R' F') and I definitely dont know what { } means
     
  6. Dom

    Dom Member

    Ignore those brakets. Those are just there to help group parts together so it's easy to read. Ironic, isn't it?
     
  7. AlphaSheep

    AlphaSheep Member

    948
    410
    Nov 11, 2014
    Gauteng, South Africa
    WCA:
    2014GRAY03
    You can ignore the brackets. They are just grouping the moves into common groups of moves to make it easier to remember. These groups are often called triggers.

    The set of moves R U R’ U’ R’ F R2 U’ R’ U’ is in {} because it occurs in several other PLLs so it will help when learning to recognise them as the same.
     
  8. CJ!

    CJ! Member

    5
    1
    Jan 4, 2017
    Thankks so much for that tip and it is ironic seeing how i had to sign up on a forum page just to know what it means lol

    You just helped me solve a cube for my first time...im freakin out
     
    Dom likes this.
  9. how many sub 7 cubers are there (besides feliks obviously)?
     
  10. Cale S

    Cale S Member

    2,265
    581
    Jan 18, 2014
    Iowa, USA
    WCA:
    2014SCHO02
    YouTube:
    mathtornado7
    Lucas, Bill, Max, Kian, Patrick, Alex, and probably others (Seung-Hyuk Nahm or Philipp Weyer?) have sub-7 avg100, but that doesn't mean they are all sub-7

    If they were actually considered sub-7 they'd probably need to have an official result that fast

    Kian and Bill have sub-7 avg1000 though so that might be good enough
     
    Last edited: Jan 4, 2017
  11. I'm not sure alex is sub-7 anymore considering he never practises outside of comps (and frequently not even there) tbh.
     
    TDM likes this.
  12. Cale S

    Cale S Member

    2,265
    581
    Jan 18, 2014
    Iowa, USA
    WCA:
    2014SCHO02
    YouTube:
    mathtornado7
    yeah he's definitely not sub-7 now, but he might have been barely sub-7 when he was at his best
     
  13. Dash Lambda

    Dash Lambda Member

    395
    160
    Jun 23, 2016
    Ambiguaville
    WCA:
    2016SCHU05
    Officially, there's 3: Feliks, Sebastian, and Mats.
    165 people have official sub-7 singles.
    Of course that's subject to change, just current figures.

    For unofficial times, who knows. What do you consider sub-7 outside of official results?

    EDIT: Fixed number of singles.
     
    Last edited: Jan 4, 2017
  14. Cale S

    Cale S Member

    2,265
    581
    Jan 18, 2014
    Iowa, USA
    WCA:
    2014SCHO02
    YouTube:
    mathtornado7
    Isn't it 165 people?
     
    Dash Lambda likes this.
  15. Dash Lambda

    Dash Lambda Member

    395
    160
    Jun 23, 2016
    Ambiguaville
    WCA:
    2016SCHU05
    Yes, it is. Thanks for pointing that out.
    I'm gonna have to find out what numbers I was looking at, because I explicitly remember seeing 989 sub-7 results in something.
     
  16. That is the total number of sub-7 single results. Cale is right.
    Only 165 people have sub-7 singles.

    E: half-ninja'd

    You were looking at results, instead of people
     
    Dash Lambda likes this.
  17. Dash Lambda

    Dash Lambda Member

    395
    160
    Jun 23, 2016
    Ambiguaville
    WCA:
    2016SCHU05
    Yes, I fixed it when I saw his correction. I'm still trying to figure out how I got that number, I don't even know where to go to find the total of results rather than people in the first place XP
     
  18. Results -> Rankings -> Show (drop down menu) ->
    -----------------------------------------------100 Persons
    -----------------------------------------------1000 Persons
    -----------------------------------------------All Persons
    -----------------------------------------------By Region
    -----------------------------------------------100 Results
    -----------------------------------------------1000 Results
     
  19. CubingGenius

    CubingGenius Member

    240
    25
    Jul 3, 2016
    If I start solving badly in a session, should I take a break for a while?
     
  20. AlphaSheep

    AlphaSheep Member

    948
    410
    Nov 11, 2014
    Gauteng, South Africa
    WCA:
    2014GRAY03
    No, because it's the bad solves combined with the good solves that reflect your true performance. You need to focus on the bad to improve. It should be motivation to change something.

    Remember that in a comp, you'll probably feel pressured, uncomfortable, and tired. You probably won't be solving at your best. I think it's best to practice dealing with that at home.

    Also, times at home don't count for anything. They never ever make it into the WCA database, so they are absolutely irrelevant. So why does it matter if your average is a couple of seconds worse than what you normally get?
     

Share This Page