Older cubers discussions

[kbrune]

I'm curious about this using Z for parity thing? Is this just to convert a single letter into a letter pair image? If so, I just have single letter images to go with all my 2-letter images; I used to use those for buffer pieces, although now I only use them for leftover pieces when I have an odd number.

Yeah I was considering either using Z or just using single letter with names that are doubled up. Like A - Andre Agassi.
I just figured having an actual letter in my memo as distinct as Z would guarantee that I remember parity. So Z would mean parity really. It's possible id be just as successful using single letter images. Actually I'm compiling a list for both but I'm prioritizing Z pairs at the moment.

 

[kbrune]

@openseas @Mike Hughey
Using both your suggestions I only have 2 left to go!

Mike I was perusing your WCA profile and I noticed you have a result in Multi that says "old style" 15/15
What was different about that attempt in 2008?

 

[mark49152]

Yes I use Z to indicate parity. I started doing it because of audio, but extended the idea to images. As I've said before, it doesn't really matter how letters map to images once you've learned them so I doubt it has any advantage over using doubled letters or single letters. (Note that doubled letters is a bad idea if you use M2 and swap M slice targets in memo like I do. CC, SS etc. are legitimate sequences for me.)

Here are a few of mine...
CZ - tea cosy
EZ - easy E (rapper)
HZ - Heinz beans
IZ - eyes
NZ - nazi
OZ - ozzy osbourne
PZ - pizza
RZ - razor
SZ - seizure
TZ - tazer
VZ - visor
WZ - wizard

 

[openseas]

BTW, kinda BLD day today.

Got Mo3 4BLD of 13:20!

+ made a first ever 6BLD attempt. A total disaster. Gotta respect obliques.

 

[pglewis]

(Note that doubled letters is a bad idea if you use M2 and swap M slice targets in memo like I do. CC, SS etc. are legitimate sequences for me.)

That's a good caveat I hadn't thought of; I don't swap during memo but if I wanted to try it in the future...

On the plus side, most of the double letter pairs are easy to come up with images.

 

[Mike Hughey]

Mike I was perusing your WCA profile and I noticed you have a result in Multi that says "old style" 15/15
What was different about that attempt in 2008?

If you look at the time, you'll see! 2 hours 12 minutes. This was during the brief time when you were allowed 10 minutes per cube, with no overall cap. A few months later, Ryosuke Mondo attempted 50 cubes in 6 hours (33/50 in 6 hours 3 minutes), and shortly after that the hour limit was born.

The year before that, they actually required 100% accuracy to count as a truly valid solve, but they did track failure results. I remember Rowe Hessler's 5/8 "failure" at my first competition, the 2007 US Open. You can see that accuracy was everything at one point by looking at Rowe's Toronto Open Winter 2008 results: he got 9/12 on his first attempt, and 2/2 on his second attempt. The 2/2 was his result for the competition; Eric Limeback won with 3/3.

Edit: And how could I have forgotten - at that same competition where Eric Limeback came in first place with 3/3, Ryosuke Mondo came in third place with 17/18 (in 2 hours and 10 minutes)!!!

 

[openseas]

The year before that, they actually required 100% accuracy to count as a truly valid solve, but they did track failure results. I remember Rowe Hessler's 5/8 "failure" at my first competition, the 2007 US Open. You can see that accuracy was everything at one point by looking at Rowe's Toronto Open Winter 2008 results: he got 9/12 on his first attempt, and 2/2 on his second attempt. The 2/2 was his result for the competition; Eric Limeback won with 3/3.

Edit: And how could I have forgotten - at that same competition where Eric Limeback came in first place with 3/3, Ryosuke Mondo came in third place with 17/18 (in 2 hours and 10 minutes)!!!

Always great to hear old & fun stories!
I also saw you last year 2017 US Nats - you've got 12/12, right? You did right after my son - heard people were saying really impressed that you're still active and doing so many cubes.

 

[Mike Hughey]

Always great to hear old & fun stories!
I also saw you last year 2017 US Nats - you've got 12/12, right? You did right after my son - heard people were saying really impressed that you're still active and doing so many cubes.

That's nice to hear - yes, that was me. That was a real highlight for me - I totally didn't expect to get that! I mainly practiced regular 3x3x3 BLD for that competition (and a little big BLD), and I guess the practice paid off more for multi than for single BLD. I only did one serious multi practice attempt in preparation for that competition.

I admit I'm thoroughly enjoying getting to be the seasoned veteran telling all the old stories, here among the oldies. (Just because I started doing this a few years before most of you.)

 

[Jason Green]

If you look at the time, you'll see! 2 hours 12 minutes. This was during the brief time when you were allowed 10 minutes per cube, with no overall cap. A few months later, Ryosuke Mondo attempted 50 cubes in 6 hours (33/50 in 6 hours 3 minutes), and shortly after that the hour limit was born.

The year before that, they actually required 100% accuracy to count as a truly valid solve, but they did track failure results. I remember Rowe Hessler's 5/8 "failure" at my first competition, the 2007 US Open. You can see that accuracy was everything at one point by looking at Rowe's Toronto Open Winter 2008 results: he got 9/12 on his first attempt, and 2/2 on his second attempt. The 2/2 was his result for the competition; Eric Limeback won with 3/3.

Edit: And how could I have forgotten - at that same competition where Eric Limeback came in first place with 3/3, Ryosuke Mondo came in third place with 17/18 (in 2 hours and 10 minutes)!!!

So how did the scoring work? You must get some points without perfection if 17/18 placed, but 2/2 still beats 9/12. Minus 3 for every unsolved or something? Those are fun stories for sure!

 

[SpartanSailor]

Lots of updates since I last popped in...

I had a decent to good day. Had some really good 3x3 times solves with a couple 19s in there and a whole lot of 21s and 22s. That’s good for me. I was pretty consistent today too.

Then did some 4x4 and got a PB single of 1:16.221. I’ll take that.

Then did some 3BLD practice. Only got 1 of 4 attempts. But... it was the first. Of the four, it was the easiest in my opinion and the only “even” set of targets. I had a good memo too... after that, I had a couple where I reversed the memo... like DUVD but did DVUD or something like that. Then another where I put all the white corners in the wrong spots. I still have to “learn” my letter scheme better so I don’t assign the wrong letter during my memo... I put them where the memo tells me, but assign the wronh location.

Overall... I’m pleased. I need to just do more corner and edge only practice too. I think that will help me with my memo development.

 

[Mike Hughey]

So how did the scoring work? You must get some points without perfection if 17/18 placed, but 2/2 still beats 9/12. Minus 3 for every unsolved or something? Those are fun stories for sure!

I just discovered the WCA finally has all the old regulations posted! Here are the 2007 rules for multi scoring:

9f16) For the 3x3x3 Cube: Multiple Blindfolded event the order in the results is based on:
Highest in the ranking are the competitors who solved all puzzles, among these competitors a larger number means better. For equal results the lower total time means better.
Next in the ranking are the competitors who solved at least one of the puzzles, among these competitors a larger number of solved puzzles means better, and after this a lower number of attempted puzzles means better. For equal results the lower total time means better.
Next in the ranking are the competitors who did not solve at least one puzzle, these competitors all finish at the worst position.

It took several iterations to get to the modern rules. When I did my old-style solve, they had changed the scoring rules to match what we have today, but hadn't changed the time limit yet.

 

[Jason Green]

I just discovered the WCA finally has all the old regulations posted! Here are the 2007 rules for multi scoring:

9f16) For the 3x3x3 Cube: Multiple Blindfolded event the order in the results is based on:
Highest in the ranking are the competitors who solved all puzzles, among these competitors a larger number means better. For equal results the lower total time means better.
Next in the ranking are the competitors who solved at least one of the puzzles, among these competitors a larger number of solved puzzles means better, and after this a lower number of attempted puzzles means better. For equal results the lower total time means better.
Next in the ranking are the competitors who did not solve at least one puzzle, these competitors all finish at the worst position.

It took several iterations to get to the modern rules. When I did my old-style solve, they had changed the scoring rules to match what we have today, but hadn't changed the time limit yet.

That's cool, kind of funny! I thought you had said Mondo got 2nd but see you said 3rd. Rowe's 2/2 beat his 17/18. Hahaha.

 

[Mike Hughey]

That's cool, kind of funny! I thought you had said Mondo got 2nd but see you said 3rd. Rowe's 2/2 beat his 17/18. Hahaha.

Yes, I think the results from that competition had a bit to do with the creation of the point system. I admit I was arguing in favor of the "perfect score wins" angle, though; I like the idea of high accuracy. (And, truth be told, I was somewhat under the impression that Mondo himself liked the perfect score rule too - I think he wanted to get a perfect result with a large number of cubes, and he came really close that day!) But I lost that battle years ago, and I agree that the current system is better for the event's popularity.

@openseas: I guess I didn't really realize who you are before now. Your son is quite amazing at BLD!

 

[openseas]

@openseas: I guess I didn't really realize who you are before now. Your son is quite amazing at BLD!

@Mike Hughey / Thanks! Still heart breaking whenever we bumped into that logo videos :-(

 

[Mike Hughey]

@Mike Hughey / Thanks! Still heart breaking whenever we bumped into that logo videos :-(

Oh wow, I forgot that was your son that had that happen. I'm very sorry that had to happen to him! I was just remembering how good he was when I watched him in the 3BLD finals at Nationals this year!

 

[Jason Green]

Yes, I think the results from that competition had a bit to do with the creation of the point system. I admit I was arguing in favor of the "perfect score wins" angle, though; I like the idea of high accuracy. (And, truth be told, I was somewhat under the impression that Mondo himself liked the perfect score rule too - I think he wanted to get a perfect result with a large number of cubes, and he came really close that day!) But I lost that battle years ago, and I agree that the current system is better for the event's popularity.

@openseas: I guess I didn't really realize who you are before now. Your son is quite amazing at BLD!

You know on the other hand if I was a blinder back in the beginning I could see myself arguing for perfection winning also. Something about really knowing your capability has some appeal. Kind of like an interview candidate who is willing to admit they don't know something you ask them instead of making stuff up. But I think this is different because even if you aim at or below your ability, it's still too easy to make a small mistake, and the larger number of solved cubes is more important.

Yes @openseas is very modest about his son. I find myself wanting to brag for him a lot. If my kids ever get into it you'll probably have to tell me to shut up about any small achievement. Haha. Also they do a great job organizing events! He and his son put on the event we were at last Sunday and it ran really well, almost perfectly on schedule I think.

 

[openseas]

I'm very sorry that had to happen to him! I was just remembering how good he was when I watched him in the 3BLD finals at Nationals this year!

@Mike Hughey / Thanks, again. Next time (this year's Nats?), we can say (more than) hello~

Yes @openseas is very modest about his son. I find myself wanting to brag for him a lot. If my kids ever get into it you'll probably have to tell me to shut up about any small achievement. Haha. Also they do a great job organizing events! He and his son put on the event we were at last Sunday and it ran really well, almost perfectly on schedule I think.

Thanks, @Jason Green . We had 45 new competitors out of 85, it was huge! I'm so glad we had so many new people & gave many opportunities. We need to do this often to grow our community!

 

[Logiqx]

Good luck in Manchester guys - @mark49152, @Shaky Hands, @newtonbase.

I'm doing my usual trick of peaking for a competition that I'm not even attending. Here's a sub-15 Ao12 from earlier today!

Times = 15.19 (13.17) 13.54 15.71 15.98 (18.05) 14.67 15.63 15.95 13.47 14.77 14.04 = 14.89 Ao12

I didn't realise that I had so many pauses in my F2L until reviewing my recent Ao5 video and this Ao12 video. I've had a couple of full step 10.x solves this week when I've been turning smoothly and without pausing - 10.4 and 10.6 iirc. This video also includes a missed sub-10 opportunity... 11.23 was a bit of a waste as it was pretty easy and the LL was FRUR'U'F'.

Lots of room for improvement but I'm making progress again!

Thanks for the inspiration @Selkie + head to head competitions at work @Ollie.

 

[SpartanSailor]

I have a habit of peaking in the days following a competition that I actually did attend. o_O

 

[Logiqx]

COLL seems like a no-brainer and I already have the H cases down with slow recog (though their low frequency means it took a while). I've been trying to decide which of the remaining OCLLs I like least as the next one to add. Some other things i'm considering sampling, smorgasbord style:

COLL is nice but it's of more use during OH than 2H. If you're going to learn some cases then consider which ones go together - e.g. D2 + D3 + E3 + E5. These four cases go together because they're essentially mirrors and inverses. They also look very similar from the top - e.g. D2 and D3 both having matching colours on top whereas E3 and E5 have adjacent colours on top. I learned COLL in 4's because you can do the two cases which look the same on top and their inverses (typically another OCLL).

https://cubing.mikeg.me.uk/algs/coll.html

Here was the order that I learnt them if you're interested:

H1 + H6 + D1 + D6, H (same on top) + L (adj on top), RU + RUF + RrUF
E1 / F1 + E4 / F4, U (opp on top) + T (same on top), RU + RUF
E3 / D3 + E5 / D2, U (adj on top) + L (same on top), RUD
D4 / F5 + D5 / F3, L (opp on top) + T (adj on top), RrUF + RUD
E2 + E6 + F2 + F6, U (same on top) + T (opp on top), RUF + RrUF + RrUD
G3 / H2 + G5 / H3, Pi (same on top) + H (mixed on top), RUF (2H) + RUL (OH)
G1 + G6 + G2 / G4, Pi (mixed on top) + Pi (slash on top), RrUF (2H) + RUL (OH) + RrUD

OLLCP-A: Seems useful, easy to recognize, and just a small subset of OLLCP.

I learnt OLLCP-A during the Christmas break a year ago but I forgot it again through lack of use. Many of the algs are nice to learn but the reality is that the cases come up infrequently and I only ever got an advantage when I got an EPLL skip. On average, I was definitely slower and it would have taken a lot of effort for it to be faster on average than OLL + PLL.

CLLEF: I usually avoid dot cases but I do get 'em. Since they're among my worst OLLs this subset might be worth exploring.

IMHO, try to avoid them with a sledgehammer and if/when you do get them, only half of the dot cases are actually bad.

ZBLL: I'm not considering attacking full ZBLL but at least cherry-picking ones that are stupid not to know.

Individual cases come up infrequently... 1/3888 solves when left to chance. Potentially 1/972 solves if you force EO in 50% of your solves. I started to learn some 2GLL's (i.e. 2-gen subset of ZBLL, 2-gen superset of COLL) but they came up so infrequently and with harder recognition, I decided it wasn't useful for me. Chances are I'd fail to notice the cases I know and waste time trying to recognise cases I don't know!

I'm also considering some last slot twiddling to influence better last layers. Some WV and VLS in general seems prudent. I would like to develop an intuitive sense for corner control during F2L, I currently have none. I have a reasonable intuitive sense for edge control and often sledge things in or out and have developed alternate insertions for a lot of cases based on the EO situation... I would really like to have that kind of feel for corners.

Intuitive EO can be useful and I do it when it's not costly. I should probably learn some easy WV cases if I'm able to spot them mid-F2L pair without pausing (i.e. between the setup and insertion).