Erik Akkersdijk's method

no, it was just simply a pll skip, because the end he had a very slow U2, he didnt know it was a pll skip. Lucas Garron on his site has a whole backtrack of the solve
What do you mean, "no"? I said that he knew it was going to be an EPLL or PLL skip. The slow U2 was because he was getting ready to do slice turns for an EPLL, but it turned out to be a PLL skip.
 
A number of people are saying that he knew it would be a CLL-style alg. Is there proof?

it wasnt. it was just a normal OLL, and then it was a lucky PLL skip

Dude...Erik knows some CLL tricks that he uses on 3x3. Yes it was a normal OLL case, but he case had the two front corners correctly permutated and the back two were swapped, so HE MOST LIKELY KNEW IT WOULD EITHER BE AN EPLL OR A PLL SKIP BECAUSE OF THIS.
 
A number of people are saying that he knew it would be a CLL-style alg. Is there proof?

it wasnt. it was just a normal OLL, and then it was a lucky PLL skip

Dude...Erik knows some CLL tricks that he uses on 3x3. Yes it was a normal OLL case, but he case had the two front corners correctly permutated and the back two were swapped, so HE MOST LIKELY KNEW IT WOULD EITHER BE AN EPLL OR A PLL SKIP BECAUSE OF THIS.

Ah, thank you. Most others have been saying that he *did*, and I was wondering how they knew.
 
A number of people are saying that he knew it would be a CLL-style alg. Is there proof?

it wasnt. it was just a normal OLL, and then it was a lucky PLL skip

Dude...Erik knows some CLL tricks that he uses on 3x3. Yes it was a normal OLL case, but he case had the two front corners correctly permutated and the back two were swapped, so HE MOST LIKELY KNEW IT WOULD EITHER BE AN EPLL OR A PLL SKIP BECAUSE OF THIS.

They are correctly permutated too.
 
haha, it's hilarious to see how bad people can read or twist things they've heared. Did nobody look at Lucas' reconstruction?.... (not that it was 100%, but the end was certainly correct)

Discussions about 'he knows the case', 'it was LL skip' really crack me up :) but srsly guys...
LL: U2, F RUR'U'RUR'U' F' (knew corners would solve), U2


hint: you could've just asked too instead of discussing this :rolleyes::D 'I know he knows this or that...' it's quite dangerous to say it when I'm watching you! :P :) (don't take that too seriously)

Edit: wouldn't surprise me if the discussion would still continue for like 3 pages even after I posted this, considering the fact that some people miss 'PLL skip' IN the video already ;)
 
Last edited:
A number of people are saying that he knew it would be a CLL-style alg. Is there proof?

it wasnt. it was just a normal OLL, and then it was a lucky PLL skip

Dude...Erik knows some CLL tricks that he uses on 3x3. Yes it was a normal OLL case, but he case had the two front corners correctly permutated and the back two were swapped, so HE MOST LIKELY KNEW IT WOULD EITHER BE AN EPLL OR A PLL SKIP BECAUSE OF THIS.

Ah, thank you. Most others have been saying that he *did*, and I was wondering how they knew.

because its nearly impossible to know CLL and not notice these sort of things.

Not only do all of the double sexy move OLL preserve CP, but all of the rest of the L shapes and the entirety of the supersune cases(r U R' U R U2 r' etc.) including the superdoublesune and superheadlights type OLLs. I'm sure there are more but I havent noticed them yet.

anyway, being able to tell that corners are solved can be a big advantage if you are a slice-only EPLL solver like Erik.
 
haha why dont we just like stop this thread, his question was just to know his method... and were argueing over if it was a pll skip or cll :) and really? does it matter what he used? he still got the WR non the less..

and lucas, that backtrack of the solve is awsome
 
I'll tell you something I know for CERTAIN:

Erik Akkersdijk rules all galaxies!
rock.gif
 
(not that it was 100%, but the end was certainly correct)
It wasn't 100%?
Some of the cross notation is always subjective, but I'm pretty sure all the moves are correct.

Hi Lucas,

You and I have both reconstructed this solve (I had the "fortune" of having the original material) and have come to the exact same reconstruction. The only difference is in some execution details (like the second move). Yet everytime I discuss this with Erik he tells me that we got it slightly wrong.

I guess Erik just has bad memory :p
 
Back
Top