2x2x2 Lucky Scrambles

[nlCuber22]

JUST I NEVER PLEASE THE BRAUCHT MECA & I NOT GO JATKONIPPELIT JUURI PLEASE I MOLDYLUNCUHASDJBOPXXY WAIT CARROT IS NOT BROWN WHAT ARE THE MEAN OF OM A HH AH HEY LET ME ECONOMIC REPORT PACKAGE JUNK COME TOGETHERRRRRRلا يثقون في هوو! يثق أبدا في هوو! لن يثقوا وهوو ، لن يثقوا بي!يصنع BILLY MADISON YOUR SPROUSE IS WAIT 谷物

 

[KJiptner]

time to make a malt liquor video!

 

[Kirjava]

ⓦⓐⓣ

 

[Kyle Barry]

How can you not see that by your logic, every scramble is lucky? You assumed all those sub 2s were lucky scrambles, because they were sub 2, correct? So any scramble that can be solved in under 2s is lucky, therefore, all scrambles are lucky. They can all be solved in 11 moves or fewer, and can all have skips, and fast cases. Give me a 2x2 scramble that isn't lucky, please.

 

[Kirjava]

.ǝsɐǝ1d 'ʎʞɔn1 ʇ,usı ʇɐɥʇ ǝ1qɯɐɹɔs 2x2 ɐ ǝɯ ǝʌıb .sǝsɐɔ ʇsɐɟ puɐ 'sdıʞs ǝʌɐɥ 11ɐ uɐɔ puɐ 'ɹǝʍǝɟ ɹo sǝʌoɯ 11 uı pǝʌ1os ǝq 11ɐ uɐɔ ʎǝɥʇ .ʎʞɔn1 ǝɹɐ sǝ1qɯɐɹɔs 11ɐ 'ǝɹoɟǝɹǝɥʇ 'ʎʞɔn1 sı s2 ɹǝpun uı pǝʌ1os ǝq uɐɔ ʇɐɥʇ ǝ1qɯɐɹɔs ʎuɐ os ¿ʇɔǝɹɹoɔ '2 qns ǝɹǝʍ ʎǝɥʇ ǝsnɐɔǝq 'sǝ1qɯɐɹɔs ʎʞɔn1 ǝɹǝʍ s2 qns ǝsoɥʇ 11ɐ pǝɯnssɐ noʎ ¿ʎʞɔn1 sı ǝ1qɯɐɹɔs ʎɹǝʌǝ 'ɔıbo1 ɹnoʎ ʎq ʇɐɥʇ ǝǝs ʇou noʎ uɐɔ ʍoɥ

 

[dillonbladez]

.ǝsɐǝ1d 'ʎʞɔn1 ʇ,usı ʇɐɥʇ ǝ1qɯɐɹɔs 2x2 ɐ ǝɯ ǝʌıb .sǝsɐɔ ʇsɐɟ puɐ 'sdıʞs ǝʌɐɥ 11ɐ uɐɔ puɐ 'ɹǝʍǝɟ ɹo sǝʌoɯ 11 uı pǝʌ1os ǝq 11ɐ uɐɔ ʎǝɥʇ .ʎʞɔn1 ǝɹɐ sǝ1qɯɐɹɔs 11ɐ 'ǝɹoɟǝɹǝɥʇ 'ʎʞɔn1 sı s2 ɹǝpun uı pǝʌ1os ǝq uɐɔ ʇɐɥʇ ǝ1qɯɐɹɔs ʎuɐ os ¿ʇɔǝɹɹoɔ '2 qns ǝɹǝʍ ʎǝɥʇ ǝsnɐɔǝq 'sǝ1qɯɐɹɔs ʎʞɔn1 ǝɹǝʍ s2 qns ǝsoɥʇ 11ɐ pǝɯnssɐ noʎ ¿ʎʞɔn1 sı ǝ1qɯɐɹɔs ʎɹǝʌǝ 'ɔıbo1 ɹnoʎ ʎq ʇɐɥʇ ǝǝs ʇou noʎ uɐɔ ʍoɥ

...
pro-ness, right there.

 

[Lucas Garron]

"It's not a crime to get lucky" - Erik Akkersdijk

If you're going to quote him, be accurate like you insist everywhere else. His quote can be seen in his sig.

I saw a 5-move scramble used for your reconstruction, but wasn't 100% sure if that was the actual scramble applied to the cube for that event. Could you confirm it?

Check the scrambles on the competition site.

EDIT: "fortunate" or other similar terms may imply something unreasonable. Show me what you think is a more reasonable term than "lucky".

I've tried using "fortunate" in the past, but it's a bit too silly.

The overwhelming convention:

Lucky := skipped a step while solving
Easy := Easy but not (necessarily) lucky.

Solves can be easy or lucky. Scrambles can only be easy.

Faz also has lots of nice, fast solves that are neither easy nor lucky, just nice.

 

[Anthony]

I just read through the thread and all I really got out of it was that reThinking the Cube really needs to rethink for once.

I found it pretty hilarious that he was trying to assert that he's "smarter" than qq and that Rowan sucks at 2x2. lol.

To add my two cents, not all sub 2 solves in competition have been lucky. I know for a fact that Rowe and Justin both got a sub 2 on the same scramble at MIT a few months ago. No one else got a solve nearly as fast simply because they didn't know EG. Easy/Nice and lucky are two very different things.

 

[Faz]

...thread

Lucky = skip stepped

You assume all sub 2 solves are lucky. You say scrambles can be lucky.
Do you know that Rowe Hessler, the holder of the 2x2 average world record, has had sub 2 averages of 12 solves? Iirc, there were no solves with skipped steps at all, but I may be wrong (Maybe 1 or 2)

He gets sub 2 averages because he knows lots of methods, and algorithms for 2x2, and because his turning speed is ridiculous. Not because he gets lucky.
Yes, some solves are lucky, but scrambles are not. People will always solve scrambles in different ways, and on a rare occasion, someone may skip a step.

I took the liberty of doing 50 solves on 2x2, for you, and for some practice. Take into account, I did use a keyboard.

Here are a couple of sub 2 solves I did during my average.

1. 1.62 U F U R' U2 F U' R U2
Solution: z y R' U R U' R' U' R U' y R' U R' U' R U' R
15 moves, far from optimal. non lucky solve.

8. 1.77 U' F2 R' F U' R U2 R U
Solution: x' y' R U' R' U' R' U' R U' y R' U R' U' R U' R' F2 R2
17 moves, far from optimal. I had a really good exe on this one. This wasn't even a very good solution, and there is an easy to see 11 move solve.

29. 1.38 F' U R F' U2 F' R2 F2 U'
Solution: y' x2 D R2' F2 R U2 R U' R' F
Optimal solution - yes. Lucky? No. There were no skips stepped. However, It was "easy"

Now, I will show you an example of a lucky solve:

12. 1.26 F U R F2 U' R F R'
Solution: x R U' R' F R2 U' R' U'
Pll skipped - lucky solve.

Do you understand the cubing term "lucky" yet?

Also, rethinking, feel free to attack my post as much as you want.

 

[Swordsman Kirby]

My logic is flawless

lol

 

[Olivér Perge]

28) Milán Baticz 1.80 Hungary Silesia Open 2009

It was non lucky, however it was a very easy first layer with CLL. His solution was: R U R' F' L F L' U2 L' U2 L. I personally doubt that it was optimal.

Video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tKthrWWRrhE

 

[Cride5]

I think rethinking's problem is unwillingness to accept cubing terminology. As faz and many others pointed out, a 'lucky' solve/scramble (in cubing) means that a stage was skipped. Is it 'lucky' to have a 4-move scramble? According to the English dictionary definition yes, but not according to cubing terminology. By calling it lucky you are implying that a step was skipped which is not necessarily true.

@ Rethinking, the reason specific terminology is adopted is to allow members of a community to communicate easily. If you refuse to use words in the same way, then you simply create misunderstanding. What is wrong with using the word 'fortunate' for a 4-move scramble?

 

[Escher]

I think rethinking's problem is unwillingness to accept cubing terminology. As faz and many others pointed out, a 'lucky' solve/scramble (in cubing) means that a stage was skipped. Is it 'lucky' to have a 4-move scramble? According to the English dictionary definition yes, but not according to cubing terminology. By calling it lucky you are implying that a step was skipped which is not necessarily true.

@ Rethinking, the reason specific terminology is adopted is to allow members of a community to communicate easily. If you refuse to use words in the same way, then you simply create misunderstanding. What is wrong with using the word 'fortunate' for a 4-move scramble?

Isn't it kind of obvious why he has all of these problems?

His username is 'reThinking the cube'. What kind of maniacal egotism does it take to think that a hobby that attracts some of the most academic and intelligent people requires 'reThinking'?

He'll go through, learning about cubing, until he finds something he thinks he can pick a hole in, and once he's been proven wrong he'll ignore everything against him and just tell people that they are wrong and that they are being illogical. Throughout this thread (and the last re: parity algs) he has picked and chosen parts of peoples posts he can argue with and ignored others he can't.

it is time to get off this worthless semantic argument.

is ironic since he has started exactly that.

 

[ribonzz]

It it real luck?

 

[ben1996123]

...thread

Lucky = skip stepped

You assume all sub 2 solves are lucky. You say scrambles can be lucky.
Do you know that Rowe Hessler, the holder of the 2x2 average world record, has had sub 2 averages of 12 solves? Iirc, there were no solves with skipped steps at all, but I may be wrong (Maybe 1 or 2)

He gets sub 2 averages because he knows lots of methods, and algorithms for 2x2, and because his turning speed is ridiculous. Not because he gets lucky.
Yes, some solves are lucky, but scrambles are not. People will always solve scrambles in different ways, and on a rare occasion, someone may skip a step.

I took the liberty of doing 50 solves on 2x2, for you, and for some practice. Take into account, I did use a keyboard.

Here are a couple of sub 2 solves I did during my average.

1. 1.62 U F U R' U2 F U' R U2
Solution: z y R' U R U' R' U' R U' y R' U R' U' R U' R
15 moves, far from optimal. non lucky solve.

8. 1.77 U' F2 R' F U' R U2 R U
Solution: x' y' R U' R' U' R' U' R U' y R' U R' U' R U' R' F2 R2
17 moves, far from optimal. I had a really good exe on this one. This wasn't even a very good solution, and there is an easy to see 11 move solve.

29. 1.38 F' U R F' U2 F' R2 F2 U'
Solution: y' x2 D R2' F2 R U2 R U' R' F
Optimal solution - yes. Lucky? No. There were no skips stepped. However, It was "easy"

Now, I will show you an example of a lucky solve:

12. 1.26 F U R F2 U' R F R'
Solution: x R U' R' F R2 U' R' U'
Pll skipped - lucky solve.

Do you understand the cubing term "lucky" yet?

Also, rethinking, feel free to attack my post as much as you want.

Fail

 

[Pedro]

Fail

What?

 

[trying-to-speedcube...]

Lol.

 

[amostay2004]

Fail

Fail :fp

 

[nlCuber22]

Pedro doesn't know.

 

[ben1996123]

Fail

What?

:fp