2x2x2 "COLD" solving averages using ORTEGA method

[DavidWoner]

So I'm pretty sure what David did was just take like half a second to plan out his FF and then do a normal solve from there. You don't actually have to start turning as soon as you start the timer...

By stating this, you believe that he needs to use only about 1/2 of a second out of the 15 second inspection to equal his best averages. At least to me - this doesn't seem possible - especially with Ortega or Guimond fast averages.

David "d-Bone" Woner: Do you really use this fast "half a second suffices" inspection technique?

Ortega requires less inspection than any other method BY FAR. Since you only need to find four stickers for the first step and 4 for the second, recognition/prediction between early steps is incredibly easy. Permutation of first layer can sometimes be recognized during OLL, and since I know how my Ortega OLLs affect all CLL cases, PBL recog is not really affected with no inpection. A CLL only or Guimond only average with no inspection would be closer to 5s, if not slower.

and the rest of the incestuous groopies,

lolwat

 

[Escher]

Did I really "proceed to post a lot of mistaken assumptions"

Well, maybe just one.

Your initial reply to David Woner was really quite condescending; "That's too fast, you've done it wrong, please try again", basing your opinion on his competition results, and ignoring his recent posts of his averages, the fact he is a super-moderator on this forum and that he is consistently one of the best posters here. Later you then admit the competition results you posted show nothing, so I don't really know why you posted them in the first place. Perhaps you initially made a mistaken assumption that they have a great deal of meaning:

I know that your current 2x2x2 average is very close to 4sec.

and that tells you what he averages at home?

No, and not worth debating.

At least you apologise here for the assumption you shouldn't have made in the first place:

If DW's average was done without inspection, then like I had stated earlier, I apologize for assuming otherwise.

Anyway,

In the future, please say something that contributes, or just stfu. Trying to be a smartass at my expense is just plain stupid. How many times do I have to spank you kids before you learn this lesson?

...

You're being really condescending again.
Honestly speaking, my good attitude disappears when you start posting because I have a prejudice against you based on your attitude here and in other threads.

Anyway, if you'd like my contribution, here is a no-inspection avg of 25:
(7.24), 5.49, 6.09, 4.24, 4.16, 3.49, 4.67, 4.65, (2.53), 3.98, 4.24, 3.92, 4.25, 4.72, 4.16, 4.67, 4.75, 4.56, 3.16, 4.70, 3.66, 4.01, 4.44, 5.70, 4.01 = 4.42

So brother/lover/father/uncle Woneykins wins.

 

[reThinking the Cube]

Ortega requires less inspection than any other method BY FAR. Since you only need to find four stickers for the first step and 4 for the second, recognition/prediction between early steps is incredibly easy. Permutation of first layer can sometimes be recognized during OLL, and since I know how my Ortega OLLs affect all CLL cases, PBL recog is not really affected with no inpection. A CLL only or Guimond only average with no inspection would be closer to 5s, if not slower.

and the rest of the incestuous groopies,

lolwat

Explained well. 1) For reference, how about giving approx. times for each of the steps - typical averages depending on whether you had determined the case during inspection or needed to recognize it on the fly. For me the FF without ANY inspection adds a big chunk, and then the OLL case needs to also be recognized, rather than just executed as predicted. 2) How much inspection time would it typically take for you to be able to work out the whole 2x2x2 solve in advance, and what sort of times could you average with those predetermined solves?

...

 

[qqwref]

reThinking, you are still an idiot. I keep hoping you'll get better and you keep coining new terms when they're not needed, putting "..." after every post for no reason, thinking fast people aren't fast, talking about stuff you don't understand at all, not using proper grammar, disrespecting people who literally know more than you about every facet of cubing, and in general being an ass. If you continue like this nobody will ever respect you. Don't you understand that you COULD fit into the community? A little "sorry, my mistake" goes a long way.

Anyway, I did an average. I guess my normal average is about 5.0 with this method.
best avg12: 6.59 (σ = 0.77)
6.38, 5.88, 6.00, 6.99, 7.51, (5.43), 5.71, 6.45, 5.87, 6.90, 8.21, (DNF)

 

[Slowpoke22]

8.19 a12, but also my first solves of the day. Times were all over the place. Normal a12 for me is 5.75ish.

 

[reThinking the Cube]

Escher: I thought being "concise" really meant something to you.
How will I ever repay you for this diatribe of your love?

Did I really "proceed to post a lot of mistaken assumptions"

Well, maybe just one.

Your initial reply to David Woner was really quite condescending; "That's too fast, you've done it wrong, please try again",

Stop! That is not the true wording, and I really didn't mean it to be taken that way. Check out the "?!" punctuation, and reread it without bias. But yeah, I can see now how that might be misinterpreted. No offense intended, sorry "d-Bone".

basing your opinion on his competition results,

Yes, I did, base my opinion concerning DW's times, upon the information available to me at the time - official WCA 2x2x2 competition results. Later on, I learned some more about DM's 2x2x2 solving ability, and so my opinion on this subject is based upon many things.

and ignoring his recent posts of his averages,

Hadn't seen them. OOOOH, my bad, you got me, I will admit my shame:fp, in that, YES - I wasn't fully prepared for a David "d-Bone" Woner Exam, prior to posting my poll question. Give me a break.

the fact he is a super-moderator on this forum

Yes, no dispute there.

and that he is consistently one of the best posters here.

I can agree with that one as well. The pen-spring 2x2x2 mod is a good example. Another that comes to mind is the 4x4x4 H-perm video demonstration, and many others. Thank you DW

Later you then admit the competition results you posted show nothing, so I don't really know why you posted them in the first place.

Posted in response to baseless insult "clueless" as regards DM's expected times being ~4 sec.

I know that your current 2x2x2 average is very close to 4sec.

That is true. That is what the official WCA competition results show, and that is why I posted them.

and that tells you what he averages at home?

No, and not worth debating.

I am not saying "worthless" here in regards to the posted results (as you falsely claimed earlier), it is simply "not worth debating" as in - "what the hell is the matter with you people" for trying to sidetrack the thread with this?

At least you apologise here for the assumption you shouldn't have made in the first place:

If DW's average was done without inspection, then like I had stated earlier, I apologize for assuming otherwise.

Escher,

Are you able to do the same, by apologizing for your mistaken assumptions, and unkind posts that you have directed towards me?

Anyway,

In the future, please say something that contributes, or just stfu. Trying to be a smartass at my expense is just plain stupid. How many times do I have to spank you kids before you learn this lesson?

You're being really condescending again.
Honestly speaking, my good attitude disappears when you start posting because I have a prejudice against you based on your attitude here and in other threads.

You seriously need to read and enjoy more of my fine attitudinal threads, so that you can fully unbias yourself. It's not healthy for you to be so prejudiced, especially against someone as gifted as me.

Anyway, if you'd like my contribution, here is a no-inspection avg of 25:
(7.24), 5.49, 6.09, 4.24, 4.16, 3.49, 4.67, 4.65, (2.53), 3.98, 4.24, 3.92, 4.25, 4.72, 4.16, 4.67, 4.75, 4.56, 3.16, 4.70, 3.66, 4.01, 4.44, 5.70, 4.01 = 4.42

Thank you. I liked it - a lot.

 

[Edward]

I lol'd.
I'll participate when I get my 2x2 back up, and learn ortega.

 

[Kirjava]

moar liek deThinking the Cube amirite?

 

[reThinking the Cube]

reThinking, you are still an idiot.

Are you trying to set an example for me to follow here?

I keep hoping you'll get better and you keep coining new terms when they're not needed,

The latest one is "Cold Solve" = timed solving without any inspection. Do you have a better name for this? If not, then it was needed. How insecure are you, that other people cannot even coin their own terms for things without you (Lord Gottlieb) getting offended.

putting "..." after every post for no reason,

Reason: I wanted to further seperate the body text from the signature line. I will stop doing that, as a special favor just for you.

thinking fast people aren't fast,

What makes you think I'm not fast?

talking about stuff you don't understand at all,

Yeah, if that is your opinion, then it is YOU that doesn't understand these things.

not using proper grammar,

Mine is better than yours, but I wouldn't be offended if someone PM'd me some tips. English is not my native.

disrespecting people who literally know more than you about every facet of cubing

You don't know me yet, and you don't know what I know yet. Why are you so determined to embarrass yourself?

and in general being an ass.

What is so bad about being an ass? You seem to be exceptionally good at it.

 

[qqwref]

I keep hoping you'll get better and you keep coining new terms when they're not needed,

The latest one is "Cold Solve" = timed solving without any inspection. Do you have a better name for this? If not, then it was needed. How insecure are you, that other people cannot even coin their own terms for things without you (Lord Gottlieb) getting offended.

You seem pretty insecure yourself, to have to assume everyone is arrogant just so you don't feel bad about how you're completely unable to fit into the community. It's called a "no-inspection solve", anyway, and not only is this a better name (people have already used 'cold solving' to mean, you guessed it, solving with cold hands... and also to mean solving without any warm-up) but it doesn't require any explanation because the name already explains what's going on.

putting "..." after every post for no reason,

Reason: I wanted to further seperate the body text from the signature line. I will stop doing that, as a special favor just for you.

If you took the time to actually read some posts on the forum you'd see that nobody does that (ergo it's not necessary). Why would you insist on being different in even the smallest things? It doesn't make people think "this guy is so different, he must be more creative than all of us", but rather "this guy is so different, he is probably just some noob who can't contribute anything useful".

thinking fast people aren't fast,

What makes you think I'm not fast?

Does it matter? But it's the fact that this is *speed*solving and that fast people post their times here, at least once in a while. I haven't seen you post any fast times or videos. Still, it's not about you, it's about Woner, and I think it's very rude (on a speedsolving forum, remember) to question someone's times just because they're fast and you aren't familiar with how fast they are. Questioning someone who's proved themselves time and again (if you'd only look) doesn't make you look like a clever skeptic. It makes you look like someone who can't do basic research, and establishes you as an antagonist to some very well-respected and friendly (perhaps not to you!) forum members.

talking about stuff you don't understand at all,

Yeah, if that is your opinion, then it is YOU that doesn't understand these things.

This is a pretty pathetic defense.

not using proper grammar,

Mine is better than yours, but I wouldn't be offended if someone PM'd me some tips. English is not my native.

Again, why do you think you have to attack everyone? You come across as incredibly arrogant, and not just to me.

disrespecting people who literally know more than you about every facet of cubing

You don't know me yet, and you don't know what I know yet. Why are you so determined to embarrass yourself?

I think we've seen a pretty good approximation of how little you really know about cubing and cubing theory from your posts. If you think this is a misinterpretation, I'm not going to stop you from making better posts.

 

[Escher]

Stop! That is not the true wording, and I really didn't mean it to be taken that way.

Nah, it's not the true wording but I couldn't think of a better way to summarise it without just quoting it verbatim.

Yes, I did, base my opinion concerning DW's times, upon the information available to me at the time

This entire forum should count as information available to at the time...

and ignoring his recent posts of his averages,

Hadn't seen them. OOOOH, my bad, you got me, I will admit my shame:fp, in that, YES - I wasn't fully prepared for a David "d-Bone" Woner Exam, prior to posting my poll question. Give me a break.

Okay, I guess I was being a bit harsh here. Still, it should be made very clear that official times aren't at all reliable when comparing against unofficial times, and even less reliably when comparing against an unofficial event (such as no-inspection 2x2). Just look at Gabriel Dechichi - he has a 13.xx avg in competition, yet several sub 11 avgs of 12 on youtube, and an 8.9x avg of 12 unofficially.

Also, this post is regarding your response to Woner - I actually think the thread itself is quite interesting and of course you don't need to know anything about the contributors beforehand...

I know that your current 2x2x2 average is very close to 4sec.

That is true. That is what the official WCA competition results show, and that is why I posted them.

But that's exactly the thing, you don't know how close or not his avg to 4s is... Or maybe I'm not getting the point here?

I am not saying "worthless" here in regards to the posted results (as you falsely claimed earlier)

Whoa whoa whoa, I never said 'worthless'. I said 'nothing', as in, 'nothing relative to this context' and then implied they don't have a 'great deal of meaning'. I'm not dumb enough to think there's no relation whatsoever.

At least you apologise here for the assumption you shouldn't have made in the first place:

If DW's average was done without inspection, then like I had stated earlier, I apologize for assuming otherwise.

Are you able to do the same, by apologizing for your mistaken assumptions, and unkind posts that you have directed towards me?

Sure, I apologise for telling you to shut up, I should have been less reactionary and made myself clearer.

You're being really condescending again.
Honestly speaking, my good attitude disappears when you start posting because I have a prejudice against you based on your attitude here and in other threads.

You seriously need to read and enjoy more of my fine attitudinal threads, so that you can fully unbias yourself. It's not healthy for you to be so prejudiced, especially against someone as gifted as me.

Hmm, I've read enough of your threads, and posts towards members of the forum I respect not to reconcile you to me here.

Perhaps in the future I'll make my criticisms more clear.

Btw, re: being concise; you can write as long posts as you like as long as you aren't unnecessarily verbose

 

[riffz]

I think you should clarify the usage of Ortega, since doing a CLL solve is technically within the confines of the Ortega method. I would define Ortega to be only using ONE OLL for each case to make this poll more accurate. I think by 'liberal' David probably meant that he used CLL in a lot of the cases.

EDIT:

Average: 8.29
Standard Deviation: 1.77
Best Time: 4.39
Worst Time: DNF
Individual Times:
1. 7.00 F' U R2 U R2 U' F R
2. 9.33 R U2 F' R U' R U' R2 F2
3. (4.39) U R' U' R' U2 F U2 F R2
4. 6.89 R2 U' F2 U R2 F' R' U R2
5. 6.80 R' U2 R F' R2 F2 U R'
6. 13.47 R U' F U' R2 U2 R' F' R
7. 8.69 R F2 U' R' U' R2 F
8. 6.91 F' R U R2 F2 U' R2 U R
9. 8.80 R F' U' R F' R U2 R F'
10. (DNF) R2 U2 F' U R' F2 U2 F' R2
11. 7.80 F U' R F' R2 F R' F2 R'
12. 7.17 R' U F' U2 F U' F U'

That was... frustrating.

 

[Forte]

wtf is preinspection.

Since normal inspection(15 sec.) for a solve is not timed, I chose - for the sake of clarity, to make a distinction by adding the prefix - "pre". The inspection for a "Cold" solve would have to take place during the timing. So with the added format, we can have two kinds of inspection. One of them is done while timed, the other is not. So I chose to refer to the later as "preinspection" to make that distinction. Yeah, technically in WCA rules/terminology, there is only "inspection". For this poll question, "pre-inspection" is the more appropriate term.

...

No, you made this up because you realised 'pre-inspection' isn't the correct term when I asked you about it.

This is still true btw