Andrea Santambrogio Square-1 single WR 7.41

Only thing that makes me suspicious is:

He managed to put it in the wrong orientation and do cube shape weirdly in sub 4/5, recognize the skip, and then do the last layer alg all in 7.41?
 
Rubiks560 said:
Only thing that makes me suspicious is:

He managed to put it in the wrong orientation and do cube shape weirdly in sub 4/5, recognize the skip, and then do the last layer alg all in 7.41?
Click to expand...

I average 35 and I could do easy cube shape and an EP alg sub 7 lol. He isn't necessarily 25~ due to TPS, it's likely he just doesn't know many algs and has decent TPS.
 
Rubiks560 said:
Hmm...I guess. I averaged 24 a little earlier this year and couldn't do cube shape sub 5. Maybe I'm just weird.
Click to expand...

I can do cubeshape in roughly 6-7, but they said easy cube shape. Even with a small screw up (like turning fist fist into fist fist before solving into cube) it's possible. I still want the scramble though.
 
Do we have an official word yet? Is it just legit now?

EDIT:

here are the optimal solutions (probably not useful)

(0,2) / (7,7) / (9,0) / (0,5) / (3,0) / (8,1) / (10,0) / (7,8) / (0,10) / (0,10) / (11,6)
(0,2) / (1,1) / (0,9) / (0,5) / (0,3) / (2,7) / (10,0) / (7,8) / (0,10) / (0,10) / (11,6)
(0,2) / (1,1) / (0,9) / (0,5) / (0,3) / (8,1) / (0,10) / (1,2) / (0,10) / (0,10) / (11,6)
(0,2) / (7,7) / (9,0) / (0,5) / (3,0) / (2,7) / (0,10) / (1,2) / (0,10) / (0,10) / (11,6)
(0,2) / (7,7) / (9,0) / (0,5) / (3,0) / (8,1) / (10,0) / (7,8) / (6,4) / (10,0) / (5,0)
(0,2) / (1,1) / (0,9) / (0,5) / (0,3) / (2,7) / (10,0) / (7,8) / (6,4) / (10,0) / (5,0)
(0,2) / (1,1) / (0,9) / (0,5) / (0,3) / (8,1) / (0,10) / (1,2) / (6,4) / (10,0) / (5,0)
(0,2) / (7,7) / (9,0) / (0,5) / (3,0) / (2,7) / (0,10) / (1,2) / (6,4) / (10,0) / (5,0)
(0,2) / (1,1) / (0,9) / (0,5) / (6,9) / (7,2) / (10,0) / (8,7) / (0,10) / (10,0) / (5,0)
(0,2) / (1,1) / (6,3) / (5,0) / (0,3) / (7,2) / (10,0) / (8,7) / (0,10) / (10,0) / (5,0)
(6,8) / (1,1) / (0,9) / (5,0) / (0,3) / (7,2) / (10,0) / (8,7) / (0,10) / (10,0) / (5,0)
(0,2) / (7,7) / (9,0) / (0,5) / (9,6) / (1,8) / (10,0) / (8,7) / (0,10) / (10,0) / (5,0)
(6,8) / (7,7) / (9,0) / (5,0) / (3,0) / (1,8) / (10,0) / (8,7) / (0,10) / (10,0) / (5,0)
(0,2) / (7,7) / (3,6) / (5,0) / (3,0) / (1,8) / (10,0) / (8,7) / (0,10) / (10,0) / (5,0)
(0,2) / (7,7) / (9,0) / (0,5) / (3,0) / (8,1) / (4,6) / (8,7) / (0,10) / (10,0) / (5,0)
(0,2) / (1,1) / (0,9) / (0,5) / (0,3) / (2,7) / (4,6) / (8,7) / (0,10) / (10,0) / (5,0)
(0,2) / (1,1) / (0,9) / (0,5) / (0,3) / (8,1) / (6,4) / (2,1) / (0,10) / (10,0) / (5,0)
(0,2) / (7,7) / (9,0) / (0,5) / (3,0) / (2,7) / (6,4) / (2,1) / (0,10) / (10,0) / (5,0)
(0,2) / (7,7) / (9,0) / (0,5) / (9,6) / (7,2) / (0,10) / (2,1) / (0,10) / (10,0) / (5,0)
(6,8) / (7,7) / (9,0) / (5,0) / (3,0) / (7,2) / (0,10) / (2,1) / (0,10) / (10,0) / (5,0)
(0,2) / (7,7) / (3,6) / (5,0) / (3,0) / (7,2) / (0,10) / (2,1) / (0,10) / (10,0) / (5,0)
(0,2) / (1,1) / (0,9) / (0,5) / (6,9) / (1,8) / (0,10) / (2,1) / (0,10) / (10,0) / (5,0)
(0,2) / (1,1) / (6,3) / (5,0) / (0,3) / (1,8) / (0,10) / (2,1) / (0,10) / (10,0) / (5,0)
(6,8) / (1,1) / (0,9) / (5,0) / (0,3) / (1,8) / (0,10) / (2,1) / (0,10) / (10,0) / (5,0)
 
Last edited:
I guess you read Lorenzo's post, didn't you? We have absolutely no reason to belive that the result is not legit for now.
 
Thom's "solutions" are in fact sequences equivalent to the scramble, just invert them to get working solutions.
 
MTGjumper said:
One thing I think that the competitor needs to be asked: how would you normally solve that cubeshape? It's a nontrivial one, that's for sure, with optimal solution taking six twists.
Click to expand...

Here's the possible solution that I proposed and Michael Young greatly refined. It has a seven move cubeshape despite being optimal at six moves, which might be associated with the error made by Andrea at the beginning.

Scramble: (6,-4) / (-5,-5) / (-3,0) / (5,0) / (3,0) / (1,-4) / (-2,0) / (-4,-5) / (0,-2) / (-2,0) / (5,0)

Solution:

(-5,0) / (2,0) / (0,2) / (-2,-1) / (0,2) / (-1, 4) / (0, -3) / // Cubeshape
(-5, 0) / // CO, CP skip, fix middle
(0, 3) / (-1, -1) / (6, 4) // EO, EP skip

Essentially, the solution is undoing the cubeshape done in the scramble at the beginning, which results in a lucky case. You can see how lucky it is if you do only the first few moves of the scramble, right up to the point where cubeshape is lost in the scramble. At that point it is one turn away from CO/CP being done.

It doesn't exactly fit the bill of being a layer skip, but it should be pretty clear that there exist plausible lucky solutions for this scramble.

EDIT: Turns out this is solution is the inverse of the last optimal case given by Thom a few posts back.
 
Last edited:
Kit Clement said:
Here's the possible solution that I proposed and Michael Young greatly refined. It has a seven move cubeshape despite being optimal at six moves, which might be associated with the error made by Andrea at the beginning.

Scramble: (6,-4) / (-5,-5) / (-3,0) / (5,0) / (3,0) / (1,-4) / (-2,0) / (-4,-5) / (0,-2) / (-2,0) / (5,0)

Solution:

(-5,0) / (2,0) / (0,2) / (-2,-1) / (0,2) / (-1, 4) / (0, -3) / // Cubeshape
(-5, 0) / // CO, CP skip, fix middle
(0, 3) / (-1, -1) / (6, 4) // EO, EP skip

Essentially, the solution is undoing the cubeshape done in the scramble at the beginning, which results in a lucky case. You can see how lucky it is if you do only the first few moves of the scramble, right up to the point where cubeshape is lost in the scramble. At that point it is one turn away from CO/CP being done.

It doesn't exactly fit the bill of being a layer skip, but it should be pretty clear that there exist plausible lucky solutions for this scramble.
Click to expand...

I can see this happening.. You may be on to something.
 
I got 9.3 on my 5th try, didn't really have the cube shape down as I solve it less efficiently. I think it's definitely plausible. The only reason it isn't plausible is he screwed up cubeshape, which would normally then have a pause. But, it seems definitely possible for someone of his speed (he's decent at Square-1 if we assume he averages similar to his comp PB average) so... congratulations Andrea.
 
Last edited:
Kit Clement said:
Here's the possible solution that I proposed and Michael Young greatly refined. It has a seven move cubeshape despite being optimal at six moves, which might be associated with the error made by Andrea at the beginning.

Scramble: (6,-4) / (-5,-5) / (-3,0) / (5,0) / (3,0) / (1,-4) / (-2,0) / (-4,-5) / (0,-2) / (-2,0) / (5,0)

Solution:

(-5,0) / (2,0) / (0,2) / (-2,-1) / (0,2) / (-1, 4) / (0, -3) / // Cubeshape
(-5, 0) / // CO, CP skip, fix middle
(0, 3) / (-1, -1) / (6, 4) // EO, EP skip

Essentially, the solution is undoing the cubeshape done in the scramble at the beginning, which results in a lucky case. You can see how lucky it is if you do only the first few moves of the scramble, right up to the point where cubeshape is lost in the scramble. At that point it is one turn away from CO/CP being done.

It doesn't exactly fit the bill of being a layer skip, but it should be pretty clear that there exist plausible lucky solutions for this scramble.

EDIT: Turns out this is solution is the inverse of the last optimal case given by Thom a few posts back.
Click to expand...

4.32 with that solution after a few tries. That cubeshape solution is so uncomfortable for me :/
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

abunickabhi
[NR] [Peru NR] 4.63s Square-1 single by Andreas Suzuki
Replies
2
Views
525
abunickabhi
abunickabhi
J
26.62 Team BLD Single - Team Bentohl (Andreas Pohl & Jan Bentlage)
Replies
0
Views
924
Jan Bentlage
J
A
[Unofficial] Real Men's Team BLD UWR in 07:55.15 by Andreas Pohl and Adrian Lehmann
Replies
19
Views
2,674
DennisStrehlau
DennisStrehlau
Imperium
Andrea from Italy
Replies
1
Views
946
Chrisalead
Chrisalead
Imperium
[Unofficial] 7x7x7 3:42.93 Andrea Natale (Italy)
Replies
3
Views
1,455
Imperium
Imperium
Back
Top