Non-Cubers say the darndest things!

I did that with a 3x3 to someone once. They were doing Sune for almost 5 minutes before they realised what I'd done.

No no, I did it to my.. Acquaintance? He uses dan brown method, and he always does the sexy move one time too many because of the corner without realizing he just screwed up the rest of the cube.
 
No no, I did it to my.. Acquaintance? He uses dan brown method, and he always does the sexy move one time too many because of the corner without realizing he just screwed up the rest of the cube.
lol, it does work better for that method. Way more difficult for beginners to see what's wrong. When they do EO-CO-CP-EP, beginners learn to recognise impossible OLLs.

Well, some do :p
 
"Is that(Dayan 2x2) harder or easier to solve than A normal Rubik's cube?"

At least 10 people has asked me this today alone

When the fail is strong, one facepalm is not enough
:fp :fp

So true. People think that a speed cube makes it easier to solve the cube.
People always think that there is only one brand that sells a genuine 3x3.
Many of my friends have a bad opinion on Chinese cubes but in real life brands like DaYan and ShengShou are taking over the cubing market.
 
Today I was solving a 3x3 and a small kid approached me and said that 1 second is the current WR.
Also some people think that you need a very high IQ and that you need to be really good in mathematics for solving a cube.
The best is when I took my pyra for a train trip, a fellow passenger asked me if that was called the Rubik's Tetrahedron.
 
I'm in the army at the moment so I have a lot of time to learn OLLs and cubing in general. Most guys were pretty impressed with what I did, but one of them said something like "there is a certain algorithm(yes he actually said algorithm :) ) which solves it every time".
Where do people get this nonsense? I explained gods number to him and that it's impossible to just know the alg cause of the huge number of possible states, but that's not what he meant. Weird..
 
I'm in the army at the moment so I have a lot of time to learn OLLs and cubing in general. Most guys were pretty impressed with what I did, but one of them said something like "there is a certain algorithm(yes he actually said algorithm :) ) which solves it every time".
Where do people get this nonsense? I explained gods number to him and that it's impossible to just know the alg cause of the huge number of possible states, but that's not what he meant. Weird..

Well, there IS the Hamiltonian circuit aka Devil's Algorithm.
 
ahh yes. Just print that out and give it to your friends with the explanation that this is the only alg you need to solve it. As for the whole solve using R U continuously was because of some YouTube video that said such
 
Oh I didn't realize that, thanks! Pretty sure tho that that was not what he meant ;)

I've always been doing 3x3 up until today, when I wanted to do a 7x7 solve. One of the guys sees me and goes "well now you're just kidding.."
 
That's where practice comes in.
I've tried practising lookahead a lot, and although I haven't yet tried 2-sided PLL recog, my lookahead is still awful in some solves. I average similar times with slow turning F2L (just sub-18) and fast turning (~17.4). I've only recently tried slow turning a lot (before I've been using a metronome with the occasional slow solve), and although I am beginning to see slight improvements, I'm not improving much - my times have only gone down by 0.1s in the past few weeks. But at least my lookahead is improving. I am noticing that a lot more of my solves have no pauses between the first F2L pair and PLL, and I am getting a lot more sub-15s. My consistency within sessions is improving, but between them changes by a lot. I've had one where I've averaged sub-16 for over 75 solves, whereas in some smaller sessions (~30 solves) I've averaged sup-19. Sometimes my lookahead is so much worse than other times.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I've tried practising lookahead a lot, and although I haven't yet tried 2-sided PLL recog, my lookahead is still awful in some solves. I average similar times with slow turning F2L (just sub-18) and fast turning (~17.4). I've only recently tried slow turning a lot (before I've been using a metronome with the occasional slow solve), and although I am beginning to see slight improvements, I'm not improving much - my times have only gone down by 0.1s in the past few weeks. But at least my lookahead is improving. I am noticing that a lot more of my solves have no pauses between the first F2L pair and PLL, and I am getting a lot more sub-15s. My consistency within sessions is improving, but between them changes by a lot. I've had one where I've averaged sub-16 for over 75 solves, whereas in some smaller sessions (~30 solves) I've averaged sup-19. Sometimes my lookahead is so much worse than other times.

when i was around that time i just turned as fast as possible and tried as hard as i can to actively look ahead. So try to track and predict each piece etc
 
Back
Top