Search results

Why not U2 M' U M U2 M2 U M2 U2 for Step 4? Would have been 27 STM.

z D F2 R U2 D' x' R2 U B2 // FB U R' U' M2 U R2 U2 r M' U' r' // SB U2 R' U' R U' R' U2 r // Corners U' M U2 M' U' u2 M' u2 M2 // L6E Next is L' B D2 U L2 F2 D F2 R2 B2 R2 D' U' L' U R' D B2 F U' .

And sometimes, people seem to decide what History has to be. I gave you the insane last-layer approach as an example among many others. When you read https://www.speedsolving.com/wiki/index.php/ZBLL , it seems that someone suddenly thought about solving the last layer with oriented edges in...

Again, not just me, many others. With Adam, it was natural to think about it. We were both using Lars' approach (but with a PLL ending - AKA "Petrich"). In those times, the early edge orientation trick and <R,U> abuse looked nice (especially with our old rusted cubes), and thinking about...

Wow, did I write this 17 years ago? Many people discussed this method (i.e. 1/ Solve DF+DB while orienting edges 2/ Finish F2L in <U, L, R> 3/ Finish last layer with Petrus 5+6+7) long before. Look at the link in Ryan's post (borntodie...), it's a link to Adam Géhin, the fastest speedcuber I...

Pure L6E skip: 6!.2^6.4/2/2=46080 Happened to me once. More chances when M centers are positioned modulo M2. And many more if you consider it a skip when all you need is simple M/U adjustments.

Good old corners-first approach. Not hard to learn, given the symmetries and obvious cases, knowing <20 sequences and tricks should be enough. I always wondered why people gave up using it. Not sure about this. It certainly makes it less obvious, but I feel it's possible with good look-ahead...

That's one of the reasons why many people discarded the idea of starting with solving DF+DB while orienting the other edges. Long before some people presented it as the shiny new ultimate method.

I meant sub-10 competitors. But I may have missed something.

It's just another "edges last" approach, like all the Corners First derivatives. (I would love to see modern cubists use Corners First in competitions!)

It may be about as fast, even if you're permuting 6 edges + centers. The point is: More choice and optimizations in the first step.

If I remember correctly, the technique you proposed before shares the same last steps (3/+4/) as the one above: 1/ Solve two L/R 1x2x3 blocks. 2/ Bring UL/UR (or UF/UB by the way) to DF/DB while orienting the 6 edges. 3/ Solve U corners with COLL. 4/ Solve the prepared L6E. The main difference...

- Maybe you can optimize more the first step, by letting the "M" centers (the last four) random. Fixing them is a job for "4c". If they are misaligned by a quarter turn, invert the edge orientation pattern while fixing U-EO with the last pair. - Even more freedom in the first step if you...

I was 40, and it would have been an easy sub-13 without my neighbor yelling with his feet on the table! ;)

Only 8? That's what I did in 2002, in about 4:45, when I was a slow Petrichian. I think people would be above 15 nowadays if it was a popular event.

Oh, I read "Underwater cuber". It is a click bait for me. I used to hold the unofficial record for underwater cubing, but that what long long ago. What is it now? :)

I saw you now can buy magnetic cubes. Cool, that's something I had been waiting for. I made an attempt 15 years ago that didn't end well. Magnets too weak, friction too strong. In other things was thinking of, was the idea of using polarized filters to color the cube in unexpected ways. I used...

Thank you Senorjuan for understanding my request. The Dayan Zhanchi is the last cube I bought I think, maybe 5 years ago. It has suspicous gaps around the centers, but I'm not that extreme. It was a 57 mm model I think, but I may probably prefer a 55 mm version, good to know. But not as good as...

I want an inferior(?) cube, because it looks better than a thing that is not a cube. I thought I was clear, you're not helping. EDIT: It's about speed cubing of course. I just want a speed cube that does not ruin the aesthetics of our favorite puzzle.