Search results

Yeah, I see that argument, for sure. Big BLD is definitely more a test of "can you physically pull this off", whereas big cube events are much more about "can you compete at a competitive level". Maybe that's enough of a reason to have "all official averages" be something worth considering for...

A different way of interpreting it, 'tho (which is something I've wondered about before), is why there isn't an "all official averages" group. This is different than the "all single and average" group, because you don't need bigBLDs to get in. I personally think that all official averages is a...

Yay PBL :) As a minor thing (because I'm really bad at big D moves), you could've done y2 -5,0 / to start your solve off. 12.801, meh - I should clean and lube my Square-1 :P y2 4,0 / 3,2 / 1,2 / 0,3 / # CS+CO, seen in inspection - I love easy cases :) 2,3 / 3,0 / 3,0 / 1,1 / -3,0 / -3,0 / #...

I was thinking about this, actually... I think it's possible. I haven't fleshed out the proof, but here's some intuition: If we can show that we can move the corners, edges, wings, and centers however we want (independent of the other pieces, that is), then that should be enough. Corners...

Nice skips! :) In Which Hacking Turns Out Poorly: 14.024 z2 3,0 / -3,-2 / 0,-2 / 0,2 / 0,-1 / 0,-3 / # cs + co - this case is easy to recognize :) -3,4 / 3,0 / 3,0 / -1,-1 / -2,1 / -4,-1 / # adj/opp eo 6,4 / -3,0 / 3,3 / 0,-3 / # j/j cp leading to u/adj; could've instead done cpp to get Z/- if...

I'm hoping that I can get some time in to start making some kind of OBL tutorial, but I would say anything thats <=2 twists is lucky, 3 twists is good, 4 twists is nice if the case itself is nice (eg, pseudo-2gen, goes into M2, etc.), and more than that is bad. Since 6 is the max, and there are...

Unfortunately, I can't help all that much here, because I don't quite combine OBL into everything past simple tracing. However, for a decent number of cases, I'll predict corners because I've memorized which layer they end up in - but because I haven't memorized where exactly the corners go...

I also like it :) I would like, however, to bring up the same "issue" in which a WR isn't considered a CR. It's not a big deal, but seeing people (like Simon Westlund, for example) not qualify for being a platinum member simply because they were too fast seems strange to me.

11.012 z2 / 0,1 / 3,-2 / 1,2 / 0,3 / # cubeshape, predicting and preserving UL corner pair 2,0 / 1,4 / # OBL -1,5 / 3,0 / -3,0 / 3,0 / -3,0 / # very very bad CP 1,-5 / 5,-1 / -3,0 / 1,1 / 0,-3 / -1,-1 / -2,4 / 2,0 # W/W EP For cubeshape, I chose the z2 solution because I liked it better than /...

I'm a fan of the O/O cases for learning - I'm not particularly fast with them, but the <M2, U, D> algs are very intuitive (basically, O/opp cancelled into a Z perm).

Thanks a bunch - this was really helpful in laying the basic groundwork for the method, and the video quality is much much better :) It seems ('tho I do have some follow-up questions after I learn the method more fully) that it won't play too nicely with OBL recognition/prediction...

The relevant regulations are contained in A1a, specifically A1a5: A solve is considered to meet the time limit if and only if the final result, after any time penalties are applied, is less than the time limit. Therefore, even a 40.00 solve wouldn't satisfy a 40-second cutoff. For some further...

lel first attempt 23 to 3c with a very very bad solution :P on inverse: L B' U2 R' // eo [4/4] F D' F U' // x-cross [4/8] D2 B D' B2 D' B // f2l 2 [6/14] D' F' D F D F' D F D' // ab3c [9/23] IF says optimal 30, 'tho

y2 0,4 / 3,0 / -4,-1 / -2,1 / -3,0 / -1,0 / -3,3 / -3,3 / -3,1 / 3,0 / -1,-1 / 3,0 / 1,1 / 6,0 / -4,0 [14|29|36] or y2 0,4 / 3,0 / -4,-1 / -2,1 / 0,-3 / 3,-3 / 0,5 / -3,0 / 3,3 / 0,-3 / -1,1 / -3,0 / 3,3 / 0,-3 / [14|28|34] (Movecounts are [number of twists | number of WCA moves (pairs plus...

I find / 3,3 / 1,0 / -2,-2 / 2,0 / 2,2 / 0,-2 / -1,-1 / 0,3 / -3,-3 / 0,2 / -2,-2 / -1,0 much better than that :P This is an alg that's particularly nice if you do "Western" turning, where you alternate clockwise/counterclockwise for the slices (like doing R2 R2' R2 R2', rather than the Polish...

Oh, that makes sense. But yeah, difficult to do on-the-fly (and I admit I'm pretty bad at doing U/D mirrors on the fly - too much muscle memory, and way too much preference to U-layer turns). As a side note, I really like the inverse of the second alg you posted (bar-on-back ccwU): -1,0 / -3,0...

Hm, okay - that convinces me a lot more in its potential. My intuition at the time said that it would take a lot of work to get consistently sub-15, so that's cool. I think a safe point would be to be consistently sub-10 at home, to safely do this at comps without a bunch of +2s (certainly at...

Sorry, I wasn't clear in my post - I'm in no way doubting the power of CSP. Of all of the places parity is dealt with, it's clear (at least, in my head) that CSP is by far the best place to do it. However, I'm still skeptical in its consistent sub-15 ability in inspection, especially since the...

I'll agree that there are definitely mirrors (I wouldn't use that particular case, since they really solve the same PBL [like, I wouldn't consider R' U R' U' R' U' R' U R U R2 a different case from R2 U R U R' U' R' U' R' U R', since they're both the same U perm] - I'd compare things like / -3,0...

Just idly doing some thinking solves - for easy cubeshapes (<= 3 twists), I can generally trace cubeshape + obl in around 30 seconds. Because of this, I think that CS+OBL is actually something doable in inspection, given quite a bit of time investment. My thoughts here are that one can...