• Welcome to the Speedsolving.com, home of the web's largest puzzle community!
    You are currently viewing our forum as a guest which gives you limited access to join discussions and access our other features.

    Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community of 35,000+ people from around the world today!

    If you are already a member, simply login to hide this message and begin participating in the community!

2x2x2 Lucky Scrambles

Joined
Dec 11, 2009
Messages
294
Likes
0
Thread starter #1
What was the official WCA scramble for these solves?

1) Erik Akkersdijk 0.96 Netherlands, Geneva Open 2008
[F' U' F' R2 F2 R U2 R' U F U R2 U F' U2 F2 R' U R F' R U2 R2 U' F] - Edward Lin
can be solved [R U' R' U R U' R']

2) Rowe Hessler 1.03 USA, Brown Cubing Day 2009
[R2 F2 U R'] - Kyle Barry

3) Lucas Garron 1.06 Germany, Stanford Fall 2009
[U' F R2 F' R'] - Ian Jones, David Shi

4) Cameron Almasi 1.15 USA, Stanford Fall 2009
[U' F R2 F' R'] - Ian Jones, David Shi

5) Dan Dzoan 1.33 USA, Stanford Fall 2009
[U' F R2 F' R'] - Ian Jones, David Shi

6) Andy Bridger 1.36 USA, Stanford Fall 2009
[U' F R2 F' R'] - Ian Jones, David Shi

7) Justin Adsuara 1.36 USA, Stanford Fall 2009
[U' F R2 F' R'] - Ian Jones, David Shi

8) Edouard Chambon 1.39 France, Geneva Open 2008
[F' U' F' R2 F2 R U2 R' U F U R2 U F' U2 F2 R' U R F' R U2 R2 U' F] - Edward Lin
can be solved [R U' R' U R U' R']

9) Antoine Piau 1.46 France, World Championship 2009
[4-move solution (iirc)] - Dan Cohen
[U R U2 R' (U')] - Antoine Piau (lachose)

10) Tim Reynolds 1.46 USA, Brown Cubing Day 2009
[R2 F2 U R'] - Kyle Barry

11) David Shi 1.47 USA, Stanford Fall 2009
[U' F R2 F' R'] - Ian Jones, David Shi

12) Eric Limeback 1.52 Canada, Toronto Open Summer 2009
[could be solved by U2 R U R] - Justin Jaffray

13) Anthony Searle 1.55 Belize, Toronto Open Summer 2009
[could be solved by U2 R U R] - Justin Jaffray

14) John Tamanas 1.55 USA, Brown Cubing Day 2009
[R2 F2 U R'] - Kyle Barry

15) Michal Robaczyk 1.55 Poland, Polish Open 2009

16) Vicente Albíter Alpízar 1.55 Mexico, Mexican Open 2008
[Michael Gottlied (derived from youtube video)
- optimal WCA scramble: R' U' F U' solution: z2 U L' U L]

17) Javier París 1.63 Spain, MurciaOpen2008
[F' D2 L2 B' D' B R' D' R' U L' B' L2 U' L2 U2 R2 B2 R2 U2 B2 R2 D R2 D2]
can be solved [F2 R2 U' L]

18) Michal Pleskowicz 1.66 Poland, Polish Open 2009
[F' U F U2 R'] - Michal Pleskowicz

19) Arnaud van Galen 1.68 Netherlands, Geneva Open 2008
[F' U' F' R2 F2 R U2 R' U F U R2 U F' U2 F2 R' U R F' R U2 R2 U' F] - Edward Lin
can be solved [R U' R' U R U' R']

20) Jai Gambhir 1.69 Canada, Toronto Open Summer 2009
[could be solved by U2 R U R] - Justin Jaffray

21) Erik Johnson 1.72 USA, US Nationals 2009

22) Justin Jaffray 1.72 Canada, Toronto Open Summer 2009
[could be solved by U2 R U R] - Justin Jaffray

23) Patrick Jameson 1.72 USA, Armonk Spring 2008
[probable solution was U R' U R' U2] - Tim Reynolds

24) Thomas Watiotienne 1.75 France, World Championship 2009
[4-move solution (iirc)] - Dan Cohen
[U R U2 R' (U')] -Antoine Piau

25) Anton Rostovikov 1.77 Russia, World Championship 2009
[4-move solution (iirc)] - Dan Cohen
[U R U2 R' (U')] -Antoine Piau

26) Thompson Clarke 1.77 Canada, Toronto Open Summer 2009
[could be solved by U2 R U R] - Justin Jaffray

27) Jacco Krijnen 1.80 Netherlands, Dutch Open 2009

28) Milán Baticz 1.80 Hungary, Silesia Open 2009
[R U R' F' L F L' U2 L' U2 L] - was solution, Milan Baticz
[could also be solved by R U' R' U R2 F2 R F2 R2]

29) Michael Nguyen 1.86 USA, Stanford Fall 2009
[U' F R2 F' R'] - Ian Jones, David Shi

30) Phil Thomas 1.86 USA, Wisconsin Open 2008

31) Sebastián Pino Castillo 1.86 Chile, Bahia Summer 2010

32) Laetitia Lemoine 1.88 France, World Championship 2009
[4-move solution (iirc)] - Dan Cohen
[U R U2 R' (U')] -Antoine Piau

33) Marwin-Peter Kurth 1.96 Germany, World Championship 2009
[4-move solution (iirc)] - Dan Cohen
[U R U2 R' (U')] -Antoine Piau

34) Timothy Sun 1.96 USA, Xi'an Open 2009
.
 
Last edited:

Tim Major

Platinum Member
Joined
Aug 26, 2009
Messages
5,381
Likes
16
Location
Melbourne, Australia
WCA
2010MAJO01
#4
What was the official WCA scramble for each of these lucky 2x2x2 solves?
Be careful saying lucky. Not all of them are lucky. And for the scrambles, you'll be able to get a few, but many competition organisers didn't bother uploading them anyway. It's a lot of effort, and might please, 1 or 2 people. I would like retrying scrambles from comps, but it's not that important to me. And people using CLL can get sub 2 without luck. I think Rowe did a sub 2 average of 5, (maybe 12) that was sub 2, and there might be others.

Edit: ninja'd by Sarah.
 
Last edited:

JustinJ

Premium Member
Joined
Oct 15, 2008
Messages
635
Likes
2
Location
Waterloo, Ontario, Canada
WCA
2008JAFF01
#6
Milan and Erik Johnson's were full step. Me and Rowe (and probably others) have full step sub 2's as well. Those were all pretty much nonlucky.

I don't really remember the scrambles. I could remake something similar for mine though. One of them was a two move first face and an easy EG case, and the other was a 6 move FL with a forced LL skip (which could be considered lucky)
 
Joined
Dec 11, 2009
Messages
294
Likes
0
Thread starter #9
What was the official WCA scramble for each of these lucky 2x2x2 solves?
Be careful saying lucky. Not all of them are lucky.

Edit: ninja'd by Sarah.
Be careful saying that they are "non-lucky". None of these solvers can average times as good as these, and therefore the only reasonable term to use is "lucky".

"It's not a crime to get lucky" - Erik Akkersdijk

I don't see any reason to contradict Erik. Do you?
 
Joined
Dec 11, 2009
Messages
294
Likes
0
Thread starter #11
Be careful saying that they are "non-lucky". None of these solvers can average times as good as these, and therefore the only reasonable term to use is "lucky".
Absolutely false.
Absolutely true, unless you can show me who can officially in a WCA competition, AVERAGE times as good as the time for THEIR "lucky" solve listed here. :p

EDIT: "fortunate" or other similar terms may imply something unreasonable. Show me what you think is a more reasonable term than "lucky".
 
Last edited:
Joined
Dec 11, 2009
Messages
294
Likes
0
Thread starter #12
And for the scrambles, you'll be able to get a few, but many competition organisers didn't bother uploading them anyway. It's a lot of effort
False.

Anyhow, Cube-A-Palooza scramble has already been posted here.
I saw a 5-move scramble used for your reconstruction, but wasn't 100% sure if that was the actual scramble applied to the cube for that event. Could you confirm it?
 
Joined
May 22, 2008
Messages
2,478
Likes
16
Location
East Brunswick, NJ
WCA
2007BARR01
YouTube
xkiesterx
#14
Be careful saying that they are "non-lucky". None of these solvers can average times as good as these, and therefore the only reasonable term to use is "lucky".
Absolutely false.
Absolutely true, unless you can show me who can officially in a WCA competition, AVERAGE times as good as the time for THEIR "lucky" solve listed here. :p

EDIT: "fortunate" or other similar terms may imply something unreasonable. Show me what you think is a more reasonable term than "lucky".
A solve that is faster than normal!= lucky scramble. That's ridiculous. What about a solve .01 faster than average? .02? .05? Where is the line.

Your wording leaves absolutely no room for executing better than you normally do, which obviously happens. When a marksman hits a target he doesn't always hit, is that because he was "lucky"? No, it's because he executed properly. The bullet doesn't have to be lucky.

Also, averages are not the times in which people solve cubes all the time. I have gotten 16.xx averages of 12 without any 16s. Were all the sub 16s lucky?

The obvious point is that getting a time under one's average does not necessarily make a solve lucky. That is exceedingly obvious.
 
Joined
Dec 11, 2009
Messages
294
Likes
0
Thread starter #15
The obvious point is....
The obvious point is - that you continue to pick fault with the wording, but you have not shown me a more reasonable term to use. Give me a better description if you don't like the obvious one - "lucky". I don't think it is a crime to refer to a scramble as "lucky":p

"It's not a crime to get lucky" - Erik Akkersdijk
 
Last edited:
Joined
Apr 8, 2007
Messages
4,408
Likes
8
WCA
2007GOUL01
YouTube
cardologist
#17
The obvious point is....
The obvious point is - that you continue to pick fault with the wording, but you have not shown me a more reasonable term to use. Give me a better description if you don't like the obvious one - "lucky". I don't think it is a crime to refer to a solve as "lucky":p

"It's not a crime to get lucky" - Erik Akkersdijk
It isn't a "crime" to use it.. but you're using one word to mean two things.. which is stupid in this situation.
Why use "lucky" to mean a lucky solve.. and a non-lucky fast solve..
YEAH.. I can totally see why that makes sense.. not.

There is no term.. it's just fast solve.
 
Joined
Dec 11, 2009
Messages
294
Likes
0
Thread starter #19
The obvious point is....
The obvious point is - that you continue to pick fault with the wording, but you have not shown me a more reasonable term to use. Give me a better description if you don't like the obvious one - "lucky". I don't think it is a crime to refer to a solve as "lucky":p

"It's not a crime to get lucky" - Erik Akkersdijk
It isn't a "crime" to use it.. but you're using one word to mean two things.. which is stupid in this situation.
Why use "lucky" to mean a lucky solve.. and a non-lucky fast solve..
YEAH.. I can totally see why that makes sense.. not.

There is no term.. it's just fast solve.
Look at the thread title again. "2x2x2 lucky SCRAMBLES". The scramble is RANDOM and therefore introduces an undeniable element of luck into the solve. You seem to be unable to distinguish that the term "lucky" is referring directly to the scramble, and is not necessarily implying anything about the solve that was performed on this scramble. Of course the cuber by extension could get the benefit of a lucky scramble, by executing a skillfull, easy or fast solve that would result in a very good, better, or best time. Whether you like it not, luck plays a part in speedcubing, and there is such a thing as a "lucky scramble".:p

"It's not a crime to get lucky" - Erik Akkersdijk
 
Last edited:

Muesli

Premium Member
Joined
Jun 29, 2009
Messages
1,714
Likes
4
Location
Sheffield, UK
WCA
2009SMIT05
YouTube
musli4brekkies
#20
The obvious point is....
The obvious point is - that you continue to pick fault with the wording, but you have not shown me a more reasonable term to use. Give me a better description if you don't like the obvious one - "lucky". I don't think it is a crime to refer to a solve as "lucky":p

"It's not a crime to get lucky" - Erik Akkersdijk
It isn't a "crime" to use it.. but you're using one word to mean two things.. which is stupid in this situation.
Why use "lucky" to mean a lucky solve.. and a non-lucky fast solve..
YEAH.. I can totally see why that makes sense.. not.

There is no term.. it's just fast solve.
Look at the thread title again. "2x2x2 lucky SCRAMBLES". The scramble is RANDOM and therefore introduces an undeniable element of luck into the solve. You seem to be unable to distinguish that the term "lucky" is referring directly to the scramble, and is not necessarily implying anything about the solve that was performed on this scramble. Of course the cuber by extension could get the benefit of a lucky scramble, by executing a skillfull, easy or fast solve that would result in a very good, better, or best time. Whether you like it not, luck plays a part in speedcubing, and there is such a thing as a "lucky scramble".:p

"It's not a crime to get lucky" - Erik Akkersdijk
You're missing Joey's point. Lucky=/= easy, and some of these solves were easy not lucky. Sure, they may be luck involved in the easy cases coming up but the solver still had to identify and execute the case. For instance, I really like the J-b perm and would see it as a quite lucky case but somebody else might really like an R perm and find the J-b perm horrible.
 
Top