nlcuber, why do you continue to make useless posts? Let's see some examples from your last 30 posts.

Maybe nobody knows and it's just a trick to make you think there's something behind it.

*cough cough*I mean, yeah, how do you not know?*cough*
Why don't you capitalize or punctuate?

Now that is the question.

OT: It's hard to sue in China.
lolowen

an lmao moment: last edited by Owen 6 minutes ago: reason: speling.
wow nub u suck lrn2oh

...
I had to say something different.
olook at my avatar
That is 9 out of 30 posts, or 30%. This is a small sample size but if I extrapolate that figure to your entire post count that is approximately 206 useless posts.
 
That is 9 out of 30 posts, or 30%. This is a small sample size but if I extrapolate that figure to your entire post count that is approximately 206 useless posts.

I'm pretty sure that people become less nooby over time, so shouldn't there be a curve, meaning that he has more than 206 useless posts?
 
That is 9 out of 30 posts, or 30%. This is a small sample size but if I extrapolate that figure to your entire post count that is approximately 206 useless posts.

I'm pretty sure that people become less nooby over time, so shouldn't there be a curve, meaning that he has more than 206 useless posts?

Take a minute to consider who you are talking about.
 
That is 9 out of 30 posts, or 30%. This is a small sample size but if I extrapolate that figure to your entire post count that is approximately 206 useless posts.

I'm pretty sure that people become less nooby over time, so shouldn't there be a curve, meaning that he has more than 206 useless posts?
Lol. A noob curve? What is this crazyness??? :eek:

Anyway, my accomplishment is sub 25 OH solve with a PLL skip though: 23.45
I'm horrible at OH. :P
 
Before today, I had 3 total square 1 solves in my life.

I've done 6 today and I just got a new PB of 42.82 seconds
(0,-3) (0,3) (0,3) (0,3) (0,3) (-3,0) (0,1) (0,4) (-2,5) (2,0) (-4,3) (0,2) (2,1) (-4,0) (4,3) (0,5) (6,4) (3,0)
Got parity and 35.40. I guess it's just another scramble which gives you a lucky case only if you do cubeshape the beginners' way or something like that.
 
Before today, I had 3 total square 1 solves in my life.

I've done 6 today and I just got a new PB of 42.82 seconds
(0,-3) (0,3) (0,3) (0,3) (0,3) (-3,0) (0,1) (0,4) (-2,5) (2,0) (-4,3) (0,2) (2,1) (-4,0) (4,3) (0,5) (6,4) (3,0)
Got parity and 35.40. I guess it's just another scramble which gives you a lucky case only if you do cubeshape the beginners' way or something like that.

Is the beginners way, the one from Lars Vandenbergh's site? If not, I just went straight to that method. I also learned my cubeshape straight from Vault's youtube video.

Also, it went something like (1,0) for corners, regular edge swap, then switched 2 corners on top and bottom, then did adjacent-adjacent. Is that lucky?

I know nothing about square-1, ha
 
Last edited:
Solve the megaminx for the first time, took about 20 minutes.
By the way, I didn't go searching on the internet for algorithms or tutorials. I solved everything intuitively up to the last layer corners where I used commutators.

Commutators are intuitive.

Oh yeah, in that case I solved the entire thing inuitively.
 
Average of 5: 3.80
1. 3.56 U R2 U2 R' U' F2 R' U2 R
2. 4.14 R2 F U' R' F2 R U' F2 R
3. (5.62) R2 F R F' R F U' R U
4. (3.16) R U F' U' R U2 R' F2 U2
5. 3.70 U2 R' U R2 U R' U' F R U'

Average of 12: 4.44
1. 5.43 U F' U R' F U2 F' U R2
2. 4.00 F' U2 R' U2 R2 F R' F' U
3. 4.39 R U F' U F2 U2 R' U' F2 U'
4. 3.89 R' U F R' U R U2 R'
5. (3.49) F' R' U F2 R U' F2 R
6. 5.02 R2 F R' U R' F' R F2 U'
7. 4.81 F2 R U2 R F' U' F' U2 R
8. 4.35 F' R2 U F' R F' R' U R2
9. 5.13 F' U' F U F' R U2 R'
10. (7.00) F' U F2 U2 R2 F' R F'
11. 3.83 R F' R F2 U R' F' R
12. 3.56 U' F2 U' R' F' R' F U' R
 
Back
Top