Help me do something cool

[bundat]

One of the example I chose is 18 "moves as executed" (ETM), done in 2.36 seconds. The kind of thing I was talking about when I said "2 second LSE", so I don't see how the numbers work against me.

I obviously know Alex can't do LSE sub-2 consistently, but it's usually around that number, over or under by a little, hence why I didn't put sub-2 and just called it a "2 second LSE". When I said 2-second LSE, I didn't mean 1.9xxx. But basically, all you are saying is I shouldn't call that a 2 second LSE then, which I think we can just disagree at. Or that I should be "accurate" and call it "2.xx second LSE" in casual conversation, or even worse, "1.6-2.xx second LSE". In casual conversation? That just feels awkward to type out, I don't want to have to break out WCA, RCDB, etc for casual conversation. I remember telling non-cubers "the world record is 5 seconds" when they try to make conversation about speedcubing, and I don't see anything wrong with it (and saying 5.55 will just make me look like a nerd... not helped by holding a rubik's cube).

Also, I don't see how my post implies that I assume all LSEs are 18 moves. It's a number I commonly see in Roux reconstructions, so I assume is a common movecount for LSE.

EDIT: also, I usually do U and U' with the same finger, and just index push, I got used to it because my Z-perm needs that for no regrips. I won't deny the table can be a slowing factor (but nor will I agree that it cannot be trained around) but just saying, U and U' isn't the best argument..

 

[uberCuber]

One of the example I chose is 18 "moves as executed" (ETM), done in 2.36 seconds. The kind of thing I was talking about when I said "2 second LSE", so I don't see how the numbers work against me.

The only problem I was pointing out is that, in your post, you explicitly called 2.81 seconds "2 seconds", when it's not even close at all.

I remember telling non-cubers "the world record is 5 seconds" when they try to make conversation about speedcubing, and I don't see anything wrong with it (and saying 5.55 will just make me look like a nerd... not helped by holding a rubik's cube).

I don't think it's that hard to say five and a half seconds, which is significantly more accurate.

 

[bundat]

The only problem I was pointing out is that, in your post, you explicitly called 2.81 seconds "2 seconds", when it's not even close at all.

I'll admit, THAT was a bit of a stretch, but I was thinking that since it has more moves (>18), and was still 2.xx, that it wasn't too bad of an example.

I don't think it's that hard to say five and a half seconds, which is significantly more accurate.

Still feels awkward to say for me, but I guess your mileage may vary.

 

[TDM]

I know the 2.36 LSE didn't work against you, but the others did. I also never said he could sub-2 LSEs, but from your three examples two of them aren't close to 2.
It's only your last paragraph that implies all LSEs are 18 moves.
I know the U/U' bit isn't the best argument but all I'm saying is that it does slow you down a bit: OH LSEs are never going to be as fast as 2H LSEs. Same thing if you practise a lot with a table. It'll be faster than without practise, but not as fast as 2H.

 

[bundat]

I know the 2.36 LSE didn't work against you, but the others did.

In the same context that even Faz's 5.66 solve could be colloquially referred to as a 5 second solve, I don't see how those examples are working against me when I casually mentioned 2 seconds.

I didn't even CLAIM any accomplishment, to myself or anyone else, only said "I would LOVE to see it", so I don't know why you're getting so uptight about this.
Heck, I'd love to see a sub-10 OH Roux solve.
How does that statement imply anything at all? Nor is it a statement I see worthy of "computing TPS" and breaking out records over, since it's not even a technical claim.

It's only your last paragraph that implies all LSEs are 18 moves.

I can't find this at all. Please quote it, as it seems you keep deriving totally incorrect conclusions from my statements.

OH LSEs are never going to be as fast as 2H LSEs.

"NEVER" is a bit of a stretch, and I can tell you that this is just a totally false assumption. I can say "I'd love to see a sub-5 solve". People like Faz can pull it off, even if its a totally rare fluke, doesn't mean I wouldn't count it.

I can see Alex pulling off an insane once-in-a-blue-moon super-fast OH table LSE, fluke or whatnot, PB or whatever, beating most of his other 2H LSEs, and that's definitely NOT "NEVER". Sure, his usual OH LSE would be slower, but when I said "I'd love to see 18 move LSE in 2 seconds", it's like wanting to see a sub-1 PLL, it doesn't mean that they can always pull that off. Who knows how many tries it took those people with such YouTube videos to do that.

Are you just arguing for the sake of arguing now? Or just getting the last word? I cannot see why a statement of "wanting to see something" would even warrant this argument, its not like I made a ridiculous claim, such as "Roux w/o table is just as competitive". If anything, you can say something was "implied" from that statement, but "implied" is still not a direct claim so I have no idea what the problem is.

And the "implied" thing that 9 tps is possible with OH+table, I seriously doubt it is totally impossible with Alex's MU turn speed (since he can easily do 14 tps 2-handed in this 0.50 U perm). I don't care if it's a rehearsed/speedBLD solve, it would still count it, the same way I count sub-1 PLL YouTube videos as a sub-1 PLL accomplishment, regardless if it took them 100 tries.

Now show me that without a table. Rehearsed solve, or whatnot, I don't care. If ANYONE pulls it off, then I will change my view and say that Roux solvers should not even bother with the table anymore.

And personally, I truly DO want to see it, as I don't like table abuse that much either, and have been experimenting myself on how to do M-slice OHITA.

 

[TDM]

Are you just arguing for the sake of arguing now? Or just getting the last word?

If you think I'm doing this (which I'm not), I'll stop.

 

[pipkiksass]

Has nobody else noticed that the OP figured out a method by himself which averages 60-70 turns per solve, without algs? You, sir, must be a genius and I salute you.

Oh, and btw <= 2.49 seconds is 2 seconds, >= 2.50 seconds is 3 seconds, at least in my book! So although Mats WR is 5.xx, it's a 6 second solve.

But, when it comes to TPS, there's no excuse for not using at least one decimal point!

 

[bundat]

But, when it comes to TPS, there's no excuse for not using at least one decimal point!

I wasn't talking about tps though, I just said that I'd like to see an M-slice speed, which I think is very fast but achievable for OH+table, be done without a table.

Never really expected it to be dissected down to the decimal points so I didn't feel the need to be precise about it.

 

[TDM]

Oh, and btw <= 2.49 seconds is 2 seconds, >= 2.50 seconds is 3 seconds, at least in my book! So although Mats WR is 5.xx, it's a 6 second solve.

Unless it's very close (+/-0.05) to being x.5 seconds, then I'd say something-and-a-half. I'd never say Mats' solve is 6 seconds as it's very far from that.

 

[pipkiksass]

I wasn't talking about tps though, I just said that I'd like to see an M-slice speed, which I think is very fast but achievable for OH+table, be done without a table.

Never really expected it to be dissected down to the decimal points so I didn't feel the need to be precise about it.

Chill out, I'm not criticising you, I'm just saying TPS only makes sense of you use fractions of seconds. 10 turns in 1.01 seconds = 10TPS, 10 turns in 1.99 seconds = 5TPS. Nuff said.

I agree that our would be nice to see done table-free Roux OH, but I just don't think it's a method that lends itself readily to OH solving, because slice turns inherently require gripping one part of the cube while turning another.