• 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!

[Member Intro] Introducing myself with hopefully not too much info

May 16, 2019
Thread starter #1
Hello. I am a (female) retired software engineer who also enjoys several hobbies including watercolor painting, remote control flying, swimming, golf, playing bridge, table tennis, programming, magic and clowning, and of course, twisty puzzles. I've been solving the 3x3x3 for several years but have recently gotten into larger cubes and other similar puzzles. My first goals were just to solve them and not worry so much about speed, but I've lately gotten interested in getting faster and faster and my goal is now to consistently be under a minute on the 3x3x3. (I have broken 60 seconds three times, but that's not at all a guarantee yet.)

Yes, I realize that is slower than probably 50,000 of you, but it's faster than I've been for years and I do think it's going to be attainable within a few months. Here's a little collage of the puzzles I do and my best times:


I have recently moved to F2L and like it, but am pretty slow at it. I do finger tricks most of the time and use 2-look OLL and 2-look PLL. I am experimenting with different cubes but like the magnetic ones most so far.

I recently bought the largest 3x3x3 commercially made and it's a blast! (It's in my profile picture along with the smallest cube made (the nano).) I won't be setting any speed records with it, but it's amusing!

P.S. I know the common nomenclature for cubes uses just two dimensions, e.g., "3x3", but since I'm a great lover of mathematics, this annoys me. Since these are cubes, we could just call them by one dimension (and extrapolate the others), but I even prefer showing all three, which is why I'll contradict tradition and often refer to them like "3x3x3" or "7x7x7".