My 3x3 in 9.90 seconds video. The umm... "fake" one

[Anthony]

Sorry, but I am serious.

Dude! At this point, no one believes you. Either you're flat out lying or you're not scrambling the puzzles properly. Learn what the scrambling notation means and start scrambling using real computer generated scrambles.

I'm just getting tired of seeing this thread, it's pointless. You're not as fast as you think or say you are and everyone knows that. No go practice and come back when you grow up or get faster.

 

[Ethan Rosen]

Sorry, but I am serious. I am going to UK open in manchester.

I was referring to the part about calling what was probably a <10 move solution on square-1 your PB.

 

[anythingtwisty]

I remember seeing in the earlier thread something I think is vital to consider. Ben mentions that his friend scrambled the SQ-1 solve and I think he said that his friend originally scrambled the 9.90 solve. I still believe that the other solves (4x4 and 2x2) were actually lucky scrambles. Ben, just don't time the solves that are hand scrambled. I once had a kid scramble my cube in my math class who left me a 2x2x3 block. I probably could have achieved an unreal time (for me), but didn't time. Everyone, stop trying to take away this kid's reputation by saying stuff like "HE REHEARSED" or "HOW DID HE GET ALL THE LUCKY SCRAMBLES" or "FAKEFAKEFAKEFAKE". If he was a fake, he would not call it lucky. Frankly, I'm surprised a mod hasn't closed this thread yet, as I think it is a very bad thing to flame this kid when he has not hurt anything.

 

[4Chan]

^

It's a huge insult to people who achieve those times legitimately.

 

[DavidWoner]

For that reason I know that getting a solve of this time is completely impossible for me.

Even with a three-move double extended cross?

Waris and I both got 10.xx on it, and we are both way below sub-20.

I wonder what are the chances of getting 2 centres (2x2) already solved and in their correct positions... (probably badly worded...)

According to qq its

(6 choose 2) * [3/23*2/22*1/21] * [4/20 * 3/19 * 2/18 * 1/17] = 1/572033 ~ .000001748

the chances of having 5 edges done is

(12 choose 5) * (1/23) (1/21) (1/19) (1/17) (1/15) ~ .000338 ~ 1/2955

all of that time 1/72 for PLL skip equals

1/121705741100

yeah that seems probable

You didn't answer to the fact that you faked the scramble/solve

Agreed, that is undoubtedly the most suspicious part of this. Offering a solution and scramble that obviously don't match the video. Before I found the scramble qq posted I kept rescrambling the one in the first post because it was so far from the one in the video that I was certain I was scrambling wrong.

His square-1 PB is faster than my PB, lucky or non-lucky

We got one in IRC that was kite-kite -> (3,0) -> flip middle slice. I got 2 something I don't really remember. We got a lot of nicely retarded ones in there, especially when Dene was doing 200-300 solves a day.

Ben: If you want anyone to have any respect for you, you need to stop lying about your times. Nobody is fooled, and nobody is impressed. For your own good, just tell the truth.

 

[dbax0999]

Perhaps Pochmann will come save him again. I don't know what to believe at this point.

 

[TheBloodyTalon]

I remember seeing in the earlier thread something I think is vital to consider. Ben mentions that his friend scrambled the SQ-1 solve and I think he said that his friend originally scrambled the 9.90 solve. I still believe that the other solves (4x4 and 2x2) were actually lucky scrambles. Ben, just don't time the solves that are hand scrambled. I once had a kid scramble my cube in my math class who left me a 2x2x3 block. I probably could have achieved an unreal time (for me), but didn't time. Everyone, stop trying to take away this kid's reputation by saying stuff like "HE REHEARSED" or "HOW DID HE GET ALL THE LUCKY SCRAMBLES" or "FAKEFAKEFAKEFAKE". If he was a fake, he would not call it lucky. Frankly, I'm surprised a mod hasn't closed this thread yet, as I think it is a very bad thing to flame this kid when he has not hurt anything.

i agree 100%
im not saying that it is fake or it is real..
its just that why would we talk about it?

if it is fake
it is up to him if he is faking himself...

 

[Lofty]

Why is this such a big deal?
Watch the video, then look at qqwerf's reconstruction. You'll see that qqwerf's lines up exactly with what you see in the video while the scramble and solution provided for us by ben do not line up at all. In the video the pair already made in the U layer is clearly visible as is the three cross pieces already in place. Using the scramble provided by ben you do not get these features.
It is thus clear that ben is blatantly lying to us. If it was a real solve why would he lie to us? Its easy to say this is a real solve I have just lost the scramble and the solution.
However as Charlie stated he is just a young kid so we should probably back off of him, stop making such a big deal of it and just let him be.

 

[04mucklowd]

^

It's a huge insult to people who achieve those times legitimately.

I agree

People get those sorts of time through hard work
Not by getting "lucky" or faking it.

 

[oskarasbrink]

OMG 0.16 2x2 lucky ? sub 1 nonlucky ?please count averages instead

 

[PatrickJameson]

Magic - 0.78 seconds

Was this lucky too?

 

[JLarsen]

I agree with Lofty let's just back off him. I mean, I don't care enough.

 

[TheBloodyTalon]

^

It's a huge insult to people who achieve those times legitimately.

I agree

People get those sorts of time through hard work
Not by getting "lucky" or faking it.

why? he mentioned that it was lucky and he is not really that fast...
why are you talking for others? let them tell if they are really insulted

anyway, i also really really hate liars..
but i also dont like people who judges other people..

 

[CharlieCooper]

^

It's a huge insult to people who achieve those times legitimately.

I agree

People get those sorts of time through hard work
Not by getting "lucky" or faking it.

anyway, i also really really hate liars..
but i also dont like people who judges other people..

I don't think anybody *likes* liars... and surely you are judging other people by saying that you don't like people who judge others. They could be lovely people other than that one flaw!

 

[TheBloodyTalon]

^

It's a huge insult to people who achieve those times legitimately.

I agree

People get those sorts of time through hard work
Not by getting "lucky" or faking it.

anyway, i also really really hate liars..
but i also dont like people who judges other people..

I don't think anybody *likes* liars... and surely you are judging other people by saying that you don't like people who judge others. They could be lovely people other than that one flaw!

huh? did i judged anyone?
did i mentioned that someone judged someone?!
i hate someone judging someone.. is that judging?

hayst....
peace

 

[CharlieCooper]

^

It's a huge insult to people who achieve those times legitimately.

I agree

People get those sorts of time through hard work
Not by getting "lucky" or faking it.

anyway, i also really really hate liars..
but i also dont like people who judges other people..

I don't think anybody *likes* liars... and surely you are judging other people by saying that you don't like people who judge others. They could be lovely people other than that one flaw!

huh? did i judged anyone?
did i mentioned that someone judged someone?!
i hate someone judging someone.. is that judging?

hayst....
peace

No worries, misunderstanding.

 

[Lt-UnReaL]

For that reason I know that getting a solve of this time is completely impossible for me.

Even with a three-move double extended cross?

Waris and I both got 10.xx on it, and we are both way below sub-20.

I wonder what are the chances of getting 2 centres (2x2) already solved and in their correct positions... (probably badly worded...)

According to qq its

(6 choose 2) * [3/23*2/22*1/21] * [4/20 * 3/19 * 2/18 * 1/17] = 1/572033 ~ .000001748

the chances of having 5 edges done is

(12 choose 5) * (1/23) (1/21) (1/19) (1/17) (1/15) ~ .000338 ~ 1/2955

all of that time 1/72 for PLL skip equals

1/121705741100

yeah that seems probable

I think a PLL skip on 4x4 is 1/144(correct me if I'm wrong) so it would actually be twice as rare as that...

1/243,411,482,200

Which is also about as twice as rare as getting 6 PLL skips in a row on any odd numbered cube...

 

[ben1996123]

Magic - 0.78 seconds

Was this lucky too?

I thought I changed that a while ago. It is changed and correct now. Sorry about that.

 

[PatrickJameson]

Magic - 0.78 seconds

Was this lucky too?

I thought I changed that a while ago. It is changed and correct now. Sorry about that.

What exactly is 'Unofficial rules'?

 

[*LukeMayn*]

@ ben... -_- just happened to do it wrong... You know that the only person you're tricking is yourself.