New 3x3 BLD WR by Haiyan Zhuang, 32.27s

[dillonbladez]

yay, im gonna buy one

 

[moogra]

I love how his BLD time is less than his 3x3 single time (I know he does BLD during speedsolve, but still).
edit
whoa, 2 WR in a row

 

[Olivér Perge]

Amazing skills! Next: sub-30?

Can't wait to finally see him getting an official average!

 

[TheMachanga]

Rubik's Cube 833 2374 4899 34.90
3x3 blindfolded 1 1 1 32.27

WTF!

 

[joey]

Rubik's Cube 833 2374 4899 34.90
3x3 blindfolded 1 1 1 32.27

WTF!

Someone else who doesn't read around much.

 

[ben1996123]

Rubik's Cube 833 2374 4899 34.90
3x3 blindfolded 1 1 1 32.27

WTF!

WTF lol

:confused::confused::confused:

 

[joey]

Oh look, ben can't read either.

 

[Dene]

eh WAT? WHY DO HIS 3X3 TIMES SUCK SO BAD? LOL HE SHOULD JUST DO BLD FOR 3X3 IT WOULD BE THE SAME SPEED LOL!!!!111

 

[kemot_13]

eh WAT? WHY DO HIS 3X3 TIMES SUCK SO BAD? LOL HE SHOULD JUST DO BLD FOR 3X3 IT WOULD BE THE SAME SPEED LOL!!!!111

When I read that I decided to log in, because I haven't logged in for long time, and write it:
LOL

 

[ursace]

come late,congratulations

 

[marthaurion]

isnt his 3x3 so bad because he practices BLD when he solves for 3x3? i remember seeing him do that at the shanghai weisuo open last year

 

[Micael]

isnt his 3x3 so bad because he practices BLD when he solves for 3x3? i remember seeing him do that at the shanghai weisuo open last year

Yes and it is a well know fact here in this forum.

 

[Lucas Garron]

Reconstruction: http://archive.garron.us/solves/2010/zhuang_32_27_BLD.htm

 

[Mike Hughey]

Wow, thank you for this, Lucas!

His algorithms are wonderful. I want more.

My comments:
(corners)
z U R' D2 R' U2' R D2 R' U2 R2 U'
This one is so sweet! I was using a BH ten-mover for this, but this is just as intuitive, with one extra move, and very finger-friendly. I must find ways to switch to this sort of algorithm for all of these types.
x' y' R2' D R U2' R' D' R U2' R x y'
Exactly the algorithm I use, and same orientation - nothing new here.
L U' R' U L' U' R U
I realize I've been terribly stupid on this one - I've been using U B U' F' U B' U' F. Again, I must switch.
(edges)
x R2' U R U R U' R' U' R' U' R' x'
As I've been trying to learn my edges, I've been thinking about using algorithms like this for these cases with 3 edges around a corner. It was one of the first algorithms I figured out for the cube (my staple algorithm for solving corners-first in the 80's, actually), and I find it very fast to execute. I had about given up on it in favor of the BH algorithms, but now I'm going to have to reconsider.
z' U' L' U' L' U' L U L U L z
Another one just like the previous one.
x U M' U2 M U x'
Yeah, that's what I use for that one. Nothing new here.
R U' R U R' U' M' U R U' r' U R'
I must admit this one is far too non-intuitive for me - I don't see myself adopting this one.
x' U R' U R' U' M' U R U' r' R2 U' x
I don't like this one at all. I would do x' U2 R2 U' M' U R2 U' M U' x. Just as easy to execute (all the same moves), but 3 less moves. I guess maybe he likes not having to do the M, but for me, mine is much better.
y x M U M U2 M' U M'
Wow, that's awesome. I must learn it. I was using an 8 mover instead that's very awkward.

I can see now that I have lots of further improvement possible in 3x3x3 BLD. It makes me so much more hopeful for being sub-1 someday. Thanks for the inspiration, Haiyan!

 

[Swordsman Kirby]

y x M U M U2 M' U M'
Wow, that's awesome. I must learn it. I was using an 8 mover instead that's very awkward.

It even works when doing big cube BLD (given you've done centers first)!

 

[Mike Hughey]

y x M U M U2 M' U M'
Wow, that's awesome. I must learn it. I was using an 8 mover instead that's very awkward.

It even works when doing big cube BLD (given you've done centers first)!

Yes, it does. In fact, all of the algorithms he uses here work except the first 2 edge algorithms. That may be an argument against adopting those. Still, I am fast at them, so it's tempting to just have different algorithms for big cubes.

 

[irontwig]

d same orientation - nothing new here.
L U' R' U L' U' R U
I realize I've been terribly stupid on this one - I've been using U B U' F' U B' U' F. Again, I must switch.

Come on, Mike, that's a Niklas, everyone should know that.

 

[trying-to-speedcube...]

R U' R U R' U' M' U R U' r' U R'
I must admit this one is far too non-intuitive for me - I don't see myself adopting this one.

It's fast though. How about this one?

U r U' M U2 M' U' r' U'

 

[DavidWoner]

R U' R U R' U' M' U R U' r' U R'
I must admit this one is far too non-intuitive for me - I don't see myself adopting this one.

It is just R U' conjugation and an ELL/OLL alg. It's super fast.

 

[Mike Hughey]

d same orientation - nothing new here.
L U' R' U L' U' R U
I realize I've been terribly stupid on this one - I've been using U B U' F' U B' U' F. Again, I must switch.

Come on, Mike, that's a Niklas, everyone should know that.

Yeah, I know. But effectively, mine is too - it's just a bad one.

R U' R U R' U' M' U R U' r' U R'
I must admit this one is far too non-intuitive for me - I don't see myself adopting this one.

It's fast though. How about this one?

U r U' M U2 M' U' r' U'

I like that one, but it won't work on a big cube (well, not without crazy slices). And actually, mine isn't bad. I currently do:
z' U D R' D' M D R D' M' U' z (The z's are not a problem, since my buffer would be oriented properly for this anyway.) This matches a whole class of solutions I do, so it's really easy for me to recall.

I'll have to decide whether or not to switch to yours, based on whether or not I'm willing to have different algorithms for big cubes - yours is faster than mine. But I still can't see myself switching to Haiyan's.