Lt-UnReaL
Veteran
But the chances of that are 1/34992 
New sub-10 WR
- Thread starter Erik
- Start date
I don't think sub-10 OH will be happening with any of the current methods.
joey
Member
I meant PLL or OLL skip.
Hmm, if someone knew gods algorithm, they probably could!
What about a one handed robot, that would be interesting!
Hmm, if someone knew gods algorithm, they probably could!
What about a one handed robot, that would be interesting!
Johannes91
Veteran
- Joined
- Mar 28, 2006
- Messages
- 1,341
My fastest OH solve was only 28 moves and 13.75 seconds, and I lost some seconds because of lock ups and slow recognition. Sub-10 is definitely possible even without luck, it just requires very easy cases. At least if you using some more versatile methods than Fridrich.
Johannes91
Veteran
- Joined
- Mar 28, 2006
- Messages
- 1,341
If I get the easiest non-lucky cases, whole solution is 8 moves.
Btw, you are doing some U'-moves in your F2L OH video... But you said you can't do it?
Btw, you are doing some U'-moves in your F2L OH video... But you said you can't do it?
Lt-UnReaL
Veteran
???
joey
Member
Check gods algorithm on wikipedia.org, or google it.
Johannes, I certainly am totally for the method you are using, and I do believe it will be the future. Once I master (get to the point where I think I am at my limit) Fridrich, I will move on to another method and try to master it. I am thinking Roux/Petrus/Heise, or a combo deal. Especially for 1 hand, minimizing the move count will decrease the time limits in my mind. Can you give me a little rundown on how you solve? Don't you just build up the F2L using blocks, then use Fridrich LL algs? Thanks
Johannes91
Veteran
- Joined
- Mar 28, 2006
- Messages
- 1,341
If you ever want to get good at a method that requires intuition, you should switch as soon as possible. You are just wasting your time practising Fridrich because you learn nothing about the cube.
<!--QuoteBegin-PJK@May 12 2007, 12:01 AM
Can you give me a little rundown on how you solve? Don't you just build up the F2L using blocks, then use Fridrich LL algs? Thanks[/quote]
No, I don't even know Fridrich LL. I know Petrus, Heise and 200+ algs (excluding reflections), mostly for LL. I solve fewest moves style, which means that I'm not following any method, I just solve the pieces that look the easiest. Sometimes I don't orient edges after 2x2x3 but build a square and then orient them Heise style etc. I don't consider myself a speedcuber, because speed is not as important as move count for me. I speedsolve just because it's the most popular event.
KJiptner
Veteran
This sounds really interessting. Solving "Freestyle" with your intuitive knowledge of the cube. I admire the way you go. If this is something for the "mass" I'm not sure though.
I have lots of learning to do w/ Fridrich! Once I get around a 13 second avg, I will say that I don't have much more to learn
I do understand that solving intuition takes time, but I'd like to get Fridrich down very well prior to moving to another method. Maybe you don't learn anything when you solve Fridrich, but I definitely do.Ah, okay. I was watching your average on youtube and say that you did a PLL alg each time, or at least on the majority of the solves. As far as move count vs. speed, I really think move count will end up winning the speed race in the end. Coming up with an efficient method and then speeding that will be the quickest way to solve. Good luck.
Johannes91
Veteran
- Joined
- Mar 28, 2006
- Messages
- 1,341
Originally posted by PJK+May 12 2007, 04:18 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (PJK @ May 12 2007, 04:18 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>I have lots of learning to do w/ Fridrich! Once I get around a 13 second avg, I will say that I don't have much more to learn
Sure, there are many things to learn. Pattern recognition, looking ahead, turning speed, no delays etc. But I meant that you don't learn any new techniques used in the actual solving, because you already know what to do in each F2L case.
That's true, I think every solve had a PLL in the end. IIRC I used just basic Petrus F2L because multiple people have requested videos of that. I'm also much more consistent without using any fancy tricks, and I just wanted to get one decent average on video.
<!--QuoteBegin-PJK@May 12 2007, 04:18 PM
As far as move count vs. speed, I really think move count will end up winning the speed race in the end. Coming up with an efficient method and then speeding that will be the quickest way to solve. Good luck.[/quote]
That's exactly what I'm thinking, too. It's really cool that someone who uses Fridrich agrees! B)
Yeah, well, I do think non-Fridrich methods are the future, not only for 2 hand speedsolving, but also for 1 hand. Minimizing the move count it all what it is about.
Julio974
Regular
Now, sub-5 seconds solves are almost common at competitions. And, yes, I like to comment on very old threads.
- Joined
- Jun 7, 2007
- Messages
- 11,927
- Location
- Indianapolis
- WCA ID
- 2007HUGH01
- YouTube
- Visit Channel
It is rather wild that is now true that it is quite rare to have a competition with a 3x3x3 winner having over a 10 second average. How much things have changed in just 12 years!
Not sure that's something to be proud of...
Kit Clement
Premium Member
- Joined
- Aug 25, 2008
- Messages
- 1,626
- Location
- Champaign, IL, USA
- WCA ID
- 2008CLEM01
- YouTube
- Visit Channel
I find the discussion of methods particularly interesting here. I don't think there would be many that today would back Johannes' claims of drastically favoring shorter solutions over speed. But I don't think anyone at that time saw the evolution of cubing equipment that was about to begin in the next few years.
A pure example of how hard it is to predict the future. I think all of my predictions from 12 years ago were way off.
Similar threads
