Old man (50+) starting to cube - (pønten's progression thread)

[Dan the Beginner]

For some reason M2 (i.e. double M' ) is maybe the move I like best to do. Single M however... (I need more training, I think I would make M3' faster)

I forgot to mention in my last post that I do not like a single M move. I still do them during block building, but when I do Ua or Ub perms, ie when I can go fast and without thinking, I do M' 3 times even though it is not really faster for me. The turning feels smoother when I turn that middle layer only in one direction, using ring finger, middle finger and then the forefinger. I have to push my turning hand more forward for the last one, but I am getting used to it. Doing the turns in both directions requires too much adjustment of the hand position and for me, not smooth or enjoyable.

 

[pønten]

So I won't do much timed solves for the rest of this week. First I'm travelling to a work-meeting, followed by a long weekend at my old parents place since they live nearby where I'm travelling. But I'm bringing my cube of course! There will hopefully still be cubing happening!

Last week I learned the 7 CMLL algorithms for orienting the upper corners after they are permutated correctly. (I hope I use the right language here?) Next step is to learn the 8 CMLL algorithms for permutating and orienting the upper corners when two of the corners have to be swapped diagonally. The reason is that I currently have to do the Niklas-algorithm twice for this diagonal swap, while for the others I only have to do it once. So learning this sub-set of the CMLL first will be "cost-efficient" since it will save me the most moves immediately.

I'm finding that some of the algorithms are actually not that hard to learn if I'm able to put names on small sub-segments of the algorithm. For instance when I learned The L1 algorithm last week, it had 16 moves and looked very hard to remember at first sight:

• L1 = U' R U2 R' U' R U R' U' R U R' U' R U' R'

But then I put names on two 3-move-segments:

• R U' R' --> happy
• R U2 R' --> flirt

And R U R' U' should already be known, so then I can write it like this in stead:

• L1 = U'-flirt-U'-sexy-sexy-happy

Using this method, I already have learned two of the new 8 CMLL algorithms that I'm planning to learn next, without even trying hard, just like this:

• H4 = F-sexy-sexy-sexy-F' = F-triangle-F'
• U6 = U'-F-sexy-F'

Also I can see that the sequence F R F' is common in several of the next algorithms. I think I might call it "naggy"!

 

[Dan the Beginner]

 

[qwr]

But then I put names on two 3-move-segments:

Many algorithms are made up of conjugates, algs of the form A B A', and commutators, those of the form A B A' B'. The reason has to do with group theory and especially the "undoing" part of the algs.

 

[Garf]

So I won't do much timed solves for the rest of this week. First I'm travelling to a work-meeting, followed by a long weekend at my old parents place since they live nearby where I'm travelling. But I'm bringing my cube of course! There will hopefully still be cubing happening!

Last week I learned the 7 CMLL algorithms for orienting the upper corners after they are permutated correctly. (I hope I use the right language here?) Next step is to learn the 8 CMLL algorithms for permutating and orienting the upper corners when two of the corners have to be swapped diagonally. The reason is that I currently have to do the Niklas-algorithm twice for this diagonal swap, while for the others I only have to do it once. So learning this sub-set of the CMLL first will be "cost-efficient" since it will save me the most moves immediately.

I'm finding that some of the algorithms are actually not that hard to learn if I'm able to put names on small sub-segments of the algorithm. For instance when I learned The L1 algorithm last week, it had 16 moves and looked very hard to remember at first sight:

• L1 = U' R U2 R' U' R U R' U' R U R' U' R U' R'

But then I put names on two 3-move-segments:

• R U' R' --> happy
• R U2 R' --> flirt

And R U R' U' should already be known, so then I can write it like this in stead:

• L1 = U'-flirt-U'-sexy-sexy-happy

Using this method, I already have learned two of the new 8 CMLL algorithms that I'm planning to learn next, without even trying hard, just like this:

• H4 = F-sexy-sexy-sexy-F' = F-triangle-F'
• U6 = U'-F-sexy-F'

Also I can see that the sequence F R F' is common in several of the next algorithms. I think I might call it "naggy"!

I mean, the names make sense...

 

[pønten]

Many algorithms are made up of conjugates, algs of the form A B A', and commutators, those of the form A B A' B'. The reason has to do with group theory and especially the "undoing" part of the algs.

It sounds interesting. I've not studied any theory (yet), but I've made some sketches on a piece of paper here and there, drawing arrows between the pieces that are moved when doing for instance F R F' (only piece-position so far, not color-rotation), trying to see which pieces are moving how far and where, which pieces that are moving further than others, which pieces that are back to start, etc.

So I've not done any new timed solves (well, maybe one or two) since last time, due to life (work and travels and tiredness). Though I'm still solving a few slow ones every day, but focusing mostly on learning/repeating some algorithms, and as mentioned over, trying to understand a few basic moves, what is really happening.

Currently I now have learnt 15 of the 42 CMLL algorithms, which are the ones where either all corners are already positioned correctly (7), and the ones where two corners need to be swapped diagonally (8). I have reasoned with myself that these 15 algs give most bang for the buck in the short term, while they are also part of the full CMLL set that I can keep using when learning the others later.

I have these 15 algs mostly in my head-memory, and I still need some more training to try to transfer that knowledge to my muscle-memory. Next step for me is to see if I can manage to do the block building a bit more efficiently. For now I'm just parking an edge piece in the DF-position, then finding the correct corner and turn/place it in one of the 4 upper corners, move the edge up beside that corner, than moving edge+corner to the correct place. Doing this twice, then find and turn/place the bottom-edge for the second block, then doing the edge+corner process another two times for that block. I can feel that I do unnecessary moves quite now and then, but only after I've done them. I should find out how to prevent these unnecessary moves before I do them.

 

[pønten]

Progress to me is not just faster times, but also learning and understanding. (Well, ultimately all this learning and understanding should manifest itself into faster solves, of course.)

When learning algorithms, I've been breaking them up into smaller segments, for instance F R F'. And sometimes, as I did with F R F', I draw it out on a piece of paper, with arrows showing which piece ending where. I also gave these segments a name; for instance F R F' = nag, to make the whole algorithm easier to remember as typically 3-4 small segment names.

However, I just realized that almost everywhere I'm using F R F' it is preceded by R', so the segment R' F R F' makes much more sense. And I found R' F R F' actually already has its own name; Sledgehammer.

Also when drawing the movement of Sledgehammer on a piece of paper, the result gives much more sense than just F R F', as two corners are swapped, another two corners are swapped, and three edges are swapped in a circle.

So "nag" is now exchanged with "hammer" in my spreadsheet.

Of course, I suppose "everyone" with experience already know what I just said, but for a novice like me, I think it is better to see it myself, than just read it somewhere. So a little piece of progress today too!

 

[pønten]

Progress has been very slow lately, i.e. I've not even tried to speed solve it for a few weeks, just a few daily solves so I can remember my algs.

This evening I decided to jump into it again. It was nice to see, that after a couple of very messed up solves, I managed to settle down on a quite consistent speed. I ended up with some improvement in both my PB Ao5 and Ao12.

• Ao5: 1:36.06 (old: 1:41.70)
• Ao12: 1:35.41 (old: 1:54.55)

I thought there had to be something wrong in the numbers (using CubeDesk). Is it really possible that my PB Ao12 is BETTER than Ao5?

But it is! I did a test with some numbers, just to prove that it is possible. For example when filling in the 12 numbers in a spreadsheet: 1 1 1 9 9 1 1 1 9 9 1 1, the best Ao5 in that sequence is 3.67, while the Ao12 is 3.40.

My best single today was 10 seconds slower than my PB, but then I also had no skips. But very satisfied that my Ao12 was much better than both my old Ao5 and Ao12. I think that shows the efficiency in the new algs I have learnt lately.

 

[Dan the Beginner]

Progress has been very slow lately, i.e. I've not even tried to speed solve it for a few weeks, just a few daily solves so I can remember my algs.

This evening I decided to jump into it again. It was nice to see, that after a couple of very messed up solves, I managed to settle down on a quite consistent speed. I ended up with some improvement in both my PB Ao5 and Ao12.

• Ao5: 1:36.06 (old: 1:41.70)
• Ao12: 1:35.41 (old: 1:54.55)

I thought there had to be something wrong in the numbers (using CubeDesk). Is it really possible that my PB Ao12 is BETTER than Ao5?

But it is! I did a test with some numbers, just to prove that it is possible. For example when filling in the 12 numbers in a spreadsheet: 1 1 1 9 9 1 1 1 9 9 1 1, the best Ao5 in than sequence is 3.67, while the Ao12 is 3.40.

My best single today was 10 seconds slower than my PB, but then I also had no skips. But very satisfied that my Ao12 was much better than both my old Ao5 and Ao12. It think that shows the efficiency in the new algs I have learnt lately.

Congratulations on achieving such consistency. Yes, you can have better Ao12 if your last 5 solves averaged lower than the previous 7. (Was a mathmatician once).

 

[Ayce]

It sounds interesting. I've not studied any theory (yet), but I've made some sketches on a piece of paper here and there, drawing arrows between the pieces that are moved when doing for instance F R F' (only piece-position so far, not color-rotation), trying to see which pieces are moving how far and where, which pieces that are moving further than others, which pieces that are back to start, etc.

Nice! Having a notebook or someplace to keep whatever notes or algs you have makes it 10x easier to practice, it definitely helped me a lot.

 

[pønten]

Having a notebook or someplace to keep whatever notes or algs you have makes it 10x easier to practice, it definitely helped me a lot.

Absolutely! I keep them sorted in a spreadsheet on my PC with notes and hints to myself how to remember them, and also in a document on my mobile.

 

[Stock_Fish109]

pog man gl

 

[Dan the Beginner]

So methodical.

 

[pønten]

"Just one more", I told myself, after loads of solves on sub-1:30, while yesterday it was more like sub-1:40.

And that "once more" became a new PB single. Only by less than half a second though. My averages went down a bit from yesterday. I couldn't report on Ao50 and Ao100 yesterday, since I think I had registered too many DNFs, being disturbed by real life during a solve, like wife etc ;p

My new PBs:

• Single: 1:09.17 (old: 1:09.69)
• Ao5: 1:26.62 (old: 1:36.06)
• Ao12: 1:30.90 (old: 1:35.41)
• Ao50: 1:46.72 (old: 2:09.40)
• Ao100: 2:02.73 (old: 2:23.71)

My current main goal is to see a sub 1 minute single.

 

[pønten]

Short session this evening, but still improvement in everything:

New PBs (old PBs in parenthesis):

• Single: 1:05.00 (1:09.17)
• Ao5: 1:16.18 (1:26.62)
• Ao12: 1:21.24 (1:30.90)
• Ao50: 1:42.69 (1:46.72)
• Ao100: 1:58.29 (2:02.73)

 

[OtterCuber]

Short session this evening, but still improvement in everything:

New PBs (old PBs in parenthesis):

• Single: 1:05.00 (1:09.17)
• Ao5: 1:16.18 (1:26.62)
• Ao12: 1:21.24 (1:30.90)
• Ao50: 1:42.69 (1:46.72)
• Ao100: 1:58.29 (2:02.73)

Nice progress!

 

[Dan the Beginner]

Short session this evening, but still improvement in everything:

New PBs (old PBs in parenthesis):

• Single: 1:05.00 (1:09.17)
• Ao5: 1:16.18 (1:26.62)
• Ao12: 1:21.24 (1:30.90)
• Ao50: 1:42.69 (1:46.72)
• Ao100: 1:58.29 (2:02.73)

You are at exactly where I am, averaging just a little over 1 min. You are much more consistent however, and that is great. I have many occasional solves of high 50s but also many bad times close to 2 min.

 

[Dan the Beginner]

Hi, Ponten, since you like analysing, I thought you should consider using Cubeast with a smartcube. It helps me a lot, by automating many of the data accumulation and analysis work. Here is an example of what it can show me about a particular solve, pointing out my weakness in block building and recognition time.

1:14.26s Speedsolving solve by Dan on Cubeast

cbst.link

 

[pønten]

You are at exactly where I am, averaging just a little over 1 min. You are much more consistent however, and that is great. I have many occasional solves of high 50s but also many bad times close to 2 min.

I was a bit surprised myself about the PBs, feeling very tired last evening. And a few solves after the new PBs, I started to mess up (destroying blocks, using wrong algs, etc) and the solving started to slow down, with an Ao5 over 2 minutes (closer to 3 at one point). So I have my dips too, and it was the reason I only made it a short session.

 

[pønten]

Thanks for the tip. I will watch it later, as I'm still in bed this early morning, beside a sleeping wife

I do look around on the net for information (videos, articles, forums, streams, etc) whenever I get interested in something. Smartcubes I had mostly managed to steer clear of so far. Not because I don't like it, but on the contrary. I love statistics and numbers. I already know I will like the concept, but trying to restrict myself from too many temptations One of the main motivations for my physical training the last years (running, but lately fast walking due to knee injuries) has been my Garmin watch + extra sensor, collecting all kind of metrics (yeah, a bit of a nerd in that sense, I guess)