# Older cubers discussions

#### mitja

##### Member
Good job! That is about where I’m at with 5x5 as well. I feel like the cutoffs for 5x5 are disproprtionately harder than fornsome other events. Well... in fact, all the big cubes seem like the cutoffs are really fast/difficult. Out hard cutoffs are usually faster than I could hope to make! Anyway,

Good luck today with 222, 333 and 444!
Agreed , the cutoffs on big cubes are very unfair comparing to smaller ones. I, know because of longer events, but anyway, cutoofs are not a least motivational. 5x5 is the hardest.

#### SpartanSailor

##### Member
Agreed , the cutoffs on big cubes are very unfair comparing to smaller ones. I, know because of longer events, but anyway, cutoofs are not a least motivational. 5x5 is the hardest.
Right! There are some comps locally that give 5 min cutoff for 2x2 and only 3:30 for 6x6 and 4:00 for 7x7. ‍

I’m all for the soft cutoff in the interest of time, but there’s no incentive to even attempt 6 and 7s for me. I can barely make the hard cutoff for 5x5 at one of the upcoming comps... and that’s if I have a good day or spend a LOT of time practicing specifically for 5x5.

On the other hand, my next weekend event has a 6:30 cutoff for 5x5.

#### JanW

##### Member
Had a pretty decent day today! 2x2 got an 8.25 single and 10.56 average. I've been doing 7s averages at home some times and know I could improve a lot if I practiced this event, but I don't think I'll bother...

3x3 I got a 18.74 single, but only 20.95 average. I was probably the most nervous for this, as it was the one I was supposed to know. Shame I couldn't quite perform at the same level as I do at home. 18.7 Ao5 would have been enough to advance to the next round. I'm still very happy with two sub-20 singles. My main goal was to get at least one.

4x4 was the big surprise. Yesterday I did 50 practice solves (never done a 4x4 Ao50 before), averaging 1:55. The cutoff was 1:50. First solve I messed up badly, sup-2 min. The rest were great and I got a 1:35 Ao5. I've lost my stats from last year, but I'm pretty sure I improved my pb single twice during this Ao5. First 1:24 on the third solve, then 1:23 last solve. For sure pb Ao5 as well!

Overall it was an interesting experience. And yes, I did feel quite old... Afterwards I feel that I really need to focus now on bld events more. I'm a bit disappointed that I got nothing but DNFs. I must work on my comms to improve accuracy, then I can only improve next time! And then there's that word list... Bld is apparently not very big in Finland. Any result would have been enough to podium in Mbld (7/9 competitors DNFed), any result enough for second place in 4bld and 5bld, and everyone who got a success made it to the finals in 3bld (6/12 competitors). My long term goal is still to advance to larger cubes and larger mblds.

It would be nice to be able to get a 5x5 average one day. Have to cut a minute from my times. I think it should be doable. I've pretty much given up on 7x7. Bought a cube (which arrived damaged and I'm not sure if it's comp legal), did a couple of 20 minute solves and haven't touched it since. Cutoff in this comp was 6:00. Feels very much impossible right now.

#### Mike Hughey

##### Super Moderator
Staff member
Agreed , the cutoffs on big cubes are very unfair comparing to smaller ones. I, know because of longer events, but anyway, cutoofs are not a least motivational. 5x5 is the hardest.
I know this is generally the case, but that's just because short cutoff times make a much bigger difference running a competition for big cubes than they do for other events. Cutting a couple of minutes off the 5x5x5 cutoff times can make a difference in the time to run the event of an hour or more.

So generally if you give generous cutoff times for a big cube event, for most competitions it means you have to have one less event for that competition. Most competitions choose the extra event.

Back when I was running my Indiana competitions, I always tried to have as generous big cube cutoffs as possible. I can vouch for the fact that it was one of the most stress-inducing things I did to mu schedules. But for me it was worth the extra stress.

#### openseas

##### Member
I know this is generally the case, but that's just because short cutoff times make a much bigger difference running a competition for big cubes than they do for other events. Cutting a couple of minutes off the 5x5x5 cutoff times can make a difference in the time to run the event of an hour or more.

So generally if you give generous cutoff times for a big cube event, for most competitions it means you have to have one less event for that competition. Most competitions choose the extra event.

Back when I was running my Indiana competitions, I always tried to have as generous big cube cutoffs as possible. I can vouch for the fact that it was one of the most stress-inducing things I did to mu schedules. But for me it was worth the extra stress.
Yes, as an organizer, always need to make a balance between number of events vs quality of each event (not that tighter cut-off time makes the event poor quality but...). Cut off of 666 & 777 makes huge difference in terms of scheduling.
Slightly different topic but related with big cubes, number of decent scramblers is also another factor when you run a competition. These days, Jonatan's groupify let you makes group based on times (you can also make alphabetical groups) which makes competition more or less fair but it makes issues when it comes to big cubes. I had to split top 4 big cubers into two separate group, Last week in Florida, all decent big cubers were in the same group - I had to scramble some of them - I've never solved big cubes with my eyes open (only know BLD methods . I had to turn extremely slowly not to mess up. It was quite painful.

#### newtonbase

Had a pretty decent day today! 2x2 got an 8.25 single and 10.56 average. I've been doing 7s averages at home some times and know I could improve a lot if I practiced this event, but I don't think I'll bother...

3x3 I got a 18.74 single, but only 20.95 average. I was probably the most nervous for this, as it was the one I was supposed to know. Shame I couldn't quite perform at the same level as I do at home. 18.7 Ao5 would have been enough to advance to the next round. I'm still very happy with two sub-20 singles. My main goal was to get at least one.

4x4 was the big surprise. Yesterday I did 50 practice solves (never done a 4x4 Ao50 before), averaging 1:55. The cutoff was 1:50. First solve I messed up badly, sup-2 min. The rest were great and I got a 1:35 Ao5. I've lost my stats from last year, but I'm pretty sure I improved my pb single twice during this Ao5. First 1:24 on the third solve, then 1:23 last solve. For sure pb Ao5 as well!

Overall it was an interesting experience. And yes, I did feel quite old... Afterwards I feel that I really need to focus now on bld events more. I'm a bit disappointed that I got nothing but DNFs. I must work on my comms to improve accuracy, then I can only improve next time! And then there's that word list... Bld is apparently not very big in Finland. Any result would have been enough to podium in Mbld (7/9 competitors DNFed), any result enough for second place in 4bld and 5bld, and everyone who got a success made it to the finals in 3bld (6/12 competitors). My long term goal is still to advance to larger cubes and larger mblds.

It would be nice to be able to get a 5x5 average one day. Have to cut a minute from my times. I think it should be doable. I've pretty much given up on 7x7. Bought a cube (which arrived damaged and I'm not sure if it's comp legal), did a couple of 20 minute solves and haven't touched it since. Cutoff in this comp was 6:00. Feels very much impossible right now.
Well done .Some good results there
I was very impressed that the 2nd place in MBLD was done OH.

#### JanW

##### Member
Well done .Some good results there
I was very impressed that the 2nd place in MBLD was done OH.
That was pretty impressive indeed! I saw the guy with an injured arm, but didn't realize he was the current mbld NR holder.

#### JanW

##### Member
Got a WCA ID. Now for the shocking reveal, my name isn't Jan.. Or actually it is. The first name on my passport is Jan, but I've always gone by my second name, Roger. I just never use that name online, prefer more anonymous screen names. Sorry for the confusion!

I lost my Maru lube at some point during the weekend. Had to order some more, which provided a nice opportunity to order a Wuque at the same time. I'm quite happy with my CangFeng, but haven't tried enough 4x4s to know how good it is in comparison to everything else out there.

Anyone here have experience with the Yuxin Little Magic? They have phenomenal reviews for that price class. At $3.40 a piece I'm considering getting a proper set of mbld cubes. #### muchacho ##### Member Hi Roger, welcome ...and congrats, nice results for a first comp! #### Duncan Bannon ##### Member Read #17519 and the few pages around it. I really like the YLM (Yuxin Little Magic), But with magnets it makes the cube a lot more stable. I dont know what is needed in a blind cube, but I think stability is key (Don’t want to make any accidental moves). I magnetized about 4 of them. I believe the 4x1 N42’s had a nice click. I think 4x2 N35 also had a good click, but more of a bump mabye. If you know how to magnetize a 3x3 then a YLMM should be great. Assuming 10 cubes,$35 + $50 =$85 for some nice cubes. For me a cube takes about 1 hour to magnetize, so not bad.

Sorry for the magnet rant , but anyway. They YLM is a good cube, and easy to set up. I think stock tensions are too loose, but with some tensioning they should be good for multiblind. Adding magnets is not needed but I think it works well for this cube. Just be carful you don’t spill superglue on a sticker, delegate probably wont let that in.

#### newtonbase

Anyone here have experience with the Yuxin Little Magic? They have phenomenal reviews for that price class. At $3.40 a piece I'm considering getting a proper set of mbld cubes. I agree with what @Duncan Bannon says. I use magnetic versions for blind and I use similar strength magnets. They are really nice, fast cubes. h2f #### pglewis ##### Member I've started paying some attention to setup/restore move cancellations in my blind solves because, you know, one more thing to screw up my execution that won't make my solves significantly faster. I'm sure this has come up before but I'm suddenly unclear why OP corners uses speffz P as the swap position instead of M. The first move of the truncated Y-perm is an R, so you setup to P then immediately move it to M to do the swap. Seems to me like using M as the swap position and modifying the alg to (U' R' U') (R U R' F') (R U R' U') (R' F R2) reduces redundancy. #### openseas ##### Member I've started paying some attention to setup/restore move cancellations in my blind solves because, you know, one more thing to screw up my execution that won't make my solves significantly faster. I'm sure this has come up before but I'm suddenly unclear why OP corners uses speffz P as the swap position instead of M. The first move of the truncated Y-perm is an R, so you setup to P then immediately move it to M to do the swap. Seems to me like using M as the swap position and modifying the alg to (U' R' U') (R U R' F') (R U R' U') (R' F R2) reduces redundancy. I can think of two reasons: 1) as you added R at the end, you're not saving any move counts doing so. 2) However, your setup is now same face as your buffer which makes setups more tricky / requires more moves. Regarding working on OP optimization, if you want to invest more time and efforts, I suggest to move to either 3 style or Orozco. OP optimization can improve your bld solving time a little bit but ROI is not big. On top of that, other than OP, not applicable to any other method. This is one of the reason why R2 corner method is kinda phasing out. R2 setup is not easy & not much benefit at the end. That's why people recommend starting from M2/OP then move to 3 style (or through advanced M2/Orozco) M2 edge is a little bit different, though. Since M2 can be linked to commutators nicely, moving to advanced M2 as intermediate method is quite recommended. Last edited: #### h2f ##### Premium Member Got a WCA ID. Now for the shocking reveal, my name isn't Jan.. Or actually it is. The first name on my passport is Jan, but I've always gone by my second name, Roger. I just never use that name online, prefer more anonymous screen names. Sorry for the confusion! I've noticed it on Saturday looking for your results on cubecomps. Surprise - there's no any Jan. Readning your relation gave a tip what's your name. Hi Roger. Congrats about your results. Anyone here have experience with the Yuxin Little Magic? They have phenomenal reviews for that price class. At$3.40 a piece I'm considering getting a proper set of mbld cubes.
It's a very good a cheap cube. I got two - the black one and stickerless. The black one had a crappy awfull stikcers and I removed them. The stickerless is much better - shades are fine with nice dark blue. I've put magnets in both to make them more stable. I also think about buying a bunch of them. Polish top blinder Krzysiek Bober got 30 and uses them in mbld.

#### JanW

##### Member
Thanks for the tip @h2f! I was considering the stickered version, glad I didn't make that mistake.

I'll order a few stickerless now, then see how I like them.

Edit: I ended up ordering just one Little Magic and also a MF3RS2 and a couple of other praised budget cubes. Want to try a few different before deciding. I saw some reviews that said the YLM was very wobbly compared to the MF3RS2. Based on that I think the latter might suit me better.

Last edited:
h2f

#### h2f

You welcome, @JanW. I'm gonna to order 10 YLM. If I could chose MR3RS2 is better option in my opinion - last NR single was made by Łukasz Burliga on magnetized version. MF3RS2 and YLM have very different feeling.

Last edited:

#### pglewis

##### Member
Edit: I ended up ordering just one Little Magic and also a MF3RS2 and a couple of other praised budget cubes. Want to try a few different before deciding. I saw some reviews that said the YLM was very wobbly compared to the MF3RS2. Based on that I think the latter might suit me better.
I think the YLM has a unique feel and will be a "love it or hate it" puzzle but it's hard to beat for the price IMO. The stickerless has a frosted texture that some people don't care for-- I actually like it-- but I've found it wears down to unnoticeable fairly quickly with use.

The MF3RS2 is definitely a more stable base cube (I have an SCS magnetic version on the way) but it's also a bit more expensive.

I can think of two reasons: 1) as you added R at the end, you're not saving any move counts doing so. 2) However, your setup is now same face as your buffer which makes setups more tricky / requires more moves.
Yeah my thoughts were that, with both opening and closing R face turns, I end up considering cancellations both before and after the alg. Yanking the opening R move means the alg starts with a U', which will never cancel out with setup moves, just leaving any final R face cancellation. But I quickly discovered your #2 above while experimenting. And then there's: 3) muscle memory is already established for A/P swaps.

Regarding working on OP optimization, if you want to invest more time and efforts, I suggest to move to either 3 style or Orozco. OP optimization can improve your bld solving time a little bit but ROI is not big. On top of that, other than OP, not applicable to any other method. This is one of the reason why R2 corner method is kinda phasing out. R2 setup is not easy & not much benefit at the end. That's why people recommend starting from M2/OP then move to 3 style (or through advanced M2/Orozco)
I'm now in a "no new learning" moratorium with comps coming up in April and May but I think I'll start the process of attacking corner comms after that. OP corners isn't what's really holding me back yet.

M2 edge is a little bit different, though. Since M2 can be linked to commutators nicely, moving to advanced M2 as intermediate method is quite recommended.
I've incorporated a couple of advanced M2 things: M slice + non M slice target pairs and the C/W and W/C specific swaps. I have a list with more tricks from Mark's famous thread to add later.

3bld practice is on the daily menu again and going well. Got 2/4 untimed at the coffee shop today (started off 2/2). Sticker to Speffz translation and tracing have improved a lot so I'm close to or below my memo target for sub 5 min.

Last edited:

#### mark49152

##### Super Moderator
Staff member
Yeah my thoughts were that, with both opening and closing R face turns, I end up considering cancellations both before and after the alg. Yanking the opening R move means the alg starts with a U', which will never cancel out with setup moves, just leaving any final R face cancellation. But I quickly discovered your #2 above while experimenting. And then there's: 3) muscle memory is already established for A/P swaps.
@openseas is spot on with both points. Also @h2f made the point that setups become like algs in their own right. I still think calling them algs implies more effort to learn them than is actually the case, but once practised enough they fuse with the alg and enter muscle memory in the same way. Example: OP setup for J corner. I do R2 D'. Start with thumb on top and do R2' then push D' with left ring finger and it flows smoothly into the R U'... just like a single alg. My brain still thinks of it as a setup to an alg but my muscle memory feels it as a unified movement.

#### pglewis

##### Member
@openseas is spot on with both points. Also @h2f made the point that setups become like algs in their own right. I still think calling them algs implies more effort to learn them than is actually the case, but once practised enough they fuse with the alg and enter muscle memory in the same way. Example: OP setup for J corner. I do R2 D'. Start with thumb on top and do R2' then push D' with left ring finger and it flows smoothly into the R U'... just like a single alg. My brain still thinks of it as a setup to an alg but my muscle memory feels it as a unified movement.
Yeah, it was a mostly pointless thought experiment that stemmed from my OCD urge to cancel some moves. My actual plan to optimize OP corners is to stop using OP corners .

I do like that J setup, simply never considered it after settling on my setups early and on my own. I've been moving any targets on the F face to L then over to P. R2 D' definitely beats F2 D.