Older cubers discussions

[mark49152]

Nice ideas. Except I don't think it warrants the proposed title as I didn't do metronome solves in my "slow solves".

Not sure who came up with that title but I think they were inspired by your awesome smoothness Maybe we could call it "Relentless like MarcelP"?

I need a few more hours practice before putting in my own entry. My lookahead is awful and all I would get if I submitted today would be an array of DNFs

 

[sneaklyfox]

Not sure who came up with that title but I think they were inspired by your awesome smoothness Maybe we could call it "Relentless like MarcelP"?

I need a few more hours practice before putting in my own entry. My lookahead is awful and all I would get if I submitted today would be an array of DNFs

I thought the original title was for slow solve videos that MarcelP suggested. The new race thing with a metronome is a separate idea that I think you started.

 

[pipkiksass]

Yeah, that's how I remember it too!

I think calling it anyone's anything will limit the number of entries, unless it just becomes "The Metronome Race Thread", or somesuch. Many will ignore a thread called "Relentless like MarcelP", through not being relentless enough!

@Mark, following your request for rule amendments:

I think there should be set time brackets, like in the 'race to' threads. In other words, rather than just 'divide 4000 by Ao100', I think there should be some rounding involved, i.e. have 'race to 180bpm'; 'race to 150bpm', 'race to 120bpm'. Participant takes 4000/Ao100(or 50), and rounds down to nearest race bracket.

For example, my Ao100 is normally around 25 seconds, so I get 160bpm. If I set a metronome to this, I know for sure I will DNF 75% of my solves, as I've never done any metronome practice. If I round down to 150bpm, I will probably DNF a few at first, but after a few weeks, maybe 'graduate' from this to the 'Race to 180bpm'.

I think intervals of 30bpm would be sufficient, starting at maybe 60? Based on an average of 60 turns for a relatively efficient CFOP solve, this would mean:

Race to 60 BPM ~ 60s averages ~ 1tps
Race to 90 BPM ~ 40s averages ~ 1.5tps
Race to 120 BPM ~ 30s averages = 2tps
Race to 150 BPM ~ 24s averages = 2.5tps
Race to 180 BPM ~ 20s averages = 3tps
Race to 210 BPM ~ 17s averages = 3.5tps
Race to 240 BPM ~ 15s averages = 4tps

etc. This means big jumps at first, but I don't think lookahead should really be a concern till at least ~40s, as if you're significantly sup-40 and know your f2l cases well, there's something wrong. If there was popular demand for it, no reason why other brackets, like 75bpm, couldn't be added.

This would also make running the thread easier, as you wouldn't be looking at graduates from obscure numbers, like the race to 157 bpm race, people would be lumped together. Just with the time race threads, obtaining 3 passes in a row = graduation and optional participation in the next race.

I like the scoring system, I think that will work well. Following on from my points above, although the races would be separate, you could still graph scores across all races based on lookahead score.

I'll be doing my entry tonight, if I have time. Might even film it as well - if it's not too horrendous then I'll put it on yt.

 

[mark49152]

@sneaklyfox: Yes you're right, I misappropriated the title, sorry!

@pipkiksass: "Race to bpm" does make it more like other races, although it changes the game somewhat. Deriving bpm from ao100 basically gives a "lookahead score" independent of how fast you are. As a 35s solver I might be smoother than an 18s solver, albeit at half the pace. So there would be no "race to 157bpm", just a single "race to perfect smoothness" .

A bit like how in the other races, different people enter the same race with change of method, or OH, or 3x3 on 6x6, etc. Here just different bpm's.

I like the rounding idea and that would have some lumping-together effect anyway, for those who are interested in racing others at the same bpm level.

@MarcelP: Looking good Its interesting that apart from the first two, your scores and times are roughly correlated - faster solves had better lookahead scores. Was this at 120bpm? In your video, I noticed again that you're doing multiple moves per beat, like R'U or RUR' on one beat. The point is that by slowing down and doing one move per beat you give yourself more time to look ahead, and that 138bpm might not be so difficult after all

No time to do my own entry today. Got baby duties and work backlog! I might drop my bpm to 100 to make it easier too

 

[pipkiksass]

"Race to bpm" does make it more like other races, although it changes the game somewhat. Deriving bpm from ao100 basically gives a "lookahead score" independent of how fast you are. As a 35s solver I might be smoother than an 18s solver, albeit at half the pace. So there would be no "race to 157bpm", just a single "race to perfect smoothness"

Yeah, I understand the concept, but I think it will be very hard in terms of administration. Also, I can probably already achieve perfect smoothness... but only at 60bpm! If the race is to perfection, then time/speed/bpm would need to be taken into account in some way in scoring - assuming that someone like Feliks/Mats has 'perfect' lookahead.

I like the rounding idea and that would have some lumping-together effect anyway, for those who are interested in racing others at the same bpm level.

I'm not interested in racing others, I'm looking to push myself. Personally, I'd start at 120bpm and 'compete' until I can get perfect scores every time, then race at the next speed until I'm perfect, and so on. I'm not really interested in others' scores in relation to mine, although watching others progress in the race to 30/25 threads really helped me motivate myself to improve. Just my 2 cents.

 

[KongShou]

Tbh guys I don't think you need to worry about look ahead or smoothness until you are trying to sub 20. Even sub 20 don't need look ahead.

 

[pipkiksass]

Tbh guys I don't think you need to worry about look ahead or smoothness until you are trying to sub 20. Even sub 20 don't need look ahead.

But I AM trying to be sub 20! In an Ao100 I normally have a couple of 21 Ao12's - maybe a dozen or so sub-20's. Last Ao50 had 8 of them, a 16, a 17, a couple of 18s, the rest 19s. I think, to be more consistently sub-20, lookahead is my number one thing to work on. Sometimes I start OLL and glance at the clock and it says 12s, sometimes nearly 20s. My LL is pretty standard - not very fast, but it doesn't matter if I'm coming out of F2L at 20s, no matter how much I drill my algs I won't be sub 20! It's the inconsistency at cross/F2L that's killing my times. I honestly think if I could be a little smoother in F2L I'd be sub-20 tomorrow.

Anyhoo, I'm off to fire up the 'nome (I've decided (just now) that I should invent a pet name for my metronome) and crack on with some good ol' fashioned slow turning practice.

To heck (self-censorship) with the race, I'm just going to set my metronome at 120 and solve until I never miss a beat, then up the pace, then up the pace, then up the pace... then break the WR.

 

[mark49152]

I'm not interested in racing others, I'm looking to push myself. Personally, I'd start at 120bpm and 'compete' until I can get perfect scores every time, then race at the next speed until I'm perfect, and so on. I'm not really interested in others' scores in relation to mine, although watching others progress in the race to 30/25 threads really helped me motivate myself to improve. Just my 2 cents.

Yep same here. I like having the comp as a checkpoint each week and seeing my progress up the table (hopefully).

Tbh guys I don't think you need to worry about look ahead or smoothness until you are trying to sub 20. Even sub 20 don't need look ahead.

Disagree with this. Everyone's different. My fingers are old and rusty and don't speed up easily, and so eliminating the pauses in my solves looks like an easier win to me. Rather than get from 35 to 20 on speed and then 20 to 15 on lookahead, I'd rather get from 35 to 25 on lookahead and then increase my finger speed once I'm smooth - and I'll also have a lot more lookahead practice under my belt.

 

[sneaklyfox]

Tbh guys I don't think you need to worry about look ahead or smoothness until you are trying to sub 20. Even sub 20 don't need look ahead.

Sorry but I absolutely disagree with this. It's true that you don't need any look ahead to get sub-20, but you can't get far without look ahead. The longer you wait to start developing that important skill the more bad habits you will be practicing and then those who are just moving as fast as possible with the huge pauses will then have to unlearn what they have learned. They will have to go back to the basics of look ahead before they can move forward again... an often painful process.

Edit: @mark49152, the ultimate smooth solve sounds like a very cool race to start. And you would be able to graduate to the next level. The way some of the races are done now is 3x in a row sub-X time to graduate. Maybe you could have 3x in a row sub-X missed beats in order to graduate.

 

[mark49152]

You know you've had enough when you can still hear the ticking long after you've switched the metronome off. And when you find yourself chewing your food at exactly 110bpm.... :O

 

[sneaklyfox]

You know you've had enough when you can still hear the ticking long after you've switched the metronome off. And when you find yourself chewing your food at exactly 110bpm.... :O

LOL!

I like the idea of a "race" for smooth and constant turning. I don't know if I can get over the metronome itself though because the constant clicking noise is rather irritating and I hate metronome practice.

 

[pipkiksass]

You know you've had enough when you can still hear the ticking long after you've switched the metronome off. And when you find yourself chewing your food at exactly 110bpm.... :O

Does swallowing insufficiently chewed food constitute a DNF?

 

[MarcelP]

@MarcelP: Looking good Its interesting that apart from the first two, your scores and times are roughly correlated - faster solves had better lookahead scores. Was this at 120bpm? In your video, I noticed again that you're doing multiple moves per beat, like R'U or RUR' on one beat. The point is that by slowing down and doing one move per beat you give yourself more time to look ahead, and that 138bpm might not be so difficult after all

No time to do my own entry today. Got baby duties and work backlog! I might drop my bpm to 100 to make it easier too

I have practiced some more and I indeed seem to do that a lot. But it's getting better. In fact, I can get easily sub 30's with 100Bmm. How cool is that:
[video=youtube_share;sCI0RV0Xdl0]http://youtu.be/sCI0RV0Xdl0[/video]

And practice is paying of. I am getting some good averages (at full speed) now and then. I filmed two sub 24 Ao5. Here is one of them:

Spoiler

Whooohoo! Nice one..

39. 28.72 L2 U R2 L2 D' L2 D R2 U L2 U' B' R D U B2 F2 R D2 R' D2
40. 23.84 D B2 U' F2 U' R2 D L2 F2 U2 B D R U F D2 B2 L' D L2 D2
41. 23.54 D U' L2 F2 U2 L2 B2 D B2 L2 U R' B F' R' F2 R' U2 L2 F D U'
42. 21.90 U F2 U2 L2 D L2 D' B2 U' R2 U L' F' D U2 R2 D B R' B D
43. 20.94 B2 D R2 U B2 U2 F2 R2 B2 L2 B' R L2 F2 U' L' D' F2 U' R' D2

http://youtu.be/kQXhe_vV36k

 

[sneaklyfox]

Marcel! You are so lucky! I just read on the WeiLong thread that you were one of the testers selected to try out the new cube. Ooh, I envy you. Can't wait to hear from you how you like it!

 

[MarcelP]

Marcel! You are so lucky! I just read on the WeiLong thread that you were one of the testers selected to try out the new cube. Ooh, I envy you. Can't wait to hear from you how you like it!

Yes, I feel so lucky. I never win anything. LOL I allready ordered a black one with keeping in mind I might kept selected and receiving a white one. It must be really an honoust random selection process since why would I get one.. LOL I will make a true professional review video on the day I receive it.

 

[MarcelP]

Marcel! You are so lucky! I just read on the WeiLong thread that you were one of the testers selected to try out the new cube. Ooh, I envy you. Can't wait to hear from you how you like it!

Yes, I feel so lucky. I never win anything. LOL I allready ordered a black one with keeping in mind I might kept selected and receiving a white one. It must be really an honoust random selection process since why would I get one.. LOL I will make a true professional review video on the day I receive it.

 

[sneaklyfox]

Yes, I feel so lucky. I never win anything. LOL I allready ordered a black one with keeping in mind I might kept selected and receiving a white one. It must be really an honoust random selection process since why would I get one.. LOL I will make a true professional review video on the day I receive it.

Looking forward to your review. If you feel you have too many, send me one.

 

[mark49152]

I like the idea of a "race" for smooth and constant turning. I don't know if I can get over the metronome itself though because the constant clicking noise is rather irritating and I hate metronome practice.

Yeah I'm demotivated regarding the metronome race at the moment because it's just so hard. I have come down to 90bpm and am still struggling not to miss a beat for at least half the pairs. Still haven't written down my own scores I'm persevering with metronome because the fact it's difficult means it must surely help me in some way to work at it. Just did a PB ao50 of 34.10 and I'm pretty sure the improvement there was due to better lookahead in F2L.

Does swallowing insufficiently chewed food constitute a DNF?

Dunno, but I'm glad I'm not a 240bpm solver like Sneakly

 

[MarcelP]

I'm persevering with metronome because the fact it's difficult means it must surely help me in some way to work at it. Just did a PB ao50 of 34.10

Nice going there Mark!! I am also pretty sure metronome practice helps a lot. I did quite a lot last week and it improved my averages. But I stopped 4 - 5 days ago due to lack to time and my averages are again some what slower.. So I will putting in some more metronome time next week.

EDIT: Oh and I agree, that is too difficult for a race. I don't think there will be a lot of entries.

 

[sneaklyfox]

Yeah I'm demotivated regarding the metronome race at the moment because it's just so hard. I have come down to 90bpm and am still struggling not to miss a beat for at least half the pairs. Still haven't written down my own scores I'm persevering with metronome because the fact it's difficult means it must surely help me in some way to work at it. Just did a PB ao50 of 34.10 and I'm pretty sure the improvement there was due to better lookahead in F2L.

Perseverence is key. Good for you... persevering with metronome practice. It does work for some people. I tried some myself when I was struggling with 60-80bpm without missing beats. Well, I have never liked the metronome, even in music though fortunately I don't have a problem keeping a steady beat... I just hate working with the thing... except I'm always telling my students to turn them on lol. Does that count as being hypocritical?

Dunno, but I'm glad I'm not a 240bpm solver like Sneakly

I'm pretty sure I can't do 240bpm without missing beats. Regarding insufficiently chewed food, I probably eat very quickly in general and swallow too quickly. It's a bad habit I guess but since I'm used to it, it's not that bad... and it can be a useful thing when I spend most of mealtimes feeding everybody else in my family...