Older cubers discussions

[h2f]

This thread is so much inspiring to me, because I'm 40 this week and I'm in speedcubing for almost a year. I hoped it's not too late for me, and now I know it's not since I know this thread. Now I'm a little bit sub-30 and my goal is to be sub-20. I was just going to say: hi Marcel.

 

[MarcelP]

and my goal is to be sub-20. I was just going to say: hi Marcel.

Hi man,

Good stuff! I started out at age 42 so there is no problem for you to become sub 20 Although I have not reached that stage I am pretty convinced I will some day.

 

[h2f]

But I can see you are close to it. I've downloaded your ALG trainer and it looks great. Thanks a lot.

 

[MarcelP]

Today I timed my PLL's. I did an Mean of 5 for each. Now I know I suck at PLLs:

H-Perm 2.60
Ua-perm 2.08
Ub-perm 2.52
Z-p6erm 3:15
Aa-perm 3:48
Ab-perm 2:92
E-perm 4:45
F-perm 3.83
Ga-perm 3:88
Gb-perm 3:30
Gc-perm 2:87
Gd-perm 3:46
Ja-perm 2:58
Jb-perm 2:78
Na-perm 3:95
Nb-perm 3:51
Ra-perm 3:24
Rb-perm 4:31
T-perm 2:32
V-perm 3:47
Y-perm 3:49

How do you guys score?

 

[TDM]

You have two Ja/Ua perms.
Without deleting fails (but deleting DNFs):
H-perm: 1.43
Ua-perm: 1.62 (so many fails)
Ub-perm: 1.26
Z-perm: 1.52
Aa-perm: 1.38
Ab-perm: 1.86 (also failed a lot)
E-perm: 2.49 (one good attempt)
F-perm: 2.11 (two fails)
Ga-perm: 2.10 (two fails)
Gb-perm: 1.82 (one fail)
Gc-perm: 1.66
Gd-perm: 1.78
J-perm: 1.00
L-perm: 1.64 (two fails)
Na-perm: 5.39 (1.81, 2.04, 2.07, 3.58, 17.45 :fp)
Nb-perm: 2.13
Ra-perm: 2.00 (three fails)
Rb-perm: 1.40 (one fail)
T-perm: 1.42 (two fails)
V-perm: 2.64 (not a single good execution)
Y-perm: 1.60 (1.24 single but also a 2.00)

 

[MarcelP]

Thanks. I deleted the many fails. Somehow doing just a pll from start messes my excecution.

 

[DeeDubb]

The only two perms I do with Roux:

Mo5:
J Perm - 2.21
Y Perm - 2.98

I should go through all 43 of my CMLL algs and do Mo5s sometime, but my weekly Roux TPS race is helping with a lot of the harder ones.

Holy hell, you are fast TDM...

EDIT:

Marcel, you are very inspirational, and I really wish I could participate in more of your practice sessions, but being Roux makes it a little hard.

 

[TDM]

Holy hell, you are fast TDM...

I actually think LL is the worst part of my solves, but my PLLs are faster when timing them separately. I can't do PLLs quickly after an entire solve... my hands get tired quickly. One advantage of dysgraphia/dyspraxia is that I don't have to write by hand in exams, but it doesn't help cubing at all

 

[kcl]

Today I timed my PLL's. I did an Mean of 5 for each. Now I know I suck al PLLs:

H-Perm 2.60
Ua-perm 2.08
Ub-perm 2.52
Z-p6erm 3:15
Aa-perm 3:48
Ab-perm 2:92
E-perm 4:45
F-perm 3.83
Ga-perm 3:88
Gb-perm 3:30
Gc-perm 2:87
Gd-perm 3:46
Ja-perm 2:58
Jb-perm 2:78
Na-perm 3:95
Nb-perm 3:51
Ra-perm 3:24
Rb-perm 4:31
T-perm 2:32
V-perm 3:47
Y-perm 3:49

How do you guys score?

H- .76
Ua-.86
Ub- .68
Z- .98
Aa- .89
Ab- .88
E- .87
F- 1.12 eww
I don't pay attention to the letters for G perms so this wouldn't be accurate XD

Ja- .94
Jb- .67
Na- 1.23
Nb- 1.26
Ra- .96
Rb- .98
T- .87
V- .99
Y- 1.04

 

[MarcelP]

Marcel, you are very inspirational, and I really wish I could participate in more of your practice sessions, but being Roux makes it a little hard.

Yeah, well it seem as you are sub 30 ish in only two months you are doing just fine without CFOP. Keep it up!

H- .76
Ua-.86
Ub- .68
Z- .98
Aa- .89
Ab- .88
E- .87
F- 1.12 eww
I don't pay attention to the letters for G perms so this wouldn't be accurate XD

Ja- .94
Jb- .67
Na- 1.23
Nb- 1.26
Ra- .96
Rb- .98
T- .87
V- .99
Y- 1.04

Ooh man... .67 average mean of 5? Really? That is so incredibly fast. I would love to see that on video..

 

[kcl]

Yeah, well it seem as you are sub 30 ish in only two months you are doing just fine without CFOP. Keep it up!



Ooh man... .67 average mean of 5? Really? That is so incredibly fast. I would love to see that on video..

Oooh I didn't read properly. I did a few tries and wrote down the fastest attempt.

 

[MarcelP]

Oooh I didn't read properly. I did a few tries and wrote down the fastest attempt.

Figured something like that LOL

 

[mark49152]

Oooh I didn't read properly. I did a few tries and wrote down the fastest attempt.

How are you starting and stopping the timer? Claiming a time like 0.67 to 100th second accuracy implies that you think your accuracy at starting and stopping the timer isn't giving you 0.01 second or greater advantage. 0.1-0.2 is a more likely margin of error. I don't trust any claim less than a second unless started/stopped with one or both hands off the cube or verified by video frame inspection. Or you could do the alg 10 times in a row and see if you can get 6.7 seconds.

 

[kcl]

Hi, Marcel from Holland here

How are you starting and stopping the timer? Claiming a time like 0.67 to 100th second accuracy implies that you think your accuracy at starting and stopping the timer isn't giving you 0.01 second or greater advantage. 0.1-0.2 is a more likely margin of error. I don't trust any claim less than a second unless started/stopped with one or both hands off the cube or verified by video frame inspection. Or you could do the alg 10 times in a row and see if you can get 6.7 seconds.

If both hands are off the cube, you aren't timing just the alg but also the pickup. I time them with a stackmat the standard way, holding the cube starting with wrists. I'm not really sure what you meant with this post anyway, as I said, I read it wrong. These are NOT means. If you could clarify what I seem to be missing, that would be wonderful.

 

[mark49152]

If you're trying to say I'm faking it go right ahead. I'll let you know right now, I'm not.

Where in my post does it mention faking? I certainly didn't mean to suggest you are faking and I have no reason to suspect you are. It's not your honesty I'm questioning, it's the accuracy of your method.

If both hands are off the cube, you aren't timing just the alg but also the pickup. I time them with a stackmat the standard way, holding the cube starting with wrists.

Let's say your margin of error for synchronizing the start of your first move with releasing the timer is +/- 0.1 and let's say your margin of error for synchronizing hitting the timer with going past 45 degrees with your last turn is also +/- 0.1 seconds. That means your 0.67 has a +/- 0.2 margin of error. It could have been 0.47 or it could have been 0.87. Now you might think your accuracy is better than +/- 0.2 seconds, and you might be right, but I would bet you it's nowhere near +/- 0.005 seconds.

If you start/stop with one or both hands off the cube, you are correct, you also time the pickup, and for both hands that might significantly impact your times. However the point of starting with one or both hands off the cube is (obviously) that inaccuracy can't count in your favour. So you can be good or bad at starting/stopping the timer but you know that your time is never less than the true execution time of the alg and so is always a fair result.

The most accurate way to time a mean of 5 PLL executions would be to time all 5 together, preferably starting/stopping with one hand off the cube, and then divide the time by 5. That way your timer overhead is also diluted by a factor of 5.

 

[kcl]

Where in my post does it mention faking? I certainly didn't mean to suggest you are faking and I have no reason to suspect you are. It's not your honesty I'm questioning, it's the accuracy of your method.


Let's say your margin of error for synchronizing the start of your first move with releasing the timer is +/- 0.1 and let's say your margin of error for synchronizing hitting the timer with going past 45 degrees with your last turn is also +/- 0.1 seconds. That means your 0.67 has a +/- 0.2 margin of error. It could have been 0.47 or it could have been 0.87. Now you might think your accuracy is better than +/- 0.2 seconds, and you might be right, but I would bet you it's nowhere near +/- 0.005 seconds.

If you start/stop with one or both hands off the cube, you are correct, you also time the pickup, and for both hands that might significantly impact your times. However the point of starting with one or both hands off the cube is (obviously) that inaccuracy can't count in your favour. So you can be good or bad at starting/stopping the timer but you know that your time is never less than the true execution time of the alg and so is always a fair result.

The most accurate way to time a mean of 5 PLL executions would be to time all 5 together, preferably starting/stopping with one hand off the cube, and then divide the time by 5. That way your timer overhead is also diluted by a factor of 5.

I'm sorry, I misinterpreted your post. That aside, any method of timing an alg is going to have inaccuracy. Doing 5 reps is good, but doesn't let you get the same speed you do with one. In my experience, the time shown on the stackmat and the time found by counting frames are rarely more than .05 apart. I don't generally start turning before timing algs.

 

[mark49152]

In my experience, the time shown on the stackmat and the time found by counting frames are rarely more than .05 apart.

So your 0.67 time was anywhere between 0.62 and 0.72?

 

[kcl]

So your 0.67 time was anywhere between 0.62 and 0.72?

Most likely.

 

[mark49152]

Most likely.

OK thanks for acknowledging that, and my apologies for making you feel I was questioning your integrity. I know you are a fast and accomplished cuber and also respect you as a positive and enthusiastic contributor to the forum... and an honest one

 

[kcl]

OK thanks for acknowledging that, and my apologies for making you feel I was questioning your integrity. I know you are a fast and accomplished cuber and also respect you as a positive and enthusiastic contributor to the forum... and an honest one

Thanks

I have to be conscious of the fact that the Midwest United States is one of the most passive aggressive places in the world. A post like that here would be a "beating around the bush" way of saying that they don't believe you.
I'll edit my post haha.