One-Answer 3x3x3 Question Thread

[GenTheSnail]

I disagree partially.
For instance, I would probably handle example 9 like this.

Whoops.
I forgot to change examples 9-10.
I think I would still solve it the way in my example.
Your way is probably better though. Unless you have an EO skip.

 

[CJ!]

[R U R’ F’] {[R U R’ U’]
[R’ F] [R2 U’ R’] U’}

I dont know what it means mean an algorithm has (R U R' F') and I definitely dont know what { } means

 

[Dom]

I dont know what it means mean an algorithm has (R U R' F') and I definitely dont know what { } means

Ignore those brakets. Those are just there to help group parts together so it's easy to read. Ironic, isn't it?

 

[AlphaSheep]

I dont know what it means mean an algorithm has (R U R' F') and I definitely dont know what { } means

You can ignore the brackets. They are just grouping the moves into common groups of moves to make it easier to remember. These groups are often called triggers.

The set of moves R U R’ U’ R’ F R2 U’ R’ U’ is in {} because it occurs in several other PLLs so it will help when learning to recognise them as the same.

 

[CJ!]

You can ignore the brackets. They are just grouping the moves into common groups of moves to make it easier to remember. These groups are often called triggers.

The set of moves R U R’ U’ R’ F R2 U’ R’ U’ is in {} because it occurs in several other PLLs so it will help when learning to recognise them as the same.

Thankks so much for that tip and it is ironic seeing how i had to sign up on a forum page just to know what it means lol

You just helped me solve a cube for my first time...im freakin out

 

[Daniel Lin]

how many sub 7 cubers are there (besides feliks obviously)?

 

[Cale S]

how many sub 7 cubers are there (besides feliks obviously)?

Lucas, Bill, Max, Kian, Patrick, Alex, and probably others (Seung-Hyuk Nahm or Philipp Weyer?) have sub-7 avg100, but that doesn't mean they are all sub-7

If they were actually considered sub-7 they'd probably need to have an official result that fast

Kian and Bill have sub-7 avg1000 though so that might be good enough

 

[shadowslice e]

Lucas, Max, Patrick, Alex, and probably others (Seung-Hyuk Nahm or Philipp Weyer?) have sub-7 avg100, but that doesn't mean they are sub-7

If they were actually considered sub-7 they'd probably need to have an official result that fast

I'm not sure alex is sub-7 anymore considering he never practises outside of comps (and frequently not even there) tbh.

 

[Cale S]

I'm not sure alex is sub-7 anymore considering he never practises outside of comps (and frequently not even there) tbh.

yeah he's definitely not sub-7 now, but he might have been barely sub-7 when he was at his best

 

[Dash Lambda]

How many sub-7 cubers are there (besides Feliks obviously)?

Officially, there's 3: Feliks, Sebastian, and Mats.
165 people have official sub-7 singles.
Of course that's subject to change, just current figures.

For unofficial times, who knows. What do you consider sub-7 outside of official results?

EDIT: Fixed number of singles.

 

[Cale S]

Officially, there's 3: Feliks, Sebastian, and Mats.
989 people have official sub-7 singles.
Of course that's subject to change, just current figures.

For unofficial times, who knows. What do you consider sub-7 outside of official results?

Isn't it 165 people?

 

[Dash Lambda]

Isn't it 165 people?

Yes, it is. Thanks for pointing that out.
I'm gonna have to find out what numbers I was looking at, because I explicitly remember seeing 989 sub-7 results in something.

 

[GenTheSnail]

989 people have official sub-7 singles.

That is the total number of sub-7 single results. Cale is right.
Only 165 people have sub-7 singles.

E: half-ninja'd

You were looking at results, instead of people

 

[Dash Lambda]

That is the total number of sub-7 single results. Cale is right.
Only 165 people have sub-7 singles.

Yes, I fixed it when I saw his correction. I'm still trying to figure out how I got that number, I don't even know where to go to find the total of results rather than people in the first place XP

 

[GenTheSnail]

Yes, I fixed it when I saw his correction. I'm still trying to figure out how I got that number, I don't even know where to go to find the total of results rather than people in the first place XP

Results -> Rankings -> Show (drop down menu) ->
-----------------------------------------------100 Persons
-----------------------------------------------1000 Persons
-----------------------------------------------All Persons
-----------------------------------------------By Region
-----------------------------------------------100 Results
-----------------------------------------------1000 Results

 

[CubingGenius]

If I start solving badly in a session, should I take a break for a while?

 

[AlphaSheep]

If I start solving badly in a session, should I take a break for a while?

No, because it's the bad solves combined with the good solves that reflect your true performance. You need to focus on the bad to improve. It should be motivation to change something.

Remember that in a comp, you'll probably feel pressured, uncomfortable, and tired. You probably won't be solving at your best. I think it's best to practice dealing with that at home.

Also, times at home don't count for anything. They never ever make it into the WCA database, so they are absolutely irrelevant. So why does it matter if your average is a couple of seconds worse than what you normally get?

 

[CubingGenius]

No, because it's the bad solves combined with the good solves that reflect your true performance. You need to focus on the bad to improve. It should be motivation to change something.

Remember that in a comp, you'll probably feel pressured, uncomfortable, and tired. You probably won't be solving at your best. I think it's best to practice dealing with that at home.

Also, times at home don't count for anything. They never ever make it into the WCA database, so they are absolutely irrelevant. So why does it matter if your average is a couple of seconds worse than what you normally get?

I was averaging about 22.5 seconds for the first 30 solves and then about 23 after the next 15 or so, but there were 2 29's, a 30 and a few 26's. I was often going through trying to work out what I could have improved on for some of them though.

I've only been to one competition and I broke my pb in everything except OH which was less than half a second off my PB and 3x3, which still had a better average than what I normally get. I seem to do better at the competition than at home.

But I mean, if I get bad times when I practice, I feel like I am practicing doing something inefficiently. I don't know then if it is still worth practicing. But it sounds like it is according to you. So I will try to keep practicing even when the times are a lot worse than what I normally get.

I just want to try to average sub-10 by the end of the year. I sometimes feel it isn't normal though to get times like 29 if you average about 23 seconds.

Thank you for the advice.

 

[xyzzy]

But I mean, if I get bad times when I practice, I feel like I am practicing doing something inefficiently. I don't know then if it is still worth practicing. But it sounds like it is according to you. So I will try to keep practicing even when the times are a lot worse than what I normally get.

I disagree. It's easy enough to get distracted or fatigued during a long session of solves, and that wouldn't be indicative of a competition setup either. (Unless you're the kind of person who participates in almost every event!) At a comp, you do only five solves per round and there's a long gap between rounds (if there are multiple rounds), which provides plenty of time for you to calm your nerves.

Bad practice is worse than no practice at all. If you feel like your times are consistently getting worse even though you're not getting bad cases (nb: this is subjective), then just take a break. Go do something else for an hour or two.

I sometimes feel it isn't normal though to get times like 29 if you average about 23 seconds.

If that isn't normal, lol.

 

[CubingGenius]

I disagree. It's easy enough to get distracted or fatigued during a long session of solves, and that wouldn't be indicative of a competition setup either. (Unless you're the kind of person who participates in almost every event!) At a comp, you do only five solves per round and there's a long gap between rounds (if there are multiple rounds), which provides plenty of time for you to calm your nerves.

Bad practice is worse than no practice at all. If you feel like your times are consistently getting worse even though you're not getting bad cases (nb: this is subjective), then just take a break. Go do something else for an hour or two.



If that isn't normal, lol.

I think I had dinner in between and couldn't look ahead as well when I came back to solving, so that would probably be why.

Thanks for the reply. I won't be worried if I get bad times next time then.