Bindedsa
Veteran
What was you pyra avg?
What was you pyra avg?
CyanSandwich
Veteran
- Joined
- Oct 4, 2012
- Messages
- 1,615
- Location
- Wellington, New Zealand
- WCA ID
- 2013NELS01
- YouTube
- Visit Channel
Oh yeah I knew that. Just found it a bit funny that I had a faster first solve considering how much faster you are. I guess it helped that I didn't care what I got for pyraminx.
TDM
Legend
I remember my first official solve... I forgot about AUF and got a +2. It was my worst 2x2 Ao5 since I stopped using my LanLan (when I averaged ~9). The average was 6.95 iirc; I averaged sub-5 at the time.
Nilsibert
Veteran
I just realized that turning fast and "half" look ahead gets me quite some 14s or even 13s or even 12s averages, while turning "as fast as possible while still having (almost) full look ahead" gets me pretty bad times(16 17 18 or even 19). So I guess I'm just gonna practice a ton with timed solves, instead of the "cliché" turning slow all the time. I'll still do that when not timing, but looking ahead is quite harder to do when going slow. Also it helps tps, which has suffered because I never practiced it.
Last edited:
TDM
Legend
Yep, the best thing to do imo is turn fast and look ahead
Just not too fast, which is what I do sometimes, or too slow, which what people do when they read "slow down and look ahead". "Slow down" doesn't mean turn slowly; it means turn slower!
Nilsibert
Veteran
Yep, the best thing to do imo is turn fast and look ahead
True that! Many People suggest turning as fast as possible without a single pause and constant "perfect" look ahead, and then slowly increasing turning speed. This however never really works for me, turning slow makes it even harder for me. I'm best when I find that middle ground.
SolveThatCube
Veteran
A COMPLETE FAIL.
Well that was the first solve.
Next solve was another 10.
Then a 5.
Then another 10 but it was +2 so it was a 12.
Then what should have been a 6 but the timer didn't stop and I didn't realise until it hit 8.
So the average was a 9
heh. My first official 2x2 solve was a +2 as well, the same thing happened. The average turned out to be a 5 when I avg 3 seconds at home.
Last edited by a moderator:
Coolster01
Veteran
Super random, I just noticed how I correspond to Antoine:
Me in 2x2 = him in OH (WR averages until Michal came in, probably gonna happen with Chris taking mine, too)
Me in skewb = him in feet (not great officially, but pretty darn good at home)
Me in feet = him in skewb (NAR averages, NR singles)
Pretty cray cray imo
Me in 2x2 = him in OH (WR averages until Michal came in, probably gonna happen with Chris taking mine, too)
Me in skewb = him in feet (not great officially, but pretty darn good at home)
Me in feet = him in skewb (NAR averages, NR singles)
Pretty cray cray imo
Kirjava
Colourful
mundane
kinch2002
Premium Member
Maybe I can do better. Me and Evan Liu.
[table="width: 400, class: grid, align: left"]
[tr][td]Event[/td] [td]Daniel[/td] [td]Evan[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Official events completed[/td] [td]33[/td] [td]33[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]World Records[/td] [td]3[/td] [td]3[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Continental Records[/td] [td]2[/td] [td]3[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Competitions[/td] [td]35[/td] [td]35[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]First competition[/td] [td]2009[/td] [td]2009[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Rubik's Cube[/td] [td]10.48[/td] [td]10.58[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]4x4 Cube[/td] [td]42.73[/td] [td]39.76[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]5x5 Cube[/td] [td]1:22.43[/td] [td]1:19.83[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]2x2 Cube[/td] [td]2.64[/td] [td]3.18[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]3x3 blindfolded[/td] [td]1:44.19[/td] [td]1:46.18[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]3x3 one-handed[/td] [td]18.91[/td] [td]18.59[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]3x3 fewest moves[/td] [td]26.33[/td] [td]31.33[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]3x3 with feet[/td] [td]1:06.46[/td] [td]1:04.59[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Megaminx[/td] [td]1:12.81[/td] [td]1:14.72[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Pyraminx[/td] [td]5.09[/td] [td]4.89[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Square-1[/td] [td]18.76[/td] [td]21.73[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Rubik's Clock[/td] [td]7.51[/td] [td]6.61[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Skewb[/td] [td]6.89[/td] [td]8.44[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]6x6 Cube[/td] [td]2:44.33[/td] [td]2:41.30[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]7x7 Cube[/td] [td]4:02.54[/td] [td]3:55.05[/td][/tr]
[/table]
On the non-cubing side, here's another one: We have both studied Mathematics at Trinity College, Oxford.
[table="width: 400, class: grid, align: left"]
[tr][td]Event[/td] [td]Daniel[/td] [td]Evan[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Official events completed[/td] [td]33[/td] [td]33[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]World Records[/td] [td]3[/td] [td]3[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Continental Records[/td] [td]2[/td] [td]3[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Competitions[/td] [td]35[/td] [td]35[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]First competition[/td] [td]2009[/td] [td]2009[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Rubik's Cube[/td] [td]10.48[/td] [td]10.58[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]4x4 Cube[/td] [td]42.73[/td] [td]39.76[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]5x5 Cube[/td] [td]1:22.43[/td] [td]1:19.83[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]2x2 Cube[/td] [td]2.64[/td] [td]3.18[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]3x3 blindfolded[/td] [td]1:44.19[/td] [td]1:46.18[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]3x3 one-handed[/td] [td]18.91[/td] [td]18.59[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]3x3 fewest moves[/td] [td]26.33[/td] [td]31.33[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]3x3 with feet[/td] [td]1:06.46[/td] [td]1:04.59[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Megaminx[/td] [td]1:12.81[/td] [td]1:14.72[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Pyraminx[/td] [td]5.09[/td] [td]4.89[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Square-1[/td] [td]18.76[/td] [td]21.73[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Rubik's Clock[/td] [td]7.51[/td] [td]6.61[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Skewb[/td] [td]6.89[/td] [td]8.44[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]6x6 Cube[/td] [td]2:44.33[/td] [td]2:41.30[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]7x7 Cube[/td] [td]4:02.54[/td] [td]3:55.05[/td][/tr]
[/table]
On the non-cubing side, here's another one: We have both studied Mathematics at Trinity College, Oxford.
Bindedsa
Veteran
You also both podiumed in clock at world champs last year.
Coolster01
Veteran
Holy woahhhhhhhhh
Evan Liu
Veteran
Great time to invoke this comparison!
As a result of these similarities, there's also this, as I mentioned the other day:
Plus we're both "platinum members" now. As you said, scarily similar.
Chree
Veteran
- Joined
- Jun 7, 2013
- Messages
- 1,226
- Location
- Portland, OR, USA
- WCA ID
- 2013BROT01
- YouTube
- Visit Channel
And of course there's simply "turning as fast as my lookahead allows". This is porbably that middle ground you speak of. If I can't see a the next pair, I'm moving too fast and hafta back down.
I've also tried variable turn speeds. Since my F2L is algorithmic, I start out each alg at full speed and then decelerate for the insert. It gives my lookahead a moment to catch up and spot the next pair. This has had mixed results. My lookahead just isn't good enough yet to keep up with fast turning. But wanted to throw out there to see if anyone else has tried it.
Nilsibert
Veteran
Kind of. Sometimes I track a piece or 2 in my mind, sometimes I just have fast recognition. It depends, but I'm always a bit faster than my look ahead would allow. I can't actually follow a pair while solving another. If I go slow enough to do that, it becomes much harder to look into the next one. I mostly just look at the whole cube and spot pieces and remember them as I solve. That's why my times can be really good but also pretty bad at times. Sometimes it just works out and sometimes I'm lost. In the end, I feel that pushing myself by turning quite fast and forcing myself to look ahead makes me improve more than when I try to consciously do it. It's hard to explain.
Chree
Veteran
- Joined
- Jun 7, 2013
- Messages
- 1,226
- Location
- Portland, OR, USA
- WCA ID
- 2013BROT01
- YouTube
- Visit Channel
I can believe that... the hard to explain part
no one could explain lookahead for me and I couldn't do it for more than my first year of speedcubing, until one day it just clicked.One of the things I realized that helps is... let's say you have 2 F2L edges in the U layer and you quickly spot one of their corners. I'll make sure to solve that pair using an alg that preserves all the other slots, also guaranteeing that other edge will still be in the U layer when I'm done. So, while I'm solving the first pair I'll try to find the other corner and track it instead of the edge. Finding the edge again is quicker knowing that it'll stay in the U layer.
I'll also try to take a mental note of the orientation of that 2nd edge. That let's me think ahead about if solving the 2nd pair is gonna be 2gen or need a rotation.
I assume this is basically what full fluid lookahead entails. Except tracking both pieces at once.
Last edited:
mDiPalma
Veteran
- Joined
- Jul 12, 2011
- Messages
- 1,533
Incorrectly assuming that cubers don't consciously influence later steps during current steps, do we have any optimal upper bounds and medians for movecounts for all of the steps in all of the major methods?
Robert-Y
Legend
^I think we do not, but to me, calculating it could be tricky for any method...
Random, unrelated:
I found this video yesterday http://pann.nate.com/video/52369600
I was wondering if anyone know if Yu Jeong Min's 11.76 former WR was filmed? Does anyone know if the videos can still be found. I have a feeling that I've watched them before, and Harris Chan told me that he thinks he has seen competition videos of him before, but maybe not of his WR.
Older cubers, please help!
Random, unrelated:
I found this video yesterday http://pann.nate.com/video/52369600
I was wondering if anyone know if Yu Jeong Min's 11.76 former WR was filmed? Does anyone know if the videos can still be found. I have a feeling that I've watched them before, and Harris Chan told me that he thinks he has seen competition videos of him before, but maybe not of his WR.
Older cubers, please help!
IRNjuggle28
Veteran
Well, I can cover a few of the easier ones.
For CFOP, any F2L case where both pieces are in the U layer, as well as any case where one piece is in the correct slot (with any orientation) and the other is in the U layer, can be solved in 8 or less HTM. Cases where pieces are in slots can take more than that.
OLL: 6-11 moves
PLL: 9-14 moves
LL: 6-16 moves
Roux L6E Orientation: Best case is 3 STM/6 HTM. Worst one is at most 9 STM/10 HTM. (Thank you to DeeDubb for catching my mistake)
I think that any L4E Roux case can be solved in 4 STM. Not sure about that one, but can't think of anything that would be an exception.
Things like 1x2x3 blocks and 2x2x2/2x2x3 are waaaay harder.
I think studies on optimal cross solutions have been done, but I don't know where to look for one.
Last edited:
Similar threads
