Random Cubing Discussion

[bobthegiraffemonkey]

For opposite corners flipped in U I would probably use:
R U2 R' L' U' L U' R U' R' L' U2 L (U)

 

[Kirjava]

U' D2 R2 F2 B2 U' D' B R2 B2 L' B2 L2 D U L2 U D2 R U D' B' D U B2

CF; y R2F2R2 x'y'
L; UM'U'x'
R; R'UM'U'RU'M2Ur2
LSE; UMUM'UMU2M'U'M'U2MU2R2

29 moves / 9.57 seconds = 3.0 tps

 

[hatter]

I didn't want to make a new thread for this but thought someone may be interested in it.

http://www.hottopic.com/hottopic/Ac...-Gravity-Puzzle-Cube-BiFold-Wallet-939976.jsp

 

[riffz]

I didn't want to make a new thread for this but thought someone may be interested in it.

http://www.hottopic.com/hottopic/Ac...-Gravity-Puzzle-Cube-BiFold-Wallet-939976.jsp

Do want.

 

[Ordos_Koala]

http://www.hottopic.com/hottopic/Ac...-Gravity-Puzzle-Cube-BiFold-Wallet-939976.jsp

This bi-fold wallet features a puzzle cube image. Interior includes card slots, a clear ID display and a billfold.
I read "blindfold" instead of billfold

 

[ben1996123]

Bad R perm:

(R' F R F') U (r U R' U' M) U' (r U R' U' M) U

Best so far is 1.60, good, considering the alg I normally use is almost sup 2

EDIT: Just got 1.41 (√2 ftw.)

 

[Tim Major]

3x3 top 100 averages.
1 from 2008.
1 from 2009.
69 from 2010.
29 from one and a half months so far in 2011.

Top 15 are sub 10.
8 from 2010.
7 from 2011.

Why are the standards getting so much higher, and why are the most recent, the fastest? Is it new cubes (I don't believe this is the case)? The fact that more people are competing in competitions?
Also, I thought it was interesting to note that only 2 averages from before 2010 made the top 100.

 

[Cubenovice]

Simple: There are more kids these days.
And the faster you solve your cube, the smaller the chance that some random kid grabs your cube and poses with it!

 

[Tim Major]

some random kid grabs your cube and poses with it!

Some random kid!!
Shouldn't there be more chance, considering you mentioned there are more kids these days?

 

[qqwref]

Also, I thought it was interesting to note that only 2 averages from before 2010 made the top 100.

Oh yeah, and those two averages are tied.

What. The. ****.


Anyway I think there are two reasons: first, people are legitimately getting faster due to better cubes; second, it often takes a few competitions to start to get good times. Nobody would have a top100 average from 2009 or earlier if they haven't improved it; and the good averages are all relatively recent because it just took a while for people to get that fast and then to do it in comp.

Another interesting thing: in the top 100 averages, there are none from <2008 and two from 2009 (Zolnowski and Pichedpan).

 

[AndrewRocks]

Speed of New Method

I just learned Petrus, I'm a bit disappointed because I thought it would be very unique. The first two layers is very neat and fun, but the last layer seems just like 2 look oll/pll. Maybe I had a bad guide, dunno. :confused:

Anyway, I timed my first Petrus attempt and it turned out to be 3:27. Which I'm pretty happy with, I imagine I can get it to under a minute with a little more practice. I can do Freidrich's in about 45 seconds.

 

[CubicNL]

I just learned Petrus, I'm a bit disappointed because I thought it would be very unique. The first two layers is very neat and fun, but the last layer seems just like 2 look oll/pll. Maybe I had a bad guide, dunno. :confused:

Anyway, I timed my first Petrus attempt and it turned out to be 3:27. Which I'm pretty happy with, I imagine I can get it to under a minute with a little more practice. I can do Freidrich's in about 45 seconds.

Last layer is the last look of 2-look oll, because with Petrus you orient the edges before finishing F2L and pll is just the same as normal.

 

[irontwig]

No Petrus LL is COLL+EPLL or 2GLL if CP is skipped.

 

[Bapao]

Hey people, there are enough of those "how to get faster" threads around here, thought I'd just ask here. I keep reading about beginners who say they get like an average of 1 minute 30 on beginners method and stuff. I was at like 3 minutes on beginners method and now with friedrichs (2 look oll pll) I'm at around 1 min 15 sec average. Best was I believe 51 seconds.

Now I know practice, lookahead, less cube rotation, etc, but compared to these beginners I seem to be getting horrible times. Am I doing something wrong or do I actually just need to practice more? >.<
How long did it take you all to get a constant average of like sub 50, 40, etc?

It took me 2 months of off and on practice to get 48sec on beginners method.
I adapted the corner alg I had learnt for the first layer to make the corners rotate in both directions instead of repeating one alg 5 times in just one direction.
I also concentrated on intuitive cross methods, put the cross on the bottom ect.
I'm currently practicing Key Hole and still need to get proficient at that. I also swapped several of the beginner algs for faster ones which cut down cube rotations.
Giving intuitive F2L a shot also helps you learn about corner/ edge pairs. Although I don't purposely make pairs yet, I still insert them if they happen to create themselves during a solve.
All of the above helped me get faster at beginners method.
Bear in mind that I am a really slow learner and still wrist the cube a lot, so others will manage 50 seconds using beginners method faster.

 

[CubicNL]

No Petrus LL is COLL+EPLL or 2GLL if CP is skipped.

That's a possibility, the way he does it is with 2-look oll and pll

 

[JonnyWhoopes]

That's a possibility, the way he does it is with 2-look oll and pll

IIRC on Petrus' website, COLL+EPLL was the advance path he recommends.

 

[Kirjava]

R U B' U' R' F2 U2 D' L R' F2 U2 L' D U L' B' F' U F U2 F' R L D

yU'FM2x
U2R'URUrU'MU'R'UrU'R'UR
R2B'R'BR'F'U'FRUR'
M2UMU2MUM2U2M2

39 moves / 6.42 seconds = 6 tps

 

[Anonymous]

I'm pretty sure I've seen at least a few pretty fast Petrus users use "2-look OLL" + PLL. (I think it's more accurate to say OCLL than 'two look OLL' in this case, but whatever.)

 

[JonnyWhoopes]

I'm pretty sure I've seen at least a few pretty fast Petrus users use "2-look OLL" + PLL. (I think it's more accurate to say OCLL than 'two look OLL' in this case, but whatever.)

That doesn't mean that Petrus doesn't recommend COLL+EPLL.

 

[qqwref]

The real essence of the Petrus method is the way the F2L is constructed. Petrus's website contains a whole bunch of different ways to do the last layer, so it's clear there is not one official style "Petrus LL". There's nothing wrong with using OCLL+PLL if you're already used to the recognition and algorithms (in fact it's probably a far better idea than switching to something which is about equally fast, like COLL+EPLL).