Coolster01
Veteran
Wow. This is incredibly motivational. Amazing.
Sam Nave - 9.70 Square-1 Single
- Thread starter Coolster01
- Start date
PenguinsDontFly
Legend
another sub 10 sq 1 single?!
Cale S
Veteran
wut
I didn't know he was fast at square-1...
Does anyone know if there's a video?
I didn't know he was fast at square-1...
Does anyone know if there's a video?
Antonie faz fan
Veteran
nice!
why are half of the results not in yet
why are half of the results not in yet
zzdanielzz29
Regular
It says 9.70 here
http://cubecomps.com/live.php?cid=862&compid=181
http://cubecomps.com/live.php?cid=862&compid=181
TDM
Legend
He averaged ~25 when he last competed.
I'd also like to see a video; the only video I can find of him solving anything was an 18 second 3x3 solve in 2011. I'd like to see what his turning style's like.
natezach728
Veteran
- Joined
- Apr 14, 2013
- Messages
- 497
- Location
- Burbank, California
- WCA ID
- 2012SORI01
- YouTube
- Visit Channel
Not Kevin just broke it with a 9.43.
Antonie faz fan
Veteran
who?
natezach728
Veteran
- Joined
- Apr 14, 2013
- Messages
- 497
- Location
- Burbank, California
- WCA ID
- 2012SORI01
- YouTube
- Visit Channel
Michael Young aka Not Kevin
Antonie faz fan
Veteran
oh ok XD
guysensei1
Legend
I think tdm may have meant of square 1 solving.
FailCuber
Veteran
The guy with three fingers? Wow that's amazing!
Berd
Legend
That is incredible! GJ to him!
TDM
Legend
Well I'd like to have seen him do square-1, but the other video I found was also 3x3.
6 including the other hand!
qqwref
Legend
- Joined
- Dec 18, 2007
- Messages
- 7,834
- Location
- a <script> tag near you
- WCA ID
- 2006GOTT01
- YouTube
- Visit Channel
Wow, he's pretty good at 3x3x3, considering. His fingertricks are so weird 14.66 average on Square-1 is crazy impressive though, congrats.
When I used to be in California for college, there was a local guy with a hand deformity, Emerson Herrmann. His left hand was normal, though, so he would place noticeably better in OH than in 2h.
14.66 average on Square-1 is crazy impressive though, congrats.When I used to be in California for college, there was a local guy with a hand deformity, Emerson Herrmann. His left hand was normal, though, so he would place noticeably better in OH than in 2h.
Sam N
Regular
- Joined
- Jun 9, 2015
- Messages
- 89
I am making this reply to show the reconstructions for my average at the Indiana 2015 competition.
Times: (21.11), 16.03, (9.70), 15.56, 12.39
Reconstructions
Scramble 1 - (1,0) / (-1,5) / (0,-3) / (-5,-2) / (6,0) / (-1,-3) / (6,-3) / (2,0) / (1,0) / (2,0) / (-1,0) / (4,0) / (4,0) /
Cube-shape: (2,0) / (4,0) / (4,-3) / (-3,0) / (-2,3) / (-1,-2) / (-3,0) /
Corner Orientation: (-5,0) / (3,6) /
Edge Orientation: (3,-3) / (-3,0) / (-1,-1) / (4,1) /
Corner Permutation: (6,0) / (3,0) / (-3,0) / (-3,3) / (-3,0) / (3,0) /
Edge Permutation: (-3,0) / (3,0) / (-1,-1) / (-2,1) / (0,-3) / (3,0) / (-1,-1) / (-2,1) (0,-3) / (3,0) / (-1,-1) / (-2,1)
AUF: (-1,-3)
Thoughts on Solve 1: While this may not have been the nicest cube-shape case, I was still able to avoid running into parity during the solve. There wasn't anything out of the ordinary during the solve other than the algorithm that I used for CP. It's a variation of the algorithm that is used to solve the 3x3x2 T-perm case. While I haven't seen anyone else use the algorithm, I doubt that I am the first to come up with the idea on my own.
Scramble 2- (-3,-4) / (1,-2) / (0,-3) / (2,-1) / (3,-3) / (6,-5) / (0,-3) / (0,-1) / (-3,-4) / (0,-2) / (3,0) / (0,-4) /
Cube-shape: (1,-2) / (-2,3) / (-1,-2) / (-3,0) /
Corner Orientation: (-5,0) / (3,0) /
Edge Orientation: (0,6) / (-3,0) / (-1,-1) / (4,1) /
Corner Permutation: (5,6) / (-3,0) / (3,3) / (0,-3)
Edge Permutation: (1,0) / (-1,-1) / (6,0) / (1,1) / (6,-3) / (0,-3) / (-1,0) / (3,0) / (1,0) / (0,3) / (-1,0) / (-3,0) /
AUF (3,0)
Thoughts on Solve 2: I definitely did not solve this scramble to it's full potential. This was mostly due to nerves, however the biggest mistake was during CP. I should have misaligned the top layer (1,0) to force a better EP case. This would have reduced my time during the EP step dramatically.
Better solution:
Corner permutation: (6,6) / (-3,0) / (3,3) / (0,-3) /
Edge Permutation: this should be self explanatory.
Scramble 3- (-2,0) / (3,0) / (-4,2) / (3,0) / (-5,-5) / (3,-3) / (2,0) / (-3,-3) / (4,-5) / (0,-2) / (-4,0) / (6,0) / (-4,0)
Cube-shape: (-2,0) / (-2,0) / (-1,-2) / (-3,-3) /
Corner Orientation: (1,3) / (-3,0) /
Edge Orientation: (-1,-1) / (3,0) / (3,0) / (1,1) / (-3,0) / (-3,0) /
Corner Permutation: (2,0) / (-3,0) / (3,3) / (0,-3) /
Edge Permutation: (1,3) / (-1,-1) / (-3,0) / (1,1) / (6,0) / (-1,-1) / (-3,0) / (1,1) /
AUF: (-1,0) (part of the AUF was done in the EP step as seen in the move (1,3))
Thoughts on Solve 3: I was in shock that I finally broke the sub-10 barrier. Despite it not being NAR, I am very happy that I was able to get 9.70 officially. This was a very nice scramble in the sense that it allowed for easy transitions between steps.
Scramble 4- (0,-1) / (3,0) / (-5,1) / (5,-1) / (-5,-2) / (3,0) / (5,0) / (3,0) / (1,0) / (-2,-3) / (2,-1) / (2,-2)
Inspection: z2
Cube-shape: (0,-2) / (0,-1) / (0,2) / (-1,-2) / (0,-3) /
Corner Orientation: (1,-3) / (-3,0) /
Edge Orientation: (-6,0) / (-1,-1) / (1,1) / (3,0) / (3,0) / (-1,-1) / (-2,1) / (-3,0) /
Corner permutation: (2,-3) / (-3,0) / (3,3) / (0,-3) /
Edge Orientation: (-2,3) / (3,0) / (-1,-1) / (-2,1) / (3,-3) / (-1,-1) / (3,0) / (1,1) / (-3,0) / (-1,-1) /
AUF: (0,1)
Thoughts on Solve 4: This was a decent scramble. I didn't find anything out of the ordinary other than a few lockups. Everything in the solve felt pretty standard.
Scramble 5- (0,2) / (3,3) / (0,3) / (-2,-2) / (3,-3) / (-3,0) / (0,-4) / (-3,-3) / (5,-3) / (-5,0) / (-2,0) / (6,-3)
Cube-shape: / (-3,0) / (-4,0) / (-1,-2) / (-3,0) /
Corner Orientation: (-2,0) / (3,0) / (this solves Corner Permutation as well)
Edge Orientation: (-3,-3) / (3,0) / (3,0) / (-1,-1) / (-2,1) / (-3,0) /
Edge permutation: (3,3) / (3,0) / (-1,-1) / (-2, 1) / (-3,6) / (3,0) / (-1,-1) / (-2,1) /
AUF: (2,-3)
Thoughts on solve 5: This was a really nice scramble. It should have been faster, but I am happy with the 12.39 I got. If memory serves me, the slower time could be attributed to the pause I took to recognize the EP case.
Overall Thoughts: I am very happy with the single and average that I got at Indiana 2015. Despite some errors on my part, I am satisfied with the overall times. The average was really lucky in the sense that it had no parity, which was one of the biggest highlights that I took away from the round. I would like to thank the staff and judges for helping with the competition. In addition, I would like to thank the fellow competitors at the competition for creating a fun and welcoming environment. I hope the reconstructions helped, and if you have any other questions please feel free to ask me.
- Sam Nave
Times: (21.11), 16.03, (9.70), 15.56, 12.39
Reconstructions
Scramble 1 - (1,0) / (-1,5) / (0,-3) / (-5,-2) / (6,0) / (-1,-3) / (6,-3) / (2,0) / (1,0) / (2,0) / (-1,0) / (4,0) / (4,0) /
Cube-shape: (2,0) / (4,0) / (4,-3) / (-3,0) / (-2,3) / (-1,-2) / (-3,0) /
Corner Orientation: (-5,0) / (3,6) /
Edge Orientation: (3,-3) / (-3,0) / (-1,-1) / (4,1) /
Corner Permutation: (6,0) / (3,0) / (-3,0) / (-3,3) / (-3,0) / (3,0) /
Edge Permutation: (-3,0) / (3,0) / (-1,-1) / (-2,1) / (0,-3) / (3,0) / (-1,-1) / (-2,1) (0,-3) / (3,0) / (-1,-1) / (-2,1)
AUF: (-1,-3)
Thoughts on Solve 1: While this may not have been the nicest cube-shape case, I was still able to avoid running into parity during the solve. There wasn't anything out of the ordinary during the solve other than the algorithm that I used for CP. It's a variation of the algorithm that is used to solve the 3x3x2 T-perm case. While I haven't seen anyone else use the algorithm, I doubt that I am the first to come up with the idea on my own.
Scramble 2- (-3,-4) / (1,-2) / (0,-3) / (2,-1) / (3,-3) / (6,-5) / (0,-3) / (0,-1) / (-3,-4) / (0,-2) / (3,0) / (0,-4) /
Cube-shape: (1,-2) / (-2,3) / (-1,-2) / (-3,0) /
Corner Orientation: (-5,0) / (3,0) /
Edge Orientation: (0,6) / (-3,0) / (-1,-1) / (4,1) /
Corner Permutation: (5,6) / (-3,0) / (3,3) / (0,-3)
Edge Permutation: (1,0) / (-1,-1) / (6,0) / (1,1) / (6,-3) / (0,-3) / (-1,0) / (3,0) / (1,0) / (0,3) / (-1,0) / (-3,0) /
AUF (3,0)
Thoughts on Solve 2: I definitely did not solve this scramble to it's full potential. This was mostly due to nerves, however the biggest mistake was during CP. I should have misaligned the top layer (1,0) to force a better EP case. This would have reduced my time during the EP step dramatically.
Better solution:
Corner permutation: (6,6) / (-3,0) / (3,3) / (0,-3) /
Edge Permutation: this should be self explanatory.
Scramble 3- (-2,0) / (3,0) / (-4,2) / (3,0) / (-5,-5) / (3,-3) / (2,0) / (-3,-3) / (4,-5) / (0,-2) / (-4,0) / (6,0) / (-4,0)
Cube-shape: (-2,0) / (-2,0) / (-1,-2) / (-3,-3) /
Corner Orientation: (1,3) / (-3,0) /
Edge Orientation: (-1,-1) / (3,0) / (3,0) / (1,1) / (-3,0) / (-3,0) /
Corner Permutation: (2,0) / (-3,0) / (3,3) / (0,-3) /
Edge Permutation: (1,3) / (-1,-1) / (-3,0) / (1,1) / (6,0) / (-1,-1) / (-3,0) / (1,1) /
AUF: (-1,0) (part of the AUF was done in the EP step as seen in the move (1,3))
Thoughts on Solve 3: I was in shock that I finally broke the sub-10 barrier. Despite it not being NAR, I am very happy that I was able to get 9.70 officially. This was a very nice scramble in the sense that it allowed for easy transitions between steps.
Scramble 4- (0,-1) / (3,0) / (-5,1) / (5,-1) / (-5,-2) / (3,0) / (5,0) / (3,0) / (1,0) / (-2,-3) / (2,-1) / (2,-2)
Inspection: z2
Cube-shape: (0,-2) / (0,-1) / (0,2) / (-1,-2) / (0,-3) /
Corner Orientation: (1,-3) / (-3,0) /
Edge Orientation: (-6,0) / (-1,-1) / (1,1) / (3,0) / (3,0) / (-1,-1) / (-2,1) / (-3,0) /
Corner permutation: (2,-3) / (-3,0) / (3,3) / (0,-3) /
Edge Orientation: (-2,3) / (3,0) / (-1,-1) / (-2,1) / (3,-3) / (-1,-1) / (3,0) / (1,1) / (-3,0) / (-1,-1) /
AUF: (0,1)
Thoughts on Solve 4: This was a decent scramble. I didn't find anything out of the ordinary other than a few lockups. Everything in the solve felt pretty standard.
Scramble 5- (0,2) / (3,3) / (0,3) / (-2,-2) / (3,-3) / (-3,0) / (0,-4) / (-3,-3) / (5,-3) / (-5,0) / (-2,0) / (6,-3)
Cube-shape: / (-3,0) / (-4,0) / (-1,-2) / (-3,0) /
Corner Orientation: (-2,0) / (3,0) / (this solves Corner Permutation as well)
Edge Orientation: (-3,-3) / (3,0) / (3,0) / (-1,-1) / (-2,1) / (-3,0) /
Edge permutation: (3,3) / (3,0) / (-1,-1) / (-2, 1) / (-3,6) / (3,0) / (-1,-1) / (-2,1) /
AUF: (2,-3)
Thoughts on solve 5: This was a really nice scramble. It should have been faster, but I am happy with the 12.39 I got. If memory serves me, the slower time could be attributed to the pause I took to recognize the EP case.
Overall Thoughts: I am very happy with the single and average that I got at Indiana 2015. Despite some errors on my part, I am satisfied with the overall times. The average was really lucky in the sense that it had no parity, which was one of the biggest highlights that I took away from the round. I would like to thank the staff and judges for helping with the competition. In addition, I would like to thank the fellow competitors at the competition for creating a fun and welcoming environment. I hope the reconstructions helped, and if you have any other questions please feel free to ask me.
- Sam Nave
Sam N
Regular
- Joined
- Jun 9, 2015
- Messages
- 89
This is because there was a 9.43 that was achieved at another competition, Alliance for Education, on the same day by Micheal Young. Since both competitions ended on Saturday, he would receive NAR single. If Alliance for Education was a 2 day competition and ended on Sunday, We would both get recognition for having NAR single.
Ah. Thank you.
