[Help Thread] Skewb Discussion

[notfeliks]

Looks like you two are also qualified to answer what I asked:
How fast do they have to be to not be silly?

Faster than most. From what I understand about skewb averages 9-10 seconds is about equal to 12-13 seconds on 3x3.

 

[Noahaha]

Faster than most. From what I understand about skewb averages 9-10 seconds is about equal to 12-13 seconds on 3x3.

Equal in what way? If you're talking about the amount of work required to achieve the speed, then I think you're way off.

 

[Sa967St]

What are the average time splits for Sarah's method? (Beginner variation)

She has already answered this on the same thread. Splits for a 10 second solve; Quoting:

2. 3-4 for first layer and 6-7 for the rest, for an average solve, I think.

That doesn't really answer SweetSolver's question, though. The question is vague, anyway.

Are you asking for people who use the Beginner's variation to post their splits? Or are you asking for what the ideal splits are? There's no accurate answer for the latter.

 

[kcl]

4x4 WR single Sebastian Weyer 24.76 (no video yet)

Looks like you two are also qualified to answer what I asked:
How fast do they have to be to not be silly?

Hmmm. I'll say fast enough that there aren't people beating the WR times on a daily basis in the accomplishment thread. I don't think I've ever seen someone post a sub 6.54 average of anything unless they're faz..

Equal in what way? If you're talking about the amount of work required to achieve the speed, then I think you're way off.

I would agree with that. I average sub 12 on 3x3, but I'm like not even sub 15 on skewb..

 

[Noahaha]

I would agree with that. I average sub 12 on 3x3, but I'm like not even sub 15 on skewb..

I think you have misunderstood me. I think that sub-10 on Skewb is a small fraction of the amount of work required to get sub-12 on 3x3. I'm guessing you're not even sub-15 on Skewb because you haven't put nearly as much time into Skewb as you have put into 3x3.

 

[Ranzha]

What are the average time splits for Sarah's method? (Beginner variation)

You can't expect an answer to a question like this when times vary from person to person. It's impossible to tell.

As far as reasonable movecounts:
Layer: 6ish
CLL: 5.333 moves on average
U centre: 6.40 moves on average
L4C: 9.167 moves on average

 

[notfeliks]

Equal in what way? If you're talking about the amount of work required to achieve the speed, then I think you're way off.

Pardons. I said from what I understand about skewb averages which to be honest, is not alot.

Either way the WRs within the next few months are likely to be improved on significantly and to call them WRs not even a week into the new year is silly.

 

[Stefan]

Faster than most. From what I understand about skewb averages 9-10 seconds is about equal to 12-13 seconds on 3x3.

Hmmm. I'll say fast enough that there aren't people beating the WR times on a daily basis in the accomplishment thread.

Could you guys please stop being obscure and just give me two times (one for single, one for average)? Example: "6.78 and 7.89".

 

[Tim Major]

Faster than most. From what I understand about skewb averages 9-10 seconds is about equal to 12-13 seconds on 3x3.

It took me less than a week to get a low 9 ao50.

I actually think Skewb will be sub 6 by the end of the year. After some method and hardware development I conservatively expect sub 5

Calling Ranzha fast seems strange to me. He's comparably fast. But I believe most others are slow.

I don't see why Skewb can't reach Pyraminx speeds.

 

[kcl]

I think you have misunderstood me. I think that sub-10 on Skewb is a small fraction of the amount of work required to get sub-12 on 3x3. I'm guessing you're not even sub-15 on Skewb because you haven't put nearly as much time into Skewb as you have put into 3x3.

Wow. I totally wrote that wrong. I meant to write it as "I'm almost as fast with it as I am on 3x3 and I don't practice much"
I see what you meant, I just can't write for **** when I'm tired
Edit: the asterisks are c r a p lol

It took me less than a week to get a low 9 ao50.

I actually think Skewb will be sub 6 by the end of the year. After some method and hardware development I conservatively expect sub 5

Calling Ranzha fast seems strange to me. He's comparably fast. But I believe most others are slow.

I don't see why Skewb can't reach Pyraminx speeds.

Once someone learns Sarah's advanced method I think it will reach that pretty fast haha. It's basically the EG of skewb.

Could you guys please stop being obscure and just give me two times (one for single, one for average)? Example: "6.78 and 7.89".

Clearly you aren't understanding what I'm trying to say. If you make a poll asking "What speed do you become "fast" on 3x3" do you expect a given number answer? I'm trying to say that it's all relative. World records are impressive when they are difficult for anybody to beat. At the moment, the skewb WR could be beaten by many people. When it gets down to the point where very few if any people can beat it, then I would consider it a "viable" record.

 

[Noahaha]

We could all, you know, just wait to see what happens, and then decide when the WRs stopped being silly.

 

[Sa967St]

Once someone learns Sarah's advanced method I think it will reach that pretty fast haha. It's basically the EG of skewb.

Nah. I already know almost all of it, and there are certainly better options that would feel more like EG. Some other small block -> rest, for example.

 

[Ranzha]

We could all, you know, just wait to see what happens, and then decide when the WRs stopped being silly.

I think single will always be silly.

To be honest, if at the end of 2014 the WR times are near the current UWR times, I'll be thoroughly pleased and impressed.

Once someone learns Sarah's advanced method I think it will reach that pretty fast haha. It's basically the EG of skewb.

If someone learned proper algs for it, then that would be amazing.

 

[kcl]

Nah. I already know almost all of it, and there are certainly better options that would feel more like EG. Some other small block -> rest, for example.

Really? I suppose.. I wonder what would happen if Oscar learned it. I mean he does the triggers incredibly fast.

If someone learned proper algs for it, then that would be amazing.

It would indeed..

Sarah, how tricky is the recognition?

 

[Sa967St]

Sarah, how tricky is the recognition?

I've been working on documenting it for a while, but it's fairly tricky. I know how to recognize cases in my head, but it's hard to explain in words without making it seem overcomplicated.

 

[kcl]

I've been working on documenting it for a while, but it's fairly tricky. I know how to recognize cases in my head, but it's hard to explain in words without making it seem overcomplicated.

I see. Is it somewhat like CLL recognition where you have to see opposite and adjacent colors of the centers?

 

[Stefan]

Clearly you aren't understanding what I'm trying to say.

I see exactly what you're trying to do. Evading the question. Again and again.

If you make a poll asking "What speed do you become "fast" on 3x3" do you expect a given number answer?

I'm not making a poll. I'm asking you. Because you expressed that you think they're silly. I want to how you came to that conclusion. (And the other two guys who expression that opinion)

I'm trying to say that it's all relative.

Yes, sure. But the records aren't given in some relative percentage whatever. They're given as explicit times. Like "4.63 seconds". Such explicit time results are what you got. How did you get from that to "silly"? At what explicit times do they become not silly? Don't need to be accurate, I just want explicit times instead of wild handwaving. Clearly such times must exist, at least approximately, and you must have some idea or else you couldn't have decided that the records are silly.

World records are impressive when they are difficult for anybody to beat.
At the moment, the skewb WR could be beaten by many people.
When it gets down to the point where very few if any people can beat it

What explicit times are difficult for anybody to beat?
What explicit times, at the moment, could not be beaten by many people?
What explicit times are the points where very few if any people can beat them?

(Note with "times" I'm always still referring to one time for single and one time for average)

Please answer these questions:

Would 1 second for single WR be silly now?
Would 2 seconds for single WR be silly now?
Would 3 seconds for single WR be silly now?
Would 4 seconds for single WR be silly now?
Would 5 seconds for single WR be silly now?
Would 6 seconds for single WR be silly now?
Would 7 seconds for single WR be silly now?
Would 8 seconds for single WR be silly now?
Would 9 seconds for single WR be silly now?
Would 10 seconds for single WR be silly now?

Would 1 second for average WR be silly now?
Would 2 seconds for average WR be silly now?
Would 3 seconds for average WR be silly now?
Would 4 seconds for average WR be silly now?
Would 5 seconds for average WR be silly now?
Would 6 seconds for average WR be silly now?
Would 7 seconds for average WR be silly now?
Would 8 seconds for average WR be silly now?
Would 9 seconds for average WR be silly now?
Would 10 seconds for average WR be silly now?

Mostly you should answer "yes" or "no", but a few "maybe" are ok.

You were able to answer this for the actual records, so you should be able to answer this for these cases as well.

 

[Sa967St]

I see. Is it somewhat like CLL recognition where you have to see opposite and adjacent colors of the centers?

Recognizing which L5C case you have is easy. Figuring out which alg you need for it is hard. It's not similar to CLL recognition at all.

 

[Ranzha]

I've been working on documenting it for a while, but it's fairly tricky. I know how to recognize cases in my head, but it's hard to explain in words without making it seem overcomplicated.

Expanding on this, 5 stickers on a total of 3 sides can determine what L5C+CLL case you have out of the 129 cases you have (centres: U, F, R; corners: FUL, FUR).
That's pretty crazy to think about o_o

With my "advanced" method, recognition's even easier. you don't need the centre opposite the layer (D, in this case), so the minimum number of stickers needed to figure out which of the 74 L4C+CLL cases you have is 4 (centre: F, R; corners: FDL, FDR).

 

[Robert-Y]

My only problem would be the cases with centre permutation like in the very last two cases listed here:

http://sarah.cubing.net/skewb/skewb-guide.pdf

I don't really know what to call these but may I suggest pacman or lilypad or tepee perms

With the other 5 cycles, you can just try and locate the opposite centre and any centres which are adjacent to first layer corner stickers of the opposite colour. Then it should be easy to deduce which case you have. But this way doesn't work for the cases I've mentioned above unfortunately...