einstein00
Regular
- Joined
- Dec 16, 2010
- Messages
- 39
I've heard some people saying that they can execute most, if not all, PLL algorithms in less than one second. I believe this is inhuman. Here's an example:
The H-perm, one of the easiest and fastest PLL cases, is undoubtedly solved the fastest using a variation of M2 U M2 U2 M2 U M2. Personally, I like M'2 U' M'2 U'2 M'2 U' M'2, executing each M'2 with a double trigger with the right ring and then middle fingers, and the U' and U'2 with the left hand. However, I cannot even get this easy algorithm under one second - at best, I can do 1.2 s. Even if I skip all U moves, performing only (M'2)4, I can get at best 1.03 s. Perhaps I'm just slow. But if I cannot execute one of the fastest PLL algorithms in under 1 second, there's no humanly way anyone can execute most or even all PLL algorithms in under 1 second.
If I'm just missing something really obvious and stupid, please tell me.
The H-perm, one of the easiest and fastest PLL cases, is undoubtedly solved the fastest using a variation of M2 U M2 U2 M2 U M2. Personally, I like M'2 U' M'2 U'2 M'2 U' M'2, executing each M'2 with a double trigger with the right ring and then middle fingers, and the U' and U'2 with the left hand. However, I cannot even get this easy algorithm under one second - at best, I can do 1.2 s. Even if I skip all U moves, performing only (M'2)4, I can get at best 1.03 s. Perhaps I'm just slow. But if I cannot execute one of the fastest PLL algorithms in under 1 second, there's no humanly way anyone can execute most or even all PLL algorithms in under 1 second.
If I'm just missing something really obvious and stupid, please tell me.