Status
Not open for further replies.
Last edited:
What's the equivelant of sub-20 on a 3x3 for a square-1?? (What's considered fast?)

That's easy enough to calculate.

Number of people with sub-20 averages on 3x3x3 in competition: 879 / 4949 = 17.76%
Number of people who have done square-1 averages in competition: 375
375 * 17.76% = 66.6
The #66 square-1 average in competition: 35.20

Which I guess just goes to show that most people aren't serious about square-1. I could probably be sub-35 with just a little serious practice. I suspect not many people would consider 35 seconds fast. So I guess this isn't a good way to calculate it after all. :)
 
Sorry for the triple post, but none of the posts have anything in common.

How much extra would EMS shipping from DX cost for two items going to the US? Just approximately.
 
Is the a possible method?

Solve all of F2L in any way until you have 1 corner/edge slot left. Then solve all the edges in one alg, and then all the corners in one alg.

It's very possible, but it's not at all probable. I don't think anybody would use this method because it takes a lot of time for recognition, and it would use a large number of algorithms. I don't want to figure out how many.
 
Can someone good at this stuff calculate it?

Edit:

Edges:

Orientation- 2^4
Permutation- 5!
Total- 5! * 2^4 maybe?

Corners:
Orientation- 3^4
Permutation- 5*4*3
Total- 5*4*3 * 5!

This is just a big random guess. I hope it is wrong.
 
Last edited:
For blindfold cubing, I understand how you memorize the order in which you solve the unsolved pieces, but how do you remember where all of those pieces are? Do you just have an already established order in which you solve things? So the first piece you try to solve is always the one that is in the LD, then the piece in the RD followed by FD, etc.
 
Why do people keep thinking that, because they haven't come across an algorithm before, they consider it to be a new algorithm?

ermm because it is a new alg? new is another relative term whats new for you could be old for someone else.

in a global sense they think its new because they havnt seen it before so usually they post and see how many people already have.

Wouldnt you rather someone post new algs they find and maybe a new alg for you that you like better than the current one you use?

The moral of this post: dont complain about trivial matters its unsightly.
 
Would it be a good idea to ban posters, whose post count is below 100, from posting in threads in which the last post is 2 months old in order to prevent bad bumping?

(Lol I used the word "post" a lot :))

in preface i am not attacking Robert-Y with that said...

No it wouldnt some old threads can be useful such as this one. just because people are new to these forums doesnt mean they are new to forums in general.

As for those cases where bumps serve no genuinely helpful purposes oh well is it really all that bad? I mean sure it gets irritating here and there but dont flame someone because of that its just stupid and its a waste of your time and their time. Bumps never hurt anyone.
 
Would it be a good idea to ban posters, whose post count is below 100, from posting in threads in which the last post is 2 months old in order to prevent bad bumping?

(Lol I used the word "post" a lot :))

in preface i am not attacking Robert-Y with that said...

No it wouldnt some old threads can be useful such as this one. just because people are new to these forums doesnt mean they are new to forums in general.

As for those cases where bumps serve no genuinely helpful purposes oh well is it really all that bad? I mean sure it gets irritating here and there but dont flame someone because of that its just stupid and its a waste of your time and their time. Bumps never hurt anyone.

Sorry about that, I was just looking through the bumps you've in some threads and they seem fine...
Yeah your bumping seems fine to me actually e.g. in the "Kids cubing and love" thread. It's good to revive some old and interesting threads ;)
 
Why do people keep thinking that, because they haven't come across an algorithm before, they consider it to be a new algorithm?

ermm because it is a new alg? new is another relative term whats new for you could be old for someone else.

in a global sense they think its new because they havnt seen it before so usually they post and see how many people already have.

Wouldnt you rather someone post new algs they find and maybe a new alg for you that you like better than the current one you use?

The moral of this post: dont complain about trivial matters its unsightly.

http://www.speedsolving.com/forum/showthread.php?t=708
 
Why do people keep thinking that, because they haven't come across an algorithm before, they consider it to be a new algorithm?

ermm because it is a new alg? new is another relative term whats new for you could be old for someone else.

in a global sense they think its new because they havnt seen it before so usually they post and see how many people already have.

Wouldnt you rather someone post new algs they find and maybe a new alg for you that you like better than the current one you use?

The moral of this post: dont complain about trivial matters its unsightly.

http://www.speedsolving.com/forum/showthread.php?t=708


oh... i didnt actually know about though that i think ive seen it once or twice thanks
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top