The One-Answer Question Thread [closed]

[shoot1510]

Can you actually make a paper Rubik cube?
I heard of a paper Rubik cube on youtube, because I'm making one

 

[Mike Hughey]

Can you actually make a paper Rubik cube?
I heard of a paper Rubik cube on youtube, because I'm making one

I googled "paper rubik's cube"; this was the first hit:
http://www.speedcubing.com/ton/dror's_paper_cube.htm

 

[Lord Voldemort]

If I know Ortega and CLL, would it be worthwhile to learn Guimond as well?

Absolutely, I think that Guimond is not too hard and there are some cases that Guimond would work better than ortega!

cough*prettymucheverycase*coughcough.

 

[not_kevin]

If I know Ortega and CLL, would it be worthwhile to learn Guimond as well?

Absolutely, I think that Guimond is not too hard and there are some cases that Guimond would work better than ortega!

cough*prettymucheverycase*coughcough.

Not really. If you have a layer solved, CLL is probably ('tho not always) faster.

 

[Escher]

If I know Ortega and CLL, would it be worthwhile to learn Guimond as well?

Absolutely, I think that Guimond is not too hard and there are some cases that Guimond would work better than ortega!

cough*prettymucheverycase*coughcough.

Not really. If you have a face solved, CLL is probably ('tho not always) faster.

face? surely you mean EG
but if you mean side then CLL is absolutely faster. CLL is just generally faster anyway - I think there are very few (no?) people that are consistently sub 4 with methods like ortega or guimond. Personally speaking, I don't see how you can not be sub 4 if you know CLL well.

 

[not_kevin]

If I know Ortega and CLL, would it be worthwhile to learn Guimond as well?

Absolutely, I think that Guimond is not too hard and there are some cases that Guimond would work better than ortega!

cough*prettymucheverycase*coughcough.

Not really. If you have a face solved, CLL is probably ('tho not always) faster.

face? surely you mean EG
but if you mean side then CLL is absolutely faster. CLL is just generally faster anyway - I think there are very few (no?) people that are consistently sub 4 with methods like ortega or guimond. Personally speaking, I don't see how you can not be sub 4 if you know CLL well.

Psyche... I meant layer.

 

[JustinJ]

Personally speaking, I don't see how you can not be sub 4 if you know CLL well.

I guess my recognition or first layer just sucks then I'll keep practicing CLL, thanks.

Actually new question, I don't know if I should make a whole thread for this or not, but here's an average of 12 for my first layer. If I average around 5-6, what do I need to work on?

Statistics for 04-13-2009 18:02:35

Average: 2.03
Standard Deviation: 0.39
Best Time: 0.83
Worst Time: 3.55
Individual Times:
1. (3.55) U' R F U' F R U F2 U F U' R2 F R U' F' R2 F2 U' F U2 R2 U F U2
2. 1.68 R2 U2 R' U R F2 R2 F2 U' F2 R U F U R2 F U' R' U2 R2 F' R' F U' R2
3. 2.03 F R' F2 U R U' R U' F' U R2 U2 R2 F' U R U2 R U2 R2 F2 R2 U2 R2 U2
4. 1.69 U2 R F2 R2 U2 F2 R2 U2 F' R F' R' F U' R2 F' U2 F2 U' F' U2 F R2 F' U2
5. 1.66 R U2 R U F2 R' U2 R F' U2 R U F' U' R2 F' U2 R F U' F2 R' F2 R U'
6. 2.38 R U R2 F2 U R' U' R2 F2 R U' F' R' F2 U R U F' R' F R2 U' F' R' F
7. 1.55 F2 R2 F2 R2 F2 R2 F R F U' F' R' F' R2 U2 R U F U F R F' R' U F
8. 2.44 R' F' R F R U R F U F2 U R' U2 R U F2 R U F U R' U2 F2 U R'
9. 2.77 F' R2 F2 R U' R' F' U F2 R U2 R' F' R F' U' R2 F2 R F' U2 R2 F2 R2 U
10. (0.83) F' R2 U' R U2 R2 F R' F R2 U2 R' U2 F R' U' F U' R U' F2 R U R2 U2
11. 2.22 F2 U2 F2 U2 R' F2 U2 R F2 U F2 U' F2 U' R F' R' F' R' F U2 R' F2 R U'
12. 1.83 U2 R' F' R2 U R2 F' R2 U2 F2 R U' R' F2 R' U2 R2 U R' F R U' R2 F2 U'

Looking at that I guess it's the recognition/turnspeed on the last layer, should I just drill solves for that?

 

[Lord Voldemort]

How are Multi-BLD rankings determined?

Here are last week's results:

1. 9/10 Mike Hughey
2. 4/4 tim
3. 4/4 KJiptner
4. 3/3 mande
5. 2/2 byu
6. 1/2 Vault312
7. 1/2 cookingfat
8. 0/2 fazrulz
9. 1/4 MatsBergsten

No offense fazrulz, but isn't one success better than no successes, even if he did twice as many cubes?

EDIT: TO Escher and not kevin: I was talking about Guimond compared to Ortega, not CLL. And anyway, how often do you have a layer solved after a scramble?

 

[JustinJ]

How are Multi-BLD rankings determined?

Here are last week's results:

1. 9/10 Mike Hughey
2. 4/4 tim
3. 4/4 KJiptner
4. 3/3 mande
5. 2/2 byu
6. 1/2 Vault312
7. 1/2 cookingfat
8. 0/2 fazrulz
9. 1/4 MatsBergsten

No offense fazrulz, but isn't one success better than no successes, even if he did twice as many cubes?

It's determined by successes minus failures, so fazrulz had 0 - 2 = -2, where MatsBergsten had 1 - 3 = -2. I guess they were just assorted alphabetically or something after that.

 

[not_kevin]

How are Multi-BLD rankings determined?

Here are last week's results:

1. 9/10 Mike Hughey
2. 4/4 tim
3. 4/4 KJiptner
4. 3/3 mande
5. 2/2 byu
6. 1/2 Vault312
7. 1/2 cookingfat
8. 0/2 fazrulz
9. 1/4 MatsBergsten

No offense fazrulz, but isn't one success better than no successes, even if he did twice as many cubes?

EDIT: TO Escher and not kevin: I was talking about Guimond compared to Ortega, not CLL. And anyway, how often do you have a layer solved after a scramble?

9f16) For the Rubik's Cube: Multiple Blindfolded event the order in the results is based on number of puzzles solved minus the number of puzzles not solved (higher is better). If the result is lower than 0, the solve is disqualified.
If competitors have the same result, then the order is based on total time (lower is better).

Although a solve is probably better than none, regulations state this.

 

[byu]

Which brings up another question -

If two people in a competition get the same 3x3 average and that average is the best, who wins the competition?

 

[not_kevin]

Which brings up another question -

If two people in a competition get the same 3x3 average and that average is the best, who wins the competition?

9f15) Competitors with the same result in a round finish at the same position.

'Tho I think that placement in a list is determined by best time.

 

[Escher]

Personally speaking, I don't see how you can not be sub 4 if you know CLL well.

I guess my recognition or first layer just sucks then I'll keep practicing CLL, thanks.

Actually new question, I don't know if I should make a whole thread for this or not, but here's an average of 12 for my first layer. If I average around 5-6, what do I need to work on?

Sorry, that was a little harsh from me.
I'm impressed you learnt it pretty quickly though (as far as I can tell), I haven't the energy to finish it atm.
Did you learn recognition from Rowe's videos? If you haven't, I suggest you do, its much faster than trying to work out which pieces need swapping or whatever.
Layer making wise... are you doing it colour neutral? I think the maximum upper bound is 5 moves, so you should really be taking 1.5s or less on average. Try spending as long as you can on getting an efficient layer (i.e work out a layer for every side). With a lot of practice, getting a decent FL should become easy. Remember pretty much all the advice available for making crosses on 3x3 can apply to 2x2 (doing it bld, as efficiently as possible, executing as fast as possible etc).

You are sub 6, right? You shouldn't really be taking 4s to AUF, recognise and perform the CLL algs.
Recognition speed will just come with practice, provided you have a good system (try doing it from other angles too - you can reduce unnecessary AUFing). Most of the algs are pretty short for CLL, so you should really be able to execute them quite quickly (definitely sub 2). Just like OLLs and PLLs, you should be looking around the wiki and other places for better algorithms for you (or even learning the same case from other angles), and doing time attacks to help speed you up.
Also, you should practice 2x2 speed BLD lots - learning to accurately predict the type of CLL will obviously reduce recognition times (and working out the permutation means you'll get a one look solve)

I expect you know most of this, but total noobs read this stuff too

EDIT: TO Escher and not kevin: I was talking about Guimond compared to Ortega, not CLL. And anyway, how often do you have a layer solved after a scramble?

Not particularly often, no, but sometimes during ortega you'll accidentally make a layer, and knowing the CLL in that case would obviously be faster. Also, in ortega if you get a PLL skip it can be very annoying - Y perm on bottom is pretty slow - knowing that CLL means you can choose another alg (i.e niklas instead of a sune) and avoid it.
Anyway, guimond is a waste of time, LBL->Ortega->CLL is the way to go
Having said that, being aware of the seperation stage as an ortega user is useful.

 

[JustinJ]

Personally speaking, I don't see how you can not be sub 4 if you know CLL well.

I guess my recognition or first layer just sucks then I'll keep practicing CLL, thanks.

Actually new question, I don't know if I should make a whole thread for this or not, but here's an average of 12 for my first layer. If I average around 5-6, what do I need to work on?

Sorry, that was a little harsh from me.
I'm impressed you learnt it pretty quickly though (as far as I can tell), I haven't the energy to finish it atm.
Did you learn recognition from Rowe's videos? If you haven't, I suggest you do, its much faster than trying to work out which pieces need swapping or whatever.
Layer making wise... are you doing it colour neutral? I think the maximum upper bound is 5 moves, so you should really be taking 1.5s or less on average. Try spending as long as you can on getting an efficient layer (i.e work out a layer for every side). With a lot of practice, getting a decent FL should become easy. Remember pretty much all the advice available for making crosses on 3x3 can apply to 2x2 (doing it bld, as efficiently as possible, executing as fast as possible etc).

You are sub 6, right? You shouldn't really be taking 4s to AUF, recognise and perform the CLL algs.
Recognition speed will just come with practice, provided you have a good system (try doing it from other angles too - you can reduce unnecessary AUFing). Most of the algs are pretty short for CLL, so you should really be able to execute them quite quickly (definitely sub 2). Just like OLLs and PLLs, you should be looking around the wiki and other places for better algorithms for you (or even learning the same case from other angles), and doing time attacks to help speed you up.
Also, you should practice 2x2 speed BLD lots - learning to accurately predict the type of CLL will obviously reduce recognition times (and working out the permutation means you'll get a one look solve)

I expect you know most of this, but total noobs read this stuff too

Hey, thanks a lot. I did learn recognition (and most algs) from Rowe's videos, and I think I'm a bit slow on the recog/execution. I like the idea of using speed BLD, I'll try that for sure.

Thanks a lot for the help

 

[Mike Hughey]

How are Multi-BLD rankings determined?

Here are last week's results:

1. 9/10 Mike Hughey
2. 4/4 tim
3. 4/4 KJiptner
4. 3/3 mande
5. 2/2 byu
6. 1/2 Vault312
7. 1/2 cookingfat
8. 0/2 fazrulz
9. 1/4 MatsBergsten

No offense fazrulz, but isn't one success better than no successes, even if he did twice as many cubes?

EDIT: TO Escher and not kevin: I was talking about Guimond compared to Ortega, not CLL. And anyway, how often do you have a layer solved after a scramble?

9f16) For the Rubik's Cube: Multiple Blindfolded event the order in the results is based on number of puzzles solved minus the number of puzzles not solved (higher is better). If the result is lower than 0, the solve is disqualified.
If competitors have the same result, then the order is based on total time (lower is better).

Although a solve is probably better than none, regulations state this.

By the regulations, both the 0/2 and the 1/4 are DNFs (less than zero points). So there is no distinction between them - time doesn't count for DNFs. And I believe the way our rules here are supposed to work, both of them should receive the minimum number of ranking points, since they were DNFs.

I think it's amazing that 7 of the 9 participants didn't DNF - that's a pretty good result!

 

[iSpinz]

What is the CUbe4you shipping cost to the US(IL) and China?

 

[Ellis]

What is the CUbe4you shipping cost to the US(IL) and China?

Checkout and it will tell you the exact amount before you confirm anything.

 

[Odin]

Are the tiles that the meffert puzzles competition legal?

 

[JustinJ]

Are the tiles that the meffert puzzles competition legal?

The ones on 4x4's? I've heard that they're fine for speed, but not for blind, since one of the tiles has a Mefferts Logo on it.

 

[Ellis]

Are the tiles that the meffert puzzles competition legal?

I don't think they should be but they are.