Weekly competition 2009-31

[Jai]

2x2: 3.72, (5.15), 4.30, (1.75), 4.69 = 4.24

3x3: 10.91, (12.81), 11.58, 11.90, (10.43) = 11.46

4x4: 54.36, (53.11), (1:00.88), 58.83, 54.97 = 56.05

5x5: 2:07.75, (2:13.77), 2:05.61, 1:55.68, (1:53.27) = 2:03.01

OH: 20.03, (21.15), 17.81, 19.88, (16.65) = 19.24

234 Relay: 1:08.58

Pyraminx: (4.08), (8.86), 7.33, 7.40, 6.90 = 7.21

 

[Mike Hughey]

Mike Hughey

3x3x3 Fewest Moves: 32 moves

Scramble: L2 R2 U R2 D U B2 D' L2 D' R2 B' U' R2 D' R2 F' D R D' U'

2x2x2: B U B' F' D2
2x2x3: R2 U2 B2 U'
3x cross: B R B2 U' B' U
4th pair: B2 D B'
OLL: L B L' B' D'
PLL: U2 B' L R' U2 L' R B' U2

I found this in less than half an hour. I would normally be very happy with this, but I'm disappointed because blah beat me so badly. Must have been nice getting that PLL skip; if mine had been a PLL skip, I would have beaten you by a move.

But seriously, blah, very nice solve!!! I think your signature gives false implications; you're certainly not useless at fewest moves.

 

[blah]

Mike Hughey

3x3x3 Fewest Moves: 32 moves

Scramble: L2 R2 U R2 D U B2 D' L2 D' R2 B' U' R2 D' R2 F' D R D' U'

2x2x2: B U B' F' D2
2x2x3: R2 U2 B2 U'
3x cross: B R B2 U' B' U
4th pair: B2 D B'
OLL: L B L' B' D'
PLL: U2 B' L R' U2 L' R B' U2

I found this in less than half an hour. I would normally be very happy with this, but I'm disappointed because blah beat me so badly. Must have been nice getting that PLL skip; if mine had been a PLL skip, I would have beaten you by a move.

But seriously, blah, very nice solve!!! I think your signature gives false implications; you're certainly not useless at fewest moves.

Actually, I had TWO PLL skips (the 29-mover too) So I don't really consider this a lucky solve :rolleyes: I'm very happy with this solution because I had two sub-30 solutions AND two sub-20 skeletons, definitely happier with this than with my 24-mover

All that aside, you seem to be back on track after those disastrous few weeks, Mike

 

[Mike Hughey]

Actually, I had TWO PLL skips (the 29-mover too) So I don't really consider this a lucky solve :rolleyes: I'm very happy with this solution because I had two sub-30 solutions AND two sub-20 skeletons, definitely happier with this than with my 24-mover

Yeah, I don't think it's so much a lucky solve. Although it does seem like a pretty easy scramble. And I think you have every right to be happy with it - it's a really good solve.

All that aside, you seem to be back on track after those disastrous few weeks, Mike

Eh, this is pretty typical for me. A few good weeks, and then a few bad weeks. Now I'm on a good streak. My bad streak will probably start at Nationals.

By the way, am I the only one who's really excited at the prospects of a best of two format in a fewest moves event? US Nationals is going to have that, and I think it's really cool.

 

[PeterV]

PeterV:

2x2x2: 9.51, 11.09, (12.43), (6.75), 10.36 = 10.41 avg.
Comment: Not great.

3x3x3: 28.05, (26.53), (29.21), 27.64, 28.31 = 28.00 avg.
Comment: Very nice average.

2-4 Relay: 3:36.54 (OP)
Comment: O.K.

Magic: 1.53, 1.99 (1.46), (3.51), 2.12 = 1.88 avg.
Comment: Ughhh...gotta start practicing this again.

 

[Tim Reynolds]

2x2: (4.97) 6.09 6.52 7.02 (7.69) = 6.54
3x3: 16.53 16.52 16.03 (15.78) (18.09) = 16.36
4x4: 1:21.83 1:22.91 1:22.06 (1:14.71) (1:31.11) = 1:22.27
5x5: (2:27.53) 2:07.40 2:04.05 2:01.83 (1:56.53) = 2:04.43
3x3 oh: (37.66) (28.44) 36.80 32.56 37.27 = 35.54
3x3 fm: 33 (see below)
2x2 - 4x4: 2:09.78
magic: (3.28) 1.69 3.27 (1.33) 1.78 = 2.25
master magic: 3.16 3.27 (2.93) 3.09 (3.83) = 3.17
clock: 17.34 (15.47) 18.86 (DNF) 17.46 = 17.89
megaminx: 1:58.16 (2:09.75) 2:06.83 2:08.47 (1:48.86) = 2:04.49
pyraminx: 10.91 8.65 (8.34) (13.09) 9.55 = 9.70

Fewest moves:
Scramble: L2 R2 U R2 D U B2 D' L2 D' R2 B' U' R2 D' R2 F' D R D' U'
Solution: R2 B' L' B R2 B' L B2 U B' F' D2 R2 U2 B2 U' B R' U R2 U' B2 U' B' L' B L B L' B' L U B2 (33)
2x2x2: * B U B' F' D2 (5|5)
2x2x3: R2 U2 B2 U' (4|9)
F2L - 1 pair: B R' U R2 U' (5|14)
F2L: B2 U' B' (U) (3|17)
OLL: (U') L' B L B L' B' L U B2 (9|26)
Leaves corner 3-cycle, best insertion I found was *: R2 B' L' B R2 B' L B (7|33)

Mike: I see we had very similar solutions, though from the 2x2x3 I couldn't take my eyes off that connected pair and never tried to insert the other one first. (asking as someone who has never succeeded at getting a reasonably good edge 3-cycle insertion) Did you try to find an insertion instead of a PLL?

 

[Mike Hughey]

Mike: I see we had very similar solutions, though from the 2x2x3 I couldn't take my eyes off that connected pair and never tried to insert the other one first. (asking as someone who has never succeeded at getting a reasonably good edge 3-cycle insertion) Did you try to find an insertion instead of a PLL?

Pretty funny we had such a similar solution. I actually tried your approach to the F2L, I think, but I didn't find as good of an ending for it as you did. I probably just missed it - good thing, or I would probably have gotten stuck on it.

I spent about 10 minutes looking for an edge insertion. I could do the OLL either of two different ways (the mirror was also possible, so that gave me a different set of 3 edges (two were the same) to try), and I tried both sets. I went pretty quickly, so I might have missed something, but I didn't see anything good in either case, and I figured since there was no AUF in my PLL, it would take a pretty good insertion to beat it (9 moves is awfully good for PLL if the alternative is an edge insertion, as opposed to corners). So, I gave up and started looking for an alternative to the last couple of pairs of the F2L, but I never found anything.

 

[ManasijV]

3x3:
(17.40), 16.83, 15.09, 15.32, (14.91)
Average : 15.75
My first sub 16. But unfortunately a lucky average.

3x3 OH:
34.97, 34.86, (29.66), (37.84), 35.97
Average : 35.27,
No!

3x3 BLD :
(2:54.89), 2:54.31, (2:29.65)
Best 2:29.65
Blindfold cubing after almost a month. Only wanted to get a finished cube so went really slow on the first one (Big mistake, Really Easy Scramble) But the last one was really good No DNFs

 

[Tim Reynolds]

Yeah, 9 moves for a 3-edge cycle isn't that bad. I was really happy with my 3rd pair, and the fact that it gave a 4-mover for the last one was just nice.

Here's another approach:
2x2x2: B U B' F' D2 (5|5)
2x2x3: R2 B' U2 B' U' (5|10)
F2L: R B' R B2 R2 B' R (7|17)
but then I'm lost.

 

[dbeyer]

4x4 BLD: 15:22.22

Forgot a wing letter pair, had to dwell on it.

 

[cmhardw]

4x4 BLD: 15:22.22

Forgot a wing letter pair, had to dwell on it.

Daniel Beyer!!! ;-)

 

[stray]

FMC: DNF
The start 2x2 block (UFUDF2) take all my time.
Even with some insertion move, I find nothing below 35 moves, Upsetting about DNF. Maybe my luck is rest this week

TO blah:
Your 25 move solution is gorgeous! I never near this length in 1 hour limit.
And you also find so many nice ending about 30 moves,you may come to real competition, maybe the world record...

One more questions to FMC guys:
If usinig the same method or stratege, does the inverse scramble and the normal scramble mean the same difficulty to human? :confused: I never try the inverse for some reasons.

 

[AvGalen]

@Mike: I love getting 2 attempts for FMC. Last time that happened was in Poland where I got 37 and 33 (I was really into FMC then)

@Tim: 9 moves for an edge-3-cycle isn't good at all, especially if it doesn't cancel anything

@stray: Regular and inverse scramble are the same difficulty. They will have the same length optimal solution and even a lot of the scramble characteristics will be the same (oriented edges, corners, cycles, etc). I have no idea how to define "same difficulty to human" besides what I just said. (maybe connected pieces should be included?)

 

[blah]

One more questions to FMC guys:
If usinig the same method or stratege, does the inverse scramble and the normal scramble mean the same difficulty to human? :confused: I never try the inverse for some reasons.

With more than a month's experience, I guess I now qualify as an "FMC guy" I don't know the exact answer to your question, and I suspect there isn't a "correct answer" anyway.

You'd always get the same number of pre-made blocks from the inverse scramble as from the forward scramble. I think I've found a simple proof for this, but it may be flawed, but I haven't yet had a scramble whose inverse scramble has a different number of pre-made blocks, so... :rolleyes: Some stuff are just trivial, e.g. if an edge is solved in the forward scramble, then it has to be solved in the inverse scramble too, so you get a free inner square (Heise method) either way

I always try both forward and inverse scrambles for about 2 to 3 minutes, sometimes even 5 minutes each when I get a hard scramble, and once I find a nice starting block with either scramble, I stick with that one and ditch the other. My standards are pretty low, a 3-move 1x2x2 (<--- no typo there) is considered a "nice starting block" for me already Why do I do this? I don't know Just habit I guess

I think I haven't really answered your question, but the short answer would be: Maybe. I think the purpose of the inverse scramble is just to give yourself twice as many opportunities for a good start, that's the only advantage I see anyway, but then again, I have but little experience

TO blah:
Your 25 move solution is gorgeous! I never near this length in 1 hour limit.
And you also find so many nice ending about 30 moves,you may come to real competition, maybe the world record...

Whoa whoa whoa! I've only been FMC-ing for a little over a month It's called beginner's luck, my friend AND, I think most of us would agree that this is a very easy scramble

 

[stray]

I think I haven't really answered your question, but the short answer would be: Maybe. I think the purpose of the inverse scramble is just to give yourself twice as many opportunities for a good start, that's the only advantage I see anyway, but then again, I have but little experience

@stray: Regular and inverse scramble are the same difficulty. They will have the same length optimal solution and even a lot of the scramble characteristics will be the same (oriented edges, corners, cycles, etc). I have no idea how to define "same difficulty to human" besides what I just said. (maybe connected pieces should be included?)

I know what you mean. The difficulty to the optimal solution is the same because same characteristics.
But the 'difficulty ' of nice start block building is not the same, maybe one is more suited for human to start, but it does't mean it will lead to a good end, just give you more opportunity to using normal fmc method: nice start block
-> expand block -> LL. Am I right?:confused:

 

[blah]

I know what you mean. The difficulty to the optimal solution is the same because same characteristics.
But the 'difficulty ' of nice start block building is not the same, maybe one is more suited for human to start, but it does't mean it will lead to a good end, just give you more opportunity to using normal fmc method: nice start block
-> expand block -> LL. Am I right?:confused:

I believe so, that is, if I understood you correctly

 

[Inf3rn0]

2x2: (29.46) 21.79 17.68 (14.76) 15.90 = 18.46
3x3: 43.71 39.42 (30.40) 42.89 (43.93) = 42.01
3x3 OH: 01:22.32 01:18.56 (01:11.71) (01:33.90) 01:29.00 = 01:23.29

Yay 30.40 is a new pb surpassing the 33.50 i managed at New Zealand Champs. Average is a new pb aswell.

1:11.71 is also a new OH pb lol.

 

[Kev43]

222: 15.38 ; 16.98 ; (18.74) ; (8.02) ; 8.98 ==> 13.78
First three are very bad, PLL skip on the last two

333: (40.26) ; 38.10 ; 35.70 ; 35.86 ; (30.26) ==> 36.55
:fp The last solve was good, anyway.

333OH: 1:32.10 ; (1:07.94) ; (1:49.90) ; 1.23.90 ; 1:28.46 ==> 1:28.15

333BLD: 3:46.82 ; DNF ; DNF ==> 3:46.82
Good first solve. 2nd is off by 4 flipped edges and 4 corners. I think I was too fast on memo on the last 2.

MultiBLD: 1/2; 16:00.29 ==> 0 point
I'm SO STUPID! The first cube is off by two twisted corners because I saw "M" instead of "O" in the memo. :fp I had to correct this, and I didn't see anything.
0/2 last week, 1/2 this week, 2/2 next week?

 

[MatsBergsten]

MultiBLD: 1/2; 16:00.29 ==> 1 point

1/2 = 0 points,

 

[Kev43]

MultiBLD: 1/2; 16:00.29 ==> 1 point

1/2 = 0 points,

:fp
Of course.
Let's say I was very disappointed