Thibaut Jacquinot resolviendo rubik 3x3 en 11,78"

[zerik12]

better read a book.

still is awesome.

[wavensdorvad]

@zerik12 You don´t have any idea what he does in his live...

[MegaPetazetas]

flipante

[titilandiayo]

wuau O.O

[edunicorodri]

fuaaa es re capo ese flaco

[JasonJRY]

the french are slow but smooth = amazing time lol! this is hard to develop =S =D

[wavensdorvad]

He use Fridrich's method: Cross, F2L, ZBF2L,,OLL PLL

[Pgcito]

what???

[8zee8]

what set of algorithms does he use?

[mosznik]

I solved it in 39284 hours

[Whydidipickthisname]

I haven't solved mine ever, I have been trying for 8 years.

[8zee8]

haha i like you\ name, anyway theres a video that teaches you and it's really easy.

[miklonish]

no life

[sbeast15]

nice

[Pascalfootball]

what method did you use?

[KConny]

It dont' look like PLL-skip. And 00HB, what the hell do you know about the cube? You are right with the number of states the cube can be in. But after you've solved the first two layers and oriented all the pices in the last layer, there is a 1/72 chance you don't have to permute the pices, wich is considerd lucky.

[lotrgmaster]

whoa. I wish I could solve it that fast.

[ancel96]

yea i wanted to see the 9 sec solve for the rubik cube cant find it

[wavensdorvad]

There is not a lucky

[wavensdorvad]

Well, we don´t record any of two Thibaut´s records because in Spain is tradition no record the records :D

[cubefreak93]

where is is 9.86 solve??? and his 15.81 one handed solve???

would be very nice to watch... but need some slow motion camera :)

[ROM1046]

the guy was lucky IoI ipossible pura suerte¡¡¡¡

[00HB]

yeah... lucky.... right... ¬¬'

for god sake, the guy is the world record holder and you say he was lucky? O.o

there are 43,252,003,274,489,856,000 combinations.... NO ONE can be this lucky...

[swordsmankirby]

The problem with your reasoning is that you considered all possible combinations of the cube, as if he picked it up and it was already solved.

Really, it boils down to a 1/72 chance that he got a PLL skip. That's an okay probability.

In other words you're wrong.

[00HB]

"The problem is that you considered all possible combinations "-> you're right about that. Maybe I was counting a lil bit more

but...

"Really, it boils down to a 1/72 chance that he got a PLL skip." -> oh! soh you calculated it?

Do you have any idea on how HUGE statistical mistake (not to say bulls%%t) are you saying?

Seems like you never had one of these cube os your hands

"That's an okay probability

In other words you're wrong"->if you say so.

who am I to desagree? (quotations needed?)