Online since 2002. Over 3300 puzzles, 2600 worldwide members, and 270,000 messages.

TwistyPuzzles.com Forum

It is currently Thu Jul 24, 2014 11:27 pm

All times are UTC - 5 hours



Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 24 posts ] 
Author Message
 Post subject: does anyone understand this method?
PostPosted: Fri Jul 07, 2006 4:17 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 29, 2006 10:50 pm
Location: New York
I found this method last night and I don't know how this guy expects me to do 2 corner/ edge pairs and fix the egdes without any algs. stage one is the same as step 1 and 2 in the petrus method. see if you can get it.

http://www.ryanheise.com/cube/method.ht ... _3_corners

_________________
Average: 14.38 seconds

Individual Times: 14.17, 12.93, (12.89), 13.12, 14.00, 15.59, 16.23, 14.11, 14.03, (17.61), 14.75, 14.89


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Jul 07, 2006 11:18 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jan 06, 2005 8:53 pm
Location: Los Angeles
It's not all that hard.
It's just very intuitive and you just have to get used to thinking like that.
And he has given you algs, they're just very simple.
Kinda like giving you RUR' and FR'F'R and saying figure out how to do the F2L.

TBTTyler


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Jul 07, 2006 11:43 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 29, 2006 10:50 pm
Location: New York
too much thinking. I was hoping to use it in the FMC but petrus seems to work fine for me. It seems when I try to join the corners I am doing sunes and anti sunes (7 moves) then fix 3 egdes(9 moves) fix 3 corners (8 moves). this compared to my normal way of fix 4 corners (9-12 moves) fix corners 9-13 moves) less on average.

_________________
Average: 14.38 seconds

Individual Times: 14.17, 12.93, (12.89), 13.12, 14.00, 15.59, 16.23, 14.11, 14.03, (17.61), 14.75, 14.89


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Jul 07, 2006 1:19 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jan 06, 2005 8:53 pm
Location: Los Angeles
That's because you're still thinking petrus style.
You have to look at things differently. More of an "all over" approach rather than a fix these 2 or 3 pieces.

Hoever, I guess you do have to fix 2 or 3 pieces.

TBTTyler Fox


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Jul 07, 2006 6:52 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 29, 2006 10:50 pm
Location: New York
obviosly not a speed cubing method. he says his best time with it was 23 seconds and he has a 30-40 average. I'll try to learn it again. it is a very neat way of solving leaving lots of short cuts. I wish he would have some more examples like lars..

_________________
Average: 14.38 seconds

Individual Times: 14.17, 12.93, (12.89), 13.12, 14.00, 15.59, 16.23, 14.11, 14.03, (17.61), 14.75, 14.89


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Jul 07, 2006 8:46 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Jul 07, 2006 7:59 pm
Hi CaptianCrash. You're right, he should put up more examples (when he gets time) ;-)

Forming the c/e pairs is essentially the same as in step 1 except, of course, that it is more cramped. You need to play around with this step for a while and get a feel for how things move around, how corners twist, and how to stop one c/e pair from getting in the way of building another.

Then, fitting 3 edges between the two c/e pairs requires some familiarity with the edge permutations. It can help to practice solving the 5 edges on their own (without the two corners) to get a feel for how edges move and interact with each other. Since the edges are already oriented this is not so bad. When the FR edge is on top, there are only 6 cases. To then solve the edges while two of them are attached to corners is just a more cramped version of this problem. You'll find it a help to not just stick with RU moves but also L. Once you get an advanced understanding of how this works, you can also use D and F2 (they are also in the group {L,R,U,D,F2,B2} which preserves the edge orientations). Even more advanced is the use of F and F'. These moves disturbe edge orientation so you need to be careful in restoring it (e.g. conjugates and commutators). I will put up some examples of this, eventually. The problem is these things take a lot of time to put clearly.

(BTW, what I described on that page is supposed to be the beginners version :-) The advanced version is to just form one c/e pair first, and then solve the 5 edges with the other corner in one go. In regards to "speed cubing", I am starting to sense that this method could be very fast, once mastered. At some point in the future, I hope to describe an algorithm -- or "thought process" -- for applying the method in speed cubing)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Jul 07, 2006 9:59 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 29, 2006 10:50 pm
Location: New York
I can't get the c/e pairs but I can almost get the 3 corners all the time. I was makind F2L then trying to make one square on the bottom. I might get the 3 corners by the end of the night. hopefully before this weeks comp ends. I got 37 moves with petrus my third try or so. :D what do you do when you have no correctly oriented corners?

_________________
Average: 14.38 seconds

Individual Times: 14.17, 12.93, (12.89), 13.12, 14.00, 15.59, 16.23, 14.11, 14.03, (17.61), 14.75, 14.89


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Jul 30, 2006 11:12 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jan 13, 2006 6:55 pm
CaptianCrash44 wrote:
obviosly not a speed cubing method. he says his best time with it was 23 seconds and he has a 30-40 average. I'll try to learn it again. it is a very neat way of solving leaving lots of short cuts. I wish he would have some more examples like lars..


I disagree. I think the method has potential to be sub-15 with enough practice. Lars Petrus' best average is 21.88 and the best average for someone else is sub-15. Jessica Fridrich's average is 17 and 4 people are now sub-13.

Plus, maybe Ryan hasn't been practicing it often, or maybe he hasn't been using it for a long time. Here is what I think it could be:

Stage 1*:
1st square: 2 secs
2nd square: 1 sec
3rd square: 2 secs
4th square: 2 secs

*This stage might actually take less time since for one of the squares you are building an inner square which is just adding 1 edge.

Stage 2:
Solve the 4 squares: 1 sec
Orient edges: 1 sec
Solve edges plus 2 corners: 2 secs
Solve last 3 corners: 2 secs

Total: 13 seconds

During preinspection, you can see all of the first square, and most of the next. This means you can have a great start. Once your thinking time gets better for the last part of Stage 3, it should be very fast.

EDIT: Made second square 1 second. I keep forgetting that it's one edge.


Last edited by Athefre on Sun Aug 13, 2006 4:27 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Jul 30, 2006 11:25 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 29, 2006 10:50 pm
Location: New York
the problem is it takes l a long time to pick the easyest peices because you have a lot to look at, at once. I can solve using it but I only do for the FMC. My best average with petrus method is 21.49, and my best non lucky time it around 16 seconds. best lucky is 12.62 (Layer Skip :D ). heise method is probably very vast nut it would take a very long time to get that good with it. the thing I like about it is doing the last corners intuitively.

_________________
Average: 14.38 seconds

Individual Times: 14.17, 12.93, (12.89), 13.12, 14.00, 15.59, 16.23, 14.11, 14.03, (17.61), 14.75, 14.89


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Jul 31, 2006 6:33 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jan 13, 2006 6:55 pm
With experience, you shouldn't have to pick the easiest pieces. You should be able to find a short solution almost every time if you use the same colors every solve.

It doesn't matter though, choose the method that is easiest for you.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Aug 01, 2006 5:00 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Apr 06, 2005 7:57 pm
Location: Montreal, Canada
Is going to be faster* than Fridrich F2L to solve the cross and three edge pairs?

Is it a faster* way to solve the last edge pair and then use OLL PLL?


*Faster due to less moves or similar number of moves but moves that are better for finger tricks.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Aug 01, 2006 7:09 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jan 13, 2006 6:55 pm
AndrewSeven wrote:
Is going to be faster* than Fridrich F2L to solve the cross and three edge pairs?

Is it a faster* way to solve the last edge pair and then use OLL PLL?


*Faster due to less moves or similar number of moves but moves that are better for finger tricks.


Faster based on less moves? Certainly. Faster based on what you do in the steps, I don't know. Not many people use the system so it isn't being given much of a chance to be shown to be as fast or faster. Same goes with any other method.

Average for Fridrich F2L minus a pair is 27 moves. Average for Heise Stage 1 should be around 20-21 moves (at least that's what I can do, maybe less).

So if you want to do:

1. Heise stage 1
2. Final pair
3. OLL
4. PLL

Then you will use less moves but I can't say that it's faster because I don't use it. Petrus method uses less moves but I'm not sure if anyone can do F2L that way in 8-9 seconds. Johannes might be able to.

Just try it.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Aug 02, 2006 7:45 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 10, 2006 11:15 am
Location: Helsinki, Finland
I think that methods that use fewer moves are faster, but they take a lot more practice. Anthony Hsu uses Petrus and is the fastest on Ryan's simulator, check it out at http://www.ryanheise.com/cube/speed.html

Athefre wrote:
Petrus method uses less moves but I'm not sure if anyone can do F2L that way in 8-9 seconds. Johannes might be able to.


No, I'm not that fast yet, I average around 12 usually. But 8-9 seconds is definately possible, I know I will be that fast some day. I'm also practising Heise method now, because I believe it can be faster than any other method I know of.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Aug 02, 2006 5:18 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jan 13, 2006 6:55 pm
That's the problem, a lot of people want to get fast right away and aren't willing to practice with something that could be faster but will take longer to do it.

Right now, I'm thinking that either Roux or Heise is the best for someone to go with, then maybe Fridrich, maybe Petrus.

Johannes, how many moves do you average for Petrus? Do you use Lars' new 15 move LL strategy?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Aug 03, 2006 4:07 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 10, 2006 11:15 am
Location: Helsinki, Finland
I solve LL with OLL and PLL, but I do know some easy COLL's , too. I'm too lazy to learn hundreds of cases even though it might be a good idea, and I think it's more important to become very good at the intuitive parts first. I think I average around 60 moves when going fast, because I always choose longer and faster moves. I can easily average around 45 if I use 30-60 seconds, though.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Aug 03, 2006 10:25 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 29, 2006 10:50 pm
Location: New York
I know all the corners first algs. there are only 27 not including left handed. they take lnoger to learn than OLL and PLL algs because they are very similar.

_________________
Average: 14.38 seconds

Individual Times: 14.17, 12.93, (12.89), 13.12, 14.00, 15.59, 16.23, 14.11, 14.03, (17.61), 14.75, 14.89


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Aug 03, 2006 10:36 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jan 13, 2006 6:55 pm
Why do people say that the Petrus method uses less moves when going fast? The faster people are saying that they use around 54 moves for Fridrich.

What is your opinion on the Roux method? That's what I use and it only takes 48 moves when going full speed.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Aug 03, 2006 10:42 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jan 13, 2006 6:55 pm
CaptianCrash44 wrote:
I know all the corners first algs. there are only 27 not including left handed. they take lnoger to learn than OLL and PLL algs because they are very similar.


Supposedly that takes longer to do than OLL and PLL. Because of recognition time. The faster people that do it that way with Fridrich say that they take 3 seconds just for the corners.

27? I thought it was 24. 43 overall.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Aug 03, 2006 10:43 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 10, 2006 11:15 am
Location: Helsinki, Finland
Methods don't have averages. People do. I'm still practising Petrus, if I average 60 it doesn't mean that it's the optimal average for this method. Around 45 is definately possible when going full speed.

Yes, Roux is a very fast method. Have you ever counted your moves? If Gilles averages 48, it doesn't mean that everyone who knows the method is that good. I tried the method some time ago, but I certainly average more than 48.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Aug 03, 2006 10:47 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 10, 2006 11:15 am
Location: Helsinki, Finland
Athefre wrote:
Supposedly that takes longer to do than OLL and PLL. Because of recognition time. The faster people that do it that way with Fridrich say that they take 3 seconds just for the corners.

27? I thought it was 24. 43 overall.


It's hard to say which one is faster. Because after COLL, there's 1/12 chance to skip PLL. And EPLL algs are really fast. I use my right hand more than left, so for me COLL would be 40 algs.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Aug 03, 2006 12:09 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jan 13, 2006 6:55 pm
I use an average of 50 moves for Roux. Plus I still have to learn some better block-building techniques and learn how to blend Step 4a, b, and c together. I've been using it 3 months and got down to 22 seconds but I've stopped for a month to work on my own method (I use 46 moves for it, around 40 algs). I'm still not sure if I want to use it because once you get used to your own method you don't feel like you are able to switch to something else. It has happened to me once before when I made an intermediate one. I had a difficult time switching from that to Roux.

So, right now, I'm stuck trying to decide what I want to do.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Aug 03, 2006 12:12 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 10, 2006 11:15 am
Location: Helsinki, Finland
Your method sounds interesting. Could you tell more about it?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Aug 03, 2006 12:43 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jan 13, 2006 6:55 pm
I emailed you. Reply through email please.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Aug 03, 2006 4:10 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Apr 06, 2005 7:57 pm
Location: Montreal, Canada
I like the straightforward approach of Fridrich for F2L, but I know that there are "wasted" moves because you put the cross in place but then have to move one of them out of place for each corner edge pair you put into place.

I've tried, but not really learned Petrus and a couple other methods, but I'm not that dedicated.

It seems ;) that there is an advantage to ge gained in how you use solving the last edge-pair to influence the LL. Getting two edges correct in the LL shrinks the PLL a lot.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 24 posts ] 

All times are UTC - 5 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google Adsense [Bot] and 8 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  

Forum powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group