Hello all,

I recently asked about a speedcubing technique entitled “How To Solve The Cube In 37 Seconds” by Nicolas Hammond as I was curious about the method being described. Yet after a few kind people responded I have been prompted to ask my question a little differently.

As someone who has only recently returned to using the Rubik's cube I guess have been looking around for a good, solid set of algorithms for speed cubing and was wondering if Mr. Hammond's method was a good. I wonder, though, if a choice of method really comes down to finding one that suites one's taste and style for notation and moves, and from there is a matter of working on the prescribed algorithms in order to maximize (i.e. lower) one's solve time.

To be honest I am at the stage of just trying to figure the cube out and am not too concerned with time of solving. Thus I am more interested with learning a method that will benefit my later times so that I can cut down on possibly having to learn multiple algorithm methods to go from basic solve to sub-20 sec. (if i am ever so lucky, which I am not claiming I ever will be).

I suppose, then, my question should be more of what solving method(s) do people like to use and why? Does that method(s) have more straightforward algorithms, or does it/they have a style that is more befitting the user and from there they just play to tailor the algorithms to their manner of solving? Or do people like hybrid methods as they learn to borrow and amalgam different systems?

Thanks all!

Happy cubing!

Sam

The Fridrich method is extremely common, as it takes few moves(around 70 tops).

Though, it requires you to memorize around 80 sequences to do correctly.

Good place to learn it- http://www.cubestation.co.uk

Also, though, you can learn a couple methods that take more moves, and mix and match the diffrent sequences of those two methods to get faster. That's what I did, and I average around 20 moves less then my old method.

Hello!

Thanks for the replies! I will take a look at the site you mentioned as I am anxious to get started! Also, while it is a long way off for me, I will keep the idea of amalgaming different methods.

Thanks again!

Sam

Not too far off. I did that about a month after I started
I still haven't learned the fridrich method, hehe.

I used to use Fridrich, but like the recognition for CLL ELL better. Same F2L, just different steps for the last layer. Its really fast, and my average has gone down lots since the switch: 16.69 best average.

speedcubing.com has some algs for it, but I use some of my own as well

Quinn

Hello!

Forgive me, yet I am not yet familiar. What does CLL ELL mean specifically?

Thanks!

I found a gloassary that has it
http://cubefreak.hp.infoseek.co.jp/glossary.html

Hello!

Very nice! Thank you!!! The dictionary will be most helpful! Thank you for the link!

Always,

Sam

I first learned to solve the cube many years ago using Ideal's solution booklet, which is a simple Corners First, then Edges approach.

Then, about three years ago I found the following solution by Wayne Johnson: (in the original TwistyMegasite, the precursor of TwistyPuzzles.com)

http://twistypuzzles.com/solutions/3x3x3-01.shtml

To me, this is one of the best introductions to a solution which is easy to learn at first, while at the same time can later become the foundation for speedsolving (by learning even more algorithms for the last layer).

Enjoy!

Jorge

One thing I changed went I started to learn Fridrich was to move the cross to the bottom.

I've seen people talk about the time it takes to flip the cube over after completing F2L (or transition from cross to the edge-pairs), but for me it is more about being able to see the unsolved parts better than the solved parts. Finger tricks are also faster.

Just the basic move to insert an edge when the corner is solved is many times faster to do with the cross on the bottom.

http://www.geocities.com/jasmine_ellen/ ... ution.html
this is the method i used to start off and it shows steps at the end for improvement. it was one of the first sites i found to learn to solve and still i see it as the best beginner method if you wish to 'evolve' your method to get faster times

i was going to recommend that one, fridrich herself recommends to learn this method, then when you averaging (in my opinion) 50-60 seconds to solve it using this LBL method, then start to learn the fridrich method, her site is...http://www.ws.binghamton.edu/fridrich/cube.html

I'm surprised no one has mentioned Petrus yet. Try it out, it's a cube based approach (2x2x2 -> 2x2x3 -> F2L). http://www.lar5.com

i feel the petrus' method doesnt give instant results, i knocked 20 seconds of my time by just learning fridrich's F2L, where as petrus's takes a LOT of practise

Hi Santeh,

You might try my method:
http://www.speedcubing.com/DavidJSalvia.html

David J