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

TwistyPuzzles.com Forum

It is currently Wed Apr 23, 2014 5:00 am

All times are UTC - 5 hours



Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 24 posts ] 
Author Message
 Post subject: Speedsolving... method vs. finger tricks?
PostPosted: Tue Jul 18, 2006 1:52 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Dec 19, 1999 3:02 am
Location: Canada
A question for all of you speed solvers out there... How much is the time of the solve truly reduced by switching to a new method, vs. how much time can be reduced by learning finger tricks? For example, those of you who use Friedrich, Petrus, Roux, Heise, etc. and normally get sub-30, how long would it take you to solve, say, an Octagon Barrel or a Fisher Cube with the same method, where a poor choice of finger positioning could end up geting you stabbed? How about if you used your standard method, whatever it is (please elabourate on your method), if you didn't have a cube that was suficiently "Pochmanned" and had to slow down to standard speeds, say 3 moves every 2 seconds? Would it still be posible to get sub-30 seconds, or even sub-60? Thanks in advance for any info. L8r.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Jul 18, 2006 2:21 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 26, 2006 12:40 pm
Location: Marske-By-The-Sea, UK
I suppose you would be slower, you adapt your fingertricks to suit your fingers on a 3x3, switching to a new puzzle that uses the same principle would be harder, heck! even solving 4x4 and 5x5 cubes slow you down.

_________________
List of Speedcubing methods
Speedcubing tutorial

@.=split(//,"J huhesartc kPaeenrro,lt");do{print$.[$_];$_=($_+3)%25;}while($_!=0);


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Jul 18, 2006 3:15 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 29, 2006 10:50 pm
Location: New York
I get sub 30 all the time with my slower cubes. When I go slower I use way less moves. I counted once and it was 50 moves. doing 3 moves in two seconds makes it very posible.

_________________
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: Tue Jul 18, 2006 4:50 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 20, 2003 7:29 am
Location: San Diego, California
well a barrel cube is a hard cube to speedsolve. only reason is you have no corners to do finger tricks. same goes with the fisher cube. corners are really inportant to speedsolvers. speedsolving puzzles like the dogic is practically impossible because it is hard to move pieces due to the nature of the puzzle.

i think the question you should be asking is, Is it better to learn finger tricks or to learn a new method? the answer would be to learn both.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Jul 18, 2006 5:02 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 26, 2006 12:40 pm
Location: Marske-By-The-Sea, UK
In response to the main question, fingertricks would probably speed you up more if you know a good speed cubing method to begin with, wereas going from, say, LBL method to Fridrich, the time reduction would be significant, then once that method is known, fingertricks would again lower the time taken.

_________________
List of Speedcubing methods
Speedcubing tutorial

@.=split(//,"J huhesartc kPaeenrro,lt");do{print$.[$_];$_=($_+3)%25;}while($_!=0);


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: method versus finger tricks
PostPosted: Tue Jul 18, 2006 6:44 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Mar 04, 2003 11:17 am
All things being equal, if the methods at their best take the same number of moves, then learning finger tricks is the way to go.

However, all things are not equal. Some methods might suit your hands better than other methods. I addition you don't have to stick to a fixed method, for example, you might do Friedrice with ELL CLL instead of OLL PLL.

DJ


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Jul 19, 2006 2:12 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Dec 19, 1999 3:02 am
Location: Canada
CaptianCrash44 wrote:
I get sub 30 all the time with my slower cubes. When I go slower I use way less moves. I counted once and it was 50 moves. doing 3 moves in two seconds makes it very posible.


Oh ya? Which method do you use? I'm guessing Petrus, but I'm not all that well versed in speed solving methods right now. I took a look at Petrus and Friedrich, but I can see no possible way they they can be used as general solutions. eg. Friedrich's F2L uses 41 patterns, when there's 383 possible combinations (8 corner positions with 3 rotations, 8 edge positions with 2 rotations, - 1 for the solved state), while in steps 4a and 4b, Petrus has a pitiful 3 examples per substep, when it looks like there should be 215 (6 corner positions with 3 rotations, 6 edge pieces with 2 rotations, - 1 for the solved state). In the intermediate and advanced steps he adds 7 more patterns, and in Step 4b tricks he adds another 19 bringing it up to 32 all together, nowhere near the 216 needed. Quite frankly, too many times when I've tried to learn these in the past, these severe limitations just caused me to hit a brick wall and lose any hope of using them REAL quick. Those of you who can somehow use these techniques successfully, just what is it in these techniques that I'm missing that allows you to solve the cube with them every time? Other than Friedrich and Petrus, what other speed solving methods are out there?
My current method is a corners first method... solve 2x2, 3 edges on top slice, bottom edges, final top edge, then middle layer. Usually that solves it within 80 turns on a half turn slice metric, and I managed to get it done in 55 before, but I'm typically averaging 1:15 - 1:30. I managed to get 0:57 a few times, and 0:55, 0:53 and 0:45 once (that one was EXTREMELY lucky), but since it uses slice moves, finger tricks aren't really an option except in special circumstances. Even changing my corner technique to the Gaetan Guimond one referenced a few days ago, I'd still probably average at least 70 turns on the same metric. Naturally, I'd need to drop that for something that only uses face turns. Still, it's a lot better than my previous method, which averaged about 120 on the half turn slice metric and would normally run me about 2 minutes, but with the cost that it wouldn't allow for a proper solution of picture cubes, which certainly isn't good. I'd still like to be able to do those, too.
So, I guess after all of this, the bottom line is... 1) What exactly is the secret to Friedrich and Petrus that I'm missing here? and 2) In the mean time, are there any other good speed solving solutions out there, which would at least allow me to break 60, or even 45, reliably? Ya, I know, some of you are probably thinking that's not speed solving... that's "turtle crossing the Arctic" solving. :P :wink: Still, perhaps it would be a good first step before taking on one of the big two. Thanks in advance for any info you can provide. L8r.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Jul 19, 2006 7:36 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 29, 2006 10:50 pm
Location: New York
step 4a and b are very easy. it just takes a while to get used to the physics of the method. I normaly get 4a and b done in 15 to 25 moves. you just have to learn all the ways to conect the c/e pairs and then it should go by in a few seconds. petrus method takes a long time to get really good at. there are three ways to connect the c/e pairs using only 2 sides. the most important things to learn for 4a and b are the broken edge. I just got a lucky case with the petrus method the last layer came in one alg and my time was 15.57.

_________________
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: Wed Jul 19, 2006 9:06 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 10, 2006 11:15 am
Location: Helsinki, Finland
Tim Browne wrote:
I took a look at Petrus and Friedrich, but I can see no possible way they they can be used as general solutions. eg. Friedrich's F2L uses 41 patterns, when there's 383 possible combinations (8 corner positions with 3 rotations, 8 edge positions with 2 rotations, - 1 for the solved state), while in steps 4a and 4b, Petrus has a pitiful 3 examples per substep, when it looks like there should be 215 (6 corner positions with 3 rotations, 6 edge pieces with 2 rotations, - 1 for the solved state). In the intermediate and advanced steps he adds 7 more patterns, and in Step 4b tricks he adds another 19 bringing it up to 32 all together, nowhere near the 216 needed.


You haven't quite understood the point of F2L. You are meant to solve it intuitively, those "algorithms" are just to help you figure out how to do it. It would be really stupid to learn hundreds of examples. Answers to your questions:

1) With any method, the "secret" is practice. You don't need any special talent or 100's of algs. Practice is the only thing you need to get fast.
2) You can get sub-45 with any method I know. Even sub-30 is possible with most of them. If you're goal is sub-20, these method are good: Fridrich, Petrus, Roux and maybe maybe some Corners First (I don't really know anything about them). Heise is also really fast, but I don't know if anyone is really fast with it.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Jul 19, 2006 10:42 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Dec 19, 1999 3:02 am
Location: Canada
Johannes91 wrote:
Tim Browne wrote:
[...] while in steps 4a and 4b, Petrus has a pitiful 3 examples per substep, when it looks like there should be 215 (6 corner positions with 3 rotations, 6 edge pieces with 2 rotations, - 1 for the solved state). In the intermediate and advanced steps he adds 7 more patterns, and in Step 4b tricks he adds another 19 bringing it up to 32 all together, nowhere near the 216 needed.


You haven't quite understood the point of F2L. You are meant to solve it intuitively, those "algorithms" are just to help you figure out how to do it. It would be really stupid to learn hundreds of examples. Answers to your questions:


Perhaps not... and given that when I've tried it, it's taken me upwards of 40 turns to "intuit" how to get a single edge/corner pair together at times, then it appears that I never will. BTW, I miscalculated on Petrus... it should be 287 possibilities with 8 possible edge piece positions, not 215 with 6. Quite frankly, I find trying to "intuit" thes things about as easy as trying to "intuit" the meaning of Hamlet in Sanskrit or "the original Klingon"... or ANYTHING by Shakespeare in what passes for his attempt at "English", for that matter.

Johannes91 wrote:
2) You can get sub-45 with any method I know. Even sub-30 is possible with most of them. If you're goal is sub-20, these method are good: Fridrich, Petrus, Roux and maybe maybe some Corners First (I don't really know anything about them). Heise is also really fast, but I don't know if anyone is really fast with it.


Oh ya? I've never been able to get sub 45 with any methods that I've ever seen... admittedly most of them are layer by layer, even one claiming to be a "speed cubing" method (while placing only 1 piece at a time), which has some patterns longer than the technique I'm using now, and occasionally even longer than Patrick Bossert's solution (the first solution I ever learned way back in 1980 an stuck with for over 15 years, which could be why I'm having such trouble learning the speed cubing methods now). L8r.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Jul 19, 2006 11:31 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 10, 2006 11:15 am
Location: Helsinki, Finland
Tim Browne wrote:
Johannes91 wrote:
Tim Browne wrote:
[...] while in steps 4a and 4b, Petrus has a pitiful 3 examples per substep, when it looks like there should be 215 (6 corner positions with 3 rotations, 6 edge pieces with 2 rotations, - 1 for the solved state). In the intermediate and advanced steps he adds 7 more patterns, and in Step 4b tricks he adds another 19 bringing it up to 32 all together, nowhere near the 216 needed.


You haven't quite understood the point of F2L. You are meant to solve it intuitively, those "algorithms" are just to help you figure out how to do it. It would be really stupid to learn hundreds of examples. Answers to your questions:


Perhaps not... and given that when I've tried it, it's taken me upwards of 40 turns to "intuit" how to get a single edge/corner pair together at times, then it appears that I never will. BTW, I miscalculated on Petrus... it should be 287 possibilities with 8 possible edge piece positions, not 215 with 6. Quite frankly, I find trying to "intuit" thes things about as easy as trying to "intuit" the meaning of Hamlet in Sanskrit or "the original Klingon"... or ANYTHING by Shakespeare in what passes for his attempt at "English", for that matter.


40 turns sounds quite a lot, it shouldn't be that hard. But I dunno. If you think it's clever to learn all those cases, good luck. But for me it just seems more natural to learn how things work rather than learning to do them blindly without understanding anything (for F2L).

Tim Browne wrote:
Johannes91 wrote:
2) You can get sub-45 with any method I know. Even sub-30 is possible with most of them. If you're goal is sub-20, these method are good: Fridrich, Petrus, Roux and maybe maybe some Corners First (I don't really know anything about them). Heise is also really fast, but I don't know if anyone is really fast with it.


Oh ya? I've never been able to get sub 45 with any methods that I've ever seen... admittedly most of them are layer by layer, even one claiming to be a "speed cubing" method (while placing only 1 piece at a time), which has some patterns longer than the technique I'm using now, and occasionally even longer than Patrick Bossert's solution (the first solution I ever learned way back in 1980 an stuck with for over 15 years, which could be why I'm having such trouble learning the speed cubing methods now). L8r.


Let me correct myself. It would've been better to say "Anyone can get sub-45 with lots of practice" than "You can get sub-45".

Getting sub-45 doesn't require any talent. 2 moves per seconds is not hard, and using 90 moves is possible even with a very basic LBL. Getting crazy averages like sub-13 is of course a different thing. But this is of course my opinion only, I've practised speedcubing for a little over year only. And you've been cubing like 15 years, it might very well be that you are right. Perhaps I should try to not to do things intuitively and see if that's faster.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Jul 19, 2006 12:20 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Dec 19, 1999 3:02 am
Location: Canada
Johannes91 wrote:
40 turns sounds quite a lot, it shouldn't be that hard. But I dunno. If you think it's clever to learn all those cases, good luck. But for me it just seems more natural to learn how things work rather than learning to do them blindly without understanding anything (for F2L).


You're right. It IS a lot.

Johannes91 wrote:
Getting sub-45 doesn't require any talent. 2 moves per seconds is not hard, and using 90 moves is possible even with a very basic LBL. Getting crazy averages like sub-13 is of course a different thing. But this is of course my opinion only, I've practised speedcubing for a little over year only. And you've been cubing like 15 years, it might very well be that you are right. Perhaps I should try to not to do things intuitively and see if that's faster.


Cubing, yes, but not SPEED cubing. If you're getting insanely awesome times (at least insanely awesome relative to me), great! :D Whatever you're doing, it's working. I'd suggest that you avoid switching to non-intuitive, if intuitive works for you. You'd probably find it as frustrating switching away from it as I do to it. IMHO, your last comment would be akin to saying that after using DVORAK keyboards for the past year, you want to try switching to QWERTY to see if it's faster because that's the only one I've ever used. (For the record, QWERTY wasn't designed to speed things up for typists. It was specifically designed to slow them down to prevent manual typewriters from jamming when they first came out, and has since been discovered to be one of the most INefficient layouts there can possibly be. Apparently swapping virtually ANY two keys would make it better). L8r.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Jul 19, 2006 1:14 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 10, 2006 11:15 am
Location: Helsinki, Finland
Tim Browne wrote:
I'd suggest that you avoid switching to non-intuitive, if intuitive works for you. You'd probably find it as frustrating switching away from it as I do to it. IMHO, your last comment would be akin to saying that after using DVORAK keyboards for the past year, you want to try switching to QWERTY to see if it's faster because that's the only one I've ever used. (For the record, QWERTY wasn't designed to speed things up for typists. It was specifically designed to slow them down to prevent manual typewriters from jamming when they first came out, and has since been discovered to be one of the most INefficient layouts there can possibly be. Apparently swapping virtually ANY two keys would make it better). L8r.


I agree. But there are so many speedcubers who use Fridrich and are faster than me. Petrus is based on intuition, but Fridrich is a lot more simple. Even though I think intuition is faster, I sometimes think it would be good to know both methods.

Using DVORAK and QWERTY is a really good comparison :)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Jul 19, 2006 2:25 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Dec 19, 1999 3:02 am
Location: Canada
Johannes91 wrote:
I agree. But there are so many speedcubers who use Fridrich and are faster than me. Petrus is based on intuition, but Fridrich is a lot more simple. Even though I think intuition is faster, I sometimes think it would be good to know both methods.

Using DVORAK and QWERTY is a really good comparison :)


Very true. I guess the more rounded you are, the more it helps to improve your speed. Even the previous mentioned Patrick Bossert technique, as inefficient as it is, does have its gems here and there, eg. with the corners first solution I'm using now, I'd occasionally get a situation where there would be 2 edges on top/bottom oriented correctly, but directly opposite to where they should be. Using only my more recent corners first method as a basis it would take 11 moves (12 if you want to reposition the centres), all of them quarter turns, with 3-4 of them being slice moves, destroying 1 edge on the opposite side (used as a "keyhole" anyway), and moving around and flipping edges in the middle layer. In the second to last stage of Patrick's method, the same thing came be done with (R2 B2)^3. NO slice moves, much faster, and it swaps the top and bottom edges on the back and right sides, leaving their orientations the same and the rest of the cube untouched (unless you're talking about a picture cube, in which case the right and back centres would be inverted). It's super fast and super easy to recognise. As I've been scouring the web trying to find ways to improve my times, a lot of the time I've been going "crap... crap... crap... oh, hey! This'll allow me to drop a move off of this pattern here... I'll keep that one.", etc. Perhaps the biggest breath of fresh air I've found so far was the "keyhole" technique on Dan Lewis's page (http://home.earthlink.net/~edanlewis/rcube/). It involved learning no more patterns, simply a change of mindset, and it allowed me to drop the solve from 120+ moves to average 80 or less. I guess the bottom line is that no matter how bas a solution is overall, pretty much ANYTHING out there has stuff to teach us if we look hard enough. Something interesting I came across today, tossing +heise +rubik into Google came up with a human useable version of the Thistlewaite algorithm. Up until I saw that, everything else I saw on the web about it said that Thistlewaite couldn't be learned by humans, only computers. I'm not sure is this is the Heise method that someone else referred to earlier or whether it's the more complex solution with the java cube applets on it, but it looks like it'll be insanely simple to learn, requiring learning only 24 moves. Not algorithms, *moves*. I'm not sure if it'll be a speedubing method or not, but if anyone else is interested, you can find it here. http://www.ryanheise.com/cube/human_thi ... rithm.html I printed it out and I'm going to be studying it on the way to work. I should have some results back on it within a few days. :D L8r.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Jul 19, 2006 4:49 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2005 10:48 am
Tim Browne wrote:
but since it uses slice moves, finger tricks aren't really an option except in special circumstances.


Quiffle. Slice moves are amoungst the fastest you can do on a cube.

R.E.T. wrote:
There's no secret, but corners first I don't believe will ever win any speed solving competition. One of the problems with corners first is that your putting each piece in one at a time, and with layers you only put the first four pieces in one at a time.


Please research the waterman method.

~Thom


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Jul 19, 2006 5:58 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 20, 2003 7:29 am
Location: San Diego, California
Tim

I origionally learned a layer by layer method. not the fastest but i was able to do it in under 1 minute by learning all of the algs (5 in all) and executing them as fast as i possibly could.

from there i learned Permutation of last layer (PLL) alot of algs, but hey i dropped to under 45.

then i learned F2L. on my own. this was a huge jump. i succeeded in breaking 30 sec on average.

now im still learning Orientation of last layer. i know most of them about 2/3 of them to be more precise. my last average with my crappy cube was 23.08.

with all of this said, i would not have been able to get here unless i did one thing. PRACTICE. i cant tell you how many times i just sit and listen to the TV and cube. even though im not learning any new algs i am learning how to look ahead and to predice what is going to happen. this is probably the hardest thing to learn or to teach.

total time frame for my process is: almost 3 years now


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jul 20, 2006 2:36 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Dec 19, 1999 3:02 am
Location: Canada
Kirjava wrote:
Quiffle. Slice moves are amoungst the fastest you can do on a cube.


Are they? That's odd... I would have figured that face turns would be amongst the fastest., since 1 slice turn is basically 2 face turns.

Kirjava wrote:
Please research the waterman method.


Thanks. I came across that in my many travels lately... it seems to pop up on a lot of sites. I wasn't aware it was corners first, though. I'll check it out once I do some research into Thistlewaite. Research time so far... sadly, none. :? I also came across something today while I was surfing on my lunch break which may allow for a new speed solving method... I guess you could call it a "half Friedrich" or a "reverse Friedrich"... perhaps a "half truncated Friedrich"? I tried solving it with this new technique twice (at least I think it's new...) and came up with 70 turns and 76 turns, but of course I'm a clueless noob when it comes to this new (?) technique, and DEFNITELY a noob to F2L, so it'll take a while to see how it can be optimised. L8r.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jul 20, 2006 5:33 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2005 10:48 am
Tim Browne wrote:
Kirjava wrote:
Quiffle. Slice moves are amoungst the fastest you can do on a cube.


Are they? That's odd... I would have figured that face turns would be amongst the fastest., since 1 slice turn is basically 2 face turns.


It really depends how you perform them and how often you practise. They can easily be performed as one move (well, M' can) with the help of the ring finger of the left hand. I do them every solve, so I get a good workout. The way I got fast with them was to not practise doing them on their own, but combinations. Practise doing M'UM' as a single movement. MUM' is another good one you can do as a single 'finger trick'. I actually perform MUM' faster than RUR' :). Do a lot of M'U'MU, M'UMU' and M'U'M'U. Do U' with your left index and U with your right index. Do U2 with the index and middle of whichever hand is more comfortable at the time. Practise whatever combinations come up as mini-algorithms that you do and fingertrick as most you can of it. With practise, they're much faster than other things you do on a cube. Don't just do M' and M a certain way, because it's faster to do them different ways depending on what alg it's in, this mostly applys to M. Generally, I try to avoid using M in my solves, but when I get them now it's in a fingertrick. After workign on the fundamentals, move onto practising random MU scrambles. There, that'll start you off :)

Tim Browne wrote:
(on waterman)


Waterman is a great method you can easily average sub-20 with. A good site to look at is rubikscube.info. I've not learnt a lot of the method (mostly the R edges stuff) but I've done a couple of fast solves with it. The final M slice info comes in handy for special roux LSE cases aswell.

~Thom


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jul 20, 2006 1:27 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Dec 19, 1999 3:02 am
Location: Canada
OK... after playing around with this new technique for a while, I realised exactly why it is that I hate Friedrich so much, other than the apparent pattern limit. Imagine, if you will, that you've been cubing for 26 years, on basic techniques, with the main commonality being "solve the top layer first". For 26 solid years, solving the cube several times a day, it's constantly beaten into your mind, "match the top layer. match the top layer. solve one piece at a time. match the top layer..." Now, 26 years later, you encounter a method that tells you two things... 1) match 2 pieces and solve them together, and 2) when you match the 2 pieces, DON'T match the top layer. Trying to find an edge piece to match a corner that I can join it up with is bad enough, but then matching it up with a colour that ISN'T in the top layer I'm finding to be a real pain in the ass.
In reference to my previous comment about taking 40 moves to line up a corner edge piece, if that isn't bad enough, imagine finding out that the edge piece that you FINALLY managed to join up with the corner was using a TOP layer colour. OK now... where's the CORRECT cube? (After hunting for it for about 2 minutes, find it's positioned exactly the same way in relation to the corner as the first edge was)... OK, screw it. Maybe this one will line up better later on... Next! Last night I was really proud of myself when I managed to line up a corner/edge combo in only 4 turns, to realise that I'd matched a TOP corner edge with it. OK, moving on... 2 corners later, I did a pair match in only *3* moves... you can imagine how much I was glowing with pride with that one, until I found out that it was indeed a valid match... for the BOTTOM layer. Grrr... :x At least twice last night, I did a pair matchup with the top layer corner. Son of a...! OK, where's the correct piece? OK, there it is... about 15 moves later, it's matched up successully... only to find out that it's the OTHER top layer edge, and to top it off, the other top layer edge is still matched up with the corner. I just stared at it... this hideous, mismatched, unspeakable L, mocking me. I just stared at it... and stared... and stared... AAAAAAAAAAAAAAUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUGGGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHH! NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO! WHY ME? WHY? WHY? WHY? :cry: *bang!* *bang!* *bang!* It was the Barron Knights "Mr. Rubik" song all over again! *Sigh*... OK, by process of elimination, that must mean that the CORRECT edge piece is... OK, there it is... OK, there it is... oh, hey! a 2x2x2 skeleton! Whoo hoo! :D Too bad I wasn't going for that... :?
OK... now that I've vented somewhat, I think it's time to reveal what I had in mind for the new speed solving method. There won't be any patterns here, just a rough outline. I think you'll understand why soon enough. To start off, IGNORE THE CROSS. Don't build it, don't even think about it. Instead, start with the corner/edge pairs for F2L. Since there's no cross to get in the way, it should allow for easier matchups since you can now do slice turns through the top layer. Once that's done, solve the corners on the bottom layer... there's already speed solving pages out there for that, including on speedcubing.com if I remember correctly. Finally, solve the remaining edges. I'm still trying to figure out which will be more efficient... flipping then positioning, or positioning and then flipping. With the positioning, I find I'm often solving (or at the very least positioning) 3 edges at a time, and 4 at a time is not uncommon. Anyhoo, If there's anyone out there who wants to learn Friedrich but found it intimidating, or ANYONE who's curious about either Friedrich or this method, for that matter, please give this one a shot and let me know what you think. Thanks in advance. :D L8r.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jul 20, 2006 6:05 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 06, 2004 8:31 pm
Location: Arvada, CO
Tim,

You should check out Wayne's tutorial...
http://twistypuzzles.com/solutions/3x3x3-01.shtml

It makes it pretty clear.

good luck

_________________
"It's like an alarm clock, WOO WOO" -Bubb Rubb


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Jul 21, 2006 1:05 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Dec 19, 1999 3:02 am
Location: Canada
skeneegee wrote:
Tim,

You should check out Wayne's tutorial...
http://twistypuzzles.com/solutions/3x3x3-01.shtml

It makes it pretty clear.

good luck


Ya, I saw that site some months back. It's certainly interesting, and I like his "waterline" analogies. We certainly don't want to suffocate the fish! :wink: It certainly gave me hope at the time that I, too, could some day learn F2L, but alas, that hope was in vain. Perhaps I should go back to it and take another look. I sure wish I knew where he got a cube with such a bizarre colour scheme, though. L8r.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Jul 24, 2006 3:10 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 26, 2006 12:40 pm
Location: Marske-By-The-Sea, UK
Tim Browne wrote:
IGNORE THE CROSS. Don't build it, don't even think about it. Instead, start with the corner/edge pairs for F2L. Since there's no cross to get in the way, it should allow for easier matchups since you can now do slice turns through the top layer. Once that's done, solve the corners on the bottom layer... there's already speed solving pages out there for that, including on speedcubing.com if I remember correctly. Finally, solve the remaining edges. I'm still trying to figure out which will be more efficient... flipping then positioning, or positioning and then flipping. With the positioning, I find I'm often solving (or at the very least positioning) 3 edges at a time, and 4 at a time is not uncommon. Anyhoo, If there's anyone out there who wants to learn Friedrich but found it intimidating, or ANYONE who's curious about either Friedrich or this method, for that matter, please give this one a shot and let me know what you think. Thanks in advance. :D L8r.

That is similar to Roux's method?

_________________
List of Speedcubing methods
Speedcubing tutorial

@.=split(//,"J huhesartc kPaeenrro,lt");do{print$.[$_];$_=($_+3)%25;}while($_!=0);


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 [Bot] and 6 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