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

TwistyPuzzles.com Forum

It is currently Sun Apr 20, 2014 7:04 pm

All times are UTC - 5 hours



Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 46 posts ] 
Author Message
 Post subject: For 3x3x3 what method should I learn after layer by layer?
PostPosted: Wed Feb 28, 2007 12:50 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Dec 28, 2006 10:28 pm
Location: Austin, Texas
I've gotten my layer-by-layer down to 51:xx seconds (lucky) and 1:05:54 seconds for an average (on my good days...).

I think now I know enough about piece orientation to move on to a different system that requires a greater understanding of the movement of the pieces. What would you suggest is the next method to move on to?

This will also improve my time for 4x4x4 since I use the method of orienting the edges to turn it into a 3x3x3.

Thank you.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Feb 28, 2007 1:32 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 10, 2006 11:15 am
Location: Helsinki, Finland
I recommend Petrus, it's easy to learn and understand. And it's possible to get really fast without too many algs.

If you just want to become faster and memorize dozens of algorithms, even though you don't understand how they work, Fridrich is maybe the best method for you.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Feb 28, 2007 1:52 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Nov 23, 2006 6:02 pm
Johannes Laire wrote:
If you just want to become faster and memorize dozens of algorithms, even though you don't understand how they work, Fridrich is maybe the best method for you.

Not always the case.

I recommend learning Fridrich, I learnt it from cubestation and there are many other sites which you can learn it from.

_________________
3x3: PB 9.64
http://www.xanga.com/j_ey


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Feb 28, 2007 1:55 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jun 04, 2006 10:05 am
Location: Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA
Fridrich is similar to the LBL method. Some people don't think it's fast, but it's worth a go.

Don't get me wrong either, I do a Fridrich/LBL Hybrid method and I'm still under 35 seconds average.

_________________
Fridrich
3x3 PB 22.63
3x3 Av 30.57

25, Male
Started cubing Oct 15 '05

Out of the game, but not completely.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Feb 28, 2007 2:57 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 26, 2006 12:40 pm
Location: Marske-By-The-Sea, UK
Johannes Laire wrote:
If you just want to become faster and memorize dozens of algorithms, even though you don't understand how they work, Fridrich is maybe the best method for you.

I understand mine....

xcool wrote:
Fridrich is similar to the LBL method. Some people don't think it's fast, but it's worth a go.

Some people don't think it's fast?

The World Record holders use it ;)

_________________
List of Speedcubing methods
Speedcubing tutorial

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


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Feb 28, 2007 3:30 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue May 30, 2006 10:53 pm
Location: FL
I am confident a petrus user will do sub 10 next year in a competition ^__^


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Feb 28, 2007 9:02 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 15, 2007 3:31 am
Location: Sunnyvale, CA
Myself, I tried to learn Petrus. I can do it and solve a cube with it but... personally, I didn't like it.

I turned down Fridrich because it required aLOT of memorization and seemed to crack at 14-16 seconds.

I started learning the Roux method. http://grrroux.free.fr/method/Intro.html

It's similar to Petrus when it comes to building blocks but, it's a bit different as well.

I found a video of a non-lucky 12 second Roux solve. Competitive with Petrus? I think so.

Regardless... I suggest you look at all of the methods and see which one you like. Petrus, Roux, Fridrich, Corners First.... My favorites are Roux and Petrus. ^_^

I think we need more Roux solvers.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Feb 28, 2007 9:11 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jan 22, 2005 12:12 pm
Location: NY, USA
(Johannes - you use PLL, right? You still have to memorize your fair share of algorithms for Petrus, if you want to be fast.)

Petrus is undoubtedly a good method, but in my opinion it's harder to learn. I've tried it, but except for the idea of making blocks at the start the method didn't really appeal to me.

Because it's intuitive, getting really good at it will take a long time. If you want to do an intuitive method quickly, you'll basically have to memorize short algorithms for a large number of cases, since when you become fast you won't really have time during a solve to think about what to do. On the other hand, if you're willing to put in a LOT of work, intuitive methods are less moves, so they will turn out to be a bit faster in the end.

Personally, I'd suggest spending an hour or so on a few different methods, to try to get a feel for how they work. Keep the algorithms up on your screen; don't try to be fast, just get a feel for how the cube is being solved, what's going on, and what you have to look for. Try Fridrich, Petrus, Roux, and Heise, and see which one(s) you like. Fridrich is the most algorithm-driven, Petrus is a little more intuitive, Roux has even fewer algorithms, and Heise is completely intuitive. All of these methods can be very fast, but you really have to find the one that matches your style.

_________________
My official times
My youtube
Puzzle Solving Service! - a puzzle that has never been scrambled and solved has been wasted.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: For 3x3x3 what method should I learn after layer by laye
PostPosted: Thu Mar 01, 2007 12:08 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Mar 04, 2003 11:17 am
sn7221 wrote:
I've gotten my layer-by-layer down to 51:xx seconds (lucky) and 1:05:54 seconds for an average (on my good days...).

I think now I know enough about piece orientation to move on to a different system that requires a greater understanding of the movement of the pieces. What would you suggest is the next method to move on to?

This will also improve my time for 4x4x4 since I use the method of orienting the edges to turn it into a 3x3x3.

Thank you.


Try my 3x3x3 method; it segues into my 4x4x4 method.

http://www.speedcubing.com/DavidJSalvia.html

If you learn this you should have a better understanding of how pieces move.

My method can lead right into Roux's method.

DJ

*


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Mar 01, 2007 8:29 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 10, 2006 11:15 am
Location: Helsinki, Finland
joey wrote:
Johannes Laire wrote:
If you just want to become faster and memorize dozens of algorithms, even though you don't understand how they work, Fridrich is maybe the best method for you.
Not always the case.
Pembo wrote:
I understand mine....

@joey: Ok, maybe not always. But Fridrich is the most algorithm-based speedsolving method I know, and requires barely any understanding so I think it's good for people who prefer memorizing over understanding.

@Pembo: Wow... You are a genius then! There are just a few OLL algs I understand, most of them are too complicated for me. PLL is easier, I understand most of the algs I use, but not all of them.

qqwref wrote:
(Johannes - you use PLL, right? You still have to memorize your fair share of algorithms for Petrus, if you want to be fast.)

I use around 150-200 algorithms for 4b and LL, but there's no need to learn that many. I've just experimented with many different ways of solving the last steps.

Simple 3-look LL takes only 13 algorithms (31 in Fridrich) and 2-look is 28 (78 in Fridrich). Sub-20 is possible with 3-look so there's no need to learn many algs.

qqwref wrote:
If you want to do an intuitive method quickly, you'll basically have to memorize short algorithms for a large number of cases, since when you become fast you won't really have time during a solve to think about what to do.

That's exactly what you shouldn't do! When you are good enough you don't need to think, you just see how to solve the pieces even though you haven't ever seen that case before. If you use algorithms for everything you'll have some delays remembering what alg to do, you'll miss many shortcuts etc.. And memorizing is boring IMO.

qqwref wrote:
Personally, I'd suggest spending an hour or so on a few different methods, to try to get a feel for how they work. Keep the algorithms up on your screen; don't try to be fast, just get a feel for how the cube is being solved, what's going on, and what you have to look for. Try Fridrich, Petrus, Roux, and Heise, and see which one(s) you like.

That's a good idea.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Mar 01, 2007 12:17 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 26, 2006 12:40 pm
Location: Marske-By-The-Sea, UK
I actually started off learning Petrus, but couldn't do as I didn't have a good enough understand of how pieces moved about...perhaps I might have understood it better if I kept going with it...

_________________
List of Speedcubing methods
Speedcubing tutorial

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


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Mar 01, 2007 4:35 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jan 22, 2005 12:12 pm
Location: NY, USA
Johannes Laire wrote:
That's exactly what you shouldn't do! When you are good enough you don't need to think, you just see how to solve the pieces even though you haven't ever seen that case before. If you use algorithms for everything you'll have some delays remembering what alg to do, you'll miss many shortcuts etc.. And memorizing is boring IMO.


Well, that's more or less what I meant - instead of memorizing a lot of long sequences that fit specific positions, you memorize a lot of short sequences that each fit a larger number of positions. It's still memorization, just a different kind, and memorized in a different way (less actively). Instead of learning how to solve specific cases, you learn how to put pieces together in specific ways, but it's really a very similar thing.

Just like there are only a certain number of F2L cases in Fridrich, there are only a certain number of ways to put pieces together in order to turn a 2x2x2 block into a 2x2x3 block, and I'm sure that you know how you would do every case in block forming in pretty much the same way I know how to do every case in F2L.

_________________
My official times
My youtube
Puzzle Solving Service! - a puzzle that has never been scrambled and solved has been wasted.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Mar 01, 2007 8:29 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 01, 2007 5:28 pm
Location: somewhere in the universe
I also recomend fridrich but if you like memorizing algd then I sugest the ZB method. :wink:

_________________
...
3x3 29.95(lucky 28.05)
1.92 rubik's magic
My favorite animal is the Pfargtl.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Mar 01, 2007 10:29 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jan 22, 2005 12:12 pm
Location: NY, USA
I wouldn't seriously suggest ZB to anyone who isn't already sub-16, actually.

_________________
My official times
My youtube
Puzzle Solving Service! - a puzzle that has never been scrambled and solved has been wasted.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Mar 01, 2007 10:42 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 01, 2007 5:28 pm
Location: somewhere in the universe
K sorry bout that :oops:

_________________
...
3x3 29.95(lucky 28.05)
1.92 rubik's magic
My favorite animal is the Pfargtl.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Mar 02, 2007 1:22 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue May 30, 2006 10:53 pm
Location: FL
I recommend ZB to anyone who wants to learn.It is better to learn at an earlier stage so you don't overload yourself with algorithms that will be replaced later anyways...


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Mar 02, 2007 1:47 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Dec 28, 2006 10:28 pm
Location: Austin, Texas
Thanks to everyone who replied.

I have had time now to look at a few of the methods mentioned. I like Petrus a lot so far. At least for the block building. I can get the 2x2x3 block fairly quickly and in a little bit over the number of "average" moves it should take. I haven't looked at it any further than that yet.

Roux appeals to me in terms of it's method of building but I haven't had time to look closely.

Fridrich just seems daunting...probably because I went in with the impression that there would be a lot of algorthims - and there are. I seem to be better with visual movements rather than straight up memorization (or at least, I have plenty to memorize being in university right now and I don't want add more to my already overflowing memory >_<). I need to look at it more closely as well.

I haven't looked at the Saliva method yet but that's on the list too.

Has anyone heard of Douglas Hofstadter? There's a book I have back at home called Metamagical Themes which is basically a collection of his Scientific American articles. There's one in there on the cube that I recall in which he lists some algorithms. I think I'll check this out when I go home but I wanted to know if anyone had an opinion on this if they've heard of it.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Mar 02, 2007 1:56 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 10, 2006 11:15 am
Location: Helsinki, Finland
I wouldn't recommend ZB to anyone, even though I'm learning ZBLL myself... I know that it's not a good idea, but at least it's more useful than memorizing pi. :lol:

qqwref wrote:
Just like there are only a certain number of F2L cases in Fridrich, there are only a certain number of ways to put pieces together in order to turn a 2x2x2 block into a 2x2x3 block, and I'm sure that you know how you would do every case in block forming in pretty much the same way I know how to do every case in F2L.

Well, there are 6048 cases for that step IIRC. I remember solutions to just very few basic ones. Almost always I have to figure out how to solve the pieces, I don't just apply memorized move sequences.

And I'm not doing basic 2x2x2 -> 2x2x3 too often anymore, usually I combine the steps and do 2x2x3 (more or less) directly. Usually I get into situations I have never seen before, but it's not a problem. Similar to chess, you can't simply memorize the positions and best moves because there are too many. You have to understand the game and once you are good you'll just see what to do in different positions using pure intuition.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Mar 02, 2007 5:56 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jan 13, 2006 6:55 pm
Johannes Laire wrote:
I wouldn't recommend ZB to anyone, even though I'm learning ZBLL myself... I know that it's not a good idea, but at least it's more useful than memorizing pi. :lol:

qqwref wrote:
Just like there are only a certain number of F2L cases in Fridrich, there are only a certain number of ways to put pieces together in order to turn a 2x2x2 block into a 2x2x3 block, and I'm sure that you know how you would do every case in block forming in pretty much the same way I know how to do every case in F2L.

Well, there are 6048 cases for that step IIRC. I remember solutions to just very few basic ones. Almost always I have to figure out how to solve the pieces, I don't just apply memorized move sequences.

And I'm not doing basic 2x2x2 -> 2x2x3 too often anymore, usually I combine the steps and do 2x2x3 (more or less) directly. Usually I get into situations I have never seen before, but it's not a problem. Similar to chess, you can't simply memorize the positions and best moves because there are too many. You have to understand the game and once you are good you'll just see what to do in different positions using pure intuition.


I wonder when more people will be able to understand this.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Mar 02, 2007 6:40 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue May 30, 2006 10:53 pm
Location: FL
Petrus F2L is intuition to a certain degree is the main idea i think.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: mathods
PostPosted: Fri Mar 02, 2007 7:42 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Mar 04, 2003 11:17 am
sn7221 wrote:
Has anyone heard of Douglas Hofstadter? There's a book I have back at home called Metamagical Themes which is basically a collection of his Scientific American articles. There's one in there on the cube that I recall in which he lists some algorithms. I think I'll check this out when I go home but I wanted to know if anyone had an opinion on this if they've heard of it.


The book is: Metamagical Themas: Questing for the Essence of Mind and Pattern by Douglas R. Hofstadter.

I liked the articles when the were first published in tha magazine. His enthusiasm and intelligence are ejoyable.

David J Salvia


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Mar 15, 2007 12:49 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 13, 2007 11:24 pm
Location: MN
I say fridrich. It seems like a lot of algorithems but if youi want a comparison check out ZB. 50 vs 300. I think Fridrich is just a little easier to learn

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Mar 15, 2007 2:19 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 29, 2006 10:50 pm
Location: New York
or you could learn heise method which has 0.

_________________
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 Mar 15, 2007 7:11 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 05, 2007 8:32 pm
Location: Orlando, Florida
the bottom line is pretty much what method fits you best. most people in the speedcubing community prefer the Fridrich method so yah..

_________________
Image
Get your own Gamercard Sig.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Mar 16, 2007 5:27 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 6:47 am
Can someone explain what all these acronyms mean? LBL? PLL? LL? I'm at a similar stage in speedcubing as sn7221 is with my average being around 1:09 and my fastest lucky time being :46 using the pretty much the three layers method taught in the Rubik's hints booklet. I'd like to learn a new method as well.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Mar 16, 2007 7:00 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jul 12, 2004 3:30 pm
Location: Dallas, Texas
Eh, the beginner's booklet method...I highly suggest a new one.

LBL - Layer by layer....basically the method you use, or any other than solves 'layer by later'
F2L - first two layers. These are distinct from teh last layer as most speedcubers solve the F2L as a group, then the last layer (LL). The F2L is usually most intuitive while the LL is more algorithm based.
LL- Last layer

OLL - Orient(ation) Last Layer - it the stage of solving teh LL in which you make the whole side one color, but the individual cubies my be permuted wrong/ in the wrong spots. Done with algorithms.

PLL - permute last layer - When you permute or change the positions (with use of algorithms) of the cubies and put them in the correct position. By this step, the LL is usually already oriented (OLL).


Anyone see any errors in that?

_________________
PLL 15/21
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ve-Drdc8HMg
OLD NAME : Kid_with_teh_mohawk
pb 22.19
pb avg
27.61 = 26.74, 26.69, 26.98, 23.16, 26.14, 24.63, 23.71, (22.19), 30.41, (35.42), 34.97, 32.69


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Mar 16, 2007 5:09 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 6:47 am
Oh, I see. Thank you.

So I suppose a pretty common speedcubing solution seems to be in 3 distinct steps. F2L and then OLL and then PLL. Do you do OLL and PLL in one algorithm each? Is that the Fridich method? I've read that method and it was a LOT of algorithms to remember but I fear I may not have a solid enough understanding of the cube to do a more intuitive method.

I was looking at the Roux method and it seemed pretty interesting. Anyone know where I can find some info about the Petrus method?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Mar 16, 2007 5:19 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jul 12, 2004 3:30 pm
Location: Dallas, Texas
Yes, that's the Fridrich, but it can be reduced to a very small amount of algorithms (as in a 3 or 4 step LL instead of a 2 step LL). It is a lot of algs. I'm in the process of leaning them now (although I haven't really worked on them in weeks...).

The Roux method is supposed to be great and has had some pretty promising results. I myself have had very little experience with it though. Petrus is supposed to be aight, but once again I don't know too much about it.

_________________
PLL 15/21
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ve-Drdc8HMg
OLD NAME : Kid_with_teh_mohawk
pb 22.19
pb avg
27.61 = 26.74, 26.69, 26.98, 23.16, 26.14, 24.63, 23.71, (22.19), 30.41, (35.42), 34.97, 32.69


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Mar 16, 2007 5:30 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Feb 07, 2007 4:39 pm
Location: Enschede, The Netherlands, First room on the left on the 2nd floor.
Fridrich is very easy to understand if you have first done lbl, lots of sites for it.
Petrus is a more intuitive way of solving, and very effective though I don't think it is faster than Fridrich cause you spend lots of time finding pieces. http://lar5.com/ for Petrus
Roux is a nice method, but harder if you just come from lbl cause it is kind of... different. It can be very fast though, I once tried it out for a week or 2 and got a best avg of 21. Site: http://grrroux.free.fr/
Choose whatever you like and what feels good for you, I think they are all fast.

_________________
getting lucky is not a crime...


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Mar 17, 2007 1:44 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 10, 2006 11:15 am
Location: Helsinki, Finland
Erik wrote:
Petrus is a more intuitive way of solving, and very effective though I don't think it is faster than Fridrich cause you spend lots of time finding pieces.

I've heard that many times, but I've never heard any explanation why. Usually people who say that haven't practised Petrus too much, similar to people who know nothing about cubing but still keep saying that BLD requires "photographic memory". After 2x2x2-block you can see all unsolved pieces at once and finding the ones you need is easy, in fact it's a lot easier than in Fridrich IMHO.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Mar 17, 2007 1:51 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue May 30, 2006 10:53 pm
Location: FL
Hrmm..I use 4-5 secs of inspection. Never pause to find pieces. Petrus is very fast.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Mar 17, 2007 2:29 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Feb 07, 2007 4:39 pm
Location: Enschede, The Netherlands, First room on the left on the 2nd floor.
I practised petrus for a while lately but was never fast with it. Maybe I didn't practise enough then, sorry guys.

_________________
getting lucky is not a crime...


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Mar 18, 2007 2:21 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Dec 28, 2006 10:28 pm
Location: Austin, Texas
Well I've been working on Petrus lately and personally this really appeals to me. Algorithms aren't necesserily a bad thing but I guess I feel like I haven't accomplished anything if I go about it brute force.

I've learned up to the 2x2x3 block (apparently the easiest part) and I like it so far. No clue what it's like next but at the very least it has increased my ability to figure out short algorithms on my own rather than just memorizing and not realizing what they are doing (I still don't get what the final step of LBL for fixing the already-oriented corners actually does).

Heise method seems kinda cool too and it seems to be pure block building. After I learn Petrus I might go for Heise. Then after that possibly Roux...and then maybe Freidrich >_> there's just too many.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Mar 18, 2007 2:31 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2005 10:48 am
nytelyte wrote:
I found a video of a non-lucky 12 second Roux solve. Competitive with Petrus? I think so.


Hi! Was it this?

Roux is a great method. I've seen Gilles pull off some extremely fast solves on video and webcam, his corner recognition is second to none.

When I learnt roux, I'd just moved from petrus and the block building carried over well. There was only one site to learn from, as a lot of it was self discovery. Taking a path of self discovery of how to do something often naturally grants you the best personal approach. It did in my case, anyway.

Always remember; if you want them to be, slice moves can be faster than regular moves with practise. They are for me now, anyway. "don't be afraid of MU" as the great quote goes :)

Afterthought; Roux is perfect for 5-min FMC, even if it's in HTM, I think the best application for that type of competition is that method.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Mar 18, 2007 5:03 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 26, 2006 12:40 pm
Location: Marske-By-The-Sea, UK
Thom wrote:
Afterthought; Roux is perfect for 5-min FMC, even if it's in HTM, I think the best application for that type of competition is that method.

Hence why Roux dominates the normal FMCs in comp.

_________________
List of Speedcubing methods
Speedcubing tutorial

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


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Mar 18, 2007 5:10 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Nov 23, 2006 6:02 pm
I really need to get to grips with block building methods, I always tend to use the F2L algs that I know, rather than 'intuition'. It would also help with xcross's.

_________________
3x3: PB 9.64
http://www.xanga.com/j_ey


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Apr 07, 2007 11:09 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Oct 07, 2006 2:49 pm
Location: Pennsylvania
joey wrote:
I really need to get to grips with block building methods, I always tend to use the F2L algs that I know, rather than 'intuition'. It would also help with xcross's.


Agreed. I'm working with Petrus block building ATM, simply so when I get a good X cross case (usually a C/E pair built already) I can do it without slowing down to think of the moves.

I also got a 34 second average with Petrus :) That was quite fun.

_________________
Do it.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Apr 08, 2007 6:38 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 13, 2007 11:24 pm
Location: MN
i started learning petrus, but i dont get the edge orientation. Any advice?

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Apr 08, 2007 7:21 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Oct 07, 2006 2:49 pm
Location: Pennsylvania
Just make sure you know what bad edges are. Oh, BTW, they are the un-oriented edges...

Put one bad edge at FR and another at UB and do R U R'. This is just a basic alg, but it gets the job done. Just make sure you dont' break the block while setting up the edges, and you'll be fine.

_________________
Do it.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Apr 09, 2007 2:20 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Nov 23, 2006 6:02 pm
Speedy McFastfast wrote:
Just make sure you know what bad edges are. Oh, BTW, they are the un-oriented edges...

Put one bad edge at FR and another at UB and do R U R'. This is just a basic alg, but it gets the job done. Just make sure you dont' break the block while setting up the edges, and you'll be fine.


R U R' doesn't flip and edge, because U and R are a 2-generator. You can't orient edges in 2-generator groups.

In petrus there is 2,4, or 6 bad edges. To flip two at a time put one at FR and one at UL, then do F' U' F.

_________________
3x3: PB 9.64
http://www.xanga.com/j_ey


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Apr 09, 2007 6:37 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Oct 07, 2006 2:49 pm
Location: Pennsylvania
joey wrote:
Speedy McFastfast wrote:
Just make sure you know what bad edges are. Oh, BTW, they are the un-oriented edges...

Put one bad edge at FR and another at UB and do R U R'. This is just a basic alg, but it gets the job done. Just make sure you dont' break the block while setting up the edges, and you'll be fine.


R U R' doesn't flip and edge, because U and R are a 2-generator. You can't orient edges in 2-generator groups.

In petrus there is 2,4, or 6 bad edges. To flip two at a time put one at FR and one at UL, then do F' U' F.


F' U' F doesn't do anything, because it doesn't break the block...

I hold the block so that it's in the DB position, meaning my two free layers are in the F and U positions.

Bad edges are at FR and UB:

R moves the edge in F up into the top layer, flipping it over.

U moves the fixed edge out of the way, replacing it with another bad edge

R' moves the bad edge down, flipping it. This also fixes the block.

_________________
Do it.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Apr 09, 2007 6:53 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Nov 23, 2006 6:02 pm
Speedy McFastfast wrote:
I hold the block so that it's in the DB position, meaning my two free layers are in the F and U positions.


Ah, its just that I think that most people hold the block at FL, having R and U being the free sides.

_________________
3x3: PB 9.64
http://www.xanga.com/j_ey


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Apr 09, 2007 6:59 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 10, 2006 11:15 am
Location: Helsinki, Finland
joey wrote:
Ah, its just that I think that most people hold the block at FL, having R and U being the free sides.

In Step 4, when we are using those free sides, this is the case. But when flipping the edges (Step 3) you'd have to use some F and B moves, so it's better to hold the block at DB like Speedy does, so that the free sides are F and U. In that position flipping the edges can be done with triggers like R' F R, R U R' etc. that are very quick.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Apr 09, 2007 7:19 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Nov 23, 2006 6:02 pm
Ah, thanks for that clearing that up Johannes!

_________________
3x3: PB 9.64
http://www.xanga.com/j_ey


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Apr 09, 2007 9:20 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Oct 07, 2006 2:49 pm
Location: Pennsylvania
Lol, I believe it was Johannes who mentioned holding the cube likes this in a thread that I was on a while ago. Since then I've held it like that, and it really helps.

_________________
Do it.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 46 posts ] 

All times are UTC - 5 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 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