I can do PLL's so much faster when I'm not timing them! Whenever I try time my PLL I lock up, and go sloow, but when I just do it, its smooth and fast!

I got that too.
As for my T-perm, it is fast enough

http://youtube.com/watch?v=WSX9KVrO3xQ
Here we go

*runs to youtube*

i just realized, you pretty much use the same alg as me, except backwardish... i ought to try yours, although i suspect that it is all in my lack of cube turning experience that i'm slower than everyone.

no affence, but starting with the cube in your hands already is saving a LOT of time...

ah, but during a normal solve the cube is already in your hands, not unless you put it down during PLL

How would you (anyone here) compare the Ortega method to the Guimond method?

Pros/Cons/personal preference.

And possibly a link to both.

I'm curious.

Edit: Seems like Ortega is a bit slower but a lot easier to memorize, so I think I'm going to go with that. BUT I don't quite understand it. Does anyone wanna clarify. Respond, PM, or IM me. Thanks.

Ortega = a bit less to learn, but Guimond = a bit faster (not much). With ortega you make 1 face (not a layer) kind of like a beginner would say: I can do 1 layer, but only a face. Then orientate the opposite side of the cube, which leaves 2 layers to be permutated, these algs are short and there are only 3 more than 1 layer...
for Ortega method, Guimond method and more methods check my site: http://erikku.er.funpic.org

Alright, thanks. So say I happen to use white and yellow as my two main colors this solve. I would make one side all white (oriented) but not permuted. Then I orient the yellow side (using the provided algorithms). Then I'm left to permute both layers (with provided algs).

That sound right?

I've been using your website. It's great!

That is right, but being color neutral on this is not very hard and also pretty effective...

this ortega idea sounds really good, i'll have to give it a shot next time i play with a 2x2.

I don't think my cube is good enough to do 10 TPS on a T-perm.

I can get 2.03 if I time it Pembo's way, but I prefer starting from the table, like for Magic. Still, it's slow.

moved on to Oll have 2 algs memorized

Damn man, I haven't even finished PLL (cause I never get around to trying).

Like others have said, F2L is what counts, after that, the OLL/PLL will help shed some extra seconds.

Someone should send you Doug Reed's F2L page. He's a great guy, knows what he's talking about, and the page is easy to understand (He had me critique it when he first made it, and besides about 2 typo's, I couldn't find anything wrong with it.)

why learn F2L with algs though? the reason my F2L is decent is because i learned it intuitively, so i don't have a hard time at all doing the algs from all directions. Learning actual algs for an intuitive step seems kindof odd to me, thats like learning algs to solve the first layer corners in LBL...

I did learn them intuitively. In fact, I don't know any algs for F2L.

Doug Reed's page isn't just a list of algorithms, it explains the idea of corner/edge pairing. Therefore, you are left to learn them intuitively.

Doug's F2L page is all about doing it intuitively.

I recently switched to (intuitive) Fridrich F2L, and today I got both a best time and an avg 3/5 better than my old beginner records. Even more exciting is the fact that times that felt like I was flying on the old (45s) don't feel very fast now, which leads me to believe that there's a lot of room for immediate improvement if I just keep practicing a bit more.

Exactly.

Doug's F2L page is all about doing it intuitively.

I recently switched to (intuitive) Fridrich F2L, and today I got both a best time and an avg 3/5 better than my old beginner records. Even more exciting is the fact that times that felt like I was flying on the old (45s) don't feel very fast now, which leads me to believe that there's a lot of room for immediate improvement if I just keep practicing a bit more.[/quote]

that is the best part about solving fast- it never feels fast, and when you are done you are always like "i coulda made that sooo much faster" i hate it when i get a 20 second solve, because if i had gotten it just one seconds faster, like not lock up or did better with PLL then i would have gotten sub 20.

I got a nonlucky 29.45 on the one-handed 3x3x3 today. It's my first sub-30, and I hope there are more to come!

Nice! my OH best is 54 seconds, and my friend is using my OH cube to learn to cube right now, so I really can't practice...

I got a 22.03 avg of 5 OH! But the following 7 solves were all 27+... I need to get more consistent.

Congrats! Have you ever gotten sub 20 OH?

You hate it? Maybe I like it better because it's new, but with my old method I knew that realistically, the next best time would come randomly, and 90% because of a very lucky scramble rather than because of my improvement. I got a 34.xx today, and yeah, I skipped edge permutation and F2L was easy cases, but I know I messed up a few times and I know that in no less than a couple weeks I'll get a sub-30 solve, maybe even a sub-40 average. That makes me way happier than the fact that that single solve might have been sub-30.

edit: Back on-topic, and on a somewhat related note, I got a new best 10/12 avg of 43.06 (this is a 7.01s improvement from 48 hours ago), and best time of 34.20

today I just lowered my 2x2x2 average from 11.5 to 7.95

and I beat my old record of 5.98 with 3.5

Thanks! I've had two non-lucky 17.xx solves and many 18-19.

Wow. That's really amazing... can you offer any tips? Would you suggest any kind of finger exercises?

Scrambling OH is a really good way to practise, it will improve your turning speed. Another thing that matters is how many moves you use. You should to optimize your solutions more than in regular speedsolving, because you have more time to think. And of course practise a lot.

That's an excellent tip! Thanks.



I've been generally trying to do that, but there's not much optimization you can get in Fridrich, except for xcross (which is very difficult for me). I'm seriously considering a method like Petrus or Heise for one-handed, and after the competition I'm going to a week from now I'll probably start working on it.



I'm doing that already. I've done more OH solves than normal 3x3x3 solves in the last week, not counting bigcubes practice.

Now 3 days since I broke the first "old method" record. Single solve remains the same, but 10/12 avg is down to 41.12 (9.45s improvement), and even better, a 3/5 avg of 39.72, a ~10s improvement and my first sub-40 average. Setting my sights on a sub-40 10/12 avg by the end of next weekend.

My main accomplishment? None, really.

But a list of important ones:

-sub-1 magic (total "luck")
-my 3x3x3 method (which I'm in the middle of learning)
-figuring out the 5x5x4 in twenty minutes (simulated)
-discovering a very simple Domino solution
-etc.

whoa, where did you find a sim for 5x5x4?

back on topic, i got a sub 5 snake solve, and my average is down to 5.28! almost sub 5! give me till the end of the week

My latest accomplishment:
5x5 single: 1:57.02 yay
5x5 avg : 2:08.35 yay

Nice, i've never even been able to solve a 5x5

That's amazing... My best average on the 5x5x5 is 2:36, so I still have a bit of a ways to go.

I did a sub-1:30 average on the 4x4x4 (1:28.357), so that's a nice accomplishment for me.

Do you think you could give any tips on the Ortega method for 2x2x2? My best average is 7.8x, but I want to do a little better than that.

I just got sub-60! On two cubes that is! Ok, it was 59.94, only 0.06s off 1minute! Still, ive been trying that for several days!

I did sub-3 BLD with my new method

New method? Or a new method that your learning. I really need to get my ass into gear with BLD.

Got a 34.36 at my first competition this weekend. Cornell Spring 2007.

Yesterday, I finished the book I was reading!

Then I started a new one...

I just broke (shattered) all my 3x3 records in one sitting.
Single solve 29.75 --> 26.66
3/5 average 39.72 --> 36.80
10/12 average 41.03 --> 39.66
100 average 44.93 --> 42.55

Finally sub-40! Also, redemption on the single solve. I do 4-step LL with some repeats, and this one, just like my old one, skipped both corners steps, but this one, unlike the old one, did not involve me dropping the cube.

I did well at Cornell Spring '07. My best two times were a 16.46 solve on the 3x3x3 (.02 seconds off my personal best!) and a 1.06 single solve on the Magic (American record).

sub 10 snake solve. memorized two oll algos

Almost got a new average, but started getting 26's again...


Sub 3 4x4 solve! 2:59.94 for the first time, then I got a 3:00 today and a 2:58 later on. I'm now in the process of learning K4.

Two sub 14s in the same average, 13.75 and 13.89, the 13.89 was lucky.

22.70 avg OH

A few days ago I wasn't even sub-25. Strange.

Eh, just a few posts up, you said you got a 22.03 avg of 5, I'm confused.

Sorry, this is avg of 10, which is much harder than avg of 5 for me because I'm not very consistent. I wasn't being clear.

Ah, thanks for clearing that up.

On another point, are there any videos of you, I've never seen any.