Thx but is it anygood?? And is his own method goodOriginally Posted by Ranzha V. Emodrach
Thx but is it anygood?? And is his own method good
His beginner's method is very well made, and the approach is very standard as far as layer-by-layer approaches run. His own method is very efficient as far as movecount goes, but not necessarily for speedsolving.
I need help on the "two pairs approach".... i just use 30!! moves to get the 2 pairs and solve edges!
edit: Now 15
Last edited by Sa967St; 02-21-2013 at 10:40 AM. Reason: post merge
could you be more specific. It is very intuitive. what exactly are you having trouble with during the 2 pairs step?
I can solve the pairs very nicely, but i can't solve the edges without destroying the pairs.
The best way I found to keep from destroying your pairs is to hide them. You can look at this as hiding, or you can look at it as placing incorrect corner pieces on the side your going to turn such that if you were using the right and U sides, the top right 3 pieces would not be correct. I see it both ways, depending on the case. If your using the right side and U moves to move your edges, use the left side to hide the pairs. You must remember to bring your pairs back up after you switch the edge you hid the pair to switch.
Yes, i do that, but when i bring back the side, i look and see that i destroyed the DLF section
I learned Heise about a week ago, I must say that it makes your F2L/Cross a little bit more efficient in CFOP, but where it really pays off is in the LL, if I see optimal Heise cases coming, then I switch to Heise and solve the LL in like 15-20 moves, averting my 40 move 3-look fail method of CFOP. It also made WV tactics and edges-last (Roux, Waterman) a walk in the park.
But anyway, I've been having small problems with two pairs when there is an inverted pair, or in any case where two pairs (often i get three or four pairs inadvertently) are in an L shape. I can tell that the one-pair approach will alleviate all such problems, but no one on earth (meaning Youtube) uses or appears to understand one-pair. If anyone here uses it, what is the thought process or jist of things when you are doing it?
I'm not asking for a bunch of algs, more of a what to look at first or how you think about permuting those edges on the path to matching the second pair.
When doing the 2 pairs at the same time, sometimes you can put one of the pairs into the F2L slot and make things much easier. If you have an edge in the slot that has the top color in it, this limits your moves because you don't want to break the edge orientation. You could try getting the edge that goes into the slot in it so that you can change your EO to a different axis. If you can't do this, you could try doing a move to unmatch a 2x2x3 block in your F2L, moving the slot, so you can then place one of the pairs in the slot an solve all of the edges. You would then undo your move to unmatch the block and porceed as normal. Whatever option you choose just depends on where your pairs are.
With the one pairs approach, you can very easily get the pair solved and the edges solved with experience. It is only comparable move count wise if you have a very good corner setup afterwards. It is mostly just for ease of recognition.
I tend to try and see if there are any easily matchable pairs and what I find affects what approach I will use. most of the time, the two pairs approach will weild the best results. I have occasionaly used the one pair or no pair approach if I see that the edges are a move or two away from being solved, and I'd rather not go out of my way trying to match a pair when it would take just as many moves as an added commutator afterwards. Do not forget that you can also solve some edges and some corners and use a commutator with edges to match up the edges. I mainly use this when I don't already have edges oriented.
If you end up with many pairs without trying to, you can either continue on without stopping with the pairs you are doing if you don't want to have to re-recognize the case. You could also look for 2 pairs that are easy to keep solved while solving the edge permutation.
One very useful tool is to hide pairs in the F2L, while bringing up part of the F2L, but in a different position. An example would be hiding a pair in the UL and ULF position making it become UL and UBL by doing an L move. You will have to solve the edges such that you can actually solve them by undoing your L move. You need to make sure that you dont use a side to hide a pair that will interfere with the side you are using to permute edges. You can also do this to 2 pairs at once. If you have a pair in the UL ULB position and the UB UBR position, you can do L' U' L' to change the pairs making them face the other direction.
Another way of thinking of the same thing mentioned above is to think that you need all of the pieces in the layer your going to turn to be unsolved pieces. I really am not sure at all how to explain this.
I hope that atleast some of this made sense. I would love to make a in depth tutorial on commutators and heise, but I don't have a camera.
ummmm....
a lot of those tactics i use, but i'll add that usually one of the pairs i'm keeping is the one that belongs in the F2L slot. this makes hiding it difficult when you have to pull it down
the other thing is that commutators are easy for me, so even if there is some bizarre outcome, it still usually has a one or two move conjugate
what i was asking was more along the lines of "what do you look for in the recognition?" more in the sense of "how to tell which out of the like 20 possible G-perms you have" instead of "what's the alg for this G-perm"
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks