PitothePowerof3
Member
I'm glad I found this before learning PLL and OLL!
Maybe Roux or ZZ?
Need help to make a choice!
I average about 35 seconds with CFOP (2 look OLL en 2 look PLL) but I really get stuck with F2L!! But I think that CFOP is a quite good method for me, I really don't know and I'm very confused!!
Rotations are no MASSIVE problem. I rotate too much and I average 18ish with CFOP. There's a lot of fuss made about rotationless algs, but some of them are awkward and not THAT much quicker than rotating.Also I think I do too many rotations... I'm quite good at learning algorithms but I'm very lazyyy to learn them :/
No, most people use CFOP, or variations on it in almost all big cube methods. This includes Roux users, because M turns are a large part of Roux, and can't be done on big cubes. I've heard a lot of ZZ users say it's excellent for OH due to the ergonomic nature of the method, and can see how this probably applies to big cubes as well, but only the 3x3 stage after reduction.I really like the big cubes so is there a method that's better for big cubes?
Roux having low algorithms isn't necessarily a good thing for speed. Nothing is executed faster than a well-practiced algorithm, so the fact that Roux has less algorithms means less automated parts and more thinking during your solves. Eventually, the steps get easier and more automatic, but early on, the freedom will slow you down a lot.
Try Petrus.
It has 50 less algs than CFOP, 20 less algs than Roux, same amount as ZZ, it requires less rotations than CFOP (if you do it right), it has a lower half-turn metric movecount than Roux/ZZ/CFOP, it offers the MOST freedom out of all the methods, it makes more efficient use of inspection time than CFOP/Roux/ZZ, it maximizes the time-impact of apparent "lucky scrambles", it's easier to explain Petrus' blockbuilding approach to non-cubers than CFOP/Roux/ZZ, and it's more fun (which is all that really matters).
Edit:
With regards to BLD solving, Petrus will get you accustomed to the color scheme of the cube MORE than any other method, which will drastically help speed up your memorization phase during BLD solves (when you are looking for which pieces belong in which locations).
With regards to Big Cubes, Petrus will expose you to the effects of good/bad edges MORE than any other method, which will allow you to pair up edge pieces while orienting them for a quicker F2L phase (assuming Yau method is pursued).
how can there only be 20 algs in petrus. I thought it was two look oll and pll, around 30 algs.
I'm counting LSE algs too bro. Get dunked.
If you count those, you might as well count petrus EO too.
I mean the 4 algs that are used for the permutation of the M slice during L6E.
Roux still has 18 algs more than Petrus. My original number (20) was obviously an approximation.
Don't pull a symmetry/inverse/intuitive argument, because if you do, >13 PLLs and >2 OLLs get deducted from the Petrus alg-count, leaving it with < 13.
You realize that the last layer of the Petrus method is not always OLL+PLL...right? Petrus last layer could be completed in 493 algs, or it could be completed in 2. Roux CMLL could also be done with only 2 algs (Sune+Niklas). I don't think algorithm count should matter much anyway, unless the number is drastic (Like ZBLL for example). Beginners can complete Roux with 2 algorithms, but ideally they would go on to learn CMLL at some point. So I think a beginner can ease themselves into either Petrus OR Roux without being overwhelmed with algorithms. IMO, you (OP with the question) should try both; see which one fits you best.
Oh and about LSE "algorithms," ideally the step is intuitive, meaning you can see how U2 M2 U2 moves pieces as it does. Eventually it's just engrained as an "algorithm," but (according to Kyle Allaire, Petrus user) Petrus' step 4 similarly becomes algorithmic after using intuition to figure it out for yourself. Insertions just become natural like LSE does. fedora
. pizza fedora !@#$%^&*I guess for alg number, it's a little shaky with how many substeps or multiple algs you want to learn. Either way, roux only has one step where "long" or "unintuitive" algs are used.
~random stuff~
fedora
True bro, but I was addressing one of the constraints that the OP had in mind (low alg-count for standard use).
I personally use COLL/EPLL for Petrus, and my global average is sub-14.
I just don't appreciate it when people compare the viabilities of ZZ and Roux (simply because CFOP is too mainstream for them), and they completely omit an alternate feasible method from their comparison.