ok, a slice move officialy counts as 2 moves.
Ooh and please don't say fridrich has 119 algorithms. It has 57+21 = 78...
F2L are NOT algs.. (like I said in another topic)
ok, a slice move officialy counts as 2 moves.
Ooh and please don't say fridrich has 119 algorithms. It has 57+21 = 78...
F2L are NOT algs.. (like I said in another topic)
Well that is something that everyone differs on. You could also argue that PLL and OLL are not algs because after a while they are natural. If you take the time to understand them like F2L, you could argue they are not algs because they make sense-but, then again, all algs make sense. So you could say all algs are intuitive since they can be understood like F2L algs. So in my opinion, an alg is an alg if it requires more than one simple move. You don't necessarily remember PLL algs, after a while they are "remembered" as a movement.Originally posted by Erik@Apr 18 2007, 09:53 AM
ok, a slice move officialy counts as 2 moves.
Ooh and please don't say fridrich has 119 algorithms. It has 57+21 = 78...
F2L are NOT algs.. (like I said in another topic)
And 78 algs are still more algs than needed for corners-first. So wouldn't that be pretty efficient for a system that only needs 58 moves?
Heise is pretty much alg-less and uses -way- fewer moves. Petrus uses 2 "algs" (R U R' and R U' R) for edge-fixing, then whatever LL you choose, and is also fewer moves. Roux is even lighter on algs and, from what I understand, somewher between Heise and Petrus in move count.
The strength of the Fridrich method is in its algs, that you only have to look at the cube 7 times and the rest can be turning at max speed (ignoring slowing for look-ahead). Methods that are more intuitive, it seems to me, must make up for more time thinking with a lower move count.
Yes, that is what I believe too. I was wondering how such a method could be fast if the bulk of it was intuitive. But maybe it is fast because the parts that don't really require an algorithm(though they do give the algorithms for it) are pretty much easy to understand. If you can't figure out some of those parts by yourself then either you are a beginner or you just aren't using your head. So maybe that's why it seems- to me at least- that the bulk of it is intuitive, though it is just common sense to do the moves.
What is the fastest times with Ortega, Waterman, etc.?
wow, just talking for me but I can't see the logic in most PLL algo's. A corner 3 cykle is understandable (and only because I had to figure out the logic for the megaminx (tx stefan for that)), but things like an R would be highly un-understandable..
Also OLL's almost all OLL's are not understandable in my opinion. You know exactly whats happening and why it is happening?
Also maybe the terms: natural and inuitive/understandable are 2 whole different things.
Just my opinion...
Oh and to be on topic too, Waterman is a very good method. I've hear that some people averaged 15 sec with it?
No arguement there, that it is hard to understand PLL algs, but try to do what you do with F2L algs. Look at where each piece is going. Do the alg a few times looking at different pieces. I remember watching a show where they showed how the H perm worked and that it wasn't just magic, but it made sense. This is just a difference in point-of-view, I am not right- this is just my opinion that all algs can seem like magic. Before I didn't understand how a middle layer edge placement alg worked, now I do, but I still need to remember the moves. Soit is not intuitive, but I understand how it works.
What about Ortega is it fast too? Who is ast with these methods?
Dan Gosbee has a 12.17s UWR using " Using my yet published method (if you want to compare its sort of like Mark Waterman's method)"Originally posted by dChan@Apr 18 2007, 06:34 PM
What is the fastest times with Ortega, Waterman, etc.?
http://www.speedcubing.com/records/recs_cube_333.html
how about the R?Originally posted by dChan@Apr 18 2007, 09:08 PM
No arguement there, that it is hard to understand PLL algs, but try to do what you do with F2L algs. Look at where each piece is going. Do the alg a few times looking at different pieces. I remember watching a show where they showed how the H perm worked and that it wasn't just magic, but it made sense. This is just a difference in point-of-view, I am not right- this is just my opinion that all algs can seem like magic. Before I didn't understand how a middle layer edge placement alg worked, now I do, but I still need to remember the moves. Soit is not intuitive, but I understand how it works.
What about Ortega is it fast too? Who is ast with these methods?
lol. sorry I don't kniow the names of any of the algs excep[t for the basic ones so could you show me what it is? Is it the one that looks like a T except UF is unsolved and UR is solved?
it's one of the PLL's but the thing is that personaly I find a bit hard to believe you 'understand' the algorithm, which I think is more than only knowing where the pieces go to..
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks