Ickathu
Member
Foreword:
We know that this thread may induce the “wall of text” syndrome (try opening up all the spoilers), but we promise that you are doing yourself a favor by reading this. There is a lot of information, but it is all beneficial and there is no unnecessary information. This thread is intended for those just starting out, but it may also be useful to those looking to switch methods, or those who just want to learn about other methods.
Introduction to Thread
Abbreviations.
Please skim these abbreviations to ensure you will extract as much knowledge from this reference as possible. These abbreviations are standard in cuber communication, so a quick skim will not be in vain.
We know that this thread may induce the “wall of text” syndrome (try opening up all the spoilers), but we promise that you are doing yourself a favor by reading this. There is a lot of information, but it is all beneficial and there is no unnecessary information. This thread is intended for those just starting out, but it may also be useful to those looking to switch methods, or those who just want to learn about other methods.
Introduction to Thread
-Give each method a chance. This will not only allow you to select the solving technique that best reflects your thinking style and dexterity, but it will also give you more varied exposure to the Rubik’s Cube, allowing you to take advantage of easy cube situations that you would otherwise overlook. You’ll also see that each method is fun in its own way.
-There are advantages and disadvantages to each method. Take a look through, and identify the combination that appeals to you most.
-“Fast times” can be set with any method. Remember the very first World Record was set with a peculiar Corners First variant, and at the time it was considered unbreakable. Today the World Record is set with CFOP, and it is also seems unreachable to most. This pattern may continue. Jessica Fridrich herself thought the limit to her method was a 13 second average, so only time will tell how speedcubing will evolve. As the great Alexander Lau once said: “Methods don’t have speeds.”
-Don’t base your selection on method “popularity.” Just because everyone at your school uses the Roux method, or all your favorite YouTube cubers use the CFOP method, or your two best friends use the ZZ method, that doesn’t mean that the Petrus Method isn’t compatible with you at all. Cubing is about fun and personal fulfillment, so their decisions ought not to affect you whatsoever.
-Do external research! As much as we have tried to be clear and comprehensive in our explanations, there may be tiny details that we have overlooked. If you have any questions or confusions about the content of this post, we urge you to check the Speedsolving Wiki and search the Speedsolving Forum for more information.
-There are advantages and disadvantages to each method. Take a look through, and identify the combination that appeals to you most.
-“Fast times” can be set with any method. Remember the very first World Record was set with a peculiar Corners First variant, and at the time it was considered unbreakable. Today the World Record is set with CFOP, and it is also seems unreachable to most. This pattern may continue. Jessica Fridrich herself thought the limit to her method was a 13 second average, so only time will tell how speedcubing will evolve. As the great Alexander Lau once said: “Methods don’t have speeds.”
-Don’t base your selection on method “popularity.” Just because everyone at your school uses the Roux method, or all your favorite YouTube cubers use the CFOP method, or your two best friends use the ZZ method, that doesn’t mean that the Petrus Method isn’t compatible with you at all. Cubing is about fun and personal fulfillment, so their decisions ought not to affect you whatsoever.
-Do external research! As much as we have tried to be clear and comprehensive in our explanations, there may be tiny details that we have overlooked. If you have any questions or confusions about the content of this post, we urge you to check the Speedsolving Wiki and search the Speedsolving Forum for more information.
Please skim these abbreviations to ensure you will extract as much knowledge from this reference as possible. These abbreviations are standard in cuber communication, so a quick skim will not be in vain.
-“F2L” abbreviates “First Two Layers.” in reference to two adjacent solved layers on a cube.
-“EO” abbreviates “Edge Orientation,” in reference to the direction of a defined sticker on an edge piece.
-“CP” abbreviates “Corner Permutation,” in reference to the relative position of corner pieces.
-“LL” abbreviates “Last Layer,” in reference to the Last Layer to be solved on a cube.
-“Perm” abbreviates “Permutation Algorithm,” in reference to an algorithm used to solve the last step of the CFOP/ZZ/Petrus methods.
-“Alg” abbreviates “Algorithm,” in reference to a move sequence applied to a cube.
-“The Morse Code” is an anagram for “Here Come Dots.” Fishy, eh?
-“EO” abbreviates “Edge Orientation,” in reference to the direction of a defined sticker on an edge piece.
-“CP” abbreviates “Corner Permutation,” in reference to the relative position of corner pieces.
-“LL” abbreviates “Last Layer,” in reference to the Last Layer to be solved on a cube.
-“Perm” abbreviates “Permutation Algorithm,” in reference to an algorithm used to solve the last step of the CFOP/ZZ/Petrus methods.
-“Alg” abbreviates “Algorithm,” in reference to a move sequence applied to a cube.
-“The Morse Code” is an anagram for “Here Come Dots.” Fishy, eh?
CFOP:
You should use CFOP if:
-You are good at learning algorithms
-You are the kind of person who would rather use the most popular method
Historically, CFOP has been around the longest of any method described here (tied in age with the Petrus method). It was proposed by René Schoof, David Singmaster, Hans Dockhorn, and Anneke Treep in 1981. It was popularized on Jessica Fridrich’s website as of 1995, and it is therein that this method derives its somewhat unfitting namesake: the “Fridrich Method.” The more descriptive term, CFOP, abbreviates the stages of this solving method.
The steps to this method are Cross, F2L, Orient, and Permute:
The Cross includes placing 4 edge-pieces containing a single color onto that side of the cube, such that the stickers on both sides of the edge piece are “touching” the center piece of the same color. This cross is ultimately placed on either the bottom or left side of the cube, depending on where the solver would like to complete the next stage of the puzzle. |
|
The next stage is the F2L. The solver pairs corner and edge pieces that belong in the F2L “slots” that they created during the previous step. These pairs can be built and inserted intuitively or algorithmically. The solver usually must complete 4 F2L pairs, but by using advanced techniques, this step can be greatly shortened. |
|
The next step is to Orient all the pieces that reside on the Last Layer. There is an set of 57 OLL algorithms that provides for the completion of this step with 1 move sequence. For beginners, however, there is a 2-step approach that involves only 9 algorithms. |
|
The final step is to Permute all the pieces that reside on the Last Layer. There is a set of 21 PLL algorithms that provide for the completion of this step with 1 move sequence. For beginners, however, there is a 2 step approach that involves only 6 algorithms. |
|
Advantages:
-Algorithms can be learnt for all steps after the cross, minimizing the amount of thought required.
-F2L can be learnt intuitively or algorithmically depending on preference. In the end, you will store this information in muscle memory, so the learning method you choose is irrelevant.
-Large amount of resources (both video and text-style).
-Easy extension of the Layer-By-Layer beginner’s method.
Disadvantages:
- Lots of algorithm to learn
- Not very move efficient
- Tends to have several cube rotations (primarily y-rotations, the slowest rotation) per solve.
-Algorithms can be learnt for all steps after the cross, minimizing the amount of thought required.
-F2L can be learnt intuitively or algorithmically depending on preference. In the end, you will store this information in muscle memory, so the learning method you choose is irrelevant.
-Large amount of resources (both video and text-style).
-Easy extension of the Layer-By-Layer beginner’s method.
Disadvantages:
- Lots of algorithm to learn
- Not very move efficient
- Tends to have several cube rotations (primarily y-rotations, the slowest rotation) per solve.
Quotes From the Best:
“I use CFOP for 3x3 solving because it's the first method I learned, and I've practiced very much with it, and I think at this point there is no point in switching methods unless there is a major breakthrough ultra amazing method.” - Antoine Cantin
“For 2 Handed solving, I think that something like roux would probably be faster than CFOP since there are almost no rotations and your moves are very quickly reduced to (R, U, r, M, F) which can be very fast to execute. Also, the move count is generally lower.” - Antoine Cantin
“Don't give up understanding and optimizing your F2L (or any other part of the solve) by trying out new stuff or doing research. Find out your weaknesses and try to improve them the most. PRACTICE” - Antoine Cantin
“I use CFOP for 3x3 solving because it's the first method I learned, and I've practiced very much with it, and I think at this point there is no point in switching methods unless there is a major breakthrough ultra amazing method.” - Antoine Cantin
“For 2 Handed solving, I think that something like roux would probably be faster than CFOP since there are almost no rotations and your moves are very quickly reduced to (R, U, r, M, F) which can be very fast to execute. Also, the move count is generally lower.” - Antoine Cantin
“Don't give up understanding and optimizing your F2L (or any other part of the solve) by trying out new stuff or doing research. Find out your weaknesses and try to improve them the most. PRACTICE” - Antoine Cantin
-You are good at learning algorithms
-You are the kind of person who would rather use the most popular method
CFOP Resources:
http://badmephisto.com - Badmephisto’s websites, with links to many helpful tutorials for beginners for the intuitive parts of CFOP as well as OLL and PLL algorithms. However, some content is a bit outdated, such as the recommended cubes.
http://cubewhiz.com - A great resource that contains much helpful information including OLL and PLL algortihms and recognition.
http://cubefreak.net/speed/cfop/ - An overview of CFOP that contains printable OLL and PLL algorithm sheets.
OLL
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DTYvklyOpVM - A guide to 2-look OLL, which you should learn before then going on to learn full OLL
http://www.speedsolving.com/wiki/index.php/OLL
PLL
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S61q3FYVFis - A guide to 2-look PLL, which you should learn before then going on to learn full PLL
http://www.speedsolving.com/wiki/index.php/PLL - These two links contain multiple algorithms for every OLL and PLL case, so that you can choose which one you like the best for each case.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qBYycb7hR4Y - How to recognize the PLLs.
F2L
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k-xbcAMfWwM - Part 1 of a very good tutorial on intuitive F2L.
http://www.speedsolving.com/wiki/index.php/F2L - This link contains multiple algorithms for each F2L case, in case you would like to learn algorithmic F2L.
http://cubefreak.net/speed/advancedf2l/ - Great guide to advanced F2L.
http://badmephisto.com - Badmephisto’s websites, with links to many helpful tutorials for beginners for the intuitive parts of CFOP as well as OLL and PLL algorithms. However, some content is a bit outdated, such as the recommended cubes.
http://cubewhiz.com - A great resource that contains much helpful information including OLL and PLL algortihms and recognition.
http://cubefreak.net/speed/cfop/ - An overview of CFOP that contains printable OLL and PLL algorithm sheets.
OLL
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DTYvklyOpVM - A guide to 2-look OLL, which you should learn before then going on to learn full OLL
http://www.speedsolving.com/wiki/index.php/OLL
PLL
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S61q3FYVFis - A guide to 2-look PLL, which you should learn before then going on to learn full PLL
http://www.speedsolving.com/wiki/index.php/PLL - These two links contain multiple algorithms for every OLL and PLL case, so that you can choose which one you like the best for each case.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qBYycb7hR4Y - How to recognize the PLLs.
F2L
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k-xbcAMfWwM - Part 1 of a very good tutorial on intuitive F2L.
http://www.speedsolving.com/wiki/index.php/F2L - This link contains multiple algorithms for each F2L case, in case you would like to learn algorithmic F2L.
http://cubefreak.net/speed/advancedf2l/ - Great guide to advanced F2L.
Color Neutrality in CFOP:
In CFOP, color neutrality means that you can do a cross on any side. Dual-color neutrality refers to being able to solve a cross on either of two opposite sides. Fixed cross means that you can only solve the cross on one side, usually white. According to Lars Vandenbergh’s analysis of color neutrality in CFOP, here are the average optimal movecounts to solve the cross for each level of color neutrality:
Average number of moves to solve fixed cross: 5.81
Average number of moves to solve dual cross: 5.39
Average number of moves to solve neutral cross: 4.81
So, on average, being color neutral takes one move off of your cross. This may seem trivial, but according to multiple color neutral sources such as the 3x3 world record average holder, Feliks Zemdegs, it helps the whole solve flow better because you can choose the best cross, leading to a better Cross-F2L transition.
Almost everyone agrees that when you are starting out, it is best to start out color neutral because of the slight advantage it will give you in the long run. Once you get very fast with fixed cross, it is very difficult to switch to neutral cross. Dual cross is a good compromise between the two, but it is recommended that if you are reading this and are just starting out and choose CFOP, you should be color neutral.
In CFOP, color neutrality means that you can do a cross on any side. Dual-color neutrality refers to being able to solve a cross on either of two opposite sides. Fixed cross means that you can only solve the cross on one side, usually white. According to Lars Vandenbergh’s analysis of color neutrality in CFOP, here are the average optimal movecounts to solve the cross for each level of color neutrality:
Average number of moves to solve fixed cross: 5.81
Average number of moves to solve dual cross: 5.39
Average number of moves to solve neutral cross: 4.81
So, on average, being color neutral takes one move off of your cross. This may seem trivial, but according to multiple color neutral sources such as the 3x3 world record average holder, Feliks Zemdegs, it helps the whole solve flow better because you can choose the best cross, leading to a better Cross-F2L transition.
Almost everyone agrees that when you are starting out, it is best to start out color neutral because of the slight advantage it will give you in the long run. Once you get very fast with fixed cross, it is very difficult to switch to neutral cross. Dual cross is a good compromise between the two, but it is recommended that if you are reading this and are just starting out and choose CFOP, you should be color neutral.
CFOP Variants:
-Cross on Left - With this variant the user builds the cross on the left face, as opposed to the down face in standard CFOP. This allows the F2L to be solved using primarily <R, U, x> moves. Rotations on the x-axis (i.e., x-rotations) are generally faster than the y-rotations that would be used otherwise, however, when the F2L is finished, the solver must perform a z' to place the last layer on the top of the cube for OLL and PLL.
-CFCE - Instead of solving the last layer using OLL and then PLL, you solve the corners using CLL and then the edges using ELL. The reason that this isn’t used very often is because of slower recognition and algorithms that are harder to fingertrick. However, some very experienced CFOP users know ELL just in case the corners of the last layer are solved, so they can 1-look LL.
CLL algs: http://www.speedsolving.com/wiki/index.php/CLL_algorithms_(3x3x3)
ELL algs: http://www.speedsolving.com/wiki/index.php/ELL
-VHLS - Involves learning algorithms to orient edges while inserting the last F2L pair. This leaves you with a “top cross,” similar to what you get when you finish F2L with ZZ or Petrus. Involves learning 32 algorithms.
Algs: http://www.cubewhiz.com/vh.php
-ZB - Involves learning several algorithms for every last slot F2L case to force all edges to be oriented - this part totals 125 algorithms alone, not including mirrors and inverses.. Full ZB then involves learning an algorithm for every possible case on the top that could result - this is called ZBLL, and can be combined with ZZ or Petrus. ZBLL contains almost 500 cases. Very few people have ever learned ZB, and no one has successfully learned it and gotten relatively fast at it. “A fate worse than death.”
ZBLS: http://jmbaum.110mb.com/zbf2l.htm
ZBLL: http://jmbaum.110mb.com/zbll.htm
-MGLS-F : While inserting the final F2L pair, you solve the OLL, leaving you with just a PLL. The two steps are ELS and CLS. You insert the F2L edge while orienting the edges(ELS), then you insert the F2L corner while orienting the corners(CLS). This just leaves you with a PLL. This method, as far as we know, has never been put into practice. This method requires memorization of 69 algs, not including mirrors.
MGLS: http://cube.garron.us/MGLS/
-Cross on Left - With this variant the user builds the cross on the left face, as opposed to the down face in standard CFOP. This allows the F2L to be solved using primarily <R, U, x> moves. Rotations on the x-axis (i.e., x-rotations) are generally faster than the y-rotations that would be used otherwise, however, when the F2L is finished, the solver must perform a z' to place the last layer on the top of the cube for OLL and PLL.
-CFCE - Instead of solving the last layer using OLL and then PLL, you solve the corners using CLL and then the edges using ELL. The reason that this isn’t used very often is because of slower recognition and algorithms that are harder to fingertrick. However, some very experienced CFOP users know ELL just in case the corners of the last layer are solved, so they can 1-look LL.
CLL algs: http://www.speedsolving.com/wiki/index.php/CLL_algorithms_(3x3x3)
ELL algs: http://www.speedsolving.com/wiki/index.php/ELL
-VHLS - Involves learning algorithms to orient edges while inserting the last F2L pair. This leaves you with a “top cross,” similar to what you get when you finish F2L with ZZ or Petrus. Involves learning 32 algorithms.
Algs: http://www.cubewhiz.com/vh.php
-ZB - Involves learning several algorithms for every last slot F2L case to force all edges to be oriented - this part totals 125 algorithms alone, not including mirrors and inverses.. Full ZB then involves learning an algorithm for every possible case on the top that could result - this is called ZBLL, and can be combined with ZZ or Petrus. ZBLL contains almost 500 cases. Very few people have ever learned ZB, and no one has successfully learned it and gotten relatively fast at it. “A fate worse than death.”
ZBLS: http://jmbaum.110mb.com/zbf2l.htm
ZBLL: http://jmbaum.110mb.com/zbll.htm
-MGLS-F : While inserting the final F2L pair, you solve the OLL, leaving you with just a PLL. The two steps are ELS and CLS. You insert the F2L edge while orienting the edges(ELS), then you insert the F2L corner while orienting the corners(CLS). This just leaves you with a PLL. This method, as far as we know, has never been put into practice. This method requires memorization of 69 algs, not including mirrors.
MGLS: http://cube.garron.us/MGLS/
Roux:
Historically, Roux (pronounced: roo; IPA: /ru/) was originally created by Gilles Roux, who has achieved a 13.03 average of 5 in competition. After the creation of the method, Austin Moore, Thom Barlow, and Jules Manalang helped to further develop the method. Alexander Lau started using Roux in 2011 and is the fastest user with the method, with a 7.00 average of 100.
The steps to the method are First Block, Second Block, Corners, Last 6 Edges:
The First Block consists of building a 1x2x3 block all sharing a single color. The block is usually placed on the left side of the cube, though some practicioners place it on the right (usually a difference between right and left handed solvers). |
|
The next step is the Second Block, consisting of another 1x2x3 block sharing the opposite color of the first block, placed on the opposite side of the cube (usually the right). This step must be performed using only R, r, M, and U moves so as to preserve the first block. |
|
The third step is CMLL. This step solves the corners of the last layer, disregarding the M-slice and U-layer edges. Though there are 42 algorithms, because of these freedoms, the algorithms are often shorter and faster than standard COLL. For beginners, this step is often broken into two parts, orienting and permuting separately, using only 9 algorithms. |
|
The final step is to solve the Last Six Edges (LSE). This step is done in 3 substeps: 1) Orienting the edges so they can be solved using M2 and U moves or M and U2 moves; 2) solving the UL and UR edges; 3) solving the last 4 edges and centers in a single, intuitive algorithm. |