Why do you use the method you use?

[Waynilein]

Most cubers use reduction because they were told to do so and never seriously tried anything else.

Doesn't the same reasoning apply to just about any mainstream method, anywhere (i.e. Fridrich)?



And to stay on topic somewhat, I use ZZ because I like its fingertrick-friendliness and intuitive solving. For some reason I disliked Fridrich from the day I first started cubing, and I used Petrus until I discovered ZZ.

 

[TMOY]

Yes it applies too. And it doesn't necessarily mean that the mainstream method is the best, it only means that people act like sheep.

 

[AvGalen]

Can you name 1 top 10 4x4x4 cuber that doesn't use reduction? Somehow "fastest in the world" and you or me don't seem to have much in common

That doesn't prove anything.

I agree, but it is a good indication

Most cubers use reduction because they were told to do so and never seriously tried anything else.

I agree, but to me that means they just didn't experiment much (missed out on the fun) and directly learned the fastest method

And that includes the fastest ones.

I strongly disagree. All the fastest ones I know (and that basically just leaves some of the Asians) have experimented with several other methods and have decided that those just aren't as fast.

Please explain which method you think is faster, why it is faster and why others don't use it.

 

[TMOY]

By "seriously trying" some method, I mean not just experimenting, but using it for a while as their main speed method, and that includes competitions. I haven't seen that many people try anything else than reduction in the competitions I have attended so far...
And besides, I've experimented a few solves with reduction too, and I definitely don't like it and go faster with my cage.

 

[AvGalen]

By "seriously trying" some method, I mean not just experimenting, but using it for a while as their main speed method, and that includes competitions. I haven't seen that many people try anything else than reduction in the competitions I have attended so far...
And besides, I've experimented a few solves with reduction too, and I definitely don't like it and go faster with my cage.

So first you say others should "seriously try", but you think "your cage" is faster because you have "experimented a few solves with reduction too"?

Let me change the question. Has anyone ever gotten a sub 50 solve while not using reduction?

 

[cmhardw]

3x3x3 speed: Fridrich. I don't really know why I chose this over Petrus, which were the only two methods that I knew about (not that there weren't many other methods like corners first around) when I first started. I guess I liked the fact that it was so systematized into algs and tables. I later regretted this a bit and started messing around with the 2x2x2 start then finish with F2L/OLL/PLL (which we called "Petrich" at the time). Then I decided to just use Fridrich with Extended Cross when it was easy.

BLD: BH method all the way! I use it for everything 2x2-7x7BLD - to me it's the method that makes the most sense. Commutators are an intuitive, powerful way to solve the cube. Also, Stefan has proven that if you make your method "brain-dead" where you don't have to think but simply apply what you know then you can get very fast times. What better method than to combine the power of commutators with brain-deadedness by simply memorizing which commutator you would use in every single case cycling from a buffer?

big cubes: reduction. I actually came up with the idea on my own (of course the reduction method was already invented before I ever started trying to solve big cubes) but I'm happy that I figured it out on my own. The only thing I never figured out on my own was OLL parity, but I did discover a PLL parity alg on my own.

Chris

 

[TMOY]

I never said I have seriously tried reduction. Actually I have not. But I know I will never go faster with it than with my cage, simply because I have no motivation to work on a method I find boring.
And considering that I already got sub-1:30 singles and superfast cubers are about twice as fast as I am, yes, sub-50 solves without reduction are definitely possible. I don't know if it has already happened, though.

 

[AvGalen]

I never said I have seriously tried reduction. Actually I have not. But I know I will never go faster with it than with my cage, simply because I have no motivation to work on a method I find boring.
And considering that I already got sub-1:30 singles and superfast cubers are about twice as fast as I am, yes, sub-50 solves without reduction are definitely possible. I don't know if it has already happened, though.

I don't understand why you think that superfast cubers are about twice as fast as you are. On 3x3x3 superfast cubers are 3 times as fast as you are.
But I don't see the relevance compared to 4x4x4 solves. If you really think "your cage" is the fastest method a sub 49 average and a sub 40 single should be possible with it and I really don't see that happening. So please motivate why you think reduction is not the fastest method.

(also, I wouldn't say people act like sheep. I don't use reduction because other people do and neither do most people. We use reduction because we think it is quite easy to learn and know it is really fast)

And Chris, I also figured out reduction by myself, except for the OLL-parity. But your tutorial helped a lot in understanding how to do it well and how to look ahead.

 

[ooveehoo]

I use fridrich, because I got the idea that it was the best. I was first trying to learn Roux, but as my french was pretty elementary, I gave that up (I didn't find out until later that it was also in english). I also looked at petrus and heise, but decided to go with fridrich, even though I was a bit scared of the huge number of algs. It was also in principal much like my own method (which was a stupid LBL-kind of thing. I used I think 5 algs for it. It sucked more than that "official" Rubik's solution, and reqired around 200 moves. But I don't think that's too bad for a method invented by a guy like me), so it was a pretty logical choise, even though I've regretted it a bit, as it's begginnig to get boring, but as I average a bit over 20 seconds with it, I don't see the point in swithcing.

 

[rachmaninovian]

I never said I have seriously tried reduction. Actually I have not. But I know I will never go faster with it than with my cage, simply because I have no motivation to work on a method I find boring.
And considering that I already got sub-1:30 singles and superfast cubers are about twice as fast as I am, yes, sub-50 solves without reduction are definitely possible. I don't know if it has already happened, though.

heh, we use a similar method for 4x4 (hehe, centers last), but...my middle edges are more algorithm heavy..and i think faster perhaps? I was sub 1:20 most of the time before my 4x4 died....and 1:14 single. I believe that it's possible for me to get a sub 1 single IF my stupid 4x4 didn't die.

and yes, sub 50s solves without reduction is possible...per, where are you? He got a 47.xx single I think. check the UWR..haha

I have gotten sub 2 solves for 5x5 using something similar to my 4x4 method. (the only difference is that it is not corners first) and I believe that I can get much faster if my tps is higher and i have less lag. considering my 3x3...my average is barely sub 25...only with practice can i go down to 22-23s average.

yes, direct solving can be fast, only if more people explore it.

 

[anders]

For sentimental reasons, I use the corner's first-method that I and my brother developed in the 1980ies. I use it for all cubes (2x2x2 - 7x7x7).

/Anders

 

[Neroflux]

erm i use fridrich cos it was the easiest method to find on the internet. i did have interest in petrus but info was harder to find.

 

[TMOY]

I don't understand why you think that superfast cubers are about twice as fast as you are. On 3x3x3 superfast cubers are 3 times as fast as you are.
But I don't see the relevance compared to 4x4x4 solves. If you really think "your cage" is the fastest method a sub 49 average and a sub 40 single should be possible with it and I really don't see that happening. So please motivate why you think reduction is not the fastest method.

Why shouldn't it happen ? Centers are slower, but the last 4 can be done in only two steps, you don't lose that much time. Edges cannot be done in a random order and you have to put them in place, but since you don't care about the centers I would say it's roughly equivalent to reduction. And the 3^3 step is replaced by a 2^3 at the beginning, which can be done in 0s96

 

[MistArts]

2x2x2: Ortega /OFOTA (I only know like 25 cases of OFOTA)
3x3x3: Intuitive Fridrich F2L/Intuitive VHF2L + 2L-OLL (35?/57) + Full PLL
4x4x4: My style of centers (one set, opposite set, z or z' rotation, three corresponding 1x2 columns on the left inner-slice with the unsolved one on U slice, rU 2-gen to solve the rest) + Nakajima's method of pairing + The 3x3 method I use
5x5x5: (1x2, 2x2, 2x3, 3x3) block-building centers (one, opposite, z or z', another, adjacent, last two) + Freestyle pairing + The 3x3 method I use
Bigger cubes: Columns (bars) for centers (same order as 5x5) + Freestyle pairing + The 3x3 method I use
3OH: The 3x3 method I use
3FMC: Freestyle triple-X cross + Leave three corners + insertion
Pyraminx: Tips + Solve two adjacent edges + Solve the rest with two commutators
Clock: Match edges in this order: U, R, D or L, the last one + Flip clock and match in this order: U, R, UR, D or L, the other edge, DL, UL and DR
3BLD: M2 + Commutators for corners (visual memo)

 

[Rawn]

2x2 - Ortega, easy to understand and can give decent times.
3x3 - Roux, Wanted to be a bit different from everyone else. I enjoy using lots of M slice moves

 

[rachmaninovian]

I don't understand why you think that superfast cubers are about twice as fast as you are. On 3x3x3 superfast cubers are 3 times as fast as you are.
But I don't see the relevance compared to 4x4x4 solves. If you really think "your cage" is the fastest method a sub 49 average and a sub 40 single should be possible with it and I really don't see that happening. So please motivate why you think reduction is not the fastest method.

Why shouldn't it happen ? Centers are slower, but the last 4 can be done in only two steps, you don't lose that much time. Edges cannot be done in a random order and you have to put them in place, but since you don't care about the centers I would say it's roughly equivalent to reduction. And the 3^3 step is replaced by a 2^3 at the beginning, which can be done in 0s96

i actually do centers randomly...you can actually..modify niklas such that it cycles 3 center cubies from 3 adjacent faces like.. r U l U' r' U l' U' where small letter denotes slice moves and big letters denote face turns

 

[DavidWoner]

I believe that I can get much faster if my tps is higher and i have less lag.

the same is true for any method on any puzzle. turn faster and more frequently.

 

[fcwy1]

I use fridrich because i think that it is the fastest method for me

 

[VP7]

3x3: 1L White cross and 3 corners @ left
2L Edges white on botttom
Insert or twist last 1L corner
3L 2look OLL and PLL

4x4: Corners,edges,centers
5x5: Corners,edges,centers

 

[mrbiggs]

Fridrich--best by test.

I use 3LLL because I don't really believe in learning algorithms and I'll bother seriously trying to learn the rest of the OLLs once I get in the 15-16s average range.