Beginner's Guide to Choosing a Speedsolving Method

[TDM]

oh ok! I didnt click on "Resources"

but are these methods fast and easy to learn?? are they confusing?? I'm new

also what are the competition videos of The Petrus Method and The Roux Method?? Can you give me a link??

Thanks! -Lyn

Roux is fast, Petrus is not. Roux is easy to learn if you use DeeDubb's tutorial (which is aimed at complete beginners), but Petrus has no tutorial for beginners as far as I know.

I don't know of anyone fast who uses Petrus in competition (Erik Johnson used to but has since switched to CFOP), but if you want to see a fast Roux solver, then Alex Lau is the second fastest cuber in the world. His channel is here, and you can find videos of him solving here and here.

 

[cashis]

https://m.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLajHGvYF36nSsL1r_DqrpDY07TnJwqEpn

 

[Isaac Lai]

hi I am currently around 2 minutes with the layer-by-layer method, and I don't like algorithms and I want to solve as much of the cube as simply/intuitively as possible! i see that The Petrus Method and The Roux Method use algorithms less.

do you know of any good video tutorials for these? and maybe some just solving videos?? are these fast methods?? are they hard to understand?

-Lyn

You shouldn't say that you "don't like learning algs". When you first start, of course learning algs is a chore. But as you learn more algs, it gets easier. However, the advantage that using algs has over intuitive steps is that algs can be mindlessly executed without thinking.

That being said Roux is an interesting method that is very possible to get fast with. If you do switch to Roux though, try and "start anew". However, since you haven't been using CFOP for too long this willnot be that big of a problem.

 

[Lyn Simm]

You shouldn't say that you "don't like learning algs". When you first start, of course learning algs is a chore. But as you learn more algs, it gets easier. However, the advantage that using algs has over intuitive steps is that algs can be mindlessly executed without thinking.

That being said Roux is an interesting method that is very possible to get fast with. If you do switch to Roux though, try and "start anew". However, since you haven't been using CFOP for too long this willnot be that big of a problem.

Hi I did not say "I don't like learning algs". I said "I don't like algs". the difference is: I want to understand exactly what I'm doing with every move! it's more fun that way!! Does that make sense??

anyway thanks everyone for the advice!! I found some other videos about The Petrus Method on YouTube!!

-Lyn

 

[dboeren]

I'm restarting after being out of cubing for several years, and DeeDub's tutorials look really interesting as an alternative to the normal beginner's method, although I want to know that well too so I can teach others either method.

 

[OLLiver]

Hey fellow cubers.
I come to you now in my hour of confusion seeking advice
So the big question is what method I should focus my next half-decade or so learning. I apologise in advance for the post length.
ROUX vs ZBLL.

So I avg 13 second on boring old CFOP without full OLL. I started on ZBLL a while ago and I know the full T set. But I got a bit fed up of CFOP so I have been doing roux for a week and I avg around 25 seconds now. I like roux a lot but I also like ZBLL.
I want to do the next big thing in cubing. ZBLL and roux are both relatively uncharted territory. I am very good at M moves but I am also fast at learning Algorithms.
So skill-wise both could be a good pursuit. I need some help here people so what do you think I should focus on?

 

[Berd]

Hey fellow cubers.
I come to you now in my hour of confusion seeking advice
So the big question is what method I should focus my next half-decade or so learning. I apologise in advance for the post length.
ROUX vs ZBLL.

So I avg 13 second on boring old CFOP without full OLL. I started on ZBLL a while ago and I know the full T set. But I got a bit fed up of CFOP so I have been doing roux for a week and I avg around 25 seconds now. I like roux a lot but I also like ZBLL.
I want to do the next big thing in cubing. ZBLL and roux are both relatively uncharted territory. I am very good at M moves but I am also fast at learning Algorithms.
So skill-wise both could be a good pursuit. I need some help here people so what do you think I should focus on?

Have you tried zz/zb? That could work I guess. Why not create a method!?

 

[CoolTapes]

Hello.

I would consider myself still pretty much a beginner speedcuber who's open to the idea of learning a different method (barely sub-1:00 on 3x3 with CFOP and not particularly attached to it). After reading the guide and skimming through the rest of this thread, there's one thing which was only briefly touched on, which is the 3x3 stage on bigger cubes.

From what I gather, Roux is out of the question because of all the M moves, and most people use CFOP. But what would be the pros and cons of CFOP vs. ZZ or Petrus for this purpose? Or does it really matter?

Is "effectiveness for 3x3 stage on big cubes" a crucial factor to consider for someone who would like to become a decent all-around speedcuber, or is it not that big of a deal?

 

[TDM]

Hello.

I would consider myself still pretty much a beginner speedcuber who's open to the idea of learning a different method (barely sub-1:00 on 3x3 with CFOP and not particularly attached to it). After reading the guide and skimming through the rest of this thread, there's one thing which was only briefly touched on, which is the 3x3 stage on bigger cubes.

From what I gather, Roux is out of the question because of all the M moves, and most people use CFOP. But what would be the pros and cons of CFOP vs. ZZ or Petrus for this purpose? Or does it really matter?

Is "effectiveness for 3x3 stage on big cubes" a crucial factor to consider for someone who would like to become a decent all-around speedcuber, or is it not that big of a deal?

Roux is actually still good on 4x4. It's 5x5+ where it's not a good method to use.


CFOP is a very good method for bigcubes. It doesn't rely on inspection very much and there are several methods which have the cross solved before you reach the 3x3 stage, which can help save time.

ZZ is okay, but not great. It relies a bit more on inspection, but for a good ZZ user this shouldn't be too much of an issue. If you can see OLL parity in inspection you can probably do a faster OLL parity alg than most other people, since you don't need to preserve permutation before solving anything. Being able to do COLL every time is another benefit; EPLLs make PLL parity easier to see, and are easier to do on bigcubes because they're <R, U>. However... some people find the <L, U, R> F2L harder to do quickly on bigcubes, and this can cause lockups.

Petrus isn't as good a method for 3x3 anyway, and it's not too good on bigcubes either, unless you're using a method where an XX-cross (maybe without the last edge) is solved by the 3x3 stage, like OBLBL or Yau5/Hoya5. This is because it relies on inspection; you need to be colour neutral to be able to use Petrus' blockbuilding efficiency as much as possible. Being CN is a bit impractical for the 3x3 stage of reduction since you don't have time to check all the blocks. However, after the blocks are built it's good, since you can orient edges easily and again could possibly use an easier OLL parity alg. The LL is nice, same as ZZ, because you can either do COLL or OCLL.



But really, the 3x3 stage isn't a big part of the solve at all, especially on bigger bigcubes. The reduction part is far more important. 3x3 is only really important in 4x4.

 

[shadowslice e]

Hello.

I would consider myself still pretty much a beginner speedcuber who's open to the idea of learning a different method (barely sub-1:00 on 3x3 with CFOP and not particularly attached to it). After reading the guide and skimming through the rest of this thread, there's one thing which was only briefly touched on, which is the 3x3 stage on bigger cubes.

From what I gather, Roux is out of the question because of all the M moves, and most people use CFOP. But what would be the pros and cons of CFOP vs. ZZ or Petrus for this purpose? Or does it really matter?

Is "effectiveness for 3x3 stage on big cubes" a crucial factor to consider for someone who would like to become a decent all-around speedcuber, or is it not that big of a deal?

I wouldn't say that roux is completely out of the question... With enough practise the m slices aren't too bad especially on the smaller big cubes. And besides, a lot of the solve is actually not m moves (only LSE really)

 

[supercavitation]

Hey fellow cubers.
I come to you now in my hour of confusion seeking advice
So the big question is what method I should focus my next half-decade or so learning. I apologise in advance for the post length.
ROUX vs ZBLL.

So I avg 13 second on boring old CFOP without full OLL. I started on ZBLL a while ago and I know the full T set. But I got a bit fed up of CFOP so I have been doing roux for a week and I avg around 25 seconds now. I like roux a lot but I also like ZBLL.
I want to do the next big thing in cubing. ZBLL and roux are both relatively uncharted territory. I am very good at M moves but I am also fast at learning Algorithms.
So skill-wise both could be a good pursuit. I need some help here people so what do you think I should focus on?

There's no real reason you have to stick to one. I'm aware that this is not the best of all systems, but many people do Roux for 2H and ZZ for OH. If you want to keep learning ZBLL, you could do that for OH, and stick with Roux for 2H.

 

[PenguinsDontFly]

I wouldn't say that roux is completely out of the question... With enough practise the m slices aren't too bad especially on the smaller big cubes. And besides, a lot of the solve is actually not m moves (only LSE really)

it gets pretty hard on 5x5+ from what I've heard. but yes, on 4x4 it is still good. my 3x3 stage is about 11 seconds (not including first block or parity of course) which isnt that bad.

 

[dboeren]

I just bought my first 4x4 cube at the Atlanta competition yesterday, it's a stickerless Aosu.

I just started learning to solve it this morning and I use Roux. Even though I'm still a beginner overall, I had no trouble at all doing m slices with it so I'd say it's not an issue.

The only thing I *might* count as any sort of issue for Roux is that if you have a parity error the L6E can be harder to recognize. That is, you will have spotted a little earlier in the solve when you were fixing your top/bottom that "something ain't right". So you keep going, and then when you're at the absolute last step you may have some trouble seeing how to do the final four edges. You'll have advanced notice though, and it's quite possible that this is just due to me encountering this for the first time and I'll quickly adapt to it.

Short version: Roux doesn't seem to be a problem for 4x4. I can see 5x5 or higher being a problem due to the m slices though, your finger just won't be able to span across 3 cubes. Two cubes however, seems pretty easy.

 

[TDM]

The only thing I *might* count as any sort of issue for Roux is that if you have a parity error the L6E can be harder to recognize. That is, you will have spotted a little earlier in the solve when you were fixing your top/bottom that "something ain't right". So you keep going, and then when you're at the absolute last step you may have some trouble seeing how to do the final four edges. You'll have advanced notice though, and it's quite possible that this is just due to me encountering this for the first time and I'll quickly adapt to it.

I recognise orientation parity before CMLL. You can usually look ahead during SB to see whether BD will be oriented or not, and even if you can't look ahead then you can still just look at the D layer. By doing this I get to use my normal parity alg instead of a pure one. I do PLL parity last, as that's fairly easy to see when you get to the last step.

 

[CoolTapes]

Roux is actually still good on 4x4. It's 5x5+ where it's not a good method to use...

Lots of info

...But really, the 3x3 stage isn't a big part of the solve at all, especially on bigger bigcubes. The reduction part is far more important. 3x3 is only really important in 4x4.

Thanks, this is all the information I was looking for, and then some.

I wouldn't say that roux is completely out of the question... With enough practise the m slices aren't too bad especially on the smaller big cubes.

it gets pretty hard on 5x5+ from what I've heard. but yes, on 4x4 it is still good.

Short version: Roux doesn't seem to be a problem for 4x4. I can see 5x5 or higher being a problem due to the m slices though, your finger just won't be able to span across 3 cubes.

That's true, I do know how to solve 4x4 and 5x5 using fairly basic reduction, and I noticed that h-perms and stuff were doable on my 4x4 but not on the 5x5. Although, that may have been because my 5x5 is so old and bad and unsuitable for speedsolving (early 2000s Rubik's brand lol, will be getting a proper 5x5 soon before I even bother trying to go fast). But in any case, there's got to be a limit somewhere, and I figured I would probably want to stick to one 3x3 method for all big cubes, rather than use one for 4x4 and another for 5x5+, or something like that.

 

[xchippy]

Roux is actually still good on 4x4.

CFOP is clearly better on 4x4 because Yau sets up the cross though.

 

[TDM]

CFOP is clearly better on 4x4 because Yau sets up the cross though.

... what, and Yau is the only 4x4 method? Meyer exists too.

 

[NeilH]

CFOP is clearly better on 4x4 because Yau sets up the cross though.

bro meyer sets up the first block

 

[PenguinsDontFly]

bro meyer sets up the first block

first block is better than cross. 1 move headstart into 4x4 stage. and also, IMO, meyer can be just as fast as yau. i average 48 and i barely practise.

 

[TDM]

first block is better than cross.

I don't agree with this though - FB is hard to do quickly in Meyer when compared to the cross. It could be a bit easier if you were x-neutral but I still think the cross is faster in Yau.