What method would be best for me?

[Sion]

Hey everyone . I am a new cuber, and I need some help.

My average time is below two minutes, and my fastest recorded time was about 72 seconds with the beginners method, which is nowhere near an average speedcuber. I use the beginner method as of now, but I will post details of my favorite parts of solving the cube which would help give an idea of what speedcubing method would be best for me.

My favorite part of solving the cube is solving the middle layer in f2l for the beginners method. It seems to have a certain glide to me which I seem to have a liking to. I can do it under three seconds.

As helpful as they are, I dislike m slices. I do enjoy E slices however.

I seem to like algorithms that you just repeat to get a certain result to move on.

For L and R slices, I prefer using a twisting motion with my fingers to execute those rotations.

Any ideas? Your input would be most appreciated. I do need some input from the more advanced crowd.

 

[shadowslice e]

I would try out at least ZZ, CFOP, Roux and Petrus for at least a little bit as it can really help to be somewhat method neutral until you decide to properly specialise at ~40 seconds. I say this because I often hear people saying how they wished they had specialised in another method.

The more you practise, the more your fingertricks will improve; all roux solvers would have had trouble with M slices at some point but now it may be their strength (just ask guoux)

 

[Sajwo]

CFOP

 

[adimare]

CFOP. I you don't like M slices you won't like Roux. If ZZ is in your future it probably makes more sense to start with CFOP and move on to ZZ than to start with ZZ directly (I'd like to be proved wrong on this statement, but starting out with ZZ seems a bit weird to me).

 

[sqAree]

I agree, everything in your description sounds like cfop, except for the E slices though.

 

[shadowslice e]

CFOP. I you don't like M slices you won't like Roux. If ZZ is in your future it probably makes more sense to start with CFOP and move on to ZZ than to start with ZZ directly (I'd like to be proved wrong on this statement, but starting out with ZZ seems a bit weird to me).

I agree, everything in your description sounds like cfop, except for the E slices though.

Yeah I guess I agree but really it's too soon to decide definitively at 60+ isn't it? At least, I didn't decided until about 30 (I CFOPed Rouxed and ZZed somewhat until then- I couldn't do petrus cause I was not very good with EO recog midsolve)

 

[Sion]

Okay. I was considering doing the CFOP method for a while (until i saw 47 algorithms pop up onto my screen for every individual situation. LOL)

Is there any particular variant of CFOP that fits would suit me more?

Yeah I guess I agree but really it's too soon to decide definitively at 60+ isn't it? At least, I didn't decided until about 30 (I CFOPed Rouxed and ZZed somewhat until then- I couldn't do petrus cause I was not very good with EO recog midsolve)

I seemed to sink into the beginners method, and I do my best to move my hands in a rapid way (which they do to a degree). what slows me down is my constant stops to look and the guess and check methods I developed for OLL

 

[sqAree]

Yeah I guess I agree but really it's too soon to decide definitively at 60+ isn't it? At least, I didn't decided until about 30 (I CFOPed Rouxed and ZZed somewhat until then- I couldn't do petrus cause I was not very good with EO recog midsolve)

Sure, one can try out things. But it's different for everyone. I only did cfop and I never regretted. I'm also convinced I wouldn't like the other methods as much.

Okay. I was considering doing the CFOP method for a while (until i saw 47 algorithms pop up onto my screen for every individual situation. LOL)

Is there any particular variant of CFOP that fits would suit me more?

When you start learning cfop you don't need a lot of algs. A minimal variant would be 9 algs for OLL and (idk what but <6 algs for PLL?), both 2-look. I guess the remaining algs come naturally after a few months. In total there are 78 algs for cfop.
I don't know how is the alg count for zz.

 

[adimare]

I don't know how is the alg count for zz.

If you do OLL + PLL you need 28 algs for 2-look LL. 7 OLLs + 21 PLLs.

 

[Calamity Strike]

Okay. I was considering doing the CFOP method for a while (until i saw 47 algorithms pop up onto my screen for every individual situation. LOL)

Is there any particular variant of CFOP that fits would suit me more?

Are you saying you don't want to learn a ton of algs? If so, then you don't have to, lol. Just do F2L intuitively, and learn 2 look OLL and PLL. Thats about 13 LL algs, and a few F2L algs (I recommend looking at some of the harder situations to see how they are done). There are quite a few LL varients, but they all require even more algs, you can get down to sub-30 with the stuff i suggested, then start learning full PLL and OLL.

 

[Sion]

Are you saying you don't want to learn a ton of algs? If so, then you don't have to, lol. Just do F2L intuitively, and learn 2 look OLL and PLL. Thats about 13 LL algs, and a few F2L algs (I recommend looking at some of the harder situations to see how they are done). There are quite a few LL varients, but they all require even more algs, you can get down to sub-30 with the stuff i suggested, then start learning full PLL and OLL.

I seemed to sink into the beginners method, and I do my best to move my hands in a rapid way (which they do to a degree). what slows me down is my constant stops to look and the guess and check methods I developed for OLL

Well... It isn't the whole solve. The only part I stumble on is the first layer, which I learned instinctively without any algorithms at all. That is what takes me most of the time, as it is all observational (about 20 seconds)

 

[Calamity Strike]

Well... It isn't the whole solve. The only part I stumble on is the first layer, which I learned instinctively without any algorithms at all. That is what takes me most of the time, as it is all observational (about 20 seconds)

Same here, I struggle a lot with F2L lookahead. Do you solve one layer, then the edges, or do you solve it in pairs?

 

[Sion]

I solve it layer by layer (AKA beginners method)

Is there any perms with R and U only that I can learn?

 

[Sajwo]

At the beginning no one wants to learn lot of algs. But it will pass It's not that much.

 

[Sion]

Okay. I have this idea for a new system, and I'm really not sure if it will work.

I make a 2x2x3 block on my cube, and I use a ru perm to finish it. Does that seem possible in any way?

 

[sqAree]

Or you could just use petrus.

 

[Calamity Strike]

Okay. I have this idea for a new system, and I'm really not sure if it will work.

I make a 2x2x3 block on my cube, and I use a ru perm to finish it. Does that seem possible in any way?

an Ru-perm? Or just an R-perm? Either way, it will only affect the top layer, so I'm not sure how you did it. Have you done this multiple times or just once?

 

[Sion]

Nevermind everyone. I just got a little skepticl. Right now, I am looking into CFOP and Pterus. If you have any suggestions, please put them; I would greatly appreciate it!

 

[shadowslice e]

Okay. I have this idea for a new system, and I'm really not sure if it will work.

I make a 2x2x3 block on my cube, and I use a ru perm to finish it. Does that seem possible in any way?

That's the Briggs method. You have to orient edges and solve corner permutation before you can do <R,U> F2L+LL and it's fairly complex so a pure beginner would likely be completely lost for the first step.

Or perhaps what you're describing could be more similar to NCPB2.0 but that's not exactly simple either.

 

[Sajwo]

Nevermind everyone. I just got a little skepticl. Right now, I am looking into CFOP and Pterus. If you have any suggestions, please put them; I would greatly appreciate it!

The petrus part was just a meme. Don't take it seriously