Hawaiian Kociemba 3x3x3 TUTORIAL - Method of Michael H.

[wir3sandfir3s]

Ok then, let's look at the two examples you used.


Was Roux his main? Don't you find it hard to believe that someone would drop 10 full seconds with a new method regardless of how good the method is? This claim is also ridiculous because the Petrus variant heavily relies on being decent at Roux (which he's not).


That's because of good TPS. Take a look at a reconstruction of his 16.43 second solve from that video:

Scramble: y' z U L U2 B2 D' F2 B L D' R F R2 D2 L2 B' R2 F' B2 U2 D2
z' // Inspection
R F R' U' R L' U L // 2x2x2
l R M' U R' U' R U r U' L' U r' // 2x2x3
U2 R U R' U y R U' R' // Pair
y' d R' U' R // Pair
y R U2 R' U' R U' R' U R U R' F' R U R' U' R' F R2 U' R'// CMLL
y U' M' U M // EO
y' U2 R2 U2 M2 U M2 U M' U2 M2 U2 M' R2 U2 // L5E
(72 moves)

Now, had he solved the cross piece after the 2x2x3 he would have had to execute 2 algs to finish the LL (OLL and PLL). Instead of that, he had to do CMLL, then Roux style EO, then a conjugated Z-Perm to solve the 4 unsolved edges... do you really think not having to solve one piece is worth all that?

Tangentially relevant:

It's totally possible to make an absolutely garbage method and still get sub-20 on it. This doesn't obscure the fact that this said method would be completely outclassed by any real speedsolving method, just like this method is.

I'm still amazed people are arguing over the validity and usefulness of a method that fabricated itself out of an April Fools' Day joke. The solves that inspired this whole discussion were made by undoing a solved cube.

I'm not even arguing that how this method works is good, I'm just using a popular trend...
I honestly don't see the problem of the edge getting trapped a big deal because it can be easily avoided, however.
The majority of people at least say this method is somewhat viable, all I am arguing is that it's not as terrible as you say. I am not in any way arguing that this is the ultimate method to conquer CFOP...
The method is at least decent, but heavily outclassed by other methods like ZZ or Roux. It can work better than these methods for a few people.
The one thing I honestly don't understand is the hate against this method. The vast majority of people clearly say that this method does not suck as much as you describe.
Also, I believe Shiv3r dropped 10 seconds... Not sure why don't. On the internet you have to take someone's word most of the time, and in pretty sure there is one on this forum who would lie.

 

[Shiv3r]

I'm not even arguing that how this method works is good, I'm just using a popular trend...
I honestly don't see the problem of the edge getting trapped a big deal because it can be easily avoided, however.
The majority of people at least say this method is somewhat viable, all I am arguing is that it's not as terrible as you say. I am not in any way arguing that this is the ultimate method to conquer CFOP...
The method is at least decent, but heavily outclassed by other methods like ZZ or Roux. It can work better than these methods for a few people.
The one thing I honestly don't understand is the hate against this method. The vast majority of people clearly say that this method does not suck as much as you describe.
Also, I believe Shiv3r dropped 10 seconds... Not sure why don't. On the internet you have to take someone's word most of the time, and in pretty sure there is one on this forum who would lie.

Using this method and algorithms I already knew, I can get sub-30 instead of sub-40. Yesterday I tied my PB (21 seconds)
and got a 31 sec Ao5.
this method is very viable.

but if youre looking for a method that'll conquer CFOP, look at LCMF or ECE or (ABC method). that method has been proven to be able to get sub 10, and when the creator does a 10-sec solve his TPS is that of a sub-20 CFOP solve
Im using this method instead of that one because im faster at this method, thats it.

 

[adimare]

I'm not even arguing that how this method works is good, I'm just using a popular trend...

It's not a popular trend, there's like 4 people (yourself included) that haven't been able to figure out that this method is terrible.

I honestly don't see the problem of the edge getting trapped a big deal because it can be easily avoided, however.

Do you actually use this method?
If the idea is to add a bit of freedom to the F2L by being able to ignore one cross piece, you're completely negating that by having to make sure the remaining edge is not trapped in its place.

The majority of people at least say this method is somewhat viable, all I am arguing is that it's not as terrible as you say.

No, the majority of people are ignoring this thread.

I am not in any way arguing that this is the ultimate method to conquer CFOP...
The method is at least decent, but heavily outclassed by other methods like ZZ or Roux. It can work better than these methods for a few people.

No it can't. This is why I argue against this method. If an unexperienced cuber comes and sees this thread, he might be tricked into thinking that HK is viable for speedsolving, and might end up wasting a lot of time trying to learn L5E algs that he could spend learning something actually useful.

The one thing I honestly don't understand is the hate against this method.

No hate, this is just criticism. If the method is actually good, you should be able to respond to it.

The vast majority of people clearly say that this method does not suck as much as you describe.

If I start a thread titled "Eating cat hair is freaking awesome", most people will ignore it, but a few weirdos might come in and say "ZOMG you too??? I luvz eating sum cat hair!!!". Could I then say that the vast majority of people clearly love eating cat hair? (Even by looking only at the people that have posted in this thread, you can't say the vast majority of them support this method).

Also, I believe Shiv3r dropped 10 seconds... Not sure why don't. On the internet you have to take someone's word most of the time, and in pretty sure there is one on this forum who would lie.

Some people would rather be right than stay truthful, I'm surprised he's not claiming he's getting sub-10 averages yet. An Ao12 video from him would be useful for your cause.

 

[Shiv3r]

It's not a popular trend, there's like 4 people (yourself included) that haven't been able to figure out that this method is terrible.


Do you actually use this method?
If the idea is to add a bit of freedom to the F2L by being able to ignore one cross piece, you're completely negating that by having to make sure the remaining edge is not trapped in its place.


No, the majority of people are ignoring this thread.


No it can't. This is why I argue against this method. If an unexperienced cuber comes and sees this thread, he might be tricked into thinking that HK is viable for speedsolving, and might end up wasting a lot of time trying to learn L5E algs that he could spend learning something actually useful.


No hate, this is just criticism. If the method is actually good, you should be able to respond to it.


If I start a thread titled "Eating cat hair is freaking awesome", most people will ignore it, but a few weirdos might come in and say "ZOMG you too??? I luvz eating sum cat hair!!!". Could I then say that the vast majority of people clearly love eating cat hair? (Even by looking only at the people that have posted in this thread, you can't say the vast majority of them support this method).


Some people would rather be right than stay truthful, I'm surprised he's not claiming he's getting sub-10 averages yet. An Ao12 video from him would be useful for your cause.

I am actually, truthfully getting 31 second Ao5's. My main, Roux, gets me about 39 on a good day. Im just somewhat good at blockbuilding.
And before you jump to conclusions about this method, try out the petrus variant, and after you orient edges insert the D edge and do EPLL. No new algs to learn, so its pretty decent.

 

[adimare]

I am actually, truthfully getting 31 second Ao5's. My main, Roux, gets me about 39 on a good day. Im just somewhat good at blockbuilding.

Then try ZZ or Petrus, you'll be basically skipping a full step if you stop using this method.

And before you jump to conclusions about this method, try out the petrus variant, and after you orient edges insert the D edge and do EPLL. No new algs to learn, so its pretty decent.

I have tried it, probably more so than wir3sandfir3s. After the initial 2x2x3 It's a lot faster for me to properly solve the F2L then do COLL+EPLL than to not solve the remaining cross piece and then have to do COLL+EO+Insert D edge+EPLL.

 

[wir3sandfir3s]

It's not a popular trend, there's like 4 people (yourself included) that haven't been able to figure out that this method is terrible.


Do you actually use this method?
If the idea is to add a bit of freedom to the F2L by being able to ignore one cross piece, you're completely negating that by having to make sure the remaining edge is not trapped in its place.


No, the majority of people are ignoring this thread.


No it can't. This is why I argue against this method. If an unexperienced cuber comes and sees this thread, he might be tricked into thinking that HK is viable for speedsolving, and might end up wasting a lot of time trying to learn L5E algs that he could spend learning something actually useful.


No hate, this is just criticism. If the method is actually good, you should be able to respond to it.


If I start a thread titled "Eating cat hair is freaking awesome", most people will ignore it, but a few weirdos might come in and say "ZOMG you too??? I luvz eating sum cat hair!!!". Could I then say that the vast majority of people clearly love eating cat hair? (Even by looking only at the people that have posted in this thread, you can't say the vast majority of them support this method).


Some people would rather be right than stay truthful, I'm surprised he's not claiming he's getting sub-10 averages yet. An Ao12 video from him would be useful for your cause.

Clearly we have different ways of thinking (lol).
By vast majority of people or popular trend I mean out of the people who have tried this method out...
Not popular??? In the first 1-2 days this was up, this thread has gotten more views and replies than threads that have been around for 1-2 YEARS (SSC, ECE)(not saying this method is better because it probably isn't).
I have NEVER said that this method is amazing, except for a while ago on past thread edits. It is just average.
Who ever said this method was supposed to be for beginners? It is just another one of those extra meow you can learn, like if CFOP is your main then it is still a good idea to learn ZZ, Petrus, Roux, etc..
Also, I would like to point out that your whole argument has been from YOUR perspective. Maybe 30 seconds is slow for you but fast for someone else. Maybe you like CFOP but other people hate it. Maybe you can't see why this method is decent but a bunch of other people can. It is just another one of those methods that depends on your style of solving, like Roux.
It also is most likely that on paper it doesn't seem like it would work out but it does. CP seems good on paper but the recog is terrible (on paper it seems like you would just ignore orientation and it's all good). Roux seems like it wouldn't be as good as it turned out because CMLL recog would be bad (and it kind of is) and L6E solves a lot of the cube, it would be hard to make and follow a set way of doing it. These are just examples.
I also still don't understand what you mean by the last F2L getting trapped and being problem... It is easily avoidable.

 

[Cale S]

This method isn't something you should do every solve, but if you see that you could really easily solve the last two pairs missing the edge, the L5E algs are a cool thing to know

 

[adimare]

Clearly we have different ways of thinking (lol).
By vast majority of people or popular trend I mean out of the people who have tried this method out...

It's easy to be right when you change the meaning of sentences to fit your needs.

Not popular??? In the first 1-2 days this was up, this thread has gotten more views and replies than threads that have been around for 1-2 YEARS (SSC, ECE)(not saying this method is better because it probably isn't).

Those didn't have a hoax video attached to them of someone getting sub6 averages using the method...

I have NEVER said that this method is amazing, except for a while ago on past thread edits. It is just average.

You did a good job of countering yourself there, so I'm not needed.

Also, I would like to point out that your whole argument has been from YOUR perspective.

That's a lie. My main argument against this method is that not solving a cross piece leads to a more complicated and inefficient last layer. How is that something that's only valid from my perspective?

It also is most likely that on paper it doesn't seem like it would work out but it does. CP seems good on paper but the recog is terrible (on paper it seems like you would just ignore orientation and it's all good). Roux seems like it wouldn't be as good as it turned out because CMLL recog would be bad (and it kind of is) and L6E solves a lot of the cube, it would be hard to make and follow a set way of doing it. These are just examples.

Those are terrible examples. On paper it's easy to see why CP recog is terrible, and Roux seems good on paper.

I also still don't understand what you mean by the last F2L getting trapped and being problem... It is easily avoidable.

Have you used this method? It's way easier to solve the edge piece than to avoid trapping your last edge piece, and it leads to a faster LL (not just for me, for anyone, unless you argue that it's easier to solve 5 edges with one on the D layer than just 4 on the U layer).

 

[AlexMaass]

yeah tbh the way to determine if a method is good is to just get fast with it, which hasnt been quite done for this method, it may not be fast speedsolving (i can average sub 20 on it though) but its cool, and the l5e algs seem useful to know, could be helpful for fmc

 

[Shiv3r]

guys I have a solve i recorded, its terrible angle(I shot it with a laptop webcam) but here it is.(mute the volume please, its annoying)

 

[wir3sandfir3s]

It's easy to be right when you change the meaning of sentences to fit your needs.


Those didn't have a hoax video attached to them of someone getting sub6 averages using the method...


You did a good job of countering yourself there, so I'm not needed.


That's a lie. My main argument against this method is that not solving a cross piece leads to a more complicated and inefficient last layer. How is that something that's only valid from my perspective?


Those are terrible examples. On paper it's easy to see why CP recog is terrible, and Roux seems good on paper.


Have you used this method? It's way easier to solve the edge piece than to avoid trapping your last edge piece, and it leads to a faster LL (not just for me, for anyone, unless you argue that it's easier to solve 5 edges with one on the D layer than just 4 on the U layer).

I seriously hate when no one takes my word on something. That was the original meaning, I did not change what it meant in any way, you misinterpreted it because I failed to specify out of which group.
It's the method that counts. Not a clearly fake video...
EDIT: Sorry, missinterpretation. Please find the video in my originak post.
Seriously? I've claimed this in the past before NUMEROUS times.
From your perspective, you have claimed that it is impossible to get fast at. Countered by video evidence (not the fake one) from more than one person, as well as just general claims. I hate CFOP, but that's from my perspective. I like the more free F2L of FreeFOP and HK. But many people would unequivocally argue that it is commendable.
Yeah, I agree in retrospect. I'm not very good at providing valid examles. A better one would probably he something like WV, which seems like it would be good with 27 algs and free CO While finishing F2L, but really all it does is add more moves than necessary, which makes normal OLL faster. ECE seems bad on paper (just a generic belt followed by generic columns) but clearly turned out a lot better.
I must be seriously missing something, or we are talking about 2 different things. The last edge can be easily avoided from being trapped. No rotatiins into M moves it anything. Even if it does get trapped, you can use 5 2-gen moves to fix it.

 

[gyroninja]

From your perspective, you have claimed that it is impossible to get fast at.

He's not saying that it's a bad method or that it's impossible to get fast at. He is just pointing out that it is not as good as just normally inserting the last cross edge and finishing like normal.

The last edge can be easily avoided from being trapped.

Avoiding trapping the last f2l edge is just about as easy as just inserting the last cross edge. You are also being less efficient because you can't make pairs with the corner and cross edge together.

 

[wir3sandfir3s]

Avoiding trapping the last f2l edge is just about as easy as just inserting the last cross edge. You are also being less efficient because you can't make pairs with the corner and cross edge together.

COLL into L5E has less algs than PLL+OLL and probably just as efficient. The freedom during F2L makes up for aby inefficieny, if any. Also, if the edge piece is solved randomly, you can just leave it there and do an EPLL or OLL into PLL. This was more pointed towards adimare but I thought I would mention it anyway. If you want to make pairs with the cross piece, go ahead. At that point it's just normal ZZ though.

 

[Shiv3r]

Ok then, let's look at the two examples you used.


Was Roux his main? Don't you find it hard to believe that someone would drop 10 full seconds with a new method regardless of how good the method is? This claim is also ridiculous because the Petrus variant heavily relies on being decent at Roux (which he's not).]

dude. Roux is my main method. the Petrus variant relies on being good at blockbuilding, not roux. please don't insult me, Ive been cubing for about 2 months now.
okay, I'll do an Ao5 right now just to show you
Ao5 with roux: 41 secs.
Ao5 with HK petrus: 31 secs.

this is mostly because I can solve a petrus 2x2x3 in less time than step 1 of either fridrich or Roux. Ive always been fast at petrus-based methods.

 

[gyroninja]

dude. Roux is my main method. the Petrus variant relies on being good at blockbuilding, not roux. please don't insult me, Ive been cubing for about 2 months now.
okay, I'll do an Ao5 right now just to show you
Ao5 with roux: 41 secs.
Ao5 with HK petrus: 31 secs.

this is mostly because I can solve a petrus 2x2x3 in less time than step 1 of either fridrich or Roux. Ive always been fast at petrus-based methods.

What do you average with normal petrus?

 

[Shiv3r]

35 seconds

 

[adimare]

please don't insult me, Ive been cubing for about 2 months now.

Ok, I believe you after seeing that solve, I apologize.

dude. Roux is my main method. the Petrus variant relies on being good at blockbuilding, not roux.

Roux is all about block building for the first 2 steps. You know, the Roux blocks.

this is mostly because I can solve a petrus 2x2x3 in less time than step 1 of either fridrich or Roux. Ive always been fast at petrus-based methods.

Ever considered trying Petrus? It's way better than this HK nonsense.

Here's a reconstruction of your solve:

Scramble: x2 y D2 B2 D' B2 U B2 L2 D2 B2 R2 U B D2 L' D2 F2 L R U B U2
x y' // Inspection
U' R U' R' U2 F R U y x' U3' x' y' d x y L U L' x' U3 y' z U3' r U2 L' // 2x2x2
B' x' U' R2' U' U2 x R x' U R' U' R U R' U' U2 z' R' U' R // 2x2x3
U U' x' U U' y U' x' U y' l' R' U R U' R' U R U' R' U R U' R2 // F2L-1
y z' M' U' M // Unsolve cross piece
U U3' U2 L' U2 L U2' L' U L // Last pair
U U' R U2 R2' U' R2' U' R2 U2 R // OCLL
U2 R U R' U' R' F R2 U' R' U' R U R' F' // PCLL
U U' U M' U M U2 M' U M // EO
U' U2 M' U2 M // Solve DF
U3 y2' R2 U R U R' U' R' U' R' U R' // EPLL

Notice that you had solved F2L except for one pair, and could have finished by just solving the pair, then applying OLL+PLL. Instead, you took out an already solved cross piece, solved a pair, then did COLL, then EO, then solved back the piece that you had taken out, then EPLL. If you had not taken out that solved piece, after solving the pair you could have done OLL+PLL and be done with the solve.

 

[vcuber13]

guys I have a solve i recorded, its terrible angle(I shot it with a laptop webcam) but here it is.(mute the volume please, its annoying)

You literally solved the white-orange edge, took it out, and solved the green-orange pair as you would in CFOP. Then for L5E, you oriented them, placed the white-orange edge, and did a U-perm.
Wouldn't it have been a lot easier to just leave the white-orange edge solved?

Edit: Ninja'd a bit.

 

[adimare]

From your perspective, you have claimed that it is impossible to get fast at.

I never claimed that, please refrain from putting words in my mouth. I can get sub-20 with this method, which apparently qualifies as fast in this thread. I can also get sub-20 with LBL, would you say that means that it's a viable speed solving method and some people should use it over CFOP because it fits them better?[/QUOTE]

 

[wir3sandfir3s]

I never claimed that, please refrain from putting words in my mouth. I can get sub-20 with this method, which apparently qualifies as fast in this thread. I can also get sub-20 with LBL, would you say that means that it's a viable speed solving method and some people should use it over CFOP because it fits them better?

[/QUOTE]
Yes, you did not claim that, I apologize. Looking back, the post I was remembering was that you said that it doesn't work better than other popular methods for other people. Still, it is very similar to what I thought you said and it is still from your perspective. Shiv3r has gotten faster times with this than with Roux, a very popular method.