do i switch methods?

[adamb123]

see, the thing is I'm usig petrus, but I SUCK AT IT. im better at fridrich, but what should I do if i don't want to get stuck with memorizing all the PLLs and OLLs? Are there just some i can learn?

 

[tim]

For OLL you only need to learn F R U R' U' F' and F U R U' R' F' to swap two edges and the 7 cases, where all edges are correctly oriented.
For PLL you need to learn the U and A perm and their inverses.
That's called 4-look last layer (4-LLL).

 

[adamb123]

For OLL you only need to learn F R U R' U' F' and F U R U' R' F' to swap two edges and the 7 cases, where all edges are correctly oriented.
For PLL you need to learn the U and A perm and their inverses.
That's called 4-look last layer (4-LLL).

yay! thanks a lot.

can you still get fast like that, though?

 

[mahajarama]

You can definitely still get fast with 4-LLL. When I started using the Fridrich method, 4-LLL was what I naturally learned first. If you have a quick F2L then I would say that it's possible to achieve times of 25 seconds or less...

 

[adamb123]

You can definitely still get fast with 4-LLL. When I started using the Fridrich method, 4-LLL was what I naturally learned first. If you have a quick F2L then I would say that it's possible to achieve times of 25 seconds or less...

really?! you can achieve around 25?

 

[Johannes91]

Even sub-15 is possible with 4-look LL, if your F2L is really good.

 

[AvGalen]

I would like to see a video of a sub-15 average with 4 look last layer.

Untill then, I can vouch for sub 25 being possible with 4 look last layer, even if you don't use Fridrich F2L but a simpler/slower method (keyhole). Just watch http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hm6mpS7XL04 for 2 demo solves!

 

[Johannes91]

I would like to see a video of a sub-15 average with 4 look last layer.

Ask Harris Chan, maybe he could make a video. He should be able to get (at least really close to) sub-15.

 

[hdskull]

Erick made a video that was ~ 20 seconds, with layer by layer and 4 look last layer.

 

[AvGalen]

Joël even did a sub 20 average with 4 look last layer. I think that all those top-cubers that regularly get sub-12's or even lower can get sub 20 with almost every method.

The reason why I posted my video is to show that someone that only knows a couple of beginners algorithms and that isn't a top-cuber can still get sub-25.

 

[Johannes91]

I think that all those top-cubers that regularly get sub-12's or even lower can get sub 20 with almost every method.

Name one.

 

[adamb123]

I have the same time on the petrus method and the fridrich for F2L. I dont know which one should I go to

 

[AvGalen]

Name one: Ron van Bruchem actually claimed this at the UK Open 2006. Joël van Noort did a sub 20 average with beginners layer-by-layer and 4 look last layer. Erik did a sub 20 with beginners F2L and 4 look last layer too and I think he can do sub20 with Roux too.

adamb123: Why don't you choose during inspection time? If you seen an easy block, use Petrus. If you see an easy cross, use Fridrich.

 

[adamb123]

Name one: Ron van Bruchem actually claimed this at the UK Open 2006. Joël van Noort did a sub 20 average with beginners layer-by-layer and 4 look last layer. Erik did a sub 20 with beginners F2L and 4 look last layer too and I think he can do sub20 with Roux too.

adamb123: Why don't you choose during inspection time? If you seen an easy block, use Petrus. If you see an easy cross, use Fridrich.

Thank you, thats a great idea. Now more argueing about which to pick

 

[Johannes91]

Ron van Bruchem actually claimed this at the UK Open 2006.

He also claimed to know optimal solutions to 1 quintillion different positions. And he isn't sub-12.

It's logical that many fast Fridrich cubers can get sub-20 with LBL, because they are so similar. But I don't think many can get sub-20 with Petrus and Roux, too.

 

[AvGalen]

He also claimed to know optimal solutions to 1 quintillion different positions. And he isn't sub-12.

The quintillion remark wasn't meant to be taken seriously, but for some reason people didn't understand that. And I never said he was sub-12, I said "top-cubers that regularly get sub-12's".

I think we have a misunderstanding of the word "can" in the sentence "...can get sub 20 with almost every method". I don't mean they "are" sub 20 with almost every method. I mean they "can become" sub 20 with almost every method. They would need to learn the algs for the method first.

 

[Erik]

yes I AM sub-20 with petrus now...
almost with roux (I would be if I knew all C(M)LL's)