No Method is Wrong

[Aarox]

People in my school come to me and ask me "What method should I use to solve my rubik's cube" (sometimes they say rubrik's cube >_>). Which is a strange question to ask really. I just simply reply "Beginner's Method." But once they've learned that, they ask me how they can get as fast as I can, so I tell them to learn Jessica Fridrich, but all of them tell me the same thing: "SO MANY ALGORITHMS."

Honestly, I think there's nothing wrong with the Fridrich method, it's actually the method that works best for me. But that's because my brain works differently than theirs. I'm more of a guy who can memorize the cases better than do it all intuitively, along with about 70% of the rest of the speedcubers, but all the other people in my school can't do that.

I thought about it and I realized that before you choose a method (because once you learn one it's very hard to switch) you should think on how you look at the cube. When you try to get x into y, how do you do it? Do you look at the corner, say I need to get that piece into this slot? Do you look at the sticker colors and say; I need to re-orient and permute this corner and swap it with that corner? Or do you look at the puzzle and give up because when you move the corner down there the other pieces get messed up? Either way you look at the way you solve it there's always a right method.

I think that if you look at the sticker colors you should try Jessica Fridrich.

If you look at the pieces you should try Petrus, Roux, or Heise (Heise is most recommended)

If you give up, you should try the beginner method.

If can already solve a 2x2x2, you should learn Ortega

Or if you understand the corners but need help with the edges, the Ortega is also good for you because it should help you better understand the edges.

These are all just suggestions, and obviously I'm not really the best speedcuber, I just wanted to share this thought.

 

[Aarox]

Sorry if this is the wrong topic, I have no idea where this would go. (I'm new here ;D)

 

[miniGOINGS]

wow,, so many people tell me HOW SHOULD I SOLVE IT!!! i always say medium rare one of my friends calls it Arubikx Cubix and it anoys me SOOOOO much all my teachers call it rubrik cube like its some sort of marking sheet AHHHHH i get so mad sometimes by nonsolvers!!

 

[toast]

I think that if you look at the sticker colors you should try Jessica Fridrich.

If you look at the pieces you should try Petrus, Roux, or Heise (Heise is most recommended)

lol@tryingJessicaFridrich

But, I think this would only apply to the last layer because when I solve the F2L, I look for pieces. When I solve the cross, I look for pieces. The OLL would be only looking at the one U-side color, and the PLL would only look at the other stickers since the OLL has already been finished.

 

[JLarsen]

I'd just say Fridrich, if they really, truly want to get faster. If they said they wanted a challenge, I'd say Petrus.

 

[deco122392]

Sorry if this is the wrong topic, I have no idea where this would go. (I'm new here ;D)

its fine i think, and either way if it isnt itll be moved. welcome (= what you can do is gradually introdce them to parts and aspects of the cfop system such as learning intuitive f2l and using 2 look oll and 2 look pll. but in all fairness to the rest of the methods out there i recomend you also introduce them (and by the nessissity to explain, learn yourself) to new methods (thats new to them not new to the cubeing comunity)

 

[JLarsen]

So more in depth on what I'd do. I'd say do you really think your going to get faster, and will you put in the time. Yes> go on. I'd say it takes longer to get sub 20 with Petrus, about the same with Roux but even less algs than Petrus, and Fridrich is the easiest, but requires the most memorizing. Pretty much the most general info, and let them make a choice. Also, where the hell are all these people asking what method to use. I never get them? Do you mean online? Or in person??? In either case it's very very rare with me.

 

[mcciff2112]

im not sure that the people in your school are incapable of memorizing algorithms, its probably they are just too lazy. anyone can learn friedrich, its just only some choose to put the time and effort into it

 

[Zarxrax]

I was about to say the same thing. It's not that they can't learn fridrich, they just don't want to because they are not serious about it. They want to magically solve it in 20 seconds without putting thousands of hours of practice in.
Fridrich only has a ton of algorithms if you learn the whole thing. It can be simplied and you only have to know maybe 20 algs, and can still manage to get sub-30. By the time you manage to get your times that low, you will have had plenty of time to learn the rest of the algs anyway.

 

[brunson]

The thing about learning algorithms is that they get easier and easier as you go.

When I was learning all my PLLs I could only effectively learn about one a week, otherwise I wouldn't really retain them and have to go back and relearn them. Now that I've known full Fridrich for near a year I've added substantially to the list of algs, including new primary OLLs and PLLs, awkward F2L cases, open slot variations, Petrus last slot tricks, ZBLS cases, OH variations, OLLs and PLLs from alternate angles, Roux, big cube algs, etc.

It's been interesting how easily I can pick up new algs now. 18 months ago it took me a week to learn a new PLL, last week I learned a new J-perm someone posted on the forum just by trying it about five times.

I just roll my eyes at people who complain about learning algorithms. I would offer the same advice I gave my brother when he thought about starting college when he was 28. He complained that when he graduated he'd be almost 40, I asked how old he'd be if he *didn't* go to school.

If it's a big job... start now.

 

[Rabid]

Recommending Fridrich is recommending failure. The stifling method is the main reason cubing doesn’t thrive.

 

[Stefan]

cubing doesn’t thrive.

Um, what?

 

[soccerking813]

If someone who knows only the beginners method comes up and aks me what to learn next, I would say learn Fridrich F2L, because it can be used in many other methods, like Roux, Petrus, none other come to mind,... But the concept can be adapted to many other ways of solving.

 

[Rabid]

cubing doesn’t thrive.

Um, what?

I've crawled cities for years and never seen a speed cuber. Not once. The wall of algorithms is too intimidating. Folks just want to solve the damn thing, then maybe solve it a bit faster, then maybe learn a method and really get into speed. Recommending step three (Fridrich) to Joe Thumbs is just going to frustrate. It just ensures Solving remains enigmatic and that widespread proliferation is stymied.

 

[tim]

cubing doesn’t thrive.

Um, what?

I've crawled cities for years and never seen a speed cuber. Not once. The wall of algorithms is too intimidating. Folks just want to solve the damn thing, then maybe solve it a bit faster, then maybe learn a method and really get into speed. Recommending step three (Fridrich) to Joe Thumbs is just going to frustrate. It just ensures Solving remains enigmatic and that widespread proliferation is stymied.

All people i've taught Fridrich didn't see the "wall of algorithms" and they picked up the idea within seconds. Just don't say things like: "Oh yeah, Fridrich, that requires more than 100 algorithms". Say: "Just connect this corner and this edge and insert them into this slot"

 

[Rabid]

All people i've taught Fridrich didn't see the "wall of algorithms" and they picked up the idea within seconds. Just don't say things like: "Oh yeah, Fridrich, that requires more than 100 algorithms". Say: "Just connect this corner and this edge and insert them into this slot"

I can understand breaking down Frid or Pet into something intuitive. Even if they are secretly learning Algs.

 

[MichaelErskine]

I've crawled cities for years and never seen a speed cuber. Not once.

Perhaps they're not cubing when you see them and you assume they're not speedcubers

The wall of algorithms is too intimidating. Folks just want to solve the damn thing, then maybe solve it a bit faster, then maybe learn a method and really get into speed. Recommending step three (Fridrich) to Joe Thumbs is just going to frustrate. It just ensures Solving remains enigmatic and that widespread proliferation is stymied.

But what you're talking about here is speed-cubing versus just solving the damn thing. If people don't want to become faster (or perhaps more efficient) then there's no reason that Fridrich would be chosen above some other method that would be found with the tiniest amount of effort.

You don't become adept at a skill without practice and perhaps the application of a training method.

I don't think that Fridrich stifles speedcubing or slowcubing or any sort of cubing.

 

[MichaelErskine]

I can understand breaking down Frid or Pet into something intuitive. Even if they are secretly learning Algs.

Dude! It's not algorithms, it's patterns! human beings learn by recognising and applying patterns.

 

[Rabid]

Dude! It's not algorithms, it's patterns! human beings learn by recognising and applying patterns.

People in my school come to me and ask me "What method should I use to solve my rubik's cube" .

I'm answering this question. The People don't want to learn a notation language and 40 algs. They just want to solve the damn thing. Let them dip their foot in the pool.

 

[MichaelErskine]

The People don't want to learn a notation language and 40 algs. They just want to solve the damn thing. Let them dip their foot in the pool.

So don't try to teach Fridrich :rolleyes: There's plenty of other methods.