does anyone know a faster square-1 meathod?

[joey]

Name one person who is sub 13 (sub 12?) with ZZ. Doesn't make it not fast

True.. it isn't not fast because there is not a sub13 cuber who uses it.. it isn't fast because it's a bad method ;-)

 

[Escher]

True.. it isn't not fast because there is not a sub13 cuber who uses it.. it isn't fast because it's a bad method ;-)

Ooh, burn!

 

[trying-to-speedcube...]

thank you too. this one looks a bit more complicated but i will still learn it.

You think Baum is more complicated than Vandenbergh?
It's maybe a bit more intuitive in the first steps, but when performed correctly, this method has a similar movecount to Vandenbergh's method. Recognition is also easier in my opinion.

And, half the algorithms

Name one person who is sub-25 with Jason's method.

Actually, Mats Valk is learning his method, and he averages around 30 with no more than 10 PLLs learned. I think that when he finishes the PLL, he will get sub-25 pretty easily. I average 35, but that's not because of the bad method, but because my cubeshape sucks. (10-15 seconds) When I improve my cubeshape, I will be sub-30. Seriously, sub-25 isn't that hard in my opinion.

Name one person who is sub-12 with ZB.
Hmm... That's a hard one! It might be because nobody uses it. Same idea with Jason's method for square-1.

Give me 1 reason why Vandenbergh's method is better than Baum's.

 

[Escher]

thank you too. this one looks a bit more complicated but i will still learn it.

You think Baum is more complicated than Vandenbergh?
It's maybe a bit more intuitive in the first steps, but when performed correctly, this method has a similar movecount to Vandenbergh's method. Recognition is also easier in my opinion.

And, half the algorithms

Name one person who is sub-25 with Jason's method.

Actually, Mats Valk is learning his method, and he averages around 30 with no more than 10 PLLs learned. I think that when he finishes the PLL, he will get sub-25 pretty easily. I average 35, but that's not because of the bad method, but because my cubeshape sucks. (10-15 seconds) When I improve my cubeshape, I will be sub-30. Seriously, sub-25 isn't that hard in my opinion.

Name one person who is sub-12 with ZZ
Hmm... That's a hard one! It might be because nobody uses it. Same idea with Jason's method for square-1.

Give me 1 reason why Vandenbergh's method is better than Baum's.

fixed your post

 

[trying-to-speedcube...]

thank you too. this one looks a bit more complicated but i will still learn it.

You think Baum is more complicated than Vandenbergh?
It's maybe a bit more intuitive in the first steps, but when performed correctly, this method has a similar movecount to Vandenbergh's method. Recognition is also easier in my opinion.

And, half the algorithms

Name one person who is sub-25 with Jason's method.

Actually, Mats Valk is learning his method, and he averages around 30 with no more than 10 PLLs learned. I think that when he finishes the PLL, he will get sub-25 pretty easily. I average 35, but that's not because of the bad method, but because my cubeshape sucks. (10-15 seconds) When I improve my cubeshape, I will be sub-30. Seriously, sub-25 isn't that hard in my opinion.

Name one person who is sub-12 with ZB/ZZ.
Hmm... That's a hard one! It might be because nobody uses it. Same idea with Jason's method for square-1.

Give me 1 reason why Vandenbergh's method is better than Baum's.

Fixed my post

 

[blade740]

Sub-25 on Square-1 is more like sub-18 on 3x3. You can't make comparisons like that. Sub-12 on 3x3 is like sub-18 on sq1.

 

[Deleted member 2864]

Yes, I've learned parity CP and almost 1 look EP, but the website includes all the algs from when I was 3rd in the world (18.xx average)

You learned hundreds of moves just to solve some plastic toy a little bit faster? Geek. Get a life.

well did you not learn fridrich? At least his plastic toy shape-shifts =D

 

[trying-to-speedcube...]

21 people have managed a sub-25 average in competition for square-1.
21 people have managed a sub-12 average in competition for 3x3.

I think my comparison is okay...

Seriously, there are 3 people with a sub-18 average on square-1... I think it's better to compare sub-18 on square-1 with sub-11 on 3x3...

 

[blade740]

Right, but 6038 people have competed in 3x3, compared to only 433 in square-1. 21 3x3 solvers is roughly 1/3 of one percent, as opposed to the five percent of square-1 solvers that are sub-25. Five percent of 6038 is more like 301 people.

It took me less than two months to average sub25 on square-1. Sub-12 3x3 in the same amount of time? Unheard of.

 

[trying-to-speedcube...]

Why would the number of people below you make a difference in how good you are? I'm only saying that the area of people that can do sub-25 on a square-1 is roughly as big as the area of people that can do sub-12 on a 3x3. The number of people who can't is irrelevant, although that number is much bigger at 3x3.

 

[blade740]

It matters because so many more people practice 3x3 than square-1. By your criteria being able to solve a square-1 at all is the same as being sub-17 on 3x3.

 

[trying-to-speedcube...]

The only thing I'm saying is that there are just as many people who have put their effort into practising to sub-12 on 3x3, as there are people who have put their effort into practising to sub-25 on square-1.

That's just because most people who only even own a square-1 are speedcubers. Opposed to that there are a lot of people who have a rubik's cube lying at home, and go to a competition once, because they learned from the internet how to solve it, and there is a competition nearby.

Of course there is a higher percentage of the people that can solve square-1 that really practises it, because it's just a rarer puzzle that the 3x3. I know plenty of people who have a 3x3, and can solve it, but don't practise it. You won't see anyone who has a square-1 and doesn't know how to solve it.

 

[blade740]

But your comparison wasn't made to evaluate the determination of square-1 solvers. You were trying to compare Baum's method to ZZ. I doubt you'll find many ZZ users who don't know how to solve either. <_< The point is, you shouldn't try to use numbers like that to prove your point unless your math is sound.

 

[DavidWoner]

The only thing I'm saying is that there are just as many people who have put their effort into practising to sub-12 on 3x3, as there are people who have put their effort into practising to sub-25 on square-1.

That's just because most people who only even own a square-1 are speedcubers. Opposed to that there are a lot of people who have a rubik's cube lying at home, and go to a competition once, because they learned from the internet how to solve it, and there is a competition nearby.

Of course there is a higher percentage of the people that can solve square-1 that really practises it, because it's just a rarer puzzle that the 3x3. I know plenty of people who have a 3x3, and can solve it, but don't practise it. You won't see anyone who has a square-1 and doesn't know how to solve it.

There are maybe 30 people in the world who intensely practice square-1. There are hundreds who intensely practice 3x3.

Sub-25 on square-1 can be achieved in a couple months without much effort.
Sub-12 takes at least a year and tons of practice for even the most talented of cubers.

Also:

You won't see anyone who has a square-1 and doesn't know how to solve it.

My first square-1 was given to me by a friend who cubed, and could solve all nxnxn. He had it for years, and never learned to solve it.

 

[Swordsman Kirby]

thank you too. this one looks a bit more complicated but i will still learn it.

You think Baum is more complicated than Vandenbergh?
It's maybe a bit more intuitive in the first steps, but when performed correctly, this method has a similar movecount to Vandenbergh's method. Recognition is also easier in my opinion.

And, half the algorithms

Name one person who is sub-25 with Jason's method.

Clever post: Jason's method, not LBL in general.

Come on, Jason's method isn't even the second-fastest method used in competition.

 

[blade740]

My first square-1 was given to me by a friend who cubed, and could solve all nxnxn. He had it for years, and never learned to solve it.

To add to this, the first square-1 I solved was lent to me by a friend who couldn't solve it OR the cube. He didn't even have a cube. Just a square-1.

 

[trying-to-speedcube...]

thank you too. this one looks a bit more complicated but i will still learn it.

You think Baum is more complicated than Vandenbergh?
It's maybe a bit more intuitive in the first steps, but when performed correctly, this method has a similar movecount to Vandenbergh's method. Recognition is also easier in my opinion.

And, half the algorithms

Name one person who is sub-25 with Jason's method.

Clever post: Jason's method, not LBL in general.

Come on, Jason's method isn't even the second-fastest method used in competition.

Because noone uses it! Let's just stop the discussion about what's used now, but now look at the method itself. It HAS a similar move count, recognition IS better in my opinion and it HAS only 50 algorithms. Because you are all too lazy to switch and because every good square-1 solver uses Vandenbergh's method, doesn't mean it's better than Jason's method.

This is just the same discussion as about Roux. Because it isn't widely used, doesn't mean it's not a good method. I have practised square-1 for no more than 3 weeks now, and I average 35. I have used Vandenbergh's method in the past, but my best average was 1:10... This is just a method that's better suited for me.

I only gave the OP a tip to this method. It doesn't mean he has to use it, but I want him to try both methods and see what suits him best, not use one method that almost everyone uses.

I now also realize that my signature is too forcing. I'll change it right now.

I also realize that my criteria were wrong, so I will stop using them as an argument that sub-25 isn't that hard or whatever.

Point of this is: There is no fastest method, use the method that suits you best.

 

[Lucas Garron]

My first square-1 was given to me by a friend who cubed, and could solve all nxnxn. He had it for years, and never learned to solve it.

To add to this, the first square-1 I solved was lent to me by a friend who couldn't solve it OR the cube. He didn't even have a cube. Just a square-1.

I got my Square-1 from a friend in December 2005. My oldest memory of solving a Square-1 predates my oldest memory of solving a cube (although I'm pretty sure I knew how to solve a cube first).

 

[Swordsman Kirby]

Come on, Jason's method isn't even the second-fastest method used in competition.

Because noone uses it!

Only one person uses the 2nd-fastest method, what's your point?

because every good square-1 solver uses Vandenbergh's method

rofl

There is no fastest method, use the method that suits you best.

It's like people who play SSBM and say that "there's no best character" even though it has been demonstrated that Mewtwo sucks. Would you say that old pochmann can be executed in sub-15?

 

[hdskull]

I had a square 1 for a year, and I never learned to solve it. It wasn't until recently that I picked it up and learned 3 algorithms to know how to solve it, haha. Barely have one sub 1 solve...