New cuber from Illinois

[bicmedic]

Hey everyone, I'm just now getting into speedcubing. I learned LBL from an Iraqi I worked with while deployed about a year ago. Now that I'm back in the states I decided to get faster and was, to say the least, blown away. I currently average(don't laugh) about a minute with my LBL Iraq method. I am currently working on CFOP(through Badmephisto) and my averages have went from around one minute to about five. But I definitely see the potential in it. I just don't think intuitive is the way for me to go, I don't learn that way. Algorithmic F2L seems like the ticket for me I think. So starting tomorrow I am going to try to learn at least two algorithms a day. Wish me luck!

PB-45.55
AO5-67.8

I think I've done better than my PB, but that's the best I've timed.

 

[ruff48]

Don't bother learning algorithmic F2L.
You will be glad if you are persistent with trying to solve it intuitively.

 

[Zane_C]

That's how I was when I started, did not understand F2L at all. I learnt the cases as algorithms, but after doing them over and over again I discovered how the moves worked and they soon became intuitive. So don't stress over not understanding it, it will definitely come.

 

[bicmedic]

Don't bother learning algorithmic F2L.
You will be glad if you are persistent with trying to solve it intuitively.

Ya know, everyone says that, and I know you should slow down at first with the transfer, but FIVE MINUTES! Is that a normal slowdown?

 

[Cyrus C.]

I live in Iowa, hope to see you at the next competition.

 

[xbrandationx]

You have to practice a lot.

 

[Zane_C]

Ya know, everyone says that, and I know you should slow down at first with the transfer, but FIVE MINUTES! Is that a normal slowdown?

That's fine.

 

[bicmedic]

I'll be in Ohio in 2011. Any others close?

 

[bicmedic]

I live in Iowa, hope to see you at the next competition.

Where is the next close one?

 

[bicmedic]

Cuz besides Columbus Ohio the only other ones on the WCA website are in frakking India.

 

[Rpotts]

Not trying to be a dick, just trying to help you adjust to this forum. Instead of posting 2 or more times in a row, simply edit your post using the handy edit post button located below the aforementioned post. This helps to reduce clutter on the forum.

On topic: Personally I found that going from basic layer by layer method to f2l style roughly doubled my times at the beginning, and over the course of 2 weeks or so I practiced to get my times about where they were before with LBL. With practice I have got my times to about 1/3 of the time it took before I learned f2l.
If you think that intuitive is really not working for you, don't hesitate to start learning algorithms. Do whatever works best for you, ruff48 and other guys here seem to think algorithmic f2l is a waste, but with practice, you will find that it's identical to "intuitive solving" once you begin to understand how the algorithms work. I fail to really see a reasonable line between what defines "intuitive" f2l versus "algorithmic" other than algorithmic solvers will likely have a lower average movecount than their intuitive brethren (this is assuming the "algs" they are using aren't horrible.) Deducing all 42 f2l cases to either an R U R' or R U' R' insertion may not be as move efficient as an "algorithm" could be.

Just, keep trying, learn algs for cases you cannot comprehend, attempt to understand how they work and go from there. Good luck

 

[bicmedic]

Not trying to be a dick, just trying to help you adjust to this forum. Instead of posting 2 or more times in a row, simply edit your post using the handy edit post button located below the aforementioned post. This helps to reduce clutter on the forum.

On topic: Personally I found that going from basic layer by layer method to f2l style roughly doubled my times at the beginning, and over the course of 2 weeks or so I practiced to get my times about where they were before with LBL. With practice I have got my times to about 1/3 of the time it took before I learned f2l.
If you think that intuitive is really not working for you, don't hesitate to start learning algorithms. Do whatever works best for you, ruff48 and other guys here seem to think algorithmic f2l is a waste, but with practice, you will find that it's identical to "intuitive solving" once you begin to understand how the algorithms work. I fail to really see a reasonable line between what defines "intuitive" f2l versus "algorithmic" other than algorithmic solvers will likely have a lower average movecount than their intuitive brethren (this is assuming the "algs" they are using aren't horrible.) Deducing all 42 f2l cases to either an R U R' or R U' R' insertion may not be as move efficient as an "algorithm" could be.

Just, keep trying, learn algs for cases you cannot comprehend, attempt to understand how they work and go from there. Good luck

I get the multiple post slam, my bad.
I thought I was just slow, I will continue my efforts! Thank you for the encouragement! I didn't time it, but I swear i hit 45 at least today. I should really time every solve but you know...

I guess I should look at the race to sub 30 forum.