Speedsolving with Blockbuilding Methods

[JLarsen]

So I spent a long time worrying about the efficiency of my blocks, but recently I've been thinking that it's much more important to keep blocks simple to allow for lookahead, finger friendliness, etc? How do you guys blockbuild in a speedsolve? Do you favor a quick, finger friendly solution over one that is maybe 2 or 3 moves shorter but is really complex and might have some ugly turns in it? The problem I get with making super efficient blocks is 1. doing it within inspection time and 2. being able to lookahead and track new pieces for the next block while I'm doing the first. Like for example if I see an easy Fridrich style 2x2 with both edges in place and just a CE pair away, I'll go for it any day because I barely have to think to make the pair, so I can use almost all my focus to track 1,2, or even 3 pieces for the next step.

Edit: Another thought; Petrus is good at keeping move counts down so by using a less efficient solution do you think that would be not using the method to it's full potential? I suppose it all comes down to the speed you execute the solutions to though, right? Or should you try to execute the more efficient solutions at the same speed as the simple ones, therefore overall being faster?

 

[ErikJ]

always start with quick and simple blocks. they are easier to see on the fly and look ahead isn't too hard. having a quick 2x2x2 and an elaborate 2x2x3 is better than an elaborate 2x2x2 and quick 2x2x3 because there will probably be a delay between them due to the difficulties of looking ahead during complex moves. there is nothing wrong with doing elaborate 2x2x3s because the moves are generally nice even if they are complex and look ahead for bad edges is easy.

 

[JLarsen]

Perfect. I've been focusing on doing more elaborate 2x2x3 solutions myself. So another thought; if you do track pieces for 2x2x3, haven't you basically dedicated yourself to that expansion? What if it turns out that the solution for that one is pretty ugly? Is it worth it to try and switch to the other expo on the fly with no lookahead? Or just brute force the crap out of the ugly pieces?

 

[qqwref]

Yeah, if you track pieces you pretty much dedicate yourself to using them. When I track a pair in Fridrich, I pretty much always insert that one next - the only exception is if I see another pair that is extremely easy. I guess the equivalent for Petrus is to only switch to another expansion if it looks really incredible. Note that, right after the easy pair, I'll insert the one I had traced - but in Petrus you only expand once, so this might be more of an issue, since not doing the expansion you tracked ruins your opportunity to do it. To get down to 12~ or less you really have to spend as little time not turning as possible, even at the expense of a few moves.

 

[Morley]

I wish I had some constructive input, however I am far slower than both of you.

I have been a believer of low move count instead of speed. To me it's much more fun. Also I am not the fastest turner so I like to think it works in my favor.

Erik makes a lot of sense though. I recently did a breakdown of my times and noticed that what is probably the worst part of my F2L is the transition between 2x2x2 and 2x2x3 blocks. If I could eliminate that delay I would easily drop 2-3 seconds off of my average I think.

BTW, welcome back Panda. I just got back into cubing recently too. You were one of my idols back in the day. Still are. Glad to see you back.

 

[JLarsen]

I wish I had some constructive input, however I am far slower than both of you.

I have been a believer of low move count instead of speed. To me it's much more fun. Also I am not the fastest turner so I like to think it works in my favor.

Erik makes a lot of sense though. I recently did a breakdown of my times and noticed that what is probably the worst part of my F2L is the transition between 2x2x2 and 2x2x3 blocks. If I could eliminate that delay I would easily drop 2-3 seconds off of my average I think.

BTW, welcome back Panda. I just got back into cubing recently too. You were one of my idols back in the day. Still are. Glad to see you back.

*Blushes*

Thanks man. Yeah there was one point where I realized my 2x2 to 2x2x3 transition was my slowest point and I spent months just tracking 2x2x3 pieces. I honestly think it's the worst step in the method as far as difficulty/speed. Every other step in my opinion is easy peasy. Once your "simple" blocks are still like 8 moves or so then it gets easier to do the tracking. I actually turn very slow during 2x2 and my turning speed gradually increases each step until I hit LL and I'm going full speed.

-Edit

Side note: I'm not going to make a crap ton of threads devoted to Petrus like I used to. I think I used to be a bit of a post whore and I sort of flaunted my method around like it was better than others. I've done some growing up since then, and I'm going to try to change that. I'm also not going to try to teach Petrus anymore. My solutions aren't and never really were that great so instead I'm just going to practice and keep to myself more.

 

[caseyd]

always start with quick and simple blocks. they are easier to see on the fly and look ahead isn't too hard. having a quick 2x2x2 and an elaborate 2x2x3 is better than an elaborate 2x2x2 and quick 2x2x3 because there will probably be a delay between them due to the difficulties of looking ahead during complex moves. there is nothing wrong with doing elaborate 2x2x3s because the moves are generally nice even if they are complex and look ahead for bad edges is easy.

thats almost my approach to 5x5x5 centers, I do 2x1 blocks for the first few so I can lookahead more

 

[ErikJ]

if you are good at looking ahead for pieces of the 2x2x3 during inspection you can kind of tell which ones will be nice.

 

[spdcbr]

What I do for roux: (I only average 25 btw lol)

First block: Simple 2x2x1 block, easy pair and combine

Second block: I don't care about move count, spam R U M and r moves

 

[Xishem]

I also Roux @ 18-19s average

First block: I generally place the bottom corners with the bottom edge (and if I can place their corresponding edges with a few extra moves, I'll do that too), then match it up with the center as I add another edge, and then add the final edge. I'm almost never optimal, but it's extremely fast, as once the corners are paired up with the bottom edge, I place that block on DR, and the rest is simply U/u/R/r/M moves. Of course, if I see an easy block that has some funky moves, I usually do that instead. It's almost always worth it it seems. I'm just not that good at seeing low-move-count blocks.

Second block: I'm with spdcbr on this one. I'm really aware that I need to work on this, though. My technique is horrible, and involves placing the DR edge, then doing F2L-esque insertions, while of course utilizing the M slice. I'm not good enough to look-ahead into second block and see low move-count blocks, so I just make up for it with speed and look-ahead into the 1st and 2nd F2L pairs.

 

[Cool Frog]

Meh, I build 1x2x3. Then I build Right block with only RU and such... However I did get this case in mid speed solve, I threw in a F move that canceled out a good 4-5 moves.
I go for a optimal first block with a Fingertricky and try to optimize right block.

 

[waffle=ijm]

I roux.
I use fewer moves for first block around 8-10.
Second block is just speed. My approach is pair-edge-pair, but I'm neutral with which piece makes up the pairs (which I think is highly important).

 

[Cool Frog]

I roux.
I use fewer moves for first block around 8-10.
Second block is just speed. My approach is pair-edge-pair, but I'm neutral with which piece makes up the pairs (which I think is highly important).

I thought you where supposed to be neutral for that.

 

[waffle=ijm]

you are, but some people don't (too brainwashed by LBL)

 

[Xishem]

you are, but some people don't (too brainwashed by LBL)

Me. ):