Is the Fridrich method really the fastest way to solve a 3x3 cube?

[Jorghi]

I'm wondering about making my own method. Though I do think that F2L was a very good idea, I think there are much more efficient ways to solve the cube.

 

[Kirjava]

Maybe.

/thread

 

[5BLD]

No. There will be a better method invented eventually.
Oh but for the moment: 95% no, 5% yes in my opinion.

EDIT: nevermind, thom beat me to it...

 

[luke1984]

Of course there are always faster methods. You could solve the cross normally, use algorithms that solve multiple/all F2L pairs at once, and solve the last layer with one algorithm. It just wouldn't be very practical, you'll have to learn thousands of algorithms. I think the Fridrich method is the perfect balance between speed and practicality, possibly combined with useful aspects from other methods.

But who knows, someone might come up with a method that is faster and more practical than anything we have now.

 

[Jorghi]

HMMM. I think Solving 2 F2L pairs at once would be very useful lol. I could make my own algorithms.

 

[sa11297]

I think there are much more efficient ways to solve the cube.

Fridrich is a speedsolving method not a FMC method. Petrus, Roux, Heise and others methods are far more efficient.

 

[AustinReed]

There's this one method where you solve it in 21 moves or less. It has about 43,252,003,274,489,856,000 algorithms though.

 

[antoineccantin]

no

 

[sa11297]

There's this one method where you solve it in 21 moves or less. It has about 43,252,003,274,489,856,000 algorithms though.

I laughed hard at this.

 

[sa11297]

There's this one method where you solve it in 21 moves or less. It has about 43,252,003,274,489,856,000 algorithms though.

I laughed hard at this.

 

[Jungleterrain]

I'm wondering about making my own method

Good luck with that XD A good speedsolving method takes quite some time to develop. Doesn't ZZ method still have a "missing link" which would make it even faster? I don't really know much about this since I don't use ZZ.

And of course there are more efficient ways to solve the 3x3, but are they practical to learn given our busy life styles?

 

[waffle=ijm]

Maybe.

/thread

qft

 

[Cool Frog]

There's this one method where you solve it in 21 moves or less. It has about 43,252,003,274,489,856,000 algorithms though.

Mirrors?

 

[uberCuber]

21 moves or less

now why would you do some cases sub-optimally that's just silly

 

[ben1996123]

no. lbl is clearly faster because the fastest times with fridrich are sub 8 averages, but with lbl, even beginners can average sub 3 within a few days of learning to solve. since 8 > 3, lbl is better.

 

[JonnyWhoopes]

no. lbl is clearly faster because the fastest times with fridrich are sub 8 averages, but with lbl, even beginners can average sub 3 within a few days of learning to solve. since 8 > 3, lbl is better.

And, this, my friends is why we label our numbers.

 

[Jaysammey777]

HMMM. I think Solving 2 F2L pairs at once would be very useful lol. I could make my own algorithms.

I have a list with almost all the cases, I dont think I'll ever memo all of them though, and plus reconization sucks so I dont use them in speed

 

[~Phoenix Death~]

It's the most preferred

 

[kpcube]

HMMM. I think Solving 2 F2L pairs at once would be very useful lol. I could make my own algorithms.

It''s known as multislotting

id say that belt is probly the fastest maybe? I wonder if computers could do optimal solves with the least practical methods and see which is best.... But I guess nothing really beats an optimal solution for any given scramble.

 

[RyanReese09]

I can 1 look all 43 quintillion cases. I just need like 25 seconds or so to recall the alg...