Beginner's Guide to Choosing a Speedsolving Method

[Ninja Storm]

I am not sure of the calculation methods like sub(x) all the guys are mentioning here. I still need to learn that. BTW if any thread related to what this is and how to calculate this is available please let me know.

I am solving cubes only for the past 6 months and i am able to solve the entire cube within 2 minutes.

I am trying to improve my speed. I have recently ordered a GuHong cube.

As far as the method is concerned i am using CFOB(I believe):confused:, solving cross, first two layer, solving the last layer by orientation and by position

The method is called CFOP(Cross, first two layers(F2L), Orienting the Last Layer(OLL), and Permuting the Last Layer(PLL)).

If you want to judge your speed, solve the cube multiple times and keep track of the time. Most people use sites such as(but not limited to) www.qqtimer.net. For example, if my average of solves is below 12 seconds, I would be sub12.

 

[sarathicse]

What times do you get? just take an average of 12.

Cool.......And the method i use is that right???

The method is called CFOP(Cross, first two layers(F2L), Orienting the Last Layer(OLL), and Permuting the Last Layer(PLL)).

If you want to judge your speed, solve the cube multiple times and keep track of the time. Most people use sites such as(but not limited to) www.qqtimer.net. For example, if my average of solves is below 12 seconds, I would be sub12.

Thanks Ninja, But my question is on what average, "average of 5 solve", "average of 10 solve" etc.,

Is there a standard in it...

 

[Ninja Storm]

Thanks Ninja, But my question is on what average, "average of 5 solve", "average of 10 solve" etc.,

Is there a standard in it...

Averages of 5 and 12 are usually for videos, but can also give a reasonable gauge of speed.

If you want to be totally accurate(which is probably unnecessary by a person of your speed), you can do averages of 50 or 100.

Keep in mind that you're new to cubing, and doing lots of solves in a row should make you faster on its own.

 

[TheOneOnTheLeft]

An average of 5 or average of 12 ignores the fastest and slowest solves out of that number, and then takes a mean of the remaining 3 or 10 solves. If you use qqtimer, it will calculate these for you.

 

[sarathicse]

An average of 5 or average of 12 ignores the fastest and slowest solves out of that number, and then takes a mean of the remaining 3 or 10 solves. If you use qqtimer, it will calculate these for you.

I will try it today and will let all know my avg..............

 

[rj]

I will try it today and will let all know my avg..............

Excellent. I count myself as sub-30, even though I get solves over 30 seconds occasionally.
A normal average for me would be 27 seconds, though I do have a lucky average of 22.x

 

[jdbryant]

Before my involuntary 8 month cubing hiatus, I used the CFOP method with 2-look OLL and PLL for around 6 months and got to a sub 30 Ao12. Now that I'm coming back, I'm considering changing methods to Roux. Obviously I'm more familiar with CFOP (although I'm pretty sure I would struggle to remember LL algs...), but it seems to be that people who have been using CFOP either regret starting with CFOP and wish they could change, or CFOP users acknowledge how much better Roux seems. I just really want to make the right decision now when I have a chance before I really dedicate to improving. My only reservations about Roux are that it seems like nobody uses it but a few, and there is a general lack of resources for it. I'm not sure I'll be able to improve as quickly with Roux. I'm not opposed to the idea of a more algorithmic approach, but I like the efficiency of Roux. Any comments/suggestions?

 

[rj]

Before my involuntary 8 month cubing hiatus, I used the CFOP method with 2-look OLL and PLL for around 6 months and got to a sub 30 Ao12. Now that I'm coming back, I'm considering changing methods to Roux. Obviously I'm more familiar with CFOP (although I'm pretty sure I would struggle to remember LL algs...), but it seems to be that people who have been using CFOP either regret starting with CFOP and wish they could change, or CFOP users acknowledge how much better Roux seems. I just really want to make the right decision now when I have a chance before I really dedicate to improving. My only reservations about Roux are that it seems like nobody uses it but a few, and there is a general lack of resources for it. I'm not sure I'll be able to improve as quickly with Roux. I'm not opposed to the idea of a more algorithmic approach, but I like the efficiency of Roux. Any comments/suggestions?

Try using both. I do that sometimes, and I can get ~36 seconds w/roux. Alex Lau (5bld) is 3rd in the world for 3x3 average, and he uses Roux.

 

[Ninja Storm]

Before my involuntary 8 month cubing hiatus, I used the CFOP method with 2-look OLL and PLL for around 6 months and got to a sub 30 Ao12. Now that I'm coming back, I'm considering changing methods to Roux. Obviously I'm more familiar with CFOP (although I'm pretty sure I would struggle to remember LL algs...), but it seems to be that people who have been using CFOP either regret starting with CFOP and wish they could change, or CFOP users acknowledge how much better Roux seems. I just really want to make the right decision now when I have a chance before I really dedicate to improving. My only reservations about Roux are that it seems like nobody uses it but a few, and there is a general lack of resources for it. I'm not sure I'll be able to improve as quickly with Roux. I'm not opposed to the idea of a more algorithmic approach, but I like the efficiency of Roux. Any comments/suggestions?

I think Roux is a slightly better 3x3 method than CFOP. With that said, if you enjoy doing big cubes as much as I do, I would suggest sticking with CFOP, as larger cube Roux methods do not seem to be as good as CFOP ones.

However, if you plan to stick to 3x3 only(or a few other non-bigcube events), I'd suggest Roux.

 

[jdbryant]

Yeah, after checking out a few Roux tutorials, I really am liking the way it sounds. I doubt I would do any big cubes other than maybe 4x4. But I do want to do 2x2 and 3x3 pretty seriously.

 

[SilentSolver]

Thank you very much, I have been looking around for something like this. I learned CFOP first but I really want to check out ZZ and Roux, but now Petrus has piqued my interest as well. Thanks again!

 

[PotatoVlogz]

it is so hard to learn roux, I just started cubing 2 weeks ago and have a good minute avg w/ beginners, w/ my PB being 50.58, and iI just cant learn anything else, how long does it take? wanna learn roux, but the left block is troubling :I(

 

[GuRoux]

it is so hard to learn roux, I just started cubing 2 weeks ago and have a good minute avg w/ beginners, w/ my PB being 50.58, and iI just cant learn anything else, how long does it take? wanna learn roux, but the left block is troubling :I(

It's pretty hard to go straight from beginner's to roux; I recommend you to take on F2L and learn how the cubes works better before trying roux.

 

[PotatoVlogz]

F2L is hard also

 

[Blade8227]

I tried learning Petrus and Roux, but it was a little frustrating. You should really try CFOP, like a lot of people.

 

[GuRoux]

I tried learning Petrus and Roux, but it was a little frustrating. You should really try CFOP, like a lot of people.

CFOP will help people to look at the cube a more different way which will help when they come back to roux.

 

[cubingawsumness]

F2L is hard also

I would say F2L is actually a form of blockbuilding, just much more restricted. Intuitive F2L introduces a lot of really important concepts for moving pieces around, such as moving pieces out of the way to do something else. If you understand what is happening during F2L, you should be able to apply similar concepts to "real" blockbuilding in roux, petrus, etc.
I would recommend learning and getting a good grasp of f2l before trying out other methods afterwards. Good luck!

 

[RubiksJake12]

This thread is fantastic. I'm dying to learn a new method and have decided that because I hate intuitive solving, I'm going to try Roux, which should hopefully force me to learn the cube better and be more intuitive, which I think will further me as a cuber in general. I'm good at memorizing algorithms already, so I should practice intuitive solving and lookahead, which is what Roux requires. The hardest part seems to be the blockbuilding for me because there's no set in stone way to do it. With F2L, I simply look for two pieces, insert them, look for two pieces, insert them. anyway, hopefully I can understand Roux eventually.

 

[caters]

CFOP is the Fridrich method. I can't do any begginner method(includes petrus and Roux, keyhole, sexy) other than LBL(have tried all the others and cannot do them) Maybe LBL---Fridrich directly is best for me instead of LBL-----other begginer methods that others say are faster------Fridrich. The only thing I would really have a problem with is orienting the corners and edges at the same time(F2L) because the OLL and PLL I can look up all the algorithms for and the names of their groups and do those algorithms. You know really any algorithm(just 1 algorithm) you can use to solve the cube. The number of times you have to do it(the order of the algorithm) depends on the algorithm but thats besides the point.

 

[aboeglin]

CFOP is the Fredrik method. I can't do any begginner method(includes petrus and rous, keyhole, sexy) other than LBL(have tried all the others and cannot do them) Maybe LBL---Fredrick directly is best for me instead of LBL-----other begginer methods that others say are faster------Fredrik. The only thing I would really have a problem with is orienting the corners and edges at the same time(F2L) because the OLL and PLL I can look up all the algorithms for and the names of their groups and do those algorithms. You know really any algorithm(just 1 algorithm) you can use to solve the cube. The number of times you have to do it(the order of the algorithm) depends on the algorithm but thats besides the point.

I would edit your post and write "Fredrik" the correct way or you'll have troubles.