[Help Thread] CFOP Discussion

[vijfirextreme]

How do i get faster with fridrich (CFOP) ?

I have been using the fridrich method for A while now with full PLL. I know about 30 of the OLLs so I use 1 look OLL or 2 look OLL depending on the case. I've been stuck at a sub 30 average for about three months and I am no able to reach sub 20. PLEASE HELP!!!

 

[jeff081692]

I have been using the fridrich method for A while now with full PLL. I know about 30 of the OLLs so I use 1 look OLL or 2 look OLL depending on the case. I've been stuck at a sub 30 average for about three months and I am no able to reach sub 20. PLEASE HELP!!!

How often do you currently practice and what do you do to practice? I am curious about how people get stuck at certain barriers for months.

As for your question, you need to get better at F2L. During F2L can you find a pair, close your eyes, and solve that pair easily? If you can't do this for every single possible configuration of an F2L pair then you need to get more familiar with how you solve your cases. I for example have a personalized table with all my F2L cases and what I do for each but you don't have to go to this extreme.
If you can do each F2L case in the manner above then begin learning how to lookahead. Go slow enough so you can lookahead and when you get the hang of it make it your goal to turn just a little bit faster while always pushing yourself to lookahead. This should feel hard to do and if you practice at the right speed you will improve.
Also look at reconstructions of fast cubers on http://www.cubesolv.es/
Compare how you solve each case to how faster cubers solve cases and if you see that they are doing something more efficient consider learning it.

The last thing is practice. Be consistent in your practice. If you follow the above and do 1 hour of solves a day I would literally be shocked if you were not on your way to sub20.

Also if you have been doing the above and still want more advice then read this whole thread front to back. Hopefully something is new to you in what I have said or what you read and just do it.

Edit: This answer applies to anyone who's F2L takes more than 10 seconds

 

[vijfirextreme]

You're right, I think it's because I don't practice much, and my f2l takes about 16 to 17 secs. thanks a lot!!!

 

[CriticalCubing]

My F2L takes the same time, but I still get sub30 solves. Like 26 sec. Do your PLL and 2OLL fast. It takes me like 7 sec for recog and execution combined

You're right, I think it's because I don't practice much, and my f2l takes about 16 to 17 secs. thanks a lot!!!

 

[pipkiksass]

I still get sub30 solves. Like 26 sec.

Elsewhere, you have claimed to have a sub 25 average.

Do your PLL and 2OLL fast. It takes me like 7 sec for recog and execution combined

But you said your F2L takes "the same time" as vijfireextreme, whose F2L takes 16-17 seconds. If your F2L took 16-17 seconds and your LL took 7 seconds, you'd be getting 24 second averages. However, as you claim here to get 26 second solves with 16-17 second F2L, your LL including recognition takes 9-10 seconds.

16+7 does not equal 26.

 

[CriticalCubing]

If you avg out 5 solves in the end, I get Sub 25.
Example, not all sub sub 9 solvers get sub 9 solves everytime. There is always a sub 10 or sub 11 solve.
No need to be harsh for no reason...

Elsewhere, you have claimed to have a sub 25 average.

But you said your F2L takes "the same time" as vijfireextreme, whose F2L takes 16-17 seconds. If your F2L took 16-17 seconds and your LL took 7 seconds, you'd be getting 24 second averages. However, as you claim here to get 26 second solves with 16-17 second F2L, your LL including recognition takes 9-10 seconds.

16+7 does not equal 26.

 

[pipkiksass]

No need to be harsh for no reason...

Thank you for explaining the difference between single and average.

I'm not "being harsh", I'm illustrating the fact that your splits simply don't add up. And certainly not "for no reason".

Perhaps it would be easier if you used the same terminology as other forum users? If you are sub-25 global average, this means that any significant sample of solves would be sub-25, i.e. an average of 100. You can be globally sub-25 and still have an average of 5, or even 12, that is significantly over 25 seconds.

It is normal practice to refer to solves which are below a certain time as 'sub-XX'; times which are above this time as 'sup-xx'. Using your example, a sub-9 solver also gets SUP-9 solves, rather than sub-10 or sub-11. This terminology is far less confusing.

 

[CriticalCubing]

No No, I was implying to this video. He has got SUB 10, but his first 2 solves are more than that because he averaged it out.
And sorry if I said something wrong

 

[pipkiksass]

No No, I was implying to this video. He has got SUB 10, but his first 2 solves are more than that because he averaged it out.
And sorry if I said something wrong

No worries. 'Sub' is the Latin prefix for 'under'; 'sup' is the Latin prefix for 'over'.

Using the examples of the video you linked there, his average is sub 10, while the first two solves are SUP 10.

Take an example of this solver, who may consider himself sub-10. He gets an 11.39 second solve. It is easier to refer to this as sup-10 (or even sup-11), because that indicates that it is HIGHER than the average he expects. If you refer to it as sub-12, it sounds like a positive thing!

So as a 25-second cuber, it makes sense to refer to a 24 second solve as 'sub-25', but a 26 second solve as 'sup-25'. So if you did an average of 50 solves, you might say that out of the session you had 30 'sub-25' solves, and 20 'sup-25' solves. Rather than referring to the 20 solves as 'sub-26'.

Hope this helps?!

 

[CriticalCubing]

TeeHee Thanks

No worries. 'Sub' is the Latin prefix for 'under'; 'sup' is the Latin prefix for 'over'.

Using the examples of the video you linked there, his average is sub 10, while the first two solves are SUP 10.

Take an example of this solver, who may consider himself sub-10. He gets an 11.39 second solve. It is easier to refer to this as sup-10 (or even sup-11), because that indicates that it is HIGHER than the average he expects. If you refer to it as sub-12, it sounds like a positive thing!

So as a 25-second cuber, it makes sense to refer to a 24 second solve as 'sub-25', but a 26 second solve as 'sup-25'. So if you did an average of 50 solves, you might say that out of the session you had 30 'sub-25' solves, and 20 'sup-25' solves. Rather than referring to the 20 solves as 'sub-26'.

Hope this helps?!

 

[FJT97]

Hi

First: I know, that my look ahead (and english) is not very good.

Last week i made my new single pb: 14.74
I reconstructed the solve and memorized the reconstruction.
Then i solved the cube with the same scramble without thinking, just doing, cause i memorized it.
Best time: 10.5 secs.

Now my question:

This 10.5 secs arent very good, cause my tps is really bad. (sexy move is like 10 tps...)

Is it worth it, to excercise tps, or should i focus on lookahead and algos, cause the tps becomes better by just practising?

Thanks in advance

 

[JKNK]

Hi

First: I know, that my look ahead (and english) is not very good.

Last week i made my new single pb: 14.74
I reconstructed the solve and memorized the reconstruction.
Then i solved the cube with the same scramble without thinking, just doing, cause i memorized it.
Best time: 10.5 secs.

Now my question:

This 10.5 secs arent very good, cause my tps is really bad. (sexy move is like 10 tps...)

Is it worth it, to excercise tps, or should i focus on lookahead and algos, cause the tps becomes better by just practising?

Thanks in advance

tps will come to you and doing moves over and over again wont increase tps that much. look ahead can reduce your times by ten seconds and even more if you can lookahead while going pretty fast

 

[JKNK]

Hey guys, im fully sub 20 but need help. when i go fast i have pretty good lookahead and my times are full sub 20. when i go slow and lookahead my times are sub 20 but some above 20 second solves. when i go a little fast i cant track the corners and edges easily(WTF) should i practice my lookahead while going fast or practice going slow.

 

[jeff081692]

Hey guys, im fully sub 20 but need help. when i go fast i have pretty good lookahead and my times are full sub 20. when i go slow and lookahead my times are sub 20 but some above 20 second solves. when i go a little fast i cant track the corners and edges easily(WTF) should i practice my lookahead while going fast or practice going slow.

If you can lookahead going slow you reach a point where you can't get any faster unless you increase tps (assuming your movecount was stable). Increasing just a little to where you start to not see everything easily is what I would recommend and then thinking about how can you keep up lookahead at that speed each solve. But it's completely up to you. What I do nowadays is watch the solves of people who are a few seconds faster than me and try to imitate that tps in my own solves. Sometimes I just pick a fast cuber and go through their old videos to get an idea of their turn speed when they were at my current goal.

Also looking at other people's slow turning averages are great since you can tell that the difference is purely lookahead and smoothness in turning.

 

[JKNK]

If you can lookahead going slow you reach a point where you can't get any faster unless you increase tps (assuming your movecount was stable). Increasing just a little to where you start to not see everything easily is what I would recommend and then thinking about how can you keep up lookahead at that speed each solve. But it's completely up to you. What I do nowadays is watch the solves of people who are a few seconds faster than me and try to imitate that tps in my own solves. Sometimes I just pick a fast cuber and go through their old videos to get an idea of their turn speed when they were at my current goal.

Also looking at other people's slow turning averages are great since you can tell that the difference is purely lookahead and smoothness in turning.

my average move count going fast is 60 - 70 moves and i average 19 seconds (a lot of times 18) when i go fast. my lookahead is about the same as when i go slow its just that im not thniking so i may do a few extra moves.

 

[jeff081692]

my average move count going fast is 60 - 70 moves and i average 19 seconds (a lot of times 18) when i go fast. my lookahead is about the same as when i go slow its just that im not thniking so i may do a few extra moves.

I think 70 might be a little high. I think normal is around 56-60. So try to stay to the low end even if you have to turn slow to maintain a more efficient solve. Decreasing movecount while turning slow would still let you improve. And maybe when you get used to that try turning faster.

 

[FJT97]

tps will come to you and doing moves over and over again wont increase tps that much. look ahead can reduce your times by ten seconds and even more if you can lookahead while going pretty fast

Thanks

 

[carbon131]

you helped cause when i started following what u said i was at 45-49 now 2 months later im at sub 20

thanks alot!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Roe Rohan cubin]

I have quite fast times (according to me, 18 secs is fast ) using the Fridrich's method, and i can look ahead quite well during F2l, but I have problem to look ahead during OLL and PLL - i know all 21 plls and about 30 olls from badmephisto, cubewhiz sites, and find them quite easy to execute, but to find which case is real pain and i waste approx 3 seconds in that. How do i get better????????? I have tried petrus and other methods but find fridrich easier and faster. Any suggestions would be welcome...

 

[Roe Rohan cubin]

at what pace do i turn the cube in order to look ahead - ANOTHER QUESTION.

how to look ahead during oll, pll...

i need speed... i love cubin'