Do any CFOP cubers solve the 3x3 without any cube rotations?

[Artic]

So I'm wondering if anyone knows of any CFOP cubers, in particular those in the top 10 or 20 or anyone who is sub 15...that consistently solve the 3x3 every single time WITHOUT doing any cube rotations?

If so, could you post any videos of the person? Or, which cubers are near rotation-less during all their solves?

 

[Rocky0701]

So I'm wondering if anyone knows of any CFOP cubers, in particular those in the top 10 or 20 or anyone who is sub 15...that consistently solve the 3x3 every single time WITHOUT doing any cube rotations?

If so, could you post any videos of the person? Or, which cubers are near rotation-less during all their solves?

Not that i am aware of. Rotationless solving is pretty overrated. Minimizing rotations during F2L definitely helps and is a good habit to get into, and AUF is also a very good habit and is used by most fast solvers, but i don't believe that there are any solvers that don't have ANY rotations, it is necessary to have rotations. There are many people that only have one or two rotations every solve though.

 

[XTowncuber]

I can almost guarantee that no one top 50 with CFOP is rotationless. It's pretty stupid really

AUF is also a very good habit and is used by most fast solvers

Yeah, otherwise they would +2 a lot.

 

[Rocky0701]

I can almost guarantee that no one top 50 with CFOP is rotationless. It's pretty stupid really



Yeah, otherwise they would +2 a lot.

That's not really what i meant, i meant doing U moves to setup a case VS rotations.

Also, here is a good video about rotationless F2L, since that is obviously where all the rotations are for the fast solvers: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Js1LZscj18A

 

[mDiPalma]

Not that i am aware of. Rotationless solving is pretty overrated. Minimizing rotations during F2L definitely helps and is a good habit to get into, and AUF is also a very good habit and is used by most fast solvers, but i don't believe that there are any solvers that don't have ANY rotations, it is necessary to have rotations. There are many people that only have one or two rotations every solve though.

If "minimizing rotations...definitely helps," then why would 0 rotations be bad?

I recall seeing some videos of very fast unintentionally rotationless solves by Gabriel Dechichi Barbar.

Making a cross while orienting F2L edges is barely more moves than a standard cross. It may actually be a wash move-wise on average (cancellations made much more likely), and it will cut out huge portions of TPS-deflating rotation buffer.

 

[Amress]

If "minimizing rotations...definitely helps," then why would 0 rotations be bad?

What rocky0701 was trying to say was that doing unnecessary rotations is bad, but doing moves like F and F' to get a rotationless solve is not such a good idea. For example, doing a y2 is almost always bad. On the other hand, doing a y rotation to turn F U' F into R U' R' is a good idea.

 

[jeff081692]

Breandan Vallance was what came to mind but even he has rotations, although very few from what I remember.

 

[Dene]

Are we including doing algorithms (e.g. V perm) with no rotations? Because that's retarded.

 

[applemobile]

those in the top 10 or 20 or anyone who is sub 15.

That's pretty wide group :lol:

 

[mark49152]

Are we including doing algorithms (e.g. V perm) with no rotations? Because that's retarded.

Agreed that's something different.

The OP puts a great question. There's a lot written out there about how rotations are evil, and how move efficiency is also important, but most reconstructions of fast solvers seem to include at least 1-2 rotations during F2L and sometimes some pretty long sequences of easy turns in preference to shorter algs. I'm also interested to really understand what is and isn't key to getting fast at F2L.

From what I've learned so far, it's about flow and lookahead. If a rotation can be smoothly accommodated in the flow, it's fine. Other things like having your hands in the wrong position to deal with the next case are just as much of a problem as a rotation but this general issue of grip doesn't seem to be mentioned as much.

 

[applemobile]

Avoiding rotations for the sake of avoiding rotations is stupid. Solving a particular case in the fastest possible way, being it a rotation, or not a rotation is not stupid.

 

[mark49152]

Avoiding rotations for the sake of avoiding rotations is stupid. Solving a particular case in the fastest possible way, being it a rotation, or not a rotation is not stupid.

Well yeah, but that's stating the obvious, and not particularly helpful to anyone (like me or the OP) who's trying to understand what is good or bad technique or practice.

 

[applemobile]

Well yeah, but that's stating the obvious, and not particularly helpful to anyone (like me or the OP) who's trying to understand what is good or bad technique or practice.

Yes it is, its completely helpful. Find out what is fastest for you, and do that. Practicing not rotating, if rotating is faster, is stupid.

 

[TinaIsAwesome]

Well yeah, but that's stating the obvious, and not particularly helpful to anyone (like me or the OP) who's trying to understand what is good or bad technique or practice.

How is that not helpful? Some beginners might misunderstand when we say "avoid cube rotations" and think that all rotations are bad.

 

[mark49152]

How is that not helpful? Some beginners might misunderstand when we say "avoid cube rotations" and think that all rotations are bad.

Because it doesn't tell us anything informative about when it is or isn't OK to rotate. For anyone who doesn't grasp the obvious fact that rotating is OK as long as it's faster, I guess it might be helpful, but I would credit most beginners with more intelligence than that.

 

[applemobile]

Because it doesn't tell us anything informative about when it is or isn't OK to rotate.

Yes it does. It tells you to rotate when it's faster than not rotating.

 

[ILMZS20]

to be honest i dont think its worth to do no rotations they are just needed sometimes, but to your question i dont know any, and i dont believe there are any really.

 

[jeff081692]

The simple rule I follow is if the edge is a good edge then there is no need to rotate. If the edge is bad a rotation will turn it into a good edge. There are some algs for doing some bad edge cases but it's not that necessary when you look at what can be done just following the above. I think what pushed the 'avoid rotations' thing is when beginners try to rotate a lot to find pieces that could have been solved without rotating by just learning some new ways to insert into different slots. I remember when I was extremely slow I would spam U moves and rotate like crazy just to find pieces.

As for the good and bad edges though, half the F2L cases are good edge cases and half are bad. When I documented Feliks F2L algs for each case I found that most of the time there was a normal alg for 2/4 rotations and the other two were just a y', y, d, or d' and then a case from the first set.

 

[TDM]

The simple rule I follow is if the edge is a good edge then there is no need to rotate. If the edge is bad a rotation will turn it into a good edge.

Yep, following this you can only need 1 rotation during F2L... and if the only misoriented edges go in the back slots, R2 F R2 F' (or R2 F R F' R) isn't a bad way of inserting them.
But I think that multislotting is more beneficial than trying to avoid rotatations like this. Trying to have a rotationless F2L makes my (not sure about others) F2L much less efficient, so I end up wasting time and am slower than if I do F2L normally.

 

[jeff081692]

Yep, following this you can only need 1 rotation during F2L... and if the only misoriented edges go in the back slots, R2 F R2 F' (or R2 F R F' R) isn't a bad way of inserting them.
But I think that multislotting is more beneficial than trying to avoid rotatations like this. Trying to have a rotationless F2L makes my (not sure about others) F2L much less efficient, so I end up wasting time and am slower than if I do F2L normally.

I agree, I don't use the rule to reduce rotations. It's just so I know that I could find something better. For example set up the cube with R' U' R U R' U' R U2 R' U R then think about how you would solve that case normally then try the inverse R' U' RU2’ R' URU' R' UR
Most people I have seen would rotate and end up having to rotate again to solve that mostly because it can be hard to see exactly what case it is but since it is a good edge I was able to find a way to do it without rotating and saving a rotation that time was worth it for me because before it was 2 rotations for 1 case.