uberCuber
Legend
This is definitely true.
This would seem logical enough, but it is only true once the solver in question has actually practiced Yau enough to be as familiar with it as they are with reduction. Sure, lookahead is easier during most of the steps of Yau, but that doesn't change the fact that someone who has only ever practiced redux will not be as fast as he could be at Yau L4C when he first tries it, nor will he be as good at F3E as he could be. There is no direct correlation between a random cuber's redux speed and Yau speed. Being faster with Yau requires practicing Yau, and there is no way around that. Practicing redux may help you develop lookahead because of how difficult it is, but guess what? If someone solves with Yau from the beginning, they will still develop lookahead. And the lookahead they develop will actually be tailored to the way the Yau method works, something a redux solver doesn't quite have yet.
And how would Yau not? Just because it is the way you (and many others) learned does not make it the only way, or the best way. (And no, I'm not arguing that starting with Yau early on is any better, I'm just pointing out that there's no good reason to believe it is worse)
Say Cuber A and Cuber B both average 1:30 at 4x4, and Cuber A got there entirely with redux, while Cuber B started with Yau from the beginning. Cuber A then tries a couple of Yau solves and his movecount is noted. Cuber B also does a couple of Yau solves and records his movecount. Which do you think will have a lower movecount, disregarding parities?
EDIT:
I avoided responding to this part at first because I didn't want to be condescending (my initial reaction was something like "Why is this guy who only seems to average around 1:15 trying to talk about the most efficient way to train?"), but after a few more minutes to think, I have something more useful to say. "The most efficient way to train" is probably not the same for everyone, considering how differently people think. But even if it were, it's not something any of us can really determine. Every one of us only 'trains' once. We start slow, we get faster, and that's it. Sure, an extended lack of practice will make you slow down, but you will never again be that 2-minute-plus 4x4-solver in the position of understanding very little about the cube. This makes it impossible for anybody to objectively compare different ways of learning to cube. Nobody can go back and try it again a different way. So unless someone is doing something obviously illogical in their practicing, I see no reason to try to suggest to someone to completely change what they are doing. Practice with whatever method you like, and do whatever you like, and as long as you put some thought into what you are doing, it is inevitable that you will get better over time, and none of us has the ability to rightly declare that a different way of doing things would have worked any better.
Last edited:
With the 2-look approach, if I don't positively recognize the PLL immediately, I solve corners knowing that I only have one step left after that regardless of parity, and recognition for the second step is easier.
