About Learning a New Method

[VintageAion]

For the last 2 years, I been solving my cube using the CFOP Method. I got pretty good but I was on and off solving my cube so my time is only averaged at around 25 secs - 35 seconds. My personal best average of 5 was 21 seconds and my best single was 16.81 seconds (Luck).

My question, does learning one advance method make learning another method extremely easy? Today was the first time I ever tried Roux and I learned it in about 2 hours. Yea, Im slow since I am new to it but I can solve the cube by myself everytime without youtube help or a sheet of paper. Took me about 5 months to learn all the algorithms for CFOP. Or is Roux just something that is easier since it is more "intuitive" than CFOP?

 

[lerenard]

https://www.speedsolving.com/forum/showthread.php?19110-Improving-Basic-Speed
https://www.speedsolving.com/forum/...peed-and-improvement-theory&p=85915#post85915

check out these links. The more basic speed you are, the easier it is to get faster at new methods and things you've never done that are cubing-related. I would also propose that learning more methods in and of itself increases your basic speed. That being said, there's a big difference between being able to solve using Roux without help and getting the same times with it that you do with CFOP. Personally Roux is the hardest method for me to be fast with (I never do ZZ...) because it's so different from the other ones, but with my current ability if I had just learned about Roux I would have been able to solve the cube using it just by being told what to solve in what order (First 2 blocks, corners, LSE) because I have enough cubing knowledge. I may not have been doing everything in the most efficient way, but I would have been able to solve the cube. I doubt someone who had never solved a cube would have been able to do the same. So yes, learning one method makes learning others easier, but learning others also makes your original method faster because it increases your basic speed.

 

[VintageAion]

Thanks for the information. I find the look ahead of Roux method alot harder than CFOP since there is more areas of the cube you have to look at.

But when it comes to my original question that you answered with:

So yes, learning one method makes learning others easier

Thanks

 

[Rocky0701]

Yes, learning more than one method will make it easier to learn others. Reasons: 1. You already have a great understanding about how the cube works and know tricks for moving pieces around 2. You already have good systems for learning algs quickly and efficiently 3. Some of the algs for Roux are used in CFOP too. I could name many others, but you get the point. It's just like anything really. It would be easier for someone who is tri lingual to learn another language than it would be for someone who only speaks one language.

 

[lerenard]

Thanks for the information. I find the look ahead of Roux method alot harder than CFOP since there is more areas of the cube you have to look at.

But when it comes to my original question that you answered with:



Thanks

That's funny, I always thought of Roux as being very lookahead friendly because it eliminates rotations and has a very small blindspot. The people who are good at Roux can do their first block from inspection and use that time to look for their second block, and the number of pieces that aren't immediately visible is very small. What I like about Roux is that it focuses on the corners, which are fewer than the edges so they're easier to look for.

 

[VintageAion]

Maybe I just need to get used to not focusing on the order of my colors. When I am building my blocks, I have a tendency to treat it like F2L.

 

[Artic]

Yes, it does make learning a different method easier since you're already familiar with cube terminology and have developed an understanding of solving the cube. However, not all methods are created equal. You will find creating blocks in Roux difficult. And it's impossible to get away from algorithms. Roux alone has 42 CMLL algs, optimizing F2B involves learning block tricks/algs and L6E is also a bunch of mini algs strung together to form larger move sequences. So anywhere you go, you will find algs, algs, and more algs. In any case, explore and experiment with different methods. You should also check out ZZ. It's probably the most elegant, beautiful and efficient method to solve the cube, and it's one of my favorites to watch in action. Here's an avg of 12 someone posted using ZZ:

 

[VintageAion]

Yes, it does make learning a different method easier since you're already familiar with cube terminology and have developed an understanding of solving the cube. However, not all methods are created equal. You will find creating blocks in Roux difficult. And it's impossible to get away from algorithms. Roux alone has 42 CMLL algs, optimizing F2B involves learning block tricks/algs and L6E is also a bunch of mini algs strung together to form larger move sequences. So anywhere you go, you will find algs, algs, and more algs. In any case, explore and experiment with different methods. You should also check out ZZ. It's probably the most elegant, beautiful and efficient method to solve the cube, and it's one of my favorites to watch in action. Here's an avg of 12 someone posted using ZZ:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GBwfO3jtxXQ

Wew, that looks complicated. I started watching some introduction tutorials to it and my head hurts.

 

[lerenard]

Yes, it does make learning a different method easier since you're already familiar with cube terminology and have developed an understanding of solving the cube. However, not all methods are created equal. You will find creating blocks in Roux difficult. And it's impossible to get away from algorithms. Roux alone has 42 CMLL algs, optimizing F2B involves learning block tricks/algs and L6E is also a bunch of mini algs strung together to form larger move sequences. So anywhere you go, you will find algs, algs, and more algs. In any case, explore and experiment with different methods. You should also check out ZZ. It's probably the most elegant, beautiful and efficient method to solve the cube, and it's one of my favorites to watch in action. Here's an avg of 12 someone posted using ZZ:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GBwfO3jtxXQ

42 algs isn't that many. And 2-look CMLL is slower by only like 3-4 seconds, which isn't much of an issue until you want to be sub-20, and that will take a decent amount of time. As for the other "algs," they're more like tricks, which I actually find fun to figure out because they're intuitive and more like a puzzle than rote memorization.

@Vintage: ZZ is probably the hardest method to learn. EOLine takes a really long time to master, but the F2L part is really easy and fast.

 

[Artic]

Wew, that looks complicated. I started watching some introduction tutorials to it and my head hurts.

That's precisely the point. All methods are difficult if you want to get faster. You'll need more algs and more tricks. So don't choose a method based on its difficulty or number of algs. In the end, they all use tons of algs and they're all difficult. Feliks Zemdegs alone probably knows over 300 algs for the 3x3, so yeah, they're needed if you want to get faster.

 

[brian724080]

You should also check out ZZ. It's probably the most elegant, beautiful and efficient method to solve the cube

I agree

EOLine takes a really long time to master, but the F2L part is really easy and fast.

I don't think so, I think that the blockbuilding F2L is just as hard to optimize as the EOLine. There are just too many ways to do (and combine) both of them.

 

[VintageAion]

Nevermind, I think I figured it out. Just did 2 solves with it. Just need to get used to looking for bad edges faster.