# Beginner's Guide to Choosing a Speedsolving Method

#### MCubing4Life

##### Member
How about the current WR methods

#### Oatch

##### Member
How about the current WR methods
The current 3x3 WR was achieved with CFOP, but don't let that discourage you from the other methods (ZZ and Roux). I think Roux is a great method (perhaps even slightly superior to CFOP) and is bound to snatch a WR one day.

I'll mention methods that I think are fast for some other WCA puzzles below to get you started (be warned, some of these are more 'advanced' methods - having significantly more algorithms or based around a more difficult concept):
2x2: EG
OH: Same as 3x3, all are great methods (current WR set with CFOP)
4x4: Yau
5x5: Yau/Freeslice
Pyraminx: Top-first methods with plugins (Oka + 1-flip, etc), L4E
Square-1: CSP
3BLD: 3-style

#### MCubing4Life

##### Member
Thanks a lot. This will definitely improve my times. By the way I am a CFOP user already

#### Prabal Baishya

##### Member
2x2: EG
OH: Same as 3x3, all are great methods (current WR set with CFOP)
4x4: Yau
5x5: Yau/Freeslice
Pyraminx: Top-first methods with plugins (Oka + 1-flip, etc), L4E
Square-1: CSP
3BLD: 3-style[/SPOILER]
The WR for 5x5(and also for 6x6 and 7x7) is currently from Reduction/Freeslice not Yau/Freeslice.

#### Thom S.

##### Member
2x2: EG
OH: Same as 3x3, all are great methods (current WR set with CFOP)
4x4: Yau
5x5: Yau/Freeslice
Pyraminx: Top-first methods with plugins (Oka + 1-flip, etc), L4E
Square-1: CSP
3BLD: 3-style
CSP is not a real method. It's like COLL- an algorithmic subset for a method

#### Oatch

##### Member
CSP is not a real method. It's like COLL- an algorithmic subset for a method
I suppose several 'methods' are named in a similar sense - EG and CLL for 2x2 are 'just subsets' as well used to solve the last layer, but I guess it makes the 'defining' feature of the method. Similarly with L4E for pyraminx, if you get technical about it all what L4E really stands for is the solution for the last 4 edges of the pyraminx, but people have come to associate it with the V-first method including L4E in its entirety.

So I was thinking about it in a similar way for CSP - it feels to me as a significant step that really changes the way you think about the puzzle compared to if you didn't account for parity during cubeshape. I guess to be technically correct I should have said Lars Vandenbergh method + CSP, but I think to some extent, names are just arbitrary anyway, it's just a means of communication. I don't actually own a square-one myself, so perhaps therein lies some of my misunderstanding in the matter, but in my mind when I see CSP I associate it with using the Lars Vandenbergh method to finish the solve. In any case, I only stumbled upon the idea of CSP recently and thought it would be interesting to point out as a noteworthy technique/method to the OP, seeing how useful it is to world-class solvers.

#### Thom S.

##### Member
I suppose several 'methods' are named in a similar sense - EG and CLL for 2x2 are 'just subsets' as well used to solve the last layer, but I guess it makes the 'defining' feature of the method. Similarly with L4E for pyraminx, if you get technical about it all what L4E really stands for is the solution for the last 4 edges of the pyraminx, but people have come to associate it with the V-first method including L4E in its entirety.

So I was thinking about it in a similar way for CSP - it feels to me as a significant step that really changes the way you think about the puzzle compared to if you didn't account for parity during cubeshape. I guess to be technically correct I should have said Lars Vandenbergh method + CSP, but I think to some extent, names are just arbitrary anyway, it's just a means of communication. I don't actually own a square-one myself, so perhaps therein lies some of my misunderstanding in the matter, but in my mind when I see CSP I associate it with using the Lars Vandenbergh method to finish the solve. In any case, I only stumbled upon the idea of CSP recently and thought it would be interesting to point out as a noteworthy technique/method to the OP, seeing how useful it is to world-class solvers.
Well, the big difference is that CLL and L4E end the solve while CSP starts the solve.
I mean, in your saying you are right, but CSP is used in every Square-1 Method in existence

#### TipsterTrickster

##### Member
Roux and Screw is good for square one, it is very fast and has very few algs. Also you could use Sarah’s method for skewb, start at beginners then move to intermediate then if you really like skewb (like me) move to advanced, the only difference between them is that they have 3, 11, and 134 algs respectively.

#### Roux_Over_CPOF

##### Member
I know that you're not supposed to be method neutral, but can I use Roux and CFOP only?

#### Sue Doenim

##### Member
The general consensus is that method neutrality is evil. Logically, it means that you are putting in twice as much work for a 2-3 move increase in efficiency. That kind of boost could be gained by doing something much more simple, like learning alternate CMLLs or EOLR.

#### xyzzy

##### Member
And consensus needs to be challenged every so often. There is some amount of skill transfer between all of the big four methods (although Roux is a bit of an oddball) and it's not really twice as much work per se. Like with colour neutrality, the biggest advantage with method neutrality might be how much you can plan in inspection—something that has not been explored much because so few people are proficient with multiple methods.

(I believe @mDiPalma mentioned before that he's Petrus/ZZ neutral.)

OK! Thanks!

#### ToastasaurusCuber

##### Member
I've seen things that say that methods like ZZ and Roux are more "modern" and such, which begs the question, should I learn one of those instead of finishing CFOP?

#### Sue Doenim

##### Member
CFOP holds its own against Roux and ZZ, but most people agree that you should try out all three and pick whichever you like best.

#### ToastasaurusCuber

##### Member
CFOP holds its own against Roux and ZZ, but most people agree that you should try out all three and pick whichever you like best.
Thanks!

#### Palmtop Tiger

##### Member
I would definetly try them and if you like one of them better you could switch. But in general you should just go with the method that you feel the most comfortable with. Switching methods because you want to get faster will probably not pay of since all of these methods are very similar in their potential performance.

#### ToastasaurusCuber

##### Member
I would definetly try them and if you like one of them better you could switch. But in general you should just go with the method that you feel the most comfortable with. Switching methods because you want to get faster will probably not pay of since all of these methods are very similar in their potential performance.
Ok. I was mostly wanting to get faster. I will probably still try them out though.

#### Duncan Bannon

##### Member
Try em all. Pick the one you enjoy most. That will be the one you will get fastest with. Unless you plan on becoming a top cuber, it doesn't matter that much. You can probably get sub 10 just about equally fast(I think)