• Welcome to the Speedsolving.com, home of the web's largest puzzle community!
    You are currently viewing our forum as a guest which gives you limited access to join discussions and access our other features.

    Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community of 35,000+ people from around the world today!

    If you are already a member, simply login to hide this message and begin participating in the community!

Different Methods

Richard

Member
Joined
Mar 19, 2006
Messages
130
Location
Colorado, USA
What are all the different methods out there? All i know are the fridrich, petrus, and roux method. Are there any other methods out there that can put up sub 20 times? If so could i get websites to them as well? Thanks
 

pjk

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Mar 13, 2006
Messages
6,409
WCA
2007KELL02
There are a ton, go to Hardwicks page and scroll to the bottom, he lists a bunch.
 

Erik

Member
Joined
Mar 17, 2006
Messages
2,664
Location
Enschede, Netherlands, Netherlands
WCA
2005AKKE01
YouTube
frk17
Waterman's Method was: Corners Upper layer, Edges+Center Upper layer, Corners upper layer, Edges right? It is pretty fast I think although I don't know how to do the last edges. Would this method with be even faster if you did: Corners whole cube (guimond), Center+Edges Upper layer, edges?
I'm not sure about it but Waterman's Method is almost as fast as Fridrich..
What do you think of this method? (and my extension)

Erik
 

Athefre

Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2006
Messages
880
Location
0, 0
Waterman could be as fast as Fridrich but not many people use it so it's potential hasn't been shown.

I think building a layer first takes less moves than making corners then adding edges.

I can do a layer in 15-16 moves. Corners of 1 layer is maybe 7 moves. 3 moves for each edge (U'M'U). 7+3+3+3+3= 19 moves and that doesn't count L adjustment for each edge..

As for speedcubing methods, there are three others I can think of:

Heise

Human Thistlethwaite

Salvia

Oh, there's also ZB if you are brave enough to learn it.
 

Johannes91

Member
Joined
Mar 28, 2006
Messages
1,341
I don't think anyone is seriously learning 1-look LL. Nobody is even learning ZB as far as I know.
 

pjk

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Mar 13, 2006
Messages
6,409
WCA
2007KELL02
I honestly don't think 1 LL is worth it. You'd be better off learning 2LLL and just have so fast of a recognition that you are basically just doing 1 longer alg, and you could have a 3 second LL with lots of practice. I mean, you see 4-5 second LL all the time.
 

Athefre

Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2006
Messages
880
Location
0, 0
I thought Chris Hardwick was learning it.

I also read somewhere that Ron van Bruchem is learning it and Zborowski decided to learn it too.
 

Johannes91

Member
Joined
Mar 28, 2006
Messages
1,341
Yes, Chris Hardwick was learning it. But I think he isn't anymore. I don't know about Ron, but Zborowski uses his own ZZ method.
 

DDRKirby(ISQ)

Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2006
Messages
16
even if you memorized all ~1211 algs for 1-look LL, recognition would be HORRIBLE.

for your COLL question, the F B L R are all relative.

basically the way you identify COLL is by looking at 4 different stickers, out of:

U side of ULB and URB
U side of ULF and URF
F side of ULF and URF

2 of these will be yellow (or whatever your LL color is), so look at the other 4.

then you look at pairs and opposites.

for example, in the page you linked to, going down the first few algorithms for the first OLL case:

1--use this if the top two stickers are the same, and the bottom two are the opposite color of the top two.
2--use this is the left two stickers are the same, and the right two are the opposite color.
3--use this if the top two are the same and the bottom two are different

etc.

COLL is a useful little thing to learn after learning full fridrich. if you want to be able to utilize it a bit more often you should learn partial edge control.
COLL gives 1/12 chance of no PLL alg required, and then if you dont get that, most of the time its an easy 3-cycle for edges, which is very fast both to recognize and to apply.

after COLL, try XCross...maybe even double xcross o_O
 
Top