Frequently Asked Questions - READ BEFORE POSTING

[Musicalboy2]

I have a question ( i don't really know if it belongs here, but I'll shoot... I couldn't find it anywhere online)

- Concerning cubing Averages .. what could be considered fast , slow or intermediate ( e.g. sub-20 is considered is speedsolving for 3x3 , what's for 2x2... etc)?
- can somebody make a comprehensive list or provide a link ?

E.g. in 2x2 :

12+ secs : very slow .. learn Ortega

10-12 secs: Practice PBL prediction

8-10 secs: Learn SS tricks / CLL algs

something like that.... If anyone could help!

The wiki has something like that, if you're looking for the what to do at each stage.

https://www.speedsolving.com/wiki/index.php/Road_to_Sub-15_Second_Averages

Also consider checking out the links at the bottom of that article.

I realize it was a bit of a format example, but I also really disagree with your 2x2 list. However, I'm also not exactly qualified to make a better one...

If you're asking what's considered fast, realize that it's pretty subjective. Some people might consider sub 30 "fast" (it's faster than the WCA mean best single, by the rankings list, last I checked), but I'm sure there are also some people don't consider someone fast until, say, sub 8-9.

 

[SpeedCubeReview]

I have a question ( i don't really know if it belongs here, but I'll shoot... I couldn't find it anywhere online)

- Concerning cubing Averages .. what could be considered fast , slow or intermediate ( e.g. sub-20 is considered is speedsolving for 3x3 , what's for 2x2... etc)?
- can somebody make a comprehensive list or provide a link ?

E.g. in 2x2 :

12+ secs : very slow .. learn Ortega

10-12 secs: Practice PBL prediction

8-10 secs: Learn SS tricks / CLL algs

something like that.... If anyone could help!

The numbers are all over the place, and to say what is "fast" is a personal opinion. I'm around 6-7 seconds with Ortega. On your scale that means I am quite fast, but to someone else I am quite slow. Set a goal for yourself as to what you would like to be. When I was able to solve it under a minute I remember saying that I don't care if I can get any faster, I'm perfectly happy being able to say I can solve a cube in under a minute. Half a year later my PB is 13.1 seconds. Again, I do not have a goal to be the fastest, nor do I think 13 seconds is fast, intermediate or slow....

... sorry for the non-answer answer.

 

[Luke8]

As someone who has joined many technical forums I know that it can be daunting to ask what sounds like a simple question. Some of us do try and read FAQ(s) before posting but some dont. The response goes to the "culture" of a forum. What kind of "culture" do you want to be? Friendly and inviting or exclusive and dismissive? Thats up to all of you. FWIW, if I saw yet another really basic question from a new user, I would respond by welcoming the user and include a link to the FAQ(s). But thats just me....

I totally agree. People who are new to the forums will make some mistakes, but that should be welcomed. After all, they are new. When I didn't know how to cube, I thought that their was some "trick" that could be learned in 2 minutes that would get you at 10 seconds after a week. Wow. Everyone has to start from somewhere, and if the forum is furious at someone for making a new mistake, they might leave the forum and never happen upon this vast treasure room of cubing knowledge. At the same time, though, we should always include a link to this thread if they make this mistake.

 

[obelisk477]

I totally agree. People who are new to the forums will make some mistakes, but that should be welcomed. After all, they are new. When I didn't know how to cube, I thought that their was some "trick" that could be learned in 2 minutes that would get you at 10 seconds after a week. Wow. Everyone has to start from somewhere, and if the forum is furious at someone for making a new mistake, they might leave the forum and never happen upon this vast treasure room of cubing knowledge. At the same time, though, we should always include a link to this thread if they make this mistake.

Mistakes like...bumping a 2 year old thread?

 

[AlphaSheep]

Mistakes like...bumping a 2 year old thread?

You can hardly call bumping an FAQ a bad thing... And it's not even like it was dug from deep down in the forum. It is stickied in "Cubing Help & Questions" after all.

 

[SpectralChimaera]

Great list.. if n00bs can be bothered to find it. Even if it's sticked, the only thing a first time poster will be thinking about is WERR CAN I GET DA BEST C00B EVAAEERR. It's inevitable.

Noob here,

I read it.

*holding back dumbass remark*

Regards

A roux user

 

[Burrito]

Best 3x3 method in your opinions please

 

[Luke Solves Cubes]

CFOP because half of the solve is algorithms, also there is a bunch of information on the method compared to the other 2, ZZ and Roux

 

[IsThatA4x4]

There is not really a "best" method persay, but there are a main 3 that people consider the best methods
My opinions on each:
CFOP - tried and tested, this is by far the most popular method. It has good lookahead and many advanced techniques have been developed and tutorials put out to make improvement much easier. However, the movecount is higher, and 78 algorithms are included which is offputting to some people

Roux - I would say at the highest level, this method is as good as CFOP. The issue here is that it's less popular, and advanced techniques are still being developed, and the road for improvement is much less clear. This method has a low movecount and feels very intuitive and fun to use. Blockbuilding steps in the beginning are easy to learn but very hard to master, and there is a lot of luck potential in F2B that can get some very fast singles (e.g. Fahmi's (F?)UWR). Only 42 algs are included here, and they're quite short.

ZZ - This method also has a lot of potential, however the EO step imo at a high level is more of a pacelock. Considering EO is done at the start of every solve, a lot of scrambles could be done just as fast without that step, particularly those with blocks (e.g. making XX+-crosses). In CFOP, many people use at least partial edge control, and know a few tricks to get EO at LL, which is seen to be the main benefit of ZZ.

 

[PiKeeper]

At the highest level, I would put roux as either equal or slightly better than cfop and zz as slightly worse than both. However, the difference between the methods is very slight.

 

[Thom S.]

Did you really need to ask this question this way or are you deliberately looking for a fight?

 

[turtwig]

I was going to say that there should be a frequently asked questions post to prevent these kinds of threads, but it already exists, and the first reply is

This is a good idea, but sadly....there are still going to be people posting thread's asking those questions.

 

[ruffleduck]

Roux is the best method.

Sincerely, a former CFOP user, and ZZ user

 

[Swagrid]

Ultimately its not about which is the best best, but which is best for you. We all handle information differently are function differently. Some better are better off with the tps spam of CFOP, some with the brain spam of Roux. Play around and whichever method stands out to you/is the most fun/makes the most sense/is fastest for you, do that! The top few methods are so close together that the objective difference is completely nullified by the subjective difference.

That being said, Roux is the best lol

 

[Burrito]

Did you really need to ask this question this way or are you deliberately looking for a fight?

Yes, I want to use a good method but not CFOP