fridrich method questions?

[Deleted member 14076]

ok so i started cubing and already solve the cube with the begginers method so i am going to learn fridrich method and i went to badmephisto web site and priinted all the OLL cases but i cant find some of the cases the appear on my cube.so what do i do in this cases???

 

[cubernya]

1) It's unsolvable
2) You should start with 2 look OLL
3) Use the OAQT
4) You should learn F2L before you start anything else
5) /thread

 

[Phlippieskezer]

1) It's unsolvable
2) You should start with 2 look OLL
3) Use the OAQT
4) You should learn F2L before you start anything else
5) /thread

^ THIS
If you can't find the OLL documented, it's either unsolvable or you're not looking hard enough.

Also, start with 2LOLL (as mentioned).

Spoiler

Also,
*CFOP

 

[Sillas]

You should learn PLL/F2L before you start anything else. if there is no case is because any piece is change, all the OLL cases are 57, no more no less. and learn OLL 2look before(are 7 cases of cross)

 

[Deleted member 14076]

1) It's unsolvable
2) You should start with 2 look OLL
3) Use the OAQT
4) You should learn F2L before you start anything else
5) /thread

Thank you and actually i am learning f2l but i was trying to solve the cube looking at the whole set of algorithms,but can you explain me what "OAQT" means?

 

[Jokerman5656]

The OAQT is the "one answer question thread". it is a thread for questions that have, well, only one answer and people answer questions there very frequently. And as for your original question, you didn't look good enough when you looked for the case you had on your cube, or you didn't complete your F2L all the way.

Just a side note, the thing you clicked before you submitted this thread said make sure you search before you submit this thread. That doesn't just search the title of your thread, it means that you should do research before you ask a question. Almost all questions you have when you have only been cubing for a short amount of time have already been answered so please search next time. It is also not called Fridrich method, it is CFOP. Happy cubing.

 

[Ranzha]

Thank you and actually i am learning f2l but i was trying to solve the cube looking at the whole set of algorithms,but can you explain me what "OAQT" means?

OAQT refers to The One(-)Answer Question Thread! (No intention on rudeness; the exclamation point is part of the title of the thread. =3)
Have you seen badmephisto's Intuitive F2L videos? They're by far the most in-depth and beginner-friendly tutorials that the speedsolving community has offered as of yet. I suggest you watch them if you haven't already. =D
Next, OLL is not something to be trifled with yet, as many say. I agree such that it is indeed possible to sub-20 (or perhaps sub-15; I can't be bothered to look for video proof) using a 4-look method for the last layer.

~Ranzha

EDIT: Off-topic: Honestly guys? CFOP instead of Fridrich? Is it that huge of a deal? Everyone knows what you're talking about anyway. No need for useless attempts at correction that honestly don't make a difference.

 

[DaveyCow]

It is also not called Fridrich method, it is CFOP. Happy cubing.

hmm what's the difference? I was always under the impression that Jessica Fridrich came up with the Cross, F2L (intuitive), OLL, PLL idea.... But is this impression wrong?

 

[JyH]

(the exclamation point is part of the title of the thread. =3)

Well, that's not true.

hmm what's the difference? I was always under the impression that Jessica Fridrich came up with the Cross, F2L (intuitive), OLL, PLL idea.... But is this impression wrong?

There were more people involved in it's creation, it was just made popular by Jessica Fridrich.

@theZcuber - Stop telling people that are new to the forums to go the OAQT. I find it very surprising that you expect them to know what it is. Just write out "The one answer question thread".

 

[Phlippieskezer]

EDIT: Off-topic: Honestly guys? CFOP instead of Fridrich? Is it that huge of a deal? Everyone knows what you're talking about anyway. No need for useless attempts at correction that honestly don't make a difference.

Jip. Not a big deal, hence spoiler. Just a pet peeve. Fridrich is certainly still clear enough, but CFOP is the (technically) correct term regardless. Not worth much of a discussion, at least not in this thread, in my opinion.

As for the question at hand, there's not much else to say than what was already given my the two above posts. The OAQT is "The One Answer Question Thread."
For F2L, I either suggest badmephisto's tutorial or RiDo's Hunting Story...

hmm what's the difference? I was always under the impression that Jessica Fridrich came up with the Cross, F2L (intuitive), OLL, PLL idea.... But is this impression wrong?

I think this might answer your question... (Short and sweet)

 

[DaveyCow]

For F2L, I either suggest badmephisto's tutorial or RiDo's Hunting Story...

Rido's Hunting Story was amazing for me and really helped get my intuition going. So I also recommend that.

I think this might answer your question... (Short and sweet)

ah yes def cleared it up for me thx I was appearantly one of the many who fell into the trap of semi-mistaken credit-giving!

 

[Deleted member 14076]

OAQT refers to The One(-)Answer Question Thread! (No intention on rudeness; the exclamation point is part of the title of the thread. =3)
Have you seen badmephisto's Intuitive F2L videos? They're by far the most in-depth and beginner-friendly tutorials that the speedsolving community has offered as of yet. I suggest you watch them if you haven't already. =D
Next, OLL is not something to be trifled with yet, as many say. I agree such that it is indeed possible to sub-20 (or perhaps sub-15; I can't be bothered to look for video proof) using a 4-look method for the last layer.

~Ranzha

EDIT: Off-topic: Honestly guys? CFOP instead of Fridrich? Is it that huge of a deal? Everyone knows what you're talking about anyway. No need for useless attempts at correction that honestly don't make a difference.

Thank you. And yes i already saw badmephisto intuitive f2l videos.