• 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!

Heise Method Discussion thread

Joined
Apr 29, 2006
Messages
1,802
Likes
3
#2
I last heard Johannes Laire averaging 24sec.

It's not worth doing for speed, but if you're at all interested in fewest moves, take a look at this.
 
Joined
Mar 28, 2006
Messages
1,341
Likes
12
#3
It's fun. And even if you don't end up using it, you'll probably learn some tricks you can adapt to other methods.

Just like for all other methods except Fridrich, it's impossible to say "how fast it can get".
 
Last edited:
Joined
Feb 12, 2008
Messages
69
Likes
0
Location
NJ - USA
WCA
2008KAUF01
YouTube
zTheNiko
#5
The Heise Method

Just wondering if anyone uses it? I was browsing around here and it looks pretty good - surprised I haven't heard more about it. Is there a reason it's not very popular?

-niKo
 
Joined
Jun 4, 2007
Messages
1,585
Likes
5
Location
Gainesville, Florida
WCA
2008LOFT01
YouTube
Loftycuber
#7
It isn't popular for the same reason Petrus isn't popular. The method is ridiculously efficient but since you are using intuitive efficiency is "harder" and "takes more thinking" then fridrich. I really like the method but past the first part I find it kinda difficult to do...
I think I'll learn more now, block building is fun and imo better in the long run.
 
Joined
Dec 5, 2007
Messages
2,833
Likes
5
WCA
2008FANW01
YouTube
fanwuq
#9
I tried it once and and got most of the cube solved in 17 moves. But I had to orient and place 4 more weirdly placed edges and 3 corners. I didn't know the commutators and stuff back than so I just finished with Fridrich and got about 50 moves. Now that I know a bit of BLD, I could probably handle the situations better.
 
Joined
Feb 24, 2008
Messages
76
Likes
1
Location
CO
#12
I've been using it recently - learning the logic behind the conjugates and commutators has vastly improved my understanding of the cube. I'm also noticing that the more I practice, the more I "see" intuitive sequences of moves. It's more fun in my opinion as your not just solving the cube using a brain dump of memorized algorithms. You're solving it because you understand how to solve it.
 
Joined
Apr 29, 2006
Messages
1,802
Likes
3
#13
I've been using it recently - learning the logic behind the conjugates and commutators has vastly improved my understanding of the cube. I'm also noticing that the more I practice, the more I "see" intuitive sequences of moves. It's more fun in my opinion as your not just solving the cube using a brain dump of memorized algorithms. You're solving it because you understand how to solve it.
What if you understand the algs you use?
 
Joined
Jun 17, 2006
Messages
654
Likes
1
#14
It is "popular" for fewest moves, but not for speed.
Hi, I would moderate that and say it's good for linear or time-limited (less than 1 hr) fewest moves solving. It is not all that popular in fewest moves either. Petrus method is FAR more popular :rolleyes:

- Per
 
Joined
Dec 15, 2007
Messages
44
Likes
1
#15
Heise LS+LL

I've been looking at the Heise method lately and his method for solving the last edge-pair slot and last layer looks quite interesting.

I'm a bit too lazy (or rather busy) so never really finished learning 3LL but this doesn't look too bad - it would seem that it's quite move-count efficient and also requires memorizing only a few algorithms - which Heise doesn't even call algorithms, but I guess they are, it's just that they're easy to learn and understand.

So ATM I'm trying to do Petrus + Heise for LS+LL...

Is there any particular reason why it isn't used more, other than that Heise's F2L method is really complicated so people gave up before getting to that step?
 
Joined
Jun 4, 2007
Messages
1,585
Likes
5
Location
Gainesville, Florida
WCA
2008LOFT01
YouTube
Loftycuber
#16
Well it is quite hard to do at full speed... but if you are willing to practice im sure it can be made fast. I don't really think its the F2L part that makes it too complicated but the whole method is pretty complicated. We aren't willing to work for fast times we want them now...
I say go for it.
 
Joined
Mar 28, 2006
Messages
1,341
Likes
12
#17
requires memorizing only a few algorithms - which Heise doesn't even call algorithms, but I guess they are, it's just that they're easy to learn and understand.
Nope, you don't need to memorize any algs. You just need to understand the general idea of commutators.

Is there any particular reason why it isn't used more?
Most cubers are only speedcubers and aren't interested in thinking or getting low move counts. If solving for fewest moves was the main event, I'm sure Heise's method would be quite popular.
 
Joined
Dec 15, 2007
Messages
44
Likes
1
#18
requires memorizing only a few algorithms - which Heise doesn't even call algorithms, but I guess they are, it's just that they're easy to learn and understand.
Nope, you don't need to memorize any algs. You just need to understand the general idea of commutators.
I'm speaking in the sense that even intuitive methods like Petrus are said to have intuitive "algorithms" - i.e. that you remember what to do every time you see a current case (hope I'm making sense)


Is there any particular reason why it isn't used more?
Most cubers are only speedcubers and aren't interested in thinking or getting low move counts. If solving for fewest moves was the main event, I'm sure Heise's method would be quite popular.[/QUOTE]

But isn't the point of learning 2LL instead of 4LL and MGLS instead of 2LL to reduce the number of moves you would need to do and so increase your speed?
 
Joined
Dec 5, 2007
Messages
2,833
Likes
5
WCA
2008FANW01
YouTube
fanwuq
#19
I would use Heise. The problem is that speed cubing is not just move count, fingertricks and recognition is just as important. Heise is about 35-40 moves while 3 Look LL Fridrich is about 60-65 moves, but Fridrich is way faster for me. While it is a waste of 20 some moves, the moves are fingertrick friendly and patterns are easier to recognize. You can solve a cube without thinking. Heise is more interesting. You actually think to solve. It can be very fast with practice. It's good to use on a stiff cube. :)
 
Joined
Mar 28, 2006
Messages
1,341
Likes
12
#20
I'm speaking in the sense that even intuitive methods like Petrus are said to have intuitive "algorithms" - i.e. that you remember what to do every time you see a current case (hope I'm making sense)
Petrus, Fridrich, Roux, and most other methods have one or more steps (like PLL) where you use some algs you have memorized. Heise doesn't have any such steps; you only need to know some general principles, and not a single specific move sequence. If you practise it, you will of course start seeing same patterns again and again and remember how to solve them, but this is different from memorizing algs without understanding them.

What I tried to say is that getting fast times is (at least in my opinion) much easier with those other methods. Heise requires more practice to get good at. So, if you only care about speed, there's not much reason to use Heise. It's fun and quite useful in solving for fewest moves, and in the long run you can get very fast times with it, so I recommend practising it if it seems interesting to you.
 
Last edited:
Top