• 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
Jan 31, 2013
Messages
514
Likes
11
Location
U.S.A.
YouTube
elrog3
If your good with commutators, you may also like using pair commutators to move the pairs and solve an edge. I also usually take more setup moves than 2 if I want to solve 2 of the corners when all 5 are wrong. For the one pair approach, its not that much of a problem. For recognition, theres no really good way to do it. You do get better with practice, but ultimately, this is what Heise lacks as a speedsolving method.
 

Pi

Member
Joined
May 28, 2013
Messages
28
Likes
1
Location
Cincinnati, Ohio
WCA
2008VENK01
YouTube
Sreeram Venkatarao
Potential of the Heise Method

I've been researching into the different methods in solving the 3x3 in order to better my understanding of the cube. I found an interesting tidbit about the Heise Method that stated that it could be a speedsolving method if learned thoroughly. Just how fast could one solve the cube with this method? Could it be better than Fridrich if used properly?
 
Joined
Jan 22, 2012
Messages
631
Likes
4
Location
New Jersey
sub15 is possible with heise. It is very inconsistant during speedsolves though and corner twists instead of comms sort of ruin the movecount that takes much more effort to get IMO. The amount of effort required to become somewhat fluent in avoiding parity during L5E+2C makes it very difficult. This amount of intuition needs to be groomed and is hard to maintain.
 
Joined
Nov 17, 2013
Messages
8
Likes
0
Hello.
I'm an absolute beginner that got interested in rubik's cube some months ago, and got surprised about how many methods exits to resolve it.
I was looking for a simple method and I found Petrus and Heise. Really I prefer understand the cube than memorize algorithms because I don't care too much about speed, so I've chosen going on with Heise, even although it could seem a hard method for a beginner.
 
Joined
Feb 24, 2008
Messages
76
Likes
1
Location
CO
Glad to hear it! I've been using Heise for years - though if I'm going for speed, I usually do Fridrich for the F2L, and use Heise for the LL - I've managed to keep my times from about 20-30 seconds tops, even using Heise for the LL. The more you practice it the better you'll get - I also think it increases your understanding of the cube itself, it's definitely worth learning.
 
Joined
Aug 4, 2012
Messages
316
Likes
1
WCA
2009ADLA01
Hello.
I'm an absolute beginner that got interested in rubik's cube some months ago, and got surprised about how many methods exits to resolve it.
I was looking for a simple method and I found Petrus and Heise. Really I prefer understand the cube than memorize algorithms because I don't care too much about speed, so I've chosen going on with Heise, even although it could seem a hard method for a beginner.
Roux is another option that requires few algorithms.
 

TDM

Member
Staff member
Joined
Mar 7, 2013
Messages
7,009
Likes
318
Location
Oxfordshire, UK
WCA
2013MEND03
YouTube
TDM028
For a beginner's solving method, it requires few algorithms. Two if I'm not mistaken are sufficient.
Well if you want to use as few as possible, it can be done with no algs. Intuitive corner twists (e.g. [R U R' U' R U R' U',L']) and some easy to understand comms for permutation (e.g. [[R' U L':D2],U/U2]).
Yup, unless someone counts moo and LSE in general as algorithmic.
Most people wouldn't, but even if you do, and you say that's 6 algs, they're still only 3 moves each. Which isn't very much. It wouldn't take that long to learn at all.
 
Joined
Nov 17, 2013
Messages
8
Likes
0
Hello.
I'm an absolute beginner that got interested in rubik's cube some months ago, and got surprised about how many methods exits to resolve it.
I was looking for a simple method and I found Petrus and Heise. Really I prefer understand the cube than memorize algorithms because I don't care too much about speed, so I've chosen going on with Heise, even although it could seem a hard method for a beginner.
Finally, after some practise, I'm getting resolved cubes, but it takes me a long time, specially when resolving last layer's corners and I have to find the right commutators and conjugates. Really I start by building the 2x2x2 and expand it to 2x2x3 (Petrus), that it's easier when beginning, then I go on with Heise. But now I think I'm ready to try the "orthodox" way. Anyway I think it's great to complete a Rubik's cube without memorazing any algorithm, even if I'd never get too fast.
 
Joined
Jan 7, 2014
Messages
7
Likes
0
Location
Connecticut
Could Heise be an effective speed cubing method?

I think I'll learn Heise as a FMC method but I was wondering if it could make a speed cubing method? Move count is very low. I don't think people can know for sure though because not many people use it and the ones who do don't speed solve with it.
 
Joined
Dec 18, 2007
Messages
7,830
Likes
33
Location
a <script> tag near you
WCA
2006GOTT01
YouTube
qqwref2
I think it's possible, but it would take an extreme amount of practice. And even though the movecount is low, the move sequences do not have a lot of structure (compare to all the triggers in Fridrich, or the MU spam in Roux) so your TPS would suffer a lot, negating most of the advantage.
 
Joined
Dec 18, 2017
Messages
1,014
Likes
196
Location
Australia
WCA
2017WENR01
What am I doing wrong here? I suck at Heise and don't know why:
R' U' F R2 U2 B' R2 U2 F2 U2 B' F2 U2 R2 U F' R' D U B' D2 R2 B' L R' U' F

Solve:
D U' F2 D L D2 L2 R' U B2 D L2 U2 L U2 L' D' B' R B D L U B U' B2 L2 B R B' L B R L2 F L2 R2 B2 L2 R2 Ff L2 R2 B L


I always get 40-50 moves using Heise, which is what I get with Roux HTM as well.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Jul 4, 2018
Messages
10
Likes
2
Hello everyone! I do have a question regarding 3x3 methods. I am a cuber who currently uses cfop, and I can get an average sub 10, though I want to change my method. I would like to change it to Heise, though I have been learning it and it is pretty challenging. If you know how to solve Heise or have any suggestions about whether I should change to Heise or another method, please respond.
 

Mike Hughey

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Jun 7, 2007
Messages
9,694
Likes
1,659
Location
Indianapolis
WCA
2007HUGH01
YouTube
MikeHughey1
Heise is incredibly fun, and I find it somewhat useful to know for fewest moves (very rare to submit a whole Heise solve for fewest moves, but the principles from it definitely can help, and using it for starts can get you pretty tolerable averages, even if they rarely result in winning results), but I know of no one who has ever gotten really fast with Heise. It typically takes me at least a minute to complete a full Heise solve; I average 20 seconds with CFOP. I know there are plenty of people who can sub-20 Heise, but most of them are probably twice as fast with CFOP.
 
Joined
Jul 4, 2018
Messages
10
Likes
2
Heise is incredibly fun, and I find it somewhat useful to know for fewest moves (very rare to submit a whole Heise solve for fewest moves, but the principles from it definitely can help, and using it for starts can get you pretty tolerable averages, even if they rarely result in winning results), but I know of no one who has ever gotten really fast with Heise. It typically takes me at least a minute to complete a full Heise solve; I average 20 seconds with CFOP. I know there are plenty of people who can sub-20 Heise, but most of them are probably twice as fast with CFOP.
Thank you for the information!
 
Joined
Jan 4, 2018
Messages
48
Likes
26
Is Heise really all that efficient? What if you did steps 1 and 2 of Heise the same, and then inserted the F2L pair while maintaining EO, and then did ZBLL to complete? Seems like that should have a lower movecount.

Here's an attempt at some estimates of average movecount from F2L-1+EO cubestate using rough guesses.

Heise
Step 3: I have no idea, but if it's more than 10 moves, I would seriously doubt Heise's claim to being super efficient.
Step 4: ~8 (idk how commonly conjugates are needed, but 8 should be a lower bound if I understand commutators correctly)

Heise-a
LS: 6
ZBLL: 12 HTM (https://www.speedsolving.com/wiki/index.php/ZBLL)
= ~18 HTM?

Given that the only step I had hard numbers for was ZBLL, I tried to bias my estimates against Heise-a being better, if I was unsuccessful in that endeavor, so be it, though I'd appreciate being made aware of it so that I may be less unsuccessful the next time I try something like this.

Also, I'm not saying that either this or Heise is a good speedsolving method (nor the contrary), just trying to sort out whether or not Heise's reputation of being extremely efficient is deserved.

PS: Does anyone have numbers for average Heise movecounts? I assume it would be a tad lower than LLOB (41-45 (https://docs.google.com/document/d/1gs3THtRU5UCckKcM_5zjjm5RkJmGxHAJUnv6ta4lJhw/edit)), and LMCF (41-45 (https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B2QnZ3uD6I8kNkpHSURSbzluc2s/view)).
 
Top