help me solve the cube

Hi ahmedkl, well, it's quite hard to say without actually seeing what you're doing ( I guess TemurAmir was right about Skype being helpful in that sense!) so I'll try and give you a detailed description of the second layer (taken from your link). If you find a particular bit that you're having trouble with, point that out to me and it'll be easier for me or someone else to help.


(Assuming you made a white cross) Make sure you have the white face facing down, at the bottom of the cube.

Now, look for an edge piece on your top later (You would be very unlucky not to have even a single edge piece on your top row, but if you notice that they are all stuck in the second layer, I will explain how to deal with this further down). These pieces should be fairly easy to spot, as they will not have a yellow sticker on them.

Edge pieces have two stickers, look at the colour of the sticker facing towards you (ie, not the sticker on the U face). What colour is it? Lets take the example of a blue-red edge with the blue sticker facing towards you and the red sticker on U face (shown on the left below).

edgepositioning.jpg


Using U turns, rotate the edge until the sticker matches up with a centre of the same colour, as shown above. It is very important that these sticker colours match! Notice in the image above, we have two examples of incorrectly positioned edges. The middle image is an easy mistake to make! Make sure that you line your edge piece up so that the sticker facing towards you is matching the centre, not the sticker on U. In the image on the right, the green-red sticker is not in the correct position to be inserted, and would have to be rotated so that it matches with the green centre instead.)

Now, look at the sticker on U face. What colour is it? In our example, it is red. This means our sticker wants to go in between the blue and red centre pieces, to the right.

edgepositioning2.jpg


To move the edge to that position, we perform the alg shown above. Don't worry about the brackets, I just put them there to help you see that pattern in the algorithm. At this stage, it's quite important for you to try and follow the edge and corner pieces as you perform this algorithm. This will help you understand what the algorithm is actually doing. You should notice that after you have performed ( U R U' R' ) the corner and edge are paired together. The ( U' F' U F ) part of the algorithm then returns them to the correct position.

Once the edge and corner are in the correct position, you can move on to the next edge. Look for another edge piece on the U layer, check the colour of the sticker facing you, match it up to the same colour centre, see which way you want the edge to go and then perform the appropriate algorithm.

You may come across a situation where you have no second layer edge pieces on the top layer. If this is the case, look for pieces stuck either in the incorrect position on the second layer, or possibly in the correct position, but incorrect orientation (as demonstrated below).

edgeflip.jpg


Once you have found these pieces hold the cube so that this piece is facing you, and either on the right or the left. (You can hold it in either, the choice is yours.)

Lets say you hold it so that the edge piece is on the right. If you were to perform the algorithm I gave you earlier, you could move one of the top layer edge pieces into the middle layer edge slot. This would then push the incorrectly placed middle layer edge out onto the top row, where you can deal with it as before.


Ok, that's about all there is to the middle layer. Post here if you have any issues!
 
thanks a lot jiggy i have solved the cube and so far my best time is lol 12minutes but i was too tired at that time :(
 
Congratulations!

Now keep practicing until you do not need to look at the instructions anymore; Don't rush for now, the speed will improve by itself.
Once you feel comfortable with this method you can start looking around for ways to improve.

Can you please share the method you are currently using?
Then we can already think about possible next steps to improve your method.
 
Excellent job, mate! If you keep practising, you'll find that your times will reduce very quickly!

My advice to you now is to just spend a few days cubing. As I said, your times will rapidly drop and, by the time you're averaging around a minute or so you'll probably have a feel for whether or not you want to really get into speedcubing and learn one of the faster methods.

If you feel you do want to get faster, do some research into the various methods. Use the Wiki, google, the search function and lurk for a while, reading through the forum posts that interest you.

Eventually, you'll probably want to get a good DIY speedcube, too. I wont get in to that for now, but at the moment the popular cubes are Alpha cubes (in particular, the Alpha V), f II and recently the DaYan GuHong. See the Hardware Section for more information on that.

If you do decide to get into speedcubing, I'm sure I'll see you around the forum, but I'll leave you with the parting advice: Think before you post a thread, many questions have already been answered in the past and a lot of the cubers in this forum don't like seeing frivolous threads.

Good luck! =)
 
A suggestion on the last layer- I'm not sure what you decided to do, but I'd advice keeping Badmephisto's order of steps for the last layer, because it'll be a much better transition into more advanced methods.

GL!
 
Hah, if there were just one fastest method, everyone would use it! See my post a few pages back for a breakdown of the three main speedsolving methods, Fridrich (CFOP), Petrus and Roux.

Fridrich is the more popular of the three at present. It's also the method with which the current world record has been set, but that doesn't mean that it's the fastest. It's also worth noting that full Fridrich requires a user to memorise a large number of algorithms. If you're interested, do some research on the wiki and google, try out each of the methods and see which one suits you.

Personally, I use a Haiyan Memory cube. However, at $25, this is probably one of the most expensive cubes on the market. Many people (although, I have not say, not me) are big fans of the F II, which is sold at a far more reasonable price. This thread:

http://www.speedsolving.com/forum/showthread.php?t=22272

Is the official thread for a popular cube shop. They are quite cheep and often do deals. Look further down in the main thread for links to some of the more popular cubes. (Note: You cannot buy a Haiyan Memory from this shop.)

For now, just do some research and practice your beginner's method. Good luck!
 
Don't forget ZZ as a possible option (versus Fridrich, Roux, and Petrus). ZZ is a relatively new method where you orient edges first. I know that sounds weird, but what you basically do is you make it so that the entire F2L can be solved using R, U, and L moves, which are very fast. You also avoid the need to ever rotate the cube, just by fiddling around with the edges a bit at the beginning of F2L.

Also, I want to point something out- Jiggy was correct that Fridrich is most popular. However, there's no doubt at all that ZZ, Roux, and Petrus can be sub-20 or sub-15. There's even a Roux user who's sub-10. Try out all of them, and decide what's best for you, and don't be discouraged by the low number of non-Fridrich users.

On the other hand, don't be discouraged by my rambling if you decide Fridrich's best for you. :D
 
Don't forget ZZ as a possible option (versus Fridrich, Roux, and Petrus). ZZ is a relatively new method where you orient edges first. I know that sounds weird, but what you basically do is you make it so that the entire F2L can be solved using R, U, and L moves, which are very fast. You also avoid the need to ever rotate the cube, just by fiddling around with the edges a bit at the beginning of F2L.

Also, I want to point something out- Jiggy was correct that Fridrich is most popular. However, there's no doubt at all that ZZ, Roux, and Petrus can be sub-20 or sub-15. There's even a Roux user who's sub-10. Try out all of them, and decide what's best for you, and don't be discouraged by the low number of non-Fridrich users.

On the other hand, don't be discouraged by my rambling if you decide Fridrich's best for you. :D
First off, I agree with absolutely everything you've said. Now that's out of the way, wouldn't you call ZZ more of a sub-method, than a method? I've not really delved into ZZ, but from my understanding, you initially form the EOLine and orientate all of the edges, then progress to solve in a Fridrich fashion with a rotationless F2L and no need for full OLL. In my view, that makes it kind of a plug-on to CFOP...ZFOP if you will! ;)

While ZZ is certainly a very popular (sub?)method, if I were to talk about that, I'd have to talk about ELL & CLL, ZBLL, MGLS, VHF2L, Winter and all the other variations out there. I just think all that's a bit TMI for a beginner.
 
Last edited:
Don't forget ZZ as a possible option (versus Fridrich, Roux, and Petrus). ZZ is a relatively new method where you orient edges first. I know that sounds weird, but what you basically do is you make it so that the entire F2L can be solved using R, U, and L moves, which are very fast. You also avoid the need to ever rotate the cube, just by fiddling around with the edges a bit at the beginning of F2L.

Also, I want to point something out- Jiggy was correct that Fridrich is most popular. However, there's no doubt at all that ZZ, Roux, and Petrus can be sub-20 or sub-15. There's even a Roux user who's sub-10. Try out all of them, and decide what's best for you, and don't be discouraged by the low number of non-Fridrich users.

On the other hand, don't be discouraged by my rambling if you decide Fridrich's best for you. :D
First off, I agree with absolutely everything you've said. Now that's out of the way, wouldn't you call ZZ more of a sub-method, than a method? I've not really delved into ZZ, but from my understanding, you initially form the EOLine and orientate all of the edges, then progress to solve in a Fridrich fashion with a rotationless F2L and no need for full OLL. In my view, that makes it kind of a plug-on to CFOP...ZFOP if you will! ;)

While ZZ is certainly a very popular (sub?)method, if I were to talk about that, I'd have to talk about ELL & CLL, ZBLL, MGLS, VHF2L, Winter and all the other variations out there. I just think all that's a bit TMI for a beginner.

I use ZZ, and i think it can be called a method. The F2L is not solved in a Fridrich fashion; you do not place the cross edges and then enter the pairs, it is done with blockbuilding. There are also many ways to make the last layer in ZZ different from Fridrich. Personally, I use COLL + EPLL for the last layer (faster recognition for me because I suck at full PLL recognition). The many different ways to do the last layer in ZZ (such as using phasing or winter variation, among many others) are variations, and I don't think a sub-method would have so many variations, which would make me call it its own method.
 
Don't forget ZZ as a possible option (versus Fridrich, Roux, and Petrus). ZZ is a relatively new method where you orient edges first. I know that sounds weird, but what you basically do is you make it so that the entire F2L can be solved using R, U, and L moves, which are very fast. You also avoid the need to ever rotate the cube, just by fiddling around with the edges a bit at the beginning of F2L.

Also, I want to point something out- Jiggy was correct that Fridrich is most popular. However, there's no doubt at all that ZZ, Roux, and Petrus can be sub-20 or sub-15. There's even a Roux user who's sub-10. Try out all of them, and decide what's best for you, and don't be discouraged by the low number of non-Fridrich users.

On the other hand, don't be discouraged by my rambling if you decide Fridrich's best for you. :D
First off, I agree with absolutely everything you've said. Now that's out of the way, wouldn't you call ZZ more of a sub-method, than a method? I've not really delved into ZZ, but from my understanding, you initially form the EOLine and orientate all of the edges, then progress to solve in a Fridrich fashion with a rotationless F2L and no need for full OLL. In my view, that makes it kind of a plug-on to CFOP...ZFOP if you will! ;)

While ZZ is certainly a very popular (sub?)method, if I were to talk about that, I'd have to talk about ELL & CLL, ZBLL, MGLS, VHF2L, Winter and all the other variations out there. I just think all that's a bit TMI for a beginner.

I use ZZ, and i think it can be called a method. The F2L is not solved in a Fridrich fashion; you do not place the cross edges and then enter the pairs, it is done with blockbuilding. There are also many ways to make the last layer in ZZ different from Fridrich. Personally, I use COLL + EPLL for the last layer (faster recognition for me because I suck at full PLL recognition). The many different ways to do the last layer in ZZ (such as using phasing or winter variation, among many others) are variations, and I don't think a sub-method would have so many variations, which would make me call it its own method.
Hmm, looks like I need to do my homework on ZZ. It's more interesting than I thought! It's on the list! ;)
 
I think that it's fair to say that ZZ is a distinct method from Fridrich- more so than, say, MGLS. As Ubercuber said, ZZ is primarily blockbuilding, with a lot more options in the LL than a pure Fridrich user has.

Moral of this mini-conversation: Keep your options open, OP :)
 
Last edited:
I got another problem , sometimes i get stuck on the middle layer like two middle layer colors opposite to each other get completed and the rest other two don't can anyone help me out with this one :( ?
 
Just place one of the "wrong / yellow" edges that is in the last layer into the 2nd layer in the same way you normally put in the "good" edges.
By doing this the good edge moves to the last layer and then you can insert it into the correct slot.
 
Don't forget ZZ as a possible option (versus Fridrich, Roux, and Petrus). ZZ is a relatively new method where you orient edges first. I know that sounds weird, but what you basically do is you make it so that the entire F2L can be solved using R, U, and L moves, which are very fast. You also avoid the need to ever rotate the cube, just by fiddling around with the edges a bit at the beginning of F2L.

Also, I want to point something out- Jiggy was correct that Fridrich is most popular. However, there's no doubt at all that ZZ, Roux, and Petrus can be sub-20 or sub-15. There's even a Roux user who's sub-10. Try out all of them, and decide what's best for you, and don't be discouraged by the low number of non-Fridrich users.

On the other hand, don't be discouraged by my rambling if you decide Fridrich's best for you. :D
First off, I agree with absolutely everything you've said. Now that's out of the way, wouldn't you call ZZ more of a sub-method, than a method? I've not really delved into ZZ, but from my understanding, you initially form the EOLine and orientate all of the edges, then progress to solve in a Fridrich fashion with a rotationless F2L and no need for full OLL. In my view, that makes it kind of a plug-on to CFOP...ZFOP if you will! ;)

While ZZ is certainly a very popular (sub?)method, if I were to talk about that, I'd have to talk about ELL & CLL, ZBLL, MGLS, VHF2L, Winter and all the other variations out there. I just think all that's a bit TMI for a beginner.

I use ZZ, and i think it can be called a method. The F2L is not solved in a Fridrich fashion; you do not place the cross edges and then enter the pairs, it is done with blockbuilding. There are also many ways to make the last layer in ZZ different from Fridrich. Personally, I use COLL + EPLL for the last layer (faster recognition for me because I suck at full PLL recognition). The many different ways to do the last layer in ZZ (such as using phasing or winter variation, among many others) are variations, and I don't think a sub-method would have so many variations, which would make me call it its own method.
Hmm, looks like I need to do my homework on ZZ. It's more interesting than I thought! It's on the list! ;)
From my understanding, a full ZZ solve would have the following:
1: EOLine --orient all edges and solve the DF and DB edges.
2: ZZF2L -- traditionally, use blockbuilding. However, a Fridrich-like approach can also be taken to form a cross and then have rotationless F2L. However, ZZ users stress blockbuilding.
3: LL -- This can be done with any LL method or LL control method (ahem, CLS to PLL), but there is a ZZ-based LL called ZZLL. Through a technique known as phasing (after which two opposite LL edges are permuted), the solver then uses one of 167 algorithms (with mirrors and inverses included) to complete a 1LLL.

If you're Chris Tran, you don't need phasing.
 
Do R2 U F2 U' R2 to set it up. To solve, do R2 to bring a bad cross piece into the top layer. U positions the cross piece in the top layer so that F2 will bring it into the correct spot while simultaneously taking another bad cross piece out. U' positions the second bad cross piece so that R2 will finish the cross.

Alternatively, he could use (set the case up the same way) R D R' D' R, which essentially uses the same concept but with the middle layer.

@Ranzha: Yes, exactly.
 
Back
Top