Is Corners First Must slower than F2L?

[AlanAlanine]

my apologies

i completely misread the thread. i didn't realize it was actually corners first i thought he was talking about layer by layer.

my baad.

 

[guusrs]

I learned how to do the rubiks cube about 3 weeks ago. I learned by doing it that "corners first" method then doing the edges and finally the middle edges.

Is F2L much faster than corners first guaranteed? My average at the moment is around 1:30 (minute thirty) and thats basically because it takes me like 40seconds average to do the first layer (top).

I was wondering if I learned F2L would I be much faster or will it be bout the same?

Any input is appreciated! Thanks!

BTW First post and first thread!

Hi,

Corners first can be fast!
I recommend Waterman method! Use a slot for yellow edges and last white edge!
check: http://rubikscube.info/waterman/index.php

Gus

 

[TMOY]

Yes, corners first can be fast if you have a good cube which allows for fast slice moves (the STM move count of a good CF method is really low) and a good lookahead (putting several edges with only one look is of much help).
I don't like Waterman that much because it doesn't fit with Guimond-style corners, which I would like to keep.

 

[minsarker]

CFOP = Cross-F2L-OLL-PLL (fridrich method)

Petrus method is another common method. Its more often that someone asks about Petrus vs Fridrich rather than Fridrich vs Corners First.

Ahhh I see, someone wanna explain petrus or link me? I have tried searching for these but always get many answers and then get lost.

CFOP = Cross-F2L-OLL-PLL (fridrich method)

Petrus method is another common method. Its more often that someone asks about Petrus vs Fridrich rather than Fridrich vs Corners First.

thankyou thats what im tring to say maby i should just say fridrich from now on.... and it is nice to have a cf (corners first) comparison question everynow an then, ya know?

lol i finally understand, just say fridrich lol

my apologies

i completely misread the thread. i didn't realize it was actually corners first i thought he was talking about layer by layer.

my baad.

Its cool!

I learned how to do the rubiks cube about 3 weeks ago. I learned by doing it that "corners first" method then doing the edges and finally the middle edges.

Is F2L much faster than corners first guaranteed? My average at the moment is around 1:30 (minute thirty) and thats basically because it takes me like 40seconds average to do the first layer (top).

I was wondering if I learned F2L would I be much faster or will it be bout the same?

Any input is appreciated! Thanks!

BTW First post and first thread!

Hi,

Corners first can be fast!
I recommend Waterman method! Use a slot for yellow edges and last white edge!
check: http://rubikscube.info/waterman/index.php

Gus

I will look into it! Thanks so much!

Yes, corners first can be fast if you have a good cube which allows for fast slice moves (the STM move count of a good CF method is really low) and a good lookahead (putting several edges with only one look is of much help).
I don't like Waterman that much because it doesn't fit with Guimond-style corners, which I would like to keep.

This is my biggest problem. I dont know if my cube is fast because I dont have a "fast" one to compare to.

 

[somerandomkidmike]

I currently use my own corners first method and I had an average under 19 seconds. I don't think F2L is necisarily faster. You are pretty much guaranteed to have to learn a bunch of algorithms to get really fast with either. It's easy to get average less than 20 seconds using either method, learning minimal algorithms though, so it really should depend on which method you'd prefer to do.

 

[somerandomkidmike]

also the link to petrus is http://lar5.com/cube/

I've found if you want to learn a fast corners first without learning a large number of algorithms, I'd learn how to do Guimond for the corners http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=fc1n_RQE900

To do it with this method, if you want to get less than 20 seconds for an average, I think you would need to take 13 seconds for the first layer, and the corners. For you I'd look into Ortega for now. More about corners first can be found at http://www.rubikscube.info/

 

[krazedkat]

Marc Waterman could solve it in less that 20 seconds with his corners first method so its pretty kick ass..... BUT its what's easier for YOU!

 

[minsarker]

I currently use my own corners first method and I had an average under 19 seconds. I don't think F2L is necisarily faster. You are pretty much guaranteed to have to learn a bunch of algorithms to get really fast with either. It's easy to get average less than 20 seconds using either method, learning minimal algorithms though, so it really should depend on which method you'd prefer to do.

Hmm at this point I prefer the corners first, but my problem is I lack algorithms. When i get the first layer done, and then do the corners, i first find two addjacent that are in correct place, and then use an alg to swap the other two incorrect ones. Then i have the 4 corners in correct location. I then use an alg to correctly orient the last 4 corners, but sometimes I have to repeat this alg multiple times before its correct.

After this, I do the edges, and move on to the last 4 edge pieces. I use an alg to get 2 of the edges in correct orientation, then for the last one I use another alg. When im orienting the first 2, i sometimes have to repeat that alg many times as well.

Those are the only problems in my solve and the fact that the first layer takes me like 45 seconds lol

also the link to petrus is http://lar5.com/cube/

I've found if you want to learn a fast corners first without learning a large number of algorithms, I'd learn how to do Guimond for the corners http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=fc1n_RQE900

To do it with this method, if you want to get less than 20 seconds for an average, I think you would need to take 13 seconds for the first layer, and the corners. For you I'd look into Ortega for now. More about corners first can be found at http://www.rubikscube.info/

I will look into those two methods. I looked up Petrus and its odd...

Marc Waterman could solve it in less that 20 seconds with his corners first method so its pretty kick ass..... BUT its what's easier for YOU!

k...

 

[krazedkat]

I was answer the question in the first post....

 

[Dirk BerGuRK]

should I continue with corners first or no? Is it too late for me to make a successful complete swap to f2l?

Hey minsarker,

Don't be discouraged about using a different method then everyone else. Corners first is an excellent method that can easily go sub-20. From the description of your method, you also have a lot of places you can improve. I say stick with it, it will be more rewarding. Btw, it's never to late to do anything.

Here is the Watermann method. It is probably the most advanced corners first method, and was put together back in the 80s. It is very similar to the way you solve the cube now, just more optimized. It has quite a few algs, but all of them are not needed.
http://rubikscube.info/waterman/

Good luck.

Edit: Looks like I missed the last page

 

[somerandomkidmike]

should I continue with corners first or no? Is it too late for me to make a successful complete swap to f2l?

Roux is a block-building based CF method. (I know people don't consider it Corners first, but it is the same processes) and it has proven to be extrememly fast. I've seen solves under 12 seconds. Waterman is definetly a great option (I average 19 seconds with a similar method, and in no ways do I have natural turning speed, and I just started using the method a while ago). You can switch to F2L, but Corners based methods are really really fast, so if you like the method you use, there are transitions you can do (just like with F2l) that can get you going quick with CF or block-building based CF methods. It is not to late to switch, but if you decide not to switch, CF is very fast. (I actually switched from Full Fridrich to Corners first)

 

[somerandomkidmike]

Just try ortega for now. It won't take long to learn, and I average less than 30 seconds with it.

 

[Kirjava]

finish white corners
fill in white cross edge pieces and thus finishing white side
correctly place the 4 bottom yellow corner pieces
correctly orient the 4 bottom yellow corner pieces
fill in the yellow edge pieces thus finishing the white and yellow side
correctly orient and place the last 4 edge pieces

if you want to keep using CF, it would be faster if you place the white edges first then the white corners

i thought it didnt matter which order? care to explain?

sure, if you do corners first, it would take longer to place the edges because you would have to go around the corners. You would have to use middle layer slices to move the white centre around, connect it to white edges, then place them back, but if you did edges first, you wouldn't have to do that. Also flipped edges are annoying to deal with, which you can get if you solve corners first.

I'd say that the order in which you do those two steps doesn't matter speed-wise. You're just biased because you're used to F2L based methods.

Reguardless, for a layer either of these orders is pretty slow. Why not just solve pieces as you see them in no specific order, block building style?

 

[minsarker]

should I continue with corners first or no? Is it too late for me to make a successful complete swap to f2l?

Hey minsarker,

Don't be discouraged about using a different method then everyone else. Corners first is an excellent method that can easily go sub-20. From the description of your method, you also have a lot of places you can improve. I say stick with it, it will be more rewarding. Btw, it's never to late to do anything.

Here is the Watermann method. It is probably the most advanced corners first method, and was put together back in the 80s. It is very similar to the way you solve the cube now, just more optimized. It has quite a few algs, but all of them are not needed.
http://rubikscube.info/waterman/

Good luck.

Edit: Looks like I missed the last page

Thanks, so far i think over this next 2 weeks of winter break im gonna look at Watermann, Ortega, and the few others posted.

should I continue with corners first or no? Is it too late for me to make a successful complete swap to f2l?

Roux is a block-building based CF method. (I know people don't consider it Corners first, but it is the same processes) and it has proven to be extrememly fast. I've seen solves under 12 seconds. Waterman is definetly a great option (I average 19 seconds with a similar method, and in no ways do I have natural turning speed, and I just started using the method a while ago). You can switch to F2L, but Corners based methods are really really fast, so if you like the method you use, there are transitions you can do (just like with F2l) that can get you going quick with CF or block-building based CF methods. It is not to late to switch, but if you decide not to switch, CF is very fast. (I actually switched from Full Fridrich to Corners first)

I think I will stick to cf methods, then try fridrich later.

My goal is to get under 1 minute, and then ill be happy (but i know after 1 minute ill want 50secs, then 40, and so on)

Just try ortega for now. It won't take long to learn, and I average less than 30 seconds with it.

I will be trying Ortega and Watermann first as 2 people have suggested each

finish white corners
fill in white cross edge pieces and thus finishing white side
correctly place the 4 bottom yellow corner pieces
correctly orient the 4 bottom yellow corner pieces
fill in the yellow edge pieces thus finishing the white and yellow side
correctly orient and place the last 4 edge pieces

if you want to keep using CF, it would be faster if you place the white edges first then the white corners

i thought it didnt matter which order? care to explain?

sure, if you do corners first, it would take longer to place the edges because you would have to go around the corners. You would have to use middle layer slices to move the white centre around, connect it to white edges, then place them back, but if you did edges first, you wouldn't have to do that. Also flipped edges are annoying to deal with, which you can get if you solve corners first.

I'd say that the order in which you do those two steps doesn't matter speed-wise. You're just biased because you're used to F2L based methods.

Reguardless, for a layer either of these orders is pretty slow. Why not just solve pieces as you see them in no specific order, block building style?

Ya, I kinda just noticed but I dont do corners or edges first...I just place one corner and because I know which colors are opposite which and such, i just look for a white piece (i always go white as my first color) and just place the white piece regardless of edge or corner. Is my method a problem?


Thanks for all the help guys!

 

[trying-to-speedcube...]

finish white corners
fill in white cross edge pieces and thus finishing white side
correctly place the 4 bottom yellow corner pieces
correctly orient the 4 bottom yellow corner pieces
fill in the yellow edge pieces thus finishing the white and yellow side
correctly orient and place the last 4 edge pieces

if you want to keep using CF, it would be faster if you place the white edges first then the white corners

Would it still be corners first then?

 

[somerandomkidmike]

finish white corners
fill in white cross edge pieces and thus finishing white side
correctly place the 4 bottom yellow corner pieces
correctly orient the 4 bottom yellow corner pieces
fill in the yellow edge pieces thus finishing the white and yellow side
correctly orient and place the last 4 edge pieces

if you want to keep using CF, it would be faster if you place the white edges first then the white corners

Would it still be corners first then?

I would consider it corners first, and I am a corners first user. The processes are the same, and the main principles behind it are the same. Generally using corners first you solve it one of the following ways:

1) You solve all the corners first, then get edges on one side making a layer (or a one layer minus one edge
2) You solve a layer minus one edge, then finish the other corners
3) You solve one layer, then finish the other corners

If you solve it this way, and use different processes to do it, that means it is still corners first.

Oh, and Roux... it could also be considered a corners first method. The same idea that you solve 2 sides first (minus one edge on each side) is the main process to finish the rubik's cube using corners first.

 

[somerandomkidmike]

finish white corners
fill in white cross edge pieces and thus finishing white side
correctly place the 4 bottom yellow corner pieces
correctly orient the 4 bottom yellow corner pieces
fill in the yellow edge pieces thus finishing the white and yellow side
correctly orient and place the last 4 edge pieces

if you want to keep using CF, it would be faster if you place the white edges first then the white corners

i thought it didnt matter which order? care to explain?

sure, if you do corners first, it would take longer to place the edges because you would have to go around the corners. You would have to use middle layer slices to move the white centre around, connect it to white edges, then place them back, but if you did edges first, you wouldn't have to do that. Also flipped edges are annoying to deal with, which you can get if you solve corners first.

I'd say that the order in which you do those two steps doesn't matter speed-wise. You're just biased because you're used to F2L based methods.

Reguardless, for a layer either of these orders is pretty slow. Why not just solve pieces as you see them in no specific order, block building style?

I solve using a block-building style. My recognition is bad right now, but I'm improving, and I think I could average 5 seconds for the layer. People like Josef Jelinek, and Marc Waterman who solved the layer by solving the corners first, then placed the edges and centers averaged 7 seconds or more. Jelinek took half of his solve to solve the first layer. If you learn to blockbuild the first layer, and practice speed BLD (just for the first layer) I think you can see the whole first layer in the inspection if it is a good case. You won't always be able to see the whole layer, but you will be able to see most of it, and at least know where the pieces are when you're solving.