• 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!

Possible to get fast (20-30s) using this method for square-1?

Joined
Jul 30, 2018
Messages
99
Likes
21
WCA
2018HUGE02
#11
Is it possible to get reasonably fast using the method described here: http://www.jaapsch.net/puzzles/square1.htm#s2m6? It seems pretty simple: acquire cube shape, pair edges with corners, fix parity, permutate pairs. I'm just wondering how fast this method can be.
I got to about 23 average in 3 months with Cary's variation of this method.
50 algs for full version but most are really easy to learn and are short.
 
Joined
Jul 30, 2018
Messages
99
Likes
21
WCA
2018HUGE02
#12
Potential: CSP: 1.5 seconds
First Three Pairs: 3 seconds
L5P: 3.5 seconds
(Advanced) 1 look pair solve: 2.5 seconds
Overall: 10.5 seconds (Not too slow!)
 
Joined
Dec 11, 2018
Messages
24
Likes
21
Location
Abu Dhabi, UAE
WCA
2017DUMM01
YouTube
DesertWolf 1205
#15
Tbh. I feel you want to be super fast at squan then you’re gonna have to learn a lot of algs and go with vanderberg, but if you want to be decently fast you can go for LIN. I know people that are sub-15 just knowing the 6 LIN cases and EPLL (+parity obv). Yes there’s people that are sub-10 with LIN. But they learned a lot of extra algs which is why I’m not taking them as an example. The only thing is LIN requires a bit of extra practice.
How useful this method your showing turns out to be depends on your goals and it’s learning curve. But I don’t see it as viable as something like LIN, vanderberg or even Screw.
 
Joined
Jul 30, 2018
Messages
99
Likes
21
WCA
2018HUGE02
#16
Well, it answers the thread's question, since it is kind of obvious that you could get 20-30 second averages with the method. The fact that you could even get sub-20 with Skwuction makes it not complete garbage in my eyes.

I know that I can't get really fast with this method, which is why I'm also learning Vandenberg at the same time.
 

Mike Hughey

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Jun 7, 2007
Messages
9,831
Likes
1,824
Location
Indianapolis
WCA
2007HUGH01
YouTube
MikeHughey1
#18
I only know 3 EP (the first 3 above) and I average easily sub-40 when I'm in practice. And I'm generally really slow.

I think way back when Dan Cohen had a WR in it, he only knew about 10 of them.
 
Joined
Jul 30, 2018
Messages
99
Likes
21
WCA
2018HUGE02
#19
I know those but I average sub 50.
also totally random but I unscrewed my volt squan and cannot screw it back together. any sugjestions?
Learn Kite-Scallop (The name is misleading, since you should also need to learn Scallop-Scallop method and Square-Kite for it to be effective, and maybe even Pawn-Pawn)
I know 2-look EP and I average like 30 with Vandenberg.
I know: Adj-Adj
Adj-Nothing
Opp-Opp
Opp-Nothing
Adj-W
Opp-Ocw
Opp-Occw
Ucw-Ucw
Uccw-Uccw
Ucw-Nothing
Uccw-Nothing
Z-nothing
H-Nothing
H-H
Ocw-Nothing
Occw-Nothing
But I kinda suck since EO+CP recognition takes forever for me. :(
 
Joined
Aug 29, 2018
Messages
9
Likes
0
YouTube
Cu bert
#20
Learn Kite-Scallop (The name is misleading, since you should also need to learn Scallop-Scallop method and Square-Kite for it to be effective, and maybe even Pawn-Pawn)
I know 2-look EP and I average like 30 with Vandenberg.
I know: Adj-Adj
Adj-Nothing
Opp-Opp
Opp-Nothing
Adj-W
Opp-Ocw
Opp-Occw
Ucw-Ucw
Uccw-Uccw
Ucw-Nothing
Uccw-Nothing
Z-nothing
H-Nothing
H-H
Ocw-Nothing
Occw-Nothing
But I kinda suck since EO+CP recognition takes forever for me. :(
I know adj adj
ajd nothing
opp-opp
and ucw ucw and now I am pretty much sub 40 (ish)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Top