• Welcome to SpeedSolving.com — the world’s largest puzzle community!

    You’re currently browsing as a guest, which means you have limited access to discussions, resources, member profiles, and community features.

    Join 50,000+ cubers and puzzle enthusiasts from around the world to ask questions, share solves, improve faster, and be part of the community.

    Registration is free, fast, and easy — create your account today.

    Already a member? Log in here to hide this message and start participating.

Speedcubing Using An Easier System

dChan

Veteran
Joined
Feb 28, 2007
Messages
1,243
Location
Somewhere without clouds...
WCA
2007CHAN06
YouTube
Visit Channel
I would like everyone to check the site below out and read what method this guy is using and check out his times. Isn't this amazing? I never even thougt you could speedcube and reach a fast time with this method(same method I am currently using). But laster week I was hitting fast times all of a sudden so I am starting to see that it is actually a legitimate method.

http://www.baseplace.nl/baseplace4/3x3x3.html
 
Pretty cool. In the beginners forum, Joel posted saying he was sub-20 avg with a beginners method like that.

I'd highly recommend solving full Fridrich or Roux/Petrus. Your more likely to increase times quicker and more efficient.
 
Five years? According to Tyson Mao (heard first hand), with minimal practice (hour a day or less), 18 second average is possible in a year. Which is true - I reached that point at about the 9 month mark. It's really not as hard as you think.
 
Originally posted by tenderchkn@Mar 21 2007, 04:19 AM
Five years? According to Tyson Mao (heard first hand), with minimal practice (hour a day or less), 18 second average is possible in a year. Which is true - I reached that point at about the 9 month mark. It's really not as hard as you think.
I'd like to think that with a lot of practice (more than 20 minutes a day) I didn't make an 18 seconds avg in a year.
 
Sorry guys. Guess an hour a day is more than it sounds like. But if it means anything I practiced a lot less than that. I went through a couple months when I didn't cube at all. Some days I would cube for a couple of hours (on weekends), some days I didn't cube at all. And I was really lazy - took 6 months before I finally learned every OLL.
 
Originally posted by tenderchkn@Mar 21 2007, 04:19 AM
Five years? According to Tyson Mao (heard first hand), with minimal practice (hour a day or less), 18 second average is possible in a year. Which is true - I reached that point at about the 9 month mark. It's really not as hard as you think.
lol, I meant it is easier to learn Fridrich than to practice for so long using this system- and I know it won't take you that long either using this system. It will just take a bit longer. :D

I'm hitting the low 30s pretty frequently(however I keep getting those stupid 40s!) so maybe for me, I might only need 1 more month to average in the 20s which would have been only about 3 and a half months of practice. So if you want to get fast with tthis system I suggest you practice religously every day- at least 50 solves a day or more.
 
Getting fast doesn't happen overnight of course, but once you "get the grip" on the algorithms, and get used to it, the fast solves you once had becomes the normal, common times. So just learn something new (new algo) and believe in yourself! When I was at this stage, I always read other people's tips on cubing and getting faster, such that I almost hear it while I cube (lol). Just keep on thinking about what's to improve, and taking a video of your solve really helps to tell where you're good, and where you need to get better at...and delays, etc. Because you might not notice them while you're solving it.

Looking ahead for me was actually something I used to forget to do--I just pick it up, and start solving a c/e pair, then I was kinda lost, but I didn't really felt the delay. But once I kept on reassuring..."It's okay, just look somewhere else, I trust my hands, they'll turn the cube and solve that c/e pair while my eyes are looking for other ones...yes it's gonna happen like that...YES...ok....yah...*deep breathe*" But as you get used to it, you'll instantly can tell how the next c/e pair will be like after you finish solving the current one, because you've seen the same kind of position like this before. And that's what let fast cubers turn fast and not blank out and pause for 3 seconds. Sometimes you'll just feel it coming...it's strange...try doing 2 pairs in one look. I don't actually see them in my hand much (bad at visualizing now...people hit me in the head before), but I can "feel" which face it's at, and which orientation it's in.


anyway...time to sleep for me XD

-Harris

PS I got sub 20 in 91 days (around 3 months) from when I first got it solved. I wasted the first week or so on the Rubiks.com solution...then I learned the keyhole method (yah, not the layer by layer beginner's one), but the LL on the site was bizzare (CLL then ELL i think). But then I got tips from Dave Campbell, and saw Joel's site. I was averaging around 30s when I had semi-F2L. After I learned all the PLL cases (I usually learn the nastier ones first (diagonal corners switch...because I lose too much time on them with the 2 step PLL) and a couple OLL...and brush up on my F2L...got the first sub 20 (19.96) for Sunday Contest. Yah...16 seconds was fast before XD The average was at 91st rank on the 3x3 Unofficial World Record ranking back then...now there are many more cubers, and the current 100ths place is at 17.94 seconds, which would be at 25th place in 2004s)
 
Yeah, I find myself slowing down on my F2L and smetimes I can do like what I call, a combo alg where one alg complees the first move of the next alg and thus I can jump into that alg quicker- so it makes the alg like a long finger trick. So you are right, Harris, ooking ahead really helps.

I jus twanted to know ,were you doing the two step OLL when you got your first sub-20? And were you partially using Keyhole mixed with Fridrich's F2L?
 
Back
Top