sub 30 Finally!!!!!!! comes with a question!!!

[TimMc]

Hello from 2 mins not three and considering I was doing LBL WITH the slowest LL mthod in the world and I changed to F2L

With decent look ahead and lots of practice you can easily get sub 30 with a beginners LBL method

Practice practice practice! You'll soon see how your solving method can be improved.

Anyone can guess which parts need to be improved and how but it's more rewarding to find these things out yourself ^_^

EDIT:
The more comfortable you become at executing an algorithm, without looking at the pieces during execution, the easier look ahead will become. Experience will also allow you to see the next couple of algorithms in a second when you see a case that you've done so many times before.

Happy Cubing!
Tim.

 

[36duong]

I basically use 4 Look Last Layer (with E,T, 2 G's and J's) and average sub 30. I would suggest you look ahead more and try to find F2L Short cuts (as in using less moves for a particular case)

While your results are somewhat unbelievable, I have no reason not to believe you

 

[shelley]

The next step would most likely be uhhh learn F2L algorithms...

Completely unnecessary. If you're already working on intuitive F2L, there's no point learning F2L algorithms. except for a few cases where it's not so intuitive. I learned a grand total of 3 F2L algorithms. The rest I figured out intuitively.

Okay you've got a good point, but I'll tell you why I'm suggesting to learn F2L algorithms. What is your average F2L move count, and your average entire cube solve? (Just do it like 5 times). I would like to know, because you're pretty fast, and the Fridrich method averages like 55 moves every solve....

Anyway, I do my F2L intuitively, and I average like 55 moves ALONE with F2L. I can see in a lot of cases, I waste like 2 seconds on each slot trying to separate already joined but oriented incorrectly pairs, and then trying to join them again without messing anything else up. That takes me like 15 moves, when each slot should have like 7 moves....

Some F2L cases will take more moves, while others are just three move cases. Just because each pair should be solved in seven moves on average doesn't mean every case has to be solved in seven moves.

When you speedcube, the objective isn't minimizing move count anyway. Having a low move count definitely helps, but I use a lot of algorithms that aren't optimal with respect to move count because they're easier to execute quickly. F2L is no exception: (R U R' U')x3 is easier to do quickly than R2 U R2 U R2 U2 R2, even though it has more moves. (It is for me anyway. I solve with cross on left, so all my algs are flipped sideways. YMMV.)

Anyway, I took down my move count for five solves. My average move count for F2L (not including cross) is 27, and 55 for whole solve. Pcwiz, at 55 moves for F2L alone, it's obvious you need to work on improving that. But learning algorithms isn't necessarily the solution.

 

[noobcuber]

when is the NZ comp and where??

 

[coopersacatfilms]

well to get faster learn actual F2L algs all OLL but practice F2L and PLL the most and next time you should provide the times each step for example I will do mine

Cross 1- 2 seconds
F2L: 9 Seconds
OLL 2-3 Seconds
PLL 2-3 Seconds

Result 16 - 18 second solve

 

[Hadley4000]

You could always learn ZB =P

 

[noobcuber]

Okay my more SPECIFIC time breakdown is:

1 cross 2-6 secs
2 F2L 18-25
3 OLL 4-8 secs
4 PLL 5-10 secs

 

[36duong]

5-10 Secs for 1 look PLL?? you've got to be joking (or lying) it takes you 5-10 seconds to perform an algorithm?? I get most of my PLL's down to 3 seconds, that way, my LL usually takes 4-6 seconds and around 1-3 if it is a 1 look case I know. Your F2L needs to kind of speed up, My F2L is done in around 10-14 seconds on most solves and sometimes 16 when I try to go too fast and have to look for pieces for 2 seconds each pair.

OLL seems ok, and cross you need to work on (so do I, I get it on average in 4 seconds)

 

[noobcuber]

I recently learnt the PLL's and am having trouble recognising cases, why would I lie to make myself sound bad??

 

[Faz]

guys im sorry about earlier, i exaggerated with 1 week and 3 minutes.

i just couldn't believe it.

I still find it hard to believe after the explanation

Sorry noobcuber

 

[shelley]

Okay my more SPECIFIC time breakdown is:

1 cross 2-6 secs
2 F2L 18-25
3 OLL 4-8 secs
4 PLL 5-10 secs

Yeah, you definitely have a lot of room for improvement even without learning anything new. Like I said in an earlier post, it's possible to get your average down to a high sub-20 with the method you have now.

 

[MistArts]

The next step would most likely be uhhh learn F2L algorithms. I think you should still try to get faster on your own, because I do the same steps as you, and I average 35 seconds. I know that doesn't sound like much, but I think practicing is more fun than learning algorithms, when your practice works. Well that's your decision so....

What are your individual times for each step?
Mine are....

1: Cross - 5 seconds
2: Intuitive F2L - 20 seconds
3: 3 Look Last Layer ( 2 Look OLL + PLL) - 10 seconds.

F2L algorithms will help decrease your F2L move count GREATLY, because the algorithms are shorter than the intuitive F2L. This means faster F2L times.

After learning the F2L algorithms, I would recommend getting a sub 25 average before learning the reast of the 50 OLL algorithms, because 1 Look OLL will only help you about 4 seconds or less, which I think it isn't worth it because you have to learn 50 algorithms for 4 seconds.....

Intuitive is less move count for using multiple slots to pair but algorithmic uses only one.

 

[pcwiz]

The next step would most likely be uhhh learn F2L algorithms...

Completely unnecessary. If you're already working on intuitive F2L, there's no point learning F2L algorithms. except for a few cases where it's not so intuitive. I learned a grand total of 3 F2L algorithms. The rest I figured out intuitively.

Okay you've got a good point, but I'll tell you why I'm suggesting to learn F2L algorithms. What is your average F2L move count, and your average entire cube solve? (Just do it like 5 times). I would like to know, because you're pretty fast, and the Fridrich method averages like 55 moves every solve....

Anyway, I do my F2L intuitively, and I average like 55 moves ALONE with F2L. I can see in a lot of cases, I waste like 2 seconds on each slot trying to separate already joined but oriented incorrectly pairs, and then trying to join them again without messing anything else up. That takes me like 15 moves, when each slot should have like 7 moves....

Some F2L cases will take more moves, while others are just three move cases. Just because each pair should be solved in seven moves on average doesn't mean every case has to be solved in seven moves.

When you speedcube, the objective isn't minimizing move count anyway. Having a low move count definitely helps, but I use a lot of algorithms that aren't optimal with respect to move count because they're easier to execute quickly. F2L is no exception: (R U R' U')x3 is easier to do quickly than R2 U R2 U R2 U2 R2, even though it has more moves. (It is for me anyway. I solve with cross on left, so all my algs are flipped sideways. YMMV.)

Anyway, I took down my move count for five solves. My average move count for F2L (not including cross) is 27, and 55 for whole solve. Pcwiz, at 55 moves for F2L alone, it's obvious you need to work on improving that. But learning algorithms isn't necessarily the solution.

Okay if I need to improve, how do I do it? If I'm separating an already joined but incorrectly oriented pair, and then reassembling it, it takes a lot of moves, which wastes a lot of time. How would I solve that problem?

Well I got my idea from what Jason Baum says in his website. He says don't learn intuitive F2L, just learn the algorithms....and he's a very fast cuber - faster than you....
http://jmbaum.110mb.com/f2l.htm

Intuitive is less move count for using multiple slots to pair but algorithmic uses only one.

Keep in mind that noobcuber has ALREADY learned intuitive F2L, so he could use multiple slots, AND keep his move count low for other slots...

 

[shelley]

Okay if I need to improve, how do I do it? If I'm separating an already joined but incorrectly oriented pair, and then reassembling it, it takes a lot of moves, which wastes a lot of time. How would I solve that problem?

Practice, practice, practice. Learn to look ahead. Maybe you can do a different pair first, and in doing that, you can change the pair in a bad situation into one with a better situation. Maybe the approach you're using for that particular case isn't optimal. It's okay to look up algorithms for a few F2L cases that are not so intuitive, or to find more efficient ways to solve certain situations that you couldn't come up with yourself. But that doesn't mean everyone has to grind F2L algs.

If you look at the algs for the F2L cases where a pair is inserted but oriented incorrectly, it seems most of them are 8 or 9 or even as much as 11 moves. Some F2L cases are just nasty and take longer. Learning the algorithm for it won't necessarily help you that much, unless the way you currently do it is horribly inefficient.

Well I got my idea from what Jason Baum says in his website. He says don't learn intuitive F2L, just learn the algorithms....and he's a very fast cuber - faster than you....
http://jmbaum.110mb.com/f2l.htm

Oh snap. You did not just say that.

Fine. If you think the fastest cuber should have the say, Shotaro Makisumi is at least as fast as Jason Baum. While he provides F2L algs on his site, he does recommend you figure out F2L intuitively. What now?

Jason's main reason for recommending algs over intuitive learning as stated on his site is move count. As I have shown, with practice and look ahead, it is possible to be very efficient with move count with intuitive F2L. In fact, if I look at all the algorithms, I realize that I already know all of them. I just figured them out myself rather than memorize them off a webpage.

Whether you do intuitive or grind algs for F2L, at the end the result is pretty much the same. Some people prefer not to memorize algorithms, because they already do plenty of that when learning OLL/PLL, and they like figuring out and understanding how things work on the cube by finding their own F2L algs. And that's their choice.

If noobcuber, or anyone else, is doing okay with intuitive F2L, don't tell him he should learn F2L algs just because YOU happen to be incompetent at intuitive F2L.

 

[pcwiz]

Okay if I need to improve, how do I do it? If I'm separating an already joined but incorrectly oriented pair, and then reassembling it, it takes a lot of moves, which wastes a lot of time. How would I solve that problem?

Practice, practice, practice. Learn to look ahead. Maybe you can do a different pair first, and in doing that, you can change the pair in a bad situation into one with a better situation. Maybe the approach you're using for that particular case isn't optimal. It's okay to look up algorithms for a few F2L cases that are not so intuitive, or to find more efficient ways to solve certain situations that you couldn't come up with yourself. But that doesn't mean everyone has to grind F2L algs.

If you look at the algs for the F2L cases where a pair is inserted but oriented incorrectly, it seems most of them are 8 or 9 or even as much as 11 moves. Some F2L cases are just nasty and take longer. Learning the algorithm for it won't necessarily help you that much, unless the way you currently do it is horribly inefficient.

Well I got my idea from what Jason Baum says in his website. He says don't learn intuitive F2L, just learn the algorithms....and he's a very fast cuber - faster than you....
http://jmbaum.110mb.com/f2l.htm

Oh snap. You did not just say that.

Fine. If you think the fastest cuber should have the say, Shotaro Makisumi is at least as fast as Jason Baum. While he provides F2L algs on his site, he does recommend you figure out F2L intuitively. What now?

Jason's main reason for recommending algs over intuitive learning as stated on his site is move count. As I have shown, with practice and look ahead, it is possible to be very efficient with move count with intuitive F2L. In fact, if I look at all the algorithms, I realize that I already know all of them. I just figured them out myself rather than memorize them off a webpage.

Whether you do intuitive or grind algs for F2L, at the end the result is pretty much the same. Some people prefer not to memorize algorithms, because they already do plenty of that when learning OLL/PLL, and they like figuring out and understanding how things work on the cube by finding their own F2L algs. And that's their choice.

If noobcuber, or anyone else, is doing okay with intuitive F2L, don't tell him he should learn F2L algs just because YOU happen to be incompetent at intuitive F2L.

Okay you say practice and look ahead. And you're saying if I have a bad slot in front of me, I should do another slot. So you're saying I should look ahead for the next two pairs? Because if I skip a hard slot, then I have to do another one, and I would have to look ahead for that....I have already learned to look ahead, and I do practice a lot. But how will that help me? You've got me all confused:confused:

EDIT: I actually measured how many moves it takes me for F2L (I was guessing before), and I found out I usually do around 35 - 40 moves. Definitely not 55, but still needs some improvement.

 

[linkmaster03]

Wow, 4 pages in one day. Good luck noobcuber.

 

[noobcuber]

I no im supposed to be the noob here but if this helps:

if you have a pair that is paired up and the corner orientatiopn has the bottom face colour facing up and the edge is tho the right up you can simply perform R U R' and you are reduced to another case that you recognize easily.

P.S I get this case almost every solve

If the orientation of the corner is different then I dont know but what he is saying is do another pair that is an easy case that you are familiar with and then whilst you are solving that case you have already seen that first pair that you didnt like and you can track it around the cube and whilst slotting something easier you will set uo this old pair and you dont actually waste much time.

 

[pcwiz]

I no im supposed to be the noob here but if this helps:

if you have a pair that is paired up and the corner orientatiopn has the bottom face colour facing up and the edge is tho the right up you can simply perform R U R' and you are reduced to another case that you recognize easily.

P.S I get this case almost every solve

If the orientation of the corner is different then I dont know but what he is saying is do another pair that is an easy case that you are familiar with and then whilst you are solving that case you have already seen that first pair that you didnt like and you can track it around the cube and whilst slotting something easier you will set uo this old pair and you dont actually waste much time.

I have no idea what you said in the first part of your post. Could you please use proper grammar and spelling in ALL of your posts, so people can understand you?

 

[noobcuber]

I know I'm supposed to be the noob here but if this helps:

first approach, if you have a pair that is already togeather.
1. see if the corner is facing up (if not procced to the second approach)
2. see if the edge is on the R face whils having the conrner in the F face.
3. Perform the bssic cube notation R U R'
4. now if you perform this R U R' whils having the corner above the corresponding slot again there are 2 possible outcomes:

(1.) You have solved the pair!
(2.) the edge is the wrong way around(which does not happen often)
this is a very sad thing to happen but if it does you must:

take the pair out and do a normal separation of the pair where you hide the corner in the bottom lair.


P.S I get this case once almost every solve

second approach:

If the orientation of the corner is different to the one I described abover then:

a.) Do another pair that is an easy case that you are familiar with and then whilst you are solving that case you have already seen that first pair that you didnt like and you can track it around the cube and whilst slotting something easier you will set up this old pair and you dont actually waste much time.

LAST THING TO NOTE. You can always use the easy R U R' to separated pairs without taking either part of the pair off the top lair but you must then place the edge and corner in such a position that you can restore the cross that you will see you have revealed

 

[Crzyazn]

OR

you can follow badmephisto's tutorial on youtube