What constitutes a beautiful solve?

[badmephisto]

Clearly there is a level of beauty and elegance to each solve. The question is, in point form, what in your opinion are attributes of a beautiful solve? You can also link to a video that you think has a very nice solve, if you have one.

Personally i think there should be an unofficial competition for beautiful solves as well I wonder how diverse our ideas of "beautiful solves" are.

 

[ShadenSmith]

I would call a solve beautiful if it is efficient and uses methods that aren't commonly used. I say method not meaning Fridrich or Petrus, but use of commutators or intuition.

 

[nicoJ]

i would say a normal cross, fluent F2L where each move helps the next (and when you see perfectlly the next pair), cross OLL and then another fingertrick PLL
this was for fridrich case

PD: shadensmith, i like that fractal... i think i have it somewhere in my pc too

 

[ShadenSmith]

i would say a normal cross, fluent F2L where each move helps the next (and when you see perfectlly the next pair), cross OLL and then another fingertrick PLL
this was for fridrich case

PD: shadensmith, i like that fractal... i think i have it somewhere in my pc too

Opeth

 

[ExoCorsair]

No pauses.

 

[Rama]

Go to Youtube.com and type in: Joël van Noort
See the smooth master himself at work.
Seriously tough, I like Joël's turning style a lot and I get even more boosted when I see Edouard at work.

Joël:

 

[AvGalen]

At the Danish Open I tried to create the "perfect" Fridrich solve during FMC. By perfect I mean that cross should be done in 8 moves or less, all 4 pairs should be simple pairs that can be directly inserted and OLL+PLL shouldn't be skipped, but should be as short as possible (6+9). I succeeded pretty nicely within 1 hour:

http://www.speedsolving.com/forum/showpost.php?p=41954&postcount=28

Which translates to this speedsolve: (scramble=R B' D U2 B' F' L R D' R D' U2 L R' B' F2 L' U F2 L F2 L' R2 D' U')
Cross: x2 U2 R D2 R2 F2 D F D
Pair1: F' U F
Pair2: U' R' U' R
Pair3: U F U' F'
Pair4: U2 L U2 L'
OLL: f U R U' R' f'
PLL: F2 U M' U2 M U F2
AUF: U2

 

[fanwuq]

I'd say something like this without me making the obvious mistakes.
http://www.ryanheise.com/cube/record.cgi?db=single&name=Wuqiong+Fan+LC

Just everything falls into place.

 

[Brett]

Something that just flows, doesn't use too many moves and doesn't look like it's about to happen when you finally solve it (Seems like it just "pops" into place.)

I'll try to find a scramble/solution which demonstrates this (of course the entire solve is done with speed and no lockups )

 

[Swordsman Kirby]

I would call a solve beautiful if it is efficient and uses methods that aren't commonly used. I say method not meaning Fridrich or Petrus, but use of commutators or intuition.

Since when was Petrus commonly used?

A beautiful solve to me is one of Per's FMCs.

 

[fanwuq]

I reconstructed my solve. It's quite sad. It's tied as my 2nd best FMC.

F R' D L D2 5
y' (%) R2 U R2 U R2 U2 R2 12
U2 L' U L U2 L' U L 20
y (%) R' U2 R 23
y' U' R' U' R 27
y2 (%) R U2 R2 F R F' R U2 R' U2 37


(%) indicates stupid mistakes.

 

[qqwref]

For me a beautiful solve is one that is extremely smooth, no matter what method is used. So for a really nice solve the solver should never pause and never dramatically speed up or slow down with their turning speed. Some of my OH solves are like this when I'm warmed up. It feels so nice when this happens

 

[Crzyazn]

flawless execution with satisfying speed

 

[badmephisto]

Now that people pitched in I will pitch in too and say what kind of solves usually look "beautiful" to me:
- steady solve at exactly constant speed (i find that the actual speed does not make it more beautiful for me, its jut the rate of change that I don't like)
- no lockups or pops obviously
- 0 cube rotations, but few are ok if they look very minor
- no moves that undo each other, like U U'
- Completely 2-gen OLL and PLL

I love when I get solves like that sometimes. They need not even be quick, but when I finish with that beautiful U' flick at the end and the U face just stops dead on the center, i get cubegasms

 

[pcharles93]

i get cubegasms

That disturbs me so much.

 

[Swordsman Kirby]

i get cubegasms

That disturbs me so much.

...you're kidding, right?

 

[AvGalen]

Something that just flows, doesn't use too many moves and doesn't look like it's about to happen when you finally solve it (Seems like it just "pops" into place.)

I'll try to find a scramble/solution which demonstrates this (of course the entire solve is done with speed and no lockups )

Something like this?

Scramble:
F2 L2 D' L2 D B2 R2 D' L2 R2 F2 R' B L B L' B L B R (20f)

Solve:
x' U' R U R U R U' R' U' R'
U2 R' U' R U' R2
U' R2 U
L U L2 U' L
r U'

 

[Johannes91]

[..] doesn't look like it's about to happen when you finally solve it (Seems like it just "pops" into place.)

Solving with Ryan's Human Thistlethwaite Algorithm is a bit like that.

IMO, solving without using any algs you don't understand is beautiful.

 

[qqwref]

IMO, solving without using any algs you don't understand is beautiful.

Practically I don't really see how that can be your criterion for a beautiful solve. I know you love using only algorithms that you understand, but you can't honestly watch someone else solve and just know whether they understand every alg they are doing (and yes there are people who really understand why the more common Fridrich algs work). So how do you decide whether other people's solves are beautiful? Or do you only apply this word to your own solves?

 

[Johannes91]

[..] you can't honestly watch someone else solve and just know whether they understand every alg they are doing [..]

I think I understood "beautiful solve" differently than others in this thread. I was thinking about the actual moves, but other people are talking about the execution.

So how do you decide whether other people's solves are beautiful? Or do you only apply this word to your own solves?

If I just see a speedsolve and don't know what's actually going on, just the fingertricks, lock-ups, etc., then I can't really call that beautiful. I just find that so much less interesting than slower solving. Feels like those 1-minute chess games people play online.

And yes, I was thinking mostly about my own solves. But I have to say that Lars Petrus' 13 example solutions and pretty much all Ryan Heise's solutions I've seen are very beautiful.