It makes no mathematical sense to learn Ns before Gs if your objective is to incorporate them into your solves and see immediate improvement. If you're like me where it will take you a long time to learn new lags and alg sets I'd learn the Gs first because you will be able to utilize them in your solves more often and see a moRe immediate improvement in your last layer and that's satisfying.I suppose what I don't understand is why do people learn Ns before Gs, when Gs are four times more likely to come up? Are Ns that much easier to learn?
It makes no mathematical sense to learn Ns before Gs if your objective is to incorporate them into your solves and see immediate improvement. If you're like me where it will take you a long time to learn new lags and alg sets I'd learn the Gs first because you will be able to utilize them in your solves more often and see a moRe immediate improvement in your last layer and that's satisfying.
That said the Ns are actually quite easy to recognize and execute and there on only 2 of them so that's why (I assume) some people learn Ns first. In the end you'll want them all butnid recommend Gs first. Below is a video that opened my eyes to the fact that the Ns although long aren't actually so bad:
Gs are actually 8x more likely to come up, as there there are twice as many of them, and they appear 1/18 of the time, as compared to 1/72 of the time with n’sGs are four times more likely to come up
Gs are actually 8x more likely to come up, as there there are twice as many of them, and they appear 1/18 of the time, as compared to 1/72 of the time with n’s
Square-1Currently I know how to solve 2x2 through 5x5 and the Megaminx. Which of the following puzzles would you recommend learning next:
- Pyraminx
- S-Cube
- Square-1
I would say Pyraminx if you want something easier, Square-1 if you want something more challenging.Currently I know how to solve 2x2 through 5x5 and the Megaminx. Which of the following puzzles would you recommend learning next:
- Pyraminx
- S-Cube
- Square-1
Squan if you like challenging and a little bit of fun mixed in, Pyra if you want to take a break from intense cubing cuz its ezCurrently I know how to solve 2x2 through 5x5 and the Megaminx. Which of the following puzzles would you recommend learning next:
- Pyraminx
- S-Cube
- Square-1
What’s s-cube? Anyway, between the other two, I’d recommend pyraminx, because it takes less time to learn, the hardware is cheaper and better, and once you start doing block building, every solve is different from the next. Also, in my experience, when you get a pyraminx pb, you feel like you’ve earned it, while when you skip cube shape, eo, and cp, it feels more like luck happened to you, instead of you earning it. However, you will be able to get much further with squan before you feel you’ve hit a plateau than with squan. In a way, squan is like the opposite of megaminx, because with megaminx, you do a lot of intuitive stuff, and in most solves every “good luck” will be canceled out by a “bad luck”, so (almost) every solve is a measure of how good your solving ability was on that given solve. On the other hand, squan is mostly algs and making other algs out of ones you already know using misalignments. It is also very much a matter of luck, as you perform 6-10 algs, and it is a matter of which cases you get, and how often you lock up. The only things you can improve on besides learning more algs is your recognition and tps. So if you like megaminx, then it is less likely (but still possible) that you will like squan, and vice versa.Currently I know how to solve 2x2 through 5x5 and the Megaminx. Which of the following puzzles would you recommend learning next:
- Pyraminx
- S-Cube
- Square-1
If you want to understand how something works intuitively learn pyraminx. If you want to spam algs learn square-1.Currently I know how to solve 2x2 through 5x5 and the Megaminx. Which of the following puzzles would you recommend learning next:
- Pyraminx
- S-Cube
- Square-1
On the other hand, squan is mostly algs and making other algs out of ones you already know using misalignments. It is also very much a matter of luck, as you perform 6-10 algs, and it is a matter of which cases you get, and how often you lock up. The only things you can improve on besides learning more algs is your recognition and tps.
I think that this is a pretty common misnomer regarding Square-1. Sqwan and 2x2 are often mischaracterized as just spamming algorithms and TPS. However, in actuality, these events are only as algorithmic as you want to make them.If you want to understand how something works intuitively learn pyraminx. If you want to spam algs learn square-1.
Just practise a lot, at this point that will be the key factor to improvement. You could learn full OLL if you want, but you can get sub 20 and more easily without it, though it is the straightforward way. I’d suggest optimising F2L algorithms, check your solutions with a good website, and practise all of them. If you can see an F2L case and execute the algorithm instantly without looking, that‘s a pretty good pathway to lookahead, since you can use the time while you do the F2L alg to search for other pieces.I've just finished learning full PLL and I average 27-28 seconds. I've been cubing for around 2.5 months. What should I do now to get faster?
Well you could learn full OLL or learn advance F2LI've just finished learning full PLL and I average 27-28 seconds. I've been cubing for around 2.5 months. What should I do now to get faster?
I wouldn't recommend oll, but some advanced f2l cases are very usefulWell you could learn full OLL or learn advance F2L