• 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!

[Help Thread] What should I learn next?

ep2

Member
Joined
Aug 20, 2019
Messages
73
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?
 

EngiNerdBrian

Premium Member
Joined
Jun 21, 2018
Messages
432
Location
Denver
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:

 

ep2

Member
Joined
Aug 20, 2019
Messages
73
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:

Ok just learned Na in about 5 minutes, when it usually takes me a couple of days to learn one. I totally get now why people learn Ns before Gs.
 

ep2

Member
Joined
Aug 20, 2019
Messages
73
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
Yeah, sorry, I meant each G individually compared to a single N, but of course you're right.
 

zslane

Member
Joined
Jul 8, 2020
Messages
166
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
 

Spacey10

Member
Joined
May 11, 2020
Messages
622
Location
Virginia
YouTube
Visit Channel
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 ez
Skoob for something of both, but more towards the Pyra side
Would recommend squan
 

I'm A Cuber

Member
Joined
Jan 28, 2020
Messages
436
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
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.
Oh wait s-cube=skewb. No don’t get skewb, it is SOOOOOOOOO hard to turn and really boring to solve
Thank you for coming to my ted talk
 

EngiNerdBrian

Premium Member
Joined
Jun 21, 2018
Messages
432
Location
Denver
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.
 

Silky

Member
Joined
Apr 5, 2020
Messages
152
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.
If you want to understand how something works intuitively learn pyraminx. If you want to spam algs learn square-1.
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 check out SinaC's page the intermediate method is only 30 algorithms. The advanced method is 93 algorithms which sounds like a lot but is around the range of something like CFOP OLL + PLL.

Lin is only 17 algorithms and pretty intuitive.

If you look through some other Square-1 threads a lot of people have gotten pretty fast ( sub-20 for sure ) with only learn 25-30 algorithms, which is nothing crazy.

If you're shooting for world class you'll probably need to learn at least optimal cubeshape and CSP which is 180 algorithms. But for most other events, top professional will usually require a few hundred algorithms depending on the method.

If you really want to learn a ton of algorithms you can check out Sarah Strong's page which has hundreds and hundreds of algorithms for full Vandenbergh, however I don't think it's really that necessary.

To summarize, if you want to learn hundreds of algorithms you have the opportunity but if you don't there are still several methods where it isn't required.
 

PCCuber

Member
Joined
Nov 9, 2020
Messages
9
Location
London, England
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?
 

PetrusQuber

Member
Joined
Jun 27, 2019
Messages
2,861
Location
my house, cubing.
YouTube
Visit Channel
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?
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.
Plus work with a cross trainer to improve solutions, 8 or less would be good. Then try out for full cross planned in under the inspection limit.
This will take time, but it’s worth it.
Also look at this to see which step is worst: https://www.cubeskills.com/blog/cfop-solve-splits-tool

And for LL, drill just that with LL only scrambles, make sure your algorithms are optimal, again.


Plus, next time try posting in a megathread to avoid clutter :)
 

hexacuber

Member
Joined
Oct 14, 2020
Messages
106
The most important thing at this stage is to identify your bad habits (such as unneccessary rotating, not solving the cross on the bottom, bad fingertricks, double recognition, the list goes on), and work on fixing them. If you have any bad habits (which is extremely likely, pretty much everyone has at least one bad habit), it's best to fix them ASAP before it gets worse. Also, you should work on F2L. Skim through F2L alg sources like http://www.speedcubedb.com/a/3x3/F2L and compare the way you solve each case with the algs on the page. I hope this helps!
 
Joined
Nov 14, 2020
Messages
57
Location
In the space-time continuum
Hi, I have just became sub 15 and I use full PLL and 2-look OLL. I am thinking of learning full OLL, but don't know if it is the right time to. Would appreciate if you could give advice when I should learn Full OLL.
 

Skewb_Cube

Member
Joined
May 7, 2020
Messages
286
There isn't really a certain time when it's good to learn it, I think, but you could start learning now because OLL isn't a really hard or advanced thing. And in my opinion people could start learning it at sub-25 or something like that, hope this helps.
 
Top