• 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!

Which Method Should I Learn in 2019?

Joined
May 4, 2016
Messages
163
Likes
61
Location
USA
Thread starter #1
Hey speedsolvers!

I'm wanting to learn a new method this year and looking to the community to give me suggestions!

I first learned CFOP, then Corners First, then Roux... or, I should say, I learned simplified versions of all of these.
(I like methods with <20 algs to solve)

I see possibilities like: Speed Heise, ZZ, Francisco, SSC or ECE
but as I mentioned, I'd want to use a simplified version of whichever method the forum users recommend. :)

I'd prefer a method that does NOT have similar steps to methods I already know.
(e.g. I like how ZZ starts out with all Edge Orientation.)

Reply with what you propose for me and if/how it could fit my criteria.

thanks!


-= Solvador Cubi
 
Joined
Mar 9, 2019
Messages
2
Likes
0
#2
I would suggest that, you have to learn the complex algorithm in CFOP before going to other methods. In competition, points are given on time, not on methods.
 
Joined
Jan 4, 2018
Messages
378
Likes
270
WCA
2016TUDO02
YouTube
PapaSmurf Cubes
#3
I disagree. You should learn all the methods that you want to. Most only need the algorithms from 4lll to be useable (cfop, roux, ZZ, petrus, a lot more). Also, cubing is about fun, not times in comp, so if you find a method that you genuinely enjoy, use it. I'd say use ZZ (with eocross) or roux for speedsolving, and ece is just SSC but without eo, so if you learnt ZZ and ECE, you'd know how to do SSC (which is probably better than ECE, but I'm not certain).
So, if you're serious about speedsolving learn ZZ (with ZBLL)/Roux (with EOLR)/CFOP (but with extensions, not just vanilla CFOP)/LEOR (FB, EODFDB, RB, ZBLL) and if you're just gonna have fun, learn all of them and do what you want.
 
Joined
May 4, 2016
Messages
163
Likes
61
Location
USA
Thread starter #5
Thanks for the replies so far guys!

I should have mentioned that I'm not interested in competitions or getting fast.
I just like knowing different ways to solve the cube.
 

Mike Hughey

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Jun 7, 2007
Messages
9,899
Likes
1,915
Location
Indianapolis
WCA
2007HUGH01
YouTube
MikeHughey1
#6
I think Heise is really fun, and it's not really about algorithms at all. It is true that you need to do commutators at the end to do proper Heise, and to be fast at them, you need to know them more as algorithms. But in terms of just a fun way to solve the cube, I've never found a more fun way than Heise.
 
Joined
Dec 24, 2015
Messages
1,571
Likes
1,062
#8
Here's a vote for BH/3-style. Just use commutators to solve the whole cube!
 
Joined
May 4, 2016
Messages
163
Likes
61
Location
USA
Thread starter #9
Thanks again, folks!

I also should have said that along with my wants of few algorithms and a different solving style,
I would also like an average of less then 70 moves.

Which Heise version would be best? regular, speed, speed2 ?

I previously tried a simplified 42, but found that I liked my simpler version of Roux better since it didn't require me to learn any new algs! :)
and both versions I used had about the same number moves... in the 60s.

I don't think I've seen much about 2GR, that one could be promising too, I'll check that out.

Something like a BH/3-style would be interesting, I've wondered if I would like to try blindsolving
(or maybe just learn this, but do not blindfolded! :) )


thanks again!

-= Solvador Cubi
 

Mike Hughey

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Jun 7, 2007
Messages
9,899
Likes
1,915
Location
Indianapolis
WCA
2007HUGH01
YouTube
MikeHughey1
#10
I gather Heise speed2 requires a bunch of algorithms? Even speed Heise requires 24 algorithms simplified; you'd have to decide whether that was too many or not.

Me, I've never tried speed or speed2; I just always enjoyed playing with regular Heise. It's been hard for me to get very fast with it, but it's fun, and very few moves, and actually somewhat useful practice for Fewest Moves. It's rare to ever get a decent full Heise fewest moves solve, but using pieces of a Heise solve can sometimes be very helpful for fewest moves. And regular Heise is definitely very few moves when done well.
 
Joined
Mar 18, 2016
Messages
1,450
Likes
750
Location
Illinois, U.S.A.
WCA
2016GEEN01
YouTube
channel/UCXxvOAAJVVoR7UfjeAv_bjA
#11
I've always thought that learning some form of domino reduction would be fun to do as a way to solve, especially with just <R2, U, D> algs for PLL things. I just sort of do this intuitively, as EO-> position middle edges -> OCLL z2 OCLL -> weird R2 PLLs.

If I recall correctly, Cardan Reduction and [SIMPLE], methods by @mDiPalma , both have fairly low alg counts and seem pretty fun. They're both LSLL varients for EO F2L though, so you would need to go from a ZZ or Petrus base (or cfop+edge control, but that's boring).
 
Joined
Jan 4, 2018
Messages
378
Likes
270
WCA
2016TUDO02
YouTube
PapaSmurf Cubes
#12
Another suggestion: if you learn how to solve cp from 2gr, you could try out a 28 algorithm method which I created, that should average around 45 moves. I haven't publically released anything, but if you ever want to know more, just dm me.
 
Joined
May 4, 2016
Messages
163
Likes
61
Location
USA
Thread starter #14
Awesome info, thanks again everyone!

Here's my list of the methods I plan to look into and probably decide from:

Heise
ZZ
Francisco
SSC
HTA
BH
2GR
Domino
(and perhaps PapaSmurf's 28-alg method)
 
Joined
May 4, 2016
Messages
163
Likes
61
Location
USA
Thread starter #17
follow up and update....

After understanding the general structures of many methods (including the ones suggested in this thread, thanks)
I thought doing Orient First would be different for me since that was something I had never done.

So I started comparing methods that start with EO...
SSC
ZZ
2GR
Guimond 3x3

but, I also wanted something that didn't end with just another flavor of the U Last Layer.

This thread about Woowybaby's Kociemba implementation intrigued me...
https://www.speedsolving.com/forum/...ncept-idea-thread.40975/page-249#post-1312872

it has a Roux ending (which I already know), but the other parts are somewhat different for me.

I still need to practice it more, but it satisfies my criteria:
low # moves, few algs, some intuitiveness, different from what I already know.

If I have enough time to get this one to where it's good for me, maybe I'll pick another one and learn two methods in 2019! :)


Thanks again everyone,
-= Solvador Cubi
 

Aerma

Premium Member
Joined
Apr 1, 2017
Messages
1,190
Likes
476
Location
Galar Region
WCA
2015MANN01
YouTube
Aerma
#18
Here's what I would reccomend:
Try out CFOP and Roux. Solve with both of them for a while and see which one you like better. If you don't really like either of them, check out ZZ. If not that, look at less mainstream methods like Petrus, PCMS, LMCF, M-CELL, SSC, Waterman, Hexagonal Francisco (a favorite of mine), Triangular Francisco, the list goes on.
(If you're interested in Hexagonal Francisco, here's some example solves I've made that you can look at :))
1) L D2 L' D2 R' B2 D2 B2 L D2 U' L2 B' L F' D2 F2 U L2 B2

x' D' R' D R2 x' // 2x2x2
U' L F L2 U2 S U' S' // 2x2x3
L F L' U' F2 U2 F // CE+E
U' M' U M U2 M' U2 M // EODF
U' R U' R' U' R U R' U2 R U' R' // CLS
U x U2 r' U' r U2 l' U R' U' R2 // J Perm

56 HTM, 50 STM

2) R' F B2 D' R2 D' F' R' U' B U2 F R2 U2 R2 F' R2 B' R2 F2

x2 L' U' R' F R U' R' // 2x2x2
U' L B L' d' L U L' // 2x2x3
R' U R2 U' R2 y R' F R // CE+E
U M' U M U2 M' U2 M // EOFF
y' R U' R2 U' R U' R' U2 R2 U R' // CLS
R2 U R U R' U' R' U' R' U R' U2 // Ub Perm

58 HTM, 54 STM

3) B2 L F2 B U' R' L2 F R D2 R2 D2 L' F2 U2 D2 L B2 L'

z2 U' D' B2 L' U L' R' F L2 // 2x2x2
R B2 d B2 U R' U2 R // 2x2x3
U L U2 L' U L' d // CE+E
M' U M U2 M' U' M // EODF
U2 R U R' U' R U R' U R U' R' // CLS
U2 R U R' F' R U R' U' R' F R2 U' R' U2 // J Perm

52 HTM, 58 STM

4) L2 R2 F2 U R2 D R2 F2 U2 R2 U' L' F2 D' B L' D L2 F D B

F D' B' R' L U' L' F U' R' D2 // 2x2x2
L' U' L U2 B' U' L' U F U F' // 2x2x3
y U R2 U' R' U R // CE+E
y U M' U M U2 M' U2 M // EODF
R U' R' U' R U' R' U2 R U R' // CLS
U2 R' U2 R U2 R' F R U R' U' R' F' R2 // Rb Perm

5) R2 U' L2 B2 F2 U' F2 U B2 D' B' U' L2 F2 R U' F' D2 U2 L

z2 F' U' R' D d R' U' R // 2x2x3
F' U' F L' U L r U r' // CE+E
U M' U' M // EODF
R U' R' U2 R U' R U2 R2 U' R2 U' R2 // CLS
R' U L' U2 R U' M' B r' U2 R U' L U' // Nb Perm

51 HTM, 48 STM

6) F2 U2 R' D R' B' D' F D' F2 U2 L U2 D2 F2 R' F2 R L D2

L' D' B D2 L' B' L // 2x2x2
M' U2 M U R2 U2 F' R // 2x2x3
L' U' L F' U' F // CE+E
U2 M' U2 M // EODF
y' R' U' R U2 R' U2 R U2 R' U' R // CLS
U2 F R U' R' U' R U R' F' R U R' U' R' F R F' U // Y Perm

59 HTM, 55 STM

7) U2 L2 B2 D2 F' L2 F R2 B R2 F L F2 U2 F' D L' R' B U' R'

L2 F' U' R' L B' U' R' U' B U2 B' // 2x2x2
y' U' M' U2 M U R' U2 R // 2x2x3
U F U F' // CE+E
U' M' U' M U2 M' U M U M' U2 M // EODF
y' R' U' R U' R' U' R U R' U2 R // CLS
M2 U' M U2 M' U' M2 U2 // Ub Perm

67 HTM, 55 STM
 
Joined
May 4, 2016
Messages
163
Likes
61
Location
USA
Thread starter #19
I've been assembling some notes and tweaking the steps for such a multi-step method.

I see some similarities between this idea and the method structure in this post from way back in 2009:
https://www.speedsolving.com/forum/threads/3x3x3-guimond-style-method.15534/

anyway, here's my doc so far. It ends up using around 16 algorithms/sequences.
it seems like all method variations I settle on have 16 algs.. (CFOP, Corners First, Roux, Orient First) ... crazy! :)

http://solvexio.cf/Solvexio-ParKoci.pdf

Here are the steps:

EO - (5) Orient All 12 Edges
CO - (10) Orient All 8 Corners
E-lyr - (7) Setup 4 E-Layer Edges
CS - (3) Separate Corners to U and D by Matching Color
CP - (8) Permute Corners Both Layers
DL/DR - (6) Permuting 2 L/R Edges on D
UL/UR - (6) Permuting 2 L/R Edges on U
Parity - (0/6) Possible Parity
EP(m) - (5) 4c for Midges
EP(e) - (5) 4c for E-Edges
------
55 !

I'm amazed that a method with so many steps (10) can have a decent move count. The steps are all fairly short, though, of course.
I'm finding it's about 6 moves per step, so if fixing parity isn't needed it can have move counts in the mid 50s.

For CO, I know there are #s of algs that could be learned ("sortega" or even "guimond" style) for even lower move counts, but I wanted to keep the # algs low.
For me, I've found that doing a few moves more to get 4 oriented on bottom (instead of just 3 or 2) presents faster recognition since it's just looking at the U layer.



thanks,
-= Solvador Cubi
 
Joined
Apr 2, 2019
Messages
8
Likes
6
#20
yes, your method is cool, fits into your own criteria quite nicely

you may want to have a look at this method right here, I think you might like it... like your method this one also has many steps but still a relatively low move count, and like your method this one also can be optimized with Sortega algs (you may even take some aspects of it and mix it with your method, such as bypassing the R E2 R' situation, CO with triggers only, CP without algs etc)

and as you know, there is a bunch of other methods here that fit into your criteria
 
Last edited:
Top