Will the Fridrich method ever be beaten?

[guusrs]

Its not the number of moves that counts!
My method takes about 52 moves on average, I already used it at WC in 1982. Petrus method takes even less moves (<50?), he also used it back in 1982. But both are not optimized for fingertricks. What makes Fridrich fast is these "alternative" list of optimized algs.
I think also with Roux, Petrus, Waterman or my LL-system, If you "optimize" them they are o the same speed as Fridrich.
btw: When Erik Akkersdijk uses my LL-system he's still much faster than me!
Gus

 

[gogozerg]

So... I'd really like to see someone be as fast as Nakajima or Harris Chan (or Erik) with Petrus / Roux / Waterman / Heise / Corners First / Human Thistlethwaite.

*** Me too ***

 

[d4m4s74]

someone should make up a method in which you can calculate god's alg in 15 seconds (calculate, not remember 43,252,003,274,489,856,000 different algs)

 

[Waynilein]

someone should make up a method in which you can calculate god's alg in 15 seconds (calculate, not remember 43,252,003,274,489,856,000 different algs)

As far as I know, even computers can only find god's alg by brute force, there's no way to calculate it efficiently (correct me if I'm wrong).

 

[ImNOTnoob]

Why not try solving all corners in one alg, then all edges in 1 alg?

 

[Inusagi]

Its not the number of moves that counts!
My method takes about 52 moves on average, I already used it at WC in 1982. Petrus method takes even less moves (<50?), he also used it back in 1982. But both are not optimized for fingertricks. What makes Fridrich fast is these "alternative" list of optimized algs.
I think also with Roux, Petrus, Waterman or my LL-system, If you "optimize" them they are o the same speed as Fridrich.
btw: When Erik Akkersdijk uses my LL-system he's still much faster than me!
Gus

I don't think so. The Fridriech method got one thing that maybe are the reason why it's the best, easier look ahead.

 

[d4m4s74]

how many algs would one have to know?

 

[PCwizCube]

Why not try solving all corners in one alg, then all edges in 1 alg?

That is ridiculous.

There are 8 corners on the cube, and you would need to remember 7! * 3^6 or 3,674,160 algorithms to solve all the corners in one algorithm.

Imagine how many algorithms you would need to memorize for 12 edges.

 

[ImNOTnoob]

What about a five step method, top layer corners, bottom layer corners (2x2 speedcubing method also can), first layer edges, middle layer edges, and last layer edges?
Totally brute force, no intuition.

Edit: best method ever; solve white face, then red face, then blue, then green, then orange.
Once you solve 5 sides of the cube, you solve the sixth side.

I think that is what beginners think of how to solve a cube.

 

[Inusagi]

What about a five step method, top layer corners, bottom layer corners (2x2 speedcubing method also can), first layer edges, middle layer edges, and last layer edges?
Totally brute force, no intuition.

Edit: best method ever; solve white face, then red face, then blue, then green, then orange.
Once you solve 5 sides of the cube, you solve the sixth side.

I think that is what beginners think of how to solve a cube.

It would be hard to just use corner safe algorithms. And if you use them, they may not be that short or finger tricks friendly.

And the "edit" method isn't good either

 

[rachmaninovian]

What about a five step method, top layer corners, bottom layer corners (2x2 speedcubing method also can), first layer edges, middle layer edges, and last layer edges?
Totally brute force, no intuition.

Edit: best method ever; solve white face, then red face, then blue, then green, then orange.
Once you solve 5 sides of the cube, you solve the sixth side.

I think that is what beginners think of how to solve a cube.

you are better off with waterman, which I believe only one person is really trying to actively use it here

 

[EmersonHerrmann]

Anyhow, Petrus can be sub-15, and it can easily be a beginner's method.

Doesn't Erik Johnson use petrus and he gets like...sub-14?

 

[jcuber]

One thing for sure: no one will ever sub-15 with a beginner method. Assuming it has a 150 move count, it requires a 15 tps average.

Unless that guy on youtube puts even more time in to cubing (the one with the 17 second beginners method avg.) Back when I was using beginners method, I THINK I remember having between 70 and 120-130 moves per solve.

 

[Hepheron]

eventually, maybe if someone is willing to learn a new method and get faster at it

 

[deco122392]

idk with enough know how and some decent look ahead to determin shortest # of moves i got my biginers method consistantly at 60 -75ish moves every time.

 

[pelnied]

well i just started cubing a month or two ago and i use the fridrich method and with some minimal algs. (havnt memorized all PLL and OLL) but i average about :59

 

[waffle=ijm]

I think that a pure color neutral Roux with NMCMLL would minimize move count. and if someone used something like that at full speed, it'd probably "beat" fridrich. But you need to dedicate time to improve look ahead( A LOT).

this is just a thought. Possible? yes... Practical? not so much...
seeing as roux is my main, i try to think of ways to improve it

 

[JLarsen]

Gilles Roux, that guy who averages sub-14 with petrus

I heard 'bout a guy named Lars Petrus who isn't too bad with Roux...

If people like Erik or Yu would have chosen Roux or Petrus the Fridrich method would already have been beaten. As far as I can tell no "Blockbuilder" is currently putting as much time into his/her cube as those guys.

Kind Regards
Martin

Erik Johnson is sub 14 with Petrus =]. He's my hewo. Oh and btw, Lars Petrus in means of speedcubing really doesn't impress me a little bit, seeing how I'm just as fast....he hasn't improved at all since the 80's, if anything, hes not as good.

As far as Fridrich being the ideal method, that thought came across my mind plenty of times. I mean its so simple and all of the algorithms you could ever want have been posted across the internet in lists thousands of times over. But as far as being fun, I have to give it a big fat zero. I just can't stand using that method.

 

[ErikJ]

If my recognition wasn't so bad for CMLL I'd switch to Roux. It has a good move count and look ahead is very easy because after you build the first 1x2x3 you don't have to do ANY cube rotations. I use at least 3 cube rotations during my Petrus solves which is probably adding a second or two on my times.

 

[*LukeMayn*]

so how fast are you with roux?