## speed cubing

Expand Messages
• I have recently started solving the cube..and i can solve it using a set of beginners algorithms .but i want to reduce my time and for that do i have to
Message 1 of 11 , Jun 29, 2006
• 0 Attachment
I have recently started solving the cube..and i can solve it using a
set of beginners algorithms .but i want to reduce my time and for that
do i have to remember some 70-80 algorithms?How does one manage to do
that especially if i were to remember all of jessica friedrich's
algorithm it would take a million more years . can somebod y help me?
• Practice, practice, practice. Spend some time studying the first-two-layer algorithms. They re simple enough to understand how they work without just
Message 2 of 11 , Jun 29, 2006
• 0 Attachment
Practice, practice, practice.

Spend some time studying the first-two-layer algorithms. They're
simple enough to understand how they work without just "memorizing"
them. Speed doesn't just come from memorizing algorithms, it comes
from understanding what you're doing, being able to plan ahead, and

You can do all of that without memorizing anything, if you want. You
should easily be able to solve the cube in under a minute even with

But by then you'll be addicted, and you'll decide it's worth it to
memorize 70 algorithms. :-)

- Matt

--- In speedsolvingrubikscube@yahoogroups.com, "anand_chhettri"
<anand_chhettri@...> wrote:
>
> I have recently started solving the cube..and i can solve it using a
> set of beginners algorithms .but i want to reduce my time and for that
> do i have to remember some 70-80 algorithms?How does one manage to do
> that especially if i were to remember all of jessica friedrich's
> algorithm it would take a million more years . can somebod y help me?
>
• ... Hi, a good understanding of the cube can save you from memorisation. The solving strategy is an important factor, however. A method such as Fridrich puts
Message 3 of 11 , Jun 29, 2006
• 0 Attachment
On Thu, Jun 29, 2006 at 01:42:47PM -0000, anand_chhettri wrote:
> I have recently started solving the cube..and i can solve it using a
> set of beginners algorithms .but i want to reduce my time and for that
> do i have to remember some 70-80 algorithms?How does one manage to do
> that especially if i were to remember all of jessica friedrich's
> algorithm it would take a million more years . can somebod y help me?

Hi, a good understanding of the cube can save you from memorisation.
The solving strategy is an important factor, however. A method such as
Fridrich puts the cube in highly symetric positions in the last stages,
which lends itself well to memorisation but not understanding. If you
would like to apply understanding, then you will want to avoid those
symetric positions.

--
Ryan Heise
http://www.ryanheise.com/cube/
• Hello, It actually isn t all that bad. I solved my very first cube in late February of this year. The first solve probably took me around 5 hours total (on
Message 4 of 11 , Jun 29, 2006
• 0 Attachment
Hello,
It actually isn't all that bad. I solved my very first cube in late
February of this year. The first solve probably took me around 5
hours total (on and off for about a day and a half). After that, I
wrote up my own little algorithms that I pulled off certain pages.
There were 13 in total. I just started practicing them whenever I had
a chance. It took me 1-2 weeks to memorize all 13, and I wasn't
really trying to memorize, they just came to fit my hands. My goal
was to get below 1 minute. I reached my goal fairly quickly. Now, I
can average under 30 seconds. I typed up a guide that I felt was
really easy to understand and would help newer people learn to solve.
Check it out here:
http://www40.brinkster.com/patjk/beginners.html

Towards the bottom I provided an example solve using that method.
Once you have that method mastered, its time to move onto Fridrich.
Check out my speedcubing page at:
http://www40.brinkster.com/patjk/fast.html

I also provided an example solve using pure Fridrich towards the
bottom there. Learning all the algorithms sounds tough, but it isn't.
When you get time, just sit down, and learn maybe 1-2 algorithms each
day. The F2L is mostly intiution, so you actually see more about what
is happening, and not really learning an algorithm. I have most F2L
cases down, all PLL cases, and I need maybe 30 more OLL algorithms to
memorize. Once I get all the OLLs, I am going to go back and learn
new tricks for the F2L, and that should take my time don 7-10 seconds.
Just practice, practice, practice. Don't give up. Find a friend to
get interested in the cube with so you can compete against eachother.
Good luck,
Patrick

--- In speedsolvingrubikscube@yahoogroups.com, Ryan Heise <ryan@...>
wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jun 29, 2006 at 01:42:47PM -0000, anand_chhettri wrote:
> > I have recently started solving the cube..and i can solve it using a
> > set of beginners algorithms .but i want to reduce my time and for that
> > do i have to remember some 70-80 algorithms?How does one manage to do
> > that especially if i were to remember all of jessica friedrich's
> > algorithm it would take a million more years . can somebod y help me?
>
> Hi, a good understanding of the cube can save you from memorisation.
> The solving strategy is an important factor, however. A method such as
> Fridrich puts the cube in highly symetric positions in the last stages,
> which lends itself well to memorisation but not understanding. If you
> would like to apply understanding, then you will want to avoid those
> symetric positions.
>
> --
> Ryan Heise
> http://www.ryanheise.com/cube/
>
• hi, thanks for the information and the encouragement.Just wanted to ask how many algos do you use to get into the sub 30s.I went thru yer site .its gr8 and
Message 5 of 11 , Jun 29, 2006
• 0 Attachment
hi,
thanks for the information and the encouragement.Just wanted to ask how many algos do you use to get into the sub 30s.I went thru yer site .its gr8 and helpful.
thanks again
bye ,
Anand

Hello,
It actually isn't all that bad. I solved my very first cube in late
February of this year. The first solve probably took me around 5
hours total (on and off for about a day and a half). After that, I
wrote up my own little algorithms that I pulled off certain pages.
There were 13 in total. I just started practicing them whenever I had
a chance. It took me 1-2 weeks to memorize all 13, and I wasn't
really trying to memorize, they just came to fit my hands. My goal
was to get below 1 minute. I reached my goal fairly quickly. Now, I
can average under 30 seconds. I typed up a guide that I felt was
really easy to understand and would help newer people learn to solve.
Check it out here:
http://www40.brinkster.com/patjk/beginners.html

Towards the bottom I provided an example solve using that method.
Once you have that method mastered, its time to move onto Fridrich.
Check out my speedcubing page at:
http://www40.brinkster.com/patjk/fast.html

I also provided an example solve using pure Fridrich towards the
bottom there. Learning all the algorithms sounds tough, but it isn't.
When you get time, just sit down, and learn maybe 1-2 algorithms each
day. The F2L is mostly intiution, so you actually see more about what
is happening, and not really learning an algorithm. I have most F2L
cases down, all PLL cases, and I need maybe 30 more OLL algorithms to
memorize. Once I get all the OLLs, I am going to go back and learn
new tricks for the F2L, and that should take my time don 7-10 seconds.
Just practice, practice, practice. Don't give up. Find a friend to
get interested in the cube with so you can compete against eachother.
Good luck,
Patrick

--- In speedsolvingrubikscube@yahoogroups.com, Ryan Heise <ryan@...>
wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jun 29, 2006 at 01:42:47PM -0000, anand_chhettri wrote:
> > I have recently started solving the cube..and i can solve it using a
> > set of beginners algorithms .but i want to reduce my time and for that
> > do i have to remember some 70-80 algorithms?How does one manage to do
> > that especially if i were to remember all of jessica friedrich's
> > algorithm it would take a million more years . can somebod y help me?
>
> Hi, a good understanding of the cube can save you from memorisation.
> The solving strategy is an important factor, however. A method such as
> Fridrich puts the cube in highly symetric positions in the last stages,
> which lends itself well to memorisation but not understanding. If you
> would like to apply understanding, then you will want to avoid those
> symetric positions.
>
> --
> Ryan Heise
> http://www.ryanheise.com/cube/
>

---------------------------------
Catch all the FIFA World Cup 2006 action on Yahoo! India Click here

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
• Hi Anand, It is possible to average under 20 seconds with 4 look last layer. For that you need to learn: EO) Edge orientation (3 cases) CO) Corner orientation
Message 6 of 11 , Jun 29, 2006
• 0 Attachment
Hi Anand,

It is possible to average under 20 seconds with 4 look last layer.
For that you need to learn:
EO) Edge orientation (3 cases)
CO) Corner orientation (7 cases)
CP) Corner permutation (2 cases)
EP) Edge permutation (4 cases)
Total of 16 cases.

This will be the first step towards learning all 78 cases.
After that you can combine CP and EP (15 more cases).
And slowly combine EO and CO. Like first learn all cases with 4 flipped
edges.

F2L is mainly intuitive, although for some tougher cases most of the guys
here use algorithms.

Have fun,

Ron

----- Original Message -----
From: anand chhetri
To: speedsolvingrubikscube@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Friday, June 30, 2006 8:24 AM
Subject: Re: [Speed cubing group] Re: speed cubing

hi,
thanks for the information and the encouragement.Just wanted to ask how many
algos do you use to get into the sub 30s.I went thru yer site .its gr8 and
thanks again
bye ,
Anand

Hello,
It actually isn't all that bad. I solved my very first cube in late
February of this year. The first solve probably took me around 5
hours total (on and off for about a day and a half). After that, I
wrote up my own little algorithms that I pulled off certain pages.
There were 13 in total. I just started practicing them whenever I had
a chance. It took me 1-2 weeks to memorize all 13, and I wasn't
really trying to memorize, they just came to fit my hands. My goal
was to get below 1 minute. I reached my goal fairly quickly. Now, I
can average under 30 seconds. I typed up a guide that I felt was
really easy to understand and would help newer people learn to solve.
Check it out here:
http://www40.brinkster.com/patjk/beginners.html

Towards the bottom I provided an example solve using that method.
Once you have that method mastered, its time to move onto Fridrich.
Check out my speedcubing page at:
http://www40.brinkster.com/patjk/fast.html

I also provided an example solve using pure Fridrich towards the
bottom there. Learning all the algorithms sounds tough, but it isn't.
When you get time, just sit down, and learn maybe 1-2 algorithms each
day. The F2L is mostly intiution, so you actually see more about what
is happening, and not really learning an algorithm. I have most F2L
cases down, all PLL cases, and I need maybe 30 more OLL algorithms to
memorize. Once I get all the OLLs, I am going to go back and learn
new tricks for the F2L, and that should take my time don 7-10 seconds.
Just practice, practice, practice. Don't give up. Find a friend to
get interested in the cube with so you can compete against eachother.
Good luck,
Patrick

--- In speedsolvingrubikscube@yahoogroups.com, Ryan Heise <ryan@...>
wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jun 29, 2006 at 01:42:47PM -0000, anand_chhettri wrote:
> > I have recently started solving the cube..and i can solve it using a
> > set of beginners algorithms .but i want to reduce my time and for that
> > do i have to remember some 70-80 algorithms?How does one manage to do
> > that especially if i were to remember all of jessica friedrich's
> > algorithm it would take a million more years . can somebod y help me?
>
> Hi, a good understanding of the cube can save you from memorisation.
> The solving strategy is an important factor, however. A method such as
> Fridrich puts the cube in highly symetric positions in the last stages,
> which lends itself well to memorisation but not understanding. If you
> would like to apply understanding, then you will want to avoid those
> symetric positions.
>
> --
> Ryan Heise
> http://www.ryanheise.com/cube/
>

---------------------------------
Catch all the FIFA World Cup 2006 action on Yahoo! India Click here

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
• ... LIke I may have said before: All that learning more than a few (around 5, say) algorithms will do is to cut 5-15 moves off your solutions. Which should be
Message 7 of 11 , Jun 30, 2006
• 0 Attachment
On Jun 29, 2006, at 23:41, Ron van Bruchem wrote:

> It is possible to average under 20 seconds with 4 look last layer.

LIke I may have said before:

All that learning more than a few (around 5, say) algorithms will do
is to cut 5-15 moves off your solutions. Which should be 10%-30% of

If this is right, the people averaging 15 sec should be able to
average under 18 using only the basic algs. Don't know if that's
true, but I'd be real surprised if it's far off.

But my point is that there is nothing wrong in learning algorithms,
and you need to know a lot to be real fast, but it's a very small
part of your journey from 1 minute to sub 20. Really just those 3-5
last seconds.

- - - - - - - - - - - -
"The future is here. It's just not widely distributed yet."
--- William Gibson

Lars Petrus - lars@... http://lar5.com
• Hi :-) About 4-look last layer (LL). I use that for my 3x3x3 speedsolving. In terms of number of moves it s not very efficient at all (the way i do it at
Message 8 of 11 , Jun 30, 2006
• 0 Attachment
Hi :-)

About 4-look last layer (LL). I use that for my 3x3x3 speedsolving.
In terms of number of moves it's not very efficient at all (the way
i do it at least). There are at least a few reasonable scenarios for
a 4-step LL.

- position corners (PC), orient corners (OC), orient edges (OE) and
finally position edges (PE)

This is what i do basically, but there are some bad cases for
orienting edges after solving the corners so i sometimes divert and
do 2 edge 3-cycle instead of OE + PE. Or i may do the edge 4-flip in
just 1 alg.

A better scenario is probably:

- OE then OC then finally PE and PC in any order.

Going that route leads naturally to the standard 2-look LL: orient
all (OLL) and permute all (PLL). The first 2 steps combine to OLL
and the last 2 combine to the PLL step.

My best average with my rather poor 4-look LL strategy is 20.57
secs. My normal avg's are in the range 24-26 secs. Im lazy to change
my 25 yr old ways of spedsolving, and im more interested in the
larger cubes for speeding :-)

Best of luck!

-Per

> --- In speedsolvingrubikscube@yahoogroups.com, Lars Petrus
<lars@...> wrote:
>
> On Jun 29, 2006, at 23:41, Ron van Bruchem wrote:
>
> > It is possible to average under 20 seconds with 4 look last
layer.
>
> LIke I may have said before:
>
> All that learning more than a few (around 5, say) algorithms will
do
> is to cut 5-15 moves off your solutions. Which should be 10%-30%
of
>
> If this is right, the people averaging 15 sec should be able to
> average under 18 using only the basic algs. Don't know if that's
> true, but I'd be real surprised if it's far off.
>
> But my point is that there is nothing wrong in learning
algorithms,
> and you need to know a lot to be real fast, but it's a very small
> part of your journey from 1 minute to sub 20. Really just those 3-
5
> last seconds.
>
> - - - - - - - - - - - -
> "The future is here. It's just not widely distributed yet."
> --- William Gibson
>
> Lars Petrus - lars@... http://lar5.com
>
• Hi Per, Yes, there are several scenarios for 4 look last layer. But EO, CO, CP, EP is bringing you closer to CFOP. Have fun, Ron ... From: Per Kristen Fredlund
Message 9 of 11 , Jun 30, 2006
• 0 Attachment
Hi Per,

Yes, there are several scenarios for 4 look last layer.
But EO, CO, CP, EP is bringing you closer to CFOP.

Have fun,

Ron

----- Original Message -----
From: Per Kristen Fredlund
To: speedsolvingrubikscube@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Friday, June 30, 2006 10:46 AM
Subject: [Speed cubing group] Re: speed cubing

Hi :-)

About 4-look last layer (LL). I use that for my 3x3x3 speedsolving.
In terms of number of moves it's not very efficient at all (the way
i do it at least). There are at least a few reasonable scenarios for
a 4-step LL.

- position corners (PC), orient corners (OC), orient edges (OE) and
finally position edges (PE)

This is what i do basically, but there are some bad cases for
orienting edges after solving the corners so i sometimes divert and
do 2 edge 3-cycle instead of OE + PE. Or i may do the edge 4-flip in
just 1 alg.

A better scenario is probably:

- OE then OC then finally PE and PC in any order.

Going that route leads naturally to the standard 2-look LL: orient
all (OLL) and permute all (PLL). The first 2 steps combine to OLL
and the last 2 combine to the PLL step.

My best average with my rather poor 4-look LL strategy is 20.57
secs. My normal avg's are in the range 24-26 secs. Im lazy to change
my 25 yr old ways of spedsolving, and im more interested in the
larger cubes for speeding :-)

Best of luck!

-Per

> --- In speedsolvingrubikscube@yahoogroups.com, Lars Petrus
<lars@...> wrote:
>
> On Jun 29, 2006, at 23:41, Ron van Bruchem wrote:
>
> > It is possible to average under 20 seconds with 4 look last
layer.
>
> LIke I may have said before:
>
> All that learning more than a few (around 5, say) algorithms will
do
> is to cut 5-15 moves off your solutions. Which should be 10%-30%
of
>
> If this is right, the people averaging 15 sec should be able to
> average under 18 using only the basic algs. Don't know if that's
> true, but I'd be real surprised if it's far off.
>
> But my point is that there is nothing wrong in learning
algorithms,
> and you need to know a lot to be real fast, but it's a very small
> part of your journey from 1 minute to sub 20. Really just those 3-
5
> last seconds.
>
> - - - - - - - - - - - -
> "The future is here. It's just not widely distributed yet."
> --- William Gibson
>
> Lars Petrus - lars@... http://lar5.com
>

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
• Hi :-) That s what i said also. But i Used OE, OC, PC, PE ;-) (! EO/CO/EP/CP) Learning 4-look LL in this way is a good way to go. Then learn how to combine PC
Message 10 of 11 , Jun 30, 2006
• 0 Attachment
Hi :-)

That's what i said also. But i Used OE, OC, PC, PE ;-)

(! EO/CO/EP/CP)

Learning 4-look LL in this way is a good way to go. Then learn how
to combine PC and PE into 1 step >> PLL (13 algs). This leads to a 3-
look LL. Then when mastering this learn the OLL algs in small steps
until all cases are mastered. Learning just the algs is not
sufficient though. I mean just learning those algs and not how to
use them (recognition of the cases) is rather meaningless :-) When
all OLL is fully mastered u have a true 2-look LL.

Other 2-step LL scenarios possible are CLL(COLL) then ELL(PE).

Or like Mirek: make a 2x2x1 block on last layer and then learn all
the algs for the last 5 cubies. I don't see a good step-up path to
this approach however ;-)

Cheers!

-Per

> --- In speedsolvingrubikscube@yahoogroups.com, "Ron van Bruchem"
<ron@...> wrote:
>
> Hi Per,
>
> Yes, there are several scenarios for 4 look last layer.
> But EO, CO, CP, EP is bringing you closer to CFOP.
>
> Have fun,
>
> Ron
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Per Kristen Fredlund
> To: speedsolvingrubikscube@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Friday, June 30, 2006 10:46 AM
> Subject: [Speed cubing group] Re: speed cubing
>
>
> Hi :-)
>
> About 4-look last layer (LL). I use that for my 3x3x3
speedsolving.
> In terms of number of moves it's not very efficient at all (the
way
> i do it at least). There are at least a few reasonable scenarios
for
> a 4-step LL.
>
> - position corners (PC), orient corners (OC), orient edges (OE)
and
> finally position edges (PE)
>
> This is what i do basically, but there are some bad cases for
> orienting edges after solving the corners so i sometimes divert
and
> do 2 edge 3-cycle instead of OE + PE. Or i may do the edge 4-
flip in
> just 1 alg.
>
> A better scenario is probably:
>
> - OE then OC then finally PE and PC in any order.
>
> Going that route leads naturally to the standard 2-look LL:
orient
> all (OLL) and permute all (PLL). The first 2 steps combine to
OLL
> and the last 2 combine to the PLL step.
>
> My best average with my rather poor 4-look LL strategy is 20.57
> secs. My normal avg's are in the range 24-26 secs. Im lazy to
change
> my 25 yr old ways of spedsolving, and im more interested in the
> larger cubes for speeding :-)
>
> Best of luck!
>
> -Per
>
> > --- In speedsolvingrubikscube@yahoogroups.com, Lars Petrus
> <lars@> wrote:
> >
> > On Jun 29, 2006, at 23:41, Ron van Bruchem wrote:
> >
> > > It is possible to average under 20 seconds with 4 look last
> layer.
> >
> > LIke I may have said before:
> >
> > All that learning more than a few (around 5, say) algorithms
will
> do
> > is to cut 5-15 moves off your solutions. Which should be 10%-
30%
> of
> >
> > If this is right, the people averaging 15 sec should be able
to
> > average under 18 using only the basic algs. Don't know if
that's
> > true, but I'd be real surprised if it's far off.
> >
> > But my point is that there is nothing wrong in learning
> algorithms,
> > and you need to know a lot to be real fast, but it's a very
small
> > part of your journey from 1 minute to sub 20. Really just
those 3-
> 5
> > last seconds.
> >
> > - - - - - - - - - - - -
> > "The future is here. It's just not widely distributed yet."
> > --- William Gibson
> >
> > Lars Petrus - lars@ http://lar5.com
> >
>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
• Hi Per, I didn t know that you - position corners (PC), orient corners (OC), orient edges (OE) and finally position edges (PE)
Message 11 of 11 , Jun 30, 2006
• 0 Attachment
Hi Per,

I didn't know that you > - position corners (PC), orient corners (OC),
orient edges (OE) and finally position edges (PE) < !!

That's what I do, basically. See:
http://www.speedcubing.com/DavidJSalvia.html

From there I went a different direction: Position and orient corners
in one go, solve edges in one go. CLL ELL.

I started to control the LL edge orientation when placing the 4 FL
edges, so I never end up with all four flipped unless I want them
flipped. I did that when I started to develop: position and orient
corners and flip 2 edges over in one go, and position edges.

:)

David J

--- In speedsolvingrubikscube@yahoogroups.com, "Per Kristen Fredlund"
<aspiring_to_love@...> wrote:
>
> Hi :-)
>
> About 4-look last layer (LL). I use that for my 3x3x3 speedsolving.
> In terms of number of moves it's not very efficient at all (the way
> i do it at least). There are at least a few reasonable scenarios for
> a 4-step LL.
>
> - position corners (PC), orient corners (OC), orient edges (OE) and
> finally position edges (PE)
>
> This is what i do basically, but there are some bad cases for
> orienting edges after solving the corners so i sometimes divert and
> do 2 edge 3-cycle instead of OE + PE. Or i may do the edge 4-flip in
> just 1 alg.
>
> A better scenario is probably:
>
> - OE then OC then finally PE and PC in any order.
>
> Going that route leads naturally to the standard 2-look LL: orient
> all (OLL) and permute all (PLL). The first 2 steps combine to OLL
> and the last 2 combine to the PLL step.
>
> My best average with my rather poor 4-look LL strategy is 20.57
> secs. My normal avg's are in the range 24-26 secs. Im lazy to change
> my 25 yr old ways of spedsolving, and im more interested in the
> larger cubes for speeding :-)
>
> Best of luck!
>
> -Per
>
> > --- In speedsolvingrubikscube@yahoogroups.com, Lars Petrus
> <lars@> wrote:
> >
> > On Jun 29, 2006, at 23:41, Ron van Bruchem wrote:
> >
> > > It is possible to average under 20 seconds with 4 look last
> layer.
> >
> > LIke I may have said before:
> >
> > All that learning more than a few (around 5, say) algorithms will
> do
> > is to cut 5-15 moves off your solutions. Which should be 10%-30%
> of
> >
> > If this is right, the people averaging 15 sec should be able to
> > average under 18 using only the basic algs. Don't know if that's
> > true, but I'd be real surprised if it's far off.
> >
> > But my point is that there is nothing wrong in learning
> algorithms,
> > and you need to know a lot to be real fast, but it's a very small
> > part of your journey from 1 minute to sub 20. Really just those 3-
> 5
> > last seconds.
> >
> > - - - - - - - - - - - -
> > "The future is here. It's just not widely distributed yet."
> > --- William Gibson
> >
> > Lars Petrus - lars@ http://lar5.com
> >
>
Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.