# Which method is best?



## Kieran (Jan 9, 2009)

I know this has been asked many times, and always with different answers and usually not the greatest reasons behind them, therefore I thought I'd start a thread where you can say what you think the best *speedsolving* method is and your reason why. Don't just post saying

'Fridrichs Method' Give a reason why. I'm interested in why you think x method is best or *better* than another method. 

*My personal preference* is the Waterman Method because it has a low move count average, around 41 I think, it can be done with great speed as it has easy recognition, with the only problem being it has a huge number of similar algorithms. I think it is also good because it is intuitive meaning you can skip steps a lot.

What do you think?


----------



## nitrocan (Jan 9, 2009)

Waterman has 41 move-count on average? That's ridiculous.

People usually tend to use Fridrich because it's similar to the beginner's layer by layer method, so it's easier to follow.

I'm pretty sure this kind of thread was opened many times.

EDIT: Oh here I got it: http://www.speedsolving.com/forum/showthread.php?t=7307


----------



## Kieran (Jan 9, 2009)

I searched for it, but couldn't find it. I am new to the forums, and was wondering what people thought.

*Waterman*
Step 1: Solve left side : 18. And when you get good, and can look ahead really well, you can get down to 15. 2 moves for the first adjacent sides. 4 move avg. for last 2 corners. 4 edges: 12 moves.
Step 2: Solve other side, less 1 edge. Corners : 9 avg. Edges only 2 to do, 5 avg.
Step3/4: Last 6 edges : 14 move avg. 
46 avg? I'm not entirely sure, because the site for The Waterman is total crap and half the pictures wont load (only for me cause of the crap server I'm on.)


----------



## Lucas Garron (Jan 9, 2009)

MGLS-F, because I use it.


----------



## Musturd (Jan 10, 2009)

I googled waterman:
http://rubikscube.info/waterman/booklet.php


----------



## pjk (Jan 10, 2009)

As of right now, I think Roux is the best, and eventually will be one of the more common methods of the fastest solvers. I like it because of the movecount, and it has potential for a nice look-ahead.


----------



## HASH-CUBE (Jan 10, 2009)

hi...

i use the F2L, I think it's the easier method for beginners who want's to be a speedcubers, so i use it, along with the OLL and PLL.

so yea , it's the way i do, but still slow, about 35 seconds

i don't have any friends who LIKE rubik's cube anyway, in my contry no one solves it, mybee few, but i know only one i teached him, but he is like 3 minutes 

thanks


----------



## shoot1510 (Jan 10, 2009)

I use Pochmann method for blindfold mix with 3 cycle method . And Fridrich is my method I use.


----------



## jcuber (Jan 10, 2009)

Shoot, I thought you used partial fridrich+semi intuative (badmephisto) F2L. Also, I think you use 2-look OLL and 1-2 look PLL, right?


----------



## shoot1510 (Jan 11, 2009)

jcuber said:


> Shoot, I thought you used partial fridrich+semi intuative (badmephisto) F2L. Also, I think you use 2-look OLL and 1-2 look PLL, right?



Yes! that what I'm doing, but I completed almost all of the PLL, but I left 4 sequences. and I'm doing the OLL, keeping is 2-look way. I still Practicing my F2L, since my average is still in sub 40s. You got below me and I can't get my average down then sub 30s.


----------



## byu (Jan 12, 2009)

Here's some interesting statistical information:

For the Petrus method, I average 55 seconds, and my best time is 42 seconds. I have been using this method for two months.

For the Fridrich method, I average 40 seconds, and my best is 26 seconds. I have been using this method for a week and a half.

I thought Petrus would be easier, with less algorithms, but if I had started with Fridrich, I can't imagine how good my averages would be now.


----------

