# Heise Method Discussion thread



## Radical Seal (Feb 14, 2008)

Hey I was wondering who uses the heise method and how fast it can get. I want to learn it, but I haven't really seen anyone solving with it.


----------



## Swordsman Kirby (Feb 14, 2008)

I last heard Johannes Laire averaging 24sec.

It's not worth doing for speed, but if you're at all interested in fewest moves, take a look at this.


----------



## Johannes91 (Feb 14, 2008)

It's fun. And even if you don't end up using it, you'll probably learn some tricks you can adapt to other methods.

Just like for all other methods except Fridrich, it's impossible to say "how fast it can get".


----------



## Radical Seal (Feb 15, 2008)

Ok thanks. Im not going to learn the method but I will learn about the commutators.


----------



## niKo (Mar 10, 2008)

*The Heise Method*

Just wondering if anyone uses it? I was browsing around here and it looks pretty good - surprised I haven't heard more about it. Is there a reason it's not very popular?

-niKo


----------



## Hadley4000 (Mar 10, 2008)

Hmm. not familiar with it.


----------



## Lofty (Mar 10, 2008)

It isn't popular for the same reason Petrus isn't popular. The method is ridiculously efficient but since you are using intuitive efficiency is "harder" and "takes more thinking" then fridrich. I really like the method but past the first part I find it kinda difficult to do...
I think I'll learn more now, block building is fun and imo better in the long run.


----------



## AvGalen (Mar 10, 2008)

It is "popular" for fewest moves, but not for speed.


----------



## fanwuq (Mar 10, 2008)

I tried it once and and got most of the cube solved in 17 moves. But I had to orient and place 4 more weirdly placed edges and 3 corners. I didn't know the commutators and stuff back than so I just finished with Fridrich and got about 50 moves. Now that I know a bit of BLD, I could probably handle the situations better.


----------



## Swordsman Kirby (Mar 11, 2008)

AvGalen said:


> It is "popular" for fewest moves, but not for speed.



Since when was fewest moves "popular"?


----------



## Lucas Garron (Mar 11, 2008)

Swordsman Kirby said:


> AvGalen said:
> 
> 
> > It is "popular" for fewest moves, but not for speed.
> ...


About 1980.


----------



## It3ration (Mar 12, 2008)

I've been using it recently - learning the logic behind the conjugates and commutators has vastly improved my understanding of the cube. I'm also noticing that the more I practice, the more I "see" intuitive sequences of moves. It's more fun in my opinion as your not just solving the cube using a brain dump of memorized algorithms. You're solving it because you understand how to solve it.


----------



## Swordsman Kirby (Mar 12, 2008)

It3ration said:


> I've been using it recently - learning the logic behind the conjugates and commutators has vastly improved my understanding of the cube. I'm also noticing that the more I practice, the more I "see" intuitive sequences of moves. It's more fun in my opinion as your not just solving the cube using a brain dump of memorized algorithms. You're solving it because you understand how to solve it.



What if you understand the algs you use?


----------



## mrCage (Mar 12, 2008)

AvGalen said:


> It is "popular" for fewest moves, but not for speed.


 
Hi, I would moderate that and say it's good for linear or time-limited (less than 1 hr) fewest moves solving. It is not all that popular in fewest moves either. Petrus method is FAR more popular 

- Per


----------



## Wacky (Apr 12, 2008)

*Heise LS+LL*

I've been looking at the Heise method lately and his method for solving the last edge-pair slot and last layer looks quite interesting. 

I'm a bit too lazy (or rather busy) so never really finished learning 3LL but this doesn't look too bad - it would seem that it's quite move-count efficient and also requires memorizing only a few algorithms - which Heise doesn't even call algorithms, but I guess they are, it's just that they're easy to learn and understand.

So ATM I'm trying to do Petrus + Heise for LS+LL... 

Is there any particular reason why it isn't used more, other than that Heise's F2L method is really complicated so people gave up before getting to that step?


----------



## Lofty (Apr 12, 2008)

Well it is quite hard to do at full speed... but if you are willing to practice im sure it can be made fast. I don't really think its the F2L part that makes it too complicated but the whole method is pretty complicated. We aren't willing to work for fast times we want them now... 
I say go for it.


----------



## Johannes91 (Apr 12, 2008)

Wacky said:


> requires memorizing only a few algorithms - which Heise doesn't even call algorithms, but I guess they are, it's just that they're easy to learn and understand.


Nope, you don't need to memorize any algs. You just need to understand the general idea of commutators.



Wacky said:


> Is there any particular reason why it isn't used more?


Most cubers are only speedcubers and aren't interested in thinking or getting low move counts. If solving for fewest moves was the main event, I'm sure Heise's method would be quite popular.


----------



## Wacky (Apr 12, 2008)

Johannes91 said:


> Wacky said:
> 
> 
> > requires memorizing only a few algorithms - which Heise doesn't even call algorithms, but I guess they are, it's just that they're easy to learn and understand.
> ...



I'm speaking in the sense that even intuitive methods like Petrus are said to have intuitive "algorithms" - i.e. that you remember what to do every time you see a current case (hope I'm making sense)




> Is there any particular reason why it isn't used more?


Most cubers are only speedcubers and aren't interested in thinking or getting low move counts. If solving for fewest moves was the main event, I'm sure Heise's method would be quite popular.[/QUOTE]

But isn't the point of learning 2LL instead of 4LL and MGLS instead of 2LL to reduce the number of moves you would need to do and so increase your speed?


----------



## fanwuq (Apr 12, 2008)

I would use Heise. The problem is that speed cubing is not just move count, fingertricks and recognition is just as important. Heise is about 35-40 moves while 3 Look LL Fridrich is about 60-65 moves, but Fridrich is way faster for me. While it is a waste of 20 some moves, the moves are fingertrick friendly and patterns are easier to recognize. You can solve a cube without thinking. Heise is more interesting. You actually think to solve. It can be very fast with practice. It's good to use on a stiff cube.


----------



## Johannes91 (Apr 12, 2008)

Wacky said:


> I'm speaking in the sense that even intuitive methods like Petrus are said to have intuitive "algorithms" - i.e. that you remember what to do every time you see a current case (hope I'm making sense)


Petrus, Fridrich, Roux, and most other methods have one or more steps (like PLL) where you use some algs you have memorized. Heise doesn't have any such steps; you only need to know some general principles, and not a single specific move sequence. If you practise it, you will of course start seeing same patterns again and again and remember how to solve them, but this is different from memorizing algs without understanding them.

What I tried to say is that getting fast times is (at least in my opinion) much easier with those other methods. Heise requires more practice to get good at. So, if you only care about speed, there's not much reason to use Heise. It's fun and quite useful in solving for fewest moves, and in the long run you can get very fast times with it, so I recommend practising it if it seems interesting to you.


----------



## It3ration (Apr 23, 2008)

Touche - but conjugates and commutators are especially good to learn.


----------



## Smartyy (Jun 3, 2008)

*Heise Method*

Just wanted to open a sort of discussion on this method. I mean if i'm going to be taking 2 weeks of learning petrus and roux, might as well add another one to see how Heise is, right?
I don't know anybody who uses this method, and theres only like 3 youtube vids I can find of people actually using it.
I would still be curious to see what you all think about it, if it has potential, and if it is worth learning.
Regardless I will be learning it after Roux's week so, two weeks from now I will look at it. I also be learning it for the sake of fewest move solves, I like doing fewest move solves and apparently this is the way to go for that.
So what do you all think about the Heise Method?

-Smartyy!


----------



## Mike Hughey (Jun 4, 2008)

I'm pretty awful at the Heise method, but I do know that every time I spend about an hour trying to do Heise solves and THEN try a fewest moves solve, I wind up getting a really good solve (even though I don't use Heise for the solve). It seems like doing Heise helps you understand the cube better (well, perhaps I should say it seems like it helps ME understand the cube better - not sure it has that effect on other people).


----------



## Ruggles (Jun 4, 2008)

I've been practicing doing Heise of and on for a little while, and it's hard to get good with it. So far I'm averaging at about 1:50-1:30 with Heise, but it has changed my perspective dealing with the rubik's cube. This has helped me learn more about how the rubik's cube works, and solving the cube is much more fun when you know what you're doing.


----------



## *LukeMayn* (Sep 28, 2008)

*Some Ryan Heise stuff. Questions?*

Ummm... What are your guys controls for big cubes like 4x4x4 and up ( I mostly want 4x4x4) also if anyone is kind enough *winks cutely* can you give me your PLL's for...
N's, V, A's and thats it.. thanks


----------



## Lucas Garron (Sep 28, 2008)

4x4x4, I use standard controls, with 6 for u2 (parity), 5x5x5 standard.

AQTM-optimal are the regular PLLs. No good V, though.


----------



## It3ration (Oct 2, 2008)

*Ryan Heise: The "two pairs" approach*

I have been using the Ryan Heise method for several months now with times in the 30's to 40's. His site describes a different (more advanced) approach to solving the last 5 edges and 2 corners called the "two pairs" approach. The link to his description is here:

http://www.ryanheise.com/cube/two_pairs.html

Has anyone else figured this out? His method is advanced, and it's hard to find people that use it.


----------



## MistArts (Oct 2, 2008)

I use it for FM.


----------



## waffle=ijm (Oct 2, 2008)

Heise for speed=eh not so good
Heise for FM = very good


----------



## It3ration (Oct 2, 2008)

Well, I've been using it for FM mostly. But I'd sure like to learn two pairs..


----------



## MistArts (Oct 2, 2008)

It3ration said:


> Well, I've been using it for FM mostly. But I'd sure like to learn two pairs..



Create one pair, make another w/o destorying the first one, solve edges.

Play around with it and you'll get hot to avoid parity and stuff.


----------



## It3ration (Oct 2, 2008)

On his site he seems to orient all of the LL edge pieces before building the pairs. Is this necessary? If so, it seems like more work than the simple approach..


----------



## AvGalen (Oct 2, 2008)

It3ration said:


> On his site he seems to orient all of the LL edge pieces before building the pairs. Is this necessary? If so, it seems like more work than the simple approach..


Isn't that true for most advanced solutions? More work (algs, practise, recognition) but faster? Or do you mean more moves?


----------



## It3ration (Oct 2, 2008)

Well, for Ryan Heise the whole point is that it's completely intuitive. You can use it for FM. However, I also use it for speed solving, and sometimes get below 30, and I'm using the easiest approach to solving the last 5 edges and 2 corners. I think Ryan Heise uses it and often gets sub-20 solves.

Basically, I just need to see a Youtube video of someone doing the "two pairs" approach. There is no algorithm memorization, but the concept is quite tricky.


----------



## MistArts (Oct 2, 2008)

It3ration said:


> On his site he seems to orient all of the LL edge pieces before building the pairs. Is this necessary? If so, it seems like more work than the simple approach..



It is not necessary, but when I'm block building, I try to use edge control and leave 0 or 2 edges unoriented. Then start to build the pairs and orient the pieces or orient before with Lars' 3-mover.


----------



## Athefre (Oct 2, 2008)

waffle=ijm said:


> Heise for speed=eh not so good



Travel back to the 80's and tell people that Petrus, Roux, and Fridrich are good for speed, most would tell you that everything takes too long to recognize.

I believe strongly that if you practice Ryan's method long enough you will be as fast as the people that use the other popular methods.



It3ration said:


> Has anyone else figured this out? His method is advanced, and it's hard to find people that use it.



I use it when solving slowly for fun and I don't have many problems, it gets a lot easier when you practice it for a while. Remember that you can use L and even F and B moves in this step, not just R and U.


----------



## It3ration (Oct 2, 2008)

Athefre, I agree with you. Honestly I'm quite fast. The part that really takes the most time is:

1) Orienting last 5 edges.
2) Solving the two corners before the last 3 corner solve.

I always just orient the last 5 edges, then solve the next two corners using (two) three corner cycles, then solve the remaining 3 corners using a three corner cycle. Sometimes I can solve the first two corners at once using a three corner cycle if i see it quickly enough. It seems though that the point here is that the part that takes the longest is orienting the last 5 edges/2 corners before last 3 corner solve. That's why I'm wondering if the "two pairs" approach would be good here as it solves the last 5 corners and first two corners before last 3 corners all at once instead of one at a time.

Does anyone use it regularly ("two pairs")? If so, if anyone would be willing to make a Youtube vid.. 

I should mention that my whole reason for learning Ryan Heise in the first place was to avoid the task of memorization. I'm just now starting to memorize the standard OLLs/PLLs, which is a total pain.  I'd much rather do it intuitively. 

Sometimes I use Fridrich to build the F2L except for one of the corner slots, then use Ryan Heise for the rest.


----------



## Athefre (Oct 3, 2008)

It3ration said:


> 1) Orienting last 5 edges.



After finishing all four squares you can orient most of the edges while putting the squares in place. In my opinion its a much quicker strategy than doing Fridrich F2L then orienting the five edges using F'U2F or F'U'F for example.



It3ration said:


> 2) Solving the two corners before the last 3 corner solve.



Just practice and that will get faster.


----------



## Town (Oct 8, 2008)

"two pairs" seems very high tech


----------



## MistArts (Oct 8, 2008)

Town said:


> "two pairs" seems very high tech



Not really. If you were using it in speedsolving, then it would be harder to avoid parity. Not impossible though.


----------



## It3ration (Oct 9, 2008)

I'm really quite fond of Ryan Heise at this point. However, I usually use Fridrich to do F2L (except for one corner segment), then use Ryan Heise from there. If I'm going for FM though, I use full Ryan Heise, as it takes way fewer moves than Fridrich.

Athefre, you said you use the "two pairs" approach sometimes? Would you (or someone else) be willing to make a short tut vid?

Cheers.


----------



## Athefre (Oct 11, 2008)

It3ration said:


> Athefre, you said you use the "two pairs" approach sometimes? Would you (or someone else) be willing to make a short tut vid?
> 
> Cheers.



Ryan Heise's site already has a very good tutorial but if you are wanting a tutorial that lists most (or all) cases then I think there are too many cases to go through.

I only have a 16mb card in my video camera so that's only around 1 minute of video so I wouldn't' be able to fit it all in and even if I split it up in segments it would be many many videos...plus I would be too embarrassed to make a video like that (having to speak)...sorry.

But if I had a larger memory card and could just do it without "saying" how to do it, I definitely would. If you can wait maybe a month or two I probably will be able to. My little brother plans to buy himself a digital camera and an 8GB SD card.

If nobody else makes a video then I will try to then.


----------



## It3ration (Oct 11, 2008)

roxor. sounds good.


----------



## Wacky (Oct 12, 2008)

Speaking of parity, are there better ways of fixing edge permutation parities when you already have two pairs + the other edge solved, besides J/V/Y perm?


----------



## EmersonHerrmann (Oct 12, 2008)

someone just needs to make a full Heise tutorial (video)  I can hardly understand his site...I'm gonna try to understand it though


----------



## Athefre (Oct 12, 2008)

What do video tutorials do that image and text based tutorials don't? All I'm thinking is that people explain it in the videos.

Ryan explains his method very well already on his site and he has lots of examples. I don't like watching video tutorials because it usually takes the person 5 minutes to explain something simple, I hear parts of videos when people go "uh.....and uh.....and....you'll want to uh.....move this piece here then uh..........." and it makes me not want to bother watching it. Also, it's more annoying to rewind a video to watch them do a certain step until you understand it than it is to press the back button on a cube applet. And in a video you don't get to see all angles, instead you have to see what they are doing then follow along with your own cube.

But if there is some reason I didn't think of that makes people enjoy videos more then I would be willing (like I said) to make a non-voiced (maybe it's to avoid my own "uh"s) video tutorial. Of course without voice it would just be a video collection of the cases.

I thought about doing the videos yesterday and decided that it would be helpful to a lot of people so I spent the rest of my evening (about 4 hours) sitting at my desk making sheets with images/lists of all of the cases. I spent two hours this morning finishing that and added a few solutions. Then I decided that maybe I shouldn't do this because how overwhelmed would you feel to see the hundreds of cases and would you be able to solve something on your own after just memorizing these things? I think it's best to see (and understand) the important ones then eventually you will be able to do every (or almost every) case you see.

Some simple help:

1. Go to the two pairs page. Read every thing but don't let your eyes glaze over, you have to focus.

2. Look at every example on his Pair 3-Cycles page

3. Number 3 is.....come on you can guess this one right? You can't? Really?.....ok, it's practice.


----------



## AvGalen (Oct 15, 2008)

I like making a video-tutorial because it is so much easier to create than a website

People like watching a video tutorial because you can see moves and hear details at the same time and it doesn't take much effort to watch a video


----------



## Athefre (Oct 15, 2008)

AvGalen said:


> People like watching a video tutorial because you can see moves and hear details at the same time and it doesn't take much effort to watch a video



With a site with applets you can see the moves and read the explanation of the moves. I don't see much of a difference.

I didn't say it takes a lot of effort to watch a video, I was just trying to say that using a cube applet and text, it seems to me that it would take less time to learn what they are trying to teach. Maybe it's not as much time as I make it sound...I don't know.

I like watching online videos but I don't like trying to learn how to solve puzzles using a video. I guess I'm in a minority that prefers learning from a site.


----------



## AvGalen (Oct 16, 2008)

Athefre said:


> AvGalen said:
> 
> 
> > People like watching a video tutorial because you can see moves and hear details at the same time and it doesn't take much effort to watch a video
> ...



If there was a best way, people would use only that way. But everyone learns differently.
I prefer pictures/diagrams for learning groups of algs because they are easy to print and take with you.
I prefer applets for learning a method because they are easy to follow and can be manipulated to forward/reverse a move
I prefer videos for learning intuitive methods (intuitive F2L, bigcubes reduction) because the graphics (video) and description (audio) will be synchronised.
I prefer videos for learning video tricks for obvious reasons


----------



## Athefre (Oct 16, 2008)

AvGalen said:


> If there was a best way, people would use only that way. But everyone learns differently.
> I prefer pictures/diagrams for learning groups of algs because they are easy to print and take with you.
> I prefer applets for learning a method because they are easy to follow and can be manipulated to forward/reverse a move
> I prefer videos for learning intuitive methods (intuitive F2L, bigcubes reduction) because the graphics (video) and description (audio) will be synchronised.
> I prefer videos for learning video tricks for obvious reasons



I guess we have gotten to discussing opinions now 



AvGalen said:


> I prefer videos for learning video tricks for obvious reasons



Did you mean finger tricks? If so, I agree. When I started cubing, videos like that didn't exist so people had to describe techniques using text but I didn't have any problem. Videos of finger tricks are quicker to learn from.

For the rest of the things you mentioned, I prefer a site and don't usually enjoy audio descriptions.

P.S. I'm glad you make your videos. They are very helpful to people.

Just want you to know that I don't think people should stop making video tutorials.


----------



## AvGalen (Oct 16, 2008)

Athefre said:


> ...
> 
> 
> AvGalen said:
> ...


oops 
I guess that is another reason I like video. I would *never *say stupid things like that


----------



## It3ration (Oct 24, 2008)

The more I work on Ryan Heise, the more I think I could be just as fast as using all the OLLs/PLLs from Fridrich. Learning finger tricks helps so much, especially the double spin using the pointer and index fingers.


----------



## Athefre (Oct 24, 2008)

Are you using "two-pairs" yet? Another thing you really should work on is being able to recognize the last step.

Here is his database page showing solutions to the last three corners.


----------



## It3ration (Oct 26, 2008)

Yeah I'm working on it. I'm also trying to memorize the Fridrich OLLs/PLLs to see how I fare there. A lot going on at once.


----------



## adragast (Mar 2, 2009)

*Problem with Heise's method*

Hello ! 

I am currently learning Heise's method. I like it really much but I have the following problem: from time to time the third block (outer square) cannot be finished because one of the needed piece is already used in another block.

I must be missing something enormous but I can't find it.
In the photos attached you will see the situation:
- I first built the white/blue/orange outer square
- then green/red as the inner square
- finally green/orange/white as my third block (outer square) but the orange/white edge is already taken

According to Heise, here are the requirements:
Two rules are as follows:
Only 5 out of the cube's 6 colours should be used. In the above example, red is not used. 
One square must be an inner square and the other 3 must be outer squares. 

I don't see anything breaking these rules (yellow is not used, I have only one inner square).

What am I missing ?

Kiyoshi


----------



## ErikJ (Mar 2, 2009)

don't use pseudo blocks until you understand more about the method. make 2x2x2s and 2x2x3s.


----------



## Die_d00pel_Null (Mar 2, 2009)

well Ryan just forgot the rule that you must not use a piece 2 times.

But actually it's obvious because what you really want to achieve is to completely solve the first 2 layers except for one corner and one edge. So any blockbuilding which doesn't bring you closer to this goal is useless.

This is why your getting less and less flexible the more blocks you built. For the 4th block you can only have to possibiliteis to choose from.


----------



## JohnnyA (Mar 2, 2009)

I had this problem myself and added this rule:

Make the inner block first, and the second block must share only ONE colour with the inner block.

This results in you being only able to make two blocks which can be made without sharing pieces.


----------



## Athefre (Mar 3, 2009)

I have considered switching to Heise many times but I decided it wasn't right for me because I'm already sub-16 with "Roux". I have spent a lot of time thinking about the method and how someone would be able to do the blockbuilding fast. I had a lot of ideas and made a simple page (it's probably bad):

http://athefre.110mb.com/Heise.html

Read the page carefully and you'll see how to get fast.

EDIT: I'll be adding a few more images that show the possible 3rd and 4th squares for each type of (sudo) 2x2x2.


----------



## EmersonHerrmann (Mar 3, 2009)

Uh...don't pair 2x2x1 blocks with the opposite colored edge.


----------



## adragast (Mar 3, 2009)

Thanks for your answers. 
To ErikJ: I know that I can do 2x2x2 then 2x2x3 or even Fridrich without last pair but I am trying to use his method completely 
To Die_d00pel_Null: well, it is a quite obvious rule not to use the same piece twice, my question was more: how do I avoid the situation where I need it twice. What colors am I allowed to use for the 3rd block ? for the 4th block ?
To JohnnyA: nice to know I am not the first one having this problem. My second block if I had made the inner one first would be in this case white-orange-blue and would not share any color at all with the inner block. That is what is wrong ?
To Athefre: I will definitively look at your page ! But right now I am not even at the stage "how to get fast" but more "how to avoid impossible cases"
To EmersonHerrmann: nice rule, I think it will save my day


----------



## Athefre (Mar 3, 2009)

adragast said:


> right now I am not even at the stage "how to get fast" but more "how to avoid impossible cases"



It's definitely possible, it's just much more difficult because it leaves you with one color possibility for a last layer. My page describes what you are supposed to do with that step if you choose to use "opposite" sudo-2x2x2s. Though it's not said that way.

If you use that type along with the others, it seems to me that it would be better if you used the same color scheme for every solve so you can have the pieces you need to solve memorized.

My page should say "I actually don't recommend using this type (if you have chosen to be color neutral)".


----------



## pinoycuber (Mar 17, 2009)

*Ryan Heise*

Ive search around! i cant find a video of Ryan Heise Solving a REAL CUBE?

Please help me? i want to see him with real fingers  duhh his method is awesome but hard!


----------



## brunson (Mar 17, 2009)

Ryan doesn't have fingers, you insensitive clod. ;-)


----------



## Mike Hughey (Mar 17, 2009)

brunson said:


> Ryan doesn't have fingers, you insensitive clod. ;-)



Wow - that's amazing! And to think he gets 126 words per minute typing, using Colemak!


----------



## joey (Mar 17, 2009)

Mike Hughey said:


> brunson said:
> 
> 
> > Ryan doesn't have fingers, you insensitive clod. ;-)
> ...


Exactly.. using 'Colemak'.. not using his fingers!


----------



## dChan (Mar 17, 2009)

Wow. Ha, I never realized that I've never seen a video or picture of Ryan Heise before until this thread. I too would like to see him solve a cube - err, without fingers as he must have a godlike mind to do so(or just uses his feet instead).

By the way, should this not be in off-topic?


----------



## IamWEB (Mar 18, 2009)

I bet you there will be a video of his real fingers, on a computer solving a simulated cube.

No real cubes.


----------



## pinoycuber (Mar 18, 2009)

he got fingers! search on youtube his 11 secs solve with his simulator.. 

its not offtopic? its about cubing.. 

heise method said to be the hardest ? but you can see him? deadly solving simulators? what more in real cube?


----------



## pinoycuber (Mar 21, 2009)

any update?guys. lets seel for it


----------



## Am1n- (Jun 21, 2009)

I had thit problem too, but than Ryan said; invert the rule: All squares have to have 1 common colour (the colour that is oposite of the colour you don't use)... That works most of the time, except with the inner square. There i use the rule; 1th and 2nd squares must form a 2x2x2 block, then it always works out.

mvg

EDIT: http://www.ryanheise.com/cube/squares_advanced.html : The 2nd (inner) square has to be an adjectant one

mvg


----------



## jacob15728 (Aug 8, 2009)

*A better way to do Heise*

Well, after attempting to learn the Heise method, I had some problems. I managed to get to the part where everything is solved except for 3 corners, then I messed up my cube attempting to apply commutators and had to start over. I tried again and messed up again. So, here's my idea: Get to the part where you have the whole f2l except one slot and all edges are oriented, fill in the slot using F2L, orient the corners, then do PLL. Overall this is a much easier and better way to do Heise, and it may sacrifice some move efficiency and require 28 algorithms as opposed to 0 but it is much easier, faster and less risky. Inb4 "or you could just use Petrus".


----------



## Johannes91 (Aug 8, 2009)

Summary of your post: "A better way to do Heise: don't do Heise". Congratulations on completely missing the point.

Easier: Of course it's easier for someone who already knows Petrus but not Heise. So what?

Better: Your opinion. Some of us don't care just about easiness and speed but also about understanding the cube, efficiency and elegancy. Heise is clearly much better for that.

Less risky: Commutators are not hard, blaming the method just shows how impatient you are.


----------



## qqwref (Aug 8, 2009)

This might be slightly better for speedsolving (because of easier lookahead), but that's not what Heise is designed for - it's intended to be a very efficient method that requires no memorized sequences.


----------



## jacob15728 (Aug 8, 2009)

Sorry, but I really don't think it's feasible to intuitively make up an algorithm that orients and permutes corners in all over the cube as you're going along. Unless you're some sort of a genius, that is. I always considered myself to be fairly intelligent, but this is clearly above me.


----------



## Johannes91 (Aug 8, 2009)

jacob15728 said:


> Sorry, but I really don't think it's feasible to intuitively make up an algorithm that orients and permutes corners in all over the cube as you're going along.


Sorry, but you're wrong. It's not only feasible but _very easy_ once you understand how commutators work. Did you even read Ryan's tutorial? And here's another one.


----------



## JLarsen (Aug 8, 2009)

3 Corner Comms could be taught to someone without even mentioning cube theory. Heise does a great job of explaining this. Try some more.


----------



## It3ration (Aug 8, 2009)

I have to agree with these guys. Heise takes quite awhile to master - however, I use it as my primary speed cubing method. After using it for a year, I do crazy commutators and look aheads without even thinking. I also understand the cube WAY more than someone who just memorizes tons of algorithms. Keep trying!


----------



## Wacky (Aug 19, 2009)

*Heise Method - Building Two Pairs*

I've noticed that my move count with Heise when building the two pairs is very inefficient - I tend to build the first pair Fridrich style and then spend too many moves trying to get the second pair.

Unfortunately Heise's website (http://www.ryanheise.com/cube/two_pairs.html) glosses over the building of the two pairs step, instead focusing on what to do with the pairs after they are built.

So, anyone know of a resource with sample solutions? Or alternatively, if you use the two pair approach, what is going through your head as you do it?


----------



## Am1n- (Aug 19, 2009)

When you're learning the 2 pair approuch, you first have to watch a couple of times (this is what I did) what you do with your corners (all of your coners) if you do RUR', RU'R' or RU2R'. You need the top layer corners to be oriented correctly after one of these.
Afterwards I looked where the edge is and manipulated it with the F2L slot so it would be connected with the corner after the corner orientation. after a while you wil know a couple of sequences to make pairs.

Also don't forget you can use the left layer for building the pairs and for permuting the pairs.

I have to admit this is, in my opinion, one of the hardest parts in the heise method, because there is very little info on his site.

I hope this helps

mvg


----------



## Johannes91 (Aug 19, 2009)

Am1n- said:


> You need the top layer corners to be oriented correctly


No you don't.



Am1n- said:


> I have to admit this is, in my opinion, one of the hardest parts in the heise method, because there is very little info on his site.


I don't think there's any need for info on this, it's so straight-forward. If you can't learn on your own without tutorials, Heise is probably not the right method for you.

The hardest part for me is definitely leaving just 3 corners.

A few examples:
1. R U2 R' U L' R U R' U' L U R U2 R' U L' R U R' U' L U L' R U R' U' L U L' R U R' U' L U L' R U R' U' L U L' R U R' U' L
*U' R U R'*
2. R U R' U R U2 R' U R U' R' U R U' R' U L' R U R' U' L U R U' R' U R U2 R' U R U2 R'
*U R U R'*
3. L' R U R' U' L U L' R U R' U' L U R U R' U R U2 R' U R U' R' U R U R' U R U' R' U L' R U R' U' L
*R U R' U' R U2 R'*
4. R U2 R' U R U R' U L' R U R' U' L U R U2 R' U L' R U R' U' L U L' R U R' U' L U R U2 R' U L' R U R' U' L
*U' R U R' U2 R U' R'*
5. R U R' U L' R U R' U' L U R U' R' U R U' R' U R U2 R' U R U R' U R U R' U R U' R'
*R U R' U2 R U' R'*


----------



## Am1n- (Aug 19, 2009)

let me revise my previous post:
[How I learnt it] * previous post [/How I learnt it]

I'm still working on it.
Leaving just 3 corners can always be achieved by using pair 3-cycles, with sometimes an R conjugate.




Johannes91 said:


> Am1n- said:
> 
> 
> > You need the top layer corners to be oriented correctly
> ...


I meant after the sequence; otherwise you cant connect an edge to it... (exept if you are making the F2L pair, but the system remains)



> 1. R U2 R' U L' R U R' U' L U R U2 R' U L' R U R' U' L U L' R U R' U' L U L' R U R' U' L U L' R U R' U' L U L' R U R' U' L
> *U' R U R'*


Here is the orietation sequence R; the edge manipulation before the orientation is U'

/*
I have to admit when I started learning this method, I knew little of cubing, I used the "edges first" for a long time, maybe I should have learnt another method first, but I wasn't very fond of the algs.
*/

still,
mvg


----------



## Johannes91 (Aug 19, 2009)

Am1n- said:


> Leaving just 3 corners can always be achieved by using pair 3-cycles, with sometimes an R conjugate.


The hard part is doing it efficiently. Using several long algs or commutators solves the cube but misses the point. You could just as well use Petrus or some other method.


----------



## Am1n- (Aug 19, 2009)

Yes indeed thats the hardest part, but therefore there is a sufficient amount of information on Heise's site. The recognition of the cases is, in my opinion, just a matter of experience.

EDIT: on topic: there isn't any tutorial or sample solutions, its like learning intuitive F2L, but harder (in my opinion)  

mvg


----------



## Wacky (Aug 20, 2009)

Thanks for posting those examples Johannes91. 

But I disagree with you on it not needing further explanation. I find with intuitive methods it can be quite helpful to see some examples because sometimes it can make me go "what, you can do that!?"

I see in your examples you seem to prefer:

1) hide an oriented corner on U and shuffled the edge, similar to fridrich edge pairing (what I did as well)

2) taking a corner on D that's facing R and twisting it with R U' R' (neat). In the past I've only really used the corner on D when it's facing L.

Going through the two examples on Heise's website again it seems he likes pairing the edge in the F2L slot with a corner on the U layer. (seems to be more helpful than I originally thought)


Not having a 3 cycle at the end is annoying, it's a 14 move commutator instead of 10... hate getting caught in the two-edge swap parity before that though, although it's avoidable with better look-ahead.


"Also don't forget you can use the left layer for building the pairs and for permuting the pairs." - Am1n-

What left layer would you be talking about? Sorry, I don't quite understand.


----------



## Am1n- (Aug 20, 2009)

well you have left (L L' L2) which is oposite to right (R R' R2).
Its used in Heise's examples ("move it out of the way" and the "R conjugation for oposite pairs"). In these examples its used for pair/edge permutation but I sometimes use it to pair up my pairs.

mvg


----------



## Johannes91 (Aug 20, 2009)

A simple solver found a better solution to scramble #4 above: *R U' R' U' R U R'*. And I missed a 4-mover in #5: *U' R U R'*. :fp

More scrambles and computer-generated solutions:

1. R L U' R' U L' R U R' L F2 R' F2 R L' U' L U' R U L' U2 R' F2 L' U' L U F2 L F2 R' F2 R L' U2 L F2 R' F2 R L'
*U' R U2 R' U2*
2. R L' U R' U' L B' R U' R' U B U B' R U' R' U B U2 R' L F2 R F2 L' R U' R' F' U2 L' U' L F R' L F2 R F2 L'
*U2 R U2 R'*
3. R L' U R' U' L R U2 R' U2 L' U R U' R' L B' R U' R' U B R U2 R' L F2 R' F2 R L' U B' R U' R' U B R L U' R' U L'
*R U R'*
4. R U2 R2 L F2 R F2 L' R U R' F2 U' L' U L F2 R' L F2 R F2 L2 R U R' U' L
*U2 R U' R'*
5. L F2 R' F2 R L' F' L' U L U2 F B' U' R U R' B R' L F2 R F2 L' F2 U' L' U L F2 B' U' R U R' B U F' U2 L' U' L F
*R U' R' U2*
6. F2 U' L' U L F2 L F2 R' F2 R L' F' L' U L U2 F R L' U R' U' L F' L' U L U2 F R L U' R' U L' R U R' F' L' U L U2 F
*R U2 R' U*
7. R L U' R' U L' F' L' U L U2 F L U' R U R' L' B' U' R U R' B R' L F2 R F2 L' U L U' R U R' L' U2 U R L' U R' U' L
*U'*
8. U R U' R' U2 R U2 R' L' U R U' R' L F' L' U L U2 F R U' R' U2 B' R U' R' U B L' U R U' R' L F' L' U L U2 F

9. B' R U' R' U B F' U2 L' U' L F B' U' R U R' B F2 L' U' L U F2 L U' R U R' L' F2 U' L' U L F2 F2 L' U' L U F2
*R U' R' U'*
10. R U' R' L F2 R' F2 R L' U2 L U' R U R' L' F2 L' U' L U F2 R L U' R' U L' F2 U' L' U L F2 L F2 R' F2 R L'
*U2 R U R'*
11. R U2 R' L F2 R' F2 R L' B' U' R U R' B U2 R U R' U' R U' R' F' L' U L U2 F R U2 R' F2 U' L' U L F2 U'
*U2 R U R'*
12. B' R U' R' U B L F2 R' F2 R L' U' F2 U' L' U L F2 F2 L' U' L U F2 L F2 R' F2 R L' F2 L' U' L U F2 U'
*R L U' R' U L'*
13. R U R' F2 U' L' U L F2 R L' U R' U' L R' L F2 R F2 L' U' F' L' U L U2 F R U' R' F' L' U L U2 F R U' R'
*U'*
14. F2 L' U' L U F2 L U' R U R' L' B' U' R U R' B F' U2 L' U' L F U' B' R U' R' U B R L' U R' U' L B' U' R U R' B
*R U R'*
15. R L' U R' U' L F2 L' U' L U F2 U' F2 U' L' U L F2 U2 B' R U' R' U B R U R' F2 U' L' U L F2 F' L' U L U2 F
*U2 R U2 R' U*
16. B' U' R U R' B R U R' L' U R U' R' L R U2 R' B' R U' R' U B U L' U R U' R' L R U' R' B' U' R U R' B
*U R U' R'*
17. R U2 R' L F2 R' F2 R L' F' U2 L' U' L F R U2 R' B' R U' R' U B R L U' R' U L' B' U' R U R' B R L' U R' U' L
*R U2 R' U2*
18. R L U' R' U L' R L' U R' U' L F' L' U L U2 F L' U R U' R' L U' B' U' R U R' B L' U R U' R' L R U R'
*U R U R'*
19. R U' R' L F2 R' F2 R L' R L' U R' U' L R U2 R' F' U2 L' U' L F R L' U R' U' L R U' R' F2 U' L' U L F2
*R L U' R' U L'*
20. F' L' U L U2 F L U' R U R' L' F2 U' L' U L F2 R U2 R' F' U2 L' U' L F R U2 R' F' U2 L' U' L F L F2 R' F2 R L'


----------



## nigtv (Oct 26, 2009)

Sorry to bump a thread, but I feel your guy's pain with Heise. It took me forever to even be able to get it, and almost 2 months to get even sub 60 with it (although, it is much more fun than any other method). In a sense, the first step (well, finishing the four blocks) is the easiest, but it's probably also the hardest to get even close to efficient with it, I think it's because it gives a solver much more choice than they actually know how to use, so almost always completely miss the point (myself included)

Like others have said in here, you should try not to use algs. When I was first learning, it was hard to get that youre NOT just doing f2l minus a pair. There's also the bit about where you can and can't have any given block, since you don't have to have them TOTALLY in the right place. If it helps, I could say what I started using in my head, if not, oh well, but I think that anything is better than ONLY the heise site (it's kind of purposefully vague)

That first block is almost always easy if you aren't trying to look ahead. As you probably know on the site, it only needs to match up with one center, the center with the most colors in that set of cubes (the center where the '2x2' square is). I'm not a real big guy on doing this in as little moves as possible (it's usually trivial enough to just work it into the next block(s)). Without looking ahead, I'd say shoot for about 5. This block can be in any of its four 'spots', as long as that '2x2' square matches its center, so you probably should wait to move it (even though your entire gut is telling you to finish the 2x2x2).

Like Heise says on his site, for the second block, you should almost always go for the one that finishes the 2x2x2. I've never really wanted to look into it much further than that, more try to keep in mind that the 2x2x2 is block one and two, so they never HAVE to fully match up, and block 2 can be swapped into block 1, as long as an edge from 1 takes 2's place (not physically, just mentally).
(nigtv realizes this is getting long, sorry.)

From there, you should be able to tell which color you are going to want to leave off of the other two blocks, and if you know that, you can probably start to guess which one you want to leave off before you even start solving block 1, which can help with the turn count. It's hard to not make them fully match up, and it's hard not to use algs, but it's worth it in the end (sometimes making the ENTIRE rest of the solve <10-15 turns average). Alg's can really hurt your turn count, i think, because you're giving yourself that # of moves WITHOUT ANY tracking of the rest of the cube (well, as long as you dont know how the algs effect the entire cube), it's not as big of a deal later on (I use sune quite often actually, on really bad luck solves). The later on count can be helped a lot by using the fact that you dont have to fully match up all of those blocks at the start, and use them to orient some edges and move stuff around without wasting any moves.

Sorry that was long...
...oh, one more thing, I like that someone said "may not be the method for you". Heise is a pretty novel method. It's probably one of the hardest methods to really "master", and to be honest, I don't think that many people would find it all that rewarding. It's also a pretty 'macro' method, and isn't that much more efficient without extensive look ahead. I love it, but yrmv.


----------



## Am1n- (Dec 16, 2009)

Thread bumping:



Johannes91 said:


> A few examples:
> 1. R U2 R' U L' R U R' U' L U R U2 R' U L' R U R' U' L U L' R U R' U' L U L' R U R' U' L U L' R U R' U' L U L' R U R' U' L
> *U' R U R'*
> 2. R U R' U R U2 R' U R U' R' U R U' R' U L' R U R' U' L U R U' R' U R U2 R' U R U2 R'
> ...



I tried some full solutions for these scrambles:
*1*

_a. pairs: _ U' R U R'

_b. leave 3 corners: _ 
 U R U2

 3-cycle: (F' R' F) U2 (F' R F) U2

 U2 R'


_c. Commutator: _ A9: B2 D2 (B' U2 B) D2 (B' U2 B) B2

*2*

_a. pairs: _ U R U R'

_b .leave 3 corners: _ 
 U

 3-cycle: M2 U {M2 U2 M' U2 M' U2} U M2


_c. Commutator: _ Cyclic shift: [(F R') U2 (R F')][(R' F) U2 (F' R)]

*3*

_a. pairs: _ U2 R U R'

_b. leave 3 corners: _ 
 U' R U R'

 3-cycle: M2 U {M2 U2 M' U2 M' U'} M2


_c. Commutator: _ A9: U' (F D F') U' (F D' F') U2

*4*

_a. pairs: _ R U' R' U' R U R'

_b. leave 3 corners: _ 
 U2 R U R'


_c. Commutator: _ A9: (D2 B D) F2 (D' B D) F2 D

*5*

_a. pairs: _ U' R U R'

_b. leave 3 corners: _ 
 (U' L U2) {R U' R'} (U2 L U')

 3-cycle: (B R B') U2 (B R' B')


_c. Commutator: _ pure:U' (F D F') U (F D' F')


I'm happy about all solutions exept the 5th. I think i could be shortened a lot, but I don't know how... Can anyone try this one?

mvg


----------



## Wacky (Dec 18, 2009)

Failing to improve on 5 without not using Heise...

5. 

20 Moves:
a. Pairs U' R U R' (4)
b. Shuffle around U' R U' R' (4)
c. Y Perm (12)

Okay, that was a cop-out and not heise....

28 Moves:
a. Pairs U' R U R' (4)
b.1. Solve 3 of 5 edges R U' R' U2 (4)
b.2. Solve other 2 edges B R B' U B R' B' (7)
c. Solve last two corners R' D2 R F D2 F' U' F D2 F' R' D2 R (13)

(I think it's pretty much the same length you had)


----------



## Am1n- (Dec 23, 2009)

I found another one (with B2 D' conjugate, where I was looking for) but I failed in making it shorter 
- pairs: U' R U R'
- solving pairs: F' d' F { B2 D' R2 D B2 } F' d F (U')
- corners: [U' B U R B R' : F]

EDIT: by replacing the d and d' by E and E' you create a 3-cycle at the end; wich is shorter than flipping 

- pairs: U' R U R'
- solving pairs: F' E' F { B2 D' R2 D B2 } F' E F U'
- corners: [F R F': L2] (8)

mvg


----------



## nigtv (Jan 2, 2010)

I've been having much better results with this as of late when I already have a pair somewhere, or if only two edges are swapped on the LL, as well as if there is one edge/pair swap between the slot and the LL.

EDIT: The two pair approach also seems to work if you have more than one unsolved block in your f2l.


----------



## milkolate (Feb 23, 2010)

*Heise for Beginners?*

I've been speedcubing for a couple of years. Now, I want to teach my friend to solve but she doesn't want to memorize any algos. She wants to solve the cube completely intuitively. I think the Heise method is the only way to go. But I can't figure out the method!

I'm stuck with the "Edges First" step. I can put the edges in their right places but I dont understand how to do the 3-corner cycle for the corners (I'm not yet referring to the last step of the method). I understand the concept but I can't do it on a cube. Any help would be appreciated!


----------



## Cyrus C. (Feb 23, 2010)

You can do CF with no algorithms.


----------



## milkolate (Feb 23, 2010)

Cyrus C. said:


> You can do CF with no algorithms.


Really? I thought CF has algos... Can you point me to a tutorial with no algos?


----------



## Cyrus C. (Feb 23, 2010)

milkolate said:


> Cyrus C. said:
> 
> 
> > You can do CF with no algorithms.
> ...



Solve the first layer of corners, use commutators for the last layer of corners, Ortega with commutators.

Basically for the OLL use (RUR'U'), PLL use (RUR') & (RU'R'). For the middle layer at the end of ortega I'd use (M'UM'UM'), although it's turned into more of an algorithm now & I use it for OLL now.


----------



## milkolate (Feb 23, 2010)

But I just dont understand commutators (in practice)


----------



## Cyrus C. (Feb 23, 2010)

milkolate said:


> But I just dont understand commutators (in practice)



Basically in a commutator, you use a certain move like (RUR'U')x2, change something, like D, & Reverse the commutator (URU'R')x2. This is how you could solve the LL's corners. I also find commutators useful in FMC & as pure algorithms.


----------



## Baian Liu (Feb 23, 2010)

Cyrus C. said:


> milkolate said:
> 
> 
> > But I just dont understand commutators (in practice)
> ...



Yes, but no need to use such a long sequence to do that.


----------



## Zarxrax (Feb 23, 2010)

Badmephisto did a tutorial on commutators: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7yZoDi_B1lI

But I have to admit, I still only *kinda* understand it after watching that.


----------



## Cride5 (Feb 23, 2010)

milkolate said:


> ... she doesn't want to memorize any algos. She wants to solve the cube completely intuitively. I think the Heise method is the only way to go.



Have you seen 8355? It is possible to teach that with only two very easy algorithms.
R U R' U' (used for orienting and permuting all corners) and
R U R' U R U R' (used for the final edge to be placed from E-slice to U-face)

Solving is fairly easy/intuitive and goes like this:

Build Cross
Use R U R' U' to insert 3x D-layer corners
Use keyhole to insert 3x E-layer edges
Use keyhole to insert U-layer edges (using R U R' U R U R' alg for final 2 if needed)
Flip cube upside down (x2 rotation) and use R U R' U' to insert final corners
This is what I usually teach, but instead of using keyhole for the E-slice edges I'll usually use R' U' R' U' R' U R U R, as folks usually find it easier to understand.

Heise is a fairly difficult method, so it probably isn't the most appropriate thing to teach a beginner. Generally, completing the cube with _no_ algorithms is hard! However if its just the last step you're finding difficult, why not use R U R' U' from the 8355 method to finish off the corners instead?


----------



## milkolate (Feb 24, 2010)

Cride5 said:


> milkolate said:
> 
> 
> > ... she doesn't want to memorize any algos. She wants to solve the cube completely intuitively. I think the Heise method is the only way to go.
> ...



What does "R U R' U R U R'" do?


----------



## Cyrus C. (Feb 24, 2010)

Here's a commutator you can use for flipping edges: M' U M U' M' U2 M


----------



## bwatkins (Feb 24, 2010)

its not really solving purely intuitively if you have to be taught a method is it?...


----------



## Cride5 (Feb 24, 2010)

milkolate said:


> What does "R U R' U R U R'" do?



OK here's an example solve to show how each alg is used..

Scramble: F2 D' B2 R2 B2 D U2 L2 U' B2 F D2 B D2 R2 U' F R F' L' D'

 Cross (intuitive): R' L' F U L R2 B2


 Insert 3x D-layer corners:
 (RUR'U')
 y' (RUR'U')
 y' d (RUR'U' RUR'U' RUR'U')


 Insert 3x E-slice edges:
 y2 (R'U'R'U'R'URUR)
 d2 (R'U'R'U'R'URUR)
 y' U' (R'U'R'U'R'URUR)


 Use keyhole to place 3x U-layer edges (intuitive):
y2 U2 R U' R' . y L' U L
 Bring final U-layer edge into slot:
y' (RUR'URUR') <-------------- This is the alg you asked about..
 Now insert it into position:
y U (L'U'LU'L'U'L) <----- Same alg but mirrored


 Flip cube over to solve final corners:
 x2 y2 D (RUR'U' RUR'U' RUR'U')
 D (RUR'U')
 D2 (RUR'U' RUR'U' RUR'U' RUR'U' RUR'U')
 D2 (RUR'U' RUR'U' RUR'U') D2


----------



## milkolate (Feb 24, 2010)

Cride5 said:


> milkolate said:
> 
> 
> > What does "R U R' U R U R'" do?
> ...



sorry for being ignorant but what's a "d" notation?


----------



## Cride5 (Feb 24, 2010)

milkolate said:


> sorry for being ignorant but what's a "d" notation?



Lower case letters represent a double-layered turn of that face. So while *D* is a clockwise turn of the bottom layer, *d* is a clockwise turn of both the bottom _and_ middle layers as one unit.

This page should help with notation
http://solvethecube.110mb.com/notation.html

And this tool is pretty cool for fiddling with algs, solves etc..
...with an example of a d turn


----------



## Eaudevian (Feb 24, 2010)

check my site, it's fully intuitive, no algs need (but in french ...)

*http://solutionrubikscube.fr/*


----------



## Am1n- (Feb 24, 2010)

If you want to teach someone to solve the cube without any algs, go Human Thistlewaite, Heise is rather hard for a beginner.

mvg


----------



## TheBB (Feb 24, 2010)

bwatkins said:


> its not really solving purely intuitively if you have to be taught a method is it?...


After you've learned it, it can very well be intuitive.


----------



## milkolate (Feb 25, 2010)

Eaudevian said:


> check my site, it's fully intuitive, no algs need (but in french ...)
> 
> *http://solutionrubikscube.fr/*



It looks interesting (and promising) but I can't understand it!


----------



## gamemeister27 (Feb 25, 2010)

milkolate said:


> Eaudevian said:
> 
> 
> > check my site, it's fully intuitive, no algs need (but in french ...)
> ...



http://translate.google.com/translate?u=http://solutionrubikscube.fr/&sl=fr&tl=en&hl=&ie=UTF-8

Translated (probably badly, didn't check yet) by google!


----------



## Eaudevian (Feb 25, 2010)

Cride5 said:


> milkolate said:
> 
> 
> > What does "R U R' U R U R'" do?
> ...




Scramble: F2 D' B2 R2 B2 D U2 L2 U' B2 F D2 B D2 R2 U' F R F' L' D'

I would do it like this :

# Cross (intuitive): R' L' F U L R2 B2

# Insert 3x D-layer corners:

1. (RUR')
2. y2U (F'U'F)
3. y' (F'UF)

# Use keyhole to insert 3x E-slice edges:

1. y D' (RU2R')
2. y2D2 (F'U2F)
3. y'D' (RUR') y2D2 (RUR')
4. u2

# Use keyhole to place 4x U-layer edges + 1 remaining E-slice edge
1. U (RU2R')
2. U2 (F'U'F)

# Use keyhole to place 4x U-layer corners + 1 remaining D-slice corner

1. U' (FDF') U (FD'F')
2. (R'D'R) U (R'DR)
3. U' (FDF') U (FD'F')

Note : when it is writen "F", make "L" with left hand instead


----------



## Cride5 (Feb 26, 2010)

Eaudevian said:


> I would do it like this :
> 
> # Insert 3x D-layer corners:
> 
> ...



Well I'd personally solve it like this this 

But when it comes to beginner methods, the smartest way to do it isn't always the best. The most important thing for a beginner is ability to understand. In my experience of teaching keyhole for E-slice edges people just seemed to get confused. Again with the corners, its much smarter to use F' U' F inserts but it is more difficult. Similarly with the final corner inserts, nice technique but I'd imagine an absolute beginner might struggle with it. These extra 'shortcuts' like keyhole can be added later once they've got the basics. Generally, in an absolute beginner method efficiency is of least concern, while comprehensibility is of primary concern.


----------



## Lucas Garron (Feb 26, 2010)

Cride5 said:


> Generally, in an absolute beginner method efficiency is of least concern, while comprehensibility is of primary concern.


I will have to prompt you for more on that.

Personally, I have not been going for that strategy when I teach. My philosophy is more of "easier-to-remember" instead of easier-to-learn or easier-to-understand.
Apart from all those, I often see Shelley/Tyson/Leyan teach "easier-to-continue-learning-Fridrich."

The philosophies don't necessarily counter each other too much, but it definitely influences the steps, algs, and -let's says- mnemonics for teaching. Any opinion on what is best to emphasize?


----------



## blah (Feb 26, 2010)

I always go for intuitive-ness - I always tell people that they never ever need a cheat sheet to solve a cube, even for the first few times.

100% intuitive F2L - the exact purpose of *every single* move is clearly understood; definitely not something like "oh I'm just doing x because I 'know' that y will happen after I do it." Nothing like any of the LBL-based or CF-based beginner methods out there. Hard to explain here  I've never published the details of this method anywhere.

LL algs and case-recognition have nice stories to make them "intuitive."


----------



## Cride5 (Feb 26, 2010)

@Lucas. I guess my approach comes from the situation in which I often find myself teaching it. More often than not I've been at a party or in the pub, someone has seen the cube and asked how to solve it. In these cases the best outcome is simply getting them to manage a single un-aided solve in the shortest possible time. If it takes too long they'll usually lose interest. The question of whether to go for algorithmic vs intuitive really depends on the individual being taught, but I've found the majority of people work better with short (preferably 2-gen) algs, rather than simple intuitive steps like keyhole.

I guess I would adapt what I teach depending on the goals of the individual. For example, for one friend who said he wanted to learn to 'speedsolve' I basically taught him badmephisto's new beginner method. Before I teach anyone though, I always ask them if they really would prefer to be taught than to work it out for themselves. Not doing so myself is my biggest regret in cubing.

@blah I'd be interested in a guide for your method. I'm quite intrigued by intuitive methods.


----------



## ooveehoo (Feb 26, 2010)

I've been trying to teach my friend a friend of mine Heise, as she wants to figure out the solution by her own, without memorizing any alorithms. She's done pretty well, but has some problems with commutators. I still this the way to go, as you'll really know what your doing, and you still get this feeling of "true" problem solving from figuring out new commutators.

And by the way, here's a pretty intuitive Roux-like CF system I used for some time (I developed this back in '07, before I heard about Roux, but abandoned it as ineffective after a month or so):

*1. Corners first*
Pretty self-explanatory. Maybe an old school Waterman kind of technique (http://rubikscube.info/waterman/index.php) would be in a way "intuitive".

*2. E-edges*
Solving the equator edges using F and M. Pretty staight forward.

*3. Orienting the last 8 edges*
As the last 6 in Roux.

*4. Permutation if the last 8 edges*
I used to do this with U, D and R2 moves in combination with algs "M U2 M' U2" and "M2 U2 M2 U2" (but Roux-like solving seems also pretty logical).

Here's an example solution:
Scramble: B' F' D' R' F2 L' R F D U L' R2 U B2 D' B2 U R2 F2 U2 R U' R' F' D2

1. L' F' L' D2 (Ortega step 1) z D (setup move) R U' L' R' U L R U' R' (a nifty Ortega alg I've come up with)

2. x2 F M' F' (Pairing two edges...) M F' M2 F (...and inserting them.) S' M' U' M (Pairing two more edges...) U M' B M2 B' (...and inserting them)

3. S' M' (Fairly obvious) U M U M' U M U M' (normal Roux, I think)

4. R2 U' (Setup to prevent backward progress) M' U2 M (edge 3-cycle, pretty easy to come up with, so I guess it's intuitive) U' R2 (undoing setup, note that the last U2 in the 3-cycle and U equal U') D' (setup) F2 M2 F2 M2 (edge-swap, also easily discovered by beginners) D (undoing setup)
Hope I presented this clearly enaugh...

I think 69 moves is quite an accomplishment for such an intuitive method. I call it intuitive, as the only real alg was done during the first step.


----------



## kunz (Apr 8, 2010)

*Heise*

i couldn't find much on this method but it sounds very interesting, Ive been learning this method here http://www.ryanheise.com/cube/heise_method.html 
but im having trouble with step 3. any help would be great


----------



## Cride5 (Apr 8, 2010)

Step 3 is probably the hardest part of the method, but this has been discussed before. See:
http://www.speedsolving.com/forum/showthread.php?t=14883
http://www.speedsolving.com/forum/showthread.php?t=6687

Look closely at the examples posted by Johannes91, and just practice. It's always possible to eventually build two pairs, but it can be difficult to do efficiently. If you remember earlier in the tutorial, Ryan talks about 'alignment' of pieces. Well use this idea to find ways of connecting corners with edges in the top layer (or in the slot). Think of all the ways pairs can be created by doing non-destructive moves (ie R/R' or F/F' with U moves) and try to align corner+edge pieces you see that are a few moves away from being connected.

More general posts on heise here:
http://www.speedsolving.com/forum/showthread.php?t=4493
http://www.speedsolving.com/forum/showthread.php?t=3174
http://www.speedsolving.com/forum/showthread.php?p=330902


----------



## kunz (Apr 8, 2010)

i did find a few of those threads but i was still having trouble with it and they were all from around 2008 so i decided not to revive them.


----------



## Cride5 (Apr 8, 2010)

kunz said:


> i did find a few of those threads but i was still having trouble with it and they were all from around 2008 so i decided not to revive them.



What specifically are you having trouble with?


----------



## kunz (Apr 8, 2010)

step three the two corners


----------



## Athefre (Apr 8, 2010)

What exactly about the step? Which of the three styles are you using (Edges First, Two Pairs, One Pair)? I'll assume "Two Pairs".

- Are you able to make the first pair in Step 3?
- Are you able to make the second pair while preserving the first?

If you can do both of those, your problem must be in correcting the remaining edges. You need to spend a lot of time reading these pages:

http://www.ryanheise.com/cube/two_pairs.html (Most important)
http://www.ryanheise.com/cube/conjugates.html
http://www.ryanheise.com/cube/commutators.html
http://www.ryanheise.com/cube/pair_3_cycles.html (Not necessary, but useful)

Read each page many times until you completely understand how to cycle the edges between the pairs and how to cycle the pairs around the edges. Write some of the stuff down, get a couple of cubes and practice and study how it works when you are away from the computer.


----------



## kunz (Apr 8, 2010)

Ive read all of those many times im just not sure how im actually suppose to do it

Edit: im actually using the edges first approach and i just go the edges, commutators are confusing


----------



## PM 1729 (Apr 8, 2010)

Are you interested in speed solving or fewest moves?

If you want to adapt it as a speed solving stratergy, http://s92824201.onlinehome.us/ is useful. Its not been updated in a long time, but a very informative site. 

For use in fewest moves, it would be best to look at example solves. Practice different techniques. Edges first is not the best approach in all situations.


----------



## kunz (Apr 8, 2010)

PM 1729 said:


> Are you interested in speed solving or fewest moves?
> 
> If you want to adapt it as a speed solving stratergy, http://s92824201.onlinehome.us/ is useful. Its not been updated in a long time, but a very informative site.
> 
> For use in fewest moves, it would be best to look at example solves. Practice different techniques. Edges first is not the best approach in all situations.



im just interested in learning it first, it just seamed like a very interesting method.

i understand its not the best solution im just trying to do a complete solve with this method for right now


----------



## kpcube (Sep 20, 2010)

*Heise Method*

So i'm not exactly sure if this belongs here because it’s more a cube theory question but as it pertains to speedcubing. I'm not a big memorization fan so I started to you the Petrus Method, as it requires very little algs. But, due to inversions and inverses, other things of that nature I had trouble understanding how the algs flip over the x and y axis’s, as well as not knowing all the algs for specific cases and it killed my times. In short, I came across the Heise Method looking for something a little more intuitive, I have the basic understanding of how the method works but my theory issue lies in completing the necessary movements, such as preserving the orientations of corner and edge pieces after step 1. Any advice or other tutorials you guys know of?


----------



## riffz (Sep 20, 2010)

Don't use Heise. It's an advanced method useful for purposes other than speedsolving for the most part. You would be better off continuing with Petrus.


----------



## kpcube (Sep 20, 2010)

riffz said:


> Don't use Heise. It's an advanced method useful for purposes other than speedsolving for the most part. You would be better off continuing with Petrus.


 
I understand that its more for FM's then speed solving but I like the method and fell like it will help improve my F2L when I move to the Fridrich Method after my times get to sub 40 or so. I'm after the understanding of the cube that the Heise requires as well as the very few moves.


----------



## AngeL (Sep 20, 2010)

If you're dead-set on Heise, then by all means learn it. I wouldn't recommend it however. Heise is quite advanced and it will take you a long time to get to even sub-40. You could probably be sub-20 in that time with CFOP, maybe even Roux or Petrus. Instead of putting yourself through the torture of trying to get started on Heise, why not learn a more standard method to increase your understanding of the cube? If you still want to learn Heise later when you're better, then go for it!


----------



## kpcube (Sep 20, 2010)

I get that and it does make sense. solving now is somewhat useless as i'm stuck using a store bought cube untill my DIY's come in. I don't see the Heise as all that complicated other than how the orientation of the corners work. Looking at it it seems similer to the Petrus but I feel like i'm missing something is all


----------



## Kenneth (Sep 20, 2010)

Heise is compleatly intuitive, you use commutators as a substitute for learned algorithms, but if you like to use it for speed you have to memorise the commutators, else it will be slow, makes no difference really...

Or, it does, you will understand the moves you use much better than you will do if you robot solve using CFOP and remember the moves to use is far easier if you understand them.

[wiki]L3C[/wiki] lists all last three corner cases.


----------



## irontwig (Sep 20, 2010)

Heise has more L3C cases than that though, since the remaining three corners doesn't have to be on one face.


----------



## kpcube (Sep 20, 2010)

True but can't use just cycle any of them to the top?


----------



## some1rational (Sep 20, 2010)

I have to agree with most of the opinions here; Heise is quite an advanced method, I'd argue it's better you just learn/understand commutators and conjugates (on Heise's site) than to try to learn his whole method as the edge permutation of the last layer (whilst insertion of the last F2L pair) is something I myself am still trying to learn (I average 25 seconds with CFOP and am very confident in my F2L intuition, still working on look-ahead though)

but if you do understand commutators and conjugates, you can in effect, solve the cube on your own via your own made up algorithms (and the same concept can be pretty easily used on other twisty puzzles as well)


----------



## kpcube (Sep 20, 2010)

some1rational said:


> I have to agree with most of the opinions here; Heise is quite an advanced method, I'd argue it's better you just learn/understand commutators and conjugates (on Heise's site) than to try to learn his whole method as the edge permutation of the last layer (whilst insertion of the last F2L pair) is something I myself am still trying to learn (I average 25 seconds with CFOP and am very confident in my F2L intuition, still working on look-ahead though)
> 
> but if you do understand commutators and conjugates, you can in effect, solve the cube on your own via your own made up algorithms (and the same concept can be pretty easily used on other twisty puzzles as well)


 
yeah i've decided to put it aside for now and continue with the Petrus for intuition skill and working on the cross for the fridrich. Heise is deffinately something i'd like to learn in the future but for now I don't wanna get caught up doing a bunch of different things at once and get nowear.


----------



## adragast (Oct 2, 2010)

*Problem with blocks in the Heise method*

Hi All !

I feel a bit dumb because I cannot find anything on the problem I am having with the Ryan Heise method (just beginning with it).

Basically what is happening is that I am building 3 blocks 1x2x4 and when I try to create the 4th block ... I am stucked ! The fourth block is not possible to build at all because of the colour I chose. I have had this problem several times so I tried to read and read again the ryan heise website, some videos on youtube, nothing on colour/blocks restrictions except: 
- they should share one colour
- one block should be inner, 3 others should be outer

So here is an example. I build my first block with (european colour cube: white vs yellow...):
- blue/white/red corner, blue/red edge, blue/white edge, blue center

Then inner block parallell to it:
- orange/white edge, orange center, white center

I fit these 2 blocks together, continue with a third block:
- green/red/white corner, green/white edge, red/green edge and green center

It is then impossible to find a fourth block...

How to choose the third/fourth block to avoid having problems ? Is there simple rules to follow ?

Thanks a lot for your help,

Adragast


----------



## waffle=ijm (Oct 2, 2010)

woah 1x2x4 blocks.

I'm having some trouble understanding things here. Usually, I would just pretty much block build while using some commutators and reduce it down to 3 corners. I don't follow any general block building rule with Heise.


----------



## oll+phase+sync (Oct 4, 2010)

I belive all You have to do is to select the correct face of your cube for the last block. There is also a part on his website where he tells You what to do if the "common" color is missing on one block.

Another standard tip: Orietn some edges befor You go on


----------



## Athefre (Oct 4, 2010)

Here is a badly written page I made a year or two ago about Heise. It was made to show people how to avoid getting stuck, but almost nobody uses Heise.

http://athefre.110mb.com/Heise.html

There are some other things I could have added, but I just haven't felt like it. The main points are:

- Be able to plan the first two squares (2x2x2) during inspection
- During inspection, try to plan the corner you want to use after the 2x2x2.
- Use only five out of six colors while making the squares because you have to have one color left for the last layer. This rule is on his site.


----------



## LearningCode (Nov 26, 2010)

*An intro. and a few questions on the Heise method..*

Hello, cubers.
My name's Justin and I'm a cuber from Singapore..

I've recently started on learning the Heise method because I felt bored.
anyway, I average about 40moves so far but would like to bring it down further..

And hence, I have a few questions to ask because I lack the understanding in some parts of the method..

*Basic Questions:*
What is the average move count that I should be getting for the "F2L minus a corner/edge pair"?
What is the average move count that I should get for a solve?

*Forming the 2 corner/edge pairs for the Last Layer*
Are there any tips or tricks that you use to spot the pairs easily?
Because I've noticed a few patterns with the corners that allow me to form corner/edge pairs quickly, but would like to know if there is a collection of it some where..

*5Edges/2Corners-Normal Pair*
Could someone explain F2-Conjugation and (B2 D')-Conjugation?
I've been trying to understand them for a few hours and I just can't wrap my mind around it ><


----------



## Kirjava (Nov 26, 2010)

LearningCode said:


> Hello, cubers.
> My name's Justin and I'm a cuber from Singapore..



sup.



LearningCode said:


> I've recently started on learning the Heise method because I felt bored.



Heise is <3.



LearningCode said:


> What is the average move count that I should be getting for the "F2L minus a corner/edge pair"?
> What is the average move count that I should get for a solve?



There really is no answer for this that I can think of. It depends how good you are and how long you're spending doing the solves. Anywhere from 10 to 30 for the tripleXcross depending how fast you're going.



LearningCode said:


> Are there any tips or tricks that you use to spot the pairs easily?
> Because I've noticed a few patterns with the corners that allow me to form corner/edge pairs quickly, but would like to know if there is a collection of it some where..



The only documentation that exists is on Ryan's website. Unfortunatly this crazy step is still somewhat voodoo to me so I employ a little trial and error. I only really use Heise for FMC.

Maybe you should make a collection for people?



LearningCode said:


> Could someone explain F2-Conjugation and (B2 D')-Conjugation?
> I've been trying to understand them for a few hours and I just can't wrap my mind around it ><



I assume you understand how conjugation is like setup moves in blind. F2 and B2D' are simply setup moves that give you easier ways to commute pieces (turn bad cases into better ones) while keeping edge orientation.

Don't take my word for it though, I just read that now >_>


----------



## Godmil (Nov 26, 2010)

I love the Heise method, but the optimal solution of the last ce pair and LL is soo tricky.
Concerning the F2L minus one pair, I'm sure I read somewhere that it was always possible in 20 moves, so I judge my own solves by how far under 20 I am at that stage... But I thought it was Kirjava who said it so I may be mistaken.
If you come up with any useful tips On this method it would be great if you could post them, There isn't a lot of info that I could find.


----------



## LearningCode (Nov 27, 2010)

Oh..
So not a lot of info. up here, then? =/

If I were to 'make' a collection of things to look out for..
Where would I get those really cool java applets and images from? =x

I managed to get a 37-move solve today and I am proud of myself ^^
PS: I didn't know that the Heise method was for speedcubing..

I know that the F2 and B2D' are to make it easier to move pieces around..
But I still can't figure out when to apply them ><


----------



## jms_gears1 (Nov 27, 2010)

LearningCode said:


> Oh..
> So not a lot of info. up here, then? =/
> 
> *If I were to 'make' a collection of things to look out for..
> ...



Moving Cube applets: http://software.rubikscube.info/AnimCube/
non-moving: http://cube.crider.co.uk/visualcube.php


----------



## LearningCode (Nov 27, 2010)

Agh!
I just realized I don't have a website or a webhost -____-
And I am too lazy to get either.

Oh, well..
For those of you who are a bit curious as to what I've done..

Download the attachment ^^
It's got an explanation on The Edges-first approach and the Two-pairs approach for the LL.

The Two-pairs approach page has all (Should be all, I think..) 30 cases that could appear *for the first pair*.

It's pretty crude right now..
But it'll be helpful to some people, I guess..

I'll continue work on it another day, I've spent 3hours on this already -_____-
AnimCube took really long for me to figure out how to use ><

Anyone wanna' help expand on this?

[EDIT]
The examples may not have optimal solves, please don't hesitate to tell me about all the mistakes I made =x

[EDIT=2]
Anyone got an easy way to configure AnimCube?
I made a little something with javascript to help me quickly configure AnimCube with the facelets and Algorithms =)

But there must be a better way.. Right?


----------



## kidrock2007 (Dec 1, 2010)

heisemethod.zip not work ,why ??? utility ???


----------



## LearningCode (Dec 1, 2010)

o.0
I used the default windows thingy.
Right click > Send to compressed ZIP

I'll try it again..
I can't save it as a .rar-file because the forums won't let me upload a .rar-file =x
And if the previous one did work, still download this one instead.

I just added the cases for when the corner is at the bottom corner..

[EDIT]
I haven't continued this after adding the bottom corners because there doesn't seem to be much interest, so.. xD


----------



## Viv95 (Jan 20, 2011)

*Need help for two pair approach in Heise method*

In the third step for two pair approach I find it very difficult to make two pairs.

Please help me out.


----------



## Godmil (Jan 20, 2011)

Check out this thread. Someone made some documents with lots of examples of this stage (I think).


----------



## ortwin (May 18, 2011)

*Help needed with Heise method*

Any experts on the "*Heise Method*" around ?
I need some help on the "*down under*" strategy for "inserting 3 edges" in the "two pairs" approach.
I can see what the algorithm does, but I do not understand it to the same depth as the other strategies used by the method, and I can't really apply it.

In addition I post some configurations I ran into where I can't see an efficient way out using the Heise method, maybe someone can advise:

1) U2 B F2 D' F D' F' D' F D2 B' F U2
2) B2 L F' L F L2 B R' U2 R U2 B U2
3) B2 D B' U' B D' B2 U R' B' R B R
4) L F' L D2 R' B R' U2 B' R2 D2

My goal is to be able to do a linear solve on every cube (ok 90% would be enough) with less then 50 moves (HTM) and only with algorithms I fully understand.

_________________
Ortwin


----------



## Athefre (May 19, 2011)

1) U2 B F2 D' F D' F' D' F D2 B' F U2
- z R2 U’ L’U2RU’R’U2L U’ L’U2RU’R’U2L U’ R2
R2 brings that UBR/BR non-pair to dFR to be more easily managed. L'U2RU'R'U2L cycles three pairs.

2) B2 L F' L F L2 B R' U2 R U2 B U2
- x’ I would just do L’U2L then swap the edges on U.

3) B2 D B' U' B D' B2 U R' B' R B R
- z’ R’U2LU’L’U2R LU2 RU2L’U’LU2R’ U’L’

4) L F' L D2 R' B R' U2 B' R2 D2
- z N Perm

I tried to do this using the pairs it seems you’ve created and staying with the method. When I use Heise, I try to avoid creating pairs made of the final F2L edge and the corner above it. Also, I've found that, if solving for speed and if wanting to stay strictly with the steps, it's best to simplify the two-pairs step to creating the two pairs then using these to finish:

L'U2RU'R'U2L
L'U2RUR'U2L
L'E2LU'L'E2L
L'E2LUL'E2L
N Perm
J Perm

"Down-Under" looks like it's just an option. Unless someone knows they are supposed to apply two 3-cycles but is struggling to see where to start them, it's best to stay with pair 3-cycles for normal pairs.


----------



## irontwig (May 19, 2011)

1) L' D F2 U' R U F2 D2 L B2 D Handy ZBLL
2) B2 R B' L' B R' L B2 Hard to see linearly
3) R' B'
R' B R2 B' R2 F' R B R' F R Anti-Heise 
4) B' L B2 R F' D2 F R' B2 L' B L Handy ZBLL

Not really Heise mindset, I guess.


----------



## ortwin (May 20, 2011)

Thank you for your suggestions. It will take me some time to see what I can learn from these.
Also I think I must realize that I can run into situations where I can't reach my goal (sub 50 moves) with this technique.

Athefre wrote: "When I use Heise, I try to avoid creating pairs made of the final F2L edge and the corner above it."

I suspected something like that too, I will now also try to avoid this type of pairs.


----------



## Cubenovice (May 20, 2011)

Ortwin,

you may also want to check out the weekly competition FMC results.
There you will find multiple solutions for the same scramble.

Especially the FMC eperts like Irontwig, Guus, Okayama and Kinch will often work from F2L-1 to "leaves 3 corners" via the two pairs approach.

I have been planning to study this for way too long (and still haven't gotten to it) as I typically work up to "5 corners left".


----------



## ortwin (May 20, 2011)

Cubenovice, I know those competitions, once I can do a linear solve in under 10 minutes with less then 50 moves I will contribute. Is there no forum for discussions amongst members there?


----------



## Cubenovice (May 20, 2011)

You wil find some discussions in the weekly comp but more so in the FMC home thread that is stickied under the "puzle theory" subforum.

In the FMC home thread you will find some discussions on specific solutions.
" How to find a good finish " for ... is quite a common question there 

Don't let lees-than-perfect results keep you away from the weekly comp! I have participated in 3x3x3 speed with a 50s average, who cares???

Definately participate in the FMC event: 
Comparing your solution to those of others is a great way of learning.
Also because you have already spend time on that scramble you will be more motivated to study better solution.


----------



## ortwin (May 23, 2011)

@Cubenovice: oh now I see what you really meant by the weekly competition: the one in this forum, I thought the one I knew so far: http://fmc.mustcube.net/ There is also an archive of competitions on the website of Ryan Heise, but the presentation of the solutions is not very useful (only the applets, no FBRLUD notation ),


----------



## Cubenovice (May 23, 2011)

yep ,
I meant the one on this forum. But offcourse mustcube.net is a great resource tooas you have over 300 scrambles with various solutions.


----------



## Cube Equation (Jul 12, 2011)

*Heise Method Help*

I am currently attempting to learn Heise Method, but I don't understand what to do after constructing the two pairs in step 3. I don't understand how to use pair 3-cycles to permute the edges. Any help would be welcome. Thanks.


----------



## timeless (Jul 12, 2011)

try reversing the alg and see if it works


----------



## Cube Equation (Jul 12, 2011)

Alg? I don't think there are any algorithms in Heise.


----------



## Cubenovice (Jul 12, 2011)

Have you already mastered commutators?

If not make sure to get comfortable with them first. Only then switch to pair 3-cycles (= commutators with pairs instead of "just" corners).

When starting Heise it is easier to skip the "two pairs" step ans just finish with "leaving 5 corners".
This way you can get comfortable with edge manipulation and commutators before moving on to the more complicated stuff.


----------



## Godmil (Jul 12, 2011)

Agh, just beaten to the punch.
Yeah, just do the single edges first then use coms on the last 5 corners.


----------



## Cube Equation (Jul 13, 2011)

Yes I have. But I'm just trying to learn the more advanced techniques as well.


----------



## michaelfivez (Jul 27, 2011)

Do you understand corner 3-cycles? If not I suggest watching badmephistos tutorial (it's doesn't explain commutators at all in my opnion but it's a easy to understand intro), then try googling some stuf about commutators till you get it. It took me 2 hours to understand using different tutorials (I honestly think they are all bad but if you combine them it works ).
Pair 3 - cyles is almost the same, I used this site : (http://www.ryanheise.com/cube/pair_3_cycles.html) and converted all the moves in the animations into scramble algorithms, then applied the single corner one to 1 cube and the pair one to another. I solved the single corner one, and then the pair one is easy because it's the same and then I got it .


----------



## Cubenovice (Jul 27, 2011)

michaelfivez said:


> Do you understand corner 3-cycles?





Cube Equation said:


> Yes I have. But I'm just trying to learn the more advanced techniques as well.


 
But I do like your suggestion about performing the corner and pair comm on two diff cubes!


----------



## bertrandzz (Jun 20, 2012)

*Ryan Heise's Method?*

I've learned Ryan Heise's beginner method, I can easily do a cube in about 1:45( My cube can't cut corner and is slow as hell I lose 30 sec fighting against it ) I want to know is Ryan heise's beginners method the same as fridrich's method? ANd do anyone has feedbacks Ryan heise's own method.

http://www.ryanheise.com/cube/


----------



## Ranzha (Jun 20, 2012)

Ryan Heise's beginner's method is vastly different from the Fridrich/CFOP method.


----------



## bertrandzz (Jun 20, 2012)

Ranzha V. Emodrach said:


> Ryan Heise's beginner's method is vastly different from the Fridrich/CFOP method.



Thx but is it anygood?? And is his own method good


----------



## Ranzha (Jun 20, 2012)

bertrandzz said:


> Thx but is it anygood?? And is his own method good



His beginner's method is very well made, and the approach is very standard as far as layer-by-layer approaches run. His own method is very efficient as far as movecount goes, but not necessarily for speedsolving.


----------



## RV (Feb 21, 2013)

I need help on the "two pairs approach".... i just use 30!! moves to get the 2 pairs and solve edges!

edit: Now 15


----------



## A Leman (Feb 21, 2013)

RV said:


> I need help on the "two pairs approach".... i just use 30!! moves to get the 2 pairs and solve edges!



could you be more specific. It is very intuitive. what exactly are you having trouble with during the 2 pairs step?


----------



## RV (Feb 21, 2013)

A Leman said:


> could you be more specific. It is very intuitive. what exactly are you having trouble with during the 2 pairs step?


I can solve the pairs very nicely, but i can't solve the edges without destroying the pairs.


----------



## elrog (Feb 22, 2013)

The best way I found to keep from destroying your pairs is to hide them. You can look at this as hiding, or you can look at it as placing incorrect corner pieces on the side your going to turn such that if you were using the right and U sides, the top right 3 pieces would not be correct. I see it both ways, depending on the case. If your using the right side and U moves to move your edges, use the left side to hide the pairs. You must remember to bring your pairs back up after you switch the edge you hid the pair to switch.


----------



## RV (Feb 22, 2013)

elrog said:


> The best way I found to keep from destroying your pairs is to hide them. You can look at this as hiding, or you can look at it as placing incorrect corner pieces on the side your going to turn such that if you were using the right and U sides, the top right 3 pieces would not be correct. I see it both ways, depending on the case. If your using the right side and U moves to move your edges, use the left side to hide the pairs. You must remember to bring your pairs back up after you switch the edge you hid the pair to switch.



Yes, i do that, but when i bring back the side, i look and see that i destroyed the DLF section


----------



## The Supreme One (Mar 24, 2013)

I learned Heise about a week ago, I must say that it makes your F2L/Cross a little bit more efficient in CFOP, but where it really pays off is in the LL, if I see optimal Heise cases coming, then I switch to Heise and solve the LL in like 15-20 moves, averting my 40 move 3-look fail method of CFOP. It also made WV tactics and edges-last (Roux, Waterman) a walk in the park.

But anyway, I've been having small problems with two pairs when there is an inverted pair, or in any case where two pairs (often i get three or four pairs inadvertently) are in an L shape. I can tell that the one-pair approach will alleviate all such problems, but no one on earth (meaning Youtube) uses or appears to understand one-pair. If anyone here uses it, what is the thought process or jist of things when you are doing it? 

I'm not asking for a bunch of algs, more of a what to look at first or how you think about permuting those edges on the path to matching the second pair.


----------



## elrog (Mar 25, 2013)

When doing the 2 pairs at the same time, sometimes you can put one of the pairs into the F2L slot and make things much easier. If you have an edge in the slot that has the top color in it, this limits your moves because you don't want to break the edge orientation. You could try getting the edge that goes into the slot in it so that you can change your EO to a different axis. If you can't do this, you could try doing a move to unmatch a 2x2x3 block in your F2L, moving the slot, so you can then place one of the pairs in the slot an solve all of the edges. You would then undo your move to unmatch the block and porceed as normal. Whatever option you choose just depends on where your pairs are.

With the one pairs approach, you can very easily get the pair solved and the edges solved with experience. It is only comparable move count wise if you have a very good corner setup afterwards. It is mostly just for ease of recognition.

I tend to try and see if there are any easily matchable pairs and what I find affects what approach I will use. most of the time, the two pairs approach will weild the best results. I have occasionaly used the one pair or no pair approach if I see that the edges are a move or two away from being solved, and I'd rather not go out of my way trying to match a pair when it would take just as many moves as an added commutator afterwards. Do not forget that you can also solve some edges and some corners and use a commutator with edges to match up the edges. I mainly use this when I don't already have edges oriented.

If you end up with many pairs without trying to, you can either continue on without stopping with the pairs you are doing if you don't want to have to re-recognize the case. You could also look for 2 pairs that are easy to keep solved while solving the edge permutation.

One very useful tool is to hide pairs in the F2L, while bringing up part of the F2L, but in a different position. An example would be hiding a pair in the UL and ULF position making it become UL and UBL by doing an L move. You will have to solve the edges such that you can actually solve them by undoing your L move. You need to make sure that you dont use a side to hide a pair that will interfere with the side you are using to permute edges. You can also do this to 2 pairs at once. If you have a pair in the UL ULB position and the UB UBR position, you can do L' U' L' to change the pairs making them face the other direction.

Another way of thinking of the same thing mentioned above is to think that you need all of the pieces in the layer your going to turn to be unsolved pieces. I really am not sure at all how to explain this.

I hope that atleast some of this made sense. I would love to make a in depth tutorial on commutators and heise, but I don't have a camera.


----------



## The Supreme One (Mar 27, 2013)

ummmm.... 
a lot of those tactics i use, but i'll add that usually one of the pairs i'm keeping is the one that belongs in the F2L slot. this makes hiding it difficult when you have to pull it down

the other thing is that commutators are easy for me, so even if there is some bizarre outcome, it still usually has a one or two move conjugate

what i was asking was more along the lines of "what do you look for in the recognition?" more in the sense of "how to tell which out of the like 20 possible G-perms you have" instead of "what's the alg for this G-perm"


----------



## elrog (Mar 27, 2013)

If your good with commutators, you may also like using pair commutators to move the pairs and solve an edge. I also usually take more setup moves than 2 if I want to solve 2 of the corners when all 5 are wrong. For the one pair approach, its not that much of a problem. For recognition, theres no really good way to do it. You do get better with practice, but ultimately, this is what Heise lacks as a speedsolving method.


----------



## TheNextFeliks (May 26, 2013)

"Learning" heise for fmc. The hard part is step three: 5 edges and 2 corners. I cannot get both. I usually do edges then two comms. I want to do it more efficiently. Any tips?


----------



## Pi (May 28, 2013)

*Potential of the Heise Method*

I've been researching into the different methods in solving the 3x3 in order to better my understanding of the cube. I found an interesting tidbit about the Heise Method that stated that it could be a speedsolving method if learned thoroughly. Just how fast could one solve the cube with this method? Could it be better than Fridrich if used properly?


----------



## A Leman (May 28, 2013)

sub15 is possible with heise. It is very inconsistant during speedsolves though and corner twists instead of comms sort of ruin the movecount that takes much more effort to get IMO. The amount of effort required to become somewhat fluent in avoiding parity during L5E+2C makes it very difficult. This amount of intuition needs to be groomed and is hard to maintain.


----------



## mark49152 (Aug 27, 2013)

I can't find many good example Heise solves out there. Can any one point me at some? Thanks in advance!


----------



## vanselm66 (Nov 19, 2013)

Hello.
I'm an absolute beginner that got interested in rubik's cube some months ago, and got surprised about how many methods exits to resolve it.
I was looking for a simple method and I found Petrus and Heise. Really I prefer understand the cube than memorize algorithms because I don't care too much about speed, so I've chosen going on with Heise, even although it could seem a hard method for a beginner.


----------



## It3ration (Nov 19, 2013)

Glad to hear it! I've been using Heise for years - though if I'm going for speed, I usually do Fridrich for the F2L, and use Heise for the LL - I've managed to keep my times from about 20-30 seconds tops, even using Heise for the LL. The more you practice it the better you'll get - I also think it increases your understanding of the cube itself, it's definitely worth learning.


----------



## Hypocrism (Nov 19, 2013)

vanselm66 said:


> Hello.
> I'm an absolute beginner that got interested in rubik's cube some months ago, and got surprised about how many methods exits to resolve it.
> I was looking for a simple method and I found Petrus and Heise. Really I prefer understand the cube than memorize algorithms because I don't care too much about speed, so I've chosen going on with Heise, even although it could seem a hard method for a beginner.



Roux is another option that requires few algorithms.


----------



## IcyBlade (Nov 19, 2013)

Hypocrism said:


> Roux is another option that requires few algorithms.



... that *could* use few algorithms. There are CMLL algs that effect edge orientation.


----------



## Hypocrism (Nov 19, 2013)

IcyBlade said:


> ... that *could* use few algorithms. There are CMLL algs that effect edge orientation.



For a beginner's solving method, it requires few algorithms. Two if I'm not mistaken are sufficient.


----------



## IcyBlade (Nov 19, 2013)

Hypocrism said:


> For a beginner's solving method, it requires few algorithms. Two if I'm not mistaken are sufficient.


Yup, unless someone counts moo and LSE in general as algorithmic.


----------



## TDM (Nov 19, 2013)

Hypocrism said:


> For a beginner's solving method, it requires few algorithms. Two if I'm not mistaken are sufficient.


Well if you want to use as few as possible, it can be done with no algs. Intuitive corner twists (e.g. [R U R' U' R U R' U',L']) and some easy to understand comms for permutation (e.g. [[R' U L'2],U/U2]).


IcyBlade said:


> Yup, unless someone counts moo and LSE in general as algorithmic.


Most people wouldn't, but even if you do, and you say that's 6 algs, they're still only 3 moves each. Which isn't very much. It wouldn't take that long to learn at all.


----------



## vanselm66 (Dec 1, 2013)

vanselm66 said:


> Hello.
> I'm an absolute beginner that got interested in rubik's cube some months ago, and got surprised about how many methods exits to resolve it.
> I was looking for a simple method and I found Petrus and Heise. Really I prefer understand the cube than memorize algorithms because I don't care too much about speed, so I've chosen going on with Heise, even although it could seem a hard method for a beginner.



Finally, after some practise, I'm getting resolved cubes, but it takes me a long time, specially when resolving last layer's corners and I have to find the right commutators and conjugates. Really I start by building the 2x2x2 and expand it to 2x2x3 (Petrus), that it's easier when beginning, then I go on with Heise. But now I think I'm ready to try the "orthodox" way. Anyway I think it's great to complete a Rubik's cube without memorazing any algorithm, even if I'd never get too fast.


----------



## aspetuck (Feb 7, 2014)

*Could Heise be an effective speed cubing method?*

I think I'll learn Heise as a FMC method but I was wondering if it could make a speed cubing method? Move count is very low. I don't think people can know for sure though because not many people use it and the ones who do don't speed solve with it.


----------



## qqwref (Feb 7, 2014)

I think it's possible, but it would take an extreme amount of practice. And even though the movecount is low, the move sequences do not have a lot of structure (compare to all the triggers in Fridrich, or the MU spam in Roux) so your TPS would suffer a lot, negating most of the advantage.


----------



## Notasurgeon (Jan 3, 2015)

Hello!

I've been working on the Heise Method for the last few days, and I can solve it pretty easily using the edges-first method.

Where I'm having a lot of trouble is with the two-pairs technique where you align two of the edges with the corners before aligning the edges. If I get to a point where any two of the remaining five edges (four on top and one in the manipulation slot) are ordered relative to each other, I can often find a pair 3-cycle or two that will sort them into the correct order so that all that remains is the final three corners. But what has been happening A LOT is that I'll end up with no edges in the right spot or with three edges correct, meaning that I can't use a 3-cycle to fix what's left since only two edges are out of place. As far as I can tell, none of the examples on his webpage are like this, but it's been happening to me a significant amount of the time.

Does anyone familiar with this method know what I'm doing wrong or how I might fix it?


----------



## Mike Hughey (Jan 5, 2015)

I played with Heise quite a bit last year, and I'm familiar with what you're talking about. I had trouble with this too; I could never get where I could just generate any two pairs and have it work - it seemed like they needed to be in a configuration that would work well in order to work out.

I learned some things by reading the posts in the following thread, especially at about post #81 in the thread. Try working through the examples:
https://www.speedsolving.com/forum/...cussion-thread&p=226722&viewfull=1#post226722


----------



## 1001010101001 (Mar 6, 2018)

What am I doing wrong here? I suck at Heise and don't know why:
R' U' F R2 U2 B' R2 U2 F2 U2 B' F2 U2 R2 U F' R' D U B' D2 R2 B' L R' U' F

Solve:
D U' F2 D L D2 L2 R' U B2 D L2 U2 L U2 L' D' B' R B D L U B U' B2 L2 B R B' L B R L2 F L2 R2 B2 L2 R2 Ff L2 R2 B L


I always get 40-50 moves using Heise, which is what I get with Roux HTM as well.


----------



## CreativeCubing (Jul 4, 2018)

Hello everyone! I do have a question regarding 3x3 methods. I am a cuber who currently uses cfop, and I can get an average sub 10, though I want to change my method. I would like to change it to Heise, though I have been learning it and it is pretty challenging. If you know how to solve Heise or have any suggestions about whether I should change to Heise or another method, please respond.


----------



## Mike Hughey (Jul 4, 2018)

Heise is incredibly fun, and I find it somewhat useful to know for fewest moves (very rare to submit a whole Heise solve for fewest moves, but the principles from it definitely can help, and using it for starts can get you pretty tolerable averages, even if they rarely result in winning results), but I know of no one who has ever gotten really fast with Heise. It typically takes me at least a minute to complete a full Heise solve; I average 20 seconds with CFOP. I know there are plenty of people who can sub-20 Heise, but most of them are probably twice as fast with CFOP.


----------



## CreativeCubing (Jul 5, 2018)

Mike Hughey said:


> Heise is incredibly fun, and I find it somewhat useful to know for fewest moves (very rare to submit a whole Heise solve for fewest moves, but the principles from it definitely can help, and using it for starts can get you pretty tolerable averages, even if they rarely result in winning results), but I know of no one who has ever gotten really fast with Heise. It typically takes me at least a minute to complete a full Heise solve; I average 20 seconds with CFOP. I know there are plenty of people who can sub-20 Heise, but most of them are probably twice as fast with CFOP.


Thank you for the information!


----------



## kubnintadni (Jul 6, 2018)

Is Heise really all that efficient? What if you did steps 1 and 2 of Heise the same, and then inserted the F2L pair while maintaining EO, and then did ZBLL to complete? Seems like that should have a lower movecount.

Here's an attempt at some estimates of average movecount from F2L-1+EO cubestate using rough guesses.

Heise
Step 3: I have no idea, but if it's more than 10 moves, I would seriously doubt Heise's claim to being super efficient.
Step 4: ~8 (idk how commonly conjugates are needed, but 8 should be a lower bound if I understand commutators correctly)

Heise-a
LS: 6
ZBLL: 12 HTM (https://www.speedsolving.com/wiki/index.php/ZBLL)
= ~18 HTM?

Given that the only step I had hard numbers for was ZBLL, I tried to bias my estimates against Heise-a being better, if I was unsuccessful in that endeavor, so be it, though I'd appreciate being made aware of it so that I may be less unsuccessful the next time I try something like this.

Also, I'm not saying that either this or Heise is a good speedsolving method (nor the contrary), just trying to sort out whether or not Heise's reputation of being extremely efficient is deserved.

PS: Does anyone have numbers for average Heise movecounts? I assume it would be a tad lower than LLOB (41-45 (https://docs.google.com/document/d/1gs3THtRU5UCckKcM_5zjjm5RkJmGxHAJUnv6ta4lJhw/edit)), and LMCF (41-45 (https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B2QnZ3uD6I8kNkpHSURSbzluc2s/view)).


----------



## 2180161 (Jul 6, 2018)

If Heise as a method should average approximately 40 moves (according to the wiki) and the LSLL (as I'll call it for now) takes approximately 9 moves on average for the commutator, and approximately 11 for the blocks, I would say that would be about 20 moves for the F2L-1, which would be about 2 moves less.

The thing with Heise's efficiency is that in a speedsolve, of course it won't average 40. In reality, it might be around 50. I ran Heise with a set block through HARCS and got about 39 moves per solve. Now this seems very low, until you realize that in HARCS, Roux/ZZ/Petrus all also get around 39 moves on average, despite the best solvers using those usually are high 40's low 50's.


----------



## kubnintadni (Jul 6, 2018)

2180161 said:


> If Heise as a method should average approximately 40 moves (according to the wiki) and the LSLL (as I'll call it for now) takes approximately 9 moves on average for the commutator, and approximately 11 for the blocks, I would say that would be about 20 moves for the F2L-1, which would be about 2 moves less.
> 
> The thing with Heise's efficiency is that in a speedsolve, of course it won't average 40. In reality, it might be around 50. I ran Heise with a set block through HARCS and got about 39 moves per solve. Now this seems very low, until you realize that in HARCS, Roux/ZZ/Petrus all also get around 39 moves on average, despite the best solvers using those usually are high 40's low 50's.


Thanks for the response. I guess the gap between a lot of the methods in terms of raw average movecount is fairly close. I still want to learn Heise eventually, but if one can use another method with better ergonomics and lookahead and recognition that doesn't lose too much in terms of movecount for speedsolving, I guess that really does sink Heise in that department.


----------



## shadowslice e (Jul 6, 2018)

2180161 said:


> If Heise as a method should average approximately 40 moves (according to the wiki) and the LSLL (as I'll call it for now) takes approximately 9 moves on average for the commutator, and approximately 11 for the blocks, I would say that would be about 20 moves for the F2L-1, which would be about 2 moves less.
> 
> The thing with Heise's efficiency is that in a speedsolve, of course it won't average 40. In reality, it might be around 50. I ran Heise with a set block through HARCS and got about 39 moves per solve. Now this seems very low, until you realize that in HARCS, Roux/ZZ/Petrus all also get around 39 moves on average, despite the best solvers using those usually are high 40's low 50's.


How did you get harcs to run heise?


----------



## mprimesarefun (May 8, 2019)

I've been trying to learn the Heise method for FMC purposes for a while now, and I get most of it, but 5E2C is what really gets me, and I don't know how exactly to get good solutions with it. My blockbuilding is also kind of crap even though I use Roux, so if anyone could direct me towards some good resources (besides Ryan's website, which I already know about), that would be amazing.


----------



## Mike Hughey (May 8, 2019)

I try to use Heise a lot for FMC, but to be honest, I'm pretty sloppy about it (and generally don't get that good results). But for what it's worth, I generally only try to do 5E instead of 5E2C, and then hope that what I get is good - either the best case where 5E2C luckily happens, or a case where my remaining 5 corners are nice to solve. 5E2C has always seemed pretty difficult to me.


----------



## mprimesarefun (May 8, 2019)

Thanks man. I know edges first and comms and stuff like that pretty well, so I should be set, I guess.


----------



## Mike Hughey (May 8, 2019)

For me, when I use Heise for FMC, it's all about trying to get a good setup to 5 or 3 corners, and I also check for easy 4th pair/OLL/3 corners if there's no nice 5 edge solution. If I'm trying to go with Heise, I try as many starts as possible and count the moves to 5 or 3 corners, looking for as many as I can get before about 40 minutes are up. Then I take the best one and try to find good insertions for it. I used that strategy when I got my one decent mean of 3 (29 moves) in official competition. With Heise, it's usually possible to find 8 or 10 decent 2x2x2 pseudo blocks to start with, and then go from there and take the best one.


----------



## Drotitis (Jul 18, 2019)

Hi

I have been lurking in the speedcubing community for a couple of years, mostly focusing on sovling my cubes not so much speed. I am now trying to learn speedcubing with roux and heise as my main methods since I love using intuitive moves to solve the cube. 

I feel though that with step 3 of heise I often get stuck with 2 corner and 2 edges that are not solved corectly instead of 3 corners. I can often understand what caused the mistanke but I dont understand how to proceed. 

I find it hard to use communtators, since either I would try to solve the edges or the corners first. But when i try to do it step wise I end up with the same problem. Anyone have any tips to how you can solve this state using commutators?


----------



## shadowslice e (Jul 18, 2019)

Drotitis said:


> Stuff


Obligatory heise is too complicated to speedsolve really (Assuming vanilla heise- there's speedheise variants but i haven't looked into those for a while)

That aside, have a look at some of the 3bld "parity" algs and use them to solve 2e2c or similar (j perm or similar is common but there might be faster ones for your case)


----------



## Tao Yu (Jul 18, 2019)

Drotitis said:


> Hi
> 
> I have been lurking in the speedcubing community for a couple of years, mostly focusing on sovling my cubes not so much speed. I am now trying to learn speedcubing with roux and heise as my main methods since I love using intuitive moves to solve the cube.
> 
> ...



Try and find some algs for these cases that you can understand in terms of commutators and just set up to them

for example:

J perm = [R U R' F': [R U R' U', l']] U'
T perm = [F R U' R': J perm]


----------



## brododragon (Apr 21, 2020)

I've been learning Heise from Ryan Heise’s guide and I almost have it down except for corner twist cases. I’ve learned commutators from J Perm but can't seem to find a way to solve something like this: 
(Both corners are permuted but incorrectly oriented).


----------



## Mike Hughey (Apr 21, 2020)

For pure Heise, you probably want to avoid this situation as much as possible. But sometimes of course it can come up to where you're on your last 3 corners, and this is what you get. Ryan Heise's site says this:



Corner twists | Rubik's Cube commutators



Another, slightly less elegant way to solve this is to just perform any convenient 8 move 3-cycle involving these 2 corners and any third corner (perhaps the one between them). Then you'll have a nice ordinary 3 corner cycle (which might be more than 8 moves, but probably not more than 9) you can do to solve all 3.


----------



## ProStar (Apr 21, 2020)

I'm learning Heise (basically just from the wiki article), how do I perform EO while pairing up the Heise blocks? I'm also having trouble with solving the edges + 2 corners while finishing F2L


----------



## brododragon (Apr 21, 2020)

ProStar said:


> I'm learning Heise (basically just from the wiki article), how do I perform EO while pairing up the Heise blocks? I'm also having trouble with solving the edges + 2 corners while finishing F2L


Learn from Heise's website. For EO, just solve the blocks and then do EO like your would from F2L-1 in Petrus. For the edges+two corners, solve exactly two LL edges, misplace the third, and make sure the LL edge is in the LL slot. Then, just do a simple 3-move keyhole-type insert. Then, do a comm for the 2 corners. Finally, do L3C.* All of this is explained way better on Heise's website, so just use that.*


----------



## brododragon (Apr 21, 2020)

Mike Hughey said:


> For pure Heise, you probably want to avoid this situation as much as possible. But sometimes of course it can come up to where you're on your last 3 corners, and this is what you get. Ryan Heise's site says this:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Here, just tried it out, and wondering if this can be improved upon or if I've found the optimal comm: https://alg.cubing.net/?setup=(R-_D-_R_D)2_U-_(R-_D-_R_D)4_U&alg=x-_[R_U_R-_U-_R_U_R-,_D]

My main worry is for the orienting of the first corner it was very similar to R' D' R D.


----------



## Tao Yu (Apr 21, 2020)

The move optimal comm is pretty cool and is quite different to the comms taught on Heise's website. 

[F' R D2 R' F, U2]

Essentially swapping two corners and swapping them back in a different way.


----------



## brododragon (Apr 21, 2020)

Tao Yu said:


> Essentially swapping two corners and swapping them back in a different way.


Thank you! Also, how do you do a 2c2c/2e2e comm?


----------



## ProStar (Apr 21, 2020)

brododragon said:


> Thank you! Also, how do you do a 2c2c/2e2e comm?



Solve two edges/corners, with the third affected edge/corner simply moving places with one comm, then use another comm to solve the remaining 3 edges/corners. Having 2c2c/2e2e is similar to hitting your buffer in BLD, where you have to now start a new cycle/com


----------



## brododragon (Apr 21, 2020)

ProStar said:


> Solve two edges/corners, with the third affected edge/corner simply moving places with one comm, then use another comm to solve the remaining 3 edges/corners. Having 2c2c/2e2e is similar to hitting your buffer in BLD, where you have to now start a new cycle/com


Is there a way to do it with 1 comm?


----------



## ProStar (Apr 21, 2020)

brododragon said:


> Is there a way to do it with 1 comm?



No, that's why it's known as 2c2c instead of 4c, because you solve 2 corners then 2 corners. 4c is where your 4 corners can be solved in succession, kind of like doing a BLD solve where you don't reach your buffer

Edit: I guess technically you could do 5-style type stuff, but that's not feasible


----------



## brododragon (Apr 21, 2020)

ProStar said:


> No, that's why it's known as 2c2c instead of 4c, because you solve 2 corners then 2 corners. 4c is where your 4 corners can be solved in succession, kind of like doing a BLD solve where you don't reach your buffer
> 
> Edit: I guess technically you could do 5-style type stuff, but that's not feasible


Is there any way to make intuitive 5-stylr comms?


----------



## Tao Yu (Apr 21, 2020)

You can modify the alg I posted just there to a 2c2c by replacing the U2 with a U: [F' R D2 R' F, U]. It's usually easiest to just do two 3 cycles though as ProStar has said.


----------



## brododragon (Apr 21, 2020)

Tao Yu said:


> You can modify the alg I posted just there to a 2c2c by replacing the U2 with a U: [F' R D2 R' F, U]. It's usually easiest to just do two 3 cycles though as ProStar has said.


So, swap two corners, then, instead of swapping them back, swap two different corners back?


----------



## Tao Yu (Apr 21, 2020)

brododragon said:


> So, swap two corners, then, instead of swapping them back, swap two different corners back?


Yeah. Often easier said than done (and could be less efficient than just two 3 cycles).


----------



## dudefaceguy (Apr 22, 2020)

brododragon said:


> I've been learning Heise from Ryan Heise’s guide and I almost have it down except for corner twist cases. I’ve learned commutators from J Perm but can't seem to find a way to solve something like this: View attachment 11854
> (Both corners are permuted but incorrectly oriented).



Hey, I love Heise method! The commutator that I use for a corner flip is very simple because I figured it out myself years ago. For example, [R U R' U' R U R', D]. It's obviously not move optimal, but it's very fast and easy to perform from anywhere on the U or D face. I should probably go learn a shorter flip - I have nothing to prove from using my own commutator at this point. It's been quite long enough.



ProStar said:


> I'm learning Heise (basically just from the wiki article), how do I perform EO while pairing up the Heise blocks? I'm also having trouble with solving the edges + 2 corners while finishing F2L


From a draft of my intuitive cubing guide:

You may get stuck on step 3 of the Heise method. Here is a simple heuristic to make it easier. In order to finish solving edges in 3 moves, you need to have exactly 3 unsolved edges: 2 in the top layer, and 1 in the keyhole. If you have 2 or 4 unsolved edges, here is a trick to convert any other case to 3 unsolved edges every time:

1. Make sure that you have a top-layer edge piece in the keyhole, and all edges are correctly oriented (i.e. the top-face color is on top). 
2. Note the color of the side sticker on the edge that is in the keyhole spot. For example, if the top face is blue, then the side sticker is the sticker that is not 
blue. 
3. Find the edge on the top layer that has the opposite-color side sticker. Red is opposite orange, blue is opposite green, and white is opposite yellow. 
4. Move the edge in the keyhole to the top layer adjacent to its opposite piece, then move the opposite piece into the keyhole. 
5. Adjust the top layer until you see 2 solved edges in the top layer. 

You can then proceed to solve the top-layer edges by replacing the unsolved top-layer edge with the edge in the keyhole, and putting the keyhole edge in the keyhole spot.

This heuristic also works if you are doing pair commutators after making the two pairs, for example. As others have said, just look at the examples on Heise's site over and over again, and it will eventually click.

As for EO, you won't always be able to complete it while finishing the blocks. Heise's site has some good examples of EO cases after the blocks are already in place, such as using a sledgehammer.


----------



## brododragon (Apr 22, 2020)

dudefaceguy said:


> Hey, I love Heise method! The commutator that I use for a corner flip is very simple because I figured it out myself years ago. For example, [R U R' U' R U R', D]. It's obviously not move optimal, but it's very fast and easy to perform from anywhere on the U or D face. I should probably go learn a shorter flip - I have nothing to prove from using my own commutator at this point. It's been quite long enough.


I'm using Tao Yu's optimal one. I found the one you've shown, but I'm into FMC. Also, his one is pretty fast, too, maybe even faster because of how short it is.


kubnintadni said:


> Is Heise really all that efficient? What if you did steps 1 and 2 of Heise the same, and then inserted the F2L pair while maintaining EO, and then did ZBLL to complete? Seems like that should have a lower movecount.
> 
> Here's an attempt at some estimates of average movecount from F2L-1+EO cubestate using rough guesses.
> 
> ...


What do you guys think of this?


----------



## WoowyBaby (Apr 22, 2020)

brododragon said:


> I'm using Tao Yu's optimal one. I found the one you've shown, but I'm into FMC. Also, his one is pretty fast, too, maybe even faster because of how short it is.
> 
> What do you guys think of this?



Heise LSLL is no doubt the most efficient method of finishing the cube after EOF2L-1.

Solving F2L -> ZBLL is pretty efficient, at roughly 23-24 moves on average. F2L -> ZBLL is a lot better than most other things, like WV into PLL or something of that nature. It's honestly pretty good for efficiency after EOF2L-1. Although, I'd guess Heise is 20 on average. If not 20, then just some number lower than ZBLL.
If you want me to, I can do a bunch of Heise LSLL examples so you can get a better vision of how efficient it really is.


----------



## brododragon (Apr 22, 2020)

WoowyBaby said:


> Heise LSLL is no doubt the most efficient way of finishing the cube after EOF2L-1.


That's interesting, because it's also more speedsolving-oriented.


----------



## WoowyBaby (Apr 22, 2020)

brododragon said:


> That's interesting, because it's also more speedsolving-oriented.


Clarification: Most efficient speedsolving method for EOF2L-1 devised so far. Sorry about that. Obviously an optimal 1-phase solver is going to be more efficient simply by definition.
Edit- It is most certainly not the most efficient two-step / 2-phase EOF2L-1 method physically possible. There is some other two-step method that is more efficient than Heise's LSLL on average, but it's probably not usable for humans whatsoever (but exists).


----------



## brododragon (Apr 22, 2020)

WoowyBaby said:


> Clarification: Most efficient speedsolving method for EOF2L-1 devised so far. Sorry about that. Obviously an optimal 1-phase solver is going to be more efficient simply by definition.
> Edit- It is most certainly not the most efficient two-step / 2-phase EOF2L-1 method physically possible. There is some other two-step method that is more efficient than Heise's LSLL on average, but it's probably not usable for humans whatsoever (but exists).


Ya I meant for humans.


----------



## dudefaceguy (Apr 22, 2020)

brododragon said:


> I'm using Tao Yu's optimal one. I found the one you've shown, but I'm into FMC. Also, his one is pretty fast, too, maybe even faster because of how short it is.


I tried this flip commutator and I like how elegant it is. I will try employing it in my solves. This is a good excuse to practice some Heise! I've never really gotten the "one pair" approach down.


----------

