# Will the Fridrich method ever be beaten?



## *LukeMayn* (Nov 30, 2008)

*This is talking about speed AND popularity.*
Well, as far as I can tell, cubing has really been pushed to the limit and everyone ( a lot) of cubers are using fridrich or a simplified version. I've been thinkning about the fridrich system for a while now and it really is a ***near*** perfect method. I mean it has amazing TPS, easy look ahead, uses inspection time wisely, and uses an acceptable amount of algs.
What could be better? There's roux, petrus, ZB and all the rest but they have downs.... but so does fridrich. it has an about 56 move count on average!

Now lets cut to the chase, will there ever be a better method? If so what will it do? How will it work?
I need opinions!

P.S: I know that other methods can get really fast but no-one is pushing them like we are with fridrich.....


----------



## ThePizzaGuy92 (Nov 30, 2008)

idk about popularity, but MGLS and ZB have amazing potential in my opinion


----------



## *LukeMayn* (Nov 30, 2008)

IMO they have just as much as fridrich which has already been pushed to it's limits...


----------



## yurivish (Nov 30, 2008)

The real question is whether with time, it's possible to have enough lookahead at that speed.

The strength of Fridrich is that when you're at the level of today's pros, it's as much about turning speed as it is lookahead. I will really be interested in seeing whether someone can "think" far enough ahead to be able to reach even close to the turn speed that Fridrich people can muster with another method.

There are several - Gilles Roux, that guy who averages sub-14 with petrus, and probably quite a few others - but they're still a few seconds away from the cutting edge.

I think that if there are enough people working with dedication, over the next few years there will probably be a world record, or close to one, set in competition by someone who uses Petrus or Roux. ZZ would be nice, since I'm curious to see how far that can be pushed, but unless you're using ZZLL then the move count is around the same as Fridrich's, with the only added benefit being that there are no cube rotations.


----------



## badmephisto (Nov 30, 2008)

its hard to say... fridrich method is very well established and it has most resources, and it works. Not many people out there would be seriously willing to learn something that is potentially not powerful enough. 

But i do refuse to believe that Fridrich is the best that we can do


----------



## Swordsman Kirby (Nov 30, 2008)

yurivish said:


> that guy who averages sub-14 with petrus,



Nicely done.

I believe that Petrus will eventually surpass Fridrich in speed. Just you wait. With ZBLL you can average sub-40 moves...


----------



## qqwref (Nov 30, 2008)

I think Fridrich is the best method we know about for 3x3 (just like I think reduction is the best method we know about for the existing bigcubes). The reason is that it is (1) fast despite having (2) few things to look at at each step and (3) few algorithms.

As for fast, we already know it is fast, but the question is: are other methods (i.e. not just a Fridrich variation) fast? I think at the moment I would have to say... no. Sub-15 second averages are very common for Fridrich users, and it's possible to go much lower than that without even being considered fast. But for Petrus, Roux, etc. getting under 15 seconds is viewed as incredible and world-class. I'm sure some of this is because there are so many fewer people using those methods, but I really think that . And for all you complaining about there not being enough support structures for other methods... how do you give algorithms/advice for intuitive steps? You can't, if you insist on it being intuitive!

The second bit might need a bit more explaining... in F2L, you only need to find two pieces. In OLL you only need to look at where the yellow stickers are, and in PLL you can always recognize the case by just looking at the front and right sides. So each of these steps are pretty easy to look ahead for. I don't think intuitive steps are bad, but if you have to find more than two pieces, and you need to see everything before you can figure out a fast solution, it really hinders your lookahead. Besides, the intuitive steps on Fridrich are almost entirely 2-gen or 3-gen, so there are very few cube rotations, which makes it easier to find pieces and more comfortable to do very fast turns. I would really like to see a fast Petrus or Roux solve with no pauses, but I'm not sure it can be done. On the other hand I wouldn't call myself fast but I do a pretty good job of being very smooth at 3x3, because I find almost everything before I do it. Leyan Lo once told me - no matter how fast you turn, if you don't look ahead properly, you are wasting 0.5 second after every step. If you have 7 steps, that's 3 seconds! So you HAVE to be able to look ahead.

So... I'd really like to see someone be as fast as Nakajima or Harris Chan (or Erik) with Petrus / Roux / Waterman / Heise / Corners First / Human Thistlethwaite. But I really don't think it's going to happen, and I also don't think there are very many methods left to be discovered that aren't obvious Fridrich clones.


----------



## ImNOTnoob (Nov 30, 2008)

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


----------



## Hadley4000 (Nov 30, 2008)

I hate to say no, because that is a very strong word for something like this. I would be very surprised if a method came out and became faster and more popular than Fridrich, and even more surprised if one of the current alternative methods surpasses it. But like I said, this is something that no one will be able to know.


----------



## Lucas Garron (Nov 30, 2008)

ImNOTnoob said:


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


Why does a beginner method have to take 150 moves? Isn't that a silly assumption based on the method we're discussing about beating?
Anyhow, Petrus can be sub-15, and it can easily be a beginner's method.


----------



## Swordsman Kirby (Nov 30, 2008)

ImNOTnoob said:


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



Doesn't that make 10sec?


----------



## DonQuixote (Nov 30, 2008)

yurivish said:


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


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

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

Kind Regards
Martin


----------



## mazei (Nov 30, 2008)

Well I think other methods do have potential at being equal with Fridrich. The thing is just see it this way. More people use Fridrich so that would mean more people get sub-15 averages with it compared to other methods because of simple logic where when you have a larger amount of people, the probability of someone getting sub-15 is higher. So basically, I think if every suddenly switched over to Petrus or Roux or any other method then I think it would have the same effect.

In any case, I don't think the Fridrich method is the perfect method because it still has a couple of cons to it.


----------



## wongxiao (Nov 30, 2008)

I think part of the attractiveness of Fredrich is its similarity to many popular beginner methods. The main things you have to change are going to be 2nd layer edge insertions (learning to build pairs) and maybe the last layer order (the beginner method I chose didn't do OLL than PLL...).

But the familiarity of layer-by-layer methodology, IMHO, gives Fredrich a very sharp advantage over block based systems to beginners who are in the 2-1 minute range looking to get faster...

So yeah, I wouldn't be at all surprised if someone comes out with some record breaking times using another method; I think it has more to do with popularity than raw efficiency. And of course there are the lookahead issues which have been pointed out.


----------



## qqwref (Nov 30, 2008)

DonQuixote said:


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



I'm not sure how much time Erik's put into his 3x3 (I'm guessing not as much as some other fast people since he doesn't concentrate on that event only), but I do know that Johannes Laire spent something like three years using Petrus, and I'd bet that Gilles Roux and Lars Petrus put similar amounts of time into their methods.


----------



## Dene (Nov 30, 2008)

qqwref said:


> In OLL you only need to look at where the yellow stickers are



....................................dot..............................dot-dot............................dot..................................dot.....................dot-dot-dot........................dot-dot....................and-more-dots.................... oh?


----------



## DonQuixote (Nov 30, 2008)

qqwref said:


> I'm not sure how much time Erik's put into his 3x3 (I'm guessing not as much as some other fast people since he doesn't concentrate on that event only), but I do know that Johannes Laire spent something like three years using Petrus, and I'd bet that Gilles Roux and Lars Petrus put similar amounts of time into their methods.


You do realize that developing and mastering a method are two different things? 
Additionally, measuring cubing-time in years, month or days is just plain stupid, you can cube for two years with 0.5 hour a day and still be behind a kid practicing 5 hours for 3 months in terms of progress.

Kind Regards
Martin


----------



## qqwref (Nov 30, 2008)

Lars and Gilles didn't just develop their method, they also use(d) it for speedsolving and are/were very fast for their time. So I think they really did put a lot of hours into speedsolving. As for Johannes, you can ask him yourself if you want to, but from what I remember he really did spend a lot of time solving, and even though he wouldn't call himself a master of the method I would say he is one.


----------



## Escher (Nov 30, 2008)

im sad that nobody has mentioned ZZ yet. 
once i have EOLine set up (i.e im not very good at it so ill start timing a solve with it done) i can average about 12-14s. add 3s for EOLine execution and i can average of 12 a whole 2-5s better. its ridiculous. for example, if i get the left 2x2x3 block done, the rest is two-gen up until PLL.
i think that if anyone/any method is going to beat fridrich, it would be ZZ.
it beats it on move count, can beat it on tps, beats it on lookahead, beats it on move ergonomy (no cube rotations), and is generally just really nice  with a simple Z rotation you can have two gen f2l too.
its only real weakness is EOLine lookahead and execution - it takes a long time to get used to it, and the <=8 moves to do it are not always very nice.
hah, it even beats the cross on average number of moves to completion


----------



## Inusagi (Nov 30, 2008)

Interesting thread. I've been thinking on this a while now, and I have to say :if it's a method that can beat Friedrich, then it has to be very deliberated.


----------



## guusrs (Nov 30, 2008)

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


----------



## gogozerg (Nov 30, 2008)

qqwref said:


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


*** Me too ***


----------



## d4m4s74 (Nov 30, 2008)

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


----------



## Waynilein (Nov 30, 2008)

d4m4s74 said:


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



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


----------



## ImNOTnoob (Nov 30, 2008)

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


----------



## Inusagi (Nov 30, 2008)

guusrs said:


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



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


----------



## d4m4s74 (Nov 30, 2008)

how many algs would one have to know?


----------



## PCwizCube (Nov 30, 2008)

ImNOTnoob said:


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


That is ridiculous.

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

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


----------



## ImNOTnoob (Nov 30, 2008)

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

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

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


----------



## Inusagi (Nov 30, 2008)

ImNOTnoob said:


> What about a five step method, *top layer corners, bottom layer corners* (2x2 speedcubing method also can), first layer edges, middle layer edges, and last layer edges?
> Totally brute force, no intuition.
> 
> Edit: best method ever; solve white face, then red face, then blue, then green, then orange.
> ...



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

And the "edit" method isn't good either


----------



## rachmaninovian (Nov 30, 2008)

ImNOTnoob said:


> What about a five step method, *top layer corners, bottom layer corners* (2x2 speedcubing method also can), first layer edges, middle layer edges, and last layer edges?
> Totally brute force, no intuition.
> 
> Edit: best method ever; solve white face, then red face, then blue, then green, then orange.
> ...



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


----------



## EmersonHerrmann (Nov 30, 2008)

Lucas Garron said:


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



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


----------



## jcuber (Nov 30, 2008)

ImNOTnoob said:


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



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


----------



## Hepheron (Nov 30, 2008)

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


----------



## deco122392 (Nov 30, 2008)

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


----------



## pelnied (Nov 30, 2008)

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


----------



## waffle=ijm (Nov 30, 2008)

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

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


----------



## JLarsen (Nov 30, 2008)

DonQuixote said:


> yurivish said:
> 
> 
> > Gilles Roux, that guy who averages sub-14 with petrus
> ...



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

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


----------



## ErikJ (Nov 30, 2008)

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


----------



## *LukeMayn* (Nov 30, 2008)

so how fast are you with roux?


----------



## somerandomkidmike (Nov 30, 2008)

rachmaninovian said:


> ImNOTnoob said:
> 
> 
> > What about a five step method, *top layer corners, bottom layer corners* (2x2 speedcubing method also can), first layer edges, middle layer edges, and last layer edges?
> ...



I'm actively using waterman, at the same time as optimizing it


----------



## somerandomkidmike (Nov 30, 2008)

ErikJ said:


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



recognition for CMLL can be very good


----------



## qqwref (Dec 1, 2008)

Sn3kyPandaMan said:


> But as far as being fun, I have to give it a big fat zero. I just can't stand using that method.



I wonder if any professional track and field athletes sometimes run a mile in competition using a 'silly walk' instead of running. Sure, it might be more fun, but sometimes to be the fastest you have to just do the event as fast as possible instead of worrying whether you're having fun or not


----------



## fanwuq (Dec 1, 2008)

qqwref said:


> Sn3kyPandaMan said:
> 
> 
> > But as far as being fun, I have to give it a big fat zero. I just can't stand using that method.
> ...



Sorry, QQ, but that's a horrible analogy. Silly walk just isn't energy efficient LOL. Petrus is very move efficient.

I can see Petrus with ZBLL being much faster than Fridrich. However, I suck at it. The reason: I can find awesome 2x2x3 block for FMC, I can't build blocks at all during speedsolves. That is the main disadvantage of Petrus and Roux. If you can build 2x2x3 block and orient all edges as fast as a top Fridrich user doing cross+2 pairs, then you can break the WR using Petrus.
If you can do finish both blocks and CMLL before a fridrich user finishes F2L, then Roux would be faster. The main problem is that time restraints allow for worse move count and the steps aren't as fingertrick friendly as Fridrich.

If I can see the far future, maybe 20+ years, I'd say it would be ZZ EOline with thousands of "algs" for multislotting F2L and ZBLL. That's fingertrick and move efficient.


----------



## yurivish (Dec 1, 2008)

fanwuq said:


> qqwref said:
> 
> 
> > Sn3kyPandaMan said:
> ...



It's move-efficient in the sense that you have lots of algorithms and cases to learn, but I don't think the basic method itself is that move-efficient.

ZZF2L, COLL, EPLL = not that big, if any, of a reduction over Fridrich.

Petrus and Roux are inherently move-efficient in that they build up the cube in such a way that it's possible to retain lots of freedom of movement even when some of the steps are finished.


----------



## blade740 (Dec 1, 2008)

ZZ can be very fast, if someone fast would commit to working on it.

The move-efficiency of ZZ is different from that of petrus and roux. ZZ involves restricting your moves to the easiest moves to perform at top speed. Petrus and roux involve restricting your moves to ones that don't touch what you've already solved.


----------



## marco768 (Dec 1, 2008)

Fingertrick friendliness of Fridrich VS Fewer moves for Petrus and Roux
A classic debate topic

Personally I think Fridrich would remain as the most popular method, while remaining as one of the fastest. One reason I think Fridrich is fast is because there are dedicated solvers who provide all sorts of algs for the method, such as fingertrick friendly alternate algs. People also propose and use optimised steps(X-cross, double-slotting).

But I think ZZ has great potential, restricting moves to L,U,R can increase TPS for both normal and OH solving(Compete with Fridrich's "fingertrick-ness"), along with a "possible" 1LLL. I remember a dedicated ZZ user in the forum provided a link to a pretty deep ZZ explanation and guide, one step involves changing the CP(I forgot whether orientation matters) to [UR] subset while retaining a solved 2x2x3 block, which if someone find a method of it successfully, can lead to a 1LLL.


----------



## JLarsen (Dec 1, 2008)

marco768 said:


> Fingertrick friendliness of Fridrich VS Fewer moves for Petrus and Roux
> A classic debate topic
> 
> Personally I think Fridrich would remain as the most popular method, while remaining as one of the fastest. One reason I think Fridrich is fast is because there are dedicated solvers who provide all sorts of algs for the method, such as fingertrick friendly alternate algs. People also propose and use optimised steps(X-cross, double-slotting).
> ...


 I don't see why everyone thinks Petrus is THAT un finger friendly. Sure you can't just hold the cube in one orientation and spam algs all over the place, but you can make a black with no rotation if your good enough, just in the sense that you can slot the entire f2l without rotating if your good enough. Don't forget that a third of F2l is 2 gen.


----------



## ErikJ (Dec 1, 2008)

*LukeMayn* said:


> so how fast are you with roux?



20s. I'm not used to the type of block building.


----------



## Athefre (Dec 1, 2008)

waffle=ijm said:


> I think that a pure color neutral Roux with NMCMLL would minimize move count. and if someone used something like that at full speed, it'd probably "beat" fridrich. But you need to dedicate time to improve look ahead( A LOT).
> 
> this is just a thought. Possible? yes... Practical? not so much...
> seeing as roux is my main, i try to think of ways to improve it



I see *zero* improvement being color neutral with "Roux" (at this time). Honestly.

The normal steps:

1. Solve a 1x2x3
2. Solve opposite 1x2x3 (with same color on D)
3. Corners - Requires two thoughts; 1. Orientation, then 2. Permutation color pattern
4. LSE

Let's set it's advantages/disadvantages to 0 (normal).

Color neutral (I'll call it "CN solving" here):

1. Solve a 1x2x3 - Less moves than normal solving --- Advantage.

2. Solve opposite 1x2x3 (using 4 possible colors on D) - The same amount of moves as a normal solve, you don't have time to be looking for the best first pair.

3. Corners - Requires three thoughts; 1. L/R color orientation, 2. Find the two "same" colors on the white corners, 3. Find the two "same" colors on the yellow corners (it really is split like this, try it). NMCMLL = 1.5 times longer than CMLL recognition, even if you try to find the "same" colors while figuring out the L/R color orientation. ---Disadvantage

4. LSE - Also takes longer, because of 2 reasons; 1. It's move average is 1 more than normal solving (because of the last R or L move) and 2. Edge orientation recognition is a little longer because you *have* to locate the L/R edges to know their orientation. ---Disadvantage

For CN solving that makes 1 advantage, 2 disadvantages, and one undecided (the second block). Even if you worked on the undecided one to make it count as 1 advantage, you are only at 0 (the same as normal solving). You would have to solve that second block *much* faster (even with its 1-3 fewer moves) than normal solving in order to have the overall CN solve be faster than a normal solve. But with the second block in CN solving being the same as a normal solve I don't see how that's possible. You would have to have great look-ahead abilities while solving the first block to be able to see very short solutions to the second block.

The overall move-count for CN solving would only be 1-3 moves less than normal solving Explanation: minus between 2 and 3 moves for the first block in CN solving (I was averaging 7 moves for the first block), but add .75* moves for the last turn during the LSE.

And I know all of this is strange coming from the person that made the NMCMLL charts on Gilles' page. I used to think that non-matching blocks was the future of the method, but after putting so much time into figuring out *exactly* how to think during every step of a CN solve, I started to see all of it's little disadvantages, it disappointed me, I really enjoyed solving the weird blocks.

*There are four types of blocks you can have on the right side



fanwuq said:


> The main problem is that time restraints allow for worse move count and the steps aren't as fingertrick friendly as Fridrich.



Not as fingertrick friendly? M/U/R feels faster than F/U/R to me.



DonQuixote said:


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



I know I don't put as much time into my solves as the average Fridrich user, and it doesn't seem like Gilles and Thom does anymore either. Johannes also doesn't solve much anymore.


----------



## waffle=ijm (Dec 1, 2008)

> what Athefre said above



yeah i agree that color neutral Roux with NMCMLL will completely ruin your recognition...it was just a thought seeing that i saw NMCMLL guide and that there are color neutral solvers that can go at full speed. Just combining the two seemed like a good idea but would take lots ad lots of time to practice recognition.


----------



## brunson (Dec 1, 2008)

waffle=ijm said:


> > what Athefre said above
> 
> 
> yeah i agree that color neutral Roux with NMCMLL will completely ruin your recognition...it was just a thought seeing that i saw NMCMLL guide and that there are color neutral solvers that can go at full speed. Just combining the two seemed like a good idea but would take lots ad lots of time to practice recognition.


If color affects your recognition, then you're not truly color neutral.


----------



## edavies (Dec 1, 2008)

Escher said:


> im sad that nobody has mentioned ZZ yet.
> once i have EOLine set up (i.e im not very good at it so ill start timing a solve with it done) i can average about 12-14s. add 3s for EOLine execution and i can average of 12 a whole 2-5s better. its ridiculous. for example, if i get the left 2x2x3 block done, the rest is two-gen up until PLL.
> i think that if anyone/any method is going to beat fridrich, it would be ZZ.
> it beats it on move count, can beat it on tps, beats it on lookahead, beats it on move ergonomy (no cube rotations), and is generally just really nice  with a simple Z rotation you can have two gen f2l too.
> ...



Hear hear, ZZ has to be a method with potential.

I don't think ANY method can beat Fridrich at the moment simply because Fridrich has the best resources, reputation and the most time from the community. 

Practice obvoiusly counts for more than micro-improvments in method. Just look at how many of the good people are truly colour neutral, or even opposite colour neutral. The chance of a good x-cross really improves, but times, alas do not. 

Once beyond that understanding, assessing potential is the crucial thing. The improvements to Fridrich (its variants) have pretty much all focused on LL and involve HUGE numbers of algs. ZZ offers a more ergonomic (therefore potentially faster) F2L and a better last layer (EO already done). The 'cost' of ZZ is the complexity of EOLine compared with the cross. IMHO if you studied the mental involvement of a top Fridrich solver during inspection, they will be working as hard as you need for EOLine anyway; they just haven't practiced EOLine as it isn't mainstream. Look at top cubers 2-gen times for proof that ergonomics counts.

Another factor nobody's mentioned here is the technology (Ok this is a method thread sorry guys). My uncle heard about my involvement in the UK open and was astounded that the top 6 cubers were (AFAIK anyway) using £4 chinese plastic cubes. In what other 'sport' do you see the elite using crappy kit. Golf clubs, tennis rackets, you name it; pros pay £400 for it. I'm waiting for a ridiculous rich kid to commision MIT's engineering department to produce him a carbon fibre, graphene nano-tech lubed wondercube with titanium screws and a silicone core. He could throw in ball race bearings and a hydraulic suspension system, who knows? The V-cubes are proof that there's a wealth of developments that haven't happened.


----------



## Dene (Dec 1, 2008)

brunson said:


> waffle=ijm said:
> 
> 
> > > what Athefre said above
> ...



Lol, another person that doesn't understand the concept of CN, huh brunson?


----------



## MistArts (Dec 1, 2008)

How about this method...

Orienting all the F2L pieces and place midges in the middle layer
Solve F2L
OLL/PLL or CLL/ELL


----------



## rckclmb124 (Dec 1, 2008)

How about this

1.Heise style f2l-one slot
2.finish f2l and edge orient and permutate if posible
3.Cll

I think it could be very fast if you could get the f2l-one slot done fast and efficiently if you follow the steps of the method. The only problem is there are probably a ton of algs needed for finishing the f2l and orient plus permutate the edges. I am very interested in looking into this if it has not been thought of already.


----------



## yurivish (Dec 2, 2008)

We shouldn't just sit here and talk; we should actually form a group of people dedicated to improving ZZ. There seems to be some consensus that it's a method worth developing and has the capacity to be a worthy alternative to Fridrich in terms of speed.

I use ZZ; switched over to it a few months ago when that thread came out. I currently average around 22-23, with my best average of 12 being 20.80.

- Finding a "missing link", something that can be done on-the-fly after finishing the left block, in order to make the rest of the cube 2-gen, would be a big step forward, though it might not be possible - there has been some effort in this area already.

- Figuring out several "standard" optimal/fingertrick ways to solve certain edge orientation configurations, along with some special cases would also be a boon. Right now I do ALL of them by grouping edges on the F and B faces and then turning them one 90º turn. However, there are cases for which there are efficient M-slice solutions. Some of these can be taken directly from Roux, such as M' U M. One additional restriction for us is that we want the centers to remain constant after orientation.

- "Algorithms" for the F2L – I've developed an internal set of ways that I do certain cases. I'd be more than happy to share. I think that mine are all pretty straightforward, but I think it would be a good idea to get a list of different ways people solve the same cases. I'm sure that several of the cases have better solutions than the one I have been using.

- Special cases. Is there any equivalent to the XCross for ZZ, by which I mean any advanced technique that can be used at the outset to do more than just the EOLine?


----------



## blade740 (Dec 2, 2008)

yurivish said:


> - Special cases. Is there any equivalent to the XCross for ZZ, by which I mean any advanced technique that can be used at the outset to do more than just the EOLine?



EOcross works.


----------



## brunson (Dec 2, 2008)

Dene said:


> brunson said:
> 
> 
> > waffle=ijm said:
> ...


Yeah, you pretty much drilled it home in the other thread.


----------



## DavidWoner (Dec 2, 2008)

blade740 said:


> yurivish said:
> 
> 
> > - Special cases. Is there any equivalent to the XCross for ZZ, by which I mean any advanced technique that can be used at the outset to do more than just the EOLine?
> ...



or EOLine+1x2x2

I think ZZ users should also work on blockbuilding for the left and right blocks, instead of using 2-gen Fridrich.


----------



## qqwref (Dec 2, 2008)

yurivish said:


> - Finding a "missing link", something that can be done on-the-fly after finishing the left block, in order to make the rest of the cube 2-gen, would be a big step forward, though it might not be possible - there has been some effort in this area already.



I don't really see why you want to make it 2gen. First of all, the recognition is guaranteed to be extremely difficult, which will lead to a huge pause in the middle of the solve, right where you should be going as fast as possible. And second, it doesn't affect F2L (which is 2gen anyway), so you might as well do it after F2L; but then you're just solving LL in two looks with CP/2GLL, so why not just do CO/PLL or CLL/EP or ZBLL or whatever? The way I see it, there's no easy solution and it won't help, so why bother?


----------



## Escher (Dec 2, 2008)

i dont understand your argument. do you know what phasing is?


----------



## *LukeMayn* (Dec 2, 2008)

escher:
What they are talking about is making the cube solvable with only 2 sides after the left block, not phasing but the "missing Link..."


----------



## Escher (Dec 2, 2008)

ahh, i just reread micheal hordecki's article on ZZ...

i see


----------



## McWizzle94 (Dec 3, 2008)

Vault312 said:


> I think ZZ users should also work on blockbuilding for the left and right blocks, instead of using 2-gen Fridrich.



That's true, but after doing Fridrich for so long it's hard to learn blockbuilding xD


----------



## yurivish (Dec 3, 2008)

McWizzle94 said:


> Vault312 said:
> 
> 
> > I think ZZ users should also work on blockbuilding for the left and right blocks, instead of using 2-gen Fridrich.
> ...



Er, isn't ZZ _all about_ blockbuilding the left and right sides? I do a cross occasionally when it's easier, but I try to stick with building a 2x2 and then inserting the last pair.


----------



## abr71310 (Dec 3, 2008)

Theoretically and philosophically yes...

It's called "God's Algorithm".
Currently only machines (and maybe a few people) are able to figure it out, since it requires EXTREME depth analysis, but I think given our human intelligence potential there's going to be sub-5 times for the 3x3x3 in the next twenty years...

The only reason I think that is because back in 2005, when I went off to summer camp and was first introduced to WorldCubeAssociation.com, the world record at that time was 11.18 seconds.

Now the record is 7.08 seconds, 3 years later...

I understand the argument that that was an EXTREMELY lucky solve, but remember that Harris Chan got a 9.44 unlucky solve that required some extreme AUF knowledge to complete...

God's Algorithm can currently solve any Rubik's cube in 23 moves - if I remember correctly the human brain (average) can usually only see 10-15 moves ahead (on a cube - in chess it's 7, in other games it can be as low as 4). If someone with extremely high depth analysis (like maybe Lars Vandenburgh or Guus Razoux-Schultz) skills practices 24/7 for a year, there's a high chance that they're going to see patterns that none of us see when we use our standard algorithm sets of Petrus, Fridrich or ZB (or w/e we use).


----------



## qqwref (Dec 3, 2008)

abr71310 said:


> It's called "God's Algorithm".
> Currently only machines (and maybe a few people) are able to figure it out, since it requires EXTREME depth analysis, but I think given our human intelligence potential there's going to be sub-5 times for the 3x3x3 in the next twenty years...


Maybe single, but it would have to be very lucky, and I'm pretty sure you would have to use a speed method. (20 turns @ sub-5 = 4+ TPS, so it can't be a fewest moves method like Heise...) Let me just say that I don't think it would happen, you would have to be able to basically see the solution in inspection...



abr71310 said:


> God's Algorithm can currently solve any Rubik's cube in 23 moves


Any cube can be solved in 20 moves or fewer (yes, I'm sure, even if it hasn't been proved yet), most are 17 or 18.


----------



## Lofty (Dec 3, 2008)

I think Fridrich is the best method for the state speedcubing is at now. There isn't really money in it and its just for fun so tho we put loads of time into it we dont put all our time into it. If it ever became some huge sport and we put all our time and money into it then I think something like PHZB would be the best. Basicaly Petrus/Heise start then ZBF2L+ZBLL finish. Yea the recognition for ZB isn't as easy as Fridrich and learning all those algs is a huge feat if we made it a job I think people could get it done. eventually I think it will get to a point where an average joe can't just pick up a cube and a year later be WR fast, they'll have to master something like ZB to do well. 
ZZ is good for the meantime tho. Where people are starting to spend more time cubing its a good medium, a medium number of algs and a little more blockbuilding. 
I've been wondering about the hardware thing too. If the above situation does happen I think it would be fun to go to the local sporting goods store or a spcialized cube store where you could go and get a personalized amazing high quality cube that would cost at least like a hundred or so dollars.


----------



## crabs!!! (Dec 3, 2008)

I personally thing that in the next 10 years Fridrich will no longer be the fastest method if the speedcubing community starts to develop and optimize other methods. Fridrich though will NEVER get beaten in popularity.

Since I have decided roux is going to be my main method I'm going to make a roux discussion/research thread soon. I think that all non fridrich users should join in with the community to develop their method(s).


----------



## Dene (Dec 3, 2008)

abr71310 said:


> Theoretically and philosophically yes...



How was any of this theory or philosophy? It sounded like speculation to me.
BTW, on a speedcubing webiste, you probably don't have to explain God's Algorithm (or at least, you shouldn't have to).

There is no need for a 3x3x3 solve to be solved using God's Algorithm to get sub5. All someone like Erik or Yu or Harris needs is a LL skip, with a quick F2L.


----------



## waffle=ijm (Dec 3, 2008)

crabs!!! said:


> I personally thing that in the next 10 years Fridrich will no longer be the fastest method if the speedcubing community starts to develop and optimize other methods. Fridrich though will NEVER get beaten in popularity.
> 
> Since I have decided roux is going to be my main method I'm going to make a roux discussion/research thread soon. I think that all non fridrich users should join in with the community to develop their method(s).



I SHALL JOIN!!! ROUX FTW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!  (excessive smileys)


----------



## Lord Voldemort (Dec 3, 2008)

Maybe in optimal speed, but Fridrich won't be beaten in popularity.
The very first method most people learn are all LBLs.
The fact is, Roux is a completely different type of thing, starting with corners.
Petrus requires intuition and so fast speeds will be out of a lot of peoples' ability.


----------



## Tomarse (Dec 6, 2008)

I think that its not JUST about move count, its about how fast you can execute the moves, say someone does 20 moves in er 15 seconds? and someone does 25 in 13, thats the idea. I think.


----------



## Escher (Dec 6, 2008)

which is exactly why we have ZZ, and variants of it like ZZ+ZBLL 
move ergonomy (RUL) + shorter move count (with efficient block building of the rest of f2l). EOLine averages 6 moves, too


----------



## yurivish (Dec 6, 2008)

Escher said:


> which is exactly why we have ZZ, and variants of it like ZZ+ZBLL
> move ergonomy (RUL) + shorter move count (with efficient block building of the rest of f2l). EOLine averages 6 moves, too



EOLine averages 9.


----------



## MTGjumper (Dec 6, 2008)

EOLine averages 6.xx. The maximum is 9.

Also, I definitely see ZZ having potential. I accidently did a ZZ solve earlier today and got 10.08 (OLL skip, but that's still my second best time). MY TPS was ~4.5, whereas I'm normally 3.8-4 TPS.


----------



## Tomarse (Dec 6, 2008)

MTGjumper said:


> EOLine averages 6.xx. The maximum is 9.
> 
> Also, I definitely see ZZ having potential. I accidently did a ZZ solve earlier today and got 10.08 (OLL skip, but that's still my second best time). MY TPS was ~4.5, whereas I'm normally 3.8-4 TPS.


Never heard of these methods, care to elaborate?


----------



## yurivish (Dec 6, 2008)

Tomarse said:


> MTGjumper said:
> 
> 
> > EOLine averages 6.xx. The maximum is 9.
> ...



Oh, my bad. I thought the average was 9 for some reason!

Check out http://www.speedsolving.com/forum/showthread.php?t=5180.


----------



## EmersonHerrmann (Dec 7, 2008)

About the thing a few pages back, there is someone who is non-fridrich and puts as much time into their cubes as Erik (and others)...Erik Akkersdijk has been cubing for about 3 maybe 3 1/2 years and he's around 11 seconds. Erik Johannes has been cubing for 5 YEARS with petrus so he's put in even more time with a different method .


----------



## Escher (Dec 7, 2008)

yes but... perhaps Erik A has just got more raw talent? *I REALLY AM NOT TRYING TO INSULT ERIK J* but that is always a factor you have to consider...

dammit, i quit fridrich!

i actually am going to, right now. no more fridrich f2l. im going to take a +50s hit to my times (im rubbish at EOLine) but i dont care!

this will be fun


----------



## fanwuq (Dec 7, 2008)

EmersonHerrmann said:


> About the thing a few pages back, there is someone who is non-fridrich and puts as much time into their cubes as Erik (and others)...Erik Akkersdijk has been cubing for about 3 maybe 3 1/2 years and he's around 11 seconds. _Erik Johannes_ has been cubing for 5 YEARS with petrus so he's put in even more time with a different method .



Erik Johnson and Johannes Laire. I doubt either one of them is at 5 years yet.


----------



## MistArts (Dec 7, 2008)

I think Petrus would have more potential if someone comes up some crazy URF after the 2x2x2 block.


----------



## yurivish (Dec 7, 2008)

Escher said:


> yes but... perhaps Erik A has just got more raw talent? *I REALLY AM NOT TRYING TO INSULT ERIK J* but that is always a factor you have to consider...
> 
> dammit, i quit fridrich!
> 
> ...



Sweet. My best average with Fridrich was around 25 seconds when I decided to switch this summer, when that thread came out.

I now use ZZ as my main method and my best average is 20.60, and I can average 22-23.x fairly easily. I'm still rubbish at EOline too; I only preinspect the EO and rely on luck/skill to find the 2 (or 4, quite often) edge pieces I need to place as I am orienting the edges.

It'll be annoying for a while and you'll want to quit, but I think it's a more fun method and that once you get the hang of it you'll enjoy it.


----------



## ErikJ (Dec 7, 2008)

EmersonHerrmann said:


> Erik Johannes.



Erik Johnson* lol



fanwuq said:


> Erik Johnson and Johannes Laire. I doubt either one of them is at 5 years yet.



yeah this is my 5th year

If my physical speed was as good as some other cubers I could probably get 12 second averages. idk if sub 10 averages are possible with petrus. I'm slowly getting better so we'll see


----------



## qqwref (Dec 7, 2008)

Erik Johannes would be such a beast at Petrus... I mean... wow... I can't even imagine it :O


----------



## ErikJ (Dec 7, 2008)

qqwref said:


> Erik Johannes would be such a beast at Petrus... I mean... wow... I can't even imagine it :O



ha ha, I haven't heard from Johannes, Anthony Hsu or Kyle in a long time. I might be alone in the sub 15 circle


----------



## Skrato (Dec 11, 2008)

yurivish said:


> Escher said:
> 
> 
> > yes but... perhaps Erik A has just got more raw talent? *I REALLY AM NOT TRYING TO INSULT ERIK J* but that is always a factor you have to consider...
> ...





ErikJ said:


> EmersonHerrmann said:
> 
> 
> > Erik Johannes.
> ...



Sorry for being a little ignorant, but I've done a search and can't find this EOLine thing, can someone please point me to this method? I've been looking for a new method to learn since I got sub-20 on Fridrich


----------



## Escher (Dec 11, 2008)

searching for ZZ method, i found this on the fourth result.

http://www.speedsolving.com/forum/showthread.php?t=5180&highlight=ZZ+method


----------



## rachmaninovian (Dec 11, 2008)

ErikJ said:


> qqwref said:
> 
> 
> > Erik Johannes would be such a beast at Petrus... I mean... wow... I can't even imagine it :O
> ...



someone here in singapore claims to average 15s with petrus...haha


----------



## Skrato (Dec 11, 2008)

Escher said:


> searching for ZZ method, i found this on the fourth result.
> 
> http://www.speedsolving.com/forum/showthread.php?t=5180&highlight=ZZ+method



Ah thanks a lot, I was searching EOLine not ZZ


----------



## krazedkat (Dec 12, 2008)

1. Petrus is good but not as popular
2. ZB might overthrow it
3. What is MLGS?


----------



## not_kevin (Dec 13, 2008)

krazedkat said:


> 3. What is MLGS?



MGLS - Makisumi Garron Last Slot (http://cube.garron.us/MGLS/)


----------



## krazedkat (Dec 16, 2008)

So. MGLS is kind of like the keyhole method?


----------



## *LukeMayn* (Dec 16, 2008)

no, it puts the OLL witht the last slot.
so you do all the rest like normal until the last slot. Then you orient edges while inserting the last slot edge, and then you put in the last slot corner and orient the LL corners at the same time.


----------



## krazedkat (Dec 19, 2008)

So its similar to ZB but instead of the cross it COMPLETELY orients it ...


----------



## brunson (Dec 20, 2008)

krazedkat said:


> So its similar to ZB but instead of the cross it COMPLETELY orients it ...


Have considered reading the link that was posted? It's unlike ZB because it uses two algorithms to finish the last slot, but it does skip OLL.


----------



## BigSams (Jan 3, 2009)

mgls is like an alternative to Fridrich, but has exactly the same avger number of moves.

Fridrich: Cross + Slot 1 + Slot 2 + Slot 3 + Slot 4 + OLL + PLL
MGLS: Cross + Slot 1 + Slot 2 + Slot 3 + ELS + CLS + PLL

Therefore, they have the same number of step, and for the skeptics out there, yes, the combined avg move-count for ELS + CLS + PLL equals Slot 4 + OLL + PLL. How? Because:
ELS + CLS + PLL = 6.5 + 9.5 + 12 = 28 moves avg
Slot 4 + OLL + PLL = 7.0 + 9.0 + 12 = 28 moves avg
also, i would think that the recognition of mgls cases are harder, and there are more ELS + CLS cases than OLL + PLL. so there really is no point in learning it unless you just want to be different from the mainstream "fridrich clones", as lucas garron (this method's developer) would put it.


----------



## yurivish (Jan 3, 2009)

BigSams said:


> mgls is like an alternative to Fridrich, but has exactly the same avger number of moves.
> 
> Fridrich: Cross + Slot 1 + Slot 2 + Slot 3 + Slot 4 + OLL + PLL
> MGLS: Cross + Slot 1 + Slot 2 + Slot 3 + ELS + CLS + PLL
> ...




I thought that MGLS cases were, in general, more fingertrick-friendly than OLL cases. Is this the case?


----------



## a small kitten (Jan 3, 2009)

However, MGLS is godly with petrus.


----------



## fanwuq (Jan 3, 2009)

No, If cubing gets any more popular and people get more interested in speed. Fridrich will not be the fastest method.
The way to cut down times becomes executing and thinking faster. To execute faster, you reduce number of moves while keeping fingertricks. To think faster, you need to see more at every look. 
We want an efficient, intuitive, and fingertrick friendly solution with minimal looks. Frdrich does not provide that unless we get very involved in multislotting. I think the Cross in general is a waste of moves. As people get better at look ahead and block building, Fridrich would become simply an intermediate method compared to Petrus with ZBLL or MGLS, Multi slotting with ZB, Roux with 1 look for last 6 edges, ZZ-B...


----------



## Swordsman Kirby (Jan 3, 2009)

Why can't Petrus be fast?



fanwuq said:


> Roux with 1 look for last 6 edges



As if anyone's ever going to learn that. There's already, what 200-300 algs for five edges with DB solved? 



> ZZ-B...



I don't consider ZZ to be efficient. Even less than Fridrich.



BigSams said:


> mgls is like an alternative to Fridrich


 No kidding.



> but has exactly the same avger number of moves.



EXACTLY the same? It's not even THAT close anyway.



> Fridrich: Cross + Slot 1 + Slot 2 + Slot 3 + Slot 4 + OLL + PLL
> MGLS: Cross + Slot 1 + Slot 2 + Slot 3 + ELS + CLS + PLL
> 
> Therefore, they have the same number of step,


Big deal. Why doesn't everyone do a naive approach to corners first?: FL corners, LL corners, FL edges, LL edges, M-ring edges. There are only five steps ZOMG!



> and for the skeptics out there


 Who?



> yes, the combined avg move-count for ELS + CLS + PLL equals Slot 4 + OLL + PLL. How? Because:
> ELS + CLS + PLL = 6.5 + 9.5 + 12 = 28 moves avg
> Slot 4 + OLL + PLL = 7.0 + 9.0 + 12 = 28 moves avg



Who does OPTIMAL CLS algs?



> also, i would think that the recognition of mgls cases are harder


 You would think? Besides, what's so bad about the recognition anyway.


> and there are more ELS + CLS cases than OLL + PLL.


 CLL/ELL?



> so there really is no point in learning it unless you just want to be different from the mainstream "fridrich clones"


 lol


> as lucas garron (this method's developer)


 As if no one knew that.


----------



## cubacca1972 (Jan 3, 2009)

I doubt that Fridrich or any of its variants (F2L, 2 alg LL) will be replaced by any other method as the preferred speedcubing system, for several reasons.

First, it works. The results at all the major events speak for themselves.

Second, there is plenty of accessible information available on the net, and plenty of support and encouragement from the very best cubists who use the method.

Third, the method is an extension of the layer by layer approach that most beginners would gravitate towards.

All of the above tends to extinguish any new would be speedcuber from looking elsewhere for methods. Fridrich is by default the "orthodox" method. How orthodox is it? I'd like to see how many users of the method start with their cross on the white face.

In contrast to this, consider another viable method (and its variants), corners first.

Only a handful of speedcubing events won with this method.

Access to information on the net beyond the algs (finger tricks, etc.) is insignificant in comparison to F2L methods.

Support and promotion from the very best corners first guys is very poor. I was at the 2003 event in Toronto, and met David Allen and Gene Means, who were fast. Very fast. As in sub 15 fast. Obviously, they didn't place, but they did very well during all the casual solves in the hotel lobby. I asked David for advice and tips, but didn't get much help, other than a few vague suggestions, and a few rude comments on how poorly the other cubists were holding their cubes and executing moves. After the competition, its like those guys dropped off the face of the earth. No published method, tips, tricks, nothing. The other guy who was a real booster of corners first also dropped off the face of the earth. He had started a web page which eventually vanished without ever having much substance on it. I don't know if he ever demonstrated his skills publicly to the cubing community anyway. 

Finally, after many years, Waterman's method is readily available. With a few tweaks, this could be a world class system. In order for this to happen, there would have to be many cubists using it or some other corners first system to have any serious impact on the competitive stage. If David Allen and Gene Means had a larger contingent of cubists of similar ability at 2003, I think there would have been a good chance that at least one of them would have placed, and possibly won. 

Given the mildly antisocial/reclusive nature of the world's best corners first cubists, how in the world is the system going to get any serious traction? If corners first is relegated to relative obscurity, what chance would any other system have at overtaking F2L?


----------



## Lucas Garron (Jan 3, 2009)

Some corrections.



BigSams said:


> ELS + CLS + PLL = 6.5 + 9.5 + 12 = 28 moves avg
> Slot 4 + OLL + PLL = 7.0 + 9.0 + 12 = 28 moves avg


ELS is 5.7-ish optimal, even if it takes a bit of work. Then there's edge control to consider, and especially AUF, which is mandatory for CLS.
OLL's AUF is probably not included in movecount, but many fast solvers AUF instead of rotations.
And most importantly, CLS is much better with longer 2-gen algs.
The difference between the optimal methods is irrelevant with several dozen other practical factors considered, and I don't care why people talk about it so much as if it mattered.



BigSams said:


> so there really is no point in learning it unless you just want to be different from the mainstream


That is the exact reason you'd want to learn it. Because that's what it is, yet compatible enough with Fridrich, and still viable for fast speedsolving.


I'm not sure why I even participate in these discussions anymore.


----------



## Rabid (Jan 5, 2009)

Cubing is in the Dark Ages. In 20 Years Fridrich might be a quaint footnote.


----------



## BigSams (Jan 6, 2009)

"Rabid" is right.. nothing other than fridrich has been explored to the limits. everything is up in the air. this is probably so many people use fridrich: it was popular before and its full potential has been shown, and it just snowballed from tghere.

So lets get this straight. for serious speedcubers, there needs to be an EXPERT method, or perhaps several methods, that go beyond the classic ADVANCED like Fridrich and Petrus.

ZB has already been made, but it is not practical for many people because:
1.) ZBLL cases are hard to recognize
2.) There are wayyyy to many cases (ZBF2L + ZBLL = 800 algs), even for a serious cuber

Then there are various other methods, that are used by few people, and the ultimate potential is unknown.
Examples: ZZ (i'm not fully sure how this works either lol), waterman, etc.

Note: there are always additional techniques like multislotting, extra OLL cases where everything is already Permuted, etc.

I think that the future of cubing lies with finding SOME SORT OF perfect combination of current methods, and creating a hybrid method/s that has:
1.) a practical number of algs to memorize
2.) cases that are not too hard to recognize

and dont forget, wayy too many people have already learned fridrich, so it would be best if the hybrid would be an extension of fridrich
OR someone would have to discover a revolutionary new method that just blows away everything else


----------



## mrbiggs (Jan 6, 2009)

Rabid said:


> Cubing is in the Dark Ages. In 20 Years Fridrich might be a quaint footnote.



Maybe, but maybe not. Fridrich has some good things going for it:

1. The first step (cross) is easily and consistently figured out during preinspection, while solving some of the most difficult-to-see pieces
2. The second step (F2L) has the least easily recognizable cases and hardest-to-find pieces of the whole method, but you have four then three then two options as to which part of the cube to solve next. It has excellent lookahead.
3. The last steps (OLL+PLL) have easy recognition and fast, easy to memorize, and easily optimizable algorithms.

Most of the other popular algorithms for speedcubing have those advantages too, to a greater or lesser extent (Roux and Petrus, for example). Some don't (corners first). 

ZZ, I think, has a lot of potential, as it has several clear advantages over Fridrich, such as taking more advantage of inspection time, a 1LLL, and blockbuilding to reduce move count. The method hasn't been fully developed, however, and until phasing and EOLine are both well-defined and documented I don't think we'll see any WR contender times with it.


----------



## qqwref (Jan 6, 2009)

Rabid said:


> Cubing is in the Dark Ages. In 20 Years Fridrich might be a quaint footnote.



No, the 1990s were the Dark Ages. See any new methods or techniques which came from that time? Do you know many speedcubers who started then? Exactly.

And I don't think Fridrich will ever be "a quaint footnote". I'm sorry if you don't like it, but it IS very fast compared to how easy it is to learn. People have gotten sub-20 with it in just two or three months, and it requires very little intuition and under 100 algorithms. Unlike with Petrus and Roux, you don't have to be good at blockbuilding to get sub-20 with Fridrich. Fridrich has a huge support structure which has been around basically since 1997. It is also an extension of the LBL method, which is probably one of the easiest ways to start cubing. I can see Fridrich being beaten (especially among top speedcubers) by a faster, easier, and/or more efficient method, but I don't think it will ever become unpopular. It is simply too easy and too fast to go completely out of style.

By the way: Want to get really fast with a cool intuitive method that isn't related to Fridrich, but still has good fingertricks? I think Roux has the highest potential of any currently common, non-Fridrich-based method.


----------



## fanwuq (Jan 6, 2009)

qqwref said:


> Rabid said:
> 
> 
> > Cubing is in the Dark Ages. In 20 Years Fridrich might be a quaint footnote.
> ...



Exactly. Perfect explanation.
I tried to explain something similar on another forum but ended up getting attacked for calling Fridrich a "beginner method." What I meant was simply that it builds a block of only 2 pieces at a time rather than trying to see many possibilities for the blocks at a time in Petrus or Roux. I can see it beaten by the top speedcubers who might learn to track more pieces at once and use a blockbuilding approach to save moves.


----------



## Rabid (Jan 6, 2009)

I don’t _dislike _Fridrich. I in fact find it difficult to summon a strong emotional response towards _any _algorithmic method. I’m _suggesting _it may one day take a back seat (or other dead metaphor) to faster methods. 

The King’s Gambit was a top Grand Master opening for hundreds of years. It’s rarely played in serious tournaments anymore.

I still open with the King’s Gambit now and then even though I know full well it’s almost _completely _busted. My results are still pretty good because I play a few tricky lines and I play aggressively against opponents who are less studied. I’m sure Fridrich will be in the tournament mix for a long time.

The popularization of speed-cubing mirrors that of the internet itself. The advent of youtube and forums allowed the subcult to spread without borders.
Iron sharpens Iron.

I see the future of optimization being about minimizing rotation and idealizing finger tricks.


----------



## qqwref (Jan 6, 2009)

Rabid said:


> The King’s Gambit was a top Grand Master opening for hundreds of years. It’s rarely played in serious tournaments anymore.
> 
> I still open with the King’s Gambit now and then even though I know full well it’s almost _completely _busted. My results are still pretty good because I play a few tricky lines and I play aggressively against opponents who are less studied. I’m sure Fridrich will be in the tournament mix for a long time.



Ah, but it's different in Chess. Chess is a competitive sport - you're directly competing against someone else, and your skill is measured by how well you do against others. Since you are responding to your opponent's moves, if you know they are likely to do something before you actually play against them, you can prepare for it. So with the King's Gambit, top players used it for centuries because it was so hard to defend against - but as soon as the defense became common knowledge among top players, it was no longer a good move, because you could be sure that your opponent would know how to beat you if you used it. You're in a position where your opponents sometimes don't know how to beat the King's Gambit, but if you were a grandmaster you could expect your opponents to always know it, so instead of being a good move it would be extremely dangerous.

Apparently Street Fighter (and other competitive fighting games) work in a similar way, although on a much faster timescale. If someone discovers a really great move or combination, it will soon be picked up by everyone because it is a reliable way to do well. But as soon as someone else finds a way to counter it, and that becomes widely known, all of the top players stop using the move. It was only good in the first place because there WAS no defense, and now that everyone can counter it there is no advantage to be gained from using it anymore. (Note that, since Street Fighter is a realtime game, expert players will sometimes use attacks that they know can be easily defended against, because by doing something unexpected they can confuse the opponent into making a mistake in a defense that they don't have practice with. Chess does not have this issue because the opponent always has plenty of time to think about the move before they have to react, so if you try to do something which is easily countered, an experienced opponent will always be able to defend against it.)

On the other hand, cubing isn't competitive in the same sense. You might think cubing is a competitive sport because you go to competitions and compete against others, but in fact all you are doing is trying to solve a particular cube as fast as you can, and the ranking of competitors against each other isn't related to that at all. There is nothing head to head against cubing, and what that means is that if someone is using a really good method there is no possible "defense" - an "opponent" in cubing can't do anything to counter your method, except by getting faster times, which still wouldn't prevent you from using the method. The only reason a cubing method would be invalidated would be if there was one that was released that was significantly better, and even if that did happen it would still be acceptable for people to stick with the old method, because you can still get acceptable times with it. I can imagine a future in which 11.xx official averages are no longer world-class, but I can't imagine one in which 11.xx would not be considered good on an objective scale.

I guess I'd compare cubing in this sense to something like competitive swimming or track. Where we have method, they have form. Since those sports are all about times and there is no direct competition (in the sense that what you do will greatly affect the opponent and vice versa), there is nothing that could invalidate a particular form except the discovery of a better one, and even then it will still be possible to be decent (although not world-class) with the old form.


----------



## cubacca1972 (Jan 8, 2009)

After looking at the Roux method, I would think it is the current best candidate to "beat" the Fridrich method. That is to say, get significant traction with a large number of speed cubers.

It seems to be a cool hybridization of Fridrich, Petrus, and Waterman, without really being too oppressive in the algorithm count. Seems to be freaky fast in the right hands.


----------



## abr71310 (Jan 8, 2009)

I still firmly hold the belief that in 20 years, somebody will have solved God's Algorithm purely by their mind, and will be able to explain how to do EVERY SINGLE TIME... in the 15 second pre-inspection time.

I'm actually expecting times of sub-4 by 2030, but that's just me.

And no, I'm never getting there -- I can't even consistently get sub-40s, let alone sub-30s...

But it's fairly obvious somebody's going to come up with something brilliant, if not brilliantly efficient (God's Algorithm = win, Roux, I believe, is one of the closest FMs to GA) in the VERY near future, since the Cube has only been in society for what, 20-30 years now???


----------



## Johannes91 (Jan 8, 2009)

abr71310 said:


> ... somebody will have solved God's Algorithm purely by their mind ...


What does that mean? What's your definition of "God's Algorithm"?



abr71310 said:


> God's Algorithm = win


Aha. I'm looking forward to seeing some "solve win purely by their mind".



abr71310 said:


> Roux, I believe, is one of the closest FMs to GA


Roux is a FM? What does that stand for?


----------



## d4m4s74 (Jan 8, 2009)

god's alg, the most efficient way to solve ever, the minimal amount of moves, only to be beaten by Frank's algorythm which has the minimal amount of moves AND Is fingertrick friendly


----------



## qqwref (Jan 8, 2009)

I thought Frank's Algorithm used fewer than the minimal number of moves. Maybe you're using the wrong one.

More seriously... I'm sorry but I don't think anyone will ever solve the cube optimally by hand in under an hour. Perhaps you don't understand how difficult this actually is... it took some 10 years for computers to advance to the level where they could compute an optimal solution for one scramble. The best I think anyone could ever do would be a basic intuitive 2-phase solution (30ish moves optimally, I think); remember that Kociemba's algorithm has to try many different things to get an optimal sequence, so if you just brute force your way through a 2-phase solution you probably won't get a very efficient solve. You can't just go forward with an intuitive solution and solve the cube optimally; you have to actually try hundreds of times to get a near-optimal solution. It's not feasible.


----------



## Mike Hughey (Jan 8, 2009)

qqwref said:


> More seriously... I'm sorry but I don't think anyone will ever solve the cube optimally by hand in under an hour. ... You can't just go forward with an intuitive solution and solve the cube optimally; you have to actually try hundreds of times to get a near-optimal solution. It's not feasible.


Unless you're Tony Snyder.


----------



## qqwref (Jan 8, 2009)

Yes, well, I don't believe that >_>


----------



## a small kitten (Jan 9, 2009)

> Believe it or not with today's 19 turn solve I only studied for a few seconds. The key is to use what you learned from the algorithms, not the algorithms themselves, then combine and adapt as you go.




I don't think anybody does xD. Who is Tony Snyder anyway?


----------



## Derrick Eide17 (Jan 9, 2009)

a small kitten said:


> > Believe it or not with today's 19 turn solve I only studied for a few seconds. The key is to use what you learned from the algorithms, not the algorithms themselves, then combine and adapt as you go.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



You just answered your own question


----------



## Mike Hughey (Jan 9, 2009)

a small kitten said:


> > Believe it or not with today's 19 turn solve I only studied for a few seconds. The key is to use what you learned from the algorithms, not the algorithms themselves, then combine and adapt as you go.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I've always wondered that too. If he were for real, it would be wonderful to see him come to a competition and compete in fewest moves. He'd apply the scramble, look at the cube a few seconds, start turning and writing each move down as he goes, wind up with a solved cube 23 or 24 moves later, reapply the scramble and check the solution, and then turn it in about 4 minutes after the start and leave. And beat the world record by several moves.

Uh, yeah, I have to admit I don't believe it either. I just think it's fun to imagine.


----------



## qqwref (Jan 9, 2009)

Haha. Does anyone remember the video where Gillex Roux scrambles a cube, then solves it in 19 moves all in one take? It was for a fake video contest, but it looked really good and clean.

I think Tony Snyder claimed something like a 16 second average back in the 1980s, too. If he's for real I'd like to meet him someday.


----------



## beingforitself (Jan 10, 2009)

http://www.cubestation.co.uk/cs2/index.php?page=profiles/profile.php&uname=unslaver

HE DOES IT WITH TIME DILATION....

>.<


----------



## qqwref (Jan 10, 2009)

beingforitself said:


> http://www.cubestation.co.uk/cs2/index.php?page=profiles/profile.php&uname=unslaver



"For the record, my turn counting goes like this: "any simultaneous movement of the cube is one turn"."

LMAO


----------



## Kieran (Jan 10, 2009)

Someone who mainly talked about chess for their entire reply, mentioned something interesting, that cubing had no competition because you are simply solving the cube and not against anyone else. I had a thought, it could be cool to have a Tennis-Type set-up in the way that you have qualifiying to narrow it down to say 128 people, then you are 1v1 with a solve each and the best average of 12. Could be cool? Just an idea.

I don't think it is even feasable to learn or get anywhere near God's Algorithm, mainly because computers solve the cube by trying thousands of times? Correct me if I'm wrong, so how is a Human supposed to see that? And I think the main reason Fridrich users' are so fast is because it's so finger-trick friendly? If there possibly was someone who could calculate GA, then it's not exactly going to be finger friendly. To show what I mean, take a finished cube, do this scramble.

U' L2 U' B2 U' B2 U' R2 U' F2 U' L D' B L2 D' L2 F U2 L' U2

then, as fast as you possibly can, finish it with GA. 

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

p.s. This took the computer nearly 30 minutes to calculate, yet a person can definitely do this?

What I'm saying is that, even if some-one could figure out GA in the 15 second inspection time, I really don't think that it's going to be possible to sub-5 (20 moves, 4.xx tps) unless someone gets a really lucky solve, LL skip, or double-slots the F2L.


----------



## qqwref (Jan 11, 2009)

Kieran said:


> Someone who mainly talked about chess for their entire reply, mentioned something interesting, that cubing had no competition because you are simply solving the cube and not against anyone else. I had a thought, it could be cool to have a Tennis-Type set-up in the way that you have qualifiying to narrow it down to say 128 people, then you are 1v1 with a solve each and the best average of 12. Could be cool? Just an idea.



This is called a "single elimination tournament". This has been considered as an unofficial side event in a tournament (probably with MUCH fewer people, say the top 16 finishers, and an avg5 where you have to win 3 solves). But cubing can never reasonably be a competition in the sense I was talking about, a player-versus-player thing. No matter how fast you go you can never affect what the other player has to do to finish their solve; the best you can do is beat their time. Nobody will ever have to try different cubing strategies based on their opponent.


----------



## Gunnar (Jan 11, 2009)

qqwref said:


> beingforitself said:
> 
> 
> > http://www.cubestation.co.uk/cs2/index.php?page=profiles/profile.php&uname=unslaver
> ...



LOL, that's a creative way of improving results. Like if you're video taping a speed solve and then calculate the time used for turning and take that as your time, because it's the real solving time.


----------

