# Old man (50+) starting to cube - (pønten's progression thread)



## pønten (Feb 23, 2022)

As I wrote in my introduction post about 3 weeks ago, I had ordered a cube (3x3x3). That was about 40 years after I last held a cube in my hands! I was told that the cube I ordered should take 2-4 days to be delivered, but I had to wait 20 days, and I only got it exactly one week ago.

I can only vaguely remember what might have been my best solving time back then when I was a kid, but I think it was somewhere between 1:40 and 1:50 (minutes). So obviously, my first goal would be to beat that.

*Long story short:* I reached my initial goal today with 1:39.74, clocked in just a few hours left of my first week with the cube. Method: Beginner Roux.

I might update this thread with new posts if/when I have something to say, but for the rest of this post I'm summing up the first week. Feel free to skip that rambling remainder of this post! 

*THE CUBE: Weilong WR M 2021 (3x3):*
First thought: "Really, that small size?" I'm not sure if the standard size cube I had as a kid was bigger, or if it was just me who was smaller. I might look for a slightly bigger cube next time, having over average sized hands/fingers, but I guess I'm starting to get used to it.

Second thought: "What is this, a cube or a sort of rubber ball?" My cube 40 years ago, was stiff and rigid, but my new I could bend and twist in all directions. I have adjusted it, using both the screws and the spring adjustment, and it feels better now. It also helped a lot for the feeling of control with a few drops of lube (Traxxas).

So when getting used to both size and springy-ness, I was left with one problem: *The yellow color is so light that I can't easily distinguish it from the white color *unless under pretty strong light. At the start I had so many problems when trying to solve the cube, only to find out that some of what I believed to be white pieces at the bottom were actually yellow. Solving it with the light on my bedside was impossible. It might be my old eyes to blame for this, but I know that if I buy another cube later, I'm going to look for one with a strong yellow.

For now I made a modification. I didn't have any yellow stickers, but I had small round white stickers laying around. I have temporarily put the white stickers on the white cube pieces, which didn't really help a lot. But I also drew a tiny dot on the middle of each sticker. So now it is possible to solve the cube without mixing up yellow and white all the time, even in some normal dim light. I'm probably going to look for some yellow stickers later.

*1st DAY (Wednesday 16th February):*
I finally got the cube this evening, after 20 days of transportation and unknown stops. I felt a bit intimidated of the cube at first (small size, springy-ness, weak yellow color), and was not even able to solve the second block in a very long time (Roux method). So I skipped my plans to try to solve it that evening, and all I did was to take it apart, do some initial adjustments, and about an hour or so just doing "sexy moves", trying to get used to it. Not very "sexy", as the best I managed doing 60 "sexy moves" was 53 slow seconds.

*2nd DAY (Thursday):*
I had used the weeks waiting for my cube to arrive, to read up and watch videos on the Roux method. Lots of great help and instructions, but it was the 9 episodes teaching Beginner Roux by DeeDubb from 2014 on YouTube that really helped me the most. The beginner method uses Red in front, Yellow on top, always starting building Blue block, with the White-Blue edge first. Then Green block. Then placing the upper corners by doing Niklas (R U' L' U R' U' L U), normally one time, sometimes two times, or even more times (when I swap the wrong pieces). Then turning the corners with yellow up, using Sune (R U R' U R U2 R') normally 2 or 3 times. And then the last 6 edges. In total only 2 algorithms used.

So the second day I went through some videos again, and did my first solve. It took long time, lots of mistakes and needs to go back and do earlier steps again. After I managed to do it once, I decided to do my first timed solve, just to see how slow it would be. 32 minutes! That time includes going back to the videos and my notes, since I had forgotten quite a few things. Next solve took "only" 21 minutes, still needing to use videos/notes. 3rd time I solved it all by myself, in 8 minutes. Tired after work earlier that day, I only did 2-3 solves after that, the fastest in a bit over 5 minutes.

*3rd DAY (Friday):*
My birthday. Didn't do any timed solves. Just a few lazy solves.

*4th-5th DAY (Saturday-Sunday):*
Had some sessions with timed solving during the weekend. Managed to get the time down to 2:05.

*6th-7th DAY (Monday-Tuesday):*
Just a few timed solves, not many, and no new best-time, but managed to get my best Ao5 down to sub 2:30 minutes.

I used quite some time to work out a system to quickly see which upper-corner pieces to swap around, using the Niklas algorithm. Until now I had used lots of time to make sure which corners to swap, as I moved the upper layer around in different positions and visually compared the colors to the colored blocks I had build in the lower two layers. The system I made for myself, which seems to work quite well, is as follows:

Find the Blue-Red corner (ignoring the yellow upper color), and then find the second Blue corner. Then one of these 3 situations occur:

If the second Blue corner is neighbor CLOCKWISE to the Blue-Red corner, then check the corner after the second Blue corner (clockwise). If it has Orange in it, then all corners are positioned in correct order (YAY!). If it has Red in it, the two corners with Green in it have to be swapped.
If the second Blue corner is neighbor ANTI-clockwise to the Blue-Red corner, then again check the corner after the second Blue corner (now anti-clockwise). If it has Orange it it, then a double swapping of corners is needed (NAY! Need to do Niklas twice!). If it has Red in it, it is only the two corners with Blue in it that have to be swapped.
If the second Blue corner however is diagonal from the Blue-Red corner, then check the corner between them, going clockwise from the Blue-Red corner to the second Blue Corner. The in-between corner has either Red or Orange color in it, and that is the color of the two corner-pieces that have to be swapped.
The system might sound complicated, but it has already helped me a lot. Still using probably a second to find out, which will go faster after some more training I suppose, but still much better than the 10-15 seconds I easily could use before I made the system, and often I also swapped the wrong pieces before I had the system.

*8th DAY (Wednesday/Today):*
Until now I had only learned/used the 2 algorithms needed for beginner Roux; Niklas for positioning the upper corners, and Sune several times to turn the corners. There are actually 42 algorithms in the full Roux method, one for each possible combination of positioning the corners and how to turn the corners to yellow side up. I decided, when still using Niklas to swap the corners, I want to start with learning the 7 different algorithms to turn the corners when they already are in the correct position, so I don't have to use Sune several times in a row.

So this morning, I started with learned Anti-Sune (AS1) and the H1. Anti-Sune was even easier than Sune (U' is easier than U for me), and H1 was also not hard. I can see some of the other algorithms are quite longer, and I suppose everything gets exponentially harder when I have to remember and distinguish between many different algorithms, so I will not try to learn them too fast.

Then I did a few solves this afternoon, lots of mistakes in the solving, so I used between 2:30-6 minutes, still not beating my 2:05 minutes from a few days ago. But then, suddenly a PB 25 seconds faster in the 7th try, far from perfect, but 1:39.74 was just barely better than my first goal, and I've now beaten the 40-years younger version of myself! 

I suppose my next goal should be 1 minute. I expect that will take some time, and every new 10-seconds (1:30 first, then 1:20, etc) will be a sub-goal in itself.

And of course, Ao5 is important too. Current PB for Ao5 is barely sub 2:30. I have made about 100 timed solves the first week, lets say 120 if I also count the solves I didn't time.


----------



## Swamp347 (Feb 24, 2022)

pønten said:


> The yellow color is so light that I can't easily distinguish it from the white color


I’m not sure if the WR M 2021 has this, but some cubes have Black tiles that you can buy.


----------



## Dan the Beginner (Feb 24, 2022)

pønten said:


> As I wrote in my introduction post about 3 weeks ago, I had ordered a cube (3x3x3). That was about 40 years after I last held a cube in my hands! I was told that the cube I ordered should take 2-4 days to be delivered, but I had to wait 20 days, and I only got it exactly one week ago.
> 
> I can only vaguely remember what might have been my best solving time back then when I was a kid, but I think it was somewhere between 1:40 and 1:50 (minutes). So obviously, my first goal would be to beat that.
> 
> ...


Congratulations! You are doing fine, Pønten.

I started only last April, when I was 75 and I had never solved the cube before then. I put dark mustard like yellow stickers on my cubes. I think it must be the cataract.  I started with the Beginners CFOP method and then gave up when faced with all the algorithms of 4LLL, and switched to a simple Roux like method. 

I managed to get occasional sub 1 min solves after 6 months, but then I had a left thumb injury and stopped for 3 months. Watch out and rest if there is swelling or pain. Don't push it, like I did, which made it worse. I'm fine now and starting again, going slowly with baby steps.


----------



## Flowkap (Feb 24, 2022)

Welcome, and great introduction! I'm myself am considered an "older" Cuber with the age of 36. I'm using Roux mainly and main the WRM2021 MAGLEV. The cube is awesome for Roux die to light slice turns. I hope you'll enjoy your journey. 

I also found out, that solving different puzzles makes me happier than just being quicker at 3x3 (which I still try to get faster of course), resulting in me having almost all WCA events already. Just waiting for 6x6 and 7x7.


----------



## Malakai81 (Feb 24, 2022)

Hi ,great work Pønten, that's excellent progression. I'm 40 years old and been cubing for 5 months, I have a WRM 2021 Maglev it's one of my favorite cubes. I have trouble seeing the difference between the yellow and white tiles in low light on all my cubes (I am mildly colorblind), white light opposed to warm yellow light helps a lot. I use a white LED lamp at my desk. Good to see some "older cubers" are around. Let's smash this so-called "Age Barrier". I'm using CFOP and avg 32 seconds with an @home PB of 23.37 Best of luck


----------



## pønten (Feb 24, 2022)

Swamp347 said:


> I’m not sure if the WR M 2021 has this, but some cubes have Black tiles that you can buy.


That's a great idea! If nothing else, at least something to have in mind if buying another cube later. I think I read somewhere that it was normal with Black instead of White in Japan (?)


----------



## qwr (Feb 24, 2022)

Black is an excellent color for contrast over yellow. Many square-1 solvers replace yellow with black because of how they show up together on top and bottom faces for recognition.


----------



## pønten (Feb 24, 2022)

Dan the Beginner said:


> Congratulations! You are doing fine, Pønten.
> 
> I started only last April, when I was 75 and I had never solved the cube before then. I put dark mustard like yellow stickers on my cubes. I think it must be the cataract.  I started with the Beginners CFOP method and then gave up when faced with all the algorithms of 4LLL, and switched to a simple Roux like method.
> 
> I managed to get occasional sub 1 min solves after 6 months, but then I had a left thumb injury and stopped for 3 months. Watch out and rest if there is swelling or pain. Don't push it, like I did, which made it worse. I'm fine now and starting again, going slowly with baby steps.


75 - that's amazing. I'm still just a young lad then 

Dark mustard sounds like an excellent contrast to white indeed.

Yes, good advice taking it easy and be careful with injuries. Luckily part of the joy I have with cubing (as with many other activities) is to study it and finding out new things, which I can do when resting my fingers. After pain and injuries in my knees for several years each time I tried to take up running, I finally gave in and started practicing fast walking (race walk style) last year with good luck. It is especially important to listen to your body and adapt when it grows older. One of the reasons I like the cube, in addition to the fun by itself, is to keep my fingers, as well as my brain, in a better shape. But I see how overdoing the cubing can be bad for old fingers instead of good.

The best of luck with your 75 years old baby steps back into sub 1 min!


----------



## pønten (Feb 24, 2022)

Flowkap said:


> Welcome, and great introduction! I'm myself am considered an "older" Cuber with the age of 36. I'm using Roux mainly and main the WRM2021 MAGLEV. The cube is awesome for Roux die to light slice turns. I hope you'll enjoy your journey.
> 
> I also found out, that solving different puzzles makes me happier than just being quicker at 3x3 (which I still try to get faster of course), resulting in me having almost all WCA events already. Just waiting for 6x6 and 7x7.


After the reply from 75 years old Dan, I found out that I was just a young lad myself, so I wonder how we should categorize 36 then 

Maglev seems like something I like to try at some point. I considered it, but decided for a more "traditional" cube as my first. And yes, while I want to concentrate on the 3x3 at the moment, I do see myself trying other puzzles in the future, especially if/when my progress at 3x3 should slow down a lot.


----------



## pønten (Feb 24, 2022)

Malakai81 said:


> Hi ,great work Pønten, that's excellent progression. I'm 40 years old and been cubing for 5 months, I have a WRM 2021 Maglev it's one of my favorite cubes. I have trouble seeing the difference between the yellow and white tiles in low light on all my cubes (I am mildly colorblind), white light opposed to warm yellow light helps a lot. I use a white LED lamp at my desk. Good to see some "older cubers" are around._* Let's smash this so-called "Age Barrier". *_I'm using CFOP and avg 32 seconds with an @home PB of 23.37 Best of luck



"A man has no age!" (inspired from Game of Thrones: "A girl has no name!")


----------



## pønten (Feb 24, 2022)

qwr said:


> Black is an excellent color for contrast over yellow. Many square-1 solvers replace yellow with black because of how they show up together on top and bottom faces for recognition.



Thanks to you and all others who mentioned "Black", I got a new idea. Earlier I had drawn a tiny black dot on a white sticker, and put the sticker on the white pieces, as I didn't want to draw directly on the pieces. But now you all made me take the idea further. I painted new stickers all black with a marker pen, and replaced the old markers, as shown in the pictures under. I think that will work even better, because even with the small dot, I sometimes chose yellow. I hope my brain now can think "Black" instead of "Tiny dot".

EDIT: Actually the small dot was even much tinier than in the picture. I had just enlarged the dots, when I decided to make it all black.


----------



## OtterCuber (Feb 24, 2022)

Hello, welcome! It's unfortunate that yellow/white are not easily distinguishable; it is a problem many people have voiced before. But I'm glad you found some solutions. Changing white to black is indeed a wonderful solution.


----------



## Garf (Feb 24, 2022)

pønten said:


> Thanks to you and all others who mentioned "Black", I got a new idea. Earlier I had drawn a tiny black dot on a white sticker, and put the sticker on the white pieces, as I didn't want to draw directly on the pieces. But now you all made me take the idea further. I painted new stickers all black with a marker pen, and replaced the old markers, as shown in the pictures under. I think that will work even better, because even with the small dot, I sometimes chose yellow. I hope my brain now can think "Black" instead of "Tiny dot".
> 
> EDIT: Actually the small dot was even much tinier than in the picture. I had just enlarged the dots, when I decided to make it all black.
> 
> View attachment 18725View attachment 18726


IS THAT A WRM 2021???


----------



## OtterCuber (Feb 24, 2022)

TheEpicCuber said:


> IS THAT A WRM 2021???


Yeah, he said he has a *Weilong WR M 2021*


----------



## pønten (Feb 24, 2022)

TheEpicCuber said:


> IS THAT A WRM 2021???





OtterCuber said:


> Yeah, he said he has a *Weilong WR M 2021*



Correct!


----------



## Garf (Feb 24, 2022)

pønten said:


> Correct!


At least you didn't sharpie the actual pieces. I have mad respect for the WRM 2021.


----------



## unirox13 (Feb 24, 2022)

Awesome intro, sounds like you're off to a great start! I'm currently in the " somewhat older" cuber category. I started cubing when I was around 16 years old, now at 33, I've been involved in this hobby for over half of my life. When I started, speed was my main focus, like so many others. However, over the past five or so years, speed has kind of left my cubing interests. I've gathered a collection of over 100 different puzzles and collecting and figuring out how to solve different puzzles has become my main interest. If you have interest in learning or figuring out some new unique puzzles in the future, I'd definitely suggest that you stick with the basic puzzles for a few years. Learn as much as you can about how they move and understanding what the algorithms you're performing are actually doing, not just the end result of them. Understanding the base puzzles of any set of puzzle variety can be a huge benefit in figuring out their more complicated siblings. 

If you are interested in some unique puzzles and want to see things explained very well by a cuber that's been in the business for quite some time, I'd recommend you check out SuperAntonioVivaldi on YouTube. The man is a puzzle genius and has a great way of relating new puzzles back to one's that may have similar solve strategies. Not sure how old he is, but speed is not his main focus. He's been incredible in helping me build my puzzle strategy repertoire. 

As far as the color issues go. Quite a few of the quality speed cubes are still offered in black plastic https://www.thecubicle.com/collections/3x3-speed-cubes/products/gan356-xs?variant=30834906169417 for example. With that setup you can choose your own sticker colors allowing you to customize the color contrasts to better fit your eyes. In fact, for quite some time, stickerless cubes weren't even allowed in WCA competitions. 

Happy cubing!


----------



## pønten (Feb 24, 2022)

TheEpicCuber said:


> At least you didn't sharpie the actual pieces. I have mad respect for the WRM 2021.


No disrespect - just a sticker that can easily be pealed off!


----------



## pønten (Feb 24, 2022)

unirox13 said:


> Awesome intro, sounds like you're off to a great start! I'm currently in the " somewhat older" cuber category. I started cubing when I was around 16 years old, now at 33, I've been involved in this hobby for over half of my life. When I started, speed was my main focus, like so many others. However, over the past five or so years, speed has kind of left my cubing interests. I've gathered a collection of over 100 different puzzles and collecting and figuring out how to solve different puzzles has become my main interest. If you have interest in learning or figuring out some new unique puzzles in the future, I'd definitely suggest that you stick with the basic puzzles for a few years. Learn as much as you can about how they move and understanding what the algorithms you're performing are actually doing, not just the end result of them. Understanding the base puzzles of any set of puzzle variety can be a huge benefit in figuring out their more complicated siblings.
> 
> If you are interested in some unique puzzles and want to see things explained very well by a cuber that's been in the business for quite some time, I'd recommend you check out SuperAntonioVivaldi on YouTube. The man is a puzzle genius and has a great way of relating new puzzles back to one's that may have similar solve strategies. Not sure how old he is, but speed is not his main focus. He's been incredible in helping me build my puzzle strategy repertoire.
> 
> ...


Thanks for tips and info! I would like to understand the algorithms, but I think that needs quite a bit of experience. Currently I've quite enough with single moves, and can't plan more than 2 or 3 moves before I start a solve. But when I'm learning a new algorithm, I do like to try it on a clean cube, so I can see exactly what has happened, not only the main pieces that I'm moving/turning, but also the other pieces (of course I don't remember that afterwards, yet). Also, the first evening when I got the cube, and I spent most of the evening only doing "sexy moves", it was mainly to get a feel for the cube, how fast I could move before I messed up, etc. But it was also kind of mesmerizing to follow the corner-pieces when I did those moves, and see how they moved back and forth between a few positions, while flipping color on their way.

Pling! SuperAntonioVivaldi is now on my sub-list.

When I bought this first cube, I had absolutely no experience to use in my decision. All I could do was to read reviews. Next time I should know a bit more what I'm looking for, however I do like VRM


----------



## pønten (Feb 24, 2022)

Btw, I did shave off another 12 seconds on a single solve this evening for a sub-1:30 (1:27.04)


----------



## OtterCuber (Feb 24, 2022)

pønten said:


> Thanks for tips and info! I would like to understand the algorithms, but I think that needs quite a bit of experience. Currently I've quite enough with single moves, and can't plan more than 2 or 3 moves before I start a solve. But when I'm learning a new algorithm, I do like to try it on a clean cube, so I can see exactly what has happened, not only the main pieces that I'm moving/turning, but also the other pieces (of course I don't remember that afterwards, yet). Also, the first evening when I got the cube, and I spent most of the evening only doing "sexy moves", it was mainly to get a feel for the cube, how fast I could move before I messed up, etc. But it was also kind of mesmerizing to follow the corner-pieces when I did those moves, and see how they moved back and forth between a few positions, while flipping color on their way.
> 
> Pling! SuperAntonioVivaldi is now on my sub-list.
> 
> When I bought this first cube, I had absolutely no experience to use in my decision. All I could do was to read reviews. Next time I should know a bit more what I'm looking for, however I do like VRM


By the way, as an older cuber myself, I also do not like sluggish cubes. You would like the GAN 12 MagLev a lot, because it is very easy to turn.


----------



## Tabe (Feb 24, 2022)

A few things:

1) Yes, the cubes today are smaller than what you remember. The original Rubik's Cube you're familiar with is 57mm. Current cubes run 54-56mm (generally). The WR M 2021 is 55mm. 2mm doesn't seem like a big difference but, as you've seen, it is. If you want something 57mm or larger, you'll have to take a step down in quality and features. You can buy a Qiyi Sail (they come in multiple sizes up to 68mm) but they aren't adjustable and you would have to magnetize it yourself. Most Gan cubes are 56mm, however, and you may find that size more suitable to you.

2) Maybe this matters to you, maybe it doesn't, I'll just mention it anyway: If you ever plan to compete (AND YOU SHOULD REGARDLESS OF YOUR TIMES!), be aware that your cube is not competition-legal. Cubes for competitions must be stickerless or have stickers over one color of plastic, not a mixture like you've got.

Kudos on your progress! You and I are basically the same age although I've been cubing for a lot longer (learned in 1981, same as you but picked up speedsolving in 2017).


----------



## pønten (Feb 24, 2022)

Tabe said:


> A few things:
> 
> 1) Yes, the cubes today are smaller than what you remember. The original Rubik's Cube you're familiar with is 57mm. Current cubes run 54-56mm (generally). The WR M 2021 is 55mm. 2mm doesn't seem like a big difference but, as you've seen, it is. If you want something 57mm or larger, you'll have to take a step down in quality and features. You can buy a Qiyi Sail (they come in multiple sizes up to 68mm) but they aren't adjustable and you would have to magnetize it yourself. Most Gan cubes are 56mm, however, and you may find that size more suitable to you.
> 
> ...


1) Thanks for confirming what I felt about the size. 2mm (57 vs 55) doesn't sound much, but it is about 3.5 % difference, which means over 11% difference in volume. I guess I would choose slightly bigger than my 55mm VR M if available. Though I do like quality!  There have been many mentions about Gan cubes already in this thread, so I will definitively have that in mind next time.

2) I did suspect that my cube wouldn't meet official rules for competitions, though I've no plans to compete in the near future. And if I should, I could either peel of the extra stickers, or more probable, have a more suitable legal cube at that point. I have a colleague at work (who told me he had bought his son a speed cube for a gift), and my colleague wasn't rejecting my suggestion that he too should learn to solve it, so we could have a little internal fight


----------



## Tabe (Feb 24, 2022)

pønten said:


> 2) I did suspect that my cube wouldn't meet official rules for competitions, though I've no plans to compete in the near future.


Go. Don't wait. Go. They're a lot of fun, even if you know you'll finish last. And it's really great seeing people who are actually fast up-close. And you may get really bitten by the cubing bug and start organizing competitions


----------



## Dan the Beginner (Feb 25, 2022)

I have wanted to dye those yellow pieces for a long time, but have been too busy with other less daunting or more interesting things. This is the product that I have found that will work, after checking lots of written and video reviews. I believe it will provide a nice permanent solution to the problem. The colour can be adjusted, i.e. lighter or darker yellow, by the amount of time the pieces are treated. I might try it one day, when I know for sure the best cube _for my requirements_. The WRM 2021, which I have used for many months already, looks like the one I will dye. If anyone here has tried this dye and can give advice, I shall be very grateful.









Buy Rit DyeMore Liquid Dye, Daffodil Yellow Online at Lowest Price in Norway. B00U2IXJA8


Shop for Rit DyeMore Liquid Dye, Daffodil Yellow online at an affordable price in Norway. Get special offers, deals, discounts & fast delivery options on international shipping with every purchase on Ubuy. B00U2IXJA8




www.ubuy.co.no


----------



## pønten (Feb 25, 2022)

Didn't do much solving today, but ended the evening with about 15 timed solves, that went pretty well, with PB in Single, Ao5 and Ao12:

Single: 1:25.09 (old: 1:27:40)
Ao5: 1:50.95 (old: 2:28.75)
Ao12: 2:22.76 (old: 2:56.17)
The single solve was just 2 seconds better, but I'm especially satisfied with the new Ao5 PB with almost 40 seconds. Until now I've been very unstable, with a typical Ao5 hovering around 3 minutes due to frequent errors, where I typically mess up my blocks, and almost have to start over.

I've only had a handful of sub-2 minutes solves before, and never two in a row. But today I had four sub-2 minutes in a row, hence the Ao5 sub 2 minutes.

Also, when doing scrambles, I generally have made it wrong more than half the time. For some reason, I can't stop thinking "Bottom" when I see a "B". I've told myself several times, with a stern voice, that "B" is "Back", and that there is no word called "Bottom" any longer. But still, when I try to scramble fast, it rarely match the picture of how the scrambled cube should look.

However, this evening almost all my scrambles were correct, so quite a good Friday evening


----------



## qwr (Feb 25, 2022)

Dan the Beginner said:


> I have wanted to dye those yellow pieces for a long time, but have been too busy with other less daunting or more interesting things. This is the product that I have found that will work, after checking lots of written and video reviews. I believe it will provide a nice permanent solution to the problem. The colour can be adjusted, i.e. lighter or darker yellow, by the amount of time the pieces are treated. I might try it one day, when I know for sure the best cube _for my requirements_. The WRM 2021, which I have used for many months already, looks like the one I will dye. If anyone here has tried this dye and can give advice, I shall be very grateful.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I have not tried it but I've heard it's hard to get consistent results, and would likely be competition illegal if it is not very consistent in color.
Much simpler to buy a stickered cube and put on custom shades (which are allowed in comp). 



Tabe said:


> If you ever plan to compete (AND YOU SHOULD REGARDLESS OF YOUR TIMES!),


I remember wanting to go to a competition in 2010/2011 but didn't because I thought I was too slow. I still haven't yet.


----------



## pønten (Feb 26, 2022)

I planned to write nothing here today, because even though I've done quite a few timed solves today, my times haven't been better, except just 3 seconds on the Ao12 from 2:22 to 2:19.

But then, I should only do one last solve for the evening. It started well with the blue edge piece for the first block already in place. Then I got a skip on the Niklas-algorithm (swapping the upper corners into right place), and quite easy L6E too, so new single PB with over 12 seconds:

1:13.63
Today I learned the last two (U and T) of total seven algorithms for turning the corner pieces to have the correct color (yellow) pointing upwards when they are already in right place. So instead of using Sune normally 2 or 3 times, I can just use one of these 7 algorithms that are part of the CMLL set.

I guess many mistakes using these algorithms was the main reason for my many slow solving times today, as they are not into my finger memory yet.


----------



## pønten (Feb 27, 2022)

Until now I've only used Bottom=White and Front=Red, always starting with Blue block/Blue-White edge-piece. I did this in order to not overflow myself with too much information and decisions when I was learning.

But the plan was always to be color neutral in the way that both White/Yellow can be bottom, and all of the other 4 colors can be front, i.e. I can start building the block in any of the 4 colors. I think this is called x2/y neutrality (?)

So I decided today was the time to start with x2/y, after about 180 timed solves in CubeDesk so far.

First half of the day I did lots of untimed solves, to train starting with other colors, as well as getting the 7 CMLL-algorithms I've learned so far better into my fingers.

After a couple of hours, when I felt that I had identified the worst of my brainfarts related to suddenly mixing up the colors, I started to time the solves again; 60 timed solves today.

In average my times today are a bit faster then before. Average times are still between 2-2:30 minutes (Ao50 and Ao100), but everything is going the right way with small improvements from day to day.

Some PB's today too:

Single: 1:09.69 (old: 1:13.63)
Ao5: 1:41.70 (old: 1:50.95)
Ao12: 1:54.55 (old: 2:19.12)
Ao50: 2:09.40 (old: ?)
Ao100: 2:23.71 (old: ?)

The new single PB came after a full skip of step 3 (Upper corners permutation and orientation).

The fact that the AoX-times are improving more than the single solve is a good thing, I suppose, as it means that the times are becoming more consistent. For instance I had 6 solves in a row between 1:34 and 1:56 this evening.

This conclude a full week of Winter Holiday for me. Tomorrow I start working again, and much less time for cubing


----------



## OtterCuber (Feb 27, 2022)

Great progress!


----------



## qwr (Feb 27, 2022)

Maybe it was mentioned before but why did you choose Beginner Roux over CFOP?


----------



## pønten (Feb 28, 2022)

qwr said:


> Maybe it was mentioned before but why did you choose Beginner Roux over CFOP?


No, you are right, I didn't mention *why *I chose Roux. Only thing I mentioned in my introduction post (another thread) when I compared CFOP and Roux, was: "_... it seems better for me._"

I ordered the cube knowing nothing about solving methods. All I knew, was that I had solved the cube about 40 years ago, and that I wanted to do it again. So I read/watched some cube reviews, and ordered a cube.

While waiting for the cube, I started to look on internet about how to solve it. Then I learned that there were a lot of methods (CFOP, Roux, ZZ, Petrus, etc.) It became clear for me that CFOP was the most popular method, and knowing nothing about the different methods, I decided that what is preferred by most people (CFOP), probably is best for me too.

I used a day or two reading about CFOP (included a lot of general cubing information). I didn't actually start to look at any algorithms, but I learned that:

OLL has 57 algorithms, where only 9 are needed for a simpler 2-look
PLL has 21 algorithms, where only 6 are needed for a simpler 2-look
So, as I understood that information, was that I needed to learn 15 algorithms. and I thought that should be doable.

When searching for solving information, I started to see references to another method called "Roux" quite often. In the beginning I ignored it (to prevent information overflow I suppose), as I had already decided for CFOP. But after a few days, curiosity made me do my first specific search for "Roux".

In the end, after reading and watching videos about Roux, I decided that I wanted to start with Roux instead of CFOP. Most of what I had learned until then was just basic cubing information anyway, nothing specific to CFOP, except the general outline of the method (no algorithms).

Remember, reading and watching videos was all I had to base my decision on. I am sure I could have chosen any method, and absolutely no negative feeling for any of them. But I guess the points that made me tip over to Roux were:

Only 2 algorithms needed for a beginner version of Roux
Only <10 algorithms needed for a slightly better 2-look for CMLL, compared to 15 when doing 2-look OLL+PLL)
Only 42 algorithms for full CMLL, compared with 78 for full OLL+PLL
In general/average fewer moves for a full solve using Roux (which probably suits me better, getting older with slower hands, not being able to perform super quick finger-movements anyway).
Some people saying they prefer Roux to CFOP, as it is fewer algorithms and a bit more intuition, even though they maybe perform faster with CFOP.
Some people (at least DeeDubb in the Beginner Roux videos that I was watching) stating that Roux actually is a much easier way to learn solving than the normal beginner method (I don't know that, just stating what I heard/read).
In some ways I generally like to do things slightly different than "everyone else", though I know (at least what I have read) that Roux is still the second most popular solving method.
So all these small points, combined with my gut feeling, made me choose Roux. However I don't rule out that I might learn other methods (for instance CFOP) in the future, if/when I fully master Roux/CMLL, and if I keep being as interested in solving as I'm at the moment


----------



## qwr (Feb 28, 2022)

Idk if it is easier to learn. Roux is better for intuitive block building, but maybe not better for hands in speedsolving unless you are able to do middle slices fluently. I guess older CFOP algs, like CubeSkills ones, are easiest to execute.


----------



## pønten (Feb 28, 2022)

qwr said:


> Idk if it is easier to learn. Roux is better for intuitive block building, but maybe not better for hands in speedsolving unless you are able to do middle slices fluently. I guess older CFOP algs, like CubeSkills ones, are easiest to execute.


For some reason M2 (i.e. double M' ) is maybe the move I like best to do. Single M however... (I need more training, I think I would make M3' faster)


----------



## qwr (Feb 28, 2022)

pønten said:


> For some reason M2 (i.e. double M' ) is maybe the move I like best to do. Single M however... (I need more training, I think I would make M3' faster)


M is the hardest move to do for Roux. I use a ring finger push and I prefer fast cubes to do this easily as it's quite a weak finger (well, I do have some years of stringed instrument training that helps. My turning still sucks tho)


----------



## OtterCuber (Feb 28, 2022)

pønten said:


> So all these small points, combined with my gut feeling, made me choose Roux. However I don't rule out that I might learn other methods (for instance CFOP) in the future, if/when I fully master Roux/CMLL, and if I keep being as interested in solving as I'm at the moment


Yes, definitely branch out to other methods. It adds a lot of fun to cubing, when you know multiple ways of solving/approaching the same problem.


----------



## Dan the Beginner (Mar 1, 2022)

pønten said:


> For some reason M2 (i.e. double M' ) is maybe the move I like best to do. Single M however... (I need more training, I think I would make M3' faster)


You were speaking for me with most of your thoughts about the choice of methods, at least in your initial search and research!

I will never be very fast, whatever I do. Enjoyment is more important to me, and that means less algorithms to learn and, importantly, less algorithms for my old fingers to have to practise repeatedly to get them into muscle memory. Roux block building was daunting at first, but soon it became more and more natural to do (without memorising anything). I love it, i.e. some kind of active solving of the problem using my head (vs doing everything from memorised algorithms that can be done automatically after _countess_ practise hours). Time is NOT on my side! 

Getting motivated to continue to cube (and getting some mind and physical exercise) is more important to me than the best possible speed, although I will still try but not as the main priority to get faster, with a method that I enjoy. Your analysis of the requirements of the 2 most popular methods and your approach to selection were very similar, even though I had a go at Beginner CFOP and 4LLL before I decided to switch to Roux.

I used Sian's 4-part tutorial. Then, I continued to learn the Basic Roux and after the CMLL, I started to learn LSE, but then I asked myself, why I should continue to learn it, since I found I was not enjoying these parts after the block building. I left Roux. I made up my own hybrid and simplified method with the same block building but finishing with simple algorithms learnt from Beginner LBL methods. My method, which need only about 9 easy, short algorithms (and lots of Sunes), allow me to keep going. Like you, I enjoy the M' moves, and my method always ends with one of those M' algorithms (Ua, Ub, Z and H perms). I decided I should limit my goal and I just want to be able to solve the cube within a minute. I found that it is quite achievable even though my TPS was about 0.8, with my slow fingers and long recognition times. I wanted to be able to pick the low hanging fruit and enjoy myself on the way by making the journey easier, before aiming higher. I may come back to the proper Roux if I can get better, but that's a big IF at this time.

Please keep posting, it's very interesting.


----------



## OtterCuber (Mar 1, 2022)

Dan the Beginner said:


> You were speaking for me with most of your thoughts about the choice of methods, at least in your initial search and research!
> 
> I will never be very fast, whatever I do. Enjoyment is more important to me, and that means less algorithms to learn and, importantly, less algorithms for my old fingers to have to practise repeatedly to get them into muscle memory. Roux block building was daunting at first, but soon it became more and more natural to do (without memorising anything). I love it, i.e. some kind of active solving of the problem using my head (vs doing everything from memorised algorithms that can be done automatically after _countess_ practise hours). Time is NOT on my side!
> 
> ...


What are you goals right now then, Dan? I know you got into hardware for a while.


----------



## Dan the Beginner (Mar 1, 2022)

OtterCuber said:


> What are you goals right now then, Dan? I know you got into hardware for a while.


I had a break due to thumb injury and was playing with hardware, and also other toys, but I am back and practising again. I have to limit my solves, for fear of reinjuring. I can do about 30 solves a day now and mainly practising accurate turning, lots of slower solves to help understand and hopefully automate recognition and execution. For example, I am trying learn to carry on a conversation or watch TV while solving. So, the goal is not speed. I will later practise and aim to get Ao12 times of 1 minute.

Hardware is interesting and during the period, I have bought the WRM2021 Maglev, the Primary Colour Tornado V2, (hoping that the later edition has some improvement, but it is just different in feel), the Cubers Home core magnet conversion kit for the WRM2021, the Diansheng S3M, Guhong V3, and switching, comparing them with the Gan Mini M Pro, the Moyu AI etc. Also bought some Maglev magnets, ...


----------



## OtterCuber (Mar 1, 2022)

Dan the Beginner said:


> I had a break due to thumb injury and was playing with hardware, and also other toys, but I am back and practising again. I have to limit my solves, for fear of reinjuring. I can do about 30 solves a day now and mainly practising accurate turning, lots of slower solves to help understand and hopefully automate recognition and execution. For example, I am trying learn to carry on a conversation or watch TV while solving. So, the goal is not speed.
> 
> Hardware is interesting and during the period, I have bought the WRM2021 Maglev, the Primary Colour Tornado V2, (hoping that the later edition has some improvement, but it is just different in feel), the Cubers Home core magnet conversion kit for the WRM2021, the Diansheng S3M, Guhong V4, and switching, comparing them with the Gan Mini M Pro, the Moyu AI etc. Also bought some Maglev magnets, ...


Sounds like a lot of fun!


pønten said:


> For some reason M2 (i.e. double M' ) is maybe the move I like best to do. Single M however... (I need more training, I think I would make M3' faster)


Ponten, you might enjoy trying out M2 with different cubes. Some cubes are easier to slice than others!


----------



## Dan the Beginner (Mar 1, 2022)

pønten said:


> For some reason M2 (i.e. double M' ) is maybe the move I like best to do. Single M however... (I need more training, I think I would make M3' faster)



I forgot to mention in my last post that I do not like a single M move. I still do them during block building, but when I do Ua or Ub perms, ie when I can go fast and without thinking, I do M' 3 times even though it is not really faster for me. The turning feels smoother when I turn that middle layer only in one direction, using ring finger, middle finger and then the forefinger. I have to push my turning hand more forward for the last one, but I am getting used to it. Doing the turns in both directions requires too much adjustment of the hand position and for me, not smooth or enjoyable.


----------



## pønten (Mar 1, 2022)

So I won't do much timed solves for the rest of this week. First I'm travelling to a work-meeting, followed by a long weekend at my old parents place since they live nearby where I'm travelling. But I'm bringing my cube of course! There will hopefully still be cubing happening! 

Last week I learned the 7 CMLL algorithms for orienting the upper corners after they are permutated correctly. (I hope I use the right language here?) Next step is to learn the 8 CMLL algorithms for permutating and orienting the upper corners when two of the corners have to be swapped diagonally. The reason is that I currently have to do the Niklas-algorithm twice for this diagonal swap, while for the others I only have to do it once. So learning this sub-set of the CMLL first will be "cost-efficient" since it will save me the most moves immediately.

I'm finding that some of the algorithms are actually not that hard to learn if I'm able to put names on small sub-segments of the algorithm. For instance when I learned The L1 algorithm last week, it had 16 moves and looked very hard to remember at first sight:

L1 = U' R U2 R' U' R U R' U' R U R' U' R U' R'
But then I put names on two 3-move-segments:

R U' R' --> happy
R U2 R' --> flirt
And R U R' U' should already be known, so then I can write it like this in stead:

L1 = U'-flirt-U'-sexy-sexy-happy
Using this method, I already have learned two of the new 8 CMLL algorithms that I'm planning to learn next, without even trying hard, just like this:

H4 = F-sexy-sexy-sexy-F' = F-triangle-F'
U6 = U'-F-sexy-F'
Also I can see that the sequence F R F' is common in several of the next algorithms. I think I might call it "naggy"!


----------



## Dan the Beginner (Mar 2, 2022)




----------



## qwr (Mar 10, 2022)

pønten said:


> But then I put names on two 3-move-segments:


Many algorithms are made up of conjugates, algs of the form A B A', and commutators, those of the form A B A' B'. The reason has to do with group theory and especially the "undoing" part of the algs.


----------



## Garf (Mar 10, 2022)

pønten said:


> So I won't do much timed solves for the rest of this week. First I'm travelling to a work-meeting, followed by a long weekend at my old parents place since they live nearby where I'm travelling. But I'm bringing my cube of course! There will hopefully still be cubing happening!
> 
> Last week I learned the 7 CMLL algorithms for orienting the upper corners after they are permutated correctly. (I hope I use the right language here?) Next step is to learn the 8 CMLL algorithms for permutating and orienting the upper corners when two of the corners have to be swapped diagonally. The reason is that I currently have to do the Niklas-algorithm twice for this diagonal swap, while for the others I only have to do it once. So learning this sub-set of the CMLL first will be "cost-efficient" since it will save me the most moves immediately.
> 
> ...


I mean, the names make sense...


----------



## pønten (Mar 10, 2022)

qwr said:


> Many algorithms are made up of conjugates, algs of the form A B A', and commutators, those of the form A B A' B'. The reason has to do with group theory and especially the "undoing" part of the algs.


It sounds interesting. I've not studied any theory (yet), but I've made some sketches on a piece of paper here and there, drawing arrows between the pieces that are moved when doing for instance F R F' (only piece-position so far, not color-rotation), trying to see which pieces are moving how far and where, which pieces that are moving further than others, which pieces that are back to start, etc.

So I've not done any new timed solves (well, maybe one or two) since last time, due to life (work and travels and tiredness). Though I'm still solving a few slow ones every day, but focusing mostly on learning/repeating some algorithms, and as mentioned over, trying to understand a few basic moves, what is really happening.

Currently I now have learnt 15 of the 42 CMLL algorithms, which are the ones where either all corners are already positioned correctly (7), and the ones where two corners need to be swapped diagonally (8). I have reasoned with myself that these 15 algs give most bang for the buck in the short term, while they are also part of the full CMLL set that I can keep using when learning the others later.

I have these 15 algs mostly in my head-memory, and I still need some more training to try to transfer that knowledge to my muscle-memory. Next step for me is to see if I can manage to do the block building a bit more efficiently. For now I'm just parking an edge piece in the DF-position, then finding the correct corner and turn/place it in one of the 4 upper corners, move the edge up beside that corner, than moving edge+corner to the correct place. Doing this twice, then find and turn/place the bottom-edge for the second block, then doing the edge+corner process another two times for that block. I can feel that I do unnecessary moves quite now and then, but only after I've done them. I should find out how to prevent these unnecessary moves before I do them.


----------



## pønten (Mar 11, 2022)

Progress to me is not just faster times, but also learning and understanding. (Well, ultimately all this learning and understanding should manifest itself into faster solves, of course.)

When learning algorithms, I've been breaking them up into smaller segments, for instance *F R F'*. And sometimes, as I did with *F R F'*, I draw it out on a piece of paper, with arrows showing which piece ending where. I also gave these segments a name; for instance* F R F'* = nag, to make the whole algorithm easier to remember as typically 3-4 small segment names.

However, I just realized that almost everywhere I'm using* F R F'* it is preceded by *R'*, so the segment *R' F R F'* makes much more sense. And I found *R' F R F'* actually already has its own name; Sledgehammer.

Also when drawing the movement of Sledgehammer on a piece of paper, the result gives much more sense than just *F R F'*, as two corners are swapped, another two corners are swapped, and three edges are swapped in a circle.

So "nag" is now exchanged with "hammer" in my spreadsheet.

Of course, I suppose "everyone" with experience already know what I just said, but for a novice like me, I think it is better to see it myself, than just read it somewhere. So a little piece of progress today too!


----------



## pønten (Mar 22, 2022)

Progress has been very slow lately, i.e. I've not even tried to speed solve it for a few weeks, just a few daily solves so I can remember my algs.

This evening I decided to jump into it again. It was nice to see, that after a couple of very messed up solves, I managed to settle down on a quite consistent speed. I ended up with some improvement in both my PB Ao5 and Ao12.

Ao5: 1:36.06 (old: 1:41.70)
Ao12: 1:35.41 (old: 1:54.55)
I thought there had to be something wrong in the numbers (using CubeDesk). Is it really possible that my PB Ao12 is BETTER than Ao5?

But it is! I did a test with some numbers, just to prove that it is possible. For example when filling in the 12 numbers in a spreadsheet: 1 1 1 9 9 1 1 1 9 9 1 1, the best Ao5 in that sequence is 3.67, while the Ao12 is 3.40.

My best single today was 10 seconds slower than my PB, but then I also had no skips. But very satisfied that my Ao12 was much better than both my old Ao5 and Ao12. I think that shows the efficiency in the new algs I have learnt lately.


----------



## Dan the Beginner (Mar 22, 2022)

pønten said:


> Progress has been very slow lately, i.e. I've not even tried to speed solve it for a few weeks, just a few daily solves so I can remember my algs.
> 
> This evening I decided to jump into it again. It was nice to see, that after a couple of very messed up solves, I managed to settle down on a quite consistent speed. I ended up with some improvement in both my PB Ao5 and Ao12.
> 
> ...


Congratulations on achieving such consistency. Yes, you can have better Ao12 if your last 5 solves averaged lower than the previous 7. (Was a mathmatician once).


----------



## Ayce (Mar 22, 2022)

pønten said:


> It sounds interesting. I've not studied any theory (yet), but I've made some sketches on a piece of paper here and there, drawing arrows between the pieces that are moved when doing for instance F R F' (only piece-position so far, not color-rotation), trying to see which pieces are moving how far and where, which pieces that are moving further than others, which pieces that are back to start, etc.


Nice! Having a notebook or someplace to keep whatever notes or algs you have makes it 10x easier to practice, it definitely helped me a lot.


----------



## pønten (Mar 22, 2022)

Ayce said:


> Having a notebook or someplace to keep whatever notes or algs you have makes it 10x easier to practice, it definitely helped me a lot.


Absolutely! I keep them sorted in a spreadsheet on my PC with notes and hints to myself how to remember them, and also in a document on my mobile.


----------



## Stock_Fish109 (Mar 22, 2022)

pog man gl


----------



## Dan the Beginner (Mar 22, 2022)

So methodical.


----------



## pønten (Mar 23, 2022)

"Just one more", I told myself, after loads of solves on sub-1:30, while yesterday it was more like sub-1:40.

And that "once more" became a new PB single. Only by less than half a second though. My averages went down a bit from yesterday. I couldn't report on Ao50 and Ao100 yesterday, since I think I had registered too many DNFs, being disturbed by real life during a solve, like wife etc ;p

My new PBs:

Single: 1:09.17 (old: 1:09.69)
Ao5: 1:26.62 (old: 1:36.06)
Ao12: 1:30.90 (old: 1:35.41)
Ao50: 1:46.72 (old: 2:09.40)
Ao100: 2:02.73 (old: 2:23.71)
My current main goal is to see a sub 1 minute single.


----------



## pønten (Mar 24, 2022)

Short session this evening, but still improvement in everything:

New PBs (old PBs in parenthesis):

Single: 1:05.00 (1:09.17)
Ao5: 1:16.18 (1:26.62)
Ao12: 1:21.24 (1:30.90)
Ao50: 1:42.69 (1:46.72)
Ao100: 1:58.29 (2:02.73)


----------



## OtterCuber (Mar 24, 2022)

pønten said:


> Short session this evening, but still improvement in everything:
> 
> New PBs (old PBs in parenthesis):
> 
> ...


Nice progress!


----------



## Dan the Beginner (Mar 25, 2022)

pønten said:


> Short session this evening, but still improvement in everything:
> 
> New PBs (old PBs in parenthesis):
> 
> ...


You are at exactly where I am, averaging just a little over 1 min. You are much more consistent however, and that is great. I have many occasional solves of high 50s but also many bad times close to 2 min.


----------



## Dan the Beginner (Mar 25, 2022)

Hi, Ponten, since you like analysing, I thought you should consider using Cubeast with a smartcube. It helps me a lot, by automating many of the data accumulation and analysis work. Here is an example of what it can show me about a particular solve, pointing out my weakness in block building and recognition time.









01:14.26s Speedsolving solve by Dan on Cubeast






cbst.link


----------



## pønten (Mar 25, 2022)

Dan the Beginner said:


> You are at exactly where I am, averaging just a little over 1 min. You are much more consistent however, and that is great. I have many occasional solves of high 50s but also many bad times close to 2 min.


I was a bit surprised myself about the PBs, feeling very tired last evening. And a few solves after the new PBs, I started to mess up (destroying blocks, using wrong algs, etc) and the solving started to slow down, with an Ao5 over 2 minutes (closer to 3 at one point). So I have my dips too, and it was the reason I only made it a short session.


----------



## pønten (Mar 25, 2022)

Thanks for the tip. I will watch it later, as I'm still in bed this early morning, beside a sleeping wife 

I do look around on the net for information (videos, articles, forums, streams, etc) whenever I get interested in something. Smartcubes I had mostly managed to steer clear of so far. Not because I don't like it, but on the contrary. I love statistics and numbers. I already know I will like the concept, but trying to restrict myself from too many temptations  One of the main motivations for my physical training the last years (running, but lately fast walking due to knee injuries) has been my Garmin watch + extra sensor, collecting all kind of metrics (yeah, a bit of a nerd in that sense, I guess)


----------



## Dan the Beginner (Mar 25, 2022)

pønten said:


> Thanks for the tip. I will watch it later, as I'm still in bed this early morning, beside a sleeping wife
> 
> I do look around on the net for information (videos, articles, forums, streams, etc) whenever I get interested in something. Smartcubes I had mostly managed to steer clear of so far. Not because I don't like it, but on the contrary. I love statistics and numbers. I already know I will like the concept, but trying to restrict myself from too many temptations  One of the main motivations for my physical training the last years (running, but lately fast walking due to knee injuries) has been my Garmin watch + extra sensor, collecting all kind of metrics (yeah, a bit of a nerd in that sense, I guess)


Understand, the temptations, the old nerd, and also the wife.  When you look at the Cubeast I sent, click on the various buttons for Step, TPS, ... and you can also turn the cube using a mouse to the desired orientation for replay of the solve (animation). I think you will need to download Cubeast first, in order to try it or to see and also share your solve/data (like I did). Cubeast is free, and I particularly like it because it is the only software that supports all smartcubes, so the same common user interface is used whichever cube you should buy next. No re-learning effort, and no need to deal with unreliable or buggy software that some of the smartcube makers provide. And also the ability to compare data collected using different smartcubes, all in the same software (unlike all the different proprietary software, different for each smartcube maker).


----------



## pønten (Mar 25, 2022)

Dan the Beginner said:


> When you look at the Cubeast I sent, ...


Just had a quick look now (at work, having first coffee). I mistook the link for a video early this morning, which I've made a rule never to click on in bed, as I've woke up my wife a few times too many forgetting to turn off the sound on the mobile first.


----------



## pønten (Mar 27, 2022)

I only did untimed solves the last two days while passively watching TV etc. But the 25-30 timed solves this morning went well. No single PB, though I had 2 solves in less than half a second slower than the PB. But the averages keep creeping downwards (old PBs in parenthesis):

Single: - (still 1:05.00)
Ao5: 1:09.34 (1:16.18)
Ao12: 1:19.17 (1:21.24)
Ao50: 1:29.31 (1:42.69)
Ao100: 1:39.54 (1:58.29)
My first goal when I started to cube, was to beat 1:40 in a single solve, which was (roughly as I remember) the PB I had as a kid. Nice to see that also Ao100 now has beaten that.


----------



## pønten (Mar 27, 2022)

SUB 1 minute! 

Sunday afternoon, not so consistent as during the morning session, but after a PB at about 1:04.xx, I finally managed 57.91


----------



## pønten (Mar 28, 2022)

I got my second sub 1 minute solve today, and the list of my best solve/averages are now (old in parenthesis):

Single: 52.25 (57.91)
Ao5: 1:08.58 (1:09.34)
Ao12: 1:13.47 (1:19.17)
Ao50: 1:24.77 (1:29.31)
Ao100: 1:28.54 (1:39.54)


EDIT: Solved a few more before going to bed, more consistent with no big errors, and made the averages written over a little bit better:

Ao5: 1:06.00 (-2.5)
Ao12: 1:09.02 (-4.5)
Ao50: 1:18.68 (-6)
Ao100: 1:25.46 (-3)


----------



## Ayce (Mar 29, 2022)

Soon you'll consider 1 minute a bad time


----------



## pønten (Mar 29, 2022)

Ayce said:


> Soon you'll consider 1 minute a bad time


For that to be true for me, maybe it can be translated to "when Ao100 < 1 minute".
I'll make that my current long-term goal, and then we'll see how soon that eventually will happen  

I plan to slowly learn the reminder of the CMLL in the weeks to come. I currently only use 15/42 algs, which are the 7 when all corners are in right place, and the 8 when two corners have to be swapped diagonally. From now on I think I will finish each of the types (AS, H, L, O, Pi, S, T, U) fully one by one type. I've already started with O and H, since they only have 2 and 4 variants each, so only missing 3 algs in total. The others have 6 variants each, and after O and H, I plan to finish learning the Pi-algs first.
For the algs I've not learnt yet, I still need to do the Niklas-alg first to swap two adjacent corners, before I can use one of the 7 CMLL algs to turn the corners right way when they are already in right position.


----------



## PikachuPlayz_MC (Mar 29, 2022)

Congrats! Welcome! Also great choice on cube, I love that one it’s really great if you are learning.


----------



## pønten (Mar 31, 2022)

I've been doing a few solves every evening this week, both timed and untimed. No new PBs to talk about. I got one 54s-solve (second best I've done) and maybe a second or two on the Ao100, but it is hard to tell, because CubeDesk has been behaving strangely the last couple of days after they did an update on it.

I'm working on my CMLL algs. Until now, when I'm at the point in the solve where I should use the CMLL, I've been doing this:

Check which corners that have to be swapped (if any)
IF no corners need to be swapped, or two corners need to be swapped diagonally:
Position upper layer according to the type (AS, H, L, etc)
Do the actual CMLL alg

IF two adjacent corners need to be swapped (these are the CMLL-algs I've not learnt yet):
Position upper layer with these two corners on left side
Do the Niklas-alg to swap them
Turn all corners so they have the correct color upwards (yellow or white) by doing the correct CMLL alg according to the type (AS, H, L, etc) they have after performing Niklas.


What I want to do after I know all the CMLL algs, is like this:

Position upper layer according to the type (AS, H, L, etc)
Check which corners that have to be swapped (if any)
Do the correct CMLL alg
So the main difference, is that currently I need to check the corners first, because I might do a Niklas first, and then position the upper layer to do one of the CMLL algs that I already know, but what I want to do later when I know all the CMLL algs, is to position the upper layer directly before checking the corners, because I already know that I can use the right CMLL alg with no need for Niklas any longer.

When slowly implementing/learning the CMLL algs, I need to do a mix of these two methods. That is a bit troublesome. I've now learnt all the H-algs (and the last O-alg), but I've not been able to use the new H-algs in a solve yet, because my brain has not learnt to look for it yet (I go directly to checking which corners that have to swapped, and starting Niklas before I've checked if I had a H-type already (and therefore could skip Niklas).

I need an easy method to quickly see if I have a situation where I can skip Niklas. Therefore I need to quickly also learn the last 4 Pi-algs. Why? Because what Pi and H has in common, is that none of the corners have the right color upwards. So my brain can (hopefully) quickly recognize "no correct corner-color upwards", and go into CMLL mode, by checking whether it is Pi or H, position the upper layer, and start solving for correct corner swapping/turning without using Niklas.


----------



## Imsoosm (Mar 31, 2022)

Hi ponten! I'm wondering whether you use beginner or advance roux.
Theres a great site called markfiend.com that has a lot of information on roux as well as algs
You can also watch JPerm (a Canadian youtuber), he has videos on beginner and advanced roux.
I'm personally only 13 years old, and I use cfop as main, but over the past few days, i've been trying to learn roux. I haven't found a lot of sites with algs and info on roux, but JPerm's videos explain everything
Roux compared to cfop is actually quite easier to learn because of the amount of algorithms.
I've been cubing for 4 years now and there are still some OLL cases i tend to forget now and then.
Can you post a time split of your steps? Like time your first block, second block, CMLL, and finish separately.
My average with cfop is 13 seconds, trying my best to get to sub 10, but it seems like an impossible goal. Hope we can all beat our own records!


----------



## pønten (Mar 31, 2022)

Imsoosm said:


> Hi ponten! I'm wondering whether you use beginner or advance roux.
> Theres a great site called markfiend.com that has a lot of information on roux as well as algs
> You can also watch JPerm (a Canadian youtuber), he has videos on beginner and advanced roux.
> I'm personally only 13 years old, and I use cfop as main, but over the past few days, i've been trying to learn roux. I haven't found a lot of sites with algs and info on roux, but JPerm's videos explain everything
> ...


Hi Imsoosm, with 4 years of cubing, you are quite experienced compared to me with only a little bit more than one month of cubing 

I suppose with "advance" Roux, you mean using the full 42 algorithms CMLL? I started out with beginner Roux, always yellow up, always red in front (solving first blue, then green block), and only using two algorithms: Niklas (0-2 times) for swapping corner pieces, and Sune (0-3 times) for turning corner pieces with yellow side up.

Now I'm trying to be a little bit more advanced every week. I can choose between yellow/white side up, and I can start with any of the other 4 colors for block-building. Also I'm trying to slowly learn all the 42 CMLL algorithms, but I've only learnt 18 of them until now.
I use the "Algorithm Database" (algdb.net) to find CMLL algorithms, and try to choose the algorithm alternative that seems easiest for me to remember.

Yes, I've searched around on the net quite a bit, and have read markfiend's page, as well as watched JPerm's videos and others. The videos that helped me most as a beginner, was a YouTube-playlist in 8 parts teaching beginner Roux by DeeDubb .

I have no split of my steps yet. I only take the time for the whole solve. My speed is much lower than yours, averaging 1 minute and 25 seconds currently. When I know all the 42 algorithms, I will maybe try to take the time more accurately for the different steps. Either by buying a smartcube, or maybe filming myself.

Good luck to us all to do the best we can!


----------



## Imsoosm (Mar 31, 2022)

pønten said:


> Hi Imsoosm, with 4 years of cubing, you are quite experienced compared to me with only a little bit more than one month of cubing
> 
> I suppose with "advance" Roux, you mean using the full 42 algorithms CMLL? I started out with beginner Roux, always yellow up, always red in front (solving first blue, then green block), and only using two algorithms: Niklas (0-2 times) for swapping corner pieces, and Sune (0-3 times) for turning corner pieces with yellow side up.
> 
> ...


I use a site called speedcubedb.com that I highly recommend for you to use, I use it for CFOP algs but it also has lots of Roux algorithms. But what I think is best about this site is the reconstructions in it (over 7000!). You can take a look at other Roux users and how they solve it. Just go to the reconstructions page, and check on the box on the left under method that says Roux. This gives you a list of all Roux method reconstructions. Hopefully this will help you improve your times


----------



## Foreright (Mar 31, 2022)

pønten said:


> I've been doing a few solves every evening this week, both timed and untimed. No new PBs to talk about. I got one 54s-solve (second best I've done) and maybe a second or two on the Ao100, but it is hard to tell, because CubeDesk has been behaving strangely the last couple of days after they did an update on it.
> 
> I'm working on my CMLL algs. Until now, when I'm at the point in the solve where I should use the CMLL, I've been doing this:
> 
> ...



Not read through the entire thread (apologies) but just as an aside, 2 look CMLL is good all the way down to at least sub-20 - I’m just above that (last Ao200 is 21) and have just started going through the process of learning full CMLL. I do have a smart cube (Gan iCarry) and have been tracking stats for my last 500 solves. Right now I know the O, H and Pi sets fully to use in solves and I see that learning full CMLL would have saved me about 0.6 seconds on average albeit my “O” algs are pretty quick.

With that in mind, it’s the second block for me that the bulk of the time is spent / wasted. It’s approx 40% of the solve time so most of my time is spent improving that as when I a good second block I get sub 20 times.

it’s worth tracking exactly where you spend the most time to make most efficient use of practice time  I’m in my late 40s myself with 3 very young children so don’t get as much time as I’d like for hobbies.

Having said that you’d probably be learning full CMLL at some point so it might as well be now - that’s why I’ve started now anyway - trading a month or two of slower times for better results long term and just because “why not?”

Good luck anyway!


----------



## Imsoosm (Apr 1, 2022)

Hey Ponten, you can actually do split times on CStimer, by clicking options, go to timer, than make the multiphase 4. After you're done with the first block, press space, and don't stop, just immediately go on to the next step. Repeat that a few times, and you'll end up with a split time of your solve.


----------

