# Beginner's Guide to Choosing a Speedsolving Method



## Ickathu (Aug 10, 2013)

*Foreword:*
We know that this thread may induce the “wall of text” syndrome (try opening up all the spoilers), but we promise that you are doing yourself a favor by reading this. There is a lot of information, but it is all beneficial and there is no unnecessary information. This thread is intended for those just starting out, but it may also be useful to those looking to switch methods, or those who just want to learn about other methods.

*Introduction to Thread*


Spoiler: Introduction



-*Give each method a chance.* This will not only allow you to select the solving technique that best reflects your thinking style and dexterity, but it will also give you more varied exposure to the Rubik’s Cube, allowing you to take advantage of easy cube situations that you would otherwise overlook. You’ll also see that each method is fun in its own way.
-*There are advantages and disadvantages to each method.* Take a look through, and identify the combination that appeals to you most.
-*“Fast times” can be set with any method.* Remember the very first World Record was set with a peculiar Corners First variant, and at the time it was considered unbreakable. Today the World Record is set with CFOP, and it is also seems unreachable to most. This pattern may continue. Jessica Fridrich herself thought the limit to her method was a 13 second average, so only time will tell how speedcubing will evolve. As the great Alexander Lau once said: “Methods don’t have speeds.”
-*Don’t base your selection on method “popularity.”* Just because everyone at your school uses the Roux method, or all your favorite YouTube cubers use the CFOP method, or your two best friends use the ZZ method, that doesn’t mean that the Petrus Method isn’t compatible with _you_ at all. Cubing is about fun and personal fulfillment, so their decisions ought not to affect you whatsoever.
-*Do external research!* As much as we have tried to be clear and comprehensive in our explanations, there may be tiny details that we have overlooked. If you have any questions or confusions about the content of this post, we urge you to check the Speedsolving Wiki and search the Speedsolving Forum for more information.


 *Abbreviations.* 
Please skim these abbreviations to ensure you will extract as much knowledge from this reference as possible. These abbreviations are standard in cuber communication, so a quick skim will not be in vain.


Spoiler: Abbreviations



-“F2L” abbreviates “First Two Layers.” in reference to two adjacent solved layers on a cube.
-“EO” abbreviates “Edge Orientation,” in reference to the direction of a defined sticker on an edge piece.
-“CP” abbreviates “Corner Permutation,” in reference to the relative position of corner pieces.
-“LL” abbreviates “Last Layer,” in reference to the Last Layer to be solved on a cube.
-“Perm” abbreviates “Permutation Algorithm,” in reference to an algorithm used to solve the last step of the CFOP/ZZ/Petrus methods.
-“Alg” abbreviates “Algorithm,” in reference to a move sequence applied to a cube.
-“The Morse Code” is an anagram for “Here Come Dots.” Fishy, eh?





Spoiler: CFOP



*CFOP:*


Spoiler: History



*Historically*, CFOP has been around the longest of any method described here (tied in age with the Petrus method). It was proposed by René Schoof, David Singmaster, Hans Dockhorn, and Anneke Treep in 1981. It was popularized on Jessica Fridrich’s website as of 1995, and it is therein that this method derives its somewhat unfitting namesake: the “Fridrich Method.” The more descriptive term, CFOP, abbreviates the stages of this solving method.





Spoiler: Basic Steps



*The steps* to this method are Cross, F2L, Orient, and Permute:

The *Cross* includes placing 4 edge-pieces containing a single color onto that side of the cube, such that the stickers on both sides of the edge piece are “touching” the center piece of the same color. This cross is ultimately placed on either the bottom or left side of the cube, depending on where the solver would like to complete the next stage of the puzzle.




The next stage is the *F2L*. The solver pairs corner and edge pieces that belong in the F2L “slots” that they created during the previous step. These pairs can be built and inserted intuitively or algorithmically. The solver usually must complete 4 F2L pairs, but by using advanced techniques, this step can be greatly shortened.



The next step is to *Orient* all the pieces that reside on the Last Layer. There is an set of 57 OLL algorithms that provides for the completion of this step with 1 move sequence. For beginners, however, there is a 2-step approach that involves only 9 algorithms.



The final step is to *Permute* all the pieces that reside on the Last Layer. There is a set of 21 PLL algorithms that provide for the completion of this step with 1 move sequence. For beginners, however, there is a 2 step approach that involves only 6 algorithms.










Spoiler: Advantages and Disadvantages



*Advantages:*
-Algorithms can be learnt for all steps after the cross, minimizing the amount of thought required.
-F2L can be learnt intuitively or algorithmically depending on preference. In the end, you will store this information in muscle memory, so the learning method you choose is irrelevant. 
-Large amount of resources (both video and text-style).
-Easy extension of the Layer-By-Layer beginner’s method.
*Disadvantages:*
- Lots of algorithm to learn
- Not very move efficient
- Tends to have several cube rotations (primarily y-rotations, the slowest rotation) per solve.





Spoiler: Quotes from the Best



*Quotes From the Best:*
“I use CFOP for 3x3 solving because it's the first method I learned, and I've practiced very much with it, and I think at this point there is no point in switching methods unless there is a major breakthrough ultra amazing method.” - Antoine Cantin
“For 2 Handed solving, I think that something like roux would probably be faster than CFOP since there are almost no rotations and your moves are very quickly reduced to (R, U, r, M, F) which can be very fast to execute. Also, the move count is generally lower.” - Antoine Cantin
“Don't give up understanding and optimizing your F2L (or any other part of the solve) by trying out new stuff or doing research. Find out your weaknesses and try to improve them the most. PRACTICE” - Antoine Cantin


*You should use CFOP if:*
-You are good at learning algorithms
-You are the kind of person who would rather use the most popular method


Spoiler: CFOP Resources



*CFOP Resources:*
http://badmephisto.com - Badmephisto’s websites, with links to many helpful tutorials for beginners for the intuitive parts of CFOP as well as OLL and PLL algorithms. However, some content is a bit outdated, such as the recommended cubes.
http://cubewhiz.com - A great resource that contains much helpful information including OLL and PLL algortihms and recognition.
http://cubefreak.net/speed/cfop/ - An overview of CFOP that contains printable OLL and PLL algorithm sheets.
*OLL*
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DTYvklyOpVM - A guide to 2-look OLL, which you should learn before then going on to learn full OLL
http://www.speedsolving.com/wiki/index.php/OLL
*PLL*
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S61q3FYVFis - A guide to 2-look PLL, which you should learn before then going on to learn full PLL
http://www.speedsolving.com/wiki/index.php/PLL - These two links contain multiple algorithms for every OLL and PLL case, so that you can choose which one you like the best for each case.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qBYycb7hR4Y - How to recognize the PLLs.
*F2L*
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k-xbcAMfWwM - Part 1 of a very good tutorial on intuitive F2L.
http://www.speedsolving.com/wiki/index.php/F2L - This link contains multiple algorithms for each F2L case, in case you would like to learn algorithmic F2L.
http://cubefreak.net/speed/advancedf2l/ - Great guide to advanced F2L.





Spoiler: Color Neutrality



*Color Neutrality in CFOP:*
In CFOP, color neutrality means that you can do a cross on any side. Dual-color neutrality refers to being able to solve a cross on either of two opposite sides. Fixed cross means that you can only solve the cross on one side, usually white. According to Lars Vandenbergh’s analysis of color neutrality in CFOP, here are the average optimal movecounts to solve the cross for each level of color neutrality:
Average number of moves to solve *fixed cross: 5.81*
Average number of moves to solve *dual cross: 5.39*
Average number of moves to solve *neutral cross: 4.81*
So, on average, being color neutral takes one move off of your cross. This may seem trivial, but according to multiple color neutral sources such as the 3x3 world record average holder, Feliks Zemdegs, it helps the whole solve flow better because you can choose the best cross, leading to a better Cross-F2L transition.
Almost everyone agrees that when you are starting out, it is best to start out color neutral because of the slight advantage it will give you in the long run. Once you get very fast with fixed cross, it is very difficult to switch to neutral cross. Dual cross is a good compromise between the two, but it is recommended that if you are reading this and are just starting out and choose CFOP, you should be color neutral.





Spoiler: CFOP Variants



*CFOP Variants:*
-*Cross on Left* - With this variant the user builds the cross on the left face, as opposed to the down face in standard CFOP. This allows the F2L to be solved using primarily <R, U, x> moves. Rotations on the x-axis (i.e., x-rotations) are generally faster than the y-rotations that would be used otherwise, however, when the F2L is finished, the solver must perform a z' to place the last layer on the top of the cube for OLL and PLL.
-*CFCE* - Instead of solving the last layer using OLL and then PLL, you solve the corners using CLL and then the edges using ELL. The reason that this isn’t used very often is because of slower recognition and algorithms that are harder to fingertrick. However, some very experienced CFOP users know ELL just in case the corners of the last layer are solved, so they can 1-look LL.
CLL algs: http://www.speedsolving.com/wiki/index.php/CLL_algorithms_(3x3x3)
ELL algs: http://www.speedsolving.com/wiki/index.php/ELL
-*VHLS* - Involves learning algorithms to orient edges while inserting the last F2L pair. This leaves you with a “top cross,” similar to what you get when you finish F2L with ZZ or Petrus. Involves learning 32 algorithms.
Algs: http://www.cubewhiz.com/vh.php
-*ZB* - Involves learning several algorithms for every last slot F2L case to force all edges to be oriented - this part totals 125 algorithms alone, not including mirrors and inverses.. Full ZB then involves learning an algorithm for every possible case on the top that could result - this is called ZBLL, and can be combined with ZZ or Petrus. ZBLL contains almost 500 cases. Very few people have ever learned ZB, and no one has successfully learned it and gotten relatively fast at it. “A fate worse than death.”
ZBLS: http://jmbaum.110mb.com/zbf2l.htm
ZBLL: http://jmbaum.110mb.com/zbll.htm
-*MGLS-F* : While inserting the final F2L pair, you solve the OLL, leaving you with just a PLL. The two steps are ELS and CLS. You insert the F2L edge while orienting the edges(ELS), then you insert the F2L corner while orienting the corners(CLS). This just leaves you with a PLL. This method, as far as we know, has never been put into practice. This method requires memorization of 69 algs, not including mirrors.
MGLS: http://cube.garron.us/MGLS/








Spoiler: Roux



*Roux:*


Spoiler: History



*Historically,* Roux (pronounced: roo; IPA: /ru/) was originally created by Gilles Roux, who has achieved a 13.03 average of 5 in competition. After the creation of the method, Austin Moore, Thom Barlow, and Jules Manalang helped to further develop the method. Alexander Lau started using Roux in 2011 and is the fastest user with the method, with a 7.00 average of 100.





Spoiler: Basic Steps



*The steps* to the method are First Block, Second Block, Corners, Last 6 Edges:

The *First Block* consists of building a 1x2x3 block all sharing a single color. The block is usually placed on the left side of the cube, though some practicioners place it on the right (usually a difference between right and left handed solvers).



The next step is the *Second Block*, consisting of another 1x2x3 block sharing the opposite color of the first block, placed on the opposite side of the cube (usually the right). This step must be performed using only R, r, M, and U moves so as to preserve the first block. 



The third step is *CMLL*. This step solves the corners of the last layer, disregarding the M-slice and U-layer edges. Though there are 42 algorithms, because of these freedoms, the algorithms are often shorter and faster than standard COLL. For beginners, this step is often broken into two parts, orienting and permuting separately, using only 9 algorithms.



The final step is to solve the *Last Six Edges* (LSE). This step is done in 3 substeps: 1) Orienting the edges so they can be solved using M2 and U moves or M and U2 moves; 2) solving the UL and UR edges; 3) solving the last 4 edges and centers in a single, intuitive algorithm. The edges are *oriented* when only U and D colors are on the U and D faces of the cube. This is probably the most difficult step of CMLL to perform intuitively.



*Solving the UL and UR edges* is a simple step, but must be performed while preserving the orientation of the edges. After this step, the left and right sides of the cube will be completely solved.



The final substep is to *solve the remaining edges and finish the cube*. This step is very fast and can usually be performed in 4 moves.










Spoiler: Advantages and Disadvantages



*Advantages:*
- Very move efficient
- Few Algorithms
- No rotations
- Very intuitive
*Disadvantages:*
- Not as algorithmic so good lookahead is required to be fast
- Requires lots of thinking at the when first starting because blockbuilding is involved





Spoiler: Quotes From the Best



*Quotes From the Best:*
"In Roux we have bow ties. Roux - 1, CFOP - 0" -PandaCuber
“[When you first start,] take it slowly and make sure your movecount is good enough. Speed comes naturally.” - Alexander Lau
“Opposite colour neutral (8 first blocks) is a good compromise for me simply because it balances inspection length with freedom of choice.” - Alexander Lau


*You should use Roux if:*
-You are not good at learning algorithms
-You want to solve the cube with a mostly intuitive method
-You want to finish your solve with some sexy M slices


Spoiler: Roux Resources



*Roux Resources:*
http://wafflelikescubes.webs.com/ - A great site filled with lots of information about Roux, containing a written guide to Roux, CMLL algorithms (2-look and 1-look), and a guide to sub-15
http://grrroux.free.fr/method/Intro.html - Gilles Roux’ personal site, giving his own explanation and tutorial for the method.
http://www.speedsolving.com/wiki/index.php/Roux_Method - A good webpage giving some pros, cons, and simple variations of the method
http://www.speedsolving.com/forum/showthread.php?11506-Waffle-s-Roux-Tutorial - Waffle’s video tutorials for the Roux Method
http://rouxtorial.webs.com/ - 5BLD (Alexander Lau) and PandaCuber’s (Bryan Rusinque) Roux tutorial. It contains a full, in depth guide to the entire Roux method.
http://www.speedsolving.com/forum/showthread.php?20355-CMLL - A SpeedSolving thread containing many CMLL algorithms for each case to help find the best for each cuber.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mB-y0XQiN0M&list=PLajHGvYF36nSsL1r_DqrpDY07TnJwqEpn - DeeDubb's Roux tutorial. A guide to solving using the Roux method aimed at complete beginners





Spoiler: Color Neutrality in Roux



*Color Neutrality in Roux:*
Very few people are fully Color Neutral with roux due to the difficulty during the blockbuilding step. There are two common forms of partial color neutrality in Roux. The first is <x2, y, z2> neutrality, which is similar to opposite neutrality in CFOP - the solver uses only opposite colors for the U and D faces (e.g., using white/yellow for U/D). The other form of partial color neutrality is <x, y2, z2>, or using only opposite colors for L and R faces. Though each form gives a mathematically equal number of different options for the blocks, it is generally agreed that <x, y2, z2> gives more options for the blocks, though makes CMLL recognition more challenging.





Spoiler: Roux Variants



*Roux Variants:*
-*CMLL+EO* is an extension on CMLL that orients the edges during CMLL so that step can be skipped during LSE. However, the large number of algorithms required for each CMLL case cause few people to decide to learn this. It is comparable to learning ZB or OLLCP in the CFOP method. http://www.speedsolving.com/forum/showthread.php?21210-KCLL
-*Non-matching Blocks* is a self-explanatory name. The second block does not need to match the first block, giving 4 options for the second block, instead of just 1. This allows the second block to be much faster, but makes CMLL, LSE and EO much more difficult. Here is a page about non-matching CMLL that will occur when using non-matching blocks: http://www.speedsolving.com/wiki/index.php/NMCLL








Spoiler: ZZ



*ZZ:*


Spoiler: History



*Historically*, ZZ was created in 2006 by Zbigniew Zborowski. He invented it because he thought that it was a good compromise between low movecount and high turning speed. Of the big four methods, ZZ is the newest by far. It has been developed by Conrad Rider, who peaked at a 12-13 second average, in the late 2000s, as well as Phil Yu, who has achieved 13 second One-handed averages of 100 at home.





Spoiler: Basic Steps



*The steps* to this method are EOLine, F2L, and Last Layer. The method to solve last layer depends on the variant that you use.

The *EOLine* is the most distinctive part of the ZZ method. In this step, the solver orients all the edges while placing the DF and DB edges. The two edges and the bottom centre are the "line" in EOLine. This step puts the cube into an <L, U, R> group, meaning F, B, or D moves are not required for the remainder of the solve. Although this step may seem like a hinderance, it speeds up the F2L and LL. 



The next stage is the *F2L*. The solver creates a 2x3x1 block on each side of the line via blockbuilding. Because one only needs to do L, U, and R moves, solving can be very quick.



The next step is to *Orient* all the corners that reside on the Last Layer. There are only 7 algorithms for this step because the edges are already oriented. Some solvers choose to learn COLL, which solves the corners while keeping the edges oriented, leaiving a case that only requires the edges to be permuted.



The final step is to *Permute* all the pieces that reside on the Last Layer. There is a set of 21 PLL algorithms that provide for the completion of this step with 1 move sequence. For beginners, however, there is a 2 step approach that involves only 6 algorithms.










Spoiler: Advantages and Disadvantages



*Advantages:*
-No rotations
-<R, U, L> F2L - Meaning you only have to turn Right, Left, and Up faces during F2L - this can be very good for One Handed solving
-More last layer solution possibilities because of solved edge orientation
*Disadvantages:*
-EOLine (first step) is harder than cross
-Transition between R and L faces can sometimes be awkward
-More pieces to solve after EOLine than after cross





Spoiler: Quotes From the Best



*Quotes From the Best:*
“I think ZZ is very strong OH (and possibly feet). It doesn't stand out very much in regular 3x3. Big cubes are all very awkward.”-Phil Yu
“Study a lot of EO Line solutions and play with an optimal solver. Make good first block choices by studying your options thoroughly. Don't rush.” - Phil Yu
“Color neutrality is kind of limited on ZZ. I use two different fronts[a.k.a. Y-axis] and that requires a lot of thinking and inspection time already. ZZ is very inspection-heavy.” - Phil Yu


 *You should use ZZ if:*
-You like the idea of an <R,U,L> F2L. This means the cube can be solved with R, U, and L moves without cube rotations.
-You are interested in One Handed solving 
N.B.: EOLine will feel very hard at first; if you like the method in general, stick with it, and don’t give up - over time it will become very easy. Trust us on this one.


Spoiler: ZZ Resources



*ZZ Resources:*
http://cube.crider.co.uk/zz.php : Very good ZZ text tutorial by Conrad Rider.
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLD9771CF83F13B110 - Very good ZZ video tutorial by Phil Yu.
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLXoQgT40ztta9c6Ol9FRVvxCPQehiQNcv - A collection of videos on various ZZ topics by Phil Yu.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d0vVDBi3_EU - ZZ method walkthrough solves by Phil Yu.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8-DaC4Bs2sU - ZZ method walkthrough solves (OH version) by Phil Yu.
http://www.stachu.net/cubing/zzTimer - A timer by Stachu Korick which allows you to generate scrambles with “n” misoriented edges.
http://laire.fi/jarcs/ - Can be used to find optimal EOLines and study them. This activity is recommended but not necessary, and should improve your EOLine building skills.





Spoiler: Color Neutrality in ZZ



*Color Neutrality in ZZ:*
Because recognition for misoriented edges is so dependent on the solver’s orientation, it is very hard to be even partially color neutral with ZZ. Some argue that since a ZZ solve involves no rotations, even if one were to become partially/fully color neutral, the advantages may be cancelled out by the fact that one gets very familiar with their orientation with ZZ, and subconsciously knows where each piece belongs. However, here are some more realistic types of color neutrality than full color neutrality:
-*<x2, y2, z2>:*
This means that you can do an x2, y2, or z2 from your starting orientation before starting EOLine. This allows the recognition for bad edges to stay the same no matter what orientation you solve in, so you would choose which orientation to solve in based on the convenience of line edges. While this is arguably the easiest of the color neutrality variants listed here, it doesn’t present much of an advantage because the line edges take so few moves to place.
-*Y axis:*
This means that you can do a y (or y’) from your starting orientation before starting EOLine. This only changes the recognition of orientation of the E layer edges, and allows you to solve F2L with the same side on the bottom every time. Phil Yu is working on switching to full Y-axis color neutrality.
-*Z axis:*
This means that you can do a z (or z’) from your starting orientation before starting EOLine. Because you keep the same faces on F and B, you do not have to recheck for orientation of edges, the same edges will be misoriented, so you don’t have to recheck for orientation. This allows you to choose the best EOLine on the Z axis, although for each EOLine, you will have the same amount of misoriented edges to deal with.
*Overall*, it is agreed that color neutrality is not recommended for ZZ, although Y axis is probably the most practical and advantageous of the options listed above.





Spoiler: ZZ Variants



*ZZ Variants:*
Because the ZZ method reduces the cube so efficiently and effectively to a restricted movegroup, it is a springboard for a host of legitimate variations towards solving the last F2L block, the last layer, and even a combination of the two.
-*ZZ-WV* or ZZ-Winter Variation is a variant that involves forming the last F2L pair, and inserting it with a special algorithm that will also orient the last layer corners. In effect, this variant gives you an OLL skip every time. There are 27 different algorithms that need to be applied instead of the standard R U’ R’, but because your last F2L pair can require insertion in any of four different slots, you will have to be able to mirror these 27 algs and also be able to perform them from the back. Most experienced cubers know at least the easiest Winter Variation cases. Some cubers also know the Summer Variation which performs the same function as Winter Variation, but for the R U R’ pair insert instead of R U’ R’. See the Winter Variation article on the Speedsolving Wiki for more information.
-*ZZ-b* is the Last Layer approach that Zbigniew Zborowski originally intended for ZZ. It involves phasing the Last Layer edges during the insertion of the last F2L block. This means that opposite Last Layer edges will be opposite from one another. That reduces the possible Last Layer cases by a factor of three. This is a pretty good deal, considering the user only invested a few extra moves. The algorithm set ZZLL, including a whopping 160 distinct cases, is then applied to solve the cube. Though this may seem like a lot, half of the algs can be discounted because they are mirrors of other algs. And half of the remaining algs can be discounted because they are inverses of other algs. In the end, this variant has great potential, but few cubers have ever travelled this route and lived to tell the tale. See this forum post for more information..
-*ZZ-a* is a fate worse than death. Through brute force and rote algorithm memorization, the solver applies one of 493 different algorithms to solve the Last Layer in one move sequence. There’s no smoke and mirrors, no setup moves, no pre-steps, nothing. You just finish F2L, recognize the LL case, and apply the final algorithm. If you choose this variant, prepare to never smile, laugh, or breath fresh air ever again. You have been warned. See the ZBLL article on the Speedsolving Wiki for more information.
-*ZZ-COLL/EPLL* is the Last Layer approach that most ZZ speedcubers use. It is a decent compromise between algorithm count and algorithm speed. COLL abbreviates Corners Of Last Layer, and it is used to solve the Last Layer corner orientation and permutation at once. There are 42 algorithms. EPLL abbreviates Edge Permutation of the Last Layer, and it used to place the Last Layer edges in their correct positions. There are 4 algorithms for this step, all of which can be performed 2-generator (meaning only 2 faces of the cube need be turned to solve the cube from this state), making this step extremely ergonomic and quick, especially for OH (One Handed) solving. However, because the traditional Sune and Antisune OLL algorithms are so short and easy to execute, many experienced speedcubers forgo memorization of the Sune/Antisune COLL algorithms. See the COLL and the EPLL articles on the Speedsolving Wiki for more information.
-*ZZ-d* is a very complicated method. The idea is that cubers love <R,U> moves more than roller-coasters, chocolate, and girls. So, why not place the cube in a state than can be solvable with <R,U> moves as soon as possible during a solve? There are many sub-variants that incorporate different algorithms and approaches to solve the corner permutation (the characteristic of the cube that defines the state of 2-generator solutions). However, the two most notable were proposed by Sebastiano Tronto, who goes by Porkynator on the Speedsolving Forums. ZZ-Porky v1 involves solving the corner permutation after completion of the first F2L block. There are 2 algorithms and a pretty easy recognition system. However, this approach requires many moves. ZZ-Porky v2 involves solving the corner permutations during completion of the first F2L block (as was the original point of ZZ-d, to make the solve 2-generator as soon as possible). This approach is much more efficient, but requires knowledge of around thirty short algorithms (3 <R,U> moves maximum each). ZZ-d is still undergoing very much development. Maybe you’d like to help out!
-*ZZ-OCELL/CPLL* is a variant so unpopular that you’d bet it was a well-kept secret. However, you’d be wrong. This published variant involves solving the Last Layer in a seemingly opposite order to the standard COLL/EPLL. OCELL abbreviates Orient Corners (and permute) Edges of the Last Layer. All of the 40 algorithms for this step can be 2-generator. CPLL abbreviates Corner Permutation of the Last Layer. There are 4 algorithms for this step, including both A permutations, an E perm, and an H perm. See this external resource for more information.
-*ZZ-Blah* is a variant with a somewhat misleading intent, proposed by Chester Lian. The idea is for the solver to purposely misorient corner pieces on the Last Layer while solving the last F2L pair. Forcing all Last Layer corners to be misoriented reduces the quantity of possible Last Layer states to strictly the H and Pi OLL cases (just 2 of the 7 OCLL cases). The solver then applies the corresponding ZBLL (one look Last Layer algorithm) to solve the cube in one move sequence. There are 112 algorithms for this variant, but half of these may be discounted because they are simply mirrors of other algorithms. See the SpeedSolving thread for more information.








Spoiler: Petrus



*Petrus*


Spoiler: History



*Historically*, Lars Petrus invented his method in 1981 (around the same time that CFOP was proposed). With this method, he won the 1981 Swedish Championships, came in fourth place in the 1982 World Championships, and won the 2005 World Championships for solving in the Fewest Moves. Not much has changed in the Petrus method since then, aside from a few developments in Last Layer solutions of other methods, which carried through to Petrus method as well.





Spoiler: Basic Steps



*The steps* to this method are 2x2x2 block, expand to a 3x2x2 block, orient edges, finish F2L, and Last Layer. The method to solve last layer depends on the variant that you use.

The *2x2x2 Block* is the first step of the Petrus method. It is completely intuitive, although there are some tricks that you will learn over time. The 2x2x2 block can be built anywhere on the cube, and therefore the optimal 2x2x2 block is often selected during inspection time. 



The next stage involves expanding the 2x2x2 block to a *3x2x2 Block*. The additional 1x2x2 solved portion can be added to any of the three different sides of the 2x2x2. This makes solving the 3x2x2 an extremely versatile step. Advanced Petrus users can also plan this step during inspection time. 



The next step is to *Orient the Edges*. This is done by placing the solved 3x2x2 block on the back of the cube and using (RUR’) triggers to correct “bad edges.” Advanced Petrus users can solve some of the Edge Orientation during the 3x2x2 block and often take advantage of move cancellations during this stage. 



The next step is to finish solving the *F2L*. This is done by placing the solved 3x2x2 block on the left side of the cube and using <R, U> moves to quickly and ergonomically complete the F2L. Advanced Petrus users can positively influence this stage during the Edge Orientation step by preserving and creating F2L pairs. Afte completing this step, you will end up with all of the last layer edges in an oriented state, which simplifies the Last Layer solution to come. 



The final step(s) is to solve the *Last Layer.* Petrus’ original approach for this substep was to solve the corner permutation, followed by the corner orientation, followed by the edge permutation. However, the majority of modern cubers elect to solve the LL with either OLL & PLL or COLL & EPLL. Both are viable options, and the corresponding resources are referenced in the CFOP and ZZ sections of this thread as well as in the Speedsolving wiki.










Spoiler: Advantages and Disadvantages



*Advantages:*
-More efficient than CFOP
- This method is the general approach to FMC (Fewest Moves Competition)
- Less Last Layer cases exist because edges are oriented during the F2L.
- Very intuitive
- Good foundation for expansion into Heise
*Disadvantages:*
- Not as algorithmic so good lookahead is required to be fast
- Requires lots of thinking at the when first starting because blockbuilding is involved
- Blockbuilding makes it very hard to be finger tricky
- Not as proven as other 3 methods - no one has gotten sub10 averages using Petrus





Spoiler: Quotes From the Best



*Quotes From the Best:*
“I liked how petrus method relied on efficiency rather than physical speed to get good times.”- Erik Johnson
“I think petrus is the best middle ground method between speedsolving and FM solving. it's not the best at either but it works pretty well for both.” - Erik Johnson
“Enter in the weekly FMC and do petrus solutions. I believe that one of the reasons I was able to get really fast with petrus was because I spent several summers doing FMCs. I just spent days and nights on one solution trying different blocks and techniques. This taught me many ways that blocks can be assembled and the repetition taught me to recognize them quickly. Also, don't use the last layer method described on the petrus solving website. it's geared more towards FM solving than speed. I recommend using OLL and PLL.” - Erik Johnson
“Color neutrality is a very important skill for any method. I was only Y/W CN for petrus which allowed me to start with 8 possible 2x2x2 blocks but then limited me to only being able to expand in 2 of the 3 possible directions to make the 2x2x3” - Erik Johnson


 *You should use Petrus if:*
-You enjoy trying to be efficient
-You really like blockbuilding
-You want to quickly learn about the way pieces move about the cube.


Spoiler: Petrus Resources



*Petrus Resources:*
http://lar5.com/cube/ - Lars Petrus’s original tutorial(text).
http://www.speedsolving.com/forum/showthread.php?16141-Petrus-How-to-Fix-Bad-Edges-(Video-amp-Text) - How to fix bad edges in Petrus, video and text.
http://www.speedsolving.com/forum/showthread.php?41694-NEW-Petrus-Tutorials - New Petrus tutorials by Erik Johnson.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8WCMFwt2khQ - Another tutorial, most popular on Youtube.





Spoiler: Color Neutrality in Petrus



*Color Neutrality in Petrus:*
Color neutrality in Petrus is often considered essential. However, most of the fastest solvers are only dual-color-neutral. This means that during inspection, they select to start on one of two opposite colors. This still allows them to choose from any of the eight possible starting blocks, and allows them to extend the starting block in 2 of 3 possible ways. Therefore, dual color neutrality, while also being realistic, certainly provides enough of the “neutrality” aspect, just one extending block short of full color neutrality.
Another choice is only starting with a block on one color. This only allows four of the eight possible starting blocks, but allows for 2 of the 3 possible extensions, just like dual color neutrality. The advantages of this almost certainly do not outweigh the disadvantages, so we would suggest dual color neutrality. However, this option is not *that* bad if for whatever reason you would like to choose it.





Spoiler: Petrus Variants



*Petrus Variants:*
-*JTLE:*
After solving F2L without the DR edge, you insert the DR edge while orienting the last layer corners, leaving PLL. This variant has not been explored much at all. The alg count is 27.
Wiki page: http://www.speedsolving.com/wiki/index.php/JTLE
-*EJF2L:*
During F2L, you allow any one F2L corner to be twisted in place. When you finish F2L, you fix the corner while solving orientation of the last layer, leaving PLL. The algorithm count is 24.
Wiki page: http://www.speedsolving.com/wiki/index.php/EJLS
-*MGLS-P:*
You insert just the edge of the last F2L pair instead of the edge and the corner, then finish F2L while solving orientation of the last layer corners, leaving PLL. Full CLS requires 104 algorithms, but it is worth it to learn some of the “easy cases” to learn during solves.
Wiki page: http://www.speedsolving.com/wiki/index.php/MGLS
*See ZZ Variants for all others.**
*ZZ-d doesn’t apply to Petrus.








Spoiler: Quotes On Method Neutrality



*On Method Neutrality:*
“I don't think method neutrality should be considered for 3x3 speedsolving. each method takes a long much time to master and I don't think you can gain much from choosing an easy cross over a hard 2x2x2. [C]olor neutrality almost eliminates the need for method neutrality because you can just choose the easiest part of the cube to work with. “ - Erik Johnson
“It's a silly idea that requires way too much practice and you don't gain anything worthwhile.” - Alexander Lau 
“I think that for someone that practices very much, this can be a big advantage since it allows you to have a very good start, depending on the case. However, you'd need to be good and practice very much every method.” - Antoine Cantin


Thanks to the following people for responding to our survey:
-Antoine Cantin(Username=antoineccantin,CFOP, ~10 avg)
-Erik Johnson(Username=ErikJ,[formerly]Petrus, ~12 avg)
-Alexander Lau(Username=5BLD,Roux, ~7 avg)
-Phil Yu(Username=asmallkitten,ZZ, ~13 One-handed avg)
The following people contributed to the writing and editing of this post:
-Matt DiPalma(Username=mDiPalma, ZZ, ~12 avg)
-Eli Lifland(Username=uvafan, ZZ, ~12 avg)
-Alex Mertz(Username=ickathu, Roux, ~17 avg)
The following person contributed to the editing of this post:
-Kevin Costello(Username=KCuber, CFOP ~9 avg)


----------



## Username (Aug 10, 2013)

I wish I would've chosen Roux when I first started, now I think the same way as Antoine


----------



## Ickathu (Aug 10, 2013)

It's not too late to change!


----------



## TDM (Aug 10, 2013)

You should probably mention rotations as a disadvantage to CFOP. And in the ZZ-d bit, I wouldn't really describe it as "a very complicated method". It's complicated, but not _very_ complicated. There's also ZZ-c, ZZ-blah and ZZ-orbit you haven't mentioned (although there isn't a lot to write about on them). An advantage of ZZ is it has a lower movecount than CFOP. For a disadvantage of ZZ, here's a quote from the wiki: _"Reliance on Inspection - ZZ makes heavy use of inspection time, which is fine when 15 seconds is given, but in situations where no inspection is used it can be a drawback. For example, when using reduction on big cubes or within multi-solve scenarios starting a ZZ solve can be difficult."_ 
I was thinking of making something like this, but you've done it better than I would've. And like Usename, I'll probably change to Roux some time soon.


----------



## uvafan (Aug 10, 2013)

TDM said:


> You should probably mention rotations as a disadvantage to CFOP. And in the ZZ-d bit, I wouldn't really describe it as "a very complicated method". It's complicated, but not _very_ complicated. There's also ZZ-c, ZZ-blah and ZZ-orbit you haven't mentioned (although there isn't a lot to write about on them).


As mentioned, there are very many variants of ZZ so we had to be selective and include the ones that we thought were most realistic/viable. Perhaps very complicated was not referring to how hard it is, but how many different ways there are to accomplish it. Not sure though, I didn't write that part. Thanks for the feed back though, and yeah, rotations should probably be mentioned in CFOP. :fp


TDM said:


> An advantage of ZZ is it has a lower movecount than CFOP. For a disadvantage of ZZ, here's a quote from the wiki: _"Reliance on Inspection - ZZ makes heavy use of inspection time, which is fine when 15 seconds is given, but in situations where no inspection is used it can be a drawback. For example, when using reduction on big cubes or within multi-solve scenarios starting a ZZ solve can be difficult."_


ZZ is not necessarily proven to have a lower movecount than CFOP. Also, I have found that with lots of practice with ZZ, reliance on inspection is not a big issue, maybe just 0.5-1 seconds more time of inspection needed than the cross.


TDM said:


> I was thinking of making something like this, but you've done it better than I would've. And like Usename, I'll probably change to Roux some time soon.


Thanks! And yeah, good luck with switching to Roux!


----------



## ianliu64 (Aug 10, 2013)

Lol.
I think I might try Roux now...


----------



## TDM (Aug 10, 2013)

uvafan said:


> As mentioned, there are very many variants of ZZ so we had to be selective and include the ones that we thought were most realistic/viable.


That makes sense. Although it does look like you've missed out something using the letters a, b and d.


> Perhaps very complicated was not referring to how hard it is, but how many different ways there are to accomplish it.


I understand what you're saying, but it's not really clear in the description.


> ZZ is not necessarily proven to have a lower movecount than CFOP.


I don't really know, but the wiki said it had less. And it does change significantly with which method you use...


> good luck with switching to Roux!


Thanks! I'll probably try switching in two weeks, after Guildford.


----------



## slinky773 (Aug 10, 2013)

Great guide! This should be really helpful to beginners for deciding what speedsolving method to learn.

Has there been any recorded person that has learned all 177 algorithms of ZBLL? I'm tempted to try and learn it in the far future.


----------



## wizH (Aug 10, 2013)

Nice overview of the different methods - might switch to Roux, I'm really liking the solves, even though they are SO slow


----------



## elrog (Aug 10, 2013)

I second that this is a good overview of the Big Four. The only thing I can see that you could add is some other methods such as Heise or Old Pochman for those who are not focused on speedsolving.

If you don't want to add other methods, you could just add "for speedsolving" (or something like) that in the title.

It would also be cool to do this with different cubes like the 4x4 or 2x2.


----------



## aceofspades98 (Aug 10, 2013)

I was planing on making a post like this haha. Owell

I wish I switched to Roux when I was a bit slower, but I feel like it is too late now. I am still going to practice it though.


----------



## mati1242 (Aug 10, 2013)

Username said:


> I wish I would've chosen Roux when I first started, now I think the same way as Antoine



This, this, this...
Now that I see people after 1 year of using roux getting better times than me after using CFOP for like over 2 years - It makes me mad, and sometimes I really regret that I don't start with Roux.
I feel that it's too late right now when I'm very used to CFOP.


----------



## Ickathu (Aug 11, 2013)

elrog said:


> I second that this is a good overview of the Big Four. The only thing I can see that you could add is some other methods such as Heise or Old Pochman for those who are not focused on speedsolving.
> 
> If you don't want to add other methods, you could just add "for speedsolving" (or something like) that in the title.


I think for the most part beginners are just interested in speedsolving type stuff, and don't even know about bld or fmc at all. Plus I think it's kind of implied that this is about speedsolving methods. Old Pochmann is so simple it hardly even needs a summary, and heise is really just kind of advanced Petrus. The big four are good foundations for moving into OH, FMC, and just plain speedsolving, imo.



> It would also be cool to do this with different cubes like the 4x4 or 2x2.



Perhaps. 4x4 really just has 2 methods (redux and yau) that have enough documentation and development to really make this kind of thread, and 2x2 just has ortega and LBL as beginner methods. But maybe if some more people say they want this I can talk to some people about creating a similar thread for other cube types.


----------



## uvafan (Aug 11, 2013)

Ickathu said:


> Perhaps. 4x4 really just has 2 methods (redux and yau) that have enough documentation and development to really make this kind of thread, and 2x2 just has ortega and LBL as beginner methods. But maybe if some more people say they want this I can talk to some people about creating a similar thread for other cube types.



Yeah, for other cubes, this. 4x4 has just two methods, and 2x2 would be silly because pretty much everyone just does LBL to Ortega to CLL to EG.


----------



## GaDiBo (Aug 11, 2013)

I suggest beginner trying ECDU method, that method require less thinking and very few algs to learn but very understandable and very fast with practicing.
ECDU is a whole new method so maybe you never hear about it, just try, link here



> @elrog: EDIT: To GaDiBo
> 
> I'm not trying to offend you, but I don't think ECDU will compare with CFOP, Roux, or ZZ in speed. I've actually though about doing that very method you described, but neglected to post it because it wouldn't ever be quite as good. You could improve it largely by orienting edges while solving the E layer during inspection and then solving the last 8 edges with a single alg. You could also avoid parity for CO by doing CO for both layers followed by separation and CP for both layers. It would still take 2 algs and the separation step, but parity isn't a problem. You could also solve the E layer edge permutation with corner permutation of both layers using 32 algs that I already have generated when I proposed this method before. The only problem is some of them don't preserve the separation of top/bottom edges. My method did edge separation after rather than with corner separation. I still don't think even my method would compare to the Big Four though.



My method is whole intuitive except last step, do you consider about my ECDU-c?, it's is an advance to avoid parity or some kind like that, but in whole solve progression, I can confirmed that *it doesn't or never need cube rotation*, it's good?


----------



## elrog (Aug 11, 2013)

Ickathu said:


> I think for the most part beginners are just interested in speedsolving type stuff, and don't even know about bld or fmc at all. Plus I think it's kind of implied that this is about speedsolving methods. Old Pochmann is so simple it hardly even needs a summary, and heise is really just kind of advanced Petrus. The big four are good foundations for moving into OH, FMC, and just plain speedsolving, imo.



You make a valid point. I still think that Petrus is a good balance between FMC and speed, but its not the best for either one of them (especially for speed). It is a good build up to Heise though. I think you should suggest this to people who like intuition, but you said that for Roux. Imo, petrus uses just as much intuition as Roux and a lot more if you step it up to Heise.

EDIT: To GaDiBo

I'm not trying to offend you, but I don't think ECDU will compare with CFOP, Roux, or ZZ in speed. I've actually though about doing that very method you described, but neglected to post it because it wouldn't ever be quite as good. You could improve it largely by orienting edges while solving the E layer during inspection and then solving the last 8 edges with a single alg. You could also avoid parity for CO by doing CO for both layers followed by separation and CP for both layers. It would still take 2 algs and the separation step, but parity isn't a problem. You could also solve the E layer edge permutation with corner permutation of both layers using 32 algs that I already have generated when I proposed this method before. The only problem is some of them don't preserve the separation of top/bottom edges. My method did edge separation after rather than with corner separation. I still don't think even my method would compare to the Big Four though.


----------



## mDiPalma (Aug 11, 2013)

I wrote the ZZ-Variants subsection.



TDM said:


> And in the ZZ-d bit, I wouldn't really describe it as "a very complicated method". It's complicated, but not _very_ complicated. There's also ZZ-c, ZZ-blah and ZZ-orbit you haven't mentioned (although there isn't a lot to write about on them).



This guide is written for beginners. I don't know about you, but when I was a beginner, I had no idea the difference between edges and corner pieces. With that in mind, I think my classification of ZZ-D as a "very complicated method" still stands.

In regards to not including ZZ-C, I included ZZ-WV which is essentially the same thing. There exists no other documentation for ZZ-C.

In regards to ZZ-Orbit, I elected to include what I consider to be two better and more viable ZZ-D approaches (ZZ-Porky v1 and v2). Additionally, the ZZ-Orbit documentation has drifted away from accessibility, if my memory serves me correctly.

But you are right about ZZ-blah; we should have included a brief section on that.

Ickathu, can you edit this in:

*ZZ-Blah* is a variant with a somewhat misleading intent, proposed by Chester Lian. The idea is for the solver to purposely misorient corner pieces on the Last Layer while solving the last F2L pair. Forcing all Last Layer corners to be misoriented reduces the quantity of possible Last Layer states to strictly the H and Pi OLL cases (just 2 of the 7 OCLL cases). The solver then applies the corresponding ZBLL (one look Last Layer algorithm) to solve the cube in one move sequence. There are 112 algorithms for this variant, but half of these may be discounted because they are simply mirrors of other algorithms.


----------



## ottozing (Aug 11, 2013)

uvafan said:


> Yeah, for other cubes, this. 4x4 has just two methods, and 2x2 would be silly because pretty much everyone just does LBL to Ortega to CLL to EG.



K4 and Hoya also exist for 4x4 and have both gotten into the top 100 for average.

2x2 would be completely pointless though.


----------



## cubecraze1 (Aug 11, 2013)

I don't regret choosing CFOP. When I started cubing, I was tossing up between Petrus and CFOP but not roux. Roux wasn't amazingly popular back then.


----------



## Antonie faz fan (Aug 11, 2013)

It is not true with y moves in CFOP. U can obviously use lower case Moves to solve it or use lower case D('). And as I saw cross in left (Sergey) 
U also don't have any cube rotations in f2l just Z' and that's it. I don't see the problem with y in f2l cuase it is not needed pleas edit that.


----------



## TDM (Aug 11, 2013)

Antonie faz fan said:


> It is not true with y moves in CFOP. U can obviously use lower case Moves to solve it or use lower case D('). And as I saw cross in left (Sergey)
> U also don't have any cube rotations in f2l just Z' and that's it. I don't see the problem with y in f2l cuase it is not needed pleas edit that.


Whilst I also wouldn't say there were 'lots of' rotations, you do have to rotate in most solves, which you never have to do with ZZ/Roux. Not many people use d/d'. And I agree that cross on left should probably be added as a variant of CFOP.


----------



## Ickathu (Aug 11, 2013)

Antonie faz fan said:


> It is not true with y moves in CFOP. U can obviously use lower case Moves to solve it or use lower case D('). And as I saw cross in left (Sergey)
> U also don't have any cube rotations in f2l just Z' and that's it. I don't see the problem with y in f2l cuase it is not needed pleas edit that.





TDM said:


> Whilst I also wouldn't say there were 'lots of' rotations, you do have to rotate in most solves, which you never have to do with ZZ/Roux. Not many people use d/d'. And I agree that cross on left should probably be added as a variant of CFOP.



Changed to "- Tends to have several cube rotations (primarily y-rotations, the slowest rotation) per solve."
Also added a section on Cross on Left.



GaDiBo said:


> I suggest beginner trying ECDU method, that method require less thinking and very few algs to learn but very understandable and very fast with practicing.
> ECDU is a whole new method so maybe you never hear about it, just try, link here
> 
> My method is whole intuitive except last step, do you consider about my ECDU-c?, it's is an advance to avoid parity or some kind like that, but in whole solve progression, I can confirmed that *it doesn't or never need cube rotation*, it's good?



Hmmm... I tried ECDU out with a couple of different solves and slight variations on it. It feels like a nasty mix between Square-1 and Roux. The corners step definitely needs some more developement before this becomes a viable method imo.



elrog said:


> You make a valid point. I still think that Petrus is a good balance between FMC and speed, but its not the best for either one of them (especially for speed). It is a good build up to Heise though. I think you should suggest this to people who like intuition, but you said that for Roux. Imo, petrus uses just as much intuition as Roux and a lot more if you step it up to Heise.



Added.


----------



## YddEd (Aug 11, 2013)

mati1242 said:


> This, this, this...
> Now that I see people after 1 year of using roux getting better times than me after using CFOP for like over 2 years - It makes me mad, and sometimes I really regret that I don't start with Roux.
> I feel that it's too late right now when I'm very used to CFOP.


What do you average?


----------



## kelseymckenna (Aug 11, 2013)

Antonie faz fan said:


> It is not true with y moves in CFOP. U can obviously use lower case Moves to solve it or use lower case D('). And as I saw cross in left (Sergey)
> U also don't have any cube rotations in f2l just Z' and that's it. I don't see the problem with y in f2l cuase it is not needed pleas edit that.



Please write 'You' instead of 'U' if you are using the pronoun and not the turning notation


----------



## Yellowsnow98 (Aug 11, 2013)

kelseymckenna said:


> Please write 'You' instead of 'U' if you are using the pronoun and not the turning notation



Yeah. Thanks to him/her I scrambled my cube while reading that post. And I don't know how to solve it


----------



## YddEd (Aug 11, 2013)

kelseymckenna said:


> Please write 'You' instead of 'U' if you are using the pronoun and not the turning notation


Don't forget about random caps in random places and spelling...
They can learn how to solve a cube but can't learn how to spell...


----------



## Renslay (Aug 12, 2013)

A very good and detailed summary indeed!


----------



## pstidsen (Sep 4, 2013)

*New at speedsolving - what method?*

I have just got my DaYan 2 Guhong v2, but I'm still using the standard "Dan Brown" method. My record is 43 seconds with that method. My goal is to solve it in 30 seconds or faster. Which method is best to achieve my goal?


----------



## SixSidedCube (Sep 4, 2013)

Hey mate 

Theoretically, you can get sub-30 with absolutely any method, with enough practice  The best thing for you to do would be to make the transition into using F2L, instead of doing the corners and middle layer edges seperately. Here is a link for what I think is the best tutorial. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k-xbcAMfWwM 

After you get F2L down to a suitable time, you can move onto 2-look OLL and 2-look PLL.


----------



## ~Adam~ (Sep 4, 2013)

Petrus, Roux, ZZ or CFOP. Sub 15 is within reach with any of these methods.


----------



## pstidsen (Sep 4, 2013)

Hi SixSidedCube

In the tutorial is the cube holded so the cross is on the bottom side. I normally have the cross on the top side. Is it important to hold it like in the video?



SixSidedCube said:


> Hey mate
> 
> Theoretically, you can get sub-30 with absolutely any method, with enough practice  The best thing for you to do would be to make the transition into using F2L, instead of doing the corners and middle layer edges seperately. Here is a link for what I think is the best tutorial. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k-xbcAMfWwM
> 
> After you get F2L down to a suitable time, you can move onto 2-look OLL and 2-look PLL.


----------



## Olji (Sep 4, 2013)

Having the cross on the bottom does help with lookahead. You have more unsolved pieces in your field of vision than if you had your cross on top, so it's preferred to do it on the bottom, although try it out with cross on the left too, some people prefer that.


----------



## sneaklyfox (Sep 4, 2013)

SixSidedCube said:


> Theoretically, you can get sub-30 with absolutely any method, with enough practice



Most methods, you mean. Or can I get sub-30 using Devil's Method? (Use Devil's Algorithm and stop when cube is in solved state.)


----------



## Patrick M (Sep 4, 2013)

Sub 30 years depending on your turn speed, lunch breaks, if you ever sleep.


----------



## antoineccantin (Sep 5, 2013)

Just noticed this now. Very nice work.

wat at me having all of the "Quotes from the Best" for CFOP.


----------



## uvafan (Sep 5, 2013)

antoineccantin said:


> Just noticed this now. Very nice work.
> 
> wat at me having all of the "Quotes from the Best" for CFOP.



Lol yeah we wanted someone who not only was very fast, but also had a good knowledge of a wide range of methods. Matt suggested you specifically though, so yeah he may have more to say about this.


----------



## sarathicse (Sep 10, 2013)

Most helpful post... Now i know what are the methods available..LOL....

I am very new to Cube Solving and will try all the methods..........


----------



## iFaiLLL (Sep 12, 2013)

sarathicse said:


> Most helpful post... Now i know what are the methods available..LOL....
> 
> I am very new to Cube Solving and will try all the methods..........



Be sure to choose the best method for you. For a beginner it is kinda hard to know if you like algorithmic methods (such as CFOP) or more intuive ones such as petrus ( and roux).

if you really want to go on speedcubing you really want to stick with one method.


What is your average btw?


----------



## sarathicse (Sep 12, 2013)

iFaiLLL said:


> Be sure to choose the best method for you. For a beginner it is kinda hard to know if you like algorithmic methods (such as CFOP) or more intuive ones such as petrus ( and roux).
> 
> if you really want to go on speedcubing you really want to stick with one method.
> 
> ...



I am not sure of the calculation methods like sub(x) all the guys are mentioning here. I still need to learn that. BTW if any thread related to what this is and how to calculate this is available please let me know.

I am solving cubes only for the past 6 months and i am able to solve the entire cube within 2 minutes.

I am trying to improve my speed. I have recently ordered a GuHong cube.

As far as the method is concerned i am using CFOB(I believe):confused:, solving cross, first two layer, solving the last layer by orientation and by position


----------



## rj (Sep 12, 2013)

sarathicse said:


> I am not sure of the calculation methods like sub(x) all the guys are mentioning here. I still need to learn that. BTW if any thread related to what this is and how to calculate this is available please let me know.
> 
> I am solving cubes only for the past 6 months and i am able to solve the entire cube within 2 minutes.
> 
> ...



What times do you get? just take an average of 12.


----------



## Ninja Storm (Sep 12, 2013)

sarathicse said:


> I am not sure of the calculation methods like sub(x) all the guys are mentioning here. I still need to learn that. BTW if any thread related to what this is and how to calculate this is available please let me know.
> 
> I am solving cubes only for the past 6 months and i am able to solve the entire cube within 2 minutes.
> 
> ...



The method is called CFOP(Cross, first two layers(F2L), Orienting the Last Layer(OLL), and Permuting the Last Layer(PLL)).

If you want to judge your speed, solve the cube multiple times and keep track of the time. Most people use sites _such as_(but not limited to) www.qqtimer.net. For example, if my average of solves is below 12 seconds, I would be sub12.


----------



## sarathicse (Sep 12, 2013)

rj said:


> What times do you get? just take an average of 12.



Cool.......And the method i use is that right???



Ninja Storm said:


> The method is called CFOP(Cross, first two layers(F2L), Orienting the Last Layer(OLL), and Permuting the Last Layer(PLL)).
> 
> If you want to judge your speed, solve the cube multiple times and keep track of the time. Most people use sites _such as_(but not limited to) www.qqtimer.net. For example, if my average of solves is below 12 seconds, I would be sub12.



Thanks Ninja, But my question is on what average, "average of 5 solve", "average of 10 solve" etc.,

Is there a standard in it...


----------



## Ninja Storm (Sep 12, 2013)

sarathicse said:


> Thanks Ninja, But my question is on what average, "average of 5 solve", "average of 10 solve" etc.,
> 
> Is there a standard in it...



Averages of 5 and 12 are usually for videos, but can also give a reasonable gauge of speed. 

If you want to be totally accurate(which is probably unnecessary by a person of your speed), you can do averages of 50 or 100.

Keep in mind that you're new to cubing, and doing lots of solves in a row should make you faster on its own.


----------



## TheOneOnTheLeft (Sep 12, 2013)

An average of 5 or average of 12 ignores the fastest and slowest solves out of that number, and then takes a mean of the remaining 3 or 10 solves. If you use qqtimer, it will calculate these for you.


----------



## sarathicse (Sep 12, 2013)

TheOneOnTheLeft said:


> An average of 5 or average of 12 ignores the fastest and slowest solves out of that number, and then takes a mean of the remaining 3 or 10 solves. If you use qqtimer, it will calculate these for you.



I will try it today and will let all know my avg..............


----------



## rj (Sep 12, 2013)

sarathicse said:


> I will try it today and will let all know my avg..............



Excellent. I count myself as sub-30, even though I get solves over 30 seconds occasionally.
A normal average for me would be 27 seconds, though I do have a lucky average of 22.x


----------



## jdbryant (Sep 20, 2013)

Before my involuntary 8 month cubing hiatus, I used the CFOP method with 2-look OLL and PLL for around 6 months and got to a sub 30 Ao12. Now that I'm coming back, I'm considering changing methods to Roux. Obviously I'm more familiar with CFOP (although I'm pretty sure I would struggle to remember LL algs...), but it seems to be that people who have been using CFOP either regret starting with CFOP and wish they could change, or CFOP users acknowledge how much better Roux seems. I just really want to make the right decision now when I have a chance before I really dedicate to improving. My only reservations about Roux are that it seems like nobody uses it but a few, and there is a general lack of resources for it. I'm not sure I'll be able to improve as quickly with Roux. I'm not opposed to the idea of a more algorithmic approach, but I like the efficiency of Roux. Any comments/suggestions?


----------



## rj (Sep 20, 2013)

jdbryant said:


> Before my involuntary 8 month cubing hiatus, I used the CFOP method with 2-look OLL and PLL for around 6 months and got to a sub 30 Ao12. Now that I'm coming back, I'm considering changing methods to Roux. Obviously I'm more familiar with CFOP (although I'm pretty sure I would struggle to remember LL algs...), but it seems to be that people who have been using CFOP either regret starting with CFOP and wish they could change, or CFOP users acknowledge how much better Roux seems. I just really want to make the right decision now when I have a chance before I really dedicate to improving. My only reservations about Roux are that it seems like nobody uses it but a few, and there is a general lack of resources for it. I'm not sure I'll be able to improve as quickly with Roux. I'm not opposed to the idea of a more algorithmic approach, but I like the efficiency of Roux. Any comments/suggestions?



Try using both. I do that sometimes, and I can get ~36 seconds w/roux. Alex Lau (5bld) is 3rd in the world for 3x3 average, and he uses Roux.


----------



## Ninja Storm (Sep 20, 2013)

jdbryant said:


> Before my involuntary 8 month cubing hiatus, I used the CFOP method with 2-look OLL and PLL for around 6 months and got to a sub 30 Ao12. Now that I'm coming back, I'm considering changing methods to Roux. Obviously I'm more familiar with CFOP (although I'm pretty sure I would struggle to remember LL algs...), but it seems to be that people who have been using CFOP either regret starting with CFOP and wish they could change, or CFOP users acknowledge how much better Roux seems. I just really want to make the right decision now when I have a chance before I really dedicate to improving. My only reservations about Roux are that it seems like nobody uses it but a few, and there is a general lack of resources for it. I'm not sure I'll be able to improve as quickly with Roux. I'm not opposed to the idea of a more algorithmic approach, but I like the efficiency of Roux. Any comments/suggestions?



I think Roux is a slightly better 3x3 method than CFOP. With that said, if you enjoy doing big cubes as much as I do, I would suggest sticking with CFOP, as larger cube Roux methods do not seem to be as good as CFOP ones.

However, if you plan to stick to 3x3 only(or a few other non-bigcube events), I'd suggest Roux.


----------



## jdbryant (Sep 20, 2013)

Yeah, after checking out a few Roux tutorials, I really am liking the way it sounds. I doubt I would do any big cubes other than maybe 4x4. But I do want to do 2x2 and 3x3 pretty seriously.


----------



## SilentSolver (Nov 1, 2013)

Thank you very much, I have been looking around for something like this. I learned CFOP first but I really want to check out ZZ and Roux, but now Petrus has piqued my interest as well. Thanks again!


----------



## PotatoVlogz (Nov 5, 2013)

it is so hard to learn roux, I just started cubing 2 weeks ago and have a good minute avg w/ beginners, w/ my PB being 50.58, and iI just cant learn anything else, how long does it take? wanna learn roux, but the left block is troubling :I(


----------



## GuRoux (Nov 6, 2013)

PotatoVlogz said:


> it is so hard to learn roux, I just started cubing 2 weeks ago and have a good minute avg w/ beginners, w/ my PB being 50.58, and iI just cant learn anything else, how long does it take? wanna learn roux, but the left block is troubling :I(



It's pretty hard to go straight from beginner's to roux; I recommend you to take on F2L and learn how the cubes works better before trying roux.


----------



## PotatoVlogz (Nov 6, 2013)

F2L is hard also


----------



## Blade8227 (Nov 6, 2013)

I tried learning Petrus and Roux, but it was a little frustrating. You should really try CFOP, like a lot of people.


----------



## GuRoux (Nov 6, 2013)

Blade8227 said:


> I tried learning Petrus and Roux, but it was a little frustrating. You should really try CFOP, like a lot of people.



CFOP will help people to look at the cube a more different way which will help when they come back to roux.


----------



## cubingawsumness (Nov 6, 2013)

PotatoVlogz said:


> F2L is hard also



I would say F2L is actually a form of blockbuilding, just much more restricted. Intuitive F2L introduces a lot of really important concepts for moving pieces around, such as moving pieces out of the way to do something else. If you understand what is happening during F2L, you should be able to apply similar concepts to "real" blockbuilding in roux, petrus, etc.
I would recommend learning and getting a good grasp of f2l before trying out other methods afterwards. Good luck!


----------



## RubiksJake12 (Jan 29, 2014)

This thread is fantastic. I'm dying to learn a new method and have decided that because I hate intuitive solving, I'm going to try Roux, which should hopefully force me to learn the cube better and be more intuitive, which I think will further me as a cuber in general. I'm good at memorizing algorithms already, so I should practice intuitive solving and lookahead, which is what Roux requires. The hardest part seems to be the blockbuilding for me because there's no set in stone way to do it. With F2L, I simply look for two pieces, insert them, look for two pieces, insert them. anyway, hopefully I can understand Roux eventually.


----------



## caters (Jan 31, 2014)

CFOP is the Fridrich method. I can't do any begginner method(includes petrus and Roux, keyhole, sexy) other than LBL(have tried all the others and cannot do them) Maybe LBL---Fridrich directly is best for me instead of LBL-----other begginer methods that others say are faster------Fridrich. The only thing I would really have a problem with is orienting the corners and edges at the same time(F2L) because the OLL and PLL I can look up all the algorithms for and the names of their groups and do those algorithms. You know really any algorithm(just 1 algorithm) you can use to solve the cube. The number of times you have to do it(the order of the algorithm) depends on the algorithm but thats besides the point.


----------



## aboeglin (Jan 31, 2014)

caters said:


> CFOP is the Fredrik method. I can't do any begginner method(includes petrus and rous, keyhole, sexy) other than LBL(have tried all the others and cannot do them) Maybe LBL---Fredrick directly is best for me instead of LBL-----other begginer methods that others say are faster------Fredrik. The only thing I would really have a problem with is orienting the corners and edges at the same time(F2L) because the OLL and PLL I can look up all the algorithms for and the names of their groups and do those algorithms. You know really any algorithm(just 1 algorithm) you can use to solve the cube. The number of times you have to do it(the order of the algorithm) depends on the algorithm but thats besides the point.



I would edit your post and write "Fredrik" the correct way or you'll have troubles.


----------



## Renslay (Jan 31, 2014)

aboeglin said:


> I would edit your post and write "Fredrik" the correct way or you'll have troubles.



And Roux.


----------



## TDM (Jan 31, 2014)

aboeglin said:


> I would edit your post and write "Fredrik" the correct way or you'll have troubles.





Renslay said:


> And Roux.


You don't need to point out all the mistakes in his post; it's still understandable. And if you really want to do that, you forgot the spelling of beginner... Also, aboeglin, if they can't spell Fridrich you could at least tell them how to spell it instead of just pointing out that it's wrong.


----------



## RubiksJake12 (Feb 1, 2014)

TDM said:


> You don't need to point out all the mistakes in his post; it's still understandable. And if you really want to do that, you forgot the spelling of beginner... Also, aboeglin, if they can't spell Fridrich you could at least tell them how to spell it instead of just pointing out that it's wrong.



I think correcting it would be nice. Maybe it's because I'm an english nerd, but I prefer reading "professional" looking documents (or in this case a fairly nice post) with nice grammar. I mean in a normal post, or conversation between people it obviously isn't a big deal, but when many people will be reading and referencing it, it's just nice to not get distracted by weird spellings/mistakes.


----------



## tacgnol (Feb 7, 2014)

I've been thinking about switching to Roux recently (gotta love those sexy slice moves, nahmsayin?), and I don't know where else to ask this, so I suppose I'll put it here: Would there be much difficulty in doing full colour neutrality in Roux if i'm already cn with cfop? I don't know if it's relevant at all, but I average around like 29 atm. 

Many thank :3


----------



## TDM (Feb 7, 2014)

tacgnol said:


> I've been thinking about switching to Roux recently (gotta love those sexy slice moves, nahmsayin?), and I don't know where else to ask this, so I suppose I'll put it here: Would there be much difficulty in doing full colour neutrality in Roux if i'm already cn with cfop? I don't know if it's relevant at all, but I average around like 29 atm.
> 
> Many thank :3


If you can be CN, I would be. I'm no expert in Roux, but I think that if you're CN from the start, it should be easy enough, especially if you're already CN with your current method.


----------



## jeff081692 (Feb 7, 2014)

tacgnol said:


> I've been thinking about switching to Roux recently (gotta love those sexy slice moves, nahmsayin?), and I don't know where else to ask this, so I suppose I'll put it here: Would there be much difficulty in doing full colour neutrality in Roux if i'm already cn with cfop? I don't know if it's relevant at all, but I average around like 29 atm.
> 
> Many thank :3



As someone learning Roux with CN despite not being CN in fridrich. You will have an easier time than me that's for sure.


----------



## RubiksJake12 (Feb 8, 2014)

jeff081692 said:


> As someone learning Roux with CN despite not being CN in fridrich. You will have an easier time than me that's for sure.



I'm only color neutral with 2 colors. You might want to start like that as it's fairly easy, and then try to expand to different colors as well. I'm still learning the method though.


----------



## brian724080 (Feb 8, 2014)

I think that the OP and the wiki is basing too much things on CFOP. For example, "Transition from Fridrich" or "More difficult than forming cross" or "More efficient than CFOP" (while not comparing with others). I think these write-ups should be written from more of a neutral standpoint. Nonetheless, this helped me a lot.


----------



## uvafan (Feb 8, 2014)

brian724080 said:


> I think that the OP and the wiki is basing too much things on CFOP. For example, "Transition from Fridrich" or "More difficult than forming cross" or "More efficient than CFOP" (while not comparing with others). I think these write-ups should be written from more of a neutral standpoint. Nonetheless, this helped me a lot.



The reason that other methods are compared to CFOP often is that the purpose of this thread is to educate beginners on how other methods can be just as viable as CFOP even though CFOP is by far the most common method. It makes sense to compare other methods to CFOP because CFOP is so common and often thought to be the only method that you can get fast with.


----------



## brian724080 (Feb 8, 2014)

uvafan said:


> The reason that other methods are compared to CFOP often is that the purpose of this thread is to educate beginners on how other methods can be just as viable as CFOP even though CFOP is by far the most common method. It makes sense to compare other methods to CFOP because CFOP is so common and often thought to be the only method that you can get fast with.



I see, I'm sure the OP has benefited many in terms of choosing their favorite method.


----------



## jeff081692 (Feb 8, 2014)

RubiksJake12 said:


> I'm only color neutral with 2 colors. You might want to start like that as it's fairly easy, and then try to expand to different colors as well. I'm still learning the method though.



It hasn't been a big problem for me yet, also if I started with 2 colors I would get a bias towards those two and see noticeably faster times with them and that would likely discourage me from trying to be full CN.


----------



## TDM (Feb 19, 2014)

You could list this and this as some other CFOP/ZZ resources.


----------



## Knut (Mar 12, 2014)

One thing about one of the quotes on the first page.
"In Roux we have bow ties. Roux - 1, CFOP - 0" -PandaCuber
We have bowties in CFOP too.


----------



## pinser (Mar 23, 2014)

I'd like to apologize in advance if this question causes controversy, but I need some help.

I was a sub-30 CFOP cuber (full pll and some olls) but I decided to try out Roux. 
I loved the method and took it to 35ish but recently I decided to give ZZ a try, and I also like it.
So my question is, ZZ or Roux? (I like both equally)

Pros:
Roux: Already 35ish, seems like it has more potential.
ZZ: I know most of the algs, good for OH (which I am interested in).

Cons: 
Roux: Not good for OH, need to learn 1 look CMLL.
ZZ: Terrible at EOline, very terrible at EOline, horrible at EOline...(I think you get the message )

Thanks!


----------



## Rocky0701 (Mar 23, 2014)

To be honest, you just have to choose your self. I am not trying to be mean, but nobody on here is going to be able to help you choose. Just weigh the pros and cons and see which one is better.


----------



## TDM (Mar 23, 2014)

pinser said:


> I'd like to apologize in advance if this question causes controversy, but I need some help.
> 
> I was a sub-30 CFOP cuber (full pll and some olls) but I decided to try out Roux.
> I loved the method and took it to 35ish but recently I decided to give ZZ a try, and I also like it.
> ...


It's entirely up to you. I would say ZZ, because to improve at that you need to practise something rather than learn algs, and if you're interested in OH then ZZ is better. I'm probably a bit biased towards ZZ, but from what you've said it does look like it would be a better choice for you.


----------



## ChickenWrap (Mar 23, 2014)

pinser said:


> I'd like to apologize in advance if this question causes controversy, but I need some help.
> 
> I was a sub-30 CFOP cuber (full pll and some olls) but I decided to try out Roux.
> I loved the method and took it to 35ish but recently I decided to give ZZ a try, and I also like it.
> ...



I would say ZZ...I messed around with roux for a while (averaged around 30 seconds) but it really doesn't work well on big cubes or OH. Still, if you have no interest in big cubes, then either CFOP or ZZ are good (although ZZ has the eo line inspection issue)!


----------



## TDM (Mar 23, 2014)

ChickenWrap said:


> I would say ZZ...I messed around with roux for a while (averaged around 30 seconds) but it really doesn't work well on big cubes or OH. Still, if you have no interest in big cubes, then either CFOP or ZZ are good (although ZZ has the eo line inspection issue)!


I think that you probably need to use CFOP for bigcubes. Roux needs a lot of slicing and ZZ requires inspection, so neither are as good as CFOP. CFOP also has the advantage that you have part of the solve done for you after reduction is finished; you don't get that with either Roux or ZZ.


----------



## TheNextFeliks (Mar 23, 2014)

pinser said:


> I'd like to apologize in advance if this question causes controversy, but I need some help.
> 
> I was a sub-30 CFOP cuber (full pll and some olls) but I decided to try out Roux.
> I loved the method and took it to 35ish but recently I decided to give ZZ a try, and I also like it.
> ...



As far as your cons: You don't need to learn it all. And a lot of the algs are pretty easy. And for ZZ, eoline improves with practice. What I would do/did is do each for 1-2 weeks just that method, not the other or CFOP, and see which one you like best.


----------



## CriticalCubing (Mar 24, 2014)

pinser said:


> I'd like to apologize in advance if this question causes controversy, but I need some help.
> 
> I was a sub-30 CFOP cuber (full pll and some olls) but I decided to try out Roux.
> I loved the method and took it to 35ish but recently I decided to give ZZ a try, and I also like it.
> ...



I would say ZZ as you are interested in OH solving and EoLine will be good. The case is just practice  Hard work beats Talent


----------



## PitothePowerof3 (Mar 30, 2014)

I'm glad I found this before learning PLL and OLL!


----------



## monsieur (Apr 7, 2014)

A big thank for everyone who has been contributing to this thread, a really good start for beginner like me !!!


----------



## Raviorez (Apr 22, 2014)

*Need help switching 3x3x3 methods*

Hello everybody,

I'm in trouble because I'm considering to chance of method but I really don't know if I will chance/want to chance!!
Maybe Roux or ZZ?
Need help to make a choice! 

Some stuff about me (may be helpfull to help me):
I average about 35 seconds with CFOP (2 look OLL en 2 look PLL) but I really get stuck with F2L!! But I think that CFOP is a quite good method for me, I really don't know and I'm very confused!!
Also I think I do too many rotations... I'm quite good at learning algorithms but I'm very lazyyy to learn them :/
I really wanna be good at BLD solving (maybe there's a method that helps for BLD solving?).
I really like the big cubes so is there a method that's better for big cubes?

Thanks in advance...


----------



## pipkiksass (Apr 22, 2014)

Raviorez said:


> Maybe Roux or ZZ?
> Need help to make a choice!



I'll address each of the following based on these two options vs. CFOP. 


Raviorez said:


> I average about 35 seconds with CFOP (2 look OLL en 2 look PLL) but I really get stuck with F2L!! But I think that CFOP is a quite good method for me, I really don't know and I'm very confused!!



Read this thread. If you like CFOP, stick with CFOP. Are you looking at a new method to get faster, or just for interest? A new method won't miraculously make you faster, but moving to 1-look PLL will make a big difference if you decide to stick with CFOP. 



Raviorez said:


> Also I think I do too many rotations... I'm quite good at learning algorithms but I'm very lazyyy to learn them :/


Rotations are no MASSIVE problem. I rotate too much and I average 18ish with CFOP. There's a lot of fuss made about rotationless algs, but some of them are awkward and not THAT much quicker than rotating. 

In terms of algs, Roux has less algs than CFOP, if that's a deciding factor?



Raviorez said:


> I really like the big cubes so is there a method that's better for big cubes?


No, most people use CFOP, or variations on it in almost all big cube methods. This includes Roux users, because M turns are a large part of Roux, and can't be done on big cubes. I've heard a lot of ZZ users say it's excellent for OH due to the ergonomic nature of the method, and can see how this probably applies to big cubes as well, but only the 3x3 stage after reduction.

In short - CFOP has the most support and resources, due to its large userbase. From what you say, the only reason I can see for switching would be the lower movecount and alg count for Roux. I'd recommend dabbling with Roux and seeing how you like it.


----------



## TDM (Apr 22, 2014)

Both Roux and ZZ have steps similar to F2L. With ZZ, you're more restricted than CFOP, but that doesn't really matter because there's no rotations. In Roux, there are also no rotations, and there's much more freedom than both ZZ and CFOP. Roux has less algs than CFOP, and so does ZZ if you use either OCLL-PLL or COLL-EPLL. If you want to learn blindsolving, learn PLL; PLL will be used in both ZZ and CFOP, but not Roux. You'll have to learn the algs for BLD separately. However, if you use M2 for BLD (which you will do for most of the time until you're very fast), then no method gives you an advantage. As for bigcubes, Roux isn't that good, and nor is ZZ. CFOP is best for bigcubes, imo (but others will disagree with this) Roux is best for 2H, and ZZ is best for OH. Ultimately, you should decide which would be better for your preferable events. Or you can do what some people do and use different methods for different events; until recently I was using CFOP for 2H and ZZ for OH (I now use ZZ for both and CFOP for bigcubes).

If you do use ZZ, try being y-axis neutral. With Roux, be either x-axis neutral or y-axis neutral. Or x2y2. The earlier you start being colour neutral with a method, the easier it will be. I think it's very useful to be y-axis neutral with ZZ, but I'm not sure about which colour neutrality is best with Roux (obviosuly full CN is, but it isn't practical).


----------



## DeeDubb (Apr 22, 2014)

Roux having low algorithms isn't necessarily a good thing for speed. Nothing is executed faster than a well-practiced algorithm, so the fact that Roux has less algorithms means less automated parts and more thinking during your solves. Eventually, the steps get easier and more automatic, but early on, the freedom will slow you down a lot.


----------



## minstorm340 (Apr 22, 2014)

Just read this, switching to roux right now because I'm still mostly a beginner.


----------



## GuRoux (Apr 23, 2014)

DeeDubb said:


> Roux having low algorithms isn't necessarily a good thing for speed. Nothing is executed faster than a well-practiced algorithm, so the fact that Roux has less algorithms means less automated parts and more thinking during your solves. Eventually, the steps get easier and more automatic, but early on, the freedom will slow you down a lot.



The plus of using only one alg per solve is that more pieces are solved "intuitively," which equates to better movecounts and that you spend less time recognizing what algs to do. If you really hate high movecounts, rotations, and the restriction of F2L, roux is a good choice; though, it is a method that takes some time to understand well.


----------



## mDiPalma (Apr 23, 2014)

Try Petrus.

It has 50 less algs than CFOP, 20 less algs than Roux, same amount as ZZ, it requires less rotations than CFOP (if you do it right), it has a lower half-turn metric movecount than Roux/ZZ/CFOP, it offers the MOST freedom out of all the methods, it makes more efficient use of inspection time than CFOP/Roux/ZZ, it maximizes the time-impact of apparent "lucky scrambles", it's easier to explain Petrus' blockbuilding approach to non-cubers than CFOP/Roux/ZZ, and it's more fun (which is all that really matters).

Edit:
With regards to BLD solving, Petrus will get you accustomed to the color scheme of the cube MORE than any other method, which will drastically help speed up your memorization phase during BLD solves (when you are looking for which pieces belong in which locations).

With regards to Big Cubes, Petrus will expose you to the effects of good/bad edges MORE than any other method, which will allow you to pair up edge pieces while orienting them for a quicker F2L phase (assuming Yau method is pursued).


----------



## GuRoux (Apr 23, 2014)

mDiPalma said:


> Try Petrus.
> 
> It has 50 less algs than CFOP, 20 less algs than Roux, same amount as ZZ, it requires less rotations than CFOP (if you do it right), it has a lower half-turn metric movecount than Roux/ZZ/CFOP, it offers the MOST freedom out of all the methods, it makes more efficient use of inspection time than CFOP/Roux/ZZ, it maximizes the time-impact of apparent "lucky scrambles", it's easier to explain Petrus' blockbuilding approach to non-cubers than CFOP/Roux/ZZ, and it's more fun (which is all that really matters).
> 
> ...



how can there only be 20 algs in petrus. I thought it was two look oll and pll, around 30 algs.


----------



## mDiPalma (Apr 24, 2014)

GuRoux said:


> how can there only be 20 algs in petrus. I thought it was two look oll and pll, around 30 algs.



I'm counting LSE algs too bro. Get dunked.


----------



## GuRoux (Apr 24, 2014)

mDiPalma said:


> I'm counting LSE algs too bro. Get dunked.



If you count those, you might as well count petrus EO too.


----------



## mDiPalma (Apr 24, 2014)

GuRoux said:


> If you count those, you might as well count petrus EO too.



I mean the 4 algs that are used for the permutation of the M slice during L6E.

Roux still has 18 algs more than Petrus. My original number (20) was obviously an approximation.

Don't pull a symmetry/inverse/intuitive argument, because if you do, >13 PLLs and >2 OLLs get deducted from the Petrus alg-count, leaving it with < 13.


----------



## GuRoux (Apr 24, 2014)

mDiPalma said:


> I mean the 4 algs that are used for the permutation of the M slice during L6E.
> 
> Roux still has 18 algs more than Petrus. My original number (20) was obviously an approximation.
> 
> Don't pull a symmetry/inverse/intuitive argument, because if you do, >13 PLLs and >2 OLLs get deducted from the Petrus alg-count, leaving it with < 13.



I guess you're right then. It's a shame that petrus doesn't have much popularity; I always thought it is just as good as zz, roux, and cfop.


----------



## DeeDubb (Apr 24, 2014)

I'll definitely be working on Petrus once my Roux times get low. I need a reason to learn some PLL/OLL algs.


----------



## rybaby (Apr 24, 2014)

You realize that the last layer of the Petrus method is not always OLL+PLL...right? Petrus last layer could be completed in 493 algs, or it could be completed in 2. Roux CMLL could also be done with only 2 algs (Sune+Niklas). I don't think algorithm count should matter much anyway, unless the number is drastic (Like ZBLL for example). Beginners can complete Roux with 2 algorithms, but ideally they would go on to learn CMLL at some point. So I think a beginner can ease themselves into either Petrus OR Roux without being overwhelmed with algorithms. IMO, you (OP with the question) should try both; see which one fits you best.

Oh and about LSE "algorithms," ideally the step is intuitive, meaning you can see how U2 M2 U2 moves pieces as it does. Eventually it's just engrained as an "algorithm," but (according to Kyle Allaire, Petrus user) Petrus' step 4 similarly becomes algorithmic after using intuition to figure it out for yourself. Insertions just become natural like LSE does. fedora


----------



## GuRoux (Apr 24, 2014)

rybaby said:


> You realize that the last layer of the Petrus method is not always OLL+PLL...right? Petrus last layer could be completed in 493 algs, or it could be completed in 2. Roux CMLL could also be done with only 2 algs (Sune+Niklas). I don't think algorithm count should matter much anyway, unless the number is drastic (Like ZBLL for example). Beginners can complete Roux with 2 algorithms, but ideally they would go on to learn CMLL at some point. So I think a beginner can ease themselves into either Petrus OR Roux without being overwhelmed with algorithms. IMO, you (OP with the question) should try both; see which one fits you best.
> 
> Oh and about LSE "algorithms," ideally the step is intuitive, meaning you can see how U2 M2 U2 moves pieces as it does. Eventually it's just engrained as an "algorithm," but (according to Kyle Allaire, Petrus user) Petrus' step 4 similarly becomes algorithmic after using intuition to figure it out for yourself. Insertions just become natural like LSE does. fedora



I guess for alg number, it's a little shaky with how many substeps or multiple algs you want to learn. Either way, roux only has one step where "long" or "unintuitive" algs are used.


----------



## rybaby (Apr 24, 2014)

GuRoux said:


> I guess for alg number, it's a little shaky with how many substeps or multiple algs you want to learn. Either way, roux only has one step where "long" or "unintuitive" algs are used.


 . pizza fedora [email protected]#$%^&*
True. I mean, you could learn KCLL if you're an alg machine. But it's a little more ambiguous with Petrus since the last layer has no definite way of solving. It could be OLL/PLL, COLL/EPLL, CPLL/2GLL, ZBLL, ZZLL (phasing), CP/CO/EP, etc. Roux is a bit more standard since CMLL is the only algorithmic step. I guess some break it uo for 2 look, but still the possibilities for Petrus are too much for it to be definite that Petrus "has fewer algorithms."


----------



## mDiPalma (Apr 24, 2014)

rybaby said:


> ~random stuff~
> 
> 
> fedora



True bro, but I was addressing one of the constraints that the OP had in mind (low alg-count for standard use).

I personally use COLL/EPLL for Petrus, and my global average is sub-14. 

I just don't appreciate it when people compare the viabilities of ZZ and Roux (simply because CFOP is too mainstream for them), and they completely omit an alternate feasible method from their comparison.


----------



## GuRoux (Apr 24, 2014)

mDiPalma said:


> True bro, but I was addressing one of the constraints that the OP had in mind (low alg-count for standard use).
> 
> I personally use COLL/EPLL for Petrus, and my global average is sub-14.
> 
> I just don't appreciate it when people compare the viabilities of ZZ and Roux (simply because CFOP is too mainstream for them), and they completely omit an alternate feasible method from their comparison.




How advantageous is the petrus EO step? I feel like doing it regularly with oll/pll or cll/ell would do better. What are your times without EO?


----------



## kcl (Apr 24, 2014)

GuRoux said:


> How advantageous is the petrus EO step? I feel like doing it regularly with oll/pll or cll/ell would do better. What are your times without EO?



Without EO petrus is just freefop. Don't get me wrong, freefop is awesome.


----------



## GuRoux (Apr 24, 2014)

kclejeune said:


> Without EO petrus is just freefop. Don't get me wrong, freefop is awesome.



maybe freefop is just better than petrus. how many moves does EO save? for me it's negative, but I don't really know any petrus EO.


----------



## kcl (Apr 24, 2014)

GuRoux said:


> maybe freefop is just better than petrus. how many moves does EO save? for me it's negative, but I don't really know any petrus EO.



It's debatable, but if you use EO it leaves the option open for either ZBLL, or COLL (which has 1/12 for PLL skips). It also increases the chance for OLL skips considerably.


----------



## mDiPalma (Apr 24, 2014)

Petrus EO is definitely worth it.

Especially considering you can *always* force there to be 4 or less bad edges by being smart during the 3x2x2. 

At that point, you are investing around 6 moves for an [RU] F2L and a vastly improved LL. You are probably in the green by a two or three moves on average by doing Petrus EO, and you have the added advantage of a rotationless F2L from that point out.

I'm going to post a video soon about ways I've come up with, but have not yet pursued, to modernize the standard Petrus method.


----------



## GuRoux (Apr 24, 2014)

mDiPalma said:


> Petrus EO is definitely worth it.
> 
> Especially considering you can *always* force there to be 4 or less bad edges by being smart during the 3x2x2.
> 
> ...



That would definitely be an enlightening video. Who knows, it might start some petrus popularity.


----------



## Destro (Apr 24, 2014)

*Speedcubing methods for cube noobs*

I'm a cube noob. Lucky PB : 1:35 normal PB: 1:45 (using LBL) Which method should i use to get faster times without memorizing a lot? (Other tips welcome)


----------



## GuRoux (Apr 24, 2014)

Perhaps start dabbling with F2L.


----------



## Destro (Apr 24, 2014)

My cube is better than rubiks brand, but not as good as a dayan. BTW, where can I buy a speedcube?

I tried F2l but i cant memorize 40 algs!


----------



## DeeDubb (Apr 24, 2014)

Destro said:


> My cube is better than rubiks brand, but not as good as a dayan. BTW, where can I buy a speedcube?



When you think of a question, you should browse the forum a little bit instead of just posting . Here's the Puzzle Shops section of the forum.


----------



## Destro (Apr 24, 2014)

Thanks.


----------



## Destro (Apr 24, 2014)

What i meant is that are there any stores that sells speedcubes?


----------



## DeeDubb (Apr 24, 2014)

Destro said:


> What i meant is that are there any stores that sells speedcubes?



You mean physical stores? There's some, but not too common. I think most people buy online.


----------



## TDM (Apr 24, 2014)

Destro said:


> I tried F2l but i cant memorize 40 algs!


You don't need to. Learn it intuitively.


----------



## AmazingCuber (Apr 24, 2014)

Destro said:


> What i meant is that are there any stores that sells speedcubes?



There is one in Munich, Germany.


----------



## Infil (Apr 24, 2014)

Learning fast cross (which is intuitive, no memorization) and color-recognizing your 2nd layer edges and performing that easy algorithm quickly will greatly improve your times if you are using the beginner layer-by-layer method. Faster cross will also help you going forward regardless of how much memorization you try to learn later.

As has been said, F2L can be learned intuitively without any algorithm memorization but it's still a little daunting at first because there are a lot of cases you have to try to recognize. If you're trying to get lower than 1:35, you can probably put F2L off for a bit and work on dexterity and the cross.


----------



## Destro (Apr 25, 2014)

Tnx guys.


----------



## GuRoux (Apr 25, 2014)

Destro said:


> Tnx guys.



you're welcome. out of interest, what method are you leaning towards at the moment?


----------



## Destro (Apr 28, 2014)

f2l but i m having a hard time understanding which method is the best for me.


----------



## GuRoux (Apr 28, 2014)

just keep searching until you find yourself hooked to roux. just kidding. do what ever you find funnest.


----------



## suhoon (May 3, 2014)

*What method should I learn?*

Hello, I'm new to this forum and this is my first post.
I've been cubing for about 2 months now and I'm still using the beginner's method. I can solve the cube in average 45 seconds and my best is 38.73.
I'm not good at learning algs, so I'm asking you guys... What method should I learn? (I tried learning roux, but it was a bit hard for me. If you want to recommend roux, please tell me where, how to learn it.) 
Thanks!


----------



## TDM (May 3, 2014)

Read this thread; it contains information about all the main methods. Choose whichever looks best for you.


----------



## suhoon (May 3, 2014)

Thanks but I couldn't make my mind just seeing that.


----------



## guysensei1 (May 3, 2014)

Try petrus or ZZ. They have less algs than CFOP.


----------



## Petro Leum (May 3, 2014)

suhoon said:


> Thanks but I couldn't make my mind just seeing that.



ok, let me make it easy for you.

LEARN ZZ.


----------



## suhoon (May 3, 2014)

I'll go and see


----------



## suhoon (May 3, 2014)

Petro Leum said:


> ok, let me make it easy for you.
> 
> LEARN ZZ.


 Where?


----------



## guysensei1 (May 3, 2014)

suhoon said:


> Where?



Look for tutorials by Phil Yu or asmallkitten on youtube. I think they're pretty awesome and clear, even though I don't do ZZ.


----------



## suhoon (May 3, 2014)

Thanks all of you i decided on the roux.


----------



## TDM (May 3, 2014)

suhoon said:


> Where?





suhoon said:


> Thanks all of you i decided on the roux.


Well if you do decide to learn Roux or if you switch to ZZ, I have links in my signatures to tutorials on both methods. Each letter is a separate tutorial (except "or", which is two letters for one tutorial).


----------



## guysensei1 (May 3, 2014)

TDM said:


> Well if you do decide to learn Roux or if you switch to ZZ, I have links in my signatures to tutorials on both methods. Each letter is a separate tutorial (except "or", which is two letters for one tutorial).



O_O I never noticed!


----------



## MeJoho (May 11, 2014)

*HELP CFOP like Dan Brown.*

Hello I can solve the cube in 1:44 with the beginner method in Dan Brown's videos.
I think his videos were really good, because he didn't leave anything out, and showed
everything that could happen etc.

So I tried to learn CFOP by using ParadoxCubing's videos. Maybe I'm just kind of stupid, but
I already get lost when he doesn't explain how to get the pair to match in the first place before
inserting in F2L. I just think he wasn't at all as good as Dan Brown.

I want to use algorithms because I think it's easier than other stuff.. ok I'm a noob, but please help
me find something that can help me because I don't know where to find a good way where they
don't leave anything out.

Thanks in advance.


----------



## Fawn (May 11, 2014)

http://www.badmephisto.com/

That right there is where I, as well as many others, learned the method. If you have the patience to read through it, it'll be worth it. Badmephisto also has a youtube channel with some of the first known youtube videos about CFOP. There are still plenty of other videos, so if ParadoxCubing's video doesn't work, try others!


----------



## MeJoho (May 11, 2014)

Thanks a lot man


----------



## Bluestormy (May 19, 2014)

*Tips to solve for Starters*

I used to know how to solve a rubiks cube (3x3) but I can no longer remember. I wouldn't mind if you refer me to videos.
Sorry if this post is clogging up your forums.
Kind Regards,
Bluestormy


----------



## DeeDubb (May 19, 2014)

Bluestormy said:


> I used to know how to solve a rubiks cube (3x3) but I can no longer remember. I wouldn't mind if you refer me to videos.
> Sorry if this post is clogging up your forums.
> Kind Regards,
> Bluestormy



I have a tutorial in in my signature: "Roux as a beginner method." If you learned the standard beginner's method, then my way will be pretty different, but I think it's the easiest way.


----------



## Bluestormy (May 19, 2014)

Thanks very much DeeDubb. If anyone else has any other easy cubing methods I would love to hear about them.
Thanks,
Bluestormy


----------



## PJKCuber (May 30, 2014)

I think I 'll switch to Roux because I can't understand lookahead in CFOP.


----------



## DeeDubb (May 30, 2014)

PJKCuber said:


> I think I 'll switch to Roux because I can't understand lookahead in CFOP.



Even though of course I love Roux, I would say that's not a great reason to switch. Lookahead will come with time. Roux has lookahead too. It just takes time to develop.


----------



## TheNextFeliks (May 30, 2014)

PJKCuber said:


> I think I 'll switch to Roux because I can't understand lookahead in CFOP.



Lookahead is something you just get. It develops. Remember when f2l was difficult to make pairs. It's the same thing. 
That and roux has lookahead too which is just as hard (or maybe more I think).


----------



## pinser (Jun 3, 2014)

I've been switching between Roux and CFOP for awhile now, but I still can't decide which to stick with. I like both methods, and I average 24 with CFOP and 27 with Roux.


----------



## guysensei1 (Jun 3, 2014)

pinser said:


> I've been switching between Roux and CFOP for awhile now, but I still can't decide which to stick with. I like both methods, and I average 24 with CFOP and 27 with Roux.



Develop both methods and be fast at both! It's not easy, but if you pull it off, it will be amazing.


----------



## pinser (Jun 3, 2014)

guysensei1 said:


> Develop both methods and be fast at both! It's not easy, but if you pull it off, it will be amazing.



Method neutrality ftw!
Too bad my ZZ is ~28 and Petrus is ~32...


----------



## TDM (Jun 3, 2014)

guysensei1 said:


> Develop both methods and be fast at both! It's not easy, but if you pull it off, it will be amazing.


Don't use both for 2H. Only use different methods if it's for different events e.g. some Roux users use CFOP for bigcubes because they find slice moves hard to do on bigcubes. Don't be method neutral for any event.


----------



## DraaNz (Jun 21, 2014)

*Help improve my awful time?*

I started taking a serious interest into cubing about 1 month ago when a friend gave me a cube for my birthday, I learned beginners method and started from there after awhile I was not impressed with my rubiks brand cube so I got a Dayan ZanChi ( ahhh much better) I am still using beginners method and my Average is an awful 1 minute 22 Seconds... If you guys knew any good methods I could learn that aren't insanely hard please let me know thanks


----------



## TDM (Jun 21, 2014)

How to get faster with the main three methods:
CFOP
ZZ
Roux


----------



## maps600 (Jun 22, 2014)

DraaNz said:


> I started taking a serious interest into cubing about 1 month ago when a friend gave me a cube for my birthday, I learned beginners method and started from there after awhile I was not impressed with my rubiks brand cube so I got a Dayan ZanChi ( ahhh much better) I am still using beginners method and my Average is an awful 1 minute 22 Seconds... If you guys knew any good methods I could learn that aren't insanely hard please let me know thanks



Okay, so I will explain the three most used methods and probably the fastest ones too, at this moment in time.
These are the Roux, CFOP, and ZZ Methods.
I recommend you try them all out and see which one you like best.
I believe they are all equally fast, however Roux and ZZ have a lower move count than CFOP.

anyway, Roux is a nice method if you like "thinking outside of the box" (or cube hahahaha... sorry, that was terrible). It is also nice if you like doing M and U moves. I think they look cool and are fun to do, personally.
Pros: It's a very efficient method - It enables you more freedom than other methods - It only requires that you learn 42 algorithms - it's a good one handed method because of the low move count and table abuse (for the M moves)
Cons: It may require more thinking than other methods, while solving. (That really should not be a bad thing)

http://wafflelikescubes.webs.com/rouxmethod.htm

The ZZ method is unique, in that you basically work with the edges in the beginning so that they can all be solved with R, U, L and D moves.
Pros: It's also a pretty efficient method - It only requires 28 algorithms - You can learn more algorithms to cases that will come up more often, to solve the cube faster - it also works great for one handed solving
Cons: Orienting edges in the beginning can be really confusing - Not that many people use it so it's not much of an explored method

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q9f-uHyHeQs

And finally CFOP. It's for square people. 
Pros: Lots of fast people use it - there is lots of information about it because it's a widely used method - the transition from a beginner method is pretty easy
Cons: It is not efficient - It requires one to learn 78 algorithms - it can be boring to solve with because you basically use algorithms to solve the whole thing

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k-xbcAMfWwM

Pick and choose wisely. I recommend Roux or ZZ. But choose whichever you think fits you best. Hope this helped!


----------



## JeLe (Jun 24, 2014)

Yo, forgive me if this question is a little noobish, but I've thought about this for a while now and would appreciate some opinions.
I hear a lot about people learning one method and then switching to another because they get bored or frustrated, but what about learning a method _with the intention of switching?_
In my case, I've been interested in ZZ for a while, but I've heard that in order to learn ZZ it is beneficial to already be familiar with Fridrich-style F2L. On the other hand, I can see how using CFOP as a mere stepping stone onto another method would be a bit nonsensical.
So, for my case, is learning CFOP as a way to "prepare" for ZZ a good investment, or a waste of energy? Thanks for the input.


----------



## GuRoux (Jun 24, 2014)

JeLe said:


> Yo, forgive me if this question is a little noobish, but I've thought about this for a while now and would appreciate some opinions.
> I hear a lot about people learning one method and then switching to another because they get bored or frustrated, but what about learning a method _with the intention of switching?_
> In my case, I've been interested in ZZ for a while, but I've heard that in order to learn ZZ it is beneficial to already be familiar with Fridrich-style F2L. On the other hand, I can see how using CFOP as a mere stepping stone onto another method would be a bit nonsensical.
> So, for my case, is learning CFOP as a way to "prepare" for ZZ a good investment, or a waste of energy? Thanks for the input.



i'm guessing moving straight into zz would be more time efficient. the important thing is to find many zz example solves and learn their techniques for block building the f2l rather than use the less free cfop insertions.


----------



## TDM (Jun 24, 2014)

JeLe said:


> Yo, forgive me if this question is a little noobish, but I've thought about this for a while now and would appreciate some opinions.
> I hear a lot about people learning one method and then switching to another because they get bored or frustrated, but what about learning a method _with the intention of switching?_
> In my case, I've been interested in ZZ for a while, but I've heard that in order to learn ZZ it is beneficial to already be familiar with Fridrich-style F2L. On the other hand, I can see how using CFOP as a mere stepping stone onto another method would be a bit nonsensical.
> So, for my case, is learning CFOP as a way to "prepare" for ZZ a good investment, or a waste of energy? Thanks for the input.


I would agree that learning CFOP is a good way to "prepare" for ZZ, as long as you don't get so familiar with CFOP that you struggle to blockbuild with ZZ efficiently. Learning F2L and 4lLL is a good stepping stone to all of the other main methods and is easy to do after learning the beginners method, and I believe it is worth learning whether you are going to continue using CFOP or are switching to a different method.


----------



## Petro Leum (Jun 24, 2014)

JeLe said:


> Yo, forgive me if this question is a little noobish, but I've thought about this for a while now and would appreciate some opinions.
> I hear a lot about people learning one method and then switching to another because they get bored or frustrated, but what about learning a method _with the intention of switching?_
> In my case, I've been interested in ZZ for a while, but I've heard that in order to learn ZZ it is beneficial to already be familiar with Fridrich-style F2L. On the other hand, I can see how using CFOP as a mere stepping stone onto another method would be a bit nonsensical.
> So, for my case, is learning CFOP as a way to "prepare" for ZZ a good investment, or a waste of energy? Thanks for the input.



while knowing cfop-F2L and last layer makes it easier to be able to do full solves with ZZ at all, i would recommend to start out with ZZ from the very beginning. The Reasons are the following:

1. CFOP gives you bad habits. No offense to CFOP, but solving ZZ F2L like CFOP makes you inefficient. start good and you do not have to get good.
2. CFOP doesnt help you much with the hardest thing to learn about ZZ: The Edge Orientation.
3. To be able to solve the cube at all with CFOP, you have to learn more algorithms than with ZZ. so you will waste time by learning algs you dont need.
4. Being able to solve with CFOP, the very earliest steps with ZZ are extremely frustrating, as EO and Blockbuilding are hard to grasp. it might make you doubt in your plans and stop you from even switching away from CFOP.

Learning CFOP "for" ZZ is not a good Investment.

If you struggle to find good learning material about ZZ, you can always ask away here: www.speedsolving.com/forum/showthread.php?20834-ZZ-ZB-Home-Thread
you should also check out asmallkitten (the lord of ZZ himself) on youtube for guides and tips: http://www.youtube.com/user/asmallkitten
And i am about to make a "ZZ-Example-Solve-Game"-Thread, in which you should be able to fin lots of example solves and youre also able to post your attempts and get help from others.

good luck!


----------



## JeLe (Jun 26, 2014)

Petro Leum said:


> 4. Being able to solve with CFOP, the very earliest steps with ZZ are extremely frustrating, as EO and Blockbuilding are hard to grasp. it might make you doubt in your plans and stop you from even switching away from CFOP.


I get what you're saying. ZZF2L has been the hardest thing to get so far, so I should be giving it even more attention. Until it is conquered.
Thanks for the input, and the links.


----------



## OliverTwist (Jul 9, 2014)

*Serious help needed with method choosing*

Hi,
I am at a cross roads in cubing.
I want to get around 10 seconds in any way,
My question is will fridrich or roux get me down to around 10 seconds faster?
I know fridrich can be like sub 7, but that takes ages with so many algs to learn!.
I want to know like how easy it is to learn roux down to around ten seconds compared to fridrich? Which is faster/easier?
Also if you learnt either method, let me know how long you took took get below 20 seconds with you method.
Thanks Fellow cubers.


----------



## pewpewrawr (Jul 9, 2014)

The only thing that will get you to 10 seconds is motivation, and you won't be motivated unless you enjoy solving the cube. Pick the method that you like the most, not the method that's fastest/easiest.

But if you can't decide then pick roux.


----------



## TDM (Jul 9, 2014)

They are both around the same speed. None of Roux, CFOP or ZZ are faster than the other two (for two handed). Learn whichever method you prefer.


----------



## GuRoux (Jul 9, 2014)

OliverTwist said:


> Hi,
> I am at a cross roads in cubing.
> I want to get around 10 seconds in any way,
> My question is will fridrich or roux get me down to around 10 seconds faster?
> ...



the main three are *ROUX*, fridrich and zz. Most people start with fridrich. Many of them switch to *ROUX* or zz. None from *ROUX* or zz ever switch to fridrich.


----------



## pewpewrawr (Jul 9, 2014)

GuRoux said:


> snip



LOL stahp, you have to warn me before you do stuff like that. my sides hurt now. xD


----------



## Tao Yu (Jul 9, 2014)

OliverTwist said:


> Hi,
> I am at a cross roads in cubing.
> I want to get around 10 seconds in any way,
> My question is will fridrich or roux get me down to around 10 seconds faster?
> ...


You should never be afraid to learn algorithms as you'll get better and better at learning them as time goes on. 

You will need lots of algorithms to get fast at roux as well as CFOP. You should probably know at least two different algorithms for each CMLL case, as this will allow you to influence the next step. (See kirjava's advanced roux tutorial). Basically, you should be trying to learn as many OLLCP algs as possible.


----------



## Renslay (Jul 9, 2014)

GuRoux said:


> the main three are (...)



Auch, now my eyes hurt.


----------



## DeeDubb (Jul 9, 2014)

OliverTwist said:


> Hi,
> I am at a cross roads in cubing.
> I want to get around 10 seconds in any way,
> My question is will fridrich or roux get me down to around 10 seconds faster?
> ...



I'm going to recommend that you find a different hobby. If you are desperate to get around 10 seconds without wanting to learn algorithms, then you will not succeed. It takes extreme effort and quite a few algorithms to get to 10 seconds using ANY method, and it sounds like you are looking for a shortcut, which simply doesn't exist. If there was some secret to getting to 10 seconds, everyone would do it. As it stands, there's only 149 people in the world with official sub-10 averages. That's about 0.5% of the 28,000+ people who have official averages, and the countless more people who solve at home. Getting 10-seconds is quite a feat, so you better be willing to put in years of work and memorize as many algorithms as it takes.


----------



## Tao Yu (Jul 9, 2014)

DeeDubb said:


> I'm going to recommend that you find a different hobby. If you are desperate to get around 10 seconds without wanting to learn algorithms, then you will not succeed. It takes extreme effort and quite a few algorithms to get to 10 seconds using ANY method, and it sounds like you are looking for a shortcut, which simply doesn't exist. If there was some secret to getting to 10 seconds, everyone would do it. As it stands, there's only 149 people in the world with official sub-10 averages. That's about 0.5% of the 28,000+ people who have official averages, and the countless more people who solve at home. Getting 10-seconds is quite a feat, so you better be willing to put in years of work and memorize as many algorithms as it takes.


That's too harsh. He's just starting out, and he doesn't what direction to take. He just needs to change his attitude on learning algorithms, something that all new cubers find daunting. 

My advice: Just don't be afraid of algorithms. Learn as many as possible. It'll only get easier. Practice. And have fun.


----------



## PJKCuber (Jul 20, 2014)

OliverTwist said:


> Hi,
> I am at a cross roads in cubing.
> I want to get around 10 seconds in any way,
> My question is will fridrich or roux get me down to around 10 seconds faster?
> ...



I am not sub 20, but I average around 23 seconds with CFOP. Don't call CFOP Fridrich as it wasn't invented by Jessica Fridrich. I learnt CFOP 2 1/2 months ago. I know Roux too and I like it(I might even switch to it). Roux can be sub 7 too. Roux and CFOP are pretty much the same speed, but I would say CFOP is a luckier method(In terms of PLL and OLL skips). CFOP is easier to learn and a easier step up from LBL. Don't look down on Roux though, it is very quick too. The thing about CFOP that I like more than Roux is that you don't have to look at the bottom in F2L most of the times. In Roux, you need good look ahead because you have to search around the cube a lot for pieces. I think go for CFOP is you are going to solve bigger cubes.


----------



## CriticalCubing (Jul 20, 2014)

OliverTwist said:


> Hi,
> I am at a cross roads in cubing.
> I want to get around 10 seconds in any way,
> My question is will fridrich or roux get me down to around 10 seconds faster?
> ...


Your Answer!


GuRoux said:


> the main three are *ROUX*, fridrich and zz. Most people start with fridrich. Many of them switch to *ROUX* or zz. None from *ROUX* or zz ever switch to fridrich.


Rous may be faster than CFOP as to low move count and you dont need high tps to be fast so your look ahead will be better. But CFOP and Roux are mostly the same with CFOP being purely algs while in roux you have to use a little bit brain!


----------



## TDM (Jul 20, 2014)

PJKCuber said:


> The thing about CFOP that I like more than Roux is that you don't have to look at the bottom in F2L most of the times. In Roux, you need good look ahead because you have to search around the cube a lot for pieces. I think go for CFOP is you are going to solve bigger cubes.


I think if you've practised with Roux then lookahead isn't a problem, just like if you practise CFOP you won't need to rotate to look for pieces. You can use Roux on 3x3 and another method for bigcubes; quite a few people do that. But you are right, Roux isn't great for bigcubes, especially as they get larger.


CriticalCubing said:


> Rous may be faster than CFOP as to low move count and you dont need high tps to be fast so your look ahead will be better. But CFOP and Roux are mostly the same with CFOP being purely algs while in roux you have to use a little bit brain!


This post confuses me. What you're saying here is Roux is better than CFOP, but Roux is similar to CFOP, but they're actually completely different...


----------



## ryanj92 (Jul 20, 2014)

PJKCuber said:


> Don't call CFOP Fridrich as it wasn't invented by Jessica Fridrich.


Perhaps not, but she definitely helped to develop it, and also documented and popularised it, so I think people can call it Fridrich if they want 
(especially seeing as people are successfully attaching their name to subsets/LS 'methods' requiring a lot less effort and development nowadays...)


----------



## goodatthis (Jul 20, 2014)

I personally think that to ask you to choose now what method you are going to use on the long journey of getting sub 10 is a hard thing to do. You will only really know what you're truly better at and what suits you better when you are much much closer to that stage than you are now. Plus, the practice required to get sub 20 with any method will make you more skilled in that area than any talent cubing wise that you were born with.

When it comes down to it, CFOP has the most resources out there to help you with. But in the end, it's just the fundamental techniques that matter when it comes to becoming faster with certain methods, like lookahead or recognition or TPS (even though you'll develop the TPS to be sub 20 long before you actually are sub 20). 

So for now, just pick what sounds the best to you. Don't listen to the roux elitists (kidding of course) and don't listen to people that tell you to pick certain methods. Obviously it will be pretty hard to get sub 10 with something like a corners first method or maybe Petrus, since no one has done it before, but between ZZ, Roux, and CFOP, pick whatever. It probably won't make a ton of difference.


----------



## PJKCuber (Aug 3, 2014)

LOL I might switch to ZZ now.


----------



## IRNjuggle28 (Aug 4, 2014)

PJKCuber said:


> LOL I might switch to ZZ now.



Your method is not what is holding you back. If you are stuck at 23 seconds with CFOP, you will not be faster than that with Roux or ZZ anytime soon.


----------



## 10461394944000 (Aug 4, 2014)

PJKCuber said:


> LOL I might switch to ZZ now.



i thought you wanted to get faster though


----------



## RobertFontaine (Aug 4, 2014)

The problem with cfop is that while fast it is pretty much brain dead. Algorithms are memorized more by how they feel than any sort of intellectual process.
Thinking is slow so this is a good way to do speed solving but it's defeats the purpose if the puzzle is intended to be a tool to sharpen your brain.


----------



## brian724080 (Aug 4, 2014)

RobertFontaine said:


> The problem with cfop is that while fast it is pretty much brain dead. Algorithms are memorized more by how they feel than any sort of intellectual process.
> Thinking is slow so this is a good way to do speed solving but it's defeats the purpose if the puzzle is intended to be a tool to sharpen your brain.



You can always look into multi-slotting and more advanced F2L techniques


----------



## Nilsibert (Aug 4, 2014)

PJKCuber said:


> LOL I might switch to ZZ now.



Didn't you intend to switch to Roux?


----------



## Rucki (Oct 22, 2014)

I'm best with CFOP - results me sub-10 avarages.


----------



## TDM (Oct 22, 2014)

Suggestion: add DeeDubb's Roux tutorial to the 'Roux Resources'.


----------



## Dane man (Oct 22, 2014)

TDM said:


> Suggestion: add DeeDubb's Roux tutorial to the 'Roux Resources'.


I second this motion.


----------



## DeeDubb (Dec 3, 2014)

TDM said:


> Suggestion: add DeeDubb's Roux tutorial to the 'Roux Resources'.



I third this motion!


----------



## Sa967St (Dec 4, 2014)

TDM said:


> Suggestion: add DeeDubb's Roux tutorial to the 'Roux Resources'.



I've added it to the OP.

Edit: Description added too.


----------



## DeeDubb (Dec 4, 2014)

Sa967St said:


> I've added it to the OP.



Thanks! Could you add the following description:

A guide to solving using the Roux method aimed at complete beginners.


----------



## DeeDubb (Dec 9, 2014)

Sa967St said:


> I've added it to the OP.
> 
> Edit: Description added too.



Thanks Sarah!


----------



## obelisk477 (Jan 5, 2015)

StanleyCuber said:


> Could someone explain the ZZ variants in a bit more detail? Are all of them useful to try out?



For now, no. Don't even try messing with ZZ variants until you're at least sub-25 with ZZ. It's a complicated enough method to get your head around at first, so focus on learning the EOLine step for now if youre gonna try some ZZ


----------



## brian724080 (Jan 5, 2015)

obelisk477 said:


> For now, no. Don't even try messing with ZZ variants until you're at least sub-25 with ZZ. It's a complicated enough method to get your head around at first, so focus on learning the EOLine step for now if youre gonna try some ZZ



I agree - someone should definitely make "Beginner's Guide to Choosing a ZZ Variant" thread though


----------



## lorki3 (Jan 5, 2015)

brian724080 said:


> I agree - someone should definitely make "Beginner's Guide to Choosing a ZZ Variant" thread though



That'd be totally awesome! 

Phil Yu's last layer video is a nice guide already tho.


----------



## GotCubes (Jan 13, 2015)

slinky773 said:


> Has there been any recorded person that has learned all 177 algorithms of ZBLL? I'm tempted to try and learn it in the far future.


I have. It took a while but it was worth it.


----------



## Alsakuma (Feb 10, 2015)

*From Beginners method to speedcubing*

Hello.

I'm thinking about switching the way i solve my rubiks cube. Atm i use the beginners method and have an average about 1.30 min. I'm not sure if it's the right time to switch method to a speed cubing method. Do i need to practice my finger tricks more before switching, because atm i'm trying to get better at finger tricks because there is a lot of room to improve. 

The cube i got is a Dayan Zhanchi from around the start 2012 i think. I haven't cubed a lot the last last year or so, because i had no motivation, but now i feel i want to get faster  

Greetings Alsakuma 

Sorry for my bad english, hope you understand me


----------



## szalejot (Feb 10, 2015)

Alsakuma said:


> Hello.
> 
> I'm thinking about switching the way i solve my rubiks cube. Atm i use the beginners method and have an average about 1.30 min. I'm not sure if it's the right time to switch method to a speed cubing method. Do i need to practice my finger tricks more before switching, because atm i'm trying to get better at finger tricks because there is a lot of room to improve.
> 
> ...



You can switch when you feel you are ready to switch. Fingertricks (and fast turning) is not required to solve cube in more numer-of-turns efficient way 
If you think you can easily solve cube with beginner method (without cheat sheet) you can move forward.


----------



## Alsakuma (Feb 10, 2015)

szalejot said:


> You can switch when you feel you are ready to switch. Fingertricks (and fast turning) is not required to solve cube in more numer-of-turns efficient way
> If you think you can easily solve cube with beginner method (without cheat sheet) you can move forward.



Thank you  i will try switching then


----------



## DavidKCuber (Feb 27, 2015)

Nice overview, I migh swith to roux or zz.


----------



## Gage4c (Apr 21, 2015)

I can't open the spoilers. Why not?


----------



## GuRoux (Apr 21, 2015)

Gage4c said:


> I can't open the spoilers. Why not?



strange, i can.


----------



## philipneri (May 11, 2015)

Why isn't Donovan's Roux Tutorial from lubixcube.com included in the Roux Resources section? I found it to be a very helpful series of videos.


----------



## DeeDubb (May 11, 2015)

philipneri said:


> Why isn't Donovan's Roux Tutorial from lubixcube.com included in the Roux Resources section? I found it to be a very helpful series of videos.



I'd +1 that. I think some people aren't a big fan of Lubix as a company, but the guide is still pretty good. Just don't do that thumb M move that he does


----------



## GuRoux (May 11, 2015)

philipneri said:


> Why isn't Donovan's Roux Tutorial from lubixcube.com included in the Roux Resources section? I found it to be a very helpful series of videos.



yeah, i pretty much learned roux minus lse from that video. i thought it was pretty good.


----------



## RaZoR777 (Jun 1, 2015)

*CFOP VS ROUX VS PETRUS*

I started speedcubing three months ago and I started with Petrus.I did not get good solves (all 2 minute solves).After a month I shifted to CFOP and got fast solves using F2L AND BEGINNER 4 look last layer and my best was 26 secs.I am having problems with OLL and PLL memorization.Should I shift again to Petrus or Roux or cont with CFOP?Plzz any alternative where without learning more than 45 to 50 algs I can get faster.


----------



## mark49152 (Jun 1, 2015)

In another thread you said that you just learned 23 VHLS algs in 2 days, so there's your problem. Stick with CFOP and focus on learning OLL and PLL at a sensible rate, instead of wasting time and effort on less important alg sets.


----------



## Eduard Khil (Jun 1, 2015)

Without considering your previous cases (VHLS, etc), Petrus and roux has far less algs than any other methods. Probably you're not good at blocks, just drill em'. Or just cont' with cfop


----------



## mDiPalma (Jun 1, 2015)

RaZoR777 said:


> I started speedcubing three months ago and I started with Petrus.I did not get good solves (all 2 minute solves).After a month I shifted to CFOP and got fast solves using F2L AND BEGINNER 4 look last layer and my best was 26 secs.I am having problems with OLL and PLL memorization.Should I shift again to Petrus or Roux or cont with CFOP?Plzz any alternative where without learning more than 45 to 50 algs I can get faster.



FYI, you don't need ANY non-intuitive algs to get sub-15 Petrus averages. For someone at your speed, algs should be considered a luxury.

With CFOP, you pretty much need algs, unless you want a 4-look intuitive LL.

I'd recommend giving Petrus a second chance, now that you know a bit more about the cube.


----------



## RaZoR777 (Jun 1, 2015)

mDiPalma said:


> FYI, you don't need ANY non-intuitive algs to get sub-15 Petrus averages. For someone at your speed, algs should be considered a luxury.
> 
> With CFOP, you pretty much need algs, unless you want a 4-look intuitive LL.
> 
> I'd recommend giving Petrus a second chance, now that you know a bit more about the cube.



Thanks,I am considering to give Petrus a second chance as learning algs is not my cup of tea.


----------



## Lyn Simm (Jun 12, 2015)

hi I am currently around 2 minutes with the layer-by-layer method, and I don't like algorithms and I want to solve as much of the cube as simply/intuitively as possible! i see that The Petrus Method and The Roux Method use algorithms less.

do you know of any good video tutorials for these? and maybe some just solving videos?? are these fast methods?? are they hard to understand?

-Lyn


----------



## theROUXbiksCube (Jun 12, 2015)

Lyn Simm said:


> hi I am currently around 2 minutes with the layer-by-layer method, and I don't like algorithms and I want to solve as much of the cube as simply/intuitively as possible! i see that The Petrus Method and The Roux Method use algorithms less.
> 
> do you know of any good video tutorials for these? and maybe some just solving videos?? are these fast methods?? are they hard to understand?
> 
> -Lyn



1st page of this thread ;p


----------



## TDM (Jun 12, 2015)

Lyn Simm said:


> hi I am currently around 2 minutes with the layer-by-layer method, and I don't like algorithms and I want to solve as much of the cube as simply/intuitively as possible! i see that The Petrus Method and The Roux Method use algorithms less.
> 
> do you know of any good video tutorials for these? and maybe some just solving videos?? are these fast methods?? are they hard to understand?
> 
> -Lyn


Most people think Petrus is slow, but Roux is definitely fast; it's about the same speed as CFOP and ZZ. The first post of this thread contains tutorials for both Roux and Petrus (in each method's spoiler, there's another spoiler for resources). The only guide for either of these methods aimed at beginners is DeeDubb's Roux tutorial, which is very good. I've not heard of anyone have difficulty with learning from it.


----------



## Lyn Simm (Jun 12, 2015)

theROUXbiksCube said:


> 1st page of this thread ;p



oh ok! I didnt click on "Resources"

but are these methods fast and easy to learn?? are they confusing?? I'm new

also what are the competition videos of The Petrus Method and The Roux Method?? Can you give me a link??

Thanks! -Lyn


----------



## TDM (Jun 12, 2015)

Lyn Simm said:


> oh ok! I didnt click on "Resources"
> 
> but are these methods fast and easy to learn?? are they confusing?? I'm new
> 
> ...


Roux is fast, Petrus is not. Roux is easy to learn if you use DeeDubb's tutorial (which is aimed at complete beginners), but Petrus has no tutorial for beginners as far as I know.

I don't know of anyone fast who uses Petrus in competition (Erik Johnson used to but has since switched to CFOP), but if you want to see a fast Roux solver, then Alex Lau is the second fastest cuber in the world. His channel is here, and you can find videos of him solving here and here.


----------



## cashis (Jun 12, 2015)

https://m.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLajHGvYF36nSsL1r_DqrpDY07TnJwqEpn


----------



## Isaac Lai (Jun 13, 2015)

Lyn Simm said:


> hi I am currently around 2 minutes with the layer-by-layer method, and I don't like algorithms and I want to solve as much of the cube as simply/intuitively as possible! i see that The Petrus Method and The Roux Method use algorithms less.
> 
> do you know of any good video tutorials for these? and maybe some just solving videos?? are these fast methods?? are they hard to understand?
> 
> -Lyn



You shouldn't say that you "don't like learning algs". When you first start, of course learning algs is a chore. But as you learn more algs, it gets easier. However, the advantage that using algs has over intuitive steps is that algs can be mindlessly executed without thinking.

That being said Roux is an interesting method that is very possible to get fast with. If you do switch to Roux though, try and "start anew". However, since you haven't been using CFOP for too long this willnot be that big of a problem.


----------



## Lyn Simm (Jun 13, 2015)

Isaac Lai said:


> You shouldn't say that you "don't like learning algs". When you first start, of course learning algs is a chore. But as you learn more algs, it gets easier. However, the advantage that using algs has over intuitive steps is that algs can be mindlessly executed without thinking.
> 
> That being said Roux is an interesting method that is very possible to get fast with. If you do switch to Roux though, try and "start anew". However, since you haven't been using CFOP for too long this willnot be that big of a problem.



Hi I did not say "I don't like learning algs". I said "I don't like algs". the difference is: I want to understand exactly what I'm doing with every move! it's more fun that way!! Does that make sense?? 

anyway thanks everyone for the advice!! I found some other videos about The Petrus Method on YouTube!!

-Lyn


----------



## dboeren (Jun 24, 2015)

I'm restarting after being out of cubing for several years, and DeeDub's tutorials look really interesting as an alternative to the normal beginner's method, although I want to know that well too so I can teach others either method.


----------



## OLLiver (Aug 5, 2015)

Hey fellow cubers.
I come to you now in my hour of confusion seeking advice
So the big question is what method I should focus my next half-decade or so learning. I apologise in advance for the post length.
ROUX vs ZBLL.

So I avg 13 second on boring old CFOP without full OLL. I started on ZBLL a while ago and I know the full T set. But I got a bit fed up of CFOP so I have been doing roux for a week and I avg around 25 seconds now. I like roux a lot but I also like ZBLL.
I want to do the next big thing in cubing. ZBLL and roux are both relatively uncharted territory. I am very good at M moves but I am also fast at learning Algorithms. 
So skill-wise both could be a good pursuit. I need some help here people so what do you think I should focus on?


----------



## Berd (Aug 5, 2015)

OLLiver said:


> Hey fellow cubers.
> I come to you now in my hour of confusion seeking advice
> So the big question is what method I should focus my next half-decade or so learning. I apologise in advance for the post length.
> ROUX vs ZBLL.
> ...


Have you tried zz/zb? That could work I guess. Why not create a method!?


----------



## CoolTapes (Aug 9, 2015)

Hello.

I would consider myself still pretty much a beginner speedcuber who's open to the idea of learning a different method (barely sub-1:00 on 3x3 with CFOP and not particularly attached to it). After reading the guide and skimming through the rest of this thread, there's one thing which was only briefly touched on, which is the 3x3 stage on bigger cubes.

From what I gather, Roux is out of the question because of all the M moves, and most people use CFOP. But what would be the pros and cons of CFOP vs. ZZ or Petrus for this purpose? Or does it really matter? 

Is "effectiveness for 3x3 stage on big cubes" a crucial factor to consider for someone who would like to become a decent all-around speedcuber, or is it not that big of a deal?


----------



## TDM (Aug 9, 2015)

CoolTapes said:


> Hello.
> 
> I would consider myself still pretty much a beginner speedcuber who's open to the idea of learning a different method (barely sub-1:00 on 3x3 with CFOP and not particularly attached to it). After reading the guide and skimming through the rest of this thread, there's one thing which was only briefly touched on, which is the 3x3 stage on bigger cubes.
> 
> ...


Roux is actually still good on 4x4. It's 5x5+ where it's not a good method to use.


CFOP is a very good method for bigcubes. It doesn't rely on inspection very much and there are several methods which have the cross solved before you reach the 3x3 stage, which can help save time.

ZZ is okay, but not great. It relies a bit more on inspection, but for a good ZZ user this shouldn't be too much of an issue. If you can see OLL parity in inspection you can probably do a faster OLL parity alg than most other people, since you don't need to preserve permutation before solving anything. Being able to do COLL every time is another benefit; EPLLs make PLL parity easier to see, and are easier to do on bigcubes because they're <R, U>. However... some people find the <L, U, R> F2L harder to do quickly on bigcubes, and this can cause lockups.

Petrus isn't as good a method for 3x3 anyway, and it's not too good on bigcubes either, unless you're using a method where an XX-cross (maybe without the last edge) is solved by the 3x3 stage, like OBLBL or Yau5/Hoya5. This is because it relies on inspection; you need to be colour neutral to be able to use Petrus' blockbuilding efficiency as much as possible. Being CN is a bit impractical for the 3x3 stage of reduction since you don't have time to check all the blocks. However, after the blocks are built it's good, since you can orient edges easily and again could possibly use an easier OLL parity alg. The LL is nice, same as ZZ, because you can either do COLL or OCLL.



But really, the 3x3 stage isn't a big part of the solve at all, especially on bigger bigcubes. The reduction part is far more important. 3x3 is only really important in 4x4.


----------



## shadowslice e (Aug 9, 2015)

CoolTapes said:


> Hello.
> 
> I would consider myself still pretty much a beginner speedcuber who's open to the idea of learning a different method (barely sub-1:00 on 3x3 with CFOP and not particularly attached to it). After reading the guide and skimming through the rest of this thread, there's one thing which was only briefly touched on, which is the 3x3 stage on bigger cubes.
> 
> ...



I wouldn't say that roux is completely out of the question... With enough practise the m slices aren't too bad especially on the smaller big cubes. And besides, a lot of the solve is actually not m moves (only LSE really)


----------



## supercavitation (Aug 9, 2015)

OLLiver said:


> Hey fellow cubers.
> I come to you now in my hour of confusion seeking advice
> So the big question is what method I should focus my next half-decade or so learning. I apologise in advance for the post length.
> ROUX vs ZBLL.
> ...



There's no real reason you have to stick to one. I'm aware that this is not the best of all systems, but many people do Roux for 2H and ZZ for OH. If you want to keep learning ZBLL, you could do that for OH, and stick with Roux for 2H.


----------



## PenguinsDontFly (Aug 9, 2015)

shadowslice e said:


> I wouldn't say that roux is completely out of the question... With enough practise the m slices aren't too bad especially on the smaller big cubes. And besides, a lot of the solve is actually not m moves (only LSE really)



it gets pretty hard on 5x5+ from what I've heard. but yes, on 4x4 it is still good. my 3x3 stage is about 11 seconds (not including first block or parity of course) which isnt that bad.


----------



## dboeren (Aug 9, 2015)

I just bought my first 4x4 cube at the Atlanta competition yesterday, it's a stickerless Aosu.

I just started learning to solve it this morning and I use Roux. Even though I'm still a beginner overall, I had no trouble at all doing m slices with it so I'd say it's not an issue.

The only thing I *might* count as any sort of issue for Roux is that if you have a parity error the L6E can be harder to recognize. That is, you will have spotted a little earlier in the solve when you were fixing your top/bottom that "something ain't right". So you keep going, and then when you're at the absolute last step you may have some trouble seeing how to do the final four edges. You'll have advanced notice though, and it's quite possible that this is just due to me encountering this for the first time and I'll quickly adapt to it.

Short version: Roux doesn't seem to be a problem for 4x4. I can see 5x5 or higher being a problem due to the m slices though, your finger just won't be able to span across 3 cubes. Two cubes however, seems pretty easy.


----------



## TDM (Aug 9, 2015)

dboeren said:


> The only thing I *might* count as any sort of issue for Roux is that if you have a parity error the L6E can be harder to recognize. That is, you will have spotted a little earlier in the solve when you were fixing your top/bottom that "something ain't right". So you keep going, and then when you're at the absolute last step you may have some trouble seeing how to do the final four edges. You'll have advanced notice though, and it's quite possible that this is just due to me encountering this for the first time and I'll quickly adapt to it.


I recognise orientation parity before CMLL. You can usually look ahead during SB to see whether BD will be oriented or not, and even if you can't look ahead then you can still just look at the D layer. By doing this I get to use my normal parity alg instead of a pure one. I do PLL parity last, as that's fairly easy to see when you get to the last step.


----------



## CoolTapes (Aug 17, 2015)

> Roux is actually still good on 4x4. It's 5x5+ where it's not a good method to use...
> 
> Lots of info
> 
> ...But really, the 3x3 stage isn't a big part of the solve at all, especially on bigger bigcubes. The reduction part is far more important. 3x3 is only really important in 4x4.



Thanks, this is all the information I was looking for, and then some.



> I wouldn't say that roux is completely out of the question... With enough practise the m slices aren't too bad especially on the smaller big cubes.





> it gets pretty hard on 5x5+ from what I've heard. but yes, on 4x4 it is still good.





> Short version: Roux doesn't seem to be a problem for 4x4. I can see 5x5 or higher being a problem due to the m slices though, your finger just won't be able to span across 3 cubes.



That's true, I do know how to solve 4x4 and 5x5 using fairly basic reduction, and I noticed that h-perms and stuff were doable on my 4x4 but not on the 5x5. Although, that may have been because my 5x5 is so old and bad and unsuitable for speedsolving (early 2000s Rubik's brand lol, will be getting a proper 5x5 soon before I even bother trying to go fast). But in any case, there's got to be a limit somewhere, and I figured I would probably want to stick to one 3x3 method for all big cubes, rather than use one for 4x4 and another for 5x5+, or something like that.


----------



## xchippy (Aug 17, 2015)

TDM said:


> Roux is actually still good on 4x4.


CFOP is clearly better on 4x4 because Yau sets up the cross though.


----------



## TDM (Aug 17, 2015)

xchippy said:


> CFOP is clearly better on 4x4 because Yau sets up the cross though.


... what, and Yau is the only 4x4 method? Meyer exists too.


----------



## NeilH (Aug 17, 2015)

xchippy said:


> CFOP is clearly better on 4x4 because Yau sets up the cross though.



bro meyer sets up the first block


----------



## PenguinsDontFly (Aug 17, 2015)

NeilH said:


> bro meyer sets up the first block



first block is better than cross. 1 move headstart into 4x4 stage. and also, IMO, meyer can be just as fast as yau. i average 48 and i barely practise.


----------



## TDM (Aug 17, 2015)

PenguinsDontFly said:


> first block is better than cross.


I don't agree with this though - FB is hard to do quickly in Meyer when compared to the cross. It could be a bit easier if you were x-neutral but I still think the cross is faster in Yau.


----------



## dboeren (Aug 17, 2015)

I don't think that's what he meant. I'm reading it as "first block is more of a head-start towards the rest of the solve than cross". It's better in the sense that it's a bigger step towards the finish line.


----------



## TDM (Aug 17, 2015)

dboeren said:


> I don't think that's what he meant. I'm reading it as "first block is more of a head-start towards the rest of the solve than cross". It's better in the sense that it's a bigger step towards the finish line.


Yeah, but if something saves half a second but takes two extra seconds to do, it's not faster.


----------



## PenguinsDontFly (Aug 17, 2015)

TDM said:


> I don't agree with this though - FB is hard to do quickly in Meyer when compared to the cross. It could be a bit easier if you were x-neutral but I still think the cross is faster in Yau.



in overall speed, yes, that one step makes meyer maybe 1 second slower than yau. 1 second is like nothing. unless you're sub 30.


----------



## TDM (Aug 17, 2015)

PenguinsDontFly said:


> in overall speed, yes, that one step makes meyer maybe 1 second slower than yau. 1 second is like nothing. unless you're sub 30.


I think being limited with what edges you can pair up makes it more than a second though.

However the 3x3 stage is quite good with Roux so I think the overall disadvantage is maybe a second.


----------



## PenguinsDontFly (Aug 17, 2015)

TDM said:


> I think being limited with what edges you can pair up makes it more than a second though.
> 
> However the 3x3 stage is quite good with Roux so I think the overall disadvantage is maybe a second.



Once you get used to it, its pretty easy. Most of the time, I dont even pair edges then attach the corner. mostly, I pair the corner with the edge and the add the other edge (other than DL edge of course).


----------



## dboeren (Aug 17, 2015)

Should this be split out into a "Guide to choosing a 4x4 Method" thread?


----------



## xchippy (Aug 19, 2015)

PenguinsDontFly said:


> in overall speed, yes, that one step makes meyer maybe 1 second slower than yau. 1 second is like nothing. unless you're sub 30.



Any second slower is bad, though. You wouldn't go and learn bad algorithms just because they're slightly slower.


----------



## dominugget (Aug 20, 2015)

CoolTapes said:


> Hello.
> 
> I would consider myself still pretty much a beginner speedcuber who's open to the idea of learning a different method (barely sub-1:00 on 3x3 with CFOP and not particularly attached to it). After reading the guide and skimming through the rest of this thread, there's one thing which was only briefly touched on, which is the 3x3 stage on bigger cubes.
> 
> ...



Actually, just because Roux is on of the lesser used speed solving methods doesn't mean it's any less good. People can still be sub10 with roux, and it's only taken me a week to learn roux until I became sub 40. It's very easy. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## dboeren (Aug 20, 2015)

Less commonly used methods are also less explored than CFOP, meaning there is likely more room for future improvement in these methods.


----------



## dominugget (Aug 21, 2015)

dboeren said:


> Less commonly used methods are also less explored than CFOP, meaning there is likely more room for future improvement in these methods.



Yes and there is always room for innovation. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## PenguinsDontFly (Aug 21, 2015)

dominugget said:


> Yes and there is always room for innovation.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk



but there are also fewer resources and fewer people to take advice from.


----------



## dominugget (Aug 21, 2015)

PenguinsDontFly said:


> but there are also fewer resources and fewer people to take advice from.


Imo, there's more fun in the challenge. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## shadowslice e (Aug 21, 2015)

PenguinsDontFly said:


> but there are also fewer resources and fewer people to take advice from.



Like that would ever stop someone like me... ;-P


----------



## PenguinsDontFly (Aug 21, 2015)

shadowslice e said:


> Like that would ever stop someone like me... ;-P



I'm not saying its necessarily harder to get fast with, but you will be alone very often and have to figure out what to improve yourself.


----------



## theROUXbiksCube (Aug 21, 2015)

PenguinsDontFly said:


> I'm not saying its necessarily harder to get fast with, but you will be alone very often and have to figure out what to improve yourself.



Yes look ahead is a pain in the ass


----------



## PenguinsDontFly (Aug 21, 2015)

theROUXbiksCube said:


> Yes look ahead is a pain in the ass



Lookahead in roux is ONLY 4 PIECES ***. Once you can plan DR edge, you just need to lookahead to 4 pieces in the whole solve. LSE is just spamspamspam no lookahead.


----------



## shadowslice e (Aug 21, 2015)

PenguinsDontFly said:


> I'm not saying its necessarily harder to get fast with, but you will be alone very often and have to figure out what to improve yourself.



Personally, I would actually see this as a good thing in the I long run.

To clarify, if a cuber really wants to get fast, eventually they will reach a speed that very, very few people have ever attained and from there they will always have to work pretty much by themselves, working out what they need to improve on by themselves.

In addition, working through by themselves will sometimes lead to some great insight into the cube that could lead to benefits for many people and possibly all the cubers that follow.


----------



## Sam N (Dec 29, 2015)

Jgldrums said:


> I know the Beginner's Method, but I would like to get faster times. What method would you recommend?



this isn't necessarily the thread for that. Some of your options include things like CFOP or Roux.

Here is a link that should help you out with that. 

https://www.speedsolving.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?8-Speedcubing-Help-Questions


----------



## Jgldrums (Dec 29, 2015)

I only know the beginner's method, but I would eventually like to learn CFOP. Do you know any good methods to learn before learning CFOP?


----------



## JustinTimeCuber (Dec 29, 2015)

Jgldrums said:


> I only know the beginner's method, but I would eventually like to learn CFOP. Do you know any good methods to learn before learning CFOP?



There are multiple variants of the Beginner's Method. It will be easier to learn CFOP if your last layer is in this order:
Orient Edges (make cross on top)
Orient Corners (finish top face)
Permute Corners (move corner pieces to their correct position)
Permute Edges (finish cube, move edge pieces to their correct position)
If you solve the last layer like that or similarly, what I would first suggest is an intermediate LL (last layer) method called 4-look last layer (4LLL). This method requires 16 algorithms total, many of which are based off of others.

Here's an example: (scramble yellow on top, red in front) R' U2 R2 U R2 U F R F L F L' F U'
There should be a Y shape of yellow pieces that is turned 135 degrees counterclockwise. If you have this, then you did the right scramble.
Parentheses around a single move indicates that it is a premove and not part of the algorithm.
(U) F U R U' R' F' // Orient edges
(U') R U R' U R U2 R' // Orient corners
// Permutation of corners unnecessary
R2 U R U R' U' R' U' R U R' (U') Permute edges


----------



## Jgldrums (Dec 30, 2015)

JustinTimeCuber said:


> There are multiple variants of the Beginner's Method. It will be easier to learn CFOP if your last layer is in this order:
> Orient Edges (make cross on top)
> Orient Corners (finish top face)
> Permute Corners (move corner pieces to their correct position)
> ...




Can you direct me to the Wiki/algs for 4LLL? I can't seem to find it.



TDM said:


> That makes sense. Although it does look like you've missed out something using the letters a, b and d.
> 
> I understand what you're saying, but it's not really clear in the description.
> 
> ...



Could you explain your reasoning for switching to Roux? I am trying to decide which method to use. (I'm also thinking Keyhole).


----------



## CubePro (Dec 30, 2015)

I'd recommend learning 2 Look OLL from this site: http://badmephisto.com/2LookOLL.pdf
And for 2 Look PLL you can keep the headlights in the back and do this: l' U R' D2 R U' R' D2 R2 (Aa Perm)(l' means turning the Middle layer and the left layer at the same time)
If there are no headlights, do this holding the cube anyway: F R U' R' U' R U R' F' R U R' U' R' F R F' (Y-perm)
And for EPLL:https://www.speedsolving.com/wiki/index.php/EPLL(When only the edges need to be moved)


----------



## shadowslice e (Dec 30, 2015)

Jgldrums said:


> Could you explain your reasoning for switching to Roux? I am trying to decide which method to use. (I'm also thinking Keyhole).



Cuz roux is less of a brute force method, looks cooler and feels nicer or something along those lines was his reasoning i believe.


----------



## PenguinsDontFly (Dec 30, 2015)

shadowslice e said:


> Cuz roux is less of a brute force method, looks cooler and feels nicer or something along those lines was his reasoning i believe.



he just felt like roux was better for him and was the easiest method for him to get sub 10 with.


----------



## Zach (Mar 7, 2016)

*Simple but fast 3x3 methods?*

I have been looking into a lot of 3x3 speed methods lately, and I have found that nearly all require a lot of algorithms, or use complicated techniques. If a method is easy, it's slow, and if it's got tons of algorithms, it's fast. I was wondering if there were any methods that have the best of both. A method that uses few algorithms (under 20) and, if used well, can achieve a low time (sub-10). I understand that to get fast times, you need to practice and learn algorithms, but surely there are some methods that can be used in competition and don't require a lot of algorithms. Also, I know about Petrus. It's a good method, but I wouldn't mind having a few more algorithms in exchange for being able to achieve faster times.


----------



## GTemples27 (Mar 7, 2016)

I mean, you could do CFOP with 4LLL. Not the fastest, but not too many algs. Or you could do Petrus with the 2 Look OLL and full PLL for fast (Not sure if you could get sub-10, but you'd be able to get pretty good times.) times. That's only ~30 algs.


----------



## sqAree (Mar 7, 2016)

I guess Roux with 2LCMLL?

Less than 10 algs, no complicated techniques. I'm not sure sub10 is easily doable though.


----------



## shadowslice e (Mar 7, 2016)

You could try SSC if you want fewer algs. ~20-30 iirc. Link in sig 

It's not exactly the easiest method though tbh


----------



## adimare (Mar 7, 2016)

3 look ZZ is just 13 algs.


----------



## jerincha (Mar 13, 2016)

which method should I choose if i am not interested in lot of turning around the cube, less and small algorithms?


----------



## Berd (Mar 13, 2016)

jerincha said:


> which method should I choose if i am not interested in lot of turning around the cube, less and small algorithms?


Roux!


----------



## shadowslice e (Mar 13, 2016)

jerincha said:


> which method should I choose if i am not interested in lot of turning around the cube, less and small algorithms?


Roux or SSC


----------



## mark49152 (Mar 13, 2016)

shadowslice e said:


> Roux or SSC


Does anyone actually use SSC? As far as I can see, it's an interesting experimental idea, but with no users and no resources it's really not a good recommendation for a beginner to choose.


----------



## sqAree (Mar 13, 2016)

mark49152 said:


> Does anyone actually use SSC? As far as I can see, it's an interesting experimental idea, but with no users and no resources it's really not a good recommendation for a beginner to choose.



I'm sometimes doing SSC solves. The method got huge potential in my opinion. Now maybe the fingertricks with loads of Ds can get a bit annoying but apart from that I think it's definitely worth a recommendation.

But I admit it's not my main method.


----------



## shadowslice e (Mar 13, 2016)

mark49152 said:


> Does anyone actually use SSC? As far as I can see, it's an interesting experimental idea, but with no users and no resources it's really not a good recommendation for a beginner to choose.


Crafto is sub-15 with SSC-M ( or ECE). I admit that it does need more resources but I just want to try to promote it and get people to look at it. If /when I get sub-10 with Roux (hopefully within a year) I may try to get it sub-10- I am about 20 with it atm and I don't know all the algs. If I get bored I will switch sooner.

Tbh, I don't think anyone will choose it as a beginner because it isn't exactly an easy method. Hopefully I can get it fast soon but I need to practise it more first.

Basically, I hope that if I get fast with it more people will see it as an alternative like roux (or more specifically to CFOP)

Plus he wanted a rotationless, low alg and SSC has the lowest alg count of any method (in fact any method aside from BLD and Sexy method or similar without having to learn comms)


----------



## mark49152 (Mar 13, 2016)

Hey I don't mean to disparage SSC or discourage you. It's an interesting idea and innovation is important. But this thread is about method choice for beginners and it's not a good choice for a beginner.

Also, if you really want to promote it, you should show your belief in it and use it yourself as your main!


----------



## sqAree (Mar 13, 2016)

mark49152 said:


> Hey I don't mean to disparage SSC or discourage you. It's an interesting idea and innovation is important. But this thread is about method choice for beginners and it's not a good choice for a beginner.
> 
> Also, if you really want to promote it, you should show your belief in it and use it yourself as your main!



Some years ago no one would agree that Roux is a good choice for a beginner. Today it's said to be one of the easiest approaches to solve the cube for beginners. Roux uses some "uncommon" concepts like blockbuilding and intuitive LSE and is yet easy to understand.
SSC features a similar last step as well as EO at the start. I'd say SSC could be a nice method for beginners, allowing them to switch to ZZ, Roux or similar methods with ease later.
Alright, maybe it's not the perfect method for the kind of beginner who has huge problems at first, and only wants to learn how to brainlessly solve the cube, not understanding a lot and not memorizing a lot of algs. But there are always people out there that are ambitious and want to learn a fancy method right away. There are prominent Roux users that chose Roux for the sole reason of this method not being mainstream ; and they got happy with it. So I think as SSC is as efficient as Roux we shouldn't deny newcomers this method.


----------



## TDM (Mar 13, 2016)

I don't know SSC so I don't know how suitable it is as a beginners method, but I agree that if someone wants a "fancy" method to begin with then there's nothing wrong with that, and if SSC suits them then perhaps it could be good to suggest it to them. However,


sqAree said:


> There are prominent Roux users that chose Roux for the sole reason of this method not being mainstream ; and they got happy with it.


I don't think this reasoning should be encouraged.


----------



## mark49152 (Mar 13, 2016)

It's not just about the qualities of the method. Try being a beginner with no tutorials, no examples, and no other users to talk to.


----------



## sqAree (Mar 13, 2016)

You got a point there. In this case I think someone should create a tutorial for SSC and include it in the first post of this thread.
I know that shadowslice's introduction of SSC is not sufficient to learn the method unless you are already an experienced cuber.


----------



## shadowslice e (Mar 14, 2016)

sqAree said:


> You got a point there. In this case I think someone should create a tutorial for SSC and include it in the first post of this thread.
> I know that shadowslice's introduction of SSC is not sufficient to learn the method unless you are already an experienced cuber.



I'll try to make a tutorial with walkthroughs at some point though no guarantees as to when. It'll probably be a series one video for each step and some walkthroughs.

I suppose that can be my project for the summer: create a series of resources for people who want to pick up the method and actually get good at it myself.

Eoline/edge I may just refer them to asmallkitten's video since he explains it so well there.

Also, one of the funny thing is that I was still quite a bit of a noob when I first proposed the method (I had been properly cubing for about 1-2 months).


----------



## posaidon0802 (Mar 14, 2016)

ZZ or Petrus. Both of them are blockbuilding and have not that much algs. ZZ is also rotationless. The algs for both methods are only for the last layer (which is kinda obvious because intuitive last layer is hard) CFOP is my main method and there are more guides to it but, if you're willing to learn ZZ and Petrus, then go ahead.


----------



## gateway cuber (Apr 7, 2016)

You know, roux actually is a very highly intuitive method and anybody could probably achieve sub-30 in just a few days! I am currently converting to roux and am nearly sub-20 in under a week! (granted I was sub 14 with cfob...)


----------



## phamtuanktdt (Oct 7, 2016)

I'll try for sure. Many thanks


----------



## otbgroup (Oct 19, 2016)

Good morning to everybody. I'm otbgroup and I am an ancient user and player of old Rubik's Cube in earlier '80. I dicovered again this Amazing game and I'm happy to discover too that a huge international community exists aroun the cube.
I started with Kurt Endl methos (Layer by Layer with ROOF, MIDDLE and FLOOR) and I'm searching for a new method. I' read about F2L that I find fantastic, but I'm study Cornars First at the moment.
Is theere some new method I can study? Thanks.


----------



## Rcuber123 (Oct 19, 2016)

I don't recommend u to learn corners first. Your best options are probably:

CFOP: learn F2L and 4LLL and then learn full PLL then full OLL

Roux: learn Roux and get used to it then learn 2 look COLL and then full COLL

ZZ: learn ZZ and get used to it then start learning ZZ-CT


----------



## FJT97 (Oct 19, 2016)

First of all:

Nice to see you! Welcome in the forums!

The question is, what do you want to do with those methods. If you want to get into spedcubing and get fast, zz cfop and roux are your best bets, as @Rcuber123 said. If you want to learn stuff about cube theory, you could try Heise or NISS.
Each and every method has its advantagea and disatvantages. You should try different ones and inform yorself about all nice alternatives before you get into one of them. Feel free to ask if you have any questions. The cubing community is a friendly community


----------



## Rcuber123 (Oct 19, 2016)

FJT97 said:


> First of all:
> 
> Nice to see you! Welcome in the forums!
> 
> ...


NISS isn't a method it's just a technique for FMC. NISS can't solve cube it just gives us more options with is great for FMC


----------



## phreaker (Oct 20, 2016)

Rcuber123 said:


> I don't recommend u to learn corners first. Your best options are probably:
> 
> CFOP: learn F2L and 4LLL and then learn full PLL then full OLL
> 
> ...



Roux you mean CMLL?

ZZ, you can use OCLL + PLL, to cut the initial alg count down to a reasonable amount. But that doesn't stop the pain known as EOLine .


----------



## FJT97 (Oct 20, 2016)

Rcuber123 said:


> NISS isn't a method it's just a technique for FMC. NISS can't solve cube it just gives us more options with is great for FMC



Well, you are right.
anyway: If you want to do efficient, cube theorethical solves, check this guide on fmc:
http://fmcsolves.cubing.net/fmc_tutorial_ENG.pdf


----------



## Rcuber123 (Oct 20, 2016)

phreaker said:


> Roux you mean CMLL?
> 
> ZZ, you can use OCLL + PLL, to cut the initial alg count down to a reasonable amount. But that doesn't stop the pain known as EOLine .



Yeah I meant CMLL


----------



## Zachary Palan (Nov 14, 2016)

I don't know about anyone else, but I believe being proficient in Roux and CFOP could really help you in your solves. I dont know if there is an official name for it, but if you do your F2L using Roux, it is easier to look ahead and find your OLL(I use partial OLL so I have to know what I am doing immediately so that if I run into a case that I dont know a single alg solve fore the case, i can do the next one asap) I don't feel that Roux is harder at all to look ahead because all you need to look for at the start of a solve is 2 edges and a pair, which can also easily be found while inserting tho 2 edges. to be honest, I have adapted what I heard on Roux into F2l, but forget about to edges on cross until your F2L pairs are inserted. finally, use whatever LL method you want and I believe it is easier to improve, learn, and lookahead


----------



## biscuit (Nov 14, 2016)

Zachary Palan said:


> I don't know about anyone else, but I believe being proficient in Roux and CFOP could really help you in your solves. I dont know if there is an official name for it, but if you do your F2L using Roux, it is easier to look ahead and find your OLL(I use partial OLL so I have to know what I am doing immediately so that if I run into a case that I dont know a single alg solve fore the case, i can do the next one asap) I don't feel that Roux is harder at all to look ahead because all you need to look for at the start of a solve is 2 edges and a pair, which can also easily be found while inserting tho 2 edges. to be honest, I have adapted what I heard on Roux into F2l, but forget about to edges on cross until your F2L pairs are inserted. finally, use whatever LL method you want and I believe it is easier to improve, learn, and lookahead



A lot of people have thought of this and similar ideas. For various reasons, it's not better. It's a good start to developign your own method though!


----------



## Zachary Palan (Nov 15, 2016)

I know for various reasons it isnt that great, but the way I do the roux is basically skip 2 edges to look for the pairs. for beginners/intermediates, it is much easier to track. it probably has a high move count though. I also dont find edge pairing from the bottom layer particularly bad either, so I guess it depends on the person


----------



## Metallic Silver (Jan 16, 2017)

Speedcubing Methods Good for Beginners:

LBL ---> Badmephisto (Beginner CFOP) --> CFOP
Samsara --> ^
Salvia --> RouxOP (Beginner Roux) --> Roux
Pure Petrus --> PetrusOP --> Advanced Petrus
DO NOT TEACH BEGINNERS ZZ!! (They must learn CFOP first or master at it.)

Others: XG method, Hexagonal Francisco, FreeFOP, or CFCE.

Badmephisto:
1. Cross
2. Solve Corners Unoriented
3. Pair the Corners with Equator Edges (only 2 cases)
4. Edge Orient
5. Corners Orient
6. Corners Permute
7. Edges Permute

Best Beginner CFOP Method!! (It really helped me)


----------



## shadowslice e (Jan 16, 2017)

Metallic Silver said:


> DO NOT TEACH BEGINNERS ZZ!! (They must learn CFOP first or master at it.)


Why not? I definitely didn't "master" CFOP before I learned ZZ and I just went straight to proper Roux/ZZ without having learned more than basic LBL beforehand and having been solving with it for about 1-2 weeks and did maybe 5 solves with it.

Also, you will pobably be doing more harm than good because they will have to break the CFOP habits of pair building and using Fs, rotations etc.


----------



## AlphaSheep (Jan 16, 2017)

Metallic Silver said:


> DO NOT TEACH BEGINNERS ZZ!! (They must learn CFOP first or master at it.)


I completely and utterly disagree. ZZ was my first speed solving method as a beginner and I had no problem learning it. I was averaging just under 2 minutes when I learned it, and it took less than a day to understand EO. 

I think learning CFOP first actually does more harm than good if you intend on eventually learning ZZ.


----------



## BirdPuzzles (Feb 14, 2017)

AlphaSheep said:


> I completely and utterly disagree. ZZ was my first speed solving method as a beginner and I had no problem learning it. I was averaging just under 2 minutes when I learned it, and it took less than a day to understand EO.
> 
> I think learning CFOP first actually does more harm than good if you intend on eventually learning ZZ.


Yeah, I intend on becoming a ZZ solver at OH. Eventually . I think that beginners just need to learn the easiest to follow method


----------



## NoobishCuber (Feb 25, 2017)

I have no idea what the best beginner method is. I have heard so many many things that say do hexagonal Francisco, Petrus, Roux, Beginner CFOP, and I have no idea which one I should learn. I average around 1:20 and my PB is 1:01. The corner piece to my main broke so...ok


----------



## shadowslice e (Feb 25, 2017)

Learn to solve wishing any of those methods, then learn how to do the rest of them (it will get easier I promise! ). Then decide which method is your favourite.


----------



## WondrousMoose (Mar 13, 2017)

Eh, I'd say just stick with CFOP. It's what the best cubers use, and trying to learn more than one will likely result in not being very good with any of them for a very long time.


----------



## shadowslice e (Mar 13, 2017)

WondrousMoose said:


> Eh, I'd say just stick with CFOP. It's what the best cubers use, and trying to learn more than one will likely result in not being very good with any of them for a very long time.


I beg to differ. I improved on 3x3 reasonably quickly and I have known how to do more than 5 methods for all but the first month of solving.


----------



## efattah (Mar 14, 2017)

Well CFOP and Roux are currently the fastest methods but require vast amounts of training. If you are looking for the fastest method with the fewest algorithms, the LMCF beginner's method can get you to 12-15 second averages with just 25 algorithms.


----------



## Luke8 (Mar 14, 2017)

Dabble a bit in every method, see which one is your favorite, and practice! If you choose CFOP, learn 2-Look OLL and 2-Look PLL before full OLL and PLL. Also, just because the world record is with CFOP, doesn't mean it's the best. Roux is great option, and so is Petrus. Once you've mastered a method, learn another! It is fun, and then you can truly see what method best fits you. And for the broken cube, get a new one. Go to http://thecubicle.us/ or https://speedcubeshop.com/ for a new cube. Happy cubing!


----------



## AlphaSheep (Mar 14, 2017)

WondrousMoose said:


> Eh, I'd say just stick with CFOP. It's what the best cubers use, and trying to learn more than one will likely result in not being very good with any of them for a very long time.


Only if you don't do dedicated practice with one method. Like @shadowslice e, I learned lots of methods right from the beginning (everything except for CFOP for some reason, ha ha). I had no problem getting faster when I chose to go with ZZ, and at least I know that I chose the right method for me. Sure, CFOP may be good for most people, but how will you know if you are different from most people if you just copy what everyone else does.


----------



## phreaker (Mar 14, 2017)

I enjoy ZZ, mainly because RUL and OH. (I don't always have a table around or I might do more Roux which is also OH friendly once you learn the table abuse based finger tricks.)

I learned Beginners -> Beginners + 4LLL -> CFOP 4LLL -> ZZ 3LLL -> ZZ 2LLL. (OCLL + PLL at the moment. I've heard COLL + EPLL is better, and leads to ZBLL, but I have limited time. So I'd rather spend it on getting PLL down solid, which I need for every single alg set, pretty much.)

The biggest thing: Get a cube you like, find events you like. And do them. The rest is all immaterial. You will get faster over time as you practice... but you only practice if you enjoy practicing . (Thus why I stick to OH mainly. Though I'll admit, I've been adding some 2H and BLD recently.)

Try different things... enjoy the hobby... that's my biggest advice above methods, and the rest... enjoy yourself, and if it isn't fun... figure out why, and make it fun again . Maybe a 4x4, or a 5x5... Maybe a 2x2? Maybe a megaminx? Who knows... (I have a weak spot in my heart for 4x4 despite totally sucking at it. You don't have to be good at an event to enjoy it.  )


----------



## jam66150 (Mar 18, 2017)

What should i use i'm pretty new to speed cubeing and just got my first sub one minute with the layer by layer method and i want to use a more effective way and i don,t like cfop already gave it a try to many algorithms so what should i use roux or zz i don't know what one i should use


----------



## puffyswims (Mar 18, 2017)

I use ZZ for one handed bc it's so ergonomic and roux for regular 3x3 [emoji106] they're both great in my opinion but I use roux for regular bc it can have a much lower move count when used right. The form of ZZ that I use is zz-ct Wich is statistically better for singles however it has alot of algorithms ( theyre mostly 2 gen r and u moves). I would try them both out with some 2 look algs and maybe look at some other forms of ZZ then go with whichever one you enjoy the most! Hope I helped [emoji106]

Sent from my SM-G930P using Tapatalk


----------



## Cubed Cuber (May 4, 2017)

Hello everybody!
I need help choosing a fast speedsolving method and my average is about 45 secs
But I don't want to memorize too many algs.


----------



## TheBlazingAce (May 4, 2017)

Roux or petrus.


----------



## DGCubes (May 4, 2017)

I'd go with Roux, personally. Petrus generally isn't considered as good as CFOP, Roux, and ZZ these days.


----------



## Sue Doenim (May 4, 2017)

My advice: learn at least CFOP, Roux, and ZZ. Play around with each for a while, then choose the one you like best. If you are too lazy to do that, I would learn ZZ, specifically ZZ-reduction. EOline is kind of hard, but worth it. For the last layer, there are only 16 algorithms to solve it in 2 steps. In contrast, for CFOP there are 16 algs to solve the last layer in 4 steps.


----------



## Cubed Cuber (May 4, 2017)

what about ZZ-CT?
All I know is that it is a ZZ variation from Chris Tran


----------



## efattah (May 4, 2017)

2-look Roux will be around 27 algorithms, 2-look LMCF will be around 26 algorithms and both can get you sub-12 or sub-13 for sure. I would avoid CFOP if you don't like memorizing algorithms.


----------



## obelisk477 (May 4, 2017)

Cubed Cuber said:


> what about ZZ-CT?
> All I know is that it is a ZZ variation from Chris Tran



ZZ-CT also falls in the 'too many algs' category i'd say


----------



## GenTheThief (May 4, 2017)

Cubed Cuber said:


> what about ZZ-CT?
> All I know is that it is a ZZ variation from Chris Tran


ZZ-CT is 2-Look Last Slot Last Layer method with around ~<200 algorithms, although about of those half are a combination of 1-3 4-move triggers.


ZZ with OCLL and PLL would be less than 30 algorithms and can get pretty fast.
I just did 30 solves with ZZ, OCLL and PLL: avg of 30: 14.96

Time List:
13.67, 17.57, 16.17, 11.87, 14.57, 16.88, (19.17), 17.42, 15.16, 14.06, 13.15, 15.10, 15.62, 13.45, 18.38, 12.95, 15.95, 15.33, 16.69, 12.58, 13.12, 13.40, 17.55, 14.56, 15.68, (18.82), (9.85), 14.92, (10.64), 13.08

Normally, I average around 14 flat with COLL/EPLL or ZBLL. But my lookahead is sucking right now, and I could probably get this faster. And in general, my F2L isn't that great.

But, I don't think learning a method based on algorithm count is a very good idea.
Most methods can get really fast without learning a lot (50+) of algorithms, and focusing on intuitive portions.
Iirc, Feliks can sub-5 his F2L most of the time, and OCLL+PLL can get sub-3 easily, leading to theoretical sub-8 average with less than 30 algorithms.


----------



## efattah (May 4, 2017)

GenTheThief said:


> Most methods can get really fast without learning a lot (50+) of algorithms, and focusing on intuitive portions.
> Iirc, Feliks can sub-5 his F2L most of the time, and OCLL+PLL can get sub-3 easily, leading to theoretical sub-8 average with less than 30 algorithms.



You're neglecting the 42+ algorithms used in F2L itself. Even though some good solvers do intuitive F2L when many slots are open, most still occasionally draw upon algorithmic F2L and I don't think sub-5 F2L is going to happen without a lot of memorization of various cases.


----------



## tx789 (May 4, 2017)

Roux has 42 alga for CMLL.
ZZ has 29 for 2 look last layer.
CFOP has 78 for OLL PLL.

Choosing your method based on algs isn't the best idea. Pick the one you like most. CFOPs spg count isn't huge. It seems taughting at first. ZBLL has 493 and people learn that.


----------



## TheBlazingAce (May 4, 2017)

DGCubes said:


> I'd go with Roux, personally. Petrus generally isn't considered as good as CFOP, Roux, and ZZ these days.


 Petrus is definitely viable, even if not used often


----------



## TheBlazingAce (May 4, 2017)

use Heise XD


----------



## muchacho (May 4, 2017)

2-look Roux is 9 algs, the rest is intuitive.


----------



## shadowslice e (May 4, 2017)

Lol try SSC


----------



## Cubed Cuber (May 4, 2017)

But wasn't that a past competition?


----------



## Octavian-360 (May 4, 2017)

I'd say go with Roux or ZZ. Roux is a very intuitive method with only 11 algs for 2-look CMLL and only 42 for full CMLL and on the other hand ZZ only requires 30 for OLL+PLL because edges are oriented in the first step which reduces the orientation cases.
I am using Roux and I prefer Roux because ZZ isn't exactly very very ergonomic for 2H solving.
Play with all methods before choosing.


----------



## Cubed Cuber (May 4, 2017)

What about F2L?
Since I'm still using the beginner's method.


----------



## RonM (May 11, 2017)

Cubed Cuber said:


> What about F2L?
> Since I'm still using the beginner's method.



F2L can be learned entirely intuitively. Take my advice with a grain of salt because I'm a newbie, but I think most people learn F2L intuitively, gain some level of proficiency with it, and then learn algs to solve particularly long F2L cases with algs.

Also, turn that frown upside down; your average time, your solve method, all of it is second to the main purpose of cubing: your joy and entertainment. As long as you're having fun, you're doing it well. 

Edit: Incomplete thoughts. Bad grammar. Fixed.


----------



## shadowslice e (May 11, 2017)

Cubed Cuber said:


> But wasn't that a past competition?


Maybe but check my sig


----------



## LexCubing (May 12, 2017)

Cubed Cuber said:


> Hello everybody!
> I need help choosing a fast speedsolving method and my average is about 45 secs
> But I don't want to memorize too many algs.


What about God's Method? I heard it uses 20 algs or less.


----------



## Cubed Cuber (May 13, 2017)

Its called the god number and its 20 moves or less.


----------



## booncas (May 16, 2017)

very good~~


----------



## John Ramsey (Sep 17, 2017)

Hi,

I have been cubing on and off for about a year now. I use beginners cross, last layer, and f2l.Trying to learn full CFOP doesn't seem like its working for me, and is making me sluggish and slow with my solves. I just wanted a method that can easily be transitioned to, and doesn't have many algorithms. The main problem for me on chossing a new speedcubing method is lookahead. When I try lookahead, it just doesn't work. Is there any method out there which is easy for a person who doesn't like long algorithms? Also recognising cases is another obstacle for me too.


----------



## DGCubes (Sep 17, 2017)

Before I give my recommendation, I do want to clear up a couple misconceptions you seem to have.
1) No matter what advanced method you switch to, your solves will be slower for a couple weeks while you get used to it. That's natural and expected.
2) Lookahead isn't something you can just try out or decide to do; it comes with practice and it can take years to perfect. If it doesn't seem to be working for you now, just keep practicing and it will naturally improve.

Anyway... for someone who doesn't like algs, Roux is not particularly alg-heavy. It's pretty intuitive and full CMLL only requires 42 algs. Any advanced method will require some case recognition, but Roux probably requires the least, so I'd recommend researching that a bit.


----------



## Solvador Cubi (Sep 18, 2017)

Hi John,

I too am not interested in learning a bunch of algs, which is why I use 2-look for OLL and PLL.
The simplest form of it I know, I put into one sheet here: http://solvexio.cf/app/#/FIXLL_OnePage

One could say this only uses 9 algs!
It could be considered a beginner CFOP, but it can be used on your way to "full CFOP" if you want.

I generally use that method (plus some 1-look OLLs I know),
except instead of that T-Perm, I use a J-Perm, and in place of that E, I use an N-Perm.

Some of this might be helpful to you, just posting about my experiences.

good luck!

-= Solvador Cubi


----------



## Sandro Pastor (Oct 5, 2017)

Hi, I recently got a 3x3 speedcube and wanted to know what is the best method to speedsolve it. I started to learn F2L and I'm trying to get used to it.
Thanks in advance


----------



## xyzzy (Oct 5, 2017)

Can't go wrong with any of the big three: CFOP, Roux and ZZ.

It's not currently known if any of these three is truly better than the others; while most fast people use CFOP, that could also be attributed to popularity rather than actual superiority.


----------



## Sandro Pastor (Oct 5, 2017)

xyzzy said:


> Can't go wrong with any of the big three: CFOP, Roux and ZZ.
> 
> It's not currently known if any of these three is truly better than the others; while most fast people use CFOP, that could also be attributed to popularity rather than actual superiority.



I'll look up CFOP first then. Thanks


----------



## TDM (Oct 5, 2017)

Sandro Pastor said:


> Hi, I recently got a 3x3 speedcube and wanted to know what is the best method to speedsolve it. I started to learn F2L and I'm trying to get used to it.
> Thanks in advance


Take a look at the first post in this thread. It's got a lot of detail on four good methods, and is definitely worth a read.


----------



## Sandro Pastor (Oct 5, 2017)

TDM said:


> Take a look at the first post in this thread. It's got a lot of detail on four good methods, and is definitely worth a read.



Ok I will, thanks


----------



## MCubing4Life (Feb 3, 2018)

I have been cubing for 6 months and I need to learn the fastest methods for all wca puzzles so I can get faster. Please help.


----------



## greentgoatgal (Feb 3, 2018)

There is pretty much a different method for each WCA puzzle. The top methods for 3x3 are CFOP, ZZ, and Roux.


----------



## MCubing4Life (Feb 3, 2018)

How about the current WR methods


----------



## Oatch (Feb 3, 2018)

MCubing4Life said:


> How about the current WR methods



The current 3x3 WR was achieved with CFOP, but don't let that discourage you from the other methods (ZZ and Roux). I think Roux is a great method (perhaps even slightly superior to CFOP) and is bound to snatch a WR one day.

I'll mention methods that I think are fast for some other WCA puzzles below to get you started (be warned, some of these are more 'advanced' methods - having significantly more algorithms or based around a more difficult concept):


Spoiler: Methods



2x2: EG
OH: Same as 3x3, all are great methods (current WR set with CFOP)
4x4: Yau
5x5: Yau/Freeslice
Pyraminx: Top-first methods with plugins (Oka + 1-flip, etc), L4E
Square-1: CSP
3BLD: 3-style


----------



## shadowslice e (Feb 3, 2018)

You may find this playlist interesting to consider


----------



## MCubing4Life (Feb 3, 2018)

Thanks a lot. This will definitely improve my times. By the way I am a CFOP user already


----------



## Prabal Baishya (Feb 4, 2018)

Oatch said:


> 2x2: EG
> OH: Same as 3x3, all are great methods (current WR set with CFOP)
> 4x4: Yau
> 5x5: Yau/Freeslice
> ...


The WR for 5x5(and also for 6x6 and 7x7) is currently from Reduction/Freeslice not Yau/Freeslice.


----------



## Thom S. (Feb 4, 2018)

Oatch said:


> 2x2: EG
> OH: Same as 3x3, all are great methods (current WR set with CFOP)
> 4x4: Yau
> 5x5: Yau/Freeslice
> ...



CSP is not a real method. It's like COLL- an algorithmic subset for a method


----------



## Oatch (Feb 4, 2018)

Thom S. said:


> CSP is not a real method. It's like COLL- an algorithmic subset for a method



I suppose several 'methods' are named in a similar sense - EG and CLL for 2x2 are 'just subsets' as well used to solve the last layer, but I guess it makes the 'defining' feature of the method. Similarly with L4E for pyraminx, if you get technical about it all what L4E really stands for is the solution for the last 4 edges of the pyraminx, but people have come to associate it with the V-first method including L4E in its entirety.

So I was thinking about it in a similar way for CSP - it feels to me as a significant step that really changes the way you think about the puzzle compared to if you didn't account for parity during cubeshape. I guess to be technically correct I should have said Lars Vandenbergh method + CSP, but I think to some extent, names are just arbitrary anyway, it's just a means of communication. I don't actually own a square-one myself, so perhaps therein lies some of my misunderstanding in the matter, but in my mind when I see CSP I associate it with using the Lars Vandenbergh method to finish the solve. In any case, I only stumbled upon the idea of CSP recently and thought it would be interesting to point out as a noteworthy technique/method to the OP, seeing how useful it is to world-class solvers.


----------



## Thom S. (Feb 4, 2018)

Oatch said:


> I suppose several 'methods' are named in a similar sense - EG and CLL for 2x2 are 'just subsets' as well used to solve the last layer, but I guess it makes the 'defining' feature of the method. Similarly with L4E for pyraminx, if you get technical about it all what L4E really stands for is the solution for the last 4 edges of the pyraminx, but people have come to associate it with the V-first method including L4E in its entirety.
> 
> So I was thinking about it in a similar way for CSP - it feels to me as a significant step that really changes the way you think about the puzzle compared to if you didn't account for parity during cubeshape. I guess to be technically correct I should have said Lars Vandenbergh method + CSP, but I think to some extent, names are just arbitrary anyway, it's just a means of communication. I don't actually own a square-one myself, so perhaps therein lies some of my misunderstanding in the matter, but in my mind when I see CSP I associate it with using the Lars Vandenbergh method to finish the solve. In any case, I only stumbled upon the idea of CSP recently and thought it would be interesting to point out as a noteworthy technique/method to the OP, seeing how useful it is to world-class solvers.



Well, the big difference is that CLL and L4E end the solve while CSP starts the solve. 
I mean, in your saying you are right, but CSP is used in every Square-1 Method in existence


----------



## shadowslice e (Feb 4, 2018)

You may find this playlist interesting to consider


----------



## TipsterTrickster (Feb 4, 2018)

Roux and Screw is good for square one, it is very fast and has very few algs. Also you could use Sarah’s method for skewb, start at beginners then move to intermediate then if you really like skewb (like me) move to advanced, the only difference between them is that they have 3, 11, and 134 algs respectively.


----------



## Roux_Over_CPOF (Mar 4, 2018)

I know that you're not supposed to be method neutral, but can I use Roux and CFOP only?


----------



## Sue Doenim (Mar 4, 2018)

The general consensus is that method neutrality is evil. Logically, it means that you are putting in twice as much work for a 2-3 move increase in efficiency. That kind of boost could be gained by doing something much more simple, like learning alternate CMLLs or EOLR.


----------



## xyzzy (Mar 4, 2018)

And consensus needs to be challenged every so often. There is some amount of skill transfer between all of the big four methods (although Roux is a bit of an oddball) and it's not really twice as much work _per se_. Like with colour neutrality, the biggest advantage with method neutrality might be how much you can plan in inspection—something that has not been explored much because so few people are proficient with multiple methods.

(I believe @mDiPalma mentioned before that he's Petrus/ZZ neutral.)


----------



## Roux_Over_CPOF (Mar 6, 2018)

OK! Thanks!


----------



## ToastasaurusCuber (Mar 23, 2018)

I've seen things that say that methods like ZZ and Roux are more "modern" and such, which begs the question, should I learn one of those instead of finishing CFOP?


----------



## Sue Doenim (Mar 24, 2018)

CFOP holds its own against Roux and ZZ, but most people agree that you should try out all three and pick whichever you like best.


----------



## ToastasaurusCuber (Mar 24, 2018)

Sue Doenim said:


> CFOP holds its own against Roux and ZZ, but most people agree that you should try out all three and pick whichever you like best.


Thanks!


----------



## Palmtop Tiger (Mar 24, 2018)

I would definetly try them and if you like one of them better you could switch. But in general you should just go with the method that you feel the most comfortable with. Switching methods because you want to get faster will probably not pay of since all of these methods are very similar in their potential performance.


----------



## ToastasaurusCuber (Mar 24, 2018)

Palmtop Tiger said:


> I would definetly try them and if you like one of them better you could switch. But in general you should just go with the method that you feel the most comfortable with. Switching methods because you want to get faster will probably not pay of since all of these methods are very similar in their potential performance.


Ok. I was mostly wanting to get faster. I will probably still try them out though.


----------



## Duncan Bannon (Mar 24, 2018)

Try em all. Pick the one you enjoy most. That will be the one you will get fastest with. Unless you plan on becoming a top cuber, it doesn't matter that much. You can probably get sub 10 just about equally fast(I think)


----------



## Hazel (Mar 24, 2018)

I agree with everyone else, play around with those 3 methods for a while each to see which one you enjoy most, then stick with that one.


----------



## H2cuber (Apr 5, 2018)

What I mean is I am looking for a way to possibly learn algs to speed up the different layers at a time instead of suddenly starting from scratch. Does anyone know what I mean? If so, is what i'm looking for possible?


----------



## RedJack22 (Apr 5, 2018)

Well, basic beginner's method is similar to CFOP; you build a cross, put your edges and corners in (inserting the corner and edge together, not apart), then getting your top color all facing upwards (which is called Orientation, or OLL), then moving those pieces around (which is called "permuting" the top layer; this step is called PLL). Full OLL contains 57 cases, and Full PLL contains 21 cases, but you can learn a two look variant for each of the steps, shortening the step into less than 10 algorithms for each step. 

So my advice: starting working on building your cross on the bottom, and inserting F2L pairs (your corner and edge) into the slots. J Perm on YouTube has awesome videos, and one of them is on Intuitive F2L. you should check it out! Let me know if you have anymore questions!


----------



## BCuberYT (Apr 15, 2018)

What's a quite obscure but great 3x3 method I can use? I tried to learn CFOP, but it didn't feel right for me. Any method that's decently easy and fast to use and learn would be appreciated. I use beginners method/layer by layer at the moment


----------



## 1001010101001 (Apr 15, 2018)

BCuberYT said:


> What's a quite obscure but great 3x3 method I can use? I tried to learn CFOP, but it didn't feel right for me. Any method that's decently easy and fast to use and learn would be appreciated. I use beginners method/layer by layer at the moment


Roux, ZZ , Human Thistlethwate, Waterman, LMCF, Heise
These are all different from LBL
If it’s the OLL and PLL that bothers you go with CFCE


----------



## BCuberYT (Apr 15, 2018)

1001010101001 said:


> Roux, ZZ , Human Thistlethwate, Waterman, LMCF, Heise
> These are all different from LBL
> If it’s the OLL and PLL that bothers you go with CFCE


Thanks. I'll try these and see if they work fine


----------



## WombatWarrior17 (Apr 15, 2018)

BCuberYT said:


> Thanks. I'll try these and see if they work fine


I wouldn't recommend Heise for speedsolving, but if you like FMC then it might be good to learn it.
And if you keep going with ZZ then COLL, ZZ-CT, ZZLL, and ZBLL are great variants to learn.


----------



## Duncan Bannon (Apr 15, 2018)

WombatWarrior17 said:


> I wouldn't recommend Heise for speedsolving, but if you like FMC then it might be good to learn it.
> And if you keep going with ZZ then COLL, ZZ-CT, ZZLL, and ZBLL are great variants to learn.



Nice Sig!


----------



## 1001010101001 (Apr 16, 2018)

WombatWarrior17 said:


> I wouldn't recommend Heise for speedsolving, but if you like FMC then it might be good to learn it.
> And if you keep going with ZZ then COLL, ZZ-CT, ZZLL, and ZBLL are great variants to learn.


Do you use ZZ now?
EDIT: You better update your profile, that thing never happens on ZZ.


----------



## Palmtop Tiger (Apr 16, 2018)

BCuberYT said:


> What's a quite obscure but great 3x3 method I can use? I tried to learn CFOP, but it didn't feel right for me. Any method that's decently easy and fast to use and learn would be appreciated. I use beginners method/layer by layer at the moment


What didn't feel right about CFOP for you?
If it is the relatively high algorithm count, you might like something like ZZ-reduction. It's only 16 algs for a complete 2 look last layer. And it's a good stepping-stone for ZZ-b, ZZ with ocll and (full) pll or even CFOP.
If you are specifically looking for obscure and easy to learn methods that are completely different from CFOP you could also give something like PORT a try. The problem with obscure methods is that you won't find tutorials that are aimed at beginners. You will have to look through documentation that is written for people that already have a good knowledge about cubing methods. Sticking to one of the big 4 is probably easiest as they have good tutorials and are fast.


----------



## SlowCuber969 (Apr 16, 2018)

I just went from Beginners Method to Roux, does anyone know any videos about how to break bad habits from Beginners Method?


----------



## Duncan Bannon (Apr 16, 2018)

Critical Cubing has a good Roux tutorial series if that helps any. Just only solve roux and don't do any beginners method solves.

Or do you mean like not solve the first 1X2X3 with corner then edge? I can't help you there


----------



## Sue Doenim (Apr 17, 2018)

Also watch Kian Mansour's beginner videos and watch lots of example solves.


----------



## prakopw (Apr 29, 2018)

Are you have easy way to read rubik notation and follow its step faster?


----------



## shadowslice e (Apr 29, 2018)

prakopw said:


> Are you have easy way to read rubik notation and follow its step faster?


Honestly just doing a load of scrambles and practising will get you to a point where you can scramble reasonably quickly pretty fast.


----------



## Rubix Noob (Jun 15, 2018)

I want to try Petrus, but I can't find any good tutorials. Does anyone know of one? (The Youtube link doesn't work, but I prefer video tutorials)


----------



## WarriorCatCuber (Nov 29, 2019)

Hi!
Recently, I've been interested by the waterman method, a speedsolving method with the following steps (I've slightly changed the steps from classic waterman):
Solve one layer except one edge with blockbuilding (1 roux block on botton + 2 corners)
Solve the last layer corners with CLL
Hold the CLL on your right and solve three edges of that layer
Do LSE like in roux

Do you think this is any good ? Do you think this is comparable with other speedsolving methods ?
Thanks !


----------



## PetrusQuber (Nov 30, 2019)

How are you going to solve the 3 edges of that layer after CLL?


----------



## WarriorCatCuber (Nov 30, 2019)

PetrusQuber said:


> How are you going to solve the 3 edges of that layer after CLL?


By using the empty slot and M-slices.
For example, I do a U move, I insert an edge with an M', and I keep going.


----------



## PetrusQuber (Nov 30, 2019)

Maybe post an example solve? Sounds decent enough, definitely an intermediate method.


----------



## Underwatercuber (Nov 30, 2019)

1. How have i never seen this thread?
2. How is it 18 pages long when it’s so simple to choose a method lol, if you want to be fast at 3x3 and OH do roux, if you want to be fast at everything do cfop, if you don’t really care about speed you can do whatever is the most fun for you


----------



## PetrusQuber (Nov 30, 2019)

19 now . Some people are really indecisive, myself included. Lucky I found Petrus before this thread and other methods...


----------



## WarriorCatCuber (Dec 1, 2019)

PetrusQuber said:


> Maybe post an example solve? Sounds decent enough, definitely an intermediate method.


This video is close to what I do :





I do the last edges a little differently.


----------



## brododragon (Dec 18, 2019)

From 2013 and still virtually perfect? Wow. I was trying to learn CFOP and it was not working out for me. I looked stumbled upon this and is helping me so much! I’m now gonna do petrus.


Underwatercuber said:


> 2. How is it 18 pages long when it’s so simple to choose a method lol, if you want to be fast at 3x3 and OH do roux, if you want to be fast at everything do cfop, if you don’t really care about speed you can do whatever is the most fun for you


Methods are not concretely different speeds. Different methods, however, are easier and faster for different people. The only reason CFOP is so developed, widely used, and the world record holder is because it is the most popular. Many people who would of been better at a different method forced themselves into CFOP because off peer pressure, they didn’t know of any other method, or, the most likely, it’s what came up when they googled advanced Rubik’s cube method. I swear that, if ZZ or any other method was the most popular, it would be the “fastest”.


----------



## WarriorCatCuber (Dec 18, 2019)

I have no idea why no one tried waterman since 2013.


----------



## Underwatercuber (Dec 18, 2019)

brododragon said:


> From 2013 and still virtually perfect? Wow. I was trying to learn CFOP and it was not working out for me. I looked stumbled upon this and is helping me so much! I’m now gonna do petrus.
> 
> Methods are not concretely different speeds. Different methods, however, are easier and faster for different people. The only reason CFOP is so developed, widely used, and the world record holder is because it is the most popular. Many people who would of been better at a different method forced themselves into CFOP because off peer pressure, they didn’t know of any other method, or, the most likely, it’s what came up when they googled advanced Rubik’s cube method. I swear that, if ZZ or any other method was the most popular, it would be the “fastest”.


Different methods have different limitations which means they have a ceiling set at a certain point, people may vary a little bit with those methods but if they work hard enough and put in the hours they can all get pretty close to hitthose ceilings.

for example if the most efficient you can get with method A is averaging 60 moves, you have flawless lookahead/prediction and the human limit with that method is 20 tps then the limit for that method is going to be averaging 3 seconds. If method B averages 30 moves, you have flawless lookahead and prediction, and the human limit with that method is 10 tps then the method limit is 3 averaging my seconds.

cfop and roux are definitely the methods which have been proven to be fast, ZZ has been proven to be not so fast  there are other methods which have been proven to not be as fast and there are also experimental methods but I wouldn't recommend them to a beginner who’s trying to pick them up for a speedsolving method (unless their only goal is fun and not speed or unless they are edgy and want to try and prove the viability of an experimental method)


----------



## brododragon (Dec 18, 2019)

Underwatercuber said:


> Different methods have different limitations which means they have a ceiling set at a certain point, people may vary a little bit with those methods but if they work hard enough and put in the hours they can all get pretty close to hitthose ceilings.
> 
> for example if the most efficient you can get with method A is averaging 60 moves, you have flawless lookahead/prediction and the human limit with that method is 20 tps then the limit for that method is going to be averaging 3 seconds. If method B averages 30 moves, you have flawless lookahead and prediction, and the human limit with that method is 10 tps then the method limit is 3 averaging my seconds.
> 
> cfop and roux are definitely the methods which have been proven to be fast, ZZ has been proven to be not so fast  there are other methods which have been proven to not be as fast and there are also experimental methods but I wouldn't recommend them to a beginner who’s trying to pick them up for a speedsolving method (unless their only goal is fun and not speed or unless they are edgy and want to try and prove the viability of an experimental method)


Yes, but through development you can speed them up.


----------



## Hazel (Jan 11, 2020)

My two cents - I believe the "best" method to solve the 3x3 (ie. the fastest possible method that humans are capable of) hasn't been found yet. I think Roux is _slightly_ faster than CFOP, but they're pretty equal. Other methods such as Petrus or lesser-known methods such as ZBRoux definitely have great potential, but so few people use them an so little development has been put into them compared to CFOP/Roux that it's difficult now to prove their potential.


----------



## dluong (Jan 15, 2020)

Started cubing two weeks ago. So far, I have learned the beginner method and have sub 60 Ao12.

I do not have a problem with learning algorithms but sometimes I would make a wrong turn or lose my place in the middle of a LL algorithm and I have to go back to the first cross step. This is because I have only memorized the algorithm without any understanding of how it works.

I am looking for a method that will help me build an understanding of a 3x3x3 while still having the potential to be used as my main speed solving method.

Any advice would be greatly appreciated. Thanks.


----------



## Shaun Mack (Jan 15, 2020)

use cfop if you want to learn a lot of algs
use roux if you want to be efficient
use zz if you dont care and want people to make fun of your method


----------



## ImmolatedMarmoset (Jan 15, 2020)

Use CFOP if you want to be fast and normal
Use Roux if you want to be fast and cool
Use ZZ if you don’t care
Use Petrus if... wait a second


----------



## Owen Morrison (Jan 15, 2020)

Cfop=fast people club
Roux=cool people club
ZZ=nerd club
Petrus=weird club(no offense intended if you use this)

I would recommend CFOP. There is a reason nearly every pro uses it.


----------



## Hazel (Jan 15, 2020)

Use CFOP if you want a method that has a lot of resources. It's by far the most popular method. It isn't very efficient in terms of turn count, but you can turn pretty quickly with it, which makes up for that.
Use Roux if you like M-slice turns, or if you'd prefer to have low turn counts with slower turn speed instead of higher turn counts with a higher turn speed.
Use ZZ if you want a method with a lot of variants, or if you like a lot of <L, U, R> moves. Most people say this is worse than CFOP/Roux.
Use Petrus if you like blockbuilding. It's very efficient, more so than Roux I believe, but has an even slower turn speed than Roux. This method has had the least results of any of the 3 above, but it has lots of potential.
Use PCMS if you like weird ways of solving the cube that might be less 'good' but can certainly be more fun.
Use ZBRoux if you're willing to learn hundreds of algorithms, you like blockbuilding, and you like a nice <M, U> step partway through the solve.
Use LMCF if you want to solve all of the corners before solving the edges, and you want to explore a mostly unexplored method.

EDIT: @Owen Morrison, the reason most pros use CFOP isn't because it's better than Roux, it's because it's an easier transition from Beginner's so more people learn that, and most people just never bother exploring methods after they switch to CFOP. I would say that Roux is as good as if not better than CFOP.


----------



## ProStar (Jan 15, 2020)

dluong said:


> Started cubing two weeks ago. So far, I have learned the beginner method and have sub 60 Ao12.
> 
> I do not have a problem with learning algorithms but sometimes I would make a wrong turn or lose my place in the middle of a LL algorithm and I have to go back to the first cross step. This is because I have only memorized the algorithm without any understanding of how it works.
> 
> ...



Welcome to cubing, as well as the forums! I you want your method to be more intuitive(not just doing a bunch of algs), I would recommend Roux. It will appease your desire to understand how the solve works, as Roux doesn't have as many algs as CFOP and is more intuition-based. I would recommend Kian Mansour's tutorials for Roux. If you want more info on all the main speedsolving methods, I would recommend looking here. Hope this helps!



Owen Morrison said:


> I would recommend CFOP. There is a reason nearly every pro uses it.



*cough* Sub-6 *cough*



Aerma said:


> Use CFOP if you want a method that has a lot of resources. It's by far the most popular method.
> Use Roux if you like M-slice turns, or if you'd prefer to have low turn counts with slower turn speed instead of higher turn counts with a higher turn speed.
> Use ZZ if you want a method with a lot of variants, or if you like a lot of <L, U, R> moves. Most people say this is worse than CFOP/Roux.
> Use Petrus if you like blockbuilding. It's very efficient, more so than Roux I believe, but has an even slower turn speed than Roux. This method has had the least results of any of the 3 above, but it has lots of potential.
> ...



And use 1 Look Whole Cube if you don't mind learning 43 quintillion+ algs


----------



## BenChristman1 (Jan 15, 2020)

Beginner's Guide to Choosing a Speedsolving Method


Foreword: We know that this thread may induce the “wall of text” syndrome (try opening up all the spoilers), but we promise that you are doing yourself a favor by reading this. There is a lot of information, but it is all beneficial and there is no unnecessary information. This thread is...




www.speedsolving.com


----------



## Etotheipi (Jan 15, 2020)

Owen Morrison said:


> I would recommend CFOP. There is a reason nearly every pro uses it.


Yes, and the third best cuber in the world by comp average uses Roux. Then the first place cuber has cubed for as long as the third placed guy has been alive, and has a half second lead, and uses CFOP. Totally the much better and faster method.
Edit: Are you on a quest to get the most angry faces possible?


----------



## ProStar (Jan 15, 2020)

Etotheipi said:


> Yes, and the third best cuber in the world by comp average uses Roux. Then the first place cuber has cubed for as long as the third placed guy has been alive, and has a half second lead, and uses CFOP. Totally the much better and faster method.
> Edit: Are you on a quest to get the most angry faces possible?



And of course, the 3rd fastest OHer uses Roux and is a massive .08 behind WR. Obviously, CFOP rules.


----------



## Etotheipi (Jan 16, 2020)

Aerma said:


> EDIT: @Owen Morrison, the reason most pros use CFOP isn't because it's better than Roux, it's because it's an easier transition from Beginner's so more people learn that, and most people just never bother exploring methods after they switch to CFOP. I would say that Roux is as good as if not better than CFOP.


I think every one who has been in the speedcubing community long enough to be sub-15 knows that, they just insist that CFOP is better because its what they use, and they don't want to admit that they might be making a mistake by using it alone and not trying new things, so they encourage less experienced cubers, who are more inclined to take any advice they recieve, to do what they do to back up their decisions.


----------



## Parity Nightmare (Jan 16, 2020)

CFOP is the easiest to transition from beginners.


----------



## Etotheipi (Jan 16, 2020)

Parity Nightmare said:


> CFOP is the easiest to transition from beginners.


But it is one of the more boring and repetitive methods.


----------



## Parity Nightmare (Jan 16, 2020)

Still its good if you want to catch on to a speedsolving method fast.
plus out of the top 20 best cubers (3x3) in the world, 18 use CFOP, 2 uses ROUX.
I think that explains it by itself.


----------



## ProStar (Jan 16, 2020)

Etotheipi said:


> But it is one of the more boring and repetitive methods.



That's true. Roux and Petrus(haven't learned ZZ) are both more fun than CFOP imo



Parity Nightmare said:


> Still its good if you want to catch on to a speedsolving method fast.
> plus out of the top 20 best cubers (3x3) in the world, 18 use CFOP, 2 uses ROUX.
> I think that explains it by itself.



And in 1980s corners first was thought to be the best.


----------



## Hazel (Jan 16, 2020)

Parity Nightmare said:


> plus out of the top 20 best cubers (3x3) in the world, 18 use CFOP, 2 uses ROUX.
> I think that explains it by itself.


That isn't because CFOP is 'superior', it's because more people use CFOP (due to ease of transition from Beginner's), so naturally the chance of a top cuber using the method is high.
I guarantee that if the roles of the methods were switched, the majority of pros would use Roux, and I highly doubt the times they would be getting would be much slower (if slower at all) than the times they get today with CFOP.


----------



## Etotheipi (Jan 16, 2020)

Parity Nightmare said:


> Still its good if you want to catch on to a speedsolving method fast.
> plus out of the top 20 best cubers (3x3) in the world, 18 use CFOP, 2 uses ROUX.
> I think that explains it by itself.


It doesn't. Waayyy to many people have said this and its not a valid argument.


----------



## Parity Nightmare (Jan 16, 2020)

Ok yeah that does make sense.
But still then it would be the easiest to learn.



Etotheipi said:


> It doesn't. Waayyy to many people have said this and its not a valid argument.


Oh, a roux users defending that roux is great....
I mean it is great,
I just think for a beginner, CFOP is easier to learn because its similar from cfop

Also CFOP has more tutorials so its easier to learn.


----------



## ProStar (Jan 16, 2020)

Also, for the record, I use CFOP. So I'm not just someone who uses Roux that is freaking out about how it doesn't get respect(I don't mean to say that Etotheipi or ImmolatedMarmoset are freaking out). After careful consideration, I chose CFOP(actually I chose CFOP then switched to CFCE then switched back to CFOP, but that's a long story ). I didn't choose CFOP because it was the "best" or most popular method, I chose it because it was best for me personally.



Parity Nightmare said:


> Oh, a roux users defending that roux is great....
> I mean it is great,
> I just think for a beginner, CFOP is easier to learn because its similar from cfop



Oh, a CFOP user defending that CFOP is great...



Parity Nightmare said:


> Ok yeah that does make sense.
> But still then it would be the easiest to learn.





Parity Nightmare said:


> Oh, a roux users defending that roux is great....
> I mean it is great,
> I just think for a beginner, CFOP is easier to learn because its similar from cfop





Parity Nightmare said:


> Also CFOP has more tutorials so its easier to learn.



Very nice triple post.


----------



## Owen Morrison (Jan 16, 2020)

ProStar said:


> Also, for the record, I use CFOP. So I'm not just someone who uses Roux that is freaking out about how it doesn't get respect(I don't mean to say that Etotheipi or ImmolatedMarmoset are freaking out). After careful consideration, I chose CFOP(actually I chose CFOP then switched to CFCE then switched back to CFOP, but that's a long story ). I didn't choose CFOP because it was the best or most popular method, I chose it because it was best for me personally.


Why did u give me an angry face then ;(


----------



## ProStar (Jan 16, 2020)

Owen Morrison said:


> Why did u give me an angry face then ;(



Here's why:



Owen Morrison said:


> I would recommend CFOP. *There is a reason nearly every pro uses it.*



Edit: If you mean when I said "I didn't choose CFOP because it was the best or most popular method", I meant to put quotes around "best".


----------



## Parity Nightmare (Jan 16, 2020)

Lol ProStar


----------



## Owen Morrison (Jan 16, 2020)

Someone asks for a method to choose to help them understand the cube better, and then a post I sent WHICH I DID NOT MEAN TO BE OFFENSIVE started a massive argument. It is mostly Roux users saying that we CFOP solvers are trying to defend our own method simply because we use it. BUT THEN THE ROUX USERS ARE DOING THE SAME THING. BOTH METHODS ARE GOOD. CFOP HAS MORE RESOURCES. CFOP IS BETTER TO LEARN RIGHT AFTER BEGINNERS. YOU SHOULD GIVE ROUX A TRY WHEN YOU AVERAGE AROUND 30 SECONDS WITH CFOP. BECAUSE NO ONE CAN PROVE THAT EITHER IS BETTER.


----------



## Parity Nightmare (Jan 16, 2020)

I fully agree with Owen



Owen Morrison said:


> Someone asks for a method to choose to help them understand the cube better, and then a post I sent WHICH I DID NOT MEAN TO BE OFFENSIVE started a massive argument. It is mostly Roux users saying that we CFOP solvers are trying to defend our own method simply because we use it. BUT THEN THE ROUX USERS ARE DOING THE SAME THING. BOTH METHODS ARE GOOD. CFOP HAS MORE RESOURCES. CFOP IS BETTER TO LEARN RIGHT AFTER BEGINNERS. YOU SHOULD GIVE ROUX A TRY WHEN YOU AVERAGE AROUND 30 SECONDS WITH CFOP. BECAUSE NO ONE CAN PROVE THAT EITHER IS BETTER.


This ain't debate class..


----------



## Micah Morrison (Jan 16, 2020)

I saw this post and was prepared to see a heated argument. I was not dissapointed


----------



## Etotheipi (Jan 16, 2020)

Owen Morrison said:


> Someone asks for a method to choose to help them understand the cube better, and then a post I sent WHICH I DID NOT MEAN TO BE OFFENSIVE started a massive argument. It is mostly Roux users saying that we CFOP solvers are trying to defend our own method simply because we use it. BUT THEN THE ROUX USERS ARE DOING THE SAME THING. BOTH METHODS ARE GOOD. CFOP HAS MORE RESOURCES. CFOP IS BETTER TO LEARN RIGHT AFTER BEGINNERS. YOU SHOULD GIVE ROUX A TRY WHEN YOU AVERAGE AROUND 30 SECONDS WITH CFOP. BECAUSE NO ONE CAN PROVE THAT EITHER IS BETTER.


Which is why we should all shut up because either method is great.


----------



## ProStar (Jan 16, 2020)

Owen Morrison said:


> Someone asks for a method to choose to help them understand the cube better, and then a post I sent WHICH I DID NOT MEAN TO BE OFFENSIVE started a massive argument. It is mostly Roux users saying that we CFOP solvers are trying to defend our own method simply because we use it. BUT THEN THE ROUX USERS ARE DOING THE SAME THING. BOTH METHODS ARE GOOD. CFOP HAS MORE RESOURCES. CFOP IS BETTER TO LEARN RIGHT AFTER BEGINNERS. YOU SHOULD GIVE ROUX A TRY WHEN YOU AVERAGE AROUND 30 SECONDS WITH CFOP. BECAUSE NO ONE CAN PROVE THAT EITHER IS BETTER.



(I don't use Roux) I mostly didn't like you implying CFOP was unarguably the best method. I just wanted to point out that other methods are just as good(possibly better, possibly not) as CFOP. That's all. Sorry if you didn't mean to imply that CFOP was the best method, that's just what it seemed like.


I vote we delete our posts and answer the question with "There is no 'best method'. Multiple methods have potential to be the fastest. You should do research into all the major methods(CFOP, Roux, ZZ, Petrus) and then decide what method you want based on what suits your likes/dislikes. Don't choose a method because Feliks uses it, or your best friend likes Roux, or Phil Yu uses it and you like thecubicle. Decide your method based on what suits your preferences. For info on all the major methods, look here."


----------



## Parity Nightmare (Jan 16, 2020)

This forum is probably confusing the person with the question...


----------



## ProStar (Jan 16, 2020)

Parity Nightmare said:


> This forum is probably confusing the person with the question...



I was thinking that lol


----------



## dluong (Jan 16, 2020)

ProStar said:


> I you want your method to be more intuitive(not just doing a bunch of algs), I would recommend Roux. It will appease your desire to understand how the solve works, as Roux doesn't have as many algs as CFOP and is more intuition-based. I would recommend Kian Mansour's tutorials for Roux.





ProStar said:


> That's true. Roux and Petrus(haven't learned ZZ) are both more fun than CFOP imo




Thanks for all of the replies. I am going to move forward with learning Roux method for these reasons:

It will appease my desire to understand how the solve works
It can be used as a speed solving method
It is not as repetitive as other methods which will make it more enjoyable for me and keep me motivated
Are there any recommended resources for learning the Roux method from beginner to advanced?


----------



## Parity Nightmare (Jan 16, 2020)

go to youtube and search
j perm learn the roux method
click the first video and start.
ENJOY!


----------



## ProStar (Jan 16, 2020)

Kian Mansour also has good resources


----------



## Cubingcubecuber (Jan 16, 2020)

Or you could just use Petrus

Edit: Dang, I’m late


----------



## ImmolatedMarmoset (Jan 16, 2020)

dluong said:


> Thanks for all of the replies. I am going to move forward with learning Roux method for these reasons:
> 
> It will appease my desire to understand how the solve works
> It can be used as a speed solving method
> ...


Thank you! We always enjoy more followers. (obviously doesn’t matter, but roux is fun. you will not regret it)

Sub-15 Guide to Roux
Kian’s Roux Guide


----------



## Metallic Silver (Jan 16, 2020)

dluong said:


> Any advice would be greatly appreciated. Thanks.



CFOP: This method is just easier to get fast with mostly because the majority of us used LBL as a beginner method. CFOP is just a faster method of LBL, solving the cross perfectly and instantly and solving the first layer and second layer in one progress. If you're very good with inspection planning, alg execution, and lookahead, CFOP would be the best choice. The only problem is that F2L is going to be a pain and it will take years of patience to get fast at.

Roux: This method can be a bit awkward, but you really have to get used to it. This method gives you more freedom where F2L pairs or blocks can be made much faster. Half came from Salvia background and half came from LBL background using this method. In this method, you just have to experience a lot with M-Slices and how M-Slices work with edge orientation and permutation. The only alg subset you'll be learning is CMLL. If you can blockbuild offset, know your color pieces very quickly, and strategize with M-slices, Roux would be good for you. The down side about this method is that when it comes to advanced Roux, everything will be offset from center piece color and you would have to get used to awkward blockbuilding, which also takes a lot of patience to practice on. LSE will also become awkward too when becoming advanced and will take a lot of strategizing such as predicting and knowing which move would solve quicker or in least fewer moves.

ZZ: This is the most flexible method out of everything. Doing EO (edge orientation) causes you to solve and blockbuild rotationlessly (which is why it's the best one-handed 3x3 method). F2L can be executed easily and very fingertrickable, as well as last layer can be done in one solve. Because of EO, this causes multiple variants of ZZ because of personal preference, which is why it's considered to be the most flexible. ZZ techniques and strategies can also be done very well and can really help you solve faster. The main problem about this method is that it is the most difficult speedcubing method. Even though it's "intermediate ZZ", it gets advanced and complicated super quickly. Doing EOLine is the most difficult beginner step and requires a lot of experience and practice to perform this step perfectly and fast. ZZF2L depends on you, whether doing regular CFOP F2L, pure blockbuilding, openslotting, or Chris Olson Style F2L fits you naturally, so you would have to experiment a lot. If you're good at detecting pieces very quickly, finding efficient move count, 3-gen fingertricking, step adapting in the middle of a speedsolve, and instant recognition, ZZ will make you super fast at 3x3 very quickly. Good luck getting advanced though, because that's where you're gonna have to practice all ZZ-techniques and apply them simultaneously while speedsolving, which is super difficult. (Practicing this method caused a lot of 3x3 CFOP cubers to be sub-10, because it really strengthens your lookahead and inspection prediction).

Petrus: This is the most efficient method because you have more freedom than Roux. With petrus, you can create huge blocks in fewer moves. Now putting it in speedsolving perspective, the fewer moves, the faster your time would be. This method is just pure blockbuilding and takes a lot of experience to be efficient and fast at it. No restrictions, just straight up solving blocks less than 30 moves. The 3rd step of Petrus also depends on you as well. There are different styles on how you do petrus: Old Skool/Regular style where you do EO, then solve 3x3x2 block, then COLL->EPLL or 
LLE+1C->L3C; and then there's the Modern/OP Hybrid style where you just keep blockbuilding until you solve 3x3x2 block, then OLL->PLL. The bad thing about this method is that scrambles can be a b**** sometimes and you have to strategize a lot on how to execute in fewer moves and in comfortable positions. You're gonna also have to develop Petrus fingertricks too to deal with awkward movements. If you can blockbuild very fast and efficient, execute awkward moves, keep track on color pieces, and have very fast reaction or recognition in blocks, then Petrus would be good for you.

It really depends on you personally and on what abilities you have. I know there are others who don't fit in this category and those are: Columns First/SSC, Snyder, Corners First/Waterman, Edges First, XG/Keyhole, Tri or Hex Franciscos, CFCE, FreeFOP/SideFOP, Ribbon, Zipper, and others.


----------



## Pyjam (Jan 16, 2020)

With Petrus, you will learn a lot of basic and essential concepts like block building, edge orientation, corner permutation, and so on. And there isn't a lot of algs. It will help for whatever method you choose after.


----------



## PetrusQuber (Jan 16, 2020)

Do whatever you find most fun. Try all of the methods


----------



## DerpBoiMoon (Jan 20, 2020)

who is actually method neatural?


----------



## Metallic Silver (Jan 20, 2020)

DerpBoiMoon said:


> who is actually method neatural?



That means using multiple methods right?
Me.


----------



## ari(a cuber) (Feb 10, 2020)

so I tried roux and I couldn't get under sub 1 minute
so i dont want to do cfop because its to mainstream(in my opinion) and too much algs 
zz doesn't seem much different than fildrich method
does anybody know any methods not related to cfop, and could get me under sub 30?


----------



## WarriorCatCuber (Feb 10, 2020)

ZZ IS much different.
Petrus or Petrus-W or LEOR are also good.
There's also waterman, Ortega, Portico, and much more.
The ones with the best resources would be ZZ or Petrus/Petrus-W/LEOR
Also, you can't be sub-1 minute in one day with any method. When I first started with ZZ, I averages 2:30. So you should still consider roux.


----------



## Hazel (Feb 10, 2020)

Almost literally any method can get you to sub-30. If you don't want a CFOP/ZZ-style method, Roux really is a good choice—you just have to give yourself time to break the 1-minute barrier. It's really fun once you get the hang of it


----------



## ProStar (Feb 10, 2020)

ZZ is way different from CFOP, but I wouldn't recommend it if you're afraid of algs; ZZ's main weakness is that it requires a bunch of algs. With some practice, Roux can definitely get you sub-30. Just look at all the speedsolving methods and what makes them unique, and decide based on personal preference. Of mainstream methods, Petrus and roux are your best bets, because you said you don't like learning algs(Roux doesn't have _that_ many algs, even at the highest level. Although Petrus LL can have a lot of algs[up to 493 for ZBLL], the majority of the method has none)

Edit: I compiled a list of methods that can get you sub-30(there may be more that I missed):

Pizel
Ribbon
Russo
ZZ
Waterman
Tripod
Sledgehog
L2L
Hahn
Hexagonal Francisco
Quadrangular Francisco
CFOP
CFCE
CFEC
FreeFOP
Corners First
PCMS
Petrus
Roux
Heise
Snyder
SSC
B2
LEOR
3-Style
MGLS
ZB
Petrus-W

(in short, any remotely decent method)


----------



## ari(a cuber) (Feb 10, 2020)

could not find any recourse for leor,i want to try it. thank you pro star for all of those methods.


----------



## WarriorCatCuber (Feb 10, 2020)

ari(a cuber) said:


> could not find any recourse for leor,i want to try it. thank you pro star for all of those methods.


LEOR resources :
LEOR discord server : https://discord.gg/FSMXqEB
LEOR wiki page : https://www.speedsolving.com/wiki/index.php/LEOR
@PapaSmurf also has an unlisted video tutorial, but I won't share it without his approval.

EDIT : https://www.speedsolving.com/wiki/index.php/Category:3x3x3_speedsolving_methods this page contains all methods.


----------



## ari(a cuber) (Feb 10, 2020)

thanks


----------



## PetrusQuber (Feb 10, 2020)

Just know you’re not becoming sub 1 min through switching methods, that comes through practise


----------



## Mischiiii (Feb 10, 2020)

I guess roux should be your bet even though you have trouble improving. 

There is a reason why CFOP an Roux are the two most popular options right now. 

Also if you want to learn a new method other than the 3 “Mainstream” method you gonna have a hard time finding recourses and tutorials online. 

Also: Don’t use a other Method because you want to be “special” and not “mainstream”. That’s ridiculous. Use it because you have more fun with it and because you get better times with it. Everything else is showing off to impress others.


----------



## WarriorCatCuber (Feb 10, 2020)

ari(a cuber) said:


> thanks


If you're interested in waterman, I can give you personal training through PMs.


----------



## Owen Morrison (Mar 9, 2020)

It really needs to be understood that if you want to be good at big cubes you need to use CFOP.


----------



## WarriorCatCuber (Mar 9, 2020)

Owen Morrison said:


> It really needs to be understood that if you want to be good at big cubes you need to use CFOP.


I agree.


----------



## brododragon (Mar 9, 2020)

Owen Morrison said:


> It really needs to be understood that if you want to be good at big cubes you need to use CFOP.





WarriorCatCuber said:


> I agree.


What aren't other methods viable for big cubes?


----------



## Owen Morrison (Mar 9, 2020)

Because pretty much every other method requires that you have inspection before 3x3 stage which you can't get on those cubes. But also, because most big cube methods involve solving a white cross which is also not good if you use other methods.


----------



## ProStar (Mar 10, 2020)

Owen Morrison said:


> Because pretty much every other method requires that you have inspection before 3x3 stage which you can't get on those cubes. But also, because most big cube methods involve solving a white cross which is also not good if you use other methods.



I agree. You could say that methods like Petrus and Roux work for 5x5+ if you use redux, but for 4x4 with Yau you automatically make a cross. And don't even talk about ZZ without inspection...


----------



## brododragon (Mar 10, 2020)

ProStar said:


> I agree. You could say that methods like Petrus and Roux work for 5x5+ if you use redux, but for 4x4 with Yau you automatically make a cross. And don't even talk about ZZ without inspection...


For you, you would just be planning EO for 10 minutes in the middle of a solve.


----------



## ProStar (Mar 10, 2020)

brododragon said:


> For you, you would just be planning EO for 10 minutes in the middle of a solve.



I know, it'd be a travesty if my times on 4x4 went from sub-hour to 1:10.000!


----------



## Cubingcubecuber (Mar 10, 2020)

Owen Morrison said:


> It really needs to be understood that if you want to be good at big cubes you need to use CFOP.


Once I get good enough at Hawaiian Kociemba, I plan on switching to it for at least 4x4


----------



## ketchupcuber (Mar 18, 2020)

i really think the quotes from the best needs changing on cfop it literally says cfops worse than roux if you want a good quote promoting cfop just ask feliks or max. i think this thread is biased i’m not saying cfop is better just that this thread should have an equal representation of each method this is very misleading for beginners


----------



## Hazel (Mar 18, 2020)

ketchupcuber said:


> i really think the quotes from the best needs changing on cfop it literally says cfops worse than roux if you want a good quote promoting cfop just ask feliks or max. i think this thread is biased i’m not saying cfop is better just that this thread should have an equal representation of each method this is very misleading for beginners


The creator of this thread hasn't been on the forum in 4 years, so it probably won't happen.
(Also this is my 1,400th post, yay)


----------



## ketchupcuber (Mar 18, 2020)

congrats people should make a new thread then


Aerma said:


> The creator of this thread hasn't been on the forum in 4 years, so it probably won't happen.
> (Also this is my 1,400th post, yay)


----------



## Etotheipi (Mar 18, 2020)

ProStar said:


> I agree. You could say that methods like Petrus and Roux work for 5x5+ if you use redux, but for 4x4 with Yau you automatically make a cross. And don't even talk about ZZ without inspection...


You could just use meyer then, there are alternatives.


----------



## Owen Morrison (Mar 18, 2020)

CFOP doesn't have a ton of algorithms I don't get why everyone says it does. Also, why does the original post say that you should only use CFOP if you like learning algorithms and you like to use the most popular method. I think this whole place is extremely biased against CFOP, no one takes into account that other methods are slow for 4x4 and up.


----------



## ProStar (Mar 18, 2020)

Owen Morrison said:


> CFOP doesn't have a ton of algorithms I don't get why everyone says it does. Also, why does the original post say that you should only use CFOP if you like learning algorithms and you like to use the most popular method. I think this whole place is extremely biased against CFOP, no one takes into account that other methods are slow for 4x4 and up.



I mean, full CFOP has around 80 algs, which is a lot more than Roux and COLL-EPLL Petrus needs. But like advanced Petrus and ZZ use ZBLL....


Would people like a new one to be written, keeping the majority of the things the same just with some small changes to stuff?


----------



## fun at the joy (Mar 18, 2020)

ProStar said:


> which is a lot more than COLL-EPLL Petrus needs. But like advanced Petrus and ZZ use ZBLL....


COLL-EPLL isn't FULL ZZ or Petrus, ZBLL is full ZZ/Petrus which means full ZZ/Petrus has a LOT more algs than full CFOP.
Only Roux has less algs.


----------



## ProStar (Mar 18, 2020)

fun at the joy said:


> COLL-EPLL isn't FULL ZZ or Petrus, ZBLL is full ZZ/Petrus which means full ZZ/Petrus has a LOT more algs than full CFOP.
> Only Roux has less algs.



Full Petrus is CP->CO->EP according to Lars. It is true that full ZZ technically requires ZBLL, but the majority of elite ZZ solvers don't use it fully


----------



## fun at the joy (Mar 18, 2020)

ProStar said:


> Full Petrus is CP->CO->EP according to Lars. It is true that full ZZ technically requires ZBLL, but the majority of elite ZZ solvers don't use it fully


ZBLL wasn't a thing when he made his website


----------



## Hazel (Mar 19, 2020)

fun at the joy said:


> COLL-EPLL isn't FULL ZZ or Petrus, ZBLL is full ZZ/Petrus which means full ZZ/Petrus has a LOT more algs than full CFOP.
> Only Roux has less algs.


Petrus with full ZBLL is Petrus-a, which is technically a variant of Petrus.


----------



## fun at the joy (Mar 19, 2020)

how is the variant with Coll-epll called?


----------



## ketchupcuber (Mar 19, 2020)

ProStar said:


> I mean, full CFOP has around 80 algs, which is a lot more than Roux and COLL-EPLL Petrus needs. But like advanced Petrus and ZZ use ZBLL....
> 
> 
> Would people like a new one to be written, keeping the majority of the things the same just with some small changes to stuff?


that would be great but please give an equal representation of each method to limit arguments 
thanks


----------



## PetrusQuber (Mar 19, 2020)

Aerma said:


> The creator of this thread hasn't been on the forum in 4 years, so it probably won't happen.
> (Also this is my 1,400th post, yay)


Worth a try lol. @*Ickathu *
Wait... What is this madness. It’s not working!


----------



## WarriorCatCuber (Mar 19, 2020)

If I find time somewhere, I'll make a thread that doesn't promote any method and that also includes waterman and PCMS (or corners first and columns.).


----------



## ketchupcuber (Mar 19, 2020)

that would be great


----------



## ProStar (Mar 19, 2020)

I'll start working on an updated version of this guide if no one is opposed. The majority of it will be taken from this one, just with some stuff added and hopefully made unbiased. Any specific requests?

(Also I will make sure to let everyone know that Ickathu made the original and did most of the work)


----------



## ketchupcuber (Mar 19, 2020)

mention the potential each method has


----------



## ProStar (Mar 19, 2020)

Ok, I'm working on the updated guide. I need info/help with these components of the guide:

*CFOP*
Quotes from the best - Preferably something you know Feliks, Max, or other great cubers said about CFOP(preferably not Antoine saying CFOP is bad...)
Resources - Different resources, basically the same as the current one except more updated ones
Variants - Couldn't think of many variants for CFOP, any ideas?

*Roux*
Quotes from the best - There are already some from Alex Lau, but I'd like some more recent ones
Resources - I don't know much about different resources
Variants - same as CFOP

*ZZ*
Quotes from the best - I already have some from Phil, but if there are any other good ones then I'd like to add them
Resources - I don't know anything about where ZZ resources are located

*Petrus*
Quotes - There are some from Erik Johnson, maybe some newer ones(@Tao Yu?)
Resources - Are there even that many resources for Petrus?
Variants - I got a couple(I got you covered WCC), but I was wondering if there were any others


----------



## Owen Morrison (Mar 19, 2020)

ProStar said:


> *CFOP*
> Quotes from the best - Preferably something you know Feliks, Max, or other great cubers said about CFOP(preferably not Antoine saying CFOP is bad...)


@Faz do you have any good quotes about CFOP?


----------



## WarriorCatCuber (Mar 19, 2020)

Owen Morrison said:


> @Faz do you have any good quotes about CFOP?


Faz has already stated he never tried other methods.


----------



## Owen Morrison (Mar 19, 2020)

WarriorCatCuber said:


> Faz has already stated he never tried other methods.


Quotes about CFOP not other methods.


----------



## ketchupcuber (Mar 19, 2020)

WarriorCatCuber said:


> Faz has already stated he never tried other methods.


you dont have to have tried other methods to explain why you like the method



ProStar said:


> Ok, I'm working on the updated guide. I need info/help with these components of the guide:
> 
> *CFOP*
> Quotes from the best - Preferably something you know Feliks, Max, or other great cubers said about CFOP(preferably not Antoine saying CFOP is bad...)
> ...


with cfop variants you could mention subsets such as wv zbll coll


----------



## AlphaCuber is awesome (Mar 19, 2020)

ProStar said:


> Ok, I'm working on the updated guide. I need info/help with these components of the guide:
> 
> *CFOP*
> Quotes from the best - Preferably something you know Feliks, Max, or other great cubers said about CFOP(preferably not Antoine saying CFOP is bad...)
> ...


could you do one for leor as well


----------



## WarriorCatCuber (Mar 19, 2020)

ProStar said:


> Ok, I'm working on the updated guide. I need info/help with these components of the guide:
> 
> *CFOP*
> Quotes from the best - Preferably something you know Feliks, Max, or other great cubers said about CFOP(preferably not Antoine saying CFOP is bad...)
> ...


ZZ resources :
1. Papasmurf's website
2. Conrad Rider's website
3. Phil Yu's video playlist
4. Problem Solved's video playlist.
Add colums and corners first with different variants.
Also list LEOR as a petrus variant.
roux variants : Pinky Pie?
CFOP variants : ZB, VH, stuff like that.
If you want more ZZ quotes you could ask @PapaSmurf as he is sub-10 and is one of the fastest ZZ users.


----------



## AlphaCuber is awesome (Mar 19, 2020)

WarriorCatCuber said:


> ZZ resources :
> 1. Papasmurf's website
> 2. Conrad Rider's website
> 3. Phil Yu's video playlist
> ...


don't list leor as a petrus variant their different methods


----------



## ProStar (Mar 19, 2020)

WarriorCatCuber said:


> 1. Papasmurf's website



Can't find his website, what's the link?



WarriorCatCuber said:


> Add colums and corners first with different variants.
> Also list LEOR as a petrus variant.



Are those variants of those methods though? CF isn't ZZ at all



WarriorCatCuber said:


> ZZ resources :
> 1. Papasmurf's website
> 2. Conrad Rider's website
> 3. Phil Yu's video playlist
> ...



Added the other stuff


----------



## WarriorCatCuber (Mar 19, 2020)

ProStar said:


> Can't find his website, what's the link?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


1. https://sites.google.com/view/zzmethod/
2. Yes, variants of those methods, stuff like SSC and PCMS and columns for noobs and intermediate colums and ortega, guimond, waterman, dunno, stuff like that.
Also you could add Heise and LEOR as improvements to petrus.
EDIT : Oh yeah, and don't call it a _beginner's_ guide, as more advanced solvers like too look at this.


----------



## PetrusQuber (Mar 20, 2020)

I don’t really know of any fast Petrus users who main the method, apart from @2180161 who has taken a break from cubing so...

Efficiency comes first with Petrus. Petrus doesn’t have many big advantages compared to, say CFOP apart from that, so practise your block solutions A LOT

Don’t be demotivated with your improvement rate, it’ll almost certainly be harder to improve at Petrus than with CFOP, but nothing comes easy in life

For Petrus, especially when you’re averaging in between 20-40 seconds, do LOTS AND LOTS of slow solving. This will help with time demotivation issues, lookahead and block efficiency

Never stop learning new techniques, every one you learn contributes to your knowledge of blockbuilding, and in turn, movecount and speed

Movecount over TPS, always

Doing 25 FMC solves is better than doing 100 speedsolves to improve in general. Speedsolve to get used to new skills and techniques, not to get faster

Learn to be able to come up with solutions to a block almost immediately after you've seen the location of the pieces. You can actually train this by doing individual steps without inspection time, to throw yourself into it, with no time to lookahead

Compare not your cheesburgers to others’ cheeseburgers, but compare to your cheeseburgers in the past

Or you could just use Petrus





Feel free to pick out any which are actually relevant lol.





 found this useful


----------



## Namio (Mar 24, 2020)

I just learned how to solve a cube a week ago and I was wondering what is the best method for a beginner to learn? (has to be speed solving related)


----------



## Etotheipi (Mar 24, 2020)

CFOP is fairly easy to learn compared to others, but it is still best to try others. I personally use Roux.


----------



## Owen Morrison (Mar 24, 2020)

CFOP is the easiest method to learn from beginners and the fastest method at least in official results. It is also the only good method if you want to solve 4x4, 5x5, 6x6, 7x7, and will be easier to learn Megaminx with. Also a lot easier to do one handed as you don't need a table like you would with Roux.


----------



## Micah Morrison (Mar 24, 2020)

CFOP is easiest to learn from beginners method because it essentially builds off of what you learned in beginners method. It is also the best method if you are interested in big cubes. I personally haven't tried other methods because CFOP works so well for me and got me to average sub 9 seconds


----------



## Etotheipi (Mar 24, 2020)

Owen Morrison said:


> CFOP is the easiest method to learn from beginners and the fastest method at least in official results. It is also the only good method if you want to solve 4x4, 5x5, 6x6, 7x7, and will be easier to learn Megaminx with. Also a lot easier to do one handed as you don't need a table like you would with Roux.


 "Only good method for..." of the ones we know it may be the best, but we may find other methods that are better.


----------



## brododragon (Mar 24, 2020)

Refer to here:








Beginner's Guide to Choosing a Speedsolving Method


Foreword: We know that this thread may induce the “wall of text” syndrome (try opening up all the spoilers), but we promise that you are doing yourself a favor by reading this. There is a lot of information, but it is all beneficial and there is no unnecessary information. This thread is...




www.speedsolving.com




All of these are have a pretty equal difficulty of learning.


----------



## Owen Morrison (Mar 24, 2020)

brododragon said:


> Refer to here:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Uhm.. CFOP will be much easier to learn from beginners because it is based off what you already know, and I think methods that use EO like ZZ and Petrus are quite a bit harder to learn than methods like CFOP.

EDIT: Also, that is a terrible source for beginners, it is very biased against CFOP and does not say the benefits of CFOP like that it is the fastest for big cubes. I am pretty sure @ProStar is working on a new and better one.


----------



## Micah Morrison (Mar 24, 2020)

brododragon said:


> All of these are have a pretty equal difficulty of learning.


I would disagree on that if you start with beginners method just because CFOP is pretty much the most similar to beginners method. But if you're talking about learning them from scratch, I wouldn't disagree


----------



## alexiscubing (Mar 24, 2020)

CFOP is the easiest continuation from beginners and i personally use it, but there are also other good options including roux, zz and petrus. CFOP is currently the most evolved and there are lots of good tricks on youtube and the forums. It is up to you


----------



## brododragon (Mar 24, 2020)

Owen Morrison said:


> CFOP is the easiest method to learn from beginners and the fastest method at least in official results. It is also the only good method if you want to solve 4x4, 5x5, 6x6, 7x7, and will be easier to learn Megaminx with. Also a lot easier to do one handed as you don't need a table like you would with Roux.





Micah Morrison said:


> CFOP is easiest to learn from beginners method because it essentially builds off of what you learned in beginners method. It is also the best method if you are interested in big cubes. I personally haven't tried other methods because CFOP works so well for me and got me to average sub 9 seconds





Micah Morrison said:


> I would disagree on that if you start with beginners method just because CFOP is pretty much the most similar to beginners method. But if you're talking about learning them from scratch, I wouldn't disagree


I've spent around 15 minutes picking apart your statements and disproving them, but then I realized I am accomplishing nothing except repeating myself over and over again from previous occasions like this.

The moral of the story is, everyone has already heard you arguments, but they aren't adding anything new to the story. Let this beginner find his own method with whatever knowledge he chooses to work with; if she/he regrets his decisions, they can always switch. People have made CFOP to Petrus switches in weeks and only lose a second or two.


----------



## Namio (Mar 24, 2020)

Etotheipi said:


> CFOP is fairly easy to learn compared to others, but it is still best to try others. I personally use Roux.


I tried but like its hard for me I dont know if its just my small brain or what


----------



## Owen Morrison (Mar 24, 2020)

Namio said:


> I tried but like its hard for me I dont know if its just my small brain or what


Learning something new is always challenging, I average just under 10 seconds and it took me a couple months to figure out F2L. Keep at it and soon you will figure it out


----------



## brododragon (Mar 24, 2020)

Namio said:


> I tried but like its hard for me I dont know if its just my small brain or what


It's not being small-brained, it's just starting back at square one. It's probably going to be as hard (or harder, because the lack of resources) to learn other methods as it was to learn to solve the cube in the first place.


----------



## Hazel (Mar 24, 2020)

@Owen Morrison @Micah Morrison @brododragon @Etotheipi 
I thought we figured this out... we refer the member to the thread that brododragon linked and have that be the end of it, right?


----------



## Micah Morrison (Mar 24, 2020)

brododragon said:


> I've spent around 15 minutes picking apart your statements and disproving them, but then I realized I am accomplishing nothing except repeating myself over and over again from previous occasions like this.
> 
> The moral of the story is, everyone has already heard you arguments, but they aren't adding anything new to the story. Let this beginner find his own method with whatever knowledge he chooses to work with; if she/he regrets his decisions, they can always switch. People have made CFOP to Petrus switches in weeks and only lose a second or two.


okay, I'll confess I've been biased towards CFOP lately when recommending methods. I've tried not to be on this thread. I think the pros of CFOP that it is an easy transition from LBL and that it is great if you're interested in big cubes should not be ignored. Other methods like Roux have fewer moves but are harder to turn fast. In addition, they require more inspection which is why they aren't as good for big cubes. There's a trade off for each method you learn. If you want to get in to big cubes, then CFOP is the way to go. If you want to do only 3x3, there are a few methods that are arguably but not yet proven to be as good or slightly better than CFOP.



Aerma said:


> @Owen Morrison @Micah Morrison @brododragon @Etotheipi
> I thought we figured this out... we refer the member to the thread that brododragon linked and have that be the end of it, right?


yeah...sure... if there's a revised version of that thread that gives an equal representation of each method


----------



## Namio (Mar 24, 2020)

Owen Morrison said:


> Learning something new is always challenging, I average just under 10 seconds and it took me a couple months to figure out F2L. Keep at it and soon you will figure it out


I've learned f2l I just cant force pll algs in my head


----------



## Micah Morrison (Mar 24, 2020)

Namio said:


> I've learned f2l I just cant force pll algs in my head


learn 2 look OLL and PLL first. These algorithms are generally easier to learn at first and you don't have to learn as much as them. Here's a good resource made by one of the best speedcubers in the world. https://www.cubeskills.com/uploads/pdf/tutorials/4-look-last-layer.pdf


----------



## Owen Morrison (Mar 24, 2020)

Namio said:


> I've learned f2l I just cant force pll algs in my head


yeah that is the hardest part. Try dividing it into segments, for example, in the PLL alg T perm. which is R U R' U' R' F R2 U' R' U' R U R' F' Think of it as (R U R' U') drill that 50 times or so and then move to the next part: (R' F R2) drill that 50 times. Then drill (U' R' U') 50 times. And finally drill (R U R' F') 50 times. Then you can just execute the PLL algorithm by doing those four sequences.



Micah Morrison said:


> learn 2 look OLL and PLL first. These algorithms are generally easier to learn at first and you don't have to learn as much as them. Here's a good resource made by one of the best speedcubers in the world. https://www.cubeskills.com/uploads/pdf/tutorials/4-look-last-layer.pdf


ONE OF THE BEST SPEEDCUBERS??? Are you saying he isn't THE fastest?


----------



## Namio (Mar 24, 2020)

Micah Morrison said:


> learn 2 look OLL and PLL first. These algorithms are generally easier to learn at first and you don't have to learn as much as them. Here's a good resource made by one of the best speedcubers in the world. https://www.cubeskills.com/uploads/pdf/tutorials/4-look-last-layer.pdf


Ty man you didn't have to do that but I am also going to 
*Buccaneer Bonanza 2020*
link: https://www.worldcubeassociation.org/competitions/BuccaneerBonanza2020 and thats why I wanted to learn a fast way to solve a 3x3


----------



## brododragon (Mar 24, 2020)

Namio said:


> I've learned f2l I just cant force pll algs in my head


I would recommend 4LLL if you're trying to learn 2LLL right now. I wrote up some tips but it became so large I decided to give it it's own thread:








How to Memorize Algorithms Quicker


I've seen many beginners complain about algs being hard to memorize, and everyone's been there. So I decided to make a guide to help even intermediate and advanced cubers memorize algs. This is a constant WIP, and I am fine with changing something if you see a problem. Most Important Rule: You...




www.speedsolving.com


----------



## Cubingcubecuber (Mar 24, 2020)

brododragon said:


> It's not being small-brained, it's just starting back at square one. It's probably going to be as hard (or harder, because the lack of resources) to learn other methods as it was to learn to solve the cube in the first place.


Was the part about Square 1 supposed to be a joke?


----------



## brododragon (Mar 24, 2020)

Cubingcubecuber said:


> Was the part about Square 1 supposed to be a joke?


I wasn't talking about the puzzle, I was talking about the saying "back at square one".


----------



## D1zzy (Mar 25, 2020)

Yea, I would definitely say that CFOP is the easiest (and arguably the fastest) to use because there are so many tricks and tips online because of its popularity. I'm a little biased towards CFOP because I use it, but this is just an opinion from a random guy on the internet so idk.


----------



## PetrusQuber (Mar 25, 2020)

Owen Morrison said:


> Uhm.. CFOP will be much easier to learn from beginners because it is based off what you already know, and I think methods that use EO like ZZ and Petrus are quite a bit harder to learn than methods like CFOP.
> 
> EDIT: Also, that is a terrible source for beginners, it is very biased against CFOP and does not say the benefits of CFOP like that it is the fastest for big cubes. I am pretty sure @ProStar is working on a new and better one.


Your only argument to say this thread is terrible and very biased against CFOP is that the quotes from the best section has somebody saying Roux would be better, and that it doesn't mention anything about CFOP being good for 4x4. Honestly, I don’t think that quote makes it very biased and a terrible resource. And this is a guide for 3x3 methods, not 4x4... I don’t think I should be told that CFOP is the best simply because it is the best for big cubes (which, by the way, we don’t have any proof for).


----------



## Owen Morrison (Mar 25, 2020)

PetrusQuber said:


> Your only argument to say this thread is terrible and very biased against CFOP is that the quotes from the best section has somebody saying Roux would be better, and that it doesn't mention anything about CFOP being good for 4x4. Honestly, I don’t think that quote makes it very biased and a terrible resource. And this is a guide for 3x3 methods, not 4x4... I don’t think I should be told that CFOP is the best simply because it is the best for big cubes (which, by the way, we don’t have any proof for).


Okay the title says "*Beginner's Guide to Choosing a Speedsolving Method"*
It doesn't say that this is only for 3x3, beginners need to realize that the method they choose to speedsolve with for 3x3 might not be ideal for speedsolving for other events. Roux has proven itself to be a very fast 3x3 method, there is no proof that it is faster than CFOP, and there is very little and not concrete proof that CFOP is faster. I think these two are equal for 3x3. But, is there anyone who even averages sub 30 on 4x4 with Meyer's? I mean MAYBE just every fast Roux user for 3x3 just doesn't care about big cubes, but I really think it is because the methods aren't fast for big cubes. There is proof that Roux is equal with CFOP for 3x3, but there isn't any kind of proof that would suggest it is equal for bigger cubes.


----------



## PetrusQuber (Mar 25, 2020)

You know, why are we getting @ProStar to do a new one? A moderator could easily edit this post.


----------



## ProStar (Mar 30, 2020)

Almost done with the new version! I won't be able to add sections for all the methods(obviously), but I wanted to briefly highlight some of the more popular ones. What do you think the most popular methods are other than CFOP, Roux, ZZ, and Petrus?



PetrusQuber said:


> You know, why are we getting @ProStar to do a new one? A moderator could easily edit this post.



Because it would take just as much work, and the staff probably have better things to do than I do


----------



## Owen Morrison (Mar 30, 2020)

ProStar said:


> Almost done with the new version! I won't be able to add sections for all the methods(obviously), but I wanted to briefly highlight some of the more popular ones. What do you think the most popular methods are other than CFOP, Roux, ZZ, and Petrus?
> 
> 
> 
> Because it would take just as much work, and the staff probably have better things to do than I do


Maybe Waterman? I don't know how popular it is but it seems to have good potential.


----------



## BenChristman1 (Mar 30, 2020)

Owen Morrison said:


> Maybe Waterman? I don't know how popular it is but it seems to have good potential.


Wait, what? You're saying Waterman has good potential, but Roux doesn't?


----------



## Owen Morrison (Mar 30, 2020)

BenChristman1 said:


> Wait, what? You're saying Waterman has good potential, but Roux doesn't?


Yes.

EDIT: let me rephrase that, I think they both have good potential but Waterman would work better with Yau.


----------



## BenChristman1 (Mar 30, 2020)

Owen Morrison said:


> Yes.


Do you know of anybody averaging sub-10 who uses Waterman?


----------



## Owen Morrison (Mar 30, 2020)

BenChristman1 said:


> Do you know of anybody averaging sub-10 who uses Waterman?


I am going to have to use the same excuse that Roux solvers use, and that is that a very small minority of people use Waterman, I am seriously considering switching to it, as it will still work well for 4x4 and higher.


----------



## BenChristman1 (Mar 30, 2020)

Owen Morrison said:


> I am going to have to use the same excuse that Roux solvers use, and that is that a very small minority of people use Waterman, I am seriously considering switching to it, as it will still work well for 4x4 and higher.


Why would you completely switch methods when you average sub-10 with one? It takes a lot of work and dedication to be able to solve a 3x3 in under 10 seconds. I just don't understand how you can just completely throw that out the window.


----------



## WarriorCatCuber (Mar 30, 2020)

ProStar said:


> Almost done with the new version! I won't be able to add sections for all the methods(obviously), but I wanted to briefly highlight some of the more popular ones. What do you think the most popular methods are other than CFOP, Roux, ZZ, and Petrus?
> 
> 
> 
> Because it would take just as much work, and the staff probably have better things to do than I do


Columns first and corners first.
Columns first variants : Columns for noobs, Intermediate columns, PCMS, SSC
Corners first variants : Waterman, Roux, Ortega, Guimond, LMCF.
Focus mainly on PCMS for columns and Waterman for Corners First.
@ProStar


----------



## Cubingcubecuber (Mar 30, 2020)

ProStar said:


> Almost done with the new version! I won't be able to add sections for all the methods(obviously), but I wanted to briefly highlight some of the more popular ones. What do you think the most popular methods are other than CFOP, Roux, ZZ, and Petrus?
> 
> 
> 
> Because it would take just as much work, and the staff probably have better things to do than I do


Hawaiian Kociemba


----------



## crazycuber36 (Mar 31, 2020)

BenChristman1 said:


> Why would you completely switch methods when you average sub-10 with one? It takes a lot of work and dedication to be able to solve a 3x3 in under 10 seconds. I just don't understand how you can just completely throw that out the window.


i am not worthy enough to even dream about getting sub 10


----------



## Nmile7300 (Mar 31, 2020)

Owen Morrison said:


> I am going to have to use the same excuse that Roux solvers use, and that is that a very small minority of people use Waterman, I am seriously considering switching to it, as it will still work well for 4x4 and higher.


I am extremely curious to know why you think Waterman has potential but Roux doesn't. I don't want to criticize before I hear your reasons.


----------



## Owen Morrison (Mar 31, 2020)

Nmile7300 said:


> I am extremely curious to know why you think Waterman has potential but Roux doesn't. I don't want to criticize before I hear your reasons.


Sorry if I didn't make that clear, I think they have equal potential but Waterman works for Yau. Also I am not actually going to switch, I was considering it.


----------



## Nmile7300 (Mar 31, 2020)

Oh ok sorry.


----------



## BenChristman1 (Mar 31, 2020)

Owen Morrison said:


> Sorry if I didn't make that clear, *I think they have equal potential* but Waterman works for Yau. Also I am not actually going to switch, I was considering it.


Ummmmm...


BenChristman1 said:


> Wait, what? You're saying Waterman has good potential, but Roux doesn't?





Owen Morrison said:


> Yes.


----------



## Owen Morrison (Mar 31, 2020)

Okay sorry I worded that very poorly, also, @Nmile7300 I didn't mean to react to your post with eyes up, tapped the wrong one. I would want to hear someone who thought Waterman was good but Roux sucked reasons as well, although I did make it seem like I was that guy, fixed my posts.


----------



## brododragon (Mar 31, 2020)

Wait a second... @Owen Morrison thought about switching, and @BenChristman1 is telling him to not...


*Sinister Voice* How the tables have turned... *Evil Cackle*


----------



## Cubinwitdapizza (Mar 31, 2020)

I love how @Owen Morrison went to the first posts about changing to roux and reacted with an angry face.


----------



## crazycuber36 (Mar 31, 2020)

you guys are so calm and reasoning with this stuff. Sheesh your nice


----------



## ༼(∩ ͡°╭͜ʖ╮͡ ͡°)༽⊃ (Apr 9, 2020)

Here is how I learned.
"



" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe>


----------



## brododragon (Apr 9, 2020)

༼(∩ ͡°╭͜ʖ╮͡ ͡°)༽⊃ said:


> Here is how I learned.
> "
> 
> 
> ...


Ummm... This is a guide on_ choosing_ a speedsolving method...


----------



## ༼(∩ ͡°╭͜ʖ╮͡ ͡°)༽⊃ (Apr 9, 2020)

brododragon said:


> Ummm... This is a guide on_ choosing_ a speedsolving method...


Oh sorry I must of read the title wrong.


----------



## WarriorCatCuber (Apr 9, 2020)

@ProStar How's this going?


----------



## ProStar (Apr 9, 2020)

WarriorCatCuber said:


> @ProStar How's this going?



Almost done, will probably be out very soon

Edit: 500th reply lol


----------



## PetrusQuber (Apr 11, 2020)

ProStar said:


> Almost done, will probably be out very soon
> 
> Edit: 500th reply lol


Prostar on Thursday:~says will probably be out very soon~
Prostar now: ~Checking his notifs every minute to see if anyone has mentioned him for the bumping war~


----------



## WarriorCatCuber (Apr 16, 2020)

ProStar said:


> Almost done, will probably be out very soon
> 
> Edit: 500th reply lol


How is this going NOW?
I'm very impatient, sorry.


----------



## ProStar (Apr 17, 2020)

Oh no.....

We had a couple power outages(for like a second, nothing serious) yesterday during a storm, and when I got onto my open tab today to finish the new version of the guide, none of it was there, and my saved drafts on SS were deleted


----------



## AlphaCuber is awesome (May 5, 2020)

ProStar said:


> Oh no.....
> 
> We had a couple power outages(for like a second, nothing serious) yesterday during a storm, and when I got onto my open tab today to finish the new version of the guide, none of it was there, and my saved drafts on SS were deleted


You could make a google doc, this would resolve this problem and you could also have multiple contributors such as @PetrusQuber


----------



## PetrusQuber (May 5, 2020)

AlphaCuber is awesome said:


> You could make a google doc, this would resolve this problem and you could also have multiple contributors such as @PetrusQuber


Wait, why was I mentioned?


----------



## AlphaCuber is awesome (May 5, 2020)

PetrusQuber said:


> Wait, why was I mentioned?


Sorry I was just using you as an example my point was that if he had a google doc other people could help write the thread and we could have pros and cons from some of the main method users more easily.


----------



## ProStar (May 5, 2020)

AlphaCuber is awesome said:


> You could make a google doc, this would resolve this problem and you could also have multiple contributors such as @PetrusQuber



That sounds like a good idea, but I personally don't really want to write it again, although I may help if someone starts on it


----------



## brododragon (May 6, 2020)

ProStar said:


> That sounds like a good idea, but I personally don't really want to write it again, although I may help if someone starts on it


How about this: instead of re-writing the entire thing, realize the quotes were meant to say that CFOP isn't the only viable method.


----------



## ProStar (May 6, 2020)

brododragon said:


> How about this: instead of re-writing the entire thing, realize the quotes were meant to say that CFOP isn't the only viable method.



To clarify: I didn't completely rewrite it, I took the original tutorial. But I made a bunch of edits, since a lot of stuff was outdated on top of being partially biased


----------



## dudefaceguy (May 6, 2020)

ProStar said:


> Almost done with the new version! I won't be able to add sections for all the methods(obviously), but I wanted to briefly highlight some of the more popular ones. What do you think the most popular methods are other than CFOP, Roux, ZZ, and Petrus?
> 
> 
> 
> Because it would take just as much work, and the staff probably have better things to do than I do


On the subject of other methods, you might want to consider Heise. It’s not really a _speed_ method, but it will likely appeal to curious people who want to learn about different ways to solve the cube - i.e. the target audience of this thread. It was my first method and I think it works well for a beginner since it is so intuitive.


----------



## ProStar (May 6, 2020)

dudefaceguy said:


> On the subject of other methods, you might want to consider Heise. It’s not really a _speed_ method, but it will likely appeal to curious people who want to learn about different ways to solve the cube - i.e. the target audience of this thread. It was my first method and I think it works well for a beginner since it is so intuitive.



I had a section dedicated to other methods, where it would be less descriptive but still be a brief overview of a bunch of methods, with steps and a couple pros/cons. However:



ProStar said:


> Oh no.....
> 
> We had a couple power outages(for like a second, nothing serious) yesterday during a storm, and when I got onto my open tab today to finish the new version of the guide, none of it was there, and my saved drafts on SS were deleted





ProStar said:


> That sounds like a good idea, but I personally don't really want to write it again, although I may help if someone starts on it


----------



## dudefaceguy (May 6, 2020)

ProStar said:


> I had a section dedicated to other methods, where it would be less descriptive but still be a brief overview of a bunch of methods, with steps and a couple pros/cons. However:


I was very sorry to hear that happened. This post is due for an update.


----------



## brododragon (May 6, 2020)

ProStar said:


> To clarify: I didn't completely rewrite it, I took the original tutorial. But I made a bunch of edits, since a lot of stuff was outdated on top of being partially biased


Definently add a CF method (other than Roux). Just do whatever's most popular.


----------



## ProStar (May 6, 2020)

brododragon said:


> Definently add a CF method (other than Roux). Just do whatever's most popular.






ProStar said:


> I had a section dedicated to other methods, where it would be less descriptive but still be a brief overview of a bunch of methods, with steps and a couple pros/cons.



I had included (from what I can remember)

Waterman
Heise
LEOR
PCMS
SSC

I think I may have had 1 or 2 more, but cannot recall


----------



## brododragon (May 6, 2020)

ProStar said:


> I had included (from what I can remember)
> 
> Waterman
> Heise
> ...


That should be good, but I don't know if LEOR is necessary, as nobody uses it.


----------



## AlphaCuber is awesome (May 6, 2020)

brododragon said:


> That should be good, but I don't know if LEOR is necessary, as nobody uses it.


YOU ARE FACTUALLY INCORRECT


----------



## brododragon (May 6, 2020)

AlphaCuber is awesome said:


> YOU ARE FACTUALLY INCORRECT


o k

Also LEOR is basically Petrus...


Dang it... I've done it again... Compare other methods to Petrus...


----------



## AlphaCuber is awesome (May 6, 2020)

brododragon said:


> o k
> 
> Also LEOR is basically Petrus...
> 
> ...


by that logic zz is basically just cfop


----------



## Cubingcubecuber (May 7, 2020)

ProStar said:


> I had included (from what I can remember)
> 
> Waterman
> Heise
> ...


Hawaiian Kociemba should be on there. I will be making a website, so if you need info, I will probably be done in like two months(I just started yesterday and I have no idea what I am doing)


----------



## WarriorCatCuber (May 7, 2020)

ProStar said:


> I had included (from what I can remember)
> 
> Waterman
> Heise
> ...


You should include...


Spoiler: Methods



*2*

2GB
2GR Method
*3*

3x3x3 speedsolving methods
*4*

42
*A*

A3
Advanced F2L
*B*

B2 (Briggs2) Method
Briggs
*C*

CFCE
CFOP method
CML-Method
*D*

Duplex method
*F*

FreeFOP
*H*

Hawaiian Kociemba
Heise method
HSC
*J*

Jeff2L
*L*

Layer by layer
LEOR
LLOB
LMCF
*M*

M-CELL
My World
*N*

No More PLL
*O*

Ortega Method
*P*

Petrus Method
Petrus-W
Pikas**t
Portico
*R*

Ribbon Method
Roux method
Russo method
*S*

Sandwich Method
Snyder Method
Speed Heise-2
SSC
*T*

Tripod Method
*V*

VDW method
*W*

Waterman method
WaterRoux
Whatever
*Z*

ZB method
Zipper Method
ZZ method
ZZ-CT
ZZ-Snake Pattern


----------



## Cubingcubecuber (May 7, 2020)

WarriorCatCuber said:


> You should include...
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Methods
> ...


Jeff2L lol


----------



## BenChristman1 (Jun 26, 2020)

Should I make a new thread for this (since some people find it very biased)?


----------



## Owen Morrison (Jun 26, 2020)

BenChristman1 said:


> Should I make a new thread for this (since some people find it very biased)?


As long as yours isn't biased.


----------



## BenChristman1 (Jun 26, 2020)

What he says:


Owen Morrison said:


> As long as yours isn't biased.


What he's actually thinking:


Owen Morrison said:


> As long as yours is biased towards CFOP.


----------



## I'm A Cuber (Jun 26, 2020)

BenChristman1 said:


> I think that this thread is totally unbiased, as it says that roux is clearly the best, which it is.


nah, ef —> corner comms is the best


----------



## ProStar (Jun 26, 2020)

BenChristman1 said:


> Should I make a new thread for this (since some people find it very biased)?



Only if it's good and not just something thrown together with no real effort


----------



## BenChristman1 (Jun 27, 2020)

ProStar said:


> Only if it's good and not just something thrown together with no real effort


I will probably just copy and paste most of it, and remove the slight bias, and add a little more information. I was just thinking somebody should change it so that nobody can complain about any sort of bias.


----------



## brododragon (Jun 27, 2020)

I actually like the bias because most people are still gonna pick CFOP because of bandwagon, but the bias is one last push to try to get them to at least try something else.


----------



## BenChristman1 (Jul 9, 2020)

I would like to have as many people as possible fill out this form to get as many different tutorials as possible for learning/how to get better at these different methods.









Resources Links


Please put in links to good tutorials that you have found to help somebody learn or get better at these methods.




docs.google.com


----------



## Cubingcubecuber (Jul 9, 2020)

BenChristman1 said:


> I would like to have as many people as possible fill out this form to get as many different tutorials as possible for learning/how to get better at these different methods.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


My website is the best resource for HK


----------



## AlphaCuber is awesome (Jul 9, 2020)

I’m in the process of making an LEOR tutorial which should be a decent introduction to the method for people with some speedcubing knowledge.


----------



## BenChristman1 (Jul 9, 2020)

Cubingcubecuber said:


> My website is the best resource for HK





AlphaCuber is awesome said:


> I’m in the process of making an LEOR tutorial which should be a decent introduction to the method for people with some speedcubing knowledge.


I'm only go into detail on the Big 4, but I will include both of these tutorials in the "Other Methods" section. @Cubingcubecuber your website looks really good, and it doesn't seem like I have to provide any details on the new thread because your's is so detailed! @AlphaCuber is awesome make sure to give me the link when you are done!


----------



## LukasCubes (Aug 15, 2020)

Ickathu said:


> *Foreword:*
> We know that this thread may induce the “wall of text” syndrome (try opening up all the spoilers), but we promise that you are doing yourself a favor by reading this. There is a lot of information, but it is all beneficial and there is no unnecessary information. This thread is intended for those just starting out, but it may also be useful to those looking to switch methods, or those who just want to learn about other methods.
> 
> *Introduction to Thread*
> ...


I choose Waterman


----------



## Nir1213 (Oct 4, 2020)

Ickathu said:


> *Foreword:*
> We know that this thread may induce the “wall of text” syndrome (try opening up all the spoilers), but we promise that you are doing yourself a favor by reading this. There is a lot of information, but it is all beneficial and there is no unnecessary information. This thread is intended for those just starting out, but it may also be useful to those looking to switch methods, or those who just want to learn about other methods.
> 
> *Introduction to Thread*
> ...


i choose CFOP cause it suits me


----------



## RPerm (2020GOME05) (Dec 6, 2020)

I found something that fits me petrus method huh.


----------



## DNF_Cuber (Dec 6, 2020)

RPerm (2020GOME05) said:


> I found something that fits me petrus method huh.


That is something that you don't need to post about, you can just use petrus method. If you have a question about petrus method, then ask that in a thread like 








One-Answer 3x3x3 Question Thread


Is this a thread where I get to ask a question? :confused: What makes an alg a "2-gen?" I've heard this term and I don't understand.




www.speedsolving.com


----------



## WarriorCatCuber (Apr 14, 2021)

@BenChristman1 I don't suppose you're still working on this?


----------



## BenChristman1 (Apr 15, 2021)

WarriorCatCuber said:


> @BenChristman1 I don't suppose you're still working on this?


No, I completely forgot about it. Sorry. I don’t think I’ll ever fond the time to work on it, so people will just have to read the current guide, but disregard the quotes, since that was the main thing I was going to change.


----------



## PokeJin (Aug 17, 2021)

I am choosing between cfop and roux. My pb is 39 seconds with beginner method and some oll algrothms. For roux, I’m pretty sure I have to learn the whole thing at once. For cfop, I learned some of the oll already but my f2l is a lot slower than if I use beginner’s method.
So which should I learn?


----------



## BMcD308 (Aug 18, 2021)

We also need a beginner's guide to choosing a beginner method. 

The Cubicle's sexy move method has the advantage of being very easy to learn, but it does not translate well to trying to get faster.

The J Perm method is harder to learn than the Cubicle method, but the additional algs you learn are algs that stay with you as you learn CFOP.

CubeSkills is the most difficult of these three to learn, but it is basically CFOP Lite, and if you are going to try to learn full CFOP it the one that makes the transition to faster methods easiest, because you do simplified OLL and PLL. It also forces beginners to put on their big boy pants and do more different types of turns.

It is my understanding that the often praised (but unfamiliar to me) badmephisto beginner method is similar to the CubeSkills method but with different algs.


----------



## PetrusQuber (Aug 18, 2021)

PokeJin said:


> I am choosing between cfop and roux. My pb is 39 seconds with beginner method and some oll algrothms. For roux, I’m pretty sure I have to learn the whole thing at once. For cfop, I learned some of the oll already but my f2l is a lot slower than if I use beginner’s method.
> So which should I learn?


I’d suggest roux but I am slightly biased. Perhaps try them both for a while and see which one you like better!


BMcD308 said:


> We also need a beginner's guide to choosing a beginner method.
> 
> The Cubicle's sexy move method has the advantage of being very easy to learn, but it does not translate well to trying to get faster.
> 
> ...


Possibly, but beginner’s methods tend not to stay very long, and are soon replaced by standard ones.
I believe I learnt closest to J Perm’s method


----------



## GodCubing (Aug 19, 2021)

I learned LBL with 4LLL from you can do the rubiks cube lol


----------



## Waffles (Aug 19, 2021)

GodCubing said:


> I learned LBL with 4LLL from you can do the rubiks cube lol


Same lol and I was on holiday in like Canberra or some other place like that and there was only like rubik’s brands available

Sent from my wall using tapatalk: lockdown edition


----------



## CFOPSubber (Aug 30, 2021)

Currently learning CFOP right now!


----------



## DuckubingCuber347 (Aug 30, 2021)

CFOPSubber said:


> Currently learning CFOP right now!


It's not to late to try Nautilus.


----------



## Dan the Beginner (Aug 30, 2021)

BMcD308 said:


> We also need a beginner's guide to choosing a beginner method.
> 
> The Cubicle's sexy move method has the advantage of being very easy to learn, but it does not translate well to trying to get faster.
> 
> ...


This is so true - It would be very nice if we have beginner guides and advice that consider more of what the beginner needs and can cope with, as well as matters regarding longer-term development. Beginners may have various obstacles, eg. the amount of algorithms to learn in CFOP are so daunting, but most are already stuck with the method, having taken the easy LBL first steps and spending lots of time. They most likely won't think too much about all the choices in methods except the easiest. They will enjoy the quick progress from 5 minute solves to 1:30, but then face the big hurdles when trying to advance (speaking from my own experience as beginner who started 4 months ago). I read many comments about people who wished they had tried another method earlier, or when learning a chosen method taken another approach (e.g. learning Roux slowly and developing efficiency first), done something or avoided re-learning or difficulty after forming certain habits, or know to try and persist with Colour Neutrality from the beginning when time expectations are low, and it goes on. Of course this depends on the individual's needs, ability, time availability and very importantly motivation and ultimate goal. I mean defining requirements and making/adjusting plans, having different approaches, whether it's to learn to solve as fast as possible and in what timeframe (which can be years and enormous amount of time, which therefore justify more serious planning effort). I think it is not unlike learning the violin etc, when the earliest plans and habits would be all important.

As for Roux, I am biased too, after switching to it half-way after learning 4LLL. That can change however, as I am thinking more about trying Petrux as well. Maybe Nautilus later too, if I can cope. (My requirements are very different. I am not aiming to break any WR).


----------



## Waffles (Aug 30, 2021)

TheCubingCuber347 said:


> It's not to late to try Nautilus.


Unless you get sub 4 with CFOP in under a week, probably


----------



## Dan the Beginner (Aug 30, 2021)

Waffles said:


> Unless you get sub 4 with CFOP in under a week, probably


I find it interesting to try different things and find out how they work, if it is not too hard, not necessarily to find the best method for me. I don't think I will choose another method than Roux, as my main method, as it has the best balance for me, not too hard in terms of number of algorithms or having to work out moves by intuition, varied and interesting and less turns or less need to turn super fast.


----------



## WhyDoINeedAUsername (Sep 7, 2021)

I know CFOP, Roux and a method I believe I made myself, but I'm looking to learn something new.
My mains are both CFOP and the method I made as I usually average a high 20 per solve with them, My PB for Roux is around 40 seconds, My method is 21 seconds and CFOP is 18 seconds. I have tried my hand at ZZ but I find EOLine quite confusing, apart from that I haven't really tried with many other methods


----------



## EvanCuber (Sep 7, 2021)

WhyDoINeedAUsername said:


> I know CFOP, Roux and a method I believe I made myself, but I'm looking to learn something new.
> My mains are both CFOP and the method I made as I usually average a high 20 per solve with them, My PB for Roux is around 40 seconds, My method is 21 seconds and CFOP is 18 seconds. I have tried my hand at ZZ but I find EOLine quite confusing, apart from that I haven't really tried with many other methods


You can always try Mehta. However, in order to be really good at Mehta you have to know a large number of algorithms for OS or TDR. EO Line with ZZ can be really confusing at first, but once you get the hang of it ZZ is a really fun method with lots of variants and extensions to try out. Just whatever LukasCubes says, don't pick Waterman


----------



## WhyDoINeedAUsername (Sep 8, 2021)

MJbaka said:


> You can always try Mehta. However, in order to be really good at Mehta you have to know a large number of algorithms for OS or TDR. EO Line with ZZ can be really confusing at first, but once you get the hang of it ZZ is a really fun method with lots of variants and extensions to try out. Just whatever LukasCubes says, don't pick Waterman


Waterman seems like a fun method with few algorithms, but yeah tbh I think I want to improve my times so probably not a good idea. I actually have had my hand at Mehta, I made a little beginners version to help me but I'm not sure its the right method as fun as it is. While I don't know if I will ever use ZZ I would still really like to learn it, do you know any good tutorials, preferably ones on a site.


----------



## LBr (Sep 8, 2021)

WhyDoINeedAUsername said:


> I know CFOP, Roux and a method I believe I made myself, but I'm looking to learn something new.
> My mains are both CFOP and the method I made as I usually average a high 20 per solve with them, My PB for Roux is around 40 seconds, My method is 21 seconds and CFOP is 18 seconds. I have tried my hand at ZZ but I find EOLine quite confusing, apart from that I haven't really tried with many other methods


use eocross for zz if you want to use it


----------



## Filipe Teixeira (Sep 9, 2021)

> *ZZ-a* is a fate worse than death.


Wow this thread didn't really age well


----------



## LukasCubes (Sep 9, 2021)

I suggest to learn Waterman and im 12397632579% biased because I main it


----------



## LukasCubes (Sep 9, 2021)

MJbaka said:


> Just whatever LukasCubes says, don't pick Waterman


You really had to put that in there lol


----------



## povlhp (Dec 30, 2021)

As for beginner method, I think it can be done easier than J.Perm (which I learned from).
The flower has the advantage that it does not worry about aligning colors to centers before you take the cross down. My son is not really interested yet, but I think I will start with flower for him, as he struggles a bit with cross with matching centers.

His spamming for right/left handed sexy moves is great, Making yellow cross with F-sexy-F' times n is there to stay. Sune gets introduced and will stay. Then there is his rotate corners alg, that is simple, but will not be used later.

Not sure if another LL method would be better. Say use Sune to turn all corners. Then a U-perm for edge swap - But M moves are bad on Rubiks brand and other bad cubes. But could be explained to have an alternative rR'

His beginners CFOP guide is not perfect either. At this level, he should use the U-perm with M moves for edge swapping. 
And for diagonal corners he should explain that it is two OLL algs people already know. The diagonal yellow followed by blinkers. He is just teaching it as a VERY LONG for beginners alg. 

For adjacent corners, I quickly ditched his, and went with Jb. It is much easier as well. It is 3/4 sexy + F' + sexy + R'F R2 U' R' - Way easier to learn as there is more known sequences rather than moves. And after the R2 you can easily see the 2 remaining moves. And it is fast to execute.

Teaching beginner CFOP/Roux to split algs into blocks is important.

I learned begginers method with J.Perm and advanced beginners, and 4LLL. Still felt stuck around 1m30s. Then I switched to Roux (after less than a months total cubing - without too many solves). I love Roux, and would love to see a good beginners guide to Roux. That is, easier than J.Perm beginner CFOP.

The biggest problem with J.Perm beginner CFOP is too many algs. We need shortcuts. For beginner Roux / CMLL, we could do with Sune and F'-sexy-F for corner orientation. Then Jb for corner swap. Same could be done as a stage-1 CFOP. Then learning diagonal case, and blinkers later together with the diagonal swap.

Roux BU should be prepared by teaching Raise-the-Dot U2 early. Easiest way to solve L4E.


----------



## avaneesh (Mar 23, 2022)

Hello
I need help with 3x3 it is my first comp and I average 30 seconds with the beginner method. Is there any new method I can solve it under 20 seconds Any suggestions.


----------



## Garf (Mar 23, 2022)

avaneesh said:


> Hello
> I need help with 3x3 it is my first comp and I average 30 seconds with the beginner method. Is there any new method I can solve it under 20 seconds Any suggestions.


If your comp is coming up pretty soon, don't try learning it, but study and research it. Then, after the comp, you can start and learn it.


----------



## Garf (Mar 23, 2022)

BMcD308 said:


> We also need a beginner's guide to choosing a beginner method.
> 
> The Cubicle's sexy move method has the advantage of being very easy to learn, but it does not translate well to trying to get faster.
> 
> ...


Yeah... I believe one of my friends has had the curse of learning from TC's guide... it is terrible for speed. I am now trying to encourage him to relearn his last layer. It has been a struggle.


----------



## cuberswoop (Mar 23, 2022)

TheEpicCuber said:


> Yeah... I believe one of my friends has had the curse of learning from TC's guide... it is terrible for speed. I am now trying to encourage him to relearn his last layer. It has been a struggle.


TC's guide is [insert naughty word I'm not supposed to say]. My friend learned from it, has a PB of 34 seconds, averages 2 minutes, and has been "speedcubing" since mid-2019. They should direct people to the next thing to learn because my friend lives under a rock. I told him what 4LLL is, and he said there were "too many" algs for him. I think this was because TC's tutorial has 3~ algs. He also didn't believe me that 2LLL existed, as well at 1LLL.

To summarize, TC's tutorial is for lazy people who want to do it once and never solve it again, not for people who are going to try to speed solve.


[The end of my rant]


----------



## Garf (Mar 23, 2022)

cuberswoop said:


> TC's guide is [insert naughty word I'm not supposed to say]. My friend learned from it, has a PB of 34 seconds, averages 2 minutes, and has been "speedcubing" since mid-2019. They should direct people to the next thing to learn because my friend lives under a rock. I told him what 4LLL is, and he said there were "too many" algs for him. I think this was because TC's tutorial has 3~ algs. He also didn't believe me that 2LLL existed, as well at 1LLL.
> 
> To summarize, TC's tutorial is for lazy people who want to do it once and never solve it again, not for people who are going to try to speed solve.
> 
> ...


That is exactly how my friend is: living under a rock.
Well, at least for speedcubing.


----------



## IsThatA4x4 (Mar 23, 2022)

TheEpicCuber said:


> That is exactly how my friend is: living under a rock.
> Well, at least for speedcubing.


I learnt from TC and then me and my friends (all living under a rock) optimized it by ourselves a little (shorter U perms and corner inserts in first layer, sunes for OCLL).
That was cool for a while, but the transition to CFOP was hard, considering 4LLL has 13 algs that are longer than TC's sexy move / left sexy move (righty alg / lefty alg as they call it there). Also with TC's guide, diag CP is a massive pain and I remember it costing me at least 10-15 seconds at the time.


----------



## cuberswoop (Mar 23, 2022)

IsThatA4x4 said:


> I learnt from TC and then me and my friends (all living under a rock) optimized it by ourselves a little (shorter U perms and corner inserts in first layer, sunes for OCLL).
> That was cool for a while, but the transition to CFOP was hard, considering 4LLL has 13 algs that are longer than TC's sexy move / left sexy move (righty alg / lefty alg as they call it there). Also with TC's guide, diag CP is a massive pain and I remember it costing me at least 10-15 seconds at the time.


That is why you learn from Rubik's tutorial. They basically teach you a weird 6-8 look last layer.


----------



## abunickabhi (Mar 24, 2022)

cuberswoop said:


> That is why you learn from Rubik's tutorial. They basically teach you a weird 6-8 look last layer.


Sometimes it is more than 8 look last layer. Beginner's methods are weird.


----------



## Burrito (Aug 25, 2022)

EOCross offers a slighly higher movecount (I think 48 for eoline and 52 for eocros) but better ergonomics for zz


----------



## Crue11a (Oct 1, 2022)

Hi I am a new speed cuber, my average time is about 20 seconds and I have one of the beginner solves (with a few short cuts of my own) My algorithms are forward clockwise down counterclockwise, and I do it backwards as well. Any advice for how to solve the faster? Thanks.


----------



## LBr (Oct 2, 2022)

Garf said:


> That is exactly how my friend is: living under a rock.
> Well, at least for speedcubing.


That’s kinda funny as a lot of the people I know know 4lll and I had 2 ‘friends’. One of them finished pll and most of oll in a single summer. The other finished pll but settled for 2 look oll. The first person got down to low 20s before quitting, the reason he wasn’t as fast was because his turning was sluggish. The second person became sub 20 by October of that year and he quit in November at an average of 18. Both of them made that progress in about 4 months as they had only started cubing in June. This can be demonstrated as proof that most normal people can pick up an advanced method with not too much difficulty and average around 20 seconds


----------



## Imsoosm (Oct 2, 2022)

LBr said:


> most normal people can pick up an advanced method with not too much difficulty and average around 20 seconds


Are we not normal people?


----------



## LBr (Oct 2, 2022)

Imsoosm said:


> Are we not normal people?


If that’s what you want to be considered by then sure


----------



## Thom S. (Oct 2, 2022)

Imsoosm said:


> Are we not normal people?


Half of this forums active userbase has a duck as profile picture.

Also, we're essentially doing the same thing over and over, each time expecting a different outcome.


----------



## Abram Grimsley (Oct 2, 2022)

Imsoosm said:


> Are we not normal people?


No such thing as a normal person.


----------



## duckycubing (Oct 14, 2022)

_i have recently finished the method LBL (layer by layer) which is the one creating a daisy and stuff

i learnt the whole cube in exactly a week and i am pretty proud that i can do it in like 1:20 

now i am pretty ok with it, are there any algorithms or like methods i could learn? i’ve heard of stuff like zz and petrus but all the algorithms i know atm is “sune” and “nicklas”

any help would be appreciated thanks everyone!_


----------



## Megaminx lover (Oct 14, 2022)

Choose 1 of Roux or ZZ, CFOP sucks (relatively, it's still probably the 3rd best method) and is only viable because the best cubers use CFOP
This is coming from a CFOP user


----------



## duckycubing (Oct 14, 2022)

Megaminx lover said:


> Choose 1 of Roux or ZZ, CFOP sucks (relatively, it's still probably the 3rd best method) and is only viable because the best cubers use CFOP
> This is coming from a CFOP user


roux or zz which is easier tho


----------



## TheKravCuber (Oct 14, 2022)

I'd recommend trying out and researching CFOP, ZZ, and Roux and spending time only solving with one of those methods for a few days to a week each. This helps you get the feel for the beginner variant of each method and you can choose which one you like the most from there. Of course you can also try out other methods but generally speaking these aren't worth it or have concepts that might be a bit hard to understand for you right now(Honestly even ZZ could fall into this category, but it's worth trying out nevertheless) 

Good luck on your cubing journey!


----------



## F'prime (Oct 14, 2022)

I recommend CFOP because it is similar to the beginner's method. Roux uses mostly Middle layer moves, so if you're good at those, Roux is your choice. But if you are good at the R and U moves, then CFOP is for you.


----------



## Mastermind2368 (Oct 14, 2022)

If you plan on using cubing for any of the social aspects, such as meeting people, going to comps, watching/making videos ect... then I would recommend at least learning the basics of CFOP before choosing between methods. I used CFOP for my first year of cubing, and while I switched over to ZZ, I can at least have intelligent conversations about CFOP. Of course, people do talk about Roux and ZZ as well, but there is less expectation of knowing how they work. 

As far as which method is the "best," I'm a firm believer that they all have equal potential, with people naturally being better at different methods. CFOP is arguably the most alg heavy, with it requiring 78 algs for the full method. Roux has the most block building and it can be a challenge to initially create clever blocks, and ZZ has the most confusing inspection and most regrips. Like some of the other posts have said, it's probably best to try them all and see what works.


----------



## AJT17 (Oct 14, 2022)

As others have said CFOP is a great continuation method after LBL, but other methods like roux and zz are more intuitive than CFOP, so if you don't want to or can't come up with algorithms on the spot (for the most part), then I suggest learning CFOP, but choose what ever one interest you the most, it is your future after all.


----------



## Cubing Mania (Oct 14, 2022)

duckycubing said:


> _i have recently finished the method LBL (layer by layer) which is the one creating a daisy and stuff
> 
> i learnt the whole cube in exactly a week and i am pretty proud that i can do it in like 1:20
> 
> ...


I would learn CFOP, it and Roux are about equal in speed, but CFOP is easier to learn from the LBL method.


----------



## Nooby-Cuber (Oct 14, 2022)

here's a good video by JPERM:


----------



## zzcuberman (Oct 14, 2022)

Nooby-Cuber said:


> here's a good video by JPERM:


That is a terrible video. Highly biased


----------



## Nooby-Cuber (Oct 14, 2022)

zzcuberman said:


> That is a terrible video. Highly biased


Oh ok my bad. What's wrong/biased about it and how would you improve it?


----------



## zzcuberman (Oct 15, 2022)

Nooby-Cuber said:


> Oh ok my bad. What's wrong/biased about it and how would you improve it?


doesnt matter. just do your own thorough research and decide.


----------



## DuckubingCuber347 (Oct 15, 2022)

Nooby-Cuber said:


> here's a good video by JPERM:


Ah, one of the worst "informative" videos ever created by cuber kind. A classic indeed in the books. He was one of the first to make a video sound important while spewing out nonsense and excluding important information in favour of his bias. Where would we be without this work?


----------



## Filipe Teixeira (Oct 15, 2022)

being intuitive doesn't mean it would be easy to learn
I tried learning zz and roux as a noob and had a hard time.

BUTT

I agree that you should learn the basics and decide what matches your goals. (having fun and/or getting faster)
I think it's a good idea to learn roux and zz after cfop f2l

I can solve with the 3 method but I yet want to get better with roux and zz


----------



## Kaedenthecuber (Oct 15, 2022)

i dont recommend learning new methods so early. try to get ur lbl solves as fast as possible. zz is a hard method to learn, cfop has many algs, roux block building is hard to do with lbl knowledge. i only started learning cfop at 40 seconds


----------



## duckycubing (Oct 15, 2022)

Kaedenthecuber said:


> i dont recommend learning new methods so early. try to get ur lbl solves as fast as possible. zz is a hard method to learn, cfop has many algs, roux block building is hard to do with lbl knowledge. i only started learning cfop at 40 seconds


wait lbl is possible at 40 seconds!?!


----------



## fdskljgrie (Oct 15, 2022)

duckycubing said:


> wait lbl is possible at 40 seconds!?!


i started cfop after 30 seconds lbl...


----------



## duckycubing (Oct 15, 2022)

fdskljgrie said:


> i started cfop after 30 seconds lbl...


ok woah what


----------



## OreKehStrah (Oct 15, 2022)

duckycubing said:


> ok woah what


You can get sub10 singles with LBL if you have good planning, lookahead, and TPS. Though you should obviously use a better method for speedsolves.


----------



## NigelTheCuber (Oct 15, 2022)

duckycubing said:


> wait lbl is possible at 40 seconds!?!


----------



## NigelTheCuber (Oct 15, 2022)

duckycubing said:


> roux or zz which is easier tho


Roux maybe, imo zz isnt very beginner friendly


----------



## Timona (Oct 15, 2022)

Nooby-Cuber said:


> here's a good video by JPERM:


Hell nah. The video glorifies CFOP.



duckycubing said:


> _i have recently finished the method LBL (layer by layer) which is the one creating a daisy and stuff
> 
> i learnt the whole cube in exactly a week and i am pretty proud that i can do it in like 1:20
> 
> ...


The best thing that could help you right now is research. Research methods like Roux, ZZ, CFOP, Waterman, Nautilus, Tripod


----------



## Sion (Oct 15, 2022)

I'd personally go for CFOP from LBL, mostly since CFOP conjugates the layer steps of LBL; you solve the cross directly and then go on to solve both of the layers by making pairs. At least for you, it would make sense, even if it isn't the "optimal supreme" option.

Do know that if you go for another method, they will typically have larger algorithm sets and/or greater intuition requirements. They don't also have steps that are necessarily as easy to see of interpret as a beginner Take it from someone who presently uses roux but first learned beginners: the transition was hard for me since Roux was far different to everything I've ever tried at that point. 

My take, for what it's worth, is to try and see what method better fits what you're looking for in a method. If it's for a seamless transition from LBL? Probably CFOP. Want something that relies more on intuition? Roux. Want to try a newer method that has steps that are very different from Beginners yet algorithmic? There are plenty of those like Nautilus, ZZ, Petrus, Waterman, and *so* many others. 


I will say though, there are far more resources and users of CFOP and Roux compared to other methods, if that matters at all.


----------



## duckycubing (Oct 15, 2022)

i can do LBL with a time of around 90 seconds 
what now?


----------



## NigelTheCuber (Oct 15, 2022)

duckycubing said:


> i can do LBL with a time of around 90 seconds
> what now?


practice, get sub 45, and learn cfop. ez


----------



## Timona (Oct 15, 2022)

duckycubing said:


> i can do LBL with a time of around 90 seconds
> what now?


Keep practicing until you can average sub-1 minute. Look into other methods like Roux


----------



## LBr (Oct 15, 2022)

Please don’t spam threads maybe instead refer to an established help thread


----------



## Burrito (Nov 12, 2022)

Ickathu said:


> *Foreword:*
> We know that this thread may induce the “wall of text” syndrome (try opening up all the spoilers), but we promise that you are doing yourself a favor by reading this. There is a lot of information, but it is all beneficial and there is no unnecessary information. This thread is intended for those just starting out, but it may also be useful to those looking to switch methods, or those who just want to learn about other methods.
> 
> *Introduction to Thread*
> ...


Some of the ZZ resources are broken


----------

