# Do any CFOP cubers solve the 3x3 without any cube rotations?



## Artic (May 13, 2014)

So I'm wondering if anyone knows of any CFOP cubers, in particular those in the top 10 or 20 or anyone who is sub 15...that consistently solve the 3x3 every single time WITHOUT doing any cube rotations?

If so, could you post any videos of the person? Or, which cubers are near rotation-less during all their solves?


----------



## Rocky0701 (May 13, 2014)

Artic said:


> So I'm wondering if anyone knows of any CFOP cubers, in particular those in the top 10 or 20 or anyone who is sub 15...that consistently solve the 3x3 every single time WITHOUT doing any cube rotations?
> 
> If so, could you post any videos of the person? Or, which cubers are near rotation-less during all their solves?


Not that i am aware of. Rotationless solving is pretty overrated. Minimizing rotations during F2L definitely helps and is a good habit to get into, and AUF is also a very good habit and is used by most fast solvers, but i don't believe that there are any solvers that don't have ANY rotations, it is necessary to have rotations. There are many people that only have one or two rotations every solve though.


----------



## XTowncuber (May 13, 2014)

I can almost guarantee that no one top 50 with CFOP is rotationless. It's pretty stupid really 



Rocky0701 said:


> AUF is also a very good habit and is used by most fast solvers



Yeah, otherwise they would +2 a lot.


----------



## Rocky0701 (May 13, 2014)

XTowncuber said:


> I can almost guarantee that no one top 50 with CFOP is rotationless. It's pretty stupid really
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, otherwise they would +2 a lot.


That's not really what i meant, i meant doing U moves to setup a case VS rotations. 

Also, here is a good video about rotationless F2L, since that is obviously where all the rotations are for the fast solvers: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Js1LZscj18A


----------



## mDiPalma (May 13, 2014)

Rocky0701 said:


> Not that i am aware of. Rotationless solving is pretty overrated. Minimizing rotations during F2L definitely helps and is a good habit to get into, and AUF is also a very good habit and is used by most fast solvers, but i don't believe that there are any solvers that don't have ANY rotations, it is necessary to have rotations. There are many people that only have one or two rotations every solve though.



If "minimizing rotations...definitely helps," then why would 0 rotations be bad?

I recall seeing some videos of very fast unintentionally rotationless solves by Gabriel Dechichi Barbar.

Making a cross while orienting F2L edges is barely more moves than a standard cross. It may actually be a wash move-wise on average (cancellations made much more likely), and it will cut out huge portions of TPS-deflating rotation buffer.


----------



## Amress (May 13, 2014)

mDiPalma said:


> If "minimizing rotations...definitely helps," then why would 0 rotations be bad?



What rocky0701 was trying to say was that doing unnecessary rotations is bad, but doing moves like F and F' to get a rotationless solve is not such a good idea. For example, doing a y2 is almost always bad. On the other hand, doing a y rotation to turn F U' F into R U' R' is a good idea.


----------



## jeff081692 (May 13, 2014)

Breandan Vallance was what came to mind but even he has rotations, although very few from what I remember.


----------



## Dene (May 13, 2014)

Are we including doing algorithms (e.g. V perm) with no rotations? Because that's retarded.


----------



## applemobile (May 13, 2014)

Artic said:


> those in the top 10 or 20 or anyone who is sub 15.



That's pretty wide group :lol:


----------



## mark49152 (May 13, 2014)

Dene said:


> Are we including doing algorithms (e.g. V perm) with no rotations? Because that's retarded.


Agreed that's something different.

The OP puts a great question. There's a lot written out there about how rotations are evil, and how move efficiency is also important, but most reconstructions of fast solvers seem to include at least 1-2 rotations during F2L and sometimes some pretty long sequences of easy turns in preference to shorter algs. I'm also interested to really understand what is and isn't key to getting fast at F2L.

From what I've learned so far, it's about flow and lookahead. If a rotation can be smoothly accommodated in the flow, it's fine. Other things like having your hands in the wrong position to deal with the next case are just as much of a problem as a rotation but this general issue of grip doesn't seem to be mentioned as much.


----------



## applemobile (May 13, 2014)

Avoiding rotations for the sake of avoiding rotations is stupid. Solving a particular case in the fastest possible way, being it a rotation, or not a rotation is not stupid.


----------



## mark49152 (May 13, 2014)

applemobile said:


> Avoiding rotations for the sake of avoiding rotations is stupid. Solving a particular case in the fastest possible way, being it a rotation, or not a rotation is not stupid.


Well yeah, but that's stating the obvious, and not particularly helpful to anyone (like me or the OP) who's trying to understand what is good or bad technique or practice.


----------



## applemobile (May 13, 2014)

mark49152 said:


> Well yeah, but that's stating the obvious, and not particularly helpful to anyone (like me or the OP) who's trying to understand what is good or bad technique or practice.



Yes it is, its completely helpful. Find out what is fastest for you, and do that. Practicing not rotating, if rotating is faster, is stupid.


----------



## TinaIsAwesome (May 13, 2014)

mark49152 said:


> Well yeah, but that's stating the obvious, and not particularly helpful to anyone (like me or the OP) who's trying to understand what is good or bad technique or practice.



How is that not helpful? Some beginners might misunderstand when we say "avoid cube rotations" and think that all rotations are bad.


----------



## mark49152 (May 13, 2014)

TinaIsAwesome said:


> How is that not helpful? Some beginners might misunderstand when we say "avoid cube rotations" and think that all rotations are bad.


Because it doesn't tell us anything informative about when it is or isn't OK to rotate. For anyone who doesn't grasp the obvious fact that rotating is OK as long as it's faster, I guess it might be helpful, but I would credit most beginners with more intelligence than that.


----------



## applemobile (May 13, 2014)

mark49152 said:


> Because it doesn't tell us anything informative about when it is or isn't OK to rotate.



Yes it does. It tells you to rotate when it's faster than not rotating.


----------



## ILMZS20 (May 13, 2014)

to be honest i dont think its worth to do no rotations they are just needed sometimes, but to your question i dont know any, and i dont believe there are any really.


----------



## jeff081692 (May 13, 2014)

The simple rule I follow is if the edge is a good edge then there is no need to rotate. If the edge is bad a rotation will turn it into a good edge. There are some algs for doing some bad edge cases but it's not that necessary when you look at what can be done just following the above. I think what pushed the 'avoid rotations' thing is when beginners try to rotate a lot to find pieces that could have been solved without rotating by just learning some new ways to insert into different slots. I remember when I was extremely slow I would spam U moves and rotate like crazy just to find pieces. 

As for the good and bad edges though, half the F2L cases are good edge cases and half are bad. When I documented Feliks F2L algs for each case I found that most of the time there was a normal alg for 2/4 rotations and the other two were just a y', y, d, or d' and then a case from the first set.


----------



## TDM (May 13, 2014)

jeff081692 said:


> The simple rule I follow is if the edge is a good edge then there is no need to rotate. If the edge is bad a rotation will turn it into a good edge.


Yep, following this you can only need 1 rotation during F2L... and if the only misoriented edges go in the back slots, R2 F R2 F' (or R2 F R F' R) isn't a bad way of inserting them.
But I think that multislotting is more beneficial than trying to avoid rotatations like this. Trying to have a rotationless F2L makes my (not sure about others) F2L much less efficient, so I end up wasting time and am slower than if I do F2L normally.


----------



## jeff081692 (May 13, 2014)

TDM said:


> Yep, following this you can only need 1 rotation during F2L... and if the only misoriented edges go in the back slots, R2 F R2 F' (or R2 F R F' R) isn't a bad way of inserting them.
> But I think that multislotting is more beneficial than trying to avoid rotatations like this. Trying to have a rotationless F2L makes my (not sure about others) F2L much less efficient, so I end up wasting time and am slower than if I do F2L normally.



I agree, I don't use the rule to reduce rotations. It's just so I know that I could find something better. For example set up the cube with R' U' R U R' U' R U2 R' U R then think about how you would solve that case normally then try the inverse R' U' RU2’ R' URU' R' UR
Most people I have seen would rotate and end up having to rotate again to solve that mostly because it can be hard to see exactly what case it is but since it is a good edge I was able to find a way to do it without rotating and saving a rotation that time was worth it for me because before it was 2 rotations for 1 case.


----------



## TDM (May 13, 2014)

jeff081692 said:


> I agree, I don't use the rule to reduce rotations. It's just so I know that I could find something better. For example set up the cube with R' U' R U R' U' R U2 R' U R then think about how you would solve that case normally then try the inverse R' U' RU2’ R' URU' R' UR
> Most people I have seen would rotate and end up having to rotate again to solve that mostly because it can be hard to see exactly what case it is but since it is a good edge I was able to find a way to do it without rotating and saving a rotation that time was worth it for me because before it was 2 rotations for 1 case.


I'd only do that alg to preserve EO; otherwise I'd do two rotations. That case is the only case where I would almost always choose to do the rotation. I'd agree with you for any other case though.


----------



## Robert-Y (May 13, 2014)

applemobile said:


> Avoiding rotations for the sake of avoiding rotations is stupid. Solving a particular case in the fastest possible way, being it a rotation, or not a rotation is not stupid.



Thank you!

I don't see anyone asking similar questions like "do any CFOP cubers solve the 3x3x3 without any L turns?"

What's the difference? A rotation and L are both considered turns. Both can be avoided completely. Why not consider my question above as well? Is it a stupid question?


----------



## Schmidt (May 13, 2014)

yau said:


> What's the difference? A rotation and L are both considered turns. Both can be avoided completely.


not in the same solve. If you have completed the R side of the cube, how would you solve the rest without L, y, z or d moves in a speed solve?


----------



## ~Adam~ (May 13, 2014)

iirc Cornelius Dieckmann had a video of a very fast average rotationlessly a couple of years ago.


----------



## Robert-Y (May 13, 2014)

Schmidt said:


> not in the same solve. If you have completed the R side of the cube, how would you solve the rest without L, y, z or d moves in a speed solve?



Well my first question was only about L turns, so the solver is free to do rotations.


----------



## mark49152 (May 18, 2014)

applemobile said:


> Yes it does. It tells you to rotate when it's faster than not rotating.


"Informative" was the operative word there. Your statement is true but not informative because it's already obvious to anyone who grasps that the point of speedcubing is to solve it fast.

Here's a few random thoughts and opinions on rotations and when they might be good or bad, some of which are probably also obvious to many.


Rotations aren't bad in themselves. They have a bad reputation because they often cause re-grips, and re-grips tend to be slow and therefore bad.

Re-grips sometimes arise for reasons other than rotations, so minimizing re-grips might be a better way to think of the challenge. For example, switching between solving on L and R can result in re-grips.

Technically, d and d' turns are rotations, but sometimes they can be easier to execute than full rotations as they might not require as complete a re-grip.

Other things can often be slow and bad too, like pauses or B moves or long or awkward combinations of moves, and sometimes even a slow and awkward rotation might be faster than the alternatives (which I think is what applemobile is saying above).

Rotations aren't a black and white case of either you're turning the cube by 90 degrees or you're not. Some rotations can be natural, flowing movements where the re-grip and the next turn start before the cube has even rotated half way. Other rotations are more awkward.

Like any other cube movement, rotations can be faster when practised and committed to muscle memory as part of a sequence of moves. That happens when rotations are included within algs. For F2L, rotating just before inserting a pair is a sequence that's likely to get practised a lot, since most F2L cases end that way. Rotating to align an F2L case before starting execution may be a less familiar sequence, and so that kind of rotation might be slower due to less practice.


----------



## Escher (May 18, 2014)

Rotations are just another word for a movement of the cube. If the movement of the cube is unnecessary either for immediate benefit or for future investment in speed/efficiency then it's a bad idea.

'Good' solves can have 3-4 rotations in, equally, terrible solves can have 3-4 rotations in. Don't be mislead by nomenclature!


----------



## GuRoux (May 18, 2014)

about how many rotations do top cfop users use.


----------



## ryanj92 (May 18, 2014)

GuRoux said:


> about how many rotations do top cfop users use.


Went to the 3x3x3 WR average... Most obvious source I could think of 

not including PLL rotations.
solve 1: 1 rotation, 2 d turns (basically hidden rotations)
solve 2: 1 rotation, 2 d turns
solve 3: 1 rotation
solve 4: 2 rotations
solve 5: 1 rotation


----------



## GuRoux (May 18, 2014)

ryanj92 said:


> Went to the 3x3x3 WR average... Most obvious source I could think of
> 
> not including PLL rotations.
> solve 1: 1 rotation, 2 d turns (basically hidden rotations)
> ...



thanks. so i guess it's about 2, counting d as rotations. Though d turns aren't too bad if there needs no U moves after.


----------



## caters (May 18, 2014)

what I often do is first the algorithm that has rotations without rotations(I mean if the Z and X axes are both horizontal how do you know which is X and which is Z plus when I do a y rotation so that yellow becomes my F side I never get it in the right spot), do as many algorithms that have rotations without rotations as I need until I come across an algorithm without rotations and than do that rotationless algorithm.


Another problem I have with some of the algorithms is that it either messes up my F2L(that is after I am done with the algorithm a pair at least is out of place and usually a whole section of my cross) if I am in OLL or PLL(more often PLL) and sometimes even when I solve another F2L pair or the solving portion of it as written does not get it in the right spot and makes me have an edge down, corner on top case if I am in F2L.


----------



## Schmidt (May 18, 2014)

It seems you got the notation wrong.

if you do a F move but with the whole cube you have rotated z

F = z
F' = z'
U = y
U' = y'
R = x
R' = x'

and while we are at it, middle slices.

M = middle layer goes in the same direction as L
M' = L'
S = B
S' = B'
E = D
E' = D'

http://www.speedsolving.com/wiki/index.php/3x3x3_notation


----------



## mark49152 (May 18, 2014)

Schmidt said:


> S = B
> S' = B'


I believe S follows F, not B. The inconsistencies in our notation are so silly and annoying.


----------



## Tianyu Xiong (May 26, 2014)

ZZ method?


----------



## mark49152 (May 26, 2014)

Tianyu Xiong said:


> ZZ method?


The discussion is about CFOP.


----------



## brian724080 (May 26, 2014)

^^



Tianyu Xiong said:


> ZZ method?



Plus, sometimes rotationless EOLine is no good, and the same with LL.


----------



## Petro Leum (May 26, 2014)

brian724080 said:


> ^^
> 
> 
> 
> Plus, sometimes rotationless EOLine is no good, and the same with LL.


actually, for two handed i (almost) never get rotations. my f and b moves are pretty good, and i dont need rotations for COLL. plus when you know your color schemes, you can predict most cubies so you dont have to look around on other sides than U/F/R/L

unless i get OLL skip and have to do PLL, then i might need some in the algs


----------

