# Color Neutral Debate



## yockee (Jan 26, 2012)

So, I was just reading a thread about switching to CN on the private forum, and would have replied there, but since I can't post on the private forum, I thought I'd continue this here.

Thom, you wrote:

"No one fast has ever switched to CN. If you could do it in a month, it is likely that it would've happened by now. Fast cubers have tried for months and months to switch to no avail."

Since there was no real set guideline for what you meant by "fast", I'll just have to use my example(s) in hopes that they are fast enough to be considered fast. I do know of one fast (what I would consider to be fast averaging around 11 - 13 sec, I believe) cuber who was able to switch, and that would be Ibrahim Vajel - Shedid (AKA esquimalt1 on you tube). 

It was actually because of him and a certain video he posted using a colored Dayan cube, doing CN walkthrough solves that allowed me to be able to switch as well. I spent months and months trying to switch and just couldn't do it, until I saw this video. It gave me the idea of using a stickerless Dayan, which really helped A LOT. Now I can use any cube, and average just about the same as when I use white cross. 

Now, I may not be considered a "fast" cuber compared to many others, but I average around 15 sec (on the cusp of sub 15) which is fast to a lot of other people, and just the other day, had an 18 sec CN average of 12, which isn't AS fast as it would have been had I used white only, but it was only a few seconds off, whereas it could have been a 30 sec avg, like the months and months I spent trying to switch, before seeing Ibrahim's video. I have had several sub 15 CN solves as well, which tells me I'm starting to be about the same as I am with white only. So it is possible to switch at a more experienced level, just rare.


----------



## Godmil (Jan 26, 2012)

So you're still 20% slower then with CN. I've been trying Yellow cross for a few weeks and I'm about 25% slower. Be sure to mention when your times are even, it should help work out how long it could take for someone of your speed.

Did a quick check of Esquimalt, you're right, he said he switched to CN in Dec 09, at which point he seemed to be averaging about 13s. That's pretty interesting. I wonder how long it took him.


----------



## masterofthebass (Jan 26, 2012)

Godmill is right. I can get a 12s average with CN, but that is a far cry from 9 seconds. Just because you can get relatively close times to your normal times doesn't mean you are completely neutral. Becoming truly CN after years and years of fixed color cross way too much work for the slight benefit that you receive from it. 

Get back to us when you are 15s with CN and white only at the same time.


----------



## Muesli (Jan 26, 2012)

Hate to say it, but so what? Your anecdotal "I did it" barely holds water at all. 

You've lost 3 seconds. To a sup-30 cuber 3 seconds is nothing, but sub 20 and lower it becomes more of a big deal. If Feliks, for example, suddenly gained 3 seconds in an average then he would become 80th in the world... That's more of a little bit of a drop.

I think Thom's main point was that there's very little, if any, advantage in spending the time to switch when you could be doing something more productive.


----------



## yockee (Jan 26, 2012)

Godmil said:


> So you're still 20% slower then with CN. I've been trying Yellow cross for a few weeks and I'm about 25% slower. Be sure to mention when your times are even, it should help work out how long it could take for someone of your speed.
> 
> Did a quick check of Esquimalt, you're right, he said he switched to CN in Dec 09, at which point he seemed to be averaging about 13s. That's pretty interesting. I wonder how long it took him.



I have had some even times, just not full averages. I have noticed though, that I don't seem to favor any particular colors like I did a few months back. It just doesn't seem to matter anymore. As for Esquimalt, he told me it was a very slow process. He pretty much, just did slow, walkthrough solves until he got used to the colors, which is what I did as well. It does seem to help rather than just full on solving straight away.




masterofthebass said:


> Becoming truly CN after years and years of fixed color cross way too much work for the slight benefit that you receive from it.
> 
> Get back to us when you are 15s with CN and white only at the same time.



Personally, I didn't switch for the advantages of easier crosses, etc, I switched solely because I was tired of solving the same color, over and over. It's just something to make it a little more exciting.


----------



## PandaCuber (Jan 26, 2012)

Yeah I kinda realized that it would take me a very longgg time to become CN. My times went up to high 20's. So I had decided to focus on becoming Bi-CN that way I can get a small advantage. And plus, doing it on the same color gets boring. So being Bi(CN) hasnt increased my time, I am still sub 19, it is just a little uncomfortable. I have to give it time. 

Another doubt on CN. 
I use a white cube, with white stickers. Do you think putting black stickers on the cube will be harder? Im using logic here, black cubes have a white side. So shouldnt a white cube have a black side? Maybe changing the stickers will kinda help me deleting the "filter" of looking for white corners.


----------



## yockee (Jan 26, 2012)

PandaCuber said:


> I use a white cube, with white stickers. Do you think putting black stickers on the cube will be harder? Im using logic here, black cubes have a white side. So shouldnt a white cube have a black side? Maybe changing the stickers will kinda help me deleting the "filter" of looking for white corners.



I've used black stickers on black cubes, before. It didn't really make much of a difference. I have noticed, though, on white cubes, I can see white better. It's not that I can't see black, it's just that when I use black stickers on white cubes, I have a hard time telling black apart from blue in bad lighting. At the same time, in bad lighting, I have a hard time telling yellow from white. I guess if you choose a light shade of blue, using black wouldn't hurt, although I can't see it making much of a difference. 
One thing I have noticed, though, is for someone who doesn't really like white cubes, I can solve CN on them much better than black cubes. It's weird, because I can't solve white cross very well, on white cubes... just all the other colors, hahaha.


----------



## amostay2004 (Jan 26, 2012)

I have not tried 100% to switch to CN yet because I have a comp coming, but I will most likely switch to CN after that. 

And my advise to those planning to switch would be to have the right mindset. There is no process to becoming CN, you're CN when you decide to be, and you never go back to being non-CN. You don't have to think that once you get back to your non-CN average with CN, you've successfully become CN. What you have to do is simply start over and do it cold turkey. 

You will be few seconds slower, but that is now your global average, and you will aim to break you PBs as you normally do. Forget about your non-CN PB, you've started a new cubing life, so to speak. Sooner or later you WILL reach your non-CN average again, because practice will make you faster.

This is especially easier to do if you have no comps coming up within a few months, so you don't have to worry about performing badly in comp.


----------



## 5BLD (Jan 26, 2012)

The question is whether it's worth the time and effort. It is sure to benefit you. After a few weeks i am now only at 13 seconds with CN and am beginning to feel it's not worth the trouble. It won't really benefit me much to outweigh the progress I couldve made by staying biCN.

For those like me who think it takes too much effort to benefit so little as Thom said, I'd say bi-CN is best if you're fast and non-CN. With full CN it'll take so long to develop that in that time non- or bi-CN would've improved times more. 

It's like, (on a more extreme scale) why don't people use Heise? Surely with a lot of practice they could get a low movecount and benefit. The problem is that if they practiced with CFOP for the same time it'd take ages to reap the benefits of Heise and even equal the times.


----------



## Bapao (Jan 26, 2012)

5BLD said:


> The question is whether it's worth the time and effort. It is sure to benefit you. After a few weeks i am now only at 13 seconds with CN and am beginning to feel it's not worth the trouble. *It won't really benefit me much to outweigh the progress I couldve made by staying biCN.*
> 
> For those like me who think it takes too much effort to benefit so little as Thom said, I'd say bi-CN is best if you're fast and non-CN. With full CN it'll take so long to develop that in that time non- or bi-CN would've improved times more.
> 
> It's like, (on a more extreme scale) why don't people use Heise? Surely with a lot of practice they could get a low movecount and benefit. The problem is that if they practiced with CFOP for the same time it'd take ages to reap the benefits of Heise and even equal the times.


 
I'm coming to the same conclusion. While it has helped me notice some major discrepancies in my F2L, I'm reverting back to studying F2L algs to complement my intuitive F2L as opposed to trying to become CN. As others have highlighted before; the new colour combinations are pretty and refreshing at first, but as a slow cuber, that doesn't console the fact that I should just "buck up" elsewhere. And even though I have no immediate desire to get fast quickly, I'd rather get faster than just dwell on something that is unlikely to help until I reach a speed that I'll probably never attain anyway. 

I'll still practice it as a side project, but not as a goal that I'm expecting to master.


----------



## emolover (Jan 26, 2012)

Color neutrality in my opinion is only worth it if you learn to do it that way. I was color neutral from my first solve so I never had to go through that annoying process of color neutrality.


----------



## Sillas (Jan 26, 2012)

I am CN just in 2x2, in 3x3 i'm bi-CN. Because in my opnion there is not so much benefits in relation to the effort.


----------



## Dene (Jan 26, 2012)

I don't understand why some people are saying it's nice just to use different colours for once. Every CN solver that I've spoken to has always said they don't pay any attention whatsoever to the colour they're solving on; it's just something that we don't notice.


----------



## Bapao (Jan 26, 2012)

emolover said:


> Color neutrality in my opinion is only worth it if you learn to do it that way. * I was color neutral from my first solve* so I never had to go through that annoying process of color neutrality.


 
And that's the only way I can imagine for this to work efficiently. It's easier for an infant to learn multiple languages whilst growing up in a multilingual environment than it is for them to catch up on those languages later on in life. Just my opinion though.


----------



## Mollerz (Jan 26, 2012)

Bapao said:


> And that's the only way I can imagine for this to work efficiently. It's easier for an infant to learn multiple languages whilst growing up in a multilingual environment than it is for them to catch up on those languages later on in life. Just my opinion though.


 
Yeah, same as me really. When I started I pretty much understood intuitive cross and grasped the basic concept of intuitive F2L so I went straight into learning full PLL and 2LOLL. After a days worth of solving I thought "Wouldn't it be easier to solve on all the colour crosses? That way I make it easier for myself!" So I progressed as a CN cuber. I think that is something you definitely pick up from the beginning and not transition to as it really does not make a difference on how fast you will be.


----------



## emolover (Jan 26, 2012)

Bapao said:


> And that's the only way I can imagine for this to work efficiently. It's easier for an infant to learn multiple languages whilst growing up in a multilingual environment than it is for them to catch up on those languages later on in life. Just my opinion though.


 
Maybe not from the start but definitely I you haven't gotten sub30 you should try to switch.


----------



## Kirjava (Jan 27, 2012)

didn't even read this thread really.



Dene said:


> I don't understand why some people are saying it's nice just to use different colours for once. Every CN solver that I've spoken to has always said they don't pay any attention whatsoever to the colour they're solving on; it's just something that we don't notice.



Because they're not CN and it's something different for them. Of course you don't notice this if you're CN, because you're used to it.


----------



## Goktrenks (Jan 27, 2012)

To be color neutral,depends on how you do F2l,if you usually look for colors on look ahead(in the case white for most people) be sure that be CN will not work for you only if you look for pairs not colors,you probably will get that,it worked for me,I was averaging in 33 sec just doing the white cross 4 days after it I was about 31 sec (doing dual cross) and now with white,yellow,blue and green trying with orange,I'm averaging now in 30 sec,my f2l didn't lowered a lot (1 sec) but I was doing the cross in 5 sec now usually 2-3 sec so it is working for me.In my opinion,if you solve in 20+ sec I think that won't be not so hard to become CN.Well,I think that It's much better if you solve OH without using time (of course doing as much faster you can)it worked for me because I have more time to find pairs


----------



## jskyler91 (Jan 27, 2012)

Oooo fun, another chance to get into a CN war with Kirjava!!!! JK, in reality I think the biggest issue with CN and in particular switching to it, is simply that not enough people have tried it fullheartedly; without stopping or reverting to their old color, to honestly say if it is or isn't possible to switch when you are fast. Its like with Roux and ZZ, those methods could hold more potential overall than CFOP, and IMOP they do, but not enough people are doing them to tell. If you want to switch then try it out for at least a month if not more, without stopping and tell us your results, if not, then don't say it is or is not possible because you honestly just don't know.


----------



## rowehessler (Jan 27, 2012)

lol. I love reading these threads on CN.


----------



## JLarsen (Jan 27, 2012)

+1 for opposite color neutral. When did people start calling it Bi-CN lol. I love cubers and their excessive acronyms. 

anyway. So naturally I tend to think in terms of the method I'm most familiar with and here's my argument for "bi-cn" vs. full color neutral at least as far as Petrus goes.

In Petrus, if you can only solve with Yellow up at the end then you have 4 possible 2x2 blocks. If you can solve with both white and yellow as base you have all 8 possible 2x2 blocks. 

If you aren't CN then for 2x2x3 you have 2 options because they must contain your base color. The only way to get that last 3rd possible expansion would be to go full CN, but that's entirely not worth it. 



TLDR; Full CN in Petrus only gives you an additional choice for expanding to 2x2x3. Not worth it.


----------



## ottozing (Jan 27, 2012)

like emolover said. colour neutrality is only worth it if you start out that way. i am colour neutral because i was always colour neutral. i've done a couple of white cross only averages today and i got around 17-18s. which is only 1 second off of what i usually average (16-17s). interesting


----------



## samchoochiu (Jan 27, 2012)

CN is driving me insane. I really don't know if I should do it or not. I avg 13-14 seconds and I am opposite color neutral. 
I am seeing really good arguments from both sides. But the one that caught my attention was that there is no point in learning it if you don't start off that way. 
Am I too late to be CN? Please no "It's never to late!" cliche bs


----------



## Innocence (Jan 27, 2012)

OK, so I'd just like to throw in my personal anecdotal evidence (what else is there, really?)

I think...probably last year, or a little earlier, I averaged around 22-ish with a white cross. Pretty standard.
As of now, I average around 20-21 (but gradually going over that wall to sub-20, just haven't quite broken it yet), colour neutral.

This, so far, shows that it is definitely *possible* for an intermediate cuber to switch to colour neutral in a year. However, something that both helped, and hindered me, was the fact that I was not interested in cubing at all throughout that year.

If you'll imagine that I had been actively into cubing for that year, I believe that I would have been frustrated with my CN times, and given up. I would probably be averaging something like 15 seconds with a white cross. This of course, is purely speculation, except for the fact that this very thing happened to me switching to ZZ, and I think it's likely that the outcome would be similar.

However, with the MOTIVATION to switch to CN remaining constant, I think that I would definitely have been able to switch to CN in a month or two. Here's why:

Throughout my colour-neutral / non-motivated transition period, I was timing extremely few solves. I may even go as far as to say I was timing NO solves. I would simply take a Rubik's cube somewhere to entertain myself, or just pick one up in my room out of boredom. Speedcubing, I had no interest in whatsoever. Due not caring about my times, I both did not see my horrible times with other colours, and did not care that I seemed to be struggling with finding the right pieces.

When I returned to "speedcubing" a few months ago, I found little difference in time when solving with a fixed cross colour, in fact I did an average for all of them, which worked out to be 22-23ish across the board (a couple seconds slower than my normal average, showing that fixed-cross definitely is a disadvantage for me now). I can say now that I am fully colour-neutral, and definitely faster than I ever was with fixed-cross.

My recommendation for a training scheme is therefore: A *strict* ban on timers. You shall take a Rubik's cube wherever you go, and endeavour to solve it whenever you become idle. You can solve it on whatever colour you feel like, but avoid only doing the one that you used to do. Do this for an arbitrary (undecided) total number of hours. (I have no idea how much I actually did. Maybe 24 total should suffice?)

Any thoughts on whether this is actually feasible? What do you think the minimum time is for becoming CN? This could help us decide whether colour-neutrality is valuable enough to consider switching, or whether time could be better spent elsewhere. I definitely think that colour-neutrality opens up a WORLD of possibilities, that go far beyond just an easier cross. The problem is, how hard is it to kick the habit of a white cross, especially for the veterans among us?


----------



## Dene (Jan 27, 2012)

Kirjava said:


> Because they're not CN and it's something different for them. Of course you don't notice this if you're CN, because you're used to it.


 
Naturally, naturally. But if they became CN solvers that novelty would disappear. Doesn't seem like any reason to attempt to become CN to me. Just my opinion though.


----------



## Kirjava (Jan 27, 2012)

Dene said:


> But if they became CN solvers that novelty would disappear.


 
The novelty would disappear long before this. People generally underestimate the timescale involved in switching.


----------



## DYGH.Tjen (Jan 27, 2012)

Hi. Everyone already underlined the points I was going to talk about, but yes. As others already have said (like Dan and co.), after years of fixed cross color, it's just not worth it to spend time trying to switch to CN. The time spent doing that can be used to polish up other aspects of cubing.

Also, Idk about you CN guys, but if you're CN, then say- you 'glance' at each cross to see which is good or at least decent. Say you spend 0.5s * 6 sides = 3s. Then you decide which cross to do and plan it. Say for 2s. 3+2=5s. So you have used up 5 seconds (these are pretty optimistic times IMHO). I doubt the main benefit of CN is for an easy cross, as many have demonstrated that they can do lightning-fast crosses with a single fixed color. So obviously you have to track the first F2L pair/ plan an x-cross or something that would allow smooth transition into F2L. Here is where the um natural 'orientation' of the cube comes into play. Assume you do cross on D, and do white cross. It's green-orange-blue-red. I guess many of us nonCN-ers already are so used to the orientation that we can plan crosses/x-crosses or whatnot simply by just locating the pieces and a little bit of tracking. (I'm speaking on behalf for the fast people, of course.)

However, if you're CN, I don't know if you can 'remember' the orientation of the cube, as you're doing it differently every time. So you'd have to spend time doing that as well. Most of the time, CN people only plan their cross and give up doing other things as they lack time. (Of course unless it's a 5-move easy Xcross for example, THEN you would greatly reap the benefits.) To be honest, overall I don't think it's worth switching to CN. If you look at some of Faz's solves, they too have long crosses, and he fails crosses sometimes. (if I remember correctly.) The reason he's fast is not because he's CN, IMHO, but is because of his F2L, its really smooth flow and of course *go*_faz_*od* TPS always helps. I guess he would be averaging almost the same as he is now if he wasn't CN, maybe merely opp-CN would be good.

I don't know, just my 2 cents, I've stopped trying to be CN. All of you would probably ignore this long-winded rambling anyway, as my opinion obviously doesn't matter, I'm not one of the fast people here , but barely, BARELY *mediocre* >_>. So, those who still want to be CN, go ahead, eye wish you luck, and those who don't want to, FOCUS ON OTHER ASPECTS THAT YOU'RE WEAK AT, you'll improve trust me . Tata


----------



## emolover (Feb 1, 2012)

I finally see the wonderfulness of having a fixed color. All throughout the day I have been messing with Roux and early I decided to only go for Red/Orange blocks. This helped me so much with recognition and ability to form blocks and recognize stuff with L6E. My times went from low 40's to high 20's with roux all because I have fixed bi-color sides. 

I still will being doing color-neutral for CFOP and Petrus but I know see that it is crucial for Roux.


----------



## jskyler91 (Feb 1, 2012)

emolover said:


> I finally see the wonderfulness of having a fixed color. All throughout the day I have been messing with Roux and early I decided to only go for Red/Orange blocks. This helped me so much with recognition and ability to form blocks and recognize stuff with L6E. My times went from low 40's to high 20's with roux all because I have fixed bi-color sides.
> 
> I still will being doing color-neutral for CFOP and Petrus but I know see that it is crucial for Roux.



Being Color fixed helps you to learn, but it is kind of like training wheels, you can go faster and farther if you take them off. I think that for learning a method it helps to be color fixed, but once you have the method down you should switch back to CN.


----------



## emolover (Feb 1, 2012)

jskyler91 said:


> Being Color fixed helps you to learn, but it is kind of like training wheels, you can go faster and farther if you take them off. I think that for learning a method it helps to be color fixed, but once you have the method down you should switch back to CN.


 
I had been trying roux for months. It's not like I am trying this out for the first time. I truely think it is fine to have a fixed color for roux and ZZ.

Have you tried roux or ZZ.


----------



## Kirjava (Feb 2, 2012)

jskyler91 said:


> Being Color fixed helps you to learn, but it is kind of like training wheels, you can go faster and farther if you take them off.



Yet again, you insist on spouting conjecture.



jskyler91 said:


> I think that for learning a method it helps to be color fixed, but once you have the method down you should switch back to CN.


 
This is simply terrible advice.


----------



## aronpm (Feb 2, 2012)

jskyler91 said:


> Being Color fixed helps you to learn, but it is kind of like training wheels, you can go faster and farther if you take them off.


 
There's actually no evidence for this statement.


----------



## PandaCuber (Feb 2, 2012)

emolover said:


> I had been trying roux for months. It's not like I am trying this out for the first time. I truely think it is fine to have a fixed color for roux and ZZ.
> 
> Have you tried roux or ZZ.


 
Was so hard for me. I gave up.

I wanna say...learning CN is like learning a new language. You cant learn it in a month. It takes years.


----------



## joey (Feb 2, 2012)

PandaCuber said:


> Was so hard for me. I gave up.
> 
> I wanna say...learning CN is like learning a new language. You cant learn it in a month. It takes years.


Oh right, not like anyone has been saying this for a while now..


----------



## PandaCuber (Feb 2, 2012)

joey said:


> Oh right, not like anyone has been saying this for a while now..


 
Who said anytthing about languages?


----------



## aronpm (Feb 2, 2012)

PandaCuber said:


> I wanna say...learning CN is like learning a new language. You cant learn it in a month. It takes years.


Bad analogy. Depends on how fast you learn and how fluent you want to be.


----------



## Cool Frog (Feb 2, 2012)

aronpm said:


> Bad analogy. Depends on how fast you learn and how fluent you want to be.


 
Still works here, If you rush it you are going to suck.

(If you start when you are young it become easier)


----------



## aronpm (Feb 2, 2012)

Cool Frog said:


> If you rush it you are going to suck.


 
I disagree. Some people can pick any language and obtain conversational fluency in a matter of months. It depends more on HOW you learn rather than HOW LONG.


----------



## Kirjava (Feb 2, 2012)

PandaCuber said:


> Who said anytthing about languages?


 
You missed the point in a beautiful way.


----------



## Cool Frog (Feb 2, 2012)

aronpm said:


> I disagree. Some people can pick any language and obtain conversational fluency in a matter of months. It depends more on HOW you learn rather than HOW LONG.


 
You could do an AVG of 12 a day VS an AVG of 100 a day


----------



## jskyler91 (Feb 2, 2012)

I have decided to exit the Color Neutral debate. It is apparent to me that those who are not Color Neutral will do almost anything to justify their decision to stay fixed and I honestly am tired of arguing with immature people all day when I have nothing to gain from helping them switch. Panda Cuber, I am sorry that you stopped because you would have made it if you had stuck to my method, but instead you consistently used white, didn't solve often enough and gave up after a few weeks (I do not say this angrily or hold any resentment about this, I am just stating facts about why your transition did not succeed). I would just like to state that as of yet no one has tried my method fully without stopping AND not using white until specified. 

I would just like to bow out by saying that changing is 100% possible and can be done fairly quickly, but ONLY if you stick to a regimented schedule to change. If you don't plan on sticking to this schedule then don't even try because you will be just wasting your time.

Oh, and Emolover, I have tried both methods and I did them CN off the bat, it was harder to learn, yes, but it was worth it to gain the advantages being CN offers.


----------



## teller (Feb 2, 2012)

History is going to be laughingly unkind to the anti-CN faction.


----------



## aronpm (Feb 2, 2012)

teller said:


> History is going to be laughingly unkind to the anti-CN faction.


 
Can you please explain why?


----------



## cmhardw (Feb 2, 2012)

tl;dr people ---> too bad, get over it.



jskyler91 said:


> I would just like to state that as of yet no one has tried my method fully without stopping AND not using white until specified.



Admittedly I did not watch your video, but I gather that the idea is to solve a color you don't normally solve for a week straight, then move to another color you don't normally solve for a week straight, and visit each color on the cube one at a time? Eventually this would bring you back to your original color. Am I correct in this (someone else please answer if jskyler is indeed not going to continue in this thread)?

Assuming I understand your method somewhat correctly then I have to say that I feel, for me, that this method is entirely too rigid. It also misses one extremely important element, in my opinion: the ability to quickly and easily choose which cross color to start with at the beginning of a solve.

Having said that, I have noticed that I am moving toward something closer to your method the longer I try to switch to color neutral. Before deciding to make the color neutral switch I was white/yellow neutral. Now I find myself most often doing averages by picking the best color of green/blue/red/orange during inspection. This still forces me to have to learn how to choose the best color (something I don't feel is an obvious skill, and which must be learned through vigorous practice). However I do think you have a point that your old colors should probably be avoided moreso than usual in the beginning of switching. I do still solve white or yellow when one of those colors is obviously the best cross, but I try to avoid them most of the time - at least for now.



jskyler91 said:


> I would just like to bow out by saying that changing is 100% possible and can be done fairly quickly, but ONLY if you stick to a regimented schedule to change. If you don't plan on sticking to this schedule then don't even try because you will be just wasting your time.



I completely agree with you on the point that switching to color neutral is possible if: 1) You want it bad enough and 2) you put in the necessary time and effort to teach yourself to recognize on any color, and how to choose the best starting color during inspection.

I make no claim on the time necessary, as this will vary drastically from person to person based on their level of "color fixedness" so far.

I am simply saying that I disagree that the method of switching must be so completely and thoroughly rigid for all people trying the switch. I would probably give up trying to change to color neutral if I tried something as rigorous as your method. However, using a much more relaxed version of your approach I am having an absolute blast switching myself over to color neutral!



teller said:


> History is going to be laughingly unkind to the anti-CN faction.


 


aronpm said:


> Can you please explain why?


 
I agree with teller on this one, though not to the same level as him. Hearing various arguments for why people should not switch to color neutral on this forum sounds an awful lot to me like "I don't want to switch because it's too hard".

I agree that for those at the very highest levels of competitive cubing who are not currently color neutral that the amount of effort necessary to switch to color neutral would probably take years (yes, plural) to get back to their level of speed at the time that they switched. During this time the speedcubing community would have probably advanced to much higher and much faster standards, putting that person at a disadvantage during the switching, and after the switch. It would probably take another year or so to eventually have the color neutral advantages make that person competitive again.

In response to the "color neutral does not really have any advantages" argument, of course it does! You're much more likely to have an easy start to your solve! Not slightly more likely, MUCH more likely. How is that not an advantage? Also, after sufficient time and effort, the amount of time lost during last layer recognition would be negligible compared to the time gained by very often having a much better start than on color restricted solves.

Not to pull the "back in my day" card, but we had a debate over 10 years ago about whether we should change over to doing F2L on D rather than on U. The debate was nowhere near as large as the color neutral one, and more people were on the side of switching than not. Also, those who were not on the side of switching were very few in number and came around quickly by either switching to F2L on right or left (or cross on U and F2L on D).

Anyway, history doesn't really remember the both cross and F2L on U people very well. I doubt that many of you even knew about this period in cubing history at all. I think something similar to this point is what teller is referring to.

If many people switch successfully to color neutral and achieve fast times, and many people start by becoming color neutral and achieve fast times, then the staunchly anti-CN arguments will hold less water, in my opinion.


----------



## Godmil (Feb 2, 2012)

cmhardw said:


> history doesn't really remember the both cross and F2L on U people very well.



F2L on U? Not wanting to side track, but was a direct result of the diagrams/algs on Fridrich's site?

I don't see how history will look poorly on people not wanting to switch... it may look poorly on people who chose from the start not to be CN... but you can't blame people who are already fixed cross finding it too difficult to switch.

A lot of the debate has been about how long it takes to switch (in relation to your speed) but I'm wondering if a major factor is how many solves you've done. If you've done the same number of solves overall on each cross I can easily see anyone being CN, but if you've done 100,000 solves on one colour (even if you only avg 30s) I can see it taking more than a few months to switch.
I only Avg 23s on white, and I've been doing yellow just about exclusively for nearly a month and I'm still 15-20% slower on it, with more chances for mistakes. I'm slow enough that I thought it would be easy, but it's not.


----------



## jskyler91 (Feb 2, 2012)

Chris,

Here is a description of my method:
In short, my "method" for doing this, which is more just a scheduled way to change, calls for a 30 day period in which you do not ever use your original color. During this 30 days you will spend approximately 5 days on each other colors working through them systematically by color filter groups (opposite colors that share the same f2l pieces). There will be two review days where you will practice all the colors you have learned. The point of this way of doing things is that it makes sure that you have no chance to try your main color which will be faster until you complete the month and thus are not tempted to stop learning CN before your mind has the time to get used to it. Most people either only try for a week or two as Weston did or they don't do the correct system for learning each color i.e. by color filters. My method calls for a 100% CN solve policy, which most people do not normally follow and thus, IMO , fail. I do not claim this method to be fullproof or that you will be 100% perfect at CN by the end of it, I am just stating that if you stick to it you can become CN far faster than most people realize (approx. one month if you do not stop). I acknowledge that being faster will make the transition more uncomfortable, but not impossible. As many studies have shown it takes a month to change a habit, and I believe this applies for CN as well. 


Days 1- 4 Practice Yellow only
Days 5- 9 Practice Blue only
Day 10- Practice Blue and Yellow, always doing the best cross
Days 11-15- Practice Green Only
Day 16- Practice with Blue Green and Yellow Only
Days 17- 21- Practice Red Only
Days 22- 26- Practice Orange Only
Days 27- 30- Practice all Colors Except White
Day 31- Til you quit cubing- Practice all colors, always choosing the best cross. 

By leaving the Color Neutral debate I meant I was no longer going to waste my time trying to convince people to become CN or propose how to switch to it (except if someone has questions about it in my transition thread of course:http://www.speedsolving.com/forum/showthread.php?34834-Color-Neutral-Transition-Thread). I may still pop up from time to time to agree with someone or to just comment on the flow of the discussion, however I will more than likely no longer be arguing in length with people who simply just want to argue for arguing sake. 

Teller,

I completely agree


----------



## PandaCuber (Feb 2, 2012)

I gave up because it was too hard. I knew it couldnt be done that fast. 
BUT, your method has improved my lookahead and helped me with bi-cn.

And recognition.


----------



## Photon (Feb 2, 2012)

I haven't used jskyler's guide- I just came across this thread- but I would definitely vouch for CN. badmephisto talked about standardizing solves in one of his videos, and ever since then, I've always started out with white. I started practising CN about three days ago, and I've broken my overall pb twice today. ofc, I'm by no means, a "fast" cuber (used to avg. 35sec with white), and this gave me bad headaches while starting out. I think I've got the hang of it, somewhat now. so again, CN for sure.


----------



## teller (Feb 2, 2012)

cmhardw said:


> I am simply saying that I disagree that the method of switching must be so completely and thoroughly rigid for all people trying the switch. I would probably give up trying to change to color neutral if I tried something as rigorous as your method. However, using a much more relaxed version of your approach I am having an absolute blast switching myself over to color neutral!


Chris,

I think jskyler is clearly onto something. "Cold turkey" is mental overload. Picking the best cross and having a "native" recognition of the various colors are two different skills. I used to play poker and the experts would always tell you not to attempt applying too many new ideas at once, but rather to focus and master something specific.

Personally, 5 days was not enough for me. I went on a red cross diet (it was genuinely a weak color for me) and stuck to it exclusively, I mean 100% of solves, all the time, until I achieved parity with my white/yellow. It took about 3 weeks. I am now 100% fluent with red. Prior to this, I was doing the cold turkey thing and progress was slow and spotty. Now, I know the red cross scheme backwards and forwards. Mixing in orange was trivial at that point, just like adding yellow is fairly trivial to a white-fixed solver. With all the colors down, learning to pick the best cross is much easier, as the pieces will finally "pop out" at you.

I don't see it as "rigid." I see it as a productive learning strategy, especially when people are wailing about spans of YEARS. EEK!!!

After switching from cold-turkey to fixed red, I was supremely annoyed at how constraining fixed-cross is. I am now more certain than ever that the benefits of CN are wildly understated. But you're probably right...no one will remember the arguments once the matter is settled in about 1-2 years.


----------



## Kirjava (Feb 2, 2012)

At no point have I said that colour netutrality is a bad thing.

You guys are great at arguing against things that you think people have said, but you should try arguing against things that they actually did say instead.


----------



## joey (Feb 2, 2012)

Teller: are you (still?) averaging 20s?


----------



## Bapao (Feb 2, 2012)

teller said:


> I was supremely annoyed at how constraining fixed-cross is.



That's one of the main reasons I still implement CN as a casual goal. I'm no where near the point of being able to see the best cross out of the 6 choices, but I can normally spot one that's "easier" for _me_ to build. It's going to take a lot of practice...and I still go back to white cross solves even though that doesn't seem to be an efficient way of approaching the matter. Doing things my way, just like all of the other refinements I'm trying to make at the moment.


----------



## teller (Feb 2, 2012)

joey said:


> Teller: are you (still?) averaging 20s?


 
~16-17


----------



## PandaCuber (Feb 2, 2012)

I decided to do CN solves every now and then. It will take me forever, but CN is now in the bottom of my list.


----------



## Rune (Feb 2, 2012)

PandaCuber said:


> I decided to do CN solves every now and then. It will take me forever, but CN is now in the bottom of my list.


And let it stay there!


----------



## Sillas (Feb 2, 2012)

Color Neutral is the best way to begin in _CFOP_, help in the cross, and in the look ahead for the first F2L. In my opinion, is good for singles (for not survive with just skips) and in the averages (because is the best way to begin a solve). So, imagine a math problem, and you know *one way* to solve it (in this case begining for the white color). You will can solve very well and fast, not doubt, but it is just a way to solve it...
But now, imagine the same problem, and that you know all the ways to solve it, different and *multi ways*, and you will can choice the more easy to begin.
This is a logical proof. 
This is the color neutrality, _Feliks Zemdegs_ and _Rowe Hessler_ proved this. And if anyone thinks there isn't a good way to solve or help a little, can not see the obvious.
I think it might also help in the familiarity with the pieces and so, in the look ahead. But I can´t prove this.
A video (watch the first 30 seconds): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LD-E8LvhzAk&feature=related


----------



## EeeeeWarne (Feb 3, 2012)

You may find what I say irrelevant because I am a 'slow' cuber (I average about 30 seconds), but I would like to share my opinions on Colour Neutrality anyway. For your information, I am CN and have been since I started.

While some cubers have become colour neutral, from their accounts, they are not CN in the same way that I am, and the same way that other CN cubers say they are. I have heard talk of 'learning' colours. I don't think that I 'know' colours. In Sillas's post, they refer to familiarity with pieces...what? When I do f2l, I just see two pieces, join them, and insert them. When I finish the cube, I could not tell you what colour my cross was without looking at the top of the solved cube and saying the opposite of that.

I don't have to think "Okay, my cross is red. One red pair is red, green, yellow. Look for red, green yellow corner, look for green yellow edge. Pair. Insert". I just do the red, green, yellow and green, yellow pair... subconsciously. I don't know what all the different pairs of each cross is without thinking about it, or looking at my cube. Here I am assuming that fixed white-cross cubers are thinking about doing the orange blue pair, the blue red pair, the red green pair and the orange green pair (to say that, I just grabbed my cube and rotated it as I typed).

What I am trying to say is this: while some have become colour neutral, they have become CN in a different way to those who do it from the start. Instead of having a sort of 'one system fits all colours' thing, these new CN'er are having a 'system' for each colour. Yes, they can solve all colours equally fast, but they solve ALL COLOURS equally fast, instead of solving no colour in particular (I hope this is clear, I fear it is not. I solve a colour, I usually have forgotten which by PLL, while, from the accounts of these 'switchers' they solve white, yellow, blue, green, red or orange equally fast).

Also, being CN does not make you faster. Being able to work out the fastest cross and/or the first X f2l pairs and then do it is what makes you faster.

I would also like to add that being colour neutral in Roux is incredibly hard...


----------



## Ninja Storm (Feb 4, 2012)

From what I've noticed, cubers are either color neutral, or not. It's not something that you can change(well, at least not with great success), and if one truly wants to get better they should deal with what they have. 

I think(if I wasn't color neutral) that I'd rather just focus on locating the first F2L pair during the inspection time than try and get the cross on any side.


----------



## timeless (Feb 17, 2012)

jskyler91 said:


> I have decided to exit the Color Neutral debate. It is apparent to me that those who are not Color Neutral will do almost anything to justify their decision to stay fixed and I honestly am tired of arguing with immature people all day when I have nothing to gain from helping them switch. Panda Cuber, I am sorry that you stopped because you would have made it if you had stuck to my method, but instead you consistently used white, didn't solve often enough and gave up after a few weeks (I do not say this angrily or hold any resentment about this, I am just stating facts about why your transition did not succeed). I would just like to state that as of yet no one has tried my method fully without stopping AND not using white until specified.
> 
> I would just like to bow out by saying that changing is 100% possible and can be done fairly quickly, but ONLY if you stick to a regimented schedule to change. If you don't plan on sticking to this schedule then don't even try because you will be just wasting your time.
> 
> Oh, and Emolover, I have tried both methods and I did them CN off the bat, it was harder to learn, yes, but it was worth it to gain the advantages being CN offers.


 
in one of your videos, did you say its not worth it if your already sub 20? dont remember if it was u or not


----------



## teller (Feb 17, 2012)

timeless said:


> in one of your videos, did you say its not worth it if your already sub 20? dont remember if it was u or not


 
No, that was everyone else.


----------



## Kirjava (Feb 17, 2012)

teller said:


> No, that was everyone else.


 
Please show where anyone said that ever.


----------



## Sillas (Feb 17, 2012)

teller said:


> No, that was everyone else.



Haha.. so true. :fp

Well, if anyone want to see the opinion of own Feliks Zemdegs, about color neutrality, look here.

Just it:


Spoiler



_"It helps in the cross, and the lookahead to the first pair, which in turn helps the whole solve flow." Feliks_


----------



## timeless (Feb 17, 2012)

yockee said:


> I have had some even times, just not full averages. I have noticed though, that I don't seem to favor any particular colors like I did a few months back. It just doesn't seem to matter anymore. As for Esquimalt, he told me it was a very slow process. He pretty much, just did slow, walkthrough solves until he got used to the colors, which is what I did as well. It does seem to help rather than just full on solving straight away.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
i am attempting to be CN but i keep doing white cross subconsiously, did you this problem too?


----------



## rubikmaster (Feb 17, 2012)

Would it be easier to become color neutral if I took a break for a few weeks and then started switching to color neutral?What do you guys think?


----------



## AbstractAlg (Feb 17, 2012)

breaks definitely help.

I am in progress of switching to color neutral, from white.
It's amazing I found out that green as cross is much, much easier for me, and all the f2l pair colors suit me better than those with white cross.
but. there's always a 'but'.
my times are lower when doing CN, compared to white cross only. but benefit, as already said is that my white cross is faster, in inspection I am able to see the first f2l pair.

so white improved. other color - not that much. was it worth of it? i believe yes.
so my vote goes to CN practice at least, if not complete switching to CN.


----------



## DaKrazedKyubizt (Feb 23, 2012)

I switched to color neutrality. My times definitely went down at first, but of course, the CN times went back up where they should be for a while. I'm not fully color neutral though. I'm still a lot more comfortable with W/Y bi-CN.

I just started trying to look for first F2L pair for as many solves as possible. I find that if you can do that, your CN will get a lot better merely because there's less work necessary DURING the solve. 

I am starting to take notice of what my eyes do with CN vs bi-CN. I am just now realizing exactly how fast I look for the cross with bi-CN. I don't really do much work with bi-CN. I don't even try to look for the F2L pairs at times, and I often end up just sorta finding them. If I'm feeling lazy, I'll go for W/Y cross, usually yellow, since I used to use only yellow before I was bi-CN. My brain almost thinks that the best cross is always on white or yellow. It's kinda weird.

I'm working strictly on F2L for a while (as you can see from my signature). When I make comparisons on my CN vs bi-CN times and notice anything else, I'll update you guys.


----------



## drewsopchak (Feb 23, 2012)

I switched after nats 2010. I averaged just sub 20 and now I'm perfectly cn at 10. It took me about 6-7 months to fully adapt.


----------



## Kirjava (Feb 23, 2012)

It should only take a month if it took 6 months you were doing it wrong maybe you should try turbo tracking.


----------



## Godmil (Feb 23, 2012)

I'm 5 weeks into yellow cross.... kinda more natural now, but I'm still not as fast


----------



## yoshinator (Mar 24, 2012)

Practice. It is the ultimate way to improve, the only way to beat the best, and the reason is obvious:

Practically everything can be improved by practice, pauses can be eliminated, TPS can be raised, lookahead can be maximized. But there's one thing that practice cannot improve, and that's move count.

While optimization helps to lower move count enormously (probably more than becoming color neutral), it, like everything, has a limit. And so once you have mastered optimization, or while you are working on optimization, I would say that becoming color neutral is helpful, because it can also help reduce move count.

Knowing that color neutrality can do what practice cannot (reduce move count), I would argue that color neutrality is definitely worth it, because it can, still combined with a massive amount of practice, improve your times slightly more than practice alone.

Furthermore, I think that the argument of how long it takes to become color neutral is ultimately futile. Because regardless of how long it takes, it is worth it.

It's kind of like the transfer between Beginners method and CFOP/Roux, it's hard, it takes a while, but ultimately, it's worth it.

Agree with me? Awesome, lets have a conversation about it!

Disagree with me? Even more awesome, let's have a civilized and mature discussion about it!

Please reply to the entire post, not just parts of it. Text only makes sense within its context.

Thanks for reading.


----------



## Rubiks560 (Mar 24, 2012)

yoshinator said:


> Think of it as learning ZBLL, you know that by the end of it you are going to be faster, but you don't know how hard it is going to be, or how long it will take, but you know it will be worth it, because you will have something (almost) nobody else does.



Full ZBLL is not worth it, at all period. Look at Chris Tran, he learned it all and he now says it isn't worth it.


----------



## drewsopchak (Mar 24, 2012)

Rubiks560 said:


> Full ZBLL is not worth it. At all period. Look at Chris Tran, he learned it all and he now says it isn't worth it.


 
Often times simple is better.


----------



## yoshinator (Mar 24, 2012)

Rubiks560 said:


> Full ZBLL is not worth it, at all period. Look at Chris Tran, he learned it all and he now says it isn't worth it.


 
Sorry, you're right, that was a stupid comparison.

However, my point still remains, for real improvement, it is required for you to destroy previous work. Look at how we solve the cube, we make some, we destroy and restore in order to make more progress. This applies to practically everything in life, and color neutrality as well.


----------



## Rpotts (Mar 24, 2012)

yoshinator said:


> Practice. It is the ultimate way to improve, the only way to beat the best, and the reason is obvious:
> 
> Practically everything can be improved by practice, pauses can be eliminated, TPS can be raised, lookahead can be maximized. *But there's one thing that practice cannot improve, and that's move count.*
> 
> ...


 
I strongly disagree, practicing pair selection and basic multislotting and blockbuilding will reduce your movecount far more than simply becoming color neutral.


----------



## yoshinator (Mar 24, 2012)

Rpotts said:


> I strongly disagree, practicing pair selection and basic multislotting and blockbuilding will reduce your movecount far more than simply becoming color neutral.


 
I am unsure as to whether my phrasing was bad, or just that you misunderstood. However:

My point is not that optimization, lookahead etc. will not help to improve, because they will, and probably more than becoming color neutral.

What I am saying is that those things (like all things) have a limit, and so becoming color neutral is another thing you can do to help you improve. And since it is independent of optimization (being CN does not affect optimization), with enough practice, you can maintain everything else, while also having a slightly lower move count, which results (obviously) in faster solves.

I've incorporated this into my initial post, tell me what you think.


----------



## MWilson (Mar 26, 2012)

You would have to look so far into the solve during inspection that you would know the resulting move count of the whole solve. You can pick a four move cross over a seven move cross, but end up with more moves because the four move cross results in a really bad F2L + LL whereas the seven move cross turned into a really lucky F2L + LL. That said I think the best reason to be color neutral is for the fun of it. I'm 100% CN and often I will ignore an easy cross just because I did that color twice in a row already, and it doesn't affect my average at all.


----------



## yoshinator (Mar 26, 2012)

Dominate said:


> You would have to look so far into the solve during inspection that you would know the resulting move count of the whole solve. You can pick a four move cross over a seven move cross, but end up with more moves because the four move cross results in a really bad F2L + LL whereas the seven move cross turned into a really lucky F2L + LL. That said I think the best reason to be color neutral is for the fun of it. I'm 100% CN and often I will ignore an easy cross just because I did that color twice in a row already, and it doesn't affect my average at all.


 
First of all, sometimes it is quite easy to look relatively deep into a solve, especially of you are comfortable with ZZ (for EO), and Petrus (for lookahead into the second, or even third pair). With that in mind, colour neutrality can be very helpful, because if your cross and/or first pair are easy to execute, and look-ahead during, than the entire solve will, overall, be smoother, this is why Feliks Zemdegs, arguably the best cuber in the world, is color neutral. Second, if the only advantage of becoming colour neutral was because it was more fun, than very few serious cubers would be CN, because their main goal is to improve.


----------



## Godmil (Mar 26, 2012)

While I don't have a problem with colour neutrality, I've got to pick up a couple of mistakes in that last post.



yoshinator said:


> ...this is why Feliks Zemdegs, arguably the best cuber in the world, is color neutral....


Actually he's colour neutral because he started out colour neutral, you can't reverse the cause and effect. This is the _post-hoc ergo propter hoc_ logical fallacy.



yoshinator said:


> Second, if the only advantage of becoming colour neutral was because it was more fun, than very few serious cubers would be CN...



Actually it is the case that very few of the top cubers are colour neutral. (Although I can imagine as time goes on the proportial will shift dramatically)


----------



## Escher (Mar 26, 2012)

Rubiks560 said:


> Full ZBLL is not worth it, at all period. Look at Chris Tran, he learned it all and he now says it isn't worth it.


 
Hm, I disagree. Imo Chris Tran learned it way too fast and perhaps in the wrong way - he was so desperate to become the first person to learn it he put memorising the algs themselves over everything else.

Anyway, this discussion is for another thread.


----------



## Kirjava (Mar 28, 2012)

Rubiks560 said:


> Full ZBLL is not worth it, at all period. Look at Chris Tran, he learned it all and he now says it isn't worth it.


 
You cannot possibly know if ZBLL is 'worth it' or not.


----------



## aznanimedude (Mar 29, 2012)

having a 1LLL is pretty awesome IMO, all in the execution though


----------



## Kirjava (Mar 29, 2012)

aznanimedude said:


> 1LLL


 
Should ZBLL really be considered one look last layer? You look at the last layer pieces more than once during the solve.


----------



## yoshinator (Mar 29, 2012)

Could we please try to keep the discussion related to color neutrality?

Also, Kirjava, I'd really like to know what you think of what I said initially.


----------



## Kirjava (Mar 29, 2012)

yoshinator said:


> Could we please try to keep the discussion related to color neutrality?



You can try.



yoshinator said:


> Also, Kirjava, I'd really like to know what you think of what I said initially.


 
The timescale involved can be apathy inducing enough to make it not worth it.


----------



## jskyler91 (Mar 29, 2012)

yoshinator said:


> Could we please try to keep the discussion related to color neutrality?
> 
> Also, Kirjava, I'd really like to know what you think of what I said initially.


 
It seems to me that your mentality is similar to mine; if given two of the exact same person in the same place and time (etc, they are completely the same) and giving them infinite time, the one who learned to be CN would be faster in the long run because they would have more choices of crosses and opportunities etc. This is one of the main reasons I am CN. I realize that most people don't have infinite time, or a lot of time to cube (most people quit after a few years) but I would prefer to treat this sport as if I were going to do it forever rather than only focusing on what is going to make myself quick now because I am banking on my quitting.


----------



## qqwref (Mar 29, 2012)

CN is just a tradeoff between difficulty of recognition and difficulty/length of cross. I think the tradeoff is small enough (for a good cuber) that it probably has no objective answer, and will depend on someone's personal strengths. If you have relatively bad recognition, the added difficulty of being able to use any cross color might not be worth the moves you save on the cross.

I think there are other tradeoffs with the same effect - doing xcross in almost every solve (as Hardwick used to), doing non-matching blocks in Roux, etc. Even something like ZB would probably count, as you have objectively harder recognition (and possibly mental lookup difficulty) but you save moves (and hopefully therefore time) in the process. I guess what I'm really saying is that since these things are tradeoffs the relative values of the positive and negative effects will vary by person, and so it may well be impossible to objectively state that something is worth doing or not - it will always depend on someone's individual skills, no matter how much we know about the theory of speedcubing.


----------



## jskyler91 (Mar 29, 2012)

qqwref said:


> CN is just a tradeoff between difficulty of recognition and difficulty/length of cross. I think the tradeoff is small enough (for a good cuber) that it probably has no objective answer, and will depend on someone's personal strengths. If you have relatively bad recognition, the added difficulty of being able to use any cross color might not be worth the moves you save on the cross.
> I think there are other tradeoffs with the same effect - doing xcross in almost every solve (as Hardwick used to), doing non-matching blocks in Roux, etc. Even something like ZB would probably count, as you have objectively harder recognition (and possibly mental lookup difficulty) but you save moves (and hopefully therefore time) in the process. I guess what I'm really saying is that since these things are tradeoffs the relative values of the positive and negative effects will vary by person, and so it may well be impossible to objectively state that something is worth doing or not - it will always depend on someone's individual skills, no matter how much we know about the theory of speedcubing.


 I disagree, recognition when your CN is exactly the same for all colors, you just learn to look for patterns instead of particular colors. If you are having trouble recognizing cases then you are looking for them in the wrong way.


----------



## cmhardw (Mar 29, 2012)

jskyler91 said:


> I disagree, *recognition when your CN is exactly the same for all colors*, you just learn to look for patterns instead of particular colors. If you are having trouble recognizing cases then you are looking for them in the wrong way.


 
For me personally this is definitely not the case at all (yet). I'm down to about 1-1.5 second slower than my bi-color neutral method before switching to full color neutral. I still find myself on certain solves (for non-white/yellow cross) to make a completely wrong recognition decision based on the white/yellow stickers. When you've solved the same color(s) for long enough time, I think that a part of your brain has learned to see the cube as colors, and not as patterns.

I agree with you that I am probably looking for cases in the wrong way, because I forced myself to look for colors for so long. I am still enjoying color neutrality very much, and I will continue to try to improve. However, I am finding that when solving on non-white/yellow pieces I feel like I have the skill level of a 1-2 year cuber. When solving on white/yellow I feel like I have all the years of training since the first day I started. There is a noticeable difference in difficulty level of recognition, thinking ahead, look ahead, even trying to pace myself throughout the solve. Pacing on white/yellow is automatic and effortless. I have to consciously pace myself such as to not rush when solving non-white/yellow.

In short, I think blanket statements about color neutrality are probably a bad idea. The bolded part in your quote is probably completely true for those who either started out color neutral, or switched "early enough". For those like me who switched very late in the game the recognition part is really a significant issue, and there are years of "bad habit" that need to be unlearned in order to achieve the kind of recognition you're taking about.

Of course I could be very wrong about all this, but this has been my experience so far.


----------



## yoshinator (Mar 29, 2012)

qqwref said:


> CN is just a tradeoff between difficulty of recognition and difficulty/length of cross. I think the tradeoff is small enough (for a good cuber) that it probably has no objective answer, and will depend on someone's personal strengths. If you have relatively bad recognition, the added difficulty of being able to use any cross color might not be worth the moves you save on the cross.
> 
> I think there are other tradeoffs with the same effect - doing xcross in almost every solve (as Hardwick used to), doing non-matching blocks in Roux, etc. Even something like ZB would probably count, as you have objectively harder recognition (and possibly mental lookup difficulty) but you save moves (and hopefully therefore time) in the process. I guess what I'm really saying is that since these things are tradeoffs the relative values of the positive and negative effects will vary by person, and so it may well be impossible to objectively state that something is worth doing or not - it will always depend on someone's individual skills, no matter how much we know about the theory of speedcubing.


 
As I discussed in my initial post, recognition can be improved with practice, in other words, with enough time, equally good recognition with all colors is very possible. With that I'm mind, if you are willing and able to put in the time needed to become properly color neutral, it is definitely worth it.



Kirjava said:


> You can try.
> 
> 
> 
> The timescale involved can be apathy inducing enough to make it not worth it.


 
If you are trying to become fast as quick as possible (which perhaps is what you want to do, and that's fine), than I totally agree.

However, if you are trying to become the fastest you can possibly be, regardless of the amount of time it takes, than I think that color neutrality is definitely something to look into.



jskyler91 said:


> It seems to me that your mentality is similar to mine; if given two of the exact same person in the same place and time (etc, they are completely the same) and giving them infinite time, the one who learned to be CN would be faster in the long run because they would have more choices of crosses and opportunities etc. This is one of the main reasons I am CN. I realize that most people don't have infinite time, or a lot of time to cube (most people quit after a few years) but I would prefer to treat this sport as if I were going to do it forever rather than only focusing on what is going to make myself quick now because I am banking on my quitting.


 
I definitely agree. I also find that treating cubing as something that I will be doing for an infinite amount of time is more fun, but if Kirjava or any others want to get fast as quick as possible, which totally makes sense, one of the greatest things in cubing is the sense of accomplishment when you break a barier or a PB, than color neutrality is not going to be worth it for them (with that mindset). 

This is why I say that the debate on how long it takes to become CN, and whether putting that much time in is worth it, is silly. It completely depends on how you think about cubing, and how you treat it overall.


----------



## teller (Mar 29, 2012)

yoshinator said:


> If you are trying to become fast as quick as possible (which perhaps is what you want to do, and that's fine), than I totally agree.
> 
> However, if you are trying to become the fastest you can possibly be, regardless of the amount of time it takes, than I think that color neutrality is definitely something to look into.


 
This sums it up nicely. It's an expensive investment...but the idea that one plans to retire from cubing and therefore doesn't want to put forth too much effort before they hop into the grave is just gross. If that's how one feels about it, then the tortoise will totally stomp the rigor mortis-addled hare with much less effort than one that is at least still alive and pursing other time-saving avenues. IMO, though, nothing can cream a solve like a head start...a live hare had better bring something serious to the comp if he/she hopes to make up for that loss.


----------



## ottozing (Mar 29, 2012)

yoshinator said:


> If you are trying to become fast as quick as possible (which perhaps is what you want to do, and that's fine), than I totally agree.
> 
> However, if you are trying to become the fastest you can possibly be, regardless of the amount of time it takes, than I think that color neutrality is definitely something to look into.
> .



very well put. i used to think that colour neutrality was only worth it if you started out colour neutral but at the end of the day, colour neutral solvers still have an advantage (even if it isnt a big one).


----------



## Kirjava (Mar 29, 2012)

teller said:


> It's an expensive investment...but the idea that one plans to retire from cubing and therefore doesn't want to put forth too much effort before they hop into the grave is just gross.


 
Where did this idea come from?

Yet again, ideas are being attributed to people that never mentioned them.


----------



## Godmil (Mar 29, 2012)

Hmmm, but we don't have infinite time. What it if takes 1-2 years to get comfortable with CN. Then it could be that you've just spent 1-2 years just getting to the same point you were already at. If you spent that time working on some other aspects (lets say 2side PLL recognition, fancy optimal F2L moves, OLLCP... there are lots of things you could work on in 2 years), then the benifits of those other things may be way more than just being CN.
Now, lets say when you become CN then you work on those other things.... but in that time the non-CN person could be doing even more things... essentially the CN person would be playing catch up... almost like he'd taken a 1-2 year break.

Although that is assuming that you can only work on one thing at a time.

I had a steady but slow progress going, then I took 2 months out to be bi-CN, but I'm not seeing many instances where it makes a difference which cross I'm choosing, so it's essentially like I just took a 2 month break from improving.
Although that should be disclaimered by the fact that I'm quiet slow and rarely look into the first F2L pair yet.


----------



## frankvanhoof (Mar 29, 2012)

Would you call that your perpetual n-1 theory. CN cubers, like myself, are like the little brother who will always be 1 year younger than his big brother. Seems to me the advantage can be quantified, but of course you would have to assume the cuber would always recognize the optimal choice.


----------



## Godmil (Mar 29, 2012)

frankvanhoof said:


> CN cubers, like myself, are like the little brother who will always be 1 year younger than his big brother.


Only if the cuber took that time out to learn CN (i.e. not someone who became CN early), and assuming the non-CN cuber was doing productive practice in the mean time.
But it's just a hypothetical situation, nothing is that easy to catagorise.


----------



## yoshinator (Mar 29, 2012)

Godmil said:


> Hmmm, but we don't have infinite time. What it if takes 1-2 years to get comfortable with CN. Then it could be that you've just spent 1-2 years just getting to the same point you were already at. If you spent that time working on some other aspects (lets say 2side PLL recognition, fancy optimal F2L moves, OLLCP... there are lots of things you could work on in 2 years), then the benifits of those other things may be way more than just being CN.
> Now, lets say when you become CN then you work on those other things.... but in that time the non-CN person could be doing even more things... essentially the CN person would be playing catch up... almost like he'd taken a 1-2 year break.
> 
> Although that is assuming that you can only work on one thing at a time.
> ...


 
I totally agree, however, I prefer to imagine that I will be cubing for an infinite amount of time (because I find it more fun), which just really depends on the person. If you are trying to become fast as quick as possible, than that's great, but thats just not how I imagine cubing, and this color neutrality *is worth it for me.*


----------



## Kirjava (Mar 29, 2012)

Where has the idea come from that the argument against CN is because people will want to quit soon and don't have time for it before then?

This was never proposed, and people seem to enjoy decrying it as if they're making a valid counter point.


----------



## cmhardw (Mar 29, 2012)

Kirjava said:


> Where has the idea come from that the argument against CN is because people will want to quit soon and don't have time for it before then?
> 
> This was never proposed, and people seem to enjoy decrying it as if they're making a valid counter point.


 
As far as I understood it, the infinite time part of the argument was proposed by jskyler in the following message. He makes a mention of "cubers not having infinite time" so I took that to be the genesis of that argument, which was taken up by others after this post:



jskyler91 said:


> It seems to me that your mentality is similar to mine; if given two of the exact same person in the same place and time (etc, they are completely the same) and giving them infinite time, the one who learned to be CN would be faster in the long run because they would have more choices of crosses and opportunities etc. This is one of the main reasons I am CN. I realize that most people don't have infinite time, or a lot of time to cube (most people quit after a few years) but I would prefer to treat this sport as if I were going to do it forever rather than only focusing on what is going to make myself quick now because I am banking on my quitting.


----------



## Kirjava (Mar 29, 2012)

It has not been proposed as a reason not to switch to CN, so I find it odd that it is receiving a counterargument. Am I perceiving the way it is presented incorrectly?

Arguments against switching apply regardless of the time period.


----------



## yoshinator (Mar 29, 2012)

Kirjava said:


> Where has the idea come from that the argument against CN is because people will want to quit soon and don't have time for it before then?
> 
> This was never proposed, and people seem to enjoy decrying it as if they're making a valid counter point.


 
What I am saying is that your argument against CN was that for the amount of time it would take to do it, being CN was not worth it, and with your mindset, it is. (I totally respect this mindset, it definitely makes sense)

I don't think that I've ever said that you argument is based off of the fact that you are going to quit at some point, what I am saying is that your argument is based off of time, and jsyler and I prefer to ignore the time it takes to achieve things.

However, if, like jskyler and I, you prefer to imagine that cubing is an infinite activity, in other words that to will be doing it for an infinite amount of time, than color neutrality is worth it.

If I'm wrong in all of this, about that being your point, please tell me.


----------



## Kirjava (Mar 29, 2012)

yoshinator said:


> What I am saying is that your argument against CN was that for the amount of time it would take to do it, being CN was not worth it, and with your mindset, it is. (I totally respect this mindset, it definitely makes sense)



CN is "worth it" however long it takes. However, alternative techniques can help you improve an inordinate amount more than this in a much smaller timescale. It just makes more sense to work on something that has a much bigger payoff.



yoshinator said:


> I don't think that I've ever said that you argument is based off of the fact that you are going to quit at some point, what I am saying is that your argument is based off of time, and jsyler and I prefer to ignore the time it takes to achieve things.
> 
> However, if, like jskyler and I, you prefer to imagine that cubing is an infinite activity, in other words that to will be doing it for an infinite amount of time, than color neutrality is worth it.
> 
> If I'm wrong in all of this, about that being your point, please tell me.


 
If you had an infinite amount of time, why would you want to do something that helps you improve the least amount and takes the longest first?

Why not do many things that can help you improve a great deal in a shorter amount of time before leaving the extremely minor improvement until the end?

You both also seem to be unaware that some people *prefer* to not be CN, and there is no evidence that CN is better than nonCN.


----------



## qqwref (Mar 29, 2012)

yoshinator said:


> As I discussed in my initial post, recognition can be improved with practice, in other words, with enough time, equally good recognition with all colors is very possible.


Sure, but maybe if you had spent that same time on fixed-color recognition you'd be even better at it than that - being better able to go straight into OLL without a pause, or being more likely to see multislotting opportunities, for instance. Even if you cube "forever" I don't think the difference in recognition will always even out to nothing. And since the recognition IS objectively more difficult, even if only a little, that will offsets the advantage of CN by a different amount for different people.

Personally I've toyed with various CN-like ideas in the past - trying normal CN (I remember doing CN races with Dene a while back when he was in the States), being completely CN with some non-Fridrich methods, using different color schemes (and even being somewhat color-scheme-neutral, lol), etc. For me, I have really nice recognition with white, and so I'm good with fixed color. I don't feel like the extra few cross moves would ever actually be worth it to me.


EDIT: As an analogy, I feel like nonCN vs CN is very roughly similar to someone using a longer and fingertricky algorithm (say, 17-move Y) as opposed to an optimal and awkward algorithm. They each have their advantages, and you can't objectively say that one is better, or worth changing to. Some people will always end better at the longer one just because of their cubing style, and some people will always end up better at the shorter one.


----------



## jeff081692 (Mar 29, 2012)

Just my two cents,

I think that color neutrality is better but it depends on the cuber if they want to switch or not. With color neutrality on average you will find easier crosses because you have 5 extra chances thus giving you faster times, although maybe *not much faster* than without being color neutral. 

For many cubers the switch is not worth it and that is understandable and many can and have argued that there are plenty of other things one can do that would decrease averages a lot more than color neutrality. This is true, but if people are considering switching it might be better to start early since you would have to go through the process of being worse for a certain time period anyway.

If you are going for world records CN might make things easier in the long run, but it is possible to get sub 10 without it so it all depends on the cuber, their goals, and how much time they have available.

Any argument above that is kind of pointless because there are people that will vote CN and people that will say it is not worth it and both are true to an extent. CN is faster but the amount faster it gets you and the time it takes for some people to master can make it not worth learning.


----------



## jskyler91 (Mar 29, 2012)

Godmil said:


> Hmmm, but we don't have infinite time. What it if takes 1-2 years to get comfortable with CN. Then it could be that you've just spent 1-2 years just getting to the same point you were already at. If you spent that time working on some other aspects (lets say 2side PLL recognition, fancy optimal F2L moves, OLLCP... there are lots of things you could work on in 2 years), then the benifits of those other things may be way more than just being CN.
> Now, lets say when you become CN then you work on those other things.... but in that time the non-CN person could be doing even more things... essentially the CN person would be playing catch up... almost like he'd taken a 1-2 year break.
> 
> Although that is assuming that you can only work on one thing at a time.
> ...


 
This assumes two things: first that becoming color neutral takes a really long time and second that one cannot do other things while they are becoming color neutral. Both of these statements are, IMO, false. You can check out my vid in my sig/ read my arguments, but I think the limiting factor on switching speed is your determination level and your ability to discipline yourself. As to the doing other things, you would be very imprudent to ONLY practice being CN for a month, you should always be practicing multiple things and this is all the more easy with being CN seeing as how you are just changing where you solve, not how you do it (physically at least).*Right now i am working on mastering 10 new f2l algs, 2 side Pll recog, R-Oll, a couple new Oll algs, adding thumbs to my solves and using lower case d's in my solve all at the same time.* Being CN and doing other things would not be that difficult. Just my two cents.



Kirjava said:


> CN is "worth it" however long it takes. However, alternative techniques can help you improve an inordinate amount more than this in a much smaller timescale. It just makes more sense to work on something that has a much bigger payoff.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
I prefer to get the harder stuff out of the way first, that way it is all downhill from there. Different mindsets I guess.



qqwref said:


> Sure, but maybe if you had spent that same time on fixed-color recognition you'd be even better at it than that - being better able to go straight into OLL without a pause, or being more likely to see multislotting opportunities, for instance. Even if you cube "forever" I don't think the difference in recognition will always even out to nothing. And since the recognition IS objectively more difficult, even if only a little, that will offsets the advantage of CN by a different amount for different people.
> 
> Personally I've toyed with various CN-like ideas in the past - trying normal CN (I remember doing CN races with Dene a while back when he was in the States), being completely CN with some non-Fridrich methods, using different color schemes (and even being somewhat color-scheme-neutral, lol), etc. For me, I have really nice recognition with white, and so I'm good with fixed color. I don't feel like the extra few cross moves would ever actually be worth it to me.
> 
> ...


 
Again, you are thinking there is a lack of lookahead in being CN because you don't look at pieces in the CN way, but there isn't. IF you learn to look correctly then you will see patterns and shapes which are equally distinguishable no matter what color you see them on.


----------



## Kirjava (Mar 29, 2012)

jskyler91 said:


> Being CN and doing other things would not be that difficult.



Who said it was?



jskyler91 said:


> I prefer to get the harder stuff out of the way first, that way it is all downhill from there. Different mindsets I guess.



I didn't say it was harder, I said it took longer. 

I could probably learn 1LLL quicker than switching to CN, but that doesn't make it easier.



jskyler91 said:


> Again, you are thinking there is a lack of lookahead in being CN because you don't look at pieces in the CN way.


 
No he isn't. You're accidently attributing things you have made up to people because you've misunderstood what they've said.


----------



## jskyler91 (Mar 30, 2012)

Kirjava said:


> Who said it was?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
I love how hard you try to discredit me. To your first response, it seems you were not paying attention: Godmil even said himself that he was assuming that you could only do one thing at a time, I was simply responding to him. To your second, the only reason I can see it taking as long as you insist it does is because it is hard. If not hard then are you saying switching is easy? iF it is easy then why don't you just do it? Easy things don't usually require much thought so why wouldn't you? Finally, Qqwref was saying that looking ahead IS harder for CN and I said it wasn't, he was just looking ahead wrong. Wrong on 3 account Kir.


----------



## Escher (Mar 30, 2012)

jskyler91 said:


> Wrong on 3 account Kir.


 
Nope nope nope.

Please stop using the argument that 'because it was easy/quick for me it is easy/quick for everyone; if it isn't easy/quick then you're doing it wrong'.

It's a terrible argument form. 

If it isn't the case that your thinking is actually like this, particularly in regards to this whole 'experiences with attempting CN' issue, please take more care to thoroughly explain what exactly they are doing wrong and why, and how you can show that 'your' method/approach is superior and is different to their approaches. 
The thing is, I trust qqwref to have put considerable thought into this; he isn't the best non-physical cube solver in the world for nothing.


----------



## Kirjava (Mar 30, 2012)

jskyler91 said:


> I love how hard you try to discredit me.



It is very easy.



jskyler91 said:


> To your first response, it seems you were not paying attention: Godmil even said himself that he was assuming that you could only do one thing at a time, I was simply responding to him.



Before you say that 'doing things as well as being CN is not difficult', you have a list of things you are adding to your style. This reads as if you're saying that you can be CN and use other additional techniques aswell, which I didn't see anyone disagree with.



jskyler91 said:


> To your second, the only reason I can see it taking as long as you insist it does is because it is hard. If not hard then are you saying switching is easy? iF it is easy then why don't you just do it? Easy things don't usually require much thought so why wouldn't you?



jskyler91 seems to think that if something takes a long time, it has to be hard.



jskyler91 said:


> Finally, Qqwref was saying that looking ahead IS harder for CN



The term lookahead isn't mentioned a single time in qqwref's post.


----------



## yoshinator (Mar 30, 2012)

Kirjava said:


> CN is "worth it" however long it takes. However, alternative techniques can help you improve an inordinate amount more than this in a much smaller timescale. It just makes more sense to work on something that has a much bigger payoff.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
I think that it really comes down to the question: Why do we cube?

The obvious answer is that it's because cubing is fun, we enjoy it, but why do we enjoy it? I would argue, that, at least for me, cubing is so much fun because of how unbelievably challenging it is, physically, mentally, and even psychologically. 

With that in mind, *I* became color neutral because I wanted another challenge, because I wanted to push the challenge, the awesomeness, of cubing further. Also because I thought that Y-perms looked really awesome on red/orange cross =P




qqwref said:


> Sure, but maybe if you had spent that same time on fixed-color recognition you'd be even better at it than that - being better able to go straight into OLL without a pause, or being more likely to see multislotting opportunities, for instance. Even if you cube "forever" I don't think the difference in recognition will always even out to nothing. And since the recognition IS objectively more difficult, even if only a little, that will offsets the advantage of CN by a different amount for different people.
> 
> Personally I've toyed with various CN-like ideas in the past - trying normal CN (I remember doing CN races with Dene a while back when he was in the States), being completely CN with some non-Fridrich methods, using different color schemes (and even being somewhat color-scheme-neutral, lol), etc. For me, I have really nice recognition with white, and so I'm good with fixed color. I don't feel like the extra few cross moves would ever actually be worth it to me.
> 
> ...


 
I could tell you that recognition can only be so good, but there was a recent study done for quantum mechanics, in which thoughts traveled backwards in time (maybe), so maybe recognition can become infinitely good (although probably not).

On the other hand, "toying" with being color neutral is in no way effective, if you want to be color neutral, you have to work at it, and just messing around with it isn't enough, which is why it is so challenging.

Finally, I definitely agree that it depends on the cuber, it depends on the mindset, it the depends on why they cube, and many other factors.



jskyler91 said:


> This assumes two things: first that becoming color neutral takes a really long time and second that one cannot do other things while they are becoming color neutral. Both of these statements are, IMO, false. You can check out my vid in my sig/ read my arguments, but I think the limiting factor on switching speed is your determination level and your ability to discipline yourself. As to the doing other things, you would be very imprudent to ONLY practice being CN for a month, you should always be practicing multiple things and this is all the more easy with being CN seeing as how you are just changing where you solve, not how you do it (physically at least).*Right now i am working on mastering 10 new f2l algs, 2 side Pll recog, R-Oll, a couple new Oll algs, adding thumbs to my solves and using lower case d's in my solve all at the same time.* Being CN and doing other things would not be that difficult. Just my two cents.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



…I hate to point out your contradictions, considering that we believe the same thing, but: You say that you can work on color neutrality and other things at the same time, but you also seem convinced that color neutrality must be your main focus (which I definitely agree with).

I am not trying to say that you are wrong, or that you are stupid, because you are neither. However, you seem to by trying extremely hard to prove that color neutrality is worth it, which is completely understandable, you obviously have put lot of thought into this topic, and Kirjava did *kind of* attack you when you initially presented your method on becoming CN. On the other hand, I think that you are ignoring some really, really powerful proof on the other side, NOT saying that color neutrality is bad (although that does seem like what Kirjava is saying), but saying that, perhaps, color neutrality is not worth it for everybody.

I really respect you as a Cuber and critical thinker (about cubing) respectively, however I think you have (maybe) become a bit angry, and thus have stop thinking as deeply as you initially were before posting. Please don’t take this as criticism; it is merely something I am noticing.

Thanks,



Kirjava said:


> Who said it was?
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Please don’t abuse what Jskyler says right now, you know what you meant, and you know what he means, you’ve made him angry by attacking him (which I can’t really blame you for, the posts that you attacked him on *were* kind of stupid (2 side PLL recognition thread), but still 2 wrongs never make a right, they make a U-turn), and now he’s attacking you back, which has in turn made you angry. THIS IS NOBODY’S FAULT SPECIFICALLY, WE CAN JUST AS EASILY BLAME BOTH OF YOU.

MORAL OF THE STORY:

Don’t flame, even if it isn’t really flaming, but being unhappy with someone making threads or posts that you disagree with. And when someone flames you, tell them how right they are before telling them that they are flaming, or getting angry yourself.




If this post in any way came out as mean, than please tell me, but tell me why I’m right first =P

Thanks for reading this monster of a post.


----------



## Quadrescence (Mar 30, 2012)

THEOREM: color neutrality permits faster solving

PROOF: suppose one solves with fridrich. suppose white is always the side of the cross. suppose all cubes given to this kind of solver always had a green cross solved. on average, this cube would be 7 moves shorter to solve than solving the white cross first. At 4 tps, this is approximately 2 seconds faster on average. QED

COROLLARY: color neutrality saves moves


----------



## Kirjava (Mar 30, 2012)

yoshinator said:


> which has in turn made you angry


 
nah mate it's all lols for me


----------



## Ickathu (Mar 30, 2012)

I'd vote that it's good. 
I myself am CN for CFOP, but not for Roux (it's so much harder! idky any ideas?)


----------



## teller (Mar 30, 2012)

Here's the thing: Doing CN is bad-ass different from plain vanilla CFOP. So is Roux. It's like being able to speak both French and German. You speak Orange and Blue. Or blocks and LSE. Or if you're Kirjava, you speak all languages (which is nuts) except for CN (also nuts).


----------



## ottozing (Mar 30, 2012)

wow after reading through this thread again i dont really know where i stand on cn being worth the practice or not.


----------



## jskyler91 (Mar 30, 2012)

*LET ME START THIS BY SAYING THAT I DO NOT THINK COLOR FIXED CUBERS ARE IN ANYWAY LESSER TO ME!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!*, I just think that you are being imprudent to not try be because I feel it is easy and has many great benefits. There is nothing else there, so please do not infer anything or think I am attacking you subvertly. *IF IT HAS SEEMED TO YOU THAT I DO FEEL THIS WAY THIS WAS A MISINTERPRETATION. IF I OFFENDED ANYONE PLEASE KNOW THAT I AM SORRY!!!!!*.



Kirjava said:


> It is very easy.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Kir, you have an amazing ability to circle around the true logic of my statements and instead comment of inconsequential facts, Bravo, Bravo. Also,to everyone, the argument that hard things usually take a long time is completely true. IN GENERAL MOST harder things do tend to take more time some examples: overcoming phobias, climbing mountains, studying for major tests (if you actually study) etc. easier things like cleaning your room, eating dinner, and tying your shoes take less time. This is not some majorly controversial claim. Sure there are plenty of hard things that are quick such as getting a shot, but hard things generally take a longer time. The point I was making was that if Kir thought being CN is easy then it really shouldn't take that long to do and he could likely multitask while doing it. Very simple. Not controversial. 



yoshinator said:


> I think that it really comes down to the question: Why do we cube?
> 
> The obvious answer is that it's because cubing is fun, we enjoy it, but why do we enjoy it? I would argue, that, at least for me, cubing is so much fun because of how unbelievably challenging it is, physically, mentally, and even psychologically.
> 
> ...


 
I appreciate your sentiments, but you have me all wrong, I am not upset here, I am just treating Kir how he treats us i.e. by pointing out where others are wrong. If it appears I am mad then you are completely overreading into my words. Also, you should read my how to be cn thread, it should more than eliminate and/or counterweight those "counterarguments".


Same to you Aprom, I am not meaning this to be personal, these are just my logical beliefs, and I am not going to change them because they inadvertantly make other people feel as if they are lesser or anything else.


----------



## Kirjava (Mar 30, 2012)

jskyler91 said:


> Wow, great job Kir, you have an amazing ability to circle around the true logic of my statements and instead comment of inconsequential facts



How come you haven't replied to all my statements? Are you having trouble finding counterarguments to them?



jskyler91 said:


> if Kir thought being CN is easy then it really shouldn't take that long to do


 
traversing every position is easy, but takes a long time to do.



jskyler91 said:


> I am just treating Kir how he treats us


 
You would be if you were presenting valid arguments.


----------



## jskyler91 (Mar 30, 2012)

Kirjava said:


> It is very easy.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 


yoshinator said:


> I think that it really comes down to the question: Why do we cube?
> 
> The obvious answer is that it's because cubing is fun, we enjoy it, but why do we enjoy it? I would argue, that, at least for me, cubing is so much fun because of how unbelievably challenging it is, physically, mentally, and even psychologically.
> 
> ...


 


Kirjava said:


> How come you haven't replied to all my statements? Are you having trouble finding counterarguments to them?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
What arguments? You didn't say anything I didn't respond to in some way besides the Being CN and doing things stuff which was completely ridiculous and just you using your favorite fallacy Ad Hominem . Also known as deflecting.


----------



## Kirjava (Mar 30, 2012)

You ignored my point about qqwref's posts.

I have made no ad hom arguments.


----------



## jskyler91 (Mar 30, 2012)

Kirjava said:


> You ignored my point about qqwref's posts.
> 
> I have made no ad hom arguments.


 
Again you being pedantic; qqwref said recognition when talking about F2L, normally bad recog is another way of saying bad lookahead i.e. "I can't recog my f2l pairs fast enough to look ahead." As to the Ad hominem, are you honestly saying that you never make irrelevant claims that attempt to subvert my character? Because you would be flat out lying if you honestly don't think you do that. You think that by bringing down the person who is arguing with you that your actual arguments are right, but this is a logically false way of thinking which is called the Ad Hominem fallacy.


----------



## jskyler91 (Mar 30, 2012)

Kirjava said:


> You ignored my point about ad hom attacks.
> 
> Can you point out my ad hom attacks?


 
Jumpy much? Someone obviously has nothing better to do. (that was an ad hominem btw, sound like something you have said before?)


----------



## Kirjava (Mar 30, 2012)

Can you post examples instead of claims?


----------



## jskyler91 (Mar 30, 2012)

Kirjava said:


> Can you post examples instead of claims?


 
Sure, reread all of the posts u have ever made and Iam sure you will find plenty of things that are"an attempt to negate the truth of a claim by pointing out a negative characteristic or belief of the person supporting it." (wiki) I am going to bed btw so have a great night, I enjoyed our rounds today.


----------



## Kirjava (Mar 30, 2012)

So you're going to claim I did something, but refuse to provide any evidence for it?


----------



## Cubenovice (Mar 30, 2012)

Looking forward to a mod renaming this thread into "Jskyler Kirjava Debate"...


----------



## CubeRoots (Mar 30, 2012)

People should learn in a colour neutral way, in my opinion. If you learn as a colour neutral cuber the whole Process of recognition and solving is completely intuitive and solving Cn is not a problem at all. I think that CN can sometimes allow for an insanely fast start to an f2l since there is almost always a lucky case on one side or another.

As for switching, i don't really know whether it's a good idea... as much as i'm comfortable with CN, so is the white cross solver with doing white first. 

At the end of the day, the world #1 is CN. Just going off that alone people must see that it will make you faster in the long-run.


----------



## Kirjava (Mar 30, 2012)

CubeRoots said:


> At the end of the day, the world #1 is CN. Just going off that alone people must see that it will make you faster in the long-run.


 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not_imply_causation


----------



## aronpm (Mar 30, 2012)

CubeRoots said:


> At the end of the day, the world #1 is CN. Just going off that alone people must see that it will make you faster in the long-run.


 
He's also Australian, loves Cadbury chocolate, and goes to school. See what Kirjava linked.


----------



## CubeRoots (Mar 30, 2012)

I understaand your link even when I posted it. i was merely giving an example of a good cuber who is CN. Besides i could list many more. Loads of excellent cubers are CN or at least do two different sides.


----------



## jonlin (Mar 30, 2012)

jskyler91 said:


> Again, you are thinking there is a lack of lookahead in being CN because you don't look at pieces in the CN way, but there isn't. IF you learn to look correctly then you will see patterns and shapes which are equally distinguishable no matter what color you see them on.


 
QQ is explaining that with all the practice in the world in being CN switching, and being comfortable, and looking them in the way YOU explain, recognition will still not be same as a white/yellow cross. You will still have this habit to be a little faster with the w/y cross. It's a goddam habit.
EDIT:


Cubenovice said:


> Looking forward to a mod renaming this thread into "Jskyler Kirjava Debate"...


You made my day.


----------



## Johnny (Jun 26, 2013)

*Why you should try color neutrality*

For me, color neutrality takes away the stress of solving and makes it fun. For me, the whole point of cubing is fun, so I love that.

Also, it makes the cross stage way easier. It might throw you off a bit, but once you adapt to color neutrality it brings your cubing to a whole new level.


----------



## Username (Jun 26, 2013)

Way easier = on move shorter cross on average and F2L recognition becoming harder, not worth it for me. This didn't convince me at all, you only told something that has been told before. It's also harder to switch at faster speeds.


----------



## Johnny (Jun 26, 2013)

I said it's worth a try. I didn't say it would work for everyone. It works for me.


----------



## BrainOfSweden (Jun 26, 2013)

Solving is already fun for me, and if I solve for the fastest time possible, I'll be stressed no matter what color I start with. But I do try some color neutral solves for variation now and then, just as I mix it up with other methods sometimes. But it has taken quite some time to build up my color recognition and lookahead, I don't feel very tempted to do that five more times just for the possibility of a super easy cross a little more often.


----------



## Ross The Boss (Jun 26, 2013)

i tried to become colour neutral a few weeks ago. it was actually less fun because there was a huge sense of unfamiliarity when i was building my first block. I prefer the feeling of just solving with white or yellow on the bottom. i have actually stopped being even opposite colour neutral because i stopped practising it. i really should be opposite CN though, i miss out on a lot of easy first block cases.


----------



## Frubix (Jun 26, 2013)

When you start with color neutrality, it's hard to adapt, but once adapted, it's amazing


----------



## rj (Jun 27, 2013)

I am reverse CN. My problem is in Corner-Edge pairs. White & yellow have the same middle layer. No problem


----------



## ianliu64 (Jun 28, 2013)

I only do white and yellow :/
#NOOB


----------



## JasonK (Jun 28, 2013)

ianliu64 said:


> I only do white and yellow :/
> #NOOB



Current World Champion only does W/Y :tu


----------



## kcl (Jun 28, 2013)

Yep, I'm white/yellow. Getting better at yellow now..


----------



## cannon4747 (Jun 28, 2013)

Its weird... I'm learning petrus for OH with color neutrality, but with everything else 3x3 I'm white on bottom. I'm really enjoying learning petrus too. Its a fun method, much better for OH than CFOP...


----------



## YddEd (Jun 28, 2013)

Ross The Boss said:


> i tried to become colour neutral a few weeks ago. it was actually less fun because there was a huge sense of unfamiliarity when i was building my first block. I prefer the feeling of just solving with white or yellow on the bottom. i have actually stopped being even opposite colour neutral because i stopped practising it. i really should be opposite CN though, i miss out on a lot of easy first block cases.


Yes you should, I switched to W/Y CN when I was sub 40 and with a week of practise, I got to sub 30


----------



## tx789 (Jun 28, 2013)

colour neutral helps I really need to solve on other coloured crosses I usually do white cross but can solve any cross colour.


----------



## cxinlee (Jun 28, 2013)

Tbh I'll rather master one color than be a jack of all trades and a master of none (Sorry If I misused it). I'm not really sure if being CN is worth it, but I'm too lazy to change my cross colors (Just like how Roux is clearly the best method but I'm too lazy to change too).


----------



## YddEd (Jun 28, 2013)

cxinlee said:


> Tbh I'll rather master one color than be a jack of all trades and a master of none (Sorry If I misused it). I'm not really sure if being CN is worth it, but I'm too lazy to change my cross colors (*Just like how Roux is clearly the best method but I'm too lazy to change too*).


I never knew that some methods can be the best...
I'm also pretty sure being CN is worth it, I'm CN even though I don't use CFOP anymore.


----------



## cxinlee (Jun 28, 2013)

YddEd said:


> I never knew that some methods can be the best...
> I'm also pretty sure being CN is worth it, I'm CN even though I don't use CFOP anymore.


There isn't a best method, but Roux is better than the other methods from what I've seen.


----------



## Bestsimple (Jun 28, 2013)

What gives you that impression?


----------



## cxinlee (Jun 28, 2013)

Because having less moves, it has greater room for improvement (Just imo). Also this(LOLS)


----------



## Antikrister (Jun 28, 2013)

cannon4747 said:


> Its weird... I'm learning petrus for OH with color neutrality, but with everything else 3x3 I'm white on bottom. I'm really enjoying learning petrus too. Its a fun method, much better for OH than CFOP...



LoL how can you say that?


----------



## hkpnkp (Sep 1, 2013)

what is the actual advantage of color neutrality ?


----------



## sneaklyfox (Sep 1, 2013)

hkpnkp said:


> what is the actual advantage of color neutrality ?



- choice of starting on any cross colour
- greater chance of finding Xcross because of above
- average of 1 less move than having a set colour for cross


----------



## Robert-Y (Sep 1, 2013)

I just want to add to this:


sneaklyfox said:


> - greater chance of finding Xcross
> - average of 1 less move than having a set colour for cross


Less moves for cross probably means that less F2L pieces move around, making easier for the solver to track their first pair, making it easier for a smooth cross to first pair transition. Even if I cannot work out what my solution will be for my first pair, usually I can track it down and solve it immediately after cross.


----------



## MaikeruKonare (Sep 1, 2013)

I am opposite colour neutral on 3x3 and completely colour neutral on 2x2. Anyone else notice that F2L seems to be the colour effected part of the solve?


----------



## sneaklyfox (Sep 1, 2013)

MaikeruKonare said:


> I am opposite colour neutral on 3x3 and completely colour neutral on 2x2. Anyone else notice that F2L seems to be the colour effected part of the solve?



Duh.


----------



## Filipe Teixeira (Mar 2, 2019)

Being a white/yellow solver, I can say that I have to learn a lot of new stuff practicing ZZ, Petrus and Roux.

Because there are cases that are color neutral. Like solving a cross block instead of f2l pair in block building. I find really hard to solve those cases.

Another thing is megaminx. I got one recently and it is really weird to solve those colors. Not being color neutral is being a huge obstacle in those areas


----------

