# proof that my f2l method isn't crap: F2L solve-15.55 seconds



## CuBeOrDiE (Jul 11, 2009)

I've recently posted a thread about a method I've created to solve the f2l of the rubik's cube(http://www.speedsolving.com/foru/showthread.php?t=13377), and I've got negative comments about it. To prove that it isn't crap, I've posted a video showing me solving the f2l using my method sub 16 seconds(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MJAzE5tEDJE). Enjoy.


----------



## Sa967St (Jul 12, 2009)

Or you just use...nevermind.
15.55 seconds isn't bad for F2L


----------



## CuBeOrDiE (Jul 12, 2009)

thanks bro!


----------



## StachuK1992 (Jul 12, 2009)

CuBeOrDiE said:


> thanks bro!


sis*

Still....


----------



## brunson (Jul 12, 2009)

Sa967St said:


> Or you just use...nevermind.
> 15.55 seconds isn't bad for F2L


Says the girl with the 12.53 single solve.


----------



## CuBeOrDiE (Jul 12, 2009)

Stachuk1992 said:


> CuBeOrDiE said:
> 
> 
> > thanks bro!
> ...




**blush**

sorry 'bout that!


----------



## RampageCuber (Jul 12, 2009)




----------



## ThePizzaGuy92 (Jul 12, 2009)

Lol...


----------



## RampageCuber (Jul 12, 2009)

I still don't see whats wrong with this...






Except for the terrible tps....


----------



## mark3 (Jul 12, 2009)

CuBeOrDiE said:


> I've recently posted a thread about a method I've created to solve the f2l of the rubik's cube(http://www.speedsolving.com/foru/showthread.php?t=13377), and I've got negative comments about it. To prove that it isn't crap, I've posted a video showing me solving the f2l using my method sub 16 seconds(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MJAzE5tEDJE). Enjoy.



People only joked about it because it was basically a less efficent way of doing Petrus.


----------



## PhillipEspinoza (Jul 12, 2009)

Don't mean to sound harsh but if your F2L method would get me a sub-6 avg for F2L, then I might consider. Other than that I don't see a point in investing in it too much for speed.


----------



## brunson (Jul 12, 2009)

Enough with the Petrus solves. You're not adding anything to the discussion of his method and you've made your point.


----------



## daeyoungyoon (Jul 12, 2009)

I'll still and probably forever say, "Or you can just use Petrus" 

From the video, you didn't have that many pauses and your turning speed wasn't that slow but you only got 15 seconds for the F2L meaning you would've probably got around 20seconds for the entire solve. 15 seconds for F2L isn't that great in my opinion.


----------



## RampageCuber (Jul 12, 2009)

brunson said:


> Enough with the Petrus solves. You're not adding anything to the discussion of his method and you've made your point.



I've tried his method, not bad, but still, the edge inserting after the 1x2x3 block is slow...


----------



## JLarsen (Jul 12, 2009)

Honestly I think this is just another one of those half ways between Fridrich and Petrus. Much like zz. I don't like it because I dislike everything about Fridrich, and I mean everything. So for me, I'm never going to like it. I like Petrus because it's a challenge, it's creative, and most of all, it's FUN.


----------



## hr.mohr (Jul 12, 2009)

I'm sorry but your video proves nothing. It's a bad angle with annoying zoom and with a scramble that could have been prepared. 

Please don't waste your time on haters, make some better videos and let the content speak for it self.


----------



## Rikane (Jul 12, 2009)

I'm not sure, but do we even know what his normal average is? Normal being his F2L (I guess) average. If not...
Then we can't really say if it's really BAD or not. To him 15.55 might be good. Actually, to me, it's pretty decent as well.


----------



## Lord Voldemort (Jul 12, 2009)

Sn3kyPandaMan said:


> Honestly I think this is just another one of those half ways between Fridrich and Petrus. *Much like zz*. I don't like it because I dislike everything about Fridrich, and I mean everything. So for me, I'm never going to like it. I like Petrus because it's a challenge, it's creative, and most of all, it's FUN.



Really?
What's "it" that you're referring to there?


----------



## daeyoungyoon (Jul 12, 2009)

The method which this thread is all about. Which isn't even his(Cubeordie or w/e his name is) method since everyone already knew about this method but never cared about it due to Petrus and such.


----------



## CuBeOrDiE (Jul 12, 2009)

Rikane said:


> I'm not sure, but do we even know what his normal average is? Normal being his F2L (I guess) average. If not...
> Then we can't really say if it's really BAD or not. To him 15.55 might be good. Actually, to me, it's pretty decent as well.




Good point. My ''normal'' f2l average is 16.5 seconds and I've beat that with my method; my new average is 16.2 seconds!


----------



## CuBeOrDiE (Jul 12, 2009)

Sn3kyPandaMan said:


> Honestly I think this is just another one of those half ways between Fridrich and Petrus. Much like zz. I don't like it because I dislike everything about Fridrich, and I mean everything. So for me, I'm never going to like it. I like Petrus because it's a challenge, it's creative, and most of all, it's FUN.



Fridrich uses a concept witch is used in every single method. In the last step of solving the f2l in Petrus, for example, you make at least one f2l pair. The only difference is that you turn only two sides, but the concept is the same. Also, how is my method like ZZ?I don't even orient a single edge!

PS my method not being creative, a challenge, or fun is an oppinion

PPS lots of methods are related to both Petrus and Fridrich

PPS I love potatoes


----------



## Paul Wagner (Jul 12, 2009)

The potatoes thing was stupid.


----------



## CuBeOrDiE (Jul 12, 2009)

that's the point


----------



## qqwref (Jul 12, 2009)

To ironically prove that you're a genious?


----------



## CuBeOrDiE (Jul 21, 2009)

Does anyone else have anything to say about my method?


----------



## 4Chan (Jul 21, 2009)

qqwref said:


> To ironically prove that you're a genious?



I think that this is a doubly ironic statement, because, michael is referencing the way he mis-spelled "genius" in his previous thread, right? o:


----------



## JLarsen (Jul 21, 2009)

CuBeOrDiE said:


> Sn3kyPandaMan said:
> 
> 
> > Honestly I think this is just another one of those half ways between Fridrich and Petrus. Much like zz. I don't like it because I dislike everything about Fridrich, and I mean everything. So for me, I'm never going to like it. I like Petrus because it's a challenge, it's creative, and most of all, it's FUN.
> ...


I'll buy that you have to make at least one CE pair. You can call it an f2l pair I really don't care. Now, to address some of your points....

The step 4/fridrich comparison- It really is not the same as inserting an f2l pair. For some reason people don't seem to remember that step 4a does not only make f2l pairs, but pairs common with the DR edge as well, not just the f2l edges.....

Your method being like zz- It isn't really a method completely based on it's own concept and merely blends ideas from other methods.

Lots of methods are related to petrus and fridrich- Name one

I like potatoes- Yeah. Me too.

PS- I'm not attacking you or your method just so you know. Text doesn't really show that and I felt the need to clarify.


----------



## Lucas Garron (Jul 21, 2009)

Sn3kyPandaMan said:


> I'll buy that you have to make at least one CE pair. You can call it an f2l pair I really don't care.


Don't buy. I've got an MGLS-P here, ready to trigger.


----------



## CuBeOrDiE (Jul 31, 2009)

Sn3kyPandaMan said:


> CuBeOrDiE said:
> 
> 
> > Sn3kyPandaMan said:
> ...



-You've got a point for step 4, but many speedcubers don't solve that way(at least I don't)

-My method DOES blend different ideas...I was simply taking parts of methods I like and tweaking them to my style(no cube rotations, not much block building, not many f2l pairs...)

-I meant that the CONCEPTS behind Fridrich and Petrus-cross, f2l pairs, block building, and edge orientation are used in many methods; Roux(sort of), begginers method, key hole, x-cross, ZZ...

-Glad someone else likes potatoes. 1 question-do you also like olives?



I know this method isn't the best, but out of 10, how many stars would you rate it? just wondering. thnx


----------



## spdcbr (Jul 31, 2009)

Dude, use your own "method" if it works for you, but, the people that you are calling "haters" are right. Basically petrus in a less efficient way. I hope I wasn't added to your list of "haters."


----------



## CuBeOrDiE (Jul 31, 2009)

It is less efficient at FM but it isn't worse for speed. Remember it is supposed to be SIMPLER than Petrus. But I respect your view point and don't consider you a hater. Out of 10 stars, how many would you give my method for SPEED?


----------



## xXdaveXsuperstarXx (Jul 31, 2009)

Okay, I just skipped reading the other 2 pages because they're very repetitive. I think that instead of ranting and raving about what you like (mostly don't like) about the method. Instead, why don't you figure how you can improve the method. That's what I think .


----------



## CuBeOrDiE (Jul 31, 2009)

xXdaveXsuperstarXx said:


> Okay, I just skipped reading the other 2 pages because they're very repetitive. I think that instead of ranting and raving about what you like (mostly don't like) about the method. Instead, why don't you figure how you can improve the method. That's what I think .



Here's an idea: solve a 1x1x3 line, than by using R , r , U , and u moves, get a 1x2x3 rectangle in the bottom left of the left layer. Then, solve the 2x2x3 bloc, leaving out an edge, and solve f2l by using R , r , and U moves. Afterwards, solve that edge and orient top layer edges. Finish off with OLL-PLL. This way you solve the cube without a single re-grip or cube rotation, and only 28 algs must be memorized. What do you think?


----------



## xXdaveXsuperstarXx (Jul 31, 2009)

Wasn't that the original method :fp?


----------



## CuBeOrDiE (Jul 31, 2009)

nope. in the original method i don't leave out that edge. any suggestions for improvement?


----------



## CuBeOrDiE (Jul 31, 2009)

of my method

PS how do you do that face thing?


----------



## xXdaveXsuperstarXx (Jul 31, 2009)

Well, it would be fast to put the edge in and solve the entire OLL that would make up for the moves and speed you lost on the last have of the 1x2x3 block. But that's 57 algorithms. So you would have to learn that for your method.

P.S. Click on those pictures to the right and it will post a code that shows that picture. You can't post pictures when you edit.


----------



## CuBeOrDiE (Jul 31, 2009)

OK idea but 57 algs is WAY to much for me. LOL


----------



## xXdaveXsuperstarXx (Jul 31, 2009)

Learn 1 algorithm every 3 days. That's how I learned fridrich!


----------



## CuBeOrDiE (Jul 31, 2009)

any more ideas?


----------



## xXdaveXsuperstarXx (Jul 31, 2009)

How many algorithms are you willing to learn?


----------



## CuBeOrDiE (Jul 31, 2009)

xXdaveXsuperstarXx said:


> Learn 1 algorithm every 3 days. That's how I learned fridrich!



nahr I'm just to lazy-28 algs is enough for me...plus that horrible 4x4 parity...


----------



## CuBeOrDiE (Jul 31, 2009)

xXdaveXsuperstarXx said:


> How many algorithms are you willing to learn?



50 max...I'm concidering COLL...

Oh and do you live in ontario?


----------



## daeyoungyoon (Jul 31, 2009)

CuBeOrDiE said:


> It is less efficient at FM *but it isn't worse for speed*. Remember it is supposed to be SIMPLER than Petrus. But I respect your view point and don't consider you a hater. Out of 10 stars, how many would you give my method for SPEED?



Petrus is a speedsolving method if you didn't know. And I fail to see how this method would be faster than Petrus.


----------



## CuBeOrDiE (Jul 31, 2009)

no edge orientation, simpler, no block building, one cube rotation max


----------



## CuBeOrDiE (Jul 31, 2009)

but don't forget my method is sort of like petrus...

-and I know this is random, but I just did 3 solves and two of them were 25.64 seconds NO JOKE!


----------



## JLarsen (Jul 31, 2009)

daeyoungyoon said:


> CuBeOrDiE said:
> 
> 
> > It is less efficient at FM *but it isn't worse for speed*. Remember it is supposed to be SIMPLER than Petrus. But I respect your view point and don't consider you a hater. Out of 10 stars, how many would you give my method for SPEED?
> ...



It isn't.

Anyway. I'll give Petrus a 9/10 for speed, and based on that I'll give this a 6 or 7. Basically the lack of efficiency makes its potential very low. Now if it was simpler, and only slightly less efficient (like ZZ /Fridrich compared to Roux/Petrus), than I would think more of the method. 

I think this method would have more potential if you fixed bad edges after making your 2x2x3, and then solved the rest Petrus style. Than I would give this method a 7 or 8. Then maybe once you got comfortable making a 2x2x3 without simplifying it, you could just move on to pure Petrus, orrrrrrr ZZ. Actually I highly recommend ZZ to you since you like making a 2x2x3 but you don't like pure block building.


----------



## jms_gears1 (Jul 31, 2009)

daeyoungyoon said:


> Petrus is a speedsolving method if you didn't know. And I fail to see how this method would be faster than Petrus.



Ok enough of these posts about how its not better than this or that. At least the kids idea was halfway original versus everyone elses "original methods".

Everyone here who has hated on COD, i think its fair to say, uses a block style method. This method is a simplified Block building method and could get others into Block building easily.

So stop with the put downs-ish comments and maybe help with constructive comments?

P.S. sorry daey not an attack on you just your post was the latest..


----------



## JLarsen (Jul 31, 2009)

Look above you. I thought I did a very nice job. =]


----------



## xXdaveXsuperstarXx (Jul 31, 2009)

Hey! He could keep his method and call it. A beginners block building method. It makes for an easy transition into petrus.


----------



## CuBeOrDiE (Jul 31, 2009)

jms_gears1 said:


> daeyoungyoon said:
> 
> 
> > Petrus is a speedsolving method if you didn't know. And I fail to see how this method would be faster than Petrus.
> ...



Thanks man LURV this comment! You've definately hit the nail on the head. This method is simpler and AlMOST as fast as petrus(in my case, faster)


----------



## CuBeOrDiE (Jul 31, 2009)

Let's have a poll:who's for calling this method''A beginners block building method'' say I!

edit:nobody?


----------



## xXdaveXsuperstarXx (Jul 31, 2009)

Actually, that's not a bad idea . I!


----------



## jms_gears1 (Jul 31, 2009)

Sn3kyPandaMan said:


> Look above you. I thought I did a very nice job. =]


yea i was about to post and say LIKE THIS. xP


CuBeOrDiE said:


> jms_gears1 said:
> 
> 
> > daeyoungyoon said:
> ...


lol yea no problem, im tired of seeing the bashings people get on the forums. Its pointless and 99% of the people wouldnt dream of doing it in thier face. To be honest i think that no matter how stupid someones idea is (not implying yours is i like it), instead of thrashing them with words (sounded cooler then bashing), we should say things more along the lines of, "This Is basically just fridrich disquised as roux" or something..


----------



## CuBeOrDiE (Jul 31, 2009)

thnxs!  

-message was to short so im writing this


----------



## jms_gears1 (Jul 31, 2009)

CuBeOrDiE said:


> Let's have a poll:who's for calling this method''A beginners block building method'' say I!
> 
> edit:nobody?



Nobody? I!!!


----------



## CuBeOrDiE (Jul 31, 2009)

any more I's?


----------



## CuBeOrDiE (Jul 31, 2009)

2 more and i'm changing it


----------



## xXdaveXsuperstarXx (Jul 31, 2009)

Just post the poll.


----------



## jms_gears1 (Jul 31, 2009)

CuBeOrDiE said:


> any more I's?



sorry i need my other one


----------



## CuBeOrDiE (Jul 31, 2009)

xXdaveXsuperstarXx said:


> Just post the poll.



how
-message was to short so im writing this


----------



## jms_gears1 (Jul 31, 2009)

CuBeOrDiE said:


> 2 more and i'm changing it



i think sn3ky panda agrees to so thats an I (sory if im overstepping my boundaries)

and change it anyway call a spade a spade.


----------



## CuBeOrDiE (Jul 31, 2009)

OK one more I'll do tha trick!


----------



## jms_gears1 (Jul 31, 2009)

ill give you daves other I? he doesnt need it anyway


----------



## CuBeOrDiE (Jul 31, 2009)

DONE CHANGING NAME two questions:

-now how many stars do you give this method(based on its name)?

-can't this concept be used for FM in some cases?

P.S. are you guys gonna consider this as my method?

PLZ RESPOND!!


----------



## CuBeOrDiE (Jul 31, 2009)

has everyone left this thread?


----------



## xXdaveXsuperstarXx (Jul 31, 2009)

How would I rate the name "beginners block building method" 10/10! That name goes perfectly! It's not total crap. It makes for good transition into petrus or roux. It's also pretty simple. As for FM, sorry, but I don't think it will cut it.


----------



## CuBeOrDiE (Jul 31, 2009)

awwcan't it cut it if you've already got a 1x1x3 line solved

and are you concidering it as my method


----------



## CuBeOrDiE (Aug 1, 2009)

Oh, and I can get a 28 move f2l half the time. Is that bed for FM?


----------



## Faz (Aug 1, 2009)

Yes. 10char


----------



## CuBeOrDiE (Aug 1, 2009)

whats a good f2l for FM then?

and is this good for a OH begginers method


----------



## Faz (Aug 1, 2009)

#1 Petrus/blockbuilding is good for F2L - sub 20 moves.

#2 Errr... idk. Try it out.


----------



## CuBeOrDiE (Aug 1, 2009)

I just tried Petrus..took me 33 moves...


----------



## Faz (Aug 1, 2009)

Thats because you have never tried FMC with petrus before.


----------



## xXdaveXsuperstarXx (Aug 1, 2009)

An Experienced FMC Petrus use could easily get sub 30 for moves.


----------



## jms_gears1 (Aug 1, 2009)

sorry went to eat etc. umm i think its not crap for FMC. Its also a good beginners FMC method because if they are into fmc as well as blockbuilding then this is a perfect transition method.

COD you should be proud i think you just created the worlds first Beginners blockbuilding method xD (that i know of although i can surely say that your not the first in all actuality lol)

Anyone who takes enough time could get sub-30, no offense just look at the cube and dont go with your first guess.


----------



## xXdaveXsuperstarXx (Aug 1, 2009)

Well, it is a good beginners FMC method I will say. But I'm just saying that it's not world class.


----------



## CuBeOrDiE (Aug 1, 2009)

thats ok...this method wasn't intended to be world class. I'm still going to use it for speed and FM though. Someday I'll learn to use Petrus for FM. Glad to hear I'm the first to have made a begginer's block building method!


----------



## CuBeOrDiE (Aug 1, 2009)

anyway...how many moves should my 2x2x3 take?plz respond ima gonna go soon


----------



## CuBeOrDiE (Aug 1, 2009)

5 more minutes...


----------



## CuBeOrDiE (Aug 1, 2009)

2 more minutes...plz respond


----------



## xXdaveXsuperstarXx (Aug 1, 2009)

How moves should your 2x2x3 take? Well, below 20 would be ideal.


----------



## CuBeOrDiE (Aug 1, 2009)

it takes me 14 or 15 on average using my method


----------



## CuBeOrDiE (Aug 1, 2009)

how many for Petrus FM?


----------



## xXdaveXsuperstarXx (Aug 1, 2009)

Wait, no, 20 moves for entire F2L.. Not just the 2x2x3 block. I was mixed up. But below 11 would be your ultimate goal.


----------



## JLarsen (Aug 1, 2009)

CuBeOrDiE said:


> how many for Petrus FM?



Less than 10. Be more patient with responses please.

Edit: Thats 2x2x3 btw

This method is horrible for FMC btw.


----------



## CuBeOrDiE (Aug 1, 2009)

all right...4 moves away...not SO bad for a begginer method...I'll work o on sub 12 for petrus then

Its not that horrible...not worse than fridrich at least


----------



## JLarsen (Aug 1, 2009)

Yeah a beginner's method is not good by any means for FMC. None are. Actually not good for speedsolving either.

My advice to you: Do your simplified block building and ignore bad edges right now, but if you plan on getting anywhere learn full petrus eventually, or Roux, or even Fridrich. Good Petrus resource in my sig. =]


----------



## CuBeOrDiE (Aug 1, 2009)

begginner BLOCK building, not begginer


----------



## CuBeOrDiE (Aug 1, 2009)

anyway, I currently average 16 to 17 second f2l and 28 to 30 moves for f2l using my method...nothing world class but it aint horrible

and I know fridrich, and it takes me 16 to 17 seconds for f2l as well

PS ive only been speedcubing for a year


----------



## CuBeOrDiE (Aug 1, 2009)

gotta go bie


----------



## xXdaveXsuperstarXx (Aug 1, 2009)

@sn3kypandaman

His method isn't supposed to be really good for speed solving or FMC. It's so to speak a runner-up method for more advanced block building methods such as petrus.


----------



## JLarsen (Aug 1, 2009)

Well he thinks it's just as good as other methods and doesn't see why it isn't.


----------



## xXdaveXsuperstarXx (Aug 1, 2009)

We agreed that it is now classified as a beginners block building method. Posts before that should be disregarded.


----------



## JLarsen (Aug 1, 2009)

I just found it necessary to let him know that a beginner's method has limitations.


----------



## xXdaveXsuperstarXx (Aug 1, 2009)

Didn't I already state that?


----------



## jms_gears1 (Aug 1, 2009)

i have a stastistical question, so please leave opinions out of it.

Which on average takes less moves roux or petrus?


----------



## JLarsen (Aug 1, 2009)

jms_gears1 said:


> i have a stastistical question, so please leave opinions out of it.
> 
> Which on average takes less moves roux or petrus?



Someone call Johannes.


----------



## xXdaveXsuperstarXx (Aug 1, 2009)

Petrus on average takes less moves then Roux. Depending on how you do the last layer of Petrus can change that though. But Full Petrus uses fewer moves then Roux.


----------



## Paul Wagner (Aug 1, 2009)

We should call this amazing method Petlessefficientrus.


----------



## miniGOINGS (Aug 1, 2009)

xXdaveXsuperstarXx said:


> Petrus on average takes less moves then Roux. Depending on how you do the last layer of Petrus can change that though. But Full Petrus uses fewer moves then Roux.



I really think it depends on the solver though.


----------



## JLarsen (Aug 1, 2009)

miniGOINGS said:


> xXdaveXsuperstarXx said:
> 
> 
> > Petrus on average takes less moves then Roux. Depending on how you do the last layer of Petrus can change that though. But Full Petrus uses fewer moves then Roux.
> ...



Agreed. I think they're about the same but someone who can actually speak on this with any real basis would be Johannes. He can tell you for sure as he does optimal blockbuilding analysis quite often.


----------



## miniGOINGS (Aug 1, 2009)

Sn3kyPandaMan said:


> Agreed. I think they're about the same but someone who can actually speak on this with any real basis would be Johannes. He can tell you for sure as he does optimal blockbuilding analysis quite often.



Then what are we waiting for? But blockbuilding is comprised of:
1. Look ahead
2. Optimization
3. Turning speed
and many more. Just because one method is more efficient doesn't mean it will be faster and better for someone. That's just my 2 cents worth though.


----------



## JLarsen (Aug 1, 2009)

miniGOINGS said:


> Sn3kyPandaMan said:
> 
> 
> > Agreed. I think they're about the same but someone who can actually speak on this with any real basis would be Johannes. He can tell you for sure as he does optimal blockbuilding analysis quite often.
> ...



I completely agree but I wasn't looking at the relevance of the question, rather the content.


----------



## miniGOINGS (Aug 1, 2009)

Sn3kyPandaMan said:


> I completely agree but I wasn't looking at the relevance of the question, rather the content.



Ok, so Johannes it is.


----------



## joey (Aug 1, 2009)

This isn't block building.. nor is it beginners block building.

Petrus *can* be learned as a beginners method.

I also really dislike the face CubeOrDie does double/triple posts. Especially dumb ones like "5mins before I go", "2mins now". Please, sort it out.


----------



## edd5190 (Aug 1, 2009)

CuBeOrDiE said:


> any more I's?





CuBeOrDiE said:


> has everyone left this thread?





CuBeOrDiE said:


> 5 more minutes...





CuBeOrDiE said:


> 2 more minutes...plz respond





CuBeOrDiE said:


> Does anyone else have anything to say about my method?





CuBeOrDiE said:


> any more ideas?




People will respond because they want to, not because someone spams requests to respond. There's also a button that lets you edit your posts that eliminates the need to make new posts. It's the one that says "EDIT" on it.



CuBeOrDiE said:


> no edge orientation, simpler,* no block building*, one cube rotation max



I thought you called it a beginners' block building method? Also, none of the stated "advantages" are really advantages, except for the 'one cube rotation max,' which I don't believe. No edge orientation means 57 OLLs. Or, even if you insert the edge and orient last layer edges simultaneously, it's still "only" 28 algorithms according to you (7 OLL's and 21 PLL's?), which you seem to believe is an advantage over only needing 7 OLL's with edge orientation. Even then, you'd need to learn the algorithms for inserting the last edge and orienting last layer edges. I also doubt that you could do this with only 1 cube rotation during the entire F2L.



CuBeOrDiE said:


> Here's an idea: solve a 1x1x3 line, than by using R , r , U , and u moves, get a 1x2x3 rectangle in the bottom left of the left layer. Then, solve the 2x2x3 bloc, leaving out an edge, and solve f2l by using R , r , and U moves. Afterwards, solve that edge and orient top layer edges. Finish off with OLL-PLL. This way you solve the cube without a single re-grip or cube rotation, and only 28 algs must be memorized. What do you think?



That isn't efficient for fewest moves OR speed, even without the cube rotations. Solving _with_ Cube rotations would be faster than without cube rotations. Also, I'm not sure whether you still believe that your method really is block building, considering your inconsistency in describing your method, but for sure it's hardly block building. The only block building is building the 1x1x3 line. Then you're just inserting the edges, just like you'd insert the F2L pairs in Fridrich.



CuBeOrDiE said:


> Remember it is supposed to be SIMPLER than Petrus.


You're right, "building a 1x1x3 line then inserting the edges to expand to a 2x2x3, solving the rest of the F2L without 1 edge, then inserting that edge and orienting last layer edges simultaneously, then PLL" is much simpler than "2x2, 2x2x3, orient edges, finish F2L, OLL, then PLL."

Alright. I admit, I worded it to favor Petrus, but I do believe that Petrus is much simpler than this. The way CubeorDie worded it, He's solving in a very 'brute force' manner, with moves restricted to RrUu, which is much less simple than building blocks.



CuBeOrDiE said:


> This method is simpler and AlMOST as fast as petrus(in my case, faster)



I think you can solve with your own method faster because you're too arrogant to actually try hard with Petrus.



xXdaveXsuperstarXx said:


> It makes for an easy transition into petrus.



I hardly think so. Like I said, the way Cubeordie describes it is very far away block building.

Anyway, I think that the method isn't all that great and that layer-by-layer can be considered closer to block building than this, and has more potential than cubeordie's method. Sorry to discourage you, it's just not that good of an idea.


----------



## jms_gears1 (Aug 1, 2009)

Believe it or not it is a block building method. Block building is really the only way to solve the cube. Fridrich is even considered block building technically. just more step oriented. This method is more intuitive then lbl. I think that it works.


----------



## Johannes91 (Aug 1, 2009)

jms_gears1 said:


> Which on average takes less moves roux or petrus?


Roux
Step 1: 5.1
Step 2: 10.0
Step 3: 9?
Step 4: 11.1
Total: ~35

Petrus
Step 1: 4.9
Step 2+3: 8.5
Step 4: 10.0
ZBLL: 12.6
Total: ~36

These just a quick approximation and the numbers aren't really comparable; S2 and S4 in Roux are STM and everything else is FTM, ZBLL might be harder than optimal Roux S4, etc.. But it shows that both methods have enough potential that nobody will ever reach the "limit" and the differences between individual cubers is much bigger than the methods.



xXdaveXsuperstarXx said:


> Full Petrus uses fewer moves then Roux.


Actually, it's a well known secret that Triangular Francisco Method and KALTCHENKO METHOD are even more efficient.



jms_gears1 said:


> Block building is really the only way to solve the cube. Fridrich is even considered block building technically. just more step oriented.


...


----------



## CuBeOrDiE (Aug 1, 2009)

edd5190 said:


> CuBeOrDiE said:
> 
> 
> > any more I's?
> ...






CuBeOrDiE;I get the idea[/QUOTE said:


> CuBeOrDiE said:
> 
> 
> > no edge orientation, simpler,* no block building*, one cube rotation max


I thought you called it a beginners' block building method? Also, none of the stated "advantages" are really advantages, except for the 'one cube rotation max,' which I don't believe. No edge orientation means 57 OLLs. Or, even if you insert the edge and orient last layer edges simultaneously, it's still "only" 28 algorithms according to you (7 OLL's and 21 PLL's?), which you seem to believe is an advantage over only needing 7 OLL's with edge orientation. Even then, you'd need to learn the algorithms for inserting the last edge and orienting last layer edges. I also doubt that you could do this with only 1 cube rotation during the entire F2L.[/QUOTE]

You can easily avoid cube rotations during the building of your 2x2x3, and one cube rotation is all you need to solve the rest. No edge orientation doesnt mean 57 OLL's. You can use two-look, and only nine OLL's are needed. It might take six more moves, but it takes that many to orient edges BEFORE finishing f2l usually. also, sometimes, intuitive moves aren't that great for speed. If you think only 2 or 3 algs are gonna cut it YOURE WRONG. And it is possible to insert the last c/e pair (not edge)and get your edges oriented. It can be done without memorizing algs.



CuBeOrDiE said:


> Here's an idea: solve a 1x1x3 line, than by using R , r , U , and u moves, get a 1x2x3 rectangle in the bottom left of the left layer. Then, solve the 2x2x3 bloc, leaving out an edge, and solve f2l by using R , r , and U moves. Afterwards, solve that edge and orient top layer edges. Finish off with OLL-PLL. This way you solve the cube without a single re-grip or cube rotation, and only 28 algs must be memorized. What do you think?



[/QUOTE]That isn't efficient for fewest moves OR speed, even without the cube rotations. Solving _with_ Cube rotations would be faster than without cube rotations. Also, I'm not sure whether you still believe that your method really is block building, considering your inconsistency in describing your method, but for sure it's hardly block building. The only block building is building the 1x1x3 line. Then you're just inserting the edges, just like you'd insert the F2L pairs in Fridrich.[/QUOTE]


Its not efficient for FM, but this method isn't so much a FM method as an intro to block building and FM in general(gotta clarify that.)And my method IS block building. Inserting edges CREATES blocks, and the last two steps are a 1x2x2 bloc and an f2l pair, not an edge with two f2l pairs.And, really, even f2l pairs is block building



CuBeOrDiE said:


> Remember it is supposed to be SIMPLER than Petrus.


[/QUOTE]You're right, "building a 1x1x3 line then inserting the edges to expand to a 2x2x3, solving the rest of the F2L without 1 edge, then inserting that edge and orienting last layer edges simultaneously, then PLL" is much simpler than "2x2, 2x2x3, orient edges, finish F2L, OLL, then PLL."

Alright. I admit, I worded it to favor Petrus, but I do believe that Petrus is much simpler than this. The way CubeorDie worded it, He's solving in a very 'brute force' manner, with moves restricted to RrUu, which is much less simple than building blocks.[/QUOTE]

not quite...bloc building requires more consentration then edge insertion. You probably just aren't used to this, since the only official method that comes close to mine is keyhole. Edge insertion is simpler because you don't have acorner that must be correctly placed.



CuBeOrDiE said:


> This method is simpler and AlMOST as fast as petrus(in my case, faster)



[/QUOTE]I think you can solve with your own method faster because you're too arrogant to actually try hard with Petrus.[/QUOTE]

NO! I've tried petrus for over a two months and my method for only a month.PLz stop hating



xXdaveXsuperstarXx said:


> It makes for an easy transition into petrus.



[/QUOTE]I hardly think so. Like I said, the way Cubeordie describes it is very far away block building.[/Q

Anyway, I think that the method isn't all that great and that layer-by-layer can be considered closer to block building than this, and has more potential than cubeordie's method. Sorry to discourage you, it's just not that good of an idea.[/QUOTE]

Layer methods take WAY to much time and are really difficult. Edge insertion is simple, if you work on it for a few days.And this idea not being good is an oppinion,not a fact.And this method is still kinda block building, just condensed and simplified for BEGGINER BLOCK BZUILDERS




Hope I covered some of your concerns if you have any more plz comment again.


----------



## CuBeOrDiE (Aug 1, 2009)

CuBeOrDiE said:


> no edge orientation, simpler,* no block building*, one cube rotation max



[/QUOTE]I thought you called it a beginners' block building method? Also, none of the stated "advantages" are really advantages, except for the 'one cube rotation max,' which I don't believe. No edge orientation means 57 OLLs. Or, even if you insert the edge and orient last layer edges simultaneously, it's still "only" 28 algorithms according to you (7 OLL's and 21 PLL's?), which you seem to believe is an advantage over only needing 7 OLL's with edge orientation. Even then, you'd need to learn the algorithms for inserting the last edge and orienting last layer edges. I also doubt that you could do this with only 1 cube rotation during the entire F2L.[/QUOTE]

You can easily avoid cube rotations during the building of your 2x2x3, and one cube rotation is all you need to solve the rest. No edge orientation doesnt mean 57 OLL's. You can use two-look, and only nine OLL's are needed. It might take six more moves, but it takes that many to orient edges BEFORE finishing f2l usually. also, sometimes, intuitive moves aren't that great for speed. If you think only 2 or 3 algs are gonna cut it YOURE WRONG. And it is possible to insert the last c/e pair (not edge)and get your edges oriented. It can be done without memorizing algs.



CuBeOrDiE said:


> Here's an idea: solve a 1x1x3 line, than by using R , r , U , and u moves, get a 1x2x3 rectangle in the bottom left of the left layer. Then, solve the 2x2x3 bloc, leaving out an edge, and solve f2l by using R , r , and U moves. Afterwards, solve that edge and orient top layer edges. Finish off with OLL-PLL. This way you solve the cube without a single re-grip or cube rotation, and only 28 algs must be memorized. What do you think?



[/QUOTE]That isn't efficient for fewest moves OR speed, even without the cube rotations. Solving _with_ Cube rotations would be faster than without cube rotations. Also, I'm not sure whether you still believe that your method really is block building, considering your inconsistency in describing your method, but for sure it's hardly block building. The only block building is building the 1x1x3 line. Then you're just inserting the edges, just like you'd insert the F2L pairs in Fridrich.[/QUOTE]


Its not efficient for FM, but this method isn't so much a FM method as an intro to block building and FM in general(gotta clarify that.)And my method IS block building. Inserting edges CREATES blocks, and the last two steps are a 1x2x2 bloc and an f2l pair, not an edge with two f2l pairs.And, really, even f2l pairs is block building



CuBeOrDiE said:


> Remember it is supposed to be SIMPLER than Petrus.


[/QUOTE]You're right, "building a 1x1x3 line then inserting the edges to expand to a 2x2x3, solving the rest of the F2L without 1 edge, then inserting that edge and orienting last layer edges simultaneously, then PLL" is much simpler than "2x2, 2x2x3, orient edges, finish F2L, OLL, then PLL."

Alright. I admit, I worded it to favor Petrus, but I do believe that Petrus is much simpler than this. The way CubeorDie worded it, He's solving in a very 'brute force' manner, with moves restricted to RrUu, which is much less simple than building blocks.[/QUOTE]

not quite...bloc building requires more consentration then edge insertion. You probably just aren't used to this, since the only official method that comes close to mine is keyhole. Edge insertion is simpler because you don't have acorner that must be correctly placed.



CuBeOrDiE said:


> This method is simpler and AlMOST as fast as petrus(in my case, faster)



[/QUOTE]I think you can solve with your own method faster because you're too arrogant to actually try hard with Petrus.[/QUOTE]

NO! I've tried petrus for over a two months and my method for only a month.PLz stop hating



xXdaveXsuperstarXx said:


> It makes for an easy transition into petrus.



[/QUOTE]I hardly think so. Like I said, the way Cubeordie describes it is very far away block building.[/Q

Anyway, I think that the method isn't all that great and that layer-by-layer can be considered closer to block building than this, and has more potential than cubeordie's method. Sorry to discourage you, it's just not that good of an idea.[/QUOTE]

Layer methods take WAY to much time and are really difficult to speedsolve with. Edge insertion is simple, if you work on it for a few days.And this idea not being good is an oppinion,not a fact.And this method is still kinda block building, just condensed and simplified for BEGGINER BLOCK BUILDERS




Hope I covered some of your concerns if you have any more plz comment again.


----------



## CuBeOrDiE (Aug 1, 2009)

Sn3kyPandaMan said:


> I just found it necessary to let him know that a beginner's method has limitations.



Begginer methods have limitations, but for that matter, so do all methods. For example, Petrus has limitations on time because of all the complex 1x2x2 block building and a not to great LL method. Not meaning to offend, just saying.


----------



## blade740 (Aug 1, 2009)

Please. PLEASE. Stop posting after yourself. This topic would be half as many pages if you would just edit your last post if you want to add something.


----------



## miniGOINGS (Aug 1, 2009)

I believe less than half actually.


----------



## MTGjumper (Aug 1, 2009)

CuBeOrDiE said:


> PS ive only been speedcubing for a year




Hey, Feliks and Rowan, how long have you been cubing? For what it's worth, I've been cubing a year and a half.

In addition to the other complaints (double/triple posting, prompting others to post etc) please use quote boxes properly


----------



## Zaxef (Aug 1, 2009)

Can we stop bumping this flame war please
Let the kid use his method if he wants to
This isn't any different than just accepting that people use ZZ/Roux/Petrus..
His method might not be the "best" to your standards and it may just take from other methods, but I think it takes good understanding of methods and the cube to "fuse" two or more methods together like that and create your own way of solving the cube.

So just leave the kid be


----------



## Zaxef (Aug 1, 2009)

CuBeOrDiE said:


> For my first month of cubing, I was using a broken cube that would pop every other turn, and there was one month were I didn't cube, so I've actually only been cubing for 10 months. And how do you use quotes correctly?



By making sure every [ quote ] tag has a [ /quote ] tag that matches with it..


UHM... How the hell did I quote the post BELOW me?!? LOL


----------



## CuBeOrDiE (Aug 1, 2009)

MTGjumper said:


> CuBeOrDiE said:
> 
> 
> > PS ive only been speedcubing for a year
> ...




For my first month of cubing, I was using a broken cube that would pop every other turn, and there was one month were I didn't cube, so I've actually only been cubing for 10 months. And how do you use quotes correctly?


----------



## Escher (Aug 1, 2009)

MTGjumper said:


> CuBeOrDiE said:
> 
> 
> > PS ive only been speedcubing for a year
> ...



I've been cubing since may last year, so 1 year and 3 months. After a year of cubing I think I had a sub 14 avg of 12 PB. Current PB is 11.71.
Not that it matters. 
Yu Nakajima had been cubing for about a year when he won Worlds, hadn't he?


----------



## CuBeOrDiE (Aug 1, 2009)

Escher said:


> MTGjumper said:
> 
> 
> > CuBeOrDiE said:
> ...



No idea. At least I try though...

New PB average of 5-24.4 seconds woot!


----------



## Zaxef (Aug 1, 2009)

7 months here and 23.59 PB Avg of 12
23.02 of 5

P.s: CuBeOrDiE... Your sig is hella lame


----------



## CuBeOrDiE (Aug 1, 2009)

how come plz give sugg on improvement

just out of curiousity, how long does you LL take you?


----------



## Zaxef (Aug 1, 2009)

CuBeOrDiE said:


> how come plz give sugg on improvement
> 
> just out of curiousity, how long does you LL take you?



It involves Religion and therefore I don't think it's a great thing to have in a signature.. Make it whatever you want idc, I was just saying..

My last layer takes.. uhm.. hmm..
Not sure actually, I haven't timed my Fridrich substeps in a while, but I'm guessing around 7 or 8 seconds

Cross.. 2-5
F2L.. 13-15?
LL.. 6-8

= 21-28
Sounds about right idk.. I get a lot of 21's in solves when my F2L is blazing fast.. and I get over 25 when I have to use 2 look OLL (32/57 OLL's)


----------



## edd5190 (Aug 2, 2009)

jms_gears1 said:


> Believe it or not it is a block building method. Block building is really the only way to solve the cube. Fridrich is even considered block building technically. just more step oriented.



You might as well call any method 'block building' because you're solving a 3x3x3 block.




CuBeOrDiE said:


> No edge orientation doesnt mean 57 OLL's. You can use two-look, and only nine OLL's are needed.


This was my mistake. No edge orientation means either 57 OLL's or two look. However, with edge orientation, you can avoid both.




CuBeOrDiE said:


> It might take six more moves, but it takes that many to orient edges BEFORE finishing f2l usually.


You forgot about the case where 4 edges are incorrectly oriented, but I'm not so sure whether it makes so much of a difference. However, edge orientation simplifies F2L, making it easier to solve.



CuBeOrDiE said:


> If you think only 2 or 3 algs are gonna cut it YOURE WRONG.



I'm not sure what you meant when you said this, can you clarify?




CuBeOrDiE said:


> Its not efficient for FM, but this method isn't so much a FM method as an intro to block building and FM in general(gotta clarify that.)


I don't understand how a method that you admit is not efficient for fewest moves can be an introduction to fewest moves. Also, this is not an intro to block building. The end result of one of your steps being a 2x2x3 block doesn't make it block building. You're just inserting the edges, which is much less efficient than intuitively building the 2x2x3 block. I'll say it again, your method's not block building.



CuBeOrDiE said:


> not quite...bloc building requires more consentration then edge insertion.


I think connecting pieces that have the same color doesn't require that much concentration.



CuBeOrDiE said:


> Edge insertion is simpler because you don't have acorner that must be correctly placed.


What? I don't understand what you meant to say.




CuBeOrDiE said:


> NO! I've tried petrus for over a two months and my method for only a month.PLz stop hating


Were you really trying hard with Petrus? Also, you said you've tried petrus for "over a two months." Is that _a_ month or _two_ months? I wasn't hating you or your method, I think you're just overreacting. You seem to think that everyone who criticizes your method is a hater. They're just truthfully saying that your method isn't that good. I was doing the same. You seem arrogant though, and I do hate arrogance.





CuBeOrDiE said:


> And this method is still kinda block building, just condensed and simplified for BEGGINER BLOCK BZUILDERS


It's not a beginners' block building method because it's not block building. It doesn't make a transition into block building easier, either.




CuBeOrDiE said:


> For my first month of cubing, I was using a broken cube that would pop every other turn, and there was one month were I didn't cube, so I've actually only been cubing for 10 months.


Err, was that an excuse made just not to look unimpressive to Zaxef? It didn't help.


----------



## CuBeOrDiE (Aug 2, 2009)

edd5190 said:


> jms_gears1 said:
> 
> 
> > Believe it or not it is a block building method. Block building is really the only way to solve the cube. Fridrich is even considered block building technically. just more step oriented.
> ...





-Two or three algs are not enough for speedcubing since it's impossible to have an efficient solve with so little algs...unless you have an over-average intelligence and can solve the LL intuitevly or something. You could argue this, but that's my oppinion.

-I don't mean to be arrogant, it's just hard to prove that my method isn't crap without doing so. I don't have anything against you or whatever, it's just that I was writing fast and didn't try to elaborate to much...sorry 'bout that.

-My method is an intro to FM since it introduces some freestyle and a little block building. Please note that it is pointless to learn if you already know Petrus, but if you are a Fridrich user it can introduce you to FM. And this method IS, in a sence block building, just in a unique form.

-Using this or other methods really depends on your style. Personally, I don't like Fridrich(no offense, but I think its to brute-forceish), and I suck at building 1x2x2 blocks quickly, so a came up with ''the begginer's block building method,'' because I like block building but can't do it quickly, and so need a ''begginer'' block building approach. Petrus just isn't for me. If you don't want to use this, you don't have to 

-Any more things to say? I would be glad to hear them.Thnxs for giving me a constructive response.


----------



## JLarsen (Aug 2, 2009)

I just think you should stop arguing that your method isn't crap, and believe whatever you want to believe, despite the opinions of those who have double, triple, and quadruple the experience you have.


----------



## CuBeOrDiE (Aug 2, 2009)

I have to maintain disputes about my method, or it will go into decay, right?


----------



## joey (Aug 2, 2009)

Right.. But it's obvious, or so far at least. That no-one else wants to use your method or think that it's worthwhile.

By all means, have a tutorial on your YouTube and use the method yourself though.


----------



## CuBeOrDiE (Aug 2, 2009)

you never know...ill be optimistic and see what happens


----------



## CuBeOrDiE (Aug 2, 2009)

Oh, and trying to prove this method isn't crap is a great motivation for me


----------



## joey (Aug 2, 2009)

Please.. STOP posting double posts.


----------



## miniGOINGS (Aug 2, 2009)

joey said:


> Please.. STOP posting double posts.



You forgot triple...and quadruple...and quintuple...and how about single too?


----------



## JLarsen (Aug 2, 2009)

Yeah you need to stop the double posting so much. And as joey said. By all means use this method yourself. I'm done arguing my oh so valid points.


----------



## CuBeOrDiE (Aug 3, 2009)

Cool! One less guy arguing against my method!


----------



## Nukoca (Aug 3, 2009)

CuBeOrDiE said:


> ...it's impossible to have an efficient solve with so little algs...unless you have an over-average intelligence and can solve the LL intuitevly or something.



http://www.ryanheise.com/cube/

...


----------



## JLarsen (Aug 3, 2009)

Nukoca said:


> CuBeOrDiE said:
> 
> 
> > ...it's impossible to have an efficient solve with so little algs...unless you have an over-average intelligence and can solve the LL intuitevly or something.
> ...



owned.


----------



## CuBeOrDiE (Aug 3, 2009)

not owned...heinse is really difficult and requires commutators


----------



## JLarsen (Aug 3, 2009)

Yeah well I just went and learned Hiese. Another thing. It's incredible for FMC. Another thing. It doesn't need freestyle commutators, just 3 corner cycles. You could do it with A perms and set up moves if you felt lazy (That comment seemed appropriate due to your approach to blockbuilding).


----------



## xXdaveXsuperstarXx (Aug 3, 2009)

It doesn't really matter if the method was advanced. All that matters is that you can solve the cube with very few algorithms. Which proves you wrong.


----------



## guitardude7241 (Aug 3, 2009)

Please, please, please stop the double posts. There's an "EDIT" button, if you can see that.


----------



## CuBeOrDiE (Aug 3, 2009)

It is possible to solve the cube with few algs but itll be difficult to speedsolve efficiently with such a method...


----------



## DavidWoner (Aug 3, 2009)

CuBeOrDiE said:


> not owned...heinse is really difficult and requires commutators



Commutators should only take about 5 minutes to learn.


----------



## CuBeOrDiE (Aug 3, 2009)

hmm....i still think theyll be hard to use for speed


----------



## Robert-Y (Aug 3, 2009)

CuBeOrDiE said:


> hmm....i still think theyll be hard to use for speed



Why do you think so?


----------



## CuBeOrDiE (Aug 3, 2009)

difficult to think up quickly in only a few seconds


----------



## Robert-Y (Aug 3, 2009)

CuBeOrDiE said:


> difficult to think up quickly in only a few seconds



Why do you think so?


----------



## CuBeOrDiE (Aug 3, 2009)

i just do ... thats what i think


----------



## brunson (Aug 3, 2009)

I am so sick of this thread...


----------



## CuBeOrDiE (Aug 3, 2009)

Why? (not meaning to sound rude)


----------



## JLarsen (Aug 3, 2009)

It's full of people pointing out flaws in your method, and giving reasons why it's bad, followed by your "come back" type attitude. I'm really sick of it as well. Half the stuff you say doesn't even make sense. I think it's ready to be closed.


----------



## waffle=ijm (Aug 3, 2009)

I actually read through all 15 pages. and from the useful things, it sounds like your forcing your own method down your throat.


----------



## JLarsen (Aug 3, 2009)

waffle=ijm said:


> I actually read through all 15 pages. and from the useful things, it sounds like your forcing your own method down your throat.



Down his own?


----------



## *LukeMayn* (Aug 3, 2009)

Sn3kyPandaMan said:


> waffle=ijm said:
> 
> 
> > I actually read through all 15 pages. and from the useful things, it sounds like your forcing your own method down your throat.
> ...



I think waffle means he is trying to make himself believe it is great.
1st post in the infamous thread xD :fp


----------



## Faz (Aug 3, 2009)

Escher said:


> MTGjumper said:
> 
> 
> > CuBeOrDiE said:
> ...



April 08. Current pb is 10.62 avg 12


----------



## CuBeOrDiE (Aug 3, 2009)

OK guys listen I know this method isn't the best, but every speedcuber has his preferred method. I don't like Fridrich or Petrus, so I use this method. You don't have to if you don't want to, but I will.


MORE PROOF THAT MY F2L METHOD ISN'T CRAP:http://www.speedsolving.com/forum/showthread.php?t=14276


----------



## Deleted member 2864 (Aug 3, 2009)

Sn3kyPandaMan said:


> waffle=ijm said:
> 
> 
> > I actually read through all 15 pages. and from the useful things, it sounds like your forcing your own method down your throat.
> ...



Yeah, I think that's what waffle means..


----------



## RC_Pilot_2011 (Aug 3, 2009)

*This method Sucks*



Sn3kyPandaMan said:


> I just think you should stop arguing that your method isn't crap, and believe whatever you want to believe, despite the opinions of those who have double, triple, and quadruple the experience you have.


Well, why are you against this method so much. Its meant to be a beginner method, like keyhole, except faster. What he did is he combined petrus, fridrich and roux, and simplify all 3 to create this method. I've been solving the cube for about 3 weeks now, with times of 1:20. It took me almost no time to learn this method, and my times decreased to 60 seconds. It's simple for noobs like me, and I know my times will decrease even more.


----------



## JLarsen (Aug 3, 2009)

RC_Pilot_2011 said:


> Sn3kyPandaMan said:
> 
> 
> > I just think you should stop arguing that your method isn't crap, and believe whatever you want to believe, despite the opinions of those who have double, triple, and quadruple the experience you have.
> ...



I'm "against" it so much because it is Petrus except missing 2 steps, and if he just did bad edges and step 4, this method would be at least capable of something a little more than it can in this form. It's merely laziness that makes this method "beginner". 



CuBeOrDiE said:


> OK guys listen I know this method isn't the best, but every speedcuber has his preferred method. I don't like Fridrich or Petrus, so I use this method. You don't have to if you don't want to, but I will.
> 
> 
> MORE PROOF THAT MY F2L METHOD ISN'T CRAP:http://www.speedsolving.com/forum/showthread.php?t=14276



This post contradicts itself horribly. "I know this method isn't the best"

"More proof that it isn't crap"

If it's not the best, meaning there are a ton of better methods, than this method is indeed crap. Thats like saying, "Well I got this bike for 10 dollars, and it's not half as nice as a new bike. I understand that. However, for some reason I don't think it's a piece of crap."


----------



## guitardude7241 (Aug 3, 2009)

I'd bet McNoobums(the TC; inventor of "teh sukc mehtod") created that "RC_Pilot_2011" account. This method is crap. It's not better than Roux, Fridrich, Petrus, ZZ, Heise, or any other good, respected method. Roux takes time to master blockbuilding, but overall, is very efficient. Same for Petrus. Fridrich takes more algorithms to learn, but is very fast. ZZ is popular in Poland(I believe, probably a mistake on my part), and is also efficient. Heise is probably the best method to use when FMCing, not too many moves required. teh sukc mehtod is just horrible. Drop the last hopes of saying your method isn't crap. It is crap. We don't want 15 seconds for F2L/2x2x3 block. We want below 10 to even consider it. This won't help any cubers, with the exception of the few you'll misguide, and make those cubers learn a horrid method. This topic does need to be closed.


----------



## xXdaveXsuperstarXx (Aug 3, 2009)

It's not really that bad. sub 24 with your own method is pretty good, and a beginner picked it up and his time dropped 20 sec. and he was able to pick it up very quickly. SEE! Now it's not the best, it's not good as Fridrich,Roux,Petrus, or Heise, but it's better then keyhole, or beginner method, the 2 methods that really do suck.


----------



## RC_Pilot_2011 (Aug 3, 2009)

guitardude7241 said:


> I'd bet McNoobums(the TC; inventor of "teh sukc mehtod") created that "RC_Pilot_2011" account. This method is crap. It's not better than Roux, Fridrich, Petrus, ZZ, Heise, or any other good, respected method. Roux takes time to master blockbuilding, but overall, is very efficient. Same for Petrus. Fridrich takes more algorithms to learn, but is very fast. ZZ is popular in Poland(I believe, probably a mistake on my part), and is also efficient. Heise is probably the best method to use when FMCing, not too many moves required. teh sukc mehtod is just horrible. Drop the last hopes of saying your method isn't crap. It is crap. We don't want 15 seconds for F2L/2x2x3 block. We want below 10 to even consider it. This won't help any cubers, with the exception of the few you'll misguide, and make those cubers learn a horrid method. This topic does need to be closed.


Actually, I'm his best friend, so don't accuse him of crap like that. And his method _*IS*_ very simple to learn! I picked it up in less than half an hour, and after practicing it for 2 days my solves dropped to below a minute.


----------



## brunson (Aug 3, 2009)

They're posting from different IP addresses from different ISPs, I don't think Nick is posting from two accounts.

Edit... I take that back. Nick, please reply to my PM sent to CuBeOrDiE


----------



## CuBeOrDiE (Aug 3, 2009)

I'm at my freind's house, and we are on his computer. I just encouraged him to create an account.

He's actually using my method


----------



## miniGOINGS (Aug 3, 2009)

[outburst]WHAT HAS THIS WORLD COME TO!?![/outburst]


----------



## CuBeOrDiE (Aug 3, 2009)

idontknowhahahahahlol


----------



## miniGOINGS (Aug 3, 2009)

CuBeOrDiE said:


> idontknowhahahahahlol



That is what I was talking about.


----------



## waffle=ijm (Aug 3, 2009)

@CuBeOrDiE - do you expect to reach sub-16 with this method?


----------



## xXdaveXsuperstarXx (Aug 3, 2009)

He could very well reach sub 20, sub 16, maybe 15 is very debatable.


----------



## waffle=ijm (Aug 3, 2009)

xXdaveXsuperstarXx said:


> He could very well reach sub 20, sub 16, maybe 15 is very debatable.



I'm not asking if he can, I'm asking if he *thinks *he can.


----------



## brunson (Aug 3, 2009)

CuBeOrDiE said:


> I'm at my freind's house, and we are on his computer. I just encouraged him to create an account.


I'll accept that.


RC_Pilot_2011 said:


> guitardude7241 said:
> 
> 
> > I'd bet McNoobums(the TC; inventor of "teh sukc mehtod") created that "RC_Pilot_2011" account.
> ...


You can't deny it looked suspicious, but I'll take Nick's word for it.


----------



## *LukeMayn* (Aug 3, 2009)

brunson said:


> _The person posting below me is a genius_



Thanks 

EDIT: NOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!! I'M NOT BELOW YOU!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## CuBeOrDiE (Aug 3, 2009)

waffle=ijm said:


> xXdaveXsuperstarXx said:
> 
> 
> > He could very well reach sub 20, sub 16, maybe 15 is very debatable.
> ...



i think i can, i think i can, i think i can WHAT AM I SAYING! I KNOW I CAN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## waffle=ijm (Aug 3, 2009)

CuBeOrDiE said:


> waffle=ijm said:
> 
> 
> > xXdaveXsuperstarXx said:
> ...



with your "method"?
I know sub- 15 is possible with roux, petrus, fridrich. but can you do sub-15 with your method?


----------



## CuBeOrDiE (Aug 3, 2009)

YA! KMN0OLKOK


----------



## MTGjumper (Aug 3, 2009)

This kind of stuff needs to be saved for IRC. Replies come at a rate of once every five minutes or so and there's some... immature behaviour, to say the least.


----------



## CuBeOrDiE (Aug 3, 2009)

Thats because my message was to short


----------



## CuBeOrDiE (Aug 3, 2009)

i had to make it longer


----------



## waffle=ijm (Aug 3, 2009)

and you should use the ****ing EDIT button

I'd like to see you "master" your method - it will eventually be petrus blocks.


----------



## CuBeOrDiE (Aug 3, 2009)

never! im a stubborn ass


----------



## puzzlemaster (Aug 3, 2009)

CuBeOrDiE said:


> never! *im a stubborn ass*



That's all that this thread proves...Waffle is right. This'll eventually just become petrus...


----------



## CuBeOrDiE (Aug 3, 2009)

puzzlemaster said:


> CuBeOrDiE said:
> 
> 
> > never! *im a stubborn ass*
> ...



never! im a stubborn ass


----------



## brunson (Aug 3, 2009)

I just went through your old postings. 

You have four threads about your method. You have 72 postings in this thread and 42 in the original video posting thread. How that adds up to more than your actual post count, I don't know, but I just went back and recounted. Maybe it's because I can see deleted posts. You have at least six postings about your method in other threads, too.

I want to ask you this question: Do you think you are contributing more signal or more noise to this forum?


----------



## puzzlemaster (Aug 3, 2009)

brunson said:


> I just went through your old postings.
> 
> You have four threads about your method. You have 72 postings in this thread and 42 in the original video posting thread. How that adds up to more than your actual post count, I don't know, but I just went back and recounted. Maybe it's because I can see deleted posts. You have at least six postings about your method in other threads, too.
> 
> I want to ask you this question: Do you think you are contributing more signal or more noise to this forum?



neither... he's "a stubborn ass"


----------



## Ethan Rosen (Aug 3, 2009)

CuBeOrDiE said:


> difficult to think up quickly in only a few seconds



That's because you suck at them


----------



## brunson (Aug 3, 2009)

Let's not be mean, he's just a kid. I think this thread will end up being closed.


----------

