# u Cube Square-1 Method



## u Cube (Feb 27, 2019)

*Overview*

The u Cube sq1 method, created by u Cube (https://www.youtube.com/c/uCubeYT), is a variant of the popular Roux/Lin methods which take a blockbuilding heavy approach to solving the puzzle. It is a very intuitive method, having 9 algorithms in total, making it an easy to learn advanced method that can compete with Vandenbergh.
*Steps*

1. Cube Shape- Here, like most advanced methods, you restore the shape of the puzzle into cubic form.
2. First Block- Solve a pair of two corners and one edge using your intuition, and place it on the bottom left.
3. Second Block- Solve a pair of two corners and one edge using your intuition, and place it on the bottom right.
4. BLECP- BLECP (Bottom Layer Edges and Corner Permutation) has three substeps.
4a. Put the two edges that need to go into the bottom layer onto the top, unless they are opposite each other, solve them into the bottom and do CLL
4b. Use one of three algorithms (Ja Perm, Jb Perm, Y perm) to solve the corners and position the bottom layer edges opposite of each other in the top layer.
4c. Insert the edges with an M2
BLECP is a very fast step and tps can be spammed here.
5. EPLL- EPLL (Edge Permutation of the Last Layer) uses four plls and one parity algorithm to solve the remaining edges in the top layer.
*Users*

u Cube https://www.youtube.com/c/uCubeYT


----------



## Thom S. (Feb 27, 2019)

So essentially instead of Lin's BLECP in two Substeps(Insert DB + Fr and CP) you do it in three Substeps?


----------



## u Cube (Feb 27, 2019)

Thom S. said:


> So essentially instead of Lin's BLECP in two Substeps(Insert DB + Fr and CP) you do it in three Substeps?


With the way it is done it is just as fast in my opinion, because the splits are simple.
4a: .1 (you can get skips often where both are already on top also)
4b: 1.00 (you do recognition while doing second block and 4a
4c: .2
1.3 seconds

Also, this allows you not to have to learn lin algs which are arguably not as ergenomic as the j perms and y perms (y perms suck but you get j perms 90% of the time)


----------



## ImmolatedMarmoset (Feb 27, 2019)

I imagine you can get reasonably fast with it, but I dont’ see how it can match the simplicity of lin. And it makes it harder to transfer to PLL+1 when you get faster


----------



## u Cube (Feb 27, 2019)

ImmolatedMarmoset said:


> I imagine you can get reasonably fast with it, but I dont’ see how it can match the simplicity of lin. And it makes it harder to transfer to PLL+1 when you get faster


Well there is a subset I haven't touched on that does skip epll because I'm still developing it kind of and it may not be worth it so I'm not sure yet


----------



## ImmolatedMarmoset (Feb 27, 2019)

u Cube said:


> Well there is a subset I haven't touched on that does skip epll because I'm still developing it kind of and it may not be worth it so I'm not sure yet


It’s certainly an interesting variation on lin. I’ll try it out someday.


----------



## PapaSmurf (Feb 27, 2019)

Imho, it's not as good as lin which isn't as good as vandenburgh. Yeah, it could be fast, but not the fastest.


----------



## ImmolatedMarmoset (Feb 27, 2019)

PapaSmurf said:


> Imho, it's not as good as lin which isn't as good as vandenburgh. Yeah, it could be fast, but not the fastest.


HOW DARE YOU DISS LIN. LIN IS SO MUCH BETTER THAN VANDENBERGH. OBJECTIVELY. HUH


----------



## PapaSmurf (Feb 27, 2019)

I hope you're being sarcastic. Because Lin is very good, but lookahead is harder than with Vanderburgh, and it's just 5 algs compared to an alg, 2 blocks and a bit then an alg. Most fast people would agree with me.


----------



## ImmolatedMarmoset (Feb 27, 2019)

PapaSmurf said:


> I hope you're being sarcastic. Because Lin is very good, but lookahead is harder than with Vanderburgh, and it's just 5 algs compared to an alg, 2 blocks and a bit then an alg. Most fast people would agree with me.


No. I am completely not being sarcastic. Almost no one has given lin a chance. And how is lookahead harder? It’s not that hard to trace pieces from cubeshape to FB and then SB, and once you are done with that lookahead is the easiest thing in the world because you only have to look at LL. And you shouldn’t be talking if you’re trying to prove ZZ is better than CFOP, because you may very well be from the looks of your stamp.


----------



## ImmolatedMarmoset (Feb 27, 2019)

PapaSmurf said:


> I hope you're being sarcastic. Because Lin is very good, but lookahead is harder than with Vanderburgh, and it's just 5 algs compared to an alg, 2 blocks and a bit then an alg. Most fast people would agree with me.


The reason I like lin is because there’s actually an art to it as opposed to just spamming algs. You’re welcome to have an opinion, but that is mine.


----------



## u Cube (Feb 27, 2019)

ImmolatedMarmoset said:


> The reason I like lin is because there’s actually an art to it as opposed to just spamming algs. You’re welcome to have an opinion, but that is mine.


I do agree that roux based methods are faster than vandenbergh.


----------



## PapaSmurf (Feb 28, 2019)

ImmolatedMarmoset said:


> No. I am completely not being sarcastic. Almost no one has given lin a chance. And how is lookahead harder? It’s not that hard to trace pieces from cubeshape to FB and then SB, and once you are done with that lookahead is the easiest thing in the world because you only have to look at LL. And you shouldn’t be talking if you’re trying to prove ZZ is better than CFOP, because you may very well be from the looks of your stamp.


The hard bit is tracing through csp, although that's a problem Vanderburgh has. And I'm just saying what fast sqaunners have said. Also, why does that have any relevance? Maybe ZZ is better than CFOP. Maybe it isn't.



ImmolatedMarmoset said:


> The reason I like lin is because there’s actually an art to it as opposed to just spamming algs.


Fair enough. Just remember though that that doesn't necessarily mean better. 



u Cube said:


> I do agree that roux based methods are faster than vandenbergh.


Tbh, I'd like someone to prove me wrong and that they're equal or better, but from all the stats and movecount, Vanderburgh is slightly better, although not by much. You can definitely be world class with Lin (see: Helmer Ewert).


----------



## ImmolatedMarmoset (Feb 28, 2019)

PapaSmurf said:


> The hard bit is tracing through csp, although that's a problem Vanderburgh has. And I'm just saying what fast sqaunners have said. Also, why does that have any relevance? Maybe ZZ is better than CFOP. Maybe it isn't.
> 
> 
> Fair enough. Just remember though that that doesn't necessarily mean better.
> ...


I know. For some people Vandenbergh is going to be a better method, but for me it’s not. And that’s fine. In my opinion Lin regains the advantage it loses in terms of move count with the fact that you only have to trace blocks through CSP, not patterns. And you may be forgetting the power of PLL+1 and it’s reduction of move count. Normal lin you just do the lin alg and then EPLL, but if you use Lin with all of its tricks, movecount goes significantly lower. And you can do what Helmer does with second block: SPEC, which basically controls the equator flip during second block.


----------



## u Cube (Feb 28, 2019)

ImmolatedMarmoset said:


> I know. For some people Vandenbergh is going to be a better method, but for me it’s not. And that’s fine. In my opinion Lin regains the advantage it loses in terms of move count with the fact that you only have to trace blocks through CSP, not patterns. And you may be forgetting the power of PLL+1 and it’s reduction of move count. Normal lin you just do the lin alg and then EPLL, but if you use Lin with all of its tricks, movecount goes significantly lower. And you can do what Helmer does with second block: SPEC, which basically controls the equator flip during second block.


I use SPEC it is awesome


----------



## CraZZ CFOP (Mar 4, 2019)

ImmolatedMarmoset said:


> I know. For some people Vandenbergh is going to be a better method, but for me it’s not. And that’s fine. In my opinion Lin regains the advantage it loses in terms of move count with the fact that you only have to trace blocks through CSP, not patterns. And you may be forgetting the power of PLL+1 and it’s reduction of move count. Normal lin you just do the lin alg and then EPLL, but if you use Lin with all of its tricks, movecount goes significantly lower. And you can do what Helmer does with second block: SPEC, which basically controls the equator flip during second block.


How long does it take for you/others to do SPEC and PLL+1? I want to compare the two methods.


----------



## ImmolatedMarmoset (Mar 4, 2019)

CraZZ CFOP said:


> How long does it take for you/others to do SPEC and PLL+1? I want to compare the two methods.


I’m not really qualified to answer, but you don’t even need to learn PLL+1 if you want to become sub 20 and even sub 15. SPEC isn’t an algorithm set, it’s just preforming the second block in a different number of moves to prevent an equator flip at the end. It’s nothing to special and can be quite easy to implement into your solves. Probably the best person to ask that is Helmer Ewert, the former squan single world record holder, and is also somewhat active on these forums. You might want to post something on their profile. Helmer averages about 8.5, so he’s very qualified for that sort of thing.

Sorry for the ramble; I’ll repeat anything I said if I need to


----------

