# What constitutes a beautiful solve?



## badmephisto (Jun 27, 2008)

Clearly there is a level of beauty and elegance to each solve. The question is, in point form, what in your opinion are attributes of a beautiful solve? You can also link to a video that you think has a very nice solve, if you have one.

Personally i think there should be an unofficial competition for beautiful solves as well  I wonder how diverse our ideas of "beautiful solves" are.


----------



## ShadenSmith (Jun 27, 2008)

I would call a solve beautiful if it is efficient and uses methods that aren't commonly used. I say method not meaning Fridrich or Petrus, but use of commutators or intuition.


----------



## nicoJ (Jun 27, 2008)

i would say a normal cross, fluent F2L where each move helps the next (and when you see perfectlly the next pair), cross OLL and then another fingertrick PLL
this was for fridrich case

PD: shadensmith, i like that fractal... i think i have it somewhere in my pc too


----------



## ShadenSmith (Jun 27, 2008)

nicoJ said:


> i would say a normal cross, fluent F2L where each move helps the next (and when you see perfectlly the next pair), cross OLL and then another fingertrick PLL
> this was for fridrich case
> 
> PD: shadensmith, i like that fractal... i think i have it somewhere in my pc too




Opeth


----------



## ExoCorsair (Jun 27, 2008)

No pauses.


----------



## Rama (Jun 27, 2008)

Go to Youtube.com and type in: Joël van Noort
See the smooth master himself at work. 
Seriously tough, I like Joël's turning style a lot and I get even more boosted when I see Edouard at work.

Joël:


----------



## AvGalen (Jun 27, 2008)

At the Danish Open I tried to create the "perfect" Fridrich solve during FMC. By perfect I mean that cross should be done in 8 moves or less, all 4 pairs should be simple pairs that can be directly inserted and OLL+PLL shouldn't be skipped, but should be as short as possible (6+9). I succeeded pretty nicely within 1 hour:

http://www.speedsolving.com/forum/showpost.php?p=41954&postcount=28

Which translates to this speedsolve: (scramble=R B' D U2 B' F' L R D' R D' U2 L R' B' F2 L' U F2 L F2 L' R2 D' U')
Cross: x2 U2 R D2 R2 F2 D F D
Pair1: F' U F
Pair2: U' R' U' R
Pair3: U F U' F' 
Pair4: U2 L U2 L'
OLL: f U R U' R' f'
PLL: F2 U M' U2 M U F2
AUF: U2


----------



## fanwuq (Jun 28, 2008)

I'd say something like this without me making the obvious mistakes.
http://www.ryanheise.com/cube/record.cgi?db=single&name=Wuqiong+Fan+LC

Just everything falls into place.


----------



## Brett (Jun 28, 2008)

Something that just flows, doesn't use too many moves and doesn't look like it's about to happen when you finally solve it (Seems like it just "pops" into place.)

I'll try to find a scramble/solution which demonstrates this (of course the entire solve is done with speed and no lockups )


----------



## Swordsman Kirby (Jun 28, 2008)

ShadenSmith said:


> I would call a solve beautiful if it is efficient and uses methods that aren't commonly used. I say method not meaning Fridrich or Petrus, but use of commutators or intuition.



Since when was Petrus commonly used? 

A beautiful solve to me is one of Per's FMCs.


----------



## fanwuq (Jun 28, 2008)

I reconstructed my solve. It's quite sad. It's tied as my 2nd best FMC.

F R' D L D2 5
y' (%) R2 U R2 U R2 U2 R2 12
U2 L' U L U2 L' U L 20
y (%) R' U2 R 23
y' U' R' U' R 27
y2 (%) R U2 R2 F R F' R U2 R' U2 37


(%) indicates stupid mistakes.


----------



## qqwref (Jun 28, 2008)

For me a beautiful solve is one that is extremely smooth, no matter what method is used. So for a really nice solve the solver should never pause and never dramatically speed up or slow down with their turning speed. Some of my OH solves are like this when I'm warmed up. It feels so nice when this happens


----------



## Crzyazn (Jun 28, 2008)

flawless execution with satisfying speed


----------



## badmephisto (Jun 28, 2008)

Now that people pitched in I will pitch in too and say what kind of solves usually look "beautiful" to me:
- steady solve at exactly constant speed (i find that the actual speed does not make it more beautiful for me, its jut the rate of change that I don't like)
- no lockups or pops obviously
- 0 cube rotations, but few are ok if they look very minor
- no moves that undo each other, like U U'
- Completely 2-gen OLL and PLL

I love when I get solves like that sometimes. They need not even be quick, but when I finish with that beautiful U' flick at the end and the U face just stops dead on the center, i get cubegasms


----------



## pcharles93 (Jun 28, 2008)

badmephisto said:


> i get cubegasms



That disturbs me so much.


----------



## Swordsman Kirby (Jun 28, 2008)

pcharles93 said:


> badmephisto said:
> 
> 
> > i get cubegasms
> ...



...you're kidding, right?


----------



## AvGalen (Jun 28, 2008)

Brett said:


> Something that just flows, doesn't use too many moves and doesn't look like it's about to happen when you finally solve it (Seems like it just "pops" into place.)
> 
> I'll try to find a scramble/solution which demonstrates this (of course the entire solve is done with speed and no lockups )


 
Something like this?

Scramble:
F2 L2 D' L2 D B2 R2 D' L2 R2 F2 R' B L B L' B L B R (20f)

Solve:
x' U' R U R U R U' R' U' R'
U2 R' U' R U' R2
U' R2 U
L U L2 U' L
r U'


----------



## Johannes91 (Jun 28, 2008)

Brett said:


> [..] doesn't look like it's about to happen when you finally solve it (Seems like it just "pops" into place.)


Solving with Ryan's Human Thistlethwaite Algorithm is a bit like that.

IMO, solving without using any algs you don't understand is beautiful.


----------



## qqwref (Jun 28, 2008)

Johannes91 said:


> IMO, solving without using any algs you don't understand is beautiful.



Practically I don't really see how that can be your criterion for a beautiful solve. I know you love using only algorithms that you understand, but you can't honestly watch someone else solve and just know whether they understand every alg they are doing (and yes there are people who really understand why the more common Fridrich algs work). So how do you decide whether other people's solves are beautiful? Or do you only apply this word to your own solves?


----------



## Johannes91 (Jun 28, 2008)

qqwref said:


> [..] you can't honestly watch someone else solve and just know whether they understand every alg they are doing [..]


I think I understood "beautiful solve" differently than others in this thread. I was thinking about the actual moves, but other people are talking about the execution.



qqwref said:


> So how do you decide whether other people's solves are beautiful? Or do you only apply this word to your own solves?


If I just see a speedsolve and don't know what's actually going on, just the fingertricks, lock-ups, etc., then I can't really call that beautiful. I just find that so much less interesting than slower solving. Feels like those 1-minute chess games people play online.

And yes, I was thinking mostly about my own solves. But I have to say that Lars Petrus' 13 example solutions and pretty much all Ryan Heise's solutions I've seen are very beautiful.


----------



## ShadenSmith (Jun 28, 2008)

Johannes91 said:


> I was thinking about the actual moves, but other people are talking about the execution.




That's what I was thinking as well. There aren't very many speedsolves that I would call beautiful. Harris Chan and Edouard Chambon would be a few of the speedcubers I would say have beautiful solves, because of their precision turning and almost flawless look-ahead.


----------



## Shamah02 (Jun 28, 2008)

The first solve on this vid of Harris Chan is just AMAZING!
It is sloww turning though

http://youtube.com/watch?v=bMSl4rzeDcI


----------



## badmephisto (Jun 29, 2008)

Shamah02 said:


> The first solve on this vid of Harris Chan is just AMAZING!
> It is sloww turning though
> 
> http://youtube.com/watch?v=bMSl4rzeDcI



its nice, but his speed wasnt constant and he missed a U turn with his finger near the end, and he took too long to recognize PLL  But yea, I find those slow turning ones very nice as well


----------



## rubiksfriend (Jun 29, 2008)

Marc Waterman solving.


----------



## fanwuq (Jun 29, 2008)

ShadenSmith said:


> Johannes91 said:
> 
> 
> > I was thinking about the actual moves, but other people are talking about the execution.
> ...



I also think of the solution, not execution.

Heise Method solutions under 40 moves are nice.


----------



## FU (Jul 2, 2008)

Smooth and fast turning with no delays in F2L, lightning quick OLL and PLLs, preferrably cool-looking ones too  Like A perm -> x' R U' R z' R2 U' L U R2 z R2, slice H / Z perms, etc.


----------

