# How I think New cubers should start out ;)



## Cubing (Jan 28, 2011)

First off you have just learned how to solve a rubik's cube. You will most likely average around 2min correct?

#1 rule:

NEVER EVER get the best rubik's cube on the internet, like the dayan guhong, well in my opinion its the best, but still. The reason why, is that you will have the same speed for months and months. You will get so comfortable with the speed, that you will barely improve, after 40 seconds I think. 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Keep using your Rubik's brand for this until I tell you to in this paragraph. Ok now, this may be difficult, but learn intermediate fridrich ( 2 LOOK PLL AND 2 LOOK OLL, HAPPY? )until 35 seconds. Then you learn full PLL and a little bit of OLL. You will then buy a better cube, not best cube on the internet, and use it till 25 ish seconds. then buy the best cube on the internet, and finish learning your advanced fridrich.

Hoped it helped  Also, if you can't have a credit card, open up a paypal account and buy a visa gift card from a supermarket. Or just use snail mail on cube depot or speedcubeshop.
------------------------
I average 17-20 seconds. Best time: 14.33 seconds.


----------



## Erzz (Jan 28, 2011)

You skipped 2 look PLL and 2 look OLL.


----------



## Cubing (Jan 28, 2011)

Thats intermediate fridrich. I explained that in my rule.


----------



## Erzz (Jan 28, 2011)

Someone new to cubing probably wouldn't know that, might want to clarify.


----------



## Cubing (Jan 28, 2011)

Just type it in on Youtube, Most videos are based on it. They learned how to solve a rubik's cube, so why not?


----------



## marthaurion (Jan 28, 2011)

WRONG


----------



## Your Mother (Jan 28, 2011)

Good guide, but the Wiki has one just like it.


----------



## ElectricDoodie (Jan 28, 2011)

I averaged 1 mins with a Rubik's Brand, and Beginner's method.
I learned 2Look OLL and PLL, and averaged 40-45 seconds.
I bought an AV and modded it to Haiyan Memory. Thne learned Full PLL. Started averaging 27-33.
I am now focusing on F2L, and average around 20 seconds.

I win.


----------



## tx789 (Jan 28, 2011)

I didn't buy a speed cube to my first torment a fll and a lanlan 2x2 1 1/2 years after learning 3x3x3 then I was aving 50-55sec on a rubik brand lubed faster that a normal one but slower than a speedcube


----------



## Cyrus C. (Jan 28, 2011)

I don't get it.


----------



## Johan444 (Jan 28, 2011)

When you buy your "speed cube" doesn't matter.

Scenario a: 10 months Rubik's brand + 1 month GuHong = x seconds average.
Scenario b: 1 month Rubik's brand + 10 months GuHong = x seconds average.

I cannot see why this wouldn't be true.


----------



## TheMachanga (Jan 28, 2011)

Johan444 said:


> When you buy your "speed cube" doesn't matter.
> 
> Scenario a: 10 months Rubik's brand + 1 month GuHong = x seconds average.
> Scenario b: 1 month Rubik's brand + 10 months GuHong = x seconds average.
> ...


 
Cubing style and fingertricks will develop differently. Slow cube promotes look-a-head.


----------



## ~Adam~ (Jan 28, 2011)

I got a GuHong at 42 second average with 2 look OLL and 2 look PLL with a type C.
In 3 months I knocked 20 seconds off my average while learning full OLL and PLL.

@OP So you think I would of gotten faster quicker with your method?


----------



## Stefan (Jan 28, 2011)

Slow cube promotes frustration and quitting.


----------



## Juju (Jan 28, 2011)

Yeah I agree with Stefan. Get a cube that you are comfortable with, and you really like the feel of, regardless of how fast you are. Seriously I couldn't imagine trying to learn full PLL on a storebought. You want to learn fingertricks early on imo.


I got a Guhong at around a 40 second average, and now I'm down to a 21 second average and still improving.


----------



## David0794 (Jan 29, 2011)

maybe you should learn to be color neutral from the beginning...i think it's useful and it's not that hard if you are a beginner.


----------



## cincyaviation (Jan 29, 2011)

Why is it that these threads are always made by the people least qualified to make them? (Actually not the case if you consider the How To Be Sub-20 Thread or the FAQ) This "guide" or whatever you want to call it was biased towards fridrich for one. It gave no information on different methods, or any of the other branches of cubing, or any sub methods that could be used instead of OLL/PLL. 

Also, why would you wait to buy a new cube? First of all, it can tend to delay/alter the development of fingertricks because it may be too hard to turn. It also, as Stefan said, might just cause a new cuber to quit. I think it would be nice to update our stuff for beginners, as i see people sometimes thinking that QJ 4x4's and Rubik's DIY's are the best cubes in their classes (Not that they couldn't be to some).


----------



## Whyusosrs? (Jan 29, 2011)

Epic nubbery.


----------



## gundamslicer (Jan 29, 2011)

I got a alpha 1 when I just started... 7mins to 1:30 in one week. Barely 2 hours of practice.... I think that's wrong


----------



## ~Adam~ (Jan 29, 2011)

My 3rd solve was sub 2 mins, with a 1980's unlubed Rubik's. What's wrong with your scenario?


----------



## uberCuber (Jan 29, 2011)

I've said it before and I'll say it again: I got sub-25 with Rubik's brand, others have gotten faster with it. There is no reason you need to buy a good cube right away, it is up to the person in question.

Also, completely agree with cincyaviation, this really should not be considered a guide, with no mention at all of other methods/sub-methods. For me personally, one of the most fun things about speedcubing is learning different methods and practicing all of them at times when I feel like it.


----------



## Cyrus C. (Jan 29, 2011)

Just because you can sub 25 with a Rubik's Brand doesn't mean you should. Also, there's nothing wrong with this guide not mentioning other methods, it's meant for the average cuber who probably uses CFOP.


----------



## uberCuber (Jan 29, 2011)

Cyrus C. said:


> Just because you can sub 25 with a Rubik's Brand doesn't mean you should.


 
what you *should* do is whatever you want to do; this is a hobby, and is meant for enjoyment, not _having_ to do something specific.



> Also, there's nothing wrong with this guide not mentioning other methods, it's meant for the average cuber who probably uses CFOP.



If this guide is only directed to CFOP users, there is really no good reason for it to exist, because there are already much more detailed guides on how to get fast with CFOP. If the OP would like to edit in some stuff about other methods, then it could potentially become useful.


----------



## skateboardboy20 (Jan 29, 2011)

use robhos tutorial then learn f2l (brings down your time by 4-5 secs) then learn oll then pll full i avg aroun 14-20 secs


----------



## uberCuber (Jan 29, 2011)

just did an avg12 with a Rubik's brand because I felt like it, it was only 2 seconds above average, and included a few recognition fails since I have gotten used to white plastic.


----------



## ~Adam~ (Jan 29, 2011)

That isn't very informative without the times.

When I was averaging around 24 seconds I had the same average with my GuHong and mini Diansheng.
The slower speed was made up for by better look ahead.

Since uber seems to be doing it


Spoiler



1st 5 solves with mini Diansheng - 22.17, 19.66, 17.80, 23.11, 22.38 = 21.40avg
1st 5 solves with GuHong - 20.17, 19.23, 21.65, 22.76, 18.11 = 20.35avg


----------



## uberCuber (Jan 29, 2011)

Rubik's brand
17.58, 17.58, 17.80, 16.05, 17.38, 17.18, 19.06, 19.17, 16.67, 19.53, 21.88, 17.61 = 17.95
that is only a fraction of a second above average


----------



## cincyaviation (Jan 29, 2011)

uberCuber said:


> Rubik's brand
> 17.58, 17.58, 17.80, 16.05, 17.38, 17.18, 19.06, 19.17, 16.67, 19.53, 21.88, 17.61 = 17.95
> that is only a fraction of a second above average


 
Beginners usually don't have good Rubik's brands, they usually have ones right out of the package that have nothing done to them. Just because you can do well with yours, doesn't mean others can do well with theirs.


----------



## Cyrus C. (Jan 29, 2011)

uberCuber said:


> what you *should* do is whatever you want to do; this is a hobby, and is meant for enjoyment, not _having_ to do something specific.



Glad you understand.



> If this guide is only directed to CFOP users, there is really no good reason for it to exist, because there are already much more detailed guides on how to get fast with CFOP. If the OP would like to edit in some stuff about other methods, then it could potentially become useful.



The problem is lack of new stuff, not that it's based around CFOP.


----------



## FatBoyXPC (Jan 29, 2011)

Cincyaviation is right. 

I completely disagree with all the tutorials that way "wait until you are sub-n to learn x." That is by far one of the biggest things I regret about learning full OLL and PLL (so late). I personally believe if you are going to commit yourself to a method, it is not such a good idea to get yourself great at a certain sub-method of this given method. People say "Well you don't need to do x and you and still sub20" or "Feliks did 2LOLL and got a sub10 average." Going back to cincyaviation's point: Just because you can, doesn't mean you should. While I certainly agree that you should learn the 2 Look methods before one look method (after all, learning 2 Look gives you algorithms you'll use in one look), that doesn't mean you should wait until you are sub30 to learn OLL/PLL, or sub20, sub15, etc. The sooner you start learning your cases, the sooner recognition/recall issues go away.

Not to be harsh: But I also agree with cincyaviation in the aspect that you seem to be not so qualified to write such a tutorial. No offense, but it wasn't the best tutorial either, and seems like you wanted to share an opinion rather than write a tutorial. While sharing your opinion isn't exactly a bad thing, but the forums are different than just something you'd ramble on to a cubing friend about while having some heads up races or something.

I don't know how fast you are, but there are certainly an abundance of "how to get faster" threads (both in question form (mostly) and tutorial form). I think you'd benefit to read "How to get faster using the Fridrich Method" thread or the "Road to Sub15 Averages" on the wiki (which links to the thread I mentioned). There are some other great threads on F2L tips and tricks, OLL tricks, etc. I think you should research these things, I think you would benefit from it (no offense intended).


----------



## abctoshiro (Jan 29, 2011)

Maybe the OP thinks that most beginners start out with LBL then shift to CFOP. For me, it is true, but it is a bit biased. His guide/opinion focuses mostly on transition to CFOP and nothing else. There is lack of new stuff. How about if you want to try other methods?

Also, new cubers have their own pace and some would love to try things at their own pace. For me, I explored blockbuilding when I was averaging about a minute, then OLL/PLL at sub-40, then shifted to Roux when I was sub-25, and still no full OLL/PLL/CMLL till today. 

Just my opinion.


----------



## emolover (Jan 29, 2011)

ElectricDoodie said:


> I averaged 1 mins with a Rubik's Brand, and Beginner's method.
> I learned 2Look OLL and PLL, and averaged 40-45 seconds.
> I bought an AV and modded it to Haiyan Memory. Thne learned Full PLL. Started averaging 27-33.
> I am now focusing on F2L, and average around 20 seconds.


 That is the exact way I did it... the only difference is I use a GuHung now, but I do use my haiyan memory sometimes.


----------



## Tyjet66 (Jan 29, 2011)

I strongly disagree with your guide (and just about everyone else's.) Why would you wait to learn full PLL and full OLL? It seems pointless, if you wish to learn it then do so; learning it early would just allow you to practice it more and get accustomed to it much much sooner, which, in my opinion, is purely beneficial. You are also saying that EVERYONE should start with Fridrich (after LBL of course), why is that? A lot of people prefer other methods and some are even better suited to other methods, what makes Fridrich so special?

Just to clarify, I use Fridrich, I learned full PLL in between 1:00-:40 average, working on full OLL in between :40-:33 (current) average.


----------



## Cubing (Jan 29, 2011)

Tyjet66 said:


> I strongly disagree with your guide (and just about everyone else's.) Why would you wait to learn full PLL and full OLL? It seems pointless, if you wish to learn it then do so; learning it early would just allow you to practice it more and get accustomed to it much much sooner, which, in my opinion, is purely beneficial. You are also saying that EVERYONE should start with Fridrich (after LBL of course), why is that? A lot of people prefer other methods and some are even better suited to other methods, what makes Fridrich so special?
> 
> Just to clarify, I use Fridrich, I learned full PLL in between 1:00-:40 average, working on full OLL in between :40-:33 (current) average.


 
This my opinion hence the term "How I think"


----------



## Cubing (Jan 29, 2011)

Stefan said:


> Slow cube promotes frustration and quitting.



Yes, but Rubik's brands aren't usually that slow. Frustration and quitting is for sad people.


----------



## Magix (Jan 29, 2011)

Nobody really cares about your opinion though if you bring no reasonable justifications for it


----------



## ianography (Jan 29, 2011)

If you guys hate this thread so much, then why don't you all just ignore it?


----------



## cincyaviation (Jan 29, 2011)

ianography said:


> If you guys hate this thread so much, then why don't you all just ignore it?


 
Mostly to prevent more dumb threads from being made.


----------



## Dene (Jan 29, 2011)

Stefan said:


> Mr. Pochmann promotes frustration and quitting.


 
Ya fixed that for you.


----------



## Cool Frog (Jan 30, 2011)

Dene said:


> Ya fixed that for you.


 haha
As for a different method of being learned there is the mainstream CFOP. They have ZBF2L(it orients the edges as you put in the last slot I think). MGLS(You put in unoriented corner + edge into the last slot and then orient the corners in one step usually 2 gen and fast-like) CLL/ELL (This solves the corners and then you solve the edges) and probably a bunch more (like winter variation, Orient edges+ permute corners, and then EPLL), and of course 4LLL.

You have block building methods like, Petrus where you make a 2x2x2 block and then extend it to a 2x2x3 block (This allows a lot of freedom in your solve) you then do edge orientation and block build the rest of the first two layers. Then you can go different ways for the last layer from ZBLL(solve the last layer in one step) COLL/EPLL(Solves corners while keeping edge orientation), Winter variation/Pll, and from what I hear a common step of CLL/ELL. The advantages of this method are your block bulding the f2l while also orienting the edges.

Another block building method is ZZ where you orient all the edges while you create a line on the D face, This is commonly referred to EO+Line then you block build the F2l using all R U and L moves. The last layer is like above, but there is also another variant where you unorient the last layer then solve it in one step (From what I have read it has less cases, but don't quote me on that). Advantages of this method are that it is 3 gen and was built for speed.

Yet another block building method is heise where you build 4 1x2x2 blocks that have one color in common then create F2L Minus a slot. You then orient and permute the remaining edges then use commutators to solve the corners, the main advantage of this method is how it has a low move count and is done intuitively.

Roux is a block building method also where you build a 1x2x3 block on commonly the left face, create a 1x2x3 block on the right side, Solve the four remaining corners with CMLL (you can also use CLL, or COLL) then solve the middle layer with M and U moves only. Advantages of this method are how steps two and four are 2gen, and how most of it is intuitive.

There is corners first (Don't quote me on any of this as I am not certain at all) where you solve a side with block building then solve the remaining corners then solve the last eight edges. I don't know a lot about this method.
If you want some help for any of this I could try to help you out but usually they are just a quick forum/google search away.


----------



## goatseforever (Jan 30, 2011)

Rubik's brand = carpal tunnel for anyone who uses fingertricks. Do not listen to OP new cubers.


----------



## macky (Jan 30, 2011)

TheMachanga said:


> Slow cube promotes look-a-head.


Agreed. There's no reason to buy a Rubik's brand, but I would recommend Alpha-1 over GuHong to complete beginners.


----------



## Cool Frog (Jan 31, 2011)

goatseforever said:


> Rubik's brand = carpal tunnel for anyone who uses fingertricks. Do not listen to OP new cubers.


 
What cube you continue using is really a matter of personal preference. Rubik's brand cubes are "Iffy" on if they will be good or not. my cousins rubiks brand isn't half bad I still get about the same times with it.


----------



## AndrewRocks (Jan 31, 2011)

I purchased my first Rubik's brand cube at "It's Your Move" in the mall and the display models turned so poorly that I assumed they put glue or something in it to discourage people from scrambling it. When I removed it from the package it turned just as poorly as the display models. It was frustrating, hurt my fingers and unfun to learn with so I had to lubricate it. 

There is a noticeable, but minimal difference in my latest speedcube and my original lubricated Rubiks cube which in my opinion invalidates the stick-with-Rubiks-until-you're-awesome theory. It is pleasant to solve a quick, corner cutting cube and encouraging to be able to solve a cube in under a minute with only a month of practice.


----------



## maggot (Jan 31, 2011)

i have to say that practicing with a slower cube can have its benefits and setbacks. the benefit is that you can get smooth lookahead practice, but lookahead is not something that you begin learning until you're really comfortable with all the f2l cases. the big setback is the difference in the turning of a rubiks and a DIY, the ability to be aggressive, (which unlocks many new fingertricky abilities that would be next to impossible on a locky cube) and the ability to turn fast. also, i am older and the sheer force that the rubiks brand takes is a toll on my wrists from long sessions. surely there is some kind of medical warning on long session cubing with rubiks brand cubes for growing children lmao.


----------



## Cool Frog (Jan 31, 2011)

maggot said:


> i have to say that practicing with a slower cube can have its benefits and setbacks. the benefit is that you can get smooth lookahead practice, but lookahead is not something that you begin learning until you're really comfortable with all the f2l cases. the big setback is the difference in the turning of a rubiks and a DIY, the ability to be aggressive, (which unlocks many new fingertricky abilities that would be next to impossible on a locky cube) and the ability to turn fast. also, i am older and the sheer force that the rubiks brand takes is a toll on my wrists from long sessions. surely there is some kind of medical warning on long session cubing with rubiks brand cubes for growing children lmao.


 
"Warning: Extensive use may cause tissue damage"


----------



## cincyaviation (Jan 31, 2011)

Cool Frog said:


> haha
> As for a different method of being learned there is the mainstream CFOP. They have ZBF2L(it orients the edges as you put in the last slot I think). *MGLS(You put in unoriented corner + edge into the last slot and then orient the corners in one step *usually 2 gen and fast-like) CLL/ELL (This solves the corners and then you solve the edges) and probably a bunch more (like winter variation, *Orient edges+ permute corners, and then EPLL*), and of course 4LLL.
> 
> Another block building method is ZZ where you orient all the edges while you create a line on the D face, This is commonly referred to EO+Line then you block build the F2l using all R U and L moves. The last layer is like above, *but there is also another variant where you unorient the last layer then solve it in one step* (From what I have read it has less cases, but don't quote me on that). Advantages of this method are that it is 3 gen and *was built for speed.*


 
The corner doesn't have to be in the slot and you forgot ELS. 
I think you mean orient edges+permute corners then 2GLL.
Where did you hear that?
It's a speedsolving method, it's no more built for speed than any other speedsolving method.


----------



## uberCuber (Jan 31, 2011)

cincyaviation said:


> Where did you hear that?


 
he could possibly be referring to the ZZ-blah method


----------



## cincyaviation (Feb 1, 2011)

uberCuber said:


> he could possibly be referring to the ZZ-blah method


 
I suppose, i was thinking it could be anti ZBLL he was talking about.


----------



## AndrewRocks (Feb 1, 2011)

Perhaps the intense strain caused by using a crappy cube will develop finger muscles so when you use a speedcube you can *TURBOFLICK!!!*


----------



## Cool Frog (Feb 1, 2011)

cincyaviation said:


> The corner doesn't have to be in the slot and you forgot ELS.
> I think you mean orient edges+permute corners then 2GLL.
> Where did you hear that?
> It's a speedsolving method, it's no more built for speed than any other speedsolving method.


 
Thanks (Don't know a lot about MGLS)
Yes
http://cube.crider.co.uk/zz.php?p=ll#blah
Read it somewhere on that site, However I do believe that ZZ was made for speedsolving, It tries to combine low move count, no cube rotations, and no B or F moves.



AndrewRocks said:


> Perhaps the intense strain caused by using a crappy cube will develop finger muscles so when you use a speedcube you can *TURBOFLICK!!!*


 
Or, you just overshoot a bunch.


----------



## uberCuber (Feb 1, 2011)

Cool Frog said:


> Read it somewhere on that site, However I do believe that ZZ was made for speedsolving, It tries to combine low move count, no cube rotations, and no B or F moves.



what he was saying is that most other speedsolving methods are just as much made for speed as ZZ is.


----------



## Joël (Feb 1, 2011)

I personally think that getting used to a slow cube will also make your mind get used to slower turning. I think Guus Razoux Schultz can testify to this. You should simply start with the kind of cube that you ultimately want to be using, just pick a few of the best cubes available and see what you like most.


----------



## ~Phoenix Death~ (Feb 1, 2011)

ianography said:


> If you guys hate this thread so much, then why don't you all just ignore it?


 Cause we want to express our opinionz.


Dene said:


> Ya fixed that for you.


 xD

I*M*O, pcwiz made a much better and detailed guide.


----------



## ElectricDoodie (Feb 1, 2011)

Joël said:


> I personally think that getting used to a slow cube will also make your mind get used to slower turning. I think Guus Razoux Schultz can testify to this. You should simply start with the kind of cube that you ultimately want to be using, just pick a few of the best cubes available and see what you like most.


 I believe this, too. When I was averaging 30 seconds, I would occasionally use my storebought, which forced me to slowdown. This helped my looked ahead, and to get into the 25-28 averages. 






~Phoenix Death~ said:


> I*M*O, pcwiz made a much better and detailed guide.


Yeah, I really liked pcwiz's guide to slow turning. He does it really nicely.


----------



## Vinny (Feb 1, 2011)

I think for beginner's a Ghost Hand II is a good choice. Sometimes I still use mine. It's pretty locky, but it's faster than a Rubik's brand, but not too fast to where you'll be overshooting like crazy.

Just don't get a C4U DIY. They suck.


----------



## Cool Frog (Feb 1, 2011)

uberCuber said:


> what he was saying is that most other speedsolving methods are just as much made for speed as ZZ is.


 
I can understand that, however it seems that ZZ was made to be fingertricky.
Im not saying CFOP or Roux isn't fingertricky but it seems that ZZ was made for being fingertricky and 3gen. 
See what im trying to say?


----------



## Cool Frog (Feb 1, 2011)

uberCuber said:


> what he was saying is that most other speedsolving methods are just as much made for speed as ZZ is.


 
I can understand that, however it seems that ZZ was made to be fingertricky.
Im not saying CFOP or Roux isn't fingertricky but it seems that ZZ was made for being fingertricky and 3gen. 
See what im trying to say?


----------



## Kirjava (Feb 2, 2011)

ZZ isn't that fingertricky. <RUL> is slow.

Why not do <RU> for a block then z' and <RU> for the next block?


----------

