# What Method Do You Use?



## CubeThing (Mar 28, 2009)

These are the methods I use for different puzzles:

3x3x3: Beginner with intuitive F2L

2x2: Few Algorithms Method

Pyraminx: No Algorithms Method/ Intuitive

What methods do you use?

(By The way I am a fairly new cuber, thats why I use no alg methods and beginners etc.)


----------



## byu (Mar 28, 2009)

Um....

2x2: Ortega
3x3: Fridrich
4x4: Reduction
Square-1: Jaapsch/Vandenbergh Combo
3x3 BLD: TuRBo/M2/R2/Freestyle Combo


----------



## JohnnyA (Mar 28, 2009)

3x3: Fridrich full oll+pll
3Fewest Moves: Mixture depending on context. Either optimised fridrich, heise or petrus combined with intuitive blockbuilding.
4x4: Reduction
4Fewest Moves: 2x2 reduction/intuitive blockbuilding
Megaminx: cross+f2l+blockbuild+f2l+commutator


----------



## soccerking813 (Mar 28, 2009)

2x2: First layer+OLL/PLL Haven't bothered to learn any other method.
3x3: Fridrich F2l with 3Look LL.
4x4: IDK what its called. Centers, edges, solve like 3x3.
5x5: Same as 4x4.


----------



## byu (Mar 28, 2009)

soccerking813 said:


> 4x4: IDK what its called. Centers, edges, solve like 3x3.



That's called reduction.


----------



## Kirjava (Mar 28, 2009)

2x2x2: LBL
3x3x3: Roux
4x4x4: K4
5+: Random direct solving


----------



## Yes We Can! (Mar 28, 2009)

2x2x2: First layer, LL: sometimes fridrich, sometimes 2 alg-method (dunno the axact name)
3x3x3: Intuitive Fridrich F2L, then 2 Look OLL, then 2 Look PLL (CFOP)
4x4x4: Intuitive centers and edges, then CFOP (same like 3x3x3)


----------



## HallowedApple (Mar 28, 2009)

2x2 - Whichever method that'll get the job done fastest, but usually ortega.
3x3 - Fridrich (3LLL) - About to start learning all my OLLs =]
4x4 + 5x5 - Reduction
6x6 + 7x7 - Reduction as well


----------



## Marvolo (Mar 28, 2009)

2x2 - Fridrich, Ortega, Guimond, freestyle
3x3speed - fridrich FM - heise BLD - freestyle
4x4 and higher - centers->edges (morris method)->fridrich


----------



## Lucas Garron (Mar 28, 2009)

2 - SS
3 - MGLS-F
4+ - Reduction (centers [2-4-6-9 on 5x5, cols for 6+], AvG, MGLS-F)
BLD - 3OP (L2R2)
Megaminx - normal
Pyraminx - Wanna do Petrus, will probably end up using Cooper
Square-1 - Something kinda SSS1M
Clock - Pochmann
Magics - Pochmann


----------



## Odin (Mar 28, 2009)

2x2x2: Intuitive
3x3x3: Fridrich
4x4x4: Intuitive
5x5x5: Intuitive
Snake: Intuitive


----------



## KevinK (Mar 28, 2009)

2x2: Ortega
3x3: Fridrich
4x4: Reduction
5x5: Reduction
6x6 and higher: Reduction
Megaminx: Erik's method (not sure what it's called)
Pyraminx: layer method
Magic: learned from Eric Limeback's tutorial
2x2 BLD: mostly Old Pochmann; some freestyle
3x3 BLD: M2/Old Pochmann


----------



## fanwuq (Mar 28, 2009)

2x2: LBL, ortega, luck
3x3: Cross-Slots, sometimes random blocks for F2L. VHF2L-COLL-EPLL or OLL-PLL.
4x4: opp centers, other centers, 6 edges on M slice, 2 edges, 3x3, parity fix.
5x5 and larger : Same as 4x4, line approach for centers and one tredge at a time.
Pyraminx: my own methods. FL: tips-edges or Japanese. LL: 1LLL. Learning FP.
Megaminx: intuitive F2Ls, Y, N, and T perm edges, corner commutators.
SQ1: intuitive everything until LL. J perm, Uccw, parity fix.


----------



## PatrickJameson (Mar 28, 2009)

2x2: Ortega
3x3: Fridrich
4x4: Reduction(2-2-2-2 edges on M slice)
5x5: Reduction(Freeslice edges on E slice)
6+: Reduction(1x4/5 centers, Freeslice edges on E slice)
Clock: My own method
Sq-1: Group corners for cubeshape, minimum algs for the rest.
Pyraminx: LBL


----------



## DavidWoner (Mar 28, 2009)

2x2: Ortega, CLL, LBL, a bit of EG
3x3: cross on left Fridrich
4x4: reduction, FR edges, opp color neutral fridrich
5x5: reduction, FR edges, opp color neutral fridrich
6x6: reduction, Multi-redux for edges using FR, opp color neutral fridrich
7x7: reduction, Freeslice then FR for last 4, opp color neutral fridrich
BLD: M2, pochmann corners.
Sq-1: Vandenbergh with few algs.
Pyra: Polish V
Clock: semi-freestyle Pochmann.
FMC: petrus start, sometimes EO, finish skeleton to either 5 or 3 corners, insert commutators to cancel. or anything else that looks good.


----------



## fanwuq (Mar 28, 2009)

What's Polish V?
I asked Piotoor about a year ago and he just use the regular LBL.
You aren't using Gottlieb "ZB" are you?


----------



## Deleted member 2864 (Mar 29, 2009)

2x2: first side (NOT LAYER!) -> Oll -> finish the rest.... otherwise known as ortega
3x3: Intuitive f2l -> Oll (sometimes 2-look, mostly 1 look because I still need to learn like 10 of them...) -> PLL 1-look... also known as the Fridrich Method
4x4: Centers-> pair edges (2 pair) -> finish like the 3x3 with parity.... known as reduction method...
5x5: same as 4x4
6x6+ (if I had v-cubes =b): Assuming I had them... I would prob. use redux... like the 4/5x5.
Pyraminx (broken, unfortunately): the awesome method eric limeback teaches you on youtube... 
megaminx (I don't have one but my friend does and he lent it to me for a week...): the method Erik teaches you.
Square-one: The one taught by elimescube or somethin.... pretty much it's make it cube'd -> solve corners on one side (one will be permuted and the other will only be orientated) -> orient the edges -> fix the non-permuted corners-> permute corners.


----------



## not_kevin (Mar 29, 2009)

2x2: primarily Guimond, 'tho I sometimes use Ortega if I can see the PLL or LBL in the hopes of doing CLL.
3x3: Fridrich
4x4: reduction, Syuhei style (cube rotations instead of D inserts)
5x5: reduction, centers generally by 2,4,6,9, freeslice edges on E
6x6: solved it once (don't own one), used reduction, centers by middle 2x2, extend to central 2x4, 3x4, 4x4, L2C by central 1x4, extend to left 2x4, 3x4, 4x4, freeslice edges on E
7x7: reduction, centers by middle 3x5 and extend, L2C by the one all the good cubers use, freeslice edges on E
3BLD: 3OP
4BLD: most likely commutator centers, r2 edges with commutator algs for any l/r cases, Old Pochmann corners
Megaminx: all but LL using the Erik guide, LL using cutex.info algs
Square-1: Vandenbergh with lots of algs missing
Pyraminx: CF


----------



## ostracod (Mar 29, 2009)

2x2: I don't solve this one a lot, but I'd probably do layer by layer....
3x3: ZZ Winter Variation (EOLine, F2L + corner orientation simultaneously, PLL)
4x4 and up: Direct solving method (Solve columns of pieces until you have a last layer, then use lots of commutators. I don't speed solve these puzzles!)


----------



## Faz (Mar 29, 2009)

2x2 - ortega, guimond, lbl, cll
3x3 - full fridrich
4x4 - reduction
5x5- reduction
megaminx - f2l method with 4-5 look LL
sq1 - beginners method/lars'
2x2 bld - ortega/guimond/lbl/cll
3x3 bld - 3op corners, m2 edges.


----------



## Gparker (Mar 29, 2009)

2x2rtega/lbl/some cll
3x3:fridrich with 3LLL
4x4: reduction with parity algs
5x5:reduction
2x2 blind: speed blind
3x3 blind:M2/oldpochmann
4x4 blind:r2, commutaters, oldpochmann
magic:same as everyone else
memo:letter pair images


must i go on?


----------



## Sa967St (Mar 29, 2009)

2x2x2: ortega/LBL
3x3x3: full fridrich
4x4x4: reduction (solving 3 *adjascent* centres first (CN) and then the last 3 in any order, using M slices for edge pairing,)
5x5x5: reduction, same style as 4x4x4
megaminx: intuitive until the last layer, beginners LL: LL edge orientation, LL edge permutation, LL corner orientation, LL corner permutation 
sq-1: making both layers square, LL corners, 1L corners, edge orientation, edge permutation


----------



## Edmund (Mar 29, 2009)

2: Ortega/CLL (know about a quarter of CLL trying to learn more)
3: Fridrich F2L, I know about 20 olls so mostly 2-look, and full PLL
4: Centers, Single Edge Pairing , and then 3x3
5: see 4x4
Magic: what Eric Limeback teaches in his video


----------



## moogra (Mar 29, 2009)

2x2 Really REALLY bad method
3x3 Fridrich
4x4 -7x7 Reduction
BLD - one on macky's page -> fails 90% time since I suck
Magic - The way different from everyone else
Master Magic - Ooms


----------



## BigGreen (Mar 29, 2009)

3x3: roux
4x4: K4


----------



## Nukoca (Mar 29, 2009)

3x3: Lars Petrus method


----------



## toast (Mar 29, 2009)

2x2: Ortega
3x3: Fridrich(1-2 look OLL)
4x4: Reduction(6-4-2)
5x5-7x7: Reduction.
Sq-1: Not sure.


----------



## JLarsen (Mar 29, 2009)

Nukoca said:


> 3x3: Lars Petrus method



First one lol

2x2 LBL

3x3 Petrus + EJF2L

4x4 and up Redux


----------



## dChan (Mar 29, 2009)

2x2: First Face, OLL/COLL, PLL
3x3x3: Fridrich + Partial COLL
3x3x3BLD: 3OP Corners, Freestyle Edges
4x4x4: Reduction(Pochmann Centers, Syuhei Edges, Fridrich)
5x5x5: Reduction(Pseudo-Pochmann Centers, 2-Pair Edges, Fridrich)

And, err, that's about it. I'm still learning to solve Square-1 and also, I broke my 5x5x5 so I haven't really practiced it or optimized my method.


----------



## Nukoca (Mar 30, 2009)

Sn3kyPandaMan said:


> Nukoca said:
> 
> 
> > 3x3: Lars Petrus method
> ...



It appealed to me. Additionally, I didn't want to learn all the algs for Fridrich.


----------



## trying-to-speedcube... (Mar 30, 2009)

Buggy793 said:


> 2x2: LBL
> 3x3: Keyhole for F2L, 2-look OLL, 1 look PLL
> 4x4: Reduction, I guess
> 5x5: Same as 4x4
> ...



Dude, how do you orient on a Square-1?

On topic:
2x2: ortega
3x3: fridrich
4x4 and higher: reduction --> fridrich
megaminx: sort of fridrich
square-1: square shape, put corners into their correct layer, put edges into their correct layer, permute corners, permute edges


----------



## JohnnyA (Mar 30, 2009)

trying-to-speedcube... said:


> Buggy793 said:
> 
> 
> > 2x2: LBL
> ...



Orient on Square-1 is putting each piece in the right layer. That gets you a solid colour on U and D.


----------



## CubeThing (Mar 30, 2009)

Update To My Methods I use:

2x2: First Layer, OLL, PLL - Is that Ortega?
3x3: Intuitive Cross & F2L, Beginners Last Layer
Pyraminx: Own Method, Intuitive


Methods I would Like to Learn:

3x3: Full Algorithmic Fridrich
4x4: Reduction


----------



## dChan (Mar 30, 2009)

@CubeThing: No, Ortega is: 

1. Orient bottom layer corners
2. Orient top-layer corners
3. Permute all corners


----------



## Afrobongo (Mar 30, 2009)

I'm the third using Roux on 3x3 right? 
Bigger Cubes: Stadlermethod or reduction but veeeery slow...


----------



## be_the_truffle (Apr 1, 2009)

I have yet to try a 2x2, 4x4, or higher, but I use the Fridrich method for the 3x3.
I do plan on getting a 2x2 soon.


----------



## Cloud_9ine (Apr 1, 2009)

2x2 Ortega
3x3 Petrus


----------



## noblsheep (Apr 1, 2009)

2x2 Ortega
3x3 Fridrich
have yet to go higher


----------



## SimonWestlund (Apr 1, 2009)

2x2: Guimond
3x3: Fridrich
4x4+: Reduction
Megaminx: is there more than one good method? Well, F2L, S2L, LL...
Pyraminx: Layer by layer
Square1: Lars' method
Pyraminx Crystal: F2L, S2L, LL


----------



## Kian (Apr 1, 2009)

2x2- Ortega
3x3- Full Fridrich
4x4- Reduction (2-2-2-2-2-2 Edges in M Slice)
5x5- Reduction (AVG Edges in M Slice)
Square 1- Vanderbergh with only one alg per step
BLD- Classic Pochmann


----------



## shoot1510 (Apr 1, 2009)

3x3:Fridrich with intuitive F2L, 2-look OLL and full PLL
BLD: Classic Pochmann


----------



## vrumanuk (Apr 1, 2009)

3x3: ZZ (using Winter Variation + PLL)
4x4: Reduction
5x5: Reduction
6x6: Reduction


----------



## alifiantoadinugroho (Apr 1, 2009)

*2x2* : Ortega Method
*3x3* : Fridrich
*3x3 BF* : M2
*4x4* : Reduction
*5x5* : Reduction


----------



## cookingfat (Apr 1, 2009)

2x2 : Ortega
3x3 : Fridrich, full PLL, 2 look OLL
4x4 : Reduction, edge pair on E slice
5x5 : Reduction (learnt from AVG)
3x3 BLD : Classic Pochmann
2x2 BLD : Classic Pochmann
3x3 match the scramble : Beginners F2L, some edge flipping algs for LL edges and classic pochmann LL corners. 
Pyraminx : intuitive, 1 layer, then another until solved. 
Snake : hard to explain. start at the left side, push and twist into my left hand.


----------



## somerandomkidmike (Apr 2, 2009)

2x2 Corners first  (CLL)
3x3 Corners First (Waterman Style, but uses some blockbuilding)
4x4+ Direct solving (Corners first pretty much... same style as 3x3)
3x3BLD Corners first (orient then permute corners. Pochmann edges)
3x3FMC Just solve it ... I use blockbuilding
4x4+ FMC Direct solving


----------



## Jhong253 (Apr 2, 2009)

3x3: Fridrich
3x3BLD: 3OP (really bad at it tho)
FMC: Roux/Fridrich all sorts of mixed stuff


----------



## jcuber (Apr 2, 2009)

2x2 LBL
3x3 Intuative F2L with at most 2-look OLL and 2-look PLL
4x4 Redux, 2 at a time edges
5x5 redux, cohen-ish edges (advanced bigcubes.com)
6x6 redux, same as 5x5
7x7 redux, same as 5x5


----------



## rachmaninovian (Apr 2, 2009)

1x1: Methode de Frank Morris
2x2: ortega, LBL, 1st layer + CLL soon
3x3: random. fridrich with blockbuilding or none.
4x4: r4 a.k.a. variation sandwich
5x5: r5? =P


----------



## ifdsea (Apr 5, 2009)

2x2: LBL
3x3etrus,Fridrich
4x4: ??


----------



## EmersonHerrmann (Apr 5, 2009)

2x2: Ortega
3x3: CFOP with some other little agls mixed in from sub-methods
4x4: Redux, Syuhei pairing method
5x5: Redux, Frank's pairing method


----------



## Abolish (Apr 5, 2009)

3x3x3: Roux


----------



## soccerking813 (Apr 5, 2009)

Just change my 2x2 method. Last night learned pretty much all of Ortega, but today decided that Guimond is better.
Others: (Already posted these, but w/e)
3x3: Fridrich F2L, 2L OLL, full PLL
4x4+: Reduction


----------



## ostracod (Apr 6, 2009)

Sorry to sortof go off on a tangent, but I don't want to make a new thread for this idea. I've been playing around with making a face-by-face method for a few days, just for fun (I know this is an archaic method, but I want to see how bad it ACTUALLY is). So here's my outline so far:


FACE BY FACE METHOD???

= Steps =

1. (0 ALGS) Solve the D face (edge stickers, then corner stickers, REGARDLESS of permuation, as always!).

2. (0 ALGS) Intuitively solve the edge stickers of the opposite face.
3. (6 ALGS) Solve the corner stickers of that face. Algorithms are used during this step and for all future steps.

4. (13 ALGS) Manually turn U and D to match 2 edges with their centre on the third face. Then solve the other 2 edges.
5. (7 ALGS) Solve the top 2 corner stickers of that face. Then solve the bottom 2 using similar algorithms. (I think it would take 100+ algorithms to solve both the top and bottom corner stickers simultaneously...)

6. (24 ALGS) Solve the fourth side (opposite the third side) in one algorithm.

7. (3 ALGS) Solve the fifth side, hence solving the sixth side as well.

TOTAL ALG MEMO COUNT: 53
MAX ALGS USED DURING SOLVE: 6


I know that step 2 is possible for sure, I've fiddled around a bit and now I can do it consistently. Obviously, this kind of method relies a lot on algorithms...

So how bad is this method? XD I think if one practiced a lot, 20 second times might be possible, assuming you can quickly do steps 1 and 2 in ~5 seconds, and it takes ~2.5 seconds to do each algorithm.

The only benefit that I can see is very fast recognition (one only needs to look at stickers of one color!!)

What do you all think??


----------



## ardi4nto (Apr 11, 2009)

I am using:
2x2 : Beginner method.
3x3 : Fridrich, 2 look OLL and learned Full PLL
4x4 : reduction.


----------



## soccerking813 (Apr 11, 2009)

ostracod said:


> FACE BY FACE METHOD???
> 
> = Steps =.........



It seems kinda similar to an edge-first method that I outlined around a month ago. You do the first two steps intuitively, but then all algorithms. I'll post the link to the thread if I can find it.

Here is the method I mentioned:
1.) Make cross on bottom. 0 Algs
2.) Solve edges in E Slice. 0 Algs
3.) Orient last 4 edges. 3 Algs
4.) Put all corners for one face on that face, but not in correct orientation/permutation. By doing this, the same thing will happen to the opposite face. 6 Algs (Not positive)
5.) Use COLL algs on one side. 40 Algs.
6.) Permute Edges on same face. 4 algs.
7.) Repeat steps 5+6 on opposite face.
http://www.speedsolving.com/forum/showthread.php?t=9794


----------



## ostracod (Apr 11, 2009)

An interesting method comparison....

I've actually been working on face by face some more, and I've improved the method a lot. Plus, I've found all the specific algorithms to use. Here goes:



FBFE METHOD (FACE BY FACE EISENMANN METHOD)

= OVERVIEW =

1. (F1: 0 ALGS) Solve the D face (REGARDLESS of permutation).

2. (EO + EF2: 0 ALGS) Intuitively solve the edge stickers of the U face WHILE orienting E edges as well.
3. (CF2: 6 ALGS, 9.0 MOVES) Orient the corners on the second face.

4. (F3: 35 ALGS, 12.5 MOVES) Solve the rest of the stickers on the third face.

5. (L3F: 60 ALGS, 12.3 MOVES) Solve the fourth side and fifth side simultaneously (hence solving the last side as well).

TOTAL ALG MEMO COUNT: 100
MAX ALGS USED DURING SOLVE: 3


...I think I might ACTUALLY learn this method. Ridiculous, I know, but I want to try it.


----------



## soccerking813 (Apr 11, 2009)

Hmm, that is very interesting. The only really hard step would be the second one, but with a little practice it would get easier.


----------



## ostracod (Apr 11, 2009)

It actually turns out that step 2 can be similar to the keyhole method (except it doesn't matter where you put the E edges, they just have to be oriented) and the edge orienting step for the Heise method... It's a really weird part of my method, but it can be done quickly if you know how.


----------



## soccerking813 (Apr 11, 2009)

Yes, if you got all but 1 corner sticker on the first face, you could use that for orienting the edges. Or you could just orient the top edges, and then use one algorithm to orient the edges in the E layer. There would only be 3 cases. I think it would save a little time, but would add a few moves. Just a guess.


----------



## James Kobel (Apr 11, 2009)

2x2:CLL
3x3:ROOOOOOOOOUUUUUUUUUUUUUX
4x4:K4
5x5:If I actually had one, I would solve all centers, then direct solving for the F3L, then K4LL.
Square 1:Jason Baum's method
Megaminx:Blockbuild the whole way pretty much.


----------



## Tiw (Apr 11, 2009)

2x2: at the moment LBL, but I'm going to learn Guimond
3x3: Fridrich full OLL+PLL (sometimes I start with a 2x2x3 block)
3x3 FM: A mix of Petrus, Fridrich and Heise.
3x3 BLD: I'm going to learn the beginner Pochmann method
4x4/5x5/7x7: Reduction (6x6 I would do the same way)


----------



## waffle=ijm (Apr 11, 2009)

2x2 - FL +CLL
3x3 - Roux...duh
4x4 - redux with edge pairing on E
5x5 - redux
6x6 - redux
7x7 - redux
3x3 BLD - M2/freestyle corners (I haven't done a blind solve in months)


----------



## Nukoca (Apr 12, 2009)

Could we get a poll attached to this?


----------



## Nilxchaos (Apr 13, 2009)

3x3 - Cross, F2L, (almost, G-perms) 3LLL
4x4 - Reduction, But I just got it yesterday.


----------



## not_kevin (Apr 13, 2009)

I learned Pyraminx! I normally use CF.


----------



## Thieflordz5 (Apr 14, 2009)

1x1-U U' Simple =)
2x2- same as 3x3 except only corners =)
3x3-ZZ setup, fredrich F2L (I guess...) 2 look OLL, full PLL
3x3BLD- Trying to learn M2/R2 but I still think the beginner pochman is a pain in the *rear end*
4x4-reduction to 3x3, parity on OLL, parity on PLL (depends)
5x5- Reduction!
Megaminx-Star, F2L (I guess...), block insertion (middle-edge-corner-whatchamacallits), F2L (well it really should be called F11L right?) 2 look OLL (sometimes 3...), then 2 Look PLL (corners/edges) (sometimes 3 depending on if I can get an adjacent clockwise/ccw rotation of edges) 

times: 
1x1-Really fast
2x2-duno, never timed... (maybe 20? Like I said, I don't know)
3x3-35~ish 
3x3BLD-Mem not good enough... Not enough ram XD
4x4-3:30~ish
5x5-5 minutes~ish
Megaminx-10 minutes~ish (haven't practiced)


----------



## Nukoca (Apr 14, 2009)

Nukoca said:


> Could we get a poll attached to this?



I think that's a great idea! What other way will people be able to see the statistics without searching through the whole thread?


----------



## endless_akatsuki (Apr 15, 2009)

2x2-random LBL (never practice...I get like 10s)
3x3-Friedrich
4x4-VERY slow reduction (never practice...)


----------



## mcciff2112 (Apr 15, 2009)

Nukoca said:


> Nukoca said:
> 
> 
> > Could we get a poll attached to this?
> ...



You mean have a poll for every method on every puzzle? Do you know how long that would be? Plus not everyone uses direct methods, some people mix methods or use variations.


----------



## Thieflordz5 (Apr 15, 2009)

mcciff2112 said:


> Nukoca said:
> 
> 
> > Nukoca said:
> ...



Yeah, I agree, it would be hard to get a poll, for example, I use ZZ F2L, but O/PLL (no ZZLL for me, too lazy right now...) 
there could also be a petrus-Roux combo, or a roux/O/PLL or whatever, It would be hard to do, but pretty cool to see...


----------



## Nukoca (Apr 15, 2009)

Thieflordz5 said:


> Yeah, I agree, it would be hard to get a poll, for example, I use ZZ F2L, but O/PLL (no ZZLL for me, too lazy right now...)
> there could also be a petrus-Roux combo, or a roux/O/PLL or whatever, It would be hard to do, but pretty cool to see...



Well, how many options does a poll let you have? I've never done a poll.


----------



## Thieflordz5 (Apr 17, 2009)

Nukoca said:


> Thieflordz5 said:
> 
> 
> > Yeah, I agree, it would be hard to get a poll, for example, I use ZZ F2L, but O/PLL (no ZZLL for me, too lazy right now...)
> ...



I don't know how many... I'd assume something like 8..

BTW, There are quite a few combos... 
Full Fred
full petrus
full roux
full ZZ
full ZB
ZZF2L, O/PLL
Petrus F2L, O/PLL (not sure if petrus has it's own LL)
ZBF2L, O/PLL
And that's already 8...


----------



## byu (Apr 17, 2009)

Yeah Petrus has its own LL, but I don't like it.

And there are 9 options I think.


----------



## Nukoca (Apr 17, 2009)

Thieflordz5 said:


> Full Fred
> full petrus
> full roux
> full ZZ
> ...



Fred? Never heard of that.


----------



## ThePizzaGuy92 (Apr 17, 2009)

interesting to read what some of you use.

2x2x2: FL, LL [i forgot a few CLL cases, but I have most memorized]
3x3x3: Full cfop
4x4x4-7x7x7: reduction/cfop
SQ-1: self-made method with some of Lars's algs
Megaminx: same was 3x3x3 with corners-last LL
Pyraminx: idk??
BLD: ol' Pochmann


I s'pose thats it.


----------



## SimonWestlund (Apr 17, 2009)

2x2 - guimond
3x3 - cfop (2 OLLs left )
4x4-7x7 - Reduction/cfop
megaminx - is there another method? F2L, S2L, Erik's LL
Pyraminx - LBL
Sq1 - Lars Vandenbergh's with a worse square shape method 
BLD - M2 edges, OP corners.


----------



## rahulkadukar (Apr 17, 2009)

2x2 : LBL with 2 Look LL
3x3 : LBL with 3 Look LL
4x4 upto 10x10 : Redux with 2 Edge Pairing
3x3 BLD : 3OP


----------



## SimonWestlund (Apr 17, 2009)

rahulkadukar said:


> 2x2 : LBL with 2 Look LL
> 3x3 : LBL with 3 Look LL
> 4x4 upto 10x10 : Redux with 2 Edge Pairing
> 3x3 BLD : 3OP



what about 11x11?


----------



## rahulkadukar (Apr 17, 2009)

SimonWestlund said:


> what about 11x11?



I think I will use the same method as I use for 4x4x4 to 10x10x10

Actually I am yet to try it, somehow I dont like odd cubes.

Anyway I plan to learn 1 Look LL on the 11x11x11


----------



## Kidstardust (Apr 17, 2009)

3x3 : fridrich 21/21 PLL 16/57 OLL
4x4 : reduction
5x5 : reduction
clock : pochmann method


----------



## That70sShowDude (Apr 17, 2009)

*2x2* - fridrich (just copy 3x3)
*3x3* - fridrich method (~38/57 OLLs)
*3x3 BLD* - variation of old pochmann
*4x4* - reduction, 2 at a time edges
*5x5* - reduction, frank morris edge pairing method


----------



## Ryanrex116 (Apr 20, 2009)

2x2: LBL/Fridrich
3x3: F2L, 4LLL
4x4: Reduction: Pogobat centers, 2 edge pairing
5x5: Reduction: Intuitive. 1 Edge at a time.
6x6: Reduction: Intuitive. 1 Edge at a time.
7x7: Reduction: Intuitive. 1 Edge at a time.

Megaminx: Intuitive/LBL
Pyraminx: Intuitive/Layer first
Clock: Pochmann
Magic: Speed method
Master Magic: Pochmann
Square-1: Hodgepodge of different methods/My Method


----------



## Red (Apr 20, 2009)

Currently 
Fridrich F2L, 2-Look OLL, 2-Look PLL (just learned them)


----------



## Thieflordz5 (Apr 20, 2009)

update:
I don't use ZZ for my F2L, I'm full fredrich (not all OLLs...)
and on my Megaminx, I use star, F2L, S2L, F2L, 2-OLL, and CPLL and EPLL... 9 minutes=not bad


----------



## Vipervenom9 (Apr 1, 2012)

*What method (besides CFOP) do you use?*

I only saw one similar thread, but it didn't give me quite what i wanted. So getting a bit bored with CFOP and want to learn a more intuitive method as well. But I also want it to be fairly fast. So what method do you use and what times do u get with said method?


----------



## emolover (Apr 1, 2012)

CFOP: 13
Columns First: 18
Petrus: 18
OBLBL: 20
Roux: 24

I need to get some more methods under 20.


----------



## Cheese11 (Apr 1, 2012)

2x2: LBL?
3x3: Roux
4x4: Roar
5x5: Centers w/ Freeslice edges


----------



## dr01d3k4 (Apr 1, 2012)

2x2: LBL (Want to learn Ortega)
3x3: CFOP/Roux (CFOP is currently my main method but I'm thinking of changing to Roux, but I'll still use CFOP for big cubes)
4x4-6x6: Reduction

Pyraminx: Simple method with 4 algs
Megaminx: First layer edges, F2L, V shaped part, F2L again, last layer (orient edges, permute edges, orient corners, permute corners)
Square-1: Can't solve yet, but tried to learn making to cube shape, orient corners, orient edges, permute pieces + fix parity


----------



## antoineccantin (Apr 1, 2012)

2x2: LOP w/ CLL: 2-5
3x3: CFOP: 10-13
3x3: Beginner: 15-30
4x4: Redux: 55-1:00
5x5: Redux: 1:40-1:50
6x6: Redux: 3:40-4:20
7x7: Redux: 8:00-10:00
Megaminx: same as above except LL is OLL/PLL
Pyraminx: Oka
Clock: Pochmann
Magic: the normal one
MMagic: Ooms
FMC: either CFOP or Heise
OH: CFOP
BLD: Traditional Pochmann
4BLD: DS


----------



## JohnLaurain (Apr 1, 2012)

3x3: CFOP
4x4: Beginner's 
Pyraminx: LBL


----------



## aznanimedude (Apr 3, 2012)

i only really solve the 3x3
use the ZZ-VH (kind of lol, still have to learn a few more COLLs, then maybe chain that in to ZZ-b eventually)

i "can" solve the 4x4 and 5x5 but i just do basic cube reduction for those


----------



## Kirjava (Apr 3, 2012)

2x2x2 - CLL
3x3x3 - Roux
Bigcubes - K4
Skewb - Kirjava-Meep
Square-1 - Cubeshape Last


----------



## Ander0072 (Apr 3, 2012)

2x2 - LBL 
3x3 - CFOP + sometimes ZBLL (T set)
3x3 BLD - Classic P & M2
4x4 - Reduction
pyraminx - freestyle/intuition


----------



## cityzach (Apr 3, 2012)

2x2: Fridrich/Ortega/Logic
3x3: CFOP
4x4: Reduction with 2-pairing for edges
5x5: Reduction with freeslice for edges
Pyraminx: LBL


----------



## JonnyWhoopes (Apr 3, 2012)

2x2 - CLL
3x3 - Roux
4x4 - Can't decide hah. OBLBL, Meyer, or K4
5x5 and up - Reduction (Freeslice on E)
3BLD - 3style
4BLD - Comms
Pyraminx - Crappy LBL


----------



## Ninja Storm (Apr 3, 2012)

Yay, some of these +1 posts(if that's what you guys call it on this forum).

2x2: Heh, Fridrich
3x3: CFOP, but Roux and Corners first for fun 
4x4: Redux, 4-4-2-2
5x5, 6x6, 7x7: Redux, Free-slice
Mega: CFBeginner's
Siamese: Roux
Pyraminx: LBL
3BLD: OP
Magic: First hit on Youtube


----------



## JasonK (Apr 3, 2012)

2x2: Ortega, 4
3x3: CFOP, 15
4x4 Redux (32223), 1:05
5x5: Redux (freeslice), 2:20
Pyra: Keyhole/Oka/other stuff, 4-5
3BLD: OP/M2 + stuff, 2:00
4BLD: OP/comms/r2 + stuff, 14:00 (no success)


----------



## Ranzha (Apr 3, 2012)

Sahid Velji said:


> Are you serious?


 
Yeah. Apparently it's actually way more intuitive.


----------



## ottozing (Apr 3, 2012)

2x2 - cll
3x3 - cfop
4x4 - yau
5x5 and up - reduction
3x3x5 - kirjavas method

these are the only puzzles i practice


----------



## Iggy (Apr 3, 2012)

2x2 - Ortega and sometimes CLL (if I know the case)
3x3 - Fridrich/CFOP
4x4 & 5x5 - Reduction
Pyraminx - Eric Limeback's method (not sure what it's called)


----------



## Kirjava (Apr 3, 2012)

Sahid Velji said:


> Are you serious?


 
Yeah, it's like a reduction type thing,


----------



## bmpx44 (Apr 3, 2012)

3x3: beginners method
4x4: reduction
5x5: reduction


----------



## costello (Apr 3, 2012)

3x3: beginner's method. I've only been cubing since late December. I usually solve the white cross first, which I've recently learned to solve the cross on the bottom of the cube instead of the top. I'm now learning to be color neutral. What would be the next natural step in speeding up my solves?

I also use reduction for my 4x4 and 5x5, but I have to look at algorithms for some of the more difficult moves.


----------



## Bapao (Apr 3, 2012)

Beginners for 2x2x2. Quit.
Beginners for 2x2x4. Quit.
CFOP for the 3x3x3, still need to learn 1 look OLL. Doubt I'll ever quit solving the 3x3x3, too much fun and 3x3x3 cubes are just so nice to play with.
Redux for 4x4x4 (started learning K4 but quit) and 5x5x5. Stopped solving those though. Don't like big cubes and they don't like me.
Beginners method for Megaminx. Stopped solving those too...

Yeah, I'm a quitter I guess. Needed more time for other hobbies.


----------



## tuber (Apr 3, 2012)

*2x2* Ortega Method
*3x3* Fridrich Method 3LLL (PLL)
*4x4* Reduction Method 2 2 2 2 2 2
*3x3 BLD* Classic Pochmann with Loci Memo


----------



## Cheese11 (Apr 3, 2012)

Who doesn't use LBL for pyraminx? Lol, I use Bob's method.


----------



## Yuxuibbs (Apr 6, 2012)

2x2: Ortega but sometimes LBL
3x3: CFOP with 3LLL, full PLL
Megaminx: beginner's 
Pyraminx: just started LBL, was using really noob method
Big cubes: reduction but I never really started solving big cubes
I like small cubes way more than other puzzles....


----------



## Ickathu (Apr 6, 2012)

2x2- ortega
3x3- CFOP but considering switching to Roux full time
4x4- yau (CFOP 3x3)
5x5 (and up)- redux (CFOP 3x3 [because M slices stink on big cubes])
OH- CFOP (Ms are hard with OH, so no roux)
Pyra- LBL
Sq1- beginners (? shape, place pieces on U and D, corners, edges [still learning edge algs slowly])
3Bld- TuRBo edges, OP corners[Roman Room letter-pair images for edges, audio corners.]


----------



## MostEd (Apr 6, 2012)

Kirjava said:


> 2x2x2 - CLL
> 3x3x3 - Roux
> Bigcubes - K4
> Skewb - Kirjava-Meep
> Square-1 - Cubeshape Last


Except I don't do skewb or sq1


----------



## Cool Frog (Apr 6, 2012)

2x2x2 - CLL
3x3x3 - Roux
Bigcubes - K4


----------



## cubeone (Apr 6, 2012)

2x2x2 - ortega
3x3x3 - combination of cfop and beginners (f2l, cross-sune, pll)
big cubes - reduction


----------



## 5BLD (Apr 6, 2012)

I use Roux for the only event which matters apart from feet


----------



## timeless (Apr 7, 2012)

2x2: LBL (forgot ortega)
3x3: CFOP with 1/2LLL, full PLL
Big cubes: reduction


----------



## Borislav (Apr 7, 2012)

2x2: Ortega in most cases. If I notice in the inspection time, that the first layer will be solved with a few moves, I'm using my own system.  Actually, the chance of LL skip is 22-25%.
3x3: Intuitive F2L + OLL + PLL (Fridrich). I don't know the full system.
4x4: 6-2-2-2 method. It means: Centers > 6-2-2-2 pairs and then like a 3x3.
Big cubes: Reduction.
------------------------------------------------------------
Pyraminx: OKA and my own system.
Square-1: Cubic shape first > corners > edges, etc.
Megaminx: Intuitive (I'm not solving it fast).
Rubik's clock: Stefan Pochmann's method.


----------



## blackzabbathfan (Apr 7, 2012)

2x2- Ortega, around 6 seconds
3x3- CFOP, around 17-18 seconds
4x4- Reduction, around 2 minutes
5x5- Reduction, around 3 minutes


----------



## kirtpro (Apr 7, 2012)

2x2 - ortega
3x3 - color neutral CFOP
quite a few F2L algs + intuitive F2L and keyholing if needed
full OLL, plus a tiny bit of alternate algs for avoiding diagonal PLL cases
full PLL, bit of alternate PLLs for different angles, learnt two side recognition
4x4 and up - redux


----------



## god of rubic 2 (Apr 7, 2012)

2x2 - LBL, gonna learn ortega
3x3 - CFOP 3LLL, learning full OLL and colour neutral.
4x4 - Reduction

Yup, thats all I know...


----------



## toruu (Apr 7, 2012)

2x2: Full Cll (3-5)
3x3: CFOP (10-16)
4x4-7x7 Redux (1.00-1.10;2.00-2.30;4.30-5.30;7.00-9.00)
Megaminx: Eh.. normal method?
Pyraminx: Oka
Square-1: lars´method


----------



## FallenCuber (Aug 6, 2014)

*What method you use and why?*

Hello fellow cubers! Recently, I have been slightly confused on which method to use, as to me they all look like fun. At the moment I use CFOP, but have and might still continue to experiment with the other main four methods people use! So, (and yes I know a what method do you use has been made, but a why one has not) I thought I would make this thread, to see what method you use and why (and yes I know a what method do you use has been made, but a why one has not)! For instance, say I was a random cuber that stumbled upon this thread I would say:

Method(s): CFOP
Time: (This is only if you want, you don't need this)
Why: Because, so far I have been able to achieve the fastest times with it, and it feels the most natural.
Why I think it is the best: (This too is optional, if you think all methods are equal, and it's the cuber that really matters, write that!)
What I think Someone can learn from this method opposed to others: (Besides the normal, "If you use Roux you can learn block building!" Not to burst your bubble but we know that already, talk about cool tricks and advantages)

You may also add in any other information you want (as long as it is cubing related). For instance, you could say, "I use ZZ, but my girlfriend/boyfriend uses Petrus." Then maybe explain why she/he uses that method, if you know. 

The reason I am mainly doing this, Is to see some of the benefits people have from the method they use! I would love to see what method you use and why you love it! What I want to avoid is a HUGE argument as to why your method is the best, if you do feel the need to say why you think it might be, please do keep it civil and don't start a debate for no good reason !

Thanks for your feedback! I'm eager to see what you use and why!


----------



## Yarco (Aug 6, 2014)

Method: F2L + 4LLL

Time: Personal best 58 seconds , average around 75 seconds

Why: I have moved on from Beginner's Method, only been cubing for 1 month.

Why I think it is the best: At this point in time, I don't want to learn 20+ more algorithms and my brain can't hold them. It seems like the best mix of speed and easy. It's about as far as you can get without the extra commitment of 2LLL or full Fridrich.

What I think someone can learn as opposed to others: I dunno... large amounts of algorithm memorization.

Other info: I am interested in learning ZZ but hear the first part is quite difficult. Roux/Petrus seem less appealing but I'd be willing to give them a shot. I will probably try to get my 3x3 time down as far as I can with current method, then focus on the 2x2 for a bit, and then I might try ZZ. For beginners learning F2L I highly recommend looking up "Rido's Hunting Story" on Youtube.


----------



## FallenCuber (Aug 6, 2014)

Yarco said:


> Method: F2L + 4LLL
> 
> Time: Personal best 58 seconds , average around 75 seconds
> 
> ...



Sweet! I've tried ZZ out and as far as I can see, It looks incredibly fast and fun! As for right now I also use F2l + 4LLL although I call it CFOP.


----------



## theROUXbiksCube (Aug 6, 2014)

Method: Roux with 2-Look CMLL
Time: (PB) 30.245 (Avg5) 40-42~
Why: I used C F O P for a while but got bored with it and enjoy the more freedom and conceptual thinking involved with Roux.
Why I think its best: Not really applicable because I believe it is the cuber not the method but I feel even though CFOP is more popular Roux and Petrus, ZZ, etc. Are not inferior at all.
What I think someone can learn with Roux opposed to other methods: Aside from Godlike Blockbuilding (Alex Lau) you can also Learn a great way of placing M-Slice moves in your solves.
OTHER INFO:
*FOR A GOOD TUTORIAL ON YOUTUBE YOU CAN USE WAFFLE'S TUTORIAL OR DONOVAN (LUBIX CUBE) 'S TUTORIAL*


----------



## DeeDubb (Aug 6, 2014)

Method: Roux
Time: Sub-23
Why: It was the first method I learned after Beginner Method
Why I think it's the best: It's not. No method is the best. It's the cuber. It's their dedication and natural ability.
What I think someone can learn from Roux and not other methods: Roux teaches good block building. CMLL is a good intro to COLL, whi ch is great for other methods. It teaches you how to use <M, U> very quickly and efficiently.
Other Info: Learn multiple methods! I'm practicing CFOP and Petrus for fun. I want to learn PLL/OLL and a lot of other things. The more methods you know, the better you will understand the cube.


----------



## PJKCuber (Aug 6, 2014)

Method : CFOP
Time: 22 Seconds
Why: F2L just seemed so much faster than block building and OLL/PLL than LSE.
Why I think it's the best: Well, most of the fast cubers use it. It teaches you to be able to look ahead at a high tps. It is good for OH. You can force OLL/PLL skips.
Other Info: I learnt all the methods now except Petrus, and I might switch to Roux or ZZ because they seem way cooler.


----------



## supercavitation (Aug 6, 2014)

Method: Roux
Time: 19.23/22.70/23.04/23.34 (global: sub-25)
Why: Move count, freedom, and LSE (previously used CFOP and ZZ)
Why I think it's the best: There is no best method, it's about what feels the best for you to execute, as well as what you have the most fun with
What I think someone can learn from Roux as opposed to other methods: M slice use (really good for BLD), CLL Recognition (used in other methods, but it's most important in Roux of the big 4), and freedom within limits (arguably has the most given limits of any method, yet also arguably the most freedom). 
Other Info: I now know the big 4, plus a few others (CFCE, Heise, and a bunch of beginner methods), and I can say I've definitely learned something from all of them. I still use parts or all of each of them (except the beginner methods) for various events, too, so I'd say experiment with all of them, and see which one you like the best. Don't be afraid to switch!


----------



## Fawn (Aug 6, 2014)

Method: CFOP
Times: ~13 second global average
Why: I joined this thread when I averaged about 17 seconds, so I never really found much help and advice, and kinda went by what I could find. I just happened to learn it due to a large amount of resources and documentation on the method I was able to find. I had never heard of roux before I joined this forum! Only cfop, zz, and petrus. (Lbl too, of course). 

I tried switching to roux, but I have a form of short-term memory loss, so I often forgot what I was doing mid-solve. Cfop is much easier for me to keep track of, even when I forget what I'm doing.


----------



## IRNjuggle28 (Aug 6, 2014)

Method: CFOP
Time: ~18 global
Why: I mostly solve big cubes, where the 3x3 stage is less important. Furthermore, Roux relies on M moves, which are out of the question on 5x5 and up, and ZZ relies on a decent amount of inspection time, which I don't get while doing the 3x3 stage of a 5x5+. As for Petrus, it just doesn't appear to be faster than CFOP in practice. As far as I know, nobody has gotten sub 10 global with Petrus. I think Roux might be the only method mentioned that has the potential to be faster than CFOP, but it isn't for me. (It has been faster than CFOP, actually. UWR AO100 is with Roux) 

I disagree that method choice is of negligible importance compared to cubing skill. Switching methods won't make you faster, and there isn't a single method that's obviously the fastest. But acting like the method used isn't important is ridiculous.


----------



## waffle=ijm (Aug 6, 2014)

Method(s): PRSCM

Time: 10-11

Why: Blocks are cool

Why I think it is the best: I don't really think it's the best method, but it's the best method for me. 

What I think Someone can learn from this method opposed to others: A different view on the cube.


----------



## Fawn (Aug 6, 2014)

waffle=ijm said:


> Method(s): PRSCM



What the AAAAAAA is prscm?


----------



## ZamHalen (Aug 6, 2014)

Method:CFOP
Time:15-16 seconds
Why: It just progressed sort of naturally for me. I started with 3 Look LL and slowly worked my way into mostly two look (I sledge hammer out of dot cases so I'm missing some). I found more useful resources than for Roux and Petrus also which kind of sealed the deal.
Why do I think it's the best: I actually don't think it's the best, if I were to order methods from best to worse it would probably be Roux/ZZ> CFOP>Petrus. There just isn't as much work being done with ZZ and Roux when compared with CFOP.
What I think Someone can learn from this method opposed to others: Sadly I don't know if there is much to learn for a majority of people. F2L promotes an understanding of the cube, but so so does block building.
Other: CFOP is easily the most accessible, but Roux and ZZ have a lot of untapped potential. I personally use petrus as a secondary method because I really like the approach and even considered completely switching at one point. I ended up changing my mind because I really hate CxLL and realized that it was the standard for Petrus and Roux.


----------



## FallenCuber (Aug 6, 2014)

Jim said:


> What the AAAAAAA is prscm?



I believe PRSCM is essentially Roux, although there must be some type of difference if there is a different name for it. I'm not 100% sure though.


----------



## Renslay (Aug 6, 2014)

Method(s): Roux.

Time: 14.5-ish.

Why: My first speedsolve method was Petrus, so I already knew the basics of blockbuildings.
Why I think it is the best: for my taste: it is more intuitive + requires few number of moves (relatively to other speedmethods) + requires small number of algorithms to learn + little to no cube rotations.

What I think Someone can learn from this method opposed to others: Solving the cube in an efficient way. The tricks I learned for Roux also helped my FMC, ZZ and F2L techniques. It helps you look at the cube in a different way, and centers are not so fixed anymore. 
Also, M move fingertricks. Furthermore, C*LL recognition, which is really good for COLL and 2x2 CLL.

Other: Even if you chose your main method, study other methods constantly! They help you a lot in your main. For example, I know all the PLLs and many OLLs, I love ZZ, and my favorite experimental method is Noah's CP2.


----------



## CheesecakeCuber (Aug 6, 2014)

Method(s): Roux
Time: ~17-18s
Why: LSE convinced me of Roux's supreme sexiness. And the block building thought process and rotationless aspect is interesting.
Why I think it is the best: It's the best because I said so. All cubers should use Roux *sarcasm alert*
What I think Someone can learn from this method opposed to others: More efficient ways to solve and insert pairs in awkward positions


----------



## MM99 (Aug 6, 2014)

Method: ZZ
Time: 19s or 20s (depends on the day lol)
Why: Because I saw some solves by Phil Yu (A small kitten) and just thought it looked awesome so I went and learned it
Why it's the best: it's probably not the best haha but best for me I think.... I feel it engages the mind a lot more than cfop does... When I used to use cfop I felt kinda brain dead while solving like I wasn't really doing anything now with ZZ I have a lot more fun. I also feels it allows for some crazy tps and look ahead because with no cube rotations during your first two layers it's much more easier to track peices.. Oh and don't even get me started on the block building it's just awesome it makes you feel free in a sense.. I know it's still a more structured style of block building Roux being the true example of freedom but ZZs block building still gives you a lot of that joy. I'm actually surprised I'm the first main ZZ user to post I guess there really isn't that much of us and it's a shame because this method really has some potential we just need more people actually practicing it lol


----------



## guysensei1 (Aug 6, 2014)

Method: CFOP
Time: sub 15 I guess
Why: it's the one I started with, and I can't be bothered to switch.
Why I think it's the best: I don't. I don't think any method is the best.

EDIT: I think PCMS has so much potential. It's terribly underdeveloped IMO.


----------



## TDM (Aug 6, 2014)

Methods: CFOP
Time: sometimes ~13.2, sometimes 15, but usually 14.2.
Why: Because I'm too lazy to practise other methods.
Why I think it is the best: I don't. It's boring. I prefer Roux/PCMS/ZZ, but I don't like being slow so I don't use them.
What I think someone can learn from this method opposed to others: Some algs and not much more.


----------



## Raviorez (Aug 6, 2014)

Method: CFOP (4LLL)
Time: ~ 30 seconds
Why: I used a beginners method that starts also with cross... and I like to solve 4x4 and yau with CFOP is IMO a very good combination and very fast (all WR)
Why I think it is the best: easy to understand because there are only 2 intuitive steps and those aren't that hard to understand..
What I think Someone can learn from this method opposed to others: fast solutions for big cubes.
Other info: I'm thinking of switching to ZZ because I like the idea of no cube rotations (because I do way too much rotations) and the idea that you always have orientated edges for the LL..


----------



## Bindedsa (Aug 6, 2014)

Method: CFOP
Time: 11.5ish
Why: I am a conformist, who likes learning tons of algorithms
Why I think it's the best: Because switching methods is too hard
What I think Someone can learn from this method opposed to others: How to minimize mental effort


----------



## Tao Yu (Aug 6, 2014)

*Method:* CFOP
*Time:* ~9.5
*Why:* The transition from beginners method (I learned from youcandothecube.com) to CFOP just felt natural to me.
*Why I think it's the best:* Fast triggers, high TPS potential, F2L tricks, less thinking, easy recognition, more versatile (i.e better for big cubes and OH).
*What I think Someone can learn from this method opposed to others:* TPS, learning algs.

*Method:* Roux
*Time:*~11
*Why:* Using Roux seems to be the hip thing nowadays.
*Why I think it's the best:* low movecount, more freedom, lots of tricks and shortcuts, CFOP LL is boring.
*What I think someone can learn from this method opposed to others:* blockbuilding, figuring stuff out for yourself (since the resources for Roux are kinda limited).



FallenCuber said:


> I believe PRSCM is essentially Roux, although there must be some type of difference if there is a different name for it. I'm not 100% sure though.



PRSCM = professional roux speedcubing method. It's a kind of joke lol.


----------



## Bryan Chia (Aug 6, 2014)

Method: CFOP (2-Look-OLL and Full PLL)
Time: 19.88 (fluke) but normally I sub-30
Why: Because my friend taught me the beginners method since I started cubing and I've been using it since then. 
Why I think it's the best: Because switching methods is quite hard, you have to start from bottom again. I would rather focus on 1 method first and keep on doing it until I get the results I'm satisfied 
What I think Someone can learn from this method opposed to others: There are heaps of algorithms for you to learn (if you're the type of person who loves learning new stuff + a good brain)


----------



## Vesper Sword (Aug 6, 2014)

Method: Roux
Time: 10-12 usually
Why: I used to use CFOP but got bored so I just started using Roux because block building interested me.
Why I think it's the best: Low move count when compared to other methods, Not a lot of algorithms are needed, pretty intuitive
What I think someone can learn from this method opposed to others: You learn block building which is fun and efficiency improves.


----------



## Dane man (Aug 6, 2014)

*Method:* A mutant mix of many lazy things including the F2L of CFOP and the LL of 4-alg BLL
*Time:* ~35 - see reason below
*Why:* _I haven't been able to cube for 2 years_ until recently, and I have had almost no time to practice since I got back, so I have forgotten all of the algorithms except for about 6 of them, and I don't have the time or the drive to try to memorize more as I should (mostly because there are never competitions near enough to where I live). I really want to learn a block building method and Roux, I also want to (re)memorize OLL, PLL, and COLL. Despite my current lack of time to practice, and thanks to the experience I had before, I do have a very in-depth understanding of the principles and algorithms, and I have been sub 30 before, so I spend some time here every once in a while to propose and discuss methods, techniques, and interesting puzzle theories.
*Why I think it's the best:* I don't, but it's all I've got until I find time to memorize and practice more. I'll figure out what is "the best" for me when that time arrives.
*What I think Someone can learn from this method opposed to others:* Not from the method so much as my current situation. They can learn the amazing speed that is achievable even with very few (and I mean _very_ few) memorized algs and very little practice. Meaning that with more algs, and more practice, even more amazing speeds can be achieved.




I need to find more time to cube. I would easily be sub-20 now if I could remember all the OLLs and PLLs.

Oh well, until then, I guess.


----------



## Ulbert (Aug 6, 2014)

Method: cfop
Time: usually 21 (OH)
Why: easy transition from beginners, have tried other but this one works best for me
Why I think it's the best: I don't, zz is easily better, eo line is equivlent to cross, and then all the edges are oriented, you know th rest

2 lazy to answer the last one, but not lazy enough to type this


----------



## CriticalCubing (Aug 6, 2014)

Method: CFOP
Time: Sub-18
Why: It was the first method I learned after Beginner Method
Why I think it's the best: It's not. No method is the best. It's the cuber. It's their dedication and natural ability.
What I think someone can learn from CFOP and not other methods: It is just a good extension to Beginners method and has a lot of resources, which can help you with Q&As.
Other Info:Just practice multiple methods. I know ZZ, ROux and Petrus and practice ROux and Petrus for fun. ZZ is not for me because I mostly do EOCross and normal cross is faster for me!


----------



## somerandomkidmike (Aug 6, 2014)

Method: Watermelon
Time: Average 13-ish
Why: It's a method that I know.
Why I think it's the best: It's not the best method. 
What I think Someone can learn from this method opposed to others: blockbuilding the first layer, about 90 algorithms, the difference between a fruit and a speedsolving method


----------



## kcl (Aug 6, 2014)

Method: CFOP
Time: 8.5-9.5
Why: I learned from badmephisto. I felt that this method clicked with my style, and I picked it up quickly. 
Why I think it's the best: has fast triggers allowing for crazy TPS, f2l is extremely free, easy recognition, can be used with big cubes

What I think someone can learn from this method opposed to others: TPS, alg learning.


----------



## CUB3R01 (Aug 6, 2014)

*CFOP/Frodrich* *white side cross only* full PLL- only ten or so cases left to learn on OLL. I'm so lazy xD

Time: on 3x3 ~18 seconds average 

Why: I have had the best luck with this method! I have tried switching over to Roux and Petrus but I am just not relatively 
as fast with these methods than I am with Fridrich. I like block building but am not very good at it.

Why I think it is the best: I don't. I think Roux is the best if we are talking top speed. However, I think CFOP is great for most people because ist isn't incredibly hard to transition from beginners method to CFOP. They sort of have the same.. route. 

What someone could learn from this method: F2L is pretty fun and I enjoy figuring out how solving one f2l pair can influence the next pair to take less moves/fewer cube rotations to solve. So, from this idea of planning ahead, you can keep pushing yourself to see more and more ahead! The key is to never be satisfied with how good you are at looking ahead! 
I think this method really encourages you to find ways to improve! (Listed some tips below) 
Also, of its incredible popularity, there is a ton of information and special tricks that you can find online 

An idiots guide to getting faster than I am with CFOP:
1. Be able to solve the cross without looking (I used a blindfold) 
2. When you solve your first F2L pair you should already know what moves are required for the next pair. After completing the second pair, do the same as before and already know what moves will be required for the third pair. 
3. On the final f2l pair, see if you could possibly influence what your OLL case will be. It is typically worthwhile to do a couple extra moves to change that "two adjacent edges correctly oriented OLL case" into a "all edges correctly oriented case"
4. Learn the easy OLL cases 
5. Learn all PLL cases
6. Learn the rest of the OLL cases
7. Be able to transition into each step very fluidly! 

I have been cubing since late 2007! I wish I had really started trying to improve before 2011ish.. I had been on a long hiatus from beginning of 2013 to a few weeks ago.. Shameful. 
I am more than likely slower than a majority of everyone else on this site that has been cubing since 2008 or before, but I will not stop practicing ever  
Haha, I'm not sure if this is inspirational or sad, but yeah just keep trying to find ways of improving! I will be.


----------



## IRNjuggle28 (Aug 7, 2014)

Bindedsa said:


> Method: CFOP


I can't wait until you can say full ZB instead of CFOP. 


> Why I think [CFOP] is the best: *Because switching methods is too hard*


That's the reason that you should keep using CFOP, not the reason that CFOP is intrinsically better than other methods. The latter is really what this thread asked for.


----------



## GuRoux (Aug 7, 2014)

Method: Roux
Time: 10-11
Why: I liked it better than other methods.
Why I Think it's the Best: no cube rotations, fewer moves, fun to block-build
What I think someone can learn from this method opposed to others: block-building skills, versatile M slices,


----------



## Dane man (Aug 7, 2014)

somerandomkidmike said:


> Method: Watermelon
> Time: Average 13-ish
> Why: It's a method that I know.
> Why I think it's the best: It's not the best method.
> What I think Someone can learn from this method opposed to others: blockbuilding the first layer, about 90 algorithms, the difference between a fruit and a speedsolving method



What's the Watermelon method? Never heard of it. Unless you talking about your LC2E method (or the Waterman method).


----------



## TDM (Aug 7, 2014)

Dane man said:


> What's the Watermelon method? Never heard of it. Unless you talking about your LC2E method (or the Waterman method).


Yeah, Watermelon = Waterman.


----------

