# A method of CFOP speedcubing training that yields systematic progress



## speedpicker (Nov 27, 2012)

*A method of CFOP speedcubing training that yields systematic progress - downloadable*

I noticed that the time proportions thread had been bumped, and thought it was time I posted my "speedcubing training system" which is based around a similar idea.

I took hundreds of solves from sub 10 cubers (all world class CFOP people, I'm making the assumption that they are doing it right!), and averaged all the proportions of each, to come up with an overall baseline to shoot for with regard to splits. I then made an excel spreadsheet which dissects your solves and the relative proportions of each phase, then establishes how far from the "ideal" you are in each area. 

Im hoping to develop some sort of app or software (help wanted, anyone?) which takes your split times and then gives you specific advice on your weaknesses, hopefully helping to a) lead people toward the type of mindful practice recommended by Escher and 5BLD and b) somewhat curtailing the incessant "what should I work on? "How can I get sub xx?" type threads which clutter the forum.

The "idealised" relative proportions are: cross 12%, cross+1 24.5%, F2L (inc cross) 62%, OLL 16.5% (inc recog and AUF), PLL 21.5% (inc recognition and AUF), Total last layer 38%. 

To figure out your own weakness simply multiply your global average (or todays average of 12 if you are inconsistent day to day) by 0.12, 0.245, 0.62 etc, and then do an average of 5 or 12 (more accurate), just doing that specific part of the solve. If your cross (for example) is appreciably more (say 10% more) than 0.12 * your global average then that is the area you need to work on. If your f2l is less than 62% of your solve total, then this is an area of strength. You can work out as a percentage how much out of the "ideal" you are for each phase, and thus decide on your biggest problem. 

If you systematically work on the area you are weakest on until it is no longer your weakest area, then move on to practicing your new weakest area, your times plummet. Believe me, I've been training to this system for a couple of weeks now and I have shaved 10% off my solve time, which is a real shot in the arm for my progress, which appeared to have come to a shuddering halt, until this. 

The point is it forces you to do the self aware practice that really achieves results, instead of just doing lots of solves and calling it "practice" (there are loads of threads on the folly of this approach.... some wise words on this forum if you look)

The idea of figuring out your worst area and working on it comes from my approach to OLL/PLL training, which is basically:
1) Time all your PLLs, 
2) Which ever is the slowest, drill it until its not your slowest 
3) Repeat

If this is consistently not working over a long period, review your fingertricks/regrips or get better algs.

The spreadsheet takes your PLL times and highlights which need work (and which are good) using the above system, and extrapolates an estimate of your OLL time, also figures out TPS for each phase of the solve and (most illuminatingly) tells you the metronome setting which corresponds to your F2L time. This then gives you a target for metronome solving since if you can solve to a metronome faster than this number, you are effectively solving faster than your regular F2L. Unless you already have excellent look ahead, I think you will be shocked by how slow this actually is, and if you can't keep up with it, this highlights lookahead as an area to work on. BTW, if you are already solving in perfect proportions and nothing is identified as a weakness, you should work on F2L as it always has the most scope for improvement being the longest part of the solve.

From all this we can also extrapolate sensible estimates of OLL recog, PLL recog, individual pair insertion, first pair identification time etc etc, and I am devising a 4 look, 3 look and Roux versions (although a much smaller sample will be a factor there, basically it will train you to solve with 5BLD proportions, but no bad thing right?) 

Top tip - for accuracy on the last layer phases, do your f2l average on 5 or 12 different cubes, leaving each U face down at the end, then to test your last layer, pick them up and turn them over as you start the timer, ensuring that you get no advantage in recognition.

I haven't posted this spreadsheet yet as it still needs tweaking (if enough people want it I'm happy to post it as is), and of course adapting for other methods as I already mentioned. If anyone wants to help me code this into an app or something that would be great. Imagine a touch phone app called "solve analyser" that got you to do a bunch of split times and alg executions and then spit out a prescription for improvement based on a mathematical analysis of your specific weaknesses. It could also have a built in metronome, alg list, 2-look PLL recog trainer, produce graphs of your progress in different areas, etc etc. This would be cool.


To summarise basically all of the generic advice handed out, heres an abbreviated guide to how to improve each given area once you have identified it: (anyone who has been on this forum for a decent length of time has heard all this a thousand times, but here we go again...)

0) Practice

1) Cross - ensure you are doing it on the D face, make sure you know your colour scheme cold, utilise your 15 seconds effectively, make sure plan all four pieces in advance, practice solving cross eyes closed, if 15 seconds isnt long enough, take as long as you like to plan it (this time rapidly comes down with practice), if you can't do it consistently in 8 moves or less, go on JARCS and compare your solutions to a given cross with its optimal solutions, if you still suck at crosses just spend an entire day figuring out cross solutions and executing them with your eyes closed, watch badmephistos cross vids.

2) Cross + 1 - you need to identify your first pair either during the solution of the cross, or ideally during inspection (more advanced, basically to get this down take as long as you need for inspection as before then track the pieces whilst you cross, your times will come down and 6 pieces isnt too much for your brain even if it feels like it at first) so you can immediately go on to insert your first pair after the cross, if you have to watch the cross pieces as you solve them you can't do this so eyes closed cross solving practice removes the need to look. Work on look ahead in general (see F2L). For learning X-Cross check out Chris Hardwicks tutorial and Lars Petrus' block building stuff on their websites, once again taking as long as you like to plan the whole X-Cross and executing eyes closed as before, your required inspection time will rapidly fall, an X-cross of over 11-12 moves is probably not as efficient as it could be.

3) F2L - SLOW DOWN AND LOOK AHEAD, make sure you dont need to look at the pieces when solving, if you do have this problem: find the pieces, close your eyes and solve them, as you get more advanced try identifying two pairs and solving them both eyes closed, try solving to a metronome (after around 200 bpm this is less productive), learn to solve in all slots (Macky's site if you are stuck, I have written about this before: http://www.speedsolving.com/forum/showthread.php?8710-The-One-Answer-Question-Thread&p=720540&viewfull=1#post720540), make sure you have decent algs (8 moves or less) for each case, the only cases which should take more moves should be tricks that can be executed v. fast (RUR'U' * 3 for example), long winded intuitive solutions can usually be optimised by checking the wiki, if you struggle to spot pieces try finding a corner first, minimise cube rotations to 2 or 3 per solve, never do y2, look into edge orientation to reduce this, try forcing yourself to solve slowly without any cube rotations to figure out creative ways to deal with different cases (or check Macky's site), do lots of slow solving trying to minimise move count and keep continuously turning (U,U,U, doesn't count!), practice at a speed that is as fast as you can go without pausing, try not to learn crazy trick ways to solve cases if they interfere with lookahead, go through good cubers reconstructions continuously asking yourself what you would do here and figuring out why they have done what they have done, some people find it it helpful to practice f2l using a cube with no stickers on the U layer (if you are into this I advise getting a coloured plastic Guhong/Zhanchi and an unstickered black on and then you can make a cross only cube, and f2l cube or whatever variation you like by interchanging pieces), watch badmephistos F2L vids.

4) OLL - Learn 1 look OLL, AUF as opposed to rotating the cube, get good algs that suit your turning style, algs that minimise regrips during execution, drill drill drill, maybe learn multiple versions to reduce AUF (if you are crazy into learning algs, or absolutely have to shave that last 0.2 seconds off), learn a bit of basic edge control (I have super simple edge control system tutorial on this to follow at some point), try to predict your OLL case during the last pair insertion, drill some more, work on fingertricking the individual elements of the alg, try OLL recog software if recog is an issue, drill drill drill, watch badmephistos OLL vids, (then investigate alternative algs from the Wiki or Breandans videos or whoever)

5) PLL - Learn 1 look PLL, AUF as opposed to rotating the cube, get good algs that suit your turning style, algs that minimise regrips during execution, drill drill drill, maybe learn multiple versions to reduce AUF, learn to predict what colour will be at the front at the end of the alg so you know what your AUF will be, learn 2-look PLL recog to reduce time identifying the case (some cool new software is floating about on this at the mo), drill some more, fingertrick the algs as much as possible, try PLL recog software if recog is an issue, drill drill drill, watch badmephistos PLL vids, (then investigate alternative algs from the Wiki or Breandans videos or whoever)

6) Practice a lot, specifically targetting your weaknesses. Go through reconstructions to find new ideas, film yourself solving and examine it critically, read the How to Get Faster with the Fridrich Method and How to Practice threads. If you aren't colour neutral it really helps with X-crosses and such, but if you aren't and you are already pretty quick its probably not worth switching as the time could be better used elsewhere, try solving opposite colour cross (e.g. yellow if you are white) as this doubles your options and isnt as difficult as full colour neutrality, but if its not for you dont worry about it, learn a bit of COLL, WV, VHLS, RLS etc, some cases are really worth knowing, play with different methods as there is a lot of helpful crossover (Petrus/ZZ/Roux teaches you a lot about edge orientation, block building, using restricted movesets etc), continuously set specific achievable goals, and work to achieve them.

7) Practice. 


I think thats basically everything, but Im in the process of writing a book on this stuff (200 pages in..... ) so further contributions are welcome, and I expect theres going to be a lot of TLDR here......

Spreadsheet available further in the thread, along with blank f2l case documents: 
http://www.speedsolving.com/forum/showthread.php?39406-A-method-of-CFOP-speedcubing-training-that-yields-systematic-progress&p=805512&viewfull=1#post805512

There has been some discussion of having a weighted PLL calculation based on frequency of cases occurring, a spreadsheet which calculates this can be found here: http://www.speedsolving.com/forum/showthread.php?39406-A-method-of-CFOP-speedcubing-training-that-yields-systematic-progress&p=824093&viewfull=1#post824093


----------



## KottenCube (Nov 27, 2012)

My goodness I have never thought of learning CFOP in this fashion. I will surely use method to master my full CFOP.
Thanks


----------



## sneaklyfox (Nov 27, 2012)

Nicely written. Thanks.


----------



## CarlBrannen (Nov 27, 2012)

I'd also like to encourage this. Of course people with different finger skills will end up with different ratios. And if you're trying to improve your *average* solve time, it makes sense to spend more time practicing the OLL and PLLs that you need more often. But just reducing the longest times is a start.


----------



## JonnyWhoopes (Nov 27, 2012)

If you're looking for more Roux input, check out Big Green's channel (you have to search for his cube videos) and Kirjava's channel.


----------



## MovingOnUp (Nov 27, 2012)

You should be hired for writing those insanely long web pages about products where they are like BUT THATS NOT ALL. Just saying.

But seriously, this could be potentially quite helpful, any new cubers asking how to lower their times could be sent to a more organized thread/website detailing the final version of what you are working on. I'm all for seeing the documents as soon as you can.


----------



## stoic (Nov 27, 2012)

Well thought-out, well put together, well written. Excellent.


----------



## Escher (Nov 27, 2012)

I've got to say I would like to an 'improvement' sub-forum, where the stickies would be composed of essentially theory posts like this one (haven't thought enough about what you've said to comment properly just yet), and people can post their breakdowns and videos asking for specific advice. Although the crux of this post seems to be about analysing those breakdowns and setting targets, times will always just be a symptom of what you're doing wrong, separate from underlying causes; specific advice will always be needed.


----------



## FatBoyXPC (Nov 27, 2012)

Escher said:


> specific advice will always be needed.



Yep, this is my exact issue. I've known for quite some time that my times obviously aren't in order, however, I'm not always sure how to improve on certain things (learning lookahead just seems so difficult for me). To be fair, I don't really practice near as much as I should, but I think a lot of that is due to not being able to improve.


----------



## yoshinator (Nov 27, 2012)

Two things: first of all, this is amazing, excellent concept, good writing, awesome. Second, there will never cease to be people who start their own threads about how they can improve, no matter how easily accessible you make threads like these.

Thank you!


----------



## speedpicker (Nov 27, 2012)

Thank you all for your kind comments. I would like to address the issue of people requiring specific advice. I am not in any way suggesting that any automated system could possibly rival the extraordinarily helpful advice people are occasionally getting here, such as: http://www.speedsolving.com/forum/showthread.php?39351-Cross-or-F2L-Help Dominate, this is some truly outstanding work. 

However, I do feel that a big problem for a lot of people is identifying where their weaknesses actually lie. A great number of mediocre speedsolvers just solve over and over, and then get confused when their progress stalls. They are then in the position of having to identify precisely what their difficulty is without having the tools to do this. I have hopefully provided a methodology which will help people to overcome this obstacle.

A huge number of "how can I improve?" type threads are posted, and many are responded to in the same basic way, "Practice", "Go slow and look ahead", "Plan your full cross and execute it with eyes closed" etc etc. Although the uninitiated need this information (as we all did at one point) it does become repetitive noise to the more experienced cuber. If people used a tool such as the one I have proposed, these threads would be uneccessary, a simple link to the appropriate place would suffice. When they are really stuck (sub-15 stuck), posters such as Dominate can step in with the really useful nuts and bolts stuff. My list 0-7 is basically a reduction of the cookie cutter responses that people tend to receive when they ask for help, especially when they provide inadequate information for people to be truly helpful and clearly haven't done sufficient independent work. An example: http://www.speedsolving.com/forum/showthread.php?37173-Help-getting-faster-please . Even when they provide splits and a video the answers seem to fall into the same basic concepts. I defy you to find an over 25 second solve submitted for community analysis where the biggest issue isn't lack of lookahead or poor cross planning or similar basic skills. People post because there isn't a framework or methodology that they can turn to, the closest thing to this being the excellent How to Get Faster using the Fridrich CFOP Method (I found this extremely helpful starting out). I hope to move this situation forward by encouraging people to follow a similar progression, but allowing for the fact that different people progress at different rates in different areas. The skill people must learn is to be aware of their own limitations and weaknesses and thus how to address them. As Escher et al have explained many times before, this is the key to effective, rapid progress.

If we can get people into good practice habits from the point where they transition from the beginner method into a true speedsolving method, all the way through past the sub-20ish barrier (which I firmly believe is the point at which a lack of a practice methodology stalls progress) and through to sub-15 (and beyond) in a systematic fashion, then surely this enhances the whole community WITHOUT replacing concrete specific advice as exemplified by Dominate? 

In conclusion, yes there is no substitute for real specific advice, but there are a whole lot of people who haven't got past the point where they need generalised, cookie cutter advice. My proposition is simply another tool to help people improve, but (if I may be so bold) one I feel could (if systematically followed) lead to extremely rapid gains, the development of good habits and the reduction in pointless threads where the only appropriate response is "do a search" and "practice". Which annoy me.

Take from it what you will, and thanks again for all your kind words. I have more stuff like this. I have been systematically reading and digesting this forum and not really posting much for years now, its time I gave something back (before any pedants jump in, I was reading it long before I actually created an account!). More to follow.


----------



## MalusDB (Nov 27, 2012)

I like your outlook on all of this speedpicker. Professional. It's encouraging to see people addressing developmental issues for cubers instead of falling back on the old shout outs like you mentioned. Keep her lit! lol


----------



## JE007 (Nov 27, 2012)

I think that I first going to learn al PLL's and then practise this methode...
I find it a good idea to analyse your weakness on this way


----------



## 5BLD (Nov 27, 2012)

Very good ideas. The one quibble I have is the fact that the breakdown percentage of fast cubers may not e the best for you personally-- as you get faster and faster you have less and less people to serve as examples and you think more personally (this is a good thing). 

I think the most important thing you mention is finding specific faults and drilling them until they are gone. Personally I can't really be bothered anymore but if I wanted to still have extremely fast progress I'd as you say look at each alg and if its weak drill it until it's not. However for me, I've worked on technique for such a while that my major bad habits are gone and so simply solving casually to get more comfortable with the cube generally suffices as good practice for me. I know my CMLL is awful though so when I have the motivation that is my priority of practice.

When i say "casual solving" though i mean just maintaining speed. Any solve slower than average or not faster than average, from experience I can reflect on it and tell exactly what to avoid doing or what technique to change next solve.


----------



## speedpicker (Nov 28, 2012)

5BLD said:


> Very good ideas. The one quibble I have is the fact that the breakdown percentage of fast cubers may not e the best for you personally-- as you get faster and faster you have less and less people to serve as examples and you think more personally (this is a good thing).



This is a very good point. At your level (and method), there are few role models to serve as examples. However I would hold that for anyone to get to (say) sub10, maybe sub-12, they must have the ability to recognise their own flaws and systematically address them. You made this point here http://www.speedsolving.com/forum/showthread.php?39242-Please-help-me-become-sub-10&p=798614&viewfull=1#post798614 .

I want to help people get this skill. My methodology isnt for people trying to get from sub 9 to sub 8 (although I dont doubt it would work better than no methodology at all), but rather for people who haven't yet developed the ability to "think more personally" with the necessary realism to effectively self-critique, so basically anyone who doesn't know what practice to do to improve (or thinks their cross/f2l/whatever isn't a problem when in fact it is). 

Unless someone is already awesome, they can do a lot worse than try to model solves on Felix, Matts, Cornelius et al. If someone is already world class, then they have already found their own path.

And I really doubt your CMLL is "awful"


----------



## JonnyWhoopes (Nov 28, 2012)

speedpicker said:


> And I really doubt your CMLL is "awful"



Slightly off-topic, but his CMLL is disproportionately slow to his global speed. He's just too fast at everything else.


----------



## nickvu2 (Nov 28, 2012)

As a behavior analyst, I approve of and am very excited about this approach! 

I would love to have something like this for ZZ, but I realize the sample size is small and there is a wide variety of last layer methods.

For the app, it certainly wouldn't be the first feature you add, but it would be interesting to collect data from the users. You might discover unexpected trends that could further optimize the learning process. For example, maybe it's more efficient to use 4LLL until your sub-30; maybe if you favor both hands equally (as opposed to right or left dominate) your solve proportions would be different, maybe getting super good at cross would help improve the other steps faster. Rich data collection would begin to address the personalization problem, but also guide the general learning procedure. Again, just brainstorming; definitely not what needs to be focused on to get the app off the ground.

Prisma Timer is open source, and he already has LL scramblers and the like. Perhaps a java guru could hack on that instead of starting from scratch.


----------



## maggot (Nov 29, 2012)

i think that this is a very effective method. its one that naturally one would take after a while to become faster. the problem that i have is that percentages would work for someone who already knew 2LLL. a lot of people who are trying to break that sub30 or sub20 or even some sub15 barrier dont have all those algs memorized. therefore those percentages would be skewed. but, none the less the best way to get better at CFOP is to memorize your OLL and PLL and then optimize your individual parts of the solve. i like how you introduced the cross+1. this came to me after i was already sub 20, but helped me break sub15. this is very underrated part of the solve in which a lot of time is wasted. the others being cross movecount/speed optimal and PLL recognition. this is just from my personal experience.


----------



## speedpicker (Nov 29, 2012)

rickvu2: The idea of collecting data and continuous refinement of the "improvement curve" is very attractive. I can imagine some difficulties with filtering the data but fundamentally a great idea. From previous experience of training people, it is a roughly exponential decay of solve time vs how long you have been cubing for. A good example is the graph on BadMephistos site of his own improvement. One would expect a couple of blips (first learning f2l for example), but the issue I see coming up is confirming how much practice people are actually doing. Very few people do a set amount per day/week/month, and since the practice time (and quality of practice time) is a key variable, I think the data would be useful only from truly dedicated cubers, who it would be tricky to identify in advance.

Prisma idea is interesting. I use prisma myself and really rate it. I like the idea of "solve analysis" being another option along with f2l/oll/pll training. The user is then taken through a sequence of averages of different phases of the solve, and results are presented for interpretation. This seems eminently doable. Any java gurus want to lend a hand with this?


maggot: Thank you for your positive feedback. The point about 2 look OLL or PLL is a good one, and I see two solutions. I could have a different splits for 2 look / 3 look / 4 look / maybe even beginner method, and thus separate analyses for each. The user would input the method they are using and it would have splits for the method in question. 

However, in trials with real people (thank you guys at WSMO 2012 who were kind enough to subject themselves to this) I found the interesting side effect of the system that it does give you an indication when you should consider learning more algs. One person in particular (I forget his name), received his results (reasonable cross, good f2l, weakish OLL, very poor PLL) and simply said: "I suppose I'd better get round to learning 1 look PLL then. Thought as much.". The fact was, he had done enough work on his f2l to bring his times down, that further efforts in this area would be less productive than learning some new algs. Slower 4 look cubers had their f2l highlighted as a weakness, indicating that they would get better results from working on their f2l rather than learning all the 3 or 2 look algs at that time since their last layer was acceptably quick (if not move efficient). I am all for the "learn what you like whenever you fancy it approach", but I also like the idea that the system indicates to people when in their development they would most benefit from learning algs rather than other skills. Just helps with the whole "I average 32 seconds, should I learn 3 look last layer, or wait until Im sub-30" type questions.

I throw it open to the community then. Would you prefer a separate 2/3/4 look version of this thing, or do you like the idea that it indicates when would be a good idea to change up to the next level?


----------



## CarlBrannen (Nov 30, 2012)

I'm a (slightly more than, on average) 4 look guy, but I think that since the eventual target is to get to 2 look, I'd prefer to see the times split for the 2-look folks.


----------



## nickvu2 (Nov 30, 2012)

speedpicker said:


> rickvu2: The idea of collecting data and continuous refinement of the "improvement curve" is very attractive. I can imagine some difficulties with filtering the data but fundamentally a great idea. From previous experience of training people, it is a roughly exponential decay of solve time vs how long you have been cubing for. A good example is the graph on BadMephistos site of his own improvement. One would expect a couple of blips (first learning f2l for example), but the issue I see coming up is confirming how much practice people are actually doing. Very few people do a set amount per day/week/month, and since the practice time (and quality of practice time) is a key variable, I think the data would be useful only from truly dedicated cubers, who it would be tricky to identify in advance.



What researchers often do in measuring the success of an intervention is conduct immediate pre/post testing. Perhaps you open a training session. In the analysis phase you are prompted to record your splits and learn your weakness. Training phase where you practice just that step. Then test phase where you do splits (or maybe just full solves) to be compared against the analysis phase. Not sure how much improvement to expect in say an hour long session. Even small increases (1/10 seconds) across a large sample size may be adequate to demonstrate effectiveness or trends. But then again, factors of warm up or fatigue may play even bigger roles than the training phase itself. So who knows.


----------



## DaveyCow (Nov 30, 2012)

This is a wonderful idea/trainer sppedpicker! can't wait to try it all out! and thank you all for your other comments/suggestions in response! sub30 here I come (even sub20! )


----------



## collinbxyz (Nov 30, 2012)

My results. I average high-9's to mid-10's.

*Cross* - 10.75 * 0.12 (Note, I raised my daily average by a bit) = 1.29 // Cross ao12 = 1.225 // Overall pretty close. Remember that I raised my average (10.75) up a little, so the cross average will have risen by a little as well. 

*Cross + 1 F2L* - 10.75 * 0.245 = 2.63375 (About 2.63) // Cross + 1 F2L ao12 = 2.504 // Again, very close, with similar results. 

*F2L + Cross* - 10.75 * 0.62 = 6.665 (About 6.67) // F2L + Cross ao12 = 6.781 // A little high, but I wasn't doing very well. So normally, it would be about right, maybe a little high.

*OLL* - 10.75 * 0.165 = 1.77375 (About 1.77) // OLL ao12 = 1.836 // High, but I still need to learn Full OLL. After that, I should be good.

*PLL* - 10.75 * 0.215 = 2.31125 (About 2.31) // PLL ao12 = 2.185 // About right. I got way too many G-Perms, so it may be a little lower usually.

I'm not doing LL, not now anyway. It's pretty much the same thing as OLL + PLL = about 4 seconds. And 4 + 6.781 (F2L) is roughly 10.75.


----------



## speedpicker (Nov 30, 2012)

collinbxyz: Thank you for trying out my idea! Here is how the results look on the spreadsheet:



Spoiler





Exactly how do you get this to show the image instead of just linking it?



You will note the absence of results for recog vs execution for OLL/PLL. This is because I dont have your alg execution times for PLL (which allows estimation of OLL times), so there is no baseline to subtract from the total PLL to estimate your recognition time.

The green results are a particular strength of the solve, amber is on target OK, and red is cause for concern (more than 10% off the idealised pace). 

Going through, cross is good (positive %age), close to 5 TPS, bpm given if you are interested in hearing it, cross + 1 is excellent. The sheet works out an estimate of the length of time to insert each f2l pair, and then adds that onto the cross time to get a baseline for cross+1, and you have exceeded this, hence the negative "1st pair recog". 

Any X-cross there improving your average? I ask because the other f2l insertions were as you have pointed out, a little slower. However 5% off the idealised time is well within experimental variation, although if you were consistently negative here over a number of tests, its worth looking at algs/rotations/regrips etc. 

Full F2L balances out overall because of the excellent cross and cross+1, but as you point out is a little off the pace. High TPS and BPM, high as in a BPM beyond the useful range that can be improved by metronome practice (after 180-200 its a bit pointless) so your look ahead is no concern.

OLL is a bit slow, as you have pointed out not knowing full OLL is a weakness, but the algs you do know are executed with high TPS. Ultimately I would be interested in the recog time calculation and the execution only time calc, as since you are semi-2 look, I would hope that this would show up as a extra recog time. Anyway...

PLL is a strength, notably faster than other cubers of the similar solve times.

For overall last layer, I just added your OLL + PLL, so all this represents is the sum of the splits you gave me. Doing LL as a separate average allows you to interpret how the last layer recog-AUF-OLL-recog-AUF-PLL-AUF flows together, by comparison with the individual averages and time trials.

In conclusion, your evaluation of your performance is right on the money, F2L a little off today, full OLL is definitely worth you learning. If you can get it as good as your PLLs, you will be easily half a second faster, if not more since its only a single look for recog. Could be the way to sub-10?

(By the way, I am a SIGNIFICANTLY slower cuber than you, I don't want any of this to sound cocky or patronising, I am simply going by the numbers.)


----------



## speedpicker (Nov 30, 2012)

For anyone else who wishes their results interpreted, bring it on! How about some slower cubers too so we get a wide range? If anyone doesnt want their splits made public, feel free to PM me.

I would like (ideally, and this is the order I tend to do each phase), 

1) Your average PLL execution time. I will accept PLL time attack/21. I do an average of 5 for each every now and again, and then work on the slowest, so I keep up to date records of all my PLL execution times. This is without any recognition of course. Just average the lot. If you are two look, average the corner alg executions, then average the edge ones separately, and submit the two figures. I will just add them together and call that your average PLL. OLL is automatically estimated from your PLL speeds.

2) An average of 5 or 12 solves done prior to the splits (in each case avg of 12 is better than 5, remain consistent throughout, ignore fastest and slowest, you know the drill). If you have multiple cubes that are decent, it expedites matters to use them all here, rather than just a single cube.

3) An average of 5 or 12 cross solves (with 15 sec inspection max obviously)

4) An average of cross + 1 (with 15 sec inspection max obviously)

At this point I tend once Ive recorded the times to finish the f2l on each of my cubes and place them U face down. I then go into timing my last layer, picking each cube up in a z2' kind of way. Since this way (multiple cubes, would be different with single) I can't remember what OLL case is on any of them, and my recog time more accurately reflects the truth than if I started with U visible.

5) An average of full Last layer including recog/AUF 

At this point I usually scramble all the cubes again (competition computer generated scrambles only throughout please) and do

6) An average of full f2l including cross.

Place your cubes U down again (maybe mix them up "find the lady" style) so you can have truthful recog for:

7) an average of full OLL including recog and AUF (if you get a skip, disregard it in the average)

Place your cubes U down again (maybe mix them up "find the lady" style) so you can have truthful recog for:

8) an average of full PLL including recog (AUF included pre and post), if you get a skip, disregard it in the average.

Thats the lot, I'll pop it in the spreadsheet and feed back to you. Actually just doing an average of 12 of each of these phases this way is a good cubing exercise routine in itself, I should think it is of far more benefit than mindlessly solving for the same period of time.

Looking forward to testing this thing before release.

Let the analysis commence!


----------



## HeyCuber (Dec 2, 2012)

It seems like the cross is still my weakest point because I'm not good at doing it blind.

*Cross:* 3.06 (17%)
*F2L (no cross):* 10.24 (57%)

*F2L (with cross):* 13.30 (74%)

*OLL:* 2.37 (13%)
*PLL:* 2.41 (13%)

*LL:* 4.78 (26%)

*Optimal solving time:* 18.08
*My non-lucky PB:* 17.40
*My best avg5:* 22.50


----------



## JasonK (Dec 2, 2012)

So here's my data, look forward to seeing what you come up with:

Average PLL execution = 1.29
Solve = 14.07
Cross = 1.33
Cross+1 = 3.91
LL = 4.92
F2L = 9.76
OLL = 2.23
PLL = 2.87

Everything is avg12 except PLL exec, which is average of 21 Mo5s.


----------



## ottozing (Dec 2, 2012)

I'll be assuming that I average about 11.9 seconds seeing as I get lots of averages around that and my PB ao100 is around that. I'll also be doing no inspection for all things last layer related.

Cross - 11.9*0.12 = 1.43//Ao12 = 1.39
Cross+1 - 11.9*0.245 = 2.92//Ao12 = 2.65
F2L - 11.9*0.62 = 7.38//Ao12 = 7.36
LL - 11.9*0.38 = 4.52//Ao12 = 4.17
OLL - 11.9*0.165 = 1.96//Ao12 = 2.01 (Note: I use lots of OLLCP/AntiDiag so my average would have been faster had I only done speed optimised OLL's)
PLL - 11.9*0.215 = 2.56//Ao12 = 2.45


----------



## speedpicker (Dec 2, 2012)

HeyCuber said:


> It seems like the cross is still my weakest point because I'm not good at doing it blind.
> 
> *Cross:* 3.06 (17%)
> *F2L (no cross):* 10.24 (57%)
> ...



OK, so here it seems that you didn't quite give me the right data I need, but I'll do my best with what you have given me. The problem is that you didnt give me all the right splits I need. 
1) There is no baseline average from the same session, 
2) There is no cross+1, 
3) It appears that you have just added cross and f2l no cross to get full f2l instead of doing a separate average, this doesn't allow for any investigation of cross to f2l transition. 
4) There is no pure execution of PLL time so I can't figure out recognition times,
5) Your full last layer appears to be the result of simply adding OLL and PLL, as opposed to being a separate average. This is important as its one of the metrics I use for validating the effectiveness of the test. 
6) Also, are these average times? since 18.08 seems to be a lot faster than your best ever average of 5, so the test is invalid as the phases arent a reflection of you real solves. I am assuming that this time is doing steps with inspection and thus bypassing recognition times, finding pairs etc. If your best average is 22.5, (so globally about 25/27? pure guess) this means you are spending at least4.5, and probably more like 7 seconds on finding pairs and identifying last layer cases. 

Anyway, let me breakdown what I reckon based on your best ever average of 5:

1) Your cross should be at least under 2.7 seconds. 3.06 is quite high for a low 20s solver, and corresponds to under 2 TPS (113 bpm if you want to hear it). You should be more like 130. I know cross doesn't tend to be metronomic in execution, but when you hear the speeds involved you will appreciate how its not that quick really. 

Advice:

Cross: Ensure you are doing it on the D face, 
Make sure you know your colour scheme cold so you can place pieces correctly relative to each other, but not necessarily matched with their centres.
Utilise your 15 seconds effectively, making sure to plan all four pieces in advance so you can solve eyes closed.
Practice solving cross eyes closed, if 15 seconds isnt long enough, take as long as you like to plan it (this time rapidly comes down with practice)
If you can't do it consistently in 8 moves or less, go on JARCS and compare your solutions to a given cross with its optimal solutions, if you still suck at crosses just spend an entire day figuring out cross solutions and executing them with your eyes closed, 
Badmephistos has good cross vids.

F2L: A 13.3 F2L for a 22.5 second solve for f2l is about right, actually on the good side (sub 14 second f2l is a solid f2l for a 22.5 second solver) but I am concerned about your cross-f2l transition (since I have no data, and it could be a big part of the discrepancy between your actual solve speed and your 18.08 test total) Try some metronome work aiming for around 143 bpm, or if you don't like metronome solving, do some slow solves aiming to look ahead and not stop turning at any point. Your ideal practice zone is the speed where you can continuously turn without pause (or U,U,U,U) and complete the f2l. If you find you are doing lots of cube rotations, look into solving in the back slots, utilise empty slots as effectively as possible, and ensure that you can mirror things in your left hand to solve in FL as effectively as FR.

Last layer: I am assuming that your PLL and OLL are execution only, and if so they are fine, actually your pll is very good. Did you take an average here? Its important as there is a wide variation between execution times depending on which PLL crops up, hence the need for an average. Ensure all skips are disregarded for testing purposes. If your OLL and PLL are inclusive of recognition and AUF, then a last layer of 4.78 seconds is outstanding for a 22.5 second solver. Unfortunately that leaves you with a cross + f2l of 17 ish seconds, which is what needs the work.

In summary, sort that cross out, work on lookahead, optimisation and rotation reduction during f2l, with special attention to the cross-f2l transition.

If you would like to resubmit times with the appropriate averages and splits actually done, then I would be happy to reanalyse your solve.


----------



## speedpicker (Dec 2, 2012)

JasonK said:


> So here's my data, look forward to seeing what you come up with:
> 
> Average PLL execution = 1.29
> Solve = 14.07
> ...



Now this one is very interesting, thank you so much for accurately breaking everything down.

I include a jpg of your analysis:



Spoiler







Cross: Excellent. This is the cross of someone who averages 11 seconds. Not a problem.

Cross+1: For such a quick cross, the cross + 1 is a little slower than one might expect. 0.63 seconds could be recovered here by finding the and tracking the first pair during execution of the cross, or even better during inspection time. You have obviously done the work to plan and solve the four cross pieces without much trouble, can you extend this to 6 pieces and not pause before the first pair?

F2L: First pair aside, your F2L is basically OK, perhaps a little slower than it could be, a full F2L of 9.76 seconds is just a little off the pace (9.2), which woudn't be a concern if it weren't for the fact that its supplemented by a lightning fast cross. If your f2l were at the standard of your cross, you would be looking at sub-7 seconds for the full f2l including cross. This would be awesome. See if you can squeeze that extra half second out of cross-f2l transition, and ensure you have a minimum of cube rotations and poor case algs. Personally, I made a chart of every possible f2l case from every possible angle, filled in what I do and then set about reviewing each case to see if there was a better way (anything longer than 8 moves without good reaspn, anything that involved more than 1 rotation, check those that have a single rotation to see if it can be avoided etc etc). Systematic gap plugging like this does add up, its no different to finding a better alg to a PLL you find awkward for example, just a bit more work. I can upload the blank if you like.

Last Layer: Very interesting indeed. Your PLL execution is really fast, a full second quicker than one would expect from a 14.86 cuber. If your PLL execution is 1.29s, I would infer an OLL of around a second, which are certainly heavy duty last layer artillery. Your last layer was in fact a good half second faster than would normally be expected (balancing the half second slower f2l), but given the execution only average quoted, you need to take a look at your recognition/AUFs. 

Regarding OLL recognition, if you are keyed into identifying certain sticker to get the exact case, perhaps expand that a bit. For example, where are you looking to tell the difference between OLL 7 and 12 if the lightning bolt has the same orientation and UF is yellow? If you are looking for pairs of yellow stickers, you may have to AUF or move your head/cube, but if you can tell immediately from the which way the FUR yellow sticker is facing, then this is not required. As a practice technique, try getting to OLL and freezing with F, R and U visible. See if there are any cases that come up that require you to look around the cube further, and if so make a note and find other features which telegraph the precise case, so you don't need to look around. It is also worth looking into OLL prediction during last pair insertion. If its a regular R U' R' insertion, the block LU LBU and UB pieces dont change, they simply move anticlockwise around the centre, the pieces at FR and FUR move in behind them (to UBL and UB, thus glancing at the orientation of the yellow sticker on the UFR corner prior to insertion can give info about the forthcoming case, as this ends up at the BLU position, which may need you to look around to see which way the yellow sticker is pointing if you don't see it in advance.) and the pieces at URB and UR remain as they are. For completeness, RFD becomes UFR. Knowing this, you can often predict or partially predict which OLL case is likely to come up, or even if you can only tell the type of OLL that its going to be (say a small lightning bolt for example), you can then make sure your eyes are directed at the right spot to identify precisely which one of the family it is the instant the R U' R' is completed. Anyway even if this doesn't work for you, try to familiarise yourself with all the little details of all the similar cases, so you can identify quickly and confidently, no matter what the orientation of the U face. 

If you really want to get hardcore, by knowing precisely which pieces are interchanged by your OLL, you can partially (often completely) anticipate PLL, but few do this. The easier version of this idea is with cases where a group of pieces remain unchanged. For example in the algs I use for cases 28 and 57, the entire L side of the U face remains unchanged throughout. If I notice if its headlights (centre opposite coloured or adjacent?), a continuous bar, a two block closest to me, two block furthest away, or no blocks at all I can partially identify the PLL. For example if its headlight with opposite colour in the centre, I know its a T, H, U or G (d or b) perm, so I am already looking at R side of the last layer when the OLL completes to tell which it is. This is the sort of thing you can get very good at, and I am sure accounts for the minimal recog time of top cubers, even if they don't realise they are doing it!

For PLL, I would look into working on and refining 2 sided PLL recognition which can drastically reduce recog time, and learn some PLLs from different angles so you can reduce AUFs. It seems like you are spending more time identifying and setting up the case than actually executing it! As a practice technique, when you reach PLL freeze looking at U F and R, then try to identify the case from opposite colours etc. It is true that many look very similar, but there are many details you can note (is it opposite colour in the centre of the headlights, or adjacent? adjacent clockwise or anticlockwise? is the block of two next to their opposite colour or an adjacent etc etc). At first this is a slow process, but similar with solving the cross with eyes closed, it really becomes easier over a fairly short time, after all there just aren't that many cases. Or just use the software, which partially removes the temptation to cheat. 

Also make sure you know when you begin the alg what the AUF will be in the end. E.g. in a T perm, the colour of the block at FLU and FU will be the colour of the F side of the last layer once the alg is complete. If they are green (say), and the F centre is blue, you can infer that a U2 will be necessary at the end, then tag it on as part of the alg, rather than a separate AUF check.

In summary then, you have some serious technique in play here (cross, alg execution). You need to make sure you are utilising this as effectively as possible by ensuring your recognition skills are as good as your algs. There is some good 2-look PLL identification software that has been released recently, so check this out. Also try and work on that first f2l pair, and eliminate any other inefficiencies in your f2l to take full advantage of your lightning cross skills.

Hope this helps.

P.S. You know when people post sub-1 all PLL videos and someone (usually Escher) comes on and points out that the timing method is a little bit generous and they aren't really all sub-1? I wondered if you are perhaps skewing your PLL times a little bit from what they are in an actual solve with however you are timing them individually in the natural attempt to get the fastest execution times you can. If thats the case, then it would account for why your last layer is slower in practice than your average execution time would indicate, and thus mean that recog is not as much of an issue as the splits suggest. Just a thought.


----------



## JasonK (Dec 2, 2012)

speedpicker said:


> Awesomely detailed analysis.



That was fantastically useful, great work.

You're obviously doing something right in your analysis - the gist is pretty much what I was expecting. I know that my Cross-F2L transition is pretty terrible, and that my LL in solves is a lot worse than when I'm just timing algs (not just recog, but the actual execution of the algs). It's good that the numbers match up with what I was feeling, gives me a push to actually work on those things. 

I didn't realise how much slower my F2L is than it should be though. Although now that I think about it, I really barely do any F2L tricks or algs, pretty much my entire F2L is intuitive. I hadn't really considered how much that might be slowing me down, thanks!

What you're doing here is fantastic :tu


----------



## HeyCuber (Dec 2, 2012)

I'm really sorry for not giving all the data you would've liked to have but I'm surprised and thankful that you analysed my solve anyway. Here's a few things I'd like to point out:

1. I just had a 6-month break from cubing and my average solving time is around 24 seconds. I think I could do a better avg5 than 22.50 if I tried.
2. The times I provided (except for full F2L and LL) are avg5 as opposed to avg12.
3. The times are pure execution and I got no skips.
4. I know full PLL and about half of the OLL since I've forgotten some during my break.
5. My worst transition is probably cross-F2L or OLL-PLL.

Thanks for the advice!


----------



## speedpicker (Dec 2, 2012)

ottozing said:


> I'll be assuming that I average about 11.9 seconds seeing as I get lots of averages around that and my PB ao100 is around that. I'll also be doing no inspection for all things last layer related.
> 
> Cross - 11.9*0.12 = 1.43//Ao12 = 1.39
> Cross+1 - 11.9*0.245 = 2.92//Ao12 = 2.65
> ...



ottozing, what is your average PLL execution time (without recog/AUF etc)? I need this to work out your PLL/OLL TPS and recognition time. Otherwise you appear to be right on the money with your solves, perhaps with a slightly slow OLL (but you have already mentioned that). Obviously Im familiar with OLLCP, but what is AntiDiag?



Standard advice applies, if everything is fine, work on F2L as it is never time wasted.


----------



## speedpicker (Dec 2, 2012)

HeyCuber said:


> I'm really sorry for not giving all the data you would've liked to have but I'm surprised and thankful that you analysed my solve anyway. Here's a few things I'd like to point out:
> 
> 1. I just had a 6-month break from cubing and my average solving time is around 24 seconds. I think I could do a better avg5 than 22.50 if I tried.
> 2. The times I provided (except for full F2L and LL) are avg5 as opposed to avg12.
> ...



No problem, get back into it, and repost!


----------



## JasonK (Dec 2, 2012)

speedpicker said:


> Obviously Im familiar with OLLCP, but what is AntiDiag?



It's like OLLCP-lite, using an alternative alg for each OLL case in order to avoid diagonal-swap PLLs (E N V Y).


----------



## speedpicker (Dec 2, 2012)

Thanks!


----------



## speedpicker (Dec 2, 2012)

Can anyone help me with how to display these jpg files properly, so opening the spoiler just shows them rather than provides a link?


----------



## JasonK (Dec 2, 2012)

speedpicker said:


> Can anyone help me with how to display these jpg files properly, so opening the spoiler just shows them rather than provides a link?



Just above the reply box there's a line of icons, one of which is a little picture of a tree. Click that and it should let you upload files from your computer or from the web.


----------



## speedpicker (Dec 2, 2012)

Thats what Im doing, but it always comes out as a link to the image rather than an actual image.


----------



## PeelingStickers (Dec 2, 2012)

I can just about manage sub 20 nowadays, maybe 20-21 seconds on others. On a bad day 21+

all of these are averages of 12, bear in mind for single stuff there is no recognition, particularly in LL, so it's probably a little faster than in an actual solve. Finally, I use two look OLL, knowing only a few easy cases for 1 look and full PLL:


cross: 2.38 - 11.9% of a solve (Pretty accurate 
cross+1: 4.92 - 24.6%
F2L inc cross: 13.97 - 69.9% (This was a bad average of 12)
OLL: 3.39 - 17% (I had a 6 second single with a dot :/ the average was better but that time would have been well over 23 seconds)
PLL: 2.49 - 12.5%

this totals 19.85, so I'll round that to 20 or so considering it doesn't include OLL and PLL recognition, this is about my normal amount anyway.

Give or take.


----------



## ottozing (Dec 3, 2012)

speedpicker said:


> ottozing, what is your average PLL execution time (without recog/AUF etc)? I need this to work out your PLL/OLL TPS and recognition time. Otherwise you appear to be right on the money with your solves, perhaps with a slightly slow OLL (but you have already mentioned that). Obviously Im familiar with OLLCP, but what is AntiDiag?
> 
> View attachment 2520
> 
> Standard advice applies, if everything is fine, work on F2L as it is never time wasted.



Thanks sososososo much for taking the time to develop this whole thing  I'll time my PLL's later tonight. As for practice, I think I'll just practice F2L as it's the most time consuming part of a solve


----------



## speedpicker (Dec 3, 2012)

ilikecubing said:


> Here is my data,really keen to see my analysis and improvement areas!
> 
> I)Average of 12 = 14.18



Wheres the rest?


----------



## ilikecubing (Dec 3, 2012)

speedpicker said:


> Wheres the rest?



Oops,sorry I think I removed it by mistake while editing an error

Here it is,

I)Average of 12 = 14.18

PLL,all are averages of 12
1) A1 - 2.20
2) A2 - 1.87
3) E - 2.94
4) U1 - 1.5
5) U2 - 1.95
6) H - 2.01
7) Z - 2.30
8) J1 - 1.99
9) J2 - 1.91
10) T - 1.75
11) R1 - 2.46
12) R2 - 2.14
13) F - 2.76
14) V - 2.33
15) Y - 2.32
16) N1 - 2.82
17) N2 - 2.98
18) G1 - 2.22
19) G2 - 2.64
20) G3 - 2.27
21) G4 - 2.72
= 48.08

II) 48.08/21 = 2.289(Average PLL execution time)

III) 1.83 = Cross only (average of 12)

IV) 3.59 = cross + F2L1 (average of 12)

v) 5.55 = Full LL including recog/AUF (average of 12)

VI) 9.18 = Full F2L including cross (average of 12)

VII) 2.62 = Full OLL including recog and AUF (average of 12)

VIII) 2.87 = Full PLL including recog and AUF (average of 12)

Also,a video if it helps http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pRawGiIa_ZE&list=UUAL7oScVnmrW7UcCjJdV_aQ


----------



## speedpicker (Dec 5, 2012)

PeelingStickers said:


> I can just about manage sub 20 nowadays, maybe 20-21 seconds on others. On a bad day 21+
> 
> all of these are averages of 12, bear in mind for single stuff there is no recognition, particularly in LL, so it's probably a little faster than in an actual solve. Finally, I use two look OLL, knowing only a few easy cases for 1 look and full PLL:
> 
> ...



The problem here is you haven't followed the instructions for what I need to do this properly, i.e. times including recognition, a baseline average from the same session, total last layer etc etc. Rounding to 20 sec and assuming a 0.15 sec total recognition is likely to be erroneous, thats 0.075 seconds per LL, no human being can recog and AUF in 0.075 seconds. Allocating no time for actual recognition, thats in excess of 13 TPS for the AUF. Allowing for recog time, you are achieving inhuman turn speeds. Or its a bad guess.

However, your cross is fine, your f2l is a bit slow. Aim for around the 12 second mark, around 160 bpm should do it. Work on lookahead, and make sure you are using efficient f2l algs, and are solving in all slots without excessive rotations. Execution wise 2.49 secs for PLL is fine (actually 0.5 sec ahead of the 20.5 curve), but you're OLL is at its limit. If you are doing 2 algs there in 3.39 seconds, then you should be able to do 1 alg in 1.6-1.7 seconds. Even if you were more like 2 seconds, youve still knocked a second and a half off your solve. The fact that this 3.39 includes no recognition is a concern. A 3.3 second execution only OLL is more like a time you would expect from a 32-33 second cuber. If this is 3.39 including recog, then you are about at your OLL limit. Either way, consider learning full OLL. If you can do 2 algs in 3.39 seconds, then you can do 1 alg in 2 or less. 

Basically my recommendation is to work hard on your f2l, and consider learning full OLL. And if you want to post a proper set of splits I will happily review them.


----------



## speedpicker (Dec 5, 2012)

ilikecubing said:


> Oops,sorry I think I removed it by mistake while editing an error
> 
> Here it is,
> 
> ...



Thank you, this was a most interesting set of solves. First impressions from the vid, the slower times seemed to correspond with a choppy f2l, the great times were when your lookahead was really working well. Maybe do some slow solves/metronome solves and try to get really consistent in your f2l, and your average will come down since there will be much fewer over 15 second times. Be on the lookout for particular cases you find very difficult to quickly spot or solve, make a note and then check out Mackys site of Absolute F2L and make sure you have a good alg, and practice the execution. Its amazing how finding half a dozen awkward yet common pairings and just systematically eliminating the problem improves overall solve speed. 

Anyway, onto the maths, heres the spreadsheet:



Spoiler










It worked - Thank you Zeotor!



Cross - fair to good, no massive concerns here.
Cross + 1 - excellent, no pause finding first pair, executed at a fair speed.
F2L overall - fine, but my previous points still stand. If you can reduce inconsistency, then these times will plummet as your video shows occasional much better technique than the times indicate, let down by the odd awkward solve. This is all averaging out though to where you should be.

OLL/PLL recognition. Your recogs here are spot on. I mean really excellent. One would expect around 0.95 secs for recog and AUF, but you cruise through at 0.74 OLL and 0.58 PLL (this is based on the assumption of a similar TPS during PLL and OLL, if OLL is just executed slower, then it may appear from the numbers that its taking longer to recog). Since PLL recog is in theory easier than OLL, you may be able to squeeze a little more out of your OLL recog, I talked about ways to work on OLL recog in a previous post in this thread. Since this is an obvious strength of yours, it shouldnt take much to develop it further, but I think the OLL thing is perhaps more TPS (see later).

PLL execution. This is about at its limit. I think you should make it a goal to get them all under 2.5 seconds. Your average should be more like 2.2 seconds max, which I know its close to, but getting a PLL average down to around 2 seconds is very doable. All the usual suspects are dragging you down, F perm, E perm, N perm. Drill drill drill and watch some fingertrick vids (Breandan, Cornelius, Faz etc) and find a regrip minimised flowing execution, then drill drill drill some more. Since your T is so fast, have you considered the modified T perm version of the F perm? Are you using the Rowe E perm with the wierd ring finger trick or that rubbish old one with u2? Are you still using those badmephisto (R,U,L) N perms, when all the cool kids are doing z then (U,R,D)? 

OLL : Here we have a little problem. Since OLL algs are around 2/3 of the length of PLL algs, we would expect them to be executed somewhat faster, however your PLL and OLL times are very similar, pointing to a weakness in OLL of either recog or execution. Watching the video, it appears that you have a lower TPS during OLL than your PLLs, so this may be an area to work on. Are there a few cases that you hate getting? Try timing all 57, maybe there are some that you find particularly difficult to flow through as smoothly as your PLLs. Try to ensure they are all under 2 seconds, and you want to average around 1.5 seconds. Also very doable. If you combine this with shaving a little of the recog as we discussed, then you are making easy improvements.

In summary: Work on consistency in your f2l identifying and eliminating awkward or long cases/slots and minimising rotations. Ensure lookahead is always working (few pauses slipped in from time to time smooth > choppy). Working on getting metronome solves up around the 210-220 mark may well help (your f2l is currently operating at the equivalent avg TPS of around 213 bpm.), but I'm betting you will hit a bit of a roadblock before then (maybe around 180-190) that will not come up on every solve. This is the plateau you must cross, so you can handle any situation at this speed without losing lookahead. When you can do 12 f2ls on the trot at this bpm without dropping a beat, then you have it. getting it right 3 out of 4 is not having it. Thats having it when the cases are easy.

Work on speeding up your OLL algs. Time each one and see if there are a few algs or a particular type of alg that is letting you down. Get them sorted. Read what I posted about OLL recognition and being very familiar with the orientation of all the stickers in the case, as opposed to just the ones you use for recognition. Achievable targets are all under 2 seconds, average of 1.5.

Your PLL is fine, but there are a couple of cases that could use a little work. Drill drill drill, and analyse your technique of execution to try and eliminate regrips. Compare it to other top cubers, and if necessary get new algs. Go for avg of 2 seconds, all under 2.5.

Your problem solves come when you have a couple of awkward f2l cases, a tricky OLL for you, then an awkward PLL. Case in point, you had one solve near 20 seconds! If the f2l cases are no longer awkward, the OLL has been drilled, and the PLL is not an issue, then your worst case solve is more like 15-16 seconds. What would your average of 12 be then? I could work it out exactly, but the basic answer is: faster.

One more thing I want to throw in for everybody reading this. Try this little exercise. Time and film 5-12 f2ls or full solves. Pick the worst one. Rip the soundtrack using any avi editor, and save it as an mp3 or wav file. Load the audio into a waveform editor like Audacity (totally free), and cut out all the waveform except the solve you are interested in. Now go along the waveform elimating any pieces of silence. Silence is when you are not turning the cube. Any silence of over x seconds (say 0.4 seconds is a pause, silences of 0.2-0.5 are often rotations, also worth working to eliminate, so count them too if you want) counts as a pause. Basically pick a timeframe thats longer than it takes to rotate/regrip. 

(If you really want to know how long it takes to do a rotation in a real solve, try this: Time yourself doing 5 sunes as fast as you can. Now try do the same again, but put a y/y'/y2/y2' [depending on which movement you are timing, all three are slightly different, y2 sucks most] in between each. Subtract this time from the first time and divide by 4. Thats how long it takes you to do a rotation. More than you thought? For me by this test a y takes around 0.4 seconds, a y2 0.7!. Now imagine doing 4-6 of them in a solve. This is why we work to eliminate....) 

Around 0.4 seconds works for me. Make a note of the length in seconds of the total waveform, then go through and cut out all those silences. Now see how long the waveform is. Thats the time it would take for you to solve the cube with your absolute worst TPS if your lookahead was awesome. Not more efficient algs, or increased TPS, just better lookahead. I always find it remarkable how much time there always is to save by being better at looking, not faster at turning.

Also, if you really want to get an accurate measurement of OLL/PLL recognition, just highlight the silence before OLL/PLL is executed and take a note of how long it is. Do this for all the solves and take an average. Voila! Much more accurate and easier to do than counting frames on a youtube video I am sure you will agree. ilikecubing, may I suggest doing this, perhaps for the average you posted, and using the info to guide your work on OLL. Actually let me know if you do because I can compare it to my spreadsheets estimate and perhaps refine the testing methodology if it is not an adequate reflection of the truth.

This simple technique could also help with timing PLLs (find out definitively if you really are sub-1 for all PLLs by checking out the waveform, bye bye arguments about whether the timing methodology is valid), figuring out how much of your 2x2/magic/master solve is pick up and put down rather than actual turning and a bunch of other stuff where fractions of a second are critical.

Hope this helps.


----------



## speedpicker (Dec 7, 2012)

OK, Im trying to upload the spreadsheet to this thread so other can use it, but when I "go advanced" and click on the attachments button I get a blank pop up window, with no button for browsing, uploading, actually no buttons at all, its just blank. Is this facility down at the moment? (Ive tried Firefox, Opera, and Firefox on another machine). Please help.


----------



## speedpicker (Dec 8, 2012)

*Fixed - Spreadsheet available*

Uploading is fixed (thanks A Leman), here is the Beta version of the spreadsheet. 


Instructions:
Everything in blue needs filling in, as per instructions given in the thread. There is an area at the top to keep track of your PLL averages, if you don't choose to use this this, overwrite the blue "overall PLL average" box with your average PLL time from whatever other method you choose to use. 

Results are at the bottom, as regards interpretation I hope the examples I have given in the thread suffice, although I welcome any questions/queries etc.

This is a test version, I envisage a final product with more bells and whistles. All feedback welcome.

I am also including the document I use to keep track of all my f2l algs from every direction. Basically fill it out with however you solve each of the cases, and then make sure they are as good as they can be. If you use more than 1 rotation (or a y2 at all), find a new alg, if you require 1 rotation for a case, make sure that its better than any of the rotationless ones out there, and if the alg contains more than 8 moves, ensure that it is something that can be executed very quickly [(R U R' U')x3 leaps to mind]. If not, fix that too. I have this printed, and hand write the number of rotations and movecount in the bottom left and right of each box respectively, to quickly find any problem algs. I can then fix them, and my entire f2l is a work in progress as I periodically review and amend my cases.

For alternative algs for each case, check Macky's site http://cubefreak.net/speed/advancedf2l/standard.php or absolutef2l, which is also good. http://f2l.net46.net/. There is a fair bit of crossover between the two, however some good algs appear on one and not the other, so its worth checking both.

Thanks to AbsoluteF2L for the graphics and the idea for the layout.

P.S. Apologies for having to split the f2l doc into two and make it a pdf. This was because I couldn't squeeze the original hires word doc into a small enough file size to upload. If anyone wants the original (bigger graphics and editable) document, please PM and Im happy to email.

Hope this all helps.


----------



## ilikecubing (Dec 8, 2012)

speedpicker said:


> ~snip~




Thank you so much for the deep analysis  It pretty much sums up my weaknesses and tells me what I should work on

Seeing the analysis,I infer that my F2L is really incosistent,not good but it will hopefully improve with time,but the main thing stopping me from improving is my LL
I never really drilled any algs or anything,I simply learned them and started to use them without caring about their speed.
I need to practice specific PLLs and drill them rigirously to improve in order,try and get all of them fairly sub-2,and also try different fingertricks and better algs to see what suits me best.
Thank you for telling me that my recognition is spot on,since I cursed my recognition on an average solve not knowing that it is the execution which is slow.
I dont use the Rowe E perm yet,thats one PLL I need to change.Else F perm is the T perm one and my N perms are also RUD.So yes,I need to learn the Rowe E perm and drill my F perm and N perms along with V,Rs and Gs.As for OLL,I think I need to change some of my algs.Thanks for the suggestion of timing all of them,that will help me see which ones are really slow.
Thanks you so much for the spreadsheet,I think your method of training is brilliant! It gives a clear indication of wether the cuber is improving or not.


----------



## Cboyfan1 (Dec 30, 2012)

Very helpful. Well written. I have never imagined something so detailed as this. =D


----------



## speedpicker (Dec 30, 2012)

My pleasure.


----------



## jskyler91 (Dec 30, 2012)

Ya, agreed, I like the write-up


----------



## Xishem (Jan 6, 2013)

I realize that it's certainly important to be fast at ALL of your algs, but if you're taking such a systematic approach to improvement, shouldn't you factor in the chance of each case?

For example, assuming you are using no "tricks" (like CxLL) to influence PLL, you're far more likely to get a G perm over, say, an N perm.

If your N perm times are slightly above your G perm times (like 5-10%), while it may seem immediately obvious that you should practice on lowering your N perm times. However, theoretically, because of the case distribution, you would actually gain more benefit practicing your G perms.

Obviously there is a cutoff and mathematical relation for these where practicing your N perm would be more beneficial overall, and I'm also not sure how much this actually affects things, but if you are taking such a systematic approach to improvement, I think it'd be an interesting thing to consider.


----------



## speedpicker (Jan 6, 2013)

You make a good point, and this is something I thought about carefully, but ultimately I came down to one conclusion:

A good cuber is a consistent cuber.

Basically, I look at making your worst case solve scenario less bad. In a competition I may get an awkward cross, an F2L I need to rotate for, a dot case (or otherwise tricky) OLL and an N perm. If I can train myself to deal with all that in sub 14 seconds, then I know my average will be sub 14, and more than likely better than that. if I neglect the cases that dont come up that often, you can guarantee they will come up when you dont want them to (Murphys Law). I think improvement by reducing your deficiency in your worst area is better than getting really good at the thing most likely to come up, as your all round skills will steadily improve as each area/alg will come under your examination eventually, and you will end up equally awesome at everything, rather than "Im great unless I get a V-perm". The latter situation is surely less desirable?

I suppose it really comes down to whether you want to lower your global average of 100, but accept that it will still have some sucky times in it (when the awkward comes up, over 100 solves its balanced out by your improved G perms) or reduce the worst case scenario, so no matter what case you get you are decent, and reduce your average that way. I prefer the security of the latter, especially since you get so few solves in competition. My last comp I got a sucky lock up perm (poor execution on my part), thought to myself "no worries, thats the one that will be disregarded in the average" and on the very next solve twisted a corner. Wrecked the whole average. If I were equally good at everything, that couldnt happen. My method works toward that ideal, rather than prioritizing certain things to play the long term odds. Its really about how you define "solid technique". I reckon Faz/Breandan/Cornelius/Matts can sub 10 anything, and thats where I want to be, rather than sub 9 secs 7 times out of 10, with three 11s for the awkward situations I havent practiced enough. You may prefer that, but my system reflects a "good at everything" philosophy.

The mathematical relationship is well defined. I have a spreadsheet that works out your avg PLL by weighting each case as to its relative frequency. I used it for a while, but sucky N perms are still sucky N perms. Fix the worst case at all times and you eliminate all occurrences of sucky. You then are incapable of sucking. This is surely preferable to "statistically unlikely to suck".


----------



## Xishem (Jan 6, 2013)

Great point.

In essence, it looks like you can choose two paths then when it comes to practicing algs, and both come with their tradeoffs:

1) Systematically lower your global average as quickly as possible (i.e., "do G perms over N perms").

2) Systematically lower your global average slightly more slowly than path 1, while keeping your standard deviation as low as possible (i.e., "do N perms over G perms").

I'd agree with you that path 2 is probably more desirable in most cases. Interesting.


----------



## ketchuphater999 (Jan 6, 2013)

I do not as of yet have any substantial response to this method, but I will probably be trying this out in the near future(I just took a cubing break, pretty long one, 2-3 months)
But, I am a [Objective-C/Mac OS X] computer programmer so I could program an application to do the calculations. This seems like a pretty simple application, it needs to average some things out, and calculate the average deviation.
If you are interested, please pm me with all your specs and required data.


----------



## liptontea (Jan 8, 2013)

I'm new to speedcubing and was poking around for threads on improving timing and I chanced upon yours.

Your method of training reminds me of learning how to shred on the guitar. 

Your nick piqued my curiosity, do you play the guitar?

Really nice post anyway, cheers!


----------



## Escher (Jan 8, 2013)

liptontea said:


> I'm new to speedcubing and was poking around for threads on improving timing and I chanced upon yours.
> 
> Your method of training reminds me of learning how to shred on the guitar.
> 
> ...



I'm not speedpicker, but I did learn to practise through playing guitar for ~8 years before I picked up a cube


----------



## speedpicker (Jan 8, 2013)

Yes, I used to be a professional session musician and guitar instructor. Was pretty well known for my technical skills, hence the "speedpicker" handle. And it has certainly influenced my approach to cubing. Don't really play any more though, life moves on....


----------



## liptontea (Jan 9, 2013)

speedpicker said:


> Yes, I used to be a professional session musician and guitar instructor. Was pretty well known for my technical skills, hence the "speedpicker" handle. And it has certainly influenced my approach to cubing. Don't really play any more though, life moves on....



Sad to hear that, music is a wonderful thing in life.

I have a couple of interests that requires time for practice that I simply can't find enough for. Playing guitar is one of them, had to drop it. Like you said, life goes on.

Cubing is fun too, I find the better you are at something, the more you want to do it and that's what's happening to me. Improving bit by bit every few days is enough to make me keep going.


----------



## TheNextFeliks (Jan 27, 2013)

Wow I need to work on f2l. With my LL time, if f2l was in the same proportion, I would avg 22ish. I currently average 30 ish. I want to get sub-30 and to about 25 for now. My cross would have to be 3 sec and my f2l w/ cross would be 15.5. I have some work to do.


----------



## CarlBrannen (Jan 28, 2013)

I would really like a PLL trainer that gave me the right ratios of the various possible PLL situations and kept track of my times on each situation separately. I think this would give me much less error in my statistics.

I would think such a tool would be useful for getting a better estimate on how fast someone is with their PLLs for the purpose ofusing this speedcubing training method.


----------



## speedcuber50 (Feb 10, 2013)

I'll do some split timings tommorow and post them for analysis. I'm sub-40 now; got 28 seconds earlier today!!! (28 is my PB!)


----------



## speedpicker (Feb 10, 2013)

CarlBrannen said:


> I would really like a PLL trainer that gave me the right ratios of the various possible PLL situations and kept track of my times on each situation separately. I think this would give me much less error in my statistics.
> 
> I would think such a tool would be useful for getting a better estimate on how fast someone is with their PLLs for the purpose ofusing this speedcubing training method.



OK, here you go, an excel spreadsheet that takes your PLL times and provides two averages. The first is a regular average, the second is weighted for the correct ratios of how often each case comes up (PLL skip excepted). So if your H perms (uncommon, 1/71 cases excluding solved) are poor, but your Us (very common, 4/71 cases for each) are great, the weighted average will be lower than your regular average as the H-perms are given less weight in the average. Vice versa, and your weighted average will be higher than the regular. If you wish to use the weighted average in the main spreadsheet, just type over the "overall PLL average" field where the regular average is given. Hope this helps

P.S. Let me know if you need further data, like for example the specific weighted times of each case rather than the overall average.

Speedcuber50: I look forward to your splits, make sure you download the spreadsheet so you can keep track of your improvements in the future, and once you post I will be happy to offer as much help as I can.


----------



## TP (Feb 10, 2013)

Interesting difference between PLL recognition/AUF and PLL execution. I wonder if it is misleading since I didn´t use any G-perms. When they came up I did 2look PLL. Guess I should redo it when I have learned the G-perms decently.


----------



## CarlBrannen (Feb 10, 2013)

Thanks speedpicker but I've already got that included in the software. I should have been more clear. What I need are the ratios of the times that humans get in the 22 cases.

For instance, I need a table that looks something like this:

-- 1_lk 2_look
Aa 1.20 1.20

Ab 1.20 1.20
Ua 1.40 1.40
Ub 1.40 1.40
Ra 2.00 3.22
Rb 2.00 3.22
...

Of course these numbers will depend on the cuber. I expect that the really fast cubers will have pretty similar numbers and that rank beginners will be a lot more spread out. So I'm guessing that the numbers from the hot shots are the ones I need.

Right now I've got software which takes into account the probabilities of the various PLL cases and computes the average. It also computes how much each of your PLL cases contributes to your average time.

For me, I use a 2-look algorithm for the T and Na/Nb. My longest time is on the Na/Nb so at first glance I should improve the Na/Nb. But the T is 4x more likely to show up so the T contributes much more to my average PLL time (about 6% of my time doing PLLs is spent doing Ts versus around 2% for Na and Nb). So on 2nd glance my times will improve more if I work on the T.

But the T is a fairly long algorithm. So on 3rd glance, maybe there's another algorithm I can learn/improve where there is more room for improvement. But to know how much room there is for improvement I need the times of the fast cubers.

When I say "room for improvement" I mean relative to my own finger speeds. So if my Ua is much slower than my Aa, while the winners get them done in about the same time, I'm assuming I need to improve my Ua more than my Aa.


----------



## speedpicker (Feb 11, 2013)

OK, so I took the executions of a fast (almost sub-1 PLL) cuber and stuck them in a spreadsheet. These are no recognition, execution only times. I then figured out which combination of 2-look PLLs solved each one look case, and then got a time for the two look case by adding the total execution time of the relevant 1-look cases. 

I am assuming we are talking about Badmephisto style two look, with Aa and E for corners, Uz, Ub, H and Z for edges. Aa is always executed headlights on B, and the E-perm can be executed from any orientation where you dont see headlights. I have assumed that for the actual E-perm case, the cuber has the correct orientation, so arent solving E-perm with E-perm followed by H perm...

For example, a T perm is solved in two look by executing an Aa (headlights at B), then following up with a Z perm, so the total time would be Aa + Z.

This suffers from a couple of crippling assumptions, which just go to show that learning one look is just better. It does not take into account the time taken for identifying the second case, or the time taken to AUF to get the second case into its correct orientation. This is an appreciable amount of time.

May I recommend just learning 1-look PLL? Even excluding the extra time required for AUF and identification, you are looking at an average saving of 0.42 seconds per case, and thats also assuming you can execute each of the six 2-look algs in a second or less.

i hope this is what you are after. None of these averages are weighted in any way, but you can see the relative execution times for 1 vs 2-look PLL for a very fast cuber with no AUF or identification time whatsoever.


----------



## speedcuber50 (Feb 11, 2013)

Oh dear! All my split attemps today have resulted in nothing! How do you do a split timing without spoiling lookahead???


----------



## TP (Feb 11, 2013)

You can use Prisma Puzzle Timer to set up the cube directly for OLL/PLL cases.

I did all crosses, then all cross + one pair, all full F2L and so on.


----------



## CarlBrannen (Feb 12, 2013)

speedpicker, that's awesome! Exactly what I want.

One of the things that bothers me about his style of 2-look is that I've already memorized Ab, so doing Ab = Aa+H seems like a waste.

And I am going to learn 1-look. Having these numbers will help the motivation.


----------



## speedpicker (Feb 12, 2013)

speedcuber50 said:


> Oh dear! All my split attemps today have resulted in nothing! How do you do a split timing without spoiling lookahead???



TP is right, the splits should not interfere with look ahead. Cross, cross + 1 and full f2l should be done from a completely scrambled cube, you are just stopping at a given point in the solve and recording the time. 

As regards full last layer, OLL and PLL, the best way is probably to get multiple cubes (say 5), do the ful f2l on each from a different scramble (recording split times for full f2l) and then place them U face down on the table, maybe even mix them round, find the lady style. When you then come to do your last layer times, just pick up a cube as you start the timer, then solve last layer, stop timer. Doing it in this way keeps the time taken for recognition and AUF as part of the overall time. 

To do OLL and PLL singly, do the same thing (F2L complete, face down, mix round) then pick up and time OLL, replace cube U face down (PLL is incomplete). Do this for all 5 cubes and you have your OLL time. Then mix them around and do the same thing for PLL. This will include recognition and AUF also.

TP:- Your big problems are cross and PLL. For cross, try doing some work on solving the cross with your eyes closed after as much inspection as is required. Times of 4 seconds plus tell me that you are solving a couple of pieces, then finding the ones you missed then solving those on the fly, rather than having the whole thing planned out. If you cant plan all four and place them eyes closed, plan three and get good at that, so the only thing you need to do in addition is find the fourth piece and insert it. Then try to predict where that fourth piece will end up. Then its a short step to controlling where that piece ends up so its got good orientation and is easy to place, to eventually placing it as part of the planning. Executing eyes closed is essential though, as you dont want to maintain the crutch of needing to stare at the pieces. 

You can then reduce your movecount by comparing your solutions to Jarcs or Prisma Timers cross solver. If you are say three or four moves higher than something more optimal, try and go through the optimal solution without physically moving the pieces, so that you can see the interaction mentally rather than passively witnessing the physical results. You should rapidly get to the point where you can plan all four pieces, execute the cross without looking, and use your eyes during cross execution to track your first corner edge pair. 

If you are having difficulty executing the cross quickly once its planned out, then your issue is with non-standard move orders. By this I mean that 2-gen algs and well thought out OLLs/PLLs are learned since they are (relatively) easy for the fingers to accomplish. You may find that the cross solution you come up with is just not finger friendly at all, and you dont want this to hinder you (bear in mind a very fingertrickable cross solution that is one or two moves longer than a very unfriendly one is fine since you will execute it quicker. Try to use wide turns during cross, this will often eliminate extreme finger unfriendliness) . To train yourself to execute disconnected random moves, try timing how long it takes you to apply a scramble and improve that time. This will improve the ergonomic efficiency with which you handle the situations often being presented to you in cross, and you will find that it works wonders for training cross execution. Then your only barrier is how well you plan.

As regards PLL, you are right that using a 2-look alg set will seriously affect these numbers. If you are two-looking, then there is twice as much recognition and twice as much AUF time. If your PLL executions are 3 seconds, and you have to do two of these to get PLL done, thats six seconds already, add in a 1 second per alg for AUF and recognition and you end up with an 8 second PLL! I reckon that why your PLL recog and AUF is so high, its because you are essentially doing it twice.

On the flip side though, you are probably using two look OLL also, and your times for that are fine. I wonder if your PLL executions are a bit awkward? It is a common problem that people get much quicker times when just timing their PLLs in isolation than when they do them as part of a solve. There are a number of reasons for this:

1) Incorrect timing techniques
2) Taking the best rather than an average time
3) Not including time taken for regripping
4) Doing an alg once under pressure of a solve situation is very different to executing an alg for the 20th time in a row trying to get a good average execution time.

Examine the way in which you are executing these cases and compare your fingertricking with that of expert cubers. Faz, Cornelius, Chris Olson, Erik etc all have PLL execution videos out there. You dont have to copy them entirely, but perhaps they will show you ways in which you can reduce uneccessary cube rotations or regrips (probably regrips is your major issue).

And maybe its time you just learned full one look PLL? If its only the G perms, dont fear them, they are all related to one another and have a similar "feel" during execution. People seem to put learning these off, but really its not that bad. Headlights left, find the two by one block and start by splitting it up. 

Learn them in pairs. Gb is the inverse of Ga, so you can apply Ga to a solved cube to end up with Gb (verifying you got it right), then solve Gb back to a solved state. Since each is the inverse of the other you will find they go together in your muscle memory, like Aa and Ab do. The other two are kind of the same moves but done to the opposite side of the cube (reflected in a line from UL to UR), so once you learn two, muscle memory helps with learning the others. You'll be amazed at how quickly you pick them up. Despite the rotation, they have nice flow.

Your F2L is taking a long time. Also work on that. Again, executing pairs with eyes closed is a great exercise. Spot the pair on the cube, close eyes, solve, open, repeat until all four done. This is an excellent way to internalise the relative movement of the pieces during F2L, and tremendously improves fluency. You are probably pausing multiple times during F2L, perhaps during the execution of an alg. If you can reduce the number of pauses your times will start to fall rapidly, and this exercise is a great way to start that. 

Also consider metronome practice like I have discussed erlier in the thread. Start at 60 bpm and try to do one move per click. This helps you gain lookahead (further reducing pauses) and further internalises the movement of the pieces, since it forces you to go slow. 

If you have any really long F2L cases (over 8 moves), find a better way from the wiki, and if you arent already, try to solve in other slots, further reducing cube rotations. Anything you can do in the right hand you should try to do in your left, which means you can insert into FL as well as FR, and some simple rear insertions (basic unmatched and matched pairs into BR and BL) will also save you a lot of rotations. Dont go trying to learn an alg for every case from every orientation at this stage, that would be counterproductive. Just try and expand your intuitive solving to include other slots than FR, make sure you are utilising empty slots where possible, and be conscious of how much you pause and rotate. Lay a solid foundation with metronome and eyes closed solving, and you will find that further improvement comes quickly, once you have gotten over this "brain active" phase. Its liek driving a car, at the moment you are going "check mirror, indicator, clutch, change gear, foot back to where it was, wheel turn, accelerator pedal.... etc" instead of just "turn left". Its the same with your pairs. Once you internalise the moves so its just "place that one, place that one, place that one" your only issue is finding them and movecount. Finding them = lookahead, which you will have started improvement on by metronome solving, and movecount is a check the wiki for difficult cases situation. May I offer a document in this respect which may assist? It can be found here:

http://www.speedsolving.com/forum/showthread.php?6085-How-to-Get-Faster-using-the-Fridrich-CFOP-Method&p=824176&viewfull=1#post824176



Hope this helps, any more questions about what I have written, dont hesitate to ask


----------



## mark49152 (Feb 12, 2013)

I use similar splits for calculating progress, but starting at last pair. So last pair+OLL, last pair+OLL+PLL. Starting at last pair means I'm more accurately factoring in recognition time.

I interleave the measurements rather than do all of one type of split together, so will scramble a cube, time cross+1, solve the 2nd and 3rd pair, then time last pair+OLL. Basically so I'm not scrambling all day.


----------



## speedpicker (Feb 12, 2013)

Brest includes LSLL data in his reconstructions. Its definitely an excellent idea.


----------



## timeless (Feb 15, 2013)

can u make an OH spreadsheet too


----------



## TP (Feb 15, 2013)

timeless said:


> can u make an OH spreadsheet too



Spreadsheet for bigger cubes would as well would be interesting.


----------



## speedpicker (Feb 15, 2013)

Are we asking for a OH 2-look vs 4-look spreadsheet?

And a second one for 2-look vs 4-look for larger cubes?


----------



## timeless (Feb 15, 2013)

speedpicker said:


> Are we asking for a OH 2-look vs 4-look spreadsheet?
> 
> And a second one for 2-look vs 4-look for larger cubes?



i guess the optimal % time it takes to do each step


----------



## speedpicker (Feb 15, 2013)

Oh right. That makes more sense. This will be more difficult as we have Redux vs Yau, different edge pairing methods, and so on. However, I will look into it and release something if it seems like a feasible project. OH at the top level is also not entirely straight forward, as there are some very fast CFOP, ZZ and Roux cubers, all of which will vary considerably, and edge control is a bigger factor. Also there is a considerably smaller pool of reconstructed solved to look at, so this may skew the data also. 

Still, its by no means impossible, and Brests reconstructions allow me to go through all this, so maybe I'll get into it. Leave it with me, but it will have to wait until after my current OLL and fingertricking project comes out, and after that Im doing something similar for F2L and PLL. For those anticipating the OLL survey, its up to 120 pages and is looking really good.


----------



## timeless (Feb 16, 2013)

can you share the WR spreadsheets using this formats

http://www.speedsolving.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=2527&d=1354739412

i want to see their rec/ steps time


----------



## speedpicker (Feb 16, 2013)

OK, heres an example. Felix Zemdegs average of 12 (comp averages of 5 are obviously not as good as a complete avg of 12), 7.23 seconds.

Theres a little bit of guesswork as regards PLL and OLL execution averages, as far as I can tell Felix has not published his execution times for all his algs, so I have arbitrarily given him a 1.1 second PLL average, which is arguably a little slower than reality. Also his X-cross skills made the cross time an educated guess also, but is probably pretty accurate, as I have observed similar cross times from Felix in other solves. Anyway, heres a first shot:



Note the absolutely ninja cross times (partially an illustration of the benefits of fluent colour neutrality in reducing cross movecount), the high level cross + 1 markup, indicating superior lookahead, and the almost non existent OLL recognition (same reason). 

The PLL recog/AUF is possibly a little high (all I have is total last layer data, and the aforementioned educated PLL guess), but it does fit, as you can see that the overall last layer is within a hair of the predicted, the issue is with the precise splits due to lack of data. I could do some frame counting and get a better idea, maybe another time.

Note that this whole exercise is a little futile, as it was solves like Felix's that actually generated these figures in the first place, so we are in danger of comparing Felix with Felix, which is pointless.


----------



## jeff081692 (Mar 7, 2013)

The blank F2L layouts from a few pages back reminded me that I did a similar thing with the idea of collecting algorithms that top cubers have used. Even got inspiration for the layout from the same website lol.

If anyone is interested this is it. (Haven't worked on it in a while so not complete yet + right now it is mostly Feliks algs)
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1R84sciLA1ED2aOGHvQvpfTFSBJ0-DiZUfNeJ-xV6rZs/edit


----------



## TP (Mar 23, 2013)

6 weeks ago vs today:





NEW:





What I have learned since last time is the G-perms, otherwise just cross training and slow solving F2L besides regular timed solves.

1s improvement on the cross, 2s improvement on finding and insert first F2L pair and 2,5s improvement on PLL.

Nice to see that the cross training have helped, still an area to improve though since I still can´t execute it blind every time. A bit surprising that it seems to be improvement only in finding the first F2L pair, but no difference in execution. I haven´t learned anything new except the sledgehammer/hedgehammer, but still I thought I was finding pairs easier now. No surprise that PLL goes faster, G-perms come up a lot and for the rest of the PLL algs I have improved on average 0,5s in execution. My PLL execution average is now 2,95s.

Roughly 6s improvement on 6 weeks, I am content with that.

I gotta say that you where spot on in your analyse Speedpicker and that your post helped me. I haven´t followed all the tips (metronome isn´t anything that suits me) but it was helpful and very interesting to read and I can still use it to improve more.

How does the OLL/fingertrick project go?


----------



## speedpicker (Mar 24, 2013)

Thanks for asking about the OLL project, its up to 119 pages! Its become a real magnum opus, I hope people find it useful. Im going to upload it as a pdf and mobi for ereaders and other electronic devices so people can have it on their phones, tablets or kindles or whatever. I just need a few more solid hours to finish it off but work commitments have stalled it somewhat. Keep tuned, it will be out soon(ish)!


----------



## Methuselah96 (Apr 4, 2013)

Is there anyone still working on a program to implement this style of training?
If not, I would be willing to take up the challenge to base it off of Prisma Puzzle Timer as a fluent Java programmer.
PM me if this is still available.


----------



## TheNextFeliks (Apr 8, 2013)

Can you give me the spreadsheet and explain how to use it please?


----------



## speedpicker (Apr 8, 2013)

The spreadsheet can be found in the thread here: http://www.speedsolving.com/forum/showthread.php?39406-A-method-of-CFOP-speedcubing-training-that-yields-systematic-progress&p=805512&viewfull=1#post805512

I'm fairly sure how to use it is explained pretty thoroughly in the thread. Is anything there unclear?


----------



## TheNextFeliks (Apr 8, 2013)

speedpicker said:


> The spreadsheet can be found in the thread here: http://www.speedsolving.com/forum/showthread.php?39406-A-method-of-CFOP-speedcubing-training-that-yields-systematic-progress&p=805512&viewfull=1#post805512
> 
> I'm fairly sure how to use it is explained pretty thoroughly in the thread. Is anything there unclear?



Sorry I didn't know it was there. It is explained well.


----------



## TheNextFeliks (Apr 9, 2013)

Two questions:
For it says f2l and first pair. Should this be cross and first pair?
Second. For "full f2l" should this include cross?


----------



## speedpicker (Apr 9, 2013)

Oops, small error there, apologies. Yes it should be cross and first pair, and yes full f2l is including cross, so cross and four pairs.


----------



## ketchuphater999 (May 2, 2013)

Methuselah96 said:


> Is there anyone still working on a program to implement this style of training?
> If not, I would be willing to take up the challenge to base it off of Prisma Puzzle Timer as a fluent Java programmer.
> PM me if this is still available.



I am working on an application, for Mac. I assume people would like it if you did make a Java version, as it runs on both Mac and Windows.

Thread for the mac one: http://www.speedsolving.com/forum/showthread.php?41766-TurboTimer-prototype-versions!


----------



## PianoCube (Jun 3, 2013)

I decided to try this out.
I got the individual times by filming an average of 12 and then watched the video carefully to find all the times I needed.




The "baseline solve" is actually 18.42, but I wrote in the wrong time and didn't notice before now.

Seems like I should focus on cross and PLL recognition + auf. I'm able to do the cross a bit faster, but that would make 1st pair recognition worse.
Maybe it's time to try to learn 2 sided PLL recognition.



Spoiler: All the PLLs








It said "Do 7 *clean* executions of each", so I didn't count those with much lock ups or mistakes. G and N are those I find most difficult to do "clean".
I should practice some more G Perms.


----------



## kp (Jun 4, 2013)

Is it just me, or is there nothing inside the spoiler?


----------



## Methuselah96 (Jun 4, 2013)

Which spoiler? If you're talking about the spoiler in the previous post, there is something inside the spoiler.


----------



## kp (Jun 4, 2013)

Yeah, sorry. I was on an older computer, so for some reason the images weren't being displayed properly.


----------



## BaconCuber (Jun 4, 2013)

Very good post! You have amazing writing skills! I think an app would be very great, even if it happened to be around $10. I am not a programmer, sadly, but hope you do find one soon.


----------



## speedcuber50 (Jun 4, 2013)

I am a programmer.

I cannot yet produce decent programs in C, but there is a very handy language called BBC Basic for Windows which I'm quite an advanced user of. It makes standard windows applications, inditinguishable from those made in other languages.

Contact me if you're interested.


----------



## Jorghi (Jun 4, 2013)

I'm making the app right now.


----------



## ilikecubing (Jul 12, 2013)

ilikecubing said:


> Oops,sorry I think I removed it by mistake while editing an error
> 
> Here it is,
> 
> ...



Posting an update of my progress after about 8 months, I have improved by a fait bit on cross and average PLL execution time. Recognition still needs work though

12th July,2013

I)Average of 100 = 14.11 [Best average of 12: 13.31)	

1) A1 - 1.79
2) A2 - 1.58
3) E - 2.65
4) U1 - 1.44
5) U2 - 1.42
6) H - 1.33
7) Z - 1.95
8) J1 - 1.78
9) J2 - 1.33
10) T - 1.45
11) R1 - 2.26
12) R2 - 1.82
13) F - 2.09
14) V - 2.19
15) Y - 1.96
16) N1 - 2.04(R U R' D)
17) N2 - 2.39
18) G1 - 1.99
19) G2 - 1.83
20) G3 - 1.93
21) G4 - 1.89
=39.11



II) 39.11/21 = 1.86(Average PLL execution time)

III) 1.51 = Cross only (average of 12)

IV) 3.51 = cross + F2L1 (average of 12)

v) 5.16 = Full LL including recog/AUF (average of 12)

VI) 9.09 = Full F2L including cross (average of 12)

VII) 2.42 = Full OLL including recog and AUF (average of 12)

VIII) 2.95 = Full PLL including recog and AUF (average of 12)

@speedpicker any thoughts/analysis/suggestions?


----------



## Dapianokid (Sep 1, 2013)

Can this be adapted to Petrus?


----------



## speedpicker (Sep 2, 2013)

Tricky to adapt to Petrus as there just arent enough really fast Petrus solvers to make a meaningful sample. Same problem with Roux, you just end up taking 5BLDs splits as "correct" (because no-one else is in the same league with this method) where in fact even he will tell you he has areas for improvement. Using CFOP I could take a wide sample of different cubers with different strengths and styles who are all world class.


----------



## Hypocrism (Sep 2, 2013)

This highlighted that my PLLs were much worse than I thought, and my F2L was proportionally better than I thought! Time to start drilling PLLs instead of timing solves 

At the same time, I have about 6 more OLLs to add before it's finally done. Only took 3 years to learn full CFOP :/

For F2L (I still want to do quite a bit of lookahead training-I feel it's still weak) is it better to vary the metronome times or stick with times that are pushing your boundaries? I've been starting slow every time (60BPM rapidly going up by 20BPM in 5 min chunks to about 160BPM or my limit) so that I practise the basic skills, but this might not be useful or an efficient use of time.


----------



## immortalchaos29 (Sep 3, 2013)

Hypocrism said:


> For F2L (I still want to do quite a bit of lookahead training-I feel it's still weak) is it better to vary the metronome times or stick with times that are pushing your boundaries? I've been starting slow every time (60BPM rapidly going up by 20BPM in 5 min chunks to about 160BPM or my limit) so that I practise the basic skills, but this might not be useful or an efficient use of time.



I do it this way too. Lower BPM is a good way to warm up and force the habit. At my peak, I try to have a BPM that I can solve without pausing about half the time. Pay attention to particular cases that you may be less consistent in finding than others. It works pretty well for me at least.


----------



## Hypocrism (Sep 3, 2013)

immortalchaos29 said:


> I do it this way too. Lower BPM is a good way to warm up and force the habit. At my peak, I try to have a BPM that I can solve without pausing about half the time. Pay attention to particular cases that you may be less consistent in finding than others. It works pretty well for me at least.



Yea, I do feel like it helps me to improve. Another exercise is to do F2L while only allowing yourself to look at 3 faces-trying to work out where your pieces are by induction and solving eyes closed should improve lookahead especially for awkward first few slots situations.


----------



## Dapianokid (Sep 3, 2013)

speedpicker said:


> Tricky to adapt to Petrus as there just arent enough really fast Petrus solvers to make a meaningful sample. Same problem with Roux, you just end up taking 5BLDs splits as "correct" (because no-one else is in the same league with this method) where in fact even he will tell you he has areas for improvement. Using CFOP I could take a wide sample of different cubers with different strengths and styles who are all world class.



That's very true and well considered, thanks anyway. I ended up switching to CFOP with blockbuilding for F2L, which is bascially simplified Petrus.


----------



## TheNextFeliks (Sep 3, 2013)

Dapianokid said:


> That's very true and well considered, thanks anyway. I ended up switching to CFOP with blockbuilding for F2L, which is bascially simplified Petrus.



So freeFOP. Actually kinda common.


----------



## speedpicker (Sep 3, 2013)

Immortalchaos - you mention getting it right half the time at your peak. Remember that we are aiming to be able to look ahead with perfect accuracy in any situation. Does it not make more sense therefore to work on trying to achieve 100% accuracy rather than working at a 50% level? If you can solve f2l without pause at 160 BPM, surely trying to get 165 absolutely right, rather then 200 BPM half right would be a better use of your time? Once you have 165 sorted, aim for 170 and so on. Practising at a level that's way beyond your ability is just teaching your brain to turn beyond your ability, missing the point of slow solving entirely. The whole point of metronome solving is to force yourself to do slow solves, and the benefit of the BPM figure is to measure your at slow solving, that is solving at the rate at which you do not need to pause. Practising at the level where you need to pause half the time, that is every other f2l pair, is by definition not true slow solving, so circumvents the entire benefit that metronome solving offers.

I definitely recommend ramping up to a goal maximum bpm speed. Consider them warm up sets. Get your brain in the right mindset for metronome training, locking into that click click click, its definitely the way to go as it allows your brain to adapt to the different turn style that metronome training requires and the necessity of keeping that formal, regimented turning. Going straight in there at max speed will probably involve a bit of fudging, as your normal solves require a bit of lookahead fudging (else why do you need to work on it?) and you apply that way of working to the metronome, and you dont grow in ability.

If you are getting it right 50% of the time in your slow solves (which is the point of the metronome training, forcing the formally accurate flowing slow solve) then when you return to regular solving your lookahead AT ITS BEST will be 50% of perfect. Usually less than this. This undermines the point of the practice method utterly. Go for 100%. If you get 10 out of 12 solves, try and figure out why the other two didnt work, and then adjust in some way to fix them. It may be learning a couple of new f2l algs, it may be slowing down a bit more, it may be trying to raise your awareness of what is in the rear slots, whatever. Just use the practice technique to become mindful of whatever the deficiencies are, and then you can fix them. Thats the whole point. If you can do 100 bpm perfectly, but 160 with 50% efficiency (or 70% or 80%) then you have identified that you CANT do this for a bunch of cases. You need to fix those by training your brain to maintain lookahead even if these awkward cases come up, and that usually means going slower, or figuring out a way to avoid a rotation. Its always hands or eyes. Eyes means go slower, hands means learn a better way for that case (that 10 move case with a y then a y', that sucks. Identify it. Fix it.)

So you want a higher hit rate than that if you can. The problem you get is that in an average of (say) 12, if you only get 6 right, thats a 50% failure to lookahead. So half the time an f2l case is coming up that you cant look ahead to, and instead of learning to do so (which can only happen at a slower speed), you are training your brain to ignore it because its one of the 50% of cases that is too hard to worry about. It is better to go slower and aim for 100%. I do two types of training: cross + f2l (specifically trying to train that cross to first pair transition, which for me is a weakness) and f2l "flow" training, where I begin with a completed cross, simply because the rest of my f2l is so much faster than the first pair. That way I practice looking ahead from one f2l case to another, partially predicting where the next incomplete pair will end up etc. These are two different skills, and completing f2l at my cross + 1 speed is pointless (because the rest of my f2l lookahead is much faster so it doesnt help), but trying f2l + cross at the speed of the rest of my f2l is currently impossible. Better inspection/tracking during cross execution would deal with this, so that is what I practice. Once BLD cross is in place, theoretically at least, your first pair should be no problem because you can look ahead in the same way that you can between pair 2 and 3. Actually theoretically its easier, because the cross take more time to build than placing a pair, so your eyes have more time to find the first pair, IF and ONLY IF you dont need to look for the cross. Crosses that end in a D/D2/D2'/D' move are always better because you can anticipate the D move and concretely lookahead whilst you execute it, you absolutely dont need to look at the cross pieces (assuming you know your colour scheme). You should strive to have the whole of your cross to the same level, so all your eyes are doing is anticipating the position of one previously identified pair (I say previously because the best find it in inspection, striving for merely during the cross is slightly less superhuman). Drawing an analogy with the gym, if you are trying to bench press a weight 12 times, but can only manage 6, then you have to reduce the weight.

So, try aim for training at a speed with 100% consistency. The best place to work is where you are slightly off that, maybe 95%. Let me draw the gym analogy again. If you have decided to bench press a weight 6 times, but can only do it 3, its too much. Pick the weight where you can do it 5 times and the last one is wobbly. This is a good weight for your training, with repeated attempts over several sessions you will find soon enough that the last isnt wobbly, so you should add more weight. By analogy, work at your 95% correct metronome level, until its 100%, then raise it. Thats where your practice should take place.

In terms of using the metronome effectively to get that extra 5%, there are a couple of things you can do to squeeze out the improvement. Having used metronomes extensively for musical purposes, I have adapted some of the standard techniques. Find your almost there level, lets say its 160. Start your session at 100, then work up in regular increments to your chosen challenge level of 160. You should hit your wobble at this point. 
1)The first idea is to just solve at this level until its no longer wobbly. Its dull, but its effective. Its dull because you improve when you hit the case you cant do, but 95% of the time its not a problem, so you feel like its dull. You are however consolidating your skill (which is necessary and useful), but should also be identifying specific deficiencies - tricky cases, excess rotations, poor move counts on certain pair configurations, ignorance of rear slots, whatever the problem may be. This allows you to isolate and fix an issue.

2) Try going up by 4 and then down by 2, working up to and hopefully through your barrier. Up a bit, down a bit helps because your brain adapts to the manageably more difficult pace, (manageably because it is only slightly quicker, like adding a teeny bit more weight to your lift)/ It wont be 100%, but if you can maintain 95% for a small increment, you will often find that when you go back down you can manage the previous speed at 100 or 98% efficiency. This is forcing your mind to adapt and push through the barrier by repetitively slightly overloading its current capacity, then trying again at a slightly lower level. By comparison your reduced level feels easier, despite being faster than what you started with. Its a good technique.

3) Spend some time at your 160 level, locking into the regimented turning, and getting your 95%. Then just go 20 bpm higher, say 180. You will find that your hit rate becomes lower (obviously) maybe 70-75%. Keep solving at this level for a bit. Your solving brain-eyes-fingers system becomes overloaded, and desperately tries to cope. Fudging occurs. Your system desperately tries to overcome the new stress placed upon it any way it can. Your 70-75% creeps up to 75-80% as your solving mind begins to cope. Then drop back to your 160. If you have spent a meaningful period of time at 180, 160 should now feel incredible easy. You have forced a skill increase through forced overloading of the solving system. This doesnt always work and can lead to "panic solving". If so, the jump has been too large. Hang out at 160 again, then try 175 or 170 for a it. 20 bom jumps work for me, maybe 10s or 30s work for you. Use this techniaue sparingly, you dont want to encourage fudging too much, you want to have the accuracy you can achieve at 100 bpm (which should be absolutely perfect if you are practicing at 160) at your target bpm. 

Contrast the use of these techniques if your working level only has a 50% hit rate. Cranking up by 20 bpm will be a case of practicing at a 30-40% hit rate for a while, (which lets face it, is basically messing it up unless you get an easy case) , and best case scenario you reduce back to your original level and find yourslef hitting 55%. Pointless, you have too much weight on the bar. You need to find where you can do it 100% perfectly, and then practice at or slightly above that level, so your 100% becomes no just doable, but triviallly easy. This is achieved by intelligent incremental advances, where perfection is always very close. 

In conclusion, spend most of your time at or just beyond the point where you can do it perfectly, with good form, and your eyes arent behind your fingers. This is the ideal, and so should be what you practice. Practicing at a point where you just cant do it (50% say) is just getting better at failing. Incremental advances are systematic and effective. The increment should be one level above what you can already do perfectly.

The inductive solving idea is useful, and tends to be a skill that develops through practice at the appropriate level. The mental calculations involved in deducing the colours and orientation of a piece you cannot see will be a contributing factor to your 5% failure rate (when working at 95%). If you identify this as a specific weakness, then the 3 sided logic based solving exercise is most useful. A similar exercise is to attempt to solve the cube with only one rotation. That is do the cross and whichever side is facing you, solve as many f2l pairs as possible using 2 gen moves (which you can always do for pairs where the edge is oriented after the cross is comlpeted. You will solve 1,2,3 or 4 pairs. Then rotate y/y' and solve the rest. If you find you have missed one and need to rotate back, then you have failed the exercise, if you solve the entire f2l with no more than 1 rotation, then you have developed your ability to identify and work with edge orientation. By extension, correctly selecting sledgehammer insertions over regular insertions can further reduce the need to rotate, another skill that when developed to the level of unconscious competence will improve your f2l massively. As an associated side benefit, reducing rotations will further develop your ability to deduce colour and orientation of pieces that are not directly visible, so the exercise assists and ties in nicely with the 3 face exercise you mention Hypocrism. All of these practice techniques should be applied as a result of concretely identifying specific weaknesses and then sorting them out by working in a focussed manner on the identified weaknesses until they are no longer a problem. Then identify the next issue and work on that. This is the very essence of systematic training, and is the logically best way to continually improve. 

It can be a bit tedious at times, and I am as guilty as the next guy at sacking off proper specific practice in favour of trying break my avg 100 pb, but I can assure you that 1) identifying your most problematic issue as specifically as possible, 2) fix it so its no longer a problem, 3) repeat from step 1, is the most effective way to get better at any skill. 

Hope this helps.


----------



## rj (Sep 4, 2013)

TheNextFeliks said:


> So freeFOP. Actually kinda common.



I use freefop. It's hard not to.


----------



## TheNextFeliks (Jan 5, 2014)

I don't know how to post pictures. These are my stats. Not surprised that f2l and cross are bad and LL is good.


----------



## Delta Phi (Jun 12, 2014)

What if i use VH? would last slot be included in both OLL and F2L?


----------



## rubikmaster (Jul 30, 2015)

This is definitely one of the best tutorials on the forum for getting faster at CFOP. Also, there's so much useful information in this thread. Sorry for the bump everyone, but I think more people need to see this.


----------



## DizzypheasantZZ (Jul 30, 2015)

Some one should do something like this for ZZ.


----------



## rubikmaster (Jul 30, 2015)

DizzypheasantZZ said:


> Some one should do something like this for ZZ.


I've been in the process learning ZZ myself. I think I'll do some time splits of a few fast solvers. I'm really interested in seeing the percentages.


----------



## rubikmaster (Jul 30, 2015)

Alrighty, here are some estimates based on this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jLHoz7VUbwA

EO-Line: 15% (includes starting the timer)
F2L: 50%
COLL: 17.5% (includes AUFs and recognition)
PLL: 17.5% (includes AUFs, recognition and stopping the timer)


----------



## crafto22 (Sep 12, 2015)

Lol, okay, thanks! My f2l is great (only 42% of my solve), whereas my last layer is trash (almost 50% of my solve!)


----------

