# A new method to solve the F2L of the Rubik's Cube?!



## CuBeOrDiE (Jul 4, 2009)

here is a video about my f2l method:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LAG-JcNTXgg

here is a review of my method:
1. build a 1x1x3 line by paring up two corners and an edge
2. expand your 1x1x3 line to a 1x2x3 rectangle by adding two edges
3. expand you 1x2x3 rectangle to a 2x2x3 bloc by(once again),getting two edges in place
4. add a 1x2x2 bloc to your 2x2x3 bloc so as to get your f2l minus a c/e pair
5. finish off with a Fridrich style f2l pair or a begginer style f2l pair



-----------------------------------A ''Unique'' Block building F2L Method-----------------------------------
This video is about a method I've created to solve the first two layers of the rubik's cube. I've decided to call it the ''Unique'' Block Building f2l method.This f2l method allows you to solve the first two layers in an average of 29 moves without having to learn advanced concepts. This means that this method is both suitable for speed and fewest moves.See video for details.

--------------------------------------- 6 Quick Tips To Success-----------------------------------------
here are six tips to help you out:
1. during the 15 second inspection time, plan ahead not only the 1x1x3 line, but also find the two edges needed to get a 1x2x3 rectangle
2. to avoid cube rotations during the second step, place your 1x1x3 line in the left hand corner of the bottom layer and use only U , u , R , and r moves to get your 1x2x3 rectangle
3. to avoid cube rotations during the third step, place your 1x2x3 rectangle in the left corner of the bottom layer and use only U , u , and R moves to get a 2x2x3 bloc
4. if you would like to fix bad edges you can do it between steps 3 and 4 or between steps 4 and 5
5. instead of adding a 1x2x2 bloc in step 4 and a corner edge pair in step 5, you can simply add an edge and two Fridrich f2l pairs
6. to avoid cube rotations during the fourth and fith steps, use some d turns

----------------------------------------------Example Solve---------------------------------------------
scramble :U' R2 B F' U L2 R U2 B2 F2 D2 U2 F R' D U' B D2 R2 B2 L' R2 D2 U2 R
solution: F R' D B2 L' B U D R' D B2 U' F R F D L B L' B2 D B2 D' B' D B D'
a 27 move f2l using my method
note:this was a FM solution

-------------------------------------------Why Not Petrus?---------------------------------------------
Everyone keeps asking''why not petrus''. Well, first notice that my method is the same as the Petrus method except that you don't fix bad edges and that I have a different way to obtain a 2x2x3 bloc. You could fix bad edges in my method if you wanted to(personally i dont), so that isn't a problem. Therefore, we come to the question''why getting a 1x1x3 line, than a 1x2x3 rectangle, than a 2x2x3 bloc instead of getting a 2x2x2 bloc and than expanding it to a 2x2x3 bloc?'' The answer is simple: firstly, my way of getting a 2x2x3 bloc is simpler, so my method takes less time to learn and master. Also, after getting a 2x2x2 bloc, you must use R , U , and F moves to get a 2x2x3 bloc. this means more re grips. In my method, however, you can use only U , u , R, and r moves, meaning no re grips are necessary. Also, using Petrus or the ''Unique'' Block Building method depends on your preferences. Chose the method that suits your cubing style best.

----------------------------------------AND DONT DOWNRATE!!!!----------------------------------------






after having red all this comment and rate


----------



## daeyoungyoon (Jul 5, 2009)

Or you can just use petrus.


----------



## CuBeOrDiE (Jul 5, 2009)

Yes, but Petrus uses lots of 1x2x2 bloc building, witch isn't the best for speed cubing. The goal of my method is to achieve a speed solving and fewest moves method without building lots of 1x2x2 blocs or corner edge pairs or having to use advanced concepts. Petrus is good though, so no offense meant..


----------



## Lucas Garron (Jul 5, 2009)

Please type up an F2L solution under 30 moves for us:
U' R2 B F' U L2 R U2 B2 F2 D2 U2 F R' D U' B D2 R2 B2 L' R2 D2 U2 R


----------



## gasmus (Jul 5, 2009)

Lucas Garron said:


> Please type up an F2L solution under 30 moves for us:
> U' R2 B F' U L2 R U2 B2 F2 D2 U2 F R' D U' B D2 R2 B2 L' R2 D2 U2 R



cross: yR'D'U2'LD'R'FD
1st pair: y'U2L'UL2U'L'
2nd: yLU'L'
3rd: U'RU'R'
4th U'L'U'L

=25 moves

...Or you can just use Fridrich.


----------



## CuBeOrDiE (Jul 5, 2009)

example solution

SCRAMBLE:U' R2 B F' U L2 R U2 B2 F2 D2 U2 F R' D U' B D2 R2 B2 L' R2 D2 U2 R

SOLUTION:F R' D B2 L' B U D R' D B2 U' F R F D L B L' B2 D B2 D' B' D B D' 

27 move f2l


----------



## CuBeOrDiE (Jul 5, 2009)

gasmus said:


> Lucas Garron said:
> 
> 
> > Please type up an F2L solution under 30 moves for us:
> ...





YA BUT FRIDRICH AVERAGE F2L IS 35 MOVES MINE IS 29 THAT WAS JUST A LUCKY SOLVE


----------



## Ewks (Jul 5, 2009)

I'm going to be serious now.

Your method might be okay for FMC but for speed it seems to destroy lookahead. In the second step you have to find two edge pieces that can be in any part of the cube. For example in fridrich F2L you can plan your first 4 edge pieces ahead in the inspection time and the next edge pieces are alot easier to find 'cause there are only 8 places where an edge can be then. And in petrus you can quite easily with some practise plan your 2x2x2 block ahead and then the next edge and corner pieces are easy to find 'cause there are only 7 places where a corner can be and 9 places where an edge can be.

Your method does use block building. You make a 1x1x3 *block* and then another *block*.

Are there any other advatages in this method exept for the block building thing and that you can use it for both speed and FMC?

Sorry about this but *you can just use petrus.*Atleast with petrus you don't have to learn all the OLLs.


----------



## Robert-Y (Jul 5, 2009)

Scramble: U' R2 B F' U L2 R U2 B2 F2 D2 U2 F R' D U' B D2 R2 B2 L' R2 D2 U2 R

My F2L solution: F L' B' D F U2 B R' B' R B D' R D' L B L' B D' B' D (21 moves)

Hey try and guess which method I used!!! 

(I'm not even a petrus user! )


----------



## Johannes91 (Jul 5, 2009)

Robert-Y said:


> Scramble: U' R2 B F' U L2 R U2 B2 F2 D2 U2 F R' D U' B D2 R2 B2 L' R2 D2 U2 R
> 
> My F2L solution: F L' B' D F U2 B *R' B' R B D'* ...


My eyes! *D B' D2*

Doesn't give such a lucky ending, but I doubt you planned it.


----------



## Robert-Y (Jul 5, 2009)

Yep, you're right, I just didn't spot the 3 moves for the last 2x2 block.


----------



## Ton (Jul 5, 2009)

CuBeOrDiE said:


> Ive just developed a new method to solve the f2l of the rubiks cube! It allows you to solve the f2l in an average of 29 moves and with few advanced concepts and no algorithms. It is both suitable for speed and fewest moves solving. Check it out, rate, comment, and subscribe.
> 
> heres the url: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LAG-JcNTXgg



Sure for FM this is useful, but than again it is not a new concept as for FM you just pick any block, either Petrus or just 1x1x3 block

For speedcubing you look-ahead will be hard -not impossible- but needs a lot of training. An other thing finger trick will be hard 
for this method as it looks more freestyle. This is one of the reasons I do not use Petrus for speedcubing. Any way, good that 
you like to share your idea. Sharing any idea will eventually improve speedcubing in general 

Keep up the good work


----------



## CuBeOrDiE (Jul 5, 2009)

Ton said:


> CuBeOrDiE said:
> 
> 
> > Ive just developed a new method to solve the f2l of the rubiks cube! It allows you to solve the f2l in an average of 29 moves and with few advanced concepts and no algorithms. It is both suitable for speed and fewest moves solving. Check it out, rate, comment, and subscribe.
> ...



I can't exactly argue that look ahead would be difficult, but finger tricks are definitely possible.For the second and third step, you can solve the cube using only R , r , U , and u turns. I'll post a how to later in the description of my video. For the third and fourth steps, you can solve the cube using d , R , and u moves. 

PS I dint know this wasn't a new concept...but still,I don't think anyone has actually bothered to record a method like this 

PPS Thanks for giving a constructive response...not many people do that...

PPPS by the way i like freestyle methods


----------



## CuBeOrDiE (Jul 5, 2009)

Ewks said:


> I'm going to be serious now.
> 
> Your method might be okay for FMC but for speed it seems to destroy lookahead. In the second step you have to find two edge pieces that can be in any part of the cube. For example in fridrich F2L you can plan your first 4 edge pieces ahead in the inspection time and the next edge pieces are alot easier to find 'cause there are only 8 places where an edge can be then. And in petrus you can quite easily with some practise plan your 2x2x2 block ahead and then the next edge and corner pieces are easy to find 'cause there are only 7 places where a corner can be and 9 places where an edge can be.
> 
> ...



Look ahead is only difficult in the third step, since the first and second step can be planned during the 15 second inspection time, and the last two steps are almost like Fridrich, and you said look ahead wasn't hard there.

Although this method does use block building, when I said it uses little block building I meant building 1x2x2 blocks. in my opinion my type of block building is simpler.

As for other advantages, this method was designed to be simple to learn. This is the advantage. A beginner can pick up this method easier than, say, Petrus.

Anyway, what method you prefer depends on your tastes. For example, the Petrus method is really good for FM and OH solving, but not everybody uses it.

Thanks for giving a constructive response. Hoped this answered your questions


----------



## CuBeOrDiE (Jul 5, 2009)

CuBeOrDiE said:


> Ewks said:
> 
> 
> > I'm going to be serious now.
> ...



PS yes you could use petrus im not stopping you


----------



## Gparker (Jul 5, 2009)

Cubeordie: Dont triple post please.

Also, don't get annoyed, but you really could just use petrus. Yes, that was a way to solve F2L. 

Question: Do you use this to solve F2L?


----------



## MistArts (Jul 5, 2009)

CuBeOrDiE said:


> gasmus said:
> 
> 
> > Lucas Garron said:
> ...



It looks pretty non-lucky to me.


----------



## RampageCuber (Jul 5, 2009)

MistArts said:


> CuBeOrDiE said:
> 
> 
> > gasmus said:
> ...



Well, there's a few easy inserts, but without that it would still be around a 27-30 move F2L


----------



## CuBeOrDiE (Jul 5, 2009)

RampageCuber said:


> MistArts said:
> 
> 
> > CuBeOrDiE said:
> ...



According to Jessica Fridrich, the average of her method is 35 moves. Therefore, some solves may take up to 40 moves, witch screws your average up.


----------



## mazei (Jul 5, 2009)

Jessica Fridrich may average that, but does everyone else average that?


----------



## CuBeOrDiE (Jul 5, 2009)

Gparker said:


> Cubeordie: Dont triple post please.
> 
> Also, don't get annoyed, but you really could just use petrus. Yes, that was a way to solve F2L.
> 
> Question: Do you use this to solve F2L?



Yes, I do. I've only just come up with it a week ago so i haven't perfected it yet...


----------



## brunson (Jul 5, 2009)

Where do you get this 35 move average F2L for Fridrich? I just did 10 arbitrary solves and here are my move counts (cross/total):

1. 5/27
2. 7/34
3. 4/30
4. 5/28
5. 7/32
6. 4/31
7. 6/33
8. 6/27
9. 7/36
10. 6/31

That's an average of ~31 moves for F2L and I wasn't even trying for FM, I was just doing a normal solve and counting HTM. I'm sure if I took more time I could shave 1-3 moves off each at a minimum.

(P.S. I'm not even very good)


----------



## Robert-Y (Jul 5, 2009)

mazei said:


> Jessica Fridrich may average that, but does everyone else average that?



Well I maybe not for me. I just did 20 F2L solves and my move average was 32.15.


----------



## CuBeOrDiE (Jul 5, 2009)

brunson said:


> Where do you get this 35 move average F2L for Fridrich? I just did 10 arbitrary solves and here are my move counts (cross/total):
> 
> 1. 5/27
> 2. 7/34
> ...



my move average for linear fmc challenges is around 28.7 so........


----------



## RampageCuber (Jul 5, 2009)

CuBeOrDiE said:


> RampageCuber said:
> 
> 
> > MistArts said:
> ...



Yes, she said that before modern algs and methods (x-cross, etc.) were invented.


----------



## CuBeOrDiE (Jul 5, 2009)

RampageCuber said:


> CuBeOrDiE said:
> 
> 
> > RampageCuber said:
> ...



Still, it all comes down to what you prefer...both modern x cross fridrich and my method average around the same move count.


----------



## Gparker (Jul 5, 2009)

Ok. Your method and petrus may have fewer moves and things like that. But for fridrich and ZZ, its mostly 2-gen with few cube rotations. In your method, you have to make many cube rotations and less R U moves.


----------



## fanwuq (Jul 5, 2009)

Why do I feel differently about this method than everyone else? 

I fail to see why this is good for FM.
I fail to see why this is bad for speed/lookahead.
I fail to see how this is like Petrus.
I fail to see anything new here.

1st step is the same as Roux 1x2x3 block. It is pretty fast. Inserting the next 2 edges is not efficient, but pretty easy to lookahead. Finishing F2L with Fridrich is OK.


----------



## StachuK1992 (Jul 5, 2009)

> I fail to see why this is good for FM.


It's not.


> I fail to see why this is bad for speed/lookahead.


I feel as though my hands get in the way with this method.


> I fail to see how this is like Petrus.


builds a 2x2x3 block


> I fail to see anything new here.


I agree.


----------



## CuBeOrDiE (Jul 5, 2009)

Gparker said:


> Ok. Your method and petrus may have fewer moves and things like that. But for fridrich and ZZ, its mostly 2-gen with few cube rotations. In your method, you have to make many cube rotations and less R U moves.



have you read the video description?


----------



## CuBeOrDiE (Jul 5, 2009)

why is everyone so negative!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Is this method that bad? Please post a constuctive response telling if YOU think it's bad or YOU think it's good.

thnxs


----------



## CuBeOrDiE (Jul 5, 2009)

Stachuk1992 said:


> > I fail to see why this is good for FM.
> 
> 
> It's not.
> ...



i didnt know there was nothing new...and ive only been speedcubing for a year


----------



## fanwuq (Jul 5, 2009)

CuBeOrDiE said:


> why is everyone so negative!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> 
> is this method that bad? you need to try it for a week to tell



It's not that bad. I actually quite like it for speed. The move count isn't that impressive, but it isn't much worse than Fridrich. I think the lookahead is very easy and fingertricks are very nice. This idea has been thought of before, but it was rejected for being less efficient than regular Petrus. Overall, I like it and I think it is easy to get fast at this method. Michael Gottlieb can probably sub-20 first try.

Edit:
Thanks, Brunson. I forgot to mention that this variation should not need a name.


----------



## brunson (Jul 5, 2009)

CuBeOrDiE said:


> why is everyone so negative!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> 
> is this method that bad? you need to try it for a week to tell


For me it's because it's such a trivial variation on existing methods that it hardly warrants mentioning, much less putting your name on it like it's something incredibly innovative.


----------



## Gparker (Jul 5, 2009)

CuBeOrDiE said:


> Gparker said:
> 
> 
> > Ok. Your method and petrus may have fewer moves and things like that. But for fridrich and ZZ, its mostly 2-gen with few cube rotations. In your method, you have to make many cube rotations and less R U moves.
> ...



Once again, please dont triple post as you just did yet again. Theres a multi quote thing at the bottem, use it.

Also, sorry, I porbably should have read it, it would help if you quoted the description and put it in the main post.


----------



## joey (Jul 5, 2009)

brunson said:


> CuBeOrDiE said:
> 
> 
> > why is everyone so negative!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> ...



Yeah, I feel the same.
It's not really anything to it.. it's just petrus... but with 'rules' to follow.


----------



## JLarsen (Jul 5, 2009)

So I haven't actually got a chance to actually see what the method was, but before I check anything....I'm going to guess at what you've done based off of what I've read so far. 

1x2x3 Roux Block.
Inserted 2 edges to make a 2x2x3.
Butchered bad edges because you don't like them.
Fridrich the rest of the way.


----------



## cheiney (Jul 6, 2009)

I'd like to see a video of you solving the cube with both convential Fridrich and then your method to compare whether or not it is actually "faster". It may look good on paper in your eyes, but it must come down to execution. I'm sure if anyone dedicated enough time, they could think of some block building strategies themselves too. It's just that the moves you do in the F2L solve kind of seem awkward to me. While I intuitively do R, U, and F moves in Fridrich F2L, I see B, B', D, D', which I feel hinder some common triggers used for speed. If you post a video showcasing your regular Fridrich solve speed and another solve using this method with the same scramble, then it may be more accepted by the forum. That's just me, though, I'm no expert.


----------



## emu (Jul 6, 2009)

The problem with this method (and with Petrus, Roux, or any other block building methods) is how each step is independent. Using Fridrich F2L, you can solve all four slots of the first two layers using, more or less, the exact same strategy. So even though Fridrich F2L is intuitive (just like block building methods), it can be executed at near-algorithmic speed. That's why, even though block builders may solve a cube with less moves, they generally can't do it very fast compared to Fridrich.

That said, I don't see anything new or inventive with this "Kaltchenko method."


----------



## CuBeOrDiE (Jul 6, 2009)

Alright I'll post a video when I get good at my method... I just thought it up a week ago and haven't practiced it much. My time is currently in the 19 second range, but I'm improving.


----------



## Roux-er (Jul 6, 2009)

Use the Edit button 

Thanks


----------



## JLarsen (Jul 6, 2009)

emu said:


> The problem with this method (and with Petrus, Roux, or any other block building methods) is how each step is independent. Using Fridrich F2L, you can solve all four slots of the first two layers using, more or less, the exact same strategy. So even though Fridrich F2L is intuitive (just like block building methods), it can be executed at near-algorithmic speed. That's why, even though block builders may solve a cube with less moves, they generally can't do it very fast compared to Fridrich.
> 
> That said, I don't see anything new or inventive with this "Kaltchenko method."



I don't think the problem is that each step is different, but more that it takes much more thought to block build than to insert a pair while preserving a cross, therefore looking ahead takes a very strong blockbuilding foundation.


----------



## ChaosWZ (Jul 6, 2009)

lol srsly? fewest moves and fridrich dont mix XD theres just too many moves on oll and pll, doesnt matter how few moves you can solve f2l with XD


----------



## Lucas Garron (Jul 6, 2009)

ChaosWZ said:


> lol srsly? fewest moves and fridrich dont mix XD theres just too many moves on oll and pll, doesnt matter how few moves you can solve f2l with XD


http://www.worldcubeassociation.org/results/regions.php?regionId=&eventId=333fm&years=&mixed=Mixed


----------



## Lucas Garron (Jul 6, 2009)

Two things. It's "block," not "bloc" you mean.

Are you claiming your method is block-building?
I fail to see how it's significantly more block-building than Fridrich.

As far as I know, most methods considered blockbuilding have work by extending block parts or creating entire new blocks at each step. Your method builds a column (I wouldn't really call it a block instead, due to its characteristics), inserts 4 edges, and continues.

But that's debatable, nd perhaps Kenneth has something good to say.


----------



## mazei (Jul 6, 2009)

I think for speed purposes a more Roux approach on this would be faster or even ZZ since you would do an EO line and then doing the 2x2x3 block. For FMC purposes I think this is usable but then again, its something that most people would just improvise with so I don't see a reason to put a name for it. Its just a Petrus variation that doesn't bring in any new elements. Still block building IMO.


----------



## peedu (Jul 6, 2009)

Hi!
I mainly use CFOP to solve. Average 3of5 40+ sec. Been cubing since the "first wave". Now I don't care about the time very much but I like to see it going faster with some minor training.
I will use that "method" (or call it block building order) next time when some time needs to be killed. I've done the same with Roux and Petrus so far - just sit on your bus/train/plane ride and try to solve the same old 3x3x3 puzzle a bit differently and enjoy some relaxing brain work doing it without a load of algorithms.

So, thanks for a new idea (for me) about how to play.

Peedu


----------



## Ton (Jul 6, 2009)

CuBeOrDiE said:


> i cant exactly argue that look ahead would be difficult, but finger tricks are definately possible.for the second and third step, you can solve the cube using only R r U and u turns. ill post a how to later in the description of my video. for the third and fourth steps, you can solve the cube using d R and u moves.
> PS i dint know this wasnt a new concept...but still,i dont think anyone has actually bothered to record a method like this
> PPS thanks for giving a constructive response...not many people do that...
> 
> by the way i like freestyle methods...



Nothing wrong with freestyle, as many already many top cubers 4x4 and 5x5 do edge paring freestyle

However this means also lot of training to become fast, for sure if you master this kind of freestyle (non -color depended) it could be useful. On first I think it is most suitable for FM.

Btw I would call this method "freestyle blockbuilding" as the concept is not new for FM, you just post it as one of the first to be used for speedcubing. This does not mean you are the first.....


----------



## brunson (Jul 6, 2009)

CuBeOrDiE said:


> its just an intermediate method that uses a more or less unique sort of block building


More less than more.

BTW, your shift key seems to be broken.


----------



## CuBeOrDiE (Jul 6, 2009)

WHO THE HELL DOWNRATES !!!!


----------



## miniGOINGS (Jul 6, 2009)

CuBeOrDiE said:


> WHO THE HELL DOWNRATES !!!!



Humans, viewers.


----------



## CuBeOrDiE (Jul 6, 2009)

i mean WHo downrated...my guess is a petrus user

you could use petrus


----------



## Robert-Y (Jul 6, 2009)

CuBeOrDiE said:


> ps im a genious take that haters



Was the misspelling deliberate?


----------



## joey (Jul 6, 2009)

CuBeOrDiE said:


> Ton said:
> 
> 
> > CuBeOrDiE said:
> ...


I wouldn't call it freestyle blockbuilding.. it's NOT freestyle at all.


----------



## EmersonHerrmann (Jul 6, 2009)

There is no "different way" to create a 2x2x3 block


----------



## CuBeOrDiE (Jul 6, 2009)

EmersonHerrmann said:


> There is no "different way" to create a 2x2x3 block



ya there is MINE



AND PLEASE DONT DOWNRATE. I KNOW YOU CAN USE PETRUS!


----------



## JLarsen (Jul 6, 2009)

You're missing the point...


----------



## jms_gears1 (Jul 6, 2009)

sigh ok look he made a method and it seems interesting, its based off petrus sure but that doesnt make one method better than the other. 

COD: look people are going to downrate and hate on your method oh well thats just the nature of humans deal with it, its not that big of a deal if you use this method and get good times fine, good for you, others get pretty good times using petrus, roux, zz and fridrich its a choice really


----------



## CuBeOrDiE (Jul 6, 2009)

jms_gears1 said:


> sigh ok look he made a method and it seems interesting, its based off petrus sure but that doesnt make one method better than the other.
> 
> COD: look people are going to downrate and hate on your method oh well thats just the nature of humans deal with it, its not that big of a deal if you use this method and get good times fine, good for you, others get pretty good times using petrus, roux, zz and fridrich its a choice really



I didnt want to start a long and drawn out which-method-is-better thing, I just posted a new idea. And i agree with you saying one method isnt really better than the other; every cuber has preference. I just thought someone might like this and use it but im mistaken. So many haters.


----------



## miniGOINGS (Jul 6, 2009)

I agree, you identified a *new* and unique way of building a block. I am not going to say anything about which method is better/faster/more efficeint. Thank you for posting your idea.


----------



## CuBeOrDiE (Jul 6, 2009)

miniGOINGS said:


> I agree, you identified a *new* and unique way of building a block. I am not going to say anything about which method is better/faster/more efficeint. Thank you for posting your idea.



i appreciate this comment !


----------



## miniGOINGS (Jul 6, 2009)

CuBeOrDiE said:


> i appreciate this comment !



Thanks, I try to stay positive and understanding, none the less, I will not use it, but it was interesting to look at.


----------



## qqwref (Jul 7, 2009)

CuBeOrDiE said:


> ps im a genious take that haters



Oh. Sorry, I didn't know. hahaha, sure you are


----------



## CuBeOrDiE (Jul 7, 2009)

qqwref said:


> CuBeOrDiE said:
> 
> 
> > ps im a genious take that haters
> ...



now you do. the mispell was on purpose


----------



## Robert-Y (Jul 7, 2009)

CuBeOrDiE said:


> qqwref said:
> 
> 
> > CuBeOrDiE said:
> ...



Why did you *misspell* it on purpose?


----------



## CuBeOrDiE (Jul 7, 2009)

to see if anyone was smart enough to notice


----------



## fanwuq (Jul 7, 2009)

CuBeOrDiE said:


> qqwref said:
> 
> 
> > CuBeOrDiE said:
> ...



I didn't hate you at first. You were just sharing an idea; a bit arrogant to name it so early, but that was ok. But now... No. Oh, and your username isn't very nice either.


----------



## Robert-Y (Jul 7, 2009)

fanwuq said:


> CuBeOrDiE said:
> 
> 
> > qqwref said:
> ...



Meh. He's young. I admit, I used to be a bit like him a few years ago.


----------



## CuBeOrDiE (Jul 7, 2009)

fanwuq said:


> CuBeOrDiE said:
> 
> 
> > qqwref said:
> ...



whats wrong with my username?!


----------



## JLarsen (Jul 7, 2009)

CuBeOrDiE said:


> fanwuq said:
> 
> 
> > CuBeOrDiE said:
> ...


Yeah personally I'm not insanely angry with your method, I just generally don't like the way you presented it, the way you handle yourself, and the way you articulate. You cross me as an arrogant kid no older than 15 who's too lazy to type a little more. I'm not saying I spell perfectly, or talk to perfection, but I put at least a little effort into my posts, especially if I'm posting a new idea like a method. Also just by the words below your name, I can tell you're not my type. And hint;


Spoiler



An all caps "yo moma" type response taking this way to personally doesn't help.


----------



## CuBeOrDiE (Jul 7, 2009)

Sn3kyPandaMan said:


> CuBeOrDiE said:
> 
> 
> > fanwuq said:
> ...



All right I'll try to articulate better but its hard- I'm a very slow typer. Also, I'm only 12 if you want to know. Sorry if I was arrogant; I didnt mean to be. I've had about 30 people in total down rate my vid so that pissed me off... but Il try to improve. What's bad about how I presented my method?

PS the only reason I say ''Location: why should i tell you'' is because I dont want anyone to know where I live. My mom doesn't want me to tell that to strangers.


----------



## dbax0999 (Jul 7, 2009)

CuBeOrDiE said:


> PS the only reason I say ''Location: why should i tell you'' is because I dont want anyone to know where I live. My mom doesn't want me to tell that to strangers.



You could just leave location blank. Sometimes nothing is better than something.


----------



## xXdaveXsuperstarXx (Jul 7, 2009)

I will try to explain this as clear as possible.
This method is simple. It's not the fastest. 
It uses a fewer amount of moves, this
doesn't necessarily contribute to speed. 
You don't need to really hate on him. 
Naming it that early was arrogant.
I would rather use Freestyle block building. 
Freestyle Blocking building is based around the 
concept of just building blocks in the most 
efficient and fastest way. I use Fridrich though.


----------



## qqwref (Jul 7, 2009)

CuBeOrDiE said:


> PS the only reason I say ''Location: why should i tell you'' is because I dont want anyone to know where I live. My mom doesn't want me to tell that to strangers.



Well, as dbax0999 said, you could've just put nothing. A cursory look around the forum would reveal that plenty of users don't even have a location given. Saying "why should i tell you" just makes you look like a jerk - people reading the thread aren't implicitly asking "what's your location?" and expecting an answer, so telling them "I won't tell you where I live" right off the bat does nothing but give a bad first impression.

Honestly, when people are giving you bad responses, I think it is more about your attitude than about your method. If you really are 12, well done for discovering something new (to you) on your own, even though the cubing community already knew about it. It's just that the way you presented it - immediately naming it after yourself, asking that everyone who watches the video subscribe to your channel, providing only a 10-minute video when you could've posted a quick text explanation that would take less than a minute to read, spamming the topic instead of being calm and/or polite, saying outright that you're a genius (whether it's true or not) - caused many people to want to flame you rather than objectively looking at your method. If you're new to a community, you have to give a good first impression, because that's all people will know about you when they make the decision on how to respond. Being polite and helpful goes a long way.


----------



## Kenneth (Jul 7, 2009)

Lucas Garron said:


> Two things. It's "block," not "bloc" you mean.
> 
> Are you claiming your method is block-building?
> I fail to see how it's significantly more block-building than Fridrich.
> ...



Not much, it is as always; nothing new to it, most methods are already explored by me and many others. Block building is neat, it saves turns and can be done in many ways. But the problem with it is, as said above, the look ahead, you need to find more pices for each operation. Using F2L you only need 2 at the time, for most block methods you need 3 or possibly 4 and that is slow to find. My average is about 10 turns more for F2L but it is still faster than any block method I know.


----------



## Stefan (Jul 7, 2009)

CuBeOrDiE said:


> What's bad about how I presented my method?


First impression is important, and you screwed that up. Even before your message and video. You had the thread title in all CAPS with several question marks and exclamation points (fixed that for you). I'm sure that this YELLING ticked people off right away. You don't enter a new community and start screaming HEY EVERYBODY LISTEN UP HERE I AM AND I'M IMPORTANT. You just don't.

Then you failed to provide a concise and textual description of the method. Which is quite annoying because we really don't want to watch a ten minutes video just to probably find out you have nothing new or interesting to offer. Plus I believe many of the sheep replying "Or you could use Petrus" thought your method *is* Petrus, partly because the first "Or you could use Petrus" kinda suggested it is, and partly because of the missing description of what it really is.

All that set the direction and then you became a victim of wannabe-cool haters. Although you did spam back quite heavily. I found both sides quite pathetic and deleted 135 junk posts in this thread, by far a new record (for me, at least).


----------



## JTW2007 (Jul 7, 2009)

StefanPochmann said:


> I found both sides quite pathetic and deleted 135 junk posts in this thread, by far a new record.



135? Wow. And still 9 pages long...


----------



## Stefan (Jul 7, 2009)

JTW2007 said:


> 135? Wow. And still 9 pages long...


After my deletions it was barely two pages. Since then it has grown again. I'm glad this time there's actual content rather than empty yelling both ways.


----------



## JTW2007 (Jul 7, 2009)

StefanPochmann said:


> JTW2007 said:
> 
> 
> > 135? Wow. And still 9 pages long...
> ...



Oh, okay. True. Not now though, as I have nothing of value to add.


----------



## Dene (Jul 7, 2009)

Ahahaha this thread was fun

*Dene sits back and waits for his post to get deleted*


----------



## Ton (Jul 7, 2009)

I find that people on this forum in general are very harsh and critical 

He is 12 and is exited by his find of a method -even if it is a variation -, I find it great that he share his ideas. Sure the first impression might be " look here I am" thats is somethig he can work on.

Give the cuber some credits, how many find a method on his own? Maybe he can colaborate how he came up with this idea. It could be that he tought of it on his own....

Any way it gave me some usefull idea's for FM, not the complete method but parts of it. We should look first to the positive site of a contribution, to be critical if very easy.....

Hope this feeback helps before you post critical or negative posts.....
Ton


----------



## Stefan (Jul 7, 2009)

Dene said:


> Ahahaha this thread was fun


Yeah, very much reminded me of the so there's this kid on youtube thread. People have fun gang-bashing others. This thread here in particular gave me the impression people didn't care or think about the content but were just interested in joining the senseless bashing. The "kid on youtube" thread was worse, but at least had people reasoning, even though it was severely flawed.


----------



## brunson (Jul 7, 2009)

CuBeOrDiE said:


> All right I'll try to articulate better but its hard- I'm a very slow typer. Also, I'm only 12 if you want to know. Sorry if I was arrogant; I didnt mean to be. I've had about 30 people in total down rate my vid so that pissed me off... but Il try to improve. What's bad about how I presented my method?
> 
> PS the only reason I say ''Location: why should i tell you'' is because I dont want anyone to know where I live. My mom doesn't want me to tell that to strangers.


CorD,

That was an excellent post, articulate and grammatically correct, sooo much easier to read. 

I'm sorry I was harsh on you earlier, I think the other posters in the thread have hit every topic that rubbed me the wrong way, so I leave it as having been covered. I particularly appreciate you being able to apologise, I think you've shown great character by doing so.

If you continue posting with this same care and attitude, I'm sure you will be quite well accepted in the community.

e.


----------



## Deleted member 2864 (Jul 7, 2009)

I don't even try to focus all my f2l attention on efficiency and I can easily get lower move counts than 35 >.< I'm even a slow cuber at the 20 mark....


----------



## xXdaveXsuperstarXx (Jul 7, 2009)

I think that you should create 2 1x1x3 lines, use COLL and finish the cube with U, M, and (GOODNESS GRACIOUS) E moves. If you make the 1x1x3 blocks into 1x2x3 blocks after COLL you could finish it with Roux.


----------



## CuBeOrDiE (Jul 7, 2009)

brunson said:


> CuBeOrDiE said:
> 
> 
> > All right I'll try to articulate better but its hard- I'm a very slow typer. Also, I'm only 12 if you want to know. Sorry if I was arrogant; I didnt mean to be. I've had about 30 people in total down rate my vid so that pissed me off... but Il try to improve. What's bad about how I presented my method?
> ...



Thanks for this response, I appreciate it. I'll try to work on attitude in the future(I've always had a problem with it.)lol


----------



## CuBeOrDiE (Jul 7, 2009)

Kenneth said:


> Lucas Garron said:
> 
> 
> > Two things. It's "block," not "bloc" you mean.
> ...



My method is a ''unique'' (check out description on first page)method, with a ''unique'' sort of block building. In each step you only put in place 2 or 3 pieces. Look ahead my be a problem, but it's not all that difficult, really. And another thing is that my method isn't only for speed but for FM as well.


----------



## CuBeOrDiE (Jul 7, 2009)

xXdaveXsuperstarXx said:


> I think that you should create 2 1x1x3 lines, use COLL and finish the cube with U, M, and (GOODNESS GRACIOUS) E moves. If you make the 1x1x3 blocks into 1x2x3 blocks after COLL you could finish it with Roux.




This is a nice idea, but I won't use it. You could though, if you want.


----------



## qqwref (Jul 8, 2009)

OMG! This must be a record! CuBeOrDiE has posted on this thread for almost five times in a row!


----------



## happa95 (Jul 8, 2009)

CuBeOrDiE said:


> OMG! This must be a record! Nobody has posted on this forum for almost seven hours!



It's been said before on this thread, but don't triple post.
EDIT: quadruple post


----------



## Roux-er (Jul 8, 2009)

♬use edit♬

In a song form


----------



## JLarsen (Jul 13, 2009)

Roux-er said:


> ♬use edit♬
> 
> In a song form



That's a nice way to candy coat it. CubeorDie, one last thing that people get annoyed with is repeat posting. Try the multiquote feature to address separate posts.


----------



## CuBeOrDiE (Jul 17, 2009)

Sn3kyPandaMan said:


> Roux-er said:
> 
> 
> > ♬use edit♬
> ...





Roux-er said:


> ♬use edit♬
> 
> In a song form




u mean like dis?


----------



## JLarsen (Jul 17, 2009)

CuBeOrDiE said:


> Sn3kyPandaMan said:
> 
> 
> > Roux-er said:
> ...



Very nice.


----------



## CuBeOrDiE (Jul 17, 2009)

Thanks! lol


----------



## puzzlemaster (Jul 17, 2009)

useless bump.. again..


----------



## brunson (Jul 17, 2009)

This thread is now dead.


----------

