# Why do you use the method you use?



## Scigatt (Nov 10, 2008)

Pretty explanatory title.

I'm currently using Petrus because I didn't want to have to start trying to speedcube by looking up an algorithm in a table and just applying it, but actually solving the cube. (Although keyhole F2L looks interesting)


----------



## Lucas Garron (Nov 10, 2008)

I like the idea of the topic, but I don't like it when people just say "Pretty explanatory title." There's always more tosay, and it's nice to see the effort of elucidation. Do you mean 3x3x3? Everything? Anything? Approach to cubing in general? Method of getting fast at a new puzzle?

Anyhow, for 3x3x3 I use MGLS. I like to work on cubing ideas, and there is a certain pride in trying to be successful while being different. The only way we're ever going to improve cubing, other than practice, is development. So, I found and learned algs to show that it can be done, and it turned out to be a decently competitive method.
However, I have recently been considering learning more OLLs (I know 28, for various reasons), to have a better understanding of relative merits of OLL and CLS in speedsolving.


----------



## fanwuq (Nov 10, 2008)

I agree with Lucas. I like to develop BLD memo methods. I've found a few that works for me, but none are perfect. I try to avoid long word lists and keep things simple (although that's not working so well for me at the moment.) And I also like to search for OH algs.

For 3FMC, I use a method without a name that many also use. 
0. Premove
1. 2x2x3 block
2. solve some edges and corners.
3. Insert at most 2 3-cycles or one parity.

For 3speed:
Slot style F2L.
2 look OLL.
PLL.
I do not like this method that much, but it works for now. I'm considering MGLS, which I might learn in the far future after I adopt Petrus first.

3OH:
same as 3Speed, but use more LUR algs.
3BLD:
3OP or M2 edges.
3OP-- can memo by visualizing clock, more thinking and better translation to freestyle/TuRBo
M2-- can memo by using random letters/straightforward and fast.
Corners are Classic Pochmann or commutators.
Commutators: efficient
Pochmann: straightforward.
4x4: reduction-- very intuitive, only 2 algs for parity.
2x2: Ortega-- easy to learn and decent speed.


----------



## Sa967St (Nov 10, 2008)

I just use Fridrich because I started with it and it works well for me, oh and because I'm not too good with block-building


----------



## DavidWoner (Nov 10, 2008)

2x2: Ortega. it was an easy transition from LBL, and I can sub-5 with it so its fast enough for me.

3x3: Fridrich, F2L on left, opposite color neutral. Learned intuitive F2L entirely by myself just from what phenoma I observed while solving LBL. I originally solved with f2l on top, but I switched to left. I know 34 OLLs, learning the rest. I use the same for OH, but sometimes with 2 look PLL.

FMC: my basic philosophy is to try as many solutions as possible and try to get a good one. I also use lots of mirrors and inverse for OLL/PLL to try and get cancellations. Blockbuilding for F2L.

4x4: reduction, 2 at a time edges. standard method for centers, start with either white or yellow. M-slice pairing, UF buffer slot, set up both pairs before I slice. I use one "alg" and its mirror.

5x5: reduction, color nuetral centers, same edges as 4x4.

3x3BLD: classic Pochmann all around. Shoot corners with Stefans alg. Shoot edges with T-perm, unless its going to UF or UB, then I shoot with Jperms. Memo corners with words, dont have a memo for corners yet, will probably use letters.


----------



## Tox|k (Nov 10, 2008)

I use petrus F2L (without edge orientation) and then fridrich LL. I started with the basic method, then started using petrus F2L. I only started learning the fridrich LL a few weeks ago though. I'm not sure I'll ever learn the full OLL - I probably will eventually - but I want to get fast with the petrus edge orientation method first. If I can do that quickly, there shouldn't be much reason to know more than the corner only PLLs I know now.


----------



## crabs!!! (Nov 10, 2008)

3x3x3 Roux - Just because I like that its almost all intuitive. With only 1 step that requires a Algorithm. 

5x5x5 Reduction With Fridrich f2l, 2 look oll, and 1 look pll - M,U, finger tricks suck on larger cubes.


----------



## *LukeMayn* (Nov 10, 2008)

WTF! where did my post go


----------



## TMOY (Nov 10, 2008)

Corners first rulez 
Why ? Because I learnt to solve the cube that way back in '81, and I still like it. I don't want to switch to anything else, I'm much more interested in trying to improve my CF and to push it to its limits. I'm already twice as fast as I was in 1981 and there's still room for improvement. My corners first is close to the Guimond method, but with a different corners orientation step. I'm trying to optimize the edges as much as possible too.
2^3: see above 
Big cubes: my own cage method  Starting by corners and two opposite centers (first the corners on 4^3, first the two centers on anything bigger), then all edges, and finally the last four centers. And yes it can go fast.
BLD: still not very clear, but I use 3-cycle for edges, a mixture of Guimond and 3-cycle for corners, and PLL J for parity.
Megaminx: my own method again. The star, then F2L by putting first edges then corners, then five groups of three pieces, again by putting first edges then corners, then the last 5 pairs in Fridrich style, and finally the LL in 4 steps (orient edges, permute edges, permute corners, orient corners), except when everything is oriented after the fist or second step, in which case I use PLLs to finish the solve.
Pyraminx: the usual method, first layer then one-step LL.
Square-1: corners first again , similar to Lars' method but slightly different.


----------



## Dene (Nov 10, 2008)

Scigatt said:


> I didn't want to have to start trying to speedcube by looking up an algorithm in a table and just applying it



I use Fridrich, and I didn't have to look up algorithms and just apply them...


----------



## CharlieCooper (Nov 10, 2008)

i use petrus because it was the first thing i ever tried. i didn't like the notation when i started cubing and was drawn to the moving cubes on lars' site


----------



## Cerberus (Nov 10, 2008)

I just fridrich because f2l was very easy to "learn" just come to the idea of inserting corner and edge at the same time, which I thought about earlier too, I ever used intuitive f2l.
For OLL and PLL it was just the desire to get faster... and the very beginning was after learning 4x4 while using fridrich f2l and real beginners last layer(E-OLL E-PLL (sune) C-PLL (niklas) C-OLL (R' D R D')), ending with PLL parity (2 swapped corners) so the T perm was very useful...
I also looked into petrus, roux and mgls for fun, but I sticked to fridrich, now I want to look into some CLLs and ELLs too see how good the recognition works for me and can improve my times at some situations, also maybe learn some OH algorithms finally... (just H perm, because M turns pisses me off, but still got OLLs with it..)


----------



## Laetitia (Nov 10, 2008)

3x3x3 : F2L, 2-look OLL (because I'm too lazy to learn them all ), PLL.
(same thing for 3x3x3 OH, but I don't know all the PLL OH)
Because I first learned a layer by layer method, so it's natural to continue with F2L.

2x2x2 : Ortega; because easy to learn, not a lot of algorithm 

4x4x4 to 7x7x7 : reduction, because I found it natural (except the orientation parity case)

Megaminx : face by face. With a loooot of F2L pairs. and 2-look OLL and 2-look PLL. Because it's the more natural thing with my 333 method. And because it's fast 

Square-one : same order of steps than Lars. But I never practise square-one so each competition, I have to improvise each step  I don't even know the parity case (when I have parity, I know I can do something to not having parity anymore, but it scrambles my corners too XD)

3x3x3 bld : I use old pochmann, because I found it really easy to understand when I wanted to learn blind.
At the beginning, I wanted to find myself how to blindfold a cube, so I had a personnal method (wich looked liked 3 cycle but were not exactly) to solve corners, but I didn't have time to finish my method for edges (which also looked like 3-cycles)


----------



## ErikJ (Nov 10, 2008)

CharlieCooper said:


> i use petrus because it was the first thing i ever tried. i didn't like the notation when i started cubing and was drawn to the moving cubes on lars' site



same here. I learned all of my algs by remembering where the pieces moved instead of just remembering the moves. 

but yeah, There are a few reasons why I use Petrus method. the first being the lack of algorithms. 7 algs for OLL is amazing. and it also leaves space for other sets of algorithms like COLL and CLS. After flipping bad edges the rest of the F2L is 2gen which is very fast/fun. I just find petrus way more interesting than fridrich and roux.


----------



## AvGalen (Nov 10, 2008)

2x2x2_method: color-neutral Layer-by-Layer, Ortega or freestyle depending on the scramble.
2x2x2_reason_for_method: Color-neutral because you get easier starts, Layer-by-Layer because chances of 1 look last layer are high, Ortega because it's only 3 logical algorithms to learn and gives nice short solutions, freestyle because sometimes I just see a FMC solution during inspection

3x3x3_method: white cross, 3 corners, 4 edges, last corner (my keyhole variation), optional edge-control, 2 look OLL, 2 look PLL
3x3x3_reason_for_method: Easy to learn after a beginners method. To busy/lazy to learn full OLL/PLL, still faster for me than CFOP F2L

4x4x4_method: 1st center, opposite center, 3rd center, adjacent center, last two centers, 2-at-a-time edge-pairing, finish like 3x3x3. For OLL-parity I always do a double-parity-fix I found myself.
4x4x4_reason_for_method: By far the fastest method in the world and entirely intuitive

5x5x5_method: Centers like 4x4x4 order using 3+3+3 lines or spiraling, edges with the absolutely brilliant AVG method , finish like 3x3x3
5x5x5_reason_for_method: Also the fastest method in the world and also entirely intuitive (except for a faster edge-parity-fix I learned)

6x6x6_and_bigger_method: Centers like 5x5x5, Edges like 5x5x5 working inside-out, finish like 3x3x3
6x6x6_and_bigger_reason_for_method: By now you should have figured out that I like intuitive, yet fast.

Square-1_method: A=(1,0)/(-1,-1)/(0,1) and B=/(3,0)/(-3,-3)/(0,3)/ + a parity fix (nerdsparadise)
Square-1_reason_for_method: Did I ever mention intuitive, yet (reasonably) fast?

FMC_method: Solve as many pieces as possible in as few moves as possible. Add pre-moves and in-between moves to solve more pieces. Use insertions to fix all those nasty pieces that didn't get solved before
FMC_reason_for_method: Doesn't require any algorithms and gives great results

Megaminx: I suck


----------



## cookingfat (Nov 10, 2008)

I use fridrich because it's faster than the beginner's method and I haven't taken the time to research other methods yet. I chose fridrich because it is what most other cubers use and what people recommended I try next to improve speed.


----------



## TMOY (Nov 10, 2008)

AvGalen said:


> 4x4x4_reason_for_method: By far the fastest method in the world


I definitely don't agree with that statement.
I get better times at big cubes than cubers who have the same basic speed as me and use reduction


----------



## AvGalen (Nov 10, 2008)

TMOY said:


> AvGalen said:
> 
> 
> > 4x4x4_reason_for_method: By far the fastest method in the world
> ...



Can you name 1 top 10 4x4x4 cuber that doesn't use reduction? Somehow "fastest in the world" and you or me don't seem to have much in common


----------



## ImNOTnoob (Nov 10, 2008)

My turn!

2x2: I don't really have a method, just use simple LBL with OLL & PLL and uses J perm and E perm for the permutation part. Fast algs!

3x3: Fridrich!!! Just a few more OLLs to go, but I don't have the boost to learn them. Found them on google, but was put off by the number of algs. But then i found dan harris' website...
I wanted to learn CLL and ELL but I couldn't find a page with the algs on it untill... it was too late. 

4x4: Reduction centers; fridrich finish: Purely Intuitive, i love it. Six pair for edges.

5x5: Reduction centers; fridrich finish: Same, but I use a method i found out myself for the edges, pairing one whole tredge at a time.


----------



## TMOY (Nov 10, 2008)

AvGalen said:


> Can you name 1 top 10 4x4x4 cuber that doesn't use reduction? Somehow "fastest in the world" and you or me don't seem to have much in common


That doesn't prove anything. Most cubers use reduction because they were told to do so and never seriously tried anything else. And that includes the fastest ones.


----------



## Waynilein (Nov 10, 2008)

TMOY said:


> Most cubers use reduction because they were told to do so and never seriously tried anything else.



Doesn't the same reasoning apply to just about any mainstream method, anywhere (i.e. Fridrich)?



And to stay on topic somewhat, I use ZZ because I like its fingertrick-friendliness and intuitive solving. For some reason I disliked Fridrich from the day I first started cubing, and I used Petrus until I discovered ZZ.


----------



## TMOY (Nov 10, 2008)

Yes it applies too. And it doesn't necessarily mean that the mainstream method is the best, it only means that people act like sheep.


----------



## AvGalen (Nov 10, 2008)

TMOY said:


> AvGalen said:
> 
> 
> > Can you name 1 top 10 4x4x4 cuber that doesn't use reduction? Somehow "fastest in the world" and you or me don't seem to have much in common
> ...


I agree, but it is a good indication


TMOY said:


> Most cubers use reduction because they were told to do so and never seriously tried anything else.


I agree, but to me that means they just didn't experiment much (missed out on the fun) and directly learned the fastest method


TMOY said:


> And that includes the fastest ones.


I strongly disagree. All the fastest ones I know (and that basically just leaves some of the Asians) have experimented with several other methods and have decided that those just aren't as fast. 

Please explain which method you think is faster, why it is faster and why others don't use it.


----------



## TMOY (Nov 10, 2008)

By "seriously trying" some method, I mean not just experimenting, but using it for a while as their main speed method, and that includes competitions. I haven't seen that many people try anything else than reduction in the competitions I have attended so far...
And besides, I've experimented a few solves with reduction too, and I definitely don't like it and go faster with my cage.


----------



## AvGalen (Nov 10, 2008)

TMOY said:


> By "seriously trying" some method, I mean not just experimenting, but using it for a while as their main speed method, and that includes competitions. I haven't seen that many people try anything else than reduction in the competitions I have attended so far...
> And besides, I've experimented a few solves with reduction too, and I definitely don't like it and go faster with my cage.



So first you say others should "seriously try", but you think "your cage" is faster because you have "experimented a few solves with reduction too"?

Let me change the question. Has anyone ever gotten a sub 50 solve while not using reduction?


----------



## cmhardw (Nov 10, 2008)

3x3x3 speed: Fridrich. I don't really know why I chose this over Petrus, which were the only two methods that *I* knew about (not that there weren't many other methods like corners first around) when I first started. I guess I liked the fact that it was so systematized into algs and tables. I later regretted this a bit and started messing around with the 2x2x2 start then finish with F2L/OLL/PLL (which we called "Petrich" at the time). Then I decided to just use Fridrich with Extended Cross when it was easy.

BLD: BH method all the way! I use it for everything 2x2-7x7BLD - to me it's the method that makes the most sense. Commutators are an intuitive, powerful way to solve the cube. Also, Stefan has proven that if you make your method "brain-dead" where you don't have to think but simply apply what you know then you can get very fast times. What better method than to combine the power of commutators with brain-deadedness by simply memorizing which commutator you would use in every single case cycling from a buffer?

big cubes: reduction. I actually came up with the idea on my own (of course the reduction method was already invented before I ever started trying to solve big cubes) but I'm happy that I figured it out on my own. The only thing I never figured out on my own was OLL parity, but I did discover a PLL parity alg on my own.

Chris


----------



## TMOY (Nov 10, 2008)

I never said I have seriously tried reduction. Actually I have not. But I know I will never go faster with it than with my cage, simply because I have no motivation to work on a method I find boring.
And considering that I already got sub-1:30 singles and superfast cubers are about twice as fast as I am, yes, sub-50 solves without reduction are definitely possible. I don't know if it has already happened, though.


----------



## AvGalen (Nov 10, 2008)

TMOY said:


> I never said I have seriously tried reduction. Actually I have not. But I know I will never go faster with it than with my cage, simply because I have no motivation to work on a method I find boring.
> And considering that I already got sub-1:30 singles and superfast cubers are about twice as fast as I am, yes, sub-50 solves without reduction are definitely possible. I don't know if it has already happened, though.



I don't understand why you think that superfast cubers are about twice as fast as you are. On 3x3x3 superfast cubers are 3 times as fast as you are.
But I don't see the relevance compared to 4x4x4 solves. If you really think "your cage" is the fastest method a sub 49 average and a sub 40 single should be possible with it and I really don't see that happening. So please motivate why you think reduction is not the fastest method.

(also, I wouldn't say people act like sheep. I don't use reduction because other people do and neither do most people. We use reduction because we think it is quite easy to learn and know it is really fast)

And Chris, I also figured out reduction by myself, except for the OLL-parity. But your tutorial helped a lot in understanding how to do it well and how to look ahead.


----------



## ooveehoo (Nov 10, 2008)

I use fridrich, because I got the idea that it was the best. I was first trying to learn Roux, but as my french was pretty elementary, I gave that up (I didn't find out until later that it was also in english). I also looked at petrus and heise, but decided to go with fridrich, even though I was a bit scared of the huge number of algs. It was also in principal much like my own method (which was a stupid LBL-kind of thing. I used I think 5 algs for it. It sucked more than that "official" Rubik's solution, and reqired around 200 moves. But I don't think that's too bad for a method invented by a guy like me), so it was a pretty logical choise, even though I've regretted it a bit, as it's begginnig to get boring, but as I average a bit over 20 seconds with it, I don't see the point in swithcing.


----------



## rachmaninovian (Nov 10, 2008)

TMOY said:


> I never said I have seriously tried reduction. Actually I have not. But I know I will never go faster with it than with my cage, simply because I have no motivation to work on a method I find boring.
> And considering that I already got sub-1:30 singles and superfast cubers are about twice as fast as I am, yes, sub-50 solves without reduction are definitely possible. I don't know if it has already happened, though.



heh, we use a similar method for 4x4 (hehe, centers last), but...my middle edges are more algorithm heavy..and i think faster perhaps? I was sub 1:20 most of the time before my 4x4 died....and 1:14 single. I believe that it's possible for me to get a sub 1 single IF my stupid 4x4 didn't die.

and yes, sub 50s solves without reduction is possible...per, where are you?  He got a 47.xx single I think. check the UWR..haha

I have gotten sub 2 solves for 5x5 using something similar to my 4x4 method. (the only difference is that it is not corners first) and I believe that I can get much faster if my tps is higher and i have less lag. considering my 3x3...my average is barely sub 25...only with practice can i go down to 22-23s average.

yes, direct solving can be fast, only if more people explore it.


----------



## anders (Nov 10, 2008)

For sentimental reasons, I use the corner's first-method that I and my brother developed in the 1980ies. I use it for all cubes (2x2x2 - 7x7x7).

/Anders


----------



## Neroflux (Nov 10, 2008)

erm i use fridrich cos it was the easiest method to find on the internet. i did have interest in petrus but info was harder to find.


----------



## TMOY (Nov 10, 2008)

AvGalen said:


> I don't understand why you think that superfast cubers are about twice as fast as you are. On 3x3x3 superfast cubers are 3 times as fast as you are.
> But I don't see the relevance compared to 4x4x4 solves. If you really think "your cage" is the fastest method a sub 49 average and a sub 40 single should be possible with it and I really don't see that happening. So please motivate why you think reduction is not the fastest method.


Why shouldn't it happen ? Centers are slower, but the last 4 can be done in only two steps, you don't lose that much time. Edges cannot be done in a random order and you have to put them in place, but since you don't care about the centers I would say it's roughly equivalent to reduction. And the 3^3 step is replaced by a 2^3 at the beginning, which can be done in 0s96


----------



## MistArts (Nov 11, 2008)

2x2x2: Ortega /OFOTA (I only know like 25 cases of OFOTA)
3x3x3: Intuitive Fridrich F2L/Intuitive VHF2L + 2L-OLL (35?/57) + Full PLL
4x4x4: My style of centers (one set, opposite set, z or z' rotation, three corresponding 1x2 columns on the left inner-slice with the unsolved one on U slice, rU 2-gen to solve the rest) + Nakajima's method of pairing + The 3x3 method I use
5x5x5: (1x2, 2x2, 2x3, 3x3) block-building centers (one, opposite, z or z', another, adjacent, last two) + Freestyle pairing + The 3x3 method I use
Bigger cubes: Columns (bars) for centers (same order as 5x5) + Freestyle pairing + The 3x3 method I use
3OH: The 3x3 method I use
3FMC: Freestyle triple-X cross + Leave three corners + insertion
Pyraminx: Tips + Solve two adjacent edges + Solve the rest with two commutators
Clock: Match edges in this order: U, R, D or L, the last one + Flip clock and match in this order: U, R, UR, D or L, the other edge, DL, UL and DR
3BLD: M2 + Commutators for corners (visual memo)


----------



## Rawn (Nov 11, 2008)

2x2 - Ortega, easy to understand and can give decent times.
3x3 - Roux, Wanted to be a bit different from everyone else. I enjoy using lots of M slice moves


----------



## rachmaninovian (Nov 11, 2008)

TMOY said:


> AvGalen said:
> 
> 
> > I don't understand why you think that superfast cubers are about twice as fast as you are. On 3x3x3 superfast cubers are 3 times as fast as you are.
> ...


i actually do centers randomly...you can actually..modify niklas such that it cycles 3 center cubies from 3 adjacent faces  like.. r U l U' r' U l' U' where small letter denotes slice moves and big letters denote face turns


----------



## DavidWoner (Nov 11, 2008)

rachmaninovian said:


> I believe that I can get much faster if my tps is higher and i have less lag.



the same is true for any method on any puzzle. turn faster and more frequently.


----------



## fcwy1 (Nov 11, 2008)

I use fridrich because i think that it is the fastest method for me


----------



## VP7 (Nov 11, 2008)

3x3: 1L White cross and 3 corners @ left
2L Edges white on botttom
Insert or twist last 1L corner
3L 2look OLL and PLL

4x4: Corners,edges,centers
5x5: Corners,edges,centers


----------



## mrbiggs (Nov 11, 2008)

Fridrich--best by test.

I use 3LLL because I don't really believe in learning algorithms and I'll bother seriously trying to learn the rest of the OLLs once I get in the 15-16s average range.


----------



## somerandomkidmike (Nov 15, 2008)

rachmaninovian said:


> TMOY said:
> 
> 
> > I never said I have seriously tried reduction. Actually I have not. But I know I will never go faster with it than with my cage, simply because I have no motivation to work on a method I find boring.
> ...



Using a similar version of cage I got 1:32.xx (I average around 1:45), and I am far from fast. I am using a horrible quality rubik's brand 4x4 (I mean I had another one that was 3 times better, until i broke it). I believe Cage has sub-50second average potential, and you don't necisarily need a freak to accomplish this.


----------



## somerandomkidmike (Nov 15, 2008)

2x2 LBL (first 4 corners, then CLL) I use CLL for 3x3, and I think my recognition is better than Ortega and Guimond

3x3 CF (similar to waterman) I found this to be my fasted method... simple as that (I currently average 23 seconds, and know only 1/4 of the case or less)

4x4 CF cage- I made a recent switch from K4 because I was experimenting with it, and ended up getting a time just over my old record. I later took an average, and was doing way better than with K4. I guess it's very similar to my 3x3 method in ways, so I'm not surprised

5x5 CF Cage- I think it's fun to do larger cubes (5x5 and over) with cage. I just like how it flows. The last part if people are watching... it's cool because that is the fastest stage in Cage for me.

Magic- Do without regripping because it is faster

Megaminx- Blockbuilding F2L style with intuitive last layer- Because I wanted to do it completely intuitively, and never switched, because I only had a weekend to play with it.

3x3 one handed- Petrus- It uses few moves, and I can't do fast M slices with one hand

3x3 chopsticks (yes this is a regular event for me)- Petrus (see 3x3 one handed)

3x3 bld- Pochmann style beginner method- Haven't really got into bld that much yet... i will work on it though.

FMC- Heise- I like the fact that it doesn't use very many turns, and that it requires you to use your brain. Is that a coincidence? I don't think so.


----------



## ThePizzaGuy92 (Nov 15, 2008)

i use the method i use because it was easier to learn full cfop than other methods due to the fact that I started with LBL.


----------



## FU (Nov 17, 2008)

2x2 Ortega - easy to learn and there are only a few algs
3x3 CFOP - started with LBL, seemed more logical to continue with Fridrich. and i never believed that it is worth it to take up something like Petrus or Roux just to prove non-Fridrich methods could get you fast times as well. i don't really care whether i'm using up more moves than Petrus solvers (just as an example), or it doesn't have the 'cool factor' of say blockbuilding methods, it's the time taken to solve that matters. why should i give up Fridrich just because everyone uses it and i'm just another one out of millions?
4x4 - 5x5 Reduction/CFOP. reduction is intuitive, and like why i use Fridrich, i don't give a s*** that i'm using the same method as most ppl. reduction is proven to be fast, easy to learn, intuitive, so it's cool 

i don't FMC btw so the movecount factor isn't considered.


----------



## d4m4s74 (Nov 18, 2008)

I use intuitive f2l, trying to learn friedrich
2 look pll, basic beginners oll (learning 2 look)
I'll learn


----------



## GaroMaster1337 (Dec 30, 2008)

I started out with LBL. (duh)
After a while, I started using Petrus, but after a several weeks, I was still over a minute. The lookahead just seemed to be too difficult, so i decided to try Fridrich. My times increased for a while but after some practice they started dropping quickly. I'm currently working on OLL's.
Bottom line: I use Fridrich because it has the easiest lookahead (for me) out of the three main speedcubing methods.


----------



## JohnnyA (Dec 30, 2008)

I like Fridrich because it has easy learning with amazing potential, and leads into the (or so I think) ultimate method, ZZ.


----------



## Ryanrex116 (Jan 1, 2009)

I am using:

Dan brown F2L w/ 4LLL


----------



## JTW2007 (Jan 2, 2009)

Fridrich 'cause it's fast and popular, so you don't have trouble finding info.


----------



## Liquiddi (Jan 4, 2009)

For 3x3x3 I have just started using Roux method. 

4x4x4 the normal method, centers first, edges and 3x3x3.

5x5x5 same.


----------



## VirKill (Jan 4, 2009)

2x2x2: Ortega
Reason : I will learn more advance when I have 2x2x2 eastsheen

2x2x2 BLD: Classic Pochmman
Reason : I suck at 3cycle

3x3x3 : Friddrich (2look OLL+ full PLL)
Reason : Easy to learn, fast eanough....why not?

3x3x3 OH : Friddrich (2look OLL + 2look PLL)
Reason : In progress..soon I'll learn maybe all OH PLL

3x3x3 BLD: M2/Pochmman
Reason : Quite fast and easy (compare to freestyle, for me)

4x4x4: Normal Method, center first, edge, 3x3x3
Reason : I hate this puzzle (Stiff Rubik's brand) so I'll use the easiest method

5x5x5: same
Reason: soon, I will get fast with this (Eastsheen)


----------



## Odin (Jan 4, 2009)

*1x1*
(i cant solve it can any one give me a method )

*2x2*
Intuitively

*3x3*
Im using Dan brown F2L with 4LLL (I use this method becuse well, im kinda a noob.)

*4x4*
Intuitively

*5x5*
Intuitively


----------



## toast (Jan 4, 2009)

2x2: Ortega
Easy, and Guimond or CLL takes time and I don't plan on putting much time on 2x2.

3x3: Fridrich w/ x-cross.
Fast. But if I ever want to have some intuitiveness in my solve, I'll just do a Roux/Petrus solve.

3x3 OH: Petrus
Easier than doing weird cross moves.

4x4: Redux
I never understood K4 or Cage so yeah.

5x5: Redux
Same

6x6: Centers, 4x4 edges, 5x5 edges, 3x3.
Yup.

7x7: Centers, 5x5 edges x2, 3x3.
Yeah.


----------



## daniel0731ex (Jan 7, 2009)

LBL+incomplete 2s oll

i use this method because it's the method that im using now


----------



## Abolish (Jan 10, 2009)

For 3x3 I'm using Roux, liked it from the first time I saw it, a plus is that it's fast and original


----------



## GaroMaster1337 (Jan 10, 2009)

^ ive never actually tried roux but it looks sorta fun, i still sove with petrus sometimes because its more fun than fridrich (in my opinion), even though im still pretty slow with it


----------



## h5n1 (Jan 10, 2009)

Back in December when I first started cubing I only knew of two methods; Petrus an Fridrich both of which I discovered through youtube. I had problems with both methods though. Petrus first step seemed really difficult, and the Fridrich method had far to many algs to be memorized. So I ended up doing a hybrid, with Fridrich F2L and "Petrus algs" for the final layer. This way I only had to learn 11 algs and got an easy way to start the solve.


----------



## a small kitten (Jan 10, 2009)

I mainly 3x3 and I use ZZ for that. Still learning algs but it's very comfortable and fun.


----------



## d4m4s74 (Jan 10, 2009)

I use a combination of multiple LBL methods, beginner OLL (well, got a few algs) and 2look PLL

why?
it's easy to go to Fridrich from there, why fridrich?
lots of useful info everywhere


----------



## EmersonHerrmann (Jan 10, 2009)

2x2x2: Ortega
Reason: It's fast and can be done from many angles

3x3x3 : Fridrich (Full)/ Some ZB cases for OLL skip
Reason: Fast, simple. I will maybe learn MGLS, winter variation, and some more ZBF2L algs when I get the chance 

3x3x3 OH : Fridrich (Full)
Reason: Least rotations

3x3x3 BLD: Cycle/Pochmann
Reason: it's simple, fast, and efficient

4x4x4: Centers, Syuhei's edges, 3x3
Reason: Syuhei's method just because he is awesome...and I don't know many that use his method 

5x5x5: Frank's method
Reason: Very fun


----------



## happypotatoman (Jan 11, 2009)

I use Fridrich because it's layer by layer, and that's easy.


----------



## cjp66 (Jan 12, 2009)

I'm a recent returnee to speed cubing. I started back in the early 80's and got down to 17-28s range. My method back then was.
1L cross (pick best color)
1L corners
2L edges (2 alg)
3L corners, perm then orient
3L edges, orient then perm
It really wasn't all that efficient, given what I know now, and I achieved the decent times using brute force and lots of finger tricks.

Now I'm trying out some new stuff. I worked with petrus for a while but found that the early edge orientation was slowing me down, especially since a 2 edge EOLL alg is only a fast 6 moves. I went to a modified version of my original method and got my times down to 1:05-1:20.
2x2x3
finish 2L
orient edges
permute corners
orient corners
permute edges

I'm now working on Fridrich F2L with a 4 look LL. Not ready to use the stopwatch yet, but getting the algorithms down pretty quickly. I'm being really careful about cube orientation and hand position so I can get the full benefit of finger tricks.


----------



## not_kevin (Jan 13, 2009)

1: Just... can't... figure it out...

2: Guimond
Because it's good.

3: Fridrich, nice and standard like everyone else.

3OH: same as 3, with more OH-friendly algs for LL

3BLD: 3OP still (hey, it works); maybe I'll switch someday

4: Reduction, Syuhei's method (go Syuhei!)

5: Reduction, bigcubes.com

6: never solved one; I'd assume same as 7

7: reduction, freestyle edges, last 4 done by inner 4, then outer 4

Sq-1: Lars' method, only with less algs (too lazy right now to learn them)


----------



## cubacca1972 (Jan 16, 2009)

2x2x2 Corners First Ortega/Varassano

3x3x3 Corners First. I don't bother with orientation of the M layer when solving the last ledge, mostly because I don't have the will to memorize the algs. I did Guimond for a while, then switched to Ortega/Varassano.

4x4x4 http://cubacca1972.googlepages.com/ I have worked out all the algs needed to solve phase 2 in 2 algs, but haven't posted them, due mostly to laziness. Anyhow, I solve two opposite faces (solve centers, then corners first, then fill in the edges), solve the remaining edges (2 algs), solve the remaining centers (maximum of 8 algs).

I just like the simplicity of corners first, and the relative freedom to solve the edges via M slice moves. Plus, I only enjoy the F2L part of Fridrich. Too many LL cases/algs to memorize. 

My times aren't too fast, because I have what is referred to as "stupid fingers".


----------



## Lofty (Jan 16, 2009)

I use Fridrich because the kid who taught me how to cube told me to google Fridrich. Also the kids at my school heard rumors that the pros can solve the F2L at the same time! So since all we knew was LBL we looked for how to do this by trying to figure out intuitive F2L with out knowing what we were doing was intuitive F2L. Then I found the irc chat and the people in there told me to go to tomasu's page on intuitive f2l and there I learned fridrich. 
I didn't think of switching until it was pretty much too late... 
But I do try to use more blockbuilding and a kind of intuitive ZBF2L with COLL as well as full fridrich.


----------



## shoot1510 (Jan 16, 2009)

Fridrich-cause it really easy to learn, and I started using that method.
Magic-The fast way.


----------



## BigGreen (Jan 17, 2009)

3x3: roux cause its the funnest method

4x4: k4 cause no one uses it


----------



## Richard (Jan 17, 2009)

3x3: Roux. It is the funnest method and can be quite fast, though i still need to shave like 4 seconds off avg to be "world-class".

4x4: I used to use k4, was avg'ing like 1:20 with it but then i came up with my own method for it, it's basically a hybrid between k4 and standard reduction. With this hybrid method pairing is much easier then in standard redux because you have three edge pairs already solved in DL, FL, and BL so you never have to look in those positions when pairing.

5x5: same method as on the 4x4


----------



## byu (Jan 17, 2009)

3x3x3: Fridrich, it's fast and easy to learn.

3x3x3BLD: Learning classic pochmann, still haven't succeeded yet.

4x4x4: Reduction (centers, edge pair-up, 3x3+fix parity if needed)


----------



## zeroxorxdiexskater (Jan 17, 2009)

fridrich because i learned the beginner method and just worked my way up


----------



## boiiwonder (Jan 19, 2009)

3x3 Roux-- Its fun building blocks

3x3 OH-- petrus I like building blocks

4x4 k4-- I dont really know 

5x5 reduction--- its pretty easy to do


----------



## cubacca1972 (Jan 22, 2009)

I just added my alternate Phase 2 algorithms to my site for solving the 4x4x4, for those of you who are interested in cage style solves (centers last).

http://cubacca1972.googlepages.com/


----------



## Unknown.soul (Jan 22, 2009)

2x2 - Ortega
3x3 - Fridrich F2L+4LLL (I'm learning more PLLs)
NxN>3x3- Reduction


----------

