[next] [prev] [up] Date: Mon, 10 Jun 96 07:27:00 -0700
[next] [prev] [up] From: [unknown name] <whuang@cco.caltech.edu >
~~~ ~~~ [up] Subject: Re: "Better" Method?

Kristin Looney <kristin@tsi-telsys.com> writes:
>my method:

1. do top corners. I always start with white. (intuitive)
2. do bottom corners.
2a. bring bottom corner color onto bottom face (one of 2 patterns)
2b. orient bottom corners with each other (one of 2 patterns)
3. fill in all but one edge on top and bottom (intuitive)
4. fill in last edge (pattern)
5. solve middle ring of edges (usually 2 patterns)

The only person I have ever met used this same method was Minh,
the winner of the first U.S. championship.

Odd. I use the same method, and before this I was almost convinced I was the
only one. I guess I never asked Minh.

The only differences between
our methods was that he had more patterns memorized for step 5. I
typically do one pattern, which gets me close, and then finish it up
with one more pattern - where Minh could look at that last ring and
instantly know a pattern that would bring the cube into it's final
solved state. His hands were also a lot faster than mine.

I only have two patterns for step 5. One basically permutes three edge
pieces, the other flips a pair. It does have the advantage of being
easy to explain, though.

Come to think of it, my method is slightly different -- I orient the
corners BEFORE positioning them.

The beauty of this method is that there is very little to memorize -
and although it doesn't give me very many 20 second times, it's
always well under a minute.


I think the beauty of this "cubie"-oriented method is how easy it
generalizes to larger cubes. By just adding 2 patterns, I can solve the
4x4x4, and one more pattern gives me the 5x5x5. I think the "layer"-oriented
method is much harder to generalize.

[next] [prev] [up] [top] [help]