This site has moved, click here to go to the new site

SOAP is an interesting method for solving the 2x2x2 cube which was proposed by Justin Jaffray. It stands for Separate, Orient All, Permute. I think that is is a very effective method, and I am currently learning it as my main 2x2x2 method.

SOAP belongs to the PBL family of solving methods, along with similar methods such as Ortega, SS, and OFOTA. The latter two are often considered to be very fast methods, but I believe the SOAP method can be just as fast, even while requiring less algorithms. I also think that SOAP cases are much easier and quicker to recognize than SS or OFOTA cases. Furthermore, SOAP is a great choice for a SpeedBLD method.

Of course an inevitable question would be "is CLL or EG better than SOAP?" This is a question that I can not answer. They probably can be faster. I tried learning CLL once, but I did not enjoy it. It just wasn't my style. I think SOAP is easier to learn than CLL even though it has a few more algorithms, but this is only my opinion.

Step 0 - Separate

This step involves separating 2 opposite colors into opposite layers while simulataniously making a bar on the bottom layer. This sounds more complicated than it actually is. Basically, you just solve a face, but 2 adjacent pieces of that face don't have to be oriented. This can usually be done in just one move. It can be done in only 2 moves about 99.7% of the time. You should plan on looking ahead to the next step during your inspection time.

At first, it can be difficult to see everything during the 15 second inspection time. But with practice, you should get faster that this. Here is what you need to look for during your inspection:

• Orientation of any non-oriented pieces on the bottom layer
• Orientation of 3 opposite-colored stickers on the top layer

The non-oriented pieces in your bottom layer will tell you which subset of algs that you will be working from in step 1. It is absolutely critical that you work this out during inspection. Luckily this is very easy, so you shouldn't have any trouble with this.

Now you need to figure out which case you have for your top layer. These are basically OLLs, and some other cases that are similar to OLLs. Recognition is very easy, so even if you DON'T look ahead to this and just recognize it during the solve, you aren't going to be any worse off than if you were using ortega method. But the advantage of SOAP is that you CAN look into the solve much more easily than with ortega, so we should try to take advantage of that. You want to predict the orientation of 3 of your opposite colored stickers. By that, I mean, if you did white for your bottom layer, then you need to look for where the yellow stickers are. You only need to figure out 3 of them, because the 4th one can always be inferred based on the position of the other 3.

Step 1 - Orient All

This step just requires one of 53 algorithms. Of those, 7 are normal OLLs. The algorithms are split into different groups, which makes learning them easier. Also, many of the algorithms re-use the exact same recognition. Aside from normal OLL recognition, there are only 8 cases+mirrors that you must learn to recognize. [This is why I think learning SOAP is easier than learning CLL. Case recognition can actually be a lot more difficult than memorizing an algorithm]

It is possible (but not optimal) to do every case with 2-gen algs. For a list of algorithms, click here.

Step 2 - Permute

This step involves permuting both layers at the same time. You simply use PBL algorithms here, as you would with Ortega. I highly recommend learning to do the algorithms from various angles, so you can avoid rotations. You can learn the algorithms from David Woner's site here.

Due to the fact that the SOAP method starts off with separation, this brings out some interesting properties of the cube. By using 2-gen orientation algorithms, one drastically limits the amount of permutation that can happen during the orientation step. In fact, there are only 2 things that can happen to the permutation while orienting with a 2-gen alg. The first case is that NO PIECES change their permutation during the orientation step. And the other case is that you will have an adjacent swap on the bottom-right side and a simultaneous diagonal swap on the top layer. What this means, is that by simply memorizing whether or not each 2-gen algorithm has a swap on bottom, you can fully predict which PBL case you will get. This means 1-look solves. If you don't feel like memorizing whether or not a swap occurs for each case, then an alternative would be to simply track one of the bottom right pieces while you perform the alg, and see if it ends up back in the same position it started from. If you use an alg that isn't 2-gen, then the PBL can't be predicted so easily. Fortunately, more than half of the SOAP algorithms have really nice 2-gen orientation algs. But unfortunately, several cases have really nasty 2-gen algs which can require up to 11 moves.

SOAP vs SS vs OFOTA

These three methods for solving the 2x2x2 are all very similar in their approach. They try to turn the 3-look Ortega Method into a 2-look method by simplifying the first step so that the orientation algorithm can be predicted. The difference lies in the type of first layer that they build, and the orientation algorithms that you must learn.

Of the three, SOAP requires the fewest algorithms by far. It has 53 algorithms, 16 of which are reflections. SS has about 104 algorithms, but about half of those are reflections. OFOTA has 87 algorithms. I don't know how many of those, if any, are reflections.

Next, we should consider the recognition for the orientation cases. Here, SOAP clearly has the easiest recognition, very similar to normal OLL recognition. SS recognition is more complex, and I think OFOTA has the most difficult recognition of all. Of course, this is all just personal opinion. You may feel differently about it. Recognition difficulty matters because you only have 15 seconds of inspection during which to figure out the case. If you run out of time without figuring it out, you are going to have to go with a backup plan. The SOAP method gives you a very simple backup plan--just finish the solve as normal. Because SOAP's recognition is so simple, you can recognize it just as quickly as you would recognize orientation for the Ortega method.

Next, let's look at the length of the algorithms. I believe OFOTA should have the shortest algorithms, and they average about 5.7 moves in length. SS clocks in at about 6 moves on average. SOAP algs average about 6.2 moves in length. Overall, there is only about 0.5 move difference between all three methods, so I don't believe this factor should weigh heavily in one's decision about what method to use. It is worth noting however, that if you exclusively use 2-gen SOAP algs, the average move count jumps to 7.35.

Finally, let's look at the first layer differences. The first layer is a very critical component of all three methods, because they all use the premise that you should be able to see into the orientation step. In order for this to happen, the first step must be VERY short, and the shorter the better. Some statistics about the first layer for all three methods have been calculated by cuBerBruce from the speedsolving.org forums:

From these statistics, we can see some interesting information. SOAP has the worst chance for a first step skip, while SS has the best chance. All three methods have a greater than 99% chance that the first step will be 2 moves or less. However, OFOTA has the greatest chance that the first step will be 3 moves. SOAP has the greatest chance that the first step will require at least 2 moves. From this info, we can make the assumption that if you SUCK at looking ahead, SS might be a better choice for you than SOAP. If you can consistently manage to look 2 moves into your solve, then SOAP isn't really a bad choice.

If you already know SS, then I would highly recommend learning SOAP, as it only adds an additional 30 algs on top of SS, and the two combined will further increase the easiness of your first step. Probably at least 90% chance of a 1 move first step if you know both.

Disagree with something I've written here, or found inaccurate information? Send a message to user Zarxrax at speedsolving.org forums.