Understanding the Sarah Weeks Method in Speedsolving
Sarah Weeks is one of those names that comes up whenever you start digging into Fewest Moves (FMC), and the reason is straightforward: she holds the world record in that event. Her approach is a distinct variation of what most solvers call the "slice-then-solve" or "block-building with slices" philosophy, and while it shares roots with methods from other top FMC competitors like Max Parry or Thomas Baudoin, Weeks has a recognizably different fingerprint on how she approaches the puzzle from move one.Pie Sarah Weeks: How the Method Actually Works in Practice
The core idea is deceptively simple. Instead of solving layers like you do in CFOP, you start by placing two perpendicular slices—typically the M and E slices—early in your solve. These slices act as a structural framework. Once that framework is set, you build the remaining blocks around it, inserting pieces through the gaps that the slices create. The mental model here is that slices give you access to the entire puzzle without having to rotate whole faces. You can slide pieces into place using just slice moves, which tend to be more economical in FMC than full face turns. This is the advantage. Slices don't disturb the pieces you've already positioned the way a full face turn would. In practice, this means your first ten to twenty moves are almost entirely slice-based. You're looking at the puzzle in a completely different orientation than a layer-by-layer solver would. It forces you to think spatially in ways that take time to get comfortable with. Most people struggle with this for at least a few weeks before their intuition clicks.What Makes Sarah Weeks' Approach Different
Where Weeks diverges from other slice-method solvers is in how aggressively she commits to the framework. Some FMC competitors place a single slice and then improvise. Weeks tends to establish both perpendicular slices as quickly as possible and then treats the remaining corners and edges like they're waiting in line to be picked up by an available gap. This aggressive early commitment can save you moves because it eliminates decision fatigue mid-solve. You know exactly what your structure is and you start planning insertions immediately. The tradeoff is that if your slices are placed inefficiently, you've locked yourself into a suboptimal path with less room to adjust. I learned this the hard way during a competition attempt. I was working a puzzle where I placed my first slice cleanly but then hesitated on the second, spending about four minutes rotating the puzzle and visually testing different approaches. By the time I committed, the number of available insertion paths had dropped significantly and I ended up with a final score that was roughly eight moves worse than it needed to be. The lesson was brutal but useful: don't dither on the second slice. Pick a plane, commit, and move forward.Building the Framework Efficiently
When you start with the M slice, you're essentially creating a vertical plane that cuts through the center of the puzzle. The E slice runs horizontally. Together they divide the cube into eight octants, and each octant becomes a potential location for a corner or edge piece. The key insight most beginners miss is that you don't need to fully solve these octants. You're placing pieces partially, knowing they'll be finalized later through commutators or insertions. This partial placement is what makes the method efficient. A full layer solve would require you to position and orient every piece before moving on. In the slice approach, you position pieces and leave them in a state that's easy to retrieve later. Here's a specific thing to watch for: when you're inserting a corner through a slice gap, make sure the edge adjacent to it isn't going to block your return path. I've seen this cause problems repeatedly. You can place a corner perfectly and then realize your only exit route is blocked by an edge you haven't dealt with yet. The fix is usually to place the edge first, even if it's in a slightly less ideal orientation, because it clears the path for future insertions.Insertion Techniques and Commutator Logic
Once your slices are in place and you've identified your target pieces, the real work begins. Insertions are where most of your move savings or losses happen. A well-executed insertion uses the slice gaps to bring a piece into position, places it, and returns the slices to their original state without disturbing other solved pieces. Commutators are your primary tool here. The basic structure is X Y X' Y', where X is a sequence that sets up the insertion, Y is the slice move that actually places the piece, X' reverses the setup, and Y' restores the slices. In FMC, you're not doing textbook commutators. You're modifying them, combining them, and sometimes chaining multiple insertions together so that one slice move serves two pieces. The advanced nuance here is that you don't always need to restore the slices perfectly after every insertion. Sometimes leaving a slice slightly turned is more efficient than spending extra moves to restore it, because the next insertion benefits from the altered state. This is a judgment call that depends entirely on the puzzle state, and it's the kind of thing that separate good FMC solvers from great ones.Common Pitfalls and Limitations
The slice-then-solve method doesn't work well in every scenario. If the scramble inherently favors a layer-by-layer approach—meaning certain faces have natural groupings of matching pieces—forcing a slice framework can actually cost you moves. You'll find yourself spending extra time breaking apart convenient structures to build your slices. Another limitation is that this method demands strong spatial visualization. If you can't comfortably picture where pieces are while the puzzle is in an unusual orientation, you'll waste time reorienting and miscounting. This is a skill that takes deliberate practice, and many solvers who switch to this method quit after two weeks because the initial learning curve is steep and unrewarding. The third issue is algorithmic memorization. Unlike CFOP, which relies on a large but finite set of algorithms, FMC is largely intuitive. This is both a strength and a weakness. You don't need to memorize thousands of sequences, but you also can't fall back on rote patterns when you're stuck. Every solve requires on-the-fly problem solving, which is mentally exhausting during long competition sessions.How to Actually Train This Method
Start slow. Pick a single scramble and spend thirty minutes working it without worrying about move count. Just get comfortable placing the two slices and performing basic insertions. Write down every insertion you attempt, including the sequences, so you can review them later. After you've done ten to fifteen of these unhurried solves, start timing yourself. Aim for a total solve time under fifteen minutes initially. Move count will be high—expect forty to sixty moves at first—but it will drop as your insertion patterns become more automatic. Once you're consistently solving in under ten minutes with reasonable move efficiency, start studying the scrambles differently. Instead of solving them completely, analyze the first twenty moves and decide whether a slice approach is actually advantageous. This decision-making process is as important as the execution itself.There are no official video tutorials from Sarah Weeks herself detailing this method, which is why most of what you'll find online is either derived from her competition solves or adapted from general FMC coaching material. The best way to learn is by watching solved FMC scrambles and trying to identify where she places her slices and how she sequences her insertions. Slow the video down if you need to.
!["Pie," by Sarah Weeks - CSMonitor.com](https://images.csmonitor.com/csmarchives/2011/11/114568213.JPG?alias=standard_900x600nc ""Pie," by Sarah Weeks - CSMonitor.com")
