# Orient First method



## LarsN (Apr 14, 2008)

I've been messing around with the idea of an orient first method (3x3) for a few weeks. I don't know if the idea is original, but anyway here is a link for a guide I wrote on the idea.

http://www.speedcubing.dk/index.php?view=category&id=40:advanced&option=com_content&Itemid=58

I think the method could be used for speedsolving. The movecount is pretty good. I did an avg of 10 with a move count of 50.4 htm. If you count M moves as 1 move because in speedsolving M moves are not that slow, the avg is more like 42.

I've been using fridriech for a year and I'm almost a sub20 avg cuber. My PB with this method after a week of practise is 26.53. I'm positive that you can do sub20 avg with the orient first method.

Give it a try if you feel like it and please give me some feedback and ideas on how to improve this method.


----------



## Lofty (Apr 14, 2008)

Oh wow!
At first I thought you has simply reinvented the ZZ method but that one only orients edges and not corners. Sounds like a very interesting method and pretty good move count too! I may look at it if only just for fun. I like new methods.


----------



## LarsN (Apr 14, 2008)

Lofty said:


> Oh wow!
> At first I thought you has simply reinvented the ZZ method but that one only orients edges and not corners.



I should have posted a rough sketch of the idea instead of just the link. So here it is:

Step 1: orient corners
Step 2: orient edges and place middle layer edges in middlelayer
Step 3: Build f2l (not fridriech style)
Step 4: Permute last layer

It was fun to invent  I think it could still use some optimization. I've got something coming up for the advanced tricks section soon.


----------



## mizzle (Apr 14, 2008)

This sounds a lot like the PB method Ron Van Bruchem and Richard Patterson were working on last year (EDIT: I just read through again and realized they were doing something different). As I recall, they started the same way as you, and they averaged very low moves with it. Instead of F2L, they tried to place E layer edges, then separate U edges and corners to U and D edges and corners to D, to make for easy permutations.

However, they gave it up because edge orienting and permuting sometimes is terrible, and lookahead wasn't very good. Also, lots and lots of half turns. This was actually one of the inspiring ideas for my method (orient edges first, finish most of F2L, finish F2L and influence corners, finish with truncated ZB).

Let us know how you progress!


----------



## dChan (Apr 15, 2008)

I like this idea and I will probably try it out after this week. It looks very interesting and I like the restrictions for the F2L building because I know several F2L algorithms that preserve orientation so it should be pretty easy to do, at least for me but I think even for others it should be quite simple. I would love to see someone use this method to get sub-20. A 42 move average is pretty impressive to me so maybe it could give other methods a run for their money?


----------



## badmephisto (Apr 15, 2008)

very interesting. i'll check this is a little more detail later

edit: ok i was looking at it for about an hour, and I can't really figure it out. the description is pretty bad, particularly for step3, but i think i get it. but only because i am a genius . Also in step 2 i don't know what I am looking at in those diagrams. More examples would be nice.


----------



## LarsN (Apr 16, 2008)

Even though the method is pretty clear in my mind I had a hard time trying to describe step 2 and 3. I'll but in some more examples at each step and try to find some better ways to explain


----------



## dChan (Apr 16, 2008)

Yes, doing the edges was a little bit frustrating. I tried some solves using the method yesterday and while I did not have time to learn the cases for orienting the corners I was able to understand the edge part a bit better because of its similarities to solving edges in corners-first solving although, in my opinion, the 3x1x1 blocks have a lot more restrictions. I can't wait to see the advanced techniques section as I would love to fully learn the method and its tricks and practice it alongside Fridrich. 

Great work so far, Lars. Keep it up as I will be keeping my eye on on that method.


----------



## Lt-UnReaL (Apr 17, 2008)

LarsN said:


> Even though the method is pretty clear in my mind I had a hard time trying to describe step 2 and 3. I'll but in some more examples at each step and try to find some better ways to explain



Yeah I don't get it either. :S Looks like a cool method, though. First step is similar to 2x2x2 Guimond method (actually exactly like it )


----------



## Radical Seal (Apr 18, 2008)

Im starting to practice this method a little. So far im getting 50-60second avgs.


----------



## LarsN (Apr 18, 2008)

As requested, step 2 and 3 are now revised. Step 2 now have a more thorough step by step explanation, and the diagrams that nobody understood have been taken away (and burned). Step 3 now has a very detailed example walkthrough.

I'm planning on doing a video tutorial for step 2 and 3, but I don't know when I'll get the time for it.

I would love to hear from people if they improve with this method


----------



## dChan (Apr 18, 2008)

The diagrams for step 2? Those were easy to understand. Although I have to admit for the step 3 part it took me a little thinking before I got it. Although I have no idea how to do case 3 still. I'll reprint my copy a little later today and see what you have done.


----------



## badmephisto (Apr 18, 2008)

LarsN said:


> As requested, step 2 and 3 are now revised. Step 2 now have a more thorough step by step explanation, and the diagrams that nobody understood have been taken away (and burned). Step 3 now has a very detailed example walkthrough.
> 
> I'm planning on doing a video tutorial for step 2 and 3, but I don't know when I'll get the time for it.
> 
> I would love to hear from people if they improve with this method



thats great Lars, it looks much better. I will try to learn this method in the coming days. Also, a video is a great idea too.


----------



## niKo (Apr 18, 2008)

I oriented one side of corners fine, but then came to a corner-orientation case that I can't find on your table. It looks like the third one on the second row, except the red bar on the lower-left corner is on the bottom. What's the algorithm for that?, or did I screw something up..

-niKo

EDIT: Hold on - I misread. I might be able to figure it out.

EDIT 2: I found my problem. After getting the 3 corner pattern on D layer, I rotated the cube to the pattern on the U layer instead of turning the U layer. (lol)


----------



## niKo (Apr 19, 2008)

I don't understand where the edges have to be located for the algs in the table of step 2 to orient them.

-niKo


----------



## Radical Seal (Apr 19, 2008)

Actually one of the cases is wrong on the sheet. Its the one on the bottom row, 4th from the left and the alg reads: L2 U L'. If you do L U' L2 on your cube, it doesn't match the picture thats on there.


----------



## LarsN (Apr 19, 2008)

niKo said:


> I don't understand where the edges have to be located for the algs in the table of step 2 to orient them.
> 
> -niKo



First of you must rotate the cube to have the oriented corners on U and D, then count how many edges need to be flipped, if some edges in the middle layer are flipped then you've done something wrong in the beginning of step 2:
8 - since they are all flipped you can't really change their position. just do the alg
6 - I'm still looking for a good 6-flip alg, instead do a 4 flip and then a 2 flip.
4 or 2 needs flipping - the position is stated in the table. UF is the edge that sits both in the U and F face, etc...

I'll have to do that video soon... 



Radical Seal said:


> Actually one of the cases is wrong on the sheet. Its the one on the bottom row, 4th from the left and the alg reads: L2 U L'. If you do L U' L2 on your cube, it doesn't match the picture thats on there.



Thanks, for pointing that out. The alg is correct but the picture is wrong. It has been corrected


----------



## niKo (Apr 19, 2008)

Oh, I understand, the notation in the table is pointing out where the edges are. (I should've figured that out).

-niKo


----------



## dChan (Apr 22, 2008)

I'm just wondering: is anyone thinking of fully adopting this method or at least completely learning it and having it as a secondary speedcubing method? I definitely want to try to adopt it as my primary method but I am more worried about getting my time below 20 so I'll probably try learning it but I won't fully adopt it until later on.


----------



## pete (Apr 22, 2008)

LarsN said:


> I would love to hear from people if they improve with this method



i actually tried it first time you post it, i felt it was a promising method but like
others i struggled to understand the explanation & some diagrams.
then i found some errors in some algorithms (for example the one that orients
4 edges did not work).

i have then decided to run your example in a hope that it would give me some
clues but there was an error in the example too so i have eventually gave up completely.

are you saying you have now corrected those issues ? let me have another look...


----------



## badmephisto (Apr 22, 2008)

dChan said:


> I'm just wondering: is anyone thinking of fully adopting this method or at least completely learning it and having it as a secondary speedcubing method? I definitely want to try to adopt it as my primary method but I am more worried about getting my time below 20 so I'll probably try learning it but I won't fully adopt it until later on.



Lars claims he can get 26 second averages with this method for just weeks practice. That is a pretty large incentive to try and get into this method  After all, it is a New method too... Fridrich has been around forever and we now start to see its limits. This method without doubt has many unexplored ways of getting faster as well.
Lars if you get around to making that video for this method that would be nice too. I do think it has potential, i just wish more people would look at it a little more and say what they think.


----------



## Lt-UnReaL (Apr 22, 2008)

badmephisto said:


> dChan said:
> 
> 
> > i just wish more people would look at it a little more and say what they think.
> ...


----------



## niKo (Apr 23, 2008)

I am learning it - I just have the corner orientation algs left to memorize. There is one awkward F2L case though, for building a 1x1x3 block. If two pieces are connected correctly in the upper layer, but the remaining corner piece is in the bottom layer twisted in such a way that a R2 or L2 turn does not align them. I found a way to get around it, by positioning the 1x1x2 in such a way that it's not disturbed when I re-position the corner. But is there a way to do this other than bringing the misaligned corner to the U layer, back to the D layer, then back up again? 

After I get some practice (a lot of practice) with the method I'll put some times in my signature.

-niKo

EDIT: Is it just me or is your website down, Lars?


----------



## dChan (Apr 23, 2008)

Heh, I was so excited about learning this method, after only like 50 practice solves I started to try to learn it. I spent the rest of the day trying to remember the corner orientation algorithms and I completely neglected BLD practice. I learned 8 cases so far so now I have 8 more to go. The algorithms are actually very easy to understand so that helps a lot with memorization. I hope that if I can get in enough practice time I might be able to use it during San Diego 2008. Of course the only problem is that M-layer turns aren't good for one-handed solving so I'll probably still keep Fridrich around. However, I'm still not fully dedicated to the method yet as I want to give it a test run of a few hundred speedsolves before I think of switching over. 

The Nielsson method shall one day rule the world! Yes, I am already calling it the "Nielsson" method. Got a problem with that you Fridrich lovers?

EDIT: I don't have any idea about Niko's problem as I have not spent much time learning the second step yet. I've only done some sample run throughs of it. But I just wanted to say that sometimes during corner orientation you can see that an algorithm you would normally use for orienting LL corners is partially completed for you so it is much faster to simply finish it off. This also works from when you see that you can pair up two sets of oriented corners leaving you with an unoriented U-layer. It is much faster to do a T-OLL on the U-layer than to do two set-up moves + the orientation algorithm for Guimond. I don't know if I am making any sense but I'll probably write a little guide on this at the end of my own learning period.


----------



## LarsN (Apr 23, 2008)

pete said:


> i actually tried it first time you post it, i felt it was a promising method but like
> others i struggled to understand the explanation & some diagrams.
> then i found some errors in some algorithms (for example the one that orients
> 4 edges did not work).
> ...



I didn't find any problems with the examples and I've run them through twice. Are you sure that you are doing the right M moves. In my descriptions M follows L.
The alg that flips four edge (M' U M') may look wrong if you're a blindcuber because it moves the edges around, but that doesn't matter with this method as long as they are flipped. Try doing it on a solved cube. It will look messed up, but when you look closer four edges will be flipped but corners are still correctly oriented and the middlelayer edges are also safe.


----------



## dChan (Apr 23, 2008)

Lars, is there not an easier way of inserting the final edge into the middle-layer when you have three inserted edges already? The three-edge cycle seems a bit long for such a simple task(well, relatively).


----------



## LarsN (Apr 23, 2008)

dChan said:


> Lars, is there not an easier way of inserting the final edge into the middle-layer when you have three inserted edges already? The three-edge cycle seems a bit long for such a simple task(well, relatively).



I try to avoid getting into that situation. By looking ahead during the first step, or even better during inspection, you should be able to see how many middle edges are already in place. If none insert two edges and then two again. If one edge is in place insert one edge next to it, then the two remaining. This is the fastest way that I have discovered so far 

Then of course there is the cases with misoriented but in place middle edges. This I plan to put in the advanced tricks section soon.


----------



## dChan (Apr 23, 2008)

I can't wait for the advanced tricks section. Do you use the method presented on the page or do you use the advanced tricks stuff?


----------



## LarsN (Apr 23, 2008)

dChan said:


> I can't wait for the advanced tricks section. Do you use the method presented on the page or do you use the advanced tricks stuff?



I'm glad that you're so interested in this method 

I mainly use what's in the guide now, but with some shortcuts that I don't describe because it is confusing enough as it is. The planed stuff for the advanced tricks is how to deal with misoriented middle edge pieces (I do this now), a little trick for saving movecount between step 1 and 2 (I don't do this yet), and some tricks for step three for special cases (I do the cases that I've found so far). Also I am still optimizing the method, so when I find something new it will end up in the advanced section.


----------



## dChan (Apr 23, 2008)

Wow, I really want to check that out. Is your average dropping below 26 seconds yet? Also, could you do a simple speedsolve video of 5 solves? Not a one-step thing or anything like that, just a normal speedsolve set using the method. I just want to see the method in action because I'm doing very slow solves at the moment(I need to get used to the corner orientation algorithms and step 2 - only my step 3 and 4 are fast)

I am probably going to end up using it as my main method soon if I learn it quick enough. I just need to finish up learning the corner orientation and I am sure the rest will be easy as the restricted F2L step is something I am used to doing when preserving the LL during normal speedsolving.

Do you have any tips for doing a solve with one-hand? I have yet to try it but it seems it might be problematic due to the number of slice moves used during the second step.


----------



## LarsN (Apr 23, 2008)

Sorry, I don't do onehanded at all. I can hardly get sub1 min with friedrich method. And I'm afraid I wasn't clear enough in my first post, 26s was a PB single at the time. Now I'm getting close to 30s avg. This is because I don't have much time to practise. I'll try to do some speedsolves tonight, for video and for practise 

I've finally finish a video tutorial for step 2. It's the same stuff as in the guide, but it may be easier to understand for some. This is the first time I've done any kind of video and somehow the sound got very low, so you'll have to turn up the volume 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iXu137yrX9k

I hope it helps...


----------



## dChan (Apr 23, 2008)

Sorry, the video is really too low. My speakers don't work so I use headphones, maybe that is the problem?


----------



## Radical Seal (Apr 23, 2008)

dChan said:


> Lars, is there not an easier way of inserting the final edge into the middle-layer when you have three inserted edges already? The three-edge cycle seems a bit long for such a simple task(well, relatively).


What I do is place the last edge in the UR position and its target in the UF position and do: F' L' F B' U B
Also, if the edge is in place but oriented wrong, I place it in the UF position and do: U' R' U2 R F R U R2 U' F'
Both of those algs preserve corner and edge orientation.


----------



## dChan (Apr 23, 2008)

@RadicalSeal: Thanks! I like those algorithms. I always knew how to do those but whenever I came to the case I always forget. Now that I have the actual algorithm it should be easier. Thanks, again!


----------



## watermelon (Apr 23, 2008)

I've thought a lot about these orient -> permute methods before, and the permutation part of this method is very similar to the one I developed . However, I will describe my alternative (which is optimized for HTM) to the orientation steps here.

Step 1: Orient the edges - very easy to do with a little practice, and you can average around 4-6 moves

Step 2: Put the E edges in E using RULD moves - again, very little skill needed, and a low move count as well

Step 3: Orient the corners - this step requires a few more algorithms and moves than the first step of your method, but they are still fingertrick friendly and fairly short - uses 1 algorithm if 3 or more corners are oriented, 2 otherwise

This is obviously more moves than your orientation method when counting in STM, but I think it is comparable in HTM (and since it doesn't use slice turns, it may be advantageous for OH solving).

I'd be interested to hear your comments Lars, since you seem to be the master of this type of method .


----------



## LarsN (Apr 23, 2008)

dChan said:


> Sorry, the video is really too low. My speakers don't work so I use headphones, maybe that is the problem?



I have removed the low sound video and added an amplified video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y3kcTY12T8U



watermelon said:


> I'd be interested to hear your comments Lars, since you seem to be the master of this type of method .



Master is a strong word, but I'll accept it 

I chose to orient corners first, because it can be done alg based. Most people will say that intuition is better, but with those very short algs you can learn to predict the situation for step 2 (orienting edges) during inspection and maybe even improve the situation by adding some moves to the CO algs. Further more I just like M-moves 

I'm curious though...the algs you use in your method for orienting corners, are they similar to CO algs in blindfolded methods or shorter?

As a side note I would like to add that I finally found a 5 move 6-flip and 2-flip for step 2 U and D-layer edge orient  it's in the guide.


----------



## watermelon (Apr 24, 2008)

LarsN said:


> I'm curious though...the algs you use in your method for orienting corners, are they similar to CO algs in blindfolded methods or shorter?



I definitely prefer your orientation method over mine, but I just thought it would be interesting to explore some other alternatives .

The only algorithms for CO that I've used for this method so far have been generated mid-solve via ACube (keeping all edges oriented, and not disturbing E edges). However, if we were going for efficiency, it would probably be best to create a special KSolve file that orients U/D corners while keeping E edges on E (but not necessarily in the same place). If anyone is interested, I'd be glad make one this weekend and generate the necessary algorithms.


----------



## niKo (Apr 24, 2008)

I'm interested : ) - sounds like it would definitely help with the lookahead.

-niKo

EDIT: @dChan- I found a solution. By doing a double turn to put the 1x1x2 block in the bottom layer I can position the corner so that I can bring the 1x1x2 block to the U layer & connect with it. So far that seems about the most thinking involved in the method, optimizing the F2L.


----------



## badmephisto (Apr 24, 2008)

good vid lars. Ironically you skipped quickly over the part that i couldnt figure out for a while, that is when you insert edges into middle, but both of the the 2 remaining edges are on left or they are both on right. But I managed to figure it out


----------



## Henrik (Apr 24, 2008)

Lars has now added a 6 edge flip alg and a shorter 2 flip edge alg. (which I found  Im just taking some credit here. Lars the optimized them last night).

Henrik


----------



## badmephisto (Apr 24, 2008)

Lars I think your diagram in table #2, L2 U L' is wrong. The bottom left edge on that diagram should face down and not left.


----------



## LarsN (Apr 25, 2008)

badmephisto said:


> Lars I think your diagram in table #2, L2 U L' is wrong. The bottom left edge on that diagram should face down and not left.



You're right. I thought I had fixed it, but somehow the old diagram showed up again. I'm not very good at this webstuff


----------



## dChan (Apr 25, 2008)

Lars, do you think that if a sub-15 average cuber took up your method, he/she would be able to get sub-20 with it in a reasonable amount of time?


----------



## pete (Apr 26, 2008)

LarsN said:


> I didn't find any problems with the examples and I've run them through twice. Are you sure that you are doing the right M moves. In my descriptions M follows L.
> 
> Try doing it on a solved cube.



i'm sorry, doing this on a solved cube reveals that i'm a retard 
i didn't align those 4 edges correctly, i simply assumed all 4 incorrect edges
need to be placed in the top layer.

your examples actually do work correctly, i was referring to the working example under step 3 where you say "If you do a B2...." then it continues "...U move to bring the green edge piece to the B-face, then B2..." followed by "...and finally D2 to align...." and ends with "....and using only L2 R2 and U-face adjustments"

i didn't read it correctly, as it appears the first "B2" move must be ignored,
then it works fine.

as for you actual examples 1 & 2, they work fine although they seem to be very simple examples as in my actual solves I never get such easy cases.

in example 2 :
"z' U M U' - inserted one edge and corrected orientation of another"
this is not explained in your step 2 so I don't understand why I need to
make such a sequence (although it works).
there are surely other scenarios that you have such short solutions for
but it is not explained under step 2 of your tutorial.


having said that, following your 2 examples was very helpful and now I do understand your method in general although there are some minor details
still unexplained.

my biggest confusion initially was in first part of Step 2, because you present 3 Cases, but there are in fact many other cases not mentioned.
for example what if after Step 1 I end up with 3 edges already placed in middle layer and some of those edges are not correctly orientated ?
I understand now that such cases can be eventually converted to any of the other 3 Cases but it is not so obvious to someone who tries this method for the first time, and you probably do know many shortcuts on how to convert
any unusual scenario into any of your 3 Cases but those steps are not exactly
obvious to me yet.

anyway, this is a great alternative method so i'll keep on practising it little more. my first few solves were taking way too long, I average about 2min 30sec, is this way too slow ? (I average 45 secs with my current method after one month of practising - doing cross, keyhole 2nd layer and 3-look LL)

cheers
pete


----------



## LarsN (Apr 27, 2008)

dChan said:


> Lars, do you think that if a sub-15 average cuber took up your method, he/she would be able to get sub-20 with it in a reasonable amount of time?



This is why I hoped that some of the very fast cubers might want to give it a try. It's possible that a more experienced cuber could quickly find the problems with this method. I can detect problems with look-ahead and cuberotations, but I do not now if these problems can be overcome by practise or optimizations.




pete said:


> as for you actual examples 1 & 2, they work fine although they seem to be very simple examples as in my actual solves I never get such easy cases.
> 
> in example 2 :
> "z' U M U' - inserted one edge and corrected orientation of another"
> ...



I made this example early on, then decided that the description of step 2 needed simplification. There are ofcourse other cases than the 3 described. In the description I try to apeal to setting up a case of first having 2 middle layer edges inserted, and then there should only be 3 cases left. I plan to describe some of these scenarios in the advanced section.



pete said:


> my biggest confusion initially was in first part of Step 2, because you present 3 Cases, but there are in fact many other cases not mentioned.
> for example what if after Step 1 I end up with 3 edges already placed in middle layer and some of those edges are not correctly orientated ?
> I understand now that such cases can be eventually converted to any of the other 3 Cases but it is not so obvious to someone who tries this method for the first time, and you probably do know many shortcuts on how to convert
> any unusual scenario into any of your 3 Cases but those steps are not exactly
> obvious to me yet.



I recommend that you try work out some of the special cases on your own. As mentioned above I will write about these cases in my tutorial, but trying to work out your own solutions will give you a better understanding of step 2 and you might find some better solutions than I did 



pete said:


> anyway, this is a great alternative method so i'll keep on practising it little more. my first few solves were taking way too long, I average about 2min 30sec, is this way too slow ? (I average 45 secs with my current method after one month of practising - doing cross, keyhole 2nd layer and 3-look LL)
> 
> cheers
> pete



It's hard for me to tell you if you are too slow, since this is not really a tested method. I average 20 secs with full friedrich, my times for Orient First steps are like this:

Step 1: 2 secs
Step 2: 10-20 secs (depending on the case and If I were able to predict the case during inspection)
Step 3: 15-30 secs (much to long, lookahead is very hard in this step.
Step 4: 3 secs (same as my friedrich ofcourse)


----------



## pete (Apr 27, 2008)

LarsN said:


> I recommend that you try work out some of the special cases on your own




if I describe your step 2 as two different steps (which I think they are anyway)
such as that orientating middle layer edges is Step 2a and orientating U/D edges is
Step 2b then I discovered that sometimes it is an advantage to execute
4-edge flip (M' U M') from Step 2b before Step 2a.

I execute M' U M' before Step 2a every time I get Case 3 and in some situations
even when I get Case 2 in Step 2a because I don't like those two Cases,
they are longer and cumbersome in comparison to the simplicity of Case 1.

In such situations I execute M' U M' in such a way that I not only end up
with Case 1 for Step 2a but most importantly I leave myself with either
0 or 4 U/D edges to flip for Step 2b because those are by far the easiest
and fastest.

here is an example, scramble with white on left and yellow on right
and blue on top) :
U M2 U z M' U M' z' L

that scramble should leave you with Case 3 in Step 2a (on my cube the Green/Orange edge is the odd one out), I would then do it like this :

z y D' (setup for 4-edge flip where my bad edge Green/Orange is one of the four edges to be flipped)
M' U M' (execute 4-edge flip)
y' z' L R (align last two edges for Case 1 of Step 2a)
U M2 U (execute Case 1)

I got a skip for Step 2b because I planned for it (the move D' to align down face ensured that I get step 2b skip, 
otherwise I would have to do long 2-edge flip in step 2b) and I can now continue with Step 3.

note, you cannot always get Step 2b skip but if I can't get 2b skip then at least
I set myself for simple 4-edge flip (M' U M'). I don't know the probabilities but I know I can always avoid 6-edge and 2-edge flip (those are complicated) and
I estimate from my test solves that I get 60-70% of the time 4-edge flip,
less than 5% of the time 8-edge flip (which is easy anyway) and the rest is
0 edges to flip (Step 2b skip).

If I executed Case 3 in Step 2a with your algorithm l2 U' M' U' l2 U M2 U then I would not have control of what case I get for Step 2b (it could be the complicated 6-edge or 2-edge flip).

cheers


----------



## LarsN (Apr 27, 2008)

You're right Pete, it might as well be two steps for step 2. I think initially I had an idea that you could do both 2a and 2b simultaniously, but I got so stuck on doing them seperately now.

It's a really good observation you did in your example. I've gotten used to doing case 3 fast, but case 1 is still much faster. It might actually be a good idea to always do a 4-flip after step 1. You can look ahead while doing the flip to find the middle edges. I'll give it a try...


----------



## dChan (Apr 28, 2008)

Maybe Erik would be the best candidate t otest this out? I assume he already knows how to do the corner orientation step as he explains it on his own site and learning step 2 isn't that hard to do. 

Anyway, I have temporarily stopped learning Nielsson because I am trying to get some good times for other things(BLD, 4x4x4, etc.) but I am learning it little by little. It is mostly the corner orienation that has got me stumped. I am trying to find logical ways of remembers certain cases but it is a little hard to do. I know about 70 to 80 percent of the cases(sometimes I remember and sometimes I forget) so I just need to log in a little more learning hours and I should be up to speed after a few hundred practice solves. I promise that by San Diego 2008(May 24th) I will know the Nielsson method inside and out.

I really want to see those advanced tricks though, lol.


----------



## pete (Apr 28, 2008)

dChan said:


> It is mostly the corner orienation that has got me stumped. I am trying to find logical ways of remembers certain cases but it is a little hard to do.



I think it's a waste of time to learn those corners (Step 1) as the first thing.
I'm leaving it as last step to learn. I build all corners by intuition at the moment,
sometimes with help of some simple CLL algorithms. It only costs me extra 
6 moves (2-3 seconds) on average. There are more important steps to learn first
that improve average times by a huge margin. I think case recognition in step 2
is far more important in saving time (I'm trying to do the whole step in single flow
by doing some M' U M' pre-moves when I see it would simplify second part of step 2). 
Practising step 3 is also going to cut your times down. (certainly more than those 
3 seconds you would save by learning 16 algs for step 1).

I have changed stickers on my cube - basically I'm now using only 3 colours
(2 oposite white, 2 oposite red & 2 oposite blue). this is great for practising
case recognition all the way to the end of Step 2.


----------



## dChan (Apr 28, 2008)

Thanks pete. I have actually been thinking of abandoning learning Guimond orientation of the corners because I can usually simplify most cases into a case where I can use a T-OLL algorithm or a six move alg. I'll focus on learning the edges now.


----------



## LarsN (Apr 29, 2008)

dChan said:


> I promise that by San Diego 2008(May 24th) I will know the Nielsson method inside and out.



That's my birthday. Make me proud 

I'll hopefully have time to write some of the advanced tricks later today.



dChan said:


> Thanks pete. I have actually been thinking of abandoning learning Guimond orientation of the corners because I can usually simplify most cases into a case where I can use a T-OLL algorithm or a six move alg. I'll focus on learning the edges now.



I do recommend learning Guimond orientation at some point. The principal idea was to know the step 1 algs by heart, enabling you to predict the case for step 2 during inspection. I'm close to being able to do that now.


----------



## dChan (Apr 29, 2008)

Yeah, I know a little more than half of them and the only ones I don't know are the ones at the end of the table(the ones that are longer) and some that don't seem logical(to me) so they are harder to remember. Learning Guimond orientation is actually pretty easy, it is just that I have to get used to the way the algorithms work.

I don't know if I'll be fast enough by SD2008 to use the method in competition but I should be able to show it off to some people. Maybe we can get a bunch of people on the Nielsson method -that would be cool. 

Once you write the advanced tricks I'll probably switch back over to full learning mode again. I really want to see those more than anything else, lol.


----------



## Harris Chan (Apr 30, 2008)

Hmm, about orient-first method; if you want to figure out how fast you can possibly go with this, I suggest you try to do an average with scrambles that are specially generated such that the edges are oriented for F2B2RL and corners are orientated. This might give an idea of how fast you can go (and then you have to consider how fast the orienting edges take).


----------



## dChan (Apr 30, 2008)

Oh, thats a great idea, Harris. Lars should definitely try this. If the corners can be orientated in 1-2 seconds(I suspect sub-1 is possible) that would definitely give us a great idea of how an accomplished Nielsson cuber would do. Of course, a better suggestion might be that we have you learn the method, Harris! That would be cool.


----------



## badmephisto (May 1, 2008)

Also, Part3 (the F2L) looks like the part that will need most of the practice. Maybe this is plainly obvious, but if you want to practice just that part, you just have to make sure to scramble the cube only using half turns on F,B,R,L... That will set up part3 for you as it keeps everything oriented. So you can only use F2 B2 R2 L2, U U' D D'


----------



## niKo (May 1, 2008)

Corners could definitely be oriented sub-1. (you have the whole inspection period to plan ahead). I can't do it now, but I could time how long each step takes me. I'm looking forward to those advanced tricks.

-niKo


----------



## dChan (May 2, 2008)

He has some up but I suspect there shall be more tricks he has up his sleeve. 

Does anyone know a good way to deal with several corners ending up in the D-layer but wrongly permuted during step 3? I always just position a corner over where it should go(over the FR position) and do R2 U R2 U R2 U2 R2 which forces the wrong corner into the U-layer and the right corner into the D-layer but then I have to do this several more times? Is there no other way?


----------



## malcolm (May 3, 2008)

Try R2 U R2 U' R2, much easier alg.


----------



## cubeRemi (Aug 2, 2008)

I think this method has potential.

what do you all think about this: after orienting all pieces, 

-solve bottom corners 
-solve bottom edges ( align edges to centers, perform: M' U2 M ) 
-solve E/M layer edges, this is like in the roux step : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=afmsuYH5inw

or if parity: use other algs: 

switch UB > DF > UB: 

F2MR2F2M'R2F2 (7,12)
F2R2MF2M'R2F2 (7,12)
F2MR2F2R2M'F2 (7,12)
F2R2MF2R2M'F2 (7,12)
U2M'R2U2MR2U2 (7,12)
U2R2M'U2MR2U2 (7,12)
U2M'R2U2R2MU2 (7,12)
U2R2M'U2R2MU2 (7,12)
D2M'R2D2MR2D2 (7,12)
D2R2M'D2MR2D2 (7,12)
D2M'R2D2R2MD2 (7,12)
D2R2M'D2R2MD2

or other case: switch UF > UB > UF 

U2R2U2R2U2 (5,10)
U2M'R2MU2R2U2 (7,12)
U2MR2M'U2R2U2 (7,12)
U2M2R2M2U2R2U2 (7,14)
M'U2R2U2R2MU2 (7,12)
U2R2U2M'R2MU2 (7,12)

- pll


----------



## somerandomkidmike (Aug 9, 2008)

I tried to do something similar about half a year ago, but I dropped the idea. Great job developing this method! I think I am going to try practicing it.


----------



## BadgerSex (Aug 9, 2008)

somerandomkidmike said:


> I tried to do something similar about half a year ago, but I dropped the idea. Great job developing this method! I think I am going to try practicing it.



Right now I'm going back and forth between this and the corners-first methods (Waterman and the Ortega method on rubikscube.info).

It's great how few algorithms this method has, though.


----------



## somerandomkidmike (Aug 11, 2008)

Oh, you're using CF? Waterman is one of my main methods. So far I average around 25 with it, and I don't know the whole thing. Something I tried for this method is to.... get 3 edges on the middle layer properly oriented, then get 3 bottom corners, then get the rest of the corners and edges oriented. Doing this, I got a 33 move solve (M is 1 turn). Anyway, I really like this method, and I'm interested to see how fast it can get. I think it has potential.


----------



## Athefre (Aug 11, 2008)

Reminds me of Ryan Heise's Human Thistlethwaite Algorithm. It also reminds me of something I worked on sometime early last year (also like HTA since the first 3 steps are the same), gave up, then looked at it again late last year. It went something like this:

Step 1: Orient all edges.
Step 2: Move all L/R type edges to L/R, a combination of this step and the first can be done by wisely choosing where to place the edges on F (or B if you prefer) before orienting.
Step 3: Orient all corners relative to the left and right side of the cube, a very easy step.
Step 4: Create the two "Roux" blocks (F and B are constrained to only double turns) and permute M-layer as you finish the last pair (if you want, you can permute later).
Step 5: Finish UFL, UL, UBL, UBR, UR, UFR with a sequence (there probably aren't many cases).

I don't like having edge orienting as a Step 1. I used to think it was promising but I got to where it just doesn't feel right, it's not a very productive first step and it doesn't save as many moves as a lot of people would think because you have to remember that orienting those edges also takes some moves. I don't like this method, I probably will never use it or any of the variations I've seen.


----------



## MistArts (Aug 11, 2008)

I have a method like this but I put middle layer edges lin first and then orient. I'll look at this after learning OFOTA, MALEP(MistArts' last edge pyraminx), and maybe MGLS.


----------



## elrog (Jan 31, 2013)

I came up with a similar method on my own. I used the first 3 steps in the HTA method and then solved the f2l and did pll. After I found this method, my hopes of finding a new method were decreased as this was my 3rd attempt at a new method that I find has already been done. Anyway, with hta, you can orient the edges in 4.6 moves, and then place your middle edges in the middle layer in 4 giving you about 8.6 moves. Then you apply the correct algorithm to solve the corner orientation. According to Ryan Heise, thee algs have an avg of 8.5 moves. This would bring you to about 17 moves to orient everything. The plroblem with this is that there are 60 algs. If you look on Ryan Heise`s site, there is a way to solve 3 of the corners orientation, and then solve the rest with 8 algorithms. He doesnt say the average move count. During the Orient first method, I find that my recognition time on orientating edges is not that great. With hta`s first step, I don`t have this problem. With the orient first method, you get a fair start because you can identify the algorithm in your inspection time. With hta, it is possible to get a good start by planning how to orient all of the edges with inspection and you can track the middle layer edges so you can place them without having to find them afterwards. It is also easier to do this with the middle edges than solving the top/bottom cross by looking at the top/bottom edges because there are only 4 of them. If you were to learn the 60 algorithms to orient the corners, I can see this method being comparable with fridrich because of fairly low recognition time and low move count.


----------



## TheNextFeliks (Jan 31, 2013)

Love this idea. Just don't know how to solve after orientation.


----------



## elrog (Jan 31, 2013)

Solving after orientation is intuitive like block building. For the last step you only need to know pll. There are 21 pll algs and there on the wiki. I Solve the f2l by matching a corner up with one of the edges of the top/bottom layers. You can then put the other top/bottom edge that matches by moving this edge to the appropriate side, then moving the block you have to match up with it. You do the same thing till you get a 1x2x3 block on the bottom/top layer. If you position the middle layer correctly while making your block, you can match the middle up while doing this. It is pretty simple to do this because your only using R2, F2, L2, B2, U, and D moves. For the last 3 peices of the bottom/top, get the edge in the opposite side and match it up with corners by putting them on the right side and back into the opposite side beside the edge. You then get your last 2 middle edges aligned so when you turn the last 3 bottom/top edge to the side they go on, the middle corrects itself also. With practice, this can be done in less than 20 moves average.
EDIT: Thank you for pointing that out. I have now fixed the mistakes.


----------



## aznanimedude (Jan 31, 2013)

umm, aren't there 21 PLL cases?

and it's simple because you use wide slice moves?
you just listed every face but with a lower case letter to indicate wide turns.


----------



## AHornbaker (Feb 7, 2013)

Here's an idea that i've been toying around with for the last day or so (and to me it seems less complicated than this method) 
I would appreciate any feedback and constructive criticism Not sure if this is original in any way, but this post spurred rekindled some old ideas.

1.) Orient two 1x2x3 blocks on L and R (ie. red and orange, regardless if orange is on red and vice versa) 
2.) Use OLL-type algs to orient last four corners on U (using the traditional algs was fairly confusing)
3.) EO and "keyhole" edges (remaining red or orange; from corners-first method) using M and U moves
4.) F2L and E slice using U2, L and R moves
5.) PLL

Note: The only part I don't like is step 2, it's very inefficient in my view. Someone experienced with this method might do this with step 1. 

Orienting both the corners and edges at the same time seems a lot easier for me to recognize and form into a coherent thought instead of micro-managing the corners and edges separately. I just look for the side with the most red and orange, blue and green, or white and yellow pieces, and from that point I can get the 1x2x3 blocks in less than 10 moves (usually 5-8). From here step 2 might be grouped with step 1 intuitively, or could be part of an alg set for step 3 EO(? cases) and CO(7 cases) (if the method ever gets developed). I can foresee this method being a 3 step method (1x2x3, remaining orientation, PBL) with a good move count, and a very useful application for OH. I like the way things can be easily grouped that allow for look-ahead, rather than Friedrich where OLL gives no hint for PLL and is strictly alg based.

Let me know what you guys think! I would love for this to be developed, either way i'm making this my secondary method.

Other related questions:
-I haven't dabbled in roux at all, are there some algs made up just for EO in step 3?
-Is there any method to PBL once past step 3? I haven't been able to do it, but with just U2 moves it doesn't seem like it would be impractical to learn. Someone should definitely work on that.


----------



## TheNextFeliks (Feb 22, 2013)

Does anyone know like the fastest time with this method?


----------



## elrog (Feb 22, 2013)

I find it interesting that you used L R and U2 moves rather than U, D, R2, and L2 moves. I've been working on a method that orients everything, then uses a single alg to create columns, then solve the top and bottom 4 edges. I have come up with a good way to orient everything for a speedcubing situation.

I get everything oriented by first orienting all the edges and placing 2 E edges in the E layer beside eachother. Then you get 2 correctly orientated corners on the bottom layer and do a D move to get them under your 2 E edges. Then you match up 1 more corner with an E edge, and insert it like an F2L pair. You then put the last E edge in the E layer at the same time as orienting 3 corners, and do some very simple algs to do the last 2 corners. I can usually get everything oriented in under 20 moves, and it is very quick for recognition.

After orienting everything, in your method, you'd solve 2 of the E edges into their correct positions with a miximum of 2 moves, and do a z or z' cube rotation. You'd then be ready to proceed solving the F2L with L, R, and U2 moves on the left/right side, whichever you prefer, and finish by doing z or z' and PLL.

I have a method for solving the F2L also, but I'm not sure how to explain it. You basically just match up a corner with an edge, and move it to the correct side creating a 1x2x2 block and then a 1x2x3 block. After this you would match up a 1x1x3 block on the opposite side and add it to your 2x2x3 to make that whole side complete. You should also make sure those top 2 middle edges are turned the right way so that thy will be solved after you switch the 1x3x3 to the correct side.

Sorry if it is hard to follow. I hope it helps though.


----------



## BPM (Feb 28, 2013)

I have a beginner's method for step 3 of this method.

First, solve the E layer. This is intuitive.

Then, find two corners that share two colors. Ex. Orange/White/Blue and Orange/White/Green

Make sure they're on the U layer right next to each other, so that mismatched colors are pointing away from each other.

Afterwards, put it over its matching edges, move the orange side to the left, and preform U2 L2 U2 L2. 

Do this twice.

Then, solve the white edges using M' U2 M. It brings an edge from UF to DF without changing any orientation of any piece.

Also, would this be possible as your method?

Orient all corners
Solve E layer, orient all edges
Sort, then permute all corners (U/D color)
Last 8 edges (not sure how many cases this has, but can be done in 2 E-PLLs with a parity fixer M' U2 M)


----------



## TheNextFeliks (Feb 28, 2013)

How many algs would solving all corners at once take. Including separation.


----------



## BPM (Feb 28, 2013)

If you sort U/D color, (white corners by white center, etc.) you can PBL corners with 6 Algs. Seperation, however, should be intuitive. You can seperate all the corners using U/D/L2/R2 moves, without misorienting any edges. I'm not sure if all the XLL ortega algs save EO, but I'll churn out some algs.


----------



## elrog (Mar 1, 2013)

I've been coming up with a method that does PBL to solve the corners, but I solve the middle layer at the same time using 47 algorithms. I also orient edges before corners. As for the last 8 edges, doing EPPL cases to solve them would require seperating out the top and bottom edges and possibly a parity alg. I think if you were to seperate them and fix the parity, you might aswell do 2 EPLLs at once using 25 algs. This could use only 10 algorithms if you don't include mirrors.


----------



## BPM (Mar 1, 2013)

Some algs:

UF-UR and DF-DB

R2 U R2 U' M2 U2 M2 U' R2 U' R2 

UF-UB and DF-DB

M2 U2 M2 U2

UF-UR and DF-DR

R2 U' F2 R2 F2 U2 R2 F2 R2 U' R2

(All 3 cycles are between U/DF, U/DR, and U/DB)

Double CW 3-cycle

D2 F2 L2 U' M2 U R2 B2 U2 (x2)

Double CCW 3-cycle

U2 F2 R2 U M2 U' L2 B2 D2 (x2)

Double H-Perm

M2 U2 M2 U2 y M2 U2 M2 U2

It's all I got. All the 2x2 cycles are done and all the 3x3 cycles are done. The only problem with this would be AUF/ADF. Also, if you don't know the alg, you might have to do an x2 rotation to make some work.


----------

