# A new method - PPW method



## presley (Jul 23, 2022)

From January to March 2022, I have developed a new method for solving Rubik's Cube , tentatively called the PPW method.

The rough solution steps from start to finish are all carried out by bundling the corner and the edge into the pair. The moves can almost always be interchanging pairs.

Provide special observation facelets - Orientation Windows, which can simply judge the twisting orientation of the U layer corner in what state the way of bundling into a pair can continue.

And also have lot features, and detailed explanations and videos are presented on the website








PPW method


Use bandages to solve Rubik's Cube. Entirely dominated by CE-PAIR and its permutation.



turncool.tw


----------



## abunickabhi (Jul 23, 2022)

Interesting method, have you made a video describing your method?


----------



## presley (Jul 24, 2022)

abunickabhi said:


> Interesting method, have you made a video describing your method?


The video I spoke in poor English only demo roughly





But the video I spoke in Chinese talk it in detail


https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLgMFuE1ngI-fXFqsRTf4_aU0HoXkyD0X0


----------



## Imsoosm (Jul 24, 2022)

presley said:


> But the video I spoke in Chinese talk it in detail


welp me who understands chinese but can't watch youtube

can you post it on bilibili?


----------



## Filipe Teixeira (Jul 24, 2022)

Imsoosm said:


> welp me who understands chinese but can't watch youtube
> 
> can you post it on bilibili?


emotional damage


----------



## presley (Jul 24, 2022)

Imsoosm said:


> welp me who understands chinese but can't watch youtube
> 
> can you post it on bilibili?


Because the PPW website is original writing in Traditional Chinese then translate it to English.
There is Traditional Chinese version of PPW website








PPW method


用OK繃來解魔術方塊 完全由CE-PAIR及其置換來主導的方法



turncool.tw




Maybe you are more familiar with reading Traditional Chinese.


----------



## presley (Jul 24, 2022)

Imsoosm said:


> I'm more familiar with simplified welp


Conversion between Traditional Chinese and Simplified Chinese is not difficult.
Use browser like chrome just can do it.


----------



## presley (Aug 5, 2022)

Sorry, there is a mistake of the end on the final step (block guide) of this method and I fixed it on the PPW website.
If you concern this method, you can go to PPW website to see it again.
Maybe the videos I'll make it again to fix that mistake if I have time to do so.


----------



## LukasCubes (Aug 6, 2022)

the method got a nice name


----------



## presley (Aug 6, 2022)

On the final step (block guide), you can do two 2x2x1 blocks to cause the only one way to complete the entire cube. That is wrong.
In fact, you must do one 2x2x1 block and one 2x3x1 block to cause the only one way to complete the entire cube. I fixed that mistake on the PPW website, and added how to do the 2x3x1 block.


----------



## LukasCubes (Aug 7, 2022)

presley said:


> On the final step (block guide), you can do two 2x2x1 blocks to cause the only one way to complete the entire cube. That is wrong.
> In fact, you must do one 2x2x1 block and one 2x3x1 block to cause the only one way to complete the entire cube. I fixed that mistake on the PPW website, and added how to do the 2x3x1 block.


can you make example solves with ppw?


----------



## LBr (Aug 8, 2022)

pew pew


----------



## Filipe Teixeira (Aug 8, 2022)

is just me that reads "the pew pew method"?
EDIT: ninja'd


----------



## LukasCubes (Aug 9, 2022)

Filipe Teixeira said:


> is just me that reads "the pew pew method"?
> EDIT: ninja'd


thays a better name than ppw lol


----------



## mencarikebenaran (Aug 10, 2022)

i wonder why some people still create new method for solving rubiks cube (i mean solving the rubiks cube normally)
CFOP will always be the best method for solving rubiks cube.
its the fastest !
everything has pros and cons
i know, the cons , CFOP is bad for FMC.


----------



## PiKeeper (Aug 10, 2022)

mencarikebenaran said:


> i wonder why some people still create new method for solving rubiks cube (i mean solving the rubiks cube normally)
> CFOP will always be the best method for solving rubiks cube.
> its the fastest !
> everything has pros and cons
> i know, the cons , CFOP is bad for FMC.


People create new methods because it's fun. And I don't know where you're getting the idea that cfop will always be the best method for solving a 3x3, roux is at least equal to it now and could surpass cfop on the future.


----------



## GodCubing (Aug 11, 2022)

mencarikebenaran said:


> i wonder why some people still create new method for solving rubiks cube (i mean solving the rubiks cube normally)
> CFOP will always be the best method for solving rubiks cube.
> its the fastest !
> everything has pros and cons
> i know, the cons , CFOP is bad for FMC.


We create methods because they might be faster than cfop and are underrated or just because they are fun for instance the trend of solving a cube with only J perms as a method is not going to ever be fast, but it is fun.

This is a pretty cool method by the way except I struggle with the orientation step


----------



## Swagrid (Aug 11, 2022)

mencarikebenaran said:


> i wonder why some people still create new method for solving rubiks cube (i mean solving the rubiks cube normally)
> CFOP will always be the best method for solving rubiks cube.
> its the fastest !
> everything has pros and cons
> i know, the cons , CFOP is bad for FMC.


troll take but

These methods are not for speed, Presley's methods this far have been incredibly fascinating, and in an underdeveloped area. Very few bandage reduction methods. This is pushing a niche area of cubing theory in a practical way.


----------



## efattah (Aug 11, 2022)

Tymon does make it look like advanced CFOP is the best method. However, one day not that many years from now, people will hit the speed limit of CFOP and records will stop dropping. At that point, as crazy as it sounds, the only way to break the record would be to invent a new method that is faster, and then spend 10+ years mastering it, however ridiculous that sounds.
You cannot suggest that CFOP records would drop forever, because in that case you'd eventually approach 0 seconds which not even a machine can do.


----------



## Swagrid (Aug 11, 2022)

I'd request you all to move to the method debate thread rather than clog up this thread.


----------



## presley (Aug 16, 2022)

LukasCubes said:


> can you make example solves with ppw?


This video I just made have PPW example and simple instructions


----------



## LukasCubes (Aug 17, 2022)

presley said:


> This video I just made have PPW example and simple instructions


no i meant like on the website


----------



## mencarikebenaran (Aug 18, 2022)

CFOP will always the best and the fastest method


----------



## presley (Aug 20, 2022)

LukasCubes said:


> no i meant like on the website


This example scramble are white top / green front.
R' L' U2 D F2 D' B' U D' F2 R' F U2 R2 U' D' L' D2 F2 U2 R U' B R' B2

PPW solution example here use yellow top / orange front.
The total solution move sequence is
D' B' L U D2' F' L U L' D' U2 R' D U2 R2 D R D U R' U R2 U R' U' R D' R2' D R' U2 R' U' R2 U R2 U' R' U S2' U' S2' U R2' D R D2' R' D S2' D2' S2' R' D' R2 D R' U R'

The following instructions use some terms on the PPW website. You must know the meaning of these terms. There are explanations on the PPW website.

1. D' B' L U D2' F' L U L'
Do EO and EOEdge

2. D' U2 R' D U2 R2 D R D U R' U R2
Bundle into Base 4PAIRs

3. U R'
Place Base 4PAIRs only the shape is required to observe the corners on the U layer.
Observe the permutation parity of Base 4PAIRs, permutation parity of the other 3 corners on the U layer excluding Hub Corner, and the No Twist Required Corner.
Here the permutation parity of Base 4pairs is odd,
and the permutation parity of the 3 corners on the U layer excluding Hub Corner is even,
, so the similarities and differences of permutation parity is difference.
And the No Twist Required Corner here is the Hub Corner.

4. U' R D' R2' D R'
After this move sequence, adjust the similarities and differences of permutation parity to be the same, and get the relative position of the Hub Corner and the Dog Tail Corner to be correct at the same time.
Because the properties of the No Twist Required Corner, the No Twist Required Corner will not change after this move sequence, so the No Twist Required Corner will still be the Hub Corner.

5. U2 R' U' R2 U R2 U' R'
Twist the orientation of the corners on the U layer excluding the No Twist Required Corner to adjust the orientation to make it correct.

6. U S2' U' S2'
Continue to bundle into 2 more pairs

7. U R2' D R D2' R' D S2' D2' S2' R' D' R2 D
Bundle into one 2x2x1 block and one 2x3x1 block.

8. R' U R'
The blocks guide you to the end.


----------



## IsThatA4x4 (Aug 20, 2022)

mencarikebenaran said:


> CFOP will always the best and the fastest method


It's not just about what the fastest method is, methods like this are really cool and show off very unique ways to solve the cube. If you're only ever concerned about what's fastest or "objectively" the best, then you will never get to appreciate methods like this.


----------



## Triangles_are_cubers (Aug 20, 2022)

mencarikebenaran said:


> CFOP will always the best and the fastest method


why are you so narrow minded lol, you're directly hating on this person for making a method just because another method (which has been more widely used, well studied, well documented, has more tutorials and has been made more efficient over the years) is faster. imagine you find a new way to play a sport, like playing on the perimeter as a center in basketball, or playing both wr and rb in american football, or playing the now known as "sweeper keeper" in football back when it wasnt as popular, and instead of being heard out, you get shat on because that is not how you're supposed to play the sport traditionally.

tl;dr: open up ur mind.


----------



## LukasCubes (Aug 20, 2022)

mencarikebenaran said:


> CFOP will always the best and the fastest method


when 95% of cubers are using it and trying to improve it, its rigged to be the best method. For too long have people been using it and they need to move on.

who said anything about CFOP here for you to post here, this is a PPW thread, not a debate thread


----------



## Silky (Sep 1, 2022)

This seems to be very similar to 2GB. It's steps are 2x2x3 + EO + CP => 4 pairs => solved stated. Both of these methods outline what I see as an intuitive 2GLL which is amazing. This is much clearer on the final steps which is very helpful


----------



## GodCubing (Sep 1, 2022)

Silky said:


> This seems to be very similar to 2GB. It's steps are 2x2x3 + EO + CP => 4 pairs => solved stated. Both of these methods outline what I see as an intuitive 2GLL which is amazing. This is much clearer on the final steps which is very helpful


There is no 2x2x3 or CP as the solve is RUD gen


----------



## Silky (Sep 2, 2022)

GodCubing said:


> There is no 2x2x3 or CP as the solve is RUD gen


For 2GB


----------



## presley (Sep 4, 2022)

Silky said:


> This seems to be very similar to 2GB. It's steps are 2x2x3 + EO + CP => 4 pairs => solved stated. Both of these methods outline what I see as an intuitive 2GLL which is amazing. This is much clearer on the final steps which is very helpful


Well, I am not familiar with the 2GB method, but according to the introduction of the 2GB method, the 2GB method is similar to the RUP method.
And the RUP method is also my work four years ago.
The last 4 pairs in the R,U layers in RUP now have strict definitions and names on the PPW website, 
call it DIPODL(Double Interchangable PAIRs on Different Layers).
The original idea of the PPW method is to extract the last 4 pairs of RUP, not only the R,U layers will have DIPODL, but also the R,D layers will have DIPODL.
But the process of making the PPW method from the RUP method is actually quite slow and has gone through a lot of intuitive choices.
Moreover, the PPW method already has many new concepts that the RUP method does not have.


----------

